Loading...
1992-01-28 '------ - o / ~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JAflJARY 28TH. 1992 INDEX Subdivision No. 4-87 Shallow Creek Subdivision 1. FINAL STAGE Donald Kruger (Cont'd on Page 52) Site Plan No. 2-92 Frank W. & Kathleen V. England 3. Subdivisioh No. 2-1992 Ronald Roemer 3. PRELIMINARY STAGE Site Plan No. 3-92 Francis & Carolyn Martindale 6. Site Plan No. 4-92 Frank Sears 33. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. --....../ ~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 28TH. 1992 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN PETER CARTIER JAMES LAURICELLA TIMOTHY BREWER EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MIflJTES November 26, 1991: Page Mr. Cartier December 3, 1991: NONE December 17, 1991: NONE December 19, 1991: NONE 37, Mr. Cartier's sixth comment down, yes, I went over, sib Mr. HOffman, not MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOYEIIIER 26TH AS AMEftDED. THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 3RD AS SOBIIITTED, FOR DECEMBER 17TH, AS SO.HmD, AND FOR DECEMBER 19TH, AS SUBMITTED, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 4-87 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA SHALLOIi CREEK SUBDIVISIOR DONALD KRUGER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SHALLOIi CREEK ROAD, SOOTH BONNER DRIVE THIS APPLICATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE 1110 LOTS IIfICH WERE DESIGNATED AS PHASE II. TAX MAP NO. 75-1-23.8, 23.2 LOT SIZE: 100 FT. BY 113 FT., 145 FT. BY 123 FT. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:07 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-And, I think if you'll note, on the first section of your notes. MR. CARTIER-Do you want me to read those, Mr. Chairman? MR. MARTIN-Yes, please. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Dated January 20, 1992 "Dear Lee: I am requesting to be tabled for the January 15, 1992 Zoning Board Meeting to obtain more information for the Board and for re-advertisement of the hearing notice if necessary to request area variances for Phase I and Phase II of the Shallow Creek Subdivision. I am also requesting that the Planning Board table my final application for Phase II to take place on January 28, 1992. Donald Kruger" MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? I would assume no. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. 1 --- '~ MR. CARTIER-For Shallow Creek? We have a request to table. Would you like a copy of the letter? MR. STEVES-That's news to me. MR. MARTIN-It was from Donald Kruger, dated January 20th. MR. STEVES-Why would he want to do that? MR. ,CARTIER-Well , there's some question about the variance situation here. MR. STEVES-For the record, I'm Leon Steves. This is a Phase II of a project that was approved back in 1987, under the old Code. Assuming that the Board wishes to review it, I would assume they would be reviewing it under the old Code and any approvals they granted would immediately mean that he'd have to go to the Zoning Board for that variance required, which, he's on the ZBA for tomorrow night. MR. LAURICELLA-Why did he write the letter, then? MR. STEVES-I don't know. Maybe he doesn't understand what's going on either. MR. MARTIN-Maybe it was his impression that he has to get ZBA approval before our approval. MR. STEVES-Ri ght. He does have to get it on Phase I, and he's goi ng in for Phase II, but he can't get ZBA approval for Phase II, except for the relief of area and dimensional. Then he could come back here, but, either way, it's the same end result. MR. CARTIER-But he does have to have a variance for Phase II, correct? There is a variance involved? MR. STEVES-Mr. Cartier, I don't know, in that, last night at the Town Board meeting there was a resolution passed that may not need a variance, and maybe Mr. Tucker could fill us in on that. MR. CARTIER-We were there. MR. STEVES-You were there? Okay. I don't know what took place, except that there was some. MR. CARTIER-Well, Mr. Chairman, can I make a suggestion? We're without benefit of Planning Staff, right at the moment. She will be here. MR. STEVES-Do you want to postpone this thing until later? I'll be here until the last thing anyway. MR. CARTIER-That's what I was going to suggest. MR. MARTIN-Well, maybe, I was also going to ask if Pat can shed any light on this, also, could address the Board. MRS. CRAYFORD-Pat Crayford, Zoning Administrator. I understood that the motion at the Town Board meeting last night negated any variances that Mr. Kruger's going to need, and that you could consider Phase II this evening, and I think Don was confused, with all that's been going on, and didn't realize that this could be considered this evening. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think we have some quick moving events, here, that he couldn't keep pace with. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's true. MR. MARTIN-Well, would you have any objection to waiting until later on in the meeting, when we can deal with this from a more organized standpoint? I think it's something, likely, we can deal with tonight, then, and this memo just simply doesn't reflect the latest information. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-The other thing, Leon, is I don't see notes from Staff, on this. MR. LAURICELLA-Maybe because he wasn't going to present it tonight. MR. MARTIN-It was probably the understanding that it was not going to be presented. So, that's another reason to wait for Lee and see what her understanding is. Okay. So, we'll set that off until the end of the meeting, then. (7:10 p.m.) NEil IIJSINESS: 2 '-- - SITE PLAN NO. 2-92 TYPE II WR-lA FRANK W. & KATHLEEft V. ENGLAND mitER: SAlE AS ABOVE HILLMAN ROAD, SECOND LEFT OFF CLEVERDALE ROAD FROM ROOTE 9L TO CONSTRUCT A 6 FT. BY 36 FT. SOOTH LEG DOCK OF A ·U· SHAPED DOCK WITH AN 8 FT. BY 11 FT. CONNECTING SECTION AND A 16 FT. BY Z8 FT. SUNDECK TO AN EXISTING 36 FT. BY 8 FT. DOCK. (WARREN COOITY) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-34.1 LOT SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION 179-16 o [3][A] [2] (7:10 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-Do you want me to read this? MR. MARTIN-Yes, please. MR. CARTIER-Okay. A letter dated January 9, 1992 "ATTN: Lee York Dear Lee, Understand our hearing on the above Boathouse construction application has been scheduled for the January 28, 1992 Planning Board Meeting. Respectfully request that our hearing date be tabled until Planning Board Meeting on February 18, 1992 as I expect to be away on business on January 28, 1992. Sincerely, Frank W. England" MR. MARTIN-Okay. I don't believe there'd be anybody here. This seems pretty straight forward on this case. MR. CARTIER-The only thing I would suggest is that, if somebody's here for the public hearing, you might want to check that out and see if anybody wants to make a comment. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, what I'll do, then, in any case, is open up the public hearing on this, just so someone didn't make a wasted trip and any comments will be in the minutes. So, is there anyone here? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll leave that public hearing open until such time as we can deal with this in February, and we'll just put it off until that time. I guess I accept a motion to table, then. IIJTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 2-92 FRANK W. I KATHLEEN V. EftGlAND, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Tabled at the request of the applicant, in his letter of January 9, 1992, until the February 18th meeting. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver (7:13 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UILISTED SR-lA RONALD ROEMER OIlIER: SAlE AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD TO CHESTllJT RIDGE ROAD, ONE BLOCK NORTH OF HICKS ROAD DEVELOPMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE. BECAUSE OF A 1976 ERROR, SEPARATE DEEDS IERE NEVER FILED. PRESEIT USE: 111) RESIDENTIAL OOPLEXES. TAX MAP NO. 55-2-13.1 LOT SIZE: 2.5 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-75 (7:13 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 2-1992, Ronald Roemer, 1-16-92, Meeting Date: January 28, 1992 "This development took place in the 70's. The applicant discovered recently that the property was not subdivided because a plat had not been filed with the County. The ordinance changed in 1988 and because of this the applicant has been required to get a variance for lot size. No development will take place. All infrastructure is existing. The only changes will be potentially in ownership. There are no impacts or planning concerns. Staff recommends that this application be expedited." MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have no other comments on this. This is very straightforward. How's the Board want to handle this, in terms of Lee's comment on trying to expedite this? MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that. We've got to just open a public hearing on it, though. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. BREWER-Are we going to do a SEQRA on this? MR. CARTIER-Yes. We've got to do a SEQRA. 3 --- --- MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll open the public hearing on this. application, this subdivision? Is there anyone here in regards to this PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. ROEMER-Ron Roemer. I'm the one that applied. MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. Do you have anything further you'd like to add? MR. ROEMER-No. It's pretty simple. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Then I'll close the public hearing and we'll move on to the SEQRA Review. RESOLUTION IliEft DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-1992, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RONALD ROEMER, Develo~nt has taken place. Because of a 1976 error, separate deeds tlllere never filed. Present use: tw residential duplexes, 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 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. MARTIN-Okay. This is pretty much open and shut. I guess we can accept a motion to approve the Preliminary Stage. MR. LAPOINT-Quick question. Do we have to do anything about filing a proper plat with the County? MR. CARTIER-That I s going to be up to the appl i cant, at thi s point. I think he's going to avoi d thi s problem again. MR. ROEMER-The original subdivision has been filed. The subdivision had been approved, but through an error, there was two lots, and they were just never filed, but it's all on the original map that was approved, original engineered map. MR. CARTIER-How about recreation fees, Mr. Roemer? MR. ROEMER-Recreation fees? 4 ---- --- MR. CARTIER-Yes. We've got a note, here, to the applicant, from Article VII. "The Planning Board shall require, as a condition of approval of the plat, a payment of recreation fees in lieu of land. Such amount shall be paid to the Town Board at the time of Final approval, and no plat shall be approved until payment is made." MR. ROEMER-Is that that $500 per lot fee? MR. CARTIER-Per lot, yes. MR. ROEMER-I asked Lee about that, and she said we're going to waive that. Now, I have no idea. That's what she told me. MR. CARTIER-We're going to waive that? MR. ROEMER-Because I asked her about that. MRS. CRAYFORD-I think, well, I'm going to speak about a sUbject I know very little about, but I think, if there's an existing residence on the property, then the fee isn't paid. MR. MARTIN-That was my, because that law was amended, and if there's a house already on the lot, I think that you're exempted, but I'm not sure about that. MRS. CRAYFORD-I agree with that. MR. ROEMER-Well, that's what she told me. You didn't have to worry about it. MR. MARTIN-It wasn't a matter, waiver's the wrong. MR. ROEMER-Those houses were built in '77. MR. CARTIER-It's nothing that is going to hang us up tonight, anyway, because this has to do with Final, and we can straighten it out. MR. ROEMER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Are you on the February agenda, for Final approval? MR. ROEMER-Whatever. I didn't get any notice yet, but that's fine with me. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it's a matter of submitting an application for Final. MR. BREWER-No. You have to apply. MR. CARTIER-You have to submit. MR. ROEMER-I filled that out. MR. MARTIN-You did? MR. ROEMER-And that was a $50 fee. That's been paid. MR. CARTIER-You got the Final? In other words, you made two submissions, one for Preliminary and one for Final? MR. ROEMER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Then you're probably already on for February. MR. CARTIER-So, we can clear that up between now and February. MR. MARTIN-By then we'll take care of that, but I think you're probably going to be exempted. MR. ROEMER-Well, at least that's what she said. I don't know. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-She'll be here later on anyway. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. Any other comment? Okay, then I'll entertain a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE RONALD ROEMER, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: 5 '---- Development has taken place. Because of a 1976 error, separate deeds were never filed. Present use: two residential duplexes, and if we could add the Final Stage to our Expedited Agenda for the next meeting. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver (7:20 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 3-92 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A FRANCIS I CAROLYN MARTINDALE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE lEST SIDE OF ROUTE 149. ACROSS FROM MARTINDALE ROAD, EAST 5OO± FT. FOR RETAIL SALES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, PETTING AREA FOR FARM ANIMALS, PRODUCTION OF MAPLE SYRUP, SALES OF HANDCRAFTED AND/OR UNI~E GIFTS. (IIARREIt COOITY PLANNING) (BEAUTIFICATION CO.IIJITTEE) TAX MAP NO. 30-1-13, 16 LOT SIZE: 34.22 ACRES SECTION 179-15 0 3 (B) (10) ROBERT MARTINDALE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; FRANCIS & CAROLYN MARTINDALE, PRESENT (7:20 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 3-92, Francis & Carolyn Martindale, 1-10-92, Meeting Date: January 28, 1992 "The applicant has submitted a site plan to be allowed to sell agricultural related products. The Zoning Administrator has indicated that if the sale of of products includes those not directly raised or grown on the site then a variance will have to be applied for per the definition of Agricultural use. The applicant will be utilizing an existing structure which is ± 6-10 feet from Route 149. The barn has been used for sale of vegetables in the past year. The applicant proposes to more fully use the barn for retail sales - and utilize a cooler for vegetables. There will also be production of map syrup. The applicant should be made aware that there are a number of different local, state, and possible federal regulations which will apply to this type of development. Facilities may be required under other legislation. There have been situations where applicants believed that a Planning Board review was all encompassing and the applicant should be aware that this Board's review is limited to the parameter of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for site plan review. 1. Vehicular traffic access will be from Route 149. The application has a DOT permit for the road from the highway to the parking area. There are two other access points along the road associated with the barn. A concern is the amount and speed of traffic on Route 149. The northern access point is the best given the curve in the road to the south. The Board should consider requesting signage which will direct traffic. The applicant should indicate if there will be signs which will alert patrons of the driveway access at other locations on the property. Traffic access has got to be handled well in this location. Access to driveways near the barn should be limited to deliveries. 2. Pedestrian access is not identified but is anticipated to be adequate. The parking area should be identified as separate from the rest of the field area and vehicular access to the pedestrian walkway should be limited. It is understood that the nature of the agri - retail business requires "natural" settings and that patrons will probably just wander from one area to the other. 3. The applicant has indicated that loading and unloading will take place prior to opening of the retail space. Parking appears sufficient. 4. The location of the barn is obviously not the best for the use. The structure is existing and is very close to the road. The current standards require 75 foot setbacks along Rt. 149. If the barn ultimately becomes a year round retail sales area, snow removal should be discussed. If use after dark is anticipated then the Board should discuss lighting of the area. 5. The applicant intends to have a multiple use development which will revolve around agriculture products. Syrup production will take place in the barn, as well as retail sales. The petting zoo would appear to be an amenity to attract customers. Removal and storage of animal wastes should be discussed. The applicant has indicated that the greenhouse will be a temporary structure for seasonal use. 6. The Beautification Committee did discuss the development. The applicant indicated that there would be plantings along the road and that the solid waste on the site will be removed to enhance the appearance of the area. Buffering would not appear to be an issue. 7. The property is primarily undeveloped. The only change relevant to permeability is the addition of the graveled parking area and the temporary greenhouse. These are not significant given the proposed intermittent and proposed seasonal use of the facility. The Board should discuss the times and hours of operation to ascertain the impacts. The Town encourages small business, however, expansions do require additional review which the applicant should be made aware of. Any sanitary waste disposal systems which may be required should be in accordance with the Sanitary Ordinance. 8. Flooding and ponding does not appear to be an issue. 9. This area is residential. The development will not substantially change the character of the neighborhood since the barn is existing and the other uses are temporary and seasonal. The Zoning Administrator has determined that an agricultural use is allowed with site plan review. Should the facility become more of a commercial use than agricultural use a variance may be necessary." MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's it. We have Warren County Planning Board reviewed it and approved without comment, and we have the minutes of the Beautification Committee regarding this particular application, and this didn't warrant any engineering review, I don't believe. 6 '-- ~ MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-Okay, so I guess we're ready to hear from the applicant. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Do you want to start with your Number One concern and go down the 1 i st and we can address that, is that the best way? MR. CARTIER-Sure. Could you just identify yourself, sir, for the record. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I'm sorry. I'm Fran Martindale. This is my son Robert and my wife Carolyn. MR. MARTIN-All right. Yes, we'll just go through the Staff Notes, and that will be a good place to start. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Okay. The problem in Number One, it seems to me, with the people getting in and off the property. We are going to put signs up so they will have to use the northerly most driveway. We don't want them pulling in and out by the barn because they can't see coming either way. The barn is right here, which is pretty close to the road. DOT has given us access to have a driveway on the northerly most part. Around here there is a curve where it's hard to see. That's why we're going to discourage people. We're not going to let people come in and out of these two driveways here. They're going to come in and out of up here, where they have plenty of vision, either way, to get out, so there won't be a problem with accidents or anything like that. MR. BREWER-How are you going to stop them from coming in and out of those exits? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-In and out of here? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-We can put signs up saying, Delivery Entrance Only, and we're going to have parking signs up here and entrance and exit signs up here, so they can see that. MR. CARTIER-How wide is that entrance? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-This here is 20 feet. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I guess the question I have is, you're on a 55 Mile an Hour road. Somebody is going to have to come, almost, to a complete stop to turn into that. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Well, we have other, my house is right up here. For me to get into my driveway, I have to do the same thing. MR. CARTIER-But the amount of commercial traffic, I assume, if this business goes the way you want it to go, you're going to have a lot more. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-We're going to have people coming in and out, more than rural residential. MR. CARTIER- Yes. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-The way the driveway, in DOT in Warrensburg, because I have to come in and out with a fifth wheel, with long trailer, because we're coming south, or I guess in this way it would be west, your in turn, it'll be, the property is flat, so that if they have to crowd onto the grass, there's no problem. MR. LAPOINT-Quick question. Did you consider, maybe, using bollards or some type of moveable barriers for that. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-For the delivery areas? MR. LAPOINT-For the delivery areas. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-We could. We're willing to do anything to make it. MR. LAPOINT-Like a swing open gate bollard. Again, signage, I don't, would be enough for me on that highway, that close to the barn. To me, you'd have to put up some type of barrier to prevent people from, you know, a gate. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-And the second question. If, again, you put some type of entrance on that, a shoulder type entrance, so people can get off the road to make a right hand turn, and you're still always going to have the problem with the left hand turn into there, but if you had some type of 100 foot shoulder off from the right. 7 '-' ~ MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-So, if somebody's coming south, say from Fort Ann or Bay Road, coming to our property, you want a, are we going to have a problem with. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I'm just kicking out ideas here so that you don't take that right hand turn, if somebody's a little bit over into the, try to make a left hand turn out of there, that the guy coming in doesn't have to make a complete stop on the highway. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Can we get a wider driveway than what DOT says we can have? MR. LAPOINT-Well, you have to ask them that. MR. CARTIER-You mean a driveway cut onto the road? Is that what you're talking about? Wider than 20 feet? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Yes. We have it wider, mainly because we have to get machinery in and out of there, which is wider than most vehicles. So, we have to take a different cut to get in. So, it has to be wider to begin with. So, there probably is more than 20 feet, when you start the apron coming in. The 20 feet would be once you get into the driveway itself. MR. CARTIER-It seems the most appropriate thing, to me anyway, is a stacking lane, or something, where you get somebody off the highway quickly, and then they can turn in. MR. LAPOINT-That's what I was talking about. Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's what you're referring to. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. MARTIN-I think it's going to be almost, in my mind, it's going to be required that there be some hard and fixed, permanent, like Ed was alluding to, structure of some sort to block any traffic coming near that barn, because I've watched that all summer, and people just pull off that road anywhere they please, because it's a big open stretch, and anywhere they can get off quick, they get off, and I've seen a lot of near misses up there in the past year. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-So, if we put a blockade so everybody has to go in up here, that's fine? MR. MARTIN-Yes, I mean, something that's just not moveable, or, I mean, fixed in the ground and permanent. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Well, the Beautification Committee would like something done in front, and we told them, because it's vegetables, that we will be putting, and we can put the barrier the whole length. It's no problem with us, and will be planters, in which you'll have the fresh lettuce, the fresh carrots, that sort of thing, that needs to be fresh, and that's one way of keeping them fresh so people can have them. So, it's no problem to put that whole barrier through there. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-So, the only way to get onto the property would be from up here. That's no problem. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It's just that those areas at the barn are preexisting field entrances. There's blacktop in the front part of that barn. That driveway is blacktop, and it always has been used for that, for the barn itself. So, that's the reason it's there. DOT did a re-shouldering effect and eliminated a driveway at one end of the property, and it was for that reason that they thought it was best, when we discussed it with them, to put the driveways up further to the west, and we did that according to their specs, and they're looking at it being a State road, and that's why it's built that way. We went into quite detail explaining to them the fact that we have to bring wagons in and out of there, because there's hay stored in that barn. Equipment runs in and out there. So, that's why we built it that way, but there's no problems, if they will go along with putting another side road on there. Then we'll do it. We have to go through them, I believe. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think you would. What occurs to me is, best case scenario, I'm usually talking about worst case, from your perspecti ve, best case scenario, I see sort of a Rathbun 1 i ke operati on, here, and I think, if this thing flies, I see, you're going to see. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Well, we can't divulge our full plans, because there's other processes that we have to go through in this Town to do this, but I think you might know. MR. MARTIN-Well, I've talked to the Zoning Administrator, and she's indicated to me that there's going to be a pancake house type restaurant there. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Definitely. MR. MARTIN-And that's a definite variance issue. 8 -. --- MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right. We're not even addressing that issue here. We just want to sell the vegetables and make maple syrup on the property. If you want some kind of a shoulder on 149, coming this way, so people that are taking a right hand turn, they can pull off here, and then come in, is that what you want? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I'm just thinking out loud, right now, if it's an idea that would help. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think what Peter's trying to get at is, we don't want to have an instance where we've allowed this and we've made, like, a self created hardship, here, that. Is that what you're? MR. CARTIER-Yes. That's part of it. This is a Planning Board, and we're charged with looking at long term issues, and if you have other plans for this piece of property, I think, personally, that we need to take a look at those. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-The other plans are in the engineer's hands, and, quite honestly, $30,000 to put out for the complete set of plans that has been requested from us from the Planning Board and the Zoning Administrator and all, we've gone to them, and at their suggestion, we're doing it in these steps. At this point, we're asking to sell and perform agricultural endeavors. We're not asking for the pancake house because the plans are not there. They're not drawn out to your satisfaction and to ours. Right at this point, we're only asking, hey, can we make a little living at selling our vegetables, which the family has sold along that road for years, to make my maple syrup and sell it there, which I have done for years, only because of a clause that says, after 18 months of a lapse of a land use, you have to come back for a site plan review. We had animals there for years. I had to take my animals to the farm in Fort Ann, only because it was just too much to take care of both places, economically wise, and they've been off for 18 months, so, again, we have to ask permission, and we're so doing. The petting farm is strictly, we had to come up with some kind of a name for it, and it's really an amusement or observation. It's just there for kids to see what a Jersey Cow looks like and what a holstein calf looks like, and maybe a lamb or a goat. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-But they aren't going to be allowed to touch them. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It's not a matter of charging. There's no fee in this. It's strictly for the pleasure. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess my concern is that we're going to end up looking at something piecemeal, and it is that piecemeal approach that lead us to the problems that we now have on the Million Dollar Half Mile, and I have that very much fixed in the front of my mind. I don't mean to suggest that you're going to have a second Million Dollar Half Mile on Route 149, but my own personal opinion is, I would certainly like to have some idea of what the final package, if you will, is going to look like, because that is a very busy piece of road. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Will this Board accept a hand drawn, or have I got to have it by an engineer? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think if we're looking at the pancake house right from the outset, or the full, long term development, that's clearly a Zoning Board, variance issue that we're not concerned with. You have to go before them first. That's not something for us. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-That's one reason why we're going at it this way, because if we get turned down, say we can't go through a zoning change, that means none of this is going to happen, as far as the Rathbun type effect. So, we're going just for the vegetables, now, so we can keep doing that, if we do get turned down for zoning. MR. MARTIN-Well, there's a logic, here, in the Ordinance, that I've been trying to follow through, in terms of even the agricultural use, here, and it starts with the zone itself, saying, Animal Husbandry and Agricultural and Farm and all classes, and you go back to where it reads "Classes", and it says, "Any parcel of land in excess of 10 acres used for the raising of agricultural products or the keeping of poultry, fowl, livestock, small mammals, or domestic animals for commercial purposes, include necessary farm structures and storage of farm equipment", so that establishes the agricultural use. Then if you go back to the definition of Agricultural Use, "any management of any land for agricultural, the raising of cows, horses, pigs, poultry, and other livestock, truck gardens, horticulture, or orchards, including the sale of products grown or raised directly on such land, and including the construction, alteration, or maintenance of fences, agricultural roads, agricultural drainage systems and farm ponds". Now, following through there, how much of this produce is going to be grown on site and how much is going to be grown in Fort Ann, that's sold at this stand? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-To be very honest, because of the situation of the Town of Queensbury, there'll probably be, 75 percent or better will be grown in Fort Ann, because I just cannot raise enough of it in the Town of Queensbury, due to the methods of raising produce, and to be competitive. Also, that piece of property is so stony that you couldn't plow it if you wanted to. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's what I was wondering about, and then you're saying the principal purpose of the animals on the site is amusement. 9 '- MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Just so people can look at them. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Education. MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-Well, we had animals here before. People would stop, that had children, and they would just love to look at them and take pictures, and that gave us the idea for this, because it was something that children loved, and people from New Jersey, and Vermont, a lot of them, especially New Jersey, they don't see the little animals, the little cows and everything, and they just love it, and the piglets and everything that we had there. They just loved it. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-This, again, is not a necessity to us. It was recommended to us, by the powers in the office, that we should put down all the things, at one time, to make one simple application that we wanted to do, that stuck to the agriculture, and that's why it's in there. If the Board has a problem, we won't do it. If they don't like the driveway, we don't do it. We don't have any problem. Our main concern is I want to sell my syrup and I want to make it there, and I want to sell my vegetables that I raise. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I guess the question that occurs to me, in terms of the 75 percent off site, is, does that not already make this subject to variance? MR. MARTIN-That's what I was trying to, see, and this is me speaking, personally, what the Ordinance is saying is that the reason why we're allowing commercial sale and commercial uses in an agricultural zone, is for those persons who own thei r property, such as your uncle down the street, who wants to sell his produce directly on site from the acreage that he owns, and recover a little loss, or make a little money, that's fine, but that's why the notation, "grown or raised directly on such land", and I think. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-But we do own the land in Fort Ann. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but the vegetables aren't grown on the site here in Queensbury, directly on such land, not directly grown somewhere else, and that's also true, in my mind, agricultural use for animals is that, if you have sheep on the land or cattle or pigs, and you're going to bring them to slaughter, or you're going to sheer the wool off the sheep and sell it, that's a commercial agricultural use. I don't think amusement for petting animals is an agricultural use. MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-It's not petting. It's looking at them. MR. MARTIN-Okay, educational, I just don't, you know, in my mind, I think this all requires an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals, as to if this is an agricultural use. MR. CARTIER-I think if we go back to the definition of Agricultural Use, it includes, "including the sale of products grown or raised directly on such land", and that's what we're talking about here. I think that's what you're referring to. MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-We met with Lee York, and Pat Crayford, and Dave Hatin, earlier this year, and we discussed everything we wanted to do, and they didn't indicate, at that time, or any other time, other than around 2, 3 o'clock this afternoon, the interpretation as you just read. They didn't feel that it would be necessary for a variance for this purpose. This is what we were instructed to do, by them. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm just speaking for myself, and I want to have opportunity for the other members to comment. MR. BREWER-Jim, the thing that I have a question with, I know I've driven by there in the past, and previously he has had vegetables there. Last year he had corn. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I had vegetables there. We were full service last year. MR. BREWER-Was there ever a problem with that? I'm just throwing it out in the air. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes. There was a problem. It made it difficult for the Code Enforcement Officer to carryon. There was many things overlooked, and, unfortunately, in the produce business in this Town, there's a tremendous amount of variances and things that are overlooked. To make their job less complicated, I'm going to the expense to try and appease everybody, and I'm getting the feeling, there's no way. MR. CARTIER-Well, I can appreciate your comments, but understand that what we, as a Board, do is sit here and apply the Ordinance as written. Now, what I'm hearing happen is there's a question of interpretation, with regard to the Ordinance. When that occurs, it is the Zoning Board of Appeals who is charged with making an interpretation of the Ordinance. 10 ~ -.-J MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Wonderful. I appreciate that, and I agree to that. ~ can't I get this information to me right? Why is it that I can't be told this in the first place? Why do I go through all of this expense to come before you people and say, hey, you're in the wrong hall? MR. MARTIN-Because we don't get this until about, with the application package, we receive a couple of weeks prior to. Maybe Pat could help address that. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Pat's tried, believe me she's tried. MR. MARTIN-I know she has. I've talked with her. PAT CRAYFORD MRS. CRAYFORD-When Fran and Carolyn met with Lee, David, and I, I feel that we overlooked the definition of Agricultural Use in the front of this Chapter. When you read, under the Farm classifications, it indicates keeping of livestock, etc. Maybe there's a conflict between the two. MR. MARTIN-Right, and, see, I don't want this to seem like it's the end of the world, that you have to go to the Zoning Board. I don't see where that's a real big issue, and it will finally clear the air, like you, ultimately, sound like you want to do. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I'm trying to do what this darn Town wants, but, darn it, put down some guidelines so that I can follow it to the rule and do it without any complaints. MRS. CRAYFORD-This is an unusual situation. You have to understand that. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Well, why put me through all of this. This is what I want to know. MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, I'm sorry, but it's very unusual. Unfortunately, I think you're a first, and we're learning, too. As far as his selling fruits and vegetables this summer, he was operating under Peddler's. MR. CARTIER-Yes, Transient Merchant. MR. MARTIN-Transient Merchant. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, right. In listening to this, they would like to start selling their syrup. MR. MARTIN-Now, the syrup is something, you didn't hear me mention that. The syrup is grown on site, and that's something that I, personally, don't have a problem with. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-So, we have no problem with making syrup? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. CRAYFORD-But I wondered if you could at least grant him permission to that, because that comes under site plan review, and maybe he could get started on that much of it. MR. CARTIER-Sure. Personally, I don't have a problem with that, but there's a lot of other issues, here. MR. MARTIN-No. That is something I. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Could one of you tell me if, under the Transient Merchant Law, do you have to grow your own produce to sell it? MRS. CRAYFORD-It doesn't state that here. MR. MARTIN-You're talking about a whole different aspect and Ordinance within Town Law, that, unfortunately, our attorney's not here tonight. MR. CARTIER-Yes. There's a time factor involved. The Transient Merchant Law, generally, is applied in terms of temporary, seasonal selling, and we're talking here, I'm sure, Mr. Martindale and Mrs. Martindale, about eventually a permanent, year round situation. So, I don't know that the Transient Merchant Law is going to apply. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-No. It's going to be permanent, as far as, we're going to only sell our own vegetables. It's not like we're going to go and buy them out of Florida and bring them up, or California. It's going to be seasonal, still, with the vegetables. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but it's got to be on site, and to see if I can finish answering your question. I'm worki ng off the top of my head, here, it occurs to me, and somebody tell me I'm wrong if I'm wrong, in terms of syrup production, I think that would fall under the Transient Merchant situation. It doesn't? 11 '-- ---- MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-It's grown on site. It's made on site. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I've made syrup in this place for 20 years. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but I'm talking, that's a seasonal selling, situation. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It's sti11 an agricultural product. MR. CARTIER-Right. Okay. We're trying to talk about getting you going, here, somehow, and it occurs to me that maple syrup production is a very seasonal business. MRS. CRAYFORD-But that is under Agricultural Use, and needs site plan review. MR. CARTIER-It still does? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-And that's why I asked if maybe you couldn't consider approving it tonight. MR. MARTIN-See, because the difference between, and, again, it's my understanding that the Transient Merchant Law is saying that this is a seasonal allowed activity, and it may occur for two months, it may occur for six months, it may occur one year and not the next. It's meant to accommodate someone who wants to peddle their goods within the Town, to put it in simple terms, and that's what it does, but what we're saying here, now, when you come through this process, is you're saying that you're going to establish a permanent, year round use on this site. Whether you take advantage of that year round or not, that's what we have to assume is trying to be accomplished here, or could be accomplished, and that's a whole different thing. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-But we won't be selling vegetables year round, because they don't grow year round in this climate. MR. MARTIN-I understand that. MR. CARTIER-But ultimately we are talking about what will become, down the line, a full time, year round situation, correct? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-But that means I have to go for a zoning change. I have to have a full survey, a topographical, perc test, a full engineer's layout of buildings. MR. CARTIER-I understand that, Mr. Martindale, but that's what every applicant who goes that route has to go through in this Town. Understand, you're not being singled out, here. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that that is part, what we're trying to start now, and do it within the bounds of what the Town has asked us to do. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-So, if, we can make the maple syrup now, and we'll go for a variance for the other. Is that what you're saying we £![ do? MR. LAPOINT-Sold. Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I can go along with that. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That I would have no problem with. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Okay. We'll go for a variance for the agricultural part, and then. MR. MARTIN-Well, see, that's the problem, I think you have to pay close attention to what you're saying. You have to establish that this, in my mind, you have to first establish that this, yes, is, in fact, an agricultural use, and not just a retail outlet for vegetables. There is a difference. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right. MR. MARTIN-According to the way the Ordinance is written. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Yes, and we're growing our own vegetables to sell them. MR. MARTIN-But not from that site. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Not from that site. That's why we need the variance. 12 ',,-- --- MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-So, if we go for the variance for that reason. MR. MARTIN-And only the Zoning Board can make that determination. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Can handle that. Right. Okay. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, what do we? MR. LAURICELLA-Are we going to finish going through everyone of these, or no? MR. CARTIER-No. I just want to be sure Mr. Martindale. MR. LAPOINT-The next three or four are fairly short. MR. BREWER-Jim, you have somebody out there who wants to speak. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We have yet to get to the public hearing. MR. LAPOINT-We're on Number Two, pedestrian access is not a problem. Number Three, parking and loading shouldn't be an issue. Location of the barn. Snow removal, I don't see as a big deal. MR. CARTIER-Hang on. Where are you? Are you still on Four? MR. LAPOINT-I'm on Four. MR. CARTIER-I guess, okay, well, if we're going through this this way, a concern I have is that close to the road, that barn that close to the road, and, are there going to be people in that barn, that end of the barn? MR. LAURICELLA-Are you going to rebuild that barn at all? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-We're going to try and keep that barn because of the historical value of it. MR. LAURICELLA-Are you going to rebuild at all? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-No. MR. LAURICELLA-It doesn't look like it's substantial enough to have people in that barn. MR. CARTIER-Yes. You might have Code problems, with that. I'm not sure, but that's an issue that needs to get raised in Building and Codes. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-The foundation under that barn is solid cement, for five feet up and I don't know how deep, stone. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Dave did not give us any problem of having people in there this year. MR. CARTIER-Maybe Tom can help us out. From an engineering standpoint, in terms of Code, if you have a commercial operation, a building in which the general public is going to go into, does that building have to meet certain Codes, with regard to safety and so on and so forth? MR. YARMOWICH-If anything is done to the building, to change it for that commercial use, it would have to be brought up to Codes. If the building is considered a hazard, the Town would have to, through the procedures of condemning a piece of property, or issuing an order or a citation, to correct known deficiencies, that would be the route that would have to be taken, and that would have to be based on a justifiable cause. At this point in time, if the building is not changed and is not deemed to be a public hazard, continued use in its existing commercial fashion would be acceptable, and there's nothing in the Building Code that would require it to be changed. MR. CARTIER-I'm confused, now. We have an old barn that, at present, is not used in any commercial way, correct me if I'm wrong, here, but we have an old historical barn that is not, in any way, being used commercially, at the moment, however, it's going to be used commercially. The general public will enter that barn and leave that barn. Are there any Codes that require certain things be done to this historic barn because it is going to be, now entered and exited by the public? MR. YARMOWICH-No. A change in use does not necessarily invoke compliance with all Codes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 13 "---- --' MR. YARMOWICH-A modification of the building to accommodate the use would. MR. CARTIER-All right. So, if they're going to change the barn in any way, to allow it for commercial use, that automatically means it must be brought up to Code. Is that correct? Am I stating that correctly? MR. YARMOWICH-There would be certain elements that would have to be compliant. MR. CARTIER-Do you follow all that, Mr. Martindale? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes, sir. There's no planned changes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-Now, if, in the Town's opinion, through a complaint that would be registered by the public or the Town officials, you know, there could be other reasons to require changes in the barn, if it were deemed to be unsafe. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Dave Hatin has been in the barn numerous times this summer, and he has not brought that as an issue, and he's a Code Enforcement Officer. MR. LAURICELLA-Do we put any blessing on this? Have we passed that? Do we put a blessing on that, that we accept the location of that barn? MR. CARTIER-Well, that's sort of the question I was sort of getting at, in terms of. MR. LAURICELLA-Yes, because if we do that, you know, the setback there is no where in compliance. If we pass this, then are we accepting that? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-But this barn's preexisting. That doesn't make a difference? MR. LAURICELLA-It's a barn, now, and you're trying to make a commercial use out of it. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-No. I'm trying to make it to sell my agricultural product. MR. CARTIER-That's a commercial use. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Commercial? I'm not buying something some place else and re-selling it. It's something I'm producing with my hands. MR. CARTIER-Commercial Use, I'm reading from the Ordinance, this is the definition of Commercial Use, "Any use involving the sale or rental or distribution of goods, services, or commodities, either retail or wholesale, or the provision of recreational facilities or activities for a fee", okay, "the term shall include but not be limited to the following: Drive in restaurant, fast food operation, filling station, public garage, restaurant, retail store, retail stand, and tavern", so I think the term "commercial use" applies here, but I'm sort of making an interpretation, and that's a question you could bring up with the ZBA, too. That's their function is the interpretive function, here. Yes, Jim, I think I had the same concerns, and that's what I was sort of talking about, in terms of barriers or protection, somehow of people that are going to be in that. All we're doing, Mr. Martindale, at this point, is raising questions for you. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-That's fine. We want to address them and make sure that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAURICELLA-We're trying to get on our own minds, too, what we're going to do, here. MR. CARTIER-There is a safety issue, with regard to the location of the barn, in proximity to the road. MR. LAURICELLA-If that barn were farther back, there would be no problem. That close to the road, it gives me a concern. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I didn't put it there. MR. LAURICELLA-Well, I realize that, but if you had somebody walking around that barn and somebody gets hit with a car, then we've created a problem and some injuries to someone. MR. CARTIER-Ed, I didn't mean to cut you off. You were on a roll, there, going through items. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We agree pedestrian access is not going to be an issue. Well, we'd probably want to make sure no one walked around that corner of the barn. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Well, when I build the plant boxes there. 14 --" --/ MR. LAPOINT-Right. Okay. So, that's an issue, that you can't walk on the road side of that barn. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I don't want people out there, believe me. That's why I went to the point of putting that big parking lot and driveway way away. That's why I went, on my own, to DOT and made that driveway up there. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Okay. Loading and unloading. Has anybody got questions about that? MR. CARTIER-I don't. MR. LAPOINT-Four, the location of the barn is obviously not the best for the use. The structure is existing and is very close to the road. The current standards require a 75 foot setback. The barn, ultimately becomes a year round retail area. Snow removal should be discussed. If used after dark. After dark use, does anybody have a question? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-There won't be any after dark. MR. LAPOINT-None. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It's a dawn to dusk operation. MR. LAPOINT-Right, and at the present time, you're not looking at year round sales? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-No. MR. MARTIN-You aren't going to sell Christmas Trees there again, or anything like that? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Well, I was given permission, this year, to sell the Christmas Trees, but if that's a problem, I hope by the time that that comes up next year, that that'll be all taken care of. MR. LAPOINT-You would push all the snow back onto the property anyway, correct? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes. There's 20 acres, there. I don't think there's any problem with the snow. MR. LAPOINT-"The applicant intends to have multiple use development which will revolve around agricultural products. Syrup production will take place in the barn, as well as retail sales." So, you'll have some type of syrup still or something like that inside the barn, with the retail sales. "A petting zoo would would appear to be an amenity to attract customers. Removal and storage of animal waste should be discussed." You can handle that. You're a farmer, right? "The applicant has indicated that the greenhouse will be a temporary structure for seasonal use." Anything on Five? MR. CARTIER-By "temporary structure", you mean you take it down, put it up, take it down put it up? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It's a plastic greenhouse. MR. LAPOINT-You've had that up there before, right? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-No. MR. LAPOINT-Then where have I seen that? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Many places. It's a greenhouse with hoops that you put plastic up. Some plastic goes for a year, some goes for three years, but it will not be a concrete, or what is considered a permanent glass greenhouse. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Beautification Committee, they discussed it, but what did they do with it? MR. MARTIN-I think they approved his plan. MR. LAPOINT-You have no problem with the dumpster? Did you get the Beautification? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And you had no problem with any of those? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-No problems at all. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Everything is recycled. 15 "-" ~ MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Number Seven, "The property is primarily undeveloped. The only change relevant to permeability is the addition of the graveled parking area and the temporary greenhouse. These are not significant... The Board should discuss the times and hours of operation to ascertain the impacts." Times and hours of operation? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Dawn to dusk. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Are you going to have any bathrooms on site for your customers or anything like that? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-No. MR. CARTIER-Are they required by Code? MRS. YORK-I really don't know. MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-They just stop to get produce and then go. It's only in and out. It's not anything that they stay. MR. LAURICELLA-You're not going to eat anything there? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-We're not eating. MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-We're not eating. MR. YARMOWICH-What about the employees that are working there? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-They can go up to my house, which is 250 feet. They can walk right up there and go to the bathroom. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-We have facilities. Someone, in an emergency, can go to our house to get there. MR. YARMOWICH-Sanitary facilities are required for food service operations, but not other retail businesses. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Flooding, no problem, Eight. Nine, "This area is residential. The development will not substantially change the character of the neighborhood, since the barn is existing, and the other uses are temporary and seasonal. The Zoning Administrator has determined has determined that an agricultural use is allowed with site plan review. Should the facility become more of a commercial use than agricultural use a variance may be necessary." I echo Mr. Cartier's concern that if we're looking at something bigger here, I'd kind of like to have that idea. A pancake house would be. MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-It's foreseeable in the near future. We do want to do that, but at this point, we're not applying for that. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-The cost is prohibitive, at this point. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-It all depends on the zoning. If the zoning will let it go through, and we can do it, that's what we're going to do. MR. MARTIN-It's a good place to start. Well, I think we've thoroughly addressed the Staff concerns. I think I'd like to move on and open up the public hearing, at this point, and accept any public comment. MR. CARTIER-Can I just add one more comment, here, in going back and looking at Warren County, here, I think the other thing that takes us out of strictly agricultural use, that is on site agricultural use, is the fact that we're talking about sales of handcrafted and/or unique gifts. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-The handcrafted items that we are talking about is to take a pumpkin and put a face on it, or take Indian Corn and put ribbon on it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-That's the handcrafted part. MR. CARTIER-Produced on site? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-It's not like we're going to manufacture wooden toys and sell them or anything like that. So, I don't know if you'd even consider it a handcrafted item. We wanted to put that in there just to. 16 -- --- MR. MARTIN-Well, that term opens up a wide range of potentials, and we're just trying to nail down and see what that is. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Would a pumpkin with a face on it, would you consider that handcrafted? MR. MARTIN-If it was grown on site, no. Again, you're asking for interpretations, here, and that's really not our realm of expertise, and it's not our function, and I think a lot of these things are going to have to be addressed before the ZBA. Again, that's my view, but lets open up the public hearing and see if there's anybody here who has any comments on this application, please step up to the mi crophone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I'm Michael O'Connor, from the law firm of Little & O'Connor, and I'm representing Irving and Lillian Martindale who own property immediately across the street from the proposed site of this activity. I'm really a little bit confused. The confusion begins with, I guess, who is the applicant and who is owner of the property. I understand that there is a deed recorded in 1991, perhaps after this application was filed, that would change a substantial percentage of ownership of this particular property, other than to the applicant's on the application. I think that's something that needs to be addressed, and if the applicant is not withdrawing all of his application, except for the application portion which would deal with the making of maple syrup from maple extract that's obtained on the site, a think that a use variance is necessary, and that this Board shouldn't go further until the ZBA has acted upon it. I think the definition of agricultural use, within the Ordinance, is very clear, and if you look at the testimony of Mr. Martindale before the County Planning Board, you will see that, at that time, he said that all of his produce is grown off site because he can't grown any of it on site. A little bit contrary to his testimony tonight. I looked at the file this afternoon. I don't know if that's in the Board's file or just in the Staff file. MR. CARTIER-Those are minutes from Warren County Planning? MR. O'CONNOR-Minutes from the Warren County Planning Board. MR. LAURICELLA-We don't have those. MR. CARTIER-We don't have those. MR. MARTIN-We don't, typically, get those. MR. O'CONNOR-Mrs. York got them in her file today. I would ask her to share them with the Board, at this point. There was also a comment in there as to the handcrafted and other items, which I think clearly make this into a retail operation, not agricultural, as is defined within the Ordinance. You have to realize, and I think it's nice to try and down play it, but this is a rural residential three acre zone. The actual stress within the classification is on the residential character of it, and you have a limited exception to introduce something other than residential use into that zone, if it's agricultural, and if it's supposedly dealing with products that are grown upon the site, and I think that's the way that this Board has to interpret the Ordinance. Again, if there's a question of interpretation, then I think it has to go to the ZBA, but on its face, it's a very limited exception that's put before this Board, and I have other objections, and will bring them forth if you want, at this point, as to some of the merits of the application, as to traffic, as to even what has been submitted as sketches. That is not a licensed survey. I think that barn is closer to the property line than what's shown there. I'm a little confused by the distances. They seem to be measured. They seem to be measured from the center line of the highway. I've never seen that before on any submittal to this Board. We usually measure everything from the property line, and if you look at some of the dissertation in the application, and some of the mathematical figures that are on the drawing, they appear to be different. One place I would credit it to the highway being shown as 25 feet from the center line to the property line, and another area shown as being, maybe, 15 or 12 feet. I got real confused as to the figures, when you compare what's on the application, but I think, basically, what you have before you is an application that requires a use variance. Now, if the applicant is going to try, on the spot, to amend his application, then I would be glad to go forward and address the application as it's submitted, but I'm really confused as to what's before us this evening. How do you want me to proceed? MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess I'm in agreement with you, in terms of a variance being required. Traditionally, the way this Board has operated is, if a variance is, in fact, required or if we have a question of interpretation of the Ordinance that needs to be made by the ZBA, we don't go any farther than that until that's done. I don't know if that answers your question or not. That's my own personal opinion, by the way. I'm not speaking for the Board, here. Traditionally, things don't go forward with this Board until any variance questions have been clarified. There are a number of variance questions here. MR. LAURICELLA-The setback is one, I think, that should be addressed. 17 '-' --- MR. MARTIN-I think there's a number of issues to be cleaned up, here, and I don't know, speaking for me, if I feel comfortable acting on just a part of this. I'd like to have it cleaned up in a comprehensive manner, here, so to speak. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I'm trying to, in my own head, come up with a scenario that's been similar to this. The only thing that occurs to me is, maybe this is a terrible analogy, but I'll make it anyway. It's almost as if somebody is coming in with a subdivision for Phase I, and saying to us, I don't know what I'm going to do with Phase II or Phase III yet, but give me Phase I, and our approach has been, we want to see Phase II and Phase III in its entirety, so we can determine the impact of the entire thing, and, in a sense, this is what's happening here. We're being asked to approve a piece of a plan without having any idea what the whole thing is going to look like, and I'm very uncomfortable with that. That's over and above the variance issue. For me to be comfortable in reviewing this thing and voting on it, I want to see what the whole thing is going to be like. MRS. CRAYFORD-With all due respect, I disagree that the sale of syrup would require a use variance. That's grown on the site, and is permitted under agricultural use, and is under site plan review. MR. O'CONNOR-If the syrup extract is taken from trees that are grown within the perimeter of the site, I would agree with that interpretation, but my question is that the application that's before this Board, or is there an application before this Board for syrup, vegetables, handcrafted items, and other unique gifts. MR. MARTIN-Those all being connected, then that is an application that flies as a whole or sinks as a whole. Is that what you're? MR. O'CONNOR-I think so, unless you have an application amendment. MR. LAPOINT-Well, we've approved with stipulations before, and, again, I think stipulations can be 1 imited. MR. CARTIER-Well, can I ask a question? With regard to syrup production, is all of the syrup production going to come from sap off this 20 acres? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-At the present time, yes. MR. CARTIER-At the present time? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. CARTIER-You're saying that later on down the line you may be purchasing sap from? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-No. Later on down the line we have more trees to tap on other property. MR. CARTIER-Off property, off this particular piece of property? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Definitely. MR. CARTIER-Which, again, would require site plan review. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-But at the present time, and until that happens, and, by that time, there wi 11 be complete changes. So, you know, I just want to make what's there. I have a legal right to do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lets see if I can boil this down, here. Is it fair to say that, in effect, what we're being asked for, here, tonight, is a request to go ahead with syrup production, and put everything else on hold? Is that a fair? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-That's fine. MR. CARTIER-I'm just raising the question, okay. I'm just trying to clarify what you want. MR. LAPOINT-I don't think they asked for that, initially, but that's what's come out of all of this, as an end. MR. CARTIER-That's what I'm saying. I'm trying to get to where we are, at this point. MR. MARTIN-That's what's boiled out, so to speak. MR. LAURICELLA-Do we need site plan review? You wouldn't need site plan review for that, would you? MR. CARTIER-Yes, you would. MR. LAURICELLA-We would? Even with a. 18 - MR. CARTIER-According to the Zoning Administrator. MR. LAPOINT-Because it's been discontinued for. MR. BREWER-Because he hasn't done it for over 18 months? Is that what you're saying? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-But we have our lines still on the property. The lines are still up for the sap. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-The equipment is still in the barn. I just haven't lit a match. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. The only reason why is because you've discontinued it for the past 18 months? MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I might add that the attorney, here, represent Irving and Lillian, which is my father and mother, sold this piece of property in full knowledge of everything we're doing here, and it was sold understanding we were going to do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That goes back to Mr. O'Connor's first question. Is the present owner's name of the property, is the present owner Francis and Carolyn Martindale? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Is the present applicant before us, the person making the application, Francis and Carolyn Martinda le? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, I think we've answered that question. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Now, I must clarify that. Due to estate planning, our attorney asked us to put my boy's name on that deed. We are an family doing it. This was done after this application was presented, and it was done at a year end tax planning situation, before this was put in. MR. CARTIER-So, legally, Robert is part owner of this property, correct? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes, sir. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-And my brother Francis. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-And that's why he's talking. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, in any revision that comes in, to take care of that, we could spell out everybody's name who is owner of the property. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-No problem. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, there's one quick fix. Where are we at? MR. MARTIN-Well, first of all, is there anybody else here who wants to speak on this application? JUDY DISISIO BARRETT MRS. BARRETT-Hi. I'm Judy Disisio Barrett. I own the property right next to Fran and Carol's and I just want to go on record I have no opposition to anything they want to do with their property. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else before we give Mr. O'Connor Round Two? MRS. YORK-I do have some written statements. First of all, we received a phone call from Eunice Engwer, who lives on Route 149, and she said that she had no objections to the Martindale request, but could not attend the meeting. MR. CARTIER-Does she indicate how far away her property is from this property? MRS. YORK-She was within 500 feet because she was noticed. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 19 '----' MR. MARTIN-Both her residence and other properties are within 500 feet. MRS. YORK-And then I have a letter from James M. Weller, "Dear Mrs. York and Planning Board Members: I have lived in the immediate area of the subject Martindale land for over 50 years. I own more than 100 acres of adjacent residential land. I have lived at my current location since 1965, and have made a substantial investment to enhance the residential character of the area. As such, I am without reservation, vehemently opposed to any use of the sUbject Martindale land for any purpose other than those that can be considered residential in character. The subject application should be denied since it is not in keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. It violates the Zoning Ordinances of the Town of Queensbury and will not contribute to the betterment of the Town of Queensbury. Thank you for this opportunity to be heard. Sincerely, James M. Weller" MR. MARTIN-Any other comment? Okay. Mr. O'Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I take it, then, that we're talking solely about the production of maple syrup from extract that is obtained on site? MR. MARTIN-I believe, yes, that's the way the Board is leaning towards considering that tonight. MR. O'CONNOR-Has the applicant agreed to that, at this point? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I'm trying to make my record clear, that's all. I'll submit to the Board a copy of the deed that Mr. Martindale referred to, wherein 72 percent of the property was conveyed to two other persons that aren't presently on the application, and I think that that makes the application fatal and defective, but you can deal with it however you wish to deal with it. MR. MARTIN-Is that the highlighted section, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-No. There's a restrictive covenant, on the bottom, which has to do with a private agreement between the prior owner and the present owner, which I won't try and argue with this Board, because I don't think that, really, that's within this Board's jurisdiction. I think it does have some effect upon this application, but I'll stand on my own, in my own forum on that particular issue. As to the merits of the application, we would have an objection to the manner in which it's been submitted to the Board. This is not a survey as, I believe, is generally required for this type project. You are talking about.! commercial project, or something that could very well grow into a commercial project on a very heavily traveled highway. This is not a back road. This is one of the main travel corridors of the Town of Queensbury. To stand here and say, we're going to put up barriers or we're going to block traffic from exiting is really not a proper manner in which to present the control of traffic, as I think is required for this particular site. This is just past a curve, coming one way. It's not a very long, straight stretch. It is an area that is going to create some problems and maybe some potentials. My understanding is that this drawing is inaccurate, in that the barn, in fact, encroaches upon the State highway, and this goes back to what was related to me, that when the State did some widening of the highway, there was a condemnation proceeding, and at that point, the condemnation proceeding ended in a decision that the State could remove six feet of the barn and keep their line straight, as long as they didn't do any other damage to the barn. The State came back and looked upon the cost of that and said, we'll let you keep it up as long as you want to use it, but we're not going to take down six feet of the barn and try and guarantee the rest of the barn. So, I'm under the impression that six feet of the corner of that barn is out into the State highway. If you take a look at the fences, if you go up there and take a look at it, you will see that the fences are at least equal to the front of the barn, if not a little bit behind the front of the barn, which would lead me to believe that there may be some truth to what was related to me, as far as the State taking. This is not a survey, so I can't really tell you. I'm not sure, from what I've seen here, how they're going to get their people in and out of the barn. We see a parking lot, here, but we don't see. and maybe I missed it. Maybe there are other drawings, but we don't see the pedestrian entrances or exits. If I have, I apologize to the Board for taking up it's time, but I think these are the only two drawings I saw on the file. There is no showing of pedestrian traffic. The Board has expressed concern with people walking around the front of the barn. There are four driveways across the front of that property. I heard mention of three, but I think all of those will invite people to pull off where they can pull off, depending upon when they make the decision that they're going to stop here, and I think the access and the traffic control is going to be a very important issue. I don't think you can really avoid it. MR. LAPOINT-Correct me if I'm wrong. Are we just talking maple syrup production now? I thought that's what you were going to direct your. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I presume that the maple production of syrup is going to be the products that are made from that are going to be sold on site. Am I wrong? MR. LAPOINT-So. again, approving maple syrup would, defacto, let them sell that along with the existing produce, you used it this summer? 20 '-- MR. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, come next summer, even if we don't do anything, you wouldn't be using that as a vegetable stand? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I can go back over a Transient Merchant, and do the same darn thing. MR. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-Yes, we will be. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, see, that's what's confusing me. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-And I'm only trying to do this legally so that there's no hassles. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-I would submit, Mr. LaPoint, that the Transient Merchant thing, I think, is limited to a 14 day period. What was done this summer is a little bit under cloud, okay, particularly where there was produce brought in from off site. There was no produce grown at all from this site, this summer. MR. BREWER-Yes, but, Mike, there's stands all over Town, and there's no corn growing on Quaker Road, either, but there's stands there. MR. O'CONNOR-I agree. All I'm telling you is what's before you, by way of application, and what's before you, by way of Ordinance. I think there may be a problem there, that maybe the Town Board will address or will have to address. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think there's a whole basket of stuff that needs to be passed on to the Zoning Board for interpretation, and what's permitted and so on and so forth, and I think that's where we need to go. I think what we've got to get at, here, is what are we going to do about maple syrup production for this season? I think that's the question for the Board. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I thought that's where we were going. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but my understanding is that the maple syrup will be sold from the site. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Correct, that's where it's made. MR. O'CONNOR-Which will be, again, traffic, people coming and going. MR. CARTIER-But there's nothing new here. I don't have a problem with that. I have lots of problems with a lot of the other things that need to get cleared up. MR. O'CONNOR-I think there is something new, Mr. Cartier, in that there has not been that traffic before, in the winter, that I'm aware of, not in recent past. There has not been that need, or that use of that premises. You're talking about an old barn, which you're talking about introducing a new use to it, and that's going to be the difference. MR. LAPOINT-If the use is only because it's been out of a certain time frame, if it's 18 months and one day, that's not real critical to me. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not aware of prior use. MR. LAPOINT-If prior uses of distilling maple syrup. MR. MARTIN-I've lived on that road for four years, and I don't remember a maple syrup stand there in that period of time. MR. LAPOINT-Distilling maple syrup. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-The equipment has been in that barn, and the equipment is hanging on the trees. MR. LAURICELLA-Did you sell maple syrup from that barn? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-No, I did not, because I haven't been able to make it. MR. O'CONNOR-You're talking about a new use. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but, wait a minute, I'm getting confused, then. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I'm sorry. I don't mean to confuse anybody. 21 ~ MR. CARTIER-No. You're not. There's a whole lot of things floating around in the air, here. Do I understand you, that you are requesting of us that you be allowed to produce maple syrup from sap drawn from site and sold on site. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Correct. MR. CARTIER-That's different from what has happened in the past. What has happened in the past, if I understand the situation, is that you have made maple syrup there, but it has not been sold on site, is that correct? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It has not been sold out of that barn. MR. CARTIER-All right. Now I think I understand, and I understand what you're getting at. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-This is not something that, I'll repeat, it is not a restarting of something that had been carried on before. This is an introduction of a new use to that particular property, and I think you have no control over traffic. You have no provisions for safety, at least on what's been submitted. I'm not saying that it can't be done, from an engineering point of view, with proper barriers and what not, with the proper survey, and even, it doesn't show, and I'll ask, where's the door? Isn't the door on the front of that. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes. The doors are big, wide overhead sliding doors, which you are well aware of. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-What has lead us to come here, we were getting numerous complaints, Dave Hatin was at our barn many times this summer. So, we went in and talked to Lee York, Pat Crayford, and Dave Hatin, and we said, what do we have to do to get the ball rolling, as far as, so we can do this. They said, you can take and make your own drawings, bring them to the Planning Board, submit our application, and that will be fine, at this point in time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I guess my reaction is, I'm still working on the maple syrup, Mr. Martindale. My reaction is that since you would be selling syrup on site, and that had not occurred in the past, that all of the comments we have from Planning Staff, or almost all of the comments would still apply, in terms of parking, traffic, entrance, egress, and so on and so forth, okay. Even if we only had one use on the site, those same comments would apply. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Are you saying, now, that we shouldn't make maple syrup on the site? MR. CARTIER-No. What I'm saying is that all the comments I have in front of me from Staff apply, if we're talking about selling maple syrup on site. I'm not talking about making maple syrup on site. Now, are you about to ask us, is it okay to go ahead and make syrup on site and sell elsewhere? I don't have a problem with that, but if we're selling it on site, then we are starting a commercial function here, agricultural/commercial/retail, whatever label applies at this point. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Isn't that the same thing as if you grow your vegetables on site, and selling them on site? MR. CARTIER-Okay. Yes. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-So, that's why we're going through site plan review, so we can make the product on site and sell it on site. MR. MARTIN-I think the issue with the production of the maple syrup on site and selling of it on site, again, in my view, that is an allowed use, according to the way the Ordinance is written. What we're trying to drive at now is what is the best configuration of that site to most safely allow for that use to occur. MR. CARTIER-Right. Well said. MR. MARTIN-In other words, what is the best ingress and egress design that we can come up with, what is the best signage, barricades, what have you, to make that occur in the safest manner, given the restrictions we have with this site, and, is what you have before you adequate, is what I'm asking you. MR. BREWER-I think, if he's going to make maple syrup, and I'm just thinking off the top of my head, how many gallons of sap does it take to make a gallon of maple syrup? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Forty two. MR. BREWER-How much is he going to make, versus this and the corn? I mean, he sold corn there for years, and he sold it for a year, for a season. 22 ---- ---' MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Vegetables have been sold on that farm in different peoples names, but all family, for years. MR. BREWER-All right, for years, but I don't think that he's going to create any more traffic this spring if he just sells maple syrup. I mean, I don't think that he's going to produce hundreds of gallons. I really don't. MR. CARTIER-How many taps have you got, Mr. Martindale? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-This year, we should have close to 1,000 taps. MR. CARTIER-l,OOO taps, that's not a whole lot of syrup. MR. BREWER-Well, I'm just, anymore traffic than he would have with the vegetables that he had last yea r . MR. MARTIN-So then what we're coming to, here, is that there doesn't appear to be a real intense commercial traffic, here, resulting from just the sale of maple syrup. MR. BREWER-Not just the syrup. MR. LAURICELLA-The location of the barn is what bothers me. He doesn't have the 75 foot setback. You're barn is right on top of the road. Forgetting what you're going to do with it, you're going to have a commercial establishment. MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, Jim, if he comes in here this summer and grows corn, they're going to let him grow corn there. So what's the difference? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-In the same barn. MR. BREWER-In the same barn, the same place. MR. LAURICELLA-That may be true, but I'm going to be putting an approval on a barn that is not the required setback. MR. BREWER-With stipulations, if he blockades the driveways and has them come in over here. MR. LAURICELLA-Once we allow that, then they're going to come back in and say, well, now we've got the maple syrup. Now, we want to sell the vegetables. We're going to be allowing that to only expand in that one site. If that barn were 75 foot back, I would have no problem with it. MR. LAPOINT-This is all going to happen, regardless. MR. O'CONNOR-Can I suggest something? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-When does the production season begin? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It should be out working on it right now. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but I don't think there's any strong objection to actually working on, just collecting the syrup. What my objection is, is this Board approving some plan that is not easily enforceable, because it isn't on paper, that's where we run into problems, as to what was intended, what was the interpretation, and everything else. That maybe very well, between now and next month, you could have a surveyor locate that barn, with regard to the property line. Locate, on a map, where the entrance is going to be, what the distance is going to be, what barriers are going to be up, what entrances are going to be used for the barn. My understanding, the pictures I have, I guess, have pictures of doors on both sides of the barn, and even the back looks like it's not accessible, part of the side is not accessible. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-No. The barn is accessible from a door, here. Originally, my great grandfather used to cut corn over here, bri ng the wagons in through one door and out through the other, 0 kay. There's two big, large doors. There's a barn door back here, a smaller door where the cows used to come in with stanchions. MR. O'CONNOR-But, generally speaking, don't you show, or don't you require to show pedestrian traffic in the manner in which it's going to access? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Pedestrian traffic will be, from their cars, they'll walk in here and walk back out the same door, and if emergency reasons come forth, they can walk out this door, because it's all open. 23 -- ---- MR. CARTIER-Well, I think we're kind of getting ahead of ourselves, here. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-I have a concern with the traffic, okay. Mr. O'Connor has said that he thinks there will be more traffic, due to the vegetable stand, and he doesn't think that there's a proper way to get in and out of the vegetable stand. Okay. Mr. Martin, you live on that road. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-There is a vegetable stand across the road. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Now, is there adequate ingress and egress out of there? Campers park right along side the road. What I'm trying to say is, he is representing Mr. Martindale, Irving C., okay, and he is worried about traffic on .Q!!!. part. I would think, if he was that worried, he would take care of his own situation, also. MR. CARTIER-Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get us into a family feud, or whatever it is. MR. MARTIN-Right. You have to understand, this is the application before us, and we're doing our best to work through this. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Can we do this? Can we go for the maple syrup and table the rest, so we can go to the Zoning Board and come back here next month? MR. MARTIN-Well, I thought that's what we were trying to hash out. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I don't know. I'm just thinking in terms of, are we setting a precedent, here. The fact of the matter, would we be satisfied with what's been submitted to us? MR. LAPOINT-Well, hadn't heard anything in Mr. O'Connor's argument as to why we need, what makes a difference whether this is on paper or not, I guess. He was cut off. If you could follow up that argument, on why we need a survey? MR. CARTIER-Well, the direction we first started to go was looking at possible revisions to this application, in terms of traffic and getting people off the road and so on and so forth. Now, it sounds like if we say, yes, go ahead with the maple syrup production and sale, we're blowing those away, we're saying, no, we don't have to deal with those now. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. In effect, there's going to be vegetables sold there, with the maple syrup, this summer. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. O'CONNOR-Except, well, I'll take exception to the use or the thought of the history of the sale of vegetables, because I don't think that that was legitimate. It was not vegetables that were grown on site. MR. BREWER-Well, that's not for us to decide, whether it was handled illegally. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, but if you mix apples with oranges, then I take exception. I think my objection to the parking and the traffic is what has been the history, and what other applicants submit to this Board. They show you exactly what they're going to do. They don't tell you, simply, that we're going to put up whatever barriers that you want, and then it's an easy thing to enforce. We do have a driveway right across from this property. We want to be able to exit our driveway safely. MR. LAPOINT-That's, like, almost 250 feet wide, right, because I had to lock up in a big chain reaction type accident for someone pulling into the farm, east bound, on the right side of the road. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Which is Irving C.'s. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly, and the way I evaluated the situation there is that he had too much driveway, in that if he had one single point, in and out, per se, they wouldn't have had two different cars coming out, 75 feet apart. MR. O'CONNOR-And that's directly across from us. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-That's part of the circumstance where you find this particular property at this time. That's not going to change. 24 -- -' MR. LAPOINT-True. MR. O'CONNOR-So, you've got to consider that when you consider what's proposed here. If you've got a poor situation, and maybe this is tough to argue from, it doesn't do the situation any good to add to it. MR. LAPOINT-Again, maybe people go to the more preferred place, and maybe everybody makes right hand turns. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I thought we had gotten away from the paper bag application, gentlemen, and I think that this is what you have. You don't even have a survey that locates that barn, with it's proximity to the. MR. LAPOINT-And that's critical for what reason? I'm missing that. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you going to have parking? He's got exits on both sides of the barn? MR. LAPOINT-As shown here, correct, but we could handle that type of thing with stipulations. We've done that a lot of times. Now, again, why is the survey critical to what's in question, here? MR. O'CONNOR-To show the proximity of even the parking area to the highway. MR. LAPOINT-That you don't feel is 25 feet off the highway? MR. O'CONNOR-I don't, not if the barn is in relationship to the edge of the perimeter, or the edge of the highway, where I think it is. MR. MARTIN-Well, what intrigues me, in that regard, is I heard you mention something about the State potentially owning six feet of the barn. That type of statement raises a red flag, in my mind. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand it, Mr. Martin, there has been a survey partially completed, or in the process of being completed. MR. CARTIER-Can you document that, at some point, for us, in terms of something from the State or something. MR. O'CONNOR-I can go back and see if I can get a copy of the condemnation award. MR. CARTIER-Fine, whatever. I'd like to see that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. Okay, but I think there's also a survey in the process, and maybe I'm wrong. The Scudder engineers have been up there working on the property. I think it's an issue which we would ask the Board to inquire about. That information should be available. MR. CARTIER-The cat's out of the bag. Mr. Scudder's on the property. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Mr. Scudder is on the property because I'm trying to put all this darn paperwork together. MR. CARTIER-I appreciate your frustration, but. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-People in the Town of Queensbury are more interested in some out of towner coming in here and making a living then the guy that's lived here all of his life, and trying to make an honest living. I'm trying to be honest with you people, and you're doing everything to make it difficult. MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-We expressed to the Beautification Committee that we are going to put logs in front the property and plant vegetables there, and the road will be more than 25 feet. The driveway will be more than 25 feet from the road, the parking area will be more. MR. CARTIER-Well, I don't know if this is going to go anywhere. I'll layout how I feel about this thing. MR. MARTIN-Well, let me first wrap up the public hearing, here. Is there anyone who would like to address the Board further? Okay. Any comments? MR. CARTIER-The only thing I was going to say is I have no problem at all with continued production of maple syrup on the property. That's within his right. The sale of that on the property still raises all the questions, almost all the questions that we're looking at, here. MR. MARTIN-Do you feel those questions can be answered with the material you have? 25 ~ MR. CARTIER-No. I don't. Even if they can, as I said before, when we started talking about this, we started talking about revisions to this thing, in terms of road cuts and so on and so forth. I don't see this thing getting approved tonight, anyway, but I'm speaking for myself, here. There are so many other questions, with regard to use and variances and so and so forth. I think that needs to get cleared up with the Zoning Board. I really do. That's me. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Tim? MR. BREWER-I don't have any objections to the maple syrup and the sale of it, because I don't think it's going to create any more problem then what already existed there anyway. I think we can stipulate that he has the barricades and let him get on with the maple syrup and get the rest of it straightened out. MR. MARTIN-All right. Jim? MR. LAURICELLA-Again, I go back to the 75 foot requirement for setback. Are we going to be putting our approval, if we approve this, do we put our approval on that? We would? MR. MARTIN-Yes. If I get the impression here that we're looking at, possibly, approving the production and sale of the maple syrup, and in that regard, yes, we would be approving the sale of that syrup, with production of that syrup, out of that barn. And you have a problem with that? MR. LAURICELLA-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Ed? MR. LAPOINT-I agree with Tim. I think, again, he has an existing condition that he's trying to improve or better. Whether he's off track or not, it looks like you're a bit off track with your application. I have no problem with the maple syrup production because I think it existed, and if it existed five years ago, that's fine, ten years ago, that's fine, and the sale of that. I go back to what Pete said. If there's going to be further expansion of the property, and if you have an engineer on site and all that good stuff, I'd be really comfortable, at least knowing in concept, what you want to do with the whole site. MR. MARTIN-And have that depicted on a. MR. LAPOINT-Because I'm all for you selling vegetables and maple syrup on the site, and I'm only hesitant because I don't know what's coming for the future of the site. If I knew that, I think I'd be more comfortable with it. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I would be only too happy to go over our concept, but stipulation of the law, I mean, we were told we could come in with our own drawings, and we have an attorney come in and say this is not suitable to. MR. LAPOINT-The suitability of it, I think, is fine. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-To go and to bring these whole plans in and be able to answer all of the questions that not only this Board, the Zoning Board, and many other Boards that are going to get involved with it, is a tremendous expense, and I've been trying to find, you people give me direction. I want to do it within the bounds. I'm willing to go for a zoning change, which I know is going to be necessary, which I have to do because of the stipulations that are in the deed that I cannot subdivide. It's the only way to make use of this piece of property. I'm trying to make it educational, recreational, and still be able to pay the taxes, and this has been before the Town Planning Board. It's before my Councilwoman, and we're just trying to do whatever you want to do to make it that way. MR. LAPOINT-Right, and I think the drawings are fine for maple syrup production and selling maple syrup, but even then I would put stipulation on egress and ingress from the facility. I would put stipulations on signage, all that other sort of good. MR. LAURICELLA-Vegetables. MR. LAPOINT-Well, not necessarily vegetables, because I still think he has the right to do what he wants to do there. I guess I'm with Tim. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-I can turn around and sell my syrup in a 10 by 10 canopy and be under the Transient Merchant Act. MR. LAPOINT-Which is probably what's going to happen this summer. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-If we have to, we'll just have a 10 by 10 structure to sellout of. MR. LAPOINT-Right. 26 '-- MR. CARTIER-In the meantime, we can get all this other stuff taken care of. MR. LAPOINT-But I worry about all these preexisting things, setting the sites on a pancake house, that all of a sudden, I'm setting all of these road cuts and possible hardships for you, when you plan to expand further, and certainly this level of sketch drawing would not be appropriate for anything beyond this level of development. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-For a zoning change, we are going to have a surveyor's map, everything. MR. LAPOINT-Well, if you're going down that line, then I think we're all set. MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-As Mr. O'Connor has said, we do have the land being laid out. He's going to draw up the plans for the proposed pancake house and other ideas that we have, to make it a unique area that the Town would be very proud of. MR. CARTIER-And that's all for your Zoning Board application, correct? MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-Right. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right. MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-We are in the process of doing that, now, for the Zoning Board. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-We're trying to get our, we were just notified that we had to go to the Zoning Board today, before this meeting. So, by tomorrow at 2 o'clock we have to have the forms filled out for Zoning, so we can go to the Zoning Board, which is the 19th, and then come back here the 25th of next month. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-They make the deadlines tomorrow? MRS. YORK-I explained to Mr. Martindale, I'll help him with the paperwork tomorrow. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-To try to get it all taken care of. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, I think we're coming to, after all of this, some sort of consensus, here, and I'll take an opportunity, here, seeing as how it looks like there may be a potential swing vote, here. I have no problem with the production and the sale of the maple syrup, and I think what this application's bringing before us is we're sort of walking a fine line between being competent and submitting good information, but on the other hand, we don't like to make it over expensive to the applicant, either, and we're constantly trying to reduce this paperwork stream that we sometimes create unnecessarily, and, in that regard, I think, I don't have any problem with the maple syrup production and sale on this site, because I think the Ordinance allows for that. However, I do think that all the other things that you're talking about, the sale of the produce, the handcrafted goods certainly, even if they are with an agricultural bent, the animals being there for the purpose of viewing and education and petting and all that, or what have you, that, to me, is not a foremost agricultural use, in my mind. So, I thi nk those things requi re a vari ance, and I'm trying to summari ze, here. I f I'm leaving anything out, okay. MR. LAPOINT-Perfect. MR. MARTIN-So, with that in mind, we have to go through a SEQRA on this, Lee, as a Type II, or no? MRS. YORK-Yes. Are you going to make a motion, tonight, or? It's a Type II. You do not have to go through SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-It shows up as unlisted on here. MR. MARTIN-I think it's Type II if it's just maple syrup. MRS. YORK-Yes, if it's maple syrup, it's just Type II, then. MR. MARTIN-Yes, so we would not need the SEQRA. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, what I'm going to look for from the Board, here, then, is something that reflects the consensus we've reached, here, in terms of a motion that maybe would allow for, strictly, the production of the maple syrup and the sale of, and request an interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals on the other issues. Is that something that? 27 ""--- --- MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'll give it a shot. MRS. CRAYFORD-Jim, excuse me, if you request an interpretation from the Zoning Board, they'll be held up another month. Is that a problem with you? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-Because they'll request an interpretation. They'll make their interpretation, and then the next month the public hearing will be held on the variance, on whatever they decide. MR. CARTIER-Well, Mrs. Crayford, it's my contention that this should not be appearing before this Board first anyway. It is my contention this should have gone to the Zoning Board first, to begin with, to get all of this stuff cleared up. I understand what you're trying to do, but I think it's unfortunate that we are in this situation, and I don't like to see this Board pushed, in terms of time, that way. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. It wasn't that. I just wanted to make you aware of the sequence of time, and I wanted to hear your discussion, tonight, on the animals, Peter. MR. MARTIN-But I think, by requesting that interpretation, we are, to their benefit, finally and once and for all giving them a clear direction, rather than dancing around the issues and making them go on, month in and month out, trying to get a foggy view of what's going on, here. If we request these interpretations from the Zoning Board, then we'll have a firm grasp of what the project is, they'll know what they can and can't do, and I think everybody will be a lot happier. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's okay. I'm just thinking out loud. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Isn't there already a written opinion that, if it's off site produce, that there's a necessity for a variance? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-That's what we're going for. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You have that written opinion from Mrs. Crayford already. MR. LAPOINT-And Lee York. We have it right here. Yes. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-We have no problem with going for a variance. MR. LAPOINT-That's what you're going to have to do. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right. We have no problem with that. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. There's going to be a lot of stipulations. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. Any other comments from the public? Okay. There being none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Pat, the only thing that occurs to me is, maybe those two things can be taken care of at one meeting. The interpretations can be done along with the process, rather than separating the two. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-And then we can come here for the final, or whatever we've got to do. MR. CARTIER-For a new site plan. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, then you would come back for a site plan. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right. MR. MARTIN-Without any question as to this allowed use and not allowed use. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right. MR. MARTIN-All right. IIJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-92 FRANCIS I CAROLYN MARTINDALE, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: 28 '- - For the production of maple syrup from sap drawn from the site, and for retail sales of that maple syrup only, with the following stipulations: That pedestrian control measures be instituted along the barn to prevent pedestrian traffic between the barn and Route 149, to make semi permanent, removable bollards or gates, closures for the entrance to the barn west along 149, and for gate and/or removable bollards on the entrance 20 feet west of the barn, and that ingress and egress from the property be per the 20 foot driveway, as shown on the drawi ng, and that plant i ngs be provi ded as di scussed with the Beautification Committee in their meeting of 6 January 1992, and all other stipulations of the Beautification Committee identified on 6 January 1992 be met. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: MR. LAURICELLA-I'd like to know what the second motion's going to be, so I can evaluate. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Good point. What I would envision to be the second motion is something that would spell out the exact interpretations that we're looking for from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Interpretations of handcrafted goods as an acceptable use, interpretation of the animal viewing area, as it's defined by the applicant, as an acceptable use, sale of vegetables and produce sold on site that are grown and raised off site. Can anybody think of anything else? MR. LAURICELLA-How about your setback? Is that going to be an issue? MR. LAPOINT-Sure. A variance would have to comply with the setbacks. MR. BREWER-A variance for the setback. MR. MARTIN-Yes, an area variance for the setback. MRS. CRAYFORD-Excuse me. Why is the setback involved in here? This isn't construction of a new building. MR. LAURICELLA-It's a different use of an existing building. You're now becoming a commercial. MRS. CRAYFORD-But the area setback would be if you were going to construct a new building. MR. LAPOINT-Well, we just want to bounce this off them for their consideration. MR. MARTIN-Maybe it would not be an interpretation. Maybe that's the wrong word, but just to have them look into that. MR. LAURICELLA-The statement from the Zoning Admi ni strator says, the current standards requi re a 75 foot setback along Route 149. MRS. CRAYFORD-That's not from me. MR. LAURICELLA-All right, the Planning. MRS. CRAYFORD-Why did you say that, Lee? MR. LAURICELLA-Number Four. MRS. YORK-Right. "The location of the barn is obviously not the best for the use. The structure is existing and is very close to the road. The current standards require 75 foot setbacks along Rt. 149." MRS. CRAYFORD-For new structures. MRS. YORK-Right. MRS. CRAYFORD-This isn't a new structure. MRS. YORK-However, I'm saying that, I'm sure the Board understands why I'm saying that. ultimately becomes a year round retail sales area, snow removal should be discussed. dark is anticipated then the Board should discuss lighting of the area." "If the barn If use after MRS. CRAYFORD-I just wanted to point out, there isn't an area variance required, unless it's a new structure. MR. LAPOINT-Well, we haven't made that motion yet, anyway. MRS. CRAYFORD-No. I just wanted to jump in before you did. MR. LAURICELLA-Well, you're saying area variance. Isn't that a setback variance? MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, for a new structure. 29 MR. MARTIN-That covers setbacks, an area variance. MR. LAPOINT-We want them to look at the total variance they would have to look at, in terms of, well, they know. It's obvious. MR. CARTIER-From what you're saying, Jim, what pops into my head is if they modify that structure in any way, you know, something comes into play there. MR. LAURICELLA-That's right. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-If we add on to the building. Is that what you're saying? MR. CARTIER-No. If it's modified. MR. LAURICELLA-Modified in any way. If you do anything to that building, I assume, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. It's a question, and it's not our purview to make that decision. All right. So, we have a motion made and seconded, as to what the interpretations would be, from the Zoning Board. I think we've outlined those. Do you need anything further, Jim, in terms of knowing what that? MR. LAURICELLA-No. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion, now? We have a motion before us that, essentially, allows the production and sale of maple syrup, with stipulations, from the existing barn. Any other discussion. Okay. There being none, I'll take the vote. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. MARTIN-Okay. Now, I would like to have someone outline a motion for interpretation and guidance from the Zoning Board. MR. CARTIER-I'll get it started, here. Jump in, Ed. IIJTION THAT THIS PLANNIIIG BOARD RE~EST OF THE ZONING BOARD CLARIFICATION OF THE FOlLOIßNG, AS REGARDS APPLICATION NO. 3-92 FRANCIS I CAROLYN MARTIIlDALE: IS THE SALE OF FllJITS AND VEGETABLES &ROllI OFF SITE A PERlUTTED AGRICULTURAL USE? THE SECOIIO ~ESTION, ARE ANY HMDCRAFTED GOODS SOLD, IS IT RE~IRED THAT THEY BE PRODUCED ON SITE OR CAN HANDCRAFTED GOODS PRODUCED OFF SITE BE SOLD? ARE ANIMALS, IIIICH ARE DESIGNED TO SERVE AS AN ATTRACTION, CONSIDERED AN AGRICULTURAL USE? IF SAP IS BROUGHT TO THE SITE FROM OFF SITE, IS THAT A PERMITTED AGRICULTURAL USE, UNDER THE DEFlIIITION OF AGRICULTURAL USE? DOES IIJDIFICATION OF THE BARIl STIIJCTURE IMKRAIT AN AREA VARIANCE, IN TERMS OF SETBACKS?, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella: Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: DAVE HATIN MR. HATIN-Jim, can I ask you a question? What are you talking about by modifying a barn? What's your opinion of modifying a barn? MR. CARTIER-We don't have an opinion. We're looking for an answer. MR. HATIN-Okay. Well, lets ask Mr. Martindale what he's going to do to the barn, because I think he already has an idea, because why are you going to request the Zoning Board waste time on an area variance that has to do with setbacks, when you're using an existing barn, inside. Inside is my purview, not this Board's. MR. CARTIER-No. The question I have is, if that barn is modified, do setbacks come into play? MR. HATIN-But modified how, Peter? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. MR. HATIN-That's what I'm trying to get at, because this is a question the Zoning Board is going to have to ask. MR. MARTIN-Exterior wall modification, then, expansion of the footprint. MR. CARTIER-Interior. Who knows? 30 ''"--- --' MR. HATIN-That answers your question, right there. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-If we change something inside, that's not changing. MR. HATIN-An area variance has to do with the expansion of the exterior walls, period. It's cut and dried. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's what I was driving at. That's the first I've heard that it wasn't going to be modified. MR. HATIN-It's right in your Zoning Ordinance. I mean, why waste the Zoning Board's time on something that's a moot issue. It's a use variance. It changes the use. That's why they're here. All right. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'd still like an answer from the Zoning Board on that one, and they can turn around and tell us the same thing that David just told us, but I'd like to hear it from them. MR. HATIN-Peter, I think you know the answer to it. MR. CARTIER-No, David, I don't know the answer to it, and I'm going to try to get an answer to it. What else? The only other thing I'd add is that I would request that the minutes of this portion of the meeting be submitted to the Zoning Board for the their review and addition. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Was that your actual motion there? MR. CARTIER-The only other question I would ask is, do the Martindale's have any other questions that they want to ask about this process, so that they don't get sandbagged the next time? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-I think the Zoning Board can clear up everything. I don't see where there's any problem with that. MR. MARTIN-They can at least give you a basis to work from. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right. So, whatever we have to do to do what we want to do, we can do. MR. BREWER-What I think, we'd have to have him on his deed. He has to have the application changed. MR. MARTIN-I think that's understood. I hope that's understood, that when you re-apply to this Board, that the names of all the owners. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-My brother and I will be on it. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it's a matter of its being recorded with the County. MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-What I'd like to say is, we had in mind to meet with the Planning Board and Mike Brandt to discuss our plans, to tell them everything that we had in mind to do on the property, hopefully. It would involve ownership by our son in the completed project, and our other son, and future generations. MR. CARTIER-Sure. think that's appropriate. We're talking about a workshop session, where no votes are taken. It's an informal discussion, and we just see what you've got, and tell us, here's what you're going to do, and so on. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-When we come back, can we use these maps over again? MR. MARTIN-If you're coming back with your full blown. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-When we come back from the Zoning Board meeting next month, we're going to come back in front of you again. MR. CARTIER-For what? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-To finish this site plan review, for my vegetables. So, I can be ready for spring. MR. MARTIN-For sale of your vegetables. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'll tell you, right up front, I want to see the whole thing. I want to know the whole thing of what's going on up there. I don't want to, I'm talking for me, now, I'm not going to look at this in any kind of favorable light if I'm looking at a piecemeal application where I'm looking at vegetables now and a pancake house later on and so on. I don't understand this. It seems to me, has it occurred to you that when you go in for a pancake house, or whatever you're going to add, that some of these things that you're doing, here, are going to change? 31 ',,--, MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-No. That's all part of it. MR. CARTIER-Then, okay, if you know that it's an part of it, I want to see the whole thing. I want to see what Mr. Scudder's working on. If you're going to the expense of coming up with something to present to the Zoning Board, that Mr. Scudder is working on, why can't we also see what Mr. Scudder is working on? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Because I want to take my time and do this perfectly, to begin with, and between the time that this will be presented and now, will be vegetable season. MR. MARTIN-I think you're going to serve yourself best, and you say you have trouble with the process and it's unfair and it's stupid and all that. You're going to serve yourself best by taking the whole plan, your whole ultimate idea for this site, getting it drawn up, and presenting it before the Zoning Board. When you make that presentation to the Zoning Board, it should be an inclusive. Then you're going to have all your cards out on the table, and you won't get all these shots from all these sides as you're going through the process. You'll know where you stand, all at once. MR. BREWER-I guess what I think he's trying to say is he doesn't want to go through the expense of the whole project. He just wants to start now, and get this going, and then maybe spend the money on his architect, or whatever, that's going to draw it up. MR. MARTIN-But that's not going to go away, though, see. MRS. CARTIER-But, Mr. Martindale, at some point, you're going to. have to go through that expense. At some point, you are going to have to go through the expense. I don't understand what the objection is. Am I wrong, or no? MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-I would explain it like this. We met with Lee York, Dave, and Pat, and we told them what we had in mind for this property, and they suggested to us we do it, first of ail, come in for a site plan review, presently, to do what we want to do this year. In the meantime, we are having Mr. Scudder, he's going to do a topo, everything with the plan, and layout our future project, which would not change anything in the manner which we are doing presently, this year. It's not going to conflict with it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's what I'm confused about. If Mr. Scudder's going to do an that stuff, why can't we see it? MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-But he can't do it right now. MRS. YORK-If I could just interject, just to clarify a few issues. The Martindales came in and did meet with us, at which time the zoning people went over the Codes, and I went through the paperwork involved in the applications. Their long term goal would be to have the property re-zoned, okay, for a more commercial use which is in keeping with their long term goals. However, at this point in time, to be able to do what they feel is an agricultural use, or agricultural related use, they needed a site plan review to come in for those things, but their ultimate goal, and, please, am I stating it correctly? MRS. CAROLYN MARTINDALE-Yes. MRS. YORK-Is to have the property re-zoned, and that is why they are having the survey done. I was the one who, quite clearly, went through the Checklist with them and told them that they could, for this application, draw their own plans, indicating the setbacks, as many applicants do, okay. They were encouraged to go forward, as an agricultural use, for the Zoning Administrator's determination, and that's how they got here, but their long term goal would be a re-zoning, and that's what's going on. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Wen, that's where I'm coming from. As far as I'm concerned, the Planning Board deals with issues on the long term. If this is a long term plan, I want to see the long term plan, so I can understand the total effects of this package. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Okay, but, for us to get the zoning change after, say this was approved for us, right now. For us to get a zoning change, we'n have to go through an this again, and, if they feel that, with a pancake house, if thi s road, the entrance to the road is not ri ght, they won't pàSS it anyway. They'll make us change whatever's wrong. MR. MARTIN-No. See, the issue you're going to have with the Zoning Board, in my view, is not a matter of hard structural designs, lines you can change on paper. You're talking about a philosophical acceptance of a use, and that's up to them, but you can des i gn that any way you want. I f they don't see that as an acceptable, the hardship there and so on, then any design you come up with is not going to matter, and that's why I'm saying, you could make that application to the Zoning Board, and maybe not go through a whole lot of expense to find out what you can and can't do, without spending a lot of money. 32 - MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right, but he wants us to have everything out, spend all the money to begin with, and then we can be shut down and can't do anything. No? MR. MARTIN-No, no, no. What Peter's asking you for is just for you to get your plan out in the air and let the proper boards look at it and see where you stand, and I don't think that means you have to spend a lot of money. You can go and ask for what, I guess, would be a restaurant, right, a pancake house, on that site, and see what the reaction is. MR. CARTIER-See, the way I look at it is, what I'm being asked to do is, you're going to build an elephant for me, but you're only going to show me what the trunk looks like, and you're asking me to give you the go ahead to go ahead and build my elephant. I want to see your elephant design, okay. That's what I'm saying to you. MR. BREWER-I guess what the confusion is, to me, Pete, is they want to know if they, do you want it done by an engineer, or do you just want a plain idea? MR. CARTIER-No. It doesn't have to be an engineer here. MR. BREWER-You don't have to have the whole thing done by an engineer. MR. CARTIER-Maybe we can do what you're talking about in a workshop. MR. MARTIN-See, what can happen is you can go to the Zoning Board and say you want to do all these various things, the animals being present for viewing, the sale of handcrafted goods, vegetables, pancakes, the whole works, and they may very well say, well, this, this, and this is fine, but this, this, and this isn't, and then you have your allowed use. Then you can do your designs, for our site plan review, based on what you already know is allowed. Right now, you don't know. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Where are we? Do we have a second to our motion? MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think we do? MR. LAURICELLA-I'll second it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have a second. Hopefully, there's no further discussion. I'll call for a vote, please. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. MARTIN-I think you're all wrapped up, and then some. (9:11 p.m.) BREAK (9:21 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 4-92 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-20 FRANK SEARS OWNER: CHRISTINE SEARS SOOTH END OF STEVEftS ROAD OWNER APPROVED FOR EXISTING OOPLEX, PROPOSAL TO ADD 111) APARTMEITS TO EXISTING OOPLEX. TAX MAP NO. 147-1-44.41 LOT SIZE: 2.Z9 ACRES SECTION 179-19 LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:21 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 4-92, Frank Sears, 1-21-92, Meeting Date: January 28, 1992 liThe applicant has constructed a duplex on 2.28 acres in an SR-20 zone on Stevens Road. He now wants to remodel the basement into apartments. This would potentially create a quadraplex. No addition structure area is anticipated. The applicant received a site plan review for the duplex in 1991. 1) The structure is existing on the lot and is generally compatible. The neighborhood is mixed and most units are single lots. 2) Vehicular access is adequate. 3) Parking is not an issue. 4) Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5) Stormwater drainage will not change. 6) The septic system should be sized in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Septic Ordinance. 7) Vegetation has been maintained on site to a great extent. 8) Emergency access is not a concern. 9) Ponding and flooding is not an issue." MR. LAPOINT-A letter from Dave Hatin dated 30 December 1991, to Frank Sears, Stevens Road, Queensbury New York "Dear Frank: This letter is in reference to your duplex on Stevens Road which has been issued a Certificate of Occupancy. This is to advise you that no further work is to continue on the third 33 ',,----, ~' unit until you receive site plan approval by the Planning Board and request and receive an approved building permit for the third unit from this office. A building permit will have to be submitted to this office when you convert this from a duplex to a three unit building, it becomes a different class of bui1ding under the building code, and is now considered a multiple dwelling, therefore, it must meet other code requirements which requires a building permit. This is also to advise you that, several months ago, it was discovered that the garage you built behind your residence was never issued a building permit and none was sought. Therefore I am requesting that you submit for a building permit for this garage as it is constructed with a complete set of plans and plot plan being submitted to this office along with an application. This office wiH do inspections for compliance and issue a Certificate of Compliance upon completion of the inspections. If you have any questions regarding any of the above matters, please don't hesitate to contact me. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have engineering comments? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, January 24, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Absorption trench sewage disposal is required by NYSDOH standards where soils permit. Drywells shan not be used. 2. It is understood that two 2 bedroom apartments are proposed. The sewage disposal system design flow should be based on 4 bedrooms. 3. Handicapped parking areas shaH be a minimum of 8' wide with an 8' access aisle." MR. MARTIN-Okay. The applicant, Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-My understanding, Tom, is that Brian Fear has approved the dryweH concept on the plan, as well as the actual installation of the drywells in the back. MR. YARMOWICH-The Department of Health requirements, as I recited them, are that you shan construct absorption trenches where conditions permit. In my looking at this plan, and looking back at the site plan approval for the previous duplex, there was, originally, that concept, and there was a change in the construction, at the time of the construction for the duplex. Is there any reason that you can't construct soil absorption trenches on the front part of that property? MR. STEVES-No. I think the soils are adequate for either one. MR. YARMOWICH-Is there a reason why the Health Department had granted you permission to put that on there, that you're aware of? MR. STEVES-Use their drywells? No. I don't know that. I don't know why they did, but the permission was sought, and I understand it was given. CHRISTINE SEARS MRS. SEARS-Christine Sears, Stevens Road, Glens Falls. We applied for and received a site plan revision on that because of the fact that we didn't want, at the time, the issue was putting, I don't know what you can them, drainage trenches, in the back yard, and he felt, we wanted to preserve the trees in the area, and so that was our reason for wanting to go to the drywells, in lieu of the trenches, because with the trenches we would have had to lose an the trees in the area, and it's a very densely treed area. So, we applied for revision and that was received. MR. YARMOWICH-Let me clarify for the Board the circumstances that Mrs. Sears is talking about. At the time of Site Plan approval 35-91, the sewage system design was for a convention absorption trench system. During the construction of the project, I was notified by the Building Department that the applicant, under Site Plan approval 35-91, had installed drywens, in lieu of absorption trenches, on the advise of his septic system installer. The issue came before me, as a result of a referral from Mr. Hatin. I also was contacted by Mr. Sears. Mr. Sears, quite candidly, revealed the circumstances and admitted, unknowingly, allowing the septic installer to install drywells rather than an absorption trench system. which was a part of the original site plan approval. Considering the facts surrounding the circumstance, I wrote the fonowing letter to Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement. This was dated October 28th, 1991, "As discussed this morning, we suggest that the sewage disposal seepage pits installed by Mr. Sears be allowed to remain and put into service provided they were sized and installed properly for the design flow. Among the special circumstances upon which our opinion is based are the facts that the area is served by the Town of Queensbury water system. Many other individual sewage systems in the area rely upon seepage pits for subsurface disposal, and subsurface disposal by other means would necessitate additional tree removal. Very truly yours, Tom Yarmowich" The current proposal is for a continuation of that and to use existing drywells. I note, in my review comments, that the Sewage Disposal Regulations of the Department of Health tell you that you may not use drywe n s where convent i ona 1 trenches can be used. I feel it's incumbent upon me, when I make my review, to point these differences out to the Board, and I do so. It seems as though, that the existing area where this septic system is to be placed, according to the design offered under the site plan considered tonight, is an existing cleared area, and it became apparent to me that there was no reason why a conventional absorption trench system could not be instaned. On a side note, 34 '-- -- I compare the limits of clearing lines with the original design for Site Plan 35-91, and I find that there was no trees saved in the construction of the project. So, I kind of feel there was a 1 ittle misrepresentation at the time, that they would save trees by allowing the existing installed drywells to be used. It can be this Board's pleasure to allow the applicant to install something. I feel the same general conclusions that were made at the time they installed the drywell are valid, and that there is a Town of Queensbury water system out there, and that the entire area is predominantly served by drywe 11 s. MR. MARTIN-So, the drywells are in place? MRS. SEARS-The drywe 11 s are in pl ace for the other apartment, for the one that's got the Occupancy Permit already, not for the new one. MR. MARTIN-There's nothing in place for the new one? MRS. SEARS-No. That hasn't been done. There are no trees, to speak of, in the front part of the yard. MR. MARTIN-They need an approval, tonight, for that to be done? MR. YARMOWICH-It would be part of the site plan. What they're showing is the installation of a drywell system. It's my notation that it's not entirely consistent with Department of Health regulations. Whether or not the Department of Health has approved this particular design, for this particular site plan, I have no evidence of that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. SEARS-I got a thing in the mail, the other day, that it was approved by you people. MR. MARTIN-Well, it would have to come from, virtually, one of two people, unfortunately. They're both here, I would think. Dave Hatin, did you write anything to that effect? DAVE HATIN MR. HATIN-Are you talking about this design, versus the original? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. SEARS-No. That the original was approved, I'm talking. MR. MARTIN-Yes, the drywell. MR. HATIN-One of my Building Inspectors came to me and said that they have installed drywells. Their pl an calls for leach 1 i nes. I, in turn, called Tom, and he read the letter that was transmitted to me. Basically, what the conversation was, I remember Leon or Matt asking me what they wanted to do for this one. I said, well, you have seepage pits. I said, I don't see why seepage pits can't go. I mean, you're only talking a distance of 50 feet away. I used the common sense approach versus the Department of Health. Now, I know when I call Brian Fear he'll tell me it'll work. I don't have a problem with it. That'll be his answer to me, and the Department of Health is, from what I can get, is being basically advisory, as they keep going, because they change the rules as they go. Tom, is reading the regulations as it states, but, unfortunately, every time I call them because a developer or a builder wants to do something different or does something different and then calls us out there to inspect, they always sign off on it. MR. MARTIN-So, you have no problems with the drywells, is the bottom line? MR. HATIN-The same thing the Department of Health will tell you. It'll work. So, that's exactly what I'll get from them. MRS. SEARS-I think that somebody had told him that, originally, too. I don't know who. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. Then, in light of this, and presuming that the Board understands that Dave Hatin feels this is an appropriate design solution, I had looked at the design for drywells, and it appears as though the drywells are adequately sized for four bedrooms. The only additional comment which I think the Board needs to consider in any site plan approval, regarding sewage disposal, is that the drywell separation be maintained, in accordance with the Department of Health Standards, and I feel that it's important, and I think there's room there to do it. The drywells should be separated by quite a bit more distance than shown on the plans. The criteria would be three times the effected diameter. So, that would be a 42 foot separation, if they can accommodate that within their plan. MRS. SEARS-No. At this time, we only plan on putting in a third apartment. We do not plan on putting in a fourth. When we went and talked to Pat Crayford, and I believe it was Lee York, my husband spoke with, they suggested that he try and get permission for four, in the event that we ever did want to put a fourth one in, but we don't intend to do that, at this point. We merely want to finish off the third one. So, I mean, needless to say, I don't think he wants to put in a fourth. 35 "-- --- MR. MARTIN-Okay, but there is a septic system required for that third unit. MRS. SEARS- Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, they're sizing the septic system to accommodate two 2 bedroom units, and the logical construction is to accommodate that sizing throughout the entire sewage disposal system. MR. STEVES-That can be accomplished in stages because it's a two drywell system. So that the installation of the septic tank should be done anyway, and then one drywell put in for that apartment. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-And then when the fourth one is put in, it's just a matter of putting the second drywell in in it's appropriate location. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-And that's what Tom is asking for. MR. YARMOWICH-So, then you'd be looking at another site plan to put in a fourth apartment? MR. STEVES-No. We're saying that this is a design for that fourth apartment, as well. Mrs. Sears said she's only seeking the third apartment construction, but she wants approval for four apartments, as well. MR. MARTIN-And then we would approve the concept, but actually only going into the ground would be the necessary septic for this third unit. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MRS. SEARS-Yes. We only want to get a permit to do the third unit, at this time. We don't know if, eventually, we'll do a fourth or not. MR. YARMOWICH-So, then you would want to make sure that somehow or another, at the building permit process stage for the fourth unit, they make sure that they put in the additional septic, drywell. MR. MARTIN-That Dave is aware of that and reviews it. Okay. Well, that's, lid like to get into the public hearing as quickly as we can. There seems to be some people here with a time limitation, and then we can continue on with any discussion. So, I'll open the public hearing on this application, if anyone would like to address the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED IRENE MOLNER MRS. MOLNER-Irene Molner. I live on Stevens Road. I am opposed to this additional family moving in, for two reasons. I bought the house on a dead end street because I wanted peace and quite in my old age, and I sure as heck am not getting it because there is so much traffic, with this heavy equipment and the chipper going on in the summer and back and forth, back and forth, back and forth, I just feel that it shouldn't be approved, and I'm quite sure my neighbors are going to agree with me. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Anyone else, please. EDWIN NORTON MR. NORTON-I'm Edwin Norton, on Stevens Road, and I was up here in the spring, when the first part of this was approved, and at that time, there were stipulations made that were supposed to be followed, and they haven1t been followed at all, not from Day One. His equipment still goes up and down the road. Of course there's a little bit less in the winter time. He doesn't have tree business in the winter time, but other than that, and I've called the Town Office Building, I'm sure, at least two times every week. A garage that he never got a permit for, he agreed to take down as soon as this building was built. It's still there. Now, he wants a building permit to keep it there, and, like she said, the traffic is terrible. He's combined with another tree company, now. So, instead of having Sears Tree Company goes down there, you've got Hunts Tree Service with their equipment, which they will probably deny, but it's there every day. You can see it. You don't have to be an idiot to see the trucks going down the road. The traffic has more than tripled. I don't know why, but I think there was a stop work order down there, but I don't know where, trucks are still going there. They've got to be doing something. This is just ridiculous. These people say they don't, they don't get permits for anything. They started building this apartment without a permit. That's why they're here now. They just do everything crooked, and I think the Town of Queensbury should stop them. Don't let these 36 -- - people get away with doing this stuff. It's ridiculous. Do it the right way to begin with. They say they want a third apartment. Their own relatives told me that they planned four apartments to begin with. They're like you said. You wanted to get the whole scope on something, on Martindale's thing before it started. If they wanted four apartments, why didn't they say so? They knew it. They're just going to keeping adding this stuff on. I think our street's busy enough now. Thank you. MICHELLE SEARS MS. SEARS-My name is Michelle Sears. I'd just like to say, in regards to the tree equipment, that that issue has been previously resolved. My father's purchased a garage. All the tree equipment is housed in that garage, and there is no traffic up and down the street. He has a partner in the garage. There is no tree equipment going up and down the street. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Can I ask a question? I understand that there's a great deal of concern, in this neighborhood, about heavy equipment, okay. I'm not sure what it has to do with a third apartment and a duplex. I'd like to separate these two issues out. This Board has dealt with this heavy equipment issue in the past. Apparently, not to anybody's satisfaction. I don't know what else this Board can do about heavy equipment running up and down the road, beyond what we have already done. lf there is still heavy equipment going up and down the road, and I don't mean to suggest there is or there isn't. I don't know. Whenever I've been over in that area of the neighborhood, I've been around Stevens Road. I've taken a cruise down to see if there's equipment there or not. I'd just like to separate that out, from this duplex. This Board is not the Board to get the heavy equipment issue resolved, I don't think. I don't know where you're going to get an answer to that, but I don't think it's going to come from this Board, and I'd kind of, sort of like to deal with a duplex application tonight and not a heavy equipment issue. Excuse me. JOANNE TUSSET MRS. TUSSET-Yes. My name is Joanne Tusset, and I live on Stevens Road in Glens Falls, and as far as them adding another apartment there, we don't need the traffic on the road. We have a 10 mile speed limit. We have a blind child there, and there are cars that go up and down that road, 30, 40 miles an hour, coming from that end on the street. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. NORTON-I'm not sure, Mr. Cartier, how I understand what you're talking about. in your minutes of June 18th, that this equipment had two weeks to be out of there. the ruling, why can't we bring it up and talk about it, that it hasn't been done? This Board made, Now, if you make MR. CARTIER-I guess this is not the, you can certainly apprise us of that, but this is not the enforcement arm of the Town. As much as you would like it to be, perhaps, this is not the enforcement arm of the Town, and that's the Department you have to deal with. MR. NORTON-Okay, and I'm not complaining about the enforcement, but I did call them, and I know they know. I called them all summer, after that two weeks, and this equipment just continues to go. How can you go ahead and approve another part of this building when the first part hasn't been taken care of satisfactorily? MR. BREWER-I think what we stipulated in the minutes was that the equipment that he had stored there had to be out of there in two weeks. MR. NORTON-That's right. MR. BREWER-And I think that was done. MR. NORTON-No, it wasn't. I'm sorry. That's what everybody's talking about. This equipment is not out of there. It's still, he goes up and down the road, last week. MR. BREWER-If he has a truck with a boom on it, we can't stop him from driving up and down a public road. MR. NORTON-I'm not saying that. I'm not asking you to stop it. I'm asking you to stop, this is overnight stuff I'm talking about, where the vehicle goes down, stays overnight, goes out, goes to work, not one, three vehicles. They take them up the road. I mean, all you've got to do is live on the street and see three vehicles go up the road. I mean, this is not zoned for business, and you're still allowing this. Now, this was a stipulation in the building, and it was okayed. If you're going to put a stipulation in something, before it can be moved in or used, then it's got to be followed, right? MR. BREWER-And I go right back to saying, I think it was the chippers and the equipment that he had in the garage. 37 "'---" - MR. NORTON-That's right. MR. BREWER-And if a man has a truck that he drives to work, if I have a company truck, and I drive it to work every morning, I have a right to drive that home. MR. NORTON- Yes. MR. BREWER-And I think that's what he's doing. I won't say that's what he's doing, and I won't say that's what he's not doing. I'm just saying, he can do that. MR. NORTON-Yes. I agree with you, and I don't believe my neighbors and I are here complaining about that. We're complaining about all this stuff, not just one vehicle, which is the pickup that he drives. We're not complaining about his pickup. He's got a three quarter ton, or one ton pickup. I'm not complaining about that. I'm talking about all of his equipment that we said would have to be out of there in two weeks. I think I called in December, was the last time, I believe, and that day, four days in a row, that equipment went up and down the road. MR. BREWER-And, again as Mr. Cartier said, that is not our department. That's David Hatin. MR. NORTON-Okay. We've settled the zoning thing, and that's what we're talking about, right, a business zoning thing, and that's not zoned for business, and this Board said that had to be out of there. Now, if he can continue to do this, what's the sense of going all through this work, you know. Why waste everybody's time? MR. CARTIER-The only thing I can suggest is to request Mr. Hatin to look into this issue again, okay, and that's the only avenue, as far as I'm concerned, this Board has. I know you may be dissatisfied with that answer, but I don't know what answer I can come up with. MR. NORTON-Yes. I'm dissatisfied with it. I just don't understand how this one person can do all this, and if .!!1.l son had tried to do it, I know that you wouldn't have allowed him, or somebody wouldn't allow him. I just don't understand how people can get away with this stuff. MRS. SEARS-Yes. I just wanted to reiterate that the equipment is out of there. It's still. We've purchased an agreement. It's over on the boulevard in Hudson Falls. There is a sign in front of it. The equipment is all over there. If my husband happens to come in, during the day, for lunch time or something, and has something with him, I don't see what his objection is to that. There has been a number of trucks in and out of there during the whole building. There have been bulldozers and other, you know, yes, there has been a lot more traffic due to the fact that the builders were working there, up until they stop. I believe Mr. Norton has contacted Mr. Hatin even this last week, or contacted someone, saying that we were pursuing work on this third apartment, and Dave Hatin was there, yesterday, and knows that we were not. I don't know where he's getting his information. MR. MARTIN-Okay. In an effort to put this truck issue to bed, as Peter stated, and stay on the issue, here, of this apartment, Dave, can you bring us up to date, one last time, on the trucks, and we'll be done with that. MR. HATIN-Round Three of Norton versus Sears. Let me put thi s to bed, ri ght now, for the Board, for the Nortons, and for the Sears. If the neighbors want to file a complaint, they can certainly file a complaint in writing. If they have pictures that prove what they're saying, they can certainly provide them to my office. I can only tell you this. Every time I go down there on a phone call, as of yesterday, because of a phone call to Mr. Tucker, there was no violation. The rumors I'm not going to act on. If there's a legitimate complaint, the neighbors have cameras. They can take pictures of it just as well as I can. I'm not going to baby-sit this property 24 hours a day, and that goes for the neighbors sitting right here. All right. If they can prove it with pictures, I'll look into it, and I will contact the Sears as I have always done. Mr. Sears does have property on the Boulevard. He is in for site plan review, and he will be before this Board to store his equipment as well as the Hunt's Tree Service on the Boulevard, as of two days ago. He was in to talk to Pat Crayford about it and I observed him talking to her. So I know it's a fact. This is becoming ridiculous. You're being dragged into a family feud, just like I am, and I'm not going to put up with it. It's a dead issue. If they want to file a complaint, a formal complaint, in writing with pictures, I'll respond to it, but don't waste this Board's time or mine. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Now, again, I'd like to steer any comments, now, to anybody's views on this third apartment. MI KE LOPEZ MR. LOPEZ-One question I'd like to ask. A duplex, or a multiple home. MR. MARTIN-Right. 38 ~ -- MR. LOPEZ-Then, what you're saying, everybody can have a two family house there if they've got enough property, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LOPEZ-So, then why can't Ed take his trailer that's existing on the foundation, and open that up for renovation? That was turned down, before, here, because they didn't want more than one house on that street, and I was turned down, before, and I've got the permit, thing, right here, everybody signed it, on the street, and I wanted to put a mobile home in, and build a house afterwards. Back then, I couldn't do it, and now they've re-zoned the area. I was turned down by the Town Board, and then you guys got the Planning Board and stuff, here. Now, and Art had a duplex in, at that time, and Sears had apartments at that time. MR. CARTIER-I'll take a shot at an answer. That's 1983, okay. MR. LOPEZ-But they both, two families, Sears and Barb, had duplexes on the road, at that time, when it was zoned for single dwelling. MR. MARTIN-Wen, I think the thing that would be an issue, there, is the fact that is was a mobile home, and not a fixed residence. MR. LOPEZ-Yes, but it was going to be a temporary mobile home until I built my house, and everybody, right there, it says single dwelling, and that was a big issue on there, there was a single dwelling area. They didn't want more than one place there, and, like I say, the names are there. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that's what, the mobile home is what threw you into a problem. MR. LOPEZ-Yes, but it was single dwelling at the time, and there's duplexes on that street at that time. MR. CARTIER-Well, there's more than one single dwelling zone, okay, and I don't know if I'm answering your question or not, because we're talking a 1983 Ordinance, and I don't know how things have changed since then. MR. LOPEZ-Because you were all worried that it was going to precede the property. MR. CARTIER-The only thing I can say, now, under the present Ordinance, is you can build a duplex in an SR-20 zone, you can build a duplex on one lot, if you have 40,000 square feet or more. MR. MARTIN-But I still think you would be forbidden from introducing a mobile home to the property. MR. CARTIER-In addition to, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LOPEZ-No. What I'm saying, a mobile home is something that's not able to move, I know, but I'm saying, back then everybody was saying, they only want single family dwellings. I don't care if it's a mobile home or two places. If you've got two pieces. MR. MARTIN-I understand what you're trying to say, now. MR. LOPEZ-I'm not saying the mobile home, but I'm saying, at one time, I wanted to put it there to live, to build a house, they're saying. MR. MARTIN-They want only single family dwellings. MR. LOPEZ-Single dwellings, and at that time, there were duplexes on the street. MR. MARTIN-I see. Okay. Pat? PAT CRAYFORD MRS. CRAYFORD-Well, maybe Lee or I could, I was just going to suggest that, we probably can't address this this evening, but Lee or I would be happy to talk with him tomorrow, Thursday, Friday, come in the office and maybe we can help you understand. MR. LOPEZ-I understand it clearly, what they're saying and what they're doing now, but I'm saying that, at one time, they didn't want duplexes. They wanted single dwellings, and then the zone has changed, now. which, what I'm saying is that, if you have a modular home, under the foundation and stuff, it's still a permanent house. MR. MARTIN-Right. 39 --' MR. LOPEZ-Correct? MR. MARTIN-Correct. MR. LOPEZ-I mean, if you have a trailer that's off the lot and everything, that's permanent to the foundation, it's considered as a permanent place, right? MR. MARTIN-I believe so. Dave would answer that better than I could, but I believe so. That's always a sti cky. He's aski ng if a mobile home affi xed to a foundation is, in fact, a single fami ly dwelling, considered to be. MR. HATIN-I think, if you look at the common sense approach, a trailer, whether it's a trailer, or a modular or a mobile home, is considered a single family dwelling, I think, is what he's alluding to. The question becomes is, mobile homes are only allowed in certain places in Town, and I can only figure what happened back then is the Town Board did not want to allow them to put a mobile home in a single family area because it wasn't zoned for mobile homes, and that's probably why it was denied. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LOPEZ-No. We were zoned, the Town was going to approve of it, but they disapproved it because of the neighbors and stuff, of the complaint that it was going to depreciate their homes, and everything else, and what we're saying now, I'm not saying, I don't care how many apartments they have. I've nothing against Sears or anybody, but you're going to have more traffic, and everybody was saying we wanted single family dwellings. This is what it was supposed to be. MR. HATIN-Yes. I'm not disagreeing with you. There's a piece of this puzzle missing somewhere. Something that you were told is missing, that we're trying to figure out, I guess. MR. LOPEZ-It came right from the Town Board, the minutes of the Town Board, too. PLINEY TUCKER, TOWN BOARD MEMBER MR. TUCKER-We're talking the year 1983. MR. HATIN-Right. There's been a zoning change, now, and. MR. TUCKER-There was a Trailer Zoning Ordinance in effect at that time, and when Mr. Lopez wanted to put in his trailer, everybody was notified around the area, because he was putting a trailer where it was not allowed in the Town. MR. HATIN-That's what I kind of figured. Yes. MR. TUCKER-And that's the way the Ordinance was. MR. LOPEZ-What I'm saying, my point at that time was, it was single dwelling homes, not Maltbie, but there was Maltbie homes, at that time, on that street. MR. HATIN-Well, one thing you have to understand, right now, and this is the reason Sears is in, is the zone has changed, effective October 1st, 1988, which does allow multiple dwellings in that area. MR. LOPEZ-Yes. MR. HATIN-If you had the land, you could certainly put one in. MR. LOPEZ-I have the land, but I'm saying, the traffic is going to be. MRS. SEARS-I might add to his question that our home was not originally a two family, okay. Our entire family was occupying the entire house. MR. MARTIN-I understand. Is there any further comment? JOAN NORTON MRS. NORTON-I'm Joan Norton, and I live on Stevens Road, and I object to this apartment because the traffic has increased tremendously. The rate of speed up and down the street is unsafe. I have one other comment, and that is that Century 21 has had a sign on Town property for several months. If Century 21 can post a sign on the Town of Queensbury property, why cannot the average Joe Blow go put a sign on the corner, on Town property, and have that be accepted. Is there a stipulation for the signs, that they can put their signs up on Town property for that length of time? MR. MARTIN-This is a For Sale sign, I would assume? 40 -- MRS. NORTON-Yes. It's advertising, I don't know where. It's a phone number. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Again, I would have to yield to Dave or Pat on an enforcement issue, there. Again, this is really outside of the. MRS. CRAYFORD-Signs are required to be 15 feet from any property line. It doesn't stipulate Town, private, whatever, just any property line. MR. MARTIN-That, then. takes it out of the Town's right-of-way. That should be moved back, then. MR. NORTON-Yes. It's inside the street sign. So, it's got to be on Town property. MR. MARTIN-Okay. STEVE DECKER MR. DECKER-My name is Steve Decker. I live on Division Road, which is the Road that runs parallel to Stevens Road, and it's in the middle of Stevens, Division, and then Ogden, which constitutes a neighborhood. Now, I have a little statement, here, that I'd like to read. I'm not able to talk very well before the public. So, I've written down my thoughts. Before moving to Queensbury, I served seven years on the Planning Board in the Town of Halfmoon, New York. My wife and I have been residents of Division Road for the past eight years. We live directly across the street from the DePalos, whose back yard faces the property of Frank and Christine Sears. As you drive west from Glens Falls, you will come to the three parallel streets on the south side of Corinth Road. The first is Stevens, the next is Division, and the third is Ogden. These are dead end streets and they contain an upwardly improving, stable neighborhood of single family residential homes and two churches. That is, they did until Frank and Christine Sears were permitted to build the subject duplex in the summer of 1991 by the Queensbury Planning Board. It is also my understanding that the Town has changed the zoning of this neighborhood to prevent multiple dwellings. As a property owner, I do not remember being advised of such a change, and I do not remember receiving a notice, a public notice of such a change. During the administration of Supervisor Fran Walter, a property owner on Ogden Road was denied permission to build a duplex on the site, on the grounds such a building would change the basic character and stability of the neighborhood. The property has since changed hands, and a single family dwelling unit was built upon it. During the Borgos administration, Mr. Sears has been allowed to begin a basic neighborhood change with the completion of his 1991 duplex. Now, in 1992, during the Brandt administration, Mr. Sears seeks to accelerate the rate of change by seeking permission to convert his duplex into a four plex. In other words, he seeks a drastic change that is completely out of character with the stability and density of what is already in the neighborhood. It seems obvious Mr. Sears intends to go into the apartment business and is constructing a compound or courtyard of what appears to be rental units across from his private home at the end of Stevens Road. Indeed, he has closed off the end of the street with a fence to form an entrance into his enclave. Several questions come to mind. Why was Mr. Sears given permission to build his duplex in 1992? What valid reason did he give to obtain such permission in a neighborhood that did not previously have multiple family dwelling units. What possible valid reason could he have to come back to the Planning Board less than six months later to request another two apartments? Why, in 1991, did he not state his intention was to build a four plex so the Planning Board could make their original decision based on his real intentions? Why hasn't Mr. Sears been encouraged to build his multiple dwelling units in a section of the Town where they do not constitute a major change? When I received the notice of public hearing about Mr. Sears intended duplex, early in 1991, I expressed my objection in a formal letter to the Planning Board and based my argument upon the Ogden Road duplex during the Fran Walter administration, and the fact that it had been denied because it represented a basic change to a stable neighborhood. When the neighborhood was treated to a summer long cacophony of trees being felled, roaring heavy equipment, and a chorus of pounding hammers, it became obvious Mr. Sears had received his Planning Board permission. I rationalized that an astute businessman such as Mr. Sears would not purposely alter the basic character of his own neighborhood and the location of his private home without a very good reason. I was naive enough to think he might be providing a retirement home for an elderly mother or a mother-in-law, rather than acting from the standpoint of greed. When viewed from an airplane, it becomes obvious Mr. Sears has paid little attention to planning, from the standpoint of public service requirements. Though he is building at the end of a dead end road, he has made little or no provision for a cul-de-sac or Town specified planned paving to accommodate heavy public equipment such as snowplows and fire apparatus. While it could be argued that Mr. Sears would do his own snow removal on a private basis, what about the future when the property changes hands and a new owner may not be able or want to provide private snow removal or street maintenance? While snow removal can be viewed as a private matter, a structure fire is always a serious public matter. A fully involved structure fire in a four unit apartment building can be a very serious public matter involving the lives of innocent people. The Town of Queensbury is served by fire companies that are acquiring larger and heavier fire trucks to service the needs of an expanding Town. In a dead end bottle neck, such as Mr. Sears is building, Queensbury Firemen and their fire equipment would be seriously hampered in the performance of their duties. Since it is impossible to have four elderly mothers, and unlikely for him to have four elderly mothers-in-law, I must assume Mr. Sears seriously intends to change the basic character of his own and my neighborhood, and I must object in the strongest terms I know to what he has already done and what he plans to do 41 '~ - in 1992. I therefore ask the Planning Board to deny his current request, and to insist he bring his property into compliance with the needs for public safety and service, before the Planning Board entertains any further request on his part. MR. MARTIN-Did you write that letter? MR. DECKER- Yes. MR. MARTIN-It was a very well written letter. Thank you very much. Is there any other comment? BARBARA MELVILLE MRS. MELVILLE-My name is Barbara Melville. I live on Stevens Road. That was a great letter, and the reader made a number of good points. The area of the three little neighborhood streets did not start out, I think, as an elegant place to live, but it has been building steadily and growing very nicely, and developing, and people are upgrading constantly. I have to say that, as the Sears' probably nearest neighbor here, except for your family, I have been impressed with the fact that the Sears' build well, maintain beautifully, and probably work harder to keep their property looking good and looking wonderful of anybody else on the street. We all try, and Frank and Chris try very hard. They have beautiful property. They work hard to maintain it, and I don't think that their property, building on to it, constitutes a threat to the neighborhood at all. I think our question, here, in some ways, is density, and most of us would probably be happier if we bought our property and then all the rest of the land around it stayed green and lovely and nobody else ever built, but if the zoning is there, people can build, and if somebody is going to build at the end of the road, I would sure vote for the Sears' to build. They do a good job of it. So, thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Anyone else? MARY SENECAL MRS. SENECAL-Mary Senecal, and I live on Stevens Road, and I oppose it because of the traffic on the road. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. LOPEZ-Like I say, my main objection is the traffic, how much are we going to have. I don't even consider the trucks, now, because I don't care about the trucks. It's just traffic in general. I mean, the duplexes and stuff, the way they're building and stuff, fine. I have no problem with that. It's mainly the traffic, and the understanding that when most of them bought, there was going to be single dwellings, and it's the traffic. I mean, basically, that's my concern. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Mrs. Sears, how much property do you have down there? MRS. SEARS-Originally, I think there was about five acres. MR. BREWER-So, you could build five houses, then, down there, if you wanted to. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. This shows 2.28 acres. MRS. SEARS-Yes. Well, one large portion was sold off with the first house we built. MR. CARTIER-But you are in ownership, right now, of only 2.28 acres, correct? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-And on that property, we have this duplex? MR. STEVES-That's where the duplex is. MR. BREWER-That's it. That's the duplex. MRS. SEARS-Yes, but we own the rest of it and the roadway, too. We own across the street, our family. MR. MARTIN-But the lot that the duplex is on is 2.28 acres? MRS. SEARS-Is 2.28 acres, right. MR. CARTIER-Beyond that, how much property do you own? MRS. SEARS-I think there's another, probably, acre and a half or acre and three quarters, there that our house is on. 42 - MR. CARTIER-That your house, that is built on now? MRS. SEARS-Yes. So, there's about three and a half to four acres there, between. MR. CARTIER-I guess what I'm trying to get at is, do we have a built out piece of property, here? MR. STEVES-No, we don't. MR. CARTIER-We don't? MR. STEVES-2.28 acres quickly divided by 20,000 would equal 4 something. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BREWER-So, he could build five houses down there, if they were laid out. MR. MARTIN-Five dwellings could be accommodated. MR. BREWER-Dwellings, yes. MR. MARTIN-Is there any other comment? MR. NORTON-There's enough land there, yes, but there's a big difference in land on the street, in the beginning of the street, from right at the very dead end of a street. You're getting all that traffic, and I will say this traffic goes fast down that street, and it's continuing. I expected a little bit more to put the duplex in, but it has really changed a lot since they put that duplex in. You add two more apartments there, it's absolutely ridiculous. MR. CARTIER-You're talking about automobile traffic? MR. NORTON-Yes. I am. I am talking ~ about automobiles. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NORTON-I mean, we figured more for a duplex, and I didn't mind the duplex, and I said I okayed it before, but the traffic is more than what we expected, a lot more. MR. MARTIN-Mrs. Sears, how many of these are occupied, now, two? MRS. SEARS-Two. MR. MARTIN-And you have one completed, or in process, or two in process, so to speak? MRS. SEARS-No. The two that are occupied are completed and have their Occupancy Permits. MR. MARTIN-And then the other two, what stage are they at? MRS. SEARS-The other one, well, the garage is nearing completion. I think we're just finishing up the painting on that. That's a garage. MR. STEVES-We're here tonight for the application of the third and fourth units. MR. MARTIN-Yes. What stage are those in? MR. STEVES-They aren't in any stage. They're in a basement condition. MRS. SEARS-Dave was in there just yesterday. MR. NORTON-Where's this garage that he's talking about? MR. MARTIN-What stage are the two units that are the point of this application, in terms of construction? MR. HATIN-Completion? MR. MARTIN-Yes, completion. MR. HATIN-The two upper units have Certificates of Occupancy. MR. MARTIN-Right. 43 .-- MR. HATIN-The lower unit has the walls for an apartment, and that's where we put the Stop Work Order on it, basically, and the letter that Ed read off to you tonight was issued to Frank Sears, based on that. When I was down there yesterday the only thing that was being done was there was sheetrock that was up there from when this letter was originally issued. There was a man taping it. I have no problem with somebody taping seams on sheetrock that's existing. The seams had to be taped, anyway. He would have had to tape this area, if it was a storage area, because of the upper unit. So, what you do have is, I think, four or five walls with some electrical. There is no septic in. There are no water lines in, other than the water line that is in to the building from the street. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. NORTON-Was there water lines in before? MR. HATIN-Three water lines were put in at the time, and we made it known that, through Frank's builders, that we saw three water lines going in, that if he was going to put a third unit in there, he would have to come back to this Board, and that's why we are at the point we are at now. MR. MARTIN-And that's the earliest you could possibly tell, anyhow, with the water lines. MR. HATIN-Yes. I mean, I can't accuse somebody of something that didn't happen. MR. NORTON-I'm not saying him. I'm saying they put it in without a permit, the water, right. I'm not saying M did. I'm talking about, Sears did it. MR. HATIN-The water lines are not governed by my building permits. They're governed by the Water Department. If somebody wants five water lines on their property, I suppose the Water Department would give them to them. MR. NORTON-Yes. MR. HATIN-That's totally up to Sears and the Water Department. MR. NORTON-Yes, but were there electric meters? I mean, this was being built, you put a Stop Work Order because you thought this apartment was being built without a permit, right, other~i$e you wouldn't have stopped it. MR. HATIN-Let me back up a little bit, here. When the three water lines went in, I questioned the fact, why do you need three water lines for a duplex, all right. At the time, it was said that Frank wanted water into the basement area for his private use. It went on a little farther. I saw what was taking shape. I could see that, obviously, where he wants his third unit now, the room was there for the third unit to be identical to the upper unit. I made it known, then, if he was going to do a third unit, he would have to come back for site plan review before he would do anything. Some interior walls went up, for whatever reasons. That's when this letter was issued, and that's where we're at right now. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. NORTON-I agree. I was just stipulating that this was trying to be done without your approval. That's all. It was trying to be done without it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Lee, you have a comment to be read into the record? MRS. YORK-Yes. I have a letter from Mrs. Geraldine Dwyer, "To Whom It May Concern: My husband Tom and I have lived on Stevens Road for 37 years. You would never know it's a dead end street. The traffic is unbelievable and it's much worse since the apartments. Anymore would be a disaster. Mr. Norton's sons trucks are all gone and off the street. Sears Trucking is still going up and down, even in the early morning hours. Rules should apply to every resident on the street. Sears garage is still standing. We have a blind child on the street that we should worry about, and the rest of the children along with my grandchildren ride their bikes up and down the street. Anymore apartments or cars would be asking for a lot of trouble. Mrs. Geraldine Dwyer" MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. MOLNER-I just want to add, besides the duplex, they do have other renters in the building. I believe they're renting over a garage of some kind. That's also additional traffic which, I don't see any problem with it, but they're asking for more people to come in, and they're asking for more traffic, and like was stated, there is a blind child, and nobody, but nobody watches the speed limit. They fly, and I've heard Sears come out with his equipment, his heavy equipment, which is not the issue here, at seven o'clock in the morning. Don't tell me he's not housing it there, because he is, at seven o'clock in the morning. MR. MARTIN-Anymore comment? All right. There being no further comment, I'll move on to the discussion from the Board, here. What's the Board's preference with this? 44 >"---,, -..-I> MRS. YORK-Mr. Chairman, do you want to close the public hearing? MR. MARTIN-Well, I was thinking about that, but it might be better to leave it open, but, is there any more comments? Then I'll close the public hearing, and we'll go on with discussion amongst the Board, here. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-What's everybody's feeling? Do you want to move on to the SEQRA, here? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. Just a general comment, trying to keep this confined to just a third apartment and, potentially, a fourth apartment. Traffic seems to be, in terms of those apartments, automobile traffic seems to be the concern. Is there some way we could get a handle on that down there? There is a 10 mile an hour sign. Is that correct? MRS. MOLNER-There's a blind child sign. MR. CARTIER-I don't know, Dave, can you help me out, here? I don't know if this is your area, or Town Board member, too, for that matter. Can a 10 mile an hour, that's a Town road. MR. TUCKER-It's 30 miles an hour. MR. CARTIER-It's 30 miles an hour, now? MR. TUCKER-And the speed limits are posted by the State of New York. The Town does not post speed limits. It's done by the State of New York. MR. CARTIER-The Town has no control over the speed limit on that road, even though it's a Town road? Can't the Town petition? MR. TUCKER-Well, it goes to the County. The County passes it on to the State, and the State tells you whether you can do it or not, and that, west of the Northway, that whole area up there is secondary roads. The speed limit was set at 30 miles an hour. MR. MARTIN-Although it's not posted. MR. TUCKER-Yes, 30 miles an hour. It's posted on each road, one sign or two signs, at the end of the road. MRS. SEARS-May I also add that the traffic in the entire area, the Corinth Road and everything else, has probably tripled in the last few years. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I'm just looking for solutions, here, in that if traffic and speed of traffic is an issue on that road, I think the neighbors could get together and petition the Town Board to approach the State and get something done about it. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think something that could be done is you could petition the County to post a sheriff there, increase patrols of that area, or, I know there was a complaint on Glenwood Avenue, and now I see sheriffs cars parked in the old Glens Falls Bus Garage parking lot from time to time, and they've increased their patrols there, and they station a speed trap, if you want to call it that, from time to time. So, maybe those types of things could be done through the Town Board. MRS. MOLNER-I have complained to the pol ice, and they told me unless they catch the person speeding, they can't do anything. I've complained several times. I have no small children. I'm concerned about the children in the neighborhood. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and in order to catch them, they have to take some action, and that would be, maybe station a car there or something, but that is not within the context of this Board. Those are only suggestions. All right. So, do we want to move into a SEQRA on this, or? Does that seem reasonable? MR. LAPOINT-Just for discussion, the public hearing's closed. I'm going to say this to the other Board members, is that I look at these things, and I see, I'm always on the applicant's side, and I feel we ought to be able to do things, and, if I recall, I was ~ this original duplex, and now all of a sudden I see a quad in front of me, less than six months later, and we're running water lines in, obviously, ahead of time, and these are all things that make me question, you know, stances I made in earlier arguments. I mean, if people really know what they're going to do with ahead of time and are since leading us through piecemeal. There's a lot of evidence that this has been done exactly that way, because I made a lot of arguments for the original site plan, last year, and now I feel a bit duped. 45 '-- ,-,,' MR. MARTIN-I have to agree with those comments. I'd like to echo those comments. I find it very hard to believe that this plan or this approach for three and four units was not known well in advance of this duplex plan meeting this Board and potentially passing through whatever professional services were acquired, and I don't know what to do about that. We are looking at a Type II allowed use, here, in an SR-20 zone, but I just feel a little like I've been made a fool out of. MRS. SEARS-But you did say that, in fact, the zoning was for duplex, to start with. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. SEARS-I mean, there was no reason to deny it, initially. MR. MARTIN-And we were approving just that, a duplex, and now we have something twice that size here in front of us. MR. CARTIER-Well, toss the question out to ourselves, if this had originally come in as a quad, how would we have handled it. MR. LAPOINT-I probably would have argued strenuously for it, as a quad, but, again, I'm beginning to question my own reasoning, now, because I see what happens when I argue for, even a lesser development and it comes back to us, and what it does, it invalidates a lot of the things that I may have debated with other Board members on, at least initially. It invalidates a lot of my arguments. MR. MARTIN-Such as having stipulations on it? MR. LAPOINT-Exactly, and, again, we're qualifying things to such a degree that we're trying to avoid exactly this situation. MR. CARTIER-Well, options. We can approve it for four. We can approve it for three, or we can disapprove it. Correct? The applicant's representing to us that they're putting in three now, with the intention of putting in four. We can limit it at three, or we can say yes to four, or disapprove. I guess my question would be, if we disapprove it, we have to look within. MR. MARTIN-Within the grounds of the site plan review criteria. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Most definitely. MRS. SEARS-Can I add something else, as to why we did decide to go with the third apartment on this. I mean, I don't know if you're going to believe me or not, but this is, I don't know if you've ever built a house. MR. MARTIN-I just got done. MRS. SEARS-All right, well, if you get done and you have a certain estimate, an idea of what it's going to cost, and you go to the bank for X amount of dollars, all right, and then, as you go along in the project, you find out it costs a phenomenal amount of money that you hadn't even figured on, okay, and that there are costs far in excess of what it was, and that's, basically, what's happened, is to break even on this, at this point, we need to put in the third apartment, and that's the reason for this. The only plans that we had, and this was the reason that the four meters, and so forth, were run in initially, okay, was my husband hoped to put some tools and work area over there in the garages. We didn't even rent the garages to the people that are in the place, okay. The lower apartment, we had hoped at some time, in our retirement years, to rent that, you know, either rent that to tenants and use one of the upstairs ones ourselves. So, there was a projection there, in the far future, to possibly do that. We did not intend to do it at this time. As it stands now, we don't even have the funds to do it yet. I'm saying we need to go to the bank to have that approved. So, I mean, I'm sorry if you feel duped, but that wasn't. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but, I mean, are you going to be in the same financial straits after you, that plan, and the financial straits are neither here nor there, to us, but you go ahead and put in four units, and you find out that you've gone bust on that, and it could be very easily, the same planning and the same logic, or three, because you thought you'd make it with three. MRS. SEARS-We're not going to put in four. Well, we set off on this deal a little odd. We're acting as our own contractor, okay, and, consequently, he subcontracted everything out, and, at this point, he's found out that he needs to get some more definite contracts on prices and so forth. Before we go into finishing this apartment, that we need a signed thing. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm, again, trying to think of some options, here. Way back in the beginning of when I got on the Planning Board, one of the things we did, and I recall this, with regard to duplexes, was disapprove them, based on, they didn't fit into the neighborhood character. I guess where I'm 46 going with that, I'm just thinking off the top of my head, here, is considering the fact that this area, this particular piece of property is not yet at buildout, can we stipulate, and are we putting too much of a burden on the homeowner, can we stipulate that no other multifamily units be built on this site, in terms of density and traffic concerns and so on and so forth? I wish our Board Attorney were here tonight. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, we are looking at two additional apartments. If we approve it is not three, it can be instantly four. I'm saying, they're telling us only three, they're only going to build one extra unit, but we are approving four. So, I mean, if they change their mind on the way home tonight, it's four. MR. BREWER-They're applying to add two apartments. They're not applying for three. They're adding for. MR. LAPOINT-Add two to make it a total of four. MR. YARMOWICH-Four is the most they can build. Four units is the most that can be built on 2.28 acres, according to the zone. MRS. SEARS-We only did that because. MR. BREWER-Because the four is there. The potential for four is there. MRS. SEARS-There's room for four, tentatively. That was, you know, Pat and Lee's suggestion, apparently, to Frank, so I'm told, when he came up, that it might as well, because we had such a hassle over it, try and get the whole thing out of the way with one shot, in the event that we ever did want to add a fourth one. MRS. YORK-I don't recall speaking to Mr. Sears on this issue. What I would like to say to the Board, if you do want to discuss with the Town Attorney your concerns, and you feel that there's some legal ramifications to them, I would suggest you table it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's a possibility. I'm just throwing that out. 1'm just trying to get some ideas out on the table, to chew on, here, because I don't know where to go with this. MR. STEVES-If I understand your question correctly, you're wondering if more buildings can be built upon this site? MR. CARTIER-Piece of property. MR. STEVES-Not if you approve the two extra. MR. CARTIER-In the Sears ownership. MR. STEVES-Not on this site. MR. CARTIER-That was my question, originally. In terms of the property owned by the Sears. MR. STEVES-Density, right. Well, no, wait a minute. MR. CARTIER-I'm not talking about the 2.28 acres. I'm talking about the total amount of property owned by the Sears in this area. Do they still have land upon which dwelling units could be built, beyond the 2.28 acres? MR. STEVES-The only other parcel that they own, to my knowledge, is this one right here, 26.2, which is an adjacent parcel of land. MR. CARTIER-26.2 means what? MR. STEVES-The Tax Map parcel. MR. CARTIER-The Tax Map parcel. MR. MARTIN-That's the one she said is approximately an acre and three quarters in size. MR. CARTIER-That's an acre and three quarters. MR. STEVES-And there's an existing building there now. MR. CARTIER-There is an existing residence on there? MR. STEVES-Yes. That's correct. 47 MR. CARTIER-I follow you, now. Do they have enough property to build anymore duplexes on this, whatever is in their ownership? I'm not just sticking to this map, necessarily? Do they own anything else that's not shown on this map? MR. STEVES-I don't know that. MR. MARTIN-In their ownership, Pete. MR. CARTIER-No. I'm talking about right in this area. MR. STEVES-There's none listed, here, to my knowledge. MR. CARTIER-That was my question, originally. Are they at buildout, as far as this piece of property is concerned? MR. MARTIN-They own, Pete, they own over four acres, if you assume that that's an acre and three quarters, they own, that would bring them up to just over four acres. That means they could develop eight units, on all their property. MRS. SEARS-But there is a barn on the one. There's a large barn on it. MR. STEVES-Well, I think we ought to stick with the parcel being referred to tonight. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. I'm just trying to get a handle on something here. MR. STEVES-I hear what you're saying, but I haven't done the figures on that site or the size or the size of the building. I haven't done that, and I think that's something that maybe what you're asking for, but on this particular one, it's at buildout. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think, getting back to Pete's assessment, there, we do. We have, basically, three options. We can say, no, leave it at two. We can approve three, or we can approve a total of four. I don't see where there's anymore options beyond that. Now, what's everybody's feeling? MR. LAURICELLA-Two are already approved. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Two are already approved. So, either you expand up to three or four, or you say, no, leave it at two. MR. NORTON-Say the whole street was against this, is doesn't mean anything at all, to the way you think? MR. LAPOINT-Well, people have property rights. MR. NORTON-It looks to me like there's two people that are neighbors that are for this, and the whole rest of the street is against it. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but it's not a matter of, you count up, 18 for. MR. NORTON-So, it doesn't make any difference. MR. CARTIER-No. I didn't say that. It's not a matter of, there are 18 for and two against, or however the numbers are. It's a lot more involved than that, and that's what Ed is referring to. Property owners have property rights. MR. NORTON-I agree with you. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Sears and Mrs. Sears have the same property rights that you have with your piece of property. We have to weigh, very carefully, other issues. Please understand that we also weigh neighborhood concerns, and that's why I'm kicking around options, here. We don't ignore you. MR. MARTIN-The thing that is in my mind, in terms of, is the public good, the impact on the public, and if we are saying that the addition of another apartment, beyond the approved duplex, or another two apartments, is going to trip traffic over into being excessively dangerous to the public, the people on that street, then that is, in my view, grounds for denial. However, if that is not the case, if the increased traffic resulting from these new two additional units is not going to do that, then I don't think we have much of a basis for a denial, as our site plan review approval is written. So, that's what you have to wrestle with in our minds, here. MR. NORTON-You were talking about the police. We did call the police, and, well, just like Dave Hatin hasn't got time to baby-sit it, the police haven't got time to baby-sit the speed on-that street, either. 48 '----' --' They said they would do the best they could, and I did this last summer. So, it hasn't changed a bit. I mean, I called a week after this started happening, and I just wanted you to know that, except for maybe two of their neighbors, maybe three, the rest of the street is, you know, traffic wise, that's why we're completely against this. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. LOPEZ-Actually, I think the four apartments could be approved now. The thing I'm looking for is kind of a guarantee there's not going to be another, or more, whatever, increased. MR. MARTIN-You bet. MR. LOPEZ-I mean, actually, I don't really have a problem against, if they approve it, fine. I just don't want it to be a big complex. That's my concern. MR. BREWER-No. That's not allowed. MR. MARTIN-I understand. Okay. So, it's just a matter of people making a choice, here, of what you want to do. MR. STEVES-If I may, on the piece that's being considered tonight is 2.28 acres, which is in excess, slightly, of a four unit parcel. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. STEVES-If you consider that only, and not combine it with the other, you may be denying, if you will, the ability to create another unit by combining. So, it might be in your best interest not to have them combined. Leave it as it is. This would be at bulldout, and they can't go any further. MR. CARTIER-That's what I was trying to get at and I guess I wasn't asking the right questions. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. CARTIER-My question is, can they buildout beyond this? MR. STEVES-This would be to buildout. MR. CARTIER-That's it, it's at buildout with this unit? MR. STEVES-That's correct. No, with the two. MR. CARTIER-With the two additional? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. HATIN-In the SR-20 zone, there's a double asterisk. If you have your books with you, you might want to turn to this. It's on Page 17965. They only require 15,000 square feet per unit for a duplex, in multi family. Technically, Mr. Sears has enough for five units, if you figure it up. So, they're under what they're allowed by the Ordinance. MRS. SEARS-I have no problem with you stipulating that we don't build anymore. I don't want anymore there myself. MR. MARTIN-Can you understand where we're coming from, though? MRS. SEARS-Yes. Sure I do. Nobody's even asked me that. I don't want, in fact, when Frank initially said, back about, I would say maybe a year, a year and a half ago, he did come up and talk to, I don't know if it was Dave or who it was, at that point, about starting, initially, a four unit place, and he and I had words over that, because I didn't want four units over there, okay, and I still don't, nor do I want anymore, under any circumstances. It's my yard, too. I have a very isolated beautiful yard. I like it like that. MR. LAPOINT-Then, if we went with three, that would be it? You're willing to tell us three would be it, one additional? MRS. SEARS-I am perfectly willing for you to go with the three and scratch the four. MR. MARTIN-That's what I like, compromise. MRS. SEARS-I really don't think that he has plans for putting a fourth unit in. Frankly, we'll be lucky if we can get the financing to put the third one in, at this point, okay, because we're very close on it. 49 '--' - MR. CARTIER-David, what were you just reading from? 17962? MR. MARTIN-65. MR. CARTIER-I've got it. Thank you. Where are we at? Are we talking about three and we're ready for SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-Okay. Then we have a consensus amongst the Board, here, of allowing one additional unit. MR. CARTIER-Agreed. MR. MARTIN-Okay. On that basis, lets conduct the SEQRA. RESOLUTION IIIEft DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: FRANK SEARS, OwIer approved for existing duplex, proposal to add one apartlent to the existing duplex, 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 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 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. TUCKER-Mr. Martin, what did you just do? MR. MARTIN-We approved the SEQRA Review on the project. MR. TUCKER-What are you going to do? MR. MARTIN-It appears to be the consensus of this Board that one additional unit be approved, and that be the limitation on the development for that site. MR. TUCKER-Is it within your jurisdiction to limit it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. TUCKER-Are you not changing the zoning. MR. LAPOINT-Excuse me. The applicant is going to apply for one here and we're going to agree to it, and we're going to limit it as best we can, in our motion, and if that's contrary to Ordinance and all that good stuff like that, that can be taken up later. 50 "---" '--' MR. TUCKER-No, no. These are some of the problems that we're running into. I mean, these people are going to walk out of here tonight thinking that Sears can only have one more unit. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. TUCKER-And the zoning, does it not state the zoning for that chunk of ground, there, they can have five? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. MARTIN-With site plan approval. MRS. YORK-That is correct, however, with site plan approval. If they can prove that they can substantially, or you know. MR. MARTIN-Will not have a substantial negative impact on. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. MARTIN-On the area, then they can have up to their buildout. MRS. YORK-If they can prove that the land can handle that much and not increase the impacts. MR. TUCKER-What I'm saying is, though, would you guys put in the stipulation that she can only have three, you're lulling these people into thinking that they can't come back, and they can walk out that door and come right back in here because the system allows them to do it, correct? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. They can do that. That is correct. MR. TUCKER-So, what you are actually doing, you're just approving the third unit. MR. LAURICELLA-Right. MR. LAPOINT-We're doing all we can to keep it at three, and if someone overrules us, or a future Board overrules that. MR. TUCKER-I understand that, but I don't think you should put in the stipulation, or agree to the stipulation, that they're not going to do anymore. MR. LAPOINT-Well, then you don't have some votes, then, and you don't get anything. MR. TUCKER-Yes, but it appears to me that you're not handling it proper. MR. LAPOINT-They come with two. We approve two. Then they come with four, and tell us they only want three. Do we have to guess what they want to do? MR. TUCKER-No. All I'm saying is, if you want to give them three, just give them three. MR. LAPOINT-That's what we're going to do. MR. TUCKER-Okay, without the stipulation that they can't come back, because they can come back. MR. MARTIN-I understand what you're saying. MR. TUCKER-Do you see where I'm coming from? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-They can come back. MR. TUCKER-And these people all understand that you're giving them the three tonight, but six months down the road, they could be back here again for number four? MR. MARTIN-Yes. This is not set in granite by any means. MR. TUCKER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MARTIN-And if that was the case, I don't mean to lead you down that road at all. MR. TUCKER-I understand that, and just make it part of the record. 51 - MS. SEARS-If you approve three apartments tonight, can that decision be revoked? Can someone go back and say, no, you can only have two? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. LAPOINT-No. MS. SEARS-The three is final? MR. LAURICELLA-Three is not final. That's what he's saying. MR. MARTIN-It can be expanded upon. MS. SEARS-Right, but as far as, it can't go back. MR. LAURICELLA-It can't go down. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. CARTIER-I think it would be highly unusual, however, if we received an application for the fourth apartment. MR. MARTIN-I'd go a step further to say it would be highly unlikely to be approved. Okay. With all that out of the way, I'd like to accept a motion on this application. IIJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 4-92 FRANK SEARS, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: For existing duplex proposal to add one apartment to existing duplex. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver (10:38 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-Lee, before you got here, we moved the Shallow Creek Subdivision back to the end of the meeting because it was not Mr. Steves understanding that it was meant to be tabled. So, he's here to address us, and we wanted to wait until you got here. MRS. YORK-Excuse me, Leon, this a modification to an existing site plan. It did not have to be advertised. It came about because of a Zoning Board of Appeals decision that the modification of a fence line is required. So, I just wanted to make you aware of that. MR. MARTIN-Is this the Woodbury thing that we're being handed out? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, we'll deal with that in a minute. Lets get on with the business on the agenda. How do we want to deal with this Shallow Creek Subdivision? We have, the applicant has written a letter wishing to be tabled. The Planning Staff was understanding of that to be the case, and now we have the applicant's agent before us ready to go. MR. CARTIER-This had to do with, apparently, Lee, last night's Town Board decision regarding variances, and that whole thing. MRS. YORK-Right. As I understand it, the Town Board discussion of last night does not become legal until it's published. MR. CARTIER-So, that doesn't apply? MRS. YORK-You're not getting into that, right? MR. STEVES-I understand that. No. My point, here, is that this, if you will is a 1987 subdivision that's being reviewed tonight for Phase II. I would assume the Board would be reviewing it under the '82 Regulations and would grant approval or deny it, whatever, but if they granted approval, there 52 -- is no way, tomorrow, that they could legally come in and get a building permit, but rather it would have to go to the ZBA for an area and dimensional requirement variance, which we are, incidentally, on for Thursday night at the ZBA. It would be good timing, then, to proceed in that fashion. MRS. YORK-There are some other issues that have come up the Board should be aware of, and maybe you would want to discuss them with the Board, regarding, with a change of zoning, there are also some additional regulations passed regarding stream corridor setbacks and things that have also changed there, that will require variances on that lot, it would appear to me. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MRS. YORK-I don't know. Has Mr. Kruger gotten a determination or anything? MRS. CRAYFORD-I haven't seen a plan showing the stream, in relation to any structures. MR. STEVES-The problem with it is that both of these lots in Phase II are, if you will, preexisting, and it could be argued that, because they're preexisting, that all they need is a variance, but we know it's still Phase II of this subdivision, and that's why we're coming in to the Board with that request for variation. MRS. YORK-I don't wish to argue with you, Mr. Steves. However, they do not become preexisting until they get final approval. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-Not when it stands alone, and these lots stand alone, in the middle of nothing, because, by definition, they do not merge to the lots adjacent to them. So, there's no way that this lot can be enlarged or dealt with in a separate fashion because it's there. Do you see what I'm saying? MRS. YORK-And Mr. Kruger isn't in ownership of any of the land around it? MR. STEVES-But they don't merge. MRS. YORK-Okay. I thought there was a question of that, last night? That there was some question regarding the merger clause also, after three years. I don't want to get into a legal discussion with you at all. MR. STEVES-1'm not trying to, at all, either, but rather to proceed with the process because what was the second phase for, it was for filling. That was the request. MR. CARTIER-Yes, to fill and settle. MR. STEVES-Yes, and it has taken place. I understand the Department of Health has commented on that. MR. LAURICELLA-Shouldn't we wait until Planning has gotten a chance to review this? Are we going to operate without their comments? MR. CARTIER-No. I agree with you, Jim. This is kind of half done, here. MR. LAURICELLA-I know it. It's unfortunate that your client sent us the notice, and you didn't. MR. MARTIN-See, we're operating, now, without any Staff Comment or Engineering Review or anything like that, and I know. MR. LAURICELLA-It may be a minor issue, but we really don't know for sure. MR. CARTIER-Because. frankly, I have some questions on what's this, Phase II, lot 2. When we went out and looked at that, there's some slopes on that lot that I just don't know. MR. STEVES-And which lot is that? MR. CARTIER-Lot 2. MR. MARTIN-Phase II, lot 2. MR. STEVES-Yes, lot 2. The only thing I could comment on that is that I'm assuming that the way the configuration is is designed so that he could put his cellar in, and then back fill it with the excessive amount of fill he has over on lot 10. MR. MARTIN-The grade, right now, is still pretty far down there. I mean, you're looking at a two story cellar. MR. STEVES-Yes, but he's got an excessive amount of fill over on lot 10. 53 ',,--, MR. MARTIN-Yes. I see. Again. I hate to proceed further on this. I know it has the appearance of being a minor thing, but, again, it's a precedent setting matter that I'd rather not get into. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MRS. YORK-I would think it would be in your client's best interest to talk to the Zoning Administrator regarding any potential variances which may be required, other than what he already knows about. MR. STEVES-Okay. Is this to be reviewed under the '87 Subdivision Reg's or the '92 Subdivision Reg's? MRS. YORK-'92. MR. STEVES-'92. Then how can it be, then, until we get a variance, then? This has Preliminary approval on it and it has Department of Health approval on it. MRS. YORK-Mr. Steves, I'm telling you quite honestly, I have not had a chance to totally review this because it was not anticipated to be before the Board tonight. There are a lot of concerns. Maybe they are irrelevant, but at this point in time, I don't know that, okay. MR. STEVES-Okay. I'll talk to my client and ask him not to communicate anymore with you, because he's very upset when he comes in here, because he doesn't understand the procedure. MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. That's what he told me, the last time he was here. He was very upset, and I can understand that. MR. TUCKER-Yes. I got a phone call on this. He was quite upset. MR. CARTIER-And was it our fault that he's upset? MR. STEVES-No, not at all. MR. TUCKER-I think the whole system. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Well, I think the comment made last time, and I think it was this subdivision, Tom's comment, I believe, was that this is not reviewable, in an engineering sense. Only, this is a final approval being granted. You don't have engineering comments to review. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I want to see Planning Comments. MR. YARMOWICH-That's not the entire case. The bulk of the review's planning, but the final plat needs to be looked at to make sure that the requirements are adequate for final. MR. MARTIN-I understand that you're so close, but yet so far, type thing. and I'd just li ke to get the benefit of a full review on this, and I'm sorry the water's been further muddied by this letter being present and all that. MR. STEVES-Okay, then we're tabled until next month. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you want a motion to that effect? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Could I have a motion accepting the tabling? IIJTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-87 SHALLOW CREEK SUBDIVISION DONALD ICIIJGER, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: In reference to two lots designated as Phase II, as per the request from Mr. Donald Kruger in a letter dated January 20. The tabling will be until Mr. Kruger can do whatever he needs to do. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver (10:48 p.m.) 54 '~' MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have a Woodbury's issue, here, that Lee wants to take up with us. MRS. YORK-Perhaps I can explain it briefly. The applicants went to the Zoning Board of Appeals to have employee parking off of Glendale Avenue. The access would be off of Glendale Avenue and have a separate employee parking area and create just a lumber storage area that would have a fence separating it. At the Zoning Board of Appeals it was determined that, the Board felt it would be best not to have a lot of cars accessing Glendale, and they suggested, or made a motion that the lumber storage should be in the area where the parking was considered, and parking should be off of LaFayette Street so the traffic could enter there. Given that decision, the applicant had a preexisting site plan which now has to be modified. MR. MARTIN-And the modification is indicated here? MRS. YORK-Right. The modifications would be to put fencing indicating no access from Glendale, and around the area that is now going to be lumber storage, instead of parking. MR. MARTIN-Now, was there any public notification given? MRS. YORK-We do not require public notification to a modification of a site plan. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. TOM UBEN MR. UBEN-I'm Tom Uben, the General Manager for Woodbury's. What can I address for you fellows? MR. MARTIN-Is there anything you feel that you have to add? MR. UBEN-Any concerns? We initially wanted to use this area for employee parking. We had some serious objections, for safety, from the neighbors and the Warren County Commission. We got conditional approval for our concept, if we denied access. I think the plan clearly states where we're going to simply secure the property with a fence. We've agreed to supply a green buffer zone, and our parking will, in fact, be where it was located before we started the whole process. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The last time there was a Mrs. Pfieffer in with a greenhouse, and we tal ked about lights. You weren't here, were you? It was Mr. Hoffman. Okay. MR. UBEN-I wasn't here, but one our rep's were, I'm aware. MR. CARTIER-Okay. There was discussion about light shining in the greenhouse and screwing up Christmas plants. MR. BREWER-I think we discussed that wouldn't bother them. MR. CARTIER-That's not going to change. MR. UBEN-There would be no additional lighting placed in that. MR. CARTIER-No additional lighting. Okay. MR. UBEN-Because it will be lumber storage. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The other thing was, no structures that would blind her sunlight for a greenhouse. Yes. Okay. So, they're just looking for us, for an approval of this modification, correct? MRS. YORK-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-I've got one other thing. From your existing drive through shed, on the other side of the street. MR. UBEN-Here? MR. CARTIER-Yes. Okay. Stacked out in front of that are two tiers of felt paper, roofing paper, whatever. The last time we looked at this, I requested that that be removed and that that area be left permanently empty because you have a site view problem coming out of the parking lot turning left, you cannot see. If that chain link fence is left there, and that material is removed from there so people can see through the chain link fence, we can avoid having somebody having their nose taken off. Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. UBEN-As well as my forklift people. Absolutely. We'll set this back. MR. MARTIN-Right, because I think we should encourage access from that part of your parking lot because the other access is too close to Glen Street. So, yes, that's fine. 55 -- --- MR. UBEN-But that's a safety factor for us, also. MR. MARTIN-Right. Any other thoughts from the Board on this? Okay. There's no type of environmental review or anything like this, Lee, right? MRS. YORK-No. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATIONS TO SITE PLAN NO. 52-91 WOODBURY LUMBER, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella: As submitted to the Planning Department, as shown on a blue print dated 11/12191, with the following stipulations: That the materials no longer be stacked to the south of the existing drive through shed, and that proper site line for outgoing traffic be established there on a permanent basis through the fence. Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver (10:51 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-Lee, was Dexter informed that they are now going to be part of a regular meeting in February, so they don't? MRS. YORK-No. MR. MARTIN-So, could we send something out to them, just to let them know? MRS. YORK-Why don't I give them a call. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. YORK-I will call their agents. MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 28th day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 56