Loading...
1994-12-20 '~ ,-",' ,,~ -.1. QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 1994 INDEX Site Plan No. 80-90 MODIFICATION William Threw 1. Subdivision No. 17-1994 FINAL STAGE Robert & Joan Mahar 8. Site Plan No. 42-94 Kraft Construction 10. Site Plan No. 43-94 The Troy Savings Bank 17. Subdivision No. 18-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE l'1cDonald's Corp. 21. 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. /"' "--" '......,/ y -r ,. ENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING ST REGULAR MEETING EMBER 20, 1994 o P.M. PRESENT OTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN RGE STARK, SECRETARY HERINE LABOMBARD ERT PALING JA ES OBERMAYER RO-ER RUEL CR IG MACEWAN EX CUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER S ENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI 1 /27/94: NONE C OF MINUTES TION TO APPROVE THE MINUTE& OF 10/27/9~, Introduced by Roger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: D v adopted this 20th day of December, 1994, by the following A ES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, M' . Ruel, Mr. Pal i ng, Mr. Brewer N ES: NOi\ E o SINESS: ....... .- 80-90 TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW OWNER: ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY RD., OFF CORINTH MODIFICATION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN - CHANGES CLUDE BUILDING LOCATION, A FIRE LANE ADDITION, PARKING AND RCULATION AREA REDUCTION, AND LANDSCAPING REVISION. B AUTIFICATION COMM.: 12/12/94 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-7.3 LOT SIZE: 3.11 ACRES SECTION: 179-26 8 LL THREW, PRESENT; JIM MILLER, PRESENT BREWER-Okay. I think we asked the Zoning Administrator to some kind of a site visit and report. . MARTIN-Yes. I went out there today, and there certainly is h~avy equipment being stored there of various forms of condition, a d then I researched the prior ownership on the property. It w s owned by a construction company prior to Mr. Threw buying it, I believe in '89, was it, Bill? And so as far as I could tell f-om the information I had, that was a previous use as a c nstruction company site. I don't know, I think it was Decane, t at owned it before. 1 assume that they had equipment stored t ere. I have no personal knowledge of it, but I assume that w uld be the case. There's a construction company located there. S, from ~ standpoint, from what I know, it would be a preexisting use there. If we didn't feel comfortable with that, h avy equipment storage is an allowed use under site plan in light industrial. I'm. BREWER-I question was, don't think that was the question. I think the and anybody can correct me if I'm wrong, was not - 1 - ~ ~.. - the construction equipment, the amount of debris and various items that were on the site, near the site of this building. I guess that's what everybody wanted to know. Wasn't it? MR. STARK-Yes, that's it. MR. PALING-It's being used as a dump. MR. MACEWAN-Evidence of burying things on the site as well. MR. RUEL-Is there a Code prohibiting the storage of tires and ,-ubbish, etc.? MR. MARTIN-Well, it depends on if, you know, is it those got any use? I don't know. Certainly buried, that leads you to think that it's a dump. of that also. Can you tell me, Bill, what your for that stuff out back? rubbish? Have if things are I saw evidence intentions are MR. THREW-The stuff out back right now is stuff that we've accumulated through the construction debris. We are not in any violation of DEC New York State, as far as the qualities of what we have. It's stuff that we've accumulated (lost word). There's some (lost word) which has accumulated from the building we just did, that we're asking for the approval tonight. As far as the rest of it, the tires that are there are going to be put on the roof of that new building for (lost word) for the roof. We already have some on there right now. What, in particular, material are you asking for? MR. STARK-Well, there was a lot of trucks abandoned out back. They'Te not stored. They're just abandoned. MR. THREW-They are not abandoned. They are part of my business. We have all off road trucks that are not required to be licensed. They do require to be insured. We do have them insured, and they are part of my business. MR. STARK-You mean the trucks with no wheels on them? MR. THREW-There's one set of axles under them. The other ones, we took the tires off to use on existing trucks that we are using on the road right now. MR. t IV1 t MARTIN-So you're saying, then, that all that site is used in your business actively? equipment on MR. THREW-It is being actively used in my business. We got done with the dam at Sherman Island, that's where those trucks were being used. They're going to be used again on the job coming up. MR. OBERMAYER-Can you explain the tires on the roof again? Can you explain that in a little more detail to me? I guess I don't unde,"stand that. MR. THREW-The roof that we have right now is has a rubber membrane on the roof. We're going to have a (lost word), so that if you have pressure from the inside of the building or a limb going over the outside of the building, you've got to have something to hold the membrane down. You either have stone on it, which is, in commercial building code, you can have these tires, anything that will hold it down. MR. OBERMAYER-So you're going to have tires laying on top of the rubberized roof, is that what you said? MR. THREW-It's going to be, as it is out there right now you can't see them because there's a foot and a half dolus between the roof and the top of the wall that's on the existing building. They're not visible. - 2 - '--" '---" ---- -...J MR. MACEWAN-And the remainder stockpiled out there in back are roof? of the tires also going up that you there on have that MR. THREW-There's going to be 150 more of them going up there, yes. MR. MACEWAN-What's going to happen to the ones that you won't be . ? US.lng. MR. THREW-The ones that aren't going to be used are going down to Jackson's Auto Wreckers in Wilton. MR. RUEL-Jim, is this in violation of any Codes? MR. MARTIN-Well, establishment of a dump in Town is not allowed. I'll read you the definition of Dump. It's under a separate Section of our Code, Chapter 96. "A place for disposal and leaving of paper, rubbish and waste material of any nature by the public or by any person that's herein defined. II I think this is something we have to pursue. If there's a violation there of this dumping provision, we can pursue it as an enforcement matter. I'm hemming and hawing because it's a gray area. It's not something that you can look at. He's making these kinds of statements, what's trash or garbage to us may be usable. MR. BREWER-Right. Exactly. I think it was the overall appearance of the way it was laid out, maybe, not so much that, whether it was usable or unusable. I mean, like you said, somebody might want to use the old tires or the old bricks or whatever. I don't know, but I guess the overall appearance of the site. MR. MARTIN-Is he disposing of them at this site or is storing them? Do they have some sort of utility to him? don't know. he just That I MR. PALING-Well there was no one there when we were on the job site, a look, to explain to us what was used. for what was stored for what, but I came away and I still have the impression that there was a lot of stuff that had been there years, and there was a lot of stuff that probably never would move, and there was actual trash. Now maybe I'm wrong, but that's still the perception that I have, and I would like to see us revisit it with someone to guide us and show us or tell us what a lot of this equipment and what we're calling debris is used for. MR. THREW-I think if you had contacted me before you approached the site, I would have been there or had somebody there. MR. PALING-We should have. MR. THREW-There's no problem with that. I would look forward to seeing YOU there to explain what we had there. There would be no problem, and probably some of that stuff that you said was unuseful really is unuseful because we are (lost word) on site. Dave Hatin said we couldn't do it any more. It was against the law. It's a gray matter between (lost word) and DEC. I have a permit from New York State to do that. The Town hasn't acknowledged that yet, and I'm going to be working on that in the future, getting that out of sight. This is probably what you were looking at. They told me to leave it where it was. That is what I'm doing, exactly what the Town requested that we do. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. You have a permit from DEC, you said? MR. THREW-Yes, I do. MR. OBERMAYER-For a dump site there? - 3 - '~ -.-/ ',-, --' MR. THREW-That's on Eagan Road. MR. OBERMAYER-On Eagan Road. MR. MARTIN-On Eagan Road, down around the corner from this site. MR. THREW-The material you're seeing there is the stuff that I, when I cleared the land all the way from Big Bay Road back from our property, and that's what you're looking at. MR. RUEL-Regardless of the appearance, it seems to me that there's obviously no violation of any existing Code. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it might be a useful exercise to go through the site with him, accompany him, and see what, the question comes up about a certain pile over there or what happens there, get a handle on it. MR. PALING-Just talk about it, yes. MR. MARTIN-And if there's things that can be removed, to clean it up a little bit. MR. BREWER-I think, basically, what the Board is trying to say is, when we have a site plan in, that gives us an opportunity, if there is a site that's unsightly, to maybe clean it up and dress it up, and we've been trying, I'll give yOU an example, with Passarelli's property, we made them put the trees back there to make the site a nicer looking site, so to speak. MR. RUEL-More presentable. MR. BREWER-Yes, more presentable. I'm not saying that, your stuff can have flowers on it and all that stuff, Bill, but I guess when you drive down the road and you look over and you see all kinds of junk piled up allover, that's what we're trying to get away from. I'll say that a lot of the stuff, I know what kind of business you're in and I know you through business, and I know that you do have a lot of stuff there. Maybe it is useful to you. I don't know. I guess that's what the Board thought of when they went in there. They thought they were going into a junkyard. MR. RUEL-If he's not in violation of any of the laws or Codes of the Town, there are many, many other places that look exactly the same. I mean, almost look like a dump. If we don't have anything in the books to guide us, or any law to indicate what is rubbish and what isn't, or how, what kind of appearance the property should make, I don't see that we have a leg to stand on. MR. BREWER-No. I think you're wrong, Roger, because I think that's why we have a Beautification Committee, when there's a site plan, to make it more, I mean, why do we make people plant trees? Why do we ask them to put their stuff so that you can't see it from the road? Why did we do that? MR. RUEL-Because it is somewhere in some Code somewhere indicating that this is what we want, but we don't have anything written anywhere indicating we don't want. MR. PALING-Well, yes, I think you do, Roger, really, from what Jim read, but I don't think that we can say that it is or it isn't until we visit and have it explained to us. MR. BREWER-No. that if we look Board and a presentable. I'm not saying that it is at a site plan, we have a Beautification Committee, a dump. I'm saying right, as a Planning to have it look - 4 - "--" "--" "-" --./ MR. STARK-Tim, do you want to go along with, like, what Bob says? I'1R. BREWER-Sur e . MR. STARK-Make another visit with Mr. Threw and he can explain things. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with that at all, if that's what the Board wants to do. Mn. PALING-Yes. Mn. MARTIN-I'd like to understand where you're problem. go, too, coming from because it's useful that on that stuff. I have I no MR. BREWER-I don't know if we want to hold him up a month. When do we want to do this? Mn. PALING-I'll do it any day. MR. BREWER-I don't care. happy to do it. Whenever anybody wants to do it, I'm MR. MARTIN-Well, when are you going for your site visits? Maybe he'd be willing. MR. BREWER-We won't do that until January, though, Jim. want to hold him up. I don't MR. THREW-There's nobody more than place up, more than you do, and I that money, time, Town regulations to be worked together. me that wants to clean that intend to do that. It's just and my schedules have all got MR. PALING-Could we meet there some noon this week? Is that possible? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That would be okay with me. MR. BREWER-I can do it Friday morning, if anybody else can. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. PALING-I can do it Friday morning, or noon some time. all right with me. It's Mn. BREWER-Nine o'clock? MR. RUEL-Why are we doing this? The applicant is volunteering to clean the place up? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. That was ~. next question. Mn. BREWER-But on the same hand, if we go there and he tells us, I'm going to use this for something, why are we going to make him clean it up? MR. RUEL-And whatever he tells us, then what? enforce that? How will you MR. l'1ARTIN-Could I suggest this? We can visit him there, as enforcement officers. We have a zoning enforcement officer starting with us in January. He'll be able to pay more attention to items like this. He'll have more hours to spend. We can visit him at this site. We can do an inventory of this site. I can report back to you, and we can have regular reports, and then we can revisit this again at regular intervals if you want, and see the progress made. - 5 - '---" ---' '"'-'" '_..( MR. RUEL-That makes sense. I like that. MR. BREWER-Fine. Yes, I don't have a problem with the site plan, other than the stuff that we talked about. MR. MARTIN-That's why this issue, I think issue as opposed to. I pointed out, I think the site plan and we're really talking about an enforcement MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That's true. MR. RUEL-Lets keep the enforcement issue separate, and you can handle that. MR. BREWER-But if we still want to go, we can make arrangements with you, Bill? Just to make everybody feel comfortable. MR. RUEL-Why don't we wait until we get his report? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. i"1R. RUEL --Why do Id..ê. have to do it? MR. BREWER-We don't have to. Nobody said you had to go. You don't have to go, Roger. MR. MARTIN-I could schedule a time, and I'll let you know when it is, and whoever can make it. MR. BREWER-That's fine, Jim. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. That's great. MR. BREWER-Okay. We did not have a public hearing scheduled, but if there is anybody here who would like to comment, you're welcome to. None being heard, we'll move on to the SEQRA. Any other questions by anybody? MR. MARTIN-I don't know if you need a SECRA, Tim. You did it. This is a modification. MR. BREWER-We don't need a SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-Not unless you see that there is a substantial change between what was approved before. MR. BREWER-All right. The only thing that we had left over from last month was, then, we should set a date for the plantings to be put in, say May 31st. We discussed that, May 31st, and the parking requirement should just be shown on the final map, not necessarily put in place, but just shown. MR. MILLER-Yes. I've shown that on this plan here. We looked at the 25 that we required, one car per thousand square feet. As indicated we actually have space for six in this gravel area, here, without obstructing the turning movements of the loading dock, and you see right across the back, very easily, we could fit an additional fifteen. That would give us twenty-five, and widen out that driving lane. MR. BREWER-Six and fifteen's, twenty-one. MR. MILLER-Well, there's four there. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. MACEWAN-Jim, I have a question for you guys. When this applicant came in here. It was on the schedule for last week, I remember part of the application, it said something about the modification because the footprint of the building is not where - 6 - ,-,' '--" '\..- -......I it was when it was approved by the Planning correct? Wasn't that part of it, you wanted show exactly where it is now? Board. Is that a modification to MR. THREW-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-My question to Staff is, how did that get moved without a prior Planning Board's approval? MR. MARTIN-This pre-dates me. approval. This was, I think, a 1990 MR. THREW-It was a boundary line agreement reached between me and Decant. We had a line with what we thought was our property, and we later agreed on a different. MR. MARTIN-That's why the setbacks are different? MR. THREW-That's why the setback is different. MR. MARTIN-That would explain that then. MR. MACEWAN-But that doesn't explain how it didn't get through the Planning Board motion. MR. THREW-This was done before we had that agreement. We thought we owned this property. This was what they sold me. MR. MACEWAN-And you just recently found this out? MR. THREW-Not recently, just maybe a year after. MR. MARTIN-The building hasn't been physically else. The line has changed. So your perspective building sits looks different, but the building is the place that it was in the original approval. put somewhere on where the actually in MR. BREWER-Okay. So then all we need is a motion. MR. PALING-Tim, don't you think we need two motions in this case? One to have the Planning Department execute this thing of checking the business site, and then have a separate motion. MR. BREWER-Whatever way anybody wants to do it. The only two things that I had were on the final plan should be shown the 25 parking spaces, room for 25 parking spaces, and the plantings be done by no later than May 31st. MR. PALING-Well, let me make a motion regarding the other one, and then let somebody make that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION IN REGARD TO SITE PLAN 80-90 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: That the Zoning Administrator, to answer the questions of the Planning Board, will conduct a survey and an ongoing check of this property to determine if it is being used as a dump site or if the uses it is being put to are okay. If there are any violations, they will carry through on having them corrected. The Zoning Administrator will report back to the Planning Board the first meeting of the Planning Board in January. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer - 7 - '---' ---/ -- NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we need a motion for approval. MOTION TO AÞPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 80-90 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: At Big Bay Road off Corinth, for modification of a previously approved site plan, as to building location, fire lane addition, space available for 25 parking spaces to be shown as available on the site plan, and landscaping revision, landscaping to be completed no later than May 31, 1995. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1994, by the following \.Iote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1994 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED ROBERT & JOAN MAHAR OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LC-I0A LOCATION: BOTH SIDES OF FULLER RD. - JUST SOUTHERLY OF INTERSECTION WITH CLENDON BROOK ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 34.11 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 10+ ACRES AND 24+ ACRES. APA TAX MAP NO. 123-1-9 LOT SIZE: +/- 34 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 17-1994 Final Stage, Meeting Date: December 20, 1994 "There were no outstanding issues from preliminary approval. The applicant and the Town are proceeding with an abandonment of the part of Luzerne Road that bisects the 10 acre lot. Staff can recommend final approval of this application. II MR. BREWER-Okay. Has anybody got any comments or questions? MR. PALING-Just on the abandonment of amuses me. I'd just like to make sure simple and straightforward, and there's repercussions at a later date. If it's as but who can tell me it is? the road. that it's not going described, That still being done to be any' it's great, MR. MACEWAN-The Town Attorney? Not the Planning Board Attorney, t.he To~..¡n At t.or ney . MR. PALING-It is as they say it is? MR. SCHACHNER-No, no, no. Craig's point is that it's the Town Attorney, meaning Paul Dusek, legal matter, as to the status, the process for abandonment of a road. Craig's point was that it's act,u.ally the Town Attorney, not the Planning Board Attorne>'. Planning Board counsel would have nothing whatsoever to do with road acceptance or road abandonment. So I haven't the faintest. idea. MR. PALING-Okay, but does anybody know if the process is, that's what happens and the road just gets abandoned? It's as simple as that? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, as L recall, the question did come up last week when we discussed this, and I think you asked me, is there such a process, and if so, is it a very complex, relatively - 8 - "'---' '---'" J -.... straightforward? I think that was the context in which you asked the question, Bob, and I'd answer, generically, that there certainly is such a process, and that it's not very unusual for a town to go through an abandonment procedure, but I don't know anything about this particular process for this particular road. MR. BREWER-What's the worst case scenario, if that road ends up going through the middle of his property? It does now, so I don't think it would make any difference. MR. RUEL-No. MR. PALING-And Paul Naylor is in agreement with, we know that he's in agreement with this. MR. BREWER-I don't know that. Maybe we can go on with this and ask Paul for some kind of a letter regarding that. MR. PALING-I think we should. other than that, I don't want to make a big deal. MR. BREWER-All right. Why don't we go on with a motion to approve, or whatever, and then we can ask Paul for a letter, send him a memo and ask him for a letter, and have this addressed to us. Just request the status of the abandonment of the road, Fuller Road. Okay. Does somebody want to introduce that? MOTION TO ~PPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1994 ROBERT & JOAN MAHAR, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: As written, with the condition that the Planning Board request a letter from Highway Superintendent Paul Naylor regarding abandoning of Fuller Road, on the status of it, meaning that it will become the property of the Mahars. Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of final subdivision application, file # 17-1994, to subdivide 34.11 acres into 2 lots of 10.01 acres and 24.1 acres; and WheT Bas, the above application, follol.<Ji ng: )-eferenced dated 11/19/94 final subdivision consists of the 1. Sheet 1, Map of lands to be conveyed by Robert & Joan Mahar revised 11/21/94; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 12/20/94 Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment; and t..Jher eas , any modification and terms contained in preliminary subdivision approval have complied with. the been Therefore, Be It Resolved. as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve final subdivision plat for Robert & Joan Mahar, file # 17-1994. Let it be further resolved, 1. That prior to the signing of the plat by the - 9 - '--'" '--" Chairman of the Planning Board all appropriate fees shall be paid and that within 60 days of the date of this resolution the applicant shall have the signed plat filed in the Office of the Clerk of Warren County. 2. The applicant 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 compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 42-94 TYPE I KRAFT CONSTRUCTION OWNER: GLEN/SHARON STEPHENSON ZONE: WR-1A, C.E.A. LOCATION: REARDON RD. ON GLEN LAKE PROPOSAL IS TO ADD AN ENCLOSED SET OF STAIRS TO EXISTING STRUCTURE. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 68-1994 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 45-3-2 LOT SIZE: 10,000 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-16 RAY KRAFT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-94, Kraft Construction, Meeting Date: December 20, 1994 "PBOJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A, Section 179-38B, Section 179-38C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and found that the project complies with the above sections. 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 project involves interior alterations and the construction of an enclosed exterior stairway compatibility should not be an issue. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Traffic access is not an issue. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off street parking is not an issue. 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 is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Adding the enclosed set of stairs should not significantly increase stoTmwater runoff. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; This should not be impacted by this project. 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; It does not appear that any trees will be removed as a result of this project. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; This should not be impacted by this project. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. This does not appear to be an issue with this project. RECOMMENDATION: - 10 - ~ "---" "- '....."I The staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. MARTIN-And Warren County returned "No County Impact". MR. BREWER-Okay. Questions or comments? MR. RUEL-Yes. I have a question. Board because it's a nonconforming? Is this coming before the Mf~" MARTH-.j-Yes. MR. RUEL-I see. Because it seems like quite an exercise for a stairway. MR. MARTIN-It is very, very frustrating for everybody involved. MR. RUEL-Yes. Isn't there some way of simplifying this? MR. MARTH·' -·Yes. MR. RUEL-And you will be doing that? MR. MARTIN-I'd love to. MR. RUEL-You will. Won't you? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Jim, weren't you going to make some kind of a threshold for things that should or should not come to us? MR. MARTIN-Exactly, and the legislative changes are slow in coming, but we want to get these speeded up after the first of the year, get these things under way, because things like this are Just, the other thing that's gQing to help, quite frankly, and I think Mark can speak to this, there's changes in the SEQRA law proposed, for Critical Environmental Areas, among other things. I think things like this, in the future, will be Type II Actions. MR. RUEL-Yes, something like that. It seems to me that the voters just recently had something to say about big government and bureaucracy and paperwork. MR. MARTIN-You have a three foot wide staircase in this gentleman's had to go through a variance a~d a site plan review. MR. RUEL-And I think it should come down to the Town level as l>Jell. MR. PALING-We're saying a three foot staircase, but have we seen a print of all of the construction and modification that's going to go on to the building and the grounds? MR. OBERMAYER-It's really not up to us, though, is it, to evaluate the construction? MR. MACEWAN-Sure it is. It's in a CEA. MR. BREWER-Not the techniques inside. We're talking about the, I think what you're talking about is the covered up area in the front of the building, or would be the back of the building? MR. PALING-I'm talking about from the road side. There's a brand new slab on what I would call the rear of the building. It's about, it goes across the building and it's probably five foot wide, brand new. MR. KRAFT-Ray Kraft, back of the house. Kraft Construction. That's not a slab, You're looking at the that's the back of the - 11 - '~ '---' house. MR. PALING-There's a poured concrete slab back there. neL'-J . It looks MR. KRAFT-No. What you were looking at was frozen ice on the floo,' . MR. PALING-Frozen ice? MR. BREWER-No. We were there and it wasn't frozen. What we're talking about is. MR. PALING-It's the easterly side. MR. BREWER-When we pulled into your driveway, we pulled up behind the building. There's a footer all the way out, isn't there, Bob? MR. MACEWAN-That, roughly, was like a 20 foot wide by. MR. BREWER-That piece right there. There's no plate or anything on it. something at one time. We're talking about that. Maybe it was a porch or MR. KRAFT-What you're looking at right here isn't there. It's right here. It's that back of the house. MR. i"1ACE~JAN-No. MR. BREWER-There's definitely a wall right here. MR. MACEWAN-This portion is taken out here, and you can look in here and see where the old kitchen was. MR. BREWER-There's definitely a wall right here. MR. KRAFT-There was a room on the back of the house we took off, but what you're looking at here is actually right here. MR. BREWER-Well, what's this piece right there that's? MR. OBERMAYER-Show us where the existing wall is there. MR. BREWER-He's saying that the back of the house, this is not there. MR. PALING-Are you saying that slab came about because you took the back end of the house, you took five foot or so off the house? MR. KRAFT-You're still saying there's a slab there, and there isn't. MR. BREWER-Not a slab. plywood. It's covered with, it was covered with MR. MACEWAN-We were there the beginning of the month. We were there, two, three weeks ago. MR. STARK-Yes, but what happened to the back wall? I mean, you could walk right into the kitchen through the back wall. MR. KRAFT-We took it out. MR. STARK-What's going to go there? MR. KRAFT-It's back up. MR. STARK-It's back up now? - 12 - '-' ~ .~ ~ MR. KRAFT-Yes. MR. BREWER-What we had thought we had seen was the wall ended here, and there was a footer poured all the way around here. Then it was covered over with two by fours and plywood, is what L saw. MR. MACEWAN-That's correct. MR. KRAFT-That was the back of the house. The back of the house, originally, had a little corner right here that I got approval to square off, and what I did is I tore this right off the house, and squared it up. There wasn't any cellar underneath any of this, and there is now. MR. PALING-No. that. There wouldn't have been a cellar underneath MR. BREWER-I don't recall seeing that. I saw the wall end right here, then there was a footer poured all the way around. MR. STARK-I mean, it's got a new foundation under it, the whole thing. MR. RUEL-Well, is that relevant to what we're looking at, the staircase? MR. BREWER-Yes, because that wasn't on the plan to be reviewed. The staircase, I don't even know, I saw it on the agenda and I asked Jim why we were looking at a staircase, to be honest with you. MR. RUEL-That's all that's on the agenda, right? MR. KRAFT-Yes. This area right here. MR. PALING-I don't see how we could all be mistaken. MR. BREWER-I'm thoroughly confused. MR. MACEWAN-Do you go up and look at it, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Did you see what we're talking about? MR. HARLICKER-It looked like what it was was part of the house that got, because we walked in there. There was a wall missing where the kitchen was, and that slab was exactly opposite where that wall came down. Whether there was something over it previously, I don't know. When I was there, there was a concrete slab. You walked up on the slab and right in, where a wall appeared, used to be, right into the kitchen. MR. PALING-Right. You're remembering the same slab that we are. MR. HARLICKER-Whether there ~..¡as a, previously, if that ~..¡as part of the house, I don't know. MR. KRAFT--Well ¡'OU can Sef:3 vJhere it came off the roof, and /ou can see the cor ner whe,-e the wall used to come out the back. MR. BREWER-But there was no roof over this. The roof line ended six feet in from where the edge of that footing was. MR. HARLICKER-I didn't look up at the roof line. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying to you is, the roof line was right here, and that slab extended that far out. Didn't it? - 13 - '--' '--" ".........~ -' MR. PALING-Yes. There was nothing over the slab. MR. BREWER-There was nothing over the slab. So if it was a wall, an exterior wall, then it would be like that. The roof line would be over the top of where that wall was, and that wasn't the case. MR. HARLICKER-I can't dispute that. I didn't look at the roof line. It might be like that. It might not. MR. RUEL-I don't understand the significance of this. MR. PALING-It's significant only if this, it's all part of the site plan review. That looked to us like a little addition, or at least a patio, and it should have been part of the site plan. MR. OBERMAYER-Are you building something there? MR. KRAFT-I'm rebuilding the house. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So are you going to extend the house where the slab is? MR. KRAFT-Well, I can't answer yes or no to that, because you guys keep saying there's a slab, and there isn't. MR. BREWER-Not necessarily a slab. It was covered up with two by fours and plywood. There was a footing, but it appeared to us when we were out there, the roof ended here, and that footing covered by the plywood came out further. MR. STARK-There's your answer. There was a floor there. He took it out and put another one in. MR. KRAFT-We took the back room off the house. MR. BREWER-But what happened to the walls on the side and the end. MR. MARTIN-He took them off, too. MR. KRAFT-They came right off, too. MR. MACEWAN-And what are you going to do with that area? MR. KRAFT-It's part of the kitchen. MR. MARTIN-You took down the exterior walls then put them back up, right? You replaced them. MR. PALING-And so what we're calling a slab is going to be covered. It's going to have stud walls and the whole thing. MR. MARTIN-What you saw as a slab was at one time an interior floor. MR. PALING-It was all part of the original footprint. MR. MARTIN-Right. The original house, before you took anything off, was 22 feet long and 20 foot 9 inches wide. Right? This was the original dimension, right? This was the length of the house, from here to here. MR. KRAFT-Right, other than that little corner right there. MR. MAI~TIN-Okay. wall. So at one point in time, you took off this MR. BREWER-Was there a shed roof on there at one time, or something? - 14 - ............ '--'" , ..,./ ì,...-- MR. KRAFT-Yes. The back door of the house is right here. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Lets go on. MR. PALING-If he's just building on the original footprint, I have no objection. MR. MARTIN-That's, essentially, what he's doing. MR. HARLICKER-Except for the stairway. MR. MARTIN-Except for the stairway. That's the only thing that goes outside of the original footprint. MR. PALING-That's fine. MR. BREWER-Okay. We can move on. We can open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STARK-I've got a letter from the next door neighbor. To the Town of Queensbury and Warren County Board members "I'm the adjacent property owner to the Stephensons. They are seeking permission, through Kraft Construction, to have a set of stairs built and enclosed along the side of their house. As the immediate neighbor and property owner, I would like it to be known that I have no objection whatsoever to their proposed addition of the stairs and hope they are given permission to do as they wish. Since their home is so small, it would be a shame to try to put the stairs in the existing space. You can reach me at Ship Shape if you have any questions for me. Sincerely, Wendy A. Savale" PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Do you want to take us through the SECRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 42-94, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: l.-JHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the KRAFT CONSTRUCTION, and Planning Board an 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 - 15 - ,--",' --,' 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 20th day of December, 1994, by the following \lote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: r~ONE MR. BREWER-The only thing that I would add to any resolution that we have prepared is New York State Guidelines for Erosion Control be used during construction for that back portion. Is that acceptable to everybody? To protect runoff into the lake? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I"IR. PALING--Yes. MR. BREWER-Does somebody want to offer that. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 42-94 KRAFT CONSTRUCTION, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombayd: As written, with the stipulation that they meet the requirements of New York State Guidèlines for erosion control. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 42-94 to construct an enclosed set of stairs to an existing structure; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application consists of the following: 1. Staff notes, dated 12/20/94; and 2. Long EAF, dated 11/9/94; and 3. Letter from Mrs. Clary, dated 12/14/94; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 12/20/94 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan # 42-94. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Z.A. for his - 16 - ''-....-- ",-",' '-....-- -....../ ~) .. signature. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. The conditions shall be noted on the map. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval pr ocess . 4. 6. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 43-94 TYPE: UNLISTED THE TROY SAVINGS BANK OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: COOL INSURING AGENCY BUILDING CORNER OF QUAKER RD. & COUNTRY CLUB RD. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A FREE STANDING 6' X 11'4" ATM. CROSS REFERENCE: NOTICE OF APPEAL 3-94 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 12/12/94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 62-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 3.84 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 43-94, The Troy Savings Bank, Meeting Date: December 20, 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A, Section 179-38B, Section 179-38C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and found that it complies with the above. 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; Compatibility is not a problem. There is some concern regarding safety because of the enclosed access area. No lighting or signage is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Traffic access is adequate. The structure should not adversely impact existing traffic patterns. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Parking is sufficient. 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 is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater drainage should not be impacted by this project. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; Water supply and sewage disposal should not be impacted by this project. 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; Landscaping should not be impacted by this project. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access should not be impacted by this project. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways, and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Ponding, flooding or erosion do not appear to be a problem with this project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application. II MR. HARLICKER-Warren County found "No County Impact". - 17 - "---" "-.--' " "'-"" MR. BREWER-Thank you. Okay. Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. I think you'll agree this is a very simple and straightforward application. The ATM was designed to be compatible with the former Cool Insuring building, brick, the same style, very attractive for an ATM. It's just for one machine, and it does provide a light, but yoU can't see it in the picture, underneath where the ATM is. I went to the Beautification Committee and the landscaping that's proposed is what is shown, just on the side. There's nothing else that's needed because it's very nicely landscaped as it is. Troy Savings purchased the building in September, and the front portion is going to be for the Bank, mostly for the mortgage origination department, more of an office building rather than a traditional bank, and the rear portion of the building is going to be leased to Cool Insuring for their Queensbury Office. MR. PALING-I think I'm going to ask the same question I did before. Clarify for me the setback on this building, especially where you've got the grass patch against the road. MR. BREWER-It's going to be a curb, and then the building. MR. LAPPER-This ATM already existing. So the existing building. is being built inside of the curb that's it's between the existing parking lot and You're taking out a patch· of grass. MR. PALING-Does it meet the setbacks for a building of that kind? i"1R. LAPPER-Yes. MR. PALING-What's the width of the grass at that point? It says road, on the right hand side of the sketch. It's got a ramp, grê¡,SS, a road. MR. LAPPER-The width of the grass between the road the east side of the building, it's eight feet to the center of the building, and the building is four feet, so it looks like six feet to me. MR. PALING-Now that's a road there. Does that comply with the ~;et,bac k? MR. LAPPER-It's not a road. MR. BREWER-Just for internal traffic, actually, is all it is. MR. PALING-Okay. Then that's not really a. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That's pavement, but it's not the road. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-I've got a question. What are the operating hours for the (HM? MR. LAPPER-Twenty-four hours. MR. RUEL-You'll have lighting there? MR. LAPPER-The ATM is lit itself. MR. RUEL-The enclosure? MR. LAPPER-It's open in the front. You can see the picture where the gentleman is standing, above his head. MR. RUEL-Yes. Where's the light, inside? MF:.. LAPPER-Yes. - 18 - '--" '~ '-- -...-/ MR. RUEL-Because irnpor ta nt . for security reasons, I u ndersta nd , is MR. LAPPER-It's definitely an issue. That will be lighted. MR. RUEL-Okay. Another question is, can the handicapped use this ATM facility? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That's why it's a ramp rather than a step. MR. RUEL-Isn't that too high? MR. LAPPER-No. That's a standard ramp under the. MR. RUEL-It meets the requirements for handicapped? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and in fact, although it's not a site plan issue, if you look on the plan itself, this was done for building permit purposes rather than for site plan. They're adding handicapped access to the remainder of the building, to the inside of the building, on the other side of the site. MR. RUEL-Yes, I saw that. MR. HARLICKER-But there aren't any handicapped spaces out front. MR. LAPPER-Well, we're not changing the parking because we're not required to. MR. HARLICKER-Right. That was just something That's all. I know they aren't required to, going to have people coming in from the front, that it would be convenient for people to have out front so they could access the Bank, as through the Cool Insuring. You said all the are out back right now. I'm asking about. but if the Bank is it would just seem handicapped spaces opposed to going handicapped spaces MR. LAPPER-Yes. That's true, and since, obviously, they're doing a lot of this plan to accommodate the handicapped, with the ramps on both sides, if the Board wanted the Bank to add handicapped spaces. MR. MACEWAN-Would you have a problem if we made it part of our motion that the closest parking space nearest the ATM machine be designated as handicapped? MR. LAPPER-I'm sure that would be acceptable. MR. BREWER-Do we want to transfer or just add to? MR. MACEWAN-Add one right there. MR. LAPPER-Well, we don't have room to add another spot, so we would be taking. MR. BREWER-No. What I mean is, add another handicapped. MR. OBERMAYER-Eliminate one of the regular ones. MR. MACEWAN-In place of a regular parking spot, yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other questions or comments? It's a nice plan, Jon. Okay. I'll open a public hearing. Is there anybody here to speak on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 19 - "--' '--" ,-../ MR. BREWER-Short Form SEQRA. RE~OLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 43-94, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the TROY SAVINGS BANK, and Planning Board an 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 20th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. We need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-94 Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for George Staì- k: THE TROY SAVINGS BANK, its adoption, seconded by As written, with the condition existing parking space next to ATM handicapped area. that the applicant take facility and change it the to a Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 43-94 to construct a free standing 6' x 11'4" ATM; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application consists of the following: 1. Sheet Ai, site plan and floor plan, revised 11/18/94 - 20 - "----' ~ "--' -..../ Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 12/20/94; and 2. Short EAF, dated 11/30/94; and 3/ Letter from Jon Lapper, dated 11/30/94; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 12/20/94 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan # 43-94. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Z.A. for his signature. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. S. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval pr ocess . Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer t'~OES: 1''''OI'~E SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED MCDONALD'S CORP. OWNER: EDWIN KING ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: EAST OF EXISTING KING FUEL SERVICE STATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF DIX AVE. AND QUAKER RD. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.39 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.808 & 1.581 ACRES TO CONSTRUCT A MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-3.3 LOT SIZE: 3.39 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS ED BEALER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 18-1994 Preliminary Stage, McDonald's Corp., Meeting Date: December 20, 1994 liThe applicant is proposing a single 2 lot commercial subdivision. This subdivision is being done to allow for the construction of a McDonald's Restaurant on the 1.8 acre parcel. The remaining 1.58 acre lot does not have any development plans at this time, but it is suitable for another fast food restaurant. The property is serviced by Town water but not sewer. The main concern with this subdivision is access. Because of its location, consideration should be given to the two parcels being accessed from a common - 21 - "--" - '--- -....,/ single access. All three of the lots,King Fuel and the two new lots, should be interconnected. A traffic study would also aid in assessing the project's impact on the roadways. II MR. BEALER-Hello. My name's Ed Bealer. I'm a Project Manager with McDonald's Corporation. I'm also authorized to represent Mr. King in this application. As stated, as for utilities for this site, there is municipal water. Percolation tests have been done for the soils, and they are acceptable. Design methods completed and forwarded to Warren County Department of Health for their review and approval. Also, as far as the storm runoff, the soils are adequate for the recharge system on the site. The system has been designed for a 25 year storm can hold or retain that amount of water on site. With regard to the access, we did meet with the Planning Department today to review that. The plans have been submitted to the Warren County Department of Public Works. They have, the curb cut as shown on our application meets their regulations. However, we are going to work with the Planning Department to see what we can do to alleviate the concerns. We have some concerns about moving the access further to our east. They have one kind of curb cut between us and the undeveloped property. There are no plans, right now, for that undeveloped property, so it may not work into those plans for that property, but also we're more concerned about access to our site at (lost word) to the east of our building from where it is located, that people, instead of coming directly into our site, you're going to be coming into a curb cut, and then you have to make another right hand turn into our site, and that additional movement, additional congestion onto the site, but we are in the process of having a traffic study done in January, and we'll sit back down with the Planning Department to review the access issue. (lost words) retaining ownership of the other parcel. As part of our purchase agreement, a restaurant restriction is being placed on the other parcel. There will not be another restaurant on that other parcel. If I can answer any questions. MR. BREWER-I would just make a comment. I know it's not a subdivision item to talk about now, but maybe some consideration could be given to some sort of shrubbery or something along this border line where the slab is, where the kerosene pumps are. I realize there's nothing you can do about that, because it's on somebody else's property, but. MR. BEALER-We'll put together a landscaping plan and address issues like that. MR. OBERMAYER-I have a real concern with making a left hand turn out of McDonalds onto Dix A\lenue. That's ~ concern. Maybe I'm jumping the gun. MR. MARTIN-There's a number of things to consider, here. Normally, when we have a subdivision, we don't have a real clear cut picture as to what development project may occur on anyone of the lots, but given here we have a known proposal for, specifically, a McDonald's Restaurant, on one of these lots, so, therefore, a SEQRA concern comes into play, where we shouldn't be splitting the two SECRA reviews for the site plan and the subdivision. It should be looked upon as one project. MR. RUEL-To be done at subdivision? MR. MARTIN-Well, to be done one time, is all I'm saying. MR. BREWER-How can we really do the SEQRA, then, if we don't have the information from the traffic study that they're going to do? MR. STARK-Tim, he's shaking his head that we can't do the SECRA tonight. - 22 - '--' '-"" "- --.,I MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm driving at. MR. SCHACHNER-Actually, George. I was shaking my head and agreeing that you can't proceed on the subdivision until you've achieved the SEQRA compliance. So the next step in that is if the traffic information is necessary for the SEQRA review, then I think Jim and I have been conferring, and I think what we're thinking is that it might make sense to, at this time, we're not sure you could take any action, because you can't fill out the SEQRA process, or fulfill the SEQRA process, get the traffic information, and at that time review the subdivision and the site plan application, kind of at the same time. MR. STARK-Is that amenable to you, like the first meeting of next month? MR. BEALER-That would be fine, but I'd also argue that, your concerns about traffic, that this is a 3,000 square foot building. It's not a major development that we're putting up there. The restaurant has 60 seats. There are 50 parking stalls. In the application that was filled out for the SEQRA review, I believe the trips, their peak hour, the estimate goes to be, I can't recall off hand, it was 150 trips in that maximum, in that peak hour, which happens to be our noon time Friday or noon time Saturday. We are not a major generator, in that other Planning Boards have made a SEQRA determination about the traffic study, and this being such a minor development, I would argue that that information is not essential to making a SEQRA determination. MR. MARTIN-I don't think this is going to, practically, add that much time to any review process here, either for the subdivision or the site plan. The site plan and subdivision can be looked upon in the same night, in terms of the final subdivision and the site plan review. MR. BREWER-We've done that many times. MR. MARTH~-Yes. MR. BREWER-If this was in a different location, maybe, but that's a very busy corner now, with the K-Mart opened up. You add another 150 cars on a Saturday, when shopping is busy, I'm not saying. MRw MARTIN~I just want stress something~ I mean, we had a meeting today with their staff and us, as a planning staff, and Joanna Brunso was present also. This is why we do planning. I mean, I know, in the snapshot of right now, if everything were to freeze after this restaurant were put in, there was no more development, sure, fine, 150 cars is not that big of a deal, but we all know what's going to happen at that corner, and we're seeing it already. McDonald's is not here because this is not a busy corner. They're here because they recognize this is a busy cor ner . MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. MACEWAN-And if you put in that vacant lot, a year from now, a Stewarts convenient store. MR. MARTIN-Or even if it's a retail shop, I think, from a Staff point of view, I would specifically like to see a rendering of a site plan that shows a single access point for both lots, as an alternative plan, just to see what that looks like. If it can't be done, then fine. MR. MACEWAN-I, for one, would like to see internalization of traffic, too, between the three sites. That's something we've been asking for for the last year and a half or so. - 23 - "--' '-'" '-- -.-< MR. MARTIN-Right. They have accommodated the access to King Fuel, but we need to see a future access to that vacant lot to the east. MR. BREWER-We can require that with the site plan, right? MR. MARTIN-Or even at, subdivision's a proper way to do it, because you want it written into the deed, the easement. MR. BREWER-I would also stress that we send this to Joanna Brunso, let her get back to us before our next meeting. So that if, in February, she says she didn't know anything about this. MR. MARTIN-She already has it. She's had it since your packets ~.,¡ent out. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Okay. So it looks like we want to table. We can open the public hearing, I guess. MR. PALING-I'd like to make one request of the applicant, if I could. You've got five prints here, and they all seem like real great prints, and the first three, I know what you're doing. I think the first two are clear, but the third one says parking information, and I don't know what other purpose, and I have no idea what purposes the other two are. You have no title on it. I know there's things on here we can pick out specifically, but I'd like to know what you're, basically, trying to accomplish with the prints. MR. BEALER-This is just showing our utilities, as far as water, drainage. MR. PALING-Okay. Then would you please tell us that, give us a sticker or something, because I don't know what, I can see things, but I don't know what I'm looking for. MR. BEALER-Normally that is labeled as a grading and drainage plan. MR. PALING-All right. CiA 2 & 3 is where we need the help. MR. BEALER-Sure. We can do that. MR. PALING-Fine. Thank you. MR. RUEL-Tim, there's a letter here from McDonald's requesting waivers. Do we have to pass on that, waivers to the submission of a Preliminary subdivision application? MR. PALING-We can't act on that now. MR. RUEL-They request a waiver for construction details, clearing plan, erosion control plan and drainage report plan. MR. MACEWAN-Don't need any of those. MR. RUEL-Well, if we don't need them, why is it part of the application? MR. MACEWAN-Because there's nothing to clear. MR. RUEL-Well, there's drainage and erosion. MR. MACEWAN-That would come through the site plan. MR. RUEL-Jim, they need a waiver at Preliminary subdivision application on these items? MR. MARTIN-Yes. d,-ainage report. You have a drainage plan. You have a drainage plan. You don't have a - 24 - '"---,, ---./ '-~ -...../ MR. RUEL-That's a requirement? MR. MARTIN-Yes, and the drainage plan will be looked at by Rist- Frost, at site plan, when it gets to be a site plan review. MR. RUEL-So I can assume that all of these items, then, will be presented in the site plan application? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Any technical information like that will be. MR. RUEL-Do you normally get it at subdivision, though? I'1R. STPIRK--I\!o. MR. MARTIN-On larger subdivisions, we generally require that be done. Typically, the Board does, on a two lot subdivision like this, or three lot, we'll waive that. MR. RUEL-I see. Okay. MR. MARTIN-And especially on a site like this. It's flat, level. There's relatively good permeable soils here. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? MR. STARK-The two next month, do them at the same meeting. MR. BREWER-Yes. I think we can do that. I think that's our goal, is to get the traffic study back to this Board for next month. Any other comments from you, sir? MR. BEALER-I'd just like to clarify one item, when I was talking about the 150 trips (lost word) talking about adding 150 cars to the road, that's two different issues. We'll have 150 trips into our site, which is 75 cars in, 75 cars out in an hour. A lot of our traffic comes from existing traffic. So a lot of those cars are already on the roadway. MRS. LABOMBARD-We understand that. MR. MARTII\!-The concern I have, principally, is that, with that access point, you have an access point for Quaker Farms across the street, that aligns with the access for King Fuel, and if this access is created, they have a misalignment there, and that can be a tough situation for people making a left hand turn out of here, making a left hand turn out of Quaker Farms. MR. BREWER-I think you should take, to whoever's going to do this study, and have that taken into consideration, maybe give us some kind of idea of whether the interconnections are feasible, and maybe not even a, I wouldn't even want to say it. Not a curb cut on Dix Avenue. Maybe on Highland, and connect in between the other parking lots. It's possible, I suppose. i"1R. MARTn~--I have a curb possibly get the one thi n~:J Ü; you have a access point. there. think, from a practical standpoint, if you were to cut on Highland, I think the only thing you could out of that would be a right hand out only, because they do ha\/e in their favor on the Dix Avenue side considerable distance from the corner, to their Where on Highland Avenue, it's really tight down MR. OBERMAYER-It's really tough to make a left hand turn, though, on Dix Avenue. You can't do it from Highland Avenue during busy ho u r s " MR. MARTIN-Well, it will be interesting to see what the traffic study shows for that movement. MR. BEALER-One point, our busy period is at lunch time, which is - 25 - '--"' --.-' '--- --../ ' usually adch- ess not the busy period for that in the traffic report. the roadway. Again, we'll MR. MARTIN-And to speed the review on that, if we could have an extra copy that we'll send down to New York State. They review these, too, to get their input. MR. BREWER-I will open the public hearing, because there are people here that probably would like to comment. If anybody would like to comment, please come up and just identify yourself on the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MAFHIN SEELEY MR. SEELEY-Yes. Martin Seeley, from Seeley's, kitty corner across the road. I have no comment at this time for or against. I would just like to see the plot plan, if there is one a\/a i lab le . MR. MARTIN-The other thing I should public, that there will be, also, a plan, when that comes about, too. say, for the benefit of the public notice on the site MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to comment, or any questions? PAT JAMESON MRS. JAMESON-My name is the lot is the building? located? Pat Jameson. I just wondered where on Where on the lot will the building be MR. MARTIN-As it's shown there. MR. BREWER-Probably right in the center of the lot, ma'am. MR. BEALER-Here is the footprint of the building. It would be located in the center of the lot. MRS. JAMESON-Okay. Now where's Highland Avenue? MR. STARK-Right there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right in the back. MRS. JAMESON-Traffic is heavy. MR. BREWER-That's why I think we're requesting a traffic study and as the gentleman said, from McDonald's, it's not necessarily putting another 150 cars on the road. It's traffic going by, sees a McDonald's, they go in and get a sandwich and come back out. So it may be another 40 or 20 cars. I don't know the answer, and that traffic study, hopefully, will tell us that. MR. PALING-Do you live near this proposed restaurant? MR. BREWER-Right across the street. MR. PALING-Across what street? MR. BREWER-Dix. MRS. JAMESON-Highland Avenue. MR. BREWER-I think, as this goes along, more details will be out in the open for us to review, once we get to a site plan stage. MRS. JAMESON-Right now, it's bad to make a left onto Highland - 26 - ',,--, '---" '- .....,/ onto Dix coming toward the City. MR. BREWER-It sure is, and I think in January, I don't know what the date will be, the first meeting we have, but the public hearing will remain open, and we'll have a traffic study and have reviewed that, and staff will have reviewed that, and we'll have our comments and, again, you'll be welcome to comment if you'd like. MRS. JAMESON-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-How soon can you get us that traffic study? MR. BEALER-I'll have to call our. MR. MARTIN-Because that may affect the date that this is, next Wednesday is the deadline for submission for the January meetings. I mean, we can stretch that a little, but it gets to be a little tight. MR. BREWER-What do you think the deadline would be for the traffic study to be in, Jim? MR. MARTIN-That's what I want to get settled here now. I'd set a date for them, and if they can't meet it, then put it off to the second meeting, or maybe. MR. BREWER-We can give them an extension, but we have to have a certain amount of time to get everybody to review it. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. conduct, too. It's going to take a little while to MR. BREWER-Do you have any idea how long it takes to do that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-The third one's the 17th and 24th, if you stick with your schedule. MR. MACEWAN-If we gave him until the 10th of January, does that give you enough time to review it and put it in our packets? MR. BREWER-No, because when are our site visits, the 13th? MR. MACEWAN-Our site visit's not going to be relevant to what he's going to find out in the traffic study. MR. RUEL-Is it proper to have a traffic study during the holiday season? MR. STARK-It will be after the holidays, too, Rog. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, after. MR. MARTIN-That's another concern. We're studying the traffic in January. That's the most favorable time to be looking at traffic. So that's got to be taken into consideration. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. BEALER-What they do is also, after they Clost word) traffic study. MR. BREWER-Do you have an idea how long it will take? MR. BEALER-I could give them a call tomorrow. If I could get it to you by the middle of January, would that be enough time to go on the 24th? - 27 - '--' ~ --/ MR. BREWER-Well, the middle, the 17th, if he had it by the 15th, say, that would be time enough to get to the 24th meeting, Jim? MR. MARTIN-By the 15th? Yes. I'd really like to have Mark Kennedy look at it, too, down at DOT, their traffic engineer. He's been very helpful to us in the past. MR. BREWER-That'll give him enough 15th, review it and get it back to can have some time to look at it? turn around time from us by, say, the 21st, the so we MR. MARTIN-We can only try. We'll try. The 15th is a Sunday. MR. BREWER-So the 16th, or, no, lets go the 13th. MR. MARTIN-Friday the 13th. MR. BREWER-So we're going to say the 13th. MR. MARTIN-The 13th. MR. BREWER-We need your consent to table, sir? MR. BEALER-Please. MR. MARTIN-You're going to leave the public hearing open? MR. BREWER-I'll leave it open. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. MCDONALD'S CORP., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: 18-1994 for its Pending the further traffic study information be submitted by the 13th of January for the Planning Board meeting of January 24th. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Jim, lets do Logger's first. Mr. Pratt. Sir, would you like to give us an explanation? BEN PRATT MR. PRATT-Certainly. My name is Ben Pratt. I'm associated with Miller, Mannix and Pratt in Glens Falls, and I represent Logger's Equipment Sales, which is the developer and owner of the premises on Corinth Road, and Bill Buckingham, who is the principal in Logger's, as well as an actual individual owner of the property, at this point, and Bill is here with me tonight. Basically, we're here for two reasons tonight, and one is to ask for the approval and modifications to the site plan, and secondly to ask for forgiveness for not having asked for approval prior to having the work actually done, but I hope you'll find, I think I have found that the changes that were made have been beneficial to your concerns as well as to the project. If I could just run through them very quickly I will. Basically, the changes that have been made have increased the setbacks and increased the safety of the site, both of which I think are positive attributes. As you can see from the letter we've given you, and the site plan, the letter of December 15th, the building was moved back, was moved northward 40 feet from where it was originally going to be. It was originally going to be 40 feet to that southern boundary next to the neighbors on Corinth Road. We've moved it back farther 40 feet, so it's now 80 feet, - 28 - , "-..- ,---",' "--" .....J basically, from the building to the boundary line. All the shrubbery that was called for along the western and southern boundary line, there, is in place, for those of you that have not seen it, and there has been a driveway and a gate added along the south end of the building, which are approximately 20 feet wide, and the purpose of moving the building and adding the driveway and gate was to make traffic flow around the building safer. The delivery trucks that were coming in, going around the building, on the north side, said to Mr. Buckingham, gee, we really can't turn around back here. It's not safe to turn around with other cars and trucks coming in and out. It's much safer for us to unload and drive out around the building. 50 that's the reason for that change, and I believe it actually makes the, by increasing the setback and increasing the safety factor, it should be a positive change. In addition, the back yard, so to speak, the western yard behind the building, where the vehicles turn and enter and exit, has been made a little smaller, and increasing the buffer on the western end of the property. 50 instead of being a 40 foot buffer of trees over there now, there is a 60 foot buffer of trees. MR. BREWER-I thought that, originally, was 50 foot? MR. PRATT-Okay. MR. BREWER-Maybe it was 40, but I just thought for some reason it was 50 feet. BILL BUC~\INGHAi'1 MR. BUCKINGHAM-Well, I wanted 30 feet, and we agreed to 50 feet. MR. PRATT-All right, then it's 10 feet more than what it was before. The other thing that was noticed during construction was that, again for security purposes, that back yard was very dark. So two additional light poles were put in, as you can see, on the western edge of the yard, facing downward and inward toward the lot, . MR. BREWER-Are those lights shown in the back your back yard and not in the neighbor's back yard? MR. BUCKINGHAM-Yes. They were supposed to be on each corner, and when we turned them on, we couldn't see a thing ourselves, so we moved them closer, so we could see QWL back yard. MR. PRATT-In other words, originally, those two light poles were supposed to be in the rear corners of the yard, the northern and southern corners, and what they did was move them in about 50 feet or so toward the center. MR. BREWER-My only concern was if the poles, say this building here and this is the back of the building, if shining that way, it might shine into the people's houses the building, but they're actually shining the other way, ¡VIR. PRATT-Yes. is your they're behind right? MR. RUEL-What are the hours that these lights would be on? MR. BREWER-Only when it's dark. MR. BUCKINGHAM-When it's dark. MR. PRATT-The other thing that was done was that the pole barn was originally going to be 60 by 60, a detached building to the north, and we decided to make that, Bill decided to make that, 60 by 40. So it's smaller than was originally planned, and lastly, and this is the reason I asked to go last today, among other things, I had an earlier meeting, because I know you've had some experience with this on other sites, as I've read in the paper. - 29 - "--' '--' "--: Bill hired Dick Lee to do the site clearing at the beginning, and talked with Dick Lee the elder. Dick Lee the younger came in to do the clearing, and although it was specifically understood that the lot was to be, the property's been ~ubdivided now, that the front lot was to be cleared and not the back lot, the north edge. The clearing went into the north edge. So there were, the north property lot, now, where the subdivision occurred, that three acres has been partially cleared. That was not called for in the original site plan. Basically what's happened is there was a bunch of shrubs and undulating ground there, and it was leveled out and shrubs were taken out. I brought some photos. There is still remaining a buffer of trees all the way around that parcel, and I've brought some photos which show what that looks like, and I think you'll find, hopefully, that this is not a case that Passarelli or Native Textiles. It was purely inadvertent by the contractor, not by Bill. MR. BREWER-It's always the contractor. MR. PRATT-One of the interesting things, even on the invoice where, I brought this because I knew nobody would believe me. On the invoice that Dick Lee did when he submitted the bill, it specifically says, take down trees, bury stumps, brush and trees. This price does not include the three acres not used for the business. So he was not supposed to take those last three acres, but he did. In any event, this is what it looks like. Bill took some pictures out there. I'd like to give you these, and you can see that, as you look northward toward the edge of the property, and I'll give you just the back lot. You can look through all of them. This is a panoramic camera that takes some wide angle pictures. This is looking west and north. These pictures are all looking west and north back there. The area between the trees and the camera, some of that was supposed to still have trees and shrubs in it. It did not, but the clearing did not go all the way to the property line, as you can see, and there's still a very large buffer of trees all the way around, on the north, west and a lesser amount on the east. MR. OBERMAYER-It's a nice, flat lot. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, it is. The new sign is nice, too. MR. BREWER-I think the whole property looks a thousand percent better. I'll commend you on your efforts, Mr. Buckingham. MR. OBERMAYER-Was the fence originally planned, or was that an addition? MR. BUCKINGHAM-The fence was originally planned, yes. MR. STARK-Are you out there's nothing there? of behind Apple Annie's totally, I haven't noticed. now, or, MR. BUCKINGHAM-Except for clean up. MR. RUEL-The new Blue Spruce row shown on the plan, was that on the original plan? MR. PRATT-That was required by Jim. The original appì-oval specified doing plantings along that boundary acceptable to the Planning Department. MR. RUEL-Yes. Right, and that's been acceptable? MR. BUCKINGHAM-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That's why we're back here. We were out there for our final inspection for the CO, and we found these changes and just wanted to run them by the Board. MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any further questions or comments? - 30 - ''---^ ---./ J \...--' A motion's in order. MOTION TO EQUIPMENT DECEMBER adoption, APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE AS OUTLINED IN THE MILLER, 15. 1994, Introduced by Craig seconded by Roger Ruel: PLAN NO. 10-94 LOGGER'S MANNIX. PRATT LETTER OF MacEwan who moved for its Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1994, by the following '..lote: MR. MARTIN-Ben, could I have two copies of that plan for our ,- eco,- ds? MR. PRATT-Yes. I think we delivered them. MR. HARLICKER-We've got two copies. MR. MARTIN-We do? Okay. MR. PRATT-We delivered them today. MR. MARTIN-All right. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer I\WES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Okay. thing? Tim, do you want to do the Native Textiles ~1R. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-The Native Textiles thing. This relates to the subdivision. Paul wrote Joe Nicolla what, essentially, amounted to a letter agreement, and I'll read it into the record, if I could. Paul requests that the Board approve this agreement formally by resolution, and he tried to build into this flexibility for the Board, while maintaining any latitude you wanted to take with this application. MR. BREWER-Did Paul author that? MR. MARTIN-Yes, and Apparently. he faxed signed it. he sent it it out the to Joe, 19t.h of and Joe signed it. this month, and Joe MR. PALING-This is a resolution? MR. MARTIN-No. This Board, he strongly ì-esolution. is a letter agreement that Paul suggests that you approve of wants the this by MR. MACEWAN-When? MR. MARTIN-Tonight, if you could. I'll read it into the record. If you want to read it, I'll pass it around. It's the only copy I had. I didn't have a chance to make extras. MR. BREWER-Well, you've got to understand Attorney's writing for us. He's not going to that's not going to be to our benefit. that. t.he Town write anything MR. MARTIN-Yes. He did this in the spirit of your benefit, trying to protect your position. Yes. Okay. "Dear Mr. Nicola: Based on our recent communications, it is my understanding that you would like to continue the tabling of the subdivision application presently before the Planning Board. Due to the fact that. the statutes contain automatic approval provisions when no action is taken or when the time in which the Planning Board must - 31 - '-- .-......' --.,' act is not extended by mutual consent, the requirement under the Subdivision Regulations for the same to be in writing, and to avoid any confusion concerning this matter, I am setting forth our understanding in writing. The agreement concerning the subdivision application is, therefore, as follows: 1. The Planning Board should table the above referenced subdivision application until the January meeting. If they do not hear anything further from you before or at the time of the meeting, the Planning Board should, at that time, treat the application as that for a preliminary plat approval and approve, with or without modification, or disapprove the plat. 2. In any event, as long as the Planning Board takes action with regard to this plat on or before February 28, 1995, the same will be considered timely for purposes of compliance with automatic approval provisions of the Town Law and the Zoning Code. 3. Nothing contained herein shall prevent you from requesting an additional extension and the Planning Board either agreeing or not agreeing to an additional extension of time. If you are in agreement with the foregoing terms and conditions of the tabling of the subdivision application, as well as the extension of time in which to approve, with or without modification, or disapprove the preliminary plat, I would appreciate it if you would sign where indicated below. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Paul 8. Dusek Town Attorney" And then the statement that's at the bottom of the letter, for Joe's signature, liOn behalf of the Queensbury Columbia Group, the applicant for Subdivision No. 16-1994, I hereby indicate that I have authority to act on behalf of Queensbury Columbia Group and hereby, on their behalf, agree to the terms and conditions set forth above for the tabling of the plat and the extension of time in which the Planning Board shall have to act upon the plat. Joseph t\ icolla II MR. 8REWER-I would like to make one change. If you'd read back the part about hearing from them in January, or something. i"1R. 1'1(iRTIN--"The Planning Board subdivision application until not hear anything further from meeti ng II . should table the above referenced the January meeting. If they do you before or at the time of the MR. BREWER-I would say, lithe submission date II for the meeting. MR. MARTIN-Okay, then I would reflect that in your approving resolution. MR. BREWER-Because that only gives him until January. MR. MARTIN-We've got Wednesday of next week as our submission date for January. MR. BREWER-Right, and I think he knew that two months ago, or a month ago, anyway, is when I had the meeting with Fred. MR. MARTIN-It's the last Wednesday of the month. That's standard knowledge. MF~. BREIrJER--I'm would ha\/e , if sure he knows. That would be the it's agreeable with everybody else. only change L MR. OBERMAYER-Fine. MR. STARK-Fine. MR. PALING-All that's doing is giving us time to discuss this thing more, and hear from the applicant, if I'm reading it right. MR. MARTIN-Right, and it really just lays out in writing, and by agreement, what is standard practice with subdivisions, but this has been somewhat of a touchy situation. - 32 - '----' '''---'' ".....-- '-" MR. MACEWAN-In a nutshell, it's giving the applicant an opportunity to modify his preliminary plat for us, to conform with some of the wishes that \;~e want t.o see in that subdivision, without it automatically being approved. MR. MARTIN-And it still leaves you complete latitude to approve, deny or modify that submission. MR. PALING-When would they plan to come to the Board again? MR. MARTIN-As I understand it, them, personally and directly, intention to come back, but discretion. the last contact I've had ~.¡i th is that they do not have any that could change, at their MR. PALING-If they don't intend to come back? MR. MACEWAN-It's to cover your butt attitude, very bluntly what it is. MR. MARTIN-If I get a submission, I will place it on the agenda, as I normally would, you know, a tabled application, and it would go back on the agenda, and you'd consider it. MR. PALING-But if you don't get a submission, then the opposite's going to happen. MR. BREWER-It's going to be denied. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's up to the Board. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. MARTIN-I think, either way, this is going to be on your agenda in January for a resolution. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALH' G-·Yes. MOTION TO ACCEPT THAT LETTER. IN RESOLUTION FORM, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Amending only that it be read as the submission date for January, rather than the meeting date. That the material be received by the submission date for January, meaning December 28, 1994. Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer t,,·jOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-My one last thing is, my second assignment was to go out to the Seeley property. I did so today. I went out there today. I did not see any burying of stumps or anything like that. They are logging a part of the property, and it appears to be the area that is essentially going to be the 25 percent slope area. Remember how we said, when you come down from the edge of the slope by that storage building, you have to maintain a 1 on 4 slope? Well, by the time you do that, that's going to fan out in a pretty wide pattern, and that was the area L saw being logged today. When I was there, two trees were fallen, and we were there about five minutes. We took a couple of pictures, Dave and I. The silt fence is in place, and there is a bermed area, like a bowl, a depression in the ground to catch the water as it comes off the slope. I didn't see any evidence of erosion. At this point in the year, you wouldn't expect to, and all the conditions - 33 - ,~ '---" ..~ are in place that L saw. They are going to do, I talked to Charlie Seeley today. He is not personally logging it, and he is all done with his logging concerns, and he indicated to me he's going to end up with, like, the southern portion of that property. Apparently, Mr. Batease is the one who's taking some wood off that northern half. MR. BREWER-But right now, all of them are responsible, because it's not subdivided yet. It's still one piece of property. MR. MARTIN-That's right. Exactly. MR. BREWER-So whether he's done or not done, they're all responsible. MR. MARTIN-My only concern is, I don't see a great deal of logging going on there that would be considered clear cutting yet, but if it gets to that point, it's something that we should continue to monitor because, you know, we have that five year restriction, as you all know, about the subdivision being clear cut. MR. BREWER-I would like you to continue to monitor it, but I think, Jim, we were out there two weeks ago, and when we, originally all of us met out there on that afternoon, where the trees and the stumps and all that stuff were buried, in that general area, we still saw stumps, trees, and they were pushing dirt over, and they were dumping cement trucks over, or cleaning them out, whatever. They were pouring a path, and they were still dumping the concrete and the trees and the stumps were there, and I guess you guys can verify it, because we all looked at it, so that I'm not the only one saying it. I mean, that was our concer n . MR. MARTIN-There was some cement. MR. BREWER-Not so much the cement. The trees and stuff were the concern, basically, I think. MR. MARTIN-When I was there today, I saw, I didn't evidence of, like, stumps that were uprooted and buried. see them felling trees, though. They were taking some bigger pine trees off there today that I saw, in that area of that toe of the slope, so to speak. see any I did of the general MR. BREWER-Maybe once every other week go out and monitor it. MR. MARTIN-We'll section of Town. be out there once a week. It's not a problem. We're over in that MR. BREWER-Once a week would be great, just to keep us updated on what's happening. MR. MARTIN-And again, when I get this, because I think that construction project is going to go on right through probably mid to late spring. We'll get this zoning officer in place. That's another thing he can just put on his daily or weekly. MR. RUEL-Jim, once they pour the concrete, we really don't know what's underneath the concrete, do we? MR. BREWER-Well, they said on that, what would it be, the northerly portion of that, that they're going to come down five feet in grade. So, when they come down five feet, we're going to know what's there, if we have an inspector there when they. MR. RUEL-That part we'll know. MR. MARTIN-And when the footings are inspected for that northerly storage building, we'll have an idea of what's under the ground - 34 - '---', , ---../ "-"'" "'-- there, and if it's unacceptable, then it won't be approved. MR. OBERMAYER-They'll have to do some bearing capacities, right, of the soil? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-So that will pretty much tell you. MR. RUEL-New subject? MR. MARTIN-I'm all done. MR. RUEL-I have a question for Jim. I read this document they call Vision from Glens Falls Transportation Council, and you had a letter with it. Just tell me what is the Greater Glens Falls Area? What is it? I don't know what it is. MR. MARTIN-The Greater Glens Falls Transportation Council is what they call a Metropolitan Planning Organization, and they're referred to as MPO's, and that's the system by which DOT and the Federal Government has set up to establish, like, local planning organizations for transportation projects, and they have an area they carve out, and it's basically the MSA for this area, the Metropolitan Statistical Area, and that encompasses southern Warren County. the Town of Moreau for Saratoga County, and it extends over into Washington County, Hudson Falls, Kingsbury, that area. That's basically the area. MR. RUEL-It's quite large. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-What is it, like, a 50 mile radius? perhaps? 30 mile radius, MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd say around there, yet. MR. RUEL-Or diameter. MR. MARTIN-Thirty mile diameter, yes. MR. RUEL-And also, your response to this, your letter, I read it and I think you're a born optimist, because you indicated that it would be great if we could take care of anticipated traffic problems, but in my long experience over the years, I find that tax payers will never pay for anticipated problems. They might pay for a problem when it exists. MR. MARTIN-I made those same statements the last meeting of the Transportation group. It was just this past Wednesday, and they all looked at me like I was from Mars. MR. RUEL-Yes. I mean, this is something radical. This has never happened. I mean, no one will spend any money because you tell them that some day. MR. MARTIN-Well, this McDonald's application is a perfect example tonight. MR. RUEL-ükay. Yes, but nobody will listen to this, and no one will say, yes, we will spend umpteen dollars because, you're right, some day there'll be a traffic problem. No one will spend the money in anticipation of a problem, because most people feel, hey, they may not even be here tomorrow when it happens. Let the next guy worry about. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but not the funds, have it on five year increments. even spend the money, your five year plan. but at least commit They do things in - 35 - ---- ~' '~i MR. RUEL-Well, if you can do that, it's great. If you could take care of just the existing problems, it's great. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that it on that, Rog? I'1R. RUEL -Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question. I've gone through all my stuff here, and there's Smith and Freihofer and there's something else. MR. HARLICKER-Langford. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-They'll be on next month. Smith was here tonight, just before the meeting started. They're still working out engineering stuff with Rist-Frost. Once they get that done, they'll be back. MRS. LABOMBARD-And what about Maureen Lynch? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. What happened to Lynch? MR. HARLICKER-They're still trying to work out something. MR. MARTIN-They're before the Zoning Board tomorrow night again. MR. BREWER-They got the variance the first time, but there was an advertising, or notification problem. They had to do it allover again and go back. So they'll be back. MRS. LABOMBARD-And Barrett Auto Sales, I missed that November 17th meeting. MR. BREWER-It's a done deal. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's done, and what about Nemer? cornp let.ed y done? Is that MR. MARTIN-Yes. The re-zoning site plan for whatever they do to be an auto dealership. is. You'll be seeing that for on that parcel. We anticipate it I'1R. STAm(-I any pressu,-e next door? have a question for Jim. Is Harwood Beaty putting on you to approve this project to get rid of Seeley MR. MARTIN-He's been in to inquire several times, and now his concern is that the entire Seeley machine business will not move out of Glenwood Avenue, a piece of it will stay over on Glenwood, and I said, well, if you see that happening, after we issue the CO on the new building, if you see remnants of the business still being there, then we'll pursue it in violation. MR. STARK-I was only kidding when I said that, because I know you know Harwood and everything. MR. MARTIN-Yes. No, he's been in. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that it for everybody? I'1R. ST AR~(-Yes . MR. BREWER-Okay. Betty called a meeting last week, and then said it would be tonight. She talked to me last night on the phone, and the whole gist of what they want to do, she told me it's just a suggestion. MR. MACEWAN-Clarify, who's "they"? - 36 - o '\ '-...../ ~ ---./ MR. BREWER-The Town Board. They want the Planning Board and the Zoning Board to rotate Chairman, in other words, I'm just saying, you, you, you, you, you, you, and rotate it, not necessarily in any order, and I told Betty that I had a problem with that because then it puts the politics into this Board. I don't think they should say to us who can and who can't. MR. STARK-Who dreamed up that? MR. BREWER-I don't know, but I just told her my feelings were, I don't think the political board should be involved with the Board that's appointed telling us who can and cannot be Chairman of the Boa.r ds . MR. STARK-Rotate the Chairmanship? That doesn't make sense. MR. BREWER-Don't ask me why. That's what she told me. I said to her, I think this Board is independent enough, if they want to pick a Chairman, and have him for a year or two yeafs Of whatever it might be, then that's what they'll do. MR. RUEL-Did she give you a reason? MR. BREWER-Well, she said the perception of one person running a Board for a number of years 1S not, is maybe not a good impression for the public to get, and I said, Betty, my explanation was, I've been the Chairman of this Board, and I've been the minority many times. We all have independence. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think Betty spokesperson, that he projects, thinks that because Tim is all the time, his views. the MR. STARK-I think it's aimed at Ted, is what I think. MR. BREWER-Well, it doesn't make any difference who it's aimed at or if it's aimed at anybody. I just think that, I mean, three years ago this happened and Carol Pulver was appointed, or elected to be Chairman, and she was irate because the Town Board didn't okay it, and now she's sitting in the Town Board seat saying, well, I'm going to do the same thing, and I don't think tha,t's right. MR. MACEWAN-It's tit for tat, quite bluntly. MR. BREWER-That's just my opinion, and I told Betty I would lay it out on the table with the Board. MR. MACEWAN-There's two schools of thought on this. Number One, the Town Board has the authority, right now, to either approve or deny a recommendation fõ'om t.his E.ioan:l for Chai rrnanship. So they ultimately already have the poweõ" to decide whether they want a Chairman to be one year, two years, or twenty years. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. MACEWAN-So where their beef is and where they're coming from is beyond me. The thing L would like to see the Town Board practice and have a policy of, and that's not calling Planning Board members at home and discussing projects with them, on the CT, and trying to sway or infringe or impress upon their votes or the outcome of how any project is going to be perceived by this Board. I think that's out and out wrong. MR. BREWER-I think that's a separate issue, Craig. MR. PALING-Yes. We're getting onto two subjects here. MR. MACEWAN-No. I think we are. I think they want it both ways. They want to wield the sword both ways, and you can't be that way. - 37 - '--' ~ ~/ MR. BREWER-That is a separate issue. This is one issue, the Town Board. MR. MACEWAN-You see it that way. I don't. MR. BREWER-Well, you're right, but I think that should have been addressed when it happens, and I think this should be addressed now, and I think we have to come to some consensus, and tell the Board what we think we want them to do. MR. MACEWAN-What, we have to respond to this with an answer of some kind? MR. BREWER-Well, I think it's only fair that we should. MRS. LABOMBARD-May I make a suggestion? respond to the Board and deny their request Chairmans every so often, because I think it focus, and it makes things. I suggest that we that we alternate makes us lose our MR. BREWER-It's on a yearly basis. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. if we change Chairman. month? I think it's too much Somebody will say, of a mumble jumble is it my turn this MR. BREWER-No, not month by month. They say on a yearly basis, when the election comes up, someone should be different every year. MRS. LABOMBARD-What is it usually? MR. BREWER-That's the way it's done now, only this Board elects a Chairman. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, then what's the problem? MR. BREWER-I don't know what the problem is, Cathy. MR. STARK-I thought it was on a monthly basis, Tim. MR. BREWER-No, no. MR. OBERMAYER-It's a year. MR. STARK-I misunderstood. MR. BREWER-Yearly, and that's the way it's done now, only what I'm saying to you is, this Board should pick their Chairman, not the Town Board. MR. MACEWAN-More importantly, I think what everybody has to understand, that the Planning Board creates its own destiny with its own policies and procedures. We come up with our own. MR. STARK-Tim, I think they're doing that because of Ted. He's been there. MR. BREWER-That doesn't make any difference. and if they don't want him there next year, That's their option. He was appointed, they can say no. MR. PALING-Could this end of the table have a comment? I don't agree. I think if they want to say something like term limits, that I could understand that, limiting something to two or three years, or whatever the number of years is that they would pick, but I still think it should be a choice of the Board as to who leads it. I don't think automatically rotating the Chairmanship is a good policy at all, because you're going to rotate it to someone that doesn't even want it. - 38 - ') ',---" r-"\ ''---../' \...-' '...../ MR. MARTIN-Tim, you came on when Pete Cartier was Chairman, didn't you? Well, remember Peter left, and that was his thinking. He said, when he left the Chairmanship, he said, I think this is something that should be rotated through. Every Board member should have the experience of doing this? And then I was Chairman for almost a year, and then Ed came on, and then you came, but that was the thinking at that time, anyhow, and it wasn't by, I don't think the entire Board agreed upon it, but it was just his personal decision to step down. MR. BREWER-No. I don't have a problem Chairman of this Board or the Zoning Board, Board should pick them, or not pIck them. should be the Town Board. with anybody being but I think this I don't think it MRS. LABOMBARD-But the Town seconds it. MR. BREWER-Right. They can always say no. MR. MACEWAN-What they're getting at right now, what they're asking us to do is something they have control of right now. MRS. LABOMBARD-What they're asking us to do is not to elect Tim for next year, because, and elect somebody else. MR. STARK-That's exactly what they're asking. MR. MACEWAN-Right, because what that could potentially be saying, if there's a conflict with the Town Board, if it's anyone particular Planning Board member that they don't want to be an ongoing Chairman, that takes the pressure off them to make the unpopular decision of not approving them and puts it back to us. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's a good point. So then, case in point, lets say we vote for Tim to be Chairman for the next year, and then it goes to the Board, and they say, no. Then they're the unpopular ones, and they say, okay, all right, and then it makes the papers. MR. BREWER-If we want to go along with what they're saying, fine. If we don't, we'll tell them no. MR. STARK-Tell them no. MR. OBERMAYER-We do it on a yearly basis anyway. MRS. LABOMBARD-Wait a minute, don't we have to elect a new Chairman in the near future? MR. STARK-In January. MR. BREWER-In January. MR. MARTIN-In January, the first meeting in January you have elections. MRS. LABOMBARD-There just don't want us to you go. t.Je've elect Tim. got to do it anyway' . They MR. BREWER-Cathy, don't say that. saying that.. I don't like the idea of you MR. RUEL-I wouldn't answer this at all, concerned, you have absolutely no viable wants it. They haven't told us anything. because, as far as I'm reason why the Board MR. BREWER-I told yOU why, what they told me. perception of one person running the Board, per se. It. gives a MR. PALING-There's seven vot.es on this Board. - 39 - ----- v v " / '. MR. BREWER-And that's exactly what I tried to explain to her. MR. RUEL-The Chairman doesn't run the Board. MR. BREWER-Exactly, Roger. MRS. LABOMBARD-But they're afraid we're projecting that image to the public because Tim is our spokesman, and they think that the public just hears Tim's views, and they're his personal opinions instead of being our spokesman. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm asking you guys kind of decision? 1"', e;;), ca n we ha\ie some MR. MACEWAN-No, bad idea. MR. STARK-We said no. MR. OBERMAYER-I say we continue to vote on it on a yearly basis, like we do now, and elect a Chairman. MR. STARK-Every year. MRS. LABOMBARD-I say that we vote on a Chairman every year, like we have been doing, and if it happens to be the same person consecutively, then so be it. t1R. BREWER'-O kay . MR. PALING-I agree. MR. RUEL-I say no. MR. BREWER-Seven bad ideas. Mark, Executive Session for that, if we want to talk about the lawsuit? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, if you want to, I would recommend that, notwithstanding the fact that nobody's here, that it be done in Executive Session so that the discussion does not appear in the minutes. MR. BREWER-Okay. M01ION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION PENDING LITIGATION, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOE:C;;: 1'~ot"'¡E MOT¡ON TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 20th day of December, 1994, by the following \iote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer 1""10 E '::;; : j\j 0 t\j E On motion meeting was adjourned. - 40 - ,.- J.. '.":"'11'. ,.."" ~... '. -, v \. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman v - 41 - ~ I ;;<