Loading...
1994-08-16 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16. 1994 INDEX Subdivision No. 9-1994 FINAL STAGE Craig Seeley 1. Subdivision No. 8-1994 FINAL STAGE Wi I I iam Buckingham 2Ø. Subdivision No. 11-1994 FINAL STAGE Malcolm & Betty Batchelder 26. Site Plan No. 25-94 Hudson Pointe. Inc. 27. 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 FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 16TH. 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK. SECRETARY ROBERT PALING CRAIG MACEWAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD JAMES OBERMAYER ROGER RUEL PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES: June 21st. 1994: NONE June 28th. 1994: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 21ST. 1994 AND JUNE 28TH. 1994 AS WRITTEN. Introduced by Robert Pal ing who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 16th day of August. 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1994 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CRAIG SEELEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM & TWIN CHANNELS ROAD SUBDIVISION OF 14.33 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 7.157 ACRES EACH. TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2 LOT SIZE: 14.33 ACRES SECTIONz SUBDIVISION REGS WILLIAM NEALON. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 9-1994 Final Stage. Craig Seeley. Meeting Date: August 16. 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has the following comments on this subdivision: 1. A site visit indicated that there are two tributaries to a DEC protected stream. A 75 foot setback from these streams needs to be shown on the plat. 2. Access to lot 2 from East Branch Road dangerous considering the narrowness and would also impact the adjacent residential would be difficult and slope of the road; it area." MR. BREWER-So we could limit the access to Twin Channels Road. or Big Boom Road? MR. NEALON-Wi II iam Nealon. an attorney in Glens Falls. and I represent Mr. See I ey. The issue of t he I i m ¡tat i on of access for the parcel from East Branch Road is a significant concern. as far as the appl ¡cant is concerned. Each one of the members of the Board has before him or her a topographical map and a review of that topographical map wi I I show that there is approximately a 40 - 1 - -~~ -- -- --- ~-~ ----- foot elevation change between Big Boom Road, which would represent the westerly boundary of the parcel being subdivided, and the lower access, in particular, of the southernmost half of the parce I. The southern port i on of the parce lis substant i a I I Y o~ the lower terrace, if you wi II, and I imiting access to only Big Boom Road, which is a traveled way, paved, maintained by the Town, seriously would impact on the Seeleys reasonable utilization of the property. Essentially, he would have only about a third of that southern lot to use. MR. BREWER-What about if access was also off Twin Channels Road, though? MR. NEALON~Wel I, Twin Channels Road and Big Boom Road are, for my purposes here, being considered one and the same, as far as the topography of that parcel is concerned. The stream that the planner mentioned is not a stream, as far as concerns the Department of Environmental Conservation. Mr. Seeley obtained. from DEC, in recent days, a wetlands map. The stream in question actually I ies easterly of Mr. Seeley's property. It is a designated stream, Number 336 on the ECON Wetlands Map. The intermittent water courses which are shown are, in the eyes of DEC, fi liable. They are not exercising any jurisdiction over those intermittent water courses. They're dry right now, as a matter of fact. MR. BREWER-Is that the case as ~ know it, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-When we were out there, they were flowing freely. MR. BREWER-Okay. CRAIG SEELEY MR. SEELEY-It's been raining a lot. At the point Scott went out to visit the property, it was when we had the eight inches of rain during July. You're al I pretty aware of that. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. SEELEY-That whole area is ful I of springs. There are springs there, and that's all they are is springs. I've got springs on ~ property right down the street. I had to dig a culvert and f i I lit with crushed stone to keep it from runn i ng across the top of the lawn. MR. NEALON-The bottom line, as far concerned, is that t hey have adv i sed Mr. that stream is sti I I just not a matter it's not a stream. It's an intermittent. as the Department is Seeley that, wet or not, of, that water course, MR. MACEWAN-Do you have a letter from DEC stipulating that? MR. NEALON-It is not a designated water course, and they don't have jurisdiction. MR. MACEWAN-But do you have something from DEC that says that that's okay by them? MR. NEALON-We can obtain a letter for the Board. MR. OBERMAYER-Where are those streams supposed stream? located on the map here, MR. NEALON-If you look on the southeastern corner, about where it says, buffer, there's a depression, a Y shaped depression. That is the supposed tributary that the Assistant Planner was referring to. MR. OBERMAYER-Can you show us, maybe, just so everybody else can - 2 - where "It runs from and where it was running. see, and to see MR. BREWER-I'll ask, just for our information, on the contrary, do we have something that says there ~ a stream there? MR. NEALON-No. MR. BREWER-I'm asking Staff. MR. HARLICKER-It's shown on the map, here, as a stream. MR. NEALON-It is not shown as a stream. MR. H A R L I C K E R -. T hat's a s t rea m des i 9 n a t ion, "t h e I i new i t h t h r e e dot s , I i new i th t h r e e çI 0 t s , i s a s y m b 0 I for a s tr e am. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NEALON-It is not a designated stream. MR. HARLICKER-I agree to that. DEC. It's not a designated stream for MR. NEALON-And it's not j ur Lsd i ct i ona I as far as ENCON is concerned. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. NEALON-And I think, Scott, with al I due deference to your pos it ion, you wi I I agree with me that if ENCON doesn't have jurisdiction over it, a land owner wants to do something with it, he'd have the right to do that. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. Is that so, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Not in so many words, no. Obviously one of the considerations that you're al lowed to view in your review of subdivisions is drainage, water flow and things I ike that. So. I mean, in a word. no, it's not. not in those words, it's not. MR. HARLICKER-I mean, there was instances. one review that took place, of a single fami Iy residence up on Hanneford Road, where there was an intermittent stream that ran through the property, and he had to.keep a 75 foot setback. Off of West Mounta inRoad. an appl icant was in for another single fami Iy home. where he needed shorel ine setbacks. There was an intermittent stream running around, it was off the back of, where West Mountain Road. MR. SEELEY-Were they designated streams? MR. HARLICKER-They were not designated, they were intermittent streams. MR. SEELEY-Who made that determination that they had to maintain the 75 foot setback? Who made the decision that they had to have that 75 foot setback? MR. HARLICKER-Staff did. MR. SEELEY-And was DEC considered? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. SEELEY-Were they questioned? Did the homeowners go to them and ask them if they could fi II that stream in? MR. HARLICKER-No, not to ~ knowledge. MR. SEELEY-I did. - 3 - ---.-.-.--..--.-- MR. SCHACHNER-I can read you the language from your Subdivision Regulations. if you like. or I can point you to it. It's in Section 183-21. which is cal led Character of Land. Depending upon which book you have. it ~ be on Page 18340. but that's only if you have the same book I have. If somebody does have a 18340. and you could tell me what it starts with at the toP. I'd be curious. MR. BREWER-Three? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. and what's it read. Tim? MR. BREWER-"Where any land other than". MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Okay. on that page. the very next item. Letter C. says. "Where a subdivision is traversed by a natural lake. pond. or stream. the boundaries or al ignment of said watercourse shall be preserved. unless in the opinion of the Planning Board. a change or real ignment wi II enhance the development and beauty of the subdivision or the uti I ization of such features by the future residents of the subdivision." And then it does say. and if Mr. Nealon is reading this language. he wi I I point this out. and 1'1 I point it out for him. It does say. "All proposed changes in watercourse al ignment shall be in accordance with the Environmental Conservation Law." So it's a little ambiguous. in that it does not use the term "designated stream" at the beginning of the provision. It just says. "natural. lake. pond or stream". It does say that if you want to change your watercourse a Ii gnment. you have to do so in accordance with the Environmental Conservation Law. So it's a I ittle ambiguous. and I'm not trying to quibble with Mr. Nealon here. but I think that. to the extent that his statement. it struck ~ as a very broad. blanket statement. I think what he said was that if DEC doesn't have jurisdiction. you have. that the landowner has the absolute right to develop the area. even if there's an intermittent stream. and I guess all J...:..m. saying is that that's not true as a matter of absolute right. that this Planning Board certainly has the authority to consider the existence of even an intermittent stream. and if you feel it's appropriate. that it warrants certain protection for drainage or other water related reasons. you have the authority to so indicate. Is that making sense? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. BREWER-I guess. if it's in the area that's marked buffer. and there's going to be a 50 foot buffer. what's the big problem with staying away from it? I guess that would be my question. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Why can't you meet the 75 foot setback? MR. BREWER-If there's no proposed development on that parcel now. MR. SEELEY-You're asking me to take a seven acre parcel of land and use one acre of it. MR. BREWER-How does that happen? MR. SEELEY-You want to deny me the abi I ity to access the flattest part of this land. Now I'm proposing to bui Id my bui Iding the furthest point away from all the residents and everything. but I don't know what's going to happen in 10 years. or 15 years. or maybe when I want to retire and sell that land. I'm looking down the road. MR. BREWER-Okay. but what. essentially. is being asked is to stay 75 feet away from that stream. and you're getting mad at us. - 4 - - - MR. SEELEY-The point is. I'm going to f i I I that stream in. MR. OBERMAYER-You're going to f i I I it in? MR. SEELEY-Yes. I .ª-!!l going to f i I I that stream in. MR. BREWER-Mavbe you are. MR. NEALON-The point that is germane here is that this land has been zoned industrial. all right. It's not talking about a residence. It's zoned industrial. The Town made that decision and the property was purchased on that premise. and if the Board is asking us to stay 75 feet away from any portion of this depression. we have just sacrificed virtually al I of the flat land in that area. for a ditch. and we're not prepared to do that. if the Department of Environmental Conservation. upon legitimate inquiry. says. if you want to fi II it. you fi II it according to the regulations. It is not a desjgnated stream. MR. RUEL-If feet? it's not a designated stream. can we insist on 75 MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. BREWER-What did Mark just say? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. we can. Read that paragraph. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean. I guess I don't really see where it's the flattest part of the land. I see the contours. MR. NEALON-This is the flattest por'tion of the land. This falls off about 4Ø feet in here. and it's quite steep. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. So you're going to elevate that whole area 4Ø feet to bring it up to level with the other? MR. NEALON-No. depression. so What we're talking about is filling this that we have a flat area that can be worked with. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So you would uti I ize the site from up above. fi II in down below. and drive 4Ø feet down the hi II to an area down there? MR. NEALON-No. MR. SEELEY-No. MR. NEALON-We are concerned about I imitation of our right of access to the lower portion of this land from East Branch Road. MR. OBERMAYER-Where's East Branch Road? MRS. LABOMBARD-Specifically tel I us. MR. NEALON-East Branch Road. MR. BREWER-It's down here on the bottom. MR. NEALON-It's on the bottom. MR. OBERMAYER-Is that the right-of-way? MR. BREWER-It's the right-of-way. but it's not even really a road. is it? MR. NEALON-Yes. It's a paved road. It's a Town road. MR. HARLICKER-It's a Town road. Yes. it is. - 5 - MR. NEALON-In fact. the paved way. the property I ine I ies in the paved way. MR. OBERMA YER- I see. What about the first lot. Lot Number One? That's pretty steep also. What have you got planned for that? MR. NEALON-That we intended to (lost word). MR. PALING-If you raised that depression from. evidentally. it's a 3ØØ foot I eve I. have you cons i dered what effect it's go i ng to have on the neighbors. when you change the flow of water. possibly. there. it would be to the east? MR. SEELEY-You see the designated stream east of the property? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SEELEY-That is about a into the Hudson River. surrounding properties. 3Ø foot deep culvert which runs out There wi I I be zero impact on any MR. PALING-Well. as I'm looking at this. I see a 3ØØ foot marker in between two stream I ines. and there's no contour I ines beyond it. and it's the property of Smith. Is Smith going to object if you're starting to push water. you say it's too deep to do that? MR. SEELEY-It's a designated stream. anything with that. I'm not proposing to do MR. BREWER-You just got done te I ling us you were go i ng to f i I I that? MR. PALING-Yes. that's what you said. you're going to raise the I eve I. MR. MACEWAN-He's talking about this here. MR. BREWER-Right. he's talking about this. but if he's going to fi I I this. the water's got to go somewhere. doesn't it? MR. SEELEY-I'm fi II ing this right here. all this. This designated stream. is the MRS. LABOMBARD-The "Y" part. MR. SEELEY-Yes. I'm fi II ing this right here. MR. PALING-AI I right. Now this becomes higher than this. MR. SEELEY-No. this doesn't become. this is lower. off another. this is the stream. This drops MR. BREWER-This is 3ØØ right here. MR. PALING-And that I ine continues right in through here. and if you're going to put dirt on top of here. MR. SEELEY-I've been out and walked this property. Scott's been out there. This right here is a ditch which runs into the Hudson River. which drops off severely right along here. MR. HARLICKER-It's a stream that runs into the Hudson River. MR. MACEWAN-So are you suggesting that maybe the survey map is wrong? MR. SEELEY-As far as. what's wrong with it? MR. MACEWAN-As far as the fact that it shows a 3ØØ foot. - 6 - '_... MR. SEELEY-The topographic mark? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. That's pretty significant. MR. PALING-This 3ØØ foot I ine carries right in through here. okay. Now what we're saying is. if you're fi II ing this in. MR. SEELEY- I f you go out and look topographical map was taken off of re~uested by the Planning Department. aerial photos were off. or whatever. at it. maybe this. this New York State maps. as If New York State. their MR. OBERMAYER-No. I'm sure. no. doubt that. MR. SEELEY-But. regardless. there is a 3Ø foot ditch which has Number 336 designated stream running between my property and the residential property adjacent to it. MR. BREWER-Maybe we should go out there and look at it. MR. SEELEY-That would probably be a good idea. MR. OBERMAYER-We did access the. MR. BREWER-Yes. but we didn't go down. MR. STARK-We didn't go down that road and see the ditch or anything. MR. OBERMAYER-No. we did. MR. BREWER-So why don't we do that? MR. OBERMAYER-I don't have a problem with that. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. OBERMAYER-I would probably feel more comfortable doing that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Craig. I just have a question. What confused me was. I was under the impression. all the time. that the bui Idings for your operation would be up here. MR. SEELEY-They are going to be up here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Then what are you bui Iding down here? MR. SEELEY-I'm not bui (ding anything down there. MRS. LABOMBARD-I didn't think you were. Then you're just? MR. SEELEY- 'm going to fi II in those streams. MRS. LABOMBARD-Just to make it dry. MR. SEELEY-To make it flat. MRS. LABOMBARD-In the future. you might want to use that for something? MR. SEELEY-In the future. yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-But right now. this is where you're going. MR. BREWER-( don't understand something that. going to be a buffer. I sti I I can't understand. if this area is MR. STARK-What's the matter with the 75 foot? - 7 - MR. BREWER- don't know. MR. STARK-Craig. I real ize you want to fi II the land. and you might have something to use it for 10 years from now. 20 years from now. What's the matter with agreeing to a 75 foot buffer right now? MR. SEELEY-A 75 foot buffer away from the stream? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-From your property I in e. MR. BREWER-No. not from the property line. MR. STARK-From the stream. MR. NEALON-If you move 75 feet. MR. SEELEY-From the designated stream? MR. NEALON-From the designated stream it's not a problem. MR. SEELEY-Fine. I'll go with the designated stream. but not the one that Scott is call ing a stream. MR. MACEWAN-That's the one we're referring to. MR. SEELEY-No. I'm not agreeing. MR. NEALON-That takes out the entire Y shaped area. and then some. as excluded from future development. and we're not prepared to agree to that. It's an unreasonable taking. MR. BREWER-We I I. hypot het i ca I I y. what happens to? if we say you have MR. SEELEY-I don't bel ¡eve you can. MR. NEALON-Then you'd get an Article 78. MR. BREWER-I think we can. I'm not saying we're just saying that our Attorney says that we can. argue the point. but I'm just saying. going to. I'm I don't want to MR. SEELEY-And DEC says I can fi I I that stream in. MR. STARK-Tim. we didn't go down there. None of us went down there. We drove around the road on top and everything. None of us went down to the stream. supposed stream. Why don't you. Craig. agree to table it unti I next week. and in the intervening week. every member wi I I go down there and walk the supposed stream. Then we know what we're talking about. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. STARK-I mean. a week isn't going to kill you. us out there and show us. You can meet MR. BREWER-I'd rather go out as a Board. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't want to go alone. someone. want to go with MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. We'll go together then. MR. BREWER-Yes. I mean as a Board. MR. STARK-Fine. Set up a meeting and we' I I go. - 8 - -~------- ------------ MR. RUEL-It almost sounds like you're saying that this map is wrong. MR. BREWER-I don't know if the map is wrong. MRS. LABOMBARD-The map's not wrong. MR. BREWER-All right. Lets go with all the issues, so that if we do table this and we go on, we know what all the issues are before next week. MR. OBERMAYER-One other thing is that you mentioned that DEC has given you verbal approval to fill in the ditch? MR. SEELEY-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Would they mind putting that in writing to you? MR. SEELEY-I don't see why they wouldn't. MR. BREWER-A I I right. MR. OBERMAYER-And that would help the matter immensely, okay. MR. SEELEY-So, if they give me a letter saying, yes, I can fi II that in, wi II that solve this problem? MR. OBERMAYER-That might solve !ill{. problem. other Board members. I can't speak for the MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question as to what our B~ard means by, when you're deal ing with the 75 feet, do you mean 75 feet from every point on that Y that would make a radius al I the way around? MR. BREWER-From the stream. MR. OBERMAYER-I was going to say 75 foot buffer from the property line. MRS. LABOMBARD-The stream is not on the property line. MR. OBERMAYER-That's the way you've indicated. 50 foot minimum. MR. SEELEY-The designated stream. MRS. LABOMBARD-But that's not the one we're talking about. The other stream. I'd I ike somebody to go up to that map and tell me, show me exactly where this moot stream is. MR. NEALON-The marking on the map that has runs perpendicular to the property line, angles to the north, all right. the stream markings and then genera I I Y MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. NEALON-And if you're proposing from every point on this, you virtually, all the way to the fi II line. and essentially taking that saying to set that aside. to impose a 75 foot buffer are. essentially. coming, and back down to the property entire corner of land and MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. SEELEY-I'd I ike to sdd one more thing to that. You see how the Y is there? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. SEELEY-There's actually, what Scott is considering a stream. - 9 - also running up that Y. So, essentially, now you've just even compounded the problem greater. Yes. There's two springs that come into the bottom of those two, you know, on the contour you can see it. MR. BREWER-I only see ~ line. I don't see. MR. SEELEY-I know. The other I ine isn't even on there, but, frankly, that spring runs more than the one that ~ on there. MR. BREWER-All right. Well, that's the one that we're talking about, I think, the one that comes in from the, would it be the east, and goes to the north. MR. SEELEY-Wel I, what about when you get out there on the site and the one that's not on the map is larger than the one that is? MR. BREWER-Then maybe we should have a correct map that shows it. MR. PALING-I think we've got to have a corrected map, because right now, this map shows that if you fi II in, the water's going to flow on your neighbor's property, and you're saying that's just not true. So why not correct this map, and while you're doing it, differentiate between the two streams, so we know where the designated stream is, where the temporaries are, and what's the true topography of the situation. MR. NEALON-I bel ¡eve we can assist you in resolving where the designated stream is right now. The ENCON map shows the designated stream to be this stream right here. MR. RUEL-It's the I ine with the double dots. MR. PALING-This between, you're going between here and here. MR. NEALON-Right here. MR. NEALON-This is the designated stream. MR. RUEL-Yes, the I ine with the double dot. MR. PALING-This one right here. MR. RUEL-This one right here. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-That's it. MR. PALING-All right. That's the ENCON designated stream. Okay. MR. NEALON-That's Number 336. MR. PALING-AI I right. Now how about the contours we're talking here? Evidentally, these, you're saying, are not right, not correct? MR. SEELEY-The contours are very, very close. you're saying that they're not right. I don't know why MR. PALING-I'm not saying they're right or wrong. I'm just going by what the print says, and I'm saying if you fi II those in, it looks I ike, on the map, you're going to wash water to your neighbor's property, and, evidentally, this is not true. MR. SEELEY-The water is flowing into the designated stream, regardless of what I do. If I fill them in, that water's still going to run into that designated stream, regardless. Water runs down hill. Is it going to impact the properties? No. It's running into the same stream that's already there. - 10 - MRS. LABOMBARD-I have no problem with that. completely. understand that MR. SEELEY-I'm glad somebody does. MR. OBERMAYER-Can I ask you a question? How come you choose Lot Number Two to put your? MR. SEELEY-Because I thought it would be a nice thing to do with the neighbors. because I I ive on Twin Channels Road. I live 300 fee taw a y .f rom t his pro per t y. and I did n 't wan t . you k now. I do have friends that are neighbors. and I was doing that out of a courtesy to them. so that I would have control of what got developed on that parcel. MR. MACEWAN-You just. through your own admission. a few minutes ago. said that you don't know what's going to be on that parcel. and you said you may even decide. 10. 15 years down the road. to sell that parcel. So how would you have control of what's going to be bui It on it? MR. SEELEY-If I'm going to. while it's in my have sold Parcel Number Two and kept Parcel been here addressing all this bullshit. possession. I could Number One. and not MR. BREWER-That was kind of uncalled for. I think. MR. STARK-Tim. maybe we could set a date to go out there. as a Board. or most of us. I'd I ike to see it. myself. MR. BREWER-I would. too. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I would. too. MR. BREWER-But I also have a comment as to the access on the right-of-way. only because it is a residential neighborhood. Granted. your land is light industrial. It does border Waterfront Residential on two sides of it. a Suburban Residential One Acre. and I think if you access a commercial piece of property next to a residential neighborhood. it wi I I have an effect on them. and I don't see the harm if you accessed on Twin Channels and/or Big Bay. MR. SEELEY-Because there's a 40 foot drop that's more than a 25 percent grade. MR. it. BREWER-But did you or did you Craig? not know that when you bought MR. SEELEY-I asked the Town Planning Board members. Jim. Sue and Scott. all of them. in Scott's o'ffice. what can I do with this land. before I bought this property. we I I before I bought this property. and you can see by the map dated. May 17th I received this map. well before I bought this property. I asked all the questions. and now I'm at the final subdivision. and this comes up. I asked. I said. I told them there were ravines. I told them there were streams. I said. can I fi II these. Their response was. Scott's response. and Jim Martin was. we don't designate what you can fill and what you can't fill. Go talk to DEC. I went to DEC. I ta I ked to Joe Pra I I. I looked at the maps. I got a copy of this map from them. He said. we do not des i gnate what you can f i I lei ther. un I ess you impact a des ignated stream. What I'm propos i ng to do wi II not impact that designated stream. The water's there. The water's sti II going to run there. MR. HARLICKER-We would never have made such a statement as you can fill whatever you want. MR. BREWER-Lets not get into a debate. Scott. you're saying. Lets find out, I want to know I understand what how everybody else - 11 - feels about a commercial business having the opportunity to be accessed next to a residential area. I mean. there's a reason in our Ordinance that says there should be a buffer. That buffer is going to be el iminated if he goes in on the right-of-way. or whatever the name of that street is. There has to be a buffer. MR. RUEL-Isn't there a 5Ø foot buffer at the southern end? MR. BREWER-There is. but if they put a business there. then the buffer's not going to be there. MR. NEALON-If you have a driveway. I fai I to see how that interrupts a buffer to any substantial degree. MR. BREWER-Suppose it's a high traffic area. Who knows. if somebody buys that. I mean. this is what we have to look at. If you se I I that. and somebody comes in there and it's zoned commercial and they have access to this. It's a residential neighborhood on one side of the street. commercial on the other side. You have no way to know what's going to go in there if you sell that property. If something goes in there that's a high traffic business. or whatever. is that or is it not going to impact the neighborhood? Plain and simple. yes or no. MR. NEALON-It cannot be answered yes or no. MR. BREWER-Why can't it? That question I asked you. MR. SEELEY-Everything. that's subject to site plan review on industrial property. Address the issue when it becomes one. MR. BREWER-We're trying to do that now. MR. SEELEY-It's not an issue now. MR. BREWER-The issue is the access. MR. SEELEY-I'm not proposing to do anything except fill in those streams. MR. OBERMAYER-That's a good point. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's true. I was thinking that. MR. SEELEY-My site plan is going to reflect very close to what's there. MR. BREWER-But this, is part of that subdivision review right now. I think we could address it now. MR. RUEL-Your property is completely surrounded by residential except on the north. right? MR. SEELEY-AI I except for about 1ØØ feet on Big Boom Road. MR. NEALON-That which I ies on the west is. MR. MACEWAN-Everything else is residential. al I the way around. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-But it is zoned light industrial. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-So. he's proper I y zoned. and he can bu i I d anywhere on this property. MR. BREWER-Pretty much. - 12 - -------.-------- MR. RUEL-And he can leave the 50 foot buffer. MR. BREWER-He could. MR. RUEL-And. theoretically. he could gain access anywhere. MR. BREWER-How could he gain access anywhere? MR. MACEWAN-Anywhere he has frontage. MR. RUEL-On Twin Channels Road. or on this road that's not marked. MR. MACEWAN-East Branch. MRS. LABOMBARD-Theoretical Iy. Ro~er. but it wouldn't be practical from Twin Channels Road. because of the drop. MR. NEALON-There is a hi I I that's much steeper than the hi I I that's out back here. much steeper and much taller. MR. RUEL-Well. what are you proposing. Tim? MR. BREWER-What I'm saying is. Roger. what the Staff has said is. this is a residential area right here. There's four or five houses. I don't know how many, to I imit the access to this part of the lot. rather than have some sort of commercial entity come in here. be developed here. across the street from. MR. PALING-Tim. that's also residential. on the west. that's residential. too. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALING-In other words. both of the areas that we're talking about as possible access are residential. MR. BREWER-Th i s is a ma inroad. Th i s is like a secondary type road. I guess. is what you're saying. MR. RUEL-It really doesn't matter. MR. BREWER-It doesn't matter. MR. RUEL-Whether it's a secondary road or whether road. it's a main MR. BREWER-I'm just addressing the comment from Staff. so that the issue comes out before we table and come back next week and make another issue of that. Shouldn't we get ~ the issues out? MR. RUEL-Well. the comment is that the access would be difficult and dangerous. Well. what's the alternative? MR. HARLICKER-The alternative would be to. you know. he's talking about grading and fi I I ing. provide access to up here. and maybe that bottom portion of the property there has enough environmental restraints and constrictions on it that it's not a developable chunk of land. Not everything in the Town is developable. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. NEALON-That land. if you go out and walk through it. is flat. sandy soi I. eminently developable. MR. BREWER-Okay. We II. we are go i ng to go out there. MR. MACEWAN-But on one hand you're argument to us is that that - 13 - second parce I i sn' t deve I opab Ie. because you need to fill it. because of a steep hi I I that you said was over 40 foot steep. How could that possibly be flat? MR. NEALON-If might, I don't want to lose people in not understanding. The hi II, essentially. runs diagonally from northeast corner to southwest corner over that property. MR. MACEWAN-Correct. MR. NEALON-That's where the major hi II is. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. NEALON-You cannot bring equipment or vehicles of any description and meet the zoning. or the grade slope requirements. down that bank. You just can't do it. MR. RUEL-So you intend to fill that? MR. NEALON-No. MR. SEELEY-No. MR. NEALON-We want to have the option to uti I ize this portion of the property. that is the southeasterly corner of the property. in some reasonable fashion in the future, and the mechanism by which one gains access to that portion of the property is down East Branch Road. That's a Town maintained. paved road. MR. MACEWAN-In a residential area. MR. NEALON-In a I ight industrial area. MRS. LABOMBARD-See, that's right. the other. It's six of one. half dozen of MR. RUEL-Sir. do you have a second, here. and take a look. here. MR. BREWER-Is the area predominantly residential. or is it predominantly industrial? I guess what I'm saying to you. Cathy. is. residential. residential. residential. residential. residential. and you're talking about a nine acre parcel that's commercial. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. but these people knew this was commercial when they bought their property. MR. RUEL-I'm assuming that this I ine with the double dot is the center of the designated stream. okay. What is this one? Here's another one. here. MR. NEALON-This is an intermittent stream. MR. RUEL-Is this the one you intend to cover? MR. NEALON-Yes. MR. RUEL-That's one of them. right? Okay. intend to cover. This is the area you MR. BREWER-Okay. Craig. you have a question? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. This is for Staff. How can we ascertain the correctness to this map? MR. HARL I CKER-We I I, McCormack states that the contours are derived from topographic mapping in possession of Coulter & McCormack. I'm presuming that he probably took these topo sheets off of USGS maps. - 14 - ---~-_._._...__._-_..__._----- MR. MACEWAN-The appl icant is suggesting to us that that 300 foot contour I ine. which goes across that designated stream. is not correct. MR. SEELEY-No. I'm not saying that's not correct. MR. MACEWAN-That's what you said. MR. SEELEY-I'm saying what I'm going to fill in is not going to affect where that water runs. MR. MACEWAN-I was pretty sure you said that that wasn't correct. MR. SEELEY-I don't really understand the 30Ø foot. MR. MACEWAN-That's a contour line. MR. NEALON-That contour simply suggests that the topography drops down. MR. MACEWAN-R i ght. and he. I thought ear Ii er. suggested that it wasn't that steep of a drop off. by no means. MR. SEELEY-Yes. but this 30Ø foot points that I want to fill. line is below these other MR. OBERMAYER-Why are we trying to keep appl ¡cant. and why can't we just go out and on contradicting look the site? the MR. MACEWAN-I'm not trying to contradict anybody. Jim. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. you are. Craig. MR. MACEWAN-I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it to help this guy get an approval. and if i can't get all the information that I need to make an approval. I'm not going to do it. So. I'm just trying to find out. a little investigation into what's going on. .MR. OBERMAYER-That's fine. MR. SEELEY-To answer your question. I've got this now. foot is below where I'm going to fi II. The 300 MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. SEELEY-So I'm not going to be putting anything above. or anything that's going to make the water run where it's not going to run now. MR. MACEWAN-Roughly. the area that you're looking to fill. MR. SEELEY-Is approximately 2Ø feet deep and maybe 50 feet wide. MR. MACEWAN-So. contour wise. where would that fal I with that 3Ø0 foot contour line? Would it be higher than? MR. NEALON-Yes. Higher than. MR. MACEWAN-Twenty feet higher. guessing. thirty feet? MR. SEELEY-Ten. maybe. MR. PALING-The next contour line up is 10 feet. MR. NEALON-The next contour line up is 310 feet. MR. PALING-Yes. - 15 - .~..- MR. NEALON-What Mr. See I ey is suggest i ng, if I understand it, is that that 31Ø foot would be compressed down. MR. SEELEY-I want to bring all that grade up to 31Ø feet. MR. MACEWAN- f an approva lis granted to you to a I low you to f i I I those two depressions in that "Y" area, would you be acceptable to a conditional approval that says that you can only access that second parcel via Big Boom or Twin Channels, and not go off East Branch? MR. BREWER-No. That's the only possible. MR. SEELEY-That's the whole issue. MR. BREWER-The whole point is, if he fi I Is this, he's got no way to get there from here to there. MR. MACEWAN-I guess what I'm trying to go with is, how much fi I I are you anticipating? Just enough to fi I I that depression? MR. SEELEY-That's all L..m.. going to do is fi II that depression. that little "Y" there. If you look at the contour map, as you come down Twin Channels Road, it drops off, ten, twenty, thirty feet by the time you get to the corner of there. Then by the time you drop down to this lower level. it's dropped off another thirty feet. What you're asking me to do is come straight over al I those at a 6Ø foot drop. Why would I want to do that when there's a road there? MR. MACEWAN-I'm not asking you to do that. I was just trying to ascertain how much fi I I you want to bring in there, whether you wanted to try to bring it up close to the level of half way up that point, or what? MR. SEELEY-No. want to bring it up to approximately 31Ø feet. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. SEELEY-Which is. MR. MACEWAN-A far cry from the top of the hi I I. MR. BREWER-AI I right. Why don't we do this. got any other questions? Has anybody else MR. RUEL-I'm just curious. What is in the proposed building? MR. SEELEY-Light manufacturing. MR. RUEL-Okay. You intend to fi II in a portion, the southeast portion, you just spoke about it, of Lot Two. Wi I I you also fi II in anywhere in Lot One? MR. NEALON-No. MR. SEELEY-No. MR. RUEL-Because you have a similar situation up there. a depression. You have MR. NEALON-We're anticipating offering that for sale. MR. RUEL-No? Okay. Well, then I'd I ike to suggest, of course, that we need a DEC letter to fi II in the stream or the ditch, and, secondly, I think we should update, modify the map if necessary, and. third, I would I ike to somehow add a contour map, profi Ie, side view, and that would el iminate all of these questions, if we could actually see the height and the depth. Following contour lines, it's difficult. - 16 - MR. MACEWAN-That portion. Roger. we wi I I. once we go take a look at the site and walk that stream that he's referring to. MR. SEELEY-That's what the contour I ines are showing. MR. RUEL-I know. know. but the prof i Ie map shows a side view. MR. SEELEY-This l.§. a prof i Ie map. MR. NEALON-No. I understand what you mean. MR. RUEL-This is a top view. away view. I'm talking about a side view. cut MR. SEELEY-You're asking me to spend having the surveyor go out there and prepare. MR. RUEL-Wait a minute. If you had had that. it would have answered a lot of questions that were asked here tonight. because it's difficult to visual ize these valleys from the contour map. In the first place. you show the designated stream going al I the way through. and you show contour maps on one side only. We don't see any contour maps on the other side. MR. SEELEY-I met the requirements of the Town Subdivision stuff. This is what you people requested. MR. BREWER-Okay. He met the requirements. MR. PALING-Okay. Both of the access sides of this lot border on residential property. across the street from it. As a practical matter, I don't see any other way that their going to have an access. except the southeast corner. and I think that's where we should concentrate. As a matter of fact. ~ would be in favor of not al lowing a Twin Channel Road access to Lot Number Two. I think it' s go i n gt 0 be ve r y d iff i cui t if you go into that hilly area. The other thing is. I'd just I ike clarification on. even if it's just a I ittle overlay or something. of the height of the contours of the topography of this land. and if you're going to fi II it in for 10 feet. then you're going to level it. and that's the practical access point also. and that I could go along with. but if you say that he can't access into a residential area. then the lot is unusable. and I don't think we really want to say that. MR. RUEL-Because he's completely surrounded. MR. PALING-He's surrounded by it. residential. That's all there is is MR. NEALON-If I might consideration. using the maps pull ing the 310 foot contour existing 300 foot contour proposing. just suggest. for the Board's that exist now. if one can envision I ine. essentially. adjacent to the line. that's what Mr. Seeley is MR. Yes. PALING-He's level ing He f i I I sit in. it. Yes. The 300 ine becomes 310. MR. BREWER-Okay. George? MR. STARK-Tim. I think we're beating this to death. I don't have a problem with an access down that paved road. We're going to go out and we're going to drive down that paved road. That's the way we're going to access. when we have the visit. Craig wi I I agree to a tabl ing next week. put him on the agenda next week. We'll go out there. We'll walk the site. He doesn't need any other map. L don't think. We'll go out and look and see what's there. - 17 - ---'-~ ---'-"~'-"---- .'.-- MR. BREWER-Okay. When do we want to do it? MR. STARK-Wel I. that's. whenever. whenever it's convenient for anybody else. MR. BREWER-Saturday? " MR. MA C E WAN - You h a vet 0 m a k e sur e wit h the a p p I i can t. t hat ' s okay with him that we table. get his permission. it's MR. BREWER-I think he's wi II ing to consent to us tabl ing so we can go out there and look at this? MR. NEALON-We would agree to table it. MR. BREWER-Okay. When do we want to do it? Do we want to do it Saturday? I s that good wi th everybody? MR. OBERMAYER-I'm probably just going to go there and look at it myself. I'm not sure what my schedule is. MR. SEELEY-I'd like to be present when you do. MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. MR. STARK-Pick a day. MR. BREWER-Saturday. MR. SEELEY-I would like to go with you. I would be happy to point out everything that I've discussed. over every inch of that property. more than I've been MR. PALING-I' I I iLY to make Saturday. I'm not sure. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm going away this weekend. MR. BREWER-AI I right. How about Monday? MR. RUEL-Monday's okay by me. MRS. LABOMBARD-Monday might be better. MR. PALING-Yes. Monday is fine. MR. STARK-What time Monday? MR. BREWER-How about. can we do it. like. 5:3Ø? MR. STARK-Fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. 5:3Ø Monday. MR. BREWER-And why don't we meet right on the corner at the restaurant. there. MR. STARK-At Carl R's. MR. MACEWAN-Why don't we just al I meet at the site? MR. BREWER-Whatever. Whatever's easier. MR. RUEL-At the site. MR. NEALON-Mr. Seeley can be reached at his place of business. when you go out. - 18 - MR. BREWER- 'd I ike to just have the Board go. if we could. Is that fine with everybody. go out I ike a site visit. I ike we normally do? You're going to try to obtain a letter from DEC. 'd I ike just the Board to go, if we could. MR. MACEWAN-Is that okay with the appl icant? MR. BREWER-Wel I. we have a right to go out there. Mr. Seeley. don't want to push the issue. MR. SEELEY-I'm not saying I don't want you to go. with you. That's all I'm saying. I want to go MR. BREWER-I'm saying that I'd rather have you not. MR. SEELEY-Why? MR. BREWER-Because I'd discuss it. that's all. like to go out as a Board and I et us MR. SEELEY-And I think I have the right to. MR. BREWER-You can be there if you want to be there. all right? MR. SEELEY-A I I right. MR. BREWER-Okay. but I won't be. all right, 5:30 Monday, I won't. MR. SEELEY-That's fine, Tim. whatever you want. MR. BREWER-Okay. Monday, 5:30, and we' I I get a for next week at the meeting. Does somebody motion to table? letter from DEC want to make a MOTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION SEELEY. I ntroduced by Roger Rue I who moved seconded by George Stark: NO. 9-1994 CRAIG for its adoption, Unt i I the August 23rd meet i ng. Duly adopted this 16th day of August. vote: 1994. by the following AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling. Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. STARK-I'm comfortable, Tim. if we go out there and look at this. I don't think we have to put him to the expense of a two foot mapping. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree with that. MR. BREWER-But waiver or not. to do that. I think we should find out if we granted him a If we didn't granted him a waiver. then we've got MR. STARK-I don't know. That was at Preliminary that he would have needed the two foot. MR. PALING-It would be nice to avoid an argument like we did have. though. That was going no place, with the difference between the map and his opinion. MR. STARK-If we have to grant him a waiver. lets go out and look. before we do anything. I want to see the property. Actually. it might be good if he could say, here's the stream. and here's the stream. okay. and then go away. and then we can talk about it. - 19 - MR. HARLICKER-Yes. What you might want to say. too. is. Jim. as the Zoning Administrator. should make a determination as to whether the setback requirements apply to this particular intermittent stream. MR. BREWER-I would I ike to know that myself. MR. HARLICKER-If he makes a determination that. required. they can either appeal his decision. or variance. if and when they decide that. yes. it's go for a MR. BREWER-I'd I ike to decide it right now. and have him make a determination before next week. before. so he knows. MR. HARLICKER-I wi I I do that. MR. STARK-I think he shouldn't have even been here. he shouldn't have been here. Persona I I y. MR. BREWER-That's right. I agree with you. MR. STARK-He should have just gone for the subdivision. not said anything. and it would have been al I done. and then twenty years down the road. he's never going to sell the land. MR. BREWER-AI I right. Lets move on. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1994 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM BUCKINGHAM OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF CORINTH RD., +/- 35Ø EAST OF MINNESOTA AVENUE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.89 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS OF 2.955 ACRES AND 3.93 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 1Ø-94 TAX MAP NO. 127-8-25.2 LOT SIZE: 6.89 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS LEON STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 8-1994 FINAL STAGE. Wi II iam Buckingham. Meeting Date: August 16. 1994 "PRO~ECT ANALYSIS: Staff has the following comments regarding this application. 1. As per pre I i m i nary approva I. the app I i cant has prov i ded an agreement for the common driveway. 2. The Fire Marshal and Water Department have reviewed the plat. The Fire Marshal responded in a memo dated 8/3/94 and the Water Department in a memo dated 8/4/94. See attached memos for comments." MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we read that to read that letter? letter? George. do you want MR. STARK-Yes. The first one from the Fire Marshal. To Jim Martin. from C.A. Grant. Fire Marshal. August 3Ø. 1994. subject. Subdivision 8-1994 From previous discussions with Scott I am fami I iar with the appl icat ion you submit for my comments. The only consideration here appear to be fire hydrants. These should be spaced at a maximum of 8ØØ feet. Measurements shown on the plan provided would indicate an added hydrant would be needed in the future. should development occur on the parcel to the rear of Loggers Equipment. Further decisions would have to be made at that time regarding building location(s). water line routing, etc. On a related note, please remember that this would be a "private" hydrant requiring the owner to assume responsibi I ity for 1) maintenance in all seasons and 2) an annual operating inspection. Informatively. I proposed to Tom Flaherty earlier this year that the town arrange to offer annual inspections of private hydrants for a nominal fee to the owner. This would assure that private hydrants receive the same uniform care as town hydrants. I bel ieve this is being presented to the water committee for consideration. C.A. Grant Fire Marshal" - 2Ø - '~ MR. STARK-That takes care of the hydrant problem, 1 would think. MR. BREWER-And the letter from the Water Department. MR. STARK-Okay. To Jim Martin and Kip Grant, from Tom Flah~rty, Superintendent of the Water Department, subject, proposed subdivision of Wi I I iam Buckingham Corinth Road "I have reviewed the plans submitted for the above, proposed sub division dated 6,25 94 revised 7,27,94. The present construction standard for the spacing of fire hydrants is 8ØØ feet under normal conditions but not to exceed 1ØØØ feet under any condition. 1. The proposed buildings on section 127-8-25.1 are within 8ØØ feet of the existing publ ic hydrant on Corinth Road. 2. Section 127-8- 25.2 which mayor may not be developed at a later date is within 1ØØØ feet of the existing public hydrant on Corinth Road. A closer examination of the plans indicates that Section 127-8-25.2 is within 36Ø feet, at the farthest point, of the public hydrant on Wisconsin Avenue and 46Ø feet, at the farthest point, of the pub Ii c hydrant on M i ch i gan Avenue. 3. The requ i rement of the app I i cant to prov i de a pr i vate hydrant from Cor i nth Road wou I d require an expenditure of $11,00Ø to $12,000. 4. A private fire I ine could be extended from either Wisconsin or Michigan Avenue at a estimated cost of $3,500 to $4,500. 5. The concern of Fire Safety could be addressed by allowing the appl icant to have I imited access to the publ ic hydrant on either Wisconsin or Michigan Avenue. 6. The installation of private hydrants becomes t~e ma i ntenance respons i b i I i ty of the property owner and the TowniWater Department does not guarantee the condition of the hYdrant"at any given time." .. MR. PAL I NG-I have a quest i on on that letter. Scott, or whoever, Item Number Five, what is "limited access" to a hydrant? MR. HARLICKER-I'm not sure. emergency access from the Michigan Avenue. Maybe he'd property out prefer to have just an to Wisconsin Avenue or MR. PALING-Yes, but a fire is a hell of an emergency, but it says they have limited access. I wish it could be clarified. MR. OBERMAYER-Maybe by I imited access they don't sometimes when you have a commercial bui Iding, existing fire hydrants around, for doing maintenance type of things, and this would limit want them using, you ut i I i ze the things, doing that. MR. STARK-Tim, they are. don't have a problem with the hydrants where MR. BREWER-I think the last meeting we discussed that he was going to have a hydrant out here for nothing on that piece of property, and we suggested that, possibly, he put it back into here. so that it could be useful in both instances. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, which I think was a good suggestion. MR. BREWER-And I don't know whether. Leon, you discussed that with your cl ient, and you decided you want to do that, or you don't? MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves, for the record. On the plans that we submitted to you for final application and final approval, the hydrant has been removed, and a note placed on the map to (lost word) except for water supply and fire protection. The unique size and type of fire protection could be addressed in site plan review. MR. RUEL-Aren't there going to be barricades on Wisconsin and Michigan? MR. STEVES-No. now, and the 50 Other than the fact that there are trees there foot buffer would be maintained, those hydrants - 21 - -.---.-- "--. ----,-- ------ ~--- in here? Wouldn't it be more accessible. if a building caught fire in the back. then come in. drive around Wisconsin Avenue and try to find a hole. cut in the back of the woods somewhere? MR. HARLICKER-No. access drive. so ideal situation. Ideally. it would be somewhere along that they could hit it in the way in. and that's the MR. BREWER-Exactly. right at that corner. wouldn't you think? MR. OBERMAYER-I thought that's what we asked for prior to last meeting. MR. BREWER-I thought that's what we asked for. too. MR. STEVES-You did. You asked if I would agree to that. and told you. no. I would not. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. what we asked for? Have you informed your cl ient that that's MR. STEVES-I informed my c Ii ent. MR. OBERMAYER-And he said? MR. STEVES-He would prefer not to. site plan review. He'd rather address it at MR. RUEL-Because of the cost? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STARK-Tim. this isn't a problem for Kip. though. to not even have a hydrant there. is it? MR. BREWER-No. Site plan review next month. Leon? MR. STEVES-No. MR. BREWER-Kip says that we should address it at site plan? MR. HARLICKER-Well. it says. in the future. MR. STARK- mean. we' I I tel I the guy. you've got to have a hydrant before you can subdivide it. and he's never going to act on it. You know he's going to put the logging equipment. MR. BREWER-I know. but what I'm saying to you. George. is. three months ago they didn't. wel I. I won't say that. They had no plans to subdivide it three months ago either. but. MR. STARK-Correct. MR. OBERMAYER-That's true. MR. RUEL-But the way it stands right now. it meets the requirements of the fire department and the water department. MR. BREWER-Fine. Do whatever we've got to do. MR. STARK-I would think the guy could put. why does it have to be a hydrant? Why can't it just be a spigot? MR. BREWER-How are you going to hook a fire truck to a spigot. George? Come on. MR. STARK-I'm not saying a spigot. for want of a better word. Put your own connection there. MR. STEVES-It could be. though. that the building that would be - 23 - ------------------- wouldn't be visible from any fire truck coming in to the site. unless permission was granted. up front. to have a clearing for visual sighting of those hydrants. MR. RUEL-By el iminating part of the buffer? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STARK-On the end of Wisconsin or Michigan Avenue? leave the buffer. I'd rather MR. BREWER-I would. too. MR. STEVES-If you're coming in on the common drive. that's the way you would come in on. on the fire response. and if you look off toward Wisconsin. you could see the hydrant. if you had an opening there. Now the opening would be. you could only see the hydrant. but if you're on Wisconsin looking down. you wouldn't be able to see the building. MR. RUEL-What's the approximate distance between the hydrant on Corinth Road and the lot in the back. the 2.95 acre lot? MR. STEVES-What's the approximate distance7 MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STEVES-From the hydrant7 MR. RUEL-It's about 1.ØØØ. right7 MR. STEVES-Well. if you went to the center of the site. I would say 9ØØ feet. MR. RUEL-Is that al lowable7 They were talking about between aøø and 1.ØØØ. MR. STEVES-I would say. yes. MR. RUEL-It would be? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. RUEL-In other words. both of these lots on could be serviced by one hydrant on Corinth Road. this property I ega I I y? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. RUEL-According to the Fire Marshal. MR. HARLICKER-The Fire Marshal says aøø feet. and depending on where the bui Iding goes back there. it mayor may not be within aøø feet. MR. RUEL-Yes. if it was in the center of the lot. MR. HARLICKER-It would be pushing feet. it. very. very close to aøø MR. RUEL-It's close. but one letter indicated between aøø and 1 . øøø . MR. HARLICKER-That was the Water Department. MR. RUEL-Yes. know. MR. HARLICKER-I don't know if you're going to give more weight to one or the other. regarding emergency fire access. MR. BREWER-Wouldn't it be more real istic to have a hydrant back - 22 - proposed would require a sprinkler system. Would you require a hydrant as wel I? MR. BREWER-How can we assure that that issue wi I I be addressed if it ever comes back to site plan? Can we put something? MR. HARLICKER-Because during site plan review. you specifically look at emergency access and fire hydrant placement. MR. BREWER-Is there comes back for a looked at? a mechanism to note in site plan review. that our file when this the issue should be MR. HARLICKER-That would be difficult. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-I don't know how you'd keep track of that. MR. STEVES-It's on the subdivision. MR. BREWER-But when a site plan comes in though. Leon. we don't look at the subdivision plan. In al I honesty. we don't. MR. STEVES-I know. saying. I can't help you on that. I know what you're MR. BREWER-I'm just saying that you guys agree to look at that issue at site plan review. and heaven forbid. if we're not here. I mean; it may be someth i ng worth look i ng at. So there rea I I Y is no mechanism to do that. Why couldn't you put in the file on the subdivision map a note or something. MR. HARLICKER-Of that. yes. MR. BREWER-So that when you pul I the subdivision. MR. HARL I CKER-But. when t hey come in for whenever it happens. whoever does the review necessar i I Y have any reason to go back s u bd i vis ion p I at. i s w hat I'm say i n g . site plan review. for this. might not and look at that MR. BREWER-They have to go back and look at the subdivision file to see if the building fits on the plan. don't they? MR. HARLICKER-Well. they' I I come in with a plot plan showing this. MR. BREWER-Okay. AI I right. Maybe I'm wasting everybody's time. MR. STARK-I know what you're saying. You just want to make sure it's addressed ten years down the road if he ever bu i I ds some day. MR. BREWER-Whatever. MR. STARK-Well. that's part of the regulations that it has to be addressed at that point. MR. RUEL-There's no mechanism for it. MR. BREWER-Yes. There is no mechanism. MR. OBERMAYER-Unless that sprinkler's required by bui Iding permit. MR. STARK-Maybe sprinklers wi I I. They're getting more stringent all the time. MR. HARLICKER-One of the criteria that you look at under site plan review is Number Eight. the adequacy of fire lanes and other - 24 - emergency zones hydrants. and the provision, s p e c i f ic a I I Y , of fire MR. BREWER-Right. MR. HARLICKER-So it's not come back in. like it' I I get glossed over when they MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any other questions? That was the only issue that we had outstanding? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? prepared motion. We have a MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1994 WilliAM BUCKINGHAM, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption. seconded by Robert Pa ling: As written. Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of final subdivision application, file # 8-1994, to subdivide a 6.89 acre parcel into 2 lots of 2.955 acres and 3.93 acres. and Whereas, the above referenced final subdivision appl ication dated 7/27/94 consists of the following: 1. Staff notes, dated 8/16/94 2. Memo from the F,ire Marshal, dated 8/3194 3. Memo from the Water Department, dated 8/4/94 Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment. and Whereas. any modifications and prel iminary subdivision comp lied wit h. terms contained in approva I have the been Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering above, hereby move to approve final subdivision plat Buckingham file #8-1994. the stage let it be further reso I ved, 1. That prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board al I appropriate fees shal I be paid and that within 60 days of the date of this resolution the appl icant shall have the signed plat filed in the Office of the Clerk of Warren County. 2. The appl icant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on comp Ii ance and cont i nued comp I i ance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations. Duly adopted this 16th day of August. vote: 1994, by the following AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE - 25 - ---------- ------" .,---~--- ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1994 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MALCOLM & BETTY BATCHELDER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE CLEMENTS RD.. SOME 9ØØ' EAST OF RIDGE RD. SUBDIVISION OF A 4.39 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.53 ACRES AND 2.86 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 2-1993 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 27-3-1.1 LOT SIZE: 4.39 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1994 FINAL STAGE, Malcolm & Betty Batchelder, Meeting Date: August 16, 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has the following comments on this project: 1. The appl icant has provided 2 foot contours as requested. 2. The appl icant has contacted the APA regarding the possibi I ity of wetlands on the 1.53 acre parcel. The appl icant has indicated that they are awaiting a determination by the Park Agency." MR. BREWER-Okay. Leon. MR. STEVES-At the last meeting, you asked me to come back with a contour map, which we have done. You also asked me to come back with an NJ letter, if possible, or some response from the APA. The APA did respond, about 1Ø days ago, and said, yes, it is jurisdictional, and asked for an application of the build out sent back to them. It happened at about the same time that Mrs. Batchelder died. It wasn't at a, I callèd on the morning after her death, unbeknownst at the time. I waited. then. about a week later before I got him to sign the application. and we sent it to the APA. It is up there. and I have a copy. All I can say is. we're in a waiting period. MR. BREWER-Does that affect our approval. or whatever? MR. HARLICKER-Well, it's shown on here. my concern was, if that was a wetlands there, you'd have to have a 1ØØ foot setback. or otherwise you'd have to apply for a wetlands permit. MR. BREWER-Can you do that, Leon? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. He's got the 1ØØ foot boundary shown on here, and however sma I lit is, there is a bu i I ding enve lope on there with which to put a house and still not infringe on that 1ØØ foot set back. MR. STEVES-I think the APA has responded quickly (lost word) I don't honestly bel ieve there's any wetland involvement on this lot. There's a 1Ø foot strip, between the water and the land that's being considered here.· and they view the property, they may a g r e e or the y may not, but un t ¡Is u c h t ¡me a s I get a response from them. MR. BREWER-So noth i ng rea I I Y cou I d happen unt i I you get the i r approval anyway, right? MR. STEVES-I don't think you should. MR. BREWER-We should do nothing? MR. STEVES-No. no. If you give the condition it, then the answer. I don't think you should give the approval. approval conditioned upon that, and they I've got to come back anyway, and I don't know MR. STARK-When do you think you' I I hear from them? We could - 26 - ~ table it indefinitely. MR. STEVES-That may be the only solution. MR. STA~K-Unti I we hear from you. MR. MACEWAN-Considering the extenuating circumstances. MR. STARK-The appl icant agreed to that. indefinitely until wè hear from Leon, until back on. Weill just table it -he wants to be put MR. BREWER-Well, lets give it a time table, so we. can just. in three or four months. if it happens to go that long. you can come back and just update us. MR. STEVES-I'd be glad to do that. I've got an appl ication in. I know this as a matter of record. I've got an appl ¡cation in with the APA. dated 1987. a two lot subdivision. I sti I I haven't got any answer. and I call periodically. and I've been told it's on the desk, on the bottom of the pi Ie. and they wi II get to it. MR. BREWER-All right. Well. lets table it for six months, and if nothing happens. then at least you can come back and say nothing happened. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. MACEWAN-Table it for six months from the end of this month. MOTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1994 MALCOLM & BETTY BATCHELDER. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: Unti I March 31st. 1995. Duly adopted this 16th day of August. 1994. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling. Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. MACEWAN-Just for the record. that was per theapp I ¡cant's request. right? MR. STEVES-Yes. SITE PLAN NO. 25-94 TYPE I HUDSON POINTE. INC. OWNER: NIAGARA MOHAWK ZONE: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: SHERMAN ISLAND ROAD. EAST OF CORINTH ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PHASE I (34 LOTS) OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. .DISCUSSION IS EXPECTED REGARDING SITE PLAN ELEMENTS AS WELL AS ACCEPTABLE TIME TABLE FOR SUBMISSION OF OUTSTANDING ITEMS REFERENCED IN THE TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION PROVIDING PUD DESIGNATION SUCH AS THE LAND CONSERVATION PLAN. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/8/94 TAX MAP NO. 148-1-2.1 LOT SIZE: SECTION: 179-58 MR. PALING-Hudson Pointe has been postponed. MR. MACEWAN-Again. MR. BREWER-Now, do we have to make a motion to table Hudson Pointe. Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-We need a motion to table Hudson Pointe. - 27 - MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-94 HUDSON POINTE. INC., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Unt if September 20th. 1994. Duly adopted this 16th day of August, vote: 1994, by the following AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. Pal ing. Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MACEWAN-Regarding Hudson Pointe. Scott, there was some things that we were supposed to have in our packet for this month for tonight's meeting, that weren't in our packet. MR. HARLICKER-They weren't. Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Specifically, for 16. 17. and 18. 1'1 I ask again. the three resolutions MR. HARLICKER-The resolutions, the Statement of Findings. the adoption of the. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. and we were also gOing to get a clarification from Paul Dusek regarding the half acre lots. because they exceeded. MR. HARLICKER-The number. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. We were going to get some input on that. MR. BREWER-The one thing I want to ask, Scott. is. can you check on. and I've asked Jim this for the past several months. what is going on with Gardentime? MR. HARLICKER-They were in. submitted an app I i cat i on. MR. BREWER-I've been hearing that for four months now. MR. HARLICKER-We looked at it. It was deemed incomplete. We sent them a letter. We have not heard back from them. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we cal I them and find out what in the world is going on? MR. HARLICKER-Sure can. MR. BREWER-Is there some action we can take. so that they do come in. Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not aware of the facts or the circumstances. MR. BREWER-Last year, they had. I won't say illegally. but they did something on a piece of property that they were supposed to come in for site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-And didn't. MR. BREWER-And didn't. We've been after them for six months to f i I lout an app I i cat i on and come In. They f i I I ed out an application. did come in, once. but they couldn't act on it because they didn't have any agent status. They don't own the property. They were told this. They understood this. They got a letter, supposedly. from the property owner. saying that they could be their agent. They just fail to keep coming back. I - 28 - ~_._-'.-.... " mean, they just don't come back. MR. SCHACHNER-Has there been any violation served on them? MR. BREWER-I don't know. MR. HARLICKER-I don't believe so. No. MR. SCHACHNER- I mean, there are two ways to approach that situation, in my view. One is with a friendly, polite, reasonable with the applicant, by directing them to show up. MR. BREWER-I think we have done that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and the other way is through enforcement. MR. OBERMAYER-That's really not us, though. Is it'? MR. STARK-That's Jim, I think. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The other way is through enforcement, and the enforcement rests, starts with the Zoning Officer, Jim Mart in. By enforcement I mean, if necessary, serv i ce of a Not ice of Violation, and commencement of a formal enforcement proceeding. That usually brings appl icants running in with app I i cat ions. MR. STARK-How long has it been since? MR. BREWER-It's been six months, George. MR. STARK-I remember Frank, Jr. who was in here. MR. BREWER-He was here for Gary Cardinale's bui Iding. two months ago. That was MR. HARL I CKER-They or i g i na I I Y came in, way back when, and they said, well, we would do it, but they had to wait until the ground thawed, so they could move it. MR. STARK-Gary's bui Iding had a problem, wetlands or something. MR. BREWER-Yes, that's taken care of, winter that this, I mean, now we're months. but, I mean, in August. this was last That's eight MR. MACEWAN-He came in and said that he had had an okay from Earltown to display stuff over there. MR. HARLICKER-But now they're coming back in and they're going to purchase that whole parcel. MR. BREWER-Keeping the sheds is not a problem, but I think the way that they put them over there, on a tractor, and towed them across Quaker Road, could be dangerous. I mean, they go back and forth al I the time. Anyway, they should be here for a site plan, and they just don't come in. So, don't know. It was kind of I ike the Stewarts scenario. You remember that, right? Two years. Kind of like Hugh Sinclair. I mean, I think we should do something to this guy to get him to come in here. MR. HARLICKER-In all fairness, appl ication. It was deemed missing. they did incomplete. come in There with were a new items MR. BREWER-How many times, though, Scott, three, two? MR. HARLICKER-That was, they've come in with. think it was the second appl ication - 29 - MR. BREWER-Well, I'd just I ike you to stay on top of it. MR. HARLICKER-I wi I. MR. BREWER-Is there anything else from anybody? MR. RUEL-Parking, Cool Beans. MR. BREWER-The status on Cool Beans. MR. RUEL-It's sti II the same. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, it is. MR. BREWER-They have been Noticed, of Compl iance. MR. RUEL-I know, but there's no change. the same. I go by every day. It's MR. STARK-Tim, I have a question about the first phase of Hudson Pointe. New members on the Board, myself included. Maybe we ought to set up, on site visits next month, a I ittle visit to the first phase of Hudson Pointe. MRS. LABOMBARD- agree. That's a good point. MR. STARK- would I ike to go out and walk the property, myself. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think that's a good suggestion. MR. BREWER-That's fine. MR. STARK-See what the limits so forth, then we know what Hudson Pointe. of the first phase are, we're talking about. I so on don't, and on MR. OBERMAYER-That's a good point. MR. BREWER-Okay. Site visits, we' I I do that. Just keep it in the back of your head. Okay. Mark, you had something? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I do, Tim, and it's short, but in ~ mind, as your Counsel, it's very, very important. You've arranged to take a site inspection on Mr. Seeley's property, and I want to caution you, you know, Mr. Seeley and his attorney, Mr. Nealon, have mentioned right there in front of us, that they're contemplating I itigation against us if we don't decide things the way they want them decided. I want to caution you that you're perfectly allowed to go do your site inspection, but I want to request, as your Counsel, that you I imit discussion of the matter, during the site inspection, and the reason I'm saying that is because discussion of the matter that leads to your decision is supposed to take place in this room, at a pUblic meeting. We have somebody, an appl icant and his Counsel, who have already threatened I itigation here, and I don't want to have anything occur that I'm not 1ØØ percent comfortable defending if there is litigation. MR. BREWER-That's one reason I didn't want him there. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand that, and I think that was an excel lent thought, but my point my point is, and it's very easy for me to sit here, and for us to sit in this room and hear me say this and nod our heads and agree, but I have a lot of experience in these matters, and as a practical matter, it's hard to go out and do a site inspection and not discuss the matter, and what..L...m saying is, to the extent possible, please limit discussion of the matter. Limit dialogue with the appl icant, and even Ii m i t discuss i on among yourse I ves. - 30 - '''--:''- MR. BREWER-That's why I said I didn't want him there. MR. MACEWAN-May I suggest we change the date we go. right now? MR. BREWER-I think it's appropriate. MRS. LABOMBARD-Mark. does limiting discussion mean. any questions. or not making any comments? not ask him MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I'd really like. the answer to that is there's no precise definition. I am not suggesting that you go out there with gags in your mouths, Cathy. What I am saying is, if you're going to ask questions, make them short, concise, factual questions, like, where is this, where is that, because you'll be gathering information. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. like, where is this, yes, saying. that's what I'm MR. SCHACHNER-But especially, I ike in your question you said, or should we I imit our comments, try to refrain from making comments, that some~hing's good, bad, or indifferent. Try to refrain from discussion among yourselves, where you, and this is fine. that you lobby each other to either like or dislike certain things. Try to limit that at the site inspection. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question for you. that property, with the right-of-way. On the southern end of MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. don't mean to interrupt, Cathy, but am making myself clear on the first topic? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Go ahead. MRS. LABOMBARD-On the southern end of that property, where that right-of-way is, where they want to access the southeast corner, there is already a designated 5Ø foot buffer, because south of the right-of-way is residential. So, really, I can see that the road could be a deterrent if you're a resident there, but that road is, lawfully, and it's placed correctly. In other words, the buffer doesn't have to be on the southern end of that road. MR. BREWER-Yes, it does. It has to be everywhere it abuts a different other zone. Every I ine on that piece of property, Cathy, that abuts a residential zone. has to maintain a 5Ø foot buffer. That's in the Ordinance. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's right, but the property above northern part of the road. is on the MR. HARLICKER-It includes. if it's along a street. MRS. LABOMBARD-And the 5Ø foot buffer is, the applicant bought this land in because of the way it was zoned. Now. right-of-way, be a factor that we can approve his app I i cat i on here? is there. So mY.. quest ion good faith. He bought it why should that road. that use, or try to use. to not MR. HARLICKER-I mean, you consider access also, you did it during Passarell i 's subdivision. You considered I imiting access to one access. You decided against it, but it was considered. I think this might be in the same realm. MR. BREWER-That's one thing that I have a hard time with. Just because this piece of property falls in that zone doesn't necessari Iy mean it has to be developed. I mean, there's pieces of property in this Town that are zoned Highway Commercial but can't be used for Highway Commercial because there's a wetland or - 31 - there's some other I imiting factor to it. Just because it is in a zone. I don't think that everybody should feel that. gee. this guy bought this piece of property. We have to let him develop it. I think that's a wrong way to look at things. I think you have to look at the whole picture of it. I mean. if it's a detriment to somebody's house that I ives right there. then. you shouldn't let him do it. and I'm not saying we should try to stop things. but I think just because a piece of property is in a particular zone doesn't necessari Iy mean it can be developed. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Tim. you've made your point. understand just where you're coming from. Then maybe. you know. hindsight's always better. then maybe this poor guy should have done what Rich Schermerhorn did. go through al I of what we're going through now before he bought the land. MR. BREWER-Exactly. That's right. Maybe he should have. It would have been smart. but that doesn't always happen. MR. RUEL-He said he did. Board. He said he checked with the Planning MR. BREWER-He never came to this Board. MRS. LABOMBARD-We I I. he said he checked with Scott and Jim. MR. HARLICKER-He was misrepresenting a lot of the discussion. He came in. and we had no idea what the site looked like from the discussion. We can't go out and look at every site when somebody comes in and asks us for an. he came in with a plot plan showing the out I ine of the property. and that was it. you know. could we use this for a subdivision. could we subdivide it. blah. blah. blah. generic questions like that. We don't get out and get specifics of the site until they actually come in with an application. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would he have been mentioned this? I mean. like Jim guy. be honest and up front with said nothing. wiser to have just not even said. he's trying to be a nice us. He probably should have MR. RUEL-About what? MRS. LABOMBARD-What he wants to do in the lower right hand corner of that piece of property. MR. RUEL-He didn't have to tel I us that. MR. BREWER-But I think we should get a clarification as to whether that is a stream and we should protect it. from Jim. MRS. LABOMBARD-He could have gone nobody ever would have known. nobody. in there I mean. and f i I led rea I I y. it and MR. STARK-This guy could have said. 75 foot buffer. yes. okay. you know. get the subdivision. get the site plan next month. and five years from now. fi I I the thing or whatever. and nobody would have even. MR. BREWER-That doesn't make it right. though. George. MR. STARK-I know. MRS. LABOMBARD-But he's being honest. MR. OBERMAYER-He came to us and was honest. MR. BREWER-Yes. So when do we want to go look at it. with him or without him? I'd rather go without him. I mean. because we talk about things when we go on sites. It's just a fact of I ife. I - 32 - don't want this guy fol lowing us around trying to pick things up we say so that he can sue us. It's not saying that we're going to deny it. MR. SCHACHNER-( have to say. although I agree with everything you're saying. at this point. having told the applicant you're going at ace r t a i nd ate . if you're going to change that. I think you have to notify the applicant. and if you want to notify the appl ¡cant that you don't wish him to be present. you can do that as we II. MR. BREWER-Do we have a right to ask him not to be present? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. you can ask. MR. PALING-I don't have a problem with him being present. don't understand why we don't want him present. MR. BREWER-He threatened to sue us already once tonight. MR. PAL I NG-A I I right. but we don't comment. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. but you have some control think that's what Bob's about to say. correct me Bob. but you can just not respond. over that. I if I'm wrong. MR. STARK-Tim. we can say. show me where you want going to fill here. I'm going to fill here. Fine. you. That's all I want to know. I want to see streams. and I'm not going to talk to him. to fill. I'm Okay. Thank the supposed MR. PALING-I'd I ike to avoid having to ask him questions here that I could have asked him on the job site, would have made more sense. but I would hope I'd limit myself to asking a question. and that's it. go on to the next. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's discipl ined. MR. BREWER-AI I right. right. and you have to be really We' I I go Monday at 5:30. MR. PALING-I've got a question. I think it's for Mark. Isn't there somewhere in here some rules talking about residential zones butting against. where is that? Is that going to ~ive us some guidance in this? MR. SCHACHNER-It's the buffer that you guys are talking about. MR. PALING-Buffer. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It's the one buffer. It's in a number of places. that requires the 50 foot but the most obvious one is. MR. PALING-179-72. MR. SCHACHNER-That's right. Yes. It's on 18045. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-It's 179-72. Sub A. near the þottom of the page. MR. PALING-Right. ('ve got it. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that it from everybody? MR. HARLICKER-You should discuss changing deadl ines. You should do some sort of a formal the application resolution. MR. SCHACHNER-Nobody's asked me. but I have a comment anyway. if you want to he.r me. - 33 - MR. BREWER-Yes. AI I right. MR. SCHACHNER-I. personally. don't think that the deadl ine should be phrased at "end of the business day". I represent a lot of appl icants in a lot of municipal ities. and I have. in my ife. represented a lot of appl ¡cants in this Town. and it used to be there was a deadline. two o'clock. That's a time I can deal with. End of the business day. I don't know what that means. and I don't think the regulated community should have that lack of guidance. MR. BREWER-What time do we close the office? MR. HARLICKER-Four thirty. MR. BREWER-Four o'clock. Then that gives them time to receive the applications. Has everybody looked at that. no problems with it? MR. RUEL-No problems. MR. BREWER-Do we need a motion or anything7 MR. SCHACHNER-For that7 It's just a procedure. matter. On motion meeting was adjourned. It doesn't RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 34 -