The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-03-23 .. -=-~ ------ '-- ,./ -/ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23RD. 1993 INDEX Subdivision No. 5-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE John L. Polk. Jr. 1. Subdivision No. 1-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Edward & Mary Cardinale 6. Subdivision No. 7-1993 SKETCH PLAN Cindy Jarvis 10. Site Plan No. 8-93 Douglas Petroski 14. Site Plan No. 11-93 Richard Egglestonl Thomas Stimpson 16. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. - -- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 23RD. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN EDWARD LAPOINT CAROL PULVER MEMBERS ABSENT KATHLEEN ROWE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I WR-1A CEA JOHN L. POLK. JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF ASSEMBLY PT.. ON EAST SIDE OF CANAL BAY AND HARRIS BAY PROPOSAL IS TO DIVIDE EXISTING LOT INTO TWO CONFORMING LOTS. WESTERLY LOT WILL CONTAIN TWO EXISTING COTTAGES AND APPLICANT WILL CONVEY A LOT TO DAUGHTERS OR OTHER PARTY. EASTERLY LOT WILL BE RETAINED BY APPLICANT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV .8-1993 (APA) TAX MAP NO. 6-3-1 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 5-1993, John L. Polk. Jr., Meeting Date: March 23, 1993 "Pro;ect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.14 acre parcel into two lots. One lot will be 1.0 acres and the second lot will be 1.14 acres. The property is located off of Assembly Point Road on Harris Bay (Lake George) and is zoned WR-IA. The subdivision required several variances. The smaller lot received a variance to allow two principal buildings on it where only one is allowed and received relief to allow for less than a 75' shoreline setback for the two principal buildings. The larger lot required variances to allow a lot with less than 40' of frontage on a town road and to allow less than 75' shoreline setback for the principal building. pro;ect Analysis: The main issues regarding this subdivision were addressed during the variance proceedings. The septic systems for the two lots are existing and no modifications are proposed. Since lot 2 has frontage on a town road, access to the lot should be via the town road. This would eliminate the need for access easements and would make the property more accessible for emergency vehicles. Currently the buildings are seasonal. Recommendations: Other than the issue regarding access to lot 2 from the town road there does not appear to be any outstanding problems associated with this two lot subdivision proposal. Providing access off of the town road is provided for lot two, Staff can recommend preliminary approval." MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Martin Auffredou. I'm an Associate with the Law Firm of Bartlett, Pontiff. Stewart. and Rhodes in Glens Falls. on behalf of the applicant, John Polk. I'd like to point out that John Polk is also with us this evening, and he's prepared to address the Board. if the need arises, and give his input on it. Scott is correct that the variance application addressed most of the major issues which - 1 - r arise in this application. I'd certainly like to point out that as far as the road access, which seems to be the only issue remaining, that's the way the property has been for many, many years. The large cottage which you see. the larger parcel was built around the first of the Century. That easement extended from that area, into that area, from Assembly Point Road since that time. During the variance application, Staff asked for some input from the Fire Warden, the Fire Chiefs responsible for emergency access. and responsible for covering these areas. There was a report issued by those officers that they had inspected the area and that they did not feel that the driveway presented any problems with emergency access. It's true that a town road does abut the larger lot. However, at the present time. the applicant has no intention of extending a drive to that town road. It's seasonal use only. At this present time. he just doesn't feel that it's necessary. If at some point in the future. a subsequent owner of the property wanted to do so. by all means they could. There is one restriction, I think, that should be noted, is that there is a septic area, a leachfield area, that maybe would present a problem for a driveway, if it was extended to that town road. but at the present time, Mr. Polk has no intention of putting a driveway to that area. We just don't think it's necessary. MR. BREWER-Is it strictly seasonal, the cottage? MR. AUFFREDOU-Strictly seasonal. MR. BREWER-This looks like an awfully long driveway. If somebody were to convert that cottage into a year round home. MR. AUFFREDOU-I think the easement would run with that property. If someone wanted to eventually convert it, they would be aware of the restrictions that the road would present, and they have the option of creating a new driveway if they feel that that's necessary. With the use that we intend for the property, we just don't think that it's necessary for us. MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any questions? This is a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Do we have to do a SEQRA on this? MR. HARLICKER-SEQRA was done back when we did the variances. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I wonder if the applicant would be willing to stipulate that if it goes from seasonal to year round. then they would connect with the town road, use the town road as access? MR. AUFFREDOU-He just doesn't have any intention to do that, to change. I think this is the way the property has been used for years. He would like to continue, and intends to continue using it on a seasonal basis only. He intends to convey the smaller lot, the one acre lot. which has the two existing cottages on it. MRS. TARANA-This one? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. It may be that that conveyance is to his daughters. However. that's not finalized at the present time. MRS. TARANA-So he could convey it someone else who makes it year round? - 2 - '-..." MR. AUFFREDOU-Certainly. That's certainly possible. and it's certainly possible that a future owner could come forward and say, I'd also like to build on the footprints of those two cottages. That would be permissible. If there is someone who would like to come in and build a year round single family residential residence on that property, I think there would be some variances that would be required, and I think that that would be a subject of an application for review by the Town. MRS. TARANA-I don't know. Scott has made note of the fact that he feels that this should be access through the Town road. MR. LAPOINT-Would this access mean cutting trees. that type of thing? MR. AUFFREDOU-A significant amount of trees. It's a wooded area. There would be quite a bit of clearing. MR. LAPOINT-Right. You would have to drive all the way around the septic area, so you'd have to put it within a certain distance of the lake to clear the septic area? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's right. and I can't emphasize enough that the fire inspectors of the area did go and issue a report, correct me if I'm wrong. they did issue a report that they didn't think that access was a problem. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I recall that. variance proceeding. That was brought up during the MR. BREWER-And that is on file? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It would probably be in the variance file. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-I guess I'm of the opinion that the less clearing we do. associated with this. and if it's not his intent to. MR. HARLICKER-Are there any conditions on the easements, for maintaining the easements? Lets say the two smaller units remain seasonal, and for whatever reason the larger house becomes year round. who would be responsible for maintaining the easement across Lot Number One, for access to it? MR. AUFFREDOU-It would be my opinion that the owner of the larger lot would be responsible for maintaining the easement. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Is that fact documented anywhere? MR. AUFFREDOU-It' s not necessary at this point. Nothing has happened. That would be a matter which would be addressed at such time as the deeds were conveyed. MR. RUEL-And you feel at that time, then it could be made a condition? MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm not sure that it's a condition. I think it just naturally is part of the common law. It's not necessary to be made a condition. The easement has to be maintained. It doesn't seem to make any sense for the owner of the property not to maintain it. if he's got to use it. It's in his interest to maintain it. MR. LAPOINT-I've got one quick question for our Staff. Jim, we're just doing Preliminary tonight. MR. MARTIN-Right. - 3 - - MR. LAPOINT-Even though the applicant has asked for Final. there's no way we can approve that? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MARTIN-It's not typically done. application on file. that I'm aware of. no. We have no final You have submitted it? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They submitted all three at the same time. MR. MARTIN-They did? MR. AUFFREDOU-Ye s. We don't want to create any precedent here, that the Board's not comfortable with. We can come back up next week. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I mean. nothing's stamped here. MR. MARTIN-Well, there is no next week. April. This would be it until MR. AUFFREDOU-There is nothing stamped, right. We would just ask that the matter be addressed as expeditiously as possible. MR. MARTIN-It's really the Board's discretion. MR. LAPOINT-No, put him through one more time. MR. MARTIN-I have enough faith in the Board. If you want to do it now, and bear in mind the precedent setting nature. MR. LAPOINT-No. I wouldn't do that tonight. MR. BREWER-Can I just ask one other question? Why was the easement not given down in here, by the septic, and he could come across the shortest distance of this land to the garage? Is that more appropriate, rather than have this driveway come way over here? MR. AUFFREDOU-I guess I'd like to point out, the driveway exists. You know that. MR. BREWER-All right, and then this would be cutting trees and? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's right. MR. BREWER-It's very wooded there? MR. AUFFREDOU-That's right, extremely. MR. BREWER-Well, you're caught both ways, because the septic system here. and the leachfield here. MR. AUFFREDOU-That's right. JOHN POLK MR. POLK-My name is Mr. Polk. I own the property. I'd like to clarify the point that we have no intentions of parting with this property here. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. POLK-My daughters will have this property, or whatever may be for someone else. However. we will maintain this road. as we have done 90 years in the family. So I want to clear that up. If at such time that this property should change. these people do not want this easement here, we will then come through here, if we have to. MR. BREWER-Okay. - 4 - '- -/ MR. POLK-But we'd prefer not to, obviously. MR. BREWER-I'm just looking at the shortest distance, rather than have a 1.000 foot driveway. MR. POLK-Obviously, but you don't realize that we intend to maintain this property. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. POLK-We are clear of the septic system. MRS. TARANA-If you did have to road. you'd have to probably use it. move the septic area closer to the lake. MR. POLK-This map is not right. The septic system's here. MR. BREWER-For this lot. MR. AUFFREDOU-No. This is the septic area, John, for the larger cottage. MR. POLK-No, it isn't. It is back here. MR. AUFFREDOU-No, according to Leon Steves. you 2,000 gallon tank is here, and then you have a leachfield here. MR. POLK-We have no leachfield there. later map. It was corrected on the MR. BREWER-Do we have that map on file? MR. POLK-Yes, you do. You have the new map. MR. AUFFREDOU-This is the latest map that Leon has drafted. MR. POLK-No. MR. HARLICKER-They made some changes after Sketch Plan, showing what the. to mark off the septic area. extending the utility lines, and I think that was it. MR. AUFFREDOU-This area was drawn in here, as septic area. That was a change. and also connecting the utili ties to the main cottage. MR. BREWER-Well, if the man that owns the property says that's not here. it's up here. MR. POLK-But my point is that this property, we expect to maintain for the rest of my daughters lives. MR. MARTIN-If we have something that's not right. we'd like to have that right by Final. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, right. MR. LAPOINT-It will be in our motion. MR. AUFFREDOU-I can only go on what the surveyors told us. MR. BREWER-Yes. Okay. MR. MARTIN-If there is a matter to be clarified. MR. AUFFREDOU-We'll correct that for Final. MR. MARTIN-If it's right, then we just want clarification. if not. change it. - 5 - """ -' MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Is it possible to introduce a condition where the occupant of the easterly lot will maintain the existing drive into the westerly lot? MR. BREWER-If you want to. I don't know that it's necessary. If he doesn't maintain it. then there's no way that he can get to his land. MR. AUFFREDOU-It's all right with me. MR. RUEL-Well, the occupant is in Lot 2. right? MRS. PULVER-I don't think it's binding, though, unless it's on a deed. I mean, you can make that a restriction, but it wouldn't be binding unless it was deed restricted. MR. RUEL-It wouldn't? MRS. PULVER-No. It would have to be deed restricted. There's no purpose to it either, at this level. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, it sounds to me like we're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. MRS. PULVER-Yes. or create one. MR. RUEL-AIl right. We'll leave it out. MR. BREWER-Okay. motion? Anybody else? Would anybody care to make a MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE JOHN L. POLK. JR., Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Proposal is to divide exi sting lot into two conforming lots. westerly lot will contain two existing cottages and applicant will convey a lot to daughters or other party. Easterly lot will be retained by the applicant, with the following condition: that when the applicant files his final plan, that he have his surveyor confirm the approximate location of the septic system on Lot 2, the larger lot. Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE EDWARD & MARY CARDINALE OWNER: SAME AS ANN ROAD. 200' NORTH OF WINTERGREEN ROAD LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 119-6-34 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TYPE: UNLISTED ABOVE LOCATION: PROPOSAL IS FOR A LOT SIZE: 7.88 SFR-1A PEGGY THREE ACRES MARK BOMBARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-1993, Edward & Mary Cardinale, Meeting Date: March 23, 1993 "pro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to divide a 7.9 acre parcel into three lots. Lots one and two will be 1.0 acres in area and the third lot will be 5.9 acres. The project is located on Peggy Ann Road just west of Wintergreen Road and is zoned SFR-1A. Each of the lots will have - 6 - frontage on Peggy Ann Road. Lot one will have 49 feet of frontage. lot 2 will have 40 feet of frontage and lot 3 will have 75 feet of frontage. Access to the three lots will be via a common drive with branches off of the main drive to service lots one and two. Pro;ect Analysis: The project does not involve the construction of any streets. The lots will be serviced by Town water and on site septic systems. Emergency accessibility was discussed with the fire department and the design of the proposed drive is acceptable. The applicant should indicate future subdivision plans for the remaining 5+ acres. Should the land be subdivided further. there is wide enough access to the interior of the property to allow construction of a road to town specifications. It appears that lot 3 is large enough to be further subdivided into three more lots for a total of 6 lots. The applicant is also going to regrade the access drive so that it ties in with the realignment of Peggy Ann Road. Recommendation: Staff recommends preliminary approval of this subdivision." MR. BOMBARD-My name is Mark Bombard, from the office of Coulter & McCormack. and Mr. Cardinale is here also MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MRS. PULVER-One thing, you're going to have to incorporate some sort of easement for the driveway? MR. BOMBARD-Yes. In the letter of intent, which should be with the application, it addresses those. MRS. TARANA-Could you tell me what the future plans are for the rest of the property? MR. BOMBARD-We are not sure, right now. That would be up to Mr. Cardinale. Right now, he just would like to build a single family residence on lot three, as was stated from Staff. It has ability for future development. It was looked into. but at this point, nothing is planned. MRS. TARANA-Could I ask the Staff. how many lots would trigger a town road being required? MR. HARLICKER-Well, what would happen is, if further division of this land back here was to be done, they'd have to have frontage on a town road, and the only way to do that would be to extend in and build a road in there. MR. MARTIN-I think the important thing to note here is that the plan here. as it appears for you right now, is conducive to installing a town road. I mean. everything is there. He's got the proper widths to accommodate a town road, and this design lend itself to a cul-de-sac design. If he did divide up the remaining 5.72 acres there, it could be very easily accomplished. That would be the main thing in my mind, that you see a design here that accommodates that future action. MRS. TARANA-So, if there were one more lot added, would that, then, necessitate a town road? MR. MARTIN-I don't see how he couldn't get around, because it's a requirement to have 40 foot minimum frontage. So, I don't see how he could do that without that, not unless he goes after a variance, because lot three now has 75 feet of frontage. There's not enough there for two 40 foot widths. MRS. TARANA-And lot three is going to maintain that long driveway? MR. BOMBARD-Yes. That's also in the letter of intent. It will be maintained as a dirt drive. or a gravel drive. I would say. until the time lot one or two are sold, at that time, it would be paved, according to town specs. - 7 - '-- MRS. TARANA-And is there provision made in the event that the owners of property of the third lot are away or something, and what happens to that road then, if they're not available to maintain it? MR. BOMBARD-I would say that it would have to be maintained by whoever is assigned to plow their driveway, and it will be written into the covenants, into their deed, and it should be all that's left to it. I mean. if it's in their deed. then it should be maintained by the owner of lot three. MRS. PULVER-I just would like it to go on the record that my letter of intent is not signed. MR. BREWER-And neither is mine. MRS. PULVER-Is anybody's? MR. HARLICKER-The one in the file is signed. MR. BOMBARD-The original is signed. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Should we read this into the record, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Sure. That would be a good idea. MR. BREWER-The letter of intent, do you want to read it, Corinne? MRS. TARANA-Letter of Intent, the undersigned. being the co-owner of a 7.88 acre parcel, located on the southwesterly side of Peggy Ann Road in the Town of Queensbury proposes to subdivide said parcel into three lots. Two of said lots to be offered for sale, and the third lot containing 5.72 acres to be retained by the Cardinales as their home lot. It is the further intent of the Cardinales to construct a 12 foot wide gravel driveway within a 24 foot wide cleared area, extending from Peggy Ann Road to the proposed house location on Lot 3. and to install, according to Town regulations. a six inch water main on the northerly side of said driveway, and underground electric, telephone. and cable t.V. lines on the southerly side of said driveway, extending to Lot Number Three. Additionally, the applicant will convey to the owners of lots one and two a 50 foot wide right-of-way to provide access to Peggy Ann Road. The deeds to lots one and two wi II contain a provision stating that the applicant will pave that portion of said dri veway which abuts said lots one and two. at the time of the conveyance of either of said lots. Also that the applicants will, at their expense, maintain and plow said driveway until and if said driveway and right-of-way is conveyed to the Town of Queensbury. Edward K. Cardinale" MR. BREWER-All right. Okay. There is a public hearing. Does anybody have anything else? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. We have to do a SEQRA. MRS. PULVER-Long Form? MR. BREWER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-1993, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for - 8 - its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: EDWARD & MARY CARDINALE. the proposal is for a three lot subdivision, WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993. by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe MR. BREWER-Okay. Would someone care to make a motion? The only thing I'd like, you said we do have a letter from the fire company. Jim. that's in the file? MR. MARTIN-Yes, I believe, previously, from Sketch Plan, or maybe not, on this one. MR. BREWER-I think we asked for it, but I don't know if we ever got it. MR. MACEWAN-I vaguely remember it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. What it was. was they had made these recommendations on a subdivision that they had done before, the same sort of situation. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It was from the Fire Marshal. that's what it was. MR. HARLICKER-The Fire Marshal. MR. BREWER-Okay. - 9 - ....,... ~------' MR. HARLICKER-And it was a 24 foot wide cleared area. and a 12 foot wide drive. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-So they meet that on the drawing, so there'd be no reason to put any conditional? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Can anybody come up with anything else? I have none. MR. BREWER-I have nothing. MR. RUEL-No. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE EDWARD & MARY CARDINALE. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: The proposal is for a three lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1993 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A CINDY JARVIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF WEST MT. RD. AND LUZERNE RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION. (APA) TAX MAP NO. 121-1-57 LOT SIZE: 6.78 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JEFFREY G. MARTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Remember we tabled it last week. and they were going to give us a new map? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I know, but I don't have it on my agenda. MR. BREWER-I don't have it on mine, either. MRS. PULVER-So I didn't bring my stuff. MR. BREWER-It was just added. It carne in our packets. MR. MACEWAN-Delivered Thursday of last week. MRS. TARANA-This wasn't in our packets. MR. BREWER-It was in the Staff notes, it was attached. the map was the last thing in our Staff notes that we received. MR. LAPOINT-Got it. MRS. PULVER-But I'm just saying. I don't have any updated agenda with that on it. MR. BREWER-Nobody does. - 10 - ..........- MRS. TARANA-Nobody does. MR. BREWER-It was old business, and we just threw it in before new business, Carol. MRS. PULVER-I could have very easily left it home, because it wasn't on the agenda. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1993, Cindy Jarvis, Meeting Date: March 23, 1993 "Pro i ect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6.78 acre parcel, located at the corner of West Mountain Road and Luzerne Road, into 5 lots. Four of the lots will be approximately 1 acre in size; the fifth lot will be approximately 2 acres in size. Lot 5 will have 40' of frontage and access on West Mountain, but will have shared access drive. lots 3 and 4 will have frontage and a shared access on Luzerne Road. Lot 2 has an existing single family residence on it. The property is zoned SR-1A and is serviced by municipal water. Each lot will have an individual on- si te septic system. Pro j ect Analysis: The applicant should provide information regarding the site's septic sUitability; lot 2 has an existing septic system. the remaining lots are vacant. The property is currently wooded and clearing should be limited to the area where the houses are proposed to be located. There are no streets proposed as part of this subdivision. The access drives are located far enough away from the intersection. the closest one is 146' away, so they should not pose a hazard. The property is fairly flat, a change in elevation of < 20 from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. The property drains to the northeast towards Clendon Brook." MR. HARLICKER-We'd just like a little clarification. here. on these maps. If you could explain the proposed retention areas. MR. BREWER-Could I ask one question. before we get into this? Does this have to go to Warren County? MR. MARTIN-Subdivisions don't go. MR. BREWER-Subdivisions don't. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-I have a question about what you just read. You say Lot 5 will have 40' frontage and access on West Mountain Road, but will have shared access drive. MR. HARLICKER-That' s, "lots one and two" should be inserted in there, will have shared access drives. MRS. PULVER-Yes. This is the one that's shared. MR. RUEL-No. he's talking about Lot 5. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's a typo in the Staff Notes, lots one and two will have the shared access drive on West Mountain Road. MR. RUEL-Lot 5 should be Lot 2? MR. HARLICKER-No. Lot 5 is Lot 5. MRS. PULVER-This is, it's a typographical error. These are the shared driveways. on lot one and lot 2. and lot 5 is separate. They typed it wrong. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The shared drives refer to lots one and two. MR. RUEL-Okay. That didn't agree with the map. - 11 - '- MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. BREWER-Go ahead with what you were saying, Scott. MR. HARLICKER-I just was wondering what the, they have proposed retention areas listed on these lots. I was just wondering what they referred to. and that's in the Staff Notes. This is Sketch Plan. If you recall. he carne to the meeting last week with this revised plan, and you asked him to come back this week. after you had a chance to look at it. So here he is, ready for your comments. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions at all? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Preliminary? We are at Sketch Plan, just moving towards MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. RUEL-Just one question. What is the distance between the property line on Clendon Brook? Do you have any idea? Is it nearby, or quite a distance? MR. JEFF MARTIN-I went out there about three to four hundred feet. and didn't hit it. I believe it's in excess of 600 feet. MR. RUEL-Because the property drains in that area. in that direction, doesn't it, towards the Brook? MR. JEFF MARTIN-Yes. The whole region drains towards there. MR. HARLICKER-Drains towards there. Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. JEFF MARTIN-It's not nearby. MR. JIM MARTIN-Just for the Board's knowledge. this will be going to the engineer at Preliminary. It's at Sketch Plan now. That's why it hasn't gone there yet. MR. LAPOINT-Could you answer Staff's questions about what the retention areas were intended for? MR. JEFF MARTIN-We assume that when portions of the lots are cleared, and the house is built. we're going to be increasing the stormwater runoff from the sites, and while we haven't worked out all the computations yet. we assume there's going to have to be some area set aside for retention. Our gut feeling, at the moment, is that the existing, wooded nature of the site is such that any water that runs off the lawn. is going to hit this section of woods. and soak in. So there will be a fringe of woods around there, which would serve as a retention area. Should the calculations show that we do have to put in a little swale or something, just a little swale area with a slight berm, we have room for it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Preliminary. That'll come, more specific detail, at MR. JEFF MARTIN-At Preliminary, yes. MR. BREWER-Could I just ask, why is there a proposed culvert here, in the driveway? Is there a low area? MR. JEFF MARTIN-Yes. There is a low area, what appears to be a seasonal runoff area. It such that it does not appear to run every year. In another week or so. we're going to start looking very closely at this, because this year we're going to have much more runoff than usual. - 12 - '-- MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-You haven't asked for any waivers, have you? MR. JEFF MARTIN-No. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Well. I just wanted to say, I'm not real thrilled with this plan, to be perfectly honest with you. I mean. I just don't like all these shared driveways. I think that when they made that reg, that it was a mistake. and I think we're seeing more and more and more of them. and I just don't think they're a great idea. MR. HARLICKER-Well. the alternative, then, would be to have each lot with an individual cut on it, which would. MRS. TARANA-You don't think there are other alternatives? I mean, it seems to me there could be a reconfiguration of the lots. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, well, I was just referring to the. you made the comment about the shared driveways. MR. MARTIN-I think. you know. beyond a Town road being installed, with a cul-de-sac, which would be, that's the classic alternative. It's often times expensive, and that's why it's not shown by the developer. MRS. TARANA-Well, but I think we're seeing subdivisions of a number of lots that are getting away Town roads by putting in these shared driveways. MR. BREWER-Six lots triggers the Town road? MR. JIM MARTIN-I believe so, yes. MR. LAPOINT-The advantages are, I think it results in a lot less clear cutting. and you're left with more of what's in character. than if you had a cul-de-sac, even with just one cut, either onto Luzerne Road. or West Mountain Road. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess, corning back to that, is there going to be some kind of agreement. like we had in the previous application. about maintaining the driveways, at Preliminary? MR. JEFF MARTIN-Yes. We will be supplying you with copies of the covenants and restrictions that will go into deeds, and then as the attorney earlier said, there is a whole body of law that covers shared driveways. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there some way possible we could get a letter, kind of like the one we got previous, a letter of intent for the driveways? MR. JEFF MARTIN-Yes, whether it is in the form of a letter. I have a copy of the covenants and restrictions. MR. BREWER-Both. MR. JEFF MARTIN-Here sirs, here are a copy of the covenants and restrictions. MR. BREWER-Okay. motion? That's fine. Would somebody care to make a MOTION TO RECOMMEND SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1993 SKETCH PLAN CINDY JARVIS PROCEED TO PRELIMINARY STAGE, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: To subdivide 6.78 acres into five lots. - 13 - -4 _ '"-,, Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993. by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 8-93 TYPE I WR-1A DOUGLAS PETROSKI OWNER: SAME DtlItB°XE 12 J.°fAi~QN kCRllHW~LBoldk ·0'¡1flr.JrtNt:, 2~~0~0~ ìlbHè~ CROSS REFERENCE AV 19-1993 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-11 LOT SIZE: .434 ACRES SECTION 119-79F STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff , Site Plan No. 8-93, Douglas Petroski, Meeting Date: March 23, 1993 II Pro j ect __pescription: The appl icant is proposing to construct a 12' x 12' screened in porch on an existing 22' x 28' home. The pro j ect is located on Glen Lake off of Fitzgerald Road. The property is .434 acres in size and is zoned WR-1A. Variances were required for shoreline setback because the house and porch are located within 75' of Glen Lake. Site plan review is required because it is an expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Since the project is located within the Glen Lake Critical Environmental Area, it is classified as a Type I action under SEQRA and requires a long EAF. Proiect Analysis: The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E of the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of bUildings. lighting and signs; The screened porch should be compatible with the existing structure. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; The project will not affect vehicular traffic. 3. The location, arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The project will no affect off-street parking or loading; 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures and control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; The project will not affect pedestrian access. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The project will not affect stormwater drainage. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The project will not affect water supply or septic. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; The project will not require landscaping. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The project will not affect emergency access. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding andlor erosion. The project is not in an area that is susceptible to ponding. flooding or erosion. Recommendation: The Planning Staff recommends approval of this site plan." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we do have an approval from Warren County Planning Board. Is there someone here for this application? Can we proceed without someone here. Jim? MRS. TARANA-That's why it was tabled at the ZBA. wasn't it? I thought it was tabled at the ZBA? MR. MARTIN-No. was approved. This wasn't tabled. Leemilt's was tabled. This - 14 - '--, MRS. TARANA-Did it go twice to the ZBA? MR. BREWER-No. It came to us last month, for the dock and this application, and then he had to go back and get a variance. So that's why he's back this month. MR. MARTIN-The variance was approved. just last week. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that we need anybody here to represent. MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any questions? MR. MARTIN-If there are any questions, then you can simply table it. MR. BREWER-Well, if there's questions. we can table it. MRS. PULVER-I don't have any questions. MR. BREWER-Okay, Ed, do you want to go through the SEQRA? MR. LAPOINT-Public hearing first. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry. I'll open the public hearing. anyone here to speak on this application? Is there PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DOUGLAS PETROSKI. to build a 12' by 12' screened in porch on an existing 22' by 28' hoae. 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 is involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that - 15 - '- -' 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 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe MR. BREWER-Okay. Does someone care to make a motion? I would just like to add that possibly we could put something in for protection of the lake during construction, as a condition, and possibly, does he have any, I don't have the plan in front of me, eaves trenches or anything on the house, to vent the runoff into the lake? MR. LAPOINT-Again. it's hitting a roof. which is clean. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 8-93 DOUGLAS PETROSKI, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: To build a 12' by 12' screened in porch on an existing 12' by 28' home. with the following conditions: That during construction the applicant provide for erosion and sediment control in conformance with New York State Standards. Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe SITE PLAN NO. 11-93 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON OWNER: ALBANY SAVINGS BANK ZONE: HC-IA LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR OPERATION OF AUTO COLLISION REPAIRS (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 59-1-1.1 SECTION 119-23 D(3)(b) MICHAEL MULLER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 11-93, Richard EgglestonlThomas Stimpson, Meeting Date: March 23, 1993 "Project Description: The applicant is proposing to convert a vacant building into an auto collision repair business. The building is on a 33.550 square foot lot located on the east side of Bay Road just south of Cronin Road. The building is 4,636 square feet in size. The front of the building will be used as office area (1,100 sq. ft.) and the rest of the building (3,500 sq. ft.) will be used as the collision repair area. The project will also involve the removal of underground fuel storage tanks and contaminated soils. The applicant will have to conform to DEC and Fire Department criteria for the removal of the fuel tanks. Pro;ect Analysis: The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and signs; There is to be no new construction. The applicant is locating their business into an existing building. 2. The adequacy and - 16 -. ",-- '-- arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The applicant should indicate on the plan how traffic will be directed around the curved drive in front. It would seem that the southern access should be the entrance to the site and the northern access the exit. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The applicant states that there are 12 parking spaces; these spaces should be indicated on the plan and marked on the parking area. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access to the building should not be a problem. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The applicant is not going to al ter the existing site drainage. According to the applicant. stormwater sheet flows off the paved area and on to the grass area to the north and east areas of the site. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The site is served by municipal water and sewer. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other sui table plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual andlor noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead plants; Landscaping is proposed for the entrance of the building; no other landscaping is proposed. Consideration should be given to providing landscaping along the road frontage and property lines. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of f ire hydrants; The site appears to be adequate in terms of emergency accessibility. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding andlor erosion. The site does not appear to be susceptible to ponding or flooding. Recommendation: The Planning Staff recommends approval of this application." MR. BREWER-And we do have, "No County Impact", from Warren County. Is there someone here representing the applicant? MRS. PULVER-I have a question. Beautification Committee? Did this go before the MR. HARLICKER-Yes, it did. MRS. PULVER-And what was their? My only other question was. when we looked at the site, there were two garage doors, or two open doors, but the plan shows three. Are you going to make some minor alterations, and put a third. RICHARD EGGLESTON MR. EGGLESTON-There's two existing there now. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Right. MR. EGGLESTON-We had the possibility, and we really can't determine, engineering the inside of the building. as to whether we'll need another door or not. That was put on there just. MRS. PULVER-Okay, because on here it says, no new construction, but then when I look at the plan and see the building, there is a difference, but you're not planning, unless it's necessary? MR. EGGLESTON-Unless it's necessary, correct. MR. MARTIN-The Beautification Committee approved on March 8th. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. RUEL-It mentions driveways. Is there a sketch with driveways? Is this it? - 17 - "--- - MR. MULLER-There sure is. There's a survey map. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. MULLER-And all of the blacktop that's shown on the survey is there today. and we intend to keep it in that configuration. MR. BREWER-Okay. Could you please state your name for the record? MR. MULLER-My name is Michael Muller, and I represent Mr. Stimpson and Mr. Eggleston. who are the applicants. and Mr. Eggleston is to my right. MR. BREWER-Okay. Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Could you explain to me, a little bit better than what the map shows. a description as to how you're going to handle the hazardous waste, paint chemicals and thinners, and such like that, for storage? MR. EGGLESTON-Those type of substances will be removed on a weekly to bi-weekly schedule. by a commercial. Safety Clean. I believe. is the company. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. What kind of an enclosure are you going to store them in until they're removed off the site? MR. EGGLESTON-I believe what OSHA recommends now is some kind of a 55 gallon container. drum type. MR. LAPOINT-Fireproof locker? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MULLER-Yes. We're going to keep it in a fireproof locker, and for the record, it says that the hazardous materials stored on the premises consist mainly of lacquers and paints, and are stored in a hazardous fireproof locker. The locker is an Eagle FM, that's the brand name, with externally vented, fireproof, metal cabinet. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't notice that on there. MR. MULLER-Okay, and then it says that a company by the name of AirCo Hazardous Wastes removes. all of the stuff that's hazardous is removed by Safety Clean. Corp. once a month. MR. MARTIN-And I think before a CO is issued. you'll be getting a visit from the Fire Marshall. He'll review all that. also. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess I want to know how many cars you plan on keeping there. In other words, if you have 30 or 40 wrecks coming in there. we don't want to make an eyesore of it. Is there a proposed place for storage of them? MR. EGGLESTON-We wouldn't be taking that many vehicles in. MR. BREWER-Well, I just use that as a high number, but. MR. EGGLESTON-I think we're, the Beautification Committee addressed that also, I think we're going to. between 10 and 12 is the most that we feel that we could handle on the side there. We wouldn't bring the work in anymore than that. MR. BREWER-So you wouldn't have a problem if we stipulated that. 12 cars maximum? MR. EGGLESTON-No. It's a scheduling type thing. anyway. MR. MULLER-Mr. Stimpson. who's not here this evening, when he was asked the same question by the Beautification Committee, his answer - 18 - ---- ~ -- was. our business is to get the cars in and out. We don't intend to store any of them there. Although there will be outdoor storage from time to time. and probably people are wondering, well. what do they expect to see. Their real, real ugly ones are not out on the road. okay. and there may very well be some brutal looking wrecks. MR. BREWER-The only reason I say that is because when I go home at night, I go by Dave, Barnes. and if you know where I'm talking about, he's got a large lot, and he must have 20 cars in there, and it's not appealing to drive by and see that, and this is right on. MR. EGGLESTON-And that isn't the type operation we intend on doing. MR. BREWER-I understand that. I just wanted to bring that up as a question to you. MRS. TARANA-I'm just curious, these real ugly ones that you said would be there. where are they going to be, if they're not outside? MR. MULLER-You bring them indoors if it becomes a security situation. Sometimes a door is torn off. and you've got a lot of valuables in the vehicle. You don't leave it outside. MRS. TARANA-So, how many can you fit inside your building? MR. MULLER-I was told by Tom. 20. MR. EGGLESTON-Probably. MRS. TARANA-You can store 20 vehicles in that building? MR. MULLER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-And you have 12 parking spaces. would be for employees? How many of those MR. EGGLESTON-As it is right now, we have three employees, three spaces. MRS. TARANA-So you could store 20 cars inside and 9 cars outside? MR. EGGLESTON-Approximately. depending on what size and what type of vehicle they are. MR. MULLER-And you did ask us for the maximum. We're not going to be storing 20 cars. We could fit 20 cars. MRS. TARANA-And you could have nine cars outside? MR. MULLER-Right. MR. RUEL-How many parking spaces. 12? MR. BREWER-Twelve. MR. BREWER-Three for employees, and nine for. MR. LAPOINT-Do you have any problem with a big bright yellow arrow for "in" on the southerly part of the drive, and "out" on the northerly, as Staff suggests? MR. EGGLESTON-There's no problem with that. MR. BREWER-Okay. There is a public hearing scheduled. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this application? PHILIP HART MR. HART-Hi. I'm Philip Hart. We own the land to the rear. and - 19 - our concern is, we have a right-of-way on the southern side which is 25 feet on the macadam. I just want to make sure they're aware of it. MRS. TARANA-Could you show us on the map where that is? MR. HART-Sure. MR. MACEWAN-Is that where you're talking about, right there? MR. HART-On the southern side. MR. MACEWAN-On the southern side. MR. BREWER-Where does that right-of-way go to? MR. HART-It goes to the lot? MRS. TARANA-This lot. the Pasco lot? MR. HART-Linda Hart owns it now. LINDA HART MRS. HART-My name is Linda Hart, and that says. retained by Pasco, well. we purchased it in February of '92. MRS. TARANA-So you own all of this property, and this right-of-way. MR. HART-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-So that's a landlocked lot back there, otherwise. MR. HART-Right. They actually have 24 foot from the rear of the building to our land. MR. MULLER-I guess, I have to tell you that I'm not aware of it yet, because I haven't seen the title documents to it. I can only say that, at this stage, we have not gotten the title documents from Albany Savings Bank. I know a little bit of the history of the property, and that is that Mr. Pasco owned the entire piece of property, and when I say the entire piece of property. where this building is situated, and where Linda Hart now owns the rear portion. and there was. it's my recollection. a retained right-of- way by Mr. Pasco. to get back to hi s property when it was landlocked. because. as the map indicates, Philip and Linda Hart own to the north, when two Mr. Zitos owned to the west, and Mr. Pasco owned what was landlocked. The two Mr. Zitos were foreclosed against by Albany Savings Bank. and what I do know, because I checked that on the record, then the two Mr. Zitos had an option on the back portion. They leased their option, and presumably Mr. Pasco sold it to Linda Hart, perhaps with the right-of-way. I don't know. I can't tell you that tonight, because I haven't seen the title documents. That is that the Bank will send us those ti tle documents after they find out that we have gotten some approval from the Town. That's all I can say about that. and as to who owns it or who will own it. today Albany Savings Bank owns it. I sure hope so, because that's who we signed the contract with. They are the party who purchased it after the foreclosure sale, from their own foreclosure, and Mr. Eggleston and Mr. Stimpson are the purchasers. MR. BREWER-Okay. So be fore they can get a CO, we can make a stipulation that they have a proper map on file with the Town? Is that possible? MR. MULLER-There is a survey map. MR. MACEWAN-If there's question of an easement that these people have to that property, I, personally. would like to see it - 20 - stipulated on there. and make sure that the map that's on file shows the easement. MR. BREWER-How much of that 24 foot eats up your parking area and whatnot? MR. MULLER-The easement is for, let me see what it says here, it says here that conveying an easement and right across, 25 feet in width. What that basically means is, if this is correct. and I have no reason to doubt it. that Mrs. Hart has a right of access across, to get to that back property, and we've got nothing here to block it. It's open space, although there's parking there. MR. RUEL-But half of it is paved. MR. MULLER-It's all paved. MR. BREWER-It's all paved. MR. MACEWAN-It makes it easier for her to get her property. MR. RUEL-It's all paved? MR. MULLER-Sure. MR. RUEL-The easement? MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Not according to this? MR. MULLER-Yes. Mr. Pasco paved that. MR. BREWER-When it was Adirondack Power Products. years ago. MR. MULLER-In the 70's. MR. BREWER-Yes. So it's not a problem. All she has the right of way is just to go across your land to get to her land. MR. HART-Yes. We just want it kept open. That's all. MR. RUEL-Is this the easement here? MR. MACEWAN-The easement is from their property line, here, to this dotted line. here. MR. RUEL-Yes. That's 25 feet, right? MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. RUEL-Okay, and this area is macadam, right here. right? MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-So only a part of the easement is paved? MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Well, you said it was all paved. MR. MULLER-Well. it's all paved in the sense that if you wanted to go in the back, and you wanted to go in pavement. MR. MACEWAN-It makes it easier access for her. that's all. MR. RUEL-It's not all paved, it's half paved. MR. MULLER-Okay. It's half paved. - 21 - MR. MARTIN-I think it would be wise to get a site plan that shows the parking, and it was a Staff Comment that Scott was gOing to get into. especially in light of this information about the easement. HR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-If we were to give a conditional approval that the applicant come up with a larger scale drawing showing the location of the parking spaces, and the easement to the Planning Staff's satisfaction. MR. MARTIN-As long as we had something to go by. MR. BREWER-By when could we have that. possibly? MR. MULLER-Yes, less than a week, because we're basically talking about drawing rectangles. MR. BREWER-Yes, pretty much. MR. MULLER-I think we can do that in a day, 12 rectangles. right, 9 by 18? MR. MARTIN-That'll do it. MR. MULLER-Okay. We'll be happy to do that, and after this meeting, we'll be happy to talk to the Harts, to give them whatever assurance they need. so that we can give you an assurance that we discussed it and there isn't a controversy. We don't intend to block. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, we can put that into our motion, if all things are met by Planning Staff, then they get approval. Is there anybody else who would like to speak on this? MR. HART-One more thing. Zito ran a similar type operation. and it wasn't kept very orderly, and I would just ask for a conditional approval that it be kept in neat and orderly fashion. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. MULLER-I can give you a little bit of background on that Zito operation. and that is that Mr. Zito went in there and purchased Mr. Pasco's lawn products business and snowmobile business, and he told me that he felt ill suited for that business. So. what he was going to do was sell cars and repair cars from that location, and if Mr. Hatin were here this evening, he would tell you that that was in violation of the Ordinance, and I think, somewhere along the way, the Town Municipality took action against Mr. Zito. However, it never came to a conclusion, because Mr. Zito went out of business. We don't intend to run that same type of business. Mr. Zito parked cars out in the front view area. had trailers out there and for sale signs on cars. Mr. Stimpson and Mr. Eggleston are not selling cars from that location. That's what the Beautification Committee asked, and we can represent to you that we're not in the business of selling cars, and we're not featuring any wreck of the week out there on the front lawn. or anything like that. That's an area that's going to be landscaped, with flowers and a split rail fence, and all of the acti vi ty, we hope. wi II be princ ipall y indoors. MR. BREWER-What is going to be kept in that fenced in area? MR. MULLER-Nothing. That is that that happened to be fenc ing. It's a question mark for us, too. MR. BREWER-Well, I presume that he maybe, at one time, kept snowmobiles in crates or whatever, there. MR. MULLER-We know Mr. Pasco, did. He kept inventory. - 22 - '-- MR. BREWER-And you're not going to do anything with it. MR. EGGLESTON-In fact, we may take it down. MR. MULLER-You can't put a car out there, because it only goes to a 36 inch doorway. MR. HART-I have one more concern about the fumes from when they're painting the cars. This is going to be vented into here. but isn't there a certain system? MR. BREWER-They have stipulated the system that they're going to use. MR. HART-I've got a restaurant. building. I don't want paint in the MR. MULLER-Everybody will be able to smell the pizza. That system. which now my application is back on the chair there, but you have it, I asked Mr. Stimpson about it, and he said that. guaranteed it works. Basically what's going out into the atmosphere is breathable, pure air. because it's being filtered. We cannot emit noxious fumes out into the air. MR. BREWER-I'm somewhat familiar with those systems. MR. LAPOINT-This is a whole package deal. It's an insert right inside your garage that is vented out through. MR. EGGLESTON-Well. we haven't determined that yet. It may not meet the specifications. size wise. for a commercial insert type thing. We have specs from the Town. and we have specs from OSHA. approved, paint booth in the facility, where there presently is one in the City of Glens Falls. It's been OSHA approved. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. exposure. OSHA is principally for the workers and their MR. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. LAPOINT-And tends to move the air outside, where it's not near the workers. I'm familiar with this. You're going to need a permi t to construct and a certificate to operate from New York State for this? MR. MULLER-We were told by Kip Grant that we would have to satisfy him that we were in compliance, not only with OSHA. but with the exhaust system in the building. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Because you did specify a Stewart Warner booth. but you're saying now that that won't be the case? MR. EGGLESTON-As we're waiting for approval from the Town, Albany Savings isn't going to let us go into the building and do anything major, as far as analyzing the interior of the building or whatever. So we're really waiting. If we can get away with it size wise. that's what we'll do. Otherwise. we'll do a booth as described by the Town Building Department. MRS. TARANA-Where are your parking spaces. relative to the building? MR. EGGLESTON-The south side. MRS. TARANA-They're all on the south side. all 12 of them are there? MR. EGGLESTON-All on the south side. MRS. TARANA-Is there any problem with the right-of-way. with the - 23 - '-, parking spaces all being there? MR. MARTIN-That was my point in having them shown. I want to see the parking spaces on the plat. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. That's what I was going to put in my motion. an enlarged drawing showing the parking spaces and an easement to the landlocked Hart property in the back. MR. MACEWAN-Should we ask them to come back one more time. with a drawing of the final site plan, showing what the layout is. and the easement and the parking spaces? MR. MULLER-I know where the easement is, and the parking spaces are on that area. but we're not blocking access. MR. BREWER-He's got 30 feet. If he puts 20 foot parking spaces. and he's still got 30 feet for them to get through. So I don't think that's going to be a problem. in my mind. I think if we give him an approval on conditions that he has all these things done. within a week, to our Planning Department. MR. LAPOINT-To their satisfaction. I don't need to see it again. MR. MULLER-Well, I think we have to satisfy Mr. and Mrs. Hart, too. that. assure them that they do have their right of access. I think if we can do that. and we'd like to do that, then you shouldn't have a problem with, I don't think you should have a problem with how we park the cars. MR. BREWER-As long as everything will fit. MR. EGGLESTON-If we're going to park vehicles there, for storage or whatever, we're still. ourselves. going to have to mobile to get through that area ourselves. So, we certainly wouldn't block the area for the Harts. MRS. TARANA-And you don't intend to park cars any place else on the property, store cars? MR. EGGLESTON-I don't believe there is any other place to store. MR. MULLER-Yes. If you were concerned, are we going to store them to the north, absolutely not. You can limit us. say it's prohibited. If you're concerned that we're going to store them out front, we're telling you that we're not. You can prohibit us from doing that. If you want to hear that we're not going to store them in the back. we're not going to store them in the back. MR. MARTIN-I would prefer that to be in the motion. for enforcement purposes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I've got some words already. Lets just bounce this around and see if this is acceptable to everybody. I'd say that there would be no outside overnight storage of vehicles that won't pass New York State inspection. MR. MULLER-Don't do that, because I don't think any of them do. MR. LAPOINT-That's it. we don't want wrecks. MR. BREWER-If he gets a tow in. in the afternoon or whatever. MR. LAPOINT-And it's a road worthy car. something parked, what my perception is, it's just a car parked. it somehow can drive. even if there's Bondo on it. even if it's rusty. it wouldn't make any difference to me. What I wouldn't want to see sitting out there is a wreck sitting out there is a wreck down on its frame. overnight. I mean, for any extended period of time. I mean, is that what we're worried about? - 24 - ",,-, MR. BREWER-No. I'm worried about having 10 or 12 cars out there parked for a period of time, and when he gets time to fix them, he'll fix them. and then sell them. That's what I'm worried about. but I don't think there's any stipulation like that on any body shop in town that we can impose on them. MRS. PULVER-No, but he's not selling them. He's just fixing them. He's only body repair. right? MR. MULLER-Exactly. If you smash your car real good, real good. and it's a real clunker, and we haul it in. It is going to be there, but we're going to have enough sense to put it off to the back. We're not storing it there forever. We're not storing it there for resale. MR. BREWER-If it's a total wreck, an adjuster's going to be there within a week or something, or a matter of days. and they're going to total it and it's going to be gone. MR. EGGLESTON-And it's not advantageous for us. leaving it there. because it's taking up our space. MR. RUEL-Well, aren't there cases where you may have several cars waiting for parts? MR. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. RUEL-And you could have a dozen cars all waiting for parts. MR. BREWER-Not if we limit the amount of cars that they have there they can't. MR. EGGLESTON-Right. MR. MULLER-We don't foresee that as being a problem, a dozen cars all waiting for parts. MR. LAPOINT-If we were to limit you to 12 cars, no matter what the condition. I'm trying to find a consensus. MR. MULLER-Why don't you just limit us to 12 cars and the designated parking spaces, because quite frankly, you will know what's in the building. You won't see it, not that I'm suggesting that we're now hiding another 20 in there. What's going in there is not obtrusive, and that's, I think, what we're concerned about here. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MULLER-Each product comes out, and everybody's going to like it. MR. RUEL-I'm just curious, what was in that building before? MR. MULLER-Before it's present vacancy? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MULLER-There was the sale of skidos, lawnmowers, a little bit of motorcycles. lawn and garden tractors. MR. MACEWAN-Most recently somebody's had an office products. office equipment. MR. MULLER-You're right. MR. MARTIN-That's right. snowmobile sales. They had a fire there that did in the MR. BREWER-Okay. - 25 - '- --.-'" PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-Tim, does this listing, A through AA, does this become part of the application or not? MR. BREWER-That is the application. MR. RUEL-That is. it is part of it? Okay. There's no indication on this document that it is. MR. MULLER-I had it as part of the application. ãXârK£ggKb~~~~~~ those questions. like I did. I would also make I had to go through MR. BREWER-Yes. I would like to say that L should be changed, because we're going to ask you to mark the parking spaces. Is that agreeable? MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute, maybe that would be M, that I would ask you to change. Just take out the word "not". MRS. TARANA-What about the driveways. the ingress and egress. north and south. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We'll put that in there. too. MR. RUEL-I've got one more question. the end of the building, and you separate structure, right? You show the paint booth on also indicated that it's a MR. MULLER-Inside, yes. MR. RUEL-Inside, and now you have a garage door that opens to that area? Are there two garage doors? Is there another one inside? MR. EGGLESTON-That's a self contained unit. If we were going to do it that way. as opposed to their specifications, there would be a door inside, too. MR. RUEL-Yes. You should two doors. right. so that when you open the garage door, you're not exposing the paints and the odors. etc. to the outdoors. Right. So you have an inside door. Okay. Thank you. MRS. TARANA-I have a question. You've got no commercial sales or retail sales are anticipated. Well, that leaves the door open for retail sales. You may not anticipate it now, but you could in the future. MR. MULLER-I guess that was a lawyer's word, then. I thought I was being straightforward. So take out the word "anticipate". MRS. TARANA-Well. you said you didn't plan on it, and when I read "anticipated". I think of that as, right now you're not planning that. but you may in the future. MR. MULLER-Okay. Assuming that's how you understood it. it's my understanding, not that I wish to represent it like that, but if that's the case. we would still have to come back here if we wanted to sell cars in a Highway Commercial Zone. MR. LAPOINT-Is that true? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-So they would have to corne back for that anyway. MR. MARTIN-That's an additional use of the site. - 26 - -- "-/ MR. LAPOINT-There's a built in safety net there. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. MULLER-We don't intend to do it. word "anticipate". I'm sorry. I withdraw the MR. LAPOINT-SEQRA? MR. BREWER-Yes. We've got to do a Short Form. MR. HARLICKER-Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE ªESOLUTION NO. 11-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there application for: for operation of Bay Road, is presently before the Planning Board an RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON. Proposal is Auto Collision Repair shop. on the east side of WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York . this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe MR. BREWER-Okay, Ed. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-93 RICHARD EGGLESTON THOMAS STIMPSON. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: - 27 - --.. ~ For the operation of an auto collision repair shop on the east side of Bay Road, with the following conditions: One. that the applicant provide an enlarged drawing showing the size and location of the 12 parking spaces. the size and location of the easement to the landlocked Hart property, to the satisfaction of the Planning Staff that the Hart's access will not be infringed upon by this site plan. and direct the Town Planning Staff to send the applicant back to site plan review if the applicant cannot meet those requirements, and that parking and storage of the cars be limited to the 12 designated marked painted on the pavement parking spots. and that the applicant approximately mark the south entrance as the entraQce and the north part. of the curve as the exit to Bay Road creat1ng a one way tratf1c flow around the curve. tn~t tn:ê applicant include the recommendations by the Beautification Committee as part of this final approval. Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe MR. MACEWAN-What's the deal with Leemilt's? MR. BREWER-They're off. MR. MARTIN-They got tabled by the Zoning Board. We have a couple of issues for the Board. The first thing, I think the Friebergers are here. Is that correct? Judy is here. As you recall, the Board asked that the Staff write a letter to the Raynors asking that they come to either the last meeting or tonight's meeting. I got a call from Mrs. Raynor today, saying that they've had a death in the family, and they could not make the meeting tonight, but that they will be here April 20th. and I also suggest if Mrs. Freiberger could be here then, that now that's a firm date that they will be here to talk to the Board about that subdivision and the conveyance of that land. MR. BREWER-What date is that. Jim? MR. MARTIN-April 20th. It would be our first Planning Board meeting, and it will be on the agenda, as a regular item, for your discussion. I will also try and get Paul Dusek here, too. because I think it's going to require his input. as well. and I apologize, if you've come out here tonight. DAN GEALT MR. GEALT-Is it possible to ask a question? MR. MARTIN-Sure. MR. GEALT-What is the situation with regard to. if they Raynors have an opportunity and attempt to sell one of the lots in this subdivision, between now and April 20th? Do they have. at this point. the right to sell that lot in that subdivision? Does the Town have the ability to issue a permit for constructing a building on that? MR. MARTIN-The technical issue with the plat is it was filed is that it says that 10 foot parcel is to be conveyed to Judy Freiberger. Right now. they're not in compliance with that plat. and if it comes to us, the Board can have that plat stricken from the County record. and therefore its not a legal subdivision anymore. That's the enforcement mechanism they have. They cannot sell that to another individual. other than Mrs. Freiberger, without coming to this Board for approval. - 28 - --- - MR. GEALT- I mean any lot. approved subdivision? If they sell another lot in that MR. MARTIN-That's why I'd like to have Paul Dusek here, the Town Attorney. I don't know what the legal ramifications would be in that regard, then. if they sell a lot. and then the subdivision is subsequently then stricken from the record. I don't know what would happen, in that case. but, has she made any attempt to call you? JUDY FREIBERGER MRS. FREIBERGER-No. MR. MARTIN-She told me today she's left three messages on your answering machine. Okay. MR. GEALT-You can listen to the tape if you'd like. There's been no attempts to do that. There's also been no response to our letter from our attorney. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, that's what's forced this matter with the Board. The Board asked them to come back here this month. We got the call today. We have every belief that they will be here the 20th. I f not, the Board can then begin to take action. like I said, to have the plat stricken. It's their decision. MR. GEALT-Would it be advisable for us to explain to the Board what the situation is. if they're not aware of it at this point? MR. MARTIN-Sure. MR. LAPOINT-I was here at the time. and I helped craft this motion, and I really regret that it worked out to be this way, because I think we did everything possible to make sure it wouldn't happen like this. I think that takes a certain amount of good intent on behalf of the applicant. MR. GEALT-My name is Dan Gealt. I'm here speaking on behalf of Judy Freiberger. one of the land owners adjacent to Subdivision 15 of 1991, Clearview Estates by Ronald and Mary Susan Raynor. The Planning Board, according to the minutes, required the applicant to convey two 10 foot strips of land to adjacent property owners, one of them being Mrs. Freiberger. to prevent the creation of substandard or nonconforming lots. The applicants filed maps at Warren County indicating that the conveyance was to take place. and the minutes indicate that they agreed to convey those 10 foot strips of land. The Planning Board granted its approval one year ago tomorrow, and as of this moment, at least one of those parcels has not been conveyed as per the applicant's agreement. MR. MARTIN-The other one has not either. MR. GEALT-I'm not familiar with that one. specifically, but thank you. Okay. Judith Freiberger and various representatives of Judith Freiberger, have communicated with the Town on a number of occasions to determine the status of this conveyance. and at this point. we have seen a proposed deed. The proposed deed indicates that the Raynors would like to convey one of those strips of land with a restriction saying that Freiberger cannot have access to the adjacent Town road through that. That is. to my way of thinking, as the former Superintendent of Highways in the Town of Queensbury. I've never seen anybody say that. here's a piece of property that I don't control. and you may not enter on to it. okay. So. in any case, there are some legal issues there. Also. I understand that Raynors have considered the idea of selling the access right over the 10 foot strip to Freiberger, which would actually amount to the Town permitting them to create a nonstandard lot and then sell it to somebody. Anyhow. Mrs. Freiberger's attorney has communicated with the Town over a month ago, and no reply has been received yet. - 29 - -' The subdivider has not yet complied with the requirements that the Planning Board set forth for the approval of the subdivision, and I guess that's where we stand today. is that we'd like to know what the Town intends to do to insure the compliance, or what steps we need to take to insure the compliance. MRS. PULVER-All right. Dan, I remember this very well, and I want to tell you that. as a Planning Board member, I was against this 10 foot bit, because in my opinion, we were taking the property away from the Raynors and giving it to somebody else. which I did not think this Board had the right to do. I still don't think the Board has the right to do, but I want to see if I have what you're saying right. The Freibergers are complaining, because they haven't gotten their free 10 foot strip of property? MR. GEALT-No. Actually Freiberger made no attempt whatsoever to object to Raynors subdivision. because there was no reason to prevent them from having that subdivision. The Planning Board and the Town. in it's various Departments. said create of a 10 foot by 400 and something foot strip of land is a nonconforming, substandard lot, and therefore it's not acceptable. Freiberger in no way asked for that piece of property. MRS. PULVER-No. he didn't. MR. GEALT-And there was one attempt, some years previously, to purchase it. but that fell through immediately. and so there was no objection raised to it. There was no attendance at any of the public hearings. no requests of any type from Freiberger regarding this subdivision. The Planning Board said, we can't allow you to create a substandard lot. Therefore. unless the Town has some use for those two 10 foot strips of land. we will require you to deed them to the adjacent property owners. MR. BREWER-I don't think that we said that they had to deed them. I think that they said that they had to come to some agreement. because I remember this, too. MR. GEALT-They had to be conveyed. MR. MARTIN-They have to be conveyed. MR. BREWER-We said that they had to be conveyed? MR. MARTIN-That's what it reads in the final plat. MR. GEALT-Yes. and the problem with that is that conveying is it not a problem. Whether they convey it or they don't convey it doesn't make a lot of difference to Freiberger. The point is that if they convey it and restrict the access. then basically what they're saying is that, yes, you take this 10 foot strip of land. you pay the additional taxes on it. You now have what appears to be a corner property to the Assessor's. Now you do all of that so that we can sell our lots in our subdivision, and so the 10 foot strip that would be deeded over to the adjacent property owners is basically so that they can have a conforming subdivision, and there was no request by Freiberger. or as far as I know, on the part of the other adjacent land owner, for that 10 foot strip of land for any reason whatsoever. MRS. PULVER-That 10 foot already existed. MR. GEALT-The 10 foot strip was there. yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. The Planning Board. this is where, Planning Board members are not planners and should not get involved in the legal aspects, because this is what happens. but the Raynors wanted to keep the 10 foot strip. as I recall, because if they ever wanted access to, or if they wanted to put a road in or access. they had to way to do it. with this 10 foot strip. Isn't that correct? - 30 - '"",-",. MR. GEALT-No. MR. LAPOINT-That's the other 10 foot, in the back. MRS. PULVER-Right. the other 10 feet. the back. MR. GEALT-Yes, that's correct. MRS. PULVER-So that's how we got into the 10 foot strips. MR. GEALT-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I remember very distinctly, because I was on the Board at the time. Mr. Raynor sat right here and said. he said, the reason why we created the 10 foot strips was because we sunk all this money into this road. and none of our neighboring property owners was willing to help us pay for it, so I made these 10 foot strips as leverage over these people to make them pay me some day, and that, to me, is not good. MRS. PULVER-Well, if those 10 foot strips already existed as a separate deed, before it came to the Planning Board, my opinion was, it was already an existing a lot or whatever, but you couldn't build on it because it didn't meet any kind of a zoning requirement. MR. GEALT-It wasn't an existing lot. What it was was a portion of an existing property. It was not a 10 foot by 400 foot lot. MRS. PULVER-I know what it was, but it already existed before it got here. MR. GEALT-Sure. MRS. PULVER-So, if there wasn't a problem to it, he can't build on it because there is no way that it conforms to the Ordinance. but the Board made him give it up. MR. GEALT-Right. MRS. PULVER-Now. as far as the Freibergers. I can understand their situation. I also can understand the Raynors. I don't understand. though. what you want us to do. Do you want us to go out and force them to give it to the Freibergers free and let them do whatever they want with it? MR. GEALT-Well, it's either that, or you're going to have to bring the subdivision back and re-hear it, because you. as a Planning Board. said here is what we will require of the subdivider, and the subdivider has not complied with that, despite the year gone by since the approval, and their assurances that it was going to be done. and therefore. in the event that you don't think it was the right thing, and they haven't yet done it, there is no subdivision, because the reason you can't keep the 10 foot by 440 lot is because the Town can't allow a subdivider to create a situation where a lot is created that does not meet the requirements of that particular zone. MRS. PULVER-It already was there, though. MR. GEALT-No. It was not. It was a portion of a larger lot. MRS. PULVER-But it was already established. MR. GEALT-The 10 foot strip was there. but not as a deeded piece of property. It was there as a portion of a lot that did conform to the SR-1A zoning. MRS. PULVER-Well. as I remember it. there was a separate description for that on the deed. - 31 - "---- MR. MARTIN-But it was a part of a larger lot. MR. GEALT-It was a portion of a lot that did conform to the zoning, and the reason that the Town can't accept that as a lot in a subdivision is because then it no longer would conform, and that was the problem. That's why something has to be done with those two strips. MR. MARTIN-Remember the first attempt was made to deed it to the Town. and Paul Naylor said he didn't want it because he didn't want to be responsible for the maintenance on it? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-So that was not an option anymore, because this was the only thing that was left. MRS. PULVER-I remember it. I still don't know why you're here. I see it as an enforcement problem. MR. GEALT-It's an enforcement problem. MRS. PULVER-Right. citizens board. So that's not our problem. We're only a MR. MARTIN-No. The enforcement of it is that the Planning Board has the authority to strike the plat from the record. MR. GEALT-You are the only enforcement that there is. You are the only enforcement for whether or not your restrictions and regulations have been complied with. and whether the subdivider has carried out, just as you did with. MRS. PULVER-But he doesn't have any time limit. MR. LAPOINT-It's clear to me the applicant continues to create the circumstance. that he wanted to subdivide something, and we gave him that subdivision so he could sell off some lots and make some money, and we had, again, my intent was, okay, you did something five years ago with 10 foot lots that wouldn't be allowed now, and you did it for some wrong reasons. Lets fix it as part of this subdivision, and I think that was the intent. and now he's coming back and he's saying that, it's still my intent to get money out of these people for those 10 foot lots. which was not our intent when we approved the. MRS. PULVER-No. I see it as where he is going to give it to the Freibergers, which was the intent of the Board. okay, to make it right, but he doesn't want the Freibergers to now use it for anything other than just recreational. or for their own personal use. MR. LAPOINT-He doesn't want a curb cut going out to that road on there. MRS. PULVER-Right. In other words, he doesn't want them to, I don't know how big the Freibergers parcel. maybe that's big enough to subdivide, who knows, having this 10 foot. MR. GEALT-It's 2.38 acres. MRS. PULVER-Okay. foot strip. See it's big enough to subdivide with this 10 MR. GEALT-I'm sure that's what Mr. Raynor is concerned about. MRS. PULVER-So. what do you want to do now? You make the man give up his land. MR. GEALT-However, Mr. Raynor knew that ahead of time. and Mr. - 32 - '- Raynor agreed to the conditions set by the Planning Board. MRS. PULVER-Well, he agreed to convey it. MR. GEALT-He agreed to convey it. MRS. PULVER-Right. I don't remember us saying that he couldn't put any stipulations on it. MR. MACEWAN-Is this gentleman not meeting the conditions set by the Planning Board at that time? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Right now the plat is not in compliance. MR. MACEWAN-Not in compliance with the conditions set forth by the Planning Board? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MACEWAN-So he's in violation, right? MR. LAPOINT-The short answer is yes. and the other short answer is he snookered us. MRS. PULVER-Well, we did not say that he could not put any conditions on that property when he made it. MR. LAPOINT-No. I remember this motion. It's probably about three paragraphs long. and we tried to cover every, and I agree with you. In our initial premise. we put too many conditions on things. and it creates this problem right here. that if we didn't have the Board as it was set up then. with multi-conditional multi-approval type guys. this problem wouldn't have happened. but we did. We went down that road. We tried to do the best thing for everybody involved. and we got snookered by the applicant. MR. MARTIN-Well, what I think is the best thing ,to have happen is if we can get both parties here. and have the Board here. and Paul Dusek. and discuss this and hash this out. MR. LAPOINT-Agreed, because I'm ready to tell the guy, that wasn't my intent. I thought we were going to resolve this problem, give you more land to develop. and you would resolve a past problem. That was my intent when I voted yes. I think I made the motion. MR. MARTIN-That was my intent. in my mind. MR. LAPOINT-That was my intent, and we had a huge debate over that, and to have somebody come in and twist it. I mean, again, I like the idea of erasing the whole damn thing. make him start allover again. MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute. Lets ask him to corne, if that's what the Board wants. but I also think I might want to ask Paul Dusek what his legal opinion would be, since the Planning Board did not say that he could not put any stipulations on this 10 foot strip. when he conveyed it. Do we have a leg to stand on, as far as making him. MR. BREWER-Yes, but it's like any law, Carol. is that our intent? MR. GEALT-The conveyance hasn't even taken place. MRS. PULVER-Well, we want to talk about the Ethics Law, and the purpose of intent. you know. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but our intent was to do something different than he's doing. - 33 - - - MRS. PULVER-Get a good lawyer. They'll fight our intent. MR. BREWER-Well, let them. MR. GEALT-The conveyance hasn't taken place, at this point. MR. LAPOINT-Has he developed any of those other lots? MR. GEALT-As far as I know, none have been sold, and there are no building permits issued at the moment. MR. LAPOINT-Good. then lets drag him back, because now we have some leverage. MR. BREWER-Can't we pull that motion and make a new motion? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but I want to hear him out first. MR. MARTIN-You can strike the. you can, by motion, my understanding from Paul is you can. by motion, strike the plat from the record. MR. BREWER-Okay. So if it comes down to that. we can do that. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Lets hear his side of the story. We've heard the other side. MRS. TARANA-Can we put a hold on this whole subdivision, before he goes out and sells property. MR. BREWER-Well, you can't stop him from selling it. I don't think. MRS. PULVER-Well. if the subdivision's no good. MR. GEALT-He can't sell the subdivided lots. MR. BREWER-That means that we have to pull the plat tonight. MR. LAPOINT-No. Here's the deal. Staff calls him tomorrow, and you let him know what our thinking is. and we want to hear his side of the story. because there are some up here who would be inclined to pull that subdivision approval. based on one side of the story. MRS. PULVER-I mean. we have three members who haven't even heard it. who haven't even heard the story. MR. MACEWAN-I've heard the story. MR. GEALT-We were here expecting to air both sides tonight. MR. LAPOINT-Right. So if you call him and see if you can get him in at the end of the next meeting, or whenever, and we can hear both sides of this story, then we can make a judgement. but if he doesn't want to cooperate and come in. what I've heard. and what my intent was from back then, is enough for me to make a motion to pull that plat. So, maybe that'll be incentive enough for him to get in here within the next month. MR. BREWER-Fine. MR. MARTIN-All right. who called me today. I can contact Mrs. Raynor. I'll tell her. She's the one MR. LAPOINT-And if she wants to send a letter to us explaining what's going on. fine, write it down. It's easier for us to study and look at, but right now we're hearing awful things. Let her know that. MR. GEALT-We'd be happy to put our concerns in writing for you. MR. LAPOINT-Please do. - 34 - '- MR. MARTIN-I would recommend that, for the Board's consideration. prior to the next meeting. MR. BREWER-And then we could have them. prior. MR. MACEWAN-What's our schedule for next month? MR. MARTIN-It's really not been determined yet. until after the applications come in on the 31st. We don't know MR. LAPOINT-This is our chance to do some planning. MR. BREWER-Okay. there's anything. So we'll hear from them next month, and if MR. MARTIN-That's what she indicated to me today. and I will call her back and explain the mood of the Board on this. I'll do my best. MRS. TARANA-Jim. can we be sure to get the past minutes from this? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I just told Scott to. they'll be in your packets. with your applications. MR. GEALT-There were a number of issues. and Mr. LaPoint has said. basically, everything that he said in all of those minutes again tonight. So, there's a man who, at least. remembers what was going on at that time. for sure. Anyhow, thank you for your time. and we'll be back April 20th. and you'll hear from us in writing before that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. PULVER-Dan, one question. representing the Freibergers? Why are you hear? Are you MR. GEALT-I'm speaking on behalf of Judith Freiberger. My name is Dan Geal t, 25 Havi land Road, representing Judith Freibe rger, 25 Haviland Road. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. The other issue that came in just, about 3: 30 this afternoon, as a matter of fact. the time of the fax is 4:03, relates to the NCR, Queensbury Housing Development, the Senior Citizen Housing project out on the end of Farr Lane. Their time frame here is quickly running out, with their funding. It's the 31st of this month. and we have another request before the Board. very similar to the Inspiration Park Performance Bond for the construction of the road, which would allow construction of the road simultaneously with the construction of the building. Do you recall that? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-This is the same exact type situation. It's an approach to building of a road through a Performance Bond that allows the construction of the road simultaneously with the construction of the building. whereas normally the Town requires a road be installed, approved, dedicated, and conveyed to the Town, prior to any construction occurring. MRS. PULVER-They couldn't get any CO's, remember, until everything was done. and it would be the same with this. MR. MARTIN-Right. and this is the same type of thing requires a resolution from the Board tonight, and it's really a resolution which reflects the enumerated items, here, within the letter of March 23rd, from Wendy Fechter. - 35 - '- -' MRS. PULVER-I have one question. Who is the bonding company? I thought the Town Board had to approve the bonding company? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's correct. MRS. PULVER-And have they approved the bonding company? MR. MARTIN-No. they have not done that. That would be contingent upon the ir approval of the bonding company. It would also be contingent upon Paul Naylor's acceptance of the amount, which quite frankly is under question. It may be considerably more than this. They're estima~ing p contrac~ual. pr~ceâ Qf S53~388. lae's not sure about that. H1S gOlng rate ln hlS mln lS $10~ per lnear toot ot road, and as I recall. the road is some. MRS. PULVER-Forty feet, isn't it? MR. MARTIN-No. I think it's considerably longer than that. MR. BREWER-Can I say something that bothers me about this thing? These people call us, or fax us, and want us to do stuff like this right away. MR. MARTIN-I know. We're up against the same thing with the building permit. The building permit has to be approved by the 31st. also. MR. BREWER-No. I'm not talking about that, but a local company comes in and donates the money to help this project go through. and then they give the contract to somebody in Rochester. MR. MARTIN-No. no. This is for the road on Buck Bryan's property, from Buck Bryan's property inward. MR. BREWER-It's not the extension? MR. MARTIN-No. This is not the extension. This is just the road within Buck Bryan's property. MR. BREWER-So Buck Bryan's asking for this, or who's asking for this? MRS. PULVER-National organization that is Grant. Church Residence. It's the the. they were the applicant non-profit for the HUD MR. MARTIN-See, there's two sections of road that are involved. There's the road going from the existing public right-of-way on Farr Lane to the edge of Buck Bryan's property. That's on State owned land. That was the portion of the road that was funded through the donation from Finch Pruyn, I think approximately $13.000, and then the other section is from Buck Bryan's property line into the development actually servicing the building, and that's this section. That's what this deal's with. MR. BREWER-So, nobody has even looked at this but us? Paul Naylor hasn't? MR. MARTIN-Paul Naylor looked at today. He just saw it at 3:30 this afternoon. also. and your approval would have to be, he is not very hopeful that this is going to be enough money to cover the cost of the road, should it have to be turned over to the Town to complete. That's what the bond does. So your resolution would have to be contingent upon his figure. and they've agreed to that. They have a contractual price of $53,388, but they will write a Performance Bond to whatever Mr. Naylor indicates is necessary. MR. RUEL-Aren't we doing this backward? MR. BREWER-We kind of are. - 36 - -- MR. RUEL-Shouldn't we have the approvals first? MR. MARTIN-Yes. The ideal thing would be to have Mr. Naylor's blessing, and the Town Board accepting of the bonding company. but time frames being what they are. MR. BREWER-What happens if they don't approve the bonding? MRS. PULVER-Well, this is all going to be contingent upon them accepting the bonding company. and Paul Naylor accepting the amount, and if they don't, then it just all goes away. MR. RUEL-So we're giving approval on a condition that this and that and the other thing get done. MR. MARTIN-And it normally, we would have Mr. Naylor's approval. Well, normally we don't even do this. The road is built prior to construction even starting, but this is one of these cases where they're asking for an accelerated construction schedule. MRS. TARANA-I am totally against this. Totally against it. The other thing I don't like about this, this whole project. sitting at Town Board meetings, I've heard it over and over. You've got to decide this tonight because they've got this deadline. You've got to decide this tonight because they've got this deadline. and the Town Board's gone right along with it. MR. MARTIN-I can't imagine that this couldn't have been dealt with back in January. MRS. TARANA-Absolutely. MR. BREWER-When is their timetable, when they have this done? MR. MARTIN-March 31st. MR. RUEL-Eight days. MRS. PULVER-I just know, from my own experience, working with the State and Federal government on trying to get grant money. this is exactly what happens is that it sits around on someone's desk until the last hour. and then all of a sudden they say. my God, well. this should have gone out. These people need this approval, and then it's thrown on to whoever is trying to get the approval. They come in, tail between their legs. begging in front of some Board, trying to get the approval. They get beat up by the Board. they get hit, they get knocked down. Sometimes they get it. Sometimes they don't, and usually it's not their fault, and I'm going to say, with this, I know exactly how it's happened, and it's unfortunate. MR. BREWER-Yes. but every step of the way. Carol? MRS. PULVER-Just about, believe me, just about. Inspiration Park took over two years. MR. RUEL-It sounds like government. MRS. PULVER-That's what it is, government involved. but if you, again, if you make the approval contingent upon the other things that. it either it will or it won't make it. MR. MARTIN-I remember we had a special Planning Board meeting the week of Christmas. between Christmas and New Years, because they needed something by December 31st, the end of the year. MRS. PULVER-Right, to close out that year. MR. RUEL-Are we supposed to give approval on a completion date, also? - 37 - ,--" MR. MARTIN-Yes. They're accepting of November 1st as a completion date. The thought there being that the blacktop plants close sometime mid October to late October, so the road has to be in by then, so we don't carryover through the winter with a half finished road. MR. BREWER-How does everybody feel? MR. RUEL-I feel sorry for them. MRS. PULVER-I don't have a problem with it, because if the Town q.çcepts the bopding qompdany.... basically what the bonding does is s9V It tl1ese peop e cton t 0 tne roacts Dy -November 1st. the money S guaranteed. it's in the bank. Paul Naylor can get the money out and go finish the road. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The main thing is the amount, that you have to have sufficient funds available. MR. MACEWAN-But that would be. MR. RUEL-That's contingent on. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. that's upon his discretion. MR. RUEL-That's contingent upon Naylor. though. MRS. PULVER-That's what I mean, but Paul will decide, probably in the next day or two. how much money he wants. MR. MACEWAN-They've agreed to it. They've put a price in here of $53,000 and change. but said if the Highway Department deems that it needs more money to complete the road, they're agreeing upon, whatever the dollar figure the Highway Department comes up with, they're agreeing to it. MR. MARTIN-If the Board moves on this tonight, I'm going to meet with Paul Naylor tomorrow morning and find out what his amount will be that he will require as part of the bond, or for the bonding amount. if you move on it tonight. MR. RUEL-Lets do it. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I don't really see a problem. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. ~OTIO~ TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FROM NATIONAL CHURCH RESIDENCES, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Number One, authorizing the bonding of Farr Lane construction project on the Bryan property, and to approve the bonding and amount to be determined to be satisfactory by Paul Naylor, and contingent upon the Town Board accepting the bonding company that will be recommended by NCR Corporation. and also the road to be completed by November 1st, 1993. Duly adopted this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-If you look under Miscellaneous Provisions, Number Three, it says the contract is contingent upon final sale of the land. Would someone like to elaborate on that to me? MRS. PULVER-Well, usually the actual land does not change hands until all approvals have been met. MR. MACEWAN-But this contract can also be voided if the sale doesn't take place. - 38 - '-- MR. BREWER-Well. they're not going to build a building on a piece of property, and not pay for it, I wouldn't think. MRS. PULVER-Yes, that's all that means. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe MR. MARTIN-Tim. in regard to that list you came in with yesterday, of variance items. I'll have a response for you in April, to all of those things, or at the next meeting. MRS. PULVER-I have one question, too. Every time there was a change in the agenda, I got a new agenda. So even when the Planning Board adds something to next month's agenda. we need a new agenda reflecting that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We'll do our best to keep them up to date. MR. BREWER-One other thing, I got a letter from Bob Eddy, and I'll just pass it around and let everybody read it, so they know. MR. MACEWAN-What's a Bob Eddy? MR. BREWER-You'll understand when you read the letter. MRS. PULVER-Our historian. MRS. TARANA-"Tim, I sent this out 3/8/93, and finally got it back this morning. To be sure of name and address. I called the Town Office and thought to be doubly sure of zip, I called the Post Office to see if you were 12805 or 12804. This is being sent you so you may find out what happened. Bob" "Ted. regarding Wal- Mart". this is 3/3/93. "It appears that the Zoning Board rolled over and played dead and effectively nullified 25 years of my hard work to establish setbacks permeability and control asphalt jungle effect in Queensbury. In my opinion, a minimum 50 foot buffer zone should be required, especially toward residential use. The 30 percent minimum permeability should be required. The Town of Colony requires 35 percent. You may recall I fought for planted dividers for a car park for each 100 cars. A waiver of distance between buildings is their problem. An exposure charge is made for building and contents insurance which would cost each party a lot of money over the years. Probably Ames is already paying that. Not only the granting of these variances should not have been made, but worse. the Zoning Board of Appeals will be bombarded with other requests from other applicants. Sincerely" MR. RUEL-I still don't know who he is. MRS. TARANA-Bob Eddy. MR. MARTIN-He was a previous Town Historian. MR. BREWER-Wasn't he on the Beautification Committee? MR. MARTIN-Yes. He was a former Chairman of the Beauti fication Commi ttee. He was a founder of the Queensbury Beauti fication Committee. MR. LAPOINT-I actually agree. As much as I vote for development, to me. our hands are tied when the variances are given. To me. that's where the real power is. If they didn't give variances, then we would have different site plans in front of us, but I think there's a philosophy. Once the variance is granted, we're stuck with those conditions for approval. So that's what dictates. We have all these nice meetings, and we chit chatted a whole hell of - 39 - -.-/ a lot about the setbacks. but it wasn't in our power. MRS. PULVER-I believe it's a fallacy that the Planning Board has all this power. The Zoning Board has the power. MR. MARTIN-Look at Quaker Plaza. Quake Plaza, as much as people are upset about that, the overriding factor. MRS. PULVER-Was all the variances. had all the variances, and once it allowed. It wouldn't be there. but it comes to us. everything was MR. LAPOINT-Right. His main point is more people coming in. So I think. again. his letter was directed to them. which is appropriate, but I mean that's where the ire of the community, will be directed. MR. MACEWAN-I've got one thing I need to bring up. A couple of meetings ago we had in front of us the Southern Exposure Development, remember that? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-And they wanted us to give a grant of approval and condition of their Sketch Plan so they could go on to the Town Board, and if you'll remember in the conversation, there was some conversation brought up in regards to what the variance really was giving to this lot size, whether they were 20,000 or 12.000. The applicant stated to us at that time that it was 12,000. MR. LAPOINT-De facto by that's the thing they filed. MR. MACEWAN-That's what he said, and that's what he filed, and he, and I'll be blunt, pressured us to make a decision that night. I didn't feel comfortable with what he had to say, and I researched it, and a variance was, in fact, given for 20,000 square foot lots. MR. MARTIN-That's not what my research found. MR. MACEWAN-Well. I disagree with you. Jim. and I pulled out all the paper work. and his application. Mr. McDonald's application to the ZBA was for 20,000 square foot lots. MR. MARTIN-And Mr. Turner is on the record saying that they did not approve the application, they approved the plat. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Right. That was the meeting we were at, the very first meeting we were at. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, and I disagree with that. MRS. TARANA-They also wrote that they approved the variance and used the variance number. The variance said, 20.000 square feet. MR. MARTIN-The motion of approval makes no reference to any lot size, it just says we approve variance no. such and such. and Ted is on the record as saying they approved the plat, and not the number. MRS. TARANA-But the variance said, 20.000 square feet. MR. MARTIN-No, it did not. reference to a lot size. The resolution of approval makes no MRS. TARANA-I'm not talking about the resolution, Jim. I'm talking about their motion said that they approved variance no. whatever. no square footage, nothing. MR. MARTIN-Which contained the plat. - 40 - ~ -- MR. MACEWAN-In who's determination, yours? mention of anything regarding a plat. They never made any MR. MARTIN-Ted Turner is the only information we have, and the best information we have, linking us to a decision made in 1983. MRS. TARANA-But I think the problem is, Jim, that you can look at it that way. He can look at it one way. You can look at ita number of ways. MR. MARTIN-We have an eye witness. We have a member of the Board. MRS. TARANA-But. I don't care what he said that night. I heard him say that. MR. MARTIN-But he's a member of the Board. How can you? MRS. TARANA-But you have to read what the minutes said. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I read the minutes of the Zoning Board, and they're very sketchy. They're summary minutes. They just say, the Board heard such and such application. There's no reference in there either. of the lot size. MRS. TARANA-But they make a motion to pass the variance. MR. MARTIN-Right, because everything is given a file number. MRS. TARANA-Right. and they passed that variance. So you have to. MR. MARTIN-That file number could have made reference to the plat. MRS. TARANA-Well, I think, it could have, but it's never mentioned, the plat is never mentioned. MR. MARTIN-The only thing we have, the best information we have, is an eye witness account of a member of the Board at that time. MR. MACEWAN-I think the best thing for us to do, and this is my suggestion. is that we call the applicant back in, and we ask Ted Turner to be here, and we try to clear this up, because quite frankl y, I'm not comfortable with it. I think we got snookered. and I'll be very blunt with you. MR. MARTIN-We did that exact same thing, before Hudson Point was even a gleam in anybody's eye. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. alone. We did it specifically for the subdivision MR. MARTIN-It was brought in just for the McDonald Subdivision, for that very reason, for that very point, 20,000 square feet, and if you read the minutes of that meeting, that was the point of the whole discussion. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MRS. TARANA-I think the problem is, we didn't have those old minutes. I mean, I didn't have any of that stuff. MR. MARTIN-I think old minutes are useless. They tell you nothing. MRS. TARANA-They tell you that they passed a variance. and if you look at the application, and if you look at the application, that application is the variance. MR. MARTIN-Mr. McDonald is also on record as saying, he never even saw the application until 1989. MR. MACEWAN-I have one comment to that. Ignorance is no excuse. - 41 - "- ----' Jim. He signed an application. If he signed a blank application for a Zoning Board variance, that's his stupidity. MR. MARTIN-Well. I'm just saying that the best evidence that there is, is that Ted Turner says they approved the plat. MRS. TARANA-Ted Turner doesn't know which map he even looked at. MR. MARTIN-Yes he does. MR. MACEWAN-No. he doesn't. MRS. TARANA-He didn't. MR. MARTIN-He told me he did. I was researching all this for Mr. Brewer a few weeks ago. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Board? Lets get it settled. What do we want to do, MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to call him back in, along with Ted Turner. MRS. TARANA-I feel like. my feeling is that we didn't look into this more deeply because we were assured by the Town Attorney this was over and done with. I asked somebody in the State who told me that you cannot approve a plat. It doesn't matter what the plat's got on it. It could have cartoons on it. MR. MARTIN-Well, what are you going to do. force him to go back to the ZBA, and he gets approval for the lots he has? MRS. TARANA-But what I'm saying is, if you approved a variance, and instead of approving the written application. you approved a map, or a plat, or whatever you want to call it, it makes the application null and void. MR. MARTIN-Okay, then what's to say the Zoning Board didn't grant a certain amount of relief for that? MRS. TARANA-They didn't say that. Nowhere do they ever talk about 12,Ø00 or 15,000 feet. no place. If they were going to give relief, they would have to mention, at least, 12,000 or 15.000 or something. They never mention it, and another thing about Mr. McDonald, he said somewhere in here, I've read this a million times. He says he never knew that the application was for 20,000 square feet. He signed it. It was in the newspaper. He was at the meetings. and all they discussed was 20.000 square feet. MR. MARTIN-How do you know that? MRS. TARANA-Because I read everything. MR. MARTIN-It's not in the minutes of that meeting of '83 as to what's they discussed. MR. MACEWAN-It's on the application. MRS. TARANA-It mentions 20.00Ø square feet. If the application says 20,000 square feet, why do you assume they're talking about 12? It says 20.000 square feet. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but there's nothing in the minutes that says they talked about 20, 00Ø square feet. It's not in the minutes. It's not in the minutes of the Zoning Board. MRS. TARANA-Jim. wait a minute. Hold it. Listen. I give you an application, okay. I ask for relief of 10 feet, okay, we come, we discuss it. The Board makes a motion. We grant her approval. MR. MARTIN-Have you ever been to the Zoning Board meetings? - 42 - MRS. TARANA-AlI the time I go. MRS. PULVER-That's all they ever say though. MR. MARTIN-All the time. MRS. PULVER-Right. They may just talk about relief and never use a number. MR. MARTIN-Then the relief may change in the context of the discussion. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Fine. Lets take it back to the plat. If you approve an application based on the plat, that application becomes null and void, and you're telling me they based it on the plat. MR. MARTIN-The approval still stands. though. MRS. TARANA-The whole thing is null and void. MR. MARTIN-I disagree. MR. MACEWAN-That's what a Top Dog in the State says. We asked that question of him when we went to the TeleConference. MRS. TARANA-Well, I got that from the State Attorney. MR. MARTIN-I disagree. I think this is a witch hunt. and I think it's. MRS. TARANA-A witch hunt? MR. MACEWAN-Based on what? MR. MARTIN-What's the point of digging up old. that you have. eye witness, a member this was the intent of the approval. approving. something that's 10 years of the Board, saying that This is what we were MR. MACEWAN-I take exception to you saying this is a witch hunt. Jim. MR. MARTIN-Well, what's the point? MR. MACEWAN-The point is that it's wrong. The wrong variance was given. MR. MARTIN-That's your, you have no basis for that. You have a member of the Board who said this is the variance we granted. Why are you not believing that? MR. MACEWAN-Because I'm looking at the documentation. MR. MARTIN-He was on the Board. approval. He was part of the motion of MR. MACEWAN-I'm looking at the documentation that says otherwise. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but that's not strong enough to override. Again, they pin something up on this board that shows 12,000 square foot lots. They rollout a piece of paper that says 12,000 square foot on every lot. MR. MARTIN-I mean, I'm all in favor, right or wrong, but I just don't see anything wrong. MR. LAPOINT-I mean. they have that thing in front of them, and that's what's signed in the end. is the thing that says 12,000 - 43 - ,~ -.... '- square foot. I mean, this is why you try to reduce things to engineering concerns, because it's. without a doubt, there, that this discussion and all this is very vague and the application is one thing, but when you have a hard piece of evidence in your hand signed. that everybody looked at, that says 12,000 square feet. that was put on every lot, what the square footage was, and if that's approved. that's approved. MRS. TARANA-No. That map's not approved. It's the variance that's approved. That's what they said. quite clearly. MR. h ,MARTIN-The variance says, the resolution of approval says not :Lng. MRS. TARANA-I wish I could find it, because all it says is that it approves the variance. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So what's the point. that we should null and void that subdivision? MR. MACEWAN-No. That's not what I'm saying. MR. LAPOINT-Well. then what are we going to do with it? What are we going to do with it? MR. MACEWAN-That's why I brought it up for discussion. MR. LAPOINT-To me, they carne back with something that was a vast improvement over what existed. MR. MARTIN-Yes. See that to me, to me, the point was, the other night was, a modification to a subdivision, not a reopening of the validity of the McDonald subdivision. That's two different things, in my mind. You had a modification before you. MR. LAPOINT-Now I made a real strong argument. and not too many people chimed in. to make bigger lots out of it. MRS. TARANA-I heard you say that, 20,000. MR. LAPOINT-The applicant refused, several times. on several occasions, and I'm right on this, I do this for a living. These are computer generated type things, and all they've got to do is adjust one or two lot lines, eliminate one or two lots, and you get it. Now what you've got to do is jump in with me and support those type of things, and we can move that applicant in that direction. O'Connor sat there. and he wasn't going to move on that, but that's because I had no support. MRS. TARANA-No. I did agree with you, Ed. when you said that. I did agree with you MR. LAPOINT-Well, we've got to jump in and say that's what we want to do. MRS. TARANA-In fact, when the motion was made, I think it wasn't put in there. and I said something about compliance. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Well, see, and my opinion is it doesn't matter the size lots to me. The overriding thing is this improvement. MR. RUEL-Didn't he say, though, it had been previously approved? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Well. they weren't going to knuckle in. They weren't going to move them, but I think if we had stayed together as a Board, that might have happened. Maybe. MRS. TARANA-But the reason we didn't, my feeling is. the reason I didn't stick with it. which was my first inclination, was because I was assured by the Town Attorney that that was a done deal. It - 44 - -, was over. It was done. They were 12.000 square feet. In fact, you said the same thing. Then it wasn't until I got the stuff to look at myself, which I think is probably the biggest issue here. that we shouldn't have even addressed it. MR. LAPOINT-Right. We were looking at it for the first time that night. MRS. TARANA-Absolutely, and it was pushed through. MR. LAPOINT-Right, but again, it was just a recommendation that night. to go, there was nothing officially done here, other than a recommendation, correct? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. RUEL-It was a modification. MR. MARTIN-Right. No, you didn't approve the modification. They still have to come back in for the modification. MR. LAPOINT-No. We said that with respect to the overall concept, it's a better concept than what the McDonald subdivision was. especially in light of what would be going in behind it. MRS. PULVER-All right. So if it comes up again, it's corning up again, for the modification itself. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MRS. PULVER-Maybe we ought to have the Town Attorney here that night. or talk to the Town Attorney in advance of them coming. as to what your feelings are, exactly, how you feel, now. for instance. MRS. TARANA-I talked to him. MR. MARTIN-I even tried to get the tapes of that meeting, because they still recorded them, and the tapes have been destroyed. MRS. TARANA-I talked to Paul. after this meeting, and he told me it could be taken both ways. It's a gray area. You can read it either way. That's what he told me. MR. MARTIN-But in my mind. when I've got a person who was sitting on the Board at the time of approval, telling me what he approved. MR. BREWER-Do you really trust everybody's memory for 10 or 11 years, Jim? I told you before that I accept your decision, and I had nothing to do with this. MR. LAPOINT-From here on in, we stick together, and when they come back. we say. we want to see you shift, eliminate some lot lines. go from 22 to 18 lots, whatever it takes to get the 20,000 square feet. If that's our concern. and a reasonable expectation. for them to get this massive development in there, they'll do it. MR. RUEL-Didn't he say that if we insisted on not accepting the modification or changing it, that he would simply revert back to the original? He could go back to the original. MR. MACEWAN-Let me offer this suggestion. Seeing there's some real difference of opinions here, Jim, do this for me, for next month's packet, give everybody on the Planning Board who doesn't have a copy of all this material on this. everyone review it at the beginning of the month, the first meeting of the month that we have scheduled, we'll sit down. we'll discuss this, very first thing. and everybody draw their own conclusion. We're together as a Board. I'm putting it on the table, because I think it's wrong. That's my opinion. - 45 - MRS. TARANA-I'll tell you what's wrong. What bothers me, if this goes through, and don't take this personally, but here's the thing, forget Southern Exposure. Here's what I'm worried about. If you go on the premise that what we approve is met, my concern is, so many of these maps come in here wrong, and then somebody can go back and say, well that's what you approved, because that's the map that was in front of you. I don't want that to happen. MR. MARTIN-What I think the manner in which the Boar conducts business, above what existed in comparable. this is reflection of, in all honesty, is Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning in this day and age, is so many levels this Town 10 years ago, it's not even MRS. TARANA-I agree. MR. MARTIN-And I think what you're seeing an example of is that night. you know, somebody said, well, we have an application in front of us here for 20.000 square feet. Well that's not right. We want this. We mean this plat here. This is what we're asking you for. It is? Well. that doesn't look too bad. What's everybody's vote? Do you approve the plat? Yes. Approved. Done. Next issue. Nobody's here to tell them it's wrong. No Attorney General here or anything. They just do it. You're talking about 10 years ago, and it's reflected in the quality of their resolutions. Now our resolutions are very, very distinct. They cite specific amounts of relief, right down to a 10th of a linear foot. Back then it was, yes. the variance is approved, next item. MR. BREWER-Yes, but Jim. and I'm just going to interrupt for one second, but the thing that triggered me with it is, he came in. two years previous, with a map of 32 lots. Two years later he says, shit, I didn't file, whatever. He comes back with a map that says 36. He flashes it in front of them and says, fellas, look, I didn't file this, this is my map. and it's completely bogus. I don't care about back in those days, it's wrong. MR. MARTIN-What I'm saying is. if you're going to take that approval to task because of what's been done by the members, I'm saying that was the regular order of business back in those days. and maybe a lot of subdivisions and variance approvals can be taken to task. because they thought they were doing right, and they were doing the best they could. MR. BREWER-But what the stick about it is. is that is being included in a PUD with 200 and 13 or 17 acres, and they're making a part of it, and they're using every bit of that PUD pressure to let this fella do whatever he wants. Jim. You know. I sat in your office and we talked about that road going straight out to Corinth Road, and he's doing every damn thing he can to prevent that, because he is stubborn and he isn't going to do it. Well, I think that that's wrong. If it's going to benefit, fine, lets make him do it, and I'm not saying that I'm even going to have any conversation about this, but that's just my feeling. You agreed with me, that is the best thing to do, but this guy won't do it, so let him do any damn thing he wants. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I continue to agree to, and when it comes to the point of site plan review, or the modification of that subdivision. and you want Staff Notes. if Scott's in concurrence. MR. BREWER-But then it's going to be too late. MR. MARTIN-No, it's not too late. MR. LAPOINT-It's not too late. It always rests with us. The thing is, we've got to be together on it. MR. MARTIN-The site plan review of that PUD can be changed. - 46 - ......, MR. BREWER-Yes. but that's not part of the PUD. trying to tell you. That's what I'm MR. MARTIN-No. You can cut that road through there, if you want, at site plan, with this Board. MR. BREWER-That subdivision. legally, is not part of that PUD. MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. BREWER-So. when you're reviewing the site plan for the PUD, how can you bring that back in? MR. MARTIN-And also it's part of the modification of that subdivision. MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute. The modification, though, of that subdivision. MR. BREWER-Has nothing to do with that PUD. O'Connor stated. That's what Mike MRS. PULVER-Well, wait a original approval by the modifications that were subdivision. minute. Planning going to I feel that that PUD, the Board, was because of the be made to the McDonald MR. BREWER-Look at every application, Carol, and you talk to Mike O'Connor, and he'll tell you that subdivision is not part of the PUD. MRS. PULVER-Lets go back to the intent of the Board. The intent of the Board was to approve those curb cuts and change everything around, that modification, which was going to benefit the PUD, and it kind of made everybody happy, okay. So I say that that subdivision, those modifications to that subdivision. MR. BREWER-It's not part of the application. I'm sorry. I agree with you. but it's not part of the application. MRS. PULVER-Well, you know what, it's not part of the application because we don't have an application yet. MRS. TARANA-I guess my bottom line question is, if you accept this whole thing, can't somebody come back, if we make a mistake on a map, and say. this is what you approved? We've had maps where the places are backwards. We've had terrible maps. So no matter what we say in the variance. somebody can say. but it's the map that you're approving. I think it's got to be real clear what you're approving, and according to the State. MR. MARTIN-I'm just saying, as a matter of business back then. MRS. TARANA-I know. I realize that. but I'm just thinking that now we realize they've made a mistake, and maybe we should pull it back and listen to it again. That's my own feeling. MR. MACEWAN-Is everybody in agreement, that we get the packet put together, all the information pertaining to that particular piece, and review it, the first meeting of next month, discuss it, and take action on it. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but by action, I need to know what your definition, what are we going to do? MR. MACEWAN-I want it as a listed discussion I think there's some things wrong with it. some things wrong with it. We want to get whether there is. indeed, something wrong on our agenda, because Corinne thinks there's the whole Board's input with it. - 47 - '- ~ On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 48 -