Loading...
Staff Notes.11.19.13 Department of Community Qu¢¢nsbury Development •250 Queensbury Planning Board Staff Notes November 27, 2012 (Sketch), November 19, 2013 - Lead Agency Request APPLICATION: Subdivision 8-2012--SEQR APPLICANT: Cerrone Builders REQUESTED ACTION: Lead Agency request LOCATION: Sweet Road EXISTING ZONING: MDR-Moderate Density Residential SEQRA STATUS: Planning Board requesting Lead Agency request PARCEL HISTORY: SB 5-2010: Sketch review-Cluster subdivision of a 29.45 +/-acre lot into 27 residential lots ranging in size from 0.38 +/- acres to 0.47+/-acres. 4- 27-10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Applicant proposes a Conservation Subdivision of a 29.45 acre parcel into 29 residential lots ranging in size from 0.28 to 0.35 acres. Items still relevant to November 2013 Review: The following items were identified during the sketch review in November 2012 and are still applicable... STAFF COMMENTS: As proposed, the Conservation Subdivision meets the requirements for density with 29 lots on 24.22 acres with the 20% factor applied. Per $A183-37, the submitted Sketch Plan appears to meet the intent of the objectives laid out for a Conservation Subdivision and includes: 1. Efficient use of land resulting in a compact infrastructure design while preserving open space for pedestrian paths and recreational areas. 2. Development pattern in harmony with land use intensity,transportation facilities and community facilities. Per §A183-38,the submitted Sketch Plan includes the following standards laid out for a Conservation Subdivision and includes: 1. Open Space exceeds the minimum 50%required to be set aside. The plan calls for greater than 55% set aside. 2. Density bonus applied and denoted on DWG C-1. 3. Open Space as designed and submitted appears to be convenient to dwellings as all lots abut proposed open space in one form or another. 4. Deed restrictions will need to be discussed concerning Open Space; please see A183-38D(4) for guidance. 5. Open Space ownership required to be indicated on all plats starting with Sketch Plan; please see A183- 38D(5) for guidance. Brief mention in the Project Description on the application is noted. 6. View presentation not necessarily of concern. The Planning Board may wish to discuss this item with the applicant. Review: 1. Open space ownership must be provided starting with Sketch submittal. Brief mention of an HOA in the Project Description on the application is noted. Would suggest additional information on the HOA. 11/12/13 2. Standards discussed above do not necessarily require in-depth review at this point in time as some items may require additional deliberation from the applicant. 3. Staff recommends that the Planning Board familiarize themselves with the requirements and standards of Article X of Chapter A183 as Conservation Subdivisions may become more common due to the amount of marginal lands left in the town. 4. Road length waiver as per 183-27 required as submitted. 5. Sidewalks or other pedestrian friendly practices should be considered. Applicant has indicated there will be walking paths to minimize impervious services. 11/12/13 Additional comments: 1. As submitted, the subdivision is considered a Realty subdivision and as such requires a Type I designation for an environmental review. The Planning Board may wish to seek Lead Agency status upon submittal of a complete preliminary subdivision application. 2. Town Board approval for sewer district extension required. The applicant has indicated the Planning Board's SEQR Lead Agency request is necessary for the Town Board's review of the sewer district request 11/12/13. 3. Road Length waiver required as submitted. It has been determined that the road length is approximately 1,200 linear feet; as per §A183-27, 1,000 feet is the maximum without relief. Also find Planning Board minutes from November 27, 2012 -2 - (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012) MR. HUNSINGER-You know, this is one of those situations where I think if they ever visited the site,they would typically not have issues,but. MR. HUTCHINS-It's very difficult to, and what they asked us to do was document the extent of disturbance, and that sounds easy, but its not quite as easy as it sounds. We are putting that information together. MR. HUNSINGER-Is it reasonable to think you might hear back for a December meeting. or should we table this to January? MR. HUTCHINS-I think it is reasonable. They respond fairly quickly. Usually within a week. We have not re-submitted the package to them yet,although it's very close. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know when it will be going in? MR. HUTCHINS-I do not know specifically when it will be going in. MR. OBORNE-I'd recommend out to January. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, it sounds like we're moving it to January. MR.FORD-We're pushing in on December meetings. MR. HUNSINGER-It's only three weeks away,and if it hasn't even gone in yet. MR. OBORNE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-You've got a holiday coming. MR. OBORNE-And we do have two full agendas at this point, not that this project is not worthy of placement on any of these agendas,but it seems to be a little bit nebulous. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, the January meetings are the 15" and the 22"d. Do you have a preference to either meeting date? MR. HUTCHINS-I guess our thought was hopefully December, but if January, then the 15h would be our preference. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. Why don't we shoot for that. Any other discussion before we entertain a motion? RESOLUTION TABLING SP#42-2012 DANIEL&ELLEN NICHOLS MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 42-2012 DANIEL & ELLEN NICHOLS, Introduced by Donald Krebs who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brad Magowan: Tabled to January 15, 2013 pending receipt of DEC and OPRHP sign-off. Duly adopted this 27th day of November,2012,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Traver, Mr. Ford,Mr.Schonewolf, Mr.Sipp, Mr. Magowan. Mr. Krebs, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We'll see you then. MR. OBORNE-Thanks,Tom. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Mr. Chairman,can I ask a question. Will the public hearing be left open? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it will be. Yes. I'm sorry. Thank you. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2012 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE N/A CERRONE BUILDERS AGENT(S) LITTLE & O'CONNOR, VISION ENGINEERING ZONING MDR- MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOCATION SWEET ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 29.45 ACRE PARCEL INTO 29 RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.28 TO 0.35 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012) REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SB 5-2010 APA, CEA, OTHER DEC WETLANDS LOT SIZE 29.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-21, 22, 25 SECTION CHAPTER A-183 MICHAEL O'CONNOR & DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. OBORNE-Yes. Subdivision 8-2012, Sketch Plan Review for Cerrone Builders, subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. Location is Sweet Road. Existing zoning is Moderate Density Residential, or MDR. SEQR status at this point, at Sketch, is not applicable. When we do get to Preliminary it will be a Type I realty subdivision. Project Description: Applicant proposes a Conservation Subdivision of a 29.45 acre parcel into 29 residential lots ranging in size from 0.28 to 0.35 acres. As proposed, the Conservation Subdivision does meet the requirements for density with 29 lots on 24.22 acres with the 20% factor applied. Per §A183-37, the submitted Sketch Plan appears to meet the intent of the objectives laid out for a Conservation Subdivision and includes: Efficient use of land resulting in a compact infrastructure design while preserving open space for pedestrian paths and recreational areas. Development pattern in harmony with land use intensity, transportation facilities and community facilities. The sewer will have to be extended either as an, Dan, I believe it's an out of district at this point. I'm not sure, but those issues will be resolved, obviously, with a map plan report to the Town Board on that, and again, we're at Sketch, and obviously we're here for any questions the Board may have, and with that, I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Michael O'Connor. I'm from the law firm of Little& O'Connor. We represent the applicant, Cerrone Construction. With me is Dan, who is the engineer for the project, and behind me is Al Cerrone who is the principle of Cerrone Construction. Basically we think that we have put together a plan that is fully compliant with all the conditions of a conservation subdivision. We think it's a great location. This will be a maintenance free subdivision. The homes in there will be maintenance free. They will be ranches. We have been very specific in setting forth what we asked for for setbacks for the structures. That makes the site work. As Keith has mentioned, this will be sewered and Town water. We have filed with the Town Board a map plan and report for a sewer district extension. They basically said come to you,get your input,and then go back to them. So it's sort of like the chicken and the egg, but we understand that we need both approvals. Dan can walk through, if you want, all of the calculations. We'd kind of like to have you actually look at some of those, see if you have any particular problems with them. because they have great impact upon the design. Maybe you want to start. MR. RYAN-Sure. Dan Ryan with VISION Engineering. In front of you, with the submitted application, are four drawings. We tried to lay out the bulk data and statistical information on Drawing C-1, and the following subsequent drawings, C-2 is existing conditions plan, which is there to provide you a little bit about what's on site as it exists today, and hopefully you've had a chance to either visit the site or get yourself familiar with that. There is an old section of that parcel that was previously subject to mining activity,which hasn't happened in quite a few years. So that area would be re-developed as part of this project. There are some trails throughout, and a considerable amount of wooded and forested areas as well. You'll see that we did do some site testing back in 2009. We did a considerable number of test holes, and I did some additional percolation testing and groundwater testing. We also have had the environmental constraints all identified on that plan, related to adjacent wetlands and steep slopes. all those things have been identified for you. Hopefully that is clear enough. The subsequent drawings, C-3 and C-4, really are why we're here today which is to give you a good overview of the lot layout, the development, amenities and our goal, obviously, and object, basically we're trying to comply with the conservation subdivision regulations which you either, I'm not sure if you've actually exercised those in front of you for a subdivision or not, but hopefully this will be a good starting point for us to be able to move forward with a full design for Preliminary, and as Keith did mention, I believe we're fully compliant with the requirements of conservation subdivision. I'll walk through calculations, if you want to refer back to Drawing C-1. First and foremost, I think it's important to note that for conservation subdivisions the Planning Board is empowered to make some modifications to bulk requirements, such as lot size, setbacks, road frontage. So those are the types of things that the conservation subdivision gives you a little bit of leeway for the purposes of shrinking the development down. preserving open space and limiting your construction on the site. So what we've provided for you are some proposed setbacks. The front yard setback being 30 feet,the rear setback being 30 feet as well, and side setbacks of 10 feet. The lots are uniquely configured with some radiuses because of the loop road,but I guess, as a general rule of thumb,each lot is proposed to be 90 feet minimum wide, and each lot would be approximately 135 feet in depth. I think the smallest lot itself is about .28 acres, with obviously some variation within that. We would propose to meet the requirements of 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012) permeability, and so the next component of conservation subdivision is to achieve open space. The requirement is 50% preservation of open space on the entire lot. We did provide that calculation for you, resulting,as designed today, a preservation or open space of 55.3%. So we do have a little bit of leeway there, but we, you know, basically this was the result of our hard work in laying out the design of the project, and we were able to achieve that 50% relatively easily. The density calculation becomes the last component of conservation subdivision. Your subdivision regulations do allow what's called a density bonus. I don't know if that's been in front of you previously, but what is does allow is a 20% increase in your total number of lots, if you are able to achieve and meet the requirements of a conservation subdivision. So we've provided, in our lower right hand corner of Drawing C-1. that specific calculation which is relatively detailed in the regulations, it provides for subtraction of the typical standard areas that are not usable, such as rock outcrops, wetlands, steep slopes. So those have been deducted from the overall site area. By doing that, we resulted in about 24 acres of usable or buildable land,and thus using that density bonus allowance, we ultimately ended up with a total density of 29 lots. So that's what we are designed for. We feel that they fit nicely on the site. We did provide a lengthy loop road which would require a waiver because it is over the 1,000 foot threshold. So that's something we'd like you to consider today, but in doing so in our lot layout, we were able to avoid some of the steeper slopes, try to follow some of that natural topography on site. So that's kind of why the shape is what it is,it's dictated by the land. I guess we do also need to discuss, we would like to request a waiver for sidewalks. I believe the subdivision regulations, you've come across this probably plenty of times previously, there is no place for a sidewalk to go to on Sweet Road. We'd prefer not to have the sidewalks. Being a loop road with minimal just traffic within the development, it should be considered a multi-use pavement surface that could be easily and safely utilized by pedestrians, along with occupants of the neighborhood. So, that being said, we would prefer to not have sidewalks. That's also in keeping with conservation subdivision requirements which is reducing pavement. So that's kind of why we went with that particular choice. Other than that. I'd be happy to answer questions. We do have Al Cerrone here for any other types of issues related to homeowners association or open space land,and we'd be happy to answer those. MR. O'CONNOR-The open space area will be owned by the homeowners association. It will be maintained by the homeowners association. It will be used for passive recreation. If you take a look at one of the maps there, I think its C-4, we're going to set up a walking path, if you will, that the lots will all have access to. It will go through the inside of the (lost word) and then it goes over to the piece that's on the back corner of the property. We really haven't planned out what improvements we would make. We think there would be minimal improvements, but we will have a pathway that people can walk on and probably have some benches. That will be the type of activity that we will promote. We think that this being small lots it means ranches, single story ranches. It will probably be attractive to more seniors than younger families, and we think it'll work out. Dan did mention the fact that we need a waiver on the road because the road,loop road system is in excess of 1,000 feet. I think staff notes said it's 1200 feet. It's actually 2200 feet, and we'd like to have that, you know, understanding that that is something that's acceptable. We were here before, and I don't know if you have a separate file on this or not. We did show a simple horseshoe, and that didn't allow use of a conservation subdivision, or didn't allow much open space. It would have allowed less of a waiver, or required less of a waiver, but basically we're talking about an area that we don't anticipate any traffic queue except to serve the 29 lots. I mean, there's no outlet behind it. There won't be any outlet behind it. Not even the (lost words) if it's not already developable, is not something that can attach. There's some open land I think on the west side, but there's quite a bank going up to that west land. So I don't think they'd ever be able to incorporate that or bring that into the subdivision. So we're talking about people who will basically being entering just their own home site. They won't be using it as a bypass or something of that nature. So we will talk to the Fire Marshal and get his input on that, and we think that we won't have a significant problem, but that waiver is very necessary in order to go forward with this design. We'd like to get your thoughts on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there less pavement on this design than there was on the horseshoe shaped road? MR. RYAN-It's probably close, but it may be slightly less, but not much, maybe a couple 100 feet overall length. MR. KREBS-I think of all the traffic that's on Sweet Road already, having only one egress is much better than having two in a short space. I like this design much better than the previous design. MR. O'CONNOR-And the ingress'egress is a boulevard type thing. You're going to have one side in,one side out. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012) MR. SCHONEWOLF-I don't think you've got enough room to do that. You've got to have 20 feet. MR. RYAN-Yes. That was one of the, the Fire Marshal did send a memo. I think I've got that, regarding the fire access. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes, you've got 14 feet with a mall down the middle. That's not going to fly. MR. RYAN-Yes, he'd be requiring a minimum 20 foot road width per that Code there. We can easily work that in to a 60 foot right of way. That's certainly not a problem. So we would make that modification, obviously,to satisfy that requirement. MR. KREBS-And the homeowners association will be included in the deeds to the(lost words)? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There's very specific requirements in your conservation regulations that's mandatory membership that there be provisions for maintenance of the common areas. that it be perpetual, that the common areas not be later developed for other purposes, and all that gets worked into the homeowners association. Each owner has one boat and that type of thing. It's very specific, and we'll probably have a second layer that's not in there that says, deals with maintenance, and we will do the outside maintenance of all the homes, lawn care, snow removal,and the garbage pickup. The homeowners association is going to get a discount. You get one contractor to come in and do all the homes. It's a substantial savings, actually, we're doing one in South Glens Falls,and the people's savings on their normal pickup is a good portion of what they pay for the homeowners association , which includes insurances, the taxes you have to pay and everything else. I'm not sure, in Queensbury, if they will tax that property separately. Some towns will simply say that each of the houses benefit a little bit by having it so we're going to bump each of your lots by$500 or S1,000 in assessment, then you don't run into taxes on the homeowners association parcels. It spreads it evenly through the whole subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-So this is a proposed Town road,right? MR.O'CONNOR-Yes, it is. MR.SCHONEWOLF-What's the average selling price for a house in there? MR.O'CONNOR-Mr.Cerrone? MR. FORD-While he's up here, how many bedrooms are anticipated per unit? AL CERRONE MR. CERRONE-Hi, I'm Al Cerrone. We're going to try to keep the numbers under 300. MR. FORD-Typical number of bedrooms? MR. CERRONE-Probably three. MR. FORD-Three? MR.CERRONE-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-You're talking ranches, 13 to 1600 feet, plus a two car garage, something in that area. MR. HUNSINGER-So are these single story or a story and a half? MR. CERRONE-It could be a story and a half, yes. Sometimes we'll do a loft upstairs with a couple of bedrooms, a single bathroom. MR. OBORNE-I will say. if I could chime in, one of the issues that you have with smaller lots is the placement of pools, sheds and the like. So, you know, that should be considered when these conservation subdivisions are being designed. It's really tight now with the lots. (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012) MR. KREBS-Of course the fact that they have water and sewer as part of the project is going to eliminate some of those problems, because otherwise you'd have septic systems all over the backyard. MR. OBORNE-That's true. You still have to meet the setbacks of the zone. MR. FORD-Could we go back to the anticipated, the narrowest lot frontage and the widest: please. MR. RYAN-The minimum lot width we would propose is 98. okay. Because we're on a regular circle, some of the lots on the other part of the circle would have a 90 foot minimum on the front. but it would be more of 120 on the back, and then on the inner part of the circle it would be the inverse of that, where the 90 would be on the back side of the property rather than the front. So it's really constrained by the lengths of the proposed new road. Maintaining 135 feet (lost words). So (lost word) foot setbacks and the front and back setbacks would (lost words), and this is really driven by the typical designs. MR. FORD-How do you anticipate the widening of the road to impact those lot sizes, particularly frontage? MR. RYAN-Well, the road widening is only really talking about the boulevard. The remainder of the road is adequate. It's just the front entrance (lost words) road is a little narrower than the minimum. So you will widen,we already have a 60 foot right of way proposed on the entry. So, we'd be able to stay within that but we'll make the pavement a little bit wider. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. SCHONEWOLF-You've already got 30 feet. You've got 14 on each side of the center. So you took the center of it and you've got 30 some odd feet, right,at the entrance way? MR. RYAN-Yes. Right now we have 28 feet plus it's about 30,almost 35 feet in overall width. MR.SCHONEWOLF-Right,which is more than adequate. MR. RYAN-So, you know, with the boulevard entrance, the purpose of that really serves kind of a two-fold. One primary being safety, that if for whatever reason one side was to be blocked by an accident or whatever the emergency was, emergency vehicles could still utilize the opposite entrance or exit for access to the neighborhood. So we kind of like to divide them for that purpose. MR.SCHONEWOLF-Well,they still can now. MR. RYAN-So our preference would be to have 20 feet of pavement on both sides of the (lost words). MR. O'CONNOR-I think there's enough room there that I can widen that on the outsides, leave the boulevard portion. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-It's a nice,softer entrance coming in,too. MR. RYAN-Yes,aesthetically it's a lot more pleasing. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-What I was about to comment on is usually I'm a real stickler for the 1,000 foot dead end roads, but in this design, I don't have a problem with it at all, because you only have about 200 feet and then you get into a loop. So it's really. MR. CERRONE-This is more, I mean, when we first laid it out, it's more of a desirable private entrance, heavily wooded street in that area. So you're really not even going to see the homes in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FORD-Could you address the areas of stormwater retention, please. (Queensbury Planning Board 11127/2012) MR. RYAN-We did do some conceptual design. I'm sure we reserved enough space for stormwater control,obviously,we will have to maintain the standard for stormwater design. MR. FORD-That could be a challenge in that area,could it not? MR. RYAN-It could be. I mean,we're anticipating, we've already anticipated off site runoff from that northwest higher ground. You'll see that we do have a couple of basins proposed along that left side of the development. Those are intended to basically cut off what's coming from off the property, and potentially convey it around or infiltrate it, We have great sandy soils, no groundwater, shallow groundwater issues. So we do anticipate a considerable amount of infiltration in the design. We'll have to meet, you know, green infrastructure requirements per DEC manual, and we will have some challenges there, but we feel, we have two larger basins that we're just showing kind of in conglomerate right now which may be a multitude of types of systems utilized to meet the standard. So we have those two larger areas. If it becomes necessary,we do have some ability to capture and treat some runoff within the development, so we fragment some of that runoff and we will attempt to do that in that next stage of the design. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR.HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say, it's mostly sand in that part of Town. MR. RYAN-It's very porous sand. MR. HUNSINGER-I would think that runoff would be managed. MR. RYAN-It's very well accessibly drained soils. MR. O'CONNOR-It's much higher than the lower in the Sweet Road. The bike path is (lost words). MR. RYAN-Yes. I think the wetlands are about 40 feet lower in elevation than where our road would be. MR. SCHONEWOLF-The trailer park is at the other end, right? MR. RYAN-The west side. MR. FORD-West. MR. SCHONEWOLF-Yes,it's off of Montray Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. O'CONNOR-Do you agree with us as far as the waiver and the length of the road and what is your position on the sidewalks? MR. KREBS-I personally don't see any need for sidewalks. I live in Hiland. We have no sidewalk. Everybody walks every day, and nobody has any problems whatsoever. I mean, you know, it has a lot of traffic,it's just people who live there. So I don't see a need for sidewalks. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments? MR. KREBS-The other big problem with sidewalks is that somebody eventually has to maintain them. MR. O'CONNOR-Will the Town do that for them? MR. FORD-In this instance, I would concur with that. MR. O'CONNOR-Could we go forward with our design based upon this road layout and no sidewalks? MR. KREBS-That's what I would do. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And the setbacks. I mean, I'll tell you my opinion on the sidewalks. I agree with Mr. Krebs. Small subdivisions like this that's going to have small lots, you know, you're going to know your neighbors. I don't see any issue. Sweet Road. however, that would be (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012) different. I mean, I travel Sweet Road a lot in the summertime going back and forth to work,and I almost nailed somebody one day because there's a tree that's overgrowing into the road, and the person was actually behind the tree so I couldn't see them, and they stepped out from behind this tree just as I was coming up on them. MR. CERRONE-By my property? MR. HUNSINGER-There was a car coming the other way. and one more step and they would have been on my bumper. MR. O'CONNOR-We intend to keep all the trees that we can between Sweet Road and the development for the privacy of the development. MR.SCHONEWOLF-Where's that guy going to park his log truck? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes,that's what I was wondering, too. MR. O'CONNOR-He'll call you. MR. HUNSINGER-You have a little spot off to the side of the entrance, right? To pull over. Are there any concerns, I'm the only one that really spoke, about the road length. Does anybody have any concerns about the waiver request for the road? MR. FORD-Not with this layout. I like this. A lot of thought and consideration from several different angles have gone into this plan. I like it. MR. SIPP-Who's responsible for putting in the sewage line? MR. RYAN-We are. MR. TRAVER-The only comment I would have is just the thought that we have looked at conceptual plans requiring waivers in the past and not had a problem with them, and the Zoning Board has had a problem with them. So our discussions have, I guess, a limited amount of weight as far as the final plan is concerned. But with that being acknowledged. MR.O'CONNOR-I think these two waivers are within the Planning Board's discretion. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I don't think that they would need to go to the ZBA. MR.O'CONNOR-We do not need to go to the Zoning Board on that. MR.OBORNE-That's correct. You have the ability to waive the waiver request. MR.O'CONNOR-Right. MR.OBORNE-Or grant the waiver request, I should say. MR. O'CONNOR-If I remember right, the original writing of the conservation provisions gave you the right to waive or set your own setbacks. It didn't give you the right to set your own lot width. But anyway,we ended up going to the Town Board at the same time(lost words)the sewer, and they changed their regulations to give you full discretion to handle both setbacks and lot width. MR.TRAVER-Okay. Thank you for that clarification. MR. OBORNE-If I may, I would add one more thing. 1 don't know if you've had any discussions with Mike Travis on this. I know initially you did,in order to skinny roads up. MR. RYAN-Yes. I mean, his preference has been to stick in the 24 foot range. He likes the two foot wings. So we'll give him the typical design that he. MR.OBORNE-You'll give him 20 with two foot wings? MR. RYAN-Yes,that he prefers.and that's what he prefers. MR. OBORNE-And also, I mean, there are quality of life issues that are being presented right now, paths,a bench or a couple of benches along those lines. So,again,sidewalks. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think the previous sketch plan there were actually amenities in the recreation field in the back. I think there was like a playground or something. 1r' (Queensbury Planning Board 11/27/2012) MR. OBORNE-Yes. I believe there was,some type of field,a ball field or something along those lines. MR. CERRONE-Yes, there was, but the problem, again, the more we get into this, is I'm going to refer back to the homeowners association liabilities and stuff like that. So it kind of got out of control with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So we're trying to minimize any kind of liability situations. MR. MAGOWAN-Really just a bocce ball field, whatever the older people want to play, right? Get the basketball court out of there. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I was going to say, the amenities that you provide are going to help us steer the market. MR. CERRONE-You know, you put some benches in there, a couple of barbecue, whatever, you know,you've got people could use it for their own family parties or whatever. Were going to keep it mowed down, keep it looking good. MR. O'CONNOR-They can later make improvements to it. MR. FORD-At what percentage of ownership will it be turned over to the HOA? MR. O'CONNOR-Five years from the time of the first sale or 80% of sales as they occur. The board of directors will turn it over to members of the homeowners association. Until that time, the developer has control of the buildings. MR. KREBS-Just so everybody knows, on A-183 50, waivers, "The Planning Board may waive, when reasonable, any requirements or improvements for the approval, approval with modifications or disapproval of subdivisions submitted for its approval. Any such waiver, which shall be subject to appropriate conditions, may be exercised in the event any such requirements or improvements are found not to be requisite in the interest of the public health. safety and general welfare or inappropriate..", but that gives us the right to waive. MR. HUNSINGER-AII right. Just to go back to one of Keith's comments about sheds and things like that,have you given that any thought? MR. CERRONE-Well, you don't have septics in the back. So, you know, actually, before we did, not, I don't believe sheds have to meet the 30 foot setback. MR.OBORNE-If they're greater than 120 square feet they do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I was going to say,it depends on the size. MR. CERRONE-So when we do our deed restrictions, we'll limit the size of the shed that they can put in. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KREBS-To 10 by 10,so they can have a 100 square feet. MR.CERRONE-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-You really can't put pools or anything in there, you're going to be encroaching on some of the green space. MR. CERRONE-Depending on some of the lots. I mean, you know, listen, some of these ranches are not, stick the garage out front. We're doing them now they're like 45, 50 feet wide. So you shift it over,you've got 10 foot sideline setbacks. MR.HUNSINGER-Right. MR.CERRONE-So you can manage,if you want,and there's no septics. MR. O'CONNOR-And if there's a maintenance program, I don't know how much (lost words)for sheds. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. (Queensbury Planning Board 1112712012) MR.O'CONNOR-People may have gardens. They're going to own the lots. MR. HUNSINGER-So when you say there's going to be maintenance, the homeowners association is going to take care of the individual lots. MR.CERRONE-That's right,the lawns and snow removal and trash,all done. MR. FORD-But the lots themselves will be individually owned by the homeowners. MR.CERRONE-The people will own them. MR. HUNSINGER-It's an interesting concept. MR. MAGOWAN-What about fertilizing and all that stuff? MR.CERRONE-We're going to do that,too. We're doing it now down in South Glens Falls. MR.OBORNE-Just make sure all that gets fleshed out at Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-If they want to change their flower beds or something. MR. CERRONE-They can, you know something, we even have some customers that want to add some flowers in or something, no big deal. It depends, if they want to put a whole thing in, you know,they've got to be a little reasonable,too.with what they're doing. Yet,again,we have a customer that does his own vegetable garden. He takes care of that himself. MR.O'CONNOR-We may sprinkle it. MR.CERRONE-We are. MR. HUNSINGER-I'm sorry, I spoke when you were talking, but I said maybe you could put in a community garden. Because that is, you know, becoming a popular thing. MR. MAGOWAN-Yes, back in the open space over here. MR. CERRONE-Yes. The homeowners can get together and do their own thing. That's true, though,that community garden would be a good thing. MR.O'CONNOR-Any suggestions,this is a time for us to listen to you as much as anything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MAGOWAN-Well, I like the design. Unfortunately I wasn't here for the first one that you came in with, but I'd have to swing my weight with the rest of the Boards and say I'll like this one much better. So I remember we used to call it the pit back when I was a kid, but, no, I mean, if you, you know what I remember what it looked like back in '79, '80, I think would be a nice addition over there on Sweet Road. MR. RYAN-Sidewalks and what were the other, road length, and just to approve lot sizes and setbacks that we're proposing. Because that is within your discretion for a conservation subdivision. MR. SCHONEWOLF-What's going to be the name on the sign? MR. CERRONE-I don't know. Haven't thought of that yet. MR. FORD-Cerrone city. MR. CERRONE-Cerrone. MR. O'CONNOR-Keith,there's one comment in your comments about the view presentation. MR. OBORNE-I would say as far as the view presentation goes, there's not much of a view, so that's what that speaks to, if there are any features that are seen from where the houses are being built,you would want to have them present that. (Queensbury Planning Board 1112712012) MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, its always helpful to see some elevations, you know, building plan elevations,you know,colors,building colors would be another. MR.CERRONE-Dan does all my blueprints for me. MR.O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any final comments from the Board? MR.SCHONEWOLF-No,it's fine. MR. FORD-I like it. MR. HUNSINGER-It looks good. Thank you. MR.O'CONNOR-Thanks. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 74-2012 SEQR TYPE II ADIRONDACK RETIREMENT SPECIALISTS AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL-RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING CI-COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE LOCATION 351 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE ADDITION OF 3 POLE MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURES AND ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE. MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 68-10, AV 57-10 WARREN CO. REFERRAL NOVEMBER 2012 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.20-1-55 SECTION 179-9 ETHAN HALL. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Keith? MR. OBORNE-Adirondack Retirement Specialists. Site Plan 74-2012. This is a modification to an approved site plan, and as such requires this Board's approval. Location is 351 Bay Road. CI is the existing zoning. This is a Type II SEQR. Warren County Referral is No County Impact the last month. Project Description: Applicant proposes an after the fact modification to an approved site plan to include addition of 3 pole mounted light fixtures and 51 square feet of additional pavement on the north side adjacent to wheelchair lift. Additional comments: Permeability calculations have been updated to reflect changes to southeast parking area as well as the new pavement near lift. According to the applicant's agent, calculation of lumens from installed lamps not possible due to low level of lighting. So I don't know if you all visited the site. There's three ornamental lights and a little bit of pavement. MR. KREBS-Yes, I was there today just as it got dark, and the lights from the light pole next door are significantly greater than the light that's coming from, in fact, I would have almost questioned whether there shouldn't have been a little more light,but. MR. OBORNE-The thinking to bring this to the Planning Board was specifically because of the lights, not so much the pavement because the permeability calculations are okay, and with that I'd turn it over to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. HALL-Good evening. My name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski-Hall Architecture. As Keith said and Mr. Krebs said, during construction of this project, if you recall it was Dr. Wasserman's office, and the folks from Adirondack Retirement Specialists bought the property, updated it, we went through site plan review, initially took away the cross traffic through there. As they were going through and doing the construction, they decided that, hey, some ornamental lights along this walkway would look nice, and they just all of a sudden sprung up there and unbeknownst to me, here they are. They are. each one is on a six foot pole. Each light itself has two 25 watt candelabra style bulbs in them. The manufacturer, I did include the manufacturer's cut sheet. The manufacturer does not have a lumen count for that. They don't have the photometrics for it. They weren't available. I actually went out there with a light meter, with my light engineer, with my electrical engineer,and took the light reading with the light meter and then we shut the lights off and the light meter didn't change. So there's really no discernible change to the lighting increase. They are pretty much strictly ornamental, and we do have quite a bit of spill coming over from AAA and a significant amount that comes over from Lowe's. So 1�, feI TOWN OF Q L.LEENSBLIRY . 1 742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY. 12804-5902 Town of Queensbury Planning Board Record of Resolution MOTION TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION 8-2012 CERRONE BUILDERS WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of a subdivision application for Applicant proposes a 29 lot conservation subdivision for 29 three bedroom single family dwellings along with associated utilities & infrastructure, common HOA land and passive recreation. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury has determined to begian.environmental review process under the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA), WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensburyhas:identified the project to be an Type I action for the purposes of SEQRA review pursuant to 6 NYCRR.617i. WHEREAS,the Planning Board is the agency most directly responsible for approving the actions because of its responsibility for approving the land uses for the property, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Planning Board Of'the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRAI:review of this action and authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to:notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the:following agencies [as identified.in EAF]: Town of Queensbury Town Board, TOQ Water Dept., TOQ Sewer Dept.,TOQ Highway Dept:,NYS DEC,NYS DOH MOTION TO:SEEK:LEAD kCY STATUSIN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISION NO. 8- 1 S''. 2012 CERRONE )gi 1LDERS, i are',∎,uced by who moved for its adoption, seconded by ti , ti As per the draft.provided by S%: ': 4 . Duly adopted this 19t day of No ember, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Cc: Vision Engineering " Home of Natural Beauty ... A Good Place to Live "