Loading...
1993-05-18 -../ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 18TH. 1993 INDEX Subdivision No. 4-1992 Guido Passarelli 1. Petition No. 4-93 Zaremba Group 2. Site Plan No. 14-90 Attractions Land, Inc. 3. (Great Escape Roller Coaster) Subdivision No. 15-1991 Clearview Estates Ronald & Mary Susan Raynor 3. Subdivision No. 21-1989 Crossroads Park 7. Subdivision No. 3-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE National Realty & Development, 9. Corp. Subdivision No. 6-1993 FINAL STAGE Michael Vasiliou 12. Site Plan No. 18-93 Garth Allen 19. Site Plan No. 19-93 Barry Converse 32. Subdivision No. 15-1992 FINAL STAGE Harry Ruecker 47. Site Plan No. 21-93 Glens Falls Cement 48. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ..-. QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 18TH. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY CAROL PULVER GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL EDWARD LAPOINT CRAIG MACEWAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST. TOM YARMOWICH STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 GUIDO PASSARELLI RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT. MR. BREWER-Ed, do you want to read that? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. If there's no discussion. I'm ready to read the resolution. and move right on with it? MR. BREWER-I'm ready. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Subdivision No. 4-1992. Guido Passarelli. RESOLUTION NO. 5 of 1993 INTRODUCED BY: Edward LaPoint WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Carol Pulver WHEREAS, Guido Passarelli has submitted an application for ª subdivision in connection with a project known as or described as the Baybrook Subdivision, 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 RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning 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 purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Guido Passarelli for a subdivision; - 1 - -- 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired; 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be agreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) 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 copies of this resolution, the application, and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor, or where appropriate, the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE PETITION NO. 4-93 ZAREMBA GROUP RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE TOWN BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT. RESOLUTION RENDERING ADVISORY OPINION. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have a pre-written motion for that or not? MR. LAPOINT-No, we don't. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MRS. PULVER-You probably could take the same motion that you just read for lead agency. MR. LAPOINT-No. We can do ita lot simpler, because we're just recommending that they be lead agent. not us, but the key is actually the second part of this. Is there any rendering of an advisory opinion by us? MR. HARLICKER-That was done, yes. last month. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I must have missed that meeting. MR. BREWER-Last month we asked them to. we thought that they should re-zone it. Do we have that motion from last month, Scott? MR. LAPOINT-I'll defer to whoever made that motion, because I wasn't here. MR. BREWER-We should include that, because I don't know if there was any stipulations, or. It was the second meeting in April. MR. HARLICKER-No. I don't have a copy of the resolution you made last month. MR. BREWER-Well, we can refer to that, can't we? Can we refer to that and include that in our motion tonight? MR. HARLICKER-You can. Yes. MR. BREWER-And agree that they should be lead agent. MRS. PULVER-What do you want, just a motion to make the Town Board? All right. MOTION TO DESIGNATE THE TOWN BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENT ON PETITION 4- 93 ZAREMBA GROUP AND REFER TO THE MOTION OF THE OUEENSBURY TOWN PLANNING BOARD ON APRIL 29TH. 1993, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: - 2 - -- AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 14-90 ATTRACTIONS LAND (GREAT ESCAPE ROLLER COASTER) REQUEST FOR EXTENSION FOR FILING OF FEIS. PREVIOUS EXTENSION TO EXPIRE ON 5-24-93. MR. BREWER-Okay. Maybe you'd want to read that into the record. MRS. TARANA-Mr. James M. Martin, Executive Director and Zoning Administrator, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, letter is dated May 18th, 1993, Regarding Site Plan No. 14-90, The Great Escape Roller Coaster. "Dear Jim: On tonight's Planning Board agenda, under Old Business. is an item regarding a request for extension of filing of final environmental impact statement regarding the above captioned matter. The agenda notes that the current extension is set to expire on May 24th, 1993. On behalf of the applicant, Story town USA, Inc., doing business as the Great Escape, I would respectfully request that the Planning Board grant the applicant an additional 90 day extension of time to file the proposed FEIS, until August 24th, 1993. Since the reacquisition of the Park by Mr. Wood, we have been diligently working with our environmental consultants, the LA Group, on responding to the Planning Board and other substantive public commenters on the DEIS. We had hoped to have a proposed DEIS filed by the May 24th, 1993 extended date, but I found that additional technical analysis must be completed to adequately address the public DEIS comments, particularly in the traffic area. We, therefore, believe that this extension request meets the SEQRA criterion of extending the time to prepare an FEIS, where it is determined that additional time is necessary to prepare the statement adequately. See 6NYCRR617.E8E2I. We would not expect that this extension request would inconvenience the Planning Board or any interested party, and am presuming that you can present it to the Board on our behalf without the necessity of an appearance tonight by the applicant. If, however, you think there may be a need to appear, please call. Thank you. Sincerely, John C. Lemery" MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? Can I just make one suggestion. that we change August 24th to the 31st? Then it's at the end of the month, and we don't have to. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MOTION TO EXTEND THE SUBMISSION DATE FOR THE FE IS IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ROLLER COASTER AT THE GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Shall be extended until August 31st, 1993. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1991 CLEARVIEW ESTATES RONALD & MARY SUSAN RAYNOR DISCUSSION OF TWO TEN FOOT STRIPS OF LAND THAT WERE TO BE CONVEYED AS PER FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 3-24-92 MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have no notes on this, I guess. I guess we have to decide what we're going to do with this thing. MRS. PULVER-Well, lets see. tonight. Mrs. Raynor just sent a letter MARY SUSAN RAYNOR - 3 - - MRS. RAYNOR-I have requested to amend and modify the original plat of Clearview Estates, and combine the one strip to Lot Three, and the other strip at the end of Lot Four, and I've enclosed a letter and I sent it to the Planning Board, requesting that, and I believ~ you might all have the letter? MR. BREWER-We do have a copy of that. into the record, if you'd like. Maybe we should read this MRS. RAYNOR-Okay. Do you want me to do that? MR. BREWER-Corinne will read it. MRS. TARANA-Mr. Timothy Brewer and Members, Queensbury Planning Board. request to amend or modify original plat of Clearview Estates, "Out of frustration from the last Planning Board meeting, we requested the minutes from the very first meeting up until now concerning Clearview Estates, in an effort to understand why we are where we are at the present time. From the very first meeting. it was suggested by the Planning Board members that we assign the 10 foot strips of land to Lots Number Three and Four on the plat. We have consistently asked the Planning Board what they would like us to do. rather than tell them what we wanted. I am on the Professional Standards Hearing Panel of the Warren County Board of Realtors. which functions very similarly to the Planning Board. Our panel also has a lawyer to strictly advise us, and a stenographer to record the minutes. Being a member of this Panel has made me realize that I should approach this issue in much the same manner as one of ours. If your panel's decisions are governed the same way, then any of your own personal opinions should never be a consideration. If they are clouding the judgement of your responsibilities, then you should abstain from voting. If you do not fully understand what you are voting on, then you should ask questions. abstain, or consider having a workshop with me to understand and discuss the problems which I requested over a week ago. It occurs to me that we have never stated what we want, but have consistently asked the Board what they wanted us to do. We want the minutes to state that we want an amendment or modification to the plat, attaching one 10 foot strip to Lot Three, and the other strip to Lot Four. This has been repeatedly requested by members of this Board. dating back to 11/19/91. Please refer to Mr. Martin and Mr. Cartier and Mr. Dusek. We did agree to deed the strips of land to the adjacent landowners, although we've never seen that stipulation in the motion. The deeds were not accepted because the restrictions were unacceptable to the Freibergers. Refer to attached minutes regarding deeding the strips. Therefore, an amendment of modification to the plat is the only solution. I would like you now to vote on this. If your vote is no, I would like you to cite an Ordinance or legal issue that could justify denying this request. If there is a reason why we cannot do this, I want to know what that reason is, to give us a clear understanding. We are trying to simplify a very confusing issue and trying to find an end to all of this. We feel if you can focus on your duties as members of the Planning Board, and set aside your personal thoughts, we can get to the end of a long ordeal. I am sure you are all as tired of this as I am. We need to feel clear of what we can do to avoid the confusion that we have had in the past. The only question is, are we breaking any laws or ordinances, and if not, we would expect approval. Mr. Dusek has stated no laws are being broken. Refer to minutes. Thank you for your patience and consideration. Ronald & Mary Sue Raynor" MRS. RAYNOR-I have put in here, where the motion to approve the final stage, I believe it should be about on your third page. The motion to approve final stage subdivision no. 15-1991, and in that, there is nothing that is said about conveying a deed or transferring a deed, or anything, and in the Preliminary, before that. the only thing that was stated was, which I believe might be on the next page, was the water supply, and a 100 foot setback for the septic and leachfield. There was discussion, but it was never - 4 - ~ put into the motion, and it was never, I mean, I don't know the legalities of this, but it is not stated anywhere in that motion that we had to do that, and as far as deed access. we stated that we were going, we asked the question at the meeting if we could gi ve the land without road access. and it was nothing that we threw in as a surprise. It was said at the Preliminary meeting, and there is a copy of that in here, stating that that was mentioned, that it would be without road access if it was done, but it was never put in the motion, about conveying the deed, and I'm wondering if, we've been skirting around an issue that isn't even there. MR. BREWER-That was my question to Jim. Is that so, Jim? If it was never in the motion that she had to convey the land. then why is the plat not? MR. MARTIN-I think what happened was, if you read back in the earlier minutes, it was an assumed fact that that would be conveyed. If you read during the, I think the minutes that led up to the Preliminary approval, there was discussion at that time. and the conclusion of the discussion was that it's not really an issue for the Planning Board to be involved with. It's an issue between two individuals, and let them work it out, and just simply have a conveyance noted on the plat. and leave it up to them to work out the details of that. MRS. PULVER-So then what you're saying is. since they couldn't work out the details, she can just, she doesn't even have to be here then? It was up to her, since it wasn't in the motion, she either had to work it out, or not work it out. MR. MARTIN-Right, and if we're at a point where it can't be worked out. she's called me several times here in the last few weeks. It's certainly her right to ask for a modification. MR. BREWER-I'm wondering if it needs a modification? MRS. RAYNOR-I believe that there's something in here about a nonconforming. MR. MARTIN-I would, a signed mylar, it's my understanding, is a legal document. MR. BREWER-All right. A motion to approve Sketch Plan for a three lot subdivision, with the following stipulations, that 10 foot wide strip on the west side of Clearview Lane be conveyed to combine Lots Three and Four. MR. MARTIN-All right. Then it was prior to the Sketch Plan review, then. MR. BREWER-So there is a motion stating they should be conveyed. MRS. RAYNOR-I think it says a three lot on that one, doesn't it? MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. RAYNOR-That's not even, we went for a four lot. That was turned down, I believe. I don't even believe that's the way we went. MR. BREWER-What's the number of this, same application. 15-1991, Introduced by Edward LaPoint. MRS. RAYNOR-There were a number of different motions, I believe. One was to deed it to the Town. MRS. PULVER-Yes, that was earlier. MRS. TARANA-That was a suggestion, but not a motion. deeding it to - 5 - -~ ~' the Town. MR. BREWER-No. It's a motion. MRS. TARANA-No, deeding it to the Town. MRS. RAYNOR-What date are you talking about, Mr. Brewer? MR. BREWER-The 17th day of December, 1991. That's what the date of this motion was. MR. MARTIN-As I remember, this was tabled several times, because we kept on getting, there was engineering comments that weren't addressed. MR. BREWER-What do we want to do? MRS. PULVER-Well, you're saying that they have a mylar on file that is signed and legal? MR. MARTIN-Right. Signed. MRS. PULVER-We don't have a final motion. in our final motion, that states they have to convey. Actually, what they're asking for is a modification to remove those two little lot lines. MR. MARTIN-Right, and strike the reference to the conveyance. MR. BREWER-But the reference to the conveyance is not even in the final motion. MR. MARTIN-See, as I recall this, we talked about this issue at some point during the process, or early in the process, and agreed that it was a matter between two individuals, and that the conveyance should occur, and we just went on with other points of the review, and that was just assumed that that would be the case, and we were done with it, and we moved on to other issues. MR. BREWER-Okay. I agree with you. MR. MARTIN-And that's why it wasn't, maybe it should have been. but that's how I recall it. It just built up that way. MR. MACEWAN-Ed, what do you remember? MR. LAPOINT-I said everything last time. tonight. I've got no comment MRS. RAYNOR-I have all the minutes here with me. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I'm willing to go for the modification, which I've always been willing to do. MR. RUEL-I'll go along with that. MR. MACEWAN-No. I don't want to go along with the modification. MRS. RAYNOR-Mr. MacEwan, you voted yes at a prior time, to the modification. What changed your mind? MR. MACEWAN-The fact that you couldn't come to resolve around this whole issue, and the fact that this was created by a previous Planning Board. I don't think it should be in this Board's decision to alleviate a problem that was partially created by you. MRS. RAYNOR-But I didn't create the problem. If you read through all the minutes, we were just trying to do what the Board wanted us to do. and originally started out with the Board had suggested that - 6 - '-' we deed it to the Town, and then they realized that that was illegal. and we just. we got to a point where we kept saying, what would you like us to do, what would you like us to do? And we did mention, in the minutes, that if we did deed it over to the neighbors, it would be without road access, and we did state that, in the minutes, at the Preliminary, before the final. I don't think that we ever did anything that was underhanded. Our intentions were all in there, and we could not come to terms. MR. BREWER-Okay. I don't want to cut you short, but I think we're ready for a motion. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION FOR A MODIFICATION FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1991 CLEARVIEW ESTATES RONALD AND MARY SUSAN RAYNOR, Introduced by Carol Pulver who mov.ed for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: To add the 10 foot strip to lot three and the other 10 foot strip to lot four. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan MRS. RAYNOR-Thank you very much. MR. MARTIN-The only thing I might ask, also, is that the Planning Board then stipulate a time frame by which a corrected mylar should be brought to the Planning Office for a signature and filing. MR. BREWER-Okay. How much time do you need? MRS. RAYNOR-I will order it tomorrow. So. I don't know how long it normally takes them. Say 60 days? MRS. PULVER-You just have to erase two little lines. MRS. RAYNOR-I would think that they could do it within 60 days. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Do you want that in the form of a motion? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd like it. So, we have something on record. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MOTION THAT THE MODIFIED MYLAR BE BROUGHT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITHIN 60 DAYS, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 CROSSROADS PARK AMENDED PLANS DEVELOPED TO ALLEVIATE THE PONDING PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE DRAINAGE PLAN FOR THE ABOVE SUBDIVISION. JOHN GORALSKI, PRESENT ENGINEERING COMMENTS Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 13, 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the proposed drainage modification plans received on May 13, 1993. The drainage modifications appear adequate for interim purposes to correct existing deficiencies due to incorrect grading and/or partial subdivision development. All permanent drainage facilities required as part of phase II - 1 - "--' construction should be constructed in accordance with the design plans reviewed by Rist-Frost Associates in August, 1990." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have a letter from. MR. MARTIN-Roger Gebo just sent me back my same letter with that note on the bottom. MR. BREWER-Okay. John? I don't know that much about this project, because I wasn't here. MRS. PULVER-There was a drainage problem over there at one time. MR. GORALSKI-There is a drainage problem over there right now, and what we were asked to do is come up with a plan that would alleviate that. Basically, the problem was that the grading causes a ponding on the corner of Blind Rock and Bay. What we're proposing to do is regrade the swale along Blind Rock Road, and also, there's also a ponding problem on Hunter Brook Lane, with the new road. We're proposing to put in a perforated pipe. and drywell, to alleviate that problem. and when Phase II is constructed, as Tom said, it will be constructed for approval. MR. BREWER-This should take care of the problem, though, until such time as they do develop Phase II? MR. YARMOWICH-Given proper care and regrading the site, it should. MR. BREWER-And this time it will be done? MR. MARTIN-I would suggest that the Board, in their resolution, if you do decide to approve, would state a time for construction to begin and then state also a time for construction to be completed. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other questions from anybody? MR. LAPOINT-When would you like to start construction, and when would you like to complete construction? MR. GORALSKI-I believe that the owners would be interested in starting construction as soon as possible, and completion, I'd say, I think when I originally spoke with Jim, he was hoping that this would be done by the end of the summer, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-I would suggest that the Board be a little more restrictive, in terms of not letting this thing go too long into the summer. Much of the regrading work and its success and limiting any potential adverse effects is going to be depending upon re-establishing some good vegetative cover in that regraded ditch. If and when it starts to flow, the potential for erosion arises, there's plenty of provisions in the plans. However, you can't establish grass real well in this area. Probably six or eight weeks from now, the chances are shot. It would be advisable to ask the applicant if they could complete the job before the end of June. MR. MACEWAN-How's that, applicant? Is that narrowing it down? MR. GORALSKI-Well. that is narrowing it down. MR. MARTIN-How about July 15th? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I don't see any problem with having it done by the end of June. If we see July 15th, you're probably not going to get a vegetation established. I will recommend to the owners that the work be done by the end of June. If you want to make that a condition, I, personally, don't have a problem with that. - 8 - -- -.../ MR. MACEWAN-How about starting within 30 days, completing by August 1st. Is that fair enough? MR. BREWER-How about completing by the end of June. MR. MARTIN-I can't stress enough, from the Staff's point of view, the concern with having this done in an orderly fashion. in light of the fact that we're looking at a project, now, that is some, almost three or four years old. I'd like to have this done in a timely fashion. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would anybody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 21-1989 CROSSROADS PARK. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Amended plans developed to alleviate the ponding problems related to the drainage plan for the above subdivision, with the following stipulations: That construction begin as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days from today' s date, and be completed by July 15th, 1993, in accordance with drawings submitted by Richard E. Jones Associates, as part of the submittal. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP. OWNER: GROSSMAN. BAKER & RUBIN ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF N.Y.S. RT. 9 AT WEEKS ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 17.74 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS; ONE LOT OF 6.45 ACRES AND A SECOND LOT OF 11.28 ACRES. AN EXISTING AMES RETAIL STORE IS LOCATED ON THE PROPOSED 6.45 ACRE PARCEL AND A PROPOSED WAL-HART RETAIL IS TO BE LOCATED ON THE 11.28 ACRE PARCEL. CROSS REFERENCE AV #11-1993 TAX MAP NO. 71-1-3. 5 LOT SIZE: 11.14 ACRE SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O'CONNOR. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 3-1993, National Realty & Development Corp., Meeting Date: May 18, 1993 "Pro;ect DescriPtion: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 17.74 acre lot into 2 lots. One lot will be 6.45 acres in area and the other will be 11.28 acres. The proposed Wal-Mart is to be located on the larger lot and an existing Ames store will be on the smaller lot. The applicant received variances for side yard setback, permeability, buffer zone and planted divider strips in the parking lot. Project Analvsis: This is a simple two lot subdivision to allow for the construction of a 161,000 square foot Wal-Mart. The lots are to be tied into municipal sewer and water with access both from Route 9 and Weeks Road. Staff does not see any significant problems associated with this subdivision. The proposal is tentatively scheduled to be before the Board for site plan review next month. Recommendation: The Planning Staff can recommend approval of this preliminary subdivision." MR. HARLICKER-Rist-Frost had one comment, in that, "The zoning should be indicated on the drawing." MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. O'Connor. MR. O'CONNOR-Ladies and Gentlemen. I'm Michael O'Connor, from the law firm of Little & 0' Connor. and I'm here representing the applicant. With me is Bill White, who is the engineer for the - 9 - .¡;;¡......, <1Ió'"'. development, for the applicant. As Scott has indicated, basically what we're here for tonight is the Preliminary approval for the two lot subdivision. We've been here before, regarding the SEQRA. We will be back for final approval. We will also be back for site plan approval, once we complete the subdivision process. The two lots that we are creating are conforming lots, considering the variances that we have obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals. If you have any questions, we'll be glad to try and address them. MR. BREWER-Okay. We'll go right down the Board. have any questions? Craig, do you MR. MACEWAN-None at this time. MR. RUEL-No. MRS. TARANA-Not right now. MR. STARK-None. MR. LAPOINT-We did the SEQRA at a separate meeting. The SEQRA has been done? We gave it a negative declaration. We normally do it at Preliminary, but that's in our past now? MR. MARTIN-Right. In the interest of not segmenting the process, it was done for the variances. MR. LAPOINT-That's correct. Okay. And there was a public hearing for the SEQRA. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-That's all done. MR. MARTIN-You still have your scheduled one tonight, though, also. MR. BREWER-Okay. I will open the public hearing, then. Is there anyone here to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1993 NATIONAL REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORP, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption. seconded by Carol Pulver: Proposal is to subdivide a 17.74 acre parcel into 2 lots; one lot of 6.45 acres and a second lot of 11.28 acres. An existing Ames retail store is located on the proposed 6.45 acre parcel and a proposed Wal-Hart retail is to be located on the 11.28 acre parcel, with the following stipulations: That the applicant include on his final application package in the drawings an indication on the drawings with respect to the zoning. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. 0' CONNOR-I believe, Mr. Chairman, we have also filed the application for final approval. Is there a possibility that we could schedule that, with the one condition that we will indicate on the map. the zoning of the parcel? - 10 - ---./ MRS. PULVER-Is that why we have the double paperwork? MR. MARTIN-They also submitted their site plan application, but we thought that the Board would only want to consider Preliminary for now. MR. 0' CONNOR-Well, I'm not necessarily saying move for approval right now. MR. BREWER-How about next week? MR. MARTIN-Well, we have a meeting. MRS. PULVER-You could still do it Thursday. MR. LAPOINT-We have no procedural road blocks to them being on Thursday night's agenda? MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. BREWER-They've already filed the final? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We've already filed it. MR. BREWER-And nothing's going to change. Thursday night. Done. Add it to the agenda MR. MARTIN-Just one note. Tim, and for the applicant, Tom will have some other items that he usually checks at final that he will check between now and Thursday. MR. BREWER-Tom, would you have time to do that between now and Thursday? MR. YARMOWICH-I believe so. Yes. MRS. PULVER-Mike, what about your site plan application. have you already submitted that? So you'll be on for next month? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. we have. We have had initial comments from DOT. We have responded to those initial comments. We hope to have a quick turnaround on their response, because basically we were complying with their request on their initial response to us. Conceivably, though, you may not have that by your June meeting. I'm wondering if I can plant the seed now, whether or not we can have approval subject to their final approval of the intersections. MR. BREWER-But we don't know whether we're going to approve it or not. MR. O'CONNOR-But, I mean, if you get to that point. We have submitted construction details to them, and it's just a matter of going through their review process. MR. MACEWAN-The last conversation was the possibility of the intersection was going to be changing, where you wanted to put that light? MR. O'CONNOR-They have requested that we put it at the intersection of the northern driveway, and we have complied with that request and have submitted engineering on that to them at that location. I'm just planting the seed. We may have it. We may not have it. We also, at the same time, mayor may not have final agreement with the Town on the sewer. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Those are the other items with site plan. MR. BREWER-Maybe if you could mention that with your application, - 11 - '~ if you don't have it. MR. O'CONNOR-I think we've already filed the site plan application. MR. MARTIN-Any information you want to add, though. by letter, you can do that. MR. BREWER-I mean, because we won't get our stuff until the first part of June, for the meeting, anyway. So, you've got plenty of time to write a letter. MR. MARTIN-If you can get us a letter by May 26th, Mike, with anything you want to add, that will become part of your site plan application. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1993 FINAL STAGE SR-1A TYPE: UNLISTED MICHAEL VASILIOU OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: WEST MT. RD. ACROSS FROM LILAC LANE. NAME: THE GLEN CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 LOT SUBDIVISION. (DEC) (APA) TAX MAP NO. 121-1-60.1. 60.2 LOT SIZE: 11. 61 ACRES TOM NACE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-1993, Michael Vasiliou - Final Stage. Meeting Date: May 18, 1993 "Pro;ect 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 will have individual on site septic systems. Proiect Analysis: The applicant is proposing to incorporate conservation easements on some of the proposed lots. The applicant is proposing to limit the cutting in this easement to trees less than 2" diameter in order to allow some of the smaller trees to mature and provide a superior buffer. The proposal calls for the easements to be incorporated into the deeds. The disposi tion of the wetlands has to be resolved prior to final approval. The wetlands is currently shown as a separate lot that is landlocked and the creation of lots without any road frontage is prohibited. The engineering comments raised in a 5/10/93 letter from Rist-Frost have to be resolved prior to final approval. Recommendation: There does not appear to be any other outstanding planning issues relating to this subdivision other than those outlined above. Staff can recommend final approval once the engineering comments are addressed to the engineer's satisfaction and the disposition of the wetlands is resolved." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 10, 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments: 1. The 35 foot strip adjoining the wetlands should be noted on drawing C-l as a no disturbance. no cut buffer area (179-60B.) The wetland 35 foot buffer area should be differentiated from the lot perimeters selective cutting "natural" buffer zone." Comment Two is being withdrawn, due to new information from the applicant's engineer. who directs me. or he's correct that the Town does not claim jurisdiction in APA wetland matters. "2. Development of lots 3 and 4 will require a freshwater wetlands permit (94-5). A note to this effect should appear on these lots on drawing C-1. 3. Selective cut "natural" buffer zones should be shown on drawing C-l between lots 1 & 2, 2 & 3, 3 & 4 and 9 & 10 consistent with the remainder of the subdivision. 4. The utility easements as prescribed in the roadway detail should be shown on drawing C-1. 5. The - 12 - -- intersection of Glen Court and West Mountain Road (County Route 58) should comply with the subdivision regulations design standards of 40 foot pavement edge radius and 28 foot right-of-way radius based on the local arterial status of West Mountain Road. 6. The proposed 18" culvert between Glen Court and the upstream 21" culvert under West Mountain Road does not appear to have adequate cover based on grading plan drawing C-3. 7. The proposed grading on drawing C-3 at the outlet end of the 18" culvert under Glen Court suggests that grade will need to drop off very sharply along the edge of West Mountain Road to satisfy the grading shown. The grading on drawing C-3 at this location should be improved. Lengthening the culvert may be appropriate. 8. An overflow outlet pipe with a rip rap stabilized discharge point in the 30 foot drainage easement between lots 3 & 4 should be connected to the drywell catch basin at road station 14+40 left. The overflow outlet elevation should be set to prevent excessive ponding and road drainage overflow onto lot 3 at road station 13+43. This should be indicated on drawings C-3 and P-l. A rip rap outlet detail should be added. 9. Curve data including central angles for property lines and roadway centerline should be indicated on drawing C-l (A183-12A.U) 10. Drawing C-l should have applicable notes and statements as required by A183-12A. (11)(12) and (14)." MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom. would you like to address these? MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, Tom Nace, from Haanen Engineering, representing Michael Vasiliou. If we go down, quickly, through, Item One and Three on Rist-Frost's letter, we will obviously comply wi th. They're drafting changes to be made. Item Four, I've discussed with Tom Yarmowich, and I don't like to show the utility easement on the plan sheet, because that puts it on one side of the roadway or the other, and we really don't know, until Niagara Mohawk comes in and lays out how they want power lines coming into the, and gas lines, coming in to the subdivision, exactly where it's going to be. So, show it on one side of the plan, and it's really on the other, which would be a little bit misrepresenting to somebody looking at the plans, a few years down the road. So. I would like relief from that. I do not want to show it on the plan. Item Number Five, again, there's a standard in your Subdivision Reg's which calls for 40 foot pavement radius' coming on to arterial roads. Paul Naylor likes to keep those to a minimum. He doesn't like that much flair at the intersections. What I have done is compromise, and used the State highway entrance detail, which is approved regularly by New York State DOT for entrance onto their State highways. It cuts down on the amount of pavement there a little bit, to satisfy Paul. but still gives you a perfectly adequate entrance for a high volume road. So, again, I would like relief on that item. Item Number Six, he's pointed out, he is correct. There is an inadequate cover on a culvert that we had shown on the map. After reviewing that, the culvert really isn't necessary. So we're going to remove the culvert in its entirety. Item Seven. we will correct. There is the possibility that the slope down to the outlet of that cuI vert could be a little bit steep, and we were going to lengthen the culvert and move it back away from the intersection a little bit. Item Number Eight, he's asked for a piped outlet from the, there's an overflow, emergency overflow near one of our drywells, leading down toward the wetlands. We really can't do that, because the APA would see the pipe on the plans, and they've already issued a nonjurisdiction letter, based on the fact that we won't be putting stormwater into the wetlands. and we really won't. The drywell system is designed based on a conservative number. This is sort of just an emergency, if something should happen, if it should, 10 years down the road. get plugged up, and I agree, there, needs to be some provision. So what I'm going to do is modify the, I've discussed this with Tom. I J m going to modify the easement, the drainage easement we've shown, so that it comes up to the low point in the road. So that if the drywell system ever does overflow, it has some place to go, that will at least be along an existing easement. Item Number Nine, we will comply with. and Item Number Ten we will comply with. - 13 - --.. -..._.._--_._....._---_..._--~--_.__..-...__.._._-_..- ~ MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom, are those comments acceptable to you? MR. YARMOWICH-The only one, and it's Item Number Four, and it has to do with really the practicality. I believe Torn is right. One can never be sure what NiMo and the Telephone Company are going to want to do, as far as locating utilities. That's a matter of what the Board feels comfortable with approving, in approving this without showing those easements. I guess the question is. how do property owners realize that, in fact. there is an easement that restricts, or not necessarily restricts. They can still do anything they want in that easement, but somehow keeps them aware. One mechanism is for this Board in its motion to somehow recognize that, because all these things are recorded with the plat, to ask that an easement, a descriptive strip, be added to all the deeds, and not shown on the plan. In which case, it becomes valid, if and only when used by the utility companies, or to honor Mr. Nace's request and just provide him the relief from it and not show it at this time. I think those are the Board's options. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-On that point, as a matter of point, our restrictive covenants. which get into the type of houses that you can build there, and the occupancy that can be there. we reserve a 10 foot easement adjoining all roads on each side. for potential use for potential utilities, whether it be cable t.v., telephone, or power, depending upon where the utility companies want to put it in, and then subsequent to, or even probably before that, we will have recorded an easement that will run for the benefit of Niagara Mohawk and the Telephone Company, which will be reflected in the searches that will be given to the people, and with that map. or with that easement that the utilities take from the developer, they also file a map that is part of the actual easement. So there's plenty of notice to the individual, as to how the utility easements will affect their property. MR. YARMOWICH-I think that it be recorded as a part of the covenants is an adequate notice to any potential property owner. and it will be uncovered, and I don't think this Board will have missed anything, approving it without showing it on the plan. MR. BREWER-The only other question I had was Comment Number Five. Tom, you said that Paul doesn't like them as wide as 40 feet, but the regulations say it should be. Should we get a letter from Paul Naylor, indicating that you're. I mean, it wouldn't delay anything. I don't think. MR. NACE-No. I can do that. Just have him sign off on the plans. Is that sufficient? I'll point it out to him. MR. BREWER-Well, maybe a letter, also, just that he knows ahead of time. So that he just doesn't look at it and sign it. MR. NACE-AIl right. Sure. MR. BREWER-I'm sure he's going to see it and know what it is, but that's the only thing I have. Has anyone else got anything? MR. RUEL-Is it necessary to show driveways on these plans? MR. BREWER-I don't think driveways. MR. RUEL-Because it's not on them. MR. NACE-We have no idea where, the houses are just shown so that they can comply with setback requirements. I have no idea where the individual owners are going to build, where the driveways are going to be. MR. RUEL-The houses will be approximately where they're shown on - 14 - - the plan? MR. NACE-According to your zoning. the houses simply have to be wi thin the setback envelope that's indicated on the plans. All we've done here is shown that you can locate a house within that envelope and still have room for a septic system setback. MR. YARMOWICH-The building permi t process includes a driveway permit application. and naturally. in reviewing that information. the plot plan, the selective cut buffer zones and things would be shown on that plot plan, existing drainage structures, and so forth. So the mechanism is in place. The authority rests with the Highway Department for approving those driveway locations, and I think that, in most cases. they're not shown. except in the case of site plan. For a normal subdivision of this type. it's not usually shown. MR. MARTIN-And, Tom, just so I don't get my head taken off by Mr. Naylor. you will put in the wing, the curved grates in the wings, the curved grates I told you about on the phone? MR. NACE-Yes. I will. You're right. You did tell me. MR. MARTIN-Just as a reference for the Board. Mr. Naylor has a curved grate that he prefers now on wing swales. It keeps the contour of the swale itself. It's much easier to plow and maintain and all of that. MR. NACE-I'm sure Paul would have reminded me. MR. BREWER-The only other thing was Scott's notes, that I can think of, about the wetlands. You were going to get together with Paul Dusek about that. MR. 0' CONNOR-Yes. I wrote to Paul, after our last meeting. In fact, I wrote to him on the date of April 30th. and my understanding is that he has reviewed the provisions to clustering. He has, in fact, spoken to the APA. and he has no objections to us leaving the wetlands as we have shown on the map, without access, as an independent parcel, but not part of the subdivision. and he went through the whole scenario, and their, with Barbara LaPier, who is the attorney for the APA, and is satisfied that maybe that is the best way to do it. It kind of assures people nobody will be using that for building purposes. I wrote to him and part of the letter. I don't know if you got a copy of it or not, stated that the first proposal that I put before the Planning Board, to which they said they would have no objection if the same were legal, would be to have the Planning Board issue a waiver for this parcel not be included within any lot, and being a landlocked parcel wi thout frontage on a Town road or proposed Town road. and he indicated that he has no objections to that being the process, decision of this Board. Further along this same line, and just so you have some information, I have put together what I call boilerplate restrictions for tree cutting, and also that would restrict the use. or any potential use. of the wetland. I sent those to Jim Martin, late today, after I talked to Paul Dusek. Basically. we're talking about a special cutting plan for the areas that are shown with the hatch marks on the map, and the additional areas between the lot that Tom Yarmowich has requested. that we simply didn't have on there. and in those areas, no living trees two inches or more in diameter, at a height of four feet from ground level shall be cut or removed. The exception to that will be wi thin the drainage easement, for the removal of diseased vegetation, rotten or damaged trees, or other vegetation presenting safety or health hazards, pruning or other similar beneficial maintenance procedures. We also say that a lot owner may, if he wants, apply to this Board for special relief from that, if there were special circumstances. We grant, specifically, jurisdiction to this Board to review any cutting that's in those particular areas, because it's prior to your approval. We say that these - 15 - -../ restrictions will run with the land, and may be enforced by any party that owns a lot within "The Glen", or by the Town of Queensbury. We say that the area shown on the above map as "wetlands as per APA" , which is the actual designation on the map, shall be forever wild, and no construction, cutting or clearing within that area shall be permitted. We say that an easement for purposes of ingress and egress, by foot, shall be reserved in the sale of Lot No.4 for five feet (5') in width along the northerly boundary of Lot No. 4 in the deed for Lot No.4; said easement shall run to and be of benefit to the owner of the aforesaid wetland. So that there is some access if somebody had a need to get into it. We say that the restrictive covenants shall be binding upon all parties. I've got a set of this to submit to the Board for your records. MR. MARTIN-It shows in the Legend, Mike, that the trees the trees six inches or greater, that should reflect your two inch? MR. O'CONNOR-The map shows six inches, and Michael finally got down to, and agreed to go to two inches. I think Tom Yarmowich has picked up on the fact that maybe between the lots it would be more meaningful if we restricted it as much as we could. MR. MARTIN-Right. consistent? So you will change that, so that they're MR. O'CONNOR-We will change the map. MR. MARTIN-And the other thing I would suggest is that the plat make a note that this was approved under the clustering provisions, this, for the final mylar, and I think we have the, what are the numbers, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Article VII of the Zoning Code, and Article IX of the Subdivision Reg's. MR. MARTIN-And also a further notation that the wetland area is to be left forever wild, according to these restrictions that he's given me here. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Those two notations. MR. LAPOINT-In twenty words or less, what are we doing with the wetland lot? We're making a landlocked lot, and it's going to be held in ownership by Mr. Vasiliou? MR. O'CONNOR-It's going to remain in the ownership of the developer, Michael Vasiliou. MR. LAPOINT-Right, and the attorney has no problem with making that lot? MR. MARTIN-Right. The mechanism, I talked to Paul about this today, and principally the mechanism that allows you to do all these things is the clustering provision. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. MARTIN-It allows you to waive the minimum lot size, the frontage on a Town road. all those things, and as he got into it even more, he thought it was a pretty innovative idea that they've come up with here, and actually has a lot of merit. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now, where I'm coming from is in the resolution, do we need specific reference to this, or does it all just carry through on the drawings? MR. HARLICKER~No. You should reference it in the resolution. - 16 - -- MR. MARTIN-I'd reference in the resolution. MR. LAPOINT-Well, that's what I'm getting at it, why I want it in twenty words or less, how we were going to say it in the resolution. MR. YARMOWICH-Refer to the cluster provisions, and these are the things which you're going to modify. MR. MARTIN-Or permit waiver on. MR. 0' CONNOR-Could they state that under the Cluster Provision they're approving the plat as filed, as it has been stipulated to be changed to conform to the engineering requirements? MR. BREWER-How about, we're waiving the lot size requirement on a specific lot? MR. LAPOINT-How about, under the Clustering Provision. we are approving the plat, including the landlocked parcel? So it would read, under the Clustering Provisions, we are approving the plat, with respect to the landlocked parcel? Does that do it? I'm just trying to condense. MR. MARTIN-And, Mike, one more thing. If you could provide a copy of the restrictive covenants with each lot, as a building permit is applied for, with the permit application. MR. O'CONNOR-These restrictive covenants? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-We're going to file these, okay, we will file these in a declaration, and not put them in each, making general to the whole subdivision. We wouldn't put them in each deed, a deed by reference. I can give you a copy of this for the file. MR. MARTIN-Yes. coming in. Could you, please, for each appl ication that's MR. O'CONNOR-I can give you one. It will apply to all lots at one time. We're even talking about maybe putting this on the map. MR. MARTIN-I just know, being in the position that I have been, it's kind of hard on an enforcement end, the more that this can be documented. MR. BREWER-Okay. So the only other thing that I can think of, then. is the letter from Paul Naylor. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. The way I would get to that is when I refer to the engineering notes, and I'd get to Comment Number Five, that the applicant meet Mr. Naylor's minimum requirements for the radiuses, in and out of West Mountain Road. MR. BREWER-Anybody else. Would you care to make a motion? MOTION TO. APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1993 FINAL STAGE MICHAEL VASILIOU, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the construction of a 10 lot subdivision, with the following stipulations: One, that under the clustering provision, we are approving the plat with respect to the landlocked parcel. Regarding the Rist-Frost letter dated 10 May 1993, that the applicant will comply with Items One, Three, Seven, Nine, and Ten, and that the Planning Board understand that Comment Number Two, is not applicable, and that we grant relief with respect to Item Number Four, requiring showing utility easements as prescribed, based on the applicant's description that all along the road - 11 - - - .-' there'll be a utility easement, both sides. Wi th respect to Comment Five, that the applicant meet the Highway Superintendent's specifications for minimum radius in and out of West Mountain Road. Item Number Six, that the applicant remove the culvert altogether, and Item Number Eight, that the Planning Board understands that the applicant has designed the drywell using conservative engineering judgement, and that it will be adequate and will not overflow, and that if it does overflow, it will overflow to easements, and not onto Lots 3 and 4, properly, and that the notations discussed here tonight with respect to no cut zones, forever wild patches, be included in the final drawings. That the Glen Cutting Restrictions be part of this final plan, and approved. Duly adopted this 18th day of May. 1993, by the following vote: MRS. TARANA-I just wondered why, the point that Tim brought up that it's not an 11 lot subdivision. I don't understand. Even though it's not a buildable lot, isn't it still the 11th lot, which is the wetland lot? MR. MARTIN-That's somewhat of a legal question. I asked Paul about that today, and he kind of. in legalese. he said it wasn't really a building lot. MRS. TARANA-Well, we know it's not a building lot. MR. O'CONNOR-It's of the nature of an open space, and all those lots will eventually have some benefit out of it. MRS. TARANA-I don't have any problem with it. It just seems to me like it is 11 lots. MR. O'CONNOR-I look upon a subdivision as being a certain number of development units, and here we're talking about 10 development units or 10 houses, however we break up the number of parcels. MR. NACE-Well, I guess I can draw a parallel. If I had a subdivision that I was doing, and there was a 50 foot wide right- of-way that I was leaving to be later deeded to the Town so the road could be extended to another parcel of land, that is an adjacent land owner or something. keeping him from being landlocked, or what have you, I don't think that 50 foot lot would reall y be considered a lot. It's not a bui ldable lot, as Mike said. It's just a piece of land that you're leaving for some other intended use other than building. MRS. TARANA-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Corinne's got something to say about the last application. MRS. TARANA-I just wanted to point out the definition of a lot, according to our zoning. There are two definitions. One's a lot, and one's a lot for building, and it says, a parcel or portion of land separated from other parcels or portions by description, as on a subdivision map, a survey map, or by meets and bounds, for the purpose of sale, lease, or separate use, and I think that meets the definition that that is a lot which is being maintained as a separate use. as a restricted wetlands. I have no problem with the subdivision, but I just think we should note that there are ten buildable lots and one not buildable lot, so that in the future, we've had this kind of a problem before, when you look at a map and say. there's so many lots. and the motion says something else. I just think it would clarify it, to be sure we know it's an eleven lot subdivision. - 18 - ,- "---- MR. MACEWAN-Render an opinion? MRS. TARANA-I'm just making that comment for the record. MRS. PULVER-Weren't we taking the attorney's recommendation, though, since he would have to? MR. BREWER-Yes, but the attorney's the applicant, Carol. MRS. PULVER-No, no. no, not this attorney. our attorney, Mr. Dusek. MRS. TARANA-I'm making the comment for the record, that's all. MR. MARTIN-I can run that by Paul, and I can get back to you Thursday night. MRS. TARANA-There's nothing to get back to, I'm just making the comment for the record that that's what it says. MR. MACEWAN-And I agree with your comment. MR. BREWER-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 18-93 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-1A GARTH ALLEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BAY MEADOWS GOLF COURSE CLUB HOUSE ON CRONIN RD. PROPOSAL IS FOR 90+ TOWNHOUSE UNITS. CROSS REFERENCE PETITION 6-91 (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 5-12-93) TAX MAP NO. 6Ø-2-5. 10 LOT SIZE: +21.2 AC SECTION: 179-19 D(3) MR. MARTIN-Just a special note with this. This was a result of a little bit of confusion on the part of the Staff, or a lack of communication between the Staff and the applicant, I guess, for lack of a better description. I thought this was to remain just one whole lot, as when the Town Board re-zoned, they were taking the density off of a 90 acre parcel, and when the plat came in, it showed a two lot subdivision. So they were going to be back for a two lot subdivision, but the application was already in. We already had engineering comments. So we figured we allowed the applicant to come before the Board tonight, get your concerns, and have some dialogue about what the project is, and it would obviously result in a tabling until next month, when the subdivision application is reviewed. MR. BREWER-So we still will hold the public hearing and leave it open? MR. MARTIN-Yes, and leave it open. MR. BREWER-Okay. If they're creating a two lot subdivision, now. does that take the density away from the other parcel still, or not? MR. MARTIN-I've been discussing this with Paul, and he says no. He says that it is our right to essentially pull the density off the whole parcel, leave it with this one new parcel that I think is essentially about 24 acres in size. Dick? DICK MORSE MR. MORSE-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but it would have to be noted on the mylar, and in the deed for the two parcels, that no future residential development is allowed to occur on the remaining what would be. I think. 71 acres or something like that. MR. MORSE-I believe it's 70 acres. - 19 - "--- -- MR. BREWER-Didn't the Town Board do that with their resolution? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-But we have to do it again? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MARK SCHACHNER MR. SCHACHNER-That condition is part of the Town Board's re-zoning. MR. MARTIN-Right. So it's a little complex here. because my initial concern was that we were just creating a 24 acre parcel. then we're putting 90 some units on a 24 acre parcel. As long as those notations and qualifications are made. then this should be acceptable. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess we can go through your notes, Scott. MR. HARLICKER-The only real notes were the engineering comments from Rist-Frost. MR. BREWER-Just from engineering. Okay. Tom? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 12, 1993 "Rist-Frost Associates has reviewed the site plan and has the following engineering comments: 1. Cronin Road is a designated collector street. Intersections of local streets with collector streets should have a 40 foot pavement radius (A183-23-I. (3)). 2. The private roads proposed should conform to Town standards in all respects (179-62B). Curve radius at stations 8+00 and 15+00 should be 300 foot minimum for a local street. 3. Easements are required for all utilities not within a public right-of-way (A183-23 A. (2)). For water and sewer utili ties, a 15 foot minimum width easement centered over the utility is recommended. 4. Roadway fill slopes between station 16+50 and 19+00 should be lV:4H or flatter. 5. The driveways for the quadraplex unit at station 8+00 left should be arranged to be generally perpendicular to the road pavement. 6. Roadway horizontal curve data should appear on the plan. 7. At least two street connections are required with an eXisting public road or a double width road between the existing public road and the first internal intersection (A183-23 E). 8. An integrated gradinglsoil erosion sediment control plan consisting of specified practices and construction sequence notes should be shown on the grading plans. 9. Development acti vi ties including earthwork wi thin 100 feet of a wetland requires a Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands permit (94-5). 10. Development activities within an area of special flood hazard require a Town of Queensbury permit (91- 11). 11. Existing and proposed Flood Hazard Zone locations and elevations should be shown on the plans. 12. Front setbacks for structures are to be measured from the closest point of the structures. 13. Horizontal separation between the outside of parallel storm drains and water mains should be 5' minimum to permi t access and maintenance if required. Skewed crossings of storm drains with water or sewer should be avoided. Utility crossings should be as perpendicular as possible. Storm drain catch basins shall not be located over sewers or water mains. 14. Storm drain pipe crossings should be plotted on the road profiles. One (1) foot clearance between the outside of pipes should be maintained at all crossings. 15. The proposed culvert outlet ditch along Cronin Road should be detailed and the complete ditch grading along Cronin Road should be shown on the plans to maintain at least 0.5% slopes (A183-27-D.). 16. Why does sewer MH-1AA have a backflow device? Details should be provide if this feature is necessary. 17. The typical detail should refer to a private right-of-way dimension of 50 feet. 18. Grading slopes on the typical road cross section detail, for areas outside the private - 20 - - -- right-of-way, should be indicated as lV:4H or flatter. The same maximum slope should be indicated on the special outlet control structure detail." MR. BREWER-And we have a letter from Paul Dusek to Michael Shaw, and from Mike Shaw to Jim Martin. Would you like to read them. Corinne? MRS. TARANA-Yes. To Michael Shaw, Wastewater Director, from Paul B. Dusek. Town Attorney, dated May 11. 1993, RE: The Bay Meadows Subdivision, "In reference to the above captioned matter, I aCknowledge receipt of a copy of your memo dated May 7, 1993. Please note that it is my understanding that the Town's desire is to include the Bay Meadows development in the Quaker Road Sewer District. I only mention this at this time, so that there is no confusion concerning this matter. As there will be a number of proceedings and agreement that must be entered into, please contact my office should you desire any assistance with regard to this matter." And to Jim Martin, from Mike Shaw, Date May 7, 1993, RE: Bay Meadows Housing Development Preliminary Plans "I have just reviewed the preliminary prints for the above subdivision. The sanitary sewer mains on this site plan are acceptable. Once the construction plans are completed. they will have to be reviewed by this office. It also may be noted that this proposed subdivision is not in the Quaker Road Sewer District. This parcel and possibly others may be an extension to the Quaker Road Sewer District in which the proper approvals and buy-in fees will need to be completed." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we also have Warren County Planning Board to approve with no stipulations. Okay. Mr. Morse. MR. MORSE-Mr. Chairman, I have a response to engineering comments. but I didn't know if maybe you wanted to get oriented on the site a little bit. It's been a year and a half since we've been here. MR. BREWER-Yes, that would be fine. MR. MORSE-Okay. First, for the record. my name is Dick Morse, from Morse Engineering. and for the public. this is the total parcel of the existing Golf Course complex. Bay Road running in the northerly direction. This is Cronin Road running along the southern border. This is the existing club house, shown at this location, on this mapping. This is the partial line that we're cutting out. It's going to run in this general area over to the existing stream, and to Cronin Road. That is approximately 27.2 acres. There will be 70 acres remaining in the existing golf course. The next map, and all the maps that are in front of you, generally show the development area, which is that 27 acre parcel. At this point, we're proposing access near the existing Country Club. This will come in. There'll be an internal looping, and we're proposing 90 units of housing, basically, quadraplexes and one duplex in this general area. We have had DEC on the site. They've flagged the wetlands, and we have also shown the existing flood plain. We are not in the flood way, in accordance with DEC regulations. but we are in the flood plain. To mitigate that, we are filling this area, to bring it up, so that we are approximately six feet over the flood crest, as in that's a 100 year event. So that, and the other issue driving the elevation of the back lots here was that we needed to get the energy in the cover to get the sewer out to Cronin Road. We have an existing manhole right here that we intend to connect in. Our stormwater management is to be internalized within a retention basin. that's located in an existing flood plain, in the center of the property. and will be discharged back out into an existing swale. If you go to Rist- Frost's comments. Item Number One, with reference to the 40 foot radiuses, this will be a private road. and we do not have a problem complying with that 40 foot radius. As your previous project that was in front of you tonight, Paul Naylor is not pleased with these revisions in the road. So if you choose to make us abide by that, - 21 - '- we'd have no problem with that. Comment Number Two. the radiuses at Station 800 and 1500, it's been pointed out, are at 300 foot. Those are the two upper most radiuses there. We are proposing those to be a stop condition, and those would be basically stop condition right angle turns. We're not looking at those as curves. They're stop conditions. MR. BREWER-Can you do that on a private road. have stop signs? Well, who's to enforce, I guess, would be. MR. YARMOWICH-I don't have the Town Code before me, but there is some language in there that refers to enforcement powers being extended by, in certain cases, where private roads are approved by the Planning Board. there can be some provisions made for enforcement powers of other authorities, if they so desire. In many cases, site plans for commercial development empower local enforcement authorities to go in and do whatever is necessary, from the standpoint of fire protection, B & T law, those kinds of things. I'm not sure exactly what the mechanism is. You may want to research the Code. There's probably some sort of reference to it. I know there is. I just don't know where it is. MR. BREWER-Okay. We can look into that. MR. MORSE-Yes. I don't think it's a problem. Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I know it's doable. The speed limits can be enforced. I never really thought about what the mechanism was. MR. HARLICKER-But from a practical point of view. in my own head, I have a hard time seeing people coming up to these curves and stopping and turning. I can see them going, whoosh. That's all. It's one of those things that probably looks good and sounds good on paper, but from a practical point of view, I don't know how. functioning, that would really work. MR. SCHACHNER-They're almost right angles. logical to us that. So it would seem MR. BREWER-Okay. We can look in to see if there's a mechanism for enforcement, or whatever. MRS. TARANA-But won't you have to change the configuration? Those aren't. unless I'm looking at the wrong thing, those aren't right angles. MR. YARMOWICH-Pretty close. MRS. TARANA-I mean. where will the stop sign be? MR. MORSE-We will show that on the next submission to you. but we have locations for that. within DOT criteria. When we go to the next submission, they'll probably be here when we get it into subdivision, which would be the submission of the drawings. We certainly will be sure that they comply with the regulations. I believe that Inspiration Park has a similar condition. MR. BREWER-It's a Town road, though. MR. MORSE-Granted that, but I mean, we have enforcement criteria. and we can do whatever we want to in our homeowners. MR. BREWER-No, I don't believe there's any stop signs there. MRS. PULVER-No. Inspiration Park got a waiver for the radius on one of the curves. MR. BREWER-I'm sure there's no stop signs. MRS. PULVER-Yes. There's no stop on there. They got a waiver, and - 22 - ~ -- it was agreed upon. from Paul Naylor. MR. MORSE-Well, we've got. the process that we're pursuing is that these are right angle turns. They will be stop conditions. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MORSE-Three, again, we'll provide easements for sewer and water, at this time. As soon as we get sign off from the Water and Sewer Department, with NiMo. that will have to be an issue that will be resolved similar to the previous discussion on the last subdivision. Comment Number Four, the one on four, the fill height between station 16+50 and 19+00, is from elevation 309 to elevation 302. and that's over six feet, which requires a one on three slope per regulation, which is what we've demonstrated. MR. YARMOWICH-That is correct, and I misinterpreted. count all the lines properly. I didn't MR. MORSE-Comment Number Five, the driveways for the quadraplex at station 800 are located at the roadway corners, which would be controlled by this stop sign, and that's up in the upper left hand corner. So, the realignment, I think that refers to the realignment. We can make them perpendicular if that's the desire of the Planning Board. We just need guidance on that. We feel that the alignment given, I gi ven the stopping conditions we're imposing, it will be more than adequate to meet the requirement. Horizontal curve data will be shown on the next submission. Item Seven, this gets into the two street connections are required with an existing public road, or a double width access point. Being a private road, coming in, we could do a double width. Number One, we do not want two points of access to our site, just for control. We just don't want a lot of public access into it. but we could do the double width, up to the intersection that goes off to the right. However. we would chose to request relief on that, if relief is required. MR. BREWER-How wide is that road now? MR. MORSE-The road will be 24 feet in pavement width. There are a few large trees. There are no trees around it right now, except for the ones that go through the brush. I think the intent, as I recall years ago. when this was being evolved, was that if a tree fell across the access, you would not have control. The reason we would like to proceed with the design that is in front of you tonight, is that if we did a double width road, it requires an island in the middle of it. that would make access to the first three buildings difficult. In other words, if you could imagine someone driving in, and then they'd have to build a road beyond the island, to turn around and come back into their unit, if you can visualize that. MR. BREWER-Isn't that first home, or group of homes. beyond the first? MR. MORSE-No. MR. BREWER-All right. This is here. MR. YARMOWICH-I would recommend that the Board entertain relief from these provisions, in that there's, the grading in the area is such that, in an emergency situation, there would be nothing to prevent a vehicle from getting around, if they need to be. Provided, you can drive across it, and there's nothing bigger than a house in the way, an emergency vehicle will get by, and there's really no reason, that I can see. I merely cited that as a requirement, and hope that this Board sees that. MR. MACEWAN-Year round. it wouldn't be a problem? - 23 - '~ "-'" MR. YARMOWICH-Well, what can you do, in the case of snow? Does that matter to you in this case? Then you ought to consider that. I just think that in most normal circumstances. if an emergency vehicle can get around. physically, they will, barring no restrictions, including fences and stuff like that. They will go through. Snow banks could be a problem. That could be in many other circumstances, cul-de-sacs. dead ends, too. I know that you normally wouldn't have such long cul-de-sacs, but I really don't see the reason to create maintenance problems with curving and islands, the turning movement problems that Dick Morse had suggested, and I think it's practical, in this case, to grant relief, if the Board is not too concerned with problems during the winter time with snow removal. MR. SCHACHNER-If I could just add to that, island wise, we've seen a lot of negative results from the situation that Mr. Morse was trying to describe, where you end up with people that just drive on the wrong side because that's the shortest line from their house to the exit. MR. MORSE-I believe what the Regulations say, and I don't to quote them because I don't have them all in front of me, but I believe it says, double width, with an island in between. We could certainly do something double width, with striping, different pavement texture, concrete. four foot by nine foot island, at the, would be, because we do want the first three units to basically access over it, but then we have pavement that's 24 by 48. plus four 50 feet wide, that, aesthetically, it's not great, but what we think we have done here is to meet the intent of where the regulation came from, and if the Planning Board felt strongly about it, we could have a clearing policy, 30 feet on each side of the opening. Just have shrubs or something. I truly think. my recollection of how that was generated was that that emergency would. along the front. MR. MACEWAN-How would you gain access to the site, say it was in the dead of winter, and we had a winter like we just had, with only one road getting in there, and you need to get emergency vehicles to the back end of that development, how would you get them in there, if the road was blocked? MR. MORSE-Blocked by what? MR. MACEWAN-Any number of conditions, an automobile accident there on an icy road, power failure, trees falling down on the road, or something like that. I don't know. There could be any number of reasons that would block the road, and you need to get emergency services to the back end of that development. How would you get them in there? MRS. PULVER-Well. if there's an automobile accident, the emergency vehicles are just going to drive up to that accident. MR. MACEWAN-Suppose there's another emergency? hypotheticals out. I'm just asking questions. I'm throwing MR. MORSE-Certainly. and I think our response is, if the road is, in fact, 24 feet wide, I think that there's probably more than enough room to get a vehicle by. and in this case a stalled or disabled vehicle. Very seldom would I see that vehicle on a low speed road that we're talking about here, bridging the pavement of 24 feet. I don't know of many vehicles of that width. even sideways, and I think that would be a fairly unusual thing. Trees. we would probably, a clearing easement. that would be part of the homeowners agreement. As far as snow clogging it. I think if snow has bound up one access, both of them would probably be bound up. MR. YARMOWICH-In the case of vehicles, fire trucks will move those out of Lhe way. They will. MR. LAPOINT-It's just a dead horse. Move on. - 24 - '- ',,-,,' MR. RUEL-If there's a disabled vehicle on that road, is there still space for traffic both ways? MR. BREWER-It's 24 feet wide. MR. MORSE-If one vehicle is stalled, the normal vehicle is six feet wide. and we've got a pavement surface of 24 feet, yes. MR. RUEL-It's still enough. MR. BREWER-Is there going to be a shoulder or not? MR. MORSE-It's the typical wing section. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MORSE-The next item is Eight, gradinglsoil erosion and sediment control plan will be included in our next submission, along with the construction sequence will be noted where we've evaluated a phase lining. The Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit will be applied for. A permit for development of flood hazard areas will be applied for. Comment Number Eleven. existing and proposed Flood Hazard Zone locations and elevations will be shown. Item Twelve, setback dimensions will be corrected. Comment Thirteen we will comply with. Fourteen we will comply with. Fifteen we'll comply with. Sixteen, the backflow device at Manhole lAA was requested by Mike Shaw of the Queensbury Wastewater Department. Comment Seventeen will. MR. BREWER-You're going to show details? MR. MORSE-Yes, we will. Mike asked me that. We did not detail it, but we will. Comment Eighteen, details on the plans will include one on three, at six to twelve feet. MR. MARTIN-My only comment, Dick, would be if you've got to get a wetland permit, to get that permit in as well by the 26th, because that also requires approval of this Board. MR. MORSE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? MR. STARK-Mr. Morse, the sewer main that's on Cronin Road now, what diameter is that? MR. MORSE-I believe. MR. STARK-Well, the question I wanted to ask you. is that adequate to hold another 90 townhouses or? MR. MORSE-Yes. We have been through that, on numerous occasion, with the Town Sewer Department, the Town Board, and we've been involved in many discussions on the proposed new district that's coming up, that they're thinking of creating in what they're calling this Bay Road corridor. MR. STARK-No pump stations involved? MR. MORSE-No pump stations. We can get in by gravity. Our design is predicated on gravity. MR. RUEL-Just a question, Item Twelve talks about front setbacks. Where are the front setbacks shown? MR. MORSE-We have shown, on one little note says 35 feet. and it's right here. Okay. MR. RUEL-It's just one place, and their indicating it should be from here? - 25 - '--". MR. MORSE-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. MORSE-And if you scaled this, it was just drafted in the wrong place. MR. RUEL-AII right, and before you go away. why do you show trees in the middle of the road, and on top of a house? MR. MORSE-Those are existing, okay. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. BREWER-Okay. Wi th no other comment, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll leave the public hearing open. This the end of our discussion. basically? MR. HARLICKER-Staff has just two comments here. One is, if you notice, they've got the big retention basin right in the middle of all these houses. This might be a case where Planning and Engineering clash, as they often do. It just seems to me, from a planning point of view. that would be a good place for more of a recreational area, as opposed to a six foot deep pond. right in the middle of all these housing units. The second one would be the possibili ty that the Board might consider, would be a combined traffic study. Between this proposal, and the proposal just to the north of Passarelli subdivision, you're putting in over 200 housing units in this area, and the Board might consider the implications of that. MR. MACEWAN-That's a good idea, Scott. MR. BREWER-Do you want to comment on those two items, Dick? MR. MORSE-Yes. The first item, number one, this is existing flood plain, okay. I have been observing, we've been on board with this project for approximately two and a half years. I've watched this site, any time we get high water. This area, I've never seen water on it yet. I mean, we get some flooding along the stream here. This is the 100 year flood plain. Naturally, at this point, this would get wet in a 100 year event. What we're doing is diverting our stormwater, because this is a natural wet area. we're diverting our stormwater into this interior area, and that's the delta between pre-development, post-deve lopment, that you're familiar with, and then this will run out. We're not creating a pond in here, although we are allowing flood water, in a 100 year event, backfeed into here to take over the area that we are filling in. MR. BREWER-Wouldn't you be creating somewhat of a pond effect, if you're raising that back section seven feet? In other words, you're raising the banks. MR. MORSE-We're raising this seven feet, but it has an outlet. I mean. there's existing, right now. a drainage way right through here. MR. BREWER-So, basically, that'll retain no water? MR. MORSE-Well. there's a structure in there that I believe is. it's a 24 inch outlet pipe, and any water that flows over the volume that the 24 inch pipe will carry would back up in here. It's going to be a rather large event before we get a back water in here. So this normally will be a dry area. We're not creating a pond. This is free draining. This is not lifted or elevated over - 26 - ...- a certain elevation. It's right at the bottom of one of the existing ditch lines. So. really we're not creating a pond. It's going to be, but that doesn't say that in the event that goes over the, what, I think it's a 25 year event, is our design point? MR. YARMOWICH-Fifty. MR. MORSE-Fifty year, we would have back water in there. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. It would be a short duration time period. What happens here is that pipe, and the inlet to that pipe, is configured to control the release of water in that area to simulate a natural condition. It would fill up with water under an extremely rainy condition, to a shallow depth. and then be released slowly over time. There wouldn't be a permanent ponding condition. MR. MORSE-In essence, that will be no wetter than it is today. We're not cutting that. We're just filling around it. So, if it's dry today, it would be dry after development. MR. HARLICKER-Maybe you could explain why you couldn't put this retention basin in the other, there's quite a bit of the site that's part of the. MR. MORSE-One thing, our development is in this loop area, the easiest, and we do need retention to meet your stormwater management requirements. The concept was because we had to loop, we could drain everything to the interior of the loop, okay, and only create one retention area instead of maybe having several out in this area. I don't think that you'll be displeased with it once it gets constructed. It's not a pond. It's not a pool. It would be dry the vast majority of the time. MR. LAPOINT-Even if you put them around the outside, this existing area will exist like that. and the water is going to go where it wants to go. I mean, if it's going to back flood in there. MR. HARLICKER-Why can't you bring in fill and fill it in, and make it a recreation area? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's what he's saying, bring it up to grade with the housing. MR. MORSE-But my point is. all you're going to see, different than what we have. is right now you're going to walk out and you're going to have a three or four foot slope that goes down into another turfed area. That's basically what's going to be there, under this plan. What you're saying is just fill it all in so that you can just walk out on that turf, and I don't think that the end product is going to be any different. We're still going to have stormwater detention, which is a mandated requirement in this Town. So we're going to have areas outside of this that will have. if this is considered a nuisance or something like that, that would have the same problem. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm going to try to answer that, also, and I'll try to speak from what we call the planning perspective. I'll try to address both comments, one about the possibility or the desirability of putting a recreation area in the middle of the center of the development loop. and second, the notion about the possible need for a combined traffic study. I think it's important that the Board keep in mind that, in fairness to the Board, I think. for some of you this is not something that you can yet keep in mind because it's new to you, because I don't think all of you were on the Board, over a year ago. when you unanimously recommended approval of the re-zoning that allowed this cluster development. The target market for this project, basically, the user, the current users of the Bay Meadows Golf Course. The current users of the Bay Meadows Golf Course largely fit a demographic profile of moderate income. not necessarily senior - 21 - --' citizens, but older crowd, as opposed to a younger crowd that wants to golf on a course that's super challenging, with long driving distances. a real difficulty, lengthy, challenging course. The proposed market is not a market of young families with young children. In fact, these are all one and two bedroom units. The sales prices that are anticipated are the $90 to $110.000 range at this time. So we're not talking about a new community of young families with a lot of young children, looking for swing sets. In fact, we're talking about a community of probably somewhat seasonal residents, although by no means restricted to that, whose in to this is that they already use Bay Meadows and like it. They like the relaxing gentle not so challenging nine whole golf course. From the standpoint of recreational use, the substantial portions of the 90 plus site that are obviously devoted to recreational uses, not only the Golf Course itself, but there's a lot of open space. We could do other things on the area as well, but it's really not a growing. a young, new families type development that needs to have a lot of recreational area for kids. In terms of the notion about the combined traffic study, although I wasn't present earlier this meeting when I think you talked about the other subdivision, I think we perceive ourselves as quite different from that subdivision in a number of ways. One of the ways is demographically. I don't think there's much overlap, in terms of the type of traffic and the amount of traffic that this type of development will generate, versus what I understand to be proposed in the other subdivision, to the north, I believe it would be, on Bay Road, and secondly, I haven't seen. or lately seen, the maps for that subdivision, but I assume they're talking significant access directly onto and out of Bay Road. I'm assuming. I don't know that to be the case, but there's no crossroad there. So I assume that's the case. Our access, you'll note, is on Cronin Road, and though it's certainly on Cronin, relatively near Bay, and I would certainly anticipate a substantial amount of our traffic heading toward Bay, it can obviously go the other way on Cronin and go toward 9L or Ridge, depending upon where you're going. MR. BREWER-Or Meadowbrook. MR. SCHACHNER-Or Meadowbrook. Right. Exactly. That's a good point. Meadowbrook comes first, and that's, as I understand it, a pretty under utilized road. MRS. PULVER-The other subdivision that you're talking about is going to go from Bay to Meadowbrook. So it's going to go both ways. MR. BREWER-That's where the concern is, from Meadowbrook Road. MR. SCHACHNER-I see. Okay. So, I understand the comment, and I appreciate that enlightenment of not having seen those plans, but I think, again, in terms of the size and scope of this project, it's pretty significantly year, especially when you factor in the demographics of the proposed target market. MR. BREWER-Well, how does the Board feel? MR. SCHACHNER-For what it's worth, on the Board considered that in are-zoning. encourage the cluster, and also from the Environmental Quality Review Act review, accomplished. traffic issue. the Town They felt we should standpoint of the State which they have already MRS. PULVER-Yes. They did the SEQRA on that. MR. SCHACHNER-They did that for the re-zoning. That had to occur for the re-zoning to occur. MR. STARK-Tim. I can't see a problem with any traffic coming out from Cronin Road onto Bay. I go to the restaurant there quite a bit, and I never have a problem, noon time, supper time, late at - 28 - night. There's no problem. MR. BREWER-But you have to take into account, reasonably, there's gOing to be 90 houses on Cronin. plus the other 100. We're looking beyond what's there now. George, I think. MR. STARK-Well, the other ones are going to exit. are going to be the commercial on Bay. Everybody's going to go onto Bay from that commercial of 13 lots, from Passarelli's out there, and we're only talking Phase I up there right now, and also Meadowbrook is very under utilized. right now, I mean, as far as the road goes. MR. LAPOINT-I don't mind having the detention basin right in the middle like that. I think that's the way to go, as a matter of fact, and I don't think we need another traffic study. It didn't help us out much with the last, the last unit worked out to be something on the order of three cars per minute. or something like that. Numbers are generally not usable, in my opinion, for traffic studies. MRS. TARANA-I don't have any comments right now. MRS. PULVER-No. I don't think we need another traffic study. MR. RUEL-No comment. MR. MACEWAN-I think we do. That whole area has a potential for a maximum buildout up there, over the next five or seven years, with a lot of other things that are happening along that corridor as well. It potentially could be very high impact, not only on Meadowbrook. but also on Bay. MR. BREWER-I don't know so much about the traffic study. The retention, the thing that comes to my mind with that is, I don't know if everybody's familiar with Queensbury Forest, the problem they had up there, where they did the same type of thing, and they ended up with a pond, and then they had to go back, afterwards, and fill it in. I guess that's the only problem I have with it. I don't know exactly what your. MR. MORSE-Queensbury Forest I am familiar with. We did the work on that. That was a different concept, in that we did not have outlet piping in that basin. That basin was a total recharge basin. The water was expected to percolate into the ground. and the outlet pipe, it had to back up the inlet pipe and go around. It was an overflow elevated back on the street, upgradient from it. This has an outlet pipe in the base of it. So basically what we have here is the, it is no more than a road going over an existing drainage ditch with a pipe in the ditch. We put a culvert into it. Grant it the culvert pipe is probably a little bit smaller than we would have picked if it was to pass everything that we have, but that's to meet the stormwater management requirement. So it's restrictive at the 50 year event, which is, in a 50 year event. nobody's going to be out there anyway. MR. BREWER-Okay. The traffic, I just see the traffic as. I don~t know what the answer is, and I don't know that a traffic study could give us the answer. I don't know what it would tell us. MRS. PULVER-It's going to say that there's going to be cars there, and there's going to be a number of cars. and the roads are going to be able to handle all those cars, and that's what the study is going to say. MR. STARK-Well, when the Elk's Club Bingo lets out at 10 o'clock, all the traffic goes out, and grant it. there's not much traffic on Bay Road at 10 0' clock at night, when they let out, but the traffic, how many people do they have there, 2, 300 people, and the cars just come out and five minutes later they're all gone. Bay Road handles it very easily, and Cronin Road. Never, from this - 29 - '-- -../ project, are you gOing to have 100 cars coming out in a matter of ten minutes. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. Okay. Anything else? MRS. TARANA-I just want to say I agree with Craig, to some extent. I think I know your concern about the traffic. We've talked about it, and I think Bay Road is a concern, because of even ACC' s traffic, that whole strip. I don't know if one of these traffic study's is the answer, and I don't know if the Staff has any suggestions, but I think we've got to look at what's happening in that whole Bay Road. Meadowbrook, we've got to look at that, or we're going to have some major problems there. I don't think it's going to be because of this particular project. to tell you the truth, but I think the cumulative effect of everything that's happening there is going to be a problem. I mean, if you try to get out of Glenwood, I mean, you've got to admit that's a problem. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. if you turn left off of Glenwood. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Glenwood onto Bay, I think. is a Level F. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, well, that's why you have the nice big intersection down there, with the light. MRS. TARANA-And it's not doing any good. MR. LAPOINT-At Bay and Quaker, if you go to there, you'll get a light to go left. MRS. TARANA-Yes. but that's not what's happening. and I think that some time you've got to look at that. Maybe you need one of your special studies, but I think that something has got to be looked at. or you're going to have. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I agree, because we do have, we have 1100 units of Hiland Park that's technically still on the books. MR. MACEWAN-You've got Newell's, Ron Newell's project that is. he could potentially. MR. MARTIN-We've got Cedar, just right across the street here that's hopefully going to buildout now. I think that's a good point. We're at a point now where we're at a luxurious position, where we can stand back and look at it and plan for it. I don't know that anyone of these individual projects, by themselves, merit a traffic study, but a cumulative effect, and that's really the responsibility of the community, then, in that regard, to look at that in a cumulative fashion. MR. BREWER-Maybe we could request that the Town look at those roads to see what could be done. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-And not the applicant. MR. MARTIN-Because I think what you're looking at here. too, the other thing to remember. is with Hiland Park, Mr. Passarelli's subdivision, this for that whole area of Bay Road to Meadowbrook, and points north, you're looking at build out. It's done. The land's all gone. It's all developed. I mean, all the projects are on the books now. Passarelli's would be all on the books at maximum buildout. This is taking the density out for the 97 acres. You know what's going to happen here. Hiland Park's done. Valenti's project has already been approved, although not buildout. We know the number of units involved there. It would be relatively easy to arrive at a capacity level here. My other comment, in line with Scott's, this is just an observation. I think sometimes we look at these things from an engineering point of view, and I'm - 30 - ""-- --.;' sure this will work. and it does its job and conforms with the regulations, but in terms of making a nice, like, a communal character here. at center area, I think, is being really drastically under utilized, and just to use that as an engineering answer, technically it's fine, but, boy, you could do something wi th that center area, it strikes me, to enhance this overall project. Maybe you do retain the water there, and actually let a pond. and create a surface water area there that you could use as a park. if this is senior oriented housing, that would enhance a great deal and beautify the area, and just have an out right pond there. and walkways. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, but you're still faced with the loss of flood plain storage capacity. and which, the Town has, I don't mean to fight planning with engineering. but the Town has a legal responsibility to all inhabitants along that flood plain, to not allow filling that's going to create additional damage. The Town of Queensbury administer's the Flood Insurance Program, and it's really a decision as to, can this land support development. If yes, if flood plain capacity is retained. and I agree. there's lots of potential beneficial uses, but one of the underlying criteria here is preserving flood plain volume. Now. if in consistency with good planning, those two perameters can meet somewhere in between. I would agree with what Jim's saying, but any development here, needs to take into account the potential effect of upstream residents, because upstream people would be effected by flood plain volumes. MRS. PULVER-Who would you have maintain that? MR. YARMOWICH-It's private property. MRS. PULVER-No. than a pond. If you're going to turn it into something other MR. MARTIN-Well, you're going to have a homeowners association. MR. MORSE-Let me just get to this, at one point in the design process, we were looking at trails and picnic pavilions and all this sort of thing, which are wonderful, no problems, but what happens is, for each one of those items, a homeowners association budget has to be prepared and presented for the homeowners to buy into, and that budget, the more site amenities we put in, the more the homeowners, that budget is, and we have a market that we're trying to service, and that's the market that is currently using the Golf Course, and I don't want to get a budget of two to three hundred dollars a month built up there to maintain ponds and picnic shel ters and picnic tables and walkways, etc., that the vast majority of these people don't need or don't care about, because they have a golf course right next to them to go over and utilize, and that's. if we can keep that down, we've got a realistic budget, and if you've ever looked at HOA's, you know that those budgets can grow very quickly. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-The other thing along those lines is, it's not my personal preference, but with me, that would be wonderful, if I were a proposed resident, but I think the demography has to factor in. I think that most of the people, I'm making a generalization, but I think that many people in the demographically targeted area we're talking about really view being part owners in a standing body of water as more of a liability than an asset. I've been involved in homeowner association projects where the HOA for one, did not want standing water around because somebody could jump in it and have a problem. It's going to freeze over in the winter and have a problem, or whatever, and again, I think the type of target market we're looking at really would view this more as a liability than an asset. - 31 - - MR. MARTIN-Just a conceptual comment. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else from anybody? Okay. I guess we'll see you next month at Sketch? MR. MARTIN-No, Preliminary. It's a two lot. MRS. TARANA-This is Sketch. MR. BREWER-All right, two lot. MR. MARTIN-This was a site plan discussion, I guess. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Thank you, and we will leave the public hearing open. SITE PLAN NO. 19-93 TYPE II BARRY CONVERSE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE RECOMMENDATION ONLY ZONE: MOBILE HOME OVERLAY ZONE LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF APRIL LN. CONSTRUCTION OF A 48 LOT MOBILE HOME PARK. TAX MAP NO. 121-6-999 LOT SIZE: +16.35 AC SECTION: 113-17. 119- 36 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 19-93. Barry Converse, May 18, 1993 "pro;ect Description: The applicant is proposing to create a 48 lot mobile home park. The property involved is 16.35 acres in size and is located off of Warren Lane and April Lane. Pro;ect Analvsis: The proposal was compared to the rules and regulations found in 113, Article II of the Queensbury Code which relates to the development of mobile home parks. The site appears to be level and according to the EAF the soil is sandy and well drained. The site is partially wooded and contains some large stands of mature trees. It appears on the site plan that all of the existing trees are to be removed; these trees should be preserved. The applicant should provide a drainage and grading plan so that the project's impact on surface drainage and stormwater runoff can be determined. The proposal provides for the required buffer around the park; however, there is no screening shown in the buffer areas. The proposal meets the density requirements; the lots have the required square footage and appear to be large enough so that the minimum setbacks can be met on the individual lots. The design of the road will allow for the smooth traffic flow and each of the lots can accommodate two parking spaces. Access to the park is sufficient. Two access points are provided; one will be for emergency access which will be closed with a gate and a breakable lock. This entrance should be approved by the fire district. The site is to be serviced by municipal water and combined on-site septic systems. Each system will service two lots. Soil tests should be done to ensure that the site can accommodate the proposed systems and their design has to be approved by the Town engineer. Ownership and maintenance of the systems should also be clarified. The location and means of solid waste disposal needs to be provided. The relationship between the existing houses and the park has to be defined. It is not clear if these houses are to be part of the park or reserved for future expansion." MR. HARLICKER-There's a letter, here, from Rist-Frost, regarding engineering comments. also. Tom will address those. MR. BREWER-Okay. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 13, 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project in accordance with the Queensbury Mobile Home Park Ordinance (Town Code Section 113 - 32 - ',-- .-' Article II). We have the fOllowing engineering comments. 1. Mobile home sites should be graded to produce terraces that will allow the dwelling units to be placed parallel to the slope (113-18 B) . A grading plan should be deve loped. 2. At a minimum, the plans should bear a note stipulating erosion and sediment control in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 3. Provisions for drainage/SWM should be addressed. 4. According to NYSDOH requirements for individual on- site sewage disposal systems. seepage pits shall not be used where site and soil conditions are adequate for absorption trenches. 5. Water mains should be 6 inch minimum." MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom, would you care to address the Staff Notes? MR. NACE-This site is relatively flat. I won't say it's as flat as a pancake. There is a little bit of slope to it. It's relatively flat. It's very sandy. I didn't feel it necessary to provide a grading plan, a lot grading plan. I can provide a typical lot grading plan, if the Board would like. but a grading plan for the overall site, because it is relatively flat, and at most, in order to terrace a little place off for the trailers, it's going to require about a foot to a foot of cut on one side. and a foot to a foot and a half of fill on the other. It's very difficult to show on this sort of scale. We could provide a typical detail for the grading for a typical lot, if you would like. The second comment, I will be glad to put on something for erosion control. Again. because of the sandy soils, and the relatively flat site, I don't anticipate that erosion control and sediment control is going to be a real issue for the site. The drainage as shown on a typical road section, we're using a gravel road. We've used the road side ditches, because of the very sandy soils. and the flat slopes. any runoff that would occur, and believe me. because the trailers covering a small portion of the site, not contributing much roof area, the gravel road and the ditches, there is not going to be any runoff. So, I suppose I can come up with some calculations that'll prove that to you, but based on my judgement, I think that Tom's looked at the site. He would probably agree that there really won't be a stormwater management problem. The plans, Item Number Four. the plans have been submitted to and reviewed by the Department of Health, and they have no problem with the use of seepage pits for the systems. Seepage pits generally take up a little less land or require less clearing of the trees that are there, which is the primary reason, we went to seepage pits for this type of a project. Item Five. the water mains aren't labeled on the plan itself, but it is labeled over in the Legend. They are to be six inches. Okay. any comments or questions on engineering before we go to Staff? MR. BREWER-I'm a little bit confused here. It says we've got Site Plan Type II, a recommendation. We're making a recommendation for what, whether they should let them have this overlay zone? MR. MARTIN-The park itself. The Town Board is the agency, actually the deciding Board in this case. MR. BREWER-All right. Then, if they decide to let him go ahead with this. will this come back to us or not? This is it? MR. MARTIN-No. This is it. This is much like a petition for a zone change. It's only a recommendation. MR. NACE-It's a total different. a different Town Law, Section. MR. MARTIN-Did you get copies of that, Section 113? I asked Pam to copy them for you. MR. BREWER-No. MRS. TARANA-Yes, we did. - 33 - ~. MR. BREWER-Did we? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's it. It's a whole separate site plan review section that differs somewhat from the zoning section. MR. BREWER-In our recommendation, though, if we ask him to do things. MR. MARTIN-It's just like a zone change recommendation. under that recommendation, you can recommend certain things be done, and the Town Board would consider that. MR. BREWER-And if we say that we want something done, it isn't necessarily going to happen? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. NACE-If you say that you want it done, and we agree to do it, it will get done. MR. MARTIN-That's true. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. MARTIN-But as standard practice, as part of your resolution, I would ask that the minutes of this meeting and the Staff Notes and everything be sent on to the Town Board. MR. BREWER-I guess a mobile home park is completely different than a subdivision? MR. NACE-Yes. It remains under single ownership. All that it does is allow the owner of the park to develop it as a park, and to rent out space for. MR. MARTIN-Of a predetermined size. MR. NACE-Right. MRS. TARANA-Is there a size limitation on the mobile homes, minimum or maximum, and/or? MR. MARTIN-No, but there is, if you notice in this section, there are setback requirements and so on and so forth, and that's really the only dictating factor, 6,000 square feet, minimum front yard of 20, minimum side yard of 10, and minimum rear yard of 15. Beyond that, the mobile home could be a double wide or a single wide, whatever would fit in those confines. MRS. TARANA-I guess what I'm getting to is, they have to be somewhat permanent. These can't come in and out? MR. YARMOWICH-They have to be set in a permanent fashion, in accordance with the Code. They can, however. be readily removed. They're not set on permanent foundations. They're set on piers and anchored into those piers. That's the Code requirement in the Town of Queensbury, but they can be transported out of here. MRS. TARANA-I guess what I'm getting to is tourist type things. MR. YARMOWICH-That's a different provision. A mobile home park is non-transient. A mobile home court. or a trailer court, would be for transient, okay. There's a trailer court and there's mobile home park. This is mobile home park, which is permanent rentals. You may have people come and use it on a seasonal basis, but you're going to have permanent occupancy. MRS. TARANA-This is a park and not a court? - 34 - MR. YARMOWICH-Correct. MR. NACE-That's correct. MRS. TARANA-But a court is for continuous occupancy? MR. NACE-No. A court is for transients, okay. MR. YARMOWICH-It's also smaller with no restrictions. MRS. TARANA-Unless I'm reading this wrong, a mobile home court, a parcel of land planned and approved for the placement of three or more homes for continuous occupancy. MR. YARMOWICH-But it's individual lots, more than not. This is a park. which is under common ownership. MRS. TARANA-I don't find mobile home park defined any place. MR. YARMOWICH-It's in the law. MRS. TARANA-I find a transient mobile home court, and a mobile home court. MR. NACE-You have to look back, under Article II of Chapter 113, okay, and I believe on Page 11316, okay. It says, mobile home and mobile home park are as defined in Chapter 179 Zoning. So you've got to go back to your Zoning Regulations. MR. MARTIN-There is a cross reference in this Zoning Ordinance. MR. LAPOINT-It's important to know what we're approving. MRS. TARANA-See, it's really confusing to me, because it talks about, under mobile home parks. which is Article II, it talks about permit requirements for transient or seasonal mobile home courts. I mean. it's not really clear to me that this project would prohibit transient mobile homes from coming in. MR. YARMOWICH-Transient in what sense? That kind of thing, one day, one night? I mean, day and night? MR. BREWER-Somebody comes up here and lives in the summer and goes down south and lives in the winter? MR. YARMOWICH-No, that's still permanent occupancy, I mean, that's permanent residency. Transient means move your home in and out. MRS. TARANA-Well, there's no size limitation. duration. There doesn't seem to be really any. There's no time MR. LAPOINT-You mean like an RV driving in and hooking up, for two weeks? MRS. TARANA-Yes. I mean. people that pull the things in back of their car, not an RV vehicle. MR. NACE-That's certainly not our intention. LEON STEVES MR. STEVE-We have made application, in the past, which is just what you're talking about, and that's up at Ledgeview, where John Hughes has got both there. John Hughes is one of the first that came under this review, together with Drellos'. We are going for the mobile home park, not the court. We're not going into a transient. We're going for mobile homes. MR. BREWER-What kind of mobile homes are you going to put in there? Are you going to put new ones? - 35 - MRS. PULVER-Well. you're not going to own them. The people will own them. So to say that they're going to be new may be a little misleading. Someone could have a 1969, 10 foot wide mobile home, and move it in and rent the space. BARRY CONVERSE MR. CONVERSE-No, they won't. MRS. PULVER-You're only gOing to take 1990's, or? MR. CONVERSE-That's correct. MRS. PULVER-Isn't that discrimination? MR. CONVERSE-They do it with the rest of them. MRS~ PULVER-What happens to somebody who has an older mobile home, who has paid it off and retired, and wants to move it into a trailer park? MR. MACEWAN-They don't move it into his. MR. NACE-It's no different than covenants and restrictions on a subdivision. You've got to build 2400 square feet if you want to be in my subdivision. MRS. PULVER-So if you have a 1980 mobile home and you've maintained it very well. you can't move it into another park. MR. CONVERSE-Well, that would be something that would have to be looked at, if it was in good shape, or whatever. MRS. PULVER-So you'd make exceptions? MR. CONVERSE-It's possible. MRS. PULVER-So, to say that you're only going to put new ones in is not correct. MR. CONVERSE-Well, nine times out of ten. they're all going to be new. MR. MACEWAN-What's your point, Carol? MR. PULVER-I hope my parents don't want to move in and have an older trailer. MR. CONVERSE-There's other parks that take the older ones, Forest Park. and Homestead. MR. MARTIN-Corinne. look at Section 113-20, Restrictions to Occupancy. MR. YARMOWICH-It has a minimum 60 day limit. They have to stay for at least 60 days, or the home has to. MRS. TARANA-Well, that's the kind of thing I was getting to. I wondered if that was in there. MR. YARMOWICH-It does differentiate between a home and a park, by that particular provision. MRS. TARANA-So, they're really asking for a park. So they have to be there at least 60 days. MR. BREWER-Is there a zone here? MR. STEVES-Yes, there is. - 36 - - MRS. PULVER-What is that zone? MR. STEVES-Mobile Home Overlay Zone. MR. BREWER-It is right now? MR. NACE-Correct. MRS. PULVER-But does that allow livestock? MR. MARTIN-A Mobile Home Overlay Zone? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I don't think so. MRS. PULVER-Well, did you drive around the corner, and see the ducks and the geese? MR. MARTIN-No. I can't say as I've actually been there. MR. NACE-You'll notice that that area is going to be cleared out and reused for a trailer. MRS. PULVER-So that the animals are? MR. BREWER-That's not going to be the barn. then. MR. RUEL-They're called mobile homes. Do they ever move them? MR. NACE-Yes. Occasionally people are moving out of the park. They will take their own, on occasion. MR. RUEL-It's an expensive proposition to move them, isn't it? MR. NACE-A lot of times you'll find the houses in the park are sold and somebody else moves into it. MR. RUEL-But normally they don't move them? MR. NACE-I'm doing some work for a park in Saratoga County where I would say most of the mobile homes have been in there for many years. MR. RUEL-Okay. Is there a limit on the size of the mobile home in this park? MRS. PULVER-What will fit within the zoning. MR. RUEL-It has to fit within the setback requirements? That's the limit? MR. NACE-That's right. MR. YARMOWICH-There also has to be some limitations on use on septic systems. Obviously, you can't come in and put something permanent with more bedrooms and users than the systems are designed to handle. MR. RUEL-You feel there's no need to stipulate the maximum size of the mobile home? MR. YARMOWICH-I don't know that you can. I can't answer that question. That's more of a legal matter. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. They only come so big. They can't go down the road if they're over 60 feet, right? MR. CONVERSE-Eighty. - 31 - MR. LAPOINT-Eighty. That's it. That's a big home. MR. NACE-That is very big. MR. LAPOINT-Could I ask one more question about landscaping, some trees left? MR. NACE-Yes. We would definitely. as you've seen the lot, there are mature pines on it. There's also a lot of scrub pine. We would not be clear cutting the whole thing. We would be leaving trees, obviously, in the buffer, we'd leave all the trees. and in back of the lots, we'd probably leave as many trees, and we'd try to leave some sort of a buffer in between lots that would have a little bit. Things are tight. You're not going to get a 20 foot buffer. obviously. MR. BREWER-I mean, it just would be a shame to go in there and clear cut the whole thing and just put trailers there. MR. NACE-That's not the intention. We'd go in, cut for the roads, and cut for the individual home spaces as they are required. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? MR. STARK-Mr. Nace, where are you going to get the water from? Is there a main on Warren Lane? MR. NACE-There is an existing main, I think, that shows up on the utili ty plan, on Warren Lane. We're going to be bringing a six inch line in to provide fire protection for the park. There will be a meter pit that doesn't show up on your plans right now, and when we get back into the park, before we branch off for any services, there will be a master meter pit, for a large water meter. So that all the water, the mains back in the park. private roads, and the utilities are private. So. in order to satisfy the Water Department, we've got to meter one place out. MR. STARK-There's enough water available through that existing main now? MR. NACE-Yes. more than enough. MRS. PULVER-Did we determine individual septics, or are they? MR. BREWER-Combined. MR. NACE-They're combined. The Health Department has reviewed it, and they have some minor comments, that I've got to clean up, but they approved of the type of system. MR. BREWER-Okay. You'll install the system. The first tenant will hook up and then as the tenants move in, they'll hook up with the other? MR. NACE-Well. the Health Department has a whole separate set of rules for trailer parks, too, or for mobile home parks, and those require that stubs be brought up for water and sewer in a certain fashion. MR. RUEL-A question. Who in Queensbury is responsible for reviewing these parks to see that they're maintained properly and kept clean. Who takes care of that? MR. MARTIN-The Code Enforcement Officer. MR. NACE-The Town Board issues a permit, and that permit is renewed every year. MR. RUEL-Isn't there an annual inspection or anything? - 38 - MRS. PULVER-Isn't Building and Codes responsible for going out? MR. MARTIN-Yes. The law specifically provides for the Director of Building and Codes to have access to the site, be permitted access, and make sure the park is in compliance with the Article as written. MR. RUEL-There are so many ill maintained ones, I was wondering who had the responsibility. MR. YARMOWICH-Those are not necessarily parks. They may be individually occupied sites. In the case of parks that are subject to this license process, it's a different mechanism. MR. BREWER-Perc tests aren't necessary? MR. NACE-Yes. They were done. They're on the utility plan, on the left hand side. perc tests have been done. MR. BREWER-Scott's got it in his notes that it should be done. MR. NACE-They were on the plans. MRS. PULVER-He says here this entrance should be approved by the fire district? MR. NACE-The breakaway lock type has to be approved by the fire district. MRS. TARANA-What about ownership and maintenance of the all the sewer systems and everything? That's your responsibility. as owner of the whole park, or court. MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. BREWER-If there's no other comments, I'll open the public hearing. Any comments from the public? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RUSSELL COOPER MR. COOPER-Russell Cooper, Dean Drive. We're here voting and, at the risk of sounding confused, which I am. what are we here to do? I mean, are we here to give them permission to start with this? Is this one step in many? MR. BREWER-This is one step in two, I believe. MR. COOPER-We're making decisions on things that, you seem confused. as well as me. I think allowing them to continue. at this stage of the game, without reviewing them. MRS. PULVER-Why don't you tell us your concerns, Mr. Cooper. MR. COOPER-My concerns are, I don't what the regulations are. If I had access to them, I could sit down. You mean a trailer park, is that the condensed version of everything you need to be concerned about. fire, police protection, sometimes is necessary. There's a lot of things we've got to look at. Jumping back to the previous case, this gentleman was talking about one entrance to that housing development, and he had a good point. If you've got a pumper truck about 10 foot wide. and you try to turn it around, there could be some people burned alive. I think, before we make a decision on this, we should look into it, and what the regulations are. MR. BREWER-We are just basically. we're making a recommendation to the Town Board, which will ultimately make the decision whether he can or can't have this park. - 39 - ;-- / -/ MR. COOPER-All I'm trying to say is it's hard for you and myself to make a decision when we don't actually in fact know what has to be done. what these requirements are. MRS. PULVER-My comment is for you, right now, to voice your opinion on any problem that you have with any of this. because we have these gentlemen right here, and we can make them accountable, or make them solve, or attempt to solve. any concerns that you have. MR. COOPER-Traffic, the flow of traffic, you're going to have 48 families there. 100 cars. Who's going to patrol? How are they going to be safe? He's already said he's going to have selective mobile homes in there, through his own admission. To me that's, as long as they meet the Codes, that's something to be taken into consideration. It's sad, and don't be confused. because I'm a mobile home owner myself. The only difference being I own my own property, and what I would much prefer to see is the people sell lots to people and allow them to maintain their own property, but that's his prerogative. In my opinion, we don't need another trailer park, mobile home park. MRS. PULVER-Do you have any other concerns besides that? MR. COOPER-I probably would, but I came here to basically find out what was going on. I got the letter in the mail, and now I don't know whether, if this is step one of step two, we may be well on our way to something that we really don't want. So that's why I'm up here. MRS. PULVER-Okay. Can I give these to you, though? MR. COOPER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Okay. These are all the regulations for mobile home parks. So you'll have that to look at that. Maybe, Mr. Nace, could you address some of these things he's worried about? MR. NACE-Okay. As far as access for fire, we have one primary entrance here, on Warren Lane, to permit control of the park. We do have emergency access through here. that can be used in case of fire. So we do have dual access. One of the concerns voiced was it was better to have individual lots, versus a park. One of the reasons Mr. Converse wants to make this a park is so that he has a little better control. If somebody's not taking care of their property, or their lot, they can be evicted, or at least forced to make it look a little better. Police patrol, it's really no different than a subdivision. or anything else. If there's a problem. the Warren County Sheriff can respond to phone calls. Because it's private property. there will not be. obviously, a patrol through the park, but then again there are a lot of subdivisions that don't get patrol from the County Sheriff now. MR. COOPER-Can I ask, what's the size of the lots? MR. NACE-These are 6,000 square feet, which is what the requirements are of the zoning. MR. COOPER-I'm required to have a 100 by 200 lot. in order to put a mobile home on it, and they can crowd 48 trailers on one little lot. MR. MACEWAN-But you're dealing with different zoning for a mobile home park. MR. COOPER-Now, is this considered. it's a residential section, am I correct? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. but it falls under a different Zoning Ordinance, because it's a mobile home park. - 40 - -. -- MR. COOPER-But, again, I think. is this commercial, or is he asking permission on a commercial basis, because he's renting out. If you have apartments, if you have over four? MR. MARTIN-No. It's not commercial. MR. NACE-It's what is called a Mobile Home Overlay Zone, and there are very few small areas in the Town that were put under that Overlay Zone when it was re-zoned, and I think what it sounds like your real concern is, you don't want to be living next to a Mobile Home Overlay Zone, which should have been voiced back when the re- zoning took place. MR. COOPER-Well, you have sort of a transient, irregardless of when it comes to mobile home parks, you have a turn over. You go take a ride through Forest Park or anywhere. you'll see For Sale signs, and then also you're required to. selling your trailer, you're also required to go through certain brokers and this and that, and you're limited. Now, I'm not saying this would be the case with this gentleman's mobile home park, but you're limited. and I think the whole thing stinks. MRS. PULVER-I'd like you to have these maps. too. so you can take them and you can look at them better at home. They're exactly what's up there. MR. COOPER-So what do I do when I look this stuff over, and if I find complaints? MRS. PULVER-You can come right back. Remember, this is only Step One. MR. MACEWAN-If this Board makes a favorable resolution to the Town Board for a favorable go ahead to them. the Town Board will have it published in the paper that they'll have a public hearing on it as well, and then you can go to them. at that time, and voice your concerns with them. They're the ones who'll, ultimately, make the decision. MR. MARTIN-You'll be renotified again of a pUblic hearing by the Town Board. MR. MACEWAN-They're the ones who are in the situation. They'll make the ultimate decision and attach any restrictions to it that they need to have attached. MR. COOPER-Let me ask one question. Has this been before the Board at any time in the past? MR. MACEWAN-This particular one? MR. COOPER-Yes. This particular proposal. MR. MACEWAN-No. MR. MARTIN-No. This is the first time. MR. BREWER-Before this Board. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MACEWAN-It hasn't been to the Town Board yet. MR. NACE-Yes. They made the referral to this Board. MRS. PULVER-They asked to come to this Board, but they don't actually present it to the whole Town Board. MR. COOPER-Thank you very much. - 41 - '-- -- GEORGE THOMPSON MR. THOMPSON-George Thompson. I guess I need some background information, as far as, I've been here a couple of times, and maybe you could point out where Sherman Avenue is, in relation to that, also where Amy Lane is in relation to that. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. THOMPSON-It seems like a similar project was brought out two or three years ago, or last year, sometime, for a trailer park. MRS. PULVER-Give us a name or something. MR. BREWER-In this location, you mean? MR. THOMPSON-Yes. MR. BREWER-I don't know. Was there? MR. YARMOWICH-I believe he's referring to a subdivision. There was a 10 or 12 lot subdivision, and that was in conformance with residential zoning. MR. THOMPSON-And then wasn't there something about affordable housing, for the same location? MRS. PULVER-That was on Sherman Avenue. MR. BREWER-Sherman Avenue, right. It's been approved, Diehls. MRS. PULVER-It's been approved, but there's nothing there. MR. THOMPSON-Okay. So that's up and coming. MR. BREWER-Depending on the developer. MR. THOMPSON-What we see, I think, is a lot of density there, a lot more traffic, a lot more sewage, a lot more noise, a lot more people in the area, and I'm wondering how all this fits in to what's already there. We had some concerns before. There isn't too much space here. Michaels Drive is getting pretty full, and Amy Lane, of course, is full, and then the apartments are over here. I guess those are some of the questions that I had. about the drainage, about the traffic, about the sewage, about the water, about the setback variance, the buffers. We're kind of on a hill. MR. BREWER-As far as the drainage and the water and the septic, it all has to go before the engineer, and the engineer states what they're going to use. They have to go to the Department of Health, am I correct, to get the permits. So everything is met, as far as that goes. I understand your concern, but if they meet the regulations, we can't, we really don't have a leg to stand on. MR. THOMPSON-It seems like a lot of traffic, very potential, Mike Vasiliou's piece is not too far away over here, for his housing, and, is this the group that looks after those concerns, so that, as I think was mentioned tonight, so that all of this doesn't happen. Maybe one of those pieces is not going to effect it very much, but when you get a lot of little pieces, then you could have a potential problem with both our properties. The road is not able to handle the traffic, too much demand on the soil, too much demand on the water. MRS. PULVER-Well, that is supposed to be taken care of by the zoning. The zoning restricts the density and the use of the property. So if, I mean. if it's zoned for residential housing half acre then, potentially, every half acre there could be a house, and we're hoping that the roads are supposed to be able to handle the traff ic, because of the zoning. Now. there's. more - 42 - '~ - ..-- traffic means things are going to slow down. but we are restricted by what the zoning is. We cannot say to someone, you can't build a house on that property. because you're going to put a car on the highway, if his property is zoned for a residential purpose. MR. THOMPSON-The access to this is not on Sherman Avenue? only onto Luzerne Road through Warren Lane? It's MR. NACE-That's correct. The traffic would be totally separate from the traffic on Sherman. MR. THOMPSON-And what is the buffer? What are the requirements for a buffer? MR. NACE-There' s a 25 foot wide buffer all the way around any adjoining parcel. MR. THOMPSON-And what does that consist of? MR. NACE-Natural, there's 25 feet in 1 t' s reality, these lots up here are rather deep. be more buffer left in there. natural state. In So there'd probably MR. THOMPSON-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. KEITH LECLAIR MR. LECLAIR-My name is Keith LeClair. I live on Burch Road. I object to it, to the park. Every way in to this is a dead end road. When you come in off Burch Road, the only way into this is from Burch Road. that's a dead end road. You have to go down to Warren Lane, which is also a dead end road, to get to this park. So it's all landlocked. There's only one way in and one way out. It's not like it's right off the road. To bring in another 48 families. about 200 cars. There's already plenty of traffic in the area now, coming out of a dead end road, bringing in more congestion. Burch Road is already not allowed to go straight through to Sherman Avenue. MR. BREWER-It was not allowed to? MR. LECLAIR-It was turned down previously. MR. MACEWAN-For what reason? MR. LECLAIR-I don't know. but this Board what the reason was. MR. STEVES-I don't know, but this Board is the one that elected not to have it go through. MR. MACEWAN-This very Board? MR. BREWER-This particular Board? MR. STEVES-It may not have been these members. A year or a year and half ago Mr. Converse asked me to represent him when the Diehl Subdivision was being considered and asked if there's some traffic reasons Burch Road should not go through to Sherman Avenue, and I think Tom Yarmowich, in his engineering comments, also voiced that opinion. This Board and the Town Board both elected to not have that road go through. MR. BREWER-When they first originally re-zoned that, you mean, Leon? MR. YARMOWICH-No. It was in the Sherman Pines Subdivision process, and there are some Board members that may recall. The issue of connecting the water systems together. at the end of Burch Road, - 43 - --. ~- and the subdivision. as well as providing a right-of-way for the development of future access through there was an issue that was fully brought out and addre~sed, and at that point in time, there was no provision for that interconnecting access. MR. BREWER-I was on the Board when Sherman Pines came here, but I don't ever recall any comments about that. I came in at the tail end of that. when the Town Board was arguing with. MR. MARTIN-I don't remember that. Do you, Ed? MR. LAPOINT-No. MRS. PULVER-I don't remember it, either, and I'm the oldest Board member. MR. BREWER-I just don't recall it, Leon, and I think I came on the Board when they were. MR. MARTIN-You mean we consciously, by design. turned down that idea? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. STEVES-Tom Yarmowich who read that comment that night, when the public hearing was opened up, I came up and I told you I was wearing a different hat that evening. I was representing a client who was concerned about traffic, and the flow of traffic on Burch Lane, and wanted Burch Lane to go through to Sherman Avenue. I said this to the Board. which is very unusual, because I'm generally wearing a different hat, and concurred with Tom's comment that night. I'm almost repeating myself verbatim of what happened that night. I'm sure if you get the minutes out of that meeting, you'll find that in there. MRS. PULVER-We can do that, can't we, get the minutes? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd love to see it. MRS. PULVER-Maybe we could have Scott make a note. MR. BREWER-Well. that possibly could still be done? MR. YARMOWICH-No. That subdivision's already done. There's no provisions for access. There's open space, and a lot there. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. LECLAIR-Well, that's my major concern is access to this park up here. It's not just right off the road. It's, I don't know exactly what the footage is, going on to two different roads, two different access roads. In an emergency situation, Burch Road is not an extremely wide road. It's a Town road. There's a lot more families in the area. There's a lot more children in the area. with 48 more families moving in. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. THOMPSON-Could you also clarify, for your definitions, for our definitions, could you tell what is a Mobile Home Overlay Zone? I don't understand this. MRS. PULVER-The Overlay Zone, I believe. is something new since 1988, correct? MR. MARTIN-Right. It was done in '88. MRS. PULVER-It was done the same time as the Ordinance, or just after? - 44 - ~ --,' MR. MACEWAN-They redid the master plan in '88, right? MR. MARTIN-When they adopted the zoning, that concept was put in. MRS. PULVER-I know. but they didn't actually do the zone until afterwards, right? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. PULVER-The concept was there and then the actually areas were later described. MR. THOMPSON-You mean the concept Town wide? MRS. PULVER-Yes. The concept for a Mobile Home Overlay Zone was there in 1988, when they redid the Queensbury Town Ordinance, and put together the master plan. and then it was shortly thereafter, in October 1988, I believe. when it was adopted, that they defined what areas would be considered part of the Mobile Home Overlay Zone, and this was one of the areas. MR. MARTIN-There's five designated areas, and the best we can, although there's no formal definition in zoning, the purpose of a Mobile Home Overlay District, the Town of Queensbury, in order to provide alternative housing types and to provide affordable housing as identified areas within the Town where Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks may be located. MR. THOMPSON-Do you know, off hand. where those areas are? MR. MARTIN-Yes. They're on the zoning map of the Town. The bulk of them are in Ward 4. I think four of the five are in Ward 4, and there's one up on Route 149, on the north side of 149. in the northern half of the Town. MR. THOMPSON-And that also, does that include Homestead and Forest Park? MR. MARTIN-I believe so. Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there any other comments or questions? I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Does anybody else on the Board have any questions? MRS. TARANA-I just have a question. Are you providing any area, open space, playground, play area for children? MR. NACE-We have not designated any space. No. MR. HARLICKER-Are there any future plans? What's, you've got a large area over here, to the, off of, I guess, it's April Lane. There are some existing houses. MR. NACE-Yes. That is not for expansion. That is just going to remain with the existing configuration the way it is. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. What about the poss1bili ty of making this access off of April Lane a full time access? That would alleviate some of the traffic off of Warren there. MR. NACE-Well, we try to keep away from that, because the rest of April Lane here is not a Town road. That's all private property all the way down to Warren Lane, okay. So that's just. rather than have two roads to maintain to it, we'd like to keep single controlled access. MR. COOPER-If one exit has to be an emergency exit, if he wants to - 45 - --- put a park in there. let the park go right by his house. It's easier to control the flow of traffic. See, what's good for the neighborhood, isn't good in his own back yard, and this is what I'm saying. Let it swing right around, the access on both ends. Let it flow right around, then you'll have them coming out of both sides of the park, on both roads, and it's better to enforce his park. MR. MACEWAN-Who owns that private portion of April Lane? MR. MARTIN-The Converses. MR. MACEWAN-That private road, is that private road owned by you? MR. CONVERSE-By my father. MR. MACEWAN-By your father. have another? Can you get deeded access to it, to MR. CONVERSE-It's my father's development. MR. MACEWAN-Why can't he have another access out onto that road, then? MR. CONVERSE-We can. MR. NACE-We could. We can make it circular, if the Board desires. MR. CONVERSE-Both exits will exit onto Warren Lane anyway, but it's easier to control the flow. MR. NACE-This is our main access. The breakaway gate here. this is emergency access, okay. If the Board so requests, we could, I just talked to Tyler. we could bring that around and make this permanent access also. okay, get rid of the gate. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? Anybody? Okay. MRS. PULVER-I like that idea, though. MR. BREWER-You like what idea. leaving it open? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. CONVERSE-If you notice the park on Luzerne Road there, Northwinds. they have two entrances. They have one that's locked, because the Town requested they have two entrances for fire reasons. That's the only reason we did this. for fire reasons, easier to control. MRS. PULVER-They come right out, though, don't they, on Luzerne Road? MR. CONVERSE-Correct. MRS. PULVER-Yes. See, this comes right out into another residential area, I mean, the traffic's going to come out. So I would think having two entrances or exits would be easier, so that the traffic would be dispersed easier. Coming out on a 50 mile highway, on the Luzerne Road, it's better to have only one entrance there coming out. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a recommendation? MRS. PULVER-Well. we're just sending this to the Town Board, correct? MR. BREWER-With a recommendation. - 46 - '- -- MR. MARTIN-A recommendation for approval, or a recommendation with conditions, or denial. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY CONSIDER APPROVAL, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: With the following conditions: That as many trees as possible should be preserved. That the applicant should provide a drainage and grading plan so that the project impact on surface drainage and stormwater runoff can be determined. The entrance which was to be blocked off or emergency only is to be left open. so there will be vehicle access to it at all times. and the engineering comments of May 13th be addressed. water main should be six inch minimum. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1993. by the following vote: MR. NACE-Do you feel that a drainage plan is necessary? MR. YARMOWICH-I only question whether or not, my comment was to ask the engineer for the applicant to address it. The engineer has gone on record saying that drainage will be accommodated in the road side swales and so forth. I find that response, coming from the person who is most familiar with the site and how it will be developed, to be adequate. If you feel otherwise, you may certainly continue with that requirement. MRS. PULVER-No. I guess my feeling is that, when you present this to the Town Board. that you present what you feel is going to handle the drainage and stormwater runoff. exactly what you said here. Then they won't be asking the same questions. MRS. PULVER-And the engineering comments of May 13th be addressed. Water main should be six inch minimum, and they understand that. MR. YARMOWICH-I believe that comment was addressed. There was, in fact, a note on the plan, indicating that those would be met. I guess, how does the Board feel about requiring a grading plan to be developed? They can be individually terraced lots. They could be lots terraced in multiples. I think the mobile home park developer ought to have some guidelines. MR. NACE-I can produce a typical arrangement. MRS. PULVER-I think for the Town Board, yes. You should present some sort of lot to the Town Board. AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan MRS. TARANA-Now, this never comes back to us? MR. BREWER-Never again. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE I WR-1A HARRY RUECKER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CEA LOCATION: WESTERLY OF CLEVERDALE RD. AND SOUTHERLY OF GUNN LANE PROPOSED THREE LOT SUBDIVISION. (APA) TAX MAP NO. 12-3-18 LOT SIZE: +3.289 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WALTER REHM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 41 - "- ".---. Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 15-1992, Harry Ruecker - Final Stage, Meeting Date: May 18th, 1993 "pro;ect Description: The applicant is before the Board for final approval. He is proposing to subdivide a 3.28 acre parcel into three lots. The property is located on Gunn Lane across from Lake George. The parcel currently has four structures on it. Lots two and three will each have a house on it. Lot one has two houses on it, one of which will be removed. The remaining houses will be sold with the lots; it will be up to the purchasers to keep them or remove them. The houses are currently seasonal structures. The lots will be serviced by indi vidual on site septic systems and water. The proposal also ties in with a proposal to construct a single family house on an adjacent parcel. The septic system for the house is to be located on one lot. The subdivision is located within the Adirondack Park and the Lake George Critical Environmental Area. Proiect Analvsis: During preliminary subdivision review there was found to be no significant problems associated with this subdivision. Preliminary approval had several conditions; these conditions are as follows: 1) There will be no water rights with the lot. 2) erosion control measures will be implemented while removing the eXisting bUilding on lot one, 3) there will be an area reserved on lot one for a septic system and the associated easement for an off site parcel. Summarv/Recommendations: Other than the conditions outlined above, there does not appear to be any outstanding issues or problems associated with this subdivision proposal. Provided the conditions are noted on the final plat. the planning staff can recommend final approval of this subdivision." MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? That is the final map right there? MR. REHM-That is the final map. The only change is the sewage disposal area is defined by meets and bounds, and we also have courses and distances. MRS. TARANA-And are these conditions listed on there, that Scott mentioned? MR. REHM-Are the conditions listed on the map? No. they are not. MR. LAPOINT-You have no problem with us listing them in our motion? MR. REHM-None. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1992 HARRY RUECKER. Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: For proposed three lot subdivision, with the following conditions: One, that there will be no water rights with the lots. Two, erosion control measures will be implemented while removing the eXisting building on Lot One, and, Three, there will be an area reserved on Lot One for a septic system and associated easement for an off site parcel. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1993, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 21-93 TYPE: UNLISTED GLENS FALLS CEMENT CO.. INC. ZONE: HI-3A OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: 313 LOWER WARREN ST. CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW COMPRESSOR BUILDING BUILT IN 1920. THE OLD BUILDING IS TO BE DEMOLISHED AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ONE - 48 - --- .----/ AND THE NEW ELECTRIC WORKSHOP. TAX HAP NO. 113-2-1 LOT SIZE: (WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 5-12-93) 9.61 ACRES SECTION: 119-21 D(l) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 21-93, Glens Falls Cement Co., Meeting Date: May 18, 1993 "Project DescriPtion: The applicant is , proposing to construct a 1,700 square foot compressor building. The building will replace an existing electrical building which will be demolished upon completion of the new building. The site is located on Lower Warren Street, and is zoned HI-3A. Pro;ect Description: The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; The building is located in the interior of the site and is not visible from outside the immediate area. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; This is not an issue. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; This is not an issue. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; This is not an issue. 5. Adequacy of storm drainage facilities; This is not an issue. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; This is not an issue. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other sui table plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or 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; This is not an issue. 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-And we do have a recommendation from Warren County. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They concur with local conditions. MR. BREWER-Okay. questions? Is there anyone on the Board that has any MRS. TARANA-The only question I would ask is a typical one. Was the application signed. and just ours was not signed? MR. HARLICKER-No. It's not signed. MRS. TARANA-Well. I would just note that it should be. MR. HARLICKER-It' s signed on the authorization, but not on the application itself. MR. BREWER-Okay. project? That's the only problem we have with this MRS. TARANA-Well, I would just note that. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. He can sign it before he leaves. MR. BREWER-We've got to do a SEQRA on this. Wait a minute. Should I open the public hearing first? I'll open the public hearing. Anybody? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT - 49 - - ---./ PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 21-93, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GLENS FALLS CEMENT. for the construction of a new co.pressor building to replace an old co.pressor building built in 1920. The old bUilding is to be de.olished after construction of the new one and the new electric workshop., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1993, by the fOllowing vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-93 GLENS FALLS CEMENT CO.. INC., Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Construction of a new compressor building to replace old compressor building built in 1920. The old bUilding is to be demolished after construction of the new one, and the new electric workshop. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE - 50 - _.---' ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Okay. I've got one item I'd like to discuss for just a second. I don't know if everybody will recall it or not. Ed. you probably will, and Carol will. I don't know if you will or not, Corinne. I looked on the agenda for the Zoning Board, and Charlie Diehl, of Geneva Estates, do you recall that, Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well. he's in for a variance. He wants to develop that six acre parcel, and my recollection of that was that we granted him the clustering provision, because he was going to leave that six acres as open space. MRS. PULVER-Just to back up, this is the trailers? He wanted the lots for the trailers? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. Right. There's that weird lot at the end. MR. BREWER-Right. I've got a map of it, and I'll just show you. Well, I think, myself, that he should come back as a new subdivision if he wants to develop that land. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. null and void? I mean, doesn't it make the original approval MR. BREWER-It goes in direct conflict with what we did. MR. MARTIN-He'll have to come back to you for a subdivision, but even to do that. MRS. PULVER-But if he gets the variance first, our hands are tied. MR. MACEWAN-Wait a minute. If you guys gave him okay for a clustering provision to keep that open space, isn't he breaking the rules for clustering provision? MR. MARTIN-Yes, but he could get a variance for that. MR. MACEWAN-So that's a sneaky way to get around the whole thing. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but he's got to get it yet. going to be taken lightly. I don't think it's MR. BREWER-Well, I guess what I was saying, or thinking, Ed, is I'd like to write a letter to the Zoning Board and ask them to deny the variance on those reasons. MR. LAPOINT-Well, not deny. I would put it straight back to what we approved, and, the thing is I may not go along with a strong enough recommendation to deny, but if you were to put it to them straightforward what our intent was when we subdivided it, on a factual basis, and let them evaluate it from there. MR. BREWER-All right. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. BREWER-All right. provision. Our intent was to grant the clustering HR. MAR'rIN-What I would recommend is the Board, by resolution, direct the Chairman to write a letter to the Zoning Board, and then we can attach that resolution to the letter. MRS. PULVER-I would like to see the letter though, before I. MR. BREWER-That's not a problem. The meeting is June 2nd. Then I'll write the letter. I think it should come from the Planning - 51 - -- ,,-..- Board, though. MR. LAPOINT-Here's the deal. These things should be as straight forward, finding of facts, but not opinions. MRS. PULVER-Right. That's what it needs to be, the facts. MR. BREWER-I'll come in Thursday afternoon and write the letter, and Thursday night we'll have a copy of it, at the meeting, and then we'll pass a resolution to send it to the Zoning Board. MR. LAPOINT-Great. MR. BREWER-I just wanted to let you know where I was coming from. MR. MARTIN-I've got one last thing. on the planning study Route 9 and 254. To bring the Board up to date, a consultant has been retained, and work is underway. The there will be public meetings Thursday, June 3rd, both in the afternoon and evening. 1:30 and 7:30, for anybody who'd like to comment, and what I'd like to see out of this. the ultimate end result I'd like to see, and other communi ties do it. is an actual adopted plan that anybody who develops in that area has to develop in conformance with this plan. MRS. PULVER-Well, that has to be adopted by the Town Board, though. MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly. MRS. PULVER-Okay. enforce it. So, once it becomes Town Law, then we can MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MACEWAN-I've got a question for you. What rule of thumb do you use to send stuff to the County? MR. MARTIN-That's mandated by law, Town Law, I think it's Section 239M, all site plans and variances go to the County for a review. Subdivisions, by Town Law, do not. MR. MACEWAN-Why? That's weird. MR. MARTIN-That's just the way it is. Right now, most municipalities are considering that's the law or the law says, you do it that way, or by mutual agreement of the two municipalities. Right now, we're looking at the idea of amending that, and reaching a mutual agreement where only certain things would be sent to the County, projects of a certain size, that trip a certain threshold, because right now we're sending up variances to the County where somebody puts a deck on the side of their house, and needs a variance. it's going to a County Board for review. That's crazy. MRS. TARANA-Just two quick things. When Roger was told he could not vote, he had to abstain on the Satellite Dishes, what was the reasoning behind that? I didn't hear it. MR. MARTIN-I don't know. I think that's a good question to ask of the Town Board. I don't know, quite honestly, where that came from. MRS. TARANA-I would like to take it to the Ethics Committee, because we're constantly asked by you to give our input, and when he gave his input, he was told he couldn't vote. MR. MARTIN-I think that, I don't know where that was coming from. MRS. TARANA-The Town Attorney said that the Town Board suggested he abstain from voting. I'd like to get that cleared up. I just wanted to make one comment, because I keep seeing this thrown back in our faces all the time. Things that are said at Sketch and - 52 - , "- Preliminary, it's like, especially Mike O'Connor, takes that as, anything that's said. as that's a final decision that's made, and I think that that's wrong, if we get intimidated like that, and he does it to us all the time, either publically or outside. He'll say, but I understood what you meant, blah, blah, blah. Now, if it's not a motion, if it's not agreement from everybody. If it's a motion it's one thing, but if it's people who are just commenting, or if he throws in an aside, like, I think at final I want to do this and this. does anybody have any objection? You may not at that moment. and because you don't voice anything right then and there doesn't mean when he comes back, or anybody else comes back, that we can't make comment to it then, and he's thrown that up in our faces a couple of times. He tried to do it again tonight, I think, and I think we just have to be a little leery of that. Motions are one thing, but just comment is another. MR. LAPOINT-It's a solid way to fight the bureaucracy, though. MRS. TARANA-Yes. and we fall for it all the time. MR. LAPOINT-We fall for it. Right. MRS. PULVER-The only thing I feel about that is if you're going to, and this is only with what you're saying, is that if you're going to criticize him for saying that you said this and he believes it to be true, then we as a Planning Board can't say, well, read our minutes, you know, this was our intent. now these were our words. Although we didn't explain it, this is what we meant. We're trying to do the same thing that you're saying now that he can't do. MRS. TARANA-No, not at all. That's not what I said. If that's the impression, that's not correct. He comes in and he says, well, you said something and something and something. MRS. PULVER-Yes. He's reading your intent of what he thinks your intent was. MRS. TARANA-If a motion is not made that is not binding, whatever is said is not binding, unless a motion is made, and agreed upon by all the Board. MRS. PULVER-That's true. However, if it's not in the motion, what you said, it's not binding, but we as a Planning Board don't have this thing with Diehl in our motion. but we want it binding. MRS. TARANA-Well, I wanted to make that comment. MR. BREWER-It's in his restriction. though, in his letter of intent to us. MRS. PULVER-But it's not in the motion. That's what she's saying. We said it, but we didn't put it in the motion. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 53 -