Loading...
1992-05-19 -. D QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MY 19TH, 1992 INDEX Site P1an No. 55-91 OSCAP. LTD. 1. Site P1an No. 21-92 Kubricky Construction 12. Subdivision No. 3-1992 Azure Park 13. FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 6-1992 Debra Robinson Somervi11e 17. FINAL STAGE Site P1an No. 17-92 Tim Barber 18. Site P1an No. 18-92 lione1 Bartho1d 30. Site P1an No. 19-92 Jerry Brown 33. Site P1an No. 20-92 Haro1d WeBer 40. d/b/a We11er's Garage 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. - --- QUEEISBURY PLAflUNG BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MY 19TH, 1992 7:06 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY CORINNE TARANA JAMES LAURICELLA EDWARD LAPOINT TIMOTHY BREWER PETER CARTIER SENIOR PLANNER-lEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-91 OSCAP, LTD. OߌR: SAME AS ABOVE WEST OF INTERSECTION OF OS ROOTES 9 AND 149 ESTABLISH lVO BUILDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RETAIL OOTLET CENTER, INCWDING RElOCATION AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING DEXTER SHOE OOTLET CENTER STORE. TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA TO BE 68,000 SQ. FT. WITH TOTAL GROSS lEASABLE AREA TO BE 62,000 SQ. FT. (WARREN coom PLAIIIING) TAX MAP NO. 34-1-10 LOT SIZE: 7.8 ACRES MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:06 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 55-91, OSCAP, lTD, May 11, 1992, Meeting Date: May 19, 1992 "The applicant is before the Board for approval of a site plan for 68,000 square feet of retail space on Rt. 9. The Board is very familiar with the site. The changes to the plan are in line with the previous engineering comments and the consultant will comment on those. The staff has attached the previous comments for the Boards review. The application received a negative declaration last month and is seeking approval at this time." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 14, 1992 "We have reviewed the revised project date. All previously unresolved engineering concerns have been satisfactorily addressed." MR. MARTIN-And I believe we have a letter in there from the Queensbury Business Association, if you could read that into the record. MRS. YORK-Yes, we do. "The Board of Directors of the Queensbury Business Association would like to go on the record in response to the various Traffic-Related Issues that have been raised concerning the Dexter Shoe Project. WHEREAS, Dexter Shoe has agreed to: 1) install the only state allowed crosswalk on the "1/2 Mile" 2) install a right hand turning lane coming from lake George toward Queensbury in the Dexter lot. 3) re-work and enhance the left-hand lane heading north toward the Village from Queensbury into their lot. 4) re-time and re-position the traffic lights at the rt. 9 and rt. 149 intersection. 5) reconfigure their entrance-way according to NYS D.O.T. approval. and WHEREAS NYS D.O.T. has approved the project and stated that no decrease in service level will occur at the rt. 9 and rt. 149 intersection. and WHEREAS NYS D.O. T. is proceeding with a study to assess the traffic flow through the entire "1/2 Mile" area. and WHEREAS the Queensbury Planning Board has filed a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration concerning the Dexter Project. IT IS RESOLVED that the Queensbury Business Association does not feel that traffic congestion or perceived traffic congestion should hinder the Dexter Shoe Project from progressing through the Town's approval process. At this point the Queensbury Business Association urges the Queensbury Planning Board to proceed with the normal "on site" concerns such as building size and location, parking, pedestrian traffic, drainage and sewage. If the Queensbury Planning Board feels, at this time, these "on site" concerns have been addressed to the Board's satisfaction, then the Queensbury Business Association believes the Dexter Project should be approved. Steve Sutton, President Queensbury Business Association" MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you very much. Just to bring everybody up to speed, here, I believe we reached a point, last time, of having thoroughly discussed the project and all its elements and are really at a point of trying to work out a motion, and at that time we only had six members present, and, as I recall, this did not pass with Warren County Planning. So, therefore, we needed a majority plus one, or five votes, and that didn't seem to be the case that evening, and we wanted to wait until we had a full Board, which we have tonight. So, I don't know if the applicant has anything else they wish to update the Board on, or if there's been anything else they'd like to add. I'll give them that 1 -- "--" opportunity at this time, and then we'll see if we can move forward with this, one way or the other. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For your record, I'm Mark Schachner, attorney for the applicant. I did not plan this comment, but I didn't think Mr. Cartier's last meeting was tonight. Is that the case? MR. MARTIN-Well, it's Thursday, but lee wasn't going to be here. MR. SCHACHNER-I see. I had the privilege of appearing before this Board on Chairman Roberts' last meeting, which concluded many, many years of his service, and I spoke very informally, on an impromptu basis. I felt, on behalf of the attorneys in the community that are here before this Planning Board, and I guess I will do so again, very briefly, and thank Mr. Cartier for his diligence and care, and the manner in which he administered and ran the Planning Board during his tenure, especially as Chairman, and I say that without regard as to how you mayor may not vote on anything tonight. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I appreciate that and I understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-The applicant does not have anything additional to add. I think, Mr. Martin, your summary is absolutely 100 percent accurate as to where we're at. The applicant would sumarize very briefly by indicating that it finds itself in a situation where it's been through what it believes to be a fairly rigorous review by the Planning Board, a very diligent and thorough one, and as a result, partially, of that review, and partially as a result of the applicant's own efforts in the location in which its business already exists, we find ourselves in a situation where this applicant has comitted itself to what we believe are extremely significant mitigation measures, and I'm referring of course to traffic mitigation measures. We believe the mitigation measures to which the applicant has committed itself at his expense are as much, and more, or at least as much as could possibly, reasonably be expected from the applicant, in view of the situation which the applicant plays a role that's certainly not the only role or even perhaps the most significant role. Obviously, this applicant owns the property that is situated directly at the signal that's in the area, and I think from the traffic/planning standpoint, therefore, this applicant is really best situated, perhaps, to undergo some type of expansion or addition, with the careful review of the Planning Board and the other involved agencies. To sumarize, briefly, this applicant has committed to re-timing and re-positioning of traffic signals, to creation of turning lanes and deceleration lanes, to creation of a pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection, which, as far as we know, is the only pedestrian crosswalk that has been or will be approved by the New York State Department of Transportation. You all have already heard, I think in more detail than I'm going to mention them, the other mitigation measures on site, including sidewalks, lighting, landscaping, bus parking, the Beautification Committee recommendations that have been adopted, and things like that. You, as a Planning Board, have been very diligent and very careful and asked us questions about connecting to adjoining properties, and we've now comitted to showing connections and potential future connections to properties on both sides that immediately abut this property. The notion that some of you have expressed it being, that to the extent that business owners in this area can encourage and facilitate traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular, from property to property, without going out onto Route 9 and back off of Route 9. That would, obviously, alleviate some of the difficulties, if any, in the situation up there, and, obviously, you know that your own Staff Engineering coments have been fully addressed. There were a couple of points that you asked for to be included on the upgraded plan, including a six foot wide island, the height of the stormwater detention basin, detail of the driveway, and the 50 foot access to the Kenny property to the north. All those things do appear on the revised plan, and your engineer, I think, has essentially signed off on those, and the only thing I'd like to mention, in conclusion, that I don't know if we stressed much, and I'm not going to go into detail unless asked, is that Dexter has really been the moving force, in our opinion, behind the Task Force that's come to be, of the neighborhood property owners, property owners, business owners on the Route 9 corridor in this area, and, obviously, it's all been done in good faith. We would hope that the Planning Board, through its diligence and in its thoroughness, will see fit to approve the project, and we believe that all the mitigation measures to which we've comitted, if this project goes through, are mitigation measures that you all wish to see, that you all wish to have some say in, and that will come to pass if this project comes to pass, and we hope it does. Our team is here to answer any questions, if there are any, but we agree with Chairman Martin. We think we've pretty much presented as much information as can be reasonably presented. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. Well, what I'd like to do, at this time, I think, for the benefit of us as a Board, and as members, how we interrelate, here, I'd like to just briefly have each member summarize their position on this, and bring out any strong points you want to make, and I especially, I guess, I don't mean to focus on you, Jim, but for your benefit as well, seeing as how you didn't have the benefit of being at the last meeting where this was brought up, and we'll just see how this washes out. So, I'll start with you, Ed, and if you could all briefly sumarize your feelings on this, and then we'll see if we can move to a vote. r MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I made the motion to approve, last time, which resulted in the four to two vote, and all six items I listed in my motion, I believe, were addressed by the applicant. MR. MARTIN-So, you're, basically, in favor? 2 -- MR. LAPOINT-Yes, without seeing the drawing, if the 50 foot access is shown to Mr. Kenny's property. MR. MARTIN-And did you do the blow up of your access? I remember you had that last time. that shows, in good detail, what we're looking at, here, in terms of access to the property. got the more narrow island on it now? I think That's MI KE JOY MR. JOY-Yes, and the wider. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. So, that's what kind of plan we're looking at for the access to the property, ingress and egress, I should say. Tim? MR. BREWER-I feel comfortable, as long as everything that we suggested last week is satisfied with the engineer. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Peter? MR. CARTIER-Well, I have a great deal of sympathy for the applicant, because I think the applicant, here, is a victim of some past, poor planning up there, but, for me, it defies logic, when you have traffic backed up as far down as the Great Escape and Martha's Ice Cream, from this entire Half Mile Strip. It defies logic for me to assume that things are going to be improved by the size of this expansion, in spite of the fact that the applicants have done an excellent job of trying to mitigate things. My problem, I guess, with this, is timing. If we could get this traffic situation cleaned up beforehand, much better than it is now, I would have no problem with this. I make note of the fact that somebody mentioned that there's going to be no decrease in levels of traffic service up here. That is not to say that the level of service, now, is acceptable. I don't believe that it is. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Carol? MRS. PUlVER-I think they've done everything they possibly could do to make this project acceptable, other than totally stop the traffic from going up that road, which, in my opinion, just isn't going to happen, and it will probably be many years before that problem is corrected. So, I don't have any problems with it. We either have to put a moratorium on development, period, or have the applicants do everything possible to mitigate the problem, which I feel they have done. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Corinne? MRS. TARANA-I stand by the feelings I had last time, at the last meeting, about this project, that until the traffic study is done, that I would not approve any projects along that strip, and speaking of moratorium, I'd like to see a moratorium on Route 9, Route 149, until the traffic study is done, and at least the people looking into the problem that we have there have an opportunity to come forward with suggestions, with no more development hindering any suggestions they might have. They may not have any suggestions, in which case, I would be more open to voting on this project. I have a few concerns, other than that traffic problem, traffic study, a few concerns about the size of the building, the way it's situated, the entrances from the back, the stores being in the back. I'm not real convinced that's a good plan. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, as I said last time, it's a tough situation up there, and it, basically, comes down to a point at which, are you going to say, there obviously has to be some traffic mitigation measures taken up there, but are you going to, at some point, say, well, one applicant is going to be held up until all that is taken care of, and the thing I want to do is bring this back, in my mind anyhow, into focus, as to how we normally look at applications, and I think that's important, as I said before, for a Planning Board to keep a consistency of review, and what I normally look to is the technical staff, their coments, the engineering, and then traffic issues for the Department of Transportation, and in this case, they've all signed off on it, and the other thing, in terms of any regional traffic study that's being done for that corridor, I think anything that's going to be in that study for this particular site, and in this particular section of that road, is already being done, and this just, maybe, could be considered, informally, a Phase I to that traffic improvements being done up there. I can't see, again, I'm not a traffic engineer, but I can't see where there would be anything that would be added, or go beyond what's being done at this particular parcel. So, I don't have a problem with it, from a traffic stand point, and I think the development team has done all they can to address our concerns, and they have made some adjustments, and I'd be in favor of it, as it stands tonight. So, that's my view of it. MR. LAURICElLA-Okay. I read all the minutes of the meeting that you had, and I studied everything, and the one thing that I have is that I know there's a traffic problem, and I think everyone in the Town knows there's a traffic problem. This, to me, is not going to help that traffic problem. So, I'm not in favor of this until that traffic is straightened out, and I know it's a good project. I'd love to see it go, but if you had a lands End, or anything of that nature going in here, as supposedly going to go there, you'd only increase the problems there. So, I'm really not in favor of it. 3 ....../ MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, I guess I will ask that we try and come up with a resolution, here, although I think I can see where it's going to come out, here, in terms of our informal poll we've already done, but I'd like to still make that effort. Do you think that's worthwhile? We have to make some sort of motion on this, one way or the other. MR. BREWER-If we deny, they have to go back to Warren County, or not necessarily? MRS. YORK-Well, they would have to come in with a new plan. MR. BREWER-I just don't know what else new they can put on the plan. That's just my opinion. They've done everything that, seven people sat here and asked them to do, and I see nothing that they can do more on that plan. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I'd like to just focus a comment on, I think, Mr. Martin, what you were saying yourself, and maybe I'll use slightly different words, maybe not. I don't mean to be repetitive, but I think, to the extent that some of the members are uncomfortable, generally, approving anything in this corridor, pending a future traffic study, what we maintain is that that concern should be evaluated in terms of whether the proposed mitigation measures can reasonably expected to, how they can reasonably be expected to fit in with whatever is recomended by any future study by anyone. One of the things that we've been very careful about is to make sure to ask the relevant agencies, the New York State Department of Transportation in particular, to make sure that the mitigation measures that have been proposed by this Board, and by others, are compatible with any reasonably anticipated future mitigation measure that some future traffic study may show. Again, I think we all recognize that speeding up the DOT process at the State level is not something within our control, anymore than it's something within your control. From our perspective, if any of the things that we propose could reasonably be anticipated by any traffic engineer, or even anyone else, to prohibit or to inhibit or to impede whatever future mitigation measures, if any, are proposed by DOT or someone else, and we feel that a denial or a no vote would have a rational basis, and would make some sense, because, in theory, an applicant could be saying, look, let me build such and such, even though it might get in the way of something that's required in the future by somebody by way of traffic mitigation. For that reason, we made sure to check with whoever we could check with, and principally DOT, but not only DOT, to make sure that the mitigation measures that we've come up with, as well as the mitigation measures that you all have come up with would jibe, would fit within, and would be compatible with whatever might be suggested in the future, and we've done that, and I think that's very, very important, in terms of analyzing the rationality of a decision to deny this project, and the reason I think that is because we're not necessarily standing here saying that the mitigation measures will lead to a sharp decrease in the traffic situation on Route 9, but that's not what we're fairly charged with. What we're fairly charged with, I think, is two things. Number One, being able to stand here, and in good faith tell you that this project will not result in a reduction in the level of service of any of the effected roads or intersections, and we can stand here and tell you, in good faith, that the mitigation measures we've proposed, whom everyone who's studied this says that what we're proposing will not result in a reduction in the level of service on the road, or on any of the intersections involved. Secondly, we need to be able to stand here, and in good faith, be able to tell you that we know that some people are still studying this corridor. We know that, presumably or hopefully, they will come up with a report, some time in the future, we don't have control over when, you don't have control over when, presumably that report will include some recornmendations. Maybe those recomendations will be funded by someone. Maybe those recomendations won't be funded. Maybe they'll come to pass. Maybe they won't come to pass, but what you have here is a situation where, whatever problem exists has resulted from, some say, a lack of planning, a lack of thorough review previously, different people say different things. Nobody says that it's Dexter's fault. Nobody picks on Dexter or anyone else as being the cause of the problem. I think everyone agrees it's sort of a cumulative situation, to the extent that there is a problem. What you do have, therefore, is a situation, right now, over which you have little or no control. Whether you had control, in the past, and could have prevented it, we don't think is relevant, but what you have is a situation right now, over which you have little or no control. Because there are Site Plan Review Ordinances in this Town, like in many other communities, when an applicant seeks to do certain things, you have an opportunity to assert control over a particular site that you didn't have in the past, or over a particular area, that you didn't have in the past. This is that type of opportunity. Through your review authority, and through the diligent review that you've undertaken with this application, for a period of several months, you now have an opportunity, in effect, to sink your teeth into some traffic mitigation measures, that I don't think you're going to have the short term opportunity to sink your teeth into, if this application doesn't go forward. Someday these things may happen. Someday somebody may re-time and relocate those signals. Someday somebody may put the crosswalk across, assuming DOT keeps with its approval. Someday, a lot of these other things may come to pass, but they also may not come to pass, and to the extent that we're facilitating, that we've got our foot in the door to improving the traffic situation there, it's Dexter that's got that foot in the door, and through you all, through the Planning Board, through your suggestions, your requests and your recomendations. You have that foot in the door, and if this project is not approved, ultimately, then what you're really saying is your kicking the one person out who's put the foot in the door to improving the traffic situation, and you're saying, we're not going to have your mitigation measures go into effect, and I don't know any other way to phrase it. We can't force you to change your minds, those of you who are inclined to vote against the project, but from the standpoint of reasonableness and fairness to this applicant, it seems difficult to essentially say, without in fact enacting a moratorium, 4 -- -- which a Town Board can do, but which, frankly, a Planning Board doesn't have the authority to do, it's very difficult to say to this applicant, after all the mitigation measures to which it's willing to commit, that we're not going to allow it to go forward. If the Town Board were to, in fact, enact or it had enacted a moratorium, it would be Town Board matter, not a Planning Board matter, but I'm very hard pressed to understand what an applicant could possibly do, in this situation in this location, to get an approval, and I think the three of you who are inclined to vote no are equally unsure of what an applicant, right now, could do. I think they're position is, right now, an applicant really can't do anything, and that, to me, is not a Planning Board call. That's really a Town Board call, if you're going to go that route, and I guess, just to conclude, again, I was faced with a similar situation, recently, in a different community with a different agency, where when it came time to think about it, they decided that having some control over a site and some mitigation measures imposed was better than having no control over a site, and not being able to get, at least, that foot in the door toward mitigation, and you have to vote whatever you think is right, and we just hope that you consider our coments, and perhaps reconsider how you might vote. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. All right. Ed, would you like to try and? MR. LAPOINT-Well, things can happen outside our Town, in Fort Edward or lake George, with a big trip generator, suppose, theoretically, this were to locate in Fort Ann, and the traffic would result, here, that, again, we wouldn't have the mitigative measure. Something could go on in lake George that we have no control over and could not fix, and if by turning it down we lose all the benefits that this project would bring, again, we're going to re-time the light. It's business. It's jobs. We're addressing a big concern with work in the comunity, putting people to work to build this, and the idea that you turn it down pending a traffic study for Route 9 or 149, I mean, is that for everybody along this entire corridor? Is this for every project that's going to generate additional traffic? MR. CARTIER-Is that a rhetorical question? MR. LAPOINT-No I think that's a valid question. MR. CARTIER-I would answer that, yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I don't think we can say that we're going to turn down every project that comes along. MR. LAPOINT-Not we, that anything that's going to generate trips on this road is a no go, because it increases traffic in a high traffic area, and, again, I think we have trouble there, maybe eight weeks out of the year, when it's backed up, but for the most part, you can drive through there Saturdays and Sundays, and you have to weigh the benefits against the cost, and if it's an extra three or four minutes to get from 149 down to the Northway, I think the benefits far out-weigh that little bit of inconvenience of sitting in line for two or three more minutes, the people you put to work in construction, the people manning the stores, the property owners who own the property, their right to develop it, all that has to be weighed. MRS. PUlVER-I think, Ed, we're talking seconds, though, not minutes, like 29.3 versus, 32.1, or something, seconds, was the difference. MR. LAPOINT-And that's a hell of a lot of weight, on a half a minute delay, against the benefits of the project as a whole, when we could see, probably, a one minute jump in that delay from a project that goes on outside the Town, and people driving down Route 9 or out 149. MRS. PULVER-I've been racking my brain trying to think what, after this study is done, how they would possibly change this project to accommodate, you know, I think they've done all the things with this particular project they can do to accommodate the traffic. So, even after the study's done, I think we could be looking at the same project, because this piece of property just can't do anything more to maintain the level of service that it already has. MR. BREWER-I think it may be different, Carol, because they wouldn't, Dexter themselves wouldn't be timing the lights right now. They wouldn't make the access right now. If we're looking three years down the road, none of that stuff's going to happen, like Mark said. If it happens now, then at least it's a start, like he said. MR. LAPOINT-I think we've begun to incorporate internal traffic, making an accomodation to the north, the Kenny property to the north, the pizza restaurant to the south, both positive things, both things we'd Jike to see happen all up and down that corridor, and using this as a template for someone else coming in to expand anywhere along that corridor, to internalize traffic with both their neighbors is a positive thing, and Mr. Kenny, he's not here, but he plans on developing his property next door, and what we've done is actual planning, where we've accommodated future development of another private parcel of land to the north, and, to me, that's probably the best thing we can do, as a Board, in terms of real, Jive planning, is to make accommodations for those type things. If we don't do this, this limits Mr. Kenny's ability to develop his property to the north. We're, essentially, turning him down for anything he'd want to come before us with right now, because anything.!!!. would put in there would 5 - ...../ generate extra traffic, and he probably could not have the resources that Dexter does to try to internalize traffic patterns, that he would try to connect to Dexter wouldn't make sense for him, especially if the larger store doesn't exist there. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'd like to try and continue this discussion, if it's going to bring us more quickly to an end, or somehow adjust the end result. I don't want to have a situation, here, either, where three members are feeling like their arms are being twisted. MR. CARTIER-I'll speak for me, if you're asking me, am I going to change my mind based on anything I've heard, my answer's no, and I'm not going to go back and reiterate what I've already said. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll just offer that I think the ultimate traffic solutions along that corridor are going to result, and are most effectively going to be accomplished in a private sector, public sector partnership, so to speak, you know, each taking on a role in correcting the problems up there, and making it an easier place to get in and out of. So, again, I'll say, I think they've done their half of the game, here, in terms of the private sector and what they can do on their property, and the public sector improvements will come in their own time-frame and so on. So, I guess I don't know what more can be said. I'd like to try and take a swing at this, in terms of a motion, if anybody will offer that. MR. LAPOINT-I would, definitely, because I want to go on the record for and/or against. So, when it comes time, I'm ready to do that. MR. MARTIN-Well, is there any other discussion, any other points anybody would Jike to raise, before we come to that point? BOB JOY MR. JOY-For the record, I'm Bob Joy of Robert Joy and Associates, and I apologize, I don't want to extend your agony, here, but this has been a six month process for all of us, and for my own part, I want to express and appreciation to the Board for the time and effort and certainly wrestling with the conscience of what it has been charged to do here. like Carol mentioned she came from Chicago, I came from New Jersey, and I have a hard time dealing with this. like Mark, I'm somewhat incredulous, that this is a permitted use. It's exactly what the Master Plan says should go there. It's the only piece of property with a traffic light. In fact, if there were nothing on this strip, and you looked for one piece of property for a development such as this, this is the first piece of property you would want to build on. It's the only one that has a traffic light. This applicant has been held to a higher standard than any applicant on the strip. It has met every hurdle, jumped through every hoop, and has cleared all of the things you told them to do. In January, you told the applicant that you would abide by the recomendation of New York State DOT, that you weren't qualified the traffic study and what it meant. That was on the record. I'm not sure who said it. MR. LAURICELLA-It might have been one of the members of the Board. MRS. TARANA-For the record, I wasn't on the Board at that time. MR. JOY-I recognize that, and I think one of the difficulties, here, is the people who have come in during this process and haven't seen the benefit of this whole process that's gone on. MRS. TARANA-For the record, Mark questioned me on that before, I've read everything. I've looked into everything. So, if it's a question of my coming on late and not knowing what's going on. MR. JOY-I don't think that's the question. I think there's a different issue involved, and that's the fairness. This has gone on for six months, and the applicant's been told to meet certain requirements and has met them. There was a statement made that if the State DOT agrees with what you're doing, I will vote for it. When the State DOT agreed with it, the comments were made, well, I still don't believe it. As Mark has said, I don't know who we can turn to that you'll believe. I don't know what the applicant can do, that can change a situation that is not of their doing, and I think fairness is a key issue, here, and consistency with previous decisions is a key issue. You have approved the project, even recently in that area, you have reviewed other projects. You have not required a moratorium. The Town has not declared a moratorium. All of a sudden, there's one project that is not being reviewed in a consistent manner with other projects in the area. I think I would like to raise one other issue, and that's what I would term unintentional consequences. You may have heard the story of the soldier in WWII who faithfully wrote his sweetheart every day, so that when he came home he could marry her. When he came home, he was surprised that she had instead married the mailman. I think you've got some of the same problem, here, and Corinne and Jim, you may not have been involved, other than reading the minutes. MR. LAURICElLA-I was here from the beginning. MR. JOY-Okay. It was this applicant who first came to this Board to discuss this problem that you've been referring to, and first asked this Board to get together with the County, which you have never done, I don't think. 6 '--" ..../ MR. BREWER-Yes, we did. MR. JOY-You had the meeting, but it was the first time you had a joint meeting with Warren County Planning Board and discussed this issue, to coordinate your approach to this issue, and it was at the urging and the request of this applicant. At the same time, you encouraged the private sector to get involved in a partnership, to establish a task force, to look at what could be done, short of what the State is willing to do in their own time, in their own budget, and what the Town or County would be willing to do. The Planning leader headed up a task force, and Dexter was the engine driving that. A lot of suggestions were generated. A number of improvements can be put into works, but the unintentioned consequence of your action is that you're going to lose the one applicant who stands to benefit from that investment, and the one applicant with the staying power and the resources to make those things happen. They have been the prime coordinators to try to get something started, and they are the ones that, over the next year, as they plan and construct this project, will state that those things happen. As counsel mentioned, if this applicant has no vested interest, no enlightened self interest in seeing this project go ahead and seeing these improvements, they're off to some place else, and you lose that foot in the door, you lose that opportunity. I've been to a lot of Planning Board meetings, not as many as you folks, not as many as Mark, but I've never seen a project where everyone who's spoken in favor of it, or spoken about it has spoken favorably, where there was no neighborhood opposition, no Town opposition, no editorials against it, nothing has surfaced, in six months. There hasn't been a single person who's come here and said, this has got to stop. We want a moratorium. We don't want anymore building. That's never happened. The only thing we've heard is simply, we don't believe it. We don't like it, and so forth, and I've got a feeling, I'm no expert, that the position you're taking is not a defensible one, and from what I read from the Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan Review does not limit the applicant's right to do the project, unless there is an impact. You've agreed there's no impact. It doesn't improve things. That's what you want, and I agree, but you've agreed, the experts have agreed, there is no negative impact, all the way down the line. Under Site Plan Review, you can only determine how projects get done, not whether they get done, unless there's that negative impact. I have a hard time believing that that's really what you intend, because I think if you condemn the task force to a quick death, I think it will create a difficult problem up there without any incentive for the private sector to cooperate, since the public sector doesn't seem to be doing that, and I think that we would soon regret the decision to turn the project down, and I think there are some measures, some steps in between that can be explored that would make it acceptable to place some limits on the applicant, and certainly look at the time, remembering that it's going to take at least a year to start the planning and complete the construction of the project before it generates any traffic, and that the traffic studies themselves project a 10 year window, even with no other improvements. So, certainly the short term effect of this signalization is bound to be some sort of improvement. In the long term, it keeps things at the status quo. Again, I appreciate all the time you've spent. I know this is a tough one for you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you, Bob. Well, I think we've had many of the issues highlighted and some gone into in great detail. The applicant has certainly gone through those for us, and it's crunch time, here. I don't know what else can be said. I certainly don't want to be here in a position of, like I said, arm twisting. I think this Board's been together long enough, and everyone's secure in their idea, here. So, why don't we try a motion. Ed, do you have something you'd like to offer? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, I'm ready. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-91 OSCAP, lTD, Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To establish two buildings for the purpose of a retail outlet center, including relocation and expansion of the existing Dexter Shoe Outlet Center Store. Total gross building area to be 68,000 sq. ft. with total gross leasable area to be 62,000 sq. ft., with the following notes: One, that the applicant has provided for internalization of traffic with two adjacent property owners. That the applicant will install the only State allowed crosswalk on the Half Mile. That the applicant will install a right hand turning lane coming from lake George toward Queensbury into the Dexter lot. That the applicant will re-work and enhance the left hand lane heading north towards the Village from Queensbury into their lot. That the applicant re-time and re-position the traffic lights at Route 9 and 149 intersection. That the applicant has reconfigured their entrance-way in accordance with New York State Department of Transportation approval, and that the New York State Department of Transportation has stated that no decrease in service level will occur at the Route 9 and 149 intersection, and that the DOT is proceeding with a study to access the traffic flow through the entire area, and where we previously filed a declaration of non-significance with regard to SEQRA, and that the applicant has addressed all on-site engineering concerns, and, again, has provided for internalization of traffic with the two adjacent property owners. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. lauricella 7 - MR. MARTIN-We have a four three vote. As has been explained before, that won't do it, in light of the County disapproval. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess I'd like the three dissenters, if we were willing to propose yet another potential mitigation measure, if that might help their concern, and the mitigation we propose is, I assume, I hope, that the three dissenters would agree that the applicant has done aH that it could have done up until now, and if they agree with that, then I assume that if the traffic study was done, today, or yesterday lets say the traffic study was done, and the traffic study came out with recommendations, traffic mitigation recommendations, and if this applicant complied with those recomendations, I assume the three dissenters would vote in favor of this application. Is that a fair assumption? MR. CARTIER-I'm not sure. I'm in a very strange position, here, because I'm done on this Board at the end of this month, but I'll answer your question from my perspective, fully aware of the fact that I will have no more impact on this application, from this evening on. I would go back to my original point. It's a matter of timing. I think this is a great application. I think it's a great site plan. The problem that you confront, as far as I'm concerned, is a matter of timing, and I think I would answer it by saying, it's more than just a traffic study being done. It's actually getting some of the mitigation measures in the ground. I keep hearing about, there's going to be no decrease in level of service. We have to remember that the level of service up there is terrible now. I fear for a fire or a serious accident of some kind ever occurring in the middle of one of these huge traffic jams that we have up there. We're talking some major safety concerns, okay. I counted something like 24 curb cuts up there. Some of that stuff has to be gotten ri d of and there's got to be some i nterna lization so that there can be some through traffic flow. I don't know if I've answered your question, but that's basically where I'm coming from, and just, if I might indirectly address Mr. Joy's point about maybe we're beyond the legalities of what we're allowed to do, here. I would cite from 179-38 Article V, Item C, in reference to traffic issues, and that's the basis of my vote. I'm not up here just winging it, Bob. I have to hang my vote on something in the Ordinance, and that's where it's coming from. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Well, I guess what I would like to do is, on behalf of the applicant, the applicant would be prepared to offer an additional proposed mitigation measure, namely, it's our understanding and I believe your own understanding that this traffic study, to which Mr. Cartier refers and which the rest of us have also referred, is supposed to be done in the very near future. Our understanding is it's supposed to be done within the next six months. So, I guess I would suggest, perhaps, if this would alleviate the concerns of any of the three dissenters, I guess we'd be prepared to offer a proposed mitigation measure, which is that we will comply, you could add as a condition, if you will, if you're inclined to do so, another condition, in addition to whatever Mr. laPoint included in his motion, a condition that the applicant complies with, actually complies with, meaning, Mr. Cartier, in the ground, so to speak, that the applicant will comply with whatever mitigation measures are proposed for his site, obviously, by that traffic study. MR. MARTIN-In other words, you're talking about actual installation of any proposed mitigation measures. MR. SCHACHNER-On its site. MR. MARTIN-Yes, on their site, actually construct. MR. SCHACHNER-Whatever mitigation measures are proposed by that traffic study on its site, at the time of construction of the project, obviously. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-How is that different from what we've already been talking about? I don't understand? MR. SCHACHNER-The way I'm understanding that to be different than what we're talking about now, is what we were talking about before I made that offer is, our belief is this will be compatible, what we have currently brought before you will be compatible with the recoßll1endations of the study, but what I perceive is that at least some of the members feel, yes, it may be compatible, it may fit. It may not fit. We don't have the study in front of us, so how do we know. I think, yourself, Mr. Cartier, you indicated that there's a timing problem. We don't have the study. We don't have it's recomendations. I think Mrs. Tarana also made that comment. We don't yet have the study. We don't yet have the recommendations. I don't know if Mr. lauricella made that specific cOl1ll1ents, but I think he's generally in that vein. MR. LAURICELLA-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And I understand what all three of you are saying. There's a certain element, perhaps, in your minds, of risk here. We don't have the study. We don't have the recol1ll1endations. Until I offer this additional mitigation, what you have here is, our belief, Rist-Frost's belief, and at least some of the member's belief that whatever we propose will be compatible with whatever's recomended by the study. What I'm now standing here saying is, and this wasn't our first choice, obviously, because there's an element of risk to us, now, the applicant, an additional, increased element of risk, over 8 and above all the ones we've already faced and hurdled, but what I'm now offering, on behalf of the applicant is, you can add a condition to your approval that says we understand and you understand that this study is supposed to be done within the next six months, and that if and when this study is done within that time frame, we will, in fact, comply with, and by comply, I mean, install, construct, improve, whatever is called for, whatever mitigation measures that study recommends for our property, and obviously the onus would be on the applicant, if something crazy comes out of that study, and it's imposed on the applicant, the applicant will have the option of not doing it and not building this project. I guess that's how I see the difference. It's a very dramatic and significant concession on behalf of the applicant. MR. MARTIN-Just to provide some historical background to that point, wasn't that what the County Planning Board wanted to see, also, for that study to come out and then see what was called for in that? I believe that was mentioned in their discussions. MR. SCHACHNER-I was not present. I assume you weren't either, but in the minutes, it sounds like that was the angle they were coming from. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess what I'm saying, Mr. Cartier, is we've been standing here saying, what we're proposing is compatible, and we'll, but there's, in some minds I guess, an amount of risk that's taken, and what we're doing is removing ,that risk. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, I think that puts, definitely, a new twist on things, here, so to speak, or adds an element to it. MR. CARTIER-Yes. It's called arm twisting. I'm getting a little perturbed, here. MRS. TARANA-I am, too. MR. CARTIER-We've got a vote that we've taken on this thing. It's a four to three vote. It's a done deal. What's happening is now we're being offered conditions and revisions to this thing, in order to try to get one of three members to change their vote. I'll speak for me, I'm not going to change my vote on this. The timing issue remains a problem to me. Whatever mitigation you are willing to offer, at this point, that you have control over, I'm not willing to go along with. You are a victim of the situation up there. There's no question about that. I have a great deal of sympathy for the position that you're in, but I'm not about to sit her and have my arm twisted, even though it's been said a number of times, we're not going to do any arm twisting up here. That's what's going on right now. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Cartier, I don't think that's a fair characterization. If nothing else, I think that you, yourself, have seen me make a number of statements that could more fairly be characterized, I'm not standing here saying anything about legalities or anything about litigation or anything like that. I offered a very significant and dramatic additional mitigation measure. We're trying our best to work with this Planning Board. We're not being hostile about it. We're not trying to create animosity about it, and I'd hate to see anybody mischaracterize it and stand on principal and say, they don't care what the applicant says, they're not going to approve it. If that's your position, fine, but I don't think that's fair to characterize us that way. MR. CARTIER-Then I'm not getting my point across very clearly. I step back from this whole Million Dollar Half Mile and look at it from aerial view, if you will, and there is no way I can, in any good conscience, vote for any expansion of this size, when we already have the traffic problems that we have up there, and I'm at a point, now, where I'm ready to be done talking about this thing, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don't think that's fair, Mr. Cartier. You may be ready to be done talking about it, but you've helped put an applicant through six months of review, and I think we're entitled to have our say, and what I understand you, now, to be saying, is even if the traffic study comes out, and even if it makes recomendations for our property, and even if we install, in the ground, whatever recommendations are proposed, that's not enough. That's what you're saying. MR. CARTIER-What I'm saying is, your applicant doesn't have control over the traffic problems up there, and until the traffic problems get straightened out on that entire corridor, I have a problem approving any expansion. I can't say it any more succinctly than that. MR. SCHACHNER-Even if we give away the store? MR. CARTIER-I don't know what else I can say to you that's going to go anywhere, Mark. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, I don't want to dwell on it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Well, my question would be, would that concession, if we added that to the motion, convince anybody? 9 -- ---- MR. MARTIN-Well, that's what I was about to ask. We certainly have Peter's view of this. MR. LAPOINT-I'm not arm twisting, either. MR. MARTIN-No. I'm sincerely asking, and don't read anything into this. Does this change, or help, or not help or not effect the situation at all, and I, obviously, am going to focus on the three no votes, because that's where it would come naturally. MR. LAURICELLA-At this point, I'd like to study that a little further. I don't know if I want to change my vote, at this point. Maybe we could get a special session together and discuss it or something, but I don't want to change it, at this point. MRS. TARANA-No. I won't change my vote, and I would just add that this was tabled the first time around because it was known that there would be a no vote against it. We waited until another member. I, personally, didn't know how he was going to vote. It didn't matter to me, but now we voted. We voted no, and they're coming up with new things. It's like, it just doesn't go away. We don't get our point across. 11l point doesn't get across. When the traffic study is done, I would consider this project. I have reservations about the project, other than the traffic problem. I don't know that I would vote for it if the traffic study were done today, but I don't like the feeling that we're standing here and people are trying to make us change our vote. I mean, that's so obvious, from the Planning Board and from the applicant. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-You have another option, gentlemen. You can go back to the County, okay. That's the one that occurs to me. You can go back to the County, pass the County, get an approval from the County, then all you need down here is four votes. That's one option. MR. MARTIN-Well, I, quite honestly, don't see any use in re-taking the vote. We have a four three decision, here. MR. SCHACHNER-Can I request a vote? MR. MARTIN-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-If somebody's willing to add that as a condition. If they're not, they're not. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. The condition would read something like, the applicant would comply with any mitigative measures proposed for the site, relative to, and I don't know the official name of the traffic study. MR. MARTIN-Who's compiling that, lee? MR. LAPOINT-The Warren County Corridor Study, whatever it would be called. MRS. YORK-Yes, it's being done by the Warren County DPW. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Just in terms of Roberts Rules, do we have to rescind the previous motion, first, and then start again, or can we amend the previous motion? MRS. YORK-You've got a motion that's been voted on. You have to rescind the previous motion. MR. CARTIER-Or do you make a completely new motion? MR. MARTIN-Well, just to be safe, here, why don't we rescind the previous motion. MR. SCHACHNER-To answer Mr. Cartier's previous question, I don't think you have to rescind the previous motion. You can make a new motion, and the reason is because it's not the exact same motion. It's got a new condition. It can be seconded and voted on, and your old motion can stay right in place. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-I wasn't going to waste everybody's time with another motion. I was just trying to show the way it would read, and I'm not arm twisting, here, by the way, if that offer by the applicant would not change anyone's mind, then there's no sense in making the motion, and, again, I think we owe the applicant his due to hear him out, if he's going to come up and offer us what is certainly a substantial change, or give in on the project to say, well, we'll have to mitigate whatever some traffic study tells us to do, with respect to our project, and if he's willing to offer that out, I think we should have the courtesy to listen to that, and if it doesn't change your mind, it doesn't change your mind, but, again, I don't read that as arm twisting. MR. MARTIN-I didn't either, and that's why I allowed it to be said. 10 --- MR. LAPOINT-Right, and, again, it's important to bring these things to some type of resolution tonight, rather than have a special meeting and go over this all over again. So, I'd rather spend the extra minute and a half or two minutes to hear them out, to hear what my amendment to the motion would be, and if it doesn't change your mind, fine. MR. SCHACHNER-We agree, but if possible, we would like, if a member is willing to propose the amendment, and if another member is willing to second it, we would request it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm going to try to come to that. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I'm not willing to offer the motion up again, unless someone has changed their mind, and we can put this thing to rest and go on to the next piece of business. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, the three members have indicated that they will not. MR. LAPOINT-Right, and I did my best to try to offer up what I would say would be different, and be the applicant would comply with any mitigative measures proposed for the site, relative to some vague traffic study we're doing, and the answer's no, so lets move on. MR. MARTIN-Okay. My next question is, then, unfortunately, to the applicant, is there an interest in accepting a tabling? I guess not. Then, lee, I guess the application is simply denied, then, on the basis of we can't override the County, right? Application is denied on that basis. DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-David Kenny. The public hearing on this was closed a long time ago, and I have no right to speak on this whatsoever, and I really find it hard for the Planning Board to close the public hearing before all the information is in, so the public can't even speak on it. Everybody I talked to would have loved to have spoken tonight, but they didn't have the opportunity because the Planning Board closed the public hearing before the information is in, and I don't think it gives the public a legal right to speak. MRS. YORK-Yes. Mr. Kenny, the Planning Board duly advertises the public hearings, and anyone who would like to speak is invited, at that time, to speak. MR. KENNY-But I can't speak until I find out all the information. You can't decide until you've got all the information. If they closed the public hearing before all the final documents are in, how do I know what I'm speaking on? MR. MARTIN-Just to address that issue, we have, in the past, re-opened public hearings when there has been an indication from the people in the audience they wanted to speak on a particular application, much to Mr. Schachner's chagrin, some times, I've done that. MRS. YORK-let me just explain, this public hearing was held open for three separate meetings. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. YORK-It wasn't closed at one meeting. MR. KENNY-That's my only point. How can the public give a valid opinion? We don't expect you to give a valid opinion until you get all the information. How can you expect the public to give a valid opinion until they get all the information? MRS. YORK-Thank you for your comments, Mr. Kenny. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. (8:05 p.m.) Okay. We have a slight adjustment to the agenda, here. The last item, Kubricky Construction, has requested that they be moved up, and given the content of the application, I though that might be something we would consider. I didn't have a problem with that. MR. CARTIER-In place of Heralds Square. MR. MARTIN-In place of Herald Square, which I believe is a tabling until Thursday night anyhow. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. MARTIN-So, I thought that was a reasonable request. MR. CARTIER-We already granted them the tabling, did we not, last week? MR. MARTIN-last Thursday, I believe, we took care of that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 11 '- MRS. PULVER-So, it's Kubricky next? MR. MARTIN-Yes. NEIl BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 21-92 TYPE II LI-lA IŒJBRICKY CONSTRUCTION (liNER: SAME AS ABOVE 237 BAY ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A 5' FENCE. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 107-1-21 lOT SIZE: 3.14 ACRES SECTION: 179-74 C (31) GARY HUKEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:05 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 21-92, Kubricky Construction, May 13, 1992, Meeting Date: May 19, 1992 "Th.e appHcation is for a 5 foot ta11 chain Hnk fence in a Hght industrial zone on Bay Road. The applicants cover letter indicates that this is for aesthetic reasons as heavy equipment is stored in the area. The Zoning Ordinance requires that fencing in industrial districts be reviewed. This fence would a110w for clear vision because of its location. There are no planning concerns associated with this appHcation. Approval is recomended." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Do we have someone here from the applicant? MR. HUKEY-I'm Gary Hukey. I'm here to represent Kubricky Construction Company. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anybody have any questions in regards to this particular application? MR. BREWER-The only thing I had a question on was, you show the fence to the right of, if you're looking down towards Duke, to the right and to the left, is it going to go to the property lines? MR. HUKEY-No. It'11 go approximately 60 feet to the south of the Duke Industrial Park Road, and approximately 130 feet north, somewhere in that range. MR. BREWER-So, it wouldn't go to the railroad tracks? MR. HUKEY-No, no. It would be, well, at least 20 feet. MR. BREWER-And it wouldn't go to the next property owner? MR. HUKEY-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-Does anyone else have a question on this? MR. LAURICELLA-It's just going to be along Bay Road, right? MR. HUKEY-That's right. MR. LAURICELLA-No signs? MR. HUKEY-We will be applying for a sign later, just the name of the road on it, at a later date, yes. It will not be affixed to the fence. MR. LAURICELLA-The fence will just, there won't be any back to it, just a privacy fence? MR. HUKEY-A privacy fence. MR. MARTIN-I would just like to have it entered into the record at this time that I don't know why we're reviewing fences. This seems to me to be a dimensional issue that can be accompHshed through a building permit review or something very similar to that nature, and I feel for this appHcant as well as anybody who has to go through this just for a fence. MR. HUKEY-I'd like to take the opportunity to explain how this whole thing got started. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm not saying it's your fault. MR. HUKEY-I'm not an employee of Kubricky Construction Company. I'm here representing them tonight on their behalf. I do represent Duke Concrete. We thought it would be appropriate that even though we don't own the land along Bay Road, that we would Hke to improve the appearance. So, we talked to Kubricky Construction Company, the owners, and asked if they'd mind if we put up a chain link fence. Our only intention of it was to improve the aesthetics. It boggled my mind, when I came up to get the permits necessary to put in a fence, environmental impact studies. 12 _. ----/ MR. MARTIN-Actually, we're not doing that. It's not required. MR. HUKEY-It's a lot of unnecessary paperwork. MRS. YORK-May I just add, here, that my understanding from the Town Board is that a review is going to be undertaken very rapidly. MR. CARTIER-It sounds like I'm complicating the process. I'm not. I'm just trying to cover contingencies. Do you have a letter on file somewhere from the owner of the property giving you permission to put the fence up? MRS. YORK-Yes, he does. MR. HUKEY-Yes. It was submitted with the application. MR. CARTIER-It was. Okay. MR. MARTIN-All right. Could I entertain a motion on this, please. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-92 IŒJBRICKY CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To construct a 5' fence as shown in their application. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. lauricella, Mr. laPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (8:11 p.m.) BREAK OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA AZURE PARK (liNER: H. RUSSEll HARRIS BElIIEEN RAIN_ TRAIL AND AZURE DRIVE. FOR A 13 LOT SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. TAX MP NO. 52-1-11 lOT SIZE: + 18.54 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIV. REGULATIONS lEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TOM NACE, ALSO PRESENT (8:23 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 3-1992, Azure Park, H. Russell Harris - Final Stg., May 11, 1992, Meeting Date: May 19, 1992 "If there are no outstanding engineering comments the staff recommends final approvaL" ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 18, 1992 "We have reviewed the revised project drawings received May 15, 1992 and have discussed the revisions with Tom Nace of Haanen Engineering. Previous engineering cornments are satisfactorily addressed. There are no engineering concerns for final stage subdivision approval." MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I'd Hke to make a comment. I tried to get some information on this last week, regarding the landfill. I do have a concern that a study may be done. Apparently the study is looking into whether or not our landfill will be declared a super fund site. The question, does anyone have any information about where we're at with that study? MR. LAPOINT-I think the municipal landfills have just been declassified from a Class II, possibly, down to a Class IV, in the New York State Super Fund category. MR. MARTIN-This particular Queensbury? MR. LAPOINT-I beHeve so, yes. I've heard that rumor. It's downgraded, but, again, that doesn't preclude any Federal Super Fund action up there. MRS. TARANA-Right. I guess I have a concern about that, because if it were to be, and it may be a remote possibility that it would be considered a Super Fund site, I think we're putting the Town in a bad position, as far as legal Habilities go, if that were to happen, and also, the residents of the Town, if that were to happen. We're estabHshing a subdivision right near a Super Fund sight. Again, I don't think there are any neighbors, and they couldn't speak to this anyway, but I did check and a lot of them don't drink their water. They can't drink their water. 1':1 '-" MR. STEVES-That I can address. My name's leon Steves. I'm with VanDusen and Steves, the surveyor on the project. We've been asked by the Department of Health to furnish water samples to them for the subdivision. We have talked, recently, to a builder who has built three homes over on Azure Drive. He's had tests done on everyone of these wells and is supplying to us for the Department of Health. There is no indication whatsoever there is any contamination at all on any of the three wells. MRS. TARANA-I think the contamination is one thing. Being able to drink your water because of the taste of it is another thing, and it's my understanding that the water, for some of the people, cannot be drunk. It just has a terrible taste. It may have magnesium or something else in it, whatever, which may not be, according to the Department of Health, may not be at a level which is hazardous to their health, but still creates a water that they can't drink. MR. NACE-There aren't too many areas here in Queensbury, but in neighboring communities there are many areas, where the natural groundwater has high mineral content, and has either objectionable levels of iron, manganese, what have you, that does add to an objectionable taste. Those are normally removable by in-home units, filtration units, that take away that problem. It's not a health issue, necessarilY, unless somebody .has a particular tolerance problem with some of the minerals, but it is a problem that if the particular well were to have high mineral content, it could be treated in-house. MRS. TARANA-It's my understanding these are not trace elements that are found naturally in the ground, that these would be elements that could be as the result of the landfill. MR. MARTIN-You said you had tests done, or they ~ done, or are being done? MR. STEVES-No, tests ~ done, and the people have moved into those homes that I'm referring to, that lie between this subdivision and the Town property. MR. MARTIN-In other words, so they're closer to the landfill than these projected homes are? MR. STEVES-Yes, they are. MR. MARTIN-And the results were? MR. STEVES-People got CO's to build homes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. STEVES-I guess the only way to answer the question is with the other question. last year, during the campaign, Mike Brandt went over to Mud Pond and took a sample of that water, and had a picture of himself taking that out of there. What's the results of that? MRS. PULVER-Nothing. The result was, from that whole campaign, that the original studies done on the water, was that the water was okay to drink. MR. STEVES-Heart Pond Hes between the development, here, and the landfill, Cell One. It lies not directly between, or just to the east of it, and if there is any flow of water out of there, it would be along our easterly boundary of our boundary from our lot. MRS. TARANA-I think the bigger issue is the possibiHty that the landfi11 is a potential Super Fund site. That study is not complete, has not been completed. It's being looked at now by the Town, as well. They have a cormnittee working on it, too. That decision has not been made. It may be very remote, I don't know, but if it were to be declared a Super Fund site, the Town is open to tremendous legal liabilities because of it, also to tremendous costs because of the remediation that has to be put into effect in order to clean up a Super Fund site. All the money will not come from the Federal Government. The Town will have to absorb some of the cost. MR. STEVES-Are you aware of the proximity to the site, how far it is away? MRS. TARANA-Yes, I am. MR. STEVES-Are you, really? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. STEVES-Do you know how far it is? MRS. TARANA-In feet, no. I've been up there. MR. STEVES-How about in miles? It's at least a half a mile, as the crow fHes, between this site and the I andfi 11 . 14 ''---' MRS. TARANA-I gave you my concerns. I feel that until that Super Fund site question is resolved. it could be a possible liability for the Town, and it could be a possible health liability for the residents of the Town. MRS. PULVER-Wouldn't that be something more the Town Board should be looking into, then, rather than the Planning Board? MRS. TARANA-The Town Board is looking into it right now. MR. LAPOINT-It's a preliminary assessment, and they won't move on this for, probably, decades. MRS. TARANA-No. I don't think that's correct. MR. LAPOINT-If New York State, and the more I think about this, the more I'm sure, that New York State has taken this from a Class II to either a Class III or IV. MR. CARTIER-Can you define those real quick? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. A Class II being an eminent threat to the environment, you know, human health and environment, Class III being under continuous management. I, personally, did the Cieba Giegy landfill, monitored it for 11 years, right next door, even closer to this development, and groundwater all around that landfill was clean, and that's in between here and there. MR. CARTIER-But in fairness, the Cieba Geigy thing is a Hned pit. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but we would monitor it for stuff that would come out of the other landfi11, also. There's one dirty well up there, yes, but that's right in the middle of the landfill. MR. MARTIN-I understand your concern, and I think it's a point that's worth discussing, but I think based on the information that's been suppHed to us, both from Ed, from his direct knowledge, with the work he's done up there, and some information he's heard, and from what the applicant's told us about well sites. MR. NACE-let me add this one thing. The concern seems to be the Town's liability for these additional houses or this additional subdivision. In reaHty, the Town's Hability would boil down to something very similar that Moreau has been trying to deal with over the past 10 years. The bottom line liability is you take a water Hne out and provide the residents with municipal water. If this is a Super Fund site, if the water, in the worst case, were contaminated, the Town would be liable to do that for the existing houses out there, anyway, whether this additional subdivision is approved or not. So, I'm not sure that the issue of Hability for the subdivision is really a vaHd, stand alone issue. MR. CARTIER-To get a CO for a house that has a well, DOH has to have a water sample from each individual we11, correct? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. CARTIER-What do they test for? Okay. I'm not looking for a long Hst. What I'm looking for is, would they test for things that one might expect would be leaching out of the landfill? I know they do coliform and stuff like that, but that's. MR. NACE- They do some of the basic minerals that you would expect to come out of the landfill, and this is Ed's business. He knows better than I do. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. The answer would be, probably, they would not look for everything that we look for up at the landfill. MR. NACE-They would not look for organic, some of the more exotic organic compounds. MR. CARTIER-I'm tossing this out, here, off of the top of my head. Could we not require, as a condition of final approval of this thing, that the DOH test include some of the things that might be expected to show up, just to give these? MRS. PULVER-They may not have the testing there to do that. MR. NACE-That could be thousands of dollars per house, okay. MR. LAPOINT-POC's are about $950 a pop, Priority Organic Chemicals. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NACE-If that testing hadn't already been done in the wells around the landfill, if there were a real potential test, if we were proven to be down gradient of the landfill which, incidentally, I'm not sure we are, down gradient, groundwater level, then I think you would have a valid request there, but given the facts of the issue, I really don't think it is. 15 ---. MR. MARTIN-What I'm trying to grapple for, here, is, Number One, I mean, is this something of a concern to the point that we have to condition it somehow, and that's my, I don't see, based on the information we have now, where there's a problem. MRS. TARANA-I think that's the problem, based on the information we have now, it's not a problem. I'm just wondering, when is construction expected to start? Are lots sold at this point? MR. STEVES-No. one at a time. Mr. Harris has told me that he has people interested in buying this lot, individually, He's not selling blocks. MRS. TARANA-So, no one has purchased at this point? MR. STEVES-No, not at all. MR. CARTIER-I think you may have said this, but just for my own self, have any of the existing homes in the area has tests done on their well, for things that might be expected to show up on a landfill leachate? In other words, do we have any evidence that nothing's getting there? MR. STEVES-The Town, itself, has monitoring we11s. They also have monitoring manholes at the bottom of Cell One. I don't know of any problems there at all. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-In fact, last year when we worked on the closure of Cell One, we were told that DEC was asked to consider declassifying that Cell, that landfill. I have no idea what they've done with it. MR. CARTIER-What's the rationale for going from a II to a IV Classification. MR. LAPOINT-There's, at your property line point of compHance, the total landfill, you don't exceed any groundwater standards, thresholds. Again, I know they have off site data, down gradient. I don't know what it is off the top of my head, but I know they have it. That was part of the pubHc thing that happened just before the election, where they were passing out information on the landfill. In a Federal action, the State has an approved Super Fund type program, so any Federal thing is just going to be held in abeyance for the State. They won't move on that. Ten years ago, they did a preliminary assessment on our landfill in Schenectady and they haven't touched it since. So, that's why I'm saying decades before it would ever become a Super Fund site. MR. CARTIER-They're still monitoring wells at the Ceiba Geigy site, correct? MR. LAPOINT-They do that quarterly, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What happens, worst case scenario, what happens if red Hghts and alarms go off in one of those tests? MR. LAPOINT-If that starts leaking, then they have an issue. That's a retro closure. There's four or five different statutes that are all layered on top. The Ceiba Geigy landfill is what's called a Corrective Action Management Unit. It's a retro landfill under a whole different set of statutes, as opposed to the Queensbury Municipal landfill. MR. CARTIER-So, if that starts leaking, who's responsible for paying for it? MR. LAPOINT-Ceiba Geigy. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-And the idea that the Town, if there were a problem with our own landfill, that the Town would get any Federal money at all, would be absolutely absurd, not a cent. MR. LAURICElLA- I have one cOlJIIIent. The res i dents were here at previous meetings, and that was never an issue brought up by them. MRS. PULVER-No. They were just concerned with lot lines and property lines. MRS. TARANA-I don't know that they were aware there was a study being done to determine whether or not. MR. LAURICELLA-No, but I mean, they didn't say anything about their water at the time. MRS. TARANA-Not at the time, no. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. 16 -- -- MR. MARTIN-Okay. Do you want to try a motion of approval, or does anybody want to offer a motion? MR. CARTIER-Just to go back to one other question, that if something did show up on one of those wells, would the public in the immediate area be notified? Is there anything in the law that requires pubHc notification? MR. LAPOINT-If there were anything in those wells, it would probably be from a previous septic tank clean out of adjacent property owners wells, back when they used. Monitoring well? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. CARTIER-There's nothing that requires public notification of something like that? MR. LAPOINT-I don't believe so, no. MR. CARTIER-Well, we've got a caveat emptor problem here I guess, situation. I'll make a motion. I don't know where to go with this. MR. MARTIN-See, that's the thing. I understand, I think there may be the potential there, but we have nothing to substantiate it, and therefore. MR. CARTIER-It's kind of like, the police don't come out until the crime's committed, is the situation we're confronted with, I think, here, bad analogy. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1992 AZURE PARK, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For a 13 lot subdivision of land for single family residences, as per submission by the applicant. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. lauricella, Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: Mrs. Tarana (8:42 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-5A DEBRA ROBINSON SOMERVILLE OߌR: SAME AS ABOVE OLD WEST MOOITAIN ROAD TO PLACE THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THREE lOTS ONE lOT TO BE SOLD. THE REMINING lVO LOTS TO BE FOR THE HEIRS. TAX MP NO. 32-1-31.1 LOT SIZE: + 95 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIV. REGULATIONS lEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:42 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 6-1992, Debra Robinson Somerville - Final Stage, May 11, 1992, Meeting Date: May 19, 1992 "If there are no outstanding engineering comments the staff recommends final approval. II MRS. YORK-I have to ask, since I was not available at the last meeting, I understand that there were changes made and they were in conformance with engineering comments? MR. STEVES-All I can tell you is that the changes have been made, so it's been cut to a two lot subdivision, and also that we have changed the concept of septic from drywe11s to tile fields, and I sent that over to Tom Monday morning. I have no comment. MR. LAURICELLA-Why did you go from three to two? MR. STEVES-The engineer said that the site itself is very restrictive, as far as slopes are concerned. I realized that as the proposed drywells because I can get a cover on that, but I guess there's something in the Code that says that they shouldn't be used at all. He prefers tile fields. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You had to go to two lots to accommodate the size needed for a tile field, right, the dimensions required? MR. STEVES-No, for the slopes. MR. MARTIN-For the slopes. Okay. Well, the slopes being the limiting factor on your available room? MR. STEVES-That's right. 17 --- MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, that was the reasoning. MRS. YORK-I have not received any comments from the engineer. I have to make an assumption that this is in line with his thinking at the time. MR. STEVES-Yes, I have not heard back from him. As I say, I sent it over to him Monday morning. MRS. YORK-Okay. That's why I brought it up. I just wanted to make sure that, since I was not present here, that was the way things went. MR. CARTIER-My recollection was, we got it resolved that night. It was just a matter of getting it on paper and submitted, correct? MR. STEVES-Yes. Not hearing anything, I assume that's correct. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We've already done the SEQRA on this, so we can entertain a motion, there being no other discussion. MR. BREWER-The only other thing, Jim, Mark Brilling was here about the runoff for the logging. That was the only other thing that was brought up at the meeting. I don't know if there's any way we can have that controlled or not. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I remember that, now. MR. CARTIER-Something to the effect that any logging done on the property will not negatively impact drainage onto the road. MR. MARTIN-Right. I think that's exactly the way you want to phrase it, in the context of a stipulation of a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1992 DEBRA ROBINSON SOMERVIlLE, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To place two residential units on two lots, as submitted, with the following stipulation: That any logging done on the property be done in such a way that drainage effects from that logging do not negatively impact the road or adjoining property owners. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. lauricella, Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (8:48 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 17-92 TYPE II WR-lA TIM BARBER OߌR: CHARLES BARBER ROCICIIJRST RMD, CLEVERDALE TO CONSTRUCT A U-SHAPED DOCK ON +53 FT. OF LAICE FRONTAGE. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 15-1-44 LOT SIZE: 3.816 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16 TIM BARBER, PRESENT (8:48 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 17-92, Timothy Barber for Charles Barber, May 4, 1992, Meeting Date: May 19, 1992 "The applicant is requesting a site plan review for construction of a U-shaped dock. The Zoning Administrator referral sheet is attached. A review of the records indicates that a variance for the 20 foot setbacks from the neighbors property lines was applied for and received on April 22 (resolution attached). The assessment records indicate two docks on the property which are each 3 feet by 29 feet, totaling 87 square feet. A site visit revealed a concrete dock abutment which attached the two legs which could be construed as a U-shaped dock. The scale on the plan submitted is 1 inch equals 10 feet, however, this is not accurate when measurements on the plan are made. The staff has used the measurements presented and found that the western leg of the dock will be 380 sq. ft. (8 x 40), the central portion will be 60 sq. ft. (4 x 16), and the eastern leg will be 249 sq. ft. (6 x 40), totalling 620 sq. ft. This is a substantial enlargement on a shorefront of 53 feet. The purpose of the WR-1A zone is to protect the delicate ecological balance of all lakes and the Hudson River while providing adequate opportunities for development that would not be detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline. The applicant indicates that the desire is to remove the old docks presently on the .09 acres (53' by 66') and construct a U-shaped dock at a more central location on the property. The applicant would have the ability to simply restore what is in existence. The proposed dock will take up 29 feet of the 53 foot shoreline. This is a critical environmental area. The issue appears to be would this be "detrimental to the visual character of the shoreline". The staff has contacted 18 '-- -..../ the lake George Park Commission who will also be a permitting agency for this project. The Commission has requested the plans and indicated that they will comment, although it is not required under SEQRA. This project was reviewed with regard to the criteria for site plan review: 1. The site is small and the existing dock is in need of repair. The expansion of 533 sq. ft. (from 87 sq. ft. existing to 620 sq. ft. proposed) appears excessive for a lot with 53 feet of shoreline. This area was developed with small cabanas and has over the years been utilized to a greater and greater extent. The site will only contain 24 feet of unused shoreline upon completion of the proposed project. The other properties in the neighborhood have shore frontages ranging from 35 feet to 70 feet, the majority being + 50 feet. The Board has to assess the big picture and decide if this expansion is reasonable for the neighborhood. The long range impacts would be the proliferation of docks of this size along the entire shoreline. 2. Vehicular access is not an issue. 3. off street parking is not an issue. 4. Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5. Adequacy of water and sewer facilities are not an issue. 6. Storm water management is not an issue. 7. Visual impacts may be an issue the Board wishes to discuss. 8. Fire and emergency access is not an issue. 9. The Board should discuss the materials and protective devices which will be utilized during construction." MRS. YORK-I attached the Zoning determination on this, and the applicant has indicated to me that there is some information regarding this site plan that has changed, and he would like an opportunity to express it to you. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and we have a copy of the motion from the Zoning Board of Appeals attached, as well, with a Tax Map of the property, and it appears that we were at the right place for our site visit, and we also have the Planning and Zoning Referral Sheet for your review. Do we have someone here from the applicant? MR. BARBER-My name is Tim Barber. I just feel that the review misrepresents the existing size of the dock. The size that is there now, the endings of the dock have a 6 by 8, again, with the concrete abutments, there's a 6 by 8 pier at each end that adds to the length and adds to the width of the dock. We went for our Area Variance, and we came to the agreement that we would, we shrunk the project down by 150 square feet, and instead of having an 8 by 40 dock and a 6 by 40 foot dock, we're going with two 6 by 40 docks and setting them on the property. MR. MARTIN-So, you originally proposed, is it still U-shaped? MR. BARBER-Yes, it is. MR. MARTIN-And it's interconnected in the center? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-So, you have one leg that's 6 by 40 and the other one that is 6 by 40. MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And it was, originally, one leg was going to be 8 by 40. MR. BARBER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-So, you're taking two feet off the width of one? MR. BARBER-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BARBER-What the existing structure is, it's approximately two feet off the north property line, and what we propose is to take the structure, move it in the center of the property. I need the slip a little bit wider. The slip in the middle now is roughly 13 feet. I need 15 feet in the center, therefore widening the U part a little bit. I need the extra length. MR. CARTIER-Can I ask why you need 15 in the middle? MR. BARBER-For a boat. MR. CARTIER-One boat? MR. BARBER-One boat. MR. CARTIER-What is the size of this boat? MR. BARBER-It's a 12 foot beam. That's not uncommonly big. MR. MARTIN-How many feet long is it? 19 --" '-- MR. BARBER-It's 38, and then there's a deck on it. MR. CARTIER-We're going to have a 38 foot boat docked on a 53 foot shoreline? MR. BARBER-There's many of them. The picture you're getting is a cabin cruiser. This is a low profile boat. MR. MARTIN-Jet boat, like. MR. BARBER-No, it's not a jet boat. It's a Formula. MRS. YORK-Mr. Barber, could you explain, on your plan, what has changed. I don't think the Board is aware of what you told me earlier, regarding this plan. MR. CARTIER-What I understand, from what you said, is what is Hsted as an 8 by 40 is going to be a 6 by 40. MR. BARBER-Correct. MR. CARTIER-And the other side's going to be a 6 by 40, correct? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-So, this is now going to be ~ feet. MR. BARBER-No. This is going to be 13 feet, and this is going to be 13 feet. MR. CARTIER-You're going to move the whole thing. MR. BARBER-The reason we did not submit another plan is this was submitted by our estimator, at the time that we submitted for the Area Variance, and in talking with the Zoning Administrator, this was supposed to be all informed. I felt no problem with it. MR. LAURICELLA-Is that right? MRS. YORK-Yes. My understanding from Mr. Barber is after he received his variance, the plan changed at the variance hearing, which I guess you are hearing. He's explaining to you the change. Unfortunately, he never submitted a revised site plan to me, to the planning. So, you are seeing a plan that is not actually descriptive of what he is proposing, and I want the Board to be aware of that. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. as the variance he received. He's gotten a variance for something, and the appHcation is not the same Is that correct? MRS. YORK-That is correct. That is what I'm saying to you. MR. CARTIER-Procedurally, does that mean this thing has to go back to the Zoning Board? MRS. YORK-No, it does not, but any approval you give has got to be consistent with the Zoning Board's approva I. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Now, the slip is 13 feet wide? MR. BARBER-The slip remains 15, yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay, 15 feet. MR. BARBER-This dock will become six, therefore, giving this property line an easement of 13 feet instead of II, which they gave us the Area Variance for. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I see. MR. BARBER-That's a foot and a half on each side. A normal boat is an eight to twelve foot beam, and there's many twelve foot beam boats on there. If you go up and down those shores, that is the average dock. Our neighbor two over has the same dock, with a shelf roof. MRS. YORK~Mr. Barber, I just have to tell you this now. In the future, you have to submit a new plan, okay, with correct dimensions on it. MR. BARBER-Yes. I was not aware of that. The Area Variance went through, and this was just another stumbling block. 20 ----- -----' MR. CARTIER-And secondly, Mr. Barber, I would request that your directions to your sites be much more specific. This is the second one we've had problems finding. So, if we could get much more specific. MR. BARBER-We'll get more specific. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-All right. Does everybody have a clear view, now, of what the changes are and what the actual configuration is? MR. BARBER-Can I state, once again, that the original dock is very similar in size to this dock, as you've all seen. MR. CARTIER-But it's not 40 feet long. MR. BARBER-It's 38 feet long. MR. BREWER-Boy, that didn't look 38 feet to me. MR. BARBER-One of the docks is 37 and change, and the one is 38. is my grandparents, and we built that, two, two and a half years ago. The neighboring dock to the north That is 40 feet. MR. BREWER-Those existing concrete slabs are 30 feet long? MR. BARBER-No. The concrete is about 28 and a half, 29 feet, then the dock, there's a wood pier at the end. It's falling in the water. MR. CARTIER-The only question I have, are there any plans to build a deck over this dock? MR. BARBER-No. MR. CARTIER-Would you have any problems with a stipulation in the motion that no deck be permitted? MR. BARBER-No, sir, that would be fine. MRS. YORK-This Board also has to stipulate that the applicant go to Warren County. I don't know if you were aware of it, because of unforeseen circumstances, the County had to change their meeting until tomorrow night. So, even though you do not like to give contingent approvals, in this very unique case this evening, I don't see that there's any way around it. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, we've heard from the applicant. lets open the public hearing and see if we have anyone hear who wishes to address the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JERRY BRENT MR. BRENT-Good evening everyone. My name is Jerry Brent. My mother owns the property adjacent to the property that they're looking to expand their dock. MR. CARTIER-North or south? ELAINE PRAGEN MRS. PRAGEN-We're south. MR. BRENT-Just to put things in perspective, we've been in that location for 37 years, and I'm very familiar with the dock that Mr. Barber's speaking about. The dock originally, as you've seen, was set up. It's a very small dock. It used to be covered by an aluminum thing, for an old wooden 19 foot boat that was docked in between it. It's really not a U shaped dock. It was just a covered dock, originally. MR. CARTIER-What's important is the new one will be. MR. BRENT-That's neither here nor there, but that's what the dock was originally for. The length of the dock is 29 feet. It does have, I have some pictures I'd like to show you afterwards, a little decking on it. I guess Mr. Barber's adding on, the way the deck goes into the side to get up to 39 feet. I don't know, but it only extends 29 feet out, and it's a three foot wide concrete slab, which he's looking to turn into from three to six, and double the width there, and go from 29 to 40 feet out. There's a few notes I'd like to just refer to, just so I don't forget anything. This is a very large boat they're looking at putting in there. In addition to the boat, he has a sailboat, a seaplane, a row boat, a pontoon with two moorings out into the lake, as well, which I don't know whether or not 21 he has a right to do that, but, in front of the dock as well. We're very concerned about our view, the things we've had to look at, that there's always a plane, or a, or a sailboat, and we have pictures of that as well. One very important thing is that, if he decides to dock a boat on the side of the area, if this is approved, this size, it's going to interfere with our right-of-way of getting in. The way our docks are set up right now, there's very small lake front areas. Almost everyone on the whole slip has single docks that they park their little 18 to 20 foot boat on one side, then they swim on the other side. This would prevent us from doing our normal everyday things. We're in the process of rebuilding our dock, as a matter of fact. We would like to make the comment that, of course, we want Mr. Barber to fix his dock. We want him to have the dock. We think everybody has a right to the water, but we just don't think they have a right to the whole water. That we'd like to have our affair right of water frontage and not be interfered with by multiple boats and multiple docking next to us. One thing that we're confused about right now, we're going through all this process. We're not intending on leaving. We hope to be there another 37 years. The Barber's house is now up for sale. We're trying to figure out, okay, why are we going through all this process and building this huge, for each dock, if the property is going to be sold, and if the property isn't sold, we're concerned about, is this going to become a marina, is he going to rent out boat space? We don't know. We have our own private area. These are things we're very concerned about. If I could, I'd just like to present a few pictures to the Board? MR. MARTIN-Sure. MR. BRENT-From our property, this is the deck we have right now, that we're going to be rebuilding our dock. These are two of the moorings that are out in front. This is their property, next door to his, the mooring that they tie the sailboats to, or whatever they're tying the sailboats to at that time. MR. CARTIER-Is that mooring out in front of your property? MR. BARBER-No, it's not. MR. BRENT-Well, if it's not, it's real close, but I can't define this. This is a picture from the side view. This is our dock that fell into the lake, here. This is their sailboat docked from one of those moorings right next to our dock. This is a lakefront view of the property. This is our property, here, this small bungalow here. This is the dock that did exist, that's straight out. This is their property here. You can see this birch tree pretty much designates where the property line is. They happen to have, whatever it is, a pontoon sailboat or a catamaran, or whatever that thing is, docked there, and their one little dock had fallen in, or whatever, 1'm really not sure. This is a picture of their existing dock. This is the little side docks that come off to the side, that he's referring to, that are falling in. As you can see, this is a small 3 by 29 foot dock, that they used to slip a little wooden laker boat or something like that into it. We used to know the people that owned the property, and this is just a shot down the south side of the lake to show you that typical docks that everybody has are simple straight dock that you dock a normal sized boat to, and we just feel that it's going to change the character. MRS. PRAGEN-I'm Elaine Pragen. I'm the owner of the property south of Mr. Barber. The problem is, when we built our dock, again, we need the current to bring the boat in to the north of the left side of the dock. Do you know where the stairs are, that's where our dock is going to be. In the initial picture you'll be able to see. This is where we had our dock before it caved in last SUl1ll1er, and in order for us to come around, if he has the seaplane and the boat and whatever, we're not going to be able to get through, because we'll only have about five to six feet to get around that whole area to get the boat in, and we're going to have a problem then. MR. CARTIER-I don't understand, five or six feet between what and what? MR. BRENT-Originally, I believe the law, whatever the variance, I believe you have to get a variance from the property line to the dock, it's a 20 foot margin. He got a variance for 13 feet away. Okay. So, if he's II feet away from our property line, he's talking about putting a big boat in the middle, but if he decides to dock a boat on the side next to our camp, and ~ have a camp there, there is going to be a very dangerous situation there. MR. BARBER-So, is your dock going to be exactly on the property line? MRS. PRAGEN-Where is was before, for the past 37 years. MR. BARBER-We don't have plans for that, and we'll be dealing with that. MR. CARTIER-In other words, the location of the dock as you had, that used to be there, that is no longer there, was not 20 feet from your property line, correct? MRS. PRAGEN-That I don't know. It was my father's. MR. BRENT-It was done 30 years ago. 22 -- MR. BARBER-It was 12 to 13 feet, sir. MR. CARTIER-It was 12 to 13 feet from the property line? Now, in order for them to rebuild that dock. MRS. PRAGEN-They have to do it within 18 months. MR. CARTIER-Within 18 months of the time that it fell apart. MR. BRENT-At the same location, correct? MRS. PRAGEN-Right, to be able to do it at the same location. MR. CARTIER-Without having to go through a variance? MRS. PRAGEN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BRENT-What our basic concern is, and I'd just like to say this again, is that we're not looking at replacing a dock. They seem to be saying it's the same dimensions. We're looking at a huge dock, with a 38 foot boat. I think it's great that they do. I think it's great that they have a seaplane. I think all those things are great, but we're talking about the aesthetics of the property. We're talking about going up there for umpteen years. They've been there for one year or two years, whatever, to go out and sit in our front lawn and look out at the mountain in front of, with the trees. We're not talking about looking at a plane or a huge boat, and all the other things involved, multiple boats, gas in the water when we're trying to swim. Who knows. I'm not an environmental person. I don't know, but I think they should have the right to replace their dock. I'm just very, very concerned. Every year we see something new popping up. Now we're talking about a 38 foot boat. Next year it was a seaplane. We don't know what else is going to happen. There was two moorings that appeared last year. Are there going to be more moorings? Are they supposed to be there to begin with? I don't know, but we're just very concerned about the changing environment, what's happening. The lake has changed so much. You can't go out in your own boat on the weekend because there's so many people, and we're just, I guess we're used to things the way they used to be, and I know things change, but I think things need to change with relative conservatism. I think they need to look at, you can make minor changes here and there, but I think you have to consider, these are small little camps. They're not $400,000 homes with 200 foot lakefront properties where you can afford to have big boats and planes. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you for your time. MRS. YORK-If I could just interject for one moment, if you plan to rebuild your dock, get a building permit within 18 months of the time the dock is no longer, is in disrepair, or you will lose those rights to rebuild it. MR. CARTIER-In that place. MRS. YORK-In that location. MR. CARTIER-Unless you come back and go through the variance process. MR. BRENT-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but you don't have to call that dock non-functional, right? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. LAPOINT-So, don't feel pressured by that. I think that can be a bit ridiculous. MRS. YORK-Okay. Well, I just wanted them to be aware. MR. LAPOINT-Just don't call it non-functional. It's a functional dock now. MR. CARTIER-Well, the point is, somebody could go up there an challenge him. MRS. PUlVER-I have a question, did you have an opportunity to speak, at all, before the Zoning Board, when he went to get his variance? MRS. PRAGEN-I was here. MRS. PULVER-And did you explain the difficulties that you would have with the 13 feet, by the Zoning Board? MRS. PRAGEN-Yes, we did. My youngest son was there. 23 -----' MR. CARTIER-Mr. Barber, can I ask some questions? Number One, is the 38 foot boat owned by somebody who lives at that place? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Is the airplane owned by someone who lives at that residence? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Is the sailboat owned by someone who lives at that residence? MR. BARBER-That will not be there. That is going. MR. CARTIER-Was it owned by somebody who lived there? MR. BARBER-Yes, it was. MR. CARTIER-How about the two moorings, assuming there are two boats. MR. MARTIN-First of all, the two moorings are not allowed by the Ordinance. Number of private moorings allowed, and I'm reading from Page 18025 of the Ordinance, The number of private moorings allowed per residentially used lakefront lot is limited as follows, 100 or less feet as one mooring, 101 to 250 is two moorings, 251 to 500 is three. Moorings shall be placed so that vessels moored to them at full swing of their mooring or anchor line will be no closer than 20 feet to the projection of the property lines extended into the lake, a long the axis of the property lines as they intersect the lake and the line extended at right angle to the mean highwater mark. So, it just appears the sailboat's too close, in this picture, bottom line, and if we're seeing two moorings, here, only one is allowed. So, this is for your future reference, and if you have a problem with that in the future, a call to the Code Enforcement Office can be made, and somebody will be up there. MR. CARTIER-Well, on a 53 foot piece of property, I wonder if you could have one mooring and put it in such a way that it'll meet the rest of this section you just read for us. MRS. PULVER-Yes, 20 feet to the projection of the property line extended to the lake along the axis of the property. Yes, it doesn't. MR. MARTIN-See, now, I think you need an interpretation as to what part of the Ordinance overrides, meaning Section B, there, which allows you the one on 100 feet or less, or Section C, which would give you that calculation. That would need an interpretation. MR. CARTIER-Fast math looks like you could put a mooring out there and have a three foot boat on it. MR. BARBER-This is a 40 foot dock, built, I believe, two years prior, by myself. This dock, here, from here to here is 29 feet, okay. Then the projections that were not in the minutes are these here, which add to the feet. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but it goes off to the side. MR. BARBER-It goes up further, also. From here to this point, the concrete is 29 feet. MR. MARTIN-And what is it from this point to this point? MR. BARBER-Six feet, or, excuse me, eight feet, and six this way. It's two feet shorter. This one's 38 and this one is 37 and high change. What we're basically doing is, as I've said, we're moving that structure to the side of the property, widening it by two feet, which our Area Variance is allowing us, and going out two feet. MR. LAURICELLA-But you're putting in two docks, where you only had one before. MR. BARBER-No. We had two docks before. MR. CARTIER-They are actually separated. MR. MARTIN-Technically, there are two docks, because there's no interconnecting structure. There's two docks that just jut out straight from the shoreline. MR. BARBER-No, that's a misinterpretation. They do adjoin. The concrete is one solid mass, it goes a 11 the way back. As the three foot docks come back, they come off the hypotenuse and join in the center. MR. CARTIER-Under the tree? 24 '- MR. BARBER-Yes, under that tree. Also, there was a three and a half to four foot planked area that's rotted away in the middle. We had a steel cover there before. MR. CARTIER-Is the property, in fact, for sale? MR. BARBER-Every thing's for sale. MR. MARTIN-Yes, we saw the For Sale sign. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What's the rationale behind building a dock, if it's for sale? MR. BARBER-If I could get my price, I'd sell everything. MR. CARTIER-If it's for sale, what's the point of building a dock this big? MR. BARBER-I don't think I'll get my price. I have a price on that house. We have a price on the house up north. As I said, there's a price on my company. MR. CARTIER-I still don't understand what you're telling me. My question is, if the house is for sale, why build such a big dock? MR. BARBER-Because if someone's crazy enough to come along and give me the price I want for the place, I'll go up shore. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BARBER-We remodeled the whole place. We took it from a dump, made it into a nice, it could be used as a year round. The dock structure, I don't believe, if you look to the north, almost everyone down the whole north side, which encompasses three quarters of the point, all have two docks, and they all have boat-houses, of this size and larger. The second house to the north of us has two 8 by 40's with a shelter. Skip over one, he has one single dock. The next person after that has two 8 by 40's with an enclosed shelter, and it keeps going like that, and there's a new dock that just went in up the point, that is a U-shaped, that's bigger than this size, but I don't think the point is that we're trying to construct a monster, here. We have the size of this structure, and what we're trying to add to it is minimal to bring it over to the center, we already have, over to the one side, and we're just trying to center it up. MR. LAPOINT-You had started to talk, earlier, about how lee's sizing was incorrect. It's only 87 square feet, now? MR. BARBER-Yes. The sizing on that, on the planning right up there is wrong. What they sized, with the concrete abutments going out, they left out the piers, the wooden piers at the end, and they left out the concrete that comes across and there was a walkway, of three feet. The concrete joins in the middle, and then where those two hypotenuses meet, they decked it over with, it was about three and a half feet of. MRS. YORK-Mr. Barber, let me just say, this is what you've been paying taxes on. This is what the assessment records state. MR. LAPOINT-So, the 87 feet is not what exists there now? MR. BARBER-Someone didn't do their job. MR. LAPOINT-So, the new addition is definitely 620 square feet. MR. BARBER-No, it's not. It's minus 150. MR. LAPOINT-Minus 150. What's that come to, 470? MR. BARBER-Yes. Again, I did not come prepared for this, because of similarity in size, I didn't feel the need for bringing my documents. MR. CARTIER-Where do you tie the seaplane up, at one of the moorings? MR. BARBER-Yes. That also win not be there. That's, we have a home in long lake. That's not even really an issue, but that will not be there. MR. MARTIN-I gave you the benefit of just simply not knowing the Ordinance, but the way 1 see it, here, you had even three moorings including this catamaran on the shoreline. MR. BARBER-Yes. That was prior to any of the seaplane, that was years ago. 25 -.. -- MR. MARTIN-Yes. We saw the ramps there. MR. BARBER-That will be thrown away. MR. CARTIER-So, you would have no problem with a stipulation that said, no seaplane will be moored from the problem? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-You would have no problem with a stipulation that said there will be no onshore storage of boats? MR. BARBER-We would have no problem, except, in the winter time, in our parking space that's between our grandparents and ours, we do, sometimes store winter storage. MR. CARTIER-I'm referring to, on the shoreline itself. MR. BARBER-Yes, there'll be no summer time, except for an occasional sailboard. MR. MARTIN-And I really do think you need an interpretation. I don't know whether, given what I read in the Ordinance, here, if this site can support any moorings. It depends on which Section of the Ordinance your willing to give more weight to. MR. BARBER-As I said, those moorings are not there any more. MR. BREWER-They were there two weeks ago when we were there, or a week ago. last Tuesday they were there. MR. BARBER-Yes. They're not there now. He's not putting the plane there. He's not putting the sailboat there, and he's taking both items north. MR. MARTIN-And we will definitely stipulate that this dock is to be used by only boats that are owned by people who own that residence. MR. BARBER-Yes. We're not trying to run a marina. We enjoy our privacy, too. We don't rent a camp. MRS. PULVER-Mr. Barber, how many square feet did you say your dock was? MR. BARBER-The dock that.!! there? MRS. PULVER-No, the new dock. MR. BARBER-The new dock, the two docks will be 6 by 40, and the middle will be 4 by 15. MRS. PULVER-So, 540 square feet. MR. BARBER-And the existing structure is just under that. MR. BRENT-Okay. There's been a lot of little bits, and, it used to be that way, but it's not this way now. I'm just concerned about these things. There's a lot of things that they've said that they've had there but are not going to be there. The moorings were there this weekend, and now they're not there now. I think, knowing the opposition we have about this dock, there's certain sizes that they're not right. They should have been right, but this is the way they are now, and the new dock's just a little bit bigger than the old dock. I think it's his responsibility to have the exact size and everything to you people. Some of you people on the Board that saw that dock, if you think that dock is a little bit smaller than this dock that he proposes, I didn't get out there and measure with a tape measure, but we're talking about three foot pylons and six foot pylons. We're talking about, I don't know what it was in between, and now li feet in between. That dock could not hold a 38 foot boat. MR. CARTIER-I want you to do this Board a favor and do yourself a favor, and get in touch with your Town Board Ward person, who I believe is Betty. There's a glitch in the Ordinance, okay. This has been hanging fire for I don't know how long. Single docks, there are all kinds of stipulations as to size. When it comes to a U-shaped dock, there's nothing. There's nothing stipulating a size. That has to be changed. Otherwise, as soon as everybody catches on to this, we're going to get inundated with U-shaped docks, because there's no limits on the size they can be. MR. BRENT-Yes, but that concerns me, and now that they're granting variances. MR. CARTIER-I'll tell you something. Three years ago, I wrote an Ordinance. That's buried somewhere. I have no idea where it is. I brought it up to the Town Board before. It's a glitch. It's got to get addressed, and if it doesn't get addressed, apparently, coming from a Planning Board member it doesn't go anywhere. 26 ---../ MRS. YORK-Yes, I also have brought it up to the Town Board when we've had workshops on changes to the Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-They need to hear that. They need to keep hearing it. MR. BRENT-Okay. I'd like to ask, as well, things about seaplane, things about the mooring. I would request that no docks are docked off the south side of the dock, or whatever it is. They've got a variance for 13 feet. MR. CARTIER-He's got a legal right to do that. He's got a legal right to put a boat there, and, again, this is a problem with a U-shaped dock. legally, he can put three boats there, one on the north, one on the south, one in the middle. MR. MARTIN-It says, no docks shall be constructed so as to interfere with normal navigation or reasonable access to adjacent wharves. So, we're kind of limited by what the Zoning Board of Appeals has done, here, in terms of allowing this size of a dock in this particular shoreline dimension. I think you'll have reasonable access. I think that'll be maintained. MR. CARTIER-If you don't, if you have problems with navigation, that becomes an enforcement issue, and you can come to the Building and Codes Department. MR. MARTIN-At least we can clear up the mooring issue for you. Clearly, you can't have two moorings out there like that. I question if maybe you can have any, given the dimensions of this lot. MR. BRENT-What would we do to see if any moorings were legal to be there? MR. CARTIER-I'm going to request that the Building and Codes Department look into that, in the motion, but that would certainly be appropriate for you to also look into. MR. BRENT-Thank you. MR. BARBER-May I also add that sizes and shapes were all quite prevalent when we went through the Area Variance. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think we'll put it in ours, as well. I think that would be wise for us to tie this right down in the motion, given the fact that we don't have an accurate site plan. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anyone else from the public who wishes to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING ClOSED MR. MARTIN-It's a Type II. So, we don't need SEQRA. All right. Is there any more discussion from the Boa rd? MRS. TARANA-I guess, coming from Warren County Planning Board, and knowing that docks are their bag, they're into docks. I would like to have this go to Warren County. MR. CARTIER-It has to. MRS. TARANA-I'll just go on record, prior to our vote. What sense is there in sending it to Warren County after our vote? All they're going to say is we agree with the Town. MR. CARTIER-I think, in this case, it's because of a change in the date of the Warren County Planning Board meeting, is that correct? MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. CARTIER-Well, maybe this addresses what you're talking about, what I have for a potential motion is that the application be submitted to and approved by Warren County Planning. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Does that take care of what you're talking about? MRS. TARANA-Yes. I really think they should have an opportunity to address this. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It has to get their approval. MRS. YORK-Mr. Barber, I would also suggest that you have an accurate drawing tomorrow night. 27 -- -- 'i;'.. BARBER-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAii NO. 17-92 TIM BARBER, Introduced by Peter Cartier \¡ho moved for its adoption, seconded by James lauricella: To construct a U-shaped dock, consisting of two 6 by 40 legs, separated by 15 feet and 13 feet from each property line, with the following stipulations: One, that no deck be constructed above the dock. Two, that the application be submitted to and approved by Warren County Planning Board. Three, request that the Building and Codes Department look into the legality of the number of moorings in front of the property. Four, that no sea plane be moored off shore. Five, no shoreline storage of boats be permitted. Six, that the docks constructed to be used only by the residents of the property, and that appropriate erosion and sediment controls be instituted in the construction of the dock. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: MR. BARBER-We are grandfathered, per lake George Park Commission, if we want to land our sea plane at the residence. We're not going to moor it. We do have a right to tie it at the end of the dock, if we're their for a couple of hours. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I can revise that, no sea plane to be moored permanently at or off shore of the property. MR. BREWER-Well, what's permanent? If you put it there permanently, it would be froze in in the wintertime. MR. BARBER-Yes, mooring, I would say. If I fly in for overnight and put it at the end of my dock. That's .!!!lliability. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm looking at a massive use of a 53 foot strip of property. MR. BARBER-Well, if you go up and look at the property. MR. CARTIER-Yes, we've been up to the property. MR. BARBER-I can't argue with that, but I'm saying, I fought for my right to keep that plane there. We had had it in there before lake George started to come out with their stipulations, and I'm not going to give up that right, if I want to fly into that property. MR. CARTIER-Well, I asked you a few minutes ago if you had an objection to a stipulation. MR. BARBER-You said, mooring, sir. MR. CARTIER-That's what I'm saying. MR. BARBER-You also said, we're not to moor the boat or sea plane on a buoy. MRS. PULVER-He's talking about tying it to his dock and stuff, which he says he's entitled to do, which, if he puts that there, then he has one less boat. I mean, how many things can you tie to the. MR. BARBER-What I'm saying is if the boat's not there, and I wanted to fly in and stay overnight, that I already have the approval to tie it. MR. BREWER-But the stipulation that Pete said is, no plane to be moored. MR. BARBER-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-Mooring is different than docking. MR. BARBER-Exactly. MR. CARTIER-I'm uncomfortable with it, but I'll accept the grandfather argument, but I will stick to not mooring the thing off shore. That may be moot anyway, because there may be some questions. MR. MARTIN-Mooring has more of a potential impact, in that it's farther out into the water. MRS. PRAGEN-I attended the Warren County Board meeting. Is that the one behind the lake George High Schoo 11 MRS. YORK-I think you attended the Park Commission. MRS. PRAGEN-Okay, the Park Commission, and his father wanted permission to berth the sea plane, and I talked to them for about a good 30 minutes, and they tabled the problem, and they said they would let me know, if and when they decide. Well, I haven't heard anything about it. So, how can he? 28 ~ ---" MR. CARTIER-I don't know. That's a question to ask the lake George Park Commission, because what he's saying is that he's got permission from them. So, they're the governing agency of that. MR. MARTIN-We would have no knowledge of that. MR. CARTIER-We don't have any authority there, in that case. You certainly have a right to ca11 them up and find out what's up. MRS. PRAGEN-And it's the lake George Park Commission? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PRAGEN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Mr. White, I believe, is the Director's name. AYES: Mr. lauricella, Mr. Cartier NOES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver MR. MARTIN-It's denied. MRS. YORK-Mr. Barber, you no longer have to go to the Warren County Planning Board meeting tomorrow night. MR. LAPOINT-But you should go with an accurate plan and get their approval, and then come back, correct? MR. MARTIN-He can always come back. MR. LAPOINT-Don't come back here with the same plan. Make it correct. MRS. PULVER-Mr. Barber, I want you to know that I abstained from voting because I could not find your place, and I was up and down the road, and I wasn't quite sure what I was looking at, and since I didn't actua11y get out and visually walk the property, I didn't feel that I could vote on it, and that's why I abstained. (9:33 p.m.) (END OF FIRST DISK) 29 -- SITE PLAN NO. 18-92 TYPE I lIR-lA LIONEL BARTHOLD (lINER: BARTHOLD ASSOCIATES LOCKHART lOOP, OFF RooTE 9l EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING EXTENSION OF A 180 SQ. FT. AT MSTER BEDROOM ON EAST SIDE OF HOOSE AND EXTENSION OF 950 SQ. FT. FOR LIVING AT WEST END. (IIARREN coom PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 1-1-34 LOT SIZE: 2.36 ACRES SECTION: 179-79 llONEl BARTHOLD, PRESENT (9:33 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 13-92, lionel Barthold, May 18, 1992, Meeting Date: May 19, 1992 "The applicant is requesting site plan review for an expansion of a residence on lockhart loop within the Critical Environmental Area. The assessment records indicate that the square footage of the current structure is 2,043 with a finished recreation room that brings the total sq. ft. of living area to 2,855. The proposed expansion is 1,130 sq. ft. The total size of the proposed house will be 3,985 sq. ft. The assessment records show that the structure was rebuilt in 1978 because of a fire. The application states that the expansion will be on existing stone foundations. Storm water should not be increased. A new septic system is anticipated. The application indicates that as wen as the bedroom and great room addition there will be a lavatory added to the barn. The design criteria indicates that there will be 5 bedrooms and 4-5 bathrooms. The application states that water saving devices will be utilized. The applicant received a side line and shoreline setback variance on April 22, 1992. As the attached Zoning Board motion states the property is extremely steep. This application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for site plan review. 1. The location arrangement of the addition is consistent with the existing structure. The concerns relate to the Comprehensive land Use Plan which seeks to limit continued expansions along lake George. The potential change of use of the barn should be discussed. 2. Vehicular access is from Route 9l and is adequate. 3. Parking and loading are not an issue. 4. Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5. Storm water drainage should be discussed even though drainage should not be changing. The Board should make every attempt to improve situations in CEA's whenever possible. 6. Water is from the lake and a new septic system is anticipated. 7. Buffering is not an issue. 8. Emergency access is provided for via Route 91. 9. Erosion control standards per Section 179-65 should be strictly adhered to." MR. MARTIN-Okay, and we have the motion, again, from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Planning and Zoning Referral sheet. Okay. Is there someone here from the applicant? MR. BARTHOLD-I'm the applicant, lionel Barthold. I have a model and I have photographs and I can give you a brief history of it, whatever you think would be useful. MR. MARTIN-The model might be useful. You can set it right up here. MR. BARTHOLD-That's the way it faces the lake. This was all original foundation, and the additions bring the house back to about where it was when it burned, in the 60's. MR. MARTIN-We couldn't even tell there was a fire there. MR. BARTHOLD-Well, we bought the house in '76, rebuilt it in '78. It was complete ruins. There was nothing but the stonework, and we rebuilt it smaller than the original house. This just about takes it back to where it was. It was built by my first wife and I, as a second home, and it's been winterized very nice. It's also got a lot of built ins and chopped up space. So, there's really not much room for furniture or anything, because it was a second house. My wife died in '87. I remarried. I inherited one new son and created another one. So, we don't have a spare bedroom. We don't have a diningroom. We have very little storage space. So, we are adding, this is the addition here. This was a garden. This will become garden area. So, the net surface drainage goes down, actually, with the addition. MR. CARTIER-So, you're not adding any new foundation? MR. BARTHOLD-No. MR. CARTIER-What we saw is what we get, as far as foundation? MR. BARTHOLD-Right, and this is a 38 foot setback from the lake, and this is, the nearest point of this is 58 feet. The new drain field, which I think we've got to design, is up here, and it's really, I asked Ray Irish to design it to very high standards, and I don't anticipate putting a lavatory in the barn, but I wanted it sized for that, if it's necessary. MR. MARTIN-I see, the barn up there where you're parking your, yes, that's where we parked. MR. BARTHOLD-Right. It's a wood shop, at this point, and that's all I intend to use it for. Photographs, there's only one house on the lake that you can see this from, that's reasonably close, and that's the one over here, the Boomers, and I've got pictures of that, before the foliage came out, and you can hardly see the house, much less the addition. MR. CARTIER-How many bedrooms are we talking about? 30 MR. BARTHOLD-There'll be two additional, really, there's one. This is a bedroom. This is sort of a sitting room, and sewing room, or whatever. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Total number of bedrooms, throughout the whole thing. MR. BARTHOLD-One, two, three, and this will be four, but I think that's counted as five. MR. MARTIN-So, four to five. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and how many baths, half baths? MR. BARTHOLD-There's two baths here. There will be a third bath here and a half bath, which is three and a half. MR. MARTIN-And with your barn lavatory? MR. BARTHOLD-That would be a half. I guess that counts for four. MR. MARTIN-Four total. MR. CARTIER-And how big a system are we talking about? MR. MARTIN-Well, this is based on the number of bedrooms that you would do it. MR. BARTHOLD-Yes. Ray Irish did all the arithmetic, and there's a lot of laterals. I have the drawings. I should point out that there are two septic tanks in series, also, which delivers a lot effluent. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I think that's the real focus of it, here, given the number of bedrooms that we're adding, is the septic system. MR. BARTHOlD-I realize that. MR. MARTIN-And I think you've got an adequate design, there, and you have no problem with the water saving devices? MR. BARTHOLD-No. I mean, I'm an environmentalist. I spent five year as Chairman of the Adirondack Nature Conservancy. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I guess we'll move on to public hearing. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to address the Board in regards to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COtIENT PUBLIC HEARING ClOSED MR. MARTIN-This is Type I, we need a Short Form SEQRA, lee? MRS. YORK-You need to do a long Form. MR. MARTIN-long Form. MRS. YORK-And the applicant has filled one out. RESOUJTION lIMEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MDE RESOUJTION NO. 18-92, Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: WHEREAS, there is presently before this Planning Board an application for: LIONEL BARTHOLD, for expansion of a nonconfo...ing extension of lBO sq. ft. at .ster bedl'OOll on east side of house and extension of 950 sq. ft. for living at west end., 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. 31 '- --- 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 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. lauricella, Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does anybody have any other comments or questions they'd like to address? All right. Does anybody have a motion they'd like to put together? MR. CARTIER-I'll take a shot at this. One quick question. lee, when this went to the Zoning Board for a variance, was there any question about expansion beyond the 50 percent? MRS. YORK-What happened was, I had a question, myself, about that. conferred with Mrs. Crayford, who indicated to me that she considered the finished basement to be a part of that calculation, and therefore it was not an expansion over 50 percent. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. tlJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 18-92 LIONEL BARTHOLD, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward laPoint: For the expansion of a nonconforming extension of 180 sq. ft. at master bedroom on the east side of the house and extension of 950 sq. ft. for living at the west end, with the following stipulations: One, that erosion control standards be in place and maintained during construction. That water saving devices be installed. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver (9:48 p.m.) MR. BARTHOLD-Just one observation that comes to mind, on the prior hearing. We had a small debate in that Bay, eight to ten years ago, about a dock, the size and the use, and being an engineer, I did a little research on what standards there were for access to docks, I mean, how much room do you need to get in and out, and you may be aware of this, but there are architectural standards that guide the design of marinas, that indicate the turning room and reasonable navigating room it takes to get in and out of docks. It has quite a bit of bearing on the proximity of docks. MR. CARTIER-I'm delighted to hear that. Do you have easy access to that information? MR. BARTHOlD-I can dig back and find out how you can find it, what standards there are. MR. CARTIER-Would you be willing to send a copy of whatever you have to the Planning Department. I think that's something appropriate, and considering the way the lake is going, with the docks that we've looked at, that may be something would be appropriate to incorporate. MR. BARTHOlD-I will. MR. MARTIN-Yes, if we are going to amend the Ordinance, or propose a change, it would be nice to have a standard to go by. 32 -- MR. BARTHOLD-Because they have that problem, in spades, in marinas, big marinas, where you have to move the boats. MR. CARTIER-Because if we have that in the Ordinance, then we don't have to sit here and make a judgement call about it, argue about it. MR. LAPOINT-And, even if you can't find it, if you could give us a reference. MR. BARTHOlD-I will. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you for that. SITE PLAN NO. 19-92 TYPE II LI-lA JERRY BRCIIN ClfNER: SAME AS ABOVE IlARREN STREET TO CONSTRUCT A 6 FOOT STOCKADE FENCE RUNNING PARALLEL TO WARREN STREET ON THE WEST SIDE OF EXISTING BUILDINGS. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX MP NO. 110-1-23 LOT SIZE: +13.92 ACRES SECTION 179-74 MIKE CUSACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 19-92, Jerry Brown, May 12, 1992, Meeting Date: May 19, 1992 "The appHcant requests to construct a fence at the used auto parts and auto sales facility on Warren Street. There is a memo from the Zoning Administrator and the minutes of the Zoning Board meeting attached for the Board's review. The fence wi11 help to screen the facility from public view. The EAF indicates that part of the project is the construction of a 120 x 60 accessory building. The Zoning Administrator has indicated that this is not under review. The appHcation has a couple of inconsistencies. The proposed fence is stated as 6 feet and along Warren Street, however, the only fence shown on the site plan is 8 feet high and about 100 feet removed from Warren Street to the north. The Board should ascertain the exact location and height of the proposed fence. The appHcation was reviewed with regard to the criteria for site plan review. 1. Making the assumption that a 6 foot stockade fence will be installed to the west of the property, there will be no impacts as to the location arrangement and size. 2. Vehicular access is not a concern. 3. Off street parking and loading is not an issue. 4. Pedestrian access is not a concern. 5. Storm drainage is not an issue. 6. Water and sewer disposal are not an issue. 7. The Director of Building and Codes has submitted a letter requesting that visual impacts be eliminated. 8. Fire and emergency access is not a concern. 9. Ponding and erosion are not a concern", and this regards the review of the fence. MR. MARTIN-We have a couple of Zoning Referral Sheets. Apparently, there were two done, one in November of '91, and then one in March of '92. We have a memo to the Planning Board from the Zoning Administrator. lee, could you read that in for us? MRS. YORK-Sure. "I am writing to confirm that site plan review is not required for the above referenced application as junkyards are not a listed site plan review in the light Industrial zone. Section 179-32 of Site Plan Review states that, 'A land use or development involving a use or expansion of a use listed as site plan review use in Article IV or IX, hereof shall not be undertaken unless and until the Planning Board has approved with conditions, such use, and the Zoning Administrator has issued a permit for such land use or development pursuant to the terms of Article XIV hereof. No building permit for a use requiring site plan review shall be vaHd without site plan approval. Type I uses are appHcable to this Article as well, except that if such projects are located within the Adirondack Park, they also require a permit from the Adirondack Park Agency as a Class A project. The Adirondack Pðrk Agency has jurisdiction onlY within those portions of the town within the Adirondack Park.' Therefore, site plan review does not apply to a use not Hsted in that zone. If you have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Patricia Crayford, Zoning Administrator" MR. CARTIER-I'm really confused. MRS. YORK-My understanding from Mrs. Crayford is that junkyards are not listed as a permitted use in that zone, and, therefore, review of junkyards is not required. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but then the Zoning Board has given them permission for that use in that zone. Does that not now make it subject to site plan review? That's kind of a rhetorical question, because I would like to hear from the Town Attorney on this one. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I recall is that there was an amendment done to the Ordinance that specifically stated that, and I beHeve there was a committee of this Board that looked at those amendments, that said, and Peter was on that as well, with me, that uses listed in the Ordinance are meant to be only illustrative and not, for lack of abetter word, binding, or the only uses allowed in that zone, and we recommended against that type of language, and I think this is why. MRS. PULVER-Right. I think it was said they were to be examples of permitted uses, but not certainly everything or. 33 MR. CARTIER-Restricted to. MRS. PULVER-Right, restricted to. MR. MARTIN-I don't know if I have the updated pages or not. MR. CARTIER-Is there any way we could table this until we could hear from our Town Attorney and get our attorney at this meeting and get this thing, or get it clarified before, again, a broken record, but I hate setting precedent, here, because what we're hearing is that any use not listed doesn't need site plan review. MR. MARTIN-Now, that strikes me as being the exact opposite would be true. If it's not listed, you want to make sure that it's reviewed, or, well, what actually has to be done, since we have that language of illustrative uses, is that it's a determination from the Zoning Administrator is required as to what is an allowed use and what is not, if it's not specifically listed, and that was the danger in making it that language saying only illustrative, because then you kick it into an interpretation by an i ndi vi dua l. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I'd still like to hear from our attorney on this one. MR. CUSACK-My name is Mike Cusack, and I work for Kingsley, Towne, and McClenithan, and we're helping Mr. Brown with this application. I'll quote from Section 23.02 of Andersen on Zoning, "A use established or maintained pursuant to a variance is not a nonconforming use and is not subject to restrictions imposed upon such uses by the Zoning Ordinance". MR. CARTIER-Well, Mr. Cusack, the fact that you're an attorney, and a well known one, and are quoting from Andersen, which I'm not familiar with, makes me even more interested in having the Town Attorney here so that you and he can involve oneself in a debate that we can listen to, but with all due respect to you, I'm not about to take your word. I'm sure you understand, I don't mean that personally. MR. CUSACK-No. I know you don't. MR. CARTIER-But I'd rather here from our Town Attorney on this one. MR. MARTIN-Essentially, you have your gun in your holster. We don't have our gun in ours. This is just very muddled to me, it seems. How does everybody else feel? MR. BREWER-A fence, I don't have any. MR. CARTIER-No, the fence isn't the problem. MR. BREWER- It's the building. MR. CARTIER-It's the fact that we're hearing that the building is not subject to site plan review, and I seem to recall a previous application for, was it a building, on this property, that we did look at. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-So, we've got a situation where, at one time, we looked at it. It had to come in for site plan review. MR. CUSACK-At the time, it was an allowable use, so it was subject to site plan review. The Ordinance was changed since then, to rule out that type of building. So, instead of coming for site plan, it went for a variance. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay. I'll say my piece and then shut up. My interest is in having a Town Attorney here to get this thing squared away, because, again, I'm uncomfortable setting precedent. If we let this one go now, and say, we're going to look at this later on, or the next time it comes up, we've already set the precedent, and we've created problems, I think. MR. BREWER-I feel the same. MR. MARTIN-Well, what's everybody else feel, here? MR. LAPOINT-So, we have the Zoning Administrator telling us that the 60 by 120 is not subject to site plan? MRS. YORK-Right. My understanding, from the notes, is that, and please correct me, Mr. Cusack, he's building a warehouse for storage of auto parts? Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. 34 MR. LAPOINT-And our Zoning Administrator has determined that that is not subject to review, and the fence wou 1 d be? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I hate to do this, but if you apply common sense to this, the warehouse obviously has much more impact than the fence does, but we're looking at a fence and not looking at a warehouse. MRS. PULVER-Is she thinking, because the warehouse is already there? MRS. YORK-No. The warehouse is not there. This Board, I believe, and I'm recalling what Mr. Cartier's also recalling. believe, two years ago, the applicant also constructed a large warehouse on-site. MR. MARTIN-This is light Industrial, right? MRS. YORK-Right. It is. It is a light Industrial zone. MR. MARTIN-Well, it says right here, "All land uses in light Industrial zones will be subject to site plan review". MR. CARTIER-Okay, but she's saying it's not listed under that one. MR. MARTIN-No, no, no. There is no list under this clause. It just simply says, "All land uses in light Industrial zones will be subject to site plan review". MR. CARTIER-It does not say whether they are conforming or nonconforming, it's just period. MR. MARTIN-This is after Permitted Uses. Normally, you have a structure of an ordinance that's Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses, and Uses Permitted Under Site Plan Review. This is under Permitted Uses:, it says, "Permitted Uses: See Type II Uses. All land uses in light Industrial zones will be subject to site plan review". Period. End of Sentence. Page 17982. MR. CUSACK-Because the Planning Board does not have the authority to review the junkyard application as originally presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals, that's why it went to the Zoning Board of Appeals. You had the authority last time, so we didn't have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. We're not circumventing anything, here. We had to go to one Board or the other. We went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the building itself was approved. That's the way the law is set up. Where the Planning Board does not have the initial jurisdiction to answer the question that the applicant presents, then they have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. When they're successful there, it doesn't become a permitted use. It's a use by a variance. It runs with the land, and it's outside of further, it's outside of the Ordinance after that. That's the whole purpose of having the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. MARTIN-My understanding of that is that the Zoning Board of Appeals now has said that the use is allowed, or under a dimensional use. MR. CUSACK-They've given a variance for the use. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Under a use variance, you get a variance for the use, but then that use now that is allowed is subject to site plan review by this Board. MRS. YORK-Mr. Cusack, if I could just interject. I'm looking at your statements. Mr. Turner says, this is a preexisting nonconforming use. In light Industrial zones, junkyards are not allowed. They're only allowed in heavy industrial. Mr. Cusack says, that's correct. The junkyard activities are not allowed. I'm not speaking to a junkyard activity at this point in time. I'm speaking to an allowable use under the activity, and you were referring to the warehouse, saying that the warehouse was a site plan review. MR. CUSACK-That was rejected. MRS. YORK-I'm just kind of confused myself, Mr. Cusack, and I do apologize for interjecting. MR. CUSACK-No. That was rejected, because if I did not have to go for a use variance at the Zoning Board of Appeals. The interpretation was that, in fact. it should go to site plan, and would be here if we plan on building. MR. CARTIER-We're going to debate this all night, if we keep going this way, and it's the old line that anybody that has themselves for a client has a fool for a client, or something like that. We have an attorney standing here, appropriately representing his client. There's a legal issue involved, here. We need to have the Board attorney here to debate this, but I think we're going to be here until midnight if we keep going around and around with this. Now, I would suggest that we table this thing until we get our Town Attorney sitting over there. MR. LAURICELLA-Could we handle the fence, Peter, and then if it's. 35 ~ MR. BREWER-That's breaking up a part of the application. We decided not to do that last week, with another application. MR. CARTIER-No, because then there's no reason for this applicant to come back. He's in here for a fence. If we approve his fence, he's gone. We've lost it, okay. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I would like to suggest that we table this thing, until we get it straightened out. MRS. PULVER-Is it possible to table it and speak with the attorney and have them put on Thursday's? Of course, I won't be here Thursday. On Thursday's agenda, if it could be solved by then, since it doesn't seem to be his problem that our attorney isn't here. MR. CUSACK-And I have to go to Warren County tomorrow night. MRS. PULVER-Right, and you would go to Warren County. MR. BREWER-What would happen, though, about advertising, if that building does? MR. MARTIN-Well, we could open the public hearing and leave it open. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CUSACK-Table it. I'll consent to that. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Can I ask a question? You're going to Warren County for what, a fence and a warehouse, or a fence? MR. CUSACK-Just the fence. I've alreaQy been there for the warehouse, and it's been approved. MR. CARTIER-You've been to Warren County for the warehouse? MR. CUSACK-Well, lets call it what it is, the structure, yes, the storage building. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, there's something weird going on, here. MR. YORK-He was referred to Warren County, I'm making an assumption because I don't handle zoning anymore. I assume that the zoning matter regarding the warehouse was referred to Warren County. Am I correct, Mr. Cusack? MR. CUSACK-I believe we were to Warren County, prior to going to the Zoning Board of Appeals, and the position of the Warren County Planning Board, with respect to zoning, was to defer to the decision of the local Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to the construction of the 120 by 60 building with the overhang, as illustrated on the variance application itself. MRS. YORK-Than k you. MR. CARTIER-But I find it fascinating that it was sent to Warren County for site plan review, even though we're being told that we don't. MRS. YORK-No. It was sent for variance. They review all variances and all site plans. So, it was sent there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I stand appropriately corrected. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-What's everybody else feel on this? MR. LAPOINT-I need a cOlllllent to the Town Board that whatever restructuring they plan on doing, and this is a perfect case where this should not get this far in front of us without being resolved, that whatever restructuring they're planning on doing should be designed to address exactly this type of thing. So, that the applicant, and it's unfair to the applicant to come here in front of us, get to this stage of the game, and have this type of question in front of the Board. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. LAPOINT-And for that I apologize. I don't know if I can apologize for the whole Town. MRS. YORK-Mr. laPoint, I agree with your comment and I would love to see things happen like that, but unfortunately, once the Zoning Administrator makes a determination, that determination is final, unless taken to the Zoning Board of Appeals or there is some other kind of decision in between. 36 ',--- MR. LAPOINT-Right, but I mean, it seems to me that we have your comments here, and how the hell come this wasn't brought up to the Attorney and resolved before it got here? I mean, we have the Zoning Administrator saying one thing, and then, again, you. MRS. PULVER-Because no one questioned the Zoning Administrator but this Board. MR. LAPOINT-At this time here, now. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CARTIER-Formally. MRS. PULVER-Because no one can question it, before it gets here. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you're not sitting there looking at that, Ed. You wait until we get it right now, and then we talk about it. MR. LAPOINT-It's too late for the applicant. MR. BREWER-That's right. MR. CUSACK-Well, on previous applications that I've done before you, for example, the diPalma dock problem that I was on a few weeks back, she had talked about it with the Attorney ahead of time. So, I don't know that that, you know, maybe she does do that and you just don't know that she sits down, before she issues one of this letters, and has Paul take a look at it. I don't know. MR. CARTIER-Well, if the question comes up, anybody who deals with the question should sign off on it. MRS. YORK-I think Mrs. Crayford felt that the question was dealt with in her memo to you. I feel that she believes she's satisfactorily addressed the issue to this Board, in that memo that she sent you, and that is my understanding. MR. LAPOINT-I can read this as well as anybody and be confused. MRS. YORK-Well, if this Board chooses to pursue this farther, that's certainly within your purview. MR. CARTIER-The question becomes, what's the proper way of pursuing this? Do we go to the ZBA for a determination, or do we try to clear it with the Town Attorney? MR. BREWER-lets try to clear it with the Town Attorney. I think it would be faster. MR. CARTIER-First? Okay. MRS. YORK-Maybe that's the most expeditious thing to do. MR. CARTIER-But, unfortunately, then we're asking the Town Attorney to make an interpretation of the Ordinance which is more properly the purview of the Zoning Board. MRS. YORK-Yes. that is correct. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't know that this is the thing for the Town Attorney to be. essentially, is a determination that this is not listed as a use under site plan review. it is not subject to site plan review. What we have, So, therefore, MRS. YORK-Right. That is correct. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but it's checked yes on the check sheet. It's checked yes on the check sheet, and I am writing to confirm that the site plan review is not required for the above referenced application, as junkyards are not a listed site plan review in the light Industrial zone, yet it's checked yes on the check sheet. MRS. TARANA-It says fence only, next to it, Ed. MR. LAURICELLA-Fence review only. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think what we need here is someone to put together a motion requesting clarification from the Zoning Board of Appeals, as to. 37 - ..- MRS. PULVER-Could we ask for the Zoning Administrator, maybe, to thoroughly clarify her reasoning for something to the Planning Board? MRS. YORK-I feel that Mrs. Crayford feels she has done that in her memo to you. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I don't think we're going to get anything different. MRS. PULVER-But we're saying that her memo is questionable. So, I would like her to stand in front of me with the words, actually, and explain it. MR. CARTIER-What is she going to say different to us that she hasn't said in the memo? MRS. PULVER-Well, maybe she knows something that we don't know. MR. LAURICELLA-She said site plan review is only for the fence, not for the building. MR. ~RTIN-See, the reason why the Ordinance says what it does for light Industrial, in my view, the Ordinance, if you notice, when you get into these more intensive uses in the industrial zones and commercial zones and so forth, that's why it says, all land uses in light Industrial zones will be subject to site plan review, because by their nature, they're of such an intense nature, and involve such intensity of activities, you know, parking, ingress/egress, traffic, or what have you, that everything is put into site plan review. Now, whether that's right or wrong, is another issue, but that's the way it reads, and I think that's why it's that way. MR. LAPOINT-Is it correct? MR. MARTIN-I'm not saying that that's right, but only the Zoning Board of Appeals can clarify that or say that it's wrong, or say that she's right. MRS. PULVER-Well, then lets do that. lets do something. MR. LAPOINT-It's a conflict between 179-36, and 179-32, correct? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-179-36? MR. LAPOINT-32, 179-26 and 179-32 conflict, correct? MR. MARTIN-See, again, my personal opinion, what 179-32 is addressing is Item D3, A, and B, that's what that is addressing, site plan review uses. That's what it's talking about. MR. CARTIER-What you're sitting here doing. MR. MARTIN-I know. We're Zoning Administrating, but Ordinance are structured, D1 supersedes, and all land uses in light industrial zones will be subject to site plan review, period. Anything you do in a light industrial zone has to come before this Board. MR. LAPOINT-And the applicant would disagree with that? MR. CUSACK-I guess I'm going to have to say I would clearly disagree with that, for the reason that, what you're saying to me, let me see if I'm following what you're saying. When I get the variance to put the building up, it's converted into a permitted use, and as such, it's required to the other requirements set forth in the light industrial zone? MR. MARTIN-It comes before this Board, in the interest of checking traffic, parking, ingress and egress, the site plan. It's not saying that it's not a permitted use. That's been done with. I don't disagree with that, but now it's saying, that site plan, then, is subject to the site plan review found in this Ordinance, and the Planning Board is empowered to undertake that. MR. CARTIER-What we're sitting here doing is trying to do the Zoning Board's job and interpret the Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-I'm not questioning that it's not an allowed use, but the configuration of that use on that site is subject to site plan review. MR. CUSACK-let me go so far as to say that it's not even a permitted use. It's a use by a variance, and as such, it does not fall under that subdivision. MRS. YORK-May I just interject? Why don't we let the Zoning Board decide this. MR. CARTIER-I fully agree. 38 -- MR. CUSACK-With all due respect, I would ask that I have the opportunity to speak with Paul Dusek on this. I think this belongs before the Planning Board on the question of the fence only, and I'm willing to talk to Mr. Dusek tomorrow and see what his position on this, and I'll come back Thursday, if necessary. If you want to open the public hearing, to save the advertisement, I'll stipulate to an extension until Thursday, and I'll come back. MR. MARTIN-Do you want to do that? MR. CARTIER-No, because then the Town Attorney is interpreting the Ordinance, and we have had this discussion before. This Board, in the past, has' determined who makes the interpretations of Ordinance. If it's an interpretation of law, then it would certainly be most appropriate for Mr. Dusek to be present at the Zoning Board when they consider that, to advise them, but that's. Okay. Ten minutes ago, we said we were going to table this. We have an agreement from the applicant to table this, and here we are still going on this, and we're going to go round and round and round on this. When this has happened in the past, we go to the Zoning Board for an interpretation. Why are we beating ourselves to death over this one, this time? MR. MARTIN-Would the applicant consent to tabling? MR. CUSACK-I don't know if I can consent to tabling to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. BREWER-No. We'd go back for an interpretation. It doesn't necessarily mean ~ have to go. MR. CUSACK-I don't have to be there? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CUSACK-Thank you. I will consent to tabling this. In the interim, I will be contacting Mr. Dusek. MR. MARTIN-You're free to do that. MR. CUSACK-Just one last thing. I do believe I was here for permission to install the fence along with the building. I don't know what your feelings are, at this point in time, with respect to the construction of the building itself. I do believe, from the hearing at the Zoning Board of Appeals, that the construction of the building itself can proceed. I guess I'm going to have to, definitely, double check that with Paul Dusek before anything is done, because what I'm thinking of, here, is somewhat of a wait and see type of an attitude, and I will do that first, before a shovel hits the ground. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. let me open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the public wishing to address the Board regarding this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. MARTIN-Okay. There being no public comment, I'll keep the public hearing open, until we can get some clarification, here. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 19-92 JERRY BROlIN, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To construct a 6 foot stockade fence on Warren Street, with the consent of the applicant. The purpose of the tabling is to get clarification from the Zoning Board of Appeals, with reference to the construction of the warehouse. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. lauricella, Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MOTION REQUESTING A HEARING BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, IN PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO SITE PLAN NO. 19-92 JERRY BRCIIII, WARREN STREET, FOR A CLARIFICATION OR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE 179-260(1), AND/OR USE APPROVED BY VARIANCE, AS TO ITS RELEVANCE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WAREHOUSE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, AND AlSO FOR A GENERAL INTERPRETATION AS TO lID THIS SECTIOfI APPLIES AND DOES NOT APPLY, IN REFERENCE TO NONCONFORMING USES, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: That the minutes of this portion of the meeting be forwarded to the Zoning Board of Appeals for their review and consideration of this matter. 39 -...../ Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: MR. CUSACK-I don't believe a use granted by the variance is classified as a nonconforming use. I'd be more comfortable if the Zoning Board was considering whether that Section applied to uses approved by variance. I think it's just, technically, incorrect, and if it ever crosses the Town Attorney's desk, it may create confusion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Straighten out my phraseology. What is it you're objecting to, and what is it you think should have been said? MR. CUSACK-Okay. I believe what you said was whether Section 179-26D(1), some guidance as to how that applies to nonconforming uses. MR. CARTIER-That's exactly what I'm looking for. MR. CUSACK-Okay, and what I'm saying, at this point in time, in advance, and I know this is subject to hearing from the Attorney, is that a use approved by a variance is not classified, in the law, as a nonconforming use. It's not labeled as a nonconforming use. MR. CARTIER-Well, you're a lawyer, and you're fine tooth combing that much more carefully than I am, but I think I got my point across. I still don't understand what you're saying to me. MR. CUSACK-I guess, the interpretation would be much easier to deal with if it said what you said, and/or applicability of the uses approved by a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. BREWER-It's the same thing, use approved by a variance. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and/or use approved by variance. Thank you, Mr. Cusack. I appreciate that. MR. CUSACK-Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. lauricella, Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (10:19 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 20-92 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA HAROLD WELLER DBA WELLER'S GARAGE (lINER: HERIN NEAL VANDUSEN ROAD TO SEU USED AUTOS. TAX MP NO. 126-1-68.1 lOT SIZE: 1/4 ACRE SECTION: 179-26 HAROLD WEllER, PRESENT (10:19 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 20-92, Harold Weller, May 13, 1992, Meeting Date: May 19, 1992 "The applicant is before the Board to request auto sales on a small lot on VanDusen Road. For the Board's information there were 3 adjacent lots transferred to Mr. Nealon 8/2/91. (map attached) the application indicated a desire to utilize lot 126-1-68.1 as a location for auto sales. The site plan, however, shows all 3 lots being used. This changes the application since the advertising was done based on one quarter acre listed in the application and EAF and cross-referenced with the Zoning Administrator's determination which indicates the tax map number. If the site plan is correct, then the lot size is 175 ft. x 200 ft. or 36,000 sq. ft. The Board should clarify with the applicant exactly what the request is for. The staff has been informed by the Zoning Administrator that the property owner, Mr. Neal, will be at the meeting. The authorization to act as agent form was unsigned so the Board needs to get it on the record that Mr. Neal is aware of the proposal. The application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for site plan review: 1. The property is located in an LI-1A zone and is in close proximity to an existing junk yard. The size of the parcel is assumed to be .23 acres which for used car sales is extremely small. The Zoning Administrator has submitted a letter/determination that auto sales is an allowable use in this zone. The property is currently vacant. The staff understands from the Zoning Administrator that the applicant will be applying for site plan review for the office structure indicated on the plan." And that is at some future date. "The site is small for the intended use. The plan submitted indicates that 5 used cars will be on display. The Board may want to get details on the maximum usage of the site. Site lighting and signage should be discussed, also hours of operation. 2. Vehicular traffic access is from VanDusen Road, a collector road. The plan does not indicate a specific driveway. It does not appear that a substantial increase in traffic would occur because of this. 3. Parking will occur in front of the proposed office. For the five cars shown on the plan this appears sufficient. 4. Pedestrian access does not appear to be a concern. 5. Storm water drainage has not been addressed. At this time the office is not an issue since it will be reviewed at a later date. The Board may want to determine if car maintenance or repair will take place on site. 6. Water and sewer facilities are not an issue. 7. The Board may wish to request the Beautification Committee to review this application. Given the other uses in the area this may also be a concern. 8. Fire and emergency access are not a concern. 9. This area is not susceptible to flooding." And I believe there is also a letter from Mrs. Crayford, and I'll just read this to you. "This request to sell used automobiles is before you as Site Plan Review Use No. 15 in light 40 --' Industrial Section 179-26 of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Heavy Equipment Sales. The definition of Heavy Equipment Sales in the Zoning Ordinance is as follows: The retail sale and service of trucks over one and one-half (1~) tons, tractors, construction equipment and other heavy machinery, vehicles or motors. There is no definition of automobile sales. Section 179-12A states that the identification of particular uses allowed as permitted uses, accessory uses, or site plan review uses is for i11ustrative purposes. It is my determination that the permitted uses of heavy equipment sales would allow the lesser use of automobile sales. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions or comments." And that's from Mrs. Crayford. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have someone here from the applicant? MR. WEllER-Harold Weller. MR. LAPOINT-Do you plan on just using the one lot, or all three? MR. WELLER-One lot, 50 by 200. MR. LAPOINT-Just the one lot. That's the quarter acre? MR. WEllER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, can you explain the conflict in the application? MR. BREWER-There's a couple of conflicts, Ed, that I've found. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I'm starting with the first one. Where is it in here? MRS. YORK-All right. I attached, to my notes, the Tax Map, so you could see. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MRS. YORK-His map indicates that he is using an three of those parcels. However, the application states a quarter of an acre. So, there was that inconsistency there that I felt the Board would want to clarify. MR. LAPOINT-This is his map that he submitted, the Tax Map? MRS. YORK-No. 1 put that in there, his map that's on his application. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I see it as he's just using the quarter acre, but he's shown the other properties. That's the way 1 read it. HERMAN NEAL MR. NEAL-That's correct. I just showed what was there. MRS. PULVER-Right. I mean, he showed the surrounding properties. MR. NEAL-I'm Herman Neal, the property owner. I drew that map exactly what she says is what I did. I just wanted to show what would be around the existing area. I also showed the neighboring properties. The only one we're planning on using is the 50 by 200. MR. LAURICELLA-You're the property owner? MR. NEAL-I'm the property owner. MR. LAURICELLA-You're going to lease it to Mr. Weller? MR. NEAL-Yes. MR. LAURICELLA-So, the 175 feet? MR. NEAL-That's not even correct. That entire lot's only 125 by 200. MR. WEllER-The three lots together is only 125 feet. MR. LAURICELLA-Where did the 175 come from? MR. NEAl-I don't know. Did I draw it on there? MRS. YORK-Yes, he did. 41 - MR. NEAl-I must have made a mistake. Maybe somebody corrected it for me when they photocopied it, or something. If you scale it out, it's all to scale. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Neal, did you talk to the Zoning Administrator? I'm hearing you say you talked to the Zoning Administrator about this, right? MR. NEAL-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Did any question come up about the fact that this is a One Acre zone and you're asking to do something on a quarter of an acre of land? MR. NEAL-Not at all. MR. CARTIER-That question never came up with the Zoning Administrator? MR. NEAL-No. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think her thought being that this is a preexisting nonconforming lot. Much the same that if someone is in One Acre zoning and wants to build a house on a half acre lot that's preexisting, they're allowed to do it. They don't even come before us. They just get a building permit. MR. NEAL-Could I just make one note? The only real reason she told me I had to come here before you was because of the way it read, heavy equipment is allowable, but automobiles is not. MR. MARTIN-She just did the exact opposite thing on the previous application. The previous application that was just here, she used the exact opposite reasoning for saying that it didn't need to come before us. because it was not an unlisted, and was not subject to site plan review. MR. BREWER-I think, in my own mind, and I spoke with Ted Turner, that this needs two variances, a Use Variance, and an Area Variance. It's plain and simple. If it's LI-1A, he's got a quarter of an acre that he wants to put cars on, but it's not an allowed use. So, I don't see how we can, how it even got to us. MR. CARTIER-And even if it's a nonconforming use, we're talking about an expansion of a nonconforming use, and that's subject to review somewhere, right? We shouldn't have to be doing that. MR. BREWER-I think it should go to the Zoning Board. MR. CARTIER-It appears, gentlemen, that you may have been misdirected. It's my feeling that you should have been directed to the Zoning Board. MR. WEllER-It only took us seven weeks to get here. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and then they'll have to come back to us, correct, lee? MR. MARTIN-Depending on what happens with our last clarification we just asked for. MRS. YORK-What I can do to help you gentlemen is, if it does get tabled, pending an interpretation by the Zoning Board, I can help you fill out the paperwork for a variance, and you can do that at the same time with the Zoning Board, if there is a need for that, okay. MR. NEAL-Why would there be a need for a variance, the size of the property? MRS. YORK-The size of the property, and the fact that used car sales are allowed in other zones and not specifically listed in this zone. Perhaps a use variance may be needed. That is what this Board is alluding to. MR. CARTIER-So, what have we got to do, request another request to the Zoning Board, as to whether this? MR. BREWER-That's all we can do. MR. CARTIER-We've got to ask them if they agree that this thing has to be subject to use and area variance. MR. NEAL-My interpretation of her sending me here is the fact that it wasn't. Why would she send us here? MR. CARTIER-That's our question. Is there any way to combine our request for interpretation with the possible application from these people. 42 - --- MRS. YORK-Yes, that's what I just said to them. I would help them fill out any paper work that was required. So, in case they determine that you do need a variance, that you can do this. let me say that I know this is very distressing to you. This Board knows it's very distressing to you. MR. NEAl-I used my entire property. MR. BREWER-It's still not big enough, is it, the entire piece of property? MR. NEAL-That's one acre. MRS. YORK-It's three quarters of an acre. MR. BREWER-It's three quarters of an acre. You've got to have an acre. I mean, it's not your fault. It's not our fault. MR. NEAL-The property's been there. It used to be a used car lot. It had used cars there for years. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. CARTIER-Yes, well, the zoning's changed out there. That's part of the situation. Okay. What can we do to move this thing along? MR. NEAL-That's what I'm looking for, basically, is to move it along. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. WEllER-I'm already in violation of the State of New York because I moved my old premises. I had 30 days in which to get into my other place, or I have to turn all my dealer stuff in, which is really not your problem. MR. MARTIN-lee, when does the Zoning Board meet next month, and when do we meet? Is there any way we can get them on our last meeting? MR. CARTIER-While you're kicking that around, can we make some motions, here? MRS. PULVER-Our meetings are the 16th and 23rd of June. MR. LAPOINT-If he's got 30 days, and he's gotten this far because of a procedural thing, then lets set up a meeting for him and get him in. MRS. YORK-It may be appropriate if the Chairman of this Board would like to call Mr. Turner, and see if it would be possible, under these circumstances, for their Board to convene for a brief period of time to look at these two items, so the applicants will not be held up or put under any duress here. MR. MARTIN-I will certainly do that. MR. CARTIER-Do you want a motion to table, to start with? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Can we get your consent to table? MR. NEAL-Yes, if it'll move it along. MR. MARTIN-I really apologize, and I'm sorry you have to get to this point. You're looking to sell cars tomorrow, I know. let me open the public hearing, so we can have that much done. Is there anyone here from the public who wishes to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ROBERT CLARK MR. CLARK-I'm Robert Clark, and I own the junkyard next to, proposed, where he wants to put the used cars in there, and my main concern is that they've got residents living there with little kids, and cars that he's going to be selling there, that's the real problem, but worst of all is they were down on Warren Street, in the City of Glens Falls, next to the taxi stand, and that was a nuisance for years, and it just took me, I've been at that place, where I've been at, now, for probably about 10 years, and out of 10 years, it took me 8 years to get it cleaned up as it is, the mess that has been there. 1"m against it, totally against it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. 43 .~ ---"'" MRS. YORK-Could I just ask Mr. Clark a question? Mr. Clark, didn't you come to this Board for a warehouse building expansion? MR. CLARK-No, I didn't. MRS. YORK-No, in your junkyard? MR. CLARK-A building, the building? MRS. YORK-Yes, your building. MR. CLARK-It was an office building. MRS. YORK-Okay, an office building. MRS. PULVER-Is that the one that's still on blocks? MR. CLARK-That's the one that's on blocks out in front of the yard, and it's being sold. We're just waiting for a guy to move it. MRS. YORK-All right. Thank you. MR. NEAL-I'd like to make note that I've only owned that property for about 10 months. So, he fought for eight years to clean it up. After I bought it, it.1! cleaned up now. I'm doing all I can to do it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CLARK-Yes, he only owned it for that length of time, but prior to that, he rented it, and the cars are still there, and the prior owner before that was trying to get them out, and he brought more cars in. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Anyone else? MORGAN COMBS MR. COMBS-My name is Morgan Combs. I own property on both sides. I own the back of this land. MR. MARTIN-We saw you out there that day. MR. COMBS-The big field, my redwood fence near my house, and I'm against it. MRS. TARANA-Why is that? Because when we were there, you said competition is great, I welcome them. So, why have you changed your mind? MR. COMBS-I didn't know who was moving in, what was going on. MRS. TARANA-You mean, personally? MR. COMBS-Personally. I know the mess he had on Warren Street, and we don't need it over there. Herman lives there, in his house, and we don't need it next to us. MRS. TARANA-He lives there? MR. NEAL-I live there. MR. WELLER-He lives there. It's his home. MR. LAURICELLA-You're going to stay there, right? MR. NEAL-Yes. MR. COMBS-He told me he's building a house some place else. He's going to be moving out. So, he's not going to be there to maintain it or keep an eye on it. MRS. PULVER-But it's this gentleman's business, isn't it? MR. COMBS-Yes. MRS. PULVER-So, it would be up to that gentleman to maintain the property, right? MR. MARTIN-Anyone else? 44 '- ~ EMILY AIKENS MRS. AIKENS-I'm Emily Aikens. I live on the Corinth Road. It's not very far from there, and we own land, but I disapprove of it very much. It's going to ruin, even more. The VanDusen Road has been starting to get cleaned up, and I don't want anymore junk thrown in the west end. I'm so tired of it. I try to keep my home up, and I've looked along VanDusen Road, looked at all of that, and there's only one home that I see that's really kind of, yuck. Where I live is, my driveway goes in from, right across from the VanDusen Road. So, I li ve on the house that's on the hill, right there. I think you all know, and I disapprove of it. I don't want anymore junk. I've got junkyards galore all over the place. They're not taken care of or anything. What more can I say? As far as Mr. Clark's building, that's got to get down. He's talking about children's safety? What's it doing up there. Get it down on the ground. Don't talk about children's safety. I've looked at that for two years now. Get it down. I've got grandchildren around. MR. CLARK-I do, too. MRS. AIKENS-Well then do a favor for the grandchildren, get it on the ground. MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much. MR. NEAl-I do have one thing to say. She kept referring to a junkyard. We're not applying for a junkyard. We're applying for the use for sales of used auto mobiles. MR. MARTIN-We understand. MRS. AIKENS-And I know his place down below, and I don't like the looks of it. I've got a nice home. It's ruining my property. It's taking the value right away from it. MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board? I think we're looking at a tabling, here. So, I'm going to leave the public hearing open, and we'll see where this takes us. Does anybody have anything they can put together for us? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 20-92 HAROLD WELLER DBA WELLER'S GARAGE, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To sell used autos on VanDusen Road, with the consent of the applicant. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. lauricella, Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MOTION THAT SITE PLAN NO. 20-92 BE REFERRED TO THE ZONING DRD OF APPEALS AT ITS EARLIEST POSSIBLE CONVENIENCE, FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE ŒTERMINATION THAT THIS DOES NOT REQlIRE A USE VARIANCE AND AREA VARIANCE, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. lauricella, Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-The application has been tabled and the public hearing is left open. It will be going before the Zoning Board of Appeals next month, and we'll do all we can to get it taken care of in June, one way or the other. (10:37 p.m.) Okay. We've just got a couple of internal matters to take care of, here. Number One, I want to remind you that, in case you didn't hear, there's a joint meeting with the Town Board regarding the Diehl project that we talked about the other night, on Tuesday May 26th at 7 p.m.. in the Supervisor's Conference Room. Quick poll, here. Who's going to be able to make it. Jim? MR. LAURICElLA-I should be able to. MRS. PULVER-Tuesday the 26th at 7? MR. MARTIN-At 7 p.m. in the Supervisor's Conference Room. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I can make that. MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. 45 .-" MR. BREWER-Yes. As far as I know, if anything comes up, I'll tell you. MR. CARTIER-I won't be there. MR. ~RTIN-Okay, and I'll be there, and, lee, if you want to be in attendance as well. Okay. That's done. We need a resolution of consent for the, or, no, we're acting as lead Agent in the SEQRA Review of the zoning amendments, is that what this says? MRS. YORK-No. The Town Board requests to be lead Agent. MR. MARTIN-Okay. This is so poorly worded, a resolution is needed from your Board stating that they will act as lead agency for SEQRA. That's very poorly worded. I know it's not your memo. So, we need a resolution consenting to the Town Board acting as lead agent for the zoning amendments regarding the two lot subdivisions. MR. CARTIER-All right. MR. MARTIN-Does somebody want to put that out? tlJTION CONSENTING TO THE TOIIIf BOARD HAVING lEAD AGENCY STAlUS FOR SEIJ'A REVIEW, WITH REFEREffCE TO AMENDMENTS TO THE TCIIN ORDINANCE, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. laPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MRS. TARANA-When do we make comments on the zoning amendment? MR. ~RTIN-At the public hearing. MR. CARTIER-That was held yesterday.. MRS. YORK-That was held yesterday. MRS. TARANA-This Board is supposed to be making recommendations to the. MRS. YORK-When you give the lead agency status, you want to be able to al1udicate what your concerns are, or your coments regarding it, so they can take those into consideration when they have their public hearing. MR. MARTIN-Won't there be a posted time frame for involved agencies to comment? MRS. YORK-There should be. That should be taken care of. I don't do that kind of thing anymore. MR. CARTIER-That would be done by law. MRS. YORK-Yes. This is all to be handled by the Zoning Administrator now. So, possibly you should call Mrs. Crayford's Office. MRS. TARANA-I got the impression, at yesterday's meeting, that they were going to go ahead and make a decision about it. MRS. YORK-My understanding is that there may be some changes made to that Ordinance, and then there will have to be an opportunity for another public hearing. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't think it was moved on last night. MRS. PUlVER-I don't know, was it, BE!tty? BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-My feeling would be, from the tenor of the Board, okay, that the one relative to the pools and fences will be acted on, but there will be changes to the one relative to the two lot subdivision, to make that a little different process. So, we won't lose complete review, you know, that it won't just happen out there in thin air, without having some checks on it. MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. I just want to get the minutes done, here. CORRECTIOff OF MINUTES 46 . ~ February 18, 1992: NONE February 25, 1992: NONE February 27, 1992: NONE March 17, 1992: NONE March 19, 1992: NONE March 24, 1992: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MINUTES, Introduced by Edward laPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: MRS. TARANA-I have two comments. ][ believe the correct spelling of Mike Hutsenpella's name is, H-u-t-s- e-n-p-i-l-l-e-r? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MRS. TARANA-And, Maria, I am Mrs. wherever you see that. AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. lauricella, Mr. laPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MRS. TARANA-I'll vote for approval' on March 24th only, because prior to that I wasn't on the Board. MR. MARTIN-Okay. That takes care of all the issues I had. MR. CARTIER-Betty, I wish you'd been here for the last two applications, okay. MRS. MONAHAN-That's where I was. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Just to make you aware that we had some serious problems with them because of determinations made in the Zoning Administration Office, and I just want to go on record with those, and that's it. MRS. MONAHAN-Which application? MR. CARTIER-Jerry Brown and Harold Weller. MR. MARTIN-Both in the light industrial zoning district. MRS. MONAHAN-One needs to, and I have just researched it myself, and Pat certainly should go back to all the minutes when Jerry Brown was allowed in there in the first place with the conditions that were put on. MR. CARTIER-Yes, well we referred it to the Zoning Board for an interpretation. MRS. MONAHAN-And I made Ted aware of the fact, yesterday, that I had reviewed those minutes, word for word. Actually, I don't think an the restrictions that we put on it made the, I don't think the resolution that was there, because in those days. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFUllY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 47