Loading...
1992-02-18 ---- - -" ~ ~EENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR IEETING FEBRUARY 18TH, 1992 INDEX Subdivision No. 2-1992 Ronald Roemer 1. FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 1-1992 Stewart Subdivision 1. FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 15-1991 Clearview Estates 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Ronald and Mary Susan Raynor Subdivision No. 14-1988 Hickory Acres 8. FINAL STAGE Sidney Timms Site Plan No. 5-92 Brian Granger 9. Site Plan No. 6-92 George and Marilyn Stark 13. d/b/a Mohican Motel Site Plan No. 10-92 J. Rick Bylsma 15. 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 FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 18TH, 1992 7:03 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN EDWARD LAPO I NT PETER CARTIER TIMOTHY BREWER JAMES LAURICELLA MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1992 FINAL STAGE EXPEDITED MAmR TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA RONALD ROEMER OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE RIDGE ROAD TO CHESTfIJT RIDGE ROAD, ONE BLOCK NORTH OF HICKS ROAD DEVELOPMENT HAS TAKEN PLACE. BECAUSE OF A 1976 ERROR, SEPARATE DEEDS WERE NEVER FILED. PRESEIT USE: TWO RESIDEITIAL OOPLEXES. TAX MAP NO. 55-2-13.1 LOT SIZE: 2.5 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-75 (7:03 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 2-1992 - Expedited Matter, Ronald Roemer, 2-3-92, Meeting Date: February 18, 1992 "The appl icant is at the final stage as an expedited matter. The Staff recommends approval." MR. MARTIN-Okay. This is pretty much a straightforward thing. I don't think we have any, it's already existing and all that. Any discussion? I don't think we need a SEQRA or anything on this, right? MR. CARTIER-It's all done. MR. MARTIN-All done? All right. So, I guess I'll accept action on this application. IIJTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1992 RONALD ROEMER, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: The application is in compliance with all applicable ordinances. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella, Mrs. Pulver (7:05 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA STEWART SUBDIVISION OWNER: A. ROBERT & JESSIE W. STEWART EAST SHORE ROAD ROOTE 9L, NEXT TO HARRIS BAY YACHT CWB FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION OF 4.1 ACRES WITH EXISTING 2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. TAX MAP NO. 10-1-1.5 LOT SIZE: 4.1 ACRES SECTION: SUBOIVISION REGULATIONS (7:05 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 1-1992, A. Robert & Jessie W. Stewart, 2-4-92, Meeting Date: February 18, 1992 "The subdivision will divide 2 existing units into 2 lots. All planning issues have been addressed." MR. MARTIN-I don't think this, again, is any big issue, here. Any discussion? Does anybody have anything on this one? Again, I would imagine SEQRA's been done, and all that. So, I'll accept a motion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 1 ""- - IIJTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1992 STEWART SUBDIVISION, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For a 2 lot subdivision of 4.1 acres with existing 2 single family residences. The application is in compliance with all applicable ordinances. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella, Mrs. Pulver (7:06 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ClEARVIEW ESTATES RONALD AND MARY SUSAN RAYNOR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ClEARVIEW LANE. OFF OF HAVILAND ROAD FOR A 4 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 54-5-6.51. 6.1 LOT SIZE: 5.6 ± ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ¿;_ /8-9';. MELANIE FUERST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:06 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 15-1991, Clearview Estates - Ronald & Mary Susan Raynor, 2-4-92, Meeting Date: February 18, 1992 "The only planning issues regarding this four lot subdivision were the creation of nonconforming lots due to the strips of land adjacent to Clearview Lane. These have been shown as being conveyed to the contiguous property owners." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, February 13, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Monuments (existing and proposed iron rods or pipes) should be shown at lot corners (AI83-9 (c)(7». 2. The plan should indicate proposed limits of tree clearing (AI83-9 (E». 3. All erosion control measures shall be in accordance with New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. A note to this effect should be added to the plan. 4. With regard to subsurface disposal systems: a. The Town of Queensbury Sanitary Sewerage Ordinance requires that high groundwater determinations be made in March, April, May, or June, within 6 weeks of the time that frosts leaves the ground or that at other times the determinations be performed by a person certified by the Town of Queensbury. The date the percolation tests were taken and test pits excavated should be indicated, along with the individual performing the tests. b. The location of the percolation tests and test pits should be indicated on the plan. Soils data should be obtained at each proposed disposal field. Complete soils data should be indicated on the plans. c. The limited soils data given indicates that sewage disposal systems should conform to NYSDOH Raised System design criteria. In addition to the current drawing notes, the following should be addressed on the drawings: 1) Percolation tests to be conducted in the fill material at the borrow pit and after placed borrow settles at the site. The slower of these tests shall be used for the actual design application rate and shall have a perc rate between 5-30 min/in. The fill material also shall be allowed to settle naturally for a period of at least 6 months, to include one freeze thaw cycle. 2) The entire surface of the sewage disposal area, including tapers, shall be covered with a minimum of 6 inches of topsoil, mounded to enhance the runoff of rain water away from the system and seeded. 3) A minimum of 2 feet of fill material shall be placed between the bottom of the trenches and existing ground if dosing or pressure distribution is not provided. d. The fill system should cross section and tile field trench details should be corrected to conform to the design criteria notes. e. The subsurface disposal area size and lot grading as shown on the plan should be revised to reflect the sewage disposal system design criteria including fill area tapers and fill area setbacks from property lines." MR. MARTIN-Okay. That concludes the Staff Notes. Is the appl icant here tonight? Have you got a copy of the Engineering Comments? Did you get those a couple of days in advance? MS. FUERST-I just got them today. MR. MARTIN-You did? Okay. I think that's where the bulk of the concerns lie, it appears. We seemed to work this out, mostly, at Sketch Plan. I notice, here, is this how we left this, last time, that the small strips of land are now to be conveyed to the neighboring property owners? I thought it was something different? Is that something new? MR. BREWER-I thought it was. MR. MARTIN-Is that what we worked out? MR. BREWER-I think that's what it was. MR. MARTIN-Okay. 2 '-' - MR. BREWER-That was an option we gave them, I think. MR. LAURICELLA-That was one of the options. MR. MARTIN-That just struck me as being something new. Is that something that's happened since Sketch Plan? MS. FUERST-It was talked about in Sketch Plan, as an option. MR. MARTIN-Is that now the preferred? MS. FUERST-It's the preferred because they don't want to have to come back in with another submission at another date. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. That clears up a major issue, in my mind, anyhow. Is there anybody else on the Board at this time, have any comments? All right. Then, I'll open the public hearing. We're at Preliminary Stage. Is there anybody here from the public regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRANK SCHAEFFER MR. SCHAEFFER-My name is Frank Schaeffer. My wife and I own the adjoining property on 2 Martell Road. I'm not sure exactly how this goes, but I heard nonconforming, because of the strip of property? What does that mean? MR. BREWER-If you look at the map, this 10 foot section right here, if we were to let them subdivide, and they still owned this 10 foot strip, right here, it would be a nonconforming lot. They wouldn't be able to build on it. They wouldn't be able to do anything with it. MR. CARTIER-We couldn't approve it. MR. BREWER-That's why they're conveying it to them, to make this all one piece of property, as well as thi s piece here. They own a 10 foot stri p of 1 and right here, okay. So, if they convey thi s to this property owner, it becomes this property. Otherwise, that would be a nonconforming lot, if that were one lot. MR. MARTIN-It's those two small 10 foot strips of land. MR. LAPOINT-Nimcos are? MR. MARTIN-Yes. One is being conveyed to the property owner, there, who lives in the United Kingdom. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Right. MR. MARTIN-And then the other one is being conveyed to Freiberger. There's just two small 10 foot strips. MR. CARTIER-This piece is going to this property. MR. SCHAEFFER-On this middle plot, here, there are two proposed, all right. One's a proposed septic. I see. Just two concerns, anyway. Our property adjoins the rear of that, and I'm somewhat concerned that, as we cannot see the border of our property from where we reside, that there's no encroachments from a future owner of that property. Are there any plans for any kind of barriers? MR. MARTIN-Where are you, in relation to? MR. SCHAEFFER-My wife is Carol Vasi, the ex-Carol Vasi. MR. MARTIN-I see. Okay. So, you're Carol Vasi, RD#1 Martell Road? MR. SCHAEFFER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-All right. So you have these two pieces here? MR. SCHAEFFER-That's right. MR. LAPOINT-Well, they obviously can't clear what's not on their lot. MR. SCHAEFFER-Yes. Are there any plans for any kind of barriers, natural, trees, to border the property? 3 --- MR. MARTIN-Well, that's one of the engineering comments, I believe, is that the limits of clearing should be indicated on the plat. So, you'll be able to see how far the clearing of trees is proposed to go, and right now you can't do that, but that's supposed to be shown, and that will be one of our comments, I would imagine, that we'd hold them to. MR. SCHAEFFER-All right. I would like you to address that when the time comes. MR. LAPOINT-Right. There'll be one more phase after this. There'll be an exact type meeting for Final. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-At which time, before they can get approval, they will have to address that particular question. MR. SCHAEFFER-Okay. There again, I'm all for the development of the property. MR. LAPOINT-Right. You want to see what kind of buffer you have. MR. SCHAEFFER-One other concern. There's a brook running along our property that feeds into HalfWay Brook, and I just want to be sure that the septic systems would in no way effect that, as there are deer and wildlife that roam that back area. It's somewhat undeveloped, at this point. MR. CARTIER-Didn't we have this discussion, before, about whether or not it was a brook? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Does it run all year long? MR. SCHAEFFER-It runs all year long, yes. MR. CARTIER-It runs all year long. MR. LAPOINT-The engineer would have taken a look at the setback for the septic, from the property line, and I'm sure to the surface water. MR. BREWER-I thought we talked about some trenches that were on the property? MR. SCHAEFFER-I believe the property that ~ have is mostly on a rock ledge. So, I was concerned about the runoff and how that might effect it. MR. CARTIER-Can you point the stream out to us? MR. MARTIN-Right here, Peter. It's that drainage swale right here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Maybe this will answer your question. Given the system that's going to be required to be put in here, because of, based on perc tests, I don't anticipate any effect on those streams at all. MR. SCHAEFFER-Yes. I'd just like to be sure of that. That's all. MR. MARTIN-And they have the separation distances, you can tell by scaling this off, here, that, I'd say they have to be at least 100 feet away, if not further. MS. FUERST-Yes, it's a 100 foot minimum. MR. SCHAEFFER-I just want to be sure, because it is a year round brook, although it does get narrow during the summer. Right now, it's approximately five to six feet wide. It is a well fed stream. That's all the comments I have. MR. MARTIN-Okay. There was another gentleman, I believe. Please come to the microphone. DENNIS PURTON MR. PURTON-My name is Dennis Purton. I live at 8 Clearview Lane. I'm an abutter. I'm not sure how these meetings work. I just came to express some concerns. First of all, the two properties on the right hand side are on a rock ledge, and the reason I'm concerned about the perc test is because I was there with the engineer, as she tried and retried, and retried, and retried, coming to our house constantly for water, to try to get the things to perc, and we never heard the results, and I just am kind of concerned because that is total rock, as to the system that they wanted to use. My other concern is, we are on well water there, and I've been told by the water district that we can't get water, and my well has run dry since there has been more development in that area, and I guess I was just kind of curious as to whether they'd done any looking into how they're going to get water in there, as well as get rid of it, because I certainly would hate to see raw sewage running down that street. 4 -- - MR. CARTIER-I think I can answer the first part of your question, with regard to the septics. I think the engineering comments, that's precisely what he is indicating has to be done. They have to build what's, basically, a mound system. In other words, they have to bring in soil, because there's not enough soil there. So, they have to build a mound system, and the perc tests have to be done on the soil that's brought in, okay. So, I think the engineer has definitely taken a very detailed look at the concerns you have. MR. PURTON-Okay. MR. CARTIER-So, with regard to the well water supply, I don't have an answer for that. MR. PURTON-I don't know if that's beyond the scope of this? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't know what we can really do about that. MR. LAPOINT-You're uphill from these lots, correct? MR. PURTON-Slightly, yes. Yes. I guess you could say all four of them are slightly uphill. MR. CARTIER-How deep is your well? MR. PURTON-Five hundred twenty five feet. MR. LAPOINT-And it runs dry? MR. PURTON-It's dry. It's dry right now. MR. MARTIN-It is? MR. PURTON-Yes. MR. MARTIN-What's your flow rate like in the summer? MR. PURTON-One gallon a minute. MR. CARTIER-And how far before you hit bedrock, from the surface? MR. PURTON-I don't know. I'd have better answers, maybe, tomorrow. I'll have somebody over tomorrow. MR. LAPOINT-That's in rock. MR. CARTIER-I'm sure it is. I'm just wondering how deep. MR. LAPOINT-Probably miles deep, I would imagine. If there's a rock outcropping, here, the well's probably just in fractured rock. MR. CARTIER-Well, it may be of no advantage to you, but they may get lucky. It's a crap shoot when it comes to drilling wells. MR. PURTON-I'm sure it is. This is probably not for the record, but I was told it was much more than. It was certified before I came in. Just because it's run dry, I've now checked with the well driller, and that turned out not to be true when I bought the property six years ago. MR. CARTIER-Well, if they can't get water, that certainly takes care of the septic problem. MR. PURTON-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public regarding this application? Okay. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess the question I have, that I will address to our esteemed engineer on the Boa rd, is, we've got to do a SEQRA on th is. Can we do a SEQRA wi thout answers to these engi neeri ng questions? Is there anything in there that we need to know before we can do a SEQRA Review? MR. LAPOINT-Quite a bit of detail, here, on the septic system, you know, its design construction. MR. CARTIER-So, we're talking about maybe tabling this? MR. LAPOINT-I mean, when we get to the question about groundwater quality, quantity. MR. CARTIER-True. 5 "-.- -- MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't know. How comfortable does everybody feel going on through a SEQRA without, you know, with this level of engineering comments still outstanding? MR. CARTIER-I'm not, and I'm not even an engineer. MR. LAPOINT-You have a pretty good concept of your design, for your septic disposal system? MS. FUERST-Yes. We know that we're putting in a raised bed fill system. Perc tests were performed on the four lots. Already they were performed, but I didn't see in the regulations where they were required on the Preliminary map. MR. CARTIER-Ma'am, could you give us your name, please, for the record? MS. FUERST-Melanie Fuerst from Northeast Land Survey. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, you say you have all the data. It's just a matter, now, of indicating it on the plat? MS. FUERST-That's correct. Most of the things that are on the review sheet, except for Number Four, which is engineering status, can all be taken care of right on the plat, notes, or just putting our current existing information right on to it. Number Four gets into engineering comments, and as far as meeting with the New York State Department of Health, we have the whole guidelines that we are preparing to set up to put this fill system in, and it anticipates bringing the soil onto the site, like you said, and I think the regulations in the State Department of Health Regulation Code state that you have to run a perc after you get the fill material in anyway. Even though that's a Queensbury Code, it's also a State Code. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'd feel a little weird doing a SEQRA Review on this and then running into something later on. I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the engineer had another look at all of this. MR. MARTIN-What's everybody else's feelings? MR. LAURICELLA-That we should wait, then. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, you have time to, obviously, get these in fairly quickly? MS. FUERST-What are you asking? MR. LAPOINT-I mean, you have no problem addressing these fairly quickly? MS. FUERST-What type of time frame are you talking about? MR. LAPOINT-Like, revising the Preliminary? MS. FUERST-Yes. I could revise the Preliminary. MR. MARTIN-See, I think what the Board's driving at is they'd feel more comfortable with seeing a Preliminary plat that does, in fact, have all of these issues addressed on the plat, and have had our engineer look at them, and then come back, and at that time we could do the SEQRA. MS. FUERST-Okay. The next process is the Long Form SEQRA, or the SEQRA that we've already established? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We have to go through whether it's an impact or not, and I think the general opinion is we may not have enough information without the septic design. MR. MARTIN-Right. MS. FUERST-Okay, but the septic design, if you go to Sheet 2 of 2, the whole design is laid out. It's all on Sheet 2 of 2. MR. LAPOINT-Which the engineer's gone over? MS. FUERST-Yes. It's all design standards. It's all right out of the State Codes, everything that's needed to design it is on there. MR. CARTIER-Have you done the high groundwater determinations in March, April, May, or June? MS. FUERST-It was done in October. MR. CARTIER-Okay, because the Ordinance requires that it be done within that time frame. 6 -- MS. FUERST-Or, there's a stipulation, or by someone approved by the Town. MR. CARTIER-And that's been done? That's been certified by somebody? MS. FUERST-It's been certified by our office, yes, which is a land surveying and engineering firm. MR. MARTIN-Well, how does everyone feel? MR. CARTIER-Given the fact that we do not have an engineer sitting here, tonight, present company excepted, of course. MR. LAPOINT-It says right here, "The fill system cross section and tile field trenches details should be corrected to conform to the design criteria notes." I mean, and I have to apologize for not reviewing these with that detail, because we usually have Rist-Frost, here, but that seems to indicate that there's some type of discrepancy between the drawing and the design criteria. MS. FUERST-Yes. I just got these notes today, but I know exactly what they're talking about. The fill system design takes the square footage area of a lot larger than just a put your trench in the ground system, regular gravity flow. It takes an extra 20 foot on each side, because you have to get your slopes, and when the septic was put on our prints, the first time, for a Sketch Plan review, it just wasn't amended to take in the bigger area, which means we have to, you know, I know exactly what we have to do. It shouldn't be a problem of holding anything up, I wouldn't think. It's just a matter of the conforming. MR. LAURICELLA-This is only Preliminary, though? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, can we sti 11 do the SEQRA Review tonight, because we do the SEQRA at Prel im? Can we still do that tonight and be comfortable with that? MR. LAPOINT-Well, you always assume that the septic tank can be installed properly, and to conform. MR. LAURICELLA-Do we have to do it tonight, or can we do it at Final? MR. MARTIN-I think we should do it at Preliminary. MR. LAPOINT-Let me continue on. "The subsurface disposal area size and lot grading as shown on the plan should be revised to reflect the sewage disposal system design criteria including fill area tapers and fi 11 a rea setbac ks from property 1 i nes. " MS. FUERST-That's the same thing I was addressing. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's the same as D? Okay. MS. FUERST-See, it's all related to the same thing. The engineering comments, he just went down and went right down through, because you can put a scale right on the plan and notice that the septic field hasn't been changed since Sketch Plan. It's just something that wasn't changed for submittal. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but all we have in front of us are these comments, and I'd feel a lot more comfortable having the engineer sign off on this thing, before I want to see it go much farther. It just seems to me that all the ducks ought to be in a row by the time we get to Final. MR. BREWER-And this is going to hold them up another month, correct? MR. MARTIN-Yes, because if we table it tonight, then you won't get Preliminary approval until next month, and then Final would come, then, thereafter. MR. CARTIER-Or, if we have two meetings, we've done this in the past, that month, that come in for Prelim, have the first meeting with the assumption that all the ducks will be in a row then, and you get Final the second meeting. MS. FUERST-I would go that way, yes, if you have to see it. Plus, you don't have your engineer, here, to back you up on anything. MR. MARTIN-Right. I think that's a good compromise, and then we're only, effectively, holding them up one week. MS. FUERST-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, would you be agreeable to that sort of tabling? 7 -- MS. FUERST-Definitely. MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much. MS. FUERST-Thank you very much. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, you have these comments, now, and if you can get together with Tom Yarmowich and straighten these out, and we can. MR. CARTIER-There are some deadline dates. MR. MARTIN-Right. We're way early enough in the month, the submission deadline, I believe, is the last Wednesday, by 2 p.m., of February. So, that would be the 26th, I believe of this month. MR. CARTIER-Do you understand that, to get on the March agenda? MS. FUERST-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. So, then, I will leave the public hearing open on this, and we'll hold off on the SEQRA unti 1 we have the engineeri ng comments strai ghtened out, and, therefore, I'll accept a motion to table. IIJTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1991 CLEARVIEII ESTATES RONALD AND MARY SUSAN RAYNOR, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella: In order that comments raised by Staff Consulting Engineer can be addressed, with the understanding that responses to those comments will be submitted on or before February 26th, by the deadline date. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver (7:30 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-lA HICKORY ACRES SIDNEY TIMMS «*NER: SAME AS ABOVE 200 FT. SOOTH OF SWEET ROAD AND 1,000 FT. WEST OF COOmy CWB ROAD FOR A 10 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX IMP NO. 64-1-5.1 LOT SIZE: 23 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:30 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 14-1988, Hickory Acres - Sidney Timms, 2-4-92, Meeting Date: February 18, 1992 "The applicant has submitted for final review of a 10 lot subdivision. The only remaining concern was the drainage area into the wetlands. The area of concern has been e 1 imi nated and the drainage wi 11 enter other 1 ands of Timms. Thi s modification is a change in the drainage concept." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, February 13, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The detention basin auxiliary spillway should be sized to be capable of passing the peak 50 year in-flow to the pond (21.8 cfs). Calculations should be provided for auxiliary spillway sizing, and spillway dimensions shall be shown on the plans. 2. The subdivision layout plan should be revised to indicate the drainage easements required by the revised storllTt'later management approach." MR. MARTIN-And I believe that's it. Okay. Is there someone here from the applicant? MR. STEVES-I'm Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves. All the engineering comments have been addressed by the engineer, Tom Nace, and, as of yet, I don't see him here. He made all the alterations to the plan. I don't have the altered plan. I have the plan that was submitted, and he's supposed to be here at 7:30 with those alterations. MR. CARTIER-He would still have to submit those plans to the Planning Staff for them to take a fast look at and for engineering staff to take a fast look at. It's not just a matter of submitting the revised plans to us, as a Board tonight. MR. STEVES-Okay, but he was going to address you with the changes he had done, and show you that they had been performed. 8 ~ -- MR. LAPOINT-We can put him off until later. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I was going to say, if you don't mind waiting, maybe, on the next application, here, or something, we can wait until Mr. Nace comes through the door. All right. So, we'll just set that one off until the back of the meeting, here, so to speak, and move on to the next item of New Business. (7:32 p.m.) NEIl IIJSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 5-92 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA BRIAN GRANGER OWNER: EAST END ENTERPRISES, INC. 96 LUZERNE ROAD FOR GRANGER PAVING AND SUPER SllJTTLE SERVICE. (BEAUTIFICATION COIItITTEE) TAX MAP 10. 93-2-13.2 LOT SIZE: 2.75 ACRES SECTION 179-26 BRIAN GRANGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:32 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 5-92, Brian Granger, 2-11-92, Meeting Date: February 18, 1992 "The applicant is requesting to have a multiuse facility. There is currently at the site a house which is used as a residence and general office for an asphalt maintenance company. There is a large equipment storage garage in the rear of the site and a former sand excavation area. The applicant is intending to add a shuttle business to the site. The zoning at this location on Luzerne Road is LI-IA. All the facilities are at the site and no changes are anticipated. All land uses within the Light Industrial zone are subject to the site plan review. This plan was reviewed with regard to Section 179-38: 1) The buildings and site conditions are existing and no change is described. The on site uses are all appropriate for the zoning district. Any issues would revolve around the mix of uses and the appropriateness of such on the site. If any signage is added because of the shuttle business it should be in conformance with the Town of Queensbury Sign Ordinance. 2) Vehicular traffic access is not an issue. 3) The adequacy of off street parking should be addressed. There are parking areas shown. The applicant can certainly add whatever is required should there be a need, however, the requirements for the shuttle service should be discussed. Also the requirements for the paving company vehicles and the employees. 4) Pedestrian access and circulation is not an issue. 5) Stormwater drainage is not an issue. 6) Water and sewage facilities are existing. 7) No change to the site is anticipated, therefore, plantings are not a concern. 8) Fire and emergency access is sufficient. 9) This is area not susceptible to ponding and flooding. The sand banks behind the truck storage facility are rather steep, but do not appear to be an on going excavation." MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have someone here from the applicant? MR. GRANGER-I'm Brian. I'd like to make a correction in the items he just read. The shuttle business is there and is existing. It's not to be added. That was, I think, a typographical error. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, then, what exactly is the point of the application, if you're not adding anything? MR. GRANGER-My point exactly. MR. CARTIER-Well, how long have you been doing the shuttle business? The same amount of time? MR. GRANGER-The same amount. I purchased the property on a land contract. I've been there since, about a year, a little less than a year. MR. CARTIER-A little less than a year? MR. GRANGER-I moved in in April. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm confused. How long has the excavation business been there? MR. GRANGER-The same. MR. CARTIER-One year? MR. GRANGER-A little less. MR. CARTIER-A little less. Did you come in for site plan review, then? MR. GRANGER-No. MR. CARTIER-That's why you're here. So, we're actually looking at an excavating and shuttle service bus i ness? MR. GRANGER-Yes, sir. 9 '-- --- MR. CARTIER-All right. MR. GRANGER-I just, in the comments it said, to add at this time, the shuttle business, and we're not. MR. CARTIER-I've got you. MR. GRANGER-I think I was approved by Pat. She's here. MR. MARTIN-So, what led you to our doorstep? Pat Crayford was in the audience and indicated that she had led him to the Board. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Someone just drove by and said, gee, what's that doing there? MR. GRANGER-I don't think there was a problem with the excavation business, but I think since the shuttle business was there as well, we wanted to address that. MR. MARTIN-I see. So, I take it this is not a usage problem for this zone. MR. GRANGER-No. Both things are approved in the Light Industrial Zone. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does the Board have any comments, in terms of, maybe, the parking issue or anything like that? MR. LAPOINT-Lee doesn't seem to think it's an issue. MR. MARTIN-How many cars are associated with this shuttle service? MR. GRANGER-At most, seven. MR. MARTIN-Seven? MR. GRANGER-At most. MR. MARTIN-And then you have various equipment for your excavating and all that. MR. GRANGER-The equipment is parked in a manner, behind the garage, in the area shown, parking for trucks and equipment. So, it can't be seen from the road or neighbors. MR. LAURICELLA-Where's the shuttle business parking? MR. GRANGER-The shuttle business is directly behind the fence, where it says gravel, in front of the garage. So, they're covered from the road, as well. The shuttle employees park to the right of that, in those areas, and those vehicles are sheltered from the road. MR. MARTIN-So, what are the total number of parking spaces available on site, everything, everywhere? MR. GRANGER-Excess of 50. We have a couple of graveled areas. The only thing that's paved is the one driveway. MR. MARTIN-I see. MR. BREWER-Are you hauling dirt and sand out of here, Brian? MR. GRANGER-Well, what would happen there is, over the years, people have been taking dirt and sand out. I'm trying to control the banks and get them graded one last time, and I've got an excess of mulch that's been given to me. So, I'm going to mulch the banks come spring. MR. MARTIN-But you're not using the banks as a source of fill or anything? MR. GRANGER-No. There is a pile of fill in the center of the property, or towards the center of the property. That would be removed or some added, if I have material left over from a job, but the banks themselves won't be, the only thing left on the banks will be graded and mulched, to finish it. MR. BREWER-So, you're not going to be selling fill out of there? MR. GRANGER-No, not ever. MR. CARTIER-Vehicle maintenance. Do you do vehicle maintenance right there? MR. GRANGER-No. All heavy repairs are done at Arrowhead Equipment for my business. 10 '- -- MR. CARTIER-Okay, oil changes and that sort of stuff? MR. GRANGER-Occasionally, inside the garage, on the lighter vehicles, nothing heavy. MR. CARTIER-Okay. There's no disposal, on site, of anything left over from asphalt paving or anything 1 i ke that? MR. GRANGER-No. MR. CARTIER-Nothing's disposed of? MR. GRANGER-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Any other comments on the nature of the business or activities on site? MR. CARTIER-Are you going to be adding any signage? MR. GRANGER-We may add a sign for shuttle. I'm not sure, at this point. There is one small sign on the front garage, just for ease of deliveries. MR. CARTIER-Do you have copies of these? MR. GRANGER-The comments? Yes. MR. CARTIER-You do? Okay. So, you're aware that there's a Sign Ordinance that you have to comply with? MR. GRANGER-Yes, sir. I don't know if you've looked at the property, whoever did, but the sand banks is something that I acquired. MR. MARTIN-We usually would, but this month was especially unique, in that we had so many applications. Tonight represents a special meeting, or a special date, and we're doing site visits this Saturday. MR. CARTIER-Yes. What's your comment? MR. GRANGER-Well, the comment is the sand banks, and I'm sure Tim knows about it. He mentioned it, that I found where the property lines are by having the land surveyed. Now that I know where they are, I can grade them, mulch them, and that's the end of it, and get vegetation on them. It's not going to be an on going thing, along with the rest of the property, and there won't be any sand taken out for sale. MR. MARTIN-I see. I'll do the public hearing. Is there anybody here on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-How did this miss the Beautification Committee? Normally, the Beautification Committee looks at commercial applications. MR. GRANGER-We got the form in the mail togototheBeautificationmeeting.gotthere.andsaid.it.s not applicable because therè's no new building. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That answers that. MR. GRANGER-We went through that route. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-All right. I guess we'll move on to the SEQRA. It looks to be a Short Form. MR. LAPOINT-A Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN IETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS M\DE RESOLUTION NO. 5-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: 11 '-, -- WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: BRIAN GRANGER, for Granger Paving and Super Shuttle Service, 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 cons i dered the cri teri a for determining whether a project has a s i gni ficant envi ronmenta 1 impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. MARTIN-Okay. The SEQRA process being complete, I'll entertain a motion on the application. IIJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. S-92 BRIAN GRANGER, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: For Granger Paving and Super Shuttle Service, with the following stipulations: That any new signage conform with the Queensbury Town Sign Ordinance. That the banks be stabil ized, via natural mulching and vegetation. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver (7:44) MR. MARTIN-Okay. I see Mr. Nace is now with us. We're going back to SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 FINAL STAGE HICKORY ACRES SIDNEY TIIItS. Okay. We have already read into the record the Staff Comments and Engineering Comments, and I believe we reached a point where we were hoping that Tom could shed some light on those for us. TOM NACE MR. NACE-Okay. First let me apologize for not being here earlier. Okay. Briefly, I talked to Tom Yarmowich twice today. First to make sure I understood his comments, and secondly, to review them with him. In essence says that that auxiliary spillway should be designed for the peak 50 year inflow on the detention pond. In fact, it is, the dimensions are shown on the plans. Tom just hadn't seen them. If you look at the detail sheet, on the bottom, Section AA shows the width of the emergency spillway of 10 feet, and I ran through the calculations, quickly, with Tom, over the phone, and he has no problem with that being adequate. He had misunderstood, or looked at the plan and thought the width was only five feet. So, that is adequate. The other comment was that the layout plan, which is the old, original layout plan on the subdivision plan sheet, needs to indicate the drainage easements which we have shown on the drainage sheet, here, for around the detention pond and the storm drain. 12 '- -' MR. MARTIN-Now, was that on the sheet that did go to them, or has that since been revised for tonight? MR. NACE-Well, it is on the sheet. All the sheets went to Rist-Frost. It is on the drainage plan, but his comment is good, that it needs, really, to be, also, on the subdivision plat. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. NACE-Okay. So, that it's, anybody looking at property lines on the plat sees that easement. So, we will transfer those to the plat, and we'll have that done before it's signed, obviously. MR. MARTIN-So, the layman's translation, here, is that you really don't have anything of a substantive nature that requires further calculation or revision on your part? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-And we're not bringing anything of new substance to the application, here. So, Peter, just to bring you up to date, the first comment, Tom, essentially, just missed something that was, in fact, shown on the plan, and the second thing, I think you heard. MR. CARTIER-Yes. This is probably something that we could just have them submit a revised plan by such and such a deadline. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think it's just a matter of showing that easement on the subdivision plat. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MARTIN-All right, and we did the SEQRA on this, I believe, this being Final Stage, and the public hearing's been taken care of. So, I think we're at a point where we can entertain a motion on this appl ication. IIJTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 HICKORY ACRES, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: For a 10 lot subdivision, with the stipulation that a revised plan be submitted, reflecting the comments of Rist-Frost engineer on his February 13, 1992 letter, by 26 February 1992. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver (7:49 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-Just a note to anyone who might be of interest. It's going to be a matter of regular business, here, that Tom is not in attendance at meetings. So, if you do have any items to work out, of an engineering nature, it would be in your best interest to try and get those taken care of, as much as possible, prior to the meeting, and as well in advance of the meeting as you can. SITE PlAN NO. 6-92 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA GEORGE AND MARILYN STARK D/B/A ÞlJHICAN IÐTEL (liNER: SAME AS ABOVE lAKE GEORGE ROAD, ROOTE 9 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A lAUNDRY ROOM ADDITION (8 FT. BY 16 FT.) AND A GAlE ROOM ADDITION (24 FT. BY 30 FT.) (WARREN coom PlANNING) TAX IMP NO. 34-1-3 LOT SIZE: 3.18 ACRES SECTION 179-23 ANTHONY LOCASCIO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:49 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 6-92, George & Marilyn Stark - Mohican Motel, 2-6-92, Meeting Date: February 18, 1992 "The applicant wishes to add a 8 x 16 storage addition to an existing laundry room and a 24' x 30' game room to an existing pool house. The applicant has provided a storm 'water management plan as directed by Rist Frost. The additions are relatively minor when compared with the total motel complex. 1. The location, arrangement, and size of the additions are gener~lly compatible with the site. The additions will not be very visible from the road so lighting of the eÌ1trance-ways should not be a problem. 2. Vehicular access will not change. 3. The need for off street parking and loading will not increase. 4. Vehicular traffic and pedestrian access is not a problem. 5. Water supply and sewage disposal are not an issue. 6. Buffering is not an issue. Landscaping or plantings should be discussed with the Beautification Committee. 7. Fire and emergency access is not affected. 8. Storm water has been addressed by the appl icant in the form of a drainage report and calculation." ENGINEER REPORT 13 '-- -" Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist Frost, Town Engineer, February 13, 1992 and have no engineering comments." "We have reviewed the project MR. LAPOINT-And we have, from the Warren County Planning Board, a letter dated 13 February 1992, to the Queensbury Planning and Zoning Boards, "a Site Plan Review to construct a laundry room (8' x 16') and a game room addition (24' x 30'). No County Impact" MR. MARTIN-Okay. This wasn't a Beautification Committee issue, right? MR. CARTIER-Well, that's hanging, isn't it? You're going to submit something this spring. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's what I recall. Okay. Does the applicant have anything he'd like to add? Okay. I'll open a public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here from the public wishing to address the Board in regard to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-I believe we can move on to a SEQRA review. MR. LAPOINT-Before we get to that, the Beautification, where are we at on that? That went right in one ear and out the other. You still have to go through that? MR. LOCASCIO-Yes. This spring he's going to be going through that, with the six units we're putting on. MR. LAPOINT-For the whole site? MR. LOCASCIO-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Good. MR. BREWER-It shows, here, by the game room, gas tanks. I presume those are propane tanks. GEORGE STARK MR. STARK-It's gone. MR. BREWER-It's gone. MR. STARK-Yes. I went to natural, and that tank's out of there. Yes. MR. MARTIN-Anymore comments? Okay. Go ahead. RESOUJTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOUJTION NO. 6-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GEORGE AND MARILYN STARK D/B/A tDlICAN IIJTEL, for the constnlctfon of a laundry 1"00II additfon (8 ft. by 16 ft.) and a giIE 1"00II addition (24 ft. by 30 ft.), WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed project 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. 14 ~ -- 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there any other comments on this appl ication? Okay. There being none, I'll entertain a motion for disposition. II)TION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-92 GEORGE AND MARILYN STARK D/B/A IDtICAN IIJTEL, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: For construction of a laundry room addition (8 ft. by 16 ft.) and a game room addition (24 ft. by 30 ft.) . Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver (7:56 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 10-92 TYPE I WR-lA J. RICK BYLSMA (lINER: SAME AS ABOVE 165 MANNIS ROAD THE APPLICANT HAS FILLED IN A CRITICAL ENVIRONMEITAL AREA. SITE PLAN REVIEW IS NECESSARY TO FILL WITHIN 50 FEET OF A WETLAND. (WARREN COOITY PlANNING) TAX MAP NO. 40-1-38. 39 LOT SIZE: :I: 1 ACRE SECTION 179-60 B(4) RICK BYLSMA, PRESENT (7:56 p.m.) STAFF NOTES Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review # 10-92, J. Rick Bylsma, 2-14-92, Meeting Date: February 18, 1992 "The staffs understanding is that the Warren County Planning Board has requested further information on this project. The staff has recently received the further information we requested from the applicant. (i.e. more descriptive map and long EAF) The Board should be aware that the' property does not contain a DEC designated wetland and the agenda should read "Site Plan Review is necessary to fill within 50 feet of a shoreline." This is a critical environmental area. The staff has not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the information regarding the summons with the Director of Building and Codes because of illness. Since Warren County wants to further review this application, the staff has contacted the applicant and indicated that the Board may not act on the application on the 18th. The Department will request that the Director of Building and Codes be at the meeting or provide resource information to you." MR. LAPOINT-And the Warren County Planning Board letter dated 13 February 1992, "A Site Plan Review, the appl icant has constructed terraces and filled in a Critical Environmental Area." It has been returned, with the following comment, "This application has been deemed incomplete and removed from the agenda. The Warren County Planning Board requests further clarification on the Critical Environmental area. Thomas Haley, Chairperson" MR. MARTIN-Okay. guess, anybody here from the applicant? MR. BYLSMA-Yes. I'm Rick Bylsma. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Any comment as to the status of your application? MR. BYLSMA-No. I think, as I say, I've got to see Warren County. It's very difficult for me, because I'm out of town so much, but what we're doing is, there's a steep bank on either side, the front of my house and the back of my house, which keeps washing down. So, we've been trying to eliminate that, but we have only just begun with the terracing. We have another good year's work to do there, but I guess we've got to go through these reviews first. 15 --- --- MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BYLSMA-And as soon as we do that, we have the same identical problems on the Glen Lake side of my property, which we'll be doing the identical system. So, what we're doing is we are making up drawings for the front as well as the back, so we can get them both approved at the same time. MR. LAPOINT-This is intended as an environmental improvement, correct? Things are washing as is, and this will be a big improvement once it's completed? MR. BYLSMA-Yes. It certainly will. MR. LAPOINT-Very good. MR. CARTIER-Can I ask you a quick question? This your driveway? Is this a driveway? MR. BYLSMA-Yes, it is. MR. CARTIER-And this is the property line? MR. BYLSMA-Yes, it is. MR. CARTIER-And your driveway, what I'm concerned about is this slope, here, this bank cut that's up here. Not all of that is on your property, or is it? MR. BYLSMA-No. MR. CARTIER-Is that with the agreement of the neighbor? MR. BYLSMA-Yes, it is. MR. CARTIER-It is? Okay. Thank you. The reason I raise that, is there going to be any stabilization done on that bank, too? That looks like a raw gravel bank, there, that's going to wash out. MR. BYLSMA-The plans, there, are, he is looking at putting a garage in there, which he will put up, concrete, probably poured foundation walls. Ken Mangus and I have been working on that idea. He wants to put a garage in his place. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, lets open the public hearing and see if that brings anything to light, here. Is there anyone here who wishes to comment on this application, anyone from the public? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GLENN POWELL MR. POWELL-Well, I haven't seen the map, here. My name is Glenn Powell, and there is a new road put in that goes along the wetlands of Mud Pond. I'm not sure if that is on this map, here, or not, but this might be what you're speaking of. What it is, that is a wetland, forever wild, or whatever. There's been filling in there for about 20 years, on this Mud Pond, and the last 10 years there's been quite a bit of filling in on different areas of this Mud Pond, and I was wondering if this is part of that area. MR. CARTIER-Can you show us on the map? MR. POWELL-Tim, there, I'm not sure where Mud Pond is. That doesn't show. MR. CARTIER-See it, to the south of, lower left corner, keep going down, way down. MR. POWELL-Okay. All right. This is shorel ine, here, well, it looks much closer than that when you see it on the site itself. MR. CARTIER-Yes, the road isn't shown there. MR. POWELL-I see. Okay. I was just wondering where, along Mud Pond, anyway, they've been filling in for, not just here, all along Mud Pond for years. MR. CARTIER-Yes. That may be what the County's referring to is that they don't have all the information that they need to look at. I'm guessing, but that may be what they're talking about also. MR. POWELL-All right. Thank you. 16 --- - MR. MARTIN-Is there anyone else who'd wish to address the Board? What's everyone's feeling on this? MR. CARTIER-Well, the County hasn't looked at it, so, we can't go anywhere. MR. LAPOINT-Would the applicant look for a table to address the County concerns? MR. BYLSMA-I think it has to be tabled until we get a full plan put together, if I understand now. MR. LAPOINT-Right. That's what we're asking you to ask us, I guess. MR. BYLSMA-Yes. It's been almost a year, and I haven't been able to put it together, yet, but we are working on it. I've got my engineer's working on it. We need more drawings. So, I think it should be tabled until we can get more information for everyone. MR. MARTIN-What I'll do is I'll leave the public hearing open, then, and we'll wait until you have your final drawings and you've been through the County. That's usually the course of events. Then you come to us. MR. BYLSMA-Right. Yes, I was unfamiliar with the plan. any kind of wetlands, and I didn't pursue it any further. I went to the State, and found out it wasn't That was my mistake. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BYLSMA-But, we'll put it all together. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, we have a request, then, from the applicant to table until further information is assembled. So, I'll entertain a motion to table. IIJTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 10-92 J. RICK BYLSMA, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: In order for the appl icant to address concerns raised by the County and to appear before the Warren County Planning Board. Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver (8:03 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-Okay. Just to remind everybody, the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting is tomorrow night, at which we asked some interpretations for the Martindale application. If you think it's appropriate that you go. 1'm going to go. So, I just wanted to remind you of that. The other thing I want everybody to start thinking about, I'm going to press for more, later on this month, is those committees that Peter had mentioned in the beginning of January, where we sort of spread the responsibility out here a 1 ittle bit, in a more formal ized manner. As soon as we get the minutes from that meeting and we an all look at those, we'll try and work out some informal committees, here, to get everybody involved, so to speak. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think that's appropriate, given the fact that we are losing engineering staff, and legal. I think we need to pick up some more of the load, here. MR. LAURICELLA-Are we going to have a lawyer? MR. MARTIN-Infrequently. MR. CARTIER-On what basis are we going to have one here, if we request that he be here? MR. MARTIN-If something is foreseen that we need either engineering or legal advice, we can request that it be given, here, at the meeting, but otherwise. MR. LAURICELLA-But then, during the meeting, we may have to table items because of that, right? MR. LAPOINT-That's the problem. It's pretty embarrassing, tonight, I mean, again, I don't think I want the job if I have to review these things with that kind of detail. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's going to lead on to our next area of discussion, here. As you've probably seen in the paper, in a round about way, here, Harry Hansen, who's in the back of the room, is going to be overseeing the operations of the Planning and Zoning Departments and the Building and Codes Department, 17 ''--' -.-./ how all those Departments interrelate and what procedures they follow, and behind the scenes, so to speak, as to how all this works, and he's going to be overseeing that, and hopefully come up with some suggestions for improving it, and he can comment a little bit, I'm sure, on the availability of engineering help and legal help at our meetings. MR. LAURICELLA-We went from possibly getting our own lawyer to having no lawyer. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. LAPOINT-We went from having a lot of professional support to none. We didn't have a planner here. MR. CARTIER-Somehow this has got to get formalized, though, and somehow, I guess the authority needs to rest somewhere, as to, we need a lawyer here that night. We need an engineer that night. MR. BREWER-Yes, but how do we know what we're going to run into. MR. CARTIER-Well, I know, we don't, and we're going to get stuck some nights. It's going to be an imperfect system, but somehow, I would like to think that if the Chairman says, we need a lawyer there that night, or we need an engineer that night, the lawyer or the engineer will be there. MR. MARTIN-Before they put the appl ication, so to speak, on to the engineer for review, they asked for my comments as to what needed engineering review or what didn't, and that was all part of the process in determining what actually did receive engineering comments. MR. CARTIER-I think the engineering part is the least of the problems, simply because we have in place, and have had in place, pre-engineering review available to any applicant who wants to be there. They can get through all the engineering stuff before they even get on the agenda for the Planning Board, and my feeling, speaking for me, is as long as I have a letter from an engineer saying, all engineering concerns have been addressed, I'm satisfied, as long as we take a· look at what those concerns were and how they were addressed, because there's a collective expertise, that's not the right word, but a collective look at things that an engineer might miss. MR. MARTIN-All right, and I guess, while we're in this vein, I'd like to suggest that we move into an Executive Session, while we have Harry here, and there's some issues, I believe, that require discussion on a personnel basis. I'd entertain a motion to that effect. IIJTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING PERSONNEL IMTTERS WITH MR. HANSEN, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella: Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, 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 James Lauricella: Duly adopted this 18th day of February, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 18