Loading...
1991-11-26 '--" -- 0/ IJ,IEENSBURY PlANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGUlAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26, 1991 INDEX Subdivision No. 14-1991 FINAL STAGE Daniel D. Lewis 1. Site Plan No. 52-91 Woodbury's (Cont'd on Page 28.) 2. Subdivision No. 16-1991 SKETCH PLAN Sherman Pines Charles A. Diehl 3. Subdivision No. 17-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Frank J. and Jessie C. Lockhart 10. Site Plan No. 53-91 George and Marilyn Stark d/b/a Mohican Motel 13. Subdivision No. 11-1991 SKETCH PLAN Sunset Hi 11 Farm Owner: Paul Knox, III 18. 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. -...-' IJ,IEENSBURY PlANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGUlAR MEETING NOVEMBER 26TH, 1991 7:03 P.M., MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER JAMES MARTIN EDWARD LAPOINT JAMES LAURICELLA MEMBERS ABSENT NICHOLAS CAIMANO SENIOR PlANNER-LEE YORK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM PAOLECELLI STEfIOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD IIJSINESS: SUBDIVISION 10. 14-1991 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A DANIEL D. LEWIS OWNER: IWIIEL D. LEWIS DREAM lAKE, SUNNYSIDE ROAD TO DREAM lAKE (RIGHT-OF-IMY) FOR A III) LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP fIO. 50-1-1 LOT SIZE: 9.52 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS (7:03 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-One quick comment. I got a call from Mr. Scudder today, who represents this applicant, saying that he had a problem with regard to getting here this evening and I said, basically, it was his call whether he thought he was going to be here, okay. With that, we'll start Staff Notes, Lee, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 14-1991, Daniel D. Lewis, Nov. 12, 1991, Meeting Date: November 26, 1991 IIThis application is for a two lot subdivision near Dream Lake. At the preliminary stage of review. Mr. Nacy, the agent for the applicant, stated that the driveways would be wide enough to allow for emergency vehicles and a turn around area would be placed there. Proper clearance for this is shown on the Final Plat. Please remind the owners to establish mailing addresses with the Post Office as requested on the application. The Staff recommends final approval. II MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Engineering Comments? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, IIWe have reviewed the project and have no engineering comments.1I MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Does anybody on the Board have any questions or comments on this application? MR. LAURICELLA-I have a question. That's just a right-of-way into those two lots. Do we accept? MRS. YORK-Yes. They received a variance for not having frontage on a Town road, previously. MR. CARTIER-The answer to your question is, normally we wouldn't, but they got a variance for that. MRS. YORK-They're usually required to have 40 feet on a Town road. MR. LAURICELLA-Right. How do you get access into that, on that right-of-way? MRS. YORK-Yes, they will. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay, and they'll have to maintain it? That's their responsibility to maintain that? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. 1 "'-" ~ MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? I closed the public hearing on this. We've done the SEQRA Review. If nobody has any other questions or comments in reference to this application, I think we can entertain a motion. It would appear that the only thing we might want to incl ude in the moti on is in reference to estab 1 i shi ng mail i ng addresses. Woul d anyone care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 10. 14-1991 DANIEL D. LEWIS, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a two lot subdivision, with the following stipulation: That the owner establish a mailing address with the Post Office as required on the application. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Lauricella ABSENT: Mr. Caimano (7:07 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-You have the newest agenda in front of you. We're going to the back side, under Old Business, but before I do that, is there somebody here to represent Sunset Hill, Mr. Knox's application? Okay. I guess it's going to get left until the end then. MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Fine. Thank you. Blazing on to new business. NEW IIJSINESS: SITE PINt fIO. 52-91 IIJOOBURylS TYPE II PC-lA II)()DBURylS OWNER: IIJOÐBURY INTERSTATE CORP. 679 GLEN STREET FOR A NEW FENCE FOR THE LUMBER YARD. (WARREN COUNTY PINtNING) TAX IMP NO. 104-1-35.2 LOT SIZE: 1.26 ACRES SECTION 179-74 C-3 (7:07 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-Is there somebody here to represent Woodbury's? Okay. That goes to the last of the pile, unless you want to review it? MR. LAPOINT-We have some questions, don't we? MR. CARTIER-Yes. There's lots of questions. MR. LAPOINT-Lets move it to the back, then. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Pat, while Woodbury's has come up here, maybe so you don't have to hang around for this whole meeting, did you ever make a determination on that site work that's being done in back, that I talked to you about whether or not they have to come in for site plan? PAT CRAYFORD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes, I did. I made a determination that they will have to come in for site plan review for the parking, actually, variance for the parking. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-A variance. They will be before you for a variance for that. MR. CARTIER-All right. Variance before the Zoning Board and site plan before us? MRS. CRAYFORD-Just a variance before the Zoning Board. MR. MARTIN-So, we're going to be seeing the SEQRA, probably. MRS. CRAYFORD-Probably. Yes. MR. CARTIER-For the parking. Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-Yes. 2 '--- ~ MR. CARTIER-At some point, we're going to get tangled up in buffer zones and all that sort of stuff in there. Okay. Thank you. Woodbury's is moved to the back of the pile. Okay. (7:09 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1991 SKETCH PINt TYPE I SR-20 SHERMAN PINES CHARLES A. DIEHL OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVENUE, APPROX. 1,490 FT. EASTERLY OF INTERSECTION OF lEST tOJNTAIN ROAD AND SHERMAN AVENUE FOR 100 LOT SUBDIVISION. ONE-IIINDRED SINGLE FAMIL Y RESIDENCES TO BE CONSTllJCTED IN ATTACHED (TOWNHOOSE) DESIGN; FOOTPRINT ONLY TO BE SOLD; HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION TO OWN ALL OPEN SPACE AND CCIIIJN AREA. TAX MP fIO. 121-1-22.1 LOT SIZE: 48.275 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS CROSS REFERENCE: PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE: PI-91, CHARLES DIEHL, RE-ZOfIED TO SR-20 ON 10/9/91 PER RESOWTION 10. 530 OF 1991 WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:09 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 16-1991, Charles A. Diehl - Sherman Pines, 11-25-91, November 26, 1991 liThe applicant is requesting subdivision approval for 100 units on Sherman Avenue. A cluster design is anticipated. Volumes have been written about this project since it was originally approved by the Planning Board as a 46 unit sub~ivision and subsequently re-zoned to SR-20. This is a Type I application and the Town Board has alreadj'dori~ the SEQRA review and given a negative declaration. The density increase was granted with specific conditions relating to sale price, number of units, percolation tests for individual units, storm water management, that an updated traffic report be provided and that a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions be filed. The re-zoning was done to provide moderate income housing. The subdivision is required to be phased. Although the application states that this will be done, construction phasing should be indicated on the plans. The setback from Sherman Road is 100 feet. The Board should indicate that this is to be left natural. The Board should further stipulate that any endangered or threatened species found on the property will be identified and protected. Such identification should be done by an expert in the field and the results submitted to the Planning Department. Section 179-62 (Multiple-family dwellings) states B IIRoad Design. All non public roads used for vehicular circulation in all multifamily projects shall be designed in width, curvature, etc. to accommodate service and emergency vehicles and shall meet all Town standards for public roads. II 2. Ingress and egress. Where project roads intersect public roads, subdivision site distances and grades shall apply. Generally, all road systems should be looped, if possible, and minimizing dead ends and cul-de-sacs. 3. Pedestrian walkway. Pedestrian walkways shall be provided connecting the housing units to vehicular storage areas and recreation areas. The project size has more than doubled and the driveways to the units further from Casey Drive have also lengthened. Originally, many of the development impacts were mitigated by the clustering design and limited clearing. In order to fit in 54 more units driveways which are curved and lengthy are planned. The Zoning Administrator should review the driveway and roadway configurations and determine if they comply with the regulations. Also the Highway Superintendent will be requested to comment. The "driveways" are reaching over 500 feet in length in some instances and are to remain in common ownership. Unfortunately, past practice has indicated that private maintenance costs become very high and the Town is petitioned to take over maintenance of these. The Board should decide if the driveways have taken on the role of roads and should be reviewed as such. The Board may want to review pedestrian traffic as children will probably be utilizing the driveways to get to bus pickup points. The Board may want to request that a public transportation enclosure be provided by the developer to encourage use of the Glens Falls areawide transportation system. Also, that the GFATS be contracted to attest to the fact that these 100 units will be integrated into the system. The Board may want to discuss on site storage areas so that recreational vehicles or boats are stored in the driveways. Also, any on site recreational areas should be noted on the plans per Section 179-62-C-1. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan encourages clustering and moderate income development. The Board may want to request a different clustering design which would limit driveways and create clustered pods. Potentially more open space could also left and infrastructure costs could be minimized. A philosophical question which the Board may want answered in the future is, IIWhat is the need for moderate income housing in the Town?1I This has never been done and criteria should be established as the Boards are being besieged with re-zoning requests to provide for this income level. II MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Engineering Comments, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, November 14, 1991 IIWe have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The sequence of construction phasing should be outlined and should indicate if the roadway will be built entirely prior to unit construction or if a cul-de-sac design will be used in the interim. 2. With regard to streets: a. In accordance with Subdivision Regulation A183-24C., each lot shall abut a street built to Town Specifications. Private gravel access roads are proposed each serving between 8 and 16 units. b. A minimum roadway centerline radius for horizontal curves shall be 300' for local streets per Subdivision Regulation AI83-23-I.(1)(a). Street right-of-way lines and roadways at intersections shall be rounded with a radius per Subdivision Regulation A-183-23-I.(3)(b) for collector streets. d. The western most intersection with Sherman Avenue should be at 90° per Subdivision Regulation AI83-23-I.(3)(a). 3. With regard to the sketch grading plan: 3 -- - a. Maximum site grades should be 1 vertical on 3 horizontal per AI83-25-A(I). b. Lots having driveways sloping away from streets shall have driveways graded to provide a high point at or near the right-of-way of the street to prevent street runoff from entering the driveway. c. The grading around all buildings must ensure positive drainage away from buildings per Subdivision Regulation AI83-25A. 4. It is not clear how roadway stormwater runoff will be managed after collection in catch basins. Catch basins must be a minimum of 30 feet from driveway centerlines. 5. A cOlTlllunity sewerage system is stipulated when the subdivision consists of 200 or more residents in the aggregate as per NYSDEC Regulation at 6NYCRR 653.4(a)(5) and NYSDOH Regulations at NYCRR 74.4a. 6. A Long Environmental Assessment Form is required for the project. The previous SEQRA action appears only to have addressed re-zoning of the parcel. II MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I have a note to myself, here. Highway Department, were there any comments from the Highway Department, or will they be forthcoming at some point? MRS. YORK-They will be forthcoming, probably at the preliminary stage of review. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mathias. MR. MATHIAS-My name's Wilson Mathias. I'm an attorney with offices at 525 Bay Road. I'm here representing Charles Diehl, the owner and applicant for this subdivision. I've been here, this is, I think, the third time in front of you folks, in terms of what this project looks like. Other than providing you with some more details, I don't believe there's anything different in this plan than what you've seen previously. This is intended to comply with the Sketch Plan requirements and, as such, is really a concept. I think that some of the comments that have been made, at least as I understand it, is the kind of data that you require in your preliminary plan. There's no question we're going to phase this. We have to do that, simply to comply with the subdivision regulations because of the number of units involved. I think that many of the technical comments that have been raised by your engineer and by the Planning Department is data that any applicant would have to set forth in the preliminary approval plan. I think, in terms of the issues that get raised, and 1'11 cut myself short, because we've already been through this before, it seems to me that one is very easy to dispose of, and that's the comment with respect to SEQRA. I think that there's little doubt, or should be little doubt, in anybody's mind that the SEQRA process has been completed and was completed at the time of re-zoning, and because we're not doing anything other than what's already been reviewed and approved, that that process is over, with the filing of a negative declaration by the Town Board. MR. CARTIER-I don't know that you're going to get an agreement on that from this Board, but go ahead. MR. MATHIAS-Well, that's my position, and your attorney will advise you about that, but we don't think we've got to go through that again. It's already occurred. The other issue has to do with the types of driveways or access road off of the main road. It's an issue that's been raised by both the engineer and also by the Planning Department. Again, this is the concept that was put in front of the Town Board, again, with the idea of avoiding a grid type subdivision or an additional, significant additional, amount of roadways. There's no question that the concept of a private drive stemming from the public roadway was what was approved by the Town Board when they re-zoned it, and I'd submit that, at this point, we wouldn't be able to come back and show you a plan that had 100 units with a lot of streets and cul-de-sacs. MR. CARTIER-It sounds to me like you're saying that the Town Board did the Planning Board's job. MR. MATHIAS-I think, in the sense of certain of the requirements, that's true. I think that was the issue that you raised and got decided with SEQRA, and the second issue has to do with the driveway situation. I think that that was something we said. Now, again, because this is a concept thing, and I think that the whole point is for any applicant to obtain the expertise from an approval from the Planning Board. The arrangement and the precise number of units that we're ultimately going to be able to put in there is something that's going to be up to you. There's no question about that, and so that, in terms of the location, in terms of the arrangement of the cluster design, you know, again, this is the first step in the process, and, you know, one of the comments that the Planner has said is they're pretty spread out. Maybe it's a better idea to bring these units in closer proximity so you don't have the extensive driveway system, and that's certainly something for the engineering people that Mr. Diehl has engaged to give some consideration, and perhaps at the preliminary stage, to make some significant revisions, with respect to how they're laid out. We don't have any question about that, or that we have to do that. We don't have any question about the comments with respect to endangered species. It's something we're going to have to engage an expert on and provide you with the report. Any type of restrictions with respect to the preservation of open space or setback from the Town roads or from Sherman Avenue from adjoining property owners. Obviously, we're going to comply with those types of requests and suggestions. So, I think that the major issue, from our standpoint, is the issue of the driveways, and how we're going to deal with that. I think the concern about showing pedestrian access is a really good point and is something that we should detail at the next step. The other thing I think we certainly have no problem with is the request for cooperation with the Greater Glens Falls Transit Authority, in terms of a bus stop. So, again, I think those are the major comments and I guess what we'd like to do is try to address your questions or at least take input at this point, so that we can show those, get your input, in terms of what we're going to put in our preliminary plan. 4 .........- -./ MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do Board members have any questions or comments? You don't have an engineer here tonight. MR. MARTIN-I think we're in a bit of a tough situation, here, that's been brought about by the re-zoning. We've got a situation, here, where we would like to, I would imagine, strive to maintain as much green space and open space as we possibly can, but I don't feel that 0 lot line housing in this particular, area of the Town is going to sell worth a tinker's darn, to be quite honest and frank about it. So, there's got to be a more creative design, here, to this. I know this is typical, generic stuff here" trying to minimize roads to be built and so on, but this has got to be a little bit better than this, and I really don't like the 0 lot line housing, and that's what's forcing us into this. I'd like to see single family detached, if this is going to be so called lIaffordable housing". MR. CARTIER-So, you want to see more detail for conceptual? MR. MARTIN-Well, I'd even like to have a discussion if we should enforce Section AI83-35C, Alternate Sketch Plan - liThe Planning Office or the Planning Board may request that the subdivider present, along with a proposal utilizing the provisions of this Article (meaning the clustering) an alternate sketch plan with lots meeting the minimum lot area requirements, minimum lot widths, and minimum shoreline lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. II So we can get a comparison and maybe, in the process, strive toward something that's a little bit more of a happy medium for everybody. MR. MATHIAS-We'd be happy to do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you have anything else? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have a question or comment? MR. MATHIAS-I guess the only question I have, in the sense of saying we'd be happy to do that, is that we would be doing it under an SR-20, as opposed to an SR-IA. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MATHIAS-Right. MR. MARTIN-No. I understand that. We're bound by the new zoning. MR. CARTIER-Understood. MR. LAPOINT-What was that reference, Jim? MR. MARTIN-It was AI83-35, that's Procedures, and then Letter C. Specific page is A18369, and that's under Subdivision, Peter. MR. CARTIER-Unfortunately, our Town Attorney isn't here at the moment. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. I think that there's a, you know, I had to file, today, covenants and restrictions, that the Town Board requi red of us in connection with the re-zoning process, and certainly I'd want him, or an opinion that, you know, that this type of an alternative type development with, say, single family detached units or some or a mixture of both, you know, would still come within the framework of the Town Board's re-zoning~ MRS. PULVER-I believe it does. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. We don't have a problem with that. We think that would be great. MRS. PULVER-I mean, I was at those meetings. and I think that this particular plan, and I'm not sure I understood you correctly to say that the Town approved this, so, therefore, this would be the plan that we should be looking at. The Town approved the re-zoning and had some conditions and things with it, but I think as far as the planning goes, it's up to the Planning Board to decide whether or not this plan or an alternative clustering plan or whatever, is best suited for the site. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think Lee's comment is more to the mark, there, on Page 2, liThe Board may want to request a different clustering design which would limit driveways and create clustered pods. II I think that's a little bit more near the mark and a little bit more of a happy medium as to what may be a better design, here. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and for me and, again, I can't give a legal opinion, here, but, to me, that also indicates that we need to do a SEQRA Review of this. MR. MARTIN-Right. 5 "---/ ..-' MR. CARTIER-The SEQRA Review that was done with the Town was, in fact, done on the zoning, as far as I'm concerned, and now we're going to look at, and I know you presented a conceptual plan to them, but I think I'm hearing this Board right in saying we're going to look at a different, we want to look at a different conceptual plan, which suggests to me that we need to do a different SEQRA Review on this. MR. BREWER-It would be the impact these houses are going to create on that land. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. CARTIER-True. MR. MARTIN-Yes, the actual physical design or configuration. MR. CARTIER-And the engineer has also concurred with that, but, again, we can get a legal opinion of that. I think, it's not a question that has to be answered tonight, anyway. Agreed? MR. MATHIAS-I think that's, no question about it. If we come back with another plan, I think we're probably still at the Sketch Plan level, and you don't need to do SEQRA until Preliminary. MR. CARTIER-Correct. So, it's not something that we have to hammer on the wall tonight, but it's a question that needs to be answered, prior to Preliminary. MR. MATHIAS-Yes, and I'd like to get a response back from the Town Attorney's Office to make sure we're not going to create a new plan that he has, you know, somehow violates whatever was approved. That's all. MR. MARTIN-I don't think so. MRS. PULVER-I don't think so. MR. CARTIER-I don't think that's going to be a problem. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? I wish there were an engineer here tonight, so that we could address, I don't think it's fair to put Mr. Mathias in the situation of having to deal with engineering comments. MR. MATHIAS-Well, as I understand it, in terms of a number of the comments, it's my understanding that a number of these issues, I'm told by the engineer, would be addressed in the Preliminary plan, if I'm looking at the Rist-Frost letter, at Number Two, B, C, and D. Those would be included in any type of Preliminary submission. With respect to Three A, they tell me anyway, they do comply, that the documents submitted to you show maximum site grades, with one vertical on three horizontal. MR. CARTIER-Well, lets see if we can get some specific direction for you here on these notes. MR. MATHIAS-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Considering Planner's notes, Lee's notes, from this Board, is there anything on Lee's notes that anybody here takes issue with or would care to add to, or expand on? MR. LAPOINT-I just have one question. Do we suspect there's an endangered or threatened species in the vicinity? We do? What might that be? MRS. YORK-It's just some plant species. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, I mean, that in itself, if you go through this study and there's any type of finding at all, then that demands SEQRA right there, that becomes an element of SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-True. MR. LAPOINT-That's a surprise to me. I wouldn't have thought it. MRS. YORK-Mr. LaPoint, these were just things that were noted, visually, on the site. DEC does not have the site on their listings or anything like that, okay. So, the applicant has agreed to provide a study. MR. LAPOINT-Great. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-If he agrees, I just thought that that was a surprising request, and, in terms of the Engineering Notes, I think they're all fairly straight forward. I don't think anyone of them can't be dealt with fairly simply. 6 '--' --' MR. MATHIAS-No. That's, as I understand it. Our Engineers are going to have to comply with what the Reg's are. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think you're going to have plenty of time. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. If you come back with an alternative, and, again, the only one, here, is really the squaring up at, what is it, the western intersection, to 90 degrees and, again, stormwater management, what happens when it's in the catch basin. That's all fairly simply addressed. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How about anybody else, in terms of Planning Comments? The only one that pops into my head is on Page Two, fourth paragraph from the bottom, with regard to storage areas. Maybe you want to design in some common storage, ~ common storage area, a fenced in, or something of that nature, because we're talking about people people only owning the footprint of these buildings. Is that correct? MR. MATHIAS-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Is there something in your covenants about that, about boats and trailers and all that good stuff? MR. MATHIAS-Yes. I mean, I think that's, again, it's part of the. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. If they're covered in your covenants, that these people can't have a trailer or a boat, then that addresses that. MR. MARTIN-And, in this redesign effort, I think the third paragraph, here, on Page Two, that's also going to come into play, the length of driveways and things. I mean, if we are going to try and make these affordable, then we have to keep the responsibility of a high maintenance cost off the backs of the owners, and I think we're going to then require, a redesign to do that is going to mean more up front money on the part of the developer for more roadways, I would think. MR. MATHIAS-Well, of course, that's the catch, right? I mean, you make somebody put in three quarters of a million dollars in infra structure, and it's difficult to meet the requirements of the. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but you've doubled your density. Now you're going to have oodles of money to work with. MR. MATHIAS-Well, that's not so. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, we can't even discuss this until we see the alternate plan. I mean, what's before us doesn't meet certain criteria, so maybe the alternate plan will and then we can discuss lengths and the merits between this plan and the alternative. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. I think that, particularly from what Mr. Martin says, there isn't any question, if we can put single fami ly detached units, we're going to sell them, and we're going to sell them a lot faster than we would sell townhouse units. There's no magic about that. MR. MARTIN-Right, and I think if you can coordinate your phasing, you can keep the infra structure problem from being so. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. Exactly, and if we're able to work on a road pattern that allows us to do that, where we tried, initially, to stay away from a bunch of cul-de-sacs because the Highway Department doesn't like that, but something along those lines, or a combination thereof with something like this, may be something that we're able to work up. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Well, you haven't developed the cost of these homes yet. MR. MATHIAS-We've explored the costs of utilizing modular housing units and, because of the number of units involved and, I guess, the state of the building industry in general, there are some very attractive pricing in connection with modular units. MR. CARTIER-Are we talking multi plex units? Quadra plex modular units? MR. MATHIAS-In that sense, yes, under this concept, but, hey, they can make them any way you want. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm just trying to get the applicant some specific comments from us. Is it a fair statement to say that this Board wants to see all of the Planner's comments addressed in the next go around, as far as any expansion on those? MR. MATHIAS-I would say, except for the last one, the philosophical question. We're not going to purport to address that. 7 '-' -- MR. CARTIER-Well, it says, lIin the future". MR. MATHIAS-Right. MR. CARTIER-So, okay. All right. Is that a fair statement? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. With regard to Engineering Comments, I defer to my engineering colleague, that those also will be addressed. Is there anything else, of an engineering nature, that needs to be addressed? MRS. PULVER-I have one, before we, it's a little early, but I want you to keep this in mind before we get to final, if we get that far, is that, one of the things I'd like to see is some sort of marketing strategy on affordable housing. I'd like to see the units pre-priced. I mean, you need to know what the cost is going to be to find out whether or not you're going to be able to stick within the re-zoning guidelines, which is, you have to sell to no more than 120 percent of median, and, in order to satisfy that and to satisfy, maybe, the Board, that you're truly going to do affordable housing, these units should be pre-sold. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I would say that we would comply with whatever's set forth in the Subdivision Regulations, that any other developer, whether they're selling affordable housing or anything else, has to comply with, and we will do that. MRS. PULVER-Well, what we're worried about is that you're going to start building these houses, and today the house is $80,000, and next week that same house is $90,000, and the week after it's $100,000, and you still only have a $30,000 buyer, but now you have the house up at $100 and you come and claim hardship to our Town, and they're no longer affordable housing, it's housing that's escalated in cost. MR. MATHIAS-We're going to go around and around this, but the fact of the matter is they're covenants and restrictions, and I know that there's some people that don't believe that the private sector is able to police things. The majority of people, in my experience, buying a home, have to get a mortgage, and every bank attorney, or bank that I know, requires somebody to say that covenants and restrictions are being complied with. I really think that it's a concern that gets addressed and covered under the covenants and restrictions. I think the philosophical problem is, what happens the next time around, and I don't think that that's. MRS. PULVER-No. I'm not worried the next time around. I'm worried the first time around. MR. MATHIAS-Well, the first time around, we've got filed covenants and restrictions that say this is the pricing structure. This is where this has to be, and it's geared to the median income of the residents in the Town of Queensbury. MR. CARTIER-Let me address your comment about complying with Subdivision Regulations. Recognize that Subdivision Regulations are a minimum, and there are times that, and this Board is authorized to go beyond those on occasion. I don't want to turn that into a debate right now. MR. MATHIAS-Right, but I think that, again, you can impose the type of restrictions that vitiate the whole concept of affordable housing, and certain. MR. CARTIER-I don't think that is going to be our intent. MR. MATHIAS-I hope not. MR. CARTIER-And if it were, you would have the right to hang us by our heels, but, understand, I don't want to just let this go by, that as long as you meet the Subdivision Regulations, everything is okay, because that would do away with the Planning Board function, and I know that makes a lot of people want to cheer when I say that, but, nevertheless, this Board does have a function. MR. MATHIAS-You could simply have performance standards, which you don't, but I'm not going to agree, on behalf of my client, at the Preliminary Stage, to say we're going to give you a marketing study, that's all. MRS. PULVER-No. I didn't ask for a marketing study. I said some sort of marketing plan. How do you plan to market these houses? You know, to pre-sell the homes before they're built is an excellent idea. You should really consider it. You start advertising and you get your buyers, and then you know how many you've got. MR. MATHIAS-I think that there's no question that that type of thing is exactly what we would do. If that's what you're looking for, we're. MR. CARTIER-I think we're in agreement, then. 8 '-' - MR. MATHIAS-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes, and what I'm looking for is you to tell us what feel these homes are going to cost, what income is going to be able to afford it, whether it's 100 percent of median or 120, and how you're going to start advertising them, marketing them, taking the applications to be sure that these people are going, to be sure that you're going to, you have to really target this particular income group. They don't just appear. They have to be targeted. They're out. They're all looking for homes, but they have no idea where to go to find one. MR. MATHIAS-No, and any help that you folks can give us in marketing them, obviously, we'll be happy to receive. MR. MARTIN-Do you have any idea, at all, what the preliminary asking price is going to be? MR. MATHIAS-I don't. MR. MARTIN-Even a ballpark? CHARLES DIEHL MR. DIEHL-My name is Charl ie Diehl and I'm the owner of the project, here. To answer the question concerning price, we have stated, before, that it was going to be $65, $75,000. With the change of a townhouse concept that you have here, now, to a single family, it changes the whole picture, and we have to reassess ourselves. I might say to you, Carol, I have had two meetings with Ted Bigelow, already, in trying to, with the Town, with what they're looking for, and he's certainly knowledgeable of that, and trying to go along with this. Another thing I might say is, the economy pretty much dictates what the pricing of housing is going to be. I think anything up in the area of $90, $100,000 is going to be very difficult to sell. 1'm interested in selling, and, going through the project, I certainly don't want to put it into a category where people will have to meet a mortgage that's beyond their means. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have a comment? Mr. Mathias, do you have any questions, or, Mr. Diehl, do you have any questions that you want to ask us? MR. MATHIAS-No. I think we'll, actually, happily submit something that's a little bit different than this, in terms of a, probably, just, it'll have to be somewhat of a mixture of detached and attached housing, I would think, because we looked at it once before, really, with the conventional subdivision, and the road requirements, but, no, I think you've given us some direction. I think we can come back and give you something else. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think it's fair to state, correct me if I'm wrong here, that what we'd like to see in a revised plan is that all of the Planning Comments have been dealt with and all of the Engineering Comments, and don't look at this as some kind of a shopping list to pick and choose through here. MR. MATHIAS-Yes, well, I would say the one issue that I think is going to remain in the air is going to be the SEQRA one, and that's. MR. CARTIER-Well, we'll have an answer to that, I think it's safe to say, prior to the next time you come back. MR. MATHIAS-Yes, and maybe you could communicate that to me. MR. CARTIER-I think that might be a good idea. Lee, could you make a note to yourself to talk to Paul about that, so that he can look into that for us and get back to us on that issue? MRS. YORK- Yes, I wi 11 . MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else have any questions or comments? Are we prepared to make a motion, at this point? If so, would someone like to make one? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. You agree to table? The applicant agrees? MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think what we're agreeing to do is to comply with the other Section of the Regulations that require, or allow for the submission of an alternative Sketch Plan. MR. CARTIER-Which is going to require tabling. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. MATHIAS-If that requires you to, I don't know if it does, but, you're not going to do anything on this until after we give you the other information. 9 '--" ~ MOTION TO TABLE SKETCH PINt SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1991 SHERMAN PIflES CHARLES A. DIEHL, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: So that the applicant may address an alternate design, per Subdivision Regulation Number AI83-35C, and that the applicant may address the Planning Comments in Lee York's letter dated 25 November 1991, and the Rist-Frost letter dated 14 November 1991, and that Lee York communicate and determine the SEQRA status with the Town Attorney and pass that information along to the applicant and the Planning Board within tWo weeks. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver ABSENT: Mr. Caimano (7:47 p.m.) SUBDIVISION 10. 17-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-SA LC-1OA FRANK J. AND JESSIE C. LOCKHART OWNER: SAlE AS ABDVE lEST SIDE OF LOCKHART MOUNTAIN ROAD 710 FT. SOUTH OF ROUTE 9L (EAST SHORE DRIVE) FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.0 ACRE PARCEL FROM A TOTAL OF 43.42 ACRES TO BE CONVEYED TO SHELLY L. AND STEPHEN A. ICARTIFF (DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-lAW) TAX MAP 10. 23-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 43.42 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS MARK BOMBARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:47 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 17-1991, Frank J. and Jessie C. Lockhart, November 12, 1991, Meeting Date: November 26, 1991 liThe request is for a two lot subdivision on Lockhart Road. The applicant intends to create a 5 acre lot on Lockhart Mt. to give to his daughter. The applicant received a variance last month because the lot is split zoned, and could not meet the area requirements. (3.4 acres in RR-5A, and 1.6 acres in LC-I0). The SEQRA form indicates the depth to bedrock is undetermined. The resource maps show greater than 60 inches. In this area of Lockhart Mt. there are some fast percolating soils and some steep slopes. Given the size of the lot and the proposed development it would appear that any limitations can be avoided. There are also some animal habitats and significant view sheds on the mountain. The density of this development should not impact them. The proposed driveway is ± 420 feet but the plans indicate that a cleared area of 15 feet and a turn around will be maintained. It appears that clearing will take place in limited areas. Unless there are any engi neering concerns, staff recommends approval. II MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Engineering Comments, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, November 14, 1991 IIWe have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Prior horizontal separation distances for both the proposed well and proposed sewage disposal system must be maintained between existing sewage disposal areas for cottages to remain on the adjoining residual lot within 200 feet of the proposed well and sewage disposal area must be located and shown on the plan. 2. Erosion control measures, in accordance with Town of Queensbury Code A183-26 and New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control should be addressed. At a minimum a note to this effect should appear on the plan. 3. Because the increase in runoff from the site will likely be minimal, a waiver from SWM should be requested.1I MRS. YORK-And, excuse me, there is a request for a waiver in the application file. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. "4. The data indicates soil testing was conducted on October 29, 1991. The Town of Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Ordinance requires that high groundwater observations be made during March, April, May, or June within six (6) weeks of the time frost leaves the ground. If this is not possible, the seasonal high groundwater level may only be determined by an individual certified by the Local Board of Health. 5. The applicant should request a waiver of 2 foot contours and the requirement for a boundary map of the entire 43.42 acres to be subdivided. II MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you, and we do have another letter in the file, from Mr. Lockhart, requesting a waiver from the 2 foot contours, for five feet. MRS. YORK- Yes, we do. 10 '---" - MR. CARTIER-So, in terms of waivers, we're looking at three items, here, stormwater management, 2 foot contours, and a boundary map, correct? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Sirf would you care to address these comments? MR. BOMBARD-My name is Mark Bombard. I work for the firm of Coulter & McCormack, Surveyors at 92 Bay Street, and we represent Frank and Jessie Lockhart, who are here tonight. From what I can see from the Staff Comments, Lee seems to be on this animal habitat thing, and I don't think there's any endangered species on the site. MRS. YORK-No. There aren't any, what I was saying, Mark, is there are some habitat up there. There's a lot of deer, and it's indicated on some of the resource maps that I had, but given the intensity of development that you're suggesting, it's not a serious problem. MR. BOMBARD-I understand that. Other than that, the engineering comments, it was an oversight that we left the existing sewage disposal systems for some of the cottages off. We will amend that before final approval. All the cottages in the home are serviced by the reservoir, upgrading of the site, which is located up in this area, here. MR. LAPOINT-So, you're saying there'll be no wells? MR. BOMBARD-No. Everything's serviced by the reservoir. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, that makes Number One. MR. BOMBARD-Yes, that's Number One on the engineering comments. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. BOMBARD-We'll put a, erosion control measures, there will be very minimal erosion, just in a normal single family development of a single family home, but we will add the note to the plan. Number Three has been taken care of, and Number Four, at the time of digging the test pit on the site, the one and only soil scientist in the area was in Montana hunting. I didn't have a choice. It was required for the plan. I see two ways to go around this, depending on what the engineer would like to see. We can either try to get a hold of him again, before final, or put a note on the plan that a soil test pit will have to be reviewed before the septic system shall be installed, whichever the Board or the Engineering firm would like. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I'd like to see you try to get a hold of him, first, and take care of that, rather than we give some type of conditional f and that's at Final. At Preliminary, I think we're okay on that. MR. BOMBARD-Yes, it'll be taken care of, one way or another, before Final. MR. LAPOINT-Before Final, right. MR. CARTIER-Are you referring to Mr. Main? MR. BOMBARD-Yes. MR. CARTIER-He comes back, when? This is an annual for him. MR. BOMBARD-I believe, I was in a meeting with him, with the Environmental Issues Committee, and I believe he's back. I'm not positive, but I believe he's back, at least temporarily. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Do me a favor, would you outline, I can see the five acre lot. Where's the remaining lot? MR. BOMBARD-The remaining of the five acre lot or the remaining? MR. CARTIER-I understand the five lot. Where's, in a sense, Lot Two? MR. BOMBARD-Okay. If you look at the inset, it is all of this in here. It is actually Lot 4.1. MR. CARTIER-So, okay, in effect, this one,S acre lot is being taken out of, essentially, the middle of this other piece of property. MR. BOMBARD-The middle, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. Does the Board have any other comments or questions? We're going to do a public hearing, shortly, here. If not, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd care to comment on this application? 11 ~ ......,/ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-Are there any other letters in the file, Lee, on any of this? MRS. YORK-No. I don't have any. MR. CARTIER-Okay. If not, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct a SEQRA Review of this application. Would somebody care to take us through that, please? RESOLUTION IItEN DETERMINATION OF fIO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION fIO. 17-1991, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: FRANK AND JESSIE C. LOCKHART, for a 2 lot subdivision. To divide a 5 acre parcel froll a total of 43.42 acres to Shelly L. and Stephen A. Kartiff, 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. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? We've got, again, a waiver request from stormwater management, 2 foot contours, and a boundary map. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION 10. 17-1991 FRANK J. AID JESSIE C. LOCKHART, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: For a 2 lot subdivision. To subdivide a 5.0 acre parcel from a total of 43.42 acres to be conveyed to Shelly L. and Stephen A. Kartiff, with the following stipulations: Number One, that the following waivers be granted: waiver to the stormwater management plan, waiver to 2 foot contours being shown on the plan, and, lastly, a waiver to the boundary for the 43.42 acres being shown on the plan. Number Two, that the applicant make an effort to get a hold of the Certified Local Board of Health Official to have him certify the soil testing, prior to the Final application. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: 12 - --" AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Brewer. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Caimano (8:00 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 53-91 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-lA GEORGE AND MARILYN STARK D/B/A MOHICAN MOTEL OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE NORTH ON ROUTE 9, 1,000 FT. PAST ROUTE 149 INTERSECTION, LEFT (lEST) SIDE OF ROUTE 9 TO REMOVE 'ßI) EXISTING MOTEL UNITS AND BUILD SIX NEil UNITS. (BEAUTIFICATION CO.'tITTEE) (IMRREN COUNTY PINtNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-1-3 LOT SIZE: 3.18 ACRES SECTION 179-23 JOHN RICHARDS, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:00 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 53-91, George & Marilyn Stark - d/b/a Mohican Motel, 11-25-91, Meeting Date: November 26, 1991 "The applicant is requesting to reconstruct motel units in the same footprint and add a second floor. The setbacks on the rear yard are 9 feet and 13 feet respectively. The requirement in the HC-IA zone is 20 feet minimum, but the structure preexists the ordinance. The applicant will be adding 4 additional parking spaces for the 4 unit addition.1I MRS. YORK-And, before I go any further, is that correct? Four parking spaces, or are you adding five parking spaces? I wasn't absolutely clear on the plan. Well, I just wanted to make sure about this point, okay. I was a little unclear. So, when you get to that. liThe checklist indicates that all setbacks are to be shown on the plan. The only one which could be in contention is the side yard which has been identified. The applicant should be made aware of the requirement in the event another submission is required. The septic system is shown under a parking area and there are specific requirements in that case which the applicant should be made aware of. The planning issues which are involved are minimal since the expansion is of 4 units. Traffic circulation is existing and parking will meet the code. All facilities are existing. The applicant will provide a planting plan to the Beautification Committee. As always, the applicant should provide erosion control during construction." MR. CARTIER-Okay. With regard to your third paragraph, I believe the engineer is making the applicant aware of those. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay? Thank you. Engineering Comments, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, November 19, 1991 IIWe have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. HCIA Zoning requires a 20 foot minimum setback between the building and the side property boundary. 2. The front property line should be shown on the site plan. 3. With regard to subsurface disposal: a. The NYSDEC Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works, 1988 apply because the facility is a commercial use. b. The data indicates soil testing was conducted in November 1988. The Town of Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Disposal Ordinance requires that all high groundwater tests be taken between March, April, Mayor June within six weeks of the time that frost leaves the ground. If this procedure is not followed, the seasonal high groundwater level may only be determined by an individual certified by the Local Board of Health. c. The percolation tests and test pit data should be taken as the seepage pit location and percolation tests should be performed at 1/2 the depth and at the full depth of the seepage pit. d. According to NYSDEC Design Standards for Wastewater Treatment Works seepage pits should not be used when the percolation rate is faster than 5 min./inch, unless extensive pretreatment is provided. e. A separation distance of 3 times the effective diameter shall be provided for seepage pits. f. The seepage pit detail should be in accordance with NYSDEC design standards and should provide 1-1/2" - 2-1/2" stone with a geotextile layer above the stone. The equalization pipe between the pits should be installed in the lower half of the pit. g. The septic tank design should be suitable for traffic loading. Permanent provisions for septic tank access should be provided. h. The Fort Miller #1 Distribution Box proposed is inadequate for the location proposed. The proposed unit is not of traffic bearing design. i. The location and type of existing sewage disposal system in the area of the proposed sewage disposal system should be indicated. 4. Erosion control measures should be provided in accordance with Town of Queensbury code 179-65." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We have a letter from the Beautification Committee dated 11/12/91, with the comment. IIThis committee gives it's conditional approval for the project under consideration by George and Marilyn Stark. The conditions being that they produce a plot plan for our review before an Occupancy Permit be issued. As stated in a phone conversation with Mrs. Whiting, Mr. Stark indicated he IIprefers to wait until the building is up to decide on what to plant". We would prefer some indication before then of landscaping. Also, we would like to go on record as being opposed to the sign, advertising 13 '-- -- the Mohican Motel which faces the Adirondack Northway that is on the property in question but not indicated on the plans submitted by the Starks. We believe the sign exists in the Northwest section of the property, since from the Northway it is backed by trees, and not visible from Route 9." And they're indicating conditional approval. Pat, we have a letter from you, also. Would you care to address us on that issue right now? PAT CRAYFORD, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MRS. CRAYFORD-Okay. Basically, well, I'll just read it to you quickly. It was during my initial review of the site plan, I was of the opinion that a similar situation like this had required a variance. I've met with Dave and Ted Turner and Paul Dusek, and we also researched files, and felt that a variance was not needed, and we also reviewed Section 179-79, Continuation, and that, too, determined that a vari ance i sn' t requi red. The reason it's here toni ght is, under the Hi ghway Commerci a 1 Zone, thi s expansion of any facility requires your review. I've concised my memo, but that's basically what it boils down to. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, we have a letter from Frank DeSantis. Pat has addressed part of his letter. Lets put that on hold until we get into the public hearing portion of this thing, and deal with that then. Would the applicant care to address the Board please. MR. RICHARDS-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Richards. I'm the attorney for the Starks. The Starks are here tonight, also. I guess I have a question. In talking to Lee about this, I understand it has not had a recommendation from the County at this point? MRS. YORK-That is correct. MR. RICHARDS-So that we're not able to have a final decision tonight. In addition, of course, now, we have some engineering comments to address. I think that the project is pretty self explanatory. The footprint issue has already been addressed by this Board, and we're ready to answer questions, and we'll certainly have our engineer contact the Town Engineers and work through these. My other question would be is, do we have to have these back in order to get on the next meeting? MR. CARTIER-Well, I think, to answer that, when's the next time he could get before Warren County? MRS. YORK-I can get it to their meeting for December, certainly. The submission deadline date is not until next Wednesday. MR. RICHARDS-In order to get it heard by the County and then back? MRS. YORK-Yes, by next Wednesday. Get your things in and 1'11 ship them over. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How about for us? MRS. YORK-For you? Absolutely. MR. CARTIER-Next Wednesday also? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. RICHARDS-If we submit next Wednesday, we'll be heard by the County. It can be back here, what was the date again, Lee, I'm sorry? MRS. YORK-Yes. The date of the first Planning Board meeting is the 17th. So, you'd be heard by the County on the second Wednesday, and by this Board the third Tuesday. MR. CARTIER-Why don't I open a public hearing, because this is subject to public hearing. Is there anybody here who would care to address the Board? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-I'm going to read Mr. DeSantis' letter into the record, if I may. MRS. YORK-Excuse me. Let me just check. Is tomorrow the last Wednesday of the month? MRS. CRAYFORD-Two o'clock tomorrow. MRS. YORK-Two o'clock tomorrow. I think, then, they probably do need an extension of time frame. That was my error. I was thinking of next month. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but we can do that in the motion, I think. Excuse me. Let me just get this in, okay. liOn behalf of myself, my wife, and Jesse Rettig, I have reviewed the site plan application applied by George and Marilyn Stark for the construction of a six unit motel structure to replace an existing 14 '- -- two unit motel structure. I first note that no setbacks are shown from the foundation of the proposed construction to our mutual boundary line; however, in this zone, a 20 foot minimum side yard setback is required. Without the benefit of an actual on the ground measurement, I do not believe that the proposed construction meets this side yard requirement, and, therefore, an area variance would be necessary in order for this project to proceed. II We, at this point, have a decision from the Zoning Administrator indicating that such a variance is not required, correct? MR. LAPOINT-We're going right straight up from the existing footprint. Correct? MR. CARTIER-Okay. IIAdditionally, I note that the zoning ordinance places a cap upon the overall density allowed on a particular site. My examination of the site plan application did not discover a calculation of the existing square footage verses the proposed square footage and how that calculation would compare to the requirements of the ordinance. I would respectfully request that the Queensbury Planning Board specifically address these issues in its review. II I would assume you have a copy of this letter, Mr. Richards, is that correct? MR. RICHARDS-I do not. MR. CARTIER-Somewhere at the end of the table there will be a pile of all these notes. Here, you can have this. MRS. CRAYFORD-Is that the letter from Mr. DeSantis? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. CRAYFORD-I think it was just faxed to Lee today. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's something you can address. Sir. GARY HOFFMAN MR. HOFFMAN-My name is Gary Hoffman, representing Woodbury's. I'm sorry I was late. MR. CARTIER-Okay. No problem. We will get to you shortly. Is there anybody else from the public who would care to comment on this? Okay. If I understand the direction we're going, I'm going to just leave the public hearing open on this. Sir, would you care to address the Board? TONY LOCASCIO MR. LOCASCIO-My name is Tony LoCascio. I'm the agent for the Starks in this matter, building, construction. I think Mr. DeSantis' question about the existing and the proposed is in the application here. I don't know what he's referring to. MR. CARTIER-Are you referring to Mr. DeSantis' letter? MR. LOCASCIO-Yes. MRS. PULVER-I think all his comments have been answered by the Zoning Administrator, really. She determined it did not need an area variance. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think what he's talking about is the density on this thing, and you're telling us it's in the application. It's addressed. MR. LOCASCIO-Yes. It's in the application. MR. CARTIER-On page, okay, that would be under existing and proposed. I understand what you're looking at. Okay. MRS. CRAYFORD-I reviewed the density on it and found no problem with it either. MR. CARTIER-No problem, okay. So that issue, apparently, has been resolved. Thank you. Does the Board have any questions or comments? MR. MARTIN-Well, it seems like there some significant, at least by volume anyhow, engineering comments, here. Do you have time to go through those? I mean, not tonight, but, I mean, even in the future? MR. RICHARDS-I believe so, because Mr. LoCascio just handed me a report he received from Morse Engineering, which, I think, addresses almost everything this evening. So, we'll review it and certainly get it submitted and there shouldn't be any problem. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. 15 '- ~ MR. CARTIER-So, the scenario on this thing is that this has got to go back to County for its application review, and then we will get a recommendation from the County and we can look at it again. We can table it. Does the Board care to do the SEQRA now, or do you want to wait until then. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. There's a bunch of disposal questions, so I think we should wait. MR. MARTIN-Yes, we ought to wait. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-But our deadline is a week from tomorrow. MR. CARTIER-Well, it's tomorrow, but we're going to take care of that in a minute. MR. MARTIN-And I would just recommend, so that we don't have any problems here, that your engineer get in contact with the Town Engineer, Tom Yarmowich, with whatever comments you have and make sure you get all your ducks in a row, prior to Wednesday, so we can get this thing in and out of here. MR. RICHARDS-Absolutely. I'd like to be able to get a letter from the Town Engineer saying they've been addressed. MR. CARTIER-You need to do that through the Planning Department, however. MR. RICHARDS-Right. Okay. I understand. MRS. YORK-I think you should put in your existing parking and indicate how many parking slots you're going to have and where handicapped people will be provided for, okay? MR. RICHARDS-Okay. MR. CARTIER-You have copies of all these others, correct? MR. RICHARDS-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do we have your agreement to table this application? MR. RICHARDS-We do, I believe. George? GEORGE STARK MR. STARK-What are you doing, Pete? MR. CARTIER-What we're doing is tabling this in order for you to be able to go back to Warren County Planning and get their approval. We can't approve something until we get something from Warren County, okay. So, the situation you're in right now is that you have a deadline of tomorrow to get these revisions in. We're going to extend, correct me if I'm wrong, we're going to give you an extension of that deadl i ne, so that these concerns can be addressed and you can also get to County. After you have gone through the County process, you will come back to us in December, probably at our first December meeting, December 17th. In the meantime, you've got some engineering comments that need to be addressed, and there's going to be some revisions in this project. Have I answered your question? If I haven't, Mr. Richards can answer it in further detail. MR. STARK-Okay. I would like to find out if there's any other problems that you might have, that we can address them before that December 7th meeting, so I can get final approval on December 17th, to get construction started. MRS. PULVER-You have your whole list, right now. You have the whole list. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Richards has a set of all of the concerns that have been raised, okay. MR. LAPOINT-If your engineer can work out the technical aspects with our engineer, it looks good. MR. STARK-The 17th is the cut off, and if I have to go into January, I can't do the project. MR. MARTIN-Well, we're not going to change the rules of the game, here, December 17th, and have a whole new list for you to meet and then make you come back in January. If you meet what's shown here, we're all set. MR. RICHARDS-Basically, we address the things that Lee listed and the engineer. 16 ..-I "---' MR. MARTIN-And the engineer, but I can't emphasize enough, you know, I've sat here and listened to engineers argue before, and I don't like to do that. So, get your engineer in contact, through Lee's office, directly with the Town Consulting Engineer, and get all your ducks in a row, prior to next Wednesday, and it shouldn't be a problem. MR. STARK-What's next Wednesday. MRS. PULVER-Submission. MR. LAURICELLA-Not next Wednesday, tomorrow. MR. CARTIER-A week from tomorrow. MR. MARTIN-Yes, a week from tomorrow. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Do you have any problem with, like, Friday of next week? MRS. YORK-Well, Friday of next week? MR. LAPOINT-Is that too late for you? I'm just trying to give them, we've got some holidays in here. We don't have many working days between now and next Wednesday. MRS. YORK-Yes. It's tough. We do have Staff Review on the Fourth, which is Wednesday, but, I'll tell you what, I can discuss what the potential changes will be. We're not going to have a real change in layout and design, just changes in parking and things, and I guess that won't be a problem for us. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Again, the Rist-Frost letter is fairly explicit, and I think that all of this stuff is fairly well set in Tom's mind, in that he could probably review it very quickly, given it Friday, and, again, because we have the holiday in there, I don't think it would be unreasonable to go and let him have one day, Friday of next week, whatever that date being. MRS. YORK-Can you come in by two o'clock, Friday the 6th? MR. RICHARDS-We'll have it done. MRS. YORK-Okay. Thank you. MR. RICHARDS-We've got most of it done already. MRS. YORK-Yes, yes you do. MR. CARTIER-And, if you have it done earlier than that, for example, for the fourth, please bring it in, because then it can go the normal route. MR. LAPOINT-Even if it's partial, just do the best you can. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do we have your agreement to table this application, Mr. Stark? MR. STARK-Fine. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. We can entertain a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PlAtl NO. 53-91 GEORGE AND MARILYN STARK D/B/A MOHICAN MOTEL, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To remove two existing motel units and build six new units, with the following rider on the motion: That a submission deadline be extended to Friday, December 6th, at 2 p.m. to have a revised site plan and any other relevant information regarding the comments to Lee York. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. MARTIN-I think the Mohican Motel is one of the better kept commercial establishments along that area. So, I don't have any problem with Beautification, certainly. MR. RICHARDS-Thanks. 17 - --- MR. CARTIER-Thank you. (8:20 p.m.) OLD BUSINESS: (CONT1D) /"IIIIA\ \ vcJ^Y SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SKETCH PINt TYPE I WR-lA SUNSET HILL FARM OWNER: PAUL KfIOX, III KNOX ROAD ON ASSEMBLY POINT TO SUBDIVIDE 25 ACRES INTO 10 LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED BY INDIVIDUAL LOT PURCHASERS. DRILLED IELLS AND ON-SITE IMSTEIMTER WILL BE COfISTIIICTED FOR IMTER AND SEIER SERVICES. LOTS WILL BE ASSESSED BY PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED DRIVEWAYS. LOT 1 CONTAINS THE OWNERS RESIDENCES AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THE OWNER. TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZE: 25 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISIOfI REGUlATIONS MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:20 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 11-1991, Sunset Hill Farm - Paul Knox, III, 11-14-91, Meeting Date: November 26, 1991 "At the previous meeting of the Planning Board on this project the Planning Board passed the following resolution: -JI)TION TO TABLE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For the following reasons and suggestions: So, the applicant can consider revisions to Lots 5 through 10 to minimize the flag shape nature of the lots, to minimize the cuts off the access road, to address Planning concerns, to address Engineering concerns as spelled out, to address drainage concerns that have been raised. II The design that has been resubmitted does not appear to be in keeping with the intent of the Board. The subdivision still shows lots 7, 8, and 9 as flag lots. Long driveways on steep slopes have not been remedied. The cul-de-sac is on a rather steep grade and really does not appear to improve the development of the parcel on the access to the lots. It would seem to be an attempt to minimally address a major issue. There are two lots sharing a common driveway. The approved checklist requires a sketch drainage and grading plan which with the slopes on this project this might be important. The applicant should also show the septic and well locations on all lots in the subdivision. The project engineer should check the required road radius. The Highway Superintendent will be invited to comment on this plan. The layout of this subdivision is still awkward. An internal road which provides safe access to the lots is needed. The Board should request an alternative design." And Mr. Naylor did submit a letter. Would you like me to read it at this time? MR. CARTIER-Yes, please. MRS. YORK-IIWe have reviewed the plans for the Sunset Hill Subdivision, and do not approve of the cul-de- sac, and would like to see a 50' right-of-way on Knox Road by the developer prior to the developing. Normal driveway approaches will be left up to the Planning Board with them stating width etc. Respectfully, Paul H. Naylor" I guess what he's asking for is rights-of-way dedicated to the Town to make it a 50 foot road. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think you just answered my question. He's not tal king about lopping another 50 feet, in addition to the road. He wants to end up with a total of 50 feet. MRS. YORK-No, no. He feels that a total of 50 feet should be provided. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Engineering Comments, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, November 13, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. A sketch stormwater management plan should be provided. The applicant should also address the placement and design of road and driveway culverts, as necessary. 2. Sketch grading for the revised plan should be provided to demonstrate that slopes not exceeding 3 horizontal to 1 vertical for driveways and roadway cuts are feasible. 3. Because the project is substantially in or contiguous to the critical environmental area designated as lands within 500' of Lake George and associated wetlands, a long EAF is appropriate. 4. The roadway turnaround pavement must be 110' diameter, minimum. 5. The first 100' of roadway should not exceed 3% slope. 6. A 50' right-of-way for Knox Road should be dedicated to the Town. 7. Well locations must be at least 15' from the property or right-of-way lines for all lots. 8. Lots 7, 8, and 9 remain "flag" shape lots. 9. The location of existing septic system components and type of subsurface disposal should be indicated for lots 1 and 2. 10. The existing water supplies and existing septic system components with subsurface disposal type for the two out parcels between lots 1, 2, and 3 noted should be located on the plan. Appropriate separations between proposed water supply and sewage disposal must be maintained. 11. The sewage disposal area for lot 3 must be at least 100' from the edge of the wetlands. 12. The lot 4 driveway should consider access from the cul-de-sac. II MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant care to address the Board? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Good evening. For your record, I'm Mark Schachner of Miller, Mannix, and Pratt, here representing Paul Knox. Along with me are representatives of the LA Group, the Consulting Environmental 18 '-' -- and Engineer Consultant, and Mr. Jeffrey Shunard, Mr. Knox's representative as well. Very briefly, this is just the informal, Sketch Plan discussion. Obviously, we were here previously with a different plan. It's a difficult, we think, somewhat difficult situation and a somewhat difficult piece of property, although a very beautiful piece of property. Basically, we've identified five concerns that are somewhat competing concerns for consideration. We think you all identified three of those concerns, and we identified two of those concerns, making five. The three concerns that you all identified were basically, concern for the key hole or flag shaped lots, if you will, the long driveways, and I'm referring, now, to our previous site plan principally, and the extensive number of curb cuts along Knox Road, the extensive number of accesses along Knox Road. By the way, I do have the previous site pl an here, or subdivi sion Sketch Pl an, here, for those, if anybody wants to see it again, and also if the new member would like to see it for contrast purposes, but, previously we had, where we now have two curbs cuts along what I believe is the west side of the subdivision along Knox Road, we previously had, I say two, I'm referring to from lot 4 heading north, we have two entrances or curb cuts onto Knox Road that have taken the place of what was previously six curb cuts or entrances onto Knox Road, but, basically, the three concerns you've identified are the ones I just mentioned. In additi on, we've i denti fied two concerns, all of whi ch or both of whi ch fall within the general idea of preservation of the existing neighborhood character, and we spoke about that at some length at the last meeting and now that I think back, I don't think Mrs. Pulver was here. So, again, any questions that any of the folks that weren't here before have, we'll be glad to amplify on. The other concern, as I said, is preservation of the existing neighborhood character, and in view of that concern, the applicant really seeks to continue to offer or to maintain his position of offering very large lots, much larger than the one acre minimum lot size zoning. Because we have very large lots, we still have some flag or key hole like elements to some of them, if you will, not as much so as in the previous site plan, but some. In addition, the applicant would like to maintain the neighborhood character by avoiding, as I mentioned previously, a full, up to grade, up to Town spec, Town highway going directly through the heart of that property. So, our feeling is that would not at all be in keeping with the existing character, and I think that's really our position. It's sort of a situation of competing concerns, to the extent that the planning that some of the members of the Board and the Planning Staff feel that we should have, you know, more traditionally shaped lots, and to the extent that the comment can still be made that there are some awkwardly shaped lots, yes, it could be done, but if it's going to be done, it's going to mean more lots and smaller lots, and the applicant already lives there. You'll recall that three of the ten lots are proposed to be given to his family. Only six lots of the ten will be sold outside of the family, and the applicant really has a very strong desire to maintain the character in this neighborhood. The proposed large lots are far larger than all the existing lots in that neighborhood, and he really wants to maintain that aspect of the development, and, as I said, we sort of feel a little bit torn between these competing considerations, and if you'll recall, last month, there was even some division within the Board members yourselves, of, well, on the one hand we'd like to see, you know, more traditionally shaped lots. On the other hand, we recognize that there is an existing character up there that might not lend itself to a large number of lots and some type of clustering development. So, without belaboring the point, what we've tried our best to do is come up with sort of a plan that tries to compromise and address all five concerns, your three and our two, as best as can be done, and I think the plan itself doesn't really need much elaboration. What we've done is worked, essentially, on the lots to the north of that lot, I think it was four, which was what we were asked to do, and we've come up with the cul-de-sac which will handle access to four of the lots and the shared driveway, which will handle access to two of the lots. So that, as I previously indicated, the six entrances are reduced to two entrances, and that's about it. MR. CARTIER-I think, and I'm speaking for myself here, I would look at this and say, well, we've gone from a bad design to a less bad design, but we're still not at a good design. That's my own personal thinking, and I think you've done an excellent job of identifying the issues here, but, in effect what you're asking us to do, I think, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, is to accept some bad elements of design as a trade off for large lots. I still have problems with flag lots. We are dealing with a piece of property, again, this is me speaking, I think we're dealing with a piece of property that does have some significant restrictions, in terms of slope and low areas and wetland areas, in terms of what you can do with it. Maybe the lots need to be made larger and a fewer number of lots. I don't know where to go with that at the moment, but we've got a number of elements here. We've got a Highway Department, Superintendent saying he doesn't want a cul-de-sac. We're still looking at some flag lots. I have a real problem with a shared driveway. It seems to me that you get into some mortgage problems, getting a mortgage on a piece of property like that. I'm not familiar with that. I can't swear to that, but there may be some reluctance getting involved here. Those are my comments. Anybody else want to jump in here, feel free, please. MR. LAPOINT-Quick question. What is the technical problem with flag shaped lots? MRS. PULVER-They don't like the looks of it on paper. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I know they don't look good on paper, but I'm trying to think of it from a real, technical, what is the problem with them? MR. CARTIER-Well, there's more than just the technical issue here. There may be an aesthetic issue, and I can't explain that at the moment, but. MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, the aesthetic issue is that you're not going to see the lot lines in the earth. 19 '-" -- MR. CARTIER-The technical issue may have to do with the number of road cuts they create. MR. MARTIN-And, from a planning standpoint, it complicates things, in terms of the layout of the lots and the way it effects contiguous properties and so on. MR. CARTIER-And it does create, again, long driveways. MR. MARTIN-If you're looking for, like, a hard and fast engineering calculation, there's not one. MR. LAPOINT-No, no. I just want to know what the argument is against, beyond this subdivision, what the problem with flag shaped lots is in general. MR. MARTIN-It's just not good planning practice because, like I said it results in complex lot boundary lines and calculations for square footage. It's just not, that's why, it's part of the reason why, the subdivision process was developed in the first place, so you just can't, haphazardly, in a mismashed fashion, do this type of thing, and I'm not saying that's what they're attempting to do, but, you know, they have some physical considerations, here, they're trying to address, but that's the reasoning behind it, you avoid flag shaped lots. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, it's complex boundaries are a problem, for what reason I'm not sure, and for square foot calculations, again, I'm not quite sure what those two problems are. I just want to understand your argument against flag shaped lots. That's all. MR. BREWER-Well, an example is of last week, when we looked at the lot off of Haviland Road, the way that was flag shaped. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but that was a piece they didn't want to deed into it. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but if this lot here, he can't really, well. MRS. PULVER-It's no different than if they had a right-of-way. MR. BREWER-They'd have a right-of-way, here. MRS. PULVER-If they could get a right-of-way. I mean, they could block that off and then get a right-of-way for that piece. MR. MARTIN-And I don't think you can discount the impact it has on the length of the driveways and this situation, either. I don't think that can be easily. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now the problem with the length of driveway is? I wish I had a house with a 1,000 foot driveway. I really do. MR. MARTIN-Well, you wouldn't want to maintain it in the winter, and you wouldn't want to have to be responsible for bringing power in off of the public right-of-way all the way up your driveway. MR. LAPOINT-No. If I can afford a 1,000 foot driveway, I'm going to be able to afford to bring in power, but, I mean, that shouldn't be our concern, though. MRS. PULVER-I was just going to say, that's the developers concern, if he's going to sell the house and put the driveway in, that's all part of the cost, who's going to pay for it. MR. CARTIER-There are safety concerns involved in long driveways also. MR. LAPOINT-Which are? MR. BREWER-Fire trucks. MR. CARTIER-Getting vehicles up and in, emergency vehicles and so on and so forth. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but they have to be a certain minimum. You have to get a driveway permit. So, the Town of Queensbury is responsible for seeing to it that the driveway meets the standards of the Town of Queensbury. MR. CARTIER-This Board is going to be the one who decides whether we're happy with those driveways or not. MRS. PULVER-No. They have to get the permit, right? They have to get a driveway permit. MRS. YORK-They get a driveway permit. I don't exactly know what the standards are for that. 20 '- '-'" MRS. PULVER-But they have to get a driveway permit to put a driveway in, and somebody comes out and actually looks at it. MR. CARTIER-I guess I'm looking at this in terms of a larger issue. Is this Board saying that it is willing to accept flag lots, because if we do it tonight, if we get into this kind of issue tonight, we can certainly expect to be hit with lots of other flag lots. The Master Plan specifically addresses flag lots and talks about discouraging flag lots. MR. LAPOINT-That's what I'm trying to understand, is why are they discouraged. MR. MARTIN-Well, the reason why is because you don't impose these type of hardships on individuals buying lots, like, length of driveways and providing utilities to those lots and so on and so forth. Those are real hardships, and if you can go through, knowingly plan to avoid that type of thing, that's why we're here. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, but, again, why is that our concern? MRS. PULVER-Yes. Those aren't our hardships. MR. LAPOINT-Because I, frankly, would like to see less development here and less houses, and if it's harder for somebody to develop these lots, for example, lot number 8 looks like it would be fairly expensive to get power into that, as well as a driveway, etc., etc., doesn't that discourage development on that lot, and somewhat is in keeping with our objective. MR. MARTIN-Our objective is not to discourage development. MR. LAPOINT-Well, no, if it were to encourage development, though, we could be looking at 25 parcels up here with a 22 foot wide wing swale. MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't believe our objective is to encourage or discourage development. It's to plan for development in the most logical pattern that's in the best interest of the Town. MR. LAPOINT-Which is why, I mean, again, what is the problem with it? I understand logical. Things should be logical, and that's why I'm trying to understand why a flag shaped lot is illogical. I mean, all I've got so far is complex lot boundaries, which I don't think makes a difference, and difficult square foot calculations. MR. MARTIN-And long driveways, utility considerations. It can, often times, lead to excessive costs for the Town, in terms of infrastructure to serve such type of lots, and that type of thing. That's why it's best to take care of it now, rather than have it result in a problem later on, and I can't sit here and name every foreseeable problem, but it is just poor planning practice, and planning is, often times, not a hard and fixed in concrete science, where I can list for you 15 different technical aspects as to why things were done a certain way. MR. CARTIER-Does that answer your question, sort of? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Well, it leaves me with still number five, which is the fifth reason, which is maybe it creates some type of hardship for the Town. I don't see it. Again, I had one through five as reasons against it, and the only one I can really see as a consideration is five, if indeed it creates a hardship for the Town, and if you could expand on that, maybe I'd understand why these are bad ideas and bad planning. MRS. PULVER-I don't think the Town is responsible for any infrastructure in the subdivision development. The developer is responsi b le. He puts in all the roads and the water and everything, and then deeds it over to the Town. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but the Town will be responsible for maintenance after it's installed. MRS. PULVER-But on this particular, and I'm not fond of this, I'm just kind of understanding this myself. On this, the way it's set up, the Town would only be responsible for what's on the cul-de-sac, if indeed it was. So, you know, as far as these long driveways, or whatever, that becomes the homeowners problem, as I see it. MR. CARTIER-Well, the flag lot's not the only issue here, too. We have other issues. We've got a Highway Superintendent who's not happy with the cul-de-sac. MR. BREWER-He doesn't approve of it. MR. CARTIER-He doesn't approve of it. I would point out that we've looked at two alternatives. We're not in an either or situation here, either we go with the old plan or we go with this plan. There are, I'm sure, some other alternatives. Mr. Schachner, you've been waiting to comment. 21 '- --' MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I assumed that Mr. LaPoint's question was principally directed at the Board, and I think it was, and I appreciate the responses, but I wanted to see if I could just chip in two cents worth. In my experience, there are two additional considerations to think about, in what I would agree with Mr. Martin is sort of a traditional, historical frowning upon key hole or flag shaped or whatever you want to call them, lots. One, I guess I'm doing this maybe from the less important to the more important. One is, I've been involved in situations where one of the difficulties was the fear, and I've actually seen this attempted, that, I'm just picking on lot 9, here, that some time in the future, somebody would try, believe it or not, to take the natural breaking point, if you will, and create a lot out of what's left, which looks like a perfectly acceptable lot, but also another lot out of the long, narrow portion, and I've actually seen situations where applicants have tried to do that, where the total amount of acreage, if you will, in the, what do you want to call it, the left over portion, was large enough to allow building, but, obviously, its configuration was totally irrational, from a planning standpoint, and I think that, where I've seen that occur, the easiest answer has been, in an initial approval, to make an express condition of that initial approval, that that not occur, and I think that's very easy to do, but, believe it or not, in a situation where that was not part of the original condition, I saw a problem develop along those lines. The other thing about this type of configuration, and, again, I have to keep emphasizing that the goal of the project sponsor. one of the goals of the project sponsor, is to continue to maintain a subdivision with large lots and fewer lots than might otherwise occur, but the other avenue, or the other historical reason that these types of configurations of key hole or flag shaped lots developed was, in many situations, developer/applicant types have tried to use the very narrow portions, multiple narrow portions to actually get more lots than either they're allowed under zoning, and they don't apply for variances, or more lots than other good planning would dictate, and, again, here we have just the reverse. Here, there's no question that we could, I believe, devise a subdivision that either limited more severely or completely eliminated lots that have some type of narrow portion going out to Knox Road for access, but I think the way to do that is through an internal roadway, and creation of more lots, probably clustered, but whether clustered or not, more lots, and that just flies in the face of what the project sponsor wants to do. We've talked about this, specifically, with the project sponsor, and I think his feeling is that, if he ends up selling this land to some developer type, by which I mean somebody who doesn't already reside on the property and won't reside on it in the future, in all likelihood, that's how the property will be developed, with more lots, smaller lots, more infrastructure, but he lives there. The three children are going to live there, and he doesn't want to do it that way, and we sort of are getting down to a philosophical debate. I guess our position is that, although I can't disagree with your statement, Mr. Chairman, that there's no magic to the number two, and I'm not standing here giving an ultimatum of, we will not do any other plans. By the same token, we feel sort of caught between competing interests. On the one hand, we understand the, and I certainly understand the historical perspective of, if, you know, generally speaking, these are not favored configurations, frequently. On the other hand, we do have this situation where, to the extent we've heard input from the neighbors, from the public, I don't think anybody wishes for more lots, smaller lots, and larger thoroughfare through the heart of this property on Assembly Point. On the other hand, we have the planning consideration of limiting the road access cuts on Knox Road, and again, for the benefit, especially, of the two members that were not here last month, we do have the previous site plan up here, and you'll see that it shows, you know, a total of eight or so curb cuts on Knox Road, and it shows substantially more of a key lot configuration. So, we view this as somewhat of a compromise, and we hope the Board views it that way also. MR. MARTIN-Mark, could you take me back through your initial five points. I understand we had three and you had two that you were trying, bring me back through your two again. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and I'm not sure that it's really, you could call it one, you could call it three. It depends on how you break it down. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-But, basically, what I described as our two were, preserve the neighborhood character by not having a full, up to spec Town highway through the heart of the Assembly Point property, and when I described it as two points, I said the second point was to limit the number of lots and to continue to offer large lots rather than small lots, you know, 10 on 26 acres, rather than something in the teens or twenties, on 26 acres. You could call that one point, or three points, any way you want. MR. MARTIN-All right. I just want to offer this for your consideration. What if you were to extend thi s main access road up through, 1 i ke, this area, with your cul-de-sac, here, all ri ght, and keep the same number of lots, okay, and have your access off of that road, that center road, and remove these here, and you're not really effecting the size of the lot, and you're keeping the same number of lots. I'm saying, take the access road up through here, the topography seems to allow for that, and bring your cul-de-sac back up in here, something of that nature, and keep the same number of lots, keep the same basic configuration, but that removes the need for these flags, here, like this, and you can keep, relatively, rectangular shaped or square shaped lots of the same number and relatively the same si ze, with no reduction, but I know that's putting more of an expense on the owner of the property, and I can appreciate that, and I can't answer the one concern about creating the Town road through the center of the property. That probably adds to that, but I think you can keep the same size lot and, you know, improve the configuration. 22 - ,- MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I guess our initial reaction would be a couple of points. It would seem likely that that option would chew up a lot of the available building land, and if you factor in the setback provisions, then it might actually reduce the number of lots. We're just eyeballing this. I can't say that for certain, but it appears that's a possibility, but I think the other point is the point you really hit on, which is, if the applicant or project sponsor is going to put that much infrastructure in by way of internal roadway, then he's also going to have an easy way to stay within the planning confines of your suggestion and create more lots, and there's a clear incentive to do so because of the increased cost of that internal roadway. I mean, that's what you said at the end of your comment. I think that's the tension that he feels caught between. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I don't, feel free to disagree with me here, think this Board is committed to ten lots only. I think, I'll speak for myself here, it might be worth increasing the number of lots by a few, in order to get what is a good, serviceable road system through here. MR. LAPOINT-I disagree. MR. SCHACHNER-See, that's the problem, and that was stated to us the last time, as well, and on the one hand, the app 1 i cant thought, good, we can ma ke more lots, but on the other hand, he thought, I don't want to make more lots. I live there, my kids are going to live there, and, frankly, that, in his mind, has overridden the concern of maximizing the development. He really feels strongly that he wants to minimize the number of lots and keep them large. Mr. Cartier, in fairness, yes, I believe that you indicated that at the last meeting, and I believe at least one of your colleagues did as well. On the other hand, one or two of your colleagues felt, no, we wouldn't like to do it that way. So, you can appreciate our position. MR. CARTIER-I agree. I understand. MR. LAPOINT-I think that if you get up to 11 or 12, the project just becomes all that much more objectionable. If you put 8, 900 feet of Town road in, that we would have to maintain, versus this cul-de-sac, it seems like we have just gone in a counter direction, and putting it right down through which looks to be the high spot, putting the road on the prime, you know, putting a road right down through the best part of the land doesn't make sense to me. MR. MARTIN-Well, you have the driveway for lot number, what is this, eight. I mean, he gets most of it anyhow. MR. LAPOINT-Well, that's, again, more or less a dirt path type driveway, versus a wing swale, paved Town road. MR. MARTIN-See, now, I'm not saying it has to go all the way up to, like, as far as I took it up, like, right up to the boundary of lot eight and nine. Maybe if you brought it up, just another 100 feet or so, you know, up in the area of number seven, there, the house for number seven or something like that, right in that area, as a compromise point. MR. LAPOINT-Well, 100 feet is only an inch on this drawing. MR. MARTIN-Or a couple hundred feet, then. MR. LAPOINT-One inch equals fifty feet. MRS. YORK-I have a suggestion. Potentially, maybe, the applicant could sit down, or his agent, could sit down with the Highway Superintendent and talk about this. MR. MARTIN-I don't see how you can get away from having a cul-de-sac, myself. MRS. YORK-I think there may be some opportunities, here, to talk about on this particular lot, as far as roadways and what can be done, here. MR. MARTIN-I don't see how you can do it. MRS. YORK-I don't know if there's a possibility, given the circumstances and the nature of the land, to put in some kind of roadway system that would not be to Town specs. I don't know if there's a potential for that. I know at one time there was discussion of that with a major PUD. Given the fact that this Board has very diverse concerns maybe an option would be to discuss this with Mr. Naylor before going further and see if there's a way out. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think that's an appropriate concept. It seems like, somewhere out there is a plan where a lot more of us could get behind this thing a lot more enthusiastically than we are now. MR. MARTIN-Right, and I agree with Ed's point about, you don't want a big 50 foot wide wing swale road going up through there, if you can avoid it, to be consistent with what's there already, and I think the neighbors wouldn't especially care for that either. So, maybe Mr. Naylor would give consideration to waiving some of the requirements, in keeping with the neighborhood character. 23 '--' -./ MRS. YORK-Well, lets just see what his opinion might be. I mean, he may just say it's up to the Planning Board, and do what you want, but he has given us some indication, here, that he is very interested and concerned about this. MR. CARTIER-My feeling is, when we get this strong a difference of opinion on this Board, then there's got to be another solution, and that's what I'm seeing here, is that, I think when we have this wide a variety of opinion, here, that somewhere out there there's got to be some other plan that can bring us together again, if you will, that we can get behind a little bit more enthusiastically. MR. LAPOINT-The way I see this is we have 20 some odd acres of wilderness right now, and we want to keep it as close to that as possible. That means that it's the minimal amount of infrastructure, the minimum number of lots, the minimum number of houses, and that anything, and the rest of Assembly Point is piecemealed up into these perfectly little shaped lots, nice and skinny, and it's over-developed, and I think the rest of Assembly Point is the wrong way to develop. I mean, like, you've got these 50 foot wide lots. They're not flag shaped lots, but you've got a cut, a driveway every 25 feet along the road, and I think that's out of character with the Adirondack Park. Whereas, something similar to this, where you have dispersed houses on little dirt trails, if you will, is more in keeping, in character with what is there. The less pavement we have in this area, the better. The slower people have to drive, the better. I like the idea of not having six curb cuts, like the original plan showed, and, again, I see Mr. Naylor, and until he changes stationery, I guess I'm going to ignore his letters, and, again, what is the problem with the cul-de-sac. Maybe he does have a technical problem with them, but I'd like to know that. I mean, when people object to things, I want to know what their specific reasons are, and not in generalities. MRS. YORK-Well, my understanding is that what Mr. Naylor felt was that if he could improve the existing Knox Road to a better, a greater standard, then your concerns about the length of driveways and the safety issues could be, partially handled, and I don't know whether that's possible or not, but that was a suggestion that he did have. MR. CARTIER-I don't want to spend the entire night on this. I don't mean to cut you off, and I won't. How does the Board care to proceed? I don't hear a vote on this thing going either way. MR. LAPOINT-Lets hear some comments. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Okay. Mr. Schachner? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I was just going to add to Mrs. York's comment that our understanding, although I have the same trouble with the stationery, my understanding is that Mr. Naylor would likely feel that some of your concerns about the driveways would be mitigated if the applicant can give the Town the rights-of-way that were described in Mrs. York's letter, which is definitely, my understanding was also, that is including the road, not over and above, and our preliminary look at that is favorable. Our preliminary look at that is that, in all likelihood, the applicant £!!!. make that offer available to the Town. Although I appreciate the dichotomy, the divergence of views here, I think, in fairness, I don't think I should be too wimpy. I think that the applicant is entitled to some direction. We're obviously, you know, we're here at the informal, Sketch Plan stage. We happen to have an even number of people. I already foresee, in my mind, what happens with even numbers of people, but I really think that the applicant is, at this point, entitled to some direction as to the likelihood of this particular configuration, or something substantially similar to this particular configuration, advancing to the preliminary approval stage. We don't have any trouble, of course, with meeting with Mr. Naylor, but I think we will be able to accommodate his principal concern. JEFF ANTHONY MR. ANTHONY-Mr. Cartier, may I speak? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. ANTHONY-Jeff Anthony from the LA Group. I have just two comments that I'd 1 i ke to offer. Fi rst off, all of Rist-Frost's cOlllllE!nts have been considered in developing this plan and, from a technical point of view, the engineering can be designed in a manner to accommodate their comments on gradients of roads, gradients of size slopes and all the other technical issues. My other comment is more to deal with the Board's concern over flag shaped lots. I think that what we're seeing here, is, traditionally, flag shaped lots were misused in subdivisions that were trying to accomplish lots meeting minimum lot requirements for minimum acreage requirements and, in doing so, you'd create a flag shaped lot that, in total, met the minimum acreage standard, and you would lose buildable area in the handle part of the flag, which was then dedicated to a driveway. What would happen then is that the square part of the lot or the more developable area of the lot for a home site and septic field would then be substandard, in terms of its gross acreage, because you would have to subtract out the handle part of the porkchop lot or flag lot. In this instance, we don't have that situation, here. Our lot's, we clearly have very large, buildable areas on each of the lots. The handle is merely a means of accessing that large buildable area and I don't think that the implications or the traditional misuse of flag shaped lots 24 "-" - throughout the history of this County applies in this case. I think, traditionally, yes, they were misused. They were used as a means of maximizing out the density of a project so that you could squeeze in that last couple of lots, especially when you were going around a cul-de-sac, and you get awkward areas around cul-de-sacs in traditional subdivisions, and use that handle to use the minimum road frontage on a cul-de-sac to eek out that large pie shaped piece of land in the corner, and this is not happening here, and I think that this is a unique situation which is not the typical application of flags, and that's all I'd like to say about that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board care to take comments from the floor? Sir, would you care to address the Board, please? MR. HARRIS MR. HARRIS-Yes. I'm Mr. Harris, a resident of Assembly Point. We have no objection to what's going on here, but I just want to know if the Board, here, is aware that the Town Board is now making a study in regards to moving the road or improving the road that goes along the lake, on the other end of this property? MR. CARTIER-I'm certainly not aware of that. MR. HARRIS-That's something to take into consideration. Can I point out on the map? I know it's not a public hearing. The Lake George Park Commission has said that something has to be done about this road, the runoff, and so we've had a going discussion for maybe over a year in regards to what to do to stop the runoff going into the lake, especially now that it's being used as a dog walk, and I do drink the water, ice cubes, and Mr. Naylor was up, and somebody from Rist-Frost, where they were making a study, which should be taken into consideration. As I say, this property here is no objection to us at all, but this road we're hoping, we're planning that maybe the road along here will eliminate what the Lake George Park Commission is objecting to. It's something that you people should tie in with whoever's making the study, and I'm not sure who it is, but Paul Naylor's aware of it. Okay. Thank you. That's all I wanted to say, just bring that to your attention. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. HARRIS-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Jeff, what's the grade for lot number 10, that shared driveway? MR. ANTHONY-The grade for lot 10 can be designed to be under 10 percent. and the size slopes can be designed to be under three percent. That driveway could be, when we do engineering for that driveway, for preliminary subdivision, we can, these two areas right here are steeper slopes. They're, like, 30 percent. We can miss that, and we can mold that into the landscape a little easier, but the slope that you see here is, roughly, 15 percent grade, 15 plus, existing slope. MR. MARTIN-Yes. So, you can bring that in under 10? MR. ANTHONY-Yes. We've studied that already. (END OF FIRST DISK) 25 '-' -- MR. CARTIER-Lee, aren't there standards, in the Town, on slopes? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-What is it, eight percent? MRS. YORK-Three on one. MR. CARTIER-Three on one. MRS. YORK-Is the maximum grade. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What's the Board's druthers, here? I don't see this going forward, at this point. Is the Board willing to consider tabling this application for another look at, to get some of these thi ngs addressed, the cul-de-sac and so on, and Mr. Schachner's questi on's a fair question. He wants some direction from this Board, I think, what we're willing to see. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's a good idea. I'll just go on record as saying, I think Mr. Anthony's comments regarding flag shaped lots, in this particular instance, are noteworthy, and his points are well taken, in this particular case. There is some merit to those, although I don't know if I completely agree. I do see his reasoning. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What kinds of things would you like to see addressed, then, in the next go around, on this? MR. MARTIN-Well, I'd like to see if there's ~ consideration that can be given to moving that cul-de-sac further into the center of the property, if that can be done, to shorten those driveways somewhat, and then maybe you could provide access to lot number 9 and 10 off of that, rather than off of the road and have complete access to the interior property through only one curb cut. MR. CARTIER-So that we're not talking about a shared driveway? MR. MARTIN-Well, possibly you are still, but not a shared driveway going up that steep slope, and you may even, depending on how far you go in with it, you could shorten also. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anybody else? Do you have enough direction at this point? MR. SCHACHNER-Frankly, no. I thought we were getting there, but I think, in all fairness Mr. Martin, you know, one of your comments was, even if we could move the cul-de-sac only 100 feet further in, that's not going to get you to lots 9 and 10, and I think your last comment, if I understand it correctly, is really akin, pretty much akin to the central roadway that eats right through the heart of that buildable area. The only thing it accomplishes is eliminates one curb cut, but it takes away a lot of our buildable area, and there's no incentive for the applicant to do that, because the number of lots remains the same. I don't know if we're going to try to convince you to actually take a vote on this plan or just get a better feeling, but we're happy to meet with Mr. Naylor. We understand all your concerns, and they're all reasonable concerns, but I guess we feel pretty strongly that we need some more positive direction on a plan like this or substantially similar to this. I think that the last suggestion, if that's a direction we're headed, then the direction we're being forced into is more lots, smaller lots, more sophisticated, if you will, development, less keeping in character with the neighborhood type development. Mr. LaPoint phrased it better than I did, frankly. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay. Let me toss a suggestion out. Suppose you move the entire cul-de-sac system in there farther north? If you were to move that cul-de-sac and the connecting road down to Knox Road further to the left, and reconfigured some of those property lines, you might still be able to end up with the same number of lots that you have, but without the flag shape attached to those. MR. ANTHONY-It's a good concern, question, but we tried that. Logically, from a site distance point of view, this road wants to be here. It doesn't want to be anywhere in this stretch, and, secondly, when we start to get down into this stretch, the facing along the edge of the road, if you see the graphic symbol along the edge of the road, it indicates 30 percent plus grade, right at the edge of the road, and we're going to be bumping into a virtual cliff before we can even start grading, and we've got to come in at three percent flat, three percent or minimum for the first hundred feet, before we start climbing. It's impossible to do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we're back to Mr. Martin's scenario of bending the cul-de-sac around to the 1 eft. MR. ANTHONY-Yes. That's the only logical point of starting the road and then, yes, if we did want to accommodate Mr. Martin's comments, we'd have to extend that road up the ridge, essentially, right up to the top of the ridge line, and we'd be using up most of the good land on the site. 26 '-- -- MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me see if I can summarize for you, give you some direction, here. Anybody feel free to jump in here. I think what we're trying to do is minimize the flag lottedness of this, minimize. Mr. Naylor has some concerns about construction of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Naylor has some concerns about providing total 50 foot right-of-way. What else needs to be addressed? MRS. PULVER-Just to back up. Their biggest concern right now is whether or not you like this plan, and if you don't like this plan, what suggestions do we have to go with something else that they could live with. So far, they can't live with anything, but they're willing to accolIITodate Mr. Naylor and the engineering and whatever. So, we don't even need to talk about that anymore, right? MR. LAPOINT-True. MRS. PULVER-Okay. That's out. So we just need to decide whether it's this plan or do we have a better idea that they can live with. So far, they can't live with anything we've suggested. I don't have a problem with the flag shaped lots. Am I willing to accept all flag shaped lots? No. I'm willing to look at it on a site by site by site project. This is messy. I'm not real happy with it, but I've moved the road around in my mind too, and either we get more lots, we get some strange looking things when I moved it around. So, I suppose if I was forced to, I could live with this. MR. LAPOINT-I have questions, just generally, and when someone makes a motion, no one seconds it, or this thing gets turned down at the Sketch Plan stage, the applicant has no other choice but just to re-apply, correct? MR. CARTIER-Yes, with a different application. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, if someone were to make a motion to approve, it doesn't even get seconded? MR. CARTIER-The motion dies. MR. LAPOINT-The motion dies and the plan is, therefore, disapproved? MR. CARTIER-No. MRS. PULVER-Well, no. Then you would withdraw the motion. MR. LAPOINT-Withdraw the motion? MRS. PULVER-Withdraw the original motion and then you'd try a motion to disapprove. MR. LAPOINT-Because I'm assuming, we're not an even group, here. I'm assuming we're only going to be five voters this evening. That's just an assumption that I'm making. MR. CARTIER-Is that a fair assumption? MR. LAURICELLA-Yes. I have a question, but I won't vote on it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-And we haven't heard from a voter, and I guess my question would be to Tim what his inclination would be. MR. BREWER-Like Carol said, I've tried to move that road around, I don't know how many times. Is it possible to have this come in further and to the left? Instead of coming in straight, can you come over to the left with that? I understand you're going to be in part of this, but you could knock off this corner of that. Like Jim said, it's only probably 150 feet. MRS. PULVER-It depends on the slopes. MR. BREWER-It doesn't really buy me anything. I just don't like the length of this coming way back here. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Brewer, I just want to make sure I'm understanding your question right. I assume you're talking about moving the cul-de-sac somewhat north? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. BREWER-The entrance coming off the road, the circular part of it, at the top of it, like the lollipop part, if you were to adjust that to the left. MR. SCHACHNER-Which is north. Okay. MR. LAPOINT-And leave the entrance the same. 27 '- ---- MR. BREWER-Leave the entrance there, but move that somewhat, yes. MR. LAURICELLA-That driveway, you're using that. MR. BREWER-I'm not saying it's possible. I'm just asking if it ~ possible. MR. LAURICELLA-You still keep using the driveway, there, as a problem, but. MRS. PULVER-You would cut down on some of the flagness, if that's a word. I'm not sure that's a word. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, again, what does it buy you? The thing is, okay, say we can move that 200 feet, the lollipop part to the north. Does that get us anything but a shorter driveway and increase Mr. Naylor's problem? You see, it's a trade off, here. We move that 200 feet to the north. Mr. Naylor's problem gets bigger. The owner's problem gets smaller. I would prefer to leave the problem with the person who decides to buy the 200, 3, 400 foot driveway, the way it should be. MR. BREWER-No, because, remember last week, or last month, when I asked the question about the placement of the houses. They sa i d they were goi ng to put the houses where they were. So, the 300 or 400 foot driveway has already been determined. MR. CARTIER-I can't believe that there's only two possible alternative scenarios to this piece of property. One we have already rejected. Now we're looking at another. There's got to be some other scenarios out there. There's always alternatives. You're going to have to become very creative in coming up with something, I think, but I think Ed's point is well taken, in terms of the direction he was going. This isn't going to go anywhere tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if I could respond to Mr. Brewer's question. I guess we have a short response, which is, you're suggestion seems like a very good, workable suggestion. I don't think the applicant is likely to have a problem with it, if we understand it, but we think Mr. Naylor and the Town Staff will have a big problem with it, because our understanding is that the first 100 feet of that cul-de-sac must be straight. From the Town standpoint, I think Mr. LaPoint's right on target. It's going to create a big problem for the Town Highway Department, not for the applicant, and I guess, Mr. Cartier, maybe I've misunderstood Mr. LaPoint, but our sense is that if we're not dealing with an even number, then I guess we feel we could use some direction, and if it's appropriate to make a motion and see how the voting members vote, we're willing to take our roll of the dice. MR. CARTIER-Well, what's the Board's pleasure, here? MR. LAPOINT-Well, see, I would just prefer not to linger on issues. I prefer, we've already had them twice, now, and this adds up to two hours for each of us here, and I've spent, probably, two and a half, three hours, myself, home, and I would prefer not to go through this allover again with some other minor change to this that really isn't, again, I'm looking at this in terms of, everything is going to be a trade off, something Mr. Naylor's not going to like, something we're not going to like because it increases flag shaped stuff and all that and, to me, you make a decision, you know, get on with it, and I, in general, would like to see us start turning down more people and/or accepting more people, one or the other, I mean, just to get on with it. I guess I'm going to be ready to make a motion at the end of all this, and either send them completely back to the drawing board, or we get on to preliminary, would be my inclination, and if I don't get seconded, it's no big deal. MR. BREWER-I don't think it should be so cut and dry. I think we should be able to work out a compromise. MR. LAPOINT-Well, the thing is, I'm trying to force a quicker compromise than if, the idea of not getting to some type of a decision is not a compromise, either. MR. SCHACHNER-We also feel li ke we worked to come up with this and it is a compromise. I'm not suggesting that it's the only way of doing it. There's, clearly, a third choice that we have identified every fifth or sixth sentence since we've been here. The third choice is more lots, smaller lots, more intense development to the property, and this applicant, this project sponsor does not want to see that happen in the area in which he and his children reside. MR. LAPOINT-And neither does this Board member. If this went to 11, in good conscience, I couldn't say, well, boy, we just traded a flag shaped lot for an additional building and dwelling on this. That doesn't make sense to me, and I would vote against it, just on principle. MRS. YORK-Excuse me. I think most of the basic work has already been done, here. We have some problems, in that you can't allow grades more than 10 percent on driveways. There's a lot of things that just don't fit in within the confines of the Ordinance. I don't understand why design professionals can't simply put a piece of tracing paper or use some of their equipment and come up with three or four scenarios for this property and come back to this Board and show you those three or four scenarios, .tIIIiJ instead of going on and on. These people are being paid to develop alternatives, and they should be doing that jOb. 28 ~ --../ MR. CARTIER-And somewhere in all of that, we may end up with a combination, kind of a Chinese menu deal, where we pick and choice from all of them and come up with a. MRS. YORK-Right. This Board has to look at what's in the best interest of the Town. MRS. PULVER-Of course, it is the applicant that's paying for the professional's time all the time, every time they go back to the drawing board. So, it's not like we're not costing some money, here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Can we at least agree on a tabling? MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. CARTIER-Well, understand, the reality of the situation is we have to act one way or the other on this thing within 45 days. MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, it may work, tonight, it's possible. MR. CARTIER-Well, is anybody prepared to try a motion. MR. LAPOINT-I'm ready, now. MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PW SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To subdivide 25 acres into 10 lots to be developed by individual lot purchasers. Drilled wells and on-site wastewater will be constructed for water and sewer services. Lots will be accessed by privately owned and maintained driveways. Lot 1 contains the owners residence and will be retained by the owner, with the following stipulations: That the applicant show all well and septic locations on all lots. That the applicant meet all the comments provided for in the Rist-Frost's letter dated 13 November 1991, and that the applicant consider Mr. Paul Naylor's concerns regarding the cul-de-sac and the 50 foot right-of-way on Knox Road. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver NOES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier ABSTAINED: Mr. Lauricella ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-I believe it's three to two, correct? MR. LAPOINT-Perfect. MR. CARTIER-Understand, that if we entertain a motion to disapprove, I'm sure we're going to be in the same ball park. So, I don't think we have to go through that scenario. I think we're at a point of tabling. Okay. The motion is dead. Can we agree to a tabling to allow the applicant to come up with some additional scenarios as suggested by the Planner? Mr. Schachner, are you willing to agree to table this application? MR. SCHACHNER-The answer is yes. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Would somebody care to make a motion to that effect? MOTION TO TABLE SKETCH PINt SUBDIVISIOfl 10. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Pending further design(s) from the applicant. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Lauricella ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. LAPOINT-Did we actually get anything done there? 29 '- ---- MR. CARTIER-We'll find out next time around. Okay. Thank you gentlemen. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you. Mr. Cartier, I'm sorry. I believe that, in order to be on for next month, we would have less than 24 hours to submit our revised Sketch Plan, and, therefore, we would like to ask if we could be afforded the same opportunity that the previous applicant was afforded, which would be to submit a revised Sketch Plan by, I believe, a week from Friday at 2 o'clock, and we'll make every effort to do it before Friday, maybe on Wednesday or Thursday. MR. CARTIER-Lee, do you have any problem with that, or not? MRS. YORK-I really would like this one to go to Staff Review, if there's any way. I will try, 1'11 tell you what, if they can't get it in earlier, Friday will be fine, but we will have to sit down, absolutely, with Mr. Naylor, and see what his concerns are. MR. CARTIER-Staff Review is a week from tomorrow? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-At what time? MRS. YORK-Nine o'clock in the morning. MR. SCHACHNER-I think we would even be prepared to commit to that afternoon. MRS. YORK-No, well, that's okay. I'll see what I can do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Are you willing to handle this as of Friday, or a week from Friday? MRS. YORK-Yes. I'll take care of it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Can I ask a question? Lee, how many applicants do we have for next month yet, or don't we have any? MRS. YORK-I really don't have an idea, Carol. We've had some applications come in, but I haven't divided them up into zoning and planning. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MRS. YORK-Maybe you want to just want to have some sketches brought in and have a workshop session and just bat this around for a while. It's a hard piece of land to work with. The applicant seems to have his mind set on this. The Board has some concerns. The Board shouldn't be designing the project, certainly. MR. MARTIN-No, but we do have to give him some guidance, and I don't mind doing that. I, personally, wouldn't mind seeing 11 or 12 lots. I don't think that's the worst thing in the world that could happen up there, by any means. MR. CARTIER-Yes. would agree with that, too. MR. MARTIN-I mean, if we're looking at three and a half acres as opposed to 2.75, or something like that, I don't see where that's the worst thing in the world, especially some of the things that are already existing up there. MR. CARTIER-How about you, Carol, could I put you on the spot, here. Do you have any problems? MRS. PULVER-Wait a second. What did you just say, some of the things that are already existing up there? Now, we're supposed to be doing good planning, not allowing, you just contradicted yourself. MR. MARTIN-Right. No. I'm not contradicting myself. What I'm saying is, you could still have 12 lots up there, but of a smaller size indicated here and still substantially better than what exists there. MR. LAPOINT-Do you really believe that to be the case, that you could put three more units on this land, and the trade off between the flag shaped lots and what you would gain and lose with three other units would be an equal trade? MR. CARTIER-Don't know. We need to look at a plan, here. 27 -- MR. LAPOINT-No, he just said that. MR. MARTIN-No. What I'm saying is, maybe a better trade off is having lots that are of a more buildable nature, and what I mean by that is shorter driveways, shorter distances for utility and things like that, and still maintain a backwoods character or whatever you're trying to establish, here, without substantially effecting that. MR. CARTIER-Carol, do you have any problems with more than 10 lots? MRS. PULVER-No, I don't. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I don't have a problem with the, I am not convinced that flag shaped lots in this particular instance are wrong, and that's why I voted for the project, no, you guys didn't convince me. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I'm not convinced that adding two or three more lots is going to make it look any better. It may add a lot more to the infra structure, but we'll see. MR. CARTIER-Tim, do you have any problems with more than 10 lots? MR. BREWER-No. MR. CARTIER-A few more? MR. BREWER-A few more, no. MR. CARTIER-Does that give you any kind of flexibility here? MR. SCHACHNER-I think it does, to the extent that we'll commit to come back. We prefer not to do it at a workshop. We prefer to do it at a regular meeting, but we will come back with, obviously, what we've already developed, and we'll come up with our preferred option, and whatever else, we've alread,}i done a bunch of homework that we di d not present to you previ ous ly, because, at other times, you've indicated that you didn't want to get involved in a situation of reviewing scores and scores of plans. This being a little bit of a sensitive, more difficult property, we'll be glad to do that. MR. MARTIN-I think it's more appropriate at Sketch Plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Certainly, than later. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Do we need a motion, here, I think we need a motion to extend the deadline. Would somebody care to make the motion? MOTION TO EXTEND THE SUBMISSION DEADLINE DATE TO DECEMBER 6TH, FOR SUrtSET HILL FARM, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Lauricella ABSENT: Mr. Caimano (9:24 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: (C0fIT1D) SITE PINt NO. 52-91 TYPE II PC-lA IIJODBURylS OWNER: IIJODBURY INTERSTATE CORP. 679 &LEfI STREET FOR A NEW FENCE FOR THE LUMBER YARD. (WARREN COUNTY PI..AMING) TAX IMP 10. 104-1-35.2 LOT SIZE: 1.26 ACRES SECTION 179-74 C-3 GARY HOFFMAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:24 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 52-91, Woodbury's, 11-25-91, Meeting Date: November 26, 1991 liAs staff understands this application, a new area of chain link fencing is proposed around an existing lumber storage area. Other items are included in this plan such as parking changes 28 .......... ,,- - and demolition of a structure which it is assumed will not be part of this review. The property is in a commercial zone and the use is light industrial. It appears that snow removal is partially on another parcel, not owned by the applicant. The Board may want to discuss this since Hovey Pond may be impacted. The fencing of the storage area should not in and of itself create any impacts. Any expansion of the business, however, may require a variance and site plan review. The applicant should get a decision from the Zoning Administrator on this.1I MR. CARTIER-I want to raise that issue right now, before we go on, here. Pat's not here. She left, didn't she? Paul, did you have any conversation with Pat, with regard to the necessity for site plan review on this application at all, Woodbury's? PAUL DUSEK MR. DUSEK-For a fence? MR. CARTIER-No, for some other work that was being done on the property. Pat has determined that it needs a variance, but it does not need a site plan. Have you had any conversations with her on that? MR. DUSEK-We did, and I'm trying to remember the gist of the conversation. MR. CARTIER-I know I hit you with that, cold. MR. DUSEK-Off hand, I know we discussed something about a building and relocation of parking, if I remember. MRS. PULVER-She said, earlier, they needed a variance for their parking, they needed to come in for a variance. Isn't that what she said? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DUSEK-Because, is this a nonconforming use? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK-Yes, it is. MR. DUSEK-And there's something to the effect that this is considered, she considered it an expansion of a nonconforming use, because that's what triggering the need for a variance, I believe. MR. CARTIER-Correct. I understand that. My question is, why it doesn't have to come for site plan review, because they're operating, there's a bordering residential zone that requires buffering. The parking is next to Halfway Brook, which involves stream corridor setbacks. You don't have to answer that right now, okay. It's just that, what I'd like from Pat is an explanation as to why that does not require site plan review. MR. DUSEK-I may be able to give you an answer. Let me give you a tentative answer, and I think the reasoning behind this is, and I want to have a chance to look at this a little closer, but I think a nonconforming, first of all, you've always got to remember, we start from the premise, for everybody in Town government, that you can only do what the law provides, and I think what the problem is, is that there's no mechanism or no law that says this type of thing has to come in for site plan review, because if you look under the nonconforming use statute, which is what controls under Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Article XI. At one point, there was a clause up at the top that said the Planning Board reviewed everything, but then that clause was removed by the Town Board this past sunnner and limited to those instances where you have a nonconforming use in a Critical Environmental Area, or something else, here, but anyway, it was limited, so when you read down through, you look to see what it says about nonconforming uses, and you see that it says they can be extended or enlarged, then as I go down through the title, here, I note that you can increase it by variance, and it tells you that you can do that, but nowhere in here does it say you have to undergo a site plan review, and if you go to your Site Plan Review requirements, under the other Section, you won't see it there either because it's a nonconforming use. It's not listed. So, I think that, what happens is, by virtue of the fact that it's not listed anywhere, that's how it avoids the site plan review, because you have no mechanism to require it. MR. CARTIER-That's something that ought to get looked at then, because I'm really bothered by the fact that somebody can do the kind of work I've seen over there, next to Hovey Pond, next to a residential zone, and not require a site plan review. If that's something that's missing in the Ordinance, that really needs to get addressed somewhere. MR. MARTIN-Well, are you talking about a listed use? MR. DUSEK-No, a nonconforming use. MR. MARTIN-Okay. 29 ---- MR. DUSEK-Now, the other thing is, though, the Zoning Board can certainly refer it to the Planning Board, under the current state of law. There is authority for that. MR. CARTIER-For site plan review? MR. DUSEK-Not for a site plan review, but for a review that, in essence, could be equivalent to having a site plan review, but your comments would go back to the ZBA, because they'd be the controlling Board to control any, you know, and they would attach any conditions that they deem appropriate to the variance. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and we're going to look at it at SEQRA anyway. It will be going to the Zoning Board for a variance. It would come back to us for a SEQRA Review. MR. DUSEK-Are you telling me that's what's going to happen, because I don't know that that's going to happen, for sure. MR. CARTIER-I assume that's the way it's going to go, at this point. MRS. YORK-Is it a Type I? MR. DUSEK-I didn't get into any of that. I don't know. MR. CARTIER-It's Unlisted. Well, it's this nonconforming deal. We can sort that all out later. I don't expect an answer to that tonight. Okay. Thank you. We also have a comment from Warren County, regarding IINo County Impact". Sir, finally, would you care to address the Board, please? MR. HOFFMAN-Again, my name is Gary Hoffman from Woodbury's. The way I understand it, we're here tonight to approve only the fence. Is that correct? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. HOFFMAN-The reason we'd like to put up the fence is for security and no other reason. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HOFFMAN-There is some fence there, now. We are replacing, we would like to replace that fence. It's old and grown up with brush and this type thing, and we would like just to put the same fence up. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you also have comments, do you have a copy of these? These are comments from Staff. MR. HOFFMAN-No, sir. MRS. YORK-You can get them right over here on the end of this table. MR. CARTIER-I'm referring to Lee York's notes, second paragraph, second line of it, lilt appears that snow removal is partially on another parcel, not owned by the applicant." I assume you're tal king, Lee, about snow is piled there? MRS. YORK-That's right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would you care to comment on that, Mr. Hoffman, are you aware of any of that? MR. HOFFMAN-The snow is piled up in this area, here. can see, we want to put the fence all the way around. and we won't be able to get it out. It's been done that way for many years. As you So, we'll be putting the snow inside the fence, MR. LAPOINT-There's some type of a gate there, though, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. There's a gate depicted on our plan. MR. LAPOINT-There's a gate on our plan, right where you remove the snow. MR. LAURICELLA-Right here. MR. LAPOINT-Is that incorrect? I mean, it just contradicts what you said, that's all. MR. HOFFMAN-Yes, it is. They've changed it. Sorry. MR. MARTIN-You don't even have snow removal listed on yours, do you? MR. HOFFMAN-No. We've taken it off. 30 '---" - MR. LAPOINT-You've taken the gate off, too? MR. HOFFMAN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-There will be no gate there? MR. HOFFMAN-No gate. MR. CARTIER-Hold it. Lets get something very clear right away. Is this the map that went through the process? MRS. YORK-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Then we're not going to be looking at this map, Mr. Hoffman. The only thing that this Board can consider is the map that has come through the Planning Department, that we have examined. MR. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Now. is this an old version that was supplanted by this, or does that? MR. HOFFMAN-This was a new map that was sent in with the second plan, the variance for the parking area. MR. CARTIER-We don't want that. MR. HOFFMAN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-What we need to have is the one that we have in front of us. We have a copy, if you don't. We have several copies. MR. HOFFMAN-Okay. Yes, we do have a gate. If that seems to be a problem, we can just run the fence straight, without a gate. It's just an area that's been used for snow removal for a long time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HOFFMAN-It's not our property. It's just. MR. CARTIER-I guess, I've got a lot of problems, here, in terms of information that's missing. I don't see a, does that gate run along the property line, I'm sorry, not the gate, the fence? Does the fence run along the property line? MR. HOFFMAN-Inside the property line. MR. CARTIER-By how many feet? MR. HOFFMAN-About a foot. MR. CARTIER-About a foot. Okay. MR. HOFFMAN-That's what I have shown. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What I'm concerned about, which goes to what I was discussing with Mr. Dusek, has to do with a buffer zone that needs to be left between the residential zone behind you and Hovey Pond and Halfway Brook and that whole area, but that's another issue. That's something you're going to have to keep in mind on this variance business. Okay. MR. HOFFMAN-That's on this area? MR. CARTIER-Yes. All right. Lets put that on hold. MR. HOFFMAN-But as far as this fence. MR. CARTIER-So, you're saying you're willing to eliminate the gate and no longer put snow back there? MR. HOFFMAN-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Correct. Okay. That takes care of that one. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? If not, I'll open the public hearing. This is subject to a public hearing. Is there anybody here who would care to comment on this application? 31 --- --' PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM PIPER MR. PIPER-Yes. My name is Jim Piper. I'm the President of Queensbury Central Volunteer Fire Company, Incorporated, and we own the property where this snow removal was taking place. It has not taken place for a long period of time. Last year we noticed there was snow being dumped on our property. It was brought to Woodbury's attention that we were not happy with this type situation. That's mainly why I came here tonight. We have no problem with them replacing the fence. We're trying to get along with our neighbors across the street, but we were never consulted that there was going to be a gate. It was our understanding, after speaking to Woodbury Management last year, that the snow problem had been resolved, until I picked up a map, tonight, and I see that it's indicated that snow removal is on the other guy's property, being ours. We're not happy with that. I realize that one other thing that appears on the new map, that it probably is not under consideration here tonight, is right across the street, on the main building, they have placed a new gate, which I believe, I don't think that was covered by anything, but the Fire Company was never consulted on that. The concern that we have is this gate is within 100 feet of the main entrance to the LaFayette Street Station. There is now quite a bit of tractor trailer traffic that goes in and out of there. Our only concern is, we would hate to see our egress and ingress to the Firehouse diminished by heavy tractor trailer traffic in this area. That's the only concern that we have. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hoffman, is there any way to move that gate that he's referring to? MR. LAPOINT-Lets make sure we agree on which gate it is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-It's shown at the 92, 99 right, overflow entrance for trucks? Just point it out on the. MR. PIPER-The gate that I'm referring to, like I say, it's not, it's across the street. There's a new gate that appears right here, and the front of the Firehouse sits right here. There's a brand new gate that appeared on the other side of the street. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we were in the right spot. MR. CARTIER-Okay. It seems to me like a relatively easy matter to move that gate location so that it does not. MR. HOFFMAN-Can I address that please? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. HOFFMAN-As we have it now, the entrance to the yard is in here, and the congestion here is very bad. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. HOFFMAN-If anybody goes by there, they know that. Tractor trailers park in the street, along side the street, wherever they can. The reason we put this gate in is to try to eliminate the tractor trailer traffic that's on this street, to get it off the street quickly without it having to come through the entrance and exit gate where the customers are coming in and out. That gate is locked and closed, and correct me if I'm wrong, most of the time, and the only reason for it is for the tractor trailers to get in and out. MR. CARTIER-Would it improve anything if you were to move that gate all the way to the end of the fence? MR. HOFFMAN-To here? It would still be too close. MR. PIPER-You're still close. MR. CARTIER-You're talking about, no matter where a gate is on that fence, it's going to create a problem, essentially? MR. PIPER-In the proximity of right across the street from the Firehouse, yes. MR. LAURICELLA-Is there a roadway to the rear of this fence? MR. PIPER-There's a roadway that leads across the back of Woodbury's lot. I don't know ,",'ho owns the road. I believe it's a private road. MR. LAURICELLA-A private road? 32 - ~ MR. HOFFMAN-Yes. It's a driveway. MR. MARTIN-There's nothing that can be done around what your so called, "Greeder Station", here, around this area, where you could have another fence break to alleviate the congestion, like, in here, or anywhere in this area that would alleviate that and totally eliminate that? MR. PIPER-I think, if the number of trucks could be limited, that would alleviate the problem. What we're afraid of, you know, you hear rumors. We've heard that this is going to be a main distribution point. That you're going to see an increase of tractor trailer traffic on LaFayette Street, and if that gate is going to be open all day long, with trucks going in and out, we see a problem. If it's being closed, the way he's telling us now, and it's used strictly, should they have an overflow, they'd have to move one or two trucks, I don't see a problem. What I'm afraid of is if we get into steady tractor trailer traffic, we are going to have a problem. Now, just last year alone, trucks turning around in front of the Fi rehouse have damaged the sprinkler system. We've spent better than $200 to repair damage on our lawns, tractor trailers turning around. We didn't actually catch the tractor trailer there. You could tell by the marks it was a tractor trailer. So, you can't go after anybody, but what we're trying to do is limit the amount of tractor trailers in and out of that, right across from the Firehouse. If it's kept at a minimum, I really don't think it's going to be a problem, but if there's an increase in traffic, I see that it is a problem. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Mr. Hoffman, could you comment on that, with regard to an increase in trucks coming in there? MR. HOFFMAN-The rumors about a distribution center, no, it's not a distribution center. We closed the distribution center in Glens Falls. We have another distribution center in Roanoke, Virginia, where our Headquarters is, and we're sorry we had to close it. I know it made a lot of people mad. A lot of people lost jobs, but we consolidated that into one distribution center. We have a $9 million distribution ,center in Roanoke, Virginia, and, all the distribution to our stores comes out of that distribution center. You might get a couple, every once in a while a store close to Glens Falls might need something, and they might come up and get it, but, no, it's not a distribution center. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, in terms of the number of trucks that are going to be in and out of this? MR. HOFFMAN-We closed the distribution center about two or three weeks ago, and I asked the Manager, tonight, if there was any increase in traffic, because I assumed this might come up, and he said no. He said, very little difference. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. PIPER-If there's no difference, we can live with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. If it becomes a problem at some point, I think there are ways of addressing the problems in the future. Okay. MR. HOFFMAN-We are trying to do these improvements, the fence, or the parking lot, which we won't get into, everything is trying to make things better. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HOFFMAN-LaFayette, the traffic is really bad on that street, and we're just trying to eliminate some of that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I shop at Woodbury's and I have a problem, and it's a safety issue. It has to do with right here. Coming out of here and trying to turn left, you have material stacked here. There is no sight line down here. If you can eliminate the materials that get stacked here, people will be able to see through the fence. Somebody's going to get their nose taken off one of these days right here, because you have to creep out, in order to see down here, even if you're coming out to the right, and a very simple solution would be to keep that material out of there, okay. MR. LAURICELLA-Where were you talking about, Peter? MR. CARTIER-Right here, okay. There's stuff stacked out here. When you're coming out here, or this way, you cannot see, and it's a chain link fence, and if material is removed there, you'll be able to see through the chain link fence. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else have any questions or comments? Yes, ma'am? META MURRAY 33 --- -../ MISS MURRAY-Hi. My name's Meta Murray. I own Flowerland, which, I noted on the information we got, was not named as an adjoining owner, and I'd just 1 i ke the record to show that I do own the property that is contiguous to part of the site of the fence. So, I just want that on the record. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MISS MURRAY-I'm a little concerned about the way we are separating issues, here. I understand why it's happening, but I just want to make sure that the Board understands what the ultimate plan is and considers all the cumulative impacts that may be concerned. My main concern with the fence is that of light and permeability. Now, I understand that it's going to be a chain link fence. I didn't have a chance to go and measure the existing fence, but is it going to be any higher than the existing fence, and I'm talking about the area that is, okay, Flowerland is right down here and there's a new fence going in right here. I've got three greenhouses over here. I depend on the light to do my growing, and I have to make sure that my light is not going to be impacted by an increase in opacity of the fence. I'm also concerned because of how close the fence is to the property line, that we do not end up with a lot of lumber. Obviously, they can use their property however they want to, but I would just hope that there would be some concern given to making sure that you are not impacting on the ability for us to carry out our business. MR. CARTIER-You're talking about the height of a pile of lumber next to the fence, correct? MISS MURRAY-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MISS MURRAY-Because that would impact on the light that comes into the greenhouses. MR. CARTIER-What are we talking about, here? Lets get as specific as we can. Is a six foot pile of lumber too high? Would that create problems for you? MISS MURRAY-Probably not. MR. CARTIER-So, if we set a 1 imi t of no hi gher than si x feet a long that parti cul ar secti on of fence, that would not be a problem, or that would be acceptable to you? MISS MURRAY-I wish my grower had come. I think that might be, but I'd hate to commit to it right now, because I really don't know. There was a real concern with the fence being a solid fence. That would impact and if you put lumber next to a chain link fence, you're, in effect, making it a solid fence, and I've got the same problem. I want to work things out, but there's been a real lack of communication with Woodbury's, which is very unfortunate. MR. LAURICELLA-What's there now? There's a fence there now? MISS MURRAY-There's a fence there now, but there is a wood right next to it, and I don't have a problem with what exists now. I'm just concerned with a higher fence, if it's going to be higher, and if they're going to be using a lot more, putting a lot more wood right next to the fence. That could cause us some problems. I just need to know more. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-That's the north side of your greenhouse, correct? I mean, it's not like it's on the south side. MR. LAURICELLA-It would be on the north side, yes. MR. LAPOINT-It would be on the north side of your greenhouse? MISS MURRAY-Right. MR. LAPOINT-So, that any light that does come in that way is not direct anyway. MISS MURRAY-It's not direct light, no. MR. LAPOINT-It's not direct light. So, that, even if you put something on that side, it would not diminish any light. MR. CARTIER-What's the phrase, here, Lee, shadow zone? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Shadow zone? 34 - -- MR. LAPOINT-Well, it wouldn't be in the Shadow zone either. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's what I'm getting at. There would be no Shadow zone. MR. LAPOINT-Not on the north side. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. LAPOINT-That, if you were to put a big black wall 20 feet in the air on the north side of that, would it diminish the light coming in the north side? No. MISS MURRAY-No? MR. LAPOINT-I don't think so. MISS MURRAY-I don't know the technical issues. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I mean, the sunlight is, principally, from the east, south, and west, and anything coming in the north side, now, is indirect, and, even if you put something black on that side that absorbs all the light. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-See, there's nothing reflecting anything. If you had, like, a giant white wall there, it would increase the light, but to put up a giant black wall that absorbed all the light would not effect any light inside the greenhouse on that side. MR. CARTIER-That's a good point. The sun's, basically what it boils down to is the sun is coming from the south. MISS MURRAY-I know that. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and that you're not getting any direct sunlight from the north. So, whatever is put up next to that fence is not going to cast a shadow or block light coming into that and into the greenhouse. MRS. PULVER-Well, lets answer the question, though. How high is the fence? MR. HOFFMAN-Six foot high, ballpark. MRS. PULVER-Okay. The whole fence will be six foot? There won't be any sections that will be higher than six foot? MR. HOFFMAN-The fence will be six foot high, ballpark, which slants over, maybe takes up another foot. MR. CARTIER-Mi ss Murray, I think your concerns have been addressed, here. I think the 1 i ght issue is not a problem. MISS MURRAY-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Check with your grower. Again, thinking right off the top of my head, I'm fairly certain that would be the case. MISS MURRAY-I hope that's the case. MR. CARTIER-I would tend to agree with Mr. LaPoint. MISS MURRAY-One of the other issues I just wanted to bring up was, on their application, they noted that the adjoining uses were all commercial. I, just for the record, want to make a correction. There's a residential property right here, and there's two rental apartments which, obviously, are in a commercial building, but this is a single family residential building here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MISS MURRAY-One other question I had was, are they planning, because this is going to be used for a storage area for lumber and security means, what kind of lighting are they going to be putting in, because light at night would also cause a problem. That I'm sure about. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Not enough in the day time and too much at night. I think I understand. MISS MURRAY-Right. Then the poinsettias don't bloom on time. 35 '- --/ MR. CARTIER-Mr. Hoffman, can we address that please. The question, if I can simplify this, is, are you going to have lighting in that entire area back there that's 'fenced in, that is going to shine into the back side, the north side of that greenhouse? MR. HOFFMAN-No, sir. here at this corner. We have light there now, and I'd like to ask this question. Does this bother anything now? We have a light MISS MURRAY-No. What's there is not a problem. We're just concerned about any expansion. MR. MARTIN-And you're not adding any lighting? MR. HOFFMAN-We'll add some lighting, but we'll shine it the same direction that the lighting is now. MR. MARTIN-Away from her plants? MR. HOFFMAN-Yes, sir. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Okay. Yes, ma'am. MISS MURRAY-One other question. I notice, here, that there's a break in the fence, and it's not marked for snow removal or any other purpose and I just wondered what the intent of that was? MR. HOFFMAN-This one? MISS MURRAY-Right. MR. HOFFMAN-This gate, hopefully, if we are able to park our cars at the next meeting, this gate will be used for employees to walk through. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MISS MURRAY-It won't be? MR. HOFFMAN-No. It's a three foot wide gate, employee walking onlY. MR. MARTIN-Pedestrian traffic. MR. HOFFMAN-Pedestrian traffic. MR. LAURICELLA-So, they will have to come down Glendale Avenue or Glendale Street? MR. HOFFMAN-Yes, sir. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MARY LEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline, and I own property at 15 LaFayette Street, right across from the fence, okay. I haven't had any problems with Woodbury's. I talked to Dan Rogers, who's the President. I've always had a good rapport with them because I go out of my way to find them. So, I haven't had a lot of problems with what's going on. I would just like everything addressed, because I'm used to dealing with Woodbury's as a small company as it used to be. It's a big corporation now and we're not dealing with the same people. I talked to Dan Rogers today. He could be gone tomorrow, and, with regard to the tree issue that you were talking about, and parking there, Dan was very helpful with that. He saved the trees. He saved a Maple. He saved two Pines. He bent over backwards to help me there, but, as I said, Dan could go tomorrow. Now, as far as the distribution center, it wasn't in Glens Falls. It was in South Glens Falls, and I do believe they're trying to bring more material into this area now that used to be there. I don't have any problem with that either, and I think with the way they're doing the trucks now, it is helping the traffic on the street. They did come up with a good idea to come through one way and drive through his barn and go out, so it keeps the trucks off the street. Like I said to Jim, the big thing is how many trucks, you know, that's the question. How many trucks are coming in, because they stop right in front of my shop, and they're only there a little while, and if they get too close to my, somebody tells them to back up, because they know I'm watching them. So, they're always watching me and I'm watching them, but I haven't had any problems with them. They're very easy to talk to. I've had a good rapport with them, because I find them, and they're not very hard to talk to. So, that would be, the issues of the parking I would like addressed, and the fence, how many trucks would be going in there, and I just think, for our own safety, that we should know those things. MR. CARTIER-Parking, in reference to, the new parking? MRS. GOSLINE-The new parking, you know. My sister took you over there, and she looked at the tree. 36 ''"-' -----' MR. CARTIER-Okay. Right. That is an issue not before this Board. MRS. GOSLINE-Well, I just wanted to bring it up to say that I thought you had a good point there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. GOSLINE-And I wondered why, also, like Jim did, why wasn't the gate brought up and the amount of trucks going in and out of there. Why wasn't that brought up, before any Board? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. I don't have an answer to that. I think, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Hoffman, we have some new kids in town, and the new kids don't know all the rules yet, but they're, I think, in the process of learning what the rules are, and that may answer that, if you can answer that. MR. HOFFMAN-Well, I'd asked the question ahead of time, could I put a gate in, and they looked through the code books and said no, and I thought it was okay. In other words, I asked them if there was a problem putting a gate into an existing fence, and they said no. MR. CARTIER-No, there's no problem putting a gate into an existing fence? MR. HOFFMAN-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. MR. MARTIN-Did you have tell them the location and all that? MR. CARTIER-Yes. I went over this whole scheme with Pat and the building official, ahead of time. Now, we went through everything, but maybe I didn't tell them everything that they needed to know. MR. MARTIN-You probably did. MR. CARTIER-They should be asking, okay. Have your questions been answered, to your satisfaction? MRS. GOSLINE-They're basic idea of rotating the traffic on LaFayette Street's good, bringing them in the barn, bringing them around, get them off the road, because there's times where there's two or three trucks on LaFayette Street and you can't even get through there, and this is eliminating some of that. I mean, I just want to know how, you know, if they could give us answers, how many trucks. how bad is the traffic going to be and are they going to be able to maintain it, you know, keep it rotating, because I believe they are going to increase the amount of material there, but I think they're trying to handle it the best way they can. They're limiting their property, and the people who own the property on the other side, you asked if there was a road on the other side? MR. LAURICELLA-Yes. MRS. GOSLINE-He's being very unreasonable. They've tried to contact those people. They've tried to work with them. They can't. So, their hands are tied. So, they're doing the best they can with what they've got. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HOFFMAN-Well, I can't answer that, but let me just add one thing. If the parking issue gets okayed next time, which 1'11 be back next time to talk to you about that, if that gets okayed, then additional trucks, as many as four tractor trailers, can be put into this area, where we have employees parking now. MR. CARTIER-Okay, to get them off the road? MR. HOFFMAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HOFFMAN-That's something else to consider. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. HOFFMAN-And as I said, we closed the distribution center about two or three weeks ago. I really don't know the exact date, and I don't think there's been any increase in the last couple of weeks, and maybe you can answer that. MR. PIPER-We haven't encountered any problems, lets put it that way. MR. HOFFMAN-Okay. 37 '- --- MR. LAPOINT-If you control the distribution to this facility, correct? MR. HOFFMAN-Yes, sir. MR. LAPOINT-Then you ought to, with just a little bit of management, be able to control having four trucks showing up all at once, six trucks showing up all at once. I mean, there's some management, there, involved, that you can stagger deliveries, if, indeed, you do have control from the distribution center, so that they do not come in all at once? MR. HOFFMAN-We have control with our trucks. We do not have control for the site. MR. LAPOINT-Common carriers? MR. HOFFMAN-Yes, common carriers. MR. LAPOINT-But they're still leaving from Roanoke coming here? I mean, they're not coming from other locations to here? MR. HOFFMAN-There's some trucks that will be coming from, I'm going to say, our vendors. MR. LAPOINT-Up from your vendors? Right. MR. HOFFMAN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Direct? MR. HOFFMAN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Not through the distribution center? MR. HOFFMAN-Right, and we can ask them to come between 8 and 4 and they'll be there at 5:30. MR. LAPOINT-No, I understood that, but, I mean, if you do have control over, say, 50 percent of the trucks. MR. HOFFMAN-Yes, sir. MR. LAPOINT-You can appreciate the Fire Department, the Beauty Shop, and all your neighbors. MR. HOFFMAN-Yes, and we want to do that, because there's so much congestion here, that. MR. LAPOINT-It's bad for business. MR. HOFFMAN-Yes, exactly. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have a comment from the floor? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARTIER-If not, I'll close the public hearing. Does anybody else on the Board have a question? This is a Type II. We do not have to do SEQRA on this. Is anyone prepared to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN fIO. 52-91 WOODBURY'S, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: For a new fence for the lumber yard, with the stipulation that the gate for the snow removal, the north side gate on the east side of LaFayette Street adjoining the Fire Department property, be removed or not included with the new fence, and any new lighting to be positioned in such a way that it is directed away from neighboring property owners. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano (10:00 p.m.) 38 MR. CARTIER-Four real quick things, okay. Number One, there's no way I'm going to ask this Board, tonight, to come up with their top ten, okay. If you would put some time in on that between now and next Tuesday night. Lee, maybe we can take some time, and I'll see if I can set something up to go through that fairly rapidly, those top ten goals. Lets work on top ten for starts. Secondly, we do have a meeting next Tuesday night, 7:00, here. We have two letters in front of us. Let me do the easy one first. The time for the Great Escape Roller Coaster FEIS will lapse tomorrow. You have a letter in front of you from Mr. Wayne Judge requesting an extension of that time. He's requesting a 60 day extension. I'd like us to consider something longer than a 60 day extension. We had to remind them that this thing was coming due, and I don't want to do this in another 60 days. Give them six months. MR. LAPOINT-Ready? MR. CARTIER- Yes. tmTION TO EXTEND SUBMISSION OF THE FEIS FOR ATTRACTIOflS LAND, INC. (ROUER COASTER), Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a period of six months, which terminates May 26th, 1992. Duly adopted this 26th day of November, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Lauricella ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Lee, I assume you'll take care of notifying Mr. Judge? MRS. YORK- Yes, I wi 11. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Last item, I promise. Hickory Acres, Sidney Timms. On, it doesn't matter what the date is, we conditioned the approval on, that the applicant show proof to the Planning Board that all outstanding items have been complied with. They have not been complied with. There is some problem between Mr. Timms and his engineer. He is hiring a new engineer. That approval has lapsed, okay. Has anybody got a problem with that? This is strictly a notification. We don't have to do anything here, do we? Just to make you aware of it. MRS. YORK-No. I spoke with Leon Steves, who is Mr. Timms agent also, and they will be, probably, coming back with another final submission to you, with all the conditions addressed, for approval. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Paul, understanding your answer, I still have a real problem with the fact that Woodbury's does not have to come back in for site plan review on this parking lot, and whatever it's going to take down the line, we've got to deal with that. There's something in the Ordinance or what? MR. DUSEK-Just so you know. I double checked that afterwards, because I was kind of answering as I was looking, and I was correct in the answer I gave you. Certainly, we can always work toward amending the Ordinance to address that, if that's what the Board would like. MRS. YORK-Well, in other situations where there have been some planning concerns, especially with traffic and movement of goods, the Zoning Board has felt the need for a recommendation by the Planning Board, and maybe this will also be the case. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Will they get, will the Zoning Board get the minutes of this meeting tonight before? MRS. YORK-Yes, they get all your minutes. MR. CARTIER-Before Woodbury's appears before them? MRS. YORK-I have no idea when Woodbury's will be submitting. MR. CARTIER-Should I appear before the Zoning Board, or? MRS. YORK-Maybe you would like to do that, or at least send them a letter outlining your concerns, or the Board's concerns, as you understand them. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. Am I the only one who's got a concern about this? MR. MARTIN-No. 39 ~ ~ MR. CARTIER-Okay. Then, if you have no objection, I'm going to pursue it. Does anybody have anything else? MRS. PULVER-Yes. I want to know, what's the pig situation? MR. LAPOINT-He was denied. MRS. PULVER-I know he's been denied, but, apparently, if he was denied, the pigs had to be moved to the blue area? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MRS. PULVER-They're not moved yet. MR. LAPOINT-That's the court's responsibility, correct? MRS. PULVER-No, that's our enforcement. MR. DUSEK-Well, we were in court, and when we appeared before Judge Backus, he ruled that they did have to pay the fine, and he gave him two weeks in which to pay the fine, and then, at that time, if my recollection serves me correct, Mr. Harris said something about wanting to file, perhaps, an Article 78 or something against the Town, and then, after that, I heard that he wanted to re-apply for site plan approval again. MRS. PULVER-But where are the pigs? Are they in the blue area or are they? MR. DUSEK-I don't know. All I can do is go to court and ask the Judge to fine him, and the Judge did explain to him that if the pigs were still there, I have, obviously, two options, at this point, to pursue this, and that is, one, I can go back in and request a fine for every day that the pigs have been there since the time we got the. The other option I have is to file a civil suit for an injunction, but I think that, going the fine method down in Justice Court, is going to get just as good a results, but, here again, he has a right to apply for site pla.n approval, and if he does, that may also clear the problem. I was told he has an attorney. So, I think at this point, I would give it just a couple of more weeks and see where it's going. MRS. PULVER-My other question is on the Diehl project which came up tonight. We will still have to do a SEQRA form on that, on subdivision? MR. DUSEK-No. That was all taken care of as part of the re-zoning. That was why you had the battle over the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency makes the determination. MR. LAPOINT-When we, we've done SEQRA on re-zoning, sent it to whoever does, no, we haven't done that. Sorry. MR. DUSEK-No. That's the whole idea behind doing a coordinated review is that you eliminate the need for the applicant to go back and do further environmental review. MR. LAPOINT-Then what the hell is this endangered species thing about? MR. MARTIN-Now, wait a minute. What if we said, we have 100 acres of property in the Town that we are going to re-zone, okay, and they happen to be under the ownership of two lots, all right, and the first applicant comes in with his 50 acres and says, yes, I'm going to do all this, and we say, okay, your property was dealt with under the SEQRA re-zoning. We don't need to do a SEQRA. Applicant Number Two comes in with a different use, that's still allowed, but a different use, he can also say that, you know, my application was dealt with at the point of the re-zoning? I don't understand why that would? MR. DUSEK-No, and the reasoning behind that is that, at the time of re-zoning, 1 i ke, when we di d the full scale re-zoning in 1988, and the SEQRA that was done for that, which was a generic impact statement, addressed the concept of the re-zoning on a Town wide or area wide basis, and if that happened in your case, then the guy who comes in later for a review would still have to go through a SEQRA process. In this particular case, though, a coordinated review was done between the agencies, your agency, the Town Board, and whoever else was involved, and then the Town Board ruled that there would be no impacts, based upon the feedback they got from all the agencies. So they ruled on that. It's just the way it was structured that time. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but, like, in this case, the Town Board ruled, with the understanding that it was going to be clustered units. What if he, ultimately, comes in with 99 individual septic systems? MR. DUSEK-I don't think he has any choice. My recollection was, is that there was a covenant that says he has to be clustered, if he can. 40 '..- ./ MRS. YORK-But he can do single family clustered. MR. LAPOINT-If that's true, we just wasted that entire segment, and he's going to come back with something like that, that his approval from the Board is no good. MR. DUSEK-To the extent that, he does have a requirement that says, to the extent circumstances permit, to obtain variances, the subject premises shall be developed in accordance with the clustering requirement. So, he has to develop under clustering, if he can, and to the extent that he can, without obtaining variances. MR. MARTIN-All right. Fine, then, what happens if he has, like, ten different pods of clusters, rather than four. That could, potentially, change the environmental impact. MR. BREWER-All he gave you is a Sketch Plan. It wasn't cast in stone. He might want to change that. MRS. PULVER-The Corinth Road project that Planning Board had to do did another Environmental Assessment Form when the project was finally approved, because originally, when that went for re-zoning, that was only a 40 unit project. It ended up being a 42 unit, after the Planning Board got through, and it got two roadways, and from the original plan that went before the Town Board for the re-zoning, totally different, totally different plan, right, Lee? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. DUSEK-Are you saying you went through a SEQRA process the second time around with that one, even though you did a coordinated review with the Town Board the first time? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-See, I think the SEQRA only applies to the action of the re-zoning, as it's changed the Town Law. The actual bricks and mortar of that project being built requires another environmental review, would be my opinion. MR. DUSEK-Well, let me do this, you know, my first reaction I've given you. Let me go back and just double check myself to make sure that I haven't overlooked something here. MR. CARTIER-I think the first SEQRA Review, as he said, refers to the re-zoning. It seems, to us, appropriate that we do a site specific SEQRA Review, based on, as he says, the bricks and mortar. MR. DUSEK-I see what you're saying. I noticed that it was tabled, and I presume the applicant's attorney is going to be calling me anyway, right? MR. CARTIER- Yes. MR. DUSEK-I will study the situation further and I will call you, Peter, as soon as I can. MR. CARTIER-I appreciate it. Does anybody have anything else? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. He's going to come back with lots. Make sure to talk to him about that, too, in relationship to what you just read out of the covenants or whatever they are. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody have anything else? MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. CARTIER-I think we stand adjourned. Thank you all. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 41