The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-02-21 -- -....'~.. QUEENS BURY PLAN.N[bIGì: BOARD, MEETI!NG ' FIRST REGULAR MEETING, FEBRUARY 21, 1995 INDEX Site Plan No. 31-93 National Realty & Development Corp. 6. MODIFICATION Subdivision No. 18-1994 McDonald's Corp. 25. PRELIMINARY STAGE Subdivision No. 3-1995 John A. & Stephanie Mason 37. PRELIMINARY STAGE Howard & Marcia Krantz Subdivision No. 5-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. ;'. . 50. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES JiAND: 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. : J, ¡':j ! ;1, ", ,.:¡ 'c~~ í j,) r ,¡., I' ;:"I'j, . r "i;v' " ..¡.._,'"; l' ¡11 A- A'- '--' ~ '-- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY CRAIG MACEWAN GEORGE STARK JAMES OBERMAYER ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. BREWER-The first thing we have to do is to have elections for Chairman and Vice Chairman, and I'll take the first nomination, or ª nomination. MOTION TO NOMINATE ROBERT PALING FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer MR. BREWER-Okay. Now Vièe Chairman. MOTION TO NOMINATE JAMES OBERMAYER FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY PLAN~ING BOARD, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer MR. RUEL-Before you go on, what was the result of the yes, the Ayes and Nays here? MR. PALING-Well, I think it was four Ayes, two Nays, one abstention, in both cases, for the Chairman as well as for the Vice Chairman. MR. RUEL-Both? it? Okay. It wasn't too fast for you this time, was MR. SCHACHNER-No. I got it. Four, two, one. MR. PALING-Are we legal this time? Okay. All right. Then lets open the meeting, if we can, and the first order of minutes would be the approval of minutes. - 1 - .... - - ~ ' __A CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 15, 1995: NONE December 20, 1995: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF : MINUTES, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1995, bV the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan RESOLUTIONS: RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF THE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT AND SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR CHARLES YOUNG, G. BURNHAM, J. WALLACE TRUST MR. PALING-Scott, do you want to read that into the minutes? MR. HARLICKER-Or we could just, if you want to just adopt it. It's pretty standard, adopt it as written. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF OUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF SUBDIVISION/FRESHWATER WETLANDS APPLICATION FOR CHARLES YOUNG. GLORIA BURNHAM. J. WALLACE TRUST RESOLUTION NO.: 1 OF 1995 INTRODUCED BY: Catherine LaBombard WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS, Charles have submitted an wetlands review in described as a 2 lot Young. Gloria Burnham. & J. Wallace Trust application for a subdivision/freshwater connection with a project known as or sUbdivision, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ouee~sbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated;review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordêlnce with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Oueensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under'SEORA, and BE I T FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEORA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Charles Young. Gloria Burnham. J. Wallace Trust for a subdivision/freshwater - 2 - "--' -../' --: '-- wetlands review; 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired; 3) A lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Just befo:re we get started, would the next item be this letter from Lee York, to be read into the minutes? Cathy, do you have that letter? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, I have. Would you like me to read it? MR. PALING-Yes, please. MR. MACEWAN-What letter are you referring to? MRS. LABOMBARD-It was in our packet, Craig, I think, that was right here in front of us. MR. PALING-I don't think it's dated. It's from Lee York. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, it was received on January 30th. MR. PALING-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Got it. M~S. LABOMBARD-Okay. "Dear Board member: I would like to make you aware of a situation which could potentially be dangerous and may be preventable. I often take Route 9 South from the Glen Lake Road. A dental office recently went in at the corner of Route 9 and Round Pond Road, which due to the amount and extent of lighting creates a blinding glare at night. Since it appears that commercial development will continue at this and other sites in Queensbury, I would respectfully request that you consider amending the site plan review standards, Section 179-38E, and the Definitions Section 179-7, by adding the following: E. That all outdoor lighting is of such a nature and so arranged as to preclude the diffusion of glare into adjoining properties and streets. Definitions Glare - Direct Illumination beyond the property lines caused by direct or specularly reflected rays from incandescent, fluorescent, or arch lighting or from such high temperature processes as welding or petroleum or metallurgical refining. No such glare shall be permitted with the exception that parking lots and walkways may be illuminated by luminaries so hooded or shielded that the maximum angle of the cone of direct illumination shall be 60 degrees drawn perpendicular to the ground, with the exception that such angle may be increased to 90 degrees, if the luminar is less than four feet above the ground. Glare - Indirect Illumination beyond the property lines caused by the diffuse reflection from a surface such as a wall or a roof of a structure. Indirect glare shall not exceed that - 3 - '- value which is produced by the illumination of the reflecting surface not to exceed three-tenths foot candle. Deliberately induced sky reflected glare, as by casting a beam upward for advertising purposes 1S specifically prohibited. As the Town becomes more developed, the single site and cumulative impacts of glare into highways and neighborhoods will become a health and safety issué. The suggestions made above should not be offensive to any segmént of our community and may well save a life. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Lee York, Birch Road Queensbury" MR. MACEWAN-Why are we getting a copy of it? MR. MARTIN-It was addressed to you. MR. MACEWAN-No. It's addressed to the Town Board. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I'm sorry. The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury.' MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Why a,-e we getting it, though? MR. MARTIN-You can ask her. MR. RUEL-We can make a recommendation. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but you're the head of the Planning Department. I mean, we don't have any jurisdiction over what the Zoning Ordinances are. MR. RUEL-I know, but we can make a recommendation. MR. MARTIN-It has been sent to the Town Board as well. MR. PALING-All right, then we can either back off, or we can refer it to them. If they're working on it, then lets just back off. MR. MARTIN-It's been sent to them. doing with it. I don't know what they're MR. BREWER-The point is, though, we don't have any authority to change the Ordinance. MR. PALING-We don't have the authority to change the Ordinance, but we can refer it to someone that can go over and see if something can't be done about the glare of the lights. MR. BREWER-This is already addressed to the Town Board, though. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We could approach them and ask them about the glare of the lights. I think it's a lot more practical way to handle it. Maybe shut off every other one, or something like that. MR. PALING-Yes.' MR. MACEWAN-You can ask them, but right now they're not violating any Ordi na nCe . MR. MARTIN-I suspect the reason why that's so well lit is because the driveway is rather long and it's kind of steèp going in there, and they probably lit it well so that their patrons will be safe. MR. OBERMAYER-They shut the lights off at night, though, at a certain time, or is it on all night? MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you think it's because the road is wet? I mean, sometimes regular illumination will glare, a lot more than - 4 - "--" -..-' --.,/' '- normal, and with the winter time. MR. MARTIN-I think that's probably part of it. I can't imagine wet road conditions help. MR. RUEL-Well, I think it's a good idea anyway, and I don't know who's responsible, but someone should look into it, because many meetings, many of the applications, outdoor lighting, we had to request, ask them, was the lighting proper so that it did not shine into the neighbor's property or into the road, and if this was part of an Ordinance, I mean, I think it would be clarified and be easier for the applicant to adhere to it, and I really think it's a good thing and it should be done. I don't know about these definitions. They're quite extensive. Somebody should look into it, from an engineering standpoint. I think it's a great idea, and I think it should be in there. MR. PALING-Well, couldn't we refer it to Paul Naylor's group, except it can be overridden if the Town Board is doing something on it? MR. MARTIN-The Town Board, as the legislative body, has exclusive control over amendments to the Ordinance, and enacting of those amendments. MR. PALING-Would it have to be an amendment, or couldn't it just be a correction of some kind, a shield, or changing of a name? MR. RUEL-It's an addition, isn't it? MR. MARTIN-I don't know the legal ramifications, or I don't know what Paul's authority is, in terms of off-street lighting like that. MR. SCHACHNER-The lighting's, presumably, on the long driveway, not on the public road. So I don't think the Town Highway Superintendent has much, if anything, to do with it. I'm hearing two issues here. One is the specific issue about the lighting on this particular driveway, and my own opinion is that Jim's suggestion makes the most sense, from the practical standpoint, which is somebody approaches the owner or occupant to ask if there's a way to deal with it, assuming that Jim or somebody on staff verifies and agrees that there's a problem. The different issue is whether there's something that should be put in the Zoning Ordinance, and just as Jim said, that's exclusively a Town Board matter. We can make any recommendation we like, but it's still a Town Board matter. I don't think it's a Town Highway Superintendent matter. MR. OBERMAYER-So really all ~ can do is ask that someone go out there and approach the owner, really. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. In essence, it's not a Planning Board issue, under either scenario, to tell you the truth. MR. MARTIN-I've come to find that the Moskowitzs are pretty open minded, progressive thinking people, and maybe they would just shut off every other one. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. PALING-So then someone from your office could make that visit? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We'd be more than happy to do that. MR. PALING-Okay. Fine. Do we need a motion on that? MR. MARTIN-No. I'll approach them and report back, to the Board. - 5 - ''"- MR. PALING-All right. We have another letter, but I don't think we need read it or act upon it. It's to George Goodwin, and we asked him to appear here. MR. MARTIN-Yes, did you get a copy of ~ letter? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I responded back to that and said that I, he called me and I said the Board has, at the end of their agenda, as a matter of practice, any other further business that they want to consider, and if you want to come and address the Board, feel free, but I did say that that particular curb was designed that way specifically to discourage the type of movement that he tried to make. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I don't know what else to say. I was on the Board at that time. MR. PALING-I saw one letter, but not the one you're talking about. MR. MARTIN-And I cited the example, the thinking in ~ mind was you have the same type of situation at the Burger King, up on Aviation Road, before the Mall. They have one of these affairs where it's supposed to be only 1-ight hand turns out, and people make the left hand turn out, because the curb was not sharp enough or acute enough to discourage that, and this was done specifically to avoid the type of thing he did. MR. OBERMAYER-Is Mr. Goodwin here? MR. MARTIN-I don't think he, he said he might be able to make it next week. MR. PALING-Y~s. Okay. Then we just won't act upon the letter. MR. MARTIN-He may be here next week. He may not. I don't know. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think we can move into the regular agenda and start with Old Business, Cathy. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. DEVELOPMENT CORP. MODIFICATION TO VEGETATION TO THE 31-93 TYPE: UNLISTED WALMART ZONE: HC-1A APPROVED PLANTING PLAN REAR OF THE PROPERTY. NATIONAL REALTY & LOCATION: RT. 9/254 FOR REPLACEMENT OF BILL WHITE STAFF INPUT: Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 31-93 Modification, National Realty & Development Corp., Meeting Date: February 21, 1995 "The applicant is proposing to modify their lands~aping plan. The modifications consist of proposed replacement plantings for vegetation that was removed at the rear of the property along the south side. The planting along the rear property line consists of arborvitae and some flowering accent trees. Spruce trees, because of their height, might provide a better screen than the arborvitae proposed. Since the applicant is also modifying the plantings on the south side there is the opportunity to place some of the screening on the residential side of the stockade fence. It does not seem consistent with the intent of a screened buffer to force the residences of Greenway North to look at a - 6 - "-..-' -....r ...- '-- blank stockade fence. If the fence were moved away from the property line, there would be space to plant some landscaping, such as spruce or hemlock along with some decorative plantings, to break up the view of the fence. It should also be noted that the decorative or most pleasant side of the fence shall face the adjacent properties." MR. MARTIN-To elaborate on that, the comment from the staff is that the portion of the fence along the southern side of the property, adjoining the Greenway North neighborhood might be more effectively placed closer to Walmart, so that the plantings occur on the residential side of the fence, rather than on the store side of the fence, and to the extent we can do that and maintain that 50 foot emergency vehicle access, I think that would be encouraged, and the other comment would be, I spoke to Bill on the phone today, that the plantings just generally be beefed up. MR. RUEL-Would there be enough space for emergency vehicles back there? MR. MARTIN-Well, there needs to be a 50 foot clear zone all the way around the parameter of the building. MR. RUEL-Would there still be 50 feet if you moved the fence on the other side of that shrubbery? MR. PALING-There's not 50 foot clear now, unless you count the buffer zone. MR. MARTIN-The fence is almost 95 feet from the edge of the building now, and if we could move that closer. MR. RUEL-It is that far? MR. PALING-Okay. You're talking the south side only? MR. MARTIN-Yes, because the back portion along the section of the building where Walmart's going, that's right at 50 feet right now. That's why, if you recall, the plantings there are very narrow arborvitaes, so we wouldn't infringe too much on that 50 foot clear zone across the back of the Walmart building, and it widens out when you get behind the Ames store, but it gets a little tight in there with the Walmart store. MR. RUEL-And you would recommend that the fence be placed on the other side? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That way the people have the benefit of seeing the trees and the vegetation, as íopposed to the wood fence. MR. RUEL-Yes, instead of the fence. What's the height of the fence? MR. MARTIN-Eight feet. MR. OBERMAYER-Eight feet. That's pretty high. MR. RUEL-Eight, and is it solid? MR. BREWER-Are eight feet fences allowed in the Town? I thought it was six foot? MR. MARTIN-I think in this case we, we varied from that in this instance. MR. BREWER-Did he get a variance for that? MR. WHITE-I don't recall. I believe we may have. MR. HARLICKER-Eight feet high is allowed in commercial zones. - 7 - ----- ~ MR. OBERMAYER-I think eight feet's a good idea anyway. MR. WHITE-It's a solid wood fence. MR. RUEL-Solid wood? MR. MARTIN-Yes, stockade style. MR. RUEL-Stockade, and how do you take care of those two paths through the fence? MR. MARTIN-They're going to be left open. MR. RUEL-They're openings? MR. WHITE-Yes. MR. RUEL-With a gate? MR. WHITE-No, we can just leave an opening. MR. RUEL-Just an opening? Why are there paths there? MR. WHITE-Previous discussions with the Planning Board indicated that they sort of wanted to link some of the adjacent residential. MR. MARTIN-That was done by design. MR. OBERMAYER-Can you introduce yourself to the Board, so we just know who you are, for the record? MR. WHITE-Yes. My name Flint, Allen, White and engineers for the Walmart here at the Town. is Bill White, and I'm with the firm Radley in Rochester, and we're the store, and work with the various Boards MR. MARTIN-The other thing that should be taken into account with this site plan, and I raise this as a point of education for the staff as well as the Board, is that when you look at major site plans like this, a wise exercise to undertake is, and we will do it in the future, is that you should lay, overlay the grading plan and the drainage plan over the landscaping plan, because if you do that, you'll note on the drainage plan that that curb area along the southern side of the building, where it says, like, shredded hardwood bark, mulch, right in that area, there is a five foot high drainage pipe, buried nine feet deep. By the time they get done cutting the swath needed to trench that, they're taking out a lot of the existing vegetation, and that's something that has to be done. Obviously, the drainage is a requirement, and I think we have to look at this landscaping plan in reality of what actually has to occur to support all of the construction. MR. PALING-Jim, lets go back to your discussion on the side of the building which has both Walmart, and there's a whole length in the back. There's a total of 50 feet there, and I think it's 50.0 feet. How much was clear cut, that shouldn't have been? How many feet? MR. MARTIN-You see the notation there to existing vegetation, and it's indicated by small swi,-l marks all across the back? That represents a distance of, that is about eight feet wide. MR. PALING-Then they don't have 50 feet? MR. MARTIN-No. I think there's been some misinformation going on around the level of the violatio~ that occurred. Actually, and how far does it extend, Scott, to the north, would you say? MR. HARLICKER-Two, two hundred and forty feet. - 8 - ---- .' ----,' .......<iI',/ '-' MR. MARTIN-Probably about 240 feet north from the southern property line, across the entire, or across that, from that back corner going north. MR. PALING-That's the clear cut area? MR. MARTIN-That's the area of violation. As far as ¡ know, the area along the neighborhood side has not been, to the south, has not been impacted beyond what is necessary for the drainage pipe. MR. WHITE-Right, and I took a look at that tonight, when I got into town. They have installed that pipe along that south end curb there, and in that case, I think the contractor did a pretty good job of really limiting the amount of vegetation. MR. MARTIN-I think he's been on notice since the initial violation, and he's tried to keep it to a minimum. MR. WHITE-Yes. He put that in last week, I think, being a little more sensitive with the vegetation in the area. MR. OBERMAYER-It looks like the fence is going to be, the face of the fence, would be pointed in towards? MR. WHITE-Yes, that's the way it's depicted on the plans, but that is not the way it's going to be. MR. OBERMAYER-That's going to be reversed, right? MR. WHITE-Right. The good side is actually facing the apartment complex. MR. OBERMAYER-Facing out. Okay, and also on the other side toward Greenway, too, right? MR. WHITE-Correct. MR. MARTIN-You'll convey that information on to the fence contractor, whose ever installing the fence? MR. WHITE-There's a preconstruction meeting tomorrow at two, which I'm going to attend, and I will review that. MR. BREWER-We can note them on the modification? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Is anything going to be done with the existing fences? MR. WHITE-The existing fence on the west side of the property. which abuts the apartment complex? MR. PALING-West and south. MR. WHITE-It's to be removed. MR. PALING-Both of them? MR. WHITE-Clost word) on the south side. MR. HARLICKER-The south side, that chainlink fence is going to be removed. MR. MARTIN-They really serve no purposes, as they are just chain link fence. MR. PALING-It's in pretty bad shape, too. MR. MARTIN-And it might look better to get rid of them, in terms of the appearance. - 9 - " ~ MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-Is it chain link? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-So have the results of the violation been rectified? MR. MARTIN-That's what we're here tonight about. MR. I,.JHITE-No. We haven't been able to rectify them at this point. We can't put the plantings in during this season. MR. MARTIN-Typically, the planting occurs in the last, I'd say, 10 or 15 percent of the project. That's when it usually occurs. They said, though, I talked to, the contractor came in to see me, and he said he would make every effort to move this schedule up on the installation of the fence, to install it as early as possible. MR. OBERMAYER-Has anybody complained, from Robert Gardens? MR. MARTIN-There's been several complaints or inquiries from the neighbors to the south. I'm not so sure about the apartments. There mayor may not have been. Some of them have been coming to the Supervisor also. MR. BREWER-That's what started it, was the people in the Apartments. MR. PALING-We'll ask for comments from the public before the meeting's over, to be sure, even though there's not a public hearing. Jim, I've still got my same question. How do we get 50 feet clearance there if they're going to plant in eight feet of it? MR. MARTIN-Where is that? MR. PALING-At the rear of the building. I have no problem with the south, but the length across the back of that building. MR. MARTIN-Well, Dave Hatin, who oversees the maintenance of the clear zone, said that he would accept narrow plantings along the back there, but anything that would widen out or extend too far into that could become a problem. MR. MACEWAN-What's his definition of "narrow plantings"? MR. PALING-Eight feet, I guess. MR. MARTIN-Well, the arborvitaes that were shown, something that grows relatively tall and narrow but yet provides a year round screen, as originally indicated, were acceptable to him. MR. MACEWAN-Run something there. the violation that close to the same saying? that by me one more time. I think I lost He's saying with that no cut zone back there, stands now, he doesn't want it restored as width as it was previous? Is that what he's MR. MARTIN-It couldn't be as previous. It would have had to be cleared up somewhat to maintain that 50 foot clear area, but there was enough room left over for a small width of about eight feet. MR. MACEWAN-See, that's what I don't understand. There was a 35 foot, wasn't it 35, or 50 foot. - 10 - '- --.,/ -,,/ "-- MR. BREWER-Wasn't it 25 originally, that we told them to leave in the back? MR. MARTIN-No. It's always been 50. MR. BREWER-No. removed. I mean, as far as the vegetation, not to be MR. MARTIN-Along the south it was wider. Along the west it was narrower. Along the rear, as you approach the rear corner of the building, and it becomes 50 feet to the property line, just about, it had to be very narrow existing vegetation left, and the other thing that you'll recall is, you see the curb there along the back of the building, and then you have a short distance to the property line? The slope on that drops, what, about six, eight feet in that distance? MR. WHITE-Yes, it varies from six to eight. MR. MARTIN-So there's very little opportunity there, from a grading standpoint, for planting on that hill. MR. MACEWAN-Well, this is where I'm confused. violation took place, it was 25 feet. Is that saying, that was to be left there, natural. Before the what you're MR. MARTIN-Eight feet. MR. MACEWAN-No. It was never any eight feet. MR. PALING-It was evidently a total of 50 feet, which included the vegetation, if I read Tim right. MR. BREWER-No. What ¡ thought was the back of the building, from that back, 50 feet out, had to be, so that you could get fire trucks and what back there. There was vegetation that was there, should have remained. ~ idea of what happened was, the intruded upon eight feet of that vegetation. So they should put that eight feet vegetation back. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know what you're saying, Tim, and I agree. That's exactly the way I interpret. MR. MARTIN-This section here is where the (lost word) right to the property, right up to here. MR. MACEWAN-Now when we set that up, when we approved this thing, that width that wasn't to be touched was what dimension? MR. MARTIN-Was this right here, eight feet wide. MR. MACEWAN-No. I don't buy that for a minute MR. MARTIN-That's on the approved plans. MR. STARK-No. The vegetation part was eight foot. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, just the vegetation. MR. MARTIN-The 50 foot clear zone, Craig, is from here to here. MR. OBERMAYER-Which includes the road. MR. MARTIN-It's not the width of the road. It's clear area, from here to here. MR. MACEWAN-Do you remember it being eight feet? MR. BREWER-I don't ever remember it from the edge of that road to that fence eight feet. If that's what you're talking about, - 11 - that's not it, because the edge of the road is, what, right here? So that's got to be 25 feet, and the vegetation's got to be right here. MR. OBERMAYER-So when did the violation really occur, just right in this area right here? MR. MARTIN-In this section. This here has been maintained to the extent possible, given the fact that we've got a five foot, see, there's a manhole here, and a manhole, I think, down here, that drains to, they have underground infiltration out in front here, and these are perforated pipe, the whole length, five feet in diameter, and by the time you dig a trench nine feet deep and maintain OSHA standards for the slope and all that, it gets to be a pretty wide trench. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. You're right. wide. It's probably about 16 feet MR. WHITE-The cement pipe was not (lost word). If you had to dig a trench, (lost word). So what we were able to do is go maybe five foot beyond the outside. MR. MARTIN-Did you cut any of the existing vegetation to be maintained here, along the south edge? MR. WHITE-Most of that vegetation, I believe that's (lost word) on the plan. MR. PALING-George, lets have your comments on this. MR. STARK-Well, I'd like to see the fence on the south and the west side moved in from their property line, whatever distance they can move it in, and still maintain enough vegetation on the other side of the fence to block that solid fence from the neighbor's view somewhat, and not put in any two or three foot trees, but put in eight and ten foot and twelve foot trees, because the fence is so high. You would agree to that? MR. WHITE-Absolutely. There's a limit to where we can move it on the west property line. MR. STARK-I understand that. MRS. LABOMBARD-We're really concerned about the west more than the south. MR. STARK-Well, you've got people Drive that can look right through through this in 1965. in Greenway North and June those woods and they went MR. I~ACEWAN-George, there's a letter here that the Town Board sent to Walmart. The second paragraph of the letter says, "This violation was the result of removing trees and other vegetation from a buffer zone that was planned to be eight to twenty-five feet wide and approximately 200' long that has been destroyed." It was eight feet at this first corner here, where this manhole is, and by the time you get down to the end of the building of the existing Sysco store is where it was the 25 foot in width. So you're looking at, you know, a gradual plane out, like that, and that was all taken out right to the fence line all the way down. We're not talking an eight foot swath the entire length of that building. You're talking a pie shaped. MR. STARK-Well, Craig, like I said, move the fence back as they can, not limit it to eight feet. If they can back 20 feet, move it back 20 feet. as much move it MR. RUEL-Which fence are you talking about? - 12 - --- ~. -,",,/ '" '---- MR. STARK-On the west and the south, and vegetate, beyond that fence, between their property line and the fence then. MR. BREWER-Okay, then who maintains it? MR. STARK-Well, Walmart will maintain it, or whoever. MR. OBERMAYER-My comment is, leave the fence where it is on this side, and move it in on the south side and vegetate, you know, along the western end, the south side. MR. MACEWAN-Well how do the people that are living in the Apartment complex feel about that? They're used to sitting up there looking at natural vegetation of trees and shrubs up there. Now you're going to satisfy them by putting up a fence? MR. OBERMAYER-Back here where the sheds are, really, their view is kind of obstructed anyway by the sheds over here, Craig. MR. PALING-They also have some pretty good pine trees. The view from Robert Gardens is not bad. There's only, I think, two major gaps. You've got a garage there. Now apartments do look on, except for two big gaps, they look on pine trees, and you wouldn't know what's going on. They're big and thick. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but Walmart isn't exactly going to be eight feet high. It's going to be, you know, 16 feet high. It's going to be very difficult to block that entirely. MR. BREWER-From anywhere it is. MR. OBERMAYER-From anywhere. MR. BREWER-But I still agree with George. Move this fence in the back here. Why the hell do those people just want to look at a plain fence when we can make them put some shrubbery or something there, but on this back side of the building, I mean, nobody's, if you make them put a bunch of vegetation in the back between the fence and the building, I mean, that's utterly ridiculous. They ought to take some of that and put it along the base of the fence in the back, and then the remainder that we decide to have them put, put it over here where it's open. MR. MARTIN-I can tell you that the plan as approved, along the westerly boundary, was exactly the same as this, except for the notes about the transplanting. It's the exact same plan. MR. PALING-That it was before, and the fence, then, is on the, back on the property line? MR. MARTIN-Exactly. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-Well, Tim, you were here. Do you agree with that, you know, move it as much as possible? MR. BREWER-Yes, I was here. I would say move the fence in on the west side, and put some, maybe. MR. STARK-Bigger trees, taller trees? MR. BREWER-Well, not necessarily. Put some trees and some shrubs, low growing shrubs, that cover the ground, and maybe a tree every foot and a half or so, I don't know, maybe every 10, 15, 20 feet. MR. OBERMAYER-As far the terrain goes, though, would that allow it, because, you know, it does drop off a little bit there. - 13 - MR. RUEL-What about the Beautification Committee? involved here? Was this all approved by the Committee? Don't they get Beautification MR. MARTIN-The original plan was, yes. MR. RUEL-Did they review the change? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. RUEL-Exactly what is the purpose of the appearance of the applicant with this modification to the planting? MR. MARTIN-To remedy the violation. MR. RUEL-That's all it is, right? And the violation is 240 feet along that fence, and how he intends to remedy that. MR. MARTIN-Or how the Board, what you will accept as a remedy. MR. RUEL-I know, we're talking about all other fences, you know. Actually, this has to do with 240 feet, right, only? MR. PALING-No. That's only across the west side. We've got to deal with the south and the west side, and maybe we ought to take it piece by piece. Lets work on the south side of the fence, and I think we've agreed that the consensus seems to be to move that fence in and plant on both sides of it. Now lets wait to decide on what plantings we're going to put for a minute. MR. BREWER-And how many. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets talk about the west side of the fence, the rear of the lot, the west side of the plan. Can we leave that fence on the property line, or back there, or do you want to move it in? MR. BREWER-Yes. If you move it in four feet, then you can plant four feet on the other side. I don't think it's a real big deal to plant a lot of trees on the inside, because it's the back of the building, and nobody's going to be back there. MR. PALING-I agree with that. I'd like to see it, okay, so we can move the fence in approximately four feet. MR. BREWER-Whatever it takes, four to six. It depends on what we have to plant there. They have to have enough room to do it, Bob. MR. WHITE-Plus, I think (lost word) closer to ten, and if we could, that would give a little bit more room. MR. MARTIN-The only two limiting factors that ¡ can slope and the requirement on the clear zone for the access. see, is the emergency MR. BREWER-Well, they can take care of that with a Dl0 in no time at all. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, they'll cut back the slope though, closer to the road. See, right now it does drop off. So they'll have to take that slope back in order to move the fence in, to keep it level on the other side. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think even if you mount the fence on the slope, I think that's good, because it'll make the fence higher in height. So mounting the fence on the slope is not a det)" iment. MR. RUEL-Which way does that slope? '- 14 - '--' "--" / -- MR. MARTIN-It slopes away from the store, from the back of the store. It drops off pretty sharply about six or eight feet after that curb along that rear access road. MR. RUEL-So they put an eight foot fence in, it'll make it actually higher, right? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-If you put on the slope. MR. RUEL-Yes. It'll go up about another three feet or so? MR. MARTIN-Depending on where you put it, yes. MR. WHITE-We do have, there are some utilities located in that slope. There's gas, electric, storm sewer as well. MR. BREWER-But if you put a fence in though, Bill, what do you go down with the post, four feet? MR. WHITE-Well, it's just that the utility companies have to come in and maintain electric and gas. MR. MARTIN-Yes, they go down four feet. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, I think there's overhead electrical lines in there, too, isn't there? MR. WHITE-There's overhead electric and telephone. MR. MARTIN-The other thing to bear in mind thing this will prevent is, especially boundary, is to install that fence, you're out some vegetation to get equipment in fence in. is that, the other along the southerly going to have to take there and to get the MR. BREWER-Well, if they replace it, that's not a big deal. MR. MARTIN-Well, no, if you move then fence in, then you avoid that. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-There haven't been any objections about the south side, right? MR. PALING-Not yet. MR. RUEL-I mean, the way it is here. MR. MARTIN-Well, there have been some. MR. PALING-It'll be open to a public hearing. We'll listen to the public tonight. All right. Can we talk about the planting, the vegetation that's going to be in both sections here, but lets talk about the south side first. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, the south side hasn't changed at all, has it, Jim? There's no violation of the south side. MR. RUEL-No. There's nothing there. MR. PALING-All right. How about when the fence goes in? Is there going to be much damage done? MR. MARTIN-You'll minimize the damage if you put it to the store side of the property as much as you can, and move it further to the north. - 15 - MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-But I would say, we have the applicant in an accommodating mood, and I would request plantings. I would say you'd look for a mixture of trees native to this area, again, you're talking about the pines and the spruces and that type of thing. MRS. LABOMBARD-Hemlock. MR. MARTIN-Hemlock. MR. PALING-All right. That'll take care of the south side, then. MR. WHITE-We have provided some additional plantings on the approved plan, in that area, and it's ~ opinion that, it's so densely wooded in that area right now, and I'm not sure that if you plant anything, it's going to have the ability to grow, and I'm not trying to say won't provide a plan, if that's what the Board wants. I'm looking at it from more of a practical standpoint. Given the density of the plantings in that area, whatever you plant, if you can find a place to plant it, I'm not sure that it's going to grow and flourish. It's not going to get the sunlight. MR. OBERMAYER-I think spruce trees grow pretty good, though, in shade, don't they? I mean, I have a spruce tree on the north side of ~ house. MR. RUEL-Shouldn't the Beautification Committee review this? MR. MACEWAN-Excellent idea, Roger. MR. BREWER-But North, you can some places. I think on the same hand, if you go on Greenway look through there and see the car wash, too, in MR. HARLICKER-It's just property line. Towards sparse. that the it varies so much back, the vegetation along that is p)"etty MR. PALING-Well, it could at least be spruced up, lets call it. Lets say a little bit of selective planting, I think, would be in order there, though, to look for the spaces, and maybe it takes only three trees, but fill the spaces. MR. MARTIN-Could I make a suggestion, that plan that provides a quantification of the indication of where the sparse areas are? indication of that yet. you get some sort of problem, I mean, an We don't have any MR. BREWER-Who do IrJe have do that, though, Jim? MR. MARTIN-The applicant. MR. BREWER-Who verifies it with them, though? MR. MARTIN-We can verify it, but I think it would be a good idea to get an idea of the extent of the problem before we see how we're going to address it. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Then somebody from your staff could do it with the applicant? MR. MARTIN-Well, I would review what he submits. MR. PALING-You're saying that you want this for the south as well as the west side? - 16 - '--' '----' / '" --.' MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd like to see what the extent of the problem is that we're dealing with. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Bob, can we decide on the west side tonight? I mean, we want them to move the fence back in. He says he's willing to go as much as he can, eight, ten feet, and lets decide what we're going to do as far as plantings on that back bank. What will satisfy us, and then all we have to deal with is one problem next time. MR. STARK-I don't really think, you know, it's not that critical, tonight, that we do something, maybe, you know, vote. MR. BREWER-No. I'm not saying make a motion or anything. just kind of get an idea of what we're going to ask him to he can include it in his plan, when he comes back. Lets do so MR. PALING-Lets do it through staff. MR. OBERMAYER-They plan on planting quite a bit of six to seven feet pines, it looks like, serbian spruce and austrian pines. MR. RUEL-Jim Martin and staff just volunteered to do this. What are we talking about? MR. PALING-Have them fences will be placed. new planting plan. do both fences. Now we agree where the Let them go at it with staff and submit a MR. STARK-Fine. MR. OBERMAYER-Fine. MR. RUEL-Yes. We can't make that determination tonight. MR. BREWER-He's done that, though. That's what we have in front of us. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but what I'm saying is, I don't know if the location of the planting, given where the sparse areas are, you know, I'd like to see where the sparse areas are and where the violations occurred. I don't have any quantification of that on a site plan, and I'd like to see that quantified. MR. PALING-That's a real good idea, because you view it, like, from Robert Gardens, and you can see the big gap, and then there's a big tree there that you don't need any, as much, or anything at all. MR. MARTIN-I think we need a description of the current existing situation, on a plan, and then, where's the most logical, effective place to put ~ plantings. MR. RUEL-And then maybe lines in that area. in the same plan he can show contour .' MR. MARTIN-Remember in the Native Textile thing we asked for the extent of the clearing that was done? I think we need to see the same thing here. MR. BREWER-An overlay map. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Where, exactly, have you cleared, and where the gap. MR. WHITE-It seems pretty clear to me that it's pretty much everything beyond, all the way to the fence line. That's what, I was there at six o'clock, and I saw maybe five trees back there. - 17 - MR. HARLICKER-Yes, from the garage back. MR. WHITE-So, I would look at it as if there's not a tree back the)"e. MR. PALING-Well, that's no problem, but you've got to be sure you fill the gap. MR. MARTIN-Well, my other concern, though, is the southern boundary. I mean, I know there's been people who live back there who say they can see all the way through to the Flower Drum Song now, and where are those alleys occurring that they can see through there. I don't know. MR. WHITE-On the south side. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-And I suggest that you view it from the Apartments, and also from Greenway, not just from Walmart looking out. MR. MARTIN-I think that's a good idea. MR. PALING-Because you get a different perspective when you get outside looking in. MR. WHITE-We propose 15 plantings here on the south side of this, and I think if you just arrange those in the field, in the place where it more effectively screens and provides the better buffer. MR. MARTIN-And double them in number. MR. WHITE-I don't see why, we didn't violate anything on the south side. MR. BREWER-But it's one piece of property. So if you make one violation the back side of the property, you've got to suffer with the whole property, as much as you don't like it. MR" WHITE-I concede there's a violation on the west side, and we will do everything, any plantings that the Board would like on the west side. We have an approved plan on the south side. MR. BREWER-But the plan was violated. So I think we have a right to make you plant whatever we want. MR. MACEWAN-In all fairness, Mr. White, the plan wasn't segmented that we approve the south side, approve the north side, approve the west side. It was approved as one site plan as a whole. MR. PALING-Do we need a motion for this, or can we just? MR. MARTIN-I think you have the public hearing you want to hear from, )" ight? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-But the applicant has agreed, conceptually, to go out there and kind of pick and choose where the open spots are, and provide the plantings on the south side. MR. MARTIN-Well, if 15 trees is sufficient to fill in the gaps, then fi ne. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. IrJHITE-Okay. MR. MARTIN-In the Board's view. - 18 - ',,--, ---- \,.-,...,.-" -..../ MR. PALING-Okay. Are there anymore questions? MR. BREWER-How can we say that 15's sufficient, Jim, when we don't know exactly where the gaps are? MR. MARTIN-That's what I mean. Find out where the gaps are, and if 15 fills it in. MR. BREWER-No, no. I mean, I can't envision in my mind where every little gap is on that piece of property right now. MR. PALING-Well, they will when they go out there. They'll make a drawing of it. MR. MARTIN-That's why I'd like the plan showing where they are. MR. BREWER-But you're going to go out, right, and ve,"ify it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. As soon as he submits something, we'll verify it. MR. PALING-All right. Then if there's anyone here from the public that would like to comment on this, although it's not a public hearing, we would like to hear from you now. DANIEL OLSON MR. OLSON-Before I sit down, I'll give you my name and address, and I want to go to your map over here. Daniel Olson, 29 Carlton Drive. For the benefit of the Board, Carlton Drive is right through here, and I live right here in my house. I disagree with some of the comments that were made by, I think the representative from Walmart, or the developer possibly. I think there are violations and there has been a violation, in clearing this area here, especially down in this section here, where Carlton Drive comes in here, makes a right hand turn, especially in this area right here maybe where it joins up with June Drive. There's no question this has been clear stripped right back to the fence, but I believe the area has been clear cut a lot closer to the existing lines than what was required. I did a quick measurement myself, before the, when we had the good weather, I guess before the first of the year, when they started excavating out there. I would have to measure it closer. I'm probably not allowed back on the property now, but at the opening in this fence right 'here, if they hadn't gone in closer than what they were allowed to, and I thought they were supposed to keep at least 25 feet there. I've been hearing things tonight, I guess, that are different from what I heard at other meetings. They're awful close to it. I think they're inside, have removed trees that weren't supposed to be removed, but definitely back there they're backed into the fence. I would question another thing, which I haven't looked up in my own deeds yet, but I was always under the impression that there was a right-of-way in here, behind my property, and I'm not sure if they're whole property line goes to the property line, if they're using the right-of-way on their property as part of their buffer zone, or if that's where they're property line is. That's another legal question. Have you looked at that at all? Do you have any idea? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. OLSON-Okay. I can pullout my own search and deed restrictions, and it does say that a right-of-way has to be maintained behind it, not on my own property, but there's a right-of-way, because Niagara Mohawk goes in here quite regular, and repairs power lines and transformers for these properties here, that live here, and Roberts Gardens, but they come in from the back of Roberts Gardens, behind the existing Sysco complex that was there to maintain these properties here. That's something you might want to remember when they start moving - 19 - -.-' fences around, but they do get through there. MR. PALING-There is a fence there now, though, is there not? MR. OLSON-Yes, there is. MR. PALING-And how would a difference fence make the right-of- way? MR. OLSON-Well, you're talking about moving that fence closer to the building. MR. PALING-Four feet, yes. MR. OLSON-Well, you'd have to get out there and look and see where those power lines and those transformers sit up in here. When th~ squirrels get running on the power lines, which they have a habit of doing, there's some transformers back there that they'll get in and short out, and then our power's, we lose our power in this area, and part of Roberts Gardens will lose it. Usually, once or twice a year that happens. I would ask you really to look real strong at this area here. As I say, I live here. I know my neighbor right here is very strongly opposed to what's happening, as I am. We can look out of our yards, out of our backyards, and see, now, through here. The vegetation that was removed here happened to be the highest and the thickest and the most dense vegetation. The vegetation that was planted in here were cedar trees. They were planted when the Zayre complex went in. They were staggered, not straight rows, but every other row, it was zig zagged. So they grew in real thick over the years. The height was quite, they were real high and they were real dense. There was a lot of underbrush, too, but at least it was a buffer zone. That's what I wanted to talk about, this area in here. I think that they did violate this area here, but you'll have to look at that yourself another time. MR. PALING-Okay. There seems to be two points, then. Number One is the, whatever trees were removed has caused a line of site to appear that wasn't there before, and I think that might be corrected when you do the look at the plan for the plantings. MR. MARTIN-I think that's why it's a good idea to get the quantification or indication of the extent of the clearing, so they can see how wide it is, or how wide the existing vegetation is that's left, and where the clearing has occurred, and where you want to now replant. MR. RUEL-What's this NiMo right-of-way he's talking about? MR. PALING-Yes. Mark, maybe we're going to have to ask you what l.>Je. MR. RUEL-Do we know anything about that? MR. OLSON-It's always been referred to as a utilities right-of- way. At one time the telephone company ran large cables up through there. Now those lines have been removed because they don't use so many large lines to transmit anymore. MR. RUEL-Overhead or underground? MR. OLSON-Overhead. Niagara Mohawk is overhead, too. What I wanted to bring to the Board's attention was that I attended, I think, the last Town Board meeting or the Board meeting before that, and registered a complaint myself with the Town Board members. I know that Mr., I know that two other residents in the immediate area of Carlton Drive have notified the Town Board members plus Mr. Champagne, the Supervisor, Fred was in the neighborhood last week, calling on one of the neighbors that complained, and then he stopped at my house, and we walked out - 20 - '- ---' --../ there that day, and he told me last week that he had contacted representatives from Walmart, and they had told him over the phone, maybe you talked about this before you came in. They told him over the phone that possibly next week they'd have representatives here to sit down with the Town Board, and the neighbors that live adjacent to this here. Probably there's, well, you've got all of Roberts Gardens affected back there, and even though the garage is in there, you can see over the top of the garages into the back. I'm going to say probably 10 or 12 homes, residents there in that immediate area, June Drive and Carlton Drive, and Greenway Drive over here also, that are vastly affected, and the visibility, the site visibility, and also concerned about the noise we're going to have, being closer to the Northway. You take down the trees. You take down a buffer that stops the noise. So all I can tell you is, and I'm sure the Town Board Supervisor notified you people, too, about this proposed meeting that's supposed to come up, sometime next week or the following week, they said they would sit down and discuss these matters with us that we're unhappy with. That's all I wanted to bring to your attention. If you have any other questions for me. MR. PALING-Okay. Mark, do you have any comment on the right-of- way situation? MR. SCHACHNER-I really don't. You know that, generally, it's my advice that the Board not get too heavily involved in private property rights. In this case, presumably the issue is whether there is or isn't a utilities easement that's affected here, and, I mean, I obviously don't have the documentation to know whether there is or isn't. If there is one, that might p)-esent a problem, as Dan indicates. I don't have any idea. MR. OLSON-Well, we don't feel that the utilities ordinance is on QJdL....Proper ty, because OU)- bac k lines have been surveyed, and we know approximately, have a pretty good feeling where our back property lines are that go through there. We've always been under the understanding that, from there past there was a utilities right-of-way, and my main concern is, is that right-of- way being used as part of their buffer zone, which would really make their buffer zone area smaller than what it should be. Their property line start at another point and go further out towards the store. If that's so, than their storage isn't too close to the line to begin with. For your information, (lost words) myself and my own personal benefit, I don't think my, I think I'm alright. I don't think the utilities ordinance is on mY, maybe there is no (lost word) maybe their property lines are accurate, but if it does include the utilities ordinance, and I don't think anybody owns that, meaning the right-of-way, I don't know if you can have a right-of-way to use a right-of-way as somebody else's. MR. SCHACHNER-Dan, when you're say, "utilities ordinance", I'm assuming you're meaning utilities easement? MR. OLSON-You're right. I mis-spoke. Not an Ordinance at all, a right-of-way for the utilities company. I did mis-speak on that. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OLSON-I'm satisfied, at this point. I wanted to bring the information to you and make my complaint to you people, and go on record, yes, I am not pleased, along with some other neighbors, about the progress that's happened so far, and I think it's unfortunate that the company went in there and started removing trees and started to excavate the way they did, to get their, it's unfortunate that the slopes weren't talked about earlier, knowing that there were going to be slopes there with elevations, and maybe the whole project should have been moved further north of the excavation, to get away from the slopes. The slopes (lost - 21 - ,----~ words) trees, they have to. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Are there any other comments from the public on this? Okay. Are there any other comments by the Board? MR. MARTIN-I just have one. This subdivision, it bothers me about how these landscaping plans are displayed. I scaled these circles off here and it shows the diameter of these trees to be 20 feet, and I think it has a visual impact, as somebody looking at these landscaping plans, that this is a very dense planting, and I think if you're looking at, like, for example, a lot of these trees along here are, they're siberian spruces that are six or eight foot height. I find it hard to believe that a siberian spruce tree of a six or eight foot height has a diameter of 20 feet. MR. PALING-That must be maturity. MR. MARTIN-I think that's works in your favor and against ours, is what I'm trying to say. MR. WHITE-It does. that way. I don't know that it was intentionally done MR. MARTIN-No. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying, I think the circle should be scaled at a more representative size, at the time of planting rather than at the time of, 20 or 30 years from now. Because I go out on the site, you know, and I'll see, now, the siberian spruce planted, and it'll be wide, and it looks a lot more sparse than it did on the plan. MR. PALING-Why don't we have a circle within a circle, as planted, and when it matures? MR. MARTIN-There you forth on future plans. lot are shown at a 40 old man. go, and I'm going to carry that comment I mean, look at, the trees in the parking foot diameter. I mean, maybe when I'm an MR. PALING-Lets be real about it, and if you can, tell us what the planted diameter will be, and then what the mature diameter is, and the years in between. MR. MARTIN-I'm Just saying, it has a visual impact of looking. MR. PALING-Sure it does. ¡ won't be here when that happens. MR. BREWER-Are we just going to table this and let him come back with a plan? MR. PALING-Table it, and then bring it back to the next meeting, if you, well, I don't know if you can make that or not. Is that okay? MR. MARTIN-It depends on how fast he can generate a plan that shows the existing vegetation out there and the level of clearing that's been done. MR. STARK-He can't come back by next week. MR. WHITE-I guess I'm not clear on what it is exactly that you want. MR. BREWER-I've got it written down. What we discussed is an overlay map as to where the vegetation was disturbed. We want you to move the fence in on the west side and the south side. You show us on the map where you're going to fill in the gaps and with what, and what ~ question was, well, it relates to the last thing I said, is what kind of plants, and how many are you going - 22 - '--' '~ '--" -.-" to put in. MR. PALING-Yes. That's got to be shown on the new plan. MR. BREWER-Clearly show your property line on the map, then show, in another line, the 50 foot buffer, or whatever buffer, is required on the plan, and then show us what you're going to put in the plan, right? That's what ~ suggestion is. MR. MARTIN-I think the plan should focus on where the intrusions into the buffer have occurred. MR. OBERMAYER-And, Jim, someone from your office can go out to, and verify it? MR. MARTIN-And we'll verify it, once what we're looking for, Bill, is display on a site plan of, where located that's out there now, and to visually shown. it's been received. I guess just a visualization or a is the existing vegetation what extent? That has to be MR. WHITE-On the south side. MR. MARTIN-And the west side. MR. PALING-Both. MR. WHITE-The west there's no vegetation to show you. MR. BREWER-All right. Then you can show us with what you're going to move that fence back and what you might put on the other side of it. MR. OBERMAYER-But there is some vegetation on the other side of the fence, though, right now. MR. MARTIN-Why it's useful for us to have that is we need to check and see if, in fact, you've maintained what you've said you were going to maintain, which was a, I think, when I scale off the existing vegetation along the south side, from the property line, that was supposed to be approximately 40 feet wide, the entire length of that south side. MR. WHITE-Okay. I understand better, I think. MR. MARTIN-And now if you've backed a bulldozer in some areas or something, and you've intruded to where it's only 25 feet or something, then we need to see where that's shown. MR. WHITE-You're looking for more detail than what's shown on that plan? MR. PALING-Quite a bit more. MR. BREWER-And beefed up somewhat, beefed up a little bit. MR. WHITE-It's really (lost word) issue at all. I think, although they've taken a lot of the blame for this, it's not entirely their fault, and their direction is, make it right, and we're going to make it right. MR. MARTIN-So can we get an agreed upon schedule of events here? When could you have a plan indicating the level of clearing done today or the existing situation? MR. WHITE-I'll be here all day tomorrow. I think I can take some measurements, get some existing data, by next week. MR. PALING-All right. Then you can't make the next meeting. - 23 - -,' ........ MR. MARTIN-Do you want to make it for the first meeting in March, then, that we'll take this up again? MR. WHITE-That's fine. MR. MARTIN-At this point, like I said, the landscaping usually occurs in the latter phases of the project. MR. PALING-Yes. That'll be March 21st. MR. MARTIN-And that'll give us plenty of time for us to verify that, and make sure that it's adequate. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-Before you go on, I just wanted to ask Jim a question. At the beginning of this, you made the comment about comparing plantings with contours and stuff for grading contours. Is that going to be something that our Board is going to have to look into now in the future, or is that something that you, as staff, will take care of, and Rist-Frost? MR. MARTIN-We will look at you'll get, you, often times all those plans, and if you th~t things are matching up, give you. that also, but I just, you know, on a project like this, you'll get just, as an exercise, to make sure lay those over one another, that'll HR. MACEWAN~We usuali~ get blueprints. T~at was going to be my question. Are we goi ng to get my lars' so we can over lay them? MR. MARTIN-No. What ~ would dOls place it on a light table, so that you can make those sort of overlays even on a blueprint~ MR. MACEWAN-Will you requisition us those visual light table for home? MR. MARTIN-Well, we'll check them as a staff. I was just saying, you could even scale it off. If you scale off the dimensions of that five foot drainage pipe, even with a scale ruler, you could see that that was going to cause a problem. MR. MACEWAN-Okay, but I guess the point I was getting at, your department and Rist-Frost, if needed, will be policing and looking at those issues, not us? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's exactly right. MH. PALING-Okay. MR. OLSON-Are you finished with Walmart? MR. PALING-We're finished for tonight, but we'll be doing it again the 21st of March. MR. BREWER-We've got to table it, Bob. MR. PALING-Do we need a motion to table? MR. MARTIN-I would. MR. MACEWAN-You need the applicant's consent. MR. PALING-Okay. motion? Bill, we have your consent to table this MR. OBERMAYER-Until the 21st? MR. WHITE-Sure. - 24 - "--..' --./ '-.,,/ MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 31-93 NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: To provide the applicant an opportunity to furnish to the Planning Staff, One, an overlay map for the south and west sides especially. Two, show new plantings and replacement plantings. Three, show new fence locations, all to be submitted by March 1st. Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm going to leave in a little while. My students would like me to be somewhere, but I will introduce this and stay for a few minutes. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. 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 AVENUE AND QUAKER ROAD. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.39 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.808 AND 1.581 ACRES TO CONSTRUCT A MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 2-1995 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-3.3 LOT SIZE: 3.39 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ED BEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. Scott? MR. HARLICKER-We didn't have any other formal notes, but just to bring you up to date as to what's happened since the last meeting. McDonald's was before the Zoning Board last week, seeking an Area Variance to allow a driveway within 150 feet of any adjacent driveways, and that variance was denied. So they do have to meet the 150 foot separation distance between driveways, and there was also a letter that Cathy can read in, I suppose, from Joanna Brunso, dated February 7th, a representative from the Glens Falls Transportation Counsel, and she reviewed it, also sent this project down to DOT for their review. MRS. LABOMBARD-Would you like me to read it? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. "Dear Jim: I have reviewed the site plan and traffic impact study for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant on Dix Avenue between Quaker Road and Route 32, aka Highland Avenue, and would like you to be aware of the comments listed below. In addition I asked Mark Kennedy, NYSDOT Region 1 Permit Engineer, to review this application within the same time frame. NYSDOT does not have jurisdiction in this matter as the access requested by McDonald's Restaurant is not on a NYS highway, but because of the proximity of NYS Route 32, they do have an interest. The McDonald's proposal calls for the subdivision of a triangular lot bordered by Quaker Road, Route 32, and Dix Avenue into three lots with the McDonald's proposed restaurant occupying the center lot. While I agree with the conclusions of the traffic impact study that (1) the circulation within the proposed site plan is adequate and (2) that the traffic impact on current levels on Dix Avenue will be slight, the traffic impact study - 25 - -~ ignores the impact of the full buildout of the triangular parcel. Mr. Kennedy agrees with me that combined driveways for two or more of the parcels within the larger parcel would be consistent with the Town of Queensbury's access management policy. Furthermore, I feel that a circulation plan for the entire triangular parcel should be developed with a service road or access drive across the proposed McDonald's parcel from the now vacant parcel to the current gasoline station to limit future adverse traffic impacts on the three roads. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed subdivision and site plan. Sincerely, Joanna M. Brunso Staff Director" MR. MARTIN-You also have a letter there from the Warren County Department of Public Works, or two of them, I should say. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. This is to Jim Martin, regarding Subdivision 3-1995, Site Plan 5-95. "Below are our comments as per above referred-to subdivision and site plan: ... .B. Site Plan #5-95 - McDonald's Corporation See enclosed copy of 12/12/94 letter to Ed Beeler. We have no further comments on this project at this time. In closing, if the above two projects are approved, the applicants will have to acquire driveway permits from this office before construction commences. Very truly yours, Roger Gebo Dep. Superintendent Warren County DPW" And the second letter "Dear Mr. Beeler: The Warren County Dept. of Public Works reviewed the proposed McDonald's Restaurant site plan adjacent to CR 42 - Dix Avenue and we have the following comments to make: A. All storm water will remain on the proposed site. No storm water will be allowed to flow in the bounds of CR 70 - Quaker Road. B. We suggest moving the project 16 feet southerly due to the fact that we will be adding another 12' wide lane next to the existing east bound lane on Dix Avenue in the next couple of years. C. Finally, we would like to see a four foot wide curbed median between the ingress lane and the egress lane (left turnout). We will be available at your convenience to discuss the above if you so desire. Thank you, in advance, for letting us comment on the above property. Very truly yours, Roger Gebo Dep. Superintendent" And there's one more, in regard to McDonald's, and it's submitted by Robert Eddy "In the Subdivision Ordinance is a provision that bears site preparation prior to approval of project by the Planning Board. The penalty is a five year waiting period. There were several buildings removed and other site preparation by King Fuels. The buildings were historic. Please consider this when reviewing this application. Respectfully submitted, Robert L. Eddy" MR. BREWER-Can I just make one comment on that? I think that prOV1Slon he's talking about is clear cutting, and I don't think that pertains to the site. MR. MARTIN-I don't think that site was clear cut. MR. BREWER-It was clear cut, but I think more than five years ago. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-I don't think the Ordinance pertains to the buildings being taken down. MR. OBERMAYER-What about the other one? Do we have to mention that, the Warren County Planning Board denied it? MR. MARTIN-That was for the Variance, and site plan also. Yes. MR. BREWER-This is not site plan. This is just subdivision. MR. PALING-This is just subdivision anyway. Okay. do you have anymore comments? Scott, Jim, - 26 - ',-" '-"' ----- '-./ MR. HARLICKER-Just the outstanding issue here is access to the two sites, whether it's going to be by a single curb cut, which is staff's position, or one access from each particular piece of property. MR. PALING-Isn't that second, now, in order of the 150 foot requirement between access? MR. MARTIN-That almost limits you to one access point, now, at this point. MR. PALING-I have a lot of questions on that. MR. BREWER-Do you propose one access on that now? MR. BEELER-Yes. My name is Ed Beeler. with McDonald's. I'm a Project Manager MR. BREWER-None of us have copies of that? MR. BEELER-We just finished this. I did not have a chance to get it to Staff, unfortunately. MR. BREWER-Then it would be ~ position that we all get a chance to look at it. MR. PALING-I'd like to see it reviewed generally, but I think you're right. We may have to take time to review it in detail. MR. BREWER-I mean, how can we review it now when we haven't even seen it? MR. HARLICKER-Well, this is subdivision also. MR. BEELER-This is subdivision. So, I just wanted to, so that what we will be doing is going with a single curb cut that can serve the two properties, and going to the subdivision, then the subdivision map, which I have here, has been revised to show an easement area for the curb cut. So, basically, we will be able to meet the requirements that staff has recommended, with going with one curb cut, now that the Variance has been denied. MR. BREWER-Do you have maps for us to look at? MR. PALING-That's not the same map as you've got up here. MR. BEELER-That's the site plan, which I wanted to show you how we're proposing the access. This here is the subdivision map which, the parcel McDonald's would be purchasing stays the same. However, on Dix Avenue you'll see there's like a little rectangular area, which is the proposed easement to be granted to McDonald's, and that would be the area for the curb cut that is shown on the site plan there. MR. BREWER-Could I ask you a question, Mark? MR. PALING-This isn't too much different than the plan we have, because this part here, and this gives you 150 feet from where? Where are you pointing to? MR. BEELER-From here, this point here shows 150 feet. MR. PALING-Okay. So you're going to take that as an easement, and that's where you're going to plan your. MR. SCHACHNER-They need to have. MR. BREWER-They have to show us an access. MR. SCHACHNER-An access, correct, before the subdivision is - 27 - ',--- '-' -- appì" oved . MR. BREWER-So this is really no good to us because it doesn't show an access, if they don't have that easement. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. You need to show the access. MR. BEELER-Well, how do you show, the easement is, there's McDonald's, for ingress and egress. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you have to show us the access. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, he shows us right there. MR. BEELER-That's it, and this plan here, and I can show access, that's, or we can put a note on here for final subdivision approval to see drawing CiA, whatever. MR. SCHACHNER-Why isn't that drawing this drawing? MR. BEELER-Because what I understood, this was the required subdivision map. MR. OBERMAYER-For the subdivision. This is the site plan. MR. MACEWAN-That's the site plan map. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-We're interweaving these two together. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, interweaving is correct, but it would be nice if they were consistent, in terms of access, that's all I'm saying. MR. PALING-Well, don't we really have to know access before we can act on a subdivision? MR. BREWER-We certainly do. We just denied one last month for that. MR. PALING-Because we can't divide lots and then have people come back and say, I've got a right to have an access, and we say, no. I think we've got to have a knowledge of access now. MR. BREWER-On this subdivision map, don't we, Leon, or our attorney says we do. MR. BEELER-Well, we're not showing, on this subdivision map, where our building is and how everything's being circulated. So I'm not sure how to? We could draw another curb cut, I guess, if that's what you're looking for. MR. PALING-Well, we could ask for an access in traffic circulation, though, I think is good for a subdivision, and that may, does this show it? MR. OBERMAYER-Well, that drawing there pretty much shows it. MR. BREWER-Yes, but we're approving this map, Jim. di fference. That's the MR. OBERMAYER-Well, we can ask for it to be identified on the map, though. MR. BEELER-I mean, this is identified to the point where it says, to be granted to McDonald's Corporation for, it would be filed along with the subdivision, the easement would be filed. MR. PALING-Now, what about this one here? - 28 - ',-", ~ .........,,' '......./" MR. OBERMAYER-That goes into King Fuels, which is right here. MR. PALING-Okay. So we're concerned with this. Now this looks okay, 50 foot there to there. It looks all right, and there's one. MR. OBERMAYER-Did you set this back, also, the distance that they had requested? MR. BEELER-Originally, we had a 59 foot setback, and this is set back 85 feet. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. You added the extra 26 feet there. Good. MR. PALING-Mark, can we approve this as the subdivision? This print is just showing up here tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, as far as the print showing up here tonight, you know that you have regulations about when things are submitted, but you also have the ability to waive that. That's a judgment call that you all have to make, but I would caution you not to approve a subdivision unless it has appropriate access, for the reasons that some of the Board members have mentioned, that you don't want to have approved lots and then have an applicant say, well, we have approved lots. Now how do we get to and from them? Now the other thing to keep in mind, of course, is this is Preliminary subdivision, not final subdivision approval, so you can deal with it as you see fit, in terms of whether you want to go forward with the conditions or you want to wait and see this all on one map at the same time. MR. PALING-All right. Then the question I, lets try to do it, try to get it through. The question I have now, will the other lot be, will they be able to have access from the other lot? MR. BEELER-Yes, because this is an easement access. So King is still retaining ownership of So he would have the rights to access there also, ownership of that property. granted us for this property. since he has an MR. OBERMAYER--So, is it goi ng to be stated, though, that it is an easement, also, for this property right here? MR. BREWER-It doesn't have to be. It's on their property. MR. BEELER-Because they own the property. MR. PALING-But they don't own this anymore. MR. BEELER-Yes, they do. MR. BREWER-They still own it. MR. PALING-They will retain that? MR. BEELER-Yes. We just have easement rights over it for ingress and eg)- ess . MR. PALING-All right. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. long as they add it for final. My personal opInIon is, it's preliminary. As to the plat, you know, when they bring it in MR. PALING-Okay. I'm comfortable with the access the way they're showing it. Are you guys comfortable with it the way they're showing it? MR. OBERMAYER--Yes, I'm comfortable wi th it. - 29 - - MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BEELER-And I can add anything to here that the Board so desires. MR. STARK-I'm satisfied to go forward, and then everything will be done by next week, because they'll be on next week. MR. PALING-All right. Do you guys agree, or what comments do you have'? MR. MACEWAN-I want to hear one more time from Mark clarification to that, as far as noting it on the drawing without having it actually being legally done yet. MR. BREWER-Well, we can approve it at Preliminary, and then when he comes back with Final, it has to be on there. MR. MACEWAN-It has to be on there. MR. BREWER-Mark, they have to obtain some sort of paperwork saying that they do have access, rather than just stating so on the map? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, if we're talking about an easement, yes, the Board has certainly has the authority to require some evidence of having that easement. MR. BREWER-Okay. So then if we go ahead with this tonight, you're going to have to provide us with evidence. MR. BEELER-I mean, we can get the documents, except that an easement wouldn't be recorded until we had final subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but we could have a proposed document? MR. BEELER-Sure. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I don't think anyone's talking about already having been recorded. MR. MARTIN-We know you can't file it. MR. BEELER-We could have a proposed document. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with it, then, as long as you can provide us with that by whenever you come back. MR. PALING-All right. Are there any other questions or comments by the Board? MR. BREWER-Now, how do we, the only question that-I have, and I'm not suspecting anything, but the 150 is met. Does that affect any other parcel or piece of this subdivision? MR. MARTIN-Not down the balance of Dix Avenue, because then the lot here to be retained by the Kings will also have access. MR. BEELER-So there would be no other future curb cuts, then. MR. MARTIN-This parcel now is all set, the Kings gas station and the McDonald's, and the future development further to the east is all, the access is all taken care of. MR. MACEWAN-Let me ask you a question, this letter to McDonald's from Roger Gebo. In Paragraph B he's suggesting that the entire site plan be moved at 16 feet southerly. MR. BREWER-That's a site plan issue. , - 30 - '-' ..- ',,--, -....../ MR. MACEWAN-Yes, I know. Wait a minute now, that's a site plan issue, but how would that affect this easement? If your site plan is now going to change, will you need to have more of an easement to access your site? MR. OBERMAYER-They show it on the drawing, Craig. MR. BREWER-They're just coming back, Craig. They're just moving the building back toward Highland. MR. MACEWAN-The building or the whole site plan? He's making reference to the whole site plan in here, not just the building. MR. BREWER-The site plan would be the building, wouldn't it? MR. MACEWAN-Well, it would be the parking lot as well, not just the building. MR. BREWER-Well, the parking lot is not a big deal, if they're going to move the building back. MR. MACEWAN-It is if his easement is going to be that. MR. MARTIN-I thought you had moved the building back once al ready? MR. BEELER-We originally had a setback of 59 feet. We moved it backed to 85, 26 feet. MR. MARTIN-That was in light of that comment from the County. MR. BREWER-If they move it back this way, Craig, they're going to have to move their parking lot back. MR. MACEWAN-You're not understanding me. Right. Now how does that affect the easement he's got set up for that showing on that site plan, which isn't moved? MR. BREWER-How far is this easement? what you're saying, now. Thirty-five feet. I see MR. MACEWAN-If they're asking you to move this thing 16 feet. MR. STARK-You would have to get an easement to show another 16 feet. MR. MACEWAN-Your easement, with the whole site plan. way. This easement, now, site plan. I'd like to instead of coming back here get a final site plan with to move again. now, will have to move 16 feet to go They're asking to move 16 feet this has got to change to accommodate the see you get that squared away now, next week hoping that you're going to an easement that's now going to have MR. BEELER-Mr. King said, (lost word) need as little as possible, what you need to make it work. MR. BREWER-Well then tell him you're going to need another 16 feet. MR. MACEWAN-That's what they're asking. They're asking the whole site plan to move 16 feet southerly. MR. RUEL-Who's asking that? MR. MARTIN-The County D.P.W. MR. MACEWAN-The County. MR. MARTIN-They're the one's granting the driveway permit on - 31 - -- this. So it's their call. MR. MACEWAN-So when document, you want to now. you go draw up this add 16 more feet to it proposed easement than what you have MR. BEELER-We have 16 feet green space behind our driveway there. MR. MACEWAN-Just want to be sure that there'll be no glitches when you come back here next week. MR. MARTIN-Well, if I were you, I would construct a driveway with a 16 foot longer throat to it, so that when the County does come through and add that lane, you're not going to be forced with having that at that time. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That's another thing that they had mentioned, right, that they were going to put another wing. MR. BREWER-Now I'm a little bit confused again. Now we're going to do the SEQRA, ~nd we talked about it last time. Are we going to do it pertaining to the site plan, and if we are, then what do we do about that? Do we have it engineered yet, or did our engineer look at it to give us any comments? !"IR. MARTIN-He looked at the site plan. 1'1R. BREWER-Did he give us any comments? MR. RUEL-Can't we wait until the site plan? MR. MARTIN-They were faxed to us today. MR. RUEL-So we can't do it. MR. BREWER-How can we? MR. PALING-Do we have to do SECRA tonight? MR. BEELER-The comments from Rist-Frost were very minor. MR. HARLICKER-You've got copies of them there? I'm. BEELER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-You don't have to do SEQRA tonight. You don't have to do anything tonight. MR. PALING-Could we do the SEQRA at the next meeting? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure, but you can't give your Preliminary approval unless you've done your SEQRA. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. STARK-We can do, next week, the Preliminary and the Final both. We've done that in the past. MR. PALING-In the same meeting. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, we can do that. MR. RUEL-Lets table this one. MR. OBERMAYER-And then we have everything. Is that? MR. BEELER-Sure. MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, I want to see the notes from Rist-Frost, so that Icl§. have adequate time to look at them. So we - 32 - '''--- '--- -......./ -/' come in here and we stand here and we say, gee, we didn't get our notes until yesterday. I'm not saying that's what will happen, but I would like the notes to look at them, so that I can make a decision on. MR. PALING-Well, they're in your hands now? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-We should be able to receive them in time. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. PALING-As a matter of fact, I can go back and copy them right now. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, you can give them to us on Friday, right? MR. PALING-Well, the sooner the better. revised site plan? When will see the MR. SCHACHNER-It's currently on for both next week. Next week's agenda has both subdivision final stage and site plan. MR. BREWER-When do you anticipate construction? MR. BEELER-April 1st. MR. BREWER-Do we have to preliminary, final, site crowding things? rush to do this, I plan next week? mean, if we've got Isn't that kind of MR. BEELER-If I could just make a comment on that. I did submit a letter asking that a lot of the engineering type review be waived for subdivision, because it would all be reviewed under site plan review. In order to move ahead with the subdivision, waive the engineering comments, since they do your site plan review, because it's a simple site plan. MR. BREWER-But we have to do SEQRA for the subdivision, and we have to take the site plan into consideration for SECRA. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. That's the problem. MR. PALING-So that can't be done tonight. MR. OBERMAYER-So we need the engineering comments before we do SEQRA. We could do it next week. MR. RUEL-Yes. Why not. MR. PALING-Why can't we do the whole thing in one night next week? MR. RUEL-Why not? MR. BREWER-I don't know, I just, you can if you want to. MR. STARK-Next week isn't that crowded. MR. RUEL-Why do we have to wait? MR. BREWER-We don't. MR. MACEWAN-When will we get the subdivision maps to us, and engineering comments? MR. MARTIN-I can get you the engineering comments before the end of the night tonight. In terms of the revised plan, that's up to - 33 - '- the applicant, whenever he can produce those. MR. BEELER-The revised map I could get here by the end of the ~<-Jeek . MR. MARTIN-Showing the 16 foot change, right, and the proposed deed language. MR. MACEWAN-We'd want to see the new subdivision and the new site plan maps. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-We've got to see them both. MR. MACEWAN-We'd have to have them in our possession could be delivered to us on Friday. Can you do that? you can get copies of them to the Planning Department, they can distribute them on Friday. so they So that so that MR. OBERMAYER-We need to have the site plan, if we're going to loo k at that. MR. BEELER-The site plan's done. The subdivision map just needs to be revised. MR. MACEWAN-The site plan you've modified, though. It's not the same site plan that we've looked at. Okay. So it's a new map. We need the new map. Okay. MR. MARTIN-So we need 10 copies of all that by Friday. MR. OBERMAYER-You know what I would like to see, also, on the site plan, is where the egress and ingress is from King Fuels, too, if possible, to show it coming out on 254 there, just to see if that lines up with the other, for King Fuels gas station. I'd like to kind of see where they come in and out also, in relationship to, I know that one, but there's one on 254 also. MR. BEELER-Over here? MR. OBERMAYER-Over here, to see how that lines up. Of course it looks like, right now, the way you have it coming in, it's right in to where the existing building is, for the gas station. MR. BEELER-Well, no. The building for the gas station is out here in the center. This here is a concrete (lost word). MR. MACEWAN-What difference does it make where the ingress and egress is for the King Fuels, compared to this? MR. OBERMAYER-Well, because you know, you want it to line up, have to be driving around the they're going to be using that don't necessarily want them, you almost, instead of, so you don't gas station to get out, because as an egress. MR. MACEWAN-The object behind that ingress/egress is it as a quick out to get on Quaker Road. The object over to the gas station. not to use is to get MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but if you have an ingress and egress right there, you can bet that people. MR. BREWER-I can envision that, somebody coming down Quaker Road, cutting right through King's and going to McDonald's. MR. OBERMAYER-And going to McDonald's, so can I, and leaving that same way. Why would they make a right hand turn if they want to go 254? They're going to come out right there, from King Fuels. - 34 - '-,...' '---' --- MR. PALING-Yes, they go through King Fuel to do it. MR. OBERMAYER-If they're going to go toward Hudson Falls, they could possibly go out King Fuels. MR. HARLICKER-Why wouldn't you go out Dix and turn at the light? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. It would seem to me you'd have the light, plus you'd also be easier just to go right down Dix. MR. BREWER-I can see what he's saying. If somebody's coming down Quaker and sees McDonald's, I can see them whipping into King's and go right through that cut in the back there. MR. OBERMAYER-Or lets say they want to go to K-Mart. shoot right across. They'll MR. PALING-Well, what are you proposing, Jim? MR. OBERMAYER-It would be Just nice to see where the ingress and egress is for King Fuels, on 254. MR. BREWER-That's a big, broad wide open area. MR. MACEWAN-All right. Let me significance of that? Suppose they he be able to accomplish? ask you, what would be the aren't lined up? What would MR. OBERMAYER-It's not a convenient (lost word). MR. BREWER-No, because there's a light there. MR. BEELER-(Lost word) if you come from here, go around the building, circle around. I mean, it's not a. MR. OBERMAYER-You don't think that's going to ever happen at all? MR. BEELER-I think we have a survey that shows. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Why don't you show the building. MR. BREWER-Isn't that all open, from the corner back to that next lot? So there really isn't a curb cut from Quaker to Kings. I think it's all open. MR. OBERMAYER-No. There's a curb cut on the road right there. MR. BREWER-It's pretty damn wide, though, I think. MR. OBERMAYER-There's a big ditch that runs along there, also, on that side of the road. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we need a motion to table this, then. May we have your consent to table this? MR. BEELER-Yes. MR. PALING-Until next meeting. MR. MARTIN-Provided that the information is submitted by noon on Friday. MR. PALING-All right. We'll make it part of the motion. Right. MR. MARTIN-If we get it by noon, we can make the deliveries Friday afternoon. MR. MACEWAN-And you're also going to check into reconfiguring your easement requirements. MR. RUEL-You're going to have two revised plans, site and - 35 - ¥',-"" subdivision. MR. MARTIN-And proposed deed language for the easements and all that. MR. BREWER-Actually, you're going preliminary, final, and site plan. to have to Correct? have three maps, MR. MARTIN-If the Board wants to do all three in one night. ¡VIR. MACEWAN-I don't feel comfortable doing it. MR. MARTIN-I, historically, have never seen that done. MR. PALING-We don't have that many different issues to cover, I don't think. They're going to apply for easement. They're going to change the easement. They're going to submit a new site plan and a new subdivision map. MR. MACEWAN-Did you expect to have a problem with the easement tonight? MR. PALING-Did I expect it? No. Well, ye~,I did. I expected a lot more of a problem than he's showing. MR. MACEWAN-Did you know that the County wanted him to move the site plan 16 feet south? MR. PALING-No. I did 150 foot problem, and many different issues don't see why we can't not know that. All I knew about was the it doesn't seem to me that we have that to consider, and maybe I'm wrong, but I do it. MR. OBERMAYER-I don't think there's that many issues, either, to consider, and I think we ought to give it a shot. MR. RUEL-What happens, at the next meeting, if what is submitted is not p~'oper? MR. PALING-Then we can't approve it. MR. OBERMAYER-We'vegot to tab¡e'it to the following meeting. MR. BREWER-I dón't 4nderstandwhat the big rush is? I mean, historically, this Board has n~ver dons anything like that. MR. RUEL-No, no. There is no big rush, but, what is the advantage of prolonging it, and why? What would the time do? MR. BREWER-There isn't really an advantage to it, but why do we have three different meetings for three different items? Why the hell don't we just have one meeting for everything? MR. RUEL-Good idea. MR. BREWER-I think out here tonight we it, and then there's we'd have taken our without problems. it's a bad idea, because what we're finding didn't know last time. So if we rush through a problem down the road, well, gee, maybe if time and done it, it would have been done MR. RUEL-All right. How would you propose to bYeak it up? MR. BREWER-I would say at least do Preliminary and Final, and then if we need, make another meeting a week from now and do it then, if they're not going to start until April 1. MR. BEELER-I don't have a problem if you'd like to table the site plan review to. - 36 - ",,-,., . '--' ---' ... MR. OBERMAYER-March? MR. RUEL-I don't have any problem with that. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with a week or so, but I think if we go into these meetings and we do, bang, bang, bang, I mean. MR. PALING-Well, if it's never been done and the applicant doesn't have a problem with a delay like this, then, fine, lets do it, lets put it into two meetings. MR. RUEL-Fine, that's good. MR. BEELER-So the next week, and the, what? MR. PALING-March 21st. MR. RUEL-Yes, but you can still submit everything by the date that we indicated, right? MR. PALING-Yes, right. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Introduced by its adoption, seconded by George Stark: SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1994 Roger Ruel who moved for Tabled until the applicant has an opportunity to submit a new subdivision and site plans and easement grant documentation, all to be submitted to Planning Staff no later than noon, 2/24/95. Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN A. & STEPHANIE B. MASON HOWARD & MARCIA KRANTZ OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: N.E. INTERSECTION OF FARM TO MARKET ROAD AND BAY ROAD. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.79 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 COMMERCIAL LOTS OF 1.48 ACRES, 1.21 ACRES AND 1.10 ACRES. (APPROVAL GRANTED 10/25/90, BUT PLANS WERE NEVER FILED IN COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.) CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 7-1989 TAX MAP NO. 27-1-40 LOT SIZE: 3.79 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. RUEL-Scott, why are we doing this? MR. HARLICKER-Because they never got the map filed and the approval lapsed. MR. RUEL-What's the time frame on that? MR. HARLICKER-Sixty days. MR. RUEL-They went way beyond it. MR. PALING-Okay. Scott, do you have comments on this? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-1995 Preliminary Stage, John & Stephanie Mason Howard & Marcia Krantz, Meeting Date: February 21, 1995 "The applicant is proposing a three lot - 37 - -- commercial subdivision. The lots will have interconnected parking areas and will share a single access from Bay Road. Future connection is provided to the adjacent commercial lot to the north. Because of the historical significance of the structure at the corner of Bay and Rt. 149 a landscaped buffer should be provided. This subdivision had final approval granted in 1990 but the plat was never filed with the county so the approval expired. During that review process the subdivision underwent an engineering review by Rist-Frost. The plat before the Board is the same plat that was previously approved. Each of the individual lots will be subject to site plan review when plans for their development are submitted. At that time the final design of the buildings and parking areas, clearing up and landscaping and engineering details will be worked out." MR. MARTIN-Yes. This whole thing was completely approved in 1990. It just simply was not filed, for whatever reason, I don't know, but it was completely approved. MR. PALING-There is no obvious access to these lots on this pr i nt . MR. STEVES-Yes, there is, right off of Lot 2 on Bay Road. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, right in the middle of the whole thing. MR. STARK-It's internalized. MR. OBERMAYER-It's all internalized, Bob. MR. PALING-All right. Then it should be opened up. only access you've got? Is this the MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. OBERMAYER-They have one access point. MR. MARTIN-That was done by design. MR. PALING-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I have a question, remotely connected with this application and the previous one. We talk about historical buildings. Do we have an Ordinance covering that? MR. HARLICKER-The Town Historian looked at building at the corner was one of the original hou.ses . this, and that one room school MR. RUEL-I'm not talking about that one in particular. I'm talking about all hist01"ical buildings. MR. MARTIN-There's no Ordinance. MR. RUEL-There's nothing covering that? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. RUEL-So if there is one, some developer could come and just rip it down and that's it, and we have no control over it? MR. MARTIN-The only time you have any sort of protection of historic buildings or treatments is if you have federal or state aid involved. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-If it's on a register. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, not just federal or state aid. Any type of federal or state permit or approval that's required triggers - 38 - '--~ --- '-./ either the National Historic Preservation Act or the New York State Historic Preservation Act, but those are triggered by federal or state approvals, as opposed to town approvals. MR. RUEL-I understand that, but supposing we do have a building in Queensbury of historical significance, not necessarily in the register, but we feel it could be, what control do we have in keeping that structure intact, if any? MR. SCHACHNER-Not much, other than, I mean, if you feel that something is eligible for listing, and you have a willing property owner who wants to pursue it, people can ask both the federal and state offices of Historic Preservation whether something is eligible for listing, but at the local level, there's not a lot of control, relative to the state and federal level. MR. RUEL-Jim, do you feel that, perhaps, we should have something related to that? Other communities have it. That's the reason I mentioned it. MR. MARTIN-I don't know if it's a problem, but the situation in this current community is that there's not that many historical structures in our commercial areas that qualify for listing. There's only a handful that come to mind. MR. RUEL-Why did you mention commercial? MR. MARTIN-Because that's where you do the bulk of your commercial, or your site plan review, is in commercial properties. You have very few residential site plan reviews. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, let me just add to that a little bit. There are, it's not to say that there is absolutely no control or leverage whatsoever at the Town level, on the historic preservation issue. I mean, two things come to !I!..'l. mind that give you some. One is, under SEQRA, one of the considerations is whether something will have an impact on something of historic relevance. That's one of the questions you read whenever you go through a SEQRA form. MR. RUEL-That's right. That's good. MR. SCHACHNER-The other thing is that the site plan review criteria do include a statement that says, the project would not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, etc., etc., etc., resources of the Town. MR. RUEL-What's the 179-38? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. It's Subsection D in 179-38. So you do have some aspect, there, of control over historic preservation. What you don't have is a specific ordinance like you do at the federal and state levels. MR. MARTIN-Like, if King's came in and did, in fact, demolish some historic buildings that weren't part of a site plan, they just bought the property and demolished the buildings, there's really not a whole lot we can do, at a local level, to stop that. MR. SCHACHNER-But you also could, in theory, withhold approval of somebody wishing to demolish something. MR. RUEL-They apparently took a building down. permit for that, don't they? They need a MR. MARTIN-Yes, a demolition permit. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry I interrupted with all - 39 - "'-' ~ this. MR. PALING-Any other comments? MR. MARTIN-Again, this was a fully approved subdivision. Had it not been for the filing, it would not be here. You need a SEQRA review and a public hearing. MR. PALING-Yes. We need a public hearing. I have one question, though, and it may sound silly, but just for the record, these other lots, now, cannot apply for access? MR. HARLICKER-Correct. MR. BREWER-Why can't they apply for it? MR. STEVES-No, under site plan review, they would. For the record, my name is Leon Steves. One of the requests that was made by the Planning Staff was that the tentative description be given of an ingress/egress, and I had a choice of either doing that in an easement form or recording it in deed form, or put it on the map. I elected to put it on the map and tonight, of course, one of the questions was, could they move that and put the buildings closer to the road and the parking further away. Well, of course, the minute you do that, you're altering that, which is fine. So I had a good choice when I put it on the map, because you can alter that map in any way you wish under site plan review. MR. RUEL-That's site plan. This is subdivision. MR. STEVES-It's your choice. MR. RUEL-Okay. Fine. That answers your question. MR. PALING-As long as it's not locked in, then 1 have no problem ~..¡ith it. MR. STEVES-I don't think it's locked in for either one, to put it that way. MR. PALING-Oka,'. MR. MARTIN-The main thing ~like to maintain is the one access point on Bay Road to service all three lots. Where that falls. MR. PALING-Right, and that's, I guess, what my real point is there. I'd like to see this limited to single access for the three lots, now and in the future. MR. STEVES-That's your choice. MR. RUEL-Can we make that a condition? MR. STEVES-I would think that if someone review that wanted to bring in two lots would look at it differently than you three lot subdivision. came in with a site plan in total, as to one, you would tonight with the MR. OBERMAYER-And that there'll be no access from Farm to Market Road. MR. PALING-Yes. No access from Farm to Market Road. MR. STEVES-Yes. None is shown and none is proposed. MR. MARTIN-I don't think the topography would permit it, either. MR. RUEL-Have you got a public hearing on this, or not? - 40 - ',--- ',,--, -.../ '-'" MR. PALING-Yes. There's got to be a public hearing. Now do we do SEQRA f i )"st? MR. MARTIN-Public hearing first. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone here from the public that would like to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANNE MARIE LOCKHART MS. LOCKHART-My name is Anne Marie Lockhart, and I live directly across the street from this proposed subdivision, and I am concerned about the access to this subdivision. MR. PALING-Which street do you live on? MS. LOCKHART-I live on Bay. I from where the proposed access of the neighbors up there are is a residential area. Our concerned about traffic flow, forever wild. believe I'm almost directly across is to the subdivision, and several concerned about this, because this homes are spaced apart. We're concerned about that being in the MR. STEVES-If I may, we have shown the driveway on the opposite side of the road. Is this your driveway? MS. LOCKHART-No. MR. STEVES-You're further up. MS. LOCKHART-I'm 500 feet from this property. MR. STEVES-Right. MS. LOCKHART-Well, you're still very close to where I am, and (lost word) for all of us. MR. STEVES-It's about 100 feet (lost word) driveway. MS. LOCKHART-Yes. MR. RUEL-Is that whole side of that Bay Road, that's all residential? MS. LOCKHART-Yes. MR. RUEL-So, regardless of where the access road would be, it would be across some residential lot. MS. LOCKHART-Exactly. MR. RUEL-But it so happens it's across from you. MS. LOCKHART-It's roughly, so we aren't concerned about that. MR. RUEL-How wide is that Bay Road at that point? MR. PALING-It's a two lane road, right? MR. STEVES-It's a 50 foot right-of-way. MR. RUEL-Well, that's not bad. MR. PALING-Is there anyone else from the public that would like to comment on this? MR. STEVES-Tim, I was told that one may be coming. - 41 - MR. PALING-I'm sorry. I didn't get the question. MR. BREWER-I was just curious about the, every site plan, or not every, but the majority of the site plans all have the parking in the front. I think, in IT!..l: opinion, why wouldn't IrJe put the parking in the back, instead of going down a road and seeing nothing but blacktop everywhere in this Town? I don't know if you were on the Board or not, but we talked about that. MR. PALING-Yes. We've talked about it several times, but I think the merchants themselves have maybe a different opinion than the Board, and I don't know. MR. BREWER-Right, but we're planning for the Town, not the applicant. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I mean, there's been all kinds of studies out there that show, having parking in the front is not necessarily, say you're going to have a successful, there are a lot of, in Arnsbrook Planning for Rural America, whatever it is, and there's other rural planning books out there, you know, the studies have shown, and they've done, actually gone out and talked to shopping center owners, that when you have parking to the interior lot, that no way, you know, if you've got a good shopping center, if you've got parking on the interior lot, it's not going to hinder the sales, the success. MR. MARTIN-Although never officially adopted, I think it is a good reference document, nonetheless, is the corridor study that exists for this Route that was just done about a year and a half ago, and it was a recommendation out of that plan that, to the extent possible, parking in the commercial areas be to the rear. MR. BREWER-It was just a thought. If we're going into the APA in that part of Town, we're going into the APA. MR. MARTIN-This is in the APA. MR. BREWER-No, I know it's not. MR. MARTIN-It is. MR. BREWER-It is. All right. impression? I know it does to see nothing but buildings and appearance or visually less of Doesn't it just give you a better me, if I drive down the road and I parking lots and cars, a better an impact. MR. RUEL-A lot depends on the amount of vegetation along the road. It could shield all those parking lots, couldn't it? MR. OBERMAYER-And the green space, also. could put some green space in there, too. I mean, you really MR. BREWER-Yes. I mean, you're just going to enhance the shopping center, ¡ think, give it a better appearance. MR. STARK-Tim, we go over that at site review, not for subdivision. MR. BREWER-Yes, but he's got to plan it for the whole thing, is what I'm saying. I mean, it can easily be changed. MR. STARK-Well, we could deal with that at site review, not subdivision. MR. BREWER-One at a time, when they've got one driveway for all three lots? It's just a suggestion. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, what we could incorporate some green space in recommend the front, is that some you try to green space, - 42 - '---' '-' --.-'" --.-" because it does have the parking right up to the edge. If you could set it back, maybe, a little bit, and put some green space along the front of the lot. MR. BREWER-That's what I'm suggesting. If you brought the buildings up to the front, you wouldn't need to put any green space in. If you're going to take it out, why not take it out in the back? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I think we're talking about something we don't need to even be talking about. MR. RUEL-Were you on the Board when that came up the first time, this application, in 1990? MR. OBERMAYER-The applicant probably wouldn't be too in favor of that, I wouldn't imagine. MR. MARTIN-¡ was. MR. RUEL-You were, right? Yes. How come you left the parking in the front? MR. MARTIN-I think the understanding of the Board was that these all have to come back for site plan. The other thing is, you've got a double edged sword here, too, is that this is also going to be seen from Route 149. So there really is no back here. If you put the parking in the back, then it's going to be seen from 149. If you put the parking on the other side, it's seen from Bay Road. MR. BREWER-Well, you can protect that, though, Jim, from 149. You can see, from everything he's got laid out here, how much of a strip has he got from the corner of their property line to the buildings. I mean, you could leave that all wooded. MR. MARTIN-I think it's a good comment. I support the comment, but I think it's something you could also take up at site plan. MR. BREWER--Yes, because theY')N e much. you sure can, but the reason I'm saying is it showing one access for all three lots, pretty MR. OBERMAYER-You might be able to leave more vegetation, though, around the building structures, the way it's set up right now, though, because you might have to clear more property back on the lot, to incorporate parking lots behind it. MR. STEVES-Also, to satisfy the requirements we've had to show a typical lot arrangement. that that's the arrangement. of subdivision, It doesn't mean MR. BREWER-Right. I'm just making a comment. MR. STEVES-I understand, and because you do have site plan review powers, you can at that time, put anything you wish to, which is important, because, five years ago, (lost word) you wouldn't have had this opportunity. MR. PALING-Do you go before the Beautification Committee with this? Is that involved? MR. MARTIN-At site plan it will. MR. PALING-At site plan it will, and they'll see it before we do. Okay. I think the comments have been made. Lets stick to subdivision for tonight. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Sounds good. - 43 - MR. RUEL-So you want a SEQRA here? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-You have to close the public hearing. MR. PALING-Is there any other public comment? close the public hearing. If not, \;,Je will PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. It's a Short SEQRA, is it not? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-1995, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: KRANTZ, and is presently JOHN A. & before the Planning Board an STEPHANIE MASON HOWARD & MARCIA 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 fOT 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 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOE S : NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. A motion to approve. - 44 - '-" --../ '--..-' ---../ MR. MACEWAN-Are we going to do this motion, the limited access to service all three parcels via only one entrance through the center parcel? MR. STARK-On Bay Road. MR. OBERMAYER-On Bay Road. MR. MACEWAN-On Bay Road. MR. RUEL-So I'll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1995 JOHN A. & STEPHANIE B. MASON HOWARD & MARCIA KRANTZ, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application, file # 3- 1995, to subdivide a 3.79 acre parcel into three lots; and Wheíeas, The above application following: íefeíenced preliminaíY subdivision dated 1/17/95 consists of the 1. Sheet 1, map of píoposed subdivision revised 1/11/95; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 2/21/95 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/21/95 concerning the above subdivision; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appíopíiate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment; and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and I,.Jhereas, the píoposed subdivision is subject to following modification and terms prior submission of the plat in final form; the to Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve subdivision MASON & KRANTZ file # 3-1995, with the condition that access be limited to the one presently shown on the--plan dated February 1, 1995, and also to remove easement sketch on the plan as shown. Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: MR. PALING-That access for the three lots. MR. MACEWAN-For all three lots, be limited to. MR. RUEL-Access for all thíee lots be limited to the one shown on the present plan. MR. STEVES-You may want to say access limited to Bay Road. MR. BREWER-Right. - 45 - ~'.. MR. PALING-Yes, and limited to Bay Road. i'1R. BREI,.JER-But what you're saying is, access has to be on Bay Road. MR. RUEL-Access must be on Bay Road and limited to all three loU:3. MR. OBERMAYER-It's a good idea to have the flexibility of moving it, if we want to, at the site plan level. Instead of necessarily limiting it to the center lot. MR. RUEL-If we limit it now, we can't change it later? MR. MACEWAN-No. If you set it up now, so that the access to all three of these parcels is via Bay Road only, through that center parcel, you're now setting up for good planning to make sure that all three site plans will adhere to that, and you won't get three staggered ideas that are going to come in and say, I need to come in off Farm to Market Road. I need to be farther down. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, if you say that you're limiting it to one access point off of Bay Road, you're giving yourself the flexibility to move it anywhere on those three lots that you want. MR. RUEL-Right, and there's nothing wrong with that, is there? MR. OBERMAYER-No, I don't think so. MR. MACEWAN-But if they sell those three lots. MR. OBERMAYER-You're still only going to have one access. MR. PALING-One access from Bay Road, is what we're trying to do. MR. OBERMAYER-From Bay Road. MR. RUEL-I think that's the way it read. MR. ~3TEVES-It just gives YOU more flexibility, and the design for a particular lot some flexibility. incorporate the buffer you've asked for. anyone making We tried to MR. MACEWAN-Does the present owner plan on retaining all three of these parcels, or selling them off? MR. STEVES-Selling them off. MR. PALING-Roger, do you want to just re-read that? I'm not sure exactly how your wording was. Re-word it so that it's access only from Bay Road. MR. RUEL-On the condition that access be limited to Bay Road, to cover all three lots. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. I think that's good. MR. BREWER-Then you're opening it up, one entrance point on Bay Road to access three lots, because if you say entrance only on Bay Road, then that can be interpreted as saying, three. MR. RUEL-A single access point on Bay Road. MR. OBERMAYER-A single access point to access all three lots. MR. MACEWAN-Can I ask Staff a question? How far is it from the intersection of Bay and 149 to that first parcel? MR. MARTIN-Two twenty, Craig. - 46 - '-"' -----' '--' MR. MACEWAN-Two hundred and twenty feet. MR. MARTIN-To the near corner to the intersection. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. PALING-There's got to be a single access. MR. RUEL-A single access from Bay Road. MR. PALING-From Bay Road, to cover all three lots, make that from Bay Road on!}". MR. MACEWAN-Now you're saying single access to service all three parcels, from Bay Road only? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-But you're not saying that it's going to be the center parcel? MR. RIJEL -No. MR. MACEWAN-When do you determine which parcel it's going to be? MR. RUEL-Site. MR. HARLICKER-Whoever comes in first. MR. MACEWAN-So the first guy that comes in here, then you can set it up to say, if he's on the corner, say you're lot's now going to access all the properties? That's not smart. MR. BREWER-That is not good, but on the same hand, how can you make a guy that buys the corner lot make the access on somebody else's lot? MR. OBERMAYER-That's right. MR. STEVES-Well, the buyer's going to have to divulge this, to the seller is going to have to divulge it to the buyer, and the buyer's going to know that he's got a problem to face and to address when he comes to site plan. MR. BREWER-I can see it right now. Somebody coming in for a modification is going to access his own lot. MR. MACEWAN-I think we should do it, and we do it now. MR. MARTIN-I think, if you want to restrict this to the second lot in or the third lot, you just did it with McDonald's. You can do that now, if that's what you want to do. MR. MACEWAN-I'm trying to sway the rest of these guys. MR. MARTIN-I would say, f)"om!1l:l. point of view, I wouldn't have any problem with a second or third lot, but the first one, I'd leave it open to the second or third lot in through Bay Road, but not that first one. MR. MACEWAN-I think the advantage of doing it now, it would save any guesswork or any surprises to any future developers who may buy those other parcels to come in here. MR. RUEL-Well, why don't we say, as shown on the plan? MR. PALING-Or limited to lots number. MR. MARTIN-Well, we just had McDonald's supply us with deed language. - 47 - - MR. BREWER-Aren't we actually, if we say that, if those lots are subdivided, follow me, but I'm a little confused. If we divide those three lots, and we say, access to another lot has to access their lot, aren't we denying them access to their own property? MR. PALING-No, not if you do it in the beginning. MR. BREWER-They're going to be three independent lots, though. MR. HARLICKER-We just did it with McDonald's. MR. BREWER-But they've got an easement and deed language. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, so will these people. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-For whatever lot doesn't have the access. MR. MARTIN-That's why I think you'd be wise to get the deed language now. MR. PALING-If we approve this print as it is, and they wanted to change the access, could they not come back and ask for it to be changed? Well, then lets do it per print. MR. RUEL-That's what I said. MR. PALING-And put it through, and not on the one lot, but on the other the language stand per print. then if they want to put it one, let it be, but lets let MR. MARTIN-Right now, they've got it shown. back from the corner. It's like 420 feet MR. MACEWAN-Which is good. MR. RUEL-That was the first motion, that the condition that the access be limited to the one presently shown on the plan. MR. HARLICKER-Make sure you include the date of the print. MR. RUEL-What's the date on that? MR. PALING-July 23, 1990. Is this the right date, July 23rd? MR. STEVES-No. easement. I revised it again, to show the geometry on the MR. MARTIN-As last revised on February 1, 1995. MR. OBERMAYER-But then how can we approve it, because it's not indicating any easement through that one lot? MR. BREWER-They have to have it done by final. MR. OBERMAYER-You're going to have two lots that have no access. MR. BREWER-They QQ have access. center lot. They have access from that MR. MACEWAN-You're doing the same thing with the McDonald's you Just got through doing. MR. OBERMAYER-They have an easement. MR. MACEWAN-These people will have the same thing. MR. BREWER-He's going to have one, too, when he comes back for final. - 48 - --- ,---,' -' MR. MACEWAN-They have to. It'll be written in. MR. STEVES-Jim asked me, as I told you earlier, to define the geometry on the driveway easement, and I did that by showing it on the plan, rather than to do it separately, but what happens now, if you approve this plan as dated right there, this is part of the plan, and it limits them to parking out front, which is one of the requests that has been made, lets try to move it back. MR. MACEWAN-But he brought up a good point, that I'm in agreement with. It doesn't really matter, because this particular parcel, if you're on 149, you could be looking at the front or you could be looking at the back, and the same way with Bay Road. MR. STEVES-No, no, no. I understand that, but if you force the issue of the driveway to be just exactly as shown, you're taking away your flexibility of saying to them, lets move it back or move it forward. That's all I'm saying to you. MR. RUEL-Yes, that's right. MR. STEVES-I'm leaving the flexibility with you. I don't want it. I don't need it. I'm not going to do anything with it. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, we can limit it to the second or third lot, then. MR. PALING-We could limit it either to the second or third lot or a particular distance from the intersection. MR. MARTIN-There you go. MR. 08ERMAYER-That's a good idea. MR. PALING-Just for footage. MR. RUEL-How many feet? Somebody measure it. MR. MARTIN-The current one is 420 feet. The current access point is 420 feet from the corner. MR. STEVES-Okay. You want to make it just to the access point and not necessarily the easement itself. That may be better. MR. PALING-Well, the corner of the lot is 420 feet. MR. RUEL-Well, wait a minute. Excuse me. Why are we measuring this? Can't we say "according to this"? MR. PALING-No. We're just stating the footage. MR. RUEL-Why? MR. PALING-So that they must put the access on either of these two lots. MR. RUEL-Yes, but it's on there now, isn't it? It's shown on the plan. MR. STEVES-If you approve this plan, it will be filed just as you approve it, and then all you have to do is say, according to the plan on file. MR. RUEL-That's all you have to say. MR. PALING-All right. Then particular point. All right. that fixes the access in Then let's leave it fixed. this MR. BREWER-So what we want to say, access has to be at that point, not limiting the parking. - 49 - ------ MR. STEVES-Okay. Then I'll erase that off of there. The geometry I put on that easement I'll erase off the plan. MR. BREWER-Okay. So that doesn't make the parking? MR. STEVES-Exactly. That will limit your easement, entering as you've got it drawn. So then the plan you see and approve will be that plan you have in front of you. MR. BREWER-Don't show any parking lot. MR. STEVES-No. MR. BREWER-Why do you have to? Just show the three lots. MR. STEVES-Well, this is only a typical arrangement. MR. BREWER-I understand that. Then why does it lock the parking lot in? MR. STEVES-It won't, if I erase that geometry off that plan. MR. BREWER-All right. Then just take the geometry off and leave the access point where it is. MR. PALING-You're going to take that off, and then approve this print? MR. STEVES-That's right. ~1R. PAL lNG-Yes. MR. RUEL-Just that one part, right? MR. STEVES-That's all. AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-3A, RC-3A LOCATION: NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF CORINTH RD. BETWEEN TOWN OF OUEENSBURY WATER DEPT. AND THE LAKE LUZERNE TOWN LINE. PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 246.3 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 94.1 AC., 104.6 AC., AND 47.6 AC. ONE LOT IS FOR CONVEYANCE TO OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE, ONE LOT FOR CONTINUED OPERATION, AND LAST LOT FOR CONVEYANCE AS A RESIDENTIAL LOT. TAX MAP NO. 151-1-7.1 LOT SIZE: 246.3 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CLIFF SOMMERS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 5-1995 Preliminary Stage, Niagara Mohawk, Meeting Date: February 21, 1995 "The applicant is proposing a three lot subdivision of property located along Corinth Road and the Hudson River. Lot one, which is located on the north side of Corinth Road, is 94 acres and is to be conveyed to the Open Space Institute. Lot two is 104 acres with the bulk of the lot on the north side of Corinth Road and is to be conveyed as a residential lot. Because of the steep slopes, lot two does not lend itself to further large scale development. Lot three is river front property; it varies in depth from a few feet to over one thousand feet and covers the shoreline from the Town of Luzerne to the vicinity of the Queensbury water plant. This lot to be retained b>' Niagara Mohawk as operational lands." - 50 - ''--"' '-, .,~' '-- MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments here? MR. RUEL-That lot three, it would only, only a small portion of it is in Queensbury? Is that it? MR. HARLICKER-Well, no. A good chunk of it is. It's a long narrow strip that runs all along the river, from the Luzerne line to the water plant. MR. RUEL-Because I see it's right up against Lake Luzerne, the Town line? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. RUEL-And the river side. MR. OBERMAYER-It's very common for NiMo to own both sides of the river, pretty much, up and down the Hudson river. MR. HARLICKER-What do they mean by "operational lands"? MR. SOMMERS-My name is Cliff Sommers. I'm here as a representative to Niagara Mohawk in this project. Operational lands are usually the lands that have been set aside by FERC, which is Federal Energy Regulating Commission, which regulates the flood boundaries, basically (lost word), and some cases, it goes to an elevation, and others they actually give meets and bounds. So we're referring to those operational lands as those lands which are within this project boundary, as it pertains not to everything that NiMo owns, but strictly from the Town line, as it pertains to this tax map number and, ultimately, this proposed subdivision. MR. RUEL-So if lot two, which is 104 acres as residential, that would be zoned? MR. HARLICKER-It's all zoned residential. MR. RUEL-It is? Is it all zoned residential? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, Residential. either Waterfront Residential or RC-3A MR. PALING-I'm not sure does that mean for the my question. I understood everything you said. What future of that lot, I guess would answer MR. SOMMERS-It means the conveyance as it is, with no proposed or changed use to it. MR. PALING-As with the present thinking, or forever and ever? MR. SOMMERS-I think forever and ever, because it's regulated by the Federal Energy Regulating Commission, and being realistic and practical as well, because of the size of it and depth of it, there's nothing with lot three anyway. Now, I received today, by Federal Express, the modifications for the prints that you have, not in concept, but in a couple of area changes to lots two and three, which I have enough copies to present to everybody tonight. MR. OBERMAYER-Which lot is going to be the residential one? MR. PALING-Lot two is residential. MR. SOMMERS-Lot one is residential. Lot two is what's proposed for conveyance to the Open Space Institute, and parcel number three is the retained lot. MR. BREWER-Does lot one go to the river? - 51 - -- MR. SOMMERS-No. MR. HARLICKER-I thought Lot one was going to be Open Space Inst.itute? MR. BREWER-That's on Staff notes, not in his file it doesn't. MR. PALING-All right.. It's t.he staff notes that say that., but. then this is reversed. You're saying that Lot number one is residential, and lot number two is Open Space, right? Okay. MR. HARLICKER-I thought it was this one here was going to be Open Space Inst.itute? MR. PALING-All right. Then it's the opposite of what the Staff Notes say. One is residential. Two is Open Space. MR. RUEL-Three is operational. MR. PALING-That.'s right.. Okay. What. are t.he differences now? MR. SOMMERS-The differences, on the plats that were submitted originally, the area on lot number two was stated as being 104.6 acres, and with the plat that I'm providing you with tonight, that.'s been changed to 135.2. That's on this new. The area of lot number three which was originally stated as 47.6 acres, has been reduced to 17 acres. The area that was reduced in lot three originally, the original plot submission, this area here was going t.o be conveyed. MR. RUEL-Part of lot two? MR. SOMMERS-This area here, and now this lot two is being att.ached sö it was conveyed out as all of lot two. MR. BREWER-What's the area in lot one you said, it stays the same? MR. SOMMERS-Lot number one stays the same. The only adjustments, basically, in this little area right here, was going to be conveyed and now it's not. MR. RUEL-Could you tell me why? MR. SOMMERS-There was no purpose in keeping it. MR. RUEL-But you have that very narrow strip along the Town line. MR. SOMMERS-That's true. Keep in mind, that, while it has nothing to do with this Planning Board, the lands on this side of the Town line are also part of Niagara Mohawk, which will also be part of the conveyance to the Open Space Institute, as it continues on up the Hudson through the Town of Luzerne. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. SOMMERS-So, just for clarity purposes, it's shown, and we did that so that we would not have a landlocked piece of property which would be against your zoning. MR. RUEL-Do you have a plan or a sketch showing just what you explained, the area in the Luzerne area? MR. SOMMERS-Well, I guess the next plat will show up the river, it's going to remain vacant, There's no development on any of this. as it carries a.s open spa.ce. MR. OBERMAYER-Lot number one, that's going to be residential, you said'? - 52 - ,_../ y MR. SOMMERS-It's being conveyed as one parcel. MR. BREWER-That already is residential. MR. SOMMERS-And it is residential. MR. MARTIN-The other thing, just as a procedural thing, you have a bunch of waivers in front of you, I believe, with this application, that you should take up first. They're requested in his transmittal letter on the application, I believe. MR. RUEL-I don't have it. MR. PALING-I don't have it, Jim. waivers? Does anybody have those MR. MARTIN-I can read it into the record. MR.OBERMAYER-No. I don't have them either. MR. MARTIN-It's dated February 1st. "Dear Members of the Board: With regard to the subdivision of the above parcel and the submission of our Preliminary subdivision application, and respective plats, because of the unique nature of this subdivision, there being no proposed building sites, road, sewer requirements, etc., and the only the approval to subdivide these approximate 246 plus acres into three parcels, one consisting of 104 acres, which shall be conveyed to the Open Space Institute, a land preservation entity, and the second consisting of 47.6 acres, which will remain under Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ownership, as it lies within their project boundary, and the third consisting of 94.1 acres, which will be conveyed as one large lot, the following waivers are requested: scale of one inch equals fifty foot, due to linear size of the property. Two, topography of the site. Applicant is not developing any portion of the property. Three, location of existing wells and septic. Applicant is not developing portion of the property. Any lands immediately adjacent are vacant. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this request. Very truly yours, Cliff Sommers" MR. PALING-That should be no problem. MR. RUEL-Those lot sizes have changed? ~1R. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SOMMERS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-But I just wanted to point out that the topography's not indicated here, because I think if you saw that, you'd see that many of these are not developable sites. You can see it a little bit on the location sketch here. MR. RUEL-You've got steep cliffs and so forth. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-How do, just out of curiosity, if somebody comes in and wants to build a house on one of these lots, for whatever reason, how does that, do you make that person follow the slope going to a driveway and all that stuff? ., MR. MARTIN-Well, I think there is some prOV1Slon in the Ordinance, I think, where you propose slope on lots greater than, a slope greater than a certain percent has to come to the Board for site plan approval. I think it's greater than 15 percent. MR. BREWER-Because lot one is going to be owned by whomever, and it's going to be residential, and I don't know if they'll ever - 53 - --- subdivide it, but I just was curious. difference. It doesn't make any MR. MARTIN-Yes. It would require an engineered plan on slopes that g1"eat. MR. BREWER-Over 15 percent. 15 percent. There's no question that it's over MR. MARTIN-I looked it up real quick today. I'll clarify that for you. MR. MACEWAN-What are you saying, you suggest you want to subdivide it and make a little development out of it? MR. BREWER-Well, if they want to subdivide it, come in anyway, but I'm just saying, if somebody wanted to build a house, would they have to meet of that Ordinance? they've got to came in and just the requirements MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's 179-65A, Tim, under Soil Erosion Standards, "Except for approved existing subdivisions, site plan review shall be required for the following: any detached structure proposed to be constructed on any lot, parcel or site having a slope of 15 percent or more, within a 50 foot radius of the proposed location. MR. BREWER-So what you're saying, not necessarily, it wouldn't have to come in then, other than an approved subdivision. This is an approved subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-So he wouldn't have to come in, or whatever. MR. MARTIN-Right. was a concern. You'd want to deal with it now, then, if that MR. PALING-All right. Are there any other questions, comments? MR. MARTIN-What might be a condition to overcome, then, is just condition the approval that any development of lot one requires site plan review. MR. BREWER-So if we approve it today, Mark, a guy comes in tomorrow, he just gets a permit. MR. MARTIN-Mark's saying that, when he reads that, he gets the idea that it might be for a grandfathered type of a situation. MR. SCHACHNER-In other words, referring to subdivisions that are already approved and existing prior to enactment of this provision. MR. deal. BREWER-All right. I see what you're saying. I just was curious about it, that's all. It's not a big MR. MARTIN-If someone were to come to me on lot one with a house, and they wanted to cut a driveway up to that, and they have to overcome a slope greater than 15 percent, I'd send them off to the Planning Board for site plan. MR. MACEWAN-Do you have a provision that says you can do that, though? MR. SCHACHNER-That's what we're wrestling with in this 179-65. MR. MACEWAN-And you're in agreement with that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, although there's some ambiguity, I think, to - 54 - '-- --- - --...,/' what approved and existing subdivisions mean. Jim and I both read it and just got sort of different impressions, yes, I agree with that. just but, MR. BREWER-It's not a big deal to hold us up. I mean, we move on. I just was curious about that one aspect of it. can MR. RUEL-I'm just going to ask you, sir. immediate or long range plans for lot one? Do you have any MR. SOMMERS-We're not doing anything with it, just to sell it, or to convey, I'll use that term, convey the property. MR. RUEL-Yes, because NiMo has gotten involved in other. MR. MARTIN-Are you aware of the prospective buyer or person ending up with this lot having any plans for development? MR. SOMMERS-No, I'm not. MR. RUEL-Because NiMo is in the real estate business also. MR. SOMMERS-Not directly. No. They're in the business to create power. They cannot do anything as far as development of land and things of that nature. MR. MACEWAN-How about we cover ourselves and just say that if we approve this thing, put a condition on it that says any development of parcel one would be under site plan review. MR. RUEL-Well, it would be anyway. MR. MACEWAN-Not necessarily. MR. MACEWAN-We just put that in, it covers it. MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. Bob, do you agree with that? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, in all practicality someone, if they're going to carve a driveway in there, they're going to have to have it. MR. BREWER-Well, they're going to have to have it engineered, no question. MR. STARK-I don't see how they could engineer that. that's beyond the scope of anything ~ could imagine. I mean, MR. MACEWAN-It's the same kind of idea, have you ever seen the Vistas? The same kind of idea as what he's got. MR. PALING-All right. Anyone else? Public hearing. Is there anyone in the public who wants to comment on this one? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN DAVIS MR. DAVIS-My name's John Davis. I'm a new member of the Environmental Advisory Committee, and we met last evening and the agenda was, this was brought to our attention. Just a couple of questions of clarification. One was, we were interested as where the PCB dredge site is on this land. MR. SOMMERS-Approximately in this area, and that is in the land being retained by Niagara Mohawk. MR. DAVIS-Okay. So it's near the mouth of Roaring Brook there, - 55 - ~ then? MR. BREWER-I've got it right here, if you want to see it. MR. OBERMAYER-I didn't think Niagara Mohawk was going to be dredging that, are they? MR. SOMMERS-I don't know what the final analysis is to do, but it is going to be part of the lands that's being retained on parcel three. MR. DAVIS-Okay, and the other question was really one more of curiosity, and that was, it's my understanding, I'm not familiar with the details of this, but in the original Hudson Point proposal, there was a parcel of land that was offered to the Town of Queensbury that was ultimately rejected, as being something that wasn't usable for Open Space purposes, and I was wondering, is this the same parcel of land that's being conveyed to the Open Space Institute as part of? MR. BREWER-No. Lot one would be that parcel. MR. DAVIS-That's lot one? Okay. Fine. That's it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there any other public comment? MR. DAVIS-Don't close it so soon. You have to leave it open for some prospectus. MR. BREWER-Why? MR. DAVIS-It's part of challenged in a couple of opened and closed within rendered within them tend the legislative law. It places, where public hearings a five minute period, and any to be invalid. has been have been decisions MR. PALING-Mark, would you clarify this? MR. SCHACHNER-That was a long time ago, no longer. MR. OBERMAYER-I have a question for the gentleman, what environmental committee do you represent, sir? MR. DAVIS-It's Queensbury Environmental Committee. MR. OBERMAYER-It is? That's what I was wondering. I wasn't sure. MR. PALING-Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-We need a SEQRA on this. Which SEQRA applies here? MR. BREWER-It's small. MR. MARTIN-Short. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 5-1995, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP., and 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, - 56 - '-- -../ - -./ 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 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. PALING-Okay. I guess we need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1995 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application, file # 5- 1995, to subdivide a 246 acre parcel into three lots; and I,.Jhereas, the above application following: referenced preliminary subdivision dated 1/18/95 consists of the 1. Sheet 1, preliminary plat, dated 1/25/95 2. Sheet 2, preliminary plat, dated 1/25/95 3. Sheet 3, preliminary plat, dated 1/25/95; Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 2/21/95 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 2/21/95 concerning the above subdivision; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment; and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental - 57 - -' Quality Review Act have been considered; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision is subject to the following modification and terms prior to submission of the plat in final form; With the following condition, that Lot One, the 94 acre parcel, be subject to site plan review should any development be proposed for that parcel. That a note to that effect be made on the final plat. Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve preliminary subdivision Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., file # 5- 1995. Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling t~OES: NONE ABSENT: Mré. LaBombard MR. SOMMERS-Thank you. Will this be brought back on the agenda next week, if I can get that on the plat? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-You didn't submit anything. MR. BREWER-You didn't submit for final. We'll have to do it next month. MR. MARTIN-In March. MR. STARK-You could put it on for next week. MR. MARTIN-You have the Board here now. Convince them. MR. PALING-Okay. What then? I don't have a next week, as long as, submittal dates and the kind of submittal dates do we run into, problem with having it brought before us is it okay with you people, insofar as necessary information and all? MR. HARLICKER-I don't have a problem with it. It seems the only outstanding issue is putting this note on the map. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. That's part of the motion. All right. What are the comments, then? MR. OBERMAYER-I don't have a problem with it. MR. STARK-No. It's fairly cut and dry. Next week we'll just approve it. MR. PALING-Tim, you had a reservation about it. MR. BREWER-Yes, only because we deadlines to meet, and I don't think we should just waive it in a week's notice, and nothing against you, but I mean, we don't normally do it as a practice. I don't know why we're just waiving all these things that are normally done in a procedure. That's why we have procedures. I would say no. MR. SOMMERS-I would think that under however, depending on comþlexity of an certain circumstances, individual project, that - 58 - '-- ......./ ..-- ~ the Board has that latitude to waive certain things. Everybody's ordinance is addressed to cover the maximum, and, obviously, this doesn't even (lost word) that. MR. MARTIN-While we're speaking, does your resolution address the waivers that were requested? MR. BREWER-No. Waivers for certain things, sure, but like the contours and that kind of thing I understand, but, as a company like Niagara Mohawk that has many attorneys and know about filing and applying for certain things, I don't think it should be an exception. I mean, we've had people that are in here month after month after month that we haven't done it for, and I don't think we should make an exception. That's just ffiL opinion. I'm only one member. MR. SOMMER-I can't speak to how it is normally done, but I have before you the project as it stands. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with the project at all. I'm just saying, procedurally. MR. MACEWAN-Were you not aware that subdivision was a two step process? MR. SOMMERS-I was aware that it was actually a three, and that we could waive the first. MR. MACEWAN-Waive Sketch, yes. MR. SOMMERS-And then the Town Attorney, Mr. Dusek, I believe his name is, said to make the request to have it brought back at the following meeting if there was not a lot of controversy. MR. BREWER-When you filed for the application. MR. SOMMERS-Correct. MR. BREWER-Which was last month. MR. SOMMERS-And that was the only reason I didn't submit all plans at the same time. I mean, all checks. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, can you get the plans to staff right away? MR. SOMMERS-I can have this. MR. MARTIN-We need the new application, a filing fee. MR. SOMMERS-I've got that right here, except for nine copies, which I can have to you by nine o'clock tomorrow morning. As far as the change on the plat, that, the surveyor, (lost word) and I will have to call him tomorrow morning, have him put the narrative on the print that you've requested, and then have him Fed Ex set of prints up. MR. PALING-And that'll come here, so we'll have the time. MR. MACEWAN-What is your personal rush that you could not wait until next month to be on the normal agenda? Is there any criteria that says that you have to have this done post-hastily, I mean, that you can't wait until we have a regular meeting next month, which would be the first regular meeting, which is the 21st? MR. STARK-The 21st. MR. SOMMERS-Isn't next week a regular meeting? MR. MACEWAN-Next week is a regular meeting, but you've missed the - 59 - submission deadline. MR. SOMMERS-If you wish not to do it, that's fine. I'm just requesting, if it's possible, when I start a project, if I can seek to get it done for my client as fast as possible, I like to do it without dragging it out. That's my own personal opinion. MR. BREWER-I'd like to step back for a second. I think two or three applications ago we denied it for McDonald's. Why should we make an exception? MR. PALING-I can't remember denying anything on a routine basis. If I did, I hope I wouldn't have. MR. BREWER-All right. I 'won't say deny. application, but we denied his request to meeting. We certainly did do that. We didn't deny his do all three in one MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but we're not denying him. What we're doing is really moving it up for him. MR. BREWER-That's exactly what I'm saying we should do with this. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, we're moving it up, though, for him. We're not denying anything. MR. BREWER-No. I'm not saying denying anything, Jim. I said we made McDonald's go to two more meetings, and then we're turning around and making an exception for this fellow. MR. PALING-He didn't make much of a request that it be otherwise, either. He was pretty much saying, yes, okay, it's all right with me. MR. MACEWAN-I think there's certain protocol that we have to follow as a Board to keep things unified and rolling along in the right way. I don't see that the applicant has come up with any reasons that he needs to have this thing approved right away. There's no reason why we can't wait until the 21st to do it. MR. RUEL-Ditto. The same thing. MR. PALING-Okay. We have kind of an impasse here. a problem with accelerating something like this, as straight forward, but if it's a draw, then I suggest protocol. I don't have long as it's we revert to MR. BREWER-You didn't ask George. MR. STARK-There's no big haste, the 21st of March, the next time it's on. MR. PALING-All right. So be it. the. One other thing, you wanted MR. MARTIN-I think you should pass a resolution where you accept, or you approve the waivers, if that's your intent, or. MR. MACEWAN-What were the waivers that were requested? MR. PALING-The ones that Jim read. MR. MARTIN-They really should have been in your resolution dispensing the application. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. In general, whenever you approve waivers, you should specify them. MR. MARTIN-A waiver on the scale of one inch to fifty to the linear size of the property, topography of feet, due the site. - 60 - "'-- ,..-' -- -.. Applicant is not developing any portion of the property. Three, location of existing wells and septic. Applicant is not developing any portion of the property and lands immediately adjacent are vacant. MR. PALING-Can we add that to the motion, still, or do we have to rescind the motion? MR. SCHACHNER-A separate motion. MR. MARTIN-A separate motion, just cite that letter. MOTION TO APPROVE ON SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NO. 5-1995 THE FOLLOWING WAIVERS. THE WAIVERS INDICATED IN THE CLIFF SOMMERS REALTY LETTER TO PLANNING BOARD/PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATED FEBRUARY 1. 1995. BE APPROVED., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 21st day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, before the meeting is adjourned, site visits. MR. PALING-Okay. Site visits, we're going to, this will be the last Saturday, if everyone's in agreement. We're going to go back, now, to Wednesday afternoon, has it been, four o'clock. MR. BREWER-The second Wednesday, whatever the date is. be there the 8th. I can't MR. PALING-I can't be there either. MR. STARK-Do you want to make it the 15th, the third Wednesday of March. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, because the first meeting is. MR. PALING-Not All right. March 15th. to Jim about until the 21st. The 21st is the first meeting. The site review will be four o'clock, Wednesday, Now I can't be there for that either, but I'll talk that. MR. RUEL-And then the meetings are the 21st and the 28th, right? MR. PALING-The 21st and the 28th are the meetings of March. That's correct. MR. MARTIN-Typically, if the Chairman can come in and look at the applications and review the agenda in a draft form, some time that first week after they're submitted, it's a good idea. MR. BREWER-What have we got this other paperwork here for? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Something that we're feeling increasingly uncomfortable with, as staff, is determining completeness of applications. I don't think, technically, it's really our function, and I know the Town of Lake George, Mark can speak to this directly because he also advises that Board as well, that they have a two step application process, essentially, where they will, as a matter of course, I believe, at the beginning of their meeting, consider the applications in terms of completeness for the month to follow. So, in other words, at their March meeting, - 61 - - those applications that are considered for completeness. being considered Is that correct? in April are MR. SCHACHNER-By the Board. MR. PALING-Is the applicant present? MR. SCHACHNER-Typically. MR. MARTIN-See, what I have a problem with is, you know, it all falls on us, and I think you could potentially run into a problem with your time lines for application submission, and then when the public hearing is held. That really cleans it up, because once they determine it complete, that's when the clock starts ticking. MR. PALING-Well, does this add another period of time? MR. MARTIN-It would add a step. In all honesty, I think it would add, you know, essentially a month to the review time, but it would give you an opportunity to speak to completeness, because I really think it's your function, rather than us as staff. MR. BREWER-Why can't we do it the last meeting, for the first meeting of the next month. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. BREWER-I don't know if that saves any time or not. MR. SCHACHNER-Any way you slice it, it adds another month. MR. PALING-It adds another month either way. MR. RUEL-Is it necessary to have all Board members pr~sent for this review? MR. MARTIN-No. It's in the context of your regular meeting. You'd get packets, then. MR. RUEL-Why can't you just have, like, two members at a different time, or prior to the meeting? MR. MARTIN-No. It's a Board resolution that does it. MR. BREWER~You've got to have four. MR. PALING-Would you do it every meeting, or would you do it once a month? MR. MARTIN-You could do it either way. MR. RUEL-You don't need a quorum to review applications. MR. MARTIN-Yes, you do, because it's a resolution of the Board that determines whether it's complete or not. MR. PALING-We've got to have a little warning time here. MR. MARTIN-I mean, this is, I'm hitting you with this cold. If you want some time to consider it. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I would have two comments to make. Number One, Lake George is a pretty small village or town. They don't do anywhere near the volume of business we do. So that their review process could be a heck of a lot easier than what, potentially, our review process could be in the dead of summer. MR. MARTIN-I agree. - 62 - "-- '-.../ '----' MR. MACEWAN-Secondly, why do we want this sudden change when, historically, the Planning Department's always been responsible for this? Who better to see if an application is complete than your Department? MR. MARTIN-We would still comment to you on it. MR. MACEWAN-Well, if you're still going to comment to us, Jim, you're still going to have to review it so that you can comment to us. What's the advantage of giving it in two steps here? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, and, Jim, do you review it when it first comes in with the applicant? I mean, do you see the applicant when he submits it? MR. MARTIN-Yes, Scott does. MR. HARLICKER-Sometimes yes, sometimes no. MR. OBERMAYER-Really, that's where you save the time. MR. BREWER-Yes, but how does staff know what we want to know on the applications? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, that's it. I may consider something complete, and then you guys hit me at the meeting saying, how come this isn't on the plan. MR. RUEL-In past history, how many applications have been rejected by Planning Board members after you reviewed it? MR. MARTIN-If you want to keep the existing system, that's fine. MR. PALING-Well, two things come to mind. Number One, what are the bad situations that have happened, lets say, in the recent past six months, and, Number Two, remember when you just put through that, I thought it was a minor change in submittal schedule? We had the whole applicant community down our back. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You'd have an outcry, I think. MR. BREWER-But that's not necessarily bad, though, Bob. If we're looking to improve our system, then why. MR. PALING-Well, let me finish my way to do it that wouldn't add a said is one or two can't do it. that correct? question. Is there a different month, and I think what you've The Board's got to do it. Is MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. RUEL-,Or Planning Staff and the Board. MR. HARLICKER-The people, after this first month, the word will get out that they're going to have to plan their schedule a little bit better, is what it will amount to. MR. PALING-But if you add a month. You didn't before, when you had this change in submittal. I like, added a week, wasn't it, something like that, they react to that, and now you're going to say add add a month think it was, and, wow, did a month. MR. OBERMAYER-To benefit what, though? MR. BREWER-Not to drag anything down, but if a guy is going to build a building in the spring, you can bet your bottom dollar he knows about it right now. So why can't they get it to us earlier? I'm not saying necessarily backlogging anybody a month. MR. OBERMAYER-Take the little guy, okay, that's adding a, like a - 63 - Freihofers or something like that, okay. Now it's slo~·Jing him down an extra month. MR. BREWER-You don't think Freihofers knows a month in advance they're going to do something? MR. OBERMAYER-I'm talking about the house. MR. BREWER-But they're going to do it this summer. When did they come in? Last month. MR. STARK-Clost word) for Sketch plan right now. A guy comes in and says, what do you think of this? What are you looking at? MR. BREWER-Well, that's what we should be doing. MR. MARTIN-I think the point is well taken that it is a completely different situation in Lake George. In a lot of ways, it's di fferent. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, there's no such thing as a developed community. There's not a group of people that practice regularly in front of the Lake George Planning Board. No. I mean, I think that that is a point well taken. I think that, I didn't even know Jim was going to discuss this tonight, but, I was surprised at the hew and cry. MR. MARTIN-Well, I just get a lot of comments, you know, how did staff determine this complete? How did you allow this to get on the agenda? It's not !!J.L agenda to control. MR. MACEWAN-How many times have you had that complaint really thrown at you, though? MR. RUEL-Very few times. MR. PALING-Give us a couple of examples. Give us any example. MR. MACEWAN-More importantly, consider the source of where it comes from. Are they people who perpetually whine to you? Are they people who perpetually come in unprepared? I see grins on your face, so I'm assuming we're talking about the same small minority all the time. MR. PALING-Jim, could we got to either one of the engineer. MR. MARTIN-I'd rather not say as to who these people are that are making this comment. MR. MACEWAN-That's fine. I'm not asking you to drop me any names. The point I'm trying to make here is that we're quick to want to change the system that's been working well for us. We've never, as long as I've been on this Board, have not had that many complaints to someone regarding pointing fingers at you guys saying, you guys told me it was okay to come in here. Now they're saying that you don't have enough information. MR. MARTIN-You're, obviously, the controlling factor. feel well served by the existing system, then I'll comment. If you drop the MR. MACEWAN-I do. I've never had a problem with that. I guess if this is our complaint mode, here, the only complaint that I would have, for the last several months we've been on site visits, I fail to see the beautiful orange signs anymore. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We'll make that an effort to get those. MR. OBERMAYER-And getting the staff notes earlier has really helped, too. - 64 - '~ -- '-' "-./ MR. PALING-I've got one more comment in this regard. Would it e worthwhile to talk to a couple of the applicant types, that are kind of viable, and run it by them? MR. MARTIN-I can tell you what they would say, yes. MR. PALING-Already you know? MR. MACEWAN-I mean, Bob, they complained about a week. What the heck do you think's going to happen if it's a month? MR. BREWER-Why couldn't we just have a couple of members just come in and make any comments, like for next month? MR. SCHACHNER-People can do that any time they want. MR. MARTIN-If you want to come in and review the applications, because we get them, we'll have tomorrow, and then from that point on, if you want to come in. MR. BREWER-After you approve them, then them and see if there's anything wrong. going to find that much. have somebody look at I don't think you're MR. MARTIN-It's the Chairman's decision as to what goes on the agenda and what doesn't. MR. MACEWAN-When an applicant comes in here in front of you guys to pick up his application to fill it out, you're giving him in there, and I remember doing this going back a few years, that you give him a check off list of everything that's got to be included in that packet. That's the basics to get going. Any time that we've ever really tabled anything in here is because there's been something unique regarding that specific project that we didn't have pertinent information from. We've only tabled it. We've not tossed them out. MR. MARTIN-What I've emphasized, though, since being here, is I want the onus to be more on our professional skills to review an application than having some bureaucratic check list cover our tail for us. In other words, not every application is the same. Some things are not applicable to an application, and, therefore, you shouldn't make them go to the expense of supplying that information just so you can check a mark on your check list, and so I think the onus is falling more on us to. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe a way to do that is to refine the application's check list a little bit so that if it is something as simple as a, like this guy where he wants to do. MR. HARLICKER-We've got a guy coming in next month before the Board. He's got a residential house down on Main Street. He wants to convert it to a small, almost like an catalog order type of place. MR. MARTIN-Yes. There's an example. that come, stormwater, none of that going to generate very little traffic. He's got very few is really an issue. issues It's MR. MACEWAN-But those are only things that have to be waived by this Board. They have to be done in a resolution form of a waiver, right? So how are you going to get around that by telling the guy that he doesn't need to do that during his check list period? The only way he's going to find out if he gets around that stuff, right, stormwater management plan, are you talking about the contours and all that sort of stuff? Those are only things that can be waived by us at the time of a meeting during a preliminary site plan review, right, or subdivision. MR. BREWER-There's no such thing as a preliminary site plan. - 65 - MR. MACEWAN-Or preliminary subdivision. MR. MARTIN-But it's not subdivision, though. It's only a site plan. MR. OBERMAYER-We've had waivers before on that kind of thing. It's not that big of a deal. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and you don't actually have to waive those things. Until the application's before you and deemed complete, you don't actually have to formally waive all those things. MR. MARTIN-That's an example of what I'm talking about. I mean, there, I would say, a stormwater management plan isn't necessary. It's an existing structure on an existing, you know, he's not increasing the pre-development rate of runoff. MR. BREWER-Maybe there should be, Mark. Maybe there should be a IrJai \.ler so that. MR. SCHACHNER-You're going to very, my prediction is you're going to get very, very bogged down if you decide, from now on, you want to have a specific waiver provision for each element of every application. MR. BREIrJER-How do you sway from the, is that in the Ordinance, the check list and all that? MR. HARLICKER-No, it's not. MR. BREWER-Then why do you have to be concerned v.JÍ t h it? MR. MARTIN-See, in that case, I'd that's not applicable. A stormwater application's not applicable. look at that and I'd say, management plan for that MR. HARLICKER-But then it comes before the Board and you say, yes, it is. MR. MACEWAN-How often have we done that? MR. MARTIN-All right. That's fine. MR. OBERMAYER-But, recommendation, the that, you know, you we'll take that into you know, we would appreciate your staff's recommendation, also, and tell us don't recommend a stormwater plan, okay, and consideration. MR. MACEWAN-But on the other side of the coin, now, take this one particular incident that you're talking about, how will this, now, fit in with the whole scope of the widening of that street there? I mean, what's going to happen in another three years? Now could that possibly we say, maybe we should be looking at stormwater on this thing, because we now know, four years down the road, that they plan on widening that road. MR. MARTIN-Or I would say, and in response to a comment like that, if the parking is shown on the front, if it could be put to the rear, so you can accommodate the widening of the road without taking (lost word). MR. MACEWAN-I think the system is working great as it is. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, me, too. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. RUEL-Can I mention just a couple of things? They're not really complaints, but the sketches that are given for site visits, some of them are totally inadequate, and the other are - 66 - "--- '-" - '~. the sketches showing the building or the layout. remember the one on the market, the little whatever it was? As an example, flea market or MR. PALING-Well, that was the worst. MR. RUEL-That sketch was really abominable, and we even tabled it. We had them come back and make it better. It was still no good. MR. MARTIN-(lost word) ultimately got denied. MR. RUEL-But if the Planning Staff people could, at that time, indicate to them, look, this is not going to work. This is the kind of a plan we need. Show them an example of something that's decent. It would be a lot better. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. RUEL-And the other comment I have is that whenever a modification comes in, it would be great to have the before and after. We always have the modification, but by that time, we don't have the before. So we've got to go through the whole routine and ask questions, what was it like. What kind of changes? If we had the before and after, we have the answers right in front of us. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Just one last thing. You wanted me to report to you on the Threw situation there. He was away on vacation at your last month's meeting. That's why I didn't get to you last month. I went out there with Dave Hatin. We looked at it. We reached an agreement by May 31st he will have removed all the junk from the site that is not part of his business. MR. MACEWAN-Did he, did I not see some paperwork here not too long ago that he went to the Town Board regarding this? MR. MARTIN-His son is looking for a variance for a stump dump on Eagan Road. MR. BREWER-Will we be asked for recommendation to that or not? MR. MARTIN-I don't believe so. MR. BREWER-Maybe, I think this Board ought to get together and write some kind of a letter. MR. RUEL-Didn't he want to dump stuff in a ravine somewhere? MR. MARTIN-On Eagan Road, off of Big Boom Road. MR. RUEL-Well, we'll hear about when the meetings, and we never heard about it. MR. BREWER-Because he's got to wait for the SEQRA timetable to tick away? MR. RUEL-Yes, but where's the Town planning here? MR. MACEWAN-I've got paperwork that was on Pit? Enlighten me. one more question. What is all this our desk regarding Fane's Dream Lake Sand MR. MARTIN-I got a call from an Dream Lake Road. Apparently, whatever, out of Troy, bought gravel operation that was owned road, and his concern was that the operation, washing the sand apparently just came in and got Ed Lockhart who is a neighbor on Fane Gravel and Sandworks, or the permitting rights for the by Ellsworth at the end of that they are significantlyupscaling and all that, whereas, Ellsworth a few loads of gravel now and - 67 - --- then on a truck with a loader. MR. RUEL-They've got noise level? MR. MARTIN-Well, it's just an increase operation, increased hours of operation. It's just bigger. 50 I wrote them a letter saying that if he's going to do anything to modify his, the existing situation there, he has to come to this Board for site plan review, because that's a listed site plan use in the RR-3 and SA zone. MR. MACEWAN-I notice that there was a request in there because he wants a 24 hour a day operation, weekends, holidays. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-All relative to a Warren County contract. That was the justification he submitted. MR. MACEWAN-But the bid proposal there didn't specify inside the bid that he had to be available to service the County's needs on a 24 hour a day notice. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not saying I agree. I'm just saying that's what he evidently put forth as his supposed justification. MR. MARTIN-50 he's on notice from me that anything to increase that operation there, over the existing level of what Ellsworth's ran it as, is going to require site plan review. MR. MACEWAN-Could you do me a personal favor? Could you contact Harold Robillard at the County and ask him to forward you down copies of the bid proposal of what were the contents and the criteria of the proposal were? MR. MARTIN-Harold Robillard? Yes. MR. MACEWAN-In order for them to win that contract County, what were the requirements they had to meet County as part of their bid process? IrJith the for the MR. MARTIN-Yes, okay. MR. MACEWAN-Is this guy coming in for site plan review? MR. MARTIN-He probably just got the letter today with the mail. MR. MACEWAN-That would be good, because we'll have that information in front of us. I really would like to compare. He's saying that, his position, he's saying that in order to satisfy his bid with the County, he needs to do this. I guess ffiL argument is, has the County made this as a condition of winning the bid approval, that he has to be able to service them 24 hours a day. My guess would probably be no. MR. MARTIN-Well there's all sorts of things that I think come into play. If they're going to wash sand there, apparently he's using the stream at the, that runs off from Dream Lake, as a source of water for this washing, and he's got to run a pump down there and cut a swath to the stream, and all that. MR. OBERMAYER-If he's discharging, it needs a SPDES Permit, too. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 68 -