Loading...
1992-03-17 ) / '. " '-~""~ r ~EENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGUlAR MEETING MARCH 17TH. 1992 INDEX Subdivision No. 15-1991 Clearview Estates 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Ronald and Mary Susan Raynor Site Plan No. 3-92 Francis and Carolyn Martindale 4. Site Plan No. 9-92 James Merrigan 15. Michael Homenick Subdivision No. 11-1991 Sunset Hill Farm 17. PRELIMINARY STAGE Site Plan No. 8-92 Harry J. Reith 42. Site Plan No. 11-92 Anthony and Linda Russo 44. 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. '-.-' (JIEEISBURY PI.AIIIING BOARD IHTING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MACH 17TH, 1992 7:05 P.M. IEIlJERS PRESEIT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY PETER CARTIER TIMOTHY BREWER JAMES LAURICELLA EDWARD LAPOINT CORINNE TARANA SENIOR PW.R- LEE YORK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MARTIN-We just have a couple of internal matters to take care of, here, and then we'll get right to the regular agenda. Okay. The only thing I have, in terms of minutes and that type of thing, are the minutes for February 18th and February 25th. They were in your packet, and it's already come to my attention that not everybody's had a chance to read those. MR. BREWER-No. We didn't okay January's, did we? MR. MARTIN-I thought we did. MR. BREWER-No, we didn't. I don't believe so. MR. MARTIN-I think we did. MR. CARTIER-Well, we'll have to go back and review the minutes, and see if we corrected the minutes. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, we'll check into that, and then I'll table the approval of the February minutes until next month. Everybody will have a chance by then. All right. Okay. That being it, then we'll get right into the agenda. OLD IIJSIIlESS: SUBDIVISION 110. 15-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION 110. 15-1991 rt9..P.YIEW ESTATES RONALD AID IUY SUSAN RAYNOR CMER: SAME AS ABOVE CLEARVIEW LAJIE, OFF OF HAVILAlD ROO) FOR A 4 LOr SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP 110. 54-5-6.51, 6.1 lOT SIZE: 5.6:t ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISIOII REGUlATIONS MELANIE FUERST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:06 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 15-1991, Clearview Estates - Ronald & Mary Susan Raynor, 3-13-92, Meeting Date: March 17, 1992 "The only outstanding issues are engineering." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, March 13, 1992 "We have reviewed this project and determined all previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed." MS. FUERST-Melanie Fuerst from Northeast Land Survey. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We're at Preliminary Stage with this. Staff Notes seem to be indicating that everything is in order. Is there any question from the Board for the applicant? MR. CARTIER-The only question I had was on the well location on Lot 2 is about 30 feet from an existing we 11. MS. FUERST-Thirty feet from an existing well? MR. CARTIER-Yes. Lee, is there anything in the Ordinance with regard to how far wells have to be apart? MRS. YORK-No. 1 '~ - MR. CARTIER-There isn't. The only question I had was, given the difficulty in getting water over there in terms of the depth, maybe that well location on Lot 2 could be moved so it's farther than 30 feet: Somewhere more appropriate, and get some more distance between that well and the existing well for the house that's there now. MR. MARTIN-Do you have any knowledge of what the flow rates are from the existing well, in terms of gallons? MS. FUERST-This lot at the end of the road is the lot that was previously owned, and the well test was done in 1979 on that, by a well driller out in Hartford, and they got one gallon per minute at that time, and the depth of the well is 525 feet deep. MR. MARTIN-That's right. Well, then, I think that's an even greater concern, then. You want to keep these wells as far apart as possible, I would imagine. MS. FUERST-This well has a lot of other places it can go. MR. CARTIER-Yes. That's what I'm saying. It's a minor detail. MS. FUERST-The only thing we'd have to do is keep it 100 feet from the septic system, for Department of Health. MR. MARTIN-Right. MS. FUERST-So, we can move that and get the bigger separation, here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. You're on for Final next Tuesday. MS. FUERST-Right. MR. CARTIER-So, that's a change between Prelim and Final. Has anybody got a problem with changing a well location on a Final map? MR. LAURICELLA-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. That's the only question I had. MRS. YORK-Melanie, could I please have your receipts? MS. FUERST-Yes. MRS. YORK-Thank you. MS. FUERST-I have a question for the Staff. I need to know about deed restrictions for the two 10 foot conveyances. This being the first one, and this being the second one. They're in the attorney's hands, which is Bill Nicas is the attorney for the Raynors, and the Raynors would like to, since they had to convey those strips of land, and they're in the process of conveying them now, they would like to know if they convey them, Number One, can they convey without access. Definitely not this one, because I understand that the Town wants to keep that open for future development. MR. MARTIN-Right. MS. FUERST-But this one. There's enough room, here. They have the 450, which means the first lot could take 300 feet, and then they would have a buildable second lot, here. They want to know if, Number One, they can convey that to them with deed restriction without access? MR. CARTIER-Without access from that road, across that 10 foot strip? MS. FUERST-Yes. Give them the strip of land, but just give a deed to them, but without access. MR. CARTIER-But they still have access off of Haviland? MS. FUERST-Right. They still have their access that they always had. MRS. PULVER-I think it's a legal question. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MS. FUERST-It's a legal question. but they wanted me to bring it up to the Board. MR. CARTIER-That's between, I think, the purchaser and the purchasee, I would say. MS. FUERST-Okay. 2 "- -..-' MR. MARTIN-Right. It's not being conveyed to the Town, so. MS. FUERST-Right. Okay. I think that's all the questions I have to ask. MR. MARTIN-All right. We're at Preliminary Stage with this. This is unlisted. MR. CARTIER-We've got a SEQRA to do. MR. MARTIN-Right. So, I think we can entertain a SEQRA Review. RESOWTION lID DETERMINATION OF 110 SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION 110. 15-1991, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Preli.inar,y Stage, CLEARVIEV ESTATES, for a 4 lot subdivision for RONALD AND MARY SUSAII RAYNOR, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-I'm going to hold off on the voting, here, because I should open the public hearing first. So, I'll hold off on the voting on the SEQRA until we have the public hearing. I'll open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here to address the Board regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COIIEIT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-And now, Maria, could you call the vote on the SEQRA resolution. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there any other comment from the Board on the application? All right. I think we can move along, then, bringing this to Final. Would someone like to make a motion? IIJTION TO APPROVE PRELlMIIlARY STAGE SUBDIVISION 110. 15-1991 CLEARVIEV ESTATES RONALD AND MRY SUSAII KAYlOR, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: With the following stipulations: One, that that the water supply well located on Lot Number Two be moved to increase the distance from the separation from the existing water well on the Raynor lot and still maintain the 100 foot setback to the septic and leachfield, and to revise the final map to indicate those stipulations. 3 Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1992. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MRS. FUERST-My plans are already in. So, do I just need to make the change to my mylar? MRS. YORK-Yes. You can come into the office and they could change on the plans, too, and that would be fine. MS. FUERST-Okay. MRS. YORK-As long as the Board has no problem with that. MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think that's anything of an earth shaking nature. MS. FUERST-Okay. Thank you. (7: 17 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 3-92 TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A FRANCIS AND CAROLYN INTlNDIU.E ClllŒR: SAlE AS ABOVE WEST SIDE OF ROOTE 149, ACROSS FROM MARTINDALE ROAD, EAST 500± FT. FOR RETAIL SALES OF AGRICULTURAL PROOOCTS, PETTING AREA FOR FARM ANIMLS, PROOOCTION OF MPLE SYRUP. SALES OF HANDCRAFTED AND/OR UNI~E GIFTS. (WARREN coom PLANNING) (BEAUTIFICATION COIIUmE) TAX MAP NO. 30-1-13, 16 LOT SIZE: 34.22 ACRES SECTION 179-15 0 3(8)(10) CAROLYN AND FRANCIS MARTINDALE, PRESENT (7:17 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York. Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 3-92, Francis and Carolyn Martindale, 3-11-92, Meeting Date: March 17, 1992 "The staff has indicated to the applicant that the Board will not be able to move positively on the application as it stands. The Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that handcrafted goods are not allowed to be sold on site and that animals which serve as an attraction are not allowed on site. This determination makes the application unapprovable since it requests items which are not allowable under the zoning code. The staff has recommended to the applicant that they withdraw the application and pending the outcome of the workshop session on the 19th, possibly re-submit a new application." MR. MARTIN-Okay, and I don't know if the Board got copies of Lee's letter of March 10th, which essentially conveyed what she summarized there in her Staff Notes. So, the applicant was informed, on March 10th, formally, from the Planning Office. Okay. We have someone here from the applicant who would like to address the Board? MRS. MARTINDALE-I would like to address the Board this evening. When we first applied for this site plan, we had taken the advice of the Town of Queensbury to simply sell some vegetables, and this is how we arrived at the difficulty. We were told what to put on the application, pertinent to some other information that we wanted to do in the future, and we were told it wouldn't be allowed in that zone, so we should get it clarified at this time. We were sent, from the January 28th Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board didn't feel that they could arrive at a decision that evening, based on facts that they would like clarification from the Zoning Board on the sale of vegetables, in regards to them not being produced on site, and the Maple Syrup also, and we have gone to the Zoning Board, and they have clarified that those two uses are within the Zoning Ordinance, and this is what I'd like to get taken care of tonight, primarily, is you did get your clarification. I have supporting information from the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets and I feel that is very pertinent to this site plan review, also, and I would like to, if I could take the time to read some of the articles from them. I would like a vote, this evening, just to address, primarily, those two issues. There wasn't any problem with the map that Mr. O'Connor, he was kind of adamant on, we questioned that we have a survey, and that the Zoning Administrator said that, the one that we had drawn up ourselves was more than adequate, was better than many that she had drawn up from professionals, and so this is basically what I'm asking tonight, is a vote, based on the clarification that you received from the Zoning Board, that we can make our Maple Syrup there and sell the Maple Syrup there, and augment the sale of it from other properties, and the vegetables as well, because we do have the clarification from them, and if you would let me. MR. BREWER-Excuse me, one minute. Didn't we okay the Maple Syrup last time? MRS. MARTINDALE-But not to augment it from off site, and you asked clarification from the Zoning Board for that, and they did clarify that. MR. CARTIER-We've gotten copies of the minutes of the Zoning Board meeting. 4 - MRS. ~RTINDALE-Right. So, that's basically why I think it's kind of unreasonable to keep procrastinating, to not act on an issue that I feel is very simple, and we would like a answer. We don't feel we should pushed around from one month to another, on a simple little situation. n MR. ~RTIN-All right. Well, how does the Board feel? Do you think the information's pertinent enough, here, to hear, or do you want to just immediately go into some questions, or do you want to allow the applicant to? MR. LAPOINT-My question is, is it above and beyond what was presented to the Zoning Board? MRS. MARTINDALE-No. We just want, our basic issue is that, we have our clarification, and we would be satisfied leaving here tonight, just being able to produce the Maple Syrup and sell it on site, and augment, bringing it in from off site, and we do have that clarification, and we would like to have an answer on the vegetable sales being augmented, which they have clarified that we can do that , ' and that s what I would basically like a vote on, and I have supporting information from New York State Department of Ag and Markets, which is very pertinent. MR. CARTIER-Supporting information regarding what? How is it relevant? MRS. ~RTINDALE-Because the Town of Queensbury doesn't really know much about agriculture. All the lands have gone from agricultural use, and the New York State Department of Ag and Markets have kind of a guideline and they're there to protect the farmer. They realize that it is very important to the New York State Market and to the consumer in New York State to be able to purchase fresh produce, and I have supporting, I realize that your Town laws regarding Planning and Zoning are based on Article XVI, and I have some information from New York State Laws, from Article XVI, just certain facts that I would like to produce to support my selling them there. I love gardening. MR. CARTIER-Speaking for me, I don't have a problem with hearing it, as long as we're not going to get, to be fair to everyone else here, an hour's worth of. MR. MARTIN-Yes. A summary would be appreciated. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. First of all, New York State wants agriculture, and I have here definitions. MR. LAURICELLA-Excuse me, ma'am, we're you not going to grow off site and bring on site? MRS. MARTINDALE-Yes. MR. LAURICELLA-And you're not going to grow anything on that site? MRS. MARTINDALE-No. We're growing things on-site, too? MR. LAURICELLA-You are going to grow things on site? Because the last time I didn't understand you were going to do that. MRS. MARTINDALE-No. We told the Beautification Committee that we, we have a lot of trees on the property, and we told them that we'd cut logs and provide a very large area in the front and grow flowers and fresh vegetables. Things like lettuce, it wilts very quickly, and if we can go up there and cut it, and seeing that the Town made us take the cooler out last year, you know how lettuce and certain vegetables, they just wilt in the heat of the sun, and we just want to have things fresh and crisp, and keep the vitamin content there. MR. LAURICELLA-You are going to grow on site? MRS. MARTINDALE-We are going to grow on site. Definitely, and augment it by bringing in other products, and some of this information that I have here will clarify a lot of that, too, according to the New York State Ag and Market. Okay. According to Article 179-63 of the Queensbury Code, which is in line with the Zoning, they have a, classification of farm includes, dairy, protein, fur bearing animals, fruit. truck farms, plantations, orchards, nurseries, greenhouses, or other similar structures used primarily for the raising of agricultural or horticultural commodities. They also, farm operation means any activities conducted solely or primarily for the production of one or more agricultural products or commodities including timber for sale, and customarily producing such products or commodities in sufficient quantities to be capable of contributing materially to the operator's support. Farm products include all agricultural, horticultural, horticulture, vegetable and fruit products of the soil, Christmas Tree, livestock for meat, and I mention Christmas Trees because Colleen, from the Firm of Little and O'Connor mentioned that she was concerned about us selling Christmas Trees there, and it is considered produce and agricultural products according to. MR. MARTIN-Are you going to grow Christmas Trees on-site? MRS. MARTINDALE-No. See, I have supportive- information that's going to clarify that, too. Okay. Maple Tree sap, not even the syrup, the finished product, but just the fact that we have maple sap 5 -.;' on the property, not even processing it on the property, but just that itself is considered an agricultural product. Producer means, any person, firm, corporation or association that grows farm products or sells livestock within the State. So, if you're in New York State and you produce livestock or farm produce, you are considered a producer. Okay. They even go into the definition, in Article 283 of Direct Marketing, that Direct Marketing means the sale of farm and food products directly from producers to consumers and food buyers. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think this is all. MRS. MARTINDALE-No, because it gets into the fact. MR. MARTIN-No. I agree with what you're trying to say, here, and I don't think the Board has any problem with it. I think we can, want to try and move this along, here. MRS. MARTINDALE-Well, producer, I want to get to the Christmas Trees, where we can be considered, enable us to sell those. This, right here, under Article XXV of New York Ag and Market Law, a producer means any person engaged within the State in the business of producing or causing to be produced for any market. So, this is where the Christmas Trees comes in. If you market an item that is qualified for Ag and Market's use or, you are considered a producer if you even help the person sell it. MR. MARTIN-I understand what you're trying to get at. MRS. MARTINDALE-And then, Article XXV AA, which establ ishes that you are within New York State, have property tax exemption. We do qualify for that, and the Commissioner of Agriculture can enact laws that the State and Local governments have to allow this in their town, and your Zoning laws and your Town laws are based on State laws, and this is called, we come into effect, that even not having site plan review, we are legal to sell this produce, and the Commissioner will back us up 100 percent, selling any produce defined in these Articles. We are totally within legal limits, and they do want it done. They support it, and they can take action against people that don't accept it. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. CARTIER-You're saying to us, in effect, that you can sell Christmas Trees on-site, even though you do not grow Christmas Trees on site? MRS. MARTINDALE-According to Article XXV of New York Ag and Market's Law, and you could call the Agricultural Commissioner. He is from Washington County, and producer means any person engaged within this State, in the business of producing, which we are, or causing to be produced for any market. So, if we have a marketing order from people that grow Christmas Trees, and they want these products sold. New York State wants them, then we are considered a producer in that respect. MR. CARTIER-I'm raising the question, and I'm saying to you, I don't necessarily agree with that, and what I've got to do is here from our Town Attorney on an issue like that, who is not here tonight, unfortunately. So, I'm just trying to clarify things in my head, here. What I hear you saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that based on the motion that you got from the Zoning Board, which says, is the sale of fruits and vegetables grown off site a permitted agricultural use, and the answer would be yes, provided the off site fruits and vegetables are used to augment fruits and vegetables or other ag products grown on-site? MRS. MARTINDALE-Right. MR. CARTIER-It sounds to me what you're saying is, as long as you're growing some fruits and vegetables, you can augment that with anything grown off site, including Christmas Trees. Is that correct? Is that what you're suggesting to us? MRS. MARTINDALE-I'm saying that, according to New York State. I'm not saying that we would sell Christmas Trees. According to New York State, and they can enact legislation, if we ask them. The Commissioner can call you and say, hey, according to this Article, we are supporting the Martindales in their effort, and you would have to abide by it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Then I need to see that in writing from the Commissioner of Ag. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay, but we want to sell our fruits and vegetables, primarily the ones that we produce within New York State, and on that property also, as we have told the Zoning Board, and I presented sales slips to the Zoning Board showing that we were grandfathered in on the produce aspect, having had Maple Syrup sap on the site and berries. MR. CARTIER-Personally, I'm speaking for me, I have no problem with you doing your Maple Syrup business. I have no problem with you growing corn on the site and bringing in corn to augment that, or cabbages on site and bringing in cabbages to augment that. I guess II\Y sticking point, the question I have. I don't have an answer to this. The question I have is, does that blanket the allowance of any kind of fruits and vegetables? I don't have an answer for that, and I need to get an answer for that from 6 my Town Attorney before I can go ahead with this. I understand where you're coming from, in terms of State Ag Market Law and so on. I have enough problems just dealing with the Town of Queensbury Ordinances, and that's all we're working with here tonight, for me, anyway. So, I have a question about that, and to get this thing moving. maybe, this is not exactly the growing season. unless you have some magical way of working things out there. MR. MARTINDALE-This is the start of it. MR. CARTIER-I understand that, and that's lIlY point. Maybe we can move part of this along, in terms of sap, and get some of these other issues resolved prior to the growing season. MRS. YORK-If the Board would like, on Thursday, I can request that the Town Attorney be there. MR. CARTIER-Excellent suggestion. Can you sort of summarize for him the concerns, here? MRS. YORK-Yes. I will do it. MR. MARTIN-And the other thing I'd like to know is the relevance of the Commissioner of Agriculture, his decisions or recommendations or preferences on our Ordinance. I'd like to know what relevance that has, because this is something I've yet to experience. So, I'd like to have some clarification on that. MR. CARTIER-My concern is that we are dealing with a Rural Residential zone. here, and what I see coming is a year round commercial operation. So, there are a whole lot of questions out there that I have that I need to get some answers to, and I don't you expect you to provide those answers tonight, but we've got still a lot of grey area, here, that needs to get sorted out, and I need to sit down with our Town Attorney and have him tell me this and that, and so on and so forth, in lIlY own mind. My biggest question is, and I'm not looking for an answer from you tonight, but it's a question I want the Town Attorney to address, is does the way the, and maybe we need to go back to the Zoning Board on our own. I'm not asking you to do that, to get some clarification on this, is what exactly are they talking about? In order to sell a particular vegetable at the site and bring it in from off site, does that particular vegetable have to be grown. MRS. MARTINDALE-No. They didn't say that. They said that we could augment, if we grow vegetables on, the fact that you grow vegetables on there, it doesn't limit you to what you grow on-site. It's just that you can augment. MR. CARTIER-But you also said, a few minutes ago, that a Christmas Tree is considered an Ag product. MRS. MARTINDALE-But we're not going to use that. It is considered, but we don't grow them, but 1'm just saying, according to New York State. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but according to the Zoning Board's interpretation, which we're also bound by, if Christmas Trees aren't grown on site, then they can't be ~ugmented, and therefore they can't be sold. MR. CARTIER-See, that's lIlY question. MR. MARTIN-That's what the Zoning Board said. I was there. MR. CARTIER-Well, see, that's the problem. We have a difference of opinion as to what was said, and that's why I'm saying that somewhere we've got to sit down and get this stuff all clarified, because what's happened is I think you've heard one thing. We've heard something else. So, we've got to get that sorted out somehow, but to move this thing along, I, personally, don't have any problem with going ahead with the sap. MR. MARTIN-No. I don't either. ROBERT MARTINDALE MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Are you saying that what you think the Zoning Board said is, as long as you grow at least one of each of those products that you're selling on site, you can augment them off site? Is that what you're thinking? MR. CARTIER-That's my reading of what they did. Now, you may not agree with that. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-So, as long as we grow one, that's all we've got to grow. So, we can plant a little Christmas Tree on site and then say, we're going to augment off site. We're not trying to do that. MRS. PULVER-No, but Peter, as I read this, I read it entirely differently. It says, the answer would be yes, provided the off site fruits and vegetables are used to augment fruits and vegetables or other agricultural products grown on site. MRS. MARTINDALE-That was lIlY interpretation, too. 7 '~ - MR. CARTIER-It says, or other agricultural products grown on site. MRS. PULVER-Right. MRS. MARTINDALE-And according to your Article II, your Definition of Agricultural Use, it says, any management of any land, and that is, you've taken your laws and adapted them from New York State laws, and this is any management of any land, and this correlates with New York State Ag and Markets saying that if you produce it, you have a right to sell it in local communities. They want this. They want the consumer to have the fresh vegetables, fresh produce, fresh farm. MR. CARTIER-I have no argument with that at all, Mrs. Martindale. The question is a site specific question, and the question is whether this site is appropriate for that. That's the question. We're not arguing about what can and cannot get sold in the Town of Queensbury. We're talking about the specific site.' That's where all the questions are coming from. We're not anti-agriculture. We're not anti-corn or any of that kind of stuff. The question has to do with the specific site. MR. LAPOINT-I have a question for our Planner, Lee York. Page Two of their application, Items One and Two. If we were to strike, under Proposed Use of the Property, the area for farm animals and the sale of handicraft and/or unique gifts, how does the proposed use differ from the present use? MRS. YORK-Let me just step back and reiterate what I bel ieve I heard. You're saying that the current use is retail sales of agricultural products. MR. LAPOINT-No. That's the proposed, present use of property, storage of hay, farming equipment and large antique barn. I guess what I'm saying is if they are just going to continue with Maple Syrup production and sales of vegetables and produce, and if they're striking the animal area and the handicraft or unique gifts, how does the present use differ from the proposed use, and why are they here, to begin with. I mean, if you were going to go through this from the very start, would you agree that the present use of the property, striking those two items, is what's going on there right now. MRS. YORK-My understanding, and I have not been to the site to look at the trees that have been tapped. My understanding from the Martindales is that they are tapping trees for Maple Syrup production. My understanding, also, is that on that particular site they have not produced Maple Syrup, okay. They have a sugar bush there, okay. My understanding is also that they did sell vegetable produce there this summer. However, there was no vegetable produce grown on site. MR. CARTIER-Right. MRS. YORK-Those are from the testimony given and discussions with the Martindales. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, those are two issues, right there, that differ, why they would have to be even in front of us to begin with. MR. MARTIN-Right, and the other thing I would say, as a rider to that, is that the sale of produce was done through a Transient Merchant clause, and now we're saying this is something we're going to allow as a permanent use on the site year round, and that there, in itself, also could make it different from what's been going on in the past. MR. LAPOINT-To me, we've got to break this down into actually what the application is. I think, again, with all due respect, I think we've gotten ahead of ourselves, in that, you need a clear definition of the present use is and what you plan to add, subtract from use of the site. MR. MARTIN-I think we're getting there. I think, based on what we've got from the Zoning Board, and based on what's been presented tonight, we're seeing production and sale of agricultural products and fruits and vegetables, Maple Syrup, that type of thing, and that has pretty much been clarified, here. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, because, I mean, the plan in front of me is configured for all the extra good stuff that you originally put in, and I guess my basic question, and just trying to keep this as simple as possible, is how are these drawings, and they're fine the way they ar.e, to me. live got no problems with the drawings. How are they going to differ for what you are actually going to do? MRS. MARTINDALE-Nothing. MR. LAPOINT-Then, you would indeed have a 40 by 100 foot gravel parking lot for this? MRS. MARTINDALE-Every thing's that's there, we haven't even changed anything on the property. Like we told you before, we went to the New York State Department of Transportation. We didn't like the situation there. We wanted to have a good visual so that there wouldn't be accidents, and this is why we went to DOT before we even attempted to sell vegetables there. MR. MARTIN-And, to their, they have, in the last couple of weeks, they've barricaded off sections of the access-way to reflect what's there on the plan. 8 -/ MR. LAPOINT-So, to answer ~ question, then, nothing on these drawings is going to change? MRS. MARTINDALE-Nothing. The present use, and what I would really like to say, here, I can't stress this enough. Agricultural use, by your own zoning definition, is any management of any land. It does not even say in the Town of Queensbury, and in accordance with New York State Department of Ag and Markets, because we are under Article XXV AA, for assessment purposes, we can own land some place else and legally sell our produce from Ag District land on that property, and you can call your Commissioner and ask him, according to Article XXV AA, and let me just say something further. That property doesn't have a house on it. There is one principal building, the barn, and we are grandfathered in on the use of that farm. It's been there close to 100 years or more, and it has always been used for agricultural purposes. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but the fact of the matter is, this piece of property is in flux. I can't sit here and ignore the fact that we're talking about a potential commercial expansion of that property, and we need to recognize that. MRS. MARTINDALE-But we can't do that expansion until we go through all the proper channels, and we will have all the proper drawings and information at that time. So, I'm basically asking you, tonight, to let us make a reasonable use of the property, which is agricultural use. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with just the Maple Syrup. I still have a question with regard to the vegetables and all that sort of stuff, and I think we've got time to clarify that before the growing season kicks in. MRS. MARTINDALE-Well, this is why I'm trying to get a vote on it Board said, and they did say that we could augment vegetables. If you will look to Joyce Eggleston's comments, and Bruce Carr's specific. They said we could augment what we produce. tonight, and accept what the Zoning They did not want to be specific. comments. They di d not want to be MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I've stated ~ feeling. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there any other comment from the Board before we re-open the public hearing? MRS. MARTINDALE-They read agricultural use before. It does say commercial, which is retail sales. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that. I have no problem with whatever you grow on site you can augment off site. My question has to do with the definition. That's ~ question. Does the phrase, fruits and vegetables, is that just a. blanket for any fruits and vegetables, that you can augment stuff from off site that's not grown on site? MRS. MARTINDALE-I can find it, right here, from Bruce Carr and Joyce Eggleston. They did not want to define. MR. CARTIER-That' s ~ question. Then what I've got to do is I've got to go back and reread that set of notes, okay. I've got to hear from my Town Attorney, too. I'm speaking just for me, okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, with no other comments from the Board, I'll re-open the public hearing. Is there anyone here from the public who would like to address the Board regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DAVID LITTLE MR. LITTLE-Mr. Martin, I'm Dave Little from Little and O'Connor. We represent Irving and Lillian Martindale who are the adjacent owners, as you know, of property across the street, and there's a couple of things that I would like to say that are very fundamental, and I don't need to get into the personality conflicts, at this point, in connection with it, but I think there's two or three aspects that maybe in some respects have been ignored tonight. One of those is that I haven't seen a survey, yet, of the property showing me any contours, drainage, or any problems like that, nor do I know what the proximity of the barn is to the highway, in actual terms. I know there's a map filed up in the County center which would make appear, at least, that the edge of the barn is right on the right-of-way for the highway, and certainly that factor, in and of itself, creates a problem or two that is the very reason we have these Ordinances, and that is protect the publ ic and provide for safety and protection all the way around. Questions come into play with a lot of aspects of it. Fine. You have an agricultural property. Use it for an agricultural use, but we're looking into retail, no matter how you want to cut and dice it. I have a question, as well, and I just throw this on the floor, with the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, as to what they mean by augmenting and the extent to which augmenting is permitted, and just as has already been stated by the younger Mr. Martindale tonight, lets grow one Christmas Tree and bring in 10,000, whether, in fact, that's an augmenting, and I think that the definition that the Zoning Board of Appeals has given leaves a lot to be desired and has to be further considered by them. 9 Otherwise, you've got such a nebulous, unenforceable document floating around in front of you that you might as well pack up and go home, because from now on we'll all put up the one kernel of corn or the one flower pot and do whatever the heck we want to augment ourselves in this sort of situation. So. I think that the two things that I want to say is, first, I think there's further clarification needed. I agree with the position taken by the Staff here. It's clear to me that, if you don't have the documentation in front of you to show you what it really looks like with what the scene really is and what's really going to happen, the fact of the existence of a 100 year old barn on a right-of-way that hasn't been used for any retail purposes, which probably is not suitable for any retail purposes and probably, if used for that, would require complete re-construction. That, in fact, you're ignoring the real issue here. There's a whole lot, here. This is not just a little thing of my growing Maple Syrup. The other thing. at least from looking at the notes, it looked like there was a declaration made at the last meeting before you folks that, basically, all the stuff was in the barn. All you had to do was light a match and get things going. Well, as you heard tonight, and, apparently it's contradicted in the meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals, is, well, this hasn't been active Maple Syrup place, clearly not the issue, and they haven't been boiling sap there, nor has this been a big, major thing. So, I really think that the fundamental aspect is, lets get the right, proper credentials in front of this Board and have a proper review of it. I don't think we're doing it that way if you piecemeal it, and that's what's going on here. It's getting piecemealed here, at the Zoning Board of Appeals, and every place it goes, and it really should get the proper consideration, and that's my objection to it going forward tonight. Thank you. . MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Let me just toss a quick comment in. Does the Zoning Board meet tomorrow night? MRS. YORK-Yes, they do. MR. CARTIER-Have they got a busy agenda? MRS. YORK-No, they don't. MR. CARTIER-Well, it might worth getting to them and asking them, under "Any other business", maybe we could do that. MRS. MARTINDALE-Could we be there to answer any questions? MR. CARTIER-It's a public meeting. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Is there any other comment from the public? Okay. MRS. MARTINDALE-I showed this map to the Zoning Board, which clearly establishes, this was taken in 1937. The existing barn, and Warren County, which was buying the road sites, at that particularly time, bought up to the barn. They did not want to buy, to go to the expense of purchasing the barn. So, they bought up to the barn that we presently own, and like we have said, we have provided barricades and everything along there now. We don't want an accident. That barn is as sturdy as anyone can expect it to be. Dave Hatin from your Queensbury Enforcement has been in that barn several times, and he found no fault with the barn. It is very structurally sound. Betty Monahan has been there. When we asked her, last spring, about selling vegetables and everything there, she said, yes, there's always been agricultural use there. You have no problem, and we took her at her word. The only reason why we applied for site plan review was to satisfy the Town, Pat Crayford and Dave Hatin, because Mr. Martindale, a jealous father, is trying to. MRS. YORK-Excuse me, Mrs. Martindale, I don't think Mrs. Monahan would have said to you, you can raise fruits or vegetables there, because that's not really within her jurisdictional power, and I know she's very, very concerned about it. MRS. MARTINDALE-That was her statement. She told us that she did not have a problem with it, and she even. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think we're getting into a lot of things, here, that are just not very pertinent, here. This is a site plan review application, and the simple fact of the matter is, does the Board feel that they have enough information to proceed further with this application as it now stands, based on what's been presented. MRS. MARTINDALE-Well. these two ladies, here, weren't here the last meeting, and they haven't heard a lot of the conversation. MRS. PULVER-We have all the minutes and we visited the site. 10 ---' MRS. MARTINDALE-And another thing I think that is pertinent to this is, the man that is complaining, in a letter addressed from Mr. O'Connor's Office, David Little's Office, Irving Martindale expressed very deep concern about us using the property for selling the vegetables, etc., and I have, here, a copy of Irving's file, from the Town Board. He has never gone for a site plan review to put up a pole barn. MR. MARTIN-I'm not going to listen to that. That has no bearing on this at all. I'm not going to hear any further of this. It is not pertinent. That pole barn or anything there is not the focus of this review. MRS. MARTINDALE-Okay. COJllllercial use is. They brought it up, and they've been fighting us because of cOJllllercial use. MR. CARTIER-~ question is, there's so many issues that still need clarifying that I'm not comfortable going forward with this thing. That's my answer. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-What are the issues that you need clarified, just the augmenting? Is that what you need clarified? MR. CARTIER-Basically, that's what it boils down to. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-That's the only thing that you feel? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Okay. MR. MARTIN-All right. Jim, how do you feel? MR. LAURICELLA-I think that they way it states is that you have to grow on site anything that you bring in site. That's the way I interpret it, too. MRS. PULVER-Well, it probably would be better, then, to have the Zoning Board really clarify exactly what they mean by growing on and augmenting. MR. LAURICELLA-Right. MRS. PULVER-And if they can do that tomorrow night under, you know, "Any Other Business". MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that's a reasonable request, because I think the word "augment" is. MR. BREWER-We can't take any action, Thursday night, on this, though? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARTIER-Not Thursday night, but what I'm saying is. MR. BREWER-So, we can either deny this or table it or what? MRS. MARTINDALE-We've been tabled once. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but we want to make sure of what we're doing. What are our options tonight, deny, table, or approve? MR. MARTIN-Right. That's pretty much it. MR. BREWER-I don't feel comfortable with everything on this application because it says, from our Staff Notes, the Zoning Board of Appeals has determined that handcrafted goods are not allowed to be sold on site. MRS. PULVER-They're not asking for that. MR. BREWER-On the application, they ~ asking for that. I don't have any problem with the Maple Syrup, and I stated that at the last meeting. MR. MARTIN-I don't think anybody does. MR. BREWER-Can we go ahead and let them sell the Maple Syrup now? MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that; MR. MARTIN-Yes. We can do that. 11 "----' -- MRS. YORK-The Board may want to wait, because when you're talking about augmenting, that is what came up, when you made you decision, when I went back through the minutes, and please correct me if any of you understand differently. When you approved the Maple Syrup production, the understanding from those minutes was that the Maple Syrup was grown and produced on site. MR. BREWER-He's got 1,000 taps on site. MRS. YORK-Yes, but when he got to the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board minutes state that they would have some taps on site, but would augment it by bringing in other Maple Syrup from other places. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Yes, but at least we're there, we're getting sap. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. How many taps have you got on site right now? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right now? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Right now, we have 300 taps. MR. CARTIER-On this particular piece of property in question? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Ready to go right now. MR. CARTIER-We're not talking about taps off site, we're talking specifically to this piece of property? MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-They're right in the tree right now. MR. CARTIER-Three hundred taps? Okay. Then I don't have a problem, for me, personally, approving the Maple Syrup collection and production and augmenting from off site. MR. BREWER-Right, because we know it takes a lot of sap to make syrup. MR. MARTIN-Right. I think that was brought out at the Zoning Board meeting. MR. BREWER-We can let him go ahead with the Maple Syrup and we can hash the other stuff out Thursday night, when we meet with him. MR. CARTIER-Hopefully. MR. BREWER-Then at least he can get on with that. That's how I feel anyway. MRS. TARANA-I had a question when I read this. I got the impression that they could also bring in syrup? Is that right? MRS. PULVER-Yes, they can. MRS. TARANA-So, they can bring in sap, or they can bring in syrup from some place else and sell it. MR. LAURICELLA-As long as they're doing some on site. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-I have a problem with that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-No problem, here, with the production of Maple Syrup and a vegetable stand, and sell ing small quantities of Maple Syrup, but I do question whether it's suitable for a retail sales business. Again, there is a difference between vegetable stands and some racks of Maple Syrup, and a truck market. That's all my concern is, that I would really want to know the extent of retail, there, and as Dave Hatin had pointed out, that if they don't change the existing barn, then they don't have to bring it up to Code. If you don't add any power to it, if you don't add any facilities to it, it doesn't come up to Code, but in the public's best interest, you still do not want some kind of truck farm, sales, in and around that existing barn. So, I think it's key that we know the exact extent of the retail level of business. MR. BREWER-I think it went right back to our last meeting where I asked him, is it going to be, it's going to create the same amount of traffic as they had last year with the corn and whatever else they had there. They're just going to sell the Maple Syrup, at this point? MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-That's all. just for the season. 12 - MR. BREWER-Just for the season. It's not going to create any more traffic than they had last summer with the corn. They've barricaded the front of the building. So, they have to come in 250 feet, or 150 feet, or whatever it is. I don't think it's going to create any more of a problem than it did last year. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, I think I would agree with that, but, again, if you're going to go from selling 10 cases of syrup to 5,000 cases of syrup. MR. BREWER-But they're making the syrup, and they've got 1,000 taps. MR. LAPOINT-Agreed, but it's still. MR. BREWER-I mean, they can't make that much to have that much traffic there. MR. MARTIN-I understand what Ed's trying to get at, but from an enforcement standpoint. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. It's a nightmare. So, I guess I'm in favor of the very limited production, and, again, I think we have to take a closer look at what the intent is for retail. Again, the application not being all that clear, other than what you just expressed tonight, what you think's going to happen there. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-All we want to do is make Maple Syrup and sell it there. Do we have to have a projected, how much we want to sell? MR. LAPOINT-Well, yes. See, that's key to me, in my mind, that if you sell 100 cases there, or 200. I'm not even sure of the magnitude, but I don't want this to be 500 cars there, because I don't think that's what a, that's the use. Okay. You're fantastically successful in selling Maple Syrup. Everybody on that road, high traffic stops in there. Everybody, and it just builds and it just builds, until you're way beyond a vegetable stand and/or selling a small amount of Maple Syrup on the property. MR. CARTIER-Is it your intent, at this time, to import Maple ill!!E. to augment sales? MRS. MARTINDALE-No. MR. CARTIER-You are talking strictly about what you can produce on-site. We're going to talk about bringing in sap to produce syrup on site, correct? MR. MARTIN-You're bringing in sap. You're not bringing in the finished product. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-Just sap. We're not bringing in the finished product. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Just sap from another farm in Fort Ann. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Fine. If we can be that specific, then, fine. MR. CARTIER-Lets do it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-This is unlisted, and we've got a SEQRA, and I hope nothing pops up there, but it's possible. MRS. MARTINDALE-Lee York said that that wasn't applicable to the site. MR. CARTIER-Let me just check something, here. Okay. It shows on the agenda as unlisted. In the book, agriculture and farm use is listed as a Type II. MRS. MARTINDALE-Right. MR. CARTIER-So, we don't have to do a SEQRA. MRS. MARTINDALE-Right. This is what she told me. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LITTLE-I just would like to make one comment, because you understand, there's a certain precedent making quality with every decision that we make. If, in turn, somebody raises one Christmas Tree, you have just, by applying exactly the same rationale. allowed them to sell 10,000 out of that site, or bring in the seeds of corn, which are agricultural, and plant one seed, and you can sell 10,000 bushels of corn. That's the implication that comes from the augmenting, and I would appreciate it if you would give consideration to the fact, and I understand the push and shove aspects, here, but 13 '- --- I think the definition that you've got in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals has a very, very substantial weakness to it, and if you act on what is a clear weakness, we're only going to compound it. I think it would be preferable, as Lee has suggested, that we kick this in the workshop, go through it again once with the Zoning Board of Appeals for clarification, rather than act on what is a clearly nebulous definition. There's no limitation, and that certainly is not the intention of zoning. It's not the intention of this Board, but that's the sequel of what's going to come out of it. So, I just think that's a very serious deliberation you've got to have. MR. CARTIER-I think that's a valid point, and I want you to understand, I, for one, would look at an application with a very jaundiced eye, if we were talking about using one Christmas tree, or one corn plant, as a rationale for importing stuff, because then you get into, as far as I'm concerned, the intent of the Ordinance questions. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Plus, you have to have a certain amount of acreage to do any of that. If you have a half an acre of land, you can't do it. MR. CARTIER-Well, maybe we can sort this stuff out Thursday, hopefully. How do we get on tomorrow night's agenda with Mr. Turner? MRS. YORK-The Zoning Board of Appeals is going to discuss this issue and hopefully clarify it at 7:30 tomorrow evening. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'll be there. MR. MARTIN-I'll be there, too. MR. CARTIER-Great. Thank you for that. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, I thought I was hearing from the Board that you did want to move on the Maple Syrup aspect of this, but now are we saying we want to table the whole thing, or wait for an interpretation of augmenting, as it applies to everything, or do you want to move on the Maple Syrup, and only get? MR. CARTIER-I'm comfortable with just the Maple Syrup portion of this, and we put everything else on hold. MR. LAURICELLA-You've still got the augmenting for the Maple Syrup, though, too, right? MRS. PULVER-No. You're only going to approve the sap, only the sap to come in, to make the syrup. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'm saying that wrong. That's an important distinction. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-It's coming off of our property. I'm not buying it from somebody. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but I don't even know if that's pertinent, here. It doesn't matter where it comes from off site. It could be your property. It could be Mr. Little's property, whatever. MR. FRANCIS MARTINDALE-But New York State Agricultural law says that all my land is equivalent to one. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay, but that may be some conflict between New York State Ag law and Town of Queensbury law, and we need a Town Attorney sitting here sorting that out for us. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, then, why don't we move ahead, then, on the sap production end of this, and we'll entertain a motion on that, and after we get done with that, we're not out of the woods, yet, because I want to come to a consensus, here, and it's our own fault that we didn't get a better definition out of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We should have went to them with a more specific question. MR. LAPOINT-We were fairly explicit, I thought. To me, we've chased this full circle, now, probably three times. I thought our questions were fairly explicit. I thought their answers were there. MR.. MARTIN-All right. Well, lets move on with the sap aspect of this. I'll entertain a motion for approval of the sap production for sale. IIJTUII TO APPROVE SITE PW 110. 3-92 FRAlCIS AND CAROLYI MRTIDL£, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the production and sale of Maple Syrup on-site, using sap extracted from trees on site and augmented with sap from off site only. It is to be understood that every other portion of this application is being held for further clarification. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: MRS. TARANA-The off site sap can come only from their property? 14 -- --- MR. CARTIER-It can come from anywhere. MRS. TARANA-That's what your motion is saying? It can come from anywhere? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Because there still is going to have a fixed quantity, you know, you're only going to be able to produce so much, unless they add another still or something. MRS. TARANA-Becausé of the process involved? MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. MARTIN-Right. AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: Mrs. Tarana MR. MARTIN-Now, in terms of what we do at the Zoning Board tomorrow night. What's the Board's feeling, there? We want to get interpretation as to what they mean by augment. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Well, the extent of retail sale allowable in this use, I think's, important. MR. CARTIER-And I want to know, if, when they say fruits and vegetables, that applies to generic vegetables, I guess, in that they can bring in vegetables, types of vegetables that are not grown on site. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. ROBERT MARTINDALE-Right. So, like, we're not goin!il to grow oranges, here. You want to know if they can bring oranges in. MR. CARTIER-Essentially, yes. MR. MARTIN-Right. So, when we say augment, the augment is directly related to specific types of. MR. CARTIER-Specific types of vegetables. MR. BREWER-We shouldn't say, augment. We should say, supplement. MR. MARTIN-Supplement. MR. BREWER-Not augment, supplement. MRS. PULVER-I don't know. They may have to get awfully specific. MR. MARTIN-Is there anything else? I want to get this on the record for the Zoning Board to review. Lee, is that the best way to convey this, is through written conveyance of the minutes? MRS. YORK-To the Zoning Board? MR. MARTIN-Yes, for tomorrow night. Can that be done? MRS. YORK-Sure. (8:07 p.m.) SITE PLAN 110. 9-92 TYPE: UIIUSTED MR-5 dAlES MERRIGAII MICHAEL HOMENICIC ClllER: SAlE AS ABOVE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES 386 MY ØD FOR AN AOOITION OF A 1,092 SQ. FT. Gmœ SPACE AIm ASSOCIATED SITE IfORIC. (BEAUTIFICATION COIIIITTEE) (1fARRE1 ccum P"'ING) TAX IMP 110. 60-7-10.2 LOT SIZE: 0.60 1: ACRES SECTION 179-18 JACK HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:07 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 9-92, James Merrigan/Michael Homenick, March 13, 1992, Meeting Date: March 17, 1992 "The applicant was tabled because of engineering concerns and for modification of the parking lot. The redesigned parking shows greater access to the lot and easier movement for vehicles. The engineer is working out minor existing drainage concerns and has indicated that because of this, his cOlll11ents will not be available prior t9 the meeting." ENGIIEER REPORT 15 --- -- Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, March 16, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The revised parking arrangement satisfactorily addresses previous concerns regarding the adequacy of space for internal vehicular movement. 2. The applicant's engineering has provided clarifying design information on March 16, 1992 which addresses SWM detention basin volume. The basin configuration as shown on the March 16, 1992 data (copy attached) provides sufficient storage." MR. HUNTINGTON-Jack Huntington with Morse Engineering. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I believe you probably don't have any comments, based on this, really. Everything's addressed here. MR. HUNTINGTON-Every thing's satisfied. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Does the Board have anything they'd want to bring up at this time? MR. CARTIER-No. MRS. PULVER-I don't. MR. MARTIN-All right. With there being no comments from the Board, I'll open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here from the public who wishes to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO CCII£IT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-I'll entertain a SEQRA, I guess. RESOlUTIONIItEJI DETERMINATION OF 110 SIGNIFICANCE IS MDE RESOlUTION 10. 9-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JAMES MERRIGAN. for an addition of a 1,092 square fOot offic~ spice and associated site work., 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 Chainman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there any further comment from the Board on this application? Does everything appear to be in order then? Okay. Then I'll entertain a motion. 16 IIJTICII TO APPROVE SITE PLM fIO. 9-92 JAJES MERRIGAI AIID MICHAEL HOfIEIICIC, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For an addition of a 1,092 square foot office space, and associated site work, with the stipulation that the revision submitted be incorporated into the construction. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (8:15 p.m.) MR. ~RTIN-Okay. The application's approved. I think, at this time, we'll entertain a five or ten minute break., I didn't get an opportunity to do it before, but I wanted to welcome Corinne Tarana to the Board. She's joining us for the first time, tonight, and she's got some background from the County Planning Board, and we really appreciate her being here. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 TYPE I lIR-lA PRELIMINARY STAGE SUNSET HIU FARM ClllER: PAUL KNOX, III ICIIOX ROAD ON ASSEMBLY POIIT TO SUBDIVIŒ 25 ACRES lITO 10 LOTS TO IE ŒVEUÆD BY INDIVIWAL LOT PURCHASERS. DRIL1.ED WELLS AND ON-SITE IfASTEllATER ifILL IE CONSTRUCTED FOR WATER AID SEIfER SERVICES. LOTS IfIU BE ACCESSED BY PRIVATELY ClllED AND MIITAINED DRIVEWAYS. LOT 1 COITAIItS 11E eMlER'S RESIŒICE AND IfIU BE RETAIlED BY THE (lINER. TAX It\P NO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZE: 25 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:21 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 11-1991, Sunset Hill Farm, March 11, 1992, Meeting Date: March 17, 1992 "The subdivision is at the preliminary stage of review. It was tabled previously so that proof of service could be obtained to individuals within 500 feet of the subdivision. Staff has requested information on Section AI83-22, Density, which describes the calculation for the maximum number of buildable lots for a conventional subdivision. This information should be provided to the Board prior to preliminary approval. The Board may want the unbuildable areas shown on a map. A continuing concern has been the driveways versus an improved Knox Road. The Highway Superintendent and the Fire Chief indicated that an improved Knox Road would be of benefit to the neighborhood. Since this is an off site consideration, the Board may want to exclude discussion of this road from the site plan. The staff's understanding is .that this is an issue being researched by the Highway Department and coordinated with the applicant. The driveways to lots 9 and 10 will require substantial amounts of clearing which will affect the visual impact of the development. The grading notes indicate that specific criteria will be adhered to. This will be difficult given the individual development of the lots. In the past, the Board has required specific limits of clearing and specific amounts of property to be left in a natural state. Any requirements of this nature can be on the mylar and as deed restrictions. The Building and Codes Department is suppose to compare specific building sites with the subdivision plat. Regarding the driveways to lots 9 and 10, the Board should look into access through the 50 foot right of way from the Assembly Point Road. The appl icant' s agent has mentioned previously that there are wetland and slope concerns in doing this. The staff recommends that access from Assembly Point Road be investigated to limit the driveway cuts. Since this is a Critical Environmental Area, the Board will want to be assured that erosion control and siltation requirements are strictly adhered to. The visual impact is also a concern and this could be mitigated by limited clearing. There has been no way to evaluate how substantially the view from the lake will be affected or if this is an issue. (Long EAF page 9, Aesthetic Resources). The engineer will address stormwater, septic and well concerns. What may help the Board is utilizing the concepts which apply to designation of a minor project in the Lake George Park Commission Stormwater Regulatory Program. A single family residential structure and related accessory structures or site improvements is considered "minor" if the land requiring clearing or alteration is less than 15,000 square feet provided that no activity occurs on soils of high potential for over land or through soil pollutant transport; an area with a slope of 15 percent or greater measured in any direction over a distance of 100 feet from the center of the proposed house site; or an area with soil perc rates of great~r than 60 minutes per inch. It appears that these regulations could be in effect when these lots are sold." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, March 13, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Regarding sediment and erosion control: a. When specific sediment and erosion control methods are indicated on the plans they should be shown consistently in each instance of a disturbance (i.e. lots 8, and 9 have very similar disturbed areas for the house and septic system construction, however, only lot 9 shows sediment control measures.) b. A note should be added to the plan requiring sediment and erosion control measures as necessary during construction be installed in accordance with the New York Guidelines for Urban' Erosion and Sediment Control. c. The silt fence detail does not indicate embedment of the filter cloth as required by the NY Guidelines. d. Perimeter sediment controls are not required upslope of disturbances. 2. The plan for lot 3 indicates 17 '- --' that clearing/construction for the house and driveway occurs within a designated wetland buffer area (Queensbury Code 179-60). A note indicating the need for wetland permits to develop lot 3 should appear. 3. Regarding subsurface sewage disposal: a. The septic system profile detail should note minimum groundwater separation consistent with the trench detail. b. The trench detail should note a 4' minimum separation from the bottom of trench to bedrock. c. Summary septic system design criteria should be noted on the plans (number of bedrooms, design application rates, lineal feet of laterals). 4. Regarding stormwater management: a. Soils data indicative of subsurface conditions at drywell locations should be used to ensure seasonal high groundwater does not interfere with drywell operation and to ensure that retention facilities will drain within 24 hours after a design storm. b. Drywells located within the retention basins should be considered. c. Recharge basins located on both sides of a driveway should be sized individually according to the drainage area on the side of the driveway served. d. The top width of the retention area berms should be specified on the detail. e. Private stormwater management maintenance responsibility should be stipulated on the plans. 5. Driveways cross section details indicating ditch stabilization, surfacing and cross slopes should be shown." MR. MARTIN-Okay. First of all, I received your letter, Mr. Schachner, of March 3rd. I've distributed it among the Board. They've all seen it. Do you want it read into the record, or, I'll hand it over to Lee for part of the file. MR. SCHACHNER-Fine. For your record, I'm Mark Schachner from Miller, Mannix, and Pratt, representing the applicant. With me are Jeff Anthony and Dave Willenbrach from the LA Group, also the applicant's consultants. I guess I would just give the big picture, from our perspective, and then offer you to the Board, we can go through the Staff Comments and the Engineer's Comments item by item, if you want, or just sort of in a big picture sense. In the big picture sense, you all know where we've been in the Sketch Plan discussion. Now we're at the Preliminary plat stage. We largely agree and have no trouble with either the Staff Comments or the engineering comments. Mr. Anthony can address, especially the engineering comments in detail right down the line, if you like. Basically, all but a few are A Okay with us, and the couple that aren't, there's one where we think the way we do it is slightly better than what Rist-Frost is indicating and we have some feedback like that, but no major problem at all with any of the comments. We have done what Mrs. York has suggested, by way of, done the calculation of buildable area and what that turns out to be, and the number is, what, 22. something is the number of acres, of the 26, that are buildable area. In other words, 3. something are not. This is not proposed as a cluster subdivision. So, we don't really think that's as important now as it was, I think, when that comment was originally made by Mrs. York, when we were going through a number of different scenarios, but since she asked for that, we did do that calculation. There's been a great deal of discussion, as we understand it, about, what Mrs. York I think accurately refers to as some of the off site aspects, including the proposed improvements of Knox Road, and the possibility of connecting Knox Road to Sunset Road, and I think the Board is all very cognizant of how that discussion's occurred. Through no fault of their own, I'm assuming that members of the public are not as aware of how that's transpired, but I think, both at the last meeting, your comments as a Board and Mrs. York's comment, I think, is well taken, in her current comments, and that is simply that this is an idea that, as we understand it, has been kind of kicking around in the Town for some period of years, that at least some Town officials want certain improvements to occur. Other Town officials aren't so sure they want them to occur. Our position is that this isn't part of our appl ication. I think Mrs. York agrees with that. I think the Board agrees with that. We have indicated that we'll be cooperative with the Town to the extent we can be, if the Town wants us to, to help facilitate the things that are within our ownership and control. Quite frankly, if the neighborhood, so to speak, would prefer that those improvements not be made because of the character of the neighborhood or they like the roads the way they are or whatever, the applicant doesn't have any quarrel with that position, either, that's really, we perceive, an issue to be more with the Town and the neighbors. MR. MARTIN-Right. I think the Board's fully understanding of that. All right. What's your preference, here, in terms of Mr. Schachner's offer on the Engineering Comments? Is it something you'd like on an item by item basis? I think that's probably. or do you want to see a general? MRS. PULVER-Well, this is only Preliminary. So, if he's willing to do everything, we'll see it all revised and corrected at the next Stage. So, he doesn't have to go through it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You can make that a condition, as far as we're concerned. MRS. PULVER-Yes, mean, he doesn't have to go through it item by item. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd just like you to delineate out those ones that are an issue with you. MR. SCHACHNER-Jeff, why don't you at least just talk about, for example, Item lc. MRS. YORK-Excuse me. May I just interject for one moment. May I have your receipts, please. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Okay. So, I guess Jeff Anthony from the LA Group will address just a couple that our comment is not, yes, okay, we'll do exactly what's requested. For example, Item lc, I think, is one of them. 18 ----.-/ JEFF ANTHONY MR. ANTHONY-Okay. Let me just give a brief run down on this, Mark, and it will be very short. Just as a matter of record, my name is Jeff Anthony. I'm a principle in the LA Group in Saratoga Springs, and we're the engineering and planning consultants for this project. The engineering comments that we received from Rist-Frost are very acceptable to us. The only ones that I'd like to clarify would be one or two of them. Item lc, "The silt fence detail does not indicate embedment of the filter cloth as required by the NY Guidelines". New York Guidelines does not mandate that. There are three alternative methods of doing a filter fabric detail. One is embedment. One is rolling it uphill and covering it with earth, and the other one is rolling is uphill and covering it with sand dikes. The detail we showed showed it covered with earth. We will change that detail, if Rist-Frost would like, to show all three alternatives. It's a very minor issue. We'd prefer not disturbing the native ground, which is our preference. MR. MARTIN-It sounds to me like it can be worked out. MR. ANTHONY-Item 2, "The plan for lot 3 indicates that clearing/construction for the house and driveway occurs within a designated wetland buffer area (Queensbury Code 179-60). A note indicating the need for wetland permits to develop lot 3 should appear". We looked at lot 3 very carefully today, and we also looked at the wetland, and the wetland also abuts, but is not on lots 4 and 6, and also there is wetland or a pond over on lot 9. All of those comply, or should have a wetland buffer, according to Queensbury Code, and the buffer is 35 feet. What we propose to do is ascribe a 35 foot buffer limit around all those wetland areas, which would effect lot 9, 3, 6, and 4, and then mandate that no development occur within any of those buffer areas, and in looking at lot 3, it's very easy to just move that driveway about three or four feet, and that's all that's really effected by it, and if there is enough land on lot 3 to allow that driveway to go through, it will not effect that development of that lot at all. So, we are proposing to ascribe the wetland buffer line on there and accept the rules of the road, no development within the 35 foot buffer. All of the other comments are engineering in nature and we basically have them worked out with Rist-Frost, and we agree with them. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't want to get into a lot of, so, essentially, what you're saying is, Item lc and Item 2 are the only ones of a minor clarification, and I'll trust that, I think the Board would also feel comfortable with working that out directly with Rist-Frost between now, and if we come to a final. MR. ANTHONY-Right. The only major one I see here, from a development perspective, is Item 2, which is your 35 foot buffer, and we can live with that. We will not work within a 35 foot buffer. MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess, in similar fashion, if you would think it's appropriate, members of the Planning Board, I would just touch on two of the Staff Comments, briefly, and they are, they both, it's the third and fourth paragraphs of the Staff Report, which both relate to the common driveway to lots 9 and 10, and I guess I'll do them out of order, but as far as looking into access through the 50 foot right-of-way from the Assembly Point Road, if we're understanding the comment correctly, we think that the Board should not look into that, simply because it would go through the pond. MR. MARTIN-I think we discussed that at Sketch Plan, at one point, too, and for those same. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I think we felt it was not appropriate. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, but if you're going to go with that configuration, that's probably the best alternative that you've shown there. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and the other one is sort of also related to dri veways to lots 9 and 10, and the first sentence says, "will require substantial amounts of clearing which will affect the visual impact of the development". We've been thinking a lot about, you'll recall at the last meeting, one of the very active opponents of this project also made some comments about that common driveway. As a result, he set us to thinking more about that particular common driveway, and we do have a proposal for the Board's consideration, of a way to mitigate the amount of clearing that would have to be undertaken on that common driveway, and, again, it's not something that, frankly, we feel very strongly about. It's sort of a, either way that you all would direct us would be fine with us, and I think Mr. Anthony can explain the proposal better than I. MR. ANTHONY-Okay. The common driveway on lots 9 and 10, currently, we're grading an area which is indicated primarily by these proposed new grading limit lines, grading line contours, which kind of go out a little ways, here, and go up a little ways here. The only reason why we have to grade that is to comply with your one on three minimum back slope requirement and slope requirement in the Town. Quite frankly, when we looked at that in great detail, over the last week, in order to accomplish that, what we're really pushing around is uphill, removing any place from about six inches to about 1.4 feet of vertical earth to accomplish that back slope. That's just to accommodate your technical requirement. That's not to do any massive earth work. Down slope we're doing about the same, about a half a foot 19 -- .-' to a foot and a half of fill to accommodate the shaping of your required grade. If we were to take and be allowed to have a variance from your one on three slope, and go to one on two, we could get back to grade within eight feet of the driveway, and that would also have the ditch in it, and we would rip rap that portion of the grading. It would take roughly 40,000 square foot of clearing, or say, ~radi~g, it will reduce it down to less than 20,000 square feet, probably close to 15,000 square feet, lf we re allowed to go to a one on two slope in that area, and stabilize the rip rap in the ditch and along the road edge. If we reduced it to a one on one, within the ditch area, and I'm talking really within the ditch area, we could even get that down to far less. We can mov~ that either way. It is a technical requirement in your law, with grading it. I, quite frankly, don't see why we have to grade native area just to get to a technical, just to satisfy a technical requirement. That is natural earth, natural area. It has natural ground cover on it now. There's no reason to go beyond the necessary grading limits. If we were in any other town, we'd grade to a one on two, and stabilize with rip rap in the ditch. MR. LAPOINT-A quick question for you. If you were to stick with the one on three, and your clear cutting looks like 60 feet, and once the road was in, you would let that grow back? MR. ANTHONY-Sure. MR. LAPOINT-Re-plant it so the actual road width, driveway width, would be, like, 14, 15 feet? MR. ANTHONY-Sure. There's really a good possibility that, if you're moving six inches of earth, you can, technically, grade under a tree and move six inches of earth. That's not going to kill the tree. We're trying to meet a requirement in your law, just to shape the earth to meet your requirements. MR. LAPOINT-But, again, the point I'm making is that that's not necessarily a clear swipe, right down through there, that would be permanent, as opposed to a paved highway, which would be, even with a one on three, at some period of time, you would have a growth up to the driveway. MR. ANTHONY-We could potentially save a good number of the major trees within that graded area, and then re-plant the ground covers and grasses. MR. LAPOINT-And you've gone through the calculations for the one on two and the one on one? MR. ANTHONY-Right. Going to the one on two, we can go from about 42,000 square feet down to well under, some place between 15 and 20,000 square feet. Going to one on one we can get it down around 15,000 square feet. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. That may be something that we ultimately discuss and that could be something you could discuss further with Rist-Frost. All right. Any comment from the Board, at this point, before we open the public hearing? Okay. Then I'll open the public hearing on this application. We're at Preliminary Stage. I believe the neighboring residents have been notified. So, is there anyone here who wishes to address the Board regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEfED DENNIS MAC ELROY MR. MACELROY-My name is Dennis MacElroy. I'm a resident of Assembly Point, and a property owner on Knox Road, possibly the opponent that Mark referred to. I guess I'd want to say right off that I'm an interested property owner, not necessarily an opponent of Paul's desire to subdivide his land. I just hope it's done within the regulations that exist, and in good planning and design, and what we've seen, so far, particularly in terms of driveways serving lots 9 and 10, and, to some extent, 8 and 5, is not good design, and it's not good planning. I submitted to you a letter which includes comments on the revised plan. I've also attached the previous comments that I submitted at the last meeting, on the 25th. I don't know that I need to take your time, tonight, to go through each of the technical comments, but I should point out some of my concerns. Let me read, basically, from the letter of the 16th, that I've submitted to you just now. "To summarize my own comments, I wish to say that the applicant has yet to provide the technical information necessary to support the design he has proposed. - The previously inadequate stormwater system has been redesigned but still leaves questions unanswered", and I have some technical comments that are included in the handwritten notes you received. "The soils information used for both septic system preliminary design and stormwater design is not complete nor site specific." I understand that in Preliminary review you're not deciding on the septic system design. That's the Health Department's job, but you have to have some indication that the site is adequate to support the subdivision that's proposed. I'm not sure that you have the information to allow you to do that, at this point, regarding soils. "The visual impact of the clearing for these long sloping driveways and house locations has not been addressed at all. The clearing required for the drives (specifically 9 & 10 and 5 & 8) will be devastating. I would ask you to consider these comments, see if they have any merit, and ask that the applicant take a hard look at the impact and suitability of his proposal. Perhaps he too will realize that he is asking the land to provide more than it can realistically 20 ""'--- - support. I'd ask you to take no further action on this application until all the appropriate issues are thoroughly addressed." I just want to mention may a couple of specific, technical issues. I guess my primary concern related to stormwater design. Previously, the stormwater design made certain assumptions that it was inadequate for the flows that are apt to be received in that area, and I think that the transition, now, from the strictly in swale drywells to a swale drywell recharge basin system still leaves something to be desired. One of the issues that is not at all addressed is how much grading and additional clearing would be required for those recharge basins. Previously, I'd given you information related to the amount of clearing related to the driveways, and certainly just comments and proposal on reducing those slopes goes some distance to address that. I'm not sure that that's the way that the Planning Board should go on this. One of my additional concerns is where this goes, from a subdivision plan to somewhere in the future someone buys a lot and develops that lot, driveway, house location, septic system. It's not necessarily the applicant's fault, but it's something in the system that somewhere down the road, someone has to be responsible for what goes on on that lot. The plans indicate certain things, but two years, three years, six years down the road, I'm not sure what follow up occurs. There's reference to the Building Department having that responsibility. I'm not sure that's good. I'll give you an example, right on Knox Road, the two houses that are on the front, they're in the beginning of Knox Road. Both of those lots were previously subdivided by Paul Knox. They were sold. That jurisdiction then came to the Building Department. There are wetlands in that area. The house on the southerly side has a septic system built within the wetlands that are designated on APA's map. The house on the northerly side was filling those same wetlands, as a part of developing that lot. I just don't feel comfortable with, some point down the road, the Building Department being responsible for upholding certain conditions that mayor may not be on the plans. The first plan sheet indicates, Note: house, well, and driveway locations are approximate and only shown to demonstrate feasibility. Final design and locations are conditions of building permit. That's very standard. The concern I have is that we're putting in a lot of discussion about the impact of those driveways on a particularly sensitive area. What happens in two, or three, or six years down the road, when that lot sells, and this owner has different ideas about how that's going to take place, and we can put covenants in the deeds and restrictions on the plans, but I still have a concern about how that, practically speaking, occurs. Something is lost in that transition from this approval in 1992, to someday when some owner purchases that lot and builds his dream house. The slopes and the visual impact and what not make it a very sensitive area, and that's one of the concerns that I have, related to that. Again, the technical comments that I've submitted you can review, have your engineer or planning staff review, and see if there's any merit to what I say, but we're in fairly steep areas, at the base of those lots, where the driveways head up from, and the recharge basins are also in steep areas, something that would be somewhat difficult to construct and to maintain. There's no discussion of operation and maintenance plans for recharge basins, which, even when municipalities have that jurisdiction and that responsibility, is a difficult thing. When a private owner has it, who knows what will happen. The plans call for swales, actually, there is no driveway detail on the plans. It doesn't show swales. It doesn't show rip rap in the swales, which would obviously be necessary on the steep slopes. Details are somewhat deficient in what they should show for this site. Drywells are indicated off of the swales. Recommended practice would have runoff go into a catch basin first, so that sediments can settle out in that location, then maintenance can take place within the catch basin. Sediments don't go into the drywell or the recharge basin, which only clog those devices, shorten their lifetime, and reduce their effectiveness. Visual impact is, again, something that's not been touched on. Well, it is discussed in the EAF, and probably inadequate to really address the potential impact that occurs there. The driveways alone have a certain amount of clearing. Potentially, that can be reduced by reducing the slopes. That's an issue, really, which should be discussed. Certain requirements, conditions, controls should be part of the plans or deed restrictions. Limits of clearing, that all relates to erosion conditions as well, but visual impact is, those lots are right up there on the slope, up to 80 feet above the level of the lake. There'll be quite a visual impact. That's another situation where, unfortunately, the Town regulations fall short. At the last meeting, I referenced a property on Lockhart Mountain Road, the Kruger property, which is a classic case of up land properties that, unfortunately, the Town either does not or cannot have the authority over the cutting that occurs there. That, basically, is a clear cut situation that is visible from many vantage points within the basin. These sites have somewhat the same potential in providing that visual impact. I have a number of other comments related to septic design. Also, again, stormwater I mentioned. I have also included, as I said, the previous comments that I made, which really go back to the part of your own regulations, as to whether driveways of that nature meet the intent of access to properties off of Town roads. There are certain sections in there which relate to that. We've talked about, or Jeff's talked about, the potential reduction of Town standards for .slope conditions. Possibly the Town can reduce standards, in terms of a Town road, which would provide access from another vantage point for, particularly, those lots 5 and 8, 9 and 10. The initial portion of the property, lots 2, 4, 3, and 6, I guess they are, there's really not any problem there. They're relatively slight slopes. The access is reasonable, but once you get further north on that property, the slopes become much more of a condition, and I'm concerned that, as that development occurs, that the conditions we want to place on it here and now just get lost, and therefore that turns into something different than we see today. The applicant's in a difficult position, to some extent. He wants to subdivide according to the regulations. He, apparently, feels he's done that. I question whether that design meets the intent of the regulations. One other point related to the road. I feel it's a separate issue. The applicant got tied into that. I just want to state my position again, as I did last meeting. I do~'t believe, from information, boundary, property map, infOrmation from the County Clerk's Office deed, information that I have related to our property on the northerly end of Knox Road that would indicate that the Town does not have clear title to that 21 , '-- - section of road that they can presume that a connection can be made between Knox Road and Sunset Lane. I've met with the Town Highway Superintendent and with Lee, and we've discussed it. I'm not sure where it's gone from there, but I just want to restate that position, emphatically, that, separate from this project or together with it, that's a problem, and I don't believe that the Town has the necessary ownership at this time. If they plan to claim Knox Road, then let them do that in the formal, legal sense that's required. Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-I have a quick question for you, and possibly Lee. I was looking through my paperwork, and I saw a drawing of Assembly Point with all the properties shown on it, divided up, and I couldn't get my hands on it. Just, right off the top of your head, you don't know what the average size lot is, out there? MR. MACELROY-Was it a Tax Map or a small scale? MR. LAPOINT-It showed the entire peninsula. MR. MACELROY-Yes. It's a map I made for the Assembly Point Association. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, busted up into all the little, I mean, what is it, quarter acre, half acre? MR. MACELROY-I can't quote you that figure, off the top of my head. MR. LAPOINT-Just for referencing, comparing density. Here we go. Great. MR. MARTIN-The last time when you were before us, you had made some rough calculations as to the amount of clearing required for the driveways, and I know, now, this is a revised plan that's made an attempt to reduce that from what was approved at Sketch Plan. Do you have any calculations on that, that was done? MR. MACELROY-On a revised plan? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I believe this shows a revised grading and. MR. MACELROY-The same plan. MR. MARTIN-The same plan? MR. MACELROY-In fact, what I would maintain, as I said earlier, I said that the recharge basin's included. There's a certain amount of grading which is, it's just not addressed on the plan, and therefore, there's much additional clearing area. It may be significant, it may be not. I don't know. It's not provided. To get into that, again, the recharge basins, I question the calculations, also, on the volume, of what area of volume is provided for storage. That's discussed in the comments. MR. MARTIN-Right, but what was the amount of clearing that you were estimating for the driveways? MR. MACELROY-Well, as the plan is shown, the driveways, the clearing required for just the driveways, there are five driveways, lot 9 and 10, lot 8 and 5, 7 and 6, lot 4, lot 3. Approximately 92,000 square feet would be cleared for the driveways and the grading related to that. The clearing required for a Town road at a 50 foot right-of-way, with a 140 foot diameter cul-de-sac at the end, and we'll say that road is 900 feet long, plus clearing for eight individual driveways, the clearing for that would be roughly 80,400. That's approximately 15 percent less area cleared, with a propoSèd center road, that's assuming a 50 foot right of way, clear, and that would not necessarily be the case, but the worst case. MR. CARTIER-What was the first number? MR. MARTIN-Ninety two thousand. MR. CARTIER-Ninety two. Okay. Thank you. MR. MACELROY-I have several copies of the. MR. LAPOINT-Was that in your package, because that was, this was not in there? MRS. PULVER-What are we talking about configuration for that road? We're talking 50 feet in and then 900 feet with the cul-de-sac? MR. MACELROY-Cul-de-sac, right. MRS. PULVER-But it has to be 100 feet, right? The first 100 feet has to be cleared. MR. MARTIN-Well, it would be 900 feet total, whether it's 100 feet in and then 800 over, and then. 22 -- -..-/ MR. MACE LROY-We 1 1 , it would be 900 feet total, and 50 feet wide. percent slopes. Maybe that's what you're thinking about. The first 100 feet has to be at three MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MACELROY-But the right-of-way would still be 50 feet. MR. LAURICELLA-That's included, Carol. MR. MACELROY-Right. Nine hundred feet with a one hundred and forty foot diameter cul-de-sac at the end. Eight individual driveways. Still less clearing than that which would be related to the plan and the grading as shown. If the grading's reduced, those figures would be reduced. The type of clearing, though, I would stress, is different. You're not clearing across a steep slope, if you came in on a center road. You'd be choosing areas that would be of slight slopes, less concern, as far as erosion and effects, and less visual. MR. MARTIN-And less visually, yes, because you're going through the center of the property. MR. MACELROY-That's right, because you have those buffers in front, instead of those slashes across the slope, which would be certainly more visible than the alternative. MR. LAPOINT-Asphalt versus unpaved dirt roads. MR. MACELROY-An asphalt road, to certain Town standards, maybe a 16 foot wide paved surface, which is very typical of Assembly Point, in character, versus driveways. Well, gravel driveways. Do you think somebody who's going to pay a certain amount of money for a lot and a house up there with 360 feet at 10 percent slopes and another 250 feet, it's going to be expensive driveway, but if it's gravel, that's, potentially, a tough access. You'll see some of those driveways paved. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but that would be up to the individual lot owner. MR. MACELROY-Exactly. MRS. PULVER-Whether or not they could afford it. I mean, that's all part of the package. If they can't afford the driveway, obviously, they're not going to buy the lot. MR. LAURICELLA-With those slopes, they'd have to have a paved driveway. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but that becomes a problem of the homeowner. MR. LAURICELLA-I realize that. MR. MACELROY-Exactly, and that's a little concern I have about this. This is, as I mentioned before, is sort of a quick and easy way to sell this land, subdivide it on paper and don't put anything into it. Sell those lots, and then it's the property owner's responsibility to build those roads, put in septic systems, and it's up to the Town to control how that's done, and that puts a burden on the Town. MR. LAPOINT-How is that different from a 900 foot road with 8, 9 lots off it? I mean, how is that di fferent? MRS. PULVER-That the Town has to maintain. MR. MACELROY-The Town would still maintain it. The Town would have to maintain that, as opposed to the driveways. MR. LAPOINT-Right, as opposed to, now you have a road, and say only two of the lots sell, and you have cleared all of this space for that extra time, when nobody buys lot 10 and 9, or develops it. MR. MACELROY-Yes. I don't know that you can plan for that, plan for subdividing and not figure that it will be sold? MR. LAPOINT-Again, and the idea that you've got so much asphalt, which is absolutely impermeable, versus so much dirt driveway, which we calculate as impermeable, but really is, to certain degree, permeable. MR. MACELROY-Yes, but it's in a much more susceptible area for erosion and sedimentation. The locations of those driveways. MR. LAPOINT-Very much different from what exists up there right now, on all these other properties? MR. CARTIER-You mean surrounding, developed properties? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. 23 -- ~ MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think so. You don't see the slopes up there like you do here. MR. MACELROY-Other Assembly Point properties? No. MR. MARTIN-We were there, again, Saturday, and refresh my memories and that's quite a slope. When you get down to the northern end of the road, there, that's really up there. MR. LAPOINT-It's steep. Lot 10. MR. LAURICELLA-Nine and ten are really bad. MR. MACELROY-I've got some photos. MR. BREWER-It starts at eight, doesn't it, the slope? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It starts right about in there, and it just really takes off. MR. MACELROY-That's why these driveways are so much pushed up that way, is so that provides at least a shot to cross those folks. There's no way you could approach anything from here. MR. BREWER-And that would almost ensure the location of the houses, too, if they put a road in there. It goes right back to what I said the last meeting, whatever meeting is was, that someone buys that property, five years down the road, and sees the plan for that, and says, wow, I can put my house 600 feet off the road? Why can't I put it right here? That detours them from doing that. If you put the road down the center, it almost makes the location for the house permanent, after you put the road in. MRS. PULVER-No, Tim, actually, they are supposed to build their house and their driveway according to this plan that would be approved by the Planning Board. MR. BREWER-I understand that, Carol. MRS. PULVER-Whether it was six years down the road or not. This is no different than any other subdivision that's approved. MR. BREWER-It ~ different from any other subdivision, the way it's laid out, with the flag shaped lots and the driveways are 600 feet. MRS. PULVER-Well, every subdivision is different, with layout, but layout is layout, and when the builder goes to build, they have to build according to the layout, whatever the layout is. MR. MARTIN-Right, and that's why, at this point, we should be doing all we can to minimize any false, in that system. MR. MACELROY-Related to the layout. Yes, exactly. That layout is inherent to problems. MR. MARTIN-That's why we're here, and if we can come up with a different design that minimizes the chance for error or problems in the future, then that should be the plan that we pursue. MR. LAPOINT-That out-weighs the property owner's desire to do what he wants with his property. MR. CARTIER-In some cases, yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We have got to accept, as a Planning Board that sometimes you do have to tell a property owner what he's going to do. MR. CARTIER-Or at least what he can't do. MR. MACELROY-But you have to advise him to work within the regulations, and I think that you have that latitude, as far as directing proper design, and that's not proper design. That may be what the sponsor is interested in, subdividing, driveways, all that responsibility to the future owner, but it's not good design. MR. MARTIN-All right. Thank you very much, Mr. MacElroy. Is there anyone else from the public who would care to address the Board? KATHY V I LMAR 24 "---- '.-' MS. VILMAR-My name's Kathy Vilmar. I work for the Lake George Association as Director of Land Use Management. I've reviewed the project with Lake George Association Board Members fami 1 iar with the area and have also beeln contacted by area land owners seeking to know more about the project. Some of the concerns that I m about to say are some of the concerns of the residents in the area and some concerns of the LGA's. One big concern that the Lake George Association has is with c~ntrolling stormwater runoff in such a way that it meets the standards of the Lake George Park Commission Regulations, and I believe Mr. MacElroy proposed, last month to the Board, what the Park Commission outlined in their October 11th, 1991 letter to the Board, that the Planning Board should require the subdivision plans that are before you now to address stormwater management by having each individual lot conform to the Lake George Park Commission rules, and I'm not sure if that's been done or not. The LGA believes that this may be the way to deal with just this kind of project, one that most likely will not be completed until years from now and done in phases, individual lot stormwater management, keeping the entire site, the entire picture in mind, while developing a plan, is probably the only way to truly keep a handle on the stormwater for a project like this, or, as Mr. MacElroy was alluding to, an arrangement could be worked out between the Board, the Planning Department and the Building Department, whereby a future lot owner or büilder will be informed that special guidelines need to be followed and these can be put on as conditions of the building permit, or after a certain number of houses, you can bring the project in again to review the stormwater. This property, it would be very important to have the stormwater conform to the Park Commiss ion's regulations. Another concern that we have is the amount of tree cutting that could take place and, again, Mr. MacElroy's already covered this. Ten lot purchasers putting up ten homes plus clearing for the amount of driveways, accessory structures, 11m sure there's a good possibility that a real large portion of the 25 acres could be cut, and I think we'd all like to avoid having this property look like the Mohican Height Development up in Bolton Landing, where each house was built on a ridge to have a beautiful view of Lake George, but unfortunately, excessive tree cutting took place. Perhaps we could do something like the Park Commission suggested for stormwater, that individual lots adhere to an individual tree cutting plan, whereby cutting is regulated to allow only filtered views from the ridge of the lake and the mountains. I believe the APA's developed a formula that they have used to provide filtered views which seems to satisfy all involved. You might want to contact them fûì input, or perhaps the Planning Board can utilize the memo of understanding they have in their regulations with the Soil Conservation Service, come up with a special cutting plan for the property. Regarding aesthetics, the Lake George Association would ask that the Planning Board regulate the type of structure that will be built here. Again, it's pretty woodsy and it's a beautiful piece of property, and we'd hate to see something built there that doesn't reflect the character of the neighborhood. Just a question I'd like to ask before I finish is, I'd like to know if the APA's been notified regarding the wetlands on the site, and if they have, do they have any jurisdiction over that? Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there any other comments from the public? CAROL DESORMEAU COLLINS DR. DESORMEAU COLLINS-Hi. My name is Dr. Carol Desormeau Collins, and I have two letters. One is from the attorney re'presenting Mr. Desormeau, who is an adjacent property owner, and I'd like to read that to you right now. "Please be advised that I represent Henry Desormeau in connection with the above matter. Mr. Desormeau owns' property on Knox Road, adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Desormeau strongly opposes, One, the suggestion that Knox Road should be connected to Sunset Road, either as part of this project or otherwise, Two, the suggestion that lots in the subdivision be accessed by multiple driveways, and Three, the approval of this project without appropriate tree cutting restrictions to prevent view shed clear cutting. On the subject of Knox Road/Sunset Road connection. we consider such an effort to be beyond the authority of the Planning Board, as part of this project. First, as Dennis MacElroy has pointed out, the MacElroy's, not Mr. Knox, own the property that would be necessary for that connection. Moreover, because access to Sunset Hill Subdivision is not dependent upon the connection, it is unnecessary to connect that issue to this project. If the Town Highway Superintendent believes that such access is necessary for some reason, that matter should be referred to the Town Board and processed under Eminent Domain Procedure Laws. In that forum, the many environmental and other reasons why Knox Road should be not connected to Sunset Road can be addressed, and alternatives can be considered. On the subject of JOOltiple driveways, you should be aware that such driveways will create both surface water drainage problems and road hazards. Knox Road already experiences washout problems near Mr. Desormeau's property. The addition of driveway runoff to Knox Road would exacerbate this problem. In addition, the multiple driveways on the sloping hill will create unnecessary tree cutting. Lastly, because the driveways enter at obtuse angles, the potential for accidents is significant. More appropriately, the project sponsor should be required to access these lots through a center 1 ine roadway which intersects Knox Road, close to Assembly Point Road. Mr. Desormeau has no objection if the Planning Board allows the project sponsor to construct a substandard road which is consistent with the neighborhood character. However. a center line road is the only logical choice for this project. Finally, it is our understanding that the project sponsor believes that houses on these lots will have views of Lake George. In order to accomplish that goal substantial clear cutting would be required, similar to the unsightly clear cutting that exists in other places around Lake George. In order to prevent further visual cancer to the Lake George landscape, the Planning Board should condition this project upon a requirement that each lot owner submit a tree cutting plan prior to clearing any trees beyond that needed for the construction of a residential structure. Such a plan should provide for the maintenance of adequate vegetation to screen the development from the lake, while allowing a filtered 25 -- view for the occupants of the structure. In order to clarify the binding and perpetual nature of such conditions, the Planning Board should require that they be incorporated into deed restrictions. Thank you for you attention in this matter. Very truly yours, Thomas S. West" MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much. MR. LAURICELLA-May I ask you a question? Where is this property represented? DR. DESORMEAU COLLINS-It's adjacent to Lot 10. MR: LAURICELLA-Adjacent to Lot 10? Okay. DR. DESORMEAU COLLINS-Now I'm speaking for myself. MR. MARTIN-Okay. DR. DESORMEAU COLLINS-"Please be advised that I represent Henry Desormeau in connection with the Sunset Hill Farm Subdivision. Mr. Desormeau owns property on Knox Road adjacent to the proposed subdivision. I am his daughter. I am a Limnologist (Aquatic Ecologist) and have conducted research on Lake George water quality for many years. I conducted studies on Lake George for many agencies including the National Science Foundation and the Lake George Park Commission. I was also part of a multidisciplinary team that wrote the StorDllater Regulations for the Lake George Park Commission. Mr. Desormeau's and my concerns and oppositions with the proposed subdivision based upon water quality considerations are as follows: (1) the suggestion that Knox Road should be connected to Sunset Road; (2) the suggestion that lots in the subdivision be connected to multiple driveways; (3) the approval of the project without appropriate tree cutting restrictions on each lot; (4) the approval of the project without looking at each lot separately for storDllater runoff control; (5) the approval of the project without looking at each lot separately for adequate on site waste water disposal; (6) the approval of the project without looking at the impact on the MacElroy wetland which is located down slope and is connected to Lake George." MR. CARTIER-Excuse me, can you say that last part again, that last sentence, just the last part, what you referred to? DR. DESORMEAU COLLINS-The wetland that 1'm referring to is right here. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. DR. DESORMEAU COLLINS-"On the subject of the Knox Road/Sunset Road connection, this road would follow along side a significant wetland and would significantly impact the water quality by reducing the amount of pervious soils and thereby increasing the amount of undesirable nutrients, trace metals, and sediment to the wetland. On the subject of multiple driveways, this would require substantial tree cutting causing significant storDllater runoff by increasing the amount of impervious soil by nearly half of the project area. On these steep slopes, resulting sheet flow of storDllater runoff would be very difficult to control effectively and still adequately remove driveway contaminants." Remember, here, in stormwater runoff control, we're not just looking at control of the water itself, but we're looking at removal of the nutrients that cause the degradation of Lake George and other water ways. "Furthermore, very close regulation of any additional tree cutting on each lot is necessary to achieve any sort of runoff control of pollutants and water flow on these slopes. On the subject of individual lot storDllater runoff control, the variety of soil types and depth, slope, and wetlands, associated with the project should require that a great deal of attention be given to a storDllater runoff plans. On the subject of individual lot wastewater disposal, again, the variety of slopes, soil types and depths should require that individual lots be reviewed for adequate on site disposal. On the subject of the downslope wetland (MacElroy Wetland), this wetland is a significant wetland for Assembly Point. It acts as a filter by removing undesirable nutrients and sediment before they enter Lake George. It also acts to moderate the flow rate and volume of rainfall. It provides a fragile habitat and spawning ground to many water fowl, fish and animals. It is well established that additional inputs to a wetland, created by reducing the amount of pervious soil in a watershed, can and has caused wetlands to respond by releasing high levels of nutrients and sediment to the lake. The combination of higher water flow rates, higher water volume, higher pollutant load, and higþer sediment load will over tax the wetland system and cause the release of pollutants and erosion. The short circuiting of a wetland with additional inputs can significantly impact the near shore area of Lake George. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Carol Desormeau Collins, Ph. D. Limnologist" I would just like to further my comments by saying I really haven't seen any attention to the wetlands. Wetlands have a finite assimilative capacity, and the assimilative capacity of each wetland needs to be investigated before any additional inputs are made to them. That's my comme~ts. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. So, we just abandon Assembly Point? Everybody just, I mean, move out, would solve most of the problem out there? I'm just saying, I realize all the significant impacts you're~ DR. DESORf£AU COLLINS-I'm talking as a water quality expert. be the prime consideration for any project on Lake George. I think those are the prime, that should To mitigate these problems is the least 26 --- -- we can do, and in doing so, there's certain strategies you must use, and that is a thorough investigation of the inputs, outputs, the mass balance of anything that goes into a wetland, considering that much of the sto~ater runoff will go into these wetlands unabated, as a result of this project, because I haven't seen any real stormwater runoff control. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, over and above everything that exists out there now? DR. DESORMEAU COLLINS-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much. MR. LAURICELLA-There was a road proposed, at one time, where driveways between lots 4 and 5, there was a roadway proposed up through there, instead of the driveways, and then a cul-de-sac and driveways off that, at one point. The question is, how much difference would that proposal be than this proposal, as far as effecting the wetlands? DR. DESORMEAU COLLINS-Well, I would really have to look at the details of that proposal. I haven't looked at, each way, but, generally speaking, by having these severe downslope driveways on the Knox Road side, I feel that those are one of the most difficult types of areas to control, the driveway runoff. It just causes sheet flow. So, as Dennis suggested with the center road. Is that really what you're referring to? It's more likely that you can control that runoff, because you would put it at such a grade that you could control it, and collect the runoff, pretreat it and then treat it again, using recharge systems. Putting a recharge, it's going to be very difficult to recharge anything on these slopes. In order to collect that water and have enough depth to bedrock of soil, plus the clear cutting involved, there's not going to be any place to really clean this up, unless you actually cut down maybe a whole lot to recharge it, which is part of the stormwater regulations. I mean, you have to control a 50 year flood, a 100 year flood. So, you have to do those things. MR. LAURICELLA-Okay. So, of the two proposals, the center roadway would probably be preferable? DR. DESORMEAU COLLINS-It would probably be better, but I'd have to see all the stormwater runoff associated. MR. LAURICELLA-Thank you. DR. DESORMEAU COLLINS-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much for your comments. Is there anyone else from the public who'd like to address the Board? (END OF FIRST DISK) 27 - -- STEWART ROSENBURG MR. ROSENBURG-Thank you. My name is Stewart Rosenburg, and I own property on Knox Road, and this is the first time I've had a chance to see this, and my comments are basically what's already been raised. This map, to me, I really can't get an appreciate of topography, but by walking that road, you can well appreciate the height of that center court, and in fact, looking at the map, one of those driveways comes down right in front of one of my homes, which, if you've every been there in the spring, it's just like a torrent coming down off that mountain. MR. LAPOINT-Right now, the sheet flow flows right off it right now? MR. ROSENBURG-Right now, in the spring, when you have the ice, and when you have snow in this country, then it runs right down. MR. LAPOINT-So, there's sheet flow off that right now? MR. ROSENBURG-I don't know what sheet flow means? MR. LAPOINT-It runs right off the face of the slope? MR. ROSENBURG-Down into, yes, my property. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. ROSENBURG-And I'm concerned about the status of my homes, and so I think, you know, it doesn't take an engineer to realize those roads are acting like sluices, and perhaps someone could inform me why the developers chose Knox Road as an access, as opposed to a center core. I'd be very happy to listen to their reasoning. MR. MARTIN-Well, I won't speak for the developer. They will get an opportunity to address that. It's something that can be addressed. MR. ROSENBURG-Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-There's quite a bit of washout onto your property right now? MR. ROSENBURG-Not now, but in heavy snow, in the spring, there's a lot of washout. MR. LAPOINT-Right. There's a lot of washout off from what would be proposed lot 10 right now? MR. ROSENBURG-Well, not from lot 10, but coming down, we're all on a hill there, and coming down off the mountain, yes. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. MARTIN-I know what you mean. MR. ROSENBURG-Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, 1'm trying to get at a point. If there's two detention basins put in here, as shown, would they help mitigate that? MR. MACELROY-I'll comment on that. I am an engineer. MR. SCHACHNER-Wait. I've got to ask a question, then. How's this going to work? Are we going to throw out questions that anybody who wants gets up and addresses them? MR. LAPOINT-No. I'm just, somebody makes a comment about how awful, again, the sheet flow off any of this property is going to be, and 1'm just trying to determine, in my own my, as an environmentalist, an engineer who does this type of thing for a living, professionally, what the difference really is going to be, over and above what already exists there and the surrounding community, and maybe what some measures can help prevent. Now, again, I hear a comment that, as nature has left this, you've got sheet runoff from it, and then I hear, as we develop it, we're going to ex that problem, make it worse. MR. CARTIER-I don't know that we can say, as nature has left it, because we've got a man made road there already, which contributes to the problem, because that road cuts into that slope somewhat. So, it's not truly a natural setting up there. MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, you have to put things into perspective of what exists there now, the overall context of other development, it's density, ·what runs off from existing properties now, and see how this development compares to that, and that's what I'm getting at with these questions. I mean, when I hear, as a natural condition, we have surface water runoff, sheet runoff from lots 10 and 5 and then I look at two detention basins, I mean, they can only ~ the situation right there. 28 --- -' MR. MACELROY-I certain respect Mark's comments, and I just think that it's something that's worth looking, I mean, Jeff and Dave would certainly have an opportunity to comment, and whatnot. It's worth looking into. Those recharge basins are there to handle the flow of the driveways, not the predevelopment. MR. LAPOINT-Right, and that would be the extra add on, over and above what already flushes off, from what we've just heard, flushes off that hillside every time we have a heavy rain or a big melt. MR. MARTIN-All right. I'd like to move on with the public hearing. Is there anybody else? WILLIAM MAHONEY MR. MAHONEY-Mr. Chairman, my name is William Mahoney, and I am a neighbor of Mr. Knox, there. Our property is a camp that sits on the lake and it's adjacent, or the rear end of the property is adjacent, to lot 7. It's heavily wooded. It's second or third growth there. Tremendous forest area, and even with the forest area, we're not able to prevent this runoff that comes down there under average rain conditions. Now, I'm not an engineer, but I can't imagine how any kind of a retention basin up there, if there is clear cutting going to be done along that ridge, and this is a precipice above us, we're in a valley, is going to prevent the situation that we're concerned with, and if you're addressing this thing from an aesthetic standpoint, I think it's going to change the character of the neighborhood. Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-I have a quick question. You live to the east of lot 7, and water runs down the hill from 7 onto your property now? MR. MAHONEY-Well, yes, it does, from Knox Road area, it runs right down. It's quite muddy. MR. LAPOINT-Through the trees? MR. MAHONEY-Through the trees, yes, heavy forest. MR. LAPOINT-And it's quite muddy, impacts the lake? MR. MAHONEY-Yes, sir. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Any other comment? JIM MOFFITT MR. MOFFITT-Thank you. ~ name if Jim Moffitt. I'm a property owner, and I'm also President of Shore Colony Association. I've contacted quite a few members. Unfortunately, most of them are in Florida or California, but we have no qualms with the project. The only thing we would like to do is emphasize the importance of making Sunset Hill Lane connected to Knox Road. I don't know who owns it, because this seems to be a question, but we do feel, for the safety of everybody out on the point, that apparatus and ambulances could get by, not only out on the Point, but also down Knox Road itself. A few years ago, my wife and I were up to the lake and she went home. I followed about ten minutes later, and it took me about three hours longer to get home than it did her. There was an accident on the road, and I couldn't get by, and if a tree or something had come down during the middle of the winter and there was a fire out on the end of the point, nobody could get there. I've been in public safety for 40 years before I retired, and I can't emphasize enough how important it is to have two methods. I understand what the doctor's saying about runoff, but that can be taken care of by construction and by proper drainage, and I do want to emphasize this is very important. We will not have a meeting until the summer months, with the whole group, but when we do meet, we intend to bring it up, and we will send a letter to the Board suggesting that this be incorporated in part of your planning. MR. MARTIN-Right. I think that you might want to address that to the Town Board. MR. MOFFITT-Okay. MR. MARTIN-We have no power over. MR. MOFFITT-Which we will do, but I feel that the Planning Department should point this out, that it is important. You I re putting 10 additional properties up there, which is saturating Knox Road again, and that's 10 additional hazards going up there. MR. CARTIER-I hope you understand that that's not something that the Planning Board can mandate. MR. MOFFITT-Okay. You can suggest it. MR. CARTIER-True, if we agree with it. 29 '-- -..-/ MR. MOFFITT-And I'd appreciate it if you would. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Anyone else? Any other comment? CHARLES ADAMSON MR. ADAMSON-My name is Charles Adamson. I live further out on the point. I'm not within the range of the letter sent out. I have a couple of things to say that are, the first one is relevant to the issue that's irrelevant, the road, but I would like to say, I appreciate what Mr. Moffitt has just said, but there has been an attempt to put an alternate road in there, since 1939, at least, the first attempt. My brother had it almost through, and then we got into problems. There's a way of doing that that I even think that Mr. Knox, as far as I know, Mr. Knox approved at one point. It is on the east side of this property. Well, from your point of view it would be right here, and I think this is the west of the east, along here. It's the back side of the property, and the neighbors here have, at various times, fairly recently if I'm not mistaken, agreed to doing that. Now, this might even provide Mr. Knox with a better access. Maybe this is what Dennis has in mind for, I don't know where the central driveway he has in mind is, but you have to understand that there is, at the other end, where it would connect with Sunset Lane, there is a 25 foot piece of property, owned by I think, one of the owners of the Shore Colony properties, that was laid out, in the 1950's, as a possibly road way. It was intended by the then owner of the Shore Colony property as a connecting link for the road to be moved back from the lake. MR. CARTIER-About where is that? MR. ADAMSON-That 25 foot piece? MR. CARTIER-That 25 foot piece you're talking about? Right about around that pond somewhere? MR. ADAMSON-It's right, wherever the tennis court is. If the tennis court shows on your map, that's where it is. Here's the tennis court. So, the connection is right, it's a little bit over here, but it is on the Town's map of the Shore Colony, because I made a copy of this last summer, of that. MR. MARTIN-Who owns that property? MR. ADAMSON- It's owned by the person who's property is abutted by that property. It's a member of the Shore Colony. MR. MARTIN-I see. MR. ADAMSON-Okay. So, I'm saying that there is that possibility, but I do agree with Mr. Moffitt, that this, as you probably are aware if you've traveled all the way out that road along Harris Bay, it is a nightmare, in terms of the environment, the runoff. It is extremely dangerous. It is getting more and more dangerous. I've traveled it for some 60 years, on and off. It is eroding, and the traffic is getting faster and so on and s'o forth, enough of that, but I mean, the Town needs to look at an alternate way of getting out there. The other thing I would like to, Mr. LaPoint raised a question as to whether all of us on Assembly Point should probably leave because of the runoff problem. Okay. I would like to just ask whether Mr. LaPoint and the other members on the Board are aware that the Lake George Park Commission, I believe almost exactly 18 months ago, asked the Town to come up with a runoff plan, and as of three weeks ago, as far as I know, the Town has done exactly diddlybop on that. So, I'd like to hear your questions on this, but lets get them going across the Board. Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. The only point I was trying to make was, again, you can have one leaky septic tank on the lake that impacts the lake hundreds of times more than this development would with 10 set systems, or runoffs. MR. ADAMSON-I just have one other point, if I may. I am very interested in this development, because I would be passing it, and I think Mr. Knox has every right in the world to do it, and I'm not opposed, but I would like to ask the developers, I don't understand where the lake access is for these properties, because I can't imagine these properties selling unless they have lake access. MR. MARTIN-I believe, and the applicant can clarify, I don't think there's envisioned any lake rights, with these lots, at least several of them, but I'm sure Mr. Schachner will clarify that. MR. ADAMSON-Yes. Lake access is not provided. Is that it? MR. SCHACHNER-I wasn't planning on doing this as a point counterpoint dialogue. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We'll wait. MR. ADAMSON-Okay. Fine. It's on the record. 30 '-- ~' MR. MARTIN-That's what I meant for later on. MR. LAPOINT-Clearly, if we were to start Assembly Point allover again, and I think the doctor would agree, you wouldn't develop it the way it's been developed. You would do it significantly differently, much more in accordance with this density, than, probably, the existing density that's out there now, that, again, with no one out there right now, you would not develop it at this density, that the environmental impact would be too significant. I agree with you there, and that this is more in keeping with an Adirondack character than this skinny, and that's my only point about moving out. I'm just trying to put this development in perspective of what's out there and what this will have an impact, over and above what is significant. Now, you just mentioned nightmares about surface runoff out here, as things exist right now, and the way I have to look at it, objectively, is how this impacts on that, and if I'm hearing it's really bad, right now, as it is, if this is going to make it worse, you certainly don't want to make it worse, but if there's benefits to doing it this way, retention basins catching this stuff and I agree you've got to study these things and I agree that you have to have tree cutting restrictions and all that good stuff, and you keep the, I would sacrifice a steeper driveway any day, for a 60 foot wide cut. All those things could be worked out, but it's got to be kept in the context of what's surrounding this land, which is way over dense and way over-developed, with, I would suspect, some leaky septics. I'm just trying to put it in perspective, here, because what we hear is that, how awful this is going to be as proposed, how nightmarish. We're going to have surface water runoff in, and then I hear two commenters, and now three adjacent property owners telling me how bad it is right now with trees on it. MR. MARTIN-Well, let me ask a question and use your perspective. If there were no development on there, how would you feel about that? MR. LAPOINT-I don't like 10 lots there anyway, and as soon as we can clear a lot of this, I think you get to the point that maybe 10 is even too dense, and that what we should be doing is talking to the applicant about decreasing density in favor of stormwater management, clear cutting and that type of thing. We seem to be missing the boat, talking about a center cut roadway. To me, we should be talking about lower overall density for the entire 25 acres, doing all the right things as you suggested. Stormwater management, the proper wastewater disposal, and it's very simple how you get better wastewater disposal and better surface water runoff. It's lower density, correct, and if I can decrease the density on that property by two units or three units, 30 percent, 20 percent, the advantages in real environmental impact is much better than the advantages you gain keeping 10 lots and swiping a road down through the middle of the thing, and that's just the perspective I'm trying to get out, is that we could have eight lots up here, configured with flags, and it would be better than 10 with a clear cut road down the middle, and I think that's the way we should be going. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that the reduction in density, or lesser lots, would be about as well received as the center access road. That's ju~t my. MR. LAPOINT-You see, now, our initial arguments, here, we were in a position where we were actually looking at 16 lots, 20 lots, I mean, we were putting the developer in an awkward circumstance where we were looking at other alternatives to accommodate this center cut road that would increase density, and that was the craziest idea. We've been through this now, four nights, five nights, and it's about time we get to the real issues, which are dropping the density, getting the proper stormwater management in, and getting the proper wastewater disposal in. MR. MARTIN-Well, I would take that one step further, then. If we're going to talk about the ideal world, here, and the ideal situation, then maybe eight lots with a center access road is the ultimate. MR. LAPOINT-Maybe. I agree, but when we were first reconfiguring this whole thing, we were looking at kicking the density up. So, we wasted two whole meetings having LA. MR. BREWER-We asked him for an alternative. He came back with that alternative. MR. MARTIN-That was never my, and that number was dictated for economic reasons. MR. LAPOINT-Wait. I heard the Board say, I would, and again, I can quote you. I'll get the record, that. MR. MARTIN-And I'll stay by that. I'd rather have 16 lots with a center access roadway than I would those driveways. MR. LAPOINT-Then we're still at square one, because that's the wrong way to go, and I think maybe anybody would, if we can ask the audience what they'd think about J! units. MR. MARTIN-Well, I want to finish the public hearing, here. MR. CARTIER-Let me see if I can move this in a direction. Let me take a shot at it. MY understanding of an objection to the center road is, Number One, the applicant didn't apply for a center road, okay. That may be a minor detail. 31 ---' ~' MR. SCHACHNER-It's a very significant detail. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Secondly, the Town Highway Superintendent said he didn't want a cul-de-sac. Now, what has bee" run by the Town Highway Superintendent in the last week or two is a proposal that includes seven cul-de-sacs. MY understanding is he has no great objection to seven cul-de-sacs in that particular Sketch Plan. MRS. PULVER-I have to ask you, how did that get run by the Highway Superintendent? MR. MARTIN-He always sees them in Staff Review. This is a different applicant. MRS. PULVER-A different application? I thought it was this application. MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARTIER-No. We don't have room for seven cul-de-sacs up here, and I will tell you personally, from my own perspective, is based on the fact that he has no, he has some minor, but no strong objections to seven cul-de-sacs on a different proposal, then, frankly, his objection to a cul-de-sac center road up here carries less weight with me, now, than it did, okay. So, that's where I'm going. MR. LAPOINT-It never carried any with me. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Well, lets finish up with the public hearing, here, before we, is there anyone else from the public who'd wish to comment? All right. Would the applicant? I think I saw you steadily writing, there. You must have some rebuttal, here, so to speak. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, yes, on behalf of the applicant, I think each member of the project team has a significant amount of rebuttal, but I guess I'd try to stay big picture, I think, at least initially, and perhaps Mr. LaPoint and I share that perspective. I have to say that, as far as we're concerned, the center road issue is a dead issue. That's why we spent, as Mrs. Pul ver says, four meeti ngs that took many, many hours debating that issue, and as far as we're concerned, we've moved beyond that issue. I will say, just as sort of a final note on that issue, that to the extent that any Planning Board members feel constrained to try to push the applicant back in that direction, there's no, I don't think there's any possibility, whatsoever, of the applicant going in that direction without seeking to put 22, what we now know are 22 lots on the property, because in response to Planning Board's comments, we were told to go calculate the amount of developable area and undevelopable area, and it appears that we can put 22 lots on the property, and we fully respect the rights of anyone, of the Planning Board members and the public, or any of the neighbors, to suggest that they would rather see a center road and 22 lots. That's fine, but the point remains that the applicant is not going to do that, and I think it's important that the Planning Board keep it's own role in perspective, here, and I guess I have to comment that, about 40 minutes ago, or so, it seems to me that the Planning Board was indicating that it's role, or some members on the Board were indicating that your role might be to do the planning and that if that's not what the applicant wants, that's too bad, and I guess, I appreciate Mr. Cartier's last comment, that the center road has not been appJied for by the applicant. That is not an insignificant detail at all, obviously, and I don't think anyone is of the impression that the Planning Board role and function is for an applicant to suggest, okay', I'm the owner of Property X, Planning Board. Please tell me how I'm going to subdivide it. I don't think that's how the Planning Board views its role and function, and I don't think that's how the public views the Planning Board's role and function. I can tell you unequivocally that is not how the law in the State of New York views the Planning Board's function. So, I guess what I'm saying is that, as far as the applicant is concerned, the center road issue has been dealt with at great length, and you've granted a Sketch Plan approval, a conceptual approval, not a final or even a preliminary approval, for the configuration that we've got there. We've got, certainly, many point by point rebuttal comments, but, staying big picture, it seems to me that we've heard several themes come through, from some very well articulated comments during the public hearing. One theme has to do with what the word I use, I don't think it was the word that was used, but the word I use is enforceabil i ty, and what I mean by that is that, to some extent, the first concerned neighbor that spoke seemed very concerned, and I think appropriately so, with the degree to which anything that you all say or, in the way of conditions, is carried forward or not carried forward when the project is ultimately developed, meaning when lots are ultimately developed, and I think Mrs. Pulver made a good point on this, which is, just like on any other subdivision, I'm paraphrasing very loosely. Correct me if I'm wrong, but just like any other subdivision, if you grant an approval with conditions, then those conditions have to be appropriately taken care of, frankly, not as much by the applicant as by the Town in signing a mylar that has those conditions on it, also by the applicant. to the extent that you would impose a condition requiring deed restrictions, which we have no absolutely no problem with, as we've indicated previously, and Mr. LaPoint just said he would prefer some sort of, I believe, a clear cutting condition, and we're not likely to have any problem with that. We'll offer to you and we'll suggest to you that you put it, not only in your approval resolution, not' only on your mYlar, but we'll put it in deed restrictions as well. Perhaps, I think Mr. MacElroy has met Mr. Hatin, although I'm not sure, but if you've met Mr. Hatin, you know that, at least now, the Town 32 -1 - ---' of Queensbury Building and Code Enforcement Department is quite rigorous, quite strict, and quite diligent in making sure that development does occur in conformance with plans. I don't think it's any secret that times have changed to a degree, in that respect. Ten and fifteen years ago, and even longer, and perhaps even more recently, I think many more things did get, so to speak, swept under the rug, where there was this concern about, a Planning Board said, okay something will happen in the following fashion, an applicant may have said, something will happen in the following fashion, but then as Mr. MacElroy and others point out, you know what, when it came to build the project, it didn't happen in that fashion, but the Planning Board, the Planning Department, and the Planning Staff and most importantly I suggest the Building and Codes Staff and the applicant have a very substantial degree over that situation, and I think that's important to keep sight of that. We've also, I think to my mind at least, the other issues that we've heard, again, speaking sort of big picture in terms of themes, seems to be stornt'later, a very significant concern, and I'll let Mr. Anthony address that in detail, but as I understand it, the stornt'later management plan is done on a 50 year design basis. Rist-Frost, your Town Consulting Engineer, has reviewed it, has pointed out a few minor comments, which we have no problem with, and to the extent that, for example, the Lake George Association representative made some very good comments I thought about the Lake George Park Commission regulations. Just like any other laws and regulations in the State of New York, if they apply, then it doesn't matter who buys the property, they're going to have to follow whatever the laws, rule, regulations and conditions on this property are, and, to that extent, that's not a reason for you all not to approve something, or even to delay an approval, but it is a reason, if you like, to include a condition that's appropriate on that topic as well. Frankly, even if you don't include a condition, if the laws, rules, and regulations are applicable, the would be purchaser has to apply anyway, and I'm not discouraging you from including conditions, but I will say that in my experience with Planning and Zoning Boards, I do find many instances in which a number of the conditions frankly, even if they weren't there, they'd have to be done anyway. For example, I'm familiar with Zoning Board's that approve things and say, but only subject to ultimate approval by the Department of Health, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Environmental Conservation, whatever. If it's got to be approved by somebody by law, whether you say so or not, it's got to be approved. I won't belabor the point. I think we should hear from Mr. Anthony about the stornt'later issue, because that seems to be a very important issue, I think legitimately so. We certainly appreciate that a few individuals indicated they don't have any problems with the project. To the extent that one individual discussed a change in neighborhood character, I'm hard-pressed not to look at this in the context of the map that we've all seen of the existing lots on Assembly Point. We're talking about 26 acres with 10 lots, lot size ranging from 1. something to 3. something acres, it looks to me like much of Assembly Point has what I call postage stamp lot development already. To the extent that this is a change in neighborhood character, I'm not sure, I guess I'm just saying I don't really understand that comment. It would seem to me more of a change in neighborhood character would be to pave a wide swath and put a full paved up to Town spec roadway through part of Assembly Point. I think we should hear from Mr. Anthony about the wetlands. Are there any other big picture questions or concerns that we could address that you all have? MR. LAPOINT-Density. Can you get the density down? Can you get it down to eight, seven lots? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the answer, in a word, is no. We feel, and the applicant feels very strongly that the goals that were so well expressed by the public and by some of the Planning Board members, particularly your comments, Mr. LaPoint, the goals of doing the project correctly, in terms of stormwater management, in particular, keeping the neighborhood character, keeping the lot sizes up, well above the minimum lot sizes, keeping the lot number down, well below the maximum lot number, I think we've arrived at a situation where the applicant feels quite strongly that we really have a minimum number of lots, here, 10 in a 26 acre, one acre minimum lot size calculation situation, and it's the first we've heard of it, quite frankly. The applicant felt quite strongly that he was making a substantial sacrifice in talking about a 10 lot subdivision, as opposed to a 16, 18, 20, 22, whatever you want to call it lot subdivision. If somebody on the Planning Board has a cogent reason to suggest that nine works better than ten for stormwater runoff, or stornt'later management or water quality reasons, we'll take it back to them, but I can't imagine that that's the case. MR. LAPOINT-Well, it can only be better. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I mean, as an abstract concept, I can't disagree with that statement. There's no question in my mind what the most popular decision here would be. The most popular decision is that we've got 26 acres of undeveloped forested land on Assembly Point. Lets leave it that way. Okay, and obviously, whether they're serious or kidding, some of the neighbors would love to see that happen, and that's fine. They're entitled to their point of view. If they want to purchase the property, they can think about doing that also, but, obviously, that's not a reasonable expectation, and just as their properties are developed, this applicant has a right to develop his property in some fashion. I appreciate that last one. Are there any other big picture questions like that that I could address? MRS. PULVER-The only thing I have, Mark, is that, and I know it's somewhere in our Ordinance, Queensbury, part of their Ordinance says you cannot put any more water onto someone else's property by way of any construction or whatever, so, maybe you know, off hand, what it is. So, if there is flooding out there and water runoff and running onto someone's property, if this piece of property were to be developed, that may still happen. It will not be any worse. It couldn't be any worse, because of whatever this little clause is in our Ordinance. However, it is not up to the developer when he is developing this to make it better than what it is, if everybody understands that, but it would probably be better. 33 ~ -- MR. MARTIN-Mr. Anthony, please. MR. ANTHONY-Good evening, again, interesting comments, here. I have about four or five topics that I'd like to summarize from an engineering or land development perspective. The first one is a request by the Town itself, and that's to clarify the development density possibilities on this piece of property, as allowed by the zoning law in the Town. Over the past few weeks, we looked at that very carefully, and according to your article in the zoning law, there is a formula for calculating allowable density. We excluded the property deducts from the property, and basically they only include nonbuildable land area, the nonbuildable area being steep slopes over 25 percent, wetland areas, and we even included the 35 foot buffer for the wetland area in that calculation. We do not have any other of your required or possibly deducts being lands dedicated to roadways or the other categories that are in the zoning law. MR. CARTIER-And that only came to three acres? MR. ANTHONY-I'll give you a summary. We calculated these using our CAD machine. They are accurate, 1.97 acres of slopes over 25 percent. The CAD machine did the slope analysis, so it's not wrong, .998 acres of wetl and, and .77 acres of buffer area, that's your 35 foot Town requi red buffer area, for a total of 3.74 acres to be deducted from the overall land area. That allows using a total land area of 22.89 acres for the calculation for allowable density. Density allowed in this zone is one acre per dwelling unit. So, theoretically, you could get 22.8 or 22.89 units. We realize that that's not a doable density because you have to put roads in and other things, but, going by your strict calculation, that's where you'd begin, and that's just for a matter of record. The zoning law states that you should deduct utility easements from the property for major utilities. This is a distribution electric line. I don't consider it a major utility. Even if we deducted it, it's only a 10, 15 foot wide piece of property that goes across property. I doubt that it would even add a quarter acre to the calculation, maybe a half if you're really lucky. It's insignificant in the calculation. The second topic that I'd like to talk about is a comparison of statistics that Mr. MacElroy presented for tree cutting, as related to, lets call it the center road proposal, meaning the Town road on the middle of the property, and the driveway options as we've presented them. MR. SCHACHNER-Why don't we just summarize that. MR. ANTHONY-I'm going to. Why don't you do it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Well, I think the easy way to summarize it is, as I understand it, Mr. Anthony's firm used their computer to come up with the actual number with this proposal, and the actual number is actually substantially less than what Mr. MacElroy came up with, but I'm sure he did it the best he could, without having the computer to run it through, that we did. The bottom line is that it is substantially less than the number he came up with, and, in addition, we have, tonight outlined a proposal on nine/ten that takes another 20,000 square feet off of that which, again, is something we don't feel super strongly about, but we think it might make some good sense, and if you want to approve that aspect of it, we'll certainly welcome that. MR. CARTIER-Well, my only comment there was, and this casts aspersions neither on Mr. Anthony or Mr. MacElroy, though now we have two sets of numbers. I find it fascinating that two engineers would come up with two sets of numbers. MR. LAPOINT-That's because they don't really mean that much. It's just that simple. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but my point is, that pushes me in the direction of, I want to hear from a Town Engineer. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Immediately. Okay, and I don't even want to consider anything else, personally, until I get a Town Engineer who consults this Board directly to go through both of these sets of numbers and say, this set's okay. This set's not. MR. LAPOINT-But they're not proposing a center line road. So, it's all moot anyway. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I was going to ask, in all seriousness, Mr. Cartier, what, I mean, although we came up with different numbers, and. MR. CARTIER-I have been, Mr. Schachner, bombarded with I don't know how many pages of engineering stuff here, and I'm not an engineer. So, that's only one of the issues. I want to have an engineer go through all of this material. I'm using that only as one example. MR. SCHACHNER-I can't quarrel with that. Obviously, we would hope that the Town Engineer would present to advise you during the course of these meetings. 34 --- ~ MR. CARTIER-Well, there are difficulties with that, and we would very much like to have our Town Engineer here also. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand those. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-And that would add a third opinion to the whole thing, and a third number. MR. CARTIER-But then at least it doesn't come out a one on one. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, you sit there and say it doesn't mean anything. We were lead down this primrose path with the argument that these were little Adirondack Trails weaving through the trees that was referred to in the earlier meetings, and then it did have a meaning. Now that it's cast into the light that they may have meaning, now they're meaningless. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, wait. If you all want to see this, we'll take you right now, we'll set a piece of paper up on that Board. These are very easy calculations, Mr. Cartier. The reason I know is that 1 can do them. I did them on my little calculator, and if I can do them, they're painfully simple, and I bet right now we can have the two engineers agree, but. MR. CARTIER-No. I'm not asking for that tonight. I want my Consulting Engineer to this Board to take a look at this and give me some answers, and again, I cast no aspersions on either. I just want somebody to. MR. SCHACHNER-Nor am I. MR. BREWER-What will that satisfy, Peter? MR. LAPOINT-Nothing, because they're not proposing the cut road anyway. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but the calculation, the difference in the numbers. I'm just curious. MR. SCHACHNER-You can take Mr. MacElroy's and use them for your consideration if you want. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say, the difference is so insignificant that it doesn't matter. Take the high one, take the low one. MR. LAPOINT-Take the high one. We'll use Mr. MacElroy's number. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. I'm just asking, what is the significance of the numbers? MR. LAPOINT-It's not. MR. MARTIN-The other thing that's been said to us so many times is that the road is not proposed, it's not on the table. Fine, but we also, and Mr. Schachner will not deny that we have the power to disapprove designs, as well, in the negative, and that is the purview of this Board. So, if this design is not acceptable to us, than it can be disapproved. MR. CARTIER-I used a lousy example. I want my Town Engineer to look at all of this stuff. That's it. Okay. Thank you. I didn't mean to cut you off. MR. ANTHONY-No problem. Okay. On the topic of stormwater, I'd like to do three summaries, stormwater, the erosion control and septic design, and I have a couple of minor comments. Basically, stormwater system design, the LA Group has designed many stormwater systems in the Lake George basin. This is not the first one that we've approached. This project is designed for a 50 year storm that anticipates all the problems that were mentioned tonight. It anticipates runoff. It anticipates the sedimentation, and it accommodates that in a design. The design has involved numerous amounts of soils analysis, our engineers, our soil scientist, our hydrogeologist were all present on the site. They were all present for all the soils explorations. They are part of the calculations. We have one additional calculation that has been requested, and we will be doing it between now and the final approvals, and that is to go to the exact site, the exact location of every leach basin location and to perform another perc test to get site specific data to verify the design for those facilities. We have data for the site, data which we are using, which is indicative of the general conditions for the whole site. However, we will make is site specific for that one location, for those locations of those leach basins. I guess it's very easy to stand here, and I've done it at other public hearings, and say, you could have these kinds of problems, and you can have all kinds of enormous problems with stormwater. We've anticipated those problems, and I think the proof of the pudding is that, as you've said Mr. Cartier, you want your own Town Engineer to advise you. Your own Town Engineer has advised you. He's given you four insignificant minor comments on stormwater design, which are so insignificant that I would feel comfortable 35 -- '---'" standing here tonight asking this Board to approve this project, if stormwater was the only issue. We have worked closely with Rist-Frost Associates over the last four to five months on this project. We've provided them detailed calculations on the stormwater system. We've provided them detailed information on the soils. We've provided them with detailed information on the runoff, and on all the other characteristics and parameters that you need to look at for this problem. I've gotten back four insignificant questions. That's my answer. You've paid them. They've done their job. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Understand where I'm coming from. As far as I'm concerned, the publ ic hearing is to provide this Board with information, okay. That's the purpose of a public hearing. There has been a voluminous amount of information presented here that I am not sophisticated enough, at the public hearing, that I, as a non-engineer, are not sophisticated enough to be able to sort through, and come up with the same response that you just came up with. That's where I want to get some stuff back from my Town Engineer. MR. SCHACHNER-What new engineering information? MR. CARTIER-All of this stuff, all of these comments. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, nobody's had the courtesy to give us anything. So, I'm asking sincerely, what new engineering. MR. LAPOINT-The stuff that was handed out tonight. I asked for that, expl icitly the last time we were at the meeting, you did, all these calculations were available the last time? MR. SCHACHNER-I thought this is what Mr. MacElroy submitted last time? MR. LAPOINT-No. He referenced them all the last time. We explicitly asked for this packet, I did. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. This would be a whole lot easier if I could see it. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. MACELROY-They were submitted last time. One set was submitted last time. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. We didn't get them. MR. SCHACHNER-Wait a minute. My point, here, is, if I understand him correctly, and I think Mr. MacElroy's confirming this, the engineering comments ~ submitted last time. We did have those. You all had those. Rist-Frost had those. So, my point, Mr. Cartier, is, while you've had some very valuable public discussion tonightr, and you've certainly fulfilled your requirement for conducting a publ ic hearing, I have to respectfully disagree with the notion that you've received new engineering information that you need Rist-Frost to analyze. MR. CARTIER-If I had a Town Engineer sitting over there tonight, I could say to him, Thomas, have you seen all these comments from Mr. MacElroy? How would you respond to all of these? I don't have him sitting here tonight. Therefore, I cannot ask the question. Therefore, the question has not been answered for me. I'm not going to accept an answer from you. I'm not going to accept an answer from Mr. MacElroy. I'm going to accept it from Town Engineer only. Don't ask Lee. I'm telling you I'm not going to accept an answer unless I get it from Tom Yarmowich. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and I'm telling you that I'm asking Mrs. York a question, if that's okay with the Chairman, Mr. Martin, and my question is not Mrs. York's opinion. I'm simply asking here a factual question, which is, does she know whether Rist-Frost received Mr. MacElroy's comments. MRS. YORK-Yes, he did. MR. SCHACHNER-He did? MR. LAPOINT-So we can assume that these comments address those? MRS. YORK-Well, we can assume that. MR. CARTIER-I have nothing from Mr. Yarmowich that tells me that he went through Mr. MacElroy's comments and has addressed those. That's what it comes down to for me. MRS. YORK-They were in a packet for you. You didn't receive them? MR. LAURICELLA-No. MR. CARTIER-I don't assume that at all. I have nothing from Mr. Yarmowich that tells me that he went through Mr. MacElroy's comments and has address those. That's what it comes down to, for me. Now, I don't want to debate this with you and have you feel that you can talk me out of my position. My position, very simply, is I have to hear from Mr. Yarmowich that all these comments from Mr. MacElroy were considered in his comments to this Board, period. 36 --../ MRS. PULVER-Can I just say something? It's my feeling that when the Town Engineer reviews the project, he reviews it in the way the Queensbury Ordinance is written for subdivision, and tries to make the subdivision checks on the engineering, to see whether or not it complies. So, therefore, this information, whether it's new, old, or whatever, if Mr. Yarmowich has not made a comment on it, it's either unimportant, or it's been addressed, as far as the Queensbury Ordinance is concerned. Right? MR. CARTIER-Fine. That may work for you, Carol. That doesn't work for me. I've stated my position. MRS. PULVER-Well then, otherwise, we have to keep looking for things. MR. CARTIER-That's what a public hearing is about. I don't want to debate that anymore. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Yes, Mr. Schachner? MR. SCHACHNER-Will you at least listen to my comment? MR. CARTIER-Certainly. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. My comment is only that, I think, Mr. Cartier, with all due respect, I see you feel very strongly about this issue. I think your feeling, as far as this particular applicant, has to do with the bigger picture problem, which is that the Town Engineer is, evidently, no longer authorized or instructed or directed or requested to appear at your regular meetings, and I, myself have a certain amount of, okay, you're shaking your head this way and Mr. LaPoint's shaking his head that way. So, please interrupt me and tell me if that's not right. MR. LAPOINT-He can't come to meetings. I mean, we're not paying him to come to meetings, correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Lets get this out on the table. We're being penalized for. MR. CARTIER-Are you telling me that I'm trying to use this to get an? MR. SCHACHNER-No, no. I'm not accusing you of an ulterior motive. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-1'm just saying that your troubled, I assume, by the fact that your Town Engineer is not here to simply not go like this or go like that. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-And all I'm suggesting is that I think you, as a Planning Board, need to come up with a means of dealing with this situation that is not the means that you are proposing. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Now, I'm shaking my head, yes, also. I agree. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and the reason is because the means you're proposing obviously means that you I re powerless to act at a given meeting, and it builds in a certain amount of delay, automatically, simply for that reason. MR. CARTIER-Correct. Well said. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. So, my position is simply, somebody just said this. It may be Mrs. Pulver, but I lost track. I have to think that we have confirmation that the Town Engineer did receive these comments. I mean, he's malpracticing if he didn't look at them. We know he looked at them. Would, I take it, a letter from him saying, yes, I looked at these, make you more comfortable, or a phone call from him saying, yes, I looked at these would make you more comfortable? MR. MARTIN-Well, lets move on here and see, in disposition of this appl ication, how much bearing this has, if any. All right. MR. SCHACHNER-All right, but in the bigger picture sense, I really think that the Planning Board, or the Planning Department, the Town needs to resolve that problem, because I understand Mr. Cartier's difficulty, but I don't think it's fair to an applicant, and I don't think he does either. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. MARTIN-Nobody would disagree with you on that one. So, that comment is duly noted. 37 "'-.--- - MR. ANTHONY-I have one last comment on stormwater, and I'll try and keep it painless. If you are working with the same letter that was submitted last month by Mr. MacElroy, that we have been working with this month, I can tell you that following your receipt of that letter, and as part of our submission to this Town Planning Board for this meeting, we submitted a complete new stormwater management program based on a 50 year storm and comments that were requested by Rist-Frost. Many of those comments don't even apply to the design that's on the table at this moment. So, that is my last comment on stormwater. On the issue of septic design, some cOlll11ents were made that we need to do more soils work. Yes, you need to do more soils work. You need to do the real detailed soils work at the time that you're going to be making your application to the Health Department and other agencies for your permits. We have conducted numerous soil sporings, test pits, and numerous test pits on the site. Our hyrdogeologists, our soil scientists have performed them with our engineer. We have found that the soils on the site are relatively consistent at the different elevations and grades. We have noted the information. We have submitted it all to your Town Engineer, all with the logs, duly looked at by our professionals. We do know that we have to do more soils work later, not at this moment, and that there is sufficient information here to ållow you to understand that this project can be designed and can be approved with the sewage systems as we're proposing. It is, again, indicative of the comments that we got back from Rist-Frost Associates on sewerage design, sewerage disposal, that we've got back nuts and bolts, clean up type little cOlll11ents, nothing significant to the fact that this will not work. My last comments are somewhat in agreement with some of the things that have been said tonight. We have worked on a lot of projects in the basin where there have been a lot of conditions placed on approvals. We're supportive of conditions placed on approvals. We're supportive of conditions placed on approvals. We like looking at clearing filtered views, not clear cutting massive open areas of land. We like developing some guidelines for the architectural character of the buildings, and we like seeing individual stormwater tactics put into projects, so that the individual buildings can, again, accommodate this stuff. We're supportive of these things, and I think that with working with this Board, we can develop a proper list of appropriate measures and conditions to place on the future land owners on thi s project. MR. MARTIN-All right. That's encouraging. All right. I want some direction, here, from the Board on this, before we decide, what to do with the public hearing and that type of thing. MR. CARTIER-Before we do that, can I ask one other question of Mr. Schachner? Somewhere, a couple of meetings back, I made reference to you, to a letter from Lake George Park Commission Marina application, all of that, and I said to you, can you give us some indication as to the status of that, because there was some indication that a marina was being operated on the property that we're somewhat involved with here, and I'd just like to have you comment on that. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. Yes. Mr. Cartier, the answer is that we're not somewhat involved with this project. We're not at all involved, okay. My first answer is it's completely irrelevant, but I don't mind addressing it anyway. You pointed out to my attention, as I recall, I believe it was two letters from the Lake George Park Commission, and, although it has absolutely no bearing on this application, and I want to stress that, I will be glad to still inform that Board that, in fact, as a result of you pointing that out to me, the applicant authorized me to contact the Lake George Park Commission and resolve this situation. MR. CARTIER-I don't agree with you that it's irrelevant, simply because the site plan number shows up here, but go ahead. MR. SCHACHNER-In any event, as a result, the applicant authorized me, specifically, to contact the Lake George Park Commission and resolve the situation, and I have done so, meaning I have done contacting. Although the situation's not yet resolved, I will be glad to read you a letter from myself to the Lake George Park Commission, which kind of sums up where we're at. MR. CARTIER-That's quite all right. MR. SCHACHNER-It's being resolved. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. All right. What's the Board want to do, here? We've gotten a multitude of comment, here, heated exchange even, whatever. MR. LAPOINT-I made note of Dr. Collins' comments and the lady from the Lake George Association, Kathy Vilmar, and I agree with all the substantive comments about individual lot tree cutting restrictions, individual plans, stating those for final, individual wastewater development plans for each site, and detail. MR. MARTIN-I like the reference to the memorandum of agreement with the Soil Conservation Service regarding tree clearing. MR. LAPOINT-All of those things, I think, could be stipulated in a motion for final, right down through, so that the applicant has to come in front of us with the individual lots shown, developed, per the concerns, and have our engineer go over all that allover again, in addition to Mr. MacElroy's comments, see how they fit. Mr. MacElroy's comments, I think, are in the big, 26 acre venue of comments, where as Dr. Collins' comments are more site specific, and get all those in there and, again, the applicant 38 --- will have to address that at final. We know that our engineer has taken a look at the stormwater management and, again, has had minor comments, but maybe we should look at each individual lot and make sure it conforms, and we can have our engineer go over those, and make sure, as Carol says, we're not impacting off site at all, per Code, get that in there, and if Dr. Collins would like to expand on a few of the, what we have to do to look at the MacElroy impact, if there's runoff from lot 10 and 9 that go onto the MacElroy wetlands, then what we would have to do to investigate that impact, if, indeed, the stormwater management plan for the individual lot 10 or 9 showed sheet runoff onto that site. I mean, really be specific, the applicant just stood right up here and told us they like restrictions, to a degree. Again, he has developed plans within the Park with all these stringent controls. He told us that. There's no reason why we shouldn't hold this project to that standard, maximum. We could get the max out of the design of this subdivision. MR. ML\RTIN-All right. So, with those amount of issues out there of a fairly substantive nature, are we looking at a tabling, here, or an approval with all these conditions, or what are we suggesting? MR. LAPOINT-Again, there would be quite a bit more paperwork to do all this stuff, design work. MR. MARTIN-We're looking at a lot of things to jump into final with, but what's the Board's feeling? MR. CARTIER-The only thing that pops into my head is when the Town Attorney's been here, the Town Attorney has been very careful to caution us at Preliminary to make sure that we have all our ducks in a row because by the time you get to final, things need to be pretty much in place, and Preliminary is where you get everything straightened out, and final is for taking care of minor details. Are we talking about minor details here, I guess, is my question? MR. LAPOINT-Well, according to our Engineering Notes, we are talking about minor details, here. I'm kicking around the idea that we go over and above these minor details, to incorporate Dr. Collins' comments and the Lake George Association's comments. MRS. PULVER-Ed, are you talking about making a motion to go on to final with a list? MR. LAPOINT-If we were to approve to go to final, again, it would take us a half an hour to do the motion, because I'd want it to be, the applicant to walk out of here knowing exactly what type of individual site, stormwater management he has to do. It means dragging Dr. Collins, but I haven't read her letter. I'd like to read the letter before I made the motion. I tried to get her major four points down. I don't think I captured them. though. They seemed reasonable for all of us take a look at that and see which ones. MR. MARTIN-I think we're going to have a list, one way or the other, whether it's a tabling or an approval. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I mean, she just read her letter. It's been passed on, but. MRS. PULVER-Well, why not ask the applicant what they would like to do, if they would like to be tabled with a list, or try for a motion and have a list. I mean, to me, the list is a list. If it takes a half an hour to give them the list, lets give them the list now and be done with it, rather than table them, have them come back, then it's another hour. We've got to go through it again. Then they're tabled, then the motion, then it's another time on the agenda. MRS. YORK-If I could just interject, here. I think you're going to have a very difficult time doing the SEQRA form. MR. LAPOINT-We have to do that before we do the motion. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. LAPOINT-And, I'm just thinking out loud, without doing, and without reading Dr. Collins' comments and seeing, again, I just tried to absorb them as she was reading them, whether they are really engineering things that have to be dealt with, lot by lot. Maybe we should take a look at that, before we do the SEQRA. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I don't feel comfortable, in the context of a SEQRA review, given the number of issues, especially with wetlands and stormwater runoff and erosion and all that, and sizing of retention basins and all that. I don't very much feel, as an informed agent, here, to undertake the SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-Plus, it would give me time, internally, to get my concerns with our Town Engineer satisfied. MR. SCHACHNER-Question, just from the standpoint of giving us as much information and feedback as we can get, I wonder if you could just tell us, Mrs. York, if there's something specific in the SEQRA that you're, particularly difficult? 39 -- -- MRS. YORK-No. I just feel that there are a number of concerns that have been brought up, relative to the impact of land, the aesthetic impacts, things like that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, not a specific technical issue that we should be working on, that you're aware of? MRS. YORK-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes, beyond our engineering ones. Okay. So, with that concern about the SEQRA issue, how would the applicant feel about agreeing to a tabling with a list of concerns to be addressed? MR. SCHACHNER-We're just trying to keep the ball rolling and also not, obviously. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think this is going to be a great step in keeping the ball rolling. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Is there any possibility, I don't know what your schedule is for the balance of this month, except I do know one meeting that was proposed or set, but that's been, I hope, cancelled for another applicant. MR. BREWER-Thursday night. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but my point was, is there any possibility of somehow reconvening with your list, less than a month from now? MR. CARTIER-Are you asking for a Special Meeting? MR. SCHACHNER-This sounds kind of odd, but I know what your Special Meeting schedule is the rest of this month. I don't know what your regular meeting schedule is. Are you having a regular meeting a week from tonight? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I haven't dealt with Rist-Frost in the context you all have. The context I've dealt with them, they're pretty fast. MR. CARTIER-Well, we're talking Staff time here, too, and whenever that kind of short lead time comes up. MR. SCHACHNER-Is that true? Are we talking Staff time, also? I didn't realize that. MR. CARTIER-It's got to go through their office. I want Planning Staff to look at this stuff. Are we just talking about engineering stuff, here? MR. LAPOINT-Essentially, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I thought so, but I don't know. It's up to you all. MR. CARTIER-Well, in terms of what Lee's comment was about SEQRA, I want her to have some time to think about it and look at some of this other stuff that's been brought up. To finish my point, I guess, is you're talking a week, here. MR. SCHACHNER-You don't have any other meetings scheduled this month, besides the one that was for this Thursday? MR. MARTIN-We are meeting Thursday night anyhow. There's Thursday and next Tuesday, and that's it. MR. CARTIER-I guess my question is, does Planning Staff have time to deal with all of this kind of stuff for next Tuesday, and, again, I raise the question that, when we do this, are we willing to consider doing this for almost anyone, other applicants? MRS. YORK-I really have some preparation for next week's meeting, and the Zoning Board meeting still ahead of me. MR. MARTIN-Right. It's not so much that this takes a lot of time, but she has commitments already in place. My personal view of this is the onus is on us to accommodate the applicant as best we can, and if this requires us coming together the first week in April or whatever. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with a Special Meeting. MR. BREWER-Have a Special Meeting the first week of April. 40 '''---' --' MR. MARTIN-I'd rather do that than put you off until the third or fourth week in April. MR. CARTIER-Let us get this month cleared out of our heads. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, we would appreciate that, and, again, it's not that we're asking for any concession. Frankly, we feel chagrined at your problem with the engineer's availability. We understand it, but by the same token, we feel it puts a certain amount of unfairness on the applicant. MR. MARTIN-Well, to mitigate that. MR. BREWER-If we have a Special Meeting with them, do we have to re-advertise and everything like that again? MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute, now. It depends on where you go with the motion. If we're tal king about tabling Preliminary, then, if we leave the public hearing open, then that has to be re-noticed, does it not? MR. MARTIN-Lee? MRS. YORK-No. MR. MARTIN-As long as it's left open, it doesn't have to be re-noticed, right? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. MARTIN-The thought being that anybody who's here, heard about the. MR. SCHACHNER-If I could just add, if it's closed, you certainly don't have to re-notice. MR. MARTIN-Well, I would feel more comfortable leaving it open. MR. SCHACHNER-I was just speaking for the notice issue. MR. LAPOINT-It is the public hearing that is the crux of the comment. MR. BREWER-Exactly. So, if we say we're going to have a meeting the first week of April, these people don't know what day. MR. MARTIN-No. I want to decide right now. That Tuesday or Thursday of that week. MRS. PULVER-I can only make it Wednesday. MR. MARTIN-Wednesday. All right. Wednesday, April 1st. MRS. PULVER-April 1st. MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine. MR. MARTIN-How does everybody feel on that, April 1st? MRS. PULVER-Seven, the same time. MR. CARTIER-Seven o'clock Wednesday night, pending the availability of this room. MR. MARTIN-Or ~ room, if we even have to go to a. All right then, Wednesday the 1st, at seven o'clock. Now, this motion has got to be, for the tabling. Have you got it? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I want it explicit that I get copies of all this stuff right away, all of this. MR. MARTIN-Do we have an agreement to table until the 1st? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right, then I will entertain a motion to table this application until the Special Meeting on Wednesday April 1st at 7 p.m. IIJfIOII TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: To subdivide 25 acres into 10 lots to be developed by individual lot purchasers. Drilled well and on-site wastewater will be constructed for water and sewer services. Lots will be accessed by privately 41 -- owned and maintained driveways. Lot 1 contains the owner's residence and will be retained by the owner, to Wednesday night, April 1st, at 7 p.m., in this or any other available building in the complex, meeting room in the complex, and we would request that Staff provide Rist-Frost, our Attorney, Mr. Dusek, all the members of the Planning Board, the applicant with copies of Dennis MacElroy's letter, dated 16 March 1992, Dr. Coll ins I letter dated 14 March 1992, and the notes from the LGPA, Kathy Vilmar, the letter from Tom West. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: MR. CARTIER-Betty, can I put you on the spot, here, for a minute? Can we have the Town Engineer here, and, secondly, what does it take for this Planning Board to get the Town Engineer here when we request him and the Town Attorney here when we request him? BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Call the other four members on the Board. MR. MARTIN-To clarify it, to answer that, it's been made known to me that a request of that nature, and I was in the process of doing it for Thursday night's meeting, until it got delayed, is supposed to go through Mr. Hansen, and then it's considered. MR. CARTIER-It's considered? MR. MARTIN-Right, and it's gotten back to me as to whether that's approved or not. MR. CARTIER-So, the fact of the matter is, we may request, but they may say no? Is that a fair statement? That's a possibility? MR. MARTIN-I can't say that it's not. MRS. MONAHAN-I still stick by my first statement. Make calls to your representatives on that Town Board. You do not need to call me. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-We would like to have the engineer and the lawyer present at the meeting of the first. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd like them to be notified as soon as possible of this request, so they can make provision for it. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella NOES: Mr. Martin (10:31 p.m.) BREA K SITE PLAN NO. 8-92 TYPE II WR-lA HARRY J. REITH CllNER: SAlE AS ABOVE ROOTE 9L, 4TH CAÞP ON LEFT SIDE FROM OONHAMS BAY BOAT CO. (NAME ON TREE) ALTERATION OF SITTING PORCH AT CAÞP. (WARREN CooNTY PlANNING) TAX MAP NO. 4-1-18 LOT SIZE: 0.18 ACRES SECTION 179-79 HARRY REITH, PRESENT (10:39 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-Lee, had Staff notes. I believe you were referring back to your comments of the 25th of February? MRS. YORK-Right. Basically, Mr. Reith had to go back to Warren County to clarify an issue with them. The Staff Comments revolve around the increase in impermeable area in an area that's already heavily developed and which is in a Critical Environmental Area. The lot is about 50 feet wide and 163 feet long. The applicant plans to extend the porch by 6 feet and add a 14 ft. by 32 ft. deck. The deck will be 6 feet on the north, from the property line, and 10 feet from the south. The Zoning Administrator has stated that the lot has a 67 percent permeability. The Board is aware of the concerns about expanding along lakeshores and the impacts of stortTfttlater runoff and visual pollution. The lot is also very steep. The applicant has a sitting porch and a patio at this time. Perhaps mitigation measures in the form of removal of impermeable surface and stortTfttlater infiltration devices could be discussed. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 8-92, Harry Reith, 3-13-92, Meeting Date: March 17, 1992 "The applicant had to return to Warren County Planning to clarify an issue. Last month's staff comments are attached." MR. MARTIN-All right, and we have the Warren County meeting notification of March 11th that they approved with the comment, "The deck must remain open - must not be enclosed in the future", and we have someone here from the applicant. I take it that that condition was acceptable, from the County? 42 '----' ------ MR. REITH-Yes. Harry Reith. That was acceptable. Yes. There was never an intention of putting an enclosure in. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We've been out to visit the site. Do you have any comments towards Mrs. York's last couple of sentences there, regarding removal of some impermeable surfacing or storTmtlater infiltration devices? Is there anything that could be done there? MR. REITH-I don't believe that there's anything there that can be removed. We're adding 125 square feet of space. I don't think we're really doing anything to disregard the permeability of the area, as it is now. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Board comments here, in terms of? MR. BREWER-There's not going to be any outside exit? MR. REITH-There are stairs there now, and there will be stairs. MR. BREWER-I mean to the deck? MR. REITH-Yes. There are stairs there now. MR. BREWER-I didn't see any stairs. MR. REITH-Yes, there are. MR. CARTIER-Yes. You walked around. They were right here. MR. BREWER-How can there be stairs there if the deck's not there yet? MR. REITH-Not on the deck, no. There are stairs going to the porch. MR. CARTIER-Right here. Correct, Mr. Reith, the stairs are right here? MR. REITH-Yes. MR. BREWER-Where we walked down. MR. REITH-The stairs come right down here. Those are stairs. MR. CARTIER-So, those stairs are now going to be accessed? MR. REITH-By the deck, yes. In other words, this is going to be enclosed, and there will be a door here, rather than here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. What's the Board's feeling? Where you have limited amount of permeability, there, you're not decreasing it in any way, are you, with the addition? MR. REITH-No, not at all. MR. MARTIN-You're not effecting that? MR. REITH-No, no way. MR. MARTIN-It's border line, according to our Ordinance, but he's still within it, and this particular application is not doing anything to impact that. So, I don't know. MR. CARTIER-You're not adding any bedrooms in here? MR. REITH-No, sir. MR. CARTIER-You're not expanding sleeping space? MR. REITH-No. MR. CARTIER-You're not adding a bedroom or anything like that? MR. REITH-No. The 125 square feet is only being added for aesthetic value. In other words, instead of it coming across to look like a box, which it does now, it's going to just come out to a point. That's all, that's with 125 square feet. 43 MR. CARTIER-This wasn't subject to any kind of variance? MRS. YORK-Yes. Mr. Reith did receive a variance on encroaching on the shoreline setbacks of 75 feet, further encroaching. MR. CARTIER-What's going to happen to the water that falls on this deck? MR. REITH-The same thing that happens to it now. It's open. It's slotted, so it will just run right down. MR. CARTIER-Onto permeable ground? MR. REITH-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That's soil underneath that? MR. REITH-Yes. There'll be no change at all there, in the permeability, no change. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, I'll open. a public hearing on this. Is there anyone from the publ ic regarding this applicant or this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COIIEIT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-And, in terms of SEQRA, this is listed as a Type II. So, therefore, we don't need the assessment form. So, what's the Board's feeling on this one? MRS. PULVER-I don't have a problem with it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PINI NO. 8-92 HARRY J. REITH, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For alteration of a sitting porch and deck, with the stipulation that the deck must remain open in the future. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint (10:46 p.m.) NEW IIJSINESS: SITE PlAN NO. 11-92 TYPE I WR-lA ANTHONY AND LlNOo\ RUSSO (liNER: SAME AS ABOVE 1274 BAY PARKWAY. ASSEMBLY POIIT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CONTIflJED. M\IN STORY BEDROOM TO BE CONVERTED TO A DINING ROOM. SECOND FLOOR WILL HAVE A MSTER BEDROOM, FULL BATH AND A WALK-IN CLOSET. (WARREN coom PLANNING) TAX IMP NO. 9-1-21.1 LOT SIZE: 0.26 ACRES SECTION 179-79 F HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:46 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 11-92, Anthony and Linda Russo, March 13, 1992, Meeting Date: March 17, 1992 "The applicant requests to expand their residential unit on Lake George. This is an expansion of a nonconforming use in a Critical Environmental Area. The house is nonconforming because it is closer than 75 feet from the lake. The project is to add a second floor. They will also add a deck which encroaches toward the lake further, but received a variance for that last month. The major concern is the septic system which is identified as a Wisconsin mound. There is no data as to the year installed, etc., although it appears to be new. The Board is aware of the concern expressed in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for continued expansions along lakes. The application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for a site plan. 1. The location arrangement and size is not an issue. The second story would not appear to visually obstruct the lake. 2. Vehicular traffic is not an issue. 3. Off street parking and loading is not an issue. 4. Pedestrian access is not a concern. 5. There will be no creation of more impermeable area. 6. The Board may want to review the septic system. 7. Vegetation is existing. 8. Emergency access is sufficient. 9. Erosion control methods per Section 179-65 should be employed to protect the lake." 44 '-- ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, March 13, 1992 "We have reviewed this project and have determined all previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed." MR. MARTIN-All right. The applicant, please. MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz, on behalf of Anthony and Linda Russo. I would first like to say to Betty Monahan, it's a pleasure to see her here attending a Planning Board meeting. It helps the liaison between some of the changes you want to make and what the Town Board would consider. I'll be brief. I'd like to think I'll be concise. First of all, the septic system works fine. It was checked out, in full, by Mr. and Mrs. Russo prior to their purchase of the property years ago. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they are not adding a bedroom. They're not adding any bathrooms. They're just creating more space. They're putting a bathroom upstairs, but it's replacing one that was downstairs. What they're doing is building a large master bedroom. I don't see any impact at all on anything. It's just going up with a story. MR. CARTIER-When you say tested, how is it tested? Do they get somebody out there? ANTHONY RUSSO MR. RUSSO-Yes. We had an engineer come out and tested it and told us that it was in fine working order, before we purchased the property. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any idea how old it is? You had it tested four years ago. I know that. MR. RUSSO-Yes. I would say probably 10 to 12 years old, in that neighborhood. MR. CARTIER-Is this a year round residence? MR. RUSSO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How many people live in it? MR. RUSSO-Four. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. LAURICELLA-Howard, you made a comment that they're replacing the bathroom downstairs, yet the plan shows a bathroom downstairs. Are there two down there? MRS. PULVER-They're going to eliminate the bathroom downstairs. MR. LAURICELLA-Not the one I've got. Not the plan I've got. MRS. PULVER-Well, that shows the existing. MR. LAURICELLA-This is the upstairs. MR. KRANTZ-Do you have two now? MR. RUSSO-There is a half bath. There is a powder room, and the master bathroom is going to be completely eliminated, and we're going to put a new one upstairs. MR. MARTIN-So, what you essentially have is like a bath and a half downstairs. MR. RUSSO-Right. We're going to move the half bath and we're going to eliminate the full bath. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's my principle concern, is that the full bath is. MR. LAURICELLA-You had two down there before? MR. RUSSO-One and a half. MR. LAURICELLA-One and a half. All right. MR. RUSSO-Now I'm going to wind up with one upstairs and a half downstairs. It will stay the same. MR. MARTIN-All right. I see. So we only still have one toilet in the house. MR. KRANTZ-No. 45 -- ~ MR. MARTIN-Two toilets. We have two, and we're going to have. All right. MR. CARTIER-The only other question I have is that this property was familiar to me because I think it was you who added the deck two or three years ago? MR. RUSSO-What we did was enclosed a porch a few years ago. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Right. We saw that. MR. RUSSO-Right. That was a porch that was just used for the summer, and we enclosed it, put heating in it. MR. CARTIER-All right. This is an unfair question, but I'll ask it anyway because it's coming from a previous application. It has nothing to do with you. Is this about it, in terms of what you're going to do, extension wise, out there? MR. RUSSO-I hope so. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. KRANTZ-Mr. and Mrs. Russo and their family are moving permanently. They're starting a business. They hope to break ground next month. The project has been approved. So, this is not an expansion to serve a second home. This is what they feel should be satisfactory. Aside from that, they really can't go to the size, because they can't go forward or back, if you look at the plans. MR. CARTIER-Okay. From Merrick, that's Long Island, right? MR. RUSSO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-If I could make a suggestion. It was suggested by the Councilwoman that perhaps the Board would like to consider water saving devices in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. CARTIER-Good idea. MR. MARTIN-That's a good idea. Yes. Would you consent to the 1.6 gallon water saving. MR. KRANTZ-What about the shower heads that are? MR. MARTIN-Yes, that too. MR. CARTIER-A 1.6 gallon flush toilet. MR. KRANTZ-Buying a new toilet? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. KRANTZ-That's up to Mr. Russo. MR. BREWER-If he's putting in a new bathroom, he's presumably going to buy a new toilet. MR. KRANTZ-For the upstairs one? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Not for the existing, for the new. MR. RUSSO-For the new one? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUSSO-Fine. MRS. PULVER-For any new fixtures. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We're going to say in the motion, water saving devices, but by that we mean, the toilet and the shower head, primarily. MR. RUSSO-I have no problem with that. 46 -- -.-/ BETTY MONAHAN MRS. MONAHAN-Jim, excuse me, I suggest you specify 1.6. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We will. Yes, sometimes they advertise three or three and a half as being water saving. Okay. We've heard from the applicant. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone from the public who'd wish to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-And this is a Type I Action, in terms of SEQRA, which means, the Long Form. MR. KRANTZ-There were a few questions that we didn't know the answers to. So, rather than lie, and rather than guess, depth to bedrock, but there are some question marks where we obviously didn't know the answers. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much for that. RESOWTIœ WHEN DETERMIIATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MAlE RESOWTION NO. 11-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: AIITHOIIY AND LINM RUSSO, for a single f_ny residence continued. Main story bedrooll to be converted to a dining 1'00II. Second floor will have a .ster becll'OOII, fU11 bath and a walk-in closet., 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 20th day of August, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll entertain a motion for disposition of this application. I would ask that a stipulation be made for water saving devices, and that specifically reference a 1.6 gallon flushing toilet for the new master bedroom/bathroom, or the master bathroom. MOTIœ TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 11-92 ANTHONY AND LINDA RUSSO, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: 47 ---- ---' For a single family residence, the main story bedroom to be converted to a dining room. The second floor will have a master bedroom, full bath and a walk in closet and deck, with the following stipulations: That a water saving 1.6 gallon flush toilet be installed and water saving shower head be installed in the new bathroom, and that erosion control methods, as per Section 179-65 be employed during construction. Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE (11:00 p.m.) MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have just one item of an internal matter, here. Mr. Schachner has gracefully continued to wait, requesting that we, also on April 1st, ~eal with the. MRS. YORK-No. He changed his mind. MR. SCHACHNER-Although I love the April 1st idea, in all sincerity, this is for Dexter we're talking about, to reschedule the workshop, it just seems like the reason we can't go on March 19th is because we don't have the DOT letter. I deal with DOT plenty. I'm not so confident that we're going to have it by April 1st. MR. MARTIN-I don't blame you. MR. SCHACHNER-So, I'm suggesting that, rather than say April 1st, and then we have to come back sometime like next Tuesday and say, no, never mind April 1st, I would propose late April. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Why don't you notify Lee as to when the, are you getting that letter or are you, Lee? MRS. YORK-I'll probably be carbon copied. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think it's to us, but you'll get the copy, but I guess what we prefer not to do, we would prefer to schedule a date now, as opposed to wait for the letter, only because when we get the letter, we don't want another month to go by, that type of thing. MR. MARTIN-I understand. MR. SCHACHNER-But we feel, I'm told that there's a high level of confidence that if we pick a late April date, we'll have our letter well in advance. You also don't want to get the letter the day before your meeting. You want to get it awhile before the meeting. MRS. PULVER-Are we still saying April 1st we're going to have the 7 o'clock meeting, though? MR. SCHACHNER-For Sunset Hill. MRS. PULVER-Sunset Hill. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm talking strictly about Dexter right now. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, we've got regular meetings on the 21st and the 28th, that being the third and fourth Tuesday. MRS. PULVER-I can't make it Mondays or Thursdays. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and you're saying late April is probably the best? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I just think, to play it safe, pick something in the week, if you can? MRS. YORK-Those are the Zoning Board of Appeals nights. MRS. PULVER-We could go the 29th. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, exactly. MR. MARTIN-Is that all right? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, it's entirely up to you. MR. MARTIN-How does the 29th sound, Wednesday night the 29th? So, we're going to be here two nights in a row that week. MR. LAURICELLA-Not for me, but everybody can't make it all the time anyway. 48 '-- '---./ MR. CARTIER-Wednesday April 29, that does not interfere with the Zoning Board? MRS. PULVER-No. The Zoning was the 15th and the 22nd. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Special Meeting, and this is for Dexter. MR. CARTIER-Then what's the April 1st? MR. MARTIN-Knox. MRS. YORK-And in between you have the Martindales. MR. CARTIER-Knox April 1st, Dexter April 29, correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right, then, that's the game plan. Wednesday, April 1st, 7 p.m., Special Meeting for Knox, two regular meetings of the 21st and the 28th, the 29th Special Meeting for Dexter at 7 p.m. also. All right, and everybody come to the, since we do have a little bit of an open gap at this Special Meeting Thursday, after the Martindales, I'd like to get a little bit of input on these conmittees, you know, I want to get this ball rolling on some planning objectives for us to pursue the Town Board with. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 49