Loading...
1992-01-21 "'-.--- ') / ~EEltSBURY PLNIUNG BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21ST, 1992 INDEX Subdivision No. 16-1991 SKETCH PLAN Sherman Pines Charles A. Diehl 4. Subdivision No. 11-1991 SKETCH PLAN Sunset Hill Farm Owner: Paul Knox, III 17. Subdivision No. 17-1991 FINAL STAGE Frank J. and Jessie C. Lockhart 31. Site Plan No. 55-91 OS CAP , LTD 32. Off Premises Sign No. 1-92 J A P Auto Fix 43. Subdivision No. 1-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE Stewart Subdivision 45. Site Plan No. 1-92 Mary Carol White 47. 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. ,'" '---- "~-.'./ QUEENSllJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21ST, 1992 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY EDWARD LAPOINT JAMES MARTI N TIMOTHY BREWER JAMES LAURICELLA TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH f> SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-We have some internal Board business to take care of, prior to getting into our regular agenda. So I ask that you bear with us. This is our annual organization meeting, and we have to come up with a new Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Secretary. Before we get into that, I would ask the Board's consideration of a letter I sent to you November 20, 1991, regarding dividing up, or a division of labor, if you will. I had tried to get to this, at a previous meeting, and we never got to it, because of the lengths of the meetings, but if you will recall, basically, my premise was that the Chairmanship involves a considerable amount of work, and that I thought it might be appropriate for this Board to consider dividing up some of the duties, in terms of some of the things that get done, and ease the workload on the Chairman. It might, lets see if we can do this rather quickly and efficiently, do you have a copy of that letter I'm referring to? Well, okay, let me just run through these with you, and maybe what we can do is come up with a consensus as to who on the Board it might be most appropriate to do this. Some of these are pretty obvious, but I think I want to cover the ground. Number One will involve keeping track of Board minutes as to which have been approved and those needing to be approved and informing the Chairman what set of minutes need to be approved, and at which meeting. Is it appropriate that the Secretary do that? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Putting in the lObby copies of the applications due for public hearing so that interested members of the public can look at them. We had talked about doing that. MRS. PULVER-I said I would do that. I've been very lax, but, wait a minute, whoever the secretary is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. At this point, we're just talking position. Drafting any necessary correspondence. I think that's kind of a mixed bag. MR. LAPOINT-As required, yes. MR. CARTIER-Probably. MR. MARTIN-Chairman, or if you have special designated committees. MR. CARTIER-Chairman, or it can be assigned by the Chairman. Right. Dealing with incoming correspondence and making the Board aware of such, in connection with specific applications. MRS. PULVER-I think that's a Planning Department. MR. CARTIER-Well, what happens is, though, sometimes stuff comes directly to the Chairman. It doesn't even go through the Planning Department. Like, I've got one. MRS. PULVER-Just send it to the Planning Department and they can make copies and send it out. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Item 5, at meetings, taking the Board through the SEQRA Review process, when necessary. MRS. PULVER-Give the Vice Chairman that job. MR. CARTIER-Vice Chairman? Okay. Six, setting up site visit schedule and informing Board members of the dates involved. I'll be glad to keep doing that. live been doing that right along. Okay. Running meetings. That's obviously the Chairman. Item 8, at meetings, keeping a list of items that need to be incorporated into a motion. 1 --.-r MRS. PULVER-I think the Vice Chairman can do that, too, considering that he. MR. MARTIN-Vice Chairman and Secretary, maybe, have two lists. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I was going to say, the Chairman doesn't make a motion, but the Vice Chairman would. So, he doesn't have to make the motion, but he could keep track. MR. MARTIN-I think if you have two different people doing that, the better chance. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and I think, actually, maybe we ought to, everybody bird dog that stuff on the Board, so that nothing gets missed. Item 9, liaison with other Boards. Just a quick comment on that, when I became Chairman, last January, it was with the clear understanding that the contact between this Board and other Boards would be limited to just that. There would be no individual contact without all the Planning Board being involved. I totally agreed with that, at the time. Things have changed, and I think it might be appropriate for us, I think we're at a point, I know we're at a point I think where we are comfortable enough with each other on this Board that maybe we can loosen that up. I think, as I mentioned to you in the past, the fact that, with this new Town Board, I think we're going to become much more active, as a Planning Board, then we have been in the past, and I would request, I guess, or suggest that maybe we loosen up on that restriction and allow the Chairman, whoever it will be, some contact, with the full understanding, however, that that contact does not in any way commit the Planning Board to something. Is that a reasonable suggestion? MRS. PULVER-I guess the only thing I'd like to add to that is I think that all Board members should be notified. MR. CARTIER-Certainly. Yes. MRS. PULVER-And a meeting set up, but I have no problem with the Chairman and the Vice Chairman meeting with the Town Board or, but I do like to know that they're meeting. MR. CARTIER-And also the results of those meetings, I think, need to be shared. MRS. PULVER-Right, but I think it's difficult to get, what, 12 people all sent to the same date and time. MR. CARTIER-Agreed. All right. Good. MRS. PULVER-But I think everyone should be informed of the comings and goings. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Good. Item 10, keeping track of resolution of complaints and informing Board members of such issues. I wish I could remember what I was referring to when I wrote that. I think it had something to do with a conversation we had, at one time, somebody, it may have been you, brought up a question about, well, when a complaint is submitted, how do we know what the resolution of that complaint is, and we wanted to know that. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Yes. When an applicant is not complying with the motion, and the example of that was Sears. Sears was approved to do his duplex, and he was not supposed to be running his logging business, and he continued to do that, and the neighbors were continuing to complain, but we had apparently no way to enforce, you know, we had no enforcement at the time, and we still don't. It's a little vague as to what our enforcement is, and I think what I was saying is that once you pass the complaint on, the complaint was made to the Planning Board. The Planning Board passes it on, that we should be informed, all the time, you know, who approached them, what was said, etc., etc., etc. I mean, it needs to be a more formal process than what we've got, where Dave Hatin comes and stands before us and says, yes, I went and called him and he's a nice guy and he's going to take care of it. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and I wish I could find it now, but I know I sat down one night and I roughed out a list that followed that complaint, a ' with a checklist on it that traveled with the written complaint and ended up back here. I have no idea where that is. MRS. PULVER-Okay. That would be a very good idea. We would take the complaint and send the sheet out, this is what it was, and expect some sort of response and correspondence on it. MR. CARTIER-I will try to find that. I make no promises, but I'll go back and look for it. I know I hand drafted that. MRS. YORK- I remember ta 1 ki ng to you about it, and you showed it to me, but we never got it typed or anything. MR. CARTIER-No. I know I didn't give it to you because I was still fooling around with it. I'll see if I can find that and start that process again. Okay. I guess my question, then, would be, who does that for us? Is that something we can palm off on the Planning Department? 2 ~ MRS. PULVER-Well, I think if we have a Checklist, which I think is a great idea. I like that idea. Some sort of Checklist to document what the complaint was that was made, we can hand it to Lee, or whatever, to send to the right person, and then that will be the beginning of our little paper trail. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-The problem I've had with this, in going back to Sears, again, is I talk with Dave, and then Dave would talk with Pat, and then he would come back and he'd tell me what Pat said, and he said, and she said, and he called, and they called, and I had all this hearsay and I couldn't keep straight of who actually did what or said what, but if I had a little paper trail, I'd be able to look to say, yes, she saw it on 1/10, and he did this on 1/15, and this is what it is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Yes. It's coming back to me, now. Essentially, what I had put together was, if somebody comes in, as rare as it occurs, somebody comes in with a complaint, and what it basically is is a complaint form. They fill out their name, address, the nature of the complaint, and then there's a routing part of it, routed to so and so, received on such and such a date, resol ution of, how the complaint was dealt with and so on and so forth, then it comes back. I'll see if I can find that. Again, I make no promises. If I can, I'll rough it out again. MRS. PULVER- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Good. Thank you. Having said all that, I need to appoint an official ballot counter. Mrs. York, I would ask that you do that, when we get through these ballots, and Mr. Dusek, I would ask that you confirm the count and, also, announce the results of that count. I've got ballots for you. These are a little bit different than what we did the last time, in that they're all on one, and we need to add, what I suggest you do is you add to the right side of the name list, Vice Chairman, with a blank below that. I would remind the Board that I do not wish to be considered for the Chairmanship. So, what we can do is fill these things out and hand them in to Lee. Also, while Lee is collecting and counting these things, I would like to extend my very sincere, personal thanks to the Staff, and the Board, for that matter, but the Staff in particular, for the help I've had in the last year. This is a somewhat difficult job, and the Staff has done a superb job, and I thank you very much, very sincerely, for your help. I always got an answer, sometimes even before I asked the question, which helps a great deal. Lee, could you collect these and count them, please, and announce the results, please. While that's happening, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, is there anything going on, in terms of a new Planning Board member? BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-There is? Good. MRS. MONAHAN-We're getting resumes in and we'll be looking at them. MR. CARTIER-Wonderful. Thank you very much. MRS. MONAHAN-And if you know anyone else that would like to apply, ask them to do it real quickly. PLlNEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-We've got a stack of letters like that. MR. CARTIER-Great. Thank you. Delighted. Also, while that's going on, in case anybody missed it, we've got four sets of minutes, but we're going to hold off on that until the 28th, the minutes being November 26th, December 3rd, December 17, and December 19. MR. DUSEK-Okay, and we have, proposed Chairman, James Martin, Vice Chairman, Ed LaPoint, Secretary, Carol Pulver. MR. CARTIER-Wonderful. Congratulations to all of you. I will switch chairs with you right now. MR. MARTIN-Thank you all very much. I just want to say I think this is going to be an exciting year for the Board. We laid out some goals, here, that we hope to achieve, and I look forward, as Pete said, working together to achieve those, and working with the Town Board in achieving those as well and with that, enough being said, we'll get started. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, not to interrupt on your first evening here. Was there a motion made and adopted to send this to the Town Board, this vote? You took the vote, we announced it, but you should make a motion to direct that this be sent. MR. MARTIN-For the recommendation. 3 -- --- MR. DUSEK-Right. .lnION THAT THE SECRETARY IItITE A LETTER TO THE TOWN BOARD IIIDICATIII6 OOR RECOIIDDATIOIS AS TO MR. MARTIN BEING CHAIRMAJI, MR. LAPOIIT BEING VICE CHAIRMII, AND MRS. PULVER BEING SECRETARY, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Okay. Then we'll get right on with the regular business. OLD IIJSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1991 TYPE I SR-20 SKETCH PLAN SHERMAN PINES CHARLES A. DIEII. OWNER:-- SAlE AS ABOVE SOUTH SIDE OF SHERMAN AVEflJE, APPROX. 1,490 FT. EASTERLY OF INTERSECTION OF lEST IlJUNTAIN ROAD AND SHERMAN AVEflJE FOR A SUBDIVISION OF UP TO 100 UNITS. A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND TOWNHOOSES. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO 0lIl ALL OPEN SPACE AND COIIIJN AREA. TAX MAP NO. 121-1-22.1 LOT SIZE: 48.275 ACRES SECTION SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS CROSS REFERENCE: PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE: PI-91, CHARLES DIEHL, RE-ZONED TO SR-20 ON 10/9/91 PER RESOLUTION NO. 530 OF 1991. WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CHARLES DIEHL, PRESENT (7:23 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 16-1991, Charles A. Diehl - Sherman Pines, 1-17-92, Meeting Date: January 21, 1992 "The Planning Board requested alternative designs with a mix of single family and multifamily dwelling units. The Board has been provided with three plans to work with. A request has also been made that the minutes of the re-zoning meeting with the Town Board be supplied to the Planning Board so the rationale and objectives for the re-zoning could be considered. These are attached. The Highway Superintendent has indicated that he would prefer no cul-de-sac. A continuing concern of the staff is that the accessways to the multifamily units be considered as roads for vehicular circulation (refer to Section 179-62). The Staff believes that putting 52 (plan S3) to 56 (plan A2) townhouses on driveways is inappropriate. The purpose of clustering is to allow a flexibility of design which promotes the most appropriate use of land so as to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open land. The issues which should be considered and weighed in selecting a preferred alternative are: 1) An orderly and reasonable layout and design allowing for the density while being in keeping with standard circulation patterns and neighborhood character. 2) The character and size of the proposed development and the intensity of that use on the surrounding land and infrastructure. 3) The nature and rate of the increase in burden on supporting public services and facilities. The Board may want to examine traffic from the different development types: Septic from the different types of housing types and potential impact on the aquifer. Green space and permeable area in the different development plans. Pedestrian circulation and buffering issues. Fire and emergency vehicle access." MR. MARTIN-Okay. And we have a letter here from Tom Flaherty, the Water Superintendent, to Lee York, dated 1/9/92, "In regard to your request that I review the above plans as they relate to the installation of water mains and appurtenances. The plans as submitted to this office lack sufficient information to make a proper review." I guess he's saying he wants to wait until Preliminary and Final to comment? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. Do we have anything from engineering, or no? MR. YARMOWICH-There was no further engineering. The comments were made at the previous Sketch Plan. MR. MARTIN-All right. The last thing, before we get into this, we have a request from the applicant for a six month extension on the Preliminary approval. Does the Board want to deal with that right now, or wait to the end? MR. CARTIER-We can get that out of the way, if you want. MR. MARTIN-Could I have a motion, then, to that effect? IIJTION TO APPROVE A SIX IIHI1H EXTENSION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1990 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR THE SHERMII PINES SUBDIVISION, AT THE RE~EST OF THE APPLICANT. THE SIX II)ITII EXTENSION COIIÐCING AT THE aiD OF THE PRIOR APPROVAL PERIOD., Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: 4 '- ---- Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Okay. I guess we're ready to hear from the applicant, then. MR. MATHIAS-Good evening. My name is Wilson Mathias. I'm here on behalf of Charlie Diehl, the applicant, the owner and developer. We've been through this more times than I like to think. I think the purpose of this meeting was to present several alternatives to you that attempt to address the question of providing single family detached residential units along with the attached dwelling units. Again, under both of these plans, the covenants and restrictions under which this property was re-zoned by the Town Board would be applicable. Really what we're looking at here tonight is an alternative form of layout to compare, really, these designs with the initial application which consisted entirely of attached units. I think that, at least in my opinion, either one of these plans complies with the covenants and restrictions that were imposed, or made a condition for the re-zoning, and superseded above all of that, of course, is the whole restriction with respect to affordability, which is spelled out. I just have really one other brief comment, here. Both plans actually contain more units than are authorized by re-zoning, and we understand that. We acknowledge that we're limited to no more than 100 residential dwelling units, and what ultimately gets submitted to you will, of course, be only 100 units. The plan on the right, with the one large loop and no cul-de-sacs, has approximately 3,000 square feet of road, contains 50 individual lots, and shows 56 townhouses. Obviously, six of those would be eliminated, if that's the general configuration that you go with. I think there's, in our opinion that looks a little more like what was initially presented to the Board, in the sense it contained one larger loop. Obviously, the road size, here, has increased, but I think that this plan optimizes the amount of area to be left undisturbed. You'll note, here, and it's all set up in green, but on your plans you can see that where the squiggly lines are really is the area that will remain undisturbed, won't be touched. The other green area will not be built on. However, it'll be available for either septic systems or the reserve capacity for septic systems, but again I think this, whether you say undisturbed, and certainly, I think based on the undisturbed amount alone, we have a high percentage that we're going to leave untouched, but we're going to have a buffer of 100 feet of undisturbed property lying to the south of Sherman Avenue. On the other plan, the other alternative, it's a slightly large amount of Town road. It results in two cul-de-sacs. On that one, there are 50 individual lots and 52 townhomes. Obviously, we'd eliminate at least two of the townhouses, if that's the arrangement that's acceptable to you folks. Again, the areas of, the same 100 foot buffer to Sherman Avenue would be maintained. That's an area that wouldn't be disturbed, and, again, there are areas within that plan that would remain, where no cutting or no disturbance would take place. I think that the first plan on the right has a slightly larger percentage of undisturbed area, but, again, taking a step back, particularly to the meeting that this Board had with the Town Board, our intent here was to just throw something up to say, give us a sense and direction that we ought to go, if this mixture of single family unattached lots and single family detached lot mixture, give us an idea which way you want us to go, and that's really what we're trying to present, two different alternatives, and we'd like your input in order to be able to come back and give you some more detail. MR. MARTIN-You had other designs in the packet, and these, I take it, are the two preferred, then, that were shown to us, S2 and so on, and these are the two preferred, I would assume, then? MR. MATHIAS-Right. Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Are all these up for discussion, or just these two, then? MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think that in the second packet we gave you, if you laid it all out, it's going to look like this. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MATHIAS-We've just attached them. So, we've presented two alternatives, plus the original alternative of 100 attached units. MR. MARTIN-I see. Okay. All right. Well, what's the Board's impression, here, of the new design? MR. CARTIER-Well, I think, in terms of the Highway Department's, Mr. Naylor's letter, I think that simplifies it for us, in terms of, he's saying he doesn't want cul-de-sacs, which, in my mind anyway, pretty much takes care of the left hand alternative. So, now we're looking at this one. Correct me if I'm wrong, this A2 is, essentially, the same one that we looked at when we met with the Town Board, correct? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. MATHIAS-No. MR. MARTIN-That was all single family. 5 -.. -...-' MRS. PULVER-All single family. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. That was all single family. MR. CARTIER-That's right. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. I didn't bring that out, for a variety of reasons. MR. MARTIN-So, that there represents a perfect balance of 50 and 50. MRS. PULVER-No, that actually has more. MR. MATHIAS-That has too many. We'd eliminate six of them, and I think one of the Staff's comments, if we go with that type of a design, and something the engineers are going to have to address, is the issue of, really, the internal traffic flow within those units, and the access to them from the public road. MR. MARTIN-But your impression would be that it would be six of the townhouse? MR. MATHIAS-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Well, I very much like this plan, just because there's less construction going on there, but you have this one single lot coming in off the road, and then, and if you eliminated two of the townhouses. You have to eliminate six units, right? MR. MATHIAS-Yes. MRS. PULVER-I mean, that little lot looks strange there. MR. MATHIAS-One of the things that I like about this plan, that I think makes some sense, is that this one gives you some provision for flexibility, in terms of the phasing of the thing, so that you can, if, for instance, you either had a cul-de-sac somewhere here or maybe even there, and you had some single homes, and you had eight townhouses, then you'd certainly see what the market was going to do, in terms of developing these further on. The one thing, and I know Lee in particular has some concerns about stretching the units really so far from the Town road, and we'll try to address that, but one of the things we have tried to do, even in this design, is to basically have the front viewpoints of all these units face into undisturbed area, so that the sense here will be of a more private thing, as opposed to just gazing out at a whole bunch of other townhouses. MR. MARTIN-The other thing is I think it also masks the appearance of the whole project from the main road in which we're coming in off of. MR. MATHIAS-From the main road, I don't think you're going to be able to tell what's going on out there, other than the fact there are going to be two roadways, which is what we proposed, really, back in the first one. MRS. YORK-If I could just interject, here, for a moment, I think that those townhouses are very deceiving. Those are each eight units. Each complex is eight units, okay. Those aren't four units. I just wanted you to be aware of that. MRS. PULVER-No. Each little unit is two units. MR. MARTIN-No, no, no. MR. CARTIER-In one of the blue units, lets do this by color, one blue unit contains how many dwelling units? Do you see what I'm saying? MR. MATHIAS-I know. I'm going to make sure that I don't misspeak, because I counted them up. There are 56 of them, here. MRS. PULVER-Four units. MR. BREWER-This would be two units, here. MRS. PULVER-No, that's four units. MR. MATHIAS-Four. Each one is four. MR. BREWER-But I'm saying, this right here is two units? MRS. PULVER-That's four. 6 , "'----, --" MR. CARTIER-First and second floor, correct, two story? MR. MATHIAS-No. MR. MARTIN-They're all right next to each other, right? Four in a series. MR. MATHIAS-One right next to each other, right. MR. CARTIER-All right. MR. MARTIN-So, it would have the appearance, similar to Dixon Heights. They're right next to each other. MRS. PULVER-Right. It has the appearance of two and two, though, you see the way there's the little bit of green that comes in between the pink, up to the blue? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-But each one of the blues are four units. MR. CARTIER-How would you propose to handle the Planning Department's concern about those long driveways, because I agree with that? MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think what we'd have to do, if we're going with that alternative on the right is, obviously, the engineers would have to design them in a slightly different configuration. It might be that they'd, again, have to clump them up a little bit closer to avoid, I think one of the things we don't want to do is anymore clearing and to do that, you're going to have to put them together. MRS. PULVER-Well, you're going to have a homeowners association, too. So, if you wanted to just keep them driveways, you could make provisions that the homeowners association would have to pay for the snow removal or whatever. MR. MATHIAS-I think that's clear. We're not proposing that those, those aren't going to be town roads. MR. MARTIN-Was there any consideration ever given to, like, cluster the multiplex units in pods? In other words, instead of having them all in a linear type line, having them all like on a. MRS. PULVER-A cul-de-sac? MR. MARTIN-Well, a cul-de-sac, in this case, would be all right because they'd be private cul-de-sacs, but something of that nature, so you could shorten the drives that way. That eliminates, though, you would look out your window and look across at another, but. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. I think that what we really want to get over the hump, here, was the issue of the mixture of types of single family residences, and I think, really, that the next step is to address that principle concern, which is. MR. MARTIN-You mean, work within this concept as designed, to fine tune this? MR. MATHIAS-Right, and move things around to address the concern that you have. MR. LAURICELLA-What about interconnecting those drives, so you would have a circulation pattern? MR. MATHIAS-You mean, as in between the pods? I mean, something like that might make some sense. MR. MARTIN-Or at least walkways, maybe. MR. MATHIAS-Or walkways might make some sense. That's what, one of the things, even though somebody in the Planning Department said the one on the left looked a little like Mickey Mouse, but one of the things that would be of benefit with something like that, again, if the concept is, not only are you going to have a mixture of housing types, but you're going to, hopefully, be attracting a mixture of homeowners to be a part of this community, people with kids and people without, you know, to have areas for walking makes a lot of sense. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't know how everybody else feels, but encourage showing some sidewalks there, from pod to pod, or at least clearing for walkways. MR. BREWER-I think you're going to get those anyway. You're going to get natural walkways. MR. MATHIAS-I suspect you will, yes. If there are any children, there will be some. 7 .. MRS. PULVER-Right. I think that's a landscaping thing and not, maybe, a Planning Board issue, at this point, to have sidewalks. MRS. YORK-If you could just look on Page 18030 of your Zoning Ordinance, where it says, down at the bottom, "B. Access". MR. CARTIER-Zoning or subdivision? MRS. YORK-Zoning. MR. MATHIAS-I also had a chance to look at, I was looking at the New York State Building Code, and I think the Building Code calls for multifamily dwellings to be no more than 100 feet off a public accessway, if that's a concern. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lee, what are you referring to, the access? MRS. YORK-Road Designs, all non public roads used for vehicular circulation in all multifamily projects shall be designed in width, curvature, etc., to accommodate service and emergency vehicles, and meet all town standards for public roads. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Then you just answered the question I had about your paragraph. You're saying even though it's going to be a non public road, it must meet the standards. MRS. YORK-What I'm saying to this Board is, I guess there may be a zoning interpretation, here, whether these are for vehicular circulation. I don't know for sure, but I would recommend that 56 units do not be left on driveways, okay. I think that's the intent of the Ordinance, and I think this Board has the power to decide, in a subdivision. MR. CARTIER-I strongly agree with what you're saying, and I don't see the need for an interpretation here. This is going to be vehicular circulation. We're not talking about people parking on a town road and walking into these units. Vehicles are, in fact, going to circulate in here and park between the buildings. So, I don't see the need for an interpretation from anybody. MRS. YORK-You may just want to put a second loop road. MR. MATHIAS-Well, again, the whole key, in terms of putting in the, you know, we can put lots of roads in there. It gets very expensive to do so, and that's the, you know, one of the ways in designing this with the 100 units as attached townhouses, which certainly had similar problems in terms of driveways, and we didn't have them all popping right off the Town road, was to allow for the construction of private roadways that would not have to meet the Town specifications for roads. MR. CARTIER-But, see, thi s i sn' t even, as far as I'm concerned, personally, anyway, thi s i sn' t even a debatable issue, because it says right here in the Ordinance, all non public roads used for vehicular circulation in all multifamily projects shall be designed in width, curvature, etc. to accommodate service and emergency vehicles and shall meet all Town standards for public roads. If you're not going to go that route, then this is subject to a variance request, basically, is what this amounts to. In other words, this Board can't sit here and waive that. This Board cannot, legally, sit here and say, okay, it's all right to make those driveways. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think once we get a plan showing exactly where they are, and where the configuration is, we can address that particular point. MR. MARTIN-Well, getting back to my comment about making those, like, in a pod configuration, I think you would address that issue. I think that, in itself, would take care of this section here, at a minimal cost. MR. BREWER-He's still going to have to get into the back units, isn't he, though? So, there's still going to have to be a road of some sort. MR. LAURICELLA-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I'm saying, if he can take these three here, rather than having them in linear, have them positioned like that. Do you see what I'm saying? I don't know if that's possible, or if that'll take care of Lee's road comments, but I think that shortens your distance here, and it would make the road issue, maybe easier to deal with. CHARLIE DIEHL MR. DIEHL-My name is Charlie Diehl, the developer of the project. I would think that if we took this unit, here, and moved it over, you're creating more green, here, and there is room to fit these in, because you're going to eliminate some of these anyway, to bring it down to the number of 100. 8 -- MR. MATHIAS-Well, however we configure them, I think when we go back to the engineer, these are the comments we're going to say, here's where we'd like you to come up with, so that we. MR. MARTIN-Right. Yes, well, that's what I think the Board is saying, as you go back to the engineer, highlight this section of the Ordinance, in regards to the access. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I would also, in reading this section of the Ordinance, too, flag Page 18031. There's reference to pedestrian walkways there, too. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. Again, I want to look at this Section of the Ordinance myself, in terms of looking to see what it means with multifamily. Do we have a multifamily project, under the terms of the Ordinance, or not, and those types of issues. I mean, any subdivision is multiples of families. Peter, I don't want to split hairs with you tonight. MRS. PULVER-Yes. We don't need to debate that tonight. Next time when we look at it, you'll know that we'll be armed and dangerous. MR. MATHIAS-I'll certainly know where you're coming from, yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it's quickly solved. Any building used or designed as a residence for two or more families, and then if these have four in each building, then they fall into that definition. MR. CARTIER-Yes. That definitely applies. I don't think there's a debate, here, because, as Tim points out, it says multiple family dwellings and the townhouses are, in fact, multiple family dwellings. So, at least on my part, there's no vague area, here, okay. These are, in fact, multiple family dwellings. So that section's going to apply. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think Wilson is saying they'll comply with whatever right? MR. MATHIAS-We have to. MRS. PULVER-Yes. They're willing to do it. MR. CARTIER-Great. MR. MARTIN-What's the consensus of the Board, here? It appears that we have a general plan that we can move forward, here, with, and do you want to accept any comments from the public? I see Mrs. Monahan. Do you have anything you'd like to say? MRS. MONAHAN-Yes. I would like to address the Board. The Town Board has looked at the plans, looked at their original objective for the re-zoning, and frankly the Town Board is disappointed in either of these alternative plans. We still do not feel that it met the objectives that were presented to us when we re-zoned, nor what we discussed with you in our joint meeting, and I will read just a little bit, "Mr. Borgos - We approved the re-zoning based on a plan we looked at on a clustering design on a minimal impact to the environment on the SEQRA statement and review based on the minimal impact relatively for the roads, and most of the lands left undisturbed. Mrs. Potenza - When this was initially presented to the Board, it was my opinion that it filled the needs of what was required in the present Master Plan that offered the cluster effect. It offered an open area green space effect that the citizens of this Town literally screamed for when we wrote the Master Plan. It offered 100 affordable units, a different idea from what had been initially introduced into this Town, and that is why I supported that. I think that you are really comparing apples and oranges when I'm looking at this concept which was a little different than the one we have here over the original one." If you remember, we talked, originally, about trying to leave as much of the land as possible undisturbed, and we got into that as one of the criteria, that leaving a high percentage of the land undisturbed, doing clustering as much as possible, having the infrastructure to the least degree as possible, also thinking of future maintenance of the Town. We also think there may be protected species on that property. The developer was going to have that looked into. I don't know if we have that report. We do not feel, and this includes the new Town Board, we do not feel that this meets the objectives of the original re-zoning, and we would be happy to set up a meeting and discuss this with you at any time. MR. CARTIER-Well, Betty, I guess I'm confused, because I came out of that meeting with the impression that we had come up with some sort of compromise, in terms of single family and townhouses. MRS. MONAHAN-We did, with the mix. I don't think the Town Board envisioned a 50 50 split, nor do I, if you remember, Steve said maybe some of those pods could be used to put single family on. I don't think anybody envisioned this kind of a sprawl, to be honest with you, and that much of a road type of a system in there, and we definitely steered away, if you remember, saying a 50 50 split between single family and the common wall structure. MR. CARTIER-50 50 in terms of percent or number of units? MRS. MONAHAN-It's the same thing. 9 -...-' -' MR. CARTIER-Well, no, because one of the things I remember coming out of that discussion was that we had originally talked about 100 units, and then Mr. Mathias, or Mr. Diehl had made reference to possibly less than 100 units, somewhere in that meeting. MRS. MONAHAN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And when I walked out of that meeting, I expected to get a mix of cluster types. I expected to get a mix of clustered townhouses and a mix of clustered single family units. That's what I expected to see, and, frankly, I expected to see less than 100 units, because I walked out of that meeting saying, there's no way he's going to get 50 townhouses in there and 50 single family units clustered. So, I expected to see less than 100. MRS. MONAHAN-And you have 100 there. MR. CARTIER-I know. MRS. MONAHAN-And I think that's exactly where we're seeing eye to eye, Pete. We did not expect to see, I don't think we expected to see this kind of a configuration and call it clustering, to be honest with you. To me, those are single family lots smaller, checkerboarded, and if you remember, I discussed smaller checkerboard lots, strung along a street. I mean, legally, that may qualify as clustering, but visually, what we had envisioned in our mind, I'm sure does not meet what we were talking about when we talked about clustering single family homes, because our idea was to maintain and leave as undisturbed of that property as much as possible. MRS. PULVER-Well, I was at that meeting, too, and I somewhat came away thinking there would be a few less, I had 96 in my mind. I don't know why. Maybe I just pulled that out, but somewhat less than 100 units, but I actually expected something like this. I was not surprised at all. MRS. YORK-Mr. Mathias, perhaps if you could make a comparison for the Board of the undisturbed space, the amount of roadways, number of units per all three submissions to this Board. Do you have something like that accomplished? MRS. PULVER-That's probably more than what's required at Sketch Plan, isn't it? MR. MATHIAS-Yes. I mean, I guess that's the whole point. Also, at that meeting, the discussion was, throw something up on a tax map and give it to us. I think that one of the difficulties, in terms of getting a project through, is that there are a lot of folks to try to make happy, and I'm not saying that's necessarily bad. We were the ones who approached the Town Board to make a change, and so, obviously, to get what we wanted with them we had to make them happy, and then it's on to you, but one of the things that's difficult, I think, from a design point in terms of saying, well, we want to see a lot more clustering, certainly traditional clustering includes a lot of cul-de-sacs. Again, I'm not a landscape architect, and I'm sure that we could get one who could have a wonderful innovative cluster design that maybe avoided the use of cul-de-sacs, but given the resources available to put an affordable income project forward here, that's one of the ways that comes to mind. Well, the Town Highway Superintendent doesn't like cul-de-sacs. MR. CARTIER-But, wait a minute. If these cul-de-sacs are going to be private roads and privately maintained, where there'll be no Town Highway vehicles on those roads to maintain them, I certainly don't have a problem with cul-de-sacs, because Mr. Naylor does not have to concern himself with those cul-de-sacs. So I don't, personally, speaking for me, I don't have a problem with that. I can see where he's coming from, in terms of public, right-of-way cul-de-sacs, and I'm going to take his word on that, but this situation, this is different. MRS. PULVER-But Peter, back to the clustering, you go to cul-de-sacs, you are using much more green space, putting in much more infrastructure. We're paving much more. As far as the environment, we're losing a lot from the environment to make lots around the circle. MR. MARTIN-Really, I think the design there, on the right, is, with the understanding that we're looking for a compromise among varying parties here, I don't think that's so bad. There is some clustering there. We're maintaining a lot of green space. I acknowledge that there's a linear design to the single family homes there. However, there is no cul-de-sac, and the maintenance, from that standpoint, would be easier for the Highway Department. The one concern is, like Lee said, the access for emergency vehicles and so on, into the multiplex units, but, beyond that, the rest of the development could be very easily served by emergency vehicles, and maintained. MR. CARTIER-If we down-sized this thing, and I'm not trying to pin you to a number here, but if we talk about less than 100 units, that opens up some flexibility as to what you do in here. MR. MATHIAS-Well, and I think we acknowledge that, and I think one of the reasons that you start, probably, at 106 is you know you're going to get to 100 now, and you're going to go down from there. I mean, isn't that part of the process here? 10 --' -- MRS. PULVER-Yes. I'd just like to make a comment that they are going to take this plan and go back and reconfigure some things and they may possibly get less than 100 units. So, we're not looking at the final plan right here. We're just looking at a concept that we think we're interested in. I think the second one is, A2, is a very workable development. MR. LAPOINT-Just for example, if you were to take eight of those individual lots off one of those bends and move one of the clusters out onto a bend, let me see if I can, Betty, your objective is to get a higher percentage of multi dwelling units? MRS. MONAHAN-I think that was one of the objectives of the Town Board, for several reasons. This gives a different type of housing than is available out there under what we call the affordable housing. We have the Adams and Rich, and we made that point during the discussion. We have the Adams and Rich at a certain number. It's a small number of units, yes, but we also think that people looking for affordable houses, starter families, single parent families, and seniors need to be able to have some choices in their type of living styles, and this was one reason that we did this re-zoning, to give them that kind of choice, and I think, yes, you've cut down, the common wall dwellings have been cut down by a considerable number, and that's another thing that uses up more green space. During the presentation to us, that appealed to us, and I'm quoting Mr. Mathias, "It would appear to me that roughly 15 acres or so of the 48 would be disturbed, in terms of building sites and the road, thereby preserving approximately 66 percent of the property in its natural state". MR. LAPOINT-This is for the original plan that we took a look at? MRS. MONAHAN-This is when he came to us with the plan for the re-zoning, and the reason he sold us on the re-zoning was these concepts that were within it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That was the first plan we saw in November? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-That we didn't like, and we sent them back to take a look at alternatives. MR. BREWER-We asked him to come back with an alternative. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, we're looking at increasing the percentage of multiple units. At the same time, decreasing the overall quantity, the two general directions we're looking at. MR. CARTIER-It sounds like you're doing what I was just about to write down, here, is kind of come up with a summation of what we're looking for. MR. LAPOINT-Right, just get direction. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-What we've done here is we introduced a single family detached concept into the project that was not shown in the original plan. That's the major change, and by doing so, by it's nature, you're taking up more land for development. MR. CARTIER-But if you reduce the number of units, you get some of that land back. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-And increase the percentage of multifamily units. MR. MARTIN-Right. I think also, to a degree, this is visually deceptive in that we're showing those lots as they're all, and it looks like, in your mind, they're all blocked out as all developed. I mean, the houses are going to be a very small percentage within those lots. So, a lot of that's going to remain as lawn area and so on. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but each one of those blue units is eight units, and you compare it to the lot. Now picture one little three bedroom ranch or two bedroom ranch on that lot. It takes up a very small little piece of that lot. MRS. MONAHAN-You could also picture that you're going to have outbuildings and stuff on those single lots too. MR. MARTIN-Well, you have garages and sheds. MRS. PULVER-Yes. You're going to have garages and septic. 11 ~ -...-' MRS. MONAHAN-Again, going back to Mr. Mathias presentation, and the mixture is great. "Another thing that the master plan talks about is the mixture of housing types which I think that the Town has come, you know, the concept obviously provides a little different alternative to the Adams Rich single family detached residences. I think that, again, the master plan refers to zero lot lines and innovative zoning techniques and clearly that's what we're utilizing over here", and I agree with introducing the single family. I just think it's gone, not only myself, but the other Board members that I'm speaking for, that perhaps it's gone too far that way. MR. CARTIER-You mean the 50 50 mix is not. MR. MONAHAN- Yes. MR. BREWER-75, 25. MR. CARTIER-Or something like that. MRS. MONAHAN-I think you almost have to look for appearance sake and try and leave as much green space and undisturbed and get the best of two worlds, as much as you can. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're on the same wavelength, anyway, and I think some of the other Board members are, here. So, if I could pick up maybe where Ed left off. Here's what I'm hearing, and both what I'm hearing and what I'd like to see here, less than 100 units, and I don't want to put a number on this. I don't want to have to pin you down, less than 100 units, a mix of clusters, townhouse clusters, single family clusters. Now I'm hearing less of the single family. Lets drop the 50 percent mix, and go less of the single family mix and more of the townhouse, correct? 1'm just trying to toss this out. Let me just finish this, okay. Phased, and in your first phase I'd like to see a mix, and lets see what sells before we do any other phases beyond that first phase. We might find out we're stuck with a bunch of unsold townhouses, or we're stuck with a bunch of unsold single family lots, whichever's the case, and I think what we ought to do is leave ourselves some flexibility for Phase II and Phase III on this thing. Pliney, you look like you want to say something. Can I ask? You're a builder, that's why I'm asking you. PLlNEY TUCKER MR. TUCKER-It bothers me that you, as a Board, you sit here thinking about the economics of this thing. If this gentleman comes along here and wants to build 100 townhouses there, and he takes a chance on the market, to do this, why it should be a problem to the Board whether they sell or not. MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, Pliney, why should it be up to the Town Board to say that he has to build 100 quadraplexes, or whatever? MR. TUCKER-Wait a minute. What I'm saying is that we, as the Town Board, or you as the Planning Board, shouldn't get involved in the economics of it, as far as Mr. Diehl is concerned. MR. CARTIER-I'm not so much getting involved in the economics of it, as wanting, if we're going to talk about affordable housing, lets find out what is wanted out there, as far as affordable housing. MR. MARTIN-Right. I'm not concerned about the economics. I'm concerned about the social benefit. If that's what we're hanging our hat on, here, and that was the principle reason behind him increasing from his 48 approved lot subdivision to 100 was the social benefit of affordable housing, then what I'm concerned with, as a Planning Board member, is what is the need of the community? And when I see Inspiration Park out there with 42 available single family detached houses on individual lots and they have 65 applicants walk through the door, they have to turn away over 20 people, that says to me that there's a demand there for single family detached. When I see townhouse projects around the Town, like across the street, here, sitting there waiting for people to come through the door, and one's only half built because they're not selling any, and there's other projects around the Town, then that says to me, okay, maybe it shouldn't be all 100 percent zero lot line. Maybe there should be that opportunity for the single family detached. It's strictly based on need. MR. TUCKER-But I think one thing that this Board ought to determine is what is affordable. A guy making $100,000 a year can afford $150,000 or $200,000 house. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. TUCKER-A guy making $30,000 a year can afford a $40 or $50,000 house. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. MR. TUCKER-So, you've got to determine, up front, what people you want to help, here. MR. MARTIN-Right. 12 --------- --- MRS. PULVER-Well, the Town Board decided that when they did the re-zoning, that they would have to attract no more than 120 percent of median income for these houses. So that puts it at about $36,000 income, a family of four. A family of four earning $36,000 is what will be able to afford these houses. So, these houses have to be targeted for someone making a $36,000 income, family of four, to purchase. MR. TUCKER-What size are those detached, half acre? MRS. PULVER-No. They're probably a third. MR. MARTIN-A third of an acre, I think, is what we discussed, but what studies will show, Pliney, is when you sell somebody a zero lot line common wall unit, chances are that's going to be a transitional thing where they're there a few months, a couple of years, and they move on, but when you sell someone a single family detached home, that they can take pride in, build on, expand, settle into, then maybe you have a more stable neighborhood and people stay around longer. MR. TUCKER-I'd like to point something out to you. I've been building houses over in Hidden Hills on third acre lots. Do you know what I paid for the last two lots I bought in there? $22,500 a piece. Now, when you pay $22,500 for a third of an acre, you're not going to put a house on there that's going to sell for $60, $70, or $80,000. You're just not going to do it, and I'm sure they're not making this stuff anymore, and I'm talking about land, okay. So, if four or five years ago, in Hidden Hills, these lots were worth $22,500, these lots are going to be worth more than that today, and I think affordable housing is a nice word, but affordable depends on who's saying it. MR. MARTIN-Exactly. MR. TUCKER-Okay, and I wasn't on any Board when this was brought up, and they were talking about clustering to keep the cost down, to make them affordable. Just to clear my mind, is any of that road, say you're lucky and you get this, going to be Town road? MR. MARTIN-The loop. MR. MATHIAS-When we get it. Three thousand feet of Town road, and I know that the number that sticks in my mind on the other one is 1900, in terms of the presentation that we made to the Town Board originally. So there's an expansion. I mean, that's what happens to get the units in. MR. MARTIN-What I think is very wise, here, is, and I think what Peter said in one of his comments is that if we can do this in a phase manner, where we allow him the opportunity to do either, then we don't have to sit here and argue about who's right. MR. TUCKER-No. What I'm saying is, you've got to phase it. Isn't that the rules and regulations, you've got to phase it? MR. CARTIER-Yes, by law, 35 units first, maximum. MR. TUCKER-What I think should happen is these gentleman here, and you people decide what is going to be affordable, here, and if it can be done before it even starts. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think, as Carol's already pointed out, that's been taken care of by the previous Town Board. MR. MATHIAS-I mean, one of the things, he couldn't sell a lot, well, I suppose he could sell a lot for $22,000, but, actually, I don't know if he could. I think what we're looking at is a project where someone's going to get a house or some form of dwelling unit, whether it's a single family or an attached unit, and I should open my letter, but I think that the price range, based on the numbers that I got from a knowledgeable affordable housing developer was somewhere between $66 and $88,000. That's where these things are going to come in, and that's assuming the income levels, the median income level in Queensbury stays the same. If it goes up, the prices go up. If it goes down, it's going to go. We're keyed in that way. MR. CARTIER-That number falls within the criteria set by the Town Board for this re-zoning, correct? MR. MATHIAS-Right. So, we're really, he's locked in. I mean, that was his deal to get the additional units. MR. TUCKER-I know where you're coming from. He was locked in with that at the original plan, which was. MRS. PULVER-No. He's locked into that on the original re-zoning. MR. MATHIAS-Re-zoning. No matter what, if we want to have. MRS. MONAHAN-It's in the covenants, Pliney. The covenants have been filed on the land at Warren County. 13 , -----' MR. TUCKER-I understand that, but that was before the Planning Board asked for this new design, was it not? MR. MATHIAS-Even with this design, we're still stuck with those covenants and restrictions. MR. BREWER-Because of the amount of units, is what the re-zoning was for, the amount of units. MR. MARTIN-No matter what the plan or configuration, he is bound by that cost limitation. MR. TUCKER-I understand that, but if he's only coming up with 50 units or 60 units, it's a lot harder to make a profit on it, then if he's coming up with 100 units. MRS. PULVER-But that's not our concern. That's not our concern. MR. CARTIER-But then we're back in economic issues, and we're trying to stay out of that. MR. TUCKER-You're not concerned about that? MR. MARTIN-This Board, that's not a concern. What we're trying to do is fill the community need as best we can, as it relates to the master plan, and there's a philosophical disagreement between some members of this Board and some members of the Town Board, as to what that is. So, therefore, I think, you know, some people want zero lot line attached. Other people want the detached single family home on its own lot. I think the best approach is to work on a plan that allows him to take that, on either front, and see where the market takes him. MR. TUCKER-Okay. Thank you. MR. YARMOWICH-I'd like to add, just some information. During that discussion, I took a copy of the plan that was submitted showing the pure clustering concept. It appeared as though there was about 25 acres of disturbance. The SEQRA Form indicated there was approximately 20, and that was a very space saving type design, putting 100 units down on 48 acres, and achieving in the 20 to 25 acre magnitude disturbance is about, well, I'd say that's probably efficient design. It would be interesting to know, with these additional single families, actually how much disturbance is going to be created. Anyone keeping the notion that it's going to be in the 15 acre range, under an entire clustering concept, would be mistaken. MRS. MONAHAN-Jim, I'd just like to add some information, on what you said, that you think the common wall will be transitional families. If you look out in Queensbury and through the nation as a whole, the population is getting older. Eventually, my generation is going to be the top heavy generation. Friends of mine are looking for common wall apartments so that they can not have much maintenance, because they only intend to spend part of the year in this community. So, you do have that change out there that I want you to be aware of. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. All right. So, what's the Board's druthers, here? MR. CARTIER-Well, I'll speak for me. I'm not ready to approve anything, yet. I'd like to see a revised plan that has these things incorporated into, that we've talked about so far, that Ed and I and the rest of us were kind of listing out, here. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think that would be next at Preliminary, wouldn't it? I mean, this is only Sketch, an idea. MR. LAURICELLA-You're approving a Sketch Plan, aren't you? An idea. You're not approving that plan. MR. BREWER-Sketch, an idea. MRS. PULVER-That's just to let him go on and he will come back with more information. Maybe they can figure the calculations on, he can drop six units. He has to drop at least six units. He can try to tee the condominiums a little bit. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess, then, if we were to motion an approval, here, there'd be an awful lot of stipulations, in terms of what we expect to see at Preliminary. Is that a fair statement? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I've got a list of six things. MRS. PULVER-But if we don't do that, then we're asking for another Sketch Plan, which I think we've already had three Sketch Plans. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think the applicant would definitely prefer getting on to the Preliminary, even with the understanding of a conceptual design, here. Paul, do you have anything? 14 """ ---- MR. DUSEK-No. I guess I don't. I'm just looking through the Subdivision Regulations. The Regulations say, the Planning Board shall make advisory recommendations which shall be applicable to the entire area for development. This is at the end of your Sketch Plan review. If you think you have something that is in the neighborhood, in terms of a Sketch Plan, and you wanted to just go down through and list all of the different types of things, with the clear understanding that this is not the map that you would think that would come back to you, you know, I think what you're saying, in the end, is that, conceptually, you like the idea of a mix of multi units and single family, but that's all you've really said, and that they're still going to have to work on the layout more. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Can, maybe, Ed, you and I compare lists? What have you got on your list? MRS. PULVER-I just have one more thing to say, is I do consider this a cluster plan, from all the clustering that I've seen, and I guess I would just want the rest of the Board to confirm to the applicant that they do or they don't, so when they come back, and we've got this 3300 feet of roadway, we're all at least thinking in terms of clustering. Do you know what I mean, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-It was brought up that, I mean, I consider that to be a cluster cluster concept. MR. CARTIER-The single family lots, you mean, the single lots? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes. You're clustering with the multiplex buildings there, to a degree. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but you're not clustering. Wait a minute. We're talking two different things, here. MRS. PULVER-No. I'm tal king the whole concept, the way the roads come of the main arterial, or the main road, and the single family lots, that is a cluster design, to me, that entire design is a cluster design, to me. MR. MARTIN-It has clustering elements to it. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I mean, there are just lots of way to do it. MR. MARTIN-It's not a clustering of the single family lots, but. MR. LAURICELLA-No. MR. CARTIER-I agree with that. MR. MARTIN-I don't know to what extent you can do that, but that's up to your. MRS. PULVER-Well, if you made a continuous loop, but, yes, you can't, you know. MR. MARTIN-And how, without getting into a cul-de-sac situation, and, again, we get back to Mr. Mathias' comment of trying to keep several groups happy. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay, but again I would just point out that the cul-de-sac issue is moot, as far as I'm concerned anyway, because the Town is not go i ng to ha ve to ma i n ta i nit. These a re go i ng to be privately maintained cul-de-sacs, and, frankly, I like cul-de-sac designs. MR. MATHIAS-Yes, but the concern, here, is it's just as much of a concern, to us, to decrease the amount of roads that we put in. That's the whole point. The cluster concept isn't, sock it to the applicant by making them put in private roads and decrease the Town's infrastructure. You look at the cluster concept enabling legislation, it talks about, to decrease the cost of infrastructure, and I don't think that's just, you know, I don't think the intent was to mean that's limited to the small access Town road, and then the big private area within it. MRS. PULVER-I would be very much against private roads being maintained by homeowners, a large amount of private roads being maintained by a homeowners association, because I feel that's not the way to go, for safety for the residents. MR. MARTIN-The other thing, I think there's a different situation involved when you're clustering single family homes, and you're saying the access road to them is going to be jointly owned, with a homeowners association. Everybody would have their own single family lot. They would own their lot, not just a zero lot line unit. So that would introduce a twist into that clustering element. So, do you have a feeling as to a direction, here? MR. MATHIAS-I have lots of feelings, but maybe Peter's idea of, give us a list and then what we'll try to do is address those things to the best we can, to be able to file something and really get going. 15 '" --- MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Here we go, 100 units. MR. CARTIER-Less than 100 units. MR. LAPOINT-Less than. MR. CARTIER-That's what I have is less than. MR. LAPOINT-Minimize the length of the driveways, to be compliant with Section 179-62, to settle the protected species issue this spring, to develop the project in three phases, and to minimize and state the approximate area of disturbance, and to maximize the ratio of common wall units to individual units. MR. CARTIER-What does that mean, "maximize"? Say that again? MR. LAPOINT-Maximize the ratio, more common wall units to individual units. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Come up with a different ratio. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I'm trying to say it as simply as possible. Maximize the ratio of common wall units. MR. MARTIN-For whatever it's worth, I like the 50 50 breakdown, but. MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, the layout, and to keep the disturbance minimal, I think that's the range that the landscape architect has to work with, you know, for driveway and all that. Again, a 50 50 split, if we save 10 acres, would probably be the best plan, right? MR. MARTI N- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. You made reference to 179-62, right? MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-And we got the inclusion of the pedestrian walkways there, between. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's in that 179-62. MR. CARTIER-Did you mention anything about, whatever accessways, have to be built to Town road specs? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, that's in 179-62, yes. MR. CARTIER-That's part of that too, okay. I think you got everything I had. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. IIJTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PlAN SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1991 SHERMAN PINES CHARLES A. DIÐlL, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: For a subdivision of up to 100 units. A mix of single family residences and townhouses. Homeowner Association to own all open space and common area, with the following advisory recommendations: One, that the plan does not exceed 100 units. That the length of driveways be minimized to the extent possible. That the plan be compliant with Section 179-62 of the Zoning Ordinance. That the development be phased in three phases. That we minimize and state the approximate area of disturbance, and increase the ratio of common wall units to individual units, that is preferred more multi units to individual units. The first phase will contain a mix, and that the phases be shown on the plan. That the protected species issue be settled this spring. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: MR. CARTIER-I guess it's understood that the first phase is going to contain a mix of. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Yes. The first phase will contain a mix. MR. MATHIAS-I guess the one thing that we're going to have a problem with, really, is the issue of mixture and, again, I think we're, from a practical purpose of bringing this whole thing forward, we're talking about somewhere in the nature of, what, 25, whatever. I don't remember what the maximum number in the first phase can be. MR. CARTIER-35 units. 16 " --- MR. MATHIAS-Right, 25 to 35 units are going to be in the first phase, and of that there's probably going to be, there clearly will be a mixture of uses. I think that the, one of the things that, and we didn't even know this at the time of the presentation to the Town Board, much to my chagrin, some of the comments that some members of the Planning Board made about the type of marketability of single family detached units is clearly out there, in terms of the contacts that Mr. Diehl has received and the interest that he's received in the project. As soon as there was any kind of discussion about single family detached units, the project became a lot more, I mean, he just got more contacts in connection with it, and I think one of the, I mean, maybe we'll have to do some rethinking, too, but. MR. MARTIN-So, what you're trying to tell us is in that first maybe you're going to show 30 single family detached homes? MR. MATHIAS-No, but I don't think it'll be, it's not going to be a 40, 60 split. MR. LAPOINT-You're going to have to let the geometry of the whole thing dictate, you're going to show us a whole plan, and then you'll have to sequence through that plan and, again, the geometry of how it's laid out, I think, will dictate that ratio. MR. MATHIAS-Right. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Ed spelled out, I think for me too, this mix, in terms of the whole project, all three phases. As far as I'm concerned, how you mix them in Phase I is up to you. I don't care. It doesn't matter to me, in Phase I, as long as we're talking total, okay. MR. LAPOINT-Well, we would have to approve that at the end anyway. This isn't, in this Section right here. MR. CARTIER-True. MR. LAPOINT-When we came to Preliminary, and if we saw Phase I at 100 percent individual units, then certainly some of us would have concerns over that. So, I think we deal with that at that time. MR. MARTIN-The only change I'd like to make to your resolution, there, would be to say, have the phases shown on the plan. MR. LAPOINT-So included. MRS. MONAHAN-I believe in Mr. LaPoint's first list, during discussion, you mentioned the protected species out there and the endangered, and I don't believe you mentioned it in your motion. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Do you think it might be a good idea to forward a copy of that on to the Town Board? Would they appreciate that. MRS. MONAHAN-Please, with the discussion and everything. MR. MARTI N- Yes. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-I'd just, personally, like to commend the applicant for going through this exercise with us. I really think this is what planning is all about and I think you've done a good job and you've been very cooperative. (8:30 p.m.) ,,~A~ SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 TYPE I lIt-lA SKETCH PLAN SUNSET HILL FARM OWNER: PAUL KlOX, III KlOX ROAD ON ASSEMBLY POINT TO SUBDIVIDE 25 ACRES INTO 10 LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED BY INDIVIIXIAL LOT PURCHASERS. DRILLED I~US AND ON-SITE WASTEWATER WILL BE CONSTRUCTED FOR WATER AND SEIER SERVICES. LOTS WILL BE ACCESSED BY PRIVATELY OIllED AND MAINTAINED DRIVEWAYS. LOT 1 CONTAINS THE OIlIER'S RESIDENCE AND WIll BE RETAINED BY THE OWNER. TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZE: 25 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS BREAK MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:40 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 11-1991, Paul Knox, III - Sunset Hill Farm, 1-17-92, Meeting Date: January 21, 1992 "The applicant has submitted alternative plans as requested by the Board. The Board should provide direction to the developer as to the preferred alternative. 17 ',~ '--' -.../ Since the sole access to the lots has been a recurring issue the Staff has contacted the North Queensbury fire chief and requested some input. The Board is aware of the Highway Superintendent's desire to improve Knox Road and loop to Sunset. In reviewing this project the Board should consider: 1) the impact of the development on the natural resources surrounding it. The property is in a designated Critical Environmental Area. 2) The adequacy of roadways and infrastructure. 3) Slope factors with regard to layout and design. 4) Ability of the site to handle septic and wells. 5) Impacts on the neighborhood. 6) Adequacy of emergency access." MR. MARTIN-And we have a letter here from Paul H. Naylor, the Highway Superintendent. Could you read that, Lee? MRS. YORK-"We have reviewed the plans for the Sunset Hill Subdivision, and do not approve of the cul-de- sac, and would li ke to see a 50' right-of-way to Knox Road by the developer prior to the developing. Normal driveway approaches will be left up to the Planning Board with them stating width, etc. Respectfully yours, Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent". Okay, he's down to 35, I believe. Wasn't he down to a 35 foot road when he came to your meeting? MRS. PULVER-Yes, he said 35 minimum. MRS. YORK-And do you want me to read the letter? MR. MARTIN-Yes, the letter from the Fire Chief for the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company. MRS. YORK-Okay. "Dear Lee: This letter is to confirm our previous discussion of the Sunset Hill Farms sub-division and the access of fire apparatus to Knox Road. It is my opinion that the enlarging of Knox Road in width, and the continuation of this road to meet with Sunset Drive would greatly assist the Fire Company's response to this area of Assembly Point. As I had mentioned in our discussion this would create another access to the remainder of Assembly Point, if.Assembly Point Road is closed between Sunset Drive and Knox Road. The drive-ways should be at least ten feet wide. It should be maintained so that fire apparatus and ambulances can use it to provide emergency services. Because of the size of fire apparatus, trees should not grow over the drive-way that might block the road way. A turnaround area should also be considered. I hope these recommendations will be helpful in the design of this project. Yours truly, Lawrence R. Fischer, Chief, North Queensbury Vol. Fire Company" MR. MARTIN-Okay. Do we have the applicant here? Would he like to make any opening remarks? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. For your record, I'm Mark Schachner from Miller, Mannix, and Pratt, representing Paul Knox the applicant and owner of the property. Having been through this thrice before, I guess I would like to be very brief, at least in opening, if possible, and hope we can resolve what's been somewhat of a debate before. Without meaning to make a pun or be facetious, I think we've kind of come full circle, here, in our opinion, in that the proposal which we originally envisioned is essentially what we still would advance as the preferred alternative. Mr. Naylor, you'll recall, was here at our last meeting and expressed his very strong disapproval, as reflected in the letter that's been, again, read into the record, and, by the way, that's not a new letter, right? MRS. YORK-No, it's the same letter. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's the identical letter. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. He has stated very strongly, both verbally and in his letter, that he does not approve of the cul-de-sac, obviously, and especially for the benefit of anyone who wasn't here at our last meeting, he's not referring to our preferred alternative. He's referring to some of the alternatives, in fact, all but one of the other alternatives that we supplied to you during this ongoing Sketch Plan discussion at your request. MR. LAURICELLA-Excuse me. Is it that he did not approve, or that he did not like? MR. SCHACHNER-I'd rather not say in public, on the record, what his exact words to me were, but, Mr. Lauricella, the letter specifically says, "do not approve of the cul-de-sac". MRS. YORK-Okay. Let me just say this. The Highway Superintendent does sign the subdivision plats, and he said it has to say that it meets Town standards, and also he is the gentleman that makes a recommendation to the Town Board as to whether they should be accepted by the Town. MR. DUSEK-There's a couple of issues, here, though, I should just point out, and I don't know the answer, but I don't think we should jump the gun and necessarily assume that, to what his extent his approval means, okay, and that's a question that's been raised, and I don't think that we can say that his approval is absolutely necessary. I don't even ,know by what authority he signs the plat. I don't know if that's just a custom, or if that's, Mark, do you know? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I guess my feeling is, I was not intending to attach any super veto power to Mr. Naylor in making that comment. 18 '" '-- --....-' MR. LAURICELLA-I'm new on the Board, and I'm just trying to clarify a point, here. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I guess my quick response would be that it's my recollection that Mr. Naylor does not have formal jurisdictional approval authority, in the sense of your decision as to what the configurations are, although I have been involved in situations, not in the Town of Queensbury, in which a situation came to logger heads. I've seen this happen several times because, ultimately, the Town Highway Superintendent had to recommend to the Town acceptance of a Town road, but, again, I wasn't intending to. MR. LAURICELLA-No, was just trying to clarify. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I appreciate that. MR. CARTIER-If past practice has any bearing, here, and I can't think of a specific case, but I do know, in the past, we have gotten recommendations from the Highway Department from Mr. Naylor that we, in effect, ignored. He said, don't do this, and we've gone ahead and approved it anyway. MR. LAURICELLA-We were in that little subdivision in back of Bonner Drive the other day, and that had a cul-de-sac. MR. MARTIN-That had a cul-de-sac. I think sometimes by the nature of the situation, sometimes you don't have a choice, or the Board at least perceives that as being the preferred design for other reasons besides the Highway Superintendent's recommendation. MRS. PULVER-But Lee did say that you can require, the Planning Board can require a cul-de-sac or whatever, and then after they've gone through this whole process, Mr. Naylor may go to the Town Board and say, we're not going to accept this road, and now we've got a development with a cul-de-sac in it that. MR. DUSEK-Well, I think that's what Mark was alluding to, that perhaps, you know, authority to approve or disapprove of a design is one thing. Having problems down the road is something else, and I think the first question that was really raised, here, was, does he have the authority to disapprove or approve, and that's the one I said I wasn't 100 percent sure of. Now, can there be other difficulties down the line? Certainly, and you're pointing that out, and I think Mark has agreed to that. Mark is aware of that, and the only suggestion I was have is if we have a question as to absolute authority, if that needs to be resolved, then maybe throughout the course of the evening we'll find that out, but if it does need to be resolved, then I can research it and let you know. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think the question might be if, and Mr. Naylor's discussion with the Town Board, what is his authority? In other words, can he say I don't want you to approve this or accept this Town road because I don't like it, or is his authority based on the fact that you don't approve this because it's not up to Town standards? I think there are some very specific boundaries or parameters for him, in which he can make his recommendation to the Town Board. MR. DUSEK-And I think that's my recollection, Peter, but I don't want to, without checking the law, because the only thing that does bother me, as Lee mentions tonight, he signs the plats, and I don't know why, and when I don't know why, that bothers me. Maybe there's something I'm missing, here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Can I toss an idea out here? I'm still looking for options and I'm feeding off the last application, here. We have a Town Highway Superintendent who's unhappy with the cul-de-sac idea, but what we talked about, in the previous application, was a privately maintained cul-de-sac. I know I like the cul-de-sac design that we looked at before. I don't know where you're going to go with that, but do you see the direction I'm talking about? If we had a cul-de-sac that did not have to be maintained by the Town, that, I believe, would satisfy Mr. Naylor's concerns and get us over that hurdle. MRS. PULVER-I think that's very bad, though, for the residents. I mean, then everyone's depending on everyone else to plow it, you know, who's in charge this week, who's in charge next week. MR. SCHACHNER-We're also talking about a .!Q lot proposed subdivision of which only ~ will be sold at arms length to strangers outside the family. MR. BREWER-You still have to understand where we're coming from, Mark. Only seven are going to be sold. All ten are going to be used. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Lets say all ten were going to be sold. I don't mean to be contentious, here, on either point. I didn't mean to suggest that because of Mr. Naylor's recommendation you cannot go against that. I don't think I said that and I didn't mean to suggest that. MR. MARTIN-Right. Well, we obviously have. mean, there's a lot of cul-de-sacs in this Town. MR. SCHACHNER-There's no question about it. There's no question about it, okay. All I'm trying to do, in a thumbnail sketch fashion, if possible, is explain that we have input from someone who is not a stranger, who is not just one concerned citizen. He is Mr. Naylor. He is the Highway Superintendent. We suggest that you consider his input, not that you're necessarily bound by his input. 19 -./ MR. MARTIN-Right. Well, the other thing I'd like to highlight, for the Board's consideration, here, and this is new information to our project, here, is the Queensbury Fire Company letter, and the third paragraph, "The drive-ways should be at least 10 feet wide", and that next sentence bothers me, and this my primary concern with the so called flag shaped lots with long driveways, "It should be maintained so that fire apparatus and ambulances can use it to provide emergency services". As you feel uncomfortable with a private cul-de-sac being maintained by the private people, I feel uncomfortable with a 7 or 800 foot driveway being maintained in a fashion that will allow for adequate safety vehicles and emergency vehicles to enter it, and that is, I guess, where my primary concern with the long driveway is grounded, in that. MRS. PULVER-But, Jim, you can have a 300 foot driveway and not plow it and have a fire and the fire trucks can't get in there. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-They also cannot have those driveways at all unless they get a driveway permit and it meets Code. So, they're going to be 10 foot wide and they're going to be however they're going to be because they have to get a permit for that from the Town. MR. SCHACHNER-Could I just add to that? I really think we should not take on sentence out of context. I think we should read the paragraph, and I think the paragraph, frankly, very nicely addresses what appear to be Mr. Fischer's concerns and he makes some very explicit recommendations. He doesn't just say, in the abstract, it should maintained so that fire apparatus. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but there's a great many things that are taken into consideration with maintenance. It's not just trees overhanging and the location of trees near the driveway. It's, are these going to be paved driveways, or are they just going to be dirt, or are they going to be? MRS. PULVER-That's up to the homeowner. It's up to the individual when they put them in. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's true, but if we're at a Sketch Plan phase, here, and a design that we can avoid these problems. MRS. PULVER-Did we design your driveway? MR. MARTIN-I had no alternative for that, Carol. The configuration of the lot that I purchased was such that I had no alternative for that driveway. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Martin, I'll tell you something, with all due respect, since I don't seem to be able to finish my very simple, very polite, very reasonable opening statement, I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about your home and your driveway, in light of what you just said. What forced you to buy that lot? Where did it say in any law or any regulation, you just answered Mrs. Pulver's question by say, I had no choice. So, I'd like to ask where in the Town of Queensbury law rule or regulations it says, James Martin must buy that lot. MR. MARTIN-There were none, but that was just. MR. SCHACHNER-Lets take a step back. Lets calm down. Mr. Martin, with all due respect, I don't agree, sir. I can't seem to even finish a simple opening statement without getting interrupted, which is your prerogative, okay, and I'm standing here, and I wasn't going to object to it, but all I'm trying to do is explain our perspective and then take your shots. MR. MARTIN-Finish your opening statement, please. Calm down. I don't mean anything by it. I didn't mean to offend. Please finish. MR. CARTIER-Mark, pick up on a comment you made. Lets all calm down, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm including myself in, lets all, okay. I did not mean to infer that Mr. Naylor's recommendation is binding, or that you must take it. I do think Mr. Naylor's recommendation is entitled to at least be taken into account. We have a letter from Mr. Fischer. We've heard the letter read in verbatim. We now appear to have a concern that Mr. Fischer, in his third paragraph, is pointing out some sort of problem with the proposed subdivision. My comment is, I think he says, very articulately, and very clearly what his concern is, which Mr. Martin has accurately reflected. I think he also says very clearly and very articulately what should be done about it. He says, "The driveways should be at least 10 feet wide". I don't believe we have previously said to you, we'll make the driveways 10 feet wide. I now stand before you and say, we will gladly make the driveways 10 feet wide. He also says, "Because of the size of fire apparatus, and I think this clearly is his next sentence, clarifying what he means by his concern about fire apparatus and ambulances, "trees should not grow over the driveway that might block the road way". If you can devise, and I don't pretend to be able to do this, an appropriate condition that you think would make sense in that regard, I don't think we'll have any problem with it. I mean, I say that without, as I said, I hadn't given that much thought. I don't know exactly 20 --- how it would be worded, but we'll not only consider it, but we'll consider it favorably. He says, "A turnaround area should also be considered". I take it that he means on a driveway 'by driveway basis. It's not something we thought of before, but it's not something we would reject by any stretch of the imagination and, again, I think we need to just examine his comments in context. I would also ask Mrs. York, if she knows, I take it that she met with Mr. Fi scher, because he seems to refer to that, or at least discussed this with Mr. Fischer. I'm under the impression, but I ask her to correct me if I'm mistaken, that, in fact, Mr. Fischer's belief is that the individual driveways are perfectly acceptable, partially because the existing Knox Road, it's no super highway right now. I'm under the impression that Mr. Fischer, like Mr. Naylor, believes that because Knox Road is the existing condition that it is, if a tree, right now, falls over Knox Road, a tree of sufficient size obviously, it doesn't really matter whether we have a beautiful, brand spanking new, up to spec Town road going through the heart of this property, or we have tiny little three foot driveways that only ATV's can go up because of the existing Knox Road condition. My understanding of the big picture situation, here, is that Mr. Naylor and Mr. Fischer feel it would be very advantageous to the Town to obtain from Mr. Knox the access and the additional widths of right-of-way that Mr. Naylor and Mr. Fischer seem to feel is desirable, and I'm referring to two things. One is the increased width of Knox Road, of the right-of-way, which I believe is correct at, somebody said, 35 feet, and in addition my understanding is that both Mr. Naylor and Mr. Fischer would prefer, if possible, to connect Knox Road into, is it called Sunset Road? MRS. YORK-Sunset. MR. SCHACHNER-Sunset Road, and that although the Town owns, I believe, most of the property needed to do that, Mr. Knox also owns a very small portion of the property to do that, and we've said before that Mr. Knox will not only favorably consider those requests, but if this thing can proceed smoothly, he will grant those requests. I can stand here, I thought about how to prepare for tonight, and quite frankly my decision was not to get into a great deal of nitty gritty detail, because I could stand here and quote you chapter and verse from your master plan and from your subdivision regulations that time and again, actually, Mrs. Monahan said it best, that the people, during the public hearings for the master plan, I think what Mrs. Monahan said, literally screamed out, I think that's the phrase she read from, and I don't know what, I think she was reading from minutes, for maintenance of green areas as much as possible, to keep lots in harmony with the existing neighborhood character. Your Subdivision Regulations contain specific language, which I'll be glad to direct you to and I'll read to you and I'll quote it to you if you want, that say things like, lots should be kept in harmony with the neighborhood character to the maximum extent possible. You have a specific provision that says, existing trees should be conserved as much as possible, and it then says, special consideration for arrangement of lots to this end should be given, to this end meaning, for maximum preservation and conservation of existing trees. All we've been saying, from Day 1, is that we've got 25 acres of land that we're proposing 10 lots. I think Mr. Brewer's point is very well taken. As far as lots, we're proposing 10. We also think it's worth noting that only seven will be sold, in terms of your concerns about arms length sales, but there's no question, Mr. Brewer, you're absolutely right. We're talking 10 lots. I believe it's one acre zoning, as I recall, and what we've been saying, all along, is that the proposal that we initially came up with, which has now been batted around and hammered about and discussed at length, is the one that's least intrusive to the neighborhood, most in keeping with the neighborhood character. Our understanding is that neither Mr. Naylor nor Mr. Fischer find it to be in any way problematic and that, in fact, they both find it to be superior to any of the options that have common road ways going through. That's not to suggest that your hands are tied. We're looking to you for your discretionary input, as Mr. Dusek has said, as an advisory recommendation, at the Sketch Plan stage, hoping that this plan, or something very much like it, will meet with an approval of a majority of your Board. We understand, and we agree with Mr. Dusek and with your previous discussion for the other applicant, that this is merely the Sketch Plan stage, that that doesn't mean that there can't be some changes or modifications made at the Preliminary Stage, but we've reviewed our notes very carefully from the previous meetings, and all we've been able to fathom, as far as objections, we understand that there's an objection, the principle objection seems to be the length of driveways, which in my mind is the same sort of equivalent to flag shaped lots. We're not aware of any prohibition on either of those things. We are aware of certain concerns, but we maintain that within the context of this land, at this location, with this proposal, that this is the best alternative, and we're seeking positive feedback from you, and I didn't meant to monopolize for so long. Take all the shots you want. I was trying to see if I could get our introductory thoughts out on the table, because frankly I didn't think we'd ever get them out on the table if I didn't have that opportunity. MRS. YORK-If I could just interject. I did speak to Mr. Fischer. Mr. Fischer and all the other Chiefs do receive all the minutes of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board and the Town Board. He had read your previous minutes of your meeting. I had called him a couple of weeks ago and got together with him last week. We went through the entire file and I told him all the discussion, which he was aware of, and the different circulation patterns. He looked at those and made his own judgement. I didn't coerce him. MR. SCHACHNER-If that's the end of Mrs. York's statement, I'm just wondering, if there is any light to be shed, I mean, I thi n k hi s 1 etter, to the extent it expresses anythi ng, it expresses, in my mi nd at least, that there's no problem with this. I mean, did he say anything more favorable, less favorable? If he said anything else, lets get it out. 21 ',-- MR. CARTIER-Yes, but lets understand something, Mr. Schachner. It's not a matter of satisfying Mr. Fischer and Mr. Naylor. It's a matter of satisfying this Board. So, lets not overly assign weight to that. I hear, absolutely, what you're saying, and I understand what you're saying, but your problem is not with them, obviously, it's this Board that has to be satisfied. Be sure you understand that we have taken those comments all into consideration in going through this whole thing, but the nub of the problem is still within, if you will, this Planning Board, in coming up with an agreement as to what four out of six people can accept. That's where we're at. MR. BREWER-What number was the one with the common driveways, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know a number, but we have it here, if you want to look at it. MR. BREWER-I think we have them here. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you definitely, I mean you did at least, at one point. Well, I think you've got SI. It might be on all of them, to be honest. This is the plan that you previously had. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-Well, I spent many hours, in the last few days, going over all the minutes and everything to Diehl and this particular application, and I made a lot of notes, and the thing that's clear with all of us is that flag shaped lots should be discouraged because of the possibility the lots could be subdivided in the future, which would create more lots. I mean, this is why we want to discourage them, but this is clearly not the case here. MR. MARTIN-That is one concern. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's not the only reason. MRS. PULVER-Okay, but, wait a minute, this is not the case here. They have said they will not further divide. So, it will be deed restricted. They are not going to do that. There will not be a creation of more than 10 lots, probably in my lifetime, unless something happens beyond that. Other than that, I couldn't come up with anything that anybody said. I have a few quotes. Jim, one of your quotes was, "The Planning Board should stay strictly within it's realm. When we start getting into Building Code issues, I think we start getting away from our strength." I think driveways are Building Code issues. They have to get a permit for it. It's not really a Planning Board issue. I think Mr. Fischer, if I were to ask him a recommendation on my driveway, he'd say it would have to be 10 feet wide, and he wouldn't want any trees hanging over so there wouldn't, it possibly could cause some problems getting emergency vehicles in there. MR. MARTIN-Well, I flat out disagree. Is there any other comments? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Just a quick question, to stay on an even keel, here. Aside from splitting up flag shaped lots, what are the specific reasons, on this application, why they're no good? I'm just kind of want to follow up on. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think, for me, one of the reasons is it puts the burden on the homeowner, in terms of putting in a very long driveway, and maintaining a very long driveway. MRS. PULVER-All right. So I could understand that, could you find that in the Ordinance for me? MR. LAPOINT-Let me just finish up. So, that out-weighs all other considerations, just in general? MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think so. MR. LAPOtNT-Okay. So, it's the burden on the homeowner to maintain a long driveway. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'm at a point where I'm repeating myself again. I'm not about to discount the fact that the Master Plan strongly discourages the existence of flag shaped lots. I don't have to go beyond that, for me. MR. LAPOINT-Well, no, that's a good reason. MR. CARTIER-I don't have to go beyond that, for me. That's enough for me, given the fact that there are some other alternatives. I guess I'm bothered by, and this may be a total mistake. Please feel free to correct me. It's almost as if we're being handed a take it or leave it situation, in terms of the application. This is what the client is saying is the only thing he's willing to accept and submit. Somehow we seem to be working backwards when we do that. MR. LAPOINT-Well, it is his property. MRS. PULVER-Right. He did change it. 22 ---- MR. LAPOINT-He does have the right to do what he wants with his property, as long as it's not detrimental to public health or the environment. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-And he had seven cuts, was it seven cuts, Mark, originally, seven curb cuts? MR. SCHACHNER-It might be eight. I'm not sure. MRS. PULVER-And then you've got, so you did eliminate quite a few on this particular plan. MR. SCHACHNER-There's three less on that plan. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-This is the original. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Okay, so there were many more curb cuts on the original. They tried to come back with something they could live with and make this Board happy, which is what the purpose is. MR. LAURICELLA-Do you have the one with the cul-de-sac or not? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, we do. Just so it's clear, we're not saying it has to be Number One. We're not saying it must be that alternative. That is our preferred alternative, but we don't think it's as good a plan with the common driveways, but we're willing to live with the common driveways, which, if you want to call that, for now, Plan Two, the applicant will also proceed with Plan 2, if you so dictate. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, in the context of the last Sketch Plan we just looked at, I mean, this is very similar, in that we're going to look at reconfiguring an entire road, and we approved a Sketch Plan. Whereas here we're looking at a subset of that, being driveways. Again, we're telling a tax paying property owner that he can't do what he wants with his own property. We have to give him very explicit and very good reasons why he shouldn't be able to do what's within the Ordinance and his rights as a property owner. I mean, we have to be very careful about denying someone their rights to develop their land the way they see fit, and you should have very good reasons not to do that, that go beyond the burden of a homeowner to maintain a long driveway. Again, I don't see where that's in our purview to deny an application based on that. MR. CARTIER-I do. I don't know how we're going to resolve that disagreement, but I do. I think that falls under Article V. MR. SCHACHNER-Before we get into that, Mr. Martin, could I make a point? That's the kind of, I don't disagree with any of these last few statements by any of the Board members, but I guess I'm surprised that we're taking that tact, in that, typically, in my experience at least, a lot, and that's on what I call all three sides of the fence by which I mean representing applicant developers, representing citizen opponents or neighborhood groups that are opposed to development, and representing other municipal boards. Typically, or very frequently, applicants seek to maximize their return on their property. If you have one acre zoning, then your first application, sure as heck, nine out of ten times, shows one acre lots. You heard the previous applicant describing the process kind of tongue and cheek, but I think he was serious. He said, yes, you know how the game works, folks, you ask for 106. You know you're only entitled to 100. You know you're going to end up with a lower number. Even if he was kidding when he said that, I don't think that's news to any of us that that's a very, very common approach and a very common tactic. When we start getting into a discussion of, well, you know, you're putting our backs, applicant, this is the Planning Board speaking. I'm characterizing how I view some of your members positions. What I think you're saying is that we're giving you an ultimatum, that we're putting your backs to the wall. I don't remember the exact words that, for example, Mr. Cartier used, but your impression seems to be that we've got a developer who's putting your back against the wall, saying take it or leave it, and I guess I want to take a step back, again, and put this in a big picture context. We've got 25 acres. We've got one acre zoning. We've got an applicant who is voluntarily taking it upon himself to suggest that he's going to stay within the overriding guidelines of the master plan. That master plan, more than anything else, says, lets not allow, not in these words, but the philosophy of it. I was at the public hearings. You all were at the public hearings. MRS. PULVER-What I was doing, here, Mark, not to let you out, is I did go through all the minutes, and just so I can reference everything, Mr. Dusek, at our last meeting, when you here, had made a comment, after Mr. Martin, about the driveway, where he said, "but I feel I must address this point. The cost of p 1 owi ng a dri veway, in and of i tse 1 f, or the cost hoo ki ng up e 1 ectri ca 1 servi ces, I do not feel constitutes sufficient grounds to deny a subdi vi sion, because that's the appl i cant's choice and the future homeowner's choice as to whether they want to pay that expense." And that I quote directly from Mr. Dusek. 23 '-- MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, I appreciate that. I think, as a matter of law, Mr. Dusek is absolutely 100 percent correct, but frankly, I'm trying to take an approach, here, that you all don't seem to want me to take, which is, I'm not lecturing you on what you're allowed to do under the law, in my opinion, on what you must do, or anything like that. I'm trying to appeal to your sense of planning reasonableness, which I have seen exercised on numerous occasions in the past, to suggest that, when you characterize our client, the applicant, as putting your backs against the wall, 1'm familiar, from all three sides, with that situation arriving, when you've got somebody who's maximizing their return, who's taking every single inch they can possibly take, allowed under law, and sometimes then some, and what I don't understand is, we've heard reference to the master plan, and its disfavoring, if that's the word, of flag shaped lots. I was at the public hearings. You all were at the public hearings. If you had to pick, in my opinion, one overriding theme that came out of those public hearings, or public meetings perhaps I should call them, that led to the revised master plan and the revisions in the Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, it was, lets not let developers maximize development, get their most bang for the buck. Lets see what we can do to preserve green space, preserve neighborhood characters. Again, I'm not quoting, I'm just saying this was my impression of the numerous meetings that I was at, that you all were at also, and if we look at this subdivision in the big picture context, we've already debated, for three previous meetings, the fact that any of the options that you all have suggested, other than the common driveway option, led to, at least the likelihood of a greater number of lots. Now that doesn't offend, at least, a couple of you, and you're entitled to your opinion. I respect that opinion, but, again, looking at this from a townwide, master plan, big picture perspective, I think the direction that the Town is going, in general, is, if you can make bigger lots and fewer, and the applicant is willing to do that, that's something that should be encouraged, and I did quote one thing, specifically, from your Ordinance, about special consideration, and those are the words in the subdivision regulations, should be given to the layout of lots, if it can help preserve green area, open space trees and things like that, and if you take either the individual driveways plan, which I called Plan One, I guess, or the shared driveways plan, which I'll call Plan Two, for ease, if you take either of those and compare them with any of the other plans, you're going to see fewer lots, larger lots, less intrusive development, more green space, more of a feel ing in keeping with the neighborhood character, and I understand your concern about flag shaped lots. I just think for this particular application it doesn't seem to be as good planning as the comments I've just made. MR. MARTIN-What's contributing to making this tough to deal with, I'm not saying it's all your fault or the applicant's fault, or anything like that, but, for example, the last applicant. Mr. Diehl came in here and showed us a plan where he increased his road by a third, and he accepts that as within the realm of the process, and what is not being done here is there seems to be very little movement on the part of the applicant to move one way or the other off of this design. It's still, you know, there's no acceptance of the least little bit of expenditure, on his part, to pay for a common road. At one of the meetings you said, these other designs are not to be discussed. They were merely provided because you asked for them. They are not on the table, and that makes it very difficult when there's no give or take, it's all just, I'm going to keep on beating you with my point of view on this until something breaks. MRS. PULVER-But, Jim, Mr. Diehl was glad to add the roads, because he wants to put in single family detached houses, and that's what he got to do. So, adding roadway, for him, was not a hardship, because he wants to put in single family houses. There's no evidence that putting an internal road system in this is going to make this better. MR. MARTIN-I disagree. MRS. PULVER-Well, that's your opinion. MR. LAPOINT-Again, I mean, for what specific reasons is an internal roadway going to make this better? I keep getting back that I'm looking for. MR. MARTIN-For fire and safety protection. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. MARTIN-An internal roadway will service these lots much better than these private driveways will. That's a public health. MRS. PULVER-But we have no evidence of that. MR. BREWER-I think what you're saying, Jim, and I voted no on the last time, but I think what you're saying is if he puts an internal road in for fire protection, if there were more lots, it would seem feasible, but he's only using nine lots. To me, I think this is a better plan than the first one we looked at. I don't see, with nine lots, if that's all he's going to use is nine lots, and make nine lots, I don't see a big road going through there. I just don't. I understand what you're saying, and I agree with you partly, but for nine lots, I can't see a big 50 foot road going through the middle of that. MR. LAPOINT-And our fire, the letter, which I didn't get a copy of, states that if you have a 10 foot wide with no overhang and a turnaround, it should suffice for. 24 "--' MR. BREWER-If you were to go with that plan, there, would you widen Knox Road? MR. SCHACHNER-My understanding is not that the applicant would be widening Knox Road, but that he would, that the Town would have an additional right-of-way, which you, I don't know if the Town would physically widen it. MR. BREWER-That's what I mean. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I guess the answer's yes, then. MR. LAPOINT-To extend the loop, and that would be in a Sketch Plan motion to approve, but, again, here's Mr. Fischer's letter, which I think is quite clear that, again, if you have 10 foot wide driveways without any overhang, and a turnaround, then that issue is addressed, in terms of access for fire safety and all that good stuff. Again, you can't plan and make every single thing absolutely perfect every single time. The risk of someone perishing in a fire in the difference in time between someone, that risk is much lower than all of us driving home tonight from this meeting, you know, in the context of the real world. What is the change in, if you put a cul-de-sac in there, that do you get that much of a risk benefit? I'd say no. MR. LAURICELLA-Is that good planning though, Ed, to have all these driveways off that road? I mean, if you get another subdivision, you're going to get the same thing, and then. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Let me answer that. The way Assembly Point is laid out now, with all these, everybody is so tightly and densely packed in, and this is the last division of land that's going to go on in Assembly Point, and it's only getting us, as opposed to the cul-de-sac, which was 16 units, 10 units. The lower the density the better. I would say, if you were to start allover again on Assembly Point, you certainly would not divide it up the way it's divided up now. You would divide it up with flag shapes, to keep the density down, as opposed to the way the density is out there now. The benefits would be huge. If you took a 60 percent decrease in the number of camps on Assembly Point, the benefits there would be huge. MR. LAURICELLA-I realize that, but I'm just thinking in a conceptual view. We're not talking about Assembly Point. We're just talking about the Town. You come along with a piece of land, and you've got some obstruction behind it, are we going to start allowing these little strips of land, little driveways, to get back to the back portion. MR. LAPOINT-If that's what the owner wants, and it's legal. You see, I'm putting myself in his position. I would be really upset with some Board telling me I couldn't do what I wanted to do with my land, when it was legal and everything was correct, within the Ordinance, and for such arbitrary reasons as we've given here. MR. CARTIER-Arbitrary, in your opinion. MR. LAPOINT-Arbitrary, I can't. MRS. PULVER-Well, we're waiting for you to cite the Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, then, what is a basis for a zoning, then, and subdivision, then? If you can't tell somebody what to do with his land, then what is the basis that zoning is allowed, then? MR. LAPOINT-This meets all of this, I agree. As long as you meet the zoning and the subdivision requirements, which this does, then you should be allowed to have it, period. MRS. PULVER-The zoning says he can have 25 lots. He has decided to have less. He has stayed within the Zoning Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-Lets put the 25 lot issue aside, here. I don't think that we could ever get 25 lots up here, simply because there are physical restrictions on the lots, and I know Mark has mentioned the 25 lots up here, but the reality is we're not talking 25 lots, here. So, lets leave that out of this. That doesn't seem, to me, to be relevant. MRS. PULVER-Well, he knows, he can get in somewhat more than what he's got. We know that. MR. CARTIER-To answer your question about, cite the Ordinance that I'm using here. I know this answer's not going to satisfy you, but it satisfies me, and the fact of the matter is, the master plan specifically, I'm just repeating myself again, specifically discourages flag shaped lots, for a whole bunch of reasons. Now, that satisfies me. That takes care of my concerns, right there. I know it doesn't answer your concerns, and I doubt very much if I can sati sfy your concerns, but I'm here to satisfy me. MRS. PULVER-No, what I would like you to satisfy is the whole bunch. 25 '---'" MR. SCHACHNER-But, wait, but in fairness, the whole bunch probably can't be satisfied. I mean, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I assume, I just want to make sure that nobody on the Board disagrees with my statement about the master plan also encouraging preservation open space, green, and all that, and, in fairness, Mr. Cartier, please tell me if I'm not accurate, but I think Mr. Cartier is suggesting that, at least as far as he's concerned, the disfavoring of the flag shaped lots out-weighs the, in this context, for this application, out-weighs the favoring of the larger or smaller number of lots. Fair statement? MR. CARTIER-Fair statement. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and what I'm trying to, obviously, cards on the table, we went through this before. I'm not going to try to convince Mr. Cartier otherwise, but what I do, again, want to express is that I'm not suggesting, I am trying to advocate that we look at the big picture, that we look at the master plan, that we take it into account, that we take the pros and the cons into account, that we look at, I don't think it's important to look at how much the applicant has or hasn't given in, just for the sake of looking at, has the applicant given in or not. I can tell you the applicant has sent his representatives here, more than what we expected to come here. We've produced more alternatives than we expected to produce. This proposed, which I call the shared driveway plan, is not his preferred alternative, but he's willing to authorize us to proceed with it, and I do want to address one comment, if I heard it correctly, from Mr. Lauricella, and I think you asked a sort of generic question. You said, lets forget about this specific site, this specific property. Is it good planning? I'm not suggesting, necessarily, that if you had to stick a label on this, in the abstract, that you would say, flag shaped lots are good planning, and I'm not suggesting that if you, am I fair? You asked generi ca lly? MR. LAURICELLA-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think, generically, I'm not suggesting, I, personally, have a, I don't know, maybe a 100 foot driveway, which is great except it's kind of vertical, and I can't drive down it right now, during the winter. I don't think that's a good way to go about it, but I took it upon myself. I bought the property knowing full well the steep hill that I'd have to walk up and down. So, I just want to make sure that I'm being clear, that I'm not suggesting that flag shaped lots are the wave of the future that we should adopt, or long, individual driveways. I just think we have to take this application, now, this is you speaking, non generically, on its particular site. MR. LAPOINT-I agree. If this were some place else and you had roads down each side of it, it would make a lot of sense to put an internal road on it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I'm sorry, Mr. Lauricella. One other aspect of a comment that you made that I wanted to address. Similarly, if we were looking at 20 or 30 lots, or some number, I don't know what number, but a bi g number, bi gger than the few curb cuts that we have there, the four or five that we have there, I would also suggest that it may not be prudent to have that number of curb cuts. We looked at that issue specifically with our traffic knowledge, not mine, but the environmental consultant, and the feeling was that, with this number curb cuts, in the context of what Mr. LaPoint has described, out on Assembly Point, negligible impact, but, again, generically, it's a fair concern. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I just did some quick calculating, here, to maybe shed some light on what we think of as these driveways. Say the driveways were an average of 600 feet in length, all right, just on the average, that's 6,000 feet of clearing per driveway at 10 feet wide. If we have nine driveways, that's 54,000 square feet, and now if we go to a common access road of even 1,000 feet in length, 60 feet wide, that's 42,000 square feet. MR. LAPOINT-But you've got to add in each driveway off that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, it's probably going to be, basically, a wash. MR. CARTIER-But you also have to add in the widening on each side of the driveway for clearance, because, generally, I think what we've been using as a standard is you've got to have a 20 foot slot, okay. Ten feet of it can be driveway. MR. MARTIN-For drainage. MR. CARTIER-No, I mean for clearance. MR. MARTIN-I think Tom is going to call for a drainage on each side of the driveway, or at least one side. MR. LAPOINT-Not for these type driveways he won't. MR. YARMOWICH-The slope disturbances are going to create, realistically, 40 to 55 foot widths, by the time they're done cutting in the driveway, at those lengths, and it's shown on the first plan. 26 '- -...-' MR. MARTIN-So, you're saying driveways of what width? MR. YARMOWICH-About 40 foot cut, to make the slopes and the embankments work to create a 10 foot travel lane. MR. MARTIN-So, then we're talking clearing, potentially, .!!!Q.!]. than common Town road? MR. YARMOWICH-At certain select areas, certainly. MR. SCHACHNER-Aren't we talking about only one driveway? MR. YARMOWICH-No. There's two driveways that have particularly, well, I'm going back to the very original plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Understood, right. MR. YARMOWICH- There were two driveways, in excess of 600 feet, that traversed slopes that were more than three to one. There was quite a bit of grading involved to accommodate that. MR. SCHACHNER-Am I right that those were adjacent driveways? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, they were, and there was another driveway that was similarly long, but didn't have quite the same slope. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. MARTIN-So, I mean, we're talking, basically, a wash, if not worse, under a private scheme? MR. YARMOWICH-I did take a look at that, at one point, when I was involved in the engineering review. I didn't review the more, the additional options. I want you to know, I didn't review those. I did review the first options, but not the last ones that you looked at. There was very little difference. There was more with the cul-de-sac, slightly more, but it was, I think within the limits of how accurately it could be measured anyway. So, I would say that there's no significant difference. MR. SCHACHNER-Just to put that into context, am I right that in the shared driveway plan that would be one driveway that we'd be talking about? In other words, there were two, in the original plan, that were adjacent, which became one in the shared driveway plan? Am I right? MR. YARMOWICH-I didn't look at the actual disturbance area, but I think it's correct to characterize that that's what would be expected to happen, depending on what slopes you were using. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-There's no way it can be a wash with six extra units. I will figure it out for the next time we get together, very accurately, but there's no way a cul-de-sac with 16 individual driveways is going to be less than the next alternative underneath this one, and I'll work that out very accurately next time. They won't even be within 25 percent, I'll bet, once you add in the 16 extra units. MR. CARTIER-Could I suggest that you have the applicant do that, Mr. LaPoint? It seems like that's more appropriate for the applicant to do. MR. LAPOINT-Well, while we're calculating them out here, now, to prove that it's a wash, and I just want to make sure, because I can tell, just by looking at these things, that they're not. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it has to be able to take in, like Tom said, the grading requirements and all that require some of the driveways to be as wide as 40 feet, or the clearing for the driveway. MR. YARMOWICH-Some of the clearings would initially, those disturbances would have to be to that extent to accommodate the slopes. MRS. PULVER-Mark, wait a minute. This is your preferred plan, but you will take the second one, is that correct? MR. SCHACHNER-That's absolutely correct. MRS. PULVER-That's correct. 27 --- MR. SCHACHNER-I guess, just very briefly, I had a discussion with the Town Engineer. I didn't mean to have it sort of off the record, but I think that not everybody, I think you all were also considering other aspects at the same time. He does confirm, if I understand him correctly, that, especially Mr. Martin, in terms of your concern that some of the driveways would really be a lot wider than we're saying, that he's talking about what, on the original plan, were two adjacent driveways, which on Plan, what we've called Number Two, are one driveway, and then the only other thing I wanted to, again, make a comment about was the character of the difference between the two, in that I think Mr. LaPoint's calculation is likely to be correct. I don't think, in the context of what the Subdivision Regulations describe as a cursory review, that we need to get into that level of detail. MR. MARTIN-No. I was just making some. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Yes, sure, understood, but I do think that the character is important, in that even if, because of steep slopes or whatever, some of the individual drives or shared driveways, even if, initially, there needs to be disturbance beyond that 10 or 12 foot width, we're still talking about a neighborhood character, in that case, that I think is fundamentally different than, essentially, clear cutting a 40, 50, 60 foot swath through the middle of the property, even if the calculations turn out to be somewhat comparable, which I understand your point about. MRS. PULVER-I have one question. Lee, when I was going through our Subdivision, I couldn't find anything in there that discussed flag shaped lots. I couldn't even find a description. MRS. YORK-They aren't described in there. MRS. PULVER-They're not? MRS. YORK-No. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-There is one Section that indicates that they should be laid out in a rectangular fashion wherever possible. Of course, that has to do with the technical feasibility of actually constructing it. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Yes, I read that, but I mean, there was nothing. MR. SCHACHNER-Could I just make one last comment? I kind of feel like I've been beating up on Mr. Martin. I mean, I'm pretty familiar with a lot of planning concepts, even though I'm not a planner, and I want to emphasize, again, that I think Mr. Martin's concerns, in a generic sense, as I tried to answer Mr. Lauricella's question, I think there are some, there is some logic to that concern, in a generic sense. I, myself, I think, shared with you all at our, I think, second Sketch Plan discussion about this, a particular experience that I had been involved in, not representing the applicant, I'm pleased to say, where the flag shaped lot proposal went haywire because of further subdivision, and I think that's not the only reason to be concern, but that's an important reason to be concerned. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-However, in this case, you have, the applicant has said that he would not do that. MR. MARTIN-Well, do we have anybody willing to make some movement, here, from either side of the isle, so to speak. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. IIJTION 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 for privately owned and maintained driveways. Lot 1 contains the owner's residence and will be retained by the owner, with the following advisory recommendations: That the applicant consider, in the design, the letter dated 12 January 1992 from Lawrence R. Fischer to Lee York, Senior Planner. In terms of 10 foot wide driveways, trees should not grow over the driveway that might block the road, and turnaround areas to be provided. That the applicant consider and submit, at Preliminary, a plan to provide right-of-way to connect Knox Road to Sunset Hill Lane. No further subdivision of the lots, and to consider the shared driveway concept, in the context of the original plan. We'll reference SI in the context of the original plan. That the applicant file covenants and restrictions relating to the above referenced letter from Mr. Fischer. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: 28 '- MRS. PULVER-I have a question. On this letter, by Mr. Fischer, is there some way, on the final mylar or something, or maybe it should be on the deed, that the driveway, so that the new homeowner who buys, say the person who buys the lot, I want him to know, right then and there, that this letter was before the Planning Board, that the driveway needs to be at least 10 foot wide and nothing blocks, okay. MR. DUSEK-One way of maybe addressing that plus the other issue of, what was the other issue that we wanted to address, in terms of the driveway? MR. LAPOINT-The 10 foot wide overhang, and the turnaround. MR. DUSEK-And the turnaround? Well, in any event, the way to address these, I think, if the applicant would be in agreement, would be through a declaration of covenants and restrictions, which could be filed simultaneously with the Final approval of the subdivision, if the applicant would be willing to do that. MR. SCHACHNER-I was going to suggest that we'll agree to make that deed covenants and restrictions. Just to clarify, when I hear the language, declaration of covenants and restrictions, I think Homeowners Association, which is not what we're talking about here. MR. DUSEK-No. MR. SCHACHNER-But we will make those concerns part of deed restrictions and covenants. MRS. PULVER-My only concern is, often, a subdivision like this gets approved and there's a low lot and they say well, you know, the developer or the builder must be aware it's a low lot and then you sell the lot and he never looks at the plan and never looks at the plan and builds the house and the house is sitting too low and they've got a flood in their basement. MR. SCHACHNER-We don't have any problem making those, agreeing to that. MR. BREWER-Can I ask a question before we vote? Is Mr. Knox going to develop these, or is he just going to sell the lots? The only reason I'm asking that, Mark, and I asked it, I think, at one other meeting, is because I know how you have these laid out, and if he's just going to sell lots, can you really tell somebody where they've got to put their house on the lot? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. You can instruct, if they use a building envelope approach, and show the building envelope on the plat and the building would have to be located there, unless they were to obtain a modification, approval of a modification by the Planning Board. MR. BREWER-Can they do that, though? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. BREWER-They can come back and ask to move the house anywhere on the land? MR. YARMOWICH-You can make a condition of your approval, a building envelope, which gives them specific limits. There are limits there, by slope, which is going, also by zoning, they're not going to be able to put the house anyplace. MR. DUSEK-But, to answer your question, if, in fact, they could not put it in that area that has been set forth on the map, then what they do is they come back here for a modification of the subdivision plat. That's what they have to do. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess the reason I'm asking is because they almost have to be there, because of the length of the driveways, right? MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, and there are some septic and well constraints. I guess, it's an interesting point, Mr. Brewer. I was not under the impression, but maybe I'm wrong, that, first of all, we're only at Sketch Plan, obviously, but, like, once we got to Preliminary Plat approval, I was not under the impression that the location of the homes would be particularly fixed, but we don't have a problem, if that's where you're headed. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think what we're talking about is not a specific location for the house, but what I think Tom's talking about is an area that is marked out on each lot, that the house must be built within that area. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying is, if this person bought this lot, here, and you've got the house here, and he says, well, why do I want to have a driveway that long, why can't I put the lot here, or the house here? I guess that's what I'm getting at. 29 ~ --' MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I mean, that example, there'd be a number of reasons why you couldn't, relative to the Ordinance, but. We don't have any problem with it. MR. DUSEK-If you put that restriction, he won't be able to do that. MR. LAPOINT-That's all in our future. MR. CARTIER-Well, you may want to specify that, just for certain lots, also. It may not be a matter of all the lots. It could be specified for specific lots. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I would assume you would go through that in some detail at Preliminary plat, and I think that's fine. MR. CARTIER-Probably will, given the detail we looked at this in Sketch Plan. MR. DUSEK-Just to make sure that the developer's attorney is clear, I'm envisioning a separate document, which would apply to all lots. I don't envision it appearing in each deed, I mean a reference to the document, but I'm envisioning a separate document filed at one time, effecting all lots, so that anybody purchases, even if it should not be in the deed, they're deemed to have notice, by virtue of the filing. Is that all right, Mark, or did you envision something different. MR. SCHACHNER-I envisioned the exact opposite, solely for purposes of its effectiveness. My experience is that the covenants and restrictions are most effective when placed in individual lot deeds and not some separate document. MR. DUSEK-Okay. The only concern I have, though, is then, how does the Town monitor it after the fact? I don't think we want to get into reviewing each deed that's delivered. MR. SCHACHNER-We don't feel strongly about it, if you want to steer us that way. I'm just telling you, from my perspective, I've dealt with this situation before, and I've seen a lot of troubles when it's not in individual deeds, but it's up to you all. MRS. YORK-Usually we recommend that it's written on the mylar. That's usually what people see when they purchase a lot in a subdivision. MRS. PULVER-No. Lots of times the individual homeowner will just get a map of their lot that they're buying. They won't see the entire subdivision. That's why I really would like it on the deed. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. DUSEK-The way I've usually seen it, and I think the best way, is the separate document, and then you reference that document in the deed. So, it does show up in both places, but you don't have to lay it out in full again on the deed. That's the whole thing, and I will say this, that if a person is buying a lot, and it's on file, they're taking it subject to what's on file, and, Mark, you're an attorney, and I'm sure you handle closings, I mean, it's customary, at least as far as I'm concerned, when I was handling, well, even handle closings for the Town, one of the things you do is a title search to pick up on what the restrictions are on the property. MR. BREWER-Yes, but, Paul, I can remember when I had the closing on my house, there's restrictions in my subdivision and nobody ever said anything to me about them at all. MR. SCHACHNER-And they weren't in your deed, you're saying? Yes. I think this is a discussion between lawyers. MR. MARTIN-A discussion at a later time, Preliminary or Final. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I couldn't care less. I was just expressing my opinion as to what, from your perspective, would be most effective. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint NOES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you for your patience. MR. CARTIER-Thank you for yours. Mark, this is just for your reference. It doesn't have to be done tonight. I'm just flagging this for you, that I would like you, at some point, again, not tonight, to clarify for us a letter from Lake George Park Commission dated October 11, 1991 and 16 July 1991, in reference to number of docks and so on and so forth, and marina use. That's an area you might not even be familiar with, but it's. 30 --~~ MR. SCHACHNER-It has something to do with this project? MR. CARTIER-Yes. correct, okay, and that's something I would like to see addressed at some point in the future. It needs to get cleared up. There's a question as to the number of docks on the property, and whether the number of docks is a legal number, whether a marina is being operated illegally. MR. SCHACHNER-As far as I know, we're not proposing anything new. MR. CARTIER-Understand that, but this is a letter that came in in reference to this application, and it's something I would like you to address somewhere down the line. I apologize for bringing that up now. It's something that I wanted to bring up a long time ago and that we just never got to. (9:44 p.m. ) SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-5A FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1991 FRANK J. AND JESSIE C. LOCKHART OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE lEST SIDE OF LOCKHART IlJUNTAIN ROAD 710 FT. SOOTH OF aTE 9L (EAST SHORE DRIVE) FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.0 ACRE PARCEL FROM A TOTAL OF 43.42 ACRES TO BE CONVEYED TO SHELLY L. AND STEPHEN A. KARTIFF (DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW). TAX MAP NO. 23-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 43.42 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARK BOMBARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:44 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 17-1991, Frank J. & Jessie C. Lockhart, 1-10-92, Meeting Date: January 21, 1992 "This subdivision has received a negative declaration for SEQRA purposes and there are no planning concerns. The Staff recommends approval." ENGINEERING COMMENTS Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Ri, st-Frost Town Engineer, January 9, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. A 200' horizontal separation distance should be provided between the proposed well and the existing up-gradient septic area, if by necessity the well must be located in the general path of drainage from a sewage disposal system (NYSDOH Rural Water Supply Guidelines)." MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have no comments from the County, n-aturally, on this type of thing, and we'll just go along here. Is there anything the applicant would like to add? MR. BOMBARD-I represent Mr. Lockhart. My name's Mark Bombard from Coulter & McCormack. As to the engineering comment, I don't believe that the well is in direct, they're talking about the septic, here. It's not in the general path, but I have a separation of 150. I'll move it out to 200. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right, then you have no problem with his comment? MR. BOMBARD-No. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We don't need a public hearing, right? MR. CARTIER-No. It's been done. MR. MARTIN-And SEQRA's been done. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I will entertain a motion. IIJTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-1991 FRANK J. AND JESSIE C. LOCKHART, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella: With the following stipulation, that a 200 foot horizontal separation distance be provided between the proposed well and the existing up-gradient septic area. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MRS. YORK-Mark, could I have a modified plan from you, in the office. MR. BOMBARD-I'll make that change for you and then have your scale ready. MRS. YORK-Just make it on the mylar and bring it in with the 10 copies, okay. 31 '-- --' MR. BOMBARD-Okay. MRS. YORK-Thank you. (9:46 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 55-91 TYPE I HC-lA OSCAP, LID OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE lEST OF INTERSECTION OF NYS ROUTES 9 AND 149 ESTABLISH 11«) BUILDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF A RETAIL OOTLET CElTER, INCLUDING RELOCATION AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING DEXTER SHOE OOTLET STORE. TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA TO BE 68,800 SQ. FT. WITH TOTAL GROSS LEASABLE AREA TO BE 62,000 SQ. FT. (WARREN COOITY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 34-1-10 LOT SIZE: 7.8 ACRES SECTION 179-23 MIKE INGERSALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (9:46 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 55-91, January 16, 1992, Meeting Date: January 21, 1992 "The applicant wishes to develop a shopping center at a major intersection in the community. The review of this project has been overshadowed by concerns about traffic along the entire strip radiating south of the development. A joint meeting was sponsored by the Planning Board in order to begin a dialogue about the concerns. Out of this meeting, a Task Force was formed which will be looking at local alternatives to improve conflicts between and within pedestrians and traffic circulation. The first meeting of this Task Force is scheduled for January 16. The group is made up of representatives from DOT, the Warren County Traffic Safety Board, County, Town, and Consulting Planners, fire service representatives, local property owners, and developers, and concerned citizens. The local metropolitan planning organization will be working on a study which is scheduled for completion within the next 6 to 8 months. It is anticipated that this document will address traffic improvement alternatives. The Board has received a letter from Ken Carlson of DOT (attached). Warren County Planning recently held a meeting with the developer at which time a recommendation was made to deny this project without prejudice (minutes attached). Part of the considered concerns were: the safety issue involved with stacking of cars on to Route 87 at Exit 19, the backing up of traffic up to a mile on Route 149, number of accidents which had occurred along the corridor in the last year, and the closing of the Northway access on the bridge at Gurney Lane for improvements. The Warren County Planning Board's decision did not close the door on this development. The resolution makes it clear that the denial is simply to grant the involved groups time to make recommendations for improving the traffic situation. The Planning staff recently attended a conference at Albany Law School entitled "Financing Local Transportation Infrastructure". Below is quoted an excerpt from a paper presented by John Poorman, Director of the Capital District Transportation Committee and Supervisor of the Warren County Planning Section of DOT. INTEGRATED LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING The dialogue over financial responsibllities for transportation i.provellents is largely shaped by the issues discussed above: there are not sufficient resources to Eet all expectations; there is a priority given to repair rather than expansion; demographic changes and development patterns have produced rapid growth in congestion; and localized congestion can be largely related to suburban developlent unacco.panied by either adequate transportation investllent or acc~dation for future investllent. these issues argue for a logical shift in planning and developlent practice in Me. York. Instead of viewing developlent and the transportation systell as t.o tangential topics, it is i.perathe that the t.o be knitted together. The discussion of transportation needs should be inforwd by a reasonable understanding of developlent pressures in each part of a Etropolftan area. Si.flarly, discussion and revie. of individual development proposals should be inforwd by and contribute to systelt-level transportation plans. State agencies, regional agencies, local governlents and private developers can achieve effective integration of land use and transportation planning through the follo.ing: 1. Local exallination of development-transportation solutions. Traffic i.pact analysis of a single site proposal .., be sufficient in areas with fe. traffic issues and li.ited developlent capability. In .ost gro.ing areas, ho.ever, it is not reasonable to assUlle that incl"eEntal developllent will provide for an efficient transportation systell .ithout a co.prehénsive plan of action. Such a co.prehensive plan can be created only after the various actors cooperatively define developllent potential, esti.ate traffic cte.and, exuine resulting travel conditions and exa.ine alternative actions. The plan of action .., involve land use actions to change the type or intensity of developlent penlitted in the area. The plan .y also involve higlnray illprove.ents, site design standards, access controls (curb cut li.its, use of service roads) and agreeEnts to .anage cte.and through ride sharing, flex tille and other strategies. The advantage of a thorough local exufnation is that it aclcno.ledges the local govern.ent's responsibility for ..naging developlent and provides objective info~tion to all parties to help .ke sound decisions. Participation by the Ne. York State DepartEnt of Transportation (NYSOOT), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and county planning or high., agencies in such local efforts assures a c~n understanding of issues and allo.s participants to -buy into- a c~n set of solutions. As has been previously stated during meetings, it is not fair to hold the last developer hostage for the problems created along a strip. However, we all realize that the problem is the uncoordinated land use along the corridor. This development will not end with the Dexter project. It will continue north and along Route 149. It was this developers misfortune to come into this situation when the issues were being identified. It has also been to the developers credit that they are participating in finding solutions for the traffic concerns. As it is unfair to hold this developer accountable for all the traffic impacts, it is also unfair to have them provide mitigation measures for these impacts. With these thoughts in mind, the staff recommends that the Town Planning Board support the position taken by the Warren County Planning Board. It would seem reasonable that development in this area 32 '--' -- be halted until the issues can be clarified and solutions put forward. This would not deny the development only postpone it for less than a year to afford state and local officials an opportunity to identify solutions which will benefit the entire Town. The applicant should take the opportunity to review the site and specify concerns that have previously been mentioned. These include potentially combining all businesses in one structure that could be centrally located to allow circular internal traffic movement. A 1 so, these factors shoul d be revi ewed, emergency vehicle access, loading dock placement, signage directing patrons to the location of specific store parking, and engineering concerns." "Addendum to Staff Comments for OSCAP, LTD On January 16 at the first meeting of the Task Force on traffic issues took place. The staff would appreciate the opportunity to report on what took place. After the meeting, representatives of Dexter discussed the possibility of continuing a review of the on site concerns with the Board while traffic alternatives are being perused. Their goal is to separate the site specific issues from the traffic. If the Board chooses to consider this, Staff would recommend that there be a formal agreement with the applicant that this be done in a "workshop" fashion and that the application be tabled by mutual agreement until there are some formalized recommendations and agreements from the Task Force. This will remove the application from the SEQRA time frames. There are some internal concerns that have been raised. There should be a circular traffic pattern around the building. Signage and directional arrows should be discussed. The Planning Board has to look at the people issues. The average shopper in this local would seem to be a senior citizen not from the immediate area. The site should be designed for easy mobility with clearly defined travelways. The fact that there are two principal buildings on the lot may be a problem. The interchange between them can be as serous as the movement on Route 9. The Board is aware of other centers which were from a technical standpoint, above reproach, but when constructed did not meet the needs of the patrons or add to the community. The applicant has presented their preferred alternative. They have indicated that they looked at a number of plans before coming up with this one. Perhaps the Board should request to review other alternatives. If the Board does not want to continue the site review, I would recommend denial without prejudice and clearly state the reasoning. If the choice is to continue to review I recommend a mutual agreement to table." Letter from Kenneth Carlson, State of New York Department of Transportation, to Lee York, dated December 18, 1991 "Dear Ms. York: We have received the traffic impact study for the proposed expansion of the Dexter Factory Outlet and we are conducting a review of the technical aspects of the study pursuant to the processing of a NYSDOT work permit. The first part of the review will consist of verifying the level of service calculations and the suitability of the proposed mitigations (which consist of primarily widening the main driveway and re-timing the signal at the 9/149 intersection). After suitable mitigations have been identified, we will be ascertaining, to the greatest extent possible, the compatibility of the mitigations with improvement needs for the corridor. As you know, The Glens Falls Transportation Council will soon be conducting a study of the immediate and long term transportation needs in the corridor. We will estimate the improvement recommendations that are likely to emerge from that effort and ascertain the proposals compatibility with those recommendations. Our review will focus on identifying any reasonable actions that can be taken to increase the compatibility of this proposal with improvement needs in the corridor. If he has not already done so, the applicant should contact Herbert Steffens, NYSDOT Warren County Resident Engineer at 623-3511 to begin the permit process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Kenneth Carlson, Senior Transportation Analyst" Memo from Fred Austin, P.E., Warren County Department of Public Works, To: All Concerned, dated January 15, 1992 "I) The enclosed has been sent to 12 firms. 2) Dates are tentative pending return of signed contracts to Warren County from New York State. 3) Transit study RFP will follow shortly. Fred Austin, P.E. Superintendent, Warren County DPW", January 14, 1992, "Dear, Your firm has expressed an interest in providing a proposal for furnishing the five corridor studies. The amount available is between $70,000 and $75,000. The award will not be made on the basis of the fee proposal, rather it will be awarded on the basis of technical competence, experience, and capability to perform in a timely manner. The lead contract agency is the County of Warren acting through its Department of Public Works. The County of Warren is conducting these studies on behalf of the Greater Glens Falls Transportation Council. The Council is represented by a Technical Advisory Committee which will also review all proposals. All responses should be sent (10 copies please) to: Fred Austin, P.E., Superintendent Warren County Dept. of Public Works 261 Main St., Warrensburg, NY 12885 Phone 518-761-6556 FAX # 518-623-2772 Any questions should be funneled through him. If he is unavailable questions should be directed to: Kenneth Wheeler, P.E., Superintendent Washington County Dept. of Public Works, 385 Upper Broadway, Fort Edward, NY 12828 PHONE 518-747-3331 FAX # 518-747-2911 Proposals should be delivered by March 6th. It is anticipated the final scope of services and fee will be negotiated with the selected firm by March 20th. The award will be presented to the Warren County Public Works Committee the last week in March and should be awarded by the County Board of Supervisors at the April 17th meeting. Fred Austin, P.E., Co. Supt. DPW, Vice Chair GGFTC T.A.C. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All the team members here for the applicant? All right. Okay. We'll start out with Staff Comments, please? MRS. YORK-Would you like me to read all of these? MR. MARTIN-Yes, maybe, we have some, if everybody wants. Has the applicant seen the comments? MRS. YORK-The applicant has had the comments for a few days now. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and we have an addendum to those you might want to make note of, also, on the fourth page of your packet. 33 --------- ---- MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-The only thing I would suggest is that this is subject to public hearing, and if there's anybody sitting in the audience who would like these comments or would like to read them, is maybe given a copy to read them, if we're not going to read them into the minutes. MR. MARTIN-Good point. MRS. YORK-O kay. MR. CARTIER-Anybody that wants 14 pages of something to read, MR. MARTIN-All right, and then, also, with those we have, "APPLICATIONS TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY". What's that in reference to, Lee? MRS. YORK-Those are the comments from Warren County. MR. MARTIN-Okay. They're Warren County minutes, and we have a letter of December 18th, from Ken Carlson, DOT. MRS. YORK-And they will be investigating the traffic further. MR. CARTIER-Can I ask a question on those Warren County notes? There's an "R. Bailey" referred to. Is that a member of the Warren County Planning Board, R. Bailey? MRS. YORK-I believe so. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay, again, another memo from Fred Austin, and that appears, to be, and we have Tom's comments. Tom, would you want to read those for us. Those don't seem to be exorbitant. ENGINEERING COMMENTS Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, January 17, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the following comments: 1. With regard to the SWM design: a. Design calculations and construction details are requested for proposed subcatchments 2 and 4. b. The detention pond detail should reflect an 8' top of berm width. c. Drywell infiltration will reduce runoff to the detention basin. Accounting for drywell infiltration and adjusting the bottom of basin elevation may permit the detention basin to be designed with 4 feet or less depth. d. The plans should be noted to prohibit snow generated by parking lot clearing from being deposited in the detention basin. 2. A generalized sequence of construction should be indicated on the plans that establishes a feasible progression of site development that integrates drainage improvements with sediment and erosion control function for the overall site. In addition, it should be stipulated by the Planning Board that a detailed soil erosion and sediment control plan acceptable to the Town be required before a building permit is issued or any site development activities. 3. The December 23, 1991 response letter from Mr. Manning of RCAI concludes that project induced negative traffic impacts will be limited to weekend peak periods. The traffic study data supports this conclusion. Further, the study fairly characterized the vicinity as subject to regular traffic congestion under existing and anticipated conditions without the project. Presuming the light re-timing suggested by the applicant's traffic consultant is effective, then increases in peak traffic congestion caused by project generated vehicle trips will be slight, according to the traffic study. The Planning Board should consider if the anticipated traffic effects of the project are acceptable for the Town. Should NYSDOT reject vicinity wide traffic light re-timing to minimize the traffic congestion, the increase in congestion induced by the project could be much more significant than projected. The Planning Board may wish to confirm the NYSDOT position regarding traffic light re-timing that is recommended by the project traffic study. 4. Design calculations for the proposed gabion retaining wall should be provided. It also is noted that proposed landscape plantings coincide with gabion wall areas. Tree plantings on and very near gabions usually are avoided." MR. MARTIN-Okay, and then the next item is we have the Warren County Planning Board, the results of their vote. They disapproved with a comment, "Will agree to rehear the project without prejudice if and when the Board has recommendations from the Task Force that will resolve the issues regarding the traffic safety of that area." So, that means that we need a five member vote from us, okay. And then two memos from Dave Hatin, regarding traffic circulation within the project, and the Beautification Committee approved the planting plan, at their December meeting on the 9th. Okay. Would the applicant like to make any comments? MR. INGERSALL-My name is Hi ke Ingersa 11 from the LA group and we represent, and, as you know, we represent Dexter on this project. We're in receipt of all the items you mentioned, and I think, as you can see, and we can walk through the plans, if the Board desires, at the last meeting, since our last meeting, we've made a lot of progress on the technical issues, and the list is getting smaller, but, as we've 34 '",--- ----/' indicated before we would pursue those technical issues with the anticipation that the traffic issue would be the end of this. There's much debate to come, I'm sure. Our anticipation is that by the 1st of February we will have a response from New York State on our application for the curb cuts. So, I think, to some degree, unless the Board further wishes to discuss the traffic, we would like to proceed with the technical review on this project, as well as initiate the SEQRA proceedings, at this time. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. INGERSALL-I can indicate to you some of the changes that, since the last meeting. I think, mainly, they had to do with the internal circulation and the access drive we'll provide, which the Building Department and the Fire Inspector have reviewed and given their blessings to, and we've agreed to make the changes as Mr. Hatin states, to change the driveway from 16 feet to 20 feet. MR. MARTIN-As requested in his January 18th memo? MR. INGERSALL-In the revised memo. MR. MARTI N- Yes. MR. INGERSALL-Is everyone aware of where that occurred, or should I explain that? MR. MARTIN-What's the Board's preference here? I don't think that's necessary, at this time. MR. INGERSALL-Okay. What that would be, in the rear upper portion of the property. Do you see on the plan, there's a shaded in area that would be a ramped section that would be closed to everyday traffic, but it would be a change in the pavement. It really would be a pedestrian way, in all practical purposes. It would have mountable curbs and removable bollards. Should an emergency vehicle have to get into that area, it would have access. MR. CARTIER-When you say, removable bollards, what do you mean? How removable are they? Can you run them over? MR. INGERSALL-There's two options. There's one that they're break away. They're hit and break away, and just dri ve over. They're really just a post that's sawed through, or they remove them. The Fi re Department, Mr. LaFlure, suggested a removable bollard with a chain that the guy could hop out of the truck and pull out. They felt that would be acceptable. We'll have to provide them with the detail, but that's an acceptable alternative. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think the Board's had sufficient time to review the plans. I don't know if it's necessary for him to go into a dissertation as to the changes made. Is there any, maybe we can just take this back to the Board and see if there's any individual concerns, either based on the Staff Comments, or. MR. INGERSALL-Just, with respect to the recent letter from the reviewing engineer, that, again, in our next submission, you know, you have four items here which, we definitely have answers to three of them, satisfactory, the last one being traffic. We still contend we have an answer to it. It's just convincing the Board. MR. MARTIN-All right. make further comment? We 11, I'll open thi s up to the Board, here. Is there anybody who'd 1 ike to MR. LAURICELLA-Jim, wasn't there a question about a road to the south, around the end of the building? MR. INGERSALL-There was a suggestion of that. If a road were to be constructed on the south portion, in excess of 40 percent of grade, the grades there prohibit the standard that the Town has, and in our meetings with the Building Department, there's no Code issue that would dictate we need to have that. MR. LAURICELLA-That was more for fire access, or? MR. INGERSALL-I believe it was for fire access, but the other thing that it would also do is, in the practical sense, if it could be constructed, it would bring more congestion and traffic to that little framed area, which the turning movements from a truck wouldn't be able to accomplish anyway. The building's totally sprinklered, and we've incorporated hydrants in the back as part of our re-submission. So, the Code issue is being satisfied. MR. MARTIN-All right. Peter, do you have anything? MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess this is kind of a generic statement. There have been so many concerned raised along the way, all of which seem to boil down to traffic, here, is that I think maybe what my preference is is to table this thing until all of those concerns get addressed, that have been raised by DOT. 35 ~ I've been just going down through the list, here. There's a listing, a number of concerns that have been raised by a number of agencies. The Warren County Planning Board has been bird dogging this thing pretty carefully, and I hate to end run them. I would much prefer to see this get past, get an approval from the Warren County Planning Board, then have it come to us. I know that's not required. I know we can override the Warren County Planning Board, but in this case, I really hate to do that, because they've put a considerable amount of time in on this. They've raised a number of issues. That's the only thing I have. I don't have any specific issue. I think everything I had concerns about has been covered, in terms of design and access and so on and so forth. If we get all of those other concerns addressed, I'm certainly going to be satisfied with this thing. MR. MARTIN-Ed, do you have anything? MR. LAPOINT-If you could just quick summarize, I mean, briefly your findings of your traffic study? I mean, there's a table in the back, your determination level of services and all that stuff. MR. INGERSALL-That's a clarification. Our traffic consultant isn't with us this evening. MR. YARMOWICH-The question that you have, Ed, maybe I can help answer that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I don't have your engineering comments, but you suggested that the signal i zation, as they proposed it, would keep the level of service the same? MR. YARMOWICH-The Overall Level of Service means that the average delay from all approaches does not change enough so that the inconvenience is measurably different, on an overall intersection basis. However, when they re-time the lights, there's going to be certain approaches that are going to experience more delays. Initially, the concern was, one of those approaches would cause backing up onto 187. They've shown a method of light re-timing ameliorates that. However, certain places, like coming from Lake George to Route 149, is going to experience more delays with the site generated traffic. All these conclusions, which are valid based on the study data that they presented, indicate that if they re-timed the entire lights in the vicinity, they'll achieve these effects with the project in place, minor but slight increases in delays in certain approaches, but overall about the same. If DOT doesn't buy that and won't allow the 1 i ght re-timi ng, then the s ituati on is goi ng to be markedly different, and the traffic that's generated will cause significant changes in delays. MR. LAPOINT-And you said you'd hear from DOT by February 1st? MR. YARMOWICH-Right. MR. INGERSALL-That's correct. MR. YARMOWICH-And I think the comment that I was making to the Board was, unless you're satisfied yourselves that DOT is going to go along with this, I'd wait for some sort of verification that they will. If they do, it's my opinion that the traffic changes are slight, and you can make your decision accordingly, on how you feel those changes in traffic delays are going to have a bearing the Town's traffic problems, and whether or not you can approve this plan. MR. LAPOINT-And if they don't decide to re-synchronize the lights, then the entire finding of the traffic study is more or less out the window, right? MR. YARMOWICH-It's entirely based on the fact that the lights will be re-timed. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-And the project impacts are characterized on that, unless I'm misinterpreting it. MR. INGERSALL-Yes. Then we're into another whole issue of access. DOT cannot deny the applicant right to access their property. So, that's another whole issue. It should be noted that we're, to clarify, really here this evening not to push for a vote of approval or denial. We're simply here to continue the process. We understand, what we would like to request is, I know there's a timing concern about the receipt of that letter, that we could be placed on a February agenda, in anticipation of receiving that letter, just to discuss this issue. If the letter doesn't come, and we don't have it to the Board in time. So, you'd have to delay that. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and the other wild card in there is Warren County? They will not be ready in time for you to make the submittal date for February? MR. INGERSALL-Warren County, if you read what's happening. MR. MARTIN-They're sort of waiting for the study from the State? MR. INGERSALL-Yes, and that should be clarified, because the study that's going to be done, the consultant will be selected, I believe, in March, and then there's the six to eight months of data collecting, 36 --' and then there's the acceptance of the study, if it's accepted, if it's not, and we really are looking at about a year from now before the study's public. So we really have no guarantee that, even once it's done that they're going to get it out there. So, it's our contention that what's in front of you is your application which the Board's hearing. MR. LAPOINT-In terms of this stretch of highway, though, this RFP from Warren County is just, essentially, going to spend our money to tell us we have a problem there, I mean, right? It's just going to count cars and? MRS. YORK-Warren County's resolution said they will agree to rehear the project without prejudice if and when the Board has recommendations from the Task Force. The Task Force is not the DOT or the Warren County Study. It's the group of property owners up there and professionals in the area. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Where does that stand, that Task Force? MRS. YORK-The Task Force had their first meeting, looked at some alternatives that were suggested by Bob Joy, that are really excellent alternatives, just in moving pedestrians around in a more safe manner, creating common accessways off of the road, lining up accessways, if possible, across the main area, providing sidewalks from building to building, providing street scaping, potentially having a drawing board in each building that shows how to get from this Center to that Center, and show the pedestrians where to cross the streets in a more safe manner, things like that that can be accomplished on the land use side, okay, not in the roadway at all. What happened was the drawings were taken back by the property owners in that area and they are going to be, hopefully, forming a group that can speak with one voice, and then sitting down and looking at alternatives that they themselves can achieve and, hopefully, cause fewer people to be driving in and out, and more to be walking, which will help the traffic up there and help the pedestrians. I mean, our big concern is the pedestrian traffic up there, at this point. MR. LAPOINT-It's probably pretty safe to assume that that association's going to be in favor of this plan, though? MRS. YORK-I would make an assumption that they would be in favor of it, and in favor of making those improvements. MRS. PULVER-And this applicant would be in favor of, probably, doing anything the Task Force recommended, to make improvements. MRS. YORK-I'm sure. They're taking the lead in this. I have to commend this applicant. They have done an outstanding job in getting people going and trying to get something done up there. They really have taken the lead. and they certainly are to be commended, because I think the improvements will benefit the entire Town, as well as this particular strip. So, I believe that was what Warren County was referring to. They don't, as I understand it, and I could be wrong, I wasn't at their meeting, certainly, but what I understood from this motion was that they just want some recommendations from the property owners how they can improve things on their side. MR. INGERSALL-I believe that's correct. The motion was written that way, but I would encourage the Board to read the minutes. I think that was the motion that was presented. There was much discussion about other things, but that was what was presented and voted upon, okay. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. INGERSALL-Without offering, my impression was that they're also looking for the results of this. MR. MARTIN-The State study. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, one last question. If you're not here for approval, tonight, you're looking to consolidate all these comments? MR. INGERSALL-What I'm looking to do is, at our last meeting, if you'll reflect back, there were indicated in the minutes that we may not have been a complete application, for whatever reasons. The County has now acted. We're before you as a complete application, in our mind, and by the Town Law, we would like to initiate the SEQRA process and start getting into the issues, and if the issue is traffic, we'd like to get to that point. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm just wondering if we have enough to do a SEQRA Review, at this point. MRS. YORK-You have to take lead agency status. MR. INGERSALL-That's all I'm, if that is correct, that's all we want is to initiate the lead agency status so we can schedule a public hearing and start that process. MR. MARTIN-So, it's just accepting lead agency status, at this point? 37 -- ---- MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think, if you're looking for a direction to go at, I'd refer you to the page, Addendum to Staff Comments, read that, go through that. MR. LAPOINT-Right, but I'm just trying to boil this down. MR. MARTIN-Well, in terms of traffic, I, myself, would like to see what the State has to say, come February 1st, or thereabouts, whenever you receive it. MR. INGERSALL-Right. We would incorporate that in our next submission, and, certainly, you'd have it, and I think it's safe to say that if we don't have that in hand, we would probably be amenable to extending the SEQRA deadlines. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. INGERSALL-We need that. MR. MARTIN-Right, and I'd feel uncomfortable getting into a full SEQRA Review without that. So, do you need a resolution, then, for us to accept lead agency status, Paul? MR. DUSEK-Yes. I think you should, and you should direct that notification be sent to the other involved agencies, which, from just hearing the conversation, here, DOT must be an involved agency. MR. INGERSALL-Well, actually, it's our contention DOT is not, even though DOT is a permitting agency. MR. DUSEK-If it's a permitting agency, it's an involved agency. MR. INGERSALL-A permitting agency for an issuance of a discretionary permit. It's a work permit. It is not an environmental review permit. MR. DUSEK-They consider those a Type II? MR. INGERSALL-I'm not sure of the nomenclature, but I've read through, it's similar to a building permit. MR. CARTIER-Well, as a Board member, sitting here, I would certainly consider New York State DOT, in this case, an agency that needs to be notified. MR. DUSEK-Well, the key would be, make your motion broad enough to just say, notify all involved and interested agencies and let it go at that, if the applicant doesn't have an objection. MR. INGERSALL-I really don't, but I really feel strongly that DOT is not, and there are specific cases that the State was involved. MR. MARTIN-Well, Paul, we must have some precedent right within this area, what's happened in the past when we've had major developments in this area. I mean, the Planning Board's done SEQRA Review. Has DOT been an involved agency? MR. DUSEK-It depends. Sometimes they have and sometimes they haven't. I know what he's saying. MR. MARTIN-I know what you're driving at, also. MR. INGERSALL-In this case, we have an existing curb cut and a signal. curb cut and access to their right-of-way, then they're their access. a work permit to approve. If we were applying for a new They have nothing more than MR. DUSEK-When I thought we first started, I thought we were having a whole new access, that's what I picked up on what you were saying. MR. INGERSALL-No. MR. LAURICELLA-You're not changing your curb cut? MR. INGERSALL-That curb cut is a modification in the design standards, but, again, it's handled under their design guidelines. It's not applying for, if it were a virgin piece of property and we were applying for access. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. MR. CARTIER-They have traffic backing up onto the Northway from Exit 20, whatever that is. Now, I'm not suggesting that this particular piece of property is causing that, but nevertheless, New York State DOT has a very definite interest in this project, and for them not to be notified makes no sense at all. 38 '-- c-/ MRS. PULVER-He's not saying that. MRS. YORK-This Board has passed a resolution, in the past, telling me, explicitly, to notice all interested and involved parties, and that is how I proceed. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Great. Lets leave it at that. MR. DUSEK-Perhaps for the applicant's purposes, even though they notify everybody, I have not seen a situation where another agency tries to grab the lead agency status. So you're still back here anyway, and I would say this Board will most likely be the lead agent. It'll conduct the review. It'll have the information from any agencies that are necessary. I don't think there'll be a problem. MR. INGERSALL-They are participating in the County's traffic report. received the report to review, and I think we'll get a response. debate sometime. Notify DOT. So, they are aware and they have It's an issue that warrants some - MR. MARTIN-As a layman to traffic engineering, I rely heavily on them. All right. I will entertain a motion accepting lead agency status. IIJTION REQUESTING LEAD AGENCY STATUS, 'UTH REFEREltCE TO SITE PLAN NO. 55-91 OSCAP, LTD, AND REOOEST THAT THE PLANNING BOARD STAFF NOTIFY ALL INTERESTED AND INVOLVED AGENCIES, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Okay. That much is taken care of. Now, in terms of the rest of, I would imagine you're amiable to a tabling. MR. INGERSALL-No. MR. MARTIN-No? MR. INGERSALL-Well, if you could explain what it means. MR. CARTIER-Basically, what it amounts to, Mr. Ingersall, is that if you agree to a tabling, no time clock runs. If you do not agree to a tabling, then a time clock runs and we have to act on your application within 451 MR. DUSEK-Maybe I can help out here. The tabling is usually important in the applicant's purposes too, because usually the SEQRA has been done and they're looking at a 45 day time period for the site plan. In this particular case, the site plan is not done. So the time clocks for the site plan review don't start, and, therefore, it's not necessary to even agree to a tabling. I think, you've started the SEQRA process. I think the applicant, and I saw you get concerned. I think what you were concerned about is, I don't want them tabling the SEQRA time clocks, and the SEQRA time clock, in this case, I believe, is 20 days, that's my recollection, for the other agencies to notify us of their consent. MR. INGERSALL-I think it's 21 days to notify them, and then they have time to get back. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. INGERSALL-I think, is there a hearing within 45 days? MR. DUSEK-No. There's no hearing under SEQRA, unless you get into an EIS, not under a Short or Long Form. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. Are you talking about a public hearing, with regard to SEQRA? MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. CARTIER-But there's a question on there about, does the public have. There has to be a public hearing with a SEQRA. MR. DUSEK-No. MR. MARTIN-I believe he's right when it comes to, only in the EIS. MR. DUSEK-The only time it's a mandatory hearing is on an EIS, and you coordinate that with the rest of the review. We don't know, at this point, whether you'll get to the EIS. 39 '---' -- MR. INGERSALL-Right. MR. DUSEK-The first step will be, after the agency is named lead agency, will be to review the information and decide, at that point, whether you have sufficient information to issue either a negative dec or a conditional negative dec. If you don't feel you have sufficient information, at that time, then you'd move on to the EIS process and go for the public hearing and whatever else. MRS. YORK-The Planning Board has always handled SEQRA so that they time a public hearing with their SEQRA Review, so that they can answer, assess the questions as to neighborhood impact and the public controversy. So, the Planning Board has historically had that as their procedure. MR. DUSEK-But I think what's important to note there is that the public hearing would be for purposes of site plan. It's not a public hearing under SEQRA. I think that's the difference. MR. INGERSALL-Because I believe, at the last meeting, you actually, you said it was advertised, and it was opened, a public hearing. MRS. YORK-Yes. I believe the lead agency can hold the public hearing at their discretion. MR. MARTIN-All right. The public hearing's been opened on this, and we've left it open until we have further information. All right. With that much out of the way, then I would strongly recommend that the applicant do all he can, then, to address the further concerns of the engineer, here, and try and get your slate clean, in terms of everything except which is, obviously, the traffic concern, and get all the other ducks in a row, so to speak. Is there any other comments on this application? MR. INGERSALL-If you could explain to me, also, I think, within our application, there's two minor things, whether they need to be in writing or not, but, that we request from the Board a waiver for part of that parking, to be constructed at this time. MR. CARTIER-The green space issue, you mean? MR. INGERSALL-The parking in reserve. MR. CARTIER-To be held in reserve? MR. INGERSALL-Yes, the parking in reserve. MR. YARMOWICH-At the very western edge of the site. MR. INGERSALL-Should we do that in writing, or can we do that as part of the minutes? MR. YARMOWICH-It's on the drawing, if you've noticed, there's about 80 parking spaces. MR. CARTIER-I think the way we've done this in the past is we've just referenced it in the final motion. MR. INGERSALL-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Yes, we left it up to the applicant when they needed it. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, and it's on the drawing. It would be removed if it wasn't satisfactory. MR. INGERSALL-It would be, also the same would hold true with the discussion we've been having about this storm drainage requirement, with the ponds. MR. YARMOWICH-But that's something that you'll give new information on. MR. INGERSALL-Okay, and the other thing is, in light of the fact that we're diligently trying to get to an end, here, and the submission date for the next meeting would be the last Wednesday of the month, I believe, what I would ask the Board is, I believe the Board has the right to waive the submission deadline. Could we be placed on the February agenda if we don't have the traffic letter in hand? MR. CARTIER-Well, the only thing that occurs to me is that if we're going to change our February meeting dates, does that also change the submission dates? MR. MARTIN-No. don't think she can do that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. INGERSALL-Because, obviously, if we don't have it. MRS. PULVER-If you don't have it when you come for the meeting, we're probably not going to talk to you, so, no. 40 '- --- MR. INGERSALL-Because the State's really going to say to us, yes or no. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Well, our consideration in that, in the past, has been whether Staff has adequate time to review it, based on the time it's actually submitted. She has several layers of review that she has to proceed through. MR. INGERSALL-Are there going to be two meetings in February? MR. MARTIN-Yes, but we have yet to set those dates, because we have some conflicts with Staff availability and so on. MR. INGERSALL-If we were on the second meeting. MRS. YORK-They may be a day apart. MR. MARTIN-I was going to say, I'm very uncomfortable with these large, massive projects coming in, in the context of our regular meetings, because it makes it unfair to the other applicants, and, frankly, I don't think we're all as sharp as we'd like to be. MR. CARTIER-At this time of night. MR. MARTI N- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-What I'd like to do is I'd like to give this the benefit of it's own meeting, and I think that's more fair to the regular applicants and the other applicants and also this larger project. Is the Board willing to consent to that? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-I would agree to that. MRS. PULVER-But next month is a short month. MR. MARTIN- I understand that, but I'd 1 ike to just carve out a ni ght where we coul d just have thi s one project before us and deal with this one issue. MR. LAPOINT-Lets find out when the two meetings are going to be, and work around that. MR. INGERSALL-If it were towards the end of the month, that's fine. MR. CARTIER-It could actually be in the beginning of March. MRS. YORK-The beginning of March might be a better available date for you. MR. INGERSALL-That would be fine, and then we'd be sure to have the DOT response. MR. MARTIN-Would you be agreeable to that? MR. INGERSALL-The beginning of March, then I miss the March submission date in February. MR. CARTIER-Well, if we set a special meeting, do we also set a special submission date? MRS. YORK-That's up to the Board. MR. MARTIN-Yes, just giving her enough time, because you have a vacation in there, right, and all that. MR. BREWER-Lee's going to be gone the last week of the month? MRS. PULVER-No, the third week. MRS. YORK-The third week. MR. BREWER-So, if we had the meeting with him the beginning of the last week of the month. MRS. PULVER-Well, the February 25th is our normal Planning meeting. MR. MARTIN-How about Thursday the 27th? How does that sound to everybody? 41 ',,--, -../ MRS. PULVER-I can't. MR. LAPOINT-Sold. MR. BREWER-Fine. MR. MARTIN-Thursday the 27th? MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Lee? MR. YARMOWICH-That's the day after the submission deadline, if that matters to the applicant. MRS. PULVER-Is that for our regular meeting, or for them? MR. MARTIN-It would be just for them. MRS. PULVER-When are we having our regular meetings? MR. LAPOINT-We don't know. MR. CARTIER-Can I back up a step? I think the way to go at this is to find out, first of all, how much time the Planning Department needs to review it, get that time span between the submission date and the meeting date, and then we can set a meeting date, maybe. MR. MARTIN-Okay, yes. Lets say the DOT letter, that's what we're hinging on, here, comes through the door somewhere in that first week, the third through the seventh. How much time would you need, Lee, for adequate review? MRS. YORK-He could be on for the 27th. I wouldn't have a problem. MR. MARTIN-So you're saying, essentially, a couple of weeks? MR. INGERSALL-Two weeks, ten days, two weeks. MR. BREWER-She's going to be gone the third week. MR. MARTIN-That's true. Yes. MRS. YORK-Well, I'm leaving the 14th and won't be back until the 23rd. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, if you do accept the 27th, that's the only thing, we're missing the March submission deadline. MRS. YORK-Right. Well, you can extend the deadline for these people, under the circumstances, since it's a special meeting. I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that. MR. INGERSALL-I think they practically will be down to, really, one or two minor issues. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. Well, why don't we schedule you in, then, for a special meeting to be held the 27th at 7:00 p.m. again? MR. CARTIER-That's a Thursday night? Can we have this room available? MR. LAURICELLA-That's assuming they have the letter from DOT. MR. INGERSALL-Right. I would offer that the letter is in your hand by. MR. MARTIN-Well, we have to have it well in advance. I'd say by the seventh or so, because Lee will need a week to review it, and then she'll be on vacation. MR. INGERSALL-Is the seventh a Friday or a Monday? MR. MARTIN-It's a Friday. The tenth is a Monday. I know how DOT can be. All right. So, we'll leave it at that right now, for now, 7:00 p.m., Thursday the 27th. MR. INGERSALL-Okay. We'll try to get it here by the close of the day on the seventh. MR. MARTIN-And now we're going to set a date for submissions, on your behalf, for that night, of the seventh? 42 '-- --- MRS. YORK-The seventh sounds fine. MR. MARTIN-Five o'clock should be all right, the end of that day? MRS. YORK-Actually, if you could make it by 2 o'clock. MR. MARTIN-Two o'clock. Okay. MRS. YORK-That's the traditional time. MR. MARTIN-And that gives you a little cushion, there, for your DOT letters. MR. INGERSALL-If you don't have it in hand, then we'll fall back to the regular meeting at the end of March. MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. MR. CARTIER-And you will notify the Planning Department, if you don't have that, so they can notify us that we don't need that meeting. MR. MARTIN-Well, still, I'd like to, I'll give you a meeting in March, but I'd rather not put it on a regular meeting night. MR. INGERSALL-The only thing is, I think, if I could clarify, we may still have to have a meeting just about the lead agency, to see if anyone's responded, because we'll be in the time frame for their response back to the Board, correct? Interested parties have 30 days to? MR. DUSEK-Whatever the number of days is, right, to respond back, and then the Board, probably should meet just to accept the lead agency designation, and then make a decision as to where you're going. MR. MARTIN-Well, then we can put it on the agenda for the February meetings, to that effect. MRS. YORK-Yes, I can. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. So, I think that takes care of all the issues. Can anybody think of anything else at this point, and this time of night? All right. I'll entertain a motion, then, to table this particular application. MR. DUSEK-No. I think we, you're fine. You've left the public hearing open and you're going through the SEQRA process. I don't think you have to do anything else, at this point. MR. MARTIN-Okay. See you on the 27th. MR. I NGERSALL-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Do we have to make a motion to set those meeting dates or anything like that? MR. DUSEK-Well, you should, so that the whole Board is in agreement, that you have a record of that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Lets entertain a motion to that effect, on the meeting for the 27th. MRS. PULVER-All in favor? MR. LAURICELLA-Aye. MR. CARTIER-Aye. MR. LAPOINT-Aye. MRS. PULVER-Aye. MR. MARTIN-Aye. MR. INGERSALL-Thank you very much. (10:27 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS: OFF PREMISES SHiN NO. 1-92 J A P AUTO FIX BUSINESS FOR IIIICH SIGN IS RE~ESTED IS FOR AUTQIIIOTIVE REPAIR OWNER: PHIL LAD, C/O JADE GARDEIt LOCATION: QUEENSllJRY CAR WASH JIM DAURIA, PRESENT (10:27 p.m.) 43 '~ '--" STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Off Premises Sign 1-92, JAP Auto Fix, 1-17-92, January 21, 1992 "The request is to put an off premises sign on the Queensbury Car Wash property. The applicant currently already has an off premises sign at 15 Miller Hill; off Route 9, in Queensbury. The reason the Planning Board reviews these signs is to assure that sign pollution does not become a problem because of a proliferation of off premises advertising. The applicant's business is outside the primary traffic corridor. The Board has to decide if the signage is directional in nature and subsequently for identification or whether it is advertising. The applicant currently has signage at the property and one off premises sign. The Board may wish to discuss limiting the signage to one off premises sign." MRS. YORK-Also, we would like some indication as to whether Mr. Lau, of the restaurant, feels that he has no problem with it being on his property. MR. DAURIA-I have a letter. MRS. YORK-Very good. That's all we would request. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Could you give a copy of that to Lee, for her file. Lee, could you read that into the minutes, real quickly? MRS. YORK-Yes. "This letter serves as written permission from Philip Lau to James J. Dauria to erect a sign for JAP Auto Fix on this property, located on the west side of Route 9, to the north side of the Queensbury Car Wash. Upon receiving permission from the Town of Queensbury, the final approval, an agreement will be decided between Mr. Lau and Mr. Dauria, depending on the size of the sign approved." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Everybody has in their packet an illustration of what the sign will look like. We've been by to see the location. Is there any discussion. MR. CARTIER-The only question I had is, where's the other Off Premises Sign? I didn't see one. MR. BREWER-That's one back on. MRS. PULVER-On Miller Hill. We approved that one before. MRS. YORK-Yes, Miller Hill. MR. LAURICELLA-Miller Hill, just down the road. MR. MARTIN-Yes, we looked at that one before. MR. CARTI ER- Yes. 0 kay . MRS. PULVER-Remember? MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Is this the same size sign as that? MR. DAURIA-Jim and Diane Dauria. The submission of the sign that we had given to you, I believe, was submitted by a sign company. What we're trying to do is to get the maximum use, we have to lease the premises where we're putting the sign on the Car Wash. So, whatever the largest sign is that we're allowed to have. MR. LAPOINT-Well, you're proposing, like, a 48 inch, I just wanted to gauge my eye. If you want to put up a 48 inch sign, I know what your existing sign looks like. MR. DAURIA-I believe that's the same size sign as the one that's already there. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm just trying to calibrate myself. MR. DAURIA-We're trying to get it a little bit, as large as we can. I don't know what the. MR. MARTIN-Well, is he in conformance with the Sign Ordinance? MRS. YORK-He'll have to be within the parameters of the Sign Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. YORK-Unless he gets a variance. MR. BREWER-What is the size of the sign that he can have? 44 '---' --- MRS. YORK-I don't happen to have the Sign Ordinance with me. MR. MARTIN-It's a separate Ordinance. It's separate from the Zoning Ordinance. MRS. YORK-However, unless he does get a variance from the Sign Ordinance, he would have to stay within the parameters. MR. LAPOINT-Well, if he's proposing a 48 by 30, that's what he's got to put in. be contradictory. I mean, what your application says is 48 inches by 30 inches. that's what I want the dimensions of the sign to be. I mean, it seems to If I approve that, MR. MARTIN-Right. Well, that's why I want to make sure we're in conformance with. MR. BREWER-But on the same hand, though, Ed, if he gives us a 48 by 30, and we approve it, and he can only have a two foot sign, what's the sense of approving it? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I think all we have to do is approve the $ign, and the Sign Ordinance takes car of the size. MR. LAPOINT-So, he wants to make it as big as possible. MR. LAURICELLA-We should know what we're approving. MR. MARTIN-Well, Lee, what's the path this takes, if we approve it? Does it have to go through Building and Codes for being in conformance with the Ordinance? MRS. YORK-Yes. The Zoning Administrator will have to review it. MR. LAPOINT-You see, I worry about a 10 foot sign being the limit, and he puts up a 10 foot. I like the one you've got. It's small. MR. DAURIA-Which? You mean the one that's? MR. LAPOINT-The existing one, south. MR. LAURICELLA-Miller Hill. MR. MARTIN-Your other Off Premises Sign. MR. LAPOINT-You can't see it. I had to look for it. I like my signs small. MR. MARTIN-Well, if we had a resolution worded to the effect that it has to be in conformance with the Sign Ordinance, that would take care of it, right? MRS. PULVER-Okay. Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Yes. MR. MARTIN-Is there any further discussion? Then I'll entertain a motion to that effect. IIJTION TO APPROVE OFF PREMISES SIGII NO. 1-92 J A P AUTO FIX, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Which will be in conformance with the Queensbury Town Sign Ordinance. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (10:33 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1992 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-lA PRELIMINARY STAGE STEIMRT SUBDIVISION OWER: A. ROBERT ¡ JESSIE W. STEWART EAST SHORE ROAD ROUTE 9L, NEXT TO HARRIS BAY YACHT CLUB FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION OF 4.1 ACRES WITH EXISTING 2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. TAX MAP NO. 10-1-1.5 LOT SIZE: 4.1 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS SCOTT NEWELL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT (10:40 p.m.) STAFF INPUT 45 --../ Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 1-1992, A. Robert & Jessie Stewart, 1-17-92, Meeting Date: January 21, 1992 "The applicant requests to subdivide a parcel of land on Lake George. The Zoning Board of Appeals, last month granted a variance for lake frontage for the applicant to be allowed to do this. The decision is attached. The parcel is in a waterfront residential 1 acre zone and is ± 4 acres in size. The applicant will divide the property so that each existing residence has its own deed. No development is anticipated. The lot will not be evenly divided because of the house locations and wetland issues. There are no impacts because everything is in existence. The only issue might be additional docks allowed on lot number 2 because of its shore frontage. If the Board feels this issue to be nullified then the Staff recommends that this be considered an expedited matter." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Do we have someone here for the applicant? MR. NEWELL-I'm Scott Newell, agent for the applicant. The information is pretty much obvious, in front of you there. The houses are existing. They're not really changing anything. They just wanted to be able to offer one for sale, and they never filed a deed when they separated it. It's owned within the family, so the daughter lives in one and the father lives in the other. The dock issue, anything that they want to do would, of course, they'd have to apply for. I mean, if, 10 years from now, it changes hands, it doesn't matter. They have to go to the Lake George Park Commission, the APA, and yourselves to get a dock permit. MR. CARTIER-He's got a waiver request in there, some place. MR. NEWELL-Yes, a waiver request. MR. CARTIER-For? MRS. PULVER-Drainage. MR. NEWELL-For contours, stormwater management, clearing and grading plan, erosion control and drainage plans, and report. MR. MARTIN-And all this is existing, so it's really a moot point. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Just a generic comment. This might be one of the things that we consider when we talk about minor subdivision revisions. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-That we might not need to look at these, as a Board. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-We've got a question, though. MR. LAURICELLA-Driveway access. MR. LAPOINT-How are you handling the access to the interior lot? Through an easement? MR. NEWELL-Yes. It's going to be an easement drawn up with the attorneys. He's going to take care of it. MR. MARTIN-Shared driveway, right? MR. NEWELL-A shared driveway. It already is. Right. It goes in and splits. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Is that satisfactory, Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Any further discussion? There being none, I'll entertain a motion. MR. CARTIER-Do we have to do a SEQRA on this? It's unlisted. Do we have to do a SEQRA Short Form? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. RESOLUTION "'Eft DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-1992, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: 46 --- WHEREAS, there is presently before this Planning Board an application for: Prelilrinary Stage STEWART SUBDIVISION for a 2 lot subdivision of 4.1 acres .rtth existing 2 single fa.ily residences., 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 the 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 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Marti~ NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Okay. I want to open a public hearing on this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. YORK-Mr. Newell, on the public hearing notices, did you put the date? MR. NEWELL-Yes. MRS. YORK-Okay. You put tonight's date? MR. NEWELL- Yes. MRS. YORK-Mr. Newell was kind enough to hand in his notices with his application. MR. MARTIN-Mr. Newell has always proven to be very competent. Anybody here from the public? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-And I'll accept a motion on this project. IIJTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1992 STEWART SUBDIVISION, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a 2 lot subdivision of 4.1 acres with existing 2 single family residences. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1992 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (10:40 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 1-92 TYPE: UNLISTED WR-3A MARY CAROL tIIITE OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE ROOTE 9L, EAST SIDE OF LAIŒ GEORGE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF UPPER FLOOR LEVEL TO CREATE MASTERBEDROOM AND BATH. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 7 FT. BY 24 FT. DECK TO MAIN LEVEL OF HOOSE. (WARREN COONTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 3-1-4 LOT SIZE: 124 FT. BY 280 FT. SECTION 179-79 WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:40 p.m.) 47 _/ STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 1-92, Mary Carol White, 1-21-92, Meeting Date: January 21, 1992 "The Staff has attached the minutes of variance no. 6-1990 which was granted on this property. The variance was granted in 1990 to add a 16' x 16' addition that would not meet the 75 foot shoreline setback and side yard setbacks. The addition was to increase the size of an existing master bedroom." At that time, my understanding was that it was not built, however, I put these in because there was significant discussion regarding the property and the state of the septic system, and I felt the Board should be made aware of that. "There was discussion regarding the age and adequacy of the septic system on the property. The Staff has indicated to the agent for the applicant that this will be a concern. The Zoning Board minutes also disc:uss blasting or removal of rock with a large backhoe to a depth of six or seven feet. There are also some slope considerations. Water service is from Lake George. The lot size is 124 x 280 or .85 of an acre. The addition should not increase permeable area as as second floor will be added. The size of the addition will be 763 sq. ft. making the total gross floor area with new construction 3948 sq. ft. The current structure contains 4 bedrooms and 2 baths. The site plan review criteria follows: The location and arrangement of buildings on the site will not change. The structure is currently over the required side yard setbacks and appears wide for the lot. 2) The vehicular access is existing. 3) There appears to be sufficient space for parking and loading. 4) Pedestrian access is handled by a series of decks and patios. 5) Stormwater drainage will not change because of the addition of a second floor. Erosion control should be used during and after construction. 6) Water is supplied from the lake. The proposed addition could be a problem for the septic system. The house currently has 2 bathrooms and 4 bedrooms. The request is for an addition of 763 sq. ft. which will be a master bedroom and bath. This brings the total to 5 bedrooms and 3 baths. The Board needs specific information on the septic system. 7) The lot is treed. The Board should ascertain what growth will be removed and where soil and rock will be removed. The Board should review how the addition will affect the visual character. The house already sUbstantially takes up the width of the property. Now the applicant is expanding upward. The upper level deck will also be a visual impact. 8) Fire and emergency access will not change. 9) Erosion into the lake is of great concern. The applicant should conform to Section 179-65 (Erosion Control standards)." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Warren County approved, "With the conditions that the septic system is in compliance with the Town's regulations and also that there be no further encroachment by the deck towards the lake." We have their minutes regarding this application, and we have also attached the variance that was given by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Okay. Does the applicant have anything to add? MR. REHM-I'm Walter Rehm. I represent Mary Carol White, the applicant. I'd just like to make one comment on the Planning Comments, and that is, in Item Number 6, the last sentence where it says, "This brings the total to 5 bedrooms and 3 baths". Actually, the total will be four bedrooms and three baths. The only increase is in one bath. It is presently a four bedroom house and will remain a four bedroom house. MRS. YORK-Mr. Rehm, I was asked today, also, to make you aware of the fact that you have to get a permit, regarding the septic system, from our Building and Codes Department, which is acting in behalf of the Lake George Park Commission. MR. REHM-Because of this project? I'm just not aware of that. MRS. YORK-Yes. Mr. Hatin just wanted me to ask you to talk to him. MR. REHM-We certainly will. Presently, I believe, the design standards under the Town Regulations is 150 gallons per bedroom. There are presently four bedrooms. There will remain four bedrooms. So, in terms of, at least in terms of design standards, there's no septic change. This is, however, a septic system that has existed for some time, and we have looked into what's there and I'm not so sure anyone really knows exactly what is there. The White's retained Jim Hutchins to take a look at the septic system, and I have a letter. I don't think you have this letter, but I have letters from Jim, regarding that, and the bottom line is that, I think it's fair to say that there's nothing that's going on there that should impact the septic system, but if there should be a failure, or if there should be an impact, and it can't be resolved in compliance with the Town regulations, then it's going to have to be a holding tank situation, and the White's have been advised of that and they understand it. At least during the White's ownership of the property, as far as we know and as far as they no, there has been no evidence of any failure in the septic system. It's just an existing situation. MR. CARTIER-But, nevertheless, we are adding a third bathroom, correct? MR. REHM-Yes, we are adding a third bathroom. MR. CARTIER-And it was my understanding, and I can't pick it out right now, but it was represented to either Warren County Planning Board or the Zoning Board that this would, in fact, be certified by an engineer. I think it was to the Zoning Board, correct? 48 "---- --' MR. REHM-I don't know about the Zoning Board, but I think that one of the, I think it was the County Planning Board that wanted to be sure that the system complied with the Town regulations. I think that that was the language. Mr. Bailey, I think, is the one that raised that issue. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. REHM-In any event, the plan, substantially, is to put a third level on this house, which you can see on this map, which will include a masterbedroom, a sitting room, and a new bathroom. At the second level, at the existing level, that which is two bedrooms and a bath will be converted into one bedroom and a bath, and this will be a masterbedroom suite here, but in terms of new construction, the new construction is this upper level. There are some areas that are going to be removed, which show on the plans, and which I've highlighted in red, mostly deck areas and just a little corner of the house where there is an existing fireplace, and there is some new deck to be constructed, but the new deck to be constructed is really fairly minor. It is under the overhang of the existing building and is pretty much encompassed by an area that is existing deck at a lower level. MR. MARTIN-What's going to be the height of the building from the lower front, there, to the very top of the new portion? MR. REHM-It's going to be just about the maximum height allowed in that area, which I think is 35 feet. This is a fairly steep lot. MR. MARTIN-Yes, we've been there. MR. CARTIER-How "just about", Mr. Rehm? MR. REHM-It will not exceed. MR. MARTIN-Okay, because I always thought it was the median grade of the area, but it's not. It's the vertical distance measured from the lowest portion of the natural grade. So, that would be right out on the front. MR. BREWER-Right to the bottom. MR. REHM-Yes, but we understand this, and the architect has been warned that he's got 35 feet to work with, and I'm sure that. MR. MARTIN-I think whatever motion we make on this should make sure that that's highlighted. MR. REHM-And I'm sure that when Dave, or whoever inspects it, inspects it, he's going to want to be sure that it is 35 feet. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. REHM-None of the construction will be any closer to the lake. MR. MARTIN-Yes. understand that. MR. REHM-I think, really, that, other than the height being the issue, the other issue is the sewer system. The substantial issue is the sewer system. MR. MARTIN-You have no idea what's existing, in terms of how that sewer? MR. REHM-I'll let John speak to that issue. I certainly don't. As you can see on the map, there's the refuted area of the sewer system, and I don't think Jim Hutchins letter added a great deal to that. MR. MARTIN-Right. JOHN MASON MR. MASON-1'm John Mason. About the only thing I can add to what you already know about the septic system is what is contained in the minutes from an earlier variance request, and that testimony was by John Matthews, who actually is also here tonight, that he was involved with the original construction of the septic system, and it was a 500 gallon metal tank and drainage extended around one side of the house. I don't know whether any changes have occurred since John di d that construction. I know that the White's are unaware of any changes since they've owned the property. MR. MARTIN-How long have they owned it for? MR. MASON-I think 1972. We have a deed, but I think it's 1972. MR. MARTIN-And it was originally built in? 49 '-' MR. BREWER-It says here, '57 to '59, here. MR. MASON-Yes. There has been no evidence of failure since they've owned it. The White's, though, are more than willing, they have no intention of allowing a system to fail where they're living. They are aware of the option of a holding tank. They know that that option is staring them in the face, should they have any problem with the system, and they have been, as Jim Hutchins says in his letter, they know all of the pump out procedures. They know how they're built. We've gone through everything with them. If there is a problem with the system, they will put in a holding tank system. They were prepared to hire an engineer to design one, right now. We thought that was kind of putting the cart before the horse until we came in front of this Board. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think, just to clarify that, I wish Tom was here. The Ordinance requirement is 250 gallons per bedroom and 250 gallons for common area, I believe, yielding 1,000 gallons for a three bedroom home, but I understand your existing and all that, but if this was a new construction, I think you'd be looking at a 1250 gallon septic tank to meet the Town's Ordinance. MR. MASON-If it was new construction, the drain field would have to be 200 feet back from the lake. MR. MARTIN-Right, exactly. MR. MASON-So, I mean, there's just simply no way that this a conventional, Town of Queensbury approved septic system. a holding tank is the next step here, when this system fails, of that. lot, as it presently exists, could take I don't think there's any question that and I think the homeowners are well aware MR. MARTIN-Being a metal tank, I think when is the correct statement. MR. MASON-No. I don't think you're looking at too far in the future, that that being an option, but I think it comes down to a question, do you tear out an existing working system, now, or do you wait until it fails to tear it out, and I think they're leaving that up to you. MRS. PULVER-I believe that that if they're going to live there in that house, and looking at that house, that they're not going to live with a failed septic system, that if it fails, they're going to immediately take care of it, and I'm against digging up and ripping up anything more along the lake unless it's necessary. MR. MASON-They're willing to do what the Board wants to do. MR. MARTIN-All right. Bearing that in mind. MR. CARTIER-Can I ask a couple of questions? We don't know the gallonage of the tank there? MR. MARTIN-500 gallons they said, approximately. MR. BREWER-500. MR. CARTIER-But that's an approximate. We don't know that. We know that based on, what, Mr. Matthews? JOHN MATTHEWS MR. MATTHEWS-I can testify that I installed it. MR. CARTIER-You installed it. Okay. Mr. Matthews indicates that he installed it. So, it's 500 gallons. MR. MATTHEWS-I'm John Matthews, neighbor. I work with the owner and, at the time, when he built the place, and helped him install the system. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What kind of leach field is there, leach system? MR. MATTHEWS-To my knowledge, the leach system is a piece of orange berg pipe that runs around the northeasterly corner of the building, with stones around it. MR. CARTIER-Approximately how long? MR. MATTHEWS-20 feet, maybe. Well, it's within the retaining wall that has since been built, underneath the steps. My concern is, on their plot plan, they show a reputed septic system, which is approximately five or six feet, maybe 10 feet, above the elevation of where I would think the field is, and I know of no pump there that would get it up to that elevation. There's a pump in the basement that gets the lower bathroom up into the septic system. MR. MARTIN-I would venture to guess that it's probably the system that you remember. 50 MR. MATTHEWS-I'm sure it is, because we live right next door, and I've never seen any work being done on the system since we put it in. I helped Mr. Mathison dig it up and get it pumped out in the middle 60's. It's a metal tank. I've done a lot of work around the lake on septic systems, and very seldom do you ever pull one up that doesn't have holes in it. So, that is one of my family's concerns. The construction feature of the house is fine as far as I can see. I am very concerned with the visual appearance from the lake, due to the height. As you look at it right now, it's very high, and to add another story to the existing two and a half or three stories that it is, it all depends on which rock you're going to measure from to find the height. Are you going to go out from the post? MR. MARTIN-Well, that's why I asked. It appears to me that it's very defined. You just go down to the bottom level there in front of that bottom door there, way down by the lake, and you measure from that point up, according to the way the Ordinance is written. MR. MATTHEWS-Yes, well the door is probably five or six feet above grade, in front of the house. There's a patio there, but that's my concern, exactly where they're going to measure from, because when you look at it from the lake, you're looking at the bottom, which is underneath the deck. MRS. PULVER-Well, that's what they're going, aren't they going to measure from that point, the bottom and the front up? MR. BREWER-Underneath where we walked in the front of the house, underneath that there's a? MRS. YORK-Mr. Matthews, how large was the house when you put in that septic system? MR. MATTHEWS-Three bedrooms, I believe. MRS. YORK-So, it was a small camp, then? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, it was a family, a mother, a father, and two kids, and I was just a teenager at the time, but it was a do-it yourself project. MRS. YORK-Right. How often does the homeowner use the property now? Is it a full year round use, or is it a seasonal use? MR. MATTHEWS-It's basically, I would say, a seasonal use, but they do use it in the winter. MRS. YORK-I see. MR. MATTHEWS-The only thing I do know, and I'm concerned with, only from working right into that area, is that it's all broken rock filled, and there's very little soil in the area of where the septic is. I know. MR. CARTIER-Just to clarify process, Mr. Matthews is at the microphone at my request, because I asked him a question. There will be a public hearing. So, Mr. Matthews will get his shot. I guess my only comment is, and this in no way impugns Mr. James E. Hutchins, P.E., or any engineer for that matter, but this letter really doesn't tell me a lot, because I go down to Item Four, and it says, "reputed location" was inspected. He wasn't even sure he was inspecting the location. Where he may have been looking may not have, in fact, been where the septic system was. MR. MASON-Could I answer that? I went with Jim to the site. It's the usual problem you run into. You start indiscriminately digging areas up, trying to find drain fields, trying to find septic tanks. Is it worth the damage you might do to the system, to drag a backhoe down there and try and uncover a system that you just don't have any idea where it is. The White's have never uncovered anything. They've never even pumped the tank. MR. CARTIER-I have no argument with that, but my point is, we have an inspection of a system where we don't know it's location. So, was the system in the area, in fact, inspected, and, to my way of thinking, we don't know, okay. MRS. PULVER-Except if there was snow all around, and there wasn't snow in that one area, you might suspect. MR. CARTIER-Well, we don't know that either. MR. REHM-But this is the problem. With all of these additions to buildings, there are existing septic systems which apparently have been working and functioning properly, and there's no evidence of any failure. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 51 -.../ MR. REHM-And where do you go from there? I think the only intelligent thing we can say is that, what we've said, if there is evidence of failure, if it can't be fixed in compliance with the applicable Codes, then there has to be holding tanks. MR. CARTIER-But what we know is, the best we know from Mr. Matthews, is that there's a 500 gallon tank there, and what's required by Code. What did you say, 1250? MR. MARTIN-For a four bedroom, yes, that's my understanding. MR. CARTIER-So, the present tank is, in fact, less than half the capacity of the required Code. MRS. PULVER-But it's working. MR. LAURICELLA-Yes, but you're going to, you've got the renewed Code, and you're going to approve an addition to a building without the proper tank. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's my point. MR. REHM-It's a four bedroom house and it's going to remain a four bedroom house. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that's his, the claim is that he's not expanding the criteria by which the septic system is judged. I know he's adding a third bathroom, but. MR. LAPOINT-That's the big difference. MR. CARTIER-That's the reality. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. REHM-But that isn't, you know, as a practical matter. MR. LAPOINT-Then what do you need a bathroom for? MR. REHM-We need it as a matter of convenience. That's what it is. An additional bathroom in a house, an additional bathroom in my house wouldn't result in one extra gallon of water. MR. LAURICELLA-But if you were to sell your house to a family, it might. MR. CARTIER-That's true. MR. REHM-But if I sold a two bathroom house to the same fami ly, there woul d sti 11 be the same number of gallons of water. MR. CARTIER-But the reality that we're facing here is that we, I understand all that, but the reality I'm looking at is we have a tank that's reputedly working. We can't say whether it's failing. We can't say that it's working. It's a 500 gallon tank. MR. REHM-We can say it's working. MR. MASON-We can say it's working. MR. CARTIER-Okay. You can say it's working? MR. MASON-Absolutely. MR. REHM-And nobody can say that it's not working. MR. MASON-And if you would like a dye test of it, they would be more than willing to dye test it. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess I want to finish my point, here. I'm somewhat sensitive to what's going on around that lake up there. I don't mean to suggest nobody else is, but I'm particularly sensitive to it, and I'm uncomfortable with a 500 gallon tank when a 1250 gallon tank's required, and we only have a 20 foot leach pipe, from what I understand, and we have very thin soils and all that sort of stuff. MR. REHM-Mr. Cartier, we really don't know what's there. I mean, I hear John is saying that happened back in the 50's or something like that, but who knows what was done in the meantime. I don't think anyone knows, and we've had this discussion before, on other projects. I think the sensible thing to do is, if the system is functioning and is not failing, if it's not a new home, if it's an addition, leave it. On this lot, there is no other place to build a system. We know that. So, we know the only alternative is a holding tank, and I don't think that it's a sound policy to tell everyone that wants to put an addition on their house, that can't build a system in compliance with current Codes, that they have to put a holding tank in. 52 "----' -' MRS. PULVER-And I agree. I don't think we have to make everyone dig it up, either, if it's working properly. MR. CARTIER-Well, we could have some debate on that, but I won't debate that tonight. MR. LAURICELLA-What would happen if that system were to fail tomorrow? MRS. PULVER-They'd put a new one in. They'd put in holding tanks. That's what he said. They'd put in holding tanks. MR. LAURICELLA-What would happen if it failed tomorrow? MR. REHM-We would see something on the. MR. LAURICELLA-No, no. I know that, but, I mean, what would you have to do? MR. MASON-You would immediately hire an engineer. The engineer would design a holding tank system, tanks would be installed, and it would be on a regular pumping system. MR. MARTIN-You'd need a pumping system, I would imagine. MR. LAURICELLA-But you'd need a permit from the Town to go ahead, and you'd have to update it, at that time to meet the current regulations? MR. MASON- Yes. MR. CARTIER-How long would all of that take? MR. MASON-To get in the holding tank system? MR. CARTIER-From failure to replacement. MR. MASON-Probably, from failure to replacement, a month, altogether, permits and everything else, but if you're asking me, would there be any danger to the lake during that time period, I can assure you there are a number of systems that have failed that have been in an identical situation, that are pumped regularly until replacement. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MASON-I am unaware of anyone pumping raw sewage, or allowing raw sewage, to flow into the lake while a permit is being. MR. CARTIER-You're unaware, that's not the same as saying it never happens. MR. MASON-I understand What you're saying, but with the number of them that we put in, and Lord knows we put in enough new septic systems up around the lake, that just doesn't happen. MR. MARTIN-My only thought I'd like to throw out for the applicant's consideration is, if you're going to go through all thi s heartache and hassle, of di sturbing the property with thi s additi on, it would strike me that now's the time, why gamble on a few thousand dollars and re-disturbing the whole area again. Why not take care of what you know is going to be a problem. It's not a matter of if. It's just a matter of when. Why not just take care of it all in this one upheaval. MR. MASON-There is one small issue, here. There's no upheaval to the property. MRS. PULVER-There's no excavation or anything going on. MR. MARTIN-Well, I mean, the inconvenience of men on site. The materials coming and going. The saws going. MRS. PULVER-They'll put the whole third floor on before they break through. MR. MASON-It's important that I do address that, though. I agree with you. If we were tearing up their existing. MR. MARTIN-Well, I mean, you have workers on site. Why don't we just have the workers that are doing this as well, you know. Do you see what I'm saying? MR. MASON-We're not tearing into the ground at all. MR. MARTIN-I know. I understand that. 53 -- - MR. MASON-And I suppose if we were, that would be a wonderful time to do it. I'm not a big fan, though, I mean, I don't mean to take the side of one member of the Board, but I don't, I'm not a big section in this close proximity to Lake George, unless it's necessary. It just seems to me we open up a lot of other issues, then, erosion issues, other things that don't necessarily have to be opened up. The White's are willing to put in a holding tank system, if the Board insists they do that, and I'm sorry I'm going to say that. They've told me that if the Board wants them to tear out a functioning system and put in a holding tank system, they will do that. MR. BREWER-Is there an inexpensive way to test to see if it is working properly? MR. MASON-We can run a dye test. The White's are more than willing to run a dye test. MR. BREWER-How expensive is that? MRS. PULVER-Nothing to it. You can go up and probably flush their toilets and find out whether or not it's working. You'll know in a flash. MR. BREWER-Why don't we do that? MR. MASON-One of the interesting things about all of this is that while dye tests are used frequently, one of the easiest ways is to flush the toilet. You can find out real quick if something's not working. MRS. PULVER-Yes, that's all you really have to do. MR. BREWER-Why don't we do it and have it done, and then we'll know. MR. CARTIER-Well, in terms of frost and so on, is there some restriction as to, how reliable are the results? MR. MASON-Of a dye test? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-It could pass one day and fail the next. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's. MR. MASON-What they do, they really, it takes a lot of water. They do not run a dye test with a small amount of water. They get right up there with a fire hose and just pound the water right into it, with gallon after gallon of dye. How accurate is it? It depends on the dye. MR. LAPOINT-We do that frequently. When we dye test something, we destroy what's there, and then you have to fix it afterwards. It happens. MRS. PULVER-If you know what it's like to have a septic system fail, these people are not going to live with a failed septic system. MR. MASON-I think it's important we do make that point, that the White's are not going to allow this system to fail. If the system shows any signs of failing, they know a holding tank is their next option, and, to tell you the truth, they're not really even afraid of a holding tank. We've put in so many of them up around the lake, at this point, that the pumping schedules are very regular. The alarm systems work like a charm. They're wonderful systems, and you sleep well at night knowing you're not allowing anything to get into the lake. MR. MARTIN-Well, why don't we open up the public hearing on this, and see if that brings anything new to light. I just have a written note, here, from Mrs. Monahan stating that this is an environmentally sensitive area, and that we would want to consider putting water saving devices as part of our motion on, like, a one and a half gallon flush toilet. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-I specified the 1.6 gallons, because the other sizes were also called water saving, but then there's the shower heads, etc., and we have been doing that in every place like this that we have to grant a variance, if they are putting in a new facility. We're not asking them to redo the old bathrooms, but we're trying to prevent problems from happening. Probably our Ordinance is going to be written with this clause in it. MRS. PULVER-Now, just so the Board knows, I have four and a half bathrooms in my house, and I have every water saving device because I hate paying the Queensbury Town water tax. 54 -- -- MR. MARTIN-Well, I would imagine this would be something that you would do, as given any, but we'll include that in our motion, for sure. MR. MASON-After January 1st, you can't buy a toilet if it's not water saving, in New York State. MR. MARTIN-Right. Well, we'll specify the one and a half gallon. Is there any other comment? Okay. There being no other comment, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-We have to do a SEQRA on this, right? MR. LAPOINT-Right. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAURICELLA-I have a question, Jim. Number Nine, Lee, on your, what do you mean by "erosion into the lake is of great concern"? MRS. YORK-Okay. Erosion into the lake is always a concern. You know, I was thinking of the minutes of the Zoning Board, where they talked about getting in there with a backhoe and digging down for footings. 1'm sorry. I do want the Board to know that, on the Checklist, Number H. does say, for proposed system or expanded use, include design details, construction materials, flow rates, or number of bedrooms served with percolation and percolation tests. Also location of existing sewage and water systems on adjoining lots. One thing I would want to make sure, John, that you do see Mr. Hatin tomorrow, because he is the agent of the Lake George Park Commission, and I believe you may need a permit for your septic system, or to be able to expand, okay. So, please be aware of that. MR. MARTIN-All right. Ed, do you want to take us through the SEQRA? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. RESOLUTION IIIEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MARY CAROL illITE, proposed construction of upper floor level to create ..sterbedroœ and bath. Construction of new 7 ft. by 24 ft. deck to ..in level of house., 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 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE 55 "-- --- MR. MARTIN-Okay. I guess we're, basically, boiled down to two issues, the height and the septic, and what's the feeling here? The height we'll take care of in the resolution, and the septic, we're going to include the water saving device of one and a half gallon toilet in the new bathroom, but what do you want to do with the existing system? Do you want to allow it to continue? MR. CARTIER-The only point I add is if you are going to continue to allow that, you're going to require a vote of five or more to the affirmative, because you're going to have to override the County condition that says the septic system's got to be in compliance. MR. MARTIN-Good point. MR. DUSEK-Did the County approve or deny? MR. CARTIER-Approved with a condition. MR. DUSEK-If it approved, it's regular vote of the Board. The only time it's a majority plus one is a denial. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So that doesn't apply, does it. MR. DUSEK-My recollection of the General Municipal Law, it doesn't get into discussing conditions. It just simply says, if they deny, then you need a majority plus one. If they approve, then you're just a normal vote. MR. CARTIER-Okay. stand appropriately corrected. Thank you. MR. DUSEK-Walter, do you have any problem with that? MR. REHM-No. I think that's okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-So, what's the feeling? I guess, we're at the point, do you want to allow the existing system to continue until point of failure or do you want to, in the context of this project, require that it be replaced? MR. CARTIER-My personal feeling, replace the system with a holding system, brought up to standards. MR. BREWER-I'd just as soon have it tested first. I mean, you don't just replace something. MRS. PULVER-I'd leave it up to the applicant. MR. LAURICELLA-Doesn't he have to go, like Lee said, he has to go before the Building Inspector for a permit, and at that time, right? MRS. PULVER-You still have to go see Dave Hatin anyway. MRS. YORK-Yes, maybe you could talk to Mr. Hatin, and do a dye test, see what the situation is. MR. MASON-We're willing to do whatever the Board wants us to do. MRS. PULVER-Why don't we leave it up to Dave Hatin, since he is the one that has to issue the permit for it and has to go out there and do whatever he's suppose to do, anyway. MR. DUSEK-Isn't the Lake George Park Commission undertaking, through working with the Town of Queensbury, in fact, I worked on the agreement. I know it's happening, that they're going to investigate, sooner or later, every single septic system up there. Their pattern is that failing systems are getting immediate action. The next level is getting such and such an action. Everybody's required to get a permit for so many years. Just so the Board knows, there is an elaborate system already in place to investigate. MR. MASON-It's a three year program in which they will identify every failing system on Lake George. MRS. MONAHAN-And the inspections were started this past summer. MR. DUSEK-The Town has been involved in that, I believe. It's already started the program. MR. MARTIN-So, then am I getting the feeling, here, that this is something that will be taken care of through another process, with the Park Commission. MRS. PULVER-Or it will be followed up. 56 -- -../ MR. CARTIER-Fine. I have no problem with that. MR. MARTIN-Is that acceptable to everyone? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAURICELLA-Yes. MR. MARTIN-All right. Then we'll entertain a motion, I guess, that leaves the existing system as it is. I would like to see the motion worded in such a way as to mirror the wording, in regards to the definition of building height, that that be brought to the attention of the Building Inspector, in the motion. MR. LAPOINT-What Section? MR. MARTIN-The definition of Building Height, right in the beginning of the. MRS. PULVER-What Section? 17914. MR. MARTIN-Is the page number. MR. MASON-To put your mind at ease a little bit on that, I think Doug Lafferty, the architect, has spoken with both Pat and David about building height. That was my understanding. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, we'll just put it in our motion, as an insurance policy, so to speak. Okay. Any other questions? MR. LAURICELLA-Do we have to mention the septic system, or we're going to leave them? MR. LAPOINT-Well, I would let Mr. Hatin at least inspect the surface of the ground out there, and, I mean, obviously, you're not going to see anything. If it's failing into the lake, you're going to see a little thaw. There would have been a smell and a build up into the lake, if it were leaking into the lake. MR. CARTIER-I have no problem. My concern is that, at some point, that system is going to have to be replaced. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner you replace it, the better. That's my perception of the issue. It's going to happen. MR. MARTIN-It's going to happen one of two ways, either through the Park Commission or through actual failure, and you've got to do it, if that helps at all. MR. CARTIER-I have no strong feeling, at this point, that it has to be replaced now. It's going to get replaced in the near future. So, I'm satisfied. MR. MARTIN-All right. Lets hear the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-92 MARY CAROL IItITE, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Proposed construction of upper floor level to create masterbedroom and bath. Construction of new 7 ft. by 24 ft. deck to main level of house, with the following stipulations: That Mr. Hatin's attention is drawn specifically to the building height, in that it not exceed the Code limitations, and that the bathroom contain a one and a half gallon water saving toilet and water saving shower heads to faucets. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-We've just got a couple of things, here, I see, that Peter noted for internal business, so to speak. We're reminded of the session with the Town Board for Monday evening. I believe it's at 7 p.m. A joint session regarding our planning goals for the coming year, with that being specifically minor subdivision regulations. MR. LAURICELLA-The 27th, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. That's Monday. MR. LAURICELLA-Seven o'clock? 57 ~ '--' MR. MARTIN-Yes, seven o'clock here in this room. February meeting dates. Okay. We've got problems with meeting dates. Lee is gone the entire week of the 17th. MRS. YORK-You can go right ahead without me. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'd rather, that week. MRS. YORK-This is your regular meeting, and now you have a special meeting there. MRS. PULVER-I won't be here, either. MR. MARTIN-That week? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, we have a regular meeting, here, which we can continue on with, right? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-All right. Can we do something on the 11th, the 13th, something like that? MRS. YORK-No, because we can't do advertising. It has to be after this. MRS. PULVER-So, this the only day you've got. MRS. YORK-And that's the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is Town Board. MRS. YORK-Why don't you guys put these guys over until March? MR. MARTIN-Well, no, I'll tell you what we'll do, well, then we will plug them into a regular meeting. I mean, this month is bad news. We'll just plug them into a second regular meeting. MRS. YORK-All right. MR. CARTIER-When are we going to have that February meeting? MR. MARTIN-We're going to go with our regular date of the 25th, okay, that was one, and we'll go to the 27th, as a regular meeting, and we'll just put the Dexter on there. MRS. PULVER-I will not be here that Thursday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 58