Loading...
1993-08-30 SP \ "-- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 30TH. 1993 INDEX SEQRA Review Gertrude Young 1. SEQRA Review Charles Graves. Jr. 2. Site Plan No. 32-93 Guido Passarelli 3. Subdivision No. 4-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Guido Passarelli 6. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. t - -- GUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 30TH, 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL EDWARD LAPOINT GEORGE STARK CAROL PULVER CRAIG MACEWAN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER MR. BREWER-These are just resolutions of the 10th, right? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Does somebody want to introduce the first one, Gertrude Young? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. BREWER-They're just intent for us to be lead agent. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. SEGRA REVIEW: SEGRA REVIEW: GERTRUDE YOUNG PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Subdivision for Gertrude Young RESOLUTION NO: 17 of 1993 INTRODUCED BY: Edward LaPoint WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: GeorQe Stark WHEREAS, Gertrude Young has submitted an application for ~ subdivision in connection with a project known as or described as a proposal to subdivide property, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Gertrude Young for a subdivision; 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired; 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the 1 - - involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying other involved agencies, the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation, together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 30th day of August, vote: 1993, by the following AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan SEORA REVIEW: CHARLES GRAVES, JR. - AV . 69-1993 RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE VARIANCE REVIEW OF AV. 69-1993 RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE VARIANCE REVIEW OF AU . 69-1993. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. The second one is for an area variance for Charles Graves. Does anybody want to talk about it? Okay. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN &9-1993 Charles Graves, Jr. PLANNING BOARD OF THE REVIEW OF Area THE TOWN OF Var i ance No. RESOLUTION NO: 18 of 1993 INTRODUCED BY: Edward LaPoint WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roger Ruel WHEREAS, Charles Graves, Jr. has submitted an application for a variance in connection with a project known as or described as a proposal to demolish an existinQ one story camp and construct a two story year round family dwellinQ, and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a Type I action under SEQRA, and BE I T FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Charles Graves, Jr. 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired; 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; and - 2 - BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, that when notifying the other involved agencies, the E~ecutive Director shall also mail a letter of e~planation, together with copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 30th day of August, vot e: 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 32-93 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: RT. 9, OPPOSITE KENDRICK ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR A +57,575 SO. FT. SHOPPING CENTER AND ASSOCIATED 263 PARKING SPACES. CROSS REFERENCE AU . 60-1993 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - 6-7-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 6-9-93 8-18-93 TAX MAP NO. 70-1-9 LOT SIZE: 5.3 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 D MR. BREWER-We don't have any notes other than what we had the other night? MR. HARLICKER-No. It seemed like the only outstanding issue from last meeting was the traffic issue, and the DOT letter, and on Friday..a copy of the letter from DOT regarding the traffic impact s. MR. LAPOINT-So, in other words, for tonight? you don't have any Staff Notes MR. HARLICKER-Not for tonight. issue. No. This was the last remaining MR. BREWER-Maybe, just for the record, Corinne, would you just read that letter in, to Mr. Levine, from Mark Kennedy? MRS. TARANA-Regarding the Mt. Royal Shopping Center Town of Queensbury Warren Count y, "Dear Mr. Lev i ne: We have rev i ewed the revised Traffic Impact Study for the subject project dated August 18, 1993. Our analysis showed no significant impact to the local highway system assuming the main entrance consists of a single entrance lane and two (left/through and separate right turn) e~it lanes. Prior to submitting permit applications, you should forward detailed plans of the proposed improvements to this office for review. If you have any questions, please contact Mark Kennedy of this office at 474-6377. Very truly yours, Mark Kennedy for Jan Meilhede Traffic Engineering & Safety Region Oneil MR. BREWER-I guess that application would be for the curb cuts. Is that right? Okay. So then our questions have been answered with this letter. That's what we were waiting for. If somebody wants to make a motion, or if anybody has any other questions. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'll go back to Tom Yarmowich's August 20th. There's nothing significant here? That's just relative to the Levine letter, correct? letter of Okay. No. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. there. So there's no new information requirement in - 3 - -- MR. BREWER-Not that I recall, out last week. and I think we hashed everything MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's right. You guys have been through this last week. I'm just a little bit behind. I'm sorry. You submitted the details showing the main entrance detail? LARRY LEVINE MR. LEVINE-We haven't applied for the curb cut yet. MR. LAPOINT-But you'll apply for it e~actly as the DOT is looking for? MR. LEVINE-That's correct, and that happens along the same time that we apply for our building permit. MR. BREWER-Okay. I left the public hearing open. anyone here that wants to comment on this? Is there PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-And we did the SEQRA. MRS. TARANA-I have a question about, Tom Yarmowich's letter of August 20th, here. His second, the LML conclusion suggests, the second one is, regarding the proposed failure of Sweet Road intersection, "that a proper response to added traffic in the Route q corridor between the Northway Plaza traffic light and the proposed Mount Royal Shopping Center may be a traffic light at the Weeks Road/Sweet Road intersection with Route 9, rather than at the Walmart entrance as currently proposed." Is there any further comment from Tom regarding that? Is there any response? MR. HARLICKER-No. We went over that, I think, a little bit before, too. That's where DOT wants the light is at the Wal- Mart, as opposed to Sweet Road/Weeks Road, opposite intersections there. MRS. TARANA-But is it true that when a traffic plan is in place, that such a light will then be moved from the Ponderosa location to Sweet? MR. HARLICKER-The e~it It's their discretion, can be moved at the discretion of DOT. and they giveth, they can taketh away. MR. BREWER-Anything else. MR. HARLICKER-Just for your information, if you remember, Warren County denied this application, so it takes a majority plus one to pass it. MR. RUEL-About the that it be placed, traffic light. where? Initially it was recommended MR. HARLICKER-Initially, it was down, I believe, at the southern entrance, and then it was moved to the northern entrance. MR. RUEL-DOT moved it? MR. HARLICKER-I think it was at, I think so. MR. BREWER-When Wal-Mart first came to us, they wanted to put it at their southern most e~it, or entrance/e~it, whatever you want to call it. Then after they reviewed it, they said that it should be moved up north, I don't know how many feet up, maybe - 4 - seven, six hundred feet. MR. RUEL-This would alleviate the condition at Sweet? MR. BREWER-No. of Wal-Mart. It's to accommodate the traffic going in and out MR. HARLICKER-And the Diner, and Ponderosa. MR. BREWER-And all those right there. be better off up further near their where that little side street is, benefit. So they moved it up further They figure that it would entrance, rather than down because it would have no north. MR. RUEL-So it was a DOT action, then? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-Okay. MRS. TARANA-And the paper street There is no paper street? issue is over and done with? MR. HARLICKER-No. MRS. TARANA-So is there ever any way that there can be a connection off Route 9, for any development now along Route 9? MR. HARLICKER-I'm not sure. The paper street was behind it. MRS. TARANA-Behind it, right, but the thought was that that paper street could possibly. MR. HARLICKER-Could provide an access to the rear of that. MRS. TARANA-Yes, or down Route 9. MR. HARLICKER-I'm not sure how far down it went. MR. LEVINE-It goes to Weeks, and connects to the back property. The Town still has the option to pick up that, whatever legal action they see fit. of our or do MR. BREWER-I think the problem, they couldn't find out who owned it. MR. RUEL-Does that connect to Sweet? MR. HARLICKER-To Weeks, property, to the north. from Weeks behind the applicant's MR. BREWER-It probably went to the back of where the, where the Queensbury Tire is, and then probably. maybe to MR. LEVINE-If I could lend a little bit. It comes about 200 feet into or overlapping Mr. Passarelli's property, then it stops. It abuts into what is the Drive-In Theater property. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. BREWER-And then you've got the K of C there, and then Jeckel's. So, it's already there. MRS. TARANA-So that never could be used as an access, other than on Rout e 9? MR. HARLICKER-With great difficulty. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have anything? Would anyone care to make a motion? - 5 - MR. LAPOINT-Okay. If I made the motion contingent upon meeting all the requirements of the DOT letter dated August 2&th. That's what we're looking for? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Well, I think they have to do that anyway, before they apply. MR. LAPOINT-Leave it out? MR. BREWER-I don't think it's get their permit unless they going to do. necessary, only because they can't do exactly what they say they're MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-93 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced qy Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: The proposal is for a 57,575 square foot shopping center and associated 2&3 parking spaces. Duly adopted this 30th day of August, vote: 1993, by the following AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I RC-15, WR-3A GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: FROM GLEN ST., TURN EAST ONTO ROUND POND RD., APPROX., .7 MILES TO BIRDSALL RD. ON LEFT, PROPERTY IS NW CORNER OF ROUND POND & BIRDSALL. SUBDIVISION OF A 18.9 ACRE PARCEL INTO 23 LOTS. LOTS WILL RANGE IN SIZE FROM 18,000 SQ. FT. TO 59,000 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 67-2-1 LOT SIZE: 18.9 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NAèE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. NACE-Okay. I guess briefly to summarize, the two main concerns that we left, well, let me go back to my notes, all the concerns here. What we left the last meeting with were two specific concerns regarding traffic and the bike path, and some grading, erosion control, and house location issues. What we have done in the past week is to go through, for ourselves, and look at some of the grading issues. We've gone through that thoroughly enough that we are sure ourselves that all the lots will work. One or two of the lots we did have to move the houses around a little bit. Scott pointed out some very valid concerns regarding the location of a septic tank and some of the houses. So we haven't made a new plan yet, okay, to present to you, because we don't want to present you with new information, but we have satisfied ourselves that grading will work, and I guess tonight really you're just looking for SEQRA Review. So we will, prior to Preliminary approval, we will give that plan, in a final drafted form, to Rist-Frost to look at. MR. BREWER-You Preliminary. mean prior to Final approval? This is MR. NACE-This is Preliminary. going over SEQRA. I thought tonight we were just MR. HARLICKER-The SEQRA, because Tom still had some outstanding engineering comments. MR. BREWER-So we're just going to go over the concerns that we had? We're not going to make any motion? - 6 - ~ MR. DACE-Well. it was my understanding that you were going to finish up SEQRA tonight. and then at one of the September meetings. we're going to go back to Preliminary. and finish up Preliminary. I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. but that's. MR. HARLICKER-No. Tom was saying that there's some details. as far as engineering and grading. and stuff. MR. NACE-And prior to Preliminary. we will give that to Tom to review. so that he can verify. MR. BREWER-I had a couple of other things. Tom. We were going to get a letter from Tom Flaherty. MR. DACE-Yes. I will have that for Preliminary. MR. BREWER-And you were going to show us how you were going to cut the hill on lot number seven. MR. NACE-Yes. We have that. That's part of our grading stuff. I can go over these things with you now. if you'd like. MR. BREWER-Kip Grant letter. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. BREWER-And we have a letter from Paul Naylor. MR. DACE-Okay. you do now? Okay. MR. BREWER-We do. MR. DACE-Okay. Okay. I did not get a copy of that. Are there extra? MR. BREWER-We got it just tonight. MR. DACE-Okay. MR. BREWER-Maybe you could talk to him about that. I'm sure that you'll want to. MR. DACE-Okay. Going to have to make an enclosed system. I'm not sure what he's referring to. We don't have a retention pond. MR. HARLICKER-If I remember right. there was a section. MR. NACE-In back? That's really not a retention pond. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. That's what he's referring to. MR. NACE-That' s not on Town land. It has nothing to do with drainage off the Town roads. Let me get the rotating plan up in front of you. Incidentally. this is Clark Wilkinson. He's an engineer that has come on board with us in the past month and a half. and he has really worked up most of it. So I'll let him review with you what he has revised. and he's also talked to Kip Grant. So he can review that. CLARK WILKINSOD MR. WILKINSON-Basically. the first revision is the cut back of the hill along Round Pond Road for site distance from the Birdsall intersection. I know it was one of the concerns. is there wasn't enough visibility or site distance there now. and that was one of the agreements that we made. was to cut that back. So I've regraded that. Again. it was left off of the previous plans that were given to the Board. inadvertently. and we now have that to show. and we will have that to show for Preliminary. The other area of concern was on lot eight here. We're trying to get a septic area. I've pulled back the grading - 7 - -- off the hill, and actually there's a little, like a brown lip that comes down here that I've basically just cut off to make a flat area large enough to, that it will fit a septic system on it, and pulled the hill down towards the driveway a little more, so that the area is large enough for a septic system for a four bedroom house. Can't go any larger than a four bedroom house without changing it or putting in a retaining wall, or something to that effect, but basically, it is large enough to sustain a four bedroom house, which we figure is probably going to be an average size house in here. MR. LAPOINT-Without retaining walls? MR. WILKINSON-Without retaining walls. MR. NACE-You might mention also, we've kept the slopes to a three on one. MR. WILKINSON-Three on one, max. MR. NACE-Which there. is relatively conservative for the soils out MR. WILKINSON-The third area of concern was the back of lots, I can't read it, eleven, I believe. I slid that house up towards the cul-de-sac a little bit, to provide a little more area in here where we wouldn't be filling. Again, this lot has, behind the house, it probabl y has about 15 feet of flat area, and then a slope of three to one to match grade approximately 25 to 30 feet off the propert y line. I moved the house up, so that we wouldn't be filling in the entire area, and eliminating the trees, so there will be some remaining trees in there, and it would probably be up to the homeowner to either add more trees in, or if the Board feels it's necessary, we may have to put a few in, just to supplement that area that we're cutting out. This is the area that, I believe, Paul Naylor's talking about. Basically, I graded it out this way to try to save some of the trees. This lot, because of the steep grade existing across it, basically has to be filled to be used, and to fill this lot, you've got to fill in over here, too. So I just pocketed a small area that's coming off, the peak of the hill is right in here. So basically it would just be a small area that's coming into the small depression, and that's all it really is is a depression where the drainage actually goes to now, and that way I can preserve the trees, and also allow the drainage to take its existing drainage courses and basically just permeate into the soil. MR. BREWER-So there's not going to be a hole dug in the ground? MR. WILKINSON-It's not a hole. It's just cutting off the existing drainage pattern, only because we have to fill this lot in order to get it to work, because of the slopes. MR. BREWER-The minute I saw that, it just made me, we were up there today, and George and I were talking about Queensbury Forest. That's what comes to my mind when you talk about those pits, and I'm sure you're familiar with it, Tom. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. BREWER-They had a great big drainage pit where all, the stormwater went to, and it never drained, and I think that's what was the probl em. MR. WILKINSON-And I can appreciate that. There's no water being piped here. It's strictly runoff coming from this hill, and from the back of this house. Forward of the house is going down towards the road. The back of it's going down towards this depression, and the back of it, and actually the high point is behind these houses, so that there's very little behind the 8 - '-' -- houses that's coming this way. Most road, and it's an existing low point, that's just being kept. of it's going towards the existing drainage pattern MR. NACE-Those soils in there are so permeable now, that right now there's no outlet for the drainage in there. If you've looked there, there's no pipe under the road, under Birdsall Road. It all pockets in there presently, and it's pocketing from complete drainage basin in there, that little, surf, I guess you'd call it, and right now, you know, even in the spring, there's really no standing water in there. All we're doing is just picking up just a wee little bit of area, and it'll include almost no impermeable area. The backs of the, one, two, three house roofs would be the maximum amount of impermeable surface that that would pick up. So we don't foresee that that would be a probl em. MR. STARK-What was your perc testing? MR. WILKINSON-A minute and ten to a minute and thirty range, and that was all of them. The only spot where there was even any indication of possible high groundwater was along this front area where it pockets, coming off the, the runoff off the Round Pond Road pockets in this area, and that's the only spot. A test pit was actually done up in the low area up here, because I was trying to determine if the low area is indeed a possible high groundwater area, and there's no indication down six feet below. MR. NACE-How about your conversation with Kip Grant, about that common driveway? MR. WILKINSON-Right, the common driveway. The comment on this driveway was that Kip is not opposed to having a common driveway. There's just some limitations, and he had told me that there is a letter that's on file with the Planning Board, stating what the restrictions were about having a common driveway. I went over that with Scott, and you said you weren't able to find that exact letter. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-But you gave me some of the intents. MR. HARLICKER-It references, I think, what was it, 12 feet, and you were proposing 20 feet? MR. WILKINSON-Right. We're proposing a 20 foot wide, or what's shown here is 20 foot wide common drive, and his requirement was 12 foot wide, but 24 foot cleared. We're proposing 20 foot actual drive, and it is 24 cleared out to the limits of the shoulder, that's for the common drive on 10 and 9. MR. STARK-Twenty foot all the way down to the interior lot? MR. WILKINSON-It's 20 foot all the way to where this one branches off, and then it's, basically, whatever this guy wants, and it has to be four foot minimum. I'd agree that we would put those notes on there, that they have to come in. MR. HARLICKER-They have to have an area for. MR. WILKINSON-An area for turnaround, which is basically going to be in here somewhere, we'll show that. MR. BREWER-Okay. Just as I'm looking at that, Lot 10 shows a width of 40 feet. Lot 11 only shows 39 feet. It's got to be 40, doesn't it, or is that a mistake? That looks wider than that. MR. NACE-It's frontage. to. That's curve length. Okay. If we need - 4) - -- MR. BREWER-..distance, the radius looks, so that he has more than 40 feet. MR. NACE-Yes. We'll enough room there. adjust that. Let me make a note. We can adjust that, if we need to. There's MR. WILKINSON-One of the other issues that I remember the Board bringing up was the possibility of a common drive along Round Pond Road to limit curb cuts coming off Round Pond Road. Again, I believe that's more for the Preliminary Stage than for SEQRA, but as long as I'm reviewing it, 1'11 review it now. We will show common drives for those houses. However, we wanted to stipulate in the notes that it's recommended that they take the common drive access, but I don't know if anybody can actually force anybody to take the common drive access, and we're just making sure that it's stated that it's a recommendation, and not necessarily an absolute. MR. HARLICKER-Well, traffic is an issue for SEQRA, and this could be a way of mitigating the impact of traffic on Round Pond Road. MR. WILKINSON-That's correct. MRS. PULVER-The amount of cars will stay the same, coming out from those houses, whether they have individual driveways or common driveways. The number of cars will still be the same. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, but they'll be coming out of, maybe, out of three places, as opposed to six. The number won't change, but they'll be coming out of, consolidate the number of spaces. What about the possibility of maintaining the tree line along there, just clearing areas to provide access back into the site? MR. WILKINSON-Into here? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. there. You know, you've got a nice tree lined road MR. WILKINSON-I looked at that, and if you see the purple line in here, it's going to be kind of difficult, depending on exactly where the septic systems are placed. Now the septic systems, depending on the house sizes, could be fairly substantial in size, and there's no way you're going to move machinery around in there to dig the septic system, without taking down some trees. It just goes with part of the development of putting in a house. You can definitely place houses and septics in there and save a lot of the trees, yes. How you go about implementing that on a plan is very, very difficult, because it's, each individual homeowner has to come in for a building permit. MR. HARLICKER-Well, you just stipulate, in the deed or whatever, that within 25 feet or whatever you stipulate that the front lot line, no disturbance of trees except to provide access to the property, or something like that. MR. NACE-Well, I think you've got to allow them to clean it out a little bit. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, maintain trees of X caliper or whatever. MR. NACE-Yes. No. the best spot anyway, I'm not sure that that necessarily leads to or the best looking development. MR. HARLICKER-It's one of the few stretches left in Town where you've got a nice tree lined road before you open up onto Route 9. I mean, we're do i ng the same type of th i ng up on Rout e 149, where you want to maintain a pleasing aesthetic drive through an area, and one of the ways of maintaining that is maintaining the vegetation along the roadsides. - 10 - ~ MR. WILKINSON-And I think that would be accomplished if the common driveway option is taken by the homeowner. They will be almost forced to leave some of the trees in the front, but again, it's up to each individual homeowner what they like. If they only want a few trees of twelve inch or so in diameter in the front, that's all they're going to leave, but if they don't want any, they're going to take them all down, but it's each individual person's preference when they buy that lot. MR. HARLICKER-Well, that's not true. We've done it in other subdivisions where there've been stipulations in the deeds that say, you shall not remove trees of greater than six inches or four inches. MR. MACEWAN-Vasil iou's, nothing larger than six inches, I think, or four inches, could be removed. MRS. PULVER-But that was in common space, or open space. MR. NACE-Here where, 100 feet up the road, you've got the open cut to the Bavarian Palace. MR. HARLICKER-Well, do we want to make the whole road look like that, though? MR. NACE-No. It won't look like that. It'll look a lot better. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but do we want to tell them what have and what color car they can drive, and what they can live in? color they can kind of house MR. HARLICKER-That's not what we're were doing. MRS. PULVER-Yes it is. hi s trees down. You're telling a homeowner he can't take MR. LAPOINT-How he's going to landscape. MRS. PULVER-Right. How he's going to landscape. Maybe he doesn't like leaves, so he wants to get rid of all the trees. Maybe he likes lawn. Maybe he doesn't like lawn and he wants all of the trees, all pine trees. I mean, you don't know who's going to own that. MR. LAPOINT-It is the southern exposure of the house, to boot. MRS. PULVER-Right. He want s sun. MR. NACE-In practicality, I've seen that kind of thing put in to deed restrictions, and really there's no way there to enforce it. That lot, some of those lots may be developed five years down the road. Nobody sitting at this table who made that decision is around. MR. HARLICKER-Then it becomes a matter of courts. The neighbors have got to complain, however you want to work it out. MRS. PULVER-And the neighbors very rarely ever want to take another neighbor to task. MR. NACE-That's right. I think the lots are going to be big enough that you won't have houses right out on the road. MR. MACEWAN-Well, if it ends up becoming a stipulation of this Board, would you object to it? MRS. PULVER-Yes, I would. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not talking to you. I'm talking to him. - 11 - -- MR. NACE-It depends on how it's worded, okay. It would have to be very reasonable. It would have to allow the homeowner. MR. MACEWAN-I can see where Scott's coming from on this, Tom. He's trying to look for the benefit to the people who are going to spend good money to build a house, don't want to be looking upon that, 300 feet down the road, they look like an extension of the Bavarian Palace. They want to be able to have some privacy, be able to screen themselves from an otherwise busy highway, and it is busy through there. MR. NACE-Okay, but again, I think, philosophically, from my viewpoint, that's up to the individual homeowner to make that decision. From a developer's standpoint, I would not object, as long as it's worded reasonably enough to give the homeowner some discretion, okay, as to what he does. I don't want to tie the homeowners hands, because then lots aren't going to be as readily sellable. MR. MACEWAN-No. I don't think that's what Scott had in mind. I think what we're trying to do is have some preservation of the, the idea that comes to my mind is what we did with Vasiliou, over in the Glen, over on West Mountain Road. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Trying to buffer those houses and their backyards away from West Mountain Road. So that there was a situation there, you couldn't cut within so many feet of the property line. I think it was like 10 or 15 feet of property line. MR. NACE-What we did there, and I think what would be applicable here, is to take those common sidelines that aren't used by the common drive and extend those out to the road. If you remember at Vasiliou, we had, because it was an internal dead end, we were buffering lots, and that had, I think that has a lot of good to say for it, but then we were also buffering between the subdivision itself and West Mountain Road. MR. BREWER-One hundred feet you asked on West Mountain Road. I MR. NACE-Yes, but that could be a complete, that was back lots. That wasn't people's front yards, where, you know, some people might want a nice lawn to take care of out front. MRS. PULVER-It was part of the clustering, too. MR. NACE-Yes. That was part of the clustering provision. I think it was a little different than here, where you were, you had a continuous buffer that you could put in the back lawns, and maintain. Here, I think you'd have to, you could do it. The sidelines would be definitely doable. If you extended, start extending it across the front, I would certainly want some provisions in there where the owners could clear out trees within that buffer, okay, to make it an open, open it up, so that they get some sun into the house, and so that they get a nice looking front lawn, and not just a natural forest out in front that they can't do anything with. MR. RUEL-Back to Ground Zero. MR. BREWER-Okay. What's next? Is that pretty much everything? MR. NACE-No. I think the other issue was the bike trail. want to address that, Clark? Do you MR. WILKINSON-I've spoken, a couple of times, with Jack Lebowitz, who introduced some comments at the public hearing earlier this month. Basically, there's a couple of scenarios that could happen, one of which, and I think the letter that Jack wrote - 12 - -> today addresses it better than I can, but just to summarize that one of the options is to possibly come up the Niagara Mohawk right-of-way. If, in fact, that's not doable because too many poles have to be moved, too much cost, this or that, or whatever the reasons, another option that's still open is the idea of having the bike trail along the side of Birdsall Road. Those two options are the two options that we've been discussing back and forth, Jack and myself, and again, I want to state that the preference is to try to get it in the lands of Niagara Mohawk. MR. BREWER-Why would you want to do it on the other side of the road? MR. WILKINSON-Just, if everything else falls through, that's one of the options that's available, as far as trying to get it in the Niagara Mohawk corridor. Then the first discussion was about either extending the pavement, or creating enough area along the edge of Birdsall Road to create its own path, just like it is on Country Club Road and the other part of.. MR. BREWER-I think that would be easier on, what do we want to call it, the west side. MR. WILKINSON-This side of the road? MR. BREWER-It looked to me like it could be easier done on that side of the road, five feet. I don't know how wide it has to be. MR. WILKINSON-Well, the separated path is eight feet, you go out to Country Club Road, you're dealing with well, about three feet on either side. but when only two, MR. BREWER-If you took right from the corner, where Guido owns, right there, and cut a path five feet wide all the way up through, wouldn't that be sufficient to ride a bike on? JACK LEBOWITZ MR. LEBOWITZ-I'm Jack Lebowi t z. I spoke the I ast meet i ng, I' m on the Council of the New York State Bicycling Coalition, Queensbury resident, and have been working with the County D.P.W. on the current plans to expand the bike trail into Glens Falls, and we're seeking federal funding for that. Clark has basically sketched out the outlines of some things that we've been talking about. One thing I'd like to do, I have a letter that I'd like to have put into the record, which basically updates the Planning Board on what we've been doing since the last meeting, and one of the things that I'd like to emphasize is that after talking to Clark and Mr. Passarelli at the last meeting, I immediately brought the County into the loop here, and got in touch with Pat Beland and furnished him with some maps that I got from Haanen. Pat is the Trail Supervisor for the County. He's working on the federal aid application for the bike path expansion. He works for Fred Austin of the County D.P.W. Pat went out there, took the maps, walked this utility corridor here, and one of the things that's very desirable about this is, in past opinion, this is where the bike path really should have gone, the first time around. It is the trolley railroad right-of-way that the bike path mostly follows, except where it dog legs around the Country Club, and Twicwood and so forth. So what would happen here is, and the most desirable option is that, coming down Round Pond Road, if you look by Round Pond you'll see some utility poles there. This thing would just go up for a few hundred feet on its own separate right-of-way, and we'd avoid Birdsall Road entirely. MR. BREWER-Okay. What is up in there right now? MR. LEBOWITZ-It's a utility corridor. MR. BREWER-Nothing, then? - 13 - - MR. LEBOWITZ-Right, nothing. Pat feels it's feasible. Pat feels that with the proper approaches made to probably the District Manager of Niagara Mohawk, the utility would grant an easement to the County. So really the only issues would be just the amount of grading, paving, and any relocation of pole plant that would be required. We really think that this is the best alternative and it's really doable in a win-win situation for everybody, because what it does is the access road can come in here. The traffic can increase on Birdsall Road and bicyclists and pedestrians are off that road entirely. Failing that, the B Plan, which I think is still a pretty good plan, is to widen Birdsall Road, with land dedicated by the developer, at least up to his property line, and we'd have to talk to the neighbors and see whether more easements up further north would be feasible, and to strip the road, so that basically you have two to, say, three feet of improved shoulders on either side, and you reduce the conflicts, and right now, if you go up there, especially on a weekend, bicyclists are, it's a narrow road. Bicyclists and pedestrians are allover the road, and this, at least, would avoid that conflict. Based on what Pat Beland and I, and Clark, feel is a feasible alternative, we've talked about the idea of determining significance while we go on and sort out the nitty gritty of whether we can get the easement, how much it's going to cost, and all those kind of issues, who pays for it, or what the County does, whether it's shared with the developers, and so forth, but at least presuming that there's something that can be done that would reduce this traffic on this road below the level of significance, I'd be agreeable to a neg dec, predicated on the idea that before final site plan approval this is going to be sorted out to everybody's satisfaction. If that didn't happen, the Board would have ample opportunity, under SEQRA, to rescind the neg dec if it really thought that this really, neither of these approaches would work, but based on what we've seen so far, I think that one or the other would certainly work. MR. MACEWAN-Has anybody made any contact with Niagara Mohawk as of yet? MR. LEBOWITZ-No, we have not, because one of the things that we're trying to do right now is that Pat Beland is checking the deeds to make sure that we're only dealing with utility easement all the way up. There is a possibility that at some point we may be dealing with lands of Mr. Whelan or another neighbor up there, and that, we have to look at the deeds and get that all sorted out, but obviously the logic thing to do would be to talk to the utility. They, as a matter of policy, they're usually pretty agreeable to recreational shared use of rights-of-way. They have no other interest in the whole thing, other than being able to maintain their pole plant, making sure that if the poles get moved, that it doesn't come out of the rate payer's pocket. It comes out of the County's or the developer's, or some other project proponent's pocket. MR. BREWER-I guess the question I would have is, why would the deve 1 oper want to pay for that, when it's not even on his property, he's not getting any property for it. MR. HARLICKER-As mitigation measure, for the impact of trail. I think what you were just going to mention, fees, right? the bike about rec MR. WILKINSON-Well, you hit the if you avoid an impact below you've provided an amenity, you lot of regulatory problems. high point, which is, basically, the level of significance, and don't do an EIS, and you reduce a MR. RUEL-Wasn't this a trade off, with the rec fees? MR. HARLICKER-I spoke to They said it wouldn't fly. Harry Hansen this morning about that. They aren't going to take Town money - 14 - þ"'" --- -.-/ and apply it to the County, and whatever, bike trail. MRS. PULVER-First of all, I think it should go to the Town Board. MR. BREWER-Well, I was just going to mention that September 8th, if anybody's interested, we are having a meeting with the Town Board and the Recreation Commission about just this recreation, land for recreation fees, and you see what the Town wants to do, as far as taking the land or not taking the land, and we've had the directions from the Planning Staff to try to accept land, and the Town Board's saying, wait a minute. Why do we want to take wetland. So I asked Mike Brandt if we could have a meeting and figure out which way we're going to go. I don't want to have th i s Board go onle way, and the Town Board say no. I mean, it just doesn't make sense. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but there's a lot of ways to get creative with this. I mean, if he's got..$11,500 fee, and he can blacktop that whole stretch of land and put a bike trail eight feet wide, for $9,000, he wins, we win. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. LAPOINT-And I don't have a problem with that. I just don't want to sit here and say, lets get together and say, if this is what we're going to do, lets do it. If it's not, then lets not even think about it. I guess that's what we have to do. MR. NACE-Sure, and I think, the developer's agreeable to work with everybody to try to put a package together. Whatever that package looks like when we're all done, I don't know, okay. If you have some problem on NiMo right-of-way with moving poles, and we can grant a little easement over on to Guido's property, to get by those poles, then maybe that's a solution, or maybe it's work in lieu of rec fees, or whatever. MR. LAPOINT-Just a guess. It would probably take quite a while to convince Niagara Mohawk to..over a year, to do anything. MR. WILKINSON-No. I don't think so. (TAPE TURNED> If the community wants something, if the Planning Board and County and developer want to do something, I think they're inclined to be very expeditious. MR. LAPOINT-Make sure to invite them to the meeting, see if they come. Okay. This really doesn't have too terribly much to do with our environmental impact, does it? MR. BREWER-No. MR. LAPOINT-It's a great idea. Again, I think that, I'm not optimistic. I've dealt with Niagara Mohawk and trying to get right-of-ways and this and that, with the Feeder Canal Alliance, and stuff like that, and I just see 14, 16, 18 months, and it seems to me, Option Two, doing something along Birdsall Lane, where everybody rides now, is more than likely more feasible. If we had an engineer here, maybe they'd put it on the drawing. MR. BREWER-I looked all the way up that road this think, and I'm not trying to deter you from going but right on the left hand side of the road, natural path all the way up through. It really is. morning, and I the other way, it's almost a MR. WILKINSON-The problem is, though, you can't really, if you notice the way the bike path is designed on Country Club Road, which is a standard Class 2, on road type of thing, you basically can't, you have to have it on both sides of the road. It's just like cars, you know, you're supposed to stay to the right, and it's very difficult. You put the travel lane in the center. I mean, you'd have to put the bike paths on either side of the - 15 - '-, -- road. MR. NACE-I think, from an engineering standpoint, and a safety standpoint, the NiMo right-of-way has so much more to offer over the Birdsall Road option, in the fact that, well, for practicality, you have only one land owner to deal with, okay. If you go Birdsall Road, you've got Guido, fine, but then north of him you may have other, or will have other right-of-ways to deal with. Secondly, there's some pretty good grades on Birdsall Road, and the younger kids riding bikes are all one side of the road to the other. They use the full width of the road. You put a bike lane on it, and that won't change. So people going up those grades are still going to use most of the road, and for safety's sake, I'd like to see those get separated, if it's pract ical. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LEBOWITZ-Not that the Board needs to decide that now, but I'd be glad to keep working, and maybe. MR. LAPOINT-Orchestrating the effort between Niagara Mohawk and. MR. LEBOWITZ-Well, give it a whirl. I mean, possibility that that might not happen in the but this project could probably go forward. there's always a same time frame, MR. BREWER-Okay. them real quick, Is there any other issues? And just to go over you did get a letter from Kip Grant, you said? MR. WILKINSON-No. Board. He said a letter was on file with the Planning MR. BREWER-And Tom Flaherty you're going to talk to, Tom? MR. NACE-Yes. We will have a letter from Tom Flaherty. MR. BREWER-And you're going to talk to Paul Naylor, I'm sure? MR. NACE-Well, with Paul, but is not taking is.. period. we've got th i s. Yes, we'll have that's really not his concern. any road drainage, and really to resolve that The area in back the road drainage MR. BREWER-If that's all, I guess we can try to do SEQRA, if everybody's comfortable with it. MR. MACEWAN-I've got just one question. When you guys were talking about the footprints of the proposed houses on that subdivision, when you engineer where they're actually going to be placed, what kind of a guarantee do you put on it, exactly where they're going to be? When the site is developed, that more parts of the hill or whatever are going to be excavated out to set the house in some other portion of the property. MR. WILKINSON-We 11, as, I'm not sure if you remember, but back when we first presented the project, we noted in, and I believe the conversation that we had with Jim Martin noted that this site lends itself to creative house designs. You can do a lot with architecture, setting things into the hills, terracing, split levels, a lot of things can be done, and we're trying not to limit the options for the possible buyers, but on the other hand, we don't want to tie them to anything either. They can, technically, build anywhere within the setback line, legally, however, when you start dealing with somebody trying to take this hill out, they're going to be taking somebody else's land with it. They really can't do it legally. So they're limited as to where they can place that. MR. NACE-All we're really trying to show here is that you can do - 16 - '--- -------- it. You can take a standard, four bedroom, colonial and put it on the site and make it work. That's really all a subdivision plan ever does, as far as house locations. MRS. PULVER-As long as they kept within their zoning, Craig, they could have a house that almost covers the entire lot, and just.. MR. NACE-Your site plan, and building permit stage, will address the specifics of where the house is actually going to go on the site, how big it's going to be. MR. MACEWAN-I guess the only thing that's concerning me is the potential for unwanted erosion up there. By taking out, I mean, you're already recontouring that site very significantly right now. I'm kind of looking out for the future, what could worsen the situation. That's where my line of thinking is right now. MR. WILKINSON-Again, and we can appreciate that. To go back further in our discussion, if you remember correctly, the site exists now as a natural bowl here where virtually nothing leaves the site. It all infiltrates into the soil. The same idea is going to hold true, even during construction, and we don't have any outlets proposed. We have four drywells on the roadways itself. We're proposing siltation controls in the form of haybales. There's, this red line is the change in our silt fence. There's going to be silt fence all along the cut line on the top of the hill, silt fence on any slope over, such as this slope here, silt fence along the bottom, to try to stop all the erosion. Again, with these type of soils, you may get some small erosion with the sands, but as soon as it hits a flat area that we've leveled out with terracing, the flat area, it just stops, and there's no other real erosion that takes place, even if the soil's bare, just because of the type of soil that it is, and the permeability of it. So we've tried to alleviate the problem of erosion by terracing and erosion control methods. MR. BREWER-Anything else? Do we want to try it? MR. LAPOINT-Are we ready? "Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?" MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. BREWER-What are we going to mark that? MR. LAPOINT-Proposed action would change floodwater flows. No. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed action will allow the development in a designated floodway. MR. RUEL-Are you reading the items under "Erosion"? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-What do they mean by drainage flows?" "Incompatible with existing MR. LAPOINT-"Proposed action is incompatible with the existing drainage patterns?" MRS. PULVER-That would be like rerouting. MR. MACEWAN-Well, that's basically what you're doing. MR. LAPOINT-Well, no. Nothing's leaving the site, correct? MR. WILKINSON-Nothing's leaving the site. MR. MACEWAN-What do they mean by drainage patterns? - 17 - MR. WILKINSON-The current drainage pattern is from the top of the ridge here, basically, this way. A little bit leaves the site this way, and a little bit flows towards the front. We're not altering the pattern on where it goes. We're still maintaining going to this existing low point. We're still maintaining, in here, that it's going to flow along the front, and where it goes now, but we're really not changing the pattern, or where it's routing to. It's still staying on site, and still generally flowing along the same patterns that it follows now, and that's one of the reasons why I left that small bowl in there. That's part of the existing pattern. MR. MACEWAN-I think I'd have to disagree with you. I mean, if you've got a drainage pattern that's a natural drainage pattern, and now you're doing the manmade thing to it, by putting in culverts, and storm sewers and such, like storm drains up there, drywells, that to me is changing the natural pattern, and that's what the SEQRA review is referring to, isn't it? MR. NACE-AII we're really doing is giving the runoff some place to get back into the ground, the way it does presently, with the drywells. What we're doing with the drainage structures is providing a point where it can go from the impervious surface into the ground. MR. HARLICKER-Look at Question Number Six, "Alter drainage flow or patterns". Okay. I think that might be the one applicable. MR. BREWER-So we can say no to five? MR. HARLICKER-Proposed action affect quality or quantity? surface or groundwater MR. MACEWAN-No. We're already down to Number Six. we're talking about, the patterns. That's what MR. RUEL-Am I to understand that the flow will not change because, although you're putting in roads and homes, etc., you're compensating, or alleviating that width, drywells, etc. In order to maintain the original? MR. NACE-That' s ri ght. Ri ght now, if you look at the overall envelope of the site, okay, right now every inch depth of rainfall that hits the ground filters into the ground and gets to groundwater, when we're all done, it's going to be no different. Every inch that hits the ground is going to get into the ground, either through the natural soil that's there, or by running off along the road that we're putting in, going into the drywells and into the ground. All we're doing is giving it a different means of getting there. MR. RUEL-If you didn't have drywells and storm sewers, then it would be a different story, wouldn't it? MR. NACE-Well, it depends on, we'd have to do something with the drainage then, okay. If we let the drainage runoff, there's really no outlet for that little basin that's in there right now. Everything filters in now. Everything will filter in when we're done. MR. RUEL-What happens to the water in that basin? MR. NACE-It all groundwater. filters into the ground. It recharges the MR. STARK-There's all scrub pine right there, Roger. sandy soil. That's all MR. RUEL-It picks it right up? It's a sponge. - 18 - ..... -..-/ MR. STARK-What would you put in house? You wouldn't put a drywell? for the septic system for a Would you put a leachfield? MR. NACE-You could put a leachfield. Drywells used to be more economical because the regulations allowed you to put more per square foot of surface area into the drywell. Now they don't. MR. STARK-It's less expensive to put in a leachfield. MR. NACE-Right now it's less expensive to put a leachfield in. MR. BREWER-How are we going to answer this? MR. LAPOINT-It SèiiYS, is it incompatible with existing, and it's definitely not incompatible. I don't see, you know, the drop of water's going to end up in the same spot it would whether or not there are houses there. The question is, is it incompatible. MR. RUEL-I'd say no. MR. HARLICKER-They're not denying that they're not altering it. MR. BREWER-Okay. It's no. MR. LAPOINT-"Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources?" MR. BREWER-It's possible. MR. STARK-It'll make it better. MR. NACE-It's reèiilly not visible. there to itself. It's sort of a bowl back in MR. BREWER-Yes, but you're not just talking about, on the top of the hill. You're talking about the whole thing. MR. HARLICKER-You're talking about a buffer along Round Pond Road. MR. BREWER-I think it's a small to moderate impact, but I don't think you can ignore it. I would say that, yes, it does, in my mind, because it's small to moderate. I would say, proposed land use or project component visible to user of aesthetic resources will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. MR. LAPOINT-Are you sure? MR. BREWER-I don't know. If screening. Othe}~ impacts, lets put knows that they're not going to clear You don't know that. It's a view. it didn't say significant other impacts, that it..who that whole Round Pond Road? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. BREWER-You can't just go through and say, no, no, no, no, no. That would be my comment. It's small. You can go on. MR. LAPOINT-"Will proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. RUEL-It could. Read the items under it. MR. LAPOINT-Permanent opportunity? foreclosure of a future recreational MR. RUEL-No. - 19 - ..../ MR. LAPOINT-Okay. the community? A major reduction in open space important to MR. RUEL-Possibly? MR. BREWER-No. What's it going to close? MR. RUEL-It's not open? MR. LAPOINT-No. This belongs to Mr. Passarelli. MR. BREWER-Mr. P,assarelli, yes. I would say, other impacts, possibly it's going to, it's going to impact it, but it's going to improve the situation. It's not going to take away. MR. MACEWAN-You have no guarantees. MR. BREWER-Well, tomorrow either, you have no guarantees that I'm going to be here but I hope I am. MR. HARLICKER-Based on the information we have here tonight, I think the answer is going to be yes. It's going to impact the bike. The Board has nothing firm in front of it saying what's going to happen with the bike path. It would be nice to do this. It would be nice to do that. We want to do this. We want to do that. The potential is there. MR. LAPOINT-The whole idea of going through this form is to find out whether or not you need an Environmental Impact Statement with this project. Now, people are riding their bikes up and down Birdsall Road, whether there are houses here or not. No matter what we dl) in this room today, it's not going to make any difference to anybody riding up and down the road, in terms of studying this, in terms of environmental impact, and that's when you go back to these aesthetic resources, and what have you. If you think these are significant, or even small to moderate, what you're saying is that, gee, lets study the hell out of this thing again, go through about 10 more hoops. MR. BREWER-We're not making them go through any hoops, if we say that there's a smëill to moderate impact on it, Ed. I'm not even tal king about thëit quest i on. I' m say i ng any quest i on. Just saying there's a small to moderate impact, that doesn't kick it into doing Part III, or a Draft EIS, or anything. MR. LAPOINT-Enough of them does. I think if you keep stretching it. Again, I've been here as long as anybody has. The thing is, we keep stretchinB and stretching and stretching. I mean, 1 ike when we talk about landscaping these people's lots, that's not the intent of subdivision. That's where the people come in with their building permit and get a building permit to put the house wherever they want on their lot, and landscape however they want. That's not us to tell people how to landscape their lots, and we're way stretching our subdivision review by doing that type of stuff. MR. BREWER-Well, ][ disagree with you, only because, if we get somebody that comes in here with a large tract of land and says, all right, I'm going to clear cut this and put as many houses as I can, I think thëit's wrong, if we allow that, and I think it' s. MR. LAPOINT-If it's zoned that way, and he can put that many houses on it, he can do whatever he wants. MR. BREWER-Planning, I think, is space in the Town, Ed. That's my with me, that's you're opinion. to preserve some of the opinion. If you don't open agree MR. LAPOINT-Then buy it and keep it open space himself, at whose cost? - 20 - '~ --../' MR. BREWER-..the Comprehensive Land Use Plan in the Town, Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Is that a law? MRS. PULVER-No, it's not a law. MR. LAPOINT-I didn't think so. If it were the will of the people, that's the way it would be. It would tell us that we could tell them how to landscape everyone of these lots and where to put the house, but it's not. MR. RUEL-To me, we're just a police agency, and what we're doing is policing this to make sure that it meets all the requirements of the zoning. That's all, but if, according to the book, the man is allowed to do something, how can we say he can't? MR. BREWER-Nobody said he couldn't do anything. MR. LAPOINT-We ask for elevations, and the guy elevations, sayin!;I, gee, of the house because the stretching what we want, are we? Recreation. people to show us elevations. We have who brings it in..gets punished for there's no siding on the other two sides guy didn't draw any in. I mean, we keep and it just is not fai r. Okay. Where MR. LAPOINT-"Will safety?" proposed action affect public health and MR. MACEWAN-It could potentially have a significant impact. MR. RUEL-Are you talking about traffic? The bike path? MR. HARLICKER-That's what Other Impacts is there for, to address other impacts that are there. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. safety impacts? Lets get it in. What other public health and MR. RUEL-Did you read the items under it? MR. LAPOINT-The items are totally irrelevant? MR. RUEL-Really? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'll read them. Proposed action may cause the risk of an e~plosion or release of a hazardous substance, such as oil, pesticides chemicals or radiation? MR. RUEL-No. MR. LAPOINT-Proposed action may result of in a burial of hazardous waste in any form? Storage facility for one million, you see, this is, you've got to know the law and read this. This is the impact they're talking about, storage facilities for one million gallons or more of liquified natural gas, half a million gallons, they don't care. You see, and we're tal king about cutting a few trees. We're talking about possibly the bike path. MR. BREWER-That's an e~ample, necessarily mean that's e~actly about. though, Ed. the only thing That doesn't they're talking MR. LAPOINT-If it's less than a million, are you concerned about it? No. Okay. Here's the last one. Proposed action may result in the e~cavation or other disturbance within 2,000 of a feet of a site used for disposal of solid or hazardous waste? MR. RUEL-No. MR. HARLICKER-Getting back to that, those bullets mean that it - 21 - --~ is, if impact threshold equals or exceeds any example, Check Column Two. If impact occurs but threshold is less, then Check Column One. So, yes, they are concerned if there's 500,000 gallons. It's just not potential large. MR. LAPOINT-Lets get to the issue. public health and safety? What's the impact, Craig, on MR. MACEWAN-The fact that that bike trail still.. in that lane, Ed, and that it's not moved. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Small to moderate. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-1993, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GUIDO PASSARELLI, at Preli.inary Stage, for the subdivision of 18.9 acre parcel into 23 lots. Lots will range in size fro. 18,000 square foot to 59,000 square foot, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of 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 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 negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 30th day of August, v ot e : 1993, by the following AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSTAINED: Mrs. Tarana MR. BREWER-Okay. That's it for him. JAMES MARTIN MR. MARTIN-The thing you've got to remember. There's a fine line 22 -/' you draw between something that just looks like you're making up new rules every time, and something that applies to a unique situation that's a unique circumstance of this particular subdivision, in this particular part of Town. If this subdivision is going right next to a roller coaster, and it's going to be. MRS. PULVER-We weren't talking about that even there, at that buffer. buffer. We weren't MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll use that as an example, then. That's a unique circumstance associated with this subdivision in that particular part of the Town. That's a consideration that should be looked at in the Planning process. MR. LAPOINT-..buys Lot 13, and he wants to see the coast er, for some odd reason, and he owns ri ght up property line, and he wants to see the roller coaster. roller to that MRS. PULVER-That's why he bought it. MR. LAPOINT-Some odd unknown reason, that's his open space. I can sit on my deck and watch the Great Escape, and he can't cut it down. See, that's wrong. Now, when somebody comes in, as a matter of free enterprise, like Vasiliou, who says, yes, I want 100 feet of buffer, I want that. Vasiliou told us he wanted that. There's a huge difference between the applicant coming in here and saying, I own this piece of property. I'm willing to say, right now, this 100 feet along West Mountain Road will not be touched, because I won't let anybody who buys it touch it. MR. BREWER-No, there isn't, because right now, Passarelli, Guido Passarelli, owns that land, right now. If he comes in to this Board for subdivision, and we say, Guido, we want you to put a 50 foot buffer all the way around where that roller coaster is going to be, and he says, okay, 1'11 put it in my deeds. When the guy buys that lot, then he knows that he cannot cut those trees. MR. LAPOINT-That's fine, and if Guido doesn't want to do that for the front, Guido says, I don't want to have that restriction for the front of my property, who the hell are we to tell him to do that? We were going to put something in our motion to restrict. MR. BREWER-Not me. MR. LAPOINT-We were talking that way. We were getting there. MR. BREWER-I said it would trees, and if we didn't even would leave trees there. be to the benefit ask for that, I to remove some think that they MR. LAPOINT-Then let the enterprise system and the people who want the house decide that, not us. MR. BREWER-Fine, but I don't think that we should, just because somebody owns land, I don't think that we should not ask him to put a buffer in. There is laws in the Ordinance for buffers where two zones meet. MR. RUEL-In that case, you can enforce it. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. BREWER-Right, but if he puts it into his subdivision, into the plat, that there'll be a buffer there, then we can enforce that too. MR. RUEL-Then why should he do it? MR. LAPOINT-And why should we take it one step further and say, - 23 - '- -/ well, there's no two different zones here, like in front, and we wanted you to keep some trees. MRS. PULVER-That's making our rules as we go along. MR. STARK-You're concerned with Round Pond, road? right, along the MR. MARTIN-How are you guys dealing with the bike path issue? MR. STARK-They're going to try to get it on the. MR. LAPOINT-They're going to try to get NiMo to do it. MR. STARK-Yes. That would be a great location. MRS. PULVER-It's kind of on hold. MR. STARK-This guy agreed to, if they couldn't would probably pave up the one side of the road, get NiMo, they and stripe it. MR. MACEWAN-But they were still talking, I think it was left, in lieu of recreation fees, I think. MR. STARK-Well, they would feed the land and pave, what, five, six feet of the road and stripe it or something. That's all we can ask them to do. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well, that's, the Cycle guy actual recommended that. The applicant said nothing about that. MR. STARK-Yes, but he was amenable to it. go the other way. I mean, he'd prefer to MR. LAPOINT-He didn't say anything against it. Again, he knows what he's doing. He's representing the owner, and he's going to bring that back to the owner, to say that. The owner may prefer to write an $11,500 check, which is his judgement to do, 23 lots t i me 500. MR. MARTIN-But the problem we have, are you thinking of using your recreation fee money for the bike path? MR. LAPOINT-Well, 1'm not even sure you can do that. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't think the Town is going to. MR. LAPOINT-Well, that's why we're having a meeting on that, to talk about that. MR. BREWER-I don't think the Town can do that for the County anyway. Why would the Town want to take, not take $11,500. MR. MARTIN-I don't think the Recreation Commission or Harry Hansen or even the Town Board is going to like that idea. MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, it's not even the applicant's idea. It's the Cycle Federation's idea, and see, now, here's another example of the Town being greedy, wanting $11,500, that'll waste, automatically, three quarters of it in bureaucracy, where these guys would build a bike trail with it. MR. BREWER-It's not the Town of Queensbury's bike trail. the County's. It's MR. LAPOINT-Whoever, the County's. MR. MARTIN-I resent that remark automatically wasted in bureaucracy. that it's going to be - 24 - - ..J MR. LAPOINT-Just like They waste all of it, every cent almost. you give to the government. MR. BREWER-Just one thing, Jim. That letter..David Hatin, I think that the Planning Board asked him to, where he says to block out the driveway, we asked him to put a split rail fence up. We asked him to, remember? MRS. PULVER-Yes..the other day, and I thought, remember they came back a second time, it was a year later, but he was, like, in Ohio, and the guy that worked for him, and the plan didn't comply, and the other day when I was going by there, I looked at it and I thought. MR. RUEL-Nothing there. MRS. PULVER-It's going to be two years now. He's got an old car for sale there. I think we just did ask to have the fence ext ended. MR. BREWER-Now, do we have a right to do that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-I mean, there's a case where we told him he had to put a fence up. MR. LAPOINT-A split rail fence, what did we have him put up a split rail fence for? MR. BREWER-You were there. MR. MARTIN-To block off the curb cut on Corinth Road. MR. RUEL-I don't know what the big deal was, short fence. There's nothing to it. putting up, it's a MR. BREWER-It's not a big deal. else? Has anybody else got anything MR. MARTIN-I just want to say, in closing, I think it's the right of this Board to request things like planting restrictions and things like that. If it's for a perceived public benefit, even if it is, it's not a hard and fast thing you can grab on to, it for aesthetic value. If it's a perceived public benefit, even for the aesthetic value of having those trees maintained. MR. LAPOINT-But that's where we stop. We do no more than that. So you can't draw the line. You've got to draw the line with the law. MRS. PULVER-That's what I say, put it in the Zoning Ordinance. It's so easy to enforce it if it's in the Zoning Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but you can't write an Ordinance for a subdivision or a site plan review. There's got to be a latitude of the Board there. There has to be. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 2S -