Loading...
1994-09-27 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 INDEX Site Plan No. 32-94 Barrett Auto Sales, Inc. 8 . Site Plan No. 28-94 Leonardo Lombardo 9. Subdivision No. 7-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE Daniel R. Barber 28. Site Plan No. 25-94 Hudson Pointe, Inc. 36. 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. --' .....r QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR 'MEETING SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK, SECRETARY ROBERT PAl_ING CRAIG MACEWAN JAMES OBERMAYER CATHERINE LABOMBARD MEMBERS ABSENT f~OGER RUEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 26, 1994: NONE July 28, 1994: NONE August 16, 1994: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MINUTES, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, M'"" Br ewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs" LaBombard, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-We might as well do the Resolution of Intent next, George, and then we'll do Mrs. Brunso. SEQRA REVIEW: RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF VARIANCE AND SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR FLORENCE SMITH. MR. MARTIN-I think if you just, so moved and second. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF VARIANCE AND SUBDIVISION REQUEST FOR FLORENCE SMITH, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. B'" ewer NOES: I\ ONE - 1 - ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel MR. MARTIN-I know it's not noted on the agenda, but I know Town Board is getting prepared to consider the Schermerhorn zoning that the Board had before it several weeks ago now. think they're also going to be requesting lead agency status review of that, and as an involved Board, they usually ask your consent. Do you want to consider that, or do you want more time to think? tlìe re- I for for some MR. BREWER-No, that's fine. They just need our consent for them to be lead agent. MR. MARTIN-If I could have a resolution to that effect. MOTION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CONSENTS TO THE TOWN BOARD BEING LEAD AGENT IN THE SEQRA REVIEW OF RICHARD SCHERMERHORN RE-ZONING, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. We have an item that's not on the agenda. I guess Mrs. Brunso's going to give us a brief presentation. MR. MARTIN-It was on last week, and we got it mixed up. MR. BREWER-Right. She's going to give us a brief presentation of access management. JOANNA BRUNSO MRS. BRUNSO-To begin with, I don't think you people understand what a metropolitan organization is, or what the Glens Falls Transportation Council is. So I'm going to give you something to read. You referred to me as someone from the State, and, yes I am a State employee, but that's not quite true. An MPO is an organization that is required by the Federal government for any urban area over 50,000. Glens Falls, that's the Glens Falls urbanized area, that includes all the densely populated areas, by the census definition, regardless of whether it's inside or outside the City boundaries, and for us, now, our forecasted 20 year metropolitan area boundaries includes the City of Glens Falls, the entire Town of Moreau, the entire Town of Fort Edward, the entire Town of Kingsbury, the entire Town of Queensbury, and the entire Town of Lake George. So it's a large area, over which we do the transportation planning. Now, the requirement by the Federal government is that the Staff of the MPO, of which I'm a Director, has to prepare a list of projects, which have to be endorsed by elected officials, and one of those elected officials is Fred Champagne, the Supervisor of the Town of Queensbury. Victor Grant is another one. Harry Booth from the Board of Supervisors in Washington County is another, the Mayor of Glens Falls, the Mayor of South Glens Falls, and on and on. Those people get together once or twice a year, and they go over our materials. The important business is taking place at our monthly planning commission meetings, and those people consist of the DPW Chairman of the County and the Towns, or the Planners, such as Jim Martin, who's a regular attendee. Now, in most of the urban areas, the Staff is not a State employee, but when GFTC started, nobody in this local area was willing to come up with the 20 percent. The Federal government provides 80 percent, and - 2 - .1....--_.---->-_.__,____...____ the local area, somebody in the local area has to come up with the 20 percent, and without that work being done, no Federal money can be spent on the highways and the bridges, or the bicycle trails or the transit projects in this area. So here was a whole area over which the State knew that without an MPO in place, without a Director, without some set up, there would be no Federal money being able to be spent, and so they said, well, if the local people won't contribute that money, then we, the State, will have to do it, and we will provide the 20 percent in in kind service, and that is how we make up the Staff, the people who actually crunch the numbers and write the documents and print the booklets, and so while, yes, I am a State employee, my allegiance is really to the Glens Falls Transportation Council, and I'm working for you. Sometimes, I make the State a little angry, but right now I've come to talk to you about access management, what it is, and what ,you need to do about it. Access management of curtailing congestion along transportation corridors. The typical way that you do this is by reducing the number of driveways along congested arterials. You combine driveways. Where it's possible, you should insist that driveways be off lower volume roads, mostly local roads, not on an arterial. You build service roads. If you can, get developers to build service roads, create zoning that encourages dense development for commercial purposes, so that it's easy for pedestrian and bicycle traffic to get around, and you insist on site plans that are friendly to transit, bicycle and pedestrians. Now, this is really the job of the Planning Board. GFTC can offer you guidance, but the reason that you, the Planning Board, have to do it is that you can't just turn around and say, well, we'll pass everything and we'll expect DOT, through it's permit process, to say no to these developers with their site plans. The basic reason is that in DOT there are two different groups. There's the planning groups that offer advice on things like access management, and site development, and access to State highways, and then there's the highway work permit section, and the highway work permit section is bound by a lot of local laws, a lot of State laws on what they can and can't do, and also a lot of DOT and motor vehicle regulation on what they can't do. So, therefore, as in the case, if you remember the case of Passarelli on Round Pond Road, where L advised that you grant only one access to that entire parcel, and let the two subdivided sites share that one access off of Route 9. You were the only people who could demand that of the developer. By the time you approved the subdivision and created two separate lots, the permit section of DOT must grant access, individual access, to those two parcels. I also remember a case that I sent some planning guidance up to you for the Carvel subdivision down on Route 9, south of the intersection of 254, and at that point, I recommended that you not allow as many driveways as they had, and I guess, in that particular instance, you didn't enforce my guidance, and the permit section, you might have heard it referred to as traffic and safety, highway permits, or Mark Kennedy. They're all one and the same. By the time it got to him, he couldn't do anything to materially change the site development. So it's got to be up to you people to take guidance on access management. The fact is that GFTC has invested quite a bit of money in studies of congested corridors, throughout the Glens Falls area. We've done a study of Quaker Road. We've just come through an exhaustive study of the area around 9 and 254, and that study recommends a new road called the Greenway North connector. It also recommends some service roads to be developed by developers, provided zoning was changed. It recommends that no new curb cuts be allowed in that area, and this is the type of thing that we are looking for from the Planning Boards, some help in reducing the number of intersections on our major corridors through the area. Now, just on the 9 and 254 study alone, that study cost GFTC $60,000. Now, it really doesn't make sense for us to go out and do all these studies if the Planning Boards aren't going to implement the plans that come up, and a little bit further, at DOT, they've discussed the fact that we really - 3 - don't., the DOT really doesn't feel that it should add capacity to the highways in the Queensbury area if the Queensbury Town Planning Board is not going to cooperate in reducing congestion through access management. It just seems a waste of money to continue to add lanes to the highways, to add turning lanes, if the congestion is just going to build up again. So, at the last Planning Board meeting of GFTC we brought up the recommendations in the 9 and 254 study, and I think you've all seen them. Haven't they? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I sent the Executive Summary and the Access Management section out of the Study. MRS. BRUNSO-I guess I'd like to read those, and I'm going to pass them out to you. This is the approval of the recommendations of the 9 and 254 Corridor Study. "GFTC has received the final copies of the 9 and 254 Study. J. Brunso asked the Committee to approve the recommendations because of the impact it would have on the Town of Queensbury, and because the Greenway North connector, which was recommended in the Study, is scheduled for construction on the Tip for $2.6 million. The recommendation also includes an access management plan. J. Brunso explained to the TAC" , that's the Technical Advisory Committee, "that a consequence of accepting the conclusions may be that capacity improvements may not be put on the TIP if the Town of Queensbury does not implement access management. Jim Martin reported the Queensbury Town Board has set aside money as the local match for the Greenway North connector. The Town of Queensbury has also gone forward with the plan for the improvement on Weeks Road, as recommended by the Corridor Study. The access management portion of the plan has been distributed and accepted by the Town Planning Board. On September 27th, J. Brunso was also scheduled to talk to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board about their responsibility for access management. J. Brunso added that she and Richard Carlson of New York State DOT's Region 1 have discussed the possibility that no capacity improvement project should be funded along the two corridors until the Town of Queensbury agrees to implement the access management. This comment was made in view of the increase in commercial development along Routes 9 and 254. Jim Martin made a motion to approve the conclusions of the 9 and 254 Corridor Study. This motion was seconded by Jack Dixon and carried by the TAC. He asked GFTC to send copies of this discussion and the motion to the Queensbury Town Planning Board as an indication of GFTC support for the Study's recommendations." So, now I think that's probably the end of my conclusions, and I'm wondering if you have any questions for me. MR. BREWER-Well, I have talked to, what's the State? a question. fellot,.J's name, In here, Carlson, ì'OU say you've from New York MRS. BRUNSO-Yes. MR. BREWER-You and he agreed that no funds should come to the Town of Queensbury until the Town of Queensbury implements access management? MRS. BRUNSO-No. That's not quite what we said. We said that we should not fund capacity improvements in the Town. Right now, for example, we have the Greenway North connector, on our Tip. We also have capacity improvements to Route 9. Route 9 is scheduled for a simple re-paving job. We've added a considerable number of funds to add addition right turn and left turn lanes in the area of Exit 20 and Route 149. Those are in question, as a result of this discussion here. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess what my question would be is, how can we implement access management if there's, the problem pre-exists you asking us to implement it? In other words, 9 and 254 is a - 4 - .....1..---._._'____._...____ problem. It's been a problem. How can we implement something when we have no power to do such? MRS. BRUNSO-You have the power. For example, when Passarelli came in for his subdivision of those two lots, you had the power to demand that only one access, that there be a shared access to those two subdivided properties, and the only thing you can do is to go forward from this point on, and we see some concrete evidence that you're not just allowing every single curb cut to come out onto Route 9 and 254. MR. BREWER-I agree with you there. MRS. BRUNSO-You can't do anything about what exists at the p'"esent time. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. BRUNSO-I think there are certain things that GFTC needs to do, and there are also certain things that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board needs to do here, and the first of that is to understand what permits can and can't do, and I hope I've explained that well to you. If you look at the following pages, these are some charts that we recently had developed about the increase in traffic, and what these charts show is the increase in DMVT's, that's a Transportation Planner's term for the number of people times the number of lanes times the length of each segment on these roads, and this is being contrasted by the change in compilation and the change in the numbers of households, and in most of the areas, you see that the change in these DMVT's pa,-allels the change, or the increase in the number of households in the Town of Queensbury, but when you get down to the corner of 254 and Dix and 32, you see a remarkable change, and the traffic is increasing down there way beyond the increase in the number of households in the Town of Queensbury, and the Town of Kingsbury, and I feel that a Study similar to the 9 and 254 Study should be done in that area by GFTC, together with an access management plan for that area, but I also think that in view of the new opening up of the K-Mart, the super saver down there, and all of the new developments that are coming in there, that you ought to be very careful about the numbers of curb cuts that you allow. Try to have adjoining lots share driveways. Try to have driveways go from one development to the next development, so that if somebody wants to do business at both places, you don't have to come back out to Quaker Road, or out onto Dix Avenue, because it's going to become increasingly congested in the area. MR. BREWER-Okay. I was just going to mention that, that we did have K-Mart make improvements on Dix Avenue and Quaker Road. We did have them tie in to Livingstons. MRS. BRUNSQ-That's right. MR. BREWER-Gardentime was in this month. We had him tie into Sport Line Honda, which was in several months ago, and we made bim lea\/e the possibi 1 i ty for an adjoi ni ng neighbor to access his property. So I don't think it's fair to say that this Planning Board is not trying to do that. I think we are trying to do that, and I think maybe, for myself maybe, we could have a workshop with you, and not maybe just you, but members of the Council, and we can sit around a table and you can tell us what you think we should do, and we can tell you what we have done. MRS. BRUNSQ-Okay. That sounds very good. MR. BREWER-I mean, you take note to the things that we done, but I haven't heard anything mentioned about the t.hat we have done, and I don't think that's fair to us. !!l.l::. speech. haven't things That's - 5 - --------------- MR. PALING-I'd just like to add something to what Tim has said. MR. PALING-Now ,'oU talk about the 9/254 Study, and yOU want us to adapt it, and we've been given a copy to read, but yet we haven't been given the opportunity to question you or someone else about the things in there, and this questioning would be just probably in the way of understanding, rather than objecting to it, and I think Tim is exactly right, that we try to vote the right way, but if you're going to lay something down and say, here it is, do it, don't ask questions, I think the,· <':3 will be trouble. MRS. BRUNSO-Yes, but on the other hand, we did have three public meetings in this room on that Study. MR. PALING-I haven't been given the opportunity to talk about the 9/254 Executive Summary since I received it, unless I'm remembering wrong. MR. BREWER-No. got that. I don't think there's been a meeting since we've MR. MARTIN-The only thing I should say, there's a full copy of the whole Study, which is literally about eight inches high, is available in my office, if anybody wants to come. MR. BREWER-No, but I think Bob's talking about the Summary that we got. When did we get that Summary? MR. PALING-That's got to be a month ago or more. MRS. BRUNSO-Yes. That Summary was not written until we had the final public meeting on that Study, so that we knew what the public comments were. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-You make a lot of statements in the report which I know are true, but we don't know the rationale behind them, and that's the kind of thing I'd like to find out. MRS. BRUNSO-Okay. workshop, then. Well, Jim, I think you should set up a MR. MARTIN-Yes. Next month is a particularly good month. We've got a particularly light agenda. MR. BREWER-Yes. That would be fine. MRS. BRUNSO-I don't know that I can do it next month, not in the month of October, because we're racing to get our long range plan done by the 1st of November, but we can do it in the month of November, if that's okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-What L would like to suggest is a spirit of cooperation here, and the Board's just trying to understand, and I don't think there's an attitude on the part of the Town, as a whole, to warrant such harsh penalty. MRS. BRUNSO-Well, it sounds harsh because it's abbreviated here. MR. MARTIN-But to take away the installation are sorely needed on the upper Route 9, perception of a Board's unwillingness to management is, I think, a little harsh. of turn lanes which as reaction to a undertake access MR. BREWER-I agree with you, Jim, and they're only stating one case. They're talking about the Passarelli case, and, I mean, what was the vote on that, four to three? - 6 - .- MR. PALING-Five to two. MR. BREWER-Five to two. MR. MARTIN-That is one notable case, and I think that's one, in my view, I think we missed the boat. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. MR. MARTIN-But there are other cases, like even the Glen Square site plan that was in. It is not simple enough to say that the curb cuts were just left as is, and no reason. There was a value judgement there on the part of the Board. There were a lot of things that were given with that application that would have been lost, had we forced them to give up a curb cut, and weighing those things out, the Board got a lot of good out of that, by giving on one thing, and that wasn't exactly a complete give away either. We did get some restricted turning movements out of there, and Mark Kennedy did approve that approach. So I think there has been some work done, and I agree it could be better, but I think there's a willingness, certainly on the part of the staff, I know, and from what I'm hearing from the Board, a willingness to do better, and I think we will, but I'd hate to see a penalty handed down, that we don't get capacity improvements funded, because I think there's no need for that. We're trying. MRS. BRUNSO-Okay. Well, one of the things that I see, and I must admit, the Town of Queensbury is one of the few Towns that will send their site developments to me, prior to enacting any approval or denial process. That's a big help. From some of the other towns, I get the final recommendations by the Planning Board. I don't get that from the Town of Queensbury. So I don't know what you have accomplished unless I specifically go and ask Mark Kennedy or Jim Martin, and on things that I work hard on, and take quite a bit of time to think over what should be done, then I usually have an interest in going and trying to find out what the final determination of the Planning Board was. MR. MACEWAN-Would it help if we established a program to send you final approved site plans of any project within the Corridors to you? MRS. BRUNSO-I don't have room for those. MR. MACEWAN-What can we do to give yoU feedback? MRS. BRUNSO-A summary. MR. MARTIN-Maybe if we just sent yOU the resolutions of the Board, what meeti ng . a copy of our resolutions, they enacted on a given MR. MACEWAN-Yes. That's what I was looking at. MR. MARTIN-They're just on 8 and half by 11 paper, and you could discard them or record them, or save them or whatever you want to do. I can do that as a matter of practice every month. MRS. BRUNSO-Okay. If that explains what has been enacted, the curb cuts and the lights and the signals. MR. MACEWAN-Sometimes that wouldn't even say. refers to a site plan drawing. Sometimes it just MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. BRUNSO-Maybe you could just call me up and tell me. MR. MARTIN-As a practical matter, there's really not that many - 7 - items that warrant your concern or interest. So it wouldn't be hard to send you a spare copy of the final site plan. MR. BREWER-How about, rather than belaboring this, we'll go on and make a date for the 10th of November. MRS. BRUNSO-That's okay with me, I think. MR. BREWER-I mean, if there's a problem, you can get back to us, and there's plenty of time. MR. MARTIN-Do you want to do that in the other room, downstairs? MR. BREWER-Yes, that's fine. MR. PALING-I can't do the 10th. MR. STARK-It's no problem with me. MR. BREWER-What º-ªI! you do? MR. MARTIN-We're going to have one of our neighborhood meetings that night, too, for the Comprehensive Plan. MR. PALING-Anything but the 10th or the 17th. MR. BREWER-How about the 9th? MR. PALING-The 9th is fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-The 9th would be better. MR. BREWER-The 9th is good. MR. STARK-That's fine with me. MR. MARTIN-Any time you want. You can make it 7, 7:30. MR. BREWER-Whatever's good for you. MRS. BRUNSO-How early can you meet? The only thing, I'm thinking about if I can get some of the DOT employees up to work with us. MR. BREWER-How about 6:30? Is that too late? MRS. BRUNSO-Okay. MR. BREWER-Six thirty November 9th, downstairs in the Conference Room, and you'll ask members of the Council to come, or whoever. MR. MARTIN-Doesn't the central office have an access management division? Who was it that came and spoke to us? MRS. BRUNSO-Steve Munson. MR. BREWER-And maybe we can get a feel for what you want us to do, and we can tell you why we do or don't want to do it. MRS. BRUNSO-Okay. All right. Thank you for your time. MR. BREWER-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 32-94 TYPE: UNLISTED BARRETT AUTO SALES, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: QUAKER RD., ADJACENT TO CAR WASH & SOUTHEAST OF GARDEN TIME PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A 71' X 115' BUILDING TO BE USED FOR SALES AND SERVICE OF AUTOS AND TRUCKS. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 65-90 BEAUTIFICATION COMM. - 9/12/94 WARREN CO. PLANNING - 9/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 110- - 8 - --'-~"'--"'----'--'------- 1-1.23 LOT SIZE: 85,500 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-26 DANIEL BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BARBER-Good evening. I~y name is Daniel Barber. We have some drainage situations we have to solve, here, with Bill MacNamara, and we'd like to have it tabled until next month, please. MR. BREWER-First meeting next month. MR. MARTIN-You just might want to open the public hearing, Tim, that was scheduled for tonight. MR. BREWER-Okay. I will open the public hearing. anyone here that cares to speak about Barrett's? Is there PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BREWER-I'll leave the public hearing open. somebody want to make a motion to table? Okay. Does MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 32-94 BARRETT Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its by Robert Paling: AUTO SALES. INC., adoption, seconded Until our October 18th meeting. Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer t'10ES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 28-94 TYPE: UNLISTED LEONARDO LOMBARDO OWNER: LEONARDO & CALLIOPY LOMBARDO ZONE: HC'-lA LOCATION: NORTH OF RT. 9 - WEST SIDE OF RT.9 AT LAKE GEORGE TOWN LINE. FOR ADDITION AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING RETAIL STORE. ALSO, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING FOR FUTURE RETAIL STORES. BEAUTIFICATION COMM. - 9/12/94 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 9/14/94 TAX MAP NO. 33-1-10, 11, 13 LOT SIZE: 3.851 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 RON RUCINSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 28"94, Leonardo Lombardo, Meeting Date: September 27, 1994 "pROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A., Section 179-38 B., Section 179-38C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and offers the following comments: 1. Traffic access is a concern with this project. The site is currently serviced by 4 curb cuts. With some minor modifications to the plan the southern most curb cut could be eliminated and the enlarged retail stores could be adequately serviced by upgrading the existing center curb cut. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; No elevations were submitted with this application so it is difficult to assess the compatibility of the new structure with what is existing. In general, in order to keep the exterior of the building uniform and to avoid a piecemeal put together look of placing several additions on to the existing structure; the applicant should consider upgrading the exterior of the existing building so that the new construction will be compatible with the existing - 9 - structure. 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 is a concern. There is currently an excessive number of curb cuts on this property. The southern curb cut could be eliminated and the shopping plaza adequately serviced by upgrading the existing center access. It could be upgraded so that there are two exit lanes, one for left turns and one for right turns and a single entrance. The exit and entrance would have to be separated by a barrier or preferably a raised island. The parking spaces facing Route 9 and the existing non-conforming sign could be relocated to provide room for an access drive. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off- street parking and loading; There are a sufficient number of parking spaces provided. The applicant is proposing to locate 10 of them along Route 9. These could be moved so that they front the shopping plaza and the existing sign could be removed so that an access drive could be placed along the front of the building. The 5 spaces just to the north of the center curb cut would have to be removed to provide room for the upgraded curb cut. These spaces could be eliminated and the applicant could still meet the parking requirements. The handicapped spaces could be placed at the front of the building reducing the walking distance needed to enter the building. A loading area is to be provided in the rear. 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. If the parking spaces fronting Route 9 are moved so that they front the building, the handicapped spaces will be more certainly located and provide better access to the stores. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The adequacy of stormwater facilities will be reviewed by Rist-Frost. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The building will be serviced by well water and a new on-site septic system. The adequacy of these facilities will be reviewed by Rist-Frost. 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 Junipers along Route 9 and upgrading the existing planters around the building. The comments of the Beautification Committee should be incorporated. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The 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. The project involves the regrading and work within a drainage easement. This should be done so that erosion is kept to a minimum. RECOMMENDATION: One of the means to address traffic congestion is through access management. This can be accomplished on the site by eliminating the southern curb cut. The property will still be adequately serviced with the remaining two curb cuts that service the residence and the restaurant and an upgraded central access to service the stores. The two northern curb cuts can be looked at when the applicant files an application for the future expansion. The parking spaces fronting Route 9 could be relocated so that they front the stores and the existing non- conforming sign removed to provide room for an access aisle. The 5 parking spaces on the south side of the lawn should be removed to provide room for the upgrading of the access." MR. HARLICKER-There are also Engineering comments. Warren County approved it without comments, and there's a p1-epared resolution, also. MR. BREWER-Okay. Bill. - 10 - MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. We had a number of comments on the first submittal, of which I believe we actually looked at during the I t t th t I attendDd I~o~t of those comments have been as mee i ng , a ~ _ ,- "'. ' - addressed. The only remaining comments that I had went out on the September 21st date, of which Ron and I actually, as of late today, had a number of phone calls and faxes back and forth, and have addressed most of them. I'll summarize, briefly, what are, not so much outstanding, but what we talked about today. Basically, there's a ditch along the south side of the project, which, depending on what state of completion it is, these comments may not be directly applicable, but he's going to show some additional silt fence, or location of some that may be there but not shown on the drawing, and also put a note about, when the ditch is re-located, there'll be some specific vegetation and mulching steps taken, and immediate grading. Next is, I'm not sure. We never did really figure this out, if you're looking for approval of the future retail building as well, tonight. There isn't any stormwater management for that portion included. So we didn't look at any stormwater issues associated with the future building. MR. BREWER-The future building will come back for site plan ,"eview. MR. MACNAMARA-That's what I really didn't know. I wanted to just make it cleaì". MR. MARTIN-I think if that's the case, then, a note on the plan should be to that effect. MR. MACNAMARA-The next item which we had most of the discussions about was essentially how the applicant was proposing to handle the runoff from both the roofs and the parking lots. When some additional grade lines were shown, it became clear what the intent was, which we talked about today. Essentially, although not conventional, it will meet the storage, in an infiltration type of an approach, for some stormwater. Essentially, it appears he's using a lot of the parking lot itself, to be graded, in a sense, as a bowl, as he put it, to store stormwater, and he's very optimistic that it infiltrates quick enough so that it won't actually be a puddle. Normally, I'd look at that, and based on just the view of it, consider it to be a ponding effect, typically not desired in a parking lot, but I understand that it's a seasonal operation, and that it certainly would be appropriate, as far as in this application. MR. BREWER-What's seasonal? The only thing that's seasonal is the golf, isn't it? Or is the restaurant? MR. RUCINSKI-Except for the house, everything's seasonal. MR. BREWER-It is? Okay. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. Lastly, he gave me some additional information on the trench drains, which showed them to be adequate for the design he showed, and, lastly, I had some comments on the sewage disposal system of which I subsequently have learned that a building permit was already issued previously to the submittal of the site plan for those changes, which have already been substantially completed. So those notes would be not be applicable. That's all we have. MR. make BREWER-Okay. any comments Sir, ¡"Jould toward Staff you care to Notes? identify yourself and MR. RUCINSKI-Good evening. I'm Ron Rucinski. I'm the architect for the project, representing Leo Lombardo. I'll take these comments right, more or less, in order. We did not present it. I do have with me. This is preliminary, but this is the Route 9 view of the building, showing all of the stores, as what it might look like. In terms of the immediate project, this is the - 11- existing building, a portion of which has a gable roof and a portion of has the flat roof. We'll be gable roofing the entire existing building, and we'll have a gable roof on the new addition as well, and we will be upgrading the facade, so that there is a uniformity of materials, and some consistency of design. This is not a final, however, it's the general direction that we're going in. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Are you going to put a new gable roof on the existing building, now, did yoU say? MR. RUCINSKI-On the existing flat roofed portion of the building will receive the gabled roof, and then all of the new additions will have gabled roofs, creating some kind of a pattern that are relatively small scale buildings. We really can't separate. very well, the parking in front of the building, and the access. Let me go through it again, similar to what I did when we were here in August, and Warren County Planning asked the same questions, earlier this month, when we made the presentation to them. They approved the curb cuts as they are, and for your benefit, ma'am. There are four curb cuts into the site. They were created when the State widened and improved Route 9 the last time, whenever that was. Was that in the 70's, I believe, and at the same time, the State took a taking of right-of-way that created a property line that's directly in front of the restaurant building, and not many feet away from the existing retail buildings. Those existing conditions which were not done by my client have created problems. It makes it a very, very difficult site to work with. MR. BREWER-Can I stop for one second? Mark, I just want to ask you a question. On this site plan, he shows 17 or more parking spaces on the State's property. Is that not a problem, or is it a problem? MR. SCHACHNER-I think we talked about that some months ago, and I guess the answer is. MR. BREWER-I can't remember. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that's because I gave sort of a waffly answer, and that's because, in practice, it's done all the time. Technically, if push comes to shove, there could be a problem with that, and I can't remember the application that we talked about, but it was one in which there was an existing, it was an existing situation. There was existing parking on the right-of- way. and as I recall that particular application, that previous one I'm referring to didn't propose to do much different than what was already being done. I'm not familiar with what's being done currently on this site, so I don't know if this is new parking in the right-of-way, or it's existing parking in the right-of-way. MR. BREWER-Existing. I mean, clearly not even half on their lands. It's clearly outside their property boundary. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Very, very common in practice, and I think what I said at that. time, and \.Jhat I \·JQuld reiterate nO\fJ, is that I don't think we should be endorsing new project plans that call fo,- a substantial D..ê.li parking on State right-of-\¡Jay, but I don't, from what you're saying, Tim, I don't think that's the case, here, and it wasn't the case previously, either. MR. RUCINSKI-The parking that is in the right-of-way has been there right along. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUCINSKI-And I believe, for instance, the parking lot that is in front of the retail store is partially stone and partially blacktop. I believe the blacktop was put in by the State. - 12 - MR. BREWER-But I guess what we're talking about right now is, right in front of the existing building, where all the A's and the S's are, or whatever they are, fives. MR. MACEWAN-Those are the plantings. MR. BREWER-The plantings, is that where the parking was and you moved it back? MR. RUCINSKI-The parking, now, goes all the way out to the curb line that is in front of that planting. We're moving the pavement line back, and creating a planting area along Route 9. MR. BREWER-So actually, then, that's new planting? MR. RUCINSKI-That is new planting, removal of pavement. MR. BREWER-New parking, right? MR. RUCINSKI-We're pushing it back. MR. BREWER-So why wouldn't we push that parking right back to the building? MR. RUCINSKI-We could. That's where they now, up against the building, and to get other, they go around the existing sign. putting the parking on the Route 9 side, create that green space. park now. They park, from one side to the All we're doing, by is we've been able to MR. HARLICKER-Well, why couldn't you just put the parking up, facing the building, and have the area where you have the parking now, an accessway, and eliminate that nonconforming sign that you have there, and have that, there's room, there's 22 feet there, to provide access across the front of the property? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, I think you're at least in part to the nub of the question, is the nonconforming sign, a couple of reasons. One, I don't think it's fair to ask my client to remove a planting box and a sign, etc., and relocate it, unless it creates a real problem. It's not creating a real problem. Secondly, the building, if you're coming up hill, if you're northbound at Route 9, YOU cannot see that building until you're right on top of it. So he depends very much on that sign for identification that you've arrived at the site, and we've taken pains with the reconstruction, or the construction, of the sewage disposal system for this addition, to maintain tree cover at the south end of the site. So we need the sign for identification. Thirdly, and I haven't looked at your Sign Ordinance, but my gut reaction would be that if your Sign Ordinance is like everybody else's, if we try to relocate that sign, we'll need a zoning variance to do it. As it is now, a bit of the sign is actually in the right-of- way, and I certainly know that DOT isn't going to let us put a new sign in their right-of-way. So what we're really saying, at least I think what we're really saying, is we're not going to relocate the sign, we're going to do away with the sign. I think that's unfair. MR. MARTIN-Why can't you relocate it to the southern part of the property, by the septic system? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, then we'd be putting a sign a long ways away from a curb cut, and I think that's plain hazardous. MR. MARTIN-Why is that hazardous? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, people see the sign, they're looking for where they're going to turn. I mean, usually you put a sign some place near where you're going to turn. Here's the sign, now turn, slow down, and prepare to turn, but lets just go on, because the sign - 13 - and the parking kind of work together with the curb cuts. The curb cuts have been there, as I said, since some time in the 70's. The northernmost curb cut services the residence where the Lombardos live, and it is the only access, or the only reasonable access, for deliveries and trash pick up for the kitchen, which is at this end of the building. It is also the only curb cut that is kept open, and that's plowed in the winter time, as access to the residence. The second curb cut is the primary access to the restaurant and to the restaurant parking, which is in front, and at the rear, and is the most convenient for customers using the restaurant. The next two curb cuts, the middle one referred to in the Staff report and the southern one referred to in the Staff report, are used primarily by customers of the miniature golf, and customers of the retail store. With the proposed addition to the retail store, and the rearrangements I just showed you on elevation, the parking lot at the south end, and the parking in front, will be the primary parking for the retail store. We also need loading/unloading access for the retail stores, and this we've provided for out back. The only way we can maneuver a truck through this site, as it's presently constituted, is to bring a truck in or out through the south entrance, and around and back out through the so called center curb cut. We cannot get a truck up and around the miniature golf, and out that entrance. It's just too tight. There's an existing sewage disposal system behind the miniature golf course. We don't have an opportunity to do anything. MR. BREWER-You couldn't go in the, where your arrow is shown, where he comes out, he couldn't go in there, and make a loop and come back out? MR. RUCINSKI-He can go in here, and come out there, or he can go in here and he can come out there. He can't get behind the miniature golf course. MR. BREWER-I'm not talking that way. What if he went in where your second arrow is, in the middle there, go in there and loop around those stores, come right back out there? MR. RUCINSKI-Coming back, and then coming back out the same curb cut? MR. BREWER-Go right around the building. MR. RUCINSKI-Around the building, and this way? MR. BREWER-Yes. Didn't we talk about that in August? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. There's not really room to do that either, very well, if you're going to have a full sized tractor trailer in there. MR. BREWER-But you told us last time you were here. MR. RUCINSKI-I don't think we are, but your Ordinance doesn't give me that luxury. MR. BREWER-Well, I mean, for the amount of you're going to have in there, for the one the driver to go around that building, I big of a deal. tractor trailers that inconvenient time for don't think it's that MR. RUCINSKI-If I may, let me just continue. MR. BREWER-Well, let us make our points as we go along. MR. RUCINSKI-Okay. We certainly, if we were going to do that, we would have to maintain the aisle in front of the building, or maintain the pavement, as far out in front as it does now, if we were going to put the parking in front of the building, but some - 14 - --', place we need a big aisle to get that truck through, if we're going to do that. MR. BREWER-How much area do you need to get a truck through and have the parking places? MR. RUCINSKI-Certainly a 24 foot aisle, but where the problem comes is at the turns. A truck needs a better turning radius than an automobile to get in and out. MR. BREWER-Is that radius figured on here anywhere? MR. RUCINSKI-Well, it's allowed for, coming through the back, but a truck coming this way, and trying to go out on Route 9, has to make a u-turn, and it's tight. It's very tight, but let me move on, because that's one issue, but t.he other issue is this. When we put this addition on. MR. 08ERMAYER-How about if you were to widen that access, double it., make t.hat access wider and then eliminate the other one, so t.hat you Ç,§Jl get that? MR. RUCINSKI-Make this one wider? MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. RUCINSKI-It's already 40 feet. I think DOT's standard is 34, something like that, right now. I mean, it's wide enough. It's the radius that's the problem, the radius of the turn. A truck would have to probably pull back and forth a little bit, but lets just leave that aside for a moment. When we put this addition on, and we do away with the miniature golf, and we will relocate, at the same time, the sewage disposal system that is behind the miniature golf, now we have a route that will let a truck go t.hrough readily, either this way or that way, using these two curb cuts, and at that point, we no longer need, or even want, the curb cut in the middle, and at that point, it becomes a pain in the tail. MR. BREWER-Right, but mayor may not ever happen, too. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, the game plan is t.o build, do this work t.his fall, and do the other work the following fall. That's certainly our plan, or we wouldn't even have this on the drawing. So what I'm saying is, if we close this curb cut now, and use this one, even if we can solve the truck problems, we'll be back here next year asking you to reverse the two for us, because if we wind up using just this one, and we put the retail here, now every vehicle coming in and out of here has got to make a left hand turn or right hand turn under tight circumst.ances, or we'd have to start cutting down those 80 foot pine trees, and I don't even want to bring that up. It's not an easy site. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe this site's just not developable for as much as you want to put on it. MR. RUCINSKI-By your formulas for density, mean, the problem is where the propert.y buildings are, and they preexist all of us. we're well under. I lines and where the MR. BREWER-The problem is the configuration of everything on the property. I mean, I don't see, to me, this front, or the most northerly entrance or exit. for a resident, I don't see why they have to have, I don't know how wide that driveway is, but why do they have to have that. entrance and exit for the residence. I don't know how many people live in the house, but why couldn't they come in the second one? I mean, a curb cut that wide for somebody's house, on Route 9 doesn't make any sense to me. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, now you're creating a maneuvering problem for - 15 - the delivery trucks and the garbage trucks servicing the restaurant, which have to get to this end of the building. MR. BREWER-Put the dumpster on the other end of the building. I mean, there's got to be kind of a compromise somewhere. MR. RUCINSKI-To put the dumpster on the wrong end of the building from the kitchen, I don't think that's even realistic. We're not trying to be a pain in the neck to this Board. I certainly sympathize with what was said earlier. I'm an architect. I've sat on a Planning Board for 11 years down in Colonie. I dealt with Wolfe Road. They're still dealing with Wolfe Road. I know what your problems are, and I'm just telling you, we have some problems trying to eliminate this curb cut. We see a way to eliminate this curb cut next year, and we'll commit to that. I don't have any problem committing to that. My client doesn't have any problems committing to that. MR. BREWER-I can't see why, really, that a garbage truck couldn't come in here and go back up to this. I mean, they go down narrow streets. I mean, I can't understand why you need an entrance and exit that wide for a house. MR. RUCINSKI-Whether it's a garbage truck or the truck delivering lobste,"s, or whatever the case is, if he has to come in this entrance, it's fairly narrow, because of the trees. He has to turn instantly, especially if there are any cars parked in the lot, if he happens to come during hours when that the restaurant is open, which is, in the summer time, for all practical purposes, could be 11 o'clock in the morning on, he has to get in here. He has to get turned around somehow, in a fairly tight area, because it's not very big, and he does that by going back and forth a couple of times, and then comes back out. If he wants to go back north, he's right back to making a U-turn again. MR. BREWER-Well, what if it was a one way street? MR. RUCINSKI-If it was a one way street, U-turns are not quite the same problem as they are. MR. OBERMAYER-You're going to whether you go north or south. a U-tur n . MR. BREWER-I don't see the big problem if we eliminate this curb cut right here. I mean, if a garbage truck can't come in here, pull in here, and then back in there, something's wrong. Eliminate one parking place here, and one here. Then you've got enough room for, I mean, they do it right over here on Quaker Road, between the fence and where Boardmans used to be. Surely if a tractor trailer can get in there, he sure as heck can get in where you're talking about. have that situation no matter You're always going to be making MR. RUCINSKI-Again, I that he's got to plow winter long. think it's unreasonable to tell ~ client another 100 feet or so of driveway all 1'1R. BREIrJER-Then t.he people go SomelrJhere along think. close the second one and leave that one open, let in for the restaurant. right in the' first one. the line, we're going to close a curb cut, I MR. RUCINSKI-Well, we're agreeing to close a curb cut. All we're saying is, we'll close it. with the next addition. Warren County found that reasonable. The Beautification, although it's not their bailiwick, the Beautification folks. MR. BREWER-Hypothetically, if it doesn't happen next year, though, what do you do? You just close it anyway? MR. RUCINSKI-Until the miniature golf course is gone, we still - 16 - need that curb cut to bring those trucks around. MR. BREWER-Then you agreed to Warren County to close it next year. MR. RUCINSKI-I agreed to Warren County we'd close it when we built the retail. MR. BREWER-Suppose it doesn't happen for 10 years? MR. RUCINSKI-Until the miniature golf is gone, we need it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets go on. about the curb cuts? Any other comments from anybody MR. HARLICKER-Ron, let me understand you. You're saying, you can't eliminate the middle curb cut, because you can't have trucks get behind the existing miniature golf area, correct? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. If they get in there, they can't get out. MR. HARLICKER-They couldn't circle around behind the golf course, then come in between, on the south side of the restaurant, and use that? MR. RUCINSKI-The problem is the turn right back here, at the corner of the miniature golf. It's very narrow between the miniature golf and the restaurant. For truck traffic, that's one way at a time, but aside from that, it's making that turn, right back here at the back corner. Where the miniature golf is, it's fenced. It's concrete, and immediately outside the fence is a sewage disposal field, but even if the sewage disposal field weren't there, it's still a miserably tight turn. MR. OBERMAYER-You're going to have parking back there, right? You are going to have parking back in there? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. It's basically overflow parking, restaurant parking, but, yes, we've shown it to meet your requirements. See, once we get the miniature golf course out there, we really open that corner up, and we've got a lot of opportunities to do something, but until that happens, we're kind of locked in. LEO LOMBARDO MR. LOMBARDO-My name is Lombardo. If I don't want to build a store, I wouldn't put a septic system that costs twice the money I'm spending right now. I'd go the cheapest way possible. As it stands right now, I want to build this store, that's why I went with a septic system so expensive, and the cuts that people are talking about, the one is for my house. It's very small. You can't try to go in back of the restaurant with a truck. It's impossible to make it. Then you've got one entrance in the back, it goes in back of the restaurant, and it's very narrow, it's about 20 feet long (lost word), the miniature golf, and the restaurant. When you reach the end of the fence of the miniature golf, you can't make a left turn because of the right there, on the right side, you've got the brook, and on the left side, you've got the leach field. The other entrance is for the store, right now. Now, people go in, if you close one entrance, how are they going to make a U-turn? How can you close that up, and once you're in, you're in. You can't back up anymore. You've got 10 cars at one time, how can you expect those people to get out, with the people coming in? They go out the other end. Like I say, when the miniature golf isn't there, and we're going to do the store, then I'd close, and I did it with the intention to build the store. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Okay. Continue. - 17 - MR. RUCINSKI-I think we've covered everything else, unless the Board has additional questions. MR. PALING-When you said the restaurant is seasonal, what do you mean seasonal? What are the dates that it's opened and closed? MR. LOMBARDO-From May until November. MR. PALING-May to i~ovember. Well, I'm a little confused, because when we start talking about putting trucks one way and another way, and maybe a parking space eliminated here and there could do it, L would like to see this lot limited to two curb cuts, and have them go back and do a complete plan, along with a time schedule, as to when it's going to be accomplished, but right now, it's so ify about what's going to happen when, and what's going to be done, I couldn't even vote on it either way, and I'd like to see them really try to get two curb cuts, and give us the long range plan, with a schedule as to what you're going to do and when you're going to do it, but right now to tell us that when and if the miniature golf comes out, you can do something with a truck doesn't do much good. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, we don't have any problem committing ourselves to three curb cuts, but committing ourselves to two, in any case, we really want to retain the one curb cut for the residence, and we have to have the ability, for instance, to sell that residence. In fact, as it is now, there's a property line through here some place. This is really, on the tax maps, or on the tax rolls, it's two parcels, at least two. We're treating it as one, and we'll consolidate it into a single parcel. MR. MACEWAN-Does that send up a flag over there? MR. BREWER-He's saying this is one parcel? MR. MARTIN-That's the first I've heard of that. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. LOMBARDO-It's three parcels. MR. BREWER-It's three parcels? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, it is. Lot sizes, 10, 11, and 13. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Yes. MR. BREWER-Where are the property lines? MR. RUCINSKI-We've eliminated them from that drawing, because we're turning it into a consolidated parcel. MR. BREWER-So you're going to eliminate the subdivision and turn it into one parcel? MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. MR. BREWER-Then you shouldn't have to worry about selling the house then. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, I would think he'd want that flexibility of being able to sell the house. MR. BREWER-Well, it's either got to going to be a subdivision. I mean, be a subdivision or it's not it can't be both, can it? MR. MARTIN-You've either got to eliminate the, consolidate the parcel, or retain the lots. MR. RUCINSKI-I'm missing something here. We're consolidating the - 18 - parcel. This proposal consolidates the parcel. ideally, he would have the opportunity to sell which would be a subdivision, I suppose. I said that, that house off, MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. That's all the Board is saying is that, in terms of retaining flexibility to sell off the residential portion of the property, by submitting this application for this Planning Board's review, if this application is approved as currently configured, you will no longer have a separate lot on which the residence lies, and if you want to do that, you'll have to come back to this Board for subdivision approval, which mayor may not be granted. Is that a fair summary of the Board's position? MR. MACEWAN-Absolutely. MR. MARTIN-So when this application's approved, we have one deed for one lot, right? MR. RUCINSKI-That's correct, as proposed. MR. MACEWAN-Can we do that under site plan? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, sure. consolidating, and ~ou're it. It's not a problem. You're not not. doing it.. subdividing. The applicant's You're doing MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I just thought maybe we could make a little trade off, here, because four curb cuts do seem like an awful lot, and they are, that, as Mr. Lombardo says, you're pretty definite, I'd sa)' yOU are definite, for the amount of money that you've put into this, that you are going to take out the miniature golf course and put in a building there, but until that time, which you said is, tentatively, well, a year from now, t.hat we still would have to leave this middle curb cut open, the second from the left. Well, why don't we, until this year is up, take the second from the right away, and that will bring us down t.o three, and then reinstate that one after the big building has been constructed, and I don't think t.hat t.hat would, I'm not a builder or a Civil Engineer, but I don't believe that would be that much of an expense, t.o close up t.he second from the right, at this date, and then open it up again a year from now. MR. F;:UCINSKI-·You'n3 t.alking about closing this one? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. RUCINSKI-Which is the primary access to the restaurant. MRS. LABOMBARD-But we have t.hese two. You can still come in from the very last one on the right, into the restaurant, because the majority of the parking spots are close to the one on the far right, to the restaurant. So I don't think that's going to be a deterrent at all, for customers. MR. OBERMAYER-Actually, existing plan, it. looks ent.ire lot.. in lookinø like you at can the existing retail, drive around the whole MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. and the pine trees. There's a driveway between the miniature golf There's a one lane driveway. MR. OBERMAYER-It appears like there's a driveway even on the north side of Leo's Lobster there, to drive around even, indicated on the other drawing. It's on the existing. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes. carport. You can't go beyond the parking shed, t.he MR. OBERMAYER-Why not? - 19 - MR. RUCINSKI-It's now closed off. You can't get through there. MR. OBERMAYER-Why can't we open it up, to allow for a little more continuity around the site? MR. RUCINSKI-There's all kinds of stuff back there. Even this drawing doesn't show you having the capability of driving through there. It just happens to be parking that's contiguous. MR. OBERMAYER-Wel.l, if you look at your existing plan, on one of the back sheets, you can see a little bit better what you have existing now. MR. RUCH1SKI-Well, even on this plan you don't have to drive through there. There's a sewage disposal . I 1 n ,ìe,-e. the ability system right MR. OBERMAYER-You park on that sewage disposal system right now. MR. RUCINSKI-If he is, he's not supposed to, but parking on it is one thing, as opposed to running a truck over it, but even, the turn is too tight even if the sewage disposal system isn't there. It's just too tight, and it's not as though, if the miniature golf were just some lawn with some putting holes in it, we could take a look at rearranging that corner of the miniature golf, but it' s concn3t~3. MR. BREWER-Okay. What do you think you want to see, Jim? MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know. I kind of agree with Cathy. It would be nice to eliminate possibly the second driveway, it seems like, if we needed to compromise. I mean, do you want to compromise? I think you want to compromise. MR. LOMBARDO-If I eliminate a cut, on one side I've got the restaurant and on one side is the house, okay. Now you can't make a turn with a truck there. I park my car up to the shed, and then my wife parks up to the shed, and that's it. Now, one side you've got (lost word), on the left side you have a walk-in freezer. (lost word) In between the restaurant and the miniature golf, I've got one where you go in the back of the restaurant, okay, now you close that up and you leave the one on the south side, you're going to go to the restaurant and then walk half a mile to go park the car? MR. OBERMAYER-I guess I don't understand. Maybe you could show me on the plan. I don't understand your logic. MR. LOMBARDO-You've got the miniature golf on one side, okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. between. We're just t.hat point. We're not saying eliminate the saying that you can't enter Route road in 9 from MR. LOMBARDO-How are you supposed to go in back of the restam"ant? MR. BREWER-Why does anybody have to go behind the restaurant? MR. LOMBARDO-Well, if you want to go park you car to go into the restaurant, which way. MRS. LABOMBARD-But you can still get around in back without having a curb cut. MR. LOMBARDO-Are you going 250 feet? I've never seen a guy, to go to a restaurant, go 250 feet, or go back to the miniature golf, and then to the restaurant. I've never seen it. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, then why do you have parking back there? - 20 - MR. LOMBARDO-We've got parking, because you drive right in and back. MR. OBERI'1AYER-No, you have parking in the back, though. MR. RUCINSKI-You dì- i \ie straight in and stîaight out. MR. LOMBARDO-The other way, did you take a look at the pr oper t )/? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, we went up there. MR. LOMBARDO-Okay. entrance to Route golf, how far have waste your time to You were there. Now if get too close to that 9, in between the restaurant and the miniature you got to go into the restaurant. You would go all the way around like that? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, coming in on the far right, yourself around, has you drive an extra distance which is two seconds, in an automobile, going about hour. I don't think it's going to be a deterent. suggest something that would hinder the customers. and bringing of 60 feet, 25 miles per I l.Jouldn' t MR. RUCINSKI-I don't think we're tracking together. If we eliminate this cut, or close it temporarily, we're going to push the restaurant customers into this curb cut, and they're now going to have to come like this, to get to the parking at the rear of the restaurant. MR. OBERMAYER-If there's no parking in the front. MR. RUCINSKI-Well, there's only a few spaces in the front. MRS. LABOMBARD-There's 17. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So they paîk out in back, right? MR. RUCINSKI-So they park out in back. MR. OBERMAYER-But they have to do that anyway, no matter what driveway they come in. MR. RUCINSKI-They're going to have to do this. MR. BREWER-Right, well, if they come in the other driveway and there's no parking spaces in the fîont, they'd still have to go out back. So that's what we're saying. There's no difference. MRS. LABOMBARD-But he says they go out back in a straight line. MR. RUCINSKI-I'm missing something. You understand that across here it's only a one lane dîiveway, just between the fence and the miniature golf, and the existing pine trees, there's a one lane driveway. It's 10 or 12 feet wide. If that were wide enough so that traffic could freely move down into this parking, I would agree with you. MR. BREWER-That's how wide there? That's got to be? MR. MARTIN-That can't be widened, Ron? MR. RUCINSKI-Not without cutting pine trees. MR. BREWER-How many would you have to cut, one? MR. RUCINSKI-Two or three, I believe. Well, maybe five. They're nice trees, and, again, we're talking about a short term thing, whether it's next year or the following year. I can't Justify cutting down those, those are really nice pine trees. They're probably in the neighborhood of 80 feet tall, and we're cutting them down for a short term problem. - 21 - MR. BREWER-Could you come here and show me what you're talking about, where there's one lane? MR. RUCINSKI-This driveway right here is one lane wide. MR. BREWER-By the scale, how wide is that? MR. OBERMAYER-One inch equals thirty. fifteen feet. You're talking about MR. PALING-It's about 18 feet. MR. BREWER-All right. So it's 18 feet right here. So if you took this tree down and that tree down, that's two trees. You could come back to here, okay. Then you could almost double that. So what ~ position is going to be is like Bob said. Limit it to two curb cuts. Eliminate the north and the south entrance and the restaurant and the home could be serviced by the second one here. The retail and the miniature golf could be serviced by this entrance and exit. That's what L would like to see. I don't see why, a reason in the world that it couldn't be done, and the only compromise you'd have to do is cut two trees dO~..Jn. I can't see why it can't be done. That's ~ position. MR. MARTIN-Staff concurs with that position. MRS. LABOMBARD-So you want to eliminate. MR. BREWER-I want to eliminate the north and the south entrance and exit. He'd have to cut down two trees here, widen this lane right here to, it would be approximately 20 feet, which is plenty of travel area. He'd have to cut two trees, and use this to service the restaurant and the house, this to service the miniature golf and the retail. MR. OBERMAYER-Why wouldn't you eliminate the two inner ones and keep the two outer ones, so that you spread your access? MR. PALING-You could do it either way. MR. BREWER-Either way. MR. PALING-Whichever's easiest or the best. MR. BREWER-I think it gives it more control, Jim, if you can keep them, how far would this be? MRS. LABOMBARD-About 65. MR. BREWER-Between the two center? standards, Jim? Would that meet the MR. MARTIN-What's that, for separation distance? Mf~. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Actually, none of these are going to. MR. BREWER-So, no matter what you do. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but what I'm saying is like, future, if they build the building here, this would allow them to. MR. BREWER-Yes. If he's going to build a future here, then that curb cut's there for him, Jim. MR. RUCINSKI-What we're saying is if we build a building there, we don't want that curb cut there. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. He wants to take that middle one out. - 22 - MR. BREWER-Well, then when you get to that bridge you can cross it. I mean, we can always open that back up down here. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, lets just think about what's the benefits of eliminating those two outside ones. MR. MARTIN-This is back for a second time, I might add. This was one when L was on the Board, about two years ago, three years ago. MR. BREIrJER-That's just ~ recommendation. I don't know if you want to agree with it or disagree with it. MR. RUCINSKI-Yes, and the curb cuts were approved as is. That's when we put the addition on the restaurant. Mf~. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-Tim, we didn't resolve we'd go along and we'd come back was, that the permeation there was the ponding issue. You said to that, where the parking lot at question. MR. RUCINSKI-Bill and I are satisfied with it. MR. BREWER-I think Bill said he was satisfied with it. MR. PALING-You're satisfied with the May to November that there won't be ponding? MR. HARLICKER-Well, what happens when this business and he decides to keep the retail open year round? that effect the permeability and the drainage on site? takes off, How would MR. RUCINSKI-If it became a problem, we'd have to add some drywells, inside the parking lot. MR. MACNAMARA-Right. What we had said was it wasn't conventional, nor did we particularly, 100 percent, understand it until it was explained explicitly with some additional grading shown. As it was finally explained and shown, it will handle expected runoffs adequately during seasonal operations, although we don't find it typical that people induce ponding on parking areas, although I don't see that that is forbidden. MR. RUCINSKI-The south parking lot has been that way since 1990, and it's worked fine. It's not been a problem. MR. BREWER-Okay. Sir, I'm going to open the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Did we do the SEQRA on this? MR. MARTIN-I don't believe that you did it yet. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, we did, last time they were here. MR. BREWER-Are you sure? MR. HARLICKER-No. I think it was just tabled because of insufficient, a lot of things were missing. MR. MARTIN-As a matter of course, you don't usually do the SECRA until you've had the public hearing. - 23 - MR. RUCINSKI-SEQRA was not done at the last meeting. That was an informational meeting. MR. BREWER-The Chairman concurs. MR. MACEWAN-Short? MR. BREWER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 28-94, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: WHEREAS, the,-e application for: is presently before LEO LOMBARDO, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 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 27th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. motion's offered? Any more questions or comments before a MR. OBERMAYER-Tim, do we want to talk to the applicant, just to make sure he's in agreement with the? Are you guys in agreement to what we've recommended? MR. BREWER-Naturally, they're not. want to close any curb cuts. The,' said, no. They didn't - 24 - ~_,c MR. OBERMAYER-I'd like to hear your feedback recommendations that were made, before L vote. on those MR. RUCINSKI-We have no problem closing this curb cut, when the retail store is expanded. We'd have problems with anything other than that, and if the Board is inclined to go in some other direction. Maybe we ought to meet on the site together and look at it together, so that ~.,¡e can try t.o show you ~'Jhat we percei\/<3 are the problems. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem doing that, but I'm still going to think the same way, I think. I don't see why we couldn't have you cut down two trees, increase the size of that lane, and make it safer, and I think a more sound operation. I mean, that's just my opinion. If everybody else wants to go up there, we'll go up the"e. MR. RUCINSKI-I hear what you're looks good, but when you go up congestion. saying, there and on that drawing it and look at it, it's MR. MARTIN-Yes, but, see, the concern Board is the congestion in the public congestion on a private piece of property. of the public Planning right-of-way, not the MR. BREWER-Exactly. I mean, if it's, the congestion's on your property, like Jim said, that's LQUI.. problem. Well, does somebody want to offer something? I think you've all got an idea of what I'm going to offer. MR. PALING-Why don't you go ahead with your proposal. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 28-94 LEONARDO LOMBARDO, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: With the following conditions: That the most northerly and southerly curb cuts be eliminated. Erosion control measures be put into place during construction. Future development of the retail area where the golf course is, a site plan be required. That the three parcels are now consolidated into one parcel. Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. Obermayer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-Deadlocked. MR. BREWER-It's not deadlocked. Somebody can offer something else. What don't you like about it, Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I was originally proposing just taking away one at this time. I think I would like to see, go up and walk it with him, probably now, because this really means a lot to him, and I know it does to us, and then maybe when this big building fi nall y has. been constructed, then we can see exactly I.>Jhat ' s going on, but right now, I only propose, my original proposal was just taking one curb cut out. I'm still concerned about the turning, the traffic, the trucks coming back onto the highway, with enough, without making a U-turn to get. on, and I think that's a major safety factor for the traffic on the road, too, those trucks pulling out. I'm worried about, I know how fast the traffic goes along that route, and I'm worried about the trucks - 25 - pulling out onto Route 9 with more of a right angle than they're accustomed to doing, and I do think that it's a very difficult site to plan, and I'd like to go up there again, to be quite honest with you. MR. BREWER-Okay, but what, necessarily, makes you think that a truck is always going to go in and always going to have to go back out the same way it came in? MRS. LABOMBARD-That's true. I can't disagree with you there. I mean, I just don't feel comfortable at all right now. MR. OBERMAYER-I, myself, I didn't want to vote, I voted no because, arbitrarily, I just didn't want to eliminate two curb cuts just for the sake of eliminating two curb cuts, because the Glens Falls Transportation Council person was here. I would like to see, however, a better parking arrangement plan, and access plan, for the whole entire site, taking into account the future retail space, for future parking, instead of just saying, you need some now, better planning on the site for accessing and egressing off of Route 9. MRS. LABOMBARD-And I feel that this lawn area that jettisons into the area, aesthetically, it's nice, but I think, for what you finally have proposed, that may have to go. MR. MARTIN-The other thing to bear in mind, here, is that you're looking at striping for the purposes of showing that there is enough area for parking. This is a gravel lot. You're never going to have any stripes, you know, people are going to park pretty much as the first guy in the lot did, follow him. MR. BREWER-Okay, and I'd like to just make one statement, in defense of what you said about Mrs. Brunso being here, to eliminate the curb cuts. I think in August, before we knew we were going to meet with Mrs. Brunso in September, we talked about eliminating curb cuts. 50 I don't think that's even an issue, to me. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, we did, definitely, on this. MR. BREWER-Okay. So I don't think an issue should even have been brought up about that, but that's here nor there. MR. BREWEF\-C,"aig, what don't you feel right about? MR. MACEWAN-I don't feel comfortable with the amount of curb cuts. I don't feel comfortable with intrusion on the State right-of-way, and I think that it's just a little bit too much development for what the site can handle. I've heard nothings but problems with it, reasons why one thing or another can't be accomplished, and I think it's just over development of the site. I don't think the site is physically able to handle it. Even though the density says it can, I just don't think the constraints with the site itself can handle the development. MR. BREWER-So what do we do? MRS. LABOMBARD-You hate to say it, living in the Adirondacks, but that lawn part, for what you want to make out of this piece of property, like Craig says, this lawn part coming in here is mainly the thing that's causing the problem, L feel, as far as all these little turns, and right angle turns and everything else. MR. OBERMAYER-There's really no whatsoever. flow to the parking area MRS. LABOMBARD-But that jettison in there, it just might have to be cut down to the same size as the A's and the S's, those shrubs - 26 - on the left, and you hate to get rid of beautiful old trees. MR. BREWER-So what are we asking for, a better plan? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I would like to see that. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to see a plan put together that utilizes one curb cut, with an internal traffic flow. I think that would be the answer right there. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's the bottom line. MR. MACEWAN-That would solve a lot of problems, because internal traffic flow seems to be the p)-oblem, with the applicant needing to have four curb cuts. MR. BREWER-We just had a motion to eliminate two curb cuts, and two Board members said they weren't comfortable taking two away, and now they want to take three away. I don't understand it. How does the developer feel? Can you come back with a better pIa n? MR. LOMBARDO-I don't want to take any curb cuts for anybody. MR. RUCINSKI-If I could take one of your plans it, because mine is all scribbled up. When this have a fairly straightforward building, straightforward parking area going behind it, landscaping. You have a curb cut there, a curb curb cut there. That's pretty straightforward. and sc," ibble on is completed, we with a fairly a little bit of cut there, and a MR. BREWER-You heard what the Board said. MR. RUCINSKI-I can sit and work on this thing forever. I'm not going to get it more straightforward than that, working with the constraints that are on the site, which are primarily the buildings. I can't move them. MR. BREWER-Okay. Sir, you heard what we said, that we thought we wanted, I think !6!..ê.. were p,"etty st,-aightfo,-wa,"d, too. MR. RUCINSKI-I'll go back to my suggestion that we ought to go out on the site and look at it together. MR. BREWER-We can do that, too. MR. RUCINSKI-And if I can't persuade you after doing that, then we'll have to go back and do some more homework. MR. BREWER-I'm willing to do that. MR. MARTIN-Tim, if there's some fundamental design problems here, or a discussion of that, why don't you table it for a workshop, or something like that? MR. BREWER-That's fine. I'm willing to do that. MR. MACEWAN-Do you want me to offer a motion? MR. BREWER-Sure. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 28-94 Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for by James Obermayer: LEONARDO LOMBARDO, its adoption, seconded Until a future meeting, that we go applicant, and we set up a workshop possible remedies we can come up with. visit the site with the session to discuss what Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1994, by the following - 27 - \lote: MR. BREWER-Lets make a date right now. When does everybody want to go there? MR. MARTIN-You have an opportunity, again, in October, you have a very light agenda, so you have an opportunity for a workshop. MRS. LABOMBARD-How about the first week, Thursday the 7th? MR. BREWER-How about we go there on the day we normally do our site visits? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, that's a good idea. MR. BREWER-That would be the 12th. October 12th, we meet at four o'clock for site visits. We'll go there first. We'll be there at 4:15. MR. SCHACHNER-Tim, you're talking about a site visit and then a workshop, correct? I misunderstood. What exactly are you talking about? MR. BREWER-I think what we're going to do is go out and the site and he's going to explain to us why he can't things we asked him to do. look at do the MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. My concern is strictly that substantive discussion, you'll recall from a different application two months ago, I mentioned that substantive discussion of applications is supposed to occur here, or wherever, at an open public meeting, and I don't want the Board to get involved in lengthy discussion on site. Remember when we talked about it at a different application. If you have some factual questions you want to ask at that time, I would like to keep that to a minimum. That's all I ' rn sa y i ng . MR. OBERMAYER-We'll see the site by ourself, then we'll, again, have a \",or kshop . MR. BREWER-I think what we should do is go out and look at the site ourselves, and have him on for the next agenda, next scheduled meeting. I mean, it's only a week away from that. I don't see anything getting resolved that way, though. I mean, for us to just go out there. We already went out there. MR. SCHACHNER-You can have the applicant there. debate what you're going to decide. Just don't MR. BREWER-All right. You meet us there. MRS. LABOMBARD-We can ask him questions, and you can show us your opinion as to why your proposal works and ours doesn't. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's fine. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. October 12th. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, M,". Br e\lJer t'WES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DANIEL R. BARBER OWNER: BARBARA L. BARBER ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE BAY RD., NORTH SIDE TEE HILL ROAD. TO SUBDIVIDE 14 ACRES INTO 10 LOTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. TAX MAP NO. 48-3-49.55 LOT SIZE: 14.32 ACRES SECTION: - 28 - '-0 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DANIEL BARBER, PRESENT; MICHAEL O'CONNOR, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, subdivision No. 7-1994 Preliminary Stage, Daniel Barber, Meeting Date: September 27, 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: The applicant has addressed most of the items raised earlier. The amount of clearing is still a concern. Staff would like to see more of the trees remain. It would seem the houses could be placed so that less area would have to be cleared. At a minimum the lots are large enough so that there is no need to remove the trees within the setbacks or where there are slopes greater than 25%. The outstanding engineering issues also have to be addressed." MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we just go over the engineering comments that have to be addressed, Bill, rather than read all of them? MR. MACNAMARA-In a nutshell, this afternoon there were some new, revised drawings submitted. In addition to that, the applicant's engineering staff and surveyor had stopped in to the office and had verbally gone over a number of these. At this point, all of them are being addressed in some fashion. Some, most are needed to be shown on revised drawings, some of which I have and were going to be delivered to the Town as well today. So I'm not sure if you want me to summarize what the concerns were, in a nutshell, if you will? Essentially, we had concerns regarding the slope of the road in relationship to the lots on the, I believe it would be the south side, because those grades were lower, as were shown on the initial submitted drawings, and the concern was runoff, essentially, from the road going on to the lower lot properties, and how is it going to be handled. They've indicated there's additional grading that's going to be done on all of the lower lots that Wasn't shown, will be shown, as well as some additional swales and some culverts that will be added to address the concerns. Other concerns we had were some separation distances with some of the leachfields and the wells on the lower two lots on Tee Hill Road. They've addressed those. Some other concerns we had were with some erosion and sediment control concerns regarding silt fencing and some reseeding, timing and mulching, and they've indicated they're going to address those. We had some concerns about the stormwater coming off of what I call the rental units area. I'm not sure whether that's the right way to refer to it or not. They're going to install some additional drywells and some swales to take care of that. That was it in a nutshell. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, basically, I'd just state, I'm Mike O'Connor. I appear on behalf of the applicant. We're here looking for preliminary approval. I think we can address all of the comments in our submission for final approval. I don't think any of the comments that we've had, that we are aware of, are substantial comments. With me is Charles Scudder who has done the engineering, if there are specific questions, or if you have a comment without specific questions, as to the engineering aspect of what has been submitted. The applicant here is Barbara Barber and Daniel Barber. The title is in the name of Barbara Barber. Danny Barber is going to be the builder. He has been building in the Town. He is the one that established the houses in Sherwood Acres, and some of the other houses on Bay Road that are adjacent to this, and I mention that simply to give you an indication of the flavor in which he does his buildings. If you go through Sherwood Acres, you will see that the natural ground cover or trees were greatly preserved there, probably more so than a lot of other subdivisions. He basically cleared, for the areas of construction, whether it be the house, the driveway, the - 29 - I septic area, and maybe the front yards. We are conscious of Scott's comments as to the better definition of clearing limitations. If you take a look at the, there is a clearing plan that's been submitted. There is extensive notes, up in the left hand corner, on the clearing, I (lost word) we can get together with Scott, maybe embellish that to some degree. (lost word) in Section III of the Pines, there are some clear cutting prohibitions, if you will, that are applicable, that I think we can adopt. I agree with Scott's comments that the lots are generally large. They are all in excess of one acre. So we really don't have ~ny difficulty with satisfying Staff at the time of final submission, and satisfying the engineering concerns. MR. BREWER-Does Paul have to approve the road? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. i'1R. will also It's MACNAMARA-Let me just bring up one item on the road, that he obviously have to get into, and I believe the County may have to have an issue of. I call it a curb cut permit. probably not the right semantic. MR. BREWER-It's just an extension of the road that's existing. MR. O'CONNOR-We have given the plans to Paul. He's had him for about six weeks. We have given the plans to the County. We will need a permit from the County to establish the road entrance. MR. MACNAMARA-The only thing that I want to bring up regarding the road is that, in the subdivision standards, there's an item that talks about a maximum three percent grade for one hundred feet for roads that would adjoin a road such as Bay Road. In looking at the profile, it doesn't appear that that three percent, that one hundred foot is met. 50 we talked, that was one of the items we talked about today, and because there's so many players involved in this, there's us, there's Paul Naylor's got to review it, and then there's the County, that I basically had said that if it were up to me, I'd like to see the three percent held, and if not, then a variance would probably be appropriate, and then we~ll see what Paul and the County have to say. MR. BREWER-So how does he's still got to preliminary anyway. that affect our approval tonight? come back for a final. This is So at final we can have that done. Well, only MR. O'CONNOR-Let me ask you on that question, if Paul is satisfied with the grade that we've established, the permit will issue based upon that same grade. Is that satisfactory to this Boa ," d? MR. BREWER-He's the one that's got to plow it. MR. O'CONNOR-We would submit, if we don't comply, we would then submit, we know we have to have their approval, we would then the written request for a waiver and ask you to consider it on final approval. MR. MACNAMARA-I just haven't talked to Paul about it. I'm curious to see what his thoughts are on it. MR. BREWER-With some kind of a letter from Paul we can get. It's not a problem. Okay. MR. MACEWA \ -The only question I've got is for Scott. What, exactly, are you looking for, as far as the clearing compromise? - 30 - .~ MR. HARLICKER-Well, it Just seems that, if you look on, you've got Sheet 4 there? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, the clearing plan. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It just seems that there's a lot of areas, especially, for instance, Lot 9, the back slope of there, most of the back part of that lot is in excess of 25 percent. It just doesn't seem, if the house was shifted more toward Lot 10, you'd be able to save a lot of the trees on that steep slope, situations like that. It seems like there's room within the setbacks on each property line to save trees. It just seems like the building envelope for these houses are excessive, and they've agreed to come back and work with Staff on coming up with a clearing plan that saves more of the trees. MR. MACEWAN-My thoughts, too, would be to maybe keep enough trees right along all the property lines, like maybe 20 feet at his side of the line. MR. HARLICKER-That's what I was saying, if he could save them within the setbacks. MR. MACEWAN-Would that be okay with the applicant? MR. BARBER-We had that intention to do that. MR. BREWER-Dan, are you going to build the house and then sell it, or are you going to sell it and then build it? MR. BARBER-It would be a package situation. MR. O'CONNOR-That doesn't raise a concern. I'1R. BREI,.JER-No. MR. MACEWAN-No. I guess what I'm driving at, here, is to get the plan better representation of what Staff is looking for and maybe what the Board is looking for. MR. O'CONNOR-I would like to try and do that in a narrative form, to the satisfaction of Staff, as opposed to trying to do a drawing, because I've run into problems in the past where somebody decides that they want the driveway on that side of the lot. Unless you exclude, narratively, areas devoted for driveway, house construction, or septic fields. MR. MACEWAN-Well, maybe where particularly with Lot 9, if you more toward Lot 10, that would indication of where the builder begin with. Staff is coming from is, show the footprint of the house give a prospective buyer a good plans on setting the house to MR. BREWER-I think, though, when you look at where he placed it, though, Craig, he placed it so it would be easy access to the cul-de-sac, or to the road. If he puts it back toward Lot 10, then you' ,-e go i ng t.o cn:~a te mor e of a cause for a c )- i vev~ay , whatever he has to do to get into the lot, or to the house. MR. MACEWAN-I don't share that same t.hought. You can see where the setback limitations are, and you could put the house right up against it, closer to Lot 10, just by mirroring image over the septic with the house. MR. BREWER-I'm not saying that couldn't be done. I'm just saying that's what it looks like he did to put it on the map. MR. O'CONNOR-Scott, your comment on Lot 9 was that sloped area in the back (lost word) trees on it? - 31 - I~----L-.._.___._··__·__-___ -- -' MR. HARLICKER-Yes. That was the main concern with 9. MR. O'CONNOR-That may be some area we can isolate, as a no cut area, without interfering with how the house slides back and forth. These are typical formats, as to house placement, and somebody buys a lot within there, they're going to, with us, work on setting up the house. MR. MACEWAN-I'm just curious, what's the Town's policy on cul-de- sacs and leaving natural vegetation within the circle of the cul- de-sac? MR. O'CONNOR-That changes from time to time. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the current thought is that it should be cleared. MR. MACEWAN-As far as cul-de-sacs and the median portion of the cul-de-sac, why would you want to clear it? Why wouldn't you just leave the natural vegetation? MR. BREWER-Because when they plow snow, they want to push the snow into the center of the cul-de-sac. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think the latest thinking, Tom was in there all the time, too, was that Paul likes to have those cleared, and I think what we've been trying to suggest is then a reseeding with a low maintenance ground cover, you know, a perennial ground cover, but do you agree, Tom, that's his current thinking? TOM NACE MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I think, in regards to that clearing, Bill raises a good point, I think Charlie maybe can chime in here, as it relates to the stormwater and drainage, the amount of clearing, I think, if you overlay your clearing plan on your stormwater and drainage plan you'll see that you're trying to achieve a three on one slope there I would assume, right, Charlie, on Lot 9, and that's what's resulting in the excess amount of clearing? Is that con"ect? CHARLES SCUDDER I'1R. SCUDDER-Yes. would f:3ay that. I didn't do the clearing plan, but, yes, I MR. MACNAMARA-What he's saying is, I guess, clearing, some of that that Scott wants to guessed was shown simply to meet the three that's in the subdivision. that as much of this do away with, I had on one requirement MR. SCUDDER-Right. So we have competing interests here. MR. MACNAMARA-Exactly. That's the point I'm trying to make. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm trying to raise a point that it might be worthwhile considering a waiver on that three on one requirement, in the interest of saving the natural vegetation along that slope. MR. MACNAMARA-Particularly, based on what has been exhibited or what has been transmitted to me as being routinely exhibited with your construction methods of using large cobble and things of that nature to bring about grade changes. MR. MARTIN-It might be better, from the standpoint of drainage - 32 - and all that, just to leave the natural vegetation there. I've got another question, too. Just from a density standpoint, I see the notations were made on Page 4 to the slope over 25 percent. I assume that the calculations were done with the 18322 for density, the 25 percent slopes being subtracted out. I know you're only getting 10 lots on 14 acres. So I'd just like verification on that density, after we back out the slopes and the roadway. I think that's the only thing out of the four criteria that apply in this particular case, because there are no proposed park lands, and there's no other public easements or public rights-of-way, other than the road. MR. BREWER-Okay. No other questions from the Board? All right, I guess we'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED l..II\jDA HIGGINS MRS. HIGGINS-I'm Linda Higgins, and I live on adjoining property from this property. I'm curious to know what average value of this property is going to be, the average value of the homes that are being built on this property. MR. OBERMAYER-One hundred and fifty to two hundred thousand. MR. BARBER-It would be the same as Sherwood Acres, something like 2,000 square foot, and that kind of situation. MRS. HIGGINS-That was my concern. MR. BARBER-The same thing that you have in that area. deed restrictions also. The same MRS. HIGGINS-Two car garages also? r1R. BREWER-O kay . MRS. HIGGINS-I was just concerned that the homes be similar to the homes in my neighborhood. MR. BREWER-Okay. I think he indicated last meeting that they would be similar homes. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? SANDY POWELL MRS. POWELL-I'm Sandy Powell. I have property which adjoins this property on Tee Hill Road, and I just want to make sure that the driveway access on the two lots on Tee Hill, visibility is taken into consideration. There's a hill right there. at the Bay Road side, there's a crest there. MR. BREWER-I'm not sure I quite understand your question. MR. MARTIN-See, Tim, where Country Colony Drive intersects with Tee Hill Road and Hall Road? MR. BREIrJER-wYes. MR. MARTIN-In between there, that's somewhat of a slope there, and it peaks right about, right before you get to Country Colony Drive, coming from the Hall Road direction. MR. BREWER-So she's concerned about? MR. MARTIN-The blind hill there and those driveways coming out for those two houses shown there on Lot Six and Seven. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else? - 33 - --_.._.__._------_._._~ BARBARA TOOMEY MRS. TOOMEY-I'm Barbara Toomey. I~y property borders the east side of the proposed development, and my husband and I, we looked at the map of the proposed development. We think the lots are very desirably sized and spaced, and can see no reason why it isn't just an improvement to the area. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to comment? Question? Okay. Mike, maybe you could answer the questions that were, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. Mike, maybe you could answer the questions that were, I guess the price range of the house was answered, $150 to $200,000. MR. O'CONNOR-Generally, we will have the same restrictions on these lots that we have on the other lots that were put into Nottingham Drive. It'll be different in one sense, that the lots that face on, that actually adjoin this on Nottingham Drive, there are permitted two family homes there, we may not be into the two families yet, but ev'eì-ything on this side of Nottingham Drive was preserved to be two family because that was, I think, the zoning at that time. It's not the intention to have two family on here. The lot size, or house size, will be generally the same. It will be the same type of architecture. MR. PALING-Could something be said in that case, though, that cars wouldn't be liable to back out on the road? They'd have some sort of turn in that they could head out, rather than back out. Lot Six and Seven. MR. O'CONNOR-Six and Seven? i"1R. PALING--Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-We can look at that, as far as, and show you, if you're satisfied as to visibility, or we might be able to work in east side driveways, if that's a suggestion. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm thinking of the Rockwell house down below. That has a (lost word) driveway for a turn around area. MR. MARTIN-That's the,-e. MR. BREWER-Well, next. true. Just off of Hall Road, there's one you can take a look at it between nOIrJ and the MR. O'CONNOR-Some type of key driveway, so that people have the ability to get out around, back around and then come out onto the highway facing the highway. It's a simple accommodation. MR. BREWER-Okay. So that answers that. MR. O'CONNOR-Danny made one other You're suggesting a waiver, Jim, slopes. That also might be on Lot more of the trees on both of those comment, too, Danny Barber. on Lot Nine for three on one Eight, and that would preserve lots. MR. MARTIN-I mean, if that could be accomplished and still hold the bank there and the slope, and not create a drainage problem, I think that almost might be preferred, rather than seeing a big swathe of trees cut, just to meet a grading requirement. I'd just like to say, I've often times commented to some of our Staff members about the appearance of the entrance of this. I think it's very nice. I think it's a good, the rental units there, the - 34 - -....' filtering of the trees, the existing trees that were left, I wish we saw more of that type of treatment to entryways around here. It's a very nice, scenic view up there. You hardly get a feel for that with rental apartments in through there, and I always liked the look of that. MR. O'CONNOR-I never actually did a study, but I think if you go through the subdivision approvals for Sherwood Acres, and that was under a different type (lost word). A lot of the lots were given up by the developer, which was Danny, when he actually just fitted the houses into the landscaping. He lost lots by doing that. Those lots (lost word) what the approval was. MR. MARTIN-And I think that's an example of what, you know, you hear us often times speak to working with the topography and achieving development, and those rental units are cut into the side of the hill there without really any intrusion into the natural slope or the vegetation. That's working with the natural grade, rather than trying to make it conform. MR. BREWER-Okay. That was the only other questions we had. We've got to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-1994, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: l"JHEREAS, th'3re applicat,ion for: is presently before DANIEL R. BARBER, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: I'~ 01''-1 E 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 lS 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 27th day of September, 1994, by the following vot.e: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer - 35 - NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. We need a motion. There's stipulation, that we're going to get a letter from regarding the slope on the road. only one Paul Naylor, MR. MARTIN-And an investigation into the three on one slopes. MR. MACEWAN-They're going to redefine the clearing. MR. MARTIN-And the clearing plan. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1994 DANIEL R. BARBER, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: With two stipulations: regarding the slope onto of on Lots 8 and 9. a letter to be received from Paul Naylor the road, and to redefine the clearing Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1994, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-Tree cutting, possibly a waiver for Lots 8 and 9, three on one slopes, and show a design for turn around. MR. BREWER-That shouldn't be a stipulation. I think you're going to agree to do that. MR. O'CONNOR-It's in our notes. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOE~3 : NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN NO. 25-94 TYPE r HUDSON POINTE, INC. OWNER: NIAGARA MOHAWK ZONE: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: SHERMAN ISLAND ROAD, EAST OF CORINTH ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PHASE I (34 LOTS) OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. DISCUSSION IS EXPECTED REGARDING THE SITE PLAN ELEMENTS AS WELL AS AN ACCEPTABLE TIME TABLE FOR SUBMISSION OF OUTSTANDING ITEMS REFERENCED IN THE TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION PROVIDING PUD DESIGNATION SUCH AS THE LAND CONSERVATION PLAN. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/8/94 TAX MAP NO. 148-1-2.1 LOT SIZE: SECTION: 179-58 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Any Staff comments or notes? MR. HARLICKER-What you received was a copy of a memo to the Town Board regarding some outstanding issues, as of a meeting that we had with the applicants. The first few here relate to conservation easements and documentation regarding the open space. We received, that Jim will read into the record in a minute, they've been reviewed by the Town Attorney and they seem to be adequate for that. An outstanding issue that we haven't received any information on relates to Health Department permits. There's an issue regarding Number Five, on the rear setbacks, that have to be revised to reflect the 20 foot setbacks. MR. MACEWAN-Are you referring to the memo of August 16th? MR. HARLICKER-August 29th. MR. MACEWAN-August 29th, okay. Why don't we take these down one - 36 - -..., at a time, and we'll just click them off. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-What's the deal with the conservation easement, and the Committ.ee? MR. HARLICKER-That's the documentation that we received today. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll read into the record the letter from Paul. I think it was in your packets. It came just today at 4:30. "Dear Mr. Chairman and Planning Board Members: In accordance with a request made by Jim Martin, I am writing to advise the Board that I have received an executed copy of the Development Agreement and also a copy of the executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. In view of this, it. is my opinion that the requirements set forth in the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development Legislation that these document.s be completed and executed before the Planning Board renders its decision on a site plan, have been satisfied. I note that the legislation did require several other matters to be addressed or included in the site plan review, which I am sure you are aware of. For your information, also attached is a copy of the Hudson pointe Planned Unit Development Agreement., as well as t.he Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. I trust that you will find the above information helpful. If you should have any further quest.ions or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank YOU for your attention to this matt.er. Very t.ruly yours, Paul B. Dusek Town Attorney" Now, in terms of an open space plan, we have received that in my office. That is going to be distributed to the Town Board, the Planning Board, and members of an advisory committee that. was created by the Town Board to review that document. That's Just going out, probably, tomorrow. I got. the one last att.achment t.o that. tonight.. That'll be going out in that fashion tomorrow, and I'm proposing, in a memo t.ransmitting that plan, that a meet.ing of that committee occur next week, after the members get a chance to review it. So that's the latest on the open space plan. It's been submitted in a draft form. MR. MACEWAN~Okay. Item Two, then. MR. OBERMAYER-Excuse me. Is that the 97 acres, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's correct. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Then Item Two, we'll move on to that one. MR. MARTIN-"Details regarding completed. The applicant. is area. The applicant indicated as of the end of August. the archeological site have to be required to survey and deed the that it is in process." That was TOI'1 ¡''-Ii-iCE MR. NACE-Yes. We have verified that the archeological sites are all within the OSI plan, (lost word) on those maps. Those do not show the archeological sites. I believe it was the intent to keep the location of those off of any public documents. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-I would also note that we have submitted to Paul Dusek an executed deed of the open space, with t.he grantee in blank, which is part of this agreement, for approval, with the proviso on there that the property would be subject only to passive recreation, and as defined in Exhibit A, which is to be att.ached by the Town, after the Town Committee and the Town Board agree on how they're going to define. - 37 - MR. MACEWAN-So the Town and the Committee are going to define what the passive recreation is in that area? MR. MARTIN-The definition of that is essentially in that plan, and, like I said, that'll be distributed tomorrow. MR. O'CONNOR-I want it on record, Paul (lost word) his letter. H He has the actual executed deed. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Item Three. MR. MARTIN-Okay. liThe applicant is in the process of receIvIng the necessary Department of Health permit. The application has been submitted and is currently under review. II MR. NACE-That is still under review. Trying Department to move, these days, seems to be process. The fact is that we cannot file the they have stamped it. So, they won't stamp totally done and have the variance issued. So check and balance on that. to get the Health a long, involved subdivision until it until l-Je're that's yOU," last MR. MACEWAN-Does it look like it's going to be much longer before they render an approval? MR. NACE-With a little luck, it'll be two to three weeks, but I've heard that before, too. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Item Four. MR. MARTIN-liThe issue of camps on the point will be addressed in the context of the open space plan. II MR. MACEWAN-Does any regarding our hopes be down there, would Committee? of the discussions that we'd had as a Board, of what we thought passive recreation would any of those notes be passed along to this MR. MARTIN-Well, that's why we wanted to have a member of this Board on that Committee, and I think it's Cathy is serving in that capacity. That's the reason why a Board member was included. MR. MACEWAN-I don't know. I'm just speaking for myself. I thought it kind of was the consensus of the Board that camping wasn't something that we were overly fond of seeing down there. MRS. LABOMBARD-You're right about that. MR. MACEWAN-As long as any specific trails or anything like that. It would just kind of be left open. MR. MARTIN-Well, if there's anything we can do to make those issues or comments, whatever you want to refer to them as, known, through copies of minutes, or whatever. We can supply them to Cathy, and she can take them to the Committee meeting. I'll be there as well. MR. MACEWAN-That would be a good idea. MR. MARTIN-If she wants to come in, and the minute books are available. She can bring with her whatever she needs. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Item Five. MR. MARTIN-liThe rear setbacks on lots 45-49 will be revised to reflect the required 20 feet. II MR. NACE-We have several drafting changes being made right now, will be submitted to the engineer for his final sign off. - 38 - ----1___ MR. MARTIN-Okay. "A note regarding conveyance of the 60 foot ROW from Corinth Road is required in any approving resolution. The applicant stated that it will be written in the deed and noted on t.he plan." MR. NACE-Again, noted on the plan before they sign off. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Item Seven. MR. l'1ARTIN-"A con\/eya nce of the project.. " note will be placed on the plan regarding the the 5 acre parcel adjoining the western boundary of That's conveyance to the Town, right? MR. N!'iCE-Yes. We will put that on there. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Eight. "A note will be placed on the plan indicating that traffic associated with construction will utilize the Niagara Mohawk service road." MR. NACE-Likewise. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Nine. "On corner lots with frontage on both the loop road and a cuI de sac, access will be from the cul de sac to the maximum extent possible." MR. NACE-Do you want to note that to that effect on the plan, or how do you want us to handle that? MR. MARTIN-I think that would be as good as any. MR. NACE-It's to our advantage, too. That's what our (lost word) is. MR. MARTIN-Number Ten. "The applicant will consider realignment of the greenway connection between lots 63 and 90 to a location t.hat is in line !,oJi th the access beÜ..,¡een lots 89 and 64." MR. MACEWAN-Would you define that a little bit, please? MR. MARTIN-I think the best way to look at that is on the plan. Between 63 and 90 is this aCC<3SS, to a locat. ion t.hat is in line with the access between 89 and 64, and that really doesn't work. This access here is access back to the OSI land, even though it's retained by the homeowners, for their use, and realignment of those two just doesn't work. We've used those access ways to help segregate a little bit between the types of the lots and sizes of the lots, and it really doesn't serve that much purpose. This is going to be a fairly seldom used road in through here, or low traffic. There's no reason that homeowners from this area can't walk down the road. MR. MARTIN-I think that was more of a comment for the purpose of investigation. MR. MACEWAN-Those access point.s, are they going to be any such way, so that the general public knows that access to get into those open space lands? marked in that's an MR. NACE-Well, the general public will have an access, actually, in the final plan we've moved this lot over, the three acre lot, over to about here, and the access to the OSI land, you'll see on the maps that we've given you, is here. Okay. That is the public access to the OSI land, and, yes, that will be marked. MR. MARTIN-I think like, four or five your plan calls for cars, I thought I saw a small parking lot mentioned. of, MF;. Mi~~CElrJAN-(..md !,oJ her e !,oJ ill that be? AU'i~~ OPPENHE I M - 39 - MR. OPPENHEIM-Right at the corner. MR. NACE-Right in here. MR. MACEWAN-Like a gravel area or something? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think it was to be gravel. It states in the plan. Okay. Eleven. "The PUD agreement states that there will be a maximum of 32 one-half acre lots; the site plan had 34 one- half acre lots. The applicant has agreed to make adjustments to the plan so the plan will comply with the 32 one-half acre lot limitation." MR. the hal f NACE-We have, yes, that's a drafting change. We're reducing size of some of the lots, from a half acre to less than a acre. MR. O'CONNOR-Is that a requirement, or are yOU just making a notation? I thought, when we did the sizing of the lots, the idea was that we would not have any excessive number of third acre lots, and that everybody would be pleased, if, in fact, we increased the larger lots a little bit, in number. Why are you concerned that we have a couple of lots that are? MR. HARLICKER-We ran that by the Attorney's Office, and it was his interpretation that it was, had to be (lost word) Queensbu,'y Forest. MR. MACEWAN-The last time we met, that was one of the questions we were going to ask. MR. O'CONNOR-I withdraw my comment. You're telling us that we've got to have smaller lots instead of larger lots. I'm. MARTIN-Twelve. "The applicant's engineer is working with Rist-Frost to address any engineering concerns." MR. NACE-We coordinated with Bill. I'll have a last set of plans for him to look at, probably, in three or four days. BILL MACNAMARA, RIST-FROST MR. MACNAMARA-I think it might be a good idea, here, that if there's anything in particular, here, that you want to discuss further, that might require more input than just myself, I don't know if there's any here. MR. NACE-Do you want to go through them real quick? MR. MACNAMARA-Only the ones that you think don't make any sense, or that you don't agree with, or that you think might need to be discussed. MR. NACE-Okay. Out of the Rist-Frost letter of August 12th, the comment on the open space and conservation area, OSI Plan, we've already addressed. There's a comment on minimum topsoiling required on the landscape plan should really be six inches because of the droughty soils. We'll change that to six. Pavement radius at cul-de-sacs, your Code says 50 foot, but Paul Naylor doesn't like to plow that wide throat. So we're doing what Paul Naylor requires. MR. MACNAMARA-All I ask there, does that require a variance, or is that something we don't even do? I mean, I'm trying to learn, here, is what I'm trying to do. MR. NACE-It's normally not been done in the past. plans the way Paul will approve them. v,Je made the MR. MACNAMARA-I guess that brings up a point, at what point do we - 40 - -"-'-- change things in the subdivision Regs, plain, out right, because you're clearly going against whatever regulation is in there. That's just for my own information, for further review, so I don't have to bring them up anymore. t-1R. '1f~CE"'JAI\I·-I¡.Jhat' s Staff's thoughts on that? MR. MARTIN-Staff thoughts on that are that we defer Highway Superintendent. He's the guy, you know, he's my He's the guy that's got to accept this, maintain it. defer, completely, to what's acceptable to him. to the expert. I will MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Good enough. MR. NACE-Okay. McDonald Drive intersection, I can show you, Bill, but it is 71 degrees now. So we are above 70, and I have not taken care of the median. We're going to pull the medians back a little further for access. I'm going to add a note to the plan on the minimum site slopes, and plus the drainage, takes care of the next item. The last item on Page One is just a detail we're going to correct. The next two items on Page Two are septic system details. We are changing the details to conform with what Bill wants. The DOH waiver or the variance from the 49 lots we discussed, and the labeling of the lots out on Corinth Road, we're going to take care of that. The last issue was the noting of the seasonal high ground water. We did borings down to 50 feet and didn't find any groundwater. So it's unreasonable to expect that it would be anywhere close. MR. MACEWAN-Is that okay with you, 8ill? MR. MACNAMARA-Well, as long as it was done during the time period that was. MR. NACE-That it's not going to come from 50 feet up to 4 feet within a seasonal variance. MR. MACNAMARA-I think, if you look to see where the 50 foot was, your 50 foot was probably down closer to the river. MR. NACE-There were scatterings, there was a 32 footer up in the middle of the site. MR. MACNAMARA-All I'm looking to do is have it conclusively shown by somebody that's approved by the Town to say that seasonal high groundwater is there, that's all. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, I'm approved. I wasn't there, because of the time period, I wasn't there for the initial test pits. I was there when the borings were done. So I can attest to those. I was there when the perc tests were done, and I can attest to the material that came out of the perc test holes, and I can guarantee yoU, that groundwater is 10 feet (lost word). MR. MACNAMARA-The reason for being so been other cases in the recent past, misleading, shall I say. concerned is l--Jhere the test there have pi ts l--Jer e MR. NACE-Well, I will add a statement to that effect. I understand your concern. MR. OBERMAYER-What was groundwater at, did you say? MR. NACE-We never hit groundwater, in anything we did. We did, as Bill pointed out, a 50 foot boring down toward the bluff. We did a 32 footer up in the middle of the site. MR. MARTIN-You didn't hit it at 50 feet? MR. NACE-No. - 41 - MR. MACNAMARA-I think if you look, there's going to be a couple where you stopped at eight foot, and if you look to see where the bottom of the septic disposal field is, you don't actually have the minimum distance shown from the bottom of the disposal field to where you stop your test pit. That's really the item that I'm talking about. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. MACNAMARA-So if you seasonal high groundwater belts and suspenders, but. just come we know, for"'Jard is, barn, and say, yes, the no problem. It's MR. NACE-Okay. I have no idea whether it's 60 feet or 80 feet. MR. MACNAMARA-Or eight foot, for that particular test pit. MR. OBERMAYER-Did you hit bedrock? MR. NACE-No. We hit cobbles. It's all sandy materials. So it's unreasonable to expect that groundwater will be perched in any area. MR. OBERMAYER-Sure. There's no clay there at all. MR. MACEWAN-Staff, do you have anymore comments, issues? MR. MARTIN-I would just like to get this in a mode, develop a punch list of items that are outstanding, this to the point of, on a schedule and to the conclusion. no~..¡, that we and just get point of a MR. O'CONNOR-I would ask for a resolution approving the Phase I, and giving us the preliminary approval on the balance that I think is such of a site plan manner that you could do it under your PUD Regulations, with the condition that before the Chairman signs, or the Acting Chairman signs, we satisfy those engineering concerns that were listed. MR. MACEWAN-Are you looking for us to make an approval tonight? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-That's not the impression I had, that we were going to have this discussion. This was a discussion item only. MR. O'CONNOR-Not to ~ knowledge. MR. MACEWAN-That was the conversation you had with Tom Nace just the other day. MR. MARTIN-And I talked to Alan and I talked to Tom. MR. O'CONNOR-What are we going to come back with? poi nt, I guess. That's my MR. MACEWAN-The thing that L brought up and questioned about this was, was there going to be any kind of approval given tonight without having the plan accepted by the Open Space Institute and that Committee set up by the Town. MR. O'CONNOR-That is not a condition of ~ approval, and we may or may not have that. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I was told it was. It was a condition of getting final approval, was acceptance of that plan. MR. O'CONNOR-Because you've got the Planned Unit Development agreement in front of you, but you also have the PUD legislation in front of you, and that was a condition before we get building - 42 - ...I--__-...i_______-_____ ---- - permits. MR. MARTIN-That's true about the Open Space plan. MR. O'CONNOR-Before any residences in the subdivision. We have no control. Now, that's in the control of the Town Board and the Committee that the Town Board has set up. MR. MACEWAN-I'm being told by Staff that that was a part of being app'- oved . MR. O'CONNOR-Lets talk about it, because that's not a condition, that I'm awa'"e of. MR. MARTIN-The Open Space Plan approval was set up as a condition for building permits to be issued. MR. MACEWAN-I asked you that very point last week, Jim, and you told me it was a condition of getting final approval for this site plan, was the acceptance of that plan. That's the reason why you called Tom Nace. MR. MARTIN-I called him because you had a concern, and so did some members of the public, about, if this was going to be up for approval tonight. I was not at the last meeting that this was discussed, and I, quite frankly, didn't have any personal knowledge of the exact position of this application. So, in light of that, I called Alan and I called Tom to say, I don't know exactly ItJhere this stands. t:1x:. impression is that this is coming forth tonight for an update as to the various issues that are outstanding and to arrive at a punch list and get through tI'''ii s . MR. O'CONNOR-I thought that was the purpose of your August meeting, in which you issued that letter? MR. MARTIN-Right, and I didn't know where those issues stood on that memo. I find out tonight exactly what this situation is. MR. STARK-Craig, right on the agenda it says, final approval". "Proposal is for MR. MACEWAN-That's news to me. MR. OPPENHEIM-Well, from a practical standpoint, as far as Open Space Institute goes, that is moving forward. I think that for those, and you haven't had a chance to look at the plan, but I think it's a plan that people are going to feel good about. It's just a question of (lost word) to meet with the Committee, but it is clear in the legislation that that's triggered upon building permit, and that might, we might have a meeting or two on that, but that's something that we're very close on. The thing with these other items, it's just minor fine tuning. MR. MACEWAN-Well, I mean, it's a pretty long laundry list of minor fine tuning to do to give them approval. I mean, we're looking at 12 items that have to be addressed and completed. MR. NACE-Okay. First of all, ln all discussion was, is it going to be going to be an approval, and at the determine what was the status, where fairness to Jim, he did, our a discussion item or is it time, we had meant to really ItJe I¡Jere going. MR. MfCìC:E~MN-'Tom, ~'Jas it YOU'- irnpn3ssion that it was goin9 to be a discussion item, when you spoke about this last week? MR. NACE-My impression, when I talked to Jim, was that his feeling was it was a discussion item. We didn't have heads together yet to say whether it was or not. We talked with Alan, at that point, and went from there. My thinking, now, is that, - 43 - - ------ ~.~------------~--------.~,.- if it comes up before you again, whether it's in two weeks, three weeks, or a month, all that it's going to be is just come before you and have your engineer say yes to the plans, now have all those drafting modifications made to address these comments. What is the difference? There's not going to be any meaningful input, either from us or from the Board. It's just going to be a question of, yes, have they all been checked off, or, no, have they not been checked off? MR. MACEWAN-What about the DOH permit? MR. NACE-That's a condition of your approval, regardless. We have to have the DOH stamp on it before we can file it. MR. O'CONNOR-This is a combination site plan and subdivision. Typically, you don't have your DOH stamp on your map, on your final approval for subdivision. You make your approval, which is what we're asking you for, Phase I Final approval, subject to us getting the DOH stamp. We can't record Phase I in the County Clerk's Office without the stamp. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, this is a big surprise to me tonight, because I didn't know that you guys were coming in here looking for an appr ova 1 . MR. O'CONNOR-Maybe I'm coming from a different avenue and Tom have. They're looking at it from engineering. running around getting the developer's agreement, declaration for deed restrictions. than Alan I've been and the MR. MARTIN-It's like I explained to Alan on the phone, I'm not looking to prolong this process, believe me. I mean, MR. MACEWAN-I'm not, either. MR. MARTIN-But if there's a certain level of comfort, for whatever reason, the Board wants to arrive at, that's fine, too. I just want to see, like I said, get this in the mode where the issues are known and they're addressed, and be on with it, and the evidence of, in terms of the Open Space plan, if I gave you that impression, Craig, then I stand corrected, and I apologize, but the evidence of that being the case, that's why the Committee had to be formed to review the plan, and it wasn't a matter of site plan review. We had to have a special Committee formed to review that, for approval by the Town Board, ultimately, in issuing building permits. 1'1R. STAR~(-"Well, agenda, it says, let me just say this, okay, Craig. Right on the "Proposal is for final approval of Phase I". MR. MACEWAN-I believe what you tell me is on the agenda, yes. MR. STARK-If says, l.->Jell, difference? hea Y" i ng, and we put it off until next month, okay, everything's noted on the I would say, lets go ahead with then we'll have a vote, and we'll and Bill, then, plan, what's the a vote, the public see. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I agree with George. MR. STARK-I mean, waiting a month anything except postponing it again. is not going That's all. to accomplish MR. OBERMAYER-I don't think there's really any major issues, unless the public hearing. MR. MACEWAN-Well, there's not really any big, outstanding issues. I guess there's a lot of little loose ends that have got to be tied up. I guess the point that I'm making here is that I was told and lead to believe that this was going to be just a discussion item, and update the way things were going. - 44 - --'------'--1_ MR. STARK-Well, Jim mis-spoke, then, or you misheard him, that's all. MR. MARTIN-Well, he was in the office when I called, I think it was Tom. You were right there when I talked to him and I, essentially, said the same thing to Alan, and I had no expectations of this being approval tonight. I thought it was just going to be going through this list, getting an update on the status. MR. O'CONNOR-I spoke with Scott earlier this morning and we said that's what we anticipated. We had to come to the Town Board, not this past Monday, the Monday before, actually we came the Monday before that, to amend the Developer's Agreement, to amend the Declaration of Restrictions, to get them so that they were workable. We then put it before the Town Board. It was revised by Paul Dusek. It was presented to them last Monday. It was approved on that Monday, and we've been chasing documents up and down the Northway to Syracuse to get them back out here, so that they're in Paul Dusek's hands today, so that we could keep them on the agenda, and that we would get our approvals. I guess I go back to my basic question. If you look at it as a subdivision approval, it's no different. We're not asking for anything different than any other subdivision approval. We've got some engineering concerns to note on the map before the map is signed by the Acting Chairman. We've got to get the DOH approval. MR. MARTIN-There was one other issue we talked about the day you were there, Craig, the road. How is that going to be treated? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, the abandonment of Sherman Island Road. MR. MARTIN-The Sherman Island Road, after Phase I. Is that going to be just abandoned? MR. MACEWAN-I know there were some members that had some concerns about that, myself included. MR. O'CONNOR-Part of Phase I, we've got to go to the Town Board, not t.his Board. MR. MACEWAN-No, no, no. We're talking the long term. Alan had ment.ioned what the long term proposed use of that road was going to be, and it was, I guess, your position, stop me if I'm wrong, that your position was that yOU guys were just going to abandon, maybe assumed by the Homeowners Association, and I think a few of us found, maybe the Board felt. that maybe a better thing to do would be just kind of drop soil over it and maybe seed it or something other than lett.ing the road itself just deteriorat.e. We were looking for, actually, the road to be covered over. use the that O'CONNOR-Our Developer's plan provides that we will barricade road where it intersects the new, improved system. That's that we've put into the Developer's program. Whether people it for a walk area, bike area, we were going to leave it to Homeowners Association t.o determine, and the residents in area, what they were going to do. MR. tl'''le all MR. OPPENHEIM-To take that one step further, Craig, and I recall that discussion, and particularly in the intersections, there's going to be definitely be a commitment to topsoil. We might well topsoil the whole thing. I think at this point, rather than commit. to it, we wanted to leave some flexibility at the center portion, where there weren't any intersecting roads, but I think, rest. assured, no matter what happens, it's going to be properly mai ntai ned. MR. MACEWAN-I know that Jim and I spoke about this last week, and our concern was t.he liability st.andpoint, for the Homeowners Association down the road, and maintaining that abandoned road. - 45 - ~-..---._.'--.-'-. MR. O'CONNOR-I understand, but that's no different than if they maintain the walkways, they maintain the roofs. It's not a (lost word). They have no liability on open land in the State of New Vor k. MR. MARTIN-I would defer to an attorney's opinion on that. Is that a liability concern? MR. O'CONNOR-That's one of the most expensive issues on Homeowners Associations is carrying the liability. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, wasn't it your position that you thought, that you felt that the road should be covered over? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I just think, again, looking for the character you're trying to establish here. I think that's going to be sort of an eyesore and a detraction from the development, and I would think it would be to your advantage just to get rid of it, once it's served it's purpose. MR. OPPENHEIM-Jim, I don't disagree. I guess, I think that we're going in. That's something that we're willing to get into the project, to make that final judgement on, and it seems as if that's not even really part of Phase I. MR. MACEWAN-No, I mean, we were talking, I think, Phase III. MR. NACE-That's right. MR. MACEWAN-Something along the lines of that. Would you have a problem if, down the road, we made that a condition of approval of Phase III? 1'1R. O'CONNOR-We may have a problem. I,.Je may IrJant to talk about it. We won't give up any options. I use the trite phrase, and a say this seriously, this is a very nice project, but the more you hang on the Christmas tree, the more questionable the viability of it becomes. You're talking about erosion, topsoil, the Board of Health. MR. OPPENHEIM-Well, why don't we just leave it? got to come back for site plan approval and it's we'll address at that point in time. I mean, IrJe've an issue that MR. MACEWAN-Okay. The public hearing was left open. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JEFF FRIEDLAND MR. FRIEDLAND-Hi. I'm Jeff Friedland. I represent the Brewers and the Aikens, as you know. I guess I'm sort of shocked and surprised that this would be up for any sort of final approval tonight. It seems to me this whole project has gone through an admittedly long and painstaking approval process, for very good reason, because there's a lot of environmental concerns out there. It would be a shame, I think, to sort of rush through it right now at the last moment and just push it through like this, and with all due respect, George, I think the agenda does say "Proposal is for final approval", but if you keep reading, it says, "Discussion is expected regarding site plan elements as well as an acceptable time table for submission of outstanding items referenced in the Town Board resolution". When I read that, I had no doubt in my mind that this would not be up for approval tonight, only discussion. It says it right there, "Discussion is expected regarding site plan elements as well as an acceptable time table for submission of outstanding items". That lead !:!l.ê. to believe that there was more to be submitted and it would not be up for approval. I believe the Planning Board - 46 - _---....L....-.-..--.J- has a schedule it follows, that items have to be submitted X number of days ahead of the meeting. I don't remember if it was a week, ten days, or two weeks, but there's some things that haven't even been submitted yet. The final plan, the site plan, is being worked on now, and it's not done yet. I can't see how this Board can approve anything without a final site plan. Some of the documents, the Planned Unit Development Agreement was submitted today. Paul Dusek's letter is dated september 27th. The Agreement is dated September 27th. Again, I can't see how you can vote on something you've just received minutes ago. There's some other requirements I don't think that have been met. For example. the deed, as L understand it, has to be approved by the Town Board before this Board can approve the site plan. I don't know if that's happened yet or not. MR. PALING-I'm sorry, you said the, what, has to be approved? MF~. FRIEDl_AND'-I'm sonoy. The deed, or the conse,"vation area, to the third party, which is (lost word) Open Space Institute, that deed is supposed to be approved by the Town Board before this Board approves the site plan, or votes on the site plan. I don't think that's happened yet. I might be mistaken. The deed is also supposed to define passive recreation. That has to be in the deed, according to all of the approval documents, the Town Board approval documents. I mean, we haven't seen that yet. We have no idea how passive recreation is defined, and that was a crucial element during this whole entire final review process, what's going to be allowed in the conservation area. Another item that, I don't know if it's been addressed yet, this is in the Haanen Engineering letter, July 27th. It's responding, I think, to the Town Engineer's concern. This is Item 3D on Page Two. It talks about the stormwater management report, and why the back half of the lot and the back half of the roof was not included in the stormwater runoff calculations. I don't know that the Town Engineer has addressed that? MR. MACNAMARA-That was satisfied. That was discussed at the last meeting, as well as, it's actually contained in the stormwater management report, where it speaks of the ground surface available in the rear yard portions, which is where you would design for that back half of that runoff to be infiltrated. That's the recollection. MR. FRIEDLAND-Okay, and you don't need to include that in the calcul,;;;¡tions? MR. MACNAMARA-I believe that was in the stormwater management repo,"t. MR. FRIEDLAND-All right. We've had several other issues that I wasn't going to spend time talking about tonight, because I assumed there was to be no vote on the approval. I was just going to submit a letter, but I think at this point I need to at least address them briefly, if this Board is considering voting on this. You talked about these previously, but I think they might have sort of fallen between the cracks. Number One is construction hours. We believe, my clients believe, that to protect the residents that currently live there, that construction hours for the project should be restricted to some sort of reasonable hours, for example, no work on Sundays, reasonable weekday hours, maybe seven in the morning until six at night, or something, no heavy equipment on Saturday, that kind of thing, and I think that should be a condition of the approval. Sherman Island Road is supposed to be blocked off, as part of the plan. As yOU recall, the southern end will be closed. We request that that be done early in the process, so that no one uses that for access onto the site. 1'1R. was MACEWAN-That was already agreed going to be one of the first to by the developer. That things that was going to be - 47 - done. MR. FRIEDLAND-Okay, and I think that could be a condition of the approval. I guess that's it. Again, I'd like to really emphasize that we certainly did not expect there be any consideration for final approval tonight. I think the agenda reflects that. The documents have been submitted tonight. The site plan's not even done. I really can't see how you could vote on the final site plan approval tonight, and I thank you for your time. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. Is there anybody else from the public who wants to speak? As kind of a follow up to Mr. Friedland's comments regarding some of the documents being accepted by the Town Board, we have a member of the Town Board in attendance tonight. Betty, have you folks accepted anything or made a motion on anything? BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-I won't comment on something document in front of me, and only the Town something like that. like that without a Clerk could certify MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you. Has anybody on the Board got any comments, questions? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I have a question regarding a final plan. I have a feeling that, do you, gentlemen, Tom, do you a final site plan? site ha\/e MR. NACE-The final site plan was submitted to the Planning Department on July 27th. What we're talking about now are the final drafting clean up to the site plan, which is normally, you know, if we had been on the August agenda, we'd be right where we're at now, and we'd be saying, okay, there are some minor corrections we need to make. Can you give us approval contingent upon our making those corrections acceptable to the Town Engi neer . MRS. LABOMBARD-Is it correct to say that this is the first time you've heard of those final little things that need to be taken carB of? MR. NACE-No. We've had the Town Engineer's letter for quite a while. There's no question there. We just want to get all the things together at one time, rather than having to resubmit time after time, get them all together and taken care of. MR. 08ERMAYER-Okay. questions to you? Has the Town Engineer submitted all those MR. NACE--Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-And you are acknowledging that you're going to? MR. NACE-Yes, that's correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, in other words, it could be feasible to propose that the site plan be, propose the final approval contingent upon all of those little extra addendums that their attorney has mentioned, just all the little extra things that he mentioned tonight? See, that's what I'm confused. MR. NACE-What he mentioned, most of it has already been taken care of. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what I'm saying. MR. NACE-The berm is already shown. The plans already show that - 48 - to be constructed as the first item of work. issue? What's the other MR. OBERMAYER-Traffic. MR. NACE-The traffic, the NiMo traffic being diverted. that, again, is one of the drafting changes we are making, which will be on the drawing. MR. MACEWAN-Are all your drawings updated to reflect the latest engineering changes? MR. NACE-They're in red on that set of plans that you see there. MR. MACEWAN-Which is the only set of plans right now that's been updated or revised. MR. NACE-If you want to stipulate that, for next Monday, they be submitted to the Town Engineer for his final approval. MR. MACEWAN-I can tell you flat out. I'm not comfortable making an appro\/al on this tonight. That's m.L. opi nion. MR. O'CONNOR-I would like to answer some of the comments, not in an adversarial manner, although perhaps my nature is that I will. You know, I'm sorry that he's shocked and surprised, and I'm sorry that he uses that type of terminology. The time table, or the discussion of the time table of submission of the outstanding documents were what was required to be submitted to the Town Board, and to the Town Attonìey, not to this Board. As far as L understand the intention was to determine when they would get them. When we were on an agenda a long time ago, we asked to be tabled, because at that time, we could not sign the Developer's Agreement. We could not sign the Declaration of Covenants. We had to go back and discuss it with the Town Board, and get an amendment to those documents in order to sign those. Those documents were submitted by courier, running between here and Syracuse, based upon the Town Board's approval last Monday. As of yesterday, to Paul Dusek, by hand courier. but their his documents. He drew the documents. He, representing the Town Board, submitted the documents to us for signature. 1'-1R. MACEIrJAN-And representing this Board, in that instance. 1'-1R. O'CONNOR--And representing t.his Board. The deed that Jeff talks about being incomplete, is purposely incomplete and gives the Town Board authority to settle what they want with the Open Space Institute. We've dictated that it be subject to passive recreation. We believe that the Town Board's going to get into other definitions, more better, or more detailed definition of passive '"ecreation. It's not an omission on our part, ~'Jith any intention. It's a release of our control over that issue. So that you are totally comfortable that the product that is planned to be signed and accepted, is ì"eco,"ded in the County Cleì"k's Office, is what the Town Board wants. If you look at the other issue, as to the shutting off of Sherman Island Road, and the NiMo traffic. They're on the plot plan. The only thing we can do from this point, when we get your final approval, is being the road abandonment process with the Town Board. The first thing we've got to do is we've got to go in and change the MacDonald Subdivision. We've got to take the cul-de-sac out of the end, change the configuration of that road. We've got to shut off Sherman Island Road. We've got to begin construction of the Boulevard. We've a long, long way to (lost word) any type of building permit. Now we're not running out of here, and you're going to all of a sudden see 96 houses. MR. MACEWAN-The part that's confusing me about all this is that, it was ~ understanding it was going to be a discussion it.em. Then the letter that was put on the table tonight from Paul - 49 - Dusek, and in the letter, in the second paragraph, he says, "in view of this, it is my opinion that the requirements set forth in the Hudson Pointe Planned Unit Development legislation that these documents be completed and executed before the Planning Board renders its decision on the si te plan". So ",¡hat are ~ supposed to do? MR. O'CONNOR-He's ~-equi rements. telling you that we've fulfilled those MR. MARTIN-Yes, but if you read on, it says that those have been completed. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, it does. MR. O'CONNOR-We've completed, or we've fulfilled the requirements that the Town Board put upon us, as to those documents, and the one other issue I haven't talked about is work hours. We went through long discussions with the Town Board and objected to any conditions in the legislation for work hours. We've, basically, got a 96 lot subdivision. It's in a very isolated area. MR. MACEWAN-So, Jim, you're comfortable that everything has been satisfied to Staff's needs? MR. MARTIN-You heard our position of what's outstanding. Like I said, it's a level of comfort the Board has to arrive at. If you feel comfortable that you can approve with conditions, and that those conditions be met, you know, our Staff comments and Engineering comments, fine. If you're not comfortable, and you want to see those things submitted prior to, that's fine also. We're going to be checking them either way. They're going to be submitted, and we're going to check them. MR. MACEWAN-Well, how do we put together an approval that has those conditions, you know, that's a pretty long list of conditions that have to be checked off. That's a lot of homework for you guys to do. MR. MARTIN-Well, then, if you're not comfortable with that, then the answer is to table it until that's completed. MR. MACEWAN-How does everybody else feel about it? MR. O'CONNOR-Aren't the only satisfy the comments of the app~-oval? conditions you have, One, that we Rist-Frost letter, we obtain DOH MR. MACEWAN-I don't know if it was so much that. I think there were some other things, you know, it was the engineering, or the revisions that had to be made to the drawings and such like that. MR. O'CONNOR-They're all related to that letter. MR. NACE-They're either on the Rist-Frost letter, or on the Note to File from the Planning staff. MR. STARK-Craig, why don't you everybody's comfortable and would That's all. poll the Board and like to go ahead with as kif a './ote. MR. MACEWAN-I asked. everybody else feel. No one answered. I said, how does MR. STARK-I feel comfortable, and I'd like to vote on it. MR. OBERMAYER-I would like to vote on it. MR. MACEWAN-Do you feel comfortable voting on it? - 50 - MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I'1R. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Does somebody want to make a motion? MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. I'll make a motion, and if it goes, fine, if it doesn't. A motion that we vote to approve, for the final approval of Phase I Site Plan 25-94, 34 lots of the Planned Unit Development, with the following stipulations: that the comments be satisfied from the Rist-Frost letter, and there's a Note to File with the Planning Staff. MR. OBERMAYER-And the Department of Health approval also. MRS. LABOMBARD-And with the Department of Health approval. MR. MACEWAN-That's it? MRS. LABOMBARD-Unless you have anything to add to it. MR. MACNAMARA-I'm going to ask one more thing that had to do with the stormwater issues. At last month's meeting, just to answer 'i.9JJ..L question, yes, I v~as comfortable that back half of the roof runoff would be handled by the back yard, but as a follow up to that, at the time, you had indicated you either had or were going to submit to the DEC some stormwater management plan that was required. I'm just curious if that's been completed, because that is an item that needs to be done, before final approval. MR. NACE-Yes. The Notice of Intent, it's the DEC/EPA Notice of Intent for construction sites over so many acres, and, yes, that is being filed. MR. MACNAMARA-But it's effective 48 hours after you submit it. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. yet. I'm just curious if you've submitted it, MR. NACE-No. I have not. I still have to get the client's signature, and then that goes to the (lost word). MR. MACNAMARA-I would suggest that that be a condition also, that that be submitted. MR. NACE-No problem. MR. MACNAMARA-It's an easy one, but, I mean, it does satisfy the n~qui rern(3nts. MR. NACE-Actually, that's in your letter anyway. MR. MACNAMARA-That's in the June 28th one. It's not in the last one that they're referring to. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. So, wait a minute. comments of the Rist-Frost letter dated? To sati~3fy the MR. NACE-No. It is in your August 12th letter. third paragraph on Page Two, and submission management plan to DEC. It says, the of stormwater MRS. LABOMBARD-So are we just talking about the letter that was dated August 12th, and that's the final? That's the letter that encompasses everything? MR. NACE-That's correct. - 51 - MR. PALING-How about the Staff letter of August 29th? Should we include that in the motion? MR. NACE-She did already. MR. PALING-You did include it. Okay. MR. MARTIN-As with these, I would suggest a date for submission to us by. MR. OBERMAYER-A week? MR. NACE-Well, with the exception of the Department of Health approval. That's out of our control. MR. O'CONNOR-We could submit compliance with the Rist-Frost letter, notes of Staff, and as soon as we get the Health Department letter, we will be up here looking for a signature. MR. MACEWAN-And you shall get it. MR. STARK-Include that, Cathy. The final plan to be submitted with all changes within one week. MRS. LABOMBARD-And within one week of the Health Department letUn" . MR. NACE-No, one week from today. The Health Department letter will follow when we get it. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. The compliance with the Rist-Frost letter is one week from today. MR. NACE-Rist-Frost letter and Staff notes. MRS. LABOMBARD-And Staff notes, and then the Health Department immediately following. MR. NACE-Health Department when we can get it. I have no control over that. MR. MARTIN-Ten complete sets, as with the final subdivision. MR. NACE-Sure thing. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question. All of these things cannot be put down unless it's in an open meeting like this, public meeting. In other words, if we all went together and sat down and got everything written down, in a big, long list, and didn't do it here, that would not be, you couldn't do that. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. All right. MR. MARTIN-All right, and the deed for the property, is that the five acre parcel to be conveyed to the Town? MR. O'CONNOR-You can either do it now, or you can do it, accept the first road, before you accept the first road. I don't think we have a concern one way or the other. MR. MARTIN-And you mentioned earlier you submitted a deed for the 95 acres. That's been submitted to? MR. O'CONNOR-Paul. MR. MARTIN-Paul. All right, and that that's in proper form, because he didn't reference that in his letter, and the deed for the five acres. - 52 - .-...-- - M . O'CONNOR-We have no problem. I can get that done. MARTIN-Prior to? O'CONNOR-I think I need the survey description, the survey T (1 t d) wltlìl1- 1-"JO "'AAks l"i= l·t's <al.l ri__1ht. e o~"n os _ wor , "_: I _v' V. -' _ ' , ~- ::J MACEWAN-You ought to tie everything in to one date. MARTH-I-Yes. e erything. I'd like to have one date, two weeks for MfS. LABOMBARD-I agree with you on that. Two weeks from today is 0' tobe,- 11th. MI. MARTIN-So we have two parcels, the 97 acres and a deed a :ceptable to the Town, in a form acceptable to the Town A.torney, and conveyance of the five acres next to the water p ,ant to the Town Board. M.S. LABOMBARD-All right. M.. O'CONNOR-I don't want to confuse the issue, but the bells and wìistles here is that we have to go to the Town Board for about 1~ different things before we get it done. Nobody's running away w:th something. (lost word). I would like to defer that, simply b3cause I don't know what my real time constraints are, i ternally, with NiMo, as far as signing that. I don't know if tley can sign that without the person's approval in hand. They C3n't do anything. They can start building the roads and e1erything else, but they won't be able to get any building p:~nnits. OPPENHEIM-I think what was discussed, this was dealt with at Town Board, was whether or not they can give a deed or not. could give all the same rights, and that would be something would be dealt with at the Town Board level. MONAHAN-If there's anything in the agreement that has to be to make sure that's done, Jim. MARTII\ --Yes. M~. O'CONNOR-Before final approval, I went through the agreement. The only thing that was required was the 95 acres, and signing of the Developer's Agreement, and the Declaration of Covenants, and that we've complied with. Before we can get our building permit, we've got a whole lot of things to do, and I don't mean to be coy with you. I'm not the in-house corporate attorney for Niagara ohawk. David Hatch is the one who's the corporate attorney, who's had direct conversations with the Town as to Open Space and œome other things, and I know in my discussion with him, at one time or another, he talked about (lost word), and I know that rart of that perc line goes through that part of the parcel. They have to give their blessing. I would like to make it as ,our legislation provides it, and as the Declaration provides it and the Developer's Agreement provides it, before we get building ~ermits, because that's also an offer we made in lieu of recreation fees. We're not going to get our building permit lntil we do that. R. MACEWAN-Do you want to read that back one more time to make you've got everything? LABOMBARD-Yes. Just, again, about the 97 acre parcel. R. MARTIN-Submit a deed in a form acceptable to the Town ttorney, and the Town Board. R. MACEWAN-You can just say deed acceptance by the Town. - 53 - MR. MARTIN-I'd say Town Board, as the controlling. MR. O'CONNOR-The 95.31 acre parcel. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Plus there's the other five acre one, too, near the water plant. MR. MARTIN-That's what he was just talking about. MR. O'CONNOR-The five acre deed is not a condition to this. Per the legislation, it should be a condition to us getting building penni ts. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. So then I don't have to do anything about the five acres, on this at all. All right. MOTION TO APPROVE PHASE I OF SITE PLAN NO. 25-94 INC '.' Introduced by Cather i ne LaBombard v~ho adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: HUDSON POINTE, moved fOì" its For the Planned Unit Development, for 34 lots, with the following stipulations: That before it is approved, that all the comments from the Rist-Frost letters dated during the month of August, 1994, be satisfied, with Staff Notes, and that a final approval from the Health Department, when it can be obtained, and that the deed for the 95.3 acre parcel be obtained in a form that's acceptable to the Town Board and the Town Attorney, and that 10 complete sets of plans also be given, by the 11th of October. Duly adopted this 27th day of September, 1994, by the following vot.e: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling, 1'1r. MacE~"'a n NOES: '\lONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel MR. MACEWAN-I didn't close the public hearing, but does this letter from the Homeowners Association at Inspiration Park been read into the public record? MR. MARTIN-It should have been. MR. MACEWAN-If not, would you? that note. I'll end the public hearing on MR. MARTIN-I thought that was done. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 54 -