Loading...
1996-06-20 SP ~ - ) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 20, 1996 INDEX Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. FW 2-96 Open Space Institute Tax Map No. 148-1-2.1 1. Site Plan No. 31-96 Tax Map No. 136-2-1 Lee & Holly Coon 5. Site Plan No. 32-96 Tax Map No. 110-1-3.31 Lee & Holly Coon 8. Site Plan No. 33-96 Tax Map No. 107-1-54 Lee & Holly Coon 9. Site Plan No. 34-96 Tax Map No. 102-1-5 Lee & Holly Coon 9. Site Plan No. 35-96 Tax Map No. 60-1-2 Evergreen Bank 10. Subdivision No. 13-86 FINAL STAGE Herald Square, Phase III Tax Map No. 125-1-999 ~14. Site Plan No. 36-96 Tax Map No. 48-3-34.1 Richard Schermerhorn 18. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. I "-- -' ~' -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING JUNE 20, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT GEORGE STARK, ACTING CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY DAVID WEST ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN TIMOTHY BREWER MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT PALING PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT - JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI --- NEW BUSINESS: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT - FW 2-96 OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: P.U.D. LOCATION: OFF FUTURE HUDSON PTE. BLVD. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HIKING TRAIL AND BOARDWALK/BRIDGE. PROJECT WILL REQUIRE MINOR CUTTING OF VEGETATION AND PLACEMENT OF FILL MATERIAL WITHIN THE WETLAND. REMOVAL OF VEGETATION FOR THE TRAIL WILL OCCUR IN THE ADJACENT AREA. WETLAND AFFECTED: GF-9 AREA AFFECTED: .25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 148-1-2.1 SECTION: 94-6 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit - FW 2-96, Open Space Institute, Meeting Date: June 20, 1996 liThe applicant is applying for a Freshwater Wetlands Permit to construct a hiking trail and walking bridge in a wetland. As a part of this proj ect some vegetation will have to be removed and some fill material will have to be installed in order to support the bridge. The applicant has received a permit from DEC to conduct this activity in a wetland. A permit is also required from the Army Corps of Engineers for this project. Staff foresees no negative impacts associated with this application and would recommend approval of Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 2-96 with the following condition: 1. An Army Corps of Engineers permit will accompany the application for a building permit. II (DUE TO TAPE PROBLEM, SOME OF THIS SECTION OF MINUTES WAS LOST) MR. MILLER-We had originally submitted a joint application from DEC and the Corps for the permit, and the DEC has processed and they've issued the permit, and the Corps of Engineers is still in the process. They're a little bit slower than DEC. MR. STARK-When do you anticipate? DAN LUCIANO MR. LUCIANO- I've been talking to the Corps during the last few weeks, and they are on the verge of putting on a 30 day notice, and it'll just all depend on whatever comments they get during that notice period, but I would hope that they can get their notice - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) either as early as tomorrow or the first thing next week, and I guess that puts us out into July, and with any luck we'd have that permit by the end of July. MR. STARK-Okay. You're going to show us what you're doing? MR. MILLER-The Hudson Pointe Nature Preserve, as you know, it is the area along the bluff and inside this is a big bay on the river. This is the main part of the river, and the Hudson Pointe Nature Preserve is about 83 and a half acres. Part of the original agreement that the Open Space Institute made with the Town to develop a trail system and to develop that part of the trail system, and a (lost words). We spent some time, these contour lines show the end of the bluff, and we spent quite a bit of time on this site trying to site this overlook, and we had to be on the inside of the bay, away from the currents, and most of this area is not really a grassy marsh, but it's sort of a shrub marsh with dogwoods and alders. So there was nothing really unique about this area, and also the trail system, we wanted to take advantage of being out as close to the edge of the water as possible. So we finally decided the best location down here was to combine this overlook as an overlook and also as a dock structure, because you see there's a shallow cove, and it comes back in, in this portion of the bay, and the original, this is the existing road way that came down, traverses the bluff, down to a lower level. That's where there used to be some cabins down in there. We wanted to develop this trail to come out around the water's edge, so by locating that observation platform in this location, across this shallow throat of this cove, we'd be able to continue that trail system around the shoreline, and it comes up by Clendon Brook then loops back up again at the top of the bluff, back up to this trail, and then comes out over to the recreation area that we talked about a couple of weeks ago. We also indicated on here the possibility of a second trail that would come around the inside of this cove, but it's not for sure that if that's installed, that's going to be the secondary trail, and the purpose of that will be to provide a shorter loop, as opposed to the longer trail system. It's going to be all hiking trail. No motorized vehicles and cross country skiing. The next drawing is an enlargement of the dock area itself. As you can see it spans 72 feet, and the high water goes from the high water level of the river, 284.1, and spans across. Now, the area of filling would just be in these bulkhead areas. This is a timber wall bulkhead support at each end, and that's just elevated up to give us clearance for the structure and clearance over the water, and I think there was only like three cubic yards of fill at each point. The trail system itself, it talked about some clearing being required. There's really going to be minimal clearing. There may be some brush in this area in here. The trail is really going to be established in among the trees, and so clearing will be minimized. The trail system is going to be like a bark chip surface, or just a blazed trail. MR. MACEWAN-No crushed stone or anything like that, dust? MR. MILLER-No. The other thing that this plan shows is silt fences will be installed around the area where the bulkheading and tilling will occur, until that was established. That would be for the upland portion, and then there would also be silt fencing, floating silt fence installed on each side of the structure while work was being done within the water. This elevation down below, it shows the elevation looking at the side of the structure. One of the comments that DEC came back with was for us to provide as much clearance as we could in here, so that a canoe could come in and they could get underneath, to get back into that cove. So, originally, it was flat across it. We did, we elevated this as much as we could. We put a slope on this section of that boardwalk, equal to about the slope of a handicapped ramp, and then this section here, is that wider overlook. What we tried to do is - 2 - - - '- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) create a wider platform that, from this point you have a good view out across the bay but you also have a view back into this cove, and it's all, that rocky ledge that comes down is covered with hemlocks. So you'd have an interesting view from either side. So, someone skiing here, they'd have the option to stop here and have room for someone to pass. MR. MACEWAN-When you said that it's going to require fill on both of those bulkheads on either side of that walkway, how is material going to be gotten in there? MR. MILLER-Well, that was one of the concerns with the contractors. The trail that comes down the bluff and down to the site, you know, people used to drive cars down in there, so they could get in there with, you know, a tractor or a small four wheel vehicle, and that's the kind of thing that adds some cost to something like this, because the access is going to be limited, and they have to stay within the trailed area. So, that's one of the cost factors in here. They're going to have to bring in a little at a time. That's why we tried to minimize that type of work, and that's why, like some of the trail system, you know, it's probably just going to be marked with tags on trees, rather than all completely delineated with bark chips. ~ MR. RUEL-How much of a clearance do you have between the high water mark and the bottom of the bridge? MR. MILLER-A little bit under three feet. What happened, that was under negotiations with DEC, because to get it higher, we either would have to increase the slope on the board walk, which really wouldn't be appropriate to get that too high. I thought like the handicapped ramp slope was probably as steep as we wanted to go, and if you get it any higher by raising the whole thing, we were going to increase the bulkhead and the amount of fill. So, you know, DEC said, well, no sense going through, making this to elaborate just to pick up an extra foot. So it's a little bit under three feet, and they felt that was adequate. MR. RUEL-To get a canoe through, with someone in it? MR. MILLER-You've got to duck. They said that the occurrence for this is pretty minimal. As a matter of fact, when the water's down, this basically becomes just a channel in here, this whole cove back in here I think is only closer to about two foot deep. One day we were down there, and it was only about six feet wide through here, and most of it was dry in the back. MR. LUCIANO-This question about how the construction was staged. The contractor plans to, the entrance to the preserve is back up here. As you're aware, the Hudson pointe subdivision is coming in this area. This doesn't quite show the entire property of the preserve. It actually comes up and something like this and back around, but what they're going to do, actually, is they're going to come down through this ravine right here and they're going to stage their project from this end. They can get down in here with a truck, I guess, and off load materials, and then it's a very short distance down to. MR. MACEWAN-Is there like an old abandoned road going down through the ravine or something? MR. LUCIANO-Pretty much. It's been used through the years by jeeps and that kind of thing. So the contractor's confident that he can get the materials down into the bottom in this area, and just one other point that occurred to me for the Board's understanding. This is the existing dirt road that ends down here at the end of the peninsula, and the dark lines are the future trail system that we will eventually develop there, that is not in there on the - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) ground now. It's pretty passable, but there will need to be some clearing of vegetation, as Jim has said. There aren't any major trees down through here that would need to be cut. There is another trail segment that leads from the formal entrance to the preserve up in this area, off the subdivision road Hudson pointe Boulevard, and for a short distance at the edge of the bluff along the river up here, there's another trail segment we would be building where a few trees would have to be taken down some . , s1zeable trees, to create a true walking path that would connect to the upper end of the existing dirt road. MR. STARK-Okay. Have you got any more presentation, Jim? MR. MILLER-No. The last sheet was some construction details, and unless you have some questions regarding that. MR. STARK-Okay. Dave, do you have any questions? MR. WEST-Were you going to be using pressure treated lumber? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. STARK-Rog? --- MR. RUEL-No. MR. STARK-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm fine. MR. STARK-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Nothing. MR. STARK-Okay. If that's the case, I'd like to open the public hearing at this point. If anybody would like to speak for or against this granting of the permit, please come up to the table, identify yourself and speak into the microphone. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-George, do you have any more comments at all? MR. HILTON-At this time, no. I guess I have a question of Jim. The zoning right now on this property is POD. Was this shown on the overall P.U.D. plan? MR. MILLER-I don't know exactly. My understanding is, it was probably described in the P.U.D. document. I think the P.U.D. plan basically has shown this area as a conservation zone, and I think that after the P.U.D. document was developed, then the Open Space Institute became the owner of the property, and then moved forward to develop this. I think it was a verbal description. MR. MACEWAN-Are you asking, is it part of the P.U.D.? MR. HILTON-The only reason I'm asking is that I'm wondering if SEQRA has been done on this. We don't list a type. I guess it's my understanding that it was taken care of with the initial SEQRA for the Hudson pointe P.U.D. MR. MILLER-We also did a SEQRA application to DEC with our permit. So DEC reviewed it under SEQRA also. - 4 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. STARK-Well, I don't have any problems. Dave, Roger, Craig, Cathy? Okay. We'll entertain a motion at this point, then. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 2-96 OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To allow construction of hiking trail and boardwalk bridge, with the condition that the applicant obtain an Army Corps of Engineer permit before construction. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue 1 , Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 31-96 TYPE II LEE & HOLLY COON OWNER: JOHN LIAPES ZONE: CR-1S LOCATION: CORNER OF CORINTH ROAD AND BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A VEGETABLE STAND. PER SECTION 179 - 24, SEASONAL PRODUCE BUSINESS IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY-THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 136-2-1 LOT SIZE: .39 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 LEE COON, PRESENT MR. HILTON-For the next four items, what I did was I made one set of comments to basically serve for all of the next four items. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 31-96, Lee & Holly Coon, Meeting Date: June 20, 1996 "The applicants are proposing vegetable stands at four different locations throughout Queensbury. In each case the applicants are proposing to use either a gazebo or picnic table as the vegetable stand. No increase in the building area will occur on any of the properties. Parking and access on any of these sites will not be adversely affected by these seasonal vegetable stands. Staff foresees no adverse impacts associated with these applications and would recommend approval of these site plans." MR. HILTON-One further comment. Before the meeting, I was asked why there are no setbacks that apply to these vegetable stands. Not being a part of drafting that Ordinance, I really don't have an answer as to why they weren't, but in each case here, the structure that's being used is under 100 square feet, and according to our Ordinance, they would at least, any structure that's under 100 can be close enough as five feet to a property line. MR. MACEWAN-The structure being a picnic table? MR. HILTON-The structure being a picnic table. So if you wanted to apply that Ordinance to each of these items, you might say that they have to be five feet away from the property line, but seasonal produce stands don't have any outlying setbacks, and in reality can be right on the property line. MR. MACEWAN-I'm familiar with everyone of these sites. I've never seen a problem with any of them that he's ever had in the past. I mean, if it's a case of something being too close to the property line, you pick it up and you move it five feet. MR. HILTON-Well, the reason I brought that up is that, in most cases, we ask that something under 100 feet, or something under 100 feet has to be five feet away. I'm not saying that these should be or have to be five feet away. As the law is written right now, - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) they can be on the property line, but a worse case scenario is that it would be five feet, and you're right. If there's a problem pick it up and move it five feet. ' MR. STARK-Is anyone here from the applicant? Okay. If you'd like to come up and identify yourself, please. Speak into the microphone. MR. COON-My name's Lee Coon. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you have any comments on Staff's comments? MR. COON-No. It's what I've been doing for the last 12 years. MR. STARK-When does it shut down in the fall? MR. COON-It shuts down in September, July to September. MR. BREWER-My only comment was about the setbacks. I was curious why they didn't have them, and I don't have a problem with any of the stands. I guess my point was, if something is on the corner that's attracting people, vision may be a problem. I'm not saying it is or it isn't. I just was curious about it. That's all~- MR. STARK-Do you have a problem with keeping it five foot off the line, the property line? MR. BREWER-Five foot is nothing anyway. I'm just saying that if a stand is on a corner, and cars are going to stop in front of it, and I do it myself. I mean, is it going to create a vision problem for somebody coming out of an intersection or whatever. It's just a question. That's all. MR. STARK-Do you keep them back from the property line? MR. COON-What I do is when they pull in, I keep them off, I pull them right in where they can park, and if anybody comes out and tries to pull in, in front of the stand, I tell them just go down the road turn around and come back, because I don't serve anybody that comes out next to the road, because it'll cause traffic problems and all that. MR. HILTON-I think in each case, in reviewing the plans, three out of the four are at least five feet off the line. There's only one I believe, the proposal at Bay and Quaker, at King Fuels, that is between five feet and the property line. It varies, depending on where he sets it up each day. He indicated that he could set it up on the property line. MR. MACEWAN-With that particular site, though, I mean, there's ample parking within the King Fuels parking lot, and I don't think anybody's going to want to park either on Dix or Quaker at that point, because of those drainage ditches. MR. HILTON-Right, and if you're worried about his picnic table or gazebo being close to Quaker, it's not. It's more than five feet back from Quaker. It's closer to the side property line, and there is adequate parking on site. MR. STARK-Okay. David, do you have any comments? MR. WEST-No, that was my only issue was that there was adequate off street parking, and it appears that there is. MR. RUEL-Yes. I have two questions. One, George, in these four applications, you reference Section 179, three different numbers, why, 22, 23, and 24? - 6 - '~' "-' -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. HILTON-I'm confused. MR. RUEL-All of them have different Section numbers. they were all the same? MR. HILTON-Okay. The advertisements, that's due to the zone. They're each located in a different zone. I thought MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. HILTON-They're all allowed site plan uses, but the zoning district just happens to be different. MR. RUEL-All right. The other question I had was, will we be placing a time limit on this application? MR. HILTON-No. These are something, site plan review uses, that once approved, are basically good indefinitely. MR. RUEL-All right, and I have a question for the applicant. What do you anticipate the hours of operation? MR. COONS-The hours? They're going to be anywhere from 10 to 5-:-30. MR. RUEL-Not late at night? MR. COON-No. MR. RUEL-So there's no lighting or anything? MR. COON-No, there's no lighting. MR. RUEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. STARK-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I just am concerned about the traffic, making sure it's pulled off the side of the road far enough so it doesn't obstruct any other passing traffic, just safety, but I think that people are pretty, hopefully they'll be prudent, as far as that goes. MR. STARK-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Can we lump all four of these site plans into one approval? MR. STARK-I've got a question for the counsel, myself. have to pay four different times? Did you MR. COON-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Four different applications, four sites. MR. HILTON-For the purposes of my Staff comments, because they were so similar, I just grouped them together. I think we'd probably want to vote on them individually, though, because they are separate applications, and they did pay separate application fees. MR. STARK-Okay. Jeff, before I open the first public hearing, do we have to open an individual public hearing for each one? MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. Did you have a separate time set down in the notice for each public hearing? MR. MACEWAN-As long as they're different applications, treat them, - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) each one as individuals, and that way we won't get in trouble. MR. BREWER-There's four applications. That's probably the safest thing to do. MR. STARK-Okay. I'd like to open the public hearing at this point, if anybody would like to comment for or against this site plan. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HILTON-In each case, all four of these items were heard before the Warren County Planning Board on the June 12, 1996 meeting, and in each case, this one in particular, a recommendation was for No County Impact. Signed C. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay. I'd like to entertain a motion for the first Site Plan. Site Plan No. 31-96. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-96 LEE & HOLLY COON, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: For a vegetable stand. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-Do you want that note in there about the five feet off the property line setbacks? MR. HILTON-Well, we're not requiring that they be five feet. Like I said, they can be on the property line. There are no setbacks for the seasonal business. Should it become a concern and we do get some, if we do get some concerns, we may ask them go in and move back to the five feet that's required of other similar structures that are under 100 square feet. I just wanted to make that clear to the Board. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 32-96 TYPE II LEE & HOLLY COON OWNER: EDWIN KING ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF DIX AND QUAKER ROAD IN FRONT OF KING FUELS APPLICANT PROPOSES A VEGETABLE STAND. PER SECTION 179- 23, SEASONAL PRODUCE BUSINESS IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 110-1-3.31 LOT SIZE: 1.61 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 LEE COON, PRESENT MR. STARK-Okay. I'd like to open the public hearing, if anybody wishes to speak for or against this site plan. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-I'll entertain a motion. - 8 - '- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 32-96 LEE & HOLLY COON, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: For a vegetable stand at the corner of Dix and Quaker Road. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue I , Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 33-96 TYPE II LEE & HOLLY COON OWNER: EDWIN KING ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF QUAKER AND BAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A VEGETABLE STAND. PER SECTION 179-23, SEASONAL PRODUCE BUSINESS IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 107-1- 54 LOT SIZE: .82 ACRES SECTION: 179-23 LEE COON, PRESENT ..-- MR. STARK-I'd like to open the public hearing for Site Plan No. 33- 96, if anybody wishes to speak for or against this site plan. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-I'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-96 LEE & HOLLY COON, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: For a vegetable stand at the corner of Quaker & Bay. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 34-96 LEE & HOLLY COON OWNER: CLAUDE CHARLEBOIS ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: GLEN STREET IN FRONT OF GLEN BEVERAGE APPLICANT PROPOSES A VEGETABLE STAND. PER SECTION 179 - 2 2, SEASONAL PRODUCE BUSINESS IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 102-1-5 LOT SIZE: .38 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 LEE COON, PRESENT MR. STARK-Okay. I'd like to open the public hearing for Site Plan No. 34-96, if anybody would like to speak for or against this site plan. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. STARK-I'll entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 34-96 LEE & HOLLY COON, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: For a vegetable stand at Glen Street in front of Glen Beverage. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 35-96 TYPE II EVERGREEN BANK P. U. D. LOCATION: LOT 22, HILAND TERRACE MODIFICATION OF PUD, LOT 22 HILAND TERRACE. LOT SIZE: .93 ACRES SECTION: 179-58 OWNER: SAME ZONE: APPLICANT PROPOSES TAX MAP NO. 60-1-2 PAUL CARDINALE AND MEL GUGINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 35-96, Evergreen Bank, June 20, 1996 "The applicant is proposing to modify the Hiland Park POD. Lot 22 of Hiland Terrace will be changed slightly from the way it was originally shown. Access to this lot will be from Haviland Road for now. In the future when the rest of Hiland Terrace is developed, this lot will be accessed from a future road within the POD. Staff would recommend a stipulation that when the POD road is developed access from Haviland Road will be abandoned and relocated to the POD road. This site plan is actually a subdivision of an existing larger lot. Because this land is zoned under the Hiland Park PUD a site plan need only be filed at Warren County to recognize this subdivision. Staff would offer another stipulation requiring this site plan be filed with Warren County." MR. CARDINALE-Good evening. Paul Cardinale from Evergreen Bank. MR. GUGINO-I'm Mel Gugino from Evergreen Bank. MR. HILTON-On the June 12, 1996 meeting of the Warren County Planning Board, a recommendation to approve, the comments: "Concur with local conditions", was made and signed by C. powel South, Chairperson. MR. MACEWAN-I have a question for Staff. Was the Town Board lead agency for this POD? MR. HILTON-The Town Board was lead agency. MR. MACEWAN-We can't modify it then. MR. BREWER-Why can't we? MR. MACEWAN-The same reason we couldn't do it with Hudson Pointe, because the Town Board was lead agency. MR. HILTON-My understanding is that the modification is, it's a modification to the overall POD and to the way a lot was shown. To explain things just a little bit, right now this house I believe, and the applicants can clarify this. MR. CARDINALE-Mr. Chairman, there's no construction going on. - 10 - '- -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. HILTON-It's an existing house that has access off of Haviland. MR. CARDINALE-An existing stone crushed drive there. MR. MACEWAN-But you're moving a lot line. MR. CARDINALE-That's correct. MR. MACEWAN-So it's a subdivision. It's not a site plan. MR. CARDINALE-We originally approached it as a subdivision, and were instructed to approach it as final Site Plan Review because the portion of the land that's being carved out will not be used for a building. MR. MACEWAN-But if you're changing lot configurations, by just moving the lot line to give these people an extra piece of land, to make their driveway work so it's on their property, it's not really a site plan, is it? MR. BREWER-We did it last week with Hudson Pointe. --- MR. HILTON-If I may. This lot was originally shown within the overall Hiland Park PUD. It's still as shown today before you. The only difference is that there's a minor modification to what is proposed. Normally, when a phase of a PUD comes in, they come in as a site plan, are reviewed by the Planning Board, and then filed at Warren County. I think the determination was made, and I cannot vouch for this, that due to the extremely minor modification, that it wasn't necessary to go through the same procedure and have the Town Board approve it. MR. MACEWAN-I guess where I was confused is what we did the other night with Hudson Pointe. MR. HILTON-Right. I think that we were including an entirely new lot, introducing an entirely, increasing a land use, I guess, in that it was pre-approved for a PUD. The land use is not changing in this lot. It's the same as it is now, and will be in the future. We're just modifying, like I said, the lot line slightly, and they're going to go in and basically plat this lot with Warren County. I know it's a difficult answer to take, but it's really such a minor modification that I just think the determination was made that it didn't really need to go to the Town Board. MR. STARK-Okay. Tim, do you have any comments? Dave? Rog? MR. RUEL-No problems. MR. STARK-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. How come we had such a tough time. When we went on site visits, David, you went. Why did we have such a tough time finding this place? MR. WEST-We weren't looking hard enough? I don't know. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, no, no. I mean, I still am not sure where it is, but now I have a perception. MR. GUGINO-This is the house. There's two houses down here, the one that Bowen lives in and the white house across it, right down the street here, and this is the house that Bowen lives in. MRS. LABOMBARD-Wait a minute. I've only played about 200 rounds of golf on that golf course, and I'm totally disoriented right now. We're going east on Haviland. - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. GUGINO-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-We're going east toward the golf course. MR. GUGINO-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD-And you know where the big white house was where they used to have the real estate center? MR. GUGINO-It's before that. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. It's the house before that. MR. WEST-Before you go up the hill. MR. GUGINO-That's right. There's a doctor that has the house on the hill, and it's even before his house. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's kind of down. MR. GUGINO-It's the two little houses in the hollow down there. There's a little stone drive that cuts in there, real quick, and that's this one right here. ~ MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. I mean, usually I know where everything is, and I have not had, and I didn't get a chance to go back. MR. GUGINO-This is Haviland over here. This is the stone driveway that goes in. This is the little white house that's there right now, and this is the house that Bowen owns. This is lot 22. MRS. LABOMBARD-And how big is that, how many acres, approximately? I can see that little area up in the right hand corner. MR. GUGINO-.93. MRS. LABOMBARD-That .93, though, I thought went just for this little part here. MR. GUGINO-No, that's all of this right here. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's all that is. Okay. I just needed a better perception. MR. STARK-Craig, do you have any comment? Are you satisfied with that answer about the POD? You're not satisfied? MR. MACEWAN-That's okay. MR. CARDINALE-Craig, do you recall when we came here, five or six (lost words) . MR. MACEWAN-I wasn't here for the original POD. MR. CARDINALE-No. I mean, last year when we had the modification of the two little office buildings up there, and that we did. This is the very same thing. MR. BREWER-It's exactly the same thing. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I'm really confused by the situation that we had the other night with Hudson Pointe where we're still talking the small triangular piece we're attaching, just like we did with the easement for the homeowners, but it had to go back, we could only make a recommendation. It had to go back to the Town Board for their approval on it, and if this is a POD that's under the guidelines and jurisdiction of the Town Board, why are we authorized to make this revision? As far as I'm concerned, I don't - 12 - -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) think it's a site plan issue. I think it's a subdivision issue. MR. RUEL-We should then make a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I'm getting at. MR. BREWER-But it's not going to go back to the Town Board. It's a lot line adjustment. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not trying to be a thorn in everybody's side here. I'm just a little confused on this. MR. STARK-Staff said it was so minor that it would come t.o us instead of the Town Board. MR. MACEWAN-But we're not legally entitled to do it. MR. HILTON-If the Board is uncomfortable approving this modification. MR. CARDINALE-Craig, the last time we did this, as you'll recall, your legal counsel did make a comment, (lost word) to what we're requesting here tonight as a modification, that you could make-the decision, and it did not have to go to the Town Board. MR. RUEL-I agree with Craig. MR. FRIEDLAND-I guess I could make just one suggestion, that's that the Zoning Administrator's already decided, I gather, that this can be done by site plan approval, and that's a decision that he makes, and I gather he's made that already. So, I think that's already been decided by him. MR. STARK-Does that alleviate any of your concern? MR. MACEWAN-There's the six of us up here. MR. STARK-Okay. I'd like to open the public hearing at this point, if anybody would like to speak for or against this site plan. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-I'll ask one more time, any comments? MRS. LABOMBARD-No. I'm just concerned about Craig's concern, but, obviously, nobody else is. MR. STARK-It's a very minor, you know. It's not like they're changing a big lot line or building on a lot or something. Okay. I'd like to entertain a motion at this point. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 35-96 EVERGREEN BANK, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For a modification of P.U.D. Lot 22 Hiland Terrace, with two conditions. One, that when the P.U.D. road is developed, access from Haviland Road will be abandoned, relocated to the P.U.D. road, and, Two, that the site plan be filed with Warren County. The modification is not significant enough for SEQRA. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. FRIEDLAND-Mr. Chairman, I hate to interrupt. I just want to - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) make sure that you understand, as far as SEQRA goes. This says it's Type II. It's really not a Type II SEQRA action. Obviously, it went through SEQRA before. The Board needs to make sure that it determines one of two things. Either that this modification is not a material modification of the existing plan, and no SEQRA review is required, or you could determine it is a modification. MR. STARK-We'll have to. Rog, include that there, that's it's not a material, in the motion, like we usually do on a modification. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mr. Paling SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 FINAL STAGE TYPE: OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONE: SR-20 LUZERNE ROADS PHASE III - 43 LOTS. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS HERALD SQUARE, PHASE III LOCATION: VAN DUSEN & TAX MAP NO.: 125-1-999 / TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-86, Herald Square Phase III, Meeting Date: June 20, 1996 "The applicant is proposing the subdivision and creation of 43 new lots in the Herald Square subdivision. This third phase would be the final phase in the overall subdivision. Staff has reviewed this application and has the following comments. Staff would like to see the building setbacks represented on this subdivision plan. Staff would recommend a stipulation that these building setbacks be included on the subdivision plat when it is filed at Warren County. The required recreation fee will be required prior to this plat being recorded with Warren County. Current test pit information needs to be submitted prior to Planning Board action on this application. This information should contain the date that the test pits were dug in order to determine if the data submitted is current. Any comments from the Town's engineering consultant need to be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this application." MR. HILTON-And I have those comments in front of me. We received them today. The only major comment I think that the engineering consultant has is that the setbacks should be indicated. They feel that they may be can be shown on the plans, but Planning Staff would like to see setbacks for these lots shown on the subdivision plat, so that in the future, if there ever are any re-zonings or changes out here, we can refer to that plat, and see exactly what kind of envelope any homes must be built in. MR. RUEL-That's the only condition you have? MR. MACEWAN-Isn't that part of the Subdivision Reg's? MR. HIL'rON-It's part of the Subdivision Reg's, yes, and we have that condition, and we'd also like to see some updated test pit information. MR. STARK-Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Engineering, and Leon Steves, with representing Guido Passarelli. Tom Nace, VanDusen with and Haanen Steves, MR. STARK-Okay. You have Rist-Frost's comments in front of you? - 14 - "- - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. NACE-Yes, we do. MR. STARK-Could you refer to each one, Tom? MR. NACE-Okay. First, the "previous comments relating to phase I and II were satisfactorily addressed during their reviews. Drainage plans submitted with Phase III is adequate to prevent problems from occurring. Wing swales between drywells direct flow for infiltration into either new or existing area control structures. A generic disposal system is shown. Site specific percolation tests are noted and must be performed. II The original Health Department approvals for this were given with the preliminary plan approval back in '86 or '87, and the percolation tests done by a different engineer at that time, percolation test data was to the satisfaction of Brian Fear at that time, and he approved the plans for the entire subdivision, not just for Phase II, for the entire subdivision. I don't necessarily feel that it's appropo to go back and re-do all that information. We have shown test pit data which was shown on the original plan, Phase III area. We've done work and been present during the excavation work for Phase II, and been around Phase I a little bit. I don't think there's any indication of high groundwater in this area. Clendon Brook is immediately to the west of Phase III and provides groundwater relief that's about 20 or 30 feet below the, actually 30 or 40 feet below the elevation of Phase III, and these granular soils I don't think (lost words) ground water could be a problem in this area. "Road contours are included, however, no geometry". Again, the road geometry was all approved at the preliminary approval of all three phases. We have not changed it in any way. MR. RUEL-Phase I was different. In Phase II, the geometry had to be changed. MR. NACE-Phase II, we went for a different approval. If you remember in Phase II, we went through a different approval process. In Phase II, well, I don't have an overall site plan here, but Phase II originally, Phase I was a through road that went from VanDusen Road up to Luzerne Road. Phase II originally had three loops. Phase II originally had three loops that came down off of the main road, and in going in and doing the final design of this, and discussing it with the Town, it was decided that it would really be better if we connected these two loops with a through road across the bottom back out to VanDusen. Therefore, in Phase II, we went back through preliminary design approvals to do that. MR. RUEL-Fine. I accept that. However, what does that have to do with the geometry or the radii of the curbs? MR. NACE - No . I said, we have not changed. The original subdivision, and your Subdivision Reg's reflect this, the whole subdivision is reviewed at Preliminary Stage, okay, before you grant any final approvals. When you do a final approval, it's just for (lost words). So the overall layout, the road geometry and everything else is signed off on, at the Preliminary approval, okay. So what I'm saying is that when this whole subdivision was done, including what is Phase III up here, the road geometry at that time was all approved. We have not changed that approved geometry. We changed it on Phase I I because there was some specific requests from the Town to do that and bring another entrance out to VanDusen Road. MR. RUEL-What does radii have to do with this? MR. BREWER-Because he changed the, I recall that. You changed the roads, and there was some turns that didn't meet the radius that we wanted, and they changed them. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. NACE-Yes. On Phase II, we have not changed from what was originally approved. We have not been asked, though. I believe Paul Naylor has looked at the plans and has signed off on them. So, I don't know what more to say. The only thing we've changed on this, as far as layout, is that you'll notice here there were two littl; p~eces of lots ~hat we,re sort of no man's land. They weren t lncluded, the llttle pleces of property weren't included wi~h any of the lots. In those two locations, instead of having thlS no man's land up here, which really isn't valid, we've taken the lot lines on out and included pieces in each of the lots. MR. RUEL-It's still the same number of lots? MR. NACE-Still the same number of lots, the same layout, the same roads. MR. RUEL-When will you be putting the road in on Phase III? MR. NACE-That'll be the next thing they have to do is put the road in. MR. RUEL-Yes, because you already have a house there. ..-- LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-The road has already been grubbed out. The Staff, Jim Martin granted permission to do that. MR. RUEL-Without a road? MR. STEVES - Yes, just grub it out. He didn't have any problems with that. The Town gave their blessing to that. MR. RUEL-AIl right, and while I have you there, I want to ask you about the drainage plan. In Phase I or II, the water runoff went into Clendon Brook. I hope you're not going to do that for phase III. MR. NACE-No. On Phase II, in this back loop, there was an overflow into Clendon Brook, and it was also an overflow into the existing drainage system along VanDusen Road. MR. RUEL-Yes. Right. MR. NACE-Those were overflows. There is an existing overflow from the main Herald Square Drive out to that drainage system, just an overflow. The only places we've changed the drainage in Phase III, or the only changes we've made is that if you go in and look at the roads in phase I and II, the roads are not wing swales, okay. They have just a regular shoulder on them, and underneath the shoulder there's a perforated pipe. The drainage goes off the road into the shoulder, is collected in some catchbasins along there, and the catch basins are connected with perforated pipe. For all intents and purposes, 98% of the runoff goes into the ground from the perforated pipe. The perforated pipe's just there as an infiltration device, plus a safety overflow, a safety outlet, in the event of a huge storm, that the overflow from that can go on (lost word) . MR. RUEL-That pipe into Clendon Brook is only overflow? MR. NACE-That's only an emergency overflow. MR. RUEL-Where's your overflow for Phase III? MR. NACE-Phase III is the same. It uses, and that's the way it was originally planned, was to use that same overflow that goes out here to VanDusen Road. - 16 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. RUEL-It's adequate? MR. NACE-Yes. It was planned that way. What we have done is taken and replaced the road section that was used here with a wing swale section and put in our standard large drywells in place of the little perforated cans that were used in the other two Phases, and gotten out infiltration out, from our low point to the road, we have perforated pipe connecting to this existing. MR. RUEL-Yes. It's all solid sand there anyway. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STARK-Okay. Tim, do you have any questions? MR. BREWER-No, not right now. MR. STARK-Dave? MR. WEST-No. MR. STARK-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. --- MR. STARK-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Not at the moment. MR. STARK-Okay. George, are you satisfied with his answers to the Rist-Frost comments? MR. HILTON-Well, I was looking for the information at the time. What was the date that you said that these test pits were done? MR. NACE-In '86? MR. HILTON-Okay. Before the entire subdivision was developed. MR. NACE-They were done for the Preliminary approval. MR. HILTON-Right. I guess what I was looking for was to get some kind of information. We didn't have a date referenced on the drawing. If we have a date in our comments now and our engineering staff's comfortable with it, I don't have a problem with that. I still would like to discuss the building setbacks and have those. MR. NACE-The setbacks are no problem. should be shown on the site plan. It's an oversight. They MR. BREWER-Maybe we could have you, Tom, get a hold of the engineer and get him up to speed on the test pit data. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. MACEWAN-Are those the only two significant things, are just those two? MR. BREWER-And the only other thing is the fee for recreation, right? MR. HIL'rON-I just put that in for the applicant's knowledge. MR. RUEL-That's not a condition? MR. HILTON-No. - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. STARK-Now, you're built out 60% on Phase II? HOWARD KRANTZ MR. KRANTZ-Yes. MR. STARK-I just wondered. Okay, and there's no public hearing scheduled, so I guess we can entertain a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 FINAL STAGE HERALD SQUARE, PHASE III, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: For 43 lots, with the condition that building setbacks be included on the subdivision plat when it is filed at Warren County, and also if you would note on the plat, reference the initial approval, on the Phase III plans. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-We wanted dates. MR. HILTON-We wanted the test pit, the dates for the. --- MR. NACE-I will reference the date and the plan that that appears on, and I'll provide a copy of that plan to Rist-Frost. MR. HILTON-That's fine. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling SITE PLAN NO. 36-96 TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR. OWNER: SAME ZONE: MR- 5 LOCATION: CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND BLIND ROCK ROAD, NE CORNER NEXT TO EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING. PROPOSAL IS TO CONSTRUCTION A 8 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE WORK. ALL LAND USES IN MR-5 ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 21-1989 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/96 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-34.1 LOT SIZE: 2.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 RICH SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 36-96, Richard Schermerhorn, Jr., Meeting Date: June 20, 1996 liThe applicant is proposing the construction of an 8 unit apartment building at the Northwest corner of Bay Road and Blind Rock Road. This building will be built next to an existing multi family dwelling which is also owned by the applicant. Staff has reviewed this application and has the following comments. Staff would recommend that more landscaping be placed at the easterly property line. A mix of low lying vegetation and larger trees would be an appropriate screen between the two apartment buildings in this location. The Planning Board should review any revised landscaping plan prior to taking action on this site plan. The applicant has indicated that the parking area for this building will have a gravel surface. Paving would be in keeping with what has already been established at the building to the east. If a gravel parking area was built snowplowing and regular vehicle traffic could wear away gravel in this parking area. As a result a paved parking surface would require less maintenance than a gravel surface. Staff is also concerned with dust that could effect adjacent properties should a gravel drive be - 18 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) constructed. Staff would recommend a stipulation that the parking area be paved. Staff would also, offe~ a stipulation tha,t the subdivision plat for this area be f11ed w1th Warren County pr10r to a building permit being issued for this building. Any co~cerns from the Town's engineering consultant should be addressed pr10r to the Planning Board taking action on this site plan." MR. HILTON-Town Engineering concerns I have in front of me. In a letter to Mr. Jim Martin, from Rist-Frost. It says that they have reviewed it and they have one recommendation. It says, "We recommend that the drywell on the southeast of the lot be relocated to the west as far as possible to increase the horizontal separation distance between the drYWell and the leach field.'" And that is signed by William Levandowski of Rist-Frost. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you want to do the Warren County? MR. HILTON-I'm going to take care of that right now. On June 12, 1996 the Warren County Planning Board met, discussed and heard this item, and the vote, recommendation was, No County Impact. Signed c. Powel South, Chairperson. MR. STARK-Okay. Would the representatives of the applicant please identify themselves and comment on the Rist-Frost letter. JIM MILLER MR. MILLER-Yes. Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. I'm here with Rich Schermerhorn, the owner. We agreed to the drywell correction in this location here, and the leach field that currently runs parallel to the property line in this area, and we will shift it as far west as possible. MR. MACEWAN-Where would you put it? MR. MILLER-There's no water line here. These are contour lines. It'd be closer to the entrance. So we pitched, the parking lots are pitching across the low point here, pitch it to a low point in here. The drywell sets off the edge of the pavement, in a low grass area. So we'll just shift that and we could probably increase the separation by an additional 10 feet. MR. MACEWAN-Is there enough room there to give you what you're looking for? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to hear some more definite plans about landscaping or buffering between the two units. MR. STARK-Okay. What about the paving also, Staff's recommendation of paving? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just, as a matter of fact, I asked Jim just to put gravel on there because I plan on, obviously, paving it, but sometimes to get it before the CO, like, for instance, the building I did over here, the month of May it rained for a whole month. The blacktopper had a hard time lining up, getting there when I needed him, and usually, to be honest with you, it's not like building a house for me. There's no profit in these buildings, building them, and usually I depend on that last construction draw to have the money to be able to pay the blacktopper, because they don't take any terms. These parking lots are like $7,000. If we could just stipulate it from, you know, 30 days from completion or something like that, 15 days after completion, just something reasonable, that's all. MR. STARK-When do you anticipate completion? - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. SCHERMERHORN-This one here, now, see, this is the other problem that arises, too when I put gravel in there. Blacktop plants usually close, right ar~und Thanksgiving. This building's quite large, and r~ght now ~t/ s extremely busy with my residential business. So say I don't get started for a month or so. I could be rig~t at that deadline where I might not be able to pave, if the plant ~s closed. That's the only thing, and I don't want to be faced with a situation where you're giving a temporary CO, because banks won't accept that. I'll do my best to do this building and pave it right before, you know, I don't plan on having gravel parking lots. I don't gravel parking lots in any of my apartments, but, I mean, however you feel comfortable with it. MR. HILTON-Possibly a more appropriate method, and one way that we would be better able to tract this would be prior to the issuance of a CO, that the parking lot be paved. MR. BREWER-Yes, but what happens? MR. STARK-Suppose it's after the paving, the blacktop plants close down and he can't and he can't get blacktopping? MR. BREWER-Yes, exactly. .--- MR. HILTON-When do you plan on completing construction? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, like I just said, I'm busy with my construction business right now. If I don't get started for a month, it maybe a month and a half before I get started. I don't know. I just, I'm only bringing this up just because if I don't meet that deadline I'd hate to have the building done and find out I can't blacktop and I can't get the CO. MR. MACEWAN-Do you have tenants lined up already for this proposed building? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I have people inquiring already. The one I just did across the street, it's fully occupied. All year's leases. I've got one person left to move in. As a matter of fact, 70%, you'll be happy to know, are all seniors, and the next building is a townhouse style, which probably won't, well, I shouldn't say that. A lot of my seniors are requesting the upper apartments, which townhouses have the two upper bedrooms. People are just asking for these, as a matter of fact, these are a little bigger than the ones I just did. They'll rent right up as soon as I finish them. I mean, the other one, I've had it done three weeks and I've had 80% of it rented. MR. MACEWAN-I'm trying to look for something maybe as an enticement for you to start sooner than a month and a half, so that we don't get in a situation that if you get it finished and the asphalt plan closes and you can't pave your driveway, you don't get a CO. I wouldn't want to see you go through the winter without a paved driveway. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I don't want to, either, because I have to plow them, and it makes a mess in the spring when I've got to pick up the gravel, but the other thing to keep in mind, too, is, I borrow the money for these. I mortgage them. I have to get mortgages to build these things. Sometimes it takes a month just to get the financing alone, and it's hard to go to a bank, before hand on a project like this and say, well, I think I'm going to get approval. I have to go in with a letter and say, hey, look, I've got approval for an eight unit, then they have to review my financials, so I don't think there will be a problem, but there's a little bit of time it takes to go from this point to go to the bank and get everything organized. That's why I don't think I'm going to be able to break ground next week. I don't have a problem - 20 - - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) with how you want to stipulate the parking lot. I'm just telling you what could happen, that's all. MR. BREWER-I don't see why it's a real big issue. We know he's going to pave it. There's been lots and lots and lots of apartments or whatever built and we never stipulated that before. I don't see why it's a big problem here. MR. RUEL-Why can't we just state 30 days after. MR. HILTON-One thing I would say in response to that is, lets say we get to the point where, when you finish the building and then 30 days after that happens to be when the blacktop places are olosed anyway, we're not going to get it blacktopped. MR. MILLER-This is a phased project, and maybe you ought to tie it in, you can't submit the next one until. MR. MACEWAN-That's what I was thinking. MR. BREWER-Is there anything in our Zoning Ordinance that says they have to be paved? --- MR. HILTON-We have, in our Zoning Ordinance, criteria for approving site plans. We can take into consideration existing conditions, neighborhood conditions, and what we have out there now is the paved parking lot to the east, and, you know, in keeping with that tradition, we'd like to see it remain paved. We'd like to eliminate any dust and any maintenance difficulties out at this location. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, obviously, I'm going to pave it. I mean, for aesthetics, and just for the simple, I maintain these buildings myself, personally. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. What about the landscaping on the east? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The landscaping, I don't have a problem with adding a few more trees. The only thing I do want to bring up, is I have a letter from Dave Michaels, and I agreed to split the cost with him for a $4200 fence along the back to try and give some protection for the Cedar Court people plus myself, and I, obviously, I already own the building to the east of it, and I already have a few trees there, but I've got to have a little bit of room to put snow in the septic systems right there. Here it comes to dollars and cents again. I'm going to pay for half of the fence, which is going to cost me $2500. So, I mean, I plan on adding a few more trees, but I think if you walked out there you wouldn't see that it's absolutely necessary, because it's my building that's right next to it, 60 feet away, but that's, I guess, you're opinion how you'd like it. MR. MILLER-I believe this plan shows, there's a group of three pines that were planted in the first building right here, and there's two pin oaks in this area. If you remember, one of the comments Rist-Frost had in the first plan was that this area in here was a set aside for a septic system. So actually what would happen, if they needed that reserve area, we would have two (lost words) side by side. That was one of the other reasons that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I'm going to keep, throughout the whole thing in the front, I'm going to keep the maple trees, which I think we have spaced every 20 or 30 feet. I left those, and that's going to be the whole continuation of the project. So, if anything, I think the sides and the back are the most important. MR. HILTON-If I may one second here, I would just like to point out to the Board that Section 179-38E, the Planning Board review of - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) site plans includes Number Seven, E7, says, "The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands." Now he owns the property to the east, but it is an adjoining land, and we would like to see some buffering out there, for, you know, just noise and separation of the activity between both lots. We'd like to see something proposed first and then have time to review it and put it before the Board. MR. RUEL-Did the Beautification Committee get involved in it? MR. HILTON-The Beautification Committee does not review' this application. MR. RUEL-Why? MR. HILTON-I think they're only charged with reviewing commercial projects. MR. RUEL-Since when? MR. HILTON-I'm not sure why they didn't review this, to tell~you the truth. MR. STARK-Rog, lets move to the public hearing, then we'll go one more time through the Board and see if there's any comments. I'd like to open the public hearing at this point, and if anybody wishes to speak for against this site plan, please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Tim, do you have any comments? MR. BREWER-No. I would agree with maybe a little bit more buffering, but I don't have a problem with the paving and all. I think, if he puts the gravel down, he has to. I don't see a problem with it. I know he's going to do it. MR. WEST-Yes. I think the stipulation that approval for any subsequent faces will be contingent upon paving of this phase would satisfy that concern. MR. MACEWAN-I like that idea. That way, if something happens, the winter starts creeping on and you're behind, at least we know, before you come in here for the next one, that that will be done. MR. STARK-Dave, what about the buffering? Do you want to see more or anything? MR. WEST-To be honest with you, that doesn't concern me a heck of a lot, the need for additional buffering. MR. STARK-Okay. Rog? MR. RUEL-I'm just wondering why we're in the landscape business. We have a Beautification Committee. Where are they? MR. MACEWAN-Actually, if you come down to it, you made the comment that they only review commercial properties. MR. HILTON-I'm not sure on that. That's my understanding. I could be wrong. Lets assume that they do review multi family projects. - 22 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) I cannot answer the question why they did not review this. MR. BREWER-All right. So, let me ask you this. What's the distance between the lot line in the back and the front, from front to back, on that lot line where the concern is? MR. STARK-Are you talking about from Michaels' property to the road? MR. MILLER-169 is the total depth of the lot. MR. BREWER-All right. So if you're spacing trees in the front 20 feet apart. MR. MILLER-That's what we agreed in the first phase. MR. BREWER-So do the same thing on the side. many more trees? That's, what, how MR. WEST-You're talking five or six trees there. MR. MILLER-Well, you know, if you're going to add some, I think the place where you really need the separation I would say is more in the front and by the parking areas, because what happens, if you look like in the rear yard, these existing lawn areas in here, nice flat lawn areas provide some good recreation space for the tenants. MR. BREWER-Yes, but what's the big deal if you put some, a row of four trees right between, say 35 feet out here, and from the last tree here where the slope stops, 30 feet from that slope, and then whatever the distance is in here, put two more. That's four trees, four maples. MR. WEST-What does a maple tree cost? MR. SCHERMERHORN-About $100. MR. BREWER-It depends on how big. MR. WEST-That's $400 I wouldn't spend if I didn't have to. MRS. LABOMBARD-Me, either. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. Or you could look at it this way. The first phase of my project, I think, came out real nice. If the second phase you don't find nice, if you don't find that the landscaping was accommodate enough, well, then the next building I come into it, we just make sure we stipulate more, but I think you're going to find that, with the way I've been doing it, I mean, I think you can tell just by the first one I did, it's going to be a nice project throughout. I mean, every tree, even if they're small trees, they're still $50, $60 a piece. MR. STARK-Okay. Cathy, any comments? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I just feel that Rich has gone out of his way to make a nice buffer between his property and Cedar Court, and being over at Cedar Court and looking toward Rich's property with the way the embankment goes up, I mean, I think putting in $2500 extra for a fence is going, is really extending himself, because I don't really think it's needed, but I think he's going that far. Now, as far as buffering between two buildings, if that's what you're talking about here, I don't know why, I don't see them having to put trees in between those buildings. Maybe something, later on, right out here that's toward Bay Road, but I'd leave it alone right now. MR. BREWER-I say there's a long way between him and Bay Road. - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. MILLER-Yes. The first one, and it isn't from Bay Road. This one is going to be behind the first one. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, that's what I'm saying. I mean, when you're talking about where you want to put these four maples in. MR. BREWER-It's not my idea. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, but I mean, I don't think you need to put in any more trees. I think as long as there's a decent buffer between your property and Cedar Court, that's where all the concern was originally. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, let me prove myself on this one. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think it looks nice. As far as that blacktopping, yes, it would look a lot nicer and it would be easier for you to maintain it and when you can get it in, put it in. MR. HILTON-I have a comment. I would like to step back a little bi t and address the gravel, the paved parking. If we have a condition where we make it contingent that the next site plan cannot be built until that is paved, I think it makes it kind of difficult for us to track, when we're looking at a separate site plan application, whether or not there were any prior conditions from another application. I think in the past, Planning Staff and our enforcement officer, we've been pretty good with people, and if we do make it contingent upon a CO, that this be paved, and there is a problem and he cannot meet that deadline, we will work with him, but if we made it a stipulation of this file, that before a CO is, you know, he gets a CO, we have a paved parking lot, it would be better for us, in tracking it and making sure that it's done. MR. BREWER-I don't agree with that. I don't think that we should make a stipulation with that. MR. STARK-We don't need a stipulation. He's going to do it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. MR. RUEL-Do the plans indicate gravel now? MR. HILTON-The plans indicate gravel. MR. RUEL-All right. How about changing the plans. MR. HILTON-Ask the applicant. MR. MILLER-We would change the plan and add a note to the detail to reflect what we're discussing for the resolution. MR. RUEL-Why don't you do that? What's wrong with that? MR. HILTON-Yes, but then you're still having a hard time tracking it. MR. BREWER-I think, lets have a little bit of faith in our people that come before us. It's on a regular basis he's here before us. He hasn't stiffed us yet. MR. STARK-Fine. No problem. No problem with that or the landscaping, as far as I'm concerned. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. You're right, Tim. MR. RUEL-Well, as a professional landscaper, I think it's beautiful. The last three years, that's all I've been talking about. - 24 - "-' --- '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) MR. STARK-Okay. I'd like to entertain a motion at this point. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-96 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: To construct an eight unit apartment building with associated parking and site work. Duly adopted this 20th day of June, 1996, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-They're going to change the plat to reflect that it's going to be a paved parking lot. MR. RUEL-Yes. Would you do that, make that a condition. MR. MILLER-With the note that asphalt will be installed prior to the next phase. MR. BREWER-Yes. Then when he goes to the next phase, can you track it that way? MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, there may be some difficulties, but if you want to send us the plan tomorrow, whenever you get the plan done, give it to us1 and we'll have it on file. MR. STARK-He's not going to do another phase until next June anyway. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling MR. HILTON-Before we adjourn, I have one thing for the Board, unless you have anything to discuss. MR. STARK-No. I don't have anything to discuss. MR. HILTON-No one? Okay. After Tuesday night's meeting, I had some concerns with, there was an item before us to extend a site plan, it was Site Plan No. 38-95 for a Frank Adamo, and the request was before you to extend the site plan for one year. I think a motion was passed to extend that and then rescinded. What resulted was a motion which was not passed. It was not denied or passed. It just was not carried through. I had some concern, reallYI with the reasoning for why the motion was rescinded and the result was the motion not being carried through. I think some of the comments that were made were that there was a lot of public controversy at the initial site plan. There was, you know, some people were uncomfortable with the original site plan, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think that in the past what has happened with items that were before you for extensions, you have considered extending them based on reasons why they need extending, not what was before you at the time of the initial site plan and the initial public hearing. So, I think that, I just want to give my concerns to the Board, that I'm really concerned that maybe some of the reasons why a motion was not passed, they were not based entirely on the reasons that other site plans, in the past, have been extended, if you understand what I'm saying. MR. STARK-George, this guy didn't even care enough. MR. MACEWAN-She rescinded her vote, based on the fact that she recollected that the original site plan, she didn't vote in favor - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) of the project. MR. HILTON-Right. That's fine, but I'm just saying, I just want to make sure. MR. STARK-That was Tim's reason, also. MR. HILTON-Okay. I just want to discuss this with the Board, because I know, in the past, with other site plan extensions, we had one recently, I forget the applicant, that a lot of times what's taken into the consideration are the compelling needs, as to why they need an extension, not what happened at the public hearing or what happened when the item was reviewed. MR. STARK-George, this guy didn't even care enough to show up. MR. HILTON-Well, he lives in Palm Ridge, New York, which is down by the City. He's a long way away. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, but George, let me tell you, you weren't here at the time, and I'll tell you, for what he went through to get this, he was really being presumptuous by not starting it. I mean, he was, there was a fine line, and I can't believe that he played around with it. MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, that's fine. I'm just saying that I don't want certain applicants to be held to why, to the conditions of their approval, as opposed to why they cannot meet getting a building permit. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know where you're coming from, and I think that's correct that you bring this point up, but that was not the reason at all. MR. HILTON-And also I'm not encouraging the Board to re-make any motion. I'm just bringing it to your attention, and you can do with it what you will. MR. MACEWAN-If it should ever come up, and asked why that an extension wasn't approved, it could probably be put in a way that when the previous Board members that are no longer here were the ones in favor, are no longer here. It's a different Board now. Some of the new members didn't feel comfortable with it. More importantly, the members that were here were some of the ones that voted no on it, and they didn't feel comfortable with granting an extension on it. MR. HILTON-Well, to me, you know, really, that's fine, and it's ultimately up to you, and I spoke to Mark, and there's nothing wrong with what you did. I just felt that I wanted to say to the Board, you know, I want to make sure we're holding him to the standards that we hold other applicants who seek extensions. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I wish you had been here, though, and could read over the minutes of those meetings, because it was, you know, I very seldom vote negative. MR. STARK-I don't think anybody spoke for it. spoke against it. I think everybody MRS. LABOMBARD-And I very seldom will vote something down like that, and I'll tell you, when I realized what was going on, I wasn't going to just let that go. I just couldn't. MR. BREWER-Are we done? MR. HILTON-We're done. - 26 - ~ '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 6/20/96) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, George Stark, Acting Chairman - 27 - -'~ .--