Loading...
1993-03-02 SP '- - QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 2ND, 1993 INDEX MEETING Subdivision No. 14-1988 Hickory Acres 1. Site Plan No. 40-92 Dr. Hyung & Eleanora Kim 3. Site Plan No. 1-93 John P. Matthews 9. Subdivision No. 16-1992 FINAL STAGE Robert Rowe 12. Site Plan No. 6-93 Charles M. Barber 17. 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. ,,--,. - QUEENSBURY PLANNING SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 2ND, 1993 7:30 P.M. BOARD MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY EDWARD LAPOINT CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER KATHLEEN ROWE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. BREWER-Okay. We've got minutes we want to approve. CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 26th, 1993: NONE February 4th, 1993: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE JANUARY 26TH. 1993 AND FEBRUARY 4TH. 1993, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 2nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. BREWER-Okay. We'll get right into the agenda. MR. MARTIN-Could we. at the request of Mr. Naylor, here. and the applicant, deal with the Hickory Acres issue that's on your agenda at the end? MR. BREWER-Yes. I guess we can do that. objections to that? Okay. Does anybody have any OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1988 HICKORY ACRES MODIFICATION TO PLAN TO INCLUDE CHANGE IN STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN. LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-We have a letter from Rist-Frost. MRS. TARANA-This is dated March 2, 1993, Attention: Mr. Jim Martin, Executive Director of Planning, Zoning, and BUilding and Codes, Re: Hickory Acres Subdivision, "Dear Jim: Rist-Frost has discussed the project with Tom Nace of Haanen Engineering in - 1 - '- -..-/ accordance with your verbal instructions. We understand that the project owner is interested in utilizing an alternate method of stormwater management that would avoid construction of the detention pond system that was a part of the project at the time of Planning Board final approval. Tom Nace has indicated that he intends to pursue engineering of a hydraulic conveyance and storage system that will attenuate post development peak runoff rates to a level not exceeding the existing runoff rate. Permeable fill trenches between inlet/storage structures would be employed for conveyance to achieve the desired attenuation. These SWM controls would be located in the subdivision road right-of-way, except for outfalls which would be located in easements over private property. The concept represented by this approach may have the potential at applicable sites to satisfy general Queensbury Highway Department objections against dedicated SWM detention basins and to provide the prescribed level of SWM stipulated by Queensbury subdivision regulations. Very truly yours, Rist-Frost Associates" MR. MARTIN-Just to give a little background to the Board on this project, this was a subdivision approval that was given in, '87, '88? MR. STEVES-Final approval? Just last year. MR. MARTIN-Just last year? Okay, and since that time the subdivision, the property, has changed hands from a Mr. Timms, to Mr. Murphy, who is present here tonight. and Mr. Murphy's aware of the Town's shift in policy, so to speak, or how we view retention basins as a problem. As you know, we've had these before, before us in approved subdivision, and this one also had an approved plan with a retention basin, and rather than have a problem arise later on, after this was built and the basin installed, the developer wanted to approach the Town and see what we could do to come up with an alternate system that would still achieve the same end, and not have the problem of the retention basin. So, he's ran the plan by Mr. Naylor and by the Town Engineer. neither of whom have a problem with the proposed system, but nonetheless, it's being a modification to a subdivision requires the Board review and approval. So that's why we're here tonight. MR. BREWER-Okay. Maybe, Mr. Steves, you could explain to us what you're going to do? MR. STEVES-I guess you have the new plan in front of you. What it is, is a series of trench drains, an under drain, allowing the water to set into the stone drain trench, that will have an under drain on it, a four inch pipe, leading out to a discharge point, the same as the retention area we had before, but rather than having a retention area, there will just be a pitch down through there. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? Okay. Would somebody care to make amotion? Do you have any comments, Mr. Naylor? PAUL H. NAYLOR MR. NAYLOR-No. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATIONS TO SUBDIVISION NO. HICKORY ACRES. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: 14-1988 for its With plans to modify the stormwater management drainage plan, as shown by the drawing by Haanen Engineering date January 1992, as revised. Duly adopted this 16th day of March, 1993, by the following vote: - 2 - ~ '--" AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we can get into the regular agenda. SITE PLAN NO. 40-92 TYPE I PENDING DEC PERMIT (REC' D) WR-1A DR. HYUNG & ELEANORA KIM OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: FITZGERALD RD., ON GLEN LAKE TO EXCAVATE 25' OF SHORELINE FOR PLACEMENT OF RETAINING WALLS TO PROVIDE BEACH AREA. ALSO REMOVING STONE WALL APPROXIMATELY 25' FROM SHORELINE FOR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (DEC) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-6 LOT SIZE: 1.5 ACRES SECTION 179-16 ZACK VANNIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 40-92, Dr. Hyung & Eleanora Kim, Meeting Date: February 16, 1993 "Project Description: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing retaining wall and grade the disturbed area to a 35 degree slope, mulch and plant the graded area with shrubs; excavate a shoreline area 8' wide by 25' in length and 4' in depth and fill with pea gravel to form a beach; rip-rap the 25 t slope landward of the beach. The property is located off of Fitzgerald Road on Glen Lake and is zoned WR-1A. Pro;ect Analvsis: The applicant received the required DEC Permit on November 25, 1992; it becomes effective May 1, 1993 and expires . on October 1, 1993. The pro j ect was compared to the standards found in Section 179-60 (3) . (a) The natural shoreline had been altered in the past when the retaining wall was constructed. Therefore, the natural contours of the shoreline do not currently exist. The current contours are the result of the construction of the retaining wall. The proposed project is further modification of the altered shoreline. (b) The existing shoreline vegetation will be disturbed in a minimal way. The area of disturbance will be replanted as per the DEC permit. (c) The project will follow the DEC erosion control measures set forth in their permit. (d) The applicant received the required DEC permit on 11/25/92. (e) The dredged material will be placed on an upland site as per the DEC permit and the fill material will be clean and free of debris as per DEC permit. The one outstanding issue relates to a right- of-way which belongs to Mr. Hal Rathbun (see letter dated 8/20/92). It appears that the ROW runs right along the shoreline and will be affected by this project. The applicant was asked to show this ROW on the site plan but has not supplied the requested information. Recommendation: It appears that the remaining site plan issue concerns the project's impact on the right-of-way. The actual site plan standards are addressed in the DEC permit. The staff recommends that the Board reserve it's decision until the issue of the right-of-way has been cleared up." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we do have someone here from the applicant. MR. VANNIER-Yes. I'm Zack Vannier, representing NuVuz Landscaping. and I have that map showing the right-of-way. I've gone back through the deed, and in this deed there is no, anything that I can find, that says there is an easement. I can't find it, but what we're going to maintain is a 15 foot right-of-way at all times, and even after this project is completed, and that's more than enough. If there is something stated in here that I'm not reading, there's no specified width. and I think 15 feet is plenty of width for that. MR. BREWER-Does that sound sufficient, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-I would think that would be wide enough to get something through. Yes. - 3 - '-../ ----' MR. BREWER-All right. MR. VANNIER-The road is much narrower at that point before that. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. I noticed that when I was out there, it's even plowed up part way. MR. VANNIER-Sure. Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? Now we've done the SEQRA on this, or we haven't? MR. HARLICKER-I don't believe the SEQRA's been done on it yet. There is a Staff Report concerning the environmental, the Long Form EAF with the packet, here, if you want to go through that. They submitted a Long Form EAF with the project. Because it's a Type I Action, it's within the Glen Lake Critical Environmental Area. MR. BREWER-Yes, if we could. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Dr. Hyung & Eleanora Kim, EAF notes for Site Plan No. 40-92, Meeting Date: February 16, 1993 "Proiect Description: The applicant is proposing to remove existing retaining wall and grade the disturbed area to a 35 degree slope, mulch and plant the graded area with shrubs; excavate a shoreline area 8' wide by 25' in length and 4' in depth and fill with pea gravel to form a beach; rip-rap the 25' slope landward of the beach. Proiect Analvsis: The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment submitted with this project and offers the following comments; 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? There will be a minor modification to the project site. A section of the shoreline will be modified in order to accommodate a beach area. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There are no unique land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The project is located on Glen Lake and is in the Glen Lake Critical Environmental Area. The shoreline modifications proposed with this project will have a minor affect on the lake. 4. Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? The action should not impact any non-protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The project may have a minor impact on surface water. The shoreline modification will change the surface outline of the lake. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The project will impact drainage flow and surface water runoff. Impacts should be minor and can be mitigated with proper erosion control methods and plantings as outlined in the DEC permit. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 9. Will the proposed action sUbstantially effect non-threatened or non-endangered species? The project should not affect any non-threatened or non-endangered species. 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The project should not affect any agricultural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not impact any aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric importance? The project should not have an impact on any historic structure. 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing future open space or recreational opportunities? The action should not affect open or recreational opportunities. 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation system? The project should not effect the transportation system. 15. Wi 11 proposed action affect the - 4 - "--- -- community's sources of fuel and energy? The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? There should not be objectionable odors, noise or vibrations as a result of this project. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The project should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. Recommendation: The project does not appear to have any significant adverse impacts on the environment; therefore, the staff can recommend a negative declaration on this project for the purposes of SEQRA." MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Ed, would you like to take us through SEQRA? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Before we get that far, you've known about the need to get this on the map since August, about the right-of-way, and it's still not on the map in front of us? MR. VANNIER-I didn't know that I had to get a map to you folks. I thought as long as I brought it with me tonight and gave it to you. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I mean, before we go any further, is that enough of a stickler point for anybody else? MR. BREWER-Well, I can recall asking for it. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I'll finish out my train of thought. Again, the letter from the Rathbun's was August 20th. and we had a public hearing, which I'm sure you were here for, on August 25th, and between now and then, my question is you still haven't gotten that right-of-way on the map? MR. VANNIER-It is not a map right here, that's here now. My priority was getting the DEC permit. That seemed like the biggest stepping stone, and I didn't actually have that in my hands until mid-December, and this is actually the first. MR. LAPOINT-Well, we talked about this in August, though. Can we pass it around, take a look at it, and see what it looks like? I'm just trying to go logically, so we don't waste any time here. MR. VANNIER-Really all there is, is a grass area, it's enough of an area for a vehicle to come through, and we're going to maintain much more than that. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Did he file any site plan maps with you guys, showing this easement on there, the right-of-way? MR. HARLICKER-No. That's what the comment was in the Staff Notes. We hadn't received anything yet. So, that's why I said that was the only outstanding issue. MR. LAPOINT-Right. So what we have here is an easement all along the lake front in front of the property, so somebody could drive through in front? MR. VANNIER-Yes. Right on through. MR. BREWER-And the beach area isn't going to affect that? MR. VANNIER-No, it will not. We'll maintain, as I said, a 15 foot minimum width. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, a 15 foot minimum width, that's going to be down the center line of the easement to the proposed excavated beach? - 5 - ~ -..-/ MR. VANNIER-If there is an easement in this deed, I can't find one. They tell me there is. MRS. TARANA-Who told you there is? MR. VANNIER-The Rathbuns. MRS. TARANA-Can't they produce it, if they think there is one? MR. MARTIN-We have a copy of the easement from the deed, here. I believe. MR. VANNIER-Is there a specific width there? I don't have a line or. MR. HARLICKER-That's what I'm looking for. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Take you time. Lets find that. I just want to make sure we get this. MR. BREWER-It says it was deeded here, it was deeded to my father- in-law, Ralph A. Pike, by Lewis H. Davis on September 14, 1926. MR. VANNIER-The reason I'm saying we would maintain a minimum 15 width, is because right now, there is just 15 feet at one point, and we're actually going to, in several areas, widen it. At that point, we won't. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. MARTIN-The only reference to the deed is as follows, together with the right-of-way for ingress and egress over and across the property of the party of the first party, bordering on the lake shore, and that's it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Is there a rule of thumb for a minimum? MR. MARTIN-No. That could vary. MR. BREWER-I think 15 feet's wide enough, if they're going to get any vehicle down through there. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I mean, a Northway lane width is only 12 feet wide. I mean, 15 feet's really wide. MR. MARTIN-Yes. drainage. That's a fairly good sized driveway, even with MR. BREWER-Where does this easement go property? Does it go to somewhere else? to, just across his I mean, does he own? MR. VANNIER-Rathbuns have the last house that you can get to by this road that has apparently been, this was the original road that these houses had access to, because there was a humongous gravel area at one time, and the Rathbuns are the last house on that road. and they wanted to maintain that. MRS. TARANA-They're over here somewhere? MR. VANNIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I mean, 15 feet seems reasonable. and if that's the drawing that's going to be submitted, I've got no problem with that. MR. MARTIN-It's a very old deed. It's a 1926 deed. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I mean, 15 feet's pretty generous. and if it's - 6 - "-" -' not specified in the deed, then. MR. BREWER-I think I see where you're coming from, Ed. We should have all this before we even. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Well. I saw it. If they drive down it now, it's something that exists, correct? MR. VANNIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And you don't plan on altering what exists? MR. VANNIER-In no way. There is a 15 foot area there now between the existing concrete patio and the stone wall that is there. We're going to remove the stone wall and cut back the slope. That's why I'm saying we're going to maintain the 15 foot minimum. That area will be 15 feet. The rest of it will be 20 to 25 feet still, even after we make the beach area. MR. BREWER-Okay. Everybody set? MR. MACEWAN-Will there be a scaled drawing submitted to the Planning Department of this. or is this what you're going to do? MR. VANNIER-That's what I would like to submit. MR. MACEWAN-I think probably the best thing to do would be have a scaled drawing submitted. MR. VANNIER-That is scaled. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. hand corner. He's got it indicated down there in the right MR. BREWER-Is that drawing acceptable to submit? MR. HARLICKER-Like you said, is that dotted line on there, that's the center line. MR. VANNIER-Approximately. MR. HARLICKER-Approximately. It just seems that the land on there is pretty tight, and it should be fairly accurate as to where this easement is going to be going across the property. MR. VANNIER-The land on there is not tight, and there's no defined line of easement. as in what is deeded. Do you know what I'm saying? MR. HARLICKER-Okay. Right. MR. VANNIER-What I'm saying, there's a flat area down there. It's 30 feet wide. We're going to maintain at least 15 feet. MR. RUEL-Does this have to be a condition? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I would envision some type of motion, if we get that far. after SEQRA, as a condition. The way I think I'd word it is that the existing right-of-way be maintained to a minimum width of 15 feet. and not be altered as a result of the project, is the way I think I would word it. It's probably just like a two groove tire track down through, is it? MR. VANNIER-No. tracks at all. It's very, very seldom used. It's a nice grass area. There are no tire MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I would even go so far as to say, reference the right- of-way as referenced by the deed. - 7 - ""-' '...-' MR. LAPOINT-As referenced by the deed, something like that, and you guys could help me out in the motion, when we got there. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Could I just ask a quick question? Regarding the surface groundwater, you said there would be a slight impact, minor impact. MR. HARLICKER-Just because you're altering the shoreline a little bi t, so you're changing the shape, surface of the lake. That's all. MRS. TARANA-It's not significant? Okay. MR. BREWER-We're ready, Ed. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 40-92, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DR. KIM, to excavate 25 feet of shoreline for placement of the retaining wall to provide a beach area, and also to remove a stone wall approximately 25' feet from the shoreline for landscaping purposes, 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: Department of Environmental Conservation 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Type I 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 2nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Rowe, Mrs. Pulver - 8 - <-- -../ MR. BREWER-Okay. Would someone care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 40-92 DR. HYUNG & ELEANOR KIM, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To excavate 25 feet of shoreline, for the placement of a retaining wall to provide a beach area. Also to remove a stone wall approximately 25 feet from the shoreline for landscaping purposes. with the following stipulations: One, that the project proceed in a manner compliant with the New York State Department of Environmental Coneervation permi t issued to the. applicant... and Two 1- that a 15 foot wlde accesš easement across the 1aReIrout to ~n~ adjoining properties be maintained in accordance with the 1926 deed referenced in our previous discussions this evening, and that the project not interfere with that 15 foot wide minimum easement with any type of construction or restriction that would prevent normal traffic from passing from one lot to the other. Duly adopted this 2nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe SITE PLAN NO. 1-93 TYPE II WR-3A JOHN P. MATTHEWS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: ROUTE 9L, EAST SIDE, CEDAR PT. PROPOSAL IS TO REMOVE EXISTING DETERIORATING, ROCK FILLED CRIB DOCKS NOW IN A U- SHAPE TO REPLACE WITH NEW E-SHAPED DOCK TO SHORTEN NEW DOCKS SO THEY CONFORM TO EXISTING REGULATIONS. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (APA) TAX MAP NO. 2-1-9 LOT SIZE: 2.68 ACRES SECTION: 179-16 (D) (3) JOHN MATTHEWS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1-93, John P. Matthews, Meeting Date: February 16, 1993 "Proiect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to construct an E-shaped dock. The property is located on Lake George west of the Bay Road and Rt. 9L intersection and has 220 feet of shoreline. The dock will consist of two slips and a boat cover/sun deck. There is approximately 1,000 square feet of dock surface area and it extends 40 feet into the lake. The sun deck extends 13 feet above the water. Proiect Analysis: The project was compared to the criteria listed in Section 179-60(b) which pertains to docks and moorings. It was determined that the proposal complies with the criteria of Section 179-60(b). Recommendation: The planning staff recommends approval of this application." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we also got, from Warren County, to approve. MR. HARLICKER-Correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Matthews? Maybe you could just show us a picture of what you've got, and what you're going to do. We saw it yesterday. MR. MATTHEWS-I'd just like to clarify any of your discrepancies on the existing drawing that I had. I've got the existing dock shown in red. I've got one slip here that's about 50 feet long, and another one here that's 57 feet long, and what's happening is the rock filled cribbing down at the bottom is all falling apart. Any time it gets bumped with the ice, it's impossible to repair it. So what my proposal is, is to construct a new dock here. here, and here, take the rocks that are in the cribs, here, and disperse them between the new cribs. I can do this very easily by working on the - 9 - "'-" '--' ice and whatnot, and enable very little disturbance of the shoreline and whatnot. MR. RUEL-What's happening to the rock? MR. BREWER-They're just deteriorating. They've been in there so long. MR. RUEL-They keep sinking? MR. MATTHEWS-No. What we have is a crib built out of bogs, timbers stacked up and they're spiked together, and over the process of rusting, the spikes have rotted out over the last 30 years, and the timbers at the bottom, with the pressure of the rocks, are just pushing out. and the whole thing just keeps. MR. RUEL-You want to go from U to E? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MRS. TARANA-And the boat dock is here now, and you're going to move it over to here? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? MR. RUEL-Yes. What's the sun deck? Why is there a distinction? It says the sun deck extends 13 feet above the water? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. right now. It's an existing cover that's over the dock MR. RUEL-It's a cover? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. RUEL-And it's used as a sun deck? MR. MATTHEWS-It's used as a sun deck. MR. RUEL-With a railing? MR. MATTHEWS-With a railing around it. MR. RUEL-And stairs going up to it, or it goes into the land? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, you know, there's stairs that go from the sea wall out to it. MR. RUEL-So that will remain there? MR. MATTHEWS-Yes. MR. RUEL-Will that extend beyond your E shaped dock? MR. BREWER-It can't go out any further than 40 feet. preexisting. This is MR. MATTHEWS-No. Actually the existing sun deck is only 40 foot long. It does not cover the whole 70 foot long dock there. MR. RUEL-I see, and your dock, you intend it to be about 50 feet you say? MR. MATTHEWS-Forty feet. MR. RUEL-Forty. MR. MATTHEWS-The existing regulations are forty feet long. - 10 - "-- -./ MR. RUEL-I see, and the sun deck is also 40? MR. MATTHEWS-Well, that's what's there. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. MATTHEWS-And there's no, you could make more than 40. MR. RUEL-Yes. What is supporting this sun deck? MR. MATTHEWS-The posts on the dock. MR. RUEL-On the dock? MR. MATTHEWS-On the dock. MR. RUEL-On the old dock. MR. MATTHEWS-On the old dock. MR. RUEL-But you're going to take the old dock out? MR. MATTHEWS-That's right. MR. RUEL-So now how are you going to support the sun deck? MR. MATTHEWS-We're going to move it over onto the new dock. MR. RUEL-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I have a question for the Staff. I think. I'm not sure, but there's no limitation as far as the square footage of an E dock? They name all the other shapes of docks. It says F, L, T, or U shaped docks shall not exceed, surface area shall not exceed 700 square feet, and I just, I don't see anything. MR. HARLICKER-I think you're right. MR. MATTHEWS-This is why the Lake George Park, the Commission asked me to note on my drawing here docks, one U shaped dock, and one L shaped dock. not extend beyond the square footage requirement Lake George Park that it was two So that it did of the docks. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think we have a, basically, too. a square footage limitation, from the standpoint that they're limited in projection into the lake, no further than 40 feet, and a width of eight feet. So that in itself, too, results in a square footage limitation. MR. BREWER-Yes, but the trunk of it could be for the 200 feet that he owns, right? MR. MATTHEWS-No, no. MR. BREWER-Pretty much. I'm saying it could. MR. MARTIN-I don't think so. MR. RUEL-It was a maximum square footage? MR. HARLICKER-Not for E shaped docks. MR. MARTIN-Not for E shaped docks. It only references, F, L, T, and U have a 700 square foot limitation. MR. RUEL-And what do we have here, 1,000? MR. HARLICKER-A thousand, yes. MR. LAPOINT-But he's broken it up into an L and a U, per - 11 - ~ -..-' instructions from the LGPA. MR. RUEL-Is the sun deck considered part of the square footage? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. BREWER-Is there anybody here from the public who'd like to speak about'this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Now we can have a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-93 JOHN P. MATTHEWS, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: To remove the existing deteriorating rock filled crib dock which is now a U shape and replace it with a new E shaped dock and one L shaped dock, and this will shorten the new dock so they conform to the existing regulations. Duly adopted this 2nd day of March, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A ROBERT ROWE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: WEST MT. RD. SOUTH OF SHERMAN AVENUE INTERSECTION SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO 2 LOTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV #124-1992 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT' 3-92 (APA) TAX MAP NO. 123-1-34 LOT SIZE: 4.63 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ROBERT ROWE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff , Subdivision No. 16-1992, Robert Rowe, Meeting Date: February 16, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking final approval to subdivide a 4.63 acre parcel into two lots. The new lot will be 1.95 acres and the remaining lot will be 2.58 acres. The property is located in the Adirondack Park on West Mountain Road just south of Clendon Brook Road, and is known as tax parcel 121-1-34. The rear of the property is bounded by Clendon Brook and there is a freshwater wetlands on the property. The property is zoned SR-1A. PROJECT ANALYSIS: During preliminary review potential problems relating to slope, drainage and septic systems were discussed. The applicant proposed a grading plan and house construction plans that answered the questions related to slope and drainage. Information regarding septic system location was also provided. It appears to meet setback requirements and will be subject to building department review and approval. According to Section 179-30C. of the Zoning Code, all residential lots fronting on a collector or arterial road shall have two times the lot width permitted in the zone unless the ingress and egress are limited to one common driveway. In order to gain an exception to the two times the lot width requirement, the applicant has to show the common driveway on the subdivision plat and in a written - 12 - '- -./ legal document. RECOMMENDATION: It appears that the proposal follows accepted planning practices. Provided the applicant answers the issues regarding slope, access, septic systems and drainage to the Board's satisfaction and provides legal documentation regarding easements for the shared driveway, staff can recommend final approval of this subdivision." MR. HARLICKER-He provided us with a rough draft of the easements for access. So he's in the process of getting that finalized right now. MR. MACEWAN-Is that draft satisfactory for you MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It looks pretty standard. have the legal documentation and everything. guys? They're going to MR. MARTIN-There would be an easement to be inserted within the deed. MR. HARLICKER-Right. That's in the works right now. MR. BREWER-Okay, and we can make that a condition of approval, that he submits that. MR. MARTIN-And when you do come in for your building permit, if you could provide us with a copy of that amended deed, that we could put in the file with the building permit. MR. RUEL-I have a question. I'm looking at this grading, and it indicates that the land is somewhat flat on that new area. When I drive by there, I notice that it's been filled in only on one side, and there's a big drop on the right hand side as you face it. MR. ROWE-All that dirt piled up there is going to be leveled off. MR. RUEL-Well, all the fill was put on the left side. facing the lot. All the fill was put on the left side of the lot. MR. ROWE-Right. MR. RUEL-All right, so that the right side of the lot has no fill. MR. ROWE-Right. MR. RUEL-And that's, what, about a 20 foot drop? MR. ROWE-No. There's a 14 foot drop from the top of the road down to the drive. MR. RUEL-Will that be filled in? MR. ROWE-The cellar's going in down there. MR. RUEL-Because according to this, it doesn't show a drop at all, on this sketch. It shows that you're going to put the septic system in that area. MR. ROWE-The top of the cellar is going to be about five to six feet below the road. It's going to be a gradual slope from the road down to the house. MR. RUEL-Six feet below the level of the road? MR. ROWE-Yes. There's an eight foot cellar in there. MR. RUEL-Will that be level with the existing property on the left? MR. ROWE-It'll be existing, my driveway going down in my garage is lower than my land, yes. - 13 - '-. '--' MR. RUEL-And the new property will be somewhat level with that? MR. ROWE-Yes. MR. RUEL-And where is this septic system going, in it? MR. ROWE-Out towards the road. MR. RUEL-Right close to the road? MR. ROWE-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes, but that area is not filled in. MR. ROWE-We've got to level it off in the back. MR. MACEWAN-It will be after he gets done. They've got to grade it off. MR. HARLICKER-Here's a blow up of that map. MR. RUEL-It's the same thing. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes, see, but I'm looking at this. Here's 90 feet, right? Follow it through. It's 90 feet all the way through, and if I look at the property. it's 90 feet here, but over here, it's. like. 80 feet, 70 feet. I mean, this does not represent the property as it is today. That's all I'm saying. Thi s does not repre sent it. Okay. It may represent it after you get done, but this is not the way the property is now. MR. MARTIN-But I think, weren't you held up from what you could do with the fill because of the wetlands permit? MR. ROWE-No. MR. RUEL-I have a questiqn. Who is responsible, in Town, for the quality of the fill that the house will be built on? MR. BREWER-The house isn't going to be built on that fill that is there now. We've already been through that. MR. ROWE-The house will be built on the existing ground. MR. RUEL-It will? MR. ROWE-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-What you're looking at now, that's sitting on the property, is not going to be used for fill for the house. MR. ROWE-No. MR. BREWER-No. We already asked him that. The fill that you see there now, Roger, or you saw there before the snow, when we first came to this, I asked. MR. RUEL-I've been watching it all summer, and they've been dropping fill in there. MR. BREWER-I asked, is the house going to be built on that fill, and he told us specifically no. MR. RUEL-You're not going to build it on the fill? MR. ROWE-No. MR. RUEL-You're going to dig a hole in and fill? - 14 - .,,,,--", -- MR. ROWE-We're going to put a house right down in, as you walk right around that fill, down there where it's all flat. that's where the house is going to go. MR. MACEWAN-You're looking at the fill as being right about there. MR. RUEL-I know where the fill is. The fill is right here. MR. LAPOINT-He hasn't filled where he's going to build. MR. ROWE-No. MR. LAPOINT-Where he's going to build is virgin earth. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-He's going to pour his footings~ pour his walls. and then backfill around it with what's stock piled that you see in front, correct? MR. ROWE-We might have to push some of that fill back to get the cellar up. MR. RUEL-I was a little concerned, because I saw pieces of sidewalks. and miscellaneous other things mixed in with the fill, and I figured. gee, you're not going to put a house on top of that. MR. ROWE-No. MR. MARTIN-Actually, that's good fill. though. MR. RUEL-Is there any responsibility, responsibility for the quality of the fill? who assumes the MR. MARTIN-The Code Enforcement Officer, I mean, if there was toxic items in there, or something like that, he'd be alerted to it, but there's nothing wrong with that fill. It's all, masonry materials are very good fill items. MR. RUEL-But anyone in Town can take a low lot and just fill it with anything, and then put a house on it? MR. MARTIN-Not with anything. MR. RUEL-Who's checking it? MR. MARTIN-Well, just like a code violation, I mean, the Code Enforcement Officer, if it's caught. I'm not going to say we catch everything, but if it's seen, it would be addressed. MR. RUEL-There's a sign that says, Clean Fill Wanted, all right, and you keep filling that hole for a year. No one's checking it. No one knows what's on the bottom or in the middle. You have rules and regulations for excavating fill, right, for removing fill? MR. BREWER-I think if he were to start building a house on that, Roger, and he went to put his footings in, the inspection to put the footings in, they saw that fill and knew that it wasn't to Code, so to speak. MR. RUEL-How can you tell? I mean, it might look good on top. MR. BREWER-Well, they have to inspect the footings. An inspector's going to know if that footing is going to support a wall. I mean. if he even walks on it and you know fill is not compacted. MR. MARTIN-They inspect the footing trench prior to the concrete being poured. MR. ROWE-The contractor will put a poured concrete cellar in, - 15 - "--' ..- they'll only guarantee it if it's on virgin soil. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. ROWE-If it's new fill, they won't guarantee it. MR. BREWER-I mean, for him it's a risk, also. I mean, I wouldn't want my daughter or my family to build a house on top of it. I'm sure nobody else would. I suppose it's happened before, but. MR. RUEL-I've seen a lot of them just start floating away. MR. MACEWAN-The point is, he's not going to use it as fill for the house. He's just using it to bring it up to grade. MR. RUEL-I' m not talking about this particular case. talking, in general. I was MR. MARTIN-And the type of fill that's a problem is compost, like stumps and things like that. Those are the types of things that are a problem, because they rot. MR. RUEL-That's right, and then you have a hole. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-All right. Is there any other outstanding questions pertaining to this application? Okay. We left the public hearing open. Is anybody here to speak about this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-And we did SEQRA? MR. HARLICKER-SEQRA was done. Correct. MR. BREWER-Would someone care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. ROWE, Introduced by Craig MacEwan seconded by Edward LaPoint: 16-1992 FINAL STAGE ROBERT who moved for its adoption, For a two lot residential subdivision, contingent upon, at the time the applicant come in for his building permit, that he brings in a copy of the deed showing the easement as required by the Planning Department, also as stipulated in the Freshwater Wetlands Permit 3- 92, as given to him by the APA. Duly adopted this 2nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 6-93 TYPE II WR-1A CHARLES M. BARBER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: ROCKHURST RD., CLEVERDALE PROPOSAL IS RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING DOCK PER LAKE GEORGE PARK COMMISSION PERMIT. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING) (DEC) (APA) TAX MAP NO. 15-1- 44 LOT SIZE: .09 ACRES SECTION: 179-60 CHARLES BARBER, PRESENT - 16 - "'--' -- STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 6-93, Charles Barber, Meeting Date: February 16, 1993 "Proiect Description: The applicant received Planning Board approval for a U-shaped dock on July 21, 1992. The applicant then took the approved plans to the Lake George Park Commission for approval. The Commission approved the dock, but modified it's size and location. The dock approved by the Commission is 438 square feet in size; previous approval was for 540 square feet. It is 33.5 feet in length; previous approval was for 40 feet in length. It has a 12 foot sl ip and the previous approval was for a 15 foot slip. The final modì'fication involves the placement of the dock. The original approva was tor property line setbacks of 13 feet on each side. The placement required the granting of variances which were approved on April 22, 1992. The Commission approved plan places the dock 20 feet from the southern property line and uses the existing 9 foot setback on the northern side. Since they are reconstructing the dock in its original position on the northern side, there is no need for a variance. Proiect Analvsis: The project was compared to the criteria listed in Section 179-60 (b) which pertains to docks and moorings. It was found that the project complies with those criteria. Recommendation: The Staff recommends approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-Warren County Planning Board concurs with local conditions, approves it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Barber. Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Barber? I guess what I don't understand is, you came in, and I remember you coming in, and getting a variance, and then moving it, and now they don't want you to move it there? I'm just confused by it. MR. BARBER-As you see, I've been working on this since April of last year. MR. BREWER-I remember it. MR. BARBER-Yes, a tremendous amount of time, and a lot of legal cost, and it was a negotiation with the Lake George Park Commission to leave the north end of the existing dock where it is, do away with six by eight, which gave us nine feet from the property boundary, four with this truck we had, and move the southern end four feet, and maintain that 20 foot from the south end. The north end was grandfather, that's there, and then we're moving four feet to the south, but we're still maintaining the 20 foot. That was a negotiation I accepted to maintain that 20 foot. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's fine. MR. BARBER-And I accepted the shorter dock, also, because the time it took me. and if I don't get this dock out of here, the excavation is going to be extremely costly and difficult. MR. BREWER-Okay. public hearing. If nobody's got any questions, Comment from the public? I'll open the PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 6-93 by Roger Ruel who moved for its MacEwan: CHARLES H. BARBER, Introduced adoption, seconded by Craig - 17 - '--' --' For the reconstruction of an existing dock for the Lake George Park Commission permit. Duly adopted this 2nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. MARTIN-We've just got a couple of extra items to take up with the Board. The first one being the Buckley Bryan Subdivision, the senior citizen housing project. The approval on that technically ran out on the 17th of February and it needs to be extended again by the Board, and if you could make it retroactive, in your motion, to the 17th, that would be appreciated. ' MR. MACEWAN-What's he looking for length of time on it, another ninety days? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That would be sufficient, because they're going to lose their funding by the end of the month, if this doesn't get off the ground. MR. MACEWAN-Any discussion? MOTION TO EXTEND SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1992 J. BUCKLEY BRYAN. JR., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: For another 90 days, retroactive to the February 17th, 1993. Duly adopted this 2nd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Rowe MR. MARTIN-Okay, and the next item, last night at the Town Board meeting, I think Corinne and Tim were present to here this. the Board in a resolution, I'll read the resolution, "NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby requests that the Planning Board render a report and its recommendations concerning the proposed modifications to the Southern Exposure Subdivision, and whether the said Board feels that there are any environmental issues or other concerns with regard to the proposed modification." This is in regards to the Hudson Point PUD. The Town Board, as they've reviewed this, has recognized that the Southern Exposure Subdivision is, as it's currently configured. is to be modified as part of the PUD, and that would call for a realignment of the roads serving the subdivision, as you may recall, and actual reduction in the number of lots wi thin the subdivision. That represents a modification that would have to come before this Board, for your ultimate approval. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-We're in no position to make a recommendation. MR. MARTIN-Well, no, you don't have to actually approve the modification, but the Board was hoping for a rather preliminary conceptual, or a review of the concept, and see if you have any concerns at this time, because they're about to undertake an environmental impact statement. and they wanted to know if there was any environmental issues, as well as any other concerns you might have. - 18 - --- '-' MR. LAPOINT-Whereas, we haven't seen it or don't have any drawings of it tonight. MR. MARTIN-You've seen it. MR. LAPOINT-Right, but I mean. MR. MACEWAN-Well, a question for you. This resolution that says that that Southern Exposure Subdivision is part of the PUD, but it's not. ~~êatl~~T!~eI~~ai¥~~åt~gã åf'lhï~t~fisè¥v¥Šf~niWRg~ÍîRã rRet~fi~R~~ access to the PUD. So that's why it's so important. If this wasn't approved, then they lose their primary access, and that's a major change to the PUD, or will have a major impact on it. MR. BREWER-What is our time frame that we have to have this done? Only because I spoke with everybody informally before the meeting, and if we could possibly get the packet of information and review it. If we had a special meeting a week from now. or a week and a half from now, we could make a decision. MR. RUEL-We don't have anything. I haven't seen anything. MR. BREWER-I just don't think it's appropriate that we just come in here and look at it and make a decision, and I think that's the feeling of everybody here. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-If there's not an objection from Mr. O'Connor with that. MIKE O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I have strong objections, Mr. Brewer, to you having anything to do with this particular application, and your having an informal discussion with other Board members is not appropriate. MR. BREWER-Well, I think it is appropriate, only because, I will abstain from voting against this or for it, but I think that for an application to come in to this Board at 8:30 and asked to be made a decision on, I don't think that's appropriate. I think that everybody should have time to look at it and gather their thoughts and make a decision as to what they want to do. MR. RUEL-And I agree with the Chairman. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't have a problem with that part of it. I received notice this afternoon that. in fact, the Town Board had done this last night, and I'd like to give a little bit of background to the Board, so that you fully understand what we're doing here. MR. BREWER-That's fine. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I'd like to hear the applicant. He can probably give a nice little synopsis, and then we can take it back with us. Again, I'd have to dig out the drawings for what we did approve. but then again I'd like to see what the changes are going to be, too. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think even if we can come away from this tonight with an agreed upon list for them to respond back with something by your regular meeting at the end of the month, even, we'd be making headway. MR. LAPOINT-Perfect. MR. O'CONNOR-As I understand, a little bit of a problem that I have - 19 - "'-' ""-" with that, Jim, as I understand, that this is at the Town Board's request. It's not the applicant's request. So, at this point, the Town Board has requested the applicant to file an EIS, which is an Environmental Impact Statement, on the project, and as part of that scenario, a couple of times in the discussion of the question of the need of the EIS, a separate issue was raised as to whether or not there would be a road block to the project, based upon modification of the existing McDonald subdivision. and the Town Board at this point is simply trying to find out this Board's feeling and get some commitment from this Board, as to whether or not they look upon the modification of the McDonald subdivision as being a potential road block, before anybody goes further with the PUD, EIS. MR. MARTIN-You're still going to have to see the subdivision modification formally. MR. O'CONNOR-The PUD, EIS will probably cost the applicant some place between $50 and $75,000, and those are conservative figures, and there's nobody that's going to put that on the plate if we keep hearing of dark clouds that may hang out there. So everybody's trying to be up front with where they want to go. We can show you, if you want, what we've done, and I think it would give you a good idea, and we could give you a little bit of history, for maybe those who haven't been involved in the application before tonight, but I do have an object. Mr. Brewer, formally and I'll make it on the record, to your participation in the discussion in any manner as a Board member, and I also have a question about Mr. MacEwan's participation. I believe that he has signed a petition in connection with this application. MR. MACEWAN-I never signed a petition at all. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, you've expressed an opinion. MR. MACEWAN-I've never expressed an opinion either. MR. O'CONNOR-I have a reservation that either we will be criticized or you will be criticized because of the potential impact it might have on your own residence. I think that's something that we will raise formally, we raise formally. We're willing to go ahead and make our presentation. That could present a particular problem, because you have a vacancy on the Board. MR. MACEWAN-We have a vacancy on the Board? MR. BREWER-That's the Zoning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Let me show you what we're talking about. and let me give you a little history. The McDonald Subdivision, and correct me if I'm wrong. MR. RUEL-Do you know why we're going through this? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We just want to know if there's any road blocks. MR. MACEWAN-They're going to show us an overview of what they're intending to do. MR. 0' CONNOR-The McDonald Subdivision is a subdivision that's located on the westerly side of Sherman Island Road. It's a subdivision that originally was approved in 1981. It's come back before this Board a couple of different times. It's come before the Town Board one other time recently, I think in 1990 or 1991. I would have to look at the dates, to see whether or not it, in itself. was grandfathered. MR. RUEL-Are there other subdivisions in the immediate area? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. - 20 - '--' --- MR. RUEL-Do you have a map showing the relationship of that McDonald to the overall? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we do. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically this lot, or this subdivision, is of very small lots, 100 by 200. ALAN OPPENHEIM MR. OPPENHEIM-The smallest lot is actually 15,000 square feet. MR. RUEL-Fifteen thousand? MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes, in the approved subdivision. in the existing approved subdivision. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. it's basically, and there are 30. MR. OPPENHEIM-Thirty-six lots. MR. 0' CONNOR-Thirty-six lots in this configuration. It's a U- shaped type access to Sherman Island Road, with a dead end here. It does not have any access upon Corinth Road, and it did not as it was designed. It is within the water district. This road has been dedicated to the Town. The water system is in. When we first came in with Hudson Point Subdivision. MR. MARTIN-It should also be pointed out that all those lots are vacant. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All the lots that are in yellow, which are the lots that we're speaking about here, are vacant. MR. OPPENHEIM-Except, let me just. just so there's no confusion, these three lots here have been built, three lots along Sherman Island Road have been built upon. The other remaining 33 are still vacant. MR. O'CONNOR-All the lots internal, let me put it this way, all the internal lots within the subdivision off of Sherman Island Road are vacant. With these on the very end also remain vacant. When Hudson Point, or Niagara Mohawk came in with the first proposal for the PUD, or the Planned Unit Development, which is this project right here, the initial entrance, the main entrance to the proposed subdivision was going to be along Sherman Island Road. right here. Everybody seemed to object to that, particularly the people in the subdi visions along here, because this is not the best of turns coming out onto Corinth Road. We're talking about 163 units, right now, in the subdivision. They did not want 163 units coming onto Sherman Island Road, creating maybe a traffic problem, invading their privacy, and whatnot. They sent the developer back to the Boards to try and come up with a secondary access. At this point, before they got into this McDonald Subdivision, which is right in here, the only other secondary access was along Foothills Drive. It was going to be Foothills Drive and Sherman Island Road. When everybody expressed real objection to that, Niagara Mohawk went back and worked out this entranceway through the McDonald Subdivision. Now, in order to do that, it had to change much of the configuration of this area in here. In order to get the McDonalds to agree to do that, they agreed to dead end the two roads here, put in all the improvements, and have, in essence, some land swap that then gave the development a signature type entrance, directly onto Corinth Road, and it kept the traffic off of Sherman Island Road. Now, to do that, and to be more particular, this gives you a general idea of Corinth Road, the water plant that's down there, that's probably the only development. Foothills Drive has a small subdivision on it. Inspiration Park is right in this - 21 - ~ ---- area here, right, Allen? MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes, it is. MR. O'CONNOR-This is Inspiration Park, which is HomeFront housing. Ask me questions if I'm not making it clear. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. If you rotated that one small lot 90 degrees, counter clockwise, then it would in fact agree with the larger one, wouldn't it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it would. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This area here is this area right here, okay, it fits up in that upper triangle. MR. RUEL-Yes. It makes more sense that way. MR. O'CONNOR-And then if I do the same thing here, it would be like this. Okay. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. 0' CONNOR-To make the change, we have to seek thi s Board's modification of an existing subdivision plat. When we applied, in the very beginning, for this Board's initial report back to the Town Board, about the PUD. and whether or not we met the qualifications for a Planned Unit Development, this Board conditioned its recommendation that the Town Board go forward with the condition that at the time of approval, we would also have to modified the McDonald Subdivision. So we're back, now, to that step. So, basically, what we have before us is the McDonald Subdivision, before. This is what it is afterwards. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. You mentioned that there was a condition that the McDonald site would have to be redone, right, as far as roads are concerned? MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes. MR. RUEL-Was there any indication of the extent of the roadway, etc., that would have to be done? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I recall, before this left the Planning Board, I was still on at the time, this was known, this was shown, before it went on from us to the Town Board, that was part of our report, of a complete application for PUD. MR. RUEL-Which is the later of the two? MR. OPPENHEIM-This is the revised plan. and just to add a few points, the currently approved plan as you see it there is 36 lots. MR. RUEL-I see, and now we're going to thiß. MR. OPPENHEIM-And this plan here, and some of the positive changes are, to start, we've changed, there'll be no curb cuts at all. With the currently approved plan, you have six curb cuts along Corinth Road. This plan will have no curb cuts on Corinth Road. There will also be a buffer along Corinth Road. We've reduced the number of lots in the project, in the Southern Exposure project from 36 to 29 MR. RUEL-Because of the roadway. MR. OPPENHEIM-Exactly. MR. RUEL-No access to Sherman? - 22 - "--..- -' MR. OPPENHEIM-No access to Sherman Road. MR. RUEL-But access over here to. MR. OPPENHEIM-Access to Corinth. MR. RUEL-Corinth. Yes. MRS. TARANA-And what's the size of the smallest lot, then, in the 29 lots? MR1lOPPENHEIM-I hdon' ti ha,ve that exa.ct lcalculation _lbut who at, Wlhcacn te you is in t e ex št1ng approvea p an, toe sma~ est i ~ 1 n is Lot 28, is about 15,000 square feet, and I do know, and we can obviously get those numbers, that there is no lot that is smaller in the proposed revision. MRS. TARANA-And is that the smallest, in this revision, that they can have? MR. MARTIN-Well, the original plan did get a variance, Zoning Board approval, and if they were to request further relief, meaning a greater number of lots at a smaller size, or an actual lot that was smaller in size, they'd have to go back to the ZBA, but if they don't do that. if they're within their relief that was granted, then they won't have to go back to the ZBA. MRS. TARANA-So 15,000 is the smallest? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. TARANA-And they go up to. and they're going up to what size lot? MR. OPPENHEIM-The majority of lots are going to be approximately 20.000 square feet, in that range, but I can't give you, sitting here tonight, an exact number. PAUL DUSEK, TOWN ATTORNEY MR. DUSEK-The was a problem with this subdivision, I thought, whereby some of the lots in the finally configured subdivision, as it preexisted even you folks, were too small. I don't know. Did you know that? MR. OPPENHEIM-You're talking existing. MR. BREWER-Existing. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That was the discussion that we had about a year ago at this time. MR. 0' CONNOR-And at that time it was determined that it was grandfathered, and that those lots were legitimate lots. MR. BREWER-No. I think it was discussed that, that was the plan that was approved. I don't think the size of the lots ever came into the discussion. The variance was for 20,000 feet, and there was several lots that were under 20,000 feet. That was the relief that they were granted. MR. O'CONNOR-It was determined at that time that the approval was for the map in its configuration as it was approved and stamped. There was a question of whether or not it was for 20,000 square foot lots only, or if it was as it was stamped, and at the time it was determined, no, it was as stamped. MR. DUSEK-Who made that determination? MR. O'CONNOR-Ted Turner did. - 23 - '-- ,,,-,,,' MR. DUSEK-This was at that meeting. That's right. MR. MARTIN-Well, we had this, remember, we brought this all up a year ago. MR. BREWER-That's something that I had discussed with Paul many times, and I think Ted recalled the meeting, and recalled that that was the plan that was approved. The size of the lots. I don't think, ever were brought into play at that meeting. We can read the minutes and find out, but a question that I had brought to him, that they were given relief for 20,000 feet, and there's lots as small as 14,500 in there. MR. O'CONNOR-I distinctly recall a discussion about that issue, and it was resolved that this is an existing subdivision. You could go in there and build on these lots, go in tomorrow and get building permits. MR. BREWER-That's something that I don't understand. because if you're granted a 20,000 square foot variance, how can you build on something that's 14,500? MR. DUSEK-Well, I think that goes to the heart of the issue. The application that was filed was for 20,000, but the actual plan that was submitted to the Zoning Board provided for smaller than that lots, and Ted Turner's testimony, I guess, as you've indicated, was that they approved the plan. and not the application. MR. RUEL-Does it really matter, if we're going to look at a new plan, with none of the lots substandard? MR. MACEWAN-What they're looking for is a modification of the plan. MR. RUEL-I know, but why aren't we talking about the new one? Why are we dwelling on the old one? MR. DUSEK-Because the new one's going to have the same substandard lots. MR. RUEL-Well. then lets find out. MR. MARTIN-I remember when I was on the Planning Board and this came up, the discussion was, if he looked at the plan, and he approved that plan, the size of the lots are clearly marked on the plan. MR. DUSEK-That's right. I remember that now. MR. MARTIN-So why, what's the issue? I mean, if they approved the plan. they saw the lot dimensions. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. BREWER-That's just one person on the Board, though. can he speak for the other six people? I mean, MR. MARTIN-The motion of approval is on the books. MR. O'CONNOR-Because we started with a motion by this Board as to whether or not this Board should reconsider its approval, and first it went to the Zoning Board. no, Ted Turner was here the night of the hearing, in the audience for some other reason, and he got up and testified that he understood the lot sizes to be the size shown on the map, regardless of what the printed application said, for the variance. MR. BREWER-I don't think that's what he said, Mike. We can look at the minutes, but I don't think Ted said that, because I was there also. Not to argue the point with you, but I don't think. - 24 - ~ '"'-" MR. O'CONNOR-I don't the issue. this is a if I come in and ask lots, and I comply building permit? understand the point, because I don't think legitimate. and I'd ask Mr. Martin directly, for a bUilding permit, for anyone of these wi th the bui lding setback, would I get a MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-I think if you look in the file, Pat Crayford, when she was the Zoning Administrator, said that she wouldn't issue building permits. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, Mr. Martin is now the Zoning Administrator, and I think he's indicated that we've got an existing lot, or an existing subdivision, so all I ask this Board is, in considering what we've proposed, we can point out three or four improvements to what's existing. and is the Board going to be satisfied with that? The big problem that we have with that, and everybody that goes by, is that everybody wanted to get traffic off of Sherman Island Road, and what we're offering with the amended subdivision, regardless of what's beyond that, what they build or what they don't build, we're taking these 30 units off of Sherman Island Road. We're cutting down on the road cuts on Corinth Road. We are not decreasing the size of any lot that we're reconfiguring. We've got a letter from Paul Naylor that says that he's looked at it from a point of the highway construction, and that he has no objection to it. Now we understand that we'd have to come back with drainage calculations, road calculations, engineering and whatnot, and again what we're trying to do is find out which is the cart and which is the horse. MR. RUEL-The new layout apparently has the same number of driveways onto Sherman, as the old one, right? MR. MACEWAN-Those are existing, those three, right, Allen? MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Those three are existing. They're already built on. MR. RUEL-The same amount? Although you've reduced the number of amounts, it's still the same on Sherman Road, as far as driveway access? MR. 0' CONNOR-Yes, it is. We're not changing, see the road is already constructed, and these pipes are already in the road. So. we're not trying to modify, this road, as it's laid out here, is in the same configuration there. The difference is the end of it. There we've got a lollipop cul-de-sac, as opposed to going back to Sherman Island Road. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-And when we say we moved traffic from Sherman Island Road, we'll be moving traffic, and you're pointing it out, from the interior lots only. MR. RUEL-Is that a wooded area? I see you have trees there, and a new one? Is it an existing wooded area? MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes. It is a wooded area, and what we're delineating here is the boulevard type entrance, and we're going to have a buffer zone there. to create a character for the entrance. MR. RUEL-Is that a built up area, that L-shaped lot next to it? MR. OPPENHEIM-Right here? MR. RUEL-No, the other way, up, north? MR. OPPENHEIM-Up in this area? Yes. - 25 - ~ .....-- MR. RUEL-Do you have homes in there? MR. OPPENHEIM-Right along here, you've got homes in this area. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. BREWER-So where the trees are shown, Allen, are not building lots? MR. OPPENHEIM-Right here? That is not a building lot there. No. That's a buffer zone, open space. MR. RUEL-Do you have a buffer space because of the road? MR. OPPENHEIM-Because of the type of entrance that really we're trying to create. MR. RUEL-Yes, but you have no buffer zone on the other road. MR. OPPENHEIM-The one on Sherman Island? MR. RUEL-No. no. The one in the middle here. MR. OPPENHEIM-No. MR. RUEL-Yes. There's no buffer zone between that and the adjacent property. MR. OPPENHEIM-No. there isn't. MRS. TARANA-How big is that triangular, that long triangular lot? Can a house fit on there? MR. OPPENHEIM-This lot there? Yes, it is, and that lot there, that's an existing lot. Believe it or not, that's 19,000 square feet. MRS. TARANA-But how much of it is usable? MR. OPPENHEIM-It is all usable. MRS. TARANA-I mean. how narrow does that go, that point, the point of the triangle? MR. OPPENHEIM-Well. you've got 76 feet by almost 300. MR. O'CONNOR-It's 131 feet along this end. MRS. TARANA-And they would have to build on that lollipop? MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes, the home would be shaped. MR. O'CONNOR-With the septic system off that side yard, and that we're not changing. MRS. TARANA-No, no. That was just a question. I was curious. MR. O'CONNOR-And if you actually look at the lots, the only thing that we actually change are, and maybe that's one way of looking at it. What are we actually changing? We're not talking about changing all 36 lots. or 30. whatever many lots you've got here. MR. LAPOINT-Flip it back the other way. You're confusing me again. You were down in that bottom corner. MR. O'CONNOR-At the very bottom, we change these three lots a little bit, because we put the cul-de-sac in the front yard, and we extend them out in the back. so as not to make them smaller. In this area up here, we go into this lot to get the cul-de-sac, and we have three lots here. as opposed to four lots, or five lots, and - 26 - ............. --' we now have four lots. Those are the changes we make, except for up in here, and basically up in here we've taken the lots off of Corinth Road, or at least frontage on Corinth Road, and we've got six lots in there, as opposed to maybe thirteen lots. MR. OPPENHEIM-Just to get an exact count. We've got six new lots here. We've got 15 lots that stay the same, eight with the minor modifications that Mike just pointed out. and then seven that we've completely eliminated. MR. RUEL-Question. How could you extend those three lots the way you did down there? MR. O'CONNOR-We own the adjoining land. MR. RUEL-You own that land? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. McDonald owns this subdivision. Okay. We own that adjoining land there. MR. RUEL-I see. and what happened to the adjoining land? Are they minus some footage there? MR. LAPOINT-Well. that's the PUD. MR. RUEL-Isn't that a subdivision, also? MR. O'CONNOR-That's the PUD area. MR. OPPENHEIM-That's the proposed subdivision. MR. O'CONNOR-From a planning concept. you can look at this thing, forgetting about what else is going on. You're cutting down your road cuts. You're eliminating traffic off the highway that everybody seems to think that they don't want traffic on for either privacy reasons or safety reasons. and honestly, the application for amendment could stand on its own merits, without getting into the fact that it provides secondary access or primary access to another possible development. MR. RUEL-From a safety standpoint. isn't it more dangerous to have an entrance and exit on Corinth versus Sherman? Corinth is a pretty high speed road. MR. O'CONNOR-It is, except that this is a right angle entrance on Corinth Road, which has good visibility both east and west. MR. RUEL-You have a lot of shrubbery there. I don't know. MR. O'CONNOR-You will have clearance so that you don't have interference. Corinth Road is a fairly wide road as it goes past the site there. It's the same thing that was just approved for HomeFront, up the road, where they have 42 houses going in. MR. RUEL-What is the speed limit on Corinth Road, do you know? -MR. MACEWAN-Fifty-five. MR. RUEL-Fifty-five, right? MR. BREWER-Fifty-five. MR. RUEL-Versus Sherman, which is, what? MR. MACEWAN-Thirty. MR. BREWER-Believe me, it's much safer than the way they're doing it. than it is Sherman Island Road. The way Sherman Island Road comes out, it comes out and it goes to almost a 90 degree turn, and there's a gully. - 27 - -- '-"'" MR. RUEL-I can't see Sherman going into Corinth. MR. MACEWAN-Well, if you point right there up to the top, you can fairly make it out, and what it does, it really dog leg's. It makes a heck of a hair pin turn. MR. OPPENHEIM-There's a 15 mile an hour speed zone along the turn. MR. O'CONNOR-These people still, even if they come out onto Sherman Island Road, still have to go out onto Corinth Road, and the access to Corinth Road, at this point, which is not as nice as this. I don't think you're going to get anybody in the Town to say it's not safe. MR. RUEL-Okay. That clarifies that. MR. O'CONNOR-The question that's going to be asked of you directly is, do you see a road block? This Board has the authority to amend the subdivision plans, if you see a road block to dOing this, if we show you, from an engineering point of view, that we meet the drainage and the engineering that you normally have with subdivision. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'll go first. No. I don't see a road block. I see it as an improvement. but I also, if at all possible, would like to see the new configuration have a minimum of 20,000 square feet, and that would fix all the old questions, would it not? MR. O'CONNOR-We don't have that authority. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. What you're doing is you're reconfiguring, you're dropping seven lots. big improvement. You're going up in size on almost all the lots. All I'm asking, and I don't think it's a road block, but have your engineer, reconfigure, gee, if you drop one lot all of a sudden, all of them are 20,000 and above. I'm sure you, take another look at it. MR. O'CONNOR-Our problem is, Mr. McDonald has some strict contractual relationships with us. or a strict contractual relationship with us, and we don't have that authority. MR. LAPOINT-Well, that's basically his subdivision to do with. MR. O'CONNOR-It's his subdivision. He's allowing us to use it as an entrance, based upon him having X number of lots. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Well, if there's mean, there's some kind of give and just make it so easy, in my mind, square feet, with respect to what's a contractual relationship, I take on both sides. It would if all of those were 20,000 been done in the past. MR. O'CONNOR-I recognize it's an improvement, but I'll tell you up front. it's not going to happen, and if that not happening makes it something that you're not going to approve, and we know everything else is an improvement, then I think the Board wants to know that in your report. MR. LAPOINT-No. It's not a road block for me. Like I say, I can't imagine knocking out one or two of those lines in there wouldn't fix everything, and if you have some type of contractual relationship with him, you could make that up some how. MR. OPPENHEIM-It would be nice if it were that simple. but it is not the case. MR. LAPOINT-Well, then what you can do for me, then, is make sure I have an itemized list of the square footage for each one of those lots in the new proposed, because, I mean, I can sit here and look and one lot there, one lot there, and one lot there and one lot up there are going to eliminate the three small ones, and if you have - 28 - -- -" three that are under 20,000, it may be just that simple. MR. O'CONNOR-Basically what I'm presenting to you is that of the lots that we will change, because the road configuration changes, none of them will be smaller than the lots that were eliminated. They will all be larger, but the smallest lot that they own, that's referred to, and I don't know, is this one on the corner, which is this one? MR. OPPENHEIM-No. Actually, the smallest lot, believe it or not, is this one. I mean, it's deceptive, but this happens to be the smallest lot on this property. It's about 15,000 square feet. MR. LAPOINT-Fifteen thousand. MR. O'CONNOR-And that stays. We're not changing that at all. The road is going by it the same as it did before. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. it would make some everything, all the not a road block. It's not a road block. to me, but again, to me sense to get to that 20,000, to take care of mistakes that were made in the past, but it is MR. 0' CONNOR-And I can't tell you, when they sell those lots '. they might not sell them together, the McDonalds, as you often see sometimes happens. I can't guarantee you that. MR. LAPOINT-He wants 29 lots, and that's what he wants as a minimum. and that's what you have already agreed with him on? MR. OPPENHEIM-That's correct, and another thing that's really driving this is we are. within the general perimeters. we're trying to keep the same road configuration, exclusively of the new entranceway to keep in. MR. LAPOINT-You're right. Well, I divide these up, too, and I've done this type of thing for a living, and like I say, eliminating one or two lot lines and moving things changes none of those roads, and without knowing the size of those lots, you could probably come up with 20,000 fairly simply, and just drop two lots. MR. O'CONNOR-The one other element I'd throw out is I think that the underground power is already in. based upon this number of lots and this configuration. Certainly that could be modified. I know the water line's in. I don't think the water tap's are in until they do building permits. MR. BREWER-Water is in, but I don't think the power is. MR. O'CONNOR-I think the power is. MR. LAPOINT-So, functionally, if we had to change that. MR. BREWER-That may be, but I don't think so. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. MR. LAPOINT-Now, how would we do this functionally? I mean. we'd have to go back. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm bringing in, the end of this month or the beginning of next month, Cedar Court, which is across the street. It's a townhouse project, where you approved, or this Board, your predecessors for the most part, approved a townhouse project with a footprint lot. Each lot was per the outside of the building. That has not been successful from a marketing point of view, because, when they have the footprint, they have to put too much into the homeowners association for maintenance, the monthly charge is too much and it would scare everybody away. They're coming back, and they're asking to change the configuration of the lot, so - 29 - - -..-" that there would be individual lots for each townhouse. We did that by letter. and that's the same as what I would propose here. In fact, I'm of a mind that if this thing is going to go forward, we probably will file the letter fairly qUickly. This is something that the Town Board has suggested, because they know where we stand, as far as road blocks, or not road blocks. You may want some engineering for the road configuration, and we would provide that, but I don't foresee going through Sketch Plan, Preliminary, and Final on a modification. This is really just a, and I oversimplified it. Jim Martin. I don't know whether you agree with me or not, we're changing lot lines. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you're closing roads, too. and you're creating new lots. You're not just moving lot lines. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So you plan on doing it via letter that we would make a motion on? MR. MARTIN-If this were to come to me today as an official request, the first thing I would say is, I'd like authorization from them to send it on to Rist-Frost, and they incur the cost for their review. because either there's an alteration of drainage patterns here. That's the first and foremost concern I would have, from a Staff point of view. MR. LAPOINT-Right, but it would come in front of us as a modification to an existing subdivision, and that is actually what we would move on? MR. MARTIN-Right, and there is no formal process within the Ordinance for review of a modification. Typically in the past the Board has just accepted a letter requesting a modification, and then at that time, you look at what you want to decide are the issues, and it can be maybe dealt with in one meeting, or maybe it takes several meetings. depending on the number of issues. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I buy that process. MR. DUSEK-Ultimately what happens, though, is they generate a map that will be filed up at the County. You'll actually have to approve a particular map with the new configuration, and then it's filed up at the County as an amendment to the previous filings. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-I honestly would foresee that we would put all this in, and ask for your approval and ask for an immediate extension of the normal filing time with the County. because this is going to be conditioned upon the PUD being approved on the other end. So, we get the approval in place and then we go forward with the Planned Unit Development, and we file on the same basis, I don't see us getting through this Planned Unit Development. the SEQRA, and then coming back to this Board for site plan review, subdivision approval, within six months. MR. LAPOINT-Thank you. MRS. TARANA-I just have one question about the lot, I don't know what direction that is, but at the top of the map, where it's got that skinny little arm goes out to the Corinth Road, the very top. What prevents that lot owner from going right out to Corinth Road? MR. OPPENHEIM-The width. MRS. TARANA-Isn't it a road width, or a driveway? MR. BREWER-It's got to be 40. MRS. TARANA-It's not a driveway width, I mean. a car couldn't drive through there? - 30 - -- -- MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the old map, okay, if you look at the old map, that's the way he's going to get access. MRS. TARANA-That one owner? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That's why it was done that way. MRS. TARANA-I wondered why it was such a strange shape. MR. to' CONNOR-tHe tqas no taccess to the ¡internal. hWhenh you look at wlia we -ãò, :ha s ano ,her, mayDe, p us. we s ow, ere, 11: you want to tell us in your condition that you're going to make us give a restrictive covenant that it not be access, that's probably within our realm. MR. OPPENHEIM-Actually, we'd be happy to do that. I mean, that's better planning. MRS. TARANA-How big is that lot? MR. OPPENHEIM-That lot there, which is Lot 36, is 35,000 square feet. MRS. TARANA-Would it be practical to cut that arm off and make, just put trees there or something, a buffer between the two property owners? MR. OPPENHEIM-Well, I think as long as we put a, if it's something that makes sense for everyone here, as long as we put a restriction. MR. MACEWAN-It would make a good horseshoe pit. narrow. It's long and MRS, TARANA-I don't know. I think it's a lot of probably wasted property that somebody's going to have to pay taxes on. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but what would you do with it? MRS. TARANA-They'll pay taxes on it and have no use for their property. I mean. from a developer's point of view, it would seem like it might be a better idea to get rid of that arm. MR. MARTIN-The only thing you could suggest is maybe conveyance to a neighboring property over on Corinth Road. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't know how it got that way. other questions? Do you have any MRS. TARANA-I like that plan better than, of course, I like the lollipops. I think they're kind of nice. It slows traffic down. It creates a neighborhood sort of an atmosphere. I like it better than the other. I haven't seen this property, to tell you the truth. I must have come up, I think it was right as I came on the Board, because I vaguely remember some of this discussion. MR. MARTIN-You were well on the Board. MRS. TARANA-I was? MR. MARTIN-This was last July when we passed this on. MR. BREWER-I thought it was April? MRS. TARANA-I never went on a site visit and saw this property. MR. MARTIN-It was part of our final report, because we saw this several times, and one of primary concerns was their old access - 31 - -.. -..-' plan through Sherman Island Road, and then they came back in with this arrangement they'd worked out with the McDonalds. MR. BREWER-She's talking about the McDonalds, not the PUD. MR. MARTIN-I thought you meant the PUD, Corinne. I'm sorry. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town's initial approval was '81. I've got a file. I can dig out the file, the notes and everything else. I think it was either redone in '90 or '91. MR. MARTIN-It was just last year we talked about it. It was early spring, late winter that we talked about it. MRS. TARANA-I think it might have been before I came on. MR. MARTIN-Right. There was the whole issue of what actually the variances were given on. MR. LAPOINT-What the Town Board is asking, Resolved that the Town Board of Queensbury hereby requests that the Planning Board render a report and it's recommendations concerning the proposed modification to the Southern Exposure Subdivision, and whether the said Board feels that there are any environmental issues or other concerns with regard to the proposed modifications. That's what they want us to do? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Can we come up with something tonight, or does everybody want to go home and think about this? MR. RUEL-I see no environmental impacts, and I don't see any other concerns. I see an improvement. My recommendation would be to accept it as is. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That paraphrases the way I feel about it. MRS. TARANA-I'm not real sure. I haven't seen it, and I'm a little uncomfortable not seeing it. I sort of like the way it looks. I don't know anything about the land or the property. MR. LAPOINT-I don't think we're going to come up with a formal report, are we? MR. BREWER-Not a formal report tonight. MR. RUEL-Just a recommendation, right? MR. LAPOINT-It says, render a report and its recommendations. MR. RUEL-What's a report? MR. DUSEK-It's really very similar to your recommendations that you make, like when you did the PUD. What they're looking for is just a feeling from this Board, just on the issues. I think you've already hit it when you said, I don't see any environmental impact. That's a report. That's a part of the report. MR. RUEL-I'm responding to what our Town Fathers are asking us. MR. DUSEK-Right. They're curious, because they're about to embark on an EIS for this project, and before they get into all of that process, they want to make sure that. MR. RUEL-They want to make sure that this doesn't effect it. MR. DUSEK-Right. If you guys see some environmental impacts that they haven't thought of, they'd like to know it. Also they don't want to get into this whole process and then find out that this - 32 - -- ..-' piece of the puzzle, in the end, is going to cause a problem. MR. RUEL-Yes. Right. MR. LAPOINT-So if we were to come up with a paragraph that said, that summarizes the way this is going to go, in terms of functional letter and new drawing with engineering review, with respect to the road configuration and drainage patterns if altered, that we would look at it via that mechanism, and that we don't see anything that's an improvement over? MR. DUSEK-Right. I think that's what you're going to do, and I don't think you need to do a letter. I tnink you could just simply put it in the form of a motion. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd say pass these minutes onto the Board. MR. RUEL-Since you came up with the idea of a report, then barrister should be the ones to respond, in the form of a report, right. for us. MR. MACEWAN-The who? MR. RUEL-The attorney. If it's a report you want. MR. DUSEK-I think just a resolution would be fine. MRS. TARANA-I'm just kind of curious. They want a resolution about how we feel about this new plan, and then this new plan is going to be submitted to us for approval? Is that what's happening here? MR. DUSEK-Well, I guess, I just picked that up tonight. Apparently, I thought that this part was gOing to wait until after the PUD had gone through its cycles, then they were going to come in, later. but apparently. from what I'm hearing from Mike tonight, is that you're thinking about putting this in right of way. MR. O'CONNOR-At the very least, we've said up to this point that they would be simultaneously considered by this Board. You've got to do the subdivision once we get the PUD designation. You have to do the balance. We're in asking the Town Board for a PUD classification. Once they give us the PUD classification, then we go through an entire approval process that's before this Board. We put in the Sketch Plan. We put in the Preliminary. MRS. TARANA-But that's Hudson Point. MR. O'CONNOR-That's Hudson Point. MRS. TARANA-What happens with this one? MR. O'CONNOR-We had anticipated that we would do the amendment, the same time we did that. The issue has come up as to whether or not this is going to be a road block. down the road, after we've spent an enormous amount of money on the PUD, and we'd just as soon get it resolved now. We think that we've improved it from a planning concept, from a planning point of view, in many different ways. It really stands on its own. as I've said, and I thought that tonight, Paul, as I sat here. We're better off getting this thing amended, asking for an extension of the time that you have to file at the County Clerk's Office, and then going forward with the PUD. MR. DUSEK-Well, as I sit here. and Mike said that for the first time. and I started thinking about it, whether or not it would work, and I think it could work, but I think the Board has to make a determination as to whether or not they feel that that amendment to that subdivision would stand on its own merits. In other words, if the Hudson Point PUD never came to pass, or was not even on this. would that proposal be something you would consider for that subdivision? And the reason why I phrase it that way is not - 33 - "-, ~ because that is what will happen. Maybe it will and maybe it won't, but according to their plan it won't happen unless the PUD happens, but my point is that for you to consider it legally, it seems to me that if he's asking you not to tie it to the PUD, which is what you're doing, then you'd want to consider it on its own merits, and if it passes. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't have a problem with the Board conditioning it to being tied to the PUD. I don't mean to confuse the issue, but I want to know definitely, are you going to approve this amendment or not, if it engineers out correctly so that there's no drainage problems. There's no sense having shadows in the closet. MRS. TARANA-I'm still not clear as to what's happening. I'll tell you why. I thought, that plan got approval. but this plan has not got approval. Aren't we supposed to be looking, then, at this as a whole new plan, and forget that as a plan? MR. DUSEK-Which plan is this? MR. MARTIN-You have a right to modify. You just did that tonight with Hickory Acres and their drainage. MR. DUSEK-Are you talking about the plan that? MRS. TARANA-The old plan, the middle plan. MR. DUSEK-This is the way it exists now. MRS. TARANA-Okay, and that's the one that got approval. MR. DUSEK-Back in 1981. MRS. TARANA-Whenever. Okay. Now aren't we supposed to forget that as an old plan, and look at this as a new plan, in which case? MR. DUSEK-No, you don't have to. I mean, that's one way of handl ing it, but an appl icant can come in, see, he has a full approval on this plan already. He can come in, once a mylar's on file, theoretically right now, he could go ahead and build this thing out. That's his position, and I think, legally, that's probably a pretty fair statement, with the exception of perhaps some issues over the lots, but generally speaking he could develop this. MR. MACEWAN-There was a case in point. Remember the billiards place up there in Lake George, where they had their plat already signed, it was on file, and they found something wrong with the parking lot, that they weren't supposed to have so many parking spaces, and they wanted to modify the whole parking lot to accommodate the wetland area out there. MR. DUSEK-See, you can go in, when an applicant has a situation like this, they could come in and say, we want to scrap the whole subdivision and start allover. On the other hand, especially in a situation like this where he has a lot of grandfathering rights and what not, and he's got a road already in, he wouldn't want to do that, because it's going to be too costly and it could be damaging to them. They have the right to come in and simply say, okay, this is our plan, but we want to modify just this piece of it, and that's why I was trying to make the point, just for easier understanding, forget about the Hudson Point PUD for a moment, and say, okay, here's this subdivision. Here's what they want to do now is have access in this fashion to this subdivision. Would that be something that you would say, yes, it looks good to us. If it is, then I think you could consider it on its own merits, still tie it, as Mike is suggesting, to the PUD, but look at it in and of itself and then say, okay, I understand you want this to go with this project, but this will make it on its own, in our opinion, and then that way you can move ahead on it. I think it's a little - 34 - "-' '-../ easier to understand. We know that, want, and we know what's triggering Mike even said it himself, I think he its own merits, of course that'll be in the end, this is what they this amendment, but I think. argued that it could stand on your call. MR. O'CONNOR-I think. from a planning point of view, it could stand on its own merits, but let me be very honest with you. From a practical point of view, the McDonalds aren't going to amend that subdivision one iota, and give up one grandfathered right that they have, if they don't have this deal with Niagara Mohawk. They've already got the road in and they've already got the water in. There just isn't, I can show YOU on a pie~e of .paper. There just lsn t'the economics to even nave tnem cðnS1aer cttanglng tnlngs. ~o I'm not trying to shift things back and forth or play games with you. MR. DUSEK-But I think that's the practical side. Mike, the Board understands that. My only point is as they though. that they think of it in terms of isolation. to analyze. That's all. and I think look at it, It's easier MR. O'CONNOR-I don't have a problem with them conditioning their report or their resolution to the Town, saying that as part of, if the PUD is approved. they're not going to have a problem making this modification. MR. RUEL-This letter asks us to just look at that. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. RUEL-It didn't say anything about looking at the whole picture. It just said to look at that, at the modification, and asked us, any impacts, environmental or otherwise. MR. LAPOINT-Now assuming that there's only three of us to move on this anyway, and it's just a recommendation, we ought to be able to do that tonight. MR. RUEL-I think so. MR. LAPOINT-For Tim's benefit. Tim and Corinne's, assuming there's just three of us to move on a recommendation, that ought to be acceptable, and what I did is I drafted something out here, and let me read it all the way through. With respect to the Town Board's request for a recommendation on modifications to the Southern Exposure Subdivision: One, the concept of the changes are an improvement to the existing subdivision. Two, there are no obvious environmental impacts with respect to the Hudson Point PUD. Three, the Planning Board's concerns are listed as follows: a. The applicant should supply, for engineering review, details on the street configuration and stormwater drainage plan. b. That the applicant file a letter request for a modification which addresses engineering concerns to the Town Planning Board for approval, and then whatever else we want to add. Does that sound a reasonable start? I can write it differently. MR. RUEL-It sounds good to me. MR. DUSEK-I think, I mean, if that's, not addressing the substantive issues, from certainly the way you've outlined it I think is exactly in response to what the Town wanted to know. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Well, that's what I'm prepared to make, and assuming there's only three of us to vote on it, we can just pass it along in recommendation form? MR. RUEL-I'll second it. - 35 - - -- MR. MACEWAN-Why is there only three of us to vote on it? MR. LAPOINT-Well, I was assuming that you were, or maybe there's four. It makes no difference to me, and I would change it as, to make it a consensus of as many of us we could possibly get. MR. DUSEK-Well, now the problem you have is if only three of you pass it, it's not a Board. MR. LAPOINT-It's not an official recommendation? MR. DUSEK-The only way you can have an official Board decision from the Board, is by a majority vote. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Well, okay. Lets say it fails. Lets say it's three to one, or three to two. or whatever it works out to be, then I would make a motion, after that, that we just pass all of the minutes along to them to take a look at. MRS. TARANA-Couldn't that be the report? MR. LAPOINT-I thought it would be nice to, they did ask us. I think it's incumbent on us to come up with some type of response. MR. MACEWAN-Are you satisfied with the questions regarding lot sizes from the original development? MR. DUSEK-I had forgotten about that meeting that Mike mentioned involving Ted Turner. I do remember Ted standing up in a meeting at the Planning Board, and I think that, at this point. MR. MARTIN-I recall that we consciously decided that it was a non- issue, because I remember getting annoyed and frustrated with it, and we just wanted to get rid of it. MR. MACEWAN-What does our lawyer say? MR. DUSEK-Well, in light of what Ted has said that night, I think that's certainly, in my mind, persuasive evidence that the Board intended to give the variance that it gave, and certainly the Planning Board did not want to attack its filing that night. They decided not to, so in my opinion it stands. I'm certainly not going to be the one that says we should go after it when the Planning Board said no, and Ted Turner himself has said, in other words, the proof is stacked towards what the applicant is saying. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman. MR. BREWER-We've got a motion if you guys want to move. MRS. TARANA-I'm not sure that I am ready to make a recommendation. I would like to look at the property. That's just my feeling. I would like to do that. MR. LAPOINT-If we were to go out and take a look, or think about this, can we write this down in a letter form, that we sign as a group, say in a week, or three or four days, or? MR. BREWER-We could go look at it at site visits, and then, site visits will probably be the 10th, and then get together the next Tuesday. It could be sent to them. MR. DUSEK-I think you've got some time, if that's what you need. I mean, I don't think you have to, correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, unless you feel there's some other time table, but if they took a week or ten days to get back to you on it, or the Town Board, I - 36 - ,-- - -- don't think anybody's going to. MR. BREWER-It would be the 16th. MR. O'CONNOR-The time is fine. The time table is fine. MR. LAPOINT-Then we'll shoot for a motion. MR. MARTIN-You can drop it off to the Planning Office. You don't have to mail it. MR. 0' CONNORi-Isvour co.nclllsion.J though, iand I'm not sure if your conclusion s t':hat It t:hlS meets eng neering stanaards, the modification would be approved? I think they want to know that, yes or no. MR. LAPOINT-Well, if the engineering concerns were addressed. I would vote yes, but I'm not sure how everybody else feels, and I can't put that in a motion, how I'd vote. MR. O'CONNOR-I think that's what they're asking for, if you look at the Town Board resolution. MR. DUSEK-Well, I don't know that they're asking that far. Mike, and I would agree with what Ed just said. He can't tell you, now. that he's going to approve, otherwise they'd waive their right to approve or disapprove this thing later. I mean, I know what you'd like. MR. LAPOINT-I guess what I'm asking the applicant is that you file a letter request that addresses any engineering concerns to us for approval, and I mean, at that point, if all engineering, I've seen enough of the concept that I don't want to go over this anymore. I'd vote yes. MR. 0' CONNOR-Are you willing to take a position at this time? Because again, you're not talking a small amount of dollars here. Every time you do something, this is what we're simply asking. in fairnes~. We spent almost a year trying to find out whether or not the Town Board wanted an EIS, and we were led to believe they didn't want an EIS. With due respect to the Town Board, the night of the vote. when they sat their with the resolution saying no EIS was necessary, they changed. MR. OPPENHEIM-Let me just go one step further back. When we came in with this, we'd probably been in the process about a year, and from Day One, the biggest issue. and we had informal discussions with the Planning Board, was access to the site, and concern with Sherman Island Road. We went back to the Planning Board. We were able to secure access through Foothills. Again, came to the Planning Board, got a lot of input, not favorable, from the neighbors, because of concern, even with the secondary access on Sherman Island Road. that that wasn't enough. We went back again, at the direction of the Planning Board, to secure this point of access. So at this stage in the process, obviously we're experiencing a high level of frustration here, but we are at a point where we are considering going forward with the EIS. We are looking, in addition to that, we are looking at, if for some reason we didn't get the input we were hoping for with this, we'd look at maybe going back to a plan that would again propose to use Sherman Island Road. I don't know how we're going to do that, but we need some firm direction here, just from a planning process, because we're about to embark on another six months of environmental planning that would tie into a specific use, and I feel that we've been directed to this use over nine months ago by the Planning Board. MR. BREWER-I guess it comes down to. the question is, do we wait a week, or do we go forward? - 37 - --- - MRS. TARANA-I' d like to wait a week. That's just my feeling because of what Paul said. we have to look at it, if it would stand on it's own. I haven't even, I mean, I'm uncomfortable going ahead with it today. My gut reaction is I like the layout. but I'd still like to just be sure by looking at it. MR. DUSEK-What is it, Corinne. just a matter of just wanting to be able to go out and look at the site yourself? MRS. TARANA-Basically, yes, just to get a feel for it. I have some concern, and I can't sit here and try to listen and read through these things at the same time. I'm sorry, but I can't. I can remember some project talking about the irregular shaped lots, that that was a problem, and this has got a lot of irregular shaped lots, and I just don't know if that's an issue or not. MR. OPPENHEIM-I would just add, we are reducing the number. MRS. TARANA-I know all that, and I'm trying to get that all together. I'd really like just a little bit of time to look at it. before I. The ones that you're changing probably aren't the irregular shaped lots. MR. O'CONNOR-They aren't, for the most part. MRS. TARANA-Except that now we would have an opportunity to eliminate, am I right, if we wanted to change this at all, we'd have that opportunity now? MR. DUSEK-Well, I guess, from what the developer is telling you. apparently there's certain lock ins for them that they're not able to change, and they're basically saying to you, look, what you have is there now, nobody likes, or not nobody. I guess the developers like it. but. not these developers, but McDonalds are obviously happy with what they've got, but they're saying to you, we can't cure all the problems that you may see with this, but we're making an improvement, and if we're willing to make an improvement, is that good enough for you, and that's really what the issue is that's before you, is not whether, I don't think you can, you know, you certainly can't get in and try, on a modification, it's their call to you, and you've got to decide whether you're going to grant that modification. MR. BREWER-So, in other words. if we had a modification, and we said we don't like that, they say no, then? MR. DUSEK-They go back to what they have. MR. MARTIN-And build on it right now. MRS. TARANA-Back to that? MR. DUSEK-Right. See, that's the trick, here, with the modification. They've already got vested rights to develop, and it's, what they're saying to you is we're willing to offer you something better, but we can't cure everything, and then your call is, well, it's not good enough. and go back to what you had, or. yes, I think this is better, and so go with this, and the catch of it all, though, is, the final catch, and as Mike has admitted to you, is that it's all contingent upon whether the PUD make it. If it doesn't, then none of this will probably come to pass. MR. MARTIN-And the other thing I used to like to stress, when I was on the Board. is consistency of review, and quite frankly. I've never seen a project that just seems to get caught in every little snafu that can come down the pike. Whenever I was on the Board. and any time since, the Board has always looked at a modification, and sometimes these modifications come to us three days before the meeting, and I put them on the agenda, and they're dealt with, like Hickory Acres Subdivision. Did you go see that this month? - 38 - -- ~ MRS. TARANA-I've seen Hickory Acres. I've never seen this one. MR. MARTIN-All I'm trying to say is. modifications are usually dealt with. MR. BREWER-There's a big difference between that modification and this modification, Jim. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but there's been other ones that have been just like this. MR. BREWER-What? MR. MARTIN-We had the Raven Industry one, on the side of West Mountain Road. MR. BREWER-I don't remember that. I didn't do that. MR. MARTIN-It was just modified four months ago. MR. BREWER-Four months ago? MR. O'CONNOR-You modified Cedar Court on the basis of a letter. MR. DUSEK-Well, I think, my advice to the Board would be. first of all, if you want to take some time to do it, I think you certainly have the time. That's no question about it, and then the second thing would be, I think. my advice to you would be. if you want it to be a Board decision, you should have at least four votes, and if some of the members would like to take a look at it. it's certainly legally permissible and you can do that, and bring yourselves back together at a later date and then make the decision. Mike has indicated to you a seven to ten day time period wouldn't cause him a terrible problem, and maybe that would give you a chance to check out some of these other issues that may be of concern. MR. BREWER-And the other two members could also decide. MR. DUSEK-Right. MR. MACEWAN-It's a plausible idea. MR. O'CONNOR-Do mischaracterized close proximity voting. we have an issue, and I guess maybe I Mr. MacEwan, but I would think, because of your to the subdi vi sion, you may be prohibited from MR. MACEWAN-Why is that? No one ever raised that issue before. and I have voted on everything to do with Hudson Point since I've been on the Board, and no one's ever raised that issue before, and I've never voted negatively against it. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm not casting my comment. MR. MACEWAN-You're casting aspersions. MR. 0' CONNOR-No, no. Okay. It is an aspersion t but I'm not casting it because of how you voted. I know how you voted, but I don't want to have a problem with the vote from either side of the table. I want to have a fair playing field, and I don't want people to say that I don't have a fair playing field. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. What makes you think that you're not getting a fair playing field? MR. O'CONNOR-Simply because of your proximity to the site. Again, it's not an issue of whether it is or isn't. It's the percePtion of whether it is or it isn't. MR. MACEWAN-I guess what I'm asking is, why wasn't it a problem - 39 - '",-- '-' before? Why is it now all of a sudden a problem? MR. O'CONNOR-Because in all honesty. there was one other vote by this Board, and it was whether or not to refer it to the Town Board. It was the first night that you sat on the Planning Board, and you were not recognized as somebody who had taken an active position with regard to the subdivision until after the meeting was over. MR. BREWER-Yes, he was, because Carol mentioned it. when she mentioned my conflict. That doesn't make any difference. If I'm not going to vote, and he's not going to vote, you're not going anywhere. MR. O'CONNOR-If you're saying you're going to vote. that's fine. You've made your decision. That's your decision, not my decision. MR. LAPOINT-See, if you don't have a conflict, you vote. MR. MARTIN-From my point of view. I don't know that a resolution is absolutely necessary, based on the resolution that was passed by the Town Board. It's simply asking for a report. If we have individual reports. We have Ed's report, Roger's report, Craig's report, if you want it, and Corinne's report. MR. MARTIN-I just want to get to an end. MR. BREWER-Why can't we wait a week and let them do what they want to do? MR. O'CONNOR-No. Lets resolve this. Lets not have five reports. MR. LAPOINT-Lets do it, our next meeting is the 16th. sure we're on the agenda for the 16th. Lets make MR. MARTIN-There is going to be no meeting on the 16th. There's going to be one on the 23rd. because there's a light load, and it's going to be the last regular meeting date. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry, I thought it was the 16th. MR. MACEWAN-What's the problem with giving these guys a special meeting. for the 16th? MR. MARTIN-You're literally going to come here for about five or ten minutes. MR. MACEWAN-I have no problem with that. MR. LAPOINT-That's our job. MR. MARTIN-Okay. We'll have a special meeting. MR. LAPOINT-As long as we resolve something. meeting if we're not resolve. Lets not have a MR. O'CONNOR-The 23rd's fine. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. The 23rd's fine. MR. BREWER-Are you sure? sooner. If you want it sooner, we'll do it MR. MARTIN-What about the idea of a letter signed by all the members of the Planning Board? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Again, let Corinne take a look at the site. MRS. TARANA-Am I the only one that wants to look at the site? - 40 - --- '-" MR. BREWER-No. There's two people that aren't here. MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I'm saying, have everybody go look at the site, and then you can sign a letter if you want. MR. BREWER-Can we get a copy of these maps for the other two members that weren't here? MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes. I actually have copies of the proposed revisionsl and I know that Mr. Martin has copies of the existing plan on fIe. MR. BREWER-Okay. Could we have copies of that? MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I don't have that nice detailed blow up of the proposed. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I'd just as soon do it, particularly if you have two people that weren't here to participate, I would just as soon. MR. BREWER-Can we have copies of the old map and the new map in our packets this month? MR. MARTIN-I don't have copies of that detailed blow up of the McDonald Subdivision, Allen. MR. BREWER-Do you have that, Allen? MR. OPPENHEIM-We can get you that. MR. BREWER-Before the 10th, possibly? MR. OPPENHEIM-Yes. MR. BREWER-Because that's when we go on site visits, is the 10th. MR. OPPENHEIM-We can get you that. MR. RUEL-Mr. Chairman, you mentioned something about visiting the site. Let me ask, are there roads there? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Are they plowed? MR. BREWER-Yes. They're Town roads. MR. RUEL-If we don't vote on that new one, they can revert back to that old one. So our only alternative is to find a better new one. MR. BREWER-No. They said, this is what they're offering us, do we want to accept it? That's the bottom line. MR. RUEL-The Town Board is asking us whether that modification has any environmental or other impacts. I haven't heard this evening anywhere anyone mention any sort of impact. All I heard was a discussion about lot size. MR. LAPOINT-You see, they do link it to the Hudson Point PUD, and they're going to undertake a SEQRA with that, and they want to know if we are going to have any problems with that modification? It's just that simple. MRS. TARANA-Now, did this other one go through SEQRA already? MR. LAPOINT-The old one? everything. Yes. The old one is approved, has - 41 - "'- -- MRS. TARANA-So this one can't have any impact. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that it would be classified as, I think it's going to be classified as Type II. I can't assure you of that, but I think it's going to be classified as Type II. So, it's not going to require an assessment form. MR. BREWER-Did it the first time? MR. MARTIN-Yes, the first time, but modifications usually don't. MRS. TARANA-So the only question is the drainage. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Which is the way I put it in my motion. MRS. TARANA-The only environmental question that would show up on the EAF. MR. LAPOINT-Right. That and the street configuration somehow isn't a 90 degree angle coming out onto Corinth Road, our engineer would tell us that, and then we'd have to think about that. If it's not a 90, then it's a problem. He says it is, but again, they have to take a look at it for us. MR. 0' CONNOR-It is and it will be. We understand that that's a regulation. The question is, what are you going to know in the next week, or two weeks? MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-I honestly don't think you're going to see anything different then what's there. MR. LAPOINT-Probably not. MRS. TARANA-Probably not. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, it looks better on paper than it's going to look under snow. MR. MARTIN-And be advised, this is just a recommendation. They're still going to have to come back to you for your formal vote on approving the modification. MRS. TARANA-Yes. I guess I'm comfortable with it. MR. LAPOINT-Do you want me to read my motion again? MRS. TARANA-Yes. Read it again. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. This would just be a recommendation motion to the Town Board. With respect to the Town Board's request for a recommendation on modifications to the Southern Exposure Subdivision: One, the concept of the changes are an improvement to the existing subdivision plan. Two, there are no obvious environmental impacts with respect to the Hudson Point PUD. Three, the Planning Board concerns are listed as follows: a. That the applicant supply, for engineering review, details on the street configuration and stormwater drainage plan. b. That the applicant file a letter request for a modification which addresses any engineering concerns to the Town Planning Board for approval. and then I left open c, if anybody has anything they'd like to add. MR. RUEL-Could you add the word "major", after obvious. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I don't even like the word "obvious". One or the other. MR. O'CONNOR-But aren't you saying that there are no environmental or other concerns with the proposed amendment? You aren't passing - 42 - .--... -- on the PUD. MR. LAPOINT-No. I'm saying there are no obvious envi ronmental impacts with respect to the Hudson Point PUD. MR. O'CONNOR-Don't you mean, with respect to the modification? MR. LAPOINT-With respect to the modifications, respect to the Hudson Point PUD. MR. RUEL-That's not what you're saying. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Then I'll write it differently. respect to the modification. Okay. With MR. RUEL-And it's possible effect on the overall, right? MR. LAPOINT-With respect to the modifications, there are no obvious environmental impacts. MR. O'CONNOR-Or other concerns. MR. RUEL-Yes, because they ask that. Use the same words. MR. LAPOINT-Impact or other concerns. So, Number Two would read, wi th respect to the modifications, there are no obvious environmental impacts or other concerns. Is that better? MR. RUEL-Good work. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Should I make a motion? MR. RUEL-Make it. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION THAT THE OUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SEND THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION ON TO THE OUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: With respect to the Town Board's request for a recommendation on modifications to the Southern Exposure Subdivision: One, the concept of the changes are an improvement to the existing subdivision plan. Two, with respect to the modifications. there are no obvious environmental impacts or other concerns. Three, the Planning Board concerns are as follows: A. The applicant should supply, for engineering review, details on the street configuration and stormwater drainage plan. B. That the applicant file a letter request for a modification which addresses any engineering concerns to the Town Planning Board for approval. C. That the applicant demonstrate that the modifications do not decrease in size any of the existing lots. DUly adopted this 2nd day of March, 1993. by the fOllowing vote: MR. RUEL-I have a question. You mentioned about an improvement. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. RUEL-Do you want to repeat that part? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That was Number One. The concept of their changes are an improvement to the existing subdivision plan. MR. RUEL-There's no necessity for even mentioning that. If you want to respond to the letter that we got from the Town Board. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I think it's our most blatant statement of, that we think that this is an improvement over the existing plan. - 43 - ',,---, '..-' MR. RUEL-That's not what they're aSking us, though. MR. O'CONNOR-Indirectly, I think they are. MR. DUSEK-Well, in the context of aSking you for a report, I think that that's a legitimate comment. MR. RUEL-If you think it helps. MR. DUSEK-Well, if you feel it's true, I think it would help. MR. RUEL-I know it's true, but what I'm saying is, we weren't asked the question, and there's no need to respond to that. If you want to, that's fine. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I like the idea of telling them, I think it's an improvement. MR. RUEL-I think so, too, but I think we should respond to the request. MR. LAPOINT-Corinne had a question. MRS. TARANA-I'm just wondering, it does ask if we have any other concerns, and if we should state the concern that we have about the lot size, just because it is an issue that doesn't seem really resolved. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. C, under our concerns, and that the applicant supply a table comparing the existing sized lots in the approved subdivision to the modified. MR. O'CONNOR-Are you saying that the Board is concerned that any of the lots that are effected by the modification not be smaller than the lots as they preexisted the modification? Is that what you're saying? You don't want us creating smaller lots than what is presently there? MR. LAPOINT-Right. MRS. TARANA-That are presently there? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. That's a legitimate concern. You don't want us decreasing the size of any lot that's there? MRS. TARANA-Yes. Absolutely. We don't want those. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't think there's an issue, and I will argue very strongly that there is not an issue as to the existing lot sizes on the old subdivision map. We've been through that before, at least twice, and we are grandfathered, but we can't make lots. now, smaller than those lots, and that I readily admit. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Item C. And that the applicant demonstrate that the modifications do not decrease in size any of the existing lots. MR. RUEL-Fine. I don't think it's necessary. MR. LAPOINT-Well, it will show that if there's an increase, they've got to prove. AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Rowe MR. MARTIN-Okay. We've got one more issue. Remember the Clearview - 44 - '-' ....- Estate Subdivision on Haviland Road? These two pieces of property here, the 10 foot strips. the condition of the Planning Board was. as you read through the minutes. through Sketch Plan, Preliminary, and Final, was that these be conveyed to the Freibergers and to the Menco guy in England. There's been a little snafu. The attorney for the Raynors has drafted a deed that has a deed restriction in it that there is no access across this lot to Clearview Lane. That is unacceptable to the Freibergers. So, therefore. the conveyance as it stands now will not occur. Paul and I talked about this today. Therefore, technically, we're going to have a subdivision that's not in compliance with our stipulations. MR. LAPpINT-Lets leave it that way Make them do it tþ,e way we wanted lt, r19htr Leave them ln !lmbo, until ~hey ao wna~ s r19h~. MR. MARTIN-Well, it is an issue between two private individuals, but they can't seem to resolve it. as it stands right now. So, they're not going to be in compliance with the stipulations of the approval. MR. DUSEK-Well. here's your problem. Your problem is this. that, first of all, we got a letter from Attorney Backus, not in his capaci ty as Town Judge. but rather as representing one of his clients there. He represents the Freibergers, and he wrote a letter saying. Jim's got a copy of it there. saying that, he's saying, I guess, that the developers wanted them to take this parcel and not have access to Clearview Lane, or they wanted to charge them some kind of money, and the Freibergers don't want to have anything to do with it. Now. I can tell you this much. from a legal standpoint, it's my opinion that Freibergers, unless they accept that deed, there will not be a valid conveyance. Okay. You have to have acceptance, as a matter of law. You can't just, the developers could not simply write a deed out and file it. and give it to them. You can I t do that to people, and if they did, they could take a legal action and remove that deed. So the other thing I can tell you, this. it's my opinion I don't think the Town can make the Freibergers take a deed that they don't want. So if you put those two things together. what you end up with is the developers, with this lot, this lot, this lot, and this lot. and this lot, and according to the way the plan's been approved, then, you've actually got a plan with a nonconforming lot of record that you've created. which of course you can't create, as a matter of law, as a Planning Board. You can only create a proper subdivision. unless they have variances from the Zoning Board. It seemed to me because of the problems with this. that it would be appropriate for the Planning Board to call the developer back in and ask him, what are you going to do with this parcel. because we can't leave it like this. Now, there's any number of potential solutions. It could be attached to this parcel. It could be conveyed to the Freibergers if they'd ever accept it. MR. BREWER-I thought we talked about that, and if we left it like that, they could make it so that the Fre ibergers couldn't come across their property. MR. DUSEK-That's right. but the thing is. from the Town's perspective, if it were tied to this parcel, it's still a legal lot. because it's all part of one. It may be a strange looking lot, and it may block the Freibergers, but that's the law. I mean, that's the way it is. The problem you have right now is that if you don't do something, you've got this little piece right here that still blocks the Freibergers, and it's an illegal lot that you have on your subdivision plan. It bothers me to know that this is on file up at the County, with a problem like this. I'm afraid sooner or later it's going to haunt somebody somewhere some time. I don't know what exact problems it may turn up for you, but I'm just concerned that it's not a good idea to leave something like that. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Lets call them back in. - 45 - '- --- MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And tell them that if they didn't meet the stipulations and they can't come to an agreement between the two parties, the deal's off. You don't have your subdivision. MR. BREWER-Yes. I don't like the idea of tying it to that and making a flag shaped lot. I don't like that idea because you're locking them away from the road. MR. DUSEK-Well, the problem is you've got to do something with it. and I don't know what you're going to do with it. MR. BREWER-If we did that, though. Paul. MR. MARTIN-I would recommend strongly against existence of a 10 foot lot connected with this lot. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Because I remember we discussed. at the time, conveying it to the Town. and Paul Naylor didn't want it. So, the next best thing was to deed it over to the Freibergers. MR. BREWER-That's what, what we're doing, if we let them make that flag shaped lot, we're serving his purpose. because he did that exactly for that reason. MR. MARTIN-He was on the record as stating. MR. BREWER-That he wante~ to get money back for the road. MR. MARTIN-Yes, because he paid to install the road, and he wanted his money back, so he's using this as leverage. MR. BREWER-Exactly, and I don't think we should allow him to do that. MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. MACEWAN-Who's the developer? MR. MARTIN-Raynor. MR. BREWER-Ron Raynor. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, we doubled over backwards for this guy. MR. BREWER-He did the top part, didn't he, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes, well that's the other thing that's really. I think, I've got to go back and check, but these people here are the only one with a deed restriction. The deed restrictions not here. HR. LAPOINT-Which could give people flow through, which flies in the face of what he told us when he was in front of us. So this is some kind of little spite deal he's got going on. MR. DUSEK-Well, before you pass decision on it, all I recommended to Jim today was to get this back before you, and then not to make a decision or not even to get into the merits. but simply to call everybody back in, and then with open minds, here everybody out, and see if a new solution can come about. In fairness to the developer, and he'll criticize you if you start discussing it tonight, and I think it's right that you would just simply decide that, hey, we're alerting you that we've gotten a letter there's a problem, and now it's up to the Board whether or not you want to call them back in. That's Y9\U. call. I can't make that. Jim can't make it, but that's about as much as I would recommend you consider tonight, whether you call them back in or not. and if you - 46 - "-' --.,/ think you should, then let them come back in and talk it over with everybody and see what the problem is. Maybe you'll hear some other different stories or something. MR. BREWER-It's my opinion we should call them back. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION THAT THE STAFF WRITE MR. RAYNOR. WITH CARBON COpy TO THE FREIBERGERS. ASKING HIM TO COME BEFORE THB BOARD TO DISCUSS OUR fREVIOUS SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1991, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 2nd day of March. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mrs. Rowe MR. DUSEK-A couple of issues came up that I wanted to talk to you about the other night, but you kind of ran a little late. I knew you wouldn't want to hang around. One, very briefly, and this is, just tuck it away in your minds, the next time you ever have a vote on Officers or something, that has to be done publicly. You cannot use secret ballots. Okay. Somebody raised an issue over that, and I looked it up and researched it, and you've got to do a roll call vote. MRS. TARANA-Why is that? MR. DUSEK-Open meetings law requires that nothing be done secretively. MR. BREWER-It says in Roberts Rules that's the preferred method. MRS. TARANA-So that overrules Roberts Rules of Order? MR. DUSEK-It's State law, though. Roberts Rules of Order is applicable to all organizations, including government, but State law supersedes anything in Roberts Rules, and one of the requirements of State Open meetings law is the business of the public be conducted in open session, and not by way of secret ballot. So that's just. just to pass that on to you, that's all. It's not meaning that you have to explain your vote. but there should be a roll call vote. Now, the other thing I will say is that you might want to consider these other possibility is you can take a vote, not necessarily by roll call. but perhaps you'd consider taking a vote by Ayes and Nays and abstentions. That's another way to take a vote, by verbal. MR. BREWER-Do we have to do that over again now? MR. DUSEK-No. I don't think you have to redo it, but, because it was done in an open meeting. The other thing I just wanted to touch base with you on is I heard some comments briefly that maybe there was some concerns about access to myself, in terms of legal representation, and I wanted to make sure that we don't have a problem there. I'm more than willing to come any time you need me for a particular project. I'm not really in a real good position to be able to come, though. and sit through ever meeting, and in the past. I think there's been a couple of times where that was discussed. I don't think, you folks may not have been, but it's come up a few times with both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. I will tell you, back a few years ago, it was common place for an attorney to sit at both meetings, and when I first became the Town Attorney for the Town I sat at every Planning Board meeting and every Zoning Board meeting. Over time, a couple of things became obvious to me, quite honestly. I saw that, in some - 47 - "-' "---". of the meetings, I just wasn't doing anything. I was sitting here like this, and then after some discussions with the Boards, and with the Town Board, we came to an arrangement for a while where I would stay in my office, and then if they needed me, and then that worked marginally well, and then more recently, when the new Town Board took office, back in '92, they decided that they would like to try to just leave it as, not come to the meetings at all, but when you have a project, if you need me, then certainly I should be available. We've done this, it seems that for some reason I haven't really been too much involved with your Board. I seemed to have been more involved with the Zoning Board. I've been at a few of their meetings. We have had some major projects. I have spent some time with them. We have had small suits, and I think that's why I probably have been a little bit more active with them, because they have been sued a number of times over the past year. Whereas, your Board hasn't been, and that's no reflection, by the way, on the Boards. MR. MACEWAN-We talked, in a workshop session, back in late fall, early winter, to get your assistance when we needed it and the Town Engineer's assistance, when we went out on site visits, we determined that something was going to be a probable problem, we were going to make sure it was at the beginning of the agenda so that we could have either one of you here so we weren't tying you guys up all evening long, that you were there right in the beginning. MR. BREWER-Like we did with Wal-Mart, you mean? MR. DUSEK-If you think there's a problem you need me on, by all means, I'll be here. I mean. I want to give you legal representation when you need it. On the other hand, I don't think it's in your interest, my interest, or the citizens interest. if we have an attorney just sitting here, not doing anything. MR. RUEL-I think it's difficult to anticipate whether you will be needed, because you could have a meeting where we all feel, no, you won't be needed, but somewhere along, you might be required. MR. BREWER-We always have that option of tabling, though. MR. MACEWAN-We get a good feel for it, though. when we go on a site visit. MRS. TARANA-But the thing we did say, too, because we realized your situation, is that if we do have a question, we've got to table, rather than making a mistake. MR. RUEL-We have to table it. MRS. TARANA-Table it until we can get legal advice. MR. RUEL-Yes, but if he were here, we wouldn't have to table it. MRS. TARANA-Yes. but there's no reason for him to sit, meeting after meeting after meeting, if we only need legal advice one time, but I think what some people have felt is that they're pressured to make a decision, and you might make a decision which, for some reason, may not be legal or bring on a law suit, or whatever. MR. BREWER-It irritates applicants, but on the same hand, if we're not comfortable with a decision, I think we should table it. MR. DUSEK-Just let me throw these thoughts out on the table for you to consider. The first thought I have is that, certainly, if you see something coming up, if you're suspicious, even if it doesn't turn out to be a problem, if you feel you want me there, by all means, give me a call and I'll be there, and I think that's one way we can eliminate it. The other thing we can do is that if it looks like you don't think you're going to need me, yet something does - 48 - ""--' --- come up that night, one thing that's a possibility is that you can certainly try to reach me by phone. I'm quite frequently. if I'm not here, I'm home. I'm generally nowhere else. I don't mind a phone call. If you feel it was that important and you wanted to try and resolve it that night, and you think that maybe talking over the phone. I mean, it may not work, but on the other hand it may, and I certainly never would mind a phone call if you were in that situation. The third thing is. if, in fact, all other things fail, and it looks like you can't resolve it that night, you can certainly table it. Generally speaking, you'll never run up against a time frame problem unless you're in the middle of a subdivision approval, anq the tiime clock is runpinq, hut those are very rare cases that you re go ng to De up aga ns~ tnat type or a time clock, and sometimes even if you are, you can get a stipulation with the applicant, because he'll realize what the alternative is, you're going to give him a no vote, perhaps, that he'll give you the extension of time. The other thing I might mention to you is this, quite honestly, even if I'm here, you may come up with a question that I can't answer, and I'll still need some time to research it. That frequently happens with the Zoning Board. We don't always resolve everything that very night. Some times I have to ask for some extensions of time in order to go back and research the issue out, and be able to provide an intelligent answer. I guess what I'm saying to you is I want you, though. to feel comfortable, that you have access to an attorney. I'm the Town Attorney. I'm not just the Town Board's attorney, but the Zoning Board attorney. and I want to represent everybody to the best of my ability. On the other hand, if we find that we're not able to represent everybody, then maybe that tells us we've got to bring in some outside counsel, and I'm not bashful in terms of saying when it's time to do that, and neither should you, but on the other hand. I would like to give a good faith effort on both my part and your part to see if we can make it work, and still give you good quality representation. That's the goal here. That's what I see as my mission, here. if you will, and I want you to feel comfortable, and I want you to have good representation. and then also want to try to save money wherever we can. So, that's what I'd like to try with you, unless you feel, like I say, if you have real strong feelings that you want an attorney here every meeting, I can certainly take it up with the Town Board. MRS. TARANA-I think, for myself. when I feel uncomfortable is when I have an attorney sitting here because you know how attorneys talk, and as a lay person, you don't pick up what they're saying, and that's when I think it's useful to have an attorney here. Generally, when we're dealing with the residents of the Town themselves, I don't usually have a problem with that, but it's when you come up against a Mark Schachner, or. MR. BREWER-How do we know when they're going to be here, though? MRS. TARANA-Do you know that? Do you know who's representing the client, the project? MR. DUSEK-Sometimes you have an idea. Like certainly any time you know any time McDonald, or the Hudson Point thing, that'll be Mike O'Connor. and that may not be a bad idea for Jim to alert me to be at those meetings where we know somebody's going to be there. MRS. TARANA-That's when I would feel most comfortable. MR. DUSEK-Like when the Great Escape comes in with something, you know they're going to have an attorney. MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. Like next month, Paul, the 23rd. This month. MR. DUSEK-But those are the times, certainly, I might as well just plan to come, and I think that may help to address that concern. - 49 - '-- ----- Other times, though, I think it's important for you folks to keep in the back of your mind, though, is don't let anybody, and that's what, even tonight, I tried to indicate to you. You don't have to feel pressured, ever, in your decision. The only time you're going to have a problem is in a very rare instance, where you're in a subdivision approval, where the time clock has run out, and those time clocks are automatic approval after 45 days, if you haven't taken any action. and that's very seldom that that'll happen to you, but if it did, that would be the only one, and even then, if we saw a problem coming. I'm sure we could try and address it. You could schedule a special meeting. That's the other thing. You could always schedule a special meeting. If you feel like the applicant's going to give you a problem, or if you feel uncomfortable making it wait that long, you have that ability, too. MRS. TARANA-Or if you sense that there's going to be. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's what I generally try and do with the larger projects. MRS. TARANA-Yes. Well, even if it's not a larger project. Maybe something like this Raynor thing. I mean, you might have a feel for it ahead of time. I mean, we don't want to be out on a limb, not knowing what we're dOing. MR. BREWER-I think if we look at the agenda, and we know what's going to be here, we can let you know. MR. MARTIN-I think with that type of policy in place, we can reduce any problem to maybe one in ten or two in ten. MR. MACEWAN-Like he said, push comes to shove, he's not here. we don't feel comfortable with it, we can't get a hold of him by phone, we postpone it. We table it until when we can do it. MRS. TARANA-The other thing we can do is if we do request him for a particular project, then that be Number One project, and he can leave. We can change the agenda. MR. MARTIN-Well, just to let you know, the waterslide. the water park is coming from Great Escape, the Sprayground, and another water ride, a brand new one, under one application, and that's got some potential. MR. BREWER-So that would be a good idea to have you here that night. MR. DUSEK-Some of these I think we can probably guess. MR. MARTIN-We're also going to need engineering review on that, also. MR. DUSEK-The other thing is. the final thing, I guess, consider this, too, is why don't we run it as a trial basis. If you find things are not working out, please let me know. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 50 -