1991-04-23
-
-----
~
~EENSBURY PlANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23RD, 1991
INDEX
Site Plan No. 8-91
Michael Tatko
Queensbury Colonial
1.
Subdivision No. 16-1990
FINAL STAGE
Daniel and George Drellos
4.
Subdivision No. 2-1991
FINAL STAGE
Keith and Kathleen Pfeiffer
5.
Subdivision No. 14-1988
FINAL STAGE
Hickory Acres
OWner: Sidney H. Timms
7.
Freshwater Wetlands
Permit No. 2-90
Sidney H. Timms
15.
Site Plan No. 19-91
Gordon LaBarge
d/b/a Gordon LaBarge
16.
Site Plan No. 20-91
Site Pl an No. 21-91
Site Plan No. 22-91
Robert and Jeanne Rizzo
20.
Alice M. Genthner
22.
Scott and Judy Spellburg
23.
Subdivision No. 1-1991
FINAL STAGE
Robert Northgard, Jr.
26.
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.
--
~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 23RD, 1991
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
NICHOLAS CAIMANO, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY
JAMES ~RTIN
JAMES HAGAN
MEMBERS ABSENT
PETER CARTI ER
EDWARD LAPOINT
TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK
TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM PAOLICELLI
TOWN PLANNER-JOHN GORALSKI
STENOGRAPHER-~RIA GAGLIARDI
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
February 26th, 1991:
February 28th, 1991:
March 19th, 1991:
March 26th, 1991:
MR. CAIMANO-Are there any corrections or additions other than what Mr. Cartier put in last week?
MR. MARTIN-No. I have none.
MR. CAI~NO-Jim?
MR. HAGAN-No. I wasn't here.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Motion.
JlJTlON TO ACCEPT THE ABOVE MINUTES AS AMENDED BY MR. CARTIER, Introduced by James Martin who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. CAIMANO-For the record, the Chairman is on vacation and I will be sitting in as the Chairman.
Mrs. Pulver, as the Secretary, will be reading the SEQRA resolutions.
OLD BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 8-91 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA MICHAEL TATKO ~EENSBURY COLONIAL OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE
NORTH ON BAY ROAD TO ROOTE 149, WEST ON ROOTE 9 (BEHIND DUNHAM SHOE) 1VO STAGE DEJlJLlTUIt OF EXISTING
TWO STORY COLONIAL. REBUILD EACH STAGE FOR RETAIL SALES. ENlARGEMENT OF FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS TO
INCORPORATE 330 ADDITIONAL S(JJARE FEET. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX tMP NO. 36-1-36 LOT SIZE:
0.7 ACRES SECTION 9.010
LOUIS HAMPL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
1
'--
-----
Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Site Plan Review No. 8-91, Michael Tatko, April 15, 1991, Meeting
Date: April 23, 1991 "The applicant has submitted a letter and amended the plan to address concerns
voiced at the February meeting. The Board's consulting engineer will discuss his concerns. On the
revised plan a stop sign is shown on the planter in the driveway. Placing the stop sign on a post
on the east side of the driveway, as close to the property line as possible, would better control traffic
exiting the site. The adequacy of parking was also discussed at the last meeting. The Board should
consider placing a stipulation on any approval that the appl icant not block access to the adjacent
parking areas."
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes by Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, April 12, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and
all previous engineering comments have been adequately addressed."
MR. GORALSKI-And the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification has approved this and it was
previously approved by Warren County.
MR. HAMPL-Louis Hampl, representing the appl icant, Michael Tatko. I'm going to address the site plan
review comments. What I did, I revised the location of the stop sign. I picked up these notes yesterday
morning. So, I've moved the stop sign location closer to the property line and to the right hand side
of the exit. Also, the drive access to the adjacent properties, I put a note on the drawings, do not
block the drive access to the adjacent properties. Now, I only revised this single site plan that
I have here. I can supply any number of copies you might need for future use.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, those are minor changes.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, they're minor.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. HAMPL-They're minor changes and I did revise this plan which I can leave for the record and furnish
you with any additional copies you might need.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. All right. Do you want to read your comments, or shall we just make comments .2!!.
your comments, on your 17 March letter. These have already been submitted. No, they haven't. This
is in answer to the comments we had last week, right?
MRS. PULVER-Yes, right. That's already taken care of.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. That was part of your submission and all those things have been addressed.
MR. CAIMANO-They have been addressed?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. John, your 1 ast paragraph, here, (referring to April 15 Staff Notes) what is your
concern?
MR. GORALSKI-Okay. As we discussed at the last meeting, there is not a lot of parking on this site,
okay. They have provided additional parking spaces for the additional square footage they're creating.
The fact that this property is connected to the Dunham's Shoe Store parking lot and the parking area
behind the Log Jam Restaurant provides for some overflow parking. I think you should encourage there
wherever possible. So, obviously, you can't tell Dunham's Shoes or Log Jam that they can't block it
off, but at least this property owner should make every attempt to provide the overflow parking.
MR. CAIMANO-How are we going to do that?
MR. GORALSKI-By making this site plan conditioned on him not blocking off those.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-By signage and so on.
MR. HAGAN-Is that legal?
MR. GORALSKI-It's legal as far as, I mean, Paul's the attorney, but it's legal as far as I'm concerned
to cause this person not to block them off. Now, if one of the neighboring property owners want to
block it off, well that's their prerogative. You can't stop them from that.
2
----,'
~R. DUSEK-Traffic and parking is within the jurisdiction of this Board to address when site plans are
lssued and you're also able to attach conditions to approvals. So, in my opinion, it is legal.
MR. CAIMANO-For him, but what if the others do it? There's nothing we can do about that.
MR. DUSEK-You can't do anything about the other people because they're not before you, but you can
certainly ask that he not block off that.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. All right.
MR. HAGAN-Do you have any comment on that?
MR. HAMPL-We al so considered the drive access to the neighboring properties as being a good way to
get from one property to the next or one store to the next, as opposed to the traffic going out onto
149 or out onto Route 9 to go from store to store. They could see from one parking area to the next.
Hopefully, they'd walk from one store to the next, as opposed to increasing the traffic problem on
149 and Route 9.
MR. CAIMANO-So really it's to his advantage to keep those open.
MR. GORALSKI-I believe so, yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. So we'll put that in the motion. Okay. The public hearing is still open. Is there
anybody would would like to speak publicly?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO CO_NT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CAIMANO-SEQRA has not been done on this, right?
MR. GORALSKI-No. You have to do the Short Form.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOWTION NO. 8-91, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin:
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Pl anning Board an appl ication for: DeIIol ition of an existing
two story colonial, 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 is involved.
2. The following agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact
as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance
or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1991, by the following vote:
3
--
--
AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. CAIMANO-Motion to approve or disapprove or whatever?
JlJTlON TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-91 MICHAEL TATKO ~EENSIIJRY COLONIAL, Introduced by James Martin
who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan:
Two stage demolition of existing two story colonial. Rebuild each stage for retail sales. Enlargement
of fi rst and second floors to incorporate 330 additi onal square feet with the foll owing stipul ati ons:
That the applicant not block access to the adjacent parking areas and that signage be shown on the
site plan to support this stipulation. Number Two, that the stop sign at the exit of the parcel be
placed at the right hand side or easterly side of the driveway as close to the property line as possible
and that three copies of the revised plan be submitted to the Planning Department by April 30th, 1991
at 2 p.m. and this motion is made after making the findings required in Section 5.070 A through D.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. HAMPL-I'd like to thank the Planning Staff. They've been very helpful.
MR. CAIMANO-Thank you.
SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1990 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA JlJBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE DANIEL AND
GEORGE DRELLOS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF UJZERNE ROAD, \ MILE WEST OF NORTJlfAY FOR A 3
LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 93-2-6, 22.1 LOT SIZE: 33.52 ACRES
LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 16-1990, Daniel and George Drellos, March 29,
1991, Meeting Date: April 23, 1991 "The appl icant has addressed all the Boards concerns regarding
this 3 lot subdivision. Of primary concern was the drainage from the mobile home park which entered
Lot B. The applicant has placed a notation on the plan which states "Lot A has and will continue to
drain onto Lot B". This will alert any purchaser to the existing situation. SEQRA Review was completed.
If there are no outstanding engineering concerns, I would recommend final approval be granted."
MR. GORALSKI-And I don't believe that there was any additional engineering review.
MR. CAIMANO-Any engineering, Tom?
MR. PAOLICELLI-No.
MR. GORALSKI-There were no additional outstanding comments.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Do you want to say anything?
MR. STEVES-No comment.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Paul, the only question I have is everything kosher, as far as you're concerned,
legally, on what Lee has said? We're not going to get in trouble doing that?
MR. DUSEK-Well, he owns the property, so he can certainly authorize drainage onto the other lot.
might, well, it's going to be shown on the subdivision plat itself.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. GORALSKI-It says it on there already.
MR. STEVES-Yes. It would be difficult to keep it away, anyway.
MR. DUSEK-It wouldn't hurt to say that it will be placed, if and when the property should ever be sold,
that you will put this as an addition in the deed as well. Would you agree to that?
4
-../
MR. STEVES-I don't know if I should.
MR. DUSEK-It's on the plat.
MR. STEVES-I agree.
MR. CAIMANO-Why don't you state your name for the record.
MR. STEVES-I'm Leon Steves. I think that perhaps either the attorney or the owner should make that
stipulation. I'm onlY the surveyor and if I do it, that doesn't bind them at an. It's on the plan
and we will be filing the plan.
MR. CAIMANO-If we stipulate it in the motion?
MR. DUSEK-You might condition it, yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Condition it in the motion.
MR. DUSEK-Just that it will be in some fashion referred to in the deed if the property's ever sold.
MR. STEVES-Do you have any problem with that, George? No? So, the owner's so indicated, okay.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. We've done the SEQRA on this thing.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Everything's kosher.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-So it's up to someone to make a motion, here.
JlJTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1990 DANIEL AND GEORGE DRELLOS, Introduced by James
Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
For a 3 lot subdivision with the foUowing stipulation: That a notation be made to the deed regarding
the drainage from Lot A to Lot B.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. PUlver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1991 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SRF-lA S. KEITH AND KATHLEEN PFEIFFER OWNER:
MARGARET TITUS, ESTHER M. TITUS EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD, OPPOSITE COUNTRY COLONY SUBDIVISION AND APPROX.
150 FT. SOUTH OF INTERSECTION WITH TEE HILL ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-48 LOT
SIZE: 8.40 ACRES
LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Subdivision No. 2-1991, S. Keith and Kathieen Pfeiffer, Aprii 15,
1991, Meeting Date: Aprii 23, 1991 "There is one concern raised at Preliminary stage which is not
addressed on the plan. That is the potential for further subdivision of the back any future subdivision
of the back parcel. Leaving only forty feet of frontage on Bay Road for Lot 2 precludes any future
subdivision of this lot."
MR. GORALSKI-And that's just something I want to poi nt out, that there is a potenti al, the acreage
is there on the back lot for further subdivision. However, by only leaving forty feet on the road,
there's no way you could ever subdivide that, given the current Zoning Ordinance.
MR. STEVES-Hi. For the record, I'm Leon Steves. No comment.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, what about this comment on John's comment.
MR. STEVES-We have no comment on that. We have no problems with that.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
5
--"
MR. HAGAN-This doesn't mean you'U come back at a 'tater date to get a variance to use that 40 feet
for access to the back, does it? I'm not being facetious.
MR. STEVES-That wouldn't do us any good, because you couldn't grant a variance for a street, for
instance, to a 40 feet. That can onlY be granted by the State of New York.
MR. GORALSKI-And the Highway Superintendent would have to also agree to that.
MR. HAGAN-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Yes, but by State Law, towns cannot accept a road less than 50 feet in width without special
permission from the State.
MR. DUSEK-That's true. If it's a new road.
MR. STEVES-If it's a new road.
MR. DUSEK-If it's a road by use, then it's a different story, but new roads, he's right.
MR. CAIMANO-Any other comments by the Board members?
MR. HAGAN-I'm just curious, what wil' be the use of that back parcei?
MR. STEVES-Right now it's pianned just as a single famiiy residence.
MR. HAGAN-Okay.
MR. DUSEK-Could I ask Mr. Steves just one question? In the event that your client desires to do anything
other than what's aHowed in the district on that property at any point in time, he knows he would
have to come for a variance or whatever, right?
MR. STEVES-I'm sure he does. In fact, he's here in the audience.
KEITH PFEIFFER
MR. PFEIFFER-My name's Keith Pfeiffer and I'm the owner of the property.
MR. DUSEK-You presented a subdivision, here, where you're going to subdivide land and you understand
what zone it's in?
MR. PFEIFFER-Yes. It's Single Family One Acre.
MR. DUSEK-And do you understand that if you want to use anything other than what it's in the zone for
you may have to come for a variance?
MR. PFEIFFER-Yes, because we're on a road that has a 300 foot lot width minimum, so, yes, I'm aware
of the regulations.
MR. DUSEK-Do you understand that you mayor may not get a variance?
MR. PFEIFFER-Yes. At this stage, we're not pianning to do anything etse with the property. The
subdivision was mainly to obtain a mortgage on the house and the property and we could purchase the
other property outright. We didn't want to mortgage all of it to the bank.
MR. DUSEK-I just wanted to make sure you understood your rights in this regard.
MR. PFEIFFER-Yes, I understand that.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Very good. The public hearing is closed. No SEQRA on this, John?
MR. GORALSKI-The SEQRA was done already.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Motion.
II)TION 10 APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1991 S. KEITH AND KAlHLEEN PFEIFFER, Introduced by
James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
For a 2 lot subdivision.
Duiy adopted this 23rd day of Aprii, 1991, by the foiiowing vote:
6
'-.--
--
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA HICKORY ACRES (lINER: SIDNEY H. TUlts
200 FT. SOOTH OF SWEET ROAD, 1,000 FT. WEST OF CooNTRY CLUB ROAD FOR A 10 LOT SUBDIVISION OF THE PRESENT
13 ACRES OF VACANT LAND. LOTS WILL BE SOLD. THERE WILL BE 900 FT. OF NEIl ROAD. TAX MP NO. 64-1-5.1
LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goralski, Planner, Subdivision No. 14-1988, Hickory Acres - Sidney Timms, April 16,
1991, Meeting Date: April 23, 1991 "The appl icant has received a D.E.C. Freshwater Wetlands Permit
for the proposed project. I recommend that the Board issue a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetl ands
Permit including the same conditions that were placed on the project by D.E.C. Regarding final
subdivision approval, all planning concerns have been addressed. When all engineering concerns have
been satisfied final subdivision approval should be granted."
MR. CAIMANO-There's a letter from DEC on file from Alan Koechlein.
MR. GORALSKI-I can probably just summarize all this for you. They have received their DEC Freshwater
Wetlands Permit. We have a copy of that on file.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Tom, do you want to read Tom Yarmowich's letter, please.
ENGINEER REPORT
MR. PAOLlCELLI-Yes. I'm reading from the April 12th letter, Final Stage, not the PreAgenda Review
letter.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
Notes by Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, April 12, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and
have the following engineering comments: 1. Regarding Stonnwater Management a. Future extension
of the road system westerly to "Other Lands of Timms" should be considered in SWM design. Previous
reports indicate that only the 900 lf of roadway currently proposed has been included. b. Calculations
for the detention basin principal spillway outlet weir should be provided as previously requested
indicating the operation of the structure. A 45 foot long weir structure, as the plans indicate, is
not appropriate. The weir discharge calculations must demonstrate that detention pond outflow will
be limited to predevelopment rates and must consider the effects of the in line catch basin infiltration
beds. c. The invert of the principal spillway, at elevation 339.5, is below the grade outside the
basin. d. An auxil iary spillway is required complying with the subdivision regulations. e. The
detention basin berm dimensions are not correctly reflected by contours on the detention basin grading
plan. f. Grading for the detention basin as shown will require disturbance of the wetlands. Room
should be provided for installation of sediment control and grading without disturbance of the wetland.
g. A drainage easement for lot 4 is required by Subdivision Regulations, Article VIII, Section I.6.f
and should be shown on the final plat and included in the deed for lot 4. 2. The note regarding the
fill system on lot 4 is inappropriate because a fill system is no longer necessary because of the lot
grading proposed."
MR. STEVES-I'm Leon Steves. Some of the comments that have been brought forth tonight by Tom Yarmowich
I think could be easily addressed because they're just simple engineering differences, I guess I would
say. For instance, regarding the stonnwater management, when we're tal king about the future road,
we have provided, as you note in there, a high spot on that and we don't intend to have any road there
anyway. So that, if there were to be a road, in the future, the high spot would preclude the need
for positive drainage because we're less than 300 feet from the roadway. So the calculations provided
by Mr. Buckley were the area effected .Q.l. the watershed to the spillway. Additionally, I thought the
contours were correct, but again, it's a minor detail because what we're asking for tonight is not
necessarily truly final approval, but conditional final approval. One of the important signatures
that is needed on here is Brian Fear's and Brian has, I believe, written a letter and I think you have
it in your files, to the effect that he's agreed that the plan itself is acceptable and approvable.
The reason he hasn't approved it is because, as you know, Bri an wants to see the fi 11 in place pri or
to his approval. Some fill has been placed and has been approved by Brian, but not all of it, and
we will place the rest of it in once we get conditional approval from you, but we don't want to go
on and on and on with this project either. As far as the spillway or any changes to that, I would
be reluctant to agree with him, offhand, because I don't want to interrupt the Wetlands approval we
have and we aren't intending to disturb any wetlands at all. We ~ going right up to the edge of
the wetland, but that is noted on the DEC permit and we're putting hay bales in there to prevent any
erosion. As far as sediment is concerned, I think we've provided that because we have sumps in each
of the catch basins onto positive drainage. The calculations were based upon a 100 year storm as
required by DEC, where your regulations, I think, require a 50 year storm. So we have to go by the
most stringent. I hope we've answered some of your questions.
7
MR. CAIMANO-:~en, we're in a v<:.ry awkward position, because Tom has asked these questions and now we
have to ask you whether you agree with Leon's determinations and if so, what's the basis?
MR. PAOLlCELLI-Okay. Wen, 'tet me start at the beginning. Regarding the poss;b1e future additiona't
roadway. You say that, in the future, it's Hkety never to be a roadway.
MR. STEVES-That's correct.
MR. PAOLICELLI- The drainage from that may be minima1 and I think your design is probabty overdesigned
as it is. So if it ever was devetoped, you probabty coutd show that it cou'td handte the additional
runoff.
MR. STEVES-I appreciate that comment because Tom had, Tom Yarmowich, in his previous tetter had mentioned
that he wanted to minimize the size of this retention basin and we agree who'teheartedty, but we are
contr01ted by DEC as to the size of that.
MR. PAOLlCELLI-Yes. We reaHze that and I think we eventuaUy agreed with you on that, in your
discussions with Tom.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. PAOLICELLI-l b. and 1 d. I might as wetl discuss together. There's sti'tt some ca'tcutations required,
that we've asked for, to demonstrate your outlet weir structure, as weH as your auxHiary spiUway
which, as yet, hasn't been provided. I think you can, it wou1dn't effect the plans that you have here,
but those catculations do need to be shown and we reaUy need the structure that you're proposing,
it says on .Q!!!. p'tans that it's 45 feet long and either that's an error or that's actuaUy what you're
proposing and we woutd reat1y need to see ca'tcu'tations and how that's going to operate.
MR. CAIMANO-Which one is this, Tom?
MR. PAOLICELLI-This is 1 b. and that sort of goes hand in hand with 1 d. which is an auxi'tiary spittway
which hasn't yet been provided. That weir structure, you reaUy need to show us how it's going to
operate as the water enters the basin and exits the basin, how that's going to operate, how much now
is go;ng to 'teave during a 50 or 100 year storm.
MR. STEVES-A'tt right. I've ask Ray to provide that.
MR. PAOLlCELLI-Okay. To this point, we haven't received that. I think the ca'tcuhtions can easHy
be addressed and it's not go;ng to substantiaHy effect your phn. 1 c. is a minor grading prob1em.
I cou'ld point it out to you and, again, it's a minor point. 1 e., regarding contours, the detaU
provided doesn't match the contours on the p1an. Again, it's not going to substantiaUy effect the
project, but it shou'ld be correct so when it does get constructed, it win be constructed correctly.
1 f. I tend to disagree with your eva'tuation, building that basin so c'tose to the weUands. I find
it hard to see that you won't disturb those wetlands when you're coming right up against them. You
know, a five, ten foot buffer woutd probab'ty he'tp you there, but ;n your excavating or embankment
activities that happen there, even the instaHation of your erosion controt measures, I think you're
a bit too c'tose.
MR. CAIMANO-Tom, just a question there. Woutd DEC have 'tooked at this, too?
MR. GORALSKI-They shoutd have.
MR. PAOLICELLI-They shoutd have, yes.
MR. STEVES-Wen, you've got a copy of their permit and this was attached to their permit and I coutd
show you how they marked it up. I think you've got a copy there.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. STEVES-One of the things, we had the wetlands shown, right here, coming across tHe this, from
the first f1agging. We went out there with At Koechtein and he came down nagging it Hke that. So
it wasn't a condition of wet, but rather a condition of vegetation.
MR. CAIMANO-Are you tooking at the same drawing we are?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-WeU, if DEC has put those there and they set the rutes and regu'tations, wou1d that not
say then that this is approvabte, or woutd it not?
MR. PAOLICELLI-We1't, I guess they regulate the wettands.
8
--
MR. CAIMANO-Yes, that's what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to do 'iogic, here. If DEC sets the
regu'iations for wetlands and the DEC has marked this drawing saying, if you do this, I'm going to give
you a permit, then by doing that, can we not assume that this is acceptab'ie?
MR. HAGAN-We4'i, I don't know. I think the Town has a say, in addition to what DEC says.
MR. CAIMANO-That's what John is saying, too, that we have to issue a permit too.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. TypicaUy, the Board has gone a'iong with the DEC permitting, as far as wetlands
are concerned. However, there's no ru1e that says you have to go a'iong with DEC's permit. If you
want to be more strict than DEC, that is your prerogative, but the past practice has been that DEC
are the experts. They regu'iate the wet.ands.
MR. CAIMANO-Wetl, correct me if I'm wrong, here. You guys say whatever you want to say, but my feeting
is that if it were not for DEC we probab'iy wou'idn't have any regu'iations as such. So, therefore,
defacto, we should be thinking about not superseding them, un'iess we've got some reaHy good reasons
for superseding them.
MR. HAGAN-I don't agree with that statement.
MR. CAIMANO-We'i'i, then te4t me why.
MR. HAGAN-Because without the DEC, we've been victim of enough circumstances within this Town that
we wou'id have estab4ished some guidetines of our own.
MR. CAIMANO-I agree.
MR. HAGAN-Okay.
MR. CAIMANO-I don't disagree with that.
MR. STEVES-No, you had them before, but in addition, when we started this project, this was not a
wetlands. There was no jurisdictiona1 wet'iands at aU on site. It was on'iy less than a year ago that
they estabHshed this as an addition to the 'iarger weUands to the east of Bay Road or west of Bay
Road. In addition, I was pointing out to John and Tom, that when we were out there and had tocated
the wetlands as nagged, we had .ocated across here. We asked A1 Koechlein to come out with us and
A4 KoechOein, who is the DEC permit, he f'iagged it up down through here, so that was a question of
vegetation, not of wetlands. There's no water there, obviously. It was just a question of vegetation.
So they go by vegetation and conditions of water.
MR. HAGAN-In other words, you're saying you take exception to Comment F.
MR. STEVES-Who, 1 do?
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. HAGAN-Yes. Isn't that what you're saying.
MR. STEVES-No. I didn't say I took exception to it. I said, you know, Tom brought this up. I just
said that we are aware of it and we are hopefuUy providing protection for the wetlands by putting
the hay ba4es atong side it before construction.
MR. HAGAN-I interpreted what you were saying, that you didn't wish to go atong with the comments in
Paragraph F.
MR. STEVES-No. He's saying, "Grading for the retention basin as shown wiH require disturbance of
the wetlands". Maybe I'm saying that we aren't going to be disturbing weUands because we're going
to be putting the hay ba4es right there on that ftag tine.
MR. CAIMANO-The engineer is saying, Jim, that he doesn't think these bates are far enough away, as
I hear you, and that there wilt be disturbance.
MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think that's what he's saying. He saying that due to the physica1 location
of the detention basin, it's physicaHy impossibte to instaH that detention basin without disturbing
the wetland. The hay bates are meant to be just, correct me if I'm wrong, they're meant to be an erosion
contr01 measure or a water con trot measure, not anything connected with a buH bundozer backing too
far into the wet1and.
MR. PAOLICELLI-That's correct. It was our opinion that the operations to construct that are a bit
too c40se and the hay bates win help for some sediment that may occur, which you reaHy can't help
or avoid, but I think if the basin was a litUe bit further away, that might give you additionat
insurance. Now, if DEC doesn't feet that of a concern, I stitt can't see how you can construct that,
even with erosion controt, without ~ disturbance. Now, if the contractor is confident that that
can be constructed without disturbance, then.
9
----
-
MR. MARTIN-You're õiteraõõy right on the õine of the wetõand.
MR. PAOLICELLI-Basicaõõy, yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Any probõem moving it in? Is there any probõem in changing the dimensions, moving it in
for more protection or not?
MR. MARTIN-Then you're effecting the capacity of the basin.
MR. STEVES-Of the system, unõess I.
MR. MARTIN-Reconfigure it.
MR. STEVES-Or go deeper, but I'm not sure, then, if I'm just changing the permit as issued.
MR. CAIMANO-Right. That's another probõem. Do you have any comments on that, Pauõ?
MR. DUSEK-In what regard?
MR. CAIMANO-His concern is that if he changes things on this drawing, now, he's going to change the
conditions of the DEC permit and he has to go back to them again, too.
MR. DUSEK-I think that's a õegitimate concern.
MR. CAIMANO-I do, too. Wen, õet me ask you this, then, to Staff. Is this a situation of poHcing
the thing, in that, the appiicant couõd õive under what is here and if it is found, during inspection,
that he is not abõe to do that, then it stops? Can we put that kind of a stipuiation on it?
MR. STEVES-Couõd I demonstrate on a põan, here, the extent of the weUands, so that everyone can see
what we're taõking about. The area is as nagged up, that is on the iot, is as I'm ouUining in red
on this right now, but the extent of it is iimited by the former raHroad that was there. So it comes
right back on up, aõmost on the property Hne, right up to the stream and the oniy connection with
this so caHed weUand and the rest of it is the cu1vert. So this, then, just because the cu1vert
is there, an interchange of water puts us into the õarger weUand. In and of itseH, it's not targe
enough to be a wetõand, but oniy because it's interchanged with that cui vert.
MR. DUSEK-Where is your basin?
MR. STEVES-It's right here.
MR. DUSEK-And how cõose does it come to the red õine?
MR. STEVES-Weõõ, we have a berm that's.
MR. MARTIN-That's right on it.
MR. STEVES-Right on it.
MR. MARTIN-A section of it is right on it.
MR. STEVES-I wouõd say the bottom of it is about two feet from it, three feet from it.
MR. DUSEK-And to grade it wi1õ you have to go into the wetõands?
MR. STEVES-I'm going to have to refer that to Bin. BiH Bishop is here. You've done construction
work, I haven't. Do you want to try to address that.
BILL BISHOP
MR. BISHOP-My name is Biõõ Bishop. I'm basica1õy working with Mr. Timms on the subdivision.
MR. DUSEK-Mr. Bishop, are you a contractor? Can you just teõõ the Board what your experience is.
MR. DUSEK-I've worked for a 10caõ construction company, Cam- Tech Incorporated, and I have previous1y
worked for a 10caõ generaõ contractor and site work contractor.
MR. DUSEK-Okay, and in your capacity in that õine of work have you constructed basins?
MR. BISHOP-I've worked with quite a õot of site work type of procedures in the construction industry,
incõuding retention basins, fiõõ systems, drainage inõets, that type of site work.
MR. DUSEK-Have you graded property?
10
---
--
MR. BISHOP-Yes, I've graded property.
MR. DUSEK-Okay, and have you also, are you familiar with wetlands, generally?
MR. BISHOP-I have not, myse1f, been a contractor invo1ved in buHding in the weUands. So I cannot
say that I am a wetlands professional, no.
MR. DUSEK-But, I mean, are you familiar with this property?
MR. BISHOP-Yes, I am.
MR. DUSEK-Do you know where the wetiands are located on this property?
MR. BISHOP-Yes, I do. I've wa1ked them severai times with myself and Leon Steves.
MR. DUSEK-In your capacity as a contractor and the experience that you've just indicated, is it possible
to build that basin and grade it without going into the wetlands?
MR. BISHOP-Yes, it is. I do not feel that there's really any potentiai problem disturbing the existing
weUands. When we originaUy had taHed to DEC about this procedure, they had origina11y suggested
that we buUd the retention basin within the weUands and use the weUands as part of the retention
basin. Leon Steves recognized that it may be a better option for us to stay out of the weUands
aHogether and only bund adjacent to it. So that I don't feel DEC feeis that we are infringing upon
or making any disturbances to the wetiand by what we've proposed to do.
MR. DUSEK-And, just as a final question, what's your connection with the contractor that's on this
project? You're working for him? Is that the idea? I mean, how are you involved with this project,
just to make sure I understand you?
MR. BISHOP-I'm acting, basically, as an agent for the owner, between the owner and Mr. Steves.
MR. DUSEK-And are you reiated to anybody?
MR. BISHOP-Yes, I am. I'm Mr. Timms son-in-law.
MR. DUSEK-Okay.
MR. BISHOP-I aiso own property adjacent to the development.
MR. DUSEK-I think we should ask our engineer a question, in Hght of the testimony he's just heard,
what his thoughts are concerning the matter.
MR. PAOLICELLI-I just want to add something, Comment 1 e., regarding the contours at the basin. The
basin as it's shown on the plan is incorrect. If you look at the detaU shown, right to the right
of the basin, with an eight foot wide top eievation and then it goes down to a 1 on 3 on each side
and if you iook at the grading on the phn, the grading on the pian is incorrect. So the grading on
the plan is going to have to be revised anyway if it's to agree with this detaH of the pond berm
provided.
MR. DUSEK-What's going to happen if the grading is revised? Is the basin going to become c10ser to
the weUand?
MR. PAOLICELLI-Yes, it would. So you'd sort of be forced to move that top berm section in anyway,
to agree with that. Now I'm not sure if DEC had seen that detaU of the berm and approved it based
on that, but the grading does not agree with that detail.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, Tom, DEC has marked this drawing and there it is right there.
MR. STEVES-It's right on their pian. It's right on the plan that they had marked.
MR. PAOLICELLI-Okay, well, if I could, an eight foot wide top, here. This isn't eight feet wide.
MR. STEVES-Yes. I know I did that at Tom Yarmowich's request, last time and I obviously drew it in
wrong. So it's my fault. I didn't draw it in wide enough. So the inside one has to be drawn wider.
MR. PAOLICELLI-Okay. So this is going to come in.
MR. STEVES-That's right. This inside one.
MR. PAOLICELLI-But even the slope down at one on three.
11
~
~
MR. CAIMANO-WeH, lets get down to reaHties, here, a iitUe bit. We have to assume that DEC saw that.
They have 100ked at this print. They have marked this print. We have to assume they saw it. If they
didn't, then we cou1d never trust anything, right?
MRS. PULVER-They've been out there and flagged it, too, haven't they?
MR. CAIMANO-And they've flagged it.
MR. DUSEK-We1l, the on1y concern I have, are you saying that DEC has not seen the correct print?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes, they have.
MR. CAIMANO-They've marked it.
MR. DUSEK-No, but he just said that the e1evations are something wrong.
MR. PAOLICELLI-The detai1 shown to the right of the pond berm does not match the grading on the p1an.
MR. DUSEK-And what did DEC see? Did they see the 1!Lcorrect version or the correct version.
MR. PAOLICELLI-I be1ieve they saw the correct version.
MR. CAIMANO-They marked it.
MR. GORALSKI-They saw the p1an that Tom is talking about. They saw a plan where the detail of the
berm does not match the p1an.
MR. STEVES-Wen, if I may be so b01d, I think you're nit picking. I mean, you're talking about an
eight foot wide top that's at an e1evation of 343 and so I have attempted, quickly, to demonstrate
a 343 contour and in so doing, do I make the edges of eight feet or do I take the center? It could
be one l1ne. It doesn't have to be a width of eight feet. So you scaled off my map and it's wrong.
Big dea1. I mean, what am I supposed to do on there. I'm sorry. I reaUy shou1dn't get excited that
way, but real1y, it is on1y a contour 1ine. It isn't there to demonstrate the exact unit of that berm.
MR. PAOLICElLI-I can agree with you on that. "The s10pe should have shown the one on three slope.
You're coming down from e1evation 343. To get back down to e1evation 340, you're going to need at
1east nine feet and you're showing that 342 contour right up against the wet1ands.
MR. S"TEVES-And that's the way it was shown on the p1ans that they had.
MR. PAOLICELLI-That's true. I'm just pointing out an error in the basin.
MR. STEVES-I understand. This thing is drawn, as you know, by Auto CAD. The contours were not, because
it was before we had Auto CAD, but I can put it an into Auto CAD. That's not a prob1em, and draw
it a1l out according to Hoy1.
MR. PAOLICELLI-The proposed grading shown, however, is done by hand. This is aU we have to go on.
I don't have the benefit of you to point out your mistake when I reviewed it.
MRS. PULVER-Well, he can stil1 get approval on condition that he submit the correct drawing.
MR. GORALSKI-Can I ask a question that may help? Tom, I don't know if you're going to be able to answer
this or not. If the bottom of the stope of the berm is placed at the line of the hay bale fence that's
indicated, okay, and then the appropriate grading is shown, is that going to impact the design of the
detention area or any way impact the drainage system?
MR. PAOLICELLI-Probabty very minimaUy. You're not going to lose much storage of an atready oversized
basin anyway, but I realize Mr. Steves concern that he might have to change his permit if he changes
anything on the p1an, but I reaUy don't think by reducing the si ze of the basin by the amount we're
talking about, it's not going to make big difference.
MR. CAIMANO-You don't think it's going to make a big difference?
MR. PAOLICELLI-I don't think so.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-Not particu1arly, when DEC even suggested to the appHcant that they use the wetland as part
of the, you know, that's the c11ncher that's changing my mind to believe that the app1icant's approach
to the problem is by far the most practical one.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
12
----
MR. GORALSKI-It's better than buitding in the wettand.
MR. CAIMANO-Jim, do you have any other comments?
MR. MARTIN-I'd just tHe to say. tHe we typicaUy do for a tot of things that we perceive to require
an engineering review, Hke traffic and so on, when we review these type of things, we typicaUy rety
on the so caned experts at the State and I win defer to DEC's approvat of this, in reviewing the
effect on the drainage basin and the wettand.
MR. GORALSKI-Possibty, to keep everyone covered, okay, that put a condition that the berm be constructed
as per the detait shown and that no part of the berm be constructed within the wettand.
MR. HAGAN-That's what the appticant was saying quite a ways back here.
MR. STEVES-Perhaps the best thing to do is have A~ Koechtein come back and ftag that area right out
and put hay ba~es right in in his footsteps.
MR. GORALSKI-We~t, that's what I'm saying, and just make sure the berm is not buitt.
MR. STEVES-Before the hay ba1es are p1aced.
MR. GORALSKI-And make sure that no part of the berm is within the wet1and.
MR. STEVES-That's correct.
MR. GORALSKI-If you make that a condition, I think that s01ves Rist-Frost's probtem.
MR. MARTIN-That witt atso so1ve the insta11ation of the basin prob1em. too.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. STEVES-Yes. We can appreciate your concerns. I mean, I don't want to go out and get arrested,
in spite of it a1t, and I appreciate your concerns.
MRS. PULVER-I'm wi1ting to go a10ng with DEC, since we have no other guide1ines.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Lets assume, then, that we're going to accept the DEC permit and we're going to
put the conditions that John ta1ked about. What other items in this engineering ;etter are non re~ated
to this topic, that he has not covered?
MR. PAOLICELLI-Comment 1 g., an easement needs to be inc~uded in the fina1 ptat, which I think it just
a, no prob~em there.
MR. STEVES-No probtem. In fact, I attempted to do that in two fashions. I attempted to do it both
in the entirety and in just a drainage easement across the ~ot. So it can be done either way. Not
a probtem.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. PAOLlCELLI-And theiast comment, Number Two, is again, just a minor comment to make sure that the
pians reftect, actuany what's going to be happening out there and Mr. Steves mentioned that Brian
Fear is atso tooking at this project. So, Two is not of a major concern.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. PAOLICELLI-The ptans just need to be changed.
MR. STEVES-You're tat king about that 1ast comment?
MR. PAOLICELLI-Yes, it's just wording rea1ty.
MR. STEVES-If I may, we wou1d want to piace the fin there for the system so Brian can approve it and
then of course, as the ptans have indicated, more fitt wi11 be p~aced around that for grading.
MR. PAOLlCELLI-Okay, because I guess you had indicated to Tom Yarmowich that you were going to bring
fi11 in for the 10t anyway.
MR. STEVES-That's correct.
MR. PAOLICELLI-So it wasn't rea11y a fi1~ system.
MR. STEVES-No, it's not.
13
----'
MR. PAOLICELLI-Okay, it was just incorrecUy stated on the pians that it was stiU a fin system when
it real.y wasn't anymore.
MR. STEVES-Yes, but maybe I'm not saying what 1'm trying to. We want to put a fin system in that
area and get Brian's approva. before we grade it by putting in aU that extra dirt around it. Do you
see what I'm saying?
MR. PAOLICELLI-Yes.
MR. STEVES-So Brian's going to be approving it as a fi.. system.
MR. PAOLICELLI-He is?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. PAOLICELLI-And has he said anything to you regarding the tapered areas, or that's going to be
inc.uded in your .ot grading?
MR. STEVES-We'.. te.. him about the lot grading so that he'.. be addressing that as wel..
MR. PAOLICELLI-Okay.
MR. STEVES-That wi.. be addressed.
MR. PAOLICELLI-Okay.
MR. STEVES-I just wanted to be up front so you know where we're coming from, too.
MR. PAOLICELLI-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay, so in your opinion, both John and Tom, approva. tonight might be granted and there
wouid be some conditions which wouid not be Hmiting to granting approval tonight if we so choose?
MR. PAOLICELLI-I believe so.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. I have a question, one quick question. You made a comment, early on in this thing,
that kind of bothered me. I don't know if it bothered anybody else. You taHed about this final
approva. being conditiona..
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-And I don't see it that way, but.
MR. STEVES-Wen, normaUy speaking, final approva. is something that is granted after I have everyone
etse's signatures, such as Brian Fear's.
MR. CAIMANO-I've got you.
MR. STEVES-Okay, and Bdan wants to see the system in. So, conditiona. approvat gives me six months
in which to fitt at. the conditions.
MR. CAIMANO-A.. the hotes, okay. Anything else?
MR. MARTIN-At. set.
MR. HAGAN-As far as we're concerned, if we choose, we can.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. GORALSKI-Wen. no. You have to make it conditiona. because he needs that six months to get Brian
Fear's approvat and if you don't make it conditiona., he's got to fi.e within 60 days.
MR. STEVES-Right.
MR. GORALSKI-And he won't have the signatures to enabte him to do that.
MR. CAIMANO-Conditionat on comptetion of att of the items in this tetter which appty?
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
14
--/
MR. GORALSKI-We13, actua~~y, I wou~d specify which items app1y.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. GORALSKI-And I be1ieve you have to do the Freshwater Wet1ands Permit first and then fina1.
MR. CAIMANO-I don't have anything on that. Do you? By the way, the pubHc hearing has been opened
and c10sed and the SEQRA has been done.
MR. GORALSKI-Wen, my suggestion to you wou1d be, it's Freshwater WeUands Permit No. 2-90, and my
suggestion to you would be to grant that Permit with the conditions that an the conditions of the
DEC Freshwater Wet3ands Permit be met and that no part of the berm for the detention area be constructed
within the Wet3and.
MR. HAGAN-We~3, I'd rather say the grading for the detention basin wi11 not disturb the Wet1and.
MR. GORALSKI-Okay, that's fine.
MR. CAIMANO-There you go. We31, Jim, why don't you go ahead and make the motion.
MR. HAGAN-Okay. There's only one thing I'm not clear on, before I make the motion, and that is what
approva1 the applicant needs that makes this approval here conditiona3? I'm not clear on that.
MR. CAIMANO-I'm not either, to tell you the truth.
MR. STEVES-The Department of Health.
MR. HAGAN-Okay.
MRS. PULVER-He can't get the Department of HeaHh untU he does aU his grading and everything. He
can't get final approval from the Department of Hea3th until he's done a3l his grading.
MR. MARTIN-That's Brian Fear.
MRS. PULVER-Right.
MR. HAGAN-Okay, then somewhere's in our motion, we have to extend his 30 day.
MR. STEVES-No, if you give me a conditional approval.
MRS. PULVER-No. We're giving a conditional approval.
MR. CAIMANO-We really have two motions to grant. One is a Freshwater Wetlands Permit.
MR. GORALSKI-And that's not condi ti ona1.
MR. CAIMANO-And that's not conditional, that's correct. So, if you could do that, Jim. We'H start
there.
MR. HAGAN-This Board has to make a formal motion for him to be able to accept that?
MR. CAIMANO-Right, or not.
MR. HAGAN-I get more confused every night I come here.
MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you, this has been going on so 10ng I don't even remember who was on
the Board when this started. You got the Freshwater Wetlands Permit back in November of 1990.
MRS. PULVER-We were aU here.
MR. CAIMANO-We were a11 here. Do you know what has to be done?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, somewhat of an idea.
JlJTlON 10 GRANT FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT (I). 2-90 SIDNEY H. TUMS, Introduced by James Martin who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
Conditioned upon: One, the conditions for the DEC Freshwater WeUands Permit be met and, Two, no part
of the berm be constructed in such a way as to disturb the wet1and.
MR. CAIMANO-With a condition on it.
15
--../
MRS. PULVER-No. The condition is going to go with the reso¡ution.
MR. GORALSKI-Wen, I wou¡d recommend you put two conditions. One, that aU the conditions of the DEC
Freshwater Wet¡ands Permit be met and, two, what Mr. Hagan said.
MR. HAGAN-Grading for the retention basin wi~¡ not disturb the Wet~ands.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
Du~y adopted this 23rd day of Apri~, 1991. by the fo~~owing vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pu~ver. Mr. Martin. Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. So we have no pubHc hearing. The SEQRA is done. Lets try to see what we can do
with the main motion.
MR. MARTIN-A~l right.
MOTION TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 HICKORY ACRES, Introduced by James
Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Caro~ Pu~ver:
For a 10 :Jot subdivision of the present 13 acres of vacant land. Lots wiH be s01d. There wiH be
900 ft. of new road. The owner is Sidney H. Timms, with the following stipulations: That the Department
of Health approval be obtained. That items Ib, lc., Id., and Ig. of the April 12th letter of Rist-Frost
be addressed prior to approva~.
MR. CAIMANO-Shou:Jd we indicate in here that when a¡l these fina~ approvals are given, then this approval
becomes fina~?
MR. GORALSKI-Subdivision Regulations provide that a conditiona~ approval. the appticant has six months
in which to file his plat, which basica~ly means he's got six months to meet the conditions.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-And the Chairman would not sign the plat unti~ a~l those conditions are met.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1991, by the fo~lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN (I). 19-91 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA GORDON LABARGE D/B/A GORDON LABARGE OMNER: MARK SCARINCIO
CORNER OF BOULEVARD AND HIGHLAND AVENUE REPAIR OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND SALES (CHANGE OF USE). (WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 110-4-2 LOT SIZE: 12,984 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 K
GORDON LABARGE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Phnner, Site P~an Review No. 19-91, Gordon LaBarge, AprU 12, 1991,
Meeting Date: AprU 23. 1991 "The site plan is to change the use from a car c~eaning facUity to
auto sales and service. The location is the triang~e bordered by the Boulevard and Highland Avenue.
The zoning is highway cOlllllercia¡ one acre. The area is served by Town water and sewer. There are
no proposed site changes. The Board may wish to discuss the interior buHding changes and how any
chemical used win be stored and disposed of. The Board has had concerns about storage of vehicles
awaiting repair in the past. You may want to ascertain how this change wiH effect the neighborhood
character. This is an extremely visible ~ocation in the Town. This petition was reviewed with respect
to Section 5.070: 1 - The site is existing. The ~ocation arrangement and size of what is existing
is generaHy compatible with the proposed use. 2 - The applicant may want to consider moving the
handicapped parking space over (north). The measurement between the handicapped space and space number
12 should
16
-..-'
~eave an access way of 20 feet. If this is not possib~e, a variance shou~d be sought. Aho the
handicapped spaces have to comp~y with the ANSI code. They appear sman on this drawing. The buHding
and restroom facHities aho have to be handicapped accessib~e. 3 - Parking and ~oading fac13ities
are sufficient. 4 - Pedestrian access is not a concern. 5 - Storm water drainage facilities are
existing. 6 - The site is served by Town water and sewer. 7 - P~anting and ~andscaping cou1d immense~y
improve this property. The Beautification Committee requests that the app~icant appear before them
with some p~anting p~ans. 8 - Fire and emergency access seem adequate. 9 - The area is an paved.
It wou~d be preferabie if there were more permeab~e area so sheet runoff from the site wou~d be
minimized. However, modifications to an existing condition can be expensive."
MR. GORALSKI-The Warren County Phnning Board said "No County Impact" and the Citizens Advisory Committee
on Access for the Handicapped, dated Apr13 12, 1991, "Parking spaces for the handicapped must be 8'
wide with an access ais~e of 8'. Since there is a change of use, the bu13ding win need to be
accessib~e."
The Beautification Committee disapproved and requested that the app~icant appear before them.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Mr. LaBarge.
MR. LABARGE-My name is Gordon LaBarge.
MR. CAIMANO-Mr. LaBarge, do you have any comments regarding Mrs. York's comments here? What comments
might you have.
MR. LABARGE-The part about the junk cars being around there. There are no junk cars. Anything that
is on the property does run. If there is something there that is going to be apart for a coup~e of
days, it's inside the garage, not outside.
MR. CAIMANO-WeH, ~et me ten you where that concern comes from. About a year ago, maybe a year and
a haH ago, we approved an automotive repair shop in Queensbury and the applicant was given aU kinds
of time to ten us how many cars he wanted to store outside. He finaHy setUed on eight. AU the
whHe he had that garage, he had in the area of 20 to 25 cars stored there and it was a junk pHe,
and that's where Mrs. York comes from. I'm not suggesting you're going to do that, but that's where
that comment comes from.
MR. LABARGE-Right.
MR. GORALSKI-He was very successfui.
MRS. PULVER-Yes. He moved, as a matter of fact.
MR. CAIMANO-So that's where that comes from.
MR. LABARGE-On the map that's with the appHcations I submitted, they have put parking spots. I think
there's like 39 parking spots or 37 parking spots on the property. The handicapped parking, I do have
16 feet in the front of the buHding, on the Bou~evard end. I do have 16 feet on the Highiand Avenue
side of the bun di ng, whi ch is adjacent to the corner of the front of the bun di ng where there's 16
feet of parking because I oniy have one entrance door into the bui1ding. I have two eiectric overhead
doors, one on each end of the bui1ding. It is wheeichair accessib~e to the restroom and the shop.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. LABARGE-I have put "No Parking" signs
"No Smoking" signs in the garage, that the
extinguishers. I had had one at the time.
been updated. The one that I did have he
I have done.
on the garage doors, that I was asked to do. I have put
Fire Marsha~ had asked me to do. He had checked my fire
I have put another where he has stated me to. They have
had checked. He preferred that I get another one, which
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. There are no Materia1 Safety Data Sheets submitted. I presume you're going to do
some so~vent c~eaning, those kinds of things. Are you not?
MR. LABARGE-I have a parts washer from Safety C~ean.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. LABARGE-They bring the parts c~eaner. They take the parts c~eaner when they ~eave me a fresh barrei.
MR. CAIMANO-Don't we sti~i have to have an MSDS?
MR. LABARGE-I don't do 013 changes. I buy carburetor c~eaner from the parts stores if I do any
carburetor work, but it's not put in a drain or anything.
MR. GORALSKI- TypicaHy, we require the MSDS. I mean, if the on~y thing he has is 10 ganons of sohent,
I don't see why he can't just come in and fiii out the form. I'~~ he~p him fii~ it out.
17
'-..---
--../
MR. CAIMANO-Right, and Safety Ctean, I'm sure, since they do this at~ the time, must have something.
MR. GORALSKI-They may have one prepared a~ready that you can just get from them. I don't know.
MR. LABARGE-Yes, from Safety Ctean, yes.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. Just a statement saying what the so~vent actuaUy is and that we can put on fUe
in the Fire Marshat's office and give to the fire department in case anything ever happens.
MR. LABARGE-A3t right.
MR. CAIMANO-You do have 30, as I see it, I see 30 spots.
MR. LABARGE-There's 30 something spots. They want me to use the, you woutd can it, the east end of
the buUding, which is the other side, because the front is on Bou~evard. The back is on Highhnd
Avenue.
MR. CAIMANO-Yes. Wen, I see 12 on the Boutevard, 11 on High~and, and 7 on what you can the other
side of the bui~ding.
MR. LABARGE-Then I have the handicapped parking.
MR. CAIMANO-My concern is that, wou~d you have any prob~em if we ~imit you to the amount of cars?
MR. LABARGE-No.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-One question I have, in regard to Mrs. York's comment. I didn't see any so caned "junk
cars". I think that's sort of a c~ass conscious statement, but I did see six unHcensed vehic~es.
Is that going to be a norm of having unHcensed vehic~es? They wou~d appear that they're not being
used. It's just dead storage.
MR. LABARGE-Right. The on~y un~icensed vehic~es wou~d be in a book of registry for the sa~es.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Just the cars you're going to se1~, right?
MR. LABARGE-Right.
MR. HAGAN-Yes, but these didn't ~ook tike they were in sa1ab~e condition.
MR. LABARGE-Any car that's on the tot, sir, runs. I swear to God to you.
MR. HAGAN-Wen, I didn't say that, but they didn't 300k Hke they were prepared to put up for sa~e.
You wou~d at ~east have them c~eaned.
MR. MARTIN-Let's put it this way. Do you have any cars on the ~ot, right now, that you are intending
to se~~, shou~d this be approved?
MR. LABARGE-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's probab~y what we saw.
MR. HAGAN-You know, usua11y, you see a car for sa~e, it's a1~ c~eaned up.
MR. MARTIN-We~1, he can't se3~ them yet. He hasn't got our approva~, right?
MR. HAGAN-Right.
MR. LABARGE-And I can't get the ~icense from the State unti1 I get the approva~ from the Town.
MR. MARTIN-The hst question is, wou~d you have any prob~em going before the Queensbury Beautification
Committee with this?
MR. LABARGE-I wou~d not, sir. The proMem, right now, is I am out of money. I need the permit to
open this p~ace, to be ab~e to operate. I am not disagreeing with doing whatever the Town wants me
to do.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
18
-.--
MRS. PULVER-How about, you can make it conditioned that within six months he.
MR. MARTIN-I see two major conditions, the MSDS report and the Beautification Committee.
MR. LABARGE-And as far as the garbage, I have three big barreh inside the shop. There's no garbage
stored outside of the shop whatsoever. I can't be the jUdge of anything that b~ows in on the property.
I try to keep that c~eaned up as much as possib~e.
MR. MARTIN-No. It 400ked, when I was there, it 100ked re~ative~y c~ean.
MR. LABARGE-We have phnted shrubs. There's a piece of property that's not part of the property that
the garage is on which the State owns which is the point of Highhnd Avenue and the Bou4evard. We
have phnted shrubs in there. There's a bus stop there. I phn on putting a seat for the bus stop.
1'm trying to obey the 4aws that I have to and I'm not refusing to do whatever it is.
MR. MARTIN-No. I understand how you fee4, but usuaUy the Beautification Committee, they'U work with
you on your 4imitations as we44.
MR. LABARGE-Right.
MR. MARTIN-So it's not anything that's insurmountab1e.
MR. CAIMANO- The other thing, too. Handicapped spot number 12, Lee is saying that they probab4Y wou4d
need a vari ance because there's not enough space between it and the handi capped spots. If we Hmit
you to 29 spaces, if we e~iminate spot number 12, is that going to cause a big prob4em?
MR. LABARGE-No, sir.
MR. CAIMANO-I think that's the easiest thing to do.
MR. GORALSKI-You can do that. I'm just going through this fHe, here, and there is an MSDS Sheet
inc4uded and it's a44 fi44ed out.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, there is, Hazardous Materia4s. Here is it.
MR. CAIMANO-So you're covered. That's one thing taken care of. There is a big concern, and I'n teH
you frank1y, there is nothing we're going to be ab1e to do about it. I'H just teH you how I fee1
about it. One of the reasons for the p1antings is there is no site 1imitation to your property, shou1d
you decide, and we can't do a thing about it, that you're not going to take care of the property.
I'm not suggesting you are, but shou1d it turn into a junky p1ace, it's just not going to 100k wen
in the Town. We can say right now, gee, we wish you wou1dn't do it, but it's not up to us.
MR. LABARGE-I guarantee you, sir, that it wi11 not 100k 1ike a junk yard.
MR. CAIMANO-It's your business. Okay. So, pub1ic hearing. Does anybody in the audience want to speak
for this?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CAIMANO-We need to do a SEQRA
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION (I). 19-91, Introduced by Car01 Pu1ver who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Martin:
WHEREAS, there is present1y before the P1anning Board an app1ication for: repair of ~tor vehic1es
and sa1es (change of use), and
WHEREAS, this P1anning Board has determined that the proposed project and P1anning Board action is
subject to review under the State Environmenta1 Qua1ity Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federa1 agency appears to be inv01ved.
19
--
-.../
2. The foiiowing agencies are invoived:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is uniisted in the Department of Environmentai
Conservation Reguiations impiementing the State Environmentai Quaiity Review Act and the reguiations
of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmentai Assessment Form has been compieted by the appiicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughiy anaiyzed the reievant areas of environmentai concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmentai impact
as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Officiai Compiiation of Codes, Ruies and
Reguiations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board wiii have no significant environmentai effect and the Chairman of the Pianning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and fiie as may be necessary a statement of non-significance
or a negative deciaration that may be required by iaw.
Duiy adopted this 23rd day of Aprii, 1991, by the foiiowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Puiver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Motion on the site pian.
fOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 19-91 GORDON LABARGE D/B/A GORDON LABARGE, Introduced by James Hagan
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Caroi Puiver:
Repair of motor vehic1es and saies which represents a change of use on the present property, with the
foHowing conditions: That the appiicant seek approvai and meet the requirements specified by the
Beautification Committee within a period of six months and that the appiicant specify a change in his
pian to eiiminate parking space number 12. This site pian has been reviewed in conformance with Section
5.070 Items A through D.
Duiy adopted this 23rd day of Aprii, 1991, by the foiiowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Puiver, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
SITE PLAN (I). 20-91 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA ROBERT AND JEANNE RIZZO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HALFWAY
UP EVERTS AVENUE, GOING TOWARDS GLEIIS FALLS, ON RIGHT SIDE, YELLOW WITH BLUE SlllTTERS. TO ADD A 24
FT. BY 24 FT. 4 IN. FAMILY ROOM ADDITION TO EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING)
TAX MAP NO. 107-1-11 & 12 LOT SIZE: 30,000 SQ. FT. SECTION 4.020 N
ROBERT AND JEANNE RIZZO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from John Goraiski, Pianner, Site Pian Review No. 20-91, Robert & Jeanne Rizzo, Aprii 12, 1991,
Meeting Date: Aprii 23, 1991 "The proposed addition is iocated such that it is compatibie with the
site and shouid not negativeiy impact the visuai character of the neighborhood. A side yard setback
variance has been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeais. The oniy other item from Section 5.070E
which wouid appiy to this project is stormwater drainage faciiities. Due to the minimai size of the
proposai, there shouid be iittie impact on existing drainage patterns. As the arrows on the pian
indicate, the stormwater currentiy fiows to the rear of the iot and ponds on the appiicants property.
This proposai wiii not change that condition."
MR. GORALSKI-This was reviewed at Staff Review, and the Consuiting Engineer and other peopie invoived
feit that there wouid be no impact on stormwater drainage.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Does the appiicant have anything? Excuse me, just one second. The Warren County
Pianning Board has "No County Impact"?
MR. GORALSKI-Right.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Go ahead.
MR. RIZZO-Robert Rizzo and Jeanne Rizzo. No comment.
20
---
---
MR. HAGAN-I don't think we'11 find anything wrong with it.
MR. CAIMANO-No.
MR. PULVER-No. I think it's fine.
MR. CAIMANO-We have to have a pub1ic hearing. The pub1ic hearing is opened.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. CAIMANO-Any comments from the Board?
MR. MARTIN-No. I 1ike the addition.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Do you want to read your 1itt1e SEQRA, p1ease. The Short Form.
RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOWTION NO. 20-91, Introduced by Carol PUlver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan:
WHEREAS, there is presentlY before the Planning Board an application for: to add a 24 ft. by 24 ft.
4 in. faMi1y room addition to existing sing1e fa_i1y residence., 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 f0110wing agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmenta1
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmenta1 Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughlY analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact
as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, RUles and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance
or a negative declaration that may be required by 1aw.
DUlY adopted this 23rd day of Apri1, 1991, by the fOllowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. PUlver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
1IJ1I0N TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-91 ROBERT AND JEANNE RIZZO, Introduced by James Hagan who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Carol PUlver:
For the purpose of adding a 24 ft. by 24 ft. 4 in. family room addition to existing single family
residence.
DUlY adopted this 23rd day of April. 1991, by the fOllowing vote:
21
--
--
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. CAIMANO-Genthner, No. 21-91, has been withdrawn.
MR. GORALSKI-Wou1d you 1ike me to read that 1etter?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes, p1ease.
MR. GORALSKI-(Read 1etter from A1ice Genthner, to John Gora1ski, Town of Queensbury, P1anning Board,
dated AprH 4, 1991) "P1ease be advised that I wish to request to be taken off the AprH 23, 1991
agenda of the Queensbury P1anning Board. I am in need of more time in which to accurate1y prepare
the necessary paperwork for construction of a residence at Birch Road, G1en Lake. I wou1d 1i ke to
be p1aced on the agenda for May 21, 1991 meeting at which time a11 paperwork shou1d be accurate1y
prepared. If this is not satisfactory with the Board, p1ease advise as soon as possib1e. Thank you
for your consideration in this matter. Very tru1y yours, A1ice Genthner"
MRS. PULVER-Okay. I have one question. If a11 the paperwork is not prepared, how did they get on
the agenda? Did they have a11 the paperwork?
MR. GORALSKI-They had paperwork prepared. It was not very good.
MRS. PULVER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-I have a fee1ing, were they at a11 thrown off track by disapprova1 from Warren County?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes, for the record, Warren County has disapproved this.
MR. HAGAN-On what basis?
MR. CAIMANO-"WeH is 10 feet from the house and down hiH from the septic."
MR. GORALSKI-I don't know if that's why they were thrown off track, but when we exp1ained to them about
this being treated as a Type I action because it was in a Critica1 Environmenta1 Area, they thought
they wou1d reconsider their proposa1.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, because they had their meeting Apri1 10th, the County.
MR. HAGAN-They've got a 10t of prob1ems on that site, too.
MR. CAIMANO-She asked for something from the Board. Maybe the Board Chairman shou1d write them a 1etter.
MR. GORALSKI-We11, I think that this was not withdrawn. I think you have to tab1e it, first of an,
the way this 1etter is written, okay.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, it's not withdrawn. It's tab1ed.
MR. GORALSKI-Second1y, the dead1ine for submissions for May is tomorrow and as of yet, not on1y have
we not received anything, but Mrs. Genthner t01d me that she was going to be in touch with the P1anning
Department to sit down and get everything straightened out, and I have not been contacted.
MR. CAIMANO-Let's have a motion for tab1ing, then.
MR. MARTIN-A11 right.
tmTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 21-91 ALICE M. GENTHNER, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Car01 Pu1ver:
Tab1ed to the May 21st meeting with the condition that they meet the submission dead1ine for the
app1ication by tomorrow, Apri1 24th, at 2 p.m.
Du1y adopted this 23rd day of AprH, 1991, by the f0110wing vote:
AYES: Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
22
-----
--
SITE PLAN (I). 22-91 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA SCOTT AND JUDY SPELLBURG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE TEE HILL
ROAD TO HALL ROAD, FARTHEST DRIVEWAY ON RIGHT TO REPLACE EXISTING PORCH AND STAIRS WITH NEW DECK.
SEQRA REVIEW ONLY. (WARREN coum PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 45-3-24 LOT SIZE: \ ACRE SECTION 9.010
SCOTT SPELLBURG, PRESENT
MRS. PULVER-Now, this is SEQRA Review on1y. They a1ready have had approva1?
MR. GORALSKI-Variance approvaH No. The ZBA asked that 12!!. be Lead Agent.
MRS. PULVER-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York. Senior P1anner, Site P1an Review No. 22-91, Scott and Judy Spenburg, Apri1
12, 1991, Meeting Date: Apri1 23, 1991 "The proposa1 is for remova1 of a porch and stairs and
rep1acement with a deck. The Board win be responsib1e for doing the SEQRA review, if you take the
Lead Agency status. This project is in a Critica1 Environmenta1 Area and requires a coordinated review.
The Zoning Board of Appea1s and the P1anning Board are inv01ved agencies. The Zoning Board wou1d prefer
that the P1anning Board be 1ead agent and review the SEQRA criteria with regard to the project. The
P1anning Board can accept the responsibi1ity for the environmenta1 review and then, taking any stated
concerns of the Zoning Board into account, do the SEQRA form. This wou1d be a11 that is accompHshed
at this time. The Board may work with the app1icant to modify the project, if needed, so that a negative
determination can be made. If a positive determination is made the Board can request an Environmenta1
Impact Statement. An concerns which are raised shou1d be mitigated prior to a negative determination
being made. After the SEQRA is comp1eted the project wi11 go back to the Zoning Board of Appea1s for
review of the variances. If the variances are granted the project win then return to the P1anning
Board for a site p1an review. The Spenburg deck wi11 not create any greater impermeab1e area as it
wi11 have openings between the boards. The major concerns wi11 be uti1ization of erosion contr01 methods
during construction. The wooden supports wi11 be p1aced in concrete ±4 feet in the ground ±24 feet
from the 1ake shore. A further concern may be visua1 impact from the 1ake and the adjacent properties."
MR. GORALSKI-And the Warren County P1anning Board said "No County Impact".
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. App1icant.
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. My name is Scott SpeHburg. I'm the owner of the property, and just to address
the cormnents they made about the fi11 under construction. That '5 going to be fair1y easy to maintain
the dirt. I'm on1y digging the six, eight h01es for the posts. It's easy to h01d it back on the hi11
with either hay or tarps, and as far as site, I'm assuming an of you came to my neighborhood. I'm
pretty sure it's going to enhance the spot that I 1ive in, versus the peop1e that are around me.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-We're doing SEQRA on1y on this, right?
MR. CAIMANO-We're doing SEQRA on1y. Do you understand what the situation is here? You understand
that we're on1y doing the SEQRA review tonight. You go back to the Zoning Board of Appea1s and you
come back for site p1an.
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes. I understand I go back, if I get by you guys.
MR. CAIMANO-You a1so come back here.
MR. SPELLBURG-And then go back through you after I get past zoning.
MR. DUSEK-I notice this is set down for a pubHc hearing tonight. Are you going to do the pub1ic
hearing?
MR. CAIMANO-I can't see how we can do a pub1ic hearing.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. You have to do a pub1ic hearing to do your SEQRA review.
MR. CAIMANO-Has it been notified?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes it has.
MR. CAIMANO-Then we are.
MR. DUSEK-I guess the question I have in my mind, is there any reason why the Board wou1dn't want to
get the tota1 project, as far as it's concerned, out of the way tonight?
MR. CAIMANO-Not as far as I can see.
23
-----
--...--r
MR. DUSEK-There's no ~ prohibition to that.
MR. CAIMANO-We could make it contingent upon ZBA, right?
MR. MARTIN-Right. Then you wouldn't have to come back.
MR. DUSEK-It's just saving some time.
MR. CAIMANO-No, that's good. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Well, if we're going to that then, I've got a question. Why do you have the deck wrapping
around the north side, instead of the south side?
MR. SPELLBURG- The door to the entrance of my house is there and that's where my walk comes down the
hill. In order for you to have real easy access, I figured that would just be the best way. I had
existing stairs on that side, so it's not like I'm encroaching any farther to the side.
MR. HAGAN-Yes, but this brings the structure within about a foot of your property line, as I recall.
MR. SPELLBURG-Within about two.
MR. CAIMANO-Two?
MR. SPELLBURG-Yes, I think it's six off to the side and I'm only going four.
MR. HAGAN-You know, the trouble is, I don't have anything against this particular project, but it just
seems, more and more that these projects that require variances keep coming up where the new structure
or the new development further infringes or compounds the present nonconforming situation. You have
a nonconforming situation now, and by going to the north side with that deck, you're just further
impounding that, or permitting that nonconforming situation, and when you stand back and look at all
the houses or buildings on Glen Lake, it's becoming one horrible mess, just because of this type of
thing. Each person takes another foot and another foot and all of a sudden you can't see anything
accept buildings along the shoreline.
MR. SPELLBURG-I agree with the size of the lake.
MR. HAGAN-That's why, is there any way you could get along without bringing that around the north side
of the building?
MR. SPELLBURG-If you say stop going around, the only other way is I would still 1 ike to maintain an
access. You see, if I go around the opposite side, I'm not really going to the house or the sidewalk,
and I have stairs that come down there, you know, they were rock stairs granted.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. SPELLBURG-I had just taken them out. Lets face it, everybody kept fall ing.
a big hassle just to put the deck there in place of the stairs that were there.
are so small.
It didn't seem like
It's just the lots
MR. HAGAN-I know your present neighbor doesn't object because we talked to him.
MR. SPELLBURG-Right.
MR. HAGAN-But he's not going to be there forever, and neither are you, and we just allow these things
to happen to make everybody forthcoming have to learn to live with these situations, that's my only
objection. It's a pretty big one, when you boil it down.
MR. MARTIN-The other thing, I noticed when we were there, and you don't have it on the elevation.
There's a metal chimney pipe coming out of there, and it's going to, are you going to do anything to
enclose that?
MR. SPELLBURG-No. I want to leave it open as it is. As far as it not being on there, these are plans
that I have done.
MR. MARTIN-No. You did a nice job. I was just concerned about somebody, well, I guess it doesn't
get hot or anything like that?
MR. SPELLBURG-No. It's regulation.
MR. MARTIN-All right. That's all the questions I had.
MR. CAIMANO-Carol?
24
--
..---
MRS. PULVER-No.
MR. CAIMANO-Full SEQRA?
MR. GORALSKI-Full SEQRA.
MR. CAIMANO-Wait a minute, before we do a SEQRA. Public hearing, please. Does anyone want to speak
for or against?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COÞl£NT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
RESOWTlON WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOWTION NO. 22-91, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin:
MR. GORALSKI-Actually, just for the record, I might note that the Zoning Board had no comments or input
that they wanted to give you during the SEQRA Review, except that they said that was the Planning Board's
expertise and that they would handle it adequately.
WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: to replace an existing porch
and stairs with deck., and
WHEREAS, thi s Pl anni ng Board has determined that the proposed project and Pl anning Board acti on 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:
The Zoning Board of Appeals
3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental
Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations
of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having
considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact
as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Offici al Compil ati on of Codes, Rul es and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken
by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board
is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance
or a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. CAIMANO-Motion for conditional approval.
MR. MARTIN-There wouldn't need to be any engineering review of this anyhow, right?
MR. GORALSKI-Usually on a porch we don't have any engineering review.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
JlJTlON TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-91 SCOTT AND JUDY SPELLIIJRG, Introduced by James
Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver:
25
-------
'--'
To rep1ace the existing porch and stairs with new deck, with the foHowing condition of approva1 from
the Zoning Board of Appea1s.
Du1y adopted this 23rd day of Apri1, 1991, by the f01lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. DUSEK-Can I just ask the app1icant one question on the record, so there's no misunderstandings.
Actua11y I guess it's more of a statement, that the P1anning Board, a1though reviewing the matter from
a Planning perspective, you still have a Zoning Board to go through to get a variance. Do you understand
that?
MR. SPELlBURG-Yes. I do understand that.
MR. DUSEK-And the Zoning Board wil1 make a decision on the variance based upon the proof that you present
at that meeting. Just because this Board gave you that approval, does not mean they necessari1y wi1l
give you an approval.
MR. SPELLBURG-I understand.
MR. DUSEK-Okay. Just so, when you go you want to present your full case again.
MR. SPELLBURG-Okay.
MR. CAIMANO-We have one item added to the agenda from last meeting and that's Subdivision No. 1-91,
for Mr. Northgard.
MR. GORALSKI-The Board approved Preliminary stage of this subdivision on Apri1 16, 1991. Since this
was an expedited matter, the Board agreed to add this to the business before the Board tonight. There
are no changes anticipated to the lots. There are two existing structures which the applicant wants
to subdivide to se11 separate1y. The SEQRA was previous1y completed. There are no planning concerns
regarding this subdivision. There was also no engineering review. I
MR. CAIMANO-My question is, the public hearing, was it left open? I do not remember.
MR. GORALSKI-No. It was c1osed.
MR. CAIMANO-It was c10sed. Okay. SEQRA has been done.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-Any other questions by members of the Board?
MR. MARTIN-No.
MR. HAGAN-I don't have any questions.
MRS. PULVER-No.
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1991 ROBERT NORTHGARD, JR., Introduced by Carol Pulver
who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin:
A1l engineering concerns and a11 planning concerns have been addressed.
DulY adopted this 23rd day of April, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Martin, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. We've got severa1 things, rea1 quick1Y' that we need to go over, here, apparently.
What is this letter from C10ugh Harbour? Well, I guess this is something for us to read.
MR. MARTIN-What they're essentially saying is, if you read the Supervisor's comment there, is that
Item B. is any project greater than five acres in size is going to have to have a stonnwater permit
after November 18th.
26
--../
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-That's a big change.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Peter Cartier wrote a letter to Steve regarding Agenda Control Law and we have just
received the answer. I want to read it, real quick. So, in other words, you're saying no, no Agenda
Control Law. I have a question of the Town Attorney. When you were here last time and we talked about
the Agenda Control Law, I, Nicholas A. Caimano, said, gee, and I was for letting it go and you argued,
very rightly and vociferously, that we shouldn't and then, as I recall, that we should not let it drop,
and your comments that night were that if you let if drop, you don't know how long it's going to take
to get it back.
MR. DUSEK-Those weren't my comments.
MR. GORALSKI-No.
MR. CAIMANO-It wasn't?
MR. DUSEK-No. I can't recall exactly what my comments were now, and I would defer to the record, but
I didn't, no.
MR. CAIMANO-Do you guys remember that?
MR. DUSEK-I know that somebody made an argument in that regard, and I'm almost positive Peter, I know
argued very aggressively for it.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I think it was Peter made the argument.
MRS. PULVER-I believe it was Peter.
MR. MARTIN-The only comment I remember Paul making was that, yes, there would be certain public hearing
time frames and things that we would have to meet.
MR. DUSEK-And that would have to be done regardless of whether it was renewed or not renewed, but that
Peter poi nted out, if you di d it now, it woul d be out of the way and you woul dn' t have to wa it for
it later.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. DUSEK-But chances are, I mean, here again, deferring to exactly what I might have said in the record,
I would have given you a fairly balanced approach between the two.
MR. CAIMANO-I didn't say you didn't. I'm saying that my argument was let it drop and I was sure, I
know Peter said it. I thought you did too and I was surprised when it came back from the Board, let
it drop.
MR. DUSEK-It's a policy call and it's not mine, as an attorney, to make that call. I give you the
balanced approached between the both sides, but.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. I s there anythi ng else, here, that we have to go over here toni ght or is thi s all
reading stuff?
MR. DUSEK-Yes. There was a memo that Jim showed me a little earlier on the amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance and all it is is just a deferrment to the Town Board to let them be Lead Agent.
MR. CAIMANO-I have two. One is about the public hearing on May 6th. Is this the one you're talking
about?
MR. DUSEK-That's correct.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. DUSEK-And if this Board would agree, I would recommend that you consider a motion to let the Town
Board be Lead Agent for SEQRA Review purposes and handle the SEQRA review on these particular amendments.
It's part of our general codification. Most of them are technical.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, these weren't the, I misunderstood. I thought these were all those changes we discussed
at the Special Meeting down in the conference room, but in fact those are still forthcoming.
MR. DUSEK-Right.
27
---
MR. MARTIN-And this is just mere1y technica1 corrections to the Ordinance.
MRS. PULVER-I don't have any prob1em with that.
MR. CAIMANO-I don't either.
MR. MARTIN-And incorporating the Zoning Administrator and so on to ref1ect the new 1egis1ation.
MR. DUSEK-Yes. The on1y caveat I wou1d add there is there might be a coup1e of ones that you might
say are a 1itt1e bit more than technica1, but for the most part they're technica1, but.
MR. MARTIN-Right, most1y house c1eaning.
MR. DUSEK-Yes.
MR. CAIMANO-But our motion tonight is strict1y on the SEQRA review, right?
MR. DUSEK-That's correct.
MR. CAIMANO-Lead Agency. Do you want to go ahead and make a motion.
tlJTION THAT WE AS A BOARD AGREE 10 HAVE THE TOWN BOARD ACT AS LEAD AGENT FOR SEQRA REVIEW OF THE CHANGES
TO THE ZONING ORDIIWICE AS MENTIONED IN PAUL "S MEJI) OF APRIL 19TH, 1991, Introduced by James Martin
who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan:
Du1y adopted this 23rd day of Apri1, 1991, by the f0110wing vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. CAIMANO-One other thing, here. I see a 1etter from John regarding the Dieh1 property. Did we
make a motion regarding SEQRA, having the Town Board become Lead Agency on the Dieh1 situation? We
have not, have we.
MR. GORALSKI-Actua11y, probab1y not, considering when that was mai1ed out. I doubt it. When was the
memo dated?
MR. CAIMANO-The 1etter was dated Apri1 16th. So it wou1d be right on the time of our 1ast meeting.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. So I don't think you did.
MR. CAIMANO-We need to consider that, too.
MR. DUSEK-Before you 1eave the topic on the amendments, is this Board prepared, at this point, to
indicate that you don't have any objections to those amendments?
MR. MARTIN-I read it. I don't see any prob1em with them.
MR. CAIMANO-You're the one that had most of the changes.
MRS. PULVER-Yes, but these aren't the ones.
MR. MARTIN-These aren't the ones.
MR. CAIMANO-I know that.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Those are fine. I read them.
MR. DUSEK-Because if you cou1d get that out of the way as we11, then I don't have to worry about coming
back to you and we'11 just go through the rest of the process.
MRS. PULVER-Do you need a motion?
MR. DUSEK- Yes.
JlJTION THAT AS A RESULT OF THE REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY I S OFFICE REGARDING THE CHANGES AS ATTACHED
WITH HIS MEJI) OF APRIL 19TH, THAT WE HAVE II) REVISIONS TO THE AMEMDJENTS AND ACCEPT THEJIJ AS PROVIDED,
Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan:
28
-../
Du1y adopted this 23rd day of Apri1, 1991, by the f0110wing vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. CAIMANO-Okay, Pau1?
MR. DUSEK-Yes, thank you.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Queensbury P1anning Board, this is the John Dieh1, in which we are being asked to
designate the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury as Lead Agency in the SEQRA review process on the
Dieh1 proposed change of zone.
MRS. PULVER-Have they a1ready got that change of zone?
MR. CAIMANO-No. It comes up in May.
MR. DUSEK-No. They've a1ready gotten the change of zone and they've set the pub1ic hearing for May.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. DUSEK-This, if you'H reca11, this Board reviewed it, at one point, and I beHeve you rejected
it at that time.
MR. CAIMANO-We rejected it.
MR. DUSEK-It, neverthe1ess, has gone before the Board, whi~h it can 1ega11y do so and now they're in
the process and they wou1d 1ike to have Lead Agency status of this as we11.
MR. CAIMANO-WeH, didn't we a1ready perform a SEQRA on this? No, we didn't perform a SEQRA on this.
We didn't, did we?
MR. GORALSKI-You performed a SEQRA on their origina1 subdivision.
MR. CAIMANO-Right, at Pre1iminary.
MR. GORALSKI-This is a new issue.
MR. HAGAN-Do we have to move on that tonight? Can't we wait unti1 the next meeting?
MR. GORALSKI-By that time the time frame wi11 run out.
MRS. PULVER-Yes.
MR. HAGAN-O kay .
MR. CAIMANO-I guess my concern is that, I 'H speak for myseH here, I was one of the ones speaking
against this project 1ast time on one basic theory and that is the fact that we are getting ourse1ves
into a whenever it comes up 1ets 100k at it mode in this affordab1e housing when, in fact, the best
way to hand1e the issue is an over1ay zone. Especia11y in this case, where here is a typica1, in my
opinion, abuse of the system where a person bui1t a subdivision to se11 for $125,000 a unit. The market
went sour. So, okay, 1ets go for affordab1e housing and that's not rea11y what we intended.
MR. DUSEK-WeH, maybe I cou1d be he1pfu1, though. in this regard. Those are issues that you certain1y
can raise to the Town Board, but the issue reaHy before you now is whether or not, under the SEQRA
Regu1ations, you want to 1et them be Lead Agent and hand1e any SEQRA reviews that come up.
MR. CAIMANO-I understand that.
MR. MARTIN-What do you mean by "1et them". If we don't?
MR. DUSEK-We11, when there's more than one inv01ved agency in the process, if the two agencies can't
agree as to who wi11 be 1ead agent, then an app1ication has to be fi1ed with the Commissioner of DEC
and he'11 decide who wiH be 1ead agent.
MR. CAIMANO-Let's do that.
MR. DUSEK-WeH. now, 1et me just a1so add this, that traditionaHy the Town Board has been 1ead agent
for zoning amendments.
29
--
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but have they approved the change already?
MR. DUSEK-No. They can't approve it until after they've had a public hearing, but now I'll just throw
one more 1 ittle cl ink in it and that is that if this Board should decide that they want to contest
this, then we're also going to have to study this from a legal perspective as to whether or not you
really are an involved agency.
MR. CAIMANO-That's fine.
MR. DUSEK-We, preliminarily, have just, you know, sent it to you.
MR. MARTIN-I don't see how you could say we're not when we've already provided a recommendation.
MR. DUSEK-Recommendation, and that's the question whether that's not necessarily deemed a permit or
an approval action. I'm just pointing out to you, you can take whatever position you'd like, of course,
but it does open up a can of worms that we're going to have to take a look at a little closer if you
want to go that route.
MR. MARTIN-What happens if we don't make any determination, if we simply don't act?
MR. DUSEK-After 30 days, it's automatically deemed to be the Town Board.
MR. CAIMANO-Jim, what do you think?
MR. HAGAN-The point is that if one of us disagree, lets say three of us, we don't have a vote tonight,
because we only have four people present.
MR. CAIMANO-Right.
MR. MARTIN-So what's the requested action?
MR. DUSEK-To allow the Town Board, or to agree that the Town Board would be lead agent, and like I
say, this Board obviously can do what it wants to do. I'm just giving you the legal picture on both
sides. The other thing I will mention to you is agreeing to SEQRA is different than opposing, do you
know what I'm saying? To me, there's two issues here. There's one as to who's going to lead the SEQRA
process. I mean, it still has to be completed. It still has to be done no matter who leads it. The
other issue is whether or not you like or dislike the project itself and that you would address
separately. I mean, the issue here is do you have an objection to the Town Board being the lead agent?
MR. GORALSKI-For the environmental review.
MR. DUSEK-For the environmental review only of this project.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, well, that viewpoint, at least on my part, would be based in what are the Town Board's
feel ings on the project? What is their, you know, and we have no indication on that, do we, formally
or informally? I mean, how are they viewing it?
MR. DUSEK-Well, they've set it down for a public hearing. That's one more step.
MR. CAIMANO-Well, they have to do that, though, right?
MR. DUSEK-No. They don't have to do that.
MR. CAIMANO-Okay.
MR. HAGAN-And we're only talking about the environmental opinion of the Board.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes, there is, in reality, a chance that they could do a negative dec on SEQRA and deny
the petition.
MR. DUSEK-That's right.
MR. GORALSKI-They could say no, there's no environmental impact, but for other reasons, we're denying
the petition.
MR. DUSEK-Right.
MR. GORALSKI-For that matter, I believe they could do the SEQRA review and then not make any decision
on a Petition for a Change of Zone.
MR. DUSEK-That's correct.
30
'--
MR. MARTIN-A11 right. We11, I throw the motion out there.
.mnON THAT WE AS A BOARD NOT AGREE WITH MAKING lOIfIt BOARD AS THE LEAD AGENT IN THE SEQRA REVIEW,
Introduced by James Martin,
MR. HAGAN-I'm not going to second it.
MR. CAIMANO-Do you want to second?
MR. MARTIN-If it dies, it dies.
MRS. PULVER-I was going to abstain.
MR. CAIMANO-There's a question of abstention, now, too, because this f1ies at the heart of Mrs. Pu1ver's
prob1em.
MRS. PULVER-You see, when this came before the Board originaHy, for the recommendation, I abstained
from the vote. We don't have anything to do with this or the project, but when Wnson Mathias was
standing up there, he mentioned he had spoken with Bob Wescott who is the Chairman of my Board.
MR. DUSEK-I see.
MRS. PULVER-But I had a1ready decided that I thought I wou1d just stand back from this anyway because
I stn1 don't understand. They're saying "affordab1e", but what is tru1y affordab1e and what they're
saying are two different things. So, I abstained from that. I did speak to Bob Wescott and said,
he mentioned at our Board meeting that he had spoke with you, what has transpired? And he said, nothing,
except one day he saw him at Rotary and he said, yes, I have a c1ient that thinks he wants to do
affordab1e housing and that was it, but since that and knowing that it's coming up, I do p1an to go
to the pub1ic hearing on it because I want to hear it and if I have to get up and speak to try to
persuade the Board, the Town Board, one way or the other, to go, depending on what I hear, I wn1 do
that, but I p1an to abstain on the voting on that because of that reason, because he mentioned that.
MR. DUSEK-We11, I just had another idea and that is that, if, I just remembered that your Board is
meeting again on May 8th and I think, when's the pub1ic hearing, John, do you know on this Dieh1?
MR. CAIMANO-It's on the 13th.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. DUSEK-Okay. So there wou1d be enough time for your Board to meet and it wou1d give you time, so
you're not under the gun tonight, to make up your minds as to how you'd 1ike to hand1e it. That's
just another idea for you.
MR. MARTIN-Can the motion be 1eft open?
MR. CAIMANO-No. Withdraw it.
MR. DUSEK-We11, I think you probab1y.
MR. CAIMANO-It's going to die for a second.
MR. DUSEK-Yes, it dies when you c10se the meeting anyway.
MR. CAIMANO-You're better off withdrawing the motion.
MR. MARTIN-A11 right. I'll withdraw the motion unti1 the meeting on May 8th.
MR. GORALSKI-How about a motion to add that to the agenda, possib1y?
MR. HAGAN-We11, I think we have to add it to the agenda because she wanted it as a Workshop and we
didn't think that we cou1d hand1e it as a Workshop.
JlJTION 10 PLACE THE PLANNING BOARD'S DECISION REGARDING AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT WITH DESIGNATING
THE lOW. BOARD AS LEAD AGENT FOR SEQRA REVIEW OF THE DIEHL PROJECT FOR MY 8TH, Introduced by James
Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan:
Du1y adopted this 23rd day of Apri1, 1991, by the f0110wing vote:
AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano
NOES: NONE
31
'---
ABSENT: Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint
MR. CAIMANO-Rea1 quick. It's on May 8th, 7 o'c10ck. I'll on1y be here for part of it. There's a1so
another meeting that night at 7 o'c10ck. here in this room as a matter of fact. The P1anning Board
meeting is going to be in Conference Room Number 5, in case you didn't receive the 1etter. I assume
you an saw Peter Cartier's 1etter to Pat Crayford regarding the Workshop Session a1so, right? So
that takes care of that, and I don't know what this is. What is this Whipp1e Subdivision?
MR. GORALSKI-I have no idea.
MR. CAIMANO-I don't either. H01d a pub1ic hearing.
MRS. PULVER-That's about the pub1ic hearing.
MR. CAIMANO-That's the pub1ic hearing. Forget it.
MR. MARTIN-The Whipp1e Subdivision's a1so on for May 8th.
MR. CAIMANO-That's the one that's on for May 8th.
MR. DUSEK-That's a notice that you're 100king at for that?
MR. CAIMANO-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. DUSEK-Because there's certain 1ega1 issues that have gotten arisen as a resu1t of the 1ast meeting
and I am current1y researching them.
MR. CAIMANO-This is our agenda. It's Whipp1e Subdivision and Pat Crayford Check1ist.
MR. MARTIN-And now the SEQRA decision.
MR. CAIMANO-And now SEQRA on Dieh1.
MR. DUSEK-My office wi11 a1so research the 1ega1 issues on this. So, perhaps that wi11 be of assistance.
MR. CAIMANO-Great. Anything e1se? Move to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Nich01as Caimano, Acting Chairman
32