Loading...
1991-09-17 ~. o ,/ CJJEEIISIIJRY PLANNING BOARD tEETING FIRST REGULAR tEETING SEPTEMBER 17TH. 1991 IIIDEX Site P1an No. 43-91 Keith Harris 1. (Cont'd on Page 17.) Subdivision No. 8-1990 Adirondack Industria1 Park. Inc. 2. PRELIMINARY STAGE Site P1an No. 46-91 Dr. A1 Kristensen 11. Freshwater Wet1ands Permit No. FWI-91 Franz O. Sunberg 32. Site P1an No. 45-91 Thomas Mayer 36. Subdivision No. 10-1991 A1ene M. Brown 38. PRELIMINARY STAGE 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. "'--' -----" CJJEEllSIIJRY PLNIIIIIG BOARD tEETIIIG FIRST REGULAR JEETIIIG SEPTEMBER 17TH. 1991 7:00 P.M. tEHRS PRESEIIT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER. SECRETARY EDWARD LAPOINT JAMES HAGAN TIMOTHY BREWER JAMES MARTIN tEHRS ABSEIIT NICHOLAS CAIMANO TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH SEIIIOR PLANNER- LEE YORK STEIIOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MIIlUTES August 20. 1991: Page 3. Motion to Approve Preliminary Stage Olde Coach Manor. the motion reads "for the construction of". sib for the conversion of tl)TION TO APPROVE AUGUST 20. 1991 MIfllTES AS CORRECTED, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 20th day of August, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano OLD IIJSIIIESS: SITE PLAN 110. 43-91 TYPE II RR-3A KEITH HARRIS OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE IIORTH SIDE OF PICKlE HILL ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A POLE BARN FOR RAISING LIVESTOCK. TAX MP 110. 26-2-10.5 LOT SIZE: 2O± ACRES SECTION 179-15 STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 43-91. Keith Harris, September 12. 1991. Meeting Date: September 17, 1991 "Staff met with the appl icant at the site. Concerns which were raised at the previous Planning Board meeting were discussed and potential solutions arrived at. The Agricultural farms classifications listed in the ordinance do not specifically describe the applicants proposal which is to raise a diversity of livestock for personal use on ± 20 acres of land. There is an existing commercial use on the site also. which should be identified and separated from the agricultural use. The concerns were: 1. Potential usage of the pole barn for storage of the commercial vehicles and expansion of the business. The applicants logging vehicles are quite large. The majority of them are over 13 feet in height. There is only one machine which is 10 feet and that is with a portion of it removed. The applicant has potentially agreed to put doors on the barn which would not be large enough to allow entry of the commercial equipment. These doors would have to be 10 feet or less in height. 2. Designation of the area related to the commercial use. The Zoning Office has indicated that they have not identified how much property is associated with the commercial/Light Industrial use as this use is allowable by a court order. The Planning Board can make a decision on this in order to separate the incompatible uses. The applicant has indicated that the area he uses for the logging/excavating business is immediately adjacent to the concrete block structure. That includes the parking area to the west of the structure and behind it. The area has been filled to provide parking for the vehicles." This is between where his existing house is. the lot line between the house and there and over to the concrete block garage and behind that. To the eastern portion where there is the roadway doesn't appear to be specifically for that use. "Staff has tentativelY identified the area with a dotted line. The Board may want to consult yard setbacks required in the light industrial zone in designating the area given the concern about expansion of this use. 3. Location of the barn so it will not affect the 1 ---./ neighbors. When staff met with Mr. Harris. alternative locations for the pole barn were discussed. Mr. Harris stated that the area behind his home was low and wet. The back field was difficult to get to and provide for the animals. The criteria which was decided upon was a location which was accessible and yet as unobtrusive as possible. Mr. Harris was requested to develop two alternatives for the Board. His alternatives were 30 feet to the left of the logging facility, or to the east. which is the current request. or 30 feet to the right of the logging facility, the west. Staff developed an alternative which would place the barn 50 feet behind the logging structure. The location is basically at the edge of the filled parking area. The applicant has estimated that approximately 1300 yards of fill would be needed, since he does not want to place the barn below the grade of the filled area. He did indicate that his step-father owned a gravel pit and that he had the trucks to move the gravel. If the barn was located here it would be visible only from a few locations in Boulderwood Drive. The barn would be about 150 feet back from Pickle Hill Road and 50 to 60 feet behind the logging building. This would afford the applicant room to park his vehicles and turn them around. The corral area will be wired so it can be moved around. The Cooperative Extension said that they had no standards as to how far animals should be housed from commercial heavy machinery or a truck repair facility. Proximity to potential oil and grease spills should, however, be a concern to the applicant. The barn in this location would not be too visible and would hopefully be far enough from the neighbors so noise and smell would not be a problem. Another alternative; deny the application. This would give the applicant the right to keep his animals at or near the barns of Henry M. Harris, which is what the court will allow without a site plan approval for another location. The Board may want to consider location of the barn somewhere in the back field. Staff ruled this out because the applicant did not feel he had ready access to the back areas. 4. Stockpiling of manure and housing needs for animal s. The Cooperative Extension sent the attached information regarding housing needs and manure production. Their concern was how manure was to be handled. If the applicant intends to disperse the manure on his own lands he will be quite busy. Sale of or making gifts of the waste products would create more traffic in the neighborhoods. After staff and the applicant reviewed the interior space of the pole barn. a tentative agreement about numbers of animals was reached. This was for a maximum of 4 horses. 4 beef cows, 12 pigs. and 20 chickens. After having received the housing requirements from Cooperative Extension it appears that there may only be enough room in the barn for 6 of the large animals rather than the eight discussed. The applicant has indicated that the animals are being raised for personal use so he should decide what the priorities are. Staff did explain that we were aware that animals did procreate in typical farm fashion and that enforcement proceedings would probably not be initiated if a 1 itter of pigs arrived. The concern about the animals seemed to be about the manure production and disposal rather than the number of animals. The Board should discuss the applicant's intentions and perhaps designate an area where the manure could be placed so as not to offensive. As always. the Building and Codes Department requests that any stipulations be clearly stated in the motion. Mr. Harris submitted the attached drawing of his barn to show that it will be an attractive addition to the property." MR. CARTIER-Before we go any farther. is there somebody here to represent Mr. Harris? Well. what's the Board's pleasure? Do you want to put this on hold for the time being. until if and when Mr. Harris or someone is here to represent him or? MR. MARTIN-Well. when this has happened in the past, we've put it off until the end of the meeting. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-This was advertised. MRS. YORK-It was advertised previously. We don't have to re-advertise. but Mr. Harris was aware of the meeting. We did spend a great deal of time together. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-And he did receive an agenda for this evening. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well. if there's no objection. we'll put it on hold. The public hearing will remain open. and can take comments at that time. Okay, we'll hold that until the end of the regular agenda. assuming Mr. Harris or somebody to represent him shows up. SUBDIVISION 110. 8-1990 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK. INC. OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE WARREll/WASHINGTON COONTY INDUSTRIAL PARK. coom LINE ROAD. LOTS 54-60. WEST SIDE OF COONTY LINE ROAD. \ MILE SOOTH OF HICKS ROAD. RE-ZONED BY TOWN BOARD: .liLY 9. 1990 FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 14 LOTS TO BE USED FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IIJILDINGS. TAX IMP 110. 55-2-20 LOT SIZE: 25.2 ACRES TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Subdivision No. 8-1990, Adirondack Industrial Park. September 16, 1991. Meeting Date: September 17. 1991 "This industrial subdivision was approved on October 16, 1990. The resolution stated. 'For a subdivision of 14 lots to be used for light industrial buildings. 2 '- At Preliminary. all engineering will be addressed. We will also see a road grading plan and comments from Paul Naylor on the private sewer line in the right-of-way to be presented to the Planning Board.' Staff has requested that Mr. Naylor and Mr. Flaherty review this plan. A staff concern which has arisen is t~at the driveways between some of the industrial lots are not the 150 feet apart as required in Sectlon 7.071 B4 (access). The Zoning Administrator and the applicant have been apprised of this." MRS. YORK-And I believe you all received a memo from Mrs. Crayford concerning this. tonight. Would you like me to read her memo? MR. CARTIER-I'll do that. Dated dated 17 September. to the Planning Board. from Pat Crayford. Zoning Administrator, "As proposed. the access pOint separating the ingress and egress area of Lots I, 8, 11, and 12 are not separated from adjoining access points by at least 150 feet as required in Section 179.66 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Nace has been made aware of this requirement and will address it at the September 17th Planning Board meeting." Just to back up your comments for a second. Lee. you said Mr. Naylor has not had a chance to review this. correct? MRS. YORK-No. At this pOint in time. I did talk to Mr. Naylor briefly. He said he has not had a chance to thoroughly review these at this point in time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. but we do also have a letter from Mr. Flaherty. MRS. YORK-And I have another letter that was faxed to me this afternoon in a correspondence from Mr. Nace when you get to that point. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Tom. do you have a copy of Mr. Flaherty's letter? You already have copies. okay. Okay. Tom. please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost, September 13. 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. An erosion control plan for the subdivision improvements is required. The plan should address the requirements of the Town Code A183-9 F. and AI83-26. 2. Driveway culverts in the R.O.W (lot 7) require end sections per Town Code A183-27 D.(9). This should be indicated on the plans. 3. Details of the 6" water service connections should be provided. Valves should be located as close as possible to the main and should be properly restrained by strapping to the main. Blocking details should address end caps and plugs. 4. The street grade at Marcy Drive between station 19+82 and 20+82 shall not exceed 3% per Town Code A183-23 I(2)(b). 5. Profiles shall be provided of all pipes and crossings per Town Code A183-9 C. (6). 6. Util ity layout plans should provide for a minimum of 5 feet clearance between all catch basins and buried util ities per Highway Department requirements. 7. Roadway storm drainage inlets must be spaced no more than 300 feet apart per Town Code A183-27 (C)(9). 8. Marcy Drive between stations 0+89 and 3+75 should be constructed to Town Standards including wing swales. storm drainage and grading. 9. Storm drainage should be designed based upon the rational method. a minimum 'c' value of 0.35 and a 25 year return interval storm per Town Code A183-27 B. The stormwater management facilities can be designed on the basis of Hydrocad and a 50 year design storm. If both storm drainage and stormwater management are reliant upon one another. both of the above should be satisfied. 10. Storm drainage pipes at changes in pipe size should match crowns per Town Code A183-27 C. 11. Storm drainage pipe materials selected must be demonstrated to be adequate for the cover and loading in the design per Town Code A183-27 C. (12). The design as shown has several areas where adequate cover over the pipe may not exist. 12. All utility crossings should be designed for proper vertical clearances of at least 1 foot in accordance with accepted practice. 13. The catch basin at station 9+51 should be relocated to the low point of the sag curve. 14. The pressure sewer design and construction details should consider the possibil ity that the developer may want to turn over the facilities to the Town in the future. If so. details should conform to current Town Sewer Department requirements. 15. Stormwater management basins shall have a maximum depth of 4 feet to the overflow spillway per Town Code A183-27 F.(2)(g). 16. Easements shall be provided for stormwater detention facilities per Town Code A183-27 F. (6). 17. Driveway easements for lots 4 and 5 may be necessary due to the existing access and proposed lot lines. IN general, the approach to common parking and access should be addressed to the Board's satisfaction. 18. The typical road section indicates storm drain catch basins installed in the flow line. The grading plan indicates site drainage and SWM basin overflows conveyed to a catch basin located outside of the pavement at Marcy Drive station 4+44. This should be resolved. 19. Grading slopes within the Marcy Drive right-of-way exceed the 10% maximum slope for the wing swale road section appearing on Drawing D-1. 20. With regards to stormwater management addressed in the drainage report: a. The length used to compute the time of concentration should be shown on the drainage area map. b. The entire flow from Subcatchment 6 (8.2 cfs) does not flow through Reach 7. c. The flood elevation at Pond 1 appears to be less than 5 feet, as indicated by the contours shown. d. The area for Pond 4 appears to be too high. The area is approximately 12.500 SF. e. It should be shown how the release of runoff from Pond 10 (7.2 cfs) will effect downstream areas. Although this may be less than predevelopment runoff, it is concentrated in an outlet pipe and could have an impact on downstream areas." MR. CARTIER-Did Warren County Planning Board look at this at any point? MRS. YORK-No. They don't look at look at subdivisions. 3 ~ - MR. CARTIER-They don't look at subdivisions? MRS. YORK-They do not review subdivisions, only site plans and variances. I have a letter from Mr. Nace. "Dear Mrs. York: In reference to the Preliminary Stage Engineering Review Comments on the above reference project. we are hereby requesting a waiver of the portion of the Subdivision Reguhtions Section A183-27 (b) which requires that storm drainage structures be designed based on the rational method with a minimum 'C' value of 0.35 and a 25 year interval storm. II MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. what number on Tom's list is that. MR. YARMOWICH-Number 9. MR. CARTIER-Nine, thank you. Okay. MRS. YORK-"Due to the fact that the storm drainage structures are an integral part of the stormwater management facHities for this project, we have based the entire design upon the Soil Conservation TR20 method using a 50 year design storm. Since the overall stormwater system contains detention basins which outlet into storm drainage structures. catch basins, and storm sewers, it is not possible to use the rational method alone to size these storm drainage structures. I believe that the use of a 50 year return interval storm. that the TR20 method results in a storm drainage structures which are more than adequately sized for the intended purpose. I believe that trying to use the rational method for the design of such a complex system would simply result in a series of meaningless numbers. Please call me if there are any questions or additional information in order to act upon this waiver. II MR. CARTIER-Tom or Ed. do you want to make comment on that waiver request? MR. YARMOWICH-I believe Mr. Nace quite correctly states the character of the situation, that to simplify things, the regulations require that you iook at storm drainage. those pipes in the highway. with one method. Stormwater management asks you to look at another method. I think that. based on the areas invoived and the overan size and type of stormwater management and storm drain system. that's being entertained. Mr. Nace's observations about the methodoiogy are correct. that using the basis of design which was presented is appropriate and I recommend that you grant him a waiver on that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Ed, do you agree? MR. LAPOINT-I agree. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Tom? MR. NACE-Ol<ay. Let me start with Staff Comments first. okay. The issue that came up on the zoning. Let me state for the record, my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. representing Adirondack Industriai. The issue on the separation of driveways is buried in the reg's and it's one that I had not been aware of and had overiooked. I p1ayed around. today, with some ideas to mitigate that and I've satisfied myse1f by some simple relocation of some driveways. without moving any parking faci1ities. without moving bui1dings. without moving any of the infrastructure for the subdivision other than the driveway locations, we can satisfy that regulation and we will do so at Final. In essence what I've done. I've moved these two driveways up a littie ways. I've taken this driveway. I've connected these two. I've eliminated this driveway and I've moved this driveway down a little bit. MR. CARTIER-So. you're not going to need a variance? MR. NACE-So. we will not be asking for a variance, no. MR. CARTIER-Ol<ay. MR. NACE-Okay. Let me get into the comments from the engineer. Many of these, wen. let me first preface it by stating that yesterd~ afternoon after I had received this. I spent some time going through the comments and then sat down with Tom Yarmowich to review my intended response, as it would appear on the final plans and I think out of that we were abl e to pretty much agree on the approach that I will be taking on the finai plans. and from that I've separated some of these issues which are strictly engineering and other issues I think we should discuss in detaii with the Board. The first issue, the erosion control plan, we will, on the final plan, show the location of the erosion control facilities. We've shown detaiis for them already. It's just. at this point. a matter of showing the locations on the pian. The driveway culverts, we win comply with that and show. in sections. The water service connection. we have shown some detaiis. We wiii reinforce those. and I think there is also a comment from Tom Flaherty which we wiil take care of there. to make sure that the laterais are constructed in such a way that the Town Water Department win accept them. Number Four, the street grade up Marcy Drive, I have looked at and we win comply with the 3 percent maximum. It will be a simple adjustment of the profiie up at Queensbury Avenue. Number Five, I discussed in detai1 with Tom. We will show profi1es of the storm sewer. We have one additional piece of storm sewer that we didn't show profiles of. We'n include that. and we'il show on that profi1e. crossings of other utilities. Number Six. 4 '-.-/ .-/ the layout plans, actually do show a five foot separation when you look at them in conjunction with the details. but the actual physical location of some of the catch basin inlets showed up being outside the roadway where it should have been inside the roadway. That was the confusion there. So, there will be a five foot separation. The catch basins are all underneath the pavement and within the roadway section. Number Seven. the storm drainage inlets, we had a few that were spaced out more than 300 feet because of the actual location of them. I have reviewed those tOday. and we will comply with the 300 foot maximum. Now, Marcy Drive between station 0+89 and 0+75. that's this section here which has already been constructed to serve these two buildings. actually, it was originally constructed to serve this building. The developer did this construction with the intent that eventually it would serve as part of the subdivision road. He. basically, constructed it to Town Standards, except for the wing swale. I will have to talk to Paul Naylor because I can see ramifications both ways. If we rebuild it, it means ripping up some of the existing road, having to install a closed drainage system up in that portion of the road, putting in pipes under the road which may result in bumps later on in the pavement and may be a less desirable situation than leaving what is now a perfectly good road alone, but needless to say. I'll discuss that with Paul Naylor. If he wants a new road up there, we'll give him a new road. Number Nine is what we requested a waiver on. Number Ten, the storm drainage pipes, we will comply with that. That was one we didn't catch. The pipe materials will be demonstrated to be adequate for the cover. The engineer was correct that there are locations, as shown on the plans now. where there was not adequate cover. I have gone through. today. and proven to myself. anyway, that we can. by adjusting the profiles of the storm drainage pipes. we can get adequate cover without having to relocate anything. Number 12. utility crossings, we will show a detail requiring the proper clearances and proper separations between sanitary and water lines. Thirteen, we will relocate the catch basin to the low point of the sag curve which is about 50 feet away. Fourteen. the pressure sewer design was an issue that we had discussed at Prel iminary Stage. Originally, well. let me back up. There is no sewer district out there, okay. So. if we construct a pressure sewer to get our sewage up to the main sewer trunk in Queensbury Avenue. there's no enmity, right now. to take that over. Our intention is to build a line that will be built to Town Standards so that if some time in the future the Town extends a sewer district to serve the Park or additional land, that it can be taken over. Originally, we had proposed to have that sewer line in the Town right-of-way. Paul Naylor asked us to move it out. We have moved it out. Now, one of the comments from Tom Flaherty is to provide additional easement around that and get it a little further away from the right-of-way. and he has a good point. So, we will comply with that. As to the issue here, I guess the bottom 1 ine is that we will build it to Town Standards, and we will show the details to assure you of that on the final. Fifteen. the stormwater management basins, there were two basins that were five feet deep instead of four, but it was unneeded volume, as shown by the stonmwater calculations, so we will reduce the height of those to four feet. Easements were shown around the stormwater outfall, but not around the basins. We will add easements around the basins for Town Maintenance. Driveway easements. We had addressed these in previous site plans because these five buildings already exist and site plan had been approved by this Board previously for these and we had the same sort of thing where we were to try to minimize the points of access. We had shared common access drives. We will probably, as shown here. be doing that on the rest of the subdivision for particular lots. but I think the proper time for us to give those easements to you is when we come in for site plan review on the particular lots. What we've shown here. we've tried to show what we presently envision as the development and what would probably be about the maximum size buildings and parking that you could fit on the lots to show that the stormwater and utilities and everything work, but it may come to be that this building. when we get to constructing that, we'll want a smaller building on this lot. We'll want more parking. We really don't know until the time comes to develop it. So. the driveway points may change. MR. CARTIER-All right. While you're at that point, and we're talking about size maxed out. did you get 30 percent perm on all of those lots? MR. NACE-Yes. we did. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. NACE-Okay. Eighteen, the road section. we will take care of, Tom had a good point. There was one overflow from a detention pond that did not get to the intended catch basin the way it should. and we will change that so that it does. Grading slopes, we will change the road section to show the realistic side slopes. and, incidentally. that's a case where your standard road size differs from what's in the regulations. On 20 A, Tom and I have a 1 ittle bit of a disagreement. The length of sub-drainage area used to calculate the time of concentration on something this complex is something that's sUbject to engineering judgement. and if I showed a particular line on the drawing. I'll guarantee you that I could come back two days hence and argue with myself about whether that line was correct or not. So, if Tom has a disagreement with any particular time of concentration or length of drainage area that we've used. I'll be glad to sit down with him and discuss that. but in general I would hesitate to show a particular Point X to Point Y being the length of drainage that we've used on the drainage map. MR. YARMOWICH-Just to avoid going into these with a lot of depth, and maybe the Board will be satisfied. When Tom and I discussed these comments yesterday, with regard to the five parts to Comment Number Twenty. and I agree with what Tom is saying. and as a result of that, I bel ieve I'm satisfied that Items a. b. and d really are without significant merit in terms of the overall concept as well as the 5 - details of the design. I believe that the stormwater management concept shown here is adequate to serve the intended purpose and the methods in which he analyzed it. So, maybe we can help Tom. if you'll agree to accept my evaluation that Items a. b. and d don't really merit any real discussion before the Board. MR. NACE-Okay. Thank you. Tom. On C. we had made a mistake in the calculations and that will be revised for Pond Number One, to reflect the actual conditions. On E, Tom has a good comment, and I have looked at the area today. His comment. in essence says, okay, originally this whole area ran off in sheet flow to the back. Now we are collecting it all. getting it to a point, here. and to a point, here. and outletting it with two pipes. here. even though we're restricting it to predevelopment runoff levels. What impact does it have on downstream areas? This whole area back in here, between this lot 1 ine and the airport taxi way and runway it a flat. I won't call it swampy, but it's a flat low area that's relatively level and it receives water from many different points and many different areas. I don't believe, after my look tOday, that we're going to have any significant effect. whether we outlet it at a point. or whether it outlets in sheet flow or the over the whole area. The concentration of it makes very little difference because once it gets down there. it spreads out and has significant time to travel over a very flat terrain before it concentrates itself. again, at the next drainage structure. I guess that's all I have. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and I believe either directly or indirectly. you have addressed all of Mr. Flaherty's comments in his letter. too. Okay. Does the Board have any questions or comments at this point? I have just one. There's no way that I want to suggest that I'm going to require this, but we've got a 14 lot commercial subdivision here and there is some Beautification Committee work that's done in this already. with the existing buildings. and I would certainly encourage you that as we see these as individual site plans down the line. that there be some sort of formal or informal, whatever you want to call it, some sort of master landscaping plan so that this area sort of blends together somehow. because that is developing into a rather nice looking area and people taking pride in what they're doing over there and I'd sure like to see that continue. MR. NACE-That's a very good point, and the developer. Joe Clark, is here tonight. His intention. and what he's done so far, is to make the buildings look like they fit together and make it look like a cohesive park in itself and 11m sure the landscaping is going to be one of his goals, to keep up that uniformity and make it look nice. MR. CARTIER-Great. Mr. Clark. would you care to comment? JOE CLARK MR. CLARK-My name's Joe Clark. the owner of Adirondack Industrial Park. We plan to continue the red maples along Queensbury Avenue. We did have a tenant come in. a few weeks ago. that requested a less expensive building and. in today's economy, it's not one that you want to turn away 10,000 square feet, but we did turn him away because he wanted a metal building which we just don't want to do on this site. We plan to keep it. We're trying not to sell any part of it. So. we plan to do the same landscaping on all of them. This fall, we'll finish the landscaping. hopefully. on lot 56. which is the last building we built. and hopefully, when we get started with the rest of them, we'll have all of Queensbury Avenue done by March, April, in the same manner. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do I understand that you're leasing these lots? You're not selling them off out right. You're leasing them. So. you're maintaining control of this thing, is my point. MR. CLARK-We own everything. I have another industrial park in Albany. We have 207,000 feet and this will be about 270.000 feet or something. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All in your ownership. Well, that answers my question, thank you. MR. HAGAN-I just have one question. I don't know if it's going to count for anything, but where you said you were going to dispose of one driveway up in the left hand corner. MR. NACE-Over here. MR. HAGAN-What's that going to do to the traffic in and out. MR. NACE-It'll simply make them use this common drive. MR. HAGAN-It's not going to cause a traffic jam back there? MR. NACE-No. The same way that these buildings use this common drive. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anybody else on the Board have a question or comment? I'll open the public hearing. Lee, you said you had a letter? 6 -/ PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. YORK-Right. We have had correspondence from Consolidated Asset Recovery Corporation. that I understand is in ownership with a contiguous parcel on what would be the right hand side of this park. MR. CARTIER-North of it? Okay. MRS. YORK-"We represent the ownership of lots 51. 52. 53. and 71. which adjoin the subject property. In response to your subdividers notice. it is requested that the following comments be entered into the record as part of the September 17th. 1991 public hearing. Marcy Drive. the proposed subdivision road, abuts lot 53 and therefore it's design layout and construction will directly impact our property. We do not object, in concept. to the proposed drive and feel that it will improve the internalization of both properties, but as the drawings have only today been received by our department for our review, we would like to reserve final comments until the review is complete. Drainage grading and road access. utility easements and adjoining land improvements are some of the issues in question. Mr. Nace of Haanen Engineering has been helpful in this matter. as has Mr. Yarmowich of Rist-Frost Associates. We appreciate your consideration in this matter. II MR. CARTIER-Basically. he's asking us to postpone a decision until he can get his comments in. MR. LAPOINT-He has time until final, right? MR. CARTIER-Do you want to accept comments at final? This is a public hearing, right now. Do you want to leave the public hearing open? MR. LAPOINT-Sure. MRS. PULVER-Is that fair. though? They don't know what the comments are. Now. they go to final, supposing it's something major. They're here for their last meeting. MRS. YORK-Also. we have, your previous motion on this Industrial Park stated that you wanted to see comments from Mr. Naylor, and he hasn't had an opportunity to review this. MR. CARTIER-Lets back up a minute. I think the question before us, we still have to do a SEQRA Review. here, too. but the question before us is, given the volume of the comments that need to be addressed, I think what we have to do first is decide whether we want to go ahead with an approval of Preliminary. or whether we want to table this until such time as all of these comments are addressed and we get this Preliminary cleaned up. If we decide to table this. the public hearing will remain open until the next time we look at it in Preliminary form. If we approve this at Preliminary form, with a whole bunch of stipulations about what has to be addressed at final, off the time of my head. I think I'm a little bit bothered by a letter coming in saying please don't do anything until we have the chance to look at this. Is that something this Board is willing to do every time we get a letter like that? They've had their chance. Tonight's their chance. MRS. YORK-Our notices go out five days prior to the public hearing. MR. BREWER-We can't leave the public hearing open? MR. CARTIER-Sure. We can leave the public hearing open until final. I just don't want to establish a precedent where we do that. MR. NACE-For the record, these people had notification by last Wednesday. because I got a phone call from them last Wednesday and discussed the details of the project and they were aware that they could review plans here at the Town at that time. MR. CARTIER-I'll tell you what we can do. Paul, correct me if I'm wrong. here. He certainly. as far as I know, this person has the right to submit a letter that can be introduced into the record at final, can it not? MR. DUSEK-Sure. MR. CARTIER-And we can consider it then. MR. HAGAN-Does anybody know the reason for this group having qualms about the project? MR. MARTIN-Well, I'd like to run the risk. here. of having some faith in the process we've gone through to date. I mean, we have an extensive review done by our engineering consultants. Staff has looked at it. I mean. this has really gone through the ringer. I can't imagine a third party bringing us any substantive new information beyond what we already have. I mean. this has really gone through a very technical, thorough review and the applicant's been very forthcoming and willing to accommodate those concerns as raised by the engi neer. So. I woul d be wi 11 i ng to run the ri sk of approvi ng thi s at Preliminary and going on to Final, leaving the public hearing open. 7 '- ---./ MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I agree with Jim. I think all I heard in that letter was the adjacent property owner's concern over that portion of the driveway abutting his property, of which there doesn't seem like much you can do there. I mean, all the drainage is onto the property or off to the west side. MR. NACE-That is correct. I talked to them tod~. and I think they're concerns were they didn't have a plan in front of them where they could see whether we were putting the road in ten feet of cut next to their property so that they could never get to it or anything of that sort. So, I doubt that there would be any significant comment. but that's more a policy issue for the Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CLARK-I think what you have to look at. if I'm not mistaken. the people that wrote the letter are the bank receivership or something that has taken over the site and everybody knows how banks are. They want to look it over five times and then they want to look it over ten times more. I don't think that they'd have a problem with it, but they just haven't had a chance to give their extensive attorney's a chance to say, okay. it's all right. MR. DUSEK-I hope this helps and it doesn't cloud it up. but in these type of situations. I think that, obviously, whenever you take a step forward to approve something on Prel iminary, you've gone a long ways, as this Board knows, to making this thing, and every step you take it gets harder to say no to the project or to change some aspect of the project. I think the question that's really before the Board at this point is whether you feel, as I think Peter kind of summed it up, is whether you feel comfortable with what you have now. before you. and whether that adequately addresses the impacts that may be on the surrounding property because the whole idea, as this development is made up. is that it should not impact the outside properties in an adverse fashion because if it does. than this Board ought to address that issue. If you feel you have sufficient information. you can move ahead. If you feel concern that there may be something that you don't know about, and we've heard some logical explanations here. So. maybe there isn't anything to really worry about. but if you think there is, the mechanism in the Statute does help you, to the extent that it says that you do not have to make a decision on your Preliminary approval until 45 days after the public hearing. So you, in essence, could hold the public hearing. close it tonight, and then decide. at the next meeting, whether or not you grant the Preliminary approval or. as Peter suggested. you could even hold the public hearing open and then decide Preliminary approval at the next meeting. So, I just want you to know, you have that flexibility. You also have the flexibility of, of course, calling for an additional public hearing at the time of Final approval. Although I really wouldn't recommend total reliance on that. I think it ought to be handled. at this point. as you're trying to do. MR. CARTIER-I agree. Okay. I understand all that. I'm a little bit bothered by postponing a decision for the next meeting when we can make a decision, one way or the other, tonight. rather than hold up an applicant to another time period. Okay. We'll come back to that. Is there anybody else who'd care to comment on this application? CHRIS CALDWELL MR. CALDWELL-My name's Chris Caldwell and I'm with Bartlett, Pontiff. and we represent the group that owns the property to the right side, I guess it's the north side. MR. CARTIER-This is the property in question? MR. CALDWELL-Exactly. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CALDWELL-They are happy that you people have been working with them, but they'd just like another day or two to review the information that they have. While they might have received notice last Wednesday. they only received the drawings yesterday. So, it seems unfair to close down the possibility for them to comment on it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, if I'm getting a sense of the Board here. the Board is comfortable with the idea of leaving the public hearing open, to allow time for these comments to come in. MR. CALDWELL-Okay. Good. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-So, I think we've got a no problem situation here. Okay. What's the Board's druthers, here? We've got to decide, Number One. whether we're going to go into approval with this or whether we're going to table it because we've got a SEQRA to do on this, and if we think we're going to approve this with a lot of stipulations. then we can go ahead and do the SEQRA. If we're going to table this. we might just as well hold off and do the SEQRA until we see a plan with all the revisions in here. How does the Board feel? 8 '-- .--, MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I think we can go ahead at least with the SEQRA and I'm ready to make a motion based on just technical comments. here, that I think the applicant can address before Final. MR. MARTIN-I agree with that. MRS. PULVER-I agree. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would somebody care to take us through SEQRA? RESOWTlON WHEN DETERMIIlATION OF 110 SIGIIIFICAJlCE IS MDE RESOWTION 110. 8-1990. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Preli.inar,y Stage ADIRONDACK INDUSTRIAL PARK for subdivision of 14 lots to be used as buildings, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a proposed 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 17th day of September. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin. Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. A motion is in order. MRS. YORK-Could I just make a comment? Staff would appreciate it if you could put in your motion a date where we would receive a plan that showed all the changes made here tonight and agreed to prior to the date of the final submission. Can you just give us a plan. Tom, with all these changes on it to look over and then make your final submission? MR. NACE-A plan for engineering? MRS. YORK-For both of us. It would come through my office. I'll give it to Tom. MR. NACE-What's the difference between that and the Final submission? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, what we're hoping to do is before the thing gets put on the agenda. to see if we can clear up as much of these technical matters so that we don't get into. MR. MARTIN-Like a draft set. MR. YARMOWICH-Do you feel that would be of mutual benefit? MR. NACE-Ok~. How far in advance of final submission do you think you'd need that? 9 MR. YARMOWICH-Well. we'll work with you to review it as quickly as possible. I think a couple of days we could give you the feedback. MR. NACE-Ok~. Well. I guess what I'm getting at is I've got, before the submission date for October. I only have a week and a d~. MR. YARMOWICH-It is? MR. NACE-Yes. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. NACE-Which is just about enough time for me to get all. if I really bust my rear end. MR. YARMOWICH-It might not work that way then. Okay. MRS. YORK-Yes, well, I hate the Board to be put in a position, if there are any errors on your final submission. then it's a real problem. MR. NACE-The final result is the same one way or the other, that if you ask me to give it to you in advance. then I can't get on until. MR. YARMOWICH-If there was time for it. it would help. because I don't think there would be much more effort involved. MR. NACE-Right. I understand your concern. but if it's incomplete. then we're not on the agenda. That's all it boils down to. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, lets back up with the Board. here. I'm hearing some discomfort on the part of Staff. MR. HAGAN-Well, I think that'll be boiled down into the motion if we include all these requirements. and then when they come forth with the final, if they haven't met all these conditions. then it's just tough cookies on their part. They're the ones taking the risk if we stipulate in our motion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-That most of these comments can be handled in an administrative fashion is really the issue that we're speaking to. If there were time. it would be nice to be able to do that. Obviously, Tom doesn't feel there is time, so we're not going to have that opportunity. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. So. what it boils down to is the applicant either has his ducks in a row and he gets through final or he doesn't have his ducks in a row and he doesn't get through final. MR. MARTIN-He waits until November. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-And he doesn't get on your agenda for final. is what is boils down to. MR. YARMOWICH-It's the same either way. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. he doesn't get on the agenda for final. MR. HAGAN-You're the ones taking the risk. MR. NACE-Well. the risk is the same. At least I have a gamble that I can get everything right this time. MR. MARTIN-You have a chance of making October. MR. NACE-That's right. Otherwise. I'm off until November. regardless. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Ed, you were in the process, pick up on things. and maybe you got them all. a waiver request. We need to get comments from twenty from Tom. I think. of beginning to make a motion. Let me just I'll just pick up some things I caught. You've got Mr. Naylor. We've got engineering issues one through MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think seventeen's at site plan. of the engineering comments. MR. CARTIER-And you got the issues addressed in Mr. Flaherty's letter. 10 '-. I i J MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anything else? MR. NACE-Excuse me, Pete, could I back up once? Have you acted on the waiver request? MR. MARTIN-That'll be part of the motion. MR. CARTIER-We're going to do that in the motion. MR. HAGAN-What about the Town of Queensbury Waste Water? MRS. PULVER-That's part of the motion. too, Tom Flaherty's. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's Tom Flaherty's letter. MR. LAPOINT-I think of Tom's letter is addressed. MR. MARTIN-I thought we discussed that they were substantially covered in the engineering letter? MR. CARTIER-True. but my point is, we're putting a motion together and we want to make sure we get everything in the motion that has to be addressed because motions are the things that get acted on. rather than items in minutes. Jl)TION TO APPROVE PRELIMIIlARY STAGE SUBDIVISION 110. 8-1990 ADlROIIDACIC llIDUSTRIAL PARK, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by James Hagan: For a subdivision of 13 lots to be used for light industrial buildings, with the following stipulations: Regarding the September 13th, 1991 Rist-Frost letter, Items 1 through 7 be handled administratively by the applicant. Item 8 to be worked out between the applicant and Mr. Paul Naylor. Item 9, we'd 1 ike to grant a waiver for the applicant to apply the TR20 Stormwater Management calculation model. and for its acceptance by Rist-Frost at Final. Item 10. 11. 12, and 13 be handled administratively. Item 14, that the applicant will consider the construction details to Town Building Standards for the Sewer Department. Item 15 and 16. to be handled administratively. Item 17, to be handled at site plan review. Items 18 and 19 be handled administratively and that the applicant will handle Item 20c per Rist-Frost's satisfaction at final and that the applicant meet the substantive issues of Tom Flaherty's letter dated 9/16/91 to Lee York. RE the applicant. Adirondack Industrial Park sewer service. MR. NACE-Technical correction. It's a 13 lot subdivision. MR. LAPOINT-Thirteen lot subdivision on all of the above? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. NACE-If you remember. in the first schematic phase, it started out as a 14 lot subdivision. and when we ended up with too narrow of a lot here, we ended up combining two lots. So, now it's 13. MR. YARMOWICH-If you could. Ed, I think that it might be simpler just to ask the applicant to address comment 20c. I believe he's already explained that 20e has is satisfied by the downstream features and topography. Twenty a, b, and d are not issues of merit to address at final. So. I think 20c is really the only item that needs to be looked into. MR. CARTIER-E was taken care of? You had said originally C and E needed to be taken care of? MR. YARMOWICH-That was the discussion about the low lying flat area as part of the airport property which will adequatelY diffuse the flow. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Duly adopted this 17th d~ of September. 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer. Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano SITE PINt NO. 46-91 TYPE I SEQRA REVIEW ONLY lfR-lA DR. AL KRISTEllSEII OIIIIER: SAtE AS ABOVE FITl6ERALD ROAD AID BLIND ROCK ROAD TO MtVIIIS ROAD TO FITl&ERALD ROAD. TOP OF HILL. TO CONSTlllCT A 28 FT. BY 28 n. ADDITIOII FOR LlVIII6 ROOM AID KITCHEll AREAS. NO BEDROOMS. TAX MAP 110. 41-1-25 LOT SIZE: 0.42 ACRES SECTION 179-16. 179-79. 179-60 11 J DANIEL BARBER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. CARTIER-We're doing SEQRA Review only. This is subject to a variance and we're going to conduct a SEQRA Review for the Zoning Board. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner. Site Plan No. 46-91, Dr. Al Kristensen. September 17, 1991. Meeting Date: September 17, 1991 "The applicant is involved in a coordinated review between the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. The request is to add a 28 x 28 foot addition to an existing two story residential unit. This is located on the south side of Glen Lake in a Critical Environmental Area. The application is before the Zoning Board for variance from Section 179-60, shoreline setbacks. Section 179-79. expansion of over 50%. and Section 179-16, sideyard setbacks. The Warren County Planning Board approved with the stipulation that the appl icant join lots A and Band C to make one lot. The applicant seems agreeable to this. If these are jOined it eliminates the need for a side yard variance. The lot is intensely developed. The joinder of lots would increase the lot size to about .60 of an acre. which would be an improvement. The septic system appears to be sufficient for 3 bedrooms. The site is extremely steep and the permeable area is on the unbuildable slopes to the rear of the structure. A 500 gallon dry well for storm water runoff has been provided on the plan. The appl icant has inadvertently filled out Part 2 of the SEQRA form. Staff reviewed this according to the Long Form SEQRA questions: Impact on Land: There will be a physical change in the project site. Slopes in this area are 15 25% + (Slope map) which is low to unsuitable for development. The water table is greater than 72 inches which is not a problem. The depth to bedrock is greater than 60 inches which is good. The percolation rate is greater than 20 inches per minute. which is unsuitable. This area is not a designated floodway. Impact on Water: The site is in a critical environmental area adjacent to a lake. A number of families. including the applicant, take their water from the lake. The Board should discuss what types of erosion control devices will be utilized to limit siltation into the lake. The proposed action may alter sheet drainage. The soils in this location. however, are highly permeable and the applicant is installing a drywell. Impact on Air: None Impact on Plants and Animals: There could be an impact if siltation and erosion potentials were not handled properly. Impact on Agricultural Land Resources: None Impact on Aesthetic Resources; This area is overdeveloped currently. This addition would not substantially change the character of the lake shore. Impact on Historical and Archeological Resources: None Impact on Open Space and Recreation; None Impact on Transportation: None Impact on Energy: None Noise and Odor Impacts: None Impact on Public Health: None Impact on Growth and Character of the neighborhood: The Comprehensive Land Use Plan did attempt to reduce densities along sensitive land areas and places which were used as a public water supply." MR. HAGAN-I question that impact on public health. because the day we were up there, it's a good thing it was daylight. MR. CARTIER-No. You're talking about a different application. You're talking about that drop off in the front yard? MR. HAGAN-Yes. Isn't this the one? MR. CARTIER-No. That's Mayer. We're two away from that. MR. HAGAN-Okay. I'm sorry. MR. MARTIN-Lee, is this considered an Unlisted action? MRS. YORK-No. This is considered a Type I action. It isn't listed on your agenda. I do apologize for that. Because of the fact that he is going for a variance from the 50% standard. MR. BREWER-This is the one with the steep driveway. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. HAGAN-This is the same one. MR. BREWER-No. This is the one with the steep driveway. MR. CARTIER-This is up off of Fitzgerald Road. MR. MARTIN-On Glen Lake. MR. BREWER-On Glen Lake. MRS. YORK-With a hairpin turn. MR. HAGAN-With the steep driveway. 12 I ,-J MR. CARTIER-You're thinking of the bomb shelter. This is not the bomb shelter. This is the one where we went down the driveway and did a hairpin. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Ok~, Type I. I think what we want to do is we're going to go through this SEQRA worksheet. but before we do that, let me open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd like to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEIIED MR. CARTIER-Ok~. I assume you are here representing the applicant? MR. BARBER-Yes. My name is Daniel Barber and I'm representing Dr. Kristensen. MR. CARTIER-Would you care to comment on Staff Comments before we go through the SEQRA Review? MR. BARBER-Not really. I think the project speaks for itself. really. We've built, you know, the project. what's there, and we're asking for, we're eliminating bedrooms, is actually what we're doing. We're extending the living area of the house. but there will be no extension of bedrooms and no need for extra sewage, etc. MR. CARTIER-The net is, you're going to have the same number of bedrooms? MR. BARBER-Yes. correct, but we're not extending any kind of use in that context. only 1 iving space, because the building per se is very small. So we're taking three bedrooms and shifting them and just increasing the living room area, dining room area, kitchen. basically. MRS. YORK-Mr. Barber, would you describe the septic system and tell the Board what the age of it is, please? MR. BARBER-The septic system was installed in 1975 and on the original building, okay, which is a 1,000 gallon drywell and then has two 750 gallon drywells. MR. HAGAN-In other words. there's no leaching? MR. BARBER-No. It's drywells, yes. No. I installed it in 1975. MR. CARTIER-A 1.000 gallon drywell and two 750's. MR. BARBER-Septic tank. A 1,000 gallon septic and two 750 drywells. MR. CARTIER-Septic. Okay. Has that building been expanded since those were installed? MR. BARBER-Well. what we expanded on it was in '82. We expanded a porch area which shows on the front there. 12 by 28. MR. CARTIER-Anyone else who'd care to comment from the public on this? Okay. I'll close the public hearing with respect to SEQRA. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-This will be. again. subject to a public hearing at the Zoning Board. Is the Board comfortable with going through the SEQRA at this point? Mr. LaPoint, would you care to take us through it again? RESOWTION If HEll DETERMIIlATION OF 110 SIGIIIFICANCE IS MDE RESOWTION 110. 46-91, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: MR. LAPOINT-"Impacts on Land - Will the proposed action result in any physical change to the project site?" MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-This will actually take away part of that steep slope, am I correct? MR. BARBER-Yes. It will be to the west, as it shows on the map. yes. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I mean, what you're putting in is level. It's going to take up slope there. MR. MARTIN-Well. it's pretty much level where, it's already level there. It levels off down there. 13 '- J MR. BARBER-Right. It's already level there. patio. which is already level. It's where the patio area is there. right now, the concrete MR. HAGAN-That's a cement patio. isn't it? MR. BARBER-Yes, it is. MR. HAGAN-And it's supported by a foundation. MR. BARBER-Well. no. It's supported, that's not going to be used for the foundation. That would be torn up, that part of it. All that is for. you know. like picnic table area, but there's a retaining wall in the front. MR. MARTIN-You're going to put in a new footing? MR. BARBER-Yes. of course. There was a retaining wall in the front and then there was a concrete patio on top of that. MR. LAPOINT-So, I guess based on that, the answer's no. then, if it's st~ing level. going to level. right? MR. MARTIN-So, you're not going to have a physical change, but I would say it's a small to moderate impact. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Agreed. "Impacts on Water - Will the proposed action effect any body designated as protected?" No. MR. CARTIER-Well. it has the potential to do that. in terms of siltation during construction. I think at some point we're going to have to stipulate that erosion and sediment controls be taken care of. Okay. We", that might pop up somewhere else again. MR. HAGAN-I'd like to back up. I think we're saying no kind of loosely there. We don't know what kind of impact that's going to have on the water, do we? MR. CARTIER-You're going back to Item 3? MR. HAGAN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "Item Three. Will proposed action effect any water body designated as protected?" I guess the water body is protected. but will this action effect it? That's the key, right? MR. HAGAN-It's going to cause more runoff, you increase the roof. It is going to have an effect on the water. MR. MARTIN-Under Number Five of "Impact on Water Proposed action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water, to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions." MR. CARTIER-Okay. So you're saying Jim's concern is going to show up on Number Five? MR. HAGAN-Because it's so steep there and you're adding additional roof area, which causes more runoff on a site that isn't particularly well situated for withstanding any additional runoff. So, where does it go? Into the Lake. So it does have an effect. MR. BARBER-We've addressed that with a 500 gallon drywell on the front there, on the south side of the building. MR. CARTIER-Are you going to have rain gutters? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-There are going to be rain gutters and the rain gutters are going to be directed into this drywell? Is that correct? MR. BARBER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The drywell is shown on the plan. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So the water that sheds off the roof is going to go into a drywell? 14 -.J MR. BARBER-Yes. it would. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Which is located on the side of the house away from the lake side. MR. BARBER-Right. It's in the southwest corner. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I see it here. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Back to Number Three. drywe11 to take runoff from the roof. or quantity?" I guess I say. no. then. based on the effectiveness of the "Wi1l proposed action effect surface or groundwater qual ity MR. CARTIER-Yes. groundwater. here. It's going to increase the amount of. there's going to be a net It's going to be shed into a drywell. increase in MR. LAPOINT-Which is where it would go if it rained on the earth. anyway. MR. CARTIER-True. MR. BARBER-Bedrock's way down. It's 80 feet. MRS. YORK-It's 60 inches or better. MR. BARBER-Yes. Actually. it's 80 feet limestone. MR. HAGAN-I'm just asking questions. now. Just how much good is a 500 ga110n drywe11? to be sufficient if we had a three. four, five day rain, 1ike we do every spring? container? Is that going A 500 ga11 on MR. LAPOINT-28 by 28 by 3 inches, how much is? Do you have your calculator? MR. YARMOWICH-No. I don't. The amount of runoff generated? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. It's 28 by 28, lets say three inches of rain over that much. That's certainly less than 500 gallons, right? That's about 700 gallons of water, three inches of water on that roof. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, well, I'm estimating about 300 cubic feet total. over any storm, would be the maximum addition. and 500 ga110ns is about 85 cubic feet. So. there's a bit of a difference there. but it depends a lot on the soils of the infiltration. about other factors in the way in which the runoff arrives. Not being a party to reviewing the site plan, I really can't give you an opinion as to whether or not it's correct. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Well. again, it's a benefit if you have a 500 gallon well that would not have existed there if you had three inches of rain on the ground itself. So that this is actually. just the 500 gallons itself, is an improvement over that perfectly natural area, in terms of runoff for the same amount of water. MRS. PULVER-So what you're saying is we're better off for it. MR. YARMOWICH- The degree of imperviousness of the existing surface compared to the proposed surface is the measure of which you size your facilities for. typica11y. unless there's some other mechanism of control. berms, depressions, things like that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I guess the point is if you had, say, three inches of rain in a couple of hours, you would probably be better off with that roof going through the 500 ga110n drywell then you would be if you just had naturally occurring soil there, total volume in runoff. MR. CARTIER-Without the 28 by 28 area you mean? MR. LAPOINT-Without it. That's just in terms of groundwater. now, just that one question. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-If the Board wishes it. what we can do is have Tom determine the absolute size of the drywell at site plan? MR. YARMOWICH-No. I won't determine the size. What I can offer, though. is if the soil characteristics in the area support this kind of a facility, there's no question as to that. I believe the Board can answer that it should be mitigated and since this is SEQRA Review only, the Board may want to have the app1icant submit such a detail and have me review it to see if it's going to be adequate. when they get the site plan. 15 ¡ -' MR. CARTIER-I think that's appropriate. MR. LAPOINT-Under Number Five, the groundwater surface? MR. YARMOWICH-Correct. I think that the surface conditions are known to be such that you can do this sort of thing. MR. MARTIN-So what we're saying is there's a small to moderate impact. but it can be mitigated. bottom 1 ine? MR. YARMOWICH-And what's being shown there may not be fully adequate. but the approach is correct. MR. HAGAN-Because of the great percolation in that area? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. HAGAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, Five, yes. but small to moderate impact which is mitigated. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Six "Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?" MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Again, but it's small to moderate impact. MR. MARTIN-I think that's a positive impact, though. MR. CARTIER-Is that year round occupancy, Mr. Barber? MR. BARBER-No. MR. CARTIER-That's a summer? MR. BARBER-It's his summer home, yes. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a Site Plan 110. 46-91 DR. AL KRISTEIISEII to construct a 28 ft. by 28 ft. addition for Hving rom and kitchen areas. no bedrocJlS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of 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. 16 I ~ Duly adopted this 17th d~ of September. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. What we need here is a motion, basically, authorizing Staff to forward this SEQRA Review to the Zoning Board and I think what we want to do is add the minutes of this portion of the meeting and. further, stipulation if you should desire our understanding that we completed this SEQRA Review with the understanding that the lots would be joined to eliminate the variance. MR. MARTIN-The side yard. anyhow. MR. CARTIER-Have I made myself clear, there? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. YORK-Lots A. B. and C. MR. CARTIER-Would someone care to make a motion to that effect? ÞÐTION TO THE ZOIIIIIG BOARD. REGARDING SITE PLAN 110. 46-91. PASSING AlOfIG OOR SEQRA REVIEW IfITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE THREE LOTS BE JOlliED AS ONE LOT. THEREBY ELIMIIlATIIIG TIE IIEED FOR THE SIDE YARD VARIANCE.. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer. Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Did we get in there that you're going to add minutes and forward the minutes. this portion of the minutes? That's okay. I don't think we have to go back and revise the motion, as long as Lee makes a note to that effect. SITE PLAN 110. 43-91 TYPE II RR-JA KEITH HARRIS (COO'D) MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We can go back to the last item of Old Business, at this point. Mr. Keith Harris. Site Plan 43-91. Mr. Harris is here. What we had done prior to your arrival, Mr. Harris, was go through the notes from Staff. I believe you have copies of those notes. MRS. YORK-If any of the Planning Board has the plans for Dr. Kristensen, would you hang on to them. because you'll be seeing his site plan next month. We won't be sending you out a new plan. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We left the public hearing open on this and we'll get into the public hearing again. and hold Mr. Harris until the end so he can make comments on anything that comes up. Mrs. Burnham. we have a letter from you. Would you care to read that into the record? We all have copies of it. We've read it. and we will take it into account as we go through this. Does the Board have any questions? Mr. Harris. would you care to address the Board, please, with regard to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HARRIS-No. I have no comments. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I've got a question. The fence that's shown in X's, is that the maximum area in which this electric fence is going to be moved around within? Do you understand what I'm asking? MR. HARRIS-I'm Keith Harris. applying for site plan review to have a few personal animals, not an agricultural use, commercial agricultural use. That is going to be a movable fence, you know, as they feed throughout the 20 acres. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but here's my question. My question is. this fence, okay. you're going to move that fence in its entirety into various areas around here? MR. HARRIS-Yes. I am. MR. CARTIER-Or is the electric fence. is this the outer limits of the area that this electric fence is going to be in? 17 -- I -' MR. HARRIS-No. I would like to move it throughout the 20 acres if I could. MR. CARTIER-Anywhere in here? MR. HARRIS-Well. I have Christmas trees to the north, near north 40. so I would say about 125 feet south. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I guess my problem is that this not be moved up next to Pickle Hill Road, that it be kept somewhere back here. that we establish some sort of bovine buffer zone or whatever we're going to call this thing. So, that it be kept behind here. MR. BREWER-How far is the distance between where the fence is now to the road? MR. CARTIER-To the road? MR. BREWER-Give it a minimum. MR. CARTIER-What's the scale on this? Well, 70 feet. lets see, 40 feet. that's 110 feet, if I'm reading this correctly. MR. BREWER-So. if we make a stipulation that he can't have it any closer to the road than 110 feet. MR. CARTIER-One hundred and ten feet. or any other, what about the rest of this property line? MR. BREWER-Any boundary lines. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure. here? MR. MARTIN-Well, we're showing, I guess what is a, in pink is a preferred site for the pole barn and then an alternative site. Are we going to limit him to one tonight. or is that the idea? MR. CARTIER-As far as I'm concerned. MR. MARTIN-Is that all right with you, where it's shown there in pink? MR. HARRIS-I haven't looked at this. I don't know who did this. MR. MARTIN-Lee did it. MR. HARRIS-I was supposed to meet with Lee, but I was kind of busy. I'm sorry I didn't. MRS. YORK-What we did, when Mr. Harris and I met, we discussed alternatives. I asked him to come up with two alternatives. His alternatives were to the east of his current structure. or the concrete block building. and to the west of the concrete block building at approximately 30 to 35 feet. I came up with an alternative which was at the edge of what is now the filled material. which would be approximately 150 feet back from Pickle Hill Road, which would be close enough to his structure to make it accessible and yet far enough from the roadway that it would not visually or aesthetically. hopefully, bother the neighbors and that Mr. Harris indicated he would want to fill in there. but that it might not be a major problem for him. The other alternative is down in blue. which is approximately where the judge said that Mr. Harris could have his animals without site plan review, and I put that on the map to illustrate that. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think. somebody feel free to shoot me down if you think I'm wrong, it's the Board who's going to be choosing the location of this barn. I think the last time we looked at this application, we indicated to the applicant that we were unhappy with his present location. and I think we're at a point, now, where we're going to have to decide where the location of this barn is acceptable to us to this Board. MR. MARTIN-What was the Preliminary unacceptable location? MR. CARTIER-I believe. doesn't it still show on this? This is the original with colors added. MRS. YORK-Right. The location Mr. Harris originally came in with, Jim. is. can you see, inside the yellow area, the green area, 35 feet to the east of his concrete block structure. MR. MARTIN-So. you're saying the location indicated in blue was the original unpreferred. MRS. YORK-No. There has been a court case over this entire thing. MR. BREWER-No. That's the preferred. MR. MARTIN-That's the preferred spot? 18 ~~ ..........,' MR. CARTIER-That's the origina1 app1ication. The preferred that we're being suggested by Staff is back here. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Do you have a prob1em with it back there? MR. HARRIS-I have a prob1em. It's creating quite a hardship either way, but I've had a hardship there for four years. If I move it to the north. back 160 feet. the 1ay of the 1and, it doesn't even. it wou1d have no use to take a barn. I'd have one access to the front. It a1so wou1d create a danger with my business that I have there. and it doesn't even seem feasib1e at a11. to me. MR. CARTIER-Understand, we're ta1king about a very 1arge piece of property, here. and there are a potentia11y 1arge number of p1aces to 10cate this barn. MR. HARRIS-Yes. I tota11y agree. The thing is, I wou1d hope that you wou1d not create a hardship to have a permitted use that was permitted on a site p1an review. I'm wi11ing to p1ant trees. move the barn back, maybe make it sma11er. This is a persona1 use. It is not a commercia1 use. If they're worried about the manure. I'll take it out back. I'll spread it out, whatever I've got to do. I'm just trying to bend. if you wou1d. with you and the neighbors to the east. MR. CARTIER-We11. I guess my prob1em. Mr. Harris, is that we end up having Staff design your app1ication for you and 10cate it. We've got Staff ending up doing what you shou1d be doing and that is coming in with a map with a 1ocation that we can 100k at. I'm kind of frustrated with that. MR. HARRIS-We11. this is my p1an for what I'd 1ike to do. They a1tered the p1an. I'm sorry that it's going to create a hardship for me. Maybe there's nothing I can do about it. As far as going to the east, this is for my chi1dren. which are 8 and 9, you know. they're going to raise these anima1s. That was the initia1 p1an of buying the property was to keep the farms going for persona1 use. MR. CARTIER-We're not saying you can't have a farm. Mr. Harris. I'm speaking for myse1f, here. What I'm trying to do is come up with a 1ocation that reduces the impact on other peop1e in the neighborhood. here. There seems to be away. there's got to be a p1 ace where we can 10cate thi s barn and carryon this agricu1tura1 activity that reduces the impact on, and whi1e not necessari1y making the who1e neighborhood happy. at 1east mitigate some of their concerns. okay. and that's where we're trying to get to, I think. with this thing. Let me say my peace. The Board members can do what they want. I don't think I can go a10ng with, I'd have a tough time approving this for any 1ocation. given the three choices we have, I'd have a tough time voting for this for anything other than the pink 1ocation. I sti11 have some other questions here. How far away are you going to be with this 1ivestock from the house. your own persona1 home, the home that's there? MR. HARRIS-I wou1d say around 100 feet. I mean. I haven't set my fences or set my barn or anything yet. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm just 100king through some stuff. here. that was attached to a 1etter that we got from Mrs. Burnham that says, "the pens ought to be 10cated at 1east 500 feet from any dwe11ing to prevent annoyance from odors". I guess you don't have a prob1em with, you may be creating your own prob1em, in terms of odors. I wou1d 1ike to assume that this pen it going to be farther than 500 feet from any other residences, is it not? Can somebody come ta1k to me? The pub1ic hearing's sti11 open. PAUL DAVIDSON MR. DAVIDSON-My name's Pau1 Davidson. I 1ive on Pick1e Hi11 Road. opposite this 1ocation of his pen. The current 1ocation of the pen. MR. CARTIER-Is 110 feet from the road. if I'm ca1cu1ating right. MR. DAVIDSON-Is 110 feet from the road. and we're 100 feet from the road. MR. CARTIER-So, we're ta1king 210 feet. MR. DAVIDSON-Two hundred and ten feet. As the Department of Agricu1 ture states. it shou1 d be 500 feet from the nearest residence. The dimension of the north 1ine of the Harris property to Pick1e Hi11 Road is 471 p1us 104 feet. so that's s1ight1y more than 600 feet. So. it wou1d be virtua11y impossib1e to 10cate those pigs in that size of a pen, anywhere on that property, and maintain a buffer zone of 500 feet from residentia1 areas in the north 40. or on the opposite side, excuse me. on Pick1e Hi11 Road. Keeping in mind that the prevaHing wind is out of the northwest. Mr. Harris isn't bothered by the smel1 of these pigs in this 1ocation. The residents in this area are. He's got a buffer of a garage and this area over here. His home is here. Factua11y, his home is further away. sme11 wise. than our home is. Keeping in mind the prevai1ing winds. I'm ta1king sme11 wise, not strict1y 10cation 19 j -' wise. Another point Mr. Harris makes is that he's concerned about his children's safety and being near to his children. This location, in relation to his house. means that the children have to cross through a busy commercial area where heavy trucks. pay loaders. heavy equipment is driven in and out on a constant basis, repaired. I think it creates more of a danger to his children locating them there. than either back here or in their original location down here. where they are accessible from Ridge Road and from Pickle Hill Road. At that location. the children could ride their bicycles. as they do on a daily basis, up Pickle Hill Road, or they could use their ATV's or snowmobiles to go through the fields. and that is an acceptable location by the courts. without even having site plan review. I would also like for the Board to remember and to consider. in this application, the original timing and circumstances of the location of these pigs opposite our home, which was. at a meeting of the neighborhood in discussions about the commercial business Mr. Harris attended and threatened. and there are witnesses to that, to raise pigs opposite our home. Until that time, there were no pigs there. That was a corn field. At that time. pigs were placed, not only opposite our home. but the fence was placed right up to the blacktop pavement of Pickle Hill Road and the pigs were actually being raised on Town property until the Town was able to have them located further back. and upon our objections. the Town took Mr. Harris to court and got a judgement to go through site plan review or move the pigs back to their original location. So. there are a lot of mitigating circumstances, here. that go far and beyond Mr. Harris' concerns for his family and his access. Accessibility at the original location is actually better than this location. The levelness of the land, the lay of the land. is actually better and the neighbors up there, the closest neighbors would be his grandmother and Mrs. Potter, who stated in her letter that she does not object to the pigs being raised. Any location in here is going to create more hardship for the neighbors of Keith Harris than for Keith Harris himself. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does anybody else care to comment? DEBBIE DAVIDSON MRS. DAVIDSON-Hi. My name's Debbie Davidson. A couple of points I'd like to mention in reference to the pig farm that is opera~ing presently is that we've seen. to date, several different trucks. vans, and cars stop and dump garbage to feed the pigs. This. obviously, will increase the smell into our home. It increases the number of flies. and it's definitely an invitation to rats and such that I'd prefer not to have within my home. We'd also like to realize that, the sound of the pigs themselves, they can get quite loud squealing. His care of manure and such is going to increase the noise in that area. which is already suffering from a preexisting nonconforming use of his business. I think it's unfair to the rest of the neighbors to put that extra burden on us. To help mitigate that, if he puts them back in the original site. he's next to Ridge Road. so then the cars aren't going to annoy the neighbors near as much as coming down Pickle Hill Road. MR. CARTIER-Mrs. Davidson, let me ask you a question. If pigs were eliminated from this operation. would you have any objection to cows, horses. and chickens? MRS. DAVIDSON-I would still prefer them to be down by Ridge Road, because you're still going to have manure from the cows and such, I mean, that's one of the things they're good at. If you do decide to place the barn behind the garage. I would stronglY urge you not to allow him to raise that up to grade level. There's several reasons for this. First off. it will end up ultimately expanding his commercial parking area, okay. and he is not allowed to expand his business, which includes the parking area, okay. If the barn is kept down lower. it limits the visibil ity from the road and for the neighbors. Hopefully. it will help with the sound as well, and possibly some of the smell, and at the same time. the thing that it will do, that we would all be pleased with I suspect, is it will set a clear boundary between the commercial and the agricultural uses on that property. We have a real concern about expansion of this business and it's very hard to control if he has another building and fill around it. at that same level of the garage. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Would anybody else care to comment? Mr. Harris. would you care to make comment to those comments? MR. HARRIS-As far as the barn going to the east. I have no water and we had one neighbor complain. I'm not sure where she lived. It's creating a hardship for me under a piece of property that I bought for farming. We always farmed, and the only reason I lost in court was because I didn't want to take any more of my money and appeal a judge's decision who used to baby-sit for the Davidsons. but if I had more money. I guess I would have appealed it. All I'm asking for is a permitted use in a site plan review to try not to create too much of a hardship for myself and the neighbors and, if, I called Cornell Extension. They said they had no regulations whatsoever in the farming. Now. I don't know what this 500 feet is from the road or whether that's a zoning regulation. MR. CARTIER-It's not a zoning regulation in Town. It comes from a recommendation from a Cooperative Extension bulletin. There are other things besides that. MR. DAVIDSON-The source is the Federal Department of Agriculture. MR. CARTIER-Okay, Department of Agriculture source. Thank you. 20 ~ MR. HARRIS-And all I'm asking for is a site plan review for farming, not a commercial use to do anything with my business and anybody's more than welcome to stop in and see what's going on. I agreed to make the door small enough so it wouldn't have any equipment in there, plant trees. As far as putting them behind the garage, you I d have to come to the site to see it. It drops off 10 or 12 feet down into a low spot of the area, and it's not even feasible at all. I'm sure anybody that has any building common sense at all would realize that. unless I brought in thousands of dollars worth of fill. which they've already stated they don't want any more fill. When they bought the property, it was legal to farm there. We were farming there. we never stopped a day in our life. ever since it was an original grant from the King England. MR. CARTIER-Understand something, Mr. Harris. This Board is not sitting here saying you cannot farm. What we're debating is how you can go about doing it, okay. MR. HARRIS-Well, if the concern is the smell, the looks. the noise, as far as I can see. there's no way that they're not going to see an animal or ever hear an animal. I hear Judge Mill er' s donkeys from my house. It's over a mile away, and I'm sure Mr. and Mrs. Davidson hear them just as well as the Burnhams. I'm sorry that I own the land and I have the permitted use. I'm willing to plant trees. even size down the barn, do anything I have to to get the use. If I don't have the use. I'll have to live with it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me ask you another question. Did you see these numbers, with regard to the generation of manure, total numbers? MR. HARRIS-I saw them. I couldn't quite, they were copied. MR. CARTIER-Well, basicallY it says, if I'm reading this correctly. if you have a half ton cow. it generates 100 pounds, Lee. correct me if I'm reading this wrong, please. I've never gotten into manure issues before up here. If you have a half ton horse. it generates 45 pounds of manure. is that correct? Am I reading this correctly? MRS. YORK-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-A thousand pound horse produces 45 pounds a day. I'm looking for some engineering help, here. MR. YARMOWICH-They are ruminants and that's, in fact, the way they survive. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm just trying to get some kind of sense out of this. MRS. PULVER-I will tell you, we own a horse, and they generate a lot of manure in a d~, a lot of manure. MR. MARTIN-Keith, how long have there been animals present on that site? MR. HARRIS-There's never been a day, for 200 years. The site has been switched around from corn to hay to pasture. When we. my father sold out his commercial farm in 1977, that's when the commercial use stopped. but the agricultural use never stopped to this day. not one day. MR. MARTIN-There has always been animals either grazing or something on that lot? MR. HARRIS-Yes, there has. While there was h~, corn. a pasture, or livestock. that's the original Henry B. Harris farm, the grant from the King England and as far as I could see, I don't know what's Mrs. Pulver's zoning regulations are anybody's else's. Is this the first site plan review anybody has ever been in front? MRS. PULVER-We Board our horse in a horse farm. MR. MARTIN-So, are you saying that the site there, behind your existing garage. is totally unworkable and unacceptable, yes or no? MR. HARRIS-With fill it can be worked. yes it can, with gravel. I don't want to put it down into a mud hole. I mean. you have to come to the site. MR. MARTIN-I've been to the site. MR. HARRIS-It can be filled. It can be graveled. and it can work, yes. it can. MR. MARTIN-Would that be acceptable to you? MR. HARRIS-Not, I mean. do I have to assume the hardship to bring $1.000 worth of gravel in and have one access to my barn? I don't know what the legal status is. Maybe someone could tell me. an attorney. I don't know what a hardship is. 21 " .~ MR. LAPOINT-I guess what you have to ten us is that you. right now, are sticking with the green location. MR. HARRIS-I would ask for the green location. I can move that back. MR. MARTIN-You can move that directly back? MR. HARRIS-Yes. I could. I could move that back and turn it sideways, and sti1l offer to plant the trees. and dispose of the manure the best way possible. MR. W\RTIN-I'm just looking for a solution. We're going in circles, here, you know, I just want to get to an end. here. MR. CARTIER-I do, too. Let me get to the manure. That's an end product, okay. We're generating a 1.000 pounds a day, here. I just did some rapid calculation on however many anima1s you have 1isted. We're talking about a half a ton of manure a d~. What are you going to do with this? How would you propose to get rid of 1,000 pounds of manure per day? MR. HARRIS-I would like to stock pile it and spread it over the field. MR. CARTIER-You're going to stock pile it. Okay. Where would you stock pile this manure? MR. HARRIS-I'll stock pile it to the back of the barn. I mean, I don't want to haul it. MRS. PULVER-But a 1.000 pounds a day. MR. LAPOINT-It's dry weight. It's wet weight, that 45 pounds a day from a horse. with dry weight's a fraction of that. MR. MARTIN-And what's the volume, too. I mean. that's the other thing to bear in mind with that. the volume. not just the weight. MR. CARTIER-Whether we're talking dry weight or wet weight, here. a 1,000 pounds a d~ adds up pretty fast, and we're talking about a rather. MR. YARMOWICH-It's not as much as you might think. MR. W\RTIN-That's what I mean. Volume is the. MR. YARMOWICH-Did you get a recommendation from the Department of Agriculture on manure spreading rates? They vary, depending on the site. MR. CARTIER-Not that I see in front of me. We have a gentleman, here, who I think is going to offer us some expert information. I hope. OSCAR SUNBERG MR. SUNBERG-I'm Oscar Sunberg. I'm next on the list. here. We used to have three cows, and our manure pi1e for an winter and unti1 we spread it in the spring was no bigger than 12 feet in diameter and about eight feet high. if it was that high. and that was three cows, and that's not a very big amount. I don't know where you get that 1,000 pounds. MR. CARTIER-These are numbers that came from source, Midwest Planning Service Handbook. MR. LAPOINT-But he's got multiple animals, cows, horses. chickens, pigs. MR. SUNBERG-It all compacts the same. Horses are more hay than anything else. MR. CARTIER-An right. Maybe I'm getting too hung up on numbers. here. The issue is. there's going to be a fairly large amount of manure. We're hearing it's going to be stock pi1ed. I think there needs to be a way of dealing with this. Let me see if I can get somewhere. here. Paul. go ahead. MR. DUSEK-If I may, just for a moment, as the Board considers this, I would like to encourage the Board to look at the application that is before you or. possibly, if he's offered one revision to that, but I don't think the Board has to be concerned with developing an acceptable site plan. That's the applicant's job, of course. I think the Board has to take a look at what's been offered or a possible revision and then analyze it and decide, based on the criteria that's in the statue, whether or not it's compatible with the area, the situations, whether these concerns that you're raising have been addressed and then. obviously, if you feel they have. you'll approve it. If you feel they haven't, you'l1 disapprove it. Among the things you should consider, obviously, is whether there is another possible place. That's, I think, permissible to consider. but I would not recommend to the Board to actuany try to develop a place where it can go. because as you can see as you're getting into it. there's a whole lot of concerns. here, that have to be talked about. So. I think you'd look at the particular application and say, 22 I - has it addressed all the concerns, does it fit pursuant to the criteria that's in 179-38 and then make a decision. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think you're taking the same tact I was about to. I think what we have here is options, ok~. Number One. and I may just end up repeating what you just said. but let me go through it anyway for my own sense of clarification. We can approve this and specify a barn location and add a bunch of stipulations. That's option one. We can request that the applicant submit a revised application that takes into account the concerns that have been raised by this Board and the concerns that have been raised by neighbors, or we can deny the application. In anyone of those three cases. understand. the applicant is not prevented from raising livestock. If we approve it, he raises 1 ivestock. If he comes up with a revised plan that we accept. he gets to raise 1 ivestock. Even if we deny this application. he still gets to raise livestock. without ever having to come back before this Board, okay. So. I guess my question. here, is, Number One, have you heard from the public for you to decide on one of these three options at this point? We don't have to do a SEQRA. here. this is a Type II. So, we're rapidly approaching the point where we want to consider a motion, and the question I have for you, first of all. for me, in terms of mechanics, have you heard enough from the public? Are you satisfied with what you've heard from the public so I can close the public hearing? MR. HAGAN-There's somebody in the crowd that still wants to speak. DOROTHY BURNHAM MRS. BURNHAM-I would like to look at the green location. There are two green locations. Which one are we talking about? MR. CARTIER-Okay, those are two other alternatives. MRS. BURNHAM-Right. This is the original one. MR. CARTIER-That's the original. MRS. BURNHAM-And this one? MR. CARTIER-That's another alternative that the applicant came up with. MRS. BURNHAM-Right, which is in the middle of his present parking area. I'm Dorothy Burnham. Boulderwood Drive. This location appears to be in the middle of his existing parking area where he parks his big trucks and big rigs, pieces of equipment. If the barn is put in this area, it wipes out his commercial parking area. which would indicate to me that that is going to move somewhere. Since the commercial business has been established as a preexisting nonconforming use. he has to have a place to park his equipment. so I personally would say, absolutely not for that one. I would say absolutely not for the original one for reasons I've already described. I don't believe that hauling fill is a big problem for him. He had no problem whatsoever in filling up this entire area for his commercial parking. If there is something other than these three. fine. but I would be in favor of this one or deny it and he can still keep his animals down here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Harris. would you like a rebuttal? MR. HARRIS-As far as the one to the west. I agree, Mrs. Burnham. with the parking. The reason I have that parking there is so that I don't have to back up onto Pickle Hill Road, which is very dangerous, and as far as the one to the east. it's back further in the garage. If it wouldn't enhance the view of the garage and cut down the noise of the business and conform with the permitted site plan review use. I would just ask to move it back north and to the east a little bit. MR. MARTIN-That's what I was going to propose was that we simply take the barn, move it 110. 125 feet off the road. to the north. Rather than it being only 70 feet off, put it 110, 125 feet off the road. That removes your so called hardship for fill. but yet it keeps the animals further away from the road and the smell and all that further away from the neighbors. It doesn't have the advantage of hiding it behind the existing garage, but at least we're in a compromise situation, here, between the public and what he feels is a hardship. MR. CARTIER-Okay. but what we're sitting here doing. again. is we're redesigning the project for the applicant. MR. MARTIN-Well. I think that's part of our, to a degree, responsibility under site plan review. He's offered a site plan that is obviously not acceptable to us and the public. MR. CARTIER-What we can do is let him know what is acceptable to us. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm saying. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 23 -' MRS. PULVER-I just wanted to get back to the original application and make a decision on that and then if that doesn't go anywhere, what it is that you'd like to see. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lets see if we can finish up the pub1ic hearing on this thing and get somewhere with this. MR. HARRIS-If I can make a comment. if I did move it to the north, back 110 feet. I would have to turn the barn sideways for the lay of the land. I don't know how many of you have been to the site or not. MR. CARTIER-We've all been to the site. MR. HARRIS-But if you see the site. where the animals are now, that would be feasible. MR. BREWER-That's not 110 feet back, though, is it? MR. HARRIS-Yes, it's close. I mean, the garage is 50 and 60 is 110. It's probably 120. MR. CARTIER-But what I'm saying to you is, we need, as far as I'm concerned, somebody correct me if they disagree. or feel free to disagree with me. I need to see a plan that reflects this because. at some point. Building and Codes has to take this and go out and check the site and compare it to something they have in front of them. So. my own personal opinion is, we need to see a finished plan. okay. MR. HARRIS-It would almost be impossible for me to present you a finished plan unless you give me some approved setbacks. MR. LAPOINT-Agreed. MR. CARTIER-No. We're not, we're giving you some direction. What we're describing, I think what we're going to get to. I hope, here, is a description of what this Board finds acceptable and unacceptable and you take those and you come up with a finished product that we can approve. I think we're saying the same thing. MR. HARRIS-Why don't you just give me some approved setbacks and when I go to the Zoning Board to get a building permit, if they don't correspond with your approved setbacks, I don't receive a building permi t. MR. MARTIN-I have no problem with being very specific. MR. CARTIER-Well, then, we're. in a sense. approving somewhat of a blank check. MR. HARRIS-Not with setbacks. MR. CARTIER-Yes. we are. MR. HARRIS-You're putting my building on the property. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Paul? MR. DUSEK-If I may, I think, correct me if 1'm wrong, but I think where the Board means to go with this is not so much of saying what's acceptable and what isn't, but rather to point out that there are other alternatives where this could be built. I may be saying the same thing, but I think it's important because I think when you start talking about what's acceptable and being too specific, you're now designing the project. and I don't think you mean to do that. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I like the way you said it better than the way I said it. MR. LAPOINT-Wen. again, I think this is almost the type of thing that is so simple, I mean we went way out of our way with the previous applicant. today, to do all kinds of fairly complicated engineering things with him. here, when this is maybe as simple as rotating the barn and being 110 feet off. or 70 feet off or 100 feet off. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Whether, and again, we can go up there with a pen right now and fix that. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that. My only question is. then, I think we need to see a finished product. Before we approve this, we need to see a finished product. MR. LAPOINT-Ok~. Here's my last question. You want it right where it is. that's it? 24 I .-.-' MR. HARRIS-No. I have agreed to move it back. turn it sideways. 20 feet east and west. or 40 feet east and west. 20 feet north and south, and keep it 110 feet back, but I have to go east, I would say. 30 feet. MR. LAPOINT-Right. So, you see. he's got two very. he's being very specific with us as to where he wants it and. again, what are we supposed to do, have him come back and show it sideways and then we debate this whole thing over again? MR. MARTIN-I would be acceptable to setting a deadline that he has to have a revised site plan into Lee York showing a revised location that we specify. 110 feet off the road, with the lay of the barn east and west and if he doesn't do that in a week's time. then he's kicked into next month. or whenever. MR. BREWER-That'll put you on the other side of the driveway. Keith? MR. HARRIS-It's actually going to put me in the driveway. I could go back a little bit more than 110. If you'd just give me 110, I'll bend and give. this is once again a private use. I'm not asking for a full commercial use of a farm. MR. BREWER-But if you put it right in the middle of the driveway, you're going to have to move you're driveway again. MR. HARRIS-I might have to move it back a little bit. MR. LAPOINT-See, here's my problem. He's going to go through this all again, and we're going to have this same debate allover again. MR. CARTIER-No. I don't see us having the same debate. If we are saying to the applicant. here are the perimeters, if you will. of what we consider an acceptable alternative, and we give him some room to play with in there. it's certainly not fair to the applicant to turn around. if he meets those alternatives. it's not fair to say. no. you've got to do it differently. MR. LAPOINT-Then why can't we do that all right here right now? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd say 110 feet minimum. If he wants to go 160 feet off the road. fine. MR. HAGAN-I cannot find it within my conscience to approve the plan that is now submitted before this Board tonight. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I can't either. What's your comment? MR. MARTIN-My comment is that, no. obviously. the public is not accepting of the barn being 70 feet off the road. Mr. Harris is not accepting of the barn being directly behind his existing garage. So. I'm just saying, we've got to give him some direction as to where he can put it. So. say 110 feet directly behind where it's shown in the original plan, essentially. right in the middle of the driveway, and if he comes back with a site plan to Lee York in a week's time. showing that, then fine. we've done that before. MRS. YORK-If I may be so bold. you might want to take into consider that, in moving the barn to the east in that direction. he is also moving it to the people who are here complaining about it. He is moving it closer to them, and you may want to see a plan that shows the homes of the Davidsons. the home of Mrs. Burnham. you know, what is visible where. When I was out there with Mr. Harris. I had him put up the boom of one of his logging machines and I drove around that neighborhood to see where the visual impacts would be. that would be at the top of his proposed pole barn. I think if you want to get into this more detailed, maybe you need to get an analysis of who this is going to effect, because the people in the north 40 are also concerned and have submitted letters and a number of other neighbors in this area. MR. HARRIS-If I could, I would just ask. MRS. YORK-We've got a lot of property, here. and. in fact, I believe Mr. Harris even indicated he owns that other parcel. that says "Other Lands of Harris". There's a substantial amount of property. here. for him to find a location. MR. HARRIS-Yes. I do own it. Like I said, I don't want to have to walk 1200 feet or carry water 1200 feet. but. at this point, I don't know what the legal point of the view is. I have hired an attorney. As you all know. I have several thousand don ars. I'm defending myself against tax payers money, and I don't want to have to do it again. but then again I would ask the Town employees here to please give me a permitted use that is permitted. Granted, we have a problem. I'm agreeing to plant trees. mOve the barn back, turn it sideways, but don't ask my kids to walk 1200 feet. or don't ask me to carry water 1200 feet. I wouldn't ask you or any of your kids to do it either. MR. CARTIER-An right. Lets see if we can break it down. What guidel ines do you want to give Mr. Harris with regard to barn location? What's the Board's druthers in terms Of some areas in which they would find the barn acceptable? 25 I --- MR. MARTIN-I '11 say 110 feet off the road, direct1y behind the origina1 10cation. I'll state my position. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has anybody got any prob1ems with that, or does anybody have another aHernative to that? MR. LAPOINT-That's another yes. I agree with Jim. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-My on1y fee1ing is I wou1d 1ike to see the whoJe pJan. I want to see it Jocated so that. because there is so much controversy, if anyone has. MR. MARTIN-Besides. before he goes for a buiJding permit. he's not going to be abJe to compJete his bui1ding permit app1ication untiJ he has his buiJding proper1y sited on the 1ot. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Right, but I mean sometimes peop1e cannot visuaJize, Jike. right now, they're saying 110 feet, you know, where it's going to be. We need to actuaJ1y see it in front of us. MR. MARTIN-Right. No. I agree. We need a pJan with the specific 10cation of the barn and the tree pJantings and aJ1 that type of thing, but I just want to get it off the dime. here. MRS. PULVER-It may even be to your advantage, Mr. Harris. if you. when you do your map. do the other side of the Pick1e HiJJ Road as weJJ and Jocate your neighbor's homes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Are we going to see that again before he gets approved or disapproved? MR. CARTIER-That's what we're trying to get to. I'm trying to get to a Jist of things that Mr. Harris needs to incorporate in another map that he's going to submit to us. That's where I'm going. MRS. PULVER-I think, certainJy, it wouJd be easier to ta1k about. MR. HARRIS-I think it wou1d be fair for me to say that it is RR-3 acre and if you're worried about view or noise or sme1J. it's perfectJy 1egaJ to burn wood or buiJd a Jot Jarger home or emp10yee severa1 more residents for the area. which someday there win be, but I think this is a very minor asking of a residence that's been there 200 years. If you want to put me through another map and then another map. MR. CARTIER-No. We're trying to get you through one more map. Mr. Harris, one more map. MR. HARRIS-I see this. What happens when I come in with one more map and Mr. Davidson comes up, ten seconds behind me. and says he doesn't agree to it? Do we go for another meeting? MR. CARTIER-We don't know that yet. MR. HARRIS-WeJl. I cou1d aJmost guarantee, I don't know if he has something to s~ to that map. MR. CARTIER-Let me see if I can get us to one more map. You have heard some information about what this Board is wiJ1ing to accept with regard to a barn 1ocation. What about some buffering in terms of where this fence can get moved to. One hundred and ten feet away? MR. MARTIN-Right. Within aJJ the property boundaries. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What we're saying, I think. somebody correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Harris. we're ta1king about somehow you estabJish a 110 foot. on your map, draw in a 110 foot buffer line in which. MR. HARRIS-Could I ask you if that is 1egaJ under the zoning 1aws of the Town of Queensbury? MR. CARTIER-Legal. sure? This Board has the authority. under Article V. to require things Jike this. okay. If you have probJems with that, check with Mr. Dusek. What we're saying is. okay, because part of our job is addressing not just your individuaJ property, but concerns of property owners around you. and that is what we are attempting to do. here. MR. HARRIS-I wou1d ask you to consider. there's no zoning reguJations or setbacks for farming, any structure 50 feet from the road. MR. CARTIER-I'm teHing you that we have the authority. Those are minimums, first of a11, what you see in the Ordinance is pure1y a minimum. This Board does. in fact, have the authority to estab1ish 26 ~ other standards that it feeis are required. So. that's where I'm going with this. What I'm hearing the Board say is they want to see a 110 foot buffer area inside the property iines in which that fence. that movabie eiectric fence. can move but cannot be c10ser than 110 feet to the property iine. Now. you certainiy have the right. at some point iater on in the future, to chanenge that in court. You certainiy have the right to do that. but I want you to understand that this Board has the authority to require those kinds of restrictions. MR. HARRIS-Did you ever sit down and figure 110 feet from each boundary iine. how much iand I wou1d have ieft to farm? I'd be iucky to have one animai. MR. BREWER-No. Keith, he's not saying that. MR. HARRIS-No. We're not saying you can't use that iand. What we're saying is. we're saying, within that 110 foot buffer is where you can move this 1itt1e e1ectric fence. The point of that buffer is to keep those animais away from adjacent properties. That is the point. MR. MARTIN-What he's saying, Keith. is the animais wou1d be anowed anywhere in this area here, an right. the majority of your property. It's just that fringe of 110 feet around the perimeter the fence wou1dn't be an owed, but anywhere inside the buik of your property, the entire center here wou1d be an owed. MR. LAPOINT-That fiies in the face of what the court decided. that he cou1d put it right in that biue 10cation with nO site pian. MR. HARRIS-It doesn't even make any sense at aii. They want me to the east, and then a11 of a sudden it's got to be 110 feet from the iine. I wouid ask just that you treat me iike a resident. not as a person that has had existing probiems. iitigation. I'm sorry that I own the property. Someday I won't. MR. CARTIER-What I'm trying to do, Mr. Harris, here, is give you a description of what this Board seems to find acceptabie. that you can put into a revised pian. I wouid suggest we keep going with that and you can argue your case 1ater when you come in with a revised p1an Or we can do something. but 1ets get this thing moving. here. Is there anything eise the Board wouid iike to see in a revised p1an besides the barn iocation and this buffer zone for the eiectric fence? MR. LAPOINT-I don't need the 110 foot on that. again, because you can move that down to that b1ue area where they said you cou1d put it anyway. So. that 110 feet doesn't app1y to me. necessari1y. MR. CARTIER-Or any of the property? You'd be happy a110wing him. MR. LAPOINT-Again, if it fiies in the face of what the court says, he can put it right on the boundary. MRS. YORK-Wen. that 1 ocati on I put on there was approximate. What the judge said was that the pi ace that had been. "Proof presented before the court indicated that Keith L. Harris and his predecessors in tit1e kept pigs and other iivestock continuing for many years but at Or near the barns of Henry M. Harris. It is not c1ear to this cou.rt that the p1ace of keeping pigs is even on the 1ands of Keith L. Harris. It may remain on the reserve hnds of Henry Harris." So. what I did was just try and indicate for you an area that was c10se to the barns of Henry Harris. It was just to give you some insight. It is not an exact 10cation. So. that is what the court said, that that is where 1ivestock was raised and that's where it had been attested to in court, on the iands of Henry M. Harris. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Wou1d the other members of the Board care to comment, with regard to the 110 foot buffer? MR. BREWER-I guess I think if he's going to put the barn back here where this driveway is and he's going to piant some trees in the front, here. I don't have a prob1em with it. but if he wants to put it down into here. or right here. then I just don't think it's. what kind of trees are you going to piant? MR. HARRIS-Anything. you know. pine trees. I've p1anted cedars. spruce. MR. BREWER-I mean. are you going to put one or two or ten? If we say you can put that there and then piant some trees and you put two trees in there. one here and one down there, that's not acceptab1e to me. I don't think. MR. HARRIS-No. I wouid put as many trees as you need. as 10ng as you wouid anow 10w expense pine tree. or cedar trees or something. MR. BREWER-That's not a probiem at a11. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So. what I'm hearing is that in addition to the changes that we're, the a1ternatives that we're suggesting. that some members of the Board. I wou1d concur with that, want to see some sort of pianting pian and aii I mean by that is the 10cation and number of trees, such that it b10cks. 27 ~ MR. BREWER-Well. we can't make him go to a big expense of putting 30 foot trees in there. MR. CARTIER-No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying location of trees that are eventually going to reduce the impact of this expansion on neighbors. What else? Anything else? Mr. Davidson. did you have one other comment? MR. DAVIDSON-I just wanted to clear up a couple of matters. One, Mr. Martin was asking Keith about where he raised his animals and such. I believe that the court transcripts document that and the decision was made in the court. so I believe that's already answered in the court documents. I'd also like to clear up the comment that Keith made about the judge baby-sitting for the Davidsons. I don't know where he got his information, but the judge has never baby-sat for the Davidsons. My wife runs and operates a d~ care center, but is in no way ever been involved with any commercial or even personal ties to the judge, and I don't know where he got his information, but it's totally incorrect. MR. CARTIER-Ok~. Thank you. MR. DAVIDSON-I'd like to make another point. Please consider the hardship of the neighbors. Mr. Harris is creating the hardship. It seems to me that if hardships are incurred, it shouldn't be to the neighbors. It should be to Mr. Harris, and Mr. Harris stated before. perhaps some common sense should be used. I agree. Common sense tells me that it is not a great expense or a great effort to run a pipe line. a small pipe line. even 500 feet of 3/4 inch tubing is not a great deal of work, especially someone with backhoes and all the heavy equipment that Mr. Harris has. It is not a great expense for Mr. Harris to locate the barn behind the garage, lower than the existing parking area when he has the equipment and he advertises road building. It is a very simple matter to excavate a pathway, a roadway that could come around the barn, even back up the other side. It is not a great deal of expense or time to someone in his business of road building and logging. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. Is there any other details that the Board would care to add to the list? Mrs. Burnham. would you care to make a comment or ask a question? (END OF FIRST DISK) 28 ~ MRS. BURNHAM-I have a question. Dorothy Burnham, Boulderwood Drive. At what point do you decide on the number and kinds of animals? Would that be at the next hearing? MRS. PULVER-No. We have a list right now. MR. CARTIER-I'm glad you brought that up. because there is, in Lee York's notes. a comment, and I assume Mr. Harris has those comments. I think it would behoove Mr. Harris to take those comments into account. particularly in tenns of the fact that Mrs. York makes reference to the size of the barn and the fact that it, according to Cooperative Extension, it win hold six large animals. rather than the proposed eight and Mr. Harris, as far as I'm concerned, speaking individually. needs to take that also into account. in his design. MRS. PULVER-But to answer your question, Mrs. Burnham. here. originany, it says. four horses, four beef cows. twelve pigs and twenty chickens. MRS. BURNHAM-I understand that. I was just asking at what point that decision is made, and I would ask you, in your motion to approve. approve with modifications, whatever. that you be specific, and I would also like to make a comment that it would be a lot less offensive, and this Board has the power to do it. to eliminate approval for pigs. to confine the kinds of animals to something other than pigs. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. I guess that. and this is kind of vague and general. I wish I could make it more specific. but I can't. Wen. maybe I can. Mr. Harris, I guess what I'm going to look for in your revised application is that you have done your level best to minimize the impact of this activity on the neighborhood. MR. HAGAN-Plus the fact that Mr. Harris says that he has these animals for his own family use. MR. CARTIER-Personal use. MR. HAGAN-And I don't know how many pigs a family can eat in one year, and I think that Mr. Harris ought to keep the numbers in mind in his next application. MR. HARRIS-I would just have to ask you that when you're ralslng animals. I have no jurisdiction of how many animals a pig's going to have. Maybe, I guess I wouldn't be allowed to breed or whatever. As far as I can see, the Town and the neighbors here are creating more zoning regulations that I've never seen. or my attorney's looked over. I donlt want to have to take the expense to fight the Town or waste anymore tax payers money, because as we all know, itls a permitted use and I'm asking to bend and give and bend, do whatever I have to do to farm. I'm not asking for a commercial or 20 or 30 or to bring in any of the leased properties that I have bordering the lands that I have. I'm not asking for that. If I was to have to take it legally, then I would have to expand it to a commercial use. to try to cover some of the expense of it. I really don't have the time in my life to go through what I did with the garage or the money or would want any of the tax payers money wasted in litigation. MR. CARTIER-Wen. again, I would point out to you that there are a number of alternative ways that you can arrive at farming. MR. HARRIS-Without creating a hardship. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Fine. MR. HARRIS-If anybody or the Town or the neighbors would be willing to fund any gravel, I'll move the gravel, I'n move the building anywhere they'd like. If they would be willing to fund a water line or power. MR. CARTIER-I don't think that's going to happen, Mr. Harris. So. lets stay in the world of reality. What lid like to do is take one more comment, right now, from the floor, and then get on with things, because we have other items on the agenda, okay. Do you need to hear anymore from this Board about what the Board expects to see in an alternative plan? MR. HARRIS-I would like a specific plan. MR. CARTIER-No. Youlre going to design the plan. We've given you some guidelines. You've got to work within those guidelines. I'm not going to get this Board into designing your plan anymore. Staff has spent already a lot of time in trying to come up with a design for you, Mr. Harris. That's up to you. MR. HARRIS-Is the guideline 110 feet back? MR. CARTIER-As far as I'm concerned it is. MR. HARRIS-Is the guideline 120 feet east. west, south. north. as far as the building? 29 "--" MR. CARTIER-I believe somebody already established a location for the barn. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I was just saying move the barn back to the 110 foot line where you've got the fence. MR. HARRIS-If I turn it sideways. it's going to bring it east a little more. MR. MARTIN-That's fine. MR. HARRIS-Okay. MR. BREWER-In that general vicinity. MR. HARRIS-Okay. MR. MARTIN-As long as it's 110 feet off the road. Is that reasonable? MR. HARRIS-If that's all I need is to keep it 110 feet. MR. MARTIN-You've literally got to erase those squares on there and put a new barn in there 110 feet off the road. Bring it in to Lee York and show it to her. That's all you have to do. MR. CARTIER-Show her a planting plan too. MR. MARTIN-And where the trees are going to go. and number of trees, and indicate trees by circles. MR. CARTIER-I also need some information about how you're going to handle manure without getting into a hang up on how much is generated. How is it going to be handled so that you minimize the impact of manure on the residents in the area. You don't have to do that right now. I'm just saying that that's something that's got to be addressed the next time around. MR. HARRIS-Would the Board think that spreading it out through the 20 acres is feasible? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I do. MR. HARRIS-That's what I plan on doing. MR. MARTIN-I would think that's reasonable. Stock piling it in the winter. Spreading it in the spring. MR. CARTIER-Okay. There's your answer to that. Mrs. Davidson, last comment, for now. The public hearing will remain open on this. MRS. DAVIDSON-I would ask that you enter into the records the map showing where the commercial zone is, okay, because we are trying. and as Mr. Harris has stated. he doesn't want to expand. We'd like to have some sort of Ground Zero. this is where his business is. MR. CARTIER-I think that's a reasonable request and I think that would be appropriate for Mr. Harris to do is to delineate the property being used commercially at the moment. MR. HARRIS-I would ask that. I was here for site plan for agricultural use. not to explain it a commercial use or bring in a whole different subject in. Like I said, I'm a resident. and please. if you would. try not to make too many zoning laws. MR. CARTIER-We don't make zoning laws, Mr. Harris. MR. HARRIS-I'm here for agricultural use. MR. MARTIN-I want you to understand one thing, and you said you were going to bend. I want you to understand one thing. I know the family's had control of the property for 200 years. You're along established family in the Town and I respect that and have some sympathy to that. but you also have to realize that this is the 1990's now. You have neighbors around you and you have to be a neighbor. You're no longer the only guy out at the end of Pickle Hill Road anymore. MR. HARRIS-I agree. Jim. This is a permitted use. MR. MARTIN-I know it's a permitted use. but I'm just trying to find a way that it's going to work for you and keep you away from being at odds with your neighbors. because you've got to coexist together, all right. MR. HARRIS-I'm just trying not to create a hardship for myself or anyone else. MR. MARTIN-I know, and we're trying to minimize that for you as well as the neighbors around you. 30 --- MR. HARRIS-I'd just 1ike to ask you one thing. As far as the 110 feet, I mean, I'm not an engineer or anything, but when I sca1e 110 feet from every boundary, I'm 1ucky if I'm going to have six acres, the way I'm seeing it, 1eft to farm. MR. CARTIER-No. You're misunderstanding. MR. HARRIS-What am I going to do with it if I don't keep my cows in it? Am I going to mow it for a 1awn. MR. CARTIER-You can raise crops, you can do whatever you want. What I'm saying to you is, if you sca1e out a 1ine, okay, that para11eh this, okay, there's where you can move this movab1e e1ectric fence. I don't want to go through this again. okay. That's what I'm saying to you, okay. If that reduces you down to six acres, then it reduces you down to six acres, but I want to get this Board, right now, out of re-hashing this stuff over and over again. MR. LAPOINT-Right, and not everybody agrees with that anyway, because I know what you're saying about farming this. You're going to keep your cow in that 1itt1e pen and not 1et him get out to the edges? That doesn't make sense. MRS. DAVIDSON-I'd 1ike to further suggest to the P1anning Board that the main prob1em he's comp1aining about in putting it where the judge had recOlllr,ended in his decision, is that it's not convenient to water. There's a high water tab1e. If he has water on his property that prevents him from ~utting the barn behind his home. then it shou1dn't be a major ordea1 for him to put in a we11 dose to the barn within that recolTIF,ended area by the judge, and to p1ease rea1ize that 110 feet is better, I mean, we need a11 the buffer we can get, but that sti11 puts it a 1itt1e over 200 feet from my bedroom window, my 1iving room window, my home. Not even counting the property, just my home. The sme11 does come through. Be1 ieve me it does. The recolTIFended distance is 500 feet. C1ear1y, that's not possib1e on this property. The idea1 situation then. in my point of view, is to put it back where it was origina11y. You're not taking any rights from him. You're just te11ing him that he's going to have to continue the same rights that were continued before. MR. HARRIS-It's not my property, and I'm sorry. MR. CARTIER-Okay. A11 right. Does the Board have anything e1se? MR. MARTIN-Do you understand, Keith? MR. HARRIS-Yes, I do. MR. MARTIN-Is that acceptab1e? MR. HARRIS-Yes, it is, and I wou1d thank you for going through so much for me. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Ok~. So, I need to get you on mike that you agree to tab1e this app1ication. MR. HARRIS-Yes, I do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HARRIS-As 10ng as it's a110wed, or I don't know. You've got to c1arify me. If I come in with a p1an 110 feet from the road. turning the barn sideways, the pens kept 110 feet from a11 the boundary 1ines. and agree to spread the manure and p1ant who knows how many trees, maybe we shou1d c1arify that a 1itt1e bit. MR. CARTIER-And you decide that you have done your 1eve1 best to address the concerns of the neighborhood and minimize the impact of the neighbors, on the neighbors, somewhere in there, okay. MR. HARRIS-Is the 110 feet agreeab1e? That's a11 I need to know. MR. CARTIER-As far as I'm concerned, it is. MR. HARRIS-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And you understand the submission dead1ine is a week from tomorrow at 2 o'c1ock? MRS. YORK-We have to have your new p1an in a week from tomorrow by 2 o'c1ock. MR. HARRIS-Okay. MR. MARTIN-To Lee York. MRS. YORK-Is that understood? 31 ---,' ----- MR. HARRIS-Yes, it is. r,~RS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion. at this point. to table this application, specifying the deadline date. Would somebody care to make that motion? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAI 10. 43-91 KEITH ~RRIS. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Pending the submission of a revised site plan showing the barn 110 feet from the road, and plantings of pine trees or trees of similar nature in a location such that it screens the barn from the neighbors within reason. That the movable electric fence be kept within a 110 foot boundary of the road and the total property parameter. That the doors of the barn be 1 imited to a height of 10 feet or less. Duly adopted this 17th d~ of September. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin. Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano NEIl IIJSIIIESS: FRESIIIATER IÆTlMDS PERllIT 10. FIfl-91 FRAIl O. SOIIIERS BY OF IMTERlSTREAJI IIIVOLYED: GFI9 VACANT LAND. 9.54 ACRES PROPOSAL TO PLACE FILL UP TO 30 IlICtES DEEP III AN AREA 130 FT. If IDE BY 350 n. LONG ADJACEIIT TO FRESllfATER IElLMD GFI9 A CLASS II IÆTLAND. TIE SITE IS LOCATED ADdACEIIT TO JEAIMIIBROOK ROAD 0.3 MILES FROII COIl ROAD. 11£ PLAIIIIIIIG BOMB ifILL 6EIIERATE A LIST OF CONCERIIS TO SEfID TO DEC. DEC WILL ACT AS LEAD AGEIIT Fœ SEQRA PURPOSES. OSCAR SUNBERG, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-And what we are doing is generating a list of concerns to send to DEC because DEC is acting as lead agency for the SEQRA process. This is not subject to public hearing, correct? MRS. YORK-Correct. MR. CARTIER-We are simply. as a Board, generating a list of concerns. MRS. YORK-Right. DEC will hold the public hearing. MR. CARTIER-And Lee has already agreed to take our comments. Wait a minute. Is that right? Did I ask you to take our comments and generate a letter to DEC? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Or am I thinking of something else? MRS. YORK-Well, you asked me to generate a letter to the Town Board, earlier. MR. CARTIER-Can I also ask you to take our comments and generate a letter to DEC? MRS. YORK-Right. I will be happy to do that. MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much. I would ask you to read for us the letter that you received, before we get into the SEQRA Review on this, from Mr. Morton. MRS. YORK-Okay. We did receive a letter from Bill Morton, Chairman of the Queensbury Citizens Committee on Environmental Issues. This is a Committee that was formed by the Town Board some time ago, three or four years ago, and they look at different environmental issues in the community. "On September 17th. 1991, the Queensbury Citizens Committee on Environmental Issues visited the site where the subject applicant proposes to fin an area 350 feet along Meadowbrook Road. The fin which win be up to 30 inches in depth will extend 130 feet back from the road. The fill is to be placed in Freshwater Wetland G19, which is a protected, wooded wetland. The applicant is proposing to create building lots on the site for three duplexes. Based on our site visitation and other information made available to us in the application, we can offer the fonowing comments and recommendations: The proposed fin location is part of a larger wetland out of which the applicant appears to own approximately 9.5 acres. Due to the high water table which ranges from standing water in the spring to 18 inches, the site has obvious development constraints which can be overcome by the placement of sufficient fin. The proposed fin will destroy approximately one acre of wooded wetland. There are a few reasonable opportunities for 32 -- mitigation. Building lots have been created by fi1Hng in the past and homes have been constructed thereon along Meadowbrook Road on either side of the proposed fin. Town water and sewer services are available along Meadowbrook Road at the location of the proposed fin. In Hght of the fact that the development constraints can be overcome, i.e. fill and the pressure of water and sewer services and because homes already have been constructed at either end of the proposed fill site, we feel it is reasonable to anow for some additional fill and development under the following considerations: As a mitigation measure, the remaining wetland acreage owned by the applicant should be protected in perpetuity either by deeding the wetland to the Town as a gift or continuing expansion of the green belt open space corridor along Halfway Brook or requiring the applicant to place a restriction in his deed to preclude development of the wetland. In the event an arrangement can be made between the Town and the applicant, to accept the wetland for public benefit, the Town should also arrange for a right-of-way from the applicant providing access to the interior parcel of the wetland to Meadowbrook Road. Sincerely Yours, Bill Morton, Chairman of the Queensbury Citizens Committee on Environmental Issues." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. and I'm a step ahead of myself. Would you also give us your comments? STAFFIIlPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, FWI-91, Franz O. Sunberg, September 12, 1991, Meeting Date: September 17, 1991 "The applicant is requesting a wetlands permit from the Town of Queensbury. At the request of the Planning Board, DEC. which is also a permitting agency, will act as lead agency for SEQRA purposes. The proposal is to fill an area 350 feet along Meadowbrook Road. The fill will be up to 30 inches deep in an area 130 feet wide by 350 feet long adjacent to GF-19, a Class II wetland. The site is .3 miles from Cronin Road. The fin is intended to be concrete rubble and gravel. The property is located in a water and sewer district. The property is in the Halfway Brook flood plain. Halfway Brook is a AA stream which means it is a water supply of high quaHty. This particular area has fast percolating soils (6-20" per hr. - limited to unsuitable for development). The depth to high water table is 0-18" or low development suitability. The Town of Queensbury is in ownership of 78 acres of stream corridor property east of Meadowbrook Road and 10 acres of property west of Meadowbrook Road. There are plans for recreational use of this land. The appHcant wi1l also be required to get a Floodplain permit from the Building and Codes Department. Any basements have to be one foot above the mapped floodplain. This fact has to be proven to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. Mr. Hatin is the in-house coordinator of the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Concerns that the Board may want to raise could include: 1. What wi1l the effects be on the stream corridor when the floodplain is fi1led? 2. Will the hydrogeological functions of the stream be impacted by this action and to what degree? What mitigation measures wi1l be instituted? 3. How wi11 the vegetation and animal habitat in the area be effected? 4. Will there by any impact on the neighboring residential properties? 5. Once this area is filled wi1l the development which the applicant intends be possible? The DEC wetlands application states that the appHcant intends to construct 3 duplex's on the fil 1. " MR. CARTIER-Ok~. I think what we have to do. as a Board. is add any concerns that we might have with regard to the SEQRA review on this, beyond the five items that Lee has already done a good jOb of outlining. The first thing that occurs to me is that I'm not sure. from the map, just how close to the stream this occurs, but Mr. Sunberg needs to be aware that, and I think this needs to be addressed in the SEQRA Review. that there needs to be a buffer provided for the stream. I believe it's 35 feet, along with a 75 foot setback. So, in other words. if the fin, what I 'm s~ing is the fill is going to have to be placed, or fill is not allowed, I guess is the best way to s~ this, within 35 feet of the stream, and any structures that are built are going to have to be 75 feet from the stream. if I have my numbers correct. MRS. YORK-Yes. Mr. Sunberg, have you discussed what you want to do with the Zoning Administrator. by any chance? MR. SUNBERG-Yes. To answer Mr. Cartier's question, the Brook is 150 feet away from where I want to fin. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SUN BERG-That map, have you got the map that I sent? MR. CARTIER-The only map that I have, that we have, is this. MR. SUNBERG-Right there. Do you see that little wishbone thing in there? Most people think that that's a brook. MR. CARTIER-Here's the area you're going to fill, and this, ok~, this is what you're referring to. That shows, that's an intermitten stream, to me. MR. SUN BERG-That is a drainage ditch that my father, my brother and I dug in '47, '48, around in there. That is not a brook. 33 -- MR. CARTIER-All right. MR. SUN BERG-The Brook is 150 north of my property line. MR. CARTIER-All right. Ok~. So, scratch the buffer setback problem. Okay. Thank you. That addresses that. That takes care of the question I raised. It doesn't take care of any of the five. Okay. Does the Board have any other concerns with regard to SEQRA on this application? MR. LAPOINT-That we could forward the Environmental Committee's comments. MR. CARTIER-Definitely, along with Lee's comments, Lee's questions. All right. Is there anything else that this Board deems necessary to be addressed. beyond those two letters? MR. SUNBERG-Can I go over this, one by one? MR. CARTIER-Unless you have questions about them, I think your comments would be more appropriately directed to the SEQRA Review when DEC does it. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We're only a commenting agency. We don't have any approval authority at this time. MR. CARTIER-We're not approving anything here tonight. All we're doing is. MR. SUNBERG-That's what I was hoping is I would get approval from you so that the State would know that it's all right with the Town Planning Board, that I can do this. MR. CARTIER-We can't do that unless the SEQRA Review is completed. We can't approve anything, until we. MR. MARTIN-They're not asking that of us. MR. SUN BERG-You did that before for a fellow. MR. CARTIER-No. Let me see if I can explain this. What I'm saying to you is that~ are not conducting the SEQRA Review. DEC is conducting the SEQRA Review. We cannot approve anything until the SEQRA Review is held. There has to be a SEQRA Review held before we can approve anything. All we're doing here tonight is we are, as a Town, we are an involved agency. As an involved agency, we have the right to direct questions to DEC that they consider in their SEQRA Review. So, we're not approving anything tonight. MR. SUNBERG-That's fair enough, just as long as I can clarify some of these. MR. CARTIER-You can clarify those with DEC at the SEQRA Review time, when they take you through the SEQRA Review. You're going to want to be there when they do that, because what we're s~ing to DEC is be sure you get answers to these questions from the applicant. The applicant, obviously, being you. We're saying, DEC, in their Environmental Quality Review. MR. SUNBERG-You want the answers. I could give you the answers and you wouldn't even have to ask them. MR. LAPOINT-No. What's going to happen is they're going to take our. MR. SUNBERG-I mean, why go to two agencies if I can give you the answers right here? MR. CARTIER-Ok~, but we still can't approve anything. MR. SUNBERG-You don't have to approve, but I don't want you to send these things up, if you don't have to. It gives them something else to think about. MR. CARTIER-That's the whole point of an Environmental Quality Review. MR. LAPOINT-Are these accurate? Is there anything that's just totally inaccurate about these comments? Lets hear him out. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I have no problem with hearing him out. MR. CARTIER-Fine. MR. SUNBERG-"Number One, what will the effects be on the stream corridor when the floodplain is filled?" Now, the map you've got on the back, here, doesn't have my area. It's only got about 200 feet of my area. The rest of this is on the wrong side of Meadowbrook Road. So, when you take Meadowbrook Road to Ridge, you've got to figure, since I've traveled for years and years. There's got to be at least 500 acres in there, and 400 acres is wetland. I say wetland. It's like my land. It's not wetland. It's got certain kinds of trees growing on it and brush. So, I'm taking one acre out of 500. Now, that's very limited. 34 -----" MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Now. that's you're argument. DEC's going to ask that question anyway. They wil1 ask that. MR. CARTIER-What you're doing here, Mr. Sunberg, is practicing your answers for DEC. MR. SUNBERG-You're wasting your time, is that what you're saying? MR. CARTIER-No. Go right ahead. MR. MARTIN-No, because we're going to get to the point of site p1an. and this may be he1pful at that time. MR. SUNBERG-Al1 right. We11, it's not going to bother the stream any, because it's going to be south of the stream and it's not going to be near it, and the poor animals are going to be losing an acre of cover. MR. CARTIER-So, you don't have to mitigate anything. MR. SUNBERG-That's the only thing that's going to be a problem. The field mice and the things aren't going to be able to run in there. and there won't be any impact on the neighboring residence. I don't think, unless something is built there that's not going to be like. MR. CARTIER-Well. okay. Understand that the SEQRA Review will be a public hearing, and those people will be notified, and somebody m~ or may not show up to make comment. MR. SUN BERG-And as far as this last one, it says here I wanted to put three duplexes. What I real1y want to do is get this thing so that I can fi11 it so I can se11 it. I've had three people look at it and they won't buy it because it's wetland. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but, essentially, you're going to clear cut this piece to fill it. MR. SUN BERG-And fill it. If I can't sell it, then I want to put three duplexes on it for senior citizen housing, two bedrooms. and I promise that I'm not going to go through a church. So. it's going to be taxable. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's not an environmental question anyway. MR. SUNBERG-That's what I'm trying to do. MR. CARTIER-Ok~. Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. DEC will take a look at these and they'11 determine whether they're significant or not and give you an overall yes or no as to whether you're going to have an adverse environmental impact and then it comes back to us. MR. SUNBERG-If you couldn't approve anything. MR. CARTIER-No. We cannot approve it tonight simply because an environmental review is required before we can approve anything, and DEC is going to be the people who do the Environmental Quality Review. MR. SUNBERG-If they approve it, though, I have to come back to you again? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. SUNBERG-Okay. MR. CARTIER-But, quite frankly, I'll stick my neck out and say that may, at that point, be strictly a formality. You'11 be required to get a Freshwater Wetlands Permit from us. Chances are, we're not going to impose anything greater than DEC will. okay. MR. MARTIN-I can te11 you right now, you're going to have to, if you do in fact end up building the duplexes, you're going to have to meet certain building standards that the normal person wouldn't have to. in terms of elevations of the buildings above the water line and al1 that. If you're on a slab, than that's easier. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. How big is this piece of property? MR. HAGAN-Nine and a half acres. MR. CARTIER-No. This little strip that's getting filled in. 35 --- MR. SUNBERG-One hundred and thirty feet deep by about three hundred and fifty feet along the road. MR. CARTIER-Okay, understand You're in an SR-l zone. To put up 0 d 1 d ne up ex. you nee two acres per dupl ex. MR. SUNBERG-I have to go through the Town. MR. CARTIER-You'll be back to us for that. Now. did you hear what I said? MR. SUNBERG-Yes. but you haven't heard mine. I'm in an SR-l where I need one acre per unit. MR. CARTIER-Correct. So, to put one duplex up, you've got to have. MR. SUNBERG-But in that area, I can put multiple housing. So. if I could get the Board to go along with it. I could put up eight apartments. MRS. PULVER-How can you put up multiple housing. if it's a single? MR. SUNBERG-Well, that's one of the quirks of the Town. That area is zoned for multiple housing. MR. CARTIER-It's SR-l. Am I missing something? MR. SUNBERG-I have a letter from Mrs. York. MRS. YORK-From Mrs. York? I think maybe from Mrs. Crayford. MR. SUNBERG-Crayford, right. MRS. PULVER-I would just like to clarify the zoning on that. MR. CARTIER-It's SR-l. MR. SUNBERG-It's irrelevant right now. You've got other people waiting for you. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I agree. MRS. PULVER-Lee, would you clarify that for me. before I leave tonight? MRS. YORK-Yes. Under SR-l Acre. which is Suburban Residential, Multifamily dwelling project is a Type II use. MR. YARMOWICH-You're thinking SFR. MRS. YORK-Yes. you're thinking of Single Family Residential. which is limited too, okay. MR. CARTIER-Yes. it's SR, but my point still holds true that if you put a duplex up, you've got to have one acre per dwelling. MR. SUNBERG-I have nine and a half. MR. CARTIER-Great. Okay. Do we need to do anything else with this? MR. SUNBERG-Are we through? MR. CARTIER-I think so. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-All right. Do we need to do anything else with that application? MR. LAPOINT-No. Lee. you know what to do. right? MRS. YORK-I know what to do. MR. CARTIER-You're going to send your comments. Mr. Morton's comments. and also keep in mind that we also took into consideration the fact that Warren County approved it. okay. Thank you. SITE PLAII 110. 45-91 TYPE I MR-]A THOMS MYER OWNER: SAtE AS ABOVE NORTH FROM CJJAKER ROAD ON BAY ROAD, LEn ON TEE HILL ROAD. LEn ON HALL ROAD APPROX. 75 YARDS FROM LAKE. TURN RIGHT lITO DRIVEllAY. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 n. BY 12.6 n. ADDITION IfITH APPROX. A 10 n. BY 24 n. DECK. (WARREll coom PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 45-2-4 LOT SIZE: 0.75 ACRES SECTION 179-79 36 -'" STAFF IIPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior PJanner. Site PJan Review No. 45-91. Thomas M~er, September 16, 1991, Meeting Date: September 17, 1991 "The review is for an expansion of a nonconforming structure. The appHcant intends to add a 10 ft. x 12.6 ft. addition with a deck on the second f1oor." The deck would go over the entire second floor. This addition is to fiH in a little piece and the deck wouJd be longer across that side of the house. MR. CARTIER-This is on the side of the house away from the Jake, that we couldn't find it on the map? Ok~. MRS. YORK-Yes. "The appJicant received a variance on JuJy 17, from the shoreJine setbacks. The addition is not toward the lake but toward the HaH Road entrance. The site is about 1/3 of an acre and is in a designated Critical EnvironmentaJ area. The appHcant was requested to provide information on the septic system since this is an addition of habitable space. Page 3 of the appHcation states this PJanning Board request. A cess pool which is detailed on the plan is about 45 feet from the lake and the septic tank is ±105 feet from the Jake. 1. The location arrangement and size of the addition does not appear to be a probJem. 2. VehicuJar access is not a concern. 3. Parking is not an issue. 4. Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5. The proposed addition is 10 ft. by 12 ft. It would not appear that this size addition would substantiaHy increase storm water runoff, however, the Board shouJd discuss how storm drainage is handled currently. A drainage cuhert is identified on the plan. 6. The adequacy of sewage disposaJ facilities may be an item for Board discussion. 7. Landscaping is not an issue. 8. Fire access will not change. 9. Erosion controJ methods shouJd be used during construction to prevent siltation into the Jake." MR. CARTIER-Ok~. Mr. M~er? MRS. YORK-I spoke with Mr. Mayer's representative, yesterd~. Mr. Mayer, we did have the agenda returned to us because he had given us the wrong address. So, we did send out another one to his correct address. My assumption, because his agent, Mr. McCloud, caJJed me yesterday and wanted to know what our criteria for septic systems was. that we wouJd be seeing someone here tonight, and a gentJeman from the LA Group who had also been empJoyed to determine septic system information also calJed me. So, I believe they are an aware that there was a meeting tonight. There was some indication. however, that they m~ not have the information you require on the septic system at this meeting. At which point, I told them they might want to request a tabJing. but to be here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What's the Board's druthers? Do you want tabJe this? MR. MARTIN-TabJe. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Can we entertain a motion to tabJe? Jl)TION TO TAU SITE Mil 110. 45-1991 THOMS MYER, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by CaroJ Pulver: For construction of a 10 ft. by 12.6 ft. addition with approx. 10 ft. by 24 ft. deck. DuJy adopted this 17th day of September, 1991. by the foJJowing vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. PuJver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Yes. Okay. This has been tabled without the agreement of the appHcant, so we have to act on this within 30 days? MRS. YORK-If it's tabled without the agreement of the appHcant, they can act within how many days, 45? MR. DUSEK-Was there a pubJic hearing scheduled tonight on this? MRS. YORK-Yes, there was. MR. DUSEK-So. you have 45 days from the date of the public hearing. MR. CARTIER-I didn't open a public hearing. MR. DUSEK-You should open it and you should hold it open. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I 'n open a public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd care to comment on that? 37 -- -- PUBLIC HEARING OPEIIED MR. CARTIER-There being none. I'll 1eave the pub1ic hearing open, and we have 45 days to act on that? MR. DUSEK-Yes. In 1ight of the circumstances, it wou1d be my fee1ing if you kept the pub1ic hearing open, you're not going to have any prob1em with the time requirements. MR. CARTIER-Yes. okay. I just didn't want to get hung up that we had to get back in here because we don't have a second meeting next week. as far as I know. SUBDIVISUIf NO. 10-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UIILISTED SR-JA ALEIIE M. 8R(JII (litER: SAlE AS ABOVE SOOTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE ROAD AID CLEtEIITS ROAD TO FURTHER SUBDIVIDE LOT '3 OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION 110. 12-1990. APPROVm ON JAIl. 22. 1991. TAX MP 110. 27-3-1.2 LOT SIZE: 11.02 ACRES RUSSELL BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior P1anner. Subdivision No. 10-1991. A1ene Brown, September 16, 1991, Meeting Date: September 18. 1991 "This app11cation is for a two 10t subdivision. The map presented states that this is a revised map for a revision of an existing subdivision. This is incorrect. This is a subdivision of 10t 3 into two 1ots. At the pub1ic hearing a concern was brought up by neighbor, Mr. Bannon, about drainage impacts of a seasona1 stream/wet1and at the south of the property. The concern was satisfied because of the 1imited number of units proposed and the 1ack of deve10pment in proximity to this area. The deve10pment of this f1ag 10t may cause this concern to resurface. The app1icant proposes to subdivide ±6.5 acres into two 1ots. One of 2.07 acres and one 4.42 acres. The back 10t wi11 have a driveway Of ±590 feet. The area is a former fie1d and c1earing for emergency vehic1es wou1d not be as difficu1t as in treed areas. but the Board shou1d keep this in mind. Staff has requested the fire chief to provide a 1etter to the Board. F1ag 10t creation is not the best subdivision configuration. The Town Subdivision Regu1ations attempted to encourage interna1ization of roadways and comprehensive drainage so1utions. Resubdividing in this fashion appears to thwart the intent of the ordinance. Had the app1icant origina11y proposed a 4 10t subdivision. interior access to a road wou1d have been discussed rather than four separate road cuts. A1so, the property owner wi11 not be responsib1e for a recreation fee since an exemption is granted for subdivisions under 4 1 ots. " MR. CARTIER-Thank you, and we have comments from Mr. Yarmowich indicating he has no comments. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Ok~. Wou1d the app1icant care to address the Board, p1ease. MR. BROWN-I'm Russe11 Brown. my wife. A1ene. Unfortunate1y, Tom McCormack who did this work for us is in the hospita1 tonight. So, he cou1dn't be here. So, if there's any technica1 questions. I can't answer them. I can te11 you my reason for doing this. MR. CARTIER-That I'd 1ike to hear. MR. BROWN-Okay. We11. you'" probab1y think I'm nuts for being back here. but we subdivided this into three 10ts 1ast fa11. Now. the reason I did that. I had a sa1e on this six and a ha1f acres. MR. CARTIER-That one piece over there. MR. BROWN-Right. This is natura11y subdivided by a tree 1ine, here. which makes this a beautifu1 piece of property. So. anyway, after I went to a11 the troub1e of subdividing it and I had a contract. he aSKed to get out of it. So, we 1et him out of it. We11. then we have the prob1em of, what are we going to do with it now. So, our rea1 estate peop1e suggested, if I cou1d subdivide it into two 1ots. they cou1d se11 it. In fact, I have a sa1e on this now. and a deposit on it. providing you peop1e approve this. and they think they can. somebody's interested in this. So, that's the reason I did it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. This was pub1ic1y noticed, right? MRS. YORK-Yes. it was. MR. CARTIER-Because you had mentioned in your comments that there were some concerns about stream effects back here, by somebody who had come in. Okay. Thank you. MRS. YORK-Wait a minute. Did you bring the receipts for notification with you tonight? We put it in the paper, but the subdivider has to put the sign on his property that there is a pub1 ic hearing and that has to send out notifications by certified mai1. Do you know if that was done? 38 '- -,' MR. BROWN-I don't think that was done. This is the, is that norma11y done at the first? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK-This is on1y, being that this is a two 10t subdivision. you wou1d on1y go through two steps instead of the three you went through before. MR. BROWN-We11, that's what we had hoped for. MRS. YORK-Right. On1y the first one is where you notice everyone within 500 feet, according to our regu1ations. MR. BROWN-We11, see. before that was hand1ed by Tom, and he shou1d have got that notice, I wou1d assume. We didn't get any notice to do that. MR. CARTIER-We can't go anywhere with this unti1 we have proof of notification. So, what 1'm going to have to do here is open the pub1ic hearing, 1eave it open, and get you back on the October agenda. MR. BROWN-Ok~. MR. MARTIN-Had Mr. McCormack been here, I think he probab1y been aware of that. MR. CARTIER-It m~ have been done. P1ease understand, it may have been done, but we have to have proof of that fact. MR. MARTIN-He m~ have had that. MR. BROWN-I know nothing about it. I do know this. In taHing with Tom, and a1so ta1king with Mrs. York, ear1ier, we were wondering that since this was not objected to before. and since we're not changing anything as far as the outside perimeter. if it wou1d be necessary to send out 1etters. MR. CARTIER-Yes. it is, because even though you're not changing the outside perimeter, in effect. you're changing the density of this area, okay. So, it's a 1ega1 requirement anyway. It's something we cou1dn't waive if we wanted to. MR. BROWN-Yes. we11. I'll see that he does that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So. can we have your agreement to tab1e this unti1 October? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. CARTIER-Ok~. Can we entertain a motion to tab1e this appHcation unti1 proof of notification is received? MOTION TO TABlE PREUMIMRY STAGE SUIIJIVISIIII 110. 10-1991 ALEIIE Me BRCIII, Introduced by Car01 Puher who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Tab1ed unti1 proof that a11 property owners within 500 feet have been notified. Du1y adopted this 17th day of September, 1991, by the f0110wing vote: AYES: Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer. Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MRS. YORK-Mr. Brown, if you cou1d come in, I can provide you with the information you need to put in the notice and I can even give you a 1ist of the individua1s who were noticed 1ast time. MR. BROWN-We11. that's right on the p1an. MRS. YORK-A11 right. So, we're taken care of there. MR. CARTIER-May you say something? Certain1y. MRS. BURNHAM-I ap010gize for the 1ength of that hearing this evening and I appreciate your patience and your assistance. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-We hope that somehow we're going to come up with, not everybody's going to be happy, but maybe everybody win be equaHy unhappy. At this point, I wou1d consider that a victory. That's a 39 .----- -- terrible way to put that. Okay. ¡.¡~ have a letter from Mr. Charles Adams, Chairman of the Board. Adams & Rich, Inc.. regarding their application and I assume you all have a copy. I don't have to read that They are simply requesting a one year extension. Does anybody have any questions or problems with that extension? Okay. If nobody has any questions or problems. we can entertain a motion to extend them to a date of one year from. when? MR. MARTIN-I think it was. we did that December 31st. 1989. if I'm not mistaken. So. it would be. didn't we? MR. CARTIER-He got an extension to September 30. 1991. and they're asking for one year. So. we could give them one year from September 30. All right? Anybody care to make that motion? tÐTION TO 61W1T AN EXTEIISION ON THE FIlIAL APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION 110. 14-1990. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: For a period of one year, from September 30, 1991, to September 30. 1992. Duly adopted this 17th day of September. 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hagan. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Martin. Mr. Brewer. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano. Mrs. Pulver MR. CARTIER-Okay. Big item. We have. all of you at this point are aware that we have a request before us regarding re-zoning and we are going through our normal recommendation to the Town Board regarding re-zoning. Lee has provided us with an excellent description of answers to the questions involved with regard to this Petition for a Change of Zone. You've had a chance to read through those, I'm sure. Does anybody have any questions on those? MR. MARTIN-I just have more in the way of a comment. I just wanted to go on the record that as many times as we're critical of these re-zonfngs or have a lot of problems with them, I would like to state for the record that this is, I think. a very well thought out plan. a vast improvement over the old site, and I think the whole approach to this particular issue is excellent. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The only comment I would make is. and I made this indirectly to Paul by way of a phone ca11 a couple of days ago from his office. this is being re-zoned with the understanding that there wi11 be special uses here and I would 1ike to see a safeguard bui1t into whatever description of this zone develops from the Town Board that. first of a11. those special uses be somewhat defined beyond just the ambiguous phrase "Special Use". and, secondly. a question I have. Paul. is. worst case scenario. what happens if this gets re-zoned MR-5 and the senior housing grant fades into the sunset somehow? Is this going to revert back to whatever zone it is now? Understand my question. What I guess I want to do here is close loopholes and make sure that this is. in fact. Special Use. MR. DUSEK-The best answer I can give you at the moment is it depends on exactly how the re-zoning resolution is worded. If the re-zoning is worded such that it can only be used for senior citizen housing complex with a grant, then it st~s that way unti1 such time as somebody's able to satisfy the conditions of that zone. If they do not do it that way. normally. it will not automatically revert back and. norma11y, that's not the advised way to handle these type of re-zonings, but rather it is to condition it, or to make it come into existence in the future. In other words. staying the way it is and then popping into existence in the future. My suspicion is that the Town Board will probably condition it to the extent that something doesn't happen up there that they don I t want. and I think that's your concern as well. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-My recommendation would be, though. is that your Board send. maybe. a letter or some sort of a comment type of written comment directly to the Board so that this concern as we11 as the other one I think you just mentioned, or maybe it's the same. so that they have it before them when they're actually considering the SEQRA, the whole thing. you know. It's good that they have it up front. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anybody else got any questions or comments? Can't we do that in the motion? MR. DUSEK-Yes. You could send it by way of a motion. that's true. MR. CARTIER-Okay. and that would take care of that. Okay. What's the Board's druthers. here? Are we prepared to make a motion? MR. MARTIN-What would be the number on this? Do we number re-zoning requests? MRS. YORK-We have numbers in our office. We did not particularly number this one. 40 ~ -" MR. MARTIN-A11 right. MRS. YORK-It has been sent through the usua1 channe1 s. Let me say that. So, it has not. as yet. received a number. MR. CARTIER-You can identify it in terms of referencing it or somehow in your motion. I wou1d a1so 1ike. maybe you're a1ready doing this. but certain1y I wou1d 1ike Lee's comments to be forwarded a10ng with our recommendation. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Jl)TION FOR PLANNING BOARD RECOtIÐDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED RE-ZOfIIIIG FOR THE PROPERTY _ED BY JR. J. IIJCKLEY BRYAII, FRONTING ON FOX POND ROAD. FŒ THE PURPOSE OF SITIIIG A SEIIIŒ CITIZEII HOOSING COMPLEX IfITH THE FOLUIIIIIG ADDITIONAL RECCllEllDATION THAT THE RE-ZOfIIIIG BE TIED TO THE ULTIMTE APPROVAL OF THE SEIIIŒ HOOSING COMPLEX All) THAT SHOOLD THE SEIIIŒ HOOSING PROJECT 1101 GO FORIIARO. THAT THE PARCEL REVERT BACK TO ITS ORIGIIIAL ZOfIIIG. OR THAT IT BE HELD FŒ SPECIAL USE. lIE COfICUR IfITH THE TOWN BOARD ACTING AS LEAD AGENCY IN THIS RE-ZOfIIIIG REQUEST. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Du1y adopted this 17th day of September. 1991. by the fo11owing vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Martin. Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman. before you move on. Just to make sure, on that particu1ar item. do I take it that that wi11 address the Board's entire concerns re1ative to the project at this point, or do you have additiona1 SEQRA concerns that you wou1d want to be forthcoming? MR. CARTIER-Do we have additiona1 SEQRA concerns? We11. I do. in terms of the perc rate of the soi1s. I understand that a specific site study has been done with regard to perc01ation rates. Yes. I think that's kind of saying the same thing, here. I sti11 think they're going to find very high perc rates and I think what they're going to have to do is dea1 with fi11 systems on the septic systems. They're going to have to come up with some sort of fi11 system. In other words. they're going to have to do something to mitigate the perc rates. I think that may take care of it. A1so inc1uded. then, with that recommendation, we're adding Lee's comments. and this 1etter from Tom Yarmowich dated September 12. 1991. with regard to the Fox Farm Road property. Lets add that, pass that a10ng a1so. Anything e1se? MR. DUSEK-Now. wou1d that be considered an amendment to your previous motion, or do you want to make that by way of a separate motion? MR. CARTIER-That wou1d be an amendment to the motion. MR. DUSEK-Then you wou1d need the concurring vote of the two peop1e who made the motion. MR. MARTIN-I concur. MR. BREWER-I concur. MR. DUSEK-Then I wou1d recommend are-vote. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Jl)TION TO AtEND THE PREVIOOS Jl)TIOII ON THE RECCllEfl)ATION, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: A1so inc1uded with that recommendation, we're adding Lee's comments and this 1etter from Tom Yarmowich dated September 12. 1991, with regard to the Fox Farm Road property. Du1y adopted this 17th day of September. 1991. by the fo11owing vote: AYES: Mrs. Pu1ver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Hagan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano 41 '---' MR. CARTIER-Okay. One more item. The Dieh1 property. as you are aware, is up for SEQRA Review, we are. as a P1anning Board, are an invo1ved agency. and comment has been made by a P1anning Board member that we generate a 1ist of concerns and pass them on to the Town Board who wi11 be conducting the SEQRA Review in regard to the Dieh1 re-zoning. Jim. do you want to open this up? MR. MARTIN-Yes. First of an. I'd 1ike to make sure that. in fact, the project is being thought of as a Type I Action, it's being c1assified as. MR. DUSEK-My understanding, that is the contemp1ation for the action. The Long Environmenta1 Assessment Form has. in fact. been comp1eted. I think there was some discrepancy on that point and I be1ieve it was because a standard form res01ution was used, and. you know. not correct1y identified, but I think the Town Board p1ans to treat it as a Type I. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We11. I'd just 1ike to maybe go through the Long Form and see what that. if that brings anything to 1ight. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-And that may serve as a method of assessment. MR. CARTIER-Good idea. MR. MARTIN-Okay. "Wi11 the proposed action resu1t in a change to the project site?" MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think probab1y many of those items cou1d be mitigated. with a sma11 to moderate impact. "Wi11 there be any effect to any unique or unusua1 1and forms found on the site?" No. "Wi11 proposed action effect any body of water designated as protected?" No. "Win proposed action effect surface or groundwater?" There's no water system out there, ri ght? MR. CARTIER-There's Town water. but no sewer. MRS. YORK-It's Town water. no sewers. MR. MARTIN-There's Town water, no septic. Okay. MR. CARTIER-But they have a very, very high perco1ation rate. MR. MARTIN-And it was noted in the County's comments. I be1ieve, when they disapproved it, that that's a major aquifer there, and I think that question needs to be thorough1y addressed, in terms of the effect of the septic on the aquifer. and the natura1 issue is. "The impact on growth and character of the community". The action is in direct conf1ict with officiany adopted p1ans and goa1s of the community. It wi11 cause a doubl1ng in density of 1and use. Those are a coup1e of the big ones. MR. CARTIER-It win create a demand for additiona1 corrmunity services. too. I don't know what the thresho1d 1eve1s are, but it's certain1y going to increase demand for community services. I think that needs to be addressed, and I think the proposed action wou1d set an important precedent for future projects. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I agree. MR. CARTIER-If this is the Town's approach to coming up with affordab1e housing. piecemea1 re-zoning, I think that sets a precedent that may not be appropriate, considering the fact that there is an affordab1e housing over1ay zone f10ating around here some p1ace that needs to get acted on. MRS. PULVER-And you're going to have a who1e new Town Board, probab1y. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Okay, can we somewhat summarize? Does anybody e1se have any other concerns? I think it wou1d be appropriate to add to our concerns, again, comments from Lee. tlJTION TO OFFER THE FOLlOWING COIIDTS FOR THE TOWN BOARD'S CONSIDERATION AS THEY ACT III THEIR CAPACITY AS LEAD A6EIIT IN THE REVIEII OF THIS PROPOSED RECJJEST FOR DE CHAIIGE. fIIlŒR ONE. CONSIDERATICII SIDILD BE 'IVEII TO THE IflJACT OF THE SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR THE DEVELOPtEIIT ON TIŒ ACJ IFER. ...IIIER lVO. THE IflJACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMEIIT ON TRAIISPORTATION. IIIMBER THREE. THE CONFLICT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPtEIIT ON THE OFFICIALLY ADOPTED PtAlIS AlII) GOALS OF . THE TOWI. THE IflJACT OF THE OOOBLIIIG OF DEIISITY ON THE AREA AlII) THE IflJACT OF THE DEVELOPtEIIT AS IT ifILL CREATE FURTlER DEMIID FOR ADDITIONAL COIIIJIIITY SERVICES. LASTLY. DETAILED CONSIDERATION GIVEII TO HOW THE PROPOSED ACTION ifILL SET All IfIJORTAIIT PRECEDEIIT FOR FUlURE PROJECTS REGARDIIIG AFFORDABLE HOOSIIIG. ALSO. ATTACH IfITH THAT LEE YORK'S IIOTES AID THE SUMMARY SHEET OF THE coom ON ITS DISAPPROVAL OF THAT RECJ EST. Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: 42 ',--" Duly adopted this 17th day of September, 1991. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Hagan ABSENT: Mr. Caimano. Mrs. Pulver MRS. PULVER-I have a question, Paul, when they. if they do the re-zoning. when the resolution is drawn up. do we get to see it before it's approved? I've kind of forgotten how the course of events are. MR. DUSEK-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Before they finalize it. I mean, they have a draft. usually. then they discuss it. whatever. Does the Planning Board ever get the draft? MR. DUSEK-Well, the circumstances, in this case. are a little different because of. obviously, the proceedings that have occurred prior to this time. There's already been a public hearing. and one of the issues that I have to sort out for the Board is whether or not there'll be another public hearing. I haven't come to grips. legally. with whether or not it's required, whether they want one or not is also an issue. There is a proposed resolution that was adopted originally that set forth this proposed zone. So. that gives you at least some parameters as to what they're looking at, and I can't remember. now. if there were any conditions or not. I don't think there were. in that original one that went through. So. that gives you, I mean. that's the bare bones that's now up for grabs. whether or not they conditional it and how they conditionalize it. I think that's all going to occur as the result of conversations that occur at meetings and discussions and things. MR. MARTIN-Well. what happens with this comment by way of resolution? What happens with those? MR. DUSEK-Those will be given to the, they should be sent to the Town Board by the Planning Department. It take it. marked, probably. to the attention of the Supervisor, or wherever you normally send them. and they would consider those, they have to consider those. among all of the comments at the next time they talk about the matter. and I think the correspondence that went out. or the resolution indicated a plan to discuss it at, what was it. the November meeting. that first November meeting? Does anybody have that resolution in front of them? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. BREWER-I thought they said that they were going to discuss it at their next meeting. MR. MARTIN-No. The comments have to be received by. MRS. PULVER-That's the 23rd of September. MR. DUSEK-There was a resol uti on that you shoul d have gotten wi th the 1 etter? I sent you a 1 etter enclosing a resolution from the Town Board. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Maybe it was November 9th. MR. BREWER-November 9th. MR. DUSEK-And in the resolution. or my letter. one or the other, I don't have it in front of me, but I'm almost positive it gave you the date at which they plan to discuss it, and you're certainly welcome to be at that meeting. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Do I understand you to s~ that there's a question about whether they have to hold a public hearing with regard to the SEQRA Review? They've got to hold a public hearing for the SEQRA Review. MR. DUSEK-No. They only have to hold a public hearing on SEQRA if they go into an EIS. On a Long Environmental Assessment Form, there is no requirement for a hearing. MR. CARTIER-How do you determine if there's public controversy? MR. DUSEK-You determine that through everything you have up to date. including the public hearing that you hold on your other legislative matter. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 43 -- --- MR. DUSEK-But under SEQRA, there is no requirement for a public hearing until you get to the EIS. MRS. PULVER-I was at one of the public hearings for that. and I don't remember the thing from Warren County coming up that Warren County disapproved. I mean. I'm wondering. because I just said to Peter. gee, when did that, I've never seen that before, and I was at the public hearing. So. I'm wondering. did that come after? That was in March. MR. CARTIER-No. That was, we saw that. That was in hand when we reviewed it. Okay. Any other questions about that? Okay. Two quick things, and then Paul wants to talk to us. This is in the form of a question for you to think about. We're not going to answer this tonight. The question is, how are we going to handle this architectural review situation. if and when the Beautification Committee reaches a point where they disapprove an application because they're not satisfied with the architecture? They. I understand, are in the process of working on guidelines, and I think what we've got to do is. before the fact, come up with a decision as to what we are going to do with those Beautification Committee recommendations. I'm not looking for an answer tonight. Think about it. We'll talk about it later on when we're a little bit more fresh. Go ahead, Paul. MR. DUSEK-Just as a recommendation to the Board, as you consider that question, you may wish to review through site plan criteria as well as subdivision criteria to determine whether or not there's anything. or you feel. I think in the first instance. there's anything there that would justify a conditionally of your decision or an out and out denial if they didn't like the architecture. There is some criteria in there, as to visual and whatnot, and you might want to take a look at that. and you also might want to take a look at the SEQRA requirements relative to visual impacts. I think you'll find that there may be some parameters there already. but I think you'll also find they're very week and they're not as strong as a regular architectural review criteria. and the reason why I'm making this recommendation is that when you reach that point where you feel that this is what you'd like to do and you base it in the statute. then I would certainly be happy. and it's up to you, of course. but I'd be happy to sit with you and review the legal pros and cons of how far you can go, you know. my opinion, if that'll help. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Yes, that would be appropriate. You may not be aware of this, but we have decided to incorporate, kind of automatically, I guess what I'm saying is we're going to legitimize the recommendations of the Beautification Committee by incorporating their recommendations into any approval. and now this architectural review thing is another set piece of that. we're adding a piece to that. and that's why I'm raising the question. I want to decide before we're confronted with that question in front of us. in a meeting. with an applicant. MR. DUSEK-Ultimately, though. whatever you do. even if you're going to incorporate Beautification Committee. you want to make sure you can find, somewhere in the Ordinance. that justifies that as part of your decision, because if you were. like. it's not so much if the applicant agrees and it's conditioned. everything is fine. It's those instances where the applicant calls the question and says. I won't agree. Now the question becomes, do you have sufficient authority in the Ordinance already to uphold that denial of the site plan or subdivision on those grounds, and that's the part I'm just suggesting to you. that, as you do all of this. if you look at that. and we can shoot it around and see if we can come up with some sort of guidelines for you, parameters in which you can function. and if you don't feel you have enough. then maybe it's a call for further legislation. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. DUSEK-But you'd want to make that evaluation first. MR. CARTIER-Yes. We may be a long way from that, because I know that the Beautification Committee's still wrestling with the issue and how they're going to handle it. Okay. MRS. PULVER-I have a question about this architectural review. I haven't done a whole lot of thinking about it. I'm not really sure how I feel about it. but would it be possible to meet with the Beautification Committee, the Planning Board and the Beautification Committee. whatever, to discuss whatever their guidelines are, because I know I'm just not for incorporating whatever it is that they want in a motion just because they want it. I would like to know well in advance what it is that they're thinking, so we're thinking along the same lines. Any new business that comes into the community. now, is going to be under a hardship. They're going to have to, now a few more rules that they're going to have to follow. where other businesses didn't have to do that, and we want to be sure that whatever these rules are going to be, we're not adding thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars to the cost of the construction, and. basically. we've got people who are dealing with plants and shrubs. who are now saying that they want to deal with bricks and mortar and all that other thing. MR. MARTIN-My impression of architectural review is that, in a Town such as Queensbury, you're not really preserving the historic significance of something. except in limited cases or individual buildings maybe, and there certainly is not architectural theme to Quaker Road. So, I really don't know, you know. where you would ground any type of decision, even in the Ordinance as it's currently written, in terms of an architectural review. per see Al though I do agree that there are some travesties that exist out there. but what do you do? 44 --- MR. LAPOINT-Jim lets just not knee jerk to some letters to the editor. MR. DUSEK-I think you're right, Jim, and I think that probably the first question, obviously, that has to be asked, is what type of architectural review are we caning for. what is it. and then once you have a grip on that, to go back and compare the authority that you have, then once you've done tha t. then you've got to make the dec is i on as to do you want to rea n y recommend new 1 eg i s 1 at ion, or do you want to stay away from that. assuming you don't have the authority. MR. MARTIN-Because. I mean, this isn't like Nantucket in Massachusetts, where we have that old. historic district to preserve or something like that. MR. CARTIER-Yes. and Carol's point is appropriate, too. because. in fairness to the applicants, they have to know. up front. what they're up against. There have to be some very, if we're going to have architectural review, there's got to be some criteria established on paper. MRS. PULVER-I think there should be. yes. criteria. and it should be given out right from the beginning. MR. LAPOINT-Something legislative in that direction. I mean. again. I'd 1 ike to incorporate the Beautification comments as they've been in the past year. plantings. appropriateness, and that. but when it comes to brick and mortar, we're treading on roads. MRS. PULVER-Well, I sat here. the night that our Supervisor said that the Beautification was going to take this over, they've consented to do it, and it was very nice and he got an applause from the audience, but I'm not sure that the Beautification Committee. okay. is the one to be deciding what we should have as far as architectural review, and he did also state that this would be, you would not be able to enforce these reviews. So. I mean. it's like. what good is this Committee. We can't enforce it, but we're going to put pressure on people. We. as a Planning Board. can say we don't like this can be made up for whatever reason. I think it can just get really out of hand. MR. DUSEK-That's why I made the suggestion that whatever, ultimately. is discovered. you'd want to take a look to see where your authority is and whether or not you have authority and that's why I recommended that. That's exactly what you'd want to consider. MRS. PULVER-Plus, do you know what we're making them do? We are making them build their building before they get through. sometimes. subdivision or anything else. They want to know whether or not their building will be approved, so they'n have to have all the elevations and everything done in the beginning when maybe, during the whole site plan review process. we decide the building needs to be smaller or whatever. MR. MARTIN-I can ten you right now, you are for sure tacking cost onto the price of site plan review and potentially a substantial one. because we don't require any elevations or anything like that. and now you're going to be, and then you're going to get into types of construction and types of materials. MRS. PULVER-Before you know it, we're going to be saying, gee, is that going to be able to hold the load up there on that beam? MR. DUSEK-To respond to Carol's question. though too. on. can you meet with the Beautification Committee. Certainly. legally, it's possible. I think it's up to your Board whether or not you want to, and then if you do. to contact the Beautification Committee and make arrangements. MRS. PULVER-I'm not trying to take any authority or anything away from them that they've been given. certainly. from the Town Board, but I'm just looking at it from our point of view, here, what we're going to have to wrestle with, and that's all I've thought about. I haven't thought whether we needed one or didn't need one. MR. MARTIN-Well. lets just be blunt about it. In a climate where there's concern about, you know. too many impediments to development, this is certainly not going to be looked upon with favor by those people who feel that way. MR. CARTIER-Wen, we can. maybe continue this discussion later on. I know Paul wants to talk to us. Paul. you wanted to address us about legal services. MR. DUSEK-Wen, before we get to that, there is one other issue which I didn't know whether you got the letter on or not. from the Roller Coaster and the request for an extension of time? MRS. YORK-No. My office has received nothing. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. DUSEK-Because I got a copy of a letter that was addressed. I thought, to Peter. MR. CARTIER-I have not received it. 45 '-" ~ MR. DUSEK-Well. maybe I can just tell the Board about it. anyway, so you're aware of the facts. The applicant for the roller coaster wrote a letter to somebody, and I thought it was Peter, and I've got a copy of it. asking that. MR. CARTIER-How do you get it before I do? MR. DUSEK-I don't know. but it's really not that significant. I mean. it's significant, but it's not serious. What they've asked for is an extension of time in which to submit their final EIS. The reg's give them. I believe, it's 30 days, and you can agree to an extension of time. They're asking for 30, perhaps as much as 60 days in which to get the final EIS to you. MR. CARTIER-Do we have to act on that right now, tonight? Do you want to do it tonight and get it out of the way? MR. DUSEK-Well, if you don't have a problem with it. it would be advisable, because you don't meet until next month again. MR. CARTIER-All right. So. we can do that by way of motion. Sixty days. well, they've asked for thirty. We can give them up to sixty. MR. DUSEK-I think they'd prefer sixty, if I understand their letter. MR. CARTIER-Lets give them. can we give them more than sixty? MRS. PULVER-So, if we go, like, September 30, October 30. to November 30. MR. CARTIER-Wen. 1 ets put a motion together and then we can pl ug the number in. Well, how does the Board feel about time? Sixty d~s? More than sixty days? MR. MARTIN-Sixty's fine. If they want more. they can come back. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion with regard to extension? Jl)TION TO EXTEIID THE TItE PERIOO OF SUBMISSION FOR ATTRACTIONS LAIID, INC. FEIS APPLICATION FOR 60 DAYS FROM THE EXPIRATION DATE. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 17th day of September. 1991. by the following vote: MR. CARTIER-When was it due? When does their original 30 days run out? Lets add 60 days to that. MRS. YORK-I don't have a clue. MRS. PULVER-All right. We will give them 60 days from whatever the due date is, the expiration date is. AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer. Mr. Hagan. Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Paul, you wanted to talk to us about legal services? MR. DUSEK-Yes. As I think the Board mayor may not be aware, because of the timing of events transpired. maybe, it was right around your Board meeting. maybe just after. Karla gave notice that she is. or at that point. she gave notice that she was leaving the Town. At this point, she has left the Town. Her last day was yesterday. That's why I'm here tonight. The concern. at this point, of course, is legal services and how to continue from here. There's many things being discussed, obviously, and thought of. that probably the most immediate problem is the fact that I'm very concerned that I don't believe. given my current work load. that I would be able to attend every meeting of the Planning Board. One of the proposals that has been set forth for consideration, and I know the Town Board would like to get your comments on, is. actually, it's a two fold proposal. One is, is that, with Karla leaving. there would not be an attorney at the Planning Board meetings full time. sitting in at every meeting, but rather have an attorney accessibl e to you under contract and al so through my office. In other words. two attorneys. basically. If it's something that doesn't look like it's going to be too involved or not a potential conflict, and scheduling works out. that to save money, the Town would like my office to continue to handle matters for you. If it's a matter. however. that you feel better with outside counsel. there would be one already set up in place so that you could immediately go to that. In other words, you don't have to clear it through me. You don't have to clear it through the Town Board, but rather you would have outside counsel accessible. but trying not to have counsel always, you know, 46 ",--. at every single meeting and available on everything. but rather trying to use some discretion to try to save some funds. That's generally the proposal that. you know, is being considered. Like I say, it's not set in stone and the Town Board is interested in your comments. MR. CARTIER-Let me say my piece. I think my initial reaction is. lets have somebody that we can get quickly. You are so busy. you're so flat out and we understand that. that. in terms of the Planning Board function. it might be appropriate for us to have access to outside counsel. and we cut out a middle man by having to go through you, through him. go directly to. MR. DUSEK-Sure. MRS. PULVER-You're saYing that, yes. outside counsel, so that we have counsel an the time, or not have counsel all the time? MR. DUSEK-Well. the thought would be not to have counsel at every meeting, but rather have it accessible to you, in terms of being able to call up, if you know in advance you're going to have a problem and you want them to come, or if you know, after. you know, if. during the meeting, a question arises. you can contact counsel the next day. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I'm totally against that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MRS. PULVER-I want counsel all the time. I never know what's going to happen. I never know if it's a good night or a bad night by reading the agendas. Sometimes things show up. and I would hate to have to have you read the minutes and relay everything to you afterwards. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I agree. MRS. PULVER-I don't think this is the place to save money. MR. CARTIER-I would hate to sit here and have to say to an applicant, I'm sorry, we're going to have to table you until we can get in touch with our attorney. That would be horrendous. MR. MARTIN-That has the potential for substantially delaying the development process, and I'm sure that will play well with the Town Board. MRS. PULVER-Well, Ed just brought up a good point, too. So many times the attorneys are representing the clients and here we are now, we're doing battle with the attorneys, because we don't know whether they're within their right. not their right, or whatever. MR. DUSEK-So. no matter what. the Board would like a counsel full time at all it's meetings? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I don't think the cost would be that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Second part of that, how much control do we have about who we get? MR. DUSEK-I think that the Town Board is looking to discuss that issue. at this point. MR. CARTIER-Okay, because. frankly. I have some personal preferences, and maybe among the Board. here, we can come up with some. Do you need to hear that now. or do you want to wait on that. or what? MR. DUSEK-I think, nothing's really solid at this point. Everything's kind of happening so fast, in terms of where we're going with this whole thing. I think it was important to talk to you about it tonight, at least to expose you to this situation and get some immediate reaction. which you've given to me. I think the next step would be maybe to carry the initial reaction to the Town Board and then. from there, just kind of keep moving it back and forth until a final conclusion is reached. MR. W\RTIN-Well. I can understand what their concerns are going to be. The public perception is going to be, well, we have a Town Attorney's office. and we're al so contracting out for 1 egal aid for our Planning Board and Zoning Board, maybe even, and I can understand that as a concern on their part. too. That perception can work against you. MR. CARTIER-That's a good point. I think it might be worth, somehow, getting into a discussion with the Zoning Board, maybe we can come up with one common attorney. I have some very strong preferences. and I would like very much for this Board. and the Zoning Board. to be involved in having some s~ in who is selected. MR. W\RTIN-But I still do believe that you could keep the cost. potentially, lower than what is was to have Karla around for a year. I don't know, maybe you could. 47 '--- MR. DUSEK-Well, that's. obviously. all the things that have to come into consideration. and, obviously, attorney's rates vary. too. That's going to be another factor in how things work out. The other thought I had is that I think that no matter what is ultimately decided, if outside counsel is used. I think it would be important that different attorneys were used for the Planning Board and the Zoning Board because of those instances where the Planning Board is not in agreement with things and it goes to the Zoning Board. You don't really want to have that kind of a conflict. where your attorney is put into a difficult position. MR. CARTIER-Good point. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but I don't want to be seen. from the outside. as having our hired gun disagreeing with you, either. I mean, I think that's the biggest danger is the people sitting out there see us with our own attorney, and all of a sudden we have another big disagreement with the Town Board. and that's going to be a black hole. and we don't want to send the Town into, in my opinion. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but, nevertheless, I understand. fully. what you're saying. but understand that if we have a Planning Board Attorney, his function is to provide legal services to the Planning Board. That's his function. MRS. YORK-Prior to Karla being here. there was a situation where the Planning Board and the Zoning Board both had the same attorney. MR. DUSEK-Before Karla was here, I covered everybody. MRS. YORK-Yes. but I mean prior to you. MR. DUSEK-Before I was here. the Town Board had an attorney. and then the Planning and Zoning Boards had an attorney. There were two attorneys. MRS. YORK-But what about the Zoning Board? MR. DUSEK-They had the same attorney as the Planning Board. MR. BREWER-It would be the same thing as if Karla was here at our meeting and at the Zoning Board, wouldn't it? MRS. YORK-Right. That's what confuses me. MR. DUSEK-What my recommendation is, though. is if you're going to hire outside, if that is the answer. you might as well get two attorneys. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. CARTIER-Well, but on the other hand. you may save some money by having one attorney. The number of times that I. the Planning Board is going to get into a conflict situation with the Zoning Board. that's never happened as long as I've been here. MRS. YORK-I don't think it's ever happened. that I know of. MR. DUSEK-Once you go outside, you' re p~ing an hourly rate and you're going to pay an hourly rate no matter who does it. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. CARTIER-Well, you may be able to cut a better deal with a lawyer. I don't know how this kind of stuff works, but it seems to me. if it works like everything else. okay. you may be able to cut a better deal if the lawyer is going to pick up more business. MR. DUSEK-My personal reaction is, I don't think you will. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-I think that a lawyer's going to size up the work in this category. He's going to size up the work in that category and then he's going to make a decision. as to what he's going to charge you. but he's not going to. basically, a lawyer is, to quote Abraham Lincoln, his time is his stock and trade and time is time, no matter which Board it's going to or how it gets split, and you really, that's where you're going to collect your fees. MR. CARTIER-Okay, then. scratch the save the money argument. I would still like to see, give some consideration to having the same attorney for both Boards. because I think that might save some time. somehow, if we've got somebody plugged into both Boards, and. as I said before. I don't see the Planning Board/Zoning Board getting into conflicts. MR. DUSEK-Wen. it's not the Planning BoardlZoning Board. but it's rather when the Planning Board and a Town official have a disagreement over an issue, it then goes to the Zoning Board and they have to make the decision. and you don't want to put that attorney in a position where I have found myself. from time to time. 48 -- MRS. YORK-Pau1. when peop1e taH to us about conf1ict of interest. here, other attorneys stood up in front of this Board and said that our attorney shou1d just be quoting the 1aw. shou1d not be ever in a position of giving an opinion. MR. DUSEK-We11. that's easy for those attorneys to s~. I think you've rea11y got to be in the situation and understand the situation as I do, and I think that the concerns 11m raising are 1egitimate concerns. We've wa1ked a very carefu1 1ine, and I don't think that we've ever had a prob1em where we've actuany been in confJict, but sometimes those prob1ems have been reso1ved by a Board s~ing. wen. I won't have an attorney or a Town officia1 saying, I won't have an attorney, or the attorney being very carefu1 to take that position. and I just don't think that that. if you're going to go to outside counse1. why continue that? Why have to worry about a11 that stuff? MR. CARTIER-Okay. We11. then, what we can do is summarize so far. We definite1y want our own attorney fun time at an meetings and avanab1e to Staff and whatever, and us. Number Two. am I the on1y one who wants some say in who we get. or is that a Board? MR. MARTIN-No. I'd 1ike to have a s~. MRS. PULVER-I don't care. MR. LAPOINT-It doesn't matter to seems to be more the team work. reporting to Pau1. me. I'd 1ike him under the Town Attorney's contro1. though. That I don't know if I want him to report direct1y to me. I'd 1ike him MR. CARTIER-But then that gets us back into this conf1ict prob1em. MR. LAPOINT-We'11 have a conf1ict if he doesn't report to him. Again. I want to put out the perception of team work. here. MR. HAGAN-Pau1's job is to protect the Town of Queensbury. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. HAGAN-And we if we have a 1awyer misdirect us and it's going to get the Town into troub1e. then he's got troub1e. MR. LAPOINT-Right. So, I think. just my knee jerk is my parting comment, is that it wou1d be nice if he oversaw whoever it was in both the Zoning Board and us. in that I know we won't go a month before an of a sudden therein be some kind of a disagreement between our attorney and the Town Board's attorney. and that's the nightmare I don't want to see happen. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I understand that. but. sti11, doesn't that put us into this conf1ict issue. again, at some point? MR. LAPOINT-No. because I think we can a11 work objective1y and we shou1d. MR. CARTIER-We11. no, wait a minute. It didn't work when we had Kar1a here. Kar1a was working under Pau1's guidance. if you wi11 whatever the word is there. and we sti11 ran into this conf1ict situation. MR. DUSEK-I think if you're going to go. u1timate1y, to outside counse1, the outside counse1 has to report to you. I mean. and to have me be the midd1e man. first of an. it adds to my work load. and. you know, we start to diminish what we're trying to accomp1ish. in terms of freeing me up to do other work. So, I think that has to be looked at. Now. I think as far as assisting. and this is where the concept originany came, of thinking that, if there wasn't an attorney at every Board meeting, then. you know, my office cou1d perform where it cou1d, and where it couldn't. you cou1d just simp1y get an outside counsel. That's where that thinking was coming from, saying. wen then some money cou1d be saved and sti11 provide 1ega1 services. I understand that you don't 1ike that concept. The other part of the. here again, on the other side of it, with contracting attorneys, no matter what we u1timate1y do, obvious1y, I wou1d hope to be part of the process, so that I can assist in the se1ection process and work that out so that I can offer what I have to offer. in terms of help in that regard. MR. CARTIER-Yes. we11. u1timate1y, the Town Board is going to make the decision as to who gets hired. That's part of their job. but I would certain1y hope that they would weight, very heavny, any suggestions or recommendations from both this Board and the Zoning Board of Appea1s. as to who we get. It would put an attorney in a very difficu1t situation to be sitting over there in front of seven people who don't want him, but wanted somebody else, okay. What else? Anything else? MR. DUSEK-That was a11 I had to say about it, un1ess anybody wants me. you know. I think the message. maybe to make sure we're an. I understand what you want me to ten the Town Board, is that you're interested in the contracting attorney idea, but if we're going to go that route, you want an attorney at every meeting and then doing whatever extra work there is necessary for those meetings or whatever else comes up. 49 ~ '-' MR. MARTIN-The reason being to keep the process running smoothly and not result in unneeded del ays with. you know, like you say, an applicant's attorney standing before us and we don't know how to react to a certain comment or an issue and we're stuck. We've got to table it. MR. DUSEK-And then the other part of that that I woul d convey to the Town Board woul d be. then, that this Board feels that. although they understand the Town Board would ultimately hire everything. the contracting attorney, if that was the route that was chosen, this Board would want to have a say in who that attorney ultimately was. MR. MARTIN-Right. I agree with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anything else? All right. Way down the line. December. our second December meeting is Christmas Eve. I think you may want to think about doing something about that. but we don't have to decide that tonight. We need to decide that by November. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier. Chairman 50