Loading...
1993-12-14 ." ( - QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 14TH. 1993 INDEX SEQRA Review Anthony Malantino 1. SEQRA Review Michael Di Palma 2. Site Plan No. 19-92 Jerry Brown 3. Subdivision No. 18-1993 Douglas & Debra Petroski FINAL STAGE 4. Subdivision No. 10-86 Stonehurst. Section II FINAL STAGE 5. Subdivision No. 20-1993 Dr. Koock Jung PRELIMINARY STAGE 13. Subdivision No. 20-1993 Dr. Koock Jung FINAL STAGE 16. Subdivision No. 15-1993 William Potvin PRELIMINARY STAGE 16. Subdivision No. 4-1992 Guido Passarelli FINAL STAGE 24. Petition for Zone Change Donald Baker No. 9-93 39. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ~ ..- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 14TH. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER EDWARD LAPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER TOWN ENGINEER-TOM YARMOWICH, RIST-FROST STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SEQRA REVIEW RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING: SITE PLAN - ANTHONY MALANTINO RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF SITE PLAN for Anthony Malantino RESOLUTION NO.: 30 of 1993 INTRODUCED BY: Corinne Tarana WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Craig MacEwan WHEREAS. Anthonv Malantino has submitted an application for a site plan review in connection with a project known as or described as construction of a 2 stall garage with attached breezeway, 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 Anthony Malantino for site plan review: 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 - 1 - -../ 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 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint RESOLUTION OF INTENT FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF THE FOLLOWING: Site Plan - Michael Di Pal.~ RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF SITE PLAN for Michael DiPalma RESOLUTION NO.: 31 of 1993 INTRODUCED BY: Corinne Tarana WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer Ruel WHEREAS. Michael DiPalma has submitted an application for a site plan review in connection with a project known as or described as a 14' x 16' addition to existinq dwellinq and also for use as a bed and breakfast. and WHEREAS. the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to commence a cQordinated 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 the 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 Michael DiPalma for site plan review: 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. - 2 - ,...,/ Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint MRS. TARANA-Are we going to do the Route 149 rezoning? MR. BREWER-Can we do that last, and then we can discuss it. MRS. TARANA-Route 149 last? MR. BREWER-Yes. Is that okay with you? MR. MARTIN-Yes. RESOLUTIONS: SITE PLAN NO. 19-92 JERRY BROWN EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL. SEE LETTER DATED 10-28-93 FROM KINGSLEY. TOWNE & MCLENITHAN. MICHAEL CUSACK. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-And we do have a letter? MRS. TARANA-And we have a letter, dated December 1st. 1993, to the Planning Department of the Town of Queensbury, Regarding the application for an extension of Site Plan Number 19-92 (Jerry Brown). "Dear Mr. Martin: I must apologize to you and the members of the Queensbury Planning Board. Due to a diary error on the part of this office. we were not able to attend the November 16th meeting of the Planning Board. Pursuant to my discussion with Pam on November 24th, I would like to confirm that a representative of our office will be present at the December 14th meeting of the Planning Board. to review and discuss this matter in detail. We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience we have caused by this oversight. Very truly yours, Kingsley, Towne and McLenithan. P.C. By: Michael E. Cusack" MR. BREWER-Okay, and we do have someone here for the applicant. MR. CUSACK-Mike Cusack. I was here last year when this matter was originally brought up. In the past year. Mr. Brown has basically been attempting to obtain commercial financing to complete the structure in question, the building which was supposed to screen the area. I do note that he's had difficulty obtaining favorable terms. based on the economic conditions which applied to conduct of business of this nature, which is. of course, the scrapping of a junk yard. but what he has done. in the interim. he's been working on for the past six weeks is the placing of a temporary fence. It's the new fence with diagonal cuts going along the property. so as to screen the area. while the financing is being straightened out. It is a situation (lost words) wi thin the next year. I'll look for a one year extension, and that's basically it. MR. BREWER-Is the extension for the building? It's not for the building, it's for the fence. isn't it? Or is it? MR. CUSACK-The site plan approval, which the building permit is based. MR. BREWER-It's all tied in together. MR. CUSACK-Yes. It's all tied in together. The settlement of the site plan approval was taken care of at the very beginning of this year, signed off on, and that was filed in the files here at some point in February or March, I believe. So then after that Jerry - 3 - ----~ was able to go out and get the building permit. He did proceed to make application. It's just that it didn't go his way. MRS. TARANA-The building is not up. that he came for si te plan review for? MR. MARTIN-You have filed a building permit in connection with this application? MR. CUSACK-I do believe that he did. Jim. but I'm not certain on that. MR. MARTIN-Because if that's the case. and I can't recall myself. but if that's the case. that constitutes action on the site plan. and then you would be seeking an extension of the building permit. and extension of the site plan would not be necessary. MR. CUSACK-I haven't seen the document myself. but what I was asked to do was come and get the site plan extended. I can look into that and report back. but I do think that he did get the building permit. I did notice the 270 day requirement that was in there. MR. BREWER-Well. could we find that out before next Tuesday. and then? MR. MARTIN-Yes. happen. That would be simple to find out. If it did MR. BREWER-Then we don't even need to be here. MR. CUSACK-Then it's not even a Planning Board question. MR. MARTIN-Then you can extend your building permit by one year by just simply requesting that it be done. MR. CUSACK-I did see that in the Codes. It said the 270 days. but I wasn't sure what the relationship of one year site plan was. MR. BREWER-Okay. then we can table this until next Tuesday. and if it's not necessary. then we'll just. you won't have to be here. and we need your approval to table. If somebody would care to make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN NO. 19-92 JERRY BROWN. Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Until next Tuesday. Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1993 FINAL STAGE DEBRA PETROSKI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE CORNER OF HOMER & EVERTS AVE. PROPOSAL PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: 107-1-4.1 LOT SIZE: 1.305 ACRES REGULATIONS TYPE: UNLISTED DOUGLAS & ZONE: LI-IA LOCATION: TO ·SUBDIVIDE A 1.305 ACRE AV 168-1993 TAX MAP NO. SECTION: SUBDIVISION JIM LAPANN. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 18-1993 FINAL STAGE. Douglas & - 4 - ---- Debra Petroski. Meeting Date: December 14. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 56.844 square foot parcel into two lots. One lot will be 28.359 square feet and the other will be 28.485 square feet. The property is located on the southwest corner of Everts Avenue and Homer Avenue. is zoned LI-IA and is serviced by municipal water and sewer. The property has two existing buildings on it. one is vacant and the other houses a gymnastics school and a day care center. The subdivision will create two lots with a single building on each lot. The applicant received variances for lot area. lot width. lot depth. side yard setback and pool setback: the applicant has a use variance that had been previously granted. PROJECT ANALYSIS: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this subdivision. The applicant revised the plan to show two handicapped parking and dumpster enclosure as requested by the Board. However. the sewer laterals for each lot are not indicated as the Board and Mike Shaw requested and the handicapped parking spaces are not the correct size. These issues have to be resolved prior to the granting of final approval. RECOMMENDATION: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this proposal. Provided a letter is received from Mike Shaw stating that the lateral issue has been resolved to his satisfaction and the handicapped spaces are modified so that they have the correct dimensions. staff can recommend final approval of this subdivision." MR. HARLICKER-There' s a letter in here from Mike Shaw. stating. "Dear Rose: I have received Donna Daly's letter dated December 9. 1993. Donna has stated that upon subdivision of this above mentioned parcel. she will construct a separate sanitary sewer service line for the Adirondack Gymnastics by July 30. 1994. Because of the current weather conditions. I find this to be acceptable. If you have any other questions on this matter. please call me at my office. Michael O. Shaw Director" MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any questions? You'll make that note. Jim. on the map. of the sewer laterals for each lot are not indicated. You will indicate them on the map. the final? MR. LAPANN-We will indicate those on a final plat for filing. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion. with that notation? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1993 DOUGLAS & DEBRA PETROSKI. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: Wi th the note that the sewer laterals for each lot will be indicated on the final plat. Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 10-86 FINAL STAGE STONEHURST. SECTION II OWNER: MAINE ENTERPRISES. INC. ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST OFF RIDGE ROAD. SUBDIVISION OF + 42 ACRE PARCEL INTO 15 LOTS. (RECEIVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 10-18-88) TAX MAP NO. 54-7-999 LOT SIZE: 42 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 5 - --/ Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 10-86 Stonehurst. Section II Final Stage. Maine Enterprises. Inc.. Meeting Date: December 14. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant received preliminary approval on 10/18/88 for 15 lots. Since that time the plan has been revised so that the lots are all one acre and an ROW has been shown to accommodate a future extension of the road. PROJECT ANALYSIS: In order to enable connection to the property to the northeast a second ROW should be shown. possibly between lots 55 and 57 or lots 24 and 51. There is approximately 68 acres between this development and the Brookfield Estates: a second ROW would allow for connection of future development of this property. and the two existing developments." MR. HARLICKER-There's also engineering comments from Rist-Frost. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Staff. Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. Town Engineer. dated December 14. 1993 "The project has been reviewed on the basis of subdivision regulations in effect from July 13. 1982 to September 19. 1988. We have the following engineering comments: 1. The extension of Stonehurst Road has multiple reverse curves. Tangents of at least 150 feet are required between reverse curves. 2. A road profile and grading plan is required. The proposed road traverses significant grades. 3. Open road drainage shall be limi ted to 350' along roads. Such a drainage system should be detailed. 4. Sediment and erosion control in accordance with New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control should be stipulated. 5. In general. sewage disposal system design should be updated to reflect current NYSDOH regulations. It is noted that: a. Current NYSDOH regulations for individual household systems do not permit raised trench designs where seasonal high groundwater is not more than one (1) foot below the surface. The log of test hole #7 on Lot 63 shows seasonal high groundwater at less than one foot. b. Raised trench systems require a minimum of 24 inches of fill below the bottom of trenches. Horizontal separation distances are measured from the edge of the fill. Well and septic placement should be adjusted as necessary. c. Well locations on lots 55. 57. 60 and 63 do not have adequate separation (200') from upgradient sewage treatment system components. d. Septic tanks should be sized according to: 3 bedrooms - 1000 gallons. 4 bedrooms - 1250 gallons. 5 bedrooms - 1500 gallons. e. Based on the length of tile field laterals specified. distribution boxes will have between 6 and 10 outlets. Specify a unit with at least this many outlets. 6. At least one (1) pair of intervisible monuments are required along the proposed road." MR. STEVES-Good evening. For the record. my name is Leon Steves. from the firm of Van Dusen and Steves. and although I refuse right at the moment to comment on Tom's letter. because I will not agree or disagree with it. I disagree with the need of having him review the project at all at this stage. This was done in October of 1988 when we got Preliminary approval. and I'm questioning why he was asked to do it again at this stage? MR. MARTIN-It was sent over as a matter of course. MR. STEVES-Why? Preliminary generally. an engineering review is done at Preliminary Stage. We're at Final Stage. So why was it done at this time? MR. MARTIN-I have no other answer than to say it was done as a matter of course. Tom. I believe. now reviews all Preliminary and Final applications. MR. STEVES-In your records. in your file there. on December 15th. 1987. you have a letter in there from Morse Engineering who to the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury regarding Subdivision 10- 86. Stonehurst. Phase II. "We have reviewed the above referenced subdivision in accordance with your letter of September 29. 1987. - 6 - -...-/ The additional material we requested in our memorandum of October 6. 1987. has been submitted on drawings received this month. We have found that the thirteen items questioned in our memorandum of October 6th have been complied with. We therefore recommend approval of the project." Tom Yarmowich has no recourse except to review the project by today's standards. not as of the date of the application. MR. YARMOWICH-That's not true. I did review these in accordance with the standards that were in place at the time. Leon. MR. STEVES- Of 1987? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. STEVES-Reverse curves were permitted? MR. YARMOWICH-With 150 tangent sections. Do you have a copy of those rules with you. Scott? I did not bring mine. MR. HARLICKER-No. MR. YARMOWICH-I have a copy in my files at the office upon which I reviewed this subdivision. This is the Board that will be making the determination on Final approval. and so I offered my comments in accordance with the regulations as they stood at the time. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STEVES-You made your comments regulations as they stood at the time? that septic tank sizes were required bedrooms? in accordance You're telling 1500 gallons wi th the me. then, for five MR. YARMOWICH-No. That's something that. MR. STEVES-Well. then. part of it is at today's standards and part of it is at '87? MR. YARMOWICH-Regardless of when the septic system is built. it has to be built in accordance with the standards in place at the time. What I'm saying is. is that these standards don't reflect. these details don't reflect current standards. MR. STEVES-That's not true at all. MR. YARMOWICH-That's not true? MR. STEVES-No. it's not true. No. subdivision plan, you go by that plan. You have an approved MR. YARMOWICH-Individual sewage disposal each and every house that is built in this of the time at which they are built. Disposal Ordinance is the. permi ts are issued for subdivision. regardless The Queensbury Sewage MR. STEVES-Changing the approval? MR. YARMOWICH-In effect. it does. MR. STEVES-Okay. I don't get into. but I don't see the need. MR. MACEWAN-Tom. all your notes here. just bringing everything up to current? MR. YARMOWICH-Not current. These comments are made to. MR. MARTIN-Items One through Four are. it says in the letter. in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations in place from '82 to - 7 - --- -.-/ '88. and then Items Five. the subsections in Item Five. A through E. relate to septic. and he's saying that it should be held to today's standards in terms of septic. MR. STEVES-We could have answered them. and we may have answered them in the past. had we had the courtesy of knowing that Tom Yarmowich was being requested to review it. We were coming in here on a Final application. We didn't know that this was going on. We knew it was going to go to the Department of Health. MR. MARTIN-Well. I apologize if there's a feeling on the part of the applicant that the Town purposely kept this a secret. That's not the case. and you should know me better than that. MR. STEVES-The date on the letter was today is December 14th. When have I had time to review it? When have you had time to review it. and when did you send it to Tom for review? MR. MARTIN-When did we send these over. Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-I received this information on December 1st. 1993. and the project was reviewed yesterday. The letter was issued today. MR. MACEWAN-I'm a little bit confused here. Items One. Two. Three. and Four reflect current standards? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. YARMOWICH-No. One. Two. Three. Four. and Six are comments generated based on Subdivision Regulations that were in effect between 1982 and 1988. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Since 1988 these Regulations have changed? Is that correct? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. MACEWAN-Item Five and all the sub notes to Item Five are all as the Board of Health stipulates now? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. The local Board of Health. which authorizes the Town of Queensbury Department of Building and Codes to issue Sewage Disposal Permits. The current Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance requires compliance with the current DOH standards. and certain modifications in the local Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-As far as I know. that's true. I've seen building permits come in for houses on lots and subdivisions approved in the mid 1980's. and today's standards apply to septic system design. MR. MACEWAN-Do all of these suggestions and comments in here bring this subdivision up to comply with current design criteria as we view subdivisions now? MR. YARMOWICH-For waste disposal. MR. MARTIN-This subdivision. since it was filed and Sketch Plan and Preliminary approval were given on the entire subdivision. the entire 65 lots. it is only held to the standards of that time period. which were the regulations which were in effect from '82 to '88. So that's why Tom reviewed this. MR. MACEWAN-Standards have changed since '88? MR. MARTIN-Right. somewhat. like in terms of road design and so on. So Tom reviewed those according to those standards. The thing that is not governed by. or that grandfathering does not apply to. is the septic system design. - 8 - '- '-' MR. MACEWAN-Have you. Leon. made any changes or modifications to this phase of it since 1988. on this drawing? MR. STEVES-At the request of the Staff. we have. We've added that continuance of the road to the southerly boundary of the property. MR. BREWER-This map is dated '87. right? MR. YARMOWICH-It has revision notes through November 16th. 1993. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. MACEWAN-And what are the changes you've made. Leon? MR. STEVES-The last revision on the map was to extend the road to the southerly boarder of the property. the future road extension. MR. BREWER-Why would they ask you to do that? MR. STEVES-Good planning. They're asking us to do the same thing up. between lots 55 and 53. I don't see a problem with that ei ther. As long as we don't have to build a road. I have no problem. because I don't think Mr. Maine has any problem with it either. We'll be putting the property into Town hands. so that if the people next door wish to have an extension of that road. they'll have the opportunity. MR. BREWER-So if the road is to be built. it's to be built by whom? MR. STEVES-The people who wish to use it. MR. MARTIN-What' II happen is. if that property develops with a future subdivision. that subdivider will be required to build that road to tie into the pavement of Stonehurst Drive here. MR. BREWER-So. if he starts building on lot. where's the road end now. lot 24 and 25? MR. YARMOWICH-You'll see there's a temporary turnaround there. at lots 24 and 25. The same case would apply in the future. MR. MARTIN-I'm saying that section. Tim. between lot 62 and 65. Do you see where I'm at? MR. BREWER-Yes. All right. I see. Jim. MR. MARTIN-The property to the south there developed in the future. that developer will be required to put the road in. MR. BREWER-Who owns that property there? MR. MARTIN-What we're proposing. see. where it says. future road. that 50 foot wide right-of-way. have that property dedicated to the Town now. so it won't be an issue. MR. BREWER-I understand that. I guess what I'm saying is who owns the property to the south now? MR. STEVES-Buckley. I believe. owns that property. MR. BREWER-Ray Buckley? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-And then when you put in that right-of-way. did it change the lot lines for lot 62 and 63? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MACEWAN-It changed the lot lines. - 9 - -- MR. YARMOWICH-No. it wouldn't. it's shown on this plat. with wouldn't be used as road. The right-of-way would exist as the turnaround. even though it MR. MARTIN-Like. for example. see where it says 140 foot distance along the southerly edge of lot 62? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. MARTIN-That reflects the distance from the corner to the edge of the right-of-way. MR. MACEWAN-Right. but prior to having put in this right-of-way. did the lot line. was it 149 feet. or 160 feet. prior to that right-of-way being put in? MR. MARTIN-I think it was a split. I think it was 25 feet off of each lot. MR. MACEWAN-So you made two new property lines. is basically what you did. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Took the 25 feet off of each person's property and made a road out of it? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Leon. I've got one more question for you. Why are you waiting five years to come back for Final? MR. STEVES-Partially due to the Town Regulations. mostly due to the Town Regulations. The Regulations stated that not. Mr. Maine is not a builder. He is a developer. He sells lots only. Some people buy lots and just hold on to them. He got caught in that trap. The requirements of the Code say that you have to have 50 percent build out. sold out. before you can come back in for Final. and that's what happened. MR. BREWER-In a phased project. Leon? Do you want to take some and then we could find out about Tom? Well. what do you want to do. time to address them. or do you. the procedure of it going over to MR. STEVES-Well. I think that I will have to ask the Board for some guidance. What Tom is asking for us to do now is revise the plan that we had approval of in 1988. Are we going backwards or are we going forwards? MR. BREWER-I think we're going forwards. I don't think it's unfair for the Town to look at a plan that's been sitting since '88 and make sure everything was right on it. I mean. that's five years. MR. STEVES-I have no problems with that. and that's why my question. are we still under the review of Final map for this? I'll have to make changes on it to agree with this letter. MR. HARLICKER-What sort of. are they going to be. you know. in order to comply with 150 feet. is that a significant modification to the road there? MR. YARMOWICH-I might suggest that the Board at least consider this. with regard to that one comment. The rest of the Stonehurst Subdivision is built with a number of reverse curves without tangents. and the Town. at one time or another. has tried to address that. in particular at the entrance. Anybody who's going through that subdivision and proceeds to this section of new road would have already experienced that condition. It's a less than desirable condition from a traffic standpoint. or from a vehicular - 10 - -- standpoint. I would expect that. I don't know what the severity of the reverse curves are. in the rest of the subdivision. because I didn't see the overall subdivision. I was only looking at this second stage. It would seem as though it wouldn't be out of character with the existing road. to waive that requirement for this particular part of the subdivision. Let me just mention one thing. There is one area of concern. Where the road is going to be descending a relatively steep grade. it requires a vehicle to go from one direct curve to another direction curve. That can be a di ff icul t situation. It's a re lati vel y steep grade. It wi II require some cuts and some fills and some grading associated with it. and it could be relatively extensive. I think that that's a condition that has to be looked at. to protect the safety and use of the road for all the people in the future. It may be reasonable to waive it in this case. It would be helpful to know how that's going to be. in terms of what the road profile's going to look like. the extent of grading. and the depth and size of ditches. Quite frankly. it would give them a typical road cross section with very gentle slopes. four to one is what's shown as a maximum grading slope. four horizontal to one vertical. It would suggest that there would be a lot of on lot grading necessary to traverse the slope as they're showing. However. you'd have to develop a road profile and a grading plan to establish the extent of that grading work necessary. MR. BREWER-I guess what I would say is what happens when. at the end of this cul-de-sac. if somebody decides to continue that. and they want to do the same thing. and it's an undesirable situation? Do we allow them to do it because we did him? MR. YARMOWICH-Well. I think the Board that is deciding on that stage of the application would be responsible for making that decision. as you are on this. MR. BREWER-How does everybody else feel about it? MR. MACEWAN-Well. I guess the thing that's sticking out in my mind most importantly right now is that seminar we attended not too long ago was talking about modifications to subdivisions and lot lines. and what can happen with this thing. and starting the procedure all over again. according to the New York State law that was passed. when did it go into effect. July 1. Jim? MR. MARTIN-I believe so. MR. MACEWAN-Which says modifications to any subdivision. no matter even if it's just moving of a lot line. which is the case here. it starts the procedure allover from site plan review. MR. BREWER-This has never been final. He's trying to get final now. So if he makes any modifications to the plan. it doesn't start the whole process over. MR. MACEWAN-I think it did. didn't it? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MARTIN-No. What was said there. too. the whole process. but a public hearing. finally approved subdivisions require starting of the whole process again. was. it's not starting of in the cases of modified public hearing. not a MR. BREWER-Right. This does not fit that description. because it's never had a final approval. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. BREWER-In mY mind. I may be wrong. but I don't think so. MR. MARTIN-And just for the applicant's future reference. Staff. as - 11 - ---- -- a matter of course. sends all subdivisions of five lots or greater off for engineering review. and that holds true for all stages of the application process. Mr. Passarelli is here tonight at Final Stage. and the reason why he's been tabled is in response to engineering comments at Final Stage. MR. YARMOWICH-I also think that this Board. or many of the members on this Board may recall a subdivision that fell into this similar time frame. it was Herald Square. Is my recollection correct? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-And there was due consideration given to the fact that a preliminary plan was approved and there was some limitations as to what could actually be accomplished. and I also reviewed that against these same regulations. I've been through this before. It's been handled in the fashion that we're addressing it right now. MR. MARTIN-And as I recall with that. they did have the same situation. this multiple reverse curves. and. as I recall. we did eliminate some of them. and not all of them. and we waived the requirement on those that couldn't be removed. MR. STARK-Tim. in the interest of giving Mr. Steves a chance to see if he can answer these. if not. table it. MR. BREWER-Well. I guess we have to decide what we're going to do. first. about the road. if we're going to allow them to continue the way they had planned. or. if that's your desire. CHARLES MAINE MR. MAINE-We plan on flattening the grade out a little bit. MR. BREWER-Okay, flatten ~t out. with that. Okay. I don't have a problem MR. STARK-I think it's a well laid out plan. MR. RUEL-I'm confused. This is Section II. Where's Section I? MR. BREWER-It's already built. It's all built. MR. RUEL-Adjoining property should be shown. They're not shown. MR. MACEWAN-Leon. would you like some time to reply to his concerns. and comments in the letter? If we tabled this for. can we sneak him in for next Tuesday? MR. BREWER-Yes. but I mean. we can't make them come back next Tuesday and tell them. no. we don't want the road that way. That's not fair to him either. He said he's willing to flatten it out and keep the configuration the way it was. Is that acceptable. Tom? I mean. if they were to flatten that out and keep the configuration the same. it would be a better situation? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. My reaction to the one in between lots 54 and 55. there's a reverse curve there. and it would appear as though they'll be going down a relatively steep grade. Without getting into it. it's physically impossible to instantaneously change direction. That's why reverse curves can cause cars to come too close to one another. especially when they pass. Where you're going down a steep gradient. if you attempt to make that maneuver. it could cause some problems with being able to track your vehicle in your own lane. These curves are not particularly severe. but remember you'll be going down a hill. and there's a potential for gaining speed as that occurs. In the case of leaving the subdivision up that road. I don't feel that that particular curve - 12 - '- is an issue. I think the one where you're traveling toward the end of the subdivision. in the direction of lot 63 and 65. is something that should be looked at. As a frame of reference. there's a difference in the subdivision regulations then and now. Right now. there's a 100 foot separation required between horizontal curves of opposite direction. At the time. it was 150 feet. and apparently that was thought to be somewhat excessive and restrictive. and so that was reduced to 100. I can't tell you what the policy on geometric design of highways is by ASHTO. which is a guidance organization. but they also endorse the tangent section in between reversed curves to some extent. MR. BREWER-You see this curve. how it reverses? MRS. TARANA-Right here. Okay. MR. BREWER-There's a slope there. MRS. TARANA-Right. I remember that. MR. BREWER-So. as you go down. you're picking up speed as you're going down and reversing directions. Going up. it's not a big deal. but going down. MRS. TARANA-Okay. and what about lot 63 and 65? How does this road go? MR. BREWER-That road comes right down. the cul-de-sac. MRS. TARANA-I thought it was going to go? MR. BREWER-No. They're reserving that for future use. If somebody goes over here to develop. there would be. out through here. MR. STARK-I don't see a problem with it. He said he's going to flatten it out. and I don't think it was that steep to begin with. We drove down in there. MR. BREWER-Well. I think we should know how flat he's going to flatten it out. MRS. TARANA-It seems like the curve at 63 and 65 is more of a problem. to me. MR. BREWER-Sixty-three and sixty-five. MRS. TARANA-That big curve right there. MR. BREWER-Why is that more of a problem. a 75 foot radius? MRS. TARANA-It's a very small. MR. STEVES-Could we table this for a few minutes and come back to it later in the agenda? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. STEVES-Maybe Charlie and I can go outside and put our heads together and come up with some solution. MR. BREWER-Sure. That would be fine. We don't have to officially table it. I don't think. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DR. KOOCK JUNG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: BAY RD.. NORTH OF CANTERBURY WOODS DRIVE. PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 38.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO (2) LOTS - ONE 36.81 AND ANOTHER 1.69 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP I 39-92 TAX MAP NO. - 60-7-5.1. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5 LOT - 13 - '--, ,--,' SIZE: +38.5 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARK LEVACK. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 20-1993. Preliminary Stage. Dr. Koock Jung. Meeting Date: December 14. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision of a 38.5 acre parcel located on Bay Road. One lot will be 1.69 acres and the other will be 36.81 acres. The larger parcel has an apartment complex on it and the smaller parcel will have an office on it. The property is being subdivided in order that the office will be located on it's own lot. Both lots will remain in the ownership of the applicant. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The subdivision does not involve the construction of any new streets or utilities. The 1.69 acre lot has a Planning Board approved site plan for a professional office: the larger lot contains an apartment complex and has enough acreage for future further subdivision and development. Access to both lots will be via an existing drive that services the apartment complex. An easement will be required to allow access across the smaller lot. This subdivision should not impact the previously approved site plan. RECOMMENDATION: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this subdivision and staff can recommend preliminary approval of this subdivision." MR. BREWER-Okay. public hearing. Does anybody have any questions? I'll open the Is there anyone here to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. TARANA-I would ask just one question. The large parcel. is that totally the apartment complex? That occupies that entire section? MR. LEVACK-Yes. Right. MRS. TARANA-I guess I'll further ask. there's no chance of subdividing that? MR. LEVACK-At this point in time. he has no plans to further subdivide the remaining parcel. MRS. TARANA-Do we have to do this? MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 20-1993. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS. there application for: is presently before DR. KOOCK JUNG. and the Planning Board an WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. - 14 - --- 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 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 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1993 DR. KOOCK JUNG. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: As indicated in the subdivision resolution as outlined by Staff. "Whereas. the Town Planning Department is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application. subdivision # 20-1993. to subdivide a 38.5 acre parcel into 2 lots of 1.69 and 36.81 acres: and Whereas. the above referenced preliminary subdivision application dated 11/30/93 consists of the following: 1. Sheet M-1. Preliminary Subdivision Map. dated 8/25/93 2. Sheet S-l. Site Plan. revised 8/26/93 3. Sheet D-l. Details. undated: and Whereas the above file is supported with documentation: 1. Staff note. dated 12/14/93 management plan. prepared by Morse Engineering. Short Form EAF. dated 8/25/93 the following 2. Stormwater dated 7/92 3. Whereas. a public hearing was held on 12/14/93 concerning the above subdivision: and Whereas. the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment: and Whereas. the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered: and Whereas. the proposed subdivision is subject to the following modification and terms prior to submission of the plat in final form: Therefore. Be It Resolved. as follows: The Town Planning Board. after considering the above. hereby move - 15 - --- to approve preliminary subdivision Dr. Koock Jung file # 20-1993. in accordance with the drawings. M-l. S-l. and D-l November 30th. 1993 as dated. Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DR. KOOCK JUNG OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: MR-5 PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 38.5 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO (2) LOTS - ONE 36.81 AND ANOTHER 1.69 ACRES. MARK LEVACK. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 20-1993. Final Stage. Dr. Koock Jung. Meeting Date: December 14. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision of a 38.5 acre parcel located on Bay Road. One lot will be 1.69 acres and the other will be 36.81 acres. The larger parcel has an apartment complex on it and the smaller parcel will have an office on it. The property is being subdivided in order that the office will be located on its own lot. Both lots will remain in the ownership of the applicant. PROJECT ANALYSIS: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this subdivision. Providing the conditions listed in the resolution for preliminary approval are met. staff can recommend final approval of this subdivision." MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 20-1993 JUNG. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its seconded by Roger Ruel: DR. KOOCK adoption. Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM POTVIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-IA CLENDON BROOK. PHASE II LOCATION: EAST OF MARIGOLD DRIVE SUBDIVISION OF 15.07 ACRES INTO 16 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV #2-1993 TAX MAP NO. 121-1-53.1 LOT SIZE: 15.07 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 15-1993 Clendon Brook. Phase II. William Potvin/AI Cerrone. Meeting Date: December 14. 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is seeking preliminary approval for a 16 lot subdivision. This subdivision is the second phase of the Clendon Brook subdivision. The project received variances for undersized lots for lots less than one acre. They are requesting a waiver to roadway intersection geometry to allow for less than 100 feet at right angles. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The subdivision appears to follow accepted planning practice. However. - 16 - .J '- -../ the short length of the paved area on the road extension severely limits the possible driveway location for lot 11. A longer paved area would allow for better access to the lot." MR. HARLICKER-This also was brought up at Sketch Plan. It wasn't really spoke of. I looked through the minutes. and it wasn't addressed there. but there's only one access to this particular subdivision. They're increasing the lots by one third. They're going to have 65 lots back there with only one access to it. That's a concern I'd like to put on the record. Also. there was talk about 'the dedication of land along Clendon Brook to the Town. That was one of the conditions of the variance that they received. So that might be addressed tonight in some way. and also. I was just wondering if the applicant or anybody has any recent conversations with the property owner to the south. or any new developments had come about. about interconnecting down to Luzerne Road. or else possibly talking to. there appeared to be some vacant land along Birch Lane. and maybe putting out a second access out to Birch Lane. if that's been looked at at all. Those are Staff's comments. One of the conditions of the variance also was declaration of restrictive covenants. The applicant has provided that. I think you've probably got copies of this. back then. In case you don't have it. I've got a copy of it here. if you'd like to look at it. It states. principally. that no dwelling shall be permitted on any lot of which the floor area space and the main structure. exclusive of porches. garages. should be less than 1500 square feet. There's also engineering comments. MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Staff. Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. Town Engineer. December 14. 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments: 1. Drawing C-l should indicate the adjoining Mobile Home Overlay zoning district boundary and the property ownership of all adjacent and opposite properties. 2. Six (6) inch ductile iron pipe in 20 ft. lengths has a minimum laying radius of 230 ft. at maximum joint deflection. The proposed water main from station 20+30 to 23+84 may require bend fittings. 3. Water fitting thrust block details are required for tees. caps and any other fittings used except restrained fire hydrant elbows. 4. At a minimum. drawing C-3 should bear a note stipulating compliance with the New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 5. The soils investigation for sewage disposal design should indicate the date(s) of testing and the determination of seasonal high groundwater in accordance with the Queensbury Sewage Disposal Ordinance. 6. A waiver for the roadway centerline curve radius of 225' as proposed in lieu of the 300' minimum radius in the Subdivision Regulations is recommended due to the configuration of the existing roads and Phase One subdivision layout. 7. The proposed road should be named. 8. Wells and septic system on adjoining properties should be shown. If none exist within 200 ft. of the proposed subdivision boundaries. then a note to that effect should appear on drawing C-2. 9. A Professional engineer's and/or licensed land surveyor's seal should appear on drawings submitted at the preliminary stage. 10. Proposed monuments should be added on drawing C-l. 11. The drywell structure shown on the typical roadway section has a reference to piping. No drainage piping is proposed. The reference should be deleted. 12. The SWM design is based on 6' diameter drywells. The details drawing (D-l) should be corrected to match drywells used in the SWM report calculations. The subdivision layout appears well planned with engineering details generally sui table for the site conditions. Preliminary stage approval is recommended with the expectation that the applicant adequately address the minor engineering comments with final stage submission drawings." MR. NACE-Okay. For the record. my name is Tom Nace from Haanen - 17 - --' Engineering. representing the applicants. and developer. Al Cerrone. I guess the first issue is Staff Comments. The one that we've addressed in writing here that I have is the road frontage in front of lots 11 and 12. and I believe that. even though I wasn't here at concept stage. that was discussed at length. I believe. from your minutes,. and your resolution of concept approval was for that road to be extended 20 feet. and we have done that. MR. BREWER-And what was the total. at 60 feet or something? MR. YARMOWICH-Let me just suggest something. Is that area that's reserved for future extension not going to be deeded as a right-of- way at this time? Is that why that little line is across there? MR. NACE-I think we agreed at the concept stage that that could be deeded as the Town wanted. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. Why not just deed it and let the person build their own driveway off the end of the Town road? MR. MARTIN-I would strongly recommend it be deeded at this time. MR. YARMOWICH-And just eliminate that line there and let the guy build his driveway wherever he wants. MR. NACE-The extra piece of right-of-way is down here. MR. YARMOWICH-The Town wouldn't maintain the driveway. but it would at least let the lot owner do what he wants from that point on. MR. NACE-We would have no problem. but we have extended the paved area so that there is 40 foot of pavement in front of that lot. As far as the second ingress and egress point. I think that was di scussed. also. at concept. We've left that provi sion for the future development to the south. which is. I think. the most likely area there to ever be developed. That's not our land to control. We can't really say when that's going to occur. I think with the development pressures in the Town it will come. MR. MARTIN-I know an active attempt was made during the variance proceeding. Mike O'Connor made an attempt to contact the property owner and negotiations were held. and they were broken off. They couldn't come to a. MR. NACE-Okay. I believe. recalling some of the other Staff Comments. we do still have the letter. I believe. that was submitted during the variance process. requesting that the Town consider taking the. I believe it was 29 acres of land in lieu of recreation fees. MR. BREWER-And that letter was submitted to us. Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. We have that. I would recommend. if you do come to an approval at this stage. I would recommend you have a second resolution to the Town Board and Recreation Commission asking for their opinion as to the dedication of this land. MR. NACE-Isn't it the Planning Board's opinion. and then looking for the Town Board and Rec Commission to take action? MR. MARTIN-What we did the last is the Chairman. on another subdivision. wrote a letter. The Board authorized me to write a letter. Tim. to the Town Board and Recreation Commission asking for their opinion at this time. It's kind of funny how it works. You get the Town Board opinion at this time. and then they're the ones who ultimately accept it later on. MR. BREWER-At our recommendation though. MR. MARTIN-Yes. and then you accept it in your final resolution - 18 - '"--, -- also. MRS. TARANA-And what about those no regulations that went into effect? We still don't have an answer about recreation land. MR. MARTIN-The Town Attorney has been advised of that months ago. MRS. TARANA-It seems to me that if there's a law in the books. we've got to be in compliance with it. We go month after month doing things that may not be being done correctly. MR. MARTIN-Paul will say. I think. in the interim. that. in cases where State Law and Town Law doesn't match up. the Town Law will take precedent. That's what he's told me in the past. MR. BREWER-Could we ask him for a letter to that effect. on that particular law? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. TARANA-I don't understand how Town Law takes precedent over State Law. I mean. that just doesn't make sense to me. In that case. why have State Law? Every town would just make up their own law. MR. BREWER-Well. I'll call him tomorrow and ask him. MRS. TARANA-Yes. I think we've got to have this decided. I mean. it probably won't effect this subdivision. It's already going. but maybe it could. because that law's been on the books since July. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. The road waivers. I believe. two of them have been requested. and you have a letter. I don't know if it was read into the record or not. from Paul Naylor. regarding the intersection. 100 foot tangent waiver. recommending approval of that. and I believe the Town Engineer has recommended waiver of the 300 foot radius. and I've talked to Paul this afternoon. He. even though the letter addresses only the 100 foot tangent at the intersection. he has reviewed the complete layout and has no problem with the road radius either. MR. MARTIN-I think he has a letter to that effect. MR. NACE-There' s a letter. just addresses the one waiver. Okay. Two. the confusion comes in that one waiver I requested with the preliminary application. that was the intersection geometry. The other waiver on the radius has been requested at the sketch plan. but I believe between the Town Engineer and Paul. both of those have been addressed. With respect to the engineering comments. I have no problem taking care of all of those comments for final. MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any questions from the Board? MRS. TARANA-And for final. Tom will look at all of these and advise us that they are met? Right? MR. YARMOWICH-Normally I would. MR. MARTIN-The Final application will be referred on for his review. just so you know. MR. MACEWAN-So what's the consensus we're going to do with that little spur? Are we going to deed that off to the Town? MR. NACE-We, if that is the Board's wish. we will show that to be all part of the road right-of-way. MR. BREWER-Forty feet left. or twenty feet? - 19 - -- MR. NACE-No. There's a bit more than that. feet additional. There's another 153 MR. RUEL-What's that. the roadway extension? MR. BREWER-That's that little spur at the end. Anything else? Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here from the public who'd like to comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOSEPH BAKER MR. BAKER-Joseph Baker. Clendon Ridge Subdivision. Lots 9. 10. and 11. I was also a spokesperson for other people in the neighborhood. We discussed this at length with Mike O'Connor. and I was wondering if there was any changes from the original plan that we went over? MR. NACE-I believe he made some changes for you during the concept phase. and addressed most of your concerns at that point. I was not involved in those meetings. When was your last meeting? MR. BAKER-Several months ago. MR. NACE-Then. yes. they were addressed at concept phase. MR. BREWER-What comments would you mean? MR. BAKER-Well. we were very concerned about. because of the additional traffic and cars. we could only get one access. the Fire Department's concerned about that. too. because the main Laurel Lane that goes on to Luzerne Road. it is such a steep grade in the winter time. We have the same problem. cars sliding out onto the road. looking for additional access. that was one of our main objectives for the future. I realize they can't do anything with Mr. Minor's property until he decides. That's why we wanted to have the possibility of another access. MR. BREWER-They did extend their road and said that they would deed it. so that if there ever is another chance for access through there. it will be there. The Town will own it. if that's what you're talking about. MR. BAKER-So you have a full. what. 60 foot width. too? MR. NACE-We have the full 50 foot. but this is oriented sort of upside down. This is to the south. MR. MARTIN-Just to show you how this can fall into place. had the Planning Board done this with the Sherman Pines Subdivision. back when that was approved. left them an accessway. this design could have been modified to account an access point up through Sherman Pines. and it was left out. MR. BAKER-The same thing that he's speaking of. there was two accesses left. in the original subdivision that didn't go through. MR. BREWER-Where's that? MR. BAKER-On the original Clendon Ridge Subdivision. the first one. off Bellows Circle. There was one left. MR. NACE-Originally they were left up in here. I think they've been since deeded back. but they were left up through here. I believe. I don't think it was actually deeded at the time. I think it was simply reserved for future extension. MR. BREWER-That would have gone up into Sherman Acres? - 20 - '-- - MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. BREWER-And now it can't happen. MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. BREWER-Presumably somebody owns that lot. probably. if there's a house. MR. BAKER-Originally. this was supposed to be an access to go through and off this corner here. It could have gone that way or that way. This should have gone into this subdivision over here. which is. MR. BREWER-But it can't happen now. because that's already there. MR. BAKER-Originally. this should have been left to come through here. MR. BREWER-How could it come from way over here. over to there? MR. BAKER-Well. this was the original property owner. owned all this. MR. BREWER-Well. we know that can't happen now. but it can happen here. someday. maybe. MR. RUEL-Where's this property we're talking about. here? MR. NACE-No. This is what we're subdividing now. okay. So the access comes down to here. and it would be extended down in through this development. when it develops. It's just a vacant parcel right now. MR. BREWER-That can't happen. that you're talking about. in the back. MR. BAKER-No. I know. now. MR. BREWER-But that's what we left the front for. so possibly that could happen at some point in time. MR. BAKER-And on the green space that's left. most of that is watershed property from Clendon Brook that comes down. MR. BREWER-The green space is the 29 acres on the other side. isn't it? MR. BAKER-Right. behind my property. MR. BREWER-Right. They're offering that in lieu of fees. MR. BAKER-How would the rest of the subdivision get access to that property? MR. BREWER-Potentially. that'll become Town property. It would be just forever wild or whatever. Was there. at one time. a path over to there? MR. MARTIN-There is an easement. There is an easement that goes through. I know there is a 20 foot wide easement. I thought. on one of those lots along Bellows Circle. MR. BREWER-What do you think. everybody's going to come through your property? MR. BAKER-Well. it's private property up there now. There's no access unless they go to Luzerne Road to go in there. MR. MARTIN-I thought there was a deeded easement across one of - 21 - -- -- those private lots to get to that property? MR. BAKER-Not to me knowledge. It would show on that plot plan if there was an easement. and there isn't one. MR. BREWER-This is just a part that he's subdividing right now. It doesn't show the whole. MR. BAKER-On Clendon Ridge. the first one. MR. BREWER-I think that I remember some conversation about it at one time. Maybe not. Mike O'Connor would know better than us. MR. NACE-Well. I think it's the Town's intention to put several parcels back in the corner along the Brook together. MR. BREWER-Exactly. starting from Vasiliou. MR. BAKER-Well. it would actually go from West Mountain Road to Luzerne Road. MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. BREWER-And possibly even further. over to Pitcher Road. MR. BAKER-That's all I've got. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-We can do the SEQRA. The Long Form. MR. MARTIN-It's optional on unlisted. I think this one was the Long Form. because of the number of lots. MR. BREWER-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-1993. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS. there application for: is presently before WILLIAM POTVIN. and the Planning Board an WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental 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 - 22 - -- -- 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 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 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any final questions before we make a motion? MR. MACEWAN-Did we address Rist-Frost's letter? MR. BREWER-Yes. He's going to address them all for final. and we have some conditions. We've got to do the recreation land afterwards. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-And the waivers. Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE WILLIAM POTVIN. Introduced by Craig adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: SUBDIVISION NO. MacEwan who moved 15-1993 for its With. Number One. the deeded right-of-way be given to the Town for the road. and that all engineering comments and concerns be met prior to final. Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Now. would somebody. how do you want that. Jim? Is the. do you want to have me write a letter to the Town again. or make a motion? MR. MARTIN-I think that worked pretty well before. We could use the previous letter as a model. because we went through the regulations and wrote it according to the reg's the last time. MR. BREWER-Okay. So I have to have authorization to write the letter for the recreation land. MRS. TARANA-Do you need a motion? MR. BREWER-Yes. MOTION THAT TIM BREWER WRITE A LETTER TO THE TOWN BOARD AND TO THE RECREATION COMMISSION REQUESTING THE ACCEPTANCE OF 29 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES FOR RECREATION LAND FOR WILLIAM POTVIN. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993. by the following - 23 - f'I~,.. ---/ vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we have to do a waiver. a waiver from the 3Ø0 foot radius. Is that what it is. Tom? MR. NACE-Yes. It's a waiver from the 300 foot centerline radius. and the second is a waiver from Section. MR. BREWER-A183-23B? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make that a motion? MOTION TO WAIVE THE 300 FOOT CENTER LINE RADIUS FOR THE ROAD AND THE 100 FOOT TANGENT IN THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS A183-23B FOR CLENDON BROOK PHASE II SUBDIVISION. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 FINAL STAGE TYPE I GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY RD.. OPPOSITE WALKER LANE. 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 REGULATIONS TOM NACE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. BREWER-Scott. you have no notes? MR. HARLICKER-I just have. there's a letter from Rist-Frost. My one outstanding concern is those lots. four. eleven. and ten. If you take into consideration the 75 foot stream setback and the 35 no disturb buffer along the Creek. that leaves a minimum area there to put any sort of a building without requiring of any variances. and I would just hate to see approval of lots and then have somebody buy that and come back a couple of years from now and saying. hey. I can't put a lot. building on here and any sort of use of the property without getting variances. You're limiting construction on those lots to just the front portion of the lots. The whole back three quarters of the lots are essentially. you can't use them without getting a variance. MR. BREWER-Is that not the commercial area? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. it's the commercial area. MR. MACEWAN-It seems to me. in previous discussions. that there was also some concerns with some of the residential lots in another phase that was. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I'm just looking for Phase I approval for tonight. So. I didn't really look at those. The residential lots. there's not really a problem. They're in the process of getting wetlands permits from DEC. Those are also outstanding. but it just - 24 - -/' seems that they're really limited. as far as where you can put buildings on there. wi thout requiring variances. and that's the outstanding concern from Staff. MR. MARTIN-I'll just read Tom's letter in. too. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. Town Engineer. dated December 14. 1993 "Dear Mr. Martin: Rist-Frost has reviewed the revised project drawings. Previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Final stage approval is recommended pending NYSDEC and NYSDOH approvals and sewer district formation on the basis of sewer design sub'mi tted." MR. BREWER-How does everybody else feel about it. about the lots? MRS. TARANA-I think it's a legitimate concern. I don't think we should create a situation where people would have to come in for a variance. if that's the case. What can be done to eliminate that problem? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know. You could combine them. and then they'd have a larger area across the front to use. is one option. I guess. MR. BREWER-What other options? Not do anything with them? MR. MACEWAN-It seems like we talked about this at great lengths. quite a while ago. quite a few months ago. MR. NACE-Can I respond? Quite frankly. this is one of the problems in sUbdividing commercial and industrial use. You never know what the end users going to be. how large a lot he's going to want. how large a building he's going to want. It would certainly be a lot easier if we could come to you and say. we've got 10 acres here. We want to allocate for commercial use. We don't know whether it's going to be two lots or five lots or whatever. We just want to set that aside for commercial use. but that's not the way the State subdivision. the State and Town Subdivision Regulations read. What we have done is come up with something where there's a variety of lot sizes. Agreed. some of them will be confined small buildings. Some of them probably will be back here to combine lots so they can get a large enough building space to fit a particular client's needs. and if that's the case. we'll be back here for. or back to the Town anyway. for combining lots. or possibly making some lot line adjustments to fit the particular client's needs when it comes time. and the client is identified. and we know how big a building he wants. how many parking spaces he needs. whether it's a commercial use where he needs 20 spaces for parking. or whether it's just an office where he has five workers and needs five spaces for parking. MR. BREWER-Each individual commercial piece of property will be site plan review anyway. or not? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. BREWER-So we do have some control. MR. MARTIN-This is MR-5 zoning. and office uses require site plan review. MR. NACE-So. what I guess I'm telling you is those lot lines are subject to combining and revising as the needs get defined. and that's just a fact of life. There's nothing you can do about that. If I made them twice as large. we'd be back here to subdivide them. MR. YARMOWICH-And the law permits lot line adjustments between individual property owners. without subdivision review. provided - 25 - -- '~ it's in conformance with zoning. MR. BREWER-I don't see a real big problem with it. because. like Tom said. they're going to be back in to adj ust them anyway. depending on the needs of the customer. I mean. they just have to start somewhere. in my mind. I understand exactly what you're saying. I had the same concern. but now that he's said that. it makes sense. MR. NACE-I have the same problem. I did an industrial subdivision over in the Warren/Washington Park. I'm going to have the same problem with that. MR. MARTIN-The QEDC. the Queensbury Economic Corporation. ran into a large problem with that. Development MRS. TARANA-So any commercial will have to come in for site plan review? MR. BREWER-Any commercial will have to come in for site plan review. I mean. if we look at a lot that's empty right here. and this lot is empty is very small. and they want to put something where we know there's going to be a lot of traffic in and out. we can suggest to them. well. why don't you purchase the next lot. and hopefully that's what' II happen. MR. MACEWAN-But what if it doesn't? MR. BREWER-Well. you can always turn down the site plan. MR. HARLICKER-They'll come in to the ZBA and get a variance. MR. BREWER-That's a chance you've got to take. got to be able to start somewhere's. though. How can he. he's MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Speaking to the future for a moment. what's going to happen when you get over into the other phases with the houses that are going to be encroaching on that? MR. BREWER-We can get to that when we get to it. next phase. That's in the MR. MACEWAN-Yes. but that's something we talked about back at sketch. too. those phases as well. I'm curious as to what your reply is now. MR. NACE-I haven't reviewed the exact lots that Scott is concerned with. Obviously. when we go back for approval of that phase. we'll review them. and if there's a problem. we'll adjust them. Residential's a whole different matter. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. it is. CLARK WILKINSON MR. WILKINSON-For the residential lots themselves. there's none in future phases that have anything to do with the stream. The stream is only in Phase I. Any adjustments will have to be made to Phase I. MR. MACEWAN-So some of the houses in Phase I are encroaching on this? MR. WILKINSON-The envelopes are large enough in Phase I residential lots to permit buildings on those lots. MR. BREWER-Scott. what's the exact number of those lots. the three you're concerned with? - 26 - ,--,./ MR. HARLICKER-The commercial lots? Eleven. Ten. and Four. MR. BREWER-Can we bring that over here. Tom? Corinne wanted to see which ones they were. MR. WILKINSON-Here's the stream. MR. NACE-Here's eleven. ten. and four. MR. WILKINSON-Here's the 100 foot setback for the wetlands. 75 foot setback for the stream. per building. The parking can encroach to 35 feet from the stream. MR. MACEWAN-And what about the residential houses in Phase I? MR. WILKINSON-The residential is here. Here's the stream. Here's the 75 foot setback. There's no real effect. This is the only one. MR. MACEWAN-I think there was a couple of discussions that we had. Three things stick out in my mind that we talked about back at Sketch Plan is if someone wanted to put an addition on their house. someone wanted to put a garage on their house. if someone wanted to put a pool in. if someone wanted to put an outside storage shed in. and most all of those were going to require a variance. MR. NACE-No. I think the only concern was down in here. with the 100 foot buffer. and your 100 foot buffer does permit work within (lost word) with a wetlands permit. MR. RUEL-Three of them there. right? MR. NACE-Yes. MRS. TARANA-Is this a commercial lot right here? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MRS. TARANA-And on this lot. where is the buildable part of that lot? MR. NACE-The building portion is up in here. okay. and then other things can occur. parking. MR. RUEL-There's not a hell of a lot left here. is there? MR. NACE-There's sufficient space. We've put buildings. again. you don't know what a client's going to want. A client may want a two person professional office. MR. BREWER-It's about a third of an acre. isn't it. buildable space. roughly? MR. NACE-Buildable space? This whole thing is an acre. So. buildable space. certainly. if this is 50 scale. that's 100 feet by 50 feet building space in the corner. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-That's without a permit. MR. NACE-That's without any permit. without anything. MR. STEVES-But DEC might deem to entertain the permit. MR. RUEL-With a permit. you could build here? MR. STEVES-Yes. - 27 - ------ MR. RUEL-What's this line here? MR. STEVES-This squiggly line? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STEVES-That's a tree line. MR. WILKINSON-This one here is a 35 foot no disturbance buffer. MR. RUEL-And this is the 100. right? MR. STEVES-Right. That's 100. MR. BREWER-So you could come in within 35 feet of that 100 foot line? MR. NACE-Correct. The 35 foot is pretty much an absolute. The 100 foot is. you need a permit to do it. MR. BREWER-I don't see a big problem with this lot. this lot. or this lot. and I don't really see a real big problem. I mean. MR. NACE-Well. it may be that these two get combined. eventually. but. if somebody comes in and wants a two person professional office. without a lot of traffic. that's an ideal lot for them. MARK LEVACK MR. LEVACK-I sold Guido the piece. I can comment on what the market is that we're trying to target. I've even got an aerial photograph of the area. if anybody wants to see that at this point in time. I'm very familiar with what the market's going to be in here. I guess the question here tonight is. your concern's over the potential client use of these back sites. and how you think that might be a little restrictive. and you don't want to see variances coming down the line here. correct? MRS. TARANA-Yes. MR. LEVACK-If you take a look at the nature of Bay Road and how it's become Cultural Professional. the project that you just approved here this evening. the site plan and the office that's going on the Canterbury Woods property. it's going to be a brick Cape. Mr. Passarelli's sitting in the back room. We've had discussions at great length here. We're talking about creating something here in the Town of Queensbury that we can all be proud of. We're talking about a Williamsburg Commons theme. We're talking about brick architecture. I see those back lots being very small offices. MR. BREWER-Front lots. Mark. MR. LEVACK-Or this. which lot? This lot's in concern. here? MR. BREWER-Well. all the commercial area is all in the front. MR. LEVACK-Again. if you take a look at the Hughes Park across the street. I really think that there shouldn't be any question of Final approval. At this point in time. what he's offered in down grading the site. this site will allow for 400 houses. He's down to 146 single family homes. and my understanding is 14 Cultural Professional lots. I mean. I hope you can appreciate what the developer has gone through to down grade. to get to this zone. or to get to this stage. and I can assure you. we sold him the property. We're going to be with him every step of the way. and each one of these sites that are sold are going to be coming here on a site plan approval process. There's going to be a lot of continuity in this subdivision. I can't comprehend the confusion at this time. I really. he's really come a long way to try to - 28 - mitigate these measures. and believe me. this thing's going to be the best Cultural Professional subdivision in the Town of Queensbury. We're going to do an A+ job on this. I can tell you. we're targeting the professional community. the smaller office user. total continuity in design and execution of construction. He's really down graded this site substantially. If you have any questions on. further. who we're going to be marketing these to. or how we plan to develop the property. which I think is. ultimately. much more important than the map that you're looking at right now. how's the execution going to look when it's all done. and I can assure you that a lot of thought and a lot of planning has gone into making this the best Cultural Professional office park in the Town of Queensbury. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. NACE-I think the real issue is that. it's a first cut. It's lots that are useable. but. depending on the client. there may be adjustments. and those adjustments will be made to conform with your zoning. and the size of building we need to locate. MR. BREWER-What do you think? MR. MACEWAN-I'm not comfortable with it. I wasn't before. and I'm still not. MRS. TARANA-Let me get this straight in my head. now. What we're seeing here. these lines. at any point. this whole configuration can change. Is that what you're saying? MR. NACE-I don't mean to say it. what I mean. not that we'd just wipe it out and start again. MRS. TARANA-No. I'm not saying that you'd wipe it out and start again. but I mean. like. MR. NACE-I'm saying that if it turns out that we need a building on here that we need an extra five feet on. it's possible to make a lot line adjustment to bring that over. and to bring another one over. okay. It's possible if somebody here wants a building that's too large for either of these lots. that we combine the two lots. and then put the building in. It's possible with one of the bigger lots. if we don't have a market for a big lot. we may be back for subdividing one of those into additional. I doubt that very much. but. because what we've tried to do is to start off showing you the maximum subdivision that we would do. and depending on clients. depending on the types of buildings that need to be built. we'd come back and combine. MR. BREWER-It may end that somebody comes in here. a client comes in here. here. here. and here. and picks up all these big lots. and all that's left is a small lot. and somebody comes in. and they know they're not going to be able to do their job in that small lot. They're not go ing to buy it. It may end up be ing empty forever. I'm not saying that it will. I mean. that's not the hope. MR. NACE-The developer would not aim at selling stuff off in that fashion. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. NACE-We'd certainly try to do it in a more logical fashion. but the idea was to come up with lots that are sized to be able to fit lots wi thin your zoning regulations without variances. and if necessary. we'll combine them to locate bigger lots. MRS. TARANA-If you have to combine. or divide. do you come back? MR. NACE-If we have to combine. well. we'll come back for site plan - 29 - -----' review. regardless. period. MR. BREWER-And if they want to make a lot line adjustment. they have to come back. MR. HARLICKER-Public law. any sort of lot line adjustment. in a Planning Board approved subdivision. is subject to public hearings. MR. NACE-Okay. MRS. TARANA-So they cannot make any changes to this plot. MR. HARLICKER-Well. what would happen. came in for their site plan approval. incorporate the site plan review and the same time. realistically. when they the public hearing would lot line adjustment at the MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-This is the maximum configuration here? MR. NACE-That' s what we've tried to show. Here would be the maximum number of lots we would propose. on this. and if necessary we could combine lots. It's better for us and better for you if we do that. then to have to come back and say. we have a big lot here. We don't have any clients for that big lot. We've got to come back and subdivide. MR. BREWER-Okay. Lets make a decision what we're going to do. Does somebody want to make a motion? We'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 GUIDO PASSARELLI. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: For Phase I. 59 lots. pending NYS DEC and NYS DOH approval. and sewer district formation. based on submitted sewer design. Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 10-86 STONEHURST. SECTION II (CONT'D) LEON STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT: CHARLES MAINE. PRESENT MR. STEVES-I went through my voluminous files. and the thing that gave me a clue to it was that this is Sheet One of Two. So. I said. what's Sheet Two? So I found the Profile. So. we're working with Tom. and I think we can work out. and we're willing to put in an additional easement over. between lots 53 and 55. a 50 foot wide strip. We'll revise the plan accordingly. MR. MARTIN-We'll pullout the '65 Subdivision Regulations. too. and review it against that. MR. BREWER-Okay. letter. Leon? So you're going to comply with all of Tom's MR. YARMOWICH-Well. my understanding is. Leon is going to evaluate the physical constraints of the site. develop the profile that has been previously developed but wasn't submitted this time. into the most workable solution that he can come up with. and I will review that. It would appear as though there may likely be some waiver request from the applicant for reverse curves. that sort of thing. - 30 - -.-" MR. BREWER-So what should we do at this point. table until next week? MR. STEVES-No. I'd say next month. MR. BREWER-Next month. MR. MACEWAN-I have one question for you. Leon. just out of curiosi ty. Why wasn't more of the lots. the large rectangular lots. 57 through 65 there. maybe like more of a sweeping road through there so that you could get double the capacity of your lots out of there. your building lots. MR. STEVES-The further east you go. the lower the lane becomes. MR. MACEWAN-Is it really wet over there or something? seems like a waste of land. It just MR. MAINE-It's just more costly to develop. basically woods. It's all woods. MR. BREWER-Is there water down in there? That's a question. When we went on site visits. I had Corinne write water on the map to see if there was. MR. MAINE-Water? What do you mean? MR. BREWER-Standing water. MR. MAINE-No. it. Halfway Brook is way back almost to the corner of MR. BREWER-Okay. month. So then we need a motion to table until next MRS. TARANA-Was there any problem with the curve at 63 and 65. Leon. where the cul-de-sac goes around? That wasn't a question at all. was it? MR. STEVES-No. I don't think so. Tom. one of the questions you raised was the geometry of the road. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. STEVES-Are you satisfied with it. or should we try to rework that? MR. YARMOWICH-My opinion is that making grades that are. if the grades that are proposed are consistent with the grades in the existing subdivision. and the nature of reverse curves in the existing. there will be no greater threat to public safety imposed by this design. and would recommend for waivers. What I'm saying is. if you can make i t relatively consistent with the rest of subdivision. and I will render an opinion as to whether or not that's adequate. I would be inclined to recommend for certain waivers at road geometry. as well as other. I see that there may be physical constraints on drainage. too. Obviously. you have to develop stuff that's in concert with the land. It turns out that. basically that one narrower necking down spot of that particular parcel as it's being subdivided represents some serious constraints. I say serious. represents certain constraints. I don't think it precludes development. It just means it's. take another look now and do the best job that's consistent with the existing subdivision. MR. STEVES-What we'll do is come back and ask for a waiver on geometry of the road configuration. after we have demonstrated to Tom with the Profile and to Paul Naylor the drainage. We will take care of all that and come back and see you. - 31 - MR. YARMOWICH-And so Leon understands what I expect. I expect to see a road profile and a rough grading plan for how that road would lay into the topography. and of course the location of drainage. MRS. TARANA-Down at the bottom. Leon. 63. 65. 62. right in there. if that future road goes through. how does that effect the cul-de- sac then? What's the flow of traffic there? MR. STEVES-The cul-de-sac then would become what we call a knuckle. MR. YARMOWICH-Well. it probably would be removed. wouldn't it. by the Town? MR. STEVES-That would be the Town's choice. MR. YARMOWICH-And then if the Town wanted to. they could modify that right-of-way line and create rectangular lots. MRS. TARANA-Or you would take that right out of there. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. Like the existing. there's an eXisting one at the end of Stonehurst Road Phase I. That will be removed. if I'm not mistaken? MR. STEVES-Yes. that one will. MR. BREWER-Yes. but then what does that do to these houses here. if that comes straight down? MR. YARMOWICH-Nothing. MR. STEVES-It just would make larger front yards. That's all. MRS. TARANA-That becomes their property. then. where the road was? MR. STEVES-If it's a temporary turnaround. it might. but if it's Town owned. I don't know if the Town would turn it back. MR. YARMOWICH-Those property owners could come and ask for that piece of property. and the Town that request. if it was no longer needed Superintendent to maintain that road. to the Town Board Board could grant by the Highway MRS. TARANA-And maybe this is not important. but what happens to their driveways and all that sort of thing? MR. YARMOWICH-It may be necessary for the person who extends that road to include that work to the satisfaction of the Town. MRS. TARANA-So that person would have to move their driveways. if that's necessary. MR. YARMOWICH-If the Town should deem that to be necessary. MR. MARTIN-See. I think this is something that we don't have a lot of experience with. because we've been historically remiss on this type of forethought. MR. STEVES-Would you want us to mark on the map the temporary turnaround there? Temporary could be 20 years. MR. MARTIN-I wouldn't have any problem with that. but I'd like to get Paul Naylor's opinion on that. MR. YARMOWICH-A temporary turnaround must meet all the same standards as a permanent. It's just simply a temporary facility. MR. STEVES-Well. it might be a legal maneuver. because I'm not sure the Town can just give the land back. without Charlie's consent. - 32 - '---' -../ MR. YARMOWICH-Not if it's been deeded to the Town. MR. MARTIN-Once it's been deeded to the Town. then. MR. BREWER-It's their land. right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. The Town can't give it back. either. The Town has to sell it. MR. STEVES-Well. yes. they do. but it may have to be to the highest bidder. MR. YARMOWICH-No. because then they would be creating a nonconforming lot. and they couldn't do that. it can only be an adjustment. They couldn't create a separate parcel out of that. because it wouldn't be a conforming lot. and the only people that can create nonconforming lots for themselves is the Town. MR. BREWER-Lets leave it like it is, and then if they ever decide to do it. MR. MARTIN-I think what's likely going to result is you're simply going to adjust those front lot lines forward and square them off. MR. BREWER-We'll have some sharp attorney can figure that out for them. then. MRS. TARANA-Well. how can you do that. people are in there. living there? MR. YARMOWICH-How can you do what? MRS. TARANA-How can you change lot lines. square off the lots. if people are living there? MR. YARMOWICH-If those people request to obtain that property from the Town. it could be granted. MR. BREWER-If they don't want it. they say no. and it stays. MRS. TARANA-The other thing maybe that could be a driveway for those houses. MR. STEVES-You're right. The Town could just abandon that. and it would revert to the adjacent land owner. MR. YARMOWICH-That' s true. The Town could abandon it. The re ' s several mechanisms. In most cases. if the Town is not using the property. and the land holder adjacent has an interest. they will request the Town grant them that property. or sell them that property. There would be no reason for any other party to have a legitimate interest. MR. BREWER-Okay. So would somebody care to make a motion to table this? MOTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-86 STONEHURST. SECTION II. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Tabled until the January 18th meeting. Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint - 33 - -..-/ MR. BREWER-All right. Can we put Mark Schachner's letter aside. for a few minutes. Jim. while we go over some things? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-What I would like to know. Jim. is Mr. Eggleston and Mr. Stimpson I talked to you about this the other day. they. month after month after month. keep putting us off. I would like to set a date for them. and if they're not here. then I would like to void their. I mean. they're in nonconformance right now. right? I mean. ever time I go by that place. it gets me irritated. because there's cars allover the place. They're not doing what they're supposed to be doing. MR. MARTIN-I would recommend you set a date. The thing that causes the lack of enforcement is that they have an application in. MR. BREWER-But they don't. Jim. MR. MARTIN-They have an application in. MR. BREWER-They have an application in. but two months in a row. now. they've said that they can't be here. MR. MARTIN-Well. I'd set a date. and then if they don't meet that date. then we can proceed. MR. MACEWAN-Set a date for what? Set a date to come in here. or set a date to comply? MR. MARTIN-To come in here. MR. MACEWAN-We've already done that. how many times? MR. BREWER-I don't think that we've ever set a date that they had to be in here by. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. we have. MR. BREWER-No. we haven't. MR. MACEWAN-Way back to October. MRS. TARANA-We asked them to come back. One time they were here. we said to come back the following week. MR. MACEWAN-We even had one meeting here where we had Eggleston here and he said he didn't want to speak until he had his attorney here. MR. STARK-They had a deal. and they screwed it up. MR. BREWER-Well. that's not our problem. It just makes a mockery of us. MRS. TARANA-The application can stay on file forever until they decide to act on it? Is that what happens? MR. MARTIN-Well. they've requested a tabling until January. is the last thing we've gotten. MR. BREWER-Why this time. though? MR. MARTIN-Mike Muller was in my office and said they had a solution worked out. and something happened that that fell apart. and that's what resulted in the tabling. So they have no solution yet. MR. STARK-Okay. You set a date. They don't come in. So what? - 34 - - MR. MARTIN-Then we initiate a court action. MR. STARK-To what. close the business down? MR. MARTIN-Right. a court order. illegal use. MR. STARK-You're going to go in front of Muller to get a court order? MR. MARTIN-No. It's going to the other Town Judge. I think it's Bacas. MR. BREWER-I mean. they have to do it. George. He's a judge. MR. STARK-I know. but I mean. that's not a conflict? MR. MACEWAN-Well. he wouldn't sit on his own bench. for crying out loud. and say that he wouldn't issue it. bring himself into a whole mess of hot water with the judicial system. MRS. TARANA-What I can't figure out. Jim. is they've had an approval. They're not in compliance. Even though they've submitted another application. what difference does that make? You can't. pretend that's a whole new one. You couldn't go ahead and act. MR. MARTIN-The Town has attempted this before. and the judge has said. if there's a site plan application submitted. until that is acted on by the local board. we are not going to take any action. and that's our only hammer we have. Our only stick it is the court action. We're not cops. We don't have the power to arrest. MR. BREWER-There's no sense in us making stipulations. then. because if nobody follows them. they put another application in. and then it's just moot. because they never do anything about it. MR. MACEWAN-I would disagree with that rendition you've got. Not all judges. not all lawyers. well. that's another story. MRS. TARANA-Is his application complete? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It was on the agenda. MR. MACEWAN-But they pulled it off the agenda? MR. MARTIN-Yes. They requested a tabling. MR. BREWER-And we didn't grant it to him. did we? MR. MARTIN-Have them come in next week. MR. BREWER-Lets do that. they can't come in and substantial reason. then no. we want to table. I I don't see a reason in the world that tell us the reason why. and if it's a we'll understand. but just to say that, mean. I'd like to get it straight. MR. MARTIN-Well. pass a resolution denying their request for tabling. and ask that they come before you next week. MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR TABLING FOR SITE PLAN NO. 61-93 RICHARD EGGLESTON/THOMAS STIMPSON. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: And ask that they be here for our next meeting. December 21st. Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer - 35 - -- NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint MR. BREWER-You'll contact them? MR. MARTIN-I will write them and enclose that resolution. It will be hand delivered tomorrow. MR. BREWER-Thank you very much. MR. STARK-To who? MR. MARTIN-Both the applicant and the agent. MR. STARK-What about Harts? against them now. They've got a permanent injunction MR. MARTIN-Yes. for not parking in the easement. see the parallel parking of the cars along the. That's why you MR. BREWER-I mean. the thing of it is. Jim. we never said they could park cars in that fenced in area. We never said they could park them on the front lawn. We never said they could park them. I mean. it's just a mess. MR. STARK-How about the 55 gallon drums? MR. BREWER-Yes. Was anything ever said or done about that? I know you talked to them or whatever. MR. MARTIN-About the paint cans? today. They were going to be removed MR. MACEWAN-I'll believe it when I see it. MR. BREWER-Okay. The other thing is, Sinclair is on next week? MR. MACEWAN-Just for everyone's note in here. they were specifically talking about hazardous waste materials. storing of it. so on and so forth. and Eggleston says right in here. those type of substances will be removed on a weekly to bi-weekly schedule. by a commercial hauler such as Safety Clean. I believe. is the company. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. BREWER-We happened to stop by there when we were on site visits. and we came right back and told Jim. and he said he would take care of it. and I believe he did. MR. MACEWAN-And this is also. on here. referring to the minutes here. you asked them about. in other words. if you have 30 or 40 wrecks coming there. we don't want to make an eyesore of it. Is there a proposed place for storing of them. We wouldn't be taking in that many vehicles. The Beautification Committee also addressed that. and I think we're going to. between 10 and 12 cars at a maximum. MR. BREWER-We already know that. and I think that they know that that's not adequate. and ~ know that. I would just like to find a number that is adequate that satisfies everybody. MR. MARTIN-I personally believe the solution is to park the cars in the rear. and you fence in area. and you screen the fence. and then you don't care if he's got 60 cars back there. as long as it can't be seen. and it's not an eyesore. MR. BREWER-Exactly. but does he have room to do that? - 36 - - MR. MARTIN-I don't know. My recollection is that he does have some room back there. and along the side. for that matter as long as it's adequately screened. · MR. BREWER-Right. but like in the fall of the year. and in the winter time. MR. MARTIN-No. I'm saying. MR. HARLICKER-Put up some sort of a stockade fence and an evergreen planting in front of it. MR. MARTIN-Arborvitae or something like that. MR. BREWER-And you did say Sinclair is coming in next week. Hugh Sinclair. Corinth Road? MR. MARTIN-My last recollection of that is that we were going to take him to court because he's not done anything. MR. BREWER-He has put sections across the driveway. MR. MARTIN-He has? All right. I'll have to look at that. MR. MACEWAN-Has their paint booth been OSHA approved? MR. BREWER-Yes. it has. Craig. MR. HARLICKER-They've got the DEC approvals. MR. BREWER-The only other thing that I wanted to say about that is that when we had that meeting. he submitted that bogus fence quote. and we were all in agreement to go past the driveway. We did follow up on it. It was like the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus. It's my feeling. and I think you sent a note to everybody else that we talked about it. and we did. and said three sections would be sufficient. I just want everybody to know that the estimate that he gave us was over $2.000. MR. MARTIN-Well. that was for the entire distance. MR. BREWER-Seventy-five feet? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Twenty-five hundred dollars for seventy-five foot of stockade fence. MR. MACEWAN-So. what's your guys contention. here? I mean. do you want him to go all the way to the property line like he was originally going to do? MR. BREWER-That's what I'm asking everybody else here. know. I don't MR. MACEWAN-Are you asking everybody's opinion? I'll render mine. for what it's worth. MR. RUEL-Would three sections do the job? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Well. why not leave it that way. MR. MACEWAN-I'd rather see him go all the way to the property line. and I'll tell you why. When he was in here. and he was given approval for his site plan. he agreed to abide by the stipulation that he fence that off. and we've been chasing him for well over. what. a year and a half now? MR. RUEL-So what happens if we insist on it? - 37 - --' MR. MACEWAN-If we insist. we can make him do cease and desist as well. MR. RUEL-They won't do it. sections. Well. if he's going to do three MR. MACEWAN-So what do you suggest. Roger. that everybody we approve for a site plan that comes in front of this Board. who doesn't adhere to the conditions that we recommend for site plan approval and doesn't follow through on them. we just don't follow up on it? MR. RUEL-No. What I recommend is that he put in sufficient fence to do the job that we wanted him to do originally. MR. MACEWAN-But look what kind of pressure it took him to get to this stage. and it should not have taken any pressure at all. It was a condition he agreed to. MR. RUEL-Go ahead. If you want to be hard-nosed about it. you're going to get nowhere. What the hell's the sense of doing that? MR. BREWER-What do you want to do about the fence? MR. RUEL-I'd rather have half a loaf then none. MR. STARK-If you made a stipulation. he didn't do it. him. Go after MRS. TARANA-That's my feeling. I don't think you can. I agree with Craig. MR. STARK-I don't know anything about it. first of all. okay. but if you make a stipulation. and they don't abide by it. go after them. MR. BREWER-Well. I feel two ways on it. I mean. if three sections serves the purpose. I don't think that it's that big of a deal. but on the same hand. if he tells us $2.000 and it's $130. there's a big difference. I don't know what to do. When he comes in next week. we'll talk to him. That's all. MRS. TARANA-Well. somebody get some estimates on how much it costs. MR. BREWER-We already know how much it costs. fifteen bucks a section. MR. STARK-Say it's $30 a section. MRS. TARANA-Seven sections is what he's getting? MR. BREWER-Seven sections at $15. MRS. TARANA-So $200 is a far stretch from $2500. MR. BREWER-One hundred and thirty-five. isn't it. the fence? MR. HARLICKER-A section for. the rails cost. at Moore's Lumber. with three sixty-eight a piece. and the posts are four eighty a piece. So you're talking about $15. $16 dollars a section. MR. BREWER-One hundred and twelve bucks. MR. MACEWAN-For a ten foot run. MR. BREWER-He ought to do it. MRS. TARANA-He ought to do the whole thing. plus he agreed to it. It's not like we made him do it. - 38 - -> MR. BREWER-All right. We've got to table Donald Baker. MR. MACEWAN-So what are we doing about Hugh Sinclair? MR. BREWER-That's what we just got done talking about. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I know. but I didn't hear anybody come up with an end result. MR. MARTIN-We're going to initiate a court action. compliance with the site plan. He's not in MR. BREWER-I think we should let him be aware of it. before. MR. MARTIN-He is aware. I wrote him a letter. I copied you guys on it. MRS. TARANA-And what. did you tell that him he has to be in compliance with the whole section? MR. MARTIN-No. The Town's going to pursue the enforcement. which is a court action. MR. BREWER-Because you didn't think he had it done? MR. MARTIN-He didn't submit the application. He said in our meeting he was going to submit an application that would represent a modified site plan to allow only three sections. as opposed to the whole distance. That never happened. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Didn't the Town adopt some sort of local law to enforce the site plans? Could we write a law? MR. MARTIN-We have that. MR. MACEWAN-Other than a court kind of a thing? something? Is there MR. MARTIN-No. I don't think there's any other vehicle. because it's not like a misdemeanor or anything like that. MR. BREWER-All right. We need a motion to table this item for Don Baker for next week. PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 9-93 RECOMMENDATION ONLY DONALD BAKER ONWER: SAME AS ABOVE PROPERTY INVOLVED: 36 DIX AVENUE CURRENT ZONING: LI-IA PROPOSED ZONING: HC-1A OR PC-1A TAX MAP NO. 110-1-1.25 MOTION TO TABLE PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 9-93 DONALD BAKER. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 14th day of December. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Ruel. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. LaPoint MR. MARTIN-I think what's very important to note is this Route 149 Study. I want to press. the existing law still is. and I believe this is another one of these that's going to change July 1st of next year. is that the Town Board. after July 1st. will be empowered to adopt master plans and modifications to them. but right now that authority still lies with this Board. and I'd like - 39 - '-. -- to get a resolution. a formal adoption of that questions about it or want to make some changes. get it in a form. and then get it adopted. hanging out there for almost a year now. plan. If you have whatever. but lets because it's been MR. BREWER-The 149 Study? MR. MARTIN-Yes. and I'd like to get it adopted next month. MR. BREWER-In January? MR. MARTIN-Right. and I think you should hold a special meeting. Have a public hearing. and adopt it. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Either as written. It's written and there's an addendum to it. and if you want to make changes. that's fine with me. but I just want to get it. MR. MACEWAN-Lets set up a special meeting in yanuary. MR. STARK-The last week in January. like maybe that Thursday. MR. MARTIN-That's what I would recommend. Yes. MR. STARK-After the last meeting here. MR. MARTIN-And you're not in conflict with the Zoning Board meeting. and all that. MR. BREWER-If you've got a calendar. we'll set a date right now. MR. STARK-That would be the 27th of January. MR. MARTIN-Of all the things you do. this is real important stuff. This is the true plan. MR. BREWER-Okay. can advertise it. it. Lets set a date for the 27th of January. and we Let people know. We'll have a public hearing on MR. MARTIN-You'll get probably 50. 60 people. MR. BREWER-Is there some way. or do we have written comments. as far as changes to be made in that? MR. MARTIN-We have some. like Mr. Weller submitted some. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We've made the changes. and we've got the addendum. Any other changes. feel free to do it. From the Staff's point of view. I'm done re-writing it. MR. MARTIN-There's some changes as a result of last night. with the Rural Home Occupation Law that has to be made. but that's all ~ know of. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 40 -