Loading...
1993-04-22 - ...-'- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22ND, 1993 INDEX Site Plan No. 55-91 OSCAP, LTD Dexter Outlet 1. Subdivision No. 7-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Cindy Jarvis 3. Subdivision No. 4-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE Guido Passarelli 10. Site Plan No. 13-93 North Queensbury Volunteer Fire, Co. 49. Site Plan No. 14-93 Ferraro Entertainment, Inc. 56. 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. -' --" QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 22ND. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN CAROL PULVER GEORGE STARK MEMBERS ABSENT EDWARD LAPOINT PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, TOM YARMOWICH STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 55-91 OSCAP. LTD DEXTER OUTLET MODIFICATION AND EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL. MODIFICATIONS RESULT OF FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISION BY DOT - CONCERNS THE CONFIGURATION OF THE INTERSECTION AND REPLACEMENT OF DRYWELLS WITH STORMWATER INFILTRATORS IN THE PARKING LOTS. ALSO. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL TO JUNE 25. 1994. MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Let me just ask. do you have any notes? MR. HARLICKER-No. We really didn't do anything for this. From my understanding. it was just a modification of the drainagé system in there. I'll let Tom get into that, and then just a reconfiguration of the entrance, to line it up with Route 149. MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom, would you like to make any comments? MR. YARMOWICH-Warren County Planning had asked that the stormwater aspects be reviewed, for changes on the site. Our letter addresses that. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-F rost, Town Engineer, April 19, 1993, "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project site plan drawings and calculations and supplemental information provided directly to us on April 7. 1993 from the LA Group dated March 31, 1993 to address Rist-Frost Associates comments. The site plan and SWM revisions are acceptable from an engineering standpoint." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have a couple of letters here. One from Mark Schachner. Miller. Mannix, and Pratt. Would you like that read into the record? No. The one from the State we should read into the record. MRS. TARANA-This is addressed to Ms. Christine Kenny, The LA Group, Regarding the Dexter project at the corner of Route 9 & 149 in Queensbury, Warren County, "Dear Ms. Kenny: We have reviewed the Pavement Marking and Signage Plan (Drawing 3) submitted with your March 19, 1993 letter and approved the lane configuration and pavement markings shown on that plan. This supersedes our previous approval of April 27, 1992 for the lane configurations. The original analysis of the Route 9 & 149 intersection, included in - 1 - -- -.-' the Roger Creighton traffic study. is correct. Our comments of April and May of last year are not valid as they were not based on actual observed cycle times. We apologize to both you and your client for the obvious inconvenience and delay we have caused you on this project. Very truly yours, Joseph W. Kelly. Regional Traffic Engineer" MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Thank you. For your records. I'm Mark Schachner, from Miller, Mannix, and Pratt. The attorney for the applicant. As I think is reflected both in the DOT letter and the fact that Staff, our understanding of the Staff's impression was that these are just minor modifications. Therefore, there is no need for detailed Staff Comments. Mr. Yarmowich, on behalf of Rist-Frost, has obviously indicated, from the engineering standpoint, the minor modifications are appropriate and acceptable, and really why we're here is strictly a very minor site plan modifications, and to seek your approval of extension of your previous approval. The entire reason for both the minor modifications and our need to seek an extension can be summed up in one, not word, but one set of three initials, DOT. The letter that you just read really sums it up perfectly. For those of you who were not Board members last June. when this project was approved, and for those of you who were, in case you've forgotten, the Roger Creighton Traffic Study that the DOT letter referred to is our traffic study, the applicant's traffic study. It's the one that we submi tted, over a year ago, and at the time, there were minor points in it that DOT thought may not have been correct. that lead DOT imposition of certain conditions on the entrance and exit from the project site. and what DOT has come to say is that our original analysis was, in fact, correct. That their comments of last April and May were not correct, and as a result. DOT has simply asked us some very minor modifications of the site plan. The modifications are really two. One relates to the entrance, exit way, and one relates to stormwater management. I can describe them both briefly, if you'd like. MR. BREWER-Yes, if you would, please. MR. SCHACHNER-I think I'll do the stormwater one first. The stormwater management modification is, previously, we had stormwater drywells on the site plan, that Mike Ingersoll from the LA Group is pointing out. The drywells were out in the State right-of-way along Route 9, and DOT said that they would prefer two things. One. they'd prefer that the stormwater management devices be moved out of the right-of-way, onto our property, and secondly. they wanted us to change the type of stormwater management device, from drywells. to what's called infiltrators. The basic difference, as I understand it, is that infiltrators are more or less horizontal. leachfield like devices. They're not very deep, but they extend over a large area, horizontally, whereas drywells are more or less vertical pits that go deep into the ground. Our consultants, the LA Group, looked at that request from DOT, and decided that it was acceptable, as did the clients and the applicants, and in fact there's actually less stormwater runoff as a result of this minor modification. Rist-Frost has looked at it and found, as I understand it, that the infiltrators moved in out of the right-of-way, are appropriate and acceptable. The second minor modification relates to two elements of configuration of the entrance / exi t way, and they are that the entrance way into the project site was previously two lanes. One was a right turn only, coming south on Route 9. from Lake George. and one was a straight entrance coming across 149. Previously, what we had was two lanes corning in the entrance. One was, if you're turning right in. off of, coming down from Route 9. One is if you're coming across on Route 149. DOT decided that in order to maintain the Level of Service, which by the way is a Level of Service B. which is pretty good. In order to maintain the Level of Service, they wanted this to be combined into one very wide lane, and to increase the size of - 2 - '- "..-' the curbing on this side of the entrance. So that's what DOT requested. That's fine with us, and we've agreed to do that. The other. even more minor modification, you may recall back. the two exit lanes, previously, one of them is the left turn, and then the other one would be the right turn and the straight, if you were going on to 149. DOT suggested that we put the straight one over into the left turn side, instead in the right turn side. The same number of lanes. The same number of directions of turning, but they felt that in order to maintain the Level of Service. the straight through traffic should be over on the left turn side instead of over on the right turn side. and that's really a summary of the modifications. They're extremely minor. DOT has acknowledged the accuracy of our initial traffic study. There's no other changes, nothing significant, and that's the first part of our request, essentially, approval of these minor modifications to the previously approved site plan. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can I ask you. when does the expiration of your approval end? MR. SCHACHNER-I believe the date is June 23rd. MR. BREWER-It is June. Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, the 22nd. This was approved on June 23rd, '92. So, arguably, it's either June 22nd, or June 23rd. MR. BREWER-We can make it the last day of June, then, it wouldn't be a problem, for '94. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. That's all right. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? Does somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINOR MODIFICATIONS AND GIVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION TO SITE PLAN NO. 55-91 THE DEXTER OUTLET AND THE APPROVAL WILL BE UNTIL JUNE 30TH. 1994, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted. this 22nd day of April. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you all very much. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A CINDY JARVIS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF INTERSECTION OF WEST MT. RD. & LUZERNE RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION (APA) TAX MAP NO. 121-1-57 LOT SIZE: 6.18 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JEFFREY MARTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1993, Cindy Jarvis Preliminary Stage, Meeting Date: April 22, 1993 "pro;ect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6.78 acre parcel, located at the corner of West Mountain Road and Luzerne Road. into 5 lots. Four of the lots will be approximately 1 acre in size; the fifth lot will be approximately 2 acres in size. Lot 5 will have 40' of frontage and access on West Mountain Road; lots 1 and 2 will also have frontage on West Mountain Road but will have shared access drive; lots 3 and 4 will have frontage and a shared - 3 - --- -, access on Luzerne Road. Lot 2 has an eXisting single family residence on it. The property is zoned SR-1A and is serviced by municipal water. Each lot will have an individual on site septic system. Pro;ect Analysis: The proposed subdivision does not involve the construction of any streets. The lots will be serviced by municipal water and on site septic systems. A drainage report was completed on which included stormwater drainage and suitability for septic systems. The report was reviewed by Rist-Frost Associates and found to be acceptable. Access to the lots is acceptable. The property is currently wooded and clearing will be limited to the area where the houses are proposed to be located. The access drives are located far enough away from the intersection, the closest one is 146' away, so they should not pose a hazard. The property is fairly flat, a change in elevation of < 20 from the southwest corner to the northeast corner. According to the drainage report the property has a slope of 3 to 4.5% and drains to the northeast towards C lendon Brook. Recommendation: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this proposal and Staff recommends approval of the preliminary subdivision plat." MR. HARLICKER-There has been some comments on the need for the applicant to develop some sort of interior service road to service these lots. It was brought up in Tom's Engineering Comments, and also by members of the Board. I spoke with the Town Attorney today regarding that, and there appears to be a conflict. The Section that Tom quotes in his engineering comments, Subdivision Reg's, 183-23C, indicates that no new lots shall have direct access to local arterial or collector highways. unless the subdivision is four or fewer lots, and a street is not feasible. There is a conflicting section in the Zoning Code. which states that lots ~ front on arterial or collector roads, providing they have double the lot width, or in this case. have shared driveways. It was the attorney's position that the Zoning Code is essentially law, whereas the subdivision regulations are regulations that the Board has set up for their review of subdivisions, and in this case. the Zoning Code Regulations would, in essence, supersede the Subdivision Reg's, and it appears that even though, from a planning point of view, it would be preferable for them to have the five lots fronting on a cul-de-sac. and then have the one cul-de-sac exiting either out onto Luzerne Road or West Mountain Road, unless there is some basis for that request, based somehow in the Zoning Code, I don't know if you want to use the term, shaky legal ground, but it would be difficult to give justification, I guess would be the word I'm looking for, for making the applicant, even though it would be desirable to do that, making the applicant to do that. because in essence they are meeting the standards set forth in the Zoning Code, even though they aren't meeting the regulations set forth in the Subdivision Regs. I've probably clouded the issue quite a bit. but I hope it was fairly clear. Tom, do you have some comments on the engineering aspects? MR. YARMOWICH-I'll go ahead and read my comments as written. They have been preceded by remarks of Scott that may modify the impact of these comments on this plan. ENGINEERING REPORT Notes from Rist-Frost, Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer, Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments: 1. In accordance with Subdivision Regulation A183-23C no new lots shall front or have direct access to local arterial or collector highways unless the subdivision has 4 lots or fewer and a local street is not feasible. Given that the application is for a 5 lot subdivision and there appears to be present no technical limitations to constructing an internal local street, we would not recommend that the Planning Board grant a waiver to A183-23C for this project. 2. Where a lot is bounded by two roads front yard setback requirements shall be met on both abutting roads (Zoning Regulation 179-30.1). Minimum setback - 4 - '-- --- requirements shown for Lot 3 do not comply. 3. Seasonal high groundwater conditions for subsurface sewage systems should be established and listed on the site plan in conformance with Sewage Disposal Ordinance requirements. 4. The subdivision map indicates that per tests were performed on February 4, 1993. Additional perc testing should be performed for Lots 3 & 4 to establish that perc rates are not faster than 1 minute per inch. 5. At a minimum. a note referring to the requirement of the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control should be put on the plan. 6. Regarding Construction details: a) The septic tank detail should omit dimensions for 750 gallon tanks and should indicate the size of the tank to be used based upon the number of bedrooms per house. b) the drywell inlet casting detail should indicate that a grate is required." MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you, Tom, and we do have someone here for the applicant. Would you like to address these notes? MR. MARTIN-First of all, my name is Jeffrey Martin. I'm a surveyor wi th Morse Engineering, representing Mrs. Jarvis. This is the first I've heard of these comments. We were not supplied with a copy of them in advance. The engineering comment. the need for a cul-de-sac, I believe, was addressed by Scott Harlicker. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-The question is within the rules. We came in in good fai th, Mrs. Jarvis came in and discussed all of this with Jim Martin, even before engaging us to prepare the plans. We've been here for Sketch Plan. and we discussed the road. We very briefly discussed the economics of building a road. So we've been through all of that. Here we are at Preliminary. The road is not needed. I would tend to agree with Mr. Harlicker and Mr. Dusek. The setback on Lot 3, yes. I'm looking at that. and yes, I see your point, and we can modify that very easily by simply turning the house slightly. It's a minor technical point. Number Three. seasonal high groundwater. Seasonal high groundwater was not detected in the holes. which went up to 17 feet, and we will add a note to the map saying that it was not detected. MR. BREWER-Lots Three and Four you're talking about? MRS. PULVER-No, Number Three, Item Number Three. MR. BREWER-Number Three. I'm sorry. MR. MARTIN-Comment Number Three, that would be any of the test holes. We found no evidence of seasonal high groundwater. Comment Four is on percolation testing. We can do it. I, myself don't see the need. In addition to being a surveyor. I am also a Geologist. We discussed the positioning of the test holes and the percolation tests with the State Health Department. in advance, and this was satisfactory to them. MR. BREWER-How do you feel about that, Torn? MR. YARMOWICH-I do agree that there's a great deal of apparent uniformity, based on the soil logs. I guess the questions was. was that there was such a, well, when you get to perc rates that are less than a minute, special sewage system designs are required. It does change the way in which you can use your lot. I don't believe that there's anything about the size of these lots. which would prevent that type of sewage system from being implemented. It's very possible that a minor variation in soil type could generate that situation, and I don't think it's a limitation on development. It just makes a different type of sewage system required. That the work be done now, I don't think is important, but if nothing else, indicate something to the effect that those lots would have to be perked before a sewage disposal system would be installed. In many cases where there is a lot of perk testing done in a subdivision, - 5 - -- --- building permits are issued based on typical information. I don't think it's appropriate for these lots, because they're so close to that border line. and the other perk tests taken. I think that's the real meaning of the comment, perhaps. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would that be acceptable? MR. MARTIN-Acceptable that we do it at the time of construction. MR. YARMOWICH-Just put a note on there that says that they should be tested before a system is installed. MR. MARTIN-Fine. The perk test is no big deal. Number Five simply wants us to add a note stating the standards that we design to. That's no problem, and Number Six is simply two drafting notes on the detail sheet. MR. BREWER-And you'll indicate the size of bedrooms? omi t the the tanks 750 gallon used. based tanks, and you'll on the number of MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. MACEWAN-For the Staff. I guess. Aren't perk tests usually required before the Final Plat is signed? MR. YARMOWICH-The requirement for the perk test relates to the size of the subdivision, the types of the systems, what kind of soils you find. In practice, the reasonable number of perk tests are selected, to try to verify the characteristics of the site. If uniform information is obtained. there's not a need to perk test each and every site for subdivision approval. The purpose of perk tests and test pit excavation, at this stage of project review. is predominantly to verify the sUitability of the site for the type of subdivision proposed. Do you perk test every site, the answer is no, not always. If you had a two lot subdivision, a three lot subdivision, you probably would. In a 180 lot subdivision, you might do it 25 times. In this case, two out of four isn't bad. The results are close. and so I made my comment accordingly. MR. BREWER-It would be that he wouldn't get his CO until it was done, anyway. So, as long as that's noted on the Final plat. he just won't get a CO until it's done. It's pretty cut and dry. MRS. TARANA-I had one question to start with. This didn't have to go to Warren County, did it? MR. HARLICKER-Subdivisions don't. MRS. TARANA-I didn't think so, but she had written on her Statement of Intent. that as soon as the County Planning Board reviewed the project, she would have her attorneys draw up deeds and covenants. So, I assume she can go ahead and do that. It's not going to go to Warren County at all. MR. BREWER-Why wouldn't the curb cut go to the County, because of the curb cut? MR. YARMOWICH-There is no curb cut. proposed. It's driveways. So it's MR. BREWER-All right. MR. MARTIN-The driveway goes to the County Highway Department. MR. BREWER-Just for a permit. MRS. TARANA-The Highway Department, but not the County Board. - 6 - ',-- -' Right. The Planning Board. I'm wondering consideration to having Lots Three and Four exit drive. instead of Luzerne Road? Instead of a having both of them have their own driveway out goes back to the other property in the back. if you gave any onto that gravel shared driveway. to the road that MR. MARTIN-We did not give it very serious consideration. What you'd have to do is put three people on the one driveway. and if any of you have ever shared a driveway. you know there is the potential for problems. MRS. TARANA-That's exactly why I was suggesting, that's just a driveway that's going to go back to that house, or that property? MR. MARTIN-That's right. It's shown wider than usual because in the past. this Board has requested that they be wider than usual when they are long, so that in case there is some kind of obstruction, emergency vehicles can still get back there without any problems. MR. HARLICKER-If you recall, the same situation carne up with the subdivision on Peggy Ann Road. where they had the long drive back in. MR. BREWER-And also that's the 40 foot frontage on a road, right? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? MR. MACEWAN-Actually, I think Corinne's got a good idea. you honestly feel about it? How do MR. BREWER-I think it would be a good idea. It would eliminate the curb cut on Luzerne Road. I mean. all you're dOing is actually flipping the lots around. rather than having the frontage on Luzerne Road, you're having it from here. but I don't know as I'd want my front yard in a driveway either. MR. MACEWAN-Well, you know, really, in this case. even though it's technically a driveway, I mean, it certainly has the effect of a road. It's no different than the idea that the Cardinale subdivision had. MR. RUEL-How wide is it? MR. BREWER-Twenty feet. MRS. PULVER-Well, then they would have to give right-of-ways. They'd also have to give these lots a right-of-way here to cross this, and who's going to maintain it? If this guy goes on vacation, and he's maintaining it, we get 10 feet of snow. and these people could be blocked out. MRS. TARANA-Yes. I think that's a problem we've got here, with this whole project. MRS. PULVER-Well, except that he does have a portion of it on his own property. here, that he would be maintaining this himself. He would be maintaining this himself. MR. MARTIN-This is one problem we've run into. and Mr. Brewer asked me what was my opinion. I think half my opinion, like every member on the Board is going to have a different opinion, and we get back to what the rules say, and what the rules call for. MR. BREWER-You know what I don't see on here, that I saw before. there was a proposed culvert here somewhere on this back lot. - 7 - '- -" MR. MARTIN-We moved the driveway. MR. BREWER-So you've eliminated that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. There is. where you see the word "seasonal drainage swale", it's the start of a gully. It is not active. I've looked it allover, and with the runoff. it is just not active. You do get some squishiness on the surface of the ground, from the upper level, the topsoil, the composted leaves, whatever. on top, you get a little squishiness, but you do not have a flow. When we had the driveway further down, we put that culvert in there. as a safety precaution. The engineer's drainage calculations and everything, did not call for it. We just looked at it and said, yes, we should do one. Now we're further up. With the driveway there. that part of the site. moved just a few feet. it's regraded. There's no longer the possibility of a small pool up above the driveway. MR. BREWER-Okay, and the runoff. there's no way it can get to Clendon Brook? Okay. That's the only questions I have. There is a public hearing. Is there anybody here to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Carol, do you want to take us through the SEQRA? MRS. PULVER-Yes. I just have one question. develop this property themselves, or sell individual lots? Are they planning to these lots off as MR. MARTIN-Mrs. Jarvis has been looking at two possibilities here. First. this existing house on Lot Two is her house. She is living there right now. At the moment she has not made up her mind whether to keep that house and sell off the lots, or to build a new house on one of the other lots, probably Lot Five. sell the existing house and sell the other lots. The other thing she has not decided is exactly how fast she wants to sell the lots, whether she wants to sell them all this year. or start selling them. perhaps, one a year or whatever. A lot of this depends upon how the real estate market unfolds this year. She has no intention of going in and building all the houses herself. MRS. PULVER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-1993, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before a subdivision, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE - 8 - ',- ~ 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation 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 22nd day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion, with stipulations? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1993 CINDY JARVIS. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: For a five lot subdivision. with the following stipulation: that the letter of April 20th. 1993. from Rist-Frost, all concerns be addressed at final, except for Item Number One. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 1993. by the following vote: MR. BREWER-And did we ask, last month, about a letter of some sort, about the maintenance of the driveway. who's going to take care of the shared driveways? Did we talk to you about that? Were you here that night. we had Cardinale here. and you said you would give a letter of intent? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We did. We supplied a letter of intent. MR. BREWER-You did? Okay. Do you have that on file? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, but I might recommend, if we could get something a little more formalized before final approval. MR. BREWER-Is that possible? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We will. There was a letter of intend that told you the concerns that we were going to address. I believe it was basically that we would draw up covenants and restrictions, concerning the driveways, that would grant one person an easement over the other person's land, and place a restriction on the 10 feet. or whatever, of the ir land, so it would set it up as easements and grants of easements, and it would cover the construction, the use, and the maintenance of the driveway, all three issues. MR. MACEWAN-That's the letter of intent. MR. BREWER-Okay. - 9 - '-- --' MR. MARTIN-And also some formal ones drawn up after the preliminary, because at that time we believe we'd have to go to the County. some discussion about the shared driveways, and we didn't know what was gOing to come up tonight. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Okay, but you'll have that all worked out by final? MR. MARTIN-Yes, we will. MRS. PULVER-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan. Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I MR-5 GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY ROAD. OPPOSITE WALKER LANE. NAME: BAYBROOK SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION OF +82 ACRES INTO 146 LOTS. (133 RESIDENTIAL AND 13 OFFICE BUILDINGS) CROSS REFERENCE: UV 1130-1992 (DEC) TAX MAP NO. 60-1-4 LOT SIZE: +82 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LEON STEVES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff , Subdivision No. 4-1992, Guido Passarelli Preliminary Stage, Meeting Date: April 22. 1993 "Pro;ect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide an approximately 82 acre parcel into 146 lots. Thirteen of the lots will be for office use and 133 will be for single fami 1 y. The property is zoned MR-5. The project is proposed to have three phases; the applicant received a variance to allow for the single family dwellings in phase one of the project. Sketch plan recommendation was received on 3/24/92. The applicant is seeking preliminary approval of phase one which includes the 13 office lots and 46 residential lots. SEQRA will be completed for the entire 146 lot subdivision approval. Pro;ect Analvsis: The applicant is submitting a preliminary plan proposal for phase 1 of a planned three phase subdivision. Phase one includes 13 office lots to be located on the western side of the site adjacent to Bay Road. The 46 residential included in this phase are located on the interior of the property just west of Old Maids Brook. which traverses the site from north to south. There are DEC flagged wetlands on the site which are impacted by this phase of the project. There are also two proposed stream crossings included in this phase which will require DEC permits. The subdivision is on standard lots that range in size from 10,000 square feet for most of the residential lots to 20.181 square feet" (I think the figure's wrong. I think it's 29.000 square feet.) "for the larger office lots. The plan indicates a line 100 feet from the flagged wetlands. The line in places comes up to the proposed structure. On many of the lots there appears to be very little room for expansion, such as a garage, without infringing on the setbacks and thereby requiring a variance. Developmental constraints which will impact development include the wetlands, Old Maids Brook, high water table and a shallow depth to bedrock on much of the site. The layout of the streets in this phase appear to be logically related to the existing topography. The land slopes toward the brook and presents no constraints in street layout. The two stream crossings included in this phase will require some filling and regrading. There are two access points to the subdivision from Bay Road. They allow direct access to the office lots without requiring the office related traffic to drive through the residential areas. The brook forms a natural buffer between the office and the residential parts of the development. There are a couple of intersections that are - 10 - -~ -- laid out so that traffic entering them will shine their lights right into the houses that are located across from them. The layout of the lots can be divided into those for office and those for residential. The office lots are centered around a cuI de sac and the southern road off of Bay Road. All of the office lots are located west of the brook. The residential lots adjacent to the existing neighborhood to the north are slightly larger than those in the rest of the subdivision in order to serve as a buffer. It appears that some of the lots will have some developmental problems regarding the placement of the structure on the lot. Some of the lots, both residential and office. have substantial portions of them wi thin 100 feet of the wetlands. This fact limits the building envelope to a very small area of each particular lot. It would be very difficult, or in some case impossible, to build on these lots without infringing on the 100 foot buffer around the wetlands. Wetlands permits will be required for any regulated activity within the wetlands or adjacent area. This includes the stormwater outflows that are placed within 100 feet of the wetlands and grading and soil removal associated with home and road construction. A waiver will be required for the 35 unit phasing requirements. The site is to be serviced by municipal sewer and water. The status of municipal sewer and water service should be confirmed. Maintenance and ownership of the wetlands should be discussed. The Board may want to give direction on how they want the wetlands protected and maintained. The applicant states that the maximum vehicle trips per hour generated by this project will be approximately 150. The Board may want to request a more detailed breakdown of the traffic numbers. Engineering issues raised by Rist-Frost Associates will have to be addressed to the Board's and their satisfaction." MR. BREWER-Torn, do we have comments from you? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Rist-Frost. Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer, April 22. 1993 "Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments: 1. The layout plan should indicate parcels to be dedicated to public use, if any. 2. Proposed electric, gas, and telephone services are not indicated. A ten (10) foot wide utility easement should be provided. 3. Twenty (20) foot minimum width easements should be shown for the storm drains not within right-of-ways per Subdivision Regulation A183-23A2. 4. All roads should be labeled on all plan sheets. 5. Areas of 100 year flood hazard should be delineated in accordance with the Town of Queensbury Flood Damage Prevention Section 91- 15D. (4). This information should be added to the plat in accordance with A183-21G. 6. Measures to be taken to protect remaining trees should be indicated on the landscaping plan. 7. Regarding stormwater management/drainage: a. The stormwater management/roadway drainage system concept is satisfactory from a hydrology standpoint. b. Construction details indicate that underdrain trenches will be 15 inches below the road surface to a depth of 3 1/2 feet. Because the underdrains are located below areas that will be plowed clear of snow, how can the potential for freezing be addressed? c. Underdrain outfalls discharging to stone filled beds may be a problem during winter and early spring operation due to freezing. d. Under drains should be indicated for the following locations: - Road #2, West side. sta. 12+85 to 13+85 to 13+45 (across Road #3). - Road #3, North side, sta. 14+90 to 15+50. Road #3, South side, sta. 12+90 to 15+50. 8. Regarding the layout of streets: a. Intersecting streets should be laid out to intersect as nearly as possible at 900 angles. Intersecting streets should maintain this 900 relationship for a distance of at least 100 feet in all directions (A183-23I.3a). b. Local street horizontal curves should have a minimum center-line radius of 300 feet per Subdivision Regulation A183-23I (la) . C. Centerline roadway curve data should appear on the layout plans. d. Street right-of-way and roadways at local streets should be minimum 10 foot and 25 foot radii respectively. At local streets - 11 - "- --../ intersections with collectors (Meadowbrook) and arterials (Bay) the appropriate minimum radii is 28 feet and 40 feet. The paving plans should indicate this. e. Local street intersections with arterials (Bay) should be he ld to a minimum and pre ferabl y be spaced no closer than 100 feet (A183-23I (3) (c) ) . Three hundred (300) foot spacing is the required minimum (A183-23V) for both arterials (Bay) and collectors (Meadowbrook). Streets entering opposite side of another street shall be laid out with a minimum offset of 125 feet between centerlines (A183-23I (3) (d) ) . These spacings should be evaluated with respect to existing and proposed streets intersecting with Bay Road and Meadowbrook Road. 9. Roadway fill slopes shall be lV to 4H or flatter (A183-23I(7)). Stream crossing fills do not comply. 10. Regarding the sewer system layout: a. Property line data and to po for the segment of sewer along Meadowbrook Road to the north side of subdivision should be shown on the plan. b. An easement along Meadowbrook Road and internal local streets is recommended wherever the sewer is 10 feet or less from the edge of the right-of-way. c. The size of the sewer between MH's 19 and 40 on sheets C-7 and P-4 should be labeled if other than 8 inch diameter. 11. Fire hydrant spacing is recommended at 750 foot maximum intervals along all roadways. 12. Regarding wetlands: a. A 35' undisturbed wetland buffer strip should be indicated on the plans. b. Activities within 100 feet of a wetland require a Town permit under Chapter 94 of the Town Code. Requests for waivers from subdivision regulations (Chapter 183) should be entertained if suitable justification is provided and the requirements of A183-47A are met." MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you, Torn. Would you like to go through the comments, Torn? MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace with Haanen Engineering. Why don't we start with the Engineering Comments. Items One, Two, Three, and Four are noted and can be corrected at final. Item Five, the 100 year flood hazard, just so there's no misunderstanding, there is no 100 year flood plain delineated by the perm map, on this property. okay. There is a 100 year, possibility of a 100 year flood raising the water level in Old Maids Brook. which is the Brook that runs down to the western portion of the site, and I believe what Tom is looking for, and we have no problem providing, is the delineation of what that flood elevation and the flood area would be. There is already, according to the Town Standards. a 75 foot buffer along that stream. I'm sure that the flood area will be contained wi thin that buffer anyway. Item Number Six, we will indicate a protection of trees, standard detail, on the final plans. On stormwater management, there's a question, we're using underdrain trenches along the side of the road, the combination of stormwater trench and underdrain. The concern about those freezing, I have done a little bit of digging, and the Department of Transportation, which puts in a good deal of road underdrain, sets the bottom of their underdrain trench at one by two foot two inches below paved surface, and that trench is right on the shoulder, which puts it within the areas that they plow. I'm sure freezing is of some concern. However, to put it deeper is very difficult, and I can only refer to DOT standards. Doesn't seem to be a problem on that road. So, I don't think we'll have a problem under here, since we're three and half feet down. MR. BREWER-You don't think you will. or you won't? MR. NACE-I won't. MR. MACEWAN-What's the Town road standards? MR. YARMOWICH-This is a relatively unique and innovative approach to dealing with some of the problems. This site's flat. There's a lot of wetlands and things like that. MR. NACE-Very few of the Town roads have underdrains, to begin with. - 12 - --- _--"'c MR. YARMOWICH-I believe this has been run by Mr. Naylor, and in general the concept of road construction in this fashion was appropriate by him. MR. NACE-Yes. He looked at it this week, and agreed with it. I can't guarantee you that there won't be a problem. I don't think anybody could, but what I'm saying is that most of DOT State roads are constructed much shallower. The trenches are constructed much shallower. So I don't really anticipate that frost is going to be a problem. The outfalls from the underdrains I purposely put underneath the bed of stone, because those are underdrains. and there will be water continually trickling out of them, throughout the winter, and if they're open outfalls. I'm sure they'll freeze. If I put them within a bed of stone, I've got a chance that they won't freeze. I can't guarantee you that they won't. Short of putting an electric heater in them. I don't know anyone who can guarantee you that they won't. but I think that they're less likely to than if they were open. Item 7D. we will take care of on the final plans. Item 8, on the street layout. we have gone back. in the past two days, after having understood what the concerns were, we have gone back, and I'm not presenting you with any new plans now, but I can tell you that we have looked at being able to make sure that we have the required 100 foot tangents where they were lacking here, and squared up the intersection here. We've been able to. instead of using an offset turn around, bring this straight out and square up this intersection. The only place that I have not been able to get a 100 foot tangent is up here, and I believe the intent of the 100 foot tangent is to obtain good site distance, and here where we're on the outside of the curve, with our traffic coming in, we have actually better site distance than if we on a straight tangent. So I think that, even though the plans you have in front of you don't comply. except one case, we can comply in that one case. I think we're in decent shape anyway. Item b., the horizontal curve. 3Ø0 foot radius, quite frankly. I had misinterpreted the Regulations and used 250 feet. I have since begun some research, and the reason we went to the tighter radius is because we do have, as the Planning Department has pointed out, we do have a lot of constraints of wetland setbacks. stream buffers, and what have you, and in order to try to get reasonable utilization out of the site, it's just a tight site to work with, or fitting within all those setbacks, and we've found that it lays out better with the tighter radiuses. I have submitted a waiver reque st. I don't know, Torn, if you've had a chance to look at that. but I've done some research. and the New York State DOT Regulations use a minimum radius for a design speed of 30 miles an hour, which we realize would be posted for, they use a minimum safe radius of 230 feet in their design standards. So I think that we're within good design standards, and I feel justified in requesting a waiver to use a 250 foot radius. Have you had a chance to look at that, Tom, or are you in a position to react to that? MR. YARMOWICH-I haven't researched the same sources you have. I don't refute it. Your facts are understood. MR. BREWER-I would ask Paul Naylor to look at that, anyway waiver. MR. NACE-Okay. The, c., centerline data, we will put on the plans. The Item d., we will correct at final. It's simply to increase the radii at the edge of pavement. Item e., I don't know if that really requires, yes, it does. There is another road that comes out opposite us, that we have gone out and obtained information for. and that. there was some concern, I think, on Tom's part, that that might be too close. That center line is a little over 150 feet away from out center line, coming out on this north road. So I think in all cases there. with the exception of the first item that says, preferable spacing of 1,000 feet. We needed to try to get two entrances onto Bay Road to try to separate some of the traffic to the office area, versus the traffic to the residential area, and we separated those as far as practical. It's, I think. - 13 - '- --' 800 and some odd feet, and that's, the 1,000 foot is not a regulation. That's sort of an advisory, desirable measurement. The roadway fill slopes. Item Nine, I have submitted a waiver for that. It's, two stream crossings. I've gone and put a steeper slope of three on one. instead of four on one. for the roadway fill here and here. The height of fill is not great, but I'm sort of caught betwix and between. Your Regulations say one on four. I've got to get DEC Stream Disturbance Permits for those, and they have always hammered me over the head and said. keep the culverts as short as you possibly can, from a fisheries viewpoint, and the only way I can do that is to steepen up the slopes a little bit. It's not really a safety issue. In fact, your own Regulations permit one on three slopes if the height of the fill is over six feet. So. I'm not quite sure why the Subdivision Regulation was really written that way. It's not really a safety issue, and in this case, I would like to get a waiver so that I don't have any problem with DEC. On the sewer layout. we will comply with Items a., and b.. and c. I have no problem with that. The fire hydrant spacing, I will go back and check that. The Water Department Standards, Design and Construction Standards. call for a desirable spacing of 800 feet, and a maximum permissible spacing of 1,000 feet, and I will check and make sure we comply with that, and the wetlands, I will indicate on the plans the 35 foot undisturbed buffer strip. and we're well aware that we will need a wetland permit, both from DEC and from the Town. for any work that we do that is in the 100 foot buffer, which will be the stormwater outfalls here, and here, and here. This is not. This is a stream. but here. MR. BREWER-Okay. comments? Would you care to address any of Scott's MR. NACE-Okay. I'm not sure the comments refer to, they're varied within the text. Is there any particular thing that you have questions on? MR. BREWER-The particular thing, that sticks out in my mind, is the 100 foot setback lines on a number of the lots. I looked at it, 33. 34, 28, 26, 104, 112, 113, several lots, that a line either goes right through the corner of the building, or real close. MR. RUEL-Fifteen of them. MR. NACE-First of all, the buildings we've put on are reasonably sized buildings. I could have shown you a 24 by 40 foot minimum ranch, and that was not my intention. I think what we showed you is approximately 30 by 40 some feet, which would be a typical two story cape, or a small colonial. There is a drafting error, and I do note that there are several lots where. simply by drafting mistake, a house is probably sitting right on a setback line, or slightly a foot or two over the setback. MR. BREWER-Okay. What about his comment of expansion for maybe a garage or maybe later additions. as families grow. or whatever. MR. NACE-The type of housing here is not necessarily something where people would go in and necessarily expand in the future. but rather a use as a stepping stone for five to ten years, before moving to another neighborhood. Most of the lots. as I see them. either have room for a garage or will, initial construction will incorporate a garage within or underneath the house. There are, obviously, a few lots where it's going to be tight. We do have, now, the lots are. I believe, 80 foot minimum width and our. if I remember right, our side setbacks are 10 feet. MR. BREWER-The front, side is 10 and the rear is 10. The front is 30. MR. NACE-Thirty in the front, that's right. So that gives you a building envelope of 60 feet across the frontage, and I don't know that there are really any lots where the wetland setback encroaches - 14 - -. -./ or takes away from the available frontage. Sixty foot's a sizable. 60 foot by 30 is a sizable house. with attached garage. That gives you a 40 foot house and a 20 foot garage. So. I think most of the houses do have room for that. and I think the housing style can be varied enough that the lots that are a little tight, a house can be constructed on the lot to incorporate a garage underneath. MR. BREWER-Has any consideration been given to some of the lots that are real tight, to combine, maybe, two lots and move some lines to. I know you don't want to lose a lot of lots. but if you lose a lot here and there, you can gain quite a bit by moving those lines. MR. NACE-We're at the stage now where we've given up some. from what is permissible under the existing zoning. we've given up a great deal to go. first, to single family. and. secondly, to try to accommodate some of the concerns with the neighbors to the north. and in making a transitions between neighborhoods. if you will, and sizes of lots. We've made quite a few concessions. and quite frankly it is a tough piece of land to build on because of the infrastructure costs and the building conditions. the amount of wetlands on it, the amount of buffer zones that take away from the building area, and the soil conditions and the bedrock conditions. If we start taking away a lot of lots, it's just not going to be feasible to do the proj ect. By a lot I mean. even hal f a dozen would be a major impact, at this point. MR. YARMOWICH-Tim, if I may. I think I sense there's some. this 100 foot line that's shown there. from the wetlands, is the cause, and I guess there's a Freshwater Wetlands Law from the Town of Queensbury which sets that aside as guard zone, not necessarily the zoning being a buffer. The zoning strictly allows buildings within 75 feet of a wetlands. That would invoke this guard permit type process to assess the type of disturbance that's going to occur in that guard zone. The 35 foot buffer is an undisturbed strip of vegetation where lot clearing, lawns, so forth, would normally not be permitted, even under the Freshwater Wetlands Law. So, though a house may be shown over that 100 foot line, there's actually another 25 feet from that 100 foot line that it's acceptable. within zoning. to place a structure back that far. I think the 100 foot line shouldn't be viewed as a barrier line, but simply indicates a guard zone. If someone wants to do any lot development, within that 100 foot adjacent area, Freshwater Wetlands Law. the Town would then be a part of it, and it's very likely that on most of these lots people are going to want to put in lawns and swing sets back beyond that 100 feet, and maybe even to that 35 foot vegetative zone. which would only, I mean, normally residential of that type, in that adjacent area to a wetland. is not a critical problem. Office parking lots might be. MR. BREWER-The question is, Scott mentions in his notes that any building, or whatever, in that would create need for a variance? MR. HARLICKER-No. a Wetlands Permit. MR. YARMOWICH-No. If you get within 75 feet, then you'd need a variance from zoning. If you build anywhere within that 100 feet. do any kind of construction, you'd need a Wetlands Permit. They're different processes. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. YARMOWICH-You can build right back to within 75 feet, with the building line. without a variance. You just need to have that other Permit. MR. HARLICKER-The variance referred to extending the. MR. MACEWAN-So, if someone wanted to put in an outside storage shed - 15 - -- ~ in the back corner of the lot, or a pool out back. 30 feet off the back of the house? MR. YARMOWICH-As long as it was the type of development that was compatible with the Wetlands Law. What they're avoiding is parking lots and tennis courts, paved surfaces and things that would be detrimental to a wetland. Lawns would not. Small storage sheds would not, but what they're trying to do with that 100 foot line is erect a guard zone. You can go back, in the first 25 feet. and put a building in there without violating zoning. So there's a couple of conditions and levels of guard. starting from that 100 feet. right back to the edge of the wetlands. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I'm looking at this note, here. in the SEQRA Review, Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater. and it says. the high water table could have an impact on the project. In many areas. the water table is at the surface or within several feet of the surface. This could cause problems during the construction of the individual houses and offices. How do you plan to deal with that? MR. NACE-I guess. basically, let me run through. first, how the project will be constructed. We're proposing to run utilities in for the whole pro j ect during the first phase. okay. We know we have high bedrock in some locations, and we have difficult construction conditions. We've got to run a sewer, in order to serve the Bay Road portion of the project, Phase I, we're going to have to run a sewer through Meadowbrook and up to the existing pump station, and that's going to require some blasting, where we have bedrock. We want to get that all done, any blasting done. before we start building any houses that could be close to where we want to blast. So that, we want to run these utilities in. As we do that. what we'll do is start down at the lower end of the site, at the Meadowbrook end, and run the utilities in, and those trenches. the utility trenches themselves, will help drain some of the groundwater that collects during construction. As you put the utility trench in, you backfill it with permeable material. put the pipe in, and down at the lower end we'll construct an area where we take that water out of the trench, pump it out of the trench to keep the trench dry, and build a detention basin to receive that water and let any sediment settle out, before it runs over a buffer area and back into the groundwater. So that will help. this running those utility lines through the site, will help de water our construction as we go. Actually, because of the clay soils, the groundwater is not going to be as much of a problem as if we had sandy soils. or fine. silty, soils on a site with high groundwater. The clay, even though it contains the groundwater. it moves very slowly the clay. You don't have that much actual groundwater moving through your excavations. So, we think that can be controlled fairly well. Individual house construction. obviously, we will take precautions around any portion of land which is opened up, the ground cover removed, put silt fences around it. Any areas where runoff concentrates. we'll build a. paved straw bale dams to trap the sediment and filter runoff before it can get to the wetlands. These wetlands will all be protected by a silt fence, in critical areas, probably two layers of silt fence, and that'll be details that will be worked out with DEC, as we get the wetlands permits from them. So, I think. overall, that we can control that. It is going to be a tough thing to do. It's going to require attention to detail, but we're taking that into account. and I think that we can do it. MR. BREWER-So. you will be running the sewer, then, from Meadowbrook all the way over. before you do anything? MR. NACE-Yes. We have to do that before we can build the first house in here. - 16 - -- -../ MR. BREWER-Okay. I remember there was conversation. a brief conversation, maybe, at the Sketch Stage. about maybe tying somehow Bayberry into your sewer? MR. NACE-We had discussions with people in Bayberry. We've had discussions with Adirondack Communi ty College, and other people who might want to get, with the development here across the road. from Walker Lane, with any people who might want to get into that sewer system and share the sewer system with us. At this stage of the game, we don't have any firm commitments from anybody that they want to come in, but the capacity exists that we could take some extra flow. we're pursuing that through the Town, and we've had. in the past couple of months, we've had a meeting with ACC. especially. because they would be the most likely. MR. BREWER-Okay. So your piping would be able to handle the extra flow? MR. NACE-Yes, it would. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-To a limited extent. We're working with the Town. There's only so much capacity in the force main that goes down Meadowbrook and into this pump station. Obviously, we've got to work within the confines of what's available, but there is some additional capacity available. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Tom. another comment I have here. I'm not sure what Scott's looking for, but he says. the issue of construction debris and sediment being tracked onto the existing roadways should also be addressed. Now. I'm assuming that as the trucks are hauling out dirt and whatnot from the site. they're going to track onto the road. and we would have men out there sweeping it back. or? MR. NACE-That's a very real concern, and we see it happening a lot .around construction sites. Again, we want to progress the construction in this way, so that we can open this construction road up and have this as our construction entrance for the site. out onto Meadowbrook. Therefore, we think it'll have less impact, from a traffic standpoint, of trucks pulling out on the road. and also from a debris standpoint, and if we get in here and construct this first section of road with gravel, those trucks coming out of the site will have that section of gravel road to be able to clean their cars off on before they drag the mud out onto Meadowbrook. MR. RUEL-Just a question. I may have missed it, but you've indicated on several plans, the new and existing contour lines. Do you have this for all phases? MR. NACE-Yes. we do. MR. RUEL-I just saw Phases I and II. MR. NACE-What we have done, in the plans we have given you. the si te' s broken up into three drawings, I think as you can see delineated here. Drawing One. Two, and Three. We have 100 scale, showing you all three put together. On a 50 scale, where it takes up more space on the drawing. we've only given you the details of these two sheets. because their the only two that have Phase I work shown on them. MR. RUEL-Yes. I wanted to be sure. MR. NACE-We do have contours. The whole site has been contoured. and we've worked out grading for the whole site, the road profiles have been worked all the way through. So the design for the whole si te is complete, all that we're doing is providing you with - 11 - - -- details for review for Phase I. MR. RUEL-It's all done except two phases, and more details? MR. NACE-Actually, in my office. I have complete plans detailed for this phase, too. We had to do it to make sure that everything worked. MR. RUEL-Okay. I wanted to be sure it was part of the application. MR. NACE-There was. I noticed in looking at Scott's notes here. he says a waiver will be required for the 35 unit phasing requirement. I submitted that back at Sketch Plan, originally. and resubmitted it with the new one. I think you already have that. MR. BREWER-Yes. right here. Did you get that waiver, at Sketch? MR. NACE-The reason I resubmitted it is that, looking back at the Sketch Plan notes and the minutes. I couldn't tell for sure whether that waiver it was discussed, but whether it was ever granted, I'm sure. To be safe, I'm resubmitting it. MRS. PULVER-You're asking for it again. that. Okay. r just asked Tim MR. BREWER-I saw two letters referring to that. Okay. MRS. PULVER-I have another question. Maintenance and ownership of the wetlands should be discussed. MR. NACE-Okay. Mr. Passarelli. obviously, these wetland not part of the lots that are being conveyed. He would thoughts of conveying those to the Town, maybe in recreation fees, as areas that the Town could have as nature trail type areas. areas are entertain lieu of natural MR. BREWER-Have you had contact with DEC about the wetlands, Tom? MR. NACE-Yes. I have. MR. BREWER-Is there any kind of an inventory of wildlife or anything that's in there? MR. NACE-They've been down to flag the wetlands, but I'm unaware of any inventory that they have done on this. The wetland here is connected to the one down through the golf course, and I think they've done some work on down there from the golf course. but I'm not aware of whether they've actually carried that out. MR. BREWER-Would it be unreasonable to ask you to see if they do have any inventory of anything that's in there? MR. NACE-Yes, I will. MRS. PULVER-So, if the Town does not accept that as recreation fields. what's his other alternative? MR. NACE-Simply to keep it and leave it in its present state. MRS. PULVER-Keep it himself. MR. NACE-Yes. Recreation, I'm not sure. There is one area here that would obviously be compatible with putting in recreation facilities, but I think the main recreation value is nature trails, and having some place close at hand. up in some of it MR. RUEL-The recreation area is in the wetlands. MR. BREWER-Yes. I don't know if that would be appropriate. - 18 - ---/ MR. NACE-Well. No. The recreation area. this is outside the wetlands, okay, and a lot of this area is buffer. It's not really wetlands themselves. I can discuss with DEC, as to whether they would entertain nature trails, instead of buffer areas. but I certainly think they would. MR. BREWER-Okay. The hundred and fifty vehicles you think that are going to come out of there. that's all you? MR. NACE-Yes. That's peak, and if I remember right, that's a.m. So it's, like, a seven to eight o'clock in the morning. MR. BREWER-We're at 146 units. You only think 150 cars are going to corne out of there? MR. NACE-That' s peak hour. That's right out of the Traffic Engineer's generation rate. a study of the developments. and what have you. MR. BREWER-I'll grant it I'm not an engineer. and I've never heard any Traffic Engineer tell me that if you put 200 houses there, 175 cars are going to come out of there, because I know. in my mind, that. MR. NACE-That's a peak hour generator. MR. BREWER-I understand that. Engineers. I just can't understand Traffic MR. NACE-That's what the numbers say. I don't want to get into the philosophy. MR. BREWER-It's just hard for me to believe that if you put that many houses there, and commercial businesses, or whatever. that only 150 cars are going to be generated by that. I'm not doubting you. I just find that hard to believe. MR. YARMOWICH-In an hour. MR. RUEL-Yes, per hour. MR. NACE-That's per hour. okay. If you look at daily, it's many times the number of houses. I think daily it's like 10 trips per unit, per housing unit, but on an hourly basis. MR. BREWER-I suppose if it's all spread out over the day. MR. NACE-It's all spread out. That's the ticket, and we do have, we've got the advantage of people having an option of which way they go to get out, whether they're going north or south, they can use either Meadowbrook or Bay. and I think traffic will distribute itself. where they have these problems. MR. MACEWAN-What were the peak hours that you were using. the times. What times were your peak hours that you were basing this information on? MR. NACE-Okay. What the Institute of Traffic Engineers does. it gives you peak values per housing unit, okay, whether its a.m. peak or p.m. peak. The a.m. peak they use is, I think, seven to eight in the morning, okay, for this instance. The p.m. peak. because it gets spread out, people corne home from work and they stop at the store or go to the grocery store or whatever. So that gets spread out a little longer. and your p.m. peaks are normally less than your morning peak. MR. MACEWAN-Four to six, five to seven? MR. NACE-The p.m. peak? - 19 - -' -../ MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. NACE-I think it's four to five. I'd have to look back at what the actual records tell you, to tell you for sure. MR. MACEWAN-It seems like it could create some congestion there, with all the activity that goes on up toward this end of the Town, plus with the College starting up around that hour of the morning. MR. NACE-Well, there's no question. with the College traffic coming out of here, somebody that comes out here and wants to take a left hand turn at four thirty in the afternoon. Anybody coming out of here during peak flow for the College, is going to sit here and wai t once. for five minutes. The next time he comes out, he's going to go the other way, and that's, since we are predominately residential, and the residential portion of this accounts for the vast majority of the traffic flow, that has an advantage, because the people in here learn by habit. okay. If they have a problem once. they don't undertake that problem a second time. They take another route. MR. BREWER-But then after that happens, what's going to happen to Meadowbrook Road? MR. NACE-It'll see 100 cars an hour, even if you see all the flow going to Meadowbrook, and it won't all go. It's not really significant, because the existing traffic flow is so low. MR. BREWER-Do you have a traffic study at all? MR. NACE-Have we done a traffic study? MR. BREWER-Or not? MR. NACE-No, just the numbers enough to tell you what the generation rates are. A traffic study, in this kind of instance, where the traffic learns by history, and figures out, has another route to go, once they've learned where the problems are. A traffic study it doesn't really tell you a whole lot. MR. BREWER-Not necessarily a traffic study. I guess I don't know what's going to happen to Meadowbrook Road when this is fully developed. MR. NACE-Certainly. no where near what would have happened to it if Allen totally developed the way they were talking about. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. NACE-And there were many traffic studies done for that. MR. BREWER-But residential. and going to have to accommodate. Over you're proposing 140 units, give or take. hopefully this is going to go, and something is happen with Meadowbrook Road, to be able to a period of time. it's not going to bother it? MR. NACE-No. I'll bet you it could accommodate many times 100. MR. BREWER-That traffic? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. BREWER-I don't know this. That's why I'm asking. MR. NACE-Typical volumes on a rural road like that they could handle at that speed limit, might be 600 to 1.000 vehicles an hour. That's from DOT design standards. The alignment that's a straight alignment. There's no hills and valleys on it that's a problem. There's not that much turning movement, no great number of streets corning off of Meadowbrook. So I really don't think that's an - 20 - ---- issue. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-Tom can jump in here, if he wants, and give you a different opinion of it. MR. YARMOWICH-Those are high traffic corridors. They've been designated such as the Town. They're all in areas where site distances are acceptable. and you rely on good driving practices for everybody to get through these spots. I don't see it as a traffic congestion problem. You have controlled intersections at Quaker Road for both Bay and Meadowbrook. Meadowbrook you have the stop sign, the four way stop sign at Cronin Road. Those type of configured intersections have capacities around 800 cars an hour in one direction, without turning them into a nightmare. So four way intersections even have plenty of capacity. So I wouldn't see a problem from this point. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'd just like to be sure, before we enter into a nightmare. MR. MACEWAN-I think MR. BREWER-On that? MR. RUEL-Yes. I'd like to see some more information. MR. NACE-What more information is it you would be looking for? MR. MACEWAN-I think I'd like to see a study. to be honest with you. MR. NACE-Well, a traffic study, we debated whether or not to do a traffic study, and in this particular case, I don't believe that there's anything that a traffic study could recommend that we would do that would improve the situation, okay. There's certainly no warrant for a traffic light. The volumes that we're talking about are way. way. way below the warrant for a traffic light. With the option of going either way, so that if I want to make a left hand turn here, I don't have to wait. I can go ove r he re and make a right hand turn, with that option available, then the capacity of either of these intersections does not become a problem. It's a problem for a driver once, and the next time he goes in the other direction. MR. BREWER-I think maybe an easier solution is we could have Paul Naylor look at it. and see what he thinks. He would more so know the roads than any of us here. MR. NACE-I've done traffic studies. I've read through traffic studies. I've had experts do traffic studies on the projects I've been working on, and I really just don't think it's applicable for what we're doing here, because I don't think that there's anything constructive that would come out of it. MR. BREWER-You're right, and I think once you got a traffic study, and we all got a copy of it, we could read it and not know a damn thing what it says. personally. I wouldn't. I think if we asked the Highway Superintendent if he looked at these roads. and if he had any suggestions, then we could go from there. MR. NACE-I' ve talked to Paul about the general layout of the subdi vision and the roads. I haven't talked to him about that specific issue. So I'll be glad to do that, discuss that. MR. MACEWAN-Has the County given any comment on this at all? MR. NACE-No. We're at the stage now where we will be applying for the County road entrance permits for these new roads. I don't anticipate. - 21 - '----' ...../ MR. MACEWAN-Will you be going through Warren County Planning with this? MR. NACE-It's not Warren County Planning applicable. MR. MACEWAN-I thought there was something to do, because of road frontage on a County road. MR. NACE-It simply requires a road entrance permit from Fred Austin. MR. BREWER-Just the Highway. MR. NACE-So. we will be doing that. MR.' RUEL-As far as traffic is concerned. you indicated that they would benefit from the fact that they could exit out from either end of the property, right? MR. NACE-Yes, that is correct. MR. RUEL-However. do you intend to build all these roads, Phase I. II. and III, all at the same time? MR. NACE-We have given consideration, if the Board so desired. for Phase I, we would take one of these roads on through. We're going to be doing the utilities anyway, okay. MR. RUEL-When Phase I is built. will there be access to both Meadowbrook and Bay? MR. NACE-If you'd care to stipulate that, we would certainly be willing to do it. MR. RUEL-Yes, I think it should be. because Phase II and III may never be built. MR. YARMOWICH-You also aren't generating full traffic volumes. until buildout. I mean. Phase I is not going to be at full volume condition. MR. NACE-Yes. I think what you might want to do, in that sort of a motion, would be to stipulate at some point in here, when we get 15 lots. okay, or 10 lots, a certain number of lots developed, that before we get the building permit for the next lot, that this road be constructed through here. We're going to be putting the utili ties through there anyway. So that right-of-way has to be available, and most of the road sUbgrade has to be constructed anyway. MR. RUEL-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I just want to get the zoning in my mind straight. The whole project was zoned MR-5? MR. NACE-This whole area, down, I believe the southern boundary of this property, right at the Town line. MRS. TARANA-AlI three phases were MR-5? MR. NACE-Well, everything is presently zoned MR-5. We simply have a variance to construct single family in Phase I. MRS. TARANA-So. what happens to Phase II and III? MR. HARLICKER-They'll have to go through the same procedure that they did in Phase I, get a variance. and then come back for the Preliminary approval. MR. NACE-We will have to go through the same procedure. When we - 22 - '- went through this. we originally carne to this Board with a concept plan, and we originally had duplexes proposed. We really would have preferred, at that time. to say we were bUilding single family. because of the market, but it wasn't zoned for single family. Through discussions with this Board, we determined that the Board would look favorably upon having single family houses there. instead of duplexes. We said. okay, lets go through the zoning process to get that variance to be able to build it. and through that process. we were sort of guided into doing a phase at a time with the zoning permits. MRS. TARANA-So. when we consider this SEQRA review. for the whole project based on MR-5, in Phases II and III? MR. HARLICKER-Based on as their proposing tonight. with the whole property being single family. MR. NACE-We would propose to develop the whole property single family. MRS. TARANA-But wouldn't it make? MR. BREWER-You can't segment a SEQRA, though. MRS. TARANA-Yes, I don't understand how we can do that? MR. YARMOWICH-If they make a change in the project, they have to go back through SEQRA again. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-If their proposal is single family, throughout this MR-5 zone. then they would have to get a new SEQRA determination for the next phase, if there was a single family. MRS. TARANA-But at this point. the project is only single family in Phase I, and it's still MR-5 in II and III? MR. NACE-That's right. but our intention is to be able to get the zoning variances for Phase II and III, okay. So if we don't get those, then we have to come back before you. Well, we have to come back before you anyway for subdivision approval. at this stage. At that point. then we've got to address SEQRA again. MR. BREWER-Why wouldn't you get a variance on the whole piece, just curious? MR. NACE-We've been through so many meetings and gyrations with trying to figure out whether to use the zoning variance. whether to rezone, whether to use the use variance. I'm not sure exactly where the input for that has come from. but we have been guided into the slot of saying, do your zoning variance and phase. I can't tell you right about now. One thing that it does, like you say. if the market changes, it allows us to come back with a proposal for MR-5 for duplexes on these lots. but at that point. we would have to go through SEQRA allover again. and convince this Board that it's viable. MR. STARK-Tom, what is the diameter of the septic. or the sewer main coming down Meadowbrook? MR. NACE-The existing main down Meadowbrook is a 10 inch force main. okay. There's a pump station up here for Hiland, and then Hiland comes into that pump station somewhere back in here. Then that leaves the pump station. The force main that comes down Meadowbrook is a, I believe it's a 10 inch force main. GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-It's an eight inch. MR. NACE-Really? - 23 - -- -- MR. GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-It's an eight inch. 1,200.000 gallons a day. It's capable of MR. NACE-Okay. MR. STARK-My question was, getting to it, if Hiland ever builds out. and you wanted to hook in ACC to your eight inch main. which isn't a force main, and then you wanted to get Bayberry involved and Walker Lane involved and everything, will that main corning down Meadowbrook handle everything? MR. NACE-No. You can't just take everything out of here Bay Road and just put it through it, okay. There's not enough capacity. It's not just the main. It's the gravity sewers on down below Cronin Road, and the Town pump station down at Meadowbrook, the corner of Meadowbrook and Quaker. that also limit it. okay. So there is some limit, okay. There is additional capacity in that force main for both Hiland and this and ACC. Beyond that. it starts to get fuzzy, okay, as to how much additional capacity there is. ACC, I think. is about 10 or 12,000 gallons a day. It's not a whole lot. MR. STARK-You said you were going to put fill for that construction road. okay, like gravel going out onto Meadowbrook. MR. NACE-Right. MR. STARK-How much fill do you think you would need in there. I mean, depth? MR. NACE-Down in here, a good bit of the road is constructed upon fill. right where. there's a little high ridge in here. and it comes down and flattens out right at Meadowbrook. So we're 100, 200 feet back off Meadowbrook. I don't know. I'm just guessing. profiles, but I think there may be four or five feet of fill in there. MR. STARK-If you put that much fill for the road, what about the houses? There's lots on each side. They would be below the level of the road. then? MR. NACE-Well, there will be fill material generated from the construction of roads. throughout the site. and some of that will be used to fill some of the lower areas. So, each lot. especially down in the lower areas, each lot will be regraded. to provide a building site. MR. STARK-There's going to be that much fill generated? MR. NACE-There's quite a bit generated with construction of roads. You're removing, of course, the top soil, then you're cutting in. even where the road isn't in cut. where the profile would be right even with the existing surface. You're still cutting down better than a foot to provide for the depth of gravel and depth of pavement of the roads. So. yes, and there will be a decent amount of material brought in, granular, sandy soil brought in for some of the construction fills, too. MRS. TARANA-Tom. would you just point out, on Bay Road. the office property? MR. NACE-Okay. We're using the stream that comes up through here as a buffer zone. okay. That stream has a 75 foot setback on the line. We're using that as a buffer. So Lots Number One through Thirteen are office lots. So everything on the west side of the stream. MR. BREWER-Okay. There is a public hearing. Is there anything from anybody on the Board? I guess we'll open the public hearing. - 24 - '- -- PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DOUG COON MR. COON-I'm Doug Coon. I live on Bayberry Drive. At the last meeting. I'd asked a question regarding sewer flow. and it was explained to me that the sewer would be coming out of this development, to Meadowbrook. and then going directly south, but it would not be going to the pump station. As a matter of fact, it must be a matter of public record, and now I find that it's going to go north into the pump station. I live across from that pump station, and it's noisy at times. It's a bit unsightly. and there is odor. once in a while, as well, and I'm a little upset. because it was explained to me that it was going to go onto Meadowbrook Road. and then south down toward Cronin, where there is, I guess, a pump station right now in place. I'd like that addressed. and I had asked, at the time as we II. if all the pump stations were located on the map. and at that time they weren't all located. I'd like to know the locations of all the pump stations on the existing map. I'd also like to know if there is going to be screening. and what type there's going to be. MR. BREWER-We can maybe let Tom answer the questions as we go along. MR. NACE-Yes. You're right. Originally, we had proposed coming out, we had a lot. or a piece of this lot down in here dedicated to a new pump station that was going to pump into that force main going down Meadowbrook. In discussions with the Town. it has turned up that they suggested that we consider going into the existing pump station up here. eliminate this, and make use of the facility up here that exists. If there is a noise or odor problem here. that should be dealt with. regardless of whether we're using the pump station or not. Additional flow into it may actually help. If there's an odor problem, it may help by keeping the turnover time and the pump station smaller, by keeping sewage from sitting there between cycles as long as it presently does. Have I answered? MR. COON-Yes. Again. I was unaware of this. because the last meeting I was at, which was the last one you came for. it was going the other way. MR. NACE-That's right. This is only a change that's taken place in the last two months. MR. COON-If you haven't seen the pump station, you might want to look at it. There are some shrubs around it, but it's not really dressed up nicely. There are quite a bit of piping above ground. They are colored, but they are big pipes that are sticking above ground. and they are enclosed by a metal chain link fence. It really doesn't go along with the beauty of the whole common area. I would want to see something over or built around that pump station that's attractive, and something that would enclose that. so that you wouldn't get any odor at all, and hopefully it would be attractive enough that it would go with the surrounding area. and it would hopefully do away with the noise. On noise. you don't hear the noise all the time. but when the, as I understand it. and I'm not totally sure on this, that these are grinder pumps. and when the do kick on at times. I can hear it inside my house. MR. BREWER-Maybe that's something you could even talk to the Town about right now, the Water Department. MR. COON-Right, and now with this. in my mind. it might compound things a bit. Originally, I was just going to ask where the other pump stations were on the property, and request that they be at least screened in and odorless, and I did talk to Mr. Passarelli about this before, and he pretty much said to me that they would have to be, or else people wouldn't want to live on the lots, if - 25 - - "-- -- they were that close odorless. They would Now, I think I've got the sewer is going to I would hope that you to a pump station. They'd have to be have to be screened, and built correctly. more of a concern, seeing where the bulk of go first. That's more of a concern to me. would deal with that. MR. BREWER-Okay. I've got it written down. Thank you. MR. COON-Thank you. MR. NACE-Just to answer the stations proposed now. okay. this parcel. last part, there are no other pump So there will be no pump stations on MR. BREWER-Okay. GARY BOWEN MR. BOWEN-My name is Gary Bowen. I haven't been in front of this Board in five or six years. I have a couple of questions. Number One, I am in favor of the development. I'd like to say that, but there's a couple of technical things that I think have to be resolved, that perhaps people haven't looked at yet, and they have to do with Doug's comments about sewage, however. I don't know how you can detect an odor, Doug, from the pump station, when you have your horse barn between the pump station and your house. but in any event. and the noise and so on, it doesn't emit any noise, but there is a bigger problem from getting sewage from this property to the pump station. and that is along this highway, which is Meadowbrook. There are, when we opened thi s highway up on both sides, we had to blast from probably 2,000 feet south of the property all the way up through, basically, the pump station. That line is laid in concrete, the whole line. That line cannot be disturbed. On the other side is a water line, and there are telephone cables. There's 2500 pairs of telephone cables that cannot be disturbed, that we had to work around. We were told that there is actually no room on either side of the right-of-way. So, the big question is. how do you get your utilities from the egress onto Meadowbrook, north to the pump station, and I'll tell you what the answer is, because given to us, if we ever had to do anything. is it's up the middle of Meadowbrook Road. Your sewage has to go through the middle of the road. There is no room, unless you take property from Hiland or take property from Mr. Coon and so on, to run your sewage line on private land. The other things are, what is the sewage capacity from the, what's the flow requirement from buildout? MR. NACE-I believe, at buildout, it's about 75 to 80,000 gallons a day. MR. BOWEN-And now you're bringing water in. did I hear water from Meadowbrook? MR. NACE-The water will tie it through Meadowbrook to Bay. MR. BOWEN-Are you looping through to Bay? MR. NACE-We are. MR. BOWEN-You're tied into Bay? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. BOWEN-Okay. because even though the line that the Town made us put in, at the break point, here, is 12 inch. we're 12 inch all the way up Meadowbrook. We are 12 inch from the Town office building, and the fire hydrant right out here. that we had to tie in. So we have a complete 12 inch loop that comes up here and ties in. However. below us. we tie in to an eight inch, and everybody knows what happens, you know, eight inch going into a twelve inch, and so - 26 - '- -- on. You don't create 12 inches of water up here when you're feeding from an eight inch. Now. we get good pressure. We have phenomenal pressure in this end of the Town. because we have the loop system, and therefore, as long as this is tied, that system will work well. The main thing is. now you have a wetland here. and there are issues that I think everyone should know about. as far as taking sewage into the Glens Falls Treatment Plant. The Glens Falls Treatment Plant is a federally funded treatment plant under the President Kennedy's executive order. No sewage generated in a wetland or going through a wetland can be processed in that Plant. So that's a watchout for the project, that this line can't be going through a wetland. You can't be taking any sewage from a wetland, and as far as the traffic studies go. I would only recommend to the Board that you keep it the same level that we had to. that Hiland Park had to go through. Now. is this project. does it require a SEQRA Review? MR. BREWER-Yes, sir. MR. BOWEN-A full Environmental Impact Statement? MR. BREWER-Well. no. not yet. We're doing a Long Form SEQRA. It hasn't kicked it into an EIS yet, or anything. MR. BOWEN-Okay, because if you go the Long Form. you are going to have to do a traffic study, correct? MR. BREWER-Not necessarily. MR. BOWEN-No? Okay. Well, I'm not suggesting that the project have to do another traffic study, because this, the traffic has been studied to death in this area, and what maybe the suggestion would be that they go to the County. who is supposedly the repository for all the traffic studies done in the Town. We have done three ourselves. The College has just completed one for a red light that they have to pu~ in in front of the College, and I think that there was one done for Quaker Road a couple of years ago, that all comes up into here, and just to answer those questions to everyone's satisfaction, they all tie together. I guess that my main concern was the sewage, and the fact that, technically. the sewage line. unless some mitigative measures are run. cannot be tied into the pump station. However. that's the only alternative, because you can't feed into the force main, and the energy from the front of the project to the back of the project. you've got slope to run into the pump station? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. BOWEN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Tom, do you know about the pipe? MR. MACEWAN-Mr. Bowen. how long ago were your traffic studies done? MR. BOWEN-Five years. They're five years old. MR. MACEWAN-Would they be on file with the Town? MR. BOWEN-Yes, they are. They're in our Impact Statement, but the County's are much more recent. In the Quaker Road study. I think it's about 18 months old. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. NACE-To answer your question, no I didn't know about the telephone cable. I will find out about it. MR. BREWER-No. I mean about the pipe being encased in concrete? MR. NACE-No. I was not aware of that, either. You mean the - 21 - ',-- ..-' eXisting force main? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. NACE-No. I was not aware of that. MR. BREWER-Okay. So we can look into something like that? MR. NACE-I will definitely look into some of the issues he's raised. MIKE HUTSENPILLER MR. HUTSENPILLER-My name is Mike Hutsenpiller, and I live at 20 Bayberry Drive. I have some real reservations about traffic in this area. Many times, when I'm trying to exit my property, no matter what time of day it is, I cannot go out Bayberry Drive and turn towards Glens Falls, which is south. without experiencing a real serious degradation of service. meaning. I think Level E is the lowest kind service you can have, in regard to a traffic study, and many times I feel that I am in that range. The level of traffic that comes down Bay Road from the College is really quite heavy. and I think if the Planning Board kind of gleans over it and says. there might be a problem. there might not be. I really don't think that's the answer. I would like the Board to take a long hard look at this traffic. If you think I'm kidding, then come there some day and just try to go out. Particularly. I would say. on the hour when the classes change. It's really heavy, and for a project of this size to come out onto Bay Road, I feel that it's only going to exacerbate my situation, because I'm sure some of that traffic will come north. If you have offices in there. who knows where the traffic is going to come from. They corne in and out all day long. The 150 cars maximum. per hour. I question that. too. You might ask, how does he know this, well, I. too am a professional engineer in New York State. I do sessions such as this before Planning Board's, and I've found that the traffic isn't really a point of contention on my part. Even though traffic studies have been done in the area, I don't know, other than what Mr. Bowen said, that his was done five years ago, that might be out dated. Maybe something a little more updated should be presented. The College has done one. I understand. for a traffic light that's supposed to go in there. I understand. I didn't know one existed. In regards to mitigation of the traffic that comes out onto Bay Road from the project, the general perception, with this plan more than a lot of plans that I see is that. well, people are going to take the path of least resistance, and that is true, but you have to remember. if you have office traffic. they can't get out onto Bay Road, they're going to go back through the subdivision, and is that what you want for people in the subdivision, is to experience office traffic going back through their property? MR. BREWER-Thank you very much. MR. NACE-The traffic issue that Mike is experiencing is, as he said. primarily the College, okay. What is happening now is the traffic going up Bay Road platoons or goes in like accordion bunches, for a little ways off of Meadowbrook. because there's a traffic light. So you get interruptions in flow, generated by the traffic light, but as you come further north away from that intersection. those gaps fill uP. people pulling out from other businesses, other roads. and people speeding up. what have you, those gaps fill UP. so that by the time you get up toward the College, the gaps have pretty well disappeared, and also coming out of the College. primarily coming out of the College. If you're sitting at Bayberry waiting to turn left, with the flow out of the College pretty much continual at times, I'm sure there's, you know, you may sit there for 10 or 15 minutes. The traffic light proposed at the College will do a great deal to interrupt that one side of that flow, so that the when there are any small gaps coming north. - 28 - ---- you can take advantage of them. So I think that the light at the College will do a great deal to alleviate the problem Mike s experiencing now. Being as close as we are to where that light is proposed. I don't think that the County would even consider allowing us, allowing us. even if we wanted to. to put a light here. and I don't think, you know. there will be some traffic flow. obviously, coming out of here going north. I think that's a fairly small fraction of our total traffic volume. The other issue that Mike raised about traffic going back through the subdivision, yes. there is going to be some of that. The traffic generated by the office space in here is going to occur at different peak hours than what comes out of the residential portion. This will probably peak in the hours of nine to eleven. and two to four in the afternoon, and so there will be some, but this, compared to the residential peaks. the peak out of here will be very small, and I don't, you know, if some of that goes back through the subdivision, I don't think that's a great detriment. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else? KENT KILBURN MR. KILBURN-Hi. I'm Kent Kilburn. I live on Meadowbrook Road. My first question was, the construction road that you're talking about putting in initially. I'd like to know where that road is actually going to be laid out on Meadowbrook Road. My house is right across from this field that you're seeing here in this Section Three. or Phase III. of the project. I'm concerned about truck traffic. dust, mud trafficking in and out, and I'd like to have some idea of where the road is. physically, going to be placed. MR. NACE-It would probably be this northerly road that would come out. I believe your driveway, are you the very northern house there? You're the last one on the north? MR. KILBURN-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. Then your driveway is right about where the "B" is here in Meadowbrook, okay. and we're a little bit south of your driveway, then, with the road that would come out. MR. KILBURN-If you were to put in a road from the division over to Meadowbrook, where would it tie into Meadowbrook, a road for regular traffic? MR. NACE-That would be the same. MR. KILBURN-It would be that road? MR. NACE-It would be that road. MR. KILBURN-My second concern is the volume of traffic, again. Having lived on that road for about 16 years, I've got quite a bit of history on the amount of traffic that goes up and down through there. When Mr. Bowen's project was put in, we'd had conversations with him that the traffic studies were done and showed that there would be no real appreciable increase in traffic. I'm here to tell you, that's not true. Now you're saying you've got another 150 or so vehicles an hour that's going to travel up and down this road. Quite honestly, I'm not interested in having that volume of traffic increase beyond what it is already. That's supposedly a 40 mile an hour highway. That's certainly not adhered to. but a volume of traffic increase, again, the traffic on Bay Road is not going to get any less. It's going to get more and more as time goes on. That's going to push more of the traffic through Meadowbrook Road. Meadowbrook Road. in my opinion, is not designed as a super highway. It's, certainly the highway on Bay Road is a small little two lane road, and increasing the traffic on that. significantly I think, is not in the best interest of the families that live on that road and have lived on that road for years. and certainly not - 29 - ',- ---' the road itself. So the volume of traffic. from my perspective. is variable. Especially if we're getting up, somewhere it was mentioned. 600 to 1,000 cars per hour. MR. BREWER-I don't think cars per hour. MR. MACEWAN-That's the capacity on Meadowbrook. MR. NACE-No, not that we would generate. That's what the capacity, that road is. I don't know what the Town. MR. KILBURN-I thought you were saying Meadowbrook Road was. MR. HARLICKER-That's a designated Collector. MR. NACE-That' s designated as a Collector Road in the Town, and according to DOT's standards. the way it's laid out, and the speed. that is has a capacity somewhere in that range. I don't know what the exact numbers are, but it's in that range. MR. KILBURN-Obviously, whoever draws up those little conclusions doesn't live on Meadowbrook Road. MR. BREWER-I agree with you, and that's just what I tried to come across as saying. that I don't think that Meadowbrook Road can handle that. Whether a traffic engineer says that it can, in my mind, I don't think Meadowbrook Road is designed to handle that much traffic. Maybe it can. Maybe I'm wrong. MR. KILBURN-I can't believe that either. Even if they say it is, I'm certainly opposed to increasing the volume of traffic in an area that has been very tranquil and very pleasant to live in for 15, 16 years, and I'm not interested in it becoming a super highway. I mean it's already. now that it's paved. it's become a drag strip. Now if we're going to increase the tonnage of cars on there by this magnitude, I'm just against that altogether. MR. STARK-I have a question, Mr. Kilburn. in your house? MR. KILBURN-No. Fortunately, I do not. MR. STARK-Why? Did you build your house? Do you have a basement MR. KILBURN-No, I did not. MR. STARK-Because when I was up there today. there was water all over your property. MR. KILBURN-Well, I'm getting to that part. I'm not done. The water along Meadowbrook Road is my next topic. We're talking about some wetlands, and some areas down here, where it appears there's Phase III housing. etc. This construction road going in there. and the volume of traffic, what are you going to do with all of the water along the Meadowbrook Road, all year long? I mean. what are we going to do with that? I hope that's not going to flood over onto my property. I mean, my place is wet enough now, as you've seen today, but there is a Brook that runs down on this side, the project side. of Meadowbrook Road, nearly all year long. The area. right where that access road is going in, is swamp. They had the people out there with the little backhoes digging around some test holes a few years ago. He had a real treat trying to move around. That is an extreme Iv wet area. You start putting roads in there. how are you going to handle all that volume of water? Is it going to accumulate? What are we going to do with that area of water where that road is right now? MR. NACE-The drainage that is along here is primarily from the top of the ridge here down. okay. The main drainage in here comes out through the wetland. So what you're see ing here. mostly. is - 30 - '- -/ standing water. I agree. there is. in the spring of the year. there is standing water in here. Now DEC was in here. In fact, they've been on the property twice to flag wetlands, and what they flagged is what you see here. This is wet. We know it's wet. We've proposed that we would raise these lower lots by putting fill in. We're, obviously, gOing to put culverts underneath our roads, and a ditch line here. In fact. we'll probably improve the actual flow of water through there now. Right now it's just a flat area. The water stands and doesn't move. MR. KILBURN-Where is it going to go? MR. NACE-To the north. MR. KILBURN-To the north. Well. right across from my property. the ledge is about three feet down. Where are you going to flow it to? MR. NACE-Well, the way it naturally eventually goes now. except it just goes very, very slow, because it's in a wide area that's full of grass and it doesn't have a clear path to go. What we're going to do is we fill this area in, is provide a ditch line alongside Meadowbrook Road, culverts underneath our entrance road, and allow that water to move through that ditch line. up to where it goes now to get into the wetland. It's not a matter of displacing the water. It's a matter of taking standing water and allowing it to move out to a natural drainage pattern. MR. BREWER-Is that allowable, that you put the water into the wetlands? MR. NACE-It goes there now. MR. BREWER-It just takes a long time to get there. MR. NACE-It just takes a long time to get there. It's flat, so it stands. You're not really seeing a stream through there now. It's just primari ly in the wet period of the year, because it is so flat. and the soil's clay and there's some shallow ground bedrock. that it stands there. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-But all the water naturally flows north there now? MR. NACE-I believe so, yes. MR. MACEWAN-Including even the portion in the upper northeast corner of the wetlands? MR. NACE-Northeast corner, up here? Yes. This does flow. MR. MACEWAN-It all flows north as well? MR. NACE-Yes. There is a culvert pipe that's been put in along a portion of Meadowbrook Road here, and it comes across Meadowbrook. I'm not sure whether it's be low, I think it's be low the pump station that it crosses. MR. KILBURN-It crosses just at the top of the property line. It crosses underneath the highway, across 2500 feet across our property into Halfway Brook. MR. STARK-Mr. Kilburn, being a long time resident of Meadowbrook. you remember when the road was a dirt road? MR. KILBURN-Yes. sir. MR. STARK-After it was paved, did you have more water on your property. or less? - 31 - '- ---- MR. KILBURN-More. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. KILBURN-The only other point I had was, again, the topic of the sewer. We had been told. originally. about a pumping station in the field directly across from my property. We obviously weren't interested in that happening. Now we're told that it mayor may not be able to go up to the pump station. If that, in fact, proves to be correct. and it can't go to that pump station, what's the alternative? MR. NACE-As we were talking before, it would be a pump station. another pump station. if we could not go up Meadowbrook for some reason. I don't know all the details at this point, and obviously I've got some digging to do to find out. but if we absolutely could not go up Meadowbrook Road, then we would go back to a pump station on our property. MR. KILBURN-If that plan should be enacted, would that require a separate line to be run down to the gravity section of the lot? MR. NACE-No. I would pump directly into the force main that's over there. MR. KILBURN-Is there any way of knowing when that decision would be determined? MR. BREWER-We will find that out. MR. KILBURN-Because if a pump station goes in there, fully agree with the first gentleman that was here. something that you do not want adjacent to your property. going to enhance the value of the property at all. It's not going to improve the quality of living. that's. I That's It's not certainly MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. OSCAR SUNDBERG MR. SUNDBERG-Oscar Sundberg. I used to live up there. Years ago. there was a ditch across Cronin Road, a culvert. north of Mr. Rehm's property, and south of Mr. Kilburn's. The water drained from that swampy area. at that point, down to Halfway Brook. In the ensuing years, that property on the east side got filled in. So the water has to go upstream to the north. So I imagine that's why he's getting more standing water, because it's not able to go in it's natural direction. which was east. but that might have been done before he moved there. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. JOHN WILLIAMSON MR. WILLIAMSON-My name is John Williamson. I live on Walker Lane. My question is very simple. actually. It has nothing to do with the specifics you're talking about, but with generalities, and that is, are the places being planned to be built here. are they compatible with the other properties that are on there? Are they compatible with where we live, and are they compatible with the other houses that are a little bit north of, I believe, where this site is going to be? Are they compatible with the houses over at Hiland? MR. BREWER-That's something we have to take into consideration when we decide whether to approve this or deny it. MR. WILLIAMSON-So you're saying that your committee, or your Board. that is part of your responsibility? - 32 - -- -- MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON-And how do you determine whether it's compatible? MR. BREWER-By the proposal that they're sUbmitting to us. MR. WILLIAMSON-I mean the houses themselves, the actual houses? MR. BREWER-For me. that's hard. I mean. I can't tell you what kind of house you would like for you to build, and have it be the same as what 1. would like in my next, I mean. that's their right to build what kind of house they want. MR. WILLIAMSON-I guess I could be a little more simple. Now the houses at Hiland are probably in the neighborhood of $300,000 or $400.000 or maybe half a million. I'm not sure about that. but are these houses going to be in the $25,000 range, $125,000, half a million dollar range? MRS. PULVER-Well, I think that's up to the developer. We can't dictate to him how much the houses can cost. or the size of the homes. The only thing we can do is see to it that he sticks with the zoning. which is Single Family. right now. and that's what is compatible with that area. MR. WILLIAMSON-Okay, and one other simple question. It says a subdivision of plus 82 acres. I take it you've got 82 acres there. That's the only 82+. you mean, very close to 82 acres? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. WILLIAMSON-If you have 146 lots, you know that's going to be a little over a half an acre a lot. That's it. really. MR. BREWER-Actually, they're going to be 10.000 square feet, in some instances. 12. some larger. The smallest lot will be 10.000 square feet. MR. WILLIAMSON-Obviously. I'm not acquainted with your terminology of zoning. either. MR. RUEL-The lots could be one quarter of an acre. MR. WILLIAMSON-So I guess the answer to my question, basic question, is that all you have to make sure is that they have certain rules that they abide by, and that's all it amounts to? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. HUTSENPILLER-About how many office lots would you have? MR. NACE-Thirteen. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Thirteen office lots? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. HUTSENPILLER-But at this time. you really don't know what's going on those lots? MR. NACE-Obviously, that depends on who buys them, and that's all site plan review applicable. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Is the 150 cars, based on the office, and? MR. NACE-Yes. That includes an average bUilding density for the - 33 - '-- --/ office. and an average generation rate. Obviously, I don't know. it will make a di fference whether it's a doctor's office. or secretarial pool that goes into a building. as far as the trip generation. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Is that the buildout for that? MR. NACE-That is the buildout. That is the whole project, the environmental assessment, whole project. MR. HUTSENPILLER-So. depending on what you sell. in regards to office. it could be higher or lower? MR. NACE-That is correct. That's just an average. assuming that the lots are full at buildout, for square footage, but an average generation rate. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Do you, roughly. know how big an office you could put? MR. NACE-It's in my files. I'd have to go back through and. you know, whatever the Code allows. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to comment? Okay. I think I'm going to leave the public hearing open, Tom. only because I think there's issues that I think we have to have answers to, and if there's any other comments. maybe we could have the people come back and address them, or ask any other comments. How does anybody else feel on this Board about doing the SEQRA and doing a motion on this tonight, or would you like to get the things addressed that we have outlined? MR. MACEWAN-I think more information. MR. BREWER-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-No. I'm pretty well set. MRS. PULVER-I think most of my questions have been answered. and they may have been answered. They may not have the information on the plotter, in our hands. but I'm expecting it at final. MR. BREWER-Okay. Corinne, how do you feel about going ahead with the SEQRA, or do you want more information. or, what do you want to do? MRS. TARANA-I'm confused on the SEQRA. that, how we can do a SEQRA based on? I still don't understand MR. STARK-You can go ahead with that, the wetlands, you can address all that at SEQRA. MR. BREWER-We're going to have to if we decide we SEQRA. We have to answer the questions tonight. asking, if you want more information gathered, what that we can go ahead and do the SEQRA. want to do the That's why I'm would it be. so MRS. TARANA-Will Scott explain, again, what we're doing the SEQRA on? MR. BREWER-Well, I'm just polling the Board simply to see if you want to go ahead and do the SEQRA. MRS. TARANA-Well, that's what I'm asking. MR. BREWER-Craig said he would like more information. Roger said he's all set. Carol said she's all set. MRS. TARANA-Well, I have some questions about. you know. in the SEQRA I think we have questions about the wetland. How can we - 34 - '-- -../ answer those questions if we have questions about the wetland itself? Craig wanted an inventory of wildlife? MR. BREWER-I asked to see if we could get an inventory. MRS. TARANA-Or you did? MR. BREWER-That's my feeling. I would like to gather some more information and maybe table this. MR. NACE-Is it feasible to go through SEQRA, to see if there are any more questions that get generated out of a review of SEQRA. without necessarily, if you feel uncomfortable at the end of that, fine. not take a vote on SEQRA, but at least go through it. so that we make sure that we can answer everything at once, okay, and I would like to get a complete listing of the items that you feel that we need to. MR. BREWER-Yes. I've got a couple listed here. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. BREWER-So then, we can do that. Scott, Corinne has a question about the SEQRA. MRS. TARANA-Would you clarify for me the SEQRA, when we do the SEQRA review on this project. we're looking at Phase I? MR. HARLICKER-The entire project, both Phase I, II, and III. MRS. TARANA-Okay. but when we're looking at the entire project. are we looking, are we assuming that they are going to have single family? MR. HARLICKER-Yes, you are. MRS. TARANA-How can we assume that? I just don't understand how we assume that, because it's an MR-5 zone. and that's what we should be looking at. MR. HARLICKER-That' s what they're proposing. The other option would be, which is even worse. would be to segment it and try to do it one phase at a time. MRS. TARANA-I know we can't segment it. Legally, I don't think you can do that, but I guess legally I don't see how you do a SEQRA review for an MR-5 zone, but assume that it's a single family? MR. MACEWAN-How would it change if. say, for instance, they didn't build the whole thing out in the next couple of years, and eventually. seven years from now, they got to Phase III, and they decided to put multifamily in there. How would that effect us with the SEQRA? MR. HARLICKER-They'd have to go back through the SEQRA again. MRS. TARANA-Well. then isn't that segmenting the SEQRA. at that point? MR. YARMOWICH-That's a change from the conditions from which you made your determination. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. It would just be reopening it again. MR. YARMOWICH-See. 'the conditions upon which you're being asked to make your determination is single family throughout. If the developer changes that proposal. at a later phase, then they'll have to go back and you'll have to make the new determination. MRS. TARANA-Or, if they don't get their variances, we'd have to do - 35 - '-- --- SEQRA again? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-Then, if they want to proceed with the project on a different basis, a new determination would be required. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you want to go through it, slowly? MRS. TARANA-It's not that I'm not satisfied. MR. BREWER-You're not sure? MRS. TARANA-I'm just, I worry that that's the legal. is that legal? MR. YARMOWICH-It's quite normally done that way. Through the construction of a project, say you discover an archeological site. You've got to go back if you want to continue. The conditions have changed. You're operating under a condition of the proposal. This is what's being proposed. Can you get through SEQRA and make a determination based on the proposed conditions is the question at hand. If the developer, or any other circumstance should arise that changes the proposal, then you'll have to reweigh your determination, and determine, if it's a significant modification. you have to make another determination. MRS. PULVER-"Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?" MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Are there any slopes 15 percent or greater? MR. NACE-No. MR. BREWER-Construction will continue for more than one year. involve more than one stage? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-That's small to moderate. MRS. TARANA-I think we should read each of those. You're just answering them, and who knows, I don't know what you're answering. MR. BREWER-Well, I'm looking at the. MRS. PULVER-I'm looking at the things under "Other Impacts". MR. BREWER-Under the Impact on Land. I'm looking at all of these, and I'm saying yes. Construction will continue for more than a year. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Anything else? MRS. PULVER-No. That's the only thing under that. All right. "Will there be an affect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-I would say no. MRS. PULVER-"Will proposed action affect any water bOdy designated as protected?" Examples. The site does not contain protected water body, does it, the stream, or what is the Brook? - 36 - '-- --- MR. BREWER-The wetlands are protected, aren't they? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Excuse me. Back in the first question here. The third item down, "Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within three feet of existing ground surface." That should be considered. and also Construction that will continue for more than one year." MRS. PULVER-Yes. we have that. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-What about the water table? MR. HARLICKER-And the water table. I thought that was one of them you listed. also. MR. RUEL-There were three of them on the first one, right, three items? MR. BREWER-I think we're not really dOing the SEQRA. I think we're going through to see if there's any real relevant questions. aren't we, or are we? MR. YARMOWICH-If there's information you lack to do it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Right. Okay. Do we need information on that? MRS. PULVER-No. I think we're just, we already know those. We know that, and we know how they're going to handle that. "Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?" MR. BREWER-I would say that the wetlands are protected, So then, I would say, yes. Wait a minute, now. developable area. A wetlands is undevelopable. correct? It says MRS. TARANA-But Other Impacts, I think, are the issues that Scott brings up in his Notes, that there will be an affect on those wetlands. MR. BREWER-So you would say that under "Other Impacts"? MRS. PULVER-We ll, on It Other Impacts It. I might put. yes, DEC wetlands, but they would be small to moderate, because they're going to flag them and nothing's going to happen to them. MR. BREWER-Yes, but we don't know, that's why I asked if there was an inventory. We don't know if there is any. MRS. TARANA-You don't know what impact it's going to have. MR. BREWER-We don't know what impact it's going to have. because we don't. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-We know where the wetlands are. MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. STEVES-As defined in the plans, and we're staying away from them. MR. NACE-That's right. So that even if there were unique species, in the wetlands. what are we doing that will impact those? Okay. We're protecting the wetlands from erosion and sedimentation. We're taking all the stormwater runoff from the site. and filtering it through a fairly long distance of trenches, that are filled with - 31 - -,,/ crushed stone. and outletting them in a broad stone filled basin that will, so that all the sediment comes out. with the contact with the stone. There will be some treatment. MR. MACEWAN-How does the incident with some of the properties encroaching on the 100 foot buffer affect it all? MR. NACE-That's under your Wetlands Law. All that is, is. as Tom explained before, it's a flag to say. take a look at what you're dOing and make sure you're not building a parking lot, or doing a specific activity. It doesn't say you can't do anything with them. It says you can't do anything with it. You can't make a lawn out of it, or you can't build a swing set. It just says, make sure that you look at it, and you've got that Law in place to help protect anything that goes on within that 100 foot buffer. MR. BREWER-And we do have a plan to show how you're going to take care of that wetland during construction. before and after construction? MR. NACE-Sediment control plan. DEC will have. I'm sure they'll require more than you have in front of you now. MRS. PULVER-So, I'd have to say, "Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected?" My answer would be no. MR. RUEL-No. As long as he meets all of these requirements. MRS. PULVER-Right. If they're going to do everything to protect it, if they're not going to go in on it. MR. RUEL-But we have to assume that they will meet the requirements. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll go along with that. MRS. PULVER-"Will proposed action affect any nonprotected existing or new body of water?" MR. RUEL-No. MRS. PULVER-"Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?" MR. MACEWAN-That's a yes. MR. RUEL-Who checks the quality of groundwater, surface and groundwater quality? MR. MACEWAN-Or quantity. MR. RUEL-Yes, quantity I can understand. What's this quality? MR. BREWER-Well, there's, proposed action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per day. That's small to moderate, because they're going to be. MR. RUEL-This is City water, right? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. RUEL-To me, that's the same as Item Four. As long as you meet all of these requirements. then the answer is no. MR. BREWER-I could say yes, and it could be mi tigated, small to moderate impact. MR. RUEL-And if you assume it will be taken care of. MR. NACE-We will be, the volume, okay, overall, because you have - 38 - -../ more impervious surfaces, but we're mitigating that with the stormwater management system. MR. BREWER-So it's a small to moderate impact. MR. RUEL-That's right. If these items were unmitigated, you could say, yes to a lot of them, right? MR. BREWER-But it's still going to have an impact. MR. RUEL-No, not if it's taken care of properly. MR. HARLICKER-Which one are you talking about? MR. MACEWAN-Five. MR. NACE-I think, Scott, the question is, if there is an affect on these items being identified or discussed. if that affect is mitigated, is it checked off on your checklist as "No Impact", or "Small to Moderate Impact"? MR. HARLICKER-Well. you go to Column Three, "Can Impact be Mitigated by Project Change?" MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. If that's what your opinion is, then that's the route that you would go. MR. RUEL-You may, in fact. improve the surface and groundwater quality and quantity, who knows? MR. HARLICKER-And you might want to address how, in some of the areas, the water table is very high. and how are they going to address that, as far as construction goes? The same would go with the bedrock, the areas of bedrock. MR. RUEL-Is that one of the items in Five? MRS. PULVER-Page Seven. MR. RUEL-Item Five on PaÇJe Seven. yes. items. unless it's an Other Impact. That's not one of the MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACEWAN-It relates back to the first page. Page Six. MR. BREWER-That has nothing to do with water. does it? MRS. TARANA-Sure it does. surface water. Right here. The water table is at the surface, or within several feet of the surface. This could cause problems during the construction of the individual houses and offices. The applicant should indicate how they will deal with the high water table. MR. BREWER-Okay. should include. So we can include that in there, as Other. we MRS. PULVER-Well, they explained, though, didn't you say, Tom. during construction, after the roads go in. and you lay all the crushed stone, and everything that was going to draw off the groundwater? MR. NACE-We will control groundwater during construction. and as far as overall impact on groundwater, from a quality standpoint. because it's clay soil, the water moves through that flow very, very slowly. So that. I've always sort of read that. "Impact on Groundwater Quality" to be something that you associate with areas where you have faster travel rates through the soil, and where - 39 - groundwater can, where it's used as an aquifer or something. MR. BREWER-Okay, next. Carol. MRS. PULVER-"Will proposed action alter drainage flows or patterns or surface water runoff?" MR. RUEL-Perhaps during construction, again. especially in the Brook. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. NACE-That's, yes. during construction. Well, we even, if you look at a very small area, we might be changing the immediate flow pattern. but eventually it gets to the same place. before it goes off site. MR. BREWER-It can be mitigated. Okay. MRS. PULVER-Okay. "Impact on Air Will proposed action affect air quality?" MR. BREWER-No. MR. RUEL-Air quality? MRS. TARANA-The dust. MR. HARLICKER-What construction dust? about during construction. controlling MR. RUEL-Did you say air quality? MRS. PULVER-Air quality. Yes. MR. RUEL-I'd say no. MRS. PULVER-Well, it may only be during construction. MR. NACE-For air quality? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. NACE-Yes, and even that, with the fairly wet clay site. MRS. PULVER-It's going to keep the mi tigated. "Will proposed action endangered species?" dust down. affect any So it can threatened be or MR. BREWER-Don't know that. MRS. PULVER-There are none that we know. MR. NACE-Well, there are no DEC mapped areas of endangered species. MR. BREWER-You said you didn't know that, but you were going to ask for an inventory. MR. NACE-I said I didn't have any inventory of what's in the wetlands. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought you said you didn't have an inventory, if you knew if there was anything there or not. MR. NACE-No. I said I didn't have an inventory of what wildlife was in the wetlands. We do know that there are no maps of endangered species. MR. BREWER-Okay. I misunderstood you then. Then there's no need - 40 - '-- "--' for the inventory. MRS. PULVER-Actually, I did. too. "Will action substantially affect nonthreatened or nonendangered species?" MR. BREWER-No. MRS. PULVER- "Will the proposed action effect agricultural land resources?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of agricultural land, if located in an agricultural district. Is it in an agricultural district? MR. RUEL-No. MR. NACE-No. For the record, if you go back enough years, that was farm land. okay. I think it was mowed for hay. at one point, but it is not in an agricultural district. MRS. PULVER-So it's no. resources?" "Will proposed action affect aesthetic MR. RUEL-Well, that's in line wi th the gentleman earlier that mentioned about the compatibility of $50.000 homes and $400.000 homes. MRS. PULVER-Well, we're not talking economics. MR. BREWER-We don't really have any control over that. MRS. PULVER-Yes. homes. We're talking aesthetics. Is single family MR. RUEL-That's aesthetics to me. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but we're not talking money. dollars. We're not talking MR. RUEL-I know you can't, but. MR. NACE-That whole issue, maybe I could digress here a minute. but that whole issue deals with the fact that if we had corne in under a regular MR-5 zone. which is what the Town has designated that land for, we could, by law, go in there and build over 300 units. It's almost 400 units that you could support on that piece of land. according to your zoning. So we are really backing up quite a ways. MR. BREWER-Yes, but you can look at that both ways, too, Tom. MR. NACE-How's that? MR. BREWER-You can go ahead and build those, but as a business standpoint. you're not going to do it. MR. NACE-I'm not threatening to do it. MR. BREWER-I understand that. and I'm not indicating that you are. MR. NACE-I'm just saying that that's what the Town has designated that land as capable of supporting, in their Master Plan. right, wrong, or indifferent. and that we have already done quite a bit to mi tigate. to come into aesthetics with the surrounding neighborhood, and we did even further by trying to buffer the area to the north with lots that were more in conformance with what was already there. - 41 - '--' --' MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-So, I would say, no. "Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance?" MR. BREWER-No. MR. RUEL-No. MRS. PULVER-"Impact on Open Space and Recreation Will proposed action affect the quality or quantity of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?" MR. BREWER-No. MR. RUEL-No. MRS. PULVER- "Will there be an affect to existing transportation systems?" MR. RUEL-Maybe some traffic problems, but not necessarily major. MR. BREWER-Well, we don't know that. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know. MR. MACEWAN-It could be potentially large. MR. RUEL-It could be. MR. BREWER-And that could be mitigated by project change, if, see that's what I don't know. MR. RUEL-If the County does something. MR. NACE-First of all, I don't think 100 cars an hour. 150 cars an hour is a large impact. but I think we've already mitigated by having through traffic, and allow some alternatives for that traffic flow, but I don't think. you know, it's a large impact. I agree there is an impact. You've got to say there's an impact. It's up to you whether you feel that's large, or it has been mitigated. MR. BREWER-It probably is not large to me because I live up by West Mountain, but the guy that lives on Meadowbrook Road. MR. NACE-Well, that's the whole issue. You can't stop that development. The Town is developing. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I don't see that it's big either. MR. NACE-Yes. I live off of Peggy Ann Road. and five years ago, or eight years ago, I drove Peggy Ann Road, it was dirt, and there wasn't a house along there, and now there are hundreds of houses along there. I still, that traffic is not an issue, even though, if you count Queen Victorias Grant, Queensbury Forest, Pheasant Walk. there are probably four to five hundred houses out there, as compared with the 133 that we're proposing. MR. MACEWAN-And a point to ponder. That's probably why the Town is now straightening out that curve on Peggy Ann Road. MR. NACE-That's, okay, and that's a design issue. If you look at Peggy Ann Road the way it presently is, it would not meet the DOT volume standards, because that curve is substandard, and si te distance is bad. Meadowbrook is different. It has been designated by the Town to be a Collector, and it is straight. level, okay, and safety is not an issue. I drive, every morning and every evening I drive Peggy Ann, and there is more traffic. There is - 42 - ~ ----' considerably more traffic than there was eight years ago. but it's still not anywhere near critical. MRS. PULVER-Well, I guess my feeling is. I have sympathy for the people that live up on Meadowbrook. One hundred and fifty cars, when they don't have one hundred and fifty cars, is a lot. However, the alternative is, if you don't have that entrance on Meadowbrook. then all your traffic. I mean, what are the alternatives? You don't have that entrance. So everything gòes to Bay Road. which probably would create a traffic problem there. and everybody would be upset with that. You can't put a light on Meadowbrook, because there isn't enough traffic to warrant that. So I guess maybe then we wouldn't have any development, and we can't certainly keep people from developing their property. So, when it goes back to 150 cars, I think that's reasonable. MR. BREWER-I don't think it comes back to 150 cars. Carol. MRS. PULVER-Well, this is 150. MR. NACE-Per hour. MRS. PULVER-Per hour. MR. BREWER-That's where I have a problem with traffic. 150 cars. It's going to be probably 300 cars. It's not MRS. PULVER-All right. Talk of the alternatives, then. What are the alternatives to not having those cars, take away that entrance. MR. BREWER-Well, there's always that. I don't know what the answer is. I'm just saying that it's not 150 cars. It, potentially, could be 300 cars. So I don't think that it's just a small to moderate impact. MR. RUEL-Yes, but where does that take us? Suppose it was 300 cars. What do we do then? Deny the application? MR. BREWER-I didn't say that. MR. RUEL-Well, you know, it's traffic. MR. BREWER-We could look at the traffic studies that have been done for ACC. The one that Mr. Bowen did. See if there was any other alternatives looked at there. I don't know that. I don't know that there was or there wasn't. I wasn't there. MR. MACEWAN-I think what you have to consider, too. MR. BREWER-And I'm not saying that you should deny the project because there's 300 cars. By no means am I saying that. I'm saying we should look at it. MR. NACE-I think you hit the nail on the head though, Tim, when you said the traffic studies are hard to understand, and they really don't tell you a whole lot. MR. BREWER-Okay, but we could have our Staff look at it and give us a conclusion. in terms that we could understand. Is that not so? MRS. PULVER-If you're willing to accept the conclusion. MR. BREWER-Sure. I might not like it, but I'm willing to. MRS. PULVER-I've sat on this Board where the Board has demanded the traffic study, and when we've gotten the results, they've refused to agree with it. MR. STEVES-If I told you a traffic study says that there are 1200 cars a day passing through McDonalds as a bypass, would you believe - 43 - .~ that? MR. BREWER-I sure would. MR. STEVES-And that's probably all in an eight hour period. MR. BREWER-But is it necessarily safe? Is it the ideal situation? MR. NACE-It gives you some idea of what 150 cars an hour means. MR. MACEWAN-And McDonalds is going to be willing to address that problem, because after next week, hopefully, the new site plan will not allow so many cars to go through the parking lot. MR. NACE-If there were something constructive that a traffic study could tell us. MR. BREWER-I'm not saying you should do a traffic study. I'm saying we could look. and gather the information, that has been done, and save you the time and expense of doing it, and just draw a conclusion from it. Okay. MR. RUEL-Did you say the College had just had a study? MR. NACE-I have not seen the study. MR. BREWER-Mr. Bowen. I think, said that. MR. NACE-That's right. MR. MACEWAN-There's at least three relatively recent studies available to us, with the oldest being about five years old. MR. NACE-I'm not sure how far, the Quaker Road study was one of the more recent. I'm not sure how far away that was. MR. MACEWAN-About three or four years ago that was done. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-"Will proposed action affect the community sources or fuel or energy supply? MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-I would say not. MRS. PULVER-"Will there be objectionable odors. vibrations as a result of the proposed action?" noise, or MR. RUEL-I hope not. MRS. PULVER-There might be some blasting. MR. HARLICKER-You might want to have the applicant address the issue of blasting. MRS. PULVER-Yes. There will be some blasting. MR. RUEL-Blasting. MR. BREWER-Is it within 1500 feet of a school? MR. NACE-Steve Britton was here, who is a blaster by profession. What we will do, most of the blasting in there will have to do with making the utility trenches, and the technique that we will use in there is to, what they call preblast. Go in while there's still ground cover on, before we strip any of the soil, go in and drill and blast where the trenches will be. So that once we strip the soil and get down to it, the rock is broken. Theoretically. it - 44 - should be all broken up. There may be some additional blasting required, but by doing that in small segments, and by doing it with the ground cove r on, it absorbs almost all of the sound. and a great deal of the vibration. Steve has looked at it. He does not feel that there would be a problem. given the distance to the neighbors. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. COON-How about the pump station? How about the sewer that goes to the existing pump station? MR. BREWER-Yes, but that's already eXisting. That's existing. MR. NACE-If there's an existing problem there now, it should be addressed and taken care of, okay. The pumps would turn on and off, and that's going to happen. eventually. anyway. So if there's an existing problem, that can be mitigated. We'll buffer and do some landscaping for you. MR. BREWER-Okay. So, what's the answer to noise and odors? The blasting. I would say. yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but it's going to be mitigated. MR. BREWER-Small to moderate. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-"Will proposed action affect public health and safety?" MR. RUEL-No. Unless, well, someone mentioned about odors from the pumping stations? MR. NACE-That' s an existing problem. That existing problem was there. That, again, is a problem that can be solved. That should be solved. MR. BREWER-I would say. no. MRS. TARANA-I'd like to know if the school buses go down Meadowbrook? Does anybody know? MR. BREWER-I would say, yes. MRS. TARANA-Do they drop children on Meadowbrook? MR. BREWER-Sure. Yes. zillion kids there. Regency Park Apartment's got to have a MRS. TARANA-I'm wondering if there's a, do children walk down Meadowbrook, where the construction is going to be taking place, that's what I'm wondering. MR. BREWER-No. I would say not. MRS. TARANA-It's beyond. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-I was concerned about the safety of the children getting off the school bus where the trucks are going, but that's not a problem. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-"Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?" - 45 - MR. RUEL-No. MRS. TARANA-I think it probably would. MR. BREWER-I would say yes. MRS. PULVER- "Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?" MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Well. let see, the proposed population of the city will not increase by more than five percent? MR. BREWER-At least the school's. MR. RUEL-Yes, but that's not listed. MR. BREWER-Sure it is. MR. RUEL-It is? MR. BREWER-Read down there. MR. MACEWAN-Potentially large. I think. MRS. PULVER-The density would be less. MR. BREWER-The density would be less, but the buildings themselves would be different, that's all. MRS. PULVER-Remember, they can have over 300. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-You think it's a small impact? MR. BREWER-I would say, yes. MR. RUEL-Where, under Schools? MR. BREWER-Yes. Moderate? MR. RUEL-Police and Fire. MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-The re won't be a demand for additional community services. MR. BREWER-Schools. MRS. TARANA-Police and fire protection. MR. BREWER-Police and fire protection. MRS. PULVER-Well. they're not going to add extra people. That's what they mean. Are they going to add extra enforcement and stuff becausé of this development? MRS. TARANA-I don't read that to mean they're putting on extra people. but that is a demand on community services. MRS. PULVER-It says a demand for additional community services, meaning what you already have in place. adding to that. MRS. TARANA-It will create more of a demand than there is right now. MR. BREWER-I don't think it's a large issue anyway. - 46 - ""~ MRS. TARANA-I'm not saying it's a large issue, but I'm saying it is, that you can't say it's not, that it will. If you put 150 new families in, or whatever number you put in. a new demand is created by that number of people. It's not saying you're hiring new policemen. MR. RUEL-They're also going to be paying for the additional services. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-"Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" Now we're talking environmental impacts. MR. BREWER-As the project itself, I would say yes, but I wouldn't say environmental impacts. We haven't, potentially, we have not. on this SEQRA, checked any potential large impact, other than traffic, possibly. We don't know the answer to that. So. I don't know how we can say yes. Well. I can't speak for everybody, I guess. MRS. PULVER-I would say. no, but again. we want to get this ironed out, here, on the traffic. and then we have to go through this all again, anyway. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. NACE-Okay. The way it stands so far now, from what I understand. traffic is the issue. MR. BREWER-Also I'd like to have Paul Naylor just look at the waiver for the roads. and maybe we could look into the water. real briefly, the pipe. MR. MACEWAN-The sewer passages. MR. BREWER-The water pipe, the main. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Get something in writing from the Water Department. Wastewater, as to the acceptability of your plans. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. BREWER-And you'll look into the that's next to that. So that if there put a pump station, can you determine if that's encased in concrete or not? phone lines, or whatever, is a change. and you have to that, from just finding out MR. NACE-No. We'd probably have to look at exactly where it would go, what the cost would be. MRS. TARANA-Are there underground utili ties there? poles? Telephone MR. NACE-Yes. Water lines and sewer force mains. telephone wire. There is a MR. BREWER-Would you object to tabling until next Thursday. Would that be enough time? MR. NACE-To address those issues? MRS. PULVER-Yes. What we'd like is to get the traffic studies to the Staff, have them review it. They can prepare something. Next Thursday you can come back, and we'll. MR. NACE-We're going to be here anyway. - 41 - ~...:~ MRS. PULVER-Good. Well. they'll have their comments. MR. MACEWAN-Tom, if you could just clarify for me, please, regarding your proposal for hooking into the sewer. Your intent. with your development, is just to hook your development into the sewer? At one point you were talking about Walker Lane up to Bayberry, as far as up to the College. How is all that tying in with everything? MR. NACE-Okay. Maybe to give you a little history, the Town originally approached Mr. Passarelli and said, we know you're planning this development, and you're probably planning on hooking into the sewer system over on Meadowbrook. quite frankly. without sewers, there's no way to build septic systems in there, and would you consider finding out if there are other people along Bay Road who could be served through that sewer? And we've approached those other people. Over the past year and a half, we've had numerous discussions with certain ones of them. MR. MACEWAN-Have you contacted everybody all up through there? MR. NACE-No, because of the limited capacity, we can't take everybody. and we can't encumber this project with a large project that may not be put together for five or ten years. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. NACE-The College was the most needy of being connected to the sewer. and we pursued further with them, to the point of their finding out how much it would cost, and if it was cost effective for them to tie in. and as far as verifying if there was capacity for them. MR. MACEWAN-When you speak to them, at the Water Department, Sewer Department. regarding this, would you ask them to put something together for us regarding potential maximum buildout on it, all the way up to the College, and all the houses all along up through there? MR. NACE-Sure. MR. BREWER-Okay. this. until. Would somebody care to make a motion to table MR. STEVES-Before you do, could I ask you to act upon the waiver request for the 35 lots, for the phasing conditions? Rather than postpone that and have that fall through the cracks. MR. BREWER-I suppose we could do the waiver for the 35 lots. That would be, how many lots for the first phase, Leon? MR. STEVES-I think there's 44. MR. NACE-Forty-six residential. MR. BREWER-Okay. When it comes to the second phase. we'll determine that when it comes to that. MR. NACE-The second phase is 52. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-So, what do you want for the first phase? MR. NACE-Forty-six. MRS. PULVER-Forty-six for the first. Okay. All right. MOTION FOR PASSARELLI SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE GUIDO FOR A WAIVER REQUESTING 46 RESIDE~TIAL_!1NI'l'.~L.:nt.J~!H\SE - 48 - I INSTEAD OF 35 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN PH~SE I, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 1993, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-What's the purpose of that? Why 35? MR. YARMOWICH-To prevent excessive construction of uncompleted and unoccupied units. and the intent of roads and so forth that the Town has to take and maintain, with no revenue corning in. If there's no improvements, they don't get enough revenue to take care of the infrastructure and so forth. So. they want to make sure that projects don't get left in the lurch, with 80 units started. and 30 units occupied, and it's a burden for certain things. MR. MACEWAN-What's your reason for needing the waiver. MR. NACE-Your maximum allowed in a single phase is 35. proposing 46. We're MR. BREWER-Because of the constraints of the road, I think. MR. YARMOWICH-It has to do with the road development. MRS. PULVER-Sometimes it's more cost effective to do more units. MR. STEVES-Part of the sewer will have to be installed just for that Phase I, or whatever, because it is on the opposite end of the site. MR. BREWER-Okay. Are you all set, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I just needed that clear in my mind. MR. BREWER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Just so the public knows, the public hearing is still open. We'll be back here next Thursday, to go over the things we discussed tonight. Do I have a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: Until next Thursday, April 29th. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 13-93 TYPE I NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE CO. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: NC-1A/LC-42A. C. E. A. LOCATION: N.Y.S. RT. 9L NORTH OF CLEVERDALE ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FIRE HOUSE AND ASSOCIATED PARKING. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - 3/12/93) (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 3/14/93) (APA - REVIEWED AS CLASS B PROJECT) TAX MAP NO. 10-1-9 - 49 - LOT SIZE: 27.21 ACRES SECTION 179-25 JOHN GORALSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 13-93, North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Co.. Meeting Date: April 22. 1993 "Pro;ect Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a 13.278 square foot fire house and associated 34,400 square foot paved parking area. The property is 27.27 acres in size, is zoned NC-1A/LC-42A and is located near the intersection on Cleverdale Road and Route 9L. The property is located within the Adirondack Park's moderate intensity and resource management land use categories. It is to undergo a regional project review for the purpose of the Adirondack Park Agency. Proiect Analysis: The project was compared to the criteria listed in Section 179-115 of the Zoning Code which pertains to regional reviews in the Adirondack Park. A. Soils: The project site is generally level with a gentle slope to the southeast. The potential for accelerated erosion and slope slippage should be minimal. The existing slopes and grades will be used to the maximum extent possible in the development of the site. B. Topography: Topographic alterations will be kept to a minimum. The site is fairly level and will require very little regrading except in the rear to accommodate the retention basin. C. Surface Water: There are no water bodies on the project site. However, there are wetlands and a stream on the property to be developed. There will be no disturbance near the wetlands or the stream. There will be at least a 100 foot undisturbed buffer between any disturbed areas and the wetlands. The natural drainage patterns of the site will be utilized in the development of the stormwater management system. The natural drainage flow on the site appears to be to the southwest where the retention basin will be located. D. Groundwater: Groundwater should not be impacted by this project. The permeability on the property will be at 95.9% and all waste water and sewage will be disposed of with on site septic systems. E. Shorelines: The project will not impact shorelines. F. Mineral Resources: This project will not impact mineral resources. G. Air Quality: This project will not impact air quality. H. Noise Levels: This project will not impact noise levels. There will be some increase in noise levels during emergencies when the trucks leave the site. I. Wetlands: There is no proposed development within the wetlands. All disturbances will be at least 100 feet from the wetlands. J. Aquatic Communities: Their project will not impact any aquatic communities. K. Terrestrial Vegetation: Disturbance of existing vegetation will be kept to a minimum. Vegetation will only be disturbed where required for construction. The project will not impact any rare or endangered vegetation nor should it impact productive commercial forest land. L. Fragile Ecosystems: There are no high elevation eco systems on the site. M. Terrestrial Wildli fe: The pro j ect should not impact terrestrial wildli fe. Development will only be on a small portion of the property. Over 20 acres of the property will remain undisturbed. N. Aesthetics: Most of the property will remain undisturbed; the areas that are cleared will be landscaped and reseeded where necessary. The project will not impact any scenic vistas nor have a negative impact on any travel corridors. O. Open Space: Open space should not be impacted by this project; most of the property will remain undeveloped. Outdoor recreation opportunities will not be impacted. P. Adjoining and nearby land uses: The proposed project will not be incompatible with adjacent land uses. Adjacent land uses include a fire house, a convenient store, vacant and residential. There are no state lands designated as wilderness. primitive or canoe adjacent to the project site. Q. Wild. Scenic and recreational study rivers: The project will not impact any wild scenic or recreational rivers. R. Historic sites: The project will not impact any historic sites. S. Special interest areas: The project will not impact any areas of special interest. T. Governmental considerations: The proj ect will not impact - 50 - ~'- governmental services and it will conform to all applicable governmental rules and regulations. U. Public Utili ties and community resources: The project will not create an excessive demand on any public utilities or community resources. V. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The proposed structure will be the only bUilding on the site and will not be out of character with the area. There is a freestanding sign proposed for the front of the building and lighting for the site will be provided by lights attached to the building. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular traffic should not pose problems. There will be limited traffic going into and out of this site. Traffic access to the site was designed to accommodate fire trucks so there should be no problem with automobile access. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sUfficiency of off-street parking and loading; The proposal includes 50 parking spaces with two being handicapped. The maximum on each shift will be 25; therefore. Staff believes that the 50 spaces will adequately meet all parking needs. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic and circulation. walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; Pedestrian traffic access should not be a problem. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; All stormwater will be accommodated on site. The stormwater drainage facilities incorporate an on site retention basin. The facilities have been reviewed by Rist-Frost Associates and have been found to be acceptable. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; On site water and sewage disposal will be used. The sewage disposal facility has been reviewed by Rist-Frost Associates and have been found to be acceptable. Water service will be provided from a well located at the front of the property. 7. The adequacy. type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other sui table plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual andlor noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; Landscaping will be provided along the front of the property. It includes birch and pine trees; ground plantings and bushes will be provided around the building. The landscaping plan was reviewed and approved by the Beautification Committee. 8. Adequacy of fire lanes and emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Fire and emergency access should be adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. The areas that are susceptible to ponding and flooding will not be impacted by this project. The rear of the project area will contain the retention basin and it also happens to be the lowest section of the project area. Recommendation: After comparing the project to the requirements found in Section 179-37, 179-38 and 179-39 Staff can recommend approval of this site plan." MR. BREWER-Okay. We have a letter from Rist-Frost, Torn. but I think your April 20 supersedes the March 24? MR. YARMOWICH-That' s correct. What was done was there was a pre agenda review, giving the applicant a chance to modify their plans before the official submission deadline. MR. BREWER-And everything has been met? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have Warren County Planning Board approved, "With conditions being taken into consideration for proper site distance and signage, if it needs to be, and proper erosion control." Okay. - 51 - -- MR. GORALSKI-First. I'd like to give you a little background. As some of you may be aware, none of the other fire departments in the Town of Queensbury have been required to go to a site plan review. The reason being, under state, town law, fire departments and fire houses are not sub j ect to local zoning ordinances. However, because the North Queensbury Volunteer Fire Company is within the Adirondack Park, the Adirondack Park jurisdiction takes over. They consider this a Class B Regional Project, which is the extensive list that Scott just went through. After speaking to the Adirondack Park Agency, they gave us a choice whether to corne to the Adirondack Park Agency for review. or go through a site plan review with the Town. We decided to come here. We know what we're getting into here. Just to give you a little background on the site, this survey map shows the entire 27 plus acre parcel. There are two sections of the property which have wetlands that have been marked by the Adirondack Park Agency, and surveyed by Coulter & McCormack. This line here is the 100 foot buffer zone around the wetland. There are two types of zone classifications, because we're in the Adirondack Park Agency. The Town zoning that you see on the 20 scale map, here, shows Neighborhood Commercial at the front of the site. and Land Conservation Forty-Two Acres on the rear of the site. The Adirondack Park Agency zones the front of the site moderate intensity. and the rear of the site. resource management. They're very similar. The line's in a di fferent place. but the actual zoning classification is very similar, and in fact, that's why the Town's plan has. As far as Warren County Planning Board approval was concerned, two issues came up with Warren County. One was that a portion of the site has already been cleared, and there was concern about erosion. The fire company had someone go out and place hay bales on the down side slope of the existing tree line, to alleviate any concerns about erosion. Hopefully, we'll be getting started with this project some time in July, so that. MR. BREWER-Where did they put the hay bales? MR. GORALSKI-Along the existing. see. this is the existing tree line. So what they did was they put hay bales all along here, now, okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-When construction starts and the clearing takes place, what will happen is they'll leave these hay bales in place, they'll do their clearing, then they'll set up their other erosion control measures before any other construction is done on the site. to alleviate any concerns about erosion. Once again, we are maintaining the 100 foot buffer. We're not going to be into an issue of a wetlands permit. The other issue that the Warren County Planning Board had was site distance at the entrance, and the fact that there is a traffic light now, where the fire company comes out of their existing station. We explained to them that the site distance is about 540 feet to the east, and over 700 feet to the west. We've been in contact with the Department of Transportation, and they have absolutely no problems with the plan, and they'll be issuing a driveway permit. We also spoke to the Department of Transportation about the traffic light that now exists where the fire company comes out. Well. the fact of the matter is, that traffic light doesn't work right now. It's not controlled by the fire company. They don't use it when they come out. DOT feels that there's no reason to move that traffic light. That traffic light is going to stay where it is. MR. BREWER-It's just a flashing light anyway, isn't it? MR. GORALSKI-Right. It's flashing red towards Cleverdale Road. What they're more concerned about than emergency vehicles coming out, which is pretty obvious, is controlling the traffic coming out of Cleverdale. - 52 - MR. BREWER-I think it's a better situation than you have right now. MR. GORALSKI-As far as SEQRA is concerned, this is an unlisted action in a Critical Environmental Area. It's not a Type I Action. It has to be treated as a Type I Action because it's an Unlisted in a Critical Environmental Area. I know it's a subtle difference, but I just wanted to make that note. MRS. PULVER-That's why we're doing a Long Form? MR. GORALSKI-Right. Form? Now. I don't know if you all got the Long MRS. PULVER-I did. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. MR. BREWER-I don't think I did. MR. GORALSKI-I have an extra copy. MR. BREWER-I had a Short Form here. MR. GORALSKI-Finally, as Scott mentioned, one of the, I think they're called development considerations, that the APA has is character of the development and adjacent surrounding area, and what the fire company was very concerned about was keeping the building to as much of a residential scale as possible. That's why we have the gabled roof, shingled roof and tried to keep it to more of an old-fashioned, turn of the century type of building. more in keeping with the other bUildings in the North Queensbury area. This would be the front elevation that's facing Route 9. and as I said, we did our best to just keep it to a, not make it look like a monument or anything out there. Try to keep it as low as possible. Try to keep it as residential looking as possible, and I guess that's about it. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. MRS. PULVER-What's our longest fire truck? How long is our longest fire truck? I know we have a super one. MR. GORALSKI-The roads up there, we can't get into very long trucks. about 28 feet. The apparatus bay itself, right here, is 74 feet. That gives us room to double load, in other words, have a truck here and a truck here. and still have room to move around the trucks. MR. RUEL-And how many vehicles do you propose to put in that building? MR. GORALSKI-There are actually eight truck bays, a wash bay and another bay that's going to be used for storage. and a workshop at this time. The North Queensbury Fire Company has seven vehicles. plus an antique fire truck, and a boat that they use for ice rescues. MR. RUEL-You'd be taking these vehicles from other stations? MR. GORALSKI-They're all in and around their existing fire house now. The trouble is they have, like, a utility van that's parked outside. They have a, the boat is on a trailer. in the building on an angle between two trucks. They've just run out of room in their existing building. With this building. everything would be stored inside. MR. MACEWAN-Will this building be used for any kind of fund raising activities, or? MR. GORALSKI-They don't have, if you mean bingo and that type of thing? - 53 - MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-No. They don't do anything like that. They will, occasionally. have a spaghetti dinner. maybe two or three times a year. MRS. PULVER-They have drills and things that there. MR. MACEWAN-The concern I guess I'm thinking about is if you had. like a Friday. Saturday night bingo, or. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Or a spaghetti dinner, when you move the fire trucks out. obviously, that's where you're going to be holding it, in the bay area? MR. GORALSKI-No, not at all. Right back here is a meeting room. A meeting room. by building code, can accommodate about 85 people. MR. MACEWAN-And is the parking lot large enough to accommodate those people? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. That's why we figured 50 cars, and it's very unusual for everyone to come in their own car. There are no. you can't find anywhere the parking requirements for a fire house. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. GORALSKI-So what we the maximum capacity of 100, two people per car, spaces. did was, basically. figure that they had 85 people. even if you round that off to that's how we came up with the 50 parking MR. MACEWAN-That's good. Thanks. MR. RUEL-Do you intend to plant very symmetrical trees like that? MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. MR. RUEL-Okay. MRS. PULVER-You have been before the Beautification Committee, right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MRS. PULVER-I saw that. right? Yes. and their Beautification Plan has been approved. So we might want to put that in our motion. MRS. TARANA-I would like to know Emerald Gaiety is, and do you know what Emerald Gaiety is? I just want to be sure you know what it is. I didn't know they were so specific. MR. GORALSKI-Emerald Gaiety. it's basically a ground shrub. MRS. PULVER-Isn't Emerald Gaiety like a Euonymus? MR. GORALSKI-Euonymus, yes. MRS. TARANA-Euonymus Forthwei. I mean, do you really have to do exactly the flowers and plants that they said? MR. GORALSKI-Well, we're going to do exactly. I mean, the reason we put that on our plans is for the construction. when this goes out to bid, the landscaper is going to bid to specifically put those plants in. Whether the Beautification Committee expects to see that or not, they are going to get it. MR. RUEL-What is the estimated cost of this building. do you know? - 54 - -'- -../ MR. GORALSKI-The entire building, one point three million dollars for construction. MRS. TARANA-And you're going to sell the old bUilding? MR. GORALSKI-The plan right now is to sell this. MRS. TARANA-Will part of that finance this one point three, or don't you? MR. GORALSKI-Well, right now they are financing the building with a bank loan, and money we get from the Town of Queensbury. but yes, ultimately, they plan on selling the building and using that to pay off the debt. MR. BREWER-Okay. I have no questions. MRS. PULVER-Okay. SEQRA? MR. BREWER-Yes. I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESQLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-93, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NORTH QUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY. for construction of a new fire house, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency is involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the proposed action about to be undertaken by this Board is 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 22nd day of April. 1993, by the following vote: - 55 - AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Can I just ask one question I didn't ask before. How big is the wetlands there? MR. GORALSKI-I have no idea how big the entire wetlands are. It goes all along that back stretch and around. As far as how many wetlands on the fire company. MR. BREWER-Well, if it goes all the way to Dunham's Bay, it's got to be more than 12 acres. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Motion? ~OTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-93 NORTH OUEENSBURY VOLUNTEER FIRE CO., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To construct a 14,000 square foot fire house, with 50 parking spaces. All engineering has been addressed. We want to incorporate the suggestions from the Beautification Committee, and the comments from Warren County, with the conditions being taken into consideration for proper site distance and signage, if it needs to be. and proper erosion control, as indicated on Site Plan maps 9265SP-2 and SP-l, and Map 26571917, by Coulter & McCormack Survey Map. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MRS. TARANA-Did you change the handicapped parking. John, did that get changed? That was a comment from Tom. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Originally, we had it over here, but Torn had suggested we put it over here. SITE PLAN NO. 14-93 TYPE: UNLISTED HC-1A FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT. INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: RT. 9 (SKATELAND) PROPOSAL IS FOR A 2.800 SQ. FT. ADDITION. (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/14/93) TAX MAP NO. 73-1-8.3 LOT SIZE: 3.224 ACRES SECTION: 119-23 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 14-93, Ferraro Entertainment, Inc., Meeting Date: April 22, 1993 "Pr01ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,800 square foot addition to the rear of the existing structure. The property is commercial and is used as an amusement center under the name of Skateland. It includes a roller rink. go-cart track and water slide; the addition will house a laser play area. The property is located on the west side of Route 9 and is zoned Highway Commercial (HC-1A). Project Description: The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and signs; The addition is to be located at the rear of the eXisting structure and will not be visible from the - 56 - '-.' .- front; compatibility with the existing structures is not a problem. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; The addition will not impact vehicular traffic. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; The addition will increase the amount of building area to 18,936 square feet. There are 100 parking spaces currently on site. The 2,800 square foot addition should not require additional parking. Parking space occupancy data supplied by the applicant and the fact that most of the people that use the facility are dropped off and then picked up later support the assertion that the 100 existing parking spaces are sufficient." The Code doesn't have any standards governing this type of facility. So what we used were standards that the American Planning Association has set forth in a book that they publish, and it's a very extensive list of all different kinds of uses. So that's what we used, in going by this. "4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; This is not an issue. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The increase in stormwater created by the proposed 2,800 square foot addition will be directed via drains to a concrete drywell. Rist- Frost Associates reviewed the plan and had no comments on the stormwater drainage plan. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The existing water supply will not be impacted by the addition. However. Rist-Frost Associates had several comments regarding sewage disposal that need to be addressed. 1. Existing subsurface sewage disposal system components such as septic tanks distribution boxes and piping should be indicated on the plan. 2. Two existing subsurface sewage disposal pits are less than the required minimum separation of 20 feet from the proposed building addition. Resolution of this item may require additional construction details. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual andlor noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; No additional plantings are proposed. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The addition should not impact emergency access. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding, and/or erosion. This is not an issue. Recommendation: The planning staff recommends approval of this site plan providing the engineering comments are addressed." Regarding SEQRA, it's an unlisted action, and there's a Short Form EAF for your review. MR. BREWER-Okay, and, Tom, we have comments from you? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Rist-Frost, Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer, April 14, 1993 "Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments: 1. EXisting electrical services to the skating facility, dressing rooms and water slide should be indicated on the site plan. 2. At a minimum, a note referring to the requirements of the New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosio~ and Sediment Control should be put on the site plan. 3. Existing subsurface sewage disposal system components such as septic tanks, distribution boxes and piping should be indicated on the site plan. 4. Two existing subsurface sewage disposal seepage pits are less than the required minimum separation of 20 feet from the proposed building addition. Resolution of this item may require additional construction details." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have Warren County Planning, "No County Impact". Okay. MR. MILLER-I'm Jim Hiller from Northfield Design Architects. Just - 57 - ---' to briefly go over the project. It has a very minimal impact on the site, about two percent of the total area of the site. The new addition will house a laser game operation. which would be in compatibility with the other amusement types that happen on the site currently. The on site stormwater currently flows towards the back of the site, which would be from the left on the drawing, to a dished out area currently. During construction, any sediment generated would end up in that area on site. It's just dished out. There's no place, off site, for it to go. In terms of Rist-Frost's comments, Number One, Two, and Three, we can address on our construction documents. Number Four, we don't have a survey, per se, of exactly where the disposal seepage pits are, currently. It was just based on the owner's recollection of where they are. Those pits. what we'd be looking to do is, when start construction, we'd be able to locate those items. and be in compliance for whatever permits we'd have to have. MR. YARMOWICH-I guess, looking at the requirements for seepage pits, it was brought up because I felt that there might be some sensi tivi ty between the existing improvements on the site. and normal separation distances. Sewage disposal systems are supposed to be 20 feet from a dwelling or a property line, the seepage pits. In addition to that, their depth in diameter has a relationship with how far the pits themselves have to be spaced. The idea is to not create any influence of that disposal system on barriers such as basement foundation walls or anything like that. Have you had a chance to evaluate, and can you tell me in a succinct way, whether or not you can meet all those separation distances with this proposed addition? MR. MILLER-Yes. I believe we can, Tom, and I guess what I'm saying is, when we get to build, we may find that they are outside the. and we may find that they're inside. If they're inside, we'll move them to be in compliance. MR. YARMOWICH-Can I ask, for demonstration purposes, that you show me a layout, in the event that these pits are found to be closer than 20 feet. Can you show me how a layout of pits would work on this site, and meet the separation distances? What I'm getting at is. I saw the site was relatively constrained by existing construction. I'm wondering whether or not you can fully comply with all those separation distances, in the event that you have a problem. If you could demonstrate that it could be done, I would be inclined to agree, the investigate during construction would be adequate. In looking at. quite frankly, Jim, I'm not convinced you can do that, but if you'd care to demonstrate that, bring some sort of sketch to me, I'd feel more comfortable. MR. MILLER-Okay. Maybe just for purposes of tonight, this is where the worst spot is, and the water drops right through. So we have, basically, this whole area where we could develop that system. So, I don't see any problem with the side yard setbacks and building setbacks, and utilizing the area. Plus, currently, as you well know. along that area corridor. the soils are very good. but we may very well find the setbacks aren't an issue. The data I put down was just on the best recollection's of the owner. MR. MACEWAN-How difficult would it be for you to locate them now? MR. MILLER-I guess we'd have to get a surveyor out. and if there weren't hatchways to the surface currently, we'd have to do a little digging to locate them. HR. STARK-Yes, but you can meet this, though, with the land, underneath the tubes or the slides or whatever. MR. MILLER-I believe so. and the owner is willing to, if we do get into a situation where we're too close, that they will relocate the pits area there. - 58 - - MR. MACEWAN-I think I would rather know where they are. before anything happened. That's my opinion. MR. BREWER-Well. I would also take the advice of our engineer, whatever he says. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, I have to say, I've not taken the opportunity to study this plan to see if it can be done. That's not problem to work out. I had the question, and Jim Miller has told us that he can work it out. As I do in all the information that I gather, I take it at face value, unless I know something otherwise is to be true. If he says he can work it out. I guess you kind of have to go, my feeling is, is that if he says he can work it out, I believe he can work it out. If he can't work it out. well then may he'll be back here. MR. BREWER-How are we ever going to know? MR. YARMOWICH-That's up to you to put your approval in such a way that, you may want him to come back and check with me before they go ahead and build. and that's something the BUilding Department will be aware of, because they get your resolution, when they issue a permit, and I think it keeps the ball rolling for them, and answers the questions that I have, and Craig might share. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MILLER-It would also give us the opportunity to get out the old shovel. MR. YARMOWICH-Before Memorial Day. MR. BREWER-Could I ask a question? When we were out there at site visits, the back end of this building had big piles of sand. What is that sand for? MR. MILLER-I just became aware of this this evening. The owner had fill made available to him, so he stored it. It would be used under the slab, during construction. If the project wasn't approved, he'd just level it out. MR. BREWER-Has anybody else got any questions? Okay. I guess we can go through the Short Form. I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE ª~$ºkº~¡ON ~O. 14-93, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: To construct a 2800 square foot addition to the rear of an existing structure, 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 is involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: - 59 - NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the proposed action about to be undertaken by this Board is 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 22nd day of April, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 14-93 FERRARO ENTERTAINMENT. INC., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: To construct drawing no. outlined in location of to building a 2800 square foot addition, as outlined in Site Plan 93103, and with the conditions that all be met, as Rist-Frost's letter of April 14th, 1993, and that the the two sewage disposal seepage pits be located prior permit issuance. Duly adopted this 22nd day of April, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-We've got one more item. MRS. TARANA-Two items. I just noticed on this list of things we got in our packets, that we didn't get the letter from Pat Tatich, regarding Dexter. It said there was a letter from Pat Tatich. MRS. PULVER-Right. I noticed that earlier tonight. I didn't have it in my packet. but I thought, sometimes I don't have lots of things. MR. BREWER-I didn't get it. I didn't see it. MRS. TARANA-Do you have that letter, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-I can look and see. MRS. TARANA-While he's looking for that, maybe you can finish your. - 60 - "'-- -- MR. BREWER-We've got to make, a resolution to be passed regarding proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, for satellite receiving. MRS. TARANA-But I thought they already had the public hearing and everything for that? MR. BREWER-They set the public hearing. Roger, you said you had comments on that? They didn't have it. MR. RUEL-Yes. I have them. MR. BREWER-You have them, would you like to submit them to Jim Martin? MR. HARLICKER-As long as you're all here, too. I've got a note from Pam. This is regarding next month's meeting. The Queensbury Center is not available on May 25th, 26th, or 27th. I guess they're having a tax grievance that week. She says the only other available date for the second meeting is on the 20th, on a Thursday. She says if this presents a problem for anyone, let her know. as she has reserved the room for that date. MRS. PULVER-All right. When are we having our meeting? Our meetings are supposed to be the 18th, and the 25th. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. So it's unavailable on the 25th, the 26th, and the 27th. So what she did. she reserved the room for May 20th, which I think is a Thursday. MRS. TARANA-Yes. It is. So the 18th and the 20th. MR. BREWER-We have to know. This Zoning Ordinance, is this a done deal? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know. I was not involved in that Satellite stuff at all. MRS. TARANA-I had made a note at the Town Board meeting that they had planned a public hearing on the Satellite dishes for Monday the 19th of April, this week. MR. BREWER-So. how come we? MR. RUEL-What's today? MRS. TARANA-Today's the 22nd. up. but that's what they. I don't know that they brought it MR. BREWER-Would you ask Pam to find that out for us, about this zoning amendment? MRS. TARANA- It was in the paper. Hearings. I saw it, too, under Public MR. BREWER-It says we should make. a resolution should be passed regarding proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Satellite receiving dishes. MR. HARLICKER-I guess what they're looking for is. MR. BREWER-Comments. but if they've already had their pUblic hearing Monday, it wouldn't do any good to have any comments, would it? MR. RUEL-Yes. We received this two weeks ago, or at least a week ago. We had it at the last meeting, but we didn't talk about it. MRS. TARANA-No. It wasn't on the agenda until tonight. - 61 - - MR. RUEL-It is? MRS. TARANA-It's on the agenda tonight. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. BREWER-So, we'll hold this off until next Thursday. MR. RUEL-Do you need written comments. or what? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I've got one tidbit of information to pass along to everybody. We found out last night. at this Teleconference, for what it's worth. that we cannot make conditional approvals, where there's going to be impact from a County level, until the County has looked at it first, because it is an illegal procedure. We can. in other words, say someone's coming in here tonight and said that they, well, we're supposed to go to the County next week, and we look at each other and say, okay, well, we'll put an approval on this thing, conditional that you get your approval from the County. MR. RUEL-You can't do that? MR. MACEWAN-That's illegal. You can't do it. You can't look at it until the County looks at it. The County has to look at it first. MRS. TARANA-Or any agency, DEC. Anybody who's supposed to see it, we're supposed to see it. have all of that before any decision is made. MR. MACEWAN-For what it's worth. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Municipal Law 236 L or N. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 62 -