Loading...
1995-02-28 --:' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1995 INDEX Subdivision No. 3-1995 FINAL STAGE John A. & Stephanie Mason Howard & Marcia Krantz 1. Subdivision No. 18-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE l'1cDonald's Corp. 3. Petition for Zone Change 4-94 Frank Parillo 12. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. "-- -- -- ---~" QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 28, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY JM/IES OBERMAYER TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. PALING-I'd like to just note the changes in tonight's agenda. Mason/Krantz is as listed. The McDonald's Corporation will be Preliminary subdivision only. The site plan and public hearing will be put off until next month. Therefore, the McDonald's Corporation on the second page is eliminated. The Frank Parillo Recommendation Only is as it stands, but the second part of that is eliminated. So that's all we have for agenda items, and then I have some procedural items at the conclusion of the regular bus i ness . MR. BREWER-We didn't give Preliminary on McDonald's, did we? MR. PALING-That's tonight. MR. BREWER-We've got to do Final next month then? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-And site plan. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay, Cathy, do you want to go ahead? MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1995 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN A. & STEPHANIE 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 1.110 ACRES. (APPROVAL GRANTED 10/25/90, BUT PLANS WERE NEVER FILED IN THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.) CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 7-1989 TAX MAP NO. 27-1-48 LOT SIZE: 3.79 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-1995 FINAL STAGE, John & Stephanie Mason Howard & Marcia Krantz, Meeting Date: February 27, 1995 "As per the preliminary subdivision resolution, the geometry for the access easements has been removed and a single access is shown from Bay Road. There were no other outstanding issues and staff can recommend final approval of this - 1 - subdivision." t-1R. PALING-Okay. only comments? Now, there's no engineering. Yours are the MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. There's no engineering comments on this. Do you have a final print for this, or is the print I have here, January the 11th, considered the final? MR. STEVES-Yes, that is the final. MR. PALING-That is? Okay. Maybe, Scott, then, you might elaborate a little bit on what you mean by the geometry being removed. MR. HARLICKER-Leon can explain it. MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves from Van Dusen and Steves. At last week's meeting, I displayed a map on the wall. An easement that showed the geometry of the driveway easement through lot (lost word) as well as the entrance. That was a request prior to this. Now, at this time, I've erased it off, and we're right back to where it was. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. OBERMAYER-I think the reason we did that was because, Just to give you the option of placing the parking lots at the rear of the site. MR. STEVES-Exactly. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-The setback line. det,ermi ni ng? only question I have Is that from 149? is, Is you have a that what 75 feet that is MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, 50 feet is on Bay. So, really, that really narrows it way down, in parts of it. So you are quite limited on how much you really can move ~hat building eithex ~~y. MR. STEVES-Yes, we are. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. So that's another .reason they ,probably took it off" too, because you can't nece~sarilypush it to th. front. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. We h.ve a resolution and a motion to go along with the resolution. MOTION TO STEPHANIE Stark who LaBombard: APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1995 MASON HOWARD & MARCIA KRANTZ, Introduced moved for its adoption, seconded by JOHN & by George Catherine Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of final subdivision application, file # 3-1995, to subdivide a 3.79 acre parcel into 3 lots; and Whereas, the above application, following: referenced dated 1/7/95 final subdivision consists of the 1. Sheet 1, Proposed subdivision Farm to Market Commons, revised 1/11/95; and - 2 - '- -........-' .- .-./' .- Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 2/28/95 Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment; and Whereas, any modification and terms contained in the preliminary subdivision approval have been complied with. Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve final subdivision plat for MASON & KRANTZ file # 3-1995. Let it be further resolved, 1. That prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board all appropriate fees shall be paid and that within 60 days of the date of this resolution the applicant shall have the signed plat filed in the Office of the Clerk of Warren COLI nty . 2. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 3. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 4. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1995, by the vote: following AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan 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-There will be no public hearing tonight for this, and this is Preliminary subdivision only. Okay. MR. SCOTT-As the Board building setback from accommodate the Board's Avenue is widened it problems. requested, the applicant has moved the 59 feet to 85 feet, and that's to request and to make sure that when Dix won't cause any internal circulation MR. PALING-Okay. say that? You're looking along Highland Avenue when you MR. HARLICKER-No, Dix Avenue. - 3 - ''--" MR. PALING-On Dix Avenue. MR. HARLICKER-The Board requested that the building be moved back farther from the property line, and also that the easements accommodate the driveway, and that's, they've done that on the plat supplied last week. Those seemed to be the major concerns regarding the subdivision. If you'll remember that the details regarding the site plan will be before the Board next month. MR. PALING-Right. All right. Just for the record, or else I'm missing it, I'm identifying the middle lot as Lot Number One. The lot to it's right is Number Two, and is the lot to the far left where King Fuel is Number Three? Where's Lot Number Three? MR. BEELER-There is one parcel that's (lost word) square feet. Mr. King (lost word) King Fuel. MR. PALING-All right. I'm referring to the easement under ingress and egress easement, where you refer one, two and three. agreement, to parcels MR. BEELER-I did not study that. (lost word) put it together. MR. PALING-Okay. You have identified where the McDonald's building is, on previous prints, as Number One, and the lot to it's right is Number Two, but on this print we have, there is, you talk about parcels, but there's no parcel numbers, and I just wanted to clarify that, this paragraph here, and we should have them designated. MR. BEELER-Parcel One is would be the parcel with McDonald's. Parcel Two is this easement area here. MR. PALING-Now prior prints have not identified, that's why I marked this down, have identified this as Two. MR. BEELER-For the subdivision, yes. This easement, I'm not sure, the easement agreement, they're referring to Parcel Two only as this small toward, we're getting an easement over, ingress and egress, and this would be Parcel Three, the small par cel . MR. PALING-This is Number Three. MR. OBERMAYER-There it is, right there. MR. PALING-This is Three and this is Two. Okay. disagreement with the other prints. Now that's in MR. BEELER-When we subdivide, I mean, there is going to be, this parcel is going to be (lost word) parcel. We don't need it, nor are we getting an easement over this parcel here. MR. PALING-Then, I think, if I'm not doing but for the record, the Parcel Number One lot that the McDonald's building is on. identified as the new egress. this right, tell me, is identified as the Parcel Number Two is MR. OBERMAYER-Well, it's an easement over that. MR. PALING-Excuse me, easement, new easement that they've got is Parcel Number Two, and Parcel Number Three, if you follow away from the Lot Number Two, across the McDonald property, it's that little triangle. MR. OBERMAYER-It's an easement over Lot Number Three, Bob. MR. PALING-An easement. MR. OBERMAYER-This is Lot Three. - 4 - ----- '-"" ,......-- '--' MR. BEELER-Right now, the parcel that's being subdivided to this parcel through here and here. This is already a separate parcel. MR. PALING-Then this is Three. This is Two. This is One, and what is this? MR. BEELER-Well, for subdivision purposes, this is Two. For our easement agreement, which are kind of two separate items, easement agreement, our Parcel Two is just this parcel here. MR. PALING-Okay. Scott, are you following all this stuff we're saying, here? MR. OBERMAYER-That's why you're getting an easement. MR. BEELER-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-Why is this? I guess I don't understand about this one. MR. BEELER-Mr. King is retaining this small sliver here because a part of this curb cut falls over onto this property. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. BEELER-Because we're getting it, and he's going to be giving us an easement over this parcel here, for ingress and egress, we just kind of wrapped into. MR. PALING-For the purposes of what we're doing now, preliminary subdivision, you identify the lot for me. MR. BEELER-This is McDonald's parcel, here. MR. PALING-Number One? Can I call it Number One? MR. BEELER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, and what'll I call this? MR. BEELER-Number Two. MR. OBERMAYER-And that's all we need to know. MR. PALING-That's all we need to know. Okay. All right. MR. BREWER-I thought this whole subdivision was, King's was a lot. McDonald's was a lot, and that other parcel was a third lot? If they're getting an easement over the third lot, then that's not creating another lot, is it? It's just giving them an easement over it. MR. PALING-That's just an easement. Right. MR. BREWER-Right, so that's not a lot. MR. PALING-Right. MR. BREWER-Because if it's a lot, then it's a four lot subdivision. MR. PALING-It's just a little confusing, the way they have it numbered in this document, as to what is on the paper, but he's clarifying it for our purposes, as this on the right hand side is Lot Number Two, and this is Lot Number One. That's all we really need to know. MR. BREWER-All right. So the easement portion isn't a lot. MR. PALING-Yes, that's right. The easements are not lots, and - 5 - I'm taking this reference off here. Okay. Scott, you've finished your comments? {ìll right. Okay. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, and there's no engineering to discuss? MR. HARLICKER-Not for subdivision, no. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-I just have one question. When they put this building up, I don't know if it's pertinent now, but we asked them to move the building back. Is the sign going to be in that right-of-way when they widen that road? Should he move the sign back or not? MR. HARLICKER-Well, the sign is on their property. MR. BREWER-So it doesn't have to be setback? MR. HARLICKER-No. line. It's got to be 15 feet from their property MR. BEELER-When they widen the road, then we would re-locate it at that time if (lost word). MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-How wide is the throat of the opening on the road? I see it's like 50, it's tough to tell. MR. PALING-This is 56 feet across here. MR. BEELER-The road is 39 feet. MR. OBERMAYER-This is 39 here? And what's it down here? Thirty down here. Okay, and over here, is this going to be heavy traffic? I had a concern before about people coming down this way and making a right hand turn. Do you think you're going to see a lot of? MR. BEELER-You're going to see some. MR. OBERMAYER-Coming through the parking lot, I still have a concern of cutting through, from Dix Avenue, cutting through the parking lot, not Dix Avenue. I'm sorry, Quaker Road, 254, making a right, instead of going up to the intersection. You're going to see a lot of traffic in and out of here. Is this going to be marked through here? MRS. LABOMBARD-You mean cutting through the parking lot to get on to Dix? MR. OBERMAYER-No. Well, that could be ~ option, but the other one is cut through the parking lot to go to McDonald's, even people, like, coming from this way will do that. MR. BEELER-We're not going to give any signage out there (lost wor d ) . MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. BEELER-There won't be the signage out there directing people through the)-e. MR. OBERMAYER-What was the reason for putting in this access point to the gas station, just internalize it? MR. BEELER-A couple, I believe, the neighbors next to us, cut down on traffic going out, plus I thought it was a requirement, - 6 - '",--" --- or suggestion from the staff from the last time, to internalize. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm just worried about traffic cutting through. MR. PALING-Yes, I know you brought this up before. Well, if it gets extreme, I know McDonald's in South Glens Falls took some action so they couldn't do that, and also at, on Glen Street, they redid their, if it does become a problem. MR. STARK-On the final, there's some comments made by the staff about eight foot wide handicapped parking access aisles. You're only showing five feet. On the final, are you going to have all these corrected? MR. HARLICKER-Well, that's for site plan. You don't have to show, you know, right now you're looking at the division of the property. MR. STARK-You're right. I stand corrected. MR. PALING-Okay. I thought you were just sort of giving him a warning for next time. MR. STARK-No, no. I stand corrected. MR. BEELER-I thought it was discussed that we were going to try and do prelimina,-y and final tonight? MR. STARK-Well, we can't do it, because no public hearing was scheduled. MR. BEELER-Not for site plan, but just for subdivision. MR. STARK-I thought we left it, last week, preliminary final the first meeting and then site plan the second next month, as long as you had it by April 1st. and then meeting MR. BEELER-I thought we were going to do preliminary and final tonight, and then we tabled the subdivision until the 21st. MR. PALING-I don't think we want to do preliminary and final tonight. I think we want to do final and then the site plan next time. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that's what you said last time, what you just said, Bob. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Do we have to have a public hearing? MR. HARLICKER-Not for final, but you will for site plan. MR. OBERMAYER-For site plan but not for the final. Okay. MR. PALING-All right. I guess there's no more questions. I think we can entertain a motion. MR. HARLICKER-You still have to go through and do the SEQRA pr ocess . MR. PALING-Is this a short or a long? MR. SCHACHNER-I think they submitted a long form. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-It is long? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. - 7 - I'm not sure. MR. PALING-Okay. Make sure we're doing this right, Scott. MR. HARLICKER-When you go through, you're also considering the impacts of the site plan, subdivision and site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-The entire project. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Can I make a comment first? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Should we have the engineering questions answered for the subdivision? Is that appropriate, for the site plan, if we're considering the whole project? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I spoke with Bill MacNamara today, and his engineering comments are more technical in nature, and he's in the process of working them out with the engineering, with the applicant's engineer right now. He couldn't be with us tonight, because they aren't around. MR. BREWER-So all these are okay then? MR. HARLICKER-It's nothing that cannot be worked out. said, they're technicalities. There weren't any, to term, any significant, major engineering concerns. Like I use his MR. PALING-Well, should we refer to that in the motion then, this evening, that the engineering comments will be addressed and met, complied with? MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. PALING-When it comes, then, we can make that part of the motion. Okay. MR. BREWER-You don't think we should have them answered by our engineer and their engineer to us? We're doing the SEQRA, aren't 1,.>Je? MR. PALING-We're supposedly doing the SEQRA now. MR. BREWER-Yes. but we've got to take all this stuff into consideration, don't we? I mean, I didn't read through them. I got my packet today with these things. Did everybody else read through them? We got them tonight, right? I mean, I don't have a problem with going ahead with it, but. MR. PALING-Tim, identify which one you're talking about, now. MR. BREWER-The stormwater report. MR. OBERMAYER-Isn't that for the site plan, though, Tim? MR. BREWER-Yes, but we have to consider it now, Jim, because we're doing a SEQRA for the whole site plan and everything. So you've got to ta,ke those into consider~tion tonight, if you' 1-e going to do the preliminary subdivision. Maybe I'm wrong. MR. PALING-I see what you're doing. That's coming out of. MR. BREWER-They're coming from Rist-Frost. He's not here to comment. Does McDonald's have an engineer to comment on them? MR. BEELER-No, but the comments from Rist-Frost did, they did review the grading and drainage plan and (lost word) as Scott mentioned, the comments were very minor in nature, that changes in details, some notes on the drawings, nothing (lost word) - 8 - '''--'" ~ ,. -,.,I overcome. MR. PALING-That's what he meant by technical. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Did you want to see them? here. They're right MR. PALING-Now, in that this is preliminary subdivision, can we go ahead, making reference to these, and then get a more detailed explanation in the final? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the one word answer to that's, yes, and I don't know if this is where Tim's coming from or not, but I think you have to keep in mind that you're looking at evaluating the potential environmentally impacts of the overall project, and I think that that means that as you go through the long form environmental assessment form, if you reach questions that you can't answer fully, until the engineering comments are addressed, then I think you don't have enough information in front of you to make your SEQRA determination, and you can't go forward with the decision on preliminary subdivision, but if you go through these things and you feel comfortable that you do have enough information in front of you to make the determination that there won't be significant environmental impact, then you can proceed. It really depends on what your level of comfort is, in terms of answering the questions in the long form EAF. MR. BEELER-As words) that he these comments details. far as having any major impact, Scott just (lost spoke to Rist-Frost, and (lost word) nature of that cannot be overcome by notes on drawings and MR. PALING-And you've read these comments. MR. BEELER-Yes. MR. PALING-And you see no trouble in compliance, at all? MR. BEELER-No. MR. PALING-And, Scott, you agree with that, that they can be complied with without any? MR. HARLICKER-I can't comment on whether they can comply with the engineering comments or not. It was explained to me that they are technical in nature, the type of fabric that you're going to use, the details, notes to put on the plan. MR. PALING-Well, all right. Lets snag, then we're just going to have it again, but lets see if we can't sure we all agree, as it's being this. try SEQRA, and if we hit a to re-group, and I guess call go through it and see, make read, that we've considered MR. OBERMAYER-Right. I think we can do that, Bob. MR. PALING-All right. car eful . Lets go ahead with SEQRA. Lets be RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-1994, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before MCDONALD'S CORP., and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, - 9 - 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 28th day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. Are there any other comments, questions by the Board? Okay. Now we need a motion. MR. HARLICKER-There's a prepared resolution attached. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1994 MCDONALD'S CORPORATION, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application, file # 18- 1994, to subdivide a 3.39 acre parcel into 2 lots; and Whereas, the above application following: referenced preliminary subdivision dated 11/29/94 consists of the 1. Sheet 1, Topographic survey, revised 11/2/94 2. Sheet 2, Boundary survey, revised 2/22/95 3. Sheet C-1A, preliminary site plan, revised 2/16/95 4. Sheet C-2, preliminary utility plan, revised 2/16/95 5. Sheet C-3 preliminary drainage plan, dated 2/16/95; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Traffic study, dated 1/9/95 - 10 - "---' ........... ----" 2. Staff notes, dated 12/20/94 3. Memo from Joanna Brunso, GFTC, dated 12/14/94 4. Letter from Joanna Brunso, GFTC, dated 2/7/95 5. Letter from Brian Fear, NYS DOH, dated 1/20/95 6. Easement agreement, dated 2/22/95; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 12/20/94 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 Quality Review Act have been considered; and Whereas, the proposed 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 preliminary subdivision for McDonald's Corp., file # 18-1994. Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: ¡'lONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan MR. PALING-Okay. I just want to clarify, be the final subdivision and the site plan public hearing, and then it takes one right, to have final on the site plan? that next meeting will review along with the more meeting, is that MR. BREWER-Provided everything's applied for, right? MR. PALING-Right. So there's actually two more meetings going to take place. MR. STARK-Can we do the final and the site in the same night? We've done that in the past. MR. PALING-I'll defer to Scott on that. MR. HARLICKER-You've done that before. MR. STARK-And then if there's something wrong, you have a week, rather than wait until the next meeting. MR. OBERMAYER-That's a good idea. MR. PALING-If we can do it, fine. one night. Lets try to do it all on the MR. OBERMAYER-But you'll have all the engineering questions answered? MR. STARK-By the 21st. MR. OBERMAYER-Good. MR. BREWER-So do we have to waive the submission date? - 11 - ". "-'~' ,- Everything is in? MR. BEELER-The application for final Subdivl'~l'on l·~ alread - ~ y in. MR. BREWER-For site plan. MR. BEELER-Site plan's already been submitted. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BEELER-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE 4-94 RECOMMENDATION ONLY FRANK PARILLO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: NW CORNER OF VAN DUSEN & PITCHER ROADS CURRENT ZONE: SR-1A PROPOSED ZONE: MOBILE HOME OVERLAY PROPOSAL IS TO REZONE A 2.38 ACRE PARCEL TO MOBILE HOME OVERLAY TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME PARK. TAX MAP NO. 125-1-28 JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. This is Just a recommendation only, for the Town Board, is what we're doing. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition No. 4-94, Frank Parillo, Meeting Date: February 28, 1995 "A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to rezone a 2.38 acre parcel so that it is included in the Mobile Home Overlay Zone. The underlying zone, which is SR- lA, will not be changed. This rezoning will allow for the expansion of an existing mobile home park. B. EXISTING LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS The property currently contains a house and two garages. Adjacent land uses include a mobile home park, single family residences, Junk yards and vacant land. Residential is the predominant land use in the area. C. ZONE CHANGE ANALYSIS: 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or ne zone? The applicant indicated that the rezoning will address the need for affordable housing. Staff believes that this proposed rezoning will allow the orderly expansion of the existing mobile home park and the increased availability of affordable home sites. 2. What proposed zones. if any. can meet the stated need? As indicated by the applicant, the mobile home overlay zones are the only areas of the Town in which mobile homes are permitted. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The proposed rezoning is compatible with the adjacent zones. The adjacent zones are SR-1A and LI-1A. The property is surrounded on two sides by the existing mobile home park; on the opposite side of Pitcher Road is SR-1A and on the other side of Van Dusen Road is LI-lA. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? There does not appear to be any physical limitations to the site which would deem the site unsuitable for a mobile home park. The site is relatively flat and well drained. Because the site is heavily wooded, a great deal of clearing will be needed in preparation of the mobile home sites. 5. How will the proposed zoning affect public facilities? The rezoning should have a limited impact on public facilities. The existing water service for the park will be utilized and on site septic systems will be used. The site will be accessed from the existing interior road network so impact on Town roads will be minimal. 6. Why is the current classification not appropriate for the property in question? This parcel is surrounded on two sides by an existing mobile home park and to include it in the mobile home overlay zone would be the logical extension of the zone. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? The environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning are minimal. Stormwater runoff will increase when the property is developed and will have to be - 12 - -...- ~ '................-. ~- -". ./ .-/ retained on site. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The proposed rezoning will provide for a variety of affordable housing as listed in the Comprehensive Plan. 9. How are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal? The interests of the community are being served in that the stock of affordable housing will be increased. D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS It seems that the proposed rezoning is a natural extension of the existing mobile home park. The rezoning will have minor environmental impacts related to the clearing of the property for mobile home sites. The goals, policies and strategies of the comprehensive plan call for providing a variety of affordable housing and the rezoning is compatible with these. In light of the above, staff can recommend approval ¿f this rezoning proposal." MR. PALING-Okay. particular case. There are no engineering comments in this MR. RICHARDS-Good evening. attorney for Frank Parillo. believe the application is are straightforward. We're My name is John Richards. I'm the Mr. Parillo is here with me, and I self-explanatory. Scott's comments available to answer any questions. MR. PALING-All right. I've got just a comment or a question. When we do a rezoning like this, not we, but when we recommend regarding this, there's not a new zone number. This is an overlay, is that what you're saying? MR. HARLICKER-Right. It's still going to be Suburban Residential One Acre. MR. PALING-Yes, it retains that, but you have an overlay, and, therefore, yes, okay. All right. The only other questions I have is, how about the capacity of the on-site septic systems you're adding to, and what do we know about that? MR. HARLICKER-The project is also subject, it will be back for a site plan review, and they're currently working on it. They'll be back for our regular site plan review. MR. PALING-All right, and question, I would guess, stormwater? then is how the same are you applies, going to the next retain the MR. RICHARDS-That'll all be addressed in our site plan review. MR. OBERMAYER-And traffic, traffic through. MR. BREWER-If this is going to stay SR-1A, how many homes is that going to allow them, with two acres? MR. HARLICKER-With a mobile home park, you can get. MR. BREWER-But it says there's no density for an overlay zone. MR. HARLICKER-No, but there is for a mobile home park. MR. BREWER-What's that density? MR. HARLICKER-A thousand square feet, I think, for a mobile home site. MR. BREWER-You've got two and a half acres. MR. RICHARDS-We have 12 sites that we feel that it would serve, but, again, we'll all be back. MR. BREWER-But the point is, if we allow this, if you're saying 6,000 feet. - 13 - --' MR. HARLICKER-Six thousand square feet. MR. BREWER-Six into forty is, six. So, six, twelve, fifteen is the maximum he could have there anyway, right, fifteen, give or take. MR. RICHARDS-And we're having 12, and we have a buffer zone. We'd follow the requirements of the Mobile Home Ordinance. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-The entrances, are the entrance and exit going to be on Van Dusen, Pitcher or in the Park? MR. RICHARDS-It's going to stay, there's going to be no new entrances or exits onto the existing public roads. MR. BREWER-So we'll say, if we recommend to approve this access be only through the Park, via through the Park, is not a problem, rather than make another curb cut? MR. RICHARDS-We don't intend to make any new curb cuts. MR. BREWER-Then it shouldn't be a problem then, right? MR. RICHARDS-No. (lost word) There is an existing home on the corner of the property which has a driveway going to Pitcher. MR. BREWER-But that's right there on the corner. MR. RICHARDS-We're not going to move that. MR. BREWER-You're going to leave the home there? MR. RICHARDS-The home's going to stay there for the immediate future. We don't know long term. We don't want to be obligated to shut down that driveway. We'd like to be able to keep that if necessary, but that won't be tied in with the mobile home road, the road within the Park. MR. BREWER-So then that's not going to be part of the overlay ZOni:3? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. The whole corner is going to be part of the overlay. It's going to be within the overlay zone. MR. BREWER-So, I guess then why is it a problem to access the Park and make it all one piece, is my only concern? MR. RICHARDS-There's an existing driveway to an existing home. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RICHARDS-We don't want to have to shut the driveway down. MR. BREWER-No, not for that home, but I'm saying in the future, if you ever tear that down. MR. RICHARDS-Yes. We're not, this is a little premature, because v..¡e haven't gone to si te plan rev iew yet, but this is the type of pattern we're envisioning here. It does not have any curb cuts for access to the main roadway within the Park on either Van Dusen or Pitcher. MR. BREWER-So that home, if it stays driveway. These twelve lots, or through the trailer park? there, will have it's own whatever, will be entered MR. RICHARDS-Exactly. - 14 - -- I ---""--'"--; / if )iOU tear that home dOIrJn , '--'\ "'--"- MR. BREWER-So that, in the future, it's not a problem closing that. MR. RICHARDS-If you took the structure down, it wouldn't be a problem. MR. BREWER-Okay, because my only concern is, a curb cut for one house on the corner is not that big a deal, but if you put a curb cut and put 13 or 14 mobile homes, then it becomes that big of a deal. I guess that's my only question. I would like to see if we can make a recommendation to approve it with that condition in the,-e. MRS. LABOMBARD-Each one of those squares is a, that's going to be a proposed lot for a mobile home. That's 11. MR. RICHARDS-That's just our preliminary. MRS. LABOMBARD-I understand, but, see, when we first looked at this, I thought Parcel Number One, we were under the impression, or anyway I was, that Parcel Number One was going to remain wooded and you weren't going to disrupt it. MR. RICHARDS-Parcel Number One? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, on the map that ~ have right here. See, there's a little dotted line right here that's about. MR. RICHARDS-That was never, maybe that's a. FRANK PARILLO MR. PARILLO-That's a survey of two parcels. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-We're not subdividing. recommendation to rezone it. We're just making a MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I understand, but I was just wondering where those mobile homes were going to, how they were going to be arranged on that piece of land. MR. RICHARDS-No. We're going to utilize the entire corner of the existing homes. MRS. LABOMBARD-So the fact that there's no Pitcher nor Van Dusen Road, it's just back thoroughfare inside the Park? access to either on to the main MR. RICHARDS-That's correct. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you own this home on the corner? MR. PARILLO-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-You do? Okay. That's the only question L had. MR. STARK-I don't think that we ought to, all we',-e called upon is to make a recommendation to the Town Board, whether we recommend approval. I don't think we ought to clutter it up with restrictions on curb cuts and that, because we're going to site, we're going to have site plan on this thing anyway. So we can do it at that point. MR. BREWER-But the only reason I said that, George, because if we're thinking of that for site plan, that would be part of our recommendation to approve it with that condition. What I'm - 15 - ~ -,---,," thinking is, on the corner, one house on the corner's not a big deal. You're Within, how many feet, what's the scale on this map, where that driveway is? MRS. LABOMBARD-One inch is 50 feet. MR. BREWER-So you're talking about maybe 150 feet. You'll have access to Pitcher Road with potentially 13 cars, within 150 feet of the corner. I don't know if you travel that road. MRS. LABOMBARD-I travel it almost seven times a week. MR. BREWER-I think it's not an unreasonable request. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's not. I agree with you. MR. BREWER-I mean, we had a three lot subdivision, tonight, on 149 and Bay, We restricted the curb cut to the center lot, to avoid any potential problems. MR. STARK-That wasn't a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. BREWER-I didn't say it was a recommendation. I said we approved a subdivision with that condition. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that you don't want to put 13 or possibly 20 cars coming out that close to the corner. I don't know how much you drive that road, but I drive it every day, and kids go out there and stand for the school bus. MR. PALING-This is a anything really wrong it's a possibility. recommendation, and I don't think there's with putting a caution in there. I think MRS. LABOMBARD-And it'll open up the Town Board. The Town Board will be more aware of it. MR. STARK-How do you do that then, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think the way that Tim's discussing it, and it's been done, just so you know, it has been done before in recommendations about zone changes from this Board to the Town Board. Some have had recommendations with certain proposed condi Lions. Some have had recommendations wi th certai n conceì- ns on the record. Typically, as I recall, the minutes go to the Town Board anyway. So that just the fact that you've discussed this issue will be brought to the Town Board's attention with the minutes, but if you wish, you can make a recommendation in favor of a proposed rezoning and you can recommend a condition along with it. It's strictly a recommendation. MRS. LABOMBARD-It sounds good to me. MR. PALING-Why don't you make a motion and make that part of it, Tim. MR. STARK-That's fine. They can choose to disregard it. MR. BREWER-Right. They can so, no, we won't rezone it, but that would just be our particular recommendation. MR. OBERMAYER-I think what's happening is that when you do come back for site plan, that we're kind of against putting any access close to that intersection. MR. BREWER-Not for the home, only if, in fact, someday he removes that home and decides to put another mobile home there or whatever. MR. OBERMAYER-I just wanted to leave you with that parting thought. - 16 - "--"' '"'-\', '-..- '-", ~ MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVE THE REZONING PROPERTY, Introduced by Timothy Brewer adoption, seconded by George Stark: With the condition being that access be maintained through the existing trailer park, and at some time in the future, if this home is removed on the corner, access to the Park be maintained through the Trailer Park, not on Pitcher Road. OF THE FRANK PARILLO who moved for its Duly adopted this 28th day of February, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan MR. STARK-Mr. Goodwin, he came in and asked if he could make a few comments to the Board. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Goodwin, don't we? I think we have a letter from Mr. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I did see that letter. MR. PALING-Why don't you come up to the microphone, Mr. Goodwin. MRS. LABOMBARD-Bob, what's it pertain to? MR. PALING-Quaker Plaza. MR. GOODWIN-I think a poor road design entering Quaker Plaza. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. MR. OBERMAYER-This is O'Toole's. MR. PALING-Yes, where you hit the, okay. MR. OBERMAYER-You ran into the curb. MR. PALING-For record purposes, identify yourself on the mic. Go ahead. MR. GOODWIN-My name is George Goodwin. I'm from Bolton Landing, and I'm coming here to make an observation that I think the entry to Quaker Plaza could be redesigned and improved. I blew out a tire last fall coming in there, and you've got a curb, a divider curb, that the paint not being, it's faded. You pull in Quaker Road, and you expect to be going in there, and boom, you hit that divider curb, coming from the west, coming into Quaker Plaza. If you have a magic marker or something like that, I can. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I'll tell you, I drove into there Saturday night, and I very seldom go in there, and I was driving, and I said to my husband, where in the world am I going? And he said, Cathy, you're okay, just keep going to the right. I agree with you. MR. GOODWIN-Actually, it's a lot better now because you have the snow divider. In other words, I did it in the middle of the day time in October, and I've written the owner of the Plaza, gotten no response. I called here and people thought it was appropriate, and then I wrote, a second time, to the owners of the Plaza, and it got returned. Their address in New York City, hasn't been forwarded it properly, but it seems like, you know, I - 17 - '- "-- - ". spent $51 replacing a tire. It was your guys that came up with the design. Does somebody want to come up with $51? MR. BREWER-Wait J"ust one ml"nute. It wasn't any of our de~ "",igns. MRS. LABOMBARD-None of our designs. MR. GOODWIN-Okay. Well, somebody's design and somebody's not been painting the median dividers to show you where the dividing thi ng. MR. BREWER-The whole Plaza's horrible. We had nothing to do with it. MR. GOODWIN-I'm just making that one observation, in other words, that I blew out a tire and it looks like a lot of other people hit that curb as well, and it doesn't look like it's been painted. I don't know who's responsibility that is to be painting it, but, if I were in there, I'd take a jackhammer, and I'd take about the first six feet of that curb out and I'd paint it, and although I was talking to Mr. Martin, he was saying the reason that that divider is there is where you have Burger King, people can pull a Uie in the middle of Quaker Road so that they can get in there from the other direction. MR. BREWER-You're talking about O'Toole's right? MR. PALING-Yes, but where's Burger King? MR. GOODWIN-No. I'm making an analogy. In other words, where you've got Trustco, where you've got Blockbuster, where you've got all the blue awnings and stuff like that, it's just right on down this road, you take a right, and then Trustco Bank and Blockbuster Video and stuff like that. MR. BREWER-Where does Burger King come into it? MR. GOODWIN-No, no. That leads to the analogy, is Mr. Martin said that they didn't have that, and so at Burger King, somebody coming from the east can pull a Uie in the middle of Quaker Road and come in from the other direction. So the reason that that was designed that way was somebody wouldn't be able to pull a Uie in the middle of the road. So that was the original design. MR. STARK-We don't have anything to say about this though. MR. PALING-The minutes of our meeting do get circulated, and this will be in there. We don't have any jurisdiction. We can sympathize, because we all drive in it, too, and we dislike it for even more reasons than you're bringing out tonight, but I guess we can just say, thanks for your input. Although there's not anything we can do directly. MR. BREWER-You could take it to the Town Board. MR. GOODWIN-Well, if you want to forward it to them. I mean, I'm out $51 for a radial tire that I blew out hitting that thing, and it seems like it's Queensbury who came up with that design, and I think there's a design flaw there. MR. BREWER-The design or architect that designed that Plaza came up with it. MR. GOODWIN-That's defined by the people here. Jim Martin said that it was that design, that curb design going out was specified in that Plaza so that people couldn't pull a Uie in the middle of Quaker Road to go in there. MR. PALING-Well, the curbage, the concept, I'm sure, might be specified, but not the dimensions. - 18 - '-- ~ ,<"" ....~~'I.... -- ''--" ".---- / "' MR. OBERMAYER-Nor the design. This Board does not get into any engineering design of egress or ingress of any Plaza MR. GOODWIN-Well, somebody came specified that to that owner. up with that design, and MR. OBERMAYER-You got your happened? letter returned, is that what MR. GOODWIN-Well, I wrote to a Charlie Sicard, who's the manager of that, and I wrote the owners of that Plaza. He forwarded it. I never got a response, but it seems like they were conforming with a design, what was requested by Queensbury, whatever Department it is. So it seems like, actually, the design flaw lies upon Queensbury, whatever Department it is. MR. PALING-No. I don't think so. MRS. LABOMBARD-Lets say somebody got in a very serious accident and there was a lawsuit that resulted, wouldn't the owners of that property be liable, not the Town? MR. GOODWIN-Well, if it was specified, in other words, if that curb was specifically specified by Queensbury, whatever Department it is, it seems like they complied with what was required by Queensbury. MR. PALING-Well, as I said before, if Queensbury said it, I think they said it in concept. So it would prevent the U-turn or that kind of thing, but they wouldn't say how high, wide or long or anything would be. That would be up to the design, the owner's design. We wouldn't enter into that, but would still prevent the bad turn into the Plaza, by the conceptual suggestion. MR. BREWER-Well, I think if it's been designed or approved design by the Planning Board, it's within our standards. If we set up something for McDonald's, and we tell them that they're curb cut has to be 16 foot wide, you go over the top of that curb, that's nei ther . MR. GOODWIN-But you pretend that you're driving along Quaker Road, and you know where the entrance to Quaker Plaza is, and, you know, the paint has deteriorated off the roadway, so that you're just pulling in there, and chances are you're going to hit that curb and blowout your tire as well. MR. BREWER-I agree with what you're saying, but it happens every winter. I mean, the stripes on the road just don't hold up to the plows and the. MR. GOODWIN-Well, this was last fall. I mean, this was when the weather condition was perfect, and everything else. So it wasn't snow. It's easier to see it now because the snow has got it delineated. It's divided and stuff like that. MR. BREWER-I don't really know what you can do, other than try to go after them. I mean, there's nothing we can do about it. It's kind of after the fact. MR. GOODWIN-But it seems like the design came from Queensbury. MR. PALING-No. I don't think so. MRS. LABOMBARD-They submitted the design. It met all specs. MR. GOODWIN-But from what Mr. Martin was saying, they specified those specs. MR. BREWER-Okay. Bottom line, I guess, what is it you want us to do? - 19 - '~ ~ -- . ----< MR. GOODWIN-Two things. On~, I think it's a poor design, so try and save other people's tires, and if somebody, whether it's Queensbury or the owners of the Plaza was to recompensate me $51 for that tire that I blew out, that would be nice. MRS. LABOMBARD-Write a letter to the paper. MR. PALING-I think we've heard your complaint, and you've heard what we've had to say, and I'm afraid that there is really nothing that we can commit to to do for you. I'd refer you, perhaps, back to Jim Martin or to the owners of the Plaza, or whatever you think, but this Board doesn't have Jurisdiction. I'm sorry. MR. GOODWIN-Okay. Well then can you recommendations to people who look at the design the entryway and that curb. make suitable of the )"oad and MR. PALING-We don't have people that do that. MR. GOODWIN-I think you're missing something there then. MR. BREWER-We have an engineer, and he reviews all of our site plans, and it's, basically, if he says it's approved and it meets our standards, I mean. MR. GOODWIN-Could you have the engineer review it and get back to me? MR. PALING-Tim, I think we're giving him the wrong idea, that we have people that specify the dimensions. MR. BREWER-Not specify the dimensions. We looks at the dimensions and makes sure standards. have somebody they're within that our MR. OBERMAYER-I don't think we ought to even get into that. MR. GOODWIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. I've just got a couple, three items here. Now the next site visit will be four o'clock, Wednesday afternoon, March 15th, okay. The next two regularly scheduled Planning Board meetings will be on March 21st and March 28th. Okay. Now I would point out that I discovered today that we cannot have any kind of an unannounced get together of any kind, site visit or anything else, unless it's advertised. Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-You mean, for example, Walmart? MR. PALING-Yes, right. So I just want to say, we can't, if you have less than a quorum, you can do it. If you have a quorum or more, you can't do it. You can't visit a site and all that sort of ~3tuff. Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-But what about our site visit, is that advertised? MR. PALING-Yes, the site visits are advertised. Yes. Okay. Now, I was a little wishy washy the last meeting, in regard to this preliminary and final on a subdivision. I brought that up today with Scott and Jim, Pam and all that, and there is good reason not to put the two together, and one is that they've had bad experience, in the past, with missing things. You hurry something through and you miss too many things. The other thing is that if we let it go for one, then it's going to be stretched to everybody. So I think I indicated I felt otherwise last meeting, but since talking to them, I don't, I feel now we should go by the book. MR. STARK-What about having final and site review on that last - 20 - '-..--- --' /--,,-' '-, -,,'.... "->....- one? MR. PALING-I don't think there's a problem with that. MR. BREWER-No, because if you go to the final. You don't go thO the site plan until you approve the final, so if you go to t e site plan, you come up with some problem, you can always table the site plan. So that's not a big deal. MR. PALING-Yes. So that's okay. MR. BREWER-But to do what we were talking about last week, it was crazy. To do the preliminary and final and site plan in one meeting is absolutely crazy. MR. PALING-Okay. I'm gone through the 20th, and Jim will act in my behalf during that period. MRS. LABOMBARD-But you'll be back for the two meetings, the 21st of March. MR. PALING-I will miss both meetings, yes. participant in the 21st it. the site visit, but I should be back for I don't know if I'll be an active meeting, but I'll be here, maybe, to run MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I have last week when I left early, Dream Lake Road? a question, did I miss something this letter to Mr. Fane regarding MR. PALING-Dream Lake Sand and Gravel? MRS. LABOMBARD-Could somebody run that by me a little bit? MR. BREWER-We didn't do anything with it. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not on the agenda for anything. Jim just gave a quick history of what went on there. To the best of m.:L.. recollection, wasn't the issue that Mr. Fane, I think he didn't feel that he had a Town issue. That he only felt he had a DEC issue, and I think Jim, I think the packet was basically Jim's subtle tactful delicate way of pointing out to Mr. Fane that if there was any inquiries over the existing operation, in addition to whatever else he needed from DEC, he also needed site plan approval from the Town Planning Board. I mean, it was only in our packages for informational purposes. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what I thought. Okay. Thanks, Mark. MR. PALING-Okay. Does anybody have anything else? MRS. LABOMBARD-How many of these McDonald's maps should we save? MR. BREWER-None, they should be in the new packet for next month, shouldn't they? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Is it an all new packet? We can throw everything away on the McDonald's? MR. OBERMAYER-I was going to hold on to all that stuff. MR. HARLICKER-Keep the McDonald's site plan. MR. BREWER-How is it going to be the same, though Scott, if he's got to change the dimensions and everything on the driveway and everything. MR. HARLICKER-That's true. Okay. - 21 - ----,-,--~ ~--- ~'-" '----- -~----- ~-'- '-_._-~"-- """'" ---- -., ---- MR. BREWER-Throw them away. MR. OBERMAYER-There are some comments you might want to save, though, from Rist-Frost. MRS. LABOMBARD-What about the sewage maps, the drainage maps? MR. OBERMAYER-Are you going to reproduce that stuff again, Scott? MR. PALING-I'm just going to hold mine until it's done, then 1 don't have to worry. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I haven't compared the stuff that he just recently submitted with the stuff that's in the site plan. So I don't know if they're the same or not. Like Jim said, they've got to change some of the dimensions on the site plan, or adding dimensions to it. MR. PALING-Walmart will be back when they have their prints done and submitted to Scott. MR. HARLICKER-They're supposed to have them to us tomorrow. MR. PALING-Okay. When will I put them on the agenda? MR. HARLICKER-For March. MR. PALING-The 21st? MR. HARLICKER-We haven't set the agenda yet. 21st or the 28th. It's either the MRS. LABOMBARD-Are you at liberty to tell us anything about the John Brock, except for what we read in the paper? MR. STARK-The status of the lawsuit, you haven't heard anything? MR. PALING-Two lawsuits. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, the Glen Lake. MR. PALING-Well, you've got Seeley and you've got the Great Escape. MR. SCHACHNER-There's no Seeley litigation against the Planning Board, is there? MR. BREWER-There's a violation against Seeley. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but that doesn't, that's not Planning Board. MR. BREWER-Yes, it is. MR. SCHACHNER-How is it Planning Board? MR. BREWER-Well, he went against what we told him. not to fill in the stream. We told him MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but that's a zoning enforcement action, that's not a planning Board issue. The update on the litigation is only that the other attorney's, to my chagrin and over my objections, filed additional, yet another set of papers, and we responded with some papers that we sent Jim copies of. The case has all been submitted. The papers are in. I expect Judge Dyer to rule some time within the next several weeks, but who knows when. MR. PALING-He'll just rule on what he has, and what he's getting? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Yes. He has indicated, the one time we - 22 - ~- ""-" i ,.,.../ ~'""I ~' -( "~~,-.... '-"": appeared in court, he indicated there was not going to be any further oral argument in the case, strictly on the papers. MR. PALING-Okay. Do we have a motion to adjourn? MR. STARK-I'd make a motion to adjourn the meeting. MRS. LABOMBARD-I second it. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 23 -