Loading...
1991-06-18 o /' ~EEllSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 1991 INDEX Off Premises Sign No. 2-91 Magic Automotive, Inc. as a Franchise of Meineke Muffler, Inc. Site Plan No. 34-91 Richard Mozal 1. 2. 8. 10. 11. 11. 18. 29. 37. Site Plan No. 31-91 Nigro Real Estate and Empire Video Superstore Subdivision No. 5-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Judith and Frank Bartkowski Petition for a Change P3-91 of Zone Floyd Shovah Site Plan No. 33-91 James Betit Owner: Alex Potenza Site Plan No. 35-91 Frank Sears Subdivision No. 6-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Bowen Subdivision Gary D. and Suzanne F. Bowen Site Plan No. 87-90 James M. Weller, P.E. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. --- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES HAGAN JAMES MARTI N EDWARD LAPOINT TIMOTHY BREWER MEMBERS ABSENT NICHOLAS CAIMANO DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY-KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PLANNER-LEE A. YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-The first order of business, tonight, I'd 1 ike to officially welcome Mr. Brewer to our ranks. He's joining us as a full fledged member of the Planning Board, tonight. Thank you for signing on. Okay. We have some minutes to take care of. CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 23, 1991: None May 8, 1991: None May 23, 1991: None MOTIOI 10 APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MIIUTES, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James LaPoint: Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano OLD BUSINESS: OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 2-91 MGIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC. AS A FRANCHISE OF MEINEKE KlFFLER, INC. LAFAYETIE STREET AND ~AKER ROAD OWNER: MARCEL DEMERS C/O CARUSOIE AND KILLER OF 250 BAY ROAD PROPOSAL: TO ERECT A POLE SIGN ore THE LANDS OF NIAGRA MOHAWK, 50 SQ. FT. SIGN, 16 FT. HIGH AND 15 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) MR. CARTIER-The first item on the agenda is Off Premises Sign No. 2-91. I have a letter dated June 18, 1991, "Gentlemen and Ladies: This memo is to advise that I am negotiating the last remaining details with Niagara Mohawk Corporation. Accordingly, a. formal consent has not been completed as yet. Therefore, will you table our application for permission to erect a pole sign, until further notice from this office. Thank you for your consideration. Bernadette Holl is, Attorney at Law." I guess all we need to do is entertain a motion to table until they re-apply. MOTIOI 10 TABLE OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 2-91 MAGIC AUTOMOTIVE, INC., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Tabled until the applicant re-applies to the Planning Board to be on the agenda, within sixty days from June 18. 1 - ----- ---- Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: MRS. YORK-Excuse me, would you like to give them a time frame, because you do have a tabling policy, and after a certain period of time, if they don't come back, they really should consider re-advertising. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-What would be reasonable? Thirty days? Sixty days? MRS. YORK-Sure. I think sixty days would be reasonable. MR. CARTIER-Sixty days from June 18th. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano SITE PLAN NO. 31-91 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-lA MR-5 NIGRO REAL ESTATE AND EMPIRE VIDEO SUPERSTORE OWNER: JOHN NIGRO ROOTE 9, UPPER GLEN STREET, 500 FT. SOUTH OF AVIATION ROAD FOR A 1,000 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO ACCOIIIJDATE INCREASED JlJVIE DISPLAY AREA. (WARREN COUNTY PLAMING) TAX MP NO. 99-2-1 TAX MAP NO. 102-1-2, 3, 4, 23 LOT SIZE: 11 ACRES SECTION 4.02D-J MACK DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 31-91, Nigro Real Estate Empire Video Superstore, June 11, 1991, Meeting Date: June 18, 1991 "The site plan review is for expansion of a video superstore at an existing location. At the last meeting, the Board requested a redesigned plan which showed better pedestrian access, an entry point at the rear of the store and relocation of parking from the side of the building to the rear of the store. Concerns which were raised were the problem with parking occurring on neighboring properties and internal traffic circulation and permeable area. The Board discussed the parking that occurs in the beverage center, at the dwell ing units, and on the accessways. The plan shows access and egress at the northern and southern portions of the site. The accessway next to the beverage center is a ri ght-of-way whi ch does not appear to be 20 feet in width. The Board may want to consider using signage to help traffic flow. The entrance at the northern area could be signed "Entrance for Empire Video". This would encourage patrons to enter there while still allowing exiting. Arrows could be painted on the pavement which would direct traffic to the back parking area. At the southern exit/entrance area, from the back parking lot (where it enters the right-of-way next to the Beverage Center) signage could be placed saying "exit only" and in the other direction "no entrance". This would allow parking along the side adjacent to the Beverage Center but would encourage patrons to utilize a loop system. It would take a little while for patrons to recognize the loop system, but ultimately would encourage use of the back parking area instead of the Beverage Center and residential units. The Board may want to also consider taking out the lower two parking spots on the middle parking island (proposed 20 spaces). This could be striped with arrows to encourage exit drive through. As it exists on the plan, anyone parking in the last parking island is forced to go out the way they came in, should the lot be full. The plan has been changed to allow for a pedestrian walkway along the sides of the building from the parking areas. It appears that some of the parking spaces on the north have been abandoned to provide for green space. It also appears that the front entrance is not in existence. Has the applicant decided to abandon the front entrance in favor of a rear entrance or will there be two entrances?" MR. CARTIER-One quick question. The lower two parking lots on the middle parking island, where? MRS. YORK-Okay. Do you see those? MR. CARTIER-Okay. I've got you now. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. Tom, please? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, June 13, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Regarding Stormwater Management a. The combined discharge 2 '--' rate of overland flow and piped storm drain flow from the paved parking proposed to occupy the abandoned mound system area must be considered and demonstrated not to exceed the existing rate. b. The proposed drywell depth of operation is approximately 11 feet below the paved surface. Depth to groundwater data is required to verify the suitability of a deep drywell. It is noted that mound type subsurface sewage disposal systems are many times used where high groundwater exists. c. According to the SWM storage volume computations, the drywell outlet pipe discharge rate will be subject to surcharging from ponding in the parking area. Surcharging of the drywell outlet pipe may allow excessive discharge. This should be addressed. d. A SWM in-flow and out-flow hydrograph is appropriate to illustrate the functional relationships of storage/discharge conditions of the SWM concept proposed. 3. The void volume of stone should be limited to a maximum of 35% for SWM calculations unless other data is provided. 2. Erosion and sediment control should be stipulated for all disturbed areas and not just the area of the mound system to be removed as indicated by the note on the plans." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Dean. MR. DEAN-Good evening. My name is Mack Dean from Morse Engineering, representing Empire Video. Also here this evening is Charlie Mench from Empire Video, if you should have any questions, or you may have sOllIe comments. At our last meeting, I think we had tabled with the understanding that we would eliminate parking spaces on the north side of the building, which we show on our current plan. We've eliminated six spaces, up to the space where the catch basin is located. One of theiother revisions on the site plan is location of a video cassette drop box which will el iminate the need for people who just wish to drop off or return video cassettes. They will not have to use the parking space. Therefore, can drop the video cassette in the drop box and continue on out through the recently proposed exit area to the south of the building. We have also added an additional ten spaces in the existing green area, the Wisconsin Mound area, to make up for the loss of these six spaces on the north side of the building. Also, we have indicated that there will be a continuous walkway, both to the rear and to the front of the building and, yes, there will be two entrances. The applicant wishes to maintain their front entrance since their customers are used to that, at this point, and for other reasons as well. In regard to stonnwater management, we have addressed the items Rist-Frost has commented on, although at this point I would have to say that there's a little bit of an engineering glitch that we have discussed this with Tom Yarmowich who's here this evening and I bel ieve we can reach an engineering understanding, technical development of drainage system and I would, I guess, entertain questions from the Board at this point. MR. CARTIER-Permeable, we still have a problem with that. Thirty percent is required. MR. HAGAN-Well, the maximum they propose is only 28.27, isn't it? MR. DEAN-We're not taking out more permeable area than what we had before we proposed the project. In other words, we will have the same permeability as prior to project design. It's a grandfathered situation, according to the Zoning Administrator. In fact, we will be providing, on Sheet SI, where we are replacing a green area at the rear of the existing plaza, by calculation, we will be providing a little bit more permeability than what currently exists. MR. CARTIER-Do we have anything from the Zoning Administrator indicating that the perm is grandfathered? Karla, question for you. We are required by Article V to assert that this application is in compliance with all appropriate Zoning Ordinances, in this case 30 percent is required. MS. CORPUS-Based upon my personal knowledge, there was some discussion as to the fact that permeability was calculated, with regard to the entire site. That's just a personal recollection. I don't know MR. CARTIER-Yes, I understand that, but I guess I'm asking a procedural question, here. We have an application, here, before us, that doesn't meet the permeable requirements and in Article V it says that we have to assert that things do, in fact, meet all appropriate Ordinances. How do we handle that? MS. CORPUS-Well, it's up to the Board to decide. If the Board decides to take the permeability calculation of the entire site or just this particular project. MR. CARTIER-That's what I was trying to point you in the direction of at the last meeting. Are these permeability numbers based on the entire site? MR. DEAN-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-Yes, 11 acres, it would have to be. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but do you see my dilemma, or am I not making myself clear? MS. CORPUS-No. I guess I would need further explanation. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have an Ordinance that says 30 percent permeabil ity is required, okay. We have an application, here, where we have only 27, 28 percent permeabil ity is being provided. How can we say that this thing is meeting all Ordinances. 3 MS. CORPUS-My only confusion is, when was this plan originally approved? MR. CARTIER-The whole site? Before our time. MR. DEAN-I think it was prior to the current zoning. MRS. PULVER-Yes, prior to the new Ordinance. MS. CORPUS-No, the Empire Video Store. MR. DEAN-It's a preexisting plaza, of which this is part, therefore, according to the Zoning Administrator and the Zoning Ordinance, it's a grandfathered situation, in terms of the permeabil ity. In other words, we cannot lessen the permeability, but we have to maintain it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I just don't want this to come back and bite us later on, sometime. There's no problem in our saying, even though he only has 28 percent permeable? MS. CORPUS-Well, that determination has to be made by the Zoning Administrator. If that, in fact, has been done then this Board can either accept that or not. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I guess my question's answered, for two percent, thank you. Does the Board have any questions at this time? Mr. Dean, would you care to respond to Lee's comments regarding traffic flow? Personally, I think they sound like a good idea. Those comments seem to address what we talked about at the last meeting. MR. DEAN-They do to some extent, I believe. I understand that Lee is talking about signage at some point, probably, in these locations, perhaps, if I understand. MR. CARTIER-At the northern entrance you want a sign saying. MR. DEAN-At the northeasterly entrance and the exit area from the proposed parking at the green area. That's the way I understood your comments. MRS. YORK-Yes. A sign that would indicate that this was the entrance and it would still allow people to come in and leave by this entrance way and yet would get people to utilize the back parking area and exit through here. People would still be allowed to park here, but it would be indicated that this was an exit only and so encourage a kind of traffic flow through signage and striping. MR. DEAN-We would certainly have no problem with that suggestion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DEAN-Her additional comment, in regard to the exit area from the parking, I think, is well taken. We had consi dered that. I bel i eve she is suggesti ng that we el imi nate those two spaces so that we have a natural exitway. The only problem, it does el iminate two parking spaces, however there is available parking space, here. after closing hours of the bank. I mean, we're still beyond the required number of parking spaces. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So you can eliminate those without any problem? MR. DEAN-Yes, very easily. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DEAN-As you recall, we eliminated six spaces, here, and we added ten. So we should be fine in that respect. MR. CARTIER-No front entrance? MR. MARTIN-Yes, he could still have the front entrance. MR. DEAN-There will be two entrances, front and rear entrances, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm sure the public hearing was left open on this. Was there anyone here who would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 4 '-, MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any questions or comments? MR. LAPOINT-Just the engineering. MRS. PULVER-Yes, just the engineering comments. MR. HAGAN-I'm not comfortable with the engineering comments having been properly addressed, that's all. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's appropriate. MR. HAGAN-So, I guess I'd need your help, Tom. MR. YARMOWICH-To what degree? MR. HAGAN-Well, I'm satisfied that he's meeting your comment e, but I can't determine, with my thin knowledge, whether he's meeting your comments of a, b, c, or d. MR. YARMOWICH-I'd like to ask Mr. Dean, then, to maybe explain how he would go about addressing this and we can decide, or I can give the Board my point of view as to what degree the changes are going to effect this plan and if they will. If it's something that can be done without effecting layout and so forth, and the Board is satisfied with other things, then they can make their decision accordingly. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, let's go item by item. MR. DEAN-Well, let me say this. In our discussions with Mr. Yarmowich, there is, I bel ieve, an engineering technical ity that needs to be worked out, however, we have suggested that a retention drainage ditch be formed at the existing drainage ditch on the south property line. It would have to be, let me say, cleaned up somewhat. The width is there, but the grading needs to be addressed in order to act as a proper retention pond. The ditch, I believe, would have to be about nine inches deep. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Which of the four items does that address, a, b, c, or d? MR. DEAN-Well, because of the difference in engineering design opinion, I guess, we are suggesting that the drywell can be abandoned. MR. CARTIER-Guess who's opinion we're going to go with. MR. DEAN-Mr. Yarmowich, of course, there's no doubt in my mind. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DEAN-And what we are suggesting we had discussed with Mr. Yarmowich is to enlarge and use the existing drainage ditch on the southern property line. It would not be used in its entirety. It would only be the length of the proposed parking area. MR. LAPOINT-This would be just sheet runoff to this drainage ditch from the parking lot? MR. DEAN-Yes. It would be controlled. MR. HAGAN-I think what he's talking about is this drainage area, here, into this drywell. MR. DEAN-As you recall, at the last meeting, I think I addressed the preexisting situation. The entire drainage system for the plaza was designed and installed prior to the installation of the mound area. What I'm saying is that all of this drainage, the stormwater management was in place before there was a mound area. Once the mound area's gone, or a portion of it, then in a way we are re-using what was previously designed and installed. MR. LAPOINT-I don't recall any problems with water out there. MR. DEAN-Not to any degree. After re-paving, a year or so ago, they experienced a bit of a small ponding or puddling in a couple of parking spaces on the north side of the building which has been addressed with that drywell. MR. LAPOINT-So what you're saying is you're going to abandon this drywell, then, or use the drywell and? MR. DEAN-That's the current plan is to abandon the use of the drywell. We use the existing area as a retention area and pipe the overflow to the catch basin, the existing catch basin. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and that's what your comments address? 5 -- MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. The problem that we were addressing with Comment B was we didn't know about the depth to groundwater and we'd like to establish that with whatever system is installed. MR. HAGAN-Have you determined that? MR. DEAN-Yes, at four and a half feet. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay, so there would have been a problem with an 11 foot deep drywell, however, shallow retention may function adequately. That seems to be a feasible approach. Given the land area which is available from the mound which is abandoned and it being used as a retention area wouldn't encumber any green space requirements. That would act favorably for this alternative detention as opposed to an infiltration system. MR. HAGAN-Okay. Tom, just one more thing. The groundwater depth is four and a half feet. MR. YARMOWICH-That's as been reported tonight, yes. MR. HAGAN-All right. The drywell is going to be 11 feet deep. That means continuously it's going to have six and a half feet of water in that drywell? MR. YARMOWICH-Mr. Dean has indicated they're not going to use a drywell system and they're going to go to a shallow retention pond in lieu of that which would function to control stormwater in a different method. MR. HAGAN-Okay. It just wasn't making sense to me. MR. YARMOWICH- That was the reason for the comment. We suspected a different groundwater condition and that's been established. MR. HAGAN-Fine. MR. LAPOINT-And you're getting at, in Comment C, that there could be surcharging back to this storage area from that? MR. YARMOWICH-No. That had to do with the size of the pipe coming out of the drywell to control discharge rate and that the calculations didn't match the kind of conditions that were anticipated. Simply something that had to be worked through a calculation. MR. HAGAN-And he has shown what that would be with three different pipe sizes? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, it was attempted to have been demonstrated with the pipe size proposed. With the alternate that's now being offered as a way to amel iorate some of these problems identified, it would be an entirely different situation, not subject to nearly as significant the effect that we were concerned with. MR. LAPOINT-So you can go with a bigger pipe? MR. DEAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-So, essentially, Item Band C are taken care of. MR. LAPOINT-You're going to go with the eight inch pipe as an alternate? MR. DEAN-That is an alternate, yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. MARTIN-So, essentially, Item's Band C are taken care of. MR. YARMOWICH-They would be if proper information was reviewed. MR. MARTIN-All right. So you need proper information. MR. YARMOWICH-Correct. MR. CARTIER-So you need something on paper. MR. YARMOWICH-I would think it would be appropriate as a condition of any approval, if that's so granted tonight. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 6 -...../ MR. MARTIN-You mean, you need information describing this shallow retention area? MR. YARMOWICH- Yes, if I may, I woul d suggest that the appl i cant be requi red to submit at 1 east the following, address the retention pond sizing as well as a grading plan. There's not enough site information here to establ ish how that would work with existing grading and we would 1 ike to see that to ensure that the work could be done on the property. We'd like to see the control calculations for the outlet condition in the overflow pipe that Ed mentioned and that any such system also address some sort of requirement that snow removal not encumber the operation of the stonnwater system provided. These are all straightforward, technical issues. MR. CARTIER-Procedural matter, here. I get uncomfortable with conditional approvals. Let me toss an alternative out to the Board, here. Would the Board be willing to look at this, again, next week, assuming that Mack can back to Tom between now and next week? In other words, I guess what I'm asking for is, do you want to table this until next week? MRS. PULVER-Are we talking a lot of calculations or are we talking notations? We're talking notations, aren't we, on the drawings? MR. YARftDWICH-No. It's a little more than that. Well, Mr. Dean can tell you what would be required, but they would have to develop some sort of grading and volume determinations as well as a little bit of hydraulic computations. Much of the background is existing, however, because they're proposing a different sort of system, they would have to go through a different engineering procedure and demonstrate it suitably. MR. CARTIER-The reason I bring it up, and this is no reflection on Mack, here, because he happens to be the guy standing here, but we've gotten bitten a little bit, lately, on conditional approvals and I think rather than considering a conditional approval, here, we table this until next week on the assumption that Mr. Dean comes in and we could add this to an item of Old Business and deal with it very quickly, I would think, at that point. What's your druthers? I'm tossing that out for consideration. MR. MARTIN-Is that a fair time schedule? I mean, is that reasonable? Can you do the work involved and be back in a week? MR. DEAN-We can complete the work. My only hesitation is Mr. Yarmowich's availability to be able to review it. MR. YARMOWICH-If I can have the information by noon on Monday, before the meeting on Tuesday, you will know of the outcome and the applicant can be allowed to have that same information in advance of the meeting if you so allow it. MR. CARTIER-Lee, do you have a problem with any of that? MRS. YORK-Not at all. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The Board? MR. MARTIN-I think that's appropriate. MRS. PULVER-If it's agreeable with the applicant. MR. LAPOINT-Let's make sure he knows everything we need, this time. MR. DEAN-I know what you need. It's rather technical. MR. CARTIER-We're adding an item of Old Business to the next meeting, but if things go well, it will take very little time. MR. YARMOWICH-I guess the only other thing, for the benefit of the applicant, was there anything else here that you would be confused about? MR. HAGAN-I think he's addressed everything else we requested last week. MRS. PULVER-He's agreed to everything else. MRS. YORK-Yes. If you could bring in a plan showing all the modifications, that would be wonderful. MR. DEAN-I certainly will. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Great. So you are agreeing to table this until the next meeting, June 25th? MR. DEAN-Yes. 7 -- "-"" MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much. MR. DEAN-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do we need a motion to table? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Would somebody care to make a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-91 NIGRO REAL ESTATE AND EMPIRE VIDEO SUPERSTORE, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Pending the applicant's submission of new engineering, hydraulic data and computations to satisfy the Rist-Frost letter dated 13 June 1991 and to include on the plan appropriate signage as described in Lee York's letter dated June 11, 1991. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: MR. CARTIER-We'll have to do the SEQRA on that next time, but that won't take long. MR. MARTIN-I just have one other quick comment, there, on the southerly, southeastern corner here, where it says, existing shrubs to remain, I just noticed, in being there, that there's a steel railing along that sidewalk there, just to the north side of that shrubbery, and I was wondering, we discussed the last time about the dangers of people walking out into traffic having to walk around the back of their cars to get into the entrance. I was wondering if that railing could be removed, just as a small comment. MR. DEAN-I appreciate your comment. MR. MARTIN-They put it up there so people wouldn't walk on their shrubs, I realize that. MR. DEAN-Yes, well, there is a safety factor involved, as well, in that, apparently a few people had sprained their ankles stepping off into the shrubbery area. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, then maybe it's better to have it there. Okay. MR. DEAN-We may be able to put a simple approach area at the far end of the porch, take out a portion of the railing so that they would access from the parking lot. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. See you next week. NEW BUSINESS: EXPEDITED MmR: BARTKOWSKI OWNER: SIZE: 2.57 ACRES PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA .JJDITH AND FRANK SAME AS ABOVE BIG BAY ROAD FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MP NO. 143-1-1.7 LOT JUDY BARTKOWSKI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 5-1991 Expedited Matter, Judith and Frank Bartkowski, June 11, 1991, Meeting Date: June 18, 1991 "This 3 lot subdivision on Big Bay Road is an expedited matter. The subdivision was built in 1987. All permits were in order. The applicant's agent neglected to file the mylar and the deeds. The applicant was unaware of this until a few months ago. There are three existing structures and septic systems on the property. There will be no changes. The Zoning Board of Appeals has granted a variance to allow a subdivision, since two of the lots would now be considered undersized. I recommend that the Board waive the requirements for contours, grading and drainage plans, drainage report, and clearing plan. There are no planning issues since there will be no change in land use. I would recommend the Board approve this subdivision." MR. CARTIER-This is an expedited matter. Does anybody have any questions about Lee's notes? 8 -- -- MRS. PULVER-No. I read them. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open a public hearing. Is there anyone here who would care to address the Board with regard to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. BARTKOWSKI-I'm Judy Bartkowski, together with my husband, we're the owners. MR. CARTIER-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any questions or cOlllllents? If not, we can entertain a SEQRA, Short Form, I believe. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGIUFlCANCE IS MADE RESOWTION NO. 5-1991, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an appl ication for: a subdivision for JUDITH AND FRANK BARTKOWSKI, prel i.inary stage, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay, and we can entertain a motion. JlJTlON TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1991 JUDITH AND FRANK BARTKOWSKI, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a 3 lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano 9 '- '--' PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P3-91 FLOYD SHOVAH 637 GLEN STREET, CORNER OF WINDSOR DRIVE CURRENT ZONING: SFR-lA PROPOSED ZONING: PC-lA TAX MP NO. 106-9, 10 EXISTING USE: RESIDENCE AND UNATTACHED GARAGE. APPLICANT STATES: UNABLE TO LIVE IN PEACE AND COIFORT BECAUSE OF EfIORJOJS TRAFFIC, UNABLE TO SELL A RESIDENCE BECAUSE OF LOCATION, PROPERTY HAS BEEN LISTED WITH THREE SEPARATE REAL ESTATE AGENTS. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, P3-91, Floyd Shovah, June 3, 1991, Meeting Date: June 18, 1991 "The petition is to change the zoning on a property on the corner of Windsor Drive and Glen Street (Route 9) from SFR-IA to PC-IA. The lot in question contains a residence and is ±~ acre. The application states that to the south is a residential and Plaza COlll11ercial zone. This is incorrect. The Town of Queensbury line is on Fort Amherst Road and the zoning is SFR right up until the line with the city. There is a Plaza Commercial zone which starts on the west side of Glenwood Avenue with the Sunoco Station. This lot is not contiguous to any Plaza Commercial zone, although Plaza Commercial zoning is in effect across Route 9. The appl icant was previously advised that to single out one lot for a re-zoning is not appropriate, and that a variance request might be a better alternative. The request was reviewed with regard to the Planning Board's re-zoning review sheet. 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? There does not appear to be any community need that would be met by this re-zoning. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The applicant states that the resident cannot live peacefully at that location. A re-zoning should address a Town need not a personal one." MR. CARTIER-And that's why a variance request is much more appropriate, here, I think, because variance requests are designed to address personal needs. Okay. MR. HAGAN-I personally think the appl icant could get, this is just my opinion, the approval on the variance a lot quicker than he would on this. MR. CARTIER-Yes. "3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The proposed zone would not be compatible with an SFR zone which is the most restrictive residential zone there is. It would cause an erosion of the residential neighborhood with commercial uses. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The site is less than the required acreage for the zone. A review of the Type II uses for the PC-IA zone reveals that a majority, if not all, would require modification of the site to be accommodated. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? Traffic in this area is al ready a problem. Placing any additional commercial facil ities which generated a lot of in and out traffic would need to be studied. 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? The current zoning of SFR protects an old establ ished residential neighborhood in the Town. The current classification for this neighborhood is appropriate. The property in question is used for residential purposes. Zoning is a tool for designating appropriate uses for large areas. Relief from zoning requirements can be sought through the variance procedure, where site specific circumstances are more readily addressed. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? The environmental impacts of the change would be specific to the type of use which was placed on the lot. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The Comprehensive Land Use Plan does not address a change of zone in this area. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? The wider interests of the community would not be served by this re-zoning." MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have a letter from Warren County indicating No County Impacts. Does the Board have any questions? MRS. PULVER-I agree. I think this is more of a spot zoning issue and a variance would probably be better for the applicant. MR. MARTIN-I agree. I'd just like to see, if this does get carried on through to the point of a variance being issued, that these Staff COlll11ents should be made available to the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to their review on any material that they would review because I think there's some noteworthy comments made here that would be relevant, even in the context of a variance review. MR. CARTIER-And also the Town Board. I'd like to see them attached to any recommendation we make to the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-Right, because this is a nice two page capsule of cOlll11ents. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else have any questions or comments? MR. HAGAN-I'm just curious, because my sympathy does 1 ie with the appl icant, seeing the situation. I was wondering, is the applicant here? MR. CARTIER-I do not know. Is the applicant here? Normally, we don't do public hearings for a recolll11endation for a petition for a change of zone. The applicant is not required to be here. 10 '- ---- MR. HAGAN-I was wondering how long the applicant had lived at this site. MR. CARTIER-Somewhere, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it said something about he's been trying to sell it for two or three years. "Unable to sell the residence because of location, property has been listed with three separate real estate agents", as a residence apparently. MRS. PULVER-What's the price? MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's a question, too. MR. HAGAN-My point is, if the appl icant bought this property under the existing conditions. then my sympathy might be somewhat withdrawn. That's the only point I'm trying to make here. MR. CARTlER-I doubt very much if this re-zoning would be very popular with the other residences in the neighborhood anyway because it would be a door that would be opened. MR. HAGAN-It's a very tough situation. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Well, what's your pleasure ladies and gentlemen? Are we ready to make a recommendation to the Town Board here, or do you want to kick this around some more? ÞÐTlON TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD DISAPPROVAL OF PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P3-91 FLOYD SHOVAH, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Based on the comments as given by Staff. With that recommendation, that his interest might best be served by going through a variance procedure. Lastly, that the comments of Lee York, dated June 3rd, 1991, be attached to any materials that the Zoning Board or the Town Board need in their review of this Petition for a Zone Change or variance. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-One quick thing before we get into the next item. Lee, England is off this agenda. That was not publicly noticed, right? So we don't have anybody sitting here waiting to speak, I hope? MRS. YORK-No. It was noticed for your next meeting. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. For the rest of the Board, that has been moved to the 25th because they have to go to the Zoning Board first. MRS. YORK-Right. SITE PLAN NO. 33-91 TYPE: UNLISTED PC-lA JAMES BETIT OWNER: ALEX POTENZA MILLER HILL PLAZA BEHIND EXISTING SHOPPING PLAZA, ROOTE 9, NORTH OF AVIATION ROAD ACROSS FROM RAY SUPPLY. TO USE AN EXISTING FACILITY FOR A DETAIL BODY SHOP AND SMLL REPAIR SHOP. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 72-7-2 LOT SIZE: 4.5 ACRES SECTION 4.020-J MR. CARTIER-Is there somebody here representing this applicant? Is there anyone here to address this particular application? Well, what's the Board's pleasure, here? Do you want to kick it to the end? MR. MARTIN-We can try it. MRS. PULVER-Well, there aren't too many things that they would have to address. MR. CARTIER-All right, let's leave it until the end. SITE PLAN NO. 34-91 TYPE II WR-lA RICHARD JlJZAL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOOTH SIDE OF GLEN LAKE, MANNIS ROAD TO FITZGERALD ROAD, ALL THE WAY TO THE END TO PLACE AN ADDITIONAL DOCK ON THE PROPERTY (10 FT. BY 26 FT.) (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 42-1-8 LOT SIZE: !t ACRE SECTION 4.020-0 DANIEL BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 34-91, Richard Mozal, June 12, 1991, Meeting Date: June 18, 1991 "The request is to place a second dock (10 ft. x 26 ft.) on a property at Glen 11 -- --- Lake. The property has 140 feet of shoreline. The Ordinance (Section 7.012 A 2C - Docks and Moorings - pg. 74) states that "No dock shall exceed 8 feet in width." The plans show a proposed dock of 10 feet in width. This office has contacted the Zoning Administrator and my understanding is she has talked to the applicant who does agree, at this point in time, to reduce the width of the dock to eight feet. The Zoning Ordinance allows up to 2 docks per 100 to 250 feet of shorel ine. The appl icant has 140± feet of shoreline. The location of the proposed dock does not appear to infringe on the neighbors. Any construction should be done with sensitivity since Glen Lake is a Critical Environmental Area. The Board should request detailed information on what the agent for the appl icant intends to do. Will the shoreline be disturbed? It appears that there is a rock retaining wall before the waters surface. If there is to be any change to the shoreline then erosion control standards must be maintained. As an aside, the applicant has a lovely landscaped yard on many levels which is extremely close to the lake. The Board may want to alert the applicant to the problems created by the application of fertil izers and pesticides in close proximity to a water body. A study of Glen Lake is currently underway and one of the comments which many residents have made is that the aquatic weed growth has increased dramatically in the last few years." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you, and we have copies of letters between the Zoning Administrator and the Senior Planner with reference to the eight foot width on the dock or the ten foot width being altered to eight feet. MRS. YORK-We also have, I believe, a letter. MR. CARTIER-Okay. While you're looking for that, Warren County Planning Board has indicated No County Impact. Would the agent for the applicant come forward, please, and we can get something on record, while Lee's looking for that letter. MR. BARBER-Daniel Barber. MR. CARTIER-There's no problem with going the eight feet rather than the ten feet? Is that correct? MR. BARBER-That's correct, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BARBER-We were unaware of that when we submitted that. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It's a maximum of eight feet wide and 700 square feet. Okay. Thank you. Was this subject to a variance? MR. LAPOINT-It would have been if it were ten feet. MR. CARTIER-If it had been ten feet. Okay. This is addressed to the Queensbury Town Zoning Board. MRS. YORK-I think the individual didn't really understand the process. MR. CARTIER-Okay. No problem. I'll read it anyway. Received June 19, 1991 "Dear Board members, I do object to the granting of this variance. This dock will be an additional encroachment on my view and on the quality of my waterfront, particularly in regard to sailboat access. A dock of this size may force me to have to enl arge and 1 engthen my dock." How far away is thi s from the property 1 i ne? MRS. YORK-I don't know if the gentleman who wrote the letter is here tonight. MR. BARBER-What's the west or east side? MR. CARTIER-Marshall, Valenti, Marshall? MR. BARBER-Yes, but that's on the east side and the dock is going on the west. MRS. YORK-Right. Once the individual did see the plans, and I went over them with him, he didn't feel that there would be the impact that he had originally thought. His understanding was that the existing structure, the dock that is currently in existence, was being expanded, and he didn't realize that it was a second dock going in further down the lake. MR. BARBER-Which is away from his property. MRS. YORK-Right, but he did submit the letter, at any rate. MR. CARTIER-Okay. "Also to be taken into consideration is an ongoing property line dispute which was precipitated by Mr. Mozal when he built a non-compliant structure (i.e. a deck) and sought a permit and variance after the fact. The variance was okayed by me and I was 1 ead to bel ieve that we would then be able to work out an amicable solution to the line dispute. No progress has been made in this area, in fact, Mr. Mozal has harassed and pressured me in many ways since that time. For instance, 12 ........---' he parks his trailer in front of my shed, preventing access. He has parked his recreational vehicle over my well, possibly causing pollution of same. This intimidation has gone so far as to blocking the use of the door and steps on the west side of my property by placing a boat upside down in front of my side steps. A second variance granted by me only got me more abuse. I asked the Board to investigate whether the variance he sought and received to enlarge his home on the west side also stated that he could landscape. Did this plan include permission to place large boulders right up to and in contact with the foundation of my structure? Large boulders were also placed directly against my side steps. The use of these boulders makes any ladder work on the side of my camp very difficult, to say nothing of trying to repair the steps or replace a footing. Would the Board also consider this point. Mr. Mozal's past actions indicate no movement toward compromise or a reasonable solution to this matter, possibly forcing court action. Do you see an indication of reciprocity here? I have granted him two vari ances without objection, one for the non-compl iant deck, another which I bel ieve he abused and yet the property line issue is not resolved. The abuse continues and I seriously question whether Mr. Moza1 would reciprocate if I were to ask for a variance. To reiterate, past experience has taught me that the granting of this variance will only lead to further abuse and stretching the Town zoning rules to Mr. Mozal's advantage. All our purposes would be better served if he were to settle this matter with me in a reasonable, amicable, and intelligent manner. Thank you for your consideration. Donald Marshall" Okay. The point has already been made that this is not subject to a variance. We're looking at a site plan. Secondly, my impression is the location of this dock does not in any way connect with any of these other problems. It sounds to me like these problems that Mr. Marshall is spelling out are enforcement problems and he needs to get into the proper enforcement office to deal with those rather than here. MR. HAGAN-There's no comment he made that applies to the application before us. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. HAGAN-However, I have an additional comment that is unrelated to your application. You're to be commended for your landscaping, but I was wondering, when I looked at it, just how much fertilizer you use, because your particular landscaped property, if it's fertilized, has a real impact on that lake because you're right over it and every time it rains, that blows in the water and I hope you know what it does to the water. MR. BARBER-Right, but really you don't do much. MR. HAGAN-As an environmentalist, this has nothing to do with your application. MR. BARBER-No insectides or anything like that. MR. HAGAN-No fertilizer, because that has a very detrimental effect, particularly where you're stationed, right over that water. CHRIS MOZAL MRS. MOZAL-MY name is Chris Mozal. I own the property. Are you familiar with Watkins Garden Center? MYron Watkins has been there for a number of years.- MR. HAGAN-I know him personally. MRS. MOZAL-We've been in constant touch with him as well as Doyle's, with the Regan's, and we are within the limitations of what fertilizers are applied there. MR. HAGAN-Okay. I just asked were you aware of the impact, that's all. MRS. MOZAL-We're very conscientious people on the lake, as you can see by our property, and we do attend to that problem. MR. HAGAN-I live on the lake, too, and I use no fertilizer and the grass still grows. MR. BARBER-To make it really simply, all these problems are really, because the building of Marshall's is built partially on the Mozal property and that's where it extends from. MR. CARTIER-Say that again, the what? MR. BARBER-The Marshall house/camp is built partially on the Mozal property, years ago, so that's why all these problems have developed on that side, which is irrelevant to the dock. MR. CARTIER-That's a neighborhood dispute and we're not going to get involved in it. Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd care to comment on this application? 13 ~ -./ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COIlENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any additional questions or comments they care to make? MR. MARTIN-I don't think we need a SEQRA on this, do we? MRS. PULVER-No. It's a dock. MR. CARTIER-It's a Type II. MS. CORPUS-It's a Type II. MRS. YORK-I was just going to ask the applicant, are you going to be mOdifying the lakeshore at all? MR. BARBER-Yes, we'd have to, because there's going to be steel eye beams for this situation, but there will be concrete placed and then rocks brought back in a normal context to make the shoreline, okay, add the same up to the concrete, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How are you going to control siltation, then, into the lake, and sedimentation? How are you going to prevent that? MR. BARBER-When we do the construction, you mean? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. BARBER-We'll have to put a netting out into the lake. MRS. YORK-Would the Board like to see more detailed plans of this? MR. CARTIER-I think, yes, we have in the past. MR. BARBER-Well, we're just going to remove a small section of rocks by hand, okay, and put forms, right, basically, behind the water edge, not into the lake itself. As you take the rocks out, obviously, there's going to be water moving back inward and then there will be concrete placed, but nothing into the lake proper. It would start behind and go into the soil. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is netting going to do it? We need to look very. MR. BARBER-We're going to have nothing more than, like, removing rocks by hand. that kind of situation, where the soil is disturbed in a light context. There would be no machinery, etc. MR. CARTIER-Half a yard? A yard of material? Two yards? A thousand yards? What? MR. BARBER-Well, it's all solid rock. There's no soil there whatsoever. It's solid, huge rocks. So, we'll just move the rocks and just whatever soil that's basically around, say, that's on the bottom of the lake, would be disturbed, okay. I mean, not even a quarter of a yard, even close to that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BARBER-There is no soil there at all. MRS. YORK-Is this below the water level that this will occur? Are you going to remove the rocks below the water level? MR. BARBER-Well, you would have to to make it secure, but it would be inland of that. It would not be into the lake, the concrete. MR. YARMOWICH-If it's below the lake level, beyond the mean highwater mark, it doesn't fall under DEC jurisdiction. However, if an opening is created between the lake and there is the potential there, the necessary controls that would be appropriate for the situation. The DEC requirements have to do with the mean highwater mark and work below it, lakeward, but if all the work occurs landward as opposed to lakeward from that mean highwater mark, then DEC doesn't get involved in terms of placement of any fill material in the lake. Dock is not considered fill material. MR. BARBER-That's what it would be. MRS. YORK-Yes, but we should see a plan of that. MR. LAPOINT-If you're just going to be careful taking the rocks out. 14 ~ ---' MR. BARBER-It's going to be done by hand, definitely. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. BARBER-That's all it going to be, yes. There's no machinery, no anything in that context. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I don't even know if you place something in the lake itself, a siltation fence, whether that would do anything at all. You're pulling back stone from the face of the lake to pour concrete up to the existing face of the lake. The form will be there. MR. BARBER-That's correct. MR. LAPOINT-The pour will be behind the form. MR. MARTIN-We're not talking about an immensely wide area here, either. MR. BARBER-No. We're talking eight feet and then the rocks will come back on each side, and underneath of course. MR. MARTIN-We're talking about an eight foot space. MR. BARBER-There will be no siltation, on that context, and I don't know if you saw the land there. There is no soil in there at all. It's solid rock. MR. LAPOINT-You could probably disturb more silt putting in the fence in the lake than you would. MR. BARBER-Well, just walking in, on the bottom, you do that. There is nothing. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I don't see a need for any control of that type, from my look at the shore bed right there. MR. BARBER-It's a normal situation you would have to do with any dock that you placed. There's no other way that you could place a dock. Now, if you used machinery, it would be different. MR. LAPOINT-I guess I don't need to see any control measures on a drawing or anything like that. MRS. PULVER-I don't think I do either. I was out there. It is all rock. MR. CARTIER-Has anybody else got a question or a comment? MR. HAGAN-You are going to pour concrete, you said? MR. BARBER-Yes, so it would have a top, but that would be behind the water's edge, the concrete would be. MR. CARTIER-How much concrete are you going to pour? MR. BARBER-Well, it's going to be eight feet wide and it would have to be substantial so that the dock would hold itself, of course, but it would be behind the water mark and a pad, like four feet behind, on the shore. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Dimensions of this concrete that you're going to pour, how big? MR. BARBER-It's just going to be a step for the eye beams, the ten inch eye beams to sit in, that's actually what it is. MR. CARTIER-How are you going to get the concrete down there? MR. BARBER-How am I going to get the concrete down there? We use a pumper, a concrete pumper, right over the roof. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How are you going to prevent spills? MR. BARBER-You don't have spills with a concrete pumper. MRS. MOZAL-We've used it twice, now, the pumper. MR. BARBER-You don't have that context. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 15 "'--" MR. BARBER-We're only pouring, like, a yard and a half of concrete. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BARBER-It's very well controlled, the pumpers are. You don't have that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has anybody else got a question or comment? Are we prepared for a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-91 RICHARD JlJZAL, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To place an additional dock on the property, 8 ft. by 26 ft., with the stipulation that his drawing for the dock be reviewed and approved by the Building Inspector's Office, and those plans to show the concrete form. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: MR. HAGAN-Before we vote, should we not put some proviso in there that gives Dave Hatin something to check on, as far as the forms before pouring? There's a certain procedure that the Building Department has and I think we should state in our motion that this appl icant meets the minimum requirements established by the Building Department, because formed cement, all kinds of things could go wrong. MRS. PULVER-Well, what do you want him to check on? MR. HAGAN-If you're going to pour a very simple footing, you still have to have the inspection of the Building Department before you pour the cement. MR. BARBER-There's not a dwelling or anything above this, where people are. MR. HAGAN-I want to make sure that the Building Department inspects the forms before the cement is poured, because you have no drawings showing what those forms are going to amount to and improper forms, you know, if they're not built right, even a yard and a half of cement, they can collapse and fold into the lake. So I think the applicant should be required to meet the minimum requirements set by the Building Department. MR. BARBER-It's like us building a step for a house, is what it is. MR. HAGAN-I don't care. The Building Department says, before you pour concrete, for footings, for flooring, for anything, they have to inspect the forms before you pour, and approve them. MR. BARBER-In a dwelling, yes. MR. CARTIER-I think that's handled in the Building Permit process. MR. HAGAN-Okay. I just wanted to make sure, because it isn't shown on the drawing and if this got to the Building Department, they wouldn't look for any forms, as I'm not looking at forms. MRS. PULVER-Well, if they're supposed to inspect the forms, though, they inspect the forms whether it's on that sheet or not. MR. HAGAN-Yes, but Carol, the point is this application has no reference to any forms. They don't show any forms, and that could get by the Building Inspector. MR. CARTIER-But when he goes in for a Building Permit and he gets his permit and the thing that he hangs up there, there's a list of things that has to be checked off. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And one of them is foundation forms. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-So I think it may be covered there. MR. HAGAN-Except if his drawing doesn't show it. The Building Department may not be aware that he is going to pour concrete because this does not show he's going to pour concrete. MRS. PULVER-How else is he going to do it? MR. HAGAN-I'll show you a lot of docks that have no concrete form. 16 ---- --....../ MR. MARTIN-My only question about that is, and I understand what you're trying to say. My only question about that is that when a Building Inspector goes to the site of a pour of a footing for a dwelling, he has a standard that he can refer to, and the reasoning behind him inspecting a footing for a dwelling or a garage is because that's a weight bearing structure. It's going to have thousands of pounds of weight on it. It's going to be occupied by human beings and so on, and that's why you have inspections for footings, and they have a standard to review those by, you know, dimensional requirements and so on, given the size of the house and whatever. I don't know what standard he would use in review the footing for a dock. MR. LAPOINT-You've never lost a form into the lake, have you? MR. BARBER-Well, we did all those walls, a few years ago, but there was almost 2,000 yards of concrete in those walls. MR. MARTIN-The only thing I'm saying is I don't want to put the inspector in a hard position where he goes up there and he looks at it and what is the standard of comparison? What's he supposed to review against? MR. BARBER-Well, we do this allover Lake George, Glen Lake, etc., and they do not ask for this kind of thing. We just submit it, discuss it, and they just never even come and check these things. A dock is a dock. MR. HAGAN-When you're pouring a wall on Lake George, nobody comes and inspects it? MR. BARBER-That's correct. MR. HAGAN-Well, I built a wall on Lake George. MR. BARBER-You submit the plans and it's approved. MR. HAGAN-Yes, and I was inspected every step of the way. MR. BARBER-Normally, they don't, though. MR. HAGAN-And that was 12 years ago, and right now you're hard pressed to get permission to put in a cement wall on the shore of Lake George. You have to have a good reason. MR. LAPOINT-This is not going to be over two feet tall, the form? MR. BARBER-No, of course not. MR. LAPOINT-It would be something less than that. MR. HAGAN-The only objection I have to it, the applicant doesn't show any forms. He doesn't show any concrete. He just shows a dock. There are many docks built on a shoreline without a concrete abutment, and I think it should be shown on any application that he submits to the Building Department, that's all. MR. CARTIER-Well. I think we can stipulate that in the motion. MR. HAGAN-That's right. It's a very simple request. MR. CARTIER-Stipulate it to the effect that when he fills out a request for a Building Permit. MR. MARTIN-Lee, is this going to require a Building Permit? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-We can just indicate the fact that concrete is going to be poured and that you show the forms. MR. MARTIN-Well, having been someone who Just went through the Building Permit procedure in Queensbury, he's going to have to show his plans, outside of the context of our approval or not. He won't get his permit until all the necessary drawings are in place. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think it's a fail safe system. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. HAGAN-All 1 wanted were that his plans indicate that he is going to pour concrete, period. 17 --- AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano SITE PLAN NO. 35-91 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-2O FRANK SEARS OWNER: CHRISTINE SEARS SOOTH END OF STEVENS ROAD, 1 MILE PAST (WEST) ON CORINTH ROAD FROM NORTHWAY. LEFT ONTO STEVENS ROAD TO THE VERY END. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DUPLEX. TAX MAP NO. 147-1-44.41 LOT SIZE: 2.28 ACRES SECTION 4.020 G LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 35-91, Frank Sears, June 13, 1991, Meeting Date: June 18, 1991 "The application is for construction of a duplex on 2.28 acres in an SR-20 zone. The duplex will be on the last developable lot off of Stevens Road. There already exists a three bay garage and crushed stone driveway on the property. The applicant indicated that he stored equipment from a former business at that location. The appl icant does not intend to subdivide out the garage from the duplex. This appl ication was reviewed with regard to Section 5.070. 1. The location arrangement and size of the proposed duplex is compatible with the site. Lighting and signs are not anticipated. 2. Vehicular traffic access is provided for over a right of way which currently serves two other residences. The right of way is quite lengthy but is up to road width and well maintained. 3. Off street parking is provi ded for by 6 crushed stone parking pl aces in front of the facil i ty. 4. Pedestrian access is not a problem. 5. The engineer will discuss the adequacy of the stonnwater drainage facil ities. 6. The duplex will be on Town of Queensbury water. The engineer will address the adequacy of the septic system. 7. The existing vegetation will be left substantially as it is. There appears to be sufficient buffering. 8. Emergency access is sufficient. 9. Ponding and flooding do not appear to be a problem." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, June 13, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the foll owi ng engineering comments: 1. Regardi ng the proposed subsurface wastewater di sposal systems. a. Although not stated in the test pit data, it was assumed that groundwater or mottl ing was not encountered in the 72" deep test hol e. The appl i cant shoul d address thi s. b. The date of the percolation test and test pit excavation should be indicated on the plans. c. Subject to responses to comments a. and b., the septic system designs indicated in the application are each adequate for one, two bedroom units for a two system installation for the proposed duplex. d. According to current NYSDOH Wastewater Treatment Standards - Individual Household Systems, a garbage grinder is equivalent to one (1) bedroom for septic tank sizing, other requirements for tank configuration apply. e. The tank sizing for a four (4) bedroom and larger units should be corrected to conform to NYSDOH Standards." MR. CARTIER-Okay. I know you slowed down when you read through C, but you didn't slow down enough for me. Could you take us back through C so I understand it? MR. YARMOWICH-He's proposing to install two septic systems, each one adequate for a two bedroom unit. On the basis of that understanding, they are adequate. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. YARMOWICH-Should anything in this discussion refer to the larger units, then other types of systems would be required. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Steves, please. MR. STEVES-The tests were made, in mid May, both the percolation tests and the soil tests were made in mid May. The only plans I have is as so indicated, for a two bedroom unit. We've split it in half. Rather than having one large system, we split it in half for convenience and also because when you have problems, you always blame it on your neighbor. MR. YARMOWICH-It's a good idea, too. MR. STEVES-Yes. One comment came in today from Frank Sears. I guess he has been talking with Tom Flaherty with the Water Department is recommending, instead of the inch and a quarter that we have, a water line servicing, they prefer a two inch line, coming in off the end of Stevens Road for about 50 feet, then crossing the road and coming in and serving the building with a two inch line. So, the appl icant has agreed to that request, and we woul d make that change on the map. We can al so put the note on there, Tom, that if garbage grinders are installed, extra laterals would have to be installed, and we can also address the size system. The septic tank itself should be adequate, though, regardless if we use garbage grinders or not. 18 ~ MR. YARMOWICH-I agree. There's just merely a conf1 ict between current regu1 ations. You can either eliminate the reference to four, five, and six bedroom units. MR. STEVES-It's just a boiler plate. MR. YARMOWICH-Exact1y, and for the purposes of accuracy and minimizing repetition of errors. MR. STEVES-Not a problem. MR. YARMOWICH-Now, did you witness the test pit, or do you know anything about information about groundwater or mottling occurrence at the time? MR. STEVES-As I said, the tests were made in mid May, during the time of year when it is acceptable for visual analysis, and so that's why we did it, and there was no water encountered whatsoever. MR. YARMOWICH-There was no water encountered? MR. STEVES-None at all. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Have all you questions been addressed, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Are you going to need to see something on paper, however, at some point? MR. YARMOWICH-I don't believe so. I think everything here is quite clear. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-It's more of an erasure, I think, that he's requesting. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Is that right, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-To not provide information, that's unusual, isn't it. Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who would wish to address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MIKE LOPEZ MR. LOPEZ-I'm Mike Lopez. The last time I knew, this was zoned for single dwelling homes. MR. CARTIER-It is Suburban Residential 20, and duplexes are allowed in Suburban Residential. MRS. YORK-Would you like to see a plan. MR. LOPEZ-I'll take a plan. MS. CORPUS-He can have mine. MR. LOPEZ-Because when we built our house in 1983, we went and applied for a hardship to put a mobile home in a back lot to where we could build our home in front and they said it was for single dwelling homes, and I can bring you the petitions where Frank signed and everybody else on this street signed against us for this action. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but for a mobile home. MR. LOPEZ-Well, for a mobile home, the Building Department and everything said, and the Town Board said back there, where they've got records and they've got minutes of the meeting. It was single dwelling homes. MR. CARTIER-I don't know that this was changed in '88. I think it was still Suburban Residential. MR. LOPEZ-But if was going to be re-zoned for it, we all would have had saying it was re-zoned for that. I mean, I work for the Town of Queensbury, too. I mean, I don't want to get that much involved with it. 19 ---- ---- MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, understand, a mobile home, there's a whole separate. MR. LOPEZ-it was going to be for a temporary mobile home until I completed my house and I was told because it was a single dwelling home, I could not occupy more than one home on my piece of property, because if he can build this duplex. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I understand. Now I get it. Now I've got the answer. To build a duplex in this zone, you must have twice the lot size. In other words, you cannot, here's a simple example. Suppose we have a one acre zone, single family residential, you can build a duplex in a single family, Suburban Residential One Acre Zone, but to build a duplex, you must have two acres. In other words, you have to have an acre per dwelling unit. MR. LOPEZ-Okay. So then what you're telling me, I live up the road, four or five houses up from him, and I have two acres of property, and I can build another house on my property with no problem? MR. CARTIER-Well, I don't know about no problems, but if you have two acres. MR. LOPEZ-Well, this is what I'm saying. We're living on a dead end street and if he can do it. MR. HAGAN-Twenty thousand square feet's a single. MR. CARTIER-I know, it's not one acre. I'm trying to use an example, here, to clarify it. MRS. PULVER-It's half acre. MR. LOPEZ-What I'm saying is that, then everyone on this street has the equity of property to build more than one. MR. CARTIER-More than one, if they have. MRS. PULVER-If your property is zoned that way. MR. LOPEZ-Well, he's at the end of the street on a dead end street of us. MRS. PULVER-Well, sometimes the whole streets aren't zoned the whole way. MR. CARTIER-I would guess you're SR-20. MR. LOPEZ-You're at the end of the street, where he can go bigger and wider. MRS. PULVER-If you're the same zone, you can build three more houses. MR. STEVES-There is a zone line up on Corinth Road. MR. LOPEZ-That's what I'm saying. MRS. PULVER-You can. It's allowed. MR. MARTIN-I think the simple answer is in an SFR-20 zone, I don't know if you can have a mobile home, can you? MR. CARTIER-This is SR. MRS. YORK-Not unless you get approval through the Town Board. MR. LOPEZ-See, I went through the Town Board for approval and everybody on the street said that we didn't want it because you're going to depreciate our property, you're going to have this and that and everything else. MR. MARTIN-Right. The mobile home is the problem. MR. LOPEZ-I was going to build another house, in the span of 1 iving in this house, which would have been two dwellings. No matter how you look at it, it would have been two dwellings. MR. MARTIN-Right, and I think what people were taking exception to was maybe not so much that you had two homes there, if they would have been on a foundation and regular style homes, is they were taking exception to the mobile home. MR. LOPEZ-I was going to put it on a foundation and everything, and it was still rejected, which I have no problem, if he can build a two family house. MR. CARTIER-He can. 20 -- ---./ MR. LOPEZ-I've got two kids coming up. I have enough property myself, but it's just going to add more traffic to the road, and my child was blind, and it's going to be more congested. MRS. PULVER-Are you on the same road? MR. LOPEZ-Yes. MRS. PULVER-You're on the same road. MR. LOPEZ-Yes. MRS. PULVER-How close to this property? MR. LOPEZ-He is three houses down until you get to his right-of-way off the street. MRS. PULVER-Okay. We do have a letter here, Peter. Do you want me to read it? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-This was 6/13/91, "Several years ago, perhaps three, the Queensbury Planning Board declined a request to build a multiple unit on Ogden Road. At that hearing, neighbors expressed concerns that a multiple unit would begin to change the character of the neighborhood, which is all single family units and the Board agreed with them. A single family unit has since been built on the Ogden Road site. This area is a stable and improving neighborhood of probably owned single family dwell ing units 1 i ke the Ogden proposal. The Stevens proposal woul d introduce a bas i c change to an exce 11 ent s i ngl e family neighborhood. We oppose this change. Signed, Steven Decker" MR. CARTIER-We have one other letter. "Dear Mrs. Lee York, as Chief of the West Glens Falls Volunteer Fire Company No.1, I would like to have Mr. and Mrs. Sears maintain the road." I assume he's referring to the private right-of-way? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-"So that my equipment can get in and out. I would like the road to be wide and a turn around at the end so that the fire trucks and ambulances can get in and out with no problems." I believe, from seeing the site, that that has already been taken care of. Does anybody else care to comment? MR. LOPEZ-My question is, is it still zoned, single family residence? MR. CARTIER-No. MR. LOPEZ-When did it change? MR. CARTIER-I don't know that it changed. MR. LOPEZ-Because if it was after 1988, we applied before that, and everything else and we were turned down and like I say, I still have the minutes and everything, of the meeting. MR. CARTIER-All right. Let me see if I can give you a quick answer. If I can't give you a quick answer to satisfy you, the thing is to check in with the Planning Department and they can show you the zone on paper. MR. LOPEZ-Because I talked to the Building Department the other day and as far as they know, it's still single family dwellings. MR. CARTIER-I'm not arguing with you. I'm trying to read you the definition of the zone. Do you want to hear it? MR. LOPEZ-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. "Suburban Residential Zones, maximum density, there are three different densities associated with SR zones. One acre, one dwelling unit every 20,000 square feet, and one dwelling unit every 15,000 square feet. Purpose - the purpose of Suburban Residential zones is to enhance and protect the character of Queensbury's suburban neighborhoods and to provide for future residential development opportunities." In order to build a duplex in here, he must have a minimum of a 40,000 square feet which is slightly under an acre and this piece of property entails 2.28 acres. Okay. In other words, I'm not suggesting he's going to do this, theoreti~ally, he could build how many dwelling units on here, eight? Yes, he could build eight, and we're only getting two. MR. LOPEZ-Well, that's why I'm saying, I mean, we're going to have more traffic down our road. I mean, most people buy a dead end road for less traffic. 21 '- '- MR. CARTIER-But understand that these are at the very far end of the dead end road. There's not going to be anything else going in down there. MR. LOPEZ-No. What we're saying, we live on Corinth Road and we have to, all those people that live up above there, have to see the traffic going down the road. MR. CARTIER-Do you think that you are going to be seriously impacted by the traffic generated by one duplex? MR. LOPEZ-Well, there's more than one right now, there. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. We're going to just talk about this application, okay. Does anybody else care to address the Board, please? EDWIN NORTON MR. NORTON-My name's Edwin Norton and I live on the same street about halfway down. There's a couple of things I'd like to know. First of all, is that drawing just the lot that he's going to build on or is that on the full lot that he's on now, that he already has one duplex on? I'm talking about where his duplex is located now, and the one he wants to build. MR. STEVES-Where's his duplex that he owns now? MR. NORTON-The one he's living in. MR. STEVES-He and his wife? MR. NORTON-Right. MR. STEVES-Right there. MR. NORTON-Okay. This is where he's living? MR. STEVES-That's his house. MR. NORTON-Okay. This is the street? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. NORTON-And this is where he wants to build? MR. STEVES-That's correct. This is his garage. MR. NORTON-The acreage you're talking about is this? MR. STEVES-This piece right here, this garage. MR. NORTON-That's where the garage is? MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. NORTON-Okay, and one other thing. I think that thing said, a former business, right? Didn't you read, somebody, former business? MR. LAPOINT-Lee York, did, yes. MRS. YORK-Yes, I did. When I went to the site, the applicant was there and I said to him, "do you have a business here?", because he had a three car garage and some heavy equipment there, and he said he had a former business and would still use some of the equipment from that business. Also that Dave Hatin was aware of the situation. So, I did not pursue it any farther, with the understanding that Mr. Hatin was knowledgeable of the situation. He is our Director of Building and Codes. MR. NORTON-Yes, I've been through that with them, too, but the business is still there and it's advertised every week in the paper. So the business is still there. MRS. PULVER-Is this the tree business? MR. NORTON-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Sears tree business? 22 - ~ MR. NORTON-Sears trees, Frank Sears. He has two ads in the paper all the time. Okay. So there is a business there. Okay. First of all, about Mr. Lopez, he has a blind daughter and that's what a lot of us our concerned about, not a lot of other stuff, and she wal ks to school from the bus down the street all the time. MRS. PULVER-Is there a sign on that street saying that, Blind Child? MR. NORTON-There was. I'm not sure if there is now, is there? MR. LOPEZ-Well, it, but it should be enlarged because a lot of people drive down that road. MRS. PULVER-Don't see it, yes. MR. CARTIER-Is that a Town road? MR. NORTON-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So it seems to me that what's appropriate is that you go to the Town Highway Department, Mr. Paul Naylor, and request the sign. MR. LOPEZ-Well, Mr. Naylor has worked with us with the handicapped, but more traffic does go down the street than any place else. MR. NORTON-About the business, this business is causing a lot of traffic because he rents out equipment. MR. MARTIN-I think that is a point that is worth pursuing, that this business that shouldn't be passed off, that he can just say, thi s is a former busi ness and that's the extent of it. I think there's some probl ems all over town about these passive businesses operating in residenti al nei ghborhoods and that should be investigated thoroughly and come down on. I mean, if that is equipment of a former business, than we should do something like stipulate a time frame that that equipment has to be removed. MRS. PULVER-Well, I'm feeling that the neighbors would not object to the duplex, having people. It's the business that they object to, with the traffic that's going up and down there. MR. MARTIN-I don't fault them for that. They don't want big, heavy equipment going by, especially in an area where there's a blind child. MR. NORTON-Okay. Now let me make myself clear. My son has the same tree business down the street, also, and we have to get off. I mean, we have to move and we're going through your Planning Board's now. In fact, I'll be up here with him. MRS. PULVER-What is your name again, sir? MR. NORTON-Norton Tree Service, but we have moved ourselves off. MR. CARTIER-If this has been represented to us as a former business and it is, in fact, not a former business, but in fact is continuing to be a business. MRS. PULVER-No. I think I would object to those heavy trucks running up and down the street, too. MR. CARTIER-How long has that business been there? MR. NORTON-About ten years, but the zone has been the same. I've been there thirty years. The zone has not changed. MR. MARTIN-And it's nothing we can do, but we can simply recommend the Building Inspector come up with a time frame for the removal of the equipment from the site. MRS. YORK-Would the Planning Board 1 ike to pass a resolution from you to Mr. Hatin stating exactly what your thinking is? That it has been brought to your attention through this meeting that this might be an illegal use of the property or something along those lines, if that's what you feel, and that it ought to be investigated? MRS. PULVER-I'm thinking, Jim, that that business is not a permitted use in that zone, and that it does appear that there may be some sort of business, and so the Planning Board may want an investigation of that particular site for the business. MRS. YORK-Mr. Norton, how long has this alleged business been on the site? MR. NORTON-I would imagine about ten years, but it's never been zoned for business, so what difference does it make? I've been there thirty years and it's never been zoned. 23 ~ MRS. PULVER-Well, no one's ever complained before, either. If you continue to be passive about it, then he'll continue to have his business. MR. CARTIER-Understand, in order for the Town to act, they must have something to act on. They must have a formal complaint. Dave Hatin doesn't ride around Town looking for violations. Okay. My point is that what you need to do, in terms of this business I think, and we can do something on the Board, if the Board cares to, is you need to make a formal complaint, if you will, that there is a business. MR. NORTON-We have. MR. CARTIER-You have? Formally? MR. NORTON-We have, to Dave, to Pat downstairs. They've all been down there. MR. CARTIER-Then I would suggest you start talking to the members of the Town Board. Keep pushing until you get some action. We're part of the bureaucracy, too. MR. NORTON-The other thing I wanted to ask you was, what is the business say, like, this would be three apartments that he's renting out. What is a business in this zone? MR. CARTIER-It's still residential. It's still living, and that's the difference. MR. NORTON-Whether you're getting paid or not, right? MRS. PULVER-Yes, right. MR. MARTIN-I will read to you how the Ordinance reads. The uses permitted by right, those are single family dwellings and accessory uses are garage, storage shed, private boat storage, swimming pool, greenhouse, outdoor athletic facility or home occupation. Site plan review, and that's why he's here, is multifamily dwell ing project, professional office, funeral home, farm, planned unit development, school, church, synagogue, hospital, nursing home, day care center, and duplex. Those are the uses that are allowed under site plan review. Anything outside of that list, accessory, permitted by right, or permitted by site plan review, anything outside of that is simply not allowed. MR. NORTON-Okay. I understand. MR. CARTIER-There is another possibility, here, and I don't mean to suggest it's true, it just occurs to me. He may be in there by way of a variance. He may have received a variance to run that business in that zone. I have no idea. MR. NORTON-No. I checked on it. There's no variance. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but that's an enforcement issue, and we can't solve, this Board cannot solve that problem. MR. NORTON-Okay. The biggest problem is, though, the blind child on the street and the added traffic, since it's one way and he's on the very end, all the traffic does have to go by and we do have a lot of small children on the street besides, and that's why a lot of us are complaining about it. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I still have to bring the question up. Do you think that this duplex, this one duplex, is going to have a major impact on traffic? MR. NORTON-Yes, I do. If you knew the situation, I think you would agree. If you lived on the street, you would know. These are people that don't care about speed laws or anything of the such. MRS. PULVER-That's enforcement. MR. MARTIN-The other person I would direct you to is Jack Balfour. He's the Code Enforcement Officer. He's the one who's specifically charged with enforcing the Code in a situation like that. MR. NORTON-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I'd start with him. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LOPEZ-One question, you said funeral home, right? MR. CARTIER-Funeral home. MR. LOPEZ-So, if I wanted to, I could open a funeral home, then? MR. CARTIER-Sure. You come in here with an application. 24 -' MRS. PULVER-You'd have to have site plan review. MR. LOPEZ-I'm just saying, it's ridiculous to ask for that, but I'm just saying. MRS. PULVER-Sure. MR. CARTIER-They're allowed in an SR-20 zone, correct. MR. LOPEZ-Yes, but that's what I'm saying. The last time I knew, it was zoned R-l. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, what you have to do is get into the Zoning Office. MR. LOPEZ-Because I asked, I won't say who, but, the other day, and they said as far as they knew it was still zoned R-l. MR. CARTIER-The only thing I can tell you is to go back and get a copy of the '83 zoning and get a copy of the present zoning which was instituted in '88 and compare the two. MR. LOPEZ-So, I can make my property worth more now, with the zoning changed, then when I first bought my property. When I was told it was zoned. MR. CARTIER-How much land do you have? MR. LOPEZ-Two acres. MR. CARTIER-You've got two acres. You can build lots of duplexes. You can build a funeral home in some duplexes. You can do all kinds of combinations. MR. LOPEZ-That's what I'm saying, if he can do it, I'm not saying it to be rude. MR. CARTIER-I understand. MR. LOPEZ-Then I'm going to make more traffic and everybody else on the street could make more traffic. You know, that's what I'm saying. It's nothing against the guy to build a duplex, or anything. MR. MARTIN-Because, see, what you have, it's not strictly a single family residential zone. It's a suburban zone. MR. LOPEZ-But the intent of everybody, when the bought there and built there, was single dwelling homes. MR. MARTIN-It very well could be. MR. CARTIER-But other uses are allowed. MR. LOPEZ-But the intent changes all the time. That's all I'm saying. MRS. PULVER-Well, in 1988, the Town Board adopted the new Ordinance which we presently have, and what the zoning was before that, I don't know. MR. NORTON-I just checked to try to get an apartment over my garage and they said, no, it was zoned single family. They said no, I cannot put an apartment over my garage. MR. CARTIER-Well, look, what I suggest you do, Lee, I'm going to impose on you a 1 ittle bit, here. If you want some answers to the question, go into the Planning Department, see Lee York. She has all the answers to every question ever asked, and what Lee can do is show you and give you a copy of the zone that you are in and what's allowed. MRS. YORK-I will be happy to talk with you at your convenience. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd care to address the Board? PAUL SOKOL MR. SOKOL-I'm not involved in this at all, but I was just noticing that this traffic problem seemed to be a concern. Now, could this man subdivide this lot and put two four bedroom single family dwellings on it? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. MR. SOKOL-Wouldn't that increase the traffic more than two two bedroom duplexes? MRS. PULVER-Yes. He can have a residential house every 20,000 square feet. 25 '--' MR. BREWER-Yes, he could. It's one acre. If he's got more than two acres, he can divide it into a, he'd have to go through a subdivision. MR. SOKOL-And are there other lots available in this area? The point being is that I'm listening to this traffic issue and I'm thinking, wow, if there's more lots available and these people can subdivide their 2.8 acres and put in single family residential, there's going to be a lot more traffic than this one duplex will stir up. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but what I'm saying is, can we hang the entire traffic burden on this one duplex? MR. SOKOL-I don't think so. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SOKOL-That's the point I'm making. I don't think traffic is really an issue, here. MRS. PULVER-I think it's more the business has become the issue. MR. SOKOL-Yes, which, does that reflect on this particular matter, I don't know. MRS. PULVER-I don't think it reflects on the duplex, but it does reflect on the neighborhood. MR. NORTON-I think without the business traffic, you wouldn't have as much traffic. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. NORTON-But you've got a lot of traffic with the business. MR. MARTIN-I don't think your traffic problem is resulting from your residences on that street. It's resulting from your disallowed commercial uses. MRS. PULVER-And those vehicles are industrial strength vehicles. MR. CARTIER-I think about all this Board can do for you, in those terms, is to request that, as you have, the Enforcement Officer take a look into the situation and get back, okay. Is there anyone else who would care to address this application? MR. NORTON-I still don't think we should be allowed to okay it until his business is out of there. MR. HAGAN-I won't vote for approval until we put some stipulation that the business comes to an end. MR. STEVES-I can appreciate what you're saying, but as your Chairman has pointed out, there may be a possibility of a variance that has been granted or grandfathered by the virtue that he has been there long enough. I do not know the 1 ength of time he's been there or the condition of the, or if there is a business. MR. HAGAN-If you tell me the business is going to continue, I'm not going to vote for approval. MR. STEVES-I have no idea. That's not what I'm applying for. I'm applying for a duplex. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, but the garage is on the lot. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. So, I see his part of this duplex, if the garage is part of this lot, correct? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And he's operating a business there. MR. STEVES-Well, if it isn't a part of the lot, I've got to go for a subdivision. MR. LAPOINT-Right, but I mean, if he's operating a business on this lot, then, to me, it is integrated into this site plan approv~l. MR. HAGAN-You have a business there now. It's part of your application. MR. STEVES-No. It isn't. I never said anything about a business at all. MR. HAGAN-Well, then you're being devious about it. MR. STEVES-No, I'm not. I never said anything about. MR. HAGAN-Well, it's on the site plan. 26 "--' --- MR. STEVES-No, it is not. MR. CARTIER-Time out. We're not going to turn this into an argument, okay. We're going to do this by the numbers. What we can do. if the Board cares to take this approach, is to table this thing until we get some clarification with regard to what the status of this business is. It has been represented to us, at least to the Senior Planner, that it is a former business. We have evidence, and this is what publ ic hearings are for, to suggest that in fact it is not a former business, but an ongoing business and what I'm hearing is, at least some of us on this Board want to know exactly what the status of that business is. Now we can certainly, if the Board deems it appropriate, table this appl ication until we get some information. MR. MARTIN-And with the garage being on that site, I think we could make it a stipulation to have the equipment removed. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It seems a strange mix to have a residential mixed in with heavy equipment, right on the same piece of property. MR. NORTON-Just one thing. I don't know how you get somebody to do something. I mean, this guy promised a year ago that this business would be gone and it's still there. I mean, I follow through on my promises. I've got no complaints, because the business is on there, I've got no complaints on duplex houses. It's just that much less traffic. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess my answer to you is kind of fuzzy, for lack of a better term here. If we determine that that business that's being operated there is, in fact, being illegally operated there, then it is certainly within this Board's authority to say you may not build these duplexes until that business is removed. Is there anybody else who'd care to address this? Well, before I decide what we're going to do with the public hearing, here, what's the Board's druthers? Does the Board care to table this for clarification with regard to the business? Does the Board want to continue to move on this application? MR. MARTIN-I think we have to determine if it's a grandfathered situation or not or what the story is with it. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Based on the comments during the publ ic hearing, I think we should resolve whether that business still exists there. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I'm willing to table if the applicant gives approval and possibly look at maybe adding it to the next agenda, since there are not too many other concerns with it just being a duplex. The concerns right now are more with the, well, the Staff Notes and everything are not. MR. STEVES-It's a reasonable request. MR. CARTIER-I take that to mean a yes. Okay. Well, we can entertain a motion to table this application, then, and I will leave the public hearing open. Does anybody care to make that motion? MRS. YORK-Do you want to tell these individuals, before they leave, the date when this will come back? MR. CARTIER-We will be looking at this next Tuesday evening, again. MR. MARTIN-June 25th. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does somebody care to make a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 35-91 FRANK SEARS, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Requesting additional information on the specific uses of the garage shown on this Site Plan and what the future plans for that garage are going to be. Tabled until the meeting of June 25th, as the last item of Old Business. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: MRS. YORK-And does the Board wish a report of some kind from Mr. Hatin or Mrs. Crayford, that we're looking for, here. MR. CARTIER-I think we're looking for something from the applicant. MR. HAGAN-I think we're looking for some confirmation on the use of that garage. MR. LAPOINT-Confirmation of use on the garage by the applicant and if any variances for that particular property exi st. 27 --.-- -.-' MR. MARTIN-Or if the business has been grandfathered under a previous zoning law. MRS. PULVER-Yes, and then how about a report from Mr. Hatin to investigate the business and give us just a report on the general condition of the business. Maybe where the business is actually operating from, if it's not operating from there. MR. LAPOINT-I think everybody's got the message of what we're looking for. MR. STEVES-I think Carol's suggestion is a good one, because then you have it right from the horse's mouth. So, I'll ask the applicant to be here next Tuesday night to address the issues that you have brought forth, and then Dave Hatin will have his report that night as well. MR. CARTIER-Good. Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano (END OF FIRST DISK) 28 '---" SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA _EN SUBDIVISION GARY D. AND SUZANNE F. BOWEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HILAND DRIVE, BElVEEN HILAND DRIVE AND RIDGE ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MP NO. 54-3-10 LOT SIZE: 25 ACRES JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LEON STEVES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 6-1991, Gary and Suzanne Bowen, June 13, 1991, Meeting Date: June 18, 1991 "The applicant wants to create two lots, one about 10 acres and one 15 acres. The 10 acre lot is accessed off of Hiland Avenue and has a single family residence in existence. The 15 acre lot is accessed off of Ridge Road and has an existing barn. The topography on this lot slopes down to a stream which appears to be a tributary of Halfway Creek. The rest of the property is treed rolling hills and open fields. The plan indicates that one unit is proposed for the 15 acre parcel. The zoning is one acre. Any further subdivision of either parcel would require further Planning Board review. The proposed structure does maintain the setbacks from the stream. Because of the slope, strict erosion control standards should be adhered to during construction. On lot well and septic are anticipated. The size of the lots and amount of development make the impacts to the Town minimal. If there are no other public or Board concerns I would recommend approval of this subdivision." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, June 13, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Regarding subsurface sewage disposal: a. Although it is not stated in the test pit data, it is assumed that neither groundwater or mottling was encountered to 84". The applicant should address this. b. A 100' separation distance required between the subsurface sewage disposal absorption field location and stream must be maintained. c. According to current NYSDOH Wastewater Treatment Standards - Individual Household Systems, a garbage grinder is equivalent to one (1) bedroom for septic tank sizing, other requirements for tank configuration apply. d. The tank sizing for a four (4) bedroom and larger units should be corrected to conform to NYSDOH Standards. 2. Due to the small increase in impermeable area on the site, stonnwater runoff will be minimal. We understand a waiver from stonnwater management has been requested. We recommend that a SWM waiver be granted." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Mr. Lapper, would you care to address the Board on these comments, please. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Leon is here with me to address the engineering questions and he's discussed some of them with Tom during the recess. Would you like us to start with those? MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think the engineering comments are appropriate. MR. STEVES-Yes. Again, Tom, the tests were made in mid May. Visual analysis indicated no groundwater whatsoever. MR. CARTIER-Where were these taken? MR. STEVES-Only one test was taken and that's at the site of Ridge Road. The other site has an existing system on it, an existing house. MR. CARTIER-In mid May, and you went down how deep? Six feet? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And no groundwater? MR. STEVES-No groundwater. MR. YARMOWICH-Seven feet. MR. STEVES-Seven feet. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Groundwater in this area is real deep. I did the landfill. That's, like, over 100 feet once you pass that ravine and up by the Queensbury landfill. MR. YARMOWICH-That's a relatively fast perc as well. So, that would be substantiated by that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Right, and it would depend on where you are. If you're on the other side of the road. MR. CARTIER-There's some strange soil variations very quickly over there. 29 ~ MR. STEVES-It really is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-The pl an before you is a two lot subdivi si on, although the Bowens have no intent, at thi s time, of doing anything whatsoever with the 15 acres they're retaining. It had to be demonstrated that a house could be built upon that and the ability to have it there as well. That's why we have subdivided it. That's why we have put a proposed house and that's why we did the soil investigation. The slopes in the area are relatively flat. I was thinking about eight percent. So there isn't any problem there with erosion. The 100' separation distance, as I addressed with Tom, has been put on the plan. We should do some erasures, instead of going so far with this. We'd just erase it out. We have no problems with that whatsoever. I think we've satisfied everything, Tom. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who would care to address this issue? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DELORES STEIN MRS. STEIN-I 1 ive on SUlll11it Lane. Gary's house is on Hiland Drive, and we go up the hill and we are in the dead end, in the woods. I have no problem with Mr. Bowen proposing to subdivide his property as long as there is no further subdivision of that land of 10 acres with which he is trying to develop or trying to sell. MR. CARTIER-That's not a stipulation that we can put on this, unfortunately. I understand where you're coming from, but this Board cannot stipulate that he cannot that he cannot further subdivide this. MRS. STEIN-The subdivision that he is working with, the 10 acres, is that to be a one unit area, a one unit home, like he had? MR. HAGAN-At this particular time, yes. MRS. STEIN-Now, the question that I have is, how many acres can he subdivide in that 10 acre area? MR. CARTIER-Well, theoretically, it's a one acre zone. MRS. STEIN-When was it zoned one acre? MR. CARTIER-It was bumped from 3/4. I bel ieve, to one acre in '88. The previous zoning was 3/4 of an acre in that area, and it was re-zoned to one acre in October '88 with the new zoning. MRS. STEIN-We are in a division that I have been in for 26 years. Each lot was considered two acre titles. MR. CARTIER-That was by choice of whoever subdivided off that property, but the zoning at that time was 3/4 of an acre. In other words, you could divide that up into 3/4 acre lots. MRS. STEIN-I was led to believe, all these years, that that acreage, in that area, including Mr. Bowen's property, could have no less than two acres for each home. MR. HAGAN-Is that a deeded requirement, ma'am? MRS. STEIN-I don't really know, but I know that we were not allowed to have less than two acres of land. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That sounds like a deed restriction, then, and that's not a zoning restriction. That is a deed restriction. Now, whether or not that deed restriction applies to these two parcels I do not know. If, in fact, a deed restricti~n exists and if, in fact, it applies to these two parcels, then he could not divide up into anything less than two acres, but that's an awful lot of if's and I don't know that, and unfortunately, it's not relevant to this application. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, we just happen to have, in everybody's packet, a copy of the deed to the property. MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much. MS. CORPUS-And it has no restriction in it. The only restriction is that no building or other structure be erected or maintained on said property within 30 feet of the westerly fence or 1 ine of trees on the westerly side of the highway. 30 '----' MR. CARTIER-Okay. So that answers that. Theoretically, he could divide this up into, well, there would be some limitations on the property, into one acre lots, okay. MRS. STEIN-And he would put 10 houses? MR. CARTIER-I'm not suggesting he's doing this. I'm saying, theoretically, he has the legal right to do this, okay, but that's not what is in front of us this evening. All we're looking at, tonight, if he did that, he'd have to come back in for subdivision approval, okay. He'd have to go through the same process. MRS. STEIN-Is this land sold already? MR. CARTIER-I have no idea. MR. LAPPER-We'll address that. MR. CARTIER-Okay, maybe we can get an answer to that from Mr. Lapper. MRS. STEIN-Well, I'm here just for reassurance. MR. CARTIER-I don't know that I've given you any. MRS. STEIN-No, you have not, sir. We've lived for 26 years in this area. It's been a beautiful piece of property for everyone that's been there. One acre land doesn't seem quite fit for the entire area and we were there first. Now I have no idea about, and really I do not know anything about subdivision. I know nothing about what's going on, really, in this little place right here. MR. CARTIER-Understand that right now all that's being represented to us is two parcels. One parcel of land is being divided into two separate parcels, one a ten acre piece and one a fifteen acre piece. For whatever reasons I do not know, and we don't even need the answer to that. MRS. STEIN-I have no problem with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. STEIN-If the two areas of land that want to be subdivided are 15 acres, the one that I have the problem with is the 10 acres. I don't mind that that 10 acres be sold, but if you're going to subdivide it again and subdivide it again, I think that the people that are already there, it would effect them. MR. HAGAN-Well, he could still, even by your own criteria, divide that 10 acre piece into 5 other lots. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. He's not proposing that at all, right now, at all. MR. HAGAN-He's not proposing that. MR. LAPOINT-He's got 25 acres that he's breaking up into 10 and 15 right now and that's what we're considering tonight. MRS. STEIN-But, if he decides, and you approve, that he goes ahead and divides that acreage into 10 and 15 and then comes back and you-approve again, the one acre land, what do we do? MR. CARTIER-Well, you're one application ahead of us, basically, is what you're saying, understand that. MRS. STEIN-Yes, I do. MRS. PULVER-But, you're within 500 feet, so you would be notified every time he was going to subdivide, and you could come in every time and state your opinion and bring your neighbors and bring a petition, you know, any objections that you have. MRS. STEIN-I have no objection to the two acres being subdivided. I only would rather not see the subdivision of the land and the progress of the land. I would rather see it stay as it is, because it's a ruination of the whole area. MR. CARTIER-Well, understand something. I don't want to get too far into a hypothetical, future, potential, possibly subdivision later on, here, but with the slope and stuff, there would be some restrictions on that property and if it were to come in for further subdivision, they might not be able to get the entire density in there that they want. So, I don't know. MR. HAGAN-Ma'am, did you look at his plan carefully? Because if you look at it carefully, it doesn't seem too probable that he could divide this more than two more times, because take a look at the layout. 31 ---- -~ MRS. STEIN-I live right next to him. I've walked the property and I know what our area is. I don't know too much about the 15 acres, but I do know what it looks like. MR. HAGAN-Because his buildings appear to take up or spread out over two acres. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Lapper, do you have a quick answer to this question? Mrs. Stein, I don't mean to cut you off. MRS. STEIN-That's perfectly all right. I've had my say. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I recognize with Gary and Sue's proclivity for subdivision in the past in that area, people would have concerns. In this case, this is all being done to facilitate a sale. Gary and Sue moved to one of the town homes at Hiland Park about a year ago. This house has been on the market. It was on the market with the entire 25 acre parcel, which is what they've owned with the house. The purchasers, we have a contract and we're set to close when and if this approval is granted. The purchaser's opted to purchase only 10 acres and that's the reason for this, is just for that sale. So it won't be owned by Gary and Sue. Certainly, this is beautiful, valuable land and anybody can come along, in the future, and decide to do anything. I know the purchasers now have no present intent to subdivide it, but also I'd just like to point out because of the configuration, as Mr. Hagan noted, where the house is also, the only access off of Hiland Drive would really destroy the front yard, the driveway. There's not a real simple way to get in from Hiland Drive to that parcel. The only real way to do it, probably, would be from Ridge Road, and that will be in separate ownership. So, there are no present plans. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to address the Board, please? ANNE REDDY MRS. REDDY-My name is Anne Reddy. I live on Ridge Road. Where about will these roads be coming through? MR. CARTIER-There will be no roads. MRS. REDDY-There will be no roads? MR. LAPPER-There's no plans. I'm just saying, hypothetically, someday that could happen. MRS. REDDY-Yes, because I know from south of us, most of it's all swamp. So, I was wondering how they were going to work that. I think that's, like, the 14 acres is south, I believe, and the 10 acres, I believe, is north of the boat yard. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Lapper, clarify something for me. They are retaining one piece and selling one piece. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-They're retaining the 15 acre. MR. CARTIER-They're retaining the 15 acre, and they're selling? MR. STEVES-The 10 acre parcel with the house. MR. CARTIER-With the house, and they're retaining the Ridge Road property? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-That's not to say they might not sell the Ridge Road parcel in the future. MRS. REDDY-I know, but I was wondering, will they build on there or are they going to put roads through there? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely no plans for any construction and as Leon stated, we only showed the house, the footprint and the septic, just for the sake of the subdivision approval, to show that it could support a single family residence. MRS. PULVER-l think it probably became an economic situation, the cost of the house and the property was so high that it became better to subdivide and sell less property with the house in order to get the sale of the house underway. MR. LAPPER-What Carol is talking about is just, the value of that land is such that 15 acres would have been expensive and that was really why the purchaser's opted to just take the 10 acres. 32 '--' '-./ MRS. REDDY-We were just discussing on Ridge Road, if they were going to have any other roads come through Ridge, south of us, you know, the swamp lands, just before Haviland Road and I just asked him that. So I was wondering what they were going to do. If they were going to build any roads through there. MR. LAPPER-There's no plans for any roads. MRS. REDDY-Because I know south of us is all swamp between us and Haviland Road. I was just curious. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does anybody else care to speak to this matter? FRANK MURRAY MR. MURRAY-My name is Frank Murray and I own property next door to these lower 15 acres. Now, I was wondering, before, there might be a subdivision on that lower 15 acres, which there could well be according to what you say, SR-IA. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. MURRAY-If there is one, I wish you would keep in mind, for the future, that there is a stream that runs through there that runs into Halfway Brook. MR. CARTIER-You can be very assured that we are very conscious of streams in this Town. MR. MURRAY-And also, I believe, I looked at the delineations that the surveyor had given on the angle of the land and some of the angles were definitely off, quite far off, too. So, there would be a run down into that stream, okay. MR. CARTIER-Yes, sir. MR. MURRAY-Okay. But as of now, any future plans for that other 15 acres would have to come through this Board and we could have our say about it? MR. CARTIER-Absolutely. Subject to public hearing and everything else. MR. MURRAY-Thank you. MRS. PULVER-We would like you to come, though, to come every month, if you could, and sit in the audience. You're invited to come, anytime. MR. CARTIER-Anyone else, please. JERRY BECKWITH MR. BECKWITH-I'm Jerry Beckwith. I live just north of this property that's being subdivided, and I really don't have any problem with any of it. One concern, it's probably irrelevant, but I'd like to state it for the record. This is a new dated drawing, May 28th, 1991, and it shows on this 15 acres, power going through there, which I believe was the old power lines. MR. CARTIER-It could be a right-of-way. Leon, can you address that? MR. STEVES-There's lines still in existence. MR. BECKWITH-No. They took those lines down, because I raised heck with Niagara Mohawk and I had them all taken down. MR. STEVES-The poles are still there. MR. BECKWITH-They took two or three of them down, anyway. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. BECKWITH-I'm not sure. I haven't looked at every pole, but I did spend two years getting them to take them down and they took them down behind my house and down through behind Murray's. MR. CARTIER-Leon, you've got some more erasing to do. MR. STEVES-I guess so. MR. BECKWITH-Just for the record, I thought I should note, they don't exist on there and that might have some meaning in the future, for future development. 33 '-' --.-/ MR. CARTIER-Certainly. We can correct that at final. to go through, anyway, final. This particular application has one more step MR. BECKWITH-Yes, no problem. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to address the Board. please? MRS. STEIN-I just want to make sure that you understand that I have no problem with the subdivision of these two land areas. I only want reassurance that everything will be done to keep what we have had for so long in proper perspective. That's all I ask. MR. CARTIER-That would have to be done, if and when. MRS. STEIN-Thank you, sir. MR. MARTIN-And I would just like your assurance, as a planner by profession, that the next time a zoning change for the Town, a wide sweeping zoning change like was done in '88, we have somewhat of a captive audience here, don't take it lightly and be apathetic and just sit there and then when something happens next door, this is one acre zoning, I thought it was two acre. Come to the public hearings. MRS. STEIN-Yes, sir. MR. MARTIN-Enough said. MRS. PULVER-Come anytime. MR. CARTIER-Is there anybody else who would care to address the Board, please? Okay. If not, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any questions or comments? MR. HAGAN-No. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We need to entertain a SEQRA and then we can decide on a motion as to what we're going to do with this. MRS. PULVER-Short? MR. MARTIN-Long Form. MRS. YORK-Mr. Chairman, did you read the letter? MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry. What letter? MR. MARTIN-Right there. MR. CARTIER-I have to re-open the public hearing so I can include this letter. Thanks, Lee, for picking up on this. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. CARTIER-Dated June 13, 1991, from Roger and Barbara J. Brassel, "Dear Mr. Cartier: An adjacent property owner, Mr. Gary Bowen, will be seeking permission to subdivide land immediately adjacent to ours and Rockwell Road. We have no objection to this subdivision and the further development of the land provided two items of extreme importance are attended to. There is no need to pollute the nei ghborhood wi th excessively bri ght 1 ights. Accordingly, I woul d request that the subdivi si on be approved with the stipulation that no external lights be allowed, whether attached to buildings or freestanding and street lights which shine beyond the boundaries of the property. The present development on the west side of Rockwell Road is especially lovely during the day, but noxious at night, as excessively bright street lights are in place which shine in our home and have an inhibitory effect on our ability to enjoy the quite nocturnal piece that previously existed on Rockwell Road. In addition, the bright lights, inhibit the nocturnal animals that we have. We request that the subdivision be approved only with the notation and the requirement that strict control of animals be maintained, that the leash law be scrupulously and without exception be maintained. In addition, no domestic animals that pollute the atmosphere with barking and loud noise, particularly at night, should be allowed. As a further item of importance for you to consider, there's a substantial deer heard on the property immediately to the east of ours and there are dogs now in the Hiland development which run loose and may have an inhibitory effect on these deer and may indeed chase them if proper circumstances occur. The crest 34 ~ of Rockwell Road has been peaceful and beautiful until fairly recently. We built our home there in 1973 and cut no trees, nor did we disturb the natural habitat of any principal animal on the hill. Deer, wild turkeys, and a plenitude of birds, rabbits, squirrels and other animals enjoy this area and still do. Intensive development of this area will threaten the habitat of the deer, both by removing some of their natural feed and by the introduction of domestic pets which are no more than a nuisance and should not be allowed to roam at will or bark and disturb the neighborhood. We hold the Bowens in high regard and know that they will be agreeable to these two 1 imitations." I'm hearing an enforcement issue, here, a leash law issue. Maybe, Lee, you can pass a copy of this letter on to the Dog Warden. With regard to lights, I'm not under the impression that any lights are going to be added, as far as this subdivision is concerned. That would be done at further subdivision, because we wouldn't look at site plan on this residential. Okay. I'll close the public hearing, assuming there's nobody else. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Has anybody got any questions about this letter? MR. HAGAN-I think some of the neighbors are addressing problems that could come to be, and they're not before this Board, tonight. MR. LAPOINT-Agreed. MRS. PULVER-No, but I think those problems should not go unnoticed or swept away. MR. HAGAN-No, but I think we cannot consider them tonight because tonight they are not a problem. MRS. PULVER-No, and we're not the authority to take care of it, the dogs that is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, do you want to pass a resolution right now, asking the Staff to forward that letter to the Dog Warden for his investigation. MRS. YORK-I will be happy to do that. MOTION TO DIRECT "S. YORK TO PLEASE GIVE THE LETTER FROM DR. AND MRS. ROGER BRASSEL TO THE DOG WARDEN, DICK WILLETT, AND POSSIBLY HE COOLD LOOK INTO THE AREA TO SEE IF THERE ARE DOGS ROAMING IN PACKS, JlJRE THAN 00, UNLEASHED, NOT UNDER THE CONTROL OF THEIR OWNER, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-We are at a point, I believe, where we can entertain a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 6-1991, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BOWEN SUBDIVISION, for a two lot subdivision, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under 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. 35 ----' 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 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. HAGAN-Before we entertain a motion, I just have a question. In the past, on a subdivision of this type, we have, I think, processed the Preliminary Stage and the Final Stage. MR. CARTIER-It's a two step process. We have received a number of requests to do that, and it usually creates problems for us. MR. HAGAN-All right. I mean, the Final Stage is not going to present anything different, is it? MR. LAPPER-Well, we'll make these changes. MR. CARTIER-Yes, there are some changes. MR. HAGAN-There are are some changes? MRS. PULVER-Yes, a few little notations and he has to erase the poles. MR. CARTIER-In terms of future, to deal with some of these issues that were brought up tonight, I can't recall. Do you have stream setbacks marked on that stream that runs through there? What are we using, 75 feet? MRS. YORK-Seventy-five feet for construction. MR. CARTIER-Could you also add, since you are making some changes, a 75 foot setback line along the streams? Thank you. For the record, Mr. Steves said yes. MR. STEVES-That will be on the Final, when you sign it. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MRS. PULVER-I have a question for Lee. I have two sets of Staff Notes for tonight? MRS. YORK-Yes. What happened was you received the Planning Comments when you went out on site visits. The engineer had not brought his in to us yet. So what I did was, we just made you up a new packet with the engineering comments on them. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MRS. YORK-Actually, I shouldn't say this. We do have an agreement and he (the Engineer) was there at his appointed time. The Planning Board just went out Thursday instead of Saturday. MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion as to this application, please. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELlMIrcARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1991 DEN SUBDIVISIOI, Introduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: We also recommend, due to the small increase in impermeable area on this site, that the stonnwater management waiver be granted, and that he address engineering comments in Rist-Frost's letter dated June 13th. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano 36 ,- '--, ~- MR. HAGAN-Peter, one question before we go on. Is this England? MR. CARTIER-Next week. MR. HAGAN-It's just tabled, not withdrawn? MR. CARTIER-No. It should have been put on next week. SITE PLAN NO. 87-90 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA JAMES M. WELLER, P.E. OWNER: JOE ROOLlER, MARSHALL B. AND EVELYN J. SEELYE BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND THE BOULEVARD MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING SITE PLAN. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 110-4-1.2 LOT SIZE: 2.53 ACRES SECTlOfl 4.020 K PAUL MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 87-90, James Weller, June 11, 1991. Meeting Date: June 18, 1991 "The request is to modify an existing site plan. The plan was approved on January 15 by the Board. The location is between the Boulevard and Highland Ave. and the intended use is for a Warehouse/Distribution building for the F.W. Webb Corporation. At this time the agent, S. Paul Miller, has indicated that the property owner is Jóhn Pope. Mr. Pope has signed an authorization form for Mr. Miller to act as his agent. I am explaining this as the original applicant was J.M. Weller and the site plan is listed under his name. Mr. Miller has submitted a letter requesting a change to delete four 1 ight poles from the parking area. He has indicated that there will be security 1 ighting on the building and that the facility will be open from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The Board should decide if there will be sufficient illumination in the parking area for the safety of individuals during the winter and inclement weather. The light poles are situated at the farthest corners of the parking lot areas, between 115 feet and 165 feet from the building. There is one street light in the vicinity on Highland Avenue." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions about this? Basically, we're looking at the elimination of four outdoor lights. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. HAGAN-Well. if he doesn't have enough light there to satisfy anybody, then they better come up and take a look at Northern Queensbury and add a hell of a lot more lights. MRS. YORK-Well, it is a commercial/industrial site. MR. CARTIER=Well, there's no need to go back into the SEQRA Review on this. If anything, we're reducing the impact of the application. Does anyone care to make a motion? MR. MILLER-My name is Paul Miller, and I am the President of M and G General Contractors. There were a couple of other notes with reference to the site plan. One was that the underground utilities were shown coming from the Boulevard, which doesn't make it on all accounts, with respect to water. The Water Department informs us that the main is better on Highland. It's best to take the water from Highland. Also, we would have to contend with rock ledge on the Boulevard. which is 12 inches under the ground, whereas on Highland it's not. The same with the electrical service. They're requesting a three phase service. Three phase service on Highland, non three phase on Boulevard. So. it's just a matter of taking the utility from Highland as opposed to the Boulevard. I don't know if that has any impact whatsoever. MRS. YORK-Yes. We usually consider those as site changes that do not have to come back to the Board. MR. MILLER-Okay. MRS. YORK-If there are constraints that cause a utility to modify the plan, beyond your control, then that's the way it is. MR. MILLER-Okay, and I have two more things. One was, the original site plan shows on the chain 1 ink fencing to be installed near Hiland Avenue, that it has the slat inserts in the fencing itself. I wanted to know if that was actually a part of the approval of the site plan or whether or not we can leave those out because they don't seem to work up to well where you're plowing snow. MR. CARTIER-The slats out of the fence? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I don't even remember. MR. LAPOINT-Are they shown on the drawing? 37 '--' MR. MILLER-Well, there's a tiny note that's very, very small. MR. MARTIN-Well, if it's on the drawing then, yes, we've got to, what's it say? MR. MILLER-It just says, chain link fence with inserts. MR. MARTIN-With inserts, it says. The only reason I can think that they were put there is for a visual impact type thing. MR. YARMOWICH-The Beautification Committee Comments may reveal something about that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Well, if this impacts a neighbor or what have you and we change this. I mean, that may have been a neighbor's gripe about this project. MR. MILLER-Well, there is a hedge being planted all along that fence, as well. MR. CARTIER-Was that on the original site plan? MR. MILLER-Yes. We've got a deciduous hedge that will grow beyond the limits of the fence, naturally. MR. MARTIN-I don't see any problem, given the fact that the hedge is there. MR. MILLER-One last thing is, in the original site plan, the paved area that's shown there gives the owner no access to be able to bring a fork lift from inside the building to outside the building to the storage areas, because of the type of building that's constructed there. All of the fenced areas either lend themselves to the loading dock area which drops off four feet from the finished floor off the building or under a mezzanine area that doesn't have the height requirements for an overhead door to bring a forklift out. MR. CARTIER-So what are you saying? MR. MILLER-He wanted to know if we could add 1200 square feet of paving to the back of the building which would be the northern side, to give him a strip to go from a door. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. This application, I got a phone call that said, I want to remove four lights and I said, call the Planning Department. It sounds 1 ike a quick fix. Now all of a sudden we've got a shopping list. MR. MILLER-Well, see, the owner wasn't the owner when Mr. Weller was involved. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but do you hear what I'm saying to you? MR. MILLER-I do hear what you're saying. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-You may want to request a new application, because this is going to effect stormwater management on site and a lot of things. MR. MILLER-You don't know if you don't ask, right? MR. CARTIER-That's true. MR. MILLER-Which is fine, because that won't interrupt the construction of our building or anything. If it is not going to be allowed, it's no big deal. He'll have to do it a different way. MR. CARTIER-Twelve hundred feet is a significant change. Slats in the fence are not. Lights are not. MR. MILLER-What is the green area requirement? I mean, there's a percentage? MR. CARTIER-What are we in here? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, it's right on the limit at this point. MR. CARTIER-Thirty percent. MR. MILLER-What is it? MR. CARTIER-Thirty percent. MR. MILLER-It is 30 percent. Boy, it's pretty close. You're right. Okay. 38 --./ MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We went over this plan at least three meetings, because we're getting such a tight fit on this lot. MR. MILLER-Yes. I understand that. MR. MARTIN-What, has the contractor on the job been changed? Now it's M and G instead of J.M. Weller? MR. MILLER-That's right. We are the general contractor involved in site work all the way through the construction of the building to the Certificate of Occupancy. MR. CARTIER-Well, what I suggest, if the Board concurs here, 1200 feet kicks it into a whole order of magnitude change, here, I think, and I think if the Board is in agreement, what I think we ought to do is see a new application, here, okay. MR. MILLER-Okay. He may elect, now, not to do it, if it's going to take a whole process. MR. CARTIER-Well, when's the deadline for next month? MRS. YORK-The last Wednesday of every month at 2 o'clock. MR. MILLER-We're not going to be paving until September, so we've got plenty of time. MR. LAPOINT-But even then, again, I remember this very specifically, we had a lot of problems with the amount of paving we had now and the drainage. MR. MILLER-Well, I'm going to relay that to the owner and he may elect to say, well, it's not worth the effort. MR. LAPOINT-Again, he may be under the impression that it may go quickly, and it may not. MR. MILLER-Well, no, he knew I was going to be standing up here in front of you tonight and had your ear. He threw it in my lap. MR. MARTIN-Why don't we move on a couple of the minor items like the lights and the fence and then you can talk to him about your extra paving. MR. LAPOINT-I still worry a little bit about the fence. I know there was a lot of public comment about the impact on this on neighbors and what have you and I don't specifically recall whether the slats in the fence were required for a visual type thing. So, I'm hesitant. right now, to say go ahead and take the slats out when that may be someone's prime issue. MR. YARMOWICH-You've also been informed that the planting hedge is intended to be a deciduous hedge row which won't offer screening but four or five months a year. So, there might be some difference in the way it's going to appear when it's done. MR. HAGAN-But the formal application before us tonight is for the purpose of removing four poles. MR. LAPOINT-That's no problem. MR. HAGAN-That's it. MR. LAPOINT-Lets leave it right to that. MR. CARTIER-You've got it. It makes sense to me. MR. MARTIN-We'll do the lights. MR. CARTIER-Lights only. JlJTlON TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 87-90 JAMES M. WELLER, P.E., Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Modification of an existing site plan. for the deletion of four pole lights with 250 watt lamps in the parking area. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano 39 '--' (SITE PLAN NO. 33-91 JAMES BETIT CONT'D) MRS. YORK-James Betit. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Mr. Betit, or nobody here to represent him. I don't know about you, but I want to hear something about a spray booth, an improved spray booth, if he's going to be spraying. MR. LAPOINT-Absolutely. Storage questions, the whole nine yards. MR. CARTIER-So, why don't we table this until we can get some indication from the applicant. Does anyone care to make a motion to that effect? JlJTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 33-91 JAMES BETIT, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: To use an existing facil ity for a detail body shop and small repair shop, and that the appl icant pay for re-advertising the public hearing. Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: MRS. YORK-Just one thing. We have advertised this petition. If you want to hold the publ ic hearing, you have to re-advertise it. MS. CORPUS-Now that agenda control law is not in effect, this Board would be bound by the 45 day thing, if you opened the public hearing. Now, the Board doesn't have to open the public hearing. This could be re-advertised and another public hearing held at another time. MRS. PULVER-Well, the public hearing, was it advertised, there's no one here, right? MR. HAGAN-Can't we have the public hearing tonight. MS. CORPUS-But once it's completed and the public hearing is closed, the time period would begin to run. MR. CARTIER-Well, can't we open the public hearing and leave it open? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. CARTI ER-Woul d that do it? Lets try common sense, here. I f we don't have an app 1 i cant here we have some questions, that's up to the applicant to get back to us and let him know, if he doesn't get back to us within 45 days, he's going to be disapproved. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-It's as simple as that. He needs to show up. MRS. YORK-Right, and you want the applicant to pay for re-advertising. MR. CARTIER-Absolutely. MRS. YORK-That's all I needed to hear. AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. Karla, do you want to take us through this public hearing on proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations? MS. CORPUS-The same thing that you did on the 23rd. I have extra copies, again. I checked the record, after the minutes came out, with regard to whether the public hearing had been held. Do you remember you asked the question and Jim said yes and I didn't remember? I checked the minutes and it was never formally opened. So, all that's required is that these two resolutions be re-adopted, but the public hearing would have to be opened and closed, and it was re-advertised for today. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Then I will open the public hearing with regard to proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations. Is there anyone here who wishes to address the Board? 40 '''--"' PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, did you have a vote to re-adopt the resolutions on the Subdivision Regulations? MR. CARTIER-No. MS. CORPUS-We should do that. JlJTION TO RE-ADOPT THE RESOWTlON TO ADOPT CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN OF ~EENSIIJRY AND THE RESOWTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THE TOlIN OF ~EENSIIJRY, I ntroduced by James Hagan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MS. CORPUS-Before we do Hans, can we do one more thing? MR. CARTIER-Sure. MS. CORPUS-Before the Board came, a long time ago, there were two applications for re-zoning. They were Linwood and Peggy Hastings and Frank and Theresa Rollo, 149. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MS. CORPUS-Okay. The Rollos came first, then it was recommended by this Board that the Hastings also be added. then you looked at both of these in late '90 and early '91. They are now going before the Town Board. What I would need from this Board, if it so desires, is a consent to the designation of the Town Board as Lead Agency for SEQRA purposes with regard to these applications. This is an old one. I don't know if there are any concerns in this one. MR. CARTIER-Correct me if I'm wrong, this is prior to our discussion of this Board seeking Lead Agency Status, correct? MS. CORPUS-These did come before this Board prior to that, yes. MR. CARTIER-Before May 8. MS. CORPUS-Yes, they did. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, in effect, we could consider these grandfathered, perhaps? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I was just going to say. I don't want this used as an argument against us. You know, well, you gave us all these other ones, why are you disputing us on this one? MS. CORPUS-No. If I remember correctly, the actual resolution from this Board was that it wanted to be Lead Agency with regard to one particular re-zoning. MR. MARTIN-Right. No, I'm not saying that the, the resolution is technically correct, but the arguments that will be used as a practical matter, will be, well, why are you taking exception to this one when you're just blanket approving all the other ones? MS. CORPUS-Well, this Board does have the option, if you do do a resolution to consent to Lead Agency Status, to put why, in this particular case, it would be so. MR. CARTIER-I just think, considering that these were prior to our May 8th discussion, we may want to. Would someone care to make a motion, to the effect of granting Lead Agency Status to the Town Board in reference to the Hastings and Rollo Re-zonings. MS. CORPUS-It would actually be consenting to the designation of Lead Agency. MR. CARTIER-Consenting to the designation of Lead Agency Status. 41 ---- ----' MOTIO. CONSENTIIG TO THE DESIGMTION OF LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR THE TOlIN BOARD WITH REFERENCE TO THE HASTIN6S AID ROLLO RE-ZONINGS, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Duly adopted this 18th day of June, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MS. CORPUS-The next item is this 1 ittle package I believe you all received regarding Hans. Let me explain what happened, and I don't know if anyone had a chance to read these Zoning Board minutes, apparently, the Zoning Board comments made were not given to the Planning Board when you did the SEQRA Review. The question is whether the Planning Board on it's own got to most of those issues anyway when it did the SEQRA Review, and that's up to this Board to decide that. If you find that there was a change of circumstances which constituted new information that you didn't have, that would effect the negative declaration, the proper procedure would be to rescind the negative declaration and require a Draft EIS, but first you'd have to notify the applicant and any involved agencies with regard to that. MR. LAPOINT-Is it possible to consider this next week, because I just got that and I read through it quickly right before the meeting? MS. CORPUS-Okay. The only problem is that the Hans are due to go before the Zoning Board tomorrow. The Zoning Board also has a determination to make as to whether they believe the Planning Board discussed all their issues, as far as SEQRA goes, and they'll make that determination tomorrow, but I wanted to bring it up to this Board, to make sure that you were also comfortable with that. The Zoning Board will decide whether all the issues were covered or not and whether to proceed with the variance application because it's the next week that the Hans are on for Site Plan Review. MR. CARTIER-I want to spell out a slightly different scenario than what you're suggesting, which may be a way to go here. In reading through the minutes of both the Zoning Board meeting and our meeting, apparently what specifically the Zoning Board wanted us to consider was the size of the building on the particular piece of property and also the fact that they were telling the applicant that they wanted to see an alternative, a smaller, down-sized alternative. We did not see that alternative and it's on the basis of, this is me talking, the fact that we did not see an alternative, that I think we can rescind the negative dec, and rather than go into a positive declaration. what I'd rather see happen, and I've talked to Ted about this, is that the applicant be required to submit a smaller or an alternative plan and then we go back and we do another SEQRA Review on that alternative plan. MS. CORPUS-The only technical problem is if the negative dec is rescinded. The only procedural point on that is the thing that would happen would be a Draft EIS. Now, if the Board is considering, as the Board together, rescinding the negative declaration, before you can do that, you must give the applicant an opportunity to respond. Okay. That's in the statute, and the agencies have to be notified. That could be the response. MR. LAPOINT-How could we rescind our SEQRA determination just because we want to look at something smaller? I mean, we based our SEQRA determination on what we saw. MRS. PULVER-On what we saw, yes. MS. CORPUS-That is the other thing. It's whether this Board believes that, based upon what it saw, if what you took was the worst case scenario and did the SEQRA on that. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MS. CORPUS-And if that's satisfactory. MR. LAPOINT-It has to be. MRS. PULVER-Otherwise we're a joke. MR. LAPOINT-That's right. MS. CORPUS-The Zoning Board still has the option of not granting the 50 percent or more increase variance. They do have that option and they do have the ability to require a down-sized plan because what they would be giving would be a variance to the 50 percent expansion rule. MR. HAGAN-This may be way out in left field, but just from a practical aspect, couldn't this Board say to the Zoning Board, if for any reason you see something that's presented in your packets that was not presented to this Board, could we not then convey our authority to that Board to change our SEQRA? 42 -- -- MS. CORPUS-No. MRS. PULVER-But they're seeing the same thing that we saw, absolutely the same drawing. MR. HAGAN-Right. MS. CORPUS-As I said, it was probably based on the worst case scenario, your SEQRA Review. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but what I'm saying, here, is that if we had had the alternate plan along with that one, that would certainly, I think, have changed my mind about looking at that big plan. I would have said, well, you've got this little bitty house and this great big house. The big one is certainly going to have a much greater impact than the little bitty house. Go with the little bitty house. MR. LAPOINT-Obviously, but we took a look at the big house and we neg dec'd it and, to me, it's obvious that something would be smaller, it would be less of an impact. MS. CORPUS-I spoke with Mr. Turner about this and I asked him if he thought that the Zoning Board still had the power to require a different sized house, under their authority as the Zoning Board, and he said yes. MR. LAPOINT-Let him take that route, then. I don't think we can rescind our SEQRA determination on that project. MS. CORPUS-Again, I wanted to leave this part of it up to this Board. If there was any information you felt was strong enough to change any of your answers on the EAF, and some of them you did put down possible significant impacts that could be mitigated by project changes. That's why I gave you copies of the EAF that were drafted, and I realize that you haven't had time to really look at it today. MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't think that I want the authority to say, okay, I want you to have a smaller house. MR. HAGAN-Well, I think we indicated, at least some member of this Board indicated, that he felt that the applicant would have a better chance of getting approval if he reduced the size of his plan. MR. CARTIER-Does this Board feel that it addressed, in the SEQRA Review, the size of the house on the piece of property? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Does this Board feel that it addressed the height of the proposed structure on this piece of property? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Does this Board feel that it addressed the runoff impacts of this house on this piece of property? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-We specifically addressed that. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. For the record, the Board members that were involved in that SEQRA Review have all indicated yes to those questions and I believe it is those questions which the Zoning Board specifically wished us to address. All right. Does that answer that? MS. CORPUS-Yes, that's fine, and I will relay that to Mr. Turner tomorrow. 43 -- -..-' MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would you also see to it that he gets a copy of this portion of the minutes. MRS. YORK-Sure. MR. CARTIER-In reference to the Hans property. MS. CORPUS-Thank you. MRS. YORK-Just an aside, if I may address the Board, this Board has the ability to ask for alternate plans. Many, many boards in many communities insist on at least two alternate plans for every development. Also, you have to recognize that the standards, the permeability, the setbacks and everything else in the Zoning Ordinance are minimum standards. You have the ability, at any time, to increase those, and I just wanted you to be aware of that. that you do have a great deal of power to look at plans and look at alternatives at any time. MR. CARTIER-We have a letter, here, from Pat Crayford, you all received copies of this tonight. requesting that I reconsider our request to Ted Turner regarding her interpretation. Do you wish to reconsider our request to Ted Turner? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That takes care of that. You have a letter, memorandum, also, regarding the Checklist, from Pat Crayford. What is your pleasure with regard to that? MR. MARTIN-She should use the one that was given to her by Sue Davidsen. MR. CARTIER-Would you care to put that in the form of a recommendation to be forwarded to Mrs. Crayford? MRS. PULVER-Unfortunately, I was not at the meetings to see the Checkl ist, so I'm not sure which one she's talking about. MRS. YORK-It's, basically, the original Checklist with some modifications that were recommended by the Attorney's Office. MRS. PULVER-Okay, and which one is she using presently? MRS. YORK-She is using the original one. MRS. PULVER-The first one without the second one? MRS. YORK-Right. MS. CORPUS-I would recommend the Board adopt a resolution to any change to forms that would be used. MR. CARTIER-Excuse me? MS. CORPUS-I would just recommend that the Board adopt a resolution with regard to any, if it is a change from the original approved form. I don't know if it is. MRS. PULVER-Possibly, the Board should adopt a number for the form and we use that number form. MR. CARTIER-Is there a numbering policy in the Town with regard to forms? MRS. YORK-No. You can initiate a numbering policy. MRS. PULVER-All right. How about Form Number One, ZB. MR. MARTIN-I'll tell you, Lee. I see we've got just handwritten notes, here, calculations and things like that. MRS. YORK-Well. that one was just to attest to the fact that we had been directed to make those changes. MR. MARTIN-Could you type up a form with all the latest changes, up to date, and then we can do that? MRS. YORK-We have that, and we can get it to you and you can look at it at your next meeting. MR. MARTIN-We can do that as a motion at our next meeting. MRS. YORK-Sure. MRS. PULVER-I do think it should have a number, though. 44 '- -- MR. MARTIN-Or, no, a date, just put a date. Date it in the corner. MRS. YORK-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Well, all right, 6/14, that's the number, or 6/91 or whatever. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-One last thing. This disagreement, the Zoning Administrator shows up at the Zoning Board Meeting the 26th of June and I would encourage any, I'll be there, but I would encourage any other Board members to be present, too. MR. MARTIN-What's that? MR. CARTIER-The 26th of June. MRS. YORK-The day after your next meeting. MR. CARTIER-For Zoning Board's decision on the Grahl thing. MR. HAGAN-What meeting are you recommending we attend? MRS. PULVER-The ZBA meeting next Wednesday. MR. CARTIER-The 26th of June. MS. CORPUS-Can I just ask one question? As far as the appeal goes that will be heard next Wednesday, was a phone vote taken or anything? I'm just curious, for the appeal? Was any formal resolution adopted to bring this appeal? MR. CARTIER-Was that last Thursday? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We voted on that. MRS. YORK-I think everybody that went said yes. There were no formal minutes taken. There was no resolution. MS. CORPUS-Normally, when the Board acts as a Board, I know it's one of these procedural things. As a formal resolution, I'm just being super cautious. I would recommend the Board at this time, because the tape recorder is on and everyone's here, that a formal resolution be adopted to bring this appeal next week. It's just a matter of formality. MR. CARTIER-I thought we did that, because I think you directed me to write a letter or something like that and I tried to push it off on Lee and then I felt guilty and I wrote it anyway. MS. CORPUS-So, is it your opinion that there was a formal resolution done last Thursday? MR. CARTIER-There was, it just doesn't show up in print anywhere. MS. CORPUS-Okay. The letter didn't tell me. I didn't know. MR. CARTIER-Yes, well, it was a quick meeting, and we didn't take minutes. Okay. We can entertain a motion to adjourn, here. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 45