Loading...
1997-04-01 SP QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 1, 1997 INDEX Site Plan No. 13-97 Tax Map No. 60-7-7, 8, 9 Lambi Investments, Inc. D/B/A Olde Coach Manor 1. Subdivision No. 1-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 48-3-51.1, 53 Cerrone Builders 10. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. / '---- '--"" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 1, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT GEORGE STARK, ACTING CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT ROBERT PALING DAVID WEST PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, BILL LEVANDOWSKI STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 13-97 TYPE: UNLISTED LAMBI INVESTMENTS, INC. D/B/A OLDE COACH MANOR OWNER: FRANCES &: ORMONDO LEOMBRUNO ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 565 BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD 10 APARTMENTS AND 10 GARAGES TO EXISTING 33 UNITS. ALL LAND USES IN MR ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-7, 8, 9 LOT SIZE: 13.6 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 FRAN LEOMBRUNO, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-It was tabled, and we're going to bring it up tonight. MR. STARK-Okay. If the representative for Lambi's would like to come up and identify yourselves, please and speak into the microphone. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Fran Leombruno, one of the owners. TOM JARRETT MR. JARRETT-Tom Jarrett, I'm a professional engineer, addressing stormwater and wastewater issues on the site. MR. STARK-Okay. George, do you have any comments? MR. HILTON-At this point I think what I'm going to do is turn the mic over to Bill Levandowski who has been doing the engineering review for this site plan, and he can summarize the correspondence he's had with the applicant, what his outstanding issues are. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Subsequent to our letter of March 18th, primarily raising several questions having to do with the sewage system and enumerating several items that were not available for our review. Tom Jarrett's office and Fran Leombruno have submitted several sets of supplemental information that, I'm not sure what the Board has seen or has in front of you, but to summarize at this point in time, the additional information has been submitted on the, that satisfies ~ concerns on the sewage disposal system, and I believe that the systems in general, as are detailed on the Tom Jarrett drawings are adequate and comply with the regulations. We have continued to have dialogue regarding storm drainage. The initial - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) supplemental submission used some runoff coefficients that were not what the Town requires, and we've gone back a couple of times, and as a result of that, have conceptually agreed that the current design approach and revised stormwater management plan represents the Town's regulations and is acceptable. However, the detailed grading and drainage plan has not been updated to agree with that revised concept, which has been approved. However, I would be comfortable if the Board chose to grant conditional approval subject to our receiving and reviewing that detailed plan at a later date, prior to issuing building permits. MR. STARK-Okay. Your letter of March 31st to Jim, the following items still need to be addressed, okay. We're going to have the applicant address each one of those items, and you can comment or the Board can comment. Tim, have you got that letter from March 31st? MR. BREWER-I've got two. I've got one April 1st, too. MR. STARK-From Bill to Jim. MR. RUEL-April 1st is a follow-up on the 31st. MR. BREWER-Okay. Yes. I've got it. MR. STARK-Okay. Mrs. Leombruno, do you want to address the first item? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Okay. Niagara Mohawk electric will enter to the west of Unit G, and once it enters the crawl space of Unit G, it will run through the crawl space of the building, not necessitating any interference with septic fields, and Tom will address the Niagara Mohawk gas entry. MR. STARK-Bill, as these items are addressed, do you want to give us your comments also, whether they're adequate or not? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-The electrical layout seems to offer no interference with any proposed sewage or drainage. That appears to be adequate. I would just suggest that, ultimately, somebody take all of these separate pieces of paper and kind of coordinate them on one plan so everything shows on one site plan. MR. STARK-Well, before the final plat is signed, everything has to be on that, to your satisfaction. MR. RUEL-All these open engineering items, then, will be addressed verbally this evening? . MR. STARK-I'm talking the March 31st letter. MR. RUEL-Yes. There are no written responses? responses tonight. Just verbal MR. STARK-Verbal responses and Bill either okays them or doesn't okay them. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-There actually had been written responses to some of these in the form of eight and a half by eleven sketches which have come from Fran Leombruno and some from Tom. So there are, I don' t know if the Board has all of these. Some of these just arrived in my office today. So I'm not sure if the Board has received them. MR. RUEL-~ don't have any responses. MR. STARK-Right here, the colored ones. Are you talking about the colored ones? - 2 - / '-" ,-"",' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. LEVANDOWSKI-That's the landscape plan, but another one came in late this afternoon indicating where the electrical service was coming in. MR. RUEL-I have a question here. If some of these items are still open after a discussion this evening, are these to be conditions of the resolution or how do you expect to pick them up? MR. STARK-No. You can't have too many things open, Rog. Like, if they just have to be put on the final plat before it's signed, then you can do it. MR. RUEL-There seem to be quite a few items here. MR. STARK-Well, she's addressing them. Okay. adequate response or do you need more on that? Is Number One an MR. LEVANDOWSKI-I believe Tom is going to address the other utilities. MRS. LABOMBARD-The gas. MR. JARRETT-Niagara Mohawk has told us that they would like to come in from the north end of the site with their gas service, and they asked if we could provide a 10 foot separation from the gas main on either side to a leach bed. So in the future, if any of the leach beds have to be re-excavated, then we would not come close to digging up a gas main. What we've looked to do is move the two leach beds that serve Units I and J to the northwest to provide the separation. We believe we can do it. We've provided correspondence today to Bill Levandowski suggesting that we think that we can do that. As soon as we confer with Niagara Mohawk and they agree to that, we'll show that on the plan and provide a copy to the Town. MR. STARK-Okay. Number Two? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-The grading at the utility pole, on the grading plan it shows that it may be a swale behind the pole, and upon talking with Tom, there is no need to go behind the pole. We would maintain grade as is and therefore not be disrupting that pole. MR. STARK-Bill, is that a factor or no? MR. LEVANDOWSKI - Yes, but that's an acceptable response. The grading plan just needs to be changed to reflect the fact that that's not going to be lower there. MR. JARRETT-Yes. The grading was shown there for stormwater runoff purposes, and actually after looking at this issue, we can pull that contour back a little bit to avoid effecting that pole. We'll still confer with Niagara Mohawk to make sure that they're comfortable with that set up. MR. STARK-Number Three? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-The walkways, I discussed this with Bill, will match to the existing grading/drainage plan. The copy that was provided just showed the walkways being, with a slight curvature, but in order to comply, we're just straightening them out to match to the existing drainage plan. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-That's fine. MR. STARK-Number Four? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-From all indications, we will be proposing to disturb the potential of seven percent of an acre of the wetlands - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) by having the driveway, the west of the building, encroach and the grading plan itself as shown would encroach on about seven percent of an acre. It's my understanding that we're allowed to disturb up to 33% of an acre, therefore, maintaining well under the required limit. MR. BREWER-Who determines whether you're doing seven tenths or eight tenths or whatever amount? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-It was a calculation based on the existing grading plan. MR. BREWER-And that has to be shown to anybody or not? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-It's my understanding not. MR. STARK-George? MR. HILTON-This would be an Army Corps wetland, if anybody. They have jurisdiction over this, and they would determine how much of the area of the site was within their wetland. If it's 33 or a third of an acre and over, then they have jurisdiction. Anything under a third of an acre, they don't. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but my point is, if you have a piece of property and you don't contact them, how do you know or how do they know, that you're disturbing any of it? MR. HILTON-They don't, and the potential exists that someone could alert them and someone from the Army Corps could go out after the fact and investigate the property, but again, this is their jurisdiction, and it isn't something that we enforce through our Wetland Regulations. MR. STARK-Charlie Main? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-In November of 1996, we had Charlie Main come up and do his testings and flag the wetlands and Jeff Martin came up and surveyed and plotted that, and I did have, I knew it had been addressed, but I didn't have the particulars at last week's meeting, but we have it plotted on bellum, and it's transferred onto the existing drainage plan, and I've been assured by Charlie Main, who has apparently a working relationship with the Town, as far as his qualifications, and he has assured me that that is indeed the areas involved. MR. MACEWAN-Has he reviewed the plan since you? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Yes. I had him come up last Friday afternoon and review it and go over it, and asked if he needed any qualifications for post to the Town, and he assured me absolutely not, that the Town was well aware of his qualifications in this matter. MR. BREWER-So we don't need a letter? Is that what we're satisfied with, then, stating that they're qualified to go in there and fill seven tenths of it? MR. HILTON-We wouldn't need a letter from anyone saying that they can fill seven tenths. Again, our comment from last week was we'd like to see some assurance as we have before that it is in fact under a third of an acre, but if the Board so wishes to put some minor condition with the information that's presented this evening, that's fine. That's your decision, but the applicant should be aware that eventually down the line a situation could arise. I'm not saying it will, where the Army Corps could be called in and could present different data. That's just a possibility. MRS. MACEWAN-And what would happen at that point? Suppose that - 4 - ,/ "--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) they disturb more than what they're required to, what would happen? MR. HILTON-The potential exists that the Army Corps could possibly stop construction, shut them down, something like that. MR. STARK-You're talking seven tenths of an acre is not very much. Are you satisfied with Charlie Main's flagging anything? MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with it. I just think that maybe we should get a letter satisfying the point. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-The other issue is that there is no permanent structure even close to the flagged wetlands. It is strictly a corner of, actually the entrance part of the west driveway that would be encroaching, and the proposed change in grading down the west side of the last two units. There is no permanent structure involved here at all. MR. BREWER-If there's not a problem, I don't have any problem with his qualifications, but I'm just saying. MR. STARK-Well, you know, it would be different if he was building a house on that seven tenths of an acre, or a building. Here you're talking a little bit of macadam on seven tenths. MR. BREWER-That's fine. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-And the majority of it is the change in the grading plan. The worst that could happen is maybe a retaining wall, as opposed to the grading extending. MR. MACEWAN-When Charlie reviewed it, he felt comfortable? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-And I asked him Friday afternoon. I said is there absolutely any potential, and he said, absolutely not. What ~ flagged is accurate. That is it. MR. MACEWAN-Would he be willing to extend a letter saying such as a condition of approval? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-I asked him if he wanted to do anything in writing, and he said, if anybody has a problem, contact me directly. He had no problem with that at all. MR. BREWER-Yes. A letter from him would satisfy me. MR. MACEWAN-That would satisfy me. MR. BREWER-A letter from Charlie Main. MR. STARK-George, why wouldn't Charlie write a letter? MR. MACEWAN-He's saying he would, if you needed to. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-He told me that if anybody had any questions, he would directly speak with, you know, address it. MR. MACEWAN-I'd be looking for a letter just saying he signed off on it and he feels comfortable with his flagging of the area, and his measurements, and his attachment to the final plat. MR. STARK-Okay. Number Five. That's the one you just talked about, isn't it, Bill, the storm drainage? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Yes. I indicated that we had gone back and forth a couple of times, and right now the concept that they've submitted with their revised stormwater management report, which I just got late today. I'm not sure if you folks have a copy, I'm in - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) agreement with, and will make some design changes to the plan that was previously submitted. Basically, it reduces the number of d~ells, but it is still an acceptable design, meets the Town's criteria, and I would feel comfortable if the Board wanted to grant conditional approval of it, based on drafting it up as we've discussed, us having to look at it before it got a final building permit, or final plat was filed, or whatever. MR. MACEWAN-Before it's signed off by the Chairman. MR. STARK-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. RUEL-It should be a condition for the drainage design modification. MR. STARK-And also a letter from Main. That's another condition, Rog. Okay. George, do we have anYmore technical questions or anything? Tim, do you have anything? MR. BREWER-I don't have anything else. MR. RUEL-I was under the impression that we would have an answer to these engineering comments this evening. MR. STARK-We just did. MR. MACEWAN-You got your answers. MR. RUEL-Aside from that, something in writing. There are a lot of open items. We have a stormwater management report we haven' t even seen. MR. BREWER-Yes, you've got that. MR. RUEL-It's revised you said, didn't you? MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Yes. I got a copy of the revised late this afternoon. I don't know if YOU folks have a copy or not. MR. JARRETT-The revised copy that you got this afternoon they do not have. It addresses the comments that Bill's letter of March 31st raised. We can go through those individually, if you'd like, right now. The report that he has addresses those in writing, and you will all have copies, and the plans will be updated to reflect what's in that report. MR. RUEL-I will accept the comments of the engineering review. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree. MR. STARK-Okay. Now we left the public hearing open, I believe. Is there anybody who wishes to speak for or against this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-Okay. We have to do a SEQRA, and I think it's a Short Form. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STARK-Now also, George, at the end of the SEQRA, should we take Mark's comments into account there? You've seen Mark's letter? - 6 - ./' '--' '--" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. HILTON-Yes, and I believe Roger has a form in front of him. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have penciled it in. MR. RUEL-Yes. It's written in here. MR. RUEL-Okay? MR. STARK-Fine. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-97, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning LAMBI INVESTMENTS, INC., and Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 1st day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Stark NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West, Mr. Paling MR. STARK-Roger, if we're going to make a motion on this, lets go over the conditions first. MR. RUEL-I don't think I have all the conditions. condition. I have the drainage design modification. I have one MR. STARK-That has to be on the final plat before it can be signed off on. - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. MACEWAN-And reviewed by the Consultant. MR. STARK-And reviewed by Bill before it can be signed off on. MR. BREWER-What happens if there's changes? Then they have to come back to us? MR. MACEWAN-No. I think we're going to leave it to the point just where he's going to review these modifications and the revisions that they've made, and if they're acceptable to them, they'll just forward that information on to us so that the Chairman can sign off on the plat. That's what we're looking for. MR. STARK-Now what about the letter from Charlie? MR. BREWER-Charlie Main. MR. MACEWAN-That also should be included, before the plat is signed. MR. BREWER-Everything should be included before they get any building permits. MR. RUEL-What's everything? MR. STARK-Well, that's the one he's got to review. MR. BREWER-All points on this March 31 letter. MR. RUEL-Well, can we say that all Rist-Frost comments in the letter dated 3/31 and 4/1, Items One through Five, have been satisfactorily addressed with the exception that, the drainage design modification be subj ect to submission of a revised plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. Does that sound right? MR. STARK-Mrs. Leombruno, you know what we're talking about here? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Yes. MR. STARK-You can get the letter from Charlie, and then the new design, Bill reviews, signs off on before the Chairman signs off on it. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Correct. MR. BREWER-Before any building permits are issued. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Okay. So we're talking a couple of days and we'll get this down to Bill. MR. STARK-Well, I don't know how fast you can get it down to him or, you know. MR. LEVANDOWSKI-Yes. It won't take long after we get it. MR. STARK-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-97 LAMBI INVESTMENTS, INC. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For construction of a 10 unit addition, with the condition that all Rist-Frost comments in letters dated 3/31 and 4/1, Items One through Five, must be satisfactorily addressed prior to the issuance of a building permit, and a letter from Charlie satisfactorily addressing the Army Corps concerns. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan - 8 - ,""'¡ ',,--, ,--",. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) No. 13-97 LAMBI INVESTMENTS, INC. to build 10 apartments and 10 garages to existing 33 units; and Whereas, the above mentioned application dated 2/26/97, consists of the following: 1. Application 2. Topographic Map of Lambi Investments, Inc. revised 1/22/97 Survey Map of Olde Coach Manor Subdivision dated 3/12/91 Drawing 122396 dated 2/24/97 Map of proposed Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems by J. Martin revised 1/22/97 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. Warren County Planning Bd. resolution dated 3/12/97 2. Rist Frost comments dated 3/18/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held by 3/25/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury ( Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to Approve Site Plan No. 13-97 LAMBI INVESTMENTS, INC. 2 . The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 25th day of March 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. West, Mr. Paling MR. BREWER-So that means you get everything to the engineer. He approves it. Then you can start. - 9 - , '---- (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CERRONE BUILDERS OWNER: CERRONE BUILDERS (UNDER CONTRACT) ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD SOUTH OF STONEGATE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES RESIDENTIAL CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION WITH 28 - 1/2 + ACRE LOTS WITH INDIVIDUAL SUBSURFACE SYSTEMS. CROSS REFERENCE: P6-96 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-51.1, 53 LOT SIZE: 57.97+ ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE & MIKE O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STARK-Okay. The next item of business is another item that was tabled last Tuesday, the Al Cerrone/Harris subdivision. Okay. George, do you have any comments on this before we get going? MR. HILTON-Since the last meeting, which I did not attend, I'm under the impression that there was some discussion and it was tabled for further comment from the Highway Superintendent on the road network and possible connection. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STARK-Do you want to read this letter? MR. HILTON-Yes. I have a letter from the Highway Superintendent, which I'll read into the record. It's to James Martin, from Paul Naylor, dated March 31, 1997, Regarding Cerrone Subdivision. It says, " I have reviewed the preliminary plans for the Cerrone Subdivision. It is my recommendation that this be connected to Fieldview Lane for the safety of the traveling public and for maintenance purposes in regards to the Town of Queensbury Highway Department. Also, I am in agreement with the first Phase directly connecting to Bay Road. Respectfully, Paul H. Naylor, Highway Superintendent" MR. STARK-Okay. Would you guys please identify yourselves and then address the comments that Paul wrote? MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, I'm Tom Nace, from Nace Engineering, representing Al Cerrone. MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Mike O'Connor, from the law firm of Little & O'Connor, also representing the applicant. AL CERRONE MR. CERRONE-And I am Al Cerrone. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you want to address these comments? MR. NACE-AI and I met with Jim Martin and Paul Naylor, yesterday morning. We reviewed with him the layout of the subdivision, the road design in its entirety, and the specific issue of the connection through to Fieldview, whether or not he would require that. As you recall at our last meeting, we were prepared, if necessary, to bring in a single entrance road off of Bay and keep our road separate and apart from Fieldview. I think Paul Naylor's letter is self explanatory. He is requiring, from a Town Highway standpoint, for safety and maintenance reasons, that the road be connected through to Fieldview. Now, in light of that, we have given you some revised plans, and the revised plans are paved only in the phasing. We have it in a larger scale, it's easier to see. As you will recall, the old phase line came through here and down and this was Phase I, and coming back out to Bay was Phase II. What we have done is change that. So now Phase I is all of this connection from Bay Road into Phase I immediately, and then Phase II is the back end of the subdivision. There will be a temporary hammer head turn around, Paul has approved, located at this point in Phase I, and then when Phase II is constructed, that will be - 10 - "-' ...J (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) removed and (lost words) through. So in this scenario, when Phase I is complete, there will be a paved entrance road, I mean, the roads are complete, before any CO's are issued in here, there will be a paved entrance road from Bay, through which all the residents will enter the subdivision. MR. STARK-Does that include the connection road? MR. NACE-The connection road would be done in Phase I as well. Yes. MR. STARK-Before any building permit? MR. NACE-Before any CO's are issued. MR. RUEL-I don't believe Paul Naylor is here this evening, is he? MR. HILTON-No, he isn't. MR. RUEL-AII right. So you had the discussion with him about that opening of Fieldview? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. RUEL-Would you explain that in more detail, exactly why he wanted that, and what objections to keeping it closed? MR. NACE-Okay. Two concerns. Primary concern is for safety reasons, for fire and emergency access, so that there are two access points that serve, not just our subdivision, but the existing subdivision, and secondly, the reason you've heard time and again, as far as safety access, is that, if there were a traffic accident on one road, and some other emergency occurred within the subdivision, that there's a way to get there. The second reason if for snow plowing and for maintenance. It's a lot easier. Paul has a hard time with a lot of dead end roads in Town. They take longer to plow, just turning the plow around and doing the turn around, and it's a time consuming issue for him. So, those are the reasons. MR. RUEL-Did you happen to mention to him the possibility of one of these break away fences? MR. NACE-We mentioned the possibility of some sort of a limited emergency access, and he was not interested in that. He wants a complete through connection. MR. RUEL-Well, he wants it because it'll make his job easier. Right? MR. NACE-Yes. Well, make it easier. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think that's the overwhelming reason. I really don't. MR. STARK-Craig's got some comments out of the Town Ordinance. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, I went through the Subdivision Reg's the other day, and I found probably four or five references in here that tell us this is one of the things we should be looking at when we do new subdivisions, specifically Section 183-23F, and in part it says "the arrangement of subdivisions and streets shall provide for the continuation of principal streets to adjoining subdivisions and for the proper protection of principal streets and the adjoining properties which are not yet subdivided", which would happen if these other two parcels on either side of this project were ever to - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) be subdivided, and it says "It's to make necessary for fire protection, movement of traffic and the construction/extension of present services and utilities". Now that's pretty much, in a nutshell, but most cases in here, the other four or five referenèes I found here, everything was talking about fire services, emergency services, access for those services, and we have done them recently in the last couple of years with a few other subdivisions we've had in front of us, and one of the first ones I think about is Hudson pointe, where that was going to be stand alone on its own, but we interacted with that, I think, and two or three entrances and exit points were put in with that. So I think we'd be failing ourselves if we didn't do it. MR. BREWER-We do it with site plans. We're trying to do it with Shop N' Save and Doyles. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. STARK-George, do you want to read the Staff Notes on this? I know you already read them, but do you think you need to re-address them? MR. HILTON-Well, I really don't think, yes, I could just summarize these for you. MR. STARK-The main stumbling block seemed to be the road. MR. HILTON-It's for emergency purposes, and we would recommend connection to Fieldview Lane. However, you know, we would also recommend that the connection to Bay Road in the first phase of the subdivision be built and that no construction vehicles or construction traffic would use Fieldview Lane but would use the access point to Bay Road. MR. RUEL-To reduce the traffic on Fieldview? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. BREWER-Do we have the rest of this map anywhere, Tom, that shows this subdivision over here? MR. O'CONNOR-I was involved with the initial subdivision that's to the north of us, and we set that up specifically for future connection. MR. BREWER-Well, that's exactly what we're doing with this subdivision here. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Harris owns a piece that was later developed by Bill Barber, Michael Barber. MR. MACEWAN-That's also the idea you have behind this one. If the parcel to the west and the parcel to the east every gets developed, you've got the access to either one of those subdivisions as well. MR. NACE-In reality, I'd like to point out that I believe that our entrance onto Bay Road, from our proposed subdivision, will be a safer entrance than the existing Stonegate Drive. That's really, in a way, even though Paul has worked on it and tried to improve it, it's still a substandard entrance, and it doesn't have a very good tangent up top, and it doesn't have a very good level landing spot coming on to Bay, and the site distance on Bay is a little more limited at Stonegate than it is at our proposed. MR. BREWER-What would be the distance between your entrance on Bay and theirs? MR. NACE-It's, if I remember right, 350 to 400 feet. - 12 - ',-" --./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. STARK-Tim, unless you've got any more questions, I'd like to go back to the public hearing, so you could hear some comments. Tom, do you have anything else before we go to the public hearing then? MR. NACE-Just one thing to clarify. At the last meeting, and what has just been said, as far as construction access, I would like to point out that, with the initial arrival of equipment on this site, we probably will have to bring the initial equipment in through Fieldview Drive, okay, just because there's no good off loading place up on the edge of Bay Road at that point. MR. STARK-Are you talking a one time thing? MR. NACE-Yes, exactly, to get the bull dozer and possibly a couple of other pieces of equipment on site. The safest way to do that is through the existing road. MR. RUEL-Just a matter of weeks, right? MR. NACE-That would be just a matter of just a couple of days to get the initial equipment on site. MR. BREWER-Just to bring it there and get it in. MR. STARK-Okay. Mike, do you have anything? MR. O'CONNOR-No. MR. STARK-Okay. Now, we left the public hearing open, and if anybody would like to speak for or against this project, or come up and examine the new plan, which most of you probably haven't seen, I'd like to tell you, also, when you come up, please identify yourself, address any questions you have to the Board. We'll write them down, and then when everybody's done, then we'll have the applicant come back and answer them. So if anybody would like to come up, speak for or against, come on up. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN KEN SIMMONS MR. SIMMONS-My name is Ken Simmons, resident of Fieldview Road. I am not in favor of extending Fieldview Road. As far as safety reasons, we have, you know, safety of children on site. That increased traffic will probably not help. As to maintenance, I don't really see where it's going to be any easier, as far as the plows turning around, I think it's probably easier for them than it is for me to shovel, where they dump on my driveway, but I have thought, before the hearing, about, if Fieldview were not extended what could happen, and I had an idea, based on something Mr. MacEwan had said last week. He'd mentioned that a double access could be satisfied by a double wide road. It was the opinion of Staff that that did not specifically apply to this development, but I had thought maybe it could if you made a double wide road, actually two parallel roads with space in between for planters or shrubs or something. Pave the one half, make a nice 90 degree sweep at the bottom, so there would not be a cuI de sac, in case that were a problem, but make a nice 90 degree sweep to the middle of the development there, weave the other side as a construction road to go down into Phase I there. When that's done, pave that over. You've got a beautiful double entrance, or entrance and exit, with planters, shrubs, etc. in the middle. I think it would add value to the development. Mr. Levack would probably be more expert on that than I would, but I think it would be a selling point, and I think it would also give the people of the new development a sense of neighborhood of their own, rather than being the poor relation tacked on to Stonegate, and that was just my thoughts on the matter, and obviously Mr. Naylor thinks - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) differently. MR. BREWER-So you're talking about a boulevard, then, going down. MR. RUEL-Yes, a boulevard. MR. SIMMONS-If that's what it's called, okay, but I know Lamplighter Homes has that kind of a thing down in Moreau, and I think maybe it would just sort of, everybody seemed to be worried about construction access and two accesses, and I thought it might have been a creative solution to that problem, is two, you could have one paved road, the other would be the construction road, to be paved over when the construction is done, and you have nice entrance way onto Bay, put up some nice signs, pillars, whatever, announcing the development, and everybody could have something that they wanted. MR. STARK-Okay. speak? Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to TOM CICCONE MR. CICCONE-My name is Tom Ciccone. I'm a resident of Fieldview Drive. A few years ago, Mr. Naylor came down there. We had a divided entrance way with a cement peer in the center, and there was a place for flowers in the middle, and at that time, he took that median out because he said the road wasn't adequate for snow plows, and he was supposed to get back with us and make a different entrance way, which he never did, and I guess what we're saying is, he said at that time that the road wasn't even adequate for the people that lived there. I think there's 17 or 18 houses in there, in that whole community, and now if we open the road up, I guess we're getting right back to where we started. Our road can' t handle 16 more houses, and right now, I guess Tom, when he started off and he said that he was going to build, that he was going to use a new road for the construction road, and now we're going to be unloading equipment on a road that's pretty well broken up now. I don't know if any of you ladies and gentlemen have been down there. The road is pretty narrow and it's pretty beat up now, and we do have a problem in the morning, with school kids and buses trying to get out onto Bay Road, and I don't see how we can handle another 16 houses. I'd really like to see them just go ahead and build the road to Bay Road, and just kind of leave Fieldview alone. Thank you. MR. STARK-Okay. Is there anyone else? VALERIE WEINGART MRS. WEINGART-I'm Valerie Weingart. I live right at the corner where you're going to build the access road. I was just wondering if this was going to be done, if there were some conditions that perhaps the people who are presently living there could be established. For example, a stop sign at the corner of Stonegate, because right now there is not one there, and also maybe some way to enforce the speed limit for the new people that aren't aware of the children that are living there. Either a 10 mile an hour, 5 mile an hour speed limit sign, beware children, speed bump, something so they know that they should not be driving fast through there. MR. MACEWAN-Where are you asking for the stop sign? MRS. WEINGART-At the corner of Stonegate and Fieldview, right at the "T" there. MR. MACEWAN-Both of those issues that you've brought up are both Town issues, because they're the legislative body of the Town, and - 14 - ". '--' "-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) they're the ones who set up that kind of speed postings or highway postings, sign postings. You'd need to bring that to their attention. We could pass it along to them in a memo form or something like that, but we're not in a position where we can dictate posting a speed limit or hazard signs. MRS. WEINGART-Okay. Thanks. MR. STARK-Is there anyone else? MARY LEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline. I was wondering if the County has approved this proposed road onto Bay yet. Do you know? Has the County approved the proposed road going onto Bay yet? MR. STARK-That's not a County road, is it? MR. MACEWAN-Bay Road's a County road, and they need to make an application to the County Highway Department. MRS. GOSLINE-And what if the County says no? MR. MACEWAN-What if the County says no? Would you like to address that, because we addressed that last week. MR. HILTON-Well, I think, and I haven't heard the applicant' s position, where he is in the process of contacting the County, but certainly I would hope that they've done some preliminary research and got a preliminary opinion on connecting to Bay road, but if the County said no, then they might have an approved plat, but they wouldn't be able to construct without that County approval. MRS. GOSLINE-Shouldn't that be part of the pre-approval to have that done first? MR. STARK-Well, we'll have to ask them, they'll address it when they come back up, then. MRS. GOSLINE-Okay, and the top of Fieldview or Stonegate, if you look in the regulations, it says that it should be adequate for four cars coming in, and at the moment it's not. So should that be enlarged? MR. STARK-That doesn't have anything to do with this project. MRS. GOSLINE-But they're using the road. people onto Stonegate. You're putting more MR. BREWER-No. Actually they're building their own road. They're just making it accessible for the plow to go through. If there is ever an emergency, they ~ go out that way. MRS. GOSLINE-So this other road is going to be paved and everything? MR. STARK-Before the CO's are issued. MR. BREWER-People aren't going to go in here and go through this subdivision and come out up the road. I wouldn't think they will. Maybe they will. Some of them, if they're going north, maybe to the lake or something, but I think probably the majority of them are going to use their own road, go off at Bay, go left. MRS. GOSLINE-But if you look at top of Stonegate, it's very, very narrow. So if three cars even came at the same time. MR. BREWER-Probably what's going to happen is the people in - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) Stonegate are going to come out this road. After it's all said and done, I think you're going to find that that's what's going to happen. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. MR. STARK-Anyone else? MAUREEN SCHLINGER MRS. SCHLINGER-My name is Maureen Schlinger, and I'm a resident of Fieldview Lane, and my concern is also at the very top of Stonegate, where you're talking about people coming down and then going out Fieldview and then out to the access road. I know when I put my daughter on the bus up at the top, very often, and I don't know how many times this has happened, cars coming to or even from, they go right by the bus. People pulling in and out. I have a hard time getting my daughter to cross the street there to get on the bus. It's a very dangerous situation, which we have tried to rectify with the School. I know that's not your problem, but I think that more cars coming in and out of there, and you say, you know, I mean, how do we know for sure that people aren't going to come in and out both ways. I mean, we're talking about a lot of traffic there. I know are concerns are for our children. You keep hearing that, but our children are used to, you know, we've given them safety reasons in that whole area. Now you're talking about construction coming through there, all kinds of more cars, and I'm just wondering why, maybe the possibility of a loop, a road from Bay Road coming around like a loop, like almost Sunnyside. Is that maybe an option? I don't know. Thank you. MR. STARK-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. SIMMONS-Ken Simmons again. One question. Is it within the purview of the Board here, in line with what Valerie had mentioned, to maybe require a speed bump in the roads that will be built in the new development, specifically to slow down people going through onto extended Fieldview? Is that part of the approval process here? MR. STARK-We'll bring it up. That's all I can tell you. Okay. Is there anyone from the public yet that wishes to speak? KEN BAKER MR. BAKER-I have a question. My name is Ken Baker. I'm down in Fieldview also. I'm a little concerned as to, where is this road that's coming out of this development going to be hitting Bay Road? Is that right at the top of the hill? MR. STARK-You see it right there. Go over and look at the map. MR. BREWER-350 to 360 from your road, Ken. MR. STARK-South of your road, south of Stonegate. MR. BAKER-So you're almost at the top of the hill, when you come up the hill, right before those trees. MR. STARK-You see the trees right there, Kenny, down the line. MR. BAKER-You're talking in here? MR. STARK-Yes, and the road is coming out just to the left of it. MR. BAKER-When you're over here, you're only looking at, coming out of Stonegate, you're only looking at 400 feet. Someone coming over the top of this hill, there's always a problem when you're going to make a south hand turn out of Stonegate. There's always a problem of this car, the speed it's coming, or whatever, when you're - 16 - ~ .f ~ '-- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) pulling out. There's always a problem north when you're pulling out. (Lost words) it might be a little bit easier for the people coming gg Bay Road to see someone pulling out of this road, but it isn't going to be any easier for the people over here in Stonegate to be seeing this (lost words) right in here. You should be giving more review. I think that was the other problem that we had with Naylor when he made our entrance very, very narrow. We said there was no way, coming up that hill, to make a right hand turn into Stonegate that we could slow down so the traffic behind us would slow. Now you're going to put another road into there, right at the top of that hill. MR. STARK-Okay. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? Okay. George, do you want to read the letter that you received. MR. HILTON-We received this letter since the last meeting. The public hearing is still open, so it's a letter dated March 27, 1997, to the Planning Board members. It says, "I am writing in regards to the development proposed for the Harris property off Bay Rd. I have lived in the adjoining development (Stonegate Manor) for the past 22 years. My family has enjoyed living here. A couple of times we considered moving however after looking the Queensbury area over we found many great houses but no area we chose to live in. It was always back to Stonegate and its quiet setting and comfort away from the hustle and bustle of the main area. Therefore, I would like to address a couple of areas of confusion and concern. First, the size of the proposed development keeps being compared to the Stonegate development as the same or comparable. Actually this is not so. In Stonegate we have a total of 17 Houses with a breakdown in lot size as follows: 2 lots over an acre 7 lots just short of an acre 4 lots just over 3/4 of an acre and only 4 lots 1/2 acre or more In the proposed development the greatest number of lots is barely larger than a half acre with a couple of larger ones. The next area is one of concern. In the proposed development an area of non development will exist. It seems to me as well as others this area seems to be a grey area with no one quite knowing what this area is for, who it belongs to or will belong to, who maintains it and who if anyone will pay taxes on the land. I feel this area needs to be addressed and more finely defined before acceptance. Now for mine, as well as my neighbors, main issue of concern, the entrance to the proposed development. I would, first, invite each and every board member to drive north on Bay Rd. to Stonegate Drive and turn in. This turn is at the end of a blind hill of 45 MPH traffic (if they're going the speed limit). It is easy to see by the bend in the road as you first go in and by its narrowness that it was not constructed for a great volume of traffic. The issue of having two entrances in case of an emergency was brought up. This issue has not been a concern for 25 years and would not have been brought up if it had not been for the development of this area. The people of Stonegate bought the property knowing there was only one entrance. It was not a concern then and is not now. I ask that you please take into consideration the condition of the existing road, the quality of the neighborhood you are disrupting and the actual necessity of tying in to Fieldview Rd. And lastly I must address Ron Harris as the decision he has made to sell his property had to be a long and most difficult one. To know that you have to relinquish something that means so much and been in your family history for so long can only be heart wrenching. My only solace to you is that if your father, Stan Harris, had not decided to sell the portion of land now known as Stonegate, I as well as many others would not have the wonderful memories of our children growing up in a country like setting in a big city world. For that I can only say thank you and may you know that the new development may offer the people that live there the same. I thank all involved for the time and consideration they have and will be giving to this matter. Sincerely, Marcy Dark" - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. STARK-Okay. Now, George, and with the Board's permission, I'm going to leave the public hearing open until we hear the applicant's response to some of these comments, in case someone wants to have an additional comment, and then, and then we can always close it at the end. Okay? So the public hearing is still going to be left open. Lets have the applicant address the concerns that we've written down here, and then if anybody else still has a comment, I'll take some more comment at that point, and then we'll have them address it again if you still have comments. Okay. Tom, the first comment seemed to be, well the safety and speed bumps we can't put in, but the safety of the children and, you know, the connection. MR. NACE-Obviously, speed limit signs, as you pointed out, children playing signs could always be petitioned, and I think the developer would certainly support any petition to the Town Board for the use of such signs. I come back to the entrance, and I think the neighbors have said it very well, is that the existing entrance on Stonegate is a difficult entrance. The site distance is difficult. The geometrics of the entrance are difficult. This is a really narrow road. I think that the preponderance of not only the people in the proposed subdivision, but also the people in Fieldview will end up, in the long run, using this entrance because it will be more convenient. It will be easier, safer. The geometrics are met here. We've got the required level or relatively level landing up at the top. You come off the road at 90 degrees. The site distance is much improved. We're right on the crest of the hill. We're on the outside of the curve on Bay. So you can see to the north well. You don't have cars popping up over the hill because we're right at the very crest. You can see way down to the south on Bay. It will be a much safer entrance. So I don't think that any traffic going through this connection into Fieldview is going to be generated out of this subdivision. If there is any traffic there at all, it'll be generated out of Fieldview. That's the main issue. There was some discussion brought up about the possibility of a boulevard entrance and some sort of a loop road with that. We've looked at a lot of different options back at the schematic phase. We looked at looping down through here. The problem with that is the geometrics just don't work. The piece of land is narrow enough, by the time you get the minimum radiuses in, for a Town road, the geometrics just don't work out. A boulevard entrance, the problem with that, if you brought this in as a boulevard entrance, you cannot take any front lots off that boulevard entrance, because Paul doesn't want a lot of openings through the median. It would have to be plowed, okay, to get to people's driveways. People would have to turn across, this lot, for instance, people would have to turn across the median and get to the driveway. That's partially an unsafe condition, and it's a difficult maintenance condition. So for those two reasons, we have eliminated, in our thinking, eliminated that option. MR. STARK-Okay. Mrs. Gosline brought up the County approval. MR. NACE-The County approval, the main objection the County could have in any access to a County road is the safety, the sight distance. We've looked at that. We're confident that we will meet the County criteria. As soon as we have preliminary approval, it's a three or four day turnaround to send an application, set of plans up to Roger and get him to look at it. MR. MACEWAN-Can you give just a very quick overview of what the County review is, to make sure that you meet their needs? MR. NACE-Well, Roger Gebo at the County will look at the plans, familiarize himself with the proposed access and the geometrics of our road, where it comes on to the County. Then he'll go out and look at it and verify for himself that the safety and the sight distances are adequate and issue a permit. In general it takes us, - 18 - ~ '-.-'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) like I said, less than a week to get a permit, actual permit so we can go out and construct from the County. MR. RUEL-I have a question, Tom. If you had a double wide road, would you have enough frontage on Bay? MR. NACE-No, we would not. MR. RUEL-It seems pretty narrow there. MR. NACE-It is. MR. RUEL-So it's actually impossible. MR. NACE-The geometrics of it would be very difficult. We would not have adequate right-of-way right beside, you know, the main throat of the entrance. Generally, I think at Hudson Pointe we used 70 or 75 feet per right-of-way. We have 50 feet here. MR. RUEL-That's the maximum, right? MR. NACE-No, that's the minimum. MR. MACEWAN-The Subdivision Reg's, though, say you have to have a minimum of 35 lots in order to be applicable for a boulevard. Am I right? MR. NACE-From a practical standpoint, a boulevard entrance does not work for us. MR. RUEL-Do you know whether there are two roads in and out of Stonegate for safety and emergency use? MR. STARK-There's one. MR. NACE-Existing? MRS. LABOMBARD-There's only one. MR. NACE-They never had two. MR. O'CONNOR-I don't recall how that road was initially approved, to be honest with you, Roger, and I don't know if the people themselves developed a medium, as somebody here indicated, after the subdivision was approved. I don't think we know that, and they probably know better than we do if they've lived there. MR. RUEL-Apparently safety was not the same issue then, when Stonegate was built. MR. NACE-I'm not familiar with that. MR. O'CONNOR-1970, '73. We went through the site plan, not site plan but sight distance review on both sides of that road. I don't know if they were the same standard that you have now. Most standards have all improved. MR. STARK-Tim, one of the questions, and, George, maybe you could help us on this. One of the main things from the people in Stonegate now is that, you know, their entrance is totally inadequate, and we can't do anything about that, but, George, what would these people have to do to get that addressed? They would have to go see Naylor or petition the Town Board? I don't know what they did, but I just want George to let us know what should be done. MR. HILTON-It's a situation where I would suggest that they contact the Highway Superintendent or discuss it with the Town Board, - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) because ultimately the Town Board has the decision, with any improvements, off site improvements such as this. MR. BREWER-Well, there's an alternative right here. I mean, if we approve this, they're going to build a road. They are going to have an alternative. MR. STARK-It's superior to their entrance. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. STARK-But still a lot of people that live up on the other end are not going to come down through Fieldview and then go up the new entrance. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. STARK-I would rather go out my own entrance. MR. O'CONNOR-I wouldn't be surprised, too, if the school bus system doesn't change their stop, and take it away from Bay Road and bring it down into the subdivision, because they will now have the loop. MR. STARK-Okay. I understand. So they would be picking up down in the subdivision itself rather than on the road, which is a bad place to pick up anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-There's been some concern expressed on that. MR. RUEL-This subdivision is 28 lots, right? MR. NACE-27 lots. MR. RUEL-27. Just for edification, for the Board members, statements were made about the necessity for two roads in this subdivision of land Chapter 183 also indicates that subdivisions containing 35 lots or more shall have at least two street connections with existing public streets. Of course, this is under 35. MR. NACE-I think the issue initially was brought up when we were talking about only one road connection, okay, in Phase I. We were talking about having Phase I done with only one road connection to Fieldview, not the connection with Bay. This was back initially when (lost words) if you added up what was already existing in Fieldview, plus Phase I in this subdivision would have exceeded the 35. I believe that's when that initially came up. MR. RUEL-No. Everything is based on Naylor's comments here, because if I read this statement correctly, it indicates to me that all I need is the one road. MR. NACE-According to your Subdivision Regulations. MR. RUEL-Yes. Well, this is a subdivision. This is a regulation. MR. MACEWAN-I disagree with you on that. There's numerous references throughout these Subdivision Reg's that tell us that we should internalize. MR. RUEL-I picked the one that ~ like. MR. MACEWAN-That's why we're a Board made up of seven members. MR. O'CONNOR-Roger, I think that simply says that if we're going to have more than 35 lots, we must provide two accesses. That's the way it's been interpreted. That's the way it's been read. - 20 - -- .,;* "'-' '-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I doesn't say that if you have less than 35, you shall only have one road. MR. RUEL-No, but it doesn't say you must have two under 35. MR. BREWER-They're not building two, Roger. They're building one. Only one road connecting to another that's existing. MR. O'CONNOR-Ultimately the road design is approved by Naylor. MR. RUEL-They're building a small road to connect to Fieldview. What is that little road there? Is that a road? There's no name to it, but that's a road. MR. STARK-That's Fieldview. The new road? MR. RUEL-The new road. MR. STARK-Well, whatever the name he wants to name it. MR. RUEL-They're building that road, and they're building the one to Bay. That's two roads they're building. MR. STARK-No. They're connecting the one road, Rog. MR. BREWER-Well, if you want to say that, Roger, then they're building four roads. MR. RUEL-AII right. Okay. MR. STARK-Mr. Ciccone had a concern that, you know, go over the order of events again, that Al would come down, use Fieldview once, unload. MR. NACE-Okay. The issue is, obviously, construction equipment coming through Fieldview. What I was trying to say is that at our previous meeting I had stated that all construction equipment would come in our construction road. Nothing would use Fieldview. That probably is impractical from the standpoint that initially to get equipment, a dozer, maybe a front end loader, in here to work is impractical to try to park those along the side of Bay Road and unload the equipment. So the equipment would probably be off loaded down at the end of Fieldview and brought into the site, okay. It's an initial one time only, once that equipment's here, it'll open up the access through to Bay and as the majority of construction equipment comes in, it will be through the Bay Road entrance. MR. STARK-Another concern was the question was brought up about the road being pretty beat up, the end of Fieldview where the cuI de sac is. It is kind of beat up down there. MR. NACE-That whole cuI de sac will be re-done. We are actually, when we connect through, we will be re-constructing that back through the entire frontage of that cuI de sac, back to where it's a straight road. So that will be a brand new road. MR. STARK-Who's responsible for the removal of the macadam on, there's a brown house to the west, to the east of that, and then there's another house to the west. MR. NACE-The developer will be responsible. In fact, the note's right on the plans. I think it's on the grading and drainage plan. MR. O'CONNOR-That's what we did at Indian Ridge and Hudson pointe. - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) else except me on the Board here. If you didn' t get any satisfaction in whatever other things you've gone to the Town for, I can' t, we can' t be responsible for that, but I'm just saying, you know, the Reg's are there, and probably now I feel a lot more toward opening that road, for your safety. MR. STARK-Okay. I think you've answered everything adequately, Tom. To the people here, I think you've got a crummy entrance on Stonegate. We were up there numerous times, members of the Board have all been up there a few times. ~ think it's a crummy entrance. I can't do anything about your entrance. If ~ were you, I would take a petition up to the Town Board or to Naylor or something and try to get him to fix it. That's what I would do. I ~ould be happy with the school bus coming down the new road, or wh1chever way they come, and exit Stonegate or exit the new road to pick the kids up in the development rather than out on Bay Road. I think that's a big plus. The minor inconvenience of the construction of the road for a couple of weeks, it's an inconvenience for a couple of weeks, but the people that live by that cuI de sac are going to pick up a heck of a lot more front yard. I mean, that's a plus. MR. CICCONE-I don't want it. MR. STARK-You don't want to mow it. Okay. Does anybody else on the Board have any comments? MR. RUEL-Yes. There've been a lot of objections here by the citizens of Stonegate, and I don't think we have satisfied them. What we have tried to do with the citizens of Stonegate is to explain to them, from an engineering standpoint or Highway Department standpoint, the necessity for doing what the applicant intends to do, but in all fairness, when are we going to really start listening to what the people want? I can look at the regulations and I can find ways of not connecting that road and not necessarily violating any of the subdivision regulations, and I really don't care what the Highway Superintendent says. He could be wrong. In many, many cases I've seen, being on this Board many years, is that many times a lot of people get together and express a certain idea, something they want or don't want, and we have a habit of getting around it and explaining to them why it shouldn't be that way, and why they should listen to us. ~ think we should start listening to the people. If there's no alternative, that's one thing. I believe there are. MR. MACEWAN-The only comment I guess I would have, along those lines, Roger, is if this particular development, Stonegate and Fieldview, had another entrance in and out of that development, I would probably lean more toward saying, okay, lets not interconnect. It has to do with the Subdivision Regulations and what they want to do from a Planninq standpoint. The Subdivision Regulations are adopted by the Town. It has nothing to do with Paul Naylor and his wishes. It has nothing to do with the fast money making deal for Mr. Cerrone to make money on. This is a requirement of the Subdivision Regulations to interconnect into existing neighborhoods wherever it's appropriate. It's appropriate here. These people, whether they want to realize it or not, in my opinion, I think are going to gain a very valuable asset to their development by having an extra egress into there. If they ever had a fire emergency, and this happened before in the Town, they would really be up the creek not having entrance into that development, and I think it would really benefit that development if they had it. MR. RUEL-I came up with an idea what he could have it, the break away fence at that location. It's a closed road except for emergency equipment. That takes care of the emergency equipment, but no one seems to even think about it. - 27 - " ,,-,. .....; (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. STARK-Okay. MR. NACE-There was an issue about how long rebuild the piece, the end of Fieldview there. MR. STARK-Right. MR. NACE-I'm guessing that you're probably looking at, between digging that out, putting a new sub base paving, you're probably looking at a week to two weeks. MR. STARK-When? MR. NACE-Probably it would be mid to late summer, mid summer I would guess. It depends on the approval process. MR. STARK-Yes. MR. NACE-Depending on when we're approved, it'll be done as part of Phase I. That's all I can tell you. MR. BREWER-George, what's the hurt if we didn't connect? MR. STARK-I'm just going by what the Town Reg's. You're asking me why are we connecting or what? MR. BREWER-No. I understand why we are. I'm saying, what's the harm if we don't? I wasn't here last week. MR. NACE-I think one thing Paul brought up, and, you know, the argument was made, well, this makes Paul's job a little bit easier by having the connection, but who cares about making it a little bit easier in some instance, but if you start looking at this on a Town wide business, if all of our subdivisions were little dead end streets, all of a sudden the cost of maintaining our Town road system could get substantial, the cost of circulating the plows when they can go into a subdivision and spend and hour or two plowing the streets within the subdivision (lost words) a reasonable pattern is a lot more efficient than having to build (lost words) dead end streets. The subdivisions are (lost word) for a good reason. The regulations, as Craig has pointed out, in several instances, say lets start planning for the future. Lets not just look at now with blinders on, but lets plan for the future. MR. MACEWAN-More importantly for emergency services, I think, should be the overwhelming reason to join these two. MRS. LABOMBARD-Another thing is, Paul Naylor is an elected official, and, well, you know, I would imagine that because he has constituents, he would try to keep their well being at bay. Well, that's one of the things that he's concerned about, and I believe when he made this decision, and last week when I left you people, I was very much for your endeavor. I heard, as a mother, myself, and I listened to all of your reasons, and I really felt that you had some really good points, but you know now as I've gone through the book and I've thought about it, you know, maybe you people in Stonegate and on Fieldview have been living on some pretty lucky time here, because you only have one access out of there. What if there was a fire and also at the same time an emergency vehicle had to get through? I'm just saying that maybe the long run, we have an obligation here to be concerned about your health and safety, and it would be an awful thing if in the future something like this came back on us. MR. CICCONE-After all these years, somebody's concerned about us. MRS. LABOMBARD-Pardon me, I'm not speaking on behalf of anybody - 26 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) in. I don't object to that road at all. I think it has a lot of advantages, and I do think human nature being what it is that it will be so much easier to use that for parties on either side that it may turn out to be a plus, and I deplore the fact that maybe there should be an "us" against "them" sort of mentality. I really don't think that has to be, I would not like to see that. I would not like to see one neighborhood pitted against another over the simple idea of a road. The other thing I might suggest to make things easier, if the builder would like to bring his equipment in our driveway to the south of our house, we offer that as an option so that perhaps they don't have to come through the Fieldview properties and cause disruption there. We have complete access to that whole area right there, and that might be an option. Thank you. MR. STARK-Okay. Fine. We'll bring it up. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. STARK-Okay. If that's it, then, I'd like to close the public hearing, and we'll have the applicant address these final comments, and then we'll go on. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STARK-One of the questions was why paved and not just gravel and so on? MR. NACE-For an issue of maintenance. With a gravel road, again, plowing, maintaining is more difficult. It's only a short. I'm sure that Paul would require it to be paved. MR. MACEWAN-Don't the Town Subdivision Reg's specify that it has to be a finished grade before it can be dedicated to the Town? MR. NACE-It has to be paved, yes, to be accepted. MR. STARK-The next one is the future road. MR. NACE-Yes. The future road out through the Oudekerk property. Again, the way this subdivision did, we've left a kind of right-of- way going to the property line, in anticipation of it, down the road, whether it's five years away, ten years away, or fifty years away, there's away, there's a means to access through this development. In reality, that road probably will eventually wander back out to Bay, but we have no guarantee whether that's going to occur within five years or within twenty years. The idea of the developer in this instance with this property being able to additionally benefit by this connection, being able to go over 35 lots, is not true. The only property owned or to be owned by Mr. Cerrone is what's shown. There are only 27 lots within that subdivision. There's a restriction against further subdivision of any of the lots that are large enough to subdivide. So there's no way that this little piece of road additionally benefits him in any way, shape or form. In fact, the cost of construction of this is greater than if he didn't. So it's actually costing him money to make that connection. MR. STARK-What about Mrs. Oudekerk's offer of her property to bring the equipment in? I mean, is that something that's feasible? MR. NACE-I think it is feasible, the road into their farm will access back into their field here, and would make it very easy to get back to this construction here up to Bay Road. MR. STARK-Would you do that? MR. NACE-We would definitely do that. - 25 - \. '''-" ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. CICCONE-Well, George, can I call you the second day if they unload some more? MR. STARK-You bet. MR. CICCONE-Thank you. MR. BREWER-This road thing, I mean, the more we sit here tonight, is it something, I understand that we're talking about the access and the entrance and the exit, whatever, but is it something you guys want to do, tie into that? MR. STARK-Before we get into Tom's rebuttal here, let me just ask, does anybody else have anything to say about this, the second round? Because I am going to close the public hearing, and we've got to move on. MRS. WEINGART-I just have a question. I'm Valerie Weingart. I live right across the street from Tom. You kept saying that it's just a one day deal, that these trucks are going to be there just to unload the equipment, and that's it. Somebody else had said that what they're going to do is just totally get rid of that circle there, re-do that road to go into this new development. Is that going to take that one day that you're talking about, or is that another day or another week? MR. STARK-We'll let them address it, but you understand what they're talking about, like just to get the road built up to Bay, they've got to unload the equipment on your street, go through, when that road is done, when the other road is done, then they would go back, take out the cuI de sac in front of your house, re- sod and everything in front of your house and make it nice right out to the new road they're putting in. That will not take one day. MRS. WEINGART-Right. Does anyone know an approximation as to how long that's going to take, because I mean obviously you're talking how soon will this be done? In the spring time when my two kids are outside playing? MR. STARK-We'll find out. MRS. WEINGART-Okay. Thanks. MR. STARK-Okay. Is there anyone else? SUSAN BALFOUR MRS. BALFOUR-My name is Susan Balfour, and I just want to reassure the folks that I've sold a couple of them their houses in there, that I've worked with Al Cerrone since 1988, and we've done three developments together, and the people have been very happy, and Al has built nice developments that compliment the ones that are there, and I am a mom and I'm always concerned about my child getting on the school bus. This is going to be a much safer way once they're used to it, because it just makes sense that, I see when I drive up and down Bay, people getting their kids on the bus on Bay. It only makes sense now that the school bus will come down in the development. Change is sometimes difficult, but AI's experience in the past has been very good, and they can go over and see like Clendon Ridge, which is a nice development. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. Okay. ELEANOR OUDEKERK MRS. OUDEKERK-Just one last comment. I'm Eleanor Oudekerk. I'm in the property just to the south of that, adjoining the road coming - 24 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) to me that it's an easy way out, to cut a road through Fieldview, and then he can go and build all the houses he wants, and he has two accesses. MR. STARK-Tommy, I think the new road connection to Bay has to be built before any CO's can be issued. That has to be done, paved, accepted by the Town. Is that the road you're referring to? MR. CICCONE-What I'm talking about is we have 17 houses. He builds 16 houses. Now he's included in our development. So now we've got to have two openings. Well, I think that's what he just said. I'm not sure, but if you do that, okay, so now lets say you've got 35 houses and you have Fieldview for one access to Stonegate, and then you have another access, the new road, to Bay Road, okay. What I'm saying is, as part of a money making plan, he only has to build one road, but if he leaves Fieldview alone, he has to build two roads, because if he builds more than 35 houses in the new development, he has to have another road, and he's using that for our road, and that's not fair to us, and I know that we're not (lost word) for anybody to make a profit, and we're not against him building houses, and I'm deadly against him bringing down some equipment, unloading in front of mY house because that's where he's going to be unloading it. MR. STARK-Where do you live on here, Tommy? MR. BREWER-He lives right down there where the road dead ends. MR. STARK-Right on the end, on the west side? MR. CICCONE-Yes, the east side. MR. STARK-That's the east side. MR. CICCONE-And George just said, this is the last chance you're going to say something. I don't know if Naylor has all his, where does Naylor get all this power? It's like the letter said, for years and years and years, he wasn't concerned about two entrances. He promised us to open the road wider so it would be easier to get off of Bay, and he said he would get back to us, and that's over two years ago. He never did it. He took the median out because he was concerned about the snow being removed in the road. It probably was a problem. We're not against that either, and then he promised us to come back and, you know, you close the meeting, and what else are we going to do to the public people? What else can we say? I think we just try to get the message across here. I really think they're out to make a profit and they're out to get money, and that's great. That's what the world's all about, but at our expense, at our little community's expense. I don't really think we need, I don't think we have to have that road go through Fieldview. I'm sorry if they, I think it was quoted last time there was going to be three, four million involved. Well, that's what one of the statements was, but the thing of it is, they can build two roads over there. They don't ever have to bother us, and as far as Naylor, I don't think Naylor took into consideration the people that live there. I think he's just more or less concerned about moving snow. Yes, it would be easier for him to go right straight through with a snow plow. I understand that, but are we here to make Naylor's job easier? I mean, if all of us taxpayers are paying these people and I think we're going to try to get a strong message across to the Town, we don't want a road there. I don't want any equipment unloaded in front of my house. I don't think it's fair to me, and, you know, it's not right. MR. STARK-You understand that it would only be like a one day deal, unload the equipment, go through the road, that's the end of unloading equipment in front of your house. - 23 - '-' -.-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. NACE-Which says remove existing turnaround, maintain access for abutting driveways during construction, restore abutting driveways with paved connection to new road, topsoil, seed, and mulch all disturbed areas. So that will be the developer. MR. STARK-Okay. I think you've addressed most of the questions that the public has had. I'm going to ask the public for any more additional comments before I close the public hearing. This is your last shot. So if you have any more questions, please come forward, and bring them up. CHARLES WEINGART MR. WEINGART-My name's Charles Weingart. I own the property right here. If you're looking at a road right here, everybody's opposed to this road. Why don't we just make it a temporary road or just a gravel road. Why does it have to be paved? You say all of this are going to use this access. I bet you if you asked every person in this development, we're still going to use Stonegate Drive. You're saying this is going to be for a safety reason, but just open up the end of the road, make it a gravel road so it connects these two existing subdivisions, and then leave both of us alone, then we can use our own property and they can use their own road. MR. STARK-Okay. We'll have them address it. Thank you. Any other questions? MRS. GOSLINE-On the map here, it shows a future road, right here you've got a future road for future development going over the (lost word) part of this phase. MR. STARK-To another future development. So if they come in with their road here, the amount of houses they have would be under 35, and then future development could go right up here, and you could put another road somewhere else, and then you wouldn't have to bother Fieldview for the numbers, because you're worried about two entrances for so many homes. Those homes, here's your next entrance over here. It says future development. MR. BREWER-No. What that simply is, is it leaves the option for another road if that is ever developed. If it's not developed, though, there's no road. MRS. GOSLINE-The first phase is under 35 homes. So what's the difference? You say they have to have two entrances for 35 homes. MR. BREWER-That's ª development. If you came in with 70 homes, he would have to have two accesses. MRS. GOSLINE-Right, but there's not 35 here. So if you just let them come in their own development and left Fieldview alone, I would just hate to see that development disturbed. I mean, there's got to be an option. That's why they bought there, and that's why they're living there. MR. STARK-Okay. Is there any other questions or comments on this project? MR. CICCONE-My name's Tom Ciccone. We keep talking about, we've got 16 houses or 17 and it handles our road fairly well. We don't have a problem with that, okay, and if we open it up, there's another 16 houses. So therefore you have to have two accesses, because you've got over 35 houses or so. What happens if he doesn't open that road? He builds 16 houses, and then if he builds over 35 houses, he has to build another road somewhere, but if he's got Fieldview, he doesn't have to do that, and I'm really looking at this as, forgive me for saying, everybody has a right to make a profit and to make money. I'm not against that, but it looks like - 22 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. BREWER-I agree with what Craig said. I agree with what Roger said, but are we doing the best thing by connecting that road? I think we are. I think, in the long run I know people don't like change. I didn't like change when they made developments up by illY house. I really didn't. I fought it for a long time, but it's there now. I accept it. I use it. I think the people are going to find that they will use that road. MR. STARK-Okay. Roger, do you have any other additional comments? MR. RUEL-No. I just feel that Stonegate residents want to maintain the integrity of Stonegate, period. MR. STARK-Cathy? Craig? Okay. Now this is Unlisted. MR. HILTON-It's an Unlisted action. You've got the Long Form. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. HILTON-Excuse me. I just had a member of the public approach me. She seems to think that maybe not all the questions were commented on. I'd just like to make sure that all the additional comments were clarified. MR. STARK-Okay. Did she specifically say which one? Because I thought we covered them all, but maybe. MR. HILTON-The property is not going to be developed (lost words) . MR. STARK-Okay. Tom, you heard the question, or Mike, about the property being fully built out. MR. O'CONNOR-We are going to offer it to the Town as open space. If they will take it, we'll deed it to them, but we are not requiring that they give us a break on the recreation fees. They simply want it as open space so they can have it with an access way to it that runs along the edge of the property. If the Town doesn't want it, we can put it into a limited homeowners association, and limited homeowners association would maintain it and take care of it. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you understand that, ma' am, what he said? Okay. You understand the Town recreation fee for every lot that's subdivided has to be $500, the recreation fee and so on? MR. RUEL-So you will have a homeowners association? MR. NACE-Not necessarily. MR. O'CONNOR-If the Town Board does not want to take this as open space without giving us a discount or without any money, then we would have the limited homeowners association, where there are no improvements, and it's a homeowners association maintained or open space purposes. It's a little bit simplified than a full fledged homeowners association. It goes through an approval process with the Attorney General's office. MR. STARK-Does that adequately answer your question, ma'am? MARCY DARK MS. DARK-My name is Marcy Dark, and I live on Fieldview Road. It's just that I did ask questions in the letter, and they were asked last week, and I don't feel that they were addressed again this week, and the one was an existing property that won't be developed, and I guess you pretty well explained that. Also the half acre lots. I don't think it was clearly understood last week in reference to the half acre lots, because that property was re-zoned - 28 - '--" '--'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) as one acre lot. MR. STARK-It was re-zoned, what, ma'am? MS. DARK-One acre. MR. STARK-One acre. MR. MACEWAN-You're talking about this subdivision? MS. DARK-The new development. MR. MACEWAN-This is taking advantage of what's called clustering, which allows the developer to basically squeeze down his development and leave more open space. MS. DARK-I mean, that ties in with our development, also, and it's really not anything comparable to what we have now. I mean, our homes have a lot of open space. They're not clustered together, if that's the word you want to use. MR. STARK-Okay. MS. DARK-Those were my only two concerns. MR. STARK-Thank you. Okay. Tom, do you want to respond? MR. NACE-Here is a tax map of the existing development. Some of them, I haven't written the sizes on all of them. Some of them, over at the end here you can see there's an acre lot. The ones in the middle are a little over three quarters of an acre. The ones on the end are just a little over half an acre. So you can get a general picture there of the size. I think, if you look at ours, the ones along here are half an acre, just a little over half an acre. As you come along the east side, there's six tenths of an acre. Up in here, six tenths of an acre. Up in here, we've got a lot of 1.7, 1.3, 1.2, .86, in back here, the lots are 1.2, 1.1. So I think they're in the same general ballpark, size wise, as the existing, and that's the reason for our previous comment. MR. STARK-I think one of the concerns for the people in Stonegate are also that maybe these houses aren't going to be quite the same economic. I'm trying to word this delicately, you know, not any low income housing. They're going to be comparable. Mike, do you want to address that, what the new houses will cost roughly, or maybe Al can. MR. O'CONNOR-What is your sell range going to be? MR. CERRONE-Between $120,000 and $150,000. MR. STARK-Okay. Al Cerrone said that the new houses are going to be priced between $120,000 and $150,000, and I think that' s comparable to what's existing now in Stonegate. MR. O'CONNOR-Susan Balfour, who is a realtor, is that comparable? MRS. BALFOUR-Actually a little bit higher than some of the ones that are in there. MR. STARK-Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to bring that out to alleviate some of the fears, possibly, there. Okay. I don't know where Tim went, but we might as well start in on the SEQRA then, right now. George, before we start, do you have anything additional that you want to bring up? MR. HILTON-Well, I've been handed some information from the Town law statutes regarding cluster zoning, and as I am not Town - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) Counsel, I really can't comment on these. If there are any concerns, I will definitely give these to our Town Counsel, and he can address these prior to any final approvals, and we will have comment on these prior to final approval. MR. STARK-Okay. This is for Preliminary anyway. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. STARK-Okay. Cathy, do you want to read the SEQRA? MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. This is on the project impacts and their magnitude, responsibility of Lead Agency. First of all it's "Impact on Land Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?" MR. RUEL-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Well then is it going to be small to moderate, potential large impact, or can the impact be mitigated by change, or should I, do you want me to enumerate the different types of changes? MR. RUEL-No. I think it's moderate. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Small to moderate. MR. RUEL-Yes. That's it, small to moderate impact. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. "Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood Will proposed action effect the character of the existing community?" MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-I think no. MRS. LABOMBARD-I think no because we just went through the new sites coming in are very, if you average them out, you probably get the same average acre as what you had. MR. RUEL-Read that again. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. I'll be glad to. "Will proposed action effect the character of the existing community?" All right. Examples that would apply. All right. Do you want me to give you some examples in here? MR. STARK-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. "The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the project is located is likely to grow by more than five percent" MR. RUEL-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. "The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project." MR. RUEL-No. MRS. LABOMBARD- "Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals." MR. BREWER-No. MR. RUEL-No. - 30 - "-- ---../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-"Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. II MR. BREWER-No. MRS. LABOMBARD- "The proposed action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community?" MR. BREWER-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-liThe development will create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.)n MR. BREWER-No. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-We're going to have more policemen and fire trucks because of this and more schools? MR. RUEL-Thirty homes, it will have an impact on schools. MR. BREWER- I don't see how it's going to, Roger. approved a $14. million budget to add on to the school. think this really has a bearing on. They just So I don't MR. STARK-This is Lake George, Tim. MRS. LABOMBARD-This is Queensbury. "Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects II, and "The proposed action will create or eliminate emploYment." MR. BREWER-No. It may create if it does anything. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. "Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. RUEL-No. MR. BREWER-The point being that there was no public controversy related to the environmental impact, not that there wasn't controversy. MR. RUEL-In other areas. MR. CICCONE-Are you going to get to that, to the point where the public is not happy with the road going through there? MRS. LABOMBARD-That is it, basically. MR. BREWER-We've been there. Is that a significant environmental impact, putting that road through there? I guess that's the question we're asked of SEQRA. MRS. LABOMBARD-I just read all the points. I've just read everything. The only one that we said yes on was the original one, the very first one where it was "Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site?" And we said small to moderate. MR. NACE-Cathy, before you continue, you may want to go back and look at agricultural again, okay. This is one of the few subdivisions in the Town we've come across where the land use is presently agricultural. You may want to just say small to moderate. - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. BREWER-Is that going to significantly change the character of that, Tom, though? MR. NACE-It's a change, a small change. MR. MACEWAN-But SEQRA, the land use isn't agricultural. It's SR-1. MR. BREWER-Well, it is and it isn't. MR. NACE-The zoning isn't, but the existing use is agricultural. MR. MACEWAN-The SEQRA, at the time we did the SEQRA for the, at the time the Town Board did it for the petition change, didn't they, didn't they enter it at that point? MR. NACE-That's true. You're right. MR. STARK-Now at the end, instead of saying you waive the rest, you've got to say. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. Well, what I would like to do right now is move for a SEQRA negative declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-1997, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning CERRONE BUILDERS, INC., and Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 1st day of April, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark - 32 - "--' ---..Y (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Paling, Mr. West MR. STARK-Hold up on the motion for a second here. MR. BREWER-We had no outstanding engineering comments? MRS. LABOMBARD-None. MR. STARK-None. MR. MACEWAN-The only condition maybe we want to think about attaching to it is that they use access through Mrs. Oudekerk's property for construction. MR. BREWER-I don't think that's really got to be a condition. He agreed to do that. She offered to do it. MR. STARK-AI said he'd go in that way. Why would he say it if he's not going to do it. She's trying to be a good neighbor. That's the way ~ read it. MRS. LABOMBARD-And they are, too. MR. BREWER-Do we have anYmore comment, George, before we make a motion? MR. STARK-I'm waiting for George, here. Even though the public hearing is closed. I'll let everybody have a say. MR. NACE-Can I bring something up while that's transpiring? MR. STARK-Sure. MR. NACE-I talked to Jim Martin today requesting that since we got carried over with the Preliminary past the submission date for Final for the month, and since there's no public hearing that has to be announced with Final, requesting that we be put on the agenda for April for Final, and get the plans in ASAP for you, which really are the same plans you've looked at. MR. STARK-The April 15th meeting. MR. NACE-The second meeting would give us a chance. MR. STARK-There might not be a second meeting. MRS. LABOMBARD-We may only have one. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. BREWER-When would you have it in? MR. NACE-We could have it in, this is Tuesday, probably by Thursday. MR. BREWER-So we can extend it until Thursday. MR. STARK-Yes. I don't see where Levandowski would have a problem with that. MR. NACE-The plans are going to be the same. All we do is take Phase II and put it in the background, and put Phase I heavy. MR. STARK-You're not buried this month. MR. HILTON-No, plus we have the option of the second week, which I - 33 - ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) think is going to be free. I think we're only going to have one meeting, at the first meeting, we could have a second meeting, should we need to accommodate. MR. STARK-So you want the Final the second? MR. NACE-Whenever you can schedule it for us in April. MR. STARK-Okay. Do you have any other comments at all? George, what was the comment from the public? MR. HILTON-Well, there was some comment that the current state of this property, it's an open field, it may be a home or nesting or feeding ground for some geese, and a member of the public was concerned, wanted to make sure that you addressed that in your SEQRA review. MR. STARK-It's not an endangered species or anything? MR. BREWER-Do we have assurance from the developer that if there is such a thing that he'll take care? MR. NACE-The geese are not on the Federal Endangered Species list. There are obviously cornfields there that they use. MR. BREWER-You won't crush them or rollover them or anything. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. NACE-The Health Department people were tempted to shoot a couple when we were up. MR. STARK-Okay. Tim, do you want to make a motion, then? MR. BREWER-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1997 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Duly adopted this 1st day of April, 1997, by the following vote: MR. RUEL-No, and the reason is that I don't believe we're being responsive to citizen's wishes in this case. AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark NOES: Mr. Ruel ABSENT: Mr. West, Mr. Paling MR. BREWER-Now we have to make a motion for the submission date? MR. STARK-I don't think we do on that? MR. MACEWAN-No, we don't have to. MR. STARK-I was under the impression that we only had one meeting. MR. HILTON-Right. We have an open date. MR. STARK-He'll be able to get it in so it could be done on that first date. MR. BREWER-All right. Well, it's so noted that we'll give him until Thursday at four o'clock or four thirty to get it in. MR. NACE-Okay. Thank you. - 34 - ,-. '~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 4/1/97) MR. STARK-Okay. George, do you have anything else? MR. HILTON-I just have one more comment. The last couple of meetings, we've been discussing the possible land dedication for Rich Schermerhorn to the Town in lieu of recreation fees. MR. STARK-That's being discussed tonight in the Recreation Commission, isn't it? MR. HILTON-Right, and I'm just bringing it to the Board's attention that we expect some comment by the first meeting in April, first Planning Board meeting in April, just to make you aware of what's going on. MR. STARK-We'll get their recommendation to us, and then we'll make our recommendation to the Town Board at the first meeting in April, then, right? MR. HILTON-Yes, exactly. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 35 -