The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-05-25 ',- -,<,,' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 1995 INDEX Resolution Acknowledging Lead Agency Status Mr. & Mrs. Milford Lester Tax Map No. 9-1-15 subdivision No. 7-1995 FINf~L STAGE Rich Schermerhorn Tax Map No. 60-2-7.1, 7.3 Site Plan No. 24-95 IrJi II i am T hr ew Tax Map No. 137-2-7.25 Site Plan No. 20-95 John W. & Lee V. Tabner Tax Map No. 13-1-5 Site Plan No. 23-95 Cyrus B. Dixon Tax Map No. 11-1-7.2 subdivision No. 8-1995 SKETCH PLAN Leigh P. Beeman Tax Map No. 12-3-27 Site Plan No. 22-95 Michael J. Willig Tax Map No. 112-1-60 Site Plan No. 27-95 G. Joseph Monsour Tax Map No. 104-1-18 Site Plan No. 31-87 MODIFICATION David Kenny Tax Map No. 36-1-31 1. 5. 10. 20. 24. 29. 32. 37. 48. 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 MII\IUTES. '-' -...../ 'y-" "-' QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 25, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY CRA I G MACEIrJAN GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER JAMES OBERMAYER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, BILL MACNAMARA STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. PALING-We'll go pretty much by the schedule, with the exception of one change. We're going to bring Mr. Threw in after Schermerhorn. Okay. We do have some miscellaneous items for the Planning Board members afterwards, most of which is the commentary on the new waterfront zoning that's proposed. SEORA RESOLUTION: RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN THE REVIEW OF VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS FOR MR. & MRS. MILFORD LESTER. MR. HARLICKER-The resolution is there, but you should go through the Long Environmental Assessment Form, also. MR. PALING-Okay. Should we do L.ead Agency first, and then SEQRA? That would seem a more logical way. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Go through the first half of the resolution. MR. PALING-Does somebody want to make a motion to that effect? RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR MR. & MRS. MILFORD LESTER RESOLUTION NO.; 5-1995 INTRODUCED BY: George Stark WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS, in connection with the variance and site plan review for M/M Milford Lester, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the - 1 - ',....,/ Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for the purposes of SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHËR, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that it has sufficient information and determines the significance of the project in accordance with SEQRA as follows; 1) an Environmental Impact Statement will not for the action, as the Planning Board has determined will be no significant effect. be ,-equ ired that there BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer MR. PALING-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 26-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning MR. & MRS. MILFORD LESTER, and Boa ,- d an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the state Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL.\/ED: 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 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 - 2 - '"--' '- ~ -" Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant 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 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-What was the consensus to Question One? No physical change to the project site? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. We never really answered. MR. PALING-Read it again, Roger. MR. RUEL-I went on, assuming that I had heard an answer. Question One. "Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?" MR. STARK-Small. MR. RUEL-It'll be small to moderate impact. MR. HARLICKER-What's the impact? MR. STARK-It is changing the site. putting up another 140 square feet. I mean, you know, they're MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. RUEL-And can be mitigated. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-It can be? How do you know,that? MR. STARK-I'm not saying change the physical site. there's any Very small. impact. It is going to MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. To answer the question, you can't say no. You have to say yes, to a small degree. MR. PALING-Right. MR. MACEWAN-And can it be mitigated? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, once you put the thing up, you can't take it away. MR. PALING-The effect is small enough that I don't think we have to do that further. MR. MACEWAN-No matter whether you answered Number One or answered Number Two, whether it's a small to moderate or a potentially large, you've got to answer the question whether it can be mitigated. MR. RUEL-Well, we answered that it was small to moderate impact. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. Then the next question you have to answer is, can it be mitigated? MR. RUEL-Yes, right. MR. MACEWAN-And what's the answer to that? MR. PALING-Are you proposing an answer or asking a question? MR. MACEWAN-No, I'm asking a question. I don't know. See, I - 3 - guess this is a point of order I wanted to bring up, is I don't understand why we do SEQRA at this point when we're acknowledging the lead agency, without doing the site plan review and getting all the questions from the applicant answered. Because we usually do the SEQRA toward the end before we pass a vote. MR. HARLICKER-In this case, the SEQRA has to be done, there's also a variance involved in this application. Before they can act on the variance, the SEQRA process has to be done. MR. MACEWAN-See, that's the frustrating part. How can you answer all the questions to the SEQRA when you haven't been able to review the project? MR. HARLICKER-Well, you've had the application before you. I've put it in your packets. So the Board has had an opportunity to look at that application. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but there are questions that you would also get answered by either A., public comment or, B., from the applicant that you can't garnish out of the application. MR. HARLICKER-The applicant is here if you have any questions for ¡-"iim. MR. STARK-Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Schachner a question. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Mark, Craig was asking how we can mitigate a very small, adding a 140 square foot building to Mr. Lester's property. I don't think there's an answer to that question. How can you mitigate adding 140 square feet? It's a small change. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I would agree that it's not something that can be mitigated, but I would also say that it's not relevant to be concerned whether it can be mitigated or not, because the principal relevance of the question about mitigation is, if it's a potentially large impact, in Column Two. MR. MACEWAN-Only for that reason? Impacts? Only on Potentially Large MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if you look at your instructions at the bottom of Part Two, it says, if a potentially large impact, checked in Column Two, can be mitigated in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the yes box in Column Three. So it's generally considered, at least in ffi.l:.. experience in SEQRA practice, it's generally considered relevant to look at the mitigation question only if you've checked off an impact that's potentially large. Keeping in mind that, ultimately, in terms of the punch line you're going to reach, you only really need to be concerned with potentially large impacts. If you have small to moderate impacts, they don't lead to an environmental impact statement. So that's why, again, I think it's only really relevant to be concerned with the mitigation aspect if you're checking something off as a potential large impact. If it's a small to moderate, so be it, it's a small to moderate. It doesn't really matter if it's mitigated. Generally, it won't be, by t,he way. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. I agree with you, now that you've made that clear. What do you do about Question 19, then, which is the public controversy issue? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, Question 19 notice asks, is there or is there likely to be, so 'it does require some conjecture on the part of a lead agency,'and it's common to answer that question before a public com~eht or public hearing period. It's also common to have a, not pUblic comment period, but public comments if you - 4 - ''-~ --' wish. Scott's right, though. In a case like this, you know, I think you're torn because you like to see as much public input as possible in order to answer Question 19. By the same token, SEQRA review has to occur before the Zoning Board of Appeals can rule upon a variance. If this Board has decided to be lead agency, which I take it is the case, then SEQRA review has to occur here, before we get to site plan review, which is when we'll have the public hearing. Am I right, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-There is sort of a back and forth element to it. MR. RUEL-Also, it's been my experience on the Board that the majority of these applications certainly would have a small to moderate impact in almost all cases, when you have a proposed action for, when you have a physical change on the project site. MR. SCHACHNER-On Question One, you mean? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, many applications do. MR. RUEL-Most applications, yes, that's true. If you do something to the site, there is a slight impact, and as you indicated, unless it falls in Column Two, where you have to go to Part III, you can just answer it and say, yes, it can be mitigated? MR. SCHACHNER-That's, essentially, correct. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, well, you know, because it's kind of out of the review them. to me it's kind of confusing, normal process and the way we MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STARK-What happens now with Mr. Lester and his application? Is he coming in front of the Board next month? MR. PALING-I think so, but we don't have a schedule. MR. HARLICKER-He will be on for site plan and variance next mont,h. MR. PALING-Next month. MR. HARLICKER-Providing the Board gives him a Neg Dec on SEQRA tonight. MR. PALING-Okay. Then this is all we have to do, now, is to second and pass this motion. I'll second it. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1995 FINAL STAGE SCHERMERHORN OWNER: RICHARD MACDONALD MEADOWBROOK & CRONIN RDS. PROPOSAL IS INTO FIVE LOTS. FOUR LOTS FRONTING ON .46 ACRES AND 1 LOT FRONTING ON CRONIN TYPE: UNLISTED RICH ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.61 ACRE MEADOWBROOK ROAD WILL BE ROAD WILL BE .74 ACRES. - 5 - ...... --- THERE WILL BE A 3.03 ACRE PARCEL ALONG HALFWAY BROOK RESERVED AS OPEN SPACE. TAX MAP NO. 60-2-7.1, 7.3 LOT SIZE: 5.61 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT MR. HARLICKER--If you recall, at the last meeting, they were going to go back to the Town Board with changes to the plat that involved providing access to that open space parcel on Cronin Road. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1995 Final Stage, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: May 25, 1995 "The design of the subdivision has been changed to provide for access to the open space parcel from Cronin Road. The access from Cronin will be 40 feet wide reducing the size of lot one from 35,540 square feet to 25,261 square feet. Even though the size of the lot is reduced, the actual buildable area is not; the land taken for the access is part of the no disturb 100 foot setback around the wetland. The applicant has also indicated a desire to dedicate the open space to the Town in lieu of recreation fees." MR. PALING-Okay. Well, we won't have anything to do with that latter. MR. HARLICKER-Not right at this point, no. MR. PALING-Okay. We will proceed on the other, though. Someone from the applicant is here, and would you identify yourself, please, for the record? MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves. I'm representing Mr. Schermerhorn. MR. PALING-Right. Bill, do you have any comments before we proceed on this one? MR. MACNAMARA-The only outstanding comments are typical boilerplate final approval comments regarding iron pipe locations for property corners and tax map numbers and issues of that nature that aren't of a technical nature. Items that Matt and I discussed today, he's already taken care of. MR. STEVES-Which I have addressed. I went up to the County and placed the tax map numbers on the parcels, and I've indicated where iron rods, or the iron pipes, and where one's will be set. MR. PALING-Okay, and, Staff, you're okay on this? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, I'm happy with it. MR. PALING-Okay. Any comments from anyone on the Board? MR. STARK-The only question, the last time, was that chopping off a little bit of Lot One, there, and that was the only thing. MR. PALING-And that's answered now. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It doesn't affect the buildable area of that lot. MR. STEVES-We took it off where it was on Cronin Road. This line here just extended out to the lands of Gallagher, and now we have a 40 foot strip onto Cronin Road for that common area. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. The public hearing is still open on this. So I think at this point we'll ask if there's any comment from anyone about the Schermerhorn application? - 6 - -- ---...' ..- ~ PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-I think we'll entertain a motion then. MR. HARLICKER-I'd like to make one comment, here, before you make a resolution on this. Last week, for the Preliminary Stage and Freshwater Wetlands permit, the conditions got mixed up. The conditions, I think, that the Board intended to have on Preliminary stage were included in the Freshwater Wetlands permit. So you might want to go back and revise those resolutions prior to giving final approval. For instance, for the Freshwater Wetlands permit, it was with the conditions that Sheet C-l of the plans dated 4/25 should be dated 4/25, condition two, that the Rist-Frost comments dated 4/18, 5/11/95. MR. PALING-Scott, what are you reading? MR. HARLICKER-These are the resolutions that you approved last week for the Freshwater Wetlands. MR. PALING-Yes. It's not the one that I've got, though. MR. HARLICKER-No, and I'm just indicating that these conditions that you have included in the Freshwater Wetlands permit should actually be part of the motion to approve on the preliminary. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. MR. HARLICKER-So you might want to just go back and indicate that you, a motion to approve the Freshwater Wetlands permit, period, without any conditions, and then include these resolutions into that motion. MR. STARK-Bob, is he saying, go ahead and do the Freshwater Wetlands permit over again and the Preliminary over again, also? MR. PALING-I don't think so. wetlands permit over again? You're not saying to do the MR. HARLICKER-You just might want to revise your motion to approve. MR. PALING-But does that mean re-doing the wetlands permit? MR. HARLICKER-You're just revising your motion to approve. MR. MACEWAN-Why don't you just rescind that one and do a new one just for the permit itself? MR. HARLICKER-Okay. That's fine. MR. PALING-All right. Then we should rescind both of them. MR. RUEL-And Scott will modify this one, the latest one? MR. PALING-And then come in through the resolution with the modification. MR. HARLICKER-Then do your final resolution. MR. PALING-But that means modifying both of these, I mean, rescinding. MR. HARLICKER-Rescinding it, then re-doing it, yes. MR. PALING-All right. - 7 - MOTION TO RESCIND THE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1995 RICH SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer MOTION TO RESCIND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 2-95 RICH SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling I"WES: ¡'lONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 2-95 RICH SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling ¡'~OE S : NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. übermayer MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Robert adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1995 Paling who moved for RICH its With the following modifications, with the conditions that Sheet Cl of the plans, dated 4/25, should be dated 4/25/95, and condition two, that Rist-Frost comments dated 4/18/95 and 5/11/95 should be included and, item three, that the stormwater management plan, dated 4/28/95 be submitted. Also, that condition four be that they will make a lot line adjustment on Lot One to reflect the access to the open space for final. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application, file # 7- 1995, to subdivide a 5.61 acre parcel into five (5) lots. Four lots fronting on Meadowbrook Road will be .46 acres and 1 lot fronting on Cronin Road will be .74 acres. There will be a 3.03 acre parcel along Halfway Brook reserved as open space. Whereas, the above application following: referenced preliminary subdivision dated 3/29/95 consists of the 1- Sheet C-1, subdivision, site plan, dated 3/28/95 2.. Sheet C-2, adjacent owners within 500' , dated 3/28/95 3. Sheet C-3, utility details, dated 3/28/95 - 8 - ',-" '--- --- -- Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 4/25/95 2. Wastewater Dept. comments dated 4/14/95 3. Rist Frost comments dated 4/18/95 4. Town Board resolution No. 142,95 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/25/95 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 Quality Review Act have been considered; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision is subject to following modification and terms prior to submission of the plat in final form; the the Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve preliminary subdivision RICH SCHERMERHORN, Subdivision No. 7- 1995. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Now we need the Final. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1995 RICH SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of final subdivision application, file # 7-1995 to subdivide a 5.61 acre parcel into 5 building lots and one lot remaining as open space; and Whereas, the above referenced final subdivision application dated 3/28/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet Cl, Final plat, revised 5/17/95 2. Sheet C2, Adjacent Owners, dated 3/28/95 3. Sheet C3, utility Details, dated 3/28/95; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: i. Staff notes, dated 5/25/95; and Whereas, proposed subdivision appropriate town departments and review and comment; and has been submitted to the outside agencies for their Whereas, any modifications and terms contained in the preliminary subdivision approval have been complied with. - 9 - Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve, conditionally approve or deny final subdivision plat for Richard Schermerhorn, file # 7-1995. Let It Be Further Resolved, 1. the That prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of Planning Board all appropriate fees shall be paid and within 60 days of the date of this resolution the shall have the signed plat filed in the Office of Warreri·County. that, applicant the Cler k of 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 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, i"1r. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 24-95 TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM THREW OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONË: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 24,750 SO. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SECOND 37,906 SO. FT. WAREHOUSE. WAREHOUSE IS A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 80-90 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/8/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 137-2-7.25 LOT SIZE: 7.77 ACRES SECTION" 179-26 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 24-95, William Threw, Meeting Date: 5/25/95 "Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A, Section 179-38 B, Section 179-38 C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and found that it i~~ in compliance. The project received a variance to allow for a 5 foot side yard setback. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The proposed site plan consists of an expansion of an existing warehouse and the construction of a second warehouse and should be an improvement of the site. The applicant should also proceed with a general clean up of the site. Wall mounted lights are proposed over the entrances to the warehouses and no new signage is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular traffic access is adequate. The new warehouses will be accessed from a single drive off of Big Bay Road. Access to the rear warehouse will be via a loop road. It appears that it was designed for one way traffic; if that is the case, signage should - 10 - '--- ~ be in place to indicate the direction of flow. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off street parking is sufficient. The actual number of spaces provided does not meet the required number but there is enough area to provide sufficient spaces in the future if needed. Each warehouse is serviced by a loading dock. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Stormwater drainage is being reviewed by Rist-Frost. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The site is serviced by municipal water; warehouses 1 and 2 will utilize an existing septic system; warehouse 3 will have its own septic system. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; Landscaping is adequate. The existing landscaping along Big Bay Road will be increased with the addition of more than a dozen white pines. Interior landscaping includes white pines, red oaks and red maples. No ground cover is indicated. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; A new fire hydrant is going to be located in the area between buildings 2 and 3. A ten foot wide gravel fire lane is proposed around both buildings. The Fire Marshall's comment on the adequacy of the fire lanes was that it is adequate as proposed but a 50 foot clear area around the building may be required depending on what type of construction is used for the warehouse. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The area does not appear to be susceptible ponding or flooding. Erosion control measures should be in place during construction and until the site has been stabilized. RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests that a clean up plan be proposed for the site that ~ies in with permits being issued. No ground cover is indicated; the unpaved areas should be seeded." MR. PALING-Any comments from anyone on the Board at this point? MR. RUEL-There's a statement be completed by the end of what progress was? about plantings on Big Bay Road to this month, and I'm just wondering MR. PALING-We can get that from, would you identify yourselves, please, for the record. WILLIAM THREW MR. THREW-I'm William Threw. MR. MILLER-I'm Jim Miller from Miller Associates, Landscape A,-chi tects . MR. PALING-Okay. Have you seen the Staff,comments? read these? Have you MR. MILLER-No, I haven't. MR. PALING-But you heard them. It's primarily to do with what Roger is saying about a planting schedule and a clean up schedule, although there are other items in there, too, but that's where, I think you realize, we'll be concentrating, from our previous conversa'tions. So you want to go ahead and talk to us about it? MR. THREW-The plantings would have been done by Bill, but to get the six inch main and all the rest of the stuff off Phase II, we'd have to dig it all back up again. I'd like to incorporate - 11 - ~.,.."",,",,.- that, all in one, with the approval of the. MR. RUEL-So the May 25th date, then, is postponed? MR. PALING-It's not going to be met. MR. THREW-The only reason is if I put it it all back up again, and put the main stuff for Phase II. all in, I'd have to dig and all the rest of the MR. RUEL-I was just wondering, what installation of the pipe and so plantings on Big Bay Road? is the new date, based on the forth, the new date for the MR. THREW-If I can incorporate the first phase phase together, without getting the occupancy everything in place, would that be right? and the second permit, have MR. RUEL-I still don't have a date, though. MR. PALING-Yes. You should have met that first date, and I don't understand quite yet what you mean, you have to plant it and take it u.p again. MR. THREW-Well, I've got to digging, breaking the front. would have to be destroyed. put a six inch main. That means Everything that I put in there MR. PALING-That would only be a part of it, though. I assume the rest of it could be done. MR. THREW-I was planning on chipping the whole area, but now that you're saying you want to seed it. MR. PALING-No, we're asking you first, what is your, lets talk about planting. What is your plan for ground cover? MR. THREW-The ground cover was going to be mulch. MR. PALING-No. This has been brought up before, that mulch, we do not consider satisfactory nor plastic under mulch satisfactory, either together we don't want them. What has been suggested to crown vetch or clover. and we '\/e said do we consider or separatel)/, you is either MR. THREW-Or loam is, clover loam. MR. PALING-Well, we're saying ground cover, and those are two of the best that we think you can use, and the easiest to maintain, but mulch won't do it for the area you've got to cover up there. It just, it'll look terrible after a while, and plastic affects permeation. That isn't even a subject for discussion. MR. MILLER-The crown vetch, I believe, and the clover came up as an alternative to grass areas, just to look for something that was low maintenance and would require less mowing. MR. PALING-Well, are you proposing lawn, then, as against crown vetch, or clover? MR. THREW-Originally I was going for just mulching it in, but if you want lawn, we can put lawn in there. MR. PALING-Okay. Depending upon how the lawn is done, I can live with lawn, but I'd like to have some other comment on that. 1'1R. RUEL -Yes. Committee? Does this tie in with the Beautification MR. PALING-The Beautification Committee has a letter. - 12 - -'-"""-"'- "'"', -./ '--" MR. MACEWAN-They didn't make any reference to what they wanted to see for ground cover. MR. MILLER~Yes, I talked to, when we got that letter, after the Beautification Committee meeting, there was no discussion, at the meeting, about ground cover and, apparently, they made an assumption that it was going to be grassed, and there was no discussion about it, and the first time I saw that was in a letter, and I called Jim Martin, when I got that, and raised the question that there was a misunderstanding there. That wasn't discussed at the meeting. MR. PALING-I think if we're going to have grass, you're going to have to tell us what your schedule to plant it is, the kind of grass you're using, and what we can expect by a certain date. MR. RUEL-Also you had to get a date for the planting, the trees on Big Bay Road. MR. PALING-Yes. That's got to be part of it, too. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe to clarify things, could show us on the map exactly where this main through, and what areas it's going to be a this in? we have the applicant is going to be running problem for you to put MR. MILLER-The main will run in this corner of Big Bay, behind the existing warehouse, down, and end in a hydrant down in this locat.ion. MR. MACEWAN-And when do you propose to put that in? MR. THREW-(lost word) the approval. t.hing that goes in (lost word). It's got to be the first MR. MACEWAN-Well, how does that affect all the rest of the property, then? MR. ,THREW-If we've got to dig this whole area up (lost word). MR. MACEWAN-But what about the rest of the property? MR. THREW-The rest of it's going to be all paved. in front is going to be paved. The back part is seeded, and that's all that's left. All that out going to be MR. PALING-You're saying the only part that's going to be planted is where you're pointing now, up in that area there and around the other side? MR. THREW-My original was that I was going to mulch this, and this back here could be seeded, but we've got to have this road way, for fire protection, (lost. word) it's got to be gravel. So the only place it could be seeded would be this area right here, next to the building. MR. PALING-But when you bury your line, then you're going to go over it. MR. THREW-We've got to do it allover again, right.. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-I was under the impression, I thought the line was coming through the major portion of the park here. MR. THREW-No. It can't come under the building. It shouldn't come out underneath the paved area. MR. MACEWAN-Well, if you're running behind the existing building - 13 - ..--- and Phase II building, you want to hook up to a hydrant down there between Phase II and III, then you're really only talking, from what I can see on this site plan map, two planted trees. The rest of it would be sodded and grassed. MR. THREW-No. We're going to put more trees in here, so that you can't look behind the buildings, more than what shows on here. The only place we've got to keep open is the area where the fire trucks have got to go. MR. PALING-Okay. We're going to need plan, now lets talk grass for a minute. from you a schedule, Is grass acceptable? a MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Are you going to limit it to a particular type of grass? MR. HARLICKER-I'll leave that up to the discretion of the Landscape Architect, as to what kind of grass he wants to put in. MR. PALING-Okay. I do think we should have a it's going to be put in and a definition of look like by a certain time. definition of when what it's going to MR. MILLER-Okay. What I'd suggest we do is (lost word) mulched it either existing wooded areas or in plant beds where groups of pines, things, are being planted, which is common, without any fabric, and then I'll talk to Mr. Threw about whatever seed mix he'd like to propose, and I'll add that to the drawing for the other areas. MR. PALING-Okay. So this can appear on a drawing, and it will, you'll look at the Beautification Committee comments and the comments we're making here tonight, and we'll have a final plan that we can look at and there'll be a schedule to go along with it. Oka,.,. MR. MILLER-Well, I don't know about talking about the grass seed areas. for a schedule? the schedule, but I was What would you like to see MR. RUEL-When you will be planting and what. MR. PALING-Yes, when are you doing to do it. MR. RUEL-What you will be planting, and when. MR. PALING-All right. members, go ahead, Craig. On this subject, lets ask the Do you have any other comments? Boa ì- d MR. MACEWAN-No. I just want, for my benefit, to clarify I guess a couple of things, when he anticipates that he wants to do Phase II, and if for some reason we can work around doing any plantings around the buildings of Phase I and Phase II, that you have now, when will the rest of the parcel be landscaped and taken care of and cleaned up? MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Lets leave clean up as a separate item of discussion, but lets stick to the schedule of burying your pipe and planting of the whole area. Okay. George? MR. STARK-Okay. the plantings. What I was going to say concerns clean up and MR. PALING-Okay. Lets let clean up go. MR. RUEL-Any anticipated date for Phase II at all? MR. PALING-Okay. We're trying to stick with the planting, now. - 14 - ~' ~ "-. ,-' MR. RUEL-Well, that's part of the planting. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, they've said they're going to submit a schedule to us. MR. THREW-As far as the planting, I can building done. If you want grass, I know put the grass in the front, as soon as I that one end. That's no problem. Phase after we get the building up. I want this as possible, like yesterday. They want to get, it done. get the front of the what I'm doing. I can put the water main on II, we can do shortly to all happen as fast get in, and I want to MR. PALING-Okay. You're it, though, is what we're there might be some change but I'd like a schedule to going to have to have dates attached to saying, and associated with Phase II, of the dates. I can understand that, work from. MR. RUEL-Yes. Could you have the schedule for landscaping on Phase II predicated on so many months after the completion of Phase II? Can you do that without being specific, as far as dates are concerned? MR. MILLER-Yes. It seems like there's, the first, what Mr. Threw is saying is that some of this can be done in the front here. The back portion, because he's got to put the water main in, should be postponed and done with Phase II. So, one date could be put on the front, which would be fairly recent, and then the rest of the landscaping in the back, in here, would be tied in with finishing Phase III. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. So we understand that you will come up with what you're going to plant, and when and we understand how you're going to handle Phase I versus Phase II. Okay. All ,Might. MR. HARLICKER-Could I comment one minute here on the planting schedule? Normally, issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for a structure like this is tied in to landscaping. They don't get their CO until all their landscaping is in. So the Board should be very specific about how far back on this plan they want the landscaping included, because that's going to have to be in before he gets his CO. So be very specific about, you should have him draw a line on the map saying, we'll have the landscaping in to this point, by the time we want our CO for Phase II. MR. MILLER-What we showed on the original plan that modified site plan, was the planting was done to a back here, which included these two groups of pines. what was agreed to, when we were in the last approval, from that point back would be Phase II. we did, the point right That was and then MR. PALING-But what Scott is saying, you've got to outline specifically where it's going to be, and the CO depends on it. MR. MILLER-We could show a line (lost word) that plan. MR. STARK-The clean up of Miller, that cleaned up or only way I would vote the whole property. the place is a dump. there's no CO. for this is to tie the co to Emphasize that, though, Mr. The place has to be totally MR. MILLER-On Phase II? MR. STARK-No, Phase I also. That's what L would do. MR. MILLER-Well, Phase I, the CO has been issued and it's operating. - 15 - MR. STARK-Yes, not for the addition, though. MR. MILLER-No. That's Phase II. MR. STARK-Yes, and unless it's cleaned up, there'll be no CO, and that's the way I would do it, because it is not being cleaned up. MR. PALING-Lets talk the specifics of clean up because we're all very, lets say at least sensitive to that issue, and we visited there and talked with you about it, and we have a little bit of a definition problem in regard to what is unusable material, and useable, but it is done in such a way right now that it doesn't look very good, and I think you agreed yourself there was nearly 100 ton, 70 to 100 tons that will be removed from the property, so that's a big move. MR. THREW-There's probably going to be more than that. MR. PALING-Okay. We need a schedule. MR. STARK-I would like to say that it has to be cleaned up, give a specific. MR. THREW-It doesn't have to be said in words. It's got to be cleaned up because I can't put the buildings in without being cleaned up. MR. STARK-Well, it's going to be said in words. MR. RUEL-Who reviews and approves the clean up? MR. PALING-Well, Whatever we agree IrJithheld. it'll be tonight done by can be our done Enforcement there and Officer. the CO's MR. HARLICKER-If you want that to happen, again, be very specific about what you want this to look like, what you want removed, what you want, he's got to have, this has to be quantified. He can't just go out and say, well. You can't be subjective at all. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a comment on that. that, then we have to go back down there paper and mark off all the specific items. In order with a to quantify pencil and a MR. PALING-Rather than that, Cathy, why couldn't we ask Mr. Threw to submit a plan that shows exactly what he wants to do, with the lines drawn where, you know, he's moved the stuff out, a complete plan, and then we might want to visit the site and look at it. It's tough looking at it right now. There's too much. MR. RUEL-Yes. I would like to see a before and after plan. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. suggestion. That sounds like a good, that's a good MR. STARK-Mr. Miller, could you flag off where the additions are going to be, and where the new building is going to be, and we'll come down and be happy to visit again? Flag off Phase III. Flag off Phase II, and then we'll be there and point to where, you know, and then, fine. MR. PALING-Okay, and could both of the items t~at we're asking for be done at the same time, or the planting as well as the clean up, and we'll have a set of prints for each, or a print for each, that we can go over and look at it? MR. MILLER-What I would suggest we do is, you suggested, some lines through the site that tie into the clean up pIa nt.i ng. have and - 16 - ~ --..... MR. PALING-All right. That would be satisfactory with me, if they're clearly drawn, that we can identify and walk over and see it, then we can take another site visit, and be in a much, we're using too many general terms right now. We've got to have something we can look at, as Scott says, and be specific about. MR. STARK-That's the main thing that I think the Board is concerned with, the clean up, and, you know, if you flag everything, where buildings are going to be, show us exactly what has to be cleaned up, I don't think you'll have a problem then. MR. PALING-Then we have the item of the Fire Marshal's comment regarding the 50 foot clearance. I believe that's his approval is pending? MR. MILLER-Well, I spoke to Kip Grant today, and he told me he also spoke to the Fire Chief, and as far as the access and the hydrant, they were happy with that. The issue with the 50 foot is a fire code which is I believe to be determined on the type of construction of the building. So this approval, we'll have to work with Dave Hatin and come up with a building structure that will not require the 50 foot setback, because obviously, especially on Phase III, we have a 30 foot zoning setback, that the 50 foot requirement would be difficult. So, the building construction would be such that we could have the 30 foot setbac k . MR. PALING-Okay. We'll leave it still in the pending column, then, and see how this works out. Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Are Phase II and Phase III buildings going to be concrete as well? MR. THREW-Phase II is going to be metal. Phase III I don't know right now. It was going to be metal, but they backed off. MR. PALING-Now I have two other thi ngs left. on [!).Y. list. They're both to do with Rist-Frost comments on this. Bill, do you want to make any comment at this point? MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. The only outstanding items of the first submittal that we received a couple of weeks back was the septic system design for phase III, as well as some clearer details on how they were going to run their six inch water main, and where their hydrant, how it was going to be located. This morning the applicant dropped off a drawing showing full details of both of those items, and we haven't prepared any written comments yet. Looking at these, other than some pipe size notes or small items, it certainly looks like they can fit their septic system. It's properly designed, sized, and they've got adequate water detail notes, at least for the level of review that we do. I don't know whether the Water Department's looked at this, Scott, or not. MR. PALING-Okay. Those are the specific items that I have, and with the emphasis on the clean up plan and the planting plan, which I think we've covered, does any of the Board have any other comments? MR. RUEL-Yes, for Staff. In your recommendation, you indicated permits, plural. Are you talking about something beyond CO? In your recommendation, you indicated that this would be tied in with the issuance of permits. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I was just, yes, Certificate of Occupancy. MR. RUEL-Just a CO, right? MR. HARLICKER-Or else a building permit. MR. PALING-We're not approving anything, we're not asking for any - 17 - - permits tonight? MR. HARLICKER-No, but I was suggesting that, you seem to be leaning toward kind of a phased clean up of this property. Well that should be done, and I was thinking possibly tying that in to either the issuance of a building permit or else the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, or both. Maybe a building permit for Phase II and a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase III, however you decide to do it. MR. RUEL-There will be several permits. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-I think the Board feels strongly in agreement with you on that, Scott, yes. All right. Then I think we can open the public hearing on this. The public hearing is open, should anybody wish to comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Are we communicating clearly? MR. MACEWAN-Can I add just one thought? When he brings in your revised site plan map for us, were you going to show us the Phases that you want to do the plantings on? Clearly denote on that map, if you would, the areas that you plan on seeding and the areas you plan on putting mulch around the trees. So we know what's going to be green and what isn't. It's all got to be sho~·J\l clearly. MR. RUEL-Also, for my own edification, on this clean up plan, you will be marking up one of these plans indicating what is there now, or what is to be, or both? MR. MILLER-Well, what I would suggest we do, I think it could get rather complicated to try to label everything that's there now. That's why I think it probably would be better to just establish a line, and then say everything from one line to the next, and within a certain period will be cleaned, regardless of what's there. MR. RUEL-Yes, but what you're saying is that you will clear an area, all right, that you can mark that, but now we don't know what you will be doing with the uncleared area, right? We won't know that. Is it possible for you to give us a plan, without necessarily going into detail, but a plan to show us, essentially, what these piles of stuff that you have, right? There's metal and there's pipes and all sorts of things. Could you indicate that on that plan, and then show us a plan next to it, and say, okay, this is the way we will do it, and then v.Je can see the before and after, and we'll know, then, specifically what you intend to do, but if you just clear an area, that's going to tell us that area will be clear, but it doesn't tell us anything about the rest of it, if you could do that, for my edification anYI.Jay. MR. HARLICKER-Could I offer a suggestion? I think maybe we can tie everything into a Certificate of Occupancy for Phase II. If the site could be cleaned off, the entire site, inoluding the area back by Phase III, you know, whatever's back there. I don't have an inventory of what's back there, but the site cleaned up, the entire site cleaned up, and then maybe the landscaping from the first, you know, from Phase II out to the street be in, and then for Phase III, the rest of the land, the site will already be cleaned up. So the rest of the landscaping will be tied into - 18 - '---" "--" the Certificate of Occupancy for Phase III. MR. RUEL-Fine, but I have a problem with the word "clean up". What does that mean? MR. PALING-Yes. To Roger's point, I think what we're afraid of is of a push back. MR. RUEL--Yes. MR. PALING-And we want to see removal. MR. HARLICKER-Okay, the stuff has to be, the entire, whatever's back there has to be removed from the site, with the Certificate of Occupancy. MR. RUEL-That's why I wanted to Make a sketch and show the piles could do it, so certainly they there, and then show me a plan these piles are gone, or I moved see a before and after sketch. of whatever they have. I know I could do it~ They know what's over here and say, hey, I see these piles over somewhere else. MR. PALING-Well, I don't know. I agree with you on everything with the exception of saying before and after. I would be happy not to visualize it before anymore. I would be happy with a new print that showed me what's going to be there, and how it's laid out and where the plantings are, and it would also prove to me that there was no push back. It's removal. MR. RUEL-Fine, that's good, too. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-I'll go for that. MR. RUEL-Can you do that? MR. THREW-I can do better than that. Everything that you see, the pipe and all the rest of that, is going to be going 'into that building. So it'll be gone anyway, when the building is done. The only thing that is going to be there is what I need in my business, like the backhoes, the pavers. MR. PALING-You can label those, and label them in the location they're going to be in. MR. THREW-They can be up front, and if I do what I think I'm going to be doing in the next couple of months, it'll all be out, and that's (lost word) the stuff that I'm using, the junk is going to be gone. I don't even want it there. MR. PALING-Okay. The only thing, and I know it's going to be done right in the end, but going to be is the difference between on the print that says when, and I can understand the pipe, the conduits you're going to use. I have no problem with that, but label that pile of conduit as being in that building. It's going to be gone by such and such a date. Sure. That we can understand, and I think if we look at what will be, and you've got conduit or plastic pipe. MR. THREW-That's going in the building. MR. PALING-But it'll be going there by a date. Right? MR. THREW-Yes. MR. PALING-Sure. Okay. That's what I think we're saying, because we don't want to go out and extend this negotiation. MR. THREW-You don't want it cleaned up any more than I do. - 19 - MR. PALING-I think the thing to do, now, is to table this, is it not? Okay. Now this we have to have your concurrence before we do it. If we're going to table something, you must say okay. MR. MILLER-One other thing I'd like to bring up, and that's the schedule for meeting. We could get the drawings back probably no later than Monday, and Mr. Threw is anxious to start work on this second phase building. So, if it's being tabled, when could we meet at the site and review the plan? What meeting would we be back? MR. PALING-Okay, now our next site review is scheduled June 8th. That's pretty quick. MR. MACEWAN-Is he asking the Board to go to the site and discuss thÜ-3? MR. PALING-Well, lets see what we're saying. MR. MILLER-I thought that was one of the suggestions? MR. PALING-We would make a regular site visit, and that would be scheduled for June 8th, if all of the other paperwork and submittal and whatnot is in. MR. STARK-The first meeting, then, is, what the 14th? MR. PALING-The first meeting is the 20th, the 20th and the 27th. MR. MACEWAN-It' should be noted that if we go make a site visit there as a group, it's not there to discuss anything. MR. PALING-No~ We're going to make a normal site visit. We don't need tohote anything special. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. We can't, by law, have any discussions. MR. THREW-What good is it going to do to do a site visit? It's still the same as you see it before. What he's going to do is give you a plan that we're going to do for a schedule. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, maybe seeing the plan on the site, it will register a little bit more accurately. MR. PALING-You'd have to have your prints before this could occu.r . MR. STARK-I would still like to make a site visit. MRS. LABOMBARD-I would too, George. MR. STARK-And see, it's going to be flagged off where the buildings actually are and where the plantings are and so on. MR. THREW-I want to be involved with it. MR. PALING-Okay, but femember, now, when we make these site visits, to Craig's point, we're there to gathèr information only We're not there to discuss, we can't. We can't discuss nor can we make any decisions. We're there to observe and gather information. MRS. LABOMBARD-And if we have any questions as to. MR. THREW-I'd likè to be there so I could answer them. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right, but the questions have to relate to what we're looking at. MR. PALING-No. We can do like we did before. I'll give you a - 20 - -- -' -- call, and tell you when. It'll you a call, and you understand go, but it's just the same as we have your concurrence, then, to concur, table it until June 20th. be June 8th, and we'll just give what our limitations when we do did before. All right. Do we table this? Scott, if you Is that possible? MR. HARLICKER-That's fine with me. MR. PALING-Then it would be the first meeting after the site visit, which is June 20th. How does that sound? Okay. All right. We have the applicant's concurrence. We need a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 24-95 WILLIAM THREW, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by catherine LaBombard: Until June 20, 1995. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, i"1r. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer SITE PLAN NO. 20-95 TYPE I JOHN W. & LEE V. TABNER OWNERS: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: C.E.A. LOCATION: MASON ROAD, CLEVERDALE PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A 20' X 7' ADDITION TO REAR OF HOUSE TO EXTEND KITCHEN AND EATING AREA. ANY EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A C.E.A. REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 14-1995 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 13-1-5 LOT SIZE: .15 ACRES SECTION: 179-16, 179-79 JOHN TABNER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 20-95, John W. & Lee V. Tabner, Meeting Date: May 25, 1995 "Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A, Section 179-38 B, Section 179- 38 C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and found that it is in compliance. The project received a variance to allow for a 5 foot side yard setback. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The addition is on the street side of the house and will not be visible from the lake. The project should not impact the compatibility of the site. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; This is not an issue. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; This is not an issue. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; This is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The project should not significantly impact stormwater drainage. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; This is not an issue. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; This is not an issue. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; This is not an issue. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways - 21 - ~' and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Erosion control measures should be in place during construction and until the site has been stabilized. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this appl ication. " MR. HARLICKER-The County said No County Impact, and there's a resolution for your consideration. MR. PALING-All right. Thank you. MR. TASNER-John Tabner. MR. PALING-Does anyone on the Soard have any comments before we proceed? MR. RUEL-I had requested a sketch of the roof line. MR. TASNER-Yes. I put it up on the Soard. I can take it down. Well, the roof line, this is the south side. This is the top of roof, right now, the present structure. This is the roof of the present structure, and this is looking at it from the one side, and it just extends out. This is looking at it from the other side, and then as far as the roof line is concerned, this shows, right here, there's the dormers for the upper story right now. This would be a ground line here, and then there would be four windows in right here. MR. RUEL-Do you know what the pitch is? It's pretty flat, isn't it? MR. TABNER-Well, it's the same pitch as the present roof, which comes back here, and what I have on it at the present time is I have gutters on it at the present time, and the gutter will be taken off the existing roof and then moved back and the gutter will be put on the new roof, of course, just moved back from where it is now to here, and then the water takes it down, actually I direct it down the side here and it comes down, and drains down to the front walk. MR. RUEL-The addition goes up to that wall, or beyond it? MR. TASNER-Well, actually, there's a wall right now, which there's a (lost word) stone wall. That's going to be taken out and as it shows on here, they're going to put in a four foot slab and then there's going to be an eight inch reinforced concrete wall that'll go right across here, but ground level will come up to that concrete wall, the same as the ground level does at the pre~3ent time. MR. RUEL-What is the height between the roof line and the ground level at that point, at the roof line? MR. TASNER-It's right in here. Right at the end, it's a seven foot ceiling, here, but the ground level will be, it'll be three feet from there up to the line. MR. PALING-To the roof? MR. TABNER-Yes, which is about what it is at the present time. MR. RUEL-So it's not seven feet inside, though, is it? MR. TASNER-Yes, it is, seven feet in. That's what it shows right in, here's the exterior wall right here. The dimension shows seven right in here, and then the three foot dimension is out heì- e . MR. RUEL-So how do you propose to catch water coming off the roof there? - 22 - - ~ - --" MR. TABNER-I have a gutter on it at the present time, and what I'll do is I'll put a gutter across the back, the same as I have at the present time, and the downspout comes right here and takes it down, and there's a concrete apron here. It goes on the concrete apron and then basically goes down. MR. RUEL-That's the same area you had before? MR. TABNER-That's correct. Well, it'll be a little larger roof area, but we are adding 140 square feet, which will be a little larger, but I have the gutters there, the same as on the guest cottage, and the gutters up there along the front as well. MR. RUEL-Yes. You have to have a gutter there. Otherwise your windows would get splashed. MR. TABNER-That's right. Well, I protect the gutter, also, because what it does is it takes the water away from the back of the house and takes it right down the side. I can use the water on the side because there's a lot of plantings there. MR. PALING-I think we all looked rather closely at what the pitch of the roof might be. Scott, in the building permit, we have a spec on roof pitch, I assume. That will have to meet it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They've got to meet Building Code. get involved with the building specs. I don't MR. PALING-We don't have to get involved with that. MR. RUEL-We can assume it will meet the Building Code. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-And you'll have a larger kitchen, about twice the size. Right? MR. TABNER-Well, yes, we'll actually be doing the same thing (lost word) sometimes we (lost word) eight foot pitch, it seems more than twice as much. It gives you a lot more room to work with. MR. RUEL-What's the width? MR. TABNER-The width? Twenty feet. It's across the back. MR. RUEL-So that's 140 square feet, roughly? MR. TABNER-One hundred and forty square feet, but see the kitchen area is over in here, and this will permit that, but the main important thing is it'll give us a much better dining area in here. Our builders are a little fancier than we are. We call it a kitchen addition. He calls it a dining room addition. MR. RUEL-Thank you very much. MRS. LABOMBARD-I was just wondering about the pitch of the roof, but that's, like Scott said, that's not our department. MR. TABNER-It looks to me as though the pitch is going to be the same as it is today. I mean, it continues on with the roof. I've never had any problem with the draining. MR. PALING-When you say, continue on with the roof, I think you mean the lower level of the roof in front of the windows, and that's a different pitch than the upper roof. Well, good luck, if that's what, we don't have to worry about it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because but I'm not positive. I think for new construction it's 5/12, I just worry about a lot of snow landing - 23 - on it, four or five feet of snow. MR. RUEL-Well, they're not there in the winter anyway. It doesn't matter if it falls down. MR. TABNER-Well, what we do with this is in the winter time, sometimes we have to have it shoveled off in the winter time. It depends on what the winter is. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll open the public hearing now on this, if anyone here would care to comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Do we need a SEQRA on this? MR. HARLICKER-Actually, no. It was already done. MRS. LABOMBARD-We did it last time. MR. RUEL-Do you want a motion? MR. PALING....,Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE ÞLAN NO. 20-95 JOHN W. & LEE V. TABNER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for 'its adoption, seconded by George Stark: (~s w)· it te n . Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 20-95 to construct a 7' x 20' addition to the Tear of a house; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 3/18/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, site plan, undated; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 5/25/95; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/25/95 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of QueensbuTY (Zoning). Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve, deny site plan # 20-95. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. - 24 - '--' -./' ,-./ ",--, 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Z.A. for his signature. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: t'IONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer SITE PLAN NO. 23-95 TYPE II CYRUS B. DIXON OWNERS: CYRUS & SALLY DIXON/PETER & WENDY DEMBOWSKI ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 9L TO CLEVERDALE STORE, MAKE LEFT AT FLASHING LIGHT, MAKE LEFT AT LARGE SIGN FOR TAKUNDEWIDE. BEAR LEFT ONTO BOATHOUSE ROAD. TED CAMP AT END OF STREET. PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE A SUN DECK (16' X 34') ATOP AN EXISTING BOATHOUSE (18' X 36') WITH STAIRS FROM GROUND LEVEL. BOATHOUSES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/95 LGPC TAX MAP NO. 11-1- 7.2 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16 BYRON RIST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 23-95, Cyrus B. Dixon, Meeting Date: May 25, 1995 "The proposal was compared to the criteria found in Section 179-60 regarding docks and boathouses. The 16' x 34' deck exceeds the 14' height restriction for flat roofs. The proposed deck has a height of 16' above the existing docks; the height will have to be reduced to meet the 14' height restriction measured from the water level." MR. RIST-I'm Byron Rist, Dembows kis . representing the Dixons and the MR. HARLICKER-The County returned No County Impact, and there's a resolution for your consideration. MR. PALING-Okay. Were you ~.Ja)·ned tonight? I think we all zeroed in on the height of this. about the height that we would be discussing MR. RIST-No, I wasn't. MR. PALING-It's too tall. MR. RIST-Did I understand Scott to say that it had to be 14 feet. MR. HARLICKER-Fourteen feet above the water level. MR. PALING-Yes, above the water level. MR. RIST-Is that mean high or mean low? MR. HARLICKER-Mean high. MR. PALING-Mean high water level. MR. RUEL-And now it's, what, 16 from where? - 25 - MR. PALING-Above the mean high water mark. i"1R. RUEL -Now? MR. PALING-What do you mean, now? MR. RUEL-The 16 footer, I was wondering, what is it above? MR. PALING-No, it's 14 feet above the mean high water mark. It's 16 nc.,w. MR. HARLICKER-The Code says measured from the water level. It doesn't say mean or low. It says water level. MR. PALING-Mean high water mark is what they mean by that. MR. RUEL-Yes, but my question is, the sketch shows 16 feet, but it doesn't indicate from what point. MR. PALING-Well, I think that the sketch indicated it was from dec k level. MR. HARLICKER-Sixteen feet from the existing dock, is how I read it. MR. PALING-Yes, and that's even worse. MR. RUEL-That's worse, right, because that could be 17 or 18. MR. PALING-It's got to be from the mean high water mark. MR. RUEL-That kind of eliminates the railing, doesn't it? Do you know what the distance is between the top of the deck to the water level now? MR. RIST-It would probably be 13 feet. MR. RUEL-Which gives you a one foot railing, according to the Ordinance, right? Well, you're saying 13 because you're subtracting three feet for the railing? MR. RIST-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Yes, but that 16 starts at the top of the deck. It doesn't start at the water level. MR. RIST-It starts at the top of the existing dock. MR. RUEL-Yes, well that's not the water level. My question is, what do you think the distance is between the top of the deck to the water level? MR. HARLICKER-Tack on another two feet maybe. MR. RIST-It's probably, I would guess, today, probably a foot a foot, and a half. MR. RUEL-My question was, the distance between the top of the deck, the very toP. way up, the sun deck, to the water level. MR. HARLICKER-It's measured from the railing. MR. RIST-Probably 14 and a half feet. MR. RUEL-That's it, then. You can't have anything on there. MR. HARLICKER-Well, it's measured not from the deck, it's measured from the railing, the top of the railing. MR. RUEL-I'm asking what the distance is now. He's telling me - 26 - '--", --,,' ........' '- that the top of the deck, the sun deck. MR. HARLICKER-The sun deck isn't there right now. sun deck. There is no MR. PALING-So he's got a big modification coming here, and the Lake George Association is the source on actually how you measure and determine the mean high water mark. MR. SCHACHNER-That's the Lake George Park Commission. MR. PALING-Well, Commission, yes. they get it from That's the source. the Lake George Park MR. SCHACHNER-No. They get it from a gauge at Roger's Rock, but the Lake George Association has nothing to do with it. It's the Lake George Park Commission. MR. PALING-Well, Lake George Association uses the Park Commission, and it all comes from Roger's Rock. Lake George I ag)"ee. MR. RUEL-Scott, where did you get this 14 feet? MR. HARLICKER-From the Zoning Code. MF~. f~UEL"-Ours? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I think the point that Mark was making, the authorizing agency to get the information from is the Lake George Par k Commi ssion . MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. I'1R. PALING-Yes. go to them. We can tell you how to do it or you can better MR. RUEL-Well, anyway, according to our Ordinance, he can't have a deck up there. MR. MACEWAN-Well, I guess the big question now is how does, now that you realize you have to modify the sun deck by approximately three feet, how is this now going to affect that hip roof structure on the existing boathouse? MR. RIST-It probably means that that hip roof is no longer going to be a hip roof. MR. PALING-Well, I think we're going to have to postpone this for resubmittal, it would appear. I think there's too much of a change to be made for us to make any kind of action tonight. MR. RIST-I wasn't, as I stated earlier, aware of this 14 requirement, otherwise we would have designed this to meet so we wouldn't be held up on the project. foot that, MR. PALING-Well, long, long time. it's been in existence, I It isn't anything new. don't know, for a MR. RUEL-Could you possibly put a flat roof on this and then drop it that way? MR. RIST-Yes, definitely. MR. RUEL-So that's way Bob indicates that perhaps you should go back and start over again. MR. PALING-I think so. Gem" ge? Lets have other comments, though. - 27 - MR. STARK-Mr. Rist, when did you plan on starting this project? MR. RIST-The middle of June. MR. STARK-If you have to, if you could re-submit, you know, as earlier as possible, a new plan, we could take it up June 20th, at the first meeting in June, if you could re-submit the plan, re-designed it, you know, so it's three, three and a half foot less in height. MR. RUEL-Is that a separate written Code that maybe he should halJe? MR. HARLICKER-No. It's a Section of the Zoning Code, Section 60. MR. RUEL-Yes, because there might be something else you might be interested in. If you're going to go through this exercise, you want to make sure you meet all the requirements. MR. HARLICKER-That was the only one that he didn't. MR. RIST-I had several meetings with either Scott or someone else from his Department, and that was never brought up to me. Otherwise we would have designed this so that we could go forward with the project, with approval tonight. MR. PALING-We don't have enough to make any kind of an approval tonight, I don't believe. MR. RUEL-No. You certainly can't condition an approval on the basis that the roof line will be changed. MR. PALING-What I suggest is we need a new submittal, and we'll work with you to get it as quickly as possible. MR. STARK-Mark, is there any way around this? If he, you know, for final designed, before a building permit is issued, that the design has to meet the 14 foot level? We could condition it on that? MR. SCHACHNER-I think I don't agree with Roger's statement that you cannot issue a conditional approval conditioned on modification of a roof line. I think you do have that authorit>,. MR. STARK-You could submit a new plan, Mr. Rist, and then if that's satisfactory, height wise, then you would get your building permit. I have no problem doing that, Bob. MR. RIST-So you can approve, this evening, with that condition? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. STARK-That you submit your final submittal plan, you know, for your building permit would show the new roof line being no higher than 14 feet from the mean high water mark. MR. RUEL-You're saying, then, that we should approve everything on here except the height? MR. PALING-Well, Scott's also saying that this was the only violation, was height. Everything else is okay. MR. HARLICKER-My suggestion would be, it sounds like you're leaning toward, if you're leaning toward a conditional approval, would be that the applicant submit a revised plan showing the height to the top of the railing be no more than 14 feet above the water level. It sounds like that could be accomplished by just taking off the existing roof and dropping the deck down on top of the existing structure. - 28 - '- -.-./ -../ I'm. I'-1ACEWAN--For his benefit, I'm sure submit a little bit more significant building permit. So if we just tie it feet to the top of the railing is the from the mean water level, we should be he's going to have plan for issuing of in and say, you know, maximum height he can all right. to a 14 go MRS. LABOMBARD-That way you won't have to wait until the 20th, and you can still commence building. So it's just, the time factor's in your hands. MR. MACEWAN-Do you have plans drawn up for submittal for building permit? MR. RIST-AII I have are the sketches here, at this point. MR. MACEWAN-I think you would need more than that to get a building permit issued. So that it wouldn't be a problem, then, because it's not going to hold you up because you're going to still have to put the plans together anyway, to get the permit application. MR. PALING-Yes. No, I can live with that, as long as we're tying this, specifically, to 14 feet above the mean high water mark, and you understand that that's a calculable level from which you measure, and that you'll take the steps to do it that way, and then you're limited to what the law says, which is 14 feet to the top of the railing, or the top of whatever is the top of the structure, sure. I can go along with that. MR. STARK,-F i ne. MR. PALING-Then, we'll open the public hearing on this matter now. Anyone care to talk about this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. Does someone want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-95 CYRUS B. DIXON, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George star k: A~s written, with the condition that the plans be modified so that the top railing of the sundeck be a maximum of 14 feet above the mean highwater level. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application, file # 23-95 to construct a sun deck over an existing dock; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 4/18/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, Survey, revised 10/3/94 2. Elevations, dated 4/25/95; and Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 5/25/95 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/25/95 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and - 29 - requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve, deny site plan # 23-95 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Z.A. for his signature. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set fort in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1995 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: BEEMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: CLEVERDALE ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A INTO 4 LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE AND A PARCEL. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 12.68 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS UNLISTED LEIGH P. WR-1A LOCATION: 12.68 ACRE PARCEL REMAINING 8.5 ACRE 12-3-27 LOT SIZE: JOHN CAFFREY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-1995 Sketch Plan, Leigh Beeman Colgate Phillips Estate, Meeting Date: May 25, 1995 "Staff has the following comments regarding this sketch plan: 1. Percolation tests and test pits should be performed for septic systems. 2. No new roads proposed. 3. Access to lot 1 should be from Hillman Road. 4. Applicant should outline any plans for remaining parcel. 5. On site septic and wells are proposed. 6. The limits of area to be cleared should be shown. 7. The site is relatively flat with a slight ridge running parallel to Cleverdale Road." MR. RUEL-Okay. drainage plan? Was the waiver granted on the drainage, the MR. HARLICKER-Well, this is just a sketch. stuff comes in. They'll seek the waivers for is not applicable, come preliminary. So, normally, that whatever they feel MR. RUEL-Well, they requested a waiver. There's a letter here from John W. Caffrey. - 30 - --- -..;' '--' MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Requesting a waiver on the drainage plan. MR. PALING-Roger, I don't have that letter. Do you want to read it so we can? MR. HARLICKER-Okay. The letter reads "Enclosed please find an application for Sketch Plan review for the above referenced subdivision and nine copies, together with ten copies of the Sketch Plan map. We would like this matter to be on the agenda for the May meeting of the Planning Board. For Sketch plan purposes, we request a waiver to the requirement there be a drainage plan submitted. No land is proposed to be dedicated for recreation purposes. If you require anything further, please let me know. John Caffrey" MR. PALING-Okay. Lets ask the applicants to identify yourself for the record, please. MR. CAFFREY-I'm John Caffrey, attorney for the estate of her is Mrs. Beeman, with me. The owned by Mrs. Beeman and by Executor of the estate. and I'm the attorney and also the father, Colgate Phillips, and this property is, at this point, jointly her father's estate, and she's the MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. The waiver of a drainage plan, does that mean that we shouldn't see a drainage plan? MR. CAFFREY-We just didn't want to have to file one with Sketch Plan, right now. If one's going to be required at preliminary, that's fine, but for Sketch Plan, we didn't want to get into too much work before we saw where we're headed with this. MR. PALING-All right. MR. STARK-Did you get a copy of the Staff's notes? MR. CAFFREY-Nô. MR. PALING-You weren't aware of these? MR. CAFFREY-No. We didn't see that. MR. PALH,IG-Oka)i. MR. CAFFREY-Is that what he just read? MR. PALING-,Yes. MR. CAFFREY-I can respond to an)i of those items. MR. PALING-Okay. The first item, he has percolation tests and test pits should be performed for septic systems. MR. CAFFREY-Mr. McCormack, I believe, filed a letter with Jim Martin, today, on that topic. They delivered a copy to !ll.l::. office. So I would assume they would have delivered it to the Planning Office. MR. PALING-All right. Then we wouldn't be able to take it up, then, tonight. MR. HARLICKER-That's something that should be on for preliminary. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. CAFFREY-I can tell you what he did say. He spoke to Dave Hatin, who told him to go speak to Rist-Frost. So he spoke to Mr. MacNamara at Rist-Frost who told him to go talk to Brian Fear - 31 - at the Health Department. So he did, and what Mr. Fear recommended for this site, based on some preliminary tests that had been done, was the possibility of a raised fill system, and if it met certain criteria for perc tests, that those would be suitable. Those perc tests were performed this week, and Mr. McCormack says that it did meet that criteria. So it's going to be our intention, unless we're told otherwise, to proceed on the assumption that the raised fill type systems will be used and the further design details on that will be submitted. The general areas for that will be in the areas shown on the sketch plan that you have, and that's where they did perc tests. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we'll see that in the next phase, yes. MR. HARLICKER-The other lots in the area also use raised mound systems, too, all the adjacent properties. MR. CAFFREY-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. Access to lot 1 should be from Hillman Road. Is that okay? MR. CAFFREY-We have no problem with that. It's our expectation that all the lots are accessed onto Hillman. There's a big bank right there anyway, about probably four or five feet. So I think anybody who purchased one of these lots, it would only be common sense to put it onto Hillman Road anyway. Cleverdale Road kind of slopes down. MR. PALING-Okay, and what about the remainder of the parcel? What's your intent? MR. CAFFREY-She has no intention to further subdivide the rest of the parcel. The way this is laid out now maintains a nice buffer between these lots and her house, and she has no intention to do any further subdivision. I'd also like to point out, there's no intention that these lots have any access to the lake in any way. This is not going to be a funnel development or whatever of any kind. There's no intention for that to occur. MRS. LABOMBARD-These lots don't have lake rights? MR. CAFFREY-No, no lake rights. MR. STARK-Do you want to be on for next month for preliminary and final? MR. CAFFREY-We would like to be. I'm not sure if, given the filing deadline is, what, next week. I'm not sure if we'll be able to make that, but if possible, we would like that. MR. PALING-Okay. We meet on the 20th and the 27th. MR. HARLICKER-The filing deadline is next Wednesday. MRS. LABOMBARD-Leigh, are you going to have any kind of a building restriction on these lots, for example, minimum square footage of dwellings or any special covenants to keep the aesthetics of your property at the level that it is? I mean, in other words, is somebody going to be able to come in and Just put up anything they want, or are you going to have any kind of a say as to what's going to be there? MR. CAFFREY-We haven't done any details, but we expect that we'll put something like that in. MR. PALING-Okay. Then you'll beaT Scott's comments in mind when the final, you're making your preliminary submission? Okay. The public hearing is not scheduled. Then we can just, what, table this? - 32 - -' -- MR. HARLICKER-Well, no. You don't even give a resolution. It's just a recommendation, an okay to go ahead to preliminary stage. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. CAFFREY-Yes. If there was a concern that everything is all wrong here and you want us to move everything all around, we'd want to know that tonight, but if it's otherwise, appears okay, then we'll proceed with this basic plan. MR. MACEWAN-It's looki ng fo)" to prelimi nan'. just those six items that be shown at preliminary Staff is really and addressed by MR. PALING-Yes. I think you'll address these at preliminary. Yes. I think we've covered that. Well, we have the applicant's agreement that he will tie in the points in Scott's letter. MR. HARLICKER-I mean, the references in my Staff notes are things that are required. You have to have a clearing plan. You've got to show suitability for septic systems and those sort of things. MR. SCHACHNER-And your only responsibility on Sketch Plan to make advisory recommendations, if you have any, applicant, so the applicant can proceed accordingly and any shocks or surprises when they get to preliminary. is just to the not have MR. PALING-Okay. That's a good way to do it. MR. STARK-That's fine with me. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we're in agreement. we'll see you in other meetings. Good luck, and MR. RUEL-We don't need anything on this? MR. PALING-Evidentally, not. Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 22-95 TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL J. WILLIG OWNER: ADIRONDACK RESOURCE RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, S.C.D.I. ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 115 RIVER STREET THE EXISTING BUILDING WAS LAST OCCUPIED AS A RESTAURANT IN 1991. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO RE- OPEN AT TIS SITE AS A RESTAURANT WITH A RENOVATED KITCHEN. RESTAURANT IS A PERMITTED USE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 5/8/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/10/95 TAX MAP NO. 112-1-60 LOT SIZE: .49 ACRES SECTION 179-26 MICHAEL J. WILLIG, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 22-95, Michael J. Willig, Meeting Date: May 25, 1995 "Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A, Section 179-38 8, Section 179- 38 C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and found that it is in compliance. The project received a variance to allow for a 5 foot side yard setback. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The applicant is not proposing any new construction. The existing building will be cleaned and painted. Existing lighting mounted on the walls will be utilized. A projecting sign is proposed for the front and is subject to a separate permit. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular traffic access is adequate. Two existing curb cuts will be utilized and will allow for a circular flow around the building. The applicant should close off the paved access in front of the building and plant some landscaping. - 33 - This would keep vehicles from using this area to make u-turns. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off- street parking and loading; The parking as proposed does not have the required 20 foot wide access aisle on part of the west side of the building. The applicant has indicated that plans will be revised so that the aisle will comply with the required width. The revision will involve making several parallel parking spaces. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; A drainage trench should be installed around the pavement to control runoff. 6. Adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The site is serviced by municipal water and will utilize an existing septic system. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead plants; The applicant is proposing to landscape a section in front of the building. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access appears to be adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. There does not appear to be areas that are susceptible to ponding, flooding or erosion. RECOMMENDATION: Because of the stream that flows through the site, attempts should be made to control runoff from the paved area." And he's done that through the inclusion of the stone trench. "In order to better control traffic flow and enhance the aesthetics of the site, the landscaping along the road frontage should be increased to include the area between the street and the building. The adjacent sidewalks could also be incorporated into the design." MR. HARLICKER-The parking has been revised since these notes were written. There is now adequate distance between the proposed parking and the building. The original plan did not have the 20 foot wide access aisle. So he revised his plan to show parallel parking instead of perpendicular parking. So he now has the 20 foot wide access on the west side of the building. The applicant has shown a stone trench around the rear edge of the paved area to control runoff. Warren County approved, with the condition that it conforms with the Queensbury Sign Ordinance. MR. PALING-Right, and then the Beautification Committee had some comments on this. Have you seen the Beautification Committee comments, and are you familiar with the comments Scott just read? MR. WILLIG-Michael J. Willig. Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. How about the Beautification Committee? Will you comply with what they're asking for? MR. WILLIG-Yes. I have no problems with what they said. Basically, all their suggestions I took as something I could do, and wouldn't mind doing at all. A couple of the people suggested either planter boxes or whiskey barrels on the front porch, which I'm going to do. There wasn't any mention of the grass area in the front until Scott brought that up, and I'm going to probably use railroad ties to form a box, and soil and seed it and throw grass in that front area. MR. PALING-Do you have dimensions on that? MR. WILLIG-Well, I'd be four feet, you know, I'd make a four foot walking lane, parallel to the front of the porch, and it would go to the end of my property, where it borders the Queensbury barrier to the road, and be as wide as the building itself. - 34 - '"-' --..,/ MR. PALING-But that's not on your print. MR. WILLIG-No. I didn't put dimensions on there. It would be as wide as the building and parallel to the porch four feet. MR. PALING-We'd have to have a little more definite detailed agreement on that, something we can talk to you about later, having done. A verbal exchange won't do it. How about the removal of dead trees and all that they talk, about, the Beautification Committee, I'm referring to now. MR. WILLIG-Yes. If there's anything like that that needs to be taken out, I'll either have a landscaper or tree removal company. It'll be cleared from the site. MR. PALING-Okay. Be sure that, you're familiar ¡"'Jith this, because I think that the resolution or the motion is going to ask that compliance with the Beautification Committee be done. So be sure that you are aware. MR. WILLIG-Okay. I have notes from the meeting. requested were recorded and I agreed on them. All their MR. PALING-Okay, because what they seem to ask for is quite reasonable, and I think ties in with what Scott wants, too. MR. RUEL-Staff made a comment about runoff water? MR. PALING-Yes. I think they said that's okay now. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I'm satisfied There's nothing there right now. So what's there. with what he's proposing. this is an improvement over MR. RUEL-Okay, because that's a culvert. screen, at that point, right? That's covered that J'o1R. WILLIG-Yes, it's under the ground. MR. RUEL-Yes, so you only ha\le one open a,-ea, ì-ight? MR. WILLIG-Well, the culvert runs off my property. MR. RUEL-Yes, but I mean, it's open on one side of the property, right? That's the only area that runoff water could get into. MR. WILLIG-Yes, exactly. MR. RUEL-Okay. If that's satisfied, that's fine. MRS. LA80MBARD-I was just wondering. openi ng? Did I miss a date of MR. WILLIG-I want to open June 1st. I can matter of days. I don't know what kind of, need to get an approval. do this work in a I don't know what I MR. PALING-All right. Well, lets see what you end up needing, and then we'll talk the d¿,Ües ~..¡i th you. MR. l>JILLIG-Is this meeting to decide that? MR. PALING-I think we'll decide most of it, ye~3 " MR. WILLIG-Just as a note, I own the business. I was operating in Hudson Falls, on Main Street, and I lost my lease. I had to move. I've been looking at the property sinpe six months ago, and I purchased the property the 16th of this month. On the day after we started our renovations, and I planned with Scott and Dave Hatin what I was going to do, and they gave me the okay to - 35 - go ahead and start work. I'm trying to expedite an opening for my business on the basis that, well, I'm not bringing in any income now, and this hiatus is something I can afford until the first, but after that it's going to be tough for me to stay in busi ness. MR. PALING-Well, don't put us in a position where we can't comply but lets see what we can do to go through this. At this point, lets open the public hearing on this, which is required, and we'll ask for any comments from anyone that would like to make a comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RUEL-In any event, I think you'll open before the Red Lobster. MR. PALING-I think any compliance with Staff Committee remarks. approval )"emarks as would v.,Iell be contingent upon the Beautification MR. RUEL-Does he have a copy of Staff's remarks? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. He's addressed all staff's comments. MR. PALING-So you're set there. MR. STARK-The final print, though, should show the dimensions. MR. PAI_lNG-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-It seems like you're concerned about showing dimensions of that grassed area in front of the building. MR. PALING-Yes. Well, we can make it contingent upon submittal t.o. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. He's got to submit two plans for Jim's stamp, and those plans can indicat.e the dimensions of the grass area in fr 0 nt . MR. PALING-Okay. f)"om t.he Board? Are there any other comments or suggestions MR. RUEL-What kind of approval are we giving on this? MR. STARK-This is it.. MR. HARLICKER-You should go through the SEQRA. MR. PALING-Which one, Scot.t., t.he Short. Form? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 22-95, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for it.s adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the MICHAEL J. WILLIG, and Planning Bo(,3.)" d an t.JHEREAS , proj('3ct this Planning Board has determined that the proposed and Planning Board action is subject to review under the - 36 - '----' --' ...J State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mì". Pa ling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer MR. RUEL-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 22-95 MICHAEL WILLIG, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Star k: As written, with the conditions that he comply with Staff comments and the Beautification Committee requirements, and also add dimensions as required. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file # 22-95 to utilize an existing building as a restaurant; and Whereas, the above mentioned site plan application, dated 4/25/95 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1, site plan, revised 5/20/95; and 2. Survey, dated 5/4/95 Whereas the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff notes, dated 5/25/95; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 5/25/95 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and - 37 - requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1 . The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve, deny site plan # 22-95. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above reference plan. 3. The applicant shall present the above referenced site plan to the Z.A. for his signature. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. ~' ;;J. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Site Plan approval process. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, ~1r. Paling NOES: NO!'\IE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer MR. PALING-Thank you. Go for June 1st. MR. STARK-Mark, why, if this was a restaurant, and it was operated just a few years ago? MR. HARLICKER-It was abandoned for more than 18 months. MR. STARK-Thank you. You knew my question. SITE PLAN NO. 27-95 TYPE: UNLISTED G. JOSEPH MONSOUR OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: NEXT TO JO JO'S RESTAURANT, 676 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONDUCT SALE OF FLOWERS, PRODUCE AND CHRISTMAS TREES FROM A PORTABLE STAND ON HIS PROPERTY ALONG UPPER GLEN STREET. SECTION 179-22 D(l) STATES THAT ALL LAND USES IN PLAZA COMMERCIAL ZONING WILL BE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 104-1-18 LOT SIZE: .86 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 27-95, G. Joseph Monsour, Meeting Date: May 25, 1995 "Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A, Section 179-38 8, Section 179- 38 C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and found that it is in compliance. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The - 38 - '--- , ~ applicant is proposing to expand the use of his property to include the sale of flowers, produce and christmas trees. No new structures are proposed; however, the expansion will include the placement of a tent on site. No new lighting or signage is proposed. The zoning code requires a 75 foot setback from the front property line on Glen Street. Since the tent is not considered a building, it is not subject to that requirement. However, since the tent will be in place for more than six months, the Board may consider implementing some type of setback requirement for the tent. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; The site is currently accessed by two curb cuts; this will not change. The vendor area is currently located next to the access off of Glen Street. To provide for safe ingress and egress the vendor area and parking should be moved away from the entrance. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The applicant has 22 parking spaces currently on site; this will not change. It appears that there is space on the site for additional spaces if needed. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The applicant is proposing a trench drain to control runoff from the site. It is placed in such a way as to collect runoff before it enters the brook. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The property is serviced by municipal water and sewer. A hose will be run from the restaurant to the vending area to water the plants. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; No new landscaping is proposed. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Eme)"gency access is adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. There does not appear to be any areas susceptible to ponding, flooding or erosion. ~ECOMMENDATION: In order to meet the setback requirement from the stream and to ensure safe ingress and egress the vendor area should be relocated." Preferably back toward the rear of the property. MR. MARTIN~I would have one additional comment, too, that there's a requirement of 50 foot buffer from residential zoning, and that this particular parcel has a rather funny configuration to it, with the, I think it's Single Family Residential zoning juts into the center of the parcel. That buffer area would have to be maintained. That rather reduces the vendor area, but that, nonetheless, should be indicated on the plat. MR. MACEWAN-Which direction are you referring to, from the back side of the parcel? MR. MARTIN-You see the dotted line on your plan there, going up into the center of the parcel? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That line also represents residential zoning. So there's a 50 foot distance from that line that has to be maintained as a buffer area per the Code. MRS. LABOMBARD-Left and right or up and down on this map? MR. MACEWAN-Isn't this a pre-existing use? - 39 - ,-' MfL MART I N- Y es . I'm ta I king about the llilli!. use. The commer cia I parking that's gone on and all that does pre-date, but the introduction of this new use of a vendor area would be limited to, you know, outside of that 50 foot distance. The commercial parking and everything that's shown is preexisting, but, in terms of introduction of a new vendor area, it would be subject to that s:etbac k . MR. PALING-Jim, which way does the residential zoning go? it go up or down? Does MR. HARLICKER-Inside that dotted. MR. MACEWAN-Put this right up on the easel so we can all see. MR. MARTIN-It's a very funny configuration. See this dotted line here on your plat? I'1R. PALING--Yes. MR. MARTIN-That also represents the Single Family Residential zoning line. MR. PALING-But there's nothing in there. MR. MARTIN-There is commercial parking shown in there, and that preexists. So a 50 foot measurement all the way around would have to be maintained for any sort of commercial use. So that would limit the vendor area, I think, you know, into this area here. Because I think this is a, what, a one to thirty scale. So if you scale that off, we scaled it off in the Office. It takes you right about to this pin right here. MR. MACEWAN-Does that now create a problem for them, not having enough parking area? MR. MARTIN-No. He has enough parking. The parking preexists. He's shown that he has enough parking, but I'm talking, and in terms of the actual placement of the tent, it would have to be maintained, because that's where the commercial use is occurring, that would have to be maintained outside of that buffer area, as it e;(ists. MR. PALING-That doesn't leave much. MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm Martin Auffredou, of the Law firm of Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes in Glens Falls. This Monsour. Bartlett, is Joseph MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. This says application, conduct sale of flowers, produce and christmas trees. What are you doing theT e not..-J? JOSEPI'1 MONSOUR MR. MONSOUR-We're selling flowers. MR. PALING-Do you have a permit? Are you supposed to be selling? MR. MONSOUR-Well, we have been selling for the past several years. MR. AUFFREDOU-Perhaps a little bit of background, if I can help out. The reason why we're here tonight is this came about as a way of a proposed resolution between myself and Mr. Dusek. One of your building inspectors issued an appearance ticket for Mr. Monsour and also one of his employees for violation of the Transient Use law, which is returnable in Queensbury Town Court. What we decided to do, and Scott can back me up on this. what we decided to do was to come here for site plan review purposes, - 40 - '-"' "'"-" I -- '-" because I think there is some question about that Transient issue. What we agreed to do was to come here before you, go through site plan review, identify and address concerns, and move forward. Is there a business there? You bet. Has there been a business there, or a similar business for a number of years? Sure has been, and that's why we're here tonight. MR. PALING-And it's being run as a transient business, is that what you're saying? MR. AUFFREDOU-I don't think it is a transient business. We dispute that. The Town has at least preliminarily taken a position that that is a transient use. We don't think it is. MR. PALING-I guess I'll abandon that line of questioning. I don't think it's going to get anywhere. MR. AUFFREDOU-It's not. MR. PALING-We will go ahead with the site plan if we have to, we'll come back to that. Does questions? ì"eviel;J and then, a n>'o ne ha ve a n)i MR. STARK-Well the first one is to Jim. You say that that's residential, there's nothing residential. You've got Flowerland behind it and you've got Friendlys. You've got the Sunoco station, and the first house on Glenwood Avenue owns the Pine Plank. I can't think of anything within two, three hundred feet that's residential. MR. MARTIN-I can't help that, George. It's residential zoning. It's then",. MR. AUFFREDOU-One of the things that we're thinking about doing, and we would toss it out tonight to you, I know it's not your jurisdiction, but one of the things that we thought about doing was filing an application to change that zone. I don't know if that would help. MR. PALING-Well, it probably would help, but there's nothing we could do. MR. AUFFREDOU-Exactly. That would be something that we're interested in doing to sort of get this situation cleared up once and for all. MR. MACEWAN-Would he have to go see the ZBA to get relief from the 50 foot buffer? MR. MARTIN-If he were to propose to go into the buffer, yes, or the other avenue is, like he just indicated, to pursue a zone change, which I think there's a certain amount of logic there. It's kind of awkward how that zoning boundary extends into the center of this parcel. MR. MACEWAN-There's a lot of logic there. MR. STARK-A plan of action would be to possibly table. You make application to the ZBA to get your zoning change. That would be a logical thing, and then maybe come back. MR. AUFFREDOU-When does the Zoning Board next meet? MR. MARTIN-The third or fourth Wednesday in June. MR. MACEWAN-What would you be looking the variance on the setback or are you for? Are you looking for looking for a zone change? MR. AUFFREDOU-A zone change. - 41 - MR. MACEWAN-That.'s the TOvHì Board. MR. Pt''1LING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That's a revolving application process, Martin. You can apply for that. any time. MR. AUFFREDOU-I, personally, think that makes the most because t.hat relieves a lot. of headaches, I t.hink, because then come back to you and say, we no longer have this problem, address whatever concerns that you have at. that. and start moving t.hings around. sense, we can buffer point., MR. STARK-If it. was me, that would be my plan of action. zoning change, or make application for it, and then. Get t.he MR. AUFFREDOU-And of course if that's denied, we've got some problems. MR. PALING-I think, also, that we can address other issues. We recognize t.hose two things are beyond our responsibility, but there's other issues I think we might bring up, so you'll know, when you come back, what t.he concerns might be. MRS. LABOMBARD-Are you allowed to, are you still conducting your business right. now, or have you been told that yOU have to terminate it? MR. AUFFREDOU-That was the arrangement that we reached with the Town Attorney, that we would go forward with the land use approval process. The action in Town Court would basically be staid, pending the outcome of this process. I don't think that it was anticipated that the land use application process would take this long, and Mr. Dusek may have something to say about that, quite honestly, but I don't see that we have much choice, other than to continue with the course of action that we're on. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. So as long as you're good faith and you're working at it, you can your, the status quo with the business. making progress in continue to keep MR. AUFFREDOU-That's our hope. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, unless Mr. Dusek thinks it's taking too long and there could be a change in. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm sorry to interrupt, but we don't really have much t.o do with that., okay. That's really between the applicant. and the Town Board and the Town Attorney. MRS. LABOMBARD-I was just concerned. Thank you. MR. PALING-I've got a few questions for you on that lot. You t.alked about a hose running across the parking lot for watering the plants, and you also say you're going to sell christmas trees. Now if you've got a hose. MR. MONSOUR-You don't need a hose then. That's for the flowers. MR. PALING-And also, Christmas trees take up a lot of space. I think a lot more than what you're utilizing there now. Are you going to have enough space left. for parking when you move christmas trees? MR. MONSOUR-Plent.y of room. MR. PALING-That doesn't say because it. looked like it quite a bit. he's been complying, though. Okay, might impinge upon your parking by - 42 - '-- ~ , -./ '~ MR. MONSOUR-I've got a lot of room out back. MR. STARK-Bob, they've been selling christmas trees for 20 years there, outside and in back. MR. MONSOUR-When I bought it, it was a Cl Commercial zone, in 1973. MR. PALING-And you're saying that zoning has changed since you moved in there? MR. MARTIN-Well, what this history is, is that he owned that U- Shaped parcel that goes around that, what I indicated earlier as residential zoning. It's a U-Shaped parcel, you see, it's like an upside down U, and then at some point later you bought. MR. MONSOUR-'81. MR. MARTIN-'81, he bought that other piece, and now he has two parcels, but there's that residential zoning boundary still carried over. MR. MACEWAN-What was that other parcel zoned at the time? MR. MARTIN-Residential. MR. MONSOUR-It was hooked on a house over on Glenwood. They must have changed the brook or something somewhere along the line. MR. PALING-Well, the Plaza Commercial allows you to do the business that you're talking about, and assuming you can get the other two problems straightened out, we just go look at it as a site plan review, and I guess we're just going to have to wait for those other things to be solved before we comment further. Now there is a public hearing scheduled. We should go with that and the table it, I think. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I'd like to make one comment. The Board couldn't take a formal vote on this tonight anyway because it hasn't gone up to the County yet. So what the applicant may do ne)(t month. MR. PALING-So there's nothing we can do. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. surprise to us. We understood that. That doesn't come as a MR. HARLICKER-The applicant could, like Martin suggested, the first Zoning Board next month they could try to get an Area Variance to go in within that 50 foot buffer, and that would give them more area on their property to play with, to locate their use, then come back on the second Planning Board meeting for their site plan review. MR. MONSOUR-We were going to go to the Town Board and have the zoning changed. MR. MARTIN-That's the other avenue available to you. MR. HARLICKER-You could do both. MR. MARTIN-You could do either one. MR. RUEL-You have two options, and you selected the one with the Town Board. MR. AUFFREDOU-I, personally, think that, in the long run, that makes a lot more sense. MR. PALING-Bear in mind, one of the problems with this - 43 - application tonight is that the County didn't have time to comment on it. So that should be done before we see it again. MR. AUFFREDOU-My guess is that we may end up going to the County twice. MR. PALING-I hope you wouldn't have to go twice. MR. AUFFREDOU-The County may have something to say on the zoning cha nge . MR. SCHACHNER-Right. The applicant is correct. If there is an application for a rezoning that they haven't met yet, then that would ordinarily be referred to the County as well. So if those things happen at different times, then they would, in fact, go to the County Planning Board more than once. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Lets open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here from the public who'd like to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED META MURRAY MRS. MURRAY-My name's Meta Murray. I own property in the direct vicinity. I just wanted to, I'm going to reserve most of my substantive comments until the public hearing which is going to be tabled in the future. I'll have another opportunity, correct? MR. PALING-We can table it that way. Yes, we will. MRS. MURRAY-Because I might want to respond to the substantive discussion that occurs. I just wanted to clarify the record in a couple of regards. I think there may be a little inaccuracy as far as characterization of the business that's been run on this parking lot. It's true that christmas trees have been sold there for a number of years. However, last spring was the first time that this use was expanded to include flowers, vegetables, pumpkins, as well as, I think last christmas was their, no, the christmas before was the first year that they included wreaths and other ornamentals besides the christmas trees. I just think it's important to understand and characterize the business as it existed correctly. Also, as far as single family residences in the area, granted this isn't in the residential zone, but in back of this property there are two single family residences that exist now. They are in the Plaza Commercial zone. However, it's a mixed characterization, as far as the neighborhood goes. MR. PALING-Excuse me. Is that within the same boundary as the zoning we referred to earlier? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Just across the brook there are single family homes. MR. PALING-Okay, within the one bordering, yes, okay. MRS. MURRAY-I'm talking about on the ~ side of the brook. MR. MACEWAN-There's single family homes within a zone that isn't for single family residential. MRS. MURRAY-Right. It's a mixed usage. So the neighborhood really has a mixed characterization. Again, I'm sure I'll have many comments following the discussion. I just had some questions, in looking over the zoning law. I was trying to determine, for myself, how the business, the usage was going to be characterized, and the closest I could come would be outdoor sales, as far as your definitions go. - 44 - '- I ----' '--- MR. PALING-Well, it would be classified a retail business. MRS. MURRAY-A retail business? MR. PAL It"G-·'y'es . MRS. MURRAY-And why is that? MR. PALING-Well, it's within the Plaza Commercial Code as a permissible and allowable business. MR. MARTIN-The definition of Retail Business is the offering, for a fee, of goods and merchandise to the general public and where the providing of services is clearly incidental to the sale of such goods or merchandise, excluding restaurants, motor vehicle sales and services, boat sales, recreational vehicle sales and services, mobile home and modular home sales and services, farm and construction equipment sales and services and logging equipment sales and services. So it's basically the offering for a fee of goods and merchandise to the general public. MRS. MURRAY-Okay. separate use. So that excludes restaurant. So thi~::; is a MR. PALING-I think restaurants are included. That was just one item I quoted to you. MRS. MURRAY-Jim just said, excluding restaurants. MR. PALING-It is excluding restaurants? MR. MARTH'-Yes. MRS. MURRAY-That's why I was wondering if this is the same usage or an expanded usage, how it was being characterized. MR. STARK-It's a preexisting usage, though, for the restaurant. MR. PALING-Yes. That restaurant has been there for a long time. MRS. MURRAY-And looking over the definitions, all I could come up with that seemed to fill the bill was outdoor sales. MR. PALING-I didn't realize you were referring to the restaurant when you asked that question. MR. MARTIN-Well, the restaurant is a separately listed use in the Plaza Commercial. Restaurant and Retail Businesses are two separately listed uses, both allowed with site plan review and appro\ial. MR. PALING--Oka¡.'. you said it's not So ¡.'ou're saying a restaurant is allowed. allo~Jed, but MR. SCHACHNER-It's just not a retail use. just not a retail use. It is allowed. It's MR. PALING-It's not a retail use. MR. SCHACHNER-It's a separate type of approvable use in Plaza Commercial, subject to site plan review. MR. PALING-Then it's okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Nor is the restaurant at issue here, I don't think. MR. PALING-Well, he has a restaurant on the property, and he has another retail business on the property. MRS. MURRAY-Is it an accessory business or, I'm just trying to - 45 - ~ figure out how it's being characterized. MR. RUEL-They're two separate businesses, both approved. MRS. MURRAY-Okay, and one's a restaurant and what's the other? MR. PALING-The other's a retail business. MR. HARLICKER-Retail sales. MRS. MURRAY-Okay. Two separate businesses. Okay. As far as the tent, is that, what kind of review does the Board look at, as far as characterizing the tent? This isn't considered a structure or a building. Correct? MR. PALING-Okay. That's on my list. That'll be taken up later, as to the characterization of the tent. MRS. MURRAY-Okay, because it didn't seem to be addressed any place in the Code that I could find. MR. PALING-Right, but that is going to be part of our review. MR. RUEL-Staff, is there a time limit on tents, on portable st r u,ctu res? t1R. MART IN-No. MR. STARK-Where do you live in relationship to the restaurant? MRS. MURRAY-I don't live in the vicinity. I own property in the 'v'iei ni ty. MR. STARK-Where's your property? MRS. MURRAY-My property is, I own parcels with two single family Friendlys. Flowerland and homes, behind two adjacent and ne>:t to MR. STARK-Okay. MR. PALING-All right. Well, the public hearing will be tabled and opened again at the next meeting that we have. MRS. MURRAY-Okay. Will I be noticed again, or will I just have to keep an eye on the paper? MR. MARTIN-It won't be formally noticed again, but what we eould do is make sure, you know, people come all the time to public hearings, and we'll notify you if you'd like to be notified of the next time this comes up. MRS. MURRAY-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Directly from our office. MR. PALING-Okay. Your office will take care of that. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We'll make sure she's notified. notice adequate? A few days MRS. MURRAY-Sure. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. MURRAY-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. All right. The public hearing won't be, we won't close it. We'll leave it open. - 46 - '---' --- ---/ '-" MR. HARLICKER-I've got two letters to read in. MR. PALING-Okay. ~m. HARLICKER-One is from l"Irs. IrJilbur Simpson. "We should like to go on record as stating we do not oppose the above application, but we do object to noise and pollution of our area by a radio at the site. The angle of Glenwood Avenue here and the amplifying effect of Halfway Brook tend to fill our property with whatever is being played at the applicant's location. On May 24, 1995, someone on the premises turned off the music at once when asked to do so. This was certainly appreciated. Thank you for informing us of this opportunity to state our position. Natalie J. Simpson Wilbur F. Simpson" And there's a record of a telephone conversation with a June Maniacek. She is a neighbor. She has no problem with Jo Jo's selling flowers and plants, but she does have a problem with the radio. She says they have enough noise without the piped in music. Selling flowers and plants is no problem to them, though. MR. PALING-Okay. Anything else? I have a couple of questions, if you want to come back. The canopy, or whatever you have up to now, do you consider that a tent? MR. MONSOUR-Yes, a tent. MR. PALING-That's what you will have as a tent. have a spec on tents. I''''¡ow I.>Je don't MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. MARTIN-No, not that I'm al..JiHe of. MR. PALING-Do we consider that structure, whatever it is, adequate for a site plan approval. MR. MARTIN-Well, this the age old problem with these types of uses. Remember this when we were at the corner of 149 and Ridge Road, you know, basically, I think, my approach anyhow, was parking is a concern, and to measure the dimensions of the vendor aT ea and gauge your par ki ng accor di ng, is what I.>Je did when I.>Je looked at it as a Staff. That's the best thing we could come up with. There's really no, there's nothing in the parking schedule like you have for restaurants or offices or something like that. There's no formal schedule for parking. It's a temporary structure. It's not subject to a building permit. MR. PALING-That is subject to a building permit? MR. MARTIN-No, it's not. MR. PALING-No, it's not. Okay. MR. STARK-It really isn't a good analogy, using the 149, because the 149 didn't have any toilets. He's got his own public restroom. MR. MARTIN-I'm just saying from the standpoint of trying to calculate the parking. It's a difficult thing with these vendor areas, to calculate the parking. MR. STARK-Well, I've never seen people overflowing the site. He has his own restroom there, and the business has been there for a couple of yei,HS. MR. PALING-Okay. business, and that bloloJ it al.>Jay. If we're approving this as a commercial isn't, lets say, a safe structure, wind could MR. RUEL-It could blow the building away, too, if it's strong - 47 - enough. MR. PALING-All right. Well, I'm not going to be the only one worried about whether it's a tent. If I have no backing on this, then I'm going to back off. MR. RUEL-You've got no backing. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's not really a tent. It's one of those. MR. PALING-Canopies. MRS. LABOMBARD-Canopies to keep the sun off. MR. PALING-But he said it's a tent. MR. RUEL-Well, it's both. MR. STARK-He misspoke. He meant a canopy. MRS. LABOMBARD-It doesn't have sides. MR. RUEL-No. It's just a roof with four poles, right? MR. PALING-All right. MR. AUFFREDOU-If you were having a party in your back yard, you may have a similar type of a canopy. MR. PALING-And we took it down after the reception was over, too. Okay. I'm off that. Any other comment? MR. MARTIN-So we're tabling it for what purpose, now? MR. PALING-Well, with the applicant's concurrence, we're going to table this for resubmission on a particular date, so that they can square away either zoning or variances. MR. MACEWAN-We're tabling this tonight because it hasn't been to Warren County. MR. MARTIN-So you're tabling for the buffer issue and the Warren County issue. Is that correct? I just want to have him going away from here knowing what he should be responding to. MR. PALING-Well, he's got to look at three things. Number One, to make sure that the County is aboard on this thing and we have comment from them, and then he's got to take either one of two routes. You've got to either go to have it rezoned or you've got to go for a variance. MR. HARLICKER-Well, he could do both. MR. PALING-Or both. That's all right. MR. HARLICKER-At least from Staff's point of view, if he was able to get relief from the 50 foot buffer, he would be able to address Staff's concern about the proximity to the road access, and he could put the vending area to the rear of the property, and that would solve Staff's problem as far as proximity to the brook and proximity to the access point. MR. RUEL-Do you think if he had no variance at all that he could still do it? MR. HARLICKER-Well, that would leave him, there's 68 feet between the dotted line and the back property line. So that leaves him 18 feet back there for a vending area. MR. RUEL-He could possibly do it, but it would be very close. - 48 - ''"'-- -......./ ...J MR. HARLICKER-Could he fit it in there? It would be long and narrow, but he probably could. MR. PALING-Sixty-eight by eighteen? MR. HARLICKER-It's 68 feet from that dotted line that Jim indicated up there to the back property line, and if he needs a 50 foot buffer, that leaves him 18 feet, and by 94 feet long. MR. PALING-Eighteen by ninety-four. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-That's a third alternative. MR. PALING-All right. Well, I think this is what you understand, though. I don't think there's any confusion there. MR. AUFFREDOU-No. I guess, remember, it was our suggestion. So we've thrown this out as something we've offered to do. I guess my only question. Mark, as far as, we've got to make some decisions here as far as what we want to do, as far as moving ahead. Procedurally, which would be the more expeditious, if you know, going the variance route, or the zoning change route? MR. SCHACHNER-We have no control or say about either one of them, but one of them is governed by certain time frames, namely the variance approach, and the other one is purely discretionary and to the Town Board, but that works both ways. That means it could happen more quickly, or it could happen more slowly. That's the one that you have the least amount of control over. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you. MR. PALING-All right. Then we'll table this, with your concurrence. Well, we should put a date on it, and then if we change the date, I think we're all right. MR. HARLICKER-That submission deadline for the Wednesday. So we should know by next Wednesday to go for the variance or not. variance is next if )/ou' '( e go i ng MR. AUFFREDOU-That's fine. MR. MARTIN-And then that would be on a Zoning Board meeting in June, and it could be followed by a Planning Board meeting in June. So, it could potentially be back before you, if that's the route he takes. MR. SCHACHNER-So you could do the second meeting in June. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-We've got 20th and 27th. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So you use the second meeting in June, sounds more appropriate. MR. PALING-All right. Then why don't we put it to the the motion. Do we need a motion on this, to table? Yes. Does somebody want to make a motion on this? 27th in Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 27-95 G. JOSEPH MONSOUR, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by GeOì"ge Staì" k: Until June 27, 1995. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: - 49 - AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: t'-lONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. See you next month. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 28-95 TYPE: UNLISTED DAVID KENNY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: UPPER RT. 9, SOUTH SIDE OF THE MEETING PLACE PUB IN A HC-1A ZONE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 840 SQ. FT. ENCLOSURE TO AN EXISTING OUTSIDE DECK. CHAPTER 179-23 D(l) REQUIRES ALL USES IN HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/14/95 TAX MAP NO. 36-1-31 LOT SIZE: 3.39 ACRES SECTION: 179-230(1) DAVID KENNY, PRESENT MR. PALING-Now, in this situation, I think either Jim or Scott should, not misinformation, but when I communicated with the Board members earlier, was a different message than what we have now. So maybe you'd like to read that letter or comment on the situation, so everybody knows the same. MR. MARTIN-I'll read the letter. I think it's fairly self- explanatory. If there's any questions. This is a memorandum to the file #31-87, Highway Host Motel and Restaurant, from myself, regarding a modification to the Planning Board approved site plan dated today's date. "The Community Development Department is in receipt of a site plan application for enclosure of an open deck at an existing restaurant (Meeting Place) on upper Route 9. The initial determination was to send this application for site plan review and a file number (28-95) was assigned to the application. However, since the time of application receipt it has come to my attention that the restaurant and motel have already received site plan review and approval from the Planning Board on November 19, 1987 (see copy of approving resolution and site plan attached). The current proposal involves the enclosure of an existing open deck of 840 sq. ft. in area. The enclosure will not increase parking demand, impermeable area, alter patterns, volumes or landscape design. In consideration of the site plan approval issued for the restaurant and motel, the immaterial nature of the enclosure proposed and the past determinations made concerning other similar site plan modifications, it is my determination as zoning administrator that the proposed deck enclosure is a modification to the approved site plan (#31-87). As an additional measure I have spoke with Wayne LaMothe at the Warren County Planning Office and he concurs with this determination. Therefore, file number 28-95 will be stricken from the record concerning this proposal." MR. PALING-Okay. 2;ta nd? If you've stricken this, now, where do we MR. MARTIN-This would be referred to under the 31-87 designation. MR. PALING-Okay. Just change the number here to 31-87. MR. MARTIN-As a modification to that site plan. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. MR. RUEL-31-87 was approved back in '87, right? - 50 - --~ -' , -.../ MR. PALING-Right. MR. RUEL-November '87. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We have copies of that resolution, as well as that site plan, if you'd like to review it for any reference. MR. RUEL-Well, isn't it normally done this way, normally plan approval on something like that and then later on, want to make a modification? a site if you MR. MARTIN-Yes, and I like, in recent modifications have come, we made a modification to the Wal~M(,Ht site plan, as you recall. There was one done on the l'1all expa nsion , and this is, in that same vein. The other thing, this is a, it's kind of a quirk in our Ordinance, and I was on the Board at the time. The Docksider was in for a site plan review as a restaurant, and it had an outside deck, and we really wrestled with it as a Board at the time as to how you treat that deck, in terms of the various impacts on parking and things, and the outcome of that was the passage in the Code now that exempts outside decks from site plan review as an accessory use, and that's why it's kind of hard to wrestle with this particular one, in that it was built as an outside deck, as an accessory use for that summer, and now it's being enclosed. Now it makes, it transcends from an outside accessory deck to an extension of the principal structure. MR. RUEL-Are you saying every time there's a modification to the existing 1987 plan that there must be another site plan review? MR. MARTIN-Well, depending on the nature of the modification made, I view this as a minor modification. It's 840 square feet. It represents probably one or two percent of the overall building area, and I went on, I noted that there is no material change to drainage patterns, landscaping, parking that type of thing. If there was, you know, a major change or a material change, then you would consider a full blown site plan review. MR. RUEL-What we have here is a modification to site plan. MR. MARTIN-I consider this a minor modification. MR. RUEL-Weren't there modifications done to this structure previously, since 1987? MR. MARTIN-Yes. There was a, last year he added a handicapped ramp on the front. MR. RUEL-That was modification? considered too minor to even have a MR. MARTIN-Right. It was an accessory structure. MR. RUEL-Now who makes this determination as to whether it's really minor or not? MR. MARTIN-Myself. ~1R. RUEL -I,..Jh)i? MR. MARTIN-It's part of that lovely job of Zoning Administrator. MR. PALING-Do you concur in this? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it's not up to me to agree or disagree with the characterization as minor, for the record. MR. PALING-No, based on our conversation of this previously, this letter alters the whole thing, and do you agree that this is a path we can take as outlined in Jim's? - 51 - MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. MR. PALING-Okay. That's what I'm looking for. MR. RUEL-It doesn't matter what we were told previously. This cou nts, right? MR. PALING-Sure it does. MR. MARTIN-The thing that's really relevant, and I'm not saying that I've got the cleanest slate on this one as Zoning Administrator. It was not an easy call, but a lot of research was done on this, and the '87 site plan is there, and what really was the quirk in this was, as I said, outside decks aren't subject to site plan review. Now we're enclosing it. Now it's part of the principal structure. MR. PALING-No, I have no objection, but based on conversations, I wanted to make sure that we did, Mark with the route we were going on, however you put that. previous agreed MR. RUEL-Sounds great to me. Lets go. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Scott? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 28-95, David Kenny, Meeting Date: May 25, 1995 "Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A, Section 179-38 B, Section 179-38 C, and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and found that it is in compliance. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The proposed expansion should not impact the compatibility of the site. No new lighting or signage is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular traffic access will not be impacted. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; Off street parking is adequate. There are 145 existing parking spaces with room for an additional 25. Required number of spaces is 156, 45 spaces for the restaurant and 111 spaces for the motel. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian access will not be impacted. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Drainage will not be impacted. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; Water supply and sewage disposal will not be impacted. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands including maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; Landscaping will not be impacted. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access will not be impacted. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. This is not an issue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff can recommend approval of this application. II MR. KENNY-David Kenny. I own the business. MR. PALING-Any comments or questions at this point by the Board? MR. RUEL-I'd just like to mention that Scott read this note to - 52 - " -- '-/ ~ file, and everything was no impact, or no issue. All of it, 100 per cent. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. The only concern would have been parking, and he has got adequate room to expand the parking if it becomes a problem. MR. RUEL-And yet they have to go through this. MR. HARLICKER-Well, we don't know if it's a concern or not until you look at it, until you go through the process. MR. RUEL-But it Just seems like quite an exercise, you know, for just something like this. MR. HARLICKER-Well, a review might have shown that one of these ~ a Pì"oblem. You don't know unti I you go thì"ough the process and review the project. MR. MACEWAN-Question A., where does this all tie in with not making the submittal date, 'hom 'tour standpoint? MR. MARTIN-We had adequate time to review it as Staff. I will say that. I asked the Chairman if he would consider it. He said he would, because there was some problem at my end. Apparently, Dave had called and asked me this specific question, and I don't remember having talked about this, but he's saying that I said it didn't need site plan review. He submitted a building permit. The building permit came through. We looked at it as Staff. We said, this needs site plan review, and there was this problem, and I was remiss in my conversation. So that's why I gave this special treatment, so to speak, to try and get this on the agenda, because I feel like I misguided the applicant. MR. RUEL-In other words, the building permit was held up for an indefinite period of time? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-And possibly the applicant should have been notified a lot earlier that the building permit could not go through. Is tha,t it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I accept any blame or responsibility for that mistake. MR. MACEWAN-Second question I have for you. Are you going to be receiving some formal determination from Warren County that it doesn't need to go up there for a review? MR. MARTIN-I spoke with Wayne on the phone today. He said commit that to writing, if you'd like, and I don't have any problem with that. I could attempt to get something in writing from him. MR. MACEWAN-I just want to know if that's going to be good enough for you guys. That's all. MR. MARTIN-We have a relationship. That's the Board would like. good relationship with the good enough for me, but I County, working can get more if MR. MACEWAN-Well, I know that it's not always been the greatest working relationship in the past. MFL i'1(iFH Hj--I;JEd 1 , IrJe're getting better. MR. MACEWAN-Cn)ss your T's ancl dot YOUì" I 's. i'1R. KENNY-- I will sa>' I spoke to my Wayne also, this and Wayne sald he had no Pì"obl.em at all.. afternoon, - 53 - --- MR. MACEWAN-But I'm just looking at it from this because if it raises an issue or a question that this gone to County for their approval first, you know, it of order what we're supposed to be doing. That's why standpoint, should have puts us out I asked. MR. KENNY-Well, what Wayne told me, basically, was that the whole site had been reviewed. It's a minor modification. He did not think it had to come back before the County. The County already passed the existing site plan. That's Jim's call, because Jim can require it. It's up to Jim to make a decision, but as far as he was concerned. MR. MACEWAN-I appreciate what you're telling me, but what's important is what's told Jim, in this case. MR. MARTIN-I concur with that accounting. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Fine. MR. PALING-Any other questions? Comments by anyone on the Board? Okay. We need to open the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing in this matter. Would anyone care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-It wouldn't need a SEQRA as a modification. MR. PALING-Good. So this can go right to motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MINOR MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 31-87 DAVID KENNY, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written. Duly adopted this 25th day of May, 1995, by the following vote: MR. RUEL-Is this thing written? 1'-1R. PI~'-ING-Yes. MR. RUEL-As written. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Obermayer MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. Lets get to other matters. MR. MACEWAN-What other matters are there? MR. MARTIN-I believe last week in your packets you got some suggested changes to the Waterfront Residential zone. It is on yoU)- agenda. MR. HARLICKER-We would like to get some Board feedback on those. MR. PALING-All right. First of all, on my agenda, the June meetings, the site visits will be June 8th, 4 p.m., and then the meetings will be held the 20th and the 27th, the third and fourth Tuesdays. Jim, I was going to ask you to comment on something else, prior, I left that last one, because that's going to be the wordy, well, next to the last. We talked, when you weren't here - 54 - -- ...- ...- at the last meeting, about as built requirements. That in regard to subdivisions, we were going enforce this, now, and we would do it on a premeditated basis, and I wondered if you had any additional comments, just to pass on to the Board about the whys and wherefores. The option to do it, not option, has been there, but hasn't been done very regularly, I guess, but we're going to do it now. Would you give us a little bit on dates and things like that. MR. MARTIN-Dates in terms of? MR. PALING-Yes, when it's got to be done, what conditions and so on. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll start with, the purpose of as builts is to have a record that the system was designed as installed, or installed as designed, or if not, then we have a record of change orders and reasoning behind that change order, and again, if they're potentially large enough, that they would come back to this Board for consideration, should there be a major problem found with the installation of a drainage line or a road or some~thi ng of that nature. The reason for hav i ng that is to ma ke sure that we, in fact, get a design that is in compliance with both your approval as well as the Code, and in the past, even prior to the current Staff's tenure with the Town, it's spotty as to whether or not those record plans were ever submitted, but with the additional Staff that we have, with John Goralski now in place as Enforcement Officer, this is something, now, we can follow through on with regularity and keep good records on. I think it's very important. The other thing, obviously, if you get into a situation like in Queensbury Forest Phase III, we did have record plans on that and it was nice having those so we could see and check what was installed was as approved, and as it turns out, it was not, and some corrections were made. MR. PALING-Jim, how about the timing of this, that we meet here with them and give them an approval, the motion's approved with modifications, but those have to be incorporated into a print, which ~.Je m¿¡y never S~3e, but you would, and is there a time? MR. MARTIN-And you would, as Chairman. MR. P{\LING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-On a subdivision plat. MR. PALING-All right. You'd have to sign it. MR. MARTIN-But my recommendation, and I think it's a safe position to take, is that given the fact that in many instances you have a three step subdivision process and at a minimum you have two, is that you should not have a final subdivision application with a lot of conditions on it. There's plenty of opportunity there to address problems in Sketch Plan and Preliminary, so when you get to the end of final and you have a final plat, ready for this Board to act on, that plat should have all the T's crossed and I's dotted. MR. PALING-Shouldn't have many exceptions to it. MR. MARTIN-Site Plan's a little bit different. I mean, that's basically a one step process, but subdivision you have those two or three steps there that allow you adequate time to, and the applicant, to address your concerns. MR. RUEL-This was always a requirement, though, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's set forth right in the Subdivision Reg's. MR. PALING-Yes. We don't have to change anything there. Wi 11 - 55 - --' you put some kind of a hint, it was suggested before, or not a hint, a big headline, that this will be required of the applicant that the final as built will have to be submitted, and so that, the night that we got into it here, three meetings ago, it was a surprise to the applicant. So I wasn't in favor of enforcing it at all, but if we do it this way, we all know about it, and now they know about it. Then lets do it. So if you could, somehow or other, headline it, especially where it's kind of a new, at least from an enforcement standpoint, that they would know what they're getting into and it wouldn't be a surprise. MR. MARTIN-It's not nearly as much of a concern with a small two or three lot subdivision that does not propose any new roads or anything like that, but if you have a, you know, a 10 or 30 lot subdivision with new roads on it and things like that. MR. PALING-Wait a minute. Ii ne. I don't think we want to draw that MR. MARTIN-My point is, what are we going to record, what aTe we going to look at? There is nothing being installed. MR. PALING-But you want it as built on the final subdivision plat. MR. MARTIN-As built refers to road installation, drainage installation and that type of thing. I'1R. RIJEL--Just the way it is. Just the way it will be. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-But then you're qualifying it by size. t-m . MACEWAN-No. tonight, there's it. So there's for on the file. In a case like with the Beeman subdivision one that's not going to have any as builts on nothing that you're going to have to follow up MR. MARTIN-There's nothing really to look at. once you, if you have a two lot subdivision, the goes away with two lots. Within that lot, he envelope to build within. The applicant, applicant then has a building MR. PALING-Then that's your as built. MR. MARTIN-Yes, well, then we have the final plat you slgn. That's our record drawing for that particular subdivision. MR. PALING-And that's as built. MR. MARTIN-But, if I have a subdivision with ten lots in it, and a road to be built, with drainage, now you have the final plat that YOU sign off on, but yet another dra~.,¡i ng is needed. I want to see how the road is actually installed, and if it was installed and drainage was installed according to design, and if there were changes, what. MR. RIJEL-You keep talking about the Chairman signing something that we don't see? MR. MARTIN-Yes. The Chairman's responsibility is to sign the final subdivision plat, always has been that way. MR. PALING-It's on subdivisions only. MR. MARTIN-He does not sign off until any, if any conditions were placed on it, until they are met and shown on the plat, and until all fees are paid, meaning engineering fees, recreation fees, and all that, and he doesn't sign either until DOH, if there's a DOH - 56 - ~ ---./ --.-/ approval to be had, or a DEC permit, or a Highway Superintendent, or Water Superintendent. MR. RUEL-Do you have a complete list of open items at the time you sign these things? MR. HARLICKER-There aren't any open items by the time he signs it. MR. PALING-I refer to the resolution. MR. MARTIN-That's part of our job, too. We make sure there are no open items that are unresolved. MR. PALING-Scott and I will go over it and we refer to the resolution if necessary. MR. RUEL-And he's already gone over it. You go over it again. MR. PALING"-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Double check. MR. MARTIN-I can't stress enough. I think it's very important, before you leave preliminary stage, that should be just a pretty much a done deal by final. MR. PALING-Most everything is done. MR. MARTIN-Because otherwise it gets awful hard to trace the. MR. RUEL-At the end. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-When you put a condition on final resolution, such as, all Rist-Frost comments have to be addressed, then that leaves it up to me to say whether those comments are addressed or not, and that puts Staff in a very awkward position. MR. RUEL-Yes, I agree. MR. PALING-Okay. I think, then, we're underway. As builts are going to be required. You'll flag it to the applicants, and we will make it sometimes part of a resolution. MR. MARTIN-And we are being much more remindful of if they're asked for early on, to list all and any request at the outset. the waiveõ"s, IrJaivers they MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Do you anticipate any so later date, on site plan review? have conditions on that? called as builts on site, at a It's the same thing, right, you MR. MARTIN-'Yes. MR. RUEL-Then why are we talking just about subdivisions. It's very important that everything be included in there but we don't say anything about site plan. MR. HARLICKER-Well, when Jim stamps the site plan, all the concH tions. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but he's saying after, like, if you have a plaza to be built, you know, afterwards have the, I mean, it's something you could ask for at your discretion. There's nothing set forth in the site plan review for that type of thing. - 57 - MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, that's the difference. The answer is that the Subdivision Regulations contain a specific provision that basically says that there has to be a professional certification upon completion, that essentially amounts to as built drawings, and that they have to be filed. There's nothing in the Zoning Ordinance relating to site plan approval that has that same requirement. MR. RUEL-My question was, do you anticipate ever changing it or doing that, that's all. MR. MARTIN-As Staff we don't, but I mean, like we got as builts on the Mall, for example. That was a site plan. They just submitted those. I think it was a requirement of their financing to have those done. Now we have an as built drawing of the Mall, after completion of the construction, but, you know, it might be useful. MR. RUEL-It seems to me it's just as important. MR. MARTIN-You have the same concerns, drainage, parking design, landscaping. MR. PALING-Okay. George had some questions, too. MR. MARTIN-But it is another expense for the applicant, bear that in mind, if that's a concern on your part. That is another expense. MR. STARK-Mark, any news on the lawsuit? Okay. MR. PALING-Which one are you talking about? MR. STARK-Charlie Wood. How long does it take for Dier to come down with a decision? MR. SCHACHNER-It's very unusual for him to take this long, but unlike all the rules that govern everything that we all do, there is absolutely no law, rule or regulation that's setting forth a certain time limit. He has until the end of the world as we know it. It's very unusual for him to take this long, though. MR. STARK-Okay. collected $2,677. On your yearly report, you billed $2,307 and you You collected more than you billed? MR. MARTIN-What that is, it's a carryover from the prior year, was paid in '94. So it shows it as being more than what was billed. MR. STARK-Are we going to get into the other thing? MR. PALING-What's that, you mean the Zoning Code? MR. STARK-No, for the lake, this thing here, the Waterfront. MR. HARLICKER-The Waterfront stuff? We want your comments. MR. MARTIN-The Zoning Board looked at it last night. same thing with them. We did the MR. PALING-Are you into Waterfront now? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Excuse me. Hold the phone. I had one other item before we get into this. Jim, did you do anything for another visit to another Planning Board? George and I are all hept up. We want some more of this stuff. MR. MARTIN-Where did you go, Colonie? - 58 - '--' '---' ~ '--- MR. PALING-Colonie. MR. MARTIN-Clifton Park would probably be the next best one to go to, or Nyskauna, Guilderland. MR. PALING-Do you want to see if we can go this month, I mean June? MR. MARTIN-June is five days away. I can try. I will try. MR. PALING-I leave the 23rd for the rest of the month. MR. MARTIN-I just want to know what the night is. I'll try and get the night, the meeting night. That's all. MR. PALING-Let us know, would you, because if it's before the 23rd, I'd like to go. MR. MARTIN-Before the 23rd of June? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Which one, anyone in particular? MR. PALING-All right. Let us know, if you would. MR. MARTIN-I'll try and get something in, lets see, Clifton Park or Guilderland or Nyskauna, one of those. MR. PALING-Okay, and see what they've got for June and July, and we'll pick from there. MR. MARTIN-The only reason I say Guilderland is that's got the Crossgates Mall in it. So I know they're pretty sophisticated. MR. SCHACHNER-They're also televised. Guilderland Planning Board meetings are also televised. MR. MARTIN-Are they really? MR. SCHACHNER-On the local cable channel. I've been to Guilderland Planning Board meetings and I've been on the tube. MR. PALING-And Colonie doesn't even have microphones. MRS. LABOMBARD-What about Saratoga? MR. MARTIN-That's an interesting one to go to, I've heard. MRS. LABOMBARD-They have lots of malls there. MR. STARK-Wilton. MR. SCHACHNER-They actually don't in Saratoga. interested in malls, they actually don't have malls in If you're Saratoga. MR. MARTIN-Wilton is the one. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's Wilton. That's not Saratoga. You're right. MR. SCHACHNER-But it's an interesting Board in Saratoga. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. Lets go to Saratoga. MR. MARTIN-That's a City Board, too, that's a little bit different. MR. PALING-I highly recommend attendance. We had a good time. We learned a lot. Okay. Lets get to what we came for, proposed amendments to the Zoning Code. Who has comments on this? - 59 - MR. MARTIN-First of all, I should say, you got one that was going to address habitable space. We have since suggested that be stricken from consideration, because it's just too complex of an issue. MR. RUEL-Which one, Item Two? MR. MARTIN-The habitable space definition. MR. PALING-That's the one I understood best of all of this. MR. RUEL-I didn't understand any of it. Number Three here, the floor area ratio. I had a question on MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's still in. MR. RUEL-What is the ratio? MR. MARTIN-Ten peTcent. So square foot lot. You'd be building area. Building area garages, house. in other words you have a 20,000 limited to 2,000 square foot of would be defined to include sheds, MR. HARLICKER-We've come up with a definition. MR. RUEL-I guess house is a principal building? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. HARLICKER-It's considered under building squaTe footage. Combined area of all buildings on a lot, including all floors of residential structures, covered porches, garages, and all other accessory structures, except decks. MR. MACEWAN-Boy, that puts a big damper on a lot of Lake George activity, doesn't it? MR. HARLICKER-It SUTe does. MR. MARTIN-We're lowering the height from 35 to 28 feet on principal buildings and from 35 feet to 16 feet on accessory structures. MR. MACEWAN-It's funny that you mention that, because when I was up in Cleverdale today, I was just so amazed. I just took my time and rode around all through Mason Road and Crossover Road, all up through there, and it's just amazing how everyone is Tight on top of anotheT with humongous decks. You could spit from one house to another. MR. MARTIN-Have you gone to Rockhurst? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That's truly uTban. Rockhurst is, if you were to like, somebody were to blindfold yoU and take you there and put you in the center of that road, and you looked down there, and you couldn't see the lake, you'd think you were in a city. MR. PALING-Instead of jumping around, how about we start at the beginning of this and ask for comments on page by page, okay. I'm on the first page, I guess, Number 179-79, Article 11. Any comments on that page? MR. RUEL-Yes. Item Three, back to the floor area ratio, you said was 10 percent. MR. PALING-Where's Item Three? I've got Items One and Two. MR. RUEL-Are we looking at the same thing, here? - 60 - '- ~' MR. PALING-Get the big thing out. MR. RUEL-I don't have that. Is this it? MR. PALING-There you go. Now turn the page. MR. RUEL-All right. Where is this ratio thing here? MR. PALING-We haven't gotten to it yet. All right. question on Two, okay, it's the no enlargement or shall exceed an aggregate of 50 percent, and so on. if the house is sold? I have a rebuilding What about MR. HARLICKER-That was the habitable space one that we've taken out. Scratch that. MR. PALING-Scratch it? Well you've got to have something there. MR. HARLICKER-Well, we've taken changed. That gross floor area definition. it out. "'Jas part of It's not going to be the habitable space MR. PALING-So take that out. MR. HARLICKER-We've found out, or we've looked at it and we feel that the floor area ratio addresses that issue. MR. MARTIN-We're trying to keep it simple. MR. PALING-I have a question on the last sentence that you there, in which you say, visual character, when seen from lake. have the MR. HARLICKER-That's not, we're not considering that. Which one are you talking about? MR. PALING-I'm on the first page. MR. HARLICKER-See, we don't have that. What's the change there about? MR. PALING-What's the change? MR. MACEWAN-You've got the wrong sheet, Bob. Throwaway the sheet you've got. This is the one we're using now. MR. PALING-No, I'm not. You mean all these pages we reviewed are thrown out? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. PALING-I've got your other sheet, but. MR. HARLICKER-See, that's habitable space. That's habitable space. See, the habitable space was tied into the expansion of the gross floor area. Since we've done the floor to area ratio, this stuff really isn't applicable anymore. MR. PALING-Okay. There's where most of my questions were. MR. MACEWAN-Good. Lets go to the Reader's Digest version. quicker. It's MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Can we do Number One? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Have you got the Reader's Digest version, Bob? - 61 - -- MR. PALING-Yes. I've got it here some place. MR. HARLICKER-Do you agree with the 28 foot height restriction? MR. MACEWAN-That's good. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-That's what we like to hear. MR. MACEWAN-Let me ask you this. When and if all these changes do occur, when would they go into effect? MR. MARTIN-What happens from this point, we get these into a, what Paul Dusek refers to as a legislative format. You underline the new and he puts in brackets what he takes out. The Board has to set a resolution setting a public hearing. They need a minimum, I think, of 10 days to do that, and then they hold a public hearing, and usually that same night they'll do the SEQRA on the change and then they'll adopt the new law. Then after that as soon as it's filed with the Department of State, it becomes law. It takes about five days to get it to the State. MR. MACEWAN-So as the wheels turn here, you're probably looking, realistically, the end of the summer before they'd be enacted. MR. MARTIN-No. I would say, realistically, I'd say early to mid July, even with the holiday. MR. MACEWAN-Really? Okay. I think Number One's a good idea. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. In addition to that, we're going to propose limiting the height of accessory structures to 16 feet, which is essentially the height of a one story garage. MR. MARTIN-That accommodates, roof pitches and things like garage. we tried to figure that, to accommodate in different a one story MR. RUEL-Is that a guest house? MR. HARLICKER-That would prohibit putting a guest house above your garage, because of the height restrictions. MR. MARTIN-It basically prohibits a second story above a garage. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It allows room for storage, but not enough to put. MR. MARTIN-You know, a seven foot ceiling up there. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Why were mobile homes included in single family dwellings, any reason? Why isn't that separate? It's separate everywhere else, in mobile overlays and everywhere else. How come it's the same thing as a single family dwelling? MR. MARTIN-Where is that, Roger? MR. RUEL-Article 11. family dwelling and fol.l.ov.Js. Continuation, 179-79, as written. A single mobile home may be enlarged or rebuilt as MR. MACEWAN-Roger, come on. This is Waterfront Residential we're talking about here. MR. PALING-He's back on the other. MR. MACEWAN-Throw that thing away, Scott. Give him the Reader's - 62 - ----- ---/ '-' Digest version. MR. RUEL-I've been reading this for nothing. MR. MACEWAN-Can we move on to Number Two? MR. HARLICKER-Habitable space, that's what Bob and Roger were talking about. We feel that the floor to area ratio covers that. So we're not going to change that section of the zoning code. MR. MARTIN-It's overkill and just putting in, the floor area ratio's going to be something, because Sue Cipperly did an analysis of the various lot sizes along the various waterfronts in town. For example, Rockhurst, width ranges from 35 to 120 feet. Smallest lot on the peninsula is .06 acres. The largest lot on the peninsula is .77 acres. There's not a conforming lot, by definition, on the entire peninsula. MR. MACEWAN-What's on that .06 lot, a beach towel and what else? MR. MARTIN-Not even enough room to get a tan. MR. MACEWAN-I guess the question I'd ask of changing the, maybe changing the typical lot that we see here all the time is everybody up in for a variance for their setbacks. So accomplishing by doing that? I mean, what are or what are you hoping to make uniform? that one, you know, sizes, the problem there always comes what would you be you hoping to stop MR. MARTIN-We're trying to give the Zoning Board more guidance as to the sensitive nature of the area up there, and another standard to gauge an application by. I agree with you. He can't, by definition, you need a variance, but at least it gives them a guide as to what might constitute minimum relief, when they do have to give relief. MR. MACEWAN-Are you saying that if you had saying that the minimum lot sizes have to variance, ask for a variance wouldn't do you wouldn't get it? something like that be this and that a any good because you MR. MARTIN-No. In a situation like that, like if you have a .06 acre lot, you know, your argument for an area variance is pretty solid, actually, because it's not a self-created situation. The owner didn't do anything to create that. It's out of his or her control. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I'm dense, here. I don't see what it would accomplish, though. I mean, people would still always come in and ask for a variance of one form or another. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but like I said, at least it gives them another guide as to how much relief should be granted. In other words, a 5,000 square foot house is too much, but maybe a 1500 or 1800 square foot house is reasonable. It's not, that's minimum relief. They loved it last night, the Zoning Board. They thought it was great. MR. MACEWAN-If they liked it, good enough for me, I guess. MR. RUEL-It's good enough for me. MR. MACEWAN-They're the ones that have to deal with it. MR. MARTIN-Well, I just want voice in these changes, and we you to make sure that you looked for your input. ha\/e a MR. PALING-When did we get this? MR. HARLICKER-In your packets. You had them last week. - 63 - MR. MARTIN-Last week, about a week and a half ago, at this point. MR. PALING-I wish you'd have told us, at that time, that this other one was null and void. MR. HARLICKER-Well, at the time it wasn't. MR. MARTIN-The garages is going to be the next thing coming through. MR. MACEWAN-For what it's worth, I like your thought about guest houses, too. MR. PALING-All right. Anything else? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I have two questions. Did Stewarts ever come into compliance with their site plan? t1R. MART IN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-And what's the deal with the Great Escape We were supposed to get an update tonight, weren't Har licker . sand pit? \;Je , Mr. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-They've been in contact with. MR. MACEWAN-I know. We keep getting, they've been in contact. We keep hearing, Paul's reviewing it. MR. HARLICKER-He's got some solid information as it came in this ¡,-¡eek. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. this week? What's the solid information as it came in MR. MARTIN-Paul Dusek has researched the Mine Land Law. It did change in 1991, and basically it did give a lot of authority to the State, and it very much limited the ability of local municipalities to, after a DEC permit is issued, to have any sort of discretionary approval over a mining situation, or a mining project. Basically what the new system allows for is DEC is to come to the local municipality when a permit is received and ask for their input prior to them issuing their permit. After they issue their permit, you basically have control over ingress and egress is one, I believe, to your local road, and there was a couple of other things, but it's very limited, and that's for operations of over 1,000 tons a year more, and they have a DEC permit. So we're trying to get all the permit information from Great Escape, both their current and their historical permits, as well as an accounting of the material they pulled out of there on a yearly basis, and then once we have that information, Paul will be able to decide the scope of the Town's involvement in a site plan review. MR. MACEWAN-And what does the Town do if they can't supply that information? I would guess. based on, from what knowledge I have of it, they don't keep track of how much they take out of there. They just go use as they need. MR. MARTIN-They said they had that information. MR. MACEWAN-What happens if they don't, for whatever reason, turn it over to the Town for Paul to review? MR. MARTIN-They said they would. They're supposed to have it to me any day now. I just talked to Jon Lapper yesterday about getting it. I just don't want to go off, you know, in a poor position here and make some sort of determination that's going to - 64 - --- --...../ --.i '-, be, you know, again, legally challenged or something. MR. MACEWAN-No. I understand that. It just seems like this particular thing has been dragging and dragging and dragging. MR. MARTIN-Well, it's not an easy issue to wrestle with, and it's not easy getting Paul to look at these things, either, to get him to focus on it. He's very busy, too. MR. MACEWAN-~Jell that's substantially mOl"e thi~n lIJe knew a week ago. MR. MARTIN-But it's not just being dismissed or pushed aside. If an application is needed, I'd like to try and keep the May time frame for the June hearing. It's starting to get tight. MR. PALING-Craig, I have a question or a comment for you. Earlier in the session tonight, we got into a reading where Roger was reading the SEQRA thing. I thought that the questions you asked were more basic than to the point of the particular case that we were after. It got into a very basic area. I think you made us look kind of funny, and I was wondering if those kind of questions couldn't be held for a session like this, so that we could talk about what it is that, you know, there is agre~ment or disagreement about, and settle them there, rather than to try to do it with an applicant looking at us. MR. MACEWAN-Well, I though the questions were, standpoint, were the ones to ask there because you were be asking me to cast a vote. If I'm going to vote on I'm not going to wait until the discussion period questions about something that's pending right there in an applicant. from my going to a SEQRr\, to ask front of MR. PALING-Yes, but I think it was more procedural. MR. MACEWAN-Well, you know, that's just the part that's been confusing to me about this is that whenever we've done a SEQRA review for anything, for either site plan or subdivision, it's usually been after a public hearing input, and we've listened to either, staff made comments, legal comments and applicant comments, during the discussion when we do a SECRA. We do a SEQRA just before we vote. What's been getting confusing with me lately is these things that are handed down from the ZBA to us, to become lead agency for site plan review, hinging upon them giving a variance for an application, and the troublesome part here for me is, how can we review a SEQRA or do a SEQRA when we haven't reviewed the project or we haven't gotten public input from the project, we haven't gotten comments on the project? That's the part where I get confused. MR. PALING-I'm not disagreeing with your question at all. I'm saying I think it's placed wrong, to try to debate something like that in front of an applicant. MR. MACEWAN-I wasn't debating anything. MR. PALING-Why not bring it up now. MR. MACEWAN-Because you didn't heaT what I said. I said the questions were being asked, Bob, for me to cast a vote on something, and if I don't have the information in front of me to make the vote, to cast a vote. MR. PALING-Well, I thi nk I did hea'( him, because he also said, this has been bothering me. You've referred to this at least twice, where this kind of a thing was bothering him, and I'm saying, lets talk about it. MR. MACEWAI'~-Yes.. I mean, like, in what, maybe the last three - 65 - months or so, this is like maybe the fourth one we've seen. This is something new that the ZBA, I guess, has started, by if you're going to give a variance to someone, they're tying it in that in order to get the variance, they have to come here for site plan review, as an acceptance of the variance. Am I right or wrong on that? MR. MARTIN-I think it depends on the project. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, this has been, like, the fourth one. MR. MARTIN-Do you remember the one there on Hanneford Road there where the, it was under the name Smith? It was an undersized lot, and there was a drainage concern there, and the Board, when the Zoning Board doesn't feel comfortable about an issue that's technical in nature, that you typically deal with on a site plan review basis, they'll refer it over to your Board to look at from the technical aspect. MR. MACEWAN-Is there something that maybe we can do to change the procedure on doing a SEQRA when we do a lead agency acknolrJledgement? MR. MARTIN-You mean all the time that's taken up with that stuff? MR. MACEWAN-No. The point I'm trying to make, and I don't think Bob has been really following me, my concern is, to do a SEQRA, and to go through the steps of a SECRA, when we haven't reviewed the project, this is only on lead agency status vote, we haven't reviewed the project. We haven't gotten engineering on it. We haven't got public comment on it. Mark is saying it's okay to do it. I don't feel comfortable doing it. MR. SCHACHNER-The problem, it's not that I was saying it's okay to do it. It's that I was saying, there was one specific situation, or only one I can think of, off the top of my head, that creates that problem, and that specific situation is an application that requires variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals. If you have a situation where an application requires a variance from the ZBA, but you guys are the lead agency, because the ZBA and the Planning Board have agreed that you'll be the lead agency, then you have a problem, because you're not going to review the application, other than for SEQRA, until it's got its variances, but it can't get its variances until SECRA has been completed. MR. MACEWAN-Right, and that's the problem I've been having. MR. SCHACHNER-There's an inherent Catch-22 in there. MR. MACEWAN-Right, and it's been like maybe three or these things that we've gotten in recent months where happened, and this is why I'm raising these questions. we go through a SEQRA if we haven't reviewed it. four of this has How can MR. SCHACHNER-And what ~ said is that in most context, there's no rule about this, but in most contexts, most municipalities have the exact same Catch-22, and when they have it, they grudgingly, just as your expressing, and I just went through this, literally, for a bunch of time last week in Greenfield. The Planning Board struggles through the SEQRA review, and, frankly, it's harder for the Planning Board than it is normally, because you don't have as much information, but you struggle through it so the SEQRA review is completed, so that the thing can then be shipped back to the Zoning Board. So the Zoning Board can then make it's determination. t-1R. ZBA, RUEL-If we refused to do the SEQRA and sent what would happen then? it back to the - 66 - '- ~ , - MR. SCHACHNER-You can have the Zoning Board be lead agency if you want, . MR. MARTIN-Yes, but what I might suggest you do a position where you just don't feel like information, then ask for it. is, if you're in j'OU have enough MR. RUEL-Or send it back. MR. MACEWAN-I didn't, with that one, what was the one we did last week, Bob? Tabner? Was it Tabner last week I didn't vote on it. I abstained on it. MRS. LABOMBARD-Tabner. MR. PALING-Well, is it also possible, lets say we said, okay, we don't want to go through the SEQRA, but we do, and then information comes to us later on, which would have caused us to give a different answer, we didn't have it available to us. Now can we go back and re-do SEQRA, or modify what we said? MR. SCHACHNER-If you get more information? Mf<. PALIHG-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is you can if you haven't made your final determination yet, and you're the lead agency. If new information comes to light, you're allowed to revisit the SEQRA issue. MR. PALING-Before the final. MR. MACEWAN-Wait a minute. That's kind of an interesting statement. Can we then, if for lead agency acknowledgement, go through a SEQRA and not give a negative or a positive dec and wait until after we've reviewed either the site plan or the subdivision? MR. SCHACHNER-You can do that all you want, but in the context, in the situation we're talking about where the ZBA has to do something, they can't act until you issue your ultimate 5ECRA determination. MR. MARTIH-That's why I say, if you feel like you're in a position where you don't have enough information to address a question or two or three or four out of the Assessment Form, then you indicate that to the applicant, and say, we'll table you until next week if it's the first meeting of the month, next week, for example, and you say, give us this, this, and this information, and then we'll go through the SECRA form, but right now, without that information, we're not in a position to adequately make the assessment. MR. PALIHG-How that seems like a reasonable way to do it, and you're not involving ZBA when you do what you're saying. MR. MARTIN-You're the lead agency. You're the one who's going to be responsible for the decision you arrive at. 50 I would recommend that you feel comfortable in getting all the information that you think's necessary to undertake the review, and if it takes you a couple of meetings to do that. MR. PALING-But we can bounce that back to the applicant and ask him to provide the information. MR. SCHACHNER-There's still one Devil's Advocate, but I'm pretty way, and I think Tim does as controversy question. Under the you're still not going to know, problem. I'm going to play sure, Craig, that you feel this well, and that is the public scenario we're talking about, you won't have had a public - 67 - -- '..- hearing. MR. MARTIN-You could ask for one. MR. SCHACHNER-That's true, you can. MR. MARTIN-If they think that there's controversy related to it, just say, we're going to table this and we'll schedule a public hearing so we can answer Question 19 or whatever it is. MR. PALING-Are we going down a practical route? more often than we want it to. This may happen MR. MACEWAN-All of a sudden these things seem to have sprung up. We've gotten quite a few of them in the last few months. I mean, maybe four or five, but that's more than we've gotten in a long time. MR. MARTIN-The Zoning Board, since I can remember, has always referred over SEQRA review. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that's very common. MR. MARTIN-Because they just don't feel, again, Judicial board, or semi-judicial. They're not a oriented board, by their nature. So they don't feel in saying, well, the stormwater control proposed are this won't have an impact on the soils. they're a technically comfortable adequate or MR. MACEWAN-How about this comment? I can't remember the ZBA, eight months or even a year ago giving us lead agency status and asking us to do a SEQRA for a lead agency acknowledgement. MR. SCHACHNER-Can or can't? MR. MARTIN-I can. Since I've been in this position, I can take you through, there's a folder full of them. Every Type I Action that's been to the Zoning Board, since I've been here, has been referred over, I think, just about everyone. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but when they've sent it to us, do a resolution for lead agency acknowledgement, in the past, a SEQRA at that point. to give us, to VoJe ' ve not done, MR. MARTIN-You do not. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I'm saying. Now we're doing it, and that's where it's adding the confusion. We have done tons of lead agency status acknowledgements, resolutions in the past. We have not done them when we, we have not said, okay, here's the resolution for us to be lead agency status on this thing, but we also were going to do a SECRA tonight. We have not done that in the past, only until recently. MR. MARTIN-No. What your confusing that are passed, the initial one desire to be lead agent. 1" <:::' "" , that there's two resolutions sets it off, that you MR. MACEWAN-Right, with no SEQRA. MR. MARTIN-Right, and we go out our 30 day thing, or whatever, and then we come back and you say, we acknowledge we're lead agents, we have lead agency status, and now we can do the SEQRA, and you can do that in the same night. MR. MACEWAN-We are doing that now, more often than we have ever done before. MR. MARTIN-And the other thing to bear in mind is that there are those cases that do require coordinated review, and there's those - 68 - ---- ~' -/ ..'~' that don't. If it's uncoordinated review, then there's no need for the 30 day time frame. In other words, if there's no other involved agencies, no other agency that issues a permit or approval, then it can be heard by you alone, without any 30 day review. Correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MACEWAN-The difference, to answer your question that done in the past, and I can remember this a year ago, that we simply just got, you know, here's a resolution to acknowledge lead agency that the ZBA wants you to do for this project, or whoever does. We just do the resolution. When the project comes up in front of our Board, at preliminary or sketch plan or whenever, then we do the SEQRA. It seems like in recent months we've been doing, not only acknowledging this lead agency status, but we're doing the SECRA at the same time before we review a project. That's the point I'm making. Maybe I'm not making myself clear here. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but there are those projects that require a variance, okay, and then site plan review, but neither one of those can be accomplished until you have the SECRA. MR. MACEWAN-But the point I'm making, a year ago we weren't doing these kinds of things. Now we're doing them. MR. PALING-Jim, how do you answer the question, if we did a SEQRA wrong, because we didn't have the information, but we went ahead and we did it wrong, so it might have been because of lack of information, we answered incorrectly. Now how do we defend that position? MR. MARTIN-Well, when you go through that as a lead agent, in other words, this Board is lead agent, and you answer the question, then it is assumed that, on whatever basis that you're arriving at that decision, that's your decision at that question. Whether it's a piece of paper in a file you can point to or perception on your part as a Board member, that's your answer. MR. PALING-Are you comfortable with us doing it that IrJaY? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think only you can answer that. At some point, you know, the Board's lead agent, and you've got to take responsibility for that capacity when you undertake that form. MR. HARLICKER-If you don't feel you have enough information to answer a particular question, don't answer it. MR. PALING-Or we can ask the applicant to provide it to us. MR. MARTIN-Maybe he or she can sit right there and answer that. You could pose a question to them, or maybe it's something that needs a little more research or documentation and they have to wait and come back. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but on that old curve ball, they're not going to be able to sit there and answer whether there's going to be public controversy related to their project. MR. MARTIN-So if you want to schedule public hearings and do that as a matter of policy. 1'1f';' PALING-But if we do it to that. e><treme, then we're going to ext.end the time it. takes to get all your permit.s issued and all. MR. SCHACHNER-Rest assured, that's true. MR. PALING-And I don't think we ought to, I think we ought to find a different way than that. - 69 - ---- MR. MACEWAN-Why? What's the problem with that? I mean, if it has to be extended a little bit, what's the problem with that? MR. PALING-It might be a month or two? MR. MACEWAN-If it's a month, what's the problem with that? MR. HARLICKER-I mean, then you're having three public hearings on one p1·oject. MR. MACEWAN-I'm just raising the point here. I've not seen this happen in the past, and I don't ever recall, until just recent mont.hs, that we've started doing lead agency status and a SEQRA at the same resolution. MR. MARTIN-Because it's just a procedural thing for you to accept the lead agent status. MR. MACEWAN-If everybody feels comfortable with it and they want to plod ahead with it, that's fine. I'm just raising the point. MR. MARTIN-I think the more important thing is to decide when you want to have, or when you're in a good position to answer that public controversy question, and I think you've got to do that on a case by case basis. MR. HARLICKER-For a guy who's putting on a seven by twenty foot addition on the back of his house, you know, I think I, personally, would feel very comfortable saying there's not going to be public controversy. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. HARLICKER-If somebody's got a variance, a variance to shopping center too close to the property line, whoa, you get public controversy on something like that. put a might MR. MARTIN-Yes. The property line's next to a residential neighborhood or something, then that's different. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I think that's the answer. MR. PALING-Okay. I'll go back to what I said originally, and I did, I think, hear Craig and understand him. All I'm saying is that the forum for this kind of a thing is right here and the way we're doing it now. It is most difficult when it's pegged to a particular thing that's ongoing, and now you've got this basic question thrown in. The debate for that belongs here, in this forum, right now. MR. MACEWAN-I don't agree with that. How do you expect me to cast a vote on it if I don't have any information in front of me, Bob? You answer that question for me. You're asking me to put a vote on a SEQRA tonight, whether it's a positive or neg dec, and I don't have the information in front of me to do it. How do you expect me to vote? MRS. LABOMBARD-I think the whole, the way it was said, by saying, these are the things that keep coming up. If you probably had not said that, it wouldn't have made it more of a moot type of. MR. STARK-I think he was concerned with the mitigation of a small to moderate, as opposed to a large. MRS. LABOMBARD-Exactly. That was fine. I can buy that. I think what is bothering Bob more is the fact that Craig said, these are the things that keep coming up, and that was probably the part that maybe should have been omitted in a public, with all the people here. I think that's what's bothering Bob. - 70 - '---' --./ '-..; ',.- MR. MACEWAN-Well, lets not play on words. doing. That's what you're MRS. LABOMBARD-No, I'm not playing on words, because I don't think that what YOU said was out of line at all, as far as the question you asked, but maybe the innuendo that you made was out of li ne . MR. MACEWAN-It wasn't, because this is like the third one in as man)1 months. MRS. LABOMBARD-But the public doesn't have to know that. That's not their business. I'm just trying to act as a little mediator here, as maybe that's where Bob is feeling uncomfortable. MR. RUEL-I have a question. You mentioned a moment ago that we could declare lead agency on a particular application, or we could be lead agency with the SEQRA. Both ways, with or without? Is that it? MR. MARTIN-What happens is, you have a project, say it's up in Lake George, APA is a potential involved agency, maybe DOH is or DEC. okay. So you just cannot claim lead agent status, because there's other permitting agencies involved. So before you can claim lead agent status, you have to declare that you're making this request to be lead agent, and you make that declaration to all those other involved agencies. You inform them that you're making this claim. They acknowledge, yes, it's okay, or they just simply don't respond back in the 30 days. So we assume that it's okay after that point, with them. Then, once you've heard back from them, or not heard back from them, they just let the 30 days pass, you get that. You say, okay, now I've done this. I'm accepting lead agent status. I'm acknowledging I have it. Now I've met the statutory requirement. I've informed all the other involved agencies. They've either come back and said they ~on't have a problem with that or they simply haven't responded in the 30 days. I acknowledge I have it now. I'm taking it. Now I'm going to do my SECRA review. MR. MACEWAN-What we did tonight, when we acknowledge lead agency status, is that requesting other agencies that we want to do that? MR. HARLICKER"-No. MR. MACEWAN-Or is that a done deal, we've already done that? MR. MARTIN-You've already done that. Now you're just saying, I've done that. I've heard nothing back or they've indicated they don't have a problem with me having it. I'm taking it. I'm the lead agent now. I acknowledge I have it. Now you can do your SECRA review, that night or later on. MR. RUEL-Is that it? MR. PALING-I'm glad we had this discussion on this. cleared a lot of stuff up, I think. TI'''¡at's On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 71 -