Loading...
1995-09-26 -... QUEENSBURY PLÄN~íNG 'BOÄ~DME~ttNG ' SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 INDEX t'! .1 site Plan No. 42-95 Tax Map No. 110-1-19 Jewel's Donuts, Inc. L Subdivision No. 22-1993 Wallace Trust Property PRELIMINARY STAGE MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 6-3-17, 18, 32, 15.3 16. subdivision No. 8-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 12-3-27 Colgate Phillips Estate Leigh Beeman 18. Subdivision No. 11-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 144-1-40.1 Joséph GroSs 32. DISCUSSION ITEM Perry Noun 46. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD ii' AND STAFF' REVIS:IONS. ~EV!SIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE"FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (rF ANY) 'AND; WILL STAfe: sötHi,j'APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES~" ,., ,if ' , !::¡ !.' i ;: I' .; J.' I r ¡ í , I , ' ~' ,/ ~ '- QUEENSBURY PLANNINGBOARPME~TING SECOND REGULAR MEETING ' SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 7:00 P.M. 'I MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN GEORGE STARK JAMES OBERMAYER MEMBERS ABSENT ROGER RUEL CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 42-95 TYPE: UNLISTED JEWEL'S DONUTS, INC. DBA/DUNKIN DONUTS OWNER: SYLVIA ADAM ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: 86 LOWER DIX AVENUE PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,074 SQ. FT. NEW DUNKIN DONUTS SATELLITE RESTAURANT. ALL LAND USES IN HC ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/7/95, 9/11/95 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/16/95 TAX MAP NO. 110- 1-19 LOT SIZE: .67 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 ROBERT LINDSELL & RICHARD JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-The public hearing which was on August 22nd, was tabled, and it's re-scheduled for this evening. MR. PALING-It'll be continued tonight. Okay. Would you gentlemen identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. LINDSELL-Robert Lindsell, Co-owner of Jewel's Donuts, Inc. MR. JONES-Richard Jones. I'm the architect, representing Jewel's Donuts. MR. PALING-Okay. John, I know you've got comments here. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-95, Jewel's DonutslDBA Dunkin' Donuts, Meeting Date: September 26, 1995 "This application was tabled on August 22, 1995. A review of the minutes of that meeting indicates that there were two issues, both related to vehicular traffic, that were of concern to the Board. One issue was ingress and egress from the site and the other was the ability of large trucks to maneuver on the site. I contacted Mark Kennedy of N.Y.S. D.O.T. to have them review and comment on this project. Mr. Kennedy responded that the project would require a NYS DOT driveway permit and forwarded a copy of the only driveway layout that NYS DOT would approve for this site. The revised plan dated 9/19/95 incorporates this layout into the proposed site plan. The revised layout provides for a one way internal circulation pattern and a right turn only egress. Mark Kennedy indicated to me that in the opinion of NYS DOT this design should minimize any potential for traffic problems due to ingress and egress from the site. The second issue, on site circulation of large trucks, does not appear to have been addressed. It does not appear that there is sufficient room for - 1 - --- large trucks to maneuver around the building. The Board must determine whether or not there is a potential for large trucks to park on Dix Avenue rather than attempt to negotiate the site. Finally, the Town has been promoting the planting of street trees along major arterials. I would recommend that. the 14" spruce remain and that two deciduous trees of at least 3 1/2" caliper be planted between the driveways along the property line." MR. PALING-Okay. Do you know about these comments from Staff? Had you seen them? MR. LINDSELL-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you have anything else, John? MR. GORALSKI-There's a review from Rist-Frost. MR. PALING-Yes. That's what I wanted to call on next. Okay. MR. GORALSKI-Actually, I do have one other thing. Mr. MacEwan asked me to look at the McDonald's traffic study. The traffic study McDonald's did was almost exclusively d~aling with the intersection of the exitlentrance from McDonald's on Dix Avenue. The only thing I will say is that it did say that that roadway was operating at a Level of Service of a B, and that, at least in the case of McDonald's, the little bit of traffic that McDonald's would add wasn't going to affect that Level of Service. MR. BREWER-B being the second best or the second worst? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, the second best. MR. PALING-All right. Bill MacNamara, would you like to add your engineering comments to this? BILL MACNAMARA MR. MACNAMARA-Sure. They essentially mimic what John just went over, but I'll go over our notes that we submitted on the 22nd. It says we reviewed the revised site plan. Regarding the driveway access to the highway, we understand the DOT will have to issue a permit. It says the plan now shows that the DOT required access layo~t is provided, which is an improvement from the single access arrangement previously proposed. However, the overall layout still does not provide room for most trucks to maneuver the site, likely resulting in truck patrons parking along the fronting highway. The potential for these added vehicles parked at or near the Highland Avenue intersection, coupled with patrons entering and exiting the establishment, could periodically result in less than desirable traffic flows at the intersection, and particularly,during peak traffic flows, and the minor note about noting Seasonal high groundwater level for the septic system. Those are our only two outstanding notes. MR. PALING-Okay, and you've seen the letter from Bill MacNamara, too? MR. LINDSELL-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. I'd unless anyone on the moment. like to turn it over Board has questions to the applicants, or comments at the MR. BREWER-Yes. I just had going to have that staked out? one question. I thought we were I don't know if I missed them. MR. LINDSELL -Well, i ni tiall y, afte)- the last meeti ng, we went up and staked out the one entrance and exit, as they were planned. MR. BREWER-Just the entrance and exit. - 2 - ',,--, ---- ~ ''--" MR. PALING-We were looking for more than that. I wasn't clear on it either. MR. LINDSELL-There were also property line stakes and flags at that point. Like I mentioned, the original entrance and exit was staked out, initially, but it's since been changed, due to suggestions of Mark Kennedy and others. So those changes have bee n made. MR. JONES-Basically, it's the exit from the site that still exists on the corner. The one exit for the property still exists in the location as we had addressed it originally, and that's on the, what would be the west side of the property toward Quaker Road. This is the point for maximum site distance on the property as well. MR. MACEWAN-Approximately where is the house located on that, where would it be on the site? MR. JONES-The existing house? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. JONES-The existing house sits right about in here. on one of the plans that you have in the set or the indicated on the existing drawing. That is packet as MR. PALING-But that's going to be removed completely? MR. JONES-Yes. MR. LINDSELL-To comment on the truck situation, if I may. I've been at this at this about 12 years, involved in both stores, South Glens Falls and the Glens Falls store, and we initially, when we built the South Glens Falls store in 1986, we did have a very small amount less than one percent of our business, less a half a percent of our business came from trucks, large trucks and things of that nature. Down there they have plenty of room to enter the property and they chose not to, for various reasons. If they could park on the side of the road, which they could at that point, they would. That became a problem for some of the local people getting in and out of the property with the trucks parked on the side of the road. We were approached by the Township about possibly putting up signage along, No Parking, it was not a problem for us, and we'd be more than willing to, and are prepared to do that again, whether at our expense or whatever it takes to get that done. It's not important to us that we receive that small amount of patronage from the large trucks or trucks at all. That's not our business to begin with. Also, any deliveries that will be made to this site will be made from like Doberts trucks, small box trucKs. We have Thomas Dairy deliver to us, for eggs, and those will be brought in small vans, also. Any donuts that we deliver to the site will be in a small van. We won't have a tractor trailer delivery at that site for various reasons. One, we won't anticipate the need due to the business that we anticipate doing. So there won't be a need for that. I just can't stress that point enough. I understand that it's a concern for the Board, and for the people of the area it's, obviously, a concern, but I feel that it's one that doesn't really apply. As strange as that may seem, it doesn't really apply to our business, and I don't anticipate it really applying here. MR. PALING-You're talking about the trucks that might pullover to the side of the road and get out and go in. How would you place your, you'd put No Parking signs along the street. Do you have the permission of the owners, or how would that work, to put that kind of sign? That would be off your property. MR. LINDSELL-Well, I'm not sure where we'd stand on that - 3 - -- ~ particular issue, whether it would have to be a DOT issue or decision or whatever. Like I said, I don't know who handles that. MR. JONES-I'm not sure if it would be the Town or the State, or a combination. MR. BREWER-It would be the State. It's a State road. MR. LINDSELL-Well, whatever it takes. It could be put on our property and still be useful, or whatever it takes. We'd be willing to d6 whatever it took to ensure that there was no parking along the front of the property, and as far as prohibiting them from coming in or whatever other concerns there might be, like I said, from a business standpoint, from a dollar standpoint, for us personally, that's not really an issue. If were to, just like the left turn out of the property. We don't care if our customers can turn left. The majority of our customers will be coming into our property, leaving and heading in the same direction which they originally came from. MR. PALING-But you do have entrance allowed from, into the one, you can come in from the west into the driveway, and you can come in there from the east both? MR. JONES-No. The one on the west is strictly an exit. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. On the eastern driveway, you can come in from both directions. MR. LINDSELL-Yes. You can make either a right or left turn into that. MR. PALING-That's such a busy corner. see. The left hand turn, that, to problem, the way the traffic is there. The right hand turn, I can me, would be a kind of a MR. JONES-It could potentially be a problem during the busy mor ni ng hours. MR. PALING-Or evening. MR. JONES-Or evening. MR. PALING-The last time we were there it was about 5:30 in the evening, and I'm no traffic expert, but it seemed tough. They were coming at a pretty good rate of speed. We drove back and forth across the street and walked back and forth across the street, and it was. MR. LINDSELL-Right. Two things I'd like to say. One we do almost very little almost no business during those particular hours. From about noon on it drops off. I'm not even sure what our hours will be. MR. PALING~You're more of a morning business? MR. LINDSELL-Yes. Between six and noon are our peak hours. Another thing that I think would be worth mentioning is that once that area is opened up, I think that whole intersection will be much easier to negotiate. It will be more visible from both directions. MR. MACEWAN-Aren't, historically, these restaurants open 24 hours a day? MR. LINDSELL-Yes. It's not necessarily, I don't anticipate this be{ng a 24 hour store. As a matter of fact, it won't be a 24 hour establishment. - 4 - ~ --' ~ ~ MR. JONES-This is basically a satellite Dunkin Donuts. It's not a full fledged Dunkin Donuts. I'm not sure if you're aware of that. MR. MACEWAN-What's the difference? MR. LINDSELL-Well, there's no on site production, limited hours. I'm not sure if I'll be opening at five in the morning or six in the morning, depending on what's going on. When there was a Hudson Falls satellite, it was opened by someone else, I think they closed at six p.m., seven p.m., something like that. I'm not sure what the hours are. It won't be 24 hours. I've had enough of that. MR. MACEWAN-So you never really see this, in the future, as being a stand alone store where you'd do your own baking on premises? MR. LINDSELL-No. The building wouldn't support it. The building that we have planned wouldn't support a kitchen. MR. JONES-The traffic comparisons that were put in part of the application indicate roughly 16 hours of operation for the store. MR. LINDSELL-At a max. MR. OBERMAYER-Per day. MR. LINDSELL-Per day, and that's the high side. MR. OBERMAYER-That's six in the morning until ten at night. That's pretty long hours. MR. LINDSELL-Like I said we're used to 24 hours establishments. Who knows if it'll be, a lot of these satellites are closing at two in the afternoon, depending on the location. MR. OBERMAYER-If someone is heading east, as George just mentioned, heading east, and they turn into the donut shop, and they want to continue east, what are they going to have to do? They're going to have to go out, make a right hand turn, go west. MR. JONES-To the light, turn around at McDonald's. MR. OBERMAYER-To the light, make a left on Route 254, go down to Highland, make another left, like that. MR. PALING-Yes, left and come over. MR. BREWER-Or what's probably going to happen is, like they're going to go to McDonald's or Kings, turn around back out that way, or that, or they'll try to cut Highland. Who knows what they'll do. he said, and come across to MR. LINDSELL-Knowing what I do about our particular business, we do have about six good hours in there, and we have what Dunkin likes to say are some of the laziest customers in the world, and what they mean by that is they'll do very little to patronize our place that, you know, if it calls for them to do a lot of driving, a lot of this, a lot of that, they probably won't become our customer, and that's a chance that we're willing to take from a business standpoint. When we look for a site, what we do is we look, one, for first traffic numbers. The next thing we look for is what side of the street, we call it the morning side. This is the morning side that we're on, and the important fact of that is, like we mentioned, they come in, do what they need to do, and they're heading in the same direction. Very few people, at either one of our stores, South Glens Falls a little more than Glens Falls, will cross traffic to get to us, because they're just on the wrong side of the road, the wrong time of the day when the traffic changes. They're just not willing to become our - 5 - -, customer at that point. Most of our customers will come into our property, do what they need to do, and leave heading in the same di rection. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you have that analysis, on how many cars are going east and how many are going west at that location, at the various times of the day? MR. LINDSELL-Yes. We have DOT traffic counts that were provided to us. What they are and where they are, I really don't know. The other thing is that this'll be a low volume store. I can tell you that, and we'll do less than one half of the percent of the existing traffic that's there. We will add no traffic. We're not a destination. We're not McDonald's. We work off the existing traffic. We don't generate any new traffic. That's another thing that's worth knowing about. I think it's important to say that we'd be more than willing to do anything that it would take to alleviate some of these concerns, no parking for trucks. We think we've made an effort to prove that by imposing demands on our customer by no left turns out of the property. MR. OBERMAYER-The only problem with the no parking for trucks is that you'le really putting the responsibility on the State to monitor. If you put a sign up there on the road, it's up to the police to keep an eye on it. You're cy¿~ting ~ problem for someone else to take care of. That's the issue that L have with it. MR. LINDSELL-I don't know what it'll look like when it's a finished project. I can't visualize it as far as where the road would stand. At this point, there are no shoulders (lost words), and I don't anticipate anyone, any driver being that foolish. I just can't see that happening, someone stopping his truck in the middle of the road. MR. OBERMAYER-At six in the mor ni ng they do. MR. BREWER-What did you say about Warren County, Bob? MR. PALING-They turned it down. MR. BREWER-Did they give us a reason? John, do you know that? MR. LINDSELL-Some of the concerns that they had were pedestrian traffic, which we didn't understand. There are virtually no pedestrians at that site. We didn't understand that concern. There are no sidewalks. We spent quite a bit of time there, and we saw little to no foot traffic at all. So we didn't understand that concer n . MR. MACEWAN-Well, probably the line of thinking, and I can't speak for them, but considering the way that corner down there is starting to be built up, they're probably concerned with future potential pedestrian traffic, the possibility of a convenient store going in across the street. So they're probably thinking about people going across the road. ~ concern that I have with it, even though you aren't adding traffic to an already very busy road, what you're ultimately doing is potentially creating a very significant traffic hazard right at that already difficult intersection. The fact that you have traffic that's able to ingress/égreSs out of that has my concerns, and I really don't know of a way, and I'm open to suggestions, a way that we can try to alleviate that. I think it's sitting on a bad corner. MR. LINDSELL-I understand what you're saying. I mentioned that I personally feel, or it's my feeling alone that once these site lines open up, or once the property opens up, the site lines will be much more reasonable. There shouldn't be any difficulties with site lines. DOT out of Albany had mentioned that, per these plans~ that there shouldn't be any real concerns, this working - 6 - ,,"-- '-- '...' off the experts comments. MR. PALING-All right. Board at the moment? Any other questions or comments from the MR. GORALSKI-I can read the Warren County finding if you'd like? MR. PALING-Yes, please. MR. GORALSKI-"Disapproved This application was denied due to the creation of the increased potential for traffic haza,-ds in that area." That's all it says. MR. MACEWAN-It didn't say anything about pedestrians? MR. GORALSKI-No. That's all it says. MR. PALING-Any other comments or questions on the Boa,-d for the moment? Now, I'd like to go to the public hearing, unless you would like to make further comment before we do? All right. Why don't we, the public hearing on this was tabled. So the public hearing is opened, or re-opened. However we put it. Is there anyone here that would like to talk about this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NATALIE POWERS MRS. POWERS-I'm Natalie Powers. I live at Highland Avenue. Since the last meeting, I've noticed several tractor trailers stopped on both sides of Dix Avenue, going into McDonald's, for the drivers to go in for lunch or whatever. One night there was one tractor trailer, it was aluminum box. The sun was shining and reflecting off of it. There were five cars on Dix Avenue. The first in line to turn into McDonald's and the rest were stopped waiting to continue west on Dix Avenue. They couldn't get through because the tractor trailer was on the side of the road. Also, before Mrs. Bruce, when they had the garage sale, many cars parked on Dix Avenue, just to the east of Bruce's Drive, or in my brother's yard, right next to Bruce's driveway. Some cars parked on the other side of Dix Avenue, right in front of the garden, which is a traffic hazard. So I think they would also stop for Dunkin Donuts, if they'd stop for a garage sale. Today, I was going out, about three o'clock, a woman came up the road with a three year old, and she came inside the post, walked through our yard, said when she goes to McDonald's or K-Mart, she's afraid to walk in the road because of the traffic. So, she always cuts through a yard, and there is a lot of foot traffic and bicycle traffic with K-Mart and McDonald's. There's a lot of traffic going up Dix Avenue, all times of day and night, but I don't think it's a place for, like I said before, any stop and go traffic. MR. OBERMAYER-I know it's even difficult to pullout of Dix Avenue even on a straight run. It's very difficult to get out of on Dix Avenue. MRS. POWERS-I mentioned to somebody, the sign at Stewarts in Hudson Falls, where it says no left turn, and a man said to me, I always make a left turn there. The only problem is if I have an accident, it's my fault. Up on Aviation Road, it's Burger King. It says no left hand turns. Three quarters of the people make a left hand turn to get back to the Northway. So I don't think a sign saying one way traffic is going to make any difference at all to the people. MR. PALING-When they stick themselves out there, they're asking for it, yes. MRS. POWERS-Well, that's right, but they shouldn't make it so - 7 - that they can. Just like the stop sign at Highland Avenue. Ninety percent of the people do not stop fòr that stop sign, and if somebody pulls out of Dunkin Donuts expecting the cars to stop, like I did one day, the,"e's going to be many mo'"e accidents there. I pulled across one day thinking the car was going to stop and instead he was looking up Dix Avenue to see if there was any other traffic coming, and when he looked back, I was right in front of him. So, I don't think it's a place for Dunkin Donuts. Really. I'd like to see it in the neighborhood. I'd like to see it right over in that "V", but I guess it can't go there, because I don't think that particular spot's the place for it, because of safety reasons mostly. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? PAT JAMESON MRS. JAMESON-I'm Pat Jameson. First let me say that, as far as no pedestrians at that corner, I have a seventy-seven year old brother that goes across the street to the barn four to six times a day. So there's one. Lots of people walk up to McDonald's. So there is pedestrian traffic there. My next thing, the State said only right turns. Now would right turn include into Highland Avenue? MR. GORALSKI-No. MRS. JAMESON-You say no, but, just like the no right turns, they would do that, if they want to go to Hudson Falls. MR. PALING-Would they end up doing that. They could. MRS. JAMESON-They would cut across. So that's a problem, I would think. They said maybe there's a chance they could buy a little additional land. I wondered what the prospect is. MR. PALING-That was brought anything come of it, although when they come back. up, but I don't the applicant's can think there's address that MRS. JAMESON-I don't think, I've talked to people on both sides who are not going to sell, and where else could they go? Another thing is, when McDonald's went in, they required them to plant 13 three inch diameter trees, because they want greenery there. If this plan goes through as it's laid out on the map, they plan to cut down all 38 trees on the property. Everyone. Some of the trees, I think it's questionable who owns them, but, you know, (lost words) they'll cut 38? MR. PALING-That is a question we will have to address, but we haven't come to that point yet. MRS. JAMESON-And among those 38 trees there's a hedgerow that was planted to hide the barn yard next door, and if I had a restaurant, I wouldn't cut the trees down to expose the barn yard. I don't think, because there are animals in the barn yard, and I would think if they cut the other trees, at least they would leave those. I question that they own all of them, and why they would expose the barn yard to a restaurant, I don't understand, and I guess that's all the questions I have. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Now, would you care to comment on any of the questions that have been raised and anything else you'd like to say, before we internalize here, I think, in a little bit? MR. LINDSELL-The only thing I'd like to comment on is we, like - 8 - '- "- -- v we'd mentioned, we'd be willing to do whatever it took to get this project to go for a lot of reasons. We've looked at the possibility of buying some adjacent land to us. They won't subdivide and they won't sell to us. That's something we've considered. MR. PALING-Don't you have, isn't there a tree problem, either the property line goes down the middle of the trees or? MR. LINDSELL-That's been resolved. I have a contract here with the people that own the other half of the tree, and the adjacent property, and we have a signed contract that they will be more than willing to let us remove the tree at our expense. MR. PALING-Now )"OU're talking the west side, now? MR. LINDSELL-The west side, yes. MR. PALING-Okay, and that's the critical one. MR. LINDSELL-Yes. MR. PALING-And you've got a free ticket to remove trees on that road? MR. LINDSELL-Yes. I have a signed contract right here. MR. PALING-Okay, and then plantings would have to be to replace this kind of thing, to make it. MR. LINDSELL-Definitely. Where she talked about the hedgerow protecting the barn from visibility, and what not. Anything that we can will be left, especially if it doesn't belong to us. We have no intention of touching other people's property. We did plant, the Beautification, anything that will be removed, we have somewhere around 200 plants, trees and shrubs that we're going to be adding to the site itself. So; in no way will we be destroying. MR. JONES-The actual hedgerow that she was talking, or referring to is indicated on what would be the right hand side of plan, and the trees with the white indication are the existing trees which are remaining. That hedegrow is not being removed, and you can see on the west side as well the hedgerow there is also being maintained, and we're also supplementing the hedgerow on that side as well, toward the front side of the property, on both sides. MR. PALING-Do you have any other comments? MR. LINDSELL-No. The only thing that runs through my mind is this is zoned Highway Commercial One, and if we don't fit in there, and the small number of cars and traffic that we generate, my question is, what does fit in there, and if we don't, then I wonder why it's still not zoned Residential. MR. PALING-If you don't fit in, there's not too many that can fit in there, that into that at all, and that's a shame. MR. MACEWAN-That's a question that's often asked of this Board, and I guess my response would be that, not all land is developable. There's a lot of residentially zoned land in the Town of Queensbury that, for whatever reason, isn't suitable to accommodate a home on. There's certainly probably a .lot of land in the Town of Queensbury that's zoned Commercial or Light Industrial, that isn't suitable, for whatever reasons, to accommodate that sort of business on it. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I think the Board should be careful not to get too philosophical in the abstract. I think what we have to do is - 9 - ~, deal with the application before us and not really hypothetical or abstract issues about what could be property. deal with put on the MR. PALING-Okay. We need a SEQRA on this, don't we, Unlisted? MRS. LABOMBARD-Unlisted. MR. PALING-Short Form or Long Form? MR. GORALSKI-The Short Form was submitted, in that it's an Unlisted Action. MR. PALING-Okay, and we can go right from there. MR. BREWER-I'd like to go rather slow,if we could. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. We're going to do the Environmental Assessment now, Short Form. "C. Could Action Result in Any adverse effects associated with the following: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage, or flooding problems?" MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Existing traffic patterns. MR. STARK-Small to moderate on the mitigated. groundwater. Can be MR. OBERMAYER-It says "Explain briefly." traffic patterns. So I would just say, MR. STAR~(-O kay . MR. PALING-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-"C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character?" MRS. LABOMBARD-What about neighborhood character? MR. PALING-Within the zoning. MRS. LABOMBARD-Within the zoning, no. We're okay. MR. OBERMAYER-"C7. Other impacts", other than traffic patterns? MR. PALING-Traffic patterns. are? Does that cover what our concerns MR. OBERMAYER-Pedestrian. MR. PALING-I think that's one of the concerns that's been voiced, at least. We've got traffic patterns, pedestrian traffic. Well, I don't know. We've talked about traffic patterns, we're adding in pedestrian traffic. MR. OBERMAYER-Now we have to go back to Cl. MR. PALING-Cl. and C7. MR. GORALSKI-What did you say for C7.? MR. PALING-Pedestrian traffic. - 10 - '- '-" MR. GORALSKI-Okay. '--' ....' MR. OBERMAYER-Why don' we do C7. first. mitigated if you. C7. could probably be MR. PALING-Okay. The walking to get to diff the way up. How exten comment, or comments. concern has been expressed about people rent businesses in the area, children all ive it is, I don't know, but that's the MR. OBERMAYER-How can that be addressed, directly related to this project? MR. PALING-That takes a sidewalk or something to be done. MR. OBERMAYER-Put a si ewalk in front of your property? MR. LINDSELL-That wo ld solve the problem in front of ~ property, but the problem would still exist. MR. PALING-It would exist all around it. It would be a minor, just doing it to their property wouldn't mean a thing, because their property would b as accessible on the front. MR. STARK-I'm not worried about pedestrian traffic. MR. PALING-It's not th t I'm not worried, but I don't think that Dunkin Donuts can sol e the pedestrian problem in that total intersection. I think that's the problem. MR. OBERMAYER-Nor are adding to it. MR. PALING-That's righ , not really. MR. BREWER-So you wan to eliminate that, is that what you're say i ng? MR. PALING-I'd be com ortable with eliminating C7., now that you think about it, and just go back to Cl., if everyone's in agreement with that? kayo Back to Cl. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, intersections? MR. BREWER-I don't can. do you plan on taking care of the there's really any way that they MR. JONES-The average daily vehicles passing that site is in excess of 13,000. e're talking about 256 vehicles a day entering our site, whi h is like one or two percent of the total. MR. BREWER-It's not traffic. What it is getting back into traf MR. MACEWAN-It's a dis MR. BREWER-Exactly. I going to cause a major likely to do, whether going to try to go flowing, and they're we're going to creat describe it. MR. OBERMAYER-Creating to me it's not a major draw to is a major complication for people of the traffic flow. 's not necessarily that your customers are traffic jam. It's what your customers are hey're going to turn left, whether they're o Highland, coupled with traffic still rying to maneuver through that, I think havoc, and that's the only way I can issue. MR. LINDSELL-That's w I felt that it was really important, and I can't stress the fa t enough, that our customer, being on the morning side of the ro d, is into our property, off our property - 11 - and heading in the same direction, and I don't think I can prove that, stress that point en'ough. Our customers coming in, leaving and heading in the same direction he came from. MR. BREWER-What you're saying is, and this is just hypothetical, I'm not trying to pick at you, but what you're saying is, if I work, we tìave a store in Hudson Falls, and if I was going to my store in Hudson Falls, and I saw a Dunkin Donuts, and I know how your coffee is, I want a cup of coffee and a donut, I'm going to pull into your store, come back out, go down to Dix Avenue, take a left, come back up Highland and back down to Dix? I don't think so. MR. LINDSELL-Now, what I'm saying is that they're headed west. The majority of OUT customers are coming from the east and headed west. MR. BREWER-When McDonald's did their numbers, did they have any east and west counts? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I think they did. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, the thing is, you're saying the majority. That could be 60 percent. The other 40 is still a significant amount. I mean, we can't just say that most of the people are going to pull in because they're heading toward the Glens Falls area. MR. LINDSELL-No, I realize that. MRS. LABOMBARD-And that's the problem. MR. OBERMAYER-A lot of people go that way, though. the real biè difference, because I've been traveling many years. It seems like a lot of the traffic is town going over to Hudson Falls. I don't see that way for also leaving MR. BREWER-Yes. I mean, you've got whatever jobs are still over there. MR. OBERMAYER-You've got Scott. got GE. You've got Sandy Hill. You've MR. BREWER-Exactly. , MRS. LABOMBARD-And look at all the teachers from the Glens Falls/Queensbury area that go to Hartford, Hudson Falls, Granville. There's hundreds of them. I mean, I realize that there's a great amount of traffic going west, butth~re still is a major amount of traffic going the other direction, and one of the things that you have to keep in mind is that we're not here to be a nitpickihg type of Board. We're here tq really safeguard against the safety of the citizens in this area, and that's a real major concern of ours at this time. MR. PALING-I think what I would suggest we do is go for one round of comments from anybody that just wants to comment, including the applicants, and then go to a motion on this. MR. BREWER-I'd like to wait and see if John can find the numbers, first. MR. OBERMAYER-We have to vote on the SEORA, first. MR. GORALSKI-I'm sure it's in here. I just have to find it. MR. PALING-Well, we're up to the point where we can vote on the SEQRA. MRS. LABOMBARD-Can I make a comment, regarding the SEORA? Where - 12 - -- -- -.../ - we're concerned about pedestrian and vehicular traffic, well, and that can be mitigated y, for example, saying that the traffic has to be diverted wh n it comes out in one direction, put in signs that it's not sup osed to go the opposite way. Well, again those are visible ways that you can say, this is what we want, but hearing the two w men that came up here, that are right there, that live there, and knowing human nature, you could put in all the laws you nt, but that doesn't guarantee that the people are going to ey them, and this is such a precarious intersection. MR. LINDSELL-One, I un rstand, and (lost words) responsible for people, I understand yo r concerns. I do believe that once the property is open, it will give that corner a different look, a different driveability, and things of that nature. MR. BREWER-John, I think's, got the numbers. MR. GORALSKI-Well, Sunoco driveway on 8=30 a.m, you have traveling west. I've got here, what I have is in Dix Avenue, for example, from 259 vehicles going east, and front of the 7:30 a.m. to you have 376 MR. BREWER-Sixty, forty. MR. OBERMAYER-It's pre ty close, yes. MR. BREWER-I think we the next thing to do is call for a MRS. LABOMBARD-That's 1 ss than 60/40. That's more like two to three. That's like 65 35. MR. PALING-All right. second on the SEQRA. complete the SEQRA, first. MR. SCHACHNER-Has ther been a motion on the SEQRA? You'll need a motion before you call for the second. MR. PALING-A motion on the SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. Then, I don't think we need t new or different? I ha anything to it? Okay. the SEQRA. are there any other comments that anyone, repeat ourselves, but is there anything e nothing new to add. Do you wish to add Then I think we'll call for a motion on MR. OBERMAYER-I guess I never really finished the end of the SEQRA. MR. PALING-All right. finished it. We've ha We're hung up on discussion on Cl. Cl., but we haven't MR. BREWER-It says on the SEQRA instructions, "Check this box if you have identified 0 or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which may occur, then proceed directly to the Full EAF andlor prepare a Positive Declaration. MR. MACEWAN-Did we c e to a conclusion that those adverse impacts could be mitigated? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACEWAN-We need to come to that conclusion first before we put it up for adoption gain. MR. BREWER-I stated my opinion. I don't think so. I honestly can't believe that, if the Dunkin Donuts business were more to the west, no problem, ut I think on that particular location, - 13 - '- we're opening a can of worms that's going to be a nightmare. That's my opinion. MR. PALING-Okay. We're wandering a little bit here. I think we've got to complete the SEORA, and we've gQt to then find out if we think the situation can be mitigated. Am I looking at this ,-ight? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Should we not complete the SEORA first? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. PALING-All right. Lets do that. Jim. MR. OBERMAYER-And I waive the rest of the reading. MR. GORALSKI-You're up to Part III of the SEORA. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and that's the part where somebody has to eit,her make a motion, basically~ the motion that has to be made is really either the top box or the second box, which is either go to a Full EAF. MR. SCHACHNER-Or an Environmental Impact Statement, or a Negative Declaration. Those are you options in motions. MR. PALING-All right. Does everyone understand what a negative declaration would mean? MR. STARK-That's what they normally are. MR. PALING-Yes, if mitigat¡ofl~ , ( Çathy, di~cussed' in'¿1.? it's approved. do you thin~ Okay. ~e can Lets talk about mit~gate what we -¡ MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it can be mitigated on paper, but I don't think in actuality it can be. MR. PALING-Okay. Tim? MR. BREWER-No. MR. PALING-Jim? MR. OBERMAYER-I don't feel the applicant could mitigate the safety issue with putting the Dunkin Donuts at that intersection. MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. STARK-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think the plan as it is now can demonstrate that can be mitigated, no. MR. PALING-I don't think it can be mitigated unless you look at the whole inter~ection, either. So we~re pretty well saying that it's not going to go, that the Environmental Assessment Form won't pi3SS. MR. BREWER-So we can go from here to a Full EAF and have them, we can do that, and have them come up with the Mitigation. MR. GORALSKI-If you feel that a Full EAF is going to provide you with the information you need to make a determination, then you can do that. - 14 - "---' ,..,../ MR. PALING-Well, if we think it won't, what do we do? MR. GORALSKI-Then you w uld have to do a Positive Declaration. MR. PALING-All right. Then there would be a motion to have a Positive Declaration on this application. MR. SCHACHNER-If that's what you feel is appropriate. That would mean, a Positive Declar tion means you're requiring the applicant to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. STARK-I think, to s false hope, even with mitigated, the traffic motion, it would be d matter that much. ve the applicant any money, or the EAF, I don't see how problem, and I think if we feated, and I don't think an give them it can be went to a EAF would MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. with George on that. MR. PALING-Does anyone iffer from that opinion? MR. BREWER-Well, I agree with that opinion, but now we're at a point where we have to 0 something. We have to either tell him that he has to do an EAF, and hopefully he'll withdraw, but we can't just leave this in limbo. MR. PALING-But the EAF isn't going to accomplish anything. MR. BREWER-Then we've got to give it a Positive Dec. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. That's what we've got to do. MR. PALING-All right. If everyone is understanding what we're doing, I'll entertain a motion. , MOTION TO DECLARE A POSITIVE DEC ON THE SEQRA FOR SITE PL N NO. 42-95 JEWEL'S DONUTS INC., Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, secon ed by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-I feel real sorry that what has happened, has happened, because we rarely turn an applicant down. We find a way, we negotiate, we modify, and get it done, but the Board has visited this applicati n, or the site as much as we've visited any site, and I think we're sincere, and we're together in our feeling about it, and w 're sorry you're turned down, and we hope to see you bac k . MR. BREWER-Bob, we didn't turn them down. MR. SCHACHNER-The ation has not been denied. MR. PALING-We are process of doing that. MR. SCHACHNER-All you'v done is stated that, for the purpOSeS of the State Environmental Quality Review Act, this applicant needs to provide an Environmental Impact Statement. No more. No less. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-He very well could come back with a full . - 15 - Environmental Impact Statement that'll certainly Board and his plans,. We don't know that. We're right now that our concerns are this. satisfy this just saying MR. PALING-If it can be done, that's even better. MR. BREWER-So it's in the hands of the applicant, now, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, basically. prepare an Environmental Impact proceed. It's up to the applicant to Statement, should they choose to MR. BREWER-No time frame? MR. SCHACHNER-There are time frames, but they're, initially, at least, within control of the applicant. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Good luck. another. I hope we see you back, one way or MR. BREWER-And, could I make one suggestion, applicant does want to proceed, could he get a minutes so that he has ~omething to go by? John, if the copy of these MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. Mark was just ,-eminding me, I have a lot of paperwork, now, that I have to file with DEC and everyone else. MR. BREWER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 22-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE II MODIFICATION WALLACE TRUST PROPERTY OWNER: MICHAEL CANTANUCCI (CONTRACT VENDEE) ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT. RD. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MODIFY LOT LINES BETWE'EN LOTS 6-3-32 AND 6-3-33, CREATED BY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL 22-1993 AND TO COMBINE THE RESULTING LOT 6-3-32 WITH PARCELS 6-3-18, 6-3-17, AND PORTION OF 6-3-15.3. SECTION A 183-13 F REQUIRES ÞLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 63-1995 TAX MAP NO. 6-3-17, 18, 32, 15.3 SECTION: SUBDIV. REGS A183-13 F DENNIS MACELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MACEWAN-Bob, I have a modification of an existing Preliminary Stage? question foi you. Is this, the subdivision, or is this a new one at MR. GORALSKI-This is a modification of an existing subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. So it's wrong on the agenda? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. The agenda was written incorrectly. MR. MACEWAN-I remember this one, that's why I was asking. MR. GORALSKI-I have a copy of that original subdivision map. MR. MACEWAN-This is the one that had a couple of little camps on it at one time, and it had a storage shed or something like that on it? MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. John? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 22-1993 Modification, Wallace - 16 - '--../ -- '-' '-- Trust Property/M. Cant nucci, Meeting Date: September 26, 1995 "The proposal before t e Board at this time is to modify the existing subdivision by eliminating the lot line between the two shorefront camps, en ing the right-of-way at the westerly property line, and modi ying the lot line between the Wallace lot and the Young lot. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a variance for having two principal dwellings on less than 2 acres. They also granted a variance to construct a new building 50' from the shoreline. Both 'ariances were approved on the condition that the applicant rec ive site plan approval from the Planning Board. A site plan will be submitted if this modification is approved. The Board hould include a statement regarding the previous SECRA determin tion in any motion." MR. GORALSKI-What I'm site plan review now. cha nges . aying here is you're not approving the 11 you're approving are the property line MR. PALING-Right, and the motion will cover that, too. MR. GORALSKI-It should. MR. PALING-Okay. SECRA? Say again about Item Number Two, about the MR. GORALSKI-You shoul include in your motion a statement as to whether or not this modification would change the SECRA determination that we m de on the original subdivision approval. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. this one? Bill MacNamara has no comments on MR. GORALSKI-Not at time. MR. PALING-Okay. We' have, the Zo~ing ~o~~d of Appe~ls ,has approved the variances I n this. 'I have that l7,ere. So 'we;re,okay there. Any questions f anyone ,on the Board? Okay. MR. PALING-Would you w nt to comment on John's còmment regarding SECRA, possible changes to that? your original determination on this MR. Mf¡\CELROY-:My n,ame' s D,ennis M,ac~l roy, I ; m from the Environ~ent~l Design rntership, representíhb the applica?t and owner. MR. MACELROY-Regardin previous subdivision? MR. PALING-Right. MR. MACELROY-I don't made at that time. any awareness of what comments were MR. GORALSKI-At this pint, I don't see that this modification would change the previ us SECRA determination. Just as a matter of record, you should m ke mention of that in your motion. MR. OBERMAYER-The same hing we did last week. MR. PALING-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And with advice, in order to proposed modification site plan, one of the indicate that there impacts warranting re-o generic advice for any any other modification. This is general omply with SECRA. Whenever there's a f a previously approved subdivision or components of your motion should be to re no new and different environmental ening of the SECRA review. It's just odification. MR. PALING-All right. ny other discussion? Okay. We can call - 17 - .. then, in this case, there is no public hearing, and the SEORA is done. The motion can cover it. Yes, we'll call for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION ~O. 22-1993 MODIFICATION. WALLACE TRUST PROPERTY, Introducéd by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: With the stipulation that this modification will not result in any different environmental impacts requiring re-opening of the SEQRA review. That this is for the subdivision only. Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I COLGATE PHILLIPS ESTATEILEIGH BEEMAN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR- lA, C.E.A. APA LOCATION: HILLMAN RD.lCLEVERDALE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE Ä 12.68 ACRE LOT INTO 4 ONE ACRE LOTS AND ONE 8.57 ACRE LOT WITH R~SIDENCE TO BE RETAINED BY OWNER. TAX MAP NO. 12-j-27 LOT SIZE: 12.68 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN CAFFREY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. John, your comments, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from, Staff, subdivision No. 8-1995 Preliminary Stage, Colgate Phitlips Estate/Leigh Beeman, Meeting Date: September 26, 1995 '"Although no new roadways are being proposed the envi1'onmelìtal conditions make this a difficult site to develop. The stormwater report submitted by thè applicant does not appear to address the specific post development conditions on each lot. The creation of the new lots, in and of itself, does not create environmental impac~s. It is the development of these lots which will cause the environmentál impacts. It does not appear that the Board has enough information to determine that the development of these lots will not have a significant environmental impact. It is my recommendation that the Board take one of two courses of action. Either make a positive declaration and require an Environmental Impact statement, or require each lot to receive a site plan review prior to issuance of'a building permit." MR. GORALSKI-There are engineering comments. MR. STARK-John, if it is subdivided, and a lot is sold, they have to come for site plan review anyway, because they're in a CEA, ¿Hen't they: MR. GORALSKI~No, that's not correct. You would only come for a site plan review in a CEA if you were expanding a nonconforming structure. If you were building a new structure, you wouldn't need a site plan review. MR. PALING-Except we can make it part of the motion, if we get to that point. MR. GORALSKI-That would be my recommendation. MR. OBERMAYER-Although the only thing with that is that we're not really evalüating the site as a total review. We're doing it on - 18 - '--" '--'" '-.... """,-,' an individual basis. impact. So you're not really getting the full MR. BREWER-I understan exactly what you're saying. Rather than doing the whoIe thing, we're Just segmenting it. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. BREWER-A portion here, a portion there, a portion there. MR. PALING-For the future, you mean? MR. BREWER-Yes, if we do a site plan per lot. MR. PALING-Yes, per lot. MR. BREWER-Rather than get the required, or what information we want on the whole thing. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, the whole thing. I guess, though, we have to do a SEORA anyway. MR. PALING-Ye::;;. MR. SCHACHNER-You ¡',ave to, de somethi ng SEORA' w~,::;;e. MR. OBERMAYER-Okåy. $0 then wê'd þe eVàluatingthe wh.ole site anywiy, for SEORA, the whole impact of the subdivision. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we ought to hear from Bill MacNamara, now, would be appropriate. MR. MACNAMARA-Well, briefly, these comments, in total, are sort of what John summarize in brief, and I'll be brief as well, to summarize these comments. The applicant's engineer, Tom jar-r'ett, and myself, have already gone over most of these, and are in various stages of progr ss on them, if you will. To confirm what John indicated, according to the available data and resources, site conditions pose difficulties in managing stormwater out in these lots. High clay subsoils, high groundwater, p6~sibly to grade at times, varying slopes on adjoining properties, as well as the properties bein developed, in proximity to Lake George, as well as on-site mounded septic disposal for each new lot, as well as the adjoining lots add complexity to typical stormwater practices here. More pecifically, in terms of the report and the site plans, we not d there wasn't any construction related sedimentation, erosion control measures which are pretty important, considering the site conditions and location, and Tom has indicated that somehow somebody would add that information to the drawings. Additiori lly, it appears from the grades that were supplied, that there i some roadway drainage at the edge of the pavement, and it's not clear how the driveways are going to be managed, whether there' going to be culverts or whether there's going to be some type f a passover swale or something of that nature. Additionally, some of the specific calculations that were provided didn't ollow Queensbury's subdivision standards and regulations in ter s of design standards, and whether it's done as a whole or wh ther it's done site specific, those are certainly things that om and I can work out, assuming that it got to that level. Re arding the types of stormwater management that could be used h re, essentially all of them could be impacted by the high groundwater table, of which it's been indicated could be to g ade, in other words, right essentially to the ground at times, and usually there's a two foot minimum required for most infi tration devices, and without some type of additional information hat wasn't provided, it looks difficulty that that'll be able to be maintained, or even uptained, I should say, and lastly, if here's any kind of retention, and even though these are small lots, if there were retention basin or retention systems use, there needs to be some type of an - 19 - overflow point, and because of the grade, strictly heading down to an adjoining neighbor's property, it would certainly be important that the additional information regarding overflow points if you will, in other words, if there wa$ a much heavier rain storm than designed for or something malfunctioned, if you would, even though they're going to be pretty straightforward infiltration devices, they just need to show how they're going to, basically, redirect their overflow so they don't, essentially, put it . to the neighbor, if you will. So, in general, to summarize, the recommended techniques that have been suggested certainly appear apPTopriate. However, additional details of where and how they're going to be used are needed for us to really recommend approval, at this time, of what was submitted. This is a tough area, to be honest with you, in terms of trying to manage stormwater as it was suggested. I'm not saying it can't be done. All I'm saying is that what we had to look at doesn't really indicate that it's good as is, if you will. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. CAFFREY-I'm John Caffrey, the applicant's attorney. With me is Mrs. Beeman, the applicant, and 10m Jarrett, the engineer who p1"epared our stormwate·r report, and I'll let Tom address most of these more technical questions, but our feeling is, and as I understand from talking to Tom, that the engineers feel that, overall, the stormwater can be managed. What's lacking, at this point, is the details to show, on a lot by lot basis, exactly how that would be done. Our feeling is that we think that that could appropriately be left up to the individual lot purchaser to design that at that time, because we dòn't know, for instance, where they're going to want their house to sit on the lot, how big a house. We can sit here and design stormwater devices for them, but they may come in with a bigger house, a smaller house, so long as thè engineers agree that the basic concepts will be manageable, then we would have no objection to a condition of approval that each individual homeowner would come in for site plan review, or maybe it could be delegated to the Staff without having to come to this Board, but one or the other, that the individual lot by lot design-work be done at the time when they want to build the houses, and I think that would satisfy one of John Goralski's two choices that he gave you, that site plan review for each lot would satisfy the Staff concerns and the engineering concerns, and .if you didn't feel that was appropriate, I think we'd rather try and continue to work that out before any SEQRA determination was made and an Environmental Impact statement was required, when it's something that could probably just be done with some additional design-work, but we'd really rather leave it up to the individual homeowners, because they're going to know how they want they're house to look, what they want their lot to look like, if fill's going to be required for some of this. That really should be left up to them, rather t.han us deciding it for them. MR. PALING-Yes. I have a question. Now, Bill, can your list be divided such that it can match with what he's saying about leaving part for the individual lot owner to do, and maybe some of that is taken care of before then. Can your list be separated? MR. MACNAMARA-Separated in term$ of? MR. PALING-What the individual lot,Qwner will have to do, or what the owner of the total package will have to do, or does it all apply to the individual lot owner? MR. MACNAMARA-The way that it was initially approached was each lot would have it's own specific stormwater management on its own lot. - 20 - -- -' '---- --- MR. PALING-All of the items you mentioned could be covered lot by lot? MR. MACEWAN-They'd have to be addressed lot by lot, if that's the tact we're taking. I'm not saying that they could all, 100 percent by us generally say, yes, each lot could handle its own stormwater right now. That's the data that essentially needs to be fleshed out, in terms of using Queensbury's design standards for one, and Number Two is essentially, even if it's hypothetical, somebody's got to pick a location for some device or some system and show that you can meet, for instance, separation from the mounded septic systems out back. Don't forget, septic mounds are high, and infiltration devices are low. So if they're too close, you certainly don't want to have the cross connection, if you will. MR. PALING-So there's nothing you'd require of the lot oWner, the total package owner, subdivision owner. It will be done on an individual lot basis, if we go that route. There's nothing to be done to the total package if we go the individual lot route. MR. MACEWAN-Maybe another way to done a subdivision of this size individual lot owners to come management plan? I don't recall. ask that question, have we ever where we've left it up to the up with their own stormwater That's why I'm asking. MR. GORALSKI-I can give you my recollection, okay, is that, typically, the stormwater management plan that's submitted with the subdivision addresses the stormwater that's created by building a new road an regrading associated with that road, and that the stormwater for the individual lots is not, in general, included, okay. On typical subdivision, we don't usually require a drywell for every house. All right. This is an unusual case, in that there are envi~onmental conditions above and beyond the fact that they're not building any new roads. There a,-e environmental conditions created by actually developing each individual lot that could cause significant impacts if they're not handled correctly. MR. MACNAMARA-To give one final example of what I think you were getting at earlier, in terms of waiting and doing each one lot by lot, I'm not saying that can't be done, but a hypothetical condition of where that might cause a problem is if, lets say one of the middle two lots gets purchased first. They do their business on it, and th y put their septic system, for instance, on the uphill side 0 their lot, if you will. Well, that automatically means the guy uphill, if he buys that lot, has got to stay away from, whether it's 50 foot or 100 foot, depending on which regulation you mi ht want to go to. So he can't use that part of it. So in term of piecemeal, there is a chance that it might pose some increas d complexity down the road. MR. OBERMAYER-The first guy in has the best system. MR. MACNAMARA-Possibly. I MR. PALING-But that's he way that we're probably going to go, anyway. MR. GORALSKI-One e options is to have the applicant go locate a specific size house with a specific driveway design on each individual lot, s owing location and design of the septic system, location and d sign of the stormwater management system for each individual lot. Then if someone comes in for a building permit, and it varies from what was shown on the subdivision plat, they're going to have to come back for a modification of the subdivision. Othe-wise, they could just go ahead and get a building permit. MRS. LABOMBARD-Tom has already done a great hydrology report on - 21 - Page 21, here, where he hypothetically assumes we'll have a 2,000 square foot house, how much clearing for the septic system, how many square feet for the driveway, etc., and he goes through all the calculations as to how many cubic feet per second of stormwater. MR. GORALSKI-Right. What that does is that sizes the stormwater management ~ystem. It doesn't give you a location. MRS. LABOMBARD-It doesn't put it exactly, you're right, but what I'm saying is, I see where you're coming from. He could do that by giving a specific location for a dwelling. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MACNAMARA-Cathy, to add one thing to that, in all honesty, I 6an't áctually offer to you ,our support, because they aren't used, basically, Number One, using Queen~bury's design standards, which is kind of a, you just go to the book and pull the numbers out. $0 that was an easy one. All I'm telling you is I can't confirm the number~ that are there are actually really appropriate for the site because, Number One, the Queensbury Design Standards weren't used, Subdivision Design Standards. That's what we review the project by, Number One, and Number Two is because of the high groundwater conditions, that even some of the usual Queensbury related runoff coefficients, if you will, might not be totally appropriate for these lots. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Now what about in the report where he has seven items of suggestion in the conclusion? Have we gotten that far yet? MR. MACNAMARA-We have. Those of the concepts appear very actually make them work on the developed, everybody~s happy. are all, I indicated earlier, all appropriate. The trick is to site, so that if all four lots get MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. BREWER-Why don't we have them do a typical 1800 square foot house on each lot, design the system, and then come back with the details? That's the minimum size in his deed restrictions. MR. SCHACHNER-Or whatever size house they want. MR. GORALSKI-You might want to do, you're giving a minimum in the deed restrictions, someone wants to come in and build a larger house, you know, the applicant can choose what size they want to address, but you want to address the ~ize that's going to be typical, so that every time someone comes in and builds a new house, they don't have to come in and modify the subdivision. MR. BREWER-We could say a minimum of 18, and suggest some number, and see if that's okay with the applicant. MR. STARK-I would be happy just to go ahead and then require a SEQRA, or Environmental Impact Statement, for each individual lot, you know, a site plan review for each individual lot. They already agreed to that. I don't think, why should they have to come back? They've been fooling around with this, now, since last Mayor June. MR. CAFFREY-I'd like to let Mr. Jarrett respond to some of these technical issues. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. rOM JARRETT MR. JARRETT-The reason that the analysis included a generlc site - 22 - "---' "--- -- "'-J as a developed site is exactly as John has stated, because no new infrastructure is proposed for this subdivision. It now is strictly a paper subdivision, no roads, no new facilities are planned at this time. Therefore, it's very difficult to predict exactly what homeowners are going to construct on these lots. In fact, John Caffrey has indicated that there's a potential to sell two lots at once to one buyer, and it's very difficult to predict what a buyer of that nature will do to a lot. What I've attempted to do is model the stormwater, first existing conditions, as they stand right now, and then in a developed state without any stormwater controls. You can see from my report. I conclude that there would be an incYease in stormwater runoff, both rate and volume. Then I attempted to apply some generic standards and generic details for stormwater management. No, I id not locate them specifically on the drawing, for exactly the reason that was stated. It's very difficult to predict w at a homeowner is going to do, but from my generic details, I concluded that stormwater management on these lots is possible. My conclusions, as has been raised, suggest, it really tightens the loop considerably, and I do suggest here, and in a subsequent letter to Bill MacNamara, that each of the lots be subject to scrutiny as they're designed and developed. I think it's very important on this site to see that. I believe that the conditions hat Bill has raised can be mitigated relatively easily. e has raised an issue regarding design standards, and I can discuss that with him further, I don't believe the Queensbury Standards are applicable in this case. If he demands that I work by those ståndards, I'll be glad to do that. I don't think it's as good a design as what I've prepared in this report, but I'll be glad to do that. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like s me clarification on that. Are you saying, suggesting that the d signs and the models that you're using are better than the Queens ury Standards? more comprehensive, in that a runoff coefficient of .35, the as a MR. JARRETT-Not bett r, but Queensbury standard calls for blanket statement. MR. MACNAMARA-No, it says, a minimum of .35 shall be used. It doesn't say it has to be .35. MR. JARRETT-I stand corrected. In a site where there's no infrastructure propose and no road proposed, I feel that it is too liberal, as it were, too restrictive, and I've shown in my report some runoff coefficients that are more appropriate, I can certainly demonstrate. MR. MACEWAN-But if th Town Standards are set there to use by developers to use as guideline to doing your subdivisions, why would you want to devi te from something like that? MR. JARRETT-Well, for two reasons. One, I feel it's more appropriate for the site, and, secondly, the importance of the stormwater modeling is the before and the after conditions. As long as I'm consisten in the before and the after, it really draws the same conclusions, in my mind. Now, again, I will defer to Bill on this, but put forth the report that I thought was appropriate. MR. OBERMAYER-Isn't part of the problem, though, Tom, looking at each individual develo ment, that you're really restricting the property owners to, you know, a certain amount of clearing? You're making those as umptions into your calculations, a certain amount of square foot ge for your driveway, for your lawn, okay. Aren't you really restricting them? MR. JARRETT-I don't believe ~, in a sense, restricting them. I think the stormwater conditions on that site are restricting them. Your concerns are being addressed in these - 23 - recommendations, and I believe it's going to openly restrict development of these sites, but I am not restricting them myself. I've made some recommendations. For example, that land clearing be minimized. I think that certainly enhances the chances for managing stormwater in an effective way. I've also recommended that no new stormwater be allowed onto Hillman Road. I've also recommended that no increase in runoff be allowed for each individual lot, both rate and volume, and I've recommended that only uncontaminated stormwater, for example from lawns, this type of thing, as opposed to driveways and sidewalks, be allowed to leave the site. I think these things will go a long way toward mitigating stormwater impacts. MR. PALING-How would you regulate the, if these lots were sold individually, and each person picked their own house and their own layout, it's going to maybe end up penalizing maybe a lot of two or three later on. How would you regulate that? MR. JARRETT-That's a concern, and has been a concern for a number of years, when you're dealing with septic systems and individual water supply, wells. The same kind of setback problems exist. One way to deal with that situation is for each individual lot owner, as he comes in, to not only take into consideration the development that has pre-existed him, that's already there, but to look at the adjoining lots and how he may impact that lot. MR. PALING-And you'd control that, try to control it, because you may end up with nonbuildable lots, but that wouldn't be our concern. That could end up that way. We don't appear to be in a situation to really vote on anything tonight, as I understand it. We've got to hear more. More differences have got to be resolved. Am I understanding this correct? MR. STARK-Bob, why would you say that? MR. PALING-Well, I don't think the model, there's a dispute as to the criteria used in the model, as to whether they're the right ones. MR. STARK-I think the one he uses was more stringent. MR. GORALSKI-I think you have a couple of issues. MR. MACNAMARA-Forget about the Queensbury Standard. I'll be honest with you, I could never buy some of the runoff coefficients that he's proposing for this particular site, because they assume conditions where there are not high levels of groundwater. He's basically saying 90 percent of the runoff that falls for a design storm is going to percolate into the ground. I'm sorry. I have to disagree with that. It's high groundwater, and it's clay, and it's at a decent slope on upper two lots. I can't buy that 90 percent. MR. MACEWAN-Well, we already know that from some of the comments that we had during the public hearing portion of this. MR. OBERMAYER-That's right. People had problems with the water running down the road, right? MR. GORALSKI-Excuse me. You have technical engineering issues that you have to address, then you have the issue of whether or not, I guess the w,ay I'm hear i ng it now, you really have a couple of options. One is to Pos Dec this. One is to Negative Dec it, based on having site plan reviews for individual lots. The third option that's come up tonight is to require the applicant to give you a typical lot layout for each one of these lots, showing the location and size of the house, location and size of the septic system, location and size of stormwater managemeht facilities, all those things. If that's the way you're going to go, in order for them to address those things, obviously, the engineers are - 24 - '--'" '"--' '- ~ '~ going to have to come to some type of agreement on the formulas used. MR. STARK-Bob, I don't agree with that, totally. That might be one of the options, but how can you say, you know, maybe somebody wants to go up and buy three of the lots, and then put one house on there that's 2,000 quare feet. I think we ought to take it as an individual basi. If somebody wants to buy a lot, they have to come back for a site plan review, period. MR. BREWER-That's ~r opinion. everybody's opinion. I think we should get MR. OBERMAYER-I'll give mz opinion. I think because of the critical area that it's in, it should be looked at as a whole, as one project. The SEORA should be done as altogether. MR. BREWER-I agree with Jim. I think it should be looked at as one project, and I thi k we should get those details, and the two engineers should work and come up with some kind of information from us. We're not en ineers, all of us aren't, anyway. MR. PALING-I could go either way on it. The thing, and maybe I haven't heard everything, but I think there's some unresolved details beyond just the choice as to whether we go it as a total, or as individual lots. Am I wrong or right on that? MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think you're right. Either way, the engineers have to resolve their difference of opinion. I guess what I'm saying is, I think you should give the applicant some direction as to how you would like to proceed with this. If you're going to require an individual site plan review for each lot, that really doesn't have to be ironed out until they come in for their individual site plan review. If, on the other hand, you want to see a layout of each lot now, to make sure that each lot is going to be able to fit everything on it, then that's something they would have to work out prior to your approval. MR. PALING-Well, I'd like to see it left open, so they're not limited to exactly where the septic is and the building and all, but couldn't we wait until the engineering issues are resolved, then decide that? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the answer is yes, Bob, but I think first you have to decide how ou're going to go about doing this. Is it going to be through a full Environmental Impact Statement, or is it going to be thro gh just gathering additional information. My own personal feelfng is, the applicant's representative, I think, indicated that heir preference would be, if this Board was willing to, to n t enact a SEORA positive declaration, requiring an Environmental Impact Statement, but to have the ability to gather additional engineering information. Now that's up to the Board and the applicant, but one way to do, or one relatively easy way to do that, I should say, would be to have the applicant do a hypo hetical design, on a lot by lot basis. I think that would sat·sfy Jim and Tim's concerns, that were looking at the overall SEORA evaluation on the overall project, and that would still s ve the applicant the time, trouble and expense of having to pr pare an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. PALING-But then the basis when it came to? would go, still, to the individual lot MR. SCHACHNER-Well, wh approve it, would be a systems, water supply, several minutes ago, 0 owner came in with an approved, they would no would be entitled to t would be approved now, if in fact you hypothetical plan showing houses, septic etc., and I think, as John mentioned the lot by lot applications, if a lot pplication that was essentially what was need further site plan approval. They building permit. If a particular lot - 25 - ----- >.,'i!f"< owner wanted to do something different than what was previously approved, they're not shut out of the opportunity. They just would need modification of the site plan approval. MR. BREWER-The only reason I say to do it that way, is if they go and gather this information, maybe it has to be a three lot subdivision, maybe not. At least we know the answer to that question. MR. OBERMAYER-I agree with Tim. MR. SCHACHNER-The thing that we'll avoid, also, is that way the Board and the applicant and potential buyers will know ahead of time, if we're talking about X number of buildable lots, or Y number of buildable lots, and that's a very legitimate Board concern, and I'm sure that's an applicant concern as well, but I think the applicant volunteered that they would rather develop more information on those lines than have a SEQRA determination tonight. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. PALING-And we could go ahead with the public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. MR. PALING-And then we could, after further discussion, just table it, and then do the SEQRA at. MR. SCHACHNER-When you have the additional information. MR. PALING-Okay. Is that everybody? MR. MACEWAN-I would ask that you leave the hearing open, too. MR. PALING-Yes. The hearing will be left open. Do you have any comments for the moment? All right. At this point, we'll open the public hearing on this application. Does anyone care to speak about it? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ART BUCKLEY MR. BUCKLEY-My name's Art Buckley. I was here before, at the original hearing, and the problem is far from being resolved, I can tell you. I read through this statement, the engineering report and so on, and though I'm not an engineer, I can tell you quite clearly, this gentleman is in error. Now, I lived through this for a good number of years. We lost one camp up there, the original four bedroom camp we had there, because of flooding. We didn't have a basement in it. Of course, all mud and stuff washed under the building, and it just rotted away because we weren't able to move it, and four years ago, we were flooded out again. This time I had nearly three feet of water in a basement 39 by 40. I lost a 32 cubic foot upright freezer, three electric motors, one was an antique, quite valuable, electric tools. It cost me a lot of money, none of it covered by insurance. My oil burner. I lost that. So, naturally, I am very concerned about this, and we're talking about water management coming down off the hill. ,Now, next door neighbor, Mr. Temkins, has a septic system across the road. It's a mound about 100 feet long. It must be six feet high, and it must be at least 15 feet at the base. Behind that is a spring. A year ago last spring, there was a pool of water 100 feet wide and 18 inches deep backed up behind that mound. Now on the south side of that mound, there was a small drain, put in by the original owner. It was directed directly into a catch basin. Now that catch basin delivers water over onto m.z property. From there across the road now, over onto Takundewide's property, then it comes directly west onto my next - 26 - --.../ --- ...., ''--'" door neighbor's proper y, Mr. and Mrs. Locke. It is therefore directed into Lake Geor e, which is where it comes out, is into my swimming area. Tha drain is just the other side of my lot, and all that, we're th recipient of all that water that comes down off the mountain, n the east side of Cleverdale Road, onto this property, and I have seen water coming down there you wouldn't believe. My neighbor, Bill Gazeley, who lives on Hillman Road, put in a catch basin. I've seen, a 1,000 gallon catch basin. I've seen the water back up into his basement. Now he put that in to take the water out of his basement, because he had water problems. The water has backed up into his basement. That's how much water comes down off that hill. When we get a couple of days of rain, or if we have snow, and then you get rain on top of that, which happens around here occasionally, and as far as water management is concerned, it's a horror. We had people up there a couple of weeks ago. They were appalled at the way that water, we'll say misted, if you will. MR. PALING-Okay. Are you asking that anything specific be done, or just that they don't add to the problem? MR. BUCKLEY-I would like Statement. to have an Environmental Impact MR. PALING-That I can understand. Yes. MR. BUCKLEY-Because it's a hell of a problem, and you can ask your Highway Superintendent. I called him out of the sack at two o'clock one morning t come up and pump me out. That following morning, he was up th re putting a 12 inch drain pipe across the road, with another ca ch basin. In fact, I think I called him twice. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Did that help alleviate the problem? MR. BUCKLEY-It helped alleviate the problem, but it doesn't stop the water from going irto the lake on my property, which is all contaminated. When yo get a flood up there. The water backs up against Temkins' septic system, mound, Wisconsin Mound, I guess they call it, and it flows off southward into the catch b;3sin. That catch basin goes across the road into my property, and it goes back across the road to another catch basin, and then laterally along Hillm n Road to another catch basin, directly west of the catch basin on Locke's property. The there's a ten inch main, a culvert rrain, whatever it is, that goes right down there at the edge into the water right here. MR. PALING-All right. I think earlier, and we're probably asking, I believe. you heard what we talked heading in the direction about you're MR. BUCKLEY-I'm convinced that an Environmental Impact Statement is the way to go. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. OBERMAYER-John, wa n't the Town of Queensbury evaluating some of these Critical Environmental Areas? MR. GORALSKI-There is Stormwater Management Committee, that is working on the stormwater management around the Lake George area. Nothing has come out of that Committee, not at this point. MR. PALING-Is there aryone else who would care to speak? Okay. We're going to leave the public hearing open, for the next meeting that we have on this subject, and if the applicant is willing, then the motin will be tabled, if it's okay with you. - 27 - -' MR. CAFFREY-Yes. We would consent that it be table, with hopes t.hat the engineers can come to an agreement on this thing. MR. BREWER-How are we going to go, Bob? Before we table it, lets give them a direction to go in. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think if you're going t.o require the additional information, you should tell the applicant that. If you're not, you should tell them that. MR. PALING-Why don't you make that part of the motion, that that be. MR. BREWER-Well, I think we have to agree on what we're going to do, before we. MR. PALING-Okay. I thought we generally did agree that. MR. BREWER-Jim and I are the only t~o that agreed. Cathy and yourself and. MR. PALING-No. I said I thought it was a good idea. MR. BREWER-A good idea t.o do what? MR. PALING-To do the overall, with t.he individual lot layout. MR. BREWER-You agree they should show each individual? MR. PALING-Yes. I think it's a good idea. MR. BREWER-Okay. ,Craig and Cathy didn't give us. MR. PALING-All right. Craig, do you want to say? MR. MACEWAN-t think it needs some more, I'd like to see the two engineers get together on their stormwater management plans. I'd like to see, I guess a model showing the ultimate buildout of the subdivision. I mean, yes, it's true someone that someone could come in and buy three lots, or someone could come in and split up and buy two lots each, but I think what we really have to look at the maximum buildout at four lots. MR. PALING-Isn't that what would come out of Tim's suggestion? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. So we've got those two points. MR. OBERMAYER-But not only how it impacts those individual lots, but how is that going to impact that general area? Because really that's also what. we're looking at, not only the individual lots. MR. BREWER-But if it's contained in the lots, Jim, then why does he have any impact on the other area? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that's what the applicant would propose to demonstrat.e. MR. OBERMAYER-If you contain it to the area, then that's a di fferent stO)-Y. MR. CAFFREY-That's our intention, and that's what Mr. Jarrett's report states, that he believes it can be contained on each individual lot, without impacting this gentleman or anybody else. Now, he and Mr. MacNamara disagree about some of the details, but that's where we're heading to, is that. What I would hope is that we not be required to design each and every single site, at t.his point, because we don't know what people are going to do, - 28 - --'" --- --",' but if, whether it's a Mr. Jarrett then agree board, that may be suf design each and every believe that'll work. model for one lot that Mr. MacNamara and haws that it's going to work across the icient, and we shouldn't have to micro ne of them right, so long as that, they MR. PALING-I believe th t's the way we are headed. MR. BREWER-It's ~ inte show that, in other wo Number Two in, and it can't be built on? So tion to get ds, suppose impacts Lot hat good is a model for all four lots, to he gets Long Number One, Lot Three and Four so that they the model lot for one lot? MR. CAFFREY-If yoU can appropriate separation are pretty much uniform you put everything in. do a model that shows you Cqn maintain distances. I think the soil conditions across it. It's just a question of, can MR. BREWER-Is it that much more work, Bill, to show on four, versus just doing the one? MR. MACNAMARA-Well, ass ming that every lot can handle its own stormwater on its parti ular lot, and meet separation distances, no, it's not any more, because you do one times four, you've done all four, but there is the possibility that when we do agree on some numbers to be used, that it might not all fit on one lot, using separation distances, and there may be something like using a property line for two different lot's water. Do you see what I'm saying? So you may have to have two different lots going into, say, the middle, and having a big basin between two people's houses. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I~d like to know, whether we're going to end up having that happen or not. MRS. LABOMBARD-Another suggestion would be to approach it like yOU were the developer, like you were, you know, the contractor that was going to go i So you, when your customers came to you to put thei)- house up, you would say, this is really the proposed place where, this is the hypothetical design where the house should go, given the typical lot layout, showing the location, the size of the house, the septic, the stormwater management, etc., and, therefore, hen that person comes in, like John said earlier, to us, with his plans, hopefully, it will be pretty conforming to what you and the engineers have developed. MR. CAFFREY-So, basically, a set of parameters that they can try and fit into. MRS. LABOMBARD-Exactly. Yes, but I think that yoU probably, you have to do one for the, four lots, because one lot's design can impact another, because of the topography there. I mean, that really has to be don, and you may find that, like we said earlier, maybe each lot should be one and a third acres. I hope not, but that possibly could happen. MR. PALING-Well, yes. I thought we were headed in that direction. and that, urther, we were going to layout the four lots completely, and then when the buyers came in, if one lot changed, it would effect the next lot to it, and it would have to be considered at that time. MR. BREWER-For modific tion. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes, modificatión. Then when we did the SEQRA, we could do it all as one. We wouldn't have to do. We could do one SEQRA rather than four mini SEQRA's, so to speak. I would rather do it as one and let hem show us a model for all the lots, so - 29 - - that they can be developed. MR. OBERMAYER-I agree, fully developed. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-Bob, they come in and do a SEQRA on the whole thing, but then if they come in for a Site Plan Review, as part of our motion, they still have to do a SEQRA at that time anyway. MR. OBERMAYER-No, they wouldn't. MR. BREWER-No, they wouldn't. MR. SCHACHNER-Probably not, not if you consider the entire project, buildout of the four residential lots. I think the only tbing that would have to happen would be when, first of all, keep in mind that they wouldn't necessarily need site plan approval if they stuck with, if the ultimate lot developer stuck within what you just called the parameters that are approved now. So right off the bat, there's not going to be site plan approval, necessarily, on each lot. There could be, only if there's a modification sought. If there's a modification sought, then what you'd be doing is exactly what we were talking about doing last application, and other applications, is that you would look at the environmental impact and say, these are no different than what we originally evaluated when we did the subdivision and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is required, or if there was some dramatic modification that did cause different environmental impacts, then you would do a revision of the SECRA review. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. Okay. MR. PALING-Yes. whole thing. Okay, and we're working from models in this MR. BREWER-Right. MR. ÞALING-Okay. MR. CAFFREY-So what you're saying is, design everybody's house for them if we and show that it'll fit, say house of drive maximum certain size, stormwater and C. We don't have to show exactly on going to fit? we don't have to micro set out some parameters a maximum certain size, can be handled by A, 8, the lot where all that's MR. BREWER-Just show that they will fit. MR. OBERMAYER-You're going to have and you're going to have to have nature. to show that they will fit, certain separations of that MR. GORALSKI-I think, and Bill, you can chime in here if I'm wrong. I think, in order to show that you can, as you said, get four lots as opposed to three, because of the separation distances, I think you're going to have to show an individual design for each lot. MR. MACNAMARA-Even if it's a hypothetical, to assume the four lots can be built upon, then there's going to be fouy different stormwater generation points, if you will. MR. BREWER-And we can use your deed restrictions as a minimum size house, what do you want to say, 2,000 square feet, 1,800, as on here? Whatever you want to say. MR. OBERMAYER-That's up to the applicant. MR. GORALSKI-Right, and if something came in that was larger than - 30 - ---,' "'--' '-- .--. that, then it would be ' modification. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. BREWER-Exactly. restrictions. So we would have to go by your deed MR. CAFFREY-That's a minimum size, though. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. CAFFREY-We may choose to come back here that, assume a 3,000 square foot house. MR. BREWER-Then you would have to come back for a modification. MR. CAFFREY-We may come back to you in a month with something that says, 3,000 square foot house, and then anybody who comes in with a 2,000 square foot house is no problem. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. You should do that. MR. CAFFREY-We don't want to be locked in to 2,000 square feet. MR. BREWER-No, what I'r saying to you is, you have it in here as a minimum. What you s ould do is go the maximum. MRS. LABOMBARD-John, I interpreted that to be the mlnlmum for the potential home buyer, so you don't put up, but you wanted to keep the ambiance, you know, put up nice, a little bigger home. MR. CAFFREY-Exactly. MR. STARK-The applica t understand what's needed. ought to move along. I think we MR. PALING-Okay. l-Je ' 11 tab 1 e it. MOTION TO TABLE SUB IVISION NO. 8-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE COLGATE PHILLIPS EST TEILEIGH BEEMAN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Until more information is gathered by the engineers, as per our request, with a model for all four lots, separation distances, stormwater management, and septics. Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. BUCKLEY-You will Statement? Ian on going for the Environmental Impact MR. PALING-Yes. We will do that. MR. BREWER-No. MR. SCHACHNER-This Beard has made no commitment to require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, Number One. Number Two, I think w should have the record indicate, and I believe that Mr. Caffrey, the legal representative of the applicant, already has expressed a consent of the applicant to this tabling, and just have the record so indicate. - 31 - -..-' -' MR. BREWER-Upon those conditions that we just mentioned. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. BREWER-Nothing to do with an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. This Board's certainly not made any commitment to require an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. PALING-This is a Type I, and we will go for SECRA. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. It'll be a SECRA evaluation, but I believe the question from the audience was, whether the Board was committed to, require preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. MR. PALING-No. I said this could lead to that. SECRA, and it could lead to that. We'll do a MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1995 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED JOSEPH GROSS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A/SR-1A LOCATION: BIG BAY ROAD/PALMER DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 30.88 ACRE LOT INTO 22 LOTS OF APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE EACH. TAX MAP NO. 144-1-40.1 LOT SIZE: 30.88 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES & LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-1995, Joseph Gross, Meeting Date: September 26, 1995 "The engineering review by Rist-Frost Associates points out several technical issues that should be addressed prior to final approval. At Sketch Plan the Board discussed the access to lots 7 & 8 being from the proposed new road R.O.W. this requirement should be specified on the plat. Also, the disposition of the existing R.O.W. from Big Bay Road to the south should be clarified. Section 183-23 G states that '.. .where a subdivision borders on or contains a railroad right- of-way or limited access highway right-of-way, the Planning Board may require a street approximately parallel to and on each side of the right-of-way...'. Although I do not think it would be appropriate to require the applicant to construct a road, the Board may wish to investigate a land dedication adjacent to the Interstate right-of-way in lieu of a recreation fee. This land could potentially be used for a bike trail to access Hudson River Park which will be constructed on the east side of I-87." MR. PALING-Okay, and Bill MacNamara, you have comments. MR. MACNAMARA-Yes. John touched on a few of the comments, and all the others, we have already, I've met with the applicant's engineer, I think it was yesterday, and he dropped off a revised set of drawings which we have not had time to review yet, but we've, in principal, gone over all the issues, if you will, and in a nutshell, they consisted of some grading and contour issues that need to be clarified. Some utilities we suggested be shown for hypothetical lots going in, water, gas, electric, just basic locations. We tóuched on some of the right-of-ways that John talked about. We noted that Lot One is actually on the river, and there was a shoreline clearing issue, in terms of cutting restrictions, which they've corrected. We asked that some type of roof runoff, driveway runoff, if you will, eaves trenches with basic drywell concepts be proposed, particularly for the lots that are close to the river, of which Matt has indicated, in fact, the drawing did note that they're going to add some notes for that. Initially, it looked like some of the lots were in the 100 year flood plain, and Matt has done some additional work to - 32 - '-- "'-'"" '-.... --' show that, I think at most, it may be one or two, and I f9rget what the number was, but Matt can touch on that. There was an item about, if there were low lots, initially some of the contours weren't labeled, and the driveway should be such that, from the street, which is a Town street, doesn't enter somebody's lot. We talked about the right-of-way, Northway thing, seasonal high groundwater data, initially, was left off, and he's added that to the drawings. Those are our only comments. MR. PALING-Okay. What are the maps that we have in the handout that we got tonight? What are we looking at here? MR. GORALSKI-Those are the flood plain, the FEMA floodplain ~aps. MR. PALING-Okay, and that's what he's just addressed. Okay. MR. M. STEVES-My name's Matt Steves, with Van Dusen and Steves. .JOE GROSS MR. GROSS-Joe Gross, t e applicant. MR. PALING-And, Bill, yoU sa{d the ones in your letter ha0e been pretty much addressed? MR. MACNAMARA-For the most part. I haven't .actually gone 'over what Matt left with me yesterday, i~ t~(ms of the revised drawing, but we basically went over all 'the notes, and he had indicated, yes, there weren't any problems, and he could certainly add notes to his drawings to indicate it. MR. PALING-All right, and how about John's comments? seen the ones he just read? Have you MR. M. STEVES-I believe John's comments mainly were the driveway issue. MR. PALING-He's got three of them, I think, access to Lot Seven and Eight. MR. M. STEVES-That's correct. Lot Seven and Eight border not only on Big Bay Road, but also on what we show would be a future road. MR. PALING-Okay, and then he talked about the right-of-way from Big, okay. MR. M. STEVES-And that's another right-of-way. There's a right- of-way that's been granted to the neighbors to the south, that he has, and all it states is that we have to grant ingress and egress across our property to his property, and all we show is that here's the existing right-of-way, and it's not in a specific location in the deed or a specific width in the deed. So all we have to do is, basically, have a right-of-way there for him. So what we're proposing to do is to re-locate that right-of-way along the border of Lot Three, and establish it as 20 feet wide. I don't think .John has any other comments. MR. GORALSKI-I talked about access to Lots Seven and Eight. The right-of-way is address d here. I just wanted to make sure that we were cutting off soeone's access to a parcel back here in this triangular piece, which, apparently, we're not, and then just a discussion of that area along the Northway. MR. M. STEVES-We're going to leave the right-of-way there, such time as we negoti te it with the purchaser of this we'll either leave it here it is, or we'll re-locate it. long as we supply an ac ess, it's all set. until lot, As MR. 08ERMAYER-The FEMA lood. Which lots are the flood insurance - 33 - - . '-- rate map that shows the flood areas? MR. M. STEVES-They have a specific elevation of 290. MR. OBERMAYER-All right. Which lots does that effect? MR. M. STEVES-The only one that it effects, the 290 is located on, is basically Lot One, and what we've done, is you have 290 ,that comes up into there, but you can also see the 294, 292, 296 on their lot. So we're proposing the finished floor of the house at 294, which puts you, therefore, above the flood plain. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. It kind of looks like you've got it in, what is it, 290 did you say? MR. M. STEVES-Yes, 290. MR. OBERMAYER-It looks like, in looking at this little map right here, it looks like it actually divides. MR. M. STEVES-That's a broad brush map done by FEMA. They don't come out here and do specific topography on this site. So it's kind of a broad brush thing off of the USGS Map. We have actually done a detailed topography on the whole site, and FEMA does state that their flood elevation in this area is 290. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. So 290 and above you have an issue, right? MR. M. STEVES-290 and above you don't have an issue. MR. OBERMAYER-You don't have an issue. I'm sorry. MR. MACNAMARA-I think it is worthy of noting properties, which we understand aren't even developed at this point, but are included subdivision, if you will, that may contain grades, and that was one of our comments. that the center looking to be in the overall some 290 or less MR. OBERMAYER-Ri~ht. That's what I was asking. MR. M. STEVES-In here, that we're not developing at this time. The only one that has 290 or lower on it, as it exists now, is basically Lot Number One. MR. OBERMAYER-But this subdivision, how many lots is this subdivision? Is it the whole entire? MR. GORALSKI-No. Right now, you're doing Phase I, which is only the eight lots that front on Big Bay Road. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. Now, how will you point that out to any future home buyers, that, you know, because there are certain requirements associated with it, when you build in a flood area. MR. M. STEVES-We 'can put that on the map, that anybody, you know, that any house, especially on Lot One, will have to be set at a certain elevation, or above. We'll put the note on the map. MR. MACNAMARA-Yes, and actually I think there's something that is part of the building permit, CO or whatever. There's a special Queensbury building, special flood hazard zone or some kind of a permit that actually. MR. OBERMAYER-Not only that, but isn't there another, I don't know what it is, but there's something, when you develop along the Hudson or whatever river that you're in that flood zone, that you have to actually go by, there's a special permit that's required. MR. GORALSKI-There's a permit that is administered by our - 34 - '--" ,----' ".-...... ,----,' Building Department when you're in the flood zone. MR. M. STEVES-We're not in the flood zone. MR. OBERMAYER-I thought Lot One was. MR. L. STEVES-No. that's the only lot elevation or lower. above, all the lots L has a 290 elevation on there, but in eight lot subdivision that has that T e low areas are toward the river. 290 and enjoy that. My name is Leon Steves. MR. MACEWAN-I just have one question for Staff, at this point. Could you elaborate 0 the idea of conveying part of that right- of-way for a proposed, maybe idea of a bike trail? I'm curious as to how you're going to get from that side of the Northway to the other. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Okay. Do you want that specific question, or the whole thing? MR. MACEWAN-That specific question. MR. GORALSKI-There's a out 30 feet between the shoreline and the bridge abutment, and it's probably, I would say, 16 feet tall, that could possibly be used, and the, what the Town would have to do, if they ever actually went through with this whole thing, is purchase that last piece of property along the river in order to make that connection. MR. MACEWAN-How could you get across the State, I mean, would the State allow you right- MR. GORALSKI-Yes. from the State, but would have to get a right-of-way MR. MACEWAN-Is that so ething that's feasible? MR. GORALSKI-Absolutely. meeting today with the specifically to discuss Queensbury. As a matter of fact, there was a Glens Falls Transportation Council, bike routes within the Town of MR. MACEWAN-So the State is pretty much open minded about doing that? MR. GORALSKI-They're always looking for new bike routes, at this point. MR. BREWER-Now, as far as us asking the applicant, wouldn't he have to? MR. GORALSKI-He would have to initiate, that's right. The way the subdivision, and ometimes this isn't clear. The way the Subdivision Reg's are ritten, are, the applicant has to dedicate land. In lieu of dedicating land that the Town finds acceptable, they have to pay the f e. So if the Town sees a piece of land on this property that they feel is acceptable, they can ask, I mean, they can almost requir the applicant to donate it. MR. BREWER-Not necessarily for all of the, in other words, if that piece of property is worth, I'm just using numbers, $5,000, and the fees are, for the subdivision, $20,000, is it possible to take the $5,000 piece cf land, and then the $15,000 in cash, or whatever? MR. GORALSKI-I've never heard of it done that way. I'd have to re-read the Regulation MR. BREWER-I guess I'm to take a piece of pro looking at a, is it feasible that's not really worth much, for us versus - 35 - '- the fee? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think, monetarily, it's for us to decide whether it's a monetary thing. MR. BREWER-The Town Board has to do it anyway. MR. MACEWAN-That's right. MR. GORALSKI-The Town Board has to do it. What I'm saying is, I think there's an opportunity, here, to, when the discussions were going on about the Hudson River Park, one of the objections was that people would have to drive through a very busy intersection to get over to Big Boom Road. This might be a way to alleviate that problem. I'm just saying it's an option that I think the Town should explore. If you folks don't think it's appropriate, that's certainly up to you. If the Town Board doesn't think it's appropriate, well, then they can make that determination. MR. PALING-John, how far does the applicant have to carry the process? What do they have to do, specifically? MR. GORALSKI-Well, as I said, the Regulation requires that the applicant donate land, and if the Town doesn't find land suitable, then they will require a $500 per lot recreation fee. MR. PALING-But then if they accept the land, that's the end of the process? That's it? MR. GORALSKI-If the Town accepts the land, then that land gets deeded over to the Town. MR. PALING-And the applicant doesn't have to do anything beyond that. MR. GORALSKI-That's right. Then it would be up to the Town to do what they want with that land. MR. PALING-Okay. How does this sit with the applicant? MR. GROSS-It's overwhelming. It doesn't seem to be a problem, appear to be a problem. MR. PALING-But you'd want to withhold final decision? MR. GROSS-Yes. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it would have to go to the Town Board anyway, to get that concept. Right? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. Usually what happens, when somebody is dedicating land, is they include that as p~rt of ,the subdivision. They show that as a lot to be dedicated to the T6wn, and then, after we go through the process, then the Town would then accept that parcel of land for recreation. MR. MACEWAN-Usually in the past, haven't we kind of recommended to the Town that this is part of what we wanted to do for the subdivision, and they usually, I'll retract that statement. MR. GORALSKI-The process that you go through is that the Town Board asks for a recommendation from both the Planning Board and the Recreation Commission, and then the Town Board considers the recommendations of both the Recreation Commission and the Planning Board, and makes a decision on whether or not they would want to accept these parcels for dedication. MR. PALING-It wouldn't effect anything else we did regarding this application. MR. GORALSKI-Correct. - 36 - "-- ~.-- ,--,' ,-",. MR. BREWER-How do you access that, John? It's not on here. MR. GORALSKI-What I'm proposing is that you have, like about 130 foot spur that comes off. The Hudson River runs along this part of the map, okay, and then right here is the Northway right-of- way, okay. There's on lot here, adjacent to the Northway right- of-way, then there's t is long spur that runs down here, which is basically useable for this lot. What I'm proposing is that the applicant gives a 50 foot right-of-way along here, until we get to this spur. Then that whole spur be dedicated to the Town, and then eventually, when this whole thing came to fruition, what the Town would have to d is either gèt an easement across this property, or purchase this property, and get an easement from the State to go under this bridge abutment, and they'd re-access the Park on the other side. MR. PALING-We could pass on comment, then, or recommendation regarding that and ther proceed with the rest of the. MR. GORALSKI-Exactly. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. I think some things we have to think about, though, if people are going to use that spur, and I think, possibly an idea, but combinations for people that are going to park here and go there, I don't know. MR. GORALSKI-I would propose to make it a bike trail, not vehicular access, just a bike trail. MR. PALING-It would be bike trail only. MR. GORALSKI-Similar tc the Warren County bike trail. MR. PALING-Okay. I we can proceed, fully understand that. right. Are there or comments from the oard or the applicant? to a public hearing, will be our next step. because I think we any more questions We're going to go MR. GORALSKI-I do have some letters. MR. PALING-I'm sorry. Letters, would you read them, please. MR. GORALSKI-I can read them at this time, during the public hearing. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. I'll open the public hearing and begin with the letters read y John. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. GORALSKI-Okay. "e, Marie V. Huntington and Eugene H. Coon, Sr. of #3 Palmer Dr. re for the subdivision. We feel it will improve the area. Marie V. Huntington Eugene H. Coon, Sr." "To Whom It May Concern: The Gifford family will not contest any building the Gross fa ily intends to do. We are behind them 100%. Mr. & Mrs. Eleric Gifford 47 Palmer Drive, Queensbury" "To Whom It May Concerr: I feel that Mr. and Mrs. Joe Gross have done a nice job in ho they are developing the property. They have been very informative about the property. I like the woods out back of us, but ch nges do happen. This is one of the better developments in Queens ury we feel. Mr. & Mrs. Gross live here and have built a very nice home; I feel that they do care what goes on out behind an around us. Sincerely, Craig & Denise Hanchett, 9 Palmer Drive" "To Whom It May Concern: My name is Doug Granger. I am homeowner on Big Bay Road. I have no concerns or objectiors with Mr. Gross' proposed subdivision. After discussion with ~im regarding this matter, he demonstrated latitude with his pIa s to blend with thè existing neighborhood. - 37 - /' '-- I also realize that Joe's proposal is an asset to the community in the fact that home re-sale values increase. Signed, Douglas J. Granger" And then I have letters of intent from Van Dusen & Steves regarding the subdivision, and we did receive all of the. MR. PALING-Those are all back. All right. Would anyone care to speak about this? HAROLD WAKELEY MR. WAKELEY-I'm Harold Wakeley. I have a summer camp on Palmer Drive, which is going to back up to this property. My only concern is water. My well is only 16, 18 feet deep, a shallow well, and I understand what everybody says, it purifies, run a few feet and everything, but they're putting 60 homes up above us in Hudson Point, and he's goi.ng to put 22 in here, and I just wonder how many septic tanks the Town of Queensbury can handle without flooding over. I was at a meeting about the Hudson Pointe thing, and the former Supervisor said there should be no more subdivisions of any size without being able to hook on to a public sewer, and I believed that. So, if this backs up, and this gentleman decides to put his septic tank right by my property, is there going to be any regulations of where he can put it and where he can't? MR. PALING-There is a regulation. MR. STARK-It has to be 100 feet away from your well. MR. WAKELEY-What has to be 100 feet? MR. STARK-His septic tank has to be 100 feet away from your well. MR. WAKELEY-From ~ well? MR. MACNAMARA-Just a note of interest. That was one of our comments that was outstanding, is that all the adjoining wells aren't shown, and I seem to, somebody had indicated something about not being able to get on certain properties to determine certain locations, but it is important the separations are met. MR. GORALSKI-I believe Mr. Wakeley lives adjacent to Phase II of the subdivision. So I don't believe they ,would have even attempted to get on his lot at this point. MR. PALING-But there is that law of 100 foot, Code. MR. WAKELEY-That's on one lot? MR. PALING-On all. MR. GORALSKI-On any lot. MR. PALING-Any. MR. WAKELEY-On one individual lot, the difference between the well and the septic tank has to be 100 feet. MR. OBERMAYER-One hundred feet apart. MR. WAKELEY-One hundred feet, but if he puts his on this edge of his lot because that's where he decides to put it, then my lot's going to be five feet from his sewer. MR. BREWER-No. It has to be 100 from your well. MR. SCHACHNER-Or any other well. MR. GORALSKI-It doesn't matter where the lot lines are. - 38 - "--' ~' '-.." -.../ MR. PALING-You can for~et about the boundary lines of the lots, when it comes to this. It's got to be 100 feet from your well, no matter what lot it's on. MR. WAKELEY-There's no sewage system going in, of any kind, that you know of? MR. PALING-I don't believe so. MR. WAKELEY-I don't mean a public one. I mean for this. MR. PALING-Not a centr 1 system, if that's what you mean, no. MR. WAKELEY-Okay. The only other objection I have to it, we've been there 25, 26 year~, is that every time they go in and cut down the trees, the noise from the Northway increases, and houses are constantly being tuilt, and I don't know if there's anything that can be done. I've seen places along the 87 North, Interstates, where th y've put up wooden fences. I don't know what's going to come of it. It's getting to be a problem, now. When he cuts down all this property behind us, all the trees, it's certainly going to make noise, and I have no objection to Joe and his proposal. Those are just a couple of things that I really think should be looked at. Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Okay. Someone else? DICK WILLETT MR. WILLETT-My name is Dick Willett. I also live on Palmer Drive, closer to the d velopment, even the new development, than beginning development, than Mr. Wakeley does. I was concerned about water also, whe you only have a six foot water table, and they put twenty-two septic tanks in there, an leachfields going out would affect our ater. We have beautiful ice cold, clear well water. MR. PALING-Would Bill or John want to comment on, this is the second time we've beer asked this. Do you have any comment on that? MR. MACNAMARA-No, but that was one of the first things we opened up with, is that, we urderstand that this development is just for these eight lots, an if all of this development were in question, we actually had a number of other comments, of which the repeated response to our comments was, well, that's in the next development, and that's probably never going to happen. Well, at that point, I'm looking at these eight lots right here, but looking at it, ev n if it were the 22 lots, well, there's certainly, DOH gets i to the picture, and has to get into the whole, there's a mini um number of lots where, if it's greater than that, there has tc be a central sewer. I don't believe this triggers that. So, there certainly, this is an issue that probably comes up in lot of subdivisions, but I'm not saying it's not a valid issue. MR. GORALSKI-I believe the DOH regulation is 100 lots, 49 per phase, that's what it is. I think it's 49 lots per phase, okay, and then DOH looks for a central sewage system. MR. OBERMAYER-As far where that's going subdivision? s the Town water, can you explain to me t end? Is it going to go into the new MR. GORALSKI-They have made a request to extend the sewer district, which is a r quirement of the Subdivision Regulations. MR. OBERMAYER-Water district. MR. GORALSKI-~I'm sorry, Water district, the Water district. They - 39 - "- ../' will be required to extend the water line to the lots as, well, Phase I lots, after Phase I is developed, and then when they come in for Phase II, build that road, they'll be required to put the water main up the road to Town specifications, and each one of those lots will be required to use the Town water. MR. OBERMAYER-Why wouldn't Palmer Drive be hooked up at the same time? MR. GORALSKI-They certainly could petition to be part of the water district, if they'd like to. MR. BREWER-Probably don't want to be. MR. WILLETT-Some of them do. Some of them don't. I inquired about this years ago. I've lived down there 19 years myself. They brought water down to where it is on Big Bay Road now. I talked to Flaherty and some of the water people. I said, why don't you start on the corner and go all the way up Palmer Drive? We can't do that. We'd have to create a new district and all that. Now somebody wants to create a subdivision. They say, sure, we'll just extend it down. I mean, if the people of Palmer Drive wanted water down there, we'd have a hell of a hassle, but they'd say, well, we'd have to create a new water district. NO~J, somebody wants to put a subdivision in there, they'd say, fine, we'll just extend it down. MR. BREWER-Because the developer's going to pay that expense. If you want to pay for it, Dick, they'll gladly bring it down there, I'm sure. MR. OBERMAYER-See, the developer's going to pay for the extension of the water line. MR. WILLETT-In other words, if we've got the money, we can get the water, right? MR. OBERMAYER-I don't know what to tell you. MR. GORALSKI-As I said, if the re$idents of Palmer Drive would like that water extended beyond where the developer will have to bring it for the subdivision, what you should do it go to the Town Board and request that they extend it. MR. WILLETT-Well, most of them don't want it, anyway, but the only convenience I was saying, if we had Town water, and we lost power, we'd have water, if you know what I mean, because if we lose power, we don't have water. My other question, the water's (lost words) septic tank, and that's my main concern, and that's been explained fine. On the ingress and egress to this property, you're talking about driveways coming in and out. You'll see there's a road coming off Palmer Drive going into the development. I think rumor has it that it's going to come back in, have a cul-de-sac at the end, and come back out onto Big Bay. Right? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. WILLETT-Well, as far as ingress and egress goes, that's one hell of a curve coming off, where Big Bay comes down and turns into and ends at Palmer Drive, that's one hell of a curve in there, and if you've got four or five driveways and two roads coming into that curve, I think it should be investigated, because there could be a hell of a lot of accidents there. MR. MACEWAN-At the point where that proposed road would be coming out onto Big Bay Road, living down there, how fast do you feel traffic's flowing through there, at that point? MR. WILLETT-Forty-five to fifty miles an hour. I'd say 45, easy. - 40 - '--' --../ "-' '~ MR. MACEWAN-That does 't give them much time to slow down before they turn onto Palmer rive, does it? MR. WILLETT-No. There's no speed limit on that road. It's a public road, and it's a 55 mile an hour speed limit, and you take some of those kids that are on Palmer Drive right now, they go racing past my house oing 45 or 50. Now, as far as wetlands. There is a little P nd in there. I don't know if that's considered a wetland or not, a very small pond. MR. PALING-John, do you want to comment on that? Is there a pond in there that would be considered wetland? MR. GORALSKI-There is ro DEC wetlands on that property. MR. WILLETT-What do ycu have to have for a wetland? There's a little pond in there. What's considered wetland? Do you have to have 50 acres of swamp, or what? MR. GORALSKI-12.5 acres is the minimum DEC regulates as a wetland. MR. WILLETT-Animals, forget it. We've got deer and everything else down there, but they're not endangered species. I think I'll have to go to Hud on Pointe and get a couple of butterflies and bring them in, and the forest that's out in back, on there he says there isn't any forest out there. I don't know what the hell all those trees reo It's acting, as Mr. Wakeley pointed out, as a sound buffer. There's a lot of woods in there. My point, again, was the traffic on that curve. You've got driveways coming out, and the ingress and egress. The water problem is solved. I don't see any problem there, and that is our main concern dowr there. You're going to have blind driveways on that curv . MR. PALING-Okay. Than~ you. Who's next? BETTY WAKELEY MRS. WAKELEY-I'm Betty Wakeley. I, too, am a summer resident on Palmer Drive. It was IT understanding here that there will be a right-of-way in this eight block lo~that we're talking about tonight? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. WAKELEY-There is Can those right~of-waY5 but ! just didn't kno like that, or maybe it know. a right-of-way already on the property. be moved? I don't mean to hamper this, that those right-of-ways could be moved will be a second right-of-way. I don't MR. PALING-I don't kno Do you know which right-of-way? MR. GORALSKI-If you're speaking of the right-of-way that is used to access those lots dcwn by the river. Is that the right-of-way that you're talking ab ut? MR. BREWER-The existins right-of-way there, John. MRS. WAKELEY-It's right here, in here some place. This is the end of Palmer Drive, nd this is the original farmhouse. Palmer Drive goes like this. This is the river here, and in here, I don't know, what's that 189, does that mean feet? MR. PALING-Yes. MRS. WAKELEY-Then it wculd be in (lost word). Mr. Palmer made a right-of-way there. - 41 - ---' -- MR. PALING-On the river? Mr. Gross will comment on it when he comes up. Okay. MRS. WAKELEY-I was just wondering whether it was going to be a septic ri~ht-of-way or, I didn't think you could move a right-of- way. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll see if we can't get it clarified. Thank you. MRS. WAKELEY-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Who is next? speak right now? All right. this case is closed. Okay. All right. No one else cares to If not~ then the public hearing in PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. Would you want to comment on some of the, I've got quite a few notes here, some of which have already been answered. Some can't be answered tonight. Do you want to start with the right-of-way? MR. GROSS-Today I had a long conversation with George LeMay that owns the farm, the old farmhouse next door, and George has purchased the lot. It's easier to point to it. He's previously purchased a lot right here. There's a 150 feet, this is all approximate, by 100 lot right here. There used to be a former home there, and it burnt down years ago, from what I'm told. At the end of Palmer Drive, there's a 50 foot right-of-way to get into the water that belongs to that lot. Whether that right-of- way belongs to other people as well, I don't know, if that's what you're asking. MRS. WAKELEY-I think you'll find, was it Mr. Taupe, who's house burned, he had the use of that. That was the only way he could get to the water. So he used that, but it was not his property. MR. GROSS-Right. He still has that use. It has nothing to do with, the 189 ends just approximately, Matt correct me if I'm wrong, it ends where the telephone pole is. There's a telephone pole, and believe it or not, there's another 50 foot right-of- way, right to the right of that, that right-of-way you're talking about is actually, the road has a 50 foot right-of-way. The road is only 30 foot wide, but it actually has a 50 foot right-of-way. It's right at the end of Big Bay Road, before you turn to Palmer Drive, and then Laurie lives there, and all that property from there on is deeded to her, I believe. MRS. WAKELEY-I'm talking the other way, going from Laurie's house, south. That's where this. MR. GROSS-Yes. There's a 50 foot swath between her property and this property here. It has nothing to do with our deed. It does not involve our property. The right-of-way that I was discussing before was something totally different. MR. PALING-Right. MR. GORALSKI-So that right-of-way is going to remain, that right- of-way she's talking about? Is that correct? MR. GROSS-It has nothing to do with us. It's someone else's property. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. That's all I'm asking. So this project won't change that right-of-way. MR. GROSS-Right. - 42 - ',,---, '-" --..-/ .-' MR. M. STEVES-We have no impact on that right-of-way whatsoever. As far as the other comments, as far as the proposed cul-de-sac, we are already coming in in one location. We are not moving back out onto the curve on Big Bay Road. As you can see, our cul-de- sac, when and if it ever does go through, is down here on the right-of-way, or on the straight-of-way, closer to Palmer Drive. This area we left dow here is just part of the rest of the property. We do not propose a road to come back out there, at any time, and will not propose a road to come out there at any time. MR. PALING-I don't know. Maybe out of this could come a speed sign, speed limit sign. MR. GORALSKI-I will investigate that. MR. PALING-Would you do that? Okay. Thank You. MR. M. STEVES-And as far as a few other comments, we have not addressed wells or se tic on the back lots because they're not affected at this time, but the two areas that we did find septic that we have noted on this plan, we are showing that our wells and septic are at the minimum of 100 feet, and in most cases they're a lot more t an that, and Mr. Willett did bring up another good point, a d I do have a letter from the Division of Fish and Wildlife, fro Cathy O'Brien, Senior Wildlife Biologist, that she visited the property and did not find any evidence of any endangered species or Karner Blue or Lupine. MR. PALING-Okay. about tree cutting. MR. M. STEVES-Well, as here is we have a cle first eight lots. No this time, we have no MR. BREWER-So we shoul All right. Then also a couple Do you want to comment on that? of comments far as tree cutting, all we're showing ring plan detail out for each one of the , as far as the rest of the property, at lans. get into that? MR. PALING-Not if th re's no plans to cut anything. think we can get into it. I don't MR. GROSS-I don't have to ask permission to take one tree down? MR. PALING-No. MR. BREWER-Can I just ask one question on this big lot It's in the second phase, but it, potentially, could be first phase, r suppose, because it is a lot. here? in the MR. M. STEVES-This here? It's the rest of the property. MR. BREWER-But I guess all across, where the all the way across the no question that it is what I'm saying, Matt, is you've got lines cul-de-sac is coming in, you've got lines back. So, I mean, it is a lot. There's a lot. MR. M. STEVES-That's ccrrect. MR. BREWER-I just was curious. MR. M. STEVES-But it accesses off the cul-de-sac. MR. BREWER-But it also accesses on Big Bay, too, doesn't it? MR. M. STEVES-Right, but at this time, we're not proposing any house or development. MR. BREWER-I just was curious, you're leaving it open to access both ways? - 43 - ..,.- MR. M. STEVES-That's correct. MR. BREWER-I bet you that's 40 feet wide, too, isn't it? MR. GROSS-It's more than that. MR. M. STEVES-At least. MR. GORALSKI-That's the minimum required. MR. BREWER-I know. That's why I said it. MR. PALING-Okay. Comments? I have no other comments. have anything to add? Do you MR. M. STEVES-I do have one other comment. In respect to the water district extension. We have applied, but that does not mean that the Town will accept our application. They can deny us the extension of the district. Therefore, we don't want to be locked into the application, or the approval as being based upon Town water only. We would like to know that in case we do not get accepted of the water district extension, we would be proposing on-site well. We'd have to obey the same rules. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we need a SEQRA on this. MR. BREWER-I just have one other comment. Bill's comments, are we going to have them addressed before we go any further? MR. GORALSKI-I think most of them have been already. MR. BREWER-All of them? MR. MACNAMARA-They either have been verbally, or in what Matt may have submitted in the drawing, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to say, provided the comments are addressed. MR. PALING-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 11-1995, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: WHEREAS, the)-e application for: is presently before JOSEPH GROSS, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review unde)- tl1e State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the ToWn of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria - 44 - -........,? -- "-" - for determining whether a project has a significant environmental imp ct 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 26th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. PALING-Okay. We can go right to a motion. MR. BREWER-I think we ave to do the waivers, first. We've got a request for waivers, stormwater management, erosion control. We should include that in the motion. That's all. MR. OBERMAYER-We don't have to make a separate motion on that? MR. MACNAMARA-If you're talking about think I noted before, they did add that trenches andlor drYLells, depending developed. the stormwater stuff, I they would supply eaves on how each lot was MR. M. STEVES-We will put that detail on. MR. BREWER-So then we can eliminate that off of this request for the waivers? MR. MACNAMARA-That's f r the stormwater. Erosion control issues should still be handle on a per lot basis~ MR. OBERMAYER-So you in the reading? us just to include the erosion control MR. MACNAMARA-And they really are already included, only because they're in the Rist-Frcst notes. They've aJready been. MR. GORALSKI-Don't include the erosion. You a waiver from that. hey should put a note that they'll follow the guidelines. Those waivers they were 100 ing for? Well, then that. shouldn't give them on the plan saying two were the only you've agreed to do MR. M. STEVES-Not a prcblem. MR. GORALSKI-So we don't need the waivers. MR. PALING-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SU DIVISION NO. 11-1995 JOSEPH GROSS, Introduced by James Obermayer adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: PRELIMINARY STAGE who moved for its For Phase I, as long the applicant meets all the additional engineering comments from Rist-Frost Associates. Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, - 45 - -' -- Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. MACEWAN-Bob, before we move on to the next, can I just raise a question I've got, something that happened last week? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-John, this is directed toward you guys. Last week, there were two applications in front of us for additions up at Rockhurst. They were considered Type II Actions, because they were accessory uses. MR. GORALSKI-Not because they were accessory uses. MR. MACEWAN-That's the definition I was given. MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, the answer to your question is that, the SECRA Regulations, in the Type II list, one of the things they list as Type II Actions are construction or placement of minor structures, accessory or appurtenant to existing facilities, and what we discussed last week was whether minor additions could be interpreted to be within that language. I think the Staff and I said that you could certainly make the interpretation that minor additions fell within that language, and I think that's what the Board did. MR. MACEWAN-So it was interpreted that those two additions up there were considered minor additions? MR. SCHACHNER-Basically, yes. MR. MACEWAN-Basically? Boy, you're lucky I wasn't here. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets move on to the agenda items and come back to this if we want to discuss it further. DISCUSSION ITEM: PERRY NOUN ASSOCIATES, INC. - DISCUSSION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER WITH A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. MR. PALING-Okay. John, do you have comments on this? MR. GORALSKI-I have no comments. there. Mr. Noun has asked to come in you a description of what he plans to complete site plan review application any approvals. There's a conceptual plan front of the Board and give do. He'll have to submit a prior to the Board granting PERRY NOUN MR. NOUN-My name is Perry Noun. I'm President of Perry Noun Associates. This is Donna Lopreski who's had extensive experience in senior housing, both adult care and apartments, and Jim Coleman, representing, he's the architect with B.B.L, and Barry, Bette, (lost word) and this is Christopher Scoringe, the attorney representing the company that'll be developing the site. ~1R. PALING-Okay. MR. NOUN-Presently, I have a contract to purchase the Bay Road site. I don't know if it has an address. MR. PALING-Located, just so everyone understands where you're talking about. - 46 - '--- ~ '--' MR. NOUN-I would say it's on the, from the corner of Bay Road and Quaker Road, you turn down Bay Road, it's the site immediately to the north of the flowershop, just several hundred feet. It's the proposed Woodbury site, the Woodbury site that they did, I believe, receive approval to build a 30,000 square foot plaza. MR. PALING-I think you're right. MR. STARK-They got t e paving in there and the curbing and everything else. MR. NOUN-Yes. It is a developed site. MR. STARK-It's a very flat piece of land. elevation difference i the whole property. There's a one foot MR. NOUN-Jim is goin to describe the site, and the building square footage. What we'd like to do is to build 70 units of senior housing, with a professional office building at the front of the site, and the seniors will be those that, well, some of the services that will be offered, we'll be offering three meals per day, and these are for seniors who probably are not capable any longer of provi ing three nutritious meals a day, who probably would like to have some coffee in the morning, or have some things in the re rigerator and every once in a while have some family members over, but we'd be providing three meals a day, and the facility. There'll be an activity room. We'll be transporting them to and from shopping, to and from doctors appointments. Some f the facilities in the Capital District that might be similar to this, one is on Washington Avenue Extension, called the Wellspring House. It's a 15 year old facility. There's a rand new one in Slingerlands that you may have heard about, call d Beverwick. There's another one that the Albany Diocese has had for seversl years, probably 15, maybe even older, called the Nelson House. You might have heard either all of these or perhaps a few of them advertised on the radio, and essentially for someo e who is coming out of a situation where the spouse has passed way. They're by themselves. They don't want to live in the a artment by themselves any longer. They want to be in more of a sense of community, where they have a choice to still be in ependent, and yet they need to have some services, and housekeeping will be provided for them on a Yegular basis, meals, activity, but we will not be a healthcare facility. . I presentl~am a~ adult home operator in New York State. I ~ave ~ license, but in this case, this facility is n~t a requirement. It has nothing to do with healthcare. We're providing another alternative for people who wish to remain independent for as long as they can. MR. OBERMAYER-What siz , like, apartments are these going to be, I'll call them senior apartments, or whatever? MR. NOUN-They probabl won't be any more than 490 to 515, 520 square feet, for a small one bedroom, and probably up to 535 square feet for alar er unit, and the two bedroom units, and there won't be very ma y two bedroom units. We don't expect many husbands and wives to be there, but you may have an opportunity, also, for a couple of people who want to be roommates, but the larger units,again, probably won't be any more than 625 to 650. MR. STARK-Furnished, u furnished? MR. NOUN-We would offer both. They could have it either furnished or they coul~ bring their own furniture. MR. STARK-Elevated? MR. NOUN-Yes. There'll be an elevator in the building. MR. OBERMAYER-Is it going to be like two floors, three floors? - 47 - MR. GORALSKI-Three. MR. NOUN-It may be appropriate, now, to have Jim Coleman describe the rest of this project for you, and then we're going to have to submit a full set of plans and specs. We recognize that. So, Jim. JIM COLEMAN MR. COLEMAN-Good evening. It's a four acre site. We have developed a three story structure to the rear of the site for the residential unit, that U-Shaped piece that you see in the back is the three story structure. Again, we have a three story in the rear of the site. We have a single story community center kind of place where the diningroom is, and the hair dresser, the barbershop, the post office, those kinds of things, happen in the front. We've got 96 parking spaces on site. APPToximately 16 to 20 would be associated with the medical office building, which is four to five per thousand, and the remainder would be associated with the seniors living. MR. PALING-How many units will you have? MR. COLEMAN-Seventy. MR. PALING-Seventy. MR. COLEMAN-A maximum of seventy. MR. PALING-So you're going to have one per, one parking space per. MR. COLEMAN-Correct. Now, Perry will tell you, in his experience, and previous facilities, these people do not drive. Probably one in four, at the most, would have a vehicle. MR. BREWER-Similar to the statistics for Solomon Heights, then? MR. NOUN-Yes. MR. COLEMAN-Utilities are all coming up Bay Road. As you know, some of those have been brought into the site. We've got to look and find out what's there, and what we can use and what we need to re-evaluate. stormwater, there are some catch basins that were installed with that original proposal that's been defunct for a while. So much that there's trees coming out of those catchbasins. So that's all got to be cleaned up. Apparently, there's some new storm work done on Bay Road which we propose to connect to. MR. BREWER-Would this be sewered, hook into the sewer system? MR. COLEMAN-As well, yes. MR. OBERMAYER-The architecture would be like a brick type building? MR. COLEMAN-We're proposing more of a less hard surface than that. Probably more in line with these buildings that are in back of us, probably some clapboard and some shingled roof. We don't expect to have a flat box with some dormers and things like that, give it some residential character. MR. 08ERMAYER-Right. What's the length of the building? MR. COLEMAN-I believe the length of that leg on that U-Shaped thing is 180 feet. MR. MACEWAN-Can you tell me about any proposed security for that complex? - 48 - '--/ ---./ --- --..../ MR. NOUN-Yes. We will have someone there 24 hours a day, so that if someone needs some h ,lp, they press a buzzer type of thing. MR. MACEWAN-Night watch an type of thing? MR. NOUN-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Plus, to keep anybody out, even though it's a safe area, there's always problems. MR. PALING-How are you going to heat them? MR. COLEMAN-We probably would look at gas fired, hot water, baseboard. MR. PALING-You wouldn't do electric? MR. COLEMAN-No. The even heat that's provided by the hot water baseboard. MR. PALING--Yes. MR. MACEWAN-The monthly rental that these are for would care of, are there a y charges, I guess I'm getting would be above and beyond that for maintenance, maintenance, or kind of annual fees that they have to anything like that? also take at, that bu.ilding pay, or MR. NOUN-There won't pay any fees for building maintenance. If someone, we intend to do housekeeping and linens, but if someone wanted to have their personal laundry done, then we would say, okay. We would have omeone available to them for some type of charge, any more than if they were to go to a laundry mat and have it done. MRS. LABOMBARD-So they wouldn't have the small washerldryer units that you see in condos in their units? MR. COLEMAN-In their urits, no. The average age of the resident will be over 70, not t~at that's old. MRS. LABOMBARD-My mot~er-in-Iaw stayed in this place, up the road, right across the from the college. There's an adult home, but that doesn't have partment units. That's just a bedroOm and a little sitting area. MR. COLEMAN-Correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-Where they don't have the option of being able to have their own kitchen services, but I think, and also it doesn't have all the amenities that you're proposing for here. MR. NOUN-Well, we also little corner variety could come down for a seniors don't have 1 continental breakfast and they can come down would like to have a little, almost like a store where, in the morning, where they continental breakfast, rather than, most rge breakfasts anyway. So they have a hich may extend for three or four hours, at their leisure. MR. PALING-What would to service this unit? to people, get out. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, t medical building's primary purpose be, MR. NOUN-It would be a facilities, some medical specialist, whether it was ear, noee and throat, or someone who would want to have an office there. We recognize that Bay Road is, for whatever reason, going to develop into that type of character. MR. MACEWAN-Somehow that's turned into the medical corridor - 49 - -' around here. I don't know why, but it has. MR. NOUN-And that's good. I think there's a dentist next door. MR. BREWER-There's several dentists. MR. OBERMAYER-As far as, like, any State regulatory requirements to, you know, as far as Department of Health inspections and things like that, I mean, what type, is there any things that you guys have to do? CHRISTOPHER SCORINGE MR. SCORINGE-This is not regulated by the State as an adult home or a nursing home. MR. OBERMAYER-It's not regulated. That's what I was wondering. MR. SCORINGE-It's not a licensed facility. Now, the residents can bring in outside health care providers, if they want, like the visiting nurses or that type of facility, or provider to give them services, but we're not providing direct health care. Therefore, it's not regulated. MR. OBERMAYER-It's not regulated. Okay, because then you might have to require some additional features to bring it up to. MR. SCORINGE-Well, the additional medical staffing, it drives up the cost. It drives ~P the monthly charge to the residents. MR. STARK-What is the monthly charge? MR. NOUN-Probably one of ,the smaller units would start at around $1600. MR. STARK-A month? MR. NOUN-Yes, and that's comparable to Adirondack (lost word). MRS. LABOMBARD-So, it's really not an apartment. It's more than that, because, see, this is what I don't understand. One the one side, you say it's not an adult home, but, and they're on their own, and they won't, like if they needed some kind of physical assistance, it really isn't there. That's why when you hit me with that amount, that's comparable, almost, to what the adult home was. DONNA LOPRESKI MS. LOPRESKI-They're also getting all the amenities. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's right. right. You're getting your meals. You're MS. LOPRESKI-Transportation. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then if they wanted to use the van to go to the Mall, that would be all included. MS. LOPRESKI-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-How about, fire protection system. sprinkler system in? because of I mean, the senior would you community, the have to put a MR. COLEMAN-I think we would. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I would think so, too. MR. COLEMAN-A two story, you could do it with, once you get above - 50 - "'-' -../ --- --.,.' two, there's a lot of restrictions. MR. OBERMAYER-As far as fire walls go. MR. COLEMAN-Fire walls. MR. BREWER-Yes. I thi k the Town Codes make you. MR. OBERMAYER-Especially for a senior center, if you have a fire. MR. COLEMAN-Yes. MR. PALING-The berms you seem to leave as sort of an option. Did you have any idea where you might want to locate those? MR. COLEMAN-We're hoping that you'd help us out. some people that said the site is pretty wide open. clear through. We spoke to You can see MR. PALING-Okay. So you're willing to berm it wherever that might help. That's go d. MR. BREWER-Okay. How rruch, just out of curiosity, how much room do you have behind the building to come around? MR. COLEMAN-That's a 24 foot drop. MR. BREWER-I think you might want to look into that. John, on a building this size, isr't there more room, something sticks in my mind about wider than -4 foot around the back of the building, in that size building. MR. GORALSKI-Well, if they're sprinkling the building, what you may be thinking of is the 50 foot access required, but if the building's sprinkled, you're not going to get into those fire area issues, as long 'S this building's sprinkled. A couple of things that I might pint out, based on your conversation here. One that the Board slould think about is parking. The Zoning Ordinance doesn't real y have a parking requirement for this type of facility, so the Planning Board is going to have to determine whether or not you feel the number of parking spaces is appropriate. I don't think you have to do that right now, but you might want to, if you feel it's completely undersized or completely oversized, ou might want to give them some idea about that. I think those -re the type of things they're looking for tonight. MR. PALING-Yes. To couple of phone calls verify something like rre, it looks like it's fine. I think a might verify, our visits by us might MR. GORALSKI-Another ~ind of related issue, since most of these people are going to be using the bus for transportation, you just want to make sure that a bus can circulate through this site. MR. OBERMAYER-They're .oing to have private. MR. NOUN-Yes. We're to have a van. MR. GORALSKI-You're g ing to have a private van. wouldn't be public trarsportation? So there MR. NOUN-However, WE do recognize that there transportation. We relieve that there are several who'll be using the putlic transportation. is public residents MR. GORALSKI-You might want to consider, in laying out the site, for that matter, because this is a three story building, you're going to want to mak sure the fire department can get their tower ladder around th"s entire building. - 51 - MR. BREWER-Exactly. Now if you're going to have vans on site, where are you going to keep them? MR. PALING-Park them in a parking space. MR. BREWER-Well, in the winter, you don't want to. MR. NOUN-We don't have a garage, but I don't see why we couldn't build a garage. MR. BREWER-I was just curious. two or three vans. If you're going to have one or MR. NOUN-Well, we're probably going to have to have, even at our adult home we have a shed where we do house lawnmowers. MR. OBERMAYER-Snowblowers. MR. NOUN-Exactly. I guess if we built a garage, it might be to the rear. We were very sensitive to the townhouses, which are to the west, and that was one reason why we wanted to leave that area as much wide open as we can. Maybe we can build a garage somewhere near the end of the parking. MR. OBERMAYER-It might be a good idea. MR. MACEWAN-I noticed on the first plan we have that you have a future connection road. I'm assuming that's over into Westwood, toward there, but I don't see it on the second. MR. NOUN-I don't think that that would be, I think, in fact, I've already talked with the President of the homeowners association. I made him aware of what we were attempting to do, and I said, instead of, we didn't mean to connect the road. That was almost an error. Just because there was a road there, so they extended it. On the new site plan here it doesn't show the road, but we'd be very happy to have a gate and maybe a walkway, so that if they wanted to come over to join in some of the activities or even corne over for dinner some evening, they could. We wouldn't mind. MR. STARK-What did he say? MR. NOUN-Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I believe that he was in favor of some type of senior housing when the Woodbury's were attempting to develop the site. I'd like to think that he was going to be in favor of this, because we recognize that the homeowners there, in five years or ten years, may want to move. There are other sites in Queensbury, but I've been coming up here every week for the last 15 years. I've been involved with the Paulsen family up at Robert Gardens. So I've always liked Queensbury. MR. GORALSKI-I have one other comment I want to make, is that a specific landscape plan. You show a significant amount of landscaping on this conceptual plan, a specific plan. I don't need it right this second. MR. COLEMAN-Here you go. What we did is took the planting schedule off the previously approved. If there's anything that someone wants changed or added, or species, by all means. MR. GORALSKI-But everything is, okay. Well, I really don't want to take this now. Keep this with you and make a full submission, with all your stuff. MR. COLEMAN-Next month. MR. OBERMAYER-Good. I like it. MR. GORALSKI-The submission deadline is tomorrow. Do you know - 52 - '---" --./ ~ "-. " - that? MR. COLEMAN-Tomorrow? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, 4:30 p . m . MR. STARK-Is that a pr blem to get it in by tomorrow? MR. COLEMAN-Yes, it is. MR. MACEWAN-Does he have to go to the County? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. BREWER-But if he submits with us tomorrow, we take care of him going to the County, right? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-He said it was a problem to submit it tomorrow. MR. PALING-It sounds a ful aggressive. MR. COLEMAN-Yes, knowing what you're going to be looking for, pipe size, catch basin size, gradient. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. BREWER-Why don't him. e extend it until the ~nd of the week for MR. PALING-John, what'~ your comment on that? MR. GORALSKI-I would s y if we had it by Monday morning, we would be okay. MR. OBERMAYER-If you guys get it by Monday, that's okay? MR. GORALSKI-It's got to be Monday morning, because we need time to get it to the County and everything else. MR. BREWER-Can we say .onday morning by nine o'clock? MR. PALING-Is this all right by everyone else? MR. STARK-It's fine with me. MR. COLEMAN-We'll hav to evaluate whether we can meet Monday morning. There's an a ful lot. MR. BREWER-Well, we ought to set some kind of a timetable for them. MR. PALING-Monday morning by nine o'clock. in Monday or you don't. MR. OBERMAYER-Either y MR. BREWER-So Monday m rning. MR. BREWER-They have t have time to process it and get it to the County. MR. STARK-All that does is set you back, instead of October, November. MR. PALING-All right. Everybody agrees, Monday, nine o'clock? MR. BREWER-Monday, nin o'clock. MR. MACEWAN-Any kind f conceptual approval isn't binding in any - 53 - -- --- -, '- stretch of the imagination. MR. NOUN-I understand that. MR. MACEWAN-I think it's a very ambitious idea. I think it's one of the nicer plans I've seen come through our Board. The only reservations that I would have about it, and I think it's probably already been taken care of is that I'm not too crazy about a connector road between Westwood and your complex. I can see that as becoming a real highway shortcut going through there. We talked about a road in the beginning. MR. NOUN-We don't even need that. MR. PALING-All right. I think we're all set then. All right. We've got two quick items. The meeting dates for next month. Next month's meeting dates are Thursday, the 12th for site visits at four o'clock, and then Tuesday the 17th and Tuesday the 24th. I do not anticipate getting to three meetings next month. I think two will be sufficient. We've got one other item to take up, and that's this Advisory Board to the Comprehensive Plan. What I would suggest is that anyone that wants to volunteer, let me know now, and if there are more than two volunteers, we'll submit all names to the Board. They can pick it, or we can elect them here. We have one volunteer already, Roger. Who else would like to do it? MR. BREWER-I've had enough. I'm all set. MRS. LABOMBARD-I can't. MR. OBERMAYER-No. MR. STARK-No. MR. MACEWAN-No. I'm very, very busy right now. MR. PALING-All right. We only have one volunteer, then. Roger is the only volunteer. John, MR. GORALSKI-Roger is the only volunteer. Very good. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 54 -