Loading...
1993-04-29 SP '- ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 29TH. 1993 INDEX Subdivision No. 15-1991 Subdivision No. 4-83 SEQRA REVIEW SEQRA REVIEW Subdivision No. 8-1993 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 9-1992 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 10-1993 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 4-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE Subdivision No. 6-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Site Plan No. 15-93 Site Plan No. 16-93 Site Plan No. 17-93 MEETING Clearview Estates Ronald & Mary Susan Raynor 1. Southern Exposure 14. Mark R. McCollister 21. American Equity Corp. 22. Donald B. Harvey 23. Hollister's Plumbing and Heating, 25. Corp. Gerald & Roger Hewlett/ 26. Stephen Bishop Guido Passarelli 27. Michael Vasiliou 47. McDonald's Corporation 65. McDonald's Corporation 68. Stewart's Ice Cream Co. , Inc. 72. Dake Bros. . Inc. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ''"-.- ~ QUEENSBURY PLANBING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETIBG APRIL 29TH. 1993 1:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESEBT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL EDWARD LAPOINT GEORGE STARK CAROL PULVER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN TOWB ENGIBEER-TOM YARMOWICH. RIST-FROST PLAHHER-SCOTT HARLICKER TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK STEBOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MRS. TARANA-The first order of business is a "Resolution to be done by the Planning Board regarding proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance - Section 179-73, Satellite Receiving. Public hearing was held by the Town Board on 4-19-93." MR. BREWER-What do we have to make a resolution. Jim? MR. MARTIN-You got this proposed language for the satellite antennas. In the form of a resolution. the Board should state whether they agree or wish to amend or out right disagree with the proposed changes. MR. BREWER-And I think the only one that had comments was Roger. and you submitted them? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. accepting it? Would somebody care to make a resolution MR. MARTIN-The other thing, were you at the Town Board meeting. Tim, when they talked about this? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MARTIN-They had Roger's letter. and they think since Roger has written a letter as an individual citizen of the Town. that you should abstain from voting as a Planning Board member on this. MR. RUEL-I did write it as an individual. MR. MARTIN-Right. Well, since you wrote a letter taking a stand on it as an individual, the Board thought it would be a good idea for you to abstain from voting on the resolution as a Board member. MRS. TARANA-For what reason? MR. RUEL-That doesn't make sense. MRS. PULVER-Yes. for what reason? MR. BREWER-They asked for the Planning Board's comments, and he's a member of the Planning Board. and he gave comments. MR. RUEL-That doesn't make sense. - 1 - "--- .- MRS. PULVER-He gave comments as a Planning Board member. not as a private citizen. MR. MARTIN-I'm just conveying the message. I mean, it's always your right to vote as you see fit. or not vote. but I'm just conveying the message. They thought it was a conflict of some sort. MR. RUEL-That's ridiculous. There's no conflict. I'm against it, either way. MR. MARTIN-It's always of your own conscience whether you want to vote or not on any given issue. MR. RUEL-Well, I'll abstain then. I'll never write another letter. That's the end of the letters. MR. BREWER-Okay. accept it? Would somebody care to make a resolution to MR. MARTIN-If you have any proposed changes. you can put that in the form of a resolution. MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION CONCERNIIIG SATELLITE RECEIVIRG, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: DUly adopted this 29th day of April, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1991 CLEARVIEW ESTATES RORALD & MARY SUSAR RAYIIOR DISCUSSION OF THE TWO TEN FOOT STRIPS OF LAND THAT WERE TO BE CORVEYED AS PER FIRAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 3-24-92. MARY SUSAN RAYNOR. PRESENT; DAN GEALT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have letters concerning· that. Mrs. Raynor's here. MRS. RAYNOR-I'm not sure you have all of the letters. At the last meeting it was stated that we had not attempted to convey the 10 foot strips. and if you see the letters I just gave you. it does acknowledge that February 9th. that Bill Nikas had sent a letter to Mr. Beckos and also to the Town. and the second letter is a letter to Mr. Martin from Mr. Beckos saying that they did not. I don't believe you got that. The third letter. the next letter it acknowledges that fax of February 22nd. from Mr. Beckos. saying that Judy Freiberger's position remains the same. She does not desire to accept the deed with any restrictions. and that is just an acknowledgement that that was done in February. when they denied that that was done at all. and the next letter is. what we've tried to do is try to come to some sort of agreement. I asked Judy Freiberger. after the meeting last week, if she would meet with me. and talk to me. and she said, no, she was too busy, and she said to contact her lawyer. which I did that. and we have tried different options with them. including, I said, the last thing that I have said is that I would give them the land, with the same deed restrictions that all the other lots are going to have, and that would be, and I have a copy of that, the lots that I will be selling, if I ever can, will have those deed restrictions on it. and my biggest concern is the control of this subdivision. If a house is built on the lot right there, the first house would be part of the subdivision, and if they did not live up to the restrictions that we've asked for, in the house that we've sold the people, six, seven years ago. which sold for $187.000 at that time. - 2 - ----' it could be very harmful to those people, and we had always promised them that we would make sure that the road maintained a certain square footage allotment and other criterias, and I feel that I have to have some control in order not to hurt those individuals. MR. BREWER-Ed, I know you were here on the Board when we first originally approved this. Are there any questions that you have about? We did discuss it last week, and I guess. apparently. the Freibergers do not want the property. MR. LAPOINT-They don't want it with the restrictions, correct? MR. BREWER-With the restrictions, exactly. They did try to contact the man from England. They couldn't get a hold of him. I guess it's, right now, it's at a point whether we amend the plat, and keep those strips as part of that subdivision, or our other options are, I don't know? MR. LAPOINT-Well, again, if the parties can't make agreement, I'm tempted to make a resolution rescinding our original approval for the subdivision, because I tried, and I believe I made the original motion for this. and I'm working from memory here, that. I'm trying to correct problems as we go through this planning process. and I believe it was your husband who was here, probably. and conveying those lots. so that there's some type of restriction. doesn't do what I think our intent was, when we passed that. One last question. Now. you don't want to convey unrestricted deed to these people for what specific reason? MRS. RAYNOR-To make sure. the biggest concern that we have is by keeping that 10 foot strip, we always felt that we have control of the lots that were in there, and if anyone ever built. We originally lived there. so we felt if anyone built across the road we would be able to have control of what was being built. We had a 3600 square foot home. We didn't want a 900 square foot home across the street, and so our concern was to control what would happen, since we put the road in and we put the expense of everything going in there. We felt we needed to control what that road would be, down. in the future. So that was the purpose of the 10 foot strip. What we've agreed to do is to. and then it got to a point of where it was a matter of principle. why we should give our land away, but the main purpose has always been to control that road. We sold the house for $187.000 to the people who bought it. and it wouldn't be, I would like to move back there. also. someday. and keep one of the lots for myself, and I don't want the first house that you come into on the road to be a 900 square foot home, when the other ones have to be 2.000 square feet. MR. LAPOINT-So how does the 10 foot strip do that for you? MRS. RAYNOR-The 10 foot strip? Well. when we deeded the road. which the Town did accept at that Town, but we didn't own the property on the right hand side at all. and it was just an old man's back yard. and then he said that he would sell us the remaining lots later, which we did, which we bought at a later time, but that 10 foot strip was there to protect us. we owned the left hand side of the road. That strip was part of that whole thing. That road went in on the strip that we owned on the left hand side of the road. MR. LAPOINT-I understand that. Now. why. not letting them have access across that. how does that still protect you? MRS. RAYNOR-Because I would still be able to control what goes over there. MR. LAPOINT-I understand that. MRS. RAYNOR-I have told them I will deed access. - 3 - --_..,~--- '-- - MR. LAPOINT-See, we thought, when we originally approved this, we were taking care of that. once and for all. so that you could go out and subdivide the rest of the back of this, and make money, however you want to do it. and then still be fair to the people who own that lot there. and still meet all the rules for nonconforming lots. MRS. RAYNOR-But that is not a lot. and everybody keeps forgetting that. That's not a lot. That is someone's back yard, This is someone's back yard. MR. LAPOINT-So. what is the problem with having unrestricted use to it? MRS. RAYNOR-Then I have no control over what they're going to put in there. and that will be the first house on that road. When you drive down that road, and they put a house right there, the first house on the right. that has part of that subdivision which I have no control over what they build. MR. MACEWAN-But they can't put a house there if it's their back yard. The only way they can put a house there is to get a subdivision. MR. LAPOINT-They have to come in and subdivide in front of us. MRS. RAYNOR-Right, and where's my control there? MR. LAPOINT-Well. you shouldn't have any control there. MRS. RAYNOR-Right, and so I've lost my control of that. MR. LAPOINT-What you did is you divided this in the first place to make all these little strips so you could control other people's property. correct? MRS. RAYNOR-I put a road in that has. that's not adjacent to this property and has nothing to do with this property. That road has nothing to do with that property. If their road was one block away. whether it's 10 feet or 500 feet. if there's not a road that goes up to their property. they don't have a road to their property. and I don't believe that 10 feet should make any more difference than 1.000 feet, if someone owns the land in between it. MR. MACEWAN-Correct me if I'm wrong, I think I remember you saying last week the intent of having that 10 foot strip was to use that, for lack of a better term, leverage, if they wanted to subdivide that property, to put a building lot out there. and you were going to recoup some of your investment for the making of the road. That was your reason for the 10 foot strip. MRS. RAYNOR-I would not mind dOing that at all, without a doubt. MR. LAPOINT-Well. that's what we wanted to correct. because you shouldn't be able to do that. MRS. RAYNOR-Yes. That's what you do when you invest money. and you put money in. MR. LAPOINT-But you don't divide it and make all these little strips like that. MRS. RAYNOR-That is not as much of an issue as the control. at this point. If they will agree to the deed restrictions that I have for the rest of the land, I will give them the lot. for no consideration. with road access, as long as they will follow the restrictions that I have requested, and we also sent a letter to Mr. Beckos saying the same thing, and we have no response. I've done every alternative there is. I don't. at this point, no what else to do. I'm being held hostage on my subdivision. I'm - 4 - ~, literally being held hostage for a strip of land. and if the Town didn't want to accept that road the way it was. all those years ago, it should have been an issue then. not now. Why. at this point, should I give my land away? MR. LAPOINT-If they made a mistake, again. we're trying to fix that. We thought we fixed that back in August. or 1991. MR5. RAYNOR-I cannot make someone sign a deed on property they don't want. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. If there's no restrictions. they'll take it. I assume. MRS. RAYNOR-I don't know if Mr. Nememco will. I'm still working on one person. I haven't even gotten to the second person. MR. LAPOINT-I'm willing to send everybody back to the drawing board. because. again, I think we've been snookered. MR. BREWER-Well, we've got someone here for Judith Freiberger. If you'd like to come uP. we'll just hear your side of the story. and then we can make a decision on what we want to do. MR. GEALT-Dan Gealt of 25 Haviland Road. First of all. while it may be possible to come to some agreement on the restrictions that she proposed, I don't believe that we're going to negotiate them in front of you here. I don't think that's fair to you or anyone else in the room. The letter regarding the most recent suggestion from the Raynor's was dated April 27th. from their lawyer. So we've had it in hand for just 24 hours or so. I think that the issue is not a question anymore of whether or not the 10 foot strips should be deeded or shouldn't be deeded, what purposes she has in mind for why she wants to keep them. The issue is that. on March 24th of '92 a subdivision was granted approval based on the deeding of two strips of land. neither of which have been deeded. If. as has been pointed out. at the time, we were talking about. we don't know if they can put any restrictions on them. I don't believe that they can, because I think that your intent was for those two strips to be abandoned, to resolve the issue, basically. and that being the case, now the suggestion is. well, can we pay $3,000 for it. Now the suggestion is. I might be misreading this. but it's possible that the restrictions may apply to more than just the 10 foot strip of land. The wording isn't particularly clear. We're advised by our attorney. who had very little time to look at this. it's possible that they may be trying to apply those restrictions to other property that Judith Freiberger owns. So we're not gOing to negotiate that here, but the issue is, you guys told them what they had to do to have the subdivision. Thirteen months and change later they haven't done it. and on the 9th of February. there was a deed prepared. as she mentioned. On the 18th of February. based on a phone call. we got a copy of it by fax, from Nikas' office. So. yes, there was some communication earlier. I did mention that. We're just asking that the Planning Board enforce what they already decided, and Raynor's protection against what we mayor may not ever want to do, the whole idea of proposing that we're planning to put a 900 square foot house on that property is ridiculous. There has been no application for subdivision submitted. and if there was, they would have every opportunity to fight that subdivision. based upon just this situation. We didn't take advantage of that opportunity because you guys did an appropriate job of protecting the interest of Judith Freiberger. as an adjoining property owner. So we didn't find that there was any reason to object. They have that opportunity. if we should hope to subdivide in the future. which, as I say. has not entered the realm of possibility. 50 I guess it may be possible to come to some agreement. but at this point. they still haven't deeded the property. They have not conveyed those two lots, not to us, not to the other land owner. and I guess I can Mr. LaPoint's view that we might as well just start over, or rescind approval. - 5 - ',,- ..- MR. BREWER-I don't know if starting over is gOing to do us any good, because we're going to be right back to the same place where we started 13 months ago. MRS. RAYNOR-When I left last week. there were two people standing there with me who can verify this. I said to them, would you please meet with me. and they said no, and they also said that they wanted to teach the Planning Board a lesson, but I have to pay for that expense, because they want to teach the Planning Board a lesson. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess I can ask this, Dan. Why is it you won't meet with her? You just don't want to meet with her? MR. GEALT-No. We suggested in the meeting that we would be perfectly happy if they submitted any kind of offer they would like to make to our attorney. and then we would go over it. It's got to go through them anyhow. Her attorney has to send it to our attorney. whatever, and we would be perfectly happy to entertain anything that they wanted to offer. MR. MACEWAN-What's the problem with the two of you sitting down and discussing possible terms to this thing, and then saying to your attorneys, okay. we've come to an agreement, draw it up. MR. GEALT-I imagine that's a reasonable possibility. point. I would suppose that we would agree to that. At th is MR. MACEWAN-Why wasn't that done? You were asked that last week. MR. GEALT-I was not asked that in this meeting. In this meeting. we suggested. MR. MACEWAN-No, you were. MR. GEALT-In this meeting, it was suggested that if they would like to make an offer, they could send the offer to our attorney. and that's the way we would do it. MR. MACEWAN-Dan. we wrapped up the meeting last week, by saying, you guys get together, see if you can work this out. and we'll have you back here next week. That's what we said. MRS. RAYNOR-They also denied that we ever attempted to convey this to them, which these letters prove that we did, but we cannot make someone sign a deed. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MRS. PULVER-My feeling is the same as it was last week. It is not illegal to take this little 10 foot strip and add it to Lot Three, and that back 10 foot strip and add it to Lot Four. Now. they are going to be irregular shaped lots, or flag shaped lots. but the land will still be owned by the Raynors, and that will solve all the problem, and then they can do with the property what they want to do with it. MR. GEALT-But what you're suggesting is that now, after you've given approval for a piece of property. and the owner of that has subdivided and not complied, what you're saying is that because they haven't complied, accept a less restrictive use than what was approved at a public hearing? MRS. PULVER-You don't have to put my words back in my face, Dan. MR. GEALT-Is that what you're saying, you're willing to accept that? MRS. PULVER-What I don't want to do, and I didn't want to do then. is give you that 10 foot strip and have you subdivide that lot, and - 6 - '- ~ sell that lot, back lot, for $40,000. which the Raynors made available to you. That's what I don't want to do. I don't want to be responsible for that. MR. GEALT-You're not responsible for it. Because no application has been submitted. There's not an issue of a subdivision proposed by Freiberger here. There's a subdivision proposed by Raynor. It's been approved, after all the public hearings. through all proper means. and they have not yet complied, and now we're asking that you people enforce that, or find out what else you're going to do. I don't know what else you can do. MR. BREWER-What is the zoning there. Jim. do you know? MR. MARTIN-No, not right off the. is it indicated on that old plat you have? MRS. PULVER-It was half acre. originally. Then they got caught in the new zoning, and it went to one acre. MRS. TARANA-And where you live. Dan. is it one acre? MR. GEALT-Yes. it is. MRS. TARANA-And how much property does Judith own? MR. GEALT-Two point three eight acres. MRS. TARANA-So. if you had to subdivide. you'd have to divide at least into one acre. One of those lots would have to be one acre. MR. MACEWAN-Just a quick question. How could we, legally, stop you from subdividing the land? MRS. PULVER-We couldn't. Once he had access to the road. we can't. MR. MACEWAN-I know that. I want him to tell me that. MR. GEALT-I don't know. As a matter of fact. I've been told a variety of things. recently. about how that subdivision, if it were proposed, is not even possible, according to Town Law. I can't cite the specific reason for that, but I believe we were told by Mr. Martin. MRS. PULVER-Well, we'll ask Mr. Martin, then, to clarify it. MR. GEALT-I don't recall exactly, but I understand that. now, that that's not even possible. but that's not even the point. MRS. PULVER-That is the point. MR. GEALT-The point is 15-1991. MR. MACEWAN-Ed. what do you think? I can see us sitting here going around and around and around. MR. LAPOINT-Give them another week, but not in front of us for another meeting. Again. if we just leave this and do nothing. they're in limbo. and somebody's got to work it out. before they can divide their lots. MRS. RAYNOR-We've done everything that you've asked us to do. MR. LAPOINT-No. You can just convey that lot to them with no restrictions. You can do that. MR. GEALT-Which was what the original approval was. MRS. RAYNOR-No. There was never anything said about restrictions. ever. It said to convey the lots. - 1 - MR. LAPOINT-And you're not doing that. You're not conveying them. MRS. RAYNOR-I'm trying. MR. LAPOINT-He'll take it if there are no restrictions. MRS. RAYNOR-So I'm being held hostage to give my land away. and have no say so over what he does. MR. LAPOINT-You created this situation by dividing it up that way. You created it that way, by your original. correct. MRS. RAYNOR-And you accepted it that way. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That was how many years ago, and if you got away with it that time. MRS. RAYNOR-It was also approved for eight lots. and I only have four, and things change. MR. LAPOINT-Your husband were here, and we were to fix this, by conveying these things. that strip over to these people here. and that was the intent, and he walked out of here happy. He got his approval. That's got to be done, because I agree. That's the issue in front of us. MRS. RAYNOR-So, in other words, there is an issue with Mr. Gealt of approving a plan. and that he wants it done exactly the way it is. and we have to give away our property. the only way that we're going to be able to subdivide that property. MR. GEALT-Suppose we were to offer to sell you the Freiberger property, and then. with those deed restrictions on it, you couldn't add it to Clearview Estates. MR. BREWER-Dan. we don't want to get in the middle of your fight. Excuse me. Please. What does the Board want to do? MR. LAPOINT-Leave it hanging out there. MR. STARK-What's she going to do? She put all this money into the property, the road and everything. She wants to get building. You can't make her give her property away. MRS. TARANA-I agree with Ed. Leave it. I think there should be consideration between the two. and a decision made. MR. STARK-Tim, suppose they give them the property, no restrictions. no nothing. Here's the property, and they can't get a hold of the guy in England. That negates the original agreement also. MRS. PULVER-We could be going through this forever and ever and ever. MRS. TARANA-That's the agreement they made with the Board though. George. MR. STARK-Yes, but I mean. that's assuming that. suppose. you don't want to take it. MR. LAPOINT-They created this situation by trying to protect their land rights. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but it's not illegal to do that. MR. LAPOINT-That's fine, but if you bring that on yourself. then you've got to be able to resolve it somewhere down the road when it backfires on you. - 8 - '- MRS. PULVER-But why does he have to resolve it? It's not illegal. Why can't they just put that strip with what they already own? It's an odd shaped looking lot. but. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. if we want to go through subdivision all again, and make those, I was never against the odd shaped, shaped lots. over flag MRS. PULVER-I wasn't either. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. and this is what happens when we over plan and we start, Cartier was, Pete was, and this what happens when we over. MR. BREWER-But it says in the Ordinance, it's phrased to stay away from creating those type of lots. MR. LAPOINT-Not in the Ordinance, in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, or something like that. MR. BREWER-The Comprehensive Land Use Plan. MR. LAPOINT-Which has no enforceability. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. TARANA-It's not enforceable, but you're supposed to go by it. MR. LAPOINT-No, but there were people on the Board at that time that were dead set against flag shaped lots. and we come up, as a Board, and try to resolve this with a compromise, that seemed to be acceptable to everybody that night. and walked out of here, and now look at the problem it's created for us. So lets get the hell out of it, or let them come back and start again, and make shaped lots out of it. MR. BREWER-But. Ed. if we make them start over, they're going to be right back to where we are right now. MR. LAPOINT-Not if they make flag shaped lots out of it. and if that's what they want to do, and this Board is different from that last one, and then we can approve it. MR. BREWER-Then we have to accept the fact that there's going to be flag shaped lots in front of this Board probably a lot. MRS. PULVER-But the Ordinance protects us. The only reason to discourage flag shaped lots was because there was the potential for future subdivision. You cut off part of it. and you get two lots out of one lot. but the Ordinance protects the Town from having that happen, because you have to have so many feet of road frontage on an arterial road or a main road, and so forth. Last week. I made a resolution to put this 10 foot strip with Lot Three, and the back 10 foot strip with Lot Four. It was no action, and exactly what you just said. Ed. If you erase this little line, here, and you erase this little line there. that property goes with that. and that property goes with that, and it still belongs to the Raynors. which I think it should. MR. LAPOINT-Which is probably what we should have done to begin with. MRS. PULVER-It should. It should belong to the Raynors. MR. RUEL-Well, it seems to me that the whole problem stems on how the resolution, or the application is worded. as far as a deed. How is it worded. as far as the deed? MRS. PULVER-The deed. or the resolution the Planning Board made? MR. BREWER-The resolution that we made? - 9 - '- -../' MR. RUEL-Yes. the one the Planning Board made. MRS. PULVER-Well, what the resolution, the resolution that the Planning Board made says they wanted this strip to be separate. and to be given to someone else. Now. Dan is here wanting that. That's why ,he brought it to our attention. because he does want that, but he doesn't want it with any restrictions. The Raynors have finally consented to give it to him. but with restrictions. The Raynors are complying with our resolution. because we never said that they couldn't convey it without restrictions. MR. RUEL-Okay. That answers my question. MRS. PULVER-So we have to go back. well, we have to go back and rescind that motion, and make a new motion. and what we're deciding is what should the new motion be. MR. RUEL-Possibly indicate that there should be no restrictions. MRS. PULVER-No. I think it should be that that strip of land goes with this lot, and this strip goes with that, but I mean, you can have your opinion. too. MR. RUEL-That's a different approach. Yes. but apparently. the first time, the wording from the deeding was loose, and there was no restrictions. it wasn't worded so that the property would have to be deeded, given away. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. RUEL-They took the opportunity to put restrictions on it, possibly a dollar figure or whatever. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. RUEL-And according to what the Planning Board did, this is all right. They can do that. Is that correct? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-Okay, and that's where the problem is. because they can do it, and the Freibergers won't accept that. MR. BREWER-Right. tonight? So how do you feel? What do you want to do MR. RUEL-Well. I would say we have to start over again. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-I'm inclined to go along with the suggestion. MR. BREWER-With what, starting over? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. It was a mistake from the standpoint of the developers, plus the Board at the time. MR. BREWER-Well. if we start over. the only thing I think we're doing is making the Raynors spend the time and the money to submit the same application and ask us for approval. I think if we're going to approve it. if we make them go through the whole subdivision process, why don't we amend the plat. and be done with it, and not make them go through the whole process again. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. If you've got someone willing to make a motion to that effect, and finish this off. with flag shaped lots. MR. BREWER-Because I can see us coming back here, in two months. with a new application, that's going to be the same lots, they own the same land, and what are we going to tell them then, you've got - 10 - - to give it to Dan Gealt, and the other owner, and then we're going to be a year down the road. MR. MARTIN-I just want to point out one thing, as being someone who was in this in the middle. and one of the person's on the old Board who was against flag shaped lots. What's being done here now is the Freiberger's property. if you do this, just convey the 10 foot strip over, Judith Freiberger's lot is not wide enough, because she fronts on an arterial road. She doesn't have the proper lot width. She's going to have to go for a variance, to develop that back parcel if she wants to. If she gets it. she's going to have, then. a 40 foot wide lane going back to a one acre lot. and you're going to have another flag shaped lot. and this is just because two people can't come to an agreement over this 10 foot strip, that if you didn't have this, you could have a two lot subdivision there. have frontage come in off of Clearview Lane, with the rear lot, and Judith Freiberger could keep her, and eliminate the curb cut on Haviland Road for her property, and give her access from Clearview Lane also. MR. LAPOINT-Which was our intent, or close to it. MR. MARTIN-I just wanted to point that out. If the 10 foot strip remains with Raynor. and Mrs. Freiberger attempts to subdivide that 2.3 acres, her only frontage on Haviland Road is not wide enough. I don't believe. There's a double the lot width requirement on an arterial road. MRS. PULVER-Okay. We understand that. MR. MARTIN-So she's going to need a variance from the lot width requirement, and then if that is given, she'll have to run a 40 foot accessway down to access the rear lot. Her other option is a shared driveway. MRS. PULVER-But that's her problem right now, whether this. I mean. without this property changing hands, she's got that problem, if she wants to subdivide. MR. GEALT-There is no subdivision application submitted by Freibergers. MR. BREWER-We're talking hypothetically. if you do. MRS. PULVER-Okay. So, I mean. that's her business. If she decides, tomorrow. she wants to subdivide that. that's the process she has to go through. Now. if she gets the Raynors 10 foot strip. she can have two lots. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-She can access from Clearview Lane. right across like this, and it's two nice little square shaped lots. MR. LAPOINT-And that's what the Raynors don't want to happen. correct? MRS. PULVER-Right. MRS. RAYNOR-I honestly do not care about that. If they want to sell the lots for $50.000 a piece and they make money on it, I don't have a problem with that. but if they hurt my subdivision, then it's a problem. MR. LAPOINT-You don't want them to access Clearview Lane. That's all there is to it. correct? MR. BREWER-No. MRS. RAYNOR-No, no, no. I will give them access. with the - 11 - ._M______ '- ---- restrictions that they follow the same deed restrictions as the lots, that the lots that I'm selling are required to follow. and if they want to do. MR. BREWER-What are those? MRS. RAYNOR-Two thousand square foot minimum. no unregistered vehicles. I brought, there's a copy there. MR. GEALT-There may be a possibility that we can come to some agreement. based on what she just said. MR. LAPOINT-Great. MRS. RAYNOR-But he knew that two days ago. MR. STARK-Mr. Gealt, if you accept the land. with the standard deed restrictions and everything, no consideration. okay, you're coming out ahead. If she has to come back, she's going to get, most likely, her okay. You're going to get zilch. MR. GEALT-I understand that. MR. STARK-I mean, I would take the land, and be happy with it. MR. GEALT-If we had wanted something from Raynors, we would have appeared at the initial hearings on this. and made some statement opposing the subdivision, but we didn't do anything like that. We did not attend any of the meetings. MRS. RAYNOR-He did go and see all of the minutes after each one, though. MR. BREWER-You've still got the problem with the man in England. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. BREWER-Well, if somebody wants to make a resolution to do whatever. MRS. PULVER-I have a question. When you're talking about starting allover. what is it that you're talking about starting allover? I mean. going right through subdivision again? MR. LAPOINT-No. I want to stop right now. It sounded like they were close to maybe having an agreement. So let them go. MR. BREWER-You still have the problem with the back piece, Ed. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. If they cannot make contact with the English people, and if they make a whole bunch of reasonable attempts, we ought to be able to let them go ahead with the subdivision, if this part is resolved. MR. BREWER-That back 10 foot strip goes back to you. and the other one goes to them? MRS. PULVER-I was just going to say. if you're going to let the back strip go to Lot Four, why don't you let the front strip go to Lot Three? What's the difference? MR. RUEL-Ed. you weren't here last week. but this was exactly the point we were at. MRS. RAYNOR-It's amazing to me how this is only involving the Freibergers. MRS. PULVER-I'm going to attempt to make that same motion, again. that I made last week. MR. RUEL-We were at this same point last week, and we gave them an - 12 - '- ---" additional week to resolve it, and we're back to Ground Zero. HR. GEALT-I think that. based on what she has said so far tonight. that there is a reasonable possibility that within the next week we could resolve it. There are some differences between what she has said tonight and what was contained in the document that we received yesterday. So. there may be some room for agreement. MR. MACEWAN-Lesson learned. You probably should have talked to her last week. MR. HARTIN-Tim, why don't you go until the next meeting. then? I mean, what have you got to lose. MR. BREWER-Would you be agreeable to that. Mrs. Raynor? MRS. RAYNOR-He was agreeable last week, too. and I was shot down the second I walked out the door. and was told that this was to prove a point to the Planning Board. I can't afford to prove a point to the Planning Board, and if it continues. there will be no subdivision, and the land will have to sit there the way it is. MR. BREWER-All right. will make a decision. possibly? If we guarantee you that our next meeting we are you willing to make a deal with him. MRS. RAYNOR-I have tried. I have tried, and if you look at the minutes, he lied about how we never even attempted it. He stood right there and said. there's no way that they have attempted it. MR. BREWER-It's not agreeable then? You don't want to wait until our next meeting for us to make a decision, or do you want us to make a decision tonight? It's up to you. MRS. RAYNOR-I'm willing to try it. MR. BREWER-Okay. You're willing to try. MR. MACEWAN-Dan, we have your promise, on the record, that you'll get together and talk with her, not one lawyer to another lawyer, but you two together? MR. GEALT-Absolutely. MRS. RAYNOR-I may still have this problem with the Nememco's, and then what do I do then? MR. BREWER-Paul, can we just amend that. if she cannot get a hold of the other party? We can just amend it to reflect that. MRS. PULVER-Well, I would still like to make a motion, since the other party has not responded, and we mayor may not have that problem, and if we do have the problem with the other party, it seems that a couple of us are agreeable to put that 10 foot strip with Lot Four. So I would like to make a motion, again. MOTION TO PUT THE OTHER 10 FOOT STRIP WITH LOT THREE AND THE BACK 10 FOOT STRIP WITH LOT FOUR. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 27th day of April. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Stark NOES: Mr. LaPoint. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer MR. BREWER-All right. So we're going to come back next month, at our first meeting, and if you two don't have an agreement made. That's not a problem with you, Mrs. Raynor? - 13 - ',-, -- MRS. RAYNOR-If I forget this whole subdivision. at that point, what happens? If I just say, forget it? I've got to talk to Mr. Nememco yet. MR. BREWER-No. If you've made arrangements to get a hold of him, and you cannot contact him, we can, can we do that. Paul? MRS. RAYNOR-What's the difference? Why are the Freibergers so important? I don't understand the difference. It's amazing to me. The Nememcos, if Mr. Nememco says no, it wouldn't matter. but because he was in with the Town Board. all of a sudden this is important? He doesn't even own this property. MR. GEALT-That's correct. Maybe I have Power of Attorney for the owners, though. MRS. RAYNOR-Mr. Nememco' s never an issue. It's always these people. You're just gOing to give it to him, and then if Mr. Nememco doesn't want it. that's okay. There's something wrong. MR. GEALT-Well, I will be back at your next meeting, and I will report on what we have agreed on. MRS. RAYNOR-Either Mr. Nememco and the Freibergers take it, or no one does. I will not play that game. MR. MACEWAN-No reports, Dan, just a yes or a no. MRS. PULVER-To answer your question. if you don't do anything, if they don't do anything. then at some point, whenever you did want to sell again, then you would just, she would have to go through subdivision approval. correct? So. if you just wanted to let the whole thing go, you would lose your approval. and then your three steps, you'd need Sketch Plan again, Preliminary. and Final for your subdivision. MRS. RAYNOR-Could we start with what we have already? MRS. PULVER-Sure. You could just come back with your, maybe you'd be facing a different Board, too. MR. MARTIN-Carol, I don't know if it's that simple. The plat's already been filed with the County. So the Board's the only one that could remove it. MRS. PULVER-Well. you could come in and ask us to remove the approval. That would be the first step. correct, and then you wouldn't have a subdivision any longer. and then you'd start over from scratch. MRS. RAYNOR-I'll wait until next time. but I will not give one individual my land. when the other one does not matter, and if that is the case, then there is something wrong here on this Board. and that's all I have to say. MR. GEALT-What's the date of the next Planning Board meeting. MR. BREWER-The 18th, isn't it? MRS. TARANA-Of May. MR. BREWER-The third Tuesday. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-83 SOUTHERN EXPOSURE DISCUSSION OF SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVED IN AUGUST 1983. MICHAEL O'CONNOR. PRESENT MR. BREWER-I'm going to excuse myself from this. - 14 - -- - MR. MACEWAN-Okay. This follows up a discussion we had. what, about a month and a half ago on this, and whether the variance granted was a legal variance. I guess that's what it boils down to. Ed, did you get a chance to take a look at any of the material in the packet regarding it? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Again. I stand by, I think we granted them the subdivision. and it was legal all the way around. I mean. I always thought that. MR. MACEWAN-This is for Southern Exposure now. MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. MACEWAN-So you think that the variance that was given for that is of less than the 20,000? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. information? George, did you get any of the packet MR. STARK-I'd really have to abstain. I looked at it, and I think it's a legal variance, but I had nothing to do with it originally. So. I think I'd have to abstain, but I'm all for it. MR. MACEWAN-Corinne? MRS. TARANA-I just have a question I want to ask Paul. Are these lots, at this point, legal lots, in your opinion? MR. DUSEK-In my opinion. I think they are. and I'm largely basing my opinion on Ted Turner's statement he made before one of the Board meeting's. at one point, when he indicated that he felt that the Board approved the map, with the smaller lots on it, and if you read the Board's resolution. there's no way to tell. just from the resolution alone. that it was or wasn't an approval. but if you rely upon the map that's on file. and you rely upon the Chairman who apparently has personal knowledge, I find that very convincing that the Zoning Board, evidently. attempted to approve and did in fact grant a variance for those smaller lots. MRS. TARANA-So the lots as they stand are legal? MR. DUSEK-That's my opinion. MR. MACEWAN-Carol? MRS. PULVER-I have read all the material, again. and I called Mr. Martin and had a conversation with him on the phone, so he could settle the discrepancy between. in the minutes. where it refers to 32 lots versus 36 lots, and I understand that the map that we were presented, and the map that's on file, has always been the same. I did, I was at the last meeting, where Mr. Turner said that what we saw was exactly what he had seen when they had given the variance. After considering everything. the fact that it is not. as Paul said, it's not illegal, I would have to stick with my original decision, that I believe that. whether we like it or not. that that was the original map that the Zoning Board did approve. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-Well. it would simplify things, because I read the package. and I agree with Carol. MRS. PULVER-However, I certainly will listen to anything else that anyone has to say about the project, any other dialogue that you have. MR. MACEWAN-Well. I guess the question was raised as to whether the - 15 - -., --- lots themselves that were smaller than the 20,000, and what the application of the variance requested, were they legal? And I guess there was. what, maybe four or five lots that were in that development that are less than the 20,000 square foot, and that was the question, was whether those were part of the variance. Was it a variance that was given for everything less than 20. or was the variance given at 20? Ted, you're here. Why don't you give us some input. TED TURNER MR. TURNER-For the record. my name is Ted Turner. Chairman of the Zoning Board. and in reference to this application. the map that I have there is the map, again. that we reviewed for the application, that indicated the size of the lots, and the lots were listed on the map, that's the size, and the Board was aware of the size of the lots, and the variance was granted based on the subdivision as presented. MR. RUEL-That's what I read. MR. MACEWAN-Any questions for him? .MR. RUEL-That's a fact. It's in the documents. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you, Ted. Any other discussions? Now, this hinged on us. refresh our memories here, when we made the recommendation, because it was a motion we were making to the Town Board, and how it was going to fit in with the overall thing for Hudson Pointe. How does this fit in, as far as us making a recommendation with this. as now the proposed subdivision has been changed dramatically to what the old one was. See, that's where it starts getting all tangled. MR. MARTIN-You mean. what implication a modification would have? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. In my opinion. I don't think it's a modification. I think it's a whole new subdivision, because it's not in keeping wi th the intent of the original proposed plan, where Southern Exposure was originally going to be a small 32 lot subdivision with access on Sherman Island Road and a cul-de-sac. Now the infrastructure has completely changed, and so hasn't all the lot lines and everything. So how does that all tie in with what ~ need to do? MR. MARTIN-Paul can correct me if I'm wrong, but a modification is really up to the Board. as to what extent or degree you want to bring that in it. Do you want to consider, like. a review that would mirror a preliminary review, or a sketch plan review and do you think a SEQRA is appropriate? Do you think engineering review is appropriate? That type of thing. That's to the Board's discretion, as to how detailed or how involved you want your review of that to be. MR. MACEWAN-And this is all based on making a recommendation to the Town that we feel it's a substantial enough plan to go along for access for Hudson Pointe. right? MR. MARTIN-Right. There was a modification tied to that. Yes. MR. MACEWAN-How does the rest of the Board feel? MRS. PULVER-Do we have a map of the modifications. as planned? I mean, I dug this up. This is just the original map that we were given. MR. MARTIN-No. I thought the point of the discussion was the validity of subdivision as it stands. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Well, I'm not having a problem. now. with the - 16 - '- -- subdivision, but I would like to, the modifications that I saw, or I should say the change in the subdivision, was very appealing to the neighbors and everyone the night of the public hearing. and helped make Hudson Pointe a more viable PUD with those modifications. However, in my mind, I still had felt that somehow there was going to be a review of that, of this subdivision again. with those modifications. MR. MARTIN-Yes. There will be. That was just an informal request for a report by the Town Board. They're undertaking an EIS now, and we wanted to know, early on. or the Board did. they wanted to know, early on. what your general impression of the modification was, because if you were to say that. no. this is no good at all. that could shut down the primary access to the PUD, and it would be, really, a moot point. So that's why they wanted. like, this informal preliminary review. I don't think that's typically done, but given what was at stake. here, they asked for it. Now, as a practical matter, if they do. in fact, intend to modify this subdivision, it will come back to you formally. That hasn't occurred yet. MRS. PULVER-But didn't you just say that how it comes back is up to the Board? MR. MARTIN-Right. Yes. That's always true. MRS. PULVER-Well, I would like to know. how is it going to come back now? Are they going to have engineering done on it? Is it going to be a two step process, a one step site plan review? MR. MARTIN-What's been done since I've been associated with the planning process here in the Town. is a developer requesting a modification will do so in the form of a letter. and, again. depending on the nature of the modification involved. it's the Board's discretion as to how involved the review is. I would recommend, here, that it go to an engineering review for stormwater runoff analysis and all that. and analysis of the infrastructure to be installed, and the adjustments to be made to that. MR. MACEWAN-Do any and all modifications come back through this Board? MR. MARTIN-Yes. There is provision for minor lot line adjustments. and there's some discretion on the part of the Staff as to when does the threshold cross. I take a pretty strict view of those. I don't like minor lot line adjustments. I think that's something a Board should review. and if it's more than a foot or so. I generally like to see it come back to the Planning Board. MRS. PULVER-Yes, because I consider this more than just a minor. MR. MARTIN-This is not a minor situation. MR. MACEWAN-Lets take it right down the Board. think? What's your thoughts? Ed. what do you MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I believe they should come back for a one time final review for engineering and staff comments. rather than go through all three stages. just come back with a modification for us, and go through those details. MR. MACEWAN-I know at one time you mentioned about wanting the 20,000 square foot lots. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. That was one of my personal preferences, that they maybe knock off a lot or two to see if they could make the 20,000 square feet for all the lots. Again, if it's, CAD and this and that. it's a fairly simple thing to do to show us some alternatives. why it can't be done. It should be shown and justified to us why they can't knock off one or two lots and get it - 11 - - -- to 20.000 square feet. MR. O'CONNOR-May I say something at this point? I'm Mike O'Connor, from Little & O'Connor, and I have appeared here before this Board and the other Boards with regard to the Hudson Pointe PUD. and I'm a little lost as to your discussion here, because specifically by Board resolution, the PUD was referred to, or the modification to the McDonald Subdivision was referred to this Board, and this Board made a motion, after discussion. and sent that resolution back to the Town Board. Are you now attempting to change that resolution? MR. LAPOINT-No. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. MACEWAN-We're not at that point. that. We're not even suggesting MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I think the developer has to have some feeling of fairness. some feeling of ability to rely upon some of the resolutions that are made by this Board. MR. LAPOINT-We're not changing any of that. MR. MACEWAN-No one's taken the resolution away. Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-Well then. why, you had a discussion, I think it was in December. that this Board had no objection to the proposed modification of the McDonald Subdivision. to allow the use of the McDonald Subdivision as a primary entrance to the PUD. You did, when we have that PUD designation finalized. want to see engineering on the modifications? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-You did not indicate, at that time, that in addition to engineering, basically on drainage and on road changes. you wanted to see the possibility of creating more conforming lots. MR. LAPOINT-You're correct. That was not in our motion. MRS. PULVER-Can I ask a question. you're talking about? Is this the December motion MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. PULVER-I wasn't a part of that. MR. O'CONNOR-And after that meeting. we went to the Town Board. went through a whole process of agreeing upon their retaining a consultant for their positive declaration under the SEQRA Review. and in fact, entered into a contract with the Town. in reliance of all that. and that's an important part of this, because the McDonald Subdivision, although it's part of the primary entrance to this roadway. it is not something wi thin the control of the developer. other than what has been presented to you. There has been long and hard discussions about that, as to whether or not the two existing roadways of the McDonald Subdivision, which presently front on to or connect with Sherman Island Road. would be allowed to remain open, and we've indicated up front with everybody, no. they will not be allowed to remain open. We do not have that authori ty. So, we are rather restricted, and we tried to get a sense of where we're going. We tried to get the egg and the chicken lined up, or the horse and the cart lined UP. so that we don't go forward, and I'll even go back to the 'time that this Board, although there's some new Board members, made the initial recommendation. and Mr. Martin was Chairman. to the Town Board that the applicant had met the qualifications for a PUD designation, and part of your discussion was. at that time. that we should be aware that in order for this Board to have it's final approval, we would - 18 - ',-- -- have to modify the McDonald Subdivision. as we showed it in our presentation to you, and we can follow through on that. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Where are we tonight? What is it you want? MR. O'CONNOR-We are not authorized to change those undersized lots. MR. LAPOINT-Fine. What is it you're here for tonight? MR. O'CONNOR-I'm now hearing, is that going to be a consideration when we come back? MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-So, here tonight, you're here for? MR. O'CONNOR-I'm here tonight to look at a 1981 subdivision resolution. which was looked at it 1991 also. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Do we need a resolution? I'm just trying to get through this. What are we here dOing? MR. O'CONNOR-I think you need a resolution, if you put it on your agenda. MRS. PULVER-No. We had it on for discussion only. MR. MACEWAN-There's not a motion to be made with anything. Mike. It's just a discussion. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, lets make something final. MRS. PULVER-You already have everything final. What you have is what you have. MR. O'CONNOR-Why do we have this discussion? MRS. PULVER-Well. because it comes under any other business that comes before the Board. MR. O'CONNOR-Do I understand from the Board, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the Board stands by its understanding that the McDonald Subdivision is a legal subdivision. that we propose to modify it as a part of our PUD application. that the modifications will not change the size of the substandard lots, now substandard because of now the present sizes, by making them smaller. but it also will not make them larger, just so that when we get done with SEQRA, which is probably about a $75,000 process, we don't come back and all of a sudden we've got a cement wall. MR. MACEWAN-How does everybody feel about that? MR. LAPOINT-I see no wall. I agree with the little bit you just said at the end there. MRS. PULVER-I mean, what he's saying is true. We can't make them make McDonald change his subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not suggesting that. I'm just asking questions. MRS. PULVER-No. So, what he said, I agree with. MR. RUEL-I believe the discussion has come to an end. MRS. TARANA-I think, Mike. I was confused what this discussion was about, too. because I thought it was just the question that we had raised about the variance, because I had some questions about it after reading this. Do you care if I explain this? I'll just take - 19 - '- ---" a minute to clarify. I hadn't read it before, so I read it over, and it didn't make sense to me that an approval was based on just a map. when the variance requested 20,000 square feet. So I just started asking some questions about it myself. and what I've been told by a lot of people is that the variance is granted based on the application, how it's advertised in the paper, what the discussion is. That means that the variance, from what I can tell, should have been granted for 20.000 square feet. However, they granted it based on the map, and that has held over several meetings, and at this point Paul. our attorney. says the lots are legal. So. I have no problem with that. The only problem I have is that everyone says it's not the map that you're approving. It's the written request for a variance. and I think, from that point of view. a mistake was made a 10nÇJ time ago which doesn't effect what's happening right now. As long as our attorney assures us that these lots are legal, I'm happy with that, and that's what I thought the discussion was about. MR. DUSEK-I might be able to comment, Corinne, a little further on that. too. This is not an easy legal issue, and quite honestly. for a long time. I kept boiling this thing over and over in my head, and I'll tell you what finally convinced me of the answer. First of all. you're absolutely right. When an applicant comes in, the application certainly is important. The notices of public hearinÇJ are important. No question about that, in terms of what ultimately gets approved, but it's not unusual, when a person comes in for a variance, first of all. for some conditions, some extra thing, to be put into the decision, and that's perfectly legal. even if that wasn't discussed. It happens with zoning revisions, for instance. but certainly when you have such a big drop, that would normally ask yourself a question of what exactly happened here. What convinced me was that, first of all, as I mentioned earlier, Ted Turner's testimony that this is what the resolution really means, and he was the person that was there. The other thing that convinced me was the fact that that's a Zoning Board decision, and the time in which to challenge that, even if it is wrong, has expired. and that's why I say, at this point. it's over. It's done, and, legally. whether they followed, 100 percent, the correct procedures or not. the time in which to challenge it is gone. So that's why I say, at this point, rest on it, and you can let it go. MRS. TARANA-I understand that, too, and I reached that conclusion some time ago. and I just raised the question because I didn't understand the background of it. MR. MACEWAN-Mike, just to let you know where I was coming from on this, I was asking the same questions, in regard to the validity of the variance, and I didn't want to see the Town open to any potential lawsuit, whether the Hudson Pointe development goes through or not. If the McDonald Subdivision was to stand the way it was. and based on the information that I had had from attorneys at the State, that normally a variance is granted on an application, not the map. So, I needed those questions answered. I'm satisfied with the answers that Paul has given us tonight, and if he says they're legal. they're legal. I just needed those questions answered. before I made myself a commitment to anything. That's no reflection on your project whatsoever. It was a case of. what if your project never got off the ground. and the McDonald Subdivision stayed the way it was. MR. O'CONNOR-I may have been overreacting in my response to you, because it appears as though we've been to the one yard line so many times, on different issues. and all of a sudden we're back at the fifty yard line, and I'm trying to avoid that, in fairness to the applicant, who is actually funding this project. We've got to be able to give some people some sense that everybody, the people on that side of the table, as well as people on this side of the table. follow the rules and regulations that were written. There is no jurisdiction, and I talked to Paul about this, that I can - 20 - -.~ - understand, in any manner, for this Board to go back and look on a 1983 approval, and I even got into a big discussion with Mr. LaPoint in 1991 when you looked at it, or that present Board looked at it. at that time, a very heated discussion as to whether or not you had jurisdiction. So, I'm satisfied where you are, if you're satisfied that it is a legal subdivision. You understand that our modification is not going to increase the size of the lot that were substandard at that time. MR. MACEWAN-Any other questions, comments from the Board? Okay. End of discussion. We'll go on to the next item. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. We're going to do two SEQRAs and three subdivisions and then we'll come back to the regular agenda. SEQRA REVIEW: SEQRA REVIEW: MARK R. MCCOLLISTER. CROSS REFERENCE AV 125-1993 TAX MAP NO. 16-1-30.2 WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Is this a full SEQRA. or a Short? MRS. PULVER-Long Form. right? MR. BREWER-Long Form. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Rehm. do you want to give us a little background on this? MR. REHM-This is a SEQRA Review for an area variance application for a vacant lot on Cleverdale. MR. MARTIN-This is just supposed to be a resolution accepting Lead Agency Status. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. BREWER-For McCollister? It doesn't say so on the agenda. MR. MACEWAN-It's right here on this. MR. BREWER-That's just to be Lead Agent? That's all we're doing? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. As a matter of fact, it was for American Equity as well. MR. BREWER-So we're just making a motion to be Lead Agent? MR. MACEWAN-That's all. MR. BREWER-Okay. MOTION OF INTENT OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1993 MARK R. MCCOLLISTER RESOLUTION NO. 4 OF 1993 WHEREAS. MARK R. MCCOLLISTER HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT KNOWN AS MARK R. MCCOLLISTER. AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1993. AND - 21 - '- -, WHEREAS. THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD DESIRES TO COMMENCE A COORDINATED REVIEW PROCESS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE DEC REGULATIONS ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLARNING BOARD HEREBY DETERMINES THAT THE ACTION PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT CONSTITUTES A TYPE I ACTION UNDER SEQRA. AND BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD HEREBY INDICATES ITS DESIRE TO BE LEAD AGENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEQRA REVIEW PROCESS AND HEREBY AUTHORIZES AND DIRECTS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NOTIFY OTHER INVOLVED AGENCIES THAT: AN APPLICATION HAS BEER MADE FOR AN AREA VARIARCE BY MARK R. MCCOLLISTER AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-1993 FOR AN AREA VARIANCE. AND A COORDINATED SEQRA REVIEW IS DESIRED¡ A LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA REVIEW MUST THEREFORE BE AGREED TO AMONG THE INVOLVED AGENCIES WITHIN 30 DAYS AND THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD DESIRES TO BE THE LEAD AGENT FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA REVIEW. AND BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED THAT WHEN NOTIFYING THE OTHER INVOLVED AGENCIES. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SHALL ALSO MAIL A LETTER OF EXPLANATION. TOGETHER WITH THE COPIES OF THIS RESOLUTION. THE APPLICATION. AND THE EAF WITH PART I COMPLETED BY THE PROJECT SPONSOR. OR WHERE APPROPRIATE. THE DRAFT EIS., Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 29th day of April, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SEQRA REVIEW: AMERICAN EQUITY CORP. - CROSS REFERENCE UV 127-1993 MOTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT IN REVIEW OF THE ABOVE. MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we can do American Equities. MR. LAPOINT-The same thing? Okay. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF USE VARIANCE NO. 27- 1993 AND AREA VARIANCE. AMERICAN EQUITY CORP. AS GENERAL PARTNER FOR ACG OUEENSBURY ASSOCIATES. L.P. RESOLUTION NO. 3 OF 1993 WHEREAS. AMERICAN EQUITY CORP.. AS GENERAL PARTRER FOR ACG OUEENSBURY ASSOCIATES. L.P. HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION OF A USE VARIANCE AND AREA VARIANCE IN CONNECTION WITH A PROJECT KNOWN AS OR DESCRIBED AS THE AMERICAN EQUITY GROUP USE VARIANCE NO. 21-1993. AND WHEREAS. THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD DESIRES TO COMMENCE A COORDINATED REVIEW PROCESS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE DEC REGULATIONS ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT (SEQRA). NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT - 22 - -- -- RESOLVED. THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD DETERMINES THAT THE ACTION PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT CONSTITUTES A TYPE I ACTION UNDER SEQRA. AND BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. THAT THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD HEREBY INDICATES ITS DESIRE TO BE LEAD AGENT FOR PURPOSES OF THE SEQRA REVIEW PROCESS AND HEREBY AUTHORIZES AND DIRECTS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NOTIFY OTHER INVOLVED AGENCIES THAT: AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE BY AMERICAN EQUITIES CORP.. AS GEHERAL PARTNER FOR ACG QUEENSBURY ASSOCIATES. L.P. FOR A USE VARIANCE NO. 21-1993; A COORDINATED SEQRA REVIEW IS DESIRED; A LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA REVIEW MUST THEREFORE BE AGREED TO AMONG THE INVOLVED AGENCIES WITHIN 30 DAYS; AND THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD DESIRES TO BE THE LEAD AGENT FOR PURPOSES OF SEQRA REVIEW; AND BE IT FURTHER. THAT WHEN NOTIFYING THE OTHER INVOLVED AGENCIES. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SHALL ALSO MAIL A LETTER OF EXPLANATION. TOGETHER WITH COPIES OF THIS RESOLUTION. THE APPLICATION. AND THE EAF WITH PART I COMPLETED BY THE PROJECT SPONSOR. OR WHERE APPROPRIATE. THE DRAFT EIS., Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 27th day of April, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. SCHACHNER-Can I just make one comment on this, please? For your records, Mark Schachner, from Miller, Mannix, and Pratt, attorney for American Equities Corporation. Thank you, obviously, for the resolution moving this along. The only comment I have to make is, we have heard indirectly. not from any Planning Board members, that there's some confusion about whether or not our project is or is not related to K-Mart, and I just wanted to tell the Planning Board members, during the course of your review, our client, American Equities Corporation. is definitely talking to K- Mart, as evidentally is some other developer on this other parcel. It's our understanding that K-Mart does not have a signed deal on either property. They definitely don't on our property. We can tell you that for sure. It's our understanding that they do not on the other property. either. and I just want to make, we're sort of from a different style than the other developer. We don't believe it's appropriate to say we're K-Mart unless we know we're K-Mart, and we don't have a signed deal. K-Mart is somebody we're talking to. It's actually our preferred tenant, and we think our site is superior and we hope they come our way. but they're not the only one's we're talking to, and the application will proceed either way. MR. BREWER-Thank you very much. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE RR-5A C.E.A. DONALD B. HARVEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 2 MILES NORTH OF RT. 149 ON BAY ROAD.. STARTS AT INTERSECTION OF LOCKHART MT. RD. & EXTENDS 1.500' NORTH ON WEST SIDE OF BAY ROAD. PROPOSAL IS FOR A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION. (APA) TAX MAP NO. 25-1-8.1 LOT SIZE: 16.91 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DONALD HARVEY, PRESENT - 23 - '-- - STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-1993, Donald Harvey Final Stage, Meeting Date: April 29, 1993 "proiect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 16.91 acre parcel into three lots. The lots will range in size from 5.0 acres to 6.2 acres. The property is located on the west side of Bay Road at the intersection of Lockhart Mountain Road and is zoned RR-5A. Lots two and three have existing dwellings on them. The applicant is proposing to construct a house on lot one. Lots two and three have site wells and septic systems, the same is proposed for the new construction. Pro;ect Analvsis: During preliminary review it was found that there were no significant problems associated with this subdivision. However, there was one outstanding issue that the Board wanted addressed. The applicant was to show the erosion control means that were going to be implemented to prevent soil erosion during construction. SummarY/Recommendation: There does not appear to be any outstanding problems associated with this subdivision proposal. Providing the applicant demonstrates erosion control methods to the Board's satisfaction, the planning staff can recommend final approval of this subdivision." MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Harvey is here. I guess the only outstanding issue was the erosion control measures on your final map? MR. HARVEY-I had them changed. At the time I built there, the APA. MR. BREWER-Does that have to be shown on the map. Scott, to assure us it has been done? MR. HARLICKER-I guess it's up to the Board's discretion as to whether they, it was an issue that you felt you wanted to be addressed at the last meeting. MR. MARTIN-One option I could suggest is that with every building permit, we have a site plan in the file with the building permit, and it could be required to be shown on that site plan. That's just an option. MR. BREWER-How does everybody feel about that? MR. LAPOINT-Just make it a condition. MRS. TARANA-I think that's okay. MRS. PULVER-Just a notation anyway. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1993 FINAL STAGE DONALD HARVEY. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a three lot subdivision, with the following conditions: One. that the applicant meet all New York State Sediment and Erosion Control Measures during construction. and satisfy the Building Inspector that he's going to do so. even before he starts construction. Duly adopted this 29th day of April. 1993. by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-Mr. Harvey. you didn't want it on the map because of cost, right? MR. HARVEY-I had the expense twice, because of the changes I had to make, and I don't see why it's necessary. MR. MACEWAN-How can you be sure that it will be policed? MR. MARTIN-It will be checked at the first inspection, when the - 24 - "- --- foundation goes in. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. The Building Department will have a copy of the resolution? MR. MARTIN-That's what I mean, the resolution, as well as a copy of the site plan, has to be in the file, and that site plan will then have to reflect where he would place the haybales and silt fences and all that. and then that would be in place at the time of the first inspection, and it would make sure. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED HOLLISTER'S PLUMBING AND HEATING CORP. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: 4 HIGHLAND AVENUE NAME: KELLOGG/POTTER/HOLLISTER'S PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. SALE OF IMPROVED PARCEL TO WAYNE KELLOGG & GERALD POTTER. VACANT PARCEL WILL BE OFFERED FOR SALE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES TO BE DETERMINED BY EVENTUAL PURCHASER. CROSS REFERENCE: AV I 85-1992 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1 LOT SIZE: 2.05 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS BRUCE JORDAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 9-1993, Hollister's Plumbing and Heating Corp. Final Stage, Meeting Date: April 29, 1993 "Pro;ect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 2.05 acre parcel into two lots. The property is located on the northeastern side of Highland Avenue north of the intersection with Warren Street and is zoned LI-1A. One lot will be 53,680 square feet in size and is improved with a commercial structure used for the heating business. The other lot will be 35,975 square feet and is vacant. The applicant received a variance in 1992 to allow for an undersized lot. The property is serviced with municipal water and on site septic systems. proiect Analvsis: During preliminary subdivision review it was found that there were no significant problems associated with this proposal. Recommendation: Since there are no outstanding problems associated with this proposal, Staff can recommend final approval of this subdivision." MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? If not, would somebody care to make a motion ? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1993 FINAL STAGE HOLLISTER'S PLUMBING AND HEATING CORP., Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Two lot subdivision, in connection with map by Van Dusen and Steves, Number 93029, dated 8 March 1993. Duly adopted this 29th day of April. 1993. by the following vote: MR. JORDAN-Mr. LaPoint. you referenced an associated map. I'd just like to call to your attention that the map that is before you with this application was not in existence at the time of the variance. MR. LAPOINT-Then what's the problem with just leaving is with the Area Variance Map 85-, the one that went with the application? MR. JORDAN-I don't believe there was a specific survey done at that time. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. What map do you want me to refer to, then? - 25 - "--- .---- MR. JORDAN-The map that is before you is a map by Van Dusen and Steves. MR. MACEWAN-93029, attach it to that. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED GERALD & ROGER HEWLETT/STEPHEN BISHOP OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: DIX AVENUE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY IN HALF. CONVEY 3.35 ACRE LOT ON DIX AVE.. RETAIN 3.43 ACRE LOT. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.22 LOT SIZE: 6.18 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-1993. Gerald & Roger HewlettlStephen Bishop Final Stage, Meeting Date: April 29, 1993 "Proiect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6.78 acre parcel into two lots. The lot will be 3.35 acres and 4.43 acres respectively. The lots are located on Dix Avenue approximately 2,000' west of Quaker Road. They are zoned LI-1A and contain commercial structures. Each lot has frontage on Dix Avenue; the lot to the rear is a flag lot with a 50 foot wide strip that serves as access to the back part of the lot. The front lot has an easement to use the 50' wide strip as access. Pro;ect Analvsis: During preliminary review there was found to be no problems associated with this subdivision proposal. Recommendations: Since there does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this proposal, staff recommends final approval of this subdivision." MR. BREWER-Okay. subdivision? Does anybody have any problems with this MR. RUEL-No questions. MRS. TARANA-No. AGENT-You left the public hearing open. MR. MACEWAN-We left it open? AGENT-I'd forgotten my receipts. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'm sorry. You've got the receipts? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Now we can have a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1993 FINAL STAGE GERALD & ROGER HEWLETT/STEPHEN BISHOP, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: As indicated on the Map F-1616, revised March 26th. 1993. Duly adopted this 29th day of April, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer - 26 - '- --" NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we'll go back to the regular agenda. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I MR-5 GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY ROAD. OPPOSITE WALKBR LANE. NAME: BAYBROOK SUBDIVISION SUBDIVISION OF +82 ACRBS INTO 146 LOTS. (133 RESIDBNTIAL AND 13 OFFICB BUILDINGS) CROSS RBFBRBNCE: UV 1130-1992 (DBC) TAX MAP NO. 60-1-4 LOT SIZB: +82 ACRBS SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. Scott. do you have notes associated with this? MR. HARLICKER-Nothing revised. information from the applicant. Just the notes from last week. We have not received any new So there's nothing else to review. MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom, I think we had some discussions about some things that we asked you to do. MR. NACE-Yes, that's correct. Do you want me to read through my list? MR. BREWER-Yes, because I can't find mine. MR. NACE-Okay. The issues that were raised last week were the sewer route up to the existing Hiland Park Pump Station. and the feasibility of the sewer route. Traffic. the planning staff was to gather what gather what existing traffic reports there were available, and see if that had any impact. The road waivers I was to review with Paul Naylor. I was to talk to Mike Shaw regarding water and wastewater, and Tom Flaherty. and try to get a letter regarding the connection of other outside users, other than just this subdivision. So starting at the top, the sewer route, I've talked to the contractor that put the sewer line in. in Meadowbrook. and what happens on the east side of Meadowbrook, there are utilities, primarily a large telephone conduit. On the west side there's a water line, and then the force main from the Hiland Park Pump Station. I believe Mr. Bowen stated that was eight inch. It's really a 10 inch force main, and that comes down the east side of Meadowbrook, until it gets to just about opposite our north entrance, and crosses over to the west side. and then follows on down the west side until it connects with the gravity sewer on down. I've been told by the contractor that in the area of our frontage here and on up to the pump station, there is no rock. The excavation, other than being wet, is fairly straight forward. Because of the water line in the same proximity as the sewer, once the sewer crossed over to the west side, they did encase the sewer main in concrete. MR. BREWER-So you won't have to get into that. though. MR. NACE-So we really don't have to get into that. What we have done is decided, at this point. that we will be crossing Meadowbrook, and going up the east side of Meadowbrook, in relatively close proximity to the existing sewer force main. So we'll probably be shallower than that is. because of the profile of the route. So I don't think we have any great heartaches there, other than just wet construction. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-I've just got a quick question. Didn't we ask for this stuff to be submitted to us, information regarding the sewer. the traffics. Paul Naylor's input, and something to us, in writing? MR. NACE-To be submitted? No. It was my impression that you wanted me to, we only had. from last Thursday. it was my impression - 21 - -- - that you wanted us to research the issues, and give you a report on what we found. MR. BREWER-As far as the sewer, I think that's right, but I think the traffic was something that we wanted gathered and given to Staff and reviewed by our Staff. MR. NACE-I think if you go look at the minutes, you wanted your staff together to review it. MR. HARLICKER-I was under the impression that you were supposed to gather it and submit it to us. MR. NACE-I think if you look at the minutes, you'll find differently. but I'm not going to get into that. MR. MARTIN-Some information was at least attempted. I called ACC to find out if a traffic study was done. They are in the process of doing one. A draft is supposed to be out this week or early next week. but it's a private document, and they were really quite surprised that it was even referred to. because they're not quite sure what improvements. if any, are going to be undertaken. They don't know what the results of the study will be, and there really is nothing available. There certainly is no conclusion to have a traffic light or anything, at this point, in front of the College. Beyond that, other traffic studies that might be available to us as a Staff, the only other thing that's remotely even in the area is the Corridor Study recently completed by the County just last week. but that was only of Quaker Road, and only some very loose associations could be made between the turning movements on to Bay Road from Quaker. That's about all we could get out of that, and the only other one that might be able to be cited, but now it's some six years old, or older, is the Hiland Park traffic study, and we didn't get into that at all. but that's six years old. So that's all we have available to us in our files. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-I believe we did a traffic count and study across the street on Cedar Court. You should have that available in your files as well. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I didn't think of that one. MR. MACEWAN-For which one, now? MR. MARTIN-Cedar Court. MR. BREWER-You did do a traffic study for that? MR. STEVES-Nick Scartelli did that. Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that something that we want to look at? Is that something that you could look at, possibly, in a week or so, and draw a conclusion from that? MR. MARTIN-If it's in our files, I'm sure. MR. STEVES-I wouldn't say that. conclusion from that. I wouldn't want to draw a MR. BREWER-How old is that, Leon? MR. STEVES-About five years old. MR. BREWER-So, we're right back to the age of that one. MR. RUEL-That's too old. MR. BREWER-Well. how does everybody feel about traffic? - 28 - '"'- -- MR. LAPOINT-The minute they're generated. the study's too old. MR. RUEL-I had no problem with the traffic there last week. I don't have any problem now. MR. BREWER-I guess there was concern about the people coming out onto Meadowbrook Road and using Meadowbrook Road rather than Bay Road. That was !!!y concern anyway, and now, the other night, there's another subdivision that's going to be coming before this Board that would also impact, that's going to come out on Cronin Road, is it? MR. MARTIN-Cronin. MR. BREWER-So you have to think about that, too. I don't know if people are going to come out Cronin and go right down Meadowbrook. That's another hundred units, isn't it, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes, over 90. MR. MACEWAN-Well, I think numbers were used. weren't they, something like 146 cars, something like that. MR. RUEL-One fifty an hour. MR. MACEWAN-One hundred and fifty a day? MR. RUEL-An hour. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Peak hour. MR. NACE-I have, since the discussion, gone back and reviewed my figures to make sure everything was kosher, and do admit I made a mistake, in that the traffic is not 150, it's 185, okay. I picked one from Column A and One from Column B, and instead of one from Column A and one from Column C when I was going down through the peak hour generation rates. I pulled the wrong number. I've revised that since. MR. MACEWAN-That's residential traffic. right? MR. NACE-No. That's total. That's where I made the mistake, okay. When you mix the residential traffic that has a peak during one time of the day. then you've got to look at the commercial, or the office lots, that has a peak at a different time. So you've got to look at which two, at the same time, add up to the greatest number, and that's where I made my mistake. MR. MACEWAN-Is there a category which you use for what kind of offices are there, to base your traffic study on? MR. NACE-Yes. Professional Office space, doctor's office, lawyer's office. that's a relatively low generator. In fact, the peak for that normally occurs during the middle part of the day, when you have more client activity. MR. MACEWAN-When it comes to traffic, I'm a hard sell. MR. NACE-Traffic. I sort of agree with Ed. The minute you do it, it's obsolete. It's just a study. It's one person's opinion of what's going to happen based on figures that mayor may not be applicable to the particular case. The fact is. if you're concerned of traffic on Meadowbrook Road. I think also look back at the DOT road classifications, and they have some general guidelines as to how much volume certain type of alignment. road grade, road width. surface can sustain, and Meadowbrook, in fact. can sustain more traffic than Peggy Ann can. Peggy Ann Road sees, right now, many hundreds of residential units using it. We're talking about - 29 - ,~ ---'" 133 residential units here, part of which use Meadowbrook. and you're looking, I don't know what you're looking at the Golf Course, total units. but they're coming out onto Cronin. They also have the decision to make. whether to come towards Meadowbrook, or whether to go towards Bay. So, again, it will only be a portion. We're looking at a fraction of what that road's capable of. The road's capable of more than 100 units. MR. MACEWAN-I guess, from my standpoint. my concerns would be that, you have 14 lots up there in front that, professional office space of one form or another. and if half of those turned out to be a doctor's or dentist's office, you conceivably could have a car going in and out of there every 20 minutes. MR. NACE-That's true. MR. MACEWAN-Which takes you traffic study and. MR. NACE-No. Those were counted in. as doctor's or lawyer's offices where you do have that. okay. In fact, I think if you go across the street and count the cars coming out of the Hughes' commercial or office complex. you'll get something very similar to what we will have here. MR. BREWER-I think the professional offices. the traffic will be pretty much maintained on Bay. I don't think they're going to drive through a residential area to go over to. MR. MACEWAN-And that's one of my concerns, is the extra traffic that's going to be generated on Bay Road, in conjunction with some other things that I think are in the project stage now, or thinking stage I guess you should say. That whole area is on the verge, I guess, of exploding, traffic wise. MR. NACE-But it is a traffic corridor, and when that traffic corridor has problems. then it's time to say, okay, where should we be putting controls, and I don't think a 14 office or 13 office complex is the place to put in a traffic light or traffic controls. You have generators on that road that generate hundreds of times more traffic than we will. that need those controls, and once the traffic is platooned and broken up, then it becomes much easier for these other intermediate users to get out. MR. LAPOINT-That's 180 vehicles per hour. that's about three vehicles a minute, or about one every 20 seconds. a car every 20 seconds, and if you were 100 percent wrong. that's a car 10 seconds? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. LAPOINT-If you were 100 percent wrong, a car every 10 seconds. on Bay Road. to put things in perspective. MR. NACE-Well. it's not on Bay Road. MR. LAPOINT-Well, anywhere. I mean. these are tiny traffic numbers. 180 vehicles an hour. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I would point out for the Board's consideration is that the Master Plan and the subsequent zoning brought MR-5 to this area, and it wasn't done haphazardly. It was put there with the consideration the infrastructure was there to support it. This is our most dead zoning district we have in our Town. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is everybody satisfied with that? questions about traffic? Okay. Anymore MR. NACE-The other issue relative to the road request. I met with Paul Naylor this afternoon. is the waiver I don't have - 30 - -- ~ anything written out of him yet. I do have his verbal conference that he agrees with the waiver request. and if Staff cares to check with him in the morning, I'm sure they could verify that. MR. BREWER-Maybe we could ask him for a letter, to put in the file. MR. NACE-Yes, I will. and as far as a letter from either the Water Department or Wastewater. the Water Department will be no problem. It services the area. and it's within the district. Everything is capacity. I will get that letter from Tom Flaherty. I have not had a chance. last week. to cross paths at the same time with Mike Shaw. That has been. the sewer issue of who else comes in and finds the existing system, creating district for it, has been an ongoing discussion over the last year to year and a half. with the Town Board, with the Wastewater Department. with other interested residents. I would suggest that any approvals you do simply be contingent on. there are a lot of details there to be worked out, and approvals just be contingent upon those being satisfactorily worked out. MR. HARLICKER-Tom. regarding the sewer. has there been any consideration given to tying into the sewer lines that will be running with the townhouse development that will be just to the south of you, as opposed to going out to Bay Meadows, or Meadowbrook Road? MR. NACE-You mean coming on down by gravity? MR. HARLICKER-Right. Well, whatever. There's that 92 unit townhouse subdivision, site plan that's going in just to the south of you. Has there been any talks with those developers as to getting together and working some sort of sewer system out between the two of you. MR. NACE-Okay. Let me clarify a point. being pumped out, is it not? I believe that that is MR. YARMOWICH-It won't work. You have to cross Old Maids' Brook. That's already been checked into with ACC. MR. NACE-That's true. You would have to cross that, plus, I think they're pumping anyway they, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-Who? MR. NACE-Aren't they using grinder pumps for the systems? MR. YARMOWICH-There has been no formal proposal brought out. So I can't tell you. but it's not feasible, because of Old Maids' Brook. You can't get under Old Maids' Brook and still meet the gravity systems. MR. NACE-That's true. MR. BREWER-The other night at the meeting, wasn't there a discussion, Jim, about the line already being in Cronin Road for that development? MR. MARTIN-Yes, but Scott's saying, rather than them hooking in to Meadowbrook. for them to come, for this subdivision to come right through Cronin Road apartments. there. MR. BREWER-I see what you're saying. MR. NACE-Tom' s got a good point. gravity. We could not get there by MR. YARMOWICH-You'd have to go through part of the Golf Course. You can't do it. - 31 - ""-- ~ MR. NACE-Dick Morse, who was the engineer for that project. was at one of our meetings with the Town Board, Town Board members, on the sewage issue. and I believe he said. at that point, that they were planning on pumping the system. So, obviously. their land is too low to get into the system by gravity. So we could not come across their land and get in by gravity. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Is there a pumping station for the sewers? MR. NACE-For this development? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. NACE-No. We're gOing to be using the existing Hiland Park pump station. We're going to that station by gravity. MR. RUEL-Because there were some objections about the noise and visibili ty of the station. Do you intend to do something about that? MR. NACE-I discussed that today. I think. with Mr. Coon, and as I told him. I think now is the time for him to approach the Town. The problem is there, whether we connect to that pump station or not. It's a problem that needs to be solved. The Town wants to expand this sewer district to help reduce costs to all the users. Now's the time, while there's some leverage in getting that expansion, now's the time to get that problem solved, and I will be glad, as far as meeting with the Town, to see what can be done to do that. I can't promise you that we can do anything. but I think the Town does need to do something. if it's a real problem. MR. RUEL-I hope so. MR. BREWER-It just makes so much sense that you're so close to other people. that everybody could jump right on, at the same time. Okay. You'll get a letter from Tom Flaherty and Paul Naylor? MR. NACE-Yes. You will have letters before this thing is approved. MR. BREWER-Okay. Now there was some concern about the blasting somebody brought up. Is Steve Britton here? Maybe we could talk about that. MR. NACE-Steve, do you want to talk to the blasting issue? STEVE BRITTON MR. BRITTON-Hi. My name is Steve Britton. and I own Britton Explosi ves. I was here at the last meeting, and I thought that there were no questions. Apparently after I left someone had a question. MR. RUEL-There was a question, but I thought it was answered. MR. BREWER-How much blasting. and how it was to be done. whatever. MR: RUEL-They indicated how it was to be done. MR. BREWER-He did? I don't remember that. MR. RUEL-Yes, using that metal blankets and a few other things. MR. BRITTON-Sure. MR. RUEL-That's what I heard. It certainly satisfied me. MR. BREWER-I just had it written down here. That's why. - 32 - -- .- MR. RUEL-I think it was resolved. MR. MACEWAN-Go through it one time. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Maybe you could just go through it. MR. BRITTON-Okay. Well, you know you have to take each individual case as it comes. The more liability that there may be, the more careful you have to be, with the cost of insurance now days. number one, and the concern of the people in the neighborhood. We have to things very slowly and meticulously. What we would do, normally, is, if there's a problem with the neighbors, we would come in and hire an outside consultant to do a preblast survey. They would come in, look at the neighbor's homes, see if there's a problem, and if there is, take pictures, for our protection and everybody else's, and then as we get into the job, we would probably start out with four or five holes and set up seismograph machines that monitor ground vibration and air blasts. which tells you if you are causing any structural damage or any damage at all. We'll start off with very small blasts, and basically let the machine tell us what we can and can't do, and the neighbors. We rely on their input to see if we're being a nuisance, an annoyance, or anything else. We blast. we like to drill right through the dirt and the overburden, because it does cut down on the air blasting. It does act as a blasting. It does act as a blasting mat. We also, in most cases in a residential area bring in steel mats, which are normally about 12 by 12 in size, and they weigh about 2,000 pounds a piece, and we lay them over the holes, just to make sure that we don't have any flat rock. MR. RUEL-Is this limited to one area? Is this blasting limited to one area? MR. BRITTON-Yes. Normally when you get into a trench situation, in a residential area. you can only blast 30 to 40 feet of trench at a time. The reason for that is because you want to keep the pounds per lathe down so you're not causing a lot of vibration or air blasts. We're doing a job right now. at the old C. P. Vaughn building. for Niagara Mohawk. We're doing it for the sewer and the storm drain. It's the same exact type thing. We're cutting through five to six feet of rock. This morning we blasted about three feet away from the building, and we started out slow, and the farther we got from the building, the more holes we were able to shoot. As I said, with insurance being the way it is, you certainly don't want to do anything that's going to cause you any more problems. MR. RUEL-I thought Queensbury was sand. MR. BRITTON-Thank God for me it isn't. MR. STARK-The primary trench you're going to be digging is on the north road, going out onto Meadowbrook? MR. BRITTON-Right. MR. STARK-How much overburden is in there? MR. BRITTON-We did the blasting for a duplex construction when they ran that original line for Hiland Park, and there was probably two to three feet of overburden. MR. STARK-And how far below that are you going to be blasting? MR. BRITTON-Depending on the collector, how deep the trench would have to be. MR. NACE-Let me address the broader question I think you're asking. The primary sewer line that comes down through is on the north road. and that is the deepest line. The lines on the south of the - 33 - '-- -- road are much shallower. I believe this line is somewhere, 11 or 12 feet deep at the deepest. In places. there will only be a foot or two of overburden. In other places or pockets, there may be six feet of overburden. I think if I had to sayan average, it's three, three and a half, four feet, maybe. but then as you come up into here. I don't think there's going to be much rock. Again. once you got into here, there's not much rock. In fact. correct me if I'm wrong. Steve. that, I think Steve Bishop was saying that by the time they got north to somewhere about in here, they ran out of the rock. MR. BRITTON-That's correct. It rolled up and down. and in some areas, it was actually so soupy that they had to remove all the overburden just so we could hold the hole. We tried drilling through a foot or two of the overburden. and it was so wet in there. that we couldn't hold the hold. We'd get down through the rock and as we pulled the steel out of the hole, the overburden would flow right through it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Anything else from anybody? MRS. TARANA-I had a question about the homes that are going on the lots. Are there no garages? On the map it looked like there were no garages, is that right? GUIDO PASSARELLI MR. PASSARELLI-Every house will have a garage. MRS. TARANA-So that little picture on the back? MR. NACE-It's just a rectangle to show the general area. A lot of the houses, obviously, will be underneath a portion of the house. MR. RUEL-Do you have any plan views of the proposed homes or the business structures. elevations? MR. NACE-The business structures. no. Do you have anything at all on the? No. MR. RUEL-Do you intend to have any? MR. NACE-At this stage of the game? Not really. That's largely driven by the market and by the size of the lots. MR. BREWER-Now, will those commercial businesses have to come in for site plan? MR. NACE-Each one of those. yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. So we'll see them at that point. MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Yes, those. MR. BREWER-The businesses, the residential we won't. Okay. We did leave the public hearing open. and I'll ask if there's anybody from the public that would like to speak on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KENT KILBURN MR. KILBURN-Hi my name is Kent Kilburn. I live on Meadowbrook Road. I wanted to bring up the topic of traffic again. Some people don't feel that there's a concern with traffic. I disagree. I feel there is a great deal of concern about the traffic on Meadowbrook Road, and an increase of traffic from this project of 185 cars is only one of the things that has to be considered, as - 34 - ~ -./ far as traffic on Meadowbrook Road goes. There's a series of apartments that are going in on Meadowbrook Road right now that's obviously going to increase the traffic on Meadowbrook Road itself. If this other project goes in on Cronin, there's a possibility of a large increase in traffic. I don't understand how this road ever got classified as Corridor, is that the word? Collector. The' traffic. in my opinion. already has escalated dramatically, with just the portion of Hiland that has been developed. Fortunately. it's just a small portion that has come about so far. We're talking about the addition of 115 units? MR. NACE-One hundred and thirty-three. MR. KILBURN-One hundred and thirty-three units. with the initial phase of that is on the Bay Road side, and Phase I and Phase II are going to be directly on Meadowbrook Road, and I would have to expect the bulk of that traffic is going to be traveling Meadowbrook Road. They're not going to go all the way across, all the way over to the other side of Bay Road. You figure even two cars per family out of that. plus all of the increase and build up from the apartment complexes that are gOing in up the street from me. I see this as escalating dramatically. the amount of traffic on Meadowbrook Road. Some of my concerns about the increase in traffic are that just up the street there's a Girl Scout facility, an office complex. and buildings that are out back where they have camping for the girls. etc. If you want to try to drive down there when one of these groups is meeting. at Girl Scout camp, especially when they are bringing their children. or picking their children up off of Meadowbrook Road from this Girl Scout facility. Now, if you've got one lane of traffic, you're real lucky to be able to travel down through there. MR. MACEWAN-Are they parking on the road? MR. KILBURN-There is no other place to park. There's no shoulders on the road. MR. LAPOINT-I go in there quite a bit with my daughter. and we always pull in to the Girl Scout complex to pick her up and drop her off. I mean, always. MR. KILBURN-How many cars does that accommodate? MR. LAPOINT-Fifty, sixty. and there's a lot of people in there. MR. KILBURN-Well, then there more be a lot more girls in there than what I see, because see cars parked from. MR. LAPOINT-I've never had to park out on the road to get in to get my kids. MR. KILBURN-Then you're lucky. believe me. I travel back and forth there all the time, and sometimes. it's terrible. you don't get through. You have to sit and wait until all the little girls are out of their car and the parent finally pulls the vehicle away and then tries to figure out some place to turn around so that you can come back through the maze again. This area, because of the ruralness of it, all the open fields, from my house, up to Haviland Road. is a very popular spot for joggers and bicyclers, rollerskaters. people with their dogs. I mean. pedestrian traffic is really quite large on this road. Now an increase of motor vehicles, an increase of pedestrian traffic, I would have to expect that all of these people who are going to be living in there are going to. some of them are going to be joggers. and some of them are going to be bicyclers, and those two groups of people on the road just don't mix. We've been very fortunate, so far there haven't been any accidents. but I see the increase in traffic as being a real concern on Meadowbrook Road. Meadowbrook Road is not Bay Road. You keep voicing your opinions about the increase in traffic, and you're looking at Bay Road as a standard. Well. Bay - 35 - -- ----' Road is nothing like Meadowbrook Road. It's a small little narrow road. So, I'm very concerned about traffic being increased, not only from this development, but from the development in the area in general. This is only one part. We're also told about one road from this development emptying on to Meadowbrook Road. Well. after reviewing the plans, it appears that there's a proposal for two roads from this development to empty on to Meadowbrook Road. Is that correct? MR. NACE-It's always been two. MR. KILBURN-Well. at the last meeting, there was one road discussed. MR. NACE-One originally. MR. BREWER-I think we discussed the first road that they're putting in to run the pipe line in. I don't think it was conversation as to there was only one road. MR. KILBURN-Well, looking at the plans earlier this week, I discovered that now there are two roads that will be coming out of this development, and emptying on to Meadowbrook Road. MR. RUEL-Sir, how long have you lived in that area? MR. KILBURN-Sixteen years. MR. RUEL-Yes, and there was very little traffic, right. over the years? MR. KILBURN-Very little. MR. RUEL-Yes, but as you looked across the street and looked around and sawall this vacant land, didn't you somehow anticipate that someday someone who owns the land would want to build on it, and therefore there would be traffic associated with it? Queensbury is widen open. The developers are buying up land, in all areas, and they have a right to build, and with buildings come traffic. How do you propose to stop this? MR. KILBURN-That's not my problem stopping it. That's your problem. Controlling traffic and regulating that is what the Planning Board is all about, as far as I'm concerned. MR. RUEL-No. We don't regulate traffic. MR. KILBURN-You are regulating traffic if you allow this development to go in. because you're turning all that traffic loose on Meadowbrook Road. MR. RUEL-You mean we stop a development in order to stop the traffic? MR. KILBURN-I see nothing wrong with that. MR. MACEWAN-What would you do if you had 140 acres and this Board said to you, we don't think we should allow you to develop your land because it's going to create an awful traffic hazard? MR. KILBURN-First, if that was my 40 acres. I would never plan because as Mr. Nace had stipulated, it's a terrible piece of land to build on. Almost all of it is wet, sloppy. there's brooks running through it continuously. It's not prime real estate, in my opinion, at all. and if it were left to me. it would be left open. just the way it should be. We moved out there because of the openness of the area, and we've enjoyed that for many years. I don't feel that people who prefer to live in that setting should all of a sudden be subject to a huge development being thrust right in their face. - 36 - - -- MR. RUEL-We'd have to make radical changes to the Master Plan, and we would have to take so called residential areas and make them park land. Is that what you're proposing? So that the old time residents would have no traffic? MR. KILBURN-Well, I don't see anything wrong with that. Queensbury is an open rural community. It's not New York City. We don't need a house on every square foot of land. MR. LAPOINT-Except yours. and where you already are. right? MR. KILBURN-Well, mine's been there for 40 years. MR. LAPOINT-Again, what about the people who were there 100 years ago? MR. KILBURN-There was no one there 100 years ago. MR. RUEL-Someone objected when you moved in, because you were adding to the traffic, and they had 100 acres, and you came in, and you only had a couple of acres. MR. KILBURN-No. As a matter of fact, Mr. Greene didn't object at all, to my property. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think by telling a developer they can't develop their land is solving anybody's problem. I think everybody has to live in harmony. and be able to develop their land in such a way that everybody can coexist. You may be laughing at it, but that's the way I look at it. MR. KILBURN-That's very nice if you're the developer. but if you're the individual who's been. MR. MACEWAN-But he has a right to use his land, just as much as you have a right to use yours. MRS. PULVER-Did you go to any of the meetings. in 1988. that the Town conducted about the zoning of property throughout the Town? MR. MACEWAN-When they were redoing the Master Plan. MRS. PULVER-When they were redoing it? MR. KILBURN-No. I did not. MRS. PULVER-To voice your opinion that that road should not be a collector road, or that this is MR-5 zoning, which means that they can have many more units than they already have. MR. KILBURN-I understand that, but this is the first real situation that we've been faced with. This is the first time someone's come forth and said, we're going to put something out there in that field. MR. LAPOINT-You just described traffic problems with the Girl Scout camp that already exists. MR. KILBURN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-So there's already a traffic problem there? MR. KILBURN-Certain periods of time. MR. LAPOINT-With the apartment complex that already exists. MR. KILBURN-That's true, and it's not going to get better. - 31 - - - MRS. PULVER-Have you brought this before the Town Board. that you feel that this shouldn't be a collector road? I mean, this Board, we just can't go around changing names of roads and. MR. KILBURN-No, I said because this is the first real demonstration of someone bUilding something in this area. MR. MACEWAN-We're not even empowered to change zoning. That has to be done by the Town Board. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. KILBURN-What are you empowered to do? MR. MACEWAN-Site plan review. MR. KILBURN-And say yes or no? MR. MACEWAN-Say yes or no. MR. KILBURN-Okay. MRS. PULVER-It's our responsibility to see to it that the applicant conforms to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury. MR. RUEL-And it is zoned that way. MR. MACEWAN-And the Master Plan. MRS. PULVER-Right. and is zoned for these units. He can have more of them, and for professional offices as well, and it's just our job to see to it that everything else falls in line and is in character with what the zoning and what the Master Plan says. MR. KILBURN-Yes, but this Board does have the ability to say, yes, we'll approve this plan, or, no, we will not. Is that correct? MRS. PULVER-Yes, we do, but if we deny it. we have to deny it and cite, within the Zoning Ordinance, or Subdivision, why we're denying this project. It has to be in these books. why we're denying it. We just can't deny it, sir, because you don't want 185 cars on that road. MR. RUEL-There's no legal reasons for denying this. None. MRS. PULVER-That's not a reason. That road can handle many more hundreds of cars. MR. RUEL-And there will be more. as time goes on. MR. BREWER-And I think once the traffic gets to the point where it can't handle it, then something probably will be done. whether they widen the roads, or what. MR. RUEL-Traffic lights. MRS. PULVER-It'll be people like yourself who'll complain when the traffic is not moving on that road, that will get something done. when there is a problem. MR. KILBURN-I just felt it was my duty to come here and at least tell you that I do not agree with the plan. I do not agree with the project. and I do feel that you are creating a problem by increasing the traffic volume on this road. MRS. PULVER-We appreciate that. but we are not creating the problem. This is within the Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury. MR. KILBURN-The other question I had the sewer, and Mr. Nace already spoke briefly on that, about conversations with the Town - 38 - '----- - Board and buying out the district, etc. the public? Are those meetings open to MR. NACE-There' s no reason, if you were interested, that you couldn't be invited. In fact, let me speak to the issue. I think one of the things that did come up is the possibility of your connecting to the sewer, and we have addressed that at the meeting. The issue of his connectinq to the sewer, he's right at the end of the existing sewer district, and he's not connected. and the site conditions really warrant his being connected. and that issue has come uP. at one of the meetings. Mike Brandt has asked Mike Shaw to look into whether or not that's feasible, and to, certainly. if we have sewer, going by the front of his house, there's no reason why he couldn't be included in the district. MR. KILBURN-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we feel comfortable to do the SEQRA? We didn't do it last week. All of Tom's notes are going to be met before final. Is that correct? We established that last week? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. BREWER-Is there any questions from anybody else? MRS. TARANA-What about the maintenance? There was a question raised, the maintenance and ownership of the wetlands. What's happening with that? MR. NACE-That will have to be a discussion with the Town Board. that will occur before final. to see if the Town Board's interested in taking that land, in lieu. full lieu or partial consideration of the recreation fees. MRS. TARANA-And when does that come back to us, or doesn't it ever? MR. NACE-It will when it goes to the Town Board. They'll refer it to you for recommendations. That has to occur before final. obviously. MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. We'll get a letter from Paul Naylor and Tom Flaherty before final? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. BREWER-So. we'll grant you that waiver. at final? MR. NACE-Why not take care of it now? Whatever way you want. MR. BREWER-I'd just as soon grant it at final, when we had the letters. That would be my suggestion. Okay. Do you want to go through the SEQRA? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I'm going to go through the SEQRA, and I already quickly went through the impact on land. What I'm going to do is read the major item, and then go down through the bullet items. because, at least on land, several of the bullet items apply, and we'll go over them in a little more detail than we normally do. MR. BREWER-We did that last week. We just went through it to get an idea of what, but it's a good idea. MR. LAPOINT-I will do it that way now. "Impact on Land Will the - 39 - -- -.,/ proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?" MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Small to moderate? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. BREWER-Under construction more than one year. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Yes. well there are no construction slopes greater than 15 percent. MR. BREWER-No. MR. LAPOINT-There is construction on land where the depth of water table is less than three feet, at least seasonally, and they'll have to take construction methods that take that into account as they go. So, I would say that's small to moderate. MR. BREWER-And it can be mitigated. MR. LAPOINT-And it will be mitigated. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "Construction on land where the bedrock is exposed or generally within three feet of eXisting ground surface." I don't think it's generallY within three feet, but it does occur within three feet? MR. NACE-I would address it. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. We. I guess, spoke in detail about the blasting that will occur as a result. So, small to moderate, and will be handled as a construction detail? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "Construction that will continue for more than one year and will involve more than one phase or stage." That's clear. We're going to have three phases, which I think is generally good. because my guess it will be many, many years before we see a road out on Meadowbrook. MR. BREWER-No. I think that's, the plan was to start the two road. MR. LAPOINT-To start the two road? MR. BREWER-Maybe you could explain that to Ed. MR. NACE-Discussions last week. Ed, was in order to do this, we want to take care of all the blasting that has to occur in Phase I, okay. During the construction of Phase I, we want to take care of all the blasting that has to occur for the whole project. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. NACE-So. we're gOing to be. the roads in, doing all the blasting, putting in the utilities for the whole subdivision during Phase I, and during that time. we will also go ahead. if this Board cares to make it one of it's requirements. we will go ahead and construct a road onto Meadowbrook so that traffic in here does have that option, but we want to have that requirement, if you choose to make it, have that per. as a requirement after a certain number of houses in Phase I have been constructed. We don't want to have to do that right away, before we get the first building permit. just because of the timing of it. We'd like to have a majority of Phase - 40 - - --' I available to us to build, before this road actually goes through, so that. at a certain house number before we can get the next building permit. Then we'd have to have that road finished. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So it looks like. I would deal with those at final, for final approval, that detail, about sequencing, does that make sense? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Excavation for mining. we're not going to be mining. Okay. "Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual landforms found on the site?" MR. BREWER-No. MR. LAPOINT-"Impact on Water Will proposed action affect any waterbody designated as protected?" MRS. TARANA-I thought the wetlands are protected, no? MRS. PULVER-Yes. but they're not going to be disturbing them. MR. HARLICKER-The only construction in the wetlands is going to be. well, not in the wetlands, but in the buffer zone around the wetlands will be the stormwater outflows, and there's a potential for some of the houses, also. to require wetlands permits because of their proximity to the 100 foot buffer. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Well. the question reads, "Will proposed action affect any waterbody designated as protected?" MR. RUEL-How about the stream? Is there a stream there? MR. BREWER-There is a stream. MR. RUEL-That's a protected stream, isn't it? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. It says here, developable areas of site contains protected water body. That's true. So, there would have to be construction techniques to accommodate the water. de-water the holes when they put in the stormwater management plans, and, again. I'm thinking, again, of maybe a little more detail at the final stage as to what they're going to do with some of these houses, or stipulation they will get their wetland permit, if needed. stuff like that. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "Will proposed action affect any nonprotected existing or new body of water?" MR. RUEL-No. MRS. TARANA-Old Maids' Brook? MR. LAPOINT-Nonprotected existing or new body of water. MRS. TARANA-Well, I'm looking at the Staff Notes. and it says, the project site is traversed by Old Maids Brook. MR. LAPOINT-Is that true? Does the stream traverse this? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MRS. TARANA-Erosion control measures should be outlined. MR. NACE-Yes, the stream goes through the western portion, north and south. We will have Article 15 permits for stream crossings. - 41 - '- -- MRS. TARANA-And the Staff Comment is erosion control measures should be outlined that will address the potential for sediments getting into the Brook. So that's another prospect to look at at final. MR. LAPOINT-Are they already on the drawing? MR. NACE-No. That will be on the Article 15 drawing, the DEC permi ts. for erosion control. That area has to be blown up in great detail for them to look at. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So the impact is small to moderate. and we're going to mitigate it with construction techniques. that'll be covered by the DEC Permit? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity?" MR. BREWER-Yes. We had that checked from last week, yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off There will be no effluent conveyed off site to a water body. all going to be sewage off. through a main. correct? site. It's MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. LAPOINT-You will have some surface water runoff that you're going to have to accommodate within each one of those lots. MR. NACE-That's correct. You're talking about groundwater impact? MR. LAPOINT-Well, it says surface or groundwater quality or quantity. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. BREWER-They should indicate how they will deal with the high water table. MR. LAPOINT-Right. I mean, when you de-water. when you blast through rock, and you've got a 40 foot trench full of water. MR. BREWER-I'm talking about construction of houses. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Details. MRS. TARANA-Yes. It's a detail. but the question is that the, how will they deal with the highwater table when they construct the homes? MR. LAPOINT-Well, they're de-watering their holes. The foundation they dig they're going to pump the water out. MR. NACE-I think the issue there is that the foundations will be constructed above groundwater, or under drains. If there's an outlet point available. under drains will be put in to drain the footings. Generally, it's a fairly tight soil. If groundwater is there. it's perched on top of the rock. It doesn't move very fast. because it's clay soil. You create a sWimming pool. but there's not any great volume of water. MR. BREWER-There's nowhere for it to go? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. "Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?" - 42 - ------>------>.._._~-_..__.-. '-- -' MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-That's also gOing to be a wetlands permit issue, correct? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-I mean, DEC's going to make some type of decision as to, do you need a stormwater management plan for individual units or something like that. They're going to make that decision? MR. NACE-Well, we already have a stormwater management plan for the outfalls. The outfalls are what encroach on the buffer zone, and that's their jurisdiction point. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. BREWER-Can we maybe make a note to limit construction, in the Staff Notes, Number Seven, "Will proposed action affect Air Quality? Project will have a minor impact on air quality. During construction dust and emissions from the construction permit will be a temporary concern. To help mitigate the impact, hours of construction could be limited. The wetting of unimproved road surfaces could be implemented and revegetation should be done as soon as possible." MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I agree with revegetating. I don't think you should restrict the construction hour, because it's better to get in and out. It's better to get a job done in three weeks. on some odd hours. than get in there and make it run five weeks, because you can only run eight to five. MR. NACE-Well. I think the issue there is obviously, we would not be running through the night. or running noise generating equipment at times when people normally want to sit and relax. MR. BREWER-Like on the Fourth of July. in the evening. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well, see, the impact on air, if you read the bullet items. MR. BREWER-I'm reading the Staff Comments. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. but they've got to relate to SEQRA. I mean, dust and stuff when you're driving around, that's a construction thing that goes on. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. I know it happens. MR. LAPOINT-Do you feel you have to do something about it? MR. BREWER-I'm just reading, I'm making comments to what Staff said, that's all. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. See, I would ignore it. MRS. TARANA-It's just an answer to the question, will it have an impact? Yes, it will. MR. LAPOINT-The impacts you're supposed to consider are whether you're putting in an incinerator, ten million BTU's per hour. I mean. a thousand or more vehicle trips in any given hour. I mean. that's an impact. We're talking about road dust. MR. BREWER-I'm just reading what he said, Ed. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'm discounting it. Does anybody else want to keep talking about it? MRS. PULVER-No. - 43 - ,~------ -- --./ MR. RUEL-Should that review you have take into consideration the temporary items like that? MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. RUEL-Well. we keep talking about temporary items. MRS. PULVER-No. That's the SEQRA Form right there. Those are the things to approve the SEQRA Form. MR. RUEL-That doesn't cover the temporary. MR. BREWER-I don't think. necessarily, those are the only things you have to take into consideration. I think they're examples. MR. LAPOINT-No, but keep in order of magnitude here. They're talking about putting in a hazardous waste incinerator, or a ten million BTU per hour boiler. We're talking about road dust. There's no impact on air. MR. RUEL-You have to limit it to rainy days. MR. BREWER-No. no. I don't mean that. MR. LAPOINT-"Impact on Transportation Will there be an affect to existing transportation systems?" MR. RUEL-No. MRS. PULVER-No. MRS. TARANA-I think so. I think there's an impact. MRS. PULVER-One hundred and eighty-five cars on that road is not going to impact. MR. BREWER-It does have an impact. MR. NACE-Well, I think you've got to say it has an impact. You've got to assess whether or not it's a major impact. MR. LAPOINT-It's not the intent of what they're looking for. Small to moderate? MR. BREWER-Alteration of present andlor goods. Small to moderate. mitigated. patterns. movement of people. I don't know how it could be MR. LAPOINT-There's nobody that's going to change their routes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. "Noise and Odor Impacts Will there be objectionable odors noise or vibration as a result of the proposed action?" Okay. We talked about some blasting which could generate noise and certainly some vibration, but I was satisfied with the explanation that they are going to proceed with seismographs and start small, and calibrate themselves as to the most they can do. economically, without creating a disturbance to the neighbors. MR. RUEL-It can be mitigated. MR. BREWER-It's a small to moderate impact. MR. LAPOINT-"Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" There already is. Yes. Correct? MR. BREWER-Related to potential adverse environmental impacts. - 44 - -- -- j MRS. PULVER-You're saying, there has to be something major in here that someone is going to dispute. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well, I think we've had that just tonight, and previous nights when I've been on, with people who dispute that this is a. I mean. there's certainly controversy. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-And that's the question, right, "Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MRS. PULVER-Well, I thought that it pertained to the SEQRA Form itself. MR. BREWER-Controversy related to potential adverse impacts. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I'll say no. MR. BREWER-You almost have to say no, because we didn't check any potential large impact. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTIOR NO. 4-1992. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GUIDO PASSARELLI. at Prel1a1nary Stage. for the subdivision of 82 plus acres into 146 lots (133 residential and 13 office buildings),and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The fOllowing agencies are involved: County Highway Department. DEC 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 29th day of April, 1993. by the fOllowing vote: - 45 - "'-. /........ .-' ~ --' AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now, we're going to make a motion. They're only gOing from Preliminary to Final. So lets talk about, before we get halfway through it, what we want for our conditions. MRS. PULVER-I have a little list. MR. LAPOINT-Great. I'll let you make the motion. MR. PULVER-You could make the motion. and I could jump in there. Want to address all the engineering concerns. the maintenance of the wetlands. We want to see a letter from Paul Naylor. a letter from Tom Flaherty. a letter from Mike Shaw, and did we say we would consider the waiver for the 35 unit phasing? MRS. TARANA-We did that last time. MRS. PULVER-We already did that one. Okay. And what about approval for the complete road. Did we do that the last time. completing the road? MR. BREWER-I don't think we had to do it. MRS. PULVER-Okay. That was part of the waiver. I'm just reading old notes. That was it. MRS. TARANA-I have a couple of things from the Staff Notes that I don't think we even talked about. One of them. and I don't know exactly where. Scott. you're referring to. Maybe you can show me, or tell us, intersections that are laid out so that traffic entering them will shine their lights right into the houses located across from them? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Well, there's several intersections in the phase where the two roads that were T intersections line up, when people come to that intersection. their headlights are going to be shining right into somebody's livingroom. I just wanted to point that out. MRS. TARANA-Is there any way that could be changed? MR. LAPOINT-Buyer beware. MR. BREWER-That happens a lot of places in the Town. MRS. TARANA-Yes, well, I'm just pointing out things that we didn't talk about. Maybe that's all. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 PRELIMINARY S~AGE GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the subdivision of 82+ acres into 146 lots, 133 residential and 13 office bUildings, with the following conditions: All engineering concerns be addressed, there be a plan for the maintenance of the wetlands, that the Planning Board is presented a letter from Paul Naylor. Tom Flaherty, and Mike Shaw, concerning roads, water. and sewage. Duly adopted this 29th day of April, 1993. by the following vote: - 46 - '---_.~ -./- MR. HARLICKER-You might want to get into, as Ed mentioned earlier, about wetland permits on some of the individual lots. how are you going to work with that? MRS. PULVER-Well. I think when we get the maintenance of the wetlands, how they're going to do all that at final, we can discuss that as well. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISIOR RO. 6-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE. UNLISTED SR-1A MICHAEL VASILIOU OWNER. SAME AS ABOVE LOCATIOR: WEST MT. RD. ACROSS FROM LILAC LARE. RAME. THE GLEN CORSTRUC~IOR OF A 10 LOT SUBDIVISION. (DEC) (APA) TAX MAP NO. 121-1-60.1. 60.2 LOT SIZE: 11.61 ACRES SEC~IOR: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HARLICKER-These Staff Notes were written prior to what's on the Board up there tonight. So, it changes it a little bit. STAFF ItlPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-1993. Mike Vasiliou Preliminary Stage, Meeting Date: April 29, 1993 "Project DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 11.62 acre parcel into 10 lots. The project contains a .614 acre wetland and involves the construction of a road. The property is located on the east side of West Mountain Road and is zoned SR-1A. The applicant is seeking to use the clustering provision to allow for the creation of undersized lots. The lots will range in size from .65 acres to 1.48 acres. The wetlands will be on a separate lot. The lots will be serviced by town water and have individual on site septic systems. Project Analysis: In order to allow for the maximum number of lots on the property and to allow for half of them to be undersized, the applicant is seeking to utilize the clustering provision. The objectives of clustering are to allow a development pattern which preserves outstanding natural features. provides an efficient use of land resulting in a smaller network of streets and utili ties and allows for a development pattern in harmony with the land use intensity. transportation and community facilities objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. It does not appear that this proposal fulfills these objectives." As you can from the diagram up there on the Board. they've gone quite a ways in preserving some sort of green space around the property up there. It looks like, probably about 20 percent. 25 percent of the property is now going to be in green space. I'm not sure what means they're going to do this. We were told, initially. it was going to be done with conservation easements on the individual lots up there. "The preservation of the outstanding natural features of the site, the wetlands. can be accomplished without utilizing the clustering clause. In fact. the zoning code prohibits development within 75 feet of a wetland without a wetland permit. It does not result in a smaller street or utility network. It is the staff's opinion that the main purpose of the clustering provision is to allow for the clustering units in a smaller area than would be allowed by a conventional subdivision; thereby allowing for the preservation of open space for the community and the saving of infrastructure cost to the developer. The applicant is proposing to incorporate conservation easements on some of the proposed lots. The details and location of the easements have not - 41 - '--- ~ been determined at this time. However, the initial proposal calls for the easements to be incorporated into the deeds. The disposition of the wetlands has to be resolved prior to preliminary approval. The wetlands is currently shown as a separate lot that is landlocked and the creation of lots without any road frontage is prohibited. It is the staff's view that the applicant is seeking to use the clustering provision to get the maximum number of units on this parcel. The proposed conservation easement makes the idea of considering this subdivision clustered more palatable; however staff still has reservations as to whether this proposal should be considered under the cluster provision. A better alternative would be for nine lots all with frontage and access on Stephanie Circle. It is possible that even though the property is zoned SR-1A. it is not shaped in a way that would support a ten lot subdivision and therefore, a nine lot subdivision would be preferable for this particular property." MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have notes from Tom? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer. April 20. 1993, "Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments: 1. An undisturbed 35' buffer strip adjoining the wetland should be indicated for lots 3 and 4 per Zoning Code 1 79-60B. 2. The subdivision layout does not indicate the disposition of the wetland. 3. A 10' utility easement should be indicated for telephone and electric. 4. The edge of roadway radius at the intersection of Stephanie Lane and West Mountain Road is recommended at 40 feet due to the local arterial road status of West Mountain Road. The accompanying right-of-way status should be 28 feet minimum. 5. The grade of Stephanie Circle at the intersection of West Hountain Road exceeds the 3% maximum stipulated in the Subdivision Regulations (A183- 231). 6. The proposed 18" culverts along West Mountain Road do not appear to have adequate cover. 7. Grading for the inlet end of the proposed 18" culvert at the Stephanie Lane and West Mountain Road intersection is not complete. Contours 440 and 442 are absent. 8. Drainage from the existing 21" culvert under West Mountain Road south of Stephanie Lane currently flows to the wetland area at a point between lots 3 and 4. The installation of a culvert under Stephanie Lane as proposed will alter this existing pattern and is not recommended. Topography along West Mountain Road to the north of the subdivision does not clearly demonstrate that the proposed approach will permit satisfactory drainage past property to the north of lot 1. 9. A 30 foot wide drainage easement centered over the lot line between lots 3 and 4 is recommended between Stephanie Lane and the wetland with a relief pipe and stabilized outlet for overflow from the Stephanie Lane stormwater/drainage system. 10. The date of per tests and test pit excavations should appear on the plans. 11. The cul-de-sac island should be constructed in a circular shape." MR. BREWER-Okay. We have someone here speaking for the applicant. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Mike O'Connor, from the firm of Little & O'Connor. for the purposes of your record, and with me is Michael Vasiliou, who is the developer. Also with me is Leon Steves, from VanDusen and Steves. and Tom Nace from Haanen Engineering, all prepared to answer the questions that you might have about this. I guess I would try and 'jump to the comment by Staff that they believe that the major concern at this point is the ownership of the wetlands. Let me tell you a little bit about why we've done what we've done. Basically. we acknowledge that on the proposal to the Board there we've created a landlocked parcel. For whatever reason, the back of this property, or the east line of this property. is the eastern boundary of the Adirondack Park lands or map for that particular area. Along with our application to you. we have submitted an application to APA. which we're required to do. We've talked to APA Staff. They are in the process of preparing a non- - 48 - ~" '----- """--, --' jurisdictional letter to us, because we did not include that wetland in any lot. Their jurisdiction would be if you were subdividing a lot. drawing a line through it, but that is not the position they take. They take the position that they will take jurisdiction over projects, if you include a wetland within the project. and what we have done is excluded it, if you will, from our subdivision. and that's the purpose and the reason that we've done it in the manner that we've done it. They have indicated to us that they're going to issue a non-jurisdictional letter. The difference between a non- jurisdictional letter and them taking jurisdiction is probably about a year for their approval. Not that they would change your approval, or not that they would change what we propose here. They just. the time period is. They have already responded to us. submittal for jurisdiction. MR. BREWER-So, if that wetland was part of a lot. it would be a jurisdictional? MR. O'CONNOR-It would give them jurisdiction. MR. BREWER-It doesn't change the wetland. MR. O'CONNOR-You're not doing anything to it. You've drawn a line around it, and that satisfies them. The developer would own, in this instance here. if you allow this as we've proposed it. the developer would own the wetland. There would be a landlocked parcel. It would be created by the developer. There would be no one who would have any right to make a complaint, because we created our own landlocked parcel. Eventually. it would be taxed as a separate entity. The lots around it are sold to a third party. and when taxed as a separate entity, the taxes would, in all honesty. not be paid, and it would go for taxes because nobody could ever build on it. Nobody would have a use for it. and eventually it would be owned by the County, or by the Town. MR. RUEL-What's the size of the buffer around that area? MR. O'CONNOR-We've shown by a restrictive covenant which we propose. I believe. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-The green area would vary from 75 feet down to around 40 feet. at the narrowest point. because we have a retention area just between the wetlands and the. as emergency overflow. MR. BREWER-Is that preferred by Staff, to create that lot? MR. MARTIN-You really don't have the authority to do that. It's a nonconforming lot. It has no frontage on a Town road. MR. O'CONNOR-We can. very easily, if you want to. extend a line out to the road. and have 40 foot frontage, and then you've got an undersized lot that's unbuildable because it's a wetland. MR. LAPOINT-Time to use a little common sense. MR. MARTIN-Mike. what about that al ternati ve we talked about. attaching it to a lot within a subdivision? MR. 0' CONNOR-I'm told that APA would still consider that to be jurisdictional. I think. practically speaking. what we would do is sell the lots off and give somebody that adjoins it the wetland. MR. BREWER-Yes. but then you're just getting around the APA permit. THOMAS NACE MR. NACE-That' s the way their own regulations and policies are written. - 49 - ,--,,' HR. MARTIN-That's the Board's discretion on that. want to see a nonconforming lot created. I just don't MR. BREWER-They tell us to let you, or have you make a nonconforming lot and then give it to somebody. but we can't let you make a nonconforming lot, can we? HR. O'CONNOR-I think you can waive any provision you have within the Subdivision Regulations. HR. HARTIN-I don't think so. HR. BREWER-In my opinion. I would ask Paul Dusek if we can do that. HR. MARTIN-I don't think so. MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing. whether or not the adjoining owners who are not part of the subdivision, whether they would take title. On the east. it's the property owned by the Potvins, and on the north of us, there's property owned by Carp. We are trying to explore that. The problem that you have is that with the Potvin parcel, if you remember, we were in here. I guess I was in this before the ZBA a couple of months ago. They do not intend to develop, this parcel. There's about 23 acres in there. They want to have that divided, in the sense, not the building lots. but if anybody who owns along that road wants to take title and is willing to pay for the cost of having the survey drawn, we will deed them what's behind their house, and put a forever wild provision in the deed. that it not be built on. We're in a little bit of a problem if we attach this piece to that, because then we might be creating an APA jurisdictional subdivision, even though it's not a subdivision for building purposes. We're getting into the technicalities of planning. as opposed to the practicality of how do you do this. HR. LAPOINT-Yes. The rules are never made to restrict and define this type of thing. I mean. the objective is to protect the wetland. This use of this land, divided up this way. does exactly that, and now the rules are hindering that process, which is the massi ve bureaucracy we've created in this Country. I mean, we ought to be able to just say. yes. that lot is fine. Let it go to taxes. and do it. That's the right thing to do to protect that piece of land. but the rules don't let you, or build, if you want to do it that way. you've got to go through a year process to get approval from the APA to do it. MR. BREWER-Yes. but whether it be right or wrong. we can't do it. HR. LAPOINT-We're going to work it out. so we can do it somehow. I agree. we've got to find out from our attorney. By final. we can find that out. I mean, the right thing to do is the right thing to do. HR. BREWER-Agreed, but I don't know how we can sit. at Preliminary, and let him create a nonconforming lot? HR. LAPOINT-Well, we ought to be able to deal with that at Final. right? MR. BREWER-I don't know. MR. MACEWAN-Then what do you do. at Final. if we find out that we can't do it. It throws them right back. HR. O'CONNOR-Under Clustering, if we really get pushed to the wall. there is no minimum lot size. HR. HARTIN-Right. HR. HARLICKER-Right. - 50 - J '--, ---,' .~ MR. O'CONNOR-So. if we had to be as foolish as we need to be foolish. we can take 20 feet off of what's shown here as lot 3, and 20 feet off of what's lot 4, and extend it to what is the proposed road. You then have a lot that has your required 40 feet frontage on a Town road. MR. BREWER-And then you're making 11 lots, correct? MR. NACE-You're retaining that. MR. O'CONNOR-It's not a separate building lot. We can, by restrictive covenants, provide that it is not to be built upon. It would be forever wild. so it is not a building lot. It does not violate the density requirements for the parcel. MR. BREWER-Maybe I don't understand you. If you're taking 20 feet from lot 3. and 20 feet from lot 4, and putting it into this, that's making another lot, isn't it? MR. NACE-But we're restricting to say that it will never, it's going to be retained by the present owner. and will never be a building lot. MR. BREWER-Regardless. you're still making another lot. aren't you? MR. NACE-No. we're not making anymore lots than we have now. This is, if you want to consider it that way, this is a lot now. MR. O'CONNOR-It is a separate parcel. Mr. Brewer. It will not be a building lot, which I think is what you get into for your density. That may be one practical way of doing it, although then you tie up 40 feet of that frontage. The nicest way to do it would be, I don't know who's going to object to this. I don't know. I think it is something that you could waive, maybe I've got to explore th~t more with Paul, between Preliminary and Final, if he thinks you could waive. MR. BREWER-I would like to have you and him discuss that, if it's at all possible. MR. O'CONNOR-I would have no problem with that at all. MR. BREWER-Because we've got the Zoning Administrator saying we can't let you create a nonconforming lot. and you're saying. well. if you deed it to somebody else. MR. O'CONNOR-I think he's saying it's nonconforming because it doesn't have 40 feet of frontage. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-So. if we have 40 feet of frontage. it then conforms. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. PULVER-I have a question. Scott. You said these Staff Notes were made up prior to seeing. MR. HARLICKER-This has gone a long ways, I think, towards addressing my concerns. Yes, I still have some reservations about the clustering provision used on this property. but it's such a grey area here, that there, I think with the green space that they're proposing, I think it's going a long ways toward keeping with the spirit, I guess, of what's, because ideally, yes. you'd want a smaller cul-de-sac with the houses clustered around it and the rest of the property. most of the property would be used as common ownership. and for use for everybody. Ideally. yes, but there isn't a set design for clustering. Is this an ideally - 51 - --.- utilization of the clustering provision? I don't think so. MRS. PULVER-I quess that's what I'm asking. is I don't see this as being clustering. MR. HARLICKER-That was Staff's comment from the beginninq. I think, like I said. MRS. PULVER-Well. I know. that was the beginning. I want to know if you've changed your mind, now that you saw the new plan, whether you thought this was clustering. I didn't think the first plan was clustering. MR. HARLICKER-Right. Like I said, it's goinq a long way towards it. MRS. PULVER-Are we there? MRS. HARLICKER-I'd like to see a smaller cul-de-sac. with the lots clustered around it, and common ownership of the property around it. That's what I would like to see. MR. LAPOINT-Per the definition of Clustering. and that's not what you're saying you'd rather see with the development of the whole. MR. MARTIN-See, the problem with clustering is it's a subjective Section of the Ordinance. It doesn't cite any standard or percentage or approach. It says things like a development pattern in harmony with land use intensity, transportation facilities and community facilities. an efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets. a development pattern which preserves outstandinq natural topography and geological features. scenic vistas and trees. and prevents the disruption of natural drainage patterns. MR. LAPOINT-That sounds like what we're doing. right? MR. O'CONNOR-I thought we had this discussion, February 23rd. MRS. PULVER-I wasn't here. I did read the minutes, and I did look. and I thought, I don't think this is clustering. MR. 0' CONNOR-We went through all that. Again. I qo back to an earlier presentation I made. We had spent some expense, some considerable amount of time some effort and some monies here. based upon your concept approval, on the basis that this was going forward as clustering. I'm still willing to talk about clustering. because I think I can defend the position, defend use of clustering here very easily. I think it's good planning that you're doing right now. We had a concept. We had a map up there that showed you 10 one acre lots. Some of them were odd shaped lots. flag shaped lots. ax handle lots, whatever you want to call it. They didn't make a lot of sense. We put up two short cul-de-sacs coming off of West Mountain Road. and had small lots around them, and said that that can be all common, open area. The problem with that. it cost more to build those two short cul-de-sacs then it would to build this particular road. when you get into the economy of infrastructure. which is part of the provision of your clustering Ordinance. We went throuqh all that business, I thought. I'll go back to it, if you really are disturbed. I think what you have in front of you is good planning. You've got uniform type reasonable lots. You tell me where you want to go. I have strong objection to you going back over an approval that you gave us in February. MRS. PULVER-Well. I wasn't here at that meeting. So you didn't get my approval. and I think I can ask any questions that I want. I think I can ask any questions. Mike, that I want. MR. BREWER-Sketch is not really an approval. thouqh, is it? - 52 - -" MR. MARTIN-No. MR. BREWER-It's not really a binding approval. MR. O'CONNOR-Then why do we have it? MR. MACEWAN-It's an opportunity to share ideas. MR. O'CONNOR-And can we, then, in good faith, rely upon what you tell us your concerns are. and when we go out and spend seven, eight thousand dollars to develop a program and develop a plan, can we rely upon what you've told us in good faith. or are we subject to you changing the rules? MR. RUEL-Are we changing anything now? MR. O'CONNOR-If you. all of a sudden, say we're not going to use clustering, I think I get very concerned. MRS. PULVER-Who said that? MR. RUEL-Who said that? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I rest. As to the Engineering Comments, Tom Nace, I think you can handle those better than I can. MR. NACE-Okay. I'll go through these one by one. The first. undisturbed buffer strips. the 35 foot we'll show. The disposition of the wetlands we've discussed. The utility easement. 10 foot utility easement, will be shown on the final. The roadway intersection radius up at West Mountain Road will be changed to conform with what Tom has. The grade coming off, at Stephanie Circle. the grade coming off West Mountain Road has to be more than three percent, because West Mountain Road is super elevated at that point. There's a very steep super elevation to it. and if we come off it directly. flat grade. anybody coming down into our road is going to have a big bump when they hit it. So. we have a curve. and we've taken the super elevation grade and gradually brought it into a road grade. So. I have no choice, really. MR. RUEL-Why would you change anything on West Mountain Road? MR. NACE-No. I'm not changing anything. I have to leave West Mountain the way it is. It's super elevated. I've got to carry that super elevation into the first part of my road. So that right where I meet the road. I've got to be more than three percent. which is your standard maximum. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. NACE-I don't know, does that require a waiver, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-It really ought to. and cite the reason. just because that particular section of road isn't conducive to meeting the standard. and this is, what's proposed is a better solution. and just cite a waiver to that Section of the Regulations. and that's the easiest thing to do. and cover your bases. too. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. Tom is right. The culvert we have shown at West Mountain Road. across our subdivision road, I did have a grading problem on that. that I have looked at and we have taken care of. completely. So that will address, and you'll see that at final. that will address Items Six, Seven, and, Eight I have gone and looked at out in the field. There was some concern because our topo ended a little bit short of where that drainage goes. I have looked at that in the field, Tom, and there is adequate grade, and that is all contained in the road side right-of-way. - 53 - --./ MR. YARMOWICH-It would stay along the road, without flowing across any adjoining properties until It gets to the Brook? I'm looking at the Tax Map. MR. NACE-Well. there is existi~g drainage, we're off the map. really. but there's existing drainage, Clendon Brook is up here I would say. and it flows around behind. There is already an eXisting drainage ditch for the road. which is not very well defined up here. Down in here it becomes well defined already, and the existing ditch leads down, and I presume it's outside of the right-of-way. where actually enters the Brook, but that's already existing, and we are not alteri~g any existing drainage patterns. We are not adding to that drainage with our development. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the concern is that water that flows to the north doesn't encumber the adjoining property owner, and if it's going to make it to the Brook. MR. NACE-The existing water al+eady does. All we're doing is allowing that to continue across our new road. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. down to the Brook. right-of-way. It won't flow across their property. in the road right-of-way, or near It'll go the road MR. NACE-It presently goes down to the Brook. in somebody else, off of the road right-of-way. MR. YARMOWICH-On this site? MR. NACE-No. off of this site. This property to the north, the existing drainage comes along th~ road. and the eXisting ditch line goes down to the Brook. It's far enough back off the road that I'm presuming that it's off of the rþad right-of-way. At the present drain. we are not adding any volume to that drainage. All we're doing is putting a culvert and a' better defined ditch line across here, to allow that to be maintained. MR. YARMOWICH-Are you, information that's shown me that the water coming in between lots 3 and 4. at tije same time, clarifying, the on there. as far as contours. suggests to out of that 21 inch culvert would go down MR. NACE-Here now. presently? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. NACE-I don't, first of all,! I don't think there's very much water there at all. It does flatten out there. and there's not a very well defined ditch, right i~ this area, okay. So, I think in high volume periods, if there ~ere a high volume going through there. it presently does go all ~he way down, if you look at it in the field. It's hard to tell. ¡because it's so, the ditch line itself is just so well defined. land I don't think looking at the end of the existing culvert, ev~n with this wet spring. I don't think there's been very much wat r flowing through. There enough debris. right at the bottom of t e existing ditch line at the end of the culvert. but I don't thi k it gets very much drainage, to begin with. MR. YARMOWICH-The concern is if ~t were to continue to the north. and flow across someone's property. if it presently does not. If it presently does. MR. NACE-It does. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. Then that's not an issue. MR .NACE-Okay. We will. on the final, show a drainage easement between lots 3 and 4. - ~4 - I I ! '- MR. BREWER-Could we refer to thi~ road. all through this thing, as Stephanie Circle, rather than Stephanie Lane? MR. MACEWAN-You picked up on th$t, too? MR. BREWER-Stephanie Lane's off of the Corinth Road. MR. NACE-This is Stephanie Circle. MRS. PULVER-You see, on Item Four it says, Stephanie Lane. On Item Five, it says Stephanie Circle. I figure, once it becomes Stephanie Circle. they'll be getting the mail from Stephanie Lane, and Stephanie Lane from Stephan~e Circle. MR. MACEWAN-I think. more importantly. you've got to look at fire protection and rescue. MR. NACE-Okay. final. The rest of the items will be taken care of at MR. MACEWAN-Mike, would you do me a favor. one more time, go through the green areas for me, ~xplain to me what your intent is, and how to protect the wetlands? MR. 0' CONNOR-The green area represents approximately. I think somebody said. 25 percent of t~e 10 acres that are developing single family lots. What we propose to do is put restrictive convenants on those areas that a~e shown on there, delineate them on the final map, and indicate that they are subject to a restrictive covenant that says that they will not be built upon or developed in any way. MR. BREWER-How about cutting trees down and stuff? MR. O'CONNOR-The only area that you might have is when you bring the green area all the way to the front of the road there. MR. NACE-It does come to the road. We have a site distance issue there. MR. 0' CONNOR-We would give you· a no cut thing for anything in excess of six inches. I think X've used that before. except for dead or diseased trees. MR. BREWER-That's fine. MR. O'CONNOR-We could put that in. in the areas that are shown. MR. BREWER-All the highlighted area you're showing there? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. This area he~e is quite, I thought, generous. It's 100 feet back from the ~oad. This would allow you to preserve. if you will. the open! space idea. as you go down West Mountain Road, as to what's back! there. MR. BREWER-How wide is that stri!p all the way around the border? I didn't here you say how wide i~ was. MICHAEL VASILIOU MR. VASILIOU-Thirty feet. MR. STEVES-It's drawn as 20 feet~ I I It varies ~ little bit as it gets around the itself, as I understand it. some of it's 75 down towar~ 40 feet. I MRS. TARANA-Is that a house in tþe circle. or green space, that's green space or something in the fircle. the middle? MR. O'CONNOR-It's 20. wetland. The wetland feet, and it does get - 55 - '- - HR. NACE-That's a cul-de-sac. HR. STEVES-It's green space. HR. O'CONNOR-Paul Naylor. they make it be paved. HRS. TARANA-That all must be paved? HR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. NACE-Not paved. HR. BREWER-I thought we did one subdivision where they were going to put grass or something in the middle of it? MR. STEVES-Yes. but you've got to take the trees out. HR. BREWER-Yes. HR. VASILIOU-Paul Naylor wants them stoned. I think he wants ground cloth and stone. so that he doesn't have to come back and maintain it. He'll accept some shrubs. HR. O'CONNOR-This is going to be owned by the Town. HR. BREWER-It is? HR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. BREWER-Who would enforce the no cutting? It just would be a restriction in their deed? HR. O'CONNOR-We can make a restriction enforceable by residents of the subdivision. and by the Town, if you want to pursue that. We can draw the restrictive covenant as you think is required. HR. BREWER-Okay. hearing on this. this application? Any questions? Okay. I'll open the public Is there anyone here that would like to speak on PUBLIC HEARIMG OPEMED TRACY TABOR HR. TABOR-Hy name is Tracy Tabor. I own Northland Gardens, which is across the road. just a little bit down from Lilac Lane. I own Northland Gardens, which is approximately right here. I would say. I have a question. How wide is this green space right here? MR. NACE-One hundred feet. MR. TABOR-One hundred feet. Now. in the existing plans. do you intend to leave the old trees that are alive there? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Anything in excess of six inches. MR. TABOR-Aesthetically. I mean. they're one of the nicest things you can look at out there. I will grant one thing on this plan, I like the idea of the green space. I was a little concerned about putting 10 houses over there. I thought eight was much more feasible. West Mountain has a bad curve. Another thing I'll give you credit for is the entranceway is more preferred up here than it would be anywhere down there. I probably would have been up here screaming if I'd seen something across from my driveway. There is a deer corridor. which mayor may not come into play for your residents. but it's been there for 200 years. as long as I've known. and it comes right down the Mountain and comes right across. and they come. you know, there'd be one or two dead a year anyway. So. you picked a better spot. If you can get Fred Austin to move the deer sign down here. then we'll have a few less accidents. I - 56 - ~----,.,..._--._-------- '- had a little bit of concern with people coming in and out. I'm getting a lot more traffic. on the garden center. up here. and I don't know. I guess it's County Ordinances and County roads. The speed limit's awful fast. You've got people gOing 55 miles an hour, easy. You've got big trucks coming down here. You count some of those construction trucks, if you sat there with a radar gun, I know they're going 60, 70 miles an hour when they come down to the bottom of that hill. It might be of a concern somewhere down the line. you say. look, you know. this concept. maybe we should lower the speed limit at this end of West Mountain Road. I'm sure it's County jurisdiction. and I really don't have a lot more to say about this, negatively wise. I like the idea of green space. It worries me a little bit that the lots are on full acres. I think that's because it's considered clustered? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. TABOR-And so it can be nonconforming? Originally. what were the plans? Were they more spread out? MR. O'CONNOR-They were odd shaped lots. You could have 10 one acre lots in there. but you have to have some tails or some flag poles off of some of the ones, in order to get the one acre square footage. This plan here allows us to have some lots that are larger than one acre. as well as some lots that are smaller than one acre. and the lots that are larger than one acre particularly go through the big green space area. are able to have that green space area because we've got a 1.2 acre lot and a 1.37 acre lot. MR. TABOR-Okay. I missed it. because I didn't hear you speaking. and I know you probably answered the question once. but how are you guaranteeing these green spaces? MR. VASILIOU-By deed. MR. TABOR-By deed. and it will be stipulated that this trees cannot be touched? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. TABOR-So. I hear this at final approval. I see them touched. I can? MR. BREWER-That's right. MR. TABOR-Okay. That was one of the questions. Are these green spaces here that you're stipulating. between the lots? MR. BREWER-All the highlighted area. MR. TABOR-That's a nice idea. Unless I think of something else, that's probably the only question I have. The wetland area is a concern. I grew up in this area. My family's been there for 100 years, and I'll tell you. there are endangered species back here. There are plants back here that won't be found in other parts of Queensbury. I know for a fact that the Clendon Brook is a brown trout breeding habitat. DEC is very intent on keeping is that way. Sediment. mud, land washing into that Brook is going to clog those gills up. and I know those trout will die. So. I'm impressed that you've taken that into consideration this time around. and I know that you probably had to go through so many permits with DEC about the wetlands. I guess I'll just watch the process go. as long as the public hearing stays open. Thanks. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else? DREW MONTHIE MR. MONTHIE-I'm Drew Monthie. and I'm his business partner. I also own Northland Gardens. Most of my questions, I'd say. have been - 57 - '-. -- answered. I'm really impressed with the green space on the plan. That was a big concern to me, that when a development went in, that there was going to be a lot of bulldozing and clear cutting. and that would alter the character of the area. I have a list, in addition to being a Horticulturist, I'm also an amateur naturalist. of some of the species and plants and animals I have observed in the wetlands. I will provide you folks with a copy of it. My copier's broke. If you could please provide this ~entleman with a copy of it. The one's in yellow would be the ones that would be particularly vulnerable to any type of clear cutting, and again. wi th these buffer areas. it looks like he's addressed that. Of these. only one. I believe. could possibly be threatened. It's not endangered. That would be the Spotted Salamander. but you'd have to check with the Heritage Foundation. which is a natural resource monitoring group. MRS. PULVER-You've actually seen these? MR. MONTHIE-Yes. The other thing I did want to touch on was the traffic. and that is a concern. I don't know whether it's something that, I realize that it's a County road. but people really do travel fast, especially coming down from the Sherman Avenue part of West Mountain Road, especially the big trucks. They come flying down that road. MR. LAPOINT-There's no shoulder. MR. MONTHIE-There's no shoulder, and that's really a concern that someone's going to get killed along there. MR. RUEL-And the limit is 50. isn't it? MR. MONTHIE-Yes, 50. MR. MACEWAN-It would be probably worth your while to contact the County. MR. MONTHIE-I had a customer tell me that he killed a deer in my driveway. There's a crossing there, and we did contact Fred Austin a couple of years ago, and he put one sign. right near where Lilac Lane comes into West Mountain Road, but the other one is almost to the top of the hill by Sherman Avenue. That should come down quite a bit closer because they don't cross there. MRS. PULVER-Now. besides running your business there. do you live there? MR. MONTHIE-I live right up the road, right off of Lilac Lane. I live in close proximity. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? JERRY PEARL MR. PEARL-I'm Jerry Pearl, and I live on the corner of Lilac Lane and Twin Mountain Road. and Lilac Lane is a dead end. and then Twin Mountain Road comes. and it goes into Luzerne. When you come off of Lilac Lane there, and I avoid it. If I have to go north. I have to go that way. but I try to avoid it because of the traffic. That green space there, large green area. blocks vision, that curve is. everybody said. it's a dangerous place. Dangerous. There's been accidents over the years there. with people coming out of driveways. but most of my concerns. so you understand the situation there. like creating another exit there and more traffic. The correction there is to eliminate some of that trees and shrub problem. because that's blocking the view. and anybody goes down that road. just take a look and see how it is. When I come from the south. on West Mountain Road. I don't go into Lilac Lane. I go up Luzerne Road and come in Twin Mountain. so I can avoid crossing traffic. because I can't see, always. somebody coming. They come - 58 - -- .-' very fast. and it's so wonder there hasn't been more. I know you can't do much about it. but you're aware of it. or should be aware of it. That's all. MR. MACEWAN-As far as the speed limits on that road, there's nothing this Board can do about that. MR. PEARL-I understand that now. MR. MACEWAN-Seeing how things are up there. I would suggest that all of you neighbors get together up there and approach the County. MRS. PULVER-Well, is it trees that are actually. is it just brush? I mean, doesn't the County go by and cut within. MR. NACE-I think I can add something. If you'll notice. up here. our green space. or our green buffer does not come out all the way to the road. We looked. specifically. at site distance coming out of our drive here, and we have site distance if we clear the brush away. So we will. in order to get the County permit to bring in this road. we will be clearing away a triangle. a thin triangle here of existing brush. So. you will have site distance. It won't totally solve your problem from up here, because this is a big long sweeping curve and you'd have to go back quite a ways. MR. PEARL-I understand that you did that. That's great. It's not that. It's right down at the lower end, where the shrubbery is. and trees. and stuff. on the other side of the road. Your green area. That's the area that, it's extremely curvy area, and dangerous. Anybody coming out of that road will have a problem seeing, to the south, a car coming. MR. BREWER-You'll have to prove adequate site distance, correct? MR. NACE-We have proven, ourselves. adequate site distance, with clearing of this area that we've shown. MR. PEARL-Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? MR. TABOR-I understand what my neighbor's addressing. It is a concern. I think one of the problems is, is the road in itself is a big sweeping curve. It's an awful curve. and even if you took the trees away back here. would you be able to see it there? I don't know. The way the road goes. you've got to understand West Mountain Road. Probably the only other thing I didn't touch on that I wanted to was drainage. There might be a little misconception about the amount of water that comes down through there. There is a culvert that goes underneath West Mountain Road at an angle. right here. That's directly in front of my driveway. That culvert works. maybe, 30 percent of the time. The rest of the time. things fill up and wash right down the road to the back. Everything comes down to a big kind of a bowl right there. The hill comes down. So they will have drainage down through here. They probably will alleviate. he's right. the ditch is not very well defined down through here. So. by putting a culvert in. it probably will just continue its natural path, and run down where they have it going into the stream. As far as the curve situation. I don't know. I like the idea of the green. I think the only way we would ever get rid of that curve on West Mountain Road is to come over here and do similar to what they've done for Dixon Road. or what they're trying to do to Peggy Ann Road. to just come right down here, but unfortunately. that would take out a number of houses. disrupt a lot of people's land. MR. BREWER-Okay. ThanK you very much. Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARIRG CLOSED - 59 - "-- -../ MR. BREWER-Okay. We have to do a SEQRA. right? MR. LAPOINT-I'd like to make a suggestion on that. As we go through that. if someone on the Board could monitor and go through Staff's comments as we go, do it both at the same time. Are we ready for that? Okay. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Could it be improving the situation out front, if that were dug properly? MR. MONTHIE-It could improve it. It depends on what the County does. If they come and clean the cuI verts out once a year, it might help. MR. BREWER-Well. if they're going to install a culvert out there, it would have a positive effect, right? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, keep the water moving. keep it cooler for the trout. right? MR. BREWER-So we'll put that under "Other Impacts". RESOLUTION WHEN DE~ERMINA~ION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 6-1993, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS. there application for: 10 lots. and is presently before the Planning Board an MICHAEL VASILIOU. to subdivide 11.61 acres into WHEREAS. the 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: APA which mayor may not be involved. but they will be notified of the activity. 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes. Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect, and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 29th day of April. 1993. by the following vote: - 60 - '-- -.-' AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. Now, we still have to decide what we're going to do with the wetlands. MR. LAPOINT-I like the idea of getting the applicant's attorney and our attorney together to see what can be done to keep this a separate delineated piece. and Mr. 0' Connor has talked about cutting 20 feet off of each of these property owners and making a lot out of it. this and that. I would try to tell the attorneys to come up with something that makes sense. MR. BREWER-Okay, but I think we have to do something tonight, to show it on a map, don't we, before we can approve it, or can we just do it at final? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Do it at final. Again. have them resolve that issue in some way that makes sense. MR. BREWER-Okay. I agree with you. Can we do that tonight. at Preliminary, give them approval. when that's not been done. MRS. PULVER-Contingent upon, yes. MR. MARTIN-Well. I would say contingent upon. and then if they don't resolve that, they don't move out of Preliminary. They would stay at Preliminary until that's resolved. MR. O'CONNOR-The difference between contingent and subject to. MRS. PULVER-We like the word better. MR. MARTIN-That way. it doesn't move out of Preliminary until it's resolved by them to the satisfaction of this Board. MRS. PULVER-Yes. That's my thought. My thought is. if we're going to leave it up to the attorneys to come to some sort of agreement that makes sense. then we as a Board are going to accept the attorney's decision. whether we like it or not. I mean, well, if we're telling them to do it. then that means they come up with something. and we. MR. LAPOINT-Well. there's maybe three alternatives. One of which is they find a way to create this landlocked lot that's acceptable. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-That makes the most sense to me. Somehow we can bend the laws or rules to do what makes sense. somehow. If they can't. the second alternative is to cut a strip in there and make some kind of lot out of it. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-With a forever wild. Now. is there a third? MR. BREWER-He can deed it to the party behind him. MR. LAPOINT-He can convey it to one of the other two owners. So there's four options. MR. MARTIN-Is that absolutely unacceptable. Mike, to try and include it as part of one of these lots in the subdivision? MR. O'CONNOR-I'm told that makes it subject to APA jurisdiction, solely for that purpose. - 61 - "'- MR. NACE-And I have confirmed that this week. MR. LAPOINT-And I don't think we want to send them through that. I don't think I want that to happen. So that, for me. as an option is out. MR. BREWER-So, the worst case scenario. he has to cut a 20 foot strip on each lot there. and make that, but then that still puts you back to APA doesn't it. or not? It doesn't? MR. LAPOINT-As long as you don't cut through it. MR. BREWER-Because then it won't be landlocked? MR. NACE-Well, it's not part of the development. MR. O'CONNOR-It is shown as not being a developable parcel. All you basically have is the wetlands, and an extra strip. If you put it next to a lot, then they say they have jurisdiction, because they want to know where the septic and everything else is going to go. with relationship to that wetland. because it's shown that you're going to develop it. You're kind of dealing with them with blinders. They have a lot of different rules that are different than our rules. and they just keep telling you, these are the rules. MR. BREWER-You mean. if that's a separate lot, I still don't understand it. and we've been here since. whatever time we started. MR. O'CONNOR-If we attach it to a lot. MR. BREWER-If you attach it to a lot. MR. O'CONNOR-And we showed it as part of lot 3, this would be an APA jurisdictional subdivision. MR. BREWER-If you make a lot with that in it. and show no development on that lot. it's okay? MR. NACE-That's right. MR. O'CONNOR-We're making a smaller parcel, so it's obviously not buildable. MR. MACEWAN-What they're creating is a lot that's unbui ldable. That's what they're creating. MR. LAPOINT-So what we have to ask as a Board. are any or all of those al ternati ves acceptable to us, and I think that answers Carol's question. is somebody going to have a problem with a strip out to the road? MRS. PULVER-Yes. Lets talk about it now. MR. LAPOINT-I don't have a problem with that. MR. MACEWAN-I don't have a problem with that, no. MR. LAPOINT-Again. I would prefer that it's a single. MR. RUEL-It's okay by me, as long as we can get legal approval. MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. STARK-That's fine. MR. BREWER-Okay. So what we're doing is putting our faith in the attorneys. MR. O'CONNOR-The possibility. too. is that Paul will tell us to - 62 - - ----' leave it as it is. on the basis of a waiver. MR. LAPOINT-Waiver or something. MR. O'CONNOR-Which is the way I first tried to present it. MR. MACEWAN-Waiver to who? Who gets ownership? MR. O'CONNOR-You waive the applicable other regulations within the subdivision regulations and allow that subdivision to stand alone. by itself, outside the subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-Who. eventually, would own the property? MR. O'CONNOR-The County. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That probably is the most likely scenario. We'd have to. as a final part of our approval would be a waiver. correct? MR. O'CONNOR-If we sell lots 3 and 4. and the three year period of redemption on tax sales and things like that, we then offer one of the owners of lots 3 or 4 a quick claim deed to it. they probably would take it. MR. BREWER-Okay. You'll work that out with Paul. MRS. PULVER-Okay. but that's acceptable to this Board. You come up with the idea. one of those things we've discussed. MR. BREWER-Call Paul. If he thinks it's fine, then we'll do it. Okay. Anything else? MR. STEVES-We're asking for the waiver for the entry grade. MR. LAPOINT-The entry grade. okay. but if I put in there that you've got to provide our engineer a little more justification that what you've done tonight. MR. BREWER-He said it's a non issue. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Good. MOTION TO APPROVB SUBDIVISIOR NO. 6-1993 PRELIMIRARY STAGE MICHAEL VASILIOU. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For a 10 lot subdivision. with the following conditions: One. that the applicant satisfy all the engineering conditions outlined in the Rist-Frost letter dated 20 April 1993. with the exception of Item Number Five. the three percent maximum stipulated grade, which was resolved here tonight. and we. as part of this motion, grant a waiver to that effect. releasing them from that three percent grade requirement. That the applicant's attorney and the Town attorney meet to discuss how the wetlands are going to be handled, the wetland property will be handled. Duly adopted this 29th day of April. 1993. by the fOllowing votel AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Since yesterday was submission deadline. could I ask your indulgence to submit first thing Monday morning. MRS. PULVER-That's right. That's because our meetings were - 63 - - changed. MR. MARTIN-That can be accommodated. as long as we make the advertising. HR. LAPOINT-Yes. you make all other requirements. other than tomorrow. right? HR. NACE-Yes. HRS. PULVER-Yesterday was the deadline. meetings for this month. See. we changed our HR. LAPOINT-Okay. Unusual month because it's our third meeting. So. yes. go ahead for Honday. first thing. HR. HARTIN-How are we going to work this with the requirements with the attorneys. that contingency about the attorneys? HR. BREWER-I don't know how we can. HRS. PULVER-Well. they just have to work that out by the next meeting. MR. NACE-Can that be something we bring to you? HR. BREWER-As long as we have it by our site visits. HRS. PULVER-Yes. HR. STEVES-Well, whatever the resolution may be, it will be on the final that you approve. MR. LAPOINT-Right. HR. STEVES-That's what we're saying. HR. BREWER-But we will receive it when we go on site visits. MR. 0' CONNOR-We can put all the engineering data on this thing that's going to be submitted on Honday. We would ask your indulgence. if there is a little bit of line. configuration. as the wetland business that we've got to do to accommodate whatever Paul Dusek says. that we be able to do that. as soon as we can. Paul's on vacation tomorrow. So. I'll try and get together with him Monday. Tuesday. and say, how are we going to do this. HRS. PULVER-Yes. Hike. I'm not so concerned with it being on the map, as I'm interested in knowing what it is you're going to do before the meeting. HR. BREWER-Exactly. HRS. PULVER-I want to know before the meeting. MR. O'CONNOR-You're going to know from me by Wednesday. unless Paul says it's something that requires a lot of research. HR. BREWER-We won't get anything. probably. until the eighth, maybe the tenth. HR. O'CONNOR-I'll have until Friday to resolve that and still stay on the Hay agenda. HRS. PULVER-Well. you can still be on the Hay agenda. just want the information. say, by the tenth of May. We would MR. O'CONNOR-That's fine. MR. BREWER-To us. - 64 - - ~ MRS. PULVER-To us. they'll send it to information. I mean, it's got to get to the Staff, and us. because that's when they send us all the NEW BUSIIIESS. SITE PLAN NO. 15-93 TYPE. UNLIS'1'BD LI-1A HCDOIIALD'S CORPORATIOII OWIIBR. SAME AS ABOVE LOCA'1'IOII. MCDOIIALD' S . CORIII'I'H ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR A FRONT PLAYLAIID AND SIDB PAR'1'Y ROOM ADDITIOII '1'0 BXISTING RESTAURANT. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTBB - 3/12/93) (WARREN COUNTY PLAIIIIIRG - 3/14/93) TAX MAP NO. 128-9-28.2 LOT SIZB: 3.22 ACRES SECTION 179-26 GREG STEVENS. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF IRPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 15-93. McDonald's Corp. - Corinth Road. Meeting Date: April 29. 1993 "Pr01ect Description: The applicant is proposing to construct a front and side addition to their dining room facilities at the Corinth Road McDonald's. The additions include a 16' x 39' children's play area and a 12' x 61' addition to the dining room for private parties. The front play area will replace the existing patio. The dining room addition will include a 12' x 10' storage area. Pro1ect Analysis: 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 additions appear to be compatible with the existing building and the site. There is no new lighting or signage proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; The project will not impact vehicular traffic access. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sUfficiency of off-street parking and loading; The parking lot will be restriped; the number of parking spaces will increase from 91 to 98 as a result of the restriping. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; The project will not impact pedestrian access. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The project will not impact stormwater drainage. The permeability of the site will not be changed. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The water supply and sewage disposal facilities should be adequate. 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; This is not an issue. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access should not be impacted by the project. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding andlor erosion. This is not an issue. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of this site plan." MR. BREWER-Okay. We have someone here for the applicant. MR. STEVENS-My name is Greg Stevens. I'm a Project Manager with the McDonald's Corporation, and they're located in Albany. Basically, addition to the building and the existing patio area. and we're looking to propose a side addition, which would contain two party rooms and some additional storage in the back of the building. The front playland addition will house what we call a soft. playland. playland equipment for the kids. It does include a slide. some tunnels for kids to crawl through. The side dining area would contain the party rooms. We would be able to divide up those into two different sections. That's basically it. We're not affecting the landscaping. As far as the parking changes that were - 65 - -- -' talked about, is basically just restriping the parking in this area. We have more than adequate parking at this location. So, that's really no problem for us. MR. BREWER-Where are you restriping? I didn't see. MR. STEVENS-What happens. right now. the existing site. drive lane to come through this area. and we had two rows of stalls and then a row of stalls in this area. perpendicular to the curve. What we're doing is taking the two rows and moving them over to maintain a drive lane here. and then instead of the perpendicular parking. you've got some horizontal parking in this area. MR. BREWER-And they meet all the size requirements and everything? MR. STEVENS-Yes. MR. BREWER-You're putting a center in the entranceway? MR. STEVENS-That's all existing. MR. BREWER-That's existing? There's no divider there. HR. STEVENS-Well, it's a striped area. HR. BREWER-Okay. HR. RUEL-The parking spaces have been increased to compensate for the additional space. Does it meet the same ratio? HR. STEVENS-The parking ratio? Actually, all we've done to increase stalls, we decided that we'd just stripe some additional parking here. because of the parking spaces that we lost in this area. Right now, this is a huge unstriped area for recreational vehicles. So we're just striping some additional stalls in this area. HR. RUEL-So you~ve actually increased the number? HR. STEVENS-Yes. We're going from 91 to 98. HR. RUEL-Because now you have a party facility. right. which would increase the number of people in the area? HR. STEVENS-Correct. That's our hope. HR. RUEL-That's why I was concerned about the parking area. HR. BREWER-What's the parking requirement? thousand square feet. or something? Five cars for every MR. STEVENS-We had 91 and we're going up to 98. HR. BREWER-Then you're more than. HR. STEVENS-We've got a lot of parking. over here is all restaurant parking. and. here is also parking. It's all existing. it, recreational vehicles park over there. This whole parking lot again. this whole area We chose not to strip MR. BREWER-Okay. There is a public hearing. Is anybody here from the public that would like to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARIRG OPE.ED NO COMMER'!' PUBLIC HEARIRG CLOSED MR. BREWER-We have a Short Form? - 66 - -" MR. MARTIN-Yes. RBSOLUTIOR RO. 15-93. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a front playland and side party roo. addition to the existing restaurant, and WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regula~ions 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 611.11 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 not 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 29th day of April, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. ,Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Hr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MRS. PULVER-I have one question. It says, the brick sills and sides for this addition will match the eXisting brick. Now. I'm not going to drive by there all of a sudden and find out that this whole place has been painted blue. or. it's going to match the existing brick that's there? MR. STEVENS-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAR NO. 15-93 MCDORALD' S CORPORATIOII. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the addition of a proposed front playland and side party room, as indicate on Map 31-1015. with the revision dates of 10/26/92. Duly adopted this 29th day of April. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Hr. LaPoint. Hr. Stark. Hrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Hr. Brewer - 61 - ---'--_.._.__._._~._---._- - NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 16-93 TYPE. UHLISTED PC-1A MCDOHALD'S CORPORATION OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION. MCDOHALD'S. RT. 9 & AVIATION ROAD PROPOSAL IS FOR A FROHT PLAYLABD ADDITIOH. HEW VBSTIBULES. RESTROOMS. MODII'Y REAR EN'1'RANCE. (BBAU'1'IFICA'1'IOH COMHI'1'TEB 3/12/93) (WARRBM COUMTY - 3/14/93) TAX MAP RO. 12-6-23 LOT SIZE. 1.05 ACRBS SECTIOR. 119-22 GREG STEVENS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF IRPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 16-93. McDonald's Corp. - Rt. 9 & Aviation Rd.. Meeting Date: April 29, 1993. "Pr01ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to construct a 960 square foot addition to the front of their facility on Aviation Road. The addition will include an enclosed children's play area and enlargement of the dining area to accommodate a private party area. Alterations to the building will also include modifications to the vestibules. The project also includes the realignment of the rear access and make it entrance only and modification to the existing storage building and trash area. Pr01ect Analysis. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 119-38 of the Zoning Code I 1. The location. arranqement. size. desiqn and site compatibility of buildinqs. liqhtino and siqns: The addition to the building will be compatible with the existing site. No new lighting or signage is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arranqement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. includinq intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls: The realignment of the rear access to entrance only will facilitate the orderly flow of traffic on the site. It will eliminate the current situation where cars use the access as a cut- through to Aviation Road. The drive through order lane will also be realigned. The curve will be flattened to allow for easier turning. This will also allow for six new parking spaces. 3. The location. arranqement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parkinq and loadinq: The number of parking spaces will be increased from 48 to 51; the number of required spaces is 45. There are two parking spaces located at the northern entrance that. because of their proximity to the entrance, should be examined for possible relocation or elimination. 4. The adequacy and arranqement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience: The vestibules are to be modified. The one on the right side will be moved forward and the one on the left side will be moved so that it is adjacent to the drive through booth. These modifications will direct pedestrian traffic to the front of the building. Staff has some concern regarding the safety of placing the entrance too close to the drive through window. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainaqe facilities: The permeable area will actually increase as a result of this project. The realignment of the rear access will create additional green space in the rear of the lot. The existing facilities should be adequate. 6. The adequacy of water supplY and sewaqe disposal facilities: The existing water supply and sewage disposal will be adequate. The building ties into the municipal water and sewer systems. 7. The adequacy. type and arranqement of trees. shrubs and other suitable plantinqs. landscapinq and screeninq constitutinq a visual andlor noise buffer between the applicant's and ad10ininq lands. includinq the maximum retention of existinq vegetation and maintenance includinq replacement of dead plants: No substantial landscaping is proposed. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emerqency zones and the provision of fire hYdrants: The project should not impact emergency accessibility. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscapinq in areas with susceptibility to pondinq. floodinq and/or erosion. This is not an issue. Recommendationl Staff recommends that the Board consider the possibility of removing or relocating the two parking spaces closest to the north access." - 68 - /' ........" MR. BREWER-Okay. We have an approval from Warren County, with a condition. MRS. PULVER-She says the signs are used to denote the entrance only access. MR. STEVENS-Okay. Again, Greg Stevens with the McDonald/s Corporation. Just a brief description. Again, we are looking for a front addition for the building in this area, and we are modifying the rear ingress/egress. to make it entrance only. and to eliminate the traffic coming through the site and entering out the back. MR. BREWER-That area that you have shaded, what is going to be there to prevent people going out? I'm just curious. MR. STEVENS-This will all be curbed. MR. BREWER-It'll all be curved? Okay. MR. STEVENS-Yes. there. This is all concrete curbing, and then signs MR. MARTIN-You'd even mentioned you were considering a landscaped boulder to put there. MR. STEVENS-A rock, a big rock. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. STEVENS-One of the things that we had discussed is something. when we put our landscaping in here. something, actually. if we had some shrubs put in here. it would prevent the people from crossing over there. but they would have to drive over a curb and across some landscaping. etc. MRS. PULVER-I'm just thinking. I know how much that's used. MR. LAPOINT-It'll drop over time. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I wish there was some way. is there any way we can warn people. coming soon to your McDonald's on Aviation Road. curbing. so that people. they don't whip in. and all of a sudden. boom, there goes their tires. MR. MACEWAN-I guess you've got to look at it this way. Carol, if they do it, it'll be the first and last time they'll do it. MR. BREWER-They'll be able to come in through there. but they won't be able to go out. MRS. PULVER-But the ones I'm thinking about are the ones that all of a sudden decide to cut through, and haven't been there in a while, maybe. and go right up over the curb. I mean. it's not your fault, but I'm just thinking. I wish there was a warning. MIKE REARDON MR. REARDON-There's certainly no reason that. prior to undertaking the project, that we can't put up some signs that say. this is coming soon to your local neighborhood McDonald's. MRS. PULVER-Right. This entry will be redone. MR. MARTIN-You'd be interested to know. There was a recent license plate survey done of the cut through traffic. Six hundred cars a day goes through there. on a cut through basis. just that one way. Eleven hundred go through there both ways. MR. RUEL-Without stopping. right straight through? - 69 - '-- ---- HR. MARTIN-Right. This is just the cut through stuff. HR. STEVENS-To address a couple of questions. When we went to the County. it was recommended that we install some additional signs back in here. one way and do not enter signs. At present. we have a one way sign here. which is directing people coming in this way that they have to go in this direction. So. they have to go through that sign to get through. We also have. on this plan. a Do Not Enter sign here and here. and we have One Way signs. What the County asked us to do was put some additional Do Not Enter and One Way signs up here. I have a revised plan. It doesn't show on this one. I have revised plans with a revised date that shows those signs. HR. LAPOINT-We take your word for it. MR. STEVENS-In regards to the drive through vestibule, what we're doing. is right now we have a vestibule at the right rear of the store, and we also have a vestibule existing at the left front of the store. This vestibule. right now, opens out into this area. Because of the front addition, we're simply putting a vestibule on the side, adjacent to the drive through booth. Where we are locating this vestibule is where, I would say, probably 90 percent of our restaurants have their vestibule right now. and it's not been a problem for us. I don't believe you'll see it being a problem in this location. One thing that I don't see on the plan. and it should be on here. is a rail. and what the rail does is make sure that someone who comes out this door does not immediately step right off the curb in front of the cars. So we should have a rail, in this location. Normally, it's a six foot long rail. It does not show here. and it should. In regard to the two parking stalls. I believe the two that you're talking about are here. MR. BREWER-No. I think there's one on the north side of that, and one on the south side of that. HR. HARLICKER-Yes. HR. HARTIN-One on each side of those driveways. HR. HARLICKER-Right. HR. STEVENS-At the entrance? HR. HARLICKER-Yes. It seems like you're backing up right into an entrance there. HR. STEVENS-Okay. Those are existing, and I don't believe we've ever had a problem there. that I'm aware of. HR. STARK-That's a problem when you go to pull in. MRS. TARANA-Yes. Cars can back up onto, right on Route 9 into the traffic, if someone's pUlling out there. HR. MARTIN-It is a problem. I've seen it as a problem. HR. STEVENS-Well. if I may. I agree with you with the stall on the right hand side. On the left hand side, those are handicapped stalls that are virtually empty all of the time. HR. BREWER-They're not indicated as handicapped. We're not talking about the handicapped. We're talking on the same side. HRS. TARANA-The northern exit. entrance. MR. BREWER-The northern entrance. MR. REARDON-My name is Hike Reardon. Coming in on the northern entrance. you're talking about the two stalls on the right? - 70 - --- MR. MARTIN-No. One on the left. one on the right. MR. REARDON-Yes. The one on the left is a handicapped stall. MR. BREWER-No. I think he's misunderstanding. Look. could you look right here. We're talking about right here, this space and this space. MRS. TARANA-The northern entrance. MR. STEVENS-What Mike is saying is right now, existing, he has his handicapped stalls right here. This plan indicates stalls moved over here. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry. MR. REARDON-Rather than eliminate the stall on the left. I would prefer to add another handicapped stall. They aren't used that much. The two on the right. I believe that's a problem. and I would suggest, I'm just thinking out loud, that as we have the stalls on that whole northern boundary. there may be a way to eliminate those two perpendicular ones, and just add an additional one. so that it's a pull in and pull right out, and you eliminate that backing up that causes the problem at the entrance. MR. BREWER-That would be good. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. a horizontal stall. MR. REARDON-That would make sense to me, and I agree. those two stalls are a pain in the neck when they try to get in at lunch time. MR. MACEWAN-That's okay by me. MR. BREWER-It sounds good. Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak on this? PUBLIC HEARIRG OPE RED RO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARIRG CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. RESOLUTION RO. 16-93. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MCDO.ALD'S CORPORAlfIOR. for a front playland addition. with new vestibules. restrooa. aodify rear entrance. and WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is sUbject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. - 11 - ""-- 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 611.11 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 impact 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 29th day of April. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Brewer NOES. NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTIOB TO APPROVE SITE PLAN BO. 16-93 MCDOBALD' S CORPORATIOB, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver. The proposal is for a front playland addition. new vestibules, restrooms. and to modify the rear entrance. with the following conditions. That signs be. One Way and No Exit signs be provided. as required in the Warren County approval. and. Two. that the three perpendicular parking spots adjacent to the northern entrance be changed to one parallel parking spot in the same location. and that the final drawing show a detail of the rail eXiting in front of the drive through window that will deflect pedestrian traffic out and away from oncoming drive through traffic. Duly adopted this 29th day of April. 1993. by the following vote. AYES. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. Ruel SITE PLAN BO. 17-93 TYPB. UBLIS'lBD STEWART'S ICB CRBAM CO.. INC./DAKB BROS.. IBC. ZONE. BC-10 OWBBR. QUBBBSBURY CHURCH OF CHRIST NO. 4 LOCATIOB. 123-125 AVIATIOB ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO MOVE LOT LIBB 60 PBBT TO THB WBST. STBWART'S DBSIRBS APPROVAL TO BUILD TWO 1.500 SQ. PT. RBBTAL UBITS. (BBAUTIFICATIOB COMMITTEE 3/12/93) TAX BO. 18-1-8.62 LOT SIZB. 1.395 ACRES SBCTION. 179- 25 MARIANNE MATUSIK MS. MATUSIK -Did you want me to address each one? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. How do you want to proceed. is go through the list on the two letters. MRS. PULVER-Scott, what I want to know. can I just ask that. see. I didn't know, because it didn't have a stamp on it. no letterhead, I wasn't really sure who was giving me what. that you stamp it or something. or put your name on it, or sign it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Do you want to read them one at a time. Tim, and have her respond to each one. one at a time? - 72 - MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. MARTIN-Okay. One. the traffic island is in the wrong place. MS. MATUSIK-Correct. Maybe we should start with. I'm Marianne Matusik from Stewart's ice cream, and this is about the third time I've had to do this in my life. so I'm not real good at it. There is a site plan with a date of 11/26/86. in which we have, site plan. I also have one dated February 1987, which the landscape architects have in their file. which I am told was submitted. I was not with the Company. I can tell you that there was originally a survey done on the property. when it was originally purchased and built in 1986/81. So there are quite a few two. three. and four foot errors. as well as some other problems. So basically the traffic island is in the wrong place. it is. It's off by a few feet in one direction. and I believe possibly in another direction. I do have. the drawing behind this. I don't know if you want to see it or not. a 1986. November 1986 drawing. I have a February 1987 drawing, which I am trying to locate the gentleman who retired. whose position I took. to find out, did he submit it, who did he submit it with. Did he have a conversation and think certain things were taken care of incorrectly. and I also have a marked up plan as to what was built. as to what was approved. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can I interrupt one second? Jim. how did we come across all of these things? MR. MARTIN-Well. they submitted a plan for an expansion. and the neighboring property owner, who is Richard Jones Associates. put us on to a number of violations of the approved site plan. and once you really got looking at it. the list got to. we started out with maybe. six. seven. eight things. and after you really thoroughly looked it over, Scott found some 17 items that were not in compliance. So what I would strongly suggest is that the Board get an agreed upon plan for remediation of these things. and see that these are done, before you consider an expansion. MR. BREWER-Before we even consider this other part. I think. MS. MATUSIK-Basically. that was our concept tonight was to decide what needs to be done first. before we go any further. We were approached by Queensbury Church of Christ to purchase property from them. We did not go out looking for it. They came to us and asked us if we were interested. After some discussion. we said. yes. we were interested. but it would be contingent upon us being able to do something with it. We weren't just going to buy a piece of land to allow it to sit there. MR. BREWER-And in terms of what you're bound by. I believe. by Planning Board is we have the approved site plan dated. approval was given on December 17th. 1986. with a site plan has a last revision date of December 8th. 1986. this the that MS. MATUSIK-I thought when I called it was November 26th? MR. MARTIN-Well. there is a November 26th. and right above that is a notation of December 8th. MS. MATUSIK-And then I've got another one in there from February that I don't know where it came from. MR. MARTIN-Well. what I'm trying to say. I don't think that that has any bearing on anything. because this was the plan approved by this Planning Board. So if that's subsequent, it doesn't matter. This is what they approved. MS. MATUSIK-Okay. So. in looking at that. the traffic island is in the wrong place. yes. it is. It's off, do you want to see the as built. in comparison to what's there? - 13 - - MR. LAPOINT-Could we just get to the core issues. If we're going to end up tabling this tonight. and you've got to address 17 issues. Just get to the core ones. I mean. moving an island around on the site plan isn't going to make any difference at all, right? MR. MARTIN-Well. I think what you've got to decide upon is what you want them to actually physically change. and what you are willing to accept as a modification to the old site plan. MRS. PULVER-All whatever. that currently there a variance for? still within. right. I have a question. Of these 17 items. or we're looking at. is there anything that is that violates our Ordinance. that they would need I mean, like. we can misplace an island. but it's MR. MARTIN-There's a couple of what I consider very large issues. were that they have got physical improvements they have made to their site that cross over to the other person's property. and they also have many of their stormwater management improvements missinq. that are resultinq in serious floodinq and ponding of neighboring properties, because there is no on-site stormwater management. or very little. MR. BREWER-Yes. Can we do that. possibly. if anybody has agreed to this, is maybe, you know what the issues are. MS. MATUSIK-One of the problems is the building is too close to the westerly side of the property. It's off skew that way. and doing that. it got rid of the five foot buffer which was supposed to be there. and I believe we actually did some plantinqs on the Jones' property. that everything is the wrong way by a few feet. That is one of the main jists, but we did do plantings on this. We are missing a five foot green space between the parking. which is there currently. MR. RUEL-Yes, but that's only one item. MS. MATUSIK-That's one. The catch basins. we did put catch basins on that. They were not on the existing plan. They are there, but there is still not enough stormwater management. MR. BREWER-Okay. Maybe we can end this rather quickly. take this with you. we can table it, you come back with a how you're going to take care of all these things. we can them then. get it done with. and end this whole thing? If you plan on discuss MS. MATUSIK-Can I have the ones you want changed? MR. BREWER-All 17. Maybe you could come back and say. well. gee. that island is two feet out of place. It's really not feasible for us to move it. and then we can say whether we want to accept that or not. MRS. PULVER-No. I think what she ought to do is come back with the plan, as things are, right there now, all right. for the Staff to review. MR. BREWER-We already have that. That's how they found all these things. Carol. MR. HARLICKER-That's what they've submitted. is essentially what's on the site. MRS. PULVER-I see. What I'm looking at is the new one? All right. MR. MARTIN-You can see. like, for example. Carol. see. like. that rear turnaround. the paved area that crosses over the property line? - 14 - ,-- '-- ---' MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That's a major concern. MR. HARLICKER-The office section on the back of the building was never approved. MR. MARTIN-And they have their district meetings there. what is it. once a week? MS. MATUSIK-Once a week. every Monday. MR. MARTIN-Your district office meetings there. and the parking is not sufficient to accommodate. we have pictures showing overflow parking. people parking in the street. MR. BREWER-There's no handicapped parking shown. MS. MATUSIK-There's one over on the side. MR. BREWER-I see none. MRS. TARANA-I would really like to see them take the list and come back with the plan. address every issue. MR. RUEL-We could spend all night. if we're going to go through each one of these. MRS. TARANA-I don't think we should do this. MR. BREWER-All right. That's why I say. it would be my suggestion. if you took this. and come back plan as to how you're going to straighten this out, and submit it to us. MS. MATUSIK-Okay. MRS. TARANA-I'd like you to address every single issue. either how you're going to take care of it. or why you think you cannot take care of it. MS. MATUSIK-I can tell you which ones in here we cannot take care of right now. MRS. TARANA-I don't even want to hear that right now. MR. MACEWAN-I go along with Tim. I think the best avenue to pursue this thing is for you to come back in front of this Board. next month. whatever the date is that we set you up on the agenda, and to come up with your game plan of how you're going to correct all of these problems. MR. RUEL-It's the only way to do it. MR. MACEWAN-It's as simple as that. MR. RUEL-We'd spent all night here if you want to talk about each one. MR. MARTIN-But what I would strongly recommend that the Board really try to have them change what affects the neighboring property owners. MR. MACEWAN-Just for my information. when this was done. was it done by Stewarts Corporation itself, or did you hire an outside engineering firm to do this? MS. MATUSIK-An engineering firm, or a contracting firm? MR. MACEWAN-Lets go with both. - 75 - - MRS. PULVER-They're almost the same. MR. MACEWAN-Did you hire an outside engineering firm? Do you have your own staff? MS. MATUSIK-We had Jarreau Associates from Saratoga design the site, and Enco Construction built the site. MR. BREWER-Okay. that for us? Could we agree to you tabling this. and doing MS. MATUSIK-As long as it's all right with you that I address some and say we can't move them, or can't change them. MR. BREWER-That's fine. As long as you give us comments on those 17 items, we will or will not accept them. I can't tell you whether we'll accept your answers. but. MS. MATUSIK-Do you want to address the ones that the Jones' have also this evening. or do you want me to address those? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. A lot of them are overlapping. MRS. PULVER-Well. don't we have to open the pUblic hearing? MR. BREWER-I will open the public hearing. Okay. public hearing. I'll open the PUBLIC HEARIRG OPERED RICHARD JONES MR. JONES-My name is Richard Jones. and we have the property to the west of Stewarts. Our biggest problem is the storm drainage and the items that have been completed on site that were never approved in the original site plan approval. As has been indicated. the addition on the back side of the property was never approved as part of the original site plan. What they're showing right now. even with the 60 foot addition of property. they do not have enough site available to address the size of the building that they're looking at, plus the parking. They do not presently have enough parking to support what they have. There's overflow parking on the street. all the time. when they have their meetings in there on Mondays. We've had problems with them parking in our parking lot. We have since put that to an end. but I think one of the biggest problems is that the traffic island should be moved out to the property line on the front side. There are cars that park on both sides of that. This has become a very congested area because of the volume of traffic from Sokol's parking lot. They now have a fully developed mall on that side. and with the number of inlets and outlets for parking that they have on that side of the road, we continually have accidents in this general area. We have a large influx of traffic. There's a lot of traffic that goes through Aviation Road because of the residential development to the west. Basically. what we would like to see is the items corrected from the original site plan review. It is causing some major drainage problems on our property to the west. We would also like to see the traffic addressed. What we have done is we've actually put fence posts down through without a fence. to stop traffic. Traffic was driving through our property across our septic system. Traffic was also driving through the rear of their property. across our residential property to the rear. In putting the posts up. we have stopped that. but in the process of this past winter. many of the posts have gotten broken from the snow plow. So they're down. Those are the types of things that we would like to see addressed. and addressed as promptly as possible. I. personally. do not think that this property will support two additional spaces of 1500 square feet. They do not have adequate parking for what's there now. and with the additional space on that property. they certainly will not have it. Those are our major concerns. We would like to - 76 - --- see something addressed with the landscaping. I know. originally. there was a buffer on this side. because of the church property. which I think is part of the original site plan review, but with the traffic ingress. egress out of this property. we would like to see this moved down across from the Sokol's exit on this end of the property. This is a disaster right here. because you get no stacking by the gas canopy. Traffic backs up out onto the main road. If the ingress. egress were on this end. they would then have suitable area in here for cars to stack up by the gas pumps. but there is major problems with the traffic and the number of cars that they park on site during the meetings. That's basically what we had to say. I'd be very interested in seeing what they come back with. and I would like to have the Board have them address our comments in our letter. because I think some of them are very valid comments. Some do overlap. The comments that the Town has made. the Town Planning has made. but I think some are very genuine comments that should be addressed by the applicant. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I'll leave the pUblic hearing open, and I think we need your consent to table. MS. MATUSIK-Okay. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLB SITB PLAI1 NO. 11-93 STBWART' S ICB CRBAM CO.. IRC./DAKB BROS.. IRC.. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel. Duly adopted this 29th day of April. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer NOES. NONE MRS. PULVER-Okay. Tonight I made a motion to accept the Satellite business. I wish to withdraw that motion. You can't make a motion and abstain, and I knew that I was gOing to abstain, but no one jumped out there and made a motion. and then I abstained. because I was not at the public hearing, and I don't feel comfortable voting on that. since I was not at the pUblic hearing to hear the controversy, and did not get the minutes. MR. BREWER-There was no controversy. MRS. PULVER-I know. but I wasn't there. MRS. TARANA-Well. there was controversy originally which you probably didn't hear either. MRS. PULVER-No. I didn't hear it. That's why I wanted to abstain. So. someone else has to make the motion. It's got to be somebody who voted for it. That's all we're going to do is just re-vote, so whoever voted for it. just make a motion. MOTIOR TO ACCBP'f THB RBSOLUIfIOI1 COI1CBRRII1G SA'fBLLI'fB RBCBIVII1G. Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark. Duly adopted this 29th day of April. 1993. by the following vote. AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSTAINED. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel On motion meeting was adjourned. - 71 - -- RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer - 18 -