Loading...
1991-08-20 '- -- CJJEEllSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD tEETIIIG FIRST REGULAR IEETIIIG AUGUST 20TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. tEMBERS PRESEIIT PETER CARTIER. CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER. SECRETARY JAMES HAGAN NICHOLAS CAIMANO TIMOTHY BREWER EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSEIIT JAMES MARTI N DEPUTY TOIII ATTORNEY- KARLA CORPUS TOWN ENGIIlEER-RIST-FROST. REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STEIIOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MIfllTES June 25th. 1991: NONE July 16th. 1991: NONE July 22nd. 1991: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE ABOVE SETS OF MIIIJTES. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Caimano. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Martin OLD IIJSIIIESS: SUBDIVISION 110. 8-1991 FIlIAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA JAMES R. & JOMII CURCIO OIlIER: SAtE AS ABOVE IIORTHlfEST INTERSECTION OF TEE HILL ROAD AID HALL ROAD FOR A 3 LOT SUBDIVISIOII. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-24. 25 LOT SIZE: 3.44 ACRES LEON STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Subdivision No. 8-1991. James & Jo-Ann Curcio. August 7. 1991. August 20. 1991 "The appl icant has addressed the planning issues which were previously raised. The Post Office has requested that we remind subdividers that the final mylar must list the post office addresses. These are assigned at the main Post Office on Hudson Street." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Did Tom have any notes on this? I don't believe he did. MRS. YORK-No. he didn't. MR. CARTIER-We're done on that one. Okay. Mr. Steves. any comments? MR. STEVES-Good evening. No comments. MR. CARTIER-No comments? Okay. Does the Board have any questions? I believe we conducted a SEQRA Review on this application. If there are no questions or comments, I think we can entertain a motion on this application. 1 ~' Jl)TION TO APPROVE FIlIAL STAGE SUIIJIVISION 110. 8-1991 JAtES R. I JOAIII CURCIO. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano: All engineering and staff notes have been satisfied. Duly adopted this 20th day of August. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Martin SUIIJIVISION NO. 9-1991 PRELIMIIlARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED "-5 OLDE COACH MMOR COfIOOMIIIIUJIS OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE 392 BAY ROAD. WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD ADJACEIIT TO IIJGHES OFFICE SUIIJIVISION FOR CONVERSION OF EXISTING APARTJENT COfiPLEX lITO CONOOMIIIIUMS. TWELVE EXISTING IIJILDIIIGS INCWDING GARAGES. PAVED ACCESS TO ALL. 4.6 ACRES WOODED AT REAR WITH SMLL STREAMS IN IfOOOS. TAX MP 110. 60-7-7. 8. I 9 LOT SIZE: 12.6 ACRES TOTAL lUMBER OF LOTS: 34 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner. Subdivision No. 9-1991, Olde Coach Manor Condominiums, July 11. 1991, Meeting Date: August 20. 1991 "The applicant intends to change the existing apartment complex into condominiums. The Ordinance requires that this change be treated as a subdivision. The application indicates that there will be no physical changes to the site. only a change in the form of ownership. The Planning Board has usually requested that any Homeowners Association documents be reviewed by the Attorney's office to assure that maintenance of existing facilities is assured. Prior to final approval this should be done. There are no concerns from a planning perspective. If there are no other issues which are brought forward at the public hearing. the Board may want to consider this an expedited matter. " MR. CARTIER-And. Mr. Nace. I think we talked about the Homeowners Association document, the last time around. did we not? MR. NACE-Yes. we did. They are being developed. For the record. Tom Nace. representing Haanen Engineering. For the record. those Covenants and Restrictions will be submitted with final. They are being developed now. When they are in final form. they will come in with final application. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Before I get into a public hearing on this, does the Board have any questions or comments? How do you feel about this being an expedited review. MRS. PULVER-I have no problem with it. MR. CAIMANO-No problem. MR. BREWER-No problem. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Fine. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who'd care to comment on Olde Coach Manor Condominiums? PUBLIC HEARIIIG OPEIIED NO COIIENT PUBLIC HEARIIIG ClOSED MR. CARTIER-Lee. do we need to do a Short Form SEQRA on this? MRS. YORK-It's unlisted. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Nace. what did you submit. a Short Form or a Long Form? MR. NACE-I'm just looking to see. I think it was a Long Form. MS. CORPUS-It should be a Long Form. MRS. YORK-It's usually a Long Form that's attached to the Preliminary approval. RESOWTIONIßtEII DETERMIIlATION OF NO SI6IIIFICAllCE IS MDE RESOLUTION 110. 9-1991, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: 2 '- /' WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Conversion of existing aparblent cOIIIplex into condœinilllS. T_lve existing buildings including garages. paved access to all. 4.6 acres wooded at rear with SIIall stre_ in woods. on 392 ø.y Road 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 impact as the same is set forth in Secti on 617.11 of the Offici al Compil ati on of Codes. Rul es and Regul ati ons 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 20th day of August. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Martin MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion, now. on Preliminary Stage. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMŒIlARY STAGE SUBDIVISION 110. 9-1991 OLDE COACH MANOR. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For the construction of the existing apartment complex into condominiums. providing at Final we get the Covenants and Restrictions on the Homeowners Association. Duly adopted this 20th day of August. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Martin MR. NACE-Thank you. For clarification, could I ask a question regarding procedure for Final? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. NACE-We, in working with the Zoning Department, have been told that we must have site plan review. as well as subdivision review. but they suggested that site plan be done in concurrence with final subdivision. at the same meeting. MR. CARTIER-That's new to me. MR. NACE-Really? There should be a letter in your file. Lee. MR. CARTIER-That you also have to do site plan review? MR. NACE-Yes. MRS. YORK-Yes. What happened was Mrs. Crayford did write a letter to the applicant suggesting that. 3 '-- ~ MR. CARTIER-I'm glad you brought that up. I remember talking with Mr. Dusek about how to handle this, in terms of subdivision. I don't remember something coming up in terms of site plan. MRS. PULVER-I don't either. How are you going to change it? I mean. it's already there. MR. CAIMANO-Can we all read that? MRS. YORK-Yes. Why don't you read it. Mr. Cartier. MR. CARTIER-Okay. This is dated May 15, 1991, from Pat Crayford. Zoning Administrator. to Mr. Leombruno. who I assume is the owner? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. CARTIER-"Dear Mr. Leombruno: After considerable research, I have concluded that the proposed condominium conversion at the above referenced site will require the following: Section 2.020. Definitions. Number 62 and 289 states that the condominium development shall be reviewed as a subdivision. Section 4.020 F, MR-5 zoning, lists condominium project as a Type II Action requiring site plan review. In conversation with Paul Dusek. Town Attorney. this week, he said he had talked to the Planning Board who have agreed to merge the process as follows: First meeting. Preliminary subdivision application review (which is what happened tonight). Please note. however. that the second meeting will probably not occur until such time as the Planning Board finds the Preliminary subdivision plat acceptable (which we did tonight). It is possible that if Prel iminary plat is approved the first time presented for the entire process to occur within one month. Enclosed is a copy of the referral form, Preliminary. and Final subdivision application. and site plan application. You may want to meet. informally. with Lee York andlor the Planning Board before submitting an application. If I can be of further assistance. please do not hesitate to contact me." Okay, I think the answer to your question is. yes. If I understand your question. you're going to be coming in with a Final application. We'll take care of that. first, and then do a site plan review secondly. MR. NACE-Ri ght. MRS. PULVER-On the same evening. MR. CARTIER-On the same evening. Does anybody on the Board have a problem with doing that? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-This is a rather unique situation, in that nothing physical is changing except legal ownership of property that already exists. Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. CARTIER-So, the next time we see you in reference to this, we'll be looking at Final and the Site Plan. Do we have to do a SEQRA on that Site Plan. also? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. NEIl IIJSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 42-91 TYPE: UllLlSTED LI-lA LIVINGSTON CJJALlTY MIIOR OWNER: WIlLSTON REALTY CORP. CORlER OF 011 AVEllJE AID (JIAIŒR ROAD FOR All ADDITION OF A 4.800 SQ. n. WAREHOOSE. (WARREll COONTY PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 110-1-21 LOT SIZE: 1.26 ACRES SECTION 179-26 A SECTION 179-26 D JOHN GORALSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Site Plan Review No. 42-91. Livingston Qual ity Manor. August 13. 1991, Meeting Date: August 20. 1991 "The applicant is requesting to add 4800 sq. ft. of warehouse space to an existing retail furniture store. The applicant received a variance for the maximum density allowed in a Light Industrial zone. This appl ication was reviewed with regard to Section 179-38: 1) The location arrangement and size of the proposed structure is compatible with the site and existing building. Existing signage will remain. New lighting will be provided at the entrance to the warehouse. 2) Vehicular traffic access and circulation is facilitated by new pavement which will provide additional 4 parking and roadway area. 3} Parking and loading facilities have been provided for. 4) Pedestrian access will remain at the front of the showroom. 5) The engineer has addressed the storm water facilities. 6} Water and sewer facilities are existing and no alteration is anticipated. 7) Plantings are going to remain basically as they are. The adjoining property is zoned Light Industrial and is currently vacant so buffering is not a concern. 8) Emergency access is sufficient. 9) Ponding and erosion is not a concern. During construction the appl icant should maintain erosion control measures." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Just a quick question. going back to your Item 5, "The engineer has addressed storm water facil ities". the only thing I've got in hand is a letter from Tom saying. we've reviewed the project and have no engineering comments. MRS. YORK-That's right. MR. CARTIER-My only question was. the storm water facil ity question. if any. has been satisfactorily taken care of? MRS. YORK-Yes. they have been, by the engineer. We do have a letter from the new Chairwoman of the Beautification Committee, and what that says is the Committee approve the planting plans. "Parking and landscaping plans dated July 30, 1991 submitted by John Goralski for Richard E. Jones Associates representing applicant. Beautification Committee approved plans with the stipulation that an additional tree be planted in proposed lawn area north of proposed warehouse. Species suggested were Honey Locust or Norway Maple in addition to the eight arborvitae scheduled for planting." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you, and I would remind the Board. at this point too. that we said we were going to incorporate Beautification Committee recommendations into any motions from now on. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-This indicates Warren County Planning, but I don't have anything in front of me from Warren County Planning. MRS. YORK-Warren County Planning found "No County Impact". MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. Mr. Goralski? MR. GORALSKI-My name is John Goralski from Richard Jones Associates. representing Livingston Quality Manor. It's basically self explanatory. It's a 4800 square foot warehouse to be added to the existing business. We're providing additional parking and loading and, other than that, there's not much that's changing. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong. do I note a well under the building? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Is that an abandoned well? MR. GORALSKI-No. That's the existing water supply. MR. CARTIER-That's the existing water supply? Okay. Does the Board have any questions or comments before I open the public hearing? The only comment I have is, you're going to be re-striping the parking lot here. are you not? I believe you are. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARTIER-It would seem appropriate to move handicapped parking, which is at one end now, right next to the entrance, and I think that could be relatively easily accomplished. Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Where's the new loading going to go. John? MR. GORALSKI-There's going to be. you can see this new access drive coming back. There's going to be a loading dock and also a garage for the delivery truck which will be parked inside. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. and do you see what I'm talking about with regard to handicapped parking? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board have any other questions? If not. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEIIED 5 --" MR. HAGAN-Just one minor thing. John. You are going to take the comments seriously. that the Beautification Committee made? I didn't hear you mention it. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I discussed that with them. and if they want another tree. they'll get another tree. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Since we will be incorporating those recommendations into our motions from now on, anyway. they're going to have to. Okay. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We can conduct a Short Form SEQRA Review. RESOWTION IfHEII DETERMINATION OF 110 SIGIIIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION 110. 42-91. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: an addition of a 4800 sq. ft. warehouse to LIVINGSTON CJJALITY MAlOR on Dix Avenue and Quaker Road. 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 20th day of August. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer. Mr. Caimano. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Martin MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion on this. Again. a quick reminder with regard to handicapped parking and Beautification Committee recommendations. Jl)TION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN 110. 42-91 LIVINGSTON CJJALITY MAlOR, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For an addition of a 4800 square foot warehouse with the stipulation that the one tree be added that the Beautification Department recommended and the handicapped parking be moved to the entrance. Duly adopted this 20th day of August. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Martin 6 --" SITE PLAN 110. 43-91 TYPE II RR-3A KEITH IfARRIS OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE IIORTH SIDE OF PICKLE HILL ROAD PROPC)SAL FOR RAISING LIVESTOCK AS WELL AS COIITIIlUE OTHER AGRICULTURAL USE. TAX IMP 110. 26-2-10.5 LOT SIZE:20± ACRES SECTION 179-15 KEITH HARRIS. PRESENT MR. CARTIER-Okay. Before we get into the details of this. this is going to have to be re-advertised. It was not advertised correctly, so we are going to involve ourselves in a tabling. here, for re-advertising. There is a public hearing scheduled this evening and I will conduct a public hearing on this application. in any event. but it will be continued. We'll take Staff Notes, first, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner. Site Plan Review No. 43-91. Keith Harris. August 12. 1991, Meeting Date: August 20, 1991 "The applicant is requesting to put up a pole barn to facilitate animal husbandry on Pickle Hill Road. The current use of the property is a commercialllight industrial business. The property has a facility which is home to a logginglexcavating company and there is associated heavy equipment stored there. Behind the existing structure a substantial amount of fill has been brought in. It appears this may have been done to create a parking area for some of the heavy equipment. The applicant also has some pigs housed in a nearby shelter and pen. There are also two small shed!; which are on the property which are not indicated on the plan. The proposal is to place a pole barn 35 feet from the existing garage. The applicant has ± 20 acres of land. It would be more appropriate to separate the agricultural use from the commercial use as much as possible. The appl icant has indicated that he wants to keep the animals near a water source, however. a water line could probably be run to where the barn was located. The proposed location is very visible from the road. It is very close to where maintenance and repair of heavy equipment takes place. and where heavy equipment is parked. Livestock should be housed in a separate location. This application is a Type II SEQRA Review becðuse it involves agricultural farm management practices, including construction maintenance and repair of farm buildings and structures and land use changes consistent with generally accepted principles of farming. This property is in a designated Critical Environmental Area. (Lake George Park CEA) This application was reviewed with regard to Section 179-38: 1) The pole barn should be located in the field where corn crops were formerly raised and away from the road. The agricultural use is commensurate with the purpose of the RR 3 acre zone. The location of the barn and animals along Pickle Hill Road is not in harmony with the neighborhood character. If the facility was placed away from the road the noises, smells and visibility of the livestock would not create a neighborhood problem. 2) Vehicular access to the property is adequate. The applicant has indicated there are other accessways to his field than Pickle Hill Road. Perhaps one of these could be utilized to bring feed to the barn if it were at a less obtrusive location. 3) Parking and loading for the barn could be a concern if the barn is positioned as requested. The barn is planned in close proximity to the commerciallindustrial garage. Many vehicles are currently parked around the existing garage. During periods of inclement weather the proximity of the barn might lend itself to being used for housing the heavy equipment. This might be construed as an expansion of the commercial business. 4) Pedestrian access is not a concern. 5) Storm drainage facilities are not a concern given the size of the barn and the amount of acreage. 6) The water supply for the animals should be discussed. No sewage disposal facil ities are anticipated. 7) A visual and noise buffer should be provided between the livestock and neighboring residences. There is sufficient acreage to allow this. 8) Emergency access is not a concern. 9) Ponding and erosion are not a concern." MR. CARTlER¡.Okay. In addition to Staff Notes, here. when I started looking at this application and looking at the Ordinance. a question came into my mind about a particular section of the Ordinance. whether or not it applied, in terms of whether the applicant needed 25 acres or not, and I talked to Pat Crayford and Karla. That resulted in a letter to us from Pat, and I'll read that into the record, August 20. 1991 "Peter Cartier has questioned whether Section 179-63-C-l that states. 'farm animals such as cattle raised in feed lots are only allowed on farms in excess of 25 acres', would pertain to Keith Harris' application before you this evening. The Zoning Ordinance does not define feed lots. therefore. I have referred to Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary and found feed lots defined as follows: 'A plot of land on which livestock are fattened for market.' Keith Harris and I discussed his application in relation to this Section of the Ordinance and Keith has stated these animals are for his personal use. Therefore, it is my determination that the Section reference will not apply to this site plan review. Peter also questioned the number of horses allowed on this parcel of property. Section 179-63-D, Raising of Horses and Ponies, states. 'A minimum of (3) three acres shall be required for one horse or pony. However, where two or more horses or ponies are concerned. a minimum of two acres per horse or pony shall be required.' Keith has 20 plus acres on this site. Therefore, a maximum of 10 horses would be permitted." In connection with that. you also have a copy of. in researching this whole thing. Karla and I talked about the fact that there was a court decision involving this property. I went down and got that, just to read that, for my own information. You have a copy of that. I believe you received that yesterday. What's the Board's druther's. here? Does the Board care to discuss this application before I open the public hearing or after or what's your pleasure? MR. CAIMANO-Well. there's seems to be some question whether the application is legitimate or not. based upon some problems with it. I would suggest that we've got to get that cleared up first. However. as you said earlier. there's a whole bunch of folks who were notified that there's a public hearing tonight. I would suggest that we let the public have their say. 7 '-- --.-/ MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing by first mentioning that we have two letters. Every member of the Board has received a copy of a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Burnham and also the Davidsons, along with some supporting documentation that goes with that. Lee. are there any other letters that have been received that the Board is not aware of? There are. I know. I was looking at them today. I don't think we got those yet. Could you read those? PUBLIC HEARING OPEIIED MRS. YORK-Would you like me to read them? MR. CARTIER-I certainly would. MRS. YORK-Okay. "Dear Mrs. Lee: I am writing in reply to a notice of public hearing regarding the application for the Site Plan Review for Keith Harris on Pickle Hill Road. I strongly oppose the use of the property for raising 1 ivestock as well as continuing other agricultural use. Along with family members. we own four acres of land on Pickle Hill and Ridge Road. Having livestock raised across the street will be unsightly. probably smelly, dangerous. and not in the best interest of this still growing residential area. I don't feel that the Harris' have the proper amount of property to raise any livestock." And that's from Lillian Graun. The other letter is from Mr. and Mrs. Herb Smith. "To Whom It May Concern: Several days ago we received a letter from the Town informing us about a hearing in relation to the property owned by Mr. Keith Harris on Pickle Hill Road and whether it should be zoned agricultural or not. Mr. Harris contacted us requesting that we write a letter stating our viewpoint in relation to the situation. It is our understanding that this property was originally zoned agricultural and we feel that Mr. Harris should retain the right to keep it as such. Sincerely. Mr. and Mrs. Herb Smith" This one is from Marshall Clemens "Dear Planning Board: I am responding to a notice of public hearing in respect to the Site Plan Review of Keith Harris for raising livestock as well as continued agricultural use on his property. I am fully aware of the size of the proposed structure. it's locations. and have no objections to this or any agricultural use on Keith's property. I also have no objections to the livestock he plans to raise there. I, Marshall Clemens. am located west bordering Keith Harris' property." And then we have a returned public notice and it's got written on it. "No objections". from Janice Potter, neighbor. and I believe that's all of them. I may have one more, from Phyllis Marvin. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I just saw that this morning in the office, so we haven't done that one. MRS. YORK-Okay. Well, there's a couple of more, I guess. "Dear Mrs. York: Concerning your notice of August 13th about Keith Harris' proposal for raising livestock in an RR-3 acre zone. I did not plan to attend since I feel Mr. Harris should be able to have animals on a farm. It's his commercial logging business that I object to. I made other plans for August 20th. Now I learn from my neighbors that Mr. Harris is also proposing to build a large barn. How come this was not mentioned in your notice? That presents a very difficult and very much larger problem. I most assuredly do not want to attend any meeting about another building on that property. I trust you will reschedule the meeting and give me adequate notice." MR. CARTIER.Yes. and therein lies the reason why we're going to re-advertise this thing. MRS. YORK-Okay. This one is from Jack Howe. "I have talked to Keith Harris and told him that I have no objection to his keeping farm livestock on his property as long as it is well kept and consistent with environmental concerns. Regarding the shed or barn that he wishes to construct, I have no problem with that. as long as it is used only for housing livestock and does not add in any way to his existing logging business which the Town of Queensbury should never have allowed in the first place." And I believe that's it. exclusive of the letters that you have received. also. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Before we get into taking comments. at the risk of being the messenger who gets shot. I'd like the public to understand that the only thing we can address tonight is the application before us, in terms of site plan for raising pigs in a pole barn. I am well aware of the fact that the excavating and logging business is a major concern of neighbors in that area. but that is not the subject of this hearing tonight. nor will it be. So. I would ask that whatever frustrations or concerns you have about that be addressed to some other appropriate agency in this Town. and not this one. We are restricted to deal ing only with this site plan. This will be tabled. because we have to re-advertise it to include the fact that a pole barn is being built. The public hearing will remain open. We are going to conduct a public hearing tonight. simply because it was advertised as a public hearing and people are here to speak and we will take those comments tonight. in addition to any other comments you'd care to make at any other public hearing associated with this application. Is there anyone here who wishes to address the Board this evening? DOROTHY BURNHAM MRS. BURNHAM-Dorothy Burnham, Boulderwood Drive. I have a problem with just addressing the agricultural use as separate from the pole barn building because the two are interrelated. While I do not object to the growing of crops and agricultural use. that's what's been there right along. I don't object to Mr. Harris' keeping a few animals if they're well kept and out of sight and well maintained. I do object to the pole barn. So. how do we separate those? 8 '--. ~/ MR. CARTIER-Okay. Maybe I didn't. did I say pole barn? I meant to say the excavating and logging business. MRS. BURNHAM-Well. you did say that. MRS. PULVER-You did say that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I did not mean to suggest we're separating the pole barn from the agricultural use. Those are one in the same. Those we will consider. That's part of the Site Plan application. MRS. BURNHAM-All right. MR. CARTIER-My only poi nt was that we have to go back and re-adverti se the fact that a pol e barn is being constructed. That was not advertised the first time around. MRS. BURNHAM-All right. That was my question. can we address the entire problem. MR. CARTIER-Absolutely. MRS. BURNHAM-And. again. the pole barn adjacent to the commercial garage would appear to me to be an expansion and how I can say this without talking about the business, I don't know. but the probability exists that it would be used to house commercial equipment. Who is going to monitor this? Who is going to say. that payloader is being used for farm work or that payloader is being used for construction work. If the barn is used strictly for animals. that is another story. but it should not be placed adjacent to the commercial garage. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. PAUL DAVIDSON MR. DAVIDSON-Good evening. Paul Davidson. I reside on Pickle Hill Road. opposite this expansion. this request. I believe you've all read my letter. I just came up to see if there were any questions. any clarifications I could make. If not right now. if any questions came up. I'd be available to answer them via the phone or if you'd even like to stop. I would like to make the point that while I understand that the Board would like to keep the business separate from the agricultural uses. both are located on the same 20 plus acres. How do you differentiate which section's the business. which section's agriculture, who's going to enforce where that line's drawn and the closer that that barn is to that garage, the more 1 ikely that that will be an expansion of the business and given the past history of the parcel. I would strongly urge you to try and use your best judgement in the location of the barn relative to all the other neighbors and to the existing commercial activity. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-I don't know if this will answer your question or not. but I'll speak for me and if anybody else on the Board wants to deal with this. The Senior Planner has made some very appropriate comments with regard to location of this pole barn and animal use and I'm certainly going to take those comments very seriously and. for my part, I'm going to recommend to Mr. Harris that he, in fact. move these and locate them in such a way that they are the least offensive to the neighbors as possible. MR. DAVIDSON-Thank you very much. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anyone else care to address the Board? Okay. If not, this evening. again. may I remind you that this public hearing will remain open and we will take any further comments you'd care to make. Does anybody else on the Board have a question or a comment? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I might disagree with you a little bit. I think that I would like to hear what people's overall concerns are for the entire lot. If you have pigs now with no barn, what do you need the barn for, and. again. if there's a reasonable expectation that that barn is going to be used for the excavating and logging business. I think I'd want to hear that myself. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Let me just see if I can clarify what I said. probably very poorly. I have no objections to hearing comments about potential connections between these two. What I don't want to get into. in effect, is a rehearing about the business itself. that's still apparently tied up in 1 itigation. Maybe I stated my position very poorly on that. I don't mean to el iminate your comments regarding connections between these two. it's just that I don't want to re-hash. MR. CAIMANO-And we can't do anything about it anyway. MR. CARTIER-Right. That's the easiest way to put it. Thank you for your succinctness. MR. LAPOINT-I'll agree with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 9 -- .-/ MR. HAGAN-While the applicant is here. could we question him? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. CAIMANO-I think. I like that idea. I'd like to hear the answers based upon Number Six of Mr. Davidson's letter, and this is the thing that really bothers me in this whole thing. Mr. Davidson's 1 etter. on hi s 1 ast page. Number Si x, says. "It is obvi ous. based upon past performance. that any 1 imi ts placed on the Harris property will not be adhered to or enforced." And I guess I'd like to hear the answers based on that, because what good is it if we're going to say things. here, and make rules and regulations and no one really cares. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well. I think maybe we need to get Mr. Harris or his representative here to address some of these questions. Are you Mr. Harris? MR. HARRIS-Yes. I'm available. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Could we get you to the microphone and answer some questions? MRS. PULVER-I have one question I'd like to ask Lee. We keep talking about this 20 plus acres. but we have a logging business and now we're going to have some agricultural use. but every time we tal k about. if we're talking about the logging business. we talk about it on 20 acres. When we talk about the agricultural. we talk about it on 20 acres. MR. CAIMANO-Well, we can't even talk about the logging business. because it doesn't exist. MRS. YORK-This is a question that it is not in the realm of my responsibility to answer. This is reallY a zoning matter for the Zoning Administrator. How much of this business is required. is going to be separated out as agriculture. What percentage is going to be the existing commercial business. The applicant has not divided these or separated these in any way and the Zoning Administrator has not indicated that they have to be separated in any way. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think it's a good question and a good comment. MRS. YORK-I agree with you. MR. CARTIER-And I think. in the meantime, since this is going to be tabled, that's a question that can be addressed to the Zoning Administrator and get some answers to that. MRS. PULVER-And also, Mr. Harris. maybe you'd like to provide us with some information as to what you think. how many acres you use for your logging business. MR. HARRIS-I use less than an acre for the garage and the rest is, it's agricultural use. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think what we're probably going to have to see is a map, at some point in the process. MR. HARRIS-The only thing I propose in the pole barn is agricultural use. MR. CARTIER-Let me finish my comment. in terms of what Mrs. Pulver is tal king about, I think at some point when you come back in, I for one. and I'm hearing other Board members say essentially the same. would like to see a map showing what portion of the property is being used for logging. excavation. wood cutting. and so on and what portion is going to be used for agricultural use. I also don't want you to get trapped by Mrs. Crayford's comments. here. too. in talking about, "has 20 plus acres, and therefore. a maximum of 10 horses woul d be permitted". We have to sort out, well. 10 horses. and how many cows and pigs. if any, and that sort of thing. That's a question that Mrs. Crayford's going to have to address. somehow. what is allowed on this property, in terms of numbers. MR. HARRIS-It's not going to be a commercial farm. It's a private use farm. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. I have no problem with that. MR. HARRIS-And. as far as neighbors wondering if there's going to be 17 animals or 27 animals, I would like to propose six horses. three cows. and I have there now ten pigs. MR. CARTIER-I'm glad you're coming up with numbers. now. but what we're going to have to do is get an answer. not only from you. I think what has to happen here, somebody correct me if I'm wrong. it would be worth your going to Pat Crayford and saying what you just said. here's what I want to have in terms of number of animals, am I allowed those. and let Mrs. Crayford go through the Ordinance and sort all that out. okay. I think that will address some of the concerns that are being raised. here. MR. HARRIS-I would just ask for the most legal population of agriculture use animals I could have. I leave it up to the Zoning Board to determine the legal status of the farming. 10 -- MR. CARTIER-Fine. I have no problem with that. We're not arguing, here. We're just trying to get clarification. I would agree with what you just said. Okay. MY point is, that's got to be hammered out somewhere. We have to have those numbers so we can figure out precisely what's being used for what's being used for what and so on and so forth. MR. HARRIS-I haven't studied the zoning. so I couldn't tell you. MRS. PULVER-Well. that's why if you spoke with her. MR. CARTIER-We're not expecting you to come up answers to that tonight. MR. HARRIS-Okay. MR. CARTIER-All I'm telling you is that's a question that we need to address to our Zoning Administrator and get this sorted out and that's why I brought up her letter in this last thing. She says, because if I'm reading the Ordinance correctly, and this may not be the case, as has been in the past. if you were to put 10 horses on there. that would eliminate any other use of farm animals, for example. So. I'm just giving you an example. okay. So. that's something you have to sit down and get sorted out. MR. HARRIS-Well. I have more than 20.88 acres. so if I need to include a couple of other pieces that I have. MR. CARTIER-Well, then we have to look at an entire site plan. then. okay, and that will certainly help us. give us some more leeway, I think. in moving some things around to sort out some neighbors. See. if I had known that. Do you have more than 25 acres? MR. HARRIS-Yes, I do. MR. CARTIER-Well. see, my question would have never come up, if that were the case. So. it sounds like what we need to hear, are they contiguous, are they joined to this 20.83 acres? MR. HARRIS-Around 24.88 acres is joined. MR. CARTIER-All part of this one? MR. HARRIS-The original Harris farm. MR. HAGAN-Do you have the map. Peter? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I'm familiar with it. Is that "Other lands of Harris", is that your property? MR. HARRIS-Yes. it is. MR. CARTIER-That is? MR. HARRIS-Yes. it is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, I think it would be appropriate, you may want to get a copy of these minutes, here. for you to revise your Site Plan. showing us the entire parcel, also taking into account the comments you have heard from neighbors and also the Senior Planner and see where else we can locate this to minimize its impact. I think that would have a much more favorable effect on this Board if we could see something like that. MS. CORPUS-I just have a question. Mr. Chairman. Were you questioning the fact of whether the Ordinance would read that if he had so many of one thing, he couldn't have other type of livestock depending on the acreage? MR. CARTIER-That's what I'm assuming. I'm looking at Pat's last sentence. "Keith has 20 plus acres on this site. Therefore, a maximum of 10 horses would be permitted". MS. CORPUS-I'm not sure whether it's legally correct to say that there would be an either or situation in this case. MR. CARTIER-In other words. you could have 10 horses plus cattle, plus. MS. CORPUS-Right. We can definitely talk to the Zoning Administrator on that and then Mr. Harris would also have to determine whether he wants to bring in the other acreage or not. as part of the Site Plan Review, in that he may not be using it for this purpose. It may not be a subject of this Site Plan. MR. CARTIER-Cannot this Board require that it be part of the Site Plan? 11 '- ---./ MS. CORPUS-I don't know what his intentions are for use of it. MR. CARTIER-Are we prevented from requiring that it be part of the Site Plan? MRS. PULVER-Well. if it's a separate deed and he doesn't want to use it. I don't see why we can't make him. MS. CORPUS-If he doesn't intend to make it part of it, it's up to the applicant as to what they present for site plan. MR. HARRIS-I just would like to do anything I could to personally have a few animals to try to solve the whole problem. I don't want to ask for a dairy farm or anything. but I would like my children to have a few animals. MR. CARTIER-I have no problem with that. MR. HARRIS-And as far as the barn, I'm asking for an agricultural use. It seems, legally. to me, if I was to expand my business there, I mean, that would be an illegal situation you could prosecute me on. MR. HAGAN-That brings up my question. MR. HARRIS-Mr. Davidson knows plenty of things that are going on over there. so if he sees it. I'm sure he'll have pictures. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HAGAN-Before we stray to far away from it, from a practical point of view, since you are proposing to have two separate uses, here, what was your practical purpose in having the pole barn erected so close to the existing garage. If you're going to have livestock, it seems to me you'd want them as far away from traffic as you could get them. MR. HARRIS-One is access. Two is water. Three is, I figured that closer to my house wouldn't be intruding on the neighbors. It's the most logical place to put a building. I don't want to have to ask my kids to walk way down the road or w~ down in a mud hole in the spring. I'm willing to plant some trees. Whatever it takes. If they don't want to see the barn, I'll plant some trees. I've planted thousands of dollars worth of trees and never asked anybody for anything. MR. HAGAN-Well, the reason I ask the question, your map doesn't show your existing house. assuming there's no house on this property. So. I'm MR. HARRIS-There's not a house on the property. That's a different property. MS. CORPUS-That's a different parcel. MR. HAGAN-Well, you mentioned something about walking from the house to the pole barn. MR. HARRIS-The house is on the small lot, which is a 200 by 100, west of the garage. MR. CARTIER-And that is shown on this Site Plan. and that is my point in raising the question that if the applicant has other property contiguous to that. I'd like to see that, too, that ought to be in there. It seems to me that for this Planning Board to be able to consider this appl ication. we have to have an overall picture of what is there. MRS. PULVER-No. I don't agree with that. I don't think we need to see all his land. This is the only piece that he wants to do anything with. MR. CAIMANO-Carol. the history of this thing is that we do have to see all of it. MRS. PULVER-But they're separate deeds, Nick. MR. CAIMANO-Pardon me? MRS. PULVER-They're separate deeds. MR. CAIMANO-How can we include this as a part of the house if it's a separate deed. then? MRS. PULVER-No this is one deed. that he is showing us, the 20 acres. MR. CAIMANO-I understand that. but if this garage is a part of the house, which is on a separate deed, how can we do that? 12 - -----" MR. HARRIS-It's not a part of the house. MR. HAGAN-It isn't. MR. CAIMANO-That's what it was originally. though. MR. HAGAN-Well. I'm just looking at a map. MR. CAIMANO-Here's my point. I'm on Page 17958 of this book that you guys give us and bless us with. This is an RR-3 zone. is it not? MR. HARRIS-Yes, it is. MR. CAIMANO-I don't see anything in here. in RR-3, that allows a commercial operation of the kind he has going, which everybody seems to admit that you have going. MR. HARRIS-Yes, the commercial operation is a preexisting. nonconforming use that has been through the Supreme Court, Town Court, Appellate Division. MR. CAIMANO-Is that the one that's still under? MR. HARRIS-No. it isn't. MS. CORPUS-It's been resolved. We lost. DAVE HATIN MR. HATIN-Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement. For the Board's information, the business that Keith has currently has gone through the court system, has gone through appeals. and basically he is allowed to maintain what he has. Recently. we reviewed it with the attorney to see if he was in violation. The determination was made by the Attorney's office that he is not in violation by what we currently see on the property and one of the neighbors was advised of that because she was the one who wrote the letter. Right now, I just want to clear something else up for the Board. as the ex-Zoning Administrator. if you want to call me that. some of you have a Code Book in front of you. On Page 18032. which is Article 179-63 of the Ordinance, under Agricultural Uses. you have the four definitions of farms, okay, that are 1 isted. Below that. you have Section D which states the criteria for only horses and ponies. There is no criteria in here for the amount of acreage required for pigs, cows, whatever else you can think of, roosters. chickens. anything. It just gives you the class farms by the acreage that is provided by the applicant to be used and those were the certain criterias you could have. So, basically. you could have between five and ten acres and have as much livestock as you wanted to. by this. MR. CARTIER-Are you tell ing me that this gentleman could put 10 horses on this piece of property and 100 cows and. as a Planning Board, we would have nothing to say about that? MR. HATIN-From reviewing it quickly, Peter. I would have to say yes. MR. CARTIER-I would disagree in terms of Article V and the things that this Board is required to consider in passing approvals. MR. HATIN-Well. what the Board wants to pass as an approval is separate from what the Ordinance requires. okay. The problem is. the Ordinance has no requirement for how many cows you can have on your property or how much acreage you have to have per cow. That's not in here. MR. CARTIER-Does that prevent this Planning Board from applying Article V and the things in Article V that we are required to consider when we make a motion? MS. CORPUS-No. If the Board feels that that comes within the perimeters of those items listed in Article V. including numbers and location. as long as it's backed up with those items in Article V. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's what I need to hear. MR. LAPOINT-Can I jump in here. Section C Farm Animals 2. Standards for Accommodation of these animals will be determined by the Planning Board with help from the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Warren County. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Yes. MR. HATIN-Okay. But 1'm saying that there is no acreage requirement for cows versus horses versus pigs versus livestock. That's what I'm trying to point out to the Board. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. 13 -- ---/ MR. HATIN-You may be able to establish that, yes. but I'm saying there is no criteria in here for that. MR. CARTIER-But we can establish it. according to Item C2 that Ed just referred to. and also Sections of Article V that would apply. Good. Thank you. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Cartier. if I could give background into, I think that Mr. Harris. when he sought to put this application in. as a result of another law suit, the one of which you have the order for. regarding the pigs. the subject of that was thi s particul ar property and not any other property he had. and I think that's where the basis was. for this. MR. LAPOINT-So this decision in order is in force. in terms of the pigs, and this is what we have to go by on the pigs? MS. CORPUS-Right. MR. CARTIER-Would that decision have been any different if he had listed 24 or 25 or 28 or 1,000 acres. MR. CAIMANO-Wait a minute. we can't get involved in that. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. I'm just trying to get something clear. here. My point is, the number of acres in that decision I'm not sure are relevant here, to the pig decision. If we've got to give it a name. we'll call it the pig decision. JOAN KUBRICKY MRS. KUBRICKY-I'm Joan Kubricky and I'm here just to ask the question. is this a preexisting farm? MR. CARTIER-Yes, ma'am. MRS. KUBRICKY-It's a preexisting, nonconforming use on 20 acres? MR. CARTIER-No. It's a preexisting farm. Farming has been allowed in this area. So it is not a nonconforming agricultural use. It is allowed in the Ordinance. MRS. KUBRICKY-So. the RR-3 is only if he wants to subdivide it and turn it into a residential? MR. CARTIER-No. I think the best way to answer your question is if you were to read the description of what's allowed in a Rural Residential 3 Acre Zone, I think that may answer your question. He is allowed. by Ordinance. agricultural use. okay. He is allowed to have pigs and chickens and horses and cows. What this Board is trying to hammer out is how much and where. Does that answer your question. I hope? Thank you. Karla. my point is. if this applicant has more than the 20.83 acres of land, I would be much more amenable to sorting some things out here if I knew how much that land was. I'm not trying to play games here and get him up to this 25 acre thing. That's a wash. That's gone. The determination's been made on that, but as a Planning Board. at least this member of the Planning Board, wants to see the whole picture. not just a piece of the picture. Let me give you an example of what 11m tal king about. We are in the throws, right now. of deciding on a roller coaster. We are not just looking at the piece of property that the roller coaster is going to exist on. we are looking at the entire site. and what I'm saying is. I think we need to do the same thing, here. MRS. PULVER-But. Peter. this is the site, is right here. MS. CORPUS-Well. the entire site that Mr. Harris has presented are these two parcels of property, for these uses. He doesn't intend to expand them onto other property from this apparent site plan, unless he chooses to do so. If he chooses to bring in and say, I'm going to use all of the other property for these uses. he's entitled to do that, or he can limit it. It's really up to the applicant. MR. CARTIER-I'm not going to belabor this. think I've made my position clear. MR. BREWER-Peter, I think the question is. is this one parcel one deed, and is this another parcel and another deed? MRS. PULVER-Yes. it is. MR. CARTIER-Yes it is, what? MR. BREWER-Well. how can you say you have more than 22 acres? If this piece is 22 and this is more. how can you combine them if they're two separate pieces of property? MR. CARTIER-Are they two separate deeds. Mr. Harris? 14 '---' ~. MR. HARRIS-Yes. they are. There's actuallY four separate deeds. When I came for a variance for my house last year, I was told under the zoning purposes you could combine adjacent lands. I'm not a zoning. MS. CORPUS-It's changed. The Ordinance has just changed in all that. at the moment. There was an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. MR. BREWER-Could he consider that as one piece of property? MR. CARTIER-If he wanted to. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Let me just, quick, sum up. so we can get out of this. You've got 20.8 acres and you're going to tell us how many pigs you want on that, in writing. between now and then, and satisfaction of 179-63 C2. If you meet that. you tell us, and we'll tell you if you meet our standards at our next time we meet and talk. MRS. PULVER-Within that 20 acres. MR. CARTIER-Well, understand that the applicant has also mentioned in his application. now, horses and cows. MR. HARRIS-And I'd like a few poultry. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Get those in there. Get all your numbers in there, what you're going to have. and we'll . MR. HARRIS-Well. I would ask someone from the Town to tell me what. legally. I'm allowed. MR. LAPOINT-We have to consider your, we're going to place a standard on your. MR. HARRIS-I want the maximum that's legally allowed. That's all I'm asking for is what's legally permitted. MR. LAPOINT-Ten horses is maximum. MS. CORPUS-Ten horses, and if Mr. Harris doesn't have a preference, the Board could make that determination. LAPOINT-Right. MR. CARTIER-Maybe the way to go at this is a trade off. You're allowed 10 horses. there's your max. Now. you can reduce the number of horses. I wish I could give you numbers, here. I can't. I'm just trying to give you a direction. You can reduce the number of horses. You can trade in horses for cows and pigs and chickens. is basically what this amounts to. I know it sounds ridiculous. but that's what I'm trying to get to. MRS. YORK-Would you like me to contact the Cooperative Extension? MR. CARTIER-I certainly would. MR. HAGAN-Yes. We are going to, before we're finished anyway. MR. CARTIER-All right. I think you just solved my problem. Thank you. Lee. MRS. YORK-Mr. Harris, you can also contact the Cooperative Extension. MR. HARRIS-Yes. I have 1 iterature home. I had a building permit for a barn before the zoning was changed in 1988. which was another legal matter that I lost. and at the time I didn't have the money to fight it. If I'm right, you're allowed one acre per animal. That's only, you know, as a horse or a cow. As far as a poultry or pigs or goats or donkeys. there's no classification. MR. LAPOINT-They must have something. Cornell. Again. confer with them and get what they tell you to us. you know. chickens. cows. pigs, ducks. whatever. and we'll take a look at what they have to say, also. MR. HARRIS-Okay. MRS. YORK-I'm sure they have standards for animal husbandry. MR. HARRIS-Yes, they do. I had it out today and why I didn't bring it. I figured I didn't need it. MRS. YORK-Okay. Well, we will get working on that as soon as possible. 15 ---./ MR. CARTIER-All right. In fairness to Mr. Harris. I would also 1 ike the Board to give him some indication as to the location of the pole barn. Is that satisfactory or is it not? I don't want Mr. Harris coming back in here with the pole barn in the same location and we tell him, then. well. no. we don't like it there. Lets let him know, tonight. so he can address this. MR. HAGAN-Actually, he's meeting the setbacks. My question was to find out what he had in mind in having the barn as close to the garage as he has it. because it has two separate uses. However. I'm not going to push the applicant in the corner and tell him where he's got to put it. If he's meeting the setbacks. the side yard setbacks, the front yard setbacks. I don't think we can instruct him to do anything else. MR. HARRIS-I am meeting the setbacks, as far as Mr. Hatin. MR. HAGAN-Right. The only thing. in trying to keep harmony in the neighborhood, I was wondering why you wanted the two buildings so close? MR. HARRIS-Simply for access, water. and, like I said. this is for a residential use farm. It's not a commercial. selling beef or chickens. and it's for my children. I have a daughter 8 and a son 7. and if anybody's worried about the looks of the barn. I'll plant trees. I plan on planting trees. but there's limited funds and time available. MR. BREWER-Jim, could you look on Page 17995, Letter D, "Project would not have an undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic. ecological, wildlife. historic. recreational. or open space resources of the Town or Adirondack Park." I think if it was that close to the road. it would be aesthetically. MRS. PULVER-It meets the setbacks. MRS. YORK-Yes. but this Board has the ability to increase any of the setbacks given special conditions on any particular site. MR. CARTIER-Yes. setbacks are strictly minimums. MRS. YORK-They are always minimums. MS. CORPUS-I'd just 1 ike to echo Mrs. York, in that the Board does have the authority and the power to direct location of these items based upon any of the Sections in Article V that apply. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MRS. PULVER-I think. lets get on with this. here. as far as moving the pole barn right now. we need to re-advertise. We can discuss that again at the second meeting. but when you come back. what I would like to know is, what animals you're going to have and how many of each and you can work that out. There are two buildings. I guess. that are not located, right now, on the map. MR. HARRIS-As far as storage sheds? MRS. PULVER-Yes. I'd like to see the location of those on the map. I'd like to know how much of this acreage is used for your business and you can dot it off your map or whatever. MR. HARRIS-The driveway would be the limit. MRS. PULVER-All right. Well. I want to see it. Do it in red. white. blue. MR. HARRIS-Well. the driveway's on there. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but people in the audience can't see it that well. I think it would be nice if we all could see that. I want to see the two other buildings. I want to know how much of this land is being used for your business. how much of the property you intend, or the exact acreage that will be left to use for the farming and how many animals and what kind of animals. Okay. That's it. MR. CARTIER-Good. Thank you. You've done an excellent job of summing that up. Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions or comments that they care to make? Okay. DEBBIE DAVIDSON MRS. DAVIDSON-My name is Debbie Davidson. I 1 ive on Pickle Hill Road. One thing I want the Board to consider, as you're discussing the number of animals and such is that he stressed that he wants for his own private use. Pigs, chickens. whatever. there has to be a reasonable number that. for his own private use. he can use. At the same time, he's saying he wants the maximum he can get. So. I would ask you to kind of keep that in mind when you're making these determinations. that it is for his own private use as he has stated. Thank you. 16 MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BURNHAM-Dorothy Burnham. Boulderwood Drive, again. I would request that you also consider the location of these animals on that property, keeping in mind that the prevailing winds are from the westlnorthwest, also keeping in mind the comments that were made prior to coming up with our Comprehensive Land Use Plan and also the comments which you have seen in my letter regarding retaining the scenic beauty of Pickle Hill Road. which is a historic road, and also taking into consideration that most of our properties are facing this. I think it's wonderful to look out and see some horses grazing and cows grazing, but I don't think it's so wonderful when the wind is blowing in my direction. So, if you would also add that to your list of considerations. I would appreciate it. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. DAVIDSON-I bel ieve Mr. Harris made a statement with regard to his location of his commercial property. This is where I think we're going to have a problem and I really strongly urge the Board to closely look at this because he just stated that from his driveway. the area his driveway is commercial property. It is not commercial property. His commercial property does not go that far. did not go that far and he's attempting to extend his commercial property all the way across the front of my property and I do not want that to happen. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. HARRIS-I just like to give you my word as a citizen that I'm not attempting to extend the commercial use, and this is strictly an agricultural use which is permitted under Site Plan Review. I would hate to take a preexisting problem with the neighbors and have you impose your views on the garage. This is a site plan review for a permitted use and that's all I'm asking for. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. MR. HARRIS-And you're sure and I'm sure that if there's any commercial use. Mr. Davidson will have plenty of evidence. I mean, it's been stated in court. and I'm sure Dave Hatin can tell you. He knows what's going on, and that's all I'm asking for. MR. CARTIER-Okay. While you're at the microphone, do we have your agreement to table this application? MR. HARRIS-Sure. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd care to comment? Okay. Can we entertain a motion to table this application. Jl)TION TO TABLE SITE PLAII NO. 43-91 KEITH HARRIS. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Proposal for raising 1 ivestock as well as continue other agricultural use, pending re-advertising to include the pole barn structure and for his opportunity to address comments made here this evening. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: Mr. Caimano ABSENT: Mr. Martin MR. CARTIER-Mr. Harris. do you have copies of Staff Notes. copies of letters that were submitted. so that you can address all of those concerns the next time around. MR. HARRIS-No, I don't. All I have is the Staff Notes from Lee York. MR. CARTIER-Okay. You can stop in the Planning Department tomorrow. MRS. YORK-Yes. Why don't you stop in tomorrow. if you have an opportunity. MR. HARRIS-Okay. If I wouldn't, could I come in on Friday? Tomorrow I'm going out of town. MRS. YORK-Why don't you, as soon as possible, give me a call. all right, and we will sit down and try and work on this stuff. okay? MR. HARRIS-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-We're also going to see something from Cornell Extension. I assume, the next time around? 17 " '~ MR. YORK-Yes. you will. MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much. The public hearing. again, will remain open on this application. SITE PLAN 110. 44-91 TYPE: UIILISTED LI-lA ARROIftŒAD ECJJIPtENT. INC. LAW DIESEL (M ER: IfILLIAM J. EHLERT. JR. CATHERIIIE EHLERT EXIT 18. EAST OFF IWF. LEn ONTO PINE STREET. EIID OF PINE STREET. LEn ONTO WZERNE ROAD. IIJILDING ON RIGHT AFTER IIORTHlfAY UNDERPASS FOR SALES AID SERVICE OF HEAVY ECJJIPtENT AID TRUCK REPAIRS AID 1ßf000SALE PARTS. THE 1ßf0LESALE IIJSINESS IS BEING ADDED TO THE EXISTING IIJSINESS ON THE PROPERTY. (WARREll COONTY PLANNING) LOT SIZE: 3.75 ACRES SECTION 179-26 o-~B DAVE COULTER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. CARTIER-Okay. I would mention the reason we're looking at this again is that in our previous approval of this appl ication, and Karla or Lee correct me if I'm wrong, here, no mention was made of a wholesale business being operated out of this and I believe it was brought to Mrs. Crayford's attention, or Mrs. Crayford picked up on this and talked to the applicant and told the applicant that he would have to come back for site plan review on a wholesale business portion of this application. MR. COULTER-My name is Dave Coulter. I represent Arrowhead Equipment. and concerning the wholesale section of it. when first applied for, we assumed. if you wish. that wholesale. because we went in as sales and service of equipment. that wholesale was the only way that that could be done. Wholesale is, essentially, the treatment of sales to businesses. So, we thought we had that covered. in that we sell products in. say. truck bodies. whatever. plows. and so on. So. naturally. we figured we had wholesale covered. This is a surprise to us. and it seemed to be a surprise to Mrs. Crayford because she didn't know what we wanted either. apparently, that's why we're here doing this site plan again. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Lee. can we take your comments, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 44-91. Arrowhead EquipmentlLaban Diesel August 14. 1991. Meeting Date: August 20, 1991 "The application is for the addition of a wholesale distribution business which would be added to an existing Heavy Equipment sales and service business. The applicant wishes to provide 1800 sq. ft. in the service facility for wholesale business. The only other change to the site is additional parking along Luzerne Road. The Zoning Administrator has indicated that the parking will be in compl iance with the code. 1) There will be no change to the exterior of the building. A sign will be added and this should be in conformance with the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance. 2) Vehicular access is not a concern. 3) Parking and loading appear sufficient. 4) Pedestrian access is not a concern. 5) Storm drainage facil ities will not change. 6) Sewer and water facilities will not change. 7) Plantings will not be added. 8) Emergency access is adequate. 9) Erosion is not a concern." MR. CARTIER-Ok~. No engineering comments. I don't have County. MRS. YORK-The County said. "No County Impact". MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does the Board have any questions or conunents? Okay. If not, I'll open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone who would wish to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPEIIED NO COIIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We can entertain, I believe, a Short Form. MR. CAIMANO-Why? MR. HAGAN-We went through the SEQRA. MR. CAIMANO-We went through the SEQRA. All we're doing is changing the name of the business. MR. CARTIER-I understand. Karla? MR. CAIMANO-Why are we doing a SEQRA on this? MS. CORPUS-It's an Unlisted Action. 18 "-- ----'. MR. CAIMANO-But we've done it as an unl isted action on this company before. and all we're doing is saying it's now a wholesale business. MS. CORPUS-But it's a different action. MR. CARTIER-And we've changed the parking. MR. HAGAN-Wait. Does this mean, then, because we put some stipulations on the original application. MRS. PULVER-But that still st~s for that business. MR. CAIMANO-That still stays. MS. CORPUS-This is just for this wholesale business. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MS. CORPUS-You're just doing the SEQRA on the wholesale part of it. Although there are no exterior changes. but it's still an action. MR. CARTIER-You're right, Nick, but we are required. by law. to do the SEQRA. RESOLUTION If HEll DETERMIIlATION OF 110 SIGIIIFICAllCE IS MDE RESOLUTION 110. 44-91. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption. seconded by Edward LaPoint: WHEREAS, there is presently an appl ication before the Planning Board for: sales and senice of heavy equipment and tMlck repairs and wholesale parts. to ARROWHEAD ECJJIPÐT. INC.. Exit 18. east off rilllp. onto Luzerne Road. 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 20th day of August. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer. Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Martin MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAII 110. 44-91 ARROWHEAD EQUIPtEllT. INC. LABAN DIESEL, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For sales and service of heavy equipment and truck repairs and wholesale parts. The wholesale business is being added to the existing business on the property, which has been previously approved by this Board. 19 '-- --- Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Caimano. Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Martin MR. CARTIER-Okay. Under "Any further business that may come before the Board". we have a number of items, here. but I think we can take care of them in relatively short order. You have in front of you. I hope. a letter from Mike Baird. requesting an extension of his approval from August 1990. which runs out tomorrow. I believe. Does anybody have any questions or comments? You should also have a copy of the original motion, if anybody would like to introduce that for an extension. Jl)TION TO EXTEIID THE SITE PLAN 110. 62-90 MIKE BAIRD. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: For the construction of a 30 by 60 foot addition for sign manufacturing with the following stipulations, that a survey plat be provided to the Planning Board showing all information on the current site plan. the location of the well on the Ball property, and the proposed location of the fuel tank. That all spray painting be confined to an approved spray booth inside the building only. and that the soil and erosion control measures in accordance with New York State Guidel ines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control be approved as necessary. The extension is approved for a period of one year from this date. Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano ABSENT: Mr. Martin MR. CARTIER-Would you direct a letter. Lee. to him and make him aware of that? MRS. YORK-Yes, I will. MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much. Okay. Dave Hatin's here to speak to us in regard to Quaker Plaza. DAVE HATIN MR. HATIN-They were told to be here around 8:30. I was looking at your agenda figuring it would take at least that long. MR. CARTIER-We'll take a 10 minute break. then. Dave, are the people here that you need to have here? DAVE KLEIN MR. KLEIN-We're waiting for Mark Schachner. He said he'd be here at 8:30. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, lets try something else, then. in the meantime. Queensbury Factory Outlet. is Mr. Lapper here? JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Yes. sir. MR. CARTIER-Just a very brief history. here. Correct me if I'm wrong. Mr. Lapper called me sometime ago informing me that the approval of the Queensbury Factory Outl et had lapsed and requested that we consider renewing a lapsed approval. I took the 1 iberty of saying no, for the Board. because I have problems with that. personally, but what we came down to was that Mr. Lapper would come to us and address us. in terms of what the status of this piece of property is right now. One of the reasons I should point out to you is that, one of the reasons I said no is Mr. Lapper indicated to me that they would be in with a new application for the property with some changes on it within a couple of months. Is that an accurate description of what. roughly. transpired? MR. LAPPER-That'll be part of a sort of long story that I and my client Howard Carr have for you. We'll make it as short and sweet as we can. but there's a lot of hi story to thi s. I guess part of the reason why we're here is that I know that in the papers this is a hot issue now with the other plaza, just that there's been a lot of comment and obviously. as a resident, everyone here, this large 20 -- plaza's been sitting vacant and nobody can figure out why. I know that a lot of members of this Board weren't here when this was approved in '88. Peter was, and we sort of wanted to bring you up to speed on why the thing is sitting vacant and what's happened. the legal side of it. with the lapsed approval that we're asking to be renewed. and then the plans for going forward and retenanting it. Just quickly, and Karla's probably aware of a lot of this stuff, the reason it's been sitting vacant is because of the Birnbaum family which are the owners of the plaza. in fighting between the two different sides of the family. Saul Birnbaum was the remaining brother. He died in April. and since that's happened. everything's. basically, gone away. in terms of the losses. Not that everyone's made up. but just that they're not funding these crazy, expensive law suits and it looks like everything's going to proceed in a business like fashion for a change. My client is Howard Carr. from the Howard Group in Albany. He is the receiver of the property. appointed by the Surrogates Court in Monroe County two years ago and. in fact, I was here on his behalf two years ago. to get the 1988 approval extended through 1989. In 1989. when Saul Birnbaum was still alive. it looked like there was going to be a sale of the property and his attorney came in and asked for an extension. Howard. unfortunately, didn't know that it was only extended for six months because that's all that he asked for because he thought that a sale was pending. Howard. and then subsequently I. learned recently that it was only six months. He's got some things going on, in terms of retenanting the plaza. which he'll talk to you about and what I was discussing with Peter on the phone was that if one of the leases that's being negotiated now comes to fruition. there would be a modification of the approved site plan which would be to add a building at the edge of Boardmans and the front. which would put a new facade on there from the corner. MR. CARTIER-The lapsed approved site plan. MR. LAPPER-Right. and the lapsed approved variance. because there's also a variance for a 19 foot setback from the corner. Let me just hand this to you. MR. CARTIER-Just a side comment, if I may. I seem to recall when we made this last extension of this thing, we talked about for how long. six months or a year. and we offered a year, if I recall. and the applicant said, no. six months would be fine. I think that's something we ought to keep in mind the next time we look at extensions. that we don't get into this trap again, with the six month extension. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess I want to say that. in terms of the trap. I mean. nObody anticipated that this thing would sit vacant and it just. you had one side of this family arguing that it would be better to sell a vacant plaza so that when Howard went out and got leases, and some very nice leases. and brought them to the Surrogates Court for approval, you'd have the other half of the family arguing, no. we don't want to lease it up. you know, and as a businessman he's pulling his hair out that he's got these nice leases and nothing's happening. So. at this point. that's all behind us. There are some leases that have been negotiated and hopefully some exciting ones that he'll be able to sign in the next few months which would cause us to be back. As Receiver. his job is also to protect the approvals. the value, which includes the approvals, and it's mainly for the two, the extension along the back corner by the NiMo right-of-w~. That's important not to have lapsed because that's a lot of additional square footage. In terms of the front. where there's the old Kentucky Fried Chicken and the liquor store. and Dave Hatin's here to talk about that. and those buildings ought to come down and the only thing that's preventing us from taking them down now is that. as a prior nonconforming use. because of the setback. we don't want to give up the right to that until we've come back to talk to you about site plan extension. There was a plan for a 6.000 square foot building that would have a 19 foot setback. That's no longer the plan. as you can see on that map. What we're looking at is, instead, moving that over to be the front of Boardmans. which would be much less of an impact than building something 19 feet. as was approved. MR. CARTIER-So I understand what I'm looking at. here. this is essentially what was originally approved. with the addition of this proposed addition. here, and the removal of those two buildings. the Kentucky Fried Chicken and liquor store, correct? MR. LAPPER-On the official approved site plan. which I don't have a copy of with me. there was a 6.000 square foot freestanding building next to Boardmans. where those two stores are. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-In place of the Kentucky Fried Chicken and in place of the liquor store, there's a 6,000 square foot building on the approved site plan that has lapsed? MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. LAPOINT-So. what is this in front of us now? MR. LAPPER-What that is. that's nothing official. MR. LAPOINT-You want to trade, the future site plan would trade that for this attached building? MR. LAPPER-Right, which would be much less of an impact. 21 '--- ---' MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So what you're looking for. in a nutshell. is extension of the old site plan. and then you're going to come to us with this new proposed addition? MR. LAPPER-Hopefully. assuming that the lease for that gets approved. Howard can talk to you a little bit more about that. in terms of the plans for the future. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I just had to back up. MR. LAPPER-Yes. There's a lot of things that have been going on. MR. CARTIER-Do I understand you to say that you are. in fact. asking for an approval of this lapsed, is that why you're here tonight? MR. LAPPER-Well, we wanted to bring the Board up to speed and see where you were coming from on this. I mean. ultimately. we would like to not have to come back and re-submit the stormwater management report. the engineering to get what we already got for those two back buildings. MRS. YORK-You will have to re-submit a stormwater management report anyway if you are creating more impermeable area on your stormwater management report. MR. LAPPER-Well. that would be. it would be less than what was approved previously. MR. CARTIER-Well. in other words. this is a change in this site? MR. LAPPER-Yes. It would just be a lot easier to. not easier, but I mean. rather than having to redo something that's already been done, to modify an existing site plan would be a lot simpler. in terms of the time and effort. MR. CARTIER-I just want to be very clear, here. You're asking this Board to accept the modification. to approve a modification of a lapsed site plan approval? MR. LAPPER-No. not at all. MRS. PULVER-No. Wait a minute. Let me see if I have it. They would like an approval of their site plan, an extension on it. that has lapsed. Then the next step is that they're going to come before the Board for a site plan review for this site plan, but they would like not to have to go through all the things that they went through before. In other words, they would probably ask for a waiver for the stormwater management. since this is less of an impact then the original was. Now, I do have that? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I have it. MR. CARTIER-What 1'm hearing Lee say is that. in effect. they would have to do another stormwater management. MRS. PULVER-But they could ask for a waiver. MRS. YORK-They would have to satisfy our engineer that it would, in fact, be less of an impact. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And we would submit a revised report to the extent that drainage waste changed with respect to any new construction. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, Jon Lapper and I spoke on the phone and I also spoke with Paul on this. We did some research and determined that. legally. there's no prohibition from the Board granting. a legal prohibition from the Board. granting an extension of a lapsed site plan. It's not like variances, where there's definite case law and whatnot on having to go and present a new application. That's up to the Board, whether the Board chooses to go forward in that manner or not. We did, however. advise Mr. Lapper that a SEQRA Review. nonetheless, would be necessary anyway. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-If I may address the Board. The reason the Board re-reviews. after 12 months, petitions that are going to lapse. is to look at any changes that have occurred in the neighborhood. in the area. in the Town, and in the Ordinance. that might effect this development. This development was approved on June 21st. 1988. On October 1st. 1988, we had a new Ordinance go into effect and a new Master Plan go into effect. There is also changes on Route 9. At the nearest intersection there have been some major improvements by New York State DOT and Warren County and there is a new traffic 1 ight outside the facility that changes the way the traffic enters and exits and would probably change the interior traffic circulation pattern. That's just for your information. 22 '----' -----" MR. CARTIER-Let me add my piece. here, too. That was one of the things I was going to mention. Secondly. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of getting into extending approvals of lapsed approvals, for one very simple reason. Is this Board prepared to do it for every lapsed approval that comes before us? If we are going to start doing that. we are. in effect, ignoring. or saying we're going to ignore the very issues that Lee has just brought up. So, I'll just say my peace and the rest of the Board can get in on this however they want. I'm very reluctant to renew lapsed approvals, particularly in the case where we're going to turn around and look at something different within a couple of months. MR. LAPPER-Potentially. MR. CARTIER-Potentially. MRS. PULVER-That's probably why I would be willing to approve it. because it's coming back in a couple of months. MR. CARTIER-Well. he just said, potentially. MR. LAPOINT-Well, yes. I guess it woul d be tough for me to approve an extension of the 01 d one when I have absolutely no idea what it is. MR. CAIMANO-That's my problem, too. and the other problem is that. while I sympathize with what you're saying in terms of approving the lapsed ones. in this particular case. we have a verdant area where we don't know where we're going and things have happened since the approval to change Ordinances. I think it's very. very dangerous for us to be doing that. MR. LAPOINT-I think that if they were to come with the same stormwater management. I can waive a lot of that review. MR. CAIMANO-Sure. I could, too. I just can't see throwing our hands up. HOWARD CARR MR. CARR-My name's Howard Carr. I am the court appointed receiver. If I just may give the Board a little bit of background, for those who aren't familiar with this thing. There's a very bitter family dispute that goes on. okay, and it all boils down. eventually, to money. The surrogate of Monroe County got to the point with this particular property where they have basically argued about what time of the day they were going to turn the lights on and off. which was the reason for putting me in pl ace. He did that and instructed me in his order to perform and carry out the functions of the property. One of those functions was the protective rights, as Jon had mentioned, and we came before this Board in '89. I believe in the beginning of June of '89 to extend those approvals that were granted in '88. The pending sale that Jon spoke about did fall through, okay, as a result of a lot of other issues. but I think what you need to grab hold of, here. is that there's some very extenuating circumstances that take place around this. There was an agreement signed between Saul Birnbaum, as the managing general partner, even though his brother Bernard had died in 1979, and that gives you an idea of how protracted this litigation has been, to put that traffic light in. When I went into place in April 1st. of '89 as the receiver. I immediately started to carry out those agreements of the property, leases. agreements between other property owners. which involves the Grand Union property across the street. Saul Birnbaum litigated me to prevent me from carrying out something he agreed to do. yet it was part of the approval process. So, it just gives you some of the background as to how convoluted this whole mess is. and I guess that's the best thing I can tell you. The circumstances that surround this are unusual. I can also tell you that I. up until Mr. Saul Birnbaum's death in April. deal t with nine law firms. and if you think it's tough to get six members of a Planning Board to agree, you ought to try nine law firms. but those are some of the problems that I've had to deal with. The extenuating circumstances, here, okay, are such that I think the Board really has to take special dispensation on this project because when I went into place, okay. one of the very first phone calls that I ever got from any official of this Township was from Dave Hatin. When my signs went up in that place, Dave picked up the phone and said, we've got some problems, and here they are. and he listed them out for me and immediately those problems were dealt with. I understand the sensitivity of that particular property. It's at one of the major gateways of this Township. and I don't think anybody can say that that property has any problems to it now. It's kept clean. even though it's vacant, because I make sure it's done that way. Dave came to me about a problem with dumpsters and fencing. it was dealt with within 40 days. He came to me about a problem that we had last year with the two boarded up, the old Kentucky Fried Chicken and the liquor store building. they were dealt with within seven days. All of the problems that Dave has come to me with, okay. we have dealt with. Modifications in the handicapped parking stalls and all of those things, were done, because the object here is that the property's always going to be here. You and I may not be here many years down the line, but the property will be there and the thing that we want to do is to turn this thing into a good project. Unfortunately. I brought forth some very strong tenants. and Saul Bi rnbaum found it upon himsel f, okay, to prey upon the Court's judgement to say that a vacant center was worth more than an occupi ed center. and some of those tenants. well. as a matter of fact. 75 percent of those tenants currently have or are pursuing locations in the Township and unfortunately this lays dormant. One of those tenants has now come back 23 --- ----- to life. There are others who will. To give you an idea of what was approved, what we're talking about here is that there is no change in the impermeable area for drainage purposes. You've got a 6,000 foot footprint that was approved. All that we're basically doing is taking that same 6,000 foot footprint and moving it to a different area of the property. To give you an idea of what was approved. if you just take off that 6,000 foot area that's added on to the end of that building and put it on to a freestanding structure, that's really what you're dealing with. and that's the change. The shading was for leasing purposes, to show which area that particular tenant was taking. That's what we've done. There is no change. as far as the driveway configuration. I mean. it's where it was originally planned. MR. LAPOINT-So, if you just re-filed, with this figure in front of us is what I'm saying, and attached your old stormwater management stuff so that I had something I could approve or disapprove. MR. CARR-That's not a problem. It really isn't. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. CARR-Because the stormwater management really isn't going to change. We're not going to re-pave the parking lot, take a grade from this to this. and all of those problems. MR. LAPOINT-Agreed. Yes. MR. CARR-The other thing, I mean. it's taken me. with the Court's approval. better than a year, and just yesterday received all the bids back to hook the sewer up because we've got a self contained sewer facil ity, sewage treatment plant on the property, for those things to be el iminated, and I think that really what this Board needs to really give consideration to is the fact that the goal. here. to turn this into a viable project. This property can generate immense tax dollars. in terms of sales tax revenues, property tax revenues. and whatever other taxes this municipality's entitled to obtain. but if we lose the site plan approval to expand it. we also lose the benefits that accrue to the ownership. and those benefits are critical to making the case before the Court, because the problem that we all have to deal with is that I have to answer to the this supreme being known as the Court system in this State. and everything within this property and in these two estates has been 1 itigated all the way to the Court of Appeal s. I can tell you that Judge Wal kner and the eight other judges on that thing know all of the players in the Birnbaum estate 1 itigation by name. I mean, they recall it. If you go down. you can watch it. What I'm trying to point out to you is that the approval of, the reinstatement of the old approval simply says that if you do what you were going to do. and if you built it. had you done it okay, we'd be living with it anyw~. That's really what we've come before you tonight to ask for. We're not trying to hide anything. That's not my goal. MR. CARTIER-Nobody's suggesting that you are. MR. CARR-No. That's the reason I bring this plan forward, because this is where we're headed. I can't say to you that every line and every mark is going to be exactly where it is when we're all done, but this is where we are headed. This is what everyone who has been involved with the property, in terms of leasing it now, is headed toward and that's the plan that we are working from, and that's really, we're not asking you to approve this. I want you to understand that. MR. LAPOINT-Right. So. you're asking for the extension which would solidify your case? MR. CARR-Right. We need to reinstate those and understand, now, there was a variance granted that did lapse, also. So. before we can do anything, okay, even in terms of the old site plan, with that freestanding. 6,000 foot building. if we were to attempt to develop that. it would still mean going back and renewing that variance or obtaining a new one. Whatever it would be. because of the setback restriction. This improves the setback issues. because that one had a 19 foot setback and I think, here. the shortest point that we are is around 30 or 35 feet. MR. CARTIER-Let me see if I can clear something up in my own mind. here. You're saying that you do have a lapsed variance. You're going to have to go back and see if you can get that variance re-approved. MR. LAPPER-That's lapsed. and that would have to be re-applied for, but you don't have any plans for that. MR. CARR-No. I don't really think that's the plan. First of all, just from the economic side of it, it's too expensive to build a freestanding 6.000 foot building. MR. CARTIER-In other words, you do not have to go back and re-apply to get that variance you had re-approved. Is that what you're s~ing? That's the direction you're going? MR. CARR-No. I think we do. MRS. PULVER-Yes, if they're going to do the original site plan. but they are not going to do the original site plan. 24 '-- --' MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. CARR-There's no reason to go back and get that variance approved if we do this plan in front of you. MR. LAPOINT-But if we extend it. you can build a 6.000 square foot separate building. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. We've got a procedural problem. here. This Board does not grant approvals that are pending variance requests. Now. we've got a lapsed variance on this property. What we're saying is if we approve this lapsed site plan. okay, then we are approving a site plan that is subject to a variance request. and in the past this Board has taken a very, very firm position about that. MS. CORPUS-It's a very unusual circumstance. MR. CAIMANO-It sure is. We've got the whole world sitting here waiting for us to make a decision. Uncle Saul's sitting back there at the Court of Appeals waiting for this whole thing. MR. CARR-No. He's not. You don't have to worry about him. He's gone. MR. CARTIER-Well. what's the Board's druthers here. Let's get on with this thing. MR. HAGAN-I interpret what he said. that with their new proposed change, you won't need that expired variance. MRS. YORK-Yes. but you aren't extending a new plan. You're extending a plan that's not in compliance with the Ordinance. MR. CAIMANO-We're not approving a new plan. We're extending the old plan. I'm with LaPoint. Many of us have never seen this thing. I'm certainly will ing to jump through hoops to make sure that it gets approved and cut corners and do everything we have to do to accommodate you. It scares me, though. to have to approve something, re-extend something that somebody else has approved, having listened to all of your discussions about where all this is going. to some court somewhere. I'm not going to do that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, we represent the people of Queensbury. How hard would it be to just. real quick, get us another site plan application? I mean. isn't that the way to go? MR. CAIMANO-We'll hold a special meeting. We'll do everything we can. MRS. PULVER-The submission deadline isn't for another week or so. If you could get this and some of your old stuff together, you could be on the agenda. MR. CARR-Well. again. that's part of my problem. There is still litigation pending against Saul Birnbaum from April 1st, of 1989 to turn over books and records, which he never did. I'm certainly not going to get them now. MR. CARTIER-I don't want to get tangled up in that stuff. I'm trying to keep this Board out of this. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, in any event. even if this Board chose to go an extension route. again. we've advi sed that a SEQRA woul d have to be done and thi s Board woul d have to revi ew it for SEQRA purposes anyway. MR. CAIMANO-We'd have to see the thing just for SEQRA purposes. MR. CARR-I understand that. okay. MS. CORPUS-Which would put you on next month's agenda. anyway. MR. CARTIER-Let me shorten this, if I can, please. What I'm hearing is. Mr. LaPoint. you want to see a site plan before you can vote on it. You want to see a site plan before you vote on it. I don't want to do this simply because I don't want to set a precedent. There's only six of us sitting here tonight. I hear three votes in opposition to this thing already. So, we're talking about a. if I may be so bold as to look in a crystal ball. here. I see a three to three vote. It's not going to go anywhere. So. am I off base. here? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, you're correct. If you can give me. in two or three sentences. why it would be a problem for you to come back with another site plan. You know, just tell me what problem it's going to create for you so I can understand it, because I haven't understood too much so far. MR. BREWER-Just bring this back with your other records and forget about the old one. 25 ',-" '--'" MR. CARTIER-Because. look, then you've got an approved site plan that you can come back. later on. and modify. as long as you are within your time frames. You can come back and modify it later on. MR. CAIMANO-We coul dn' t si t here and read thi s SEQRA Revi ew for the State of New York and say. and negative dec it without seeing it. There's no way we can do it. and the lawyer's sitting there saying we've got to have a SEQRA on this thing. MR. CARR-I know, but I think it would be within the Board's jurisdiction. okay, to grant that extension, subject to the receipt and negative dec on the SEQRA issues. MR. CARTIER-No. I want you to understand, Mr. Carr, you're asking this Board for a lot more than you think you are asking for. Number One, you're asking for an extension of a lapsed approval. Number Two. you are, in effect, asking us to do a SEQRA Review on a project that five out of the six members sitting here have never seen. Number Three. you're asking us to approve something that is subject to a variance, a lapsed variance, when this Board has taken. as I said. a very firm position about requiring that variances be met prior to anything appearing before this Board, and I just don't see this going anywhere. MR. CAIMANO-And on top of all that, you're. at least from what I hear you say, what we're going to is going to wind up in some litigation somewhere. MR. CARR-No. MR. CAIMANO-That's what I heard you say. MR. CARTIER-Well. look. Mr. Carr. I don't think this is going to go anywhere tonight. I really don't. MR. CARR-Well. Mr. Cartier. I appreciate that. okay, but I really want to clear up any issues that Mr. Caimano has. okay. The problem that I have is that whatever this Board hands to me, I take somewhere else. I'm the messenger. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARR-I say to you, please don't shoot the messenger. MR. CAIMANO-Well. we're saying the same thing. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Well. nobody else is cutting any corners in this, but we're supposed to? I mean. the legal system isn't? MR. CARR-No. That's not the request. The request simply was to reinstate the old plan. okay. The issue is is that really there is almost a negligible. well, first of all, the old plan is a no change situation. What we've come here to do. okay, is to show you what the intent is for the modification. MR. CAIMANO-The whole plan is a no change situation. but what you're going against, that is the zoning regulations. have been changed since that time. MR. LAPOINT-And what's in my mind is I vote yes to extend something, and all of a sudden it goes back to a 6.000 square foot freestanding building. which you would have approval to do if I were to vote to extend this. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MRS. PULVER-No. They would also need to go get the variance. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. they would, if it's the original. MR. LAPOINT-But they would have our approval for a 6.000 square foot freestanding building. MRS. PULVER-Providing they got the variance. MR. LAPOINT-Providing they got the variance. MR. CARTIER-And you woul d al so have something that you had approved that was subject to a vari ance application, and, again, we haven't done that. I think, Mr. Carr, all we're going to do is spend our time spinning our wheels. here. I really do. I don't see this getting resolved tonight. I think the most logical. shortest time frame solution is to do what Mr. LaPoint and Mr. Caimano are suggesting. in terms of come back in here as fast as you can with a modified site plan for a new approval. MR. LAPOINT-We're all for you. We want to see this occupied. MR. CAIMANO-We'll push it through as fast as possible. 26 MRS. PULVER-I don't understand why he just can't come back for this for next month's meeting? MR. CAIMANO-He can. as far as I'm concerned. MR. CARTIER-I understand you've got problems, but we also have problems. in terms of setting precedent and Board policy. and so on we have to protect. MR. CAI~NO-He can come back next week if he wants to. I don't care. I'll hold a special meeting for him. MRS. PULVER-Hold a special meeting. MR. CAIMANO-I don't care. All I want to be able to do is see it. I'm not going to rubber stamp something I've never looked at. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Me. too. MR. LAPPER-We feel that the Board certainly. the new Board, deserves an explanation of what was approved. to look at how the Ordinance has changed, because I think it's only very minor. The new traffic, which is on there, has been done. with money partly from Howard's Group. So, I think this needs a fuller explanation. MR. CAIMANO-That's all we're asking for. MR. LAPPER-And a lot of the application material is in Lee's file. and I think we'll quickly re-submit that and come back and have a fuller discussion. MR. LAPOINT-And do it for the new one. I mean, don't go back to what you were doing, you know, the freestanding building. MR. CARTIER-Throw that away. Lee. if we schedule a special meeting to deal with this. the Board's considering a special meeting for this. If we schedule a special meeting for this, what kind of time do you need to review whatever comes in and so on and so forth and Tom also? MRS. PULVER-We don't have a meeting next week. MRS. YORK-No. You do not have a meeting scheduled next week. but are you planning on submitting some documentation? MR. CARTIER-Lee, what I'd like to hear. first, is how much time you need, from the time it's submitted, for you to be able to review it and get it out to whoever's got to review it and so on and so forth. and then we'll go from there. MRS. YORK-I would prefer that it came in for Staff Review. that if it was at all possible. MR. CAIMANO-How much time is that? MRS. YORK-Okay. Staff Review happens the first Wednesday of every month. It's one time a month. okay. That's what I'm tell ing you. If you just want my review, that's fine, but I cannot make sure that another Department Head is going to take the time, during their busy season, to review something other than at Staff Review. That's what I'm saying to you. MR. CAI~NO-Okay. MRS. YORK-And if you're talking about wanting our traffic experts or anyone else to look at it. MR. CARTIER-As far as I'm concerned. this has got to have a full look see, by everybody. This is an impacted area of Town, here, okay. Lets not get ourselves into a trap. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-What's that. the 4th of September? We're talking two weeks from now? MRS. PULVER-Yes. The 4th of September would be Staff Review. MRS. YORK-Right. September 4th is Staff Review. The submission deadl ine is the last Wednesday of every month at 2 o'clock. MR. CARTIER-How soon after? MRS. YORK-There is information in the existing file that we can supply you with. 27 "--' MR. LAPPER-We're still going to have to get our engineer to take a look at it. At this point, to do it right and to explain everything to the Board, we're probably talking October anyway. So. it's not worth. and we appreciate the offer for a special meeting. MR. CARTIER-All right. MR. LAPOINT-Well. even if agendas are full, we'll take that into account and get you in. MR. CAIMANO-Absolutely. MR. CARTIER-There's no such thing as a full agenda anymore. I would point out. MR. LAPPER-At the very least. we wanted to bring everybody up to speed, and we feel there's some goodwill, here with the Board and the project will certainly withstand scrutiny. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Right, and. again, make sure your numbers, if you're dumping 6,000 square feet somewhere, you're only adding 6.000. I mean, the minute we see anything. MR. LAPPER-There will be less of an impact. no question. MR. LAPOINT-Good. MRS. YORK-And I think there was a concern, previously, in this development, about permeable area. If you are getting rid of your septic system that's on site, you may be able to create more permeable area. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MRS. YORK-By doing something 1 ike that, if you're on sewers now. You may want to consider that, and an increase in green space in the front of the plaza, perhaps. MR. CAIMANO-Great. MR. LAPPER-Thanks for giving us the time. MR. CARTIER-I know we haven't given you an answer you want to hear, but I think we got some things sorted out tonight. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Hatin. Another shopping center. MR. HATIN-I've asked the owners of Quaker Plaza to come back to you tonight. as I discussed with you. Peter, 1 ast week. because of some changes that have come up and because of some probl ems that have been created by the improper installation of what was approved by the Board. Dave Klein. from North Country Engineering, and Mark Schachner. the attorney representing the owners are here tonight to discuss that with you. I felt this was more of a change than I was allowed, that I had the latitude to approve. because it does effect traffic. It does effect the parking lot as it was approved by the Board and I felt it was best that they come back and get the Board's feelings. Peter did not feel comfortable making the decision on his own for the Board. So we decided to bring them back. tonight. and that's why they're here. and I'll turn it over to Mark. MARK SCHACHNER MR. SCHACHNER-Thanks, Dave. I think you all know me. Mark Schachner. from Miller, Mannix. and Pratt. I'm the attorney for Quaker Road Associates, which is the partnership that owns Quaker Plaza. Unl ike our previous appearances, here, which had to deal with many. many issues. some we thought were difficult and we think you thought were also difficult. Some were challenging. Some were interesting. Some were less interesting. We're here. tonight. really, to seek what we consider to be very, very minor approvals or approvals of two very minor modifications to the site plan. These are not make it break it, life or death, you know. absolutely, critical. essential modifications. We believe that they both are slight advantages from everyone's perspective, to the site plan as built. and we would ask for the Planning Board to consider the modification request and hopefully to approve it, and if the Planning Board or the Planning Staff feel that the modifications are not to the betterment of the Plaza and the Town in general then. obviously. you won't approve them. The two minor modifications are basically, reduction in size of the islands in the front parking area. There are a number of islands. I don't remember their dimensions exactly. We do have a site plan here. The same site plan you all approved. We can show it to you and we can show you the proposed reduction of the traffic islands. The basic reason for this is that I think it's the feel ing that we all knew we were working with a very tight 28 '-- site. We got the required number of parking spaces in there. I literally just came from there tonight. taking an elaborate drive through. I went through every which way you can, and I didn't have any problems. By the same token, it was not jam packed. It is not open yet, some of the area. Obviously. you all know some of the area .i.! open, and the bottom line is that our consultants. and we think the Town Building Inspector and we think perhaps the Town Planning Staff. but I'm not sure. would agree that shrinking the size of the islands somewhat would just allow more clearance and better flow of the traffic. We're not talking about changing the location of islands or el iminating them. simply shrinking them in size. and that's the first modification, and the second modification relates to curbing on the rear parking lot. The initial site plan showed curbing on the rear parking lot as the openings occur for the tenants that have already opened and as the opening approaches for the next set of tenants which is principally the O'Toole's Restaurant. and by the way. their principles are here as well if you have any questions of them. It occurred to our project team. and I think to Mr. Hatin as well, that nobody really saw a substantial need or desire for the curbing in the rear parking lot. We discussed it with our consultants. as I said. I believe we also discussed it with the Town Consulting Engineer from Rist-Frost. and as far as I know, I'm lead to believe that nobody sees a particular need for curbing on the rear parking lot and, therefore. the second modification we would request consideration of is simply deletion of the curbing on the rear parking lot. Again, we don't view either of these as very significant changes. I think that Mr. Cartier was approached with at least one of the two and his feeling, as was Mr. Hatin's. was that although they are minor modifications, they are modifications to the site plan, and therefore, it is appropriate to come back before you all, the Planning Board, for your consideration and hopefully your approval. I think, and obviously. we would welcome any input from Mr. Yarmowich. I think that on the el imination of the rear curbing, there is an argument that it might actually improve the stormwater management plan. but, again, we're comfortable with the stormwater management plan as it already exists and I want to make clear that, unlike some other instances related to this project that we felt really did involve some challenging and complex issues. our feeling on this one is they're fairly minor modifications. It's possible they could even have been approved by the Staff at the Staff level. without coming back to the Planning Board, but we all want to stay with the appropriate procedures. They are modifications. We seek your consideration. We seek your approval and we seek your input. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-Dave Klein is here. the Project Engineer. He can address particular questions. concerns. issues. He can show you that site plan with the proposed shrinkage. if you will, of the islands. if you 1 i ke. MR. CARTIER-Tom. have you got any comments on this? (END OF FIRST DISK) 29 -./ MR. YARMOWICH-Regarding the change in size of the islands in the front of the building, I don't see anything adverse with that. Discussing the available permeability with the appl icant' s engineer. it was asserted to me that there wouldn't be any need to modify the permeability, or revisit the permeability issue because adequate permeability. or excess permeability was originally provided. The site plan statistics indicate 35.6 percent permeable area, and so I don't have any reason to object or find anything wrong with reducing the size of those parking islands between the retail facility and the parking lot. I understood that that was two that was involved. Is that correct? DAVE KLEIN MR. KLEIN-We've got three islands up front. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. You were going to include the one by the bank as well. ok~. MR. KLEIN-And we've got one by the bank, here, well. actually, two by the bank. MR. YARMOWICH-There's a total of three in the front? MR. KLEIN-Three independent islands and then these two that are connected to some peninsulas. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. These two small ones over here? Yes. That doesn't seem to be significant. I was a little more concerned about the one, did have some concerns about the rear parking lot. and the applicant's representatives can address that. The rear parking lot had a relatively, shall I say. unique configuration. The parking spaces were in an angular pattern. Am I correct in understanding that you would like to delete those islands in the back, as well? MR. KLEIN-No. We will keep the islands. They will be curbed in the back. MR. YARMOWICH-No perimeter curbing. but you will keep the islands? MR. KLEIN-This is the curbing that we're talking about deleting. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. KLEIN-A small section over here. MR. HAGAN-What is objectionable about that curbing? MR. KLEIN-The snowplow removal. It's very difficult to plow a parking lot with the curb around it. MR. HAGAN-Okay. Well. the reason I ask that. I think, on the original site plan approval. we questioned, pretty seriously, how you were going to handle the snowplowing in the back. What are you going to do with the snow? MR. KLEIN-In the back, we can plow it in any direction. The real problem is plowing in the front. MR. HAGAN-Yes. but aren't you infringing on other property when you do that. though? MR. KLEIN-We've got the Mallinckrodt adjacent property. right here. that is owned by the same people that own 73 Quaker Road Associates and also we have a good sized strip of property along here. MR. SCHACHNER-And. also, is this the side where Northway Floors is located? MR. KLEIN-Northway Floors is right here. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. because there's also an agreement. as I understand it, between the owners of Northway Floors and the owners of this Center to cooperate in snow removal. I think. Mr. Hagan, you're correct. I think there was discussion. initially, and, again, I just want to make sure that Mr. Klein is understood clearly. We're not suggesting that we can't live with the curbing as is. with the current approval, and if it's your preference to leave it there. it certainly can be done. It's our judgement that. Number One, it's simply not necessary and, Number Two, it actually would be somewhat of an improvement to not have the curbing there. but this is not, again. I want to make clear, it's not a make it or break it type situation and I agree with you that there was that discussion. initially. One other thing I wanted to point out about the curbing, and this is sUbject to your approval, obviously, but our thought. representing the project owners. was to leave the curbing in. where it separates the property of the shopping center from the Hovey Pond Recreational Area and, again. it's subject to your approval, but our thought was that that made more sense. that you'd probably want that barrier there. It doesn't seem like it's any place that anybody could drive through. but what the heck. It seemed to us it made sense to leave the curbing in that area. just to make that delineation absolutely crystal clear. although. frankly. I think it's clear without it, and. again, if you felt strongly that. in either direction. I think the owner's applicants would go with your feeling. 30 ---- -' MR. HAGAN-Dave Hatin, since you have reviewed the site more recently than we, would you care to comment on the curbing issue? I'm just suspicious by nature. that's all. MR. HATIN-Well, there's a couple of complex issues. right now. Number One is if the Board does require that all the curbing be put around the parking lot. that is going to stop O'Toole's from opening when they're requesting. by Monday, okay. That is a given fact. I've already told them that. Number Two is. from a practical standpoint, I think Dave Klein brings up a good issue. Snowplowing. and I've plowed parking lots for three years prior to coming to this job. I've run heavy equipment in parking lots. Every obstacle you put becomes an obstacle that you go through the windshield with at some point in time. So. it doesn't seem a practical situation. We looked at it from drainage. If anybody had a chance to visit down there. if you look at the two islands that they're talking about shrinking out in front of Blockbuster, you can see where the cars have tried to jump over them al ready and actually drove over them. because people don't know they're there. They're not used to seeing them. Many parking lots in Town don't have them. So. I believe it's an obstacle that people are not used to. So there is some potential to. hopefully. stop a traffic problem. MR. CAIMANO-Dave. your first comment. What's going to prevent O'Toole's from opening? MR. HATIN-I have already told O'Toole's, as well as the owners. the back parking lot must be 100 percent complete and the curbing is a part of that and O'Toole's can verify that. If the Board says you can go ahead without the curbing. then they will just blacktop it and do whatever else you might require. If the Board requires the curbing, O'Toole's will not be able to open until all the curbing is in, because I want that parking lot complete. MR. CARTIER-In terms of vegetation. are there any trees that are going to be planted? Are we losing any trees as a result of shrinking islands? MR. HATIN-The understanding I had. and I think Mark can speak to this. also, talking with the owners last Friday, the trees, Drew Bernstein has committed to all the plantings that were approved by the Beautification Committee will still go into effect, and he has $40.000 allocated for that. He will still get $40.000 worth. The trees. I think Dave has designed it so that the trees will still fit on the islands. but just shrink the length of the islands down. So. I don't think you'll see any difference in the plantings. other than the islands will be smaller. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lee. have you got any comments on any of this? MRS. YORK-I was just having a discussion with Tom about some of the potential impacts here. because I haven't had a real chance to review this, and I will defer to his judgement in this matter. MR. YARMOWICH-The original concern that I stated appears not to be what the applicant's proposing. If the islands for the back parking lot are left. I believe the organization of the parking lot will effectively remain. and there won't be any problem with circulation. If the curbing is deleted on the north side of that rear parking area, that which adjoins what was the lands of Northway Floors. or is the lands of Northway Floors, and the other parcel between that and the restaurant, there needs to be a minor effort made in grading to ensure that all that parking area, in fact. flows into the catch basin. It's relatively insignificant. Other than that, the remainder of the grading will be such that the deletion of the curb around the southern and western boundary won't effect drainage patterns as it originally proposed, if the grading is maintained. MR. LAPOINT-So, what you're saying is the north end of the parking lot has to come up about a half inch? MR. YARMOWICH-Six inches. Just warp it up enough so that it stays within the confines of the site. MR. LAPOINT-And drains back towards the. is that doable from the applicant's perspective? MR. KLEIN-That's fine. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not a problem at all. My understanding is the drainage already does what Tom is requesting. but it's not a problem at all to make sure that it does. MR. LAPOINT-What Tom's concern is, is draining off site. MR. KLEIN-And going on to Northway Floors. MR. LAPOINT-Right. So. that would make three changes. then. MR. KLEIN-I think the grading could be amended to go along with the curbing. MR. SCHACHNER-I kind of think it's that way already. MR. YARMOWICH-I think the deletion of the perimeter curb back here will facilitate better maintenance, in the long run. 31 '----' ---./ MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anybody else. here? MR. LAPOINT-I like it. MR. BREWER-It sounds fine to me. MR. HAGAN-I just think that the curbing should be left adjoining the Hovey Park, there. or whatever they call that. MR. KLEIN-We were planning on leaving it along here where we're close to the dam. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MS. CORPUS-Mr. Chairman, that may be in one of the agreements. also. I don't recall exactly what the terms were of our various agreements. but that may be in there. too. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. There is. especially, one agreement about maintenance of that common property boundary. To the best of my recollection. there is not a curbing requirement. but as I said, we discussed deletion of that portion. also. and our feeling was it was probably in the best interest of the Town to leave that there. and that's fine. MR. LAPOINT-And that's as proposed? MR. KLEIN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anybody else? Is anybody prepared to make a motion to incorporate these three changes? Jl)TIOII THAT THE APPROVAL OF SITE PLAII 110. 68-90 BE AJEflDED AS FOLLOWS: ONE. THE IIITERIIAL ISLAJlDS BE DOWNSIZED PER THE DRAWIIIG SUBMITTED AUGUST 20. 1991, AT THIS MEETIIIG. lVO. THE CURRIE III THE BACK PARKIIIG LOT IS TO BE ELIMlllATED EXCEPT THE AREA THAT SEPARATES THIS SITE FROM THE HOVEY PCJI) SPILLWAY. THREE. III LIEU OF CURBING. All ADJUSUÐT HAS TO BE MDE IN THE BACK PARKIIIG LOT AID LOADIIIG AREA ON THE IIORTH SIDE OF THE BACK PARKING LOT BE GRADED SO THAT DRAlllAGE REMAIIIS ON SITE.. Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Hagan: Duly adopted this 20th day of August. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Caimano. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Martin MRS. PULVER-Dave. some other business to come before the Board. I would like to know, or I would like to hear from you. and I don't know if maybe other Board members would like to know at this time, what our enforcement policies are. in the Town of Queensbury? When this Board, we are not an authority board. We approve something. we pass a motion with stipulations. If the applicant does not comply with the stipulations, what type of enforcement, or what can the Town do to protect. or what does the Town do. I should say? MR. HATIN-Well, I can tell you what we have done. Basically. we try to work with the personnel first. Right now. my inspectors are required. at the final inspection of any new commercial establishment that required site work. to take a copy of the site work out and make sure that all the things. with the exception. usually. of Beautification. We usually don't get into that right away. and make sure that all the other site requirements are met, with the exception of Beautification, and then if that becomes a problem down the road. or we get a complaint, we will go back and review that part of it to make sure that the applicant complies. We usually talk with the applicant first. If that gets us nowhere, we send them a legal notice. If that gets nowhere, we usually send out another notice telling them that within a certain period, if that is not met. the requirements are not met. that they will be issued a court summons. and then it will be followed up with a court summons to the Court of Queensbury. MRS. PULVER-All right. Tell me what effect a Stop Work Order would have. MR. HATlN-Unfortunately. a Stop Work Order probably woul dn' t have that much effect because usually we don't look at the site requirements until the end of the project. MRS. PULVER-Okay. That's what I'm afraid of. Now, you know that I've been getting calls from Norton about Sears. and this has been going on and on. MR. HATIN-I'm familiar with it as of today. even. 32 MRS. PULVER-And, not from you. but Pat told Sears, even, to call me. Why. I have no idea, because I don't even care to hear his story. and I've told everyone to keep calling here. Apparently. as of Friday. the equipment was still there and I drove there to see it myself. MR. HATIN-All right. MRS. PULVER-Now, the neighbors are still calling me. I don't want them to call me. I can't help them. MR. HATIN-I don't know why they're calling you. We are definitely the person to call. MRS. PULVER-Because they called Pat and Pat told them to call me. MR. HATIN-I don't want to speak for Pat. I only know what I do and how I handle things. I did talk to Pat tod~ and she did ask me to go out to the Sears place. Unfortunately. because of today's events, I just didn't have a chance to make it out there. I do plan on going tomorrow morning. and I've already told her that if I see the equipment on site, Frank Sears will be told to remove it or he will have a court summons this week. I'm not going to pl~ games with him. There's obviously. you don't know the whole story, I guess, this is another family feud that we're dealing with here. between neighbors on the same street. MRS. PULVER-I'll tell you, I do understand it's a neighbor, family feud. but he still is not in compliance. MR. HATIN-And I agree that he had the equipment. and he did remove it. Pat did hold up issuing his building permit until all his equipment was removed. Unfortunately. he keeps bringing it back. MRS. PULVER-Exactly. MR. HATIN-As of today. or Friday, he told her that he was using the equipment on site to grind up trees and things. That's what I was supposed to go out and check today and see if that was, in fact. the truth. I didn't make it today. I do intend to make it tomorrow. MRS. PULVER-All right. Now, let me ask you another question. Who is the enforcement? Is it you or is it Pat? MR. HATIN-Both of us, really, either one of us can take an enforcement action. As you are aware. when the Zoning Administrators powers were taken away from me. the Board still gave me the enforcement duties. as well as Pat. So, we both have enforcement. We both can issue court summons. So, there is no. I guess, no territorial dispute there. MR. CARTIER-So. if we get a question. here. we can direct that person to either you or Mrs. Crayford? MR. HATIN-Basically, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. MRS. PULVER-Okay. and you're going out tomorrow, now, and check Sears? MR. HATIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Good. MR. HATIN-I will be there sometime tomorrow, hopefully tomorrow morning. MRS. PULVER-Ok~. I just wanted the Board to hear it so we all kind of know. MR. HATIN-The mechanism is there. One thing I'll tell the Board, though. and you didn't mention something tonight. make sure that, the enforcement problem we're having is a lot goes back to some old approvals, is that nothing was put in the approval. It may have been talked about. but it was never agreed to at any form in time, or it was never agreed to in the approval, and that does present a problem to us because if it's not in the approval, or the appl icant did not agree to it. and unfortunately, the minutes of past board meetings before I came here were very vague. They were consolidated minutes, I guess is the best way to put it. So, we don't have anything to go back in and find, so it makes it very hard for us to say. well, he agreed to it, but we can't find proof of that. So, I have no proof to take to court. so you have to be very specific in your approvals. If you want the applicant to adhere to something or you discuss something that he agreed to, please. by all means put it in the approval. It makes it much easier for us to enforce. MR. LAPOINT-The minutes themselves. The notes don't count? You have to get it in the approval? MR. HATIN-If the applicant agreed to something during discussions and said. we will do this. okay. that is good. unfortunately. we have to go back through and research the minutes and hopefully it's in the minutes which we found out, sometimes. it's not. So. if it's in the approval. it makes it much simpler for us. from an enforcement standpoint. 33 MR. CARTIER-Yes. and it also makes it a lot cleaner from a legal perspective. MR. HATIN-And then the applicant is advised right then, too. so it's not something that he talked about and forgot about. MR. BREWER-Carol, didn't we stipulate. in the conditions of that approval. that he could keep that equipment there while he was building the house? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. HATIN-No. The agreement was that the equipment would be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit. if I remember right. Unfortunately. he's telling her now, he's bringing it back to work on the property. Now, if that's the case, I can't really do much about that. but what I can do is when the CO is issued. if the equipment's still there, I can make him remove it. MRS. PULVER-Well. it all depends on what he needs to build. I mean, if he's building an apartment. does he need a logging, boom crane? MR. HATIN-If I feel that games are being played, here, I will be very straight with the applicant and tell him exactly what I intend to do so that there's no game. MRS. PULVER-Well. I'm very much for business in this community. except that is a residential neighborhood and the neighbors are complaining. MR. HATIN-And it was a business that had no business belonging there, as well as the other one. So. they were residential areas. They were not legally there. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Other things on the buffet table, here. The 29th of August. I'm meeting with John Goralski. Tom. and the LA Group people with regard to the Great Escape to put together the details of the FEIS, and I want to just pick up and make sure I have everything covered that you want covered. here. Ed. you said you wanted a map showing adjacent properties. owners. and distances, right? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Jim Martin's not here, action wise. and then I've got just general issues. pedestrian traffic safety. parking issues. traffic patterns. noise impact. hour of operation. wetlands buffer. 1 ighting on a roller coaster. visual impacts. compliance with previous site plans, effects on Glen Lake, drainage, fire access, sound barriers. plantings, impacts on adjacent properties. filter system west of Route 9. Is there anything else that occurs to you? MR. HAGAN-I left my list at home. Could I call you tomorrow some time? MR. CARTIER-Better yet, send me your list. MR. HAGAN-No. You covered most of it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-What date was this? MR. CARTIER-29, August. MR. LAPOINT-This is what you're telling back to the LA Group? MR. CARTIER-Yes. I just want to make sure that. between John, and Tom. and I and whoever else is tangled up in here. MRS. PULVER-Don't you, I mean, I think some of those things are unrelated to the roller coaster. MR. CARTIER-Possible. I don't know how to separate them out. MR. YARMOWICH-Carol. when the comments are made and given to you. if it's the applicant's impression that they are not relevant. they may so state. If you want to adopt that as this Board's position in the preparation of the FEIS, you may do so. MRS. PULVER-Ok~, because during the public hearing. there were many times that I felt it wasn't the roller coaster. it was the park or, I mean. there were things relating to the park. 34 MR. YARMOWICH-This meeting is specifically intended to call out repetitive and unrelated information from a response which would have no bearing on this Board's determination of significance. The FEIS is not intended to be encyclopedic. Data for data sake is not the purpose of an FEIS. It's simply to uncover issues, significant issues. MR. LAPOINT-Now. Mr. O'Connor, listed at length, he did have a point by point. I mean, in his minutes. what he read into there. and I'm for the coaster and what have you, but he had a good arguments, case by case. as he went along. In fairness to everyone involved, I think we kind of shut him down a little bit. I mean. we probably should have let him get it out. I think that's what we should look into. He had the only objective argument against it that whole night. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the abi 1 i ty of thi s Board to respond to comments, and they usually come through the applicant. is directly related to the specificity. That Mr. O'Connor's comments were more specific will make it easier to deal with. MR. CARTIER-And he was supposed to have submitted something in writing. He's got three more days to do that. MR. LAPOINT-But he was specific. No one else was. MS. CORPUS-They're preparing something. I believe. MR. LAPOINT-Good. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Last. but not least, Mr. Brandt, did you want to address this Board or talk to this Board or anything? MI KE BRANDT MR. BRANDT-I'm not here to make an official statement. I'm really here to explore. I sat through the meet your candidates night. I think I heard you guys get beat up on more than me. That's unusual. I think that if there's a reflection that in the community there are some bad feelings about what the Town is doing and I have some bad feel ings about what the Town is doing. So. as a land developer, I look at a piece of land and I s~. what is the character of that land and what do you do to preserve it. and having lived in Queensbury 30 years. I've come to certain characteristics of Queensbury that I associate with Queensbury, and. to me, to see some fox along the road at night is part of Queensbury. You see a deer now and then. You see a flock of turkeys now and then. You see some beautiful birds and hawks and what have you. It's all part of Queensbury. and in the name of planning, we've enacted an Ordinance which basically, it seems to me, clearly has been said will be used to slow down development in the Town, and it hasn't, and you sit here every day, going as an administrator of that Ordinance. I don't know where the hell they get the time to do it. I couldn't imagine it. I mean. I would be so insulted, listening to the crap you're listening to. I think I'd walk right out. So, to me, that's not planning. It has nothing to do with planning. If you want to plan a town, you plan a town. You say. here's green belt. We ought to save some of this forest. There ought to be a place for wildlife. There ought to be a place for walking paths. This Town is going to fill up in the next 100 or 200 years. None of us are going to be here, but whatever the hell is left is the heritage for the next generation and the one after that and the one after that, and. to me, in the name of planning. we are not doing it. You guys set off and you did a Comprehensive Land Plan. and it's a beautiful document and it's a start. We've, to date, alienated every land owner that I know of in this Town. and I'm one of them. We've alienated virtually every businessman in this Town with this Ordinance. You put a businessman, I mean. a Town Plan. to me. says that there will be business conducted or you can't maintain the Town. If you're going to say that, then you have to put it in your law, and a businessman should have a right to conduct his business. and that means making the necessary improvements to stay competitive as the markets change, or he can't make it, and if he can't make it and he knows that he's pitted against his neighbors in a forum like we conduct. here, I mean. I've seen this for 20 years. MR. HAGAN-But, Mike. what you're s~ing, right here. is the problem we're dealing with all the time. In your past two paragraphs. you've already contradicted yourself. MR. BRANDT-No. I haven't. Hang on. I haven't made a statement. I've said what's wrong. What's wrong is we're not planning. MR. HAGAN-No. You said. you'd like to see a few deer. You'd like to see a few birds. On the other hand. we're restricting business. you're saying, but the record shows we haven't restricted business. MR. BRANDT-Hell. you come back here 100 years from now, and you're going to have a suburb from the mountain top to the next mountain top to the river. You haven't got a plan to save green belt, and a plan doesn't just include the Planning Board. A plan, for God sakes, includes the Town Board. You've got sewer districts. right now. that cost so much money that people can't afford the taxes to live on them, and you know it and I know it. The answer to that is high density development in the sewer districts. It's not to sewer the whole Town. It's cluster development. Hell. everybody knows that except us as a Town. 35 MRS. PULVER-Excuse me. I know that. MR. BRANDT-Okay, but it's complicated because it's a free market and there's a fifth amendment to the constitution and what we tell people, as a Town. is you don't have any fifth amendment rights. We're going to take your, we're going to down zone that piece of land and we're going to save it. We told that to the City of Glens Falls, and you know what, all you do then is you go and lawsuits and then you go 1 itigate the damn thing and it costs us money as a Town. It costs, the community money and that's money that isn't put in saving land. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How do we get to where you're talking about wanting to be? MR. HAGAN-Yes. I was just going to say. What are you proposing? MR. BRANDT-Well, I think we've got a hell of a job in front of us, as a community, and that jOb includes looking at transferable development rights. It looks at making a Town Plan that the Town cOl1lllits to. and that includes a recreation plan. that includes a plan where the water district'S going to be extended. That includes a plan where the sewer district's going to be extended. When you start putting water districts out in rural areas. they're damned expensive. You look at people's tax bills and what are they, they're sewer. They're water. That's the big tax bill that we're associated with. MR. HAGAN-By God. I'll show you mine and it isn't on mine. MR. BRANDT-You're not in those districts? MR. HAGAN-Not where I live. MR. BRANDT-Well, where people live. let me tell you it is. MR. HAGAN-And I'll put my tax rate for two and a half acres against anybody's two and a half acres. MR. BRANDT-Well. I'll tell you. we are building tremendous pressures on land when we extend water districts all over hell. Tremendous pressure to develop. and what we're going to have to. look at England. England has a tremendous population. and yet you go in England, there's countrysides. There's farms. There's forests. There's green belt. and what you do is you cluster develop and you put high density development where the sewer lines are. or where the water lines are and you preserve open space. but so long as you have a farm and you allow people to build houses around it, pretty soon. Jesus, that horse shit stinks. I know. I was raised on a farm. It stinks no matter where you are, in the mid west or here or anywhere else. but farms are an important part of open space. God, we've pretty much wiped out farming out of our Town. That's not good planning. I don't think. Economics may wipe it out, but I don't think we should wipe it out. You can't let a farmer sit there and wonder whether he can have 10 horses or 6 chickens and do you weigh the horses and do you trade them off for the weight of chickens or what the hell you do. I mean, to me, this is absurd. I'm telling you that I think this Town needs to rethink what it's doing. I think that a zoning law can be administered by a professional administrator just as well as can be administered by you guys. I don't know that. I just bel ieve that. I think we have to rethink. I think we should all be rethinking it, because we've got to find a better answer than what we've got, and it isn't a simple thing. It doesn't involve just you. It involves the Town Board. It involves the whole Town. You sit here and you talk about what we're doing at, what is it, Hovey Pond. What the hell are we doing at Hovey Pond? Do you know? I certainly don't know. I've gone and looked. Does the Planning Board know? Does the Recreation Board know? I don't think so. Does the community know? I don't think so. If we're going to COllllliit to a plan. then the Town has to commit its resources to that plan. and that includes buying land and improving land, and one thing the Town better do is start buying raw land that it wants to save. rather than making real expensive developments that it may not need right now, because once that raw land is gone. it's gone, and it gets very, very expensive after that, and I'm here to tell you. we ought to all do some hard thinking about it. because we've got an enormous job, and that's to create a plan that is a plan that works. that saves what we've got. Sure. we've got some deer yet, and we'll have them 10 years from now, well. I'm not sure you're going to have them 50 years from now or 100 years from now. I think there's some unique things about this Town, the frontage along the Hudson River. We're ignoring it. You go into a major metropolitan area and some day this is going to be filled out. Look at birth rates. That's what the hell does it. Then you want walkways along that river. You want jogging paths, and you don't want jogging paths down the road with cars. That doesn't make any sense. You've got all this land the City owns. We should be sitting with the City and making some kind of a joint water system. I know there's a few motions in that direction, but that should include a recreation plan and a land plan. and it may mean transferring some of our money so that we can maintain those things, and save them, and we can't just take their property rights and we can't take property rights away from property owners. We need their good graces and we need to find a way to work with these people, all of them. MR. HAGAN-Then how are you going to stop the farmer from developing his land into housing? 36 MR. BRANDT-Well. if he makes the decision to develop, then he's made a decision to get out of the farming business. Fine. That's a decision. and I don't know anything about this man's case that was here today. but I'm just saying, I could tell you communities where they're whole thrust is to save the farm. Down on Long Island. where they're trying to find the way to transfer development rights as a commodity, so a guy who owns this land and he wants to save it as a farm can sell off his property rights and his taxes go down to where they belong and then you can move those development rights where there's a sewer and put high density there. We've got to do a lot more thinking than what we're doing. and that's really what I just wanted to mention to you. MR. LAPOINT-I know it seems like we might have made a big deal out of this gentleman's farm, and if you could drive by and see the eyesore that this place is. MR. BRANDT-I don't know the man's farm. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. It's really not a farm. even close. MR. BRANDT-Well, it's been there before I was here. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly, but not in it's present condition, and you see what's around him and what Pickle Hill Road looks like and what have you. and you'd probably understand what we're talking about here. MR. CAIMANO-What you say is absolutely right, but lets say we do that and then this Board or that Admi ni strator or whoever it is that you. whoever all of us appoi nt to watch over thi s, that we say to protect, says. you can't do something here because we're protecting it. and then you get apple pie thrown on your head. What's the difference between this and that? MR. BRANDT-You'll also have to understand, in my philosophy. government can't solve every problem. MR. CAIMANO-That's exactly right. MR. BRANDT-Sometimes neighbors have to talk to neighbors. MR. CAIMANO-That's right. MR. BRANDT-And I think that when the government tries to solve every damn problem. all you do is create more than you ever saw. but sometimes you've got to walk away from them and say. Jesus Christ. those things are blue. and some people don't like them, you know. MR. LAPOINT-I've been on for a year. and it seems to me that we get the best out of an appl ication. We let the people do what they want to do with their development, site plan, or subdivision, and we extract as much as we possibly can out of them. that in the best interest of the Town, traffic lights. MR. BRANDT-But do we have a traffic plan? To put more lights up doesn't necessarily flow traffic. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. but you need alight for a specific strip shopping mall and have the developer pay for that rather than the Town. MR. BRANDT-That's all fine. but until you've got a traffic plan, putting up more lights may, in fact. work against you. MR. LAPOINT-But you can't stop someone from developing the property, conversely to what you've said. MR. BRANDT-Absolutely, and you're going to have to live with what you've got until you change it, but my God, we should be putting our resources on developing that traffic plan and on limitations, and I'll tell you something else we should do, the whole damn Town. every official in it. should be signing to a code of ethics that he/she/they lose their job if they protect their own personal interests rather than interests of the Town. Right now you've got a whimp code of ethics. We need a code of ethics where a guy doesn't have to go to an Article 78 and hire his attorney to go after someone in the Town. You need a code of ethi cs where he can go to a mechani sm and say, thi s guy is representi ng hi sown personal interests and he should be off that Board and he ought to be off the Board. and we don't have the best record on that. you know. and if you want people to have confidence in our government. we better clean it up. I'm a candidate, damn right. and I'm going to be articulating these things and I thought I'd talk to you guys directly, first. and I'm open to hear you. I'm no expert in this field. I've thought about my piece of land for 30 years. and I've got my own ideas on it. JAMES MARTIN MR. MARTIN-I'll tell you what's, personally, very disturbing to me. as someone who's a Planning Board member, who works essentially as a volunteer and tries to do the best I can. and then to read, in writing, in black and white, that I'm a power mongering ego maniac, that, sir, is very disturbing to me, and totally unfounded. MR. BRANDT-Did I say that? 37 --.-/ MR. MARTIN-No. I'm just saying that is very disturbing to me. I'm not saying anybody, it's in black and white and repeated verbally, and that, to me, is very disturbing. MR. CAIMANO-I think that this group here. tonight. correct me if I'm wrong, Mark. is an example of how much this Board has bent over backwards for business. You guys come in here with a project. and you had a rush project on. We jumped through some hoops. We cut some corners. We did everything we could do. We had no authority to do anything about your architectural review. There is no. and I have heard nothing but crap from the business people of this Town about how this Board is anti-business. and your group, not you. but it's your project. MR. MARTIN-Right, and then when you do have a development like the Route 9 Million Dollar Half Mile, well. what the heck did you do there? Look at all the traffic problems. God, development's going crazy up there. What did you do there? God, you didn't do your planning right, there, and then when you try and plan, now your anti-development and now your not serving the interest of business. MR. BRANDT-I'm not telling you don't have to make laws on curb cuts. You have to. MR. CAIMANO-Right. If we had made the right laws on curb cuts on the Mill ion Dollar Half Mile. Dave Kenny and Mike Baird and everybody and their mother would be down here cutting my fingers off. MR. BRANDT-Tough shit. and I'll tell them that, because a traffic jam like they've got doesn't help their business. MR. CAIMANO-We had an applicant threaten the planner and that application has been tabled. MR. CARTIER-Mike, understand what we're talking about, here, is I've agreed. I can agree with about 95 percent of everything you've said. All we're talking about doing is trading the people who are going to complain about the Planning Board. from one set to another. So, basically. we're going to get it no matter what happens. MR. MARTIN-Right. It's a thankless position. MR. BRANDT-Peter. think back through your history when you did the Comprehensive Land Plan. You involved a lot of people. You made it a general Town input. and that's what we've got to do. We've got to get people involved again and make harder laws, even. and then they're understandable. I'm a developer. I know the development business. Part of it is understanding the ground rules when you walk in. MR. CARTIER-I do not mean to sound like I'm denigrating the present Planning Board when I say this, but I'll say it anyway. the best work I ever did was serving on the Land Use Advisory Committee. MR. BRANDT-I think it was a superb jOb that was done for Town wide. I wasn't involved in it. but I looked at it and I couldn't believe the depth and the number of people that were involved in it and the input you took and I think that's what we've got to do a lot more of, but it's got to include recreation It's got to include preservation of land. It's got to use. to get into transferable development rights in some manner. That concept has to move. You've got to reflect the free enterprise system we've got. work with it and make it work so we come out with a piece of land and a Town we're all proud of. when we kick the can. and I think it can be done. I think it's doable and I want to bring that focus as part of my campaign. Whether I get elected or not isn't all that important. ~at is important is that we do something with this piece of land that we're all happy with. We're all going to live here the rest of our lives, so we might as well do it and be proud. and I think there's a lot of room for your input, your suggestions, and I think we could change the way you design the government so that we aren't as adversarial to the people we're dealing with. That may be a pie in the sky, in other words. that really comes by getting their input. I also think that the Town Government's got a commitment. You can't have recreation going in one direction. water department going in another. sewer going in another, and the general Town pl an. It's got to all be integrated because it's all part of it. If you don't integrate it. it can't work. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anybody else care to add anything? DAVE BARRY MR. BARRY-I just want to make one statement if I could. I live in the Town and I'm a newcomer to the Town. and I, personally. think that you folks are wasted. You could be better doing a lot of other functions. and a lot of the petty stuff that I've heard here tonight. could be better handled by a Zoning Board. You have a Zoning Department. You passed a zoning law. now let a Zoning Board handle this. I think, possibly, what Mike was trying to get to is that you, gentlemen and ladies. could be best be served by planning for the Town and the future of the Town by getting the input. I take it none of you. gentlemen and ladies are engineers. I am not an engineer. Well, you've got one engineer. I'm a retailer and if somebody came to me with a plan like this, I wouldn't know what the hell he's talking about. MR. CARTIER-This Board has more expertise than you may think it has. 38 MR. BARRY-Well, possibly so. but I've been in several communities in my 1 ife and this is the first time I've heard of a Planning Board where you have six or seven people decide whether somebody can and can't do something when simply a Zoning Board could make a very simple call. It's in the Ordinance. MR. CAIMANO-It's in every Town in New York State. Dave. MR. BARRY-It's not in the Town of Clay. let me tell you. MR. MARTIN-This Planning Board and its powers are grounded in State Enabling Legislation and all powers that are given to this Board are mandated out of State Legislation. It's not something that you can simply direct to a Zoning Board or a Planning Board. Certain specific duties and powers are granted by the State and that's how things work. MR. BARRY-And that Zoning Board couldn't handle it a little better than. like you say, your Master Plan that was written up. It was a nice piece. and it does need some follow up, but it was a beautiful piece of legislation. MRS. YORK-The Zoning Board is also grounded in State Law. They are two separate entities. set up under State Law. which is written up in a volume called Town Law, and each Board has their own specific rules and regulations and the things that they review, and they can't step outside of those boundaries. They can't cross over. MR. BARRY-Then possibly a petition should be made to the State of New York to change things. then. MR. CAIMANO-Good luck. MRS. YORK-That could be something you want to consider. MR. BRANDT-There is a motion to change State Law. and as a Town with a plan. you can go in there and help move those laws. because, with State Legislators don't necessarily know what's best for the Town. MR. CAIMANO-Can we talk about one thing. before we leave? We have a letter, here, from Pat, regarding our letter regarding the farm stand at the corner of Tee Hill Road. Who made that decision? It sounds to me like Pat made the decision. right? MRS. YORK-Yes. I sent Pat a memo. My request to her was, would you please tell the Planning Board under what authority these farm stands are set up and why this does not need any review, and that was her response to my memo. MR. CARTIER-Do I hear a motion to adjourn? On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Peter Cartier. Chairman 39