Loading...
1991-12-17 o "--" ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 17TH, 1991 INDEX Site Plan No. 53-91 George and Marilyn Stark d/b/a Mohican Motel 1. Site Plan No. 54-91 Peter J. Valenti 3. Subdivision No. 15-1991 SKETCH PLAN Ronald and Mary Susan Raynor 8. Subdivision No. 11-1991 SKETCH PLAN Sunset Hi 11 Farm Owner: Paul Knox, III 20. 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 PINtNING BOARD MEETING FIRST RESllAR MEETING DECEJlŒR 17TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES MARTIN EDWARD LAPOINT TIMOTHY BREWER IEtlJERS ABSENT JAMES LAURICELLA NICHOLAS CAIMANO TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK SENIOR PlAINER-LEE YORK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH CORRECTION OF MIflJTES November 12th, 1991: NONE November 19th, 1991: NONE IIJTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SET OF MINUTES, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Why don't we skip down to the third item on the agenda, 53-1991. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PINt 10. 53-91 TYPE: UflLISTED HC-lA GEORGE AND MRILYN STARK D/B/A MOHICAN MOTEL OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE NORTH ON ROOTE 9, 1,000 FT. PAST ROOTE 149 INTERSECTION. LEFT (lEST) SIDE OF ROOTE 9 TO REMOVE III) EXISTING MOTEL UflITS AND BUILD SIX NEil UNITS. (BEAUTIFICATION aJlUTTEE) (1MRREfI coom PINtNING) TAX MP fIO. 34-1-3 LOT SIZE: 3.18 ACRES SECTION 179-23 GEORGE AND MARILYN STARK, PRESENT (7:08 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 53-1991, George and Marilyn Stark - Mohican Motel, 12-11-91, Meeting Date: December 17, 1991 IIThis site plan was tabled to allow the applicant to address engineering and staff comments. The engineers comments formed the body of the information to be addressed. If the applicant has satisfactorily addressed these comments, staff would recommend approval since all facilities are existing and impacts of the minor addition will be minimal. For the record, the applicant should be made aware that item E on the site plan checklist does state that the site plan show all setbacks. II MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Engineering Comments, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, December 10, 1991 IIWe have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The applicant proposes to conduct percolation testing and test pitting at the precise location of the sewage disposal area prior to building permit application. The applicant assumes responsibility for any design changes that may be necessary as a result of the subsurface conditions. 2. A separation distance of 3 times the effective diameter (30') shall be provided between seepage pits. 3. Permanent provisions for septic tank access through at grade manhole frame and covers should be provided. II 1 '-"" ----- MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Warren County Planning, we had gotten their notes the last time, correct? MRS. YORK-Right. They voted that there was No County Impact. MR. CARTIER-No County Impact. Beautification Committee? MRS. YORK-My understanding is you will be meeting with the Beautification Committee when you get ready to do the plantings. Is that my understanding? MR. STARK-You're talking April or May, when the place is up. I talked to Sue Whiting, and I had told her, when the place is up, then I'll figure out what I'm going to do. I mean, you've got to visualize the thing before you, you know. I don't think I'm going to be putting that many plants in. Maybe a couple of shrubs by the stairs or something, but I have a tree over there, now, already. MRS. YORK-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The public hearing was left open. Is there anybody here to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COJIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct a SEQRA Review on this. Let me back up a minute. Lets get these engineering comments taken care of. Did you want to address those? TONY LOCASCIO MR. LOCASCIO-I think he already did, didn't you? MR. LAPOINT-Can 1Q!!. address them? MR. LOCASCIO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Would you give us your name, please? MR. LOCASCIO-Tony LoCascio. MR. LAPOINT-You can meet Items One, Two, and Three, correct? MR. LOCASCIO-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-All right. SEQRA Review time. MRS. YORK-They filled out a Short Environmental Assessment Form. RESOWTION lID DETERMINATION OF fIO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 53-91, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GEORGE AID MRILYfI STARK, to remove t.u existing .utel units and build six new units, 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. 2 ',--- ----- 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 17th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion. We may want to reference application to the Beautification Committee, come spring, in any motion. tl)TION TO APPROVE SITE PlAfI 10. 53-91 GEORGE AND MARILYN STARK D/B/A MOHICAN tl)TEL, 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 stipulations: Number One, that the comments and requests of the Rist-Frost letter of December 10th, 1991 be complied with and, Number Two, that the applicant meet with the Beautification Committee in the spring to determine that plantings that he'll put in. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Caimano MR. STARK-Will they contact me, or am I supposed to contact them, in the spring? MR. CARTIER-"They" being the Beautification Committee? MR. STARK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-How do they work? MRS. YORK-I think you should contact them. I'm sure they'll keep your name on fi le, but when you get finished with your construction, it would be best to contact them. MR. STARK-Thank you. MR. CARTIER- Yes. be tracking, too. Be sure to pick up on that, because that's something that Building and Codes will Okay. Thank you. (7:15 p.m.) NEil BUSINESS: SITE PINt NO. 54-91 TYPE I WR-lA PETER J. VALENTI OWNER: PETER AND LISA VALENTI JAY ROAD, GLEN lAKE TO REBUILD THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (WARREN COONTY PLAflNING) TAX MAP 10. 43-1-5 LOT SIZE: 0.2763 ACRES SECTION 179-79 MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PETER VALENTI, PRESENT (7:15 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 54-91, Peter Valenti, 12-12-91, Meeting Date: December 17, 1991 IIThis project is on Glen Lake in a Critical Environmental area. The lot is quite unique and construction of any residential unit would be very difficult with today's standards. The existing residence is on the end of Jay Road. Over the years this area has been blacktopped until the drainage flows down the road into the applicant's kitchen which is below grade. That is one of the reasons the applicant is requesting to construct a nonconforming residential unit in substantially the same footprint. The unit will be increased in two areas. The first is a front porch accessway and the other is a side accessway. Both of these areas were impermeable to begin with so there is 3 ~ '--'" no storm water increase because of this. The applicant received variances to increase a nonconforming structure in November. The practical difficulty is that there is no location on the lot where a conforming structure could be placed. The applicant has complied with the Board's request to have the septic system reviewed. A letter has been submitted by Scudder Associates. The applicant has agreed to take up existing blacktop in order to improve the permeable area on the lot and to bring the lot into conformance with the 65% permeable requirement. In order to improve storm water drainage the applicant will be adding rain gutters to the structure and directing the flow. In addition, Mr. Valenti has met with Paul Naylor and agreed to put subsurface infiltration devices on his property which will improve storm water management for the entire road and will filter the storm water prior to it entering the lake. The Board is aware of the many concerns associated with expansions in Critical Environmental areas. In this instance the applicant has not only provided mitigation measures for his expansion, he is also going to put in drainage facilities which will be of benefit to his neighborhood and the lake itself. Staff recommends approval of this site plan." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Do you have a letter from Mr. Scudder, in reference to the septic? MRS. YORK-Yes. It's in the file. In the meantime, would you like Mr. Naylor to address you? MR. CARTIER-Or we could read his letter into the file. We have a letter dated November 21, from Mr. Naylor, "I have met with Mr. Valenti regarding solutions to the storm water drainage problem on his lot and Jay Road. He has tentatively agreed to put in facilities on his property which would channel and cleanse the storm water before it enters the lake. This would be on his property, but would be of benefit to all the residents. I have met with Mr. Valenti on improving the drainage. If the Board wants to require that the installation of drainage facilities be made part of the approval it would certainly be of benefit to the neighborhood. II Okay. I assume the letter from Mr. Scudder refers to? MRS. YORK-Right. It was attached to the application that you received, and it says, IIDear Mrs. York: You will, I am sure remember discussing with me a few weeks ago the proposal of Mr. Peter Valenti to rebuild his home at Glen Lake pursuant to which we got into the questions of wastewater disposal and zoning requirements. You referred me to Mrs. Crayford on the latter question, and I spoke also to Mr. Hatin on more than one occasion. I wish here to focus on the wastewater disposal system of the Valenti property. In the absence of record plans, the only way I know to determine the configuration of an underground septic system is to dig it up. Because there is no compelling need to know how the system is configured, but rather whether it works satisfactorily, to excavate Mr. Valenti's backyard would seem senseless. So we undertook to see whether the discharge of liquid wastes from the Valenti home produces discernible short-term effect on the tributary waters of Glen Lake. The homesite, as you know, is situated on a point of land. I visited Brian S. Fear, P.E. Director of Public Health in the Glens Falls District Office of the New York State Department of Health. Mr. Fear does not make a practice of involving his office in questions of this kind, especially in jurisdictions with the resources available to the Town of Queensbury. Mr. Fear provided me a packet of strong fluorescein dye tablets and suggested a procedure for testing to see if the discharge of sewage from the Valenti home results in a characteristic fluorescent yellow-green coloring of the littoral waters of the lake on either side of the point. A first test was made with two tablets and, some four days later, a second test was conducted with four tablets discharged to the septic system of the Valenti home. In neither instance was there a discernible coloring of the lake waters. The dye test is most useful in discovering a direct discharge to a watercourse that may be due to a failed, or improperly constructed or maintained system. In this instance there was no indication of failure, or short-circuiting to the lake (without benefit of absorption in the soil encompassing the leaching system). Mr. Valenti proposes continued use of the septic and absorption systems after his new home is constructed, i.e., with the same occupancy, and the same number of bedrooms. In our opinion, therefore, the existing on-site wastewater system should serve the Valenti family and function in the foreseeable future as it does presently, provided that normal routine maintenance is provided by the owner. Sincerely yours, Charles Scudder" MR. CARTIER-Mr. Valenti, how big is that septic system? Do you know? MR. SCHACHNER-For your record, I'm Mark Schachner from Miller, Mannix, and Pratt. I'm the attorney for Mr. Valenti. If I'm not mistaken, the answer to that question is, we're not sure. MR. VALENTI-We're not sure. MR. SCHACHNER-The system was put in 40, 50 years ago, 40ish is the best information we've got, and without actually unearthing the existing system, there's no way of pinning down its exact capacity and the other elements of its structure. That's why Mr. Scudder's letter basically refers to doing the test that he did and the result that he got. MR. CARTIER-Is this a year round home? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-How many bedrooms? MR. SCHACHNER-Two bedrooms. 4 ',- ---/ MR. VALENTI-No, no, four bedrooms. MR. CARTIER-Two bedrooms, three, four bedrooms. You've never had any problems at all with the septic system? MR. VALENTI-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Lets clarify the bedroom issue. I misspoke and meant three, but, that's the correct answer, I believe. MR. VALENTI-In the home itself, there is three bedrooms. There always has been. We purchased the home from Mrs. Peg Callahan who had lived there previously, 20 years, as a year round resident. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, you averaged it out and came out with three bedrooms? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. CARTIER-How long has that system been under the pavement? MR. VALENTI-I don't have that information. MR. CARTIER-More than five years, a long time? MR. VALENTI-Yes, a long time. MR. CARTIER-A very long time. MR. SCHACHNER-As long as we're able to be aware of. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Do you know what, maybe I missed it. Is the configuration of this system known? Is it a steel tank? Is it just simply a leach field? MR. SCHACHNER-Concrete tank is the best information we've got. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Valenti's on the property for a little over a year? MR. VALENTI-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, not yet a year and a half, I don't believe, but he talked to the previ ous owners, and they also, it had been in there forever. MR. CARTIER-How many people lived in it before you bought it, Mr. Valenti? MR. VALENTI-Mrs. Callahan and her husband, prior to him passing away, and she did have a year round tenant. So, three to four people, I'm going to guess. MR. CARTIER-All right. we've got an unknown. That's basically what it amounts to. MR. VALENTI-Yes. I don't know. I've heard stories of all the kids being raised in the house type of thing, but I'm not sure. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Does the Board have any other questions or comments? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I guess, what was tentatively agreed with Mr. Naylor, some type of a drainage trench to a stone well or something like that? Nothing is shown on the drawing, with regard to that, I believe. MRS. YORK-No. We didn't put anything down on the plan because, basically, this was an agreement between Mr. Naylor and the applicant. I requested that Mr. Naylor, who had let me know many years ago that there was a drainage problem in that area, come out and take a look at the situation. Basically, the Town has been trying to improve the drainage on that road for many years. The problem being that all the property where, potentially, anything could be done, is private property, and we are limited. Therefore, when Mr. Valenti came in to talk about this project, I mentioned to him that it might be an opportune time to improve drainage in the entire neighborhood, and help the lake. Mr. Valenti was very willing to discuss this further, and Mr. Naylor went out with me to look at the site and he, basically, described, to the best of his ability, what he felt should be done to improve the situation. Mr. Valenti has agreed, and would be happy if you put it in your motion that he, himself, will pay for the drainage improvements and install them on the lot. 5 '",--, ~ MR. CARTIER-As per Mr. Naylor's suggestion? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. LAPOINT-That would just be right across the paved road, the driveway? PAUL NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-No. It goes right by his garage. Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent, Town of Queensbury. MRS. YORK-If you're going down Jay Road where Mr. Valenti's two car garage with the apartment on top of it is, the drainage comes down the road and goes right next to his garage. This can flood his garage, and he's going to put in the drainage facilities right there, at the corner, in front of his garage, on his private property. MR. LAPOINT-Do a 10 foot trench or something like that? MR. NAYLOR-No. MR. LAPOINT-No? MR. NAYLOR-I don't think he's got that much room. MR. MARTIN-An actual drywell, a concrete drywell? MR. NAYLOR-He's going to dig down, try to put a drywell, and go about eight or ten feet, put some crushed stone, better than what he's got. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Good. Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-If it's appropriate, we do have one sort of request for clarification. There's a very old and fairly large tree right in that area which Mr. Valenti strongly desires to maintain, and I just want that made known on the record. I'm sure nobody would suggest that it should come down, but we want to make sure that the drywell system can go around it and not replace it. MR. MARTIN-Sure. MR. CARTIER-Great. MR. BREWER-I have one other question. Would it be appropriate to have something in there, as far as some precautions, when he's building, for the lake? MR. MARTIN-Erosion control? MR. BREWER-Erosion control. MR. CARTIER-And the other thing that we mentioned out there, because you had mentioned something about fertilizing. You're going to tear up some pads and seed it and put it to lawn, I believe. Correct? MR. VALENTI-We're not sure on the landscaping. At this point, I would not be. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What our concern was, was the fertilizing of the lawn. MR. VALENTI-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And we'd like to eliminate that that close to the lake, because when you're fertilizing the lawn that close to the lake, you're also fertilizing the lake. MR. VALENTI-The lake, yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Why don't we have engineering comments on this particular? MRS. YORK-He's building in the same footprint. His storm water is taken care of because the only areas he is enlarging upon are areas that are already impermeable. He is improving his stormwater situation by the use of gutters around his property. He is also improving the infiltration to the lake and I didn't feel that, given the fact that he had discussed with Mr. Naylor, at length, the best way to improve the situation, that it was really fair to have him design something that required engineering review. 6 --- ,---",' MR. SCHACHNER-If I could add one more thing I don't think that Mrs. York mentioned, but I think Mr. Cartier hinted at, that we're also reducing the amount of existing impermeable area. MRS. YORK-Right. They are taking up impermeable area and replacing it with permeable area. MR. LAPOINT-I'm just following up on Tim's, because normally we have a comment about drainage and erosion control per some standard. We might want to include that here, and we'll ask Tom for the wording on that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who would care to address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEflED MR. CARTIER-As far as other correspondence, we also have in the package, a petition signed by 15 neighbors in support of the application. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to conduct a SEQRA, and I believe it's the Long Form. RESOLUTION IIIEN DETERMINATION OF fIO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION fIO. 54-91, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: PETER J. VALENTI, to rebuild a single f~ily dMelling, 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 17th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion on this application. I think we want to reference drainage plans, fertilizer, erosion and sediment control. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PlAN fIO. 54-91 PETER J. VALENTI, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: That the drainage improvements to the site, as referenced in Paul Naylor's letter of November 21st, and discussed and approved by him, as shown on a plat to be submitted to Mr. Naylor prior to commencing construction. Number Two, that New York State Guidelines for Sediment and Erosion Control be followed during the construction period, and that fertilizers and pesticides not be used at the site in reestablishing the ground cover. 7 '~ -- Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-The only question I had had to do with, I believe, the first condition, which relates to the drainage improvement, as agreed to by the applicant, with Mr. Naylor, in his letter. I don't think there's any question of the mutual intent, but I think it's very, very broad, and it's kind of hard to get your arms around it. We're wondering, and I don't really have a suggestion. We're throwing it open to you all. We're wondering if there's some way to clarify it. The concept that we're getting at is, within reason, but I don't know if those are the words. MR. MARTIN-Would you want it shown on the plat? Would that be sufficient, so you could spell it out there? MR. SCHACHNER-Meaning we would submit a final plat that would show exactly what's proposed there? MR. MARTIN-Right. You'd show a cross section of the drywell and so on. MR. CARTIER-To the satisfaction of Mr. Naylor. MR. VALENTI-That's fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That would be fine. MR. MARTIN-All right. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Caimano (7:35 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-Back to old business. OLD BUSINESS: (CONT'D) SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1991 SIŒTCH PINt TYPE: UflLISTED SR-lA RONALD AND MARY SUSAN RAYIOR OWNER: WE AS ABOVE CLEARVIEII INtE, OFF OF HAVILAND ROAD FOR A 4 LOT SUBDIVISIOfI. TAX MAP NO. 54-5-6.51-6.1 LOT SIZE: 5.6± ACRES SECTIOI: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS I~ ... n..·.t:tl MELANIE FUERST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RONALD RAYNOR, PRESENT (7:35 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 15-1991, Ronald & Mary Susan Raynor, 12-10-91, Meeting Date: December 17, 1991 liThe application was tabled pending decisions on how to handle the ten foot strips on the east and north of Clearview Lane. The applicant has supplied two alternatives. The first is to convey the strips to the Town. The second is to convey the strips to the adjacent property owners, being Freiberger, Raynor, and the Town. The Highway Superintendent will be responding to the alternatives. There is an intermittent stream crossing lot 4 which is a tributary of Halfway Creek. The proposed structure is not 75 feet back from the stream as required by code (Section 179-60-15-C). Given the size of the lot the applicant can place the house so as not to violate the code. They should, however, be aware that there is not hard surfacing within 50 feet of the stream and vegetation removed within 35 feet of the stream without Planning Board approval. Any alteration of the shoreline is also limited. Other than the proximity to the intermittent stream on lot 4 and the 10 foot strip issue, this subdivision raises few planning concerns." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Engineering Comments, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, December 10, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Maximum site grades shall be (1) vertical on (3) horizontal as per Town of Queensbury Code A183-25 A(I). Minor grading adjustments may be required for lot 4. 2. The type and location of subsurface sewage disposal systems should be indicated for the church and Purton properties.1I MR. CARTIER-Paul, do you want to get in on this one right at the beginning, here? PAUL NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-From a Highway point of view, most of our regulations are 50 foot wide, and I'd really hate to add another 10 foot. Then we've got to go through the deeding process, Town Board approval, and start allover again. So, it's better if you can keep us governments out of your side yards. 8 ",--- '--' MR. CARTIER-With the exception of the 10 foot strip at the end of the road, I assume. MR. NAYLOR-I don't know. I would just as soon not get involved with the Town Board, taking on any, we'd have to go out there with an engineer and draw it all up and present it to the Board. So, if any of that land can be given back to the people. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but we're talking about the very narrow strip at the end of the road. MR. NAYLOR-I see that. That can't go back to that property? MR. CARTIER-What that does is lock, it can be, sure, the concern was that. MR. NAYLOR-Basically, the old law is, when we abandon a road, half and half goes back to property, people on your side. I think the original intent of this, by what I've seen, is somebody tried to landlock somebody so they wouldn't get on their new road, and that's against the law. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but what we're saying is, this very narrow strip at the very end of the road, what we're trying to do is eliminate that so we don't landlock that back part, so we can continue a road there someday. You're saying that you'd just as soon see that piece go to the property on the north. MR. NAYLOR-See that go back to the property owner that's there. If it could go to the property owner adjacent to the property. MRS. YORK-The adjacent property owner behind the road. MR. CARTIER-That's on the north of that? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. NAYLOR-Right, so the road stops at their property line. MR. MARTIN-I see. That's a good idea. MR. CARTIER-Right. I follow. So, you don't want!.!1l of that. MR. NAYLOR-I don't want any of it, that way our regulations will stay, per se. MR. CARTIER-So, we're talking about deeding these 10 foot strips to, or transferring these 10 foot strips to various, to the two lots, plus, is it Freiberger, and then that very end strip. MR. MARTIN-It would be to this group, here. MRS. PULVER-United Kingdom? MR. MARTIN-Yes, whatever, Thomas Patrick Oliver Amenco. MRS. FUERST-Hi. I'm Melanie Fuerst with Northeast Consultants, and I've brought Ron Raynor, the owner of the property. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Have you followed all that, Mr. Raynor? MR. RAYNOR-Pretty much. This is all new. The reason for that 10 foot strip was, as was said, so that people on that side of the road, if they wanted to develop it, or get to it, would have to either purchase some of that land from me, because I put all the money into that road, okay. That was approved by the Town, accepted by the Town. I had no idea that it wasn't legal, or anything like that. MR. CARTIER-It may have been legal then. MR. RAYNOR-Nobody had brought it up, at that point. MR. CARTIER-Well, it may have been legal then. MR. NA YLOR- I n tho se days. we went ahead and did it. I wi 11 . Well, Paul Garvey's the man I talked to. He said, fine, no problem, and Now, again, that's your concern. That's my concern. If I have to do it, MR. CARTIER-Well, I think the easy part is the two lots. You can just reconfigure those two lots to incorporate that 10 foot strip. MR. RAYNOR-Which two lots? MR. CARTIER-The two lots to the right of the road, the east side of the road. 9 ,,- '--' MR. YARMOWICH-The 10 foot strip at the end of Clearview Lane, the Town would likely be interested in making that as part of their right-of-way, increase their room for turn around, as well as snow removal, those kinds of things. MISS FUERST-Right. Exactly. MR. YARMOWICH-Because there now will be a driveway at the end of the road. MISS FUERST-What would that do for future development to the north of that property, though, because then that opens that up? MR. YARMOWICH-That would open that up, and that's consistent with the intent of the subdivision regulations right now. MISS FUERST-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-And that's why that would be the appropriate action in this subdivision. In the case of a 10 foot strip, the 450, 10 foot strip adjoining the Frieberger property, that could remain with lot number three, or it could be conveyed in a lot line adjustment with the subdivision. MISS FUERST-Okay, to the Friebergers. MRS. YORK-The 10 foot strip could also remain with lot number four, if that was your choice. MISS FUERST-Okay. MRS. YORK-To prevent what I understand is your fear, here. MISS FUERST-Well, it's not really my fear. I want to do the right boundary that the Town is looking for, to make it go through, but the Raynors, they purposely kept that 10 foot strip for future development. So, to them, it was money in the bank. MRS. YORK-Yes, they can't do that. MR. YARMOWICH-That 10 foot strip to the north has to go with lot three, and any future owner would retain all rights of the use of that, as well as giving it to the Town. MISS FUERST-Right. So, as soon as they sell the lot, they lose it anyway. MRS. YORK-That's right. MR. YARMOWICH-So, the Town may be interested, at this point, in obtaining it right now, in this process, and providing that capability. MR. DUSEK-I think it should be said, though, there are a number of different legal ways that that can be dealt with, not only the options that we've suggested here. You may want to just, you know, I don't know what your plans are, but I don't think the Town wants to represent that these are the only options of dealing with that little piece, because I can think of other ways in which it can be dealt with. MISS FUERST-There was one other comment from the, when you read it over, that needs to be addressed. You stated that one of the lots had an existing house on it. It's all vacant land. MRS. YORK-Okay. The existing house is not part of the subdivision. MISS FUERST-No. MRS. YORK-That's my error then. MISS FUERST-Okay. Did I touch on all of your comments? MRS. YORK-I believe so, thank you. MR. CARTIER-In other words, those four lots are not owned by the person who lives in the existing,house? MISS FUERST-No. That is right. MR. MARTIN-From a planning perspective, I'd like to see those 10 foot strips deeded over to the Town. I just think that you're going to create some unknown future hardship or inconvenience, or what have you, if you allow that type of thing to go through, here. I mean, this is, I can't even see any point in a 10 foot strip like that. MR. BREWER-Can I ask you a question to satisfy my own curiosity? 10 '-' ---./ MRS. FUERST-Gary Bowen, and in 1990, he conveyed it to Thomas Patrick Oliver Amenco, and his address is United Kingdom. So, the owner to the north is from the United Kingdom, but it did used to be Gary Bowen's property, which was part of the Hiland park theme thing. MR. RAYNOR-So, we'll have to contact this guy and find out if he even wants this, because if he doesn't want to accept it. MR. CARTIER-What happens if the piece of property is abandoned? MR. NAYLOR-Normally, when property is abandoned, it goes back to the people that border, the Town road. MR. CARTIER-How long does something have to be? MR. NAYLOR-I've never seen, well, I've never accepted or been involved in a strip, per se, that keeps people off, since I've taken office. MR. CARTIER-What's involved in abandonment? How long a period of time has to elapse before? MR. NAYLOR-If you don't use something, it's a matter of seven to ten years. MR. CARTIER-Seven to ten. MR. NAYLOR-If the Highway doesn't maintain a road, per se. MR. MARTIN-Well, it looks like what we're looking at, here, you've got two alternatives, neither of which look to be very easy. MR. NAYLOR-The easy alternative is to give it back to the property owner. Everybody always wants land, but if it's not convenient, then we've got to go the hard way and that means redoing all the Town's deeds and getting the Town Board's approval to take that last ten feet, which has to be done by resolution. That road was accepted by resolution, so any alternates, any way, shape, or form to it will have to be done by resolution. MRS. FUERST-How long does that process take, Paul? MR. NAYLOR-With our attorneys and the way it works, we just accepted a road last night, spent two years putting it together. So, if you're in a rush. MR. CARTIER-Well, there's a question in there. Before we could grant final approval on this, would that have to be conveyed? Would that have to have gone through the whole process of conveyance, or could not a final approval be couched in terms of, they are in the process of conveying? Do you understand what I'm getting at here? In other words, do we have to hold up final approval until that 10 foot strip is transferred? MRS. YORK-No. MR. NAYLOR-I wouldn't say so. MRS. YORK-No, because roads are usually conveyed after a subdivision is approved. MR. CARTIER-So, it could be conveyed to the Town and still not hold up final approval. MR. NAYLOR-If it had to be, if there's no alternative, but it would be a matter of processing it. MR. CARTIER-So, we're not talking about a two year delay. MRS. PULVER-I have a question. 1'm a little unclear on this. This 50 foot road is already there, and I've been on the road, and this 10 foot wide strip, that as I'm facing it, is to the right of the road, is that 10 foot wide strip, right now, part of the deed of land that goes with lot 3 and 4? MR. NA YLOR- Yes. MRS. PULVER-It is? MRS. FUERST-No. The deed now, let me just. MR. CARTIER-That 10 foot wide strip is a separate strip of land, correct? MR. RA YNOR- Yes. MRS. FUERST-No. It is in with lots 1 and 2. down in the also clause, being also planned. out to the Town. Lots 1 and 2 description is for this, this, and then It's this extra strip, because the conveyance was made 11 ""--- --- MR. MARTIN-But it is described as a separate parcel. MRS. FUERST-It's described as a separate parcel because this was all bought as one piece. This whole chunk, from here down, was bought as one piece. This got conveyed out, that was conveyance number one, and the Town road got conveyed, that's conveyance number two, which left over this and this for this deed reference and this tax map parcel number. MRS. PULVER-So, somebody along the line approved that 10 foot strip, going the full length, as being a separate. MR. RAYNOR-I assumed that when I bought this, okay, that all of this would then become this, and I guess that's just, that's my assumption. MR. BREWER-But, ultimately, what you're doing is if the Freiberger's want to build a house, here, they can't get on to their own land. MR. RAYNOR-Actually, what I was doing, when I did this, okay, and Carl, we went over it several times and he said it was okay. This 10 foot strip of land, because I put so much money into that property, and I knew there was available property back here and back here, I didn't want people to be able to access it without at least contributing to me, some part of that road, and that's the reason I kept that, and I didn't know I was breaking laws. MR. CARTIER-You may not have been breaking laws, Mr. Raynor. It may be it was okay back then, but things have changed since then. MR. RAYNOR-Right. MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think you were breaking laws, but, just to make you feel any more comfortable, my understanding that if any development was to occur on that property north of you, that it would be their cost to extend that road, and so on and so forth. So, you're benefiting from the section of road that serviced your property, and that's as it should be, and then any road that benefits them north of you would be their cost. MR. RAYNOR-Yes, definitely, but, you know, the 10 foot, but in order to access this, I thought that that 10 foot might be worth a couple of thousand dollars to purchase from me, to access this road, and that was the idea behind this 10 foot strip, too, and this has already occurred, because the Freiberger's tried to sell this piece of land, and found out that I still own that 10 foot strip there. MR. CARTIER-You've got some options on that little thin strip up at the top. There's nothing to prevent you from contacting somebody in the United Kingdom and see if they are interested in it, considering the fact that they can, it will give them access, road access, to that property. MR. RAYNOR-And they also have access from Rockwell Road. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but, on the other hand, it liberalizes what they can do, eventually, with that piece of property, because we don't like getting into cul-de-sacs, and we could put a road that connects this to Rockwell, and so on and so forth. So, it is to their advantage to own that 10 foot strip. MR. RAYNOR-Right. MR. CARTIER-There's no question about that. MR. RAYNOR-If they don't want to buy it, in order to get this approved, I'm going to have to give it to them, because the Town. MR. CARTIER-Or deed it to the Town. MR. RAYNOR-Or deed it to the Town. MRS. FUERST-So, we can go through the paperwork of deeding these parcels? I mean, I can come up with the proposed conveyances? MR. MARTIN-I would suggest that you take a two tiered approach, the first tier being that you try and sell this strip from the road to the edge of lot number three to the Friebergers. MR. RAYNOR-I Qffered it to them, when they tried to sell this. They weren't. MR. MARTIN-All right. I was going to say, like Peter said, that small, 10 foot strip at the top, try selling that, and then if those two things don't work, then deed it over to the Town. MR. CARTIER-Yes. In terms of lots three and four, you don't have to deed anything. All you have to do is incorporate those two 10 foot strips into those lots. 12 "---" --' MRS. FUERST-Into the new lots, right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. RAYNOR-But there is absolutely no way of incorporating this into this lot? MR. CARTIER-No, because then you have the ultimate flag lot. Okay. Well, what's the Board's druthers, here? Do we want to see a revised Sketch Plan, or do we want to push this along to Preliminary, that incorporates all of these things into it, or what's the Board's pleasure, here? MR. MARTIN-I think we can move it along. I think we have an understanding, now, of what the issue is. MRS. PULVER-I'm just going to go on the record as saying I'm not comfortable with the idea that we are forcing someone to give away their property against their will. Now, I will vote yes to approve this so that he can get on with his construction, but, I somehow think of the State as coming in and taking away our property, and how we'd all feel about it, and yet we're sitting here and making this gentleman give up his property. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I understand what you're saying. I don't know that we're forcing him to do that, though. MRS. PULVER-Well, he has two choices. He either tries to sell it, and if they don't buy it, then he can give it to them, or he can give it to the Town. Now, to me, that's giving it, either way, and he doesn't want to do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What's another alternative? MRS. FUERST-I do have one option, for an alternative. MR. CARTIER-Go right ahead. MRS. FUERST-I think it would be fair to let him develop this as lot four, this as lot three, and in your stipulations, let him retain these. MR. CARTIER-Can't, because they would become substandard lots. MRS. FUERST-Okay, because that's what I came in with, in the first Sketch Plan. MR. CARTIER-Yes. By law, we cannot approve something that creates substandard lots. MRS. FUERST-Substandard, right, it doesn't meet square footage. MR. LAPOINT-We can't create a substandard building lot, or is it just a, can we create a substandard, just, chunk? MRS. PULVER-Yes, but, wait a minute, that's already created. Under "Others" that 10 foot is already there. So, we're not creating it. It already exists. So, we could make it less by having him deed two strips of this to lots three and four. MR. CARTIER-Well, the problem is, that one 10 foot strip is not a separate deed, at this point. MRS. PULVER-Well, it can be made a separate, and it is a separate, under IILands of Others", and I think if you were to take it to court, you would find out that it would be a separate piece of property. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you are creating it, Carol, because you're breaking it off, right at lot four, and at the top, you're breaking it off. So, you're making two more pieces, aren't you? MRS. FUERST-Any legal description can have several clauses and several properties, you know, several parcels, so, like, this is parcel one, parcel two, and anyone of those, you can get a legal description for anyone lot. You don't have to incorporate them all in one, but he did, because he was the one owner of the lot. MR. CARTIER-I don't know. That's a question the attorney's going to have to look at. I don't know the answer to this. It sounds like we're still creating substandard lots, here, and, by law, we cannot do that. MRS. FUERST-Would the Town of Queensbury be interested in leaving it as green space? MR. CARTIER-In who's ownership? I guess, yes, I don't have problem with that. 13 '- - MRS. FUERST-In Mr. Raynor's ownership. A lot of times a subdivision can come in and you require a green area, especially if they're going into a whole chunk of land, so many lots, and then a little recreation or a green area. What if he was to still own it, but have a green area? MR. CARTIER-Hold it. What just occurs to me is that you are going to have to, Lee, he's going to have to either make a donation of property or pay a recreation fee, correct, to the Town? MRS. YORK-I really can't see the Town taking a 10 foot strip as a recreation land, to tell you the truth. MR. CARTIER-No, I know that. No, I understand that, but I thought the land didn't have to be, it was my impression that it didn't have to be developable land that could be used for recreation. Is that correct? MRS. YORK-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-It can just be green space, can it not? MRS. YORK-That's the Town Board's prerogative. MR. DUSEK-They have, Peter, traditionally looked at either land that could be developed into park setting or at least land that could, in some fashion, be used as a, what they call passive recreation. In other words, not developed, but maybe that there could be trails through or something of that nature. I have not really known them to take land that has no recreational value whatsoever, and is only open space. MRS. PULVER-But either way, as recreation, it still limits Mr. Raynor to what he can do with that, I mean, he can't do anything with 10 foot property. We're taking it away again. Anyway you look at it, we've taken it away. MR. MARTIN-I just want to take a little bit different perspective on this. I know it has the appearance of us, the big, bad Town coming in and telling a property owner to do what, you know, take his property away, but, on the other hand, it's as equal an injustice, in my mind to allow him to dangle this 10 foot strip here and here and landlock these other property owners away from a public road. I mean, that's like blackmail. Here I've got this 10 foot strip and I, you know. MR. RAYNOR-That wasn't the intent. MR. MARTIN-No, I understand, but it has that appearance. MRS. PULVER-But, Jim, if he does nothing right now, if he says, okay, I'm not going to subdivide this at all and walks out, that is still there. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-But he still owns it. MRS. PULVER-Right, he owns it, but it's still there, but Jim was saying it's not fair to these other land owners that he dangles this 10, that's what he's got right now. MR. MARTIN-Yes, because it was done at a time. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-And that's why these new regulations were written as they are, so this type of thing can't happen. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but the. MR. MARTIN-It's only there by virtue of the fact that these regulations weren't in place prior, you know, earlier on. MRS. PULVER-I know, but it doesn't create a problem, here. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, I like the idea of that recreational thing. I mean, you would have no problem conveying this huge L-Shape to the Town, if it was just. MR. RAYNOR-The L-Shape? No, I would. I have to have access. This part has got to be incorporated into these two. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Exactly. Right. 14 - --- MR. RAYNOR-This, donating it to the Town, to keep as a recreation area, would still lock these people, would it not? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-But they don't have access to. MR. LAPOINT-True. Well, they're out on the road, anyway. Their house is up towards the south. MR. RAYNOR-The house is, yes. They do want to subdivide as well. MRS. YORK-They want to subdivide the back property. MR. RAYNOR-They've tried to sell this back piece. I don't know if they have to go through what I've gone through, or not? MR. CARTIER-Yes, they do. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RAYNOR-They do? Well, at any rate, they've tried. They put it on the market, and when we called them and told them that they didn't own to the road, they took it off the market. I offered the property to them, but they didn't want to hear of it. So, that was the end of that. MR. CARTIER-Well, one of the things they should probably understand is if they're trying to subdivide off that back lot, they may be creating a flag lot, and we don't take too much favorable view of flag lots. It is to their advantage. MR. RAYNOR-You mean Freibergers? MR. CARTIER-Yes. They have access off Haviland Road, correct? MR. RAYNOR-No, not to back here. Not unless they put a road in next to this one. MR. CARTIER-That's what I'm saying. For them to get access to the back lot, they're going to have to create a flag lot. They're going to have to put a 50 foot right-of-way into that back lot. MRS. FUERST-Fifty foot, come in and have. MR. CARTIER-Correct. That's a flag lot. MRS. FUERST-They won't have enough square footage, because you have to hold 300 feet from Haviland, because it's a Collector, and then you have to have a minimum of 150, but they're not going to have enough square footage left in here to have a lot, without. MR. MARTIN-So, that's even further argument for access off of Clearview Lane. MRS. FUERST-I mean, because they don't have enough square footage. MR. RAYNOR-I don't mind having access off of Clearview Lane. If I give you this as green space, it's not going to create what we want, okay. MR. CARTIER-Let me finish my point. My point is it's to the Freiberger's advantage for them to own that 10 foot strip. If they wish to subdivide that piece of property, okay, it is to their advantage to own that 10 foot strip. MR. RAYNOR-Definitely. They don't want to buy it, but I'm going to end up having to give it to them, in order to get this thing going. MR. CARTIER-Not necessarily. If they can't subdivide that lot, that property, unless they own that 10 foot strip, then it's to their advantage to have that 10 foot strip. That doesn't mean you have to give it to them. MRS. PULVER-No. They've taken it off the market, now. They're not going to sell. They'll stay there and not buy that 10 foot strip. So, either he's going to give it to them, which, now you have just made their day, because he's already offered to sell it to them, and they don't want it. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but that's not such a bad thing, that we're undertaking an action that allows the orderly and proper development of lands in the Town. I mean, that's not, we're not, we're making their day, fine, but that's what we're doing. We're creating a mechanism by which proper and orderly development can occur, and that's why we have subdivision process. 15 '---'" --' MRS. YORK-Right. If I could just make a statement, here. The applicant has two lots, currently, one on each side of the road. He could put a house on those two lots and not subdivide now and retain ownership of those 10 foot strips, okay, that's his alternative. MR. CARTIER-That's very good. That's true. In other words, you're working with just the two lots on the west side of the road, for now. MRS. FUERST-Lots one and two? MR. CARTIER-Correct, and you retain ownership of all the other property, .!!!!.subdivided. MR. BREWER-Unless, of course, he's got these lots sold. MR. RAYNOR-These two lots, here, I have no problem with, okay, basically, is that what you're saying? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MRS. YORK-My understanding is that the 10 foot strip goes with Lots one and two. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. FUERST-It's written in that deed. MRS. YORK-So, probably, he would have two lots, one lot on each side of the road. He could put a house, without subdividing, on each side of the road, because he has two preexisting lots, okay. MR. RAYNOR-I see what she's saying, one house here and one house here? MRS. YORK-Right. He could walk in tomorrow and get a building permit to do that and retain his 10 foot strips, and never have to see any of us again. That's his alternative. He has an alternative here. MR. RAYNOR-Right. MRS. YORK-His choice, as I understand it at this point in time, is to subdivide and create four lots. In doing so, he goes through the process and comes up against this situation, which has to be dealt with. MR. RAYNOR-Okay. Again, my original intention was to get some of the money back that I invested in the road. However, if I have to, I will do what's required, because what this is tying up is a lot more money that what the road costs me. MR. CARTIER-Okay. In other words, to get your four lot subdivision. MR. RAYNOR-I will do what the Town Board requires or the Town Planning Board requires me to do. MR. MARTIN-Paul, what kind of time frames are we looking at for conveyance of these 10 foot strips, here, to the Town, the sma 11 one at the end of the road, and the one along the side, there. I mean, is that a two or three year process that we're looking at, or are we looking at several weeks, or months? MR. DUSEK-Well, if somebody wants to voluntarily convey property to the Town, it's probably, well, first of all, you need Town Board approval, and the second thing you need is good title to the property. The work up and everything, assuming that the Town Board, like, approved it tomorrow, you could probably close on it, assuming you get title insurance timely and everything, in about a month. It's the same as normal acquisition of real property for any individual. MR. MARTIN-Yes, between two property owners. MR. CARTIER-But, again, that doesn't necessarily have to hold this thing up to going to final approval, as long as it's in the works. MR. MARTIN-Right. So, potentially, you could have the conveyance done before we come to the point of actually approving the final plat. MR. DUSEK-Not if you do it next month. It's going to take just about a month, maybe a little longer, and I don't know when you're going to get Town Board approval. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm saying, by the end of February, for example, they could have the conveyance buttoned up? 16 '- ---- MR. DUSEK- Yes. MRS. PULVER-Now, by conveying it to the Town, you have, again, given the Freibergers access to all their property at Mr. Raynor's expense. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Raynor, if I were in your situation, I would let the Freibergers know that they cannot subdivide that piece of property. Even though they've taken it off the market, they would have difficulty subdividing their property without that 10 foot strip, because they need access to Clearview Lane. That makes that 10 foot strip. MR. RAYNOR-I think they were a little angry when they realized. They always thought it was theirs, you know, to access, and they found out it wasn't theirs to access. They got angry and hung up the phone, actually. MR. CARTIER-Well, what I'm saying is, that 10 foot strip has some value to them, in order to allow them to subdivide their property. Angry aside, are they angry enough to not subdivide, well, I don't want to get into that. Okay. What's the Board's pleasure, here? Where are we going? MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't see how Mr. Raynor can negotiate that 10 foot strip with the Freibergers if the motion is made that he must do something with it to get approval for his subdivision. If the Freibergers read the minutes to the meeting, I mean, they'll just sit back and say, we're going to get it, one way or the other, so. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I guess my question is, is that the Planning Board's problem? I don't have an answer for that. MRS. PULVER-I don't have an answer for it either. To me, this is kind of a preexisting situation, and it may be against the law to make a nonconforming lot, but this was preexisting, before this time. MR. CARTIER-But it's in the process of being re-worked, and lines re-drawn. MRS. PULVER-Right, you can re-work it, but I don't believe that we should take away from one to give to somebody else. MR. CARTIER-Well, what we're saying is, Mr. Raynor has options. He can go to the Town. He can go to Freibergers or whatever, okay, and I'm a little bit uncomfortable with this Board getting tangled up in saying which option he's got to go with. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. It says right here on his plan, he says, to the Queensbury Highway Department or to Freiberger, Raynor. I think we can approve the Sketch Plan tonight, and let him work out that or, and he's just got to do that before he comes to Preliminary. MR. CARTIER-True. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, lets stop designing this for him, and lets make him do the work, approve this thing now, as shown, and let him work on that or. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-In both lots, or this 10 foot piece up here, and the long one going down the side of the road. MR. CARTIER-I understand what you're saying. Both of those options are unpleasant to him, but nevertheless, we're not locking him into. MR. LAPOINT-He has proposed it to us. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. LAPOINT-As unhappy as it makes him, what I have in front of me is what I have to deal with, which is an "or" situation. MR. RAYNOR-Is there the possibility of putting this side on hold, approving this side for development. MR. CARTIER-Sure. MR. YARMOWICH-That parcel for Lots 1 and 2 is part of that 10 foot strip on the other side of the road. MR. RAYNOR-Can I convey those to these two people. 17 "----' ~ MR. YARMOWICH-You mean a lot line adjustment for that strip to go with that other larger parcel? MR. RAYNOR-To incorporate it in this lot. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, he can make this one parcel, by a lot line adjustment, and then subdivide this one. MRS. YORK-Yes, but that's not solving the problem. MR. CARTIER-You still end up with two strips of land that are substandard lots. MR. YARMOWICH-No, you end up with. MR. RAYNOR-One big lot. MR. YARMOWICH-One lot. It's not substandard. It's not conforming. It's an unsubdivided parcel. MRS. YORK-Yes, but he's subdividing this one parcel into, now, three parcels, one, two, and three. MR. YARMOWICH-No. First you do a lot line adjustment, and you take that 10 foot strip, which is on the east side of the road, and connect it to the part of the parcel which is shown to be lots 3 and 4, then you have two parcels. Then you take the west side of the road, which is a parcel all by itself, no 10 foot strip on the other side, and subdivide that into two lots. You've got two new conforming lots, and one unsubdivided parcel, on the west side of the road, of irregular shape, but it's still conforming, because it hasn't been subdivided. MR. CARTIER-We end up with three lots, two on the west side, one with a very strange shape, on the east side. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. Which is no, well, compared to the fact that you now have two lots which are both irregular, you've now got two highly conforming lots and one irregular lot, that's another option. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MRS. PULVER-Then if you took lot 3 and 4 just came right across into that 10 foot strip, and lot 3 would be what we see as lot 3, and the 10 foot strip coming down to Haviland Road. MR. YARMOWICH-You wouldn't be able to subdivide those lots, within the Subdivision Regulations, because of those two 10 foot strips. That would just be a parcel. MRS. PULVER-No, no. I'm saying, the 10 foot strip would be, lot 3 would be all the way to here and this 10 foot strip. MRS. YORK-Right. MRS. PULVER-Lot 4 would be this lot, the 10 foot strip, and that. MR. YARMOWICH-No. That would just be one parcel without a subdivision. MRS. YORK-Right. MRS. PULVER-I know, but I'm saying, then can he come in and subdivide that into two parcels? MR. YARMOWICH-It would still be creating irregular lots. MR. RAYNOR-Or can I come in at some other time and address this situation again, so it doesn't hold up this whole process. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, exactly. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, but you'd have to get the lot line adjustment done. MR. RAYNOR-Yes, I'm saying, is this, as it stands, acceptable, as two lots being divided? MR. CARTIER-On the west side? Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. RAYNOR-If we can get this as one lot. MR. LAPOINT-Conveyed over to the other. Right. 18 ~'-"'" -....-'" MR. RAYNOR-Right. I thought that's what I did when I bought this of the road. I just automatically thought it happened that way. MR. LAPOINT-It doesn't happen that way automatically, no. Lets hold that thought and get the Sketch Pl an approval. MR. CARTIER-With the understanding, however, that this doesn't mean that, down the line, that you could come back, you haven't solved your problem. You've just postponed the solution to the problem. MR. RAYNOR-Right, well, in the meantime, maybe these people will get a little more anxious and want to buy this strip and this strip from me. It puts me in a little better situation. MR. CARTIER-Great. Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-So, that makes three lots out of two. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Right. MRS. PULVER-I like that better. MR. CARTIER-Is anybody prepared to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PINt SUBDIVISION 10. 15-1991 ROfW.D AND IMRY SUSAN RAYIOR, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For a 3 lot subdivision, with the following stipulations: That the 10 foot wide strip on the west side of Clearview Lane be conveyed to combine lots 3 and 4, and that lots 1 and 2 be subdivided as shown, and that the subdivision of the new combined lot 3, which includes the 10 foot wide strip, be dealt with at a future date, by the applicant. That the natural site grade should be maintained at one vertical, three horizontal, per Queensbury Code, and that the type and location of subsurface sewage disposal systems should be indicated for the church and Purton properties. Duly adopted this 17th day of December 1991, by the following vote: MR. CARTIER-Do you also want to have her address Staff and Engineering Comments? MR. LAPOINT-That you need a 75 foot setback shown from the stream. MRS. FUERST-I did revise that. That is, when I found out the information, I, it's only a ditch. I probably, mistakenly, put down intermittent stream. It's only a ditch. I mean, that's the problem is, maybe physically, you need to get somebody out there, but it's really only a ditch. MR. CARTIER-Does water ever run through that? MRS. FUERST-In here there's water, but it comes off this massive, there's a hill that goes up, it drains down, and by the time it gets to here, this is all flat lands, and this is just a ditch that the natural drainage ditch, it's not an intermittent stream, at this point. My engineering staff John Gay pointed that out to me today when I had to move this house down here. He told me I should move it down, but, if this is a ditch in this area. MR. CARTIER-Well, now, since that's all going to be one lot anyway, one unsubdividable lot, you could put that, you've got a lot more options as to where you can locate that house anyway. MRS. FUERST-Yes. MR. RAYNOR-This lot, as it stands as one lot, is still salable, correct? MR. CARTI ER- Yes. MR. RAYNOR-With the 10 foot strip to someone else if they would like it. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. RAYNOR-Okay. MR. CARTIER-You've gone from a four lot subdivision to a three lot subdivision. MR. RAYNOR-I went from five lots, actually, because this was originally four, but it doesn't matter. MR. CARTIER-As long as we understand that whatever intermittent stream or streams is on the property, you're still going to have to show a 75 foot setback. 19 ',--- ,-.-/ MRS. FUERST-Exactly, but if I come in again, I'm going to make sure I have the correct determination, if that is, indeed, an intermittent stream, a ditch. a swale, whatever engineering term that is, because Leon Steves subdivided back here and called it an intermittent stream, and I just said, intermittent stream. MRS. YORK-It does show, I checked it on my stream maps, as a tributary of the Halfway Brook. It does show that little piece. MRS. FUERST-Right. MRS. YORK-Now, that portion of it may not be an intermittent stream. You'll have to make that determination. MRS. FUERST-Right. Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but that's something that can be taken care of at Preliminary, okay. MRS. FUERST-Yes. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: Mr. Martin ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Caimano (8:13 p.m.) >-.1\ ')! \ SUBDIVISION 10. 11-1991 SKETCH PINt TYPE I liR-lA SUNSET HILL FARM OWNER: PAUL KfIOX, III KfIOX 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 CONSTRUCTED FOR IMTER AND SEIER SERVICES. LOTS WILL BE ACCESSED BY PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED DRIVEWAYS. LOT 1 CONTAINS THE OWNER1S RESIDENCE AID WILL BE RETAINED BY THE OWNER. TAX MP NO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZE: 25 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:13 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 11-1991, Paul Knox, III - Sunset Hill Farm, 12-11-91, Meeting Date: December 17, 1991 IIThis application was tabled for the applicant to provide alternative plans for the site. The Board was concerned about keeping the neighborhood character while providing for emergency access to the residences. At times these goals appeared to be in conflict. The applicant's representative and Planning Staff have met with the Highway Superintendent. Mr. Naylor intends to be at the Planning Board meeting to express himself on the issues formerly brought up in his correspondence. After extensive research Mr. Naylor has concluded that it is possible to provide greater safety and accessibility to all the residents of Assembly Point by looping Knox Road with Sunset Road. The Highway Department would improve Knox Road, given a 35 foot roadway. This footage is what the Towns' Rights of Way for that entire area are and would not conflict with the existing area. The property between the end of Knox Road and Sunset is owned by the Town and could provide the missing link. What Mr. Naylor has requested of the developer is that enough property be deeded to the Town to make a 35 foot Right-of-way. Currently a snow plow has to back out of the road and emergency access is hindered. If Knox Road could be upgraded and looped this would satisfy some of the Planning Board's concerns. The alternative plans illustrate that designs without flag lots can be achieved. It appears that the flag shaped lots were designed to minimize slopes on the long driveways. Plan S2 shows more standard types of lot configuration. The Board may want to investigate this layout from the perspective of access to an upgraded Knox Road. The cul-de-sac could be eliminated and the original 10 lot concept could be utilized. The homes could be placed so as to take advantage of the view. There would then be 8 residences accessing on a Town Road. The Board may want to consider wider common driveways to accessing two or three units to minimize the road cuts. The staff recognizes this meeting as a "Workshop" to come up with the best alternative in a unique situation. Since this is the focus, analysis of each alternative will not be given. Staff does want the Board to be aware that the Highway Superintendent has expressed that a looped and upgraded roadway is a priority for all of Assembly Point. The applicant wants to develop 8 new lots (3 already having residences). The Board wants to provide safe access and limit long driveways and flag lots. It would appear that all of these goals could be accomplished.1I MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom, we don't have any notes from you on this revision, do we? MR. YARMOWICH-No. There was no real new engineering information. These were simply expressions of possible lot layouts and didn't demand that we look at all the pertinent issues regarding sewage disposals, and slopes were brought to your attention at the initial review. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant care to address the Board. please. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I'll address the Board on behalf of the appl i cant, and I guess we feel 1 i ke we've tried our best to sort of explore all the various conceptual alternatives that have been discussed 20 '--' '--'" with the Board in their previous two Sketch Plan review meetings. As you know, you have, I guess, in front of you, four diagrams, SI, S2, S3, and S4. They include the one that shows a cluster alternative. They include one that shows a townhouse alternative. They include one that we think is probably the one that the right side of the Board, so to speak, and especially Mr. Martin, wanted to see us explore, in that it shows more conventional lots, and it shows the more improved central roadway leading to the cul-de-sac, and if you remember, the last time we were here, we were asked, I believe, expressly, to see if we could get the cul-de-sac further into the property, which S2 does. MR. MARTIN-This is great. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Martin loves S2. Frankly, we hate S2. MR. MARTIN-I figured you did. MR. SCHACHNER-And the reasons are two fold, basically. Number One is, it's more lots and smaller lots than the applicant wants to put in. Number Two, we believe, as we've maintained all along, and as I think Mr. LaPoint and perhaps Mr. Caimano agree, we believe that the driveways. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Caimano hasn't been here for this. Who did you refer to? MRS. YORK-You mean Mr. Lauricella. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Lauricella? MR. SCHACHNER-No. He was here previously, Mr. Caimano. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I think he was here for one meeting, Nick was. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I stand corrected. Excuse me. Go ahead. MR. SCHACHNER-As I believe they recognized, if I'm not mistaken, and certainly it's the applicant's contention that the configuration in SI is the least intrusive, the least overwhelming, is the most in keeping with neighborhood character. It's obviously the fewest number of lots. We readily concede that there are some long driveways and some windy driveways, but we can do it all within the engineering confines, as we've indicated previously, and it's the applicant's strong preference to do that less intrusive proposal that he thinks, and he feels very strongly about this, that, and we've conferred with him, obviously, each time we come we, obviously, give the feedback in detail. He feels very strongly that this, basically, would be the most beautiful subdivision of the options available. The thing I haven't highlighted, but it speaks for itself, it's obvious, the other thing you asked us to do is see if we could limit the curb cuts, and we've done that through, previously, if you'll remember, we only had the ~ shared driveway, the furthest north on the parcel. Now we've got the three shared driveways, so that we've eliminated curb cuts again. We've also eliminated the cul-de-sac and, frankly, we've met with Mr. Naylor. He was very accommodating of some scheduling constraints that I had, and met with us on the eve of Thanksgiving, as I recall, right before, and we think, from a Town standpoint, there's no reason to suggest that the cul-de-sac would be more appropriate. This would put some onus on the private property owners, and we recognize that, and Mr. Naylor recognizes that, and he'll speak for himself. He's not that shy, but we don't really like the cul-de-sac approach, any of it. It's more lots. It's certainly more traditional lots, and we'll concede that to Mr. Martin, but we just don't like it. MR. CARTIER-Have you got S2 there? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, right behind it. MR. CARTIER-Could you flip up to S2? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. It's tough to talk aesthetics because that's so subjective, but I think, last time, Mr. LaPoint certainly talked about the fact that, and I think Mrs. Pulver also, you don't want to, necessarily say that flag shaped lots, keyhole lots, are always great, and we're not suggesting that, but we're suggesting that this property really lends itself well to this type of development. MR. CARTIER-Lee, take us through this again, please. I know I asked you this once before, but you were talking about, I want to be sure I'm clear on this. MRS. YORK-Well, I was trying to look at it, in fairness, from the perspective of all the players here. Realizing Mr. Naylor's goal of linking the road on Assembly Point, and providing a looped access for all the residents, and for greater fire protection, I was thinking that a widened Knox Road, an improved Knox Road, not a four lane highway, by any stretch. I'm sure he is not thinking of putting a Quaker Road up the middle of Knox Road, but an improved roadway would provide, at least, better access to those lots. Then, realizing that the applicant wanted to minimize the number of lots, I was trying to express, in my notes, that if you now had an upgraded Knox Road and removed the cul-de-sac, and just joined the upper and lower lots, like 11 and 12, 10 and 13, 9 and 14, 8 and 15, 7 and 16, 21 '- '- and did something creative with the rest, you could still come out with a plan that satisfied everyone. You could still leave the houses at a position that would have a view, but would not have the extremely long driveways, and it would eliminate flag lots. I was just trying to look at everybody's perspective, here. It certainly may not be the ideal, because of the constraints on putting driveways in, with keeping the grades and everything, but it was an idea that I had that I thought might give you a fifth alternative, here. MR. CARTIER-And we would still end up with how many lots, 10 I think you said? MRS. YORK-You would probably end up with seven or eight. MR. MARTIN-Where's Knox Road? Knox Road's over here? MRS. YORK-Knox Road is the little road that comes right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, what you're saying is come down through here with the road, like this? MRS. YORK-No, not necessarily, just upgrade what is already existing. Upgrade that road and loop it into Sunset, which, Mr. Naylor, would you mind explaining this, please. PAUL NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-Years ago, when I first came into public office, we took this road as a road by use, okay, and a road by use is just what you've got, and it's only about 10, 12 feet wide. You've been up there, right? MR. MARTIN- Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. NAYLOR-And it goes down through here, and it goes across a 1 i tt 1 e bri dge and there's two or three houses over in here it borders. MR. MARTI N- Yes. MR. NAYLOR-Well, doing a little research and digging up everything we could find, it used to be called the Veeder Development, up there, years ago, and a lot of those roads were deeded 35 feet wide. We found a cow path that went through here, that's 35 feet wide. It's got trees growing on it, and nobody pays any taxes on it, and it looks like it was donated to the Town many years ago. Now, as Tommy and Mrs. Monahan and a group of us stout individuals can tell you, we've plodded through this land all last summer, trying, most of the points, looking for another alternate route. They'd like to do away with the road along the shore. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. NAYLOR-And they'd like that to be their front door yard, and they'd like to see the main road come up the back. MR. MARTIN-That would make sense. MR. NAYLOR-This could be an alternative, to go through here, come out onto Sunset, for safety and a lot of other reasons. If anything ever happens out on the point, you better have wings, because you've got to fly. There's no way out, and this, we've had probably a dozen letters on file with Mrs. Monahan, too, to do something with this road in the spring. This came at the opportune time to ask the developers if they would give us a few feet on this side, and a few feet on this side, so we could have a 35 foot road, to blend with the rest of the area and the lake, 35, 50 would be great, but 35 is better than nothing. MR. BREWER-What goes up this side of that, Paul? MR. NAYLOR-There's camps all down on the low. MR. BREWER-No, no, no, the edge of the paper, right up, straight up and down. MR. NAYLOR-Here? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MARTIN-On the north side of the property. MR. BREWER-What goes right up through here? 22 '",-", '----' MR. NAYLOR-Nothing but woods, to my knowledge. There's just a short jump between here and Sunset, and that Sunset goes straight up. MR. CARTIER-Who owns that property to the north? MR. NAYLOR-To the north? This? Here? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. NAYLOR-I have no idea. All I know is that there's a little hunk in here that we own. MR. MARTIN-You don't have any idea? MR. SCHACHNER-We just know it's not us. MR. YARMOWICH-Would you like a Tax Map? It will help you describe that. MRS. YORK-If the Board members have their original applications with them, this map is contained therein. MR. NAYLOR-The Tax Map will show you better than I can, where that little road comes out to Sunset, it's not there, per se, but it shows on the Tax Map, that nobody's paying taxes on it. It looks like it belongs to the Town, from what we can find from our surveyors and everybody that's got anything to do with anything, way back. MR. MARTIN-The most theoretical, ideal thing would be to do away with that cul-de-sac and see if you could get right in through here, and then just go like that. MR. SCHACHNER-You're still putting a road through the heart of, the center of it, and I don't see why. MR. NAYLOR-Yes, and then he's got to add a lot more houses. They have tried, and the bottom line has always been, to see if they could come through here, follow right along this border, and go back up here, but there's one stumbling block up here, that is a tennis court, and you could only end up with about 30. This gentleman is a lawyer, and he doesn't want a, not to dump on lawyers. MR. CARTIER-But there's no way to access, here, this way, and get access, somehow, in there? MR. BREWER-You're still going to create a long, for that lot, what is it, 10 up here, 10 and 11. If you only come in part way, here, you're still going to go from here, where the original road was, way up into here where there's a house anyway, so you're still going to end up with the same thing. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and it kind of seems like we're bending over backwards to avoid, the only thing I know of that's, I mean, now, with SI, I think we've accommodated anyone's desire, in terms of minimizing curb cuts. I don't think anyone suggested that we need even less than what SI shows, so I think the only concern left is the unusual configuration of some of those lots, and I guess it still makes the most sense, from our standpoint, to go that way. The other problem with, if we understand what Mrs. York is suggesting, which is just have, connect these parts of these lots, access directly on to the improved Knox Road. If you remember, and this is depicted in the cross hatched area, there is a steep, there are some steep slopes here, and that's the reason for the configuration, in SI, of the roads, is to meet the Town Standards for the grades of the roads, and see how the roads avoid that, in this case, and this one, Mr. Anthony was here last time and told you that he can do that one and meet the Town Standard. MR. MARTIN-You really hate the cul-de-sac, Paul. MR. NAYLOR-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What's the Board's pleasure, here? MR. LAPOINT-Just a quick comment. I mean, we're looking at 16 lots, in S2, which would be 60 percent more traffic, 60 percent more people, 60 percent more septic, and that, I think, is the wrong way to push the developer. I mean, even if it were, say, 11 lots, and it's not, lets just say 11, that's still 10 percent more cars, 10 percent more people, 10 percent more septic, and we're pushing him in the wrong direction, for the sake of neat and orderly non. MR. MARTIN-Lets not minimize neat and orderly, now. I'm getting tired of hearing this phrase, flag shaped lots are just traditional. I'll tell you what, I have to get up tomorrow morning and snow blow about 350, 400 feet of driveway on my house tomorrow morning, and I'm not looking forward to doing that, and that's what everybody's going to have to do, who buys one of these lots, and I just can't, knowingly, sit here and buy into that, and they're also going to have to pay $2,000, right on the top, minimum, for utility to service that house , there. MRS. PULVER-Well, that's their choice. 23 '-' -../ MR. LAPOINT-Why shouldn't they have the right to do exactly what you've done? MR. CARTIER-But understand, a 1 so, the appl icant is the one who's coming up wi th 16 lots. We're not saying he has to have. MR. LAPOINT-No. He's coming up with 10, correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely true, actually, only eight ones. MR. LAPOINT-Ten. Now, my point is only this, if we force him to 11, for the sake of whatever, that's 10 percent more of everything. Is that a good planning decision? I say, no, if it's for the sake of having a cul-de-sac. I mean, I would bet, and 1'11 get out my scale, that this cul-de-sac and all the driveways add up to more roadway than is on that 10. MRS. PULVER-And I don't think one more lot would be enough to cover all the additional costs that that road and everything would. MR. LAPOINT-Just the direction that we're pushing them in. MR. BREWER-It's also 50 percent less than what he's allowed, though, too, Ed. If you're saying he's got 10 lots, he can have 25 lots, theoretically, he can. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, Mr. Brewer's right. MR. BREWER-So, he could have 25 lots, but he's showing 16. MR. LAPOINT-Right, but I think that 60 percent of everything is a pretty bad trade off, in terms of planning. MRS. PULVER-But all he wants is 10. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but understand, what we are confronted with here is a choice between four designs, as far as I'm concerned. I still haven't seen the design that is a good design, as far as I'm concerned, for this area, okay. Lets not get hung up on, we have to have 16 lots. That's the applicant's choice to chop this up into 16 lots, okay. He doesn't have to have 16 lots, okay. MRS. PULVER-Well, just to go back to one thing that Jim said, that $2,000 extra for a driveway, if the cul-de-sac goes in and the road goes in, it could be as much as $4, or $5,000 on each lot, when they're sold, extra, to cover the cost of the infrastructure. So, somebody's going to pay. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. We're getting ourselves into financial issues, here, that I'm not sure are, I understand. MRS. PULVER-Well, I'm not concerned with those issues. MR. LAPOINT-Neither am I. MRS. PULVER-I'm not concerned with the driveway and how much it takes to snowblow it or whatever. I feel that's the owners choice, just as if it was Jim's choice. I kind of agree that I would much rather see 10 lots in that area than 25 lots. MR. MARTIN-Well, then, accept a cul-de-sac design with 10 lots. MR. LAPOINT-But that's more driveway. MRS. PULVER-Right, and the cul-de-sac, all that infrastructure going in, is going to put a burden on the developer and the land owner, that you seemed to be concerned with, as far as having this long driveway. MR. CARTIER-How does the cul-de-sac put a burden on the owner? MRS. PULVER-All the infrastructure, who's going to pay for it? The cost goes onto the lots. MR. CARTIER-Well, again, I guess I'm uncomfortable with, I have some empathy for the financial constraints involved in all of this stuff, but I'm not sure we want to get into that, as a Planning Board, because if we start using that as criteria, then the best design is the cheapest design to build, and I certainly don't want to go that route. MR. LAPOINT-The best design is the mlnlmum density, the minimum number of people, the minimum number of cars, the minimum number of road, is the best design. MRS. PULVER-And still maintain the current zoning. 24 - -./' MR. CARTIER-And the minimum number of flag lots, lets complete the list. MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, a flag lot, and I understand what the problem with flag lots is, but this is not that circumstance, and, again, I still don't see, and I'll write it right down. I'll be very careful, because last time I did not get a single good reason why flag lots are no good, here. MRS. YORK-Though, I mean. I agree with your point of view, Mr. LaPoint, however, there is nothing that says, intrinsically, because you have 10 lots, anyone of those property owners will not further subdivide, down the road, and that's the intent of having a Town road. I do understand your concerns about minimizing the impact, because the number of units, but I just wanted to make that point. MRS. PULVER-They can't subdivide, though, without site plan review. MRS. YORK-No, without subdivision, correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Not to mention further subdivision review. Let me see if I can take that issue completely out of the picture, okay. The applicant would be perfectly delighted to go forward with this plan, to seek your formal, I don't just mean your conceptual, but, obviously. down the road, your formal, final approval, with an express condition stipulating no further subdivision of the lots. If you put that condition in, we will also be willing to stipulate that we'll make that a deed restriction, covenant, so that any purchaser or would be purchaser of the lots knows that they're getting into a situation where it's part of the deed restriction, no further subdivision. I really implore the Board, and especially Mr. Cartier and Mr. Martin, to keep in mind that the applicant, here, currently lives there. His family has owned the property, for, I believe, what, nearing triple figures, now, number of years. There has certainly been talk about other people coming and buying the property and developing it, and, obviously, in my personal opinion. whether or not other people retain me as their counsel or not, a developer type, not a resident, is likely to seek a substantial maximum dollar return on the development on this property on Assembly Point, and I guess this is sort of my final plea for Scheme Number One, with all due respect, and, Mr. Martin, I don't intend to be, at all, minimizing your concern, I am also familiar with the situation. I can't even snowblow my driveway, actually. I couldn't even get there tonight to come here and 1001< more lawyer like, for which I apologize, but in all candor, if I understand your concerns, your concerns seem principally focused on the buyer, the would be buyer, and that he's buying into a difficult situation in at least two respects. Number One, he's got a long driveway. Number Two, he's got significant utility costs, and I guess we would submit that, we don't dispute those statements at all, and we don't dispute that you're concerned about them, but that's up to the seller, which is the current subdivision applicant, and a buyer, and if in fact that makes these lots not very marketable, then we don't see how it's any skin off the Planning Board's nose to have approved that subdivision. In fact, to the extent that we all share the philosophy that Mr. LaPoint has expressed, of the less development the better, then we're going to have a situation where some of these lots don't sell and don't get developed, and I don't think anyone's going to have a problem with that, least of all the Planning Board, and, Mr. Cartier, turning to your concerns, if I understand them correctly, it's not a perfect world because of the constraints of the site. Well, more reasons than that, but in this particular example, for that reason. You enumerated a list of concerns that you said would be, what I interpret as a Wish List, where we hit each item on the Wish List, save one, and the one is minimizing the number of flag lots, and we're not here espousing some broad policy for the Town of Queensbury Planning Board to adopt from here on in the future. This property is a rather unusual property of some 25 or 26 acres, on Assembly Point, surrounded by little tiny postage stamp lots, and with an existing narrow driveway that I went and drove, again, on Saturday, just to refresh my memory, before I came here today. I went out there during the hard rain on Saturday, before winter hit, after having the benefit of meeting, recently, with Mr. Naylor, and I think Mr. Naylor's concerns are well founded, and the applicant is willing to make the appropriate donation of the land necessary to accommodate Mr. Naylor's concerns, and I just don't see how else we can accommodate the concerns, and I guess I'll put my cards on the table. MRS. YORK-Well, let me throw this out. We have a regulation in our Ordinance that says, private or public roads have to be up to Town specifications, and that's for obvious reasons. I discussed with Mr. Naylor the potential of lowering those standards and, obviously, he did not agree with me that there would be a situation where he would think that would be a good idea. However, an applicant has the ability to request a variance from any section of the Ordinance, right? So, possibly, could we have a situation, here, with a very wide driveway, accessing eight lots. It makes more sense, to me, in this location, to have something along those lines, accessing those lots. providing internal access, coming from the road Mr. Naylor has his dreams of, and meeting our concerns, here. Is that something that the Board might consider, so we're looking at, basically, a situation where we would have a better internal circulation and access? I'll be quite frank about this, Mr. Schachner, I'm concerned about the driveways, especially where you have the long ones going to two units. If not properly maintained, long term, in the event of a calamity, you'd now have two units cut off from emergency services, and you can say, granted. somebody buys into it, but it is also the Town's obligation to protect it's citizens. MR. SCHACHNER-But with a through road, or a cul-de-sac, either one, you have an opportunity for two dozen people to be cut off, in the event of a calamity. I think Mr. Naylor's point, that he very vividly 25 "--' ---" explained to me, during our meeting, was just that, that this way really, I mean, frankly, you've got three separate curb cuts to get to the last six lots, that's not ~ lots, that's i lots, and I really, on behalf of the applicant, have to start registering an objection to the notion that the Planning Board, in our third Sketch Plan discussion, is, we've now been through the ringer, we feel, on each option. We hear that none of them are good, from the Chairman. We feel, obviously, we have a difference of opinion on that. He's entitled to his opinion. We're entitled to ours, but, obviously, we've all recognized, in the past, that it's not your job to plan our subdivision. We have tried to accommodate your concerns as best we can. I'll put my cards on the table. My concern here is, my recollection is that, although there are five present tonight, we're talking about a seven member Board, and if that's still the case, then four is a majority. Obviously, our goal is to get at least four of you all to approve Sketch Number One. If that doesn't happen, now that we're here for our third time, I think the applicant has no choice but to proceed with some more formal application for a Preliminary Subdivision approval, which you may approve and you may reject. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. It sounds like you're saying if you don't get an approval for Sketch Plan, you're going to go to Preliminary. That doesn't work that way. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, no, but we have the opportunity to submit something, as I recall, Sketch Plan approval, or conceptual approval, if you will, is optional. Is it not? MR. CARTIER-No. MR. SCHACHNER-As I recall, there's a may, not a shall, in front of this. Well, rather than belaboring the point. MRS. YORK-But, Mark, don't you see that you could put in a small road, not a 50 foot wide road? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely, and we could do that with more lots, and that's what we're going to do, and that's where you're pushing the applicant. There's no question we can do that., MR. MARTIN-Paul, how much does a road, as depicted here, in S2, per hundred feet, what's a per hundred foot cost of putting something like that in, in this situation? MR. NAYLOR-Up there? I couldn't even give you a guess. MR. SCHACHNER-There's no question we can do what Mrs. York is asking, and there's no question it'll result in more lots. MR. NAYLOR-Yes, and like Mrs. Pulver says, if he puts a road in, up goes the price of poker, somebody's got to pay. I guess I'm talking as a Highway Superintendent. The last little sketch I saw was 100 foot of road and 100 foot of cul-de-sac. That's 200 foot of propf!rty for my guys to take care of, for half a dozen driveways to run off it, okay. I don't have a lot of problem with the driveways going to that road. I don't think that that area is that busy. In the summer, I don't think I've ever, I've been up there patrolling, since I've been Highway Superintendent, for 10 years, and I don't think I've ever passed anybody, in the 10 I've patrolled it, because they go home and they stay there. It's their camps, their homes. They don't come out. Like you, you go home at night, and, unless you've got to come here, you stay there, right, and that's what these people are going to do. They're camping up there. They've got the money to buy the place, for openers, and then they're going to California when it's snowing. MRS. PULVER-And they're going to hire somebody to plow their driveway if they live there. Right. MR. NAYLOR-And they're going to hire somebody to plow that driveway, if it costs them $5 or $500, and that's the bottom line. I mean, I've seen long driveways, sure. I like them to meet the fire specs, the fire chief, go in there with his fire trucks and don't scratch up the side, but the way I saw it, with Mark and the gang, is, if you've got one cul-de-sac, a couple hundred feet long, and all those driveways feeding, still, to it, or if he goes the whole length with a cul-de-sac, then he's going to double the whole nine yards, which, that's his option, I guess, but I guess I got the impression that Mr. Knox just wanted to keep his family and a couple of neighbors in there, and nobody else, and if you've been in Assembly Point, that's kind of the way they like it up there. From my point of view, I'd like the road widened. I'd like to be able to connect to Sunset. That's all I'm looking for. MR. CARTIER-Lets see if we can settle that. right-of-way, an expansion of a right-of-way? if we can get that issue settled. Does your client have any problems with granting a Lets leave everything else aside, for now. Lets see MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. You understand that he doesn't, as Mrs. York mentioned in her memo, it's our understanding that the Town, actually, and as Mr. Naylor said, owns a portion of what you have to hook up to. In other words, Mr. Knox doesn't own the land that you're proposing to connect through. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. MRS. YORK-Absolutely. 26 ~ --...-' MR. SCHACHNER-You're talking about increasing it to the 35 foot? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, to be honest, Mr. Cartier, I don't think you can separate the two issues. I think the easy answer is, if we get some favorable review of this plan, Mr. Knox is happy to do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me explain my concern to you, in terms of flag lots. I know, as sure as it's snowing tonight, that if we approve a subdivision like this, with this number of flag lots, that we're going to have other subdivisions coming in with flag lots. This kind of stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum, okay, and it's happened in other cases, with other issues. When we make exceptions to things, within a very few months, we have another applicant in asking for the same thing. So, it's a larger concern that I have, other than just these particular lots, here. MR. SCHACHNER-You don't have a specific regulation about flag lots, as I understand it. Is that correct? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, there is. MR. CARTIER-It's in the Subdivision Regulations. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. The Subdivision Regulations address flag lots. MR. CARTIER-Let me back up a minute. Paul, you have an answer to a question for us. MR. DUSEK-Yes, maybe, just to give the Board an opinion on the basis of the Ordinance, and maybe to clear up some confusion that just arose on Sketch Plans. Sketch Plans are defined in the Section A183-5 of the Code, the Subdivision Reg's, and, basically, there's two separate areas where they talk about Sketch Plan. In the first instance, the language says that before you do a Preliminary plat, the applicant should meet with the Town Planning Board. Later, however, in 183-6, and also in 183-7, it says that, prior to any subdivision of the land, the subdivider shall submit. So, I think what we have is a little difference in the language, which may account for why the Planning Board feels or maybe, I think it was Lee, that said that you have to have a review, and Mark feeling you do not. I think that when you interpret this, you have to interpret it in view of the practice, the past practice of the Board, which has been that it always has to be, and the word should I think could be arguably said to mean shall, particularly in view of the fact that the other two areas say it shall be submitted, and I think they're complying with this, obviously. They have submitted. I don't think that's really an issue, in any event, because they have submitted. The next issue becomes, whether or not the Sketch Plan meets the criteria that is required of it in 183-6, which I haven't heard, necessarily any particular objections to, but that may be something you want, but it's in terms of, is the map done, is the topographical, two foot contours on the map, all of those type of things, are they there. The next phase becomes the review procedures, and the law is very clear on this. It says that this meeting has to occur, and that there's a discussion, and it says, after submission of the Sketch Plan, the subdivider shall meet with the Planning Board to discuss the requirements of the regulations, including all those relating to construction, design, etc., and then if it's in the Adirondack Park, there's some other reviews that are necessary, but finally, the Planning Board's action that is called for, allowed, or, if you want, required, by the Ordinance is that the Planning Board shall study the Sketch Plan, in conjunction with the individual and intrinsic development maps and other maps and other information that it may determine appropriate, and then the Planning Board shall make advisory recommendations which shall be applicable to the area for development. So, you make your advisory recommendations and following that it's up to them to do whatever they want to do, in terms of, if they want to come forth and submit a Preliminary, they can. If they want to go contrary to your advisory recommendations, they can. Obviously, you'll consider that at the time you go through the Preliminary, and you mayor may not deny the Preliminary, based upon your advisory recommendations. In other words, once they get through this step, once they get your advisory recommendations, collectively, from the Board, which I would suggest be from the Board in the form of a resolution, then they can either follow or not follow and submit Preliminary plat. When the plat comes before you, if they don't follow them, then that may be grounds for denial of the plat, but that's something you'll have to take up at that point. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if I could add to that, to be honest, I would submit that, simply the fact that somebody doesn't follow your recommendations is not legitimate grounds for a denial, but the reason you didn't like it, that may be legitimate grounds for denial. In other words, you certainly would retain the availability, if there's some fashion in which the Preliminary plat submission doesn't meet your standards, then you deny it, no question. MR. DUSEK-Maybe I could stop you there, because I would agree with what Mark just said. Obviously, just because the advisory recommendations are not followed does not necessarily say that you can rightfully deny it under law. The question is, were the advisory recommendations properly made, in accordance with the law, which is, obviously, always the case with the Board. You can only do what the law allows you to do. The other thing I might mention is that there may be another element here that comes to my mind that may be, and I'm not by any means trying to suggest anything other than just to mention it, because maybe this is what everybody's wrestling with, too, and that is, if you have concerns relative 27 ',-, --/ to environmental type of concerns that are typically studied under SEQRA, if that's troubling you, or you feel you don't have sufficient information on this, that may be an area that maybe needs to be addressed. In other words, when the Preliminary comes in, if you feel that there is a potential for a significant environmental impact, then you can study it further, through an EIS or whatever else is necessary. If there's elements there that you feel uncomfortable with, and you don't have enough information, and that may be something you might want to flag now, in terms of, well, we're concerned, but in terms of, like, I'm hearing, for instance, from the Board, that you're concerned about traffic and safety, in connection with the driveways, and emergency access, well, maybe that's something that needs further study. MR. CARTIER-I understand the direction you're taking and I'm, quite frankly, very uncomfortable. I understand the reasons why you're doing it, but we're plowing some new ground, here. What's being said to us is, well, we can't get by Sketch Plan because of the number of people on the Board or for whatever reasons, but we're going to go directly to Preliminary, and I get nervous when we start plowing new ground like that, that we start. MRS. PULVER-No. I don't think we're saying that at all. We're going by what's exactly in our Ordinance. MR. SCHACHNER-That's certainly not what I'm saying. MR. LAPOINT-Why does it have to be, it can be three to two, here, tonight, and be approved. Does it have to be four? MR. CARTIER-No. It must be four. MR. DUSEK-No. It has to be four, if you have a successful vote of the Board. It's always the majority of the Board. MR. MARTIN-It's not a majority of those present. It's a majority of the Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and that's why I'm being real candid. I mean, I'm putting my cards on the table. My sense is, here, there are two Board members who are uncomfortable with the current Sketch Plan. I may be wrong. Maybe there are five that are uncomfortable, but my sense is that there are at least two that are uncomfortable, and that's why I'm trying to focus my most recent comments on their concerns. MR. CARTIER-I misunderstand you. I understood you to say that you were going to submit a Preliminary application, so that you could get to that when there were six or seven members of the Board and then, possibly, get your four votes. Is that what you were saying to us? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-My question, Paul, is, after hearing everything that you just said, I want to be sure that I have it right, correct in my mind, is our last meeting, when this particular plan was before us, the Planning Board made suggestions, at that time, no flag shaped lots, try a cul-de-sac, more lots, less lots, etc., etc., etc. The Sketch Plan was tabled for them to go away, to take these suggestions of the Planning Board and then come back. Now, we did not do it in the form of a resolution, which you're saying, that would have probably been the preferred way to do it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you did. MRS. PULVER-We tabled, then we, okay. They are now here tonight with everything that the Planning Board had asked them to do, redesign, redo, whatever, and I just want to be sure I was right, because they've come back with this, and that is not their preferred plan, they still prefer this, rather than our suggestions, they then can go on to Preliminary? MR. DUSEK-No. What I'm trying to say to the Board, in terms of what the next step is, and I think you almost hit upon it, in terms of what you did the last time, you asked for additional information, which is allowed under the law. You're at a point, tonight, where the Board, as a collective entity, I feel, should make a decision, at this point, whether, one, you need additional information or need further study, or, two, you're ready to make your advisory opinion as to what you feel about whatever proposal they want to settle in on. If it's the preferred, whatever that one is that's preferred, then you should give them your advisory feedback, as a collective entity, on that, or if you feel, I think that I'm getting some signals from what Peter was saying earlier. He feels that he doesn't have enough information, well then maybe you need more information, and maybe that's what you ask the applicant to produce, but you're at a stage similar to what you were at last time, because you have been given new information. MR. SCHACHNER-A couple of things. First off, I think Mrs. Pulver's historical discussion is accurate, but in fairness to Mrs. Pulver, this is the third time we were here. I don't believe you were present the first time. So that, actually, we were asked once to go back and do some homework, which we did. 28 "--" ''-/ We came back last time, which was your first time looking at this, and now this is our third time. Second of all, Sl is not the exact same application that you had last time, but SI is in fact responsive to your concerns that we consolidate the driveways together to minimize the curb cuts. It's also responsive to Mr. Naylor's concerns that we eliminate the cul-de-sac on the long internal roadway. S2 is directly responsive, and I think you were accurate in this respect, directly responsive to the request from the Planning Board that we show what the plan could look like with the cul-de-sac pushed further north. If you remember last time when we were here, the proposal had a shared common driveway at the northern end, and then had an internal cul-de-sac not as far to the north, okay. MR. BREWER-It just went straight in. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. I guess my final pitch, and it's a very short one, is to implore you all to take a step back from it and look at the big picture, and I'm not unmindful or insensitive, to your concerns about precedent, but by the same token, you all are reviewing site plans and subdivisions, to some extent, on a case by case basis, and to some extent, each application is different, although there are many similarities, but you're looking at a 26 acre parcel on Assembly Point with some very significant constraints of development. My sense is, you've all been there. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and you seem very familiar with the property, and I'm hard pressed to imagine a deluge of applications, I'm not hard pressed to imagine any other applicant coming forward and asking for flag shaped lots, because it's a practical reality, somebody may come forward with a request, but I am hard pressed to imagine another applicant showing this situation, purposely and intentionally coming to minimize their amount of development, and looking for lots that keep the neighborhood character this much in line with the existing neighborhood character. As I mentioned, and as Mr. Anthony mentioned at our last meeting, one of the historical uses of flag shaped lots is to increase the number of lots, as opposed to decrease. We talked about the pie shaped thing with the narrow spokes coming into the middle. That's my own, initial experience with flag shaped lots, was they were used to increase the density, not decrease it, and I guess I'm just imploring you all to take a step back and, although I'm not suggesting that we're necessarily, we're certainly not going to ignore your feedback and your input and just proceed, automatically, to Preliminary plat approval, but I think Mr. Dusek's reading of the law is correct, and I think, at this point, our client feels that we've bent over backwards to accommodate the concerns and we would implore you to take a step back, look at the big picture, think about Assembly Point and, hopefully, give us some confidence in the approvability of the first plan. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I am under absolutely no compunction, as far as I'm concerned, the number of times you come back is irrelevant to me. I can appreciate your client's concern. I can appreciate your concern, in terms of how many times you've had to appear so far, but in terms of my looking at an application, that just doesn't cut any ice with me. In other words, what we need to do is get this thing hammered out so that we can all be satisfied, and however many times that takes is however many times that takes. MR. SCHACHNER-But your preference is S2, basically. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Your preference, as I understand it, your own particular, as opposed to the Board's, is S2, or something pretty similar. MR. CARTIER-That's fairly accurate, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and what we're saying is the applicant doesn't like it, and you're not as sensitive to that perhaps. You've got your Town Highway Superintendent, I believe I quote him accurately as saying he hates it, and I just, if you take a step back and look at the big picture, the direction that the applicant feels he's being pushed is more lots, and that's awfully unusual. You're not specifically saying, please go develop more lots. I understand that, but when you suggest that we could have the best of both worlds, from your standpoint, which is have an internal roadway, perhaps a cul-de-sac, and then also shrink down the number of lots, you're creating a completely untenable situation for the applicant where he can't justify that development. There's no possible way the applicant can justify the development, and I think Mr. Naylor and Mrs. Pulver have adequately explained why. He can't justify it. It's not going to happen that way. If you're trying to send a message to the applicant, go away, don't come back, or, sell this project, then that's the message you're getting to him. MR. CARTIER-No. That's not our attempt. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand that, but that's the message he's going to get, because he's coming forward and voluntarily saying, I'm going to hold this to eight new lots, and here's the way I'm going to do it, and is it a little creative, sure it's a little creative, but please look at the big picture, and that's what we're asking. 29 '- -- MR. LAPOINT-Quick question for the Chairman. You would actually prefer these 16 to the 10? MR. CARTIER-No. No, wait a minute. Let me understand, let me be sure we're very clear about this. It's the applicant who is saying there has to be 16 lots. MR. LAPOINT-I thought you just responded to him that you thought S2 was okay. MR. CARTIER-I'm talking in terms of the cul-de-sac. I don't particularly like the 16 lots, but understand, this Board did not say, you've got to put 16 lots in here. The applicant said it. MR. SCHACHNER-And I concede that, and I did concede that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. (END OF FIRST DISK) 30 '- --..../ MR. SCHACHNER-I said, you're not telling us go, you're not expressly telling us, go put more lots on, but I think you did say that something like this concept is more attractive to you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CARTIER-My frustration here, is, and, believe me, I'd like to move this thing, my frustration here is that we are, again, and I've said it before, we seem to be confronted with making a choice between poor alternatives, and somehow, and I don't have an answer for this, somehow I don't know how to get at a good alternative that's going to satisfy everybody. MR. SCHACHNER-Sometimes there isn't one. MR. LAPOINT-Let me trim my question back a little. Do you prefer the cul-de-sac, as opposed to the individual driveways? MR. CARTIER-I prefer the cul-de-sac, as opposed to the flag lots. For me, the cul-de-sac eliminates the flag lot situation. MR. LAPOINT-You would trade those cul-de-sacs. Okay. So the answer, I guess, is yes, that you prefer the cul-de-sac to the flag lots? MR. CARTIER-Correct. What's the Board's druthers, here? MR. LAPOINT-Well, that would be one helacious cut right down through the middle of that 25 acres. MRS. PULVER-On this particular site, on Assembly Point, I don't have a problem with irregular shaped lots. MR. LAPOINT-No. I mean, that's a terrible cut through that lot. What's that, 50, 60 feet wide, and, what, a1most 1,000 feet long, and that's an incredible amount of damage to that property. MR. BREWER-Have the fire companies looked at these? MRS. PULVER-Not yet. MR. MARTIN-No more than, in total when you clear the necessary clearing you're going to need for those total driveways. MR. LAPOINT-I'll bet, you add up that cul-de-sac, and it's more than those individual driveways, in area, square feet. MR. MARTIN-I'll bet you it's about a wash. MR. LAPOINT-Then you've got to add in the driveways, say, even for 10 lots off the cul-de-sac. I mean, there's only so many ways you can divide up a pie. MR. MARTIN-S2, with a center road like that, it's going to be hidden from sight. It's going to be on top of the lot. The only place that's going to be seen from is the roadside itself. You're going to look up from this drive along here, along the shoreline, and all you're going to see is those houses along the tree lines. You're never going to see the effect of that clearing in the middle of that lot. It's going to minimize the aesthetic impact of this subdivision from the roadside. MR. SCHACHNER-And double your number of lots. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I'm just making sure I understand your position. MR. MARTIN-But only because you have an economic constraint to do that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-And is that good planning, to double the number of lots, for just that little bit of advantage? See, that's a trade off. MR. BREWER-Ed, he's allowed 25 lots there. We're only talking~. He doesn't have to have 16. So, we're not pushing him to the max. MR. LAPOINT-No. I'm just trying to get a feel for whether, no, is 16 an acceptable trade off? MR. MARTIN-I think it is good planning. It1s an economic constraint. Remember that. Don't dismiss that, all right. I think it is a good trade off, in terms of getting this type of lot configuration. These are going to be much more salable. 31 '- '--' MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and is that enough of a trade off for 60 percent more of everything, septic, traffic, people? MR. MARTIN-Sixty percent, you're making sixty percent sound like a terrible thing. Sixteen lots, as opposed to ten. I mean, you're talking about six more units, six more houses. MR. LAPOINT-Sixty percent more people, generally speaking. MR. MARTIN-Sixty percent of what, though? MR. LAPOINT-Sixty percent more septic, sixty percent more runoff. MRS. PULVER-And is salable something, again, that we need to be concerned with? MR. MARTIN-No. I'm just trying, you know, I'm just looking out for his economic constraint. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Well, that was your reason for going to the cul-de-sac, that I could pick out, of everything said, because the lots would be more salable, and I don't think salable is anything we need to be concerned with. MR. MARTIN-From a planning standpoint, this is a better design. There's not a landscape architect who's worth his salt who would tell you that it's not. MR. LAPOINT-Wait. I can't believe you're willing to say that 16 units on this 25 acres of land is better than 10. That's outrageous. MR. CARTIER-Well, believe it, because he's saying it, okay. MR. LAPOINT-It's not. MR. MARTIN-Comparing the two configurations, yes, in my mind, it is, because I talked to Jeff Anthony, informally, after the very first meeting, and he said, that's the very plat we had on the Board the first time, and it was taken off by the applicant. MR. LAPOINT-Because it's a bad design. MR. SCHACHNER-Which plat? You lost me on that. MR. LAPOINT-The one with 16. MR. MARTIN-He had the cul-de-sac design. That was the first plat that he developed. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. CARTIER-Paul, let me back up to something you said a minute ago. You were talking about walking that strip along the east property line, here, with the intention of perhaps putting a road in there to replace the road along the shoreline. Did I understand you to say that the alternative, it was either that or expand Knox Road, correct? MR. NAYLOR-No. It never got to that point. Along the summer, a few residents up in Assembly Point approached Mrs. Monahan and I and we scraped up some money and took Tom along with us, and to my recollection, he's still spending that money, because he hasn't given us anything yet. MR. YARMOWICH-We haven't gone forward with any real concrete ideas. We're waiting for more to happen with regard to the Knox Road situation. MR. NAYLOR-Okay. So, right now, there's no alternative, and there was about 15 people that wanted to kill us because they don't want it, and then there's another 10 people that loved us because we were maybe going to do it. It's going to cost a fortune to do. MR. CARTIER-But the reason I bring it up is if that were to come to fruition, that would give you some very nice alternative designs, here. MR. NAYLOR-I don't think you'll ever see it, personally, Pete. That's my own opinion, because these people would have to pay for it, the Town Board, this whole Town Board, lets put it that way, has said, it may be a great idea, but I don't think we want to pay for it. So, the people over here would have to do the paying, and you're talking a lot of bucks. So, I don't think you're going to see it. Maybe. Tom's supposed to come back with some numbers and let us know. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. NAYLOR-But I don't know. 32 - -- MR. CARTIER-Is there, I'm looking for alternatives here, a way to reconfigure SI, in such a way that you reduce the, and I don't need an answer tonight, even though you may want to give me one, is there any way to reduce the flag shape of some of these lots, and still provide the kind of access you're talking about, here? It just seems to keep creeping back toward the idea of what Lee was talking about, or a cul-de-sac, somehow. MRS. PULVER-Let me just say one thing, with this cul-de-sac, and I'm listening to Paul who is dead set against the cul-de-sac, that if they came in with a cul-de-sac plan, and we got a letter from Mr. Naylor that said, I am dead set against this cul-de-sac, this Board would probably not approve that plan and we'd make him say, gee, you better rethink it and go around it. MR. MARTIN-Paul, how many cul-de-sacs do you plow in the Town? MR. NAYLOR-How many have I got? MRS. PULVER-Wait, Jim, I'm not done. The other thing is, Jim, you know I highly respect your opinion on everything, you are a professional planner, but we are a citizens board, and sometimes we have to look at this as just kind of normal citizens, and not as professional planners, and these are irregular shaped lots. There's no question about it, and they're not going to make them perfect unless they put in a cul-de-sac that our own Town Staff has said that they don't like. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Martin, you mentioned something about, no landscape architect worth his salt. I'm not one, but you also mentioned a chat with Mr. Anthony, and I don't have any trouble sharing that. I thought you also talked with Mr. Anthony, informally, after the last meeting. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And I thought that he sai d, again, I wasn't part of thi s conversation. I just thought I overheard it. I thought that he essentially said to you much as he said to the Board, yes, the perfect worl d, typi ca lly, he doesn't desi gn flag shaped lots, but I thought he also said to you much as he said to the Board, that on this site, with the constraints, that he thought it was a heck of a good plan, I thought, and I wasn't part of that conversation, but, I mean, I think, you know Mr. Anthony's reputation. I was just a little concerned. This is not a forum on Jeff Anthony or the LA Group. I was just a little concerned at the notion that, to the extent your looking for a landscape architect's support, and you made the statement that no LA worth his salt would endorse this. I'm under the impression that one has, and I just was a 1 i ttl e confused about that. I understand your concerns. I just think, as applied to this property, I really think that, given the applicant's desire, and I freely admit the applicant's wishes playa role here. MR. MARTIN-See, what's being skillfully disguised, here, is the fact that the applicant doesn't want to take, as part of his economic burden, building this road through the center of this property. So, there's all these arguments being brought into play, here, to try and disguise that fact. MR. LAPOINT-No, no, no. That road is a terrible idea, to have that road through that property like that. It's not in character with what's there. MR. MARTIN-That's your opinion. MR. LAPOINT-What's character is 25 acres of wilderness, that's much more in keeping with that wilderness. MR. MARTIN-Do you think it's going to look any better to have six or seven driveways slicing across the slope face of that road, that you're going to see from the public road, there? MR. LAPOINT-It's going to look neat, as opposed to a 22 foot wide wing swale Town road down through the middle of the Adirondack Park. MR. SCHACHNER-I've got to be honest, Mr. Martin, most of my clients would be delighted with the input that says, build something with the cul-de-sac in there. I'm being candid. Most of them would rather do that because they're going to get more return on their dollar because they're going to sell more lots, and they're arguably more marketable lots. We've had some internal conflict on our project team in trying to even convince our client to at least consider some of these things. He's considered them, and he keeps saying, look, I'm not a professional developer. My family's here. I'm here. The kids have two of the lots or three of the lots, I forget which, the kids have three of the lots. They're going to be here, and I don't want to make 20 lots. MR. CARTIER-Then why do we keep getting shown plans where there's 16 lots and then there's cluster housing and there's this other stuff, as options that are being offered to us? MR. SCHACHNER-I've got to answer that very succinctly, because that's what we've been specifically asked and directed to do. As far as cluster goes, Mrs. York specifically requested, through input to the Planning Board to us, that we show a cluster proposal. 33 --- ---- MRS. YORK-Yes. They were required to show a cluster proposal as an alternative. MR. SCHACHNER-Which is fine, and we did so. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but my point is, the cluster proposal showed a whole lot more housing on it. I'm not objecting to that, but it was my understanding that when Lee was talking about a cluster proposal, she was talking in terms of 10 or 12 residences. It may have never been said, but that was my understanding. MRS. PULVER-But they can put up to 25, so. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, how is it even in the concept that a cluster housing thing would be in keeping with 25 acres of wilderness. It's not. MR. SCHACHNER-And just as importantly, we can't divorce ourselves completely from practical reality. Yes, you're absolutely right. We could do a cluster of two houses, okay. You're right. Can it be done? Yes, it can be done. It can be done in a way that's traditional and that meets your every concern. I'm picking a stupid example, and I realize that, but we're bending over backwards, now, to try to come up with some contortion that, as I understand it, avoids the flags, the tails on these lots, and I just think it's not a perfect world. and given the constraints of this site, it's not good planning. MR. MARTIN-That's right. It's not a perfect world, and one of the imperfections that you might have to accept is a cul-de-sac and a road going down the center of your property. MR. SCHACHNER-And he's going to have to accept that to, I take it. MR. CARTIER-Let me go back to an original point that you were making, which may be the direction to go. There are only five of us sitting here this evening. This is a seven member board. When we are going to have a, there are seven members now. Things are going to change, as of January 1, in terms of membership. I have no idea how long it's going to take us to get a new seventh member. MR. SCHACHNER-You have a sixth member? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-We have seven members. MR. LAPOINT-We have seven. MR. CARTIER-One of the members has been elected to the new Town Board. He will be replaced as of January 1. MR. SCHACHNER-Who's the sixth? Who's the one not? MR. MARTIN-Jim Lauricella. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Lauricella. Mr. Lauricella is not here. What I would like to propose to you, feel free to reject it, is that we table this thing until we have a full six members here, or seven members here, and then we get to go at it again. MR. LAPOINT-Mr. Lauricella is going to abstain. He wasn't even here for this argument. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I guess what I was just saying to Mr. Shunard is just that. MR. BREWER-Yes, but if we vote and it doesn't come out four to one, then, where are we then? MR. CARTIER-All right. Then somebody give me another option, because I've just run out of options. Frankly, I don't know where to go with this, Mark. MR. LAPOINT-Can we get to go on the record, again, with another motion? Can somebody throw one up, just to get us all on the record? DAVID WILLENBRACH MR. WILLENBRACH-I'd like to say one more thing. My name's David Willenbrach. I'm from the LA Group. We've discussed some environmental factors that went along with this also, and one thing that I think Mr. Martin said was that bringing the road through here was more environmentally sound, and putting more lots in there. If you look at the amount of gray space on this plan, here. MR. MARTIN-And those are your development limitations, right? 34 - -- MR. WILLENBRACH-I'm talking about the septic fields and the driveways coming in, and then if you take a look at S2, here, you look at the roadway coming in here, you look at the increase because of the economic factors that we all know, when you put in this road, you're going to have to put more lots in here. You're going to see that there's quite a bit more space taken up, as far as environmentally. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. WILLENBRACH-We're packing this thing, environmentally, in this case, whereas, in the other case, we're being extremely environmentally sensitive to this site. We're trying to, as Mr. LaPoint's been saying, conserve the character of this knoll, here. We're trying to minimize the cut of all the trees on here. I think that's something very, a very important point to look at in this development. MR. CARTIER-Ed, I hear what you're saying. If I'm reading the Board right, I think we're going to end up with a three, two vote again, one way or the other, a three, two vote, which puts us right back into the same situation that we're in at the moment. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I just always liked going on the record, because there's just something of finality to it, even if I lose. MRS. PULVER-Well, and if they want to take it on to a higher court or something, at least we all know where we stand. MR. LAPOINT-Again, because I can't, I believe that Jim wouldn't change his opinion that 10 is much better than 6, and given some thought and considering it, he should. MR. CARTIER-Jim who? MR. LAPOINT-Jim Martin, consider that 10 is much better than 16. MR. CARTIER-Well, hold it. Lets understand something very clearly here. We are five individuals, all of whom have the right to their own individual responses and opinions about this, and I think we're doing ourselves a disservice if we start making comments about believing or not believing another member of the Board. That hasn't happened on this Board, so far, and I don't want to see it starting to happen now. Lets respect each other's opinions, here, regardless of whether we agree with them or disagree with them. Okay, where are we? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PlAN 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 owner's residence and will be retained by the owner, and that, for the conditional approval of SI, being that they convey the necessary 35 feet right-of-way to the Town, for expansion of the road, where applicable, and there will be no further subdivision of existing lots, that would be deed restricted. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: MRS. PULVER-Add the 35, or whatever, feet they're willing to donate to Mr. Naylor. MR. LAPOINT-Isn't that a separate issue? MR. BREWER-It depends on whether he gets what he wants. MR. CARTIER-We're still at Sketch Plan, remember, anyway. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'll leave that out. MRS. PULVER-Yes. At this particular Sketch Plan, you're willing to let the road widen, right? MR. SCHACHNER-That's absolutely true. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-You're saying SI in your motion, right, Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Right. MRS. YORK-Also, he agreed not to do any further subdividing in the deeds. MRS. PULVER-Right. 35 --- --' MR. LAPOINT-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint NOES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-Can I make a suggestion? I'm trying, okay, to move this thing. Some time in the near future, we get together and have a workshop session on this application, and get everybody in here. MRS. PULVER-We've already done that. MR. BREWER-I thought we did that once. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay. MRS. PULVER-Yes, we did. MR. SCHACHNER-And we felt this was another one, and the comments from Staff, it was treated that way. We thought that, too. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Then, I've run out of option, here, folks. Okay, I'm done. I have no other options. MR. MARTIN-All right, well, I'll make a motion on the other, and willing to apply finality, here. IIJTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PIAN SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Using Sketch No. S2, as supplied by the applicant in his application for this meeting, with the following stipulation, that he agree not to subdivide the lots any further, and include that as a deed restriction. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. This will make it a whole lot easier. The applicant has not offered S2 as an application, and the applicant is not prepared to offer S2 as an application, and will not offer that. MR. CARTIER-Then why is it part of the package? MR. SCHACHNER-Because you all asked to see a proposal that would show what the subdivision would look like if we configured it that way. MR. MARTIN-Well, then that is finality, in and of itself, then. MR. CARTIER-Well, do you care to pursue that motion, then? MR. MARTIN-I'll make the motion, but. MR. SCHACHNER-And what I'm saying is the applicant is not offering that as an application and never intended to, and never represented that it was. I have lots of clients that would be happy to offer that as an application, but this one will not authorize that, because it's his family property. He and his children are going to continue coming back there, and he's not prepared to develop it that way. MR. CARTIER-All right. Let me just finish out, in terms of Roberts Rules of Order, anyway. Is there a second? MR. BREWER-I'll second. MR. PULVER-Well, actually, he would withdraw the motion, if they don't want it. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I'll withdraw it, then. It's a moot point. MR. DUSEK-At this point, the regulations require that the Board give an advisory opinion. What I'm concerned about is, if the Board does not give any kind of advisory opinion, whether it be for S2 or not, or whatever, then the issue becomes, where does that leave the developer? The developer's going to have to make a choice, does he come back to the Board again, which I'm getting the sense from what they're saying, they probably don't want to, and I'm getting the sense from the Board that you feel like you probably have done as much as you can with this, but there's an issue, here, that, if the advisory opinion is not given, does he come back with a Preliminary plan and just simply bring it back to the Board, and, at that point, can the Board deny that plan, solely on the basis that he is not 36 ~ -- given an advisory, you know, that it has not given its advisory opinion on the Sketch Plan, which maybe is grounds. MR. CARTIER-No. I would assume that we would motion it based on what was in front of us at the time. MR. DUSEK-Okay, well, what I'm trying to do is just take a moment, here, and explain what I see all the possibilities, here, in terms of how things can work out at this point. The developer could, I think, go to court and say, judge, they didn't give an advisory opinion, and they have to give an advisory opinion, because the law says that, before we can go on to the next step, and the court would say, Board, whatever your advisory opinion is, give it, whether you're in favor or not in favor of the project. On the other hand, it could be argued, I think, either way, perhaps, that they could go on to a Preliminary plat, without the advisory opinion, or that may be a ruling of a court, okay, if you got to that point. I think one of the things the Board might want to just consider, at this point, is, do you want to give an advisory opinion to put an end to the Sketch Plan stage, at this time, whatever that is, and if it's S2, and I understand that's not their application, but the advisory opinion could be that theylve submitted, whatever that is, SI or whatever, that you don't like it, and that there is a viable alternative, known as S2, and that your advisory opinion is that's what's followed. Then, at that point, if you did that, though, the thing to keep in mind is, once that advisory opinion's been given, it's my opinion that it does open the door and free them to come in with their Preliminary plat, whatever it is, and it doesn't have to be consistent with your advisory opinion. On the other hand, if you don't give the advisory opinion at all, then that could be a legal road block for the applicant not to proceed, in any fashion, I mean, he can try, but that could be a roadblock to the applicant, at that point, whereby the only recourse he would have is to go court and say, judge, make them give me an advisory opinion, and I think, at that, or, judge make them take.! Preliminary plat and reject it, now. So, what I guess I'm saying to you is that, either way, they're going to force the issue on the advisory opinion, so you may want to address that tonight. The other issue, though, here is, that if a Preliminary plat eventually comes to the Board, on this subdivision, and you look at it, there's going to be many issues for the Board to consider. There may be more information that you need, that'll have to be something that you decide, but if you reject the Preliminary plat or whatever it is that comes before you, unless it's something that you want, obviously, but if you reject that plat, it'll have to be upon grounds that are set forth in the Subdivision Regulations or Zoning, and I can advise you, at this point, and I'm not going to advise you on all of the grounds that have been discussed tonight, but just so that we can clear up one issue, and this is in all due deference to, Jim, what you said in terms of many things, and I'm certainly not going to address all your comments. The only one I do want to address, just to give you an example, is the cost of plowing the driveway, and I think you only gave it for illustrative purposes, and I don't think you meant it a grounds. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's what it was offered as. MR. DUSEK-But I feel I must address this point. The cost of plowing a driveway, in and of itself, or the cost of hooking up electrical services, I do not feel, constitutes sufficient grounds to deny a subdivision, because that's the applicant's choice and the future homeowner's choice, as to whether they want to pay that expense. MR. CARTIER-Can I add something in there, parenthetically, on the other side of that, and I know 11m interrupting you, but the same, I think, can be said of cost to the applicant, in terms of design. I just want to make that point clear. It's being offered to us that we have to do this, because it's going to cost us so much more. MR. DUSEK-Yes, right, and I agree with you, Peter. I don't think that cost, I mean, I think cost, in some respects, is worthy of discussion, and, to that extent, I certainly don't fault Mr. Martin for raising those types of issues, because I think that's good. It helps enlighten the developer, and he may say, gee, I never thought of that, there's somebody who's had an experience, and it's worthy of comment, but what I'm just indicating to the Board is that type of thing, though, is not something I feel you would be able to support, in a decision to deny the project. So, what I would want to encourage the Board is that, and there may be other reasons, for instance, I know, traffic, and emergency access has been raised during this evening, and they may constitute sufficient grounds, and I'm not meaning to suggest or try to point you in any given direction. I'm just trying to say that whatever reasons you use to deny the project, they should be backed by the Ordinance, and be grounds that you can deny the project, if that's what your choice is to do, and if there's anything you need more information on, of course, you're free, under the law, to ask for that, before you are forced to that point of having to make your decision. I think, at this point, maybe I should shut up before I make this more complicated. I'm just trying to be helpful, though, to give you some overall guidance, here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. In terms of advisory opinion, I think that's what Jim was trying to do, in terms of his second motion, with regard to S2, okay. MR. MARTIN-Right, and as Ed was trying to do with his motion. MR. CARTIER-Exactly, and we can't even come up with a majority on our advisory opinions, here. 37 - -- MRS. PULVER-Well, instead of, you were making the motion, though, on S2, to make a motion, now, to deny Sl, for the reasons, such and such, such and such, such and such, and then take a vote on that. Wouldn't that be the best? MR. DUSEK-You can try to word your motions, and I can think of any number of ways that you could probably word them, to try to get a unanimous vote. MR. CARTIER-Or four votes. MR. DUSEK-Right, or not a unanimous vote, a majority vote, and you're free to word your resolution, in terms of an advisory opinion, in any fashion that you feel may get that vote, to get by that stage. So, in other words, for instance, you may say, there may be aspects of both plans that you like and dislike, and that maybe you can find agreement among the Board members as to what that may be. MR. CARTIER-Paul may be on to something here, because I think what we're both saying. MR. MARTIN-I'm up for compromise. I'd like nothing better. MR. CARTIER-What we're both saying, here, is that there are aspects of two of these plans, SI and S2, that we all like. There are some pieces of each of these two plans that we all like. Is that a fairly accurate statement? MR. LAPOINT-I can't think of anything I like about S2, not a thing. MR. CARTIER-Then that's not an accurate statement. MR. LAPOINT-That's just mine, but, I mean, there's nothing about it I like. MR. CARTIER-Are there ~ things about it, there is nothing about S2. You totally reject S2? MR. LAPOINT-I totally reject it, because SI is so much more environmentally the way to go. MR. CARTIER-In your opinion. MR. LAPOINT-In my opinion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-The contrary to that is also true. Maybe there is something on all the plans that nobody 1 i kes. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. I think he's got a valid point. There may be things here we can eliminate. There may be some things that we can all agree on to eliminate. MR. BREWER-I've got a question. If this is a workshop, can we take any formal action? MR. LAPOINT-No. We're not in workshop. This is an application. MR. CARTIER-No. This is on the agenda. This is Sketch Plan, remember. MRS. YORK-Yes. I just considered it a workshop because of the kind of review, we were comparing and contrasting. MR. CARTIER-Okay. SI, please, if anybody has a solution, feel free. MR. LAPOINT-How about if we just advise them to come back with all four again, for the six, seven of us. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's where I was trying to go, here. The other side of that, the other part of that, however, is that we have to have the understanding that Mr. Lauricella has got to be brought up to speed on this application, and that he will be voting on this application. MR. MARTIN-It's going to be very difficult to bring a new member in, and, in terms of this fray, and ask him to. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, it mayor it may not. That's hard to commit. I don't see how you all can commit to that, to be honest. MR. CARTIER-True. I agree. 38 - -' MR. SCHACHNER-Some new members would perhaps take a look at this and say, it's simple, I either hate it or I love it, but I don't see how you all can commit to that. MRS. YORK-But, Mark, maybe if you took the situation, SI, and you said, okay, these are the concerns with SI, the long driveways, the flag shaped lots, etc., etc. If you could discuss, we're not at SEQRA, yet, but discuss how you plan to mitigate the issues that have been raisèd, here, due to those things. MR. SCHACHNER-Notwithstanding what Mr. Dusek says, I'm not aware of !!!.l significant, potential environmental issue that's been raised, not a one. MRS. YORK-Okay, we're talking about health and safety, with the long driveways and things like that, how you plan to, is there any way you plan to, is there any way to handle those, that, from a developer's standpoint, he could have some enforcement power over? MR. DUSEK-I just thought of another option for the Board. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. DUSEK-I'll just pop this at you. I'm trying. MR. CARTIER-We all are. MR. DUSEK-Subdivision Regulations, you have the right to waive any of the Regulations. You could entertain a motion which says that you will waive the requirement of the advisory opinion and that it does not have any significance as to whether the Board is for or against the plan, but that the applicant could proceed to Preliminary with some kind of a plan, which will be then totally reviewed. That's just another idea to get it moving, if that's what you want to do. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's your druthers. MR. MARTIN-That would be fine with me. I mean, at least we're getting him on to the next stage. MR. CARTIER-Are we going to run into, well, I hate to ask the question, but I'll ask it, are we going to run into the same situation, then, that we do now? MR. DUSEK-Well, you may. MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, and you might have more members. MR. CARTIER-Okay. There's a possibility of combining some options, here. MR. MARTIN-Just let me ask one more thing, just, not to give up on. Was there ever any discussion of maybe cutting a road in through and coming back out here, like this, or something of that nature? Was that ever discussed, or is that impossible, or doesn't it relieve anything? MR. WILLENBRACH-Well, first off, there's a wetland that comes right along this area down in here, and it would extremely inhibit the road going through there. It would be very close. It wouldn't be a very good idea to put one through there. I understand what you're doing. MR. SCHACHNER-We showed that on one of the maps that you all had, previously. In our opinion, one of the positive features of this SI is that, if you look at the wetland area, we've nicely avoided that. I believe there's another one that we've also avoided that. I believe there's another one that we've also avoided. MR. WILLENBRACH-This is the last one. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I know, that was the last one. MR. WILLENBRACH-Which was, it's kind of a mix between the two. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-In other words, we get cul-de-sac, and flag lots. Okay. We finally got a plan that NOBODY likes! Well, we're getting somewhere. MR. MARTIN-I don't mean to make light of that. I know this is. MR. CARTIER-What we have here is a short cul-de-sac, okay. MR. BREWER-And we still have the long driveways and the flag shaped lots. 39 -- --..../ MR. CARTIER-And we have, how many flag lots have we got? MR. LAPOINT-I can tell you right now, that's the minimum amount of clearing, right there, without even doing, I just have an eye for these things, and that is the bare minimum of clearing. Again, there's only, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. There's only so many ways you can dog leg it, and it only gets longer. MR. MARTIN-Well, lets compare that with SI. Are we gaining anything? MR. CARTIER-Would you care to make any comments about a short cul-de-sac? MR. YARMOWICH-That cul-de-sac would have some severe development problems because of cuts, and then the driveways. It would have some real problems. MR. MARTIN-You don't like that at all? MR. NAYLOR-No. We looked at it. MR. SCHACHNER-I hope the Board understands. We have not just thrown something together and come forward. MR. MARTIN-No. No. MR. CARTIER-We understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Well, is there going to be a recommendation, or? MR. CARTIER-Let me go back to what I was tal king about, in terms of combining some options. I have ventured the fact that, if we could get Mr. Lauricella up to speed, which is a possibility. Lets not reject it out of hand, to the poi nt where he is goi ng to vote on it, because we need to understand that even though new members have in fact abstained on Old Business, it is a requirement of Planning Board members that they do in fact vote on issues. Perhaps we could get Mr. Lauricella at a workshop sess i on and we put on a dog and pony show among a 11 of us to bri ng Mr. Lauri ce 11 a up to speed, and possibly, if it's done before January 1st, Mr. Caimano, understanding that, as of January 1st, Mr. Caimano will no longer be a member of the Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Is he willing to participate, I mean, between now and then? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I don't think he is, though. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, I notice he's not here tonight. I don't know if he's not here tonight because he's plowing his driveway or because he's got a Town Board meeting. MR. CARTIER-No. He's a member of the Board. He's not participating because he feels uncomfortable in the situation he's in. MR. SCHACHNER-We're back to the drawing board. As near as I can tell, we're back to the drawing board, and our client has some very hard decisions to make about retaining the property, selling the property, sacrificing his personal goals. I don't know. No promises. MR. CARTIER-Lee, did you have any objections to that idea? MRS. YORK-About what? MR. CARTIER-About a workshop session with Mr. Lauricella and any other missing Board members? MRS. YORK-I would have no problem with that. MR. MARTIN-I think we should make an appeal to Nick. I mean, he's been here. He's seen it, and, I mean, this is, like, a special situation. I think he would, if he knew the ramifications here and the importance, he may. MR. CARTIER-Well, the other thing is, we can't just do it with Nick. We've got to get Mr. Lauricella, otherwise, we have a three, three, and here we go again. MR. MARTIN-Right. I mean, to have a full seven member board, because they're deserving of that. MRS. YORK-The problem is, we're now in the holiday season. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Lauricella will not be in town until Thursday. 40 '-" -- MRS. YORK-Thursday he will be in town. MR. CARTIER-I'm leaving town for two weeks, Saturday morning. MRS. YORK-Why don't we just plan for January. MR. CARTIER-Then we're back to six members. MRS. YORK-That's right. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but can we make it Thursday night? MR. BREWER-We have a meeting Thursday night. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I know. I mean, add them on to the end of the Thursday night meeting and you get everybody here. MR. SCHACHNER-Thursday night after tomorrow night, you're talking about? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-And you have all your submissions in. MRS. YORK-We can do that. MR. BREWER-Yes, but is he going to be able to catch up with everything between now and then? MR. MARTIN-Nick's been receiving packets. So has Jim. MR. DUSEK-It's worth a shot anyway. MR. MARTIN-Right. I mean, what have we got to lose. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Well, it either goes four, two or three, three, in each case we're in the same place where we are tonight. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but if you get all seven people here, Ed, and they all vote, it would have to go four, three, one way or the other. MR. SCHACHNER-If they vote. MR. CARTIER-Well, the understanding \«>uld be presented to them that they are, we need them there and we need them to vote. MR. LAPOINT-Jim voting Thursday night would be, he wouldn't do that. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute, Ed. You can't speak for Jim. MR. LAPOINT-Right, and he wasn't even here tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm still confused as to whether Mr. Caimano is willing to participate, I mean, generically. MR. CARTIER-He has spoken to me and said, if we need him, he will attend. MR. MARTIN-All right, well, that's all the input we need, then. MRS. YORK-I know Mr. Caimano has other meetings this week. It might be wise to ask him if you want to get together prior to the meeting. MR. MARTIN-I'd be advisable to that. MRS. YORK-Yes. He may only be able to, I know he mentioned to me today that he did have other commitments. MR. CARTIER-Lets try this. Suppose we set a 6:30, we start the meeting at 6:30 Thursday night, because, frankly, I don't want to go this long next Thursday night, and I'm sure nobody else does, because we have some other potentially long items on the agenda. Suppose we schedule this thing for 6:30, and we spend a half an hour hammering away at this, from 6:30 to 7 and take a vote at 7. 41 - -- MR. DUSEK-Not to be the downfall here, but, do you need me at that meeting or no? If you don't, it's not a problem, but if you do, I do have a problem. I have a conflict that night. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm due at the same place Mr. Dusek is due, but I'll make myself available. It would be, actually, very helpful. I have a previous conflict, but I would appreciate it, I would love it, if it could be the early side. If it could be the early side, that would be great, what you suggested, as opposed to later on. MRS. PULVER-Do you think a half an hour would be long enough? MR. SCHACHNER-No, but if you suggested it and we're bound by it, I'm all for it. MR. CARTIER-You're not going to be there Thursday night at all? MR. DUSEK-I've got four events on Thursday night, two which I cannot come to. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think we're pretty well, Paul's advised us on, basically, all of our options. I mean, we go into this with our eyes wide open. We can convey those to the two other Board members. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-And I think your options are really, my recommendation to you is, I guess, summing up what I said to you was, I think you've got to give an advisory opinion of some kind, and it ought to be either for or against. MR. MARTIN-Well, I like the option of waiving it and they go on to Preliminary. MR. DUSEK-Well, that's another option. Right. MR. LAPOINT-I agree. MR. DUSEK-But, please, if you exercise that option that night and I'm not here, the only thing I would strongly encourage you is to keep some language in there that makes it clear that you are going into the Preliminary review, in that case, completely clean, as a fresh start, and that the Board is not making any representations as to what concerns, if any, it has with the project. In other words, what I don't want to see happen later is the applicant come back, if we have problems down the line, and say, well you never raised these concerns in your Sketch Plan conference, and you should have, and now you're, you know what I'm saying? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-It has to be clearly understood that it's a whole new card, at that point, for both the applicant and the Planning Board, and that you can raise !!!.l concerns that you want, with regard to the new Preliminary plan. Mark, would you agree to that? MR. SCHACHNER-You're saying if there's not a determination at the Sketch Plan level? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-If there's not. MR. MARTIN-See, what I'm saying, though, is, assuming that nobody abstains, we are going to have a decision, whether it be positive or negative, coming out of Thursday night, and that'll be much to your benefit. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Lets do that tonight instead of Thursday night. MR. CARTIER-Why can't we do that tonight? MR. LAPOINT-Right now. MR. CARTIER-Paul is here. We can take care of his concerns. That will put us into Preliminary with six members of the Board. MR. DUSEK-Well, the only thing you might want to consider, and there's always something to consider, and that is, if you do that, obviously, you've foregone an opportunity to address for or against a site. If you wait until Thursday and you have sufficient members, you may end up with a vote that is to the liking or not to the liking of the members of the Board, but at least some of the members on one side or the other. In other words, you walk out of there Thursday, and you do get a vote for 42 "-' - or against, then the applicant has been put into a particular position and so has the Board. If it's for, obviously, he then knows he can definitely go on to Preliminary, and he, obviously, gains some legal rights. If it's against, he's lost headway, and he's also been put, and the Board has gained some rights, in terms of, that that's been rejected, and the applicant now has an uphill battle in terms of whatever it is from that point on. If you waive everything, just understand that everybody's starting at a fresh start, which is fine, but I just want you to understand what you're getting yourself into when you go down that. MR. CARTIER-Well, what just occurs to me, too, unfortunately, is Mr. Lauricella is not going to be back in town until Thursday evening, and he may, he said he was going to have to come directly from where he was coming from to this meeting. MR. LAPOINT-Too risky, again, and you don't know if, I don't think he would vote, and I don't think Nick, Nick mayor may not. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Schachner, would you agree to table this issue until we can get a full seven members to act on this, and I wish I could give you a specific date as to when that would be. The only thing I would offer is that we would, if the Board would agree, we would put you on the first available agenda when we would have seven members. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess from the applicant's standpoint, first and foremost, it seems to me that the Board has already approved a motion tonight, or, if you want to call it denied, but there was a motion to approve SI, that did not gain a majority, if you will. MR. CARTIER-Correct. There was no action taken. MR. SCHACHNER-And that would be no action. I agree. I mean, at this point, I'm not sure it really matters. The short answer from the applicant is, no, the applicant's not willing to table, but I don't think it really matters, in that, if we force you to a vote, your vote is three, two, which is no action. So, whether we can formally say, yes, table with our blessing, or whether we say, no, which is what we're saying, you've, essenti ally, taken no offi ci a 1 action. You've done your best. You've taken a vote, but it hasn't carried. We can come back, as I understand it. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Understand this, also, we have 45 days in which to take action. MR. DUSEK-Not on a Sketch Plan. That's Preliminary and Final, that are 45 day clocks, and also you haven't even done your SEQRA yet, so you don I t have to worry about the clocks at all until SEQRA is done. MR. CARTIER-We have no time running here, at all? MR. DUSEK-No. MR. CARTIER-So, in fact, we could, in fact, unilaterally, if you will, if we decided to, table this. MR. DUSEK-I think you have sufficient authority to do that. MR. SCHACHNER-Do they have to make a SEQRA determination at the conceptual or Sketch Plan Review level? MR. CARTIER-No. That's at Preliminary. MR. DUSEK-Not a SEQRA determination, but you do have to do something on SEQRA. MR. YARMOWICH-You have to determine the Long Form or. MRS. YORK-Yes. They already have. It's a Type I action. MR. SCHACHNER-The classification, but no SEQRA determination. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's probably the extent of it. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. DUSEK-Determine, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I've not looked at this particular issue. I'm hard pressed to think that you have an unlimited amount of time to make a Sketch Plan decision, but I haven't looked at it. MR. DUSEK-No. They don't have an unlimited amount of time. They, once, you know, they got the SEQRA clocks running because they have to make the determination, and then they start to mail a copy of the Sketch Plan and the other things to the agencies, so the SEQRA clock starts to run. The SEQRA clocks, however, are directory, as opposed to mandatory. So, although they should try and attempt to work 43 ""'--- -- within the confines of the SEQRA, there is nothing that is going to come down on them and cause an automatic approval some place if they don't. So, my advice to the Board is that if you want to table it until January, I think that's certainly reasonable, and try to make an attempt to deal with it in January. Even if the applicant does not agree, I think you have a basis to do that and not be harmed by, like, an automatic approval some place. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. So, I don't think it matters if, I don't think you need applicant consent, I guess, is what I'm saying. MR. CARTIER-Correct. Okay. What does the Board feel about that? The assumption we're going to make, here, however, is that we're going to have to bring Mr. Lauricella up to speed on this, and that may involve a workshop session, or coming in a half an hour early or something like that, but certainly that also gives us time to get minutes out to Mr. Lauricella. That gives him time to review, plow through all this stuff, and then we can go from there. How does the Board feel about that? Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Could I ask Mr. Dusek a question? Would the applicant be precluded, in your opinion, from proceeding with a Preliminary plat application? MR. DUSEK-Yes. On two basis. One is that the SEQRA process hasn't been completed, and the second would be that the advisory opinion has not yet been received. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't understand the first point. I thought the SEQRA process, thus far, only consists of classification and notification, and that has been accomplished. MR. DUSEK-Has that been accomplished, Lee, the notification has, too? MRS. YORK-No, it hasn't. I don't think the notices have been sent. MR. DUSEK-I mean, if this is the Sketch Plan, I would think that that's where this direction occurs, at this point, so that has not yet occurred. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Well, that aside, we could still make a motion, here, to table until January. Until the first meeting in January? Does anybody care to make a motion to table this application until the first meeting in January? MOTION TO TABLE SKETCH PW SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To subdivide 25 acres into 10 lots to be developed by individual lot purchasers, for the following reason: The Board has attempted to come to a decision regarding approval, and without a majority vote, no action was taken, and, Number Two, at the January meeting, when there are more members present, potentially a full Board, at that time, action may be able to be taken. Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver ABSENT: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Caimano (9:50 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-One quick item. We'll put the Planning Board organizational letter over to the 19th, okay. Lets not get into that thing tonight. You have in front of you, somewhere, a draft for a letter to Mr. Brandt and Company regarding goals, okay. I'd like to get off to him. Jim Martin would like to talk to us about something. MR. MARTIN-The only other thing that came to my mind, in regard to these goals, was I think it would be nice, in the coming year, to review the Transient Merchant Law for these Christmas Tree stands that seem to be popping up in Rural Residential areas and 55 mile an hour speed zones, and the vegetable stands that occur in the summer. So we're effectively taking a parcel of land and making it a retail operation for 10 out of the 12 months of the year. MR. CARTIER-And you would like to add it to the Top 10? MR. MARTIN- Yes. 44 "-' --- MR. DUSEK-What I promised at our last meeting, I think the last meeting we discussed it was in November, your last meeting in November I think it was. I may be off on that, but, in any event, if you'll recall, the Board had asked or I had offered, or some how the discussion got going, to provide you with the law we were talking about, that prevented some of the regulation on those farm stands. So, I brought it tonight, Mr. Martin made his comments, I thought maybe that would be a good time to hand it out to you. I will be mailing, tomorrow, copies to Mr. Sundberg, and also a copy to Pat Crayford. MR. MARTIN-What is this effectively saying? MR. DUSEK-Well, it says a lot, but basically it prohibits a municipality, in some respects, from regulating those roadside farm stands. It doesn't address the Christmas Trees, I don't think, but it certainly addresses the farm stands. MR. CARTIER-This is New York law? MR. DUSEK-This is New York General Municipal Law, Section 81. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-So, in other words, if someone wants to set up a vegetable stand and conduct a retail operation, if he was to call that a vegetable grocery store, then he would be prohibited, but since he is a peddling stand. MR. DUSEK-Peddling and hawking, if you concern yourself in that definition. MR. MARTIN-Which is? I would think that what they're saying by this is, I would assume this to mean, somebody opens up a stand Friday night and shuts up shop Sunday morning and that's it, but these guys are open seven days a week, week in and week out, month after month. MR. DUSEK-I think, as I'm looking down through this right now, the issue of peddling and hawking, if I, and if I could go back on my recollection, it's been a little while since I did the research, back with Pat a few months back, but I think the problem was that we did not find that the definition of peddling and hawking, within the General Municipal law, so we had to reach outside of the law to find those definitions, or if we did, we found them somewhere else in the New York State law, and the area is a little bit gray. MR. MARTIN-Because I think the intent of this law is that, okay, a guy who owns a farm and he wants to make a little money on the side, and he lives within the town, should have that right, but what's happening is we're getting produce brought in from Greenwich and Washington County for sale, here, where the bulk of the population is, and also these Christmas Trees coming in from Vermont and all over. MR. DUSEK- Yes. I think you'll see that thi s is 1 imited. It says, if such farm produce is hawked or peddled by the producer thereof, or a service or employee, of course, that doesn't stop the people from coming in from outside, still. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's what I have a problem with, and I know vegetable stands who have been in operation for years, and it's as a result of produce grown right here in the town, or in their backyard, and they're being hurt, or put out of business by these guys who are coming in on almost like a franchise bas i sand setting up a stand every mil e or so. Li ke the guy on Bay Road, it's the same guy who has it across the street from Evelyn's Florist, that does, up on the corner of Tee Hill Road and Bay Road. It's the same guy, and that's vegetables from Greenwich. MR. DUSEK-And I'm not disagreeing with you that there may not be a problem of some kind. All I'm suggesting is that, I think we discussed it the last time. This is out there. This is one of the things that just makes that a very difficult area to deal with, and it's something I think that what we have to do is decide what it is that the Town would like to do to address the issue, and then see if, within the confines of this as well as other laws, including, because you've got constitutional questions, here, free commerce and all this other stuff, that we deal with that you have to make sure that were reasonable, in terms of whatever we do. I don't think you can actually preclude somebody from coming in and selling, but you may be able to regulate under certain instances, and that's what we have to look for. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, can we add to our list, review and revise Transient Merchant Law? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Now, the next question is, do you want it on the Top 10? MR. MARTIN-I'd like to, but then again, that's a personal opinion. MR. LAPOINT-Well, after just reading this, I mean. 45 ~ '-"" MR. CARTIER-Well, that obviously puts some restrictions on it, but there is still, in Town, a local Town Transient Merchant Law that we may want to take a look at when we get into some of those concerns, perhaps , okay. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I guess Jim wants to know if we can get it on the Top 10. MR. LAPOINT-Add it, Transient Merchant Law review. MR. CARTIER-So, we're going to go to Top 11, all right. So, I'm going to revise this to read, below, the Top 11. Note, we're going to get our Top 11 from our original list of 23, okay. Okay if we add it at the bottom? MR. MARTIN-That's fine. MR. LAPOINT-Just Transient Merchant Law review? MR. CARTIER-Yes, review and revise Transient Merchant Law. Okay. Again, in case not everybody heard that, I'd like us to spend some time, next week, talking about this Planning Board organization stuff. We'll leave that until next week. I know I don't want to do it tonight. You all got a letter from Sidney Timms. You all got a letter from Queensbury Factory Outlet. Those are just informational letters. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. BREWER-No. MR. CARTIER-You didn't get those? MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARTIER-It's just an informational letter to say that they're going to postpone, they'll be in in February some time, with their application, basically, that's it, okay. MRS. PULVER-We have a meeting, tomorrow at 4 o'clock. MR. CARTIER-Yes. We have a meeting at 4 o'clock tomorrow. MR. LAPOINT-The subject is Diehl? MR. CARTIER-Diehl property, and that's all I know about it. Four o'clock, where, Mr. Borgos' conference room? MRS. YORK-Right, in the Supervisor's conference room. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has anybody got anything else? I don't. Thank you all. We are adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 46