Loading...
1993-11-16 _/ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16. 1993 INDEX Resolution of Recommendation on the Route 149 Re-zoning 1. Resolution of Recommendation on Rural Home Occupation Change 1. Resolution of Recommendation on Minimum Lot Requirements Change 2. Resolution Regarding Subdivision for James Girard for Acceptance 3. of Land in Lieu of Recreation Fees. Site Plan No. 19-92 Jerry Brown 4 . Site Plan No. 57-92 TPI Staff Leasing 7 . Subdivision No. 4-1992 FINAL STAGE Guido Passarelli 9 . Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 3-93 Guido Passarelli 19. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16TH. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK EDWARD LAPOINT MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN CAROL PULVER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-~AMES MARTIN STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI RESOLUTIONS: RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION ON THE ROUTE 149 REZONING. MR. MARTIN-What I'd like to do is propose, if the Board wouldn't mind postponing this until your meeting next week. Because of the fact that I'm a resident on that road. I excused myself from participation on that study. and Scott's the one that should really take you through that. and if you wouldn't mind postponing for a week. and what we're looking for is a resolution of recommendation from the Board with any changes or comments you have on the study. That'll go on to the Town Board. MR. RUEL-Tabled until. what. the 23rd? MR. MARTIN-Yes. just a week from tonight. MR. BREWER-Okay. Next item. RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION ON RURAL HOME OCCUPATION CHANGE. MR. BREWER-Does somebody want to make a motion? MRS. TARANA-I don't know how important it is. Jim. On the FEAF some of the questions weren't answered. Is that just because they don't apply? MR. MARTIN-Yes. that's the reason. MRS. TARANA-So we don't care if they're blank? Okay. MR. BREWER-Anything else from anybody else? MRS. TARANA-Do we have a resolution for this? MR. BREWER-Do we have a prepared resolution. Jim? MR. MARTIN-I don't think so. It recommending that the Board. that'll. Board. recommending that they approve Ordinance. would be just a motion again. go on to the Town or deny the change to the MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY APPROVE THE CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE REGARDING RURAL HOME OCCUPATION. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 16th day of November. 1993. by the following vote: - 1 - AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. LaPoint ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION ON MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS CHANGE MR. BREWER-Would anybody care to discuss any part of that? MRS. TARANA-Could you just. real quick, explain exactly what that all means? MR. MARTIN-The original Ordinance. in 1988 when it was passed. the amendment, it had a three year window for grand fathering of existing lots. That expired in ' 91. and what the Town qUickly found was it was yielding a requirement for a lot of variances. because the grand fathering was eliminated. and therefore any lot that wasn't of the required size, lets say if you had three acre zoning. wasn't three acres in size, they needed a variance. So the Town put back in a grand fathering clause for preexisting lots. I think it's in Section 179-76. that re-established grandfathering for preexisting lots throughout the Town, but what was left out were lots in the APA. and we're continuing to find a lot of variances being caused by that not being in there, and quite frankly even Jim Hotaling from the APA has said you're the only Town that has that clause. Everybody else in the APA has grand fathering for preexisting lots. So. we're just cleaning it up and clarifying grand fathering for preexisting lots. even in the APA. MR. BREWER-And that would mean forever. Jim? MR. MARTIN-Anything that was preexisting as of the Ordinance, providing they can meet the. well. there's one of two cases. providing they can meet the setbacks of today' s standard. If they're not in a Planning Board approved subdivision. they have to meet the setback requirements of today' s standards. in today' s Ordinance. If it's in a Planning Board approved subdivision, then they have to meet the standards that were in effect at the time the subdivision was approved. It essentially establishes grandfathering that's permitted other places in the Town in the APA. Because we've had about. I'd say nearly a dozen of these since the grandfathering was passed. You'll see the notation in your books. It was passed in November of 1992. and we've had about a dozen of them since then. and every time it's been like an open and shut case with the Zoning Board. They've approved the variance in a matter of minutes. but it's caused a month's delay for people. and for what appears to be no good reason. MR. BREWER-Are you happy with that? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion. or recommendation? MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD TO ACCEPT A REVISION TO TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 179-76 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY CALLED GENERAL EXCEPTION TO MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 16th day of November. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE - 2 - ---,,' ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan RESOLUTION REGARDING SUBDIVISION FOR JAMES GIRARD FOR ACCEPTANCE OF LAND IN LIEU OF RECREATION FEES. MR. BREWER-Do we have a prepared letter or anything for that, Jim? MR. MARTIN-No. we just have. this actually should have been. I think you have a letter there. maybe. from Mr. Hansen, the Recreation Director? It should have been in your packets. Well. a letter was sent from Harry Hansen recommending that the Town accept the dedication. The Recreation Commission's been to the site. seen the property. They discussed it at their meetings. I think a representative. Mr. Girard was at their last meeting. and discussed this. and they're in favor of accepting the land. and this is really cleaning up an outstanding item that's left, I don't think you've signed the plat yet. Tim. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MARTIN-And we're waiting to resolve this issue before you can. MR. BREWER-That is the land over on Cronin Road? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's the one. it would be west of Halfway Brook. south of Cronin Road. MRS. TARANA-Just out of curiosity. at what point do we start going into that business that we learned. about from Dick Boos. about having to have a written statement and all that. or the need for recreation and? MR. MARTIN-I've got to take that up with Paul. I was waiting, he's got a lot of end of year things to clean up. and with the new Board coming in and all. but I wanted to take those changes up with Paul. There's a number of things that came out of that meeting that I think we've got to get cleaned up in our Ordinance. and we've got a number of changes we're going through right now that you just moved on. I don't like to get too many of these things in the hopper at once. It gets rather confusing to keep track of them all. but I think that will be the next wave. I would say in the next couple of months we'll be taking up the changes regarding this. as well as public hearings for modified subdivisions and things like that. MRS. TARANA-I can see letting this one go by, but I think. because this has already gone through the process. but it seems like any new subdivisions that come along now we should be doing whatever it is that supposedly was required as of July 1st. MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think what would be a good idea is maybe take this issue up with Paul and see what we do as an interim process here, if we go along with the State regulations. or if we stay with out existing regulations and our local law. I really don't know which way you should go with that. MRS. TARANA-I didn't know there was a choice. MR. MARTIN-Well. Paul's told me. in the past. where our laws don't match up with the State. it should be. our laws take precedent. as a Town law. MRS. TARANA-So maybe we can get that resolved before we have any new projects come? MR. MARTIN-Well. yes. You've got a big one coming up. like Passarelli's. here. it's 130 some lots. That's a sizeable amount of a recreation fee. or dedication of land. or whatever. I'd recommend, yes. we get it straightened out as quickly as we can. - 3 - ,- MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. RUEL-Is it up to the Planning Board to recommend to the Town Board? MR. MARTIN-Recommend acceptance. MR. RUEL-Acceptance of? MR. MARTIN-The proposed dedication of land. MR. RUEL-Of land in lieu of recreation fees on the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Well. that's really not a proper way to say that. The fee is always in lieu of the land dedication. The land dedication is the first mechanism in which should be applied if that. MR. RUEL-What do you call it, land dedication. you call it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. just land dedication. It's not in lieu of fees. The fees are in lieu of land, not the reverse. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO ACCEPT LAND DEDICATION IN LIEU OF RECREATION FEES ON THE JAMES GIRARD SUBDIVISION. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 16th day of November. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan SITE PLAN NO. 19-92 JERRY BROWN EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL. SEE LETTER DATED 10-28-93 FROM KINGSLEY. TOWNE & MCLENITHAN. MR. BREWER-Okay. and would you read that letter. please? MRS. TARANA-October 28th. 1993. Town of Queensbury. Attention: James Martin. Director of Planning and Zoning. regarding Jerry Brown's Used Auto Parts. "Dear Mr. Martin: As you are aware. this office represents Mr. Jerry Brown. d/b/a Jerry Brown's Used Auto Parts. I am writing this letter on behalf of Mr. Brown to respectfully request initiation of whatever steps are necessary to extend the time within which to construct the improvement which was the subject of last year's Planning Board application. As you will recall. the entire matter was settled by stipulation of the parties dated December 31. 1992 (copy attached). Mr. Brown expects to have his financing in place so that this project can be completed during the 1994 construction season. My intent is to prevent a lapse of the approvals and/or building permit issued by the Town of Queensbury. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or comments. please do not hesitate to contact me at our offices. Very truly yours. Kingsley. Towne and McLenithan. P.C. Michael Cusack" MR. BREWER-Okay. and when does his approval run out. Jim? MR. MARTIN-I think it's in December, and he was trying to. MR. BREWER-Go right through the end of '941 MR. MARTIN-Right. He's looking at. it appears to me. something through the spring. at least. of '94. So I would say. yes, a one year extension would be. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to do that? - 4 - ~' MR. RUEL-The extension would be until when? MR. BREWER-12/31/94. He's building a bUilding. isn't he? MR. MARTIN-Yes. As I recall. there's construction of a bUilding involved. MR. BREWER-The fence is, I think. a separate matter. as I remember. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-This is for site plan approval. then? MR. BREWER-I think he got a variance to put the building up, wasn't it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-And he had a site plan. and it was approved. and he just hasn't done it yet. MR. RUEL-So we would be making a motion to extend a site plan approval? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. RUEL-Site Plan No. 19-92? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. RUEL-Until December 31st. 1994. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. TARANA-When I looked at the site plan review. it said to construct a six foot stockade fence. and it says. this approval is for the six foot fence only. So I took this whole thing to mean it was just talking about the stockade fence. It says the applicant will re-apply for site plan review for the storage building. That's what was attached to this. MR. BREWER-Maybe it is just for the fence, because. MR. MARTIN-Whatever the site plan was for. it would be then just the fence. MRS. TARANA-I mean. I can't understand why he couldn't have put the fence up in a year. MR. MARTIN-I think it's rather sizeable. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute, now. The fence was just from his existing building over to the property line. isn't it? Do you remember that. Ed? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I made the motion. We weren't ready to do the building for one reason or another. So we divided it apart. Again, I think I recall I would have given him the whole ball of wax that night. There was no way to get a compromise amongst us. MR. RUEL-And then you said. should re-apply for site plan review. MRS. TARANA-For the building. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. well that was the compromise. to get the vote. MR. MARTIN-If you want to put it off for a week. I can get the file here and the minutes. because that's what was before them. MR. LAPOINT-Just the fence. - 5 - MR. MARTIN-Yes, just the fence. MRS. TARANA-And I'd like to hear from him why he can't put the fence up before '94. MR. BREWER-There was a lawsuit and everything about the bUilding. because the Planning Board thought he had to get a site plan approval. and he ended up not having to get a site plan approval. MR. MARTIN-You can put it off a week if you want. I think it encompasses three acres of property. MR. BREWER-Why don't you get the file. and we'll find out exactly. MR. RUEL-Can we grant the extension. and just stipulate that it's for the site plan? MR. BREWER-No. we'll. Why don't we just wait until next week. and then MRS. TARANA-It doesn't run out until December 31st. MR. MARTIN-Did you get the entire thing, the court case. the court findings? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. but that has nothing to do with this. MR. BREWER-That's for the building. remember? MR. MARTIN-Yes. but if you refer to the second page. MR. LAPOINT-Shall not be required to re-apply for site plan review for the storage building. Okay. MR. MARTIN-The decision of the Queensbury Planning Board dated June 16, 1992. Site Plan No. 19-92 requesting permission to construct a six foot fence on the premises at issue shall be construed as final approval and the petitioner shall not be required to re-apply for site plan review for the storage building shown on the property prior to making an application for building permit to the Town of Queensbury. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. That's signed by our attorney. So that's. so we ought to be able to approve it, pending the conditions of this agreement. Correct? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I would think. That's what I recall. MR. RUEL-I think you ought to make the resolution. You know more about it. MR. BREWER-I think when he came in. as I remember it. he came in and wanted to put the fence up. and we said, you have to get a site plan approval for the building. and he said, no, I don't. and I think that's where the lawsuit came in. and we. MR. MARTIN-I remember saying that to him. argument with him. I was having the MR. BREWER-That's right. We lost. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So lets give him the fence and the building. MR. BREWER-Right. He can do the building without site plan approval. but I guess what they're saying is. how long is the fence? Is the fence 700 feet and he needs financing for the fence. or is the fence 200 feet. and he just didn't do it? MR. MARTIN-Well. I could find that out. I can't recall that much. MRS. TARANA-I think we better be clear on what we're approving. - 6 - - _/ MR. BREWER-I think if the fence is 200 feet. I think two years to put up a 200 foot fence is. we have some court battle about that right now. for 60 feet of fence. MR. MARTIN-Less than that. MR. BREWER-I know it. So lets find out what it is. and we'll come back next week and make a decision. MR. RUEL-So we just table it? MR. BREWER-Yes. just table it. MOTION TO TABLE EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN NO. 19-92 JERRY BROWN. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 16th day of November. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan SITE PLAN NO. 57-92 TPI STAFF LEASING MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN REGARDING CHANGES TO ORIGINAL PLAN. HANDICAP RAMP MOVED FROM THE SIDE MAIN ENTRANCE TO THE REAR ENTRANCE. THE REAR PARKING LOT WAS ENLARGED TO ACCOMMODATE AN INCREASE IN OFFICE STAFF. MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have a letter. MRS. TARANA-October 20th, 1993, "To Whom It May Concern: I authorize John Matthews, The French Mountain Enterprises. Inc., to represent TPI Staff Leasing. Inc. at the Planning Board meeting in November 1993. and to answer any questions about our site plan modification. Thank you for your cooperation. M.E. Tippett, Vice President" MR. MARTIN-And there's also another one dated the same date. Corinne. MRS. TARANA-"To Whom It May Concern: TPI Staff Leasing, Inc. is resubmitting its site plan due to the fact there were changes from the original plan. One. the handicapped ramp moved from the side main entrance to the rear entrance. Two. the rear parking lot was enlarged to accommodate an increase in office staff. May I point out that over 500 feet of grass. by 65 feet wide is still owned by TPI. as our property is 726 feet deep. Thank you for your cooperation. M.E. Tippett. Vice President" MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions at all? MRS. TARANA-The only question I had was. the handicapped parking is still staying on the side, but the handicapped ramp is being moved to the rear? MR. MARTIN-No. The handicapped parking is in the rear. right next to the ramp. MR. BREWER-It was on the side. and they moved it to the back by the ramp. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I checked the permeability and all that. matches up. and they're all within those. It still MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? - 7 - MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-92 TPI STAFF LEASING REGARDING MODIFICATION TO ORIGINAL PLANS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE I MR-5 GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY RD. OPPOSITE WALKER LANE. NAME: BAYBROOK SUBDIVISION FINAL APPROVAL FOR PHASE I. 59 LOTS CROSS REFERENCE: UV I 130-1992 FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT 3- 93 (DEC) TAX MAP NO. 60-1-4 LOT SIZE: + 82 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS. CLARK WILKINSON. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 4-1992 Final Stage. Guido Passarelli. Meeting Date: November 6. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking final approval of phase one of this subdivision. Phase one includes 46 residential lots and 13 office lots. The installation of the sewer system is also part of phase one. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The outstanding issues are as follows: 1. The sewer system. 2. All engineering concerns have to be addressed. 3. A plan for maintenance and ownership of the wetlands is needed. 4. The Board requires letters from Paul Naylor. Tom Flaherty and Mike Shaw. concerning roads. water and sewage. 5. Because it is surrounded on three sides by roads and the building envelope is very small. consideration should be given to eliminating lot 124 and adjusting the lot lines of nearby lots to incorporate it. 6. Because of problems with maintenance, the islands in the center of the cuI de sac should be planted with crown vetch in addition to the trees. 7. No stop signs are shown. 8. DEC stream crossing permits required. 9. Because of the existence of a 35 foot no disturb buffer along the brook, the buildabilityof lots 11 and 10 should be examined. The possibility of combining the two lots should be considered." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have notes from Tom? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. Town Engineer. dated November 15. 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments: 1. The proposed ownership and corresponding parcel identification for residual (wetlands) that are not residential building lots should be indicated on all plan sheets. 2. Zoning boundaries adjoining and opposite the subdivision should be indicated on drawings C2. C3. and C4 (A183-12 A. (8) ) . 3. Ad joining and opposite property ownership should be indicated on all plan sheets (A183-12 A. (11». 4. A drainage easement is required for the proposed underdrain outfall bed located in the residual area at lots 110 and 111. 5. An existing pond located on lot 4 appears on drawing C5. This feature did not appear on previous submittals. The Planning Board may wish to reconsider lot 4 configuration and use based on the newly identified natural feature. 6. Perimeter sediment control should be located on the grading plans to protect downslope areas from sediment during earthwork. In addition, a reference should be made to the New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control with respect to the temporary and permanent structural and vegetative practices to be implemented during construction. 7. Conflicts appear to exist between subsurface road drainage systems - 8 - and sewer systems as follows: - CB #17/MH #17 - CB #25/MH #35 CB #31/8" sewer between MH's #24 and #25 8. Roadway subsurface underdrainage systems should be connected with pipe at the following locations: - CB #24 to #20 - CB #31 to #34 - CB #44 to #42 - CB #29 to #33 9. Grinder pump/pressure sewer details should be provided for the system proposed at the Schofield Court cul-de-sac. 10. Profiles should indicate the following: Proposed and existing water main crossings including pipe location, depth and size. - Proposed cuI vert inverts and sizes. - Drop sewer manholes where sewer inverts are.separated by two (2) feet or more vertically. - Sewer size for 8 inch proposed sewers. 11. The existing 12" water main along existing Meadowbrook Road would appear to conflict with proposed 8 inch and 10 inch sewers indicated on the College Avenue and Crystal Avenue profiles, respectively. 12. Where vertical separations of 12 inches minimum between the outside of crossing sewer and storm drain pipes cannot be maintained the pipe below should be concrete encased. This should be addressed where the proposed 10 inch sewer crosses beneath the existing 60 inch culvert under Meadowbrook Road. An encasement indicated on the profile according to road centerline stationing. 13. A drop sewer manhole detail should be added. 14. The sewer and water main crossing detail should include adequate provisions for anchoring the upper vertical bend from upward forces. 15. The typical hydrant installation detail should indicate the standard hydrant setting location with respect to the edge of proposed roadway wing swales. 16. The marker post proposed with the typical valve installation detail is not appropriate for the residential setting of the water system proposed. The valve marker post should be deleted. 17. Concrete collar pads at water valve box lids should be the same dimensions for hydrants, typical line valves. and tapping valve details. 18. The piping excavating and backfill detail pavement repair thicknesses should match the typical roadway section." MR. MARTIN-And then you have Dusek. and two from Mike Shaw. a couple of memos, one from Paul Do you want those read in also? MR. BREWER-Yes. why not. MR. MARTIN-Okay. To Mike Shaw. from Paul Dusek. Town Attorney. Dated November 8. 1993. regarding Passarelli - Bay Road Subdivision Our File No.: 93-875-TQ "I acknowledge receipt of your memo dated November 4, 1993 concerning the above-referenced matter. At this time, I am a little confused as to the additional information that is desired with regard to this project. As I am sure you will recall. we discussed the cost of using the Hiland Pump Station and ultimately. that information was also previously discussed with Tom Nace. At this point. I am waiting to hear from your office, as well as Tom Nace's. as to whether it is necessary to use the Hiland Park Pumping Station. If it is. it is necessary for me to take the same up with Hiland Park's attorneys. and it may also be necessary to make application in court. My recollection is that we have been at this stage for many months. Originally. the Town thought that it was necessary to use the Hiland Park Station and a process was begun to acquire the same. As I am sure you will recall, Mr. Bowen then indicated that there was plenty of capacity at the Pump Station and it was not necessary for us to utilize Hiland Park's share. Since that time, it is my understanding that the feeling is that there is not enough capacity and that Hiland Park's share may have to be used. At this point. I am not able to assist the Town any further in this matter until a decision is made as to whether it is neces,sary to utilize the Hiland Park Pump Station. I trust that you will find the foregoing helpful. If you should have any further questions or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesi tate to contact me." To Paul Dusek, from Mike Shaw. dated November 4, 1993, regarding Passarelli's Bay Road Subdivision Sanitary Sewer Service "As you may know. the final planning board approval for this subdivision is set for November 16, 1993. The sanitary sewer issue is still up in the air. At this time. Tom Nace, Mr. Passarelli's Engineer. has told me that they are willing - 9 - -- - to look at either alternative for sewering this subdivision. He said he needs to make a cost comparison between the two alternatives. Tom is currently waiting for the town to give him the cost for using the Hiland Pump Station. I assume that we are waiting for the results of the court hearing on Hiland Park before these costs can be calculated. As soon as possible. I would like to have a meeting to discuss the town's position on the important issue. Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated." Then this is a letter dated November 9. 1993. Tom Nace. from Mike Shaw. regarding Baybrook Subdivision "Dear Tom: Please refer to the following comments as a result of reviewing the sanitary sewer plans for the proposed Baybrook Subdivision. 1. Manhole No. 19 needs inside drop detail. 2. All manholes should be water tight. 3. Manhole frames should be Campbell No. 1009. 27 7/8" frame, 25 3/4" cover. 4. All manhole wall penetrations to be pre casted or core drilled and rubber booted. 5. Plans do not show laterals for each lot. 6. Plans need sanitary sewer trench detail. 7. Plans need force main detail. 8. Grinder pumps should be installed in each home and property of the homeowner. It may be noted that the current plans to use the Hiland Park Pump Station and extending the Hiland Park Sewer District to include this subdivision is still under negotiations. If this concept is accepted. a district extension will have to be completed. which include the following steps: 1. Map plan and report. 2. Signed contract for a district extension. 3. Public Hearing. 4. D.E.C. sanitary sewer plan review. 5. Any buy-in fee to be paid. If you have any questions on my comments. please call me at my office." MR. BREWER-Okay, and we have someone here representing the applicant. Do you want to make any comments? MR. MARTIN-I'd first like to offer one additional staff comment. It was just learned recently that the Recreation Commission has looked at offer of land by Garth Allen. along the eastern side of his property. where he is proposing his 90 units. It's a substantial offering of land that will now give the Town quite a holding of land. if it's accepted. in the Halfway Brook area, and it's further discussion that the Recreation Commission would like to look at developing a neighborhood park on this land of Garth Allen. If that does. in fact, come to pass. I think some plan should be put in place to actively integrate connection of this subdivision to that neighborhood park. as best as it can be done. either through an internal walkway. or a sidewalk along Meadowbrook Road. or something like that, so people living in the subdivision can have access to that park. MR. BREWER-It'll be a Town owned park and maintained by the Town. then? MR. MARTIN-Right. I mean. this may be years down the road. but I think it's years down the road before this subdivision is ultimately built out. So the plans should be made now. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. First of all. for the record. my name is Clark Wilkinson of Haanen Engineering representing Mr. Passarelli on this subdivision. I might as well start and go right through, if you don't mind. Most of the comments are relatively minor in nature, with minute details here and there that have to be picked up on the plans. The biggest issue outstanding is the first issue on the comments from Staff, and that is the sewer system. and you're aware, there's a letter in here from Mr. Dusek and Mr. Shaw. It's my understanding, at this point in time. that Mr. Shaw wants to use the Hiland Park Pump Station as much as possible for this project. I spoke with him at length today, and that's what he wants as a decision from the Town. Even if that's utilized. we still have to go through the district extension of the Hiland Park Sewer District for this project. and that's ultimately a Town Board action. If it's found that the Hiland Park Pump Station doesn't have adequate capacity. or that the buy-in fees are cost prohibitive for this project, then we originally proposed a pump station on this site. - 10 - and Mr. Shaw indicated that that would be acceptable. but first preference is to use an existing pump station, rather than have two within a short distance. If, indeed. we used a pump station on- site, we'd still have to create a district. The question of what district that would be in. whether it would be Bay Road district or a separate district for this project is up in the air. and again. that's a Town Board action. and reviewed by DEC and everything else. So. at this point in time. the sewer issue is that public sewers are available. It's just a matter of what district and where it's going to go. and ultimately, again. that's a Town Board action for the extensions. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-For the record. my name is Leon Steves. and the Board is looking at a plan that's showing a sewage system. If the plan is approved by the Board. and we don't get a sewer system. obviously. the plan is no longer approved. That's simple. So really it shouldn't be an issue for the Board to dwell upon at all. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. WILKINSON-As far as the second comment from Staff, all engineering concerns. I'll go through the points from Tom Yarmowich after this. Thirdly. the maintenance and ownership of the wetlands. I spoke with Mr. Passarelli today. His intention is to offer the wetlands to the Town for park land. A formal written notice has not been presented to the Town Board as of yet. That process would be followed through. and it would be up to the Town Board whether or not to accept that land. If not. then he would retain ownership of that. Fourthly, our office spoke with Paul Naylor, and he had no major concern with this project. As a matter of fact. he no comment at all. He said he looked at the plans. and he didn't even write a letter. Mr. Flaherty, I met with him this afternoon. He had a couple of minor points in addition to some engineering comments that Rist-Frost had in reference to water lines. His major concern was. make sure we show. if there's any vertical interference or the possibility of interferences between the water and sanitary that we should show it on the plans. and this is a minor detail which we will take care of. As far as Mr. Shaw. there's letters attached from him. Comment Number Five from Staff. we've looked at Lot 124. There's a little bit of modification in that area. We can enlarge Lot 124 to make the building envelope a little larger. but we still feel that it's necessary to lose the lot. We can shift lots. It would be along Troy Avenue, Lot Numbers 135. 136. 137, and 138. By shifting those around, there's excess area and enough road frontage to incorporate a little more area into Lot 124 and make that configuration a little better. MR. BREWER-That means you make the Lot Number 125 come straight up. MR. WILKINSON-Probably it will do that also. We'd extend the lot line behind 136 through 38. and extend that directly out to the right corner. but as it exists. it will still meeting zoning code and show the house can indeed be put on it as is, but we'll try to modify it to make it a little better. MR. BREWER-Could you just come over for one second and show me on this map? MR. WILKINSON-Sure. MR. BREWER-Are you talking about making this line come straight up? MR. WILKINSON-Straight up there, adjusting these lots. This lot has extra area and extra frontage. and there's a couple of the lots that have a few feet of extra frontage. So we'll shift this around and make this one a little better. - 11 - MR. BREWER-Yes. 134's kind of wide. MR. WILKINSON-So in this area. we'll adjust those lines to make this a little more useful lot. We'll still have the same number of lots that meet all the zoning. As far as Item Number Seven. stop signs will be shown on the actual final plans. That's a minor comment. Item Number Eight, the DEC Stream Crossing Permits have been applied for. I courtesy copied Mr. Martin on our actual application. as well as an application which I believe you have a public hearing tonight for. on the Town Wetlands Permit. I spoke with Al Kazinski from DEC this afternoon, and we have a letter forthcoming which he actually sent and mailed, showing (lost word) application that we have to put into a public notice, put into the paper, and their review process has started. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. Did you talk about Item Six? MR. WILKINSON-No. I missed it. My fault. I'm sorry. Item Six, planning the crown vetch is no problem. We'll show that on the landscaping plan. we'll put it into the cul-de-sac. MR. RUEL-My question was who has the responsibility for maintenance of that area? MR. WILKINSON-The cul-de-sac is the Town. That's a highway. MR. STEVES-It has to get approval from Paul Naylor to put anything in that cul-de-sac. MR. MARTIN-We ran this idea by Paul. and he likes it because the Crown Vetch is a plant that doesn't require any maintenance. You don't have to mow it or anything. and it's perennial. It comes back every year. It grows to about a foot to eighteen inches in length, and that's as high as it gets. It flowers and dies off every fall and comes back in the spring. It fills out. It'll spread, and it'll provide a nice green, low maintenance in the cul- de-sacs. MR. RUEL-The reason I ask is that I live in an area that was built three years ago. has a cul-de-sac. No one seems to have the responsibility to maintain it. and it's been a disaster ever since I've lived there. MR. MARTIN-It probably is the responsibility of the Town. but the Town just simply doesn't have the. MR. RUEL-The Town was contacted, and they're not doing anything about it. MR. MARTIN-They just don't get a chance to. probably the problem. I think that's MR. BREWER-Priorities. Roger. MR. RUEL-Is it always automatically the Town's responsibility? MR. BREWER-If they own it. MR. WILKINSON-If it's within the right-of-way. it's the Town's responsibility. MR. MARTIN-That's comment from now approach provides pleasing. but yet why I think we're going to see this as a general on. with cul-de-sacs. because this type of something that's visually, that's aesthetically is low maintenance. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. On to Number Nine. the 35 foot no disturbance buffer along the brook and the buildability of lots 11 and 10. As - 12 - ',,-, far as I know. I still believe that lots 11 and 10 still meet zoning requirements. and as for modification of them, that would be taken up during site plan review. As far as the subdivision I believe it meets all the requirements. It shouldn't really be' an issue. and will be addressed further during site plan review for those lots. MR. BREWER-Those lots won't have site plan review if you're going to build a house on them. MR. STEVES-No, they will, because that's the traditional, everything west of the Brook. MR. WILKINSON-The Brook is utilized as a buffer between the business and residential. MR. BREWER-How big would that lot be if you made the property line where the Brook is? Would it still meet the lot size? MR. WILKINSON-It's possible. we could look at that. bring the back line up to the center line thereabouts? Are you saying of the stream, MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-We can look at that. It's possible. MR. BREWER-Yes. but then you're going to create land in the back that nobody owns. Why couldn't you make. like my land goes to the center of a brook. MR. STEVES-Yes. I think the thinking here was that lot the larger the capability of the building. building is determined by the lot size. Since it is a building, we want to give it some flexibility. Of other controlling feature is the parking. the larger the Because the professional course. the MR. BREWER-So you're really not going to be able to put anything. well then what's the setback 75 feet of the brook? MR. WILKINSON-That's for the building only. MR. BREWER-But parking lot can go how close? MR. STEVES-Thirty-five. MR. BREWER-Okay. The stream is no man's land. Nobody owns water. MRS. TARANA-If something happens to. that stream gets clogged up, plugged up. whatever. who maintains the stream? MR. WILKINSON-It's a DEC jurisdictional stream. Stream. It's a Class CT MRS. TARANA-So they'd have to come in and do whatever? MR. WILKINSON-Yes. They're looking very hard at those crossings. Class CT Stream. To go on to Tom Yarmowich's comments, Comment One, I believe. was already dealt with in Scott's comments. as far as ownership of the wetlands. Comment Two. the zoning boundaries. will be placed on the plans. It's a relatively minor thing. it was Ie ft off. The ad joining property owners. it's the same thing. They were inadvertently left off the plans, but they'll be put on the plans. Item Four. drainage easement. the reason it was left off was because of the proposal to turn the land over to parks. but we will still show an easement, because if it's not accepted, then an easement has to be in place. So we will include an easement. Comment Five. the pond that exists on the site is a relatively shallow pond. a foot. a foot and a half, and it's in very poor condition. It happens to be within the 100 foot buffer of that - 13 - '--- wetland. but the intentions at this point in time are to fill that pond in because it's really of no value. no use to anybody, because it's pretty deteriorated. It's in tough shape. MR. BREWER-Is there water in that pond now? MR. WILKINSON-About a foot. a foot and a half of water. It was man created. MRS. TARANA-There' s not springs or anything under there that's feeding it? MR. WILKINSON-Not as far as I know. brook, and this actually sits a wetlands. The wetlands is just off the little bit higher than the MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-Further detailing on sediment protection. in reference to the New York Guidelines will be added to the plans. Conflicts I've already looked at. and they will be fixed for final plans. The under drains. these catch basins that are referred to are the side coming across the road. They were inadvertently left off. and they'll be added. The grinder pump and pressure sewer details. again. is addressed by Mr. Shaw. and they will be detailed as per Mr. Shaw's requirements. The profiles, again. in conversations with Mr. Flaherty. there are a few areas where there may be vertical clearance problems. We will indicate those on the plans and show what's going to happen, as far as the crossings. and the depths and which will go under what. We may have to concrete encase. in a couple of instances. if we can't get clearance. A drop manhole detail which is again. is going to be added to the plans. Inverts the sizes on those proposed culverts, those are the ones on the stream crossings. They're on the stream crossing details. but they weren't transferred to the other sheets. They will be transferred. Number Eleven. the existing 12 inch water main is shown along Meadowbrook Road. does not show in profile. We will show it in profile and callout any conflicts. if they exist. As a matter of fact. I'm going to include a note to field locate that water line. because in speaking to Mr. Flaherty today, they're not exactly 100 percent sure where that water line is and what depth it's at. Apparently. when that was put in. they encountered rock along Meadowbrook Road. So he's not sure of the actual depth, even. Number Twelve, vertical separations of 12 inches minimum, if we don't meet that we will show concrete encasement for less than 12 foot separation. but we will try to maintain 12 inches. as much as possible. Number Thirteen, a drop sewer manhole detail, as I said. will be added to the plans. Number Fourteen. that's another detail that's going to be added to the plans. It's part of a detail that we already have. that was chopped off to save room. because we didn't think it was applicable. Fifteen. the hydrant installation. again. I spoke with Mr. Flaherty on that comment as well. We will show a two foot distance between the valve and the hydrant. and then a variable distance between the valve and the main, that's what they require. and that's what we'll show. Sixteen. the marker post. we'll remove that. Also. Mr. Flaherty didn't think it was necessary either. Number Seventeen, I spoke with Mr. Flaherty in reference to this comment. and he wants us to eliminate the concrete collar pads totally. so we don't have to worry about trying to get them the same size or anything. Number Eighteen. the detail will be added to the plans for that. In reference to Mr. Shaw's letter of November 9th. the engineering comment, again. an inside drop manhole detail will be added to the plans. For Item Number Two. our detail already shows water tight inserts to be in the manholes. Number Three, we call our manhole covers to be heavy duty. We will modify them to be called out as per Mr. Shaw's comment. Number Four, we will add a note to the manhole detail as per his comment. Number Five. we will show laterals for all lots wi thin Phase I. When we come back for approval for Phase II and III, we will show the laterals for those - 14 - -- phases as well. In the instance where the sanitary sewer will have to be installed along Phase II, on that road that goes (lost word) connections will be installed during the main installation. and we will show them on the plans as well. Comment Number Seven, more detail will be shown for the force main. and any clean outs and things that are necessary for that. Number Eight. a note will be added to the plan within the area of the cul-de-sac to the grinder pump, indicating that the grinder pumps will be the property of the homeowner. This is for Mr. Shaw's protection. so that when a homeowner calls in and says. my grinder pump is gone. he'll say, well, that's your problem. It's in your house. That's why. MR. BREWER-Every single house they're going to have to have a grinder pump? MR. WILKINSON-No. There's only. I believe. four lots on the cul- de-sac. Everything else is gravity. As far as the other items, the Hiland Park sewer. I believe I discussed that in detail. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any comments? MR. LAPOINT-Well. I guess the key thing to focus on is the sewer system. and whether or not we can improve it. not knowing what the connection's going to be. or not. MR. STEVES-Or if. MR. LAPOINT-Or if. MR. STEVES-And we don't know where we are either, whether we've got the cart before the horse or not. I'm not sure. I think we have to get subdivision approval. so we can go in and make an application for the sewer extension. before we can go for the sewer extension and then go for the subdivision. So who says we've got the cart before the horse. I don't know. Maybe we do. but I think that if you approve a subdivision that shows the sewers. and we can't get the extension. then it's null and void. Now, again, we have to go to the Department of Health and the DEC, and both of them would want to see that it's all in place before they approve it. So we aren't asking for an approval tonight with your seal and signature, but rather a conditional approval, which is an approval, giving us six months to complete our work. and probably we may be back wi thin the six months time saying. can we get another six months. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. and then you go right down the list. and a lot of these are just additions to the drawings. You have your stream crossing applications in to DEC, 35 foot buffer zones. do not disturb is okay. if that conforms. Rist-Frost. you could just add notes for Items One. Two, Three. Four. and I'd put on the drawing for Number Five that you're going to fill in the pond. if that's your intention, or to take it right off. MR. WILKINSON-We'll pull that right off the plans. MR. LAPOINT-Number Six. okay. that's a note to be added. and I guess we have to take your word for it. without studying the plans. that the conflicts in Seven and Eight can be resolved. MR. WILKINSON-It's location of the CB's that are located where a main crosses. and it's because the two plans don't overlay that pipe those four were missed. It's a matter of moving the catch basins so only one of them occurs in a low point. so we may have to move a manhole. but it's not a major deal. MR. LAPOINT-And the grinder detail should be a no brainer. right? MR. WILKINSON-No brainer. MR. LAPOINT-Profiles. again, we have to take you at your word that - 15 - --- -- you can make sure all these conflicts in Number Ten are resolved. MR. WILKINSON-Again. if there is a conflict with the sanitary. we will try to adjust the sanitary. There is some play in it, but in most areas there's not. so you bring the water line under it. That's where the need for the details to be shown. MR. LAPOINT-Vertical anchoring. no problem. Hydrant detail. no problem. marker post. is that those red and white things I'm seeing allover the Town now? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-They're a certain distance away from a buried up hydrant in the bank? MR. WILKINSON-Three feet at the most. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. and you're going to eliminate the concrete collar pads? Yes. Again . it seems like there's one philosophical question. which is about the sewer and the cart before the horse and all the rest of it's engineering detail. MR. BREWER-I can understand that. but I think that. in my opinion maybe. if we waited a week. and is it possible to have these details done and Tom Yarmowich can sign off on this? MR. WILKINSON-Within a week? Sure. MR. BREWER-And then we can give you your approval. I don't have a problem with the sewer. giving you an approval contingent on the approval. but to me. there's so many. MR. STEVES-If it would help you any, Tim. understand, now. that DOT and DOH have to look at these plans. and they. too. have comments and changes they want to make. MR. BREWER-I'm just strictly talking about our engineer. MR. STEVES-I understand. We may be making additional changes that they want. and we have to abide by them. MR. LAPOINT-Right. but I mean. just boil it down so Rist-Frost only has. like, two comments. MR. BREWER-Yes. that's my only feeling. I mean. I don't have a problem with anything. but when I see a letter with two pages of comments. I'm not an engineer. and it would just. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. but look at the number of pages in the drawing, too. MR. BREWER-Yes. I understand. In retrospect. it evens out. but I just would feel better if an engineer looked at it and said. okay, fine. I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't know how everybody else feels. MR. RUEL-Yes. open items? I feel exactly the same way. What are the major MR. WILKINSON-The sewer issue is not a matter of whether we can get into a sewer. It's which one we're going to be allowed to get into. That really boils down to the litigation that's going on in Hiland Park area. and also whether or not. if that's going to be dragged out. and that's going to be deemed that in order for the Town to take over a portion of the Hiland Park capacity. they have to pay a fee. If that fee's too high. then we don't want to try to go there because it's going to be cost prohibitive to try to go there. - 16 - '--- MR. RUEL-But you're prepared with whatever alternative they come up with? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and al ternati ves can be done very easily. especially the way the site is designed. It all goes to one point because we're not going to down to the pump station. It's a matter of whether we go to our own pump station and pump back across the site to Bay Road somewhere. or down along Meadowbrook Road to a manhole in Meadowbrook Road. on the south side of Halfway Brook. MR. RUEL-Yes. but have you done your engineering homework for each one of these al ternati ves. so that in the event that one is selected you're all set. or is this something that's open and you'll have to do? MR. WILKINSON-It's something that's open and we have to do, once we determine where we're going ~o go. First preference. in all cases. is to go to existing pump station. and that's what we've chosen. MR. RUEL-But that's not up to you? MR. WILKINSON-That's not up to us. MR. RUEL-Right. Any other open items that you know of? MR. WILKINSON-The issue that you brought up in the beginning. about the parks. I'm not sure sidewalks along Meadowbrook Road. at this point in time for Phase I, is necessary. but in future phase. maybe it's necessary. As far as connecting with that park through internal. we adjoin with lands of the Bay Meadows Golf Course. and it's not our land. so we can't tell you yes. we can get there through land without going over Meadowbrook Road. MR. BREWER-Do we have some way to put a map together. Jim, that shows where they propose to put that park? MR. MARTIN-Yes. that's what I'd like to do. See. it's just happened earlier this week. that we really don't know what land is proposed for sale. and if it does have any adjoining area along the southern edge of his project here. but I'd like to see that actively. you know, if that could be, even a 20 foot easement or walking path established there. so people in the subdivision could have direct access to that park. without going out into the street, or getting into their car. MR. STEVES-Again. you're talking in either Phase II or Phase III, then. MR. MARTIN-Right. It would be in Phase III along College Avenue, somewhere. MR. STEVES-So it has no effect on Phase I. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. STEVES-We have preliminary approval on all phases right now. I mean. we're only seeking final approval on Phase I tonight. MR. RUEL-Dedication of land is associated with Phase III only? MR. STEVES-No. all three phases. MR. RUEL-AII three. MR. MARTIN-I think you're choosing the fee in this case. right? MR. STEVES-Right. The issue of where the easement may be would be in the Phase III. conditional. MR. MARTIN-Right. - 17 - -- MR. STEVES-And once we find that out. we'd be glad to cooperate. MR. MARTIN-You're not proposing any land for dedication, are you? MR. WILKINSON-At this point in time. Mr. Passarelli indicated he wanted to ask the Town to accept the wetlands. A formal request hasn't been done yet. but that will be done. and it's up to the Town Board whether or not they will accept that. MR. MARTIN-Well. there's a process and procedure to follow for this. It needs to be initiated with this Board. MR. BREWER-It starts here, and then we ask the Town Board for comments. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You have to go to the Recreation Commission and the Town Board for the ir recommendations. I'm recommending you start that as soon as possible. because if it's denied. then you're going to have to pay the fee. and the fee needs to be paid before the plat's signed. MR. WILKINSON-But again. the plat won't be signed until all departments are satisfied. and all agencies are satisfied. such as the Department of Health and DEC. MR. MARTIN-Right. I'd initiate that process as soon as possible, even at their next meeting I would initiate that process. which is a week from tonight. MR. BREWER-Okay. That is acceptable with you. to button up these comments and go from there next week? MR. WILKINSON-How about the next item, the wetlands? MR. MARTIN-Could I have a submission date and a deadline? So I can get these to Tom? Are you looking to get him back here for Tuesday? MR. BREWER-We're looking to table for next Tuesday, yes. MR. MARTIN-Well. you've got to have some time for Tom to review them. He couldn't be here tonight. MR. WILKINSON-I'll give him a call tomorrow. Most of them I can handle by Friday with no real problem. MR. MARTIN-I'd like them delivered to my office. MR. WILKINSON-Do you want a full resubmission. or just a couple of sets to make sure that we have what is. for the file? MR. MARTIN-That's up to the Board. MR. WILKINSON-Again. there's a lot of paper involved. MR. BREWER-Just a couple of copies. so we could have one for our files, one for Tom. and then a letter from him signing off. MR. MARTIN-Why don't we say three sets. MR. BREWER-There's no need for everybody to get a copy. MR. MARTIN-Three to me, and I'll bring them over. distribute them myself. I like to MR. WILKINSON-Okay. No problem. I'll give them to you, hopefully by Friday afternoon. MR. MARTIN-Okay. By Friday. then. you're saying? - 18 - ~ MR. WILKINSON-Yes, Friday afternoon. MR. MARTIN-Say Friday at 2 p.m. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion to that effect? One other thing I would like a letter is. Tom's got this about. Comment Number Seventeen. about the collar pads. maybe we could give Tom Flaherty a call. just two sentences. or one sentence. saying they're not required. or whatever. Okay. MOTION TO TABLE FINAL PASSARELLI. Introduced adoption, seconded by STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. by Corinne Tarana who 4-1992 GUIDO moved for its To November 23rd. to give, the applicant time to address all the engineering comments. to resubmit three sets of plans by Friday, two o'clock. Friday November 19th. Duly adopted this 16th day of November. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Ruel. Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Okay. Now the Freshwater Wetlands Permit. MR. MARTIN-You have a public hearing on that. Tim. NEW BUSINESS: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-93 MR-5 GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE PROPERTY INVOLVED: TAX MAP NO. 60-1-4 AREA OF PROPERTY: +12 ACRES APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONDUCT A REGULATED ACTIVITY WITHIN 100' OF DEC FLAGGED WETLANDS. THE REGULATED ACTIVITY INCLUDES THE DISCHARGE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES WITHIN THE 100' BUFFER AREA. TAX MAP NO. 60- 1-4 CLARK WILKINSON. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. My first comment is. are they allowed to build homes within 100 feet? MR. MARTIN-With a DEC Permit they are. MR. WILKINSON-And if I'm not mistaken. there's no actual homes within the 100 foot buffer. MR. MARTIN-No. I didn't see there was any actual homes. but there is some disturbance. MR. RUEL-What's this permit for. from us? LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Any activity within 100 feet of a wetland needs a DEC Permit. and a Town permit. MR. WILKINSON-If it's a Town wetland. MR. MARTIN-We have very old Freshwater Wetland Ordinances on our books still. They're dated '76. MR. BREWER-You probably should let them be superseded by ENCON's. MR. MARTIN-Usually what happens with this is we defer to the jurisdictional agency. which in this case is DEC. - 19 - MR. BREWER-Okay. Well. I'll open the public hearing. anybody here that wishes to speak on this? Is there PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN HUGHES MR. HUGHES-John Hughes. 375 Bay Road. I've got one question, as far as you're talking about alternatives there on the sewer, and I'd just like to know what the alternative is. If he doesn't get into the Hiland System. are you going to create a new sewer district up Bay Road. or how else can they go. other than back there? MR. MARTIN-I think the alternative was the alternative pump station only. right? They'd still be going down Meadowbrook Road, John. MR. WILKINSON-The pump station. yes. going down Meadowbrook Road. MR. HUGHES-There's enough capacity in that line. then, that you can? MR. WILKINSON-We'd put our own lines. MR. MARTIN-Then the other limiting factor would be the pump station at Meadowbrook Road. which is the large pump station. There's enough in there to accommodate this project, but that's going to be the next concern. in years to come. MR. BREWER-Now. what happens. Jim. if they go into that pumping station. and then three years down the road. Hiland Park decides to fill up? Their capacity's gone. or? MR. MARTIN-No. There's enough. see. Hiland Park. my understanding is they have a reserve capacity in the Meadowbrook Pump Station, and they have a built-in capacity in their pump station further up Meadowbrook Road. So the general larger pump station is down. it's at the. it's the one near the mini-storage place there. That's the large pump station that takes all the sewer. that's where Wal-Mart sewer is even going. It goes down to there and then gets pumped in to the City. That has, I believe, a capacity in the neighborhood of. what, 470.000 gallons or something like that. and that's approaching being used up. but it's not there yet. There's enough there to accommodate Hiland and this. though. MR. BREWER-And Bay Meadows? MR. MARTIN-Yes. gallons. Bay Meadows. I think. was figured at 26,000 MR. BREWER-I guess what mY question would be is, this gets built. Bay Meadows gets built. then Hiland Park blooms. Who's responsible to put a pump station in big enough to handle that also? MR. MARTIN-No. It's all there. I'm saying. the capacity's there to handle all that now. but you're talking about. this is 75.000 gallons at build-out. I think Bay Meadows is 26.000 at build-out. and I forget what Hiland's was. I think it's in the 180 range or something like that. MR. HUGHES-Is that present pumping station going to be able to handle all that? MR. BREWER-But you just got done saying it's at 450. or whatever you said. and it's almost there now. MR. MARTIN-With the approvals. it'll be almost there now. MR. BREWER-With the approvals, pending. The capacity is not almost there now. - 20 - MR. WILKINSON-That's my understanding from Mike Shaw. Things that are on the Board right now. is nearing capacity. MR. BREWER-Okay. I misunderstood you. MR. MARTIN-And then there's a way to upgrade that pumping station with a change in the motors and impellers. It'll add like another 100.000 gallons on to it. or something like that. It's a relatively minor modification, but then it is a concern. in the years to come. because there's a lot of vacant land left in the sewer district. and people are paying tax now, with the understanding they have rights to a certain capacity. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else. John? MR. HUGHES-Just. I may have misunderstood it. but I think that you asked, as far as the Brook. if it got plugged up. who's responsibili ty it was to take care of it, and I think somebody answered DEC. Didn't you say, DEC? MR. WILKINSON-Not to take care of the problem. but to govern it. Okay, but the problem ultimately lies in the homeowners and also the Town. to some extent. because their right-of-way is going to be going over a culvert, once that culvert is in place and accepted. MR. STEVES-Well. it's a very difficult question, John. and it's a loading question. too. but you're talking about kids flooding a brook. and kids will do it. They always have. They always will, and who's responsible to remove that dam that the kids put in. I think that's what you're really want. MR. HUGHES-Well. not so much the kids as the beavers. even. MR. BREWER-The beavers, I think. would be ENCON. wouldn't they? MR. MARTIN-I would think so. but I have seen kids. though. block up a brook. If the Town decides not to take the wetland areas, what's going to happen with them? Are you going to keep owning them, Guido, or are you going to let them go for taxes? GUIDO PASSARELLI MR. PASSARELLI-I don't know what to do. MR. HUGHES-That's another question. if the Town does take it. can they use it for recreation. the wetland? MR. MARTIN-They could. but they'd be subject to the same permitting procedures as anybody else who wanted to conduct an activity in a wetland. MR. WILKINSON-Again, it would probably be a minor activity. You're talking. probably. a nature trail type of thing. MR. HUGHES-What I'm mainly concerned with. I guess is probably, they're taking more property off the tax rolls. I don't mind if it's going to be put to good use. but if it's not going to be used for just a nature trail. MR. LAPOINT-See, the Government puts a regulation on a person's personal property. which absolutely limits his right to do anything on that property. So. if you ask me. they should take ownership of the damn stuff, take it off your hands. I mean. picture yourself owning some wetland that you bought 20. 30 years ago. and all of a sudden. somebody comes along and says. no, you can't do anything on it. MR. MARTIN-But yet they'll tax you on it. MR. LAPOINT-Yet they'll tax you on it. So, to me. it's. the best - 21 - use of the property is to turn it over to the municipality or the State Government. what's the sense in a private owner owning something that he can do nothing with. MR. HUGHES-What my feeling is. I've got a big pile of rocks up there. the Town keeps raising the taxes on it. It gets more valuable every year. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MRS. TARANA-Now. we haven't heard from DEC yet? MR. MARTIN-No, not on this. We don't have any response back right. MR. WILKINSON-We have a completed application. That's all. which means it's been distributed to the water. and. MR. MARTIN-Do you know how long of a time frame you're looking at for a permit? MR. WILKINSON-I talked to Al Kazinski today. probably about two to three months. MR. MARTIN-Two to three months. MR. BREWER-Would anybody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 3-93 GUIDO PASSARELLI. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: With the stipulation that they meet any and all conditions of a DEC permit. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. MacEwan MR. MARTIN-Have you got a couple of minutes? I wanted to speak to you. There's been a group that's been appointed by this Board. I don't know if you're aware. It's referred to as an Environmental Committee. and they've been in place, I didn't know this until like six or seven years. MRS. TARANA-My husband was one of the first people on it. and it's never been. MR. MARTIN-It's never been officially, it has been officially recognized. The Board did appoint them and give them a mandate to assist the various Town Boards in environmental matters. It's a general mandate they have. I met with them last night. and they wanted. what they're looking for is a more structured importance. so to speak. and they have none right now. and they're a pretty dedicated group. and they're a pretty dedicated group. They've got a soils engineer in their group. I think they have a civil engineer in their group. and they're offering their help to Boards if they need it. and I thought what we could do is maybe work them into the process similar to what we have with the Beautification Committee. MR. STARK-Let them review everything. - 22 - -- MR. MARTIN-Yes. They review certain projects. and if they have any comments, they pass it on to you, prior to your meeting, in your packets. and you could consider their points of view on various things. So I welcome their input. and I think it's pretty good of them as volunteers to the Town, to be willing to do this, and I said I'd take it up with the various boards and see if you'd like to do it. I explained to them the SEQRA process go through in a lot of your reviews. and they should probably look at things in that context. MRS. TARANA-Can they get a copy of our agenda with those little blurbs, so they have an idea? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I was going to get them a copy of the agenda. Maybe I'll have them come in and review some plans and details, if they have some questions. they'll type up some comments for you. It'll be another point of view for you to consider as you go through your environmental review. MR. BREWER-Kind of like the Beautification, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Very similar to that. They'd be willing to re- structure their meeting nights. Right now they're in the third Monday of the month, and they were going to go to. like. the second Monday, so they'd always be in advance of your Planning Board. MR. RUEL-Did they write up something on what they expect to do. the responsibilities. etc.? MR. MARTIN-All they really have right now is like I said, to assist the various Town Boards in environmental matters. MR. RUEL-Well. that's kind of loose. isn't it? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-They want a mandate. tell them to get after DEC about the landfill closure and this and that, and to ease up on these type things. If they wanted to really get something accomplished, go right up to State. MRS. TARANA-Is it a full committee? MR. MARTIN-I don't know how many members were appointed. I know they rattled off, there were five people there. and I think they had a couple missing. So, they're a six or seven member Board now, I think. MR. BREWER-Where do we stand with Eggleston? MR. MARTIN-They're coming in next month. problem. That's an increasing MR. BREWER-That's what they said last month. MR. MARTIN-So, he'll be in next month. The Harts have retained an attorney. Garfield Raymond. and they're going to make a real issue out of it, if something's not done. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. and I don't blame them either. Because. I mean. we gave this guy a good faith approval. We loaded him up with stipulations. and he's creating trouble. MR. BREWER-The other day I went by there. four cars in that fenced in area, a snowmobile on a trailer. I mean, this guy is just. MRS. TARANA-Yes. that's not right. MR. RUEL-Conditions don't seem to work. - 23 - MR. BREWER-It's not fair to them. but on the same hand. if you're getting walked on by. you know. one bad apple spoils the whole bushel. so to speak. MRS. TARANA-Jim, can't we act. even if it goes to court? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It shouldn't defer you in your review of it, your procedure. As a matter of fact. I think any court action is going to defer to you in the first instance anyhow. That's what happened with Service Master on Corinth Road. He just got to court, the judge said, go back to the Planning Board and see what they say. MR. BREWER-I don't know what other alternative this guy can have. I mean. what possibly. maybe I'm missing something, if somebody else can fill me in. What the hell else could he do? MR. MARTIN-I think that's silly. I don't know why he can't put up a fence. MR. BREWER-There's nothing more simple than. we told him to put up a split rail fence. We didn't design it for him or anything. but. MR. RUEL-Are you talking about the guy on Corinth? MR. BREWER-Yes. He's got a piece of string with ribbon on it. MR. RUEL-I know you're dwelling on one. but it's important. because it's typical of others. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. RUEL-You happen to know about that one. but there are many others. We have given them conditions. and I'd ride by. and they'd never meet the conditions. because apparently we don't know how to enforce it. MR. MARTIN-Where is this. though? Formula One. I'd like to know. Name me another one. besides MR. RUEL-Well. I remember a couple I've come across. MR. MARTIN-When you get them. write them down and give them to me, because that's what I'm looking for. I know of many violations. MR. BREWER-And I also went by the coffee bean place. I go by there, too. It's going to look really nice, but that berm that they said they were going to put up. boy, they've got a pile of dirt there. it doesn't look big enough to make a raised flower bed. MR. RUEL-Yes. but they're not finished yet. MR. BREWER-Well. they've got all the grass planted and everything, Roger. MR. RUEL-They do? MR. BREWER-They certainly do. I went by there today. and there were spreading the seed this morning. When I went by. it was covered with hay. at lunch time. MR. RUEL-Was that to prevent cars from cutting across? MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. STARK-One inch is a berm? MR. BREWER-No. They said a foot. this big around there. There's a pile of dirt about MR. MARTIN-That's not a berm. That's a pile of dirt. A berm is a linear. I've already contacted Jon Lapper about the Olive Garden. - 24 - - I told him, I said, Jon. I'm getting nervous. I don't see anything being done there. to comply with the site plan? MR. BREWER-On the blocked off part there? I've been thinking about that. too. but if you can see where they paved. they cut the pavement right off. and I thought. well. they're probably going to. MR. MARTIN-I'm telling you, I hope they size those catch basins right in front of that store. because I'm telling you, that is a hole. MR. STARK-Why the hell couldn't that be higher there? MR. BREWER-Why couldn't it be higher? That bank runs right up like that. MR. STARK-No. no. make that higher. so then the back part going in to where the old Boardman's was. there was a step down or something. because this thing here. the water's just going to go. MR. BREWER-Brian Granger told me that, when he said I've got the job to pave that, and he says. man. they're going to have a lot of water there. and I hope they do something. They've got engineers. Lets see how good their engineers are. but they've made that. MR. MARTIN-See. the problem is. you've got two entities here. You've got Olive Garden is responsible for the actual construction of the building. and Howard Carr is responsible for the site work. MR. LAPOINT-Keep in mind. you always engineer things for a certain failure. that includes highways. bridges. houses. you name it. they fail at a certain threshold. and us interfering in that threshold is wrong. that people take this level of risk in anything they do. All those people who built along the Mississippi. and they built along the floodplain. they get washed out. Tough. I mean. and that's the way it is. MR. BREWER-I understand that. and that's why I said on this plan here. I'd rather have our engineer sign off on it than me. because I know nothing about it. MR. LAPOINT-Why. though? MR. BREWER-Why? That's what we pay him for. isn't it? MR. LAPOINT-No. but I mean. why. I mean, if they have water in the restaurant. they made a mistake. MR. BREWER-Yes. but why not try to prevent it before it happens? MR. LAPOINT-But. I mean, that's their decision. not ours. MR. BREWER-I understand that. but when you build your house, and the Code says two by sixes. are you going to go ahead and say. my family's going to live here, I'm going to use two by fours and take a chance? MR. LAPOINT-No. but when you build it by two by sixes. you're taking a calculated chance. period. MR. MARTIN-My only response to that would be. I wouldn't mind. yes, that's their responsibility. but when John Q. Public walks out in that parking lot and there's a big icy pond there. and he slips and falls and breaks his neck, now you've got a public responsibility. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. but I mean, the chances of that are still less likely than you driving your car home tonight. MR. BREWER-I'll make a motion to adjourn. - 25 - -~ On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 26 -