Loading...
1991-10-15 -- -' ¿) IJ,IEENSBURY PlANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGUlAR MEETING OCTOBER 15TH. 1991 INDEX Subdivision No. 10-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Alene M. Brown 1. Site Plan No. 1-91 Pyramid Company of Glens Falls 3. Major Commercial Subdivision No. 88-1 SKETCH PLAN Dix Avenue Industrial Park Claude Charlebois 5. Site Plan No. 43-91 Keith Harris 9. Site Plan No. 46-91 Dr. Al Kristensen 13. Site Plan No. 45-91 Thomas Mayer 18. Subdivision No. 12-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Andrew and Eileen Marissal 20. Site Plan No. 47-91 Myron S. Rapaport 23. Subdivision No. 13-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Rosaire Gaudreau 27. Subdivision No. 11-1991 SKETCH PLAN Sunset Hi 11 Farm Owner: Paul Knox, III 30. 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. '--- IJ,IEENSBURY PlANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 15TH, 1991 MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN EDWARD LAPOINT JAMES MARTIN TIMOTHY BREWER NICHOLAS CAlMANO MEMBERS ABSENT CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK SENIOR PlANNER-LEE YORK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: EXPEDITED MATTER PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION 10. 10-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ALENE M. BROWN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE ROAD AID CLEMENTS ROAD TO FURTHER SUBDIVIDE LOT # 3 OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION 10. 12-1990, APPROVED ON JAfI. 22. 1991. TAX MAP 10. 27-3-1.2 LOT SIZE: 11.02 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS ANDREW MCCORMACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-This was subject to a public hearing last month, but, correct me if I'm wrong, we had to table this because we had no proof of notice with regard to neighbors. Is that correct? MRS. YORK-That's ri ght. The appl icant di d not noti ce the nei ghbors, and I have recei ved all thei r receipts at this point. MR. CARTIER-Okay. This is an Expedited Matter. Unless the Board has any questions, I'll go straight to a public hearing. Is there anyone who would care to make comments on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. YORK-If I could just make one comment. There is a letter from the Fire Chief that you may want to look at. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. This is a letter from Gary West, the Fire Marshal for Bay Ridge Volunteer Fire Company, "Dear Members: After reviewing the plans of the applicant, I would like to make the following recommendations about the drive-way because of its length. The drive-way should be at least fifteen feet wide. It should be maintained so that fire apparatus and ambulances can use it if needed to provide emergency services to the occupants. Because of the size of fire apparatus, trees should not grow over the drive-way that might block the roadway. A turnaround area should be considered so that an ambulance could turn around and drive out. I hope these recommendations will be helpful in the design of this application. Yours truly, Gary A. West Chief, Bay Ridge Col. Fire Company" MR. CARTIER-Mr. McCormack, would you care to make comment on that? MR. LAPOINT-Just a quick question. The map does show a 15 foot wide roadway? MR. MCCORMACK-The map shows.!. driveway without dimension. I would guess by the scale it's probably 10 feet. I've made notes of the comments from the Fire Department and we shouldn't have any problem depicting a 15 foot driveway for next week's meeting. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think that's something that can be addressed on the final submission. We're at Preliminary Stage, here, and he also makes reference to some way for an ambulance to be able to turn around in there. Again, that's something I think that can be addressed at final. MR. MCCORMACK-The plan does show a parking area, which I would think would be adequate for an ambulance to pull into and turn around. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have any questions on this application? Okay. 1 --- --..../ PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-And we can conduct a SEQRA Review of this. MRS. YORK-Do you want a Long Form? MR. LAPOINT-I have a Long Form here. Is it the Long Form we should be going through? MRS. YORK-It is the Long Form. MR. LAPOINT-All right. RESOWTION IIIEN DETERMIflATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION NO. 10-1991, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ALENE BROWN, to further subdivide Lot' 3 of previously approved Subdivision No. 12-1990, approved on Jan. 22. 1991., and 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 appèars 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 16th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion. I think we want to keep in mind, I think what we said we want to incorporate in the final is an indication of a 15 foot driveway and the ability of an ambulance to be able to turn around. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1991 ALENE M. BROWN, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: To further subdivide lot #3 of previously approved Subdivision No. 12-1990, approved on Jan. 22, 1991, with the following stipulation, that a 15 foot wide driveway be depicted on the final plat as part of the final application and that, also, proper turn around radius be depicted for emergency vehicles such as an ambulance. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver 2 -- SITE PINt NO. 1-91 TYPE: UNLISTED ESC-25A PYRAMID COIFANY OF GLENS FALLS OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE AVIATION MALL AVIATION ROAD AT 1-87 THE APPLICANT IS REIJ,IESTING AN EXTENSION OF AN APPROVAL GRANTED ON THE EXPANSION OF THE ENCLOSED SHOPPING CENTER BY 106,000 SIJIARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE AREA (GlA) WITH PARKING, INtDSCAPING AND UTILITIES. (WARREN COUNTY PlANNING) TAX MAP fIO. 98-1-5.2 LOT SIZE: 56.31 ACRES SECTION 179-27.1 LOU GAGLIANO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-There's a note, here, Warren County Planning. Is it required that Warren County Planning go back and re-approve this or not? MRS. YORK-No. It is not. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would you care to address the Board with regard to this matter? MR. GAGLIANO-For the record, Lou Gagliano, General Manager at Aviation Mall, representing Pyramid Company of Glens Falls. I'm here for the benefit of the Board if there's any questions regarding this matter. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The only question I have is, what's the status of this zone, Paul? This is. MR. DUSEK-Still in litigation. MR. CARTIER-It's a legally established zone, but it's still in litigation? MR. DUSEK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Is there any time frame? MR. DUSEK-At the moment, no. There were motions made in court. The motions were denied. The next step is either to continue the litigation in the current court or take an appeal, and that's really where it's at right now. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm going back. I think you have in front of you the previous motion to approve this. I was thinking in terms of a stipulation regarding resolution of the litigation in the matter, but I think that's already covered in this previous, original motion. Does anybody have any questions on this motion? MR. MARTIN-Tom, it makes reference to satisfying some points raised in your letter. Has that happened? MR. YARMOWICH-To the best of my recollection, yes. All those items have been satisfied and are complete. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-And Mr. Flaherty, I do remember that issue. Mr. Gagliano, has that been addressed? It refers to Mr. Flaherty's firm acceptance of a plan for the relocation of the 24 inch water main. I believe that has been addressed; has it not? MR. GAGLIANO-Yes. Again, Lou Gagliano. We've had extensive discussions with Tom Flaherty. He is going to oversee the whole project, as far as the actual installation, timing, scheduling. To answer the previous question, all the contingencies, Mr. Martin, were taken care of in February, and approved by the Board. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Something else just popped up into my head. here, about the size of the building was slightly larger than it should be to meet the new zone. Lee, does that ring a bell with you, or? MRS. YORK-I believe there was a situation that occurred that was similar to that. However, the building was modified to make it comply with zoning. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, that's taken care of. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? MR. MARTIN-And then just the last point, Lou, a negative declaration as to SEQRA, that was secured from the Town Board, the SEQRA negative declaration? MR. DUSEK-That would have been before they adopted the final zoning resolution. MR. MARTIN-Right. 3 "- '--' MR. DUSEK-To be honest with you, I can't specifically recall that particular negative declaration right now. MR. MARTIN-I just don't want to give a blanket, you know, just repeat this when some of it's irrelevant. MR. DUSEK-Yes, but they wouldn't have adopted a zoning change without doing that. MR. GAGLIANO-Again, Lou Gagliano. The negative dec was by the Town Board, the first meeting in December of 1990. MR. CARTIER-Are we talking about a request for a one year extension, here? MR. GAGLIANO-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Any other questions? Does anyone care to make a motion that the Board can entertain? MOTION TO GRANT EXTENSION OF SITE PINt NO. 1-91 PYRAMID COIFANY OF GLENS FALLS, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: The applicant is requesting an extension of an approval granted on the expansion of the enclosed shopping center by 106,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) with parking, landscaping, and utilities for a period of one year from this date, with the following stipulations: One, that Mr. Flaherty of the Water Department oversee the installation of the 24 inch water main. Two, Pyramid Company continue to make efforts to secure an alternate ingress and egress from Glen Street and, Three, that the eventual site plan meet all Zoning Ordinance requirements and so forth. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver MR. GAGLIANO-Could I ask a question? Again, Lou Gagliano, Aviation Mall. As I understood the motion as it was read, the one year extension is from today, or is it from the termination of the existing approval period? MR. MARTIN-I made it from today, but if that's, would you like it? MR. CARTIER-When does it run out? MR. GAGLIANO-January was the initial approval. The contingencies were passed by the Board, end of February of 1991. So, it's either January or February. I'm not sure how that's calculated. MR. MARTIN-So, you're saying you'd like it a year from now, or? MR. GAGLIANO-I would prefer a year from the actual expiration of the current approval. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I see. You're in early. MR. CARTIER-Thank you for coming in early. MR. MARTIN-Yes. All right. MOTION TO AMEND THE ABOVE RESOWTION TO READ, A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FROM THE DATE OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE PREVIOUS RESOWTION, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, the motion is now amended to read, what is the date? MR. MARTIN-February 1993, right? MR. BREWER-February 28th. Wait a minute. 4 '-' '-' MR. DUSEK-I'm showing a date of January 22nd. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. GAGLIANO-Yes. That was the original approval, and I had to come back the next month to satisfy the contingencies that you were just you were just mentioning. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So, it would be January 22nd, 1993, would be the date. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Now, I believe what we have to do is re-vote on the motion as amended, correct? MR. DUSEK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MOTION TO AMEND tHE ABOVE RESOWTION IIIILD BE FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION, SPECIFICALLY, FROM THE DATE OF EXPIRATION OF tHE PREVIOUS RESOWTION, JANUARY 22110, 1992 UNTIL JAflJARY 22110, 1993, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver MR. CARTIER-The motion is amended and the extension is granted. MR. GAGLIANO-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MAJOR COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION NO. 88-1 SKETCH PLAN PC-lA HI-3A He-15 DIX AVEJlJE INDUSTRIAL PARK CLAUDE CHARLEBOIS INTERSECTION OF IJ,IAKER ROAD AND DIX AVEllJE EXTENDING SOOTHERL Y TO IlARREN STREET APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION OF APPROVAL. SKETCH PINt lIAS APPROVED OCTOBER 17, 1988 FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 35.46:t ACRES INTO 13 LOTS. ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1990, All APPROVAL lIAS GRANTED FOR A YEAR EXTENSION FROM THE OCTOBER 17, 1989 APPROVAL DATE. CROSS REFERENCE: SITE PlAN 110. 50-88 MR. CARTIER-So, Mr. Charlebois is here to appear in terms of a request for a second extension to this application. By way of background, this, correct me if I'm wrong, Lee, was the last application that fell under the old, pre-October '88 Ordinance. MRS. YORK-Ri ght. MR. CARTIER-So, what we have, here, is basically a combination of items, a mix of both the old Ordinance and the new Ordinance, is that correct? MRS. YORK-Right. If I could just read some of the correspondence which took place at that time. Mr. Zurlo, who is here tonight, was certainly involved in the whole thing. What happened was, this application came in under the 1982 Ordinance. It was approved on October 18th for Sketch Plan approval. The approval reads, "Mrs. Mann Moved Approval of Major Commercial Subdivision No. 88-1, Sketch Level, Dix Avenue Industrial Park, with the contingency that the applicant either demonstrate or modify the application so it conforms with the existing zoning regulations or make some effort to change zoning regulations to conform with the project." MR. CARTIER-Excuse me. Existing Zoning Regulations, post? MRS. YORK-Okay. What had happened, the land was pre '88 zoned Plaza Commercial. The zone changed to Light Industrial on that particular site. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, the existing zoning that she's referring to is post '88, is that correct? MRS. YORK-Yes. So, she is basically requesting the application to come into conformance with the existing zoning or to make some arrangement so that the pre '88 zoning can be utilized there. At any rate, "a letter is to be sent to the Town Board from the Planning Board requesting consideration of the application and recommendation of the following: One, establishment of a sewer district in the general area and re-zoning of Heavy Industrial to Light Industrial, particularly in light of the fact that it would be contiguous to a Light Industrial Park." Then Mr. Zurlo corresponded with David Hatin, Director of Building and Code, and his letter reads, "Dear Mr. Zurlo: I am in receipt of your letter dated March 16th, 1990, and I have prepared the following answers to your questions. You have requested 5 -- that all permitted uses in Plaza Commercial One Acre Zone hereby be considered and declared permitted uses in the area that was designated Plaza Commercial One Acre, in your original Sketch Plan approval to the Planning Board. It is my opinion that these uses, as long as the Sketch Plan approval remains in effect, are permitted and you would be allowed to develop within this area under Plaza Commercial as shown in the 1982 Zoning Ordinance, should you proceed with your subdivision approval. In relation to your second question, that all permitted uses in the current Light Industrial Zone, which this entire property is zoned for, would be allowed, is also correct. Therefore, any development that was Light Industrial in nature, under the current permitted zoning, would be allowed, as long as the uses receive approval by the Queensbury Planning Board." So, they've got quite a situation. At any rate, this particular applicant did request an extension of their approval previously and received it, and they are, once again, requesting an extension of their Sketch Plan approval for an extension. MR. CARTIER-Okay. This has only gotten to Sketch Plan. Well, I think the Board finds itself in the same situation it did a couple of meetings back, in terms of the Queensbury Factory Outlet Center. We have members of the Board here who were not present when that was approved. What's the Board's druthers, here? MR. MARTIN-So, am I to understand, then, that all, are we saying just the uses allowed in the current Light Industrial Zone are what we're looking at, or the uses that were in the Plaza Commercial, as well as the Light Industrial Zone now? MRS. YORK-That appears to be what Mr. Hatin, the Zoning Administrator and Director of Building and Codes, was saying, that, yes, in fact, because they came in under the 1982 Ordinance and the Zoning was Plaza Commercial at that time, and that's what was depicted on their Sketch Plan, that, yes, they were allowed to have those uses as long as the Sketch Plan stayed in force and, also, furthermore, that they were also allowed to have the light industrial uses which had come into effect on the property October 1st of 1988. Mr. Zurlo, am I stating this? GEORGE ZURLO MR. ZURLO-Yes, you're stating it correctly. I can understand their confusion, and if I can speak to the request for a minute. The difficulty that my client has had through this whole project is, if you heard her correctly, when we got Sketch Plan approval, it was mandated that when we come back with Preliminary, that we have a sewer district in place for this property and I'm going a step beyond that. We have looked at the recommended different alternates for a sewer disposal for this property, for the project itself, and I'm sure you're aware that there have been many alternates proposed in that general area, and there still is not solution to that, and because there isn't any solution, my client has been in a quandary to finish a Preliminary application. That's the reason for the delay. We're anxious to go ahead with the project, but we can't submit, you know, a formal Preliminary application to you without knowing where the sewer hookup is going to be. It's mandated by the Planning Board, and we can't comply with it, and that's why we're respectively asking for an extension. MR. MARTIN-So, you have no municipal sewer in that area of the Town? MR. ZURLO-No. MR. MARTIN-Paul, you handle these sewer district things. What's the status of a district down there? MR. DUSEK-The Board is studying this option. I suspect that we're either going to see something materialize or not materialize within the next six to seven months. I've got to tell you, there is a district that's definitely being considered. I would say out of every, there's two areas in Town that I think are most likely to see an action of some kind, and that's one of them. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. ZURLO-Our problem is, it was considered three years ago, also. MR. MARTIN-That's why I asked the time frame. MR. DUSEK-So, I think, in fairness to the applicant, they are, in fact, looking at it. This district is taking a long time to come about because there's a lot of things that have to be resolved with it. We have several different municipalities, private entities involved. It's not going to be an easy district to put together, but maybe to make my earlier remark a little clearer, I really do think, though, that 1'11 be in a better position to tell you, in six or seven months, that it's going to go ahead and when, or that it's not going to. My suspicion, at this point, is that you will see something developed in that area, and that we'll have a pretty good grip on it in the next six months. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-For the benefit of the members who are unfamiliar with this application, I'm going to ask Mr. Zurlo to hang up a blueprint so you can take a look at it. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, I see two options here. One is, if we approve another one year extension, we're going to have a mixed use in that zone down there, and, again, this is only Sketch Plan. If we disapprove a one year extensi on, bas i ca lly, what that means is that the appli cant needs to go back and redesi gn and fall s under, entirely, the new Ordinance. 6 '-' -- MR. BREWER-Either way, he's going to be back here again for another extension because in six or seven months, they're going to know whether they're going to have a district or not. MR. MARTIN-Well, he'll be here for Preliminary, hopefully, by then. Lee, do the uses permitted in the old Plaza Commercial remotely resemble what's permitted tOday or is it drastically different? MRS. YORK-No. They're very similar. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MRS. YORK-In fact, I believe that in the '88 Ordinance those uses were expanded. Am I correct? MR. DUSEK-I can't recall the '82 Ordinance, now. MR. ZURLO-I believe you're correct, Lee. MRS. YORK-Thank you. MR. ZURLO-They were more restrictive. MR. CARTIER-What is now shown has Heavy Industry on here is now Light Industry. Is that correct? MR. ZURLO-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-So, you have a Plaza Commercial availability of those uses as well as Light Industrial, as your current status is now? MR. ZURLO-With the separation that you're looking at, the answer is yes. In other words, there's an area of Plaza Commercial. There's also an area of Light Industry around with the lots beyond it. MR. CARTIER-He can't intermix them. He can put Plaza Commercial here and Light Industrial. MR. ZURLO-It's not mixed. It's separated. MR. MARTIN-And, right now, it's all Light Industrial, right? MR. CARTIER-In the new zone, in the new Ordinance. MR. MARTIN-According to zoning, right. MR. ZURLO-Under the new zoning, the answer is correct. It's all Light Industrial. It's not a mixture. What it is is Light Industry on the lots that are designated Plaza Commercial in that one larger parcel. MR. CARTIER-So, in effect, we've got a Plaza Commercial strip along Quaker and part of Dix. MR. ZURLO-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-And behind that is going to be the Light Industry. MR. ZURLO-Adjacent to the. MR. CARTIER-Plaza Commercial. MR. ZURLO- Yes. MR. MARTIN-And your client obviously prefers this available mixed use that he has now, rather than being limited to strictly Light Industrial? MR. ZURLO-Or I wouldn't be here tonight, that's correct. MR. LAPOINT-There's really not a great deal of physical significance in the difference between the two, is there? MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm looking at. Given the infra structure there, the sewer is the issue. If that's resolved, I. MR. CARTIER-Refresh my memory. Does there have to be a buffer between light industry and plaza commercial or does the buffer apply only to residential? MR. DUSEK-I think we just talked about this not too long ago. I think it's residential and commercial. 7 -' -- MR. CARTIER-Yes, I think you're right. The buffer only applies in the case of residentials. Okay. MR. MARTIN-"A 50 foot buffer zone shall be required adjoining residential and industrial zones." That's Plaza Commercial. MR. CARTIER-That's the way the Plaza Commercial reads now. Did it also read that way pre '88? MR. MARTIN-Light Industrial reads the same way, for residential and commercial. MRS. YORK-I'm not absolutely sure. MR. CARTIER-That's a rhetorical question. MR. ZURLO-I don't believe it did, Mr. Cartier. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I appreciate that. So, in other words, we'd end up with a 50 foot buffer between this light industry and this plaza. The interesting question is, who provides it, Mr. Zurlo. You don't have to answer that tonight. Who provides it, the Plaza Commercial or the Light Industry zone? That's a question that's going to have to be resolved later on. MR. MARTIN-Or it could be shared. MR. CARTIER-I don't know if you can. MRS. YORK-Why not? MR. CARTIER-If it's all in one ownership, I guess that's right. MRS. YORK-It was done on the property owned by, next to C.R. Bard. They had a shared buffer zone. MR. MARTIN-I think, given the size of it, you could certainly comply with the buffer requirement. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ZURLO-Right. MR. MARTIN-Well, the only other thing I would defer to, in my own mind, is the current land use in the area, and the current land use is certainly consistent with either one of these two zones as it reads. That would be another consideration. I don't have any problem with it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you have adequate access to the Li ght Industri a 1 zone wi thout goi ng through the Plaza Commercial zone, or are these going to be joined? MR. ZURLO-The answer is yes, we do, Mr. Cartier. We do have access. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, somebody doesn't have to go through the Plaza Commercial Zone to get to the Light Industry? MR. ZURLO-No, they do not. MR. CARTIER-All right. There's three exits. Okay. Does anybody else have any questions? Are we ready to entertain a motion. MR. ZURLO-Can I make one quick point? In my client's letter, he incorrectly stated, going to dates like you did on the previous application, October 15th. The extension, actually, was to October 17th of 1991, okay. So, we would be asking for an extension of a year from that. MR. CARTIER-To October 17th, 1992, correct? MR. ZURLO-That's correct. MOTION TO GRANT EXTENSION OF MJOR COtIŒRCIAL SUBDIVISION NO. 88-1 SKETCH PINt DIX AVEllJE INDUSTRIAL PARK CLAUDE CHARLEBOIS, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Applicant is asking for an extension of approval. Sketch Plan was approved for October 17, 1988 for a subdivision of 25.46± acres in 13 lots. On September 20, 1990 an approval was granted for a year extension from October 17, 1989 approval date. The motion should show that we approve an extension through 17 October 1992 in lieu of the applicant's decision to continue based on the sewer hookup, and that the applicant at least give consideration to the buffer zone in developing the two parcels. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: 8 '-' -- AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver SITE PINt NO. 43-91 TYPE II RR-3A KEITH HARRIS OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF PICKLE HILL ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A POLE BARN FOR RAISING LIVESTOCK. TAX MAP 10. 26-2-10.5 LOT SIZE: 20± ACRES SECTION 179-15 MR. CARTIER-Correct me if 11m wrong, Lee, the current status of this is that we, at our last meeting, last regular meeting, we gave Mr. Harris some direction as to alternatives. I'll get back to your notes in a minute, here. We further, at a Special Meeting, brought up a discussion of this application and we requested that you send out a reminder that he needed to submit an application. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Subsequent to that, you have been in contact with Mr. Harris, or Mrs. Harris, I believe, today, and she has informed you that he will not be present tonight and that, nor has he submitted any further revised application. Is that correct? MRS. YORK-That is correct. MR. CARTIER-Have I summed up your notes? MRS. YORK-Yes, you have. MR. CARTIER-Well, lets go through these notes, for the benefit of the public that's here tonight, your notes, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 43-91, Keith Harris, 10-8-91, Meeting Date: October 15, 1991 "On August 20, 1991 the Board tabled the application pending re-advertising. The Board requested that the applicant designate the cOlllrercial use area as separate from the farm use area. It was requested that alternative locations for the pole barn be identified and that staff work with the applicant. On September 17, 1991 the application was tabled pending submission of a revised site plan showing barn setbacks of 110 feet and plantings for screening. The expectation stated by the Board was that a submission of this information would be made by September 25. This was not done. On September 26, 1991, the Board passed a resolution (attached) stating that a revised site plan had to be received by October 3 to be considered on the October 15 meeting. The resolution was delivered to the applicant. The requested information was not received." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We also have a letter dated October 10, 1991, signed by Mr. and Mrs. Burnham, correct me if I'm wrong, and also Paul and Deborah Davidson, neighbors. This application is becoming quite fascinating, because the only person not designing this is Mr. Harris. The Planning Department has designed this project for him. Now we have the neighborhood designing the project for him. I really don't know where to go with this, but I'll tell you one thing, I am not interested in taking up a lot of the Board's time with this, tonight. The public hearing remains open. I'll be glad to take comments from the public on this thing, but it's fish or cut bait time on this thing. We have some alternatives here. Let me spell out the alternatives for you again. We can act on the original application. By act on, I do not mean approve. I mean simply act on that original application. We can further table this application. If we table this application, we table this application, we have to establish a very firm deadline, because the clock is running on this, and we have 45 days in which to act on this application. If we do not act within 45 days, the original application is automatically approved, and I don't think that's the Board's intention at this point. We can schedule a special meeting, or we can require that something be submitted, a revised plan be submitted to us, so that we may consider it at the next regular meeting, a week from tonight. If we do that, lets be sure we give Planning Staff time to get an application in so that they can have time to review it and present whatever they need to present to us. Is there any other option that anybody could consider, here? While you're thinking about that, I'll continue with the public hearing. Is there anybody here who would like to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN PAUL DAVIDSON MR. DAVIDSON-Paul Davidson, Pickle Hill Road, one of the signees of the letter. Our efforts were not to design Mr. Harris' farm for him, obviously. MR. CARTIER-We understand. I'm not complaining, Mr. Davidson. 9 '-" -.../ MR. DAVIDSON-They were just an effort to show you our points of view. MR. CARTIER-Well, my point was, very simply, that we are getting more information on this site plan from the Planning Department and the neighbors than we are from the applicant himself. MR. DAVIDSON-Exactly. The point I would like to make is everyone here has put much more effort into this process than Mr. Harris who is, apparently, not taking this application very seriously which, to me, indicates that he's not that serious about pig farming. He's more serious about creating a problem, and I really think that this should be the last meeting, that he should be denied. He can raise the pigs where the courts have allocated a position for them. That's my opinion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Understand one other thing, is if we act on this application and we deny it, Mr. Harris, at some future time, can come in with a revised application and start the process all over again. He's here under court order. I don't know what situation would transpire as far as him and that court order, but as far as I'm concerned, I want to keep this Board out of that routine. So, in other words, if, in fact, we deny this application, that is not necessarily the end of it. MR. LAPOINT-If we deny it tonight, then it's essentially what, the same effect would be that he would have to submit a plan for the next scheduled meeting. MR. CARTIER-No. Wait a minute. Excuse me. If we deny it tonight he doesn't have to come in next week. MR. LAPOINT-He doesn't have to. If we table it until next week, he has a certain time that we stipulate to bring the plan in for review for the meeting of the 22nd. MR. CARTIER-I guess that's accurately stated. MR. LAPOINT-That would put some burden on the Staff to review that. I mean, today's Tuesday. If he got it in, even the first thing tomorrow morning, which would be unl ikely, they would have less than a week to review. MR. CARTIER-Lee, how much time would you need to review a revised plan, if and when one came in, from Mr. Harris? MRS. YORK-Just a couple of days, but you would not receive the comments early, in all likelihood. MR. CARTIER-I beg your pardon? MRS. YORK-The Board would not probably receive the comments until the night of that meeting, because of the fact that I couldn't get them out. MR. CARTIER-No problem. My only question is, I want to be sure Staff has time to review this application. In other words, we don't all want to be sitting here next Tuesday night looking at it cold. We want benefit of your review. So, I think, Ed, to answer your question, get it in by Thursday or Friday of this week? MRS. YORK-That would be fine. MR. CARTIER-If the Board is going in that direction, speaking for myself only, I hope that this will be the last extension or tabling that we get involved in with this thing. This has taken up a considerable amount of Board time, because of the applicant's approach to the application, I guess is the best way I want to put that. So we might, if the Board is going in that direction, you may want to stipulation something to that effect, that this may be the last time. Paul, legally, do you have any problems with a stipulation of that type? MR. DUSEK-I think the Board has its options open to it. You're in a position where you, under law, can deny, you can approve. I gather you don't want to approve. I ki nd of get that message, but you can certainly deny out right, tonight, and let the applicant come back at some point. If you're concerned about the court action that is out there, the only thing a denial would do is that it would then be thrown back to the Zoning Administrator to enforce the court action. If it's tabled, obviously, that gives him an extension on the court action, and he'll have time in which to file a site plan, but it's really, I think, it's at the Board's discretion as to what you would want to do. I feel you're on legally sound ground with any of your options. MR. CARTIER-I just heard something. That's a good point. If we postpone it a week, are we still within the 45 day time frame, here? MR. DUSEK-You have not completed SEQRA on this, I take it, have you? 10 "-'" -- MR. CARTIER-No, we have not. Wait a minute. This is a Type II. SEQRA's not required. MR. DUSEK-Is it a Type II? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. DUSEK-Okay. Well, you've got 45 days from the day the public hearing is closed. So, the public hearing is still open. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right, but all I want to do is I want to make sure that this thing doesn't get dragged on and dragged on and dragged on because the problem out there continues. MR. MARTIN-I was as sympathetic as anybody to this gentleman, hopefully, trying to work with him and I understand the history of the family and the community and all that, but I don't see any respect for the process, here. I would not be opposed to out ri ght denying it toni ght and if he is sincerely that interested in having his pig farm, then he will be back with a site plan in an orderly fashion. MR. LAPOINT-Which is what we requested, twice. MR. MARTIN-I think a certain weight has to be given to the amount of taxpayers money being spent on Staff Review and time to this, what is, you know, relatively a simple application, compared to some we've seen. MR. CARTIER-Not to mention fuel used in driving to meetings. MR. MARTIN-So, I would not be opposed to out right denying it tonight, and if it means that much to him, then he will certainly be in, in the coming weeks or months, with an application that will meet our requirements. MR. CARTIER-I would tend to agree with that. We're in a situation, here, we've said to this person, twice, do this, and it hasn't been done, and we've said to him again, do this, and it hasn't been done, and all we're doing is turning around, for the third time, and saying, do this. I don't know any compelling reason why, the third time, the person is going to submit anything. MR. LAPOINT-Could I hear Paul's response to what a denial would mean, in terms of the Zoning Administrator enforcing the pigs, moving them to the location. MR. MARTIN-He does have a place that he can operate the pigs by court order, correct, or he can raise the pigs by court order? MR. CARTIER-Yes, correct. MR. DUSEK-Well, my recollection is the court left an area open, I guess, or at least a question mark there. Now, whether or not he can or can't, I can't recall. MR. CARTIER-I can. I in the court order, and I don't have it in front of me, but, basically, he can, without site plan approval, raise pigs in the area, for the sake of location, adjacent, I think it's called Site E. MR. LAPOINT-Site E, correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Without site plan approval, he can raise pigs there. The court order requires him to come through for site plan to locate those pigs anywhere else. So, even if we deny this tonight, he's still not denied the pleasure of raising pigs. He can raise them at Site E, without site plan approva 1 . MR. LAPOINT-And that would be up to the Zoning Administrator to enforce that? MR. CARTIER-I think there would be more than just the Zoning Administrator involved. I think the court would also be involved in that, somehow. MR. DUSEK-I think, just to clarify, the court decision that was issued on this does not necessarily say that he can keep pigs in that area. What the court says is that he may, it may be there. In other words, I think maybe to be more precise, what went to court on this matter is the issue of where they are now, and the judge's decision really goes to that. Anything else you read in here is what we called dictors, or addressing different issues that were not actually decided for this case, and if you read what he says in the case, it says that, he notes that "it is not clear to this court that the place of keeping pigs is even on the lands of Kei th L. Harri s". So, that tell s me that the judge is just talking about the issue, saying, maybe he can, maybe he can't. The judge has not actually determined that issue. 11 -- - MR. BREWER-If we deny this tonight, Paul, what happens with the pigs that are there already? MR. DUSEK-If you deny it tonight, it will be up to the Zoning Administrator to take the matter back to court. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, we're doing exactly what I did not want to do, and that's get tangled up in this thing again. It seems to me, speaking for myself, the cleanest approach is, as has been suggested, that we deny this thing. Again, I don't see any compelling reason why, the third time around, Mr. Harris is going to submit anything. MR. MARTIN-And especially in a week's time, and we're putting our Planning Staff in, not an impossible situation, but certainly one that's not necessary. MR. CARTIER-I hate setting precedences. Are we willing to go through this machination for everybody who comes before us? MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't mind trying to work with people and being responsive to their needs, but when someone has no respect for that effort to be responsive, I then tend to lose interest in them also. MR. CARTIER-Let me just finish the public hearing. Is there anybody else who would care to comment? PHYLLIS MARVIN MRS. MARVIN-I'm Phyllis Marvin and I live on Boulderwood Drive, and when we built our home, 12 and a half years ago, we had a million dollar view and we've sacrificed part of that view, now, with trees and shrubs to block out the commercial venture on Pickle Hill and I just wasn't able to come to the other two meetings. I di d just want to as k you to help me defend the va 1 ue of my property by not allowing another eyesore on Pickle Hill, and that's my concern. Thank you very much. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care to comment? MR. DAVIDSON-One quick point. Paul Davidson, again. Will this file remain on file so that it is not such a painful process, should Mr. Harris come and apply again? MR. CARTIER-Your five site plans will remain part of the record. MR. DAVIDSON-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Anybody else? Okay. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. DUSEK-If you make a motion to deny, my recommendation would be to have in hand Section 179-38. MR. MARTIN-Right here. I'm already open to it. MR. DUSEK-And also, in addition to everything that's set forth there, as part of your considerations, to fully consider the entire record that went before you. So, it'll be a relatively lengthy motion, but I think you should discuss all aspects giving rise to your feelings on this matter. MR. MARTIN-All right. MOTION TO DISAPPROVE SITE PlAtI NO. 43-91 KEITH HARRIS, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption. seconded by Timothy Brewer: To construct a pole barn for raising livestock. This disapproval is for the following reasons: I cite Section 179-38, requirements for approval, Letter E, due to the submissions received to date by the Planning Staff and Planning Board, it is impossible to make a competent and thorough review as to the location, arrangement, size, design, and general site compatibility of the buildings. It is impossible to review the adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic and access and circulation at the site, and, therefore, it is impossible to make a competent review of the projected use as it relates to the dimensional requirements of the zoning district, the harmony of the proposed use with the surrounding area and surrounding neighborhood, and to thoroughly review the impact of the proposed use on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife and historic, recreational and open space considerations of the application. Secondly, the applicant himself has supplied little information to the Board. Much of the information has come from the Planning Department itself and therefore it's impossible to judge whether this is actually the desire of the applicant in the design of the project. Thirdly, in making this motion, the record of the application to date is also cited for the insufficient material presented and the thorough discussion of these insufficient materials and designs, and, lastly, the applicant has made no attempt to comply with the revisions requested by the Planning Board and has not complied with the deadlines as stated in the record for submission of revised site plans. 12 -- -- Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: MR. CARTIER-Have we covered what you deemed necessary to be covered, Mr. Dusek? MR. DUSEK-I think if this is what the Board's feelings were, and the sense that I get from your motion is that you just feel that there wasn't enough information and there wasn't a sufficient plan for you to take action on. If that's the general gist, that's what I picked up from what you just said, and that certainly is a legal basis for denying the plan. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I think the second portion, too, is also that we made recommendations to the applicant and no action was taken on those recommendations. In effect, we told the applicant what he needed to do in order for this Board to approve the application, and we have nothing before us. MR. DUSEK-So, it's basically this Board's view that you feel that it is possible for him to get an acceptable site plan for some place on the property, it's just that he hasn't presented on to you to date. Is that a fair statement? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. would agree with that. MR. CARTIER-Well said. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's it exactly. MR. CARTIER-Do we need to inform the judge involved, here, as to the action of this Board? MR. DUSEK-I think your information would go to the Zoning Administrator or Enforcement Officer, and it would be up to that person to take the necessary action. MR. CARTIER-Well, I'd like to see included in the motion, the voluminous number of information that has been done by various members of the public, the Staff, and also the minutes of the meetings in which we dealt with issue. MR. MARTIN-I think I cited that, that the records of this Board should be cited as a grounds for this motion. MR. CARTIER-Okay. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. CAIMANO-Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I have reviewed all of the necessary applications for this evening. I chose to abstain on that one because I was not here for the discussion, but I do not feel it negates me from the rest. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 46-91 TYPE I SEQRA REVIE": 9/17/91 WR-lA DR. AL KRISTENSEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FITZGERALD ROAD, BLIND ROCK ROAD TO MANNIS ROAD TO FITZGERALD ROAD, TOP OF HILL. TO CONSTRUCT A 28 FT. BY 28 FT. ADDITION FOR LIVING ROOM AND KITCHEN AREAS, NO BEDROOMS. (1MREfI COONTY PlANNING) TAX MAP NO. 41-1-25 LOT SIZE: 0.42 ACRES SECTION 179-16, 179-79, 179-60 DANIEL BARBER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-We did a SEQRA Review on this because it was subject to variance. So, we will not have to conduct another SEQRA Review on this. Okay. Staff Comments, please. MRS. YORK-Okay. First, I just want to clarify that Warren County Planning did pass a resolution recommending approval of this with the condition that lots designated A, B, and C on the plan or the 25 foot piece and the lot owned by Mrs. Kristensen be joined together, and the Zoning Board of Appeals, basically, gave approval under those conditions for variances also. MR. CARTIER-Okay. In other words, thi s really i sn' t done, as far as the Zoning Board's concerned. They have to see something in writing to the effect that those lots have been joined, correct? MRS. YORK-Right. 13 '-' -- MR. CARTIER-So, we're going to have to make a stipulation in any motion we make, to that effect. Okay. Lets get back to Staff Notes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review 46-91, Dr. Al Kristensen, 10-8-91, Meeting Date: October 15, 1991 "This application has received a negative SEQRA declaration and a variance for a shoreline setback and an expansion over 50%. In order to mitigate the impacts of this development the applicant agreed to join two lots and to purchase 25 feet of land from an adjoining neighbor. This application was reviewed with regard to the site plan criteria. 1. The site is extremely steep and is very close to the lake. The site contains a two story residence constructed with the aid of a number of retaining walls. Given today's ordinances and restrictions, if the site were vacant, development would be very limited. However, the situation exists and the only feasible location for an addition is in the proposed location. The addition is quite substantial and the property is already heavily developed. Mitigation is proposed in the form of additional property. 2. Traffic access to the site is via a driveway which has a hairpin turn, and is partially located on the adjacent neighbors property. The access is adequate for a seasonal and limited use. 3. Off street parking is provided for partially on a neighbors property at the point of the hairpin turn. 4. Pedestrian access is down the steep driveway which is also the vehicle access. 5. Stormwater concerns have been addressed in the form of a 500 gallon drywel1. The engineer will speak to the adequacy of this structure. 6. The sewage disposal system is a 1000 gallon septic tank and 2 750 gallon drywells. The engineer will address the adequacy of this facility for the expanded use. 7. Plantings and landscaping are not a concern although the Board may want to discuss the use of fertilizers and pesticides with the applicant. 8. Access to the site by the fire companies would be limited. It appears that there might be a problem. The problem has been in existence since the original construction and there is no realistic way to mitigate it at this time. The density on the property will not be increased which may be a consideration. 9. Erosion control devices will have to be utilized during and after construction because of the slopes and the proximity to the lake." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Tom, do we have comments from you? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, October 11, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following comments: 1. Sediment controls should be required in accordance with New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 2. Regarding Stormwater Management: a. The separation between the septic system drywells and the SWM drywell should be maximized. b. It is not clear how the additional runoff generated from the increased impermeable area will be directed to the drywel1. c. A detail of the SWM drywell should be provided with the site plan. d. Calculations demonstrating that the size of the drywell is adequate for the increase in runoff is necessary. Permeability of the subsoil should be identified." MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Barber, would you care to address any of those comments? MR. BARBER-My name is Daniel Barber representing Dr. Kristensen. The separation between the septic and the stormwater management drywell would be between 50 and 60 feet, as per print, and rain gutters would handle the runoff into the drywell, and, well, we had on there we'd do a 500 gallon drywell, and there was a calculation made, the last time I was in here, by Mr. LaPoint and yourself, that it would handle the rain. MR. YARMOWICH-That's not correct. MR. BARBER-That's not correct? MR. YARMOWICH-We did not furnish that design for you, Mr. Barber. MR. BARBER-You didn't furnish the design, but you made a calculation, while you were sitting here. MR. CARTIER-I remember a discussion regarding how much water would be shed off the roof. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. The volume of water, we estimated, was in the neighborhood of 300 cubic feet, in excess of 1500 gallons. How that volume would be dealt with in this particular drywell, in configuration, size, details, and construction is really the intent of the comment requiring some calculations and details for it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Item C, or are we still working on Item B? MR. BARBER-I have an example here, anyway, of some data that was issued by the engineer, here, of a square footage that's similar in type, here, it was sent to my home by mistake. We have similar square footage here. Would you review that? 14 -- ...-' MR. CARTIER-Mr. Barber, that needs to be handed in prior to this evening, so the Engineering Staff can have adequate time to review that. Plus, it doesn't refer to this specific site, does it? Okay. MR. BARBER-All right, Tom. I'll take that back, then. All right. Well, a 500 gallon drywell we talked about, and we could come up with the calculations if you want. MR. CARTIER-I think he wants. MR. BARBER-Yes, you do, of course. Permeability of the subsoil, we do not have that. That's one thing we do not have, and the, well, the drywell, and that's it. MR. YARMOWICH-I might suggest that that permeability information could be available if the septic system installation is documented in the records of the Town. MR. BARBER-It is. It is documented, yes. MR. YARMOWICH-And then you can get it from there and apply that to your drywell design and it would certainly be the right basis for that. MR. BARBER-I think the other thing we haven't addressed is the Urban Erosion, here, the Sediment Control. There is a substantial reinforced poured concrete wall in front of the structure to be built that was built in 1982, and this would prevent erosion into the lake, because it's basically in the same plane as the building and the digging would be below that and in back of and also we would put up, like, a haybale fence to handle anything on the side lines that would come off the excavation, but we would like, I would furnish that data and would like, if we could, because it's getting late in the year. I would like to have conditional approval, possibly. MR. CARTIER-Well, we've got some problems with conditional approvals, and I think, plus, one of the things we certainly need to have in hand to get you, also, through the variance process, is a map showing the conjoinded lots. This has all got to be included. MR. BARBER-Yes. I understand that. MRS. YORK-Or a deed. MR. CARTIER-We can't, I don't see us approving this tonight, simply on the basis of that, which is going to give you time to address some of these engineering concerns. MR. BARBER-We had, the Zoning Board of Appeals gave us approval based on, okay, the joining, at the time of permit, that we would supply that. We're in the process, right now, of getting everything together. MR. CARTIER-Well, that still leaves us with a sort of conditional approval because we still have some things outstanding, here. Plus, I think you have these engineering concerns that have to, I don't think these are going to be addressed tonight. This has got to go back around and get those things addressed anyway. It seems like, in the process of addressing those, or taking time to address those, we can also get this, a finished package. What I'm trying to get at, Mr. Barber, is we look at a finished package. MR. BARBER-Well, it's the first time I saw this information, here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Tom, you wanted to say something? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, in the case of the SEQRA Review, the Board asked some questions of me regarding the suitability of the site to deal with stormwater. I responded that the type of conditions that are prevalent in this area will support stormwater management of the nature proposed here. I think that whether or not this applicant has enough knowledge of how he intends to develop this site, or the applicant's agent, may be able to indicate whether or not dealing with these concerns is going to effect, in any way, the configuration of the site plan. In the absence of any changes in the way the plan is going to effect layout to any great degree, I don't see as how the plan is going to change, in terms of the Board's perspective and what they'll be looking at. I think what we're talking about are some relatively technical matters. MR. CAIMANO-What are you saying? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, what I'm saying is that if the applicant feels that they can deal with the issue of drywell location and size, having done, obviously, put some effort into looking at it, though I haven I t had a chance to revi ew it, and it won't change the location of the addition. It won't change any of the other improvements required, I don't see as how that's going to effect the way in which this Board would eventually decide on the application. MR. MARTIN-In other words, what you're trying to say is, all these things, after being considered, the site plan won't change at all. 15 --- -' MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. The detail of construction of a drywell may change. It's location may change. However, from my experience with these kinds of developments, it's not likely that the location of the addition is going to change or the amount of impervious surfaces or going to change or anything 1 i ke that. MR. CAIMANO-But, are you saying that it's okay for us to give him conditional approval? Is that what you're suggesting? MR. YARMOWICH-I think that, yes. It's strictly a technical matter. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. Let me just make a statement about that, if I may, just to let you know. We've been taken to task for not moving things along. So, we've gone ahead and moved things along on conditional approvals, and what we're finding out is that when we leave here and give a conditional approval, the conditions don't happen. Months go by, and these people who are the Staff people, wind up without the answers, and that's one of the things I assume we're going to talk about tonight. This has happened more than once. It's not your fault or anybody else's fault. It's just that the process breaks down, then, because now we have appointed people on the payroll who are responsible for what we're supposed to do and nobody ever knows if it gets done, and that's where we're hung, here. We're supposed to, we gi ve conditional approvals, and the condi tion wi th whi ch the approval is gi ven doesn't happen. I'm not saying you're not going to do it, but people haven't done it, as simple as it might sound. We have a letter, tonight, that we're supposed to discuss, regarding just that. MRS. YORK-Could, possibly, Mr. Yarmowich review the information with Mr. Barber by next week? MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that. MR. CAlMANO-That's fine with me. MR. MARTIN-I don't have a problem with that. MRS. YORK-And put it on your other agenda. MR. CARTIER-Sure. I don't have a problem with that. MRS. YORK-If there are no concerns at the public hearing, the Board may want to just come a few minutes early and get that out of the way. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Fine. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that, at all. Would that also give you enough time to put together a map showing these cojoined lots? MR. BARBER-I think we should have that. MR. CARTIER-This Board wants to be at a point where, when we grant an approval of something, everything's taken care of and it's done. MR. BARBER- Yes. MR. CARTIER-And we still, somewhere along the line, have to pick up this business of the cojoined lots and we see something in print at some point. I don't want to see this get dropped by the wayside. Mr. O'Connor, would you like to speak to the microphone, please. MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Michael O'Connor. I actually came to speak as a neighbor, not necessarily as Dr. Kristensen's attorney. He has spoken to me about the condition that the Zoning Board has put on their approval and it's his intention to join his present land and the 25 foot strip from the neighbor into one parcel. MR. CARTIER-We understand that. What I'm saying is that we need to see that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The problem that you have, in part, is that the purchase from the neighbor was conditioned upon him getting approvals for the addition. You don't buy a 25 foot strip of land and not be able to use it. So, it is the intention to do that, and it's simply going to be a deeding from the Doctor and his wife to the Doctor and his wife of all three parcels, but one has to come in from Mr. Price who is the adjoining neighbor, and he has agreed to sell it to him. MR. CARTIER-That just has to be, it's a matter of a letter, correct, a letter of intent? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We can give you a letter. I can make that stipulation on their behalf. 16 ----.. --- MR. CARTIER-Sure. That's great. That will do. MR. O'CONNOR-If I can speak, I'd like to speak as a neighbor. MR. CARTIER-Well, let me open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL O'CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-I would urge the Board to approve what's been submitted. I've looked at the plans. Actually, it's a great improvement. You have a nonconforming lot, there, that could be utilized as a single family residence, and that is being merged and joined, here, and you're going to end up with one lot or one house on what could be two separate lots. As far as the Lake and the concerns of the Lake, you're going to have much less effect, much less impact, with the product that you're approving then what could exist there if they went their own ways and tried to develop on their own. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Just to make the record absolutely clear, you're speaking, then, as a neighbor, correct, and not an attorney? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Is there anybody else who'd care to address this application? HAROLD RATHBUN MR. RATHBUN-I'm Harold Rathbun. My son has a camp in the vicinity. I have excavated in the area for many years. I have observed the work that Barber has done for various places along the Lake. It has always been, meet any requirements and would stop any runoff damage, or what have you. I was at Dr. Kristensen's this summer, the camp that's in question, and I'm sure, it's a beautiful place worth many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I don't believe the good Doctor would allow any construction that would be detrimental to himself or his neighbors. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd care to address this application? Well, what's your druther's? Do you want to table this until next week? MR. CAIMANO-Sure. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I just want to mention to Mr. Barber, I have to apologize for that calculation I did in my head last week. That was incorrect, and what we were doing was just bantering around, I think, his Item Three on the SEQRA Form and myself and Mr. Hagan, and Mr. Yarmowich were talking about, in general, what happens with rain. It's going to fall whether it's on an impermeable surface or whether it falls on the earth and all that type of thing, and somehow we got that calculation mixed up in that generalized discussion of runoff and infiltration and all that stuff. So, again, when we made that calculation in my head, that was an error. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. I'll leave the public hearing open on this. I guess what we're going to do, what we can do, is entertain a motion to table this until next week. Do you want to also include a deadline, when this needs to be submitted to the Planning Department, Mr. Barber. It doesn't go directly to Mr. Yarmowich. It goes to the Planning Department and Planning Staff will take care, see that Tom gets it. MR. BARBER-Okay. Fine. MR. CARTIER-Lee, how many days do you need? MRS. YORK-When do you think you could have it available? MR. BARBER-We'll do it right away, of course. It's getting late in the year. We've got to get moving, here, concrete and stuff. MRS. YORK-Okay. Can you have it by Thursday, by the end of the day Thursday? MR. BARBER- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and we'll add this to an item of Old Business next week. Okay? MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion to table. First of all, Mr. Barber, on the microphone, do we have your agreement to table this application? 17 -- -' MR. BARBER-Yes, sir. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We can entertain a motion to table this, if anybody would care to make said motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PINt NO. 46-91 DR. AL KRISTENSEN, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To construct a 28 ft. by 28 ft. addition for living room and kitchen areas, no bedrooms, with consent of the applicant's agent, to address the Rist-Frost letter dated October 11th, 1991, and to supply a letter of intent to purchase 25 feet of adjacent property contingent on approval, and to merge two separate lots in addition to the 25 foot strip purchase. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. CARTIER-We'll add this on, as I said, to Old Business next week. MR. CAIMANO-Did you put a deadline in there? MR. LAPOINT-I didn't put a deadline in that? MR. CARTIER-Well, I think Mr. Barber understands and it's to his advantage to get it in. MR. CAlMANO-It's on the record. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 45-91 TYPE I WR-lA THOMS MAYER OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE NORTH FROM CJJAIŒR ROAD ON BAY ROAD, LEFT ON TEE HILL ROAD, LEFT ON HALL ROAD APPROX. 75 YARDS FROM lAlŒ, TURN RIGHT INTO DRIVEIMY. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 FT. BY 12.6 FT. ADDITION IßTH APPROX. A 10 FT. BY 24 FT. DECK (1MRREfI COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP NO. 45-2-4 LOT SIZE: 0.75 ACRES SECTION 179-79 THOMAS MAYER, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-Lee, we did a SEQRA on this already, did we not? MRS. YORK-Yes, this Board did a SEQRA Review. MR. CAlMANO-Why is this here? MR. CARTIER-Because it was subject to variance and we did the SEQRA for the Zoning Board. MRS. YORK-Right, and he received his variances and then he came back for site plan review. MR. CARTIER-And he's back here for site plan review. MRS. YORK-And he did receive a negative declaration on the SEQRA. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Staff Comments, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 45-91, Thomas Mayer, September 16, 1991, Meeting Date: September 17, 1991 "The review is for an expansion of a nonconforming structure. The applicant intends to add a 10 ft. x 12.6 ft. addition with a deck on the second floor. The applicant received a variance on July 17, from the shoreline setback. The addition is not toward the lake but toward the Hall Road entrance. The site is about 1/3 of an acre and is in a designated Critical Environmental area. The applicant was requested to provide information on the septic system since this is an addition of habitable space. Page 3 of the application states this Planning Board request. A cess pool which is detailed on the plan is about 45 feet from the lake and the septic tank is ± 105 from feet from the lake. 1. The location arrangement and size of the addition does not appear to be a problem. 2. Vehicular access is not a concern. 3. Parking is not an issue. 4. Pedestrian access is not an issue. 5. The proposed addition is 10 ft. by 12 ft. It would not appear that this size addition would substantially increase storm water runoff, however, the Board should discuss how storm drainage is handled currently. A drainage culvert is identified on the plan. 6. The adequacy of sewage disposal 18 -- ,-' facilities may be an item for Board discussion. 7. Landscaping is not an issue. 8. Fire access will not change. 9. Erosion control methods should be used during construction to prevent siltation into the lake. II MR. CARTIER-Okay. Tom, we have no comments from you, is that correct? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-We have a letter from Warren County Planning Board dated September 11, 1991, indicating "No County Impact". We also have a letter of September 24, 1991, from T.J. Houston for the LA Group with regard to Analysis of Septic Disposal System at Tom Mayer's Residence, going to the last paragraph, which is the essence of the letter, "Based on the lack of unusual plant growth at the lake shore, the absence of wetness on the retaining walls and the distance to the lake, it is concluded that the system is functioning in an environmentally sound fashion. The proposed den will not generate additional wastewater and therefore will not adversely affect operation of the existing septic system." Okay. Mr. Mayer, would you care to address the Board? Would you hang up, by the way, I've got to do a public hearing, so, if you have a blue print. While Mr. Mayer's doing that, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone who'd care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NOCOtIEfIT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-Does the Board have any questions or comments? This is the bomb shelter site. A concern we had when we were out there was the top edge of that bomb shelter, that there seems to be some erosion there, and somebody could walk right off the edge of that. MR. MAYER-There used to be a main wall there. That had gone out a long time and we put the small walls in. That is going to be, we're going to finish the fenée 'åcross the top and board it up across the front with treated wood. So, it would have a wood finish to the front. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Sort of like a wood retaining wall, so to speak? MR. MAYER-No. It's not going to be retaining anything. It'll be, like, an outside wall on a building. MR. BREWER-Just so you don't walk off the edge of that. MR. MAYER-Correct. Well, there'll be a fence on top and then there's soil on top of the bomb shelter which provides radiation protection, and that's where you're seeing the soil coming through. I'll put wood across the front to hold that on so that it doesn't further come off and put a wood facing on the front. MR. MARTIN-I see. Okay. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. MAYER-With insulation behind, so that we can retain the. MR. CARTIER-So, what we saw is not a permanent condition out there? MR. MAYER-No, that's being repaired at this point. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-That was my one comment, in terms of the actual addition itself. It maintains the existing lines of the house. I don't see it as any problem. MR. CAIMANO-What did you have in mind with Number Five, Lee? MR. CARTIER-How do you handle storm drainage? Where does the water go, stormwater? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-The major concern, I believe, is drainage toward the Lake. MR. MAYER-Okay. Drainage toward the Lake, it would stay, basically, the same. There's a walk way right along here beside the house where this goes and what comes off the side, here, comes down, and then it basically goes into a wooded area down in this area. Pretty much all this area is wooded and it flows into that area. There's no stream or anything along those lines that goes there. 19 '- '-/ MR. CARTIER-Okay. The drainage culvert, is that? MR. MAYER-The drainage culvert is located, again, up in the corner, up here, and what it is, it's a dra i nage pi pe, about a 12 inch pi pe. I've never seen any wa ter go through it. Water used to come down the driveway. There's a barn area up here in back, and what used to happen is, when it was active, you would have water and such coming down. You would get water that would come down the driveway and along the side. This used to be a parking area down here, and we put a lawn in there and have added stone to slow down, so any erosion that was taking place there doesn't take place there any more. MR. CARTIER-Okay. How big's the septic system? Is it a septic system? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's a 1,000 gallon tank, according to that engineer's letter, and that's adequately sized, I think, for a three bedroom house. I think that's the requirement. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay. Review on this already. Does anybody else have any questions or comments? So, we don't need to go back and do that. We 11, we've done the SEQRA MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PlAN 110. 45-1991 THOMS MAYER, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For construction of a 10 ft. by 12.6 ft. addition with approx. a 10 ft. by 20 ft. deck on the second floor, with one following stipulation: That erosion control methods should be used during construction to prevent siltation into the lake, such as haybales and things of that nature. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver NEW BUSINESS: EXPEDITED MAmR SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-JA ANDREW AND EILEEN MARISSAL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE IIJOfI HILL ROAD FOR A SUBDIVISIOI OF lAND INTO 2 LOTS. THERE WILL BE NO DEVELOPMENT. ALL UTILITIES ARE INSTALLED, ALL UNITS ARE EXISTING. THERE IS ONE ÞlJBILE HOME AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY. CROSS REFERENCE: USE VARIANCE NO. 56-1991 AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1991 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-12 LOT SIZE: 2.5 ACRES SECTIOfI: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-Again, this is an Expedited Matter. If the Board has no questions, 1'11 go right to a public hearing. Is there anyone who'd care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HAROLD RATHBUN MR. RATHBUN-Again, I'm Harold Rathbun, neighbor of the Marissals and Mr. Emmett. This was approved years ago, and what was approved there, the only way you have of approval for a mobile home is hardships, which they demonstrated. Mrs. Marissal has severe hardships, and her father, it is my information to believe is totally disabled. These people far exceed the requirements of hardships that you people would need to act on. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We also have Staff Notes. Staff Notes, I'll point out to the Board members, indicate waivers have been requested, here. Is there anyone else who'd care to comment on this? MR. KRANTZ-Howard Krantz, attorney for the applicants. I think everything is set forth. There's no new development. The mobile home, which really looks like a house, if any of you have been out there, has been in place, as has the house, all the neighbors are in support of this and a letter has been submitted in connection with the use and area variances that were previously created. No new septic. Everything is in place. It just needs subdivision approval. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd care to comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a SEQRA on this. It's unlisted. MR. LAPOINT-Short Form, or Long, subdivision, right? 20 --' MRS. YORK-Yes. Everybody gets a Long one when they pick up Preliminary. RESOWTION IIfEN DETERMIflATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION fIO. 12-1991, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ANDREW AND EILEEN MRISSAL, Preli.inary Stage, for a subdivision of land into tw lots. There will be no developEnt. All utilities are installed, all units are existing. There is one _bile hOIIe and one single faily residence on the property, and 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 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. CARTIER-We can entertain a motion and I would, again, reference Lee York's letter, second paragraph, with regard to the waivers that are being requested, here, to anyone who is going to make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PREUMIflARY STAGE SUBDIVISION fIO. 12-1991 ANDREW AND EILEEN MRISSAL, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a subdivision of land into 2 lots. There will be no development. Attached to this motion should be Lee York's memo of 9/25/91, concerning the waivers which are attached here on, and we are granting those waivers. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. CARTIER-We have to back up and take care of a procedural situation, here, with regard to the last application, Thomas Mayer. I should have conducted a SEQRA hearing on this. I did not. So, we're going to take a minute, here, to conduct the SEQRA hearing on the application. MRS. YORK-I just gave all the Board members the SEQRA application, the Long Form, of Mr. Thomas Mayer. MR. CAIMANO-Why are we doing this? 21 '----' -- MRS. YORK-It was an error on my part. What happened was it was a Type II application in front of the Zoning Board and it is a Type I application in front of the Planning Board and I got confused. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. This is not the first time we looked at this thing. We went out and looked at this for the September meeting, and the reason we looked at it for the September meeting is because we were going to do the SEQRA at the September meeting for the Zoning Board. I think we've done the SEQRA on this. MRS. YORK-No. What happened was, you went to see it for the Site Plan. Mr. Mayer neglected to come to the meeting because he forgot about it and did not have his septic information. MR. CARTIER-Thank you, and we tabled it. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Let me re-open the public hearing with regard to the SEQRA Review of this application. Is there anyone here who would care to comment on the environmental aspects of that application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED RESOWTION IItEN DETERMINATION OF fIO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION 10. 45-91, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: THOMAS MAYER, for construction of a 10 ft. by 12.6 ft. addition with approx. 10 ft. by 24 ft. deck, and 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 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. CARTIER-Do we have to go back and re-motion this? MR. DUSEK-Yes. 22 "~' -- MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PINt fIO. 45-1991 THOMAS MAYER, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For construction of a 10 ft. by 12.6 ft. addition with approx. a 10 ft. by 20 ft. deck on the second floor, with one following stipulation: That erosion control methods should be used during construction to prevent siltation into the lake, such as haybales and things of that nature. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver SITE PLAN NO. 47-91 TYPE I SEQRA REVIEW ONLY WR-lA MYRON S. RAPAPORT OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ROUTE 9L TO OLD ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD, LEFT ON BURNT RIDGE, ENTRANCE TO HOOSE IS AT THIRD -MY CAMP- SIGN. TO CONSTRUCT A 13.61 FT. BY 24 FT. BEDROOM, OLD BEDROOM IS BEING USED FOR ADDITIONAL CLOSET SPACE, A DRESSING AREA AND A SMALL DESK. VARIANCE NEEDED TO PERMIT A 55 FT. SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE REIJ,lIRED 75 FT. SETBACK. (WARREN CooNTY PuutNING) TAX MAP 10. 5-1-18 LOT SIZE: 1.4 ACRES SECTION 179-60 [3] HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-The things, specifically, that the Zoning Board asked us to deal with were the amount of permeable area, erosion control, runoff, and septic system conditions, okay. Those are the things that are called out of the minutes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 47-91, Myron S. Rapaport - SEQRA Review Only, October 10, 1991, Meeting Date: October 15, 1991 "The request is to expand a nonconforming use. A variance is required to allow the addition within 55 feet of the lake rather than the required 75 feet. A variance for an enlargement of 50 percent of the original structure is also requested. On June 20, 1984, the Rapaports were granted an Area Variance for an expansion to their camp. The camp was ±30' by 28'. They received a variance totalling 590 sq. ft. (AV 915). On December 18, 1985 the Rapaports received a variance for a 169 sq. ft. library addition. This brought the camp to 1,599 sq. ft. The request is to add a 13.6 ft. by 24 foot bedroom addition which would bring the building to ±1,925 sq. ft. The site is on a steep incline in a Critical Environmental Area adjacent to Dunham's Bay. The Slope Analysis shows the site at greater than 25% slope or unsuitable for development. The Board is aware of the policies and strategies developed in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan which refer to reducing development intensities in the vicinity of water resources, especially those used as public drinking water (Refer to CLUP - pgs. 16, 17, 18) The SEQRA Review: The depth to bedrock is 72" or high development suitability. The percolation rate is .6 to 2" per hour or moderate development suitability. The slope map shows this site with greater than 25% or low development suitability. Any development of this property requires standard design changes which illustrates how this impact will be mitigated. There may be an impact on a protected water body from siltation and erosion protective measures should be employed. There would not appear to be any impact on the air. The proposal should not significantly affect aesthetic resources. There are no historic or archeological resources which will be affected. No impact on open space and recreation. No impact on Transportation No impact on energy No impact created by noise or odor No impact on public health Impact on Growth - The proposa 1 is in confl i ct wi th the Comprehens ive Land Use Pl an and the ordi nance whi ch were passed in 1988." MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have a comment from Warren County Planning Board dated October 9, 1991 indicating "No County Impact". I just go back to your second page of your letter, Lee, with regard to the Depth to Bedrock. I know that map is painted with a somewhat broad brush. MRS. YORK-Yes, it is. The applicant may have very site specific information from when their septic system was installed, and the Board should discuss the septic system with them because they are adding. Well, the discussion will be, are they, in fact, adding a bedroom, or bedrooms, or not. MR. CARTIER-Okay, because, in being out at that site, it looked to me, driving through that area, that the bedrock's awful close to the surface there, unless there's some very site specific condition. It's presently a septic system? It's not a holding tank? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is there anyone here representing the applicant? MR. KRANTZ-Yes. Howard Krantz, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Rapaport. You can see better on your individual maps attached, but the new room is going to be a bedroom, but it is not adding a bedroom to the site. I believe there was a typo in the description of the project as presented. It's not a, the existing 23 ---/ '---" bedroom is being turned into closets, a dressing area, and a desk area. I think it said deck on what you read, Mr. Cartier, and what is being proposed is one room being added to the house, which would be the bedroom substituting for the existing bedroom, which is being eliminated for the uses that I've indicated. The existing septic tank is in place. It's been identified on the map. There has been no problems with it and no additional use is being put on that septic tank, which is the point that Lee was making. The existing house, the majority of it is about 45 feet setback from the Lake. The new bedroom is going to be setback 10 feet further, or 55 feet. MR. CARTIER-Go back to the septic system, again, for me, please, for a minute. How old is the septic system, and how large? MR. KRANTZ-I believe it's a 1,000 gallon tank. I don't know how old it is. Mr. Rapaport bought the property, I believe, in the early 1980's. MR. CARTIER-And where is the septic system on the property? MR. KRANTZ-It is located southeast of the proposed new room. It's on the map. MR. CARTIER-It is? MR. LAPOINT-It is? MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry, I don't see it on mine. MR. KRANTZ-All right. Do you see the car park area? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-And do you see a line extending out and then jogging. MR. CAIMANO-I've got it. MR. LAPOINT-Southeast. MR. CARTIER-So, the septic system's under a paved area? MR. KRANTZ-I can't say whether it's under paved or crushed stone. MR. BREWER-I'm almost positive it was paved. MR. CARTIER-I'm confused about Ordinances, here. When did that change? In other words, they're required to get an exemption from the Board of Health to put a septic system under a paved area. Is it safe to assume that's an approved septic system? MRS. YORK-When was it installed? MR. KRANTZ-Mr. Rapaport bought it, I believe, in 1980 or 1981. or the parking area. It's a preexisting situation. He has not changed the septic tank MR. CARTIER-A 1,000 gallon tank? MR. KRANTZ-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-This is seasonal use only, correct? MR. KRANTZ-No. This is year round. MR. CARTIER-They go down that driveway in the winter? MR. KRANTZ-He and his wife have four wheel vehicles and I'd like to address the slope issue as well, but when he bought the property, Mr. Rapaport was single. He has since married. There are two children with him, hence, the need for the larger bedroom, not actually adding a bedroom. I would also like to say that, with respect to the slope, I spoke to Lee about this, and I understand that Lee pulled that figure of 25 percent off of a slope map, but with respect to where the new room is going, it is not a slope in excess of 25 degrees, and I did not know this was going to be raised as an issue, but I have, for the Board, three photographs. Mr. Rapaport's steps on holding a level, and 1'm not an engineer. but it looks like it's about, maybe, 15 percent is the grade at the site where the house is going to go. MR. CARTIER-Where the room is going to go? 24 '-' -./ MR. KRANTZ-That's correct. If you look at the lot from all the way down by the lake, going back 600 feet, it may be, in fact, in excess of 25, but where this room is going, it is not, and as far as surface water runoff is concerned, what happens now is whatever rain enters the soil, hits the bedrock, and wherever it flows, it flows. What's going to happen with this new room is that instead of entering the bedrock, here, it's going to enter it 10 feet distant and hit the same bedrock. Those photographs are looking north. MR. CARTIER-You mentioned bedrock. That raises the question I have with regard to depth to bedrock. Do you have any specific information with regard to depth to bedrock? MR. KRANTZ-I believe Mr. Rapaport obtained that information when he built the prior room that was approved by the Board, which is immediately adjacent to this site. If you look at the existing southerly room on the house, the soil conditions are obviously the same, if not exactly the same, within an inch or so, and I believe that's the data that Mr. Rapaport obtained at the time construction was made many years ago. MRS. YORK-The SEQRA Form indicates that the depth to bedrock is 0 to 8 feet. MR. MARTIN-How wide is this house going to appear, now, from the lake if this new room is built? What's the overall width of the house going to be? Scaling it off, here, it looks like it's going to be in excess of 100 feet wide. MRS. YORK-Yes, it will be. I have it scaled on one of these plans. MR. CAlMANO-But, so what? MR. MARTIN-Well, I mean, we're talking about visual impacts. MR. KRANTZ-Well, I can say, from a visual impact point of view when I look up the information that you're asking, Mr. Martin, is that, from the lake, this is one of those houses you virtually can't see. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-Mr. Rapaport likes his privacy. Those of you who have been to the site, there are very tall pine trees and such. As a matter of fact, he evened jogged the new room to keep two tall pines that are just west of the site. MR. BREWER-You can see on the back side of the house where he nods the house for one of the trees. MR. MARTIN-I see. MR. KRANTZ-Ri ght, and in the back of the property, it's so heavi ly wooded, north, east, and south, that the neighbors really don't see each other. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-You're still going to be within the 65 percent required permeable area with this addition, is that correct? MR. KRANTZ-Probably about five percent. It's a very large lot. MR. CARTIER-Five percent of the lot is going to be impermeable. Okay. I understand. Is he planning on putting, I didn't notice when we were out there, rain gutters on this? MR. KRANTZ-I don't know. MR. CARTIER-Okay, so we can assume water's going to just shed off the roof. MR. KRANTZ-If he doesn't put rain gutters, that's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board have any other questions, or do you want to go through the SEQRA application at this point? MR. LAPOINT-I'm ready. MR. CAlMANO-You have to open the public hearing first. MR. CARTIER-Thank you for reminding me. I'll open the public hearing on this SEQRA application. Is there anyone who'd care to address this? 25 ----.. - PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COfIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-And would somebody care to take us through that? RESOWTION IIfEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION NO. 47-91, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: MR. LAPOINT-IIWill the proposed action effect any surface or groundwater quantity or quality?" MR. CARTIER-I would assume it's going to increase the groundwater quantity, simply because you're going to have an impermeable area. MR. CAIMANO-It's small to moderate impact, though. MR. CARTIER-But, see, the question, still, I have, is how deep is that soil there and, if it's shedding right onto bedrock, it's not that far from the lake. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I guess I still, this is the question we had with the previous applicant. If it rains on that bedrock, whether or not the room is there. MR. CARTIER-True. MR. LAPOINT-And I never understand, I mean, it's the same amount of water. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. KRANTZ-It's really a difference of where the water enters. It'll enter 10 feet distant from where it now enters. MR. CARTIER-All right. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Number Six, IIWill proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?1I Now there's your possible. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, right. MR. MARTIN-I'd say small to moderate impact. MR. LAPOINT-Small to moderate. Okay. WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: MYRON S. RAPAPORT to construct a 13.6' by 24 ft. bedroOll, old beclroOII is being used for additional closet space, a dressing area, and a s_l1 desk. Variance needed to perwit a 55 ft. setback in lieu of the required 75 ft. setback, and 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. 26 ----.. -- 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 Secti on 617.11 of the Offi ci a 1 Compi lation 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 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. CARTIER-Do we need a resolution to forward this to the Zoning Board? MRS. YORK-It goes back automatically. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. We have two items 1 eft on the agenda. The agent for the Sunset Hi 11 Farm, Paul Knox property, have offered to allow that to go last, if we so desire, and move the last item to second to last for the minor two lot subdivision which may not take us to long to get through. What's the Board's pleasure? MR. CAlMANO-Do it. MR. LAPOINT-It's a short one. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we're going to skip to the last item on the agenda, Subdivision No. 13-91, Preliminary Stage, Rosaire Gaudreau. SUBDIVISION NO. 1~1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ROSAIRE GAUDREAU OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF FULLER ROAD, JUST OFF lEST IDJNTAIN ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX lIMP NO. 88-1-20 LOT SIZE: 2 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 13-1991, Rosaire Gaudreau, October 10, 1991, Meeting Date: October 15, 1991 "The request is to subdivide slightly more than two acres into two lots in an SR-IA zone on Fuller Road. There is a residential unit on the lot now. The applicant has requested a waiver from the stormwater requirements. Given the size of the lots and the proposed development this should not be a problem. The Highway Superintendent has written a letter requesting Board consideration on a drainage issue. There are no other planning concerns. II MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lets go to Mr. Naylor's letter, first, dated September 25, 1991, to Planning Board, "I have reviewed the Gaetane & Gaudreau Subdivision and I recommend that a twenty foot (20') drainage easement along the northern boundaries of lots A and B be designated. Discussions are currently being held with other property owners to define a drainage way within the confines of the subdivision. This would serve in conjunction with the proposed drainage way between Applehouse Land and Lester Drive. The agent for the applicant is in full agreement with this concept and has agreed to place the easement on the mylar prior to the necessary signatures. I am, therefore, requesting that the Planning Board make this a condition of the final approval. II Engineering Notes, please, Tom. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, October 11, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. A waiver from a stormwater management report has been requested. Because the increase in runoff from the site will likely be minimal, we recommend that a SWM waiver be granted. 2. Regarding Sewage Disposal a. It appears that percolation testing and test pit excavation are coincident with respect to date and location. This should be clarified. b. The septic tank detail should note the requirements for construction in accordance with NYSDOH Wastewater Treatment Standard - Individual Household Systems Section, 75-A 6. c. The minimum subsurface sewage disposal field trench length for a 2-bedroom house should be 188 If. based upon the specified perc. rate of the modified soil. d. Placement of modified soil must extend 5' in all directions from the horizontal limits of the trenches and 2' below the bottom of the trenches for the entire area. The detail should reflect this.1I MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Mr. Steves, would you care to address the Board? 27 -' ----/ MR. STEVES-Yes. I'm Leon Steves, and I'd like to thank the application prior to me for their consideration. To clarify Tom's notes, Tom, we did run a percolation test out there, prior to Charlie Maine's testing for his soil. It was, I believe, that same day. Maybe the day before. MR. YARMOWICH-Was it the same spot, too? MR. STEVES-Yes, it was. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. STEVES-Yes, he could find it quite easily. We had dug it up for him. All the rest of the notes that Tom has made are technical in nature and I have no problems with them whatsoever. I would like to point out to the Board that there is a proposed boundary line agreement along the easterly boundary, here, with the neighbor to the east, Dr. Lansing. It appears that the doctor has been utilizing the land for years. Everyone has acquiesced to it, and he just assumed that a corner that he saw up here went in a straight line. It did not. There was a bend to it, and his shed would be over the line, but Mr. Gaudreau said he did not wish to make any changes, and that he would be happy to go into a boundary line agreement with his neighbor and get rid of that piece that is now encroached upon. Do I make myself clear on that? MR. CARTIER-No. I'm a little confused. Is Mr. Gaudreau going to end up with a larger lot or a smaller lot than the original? MR. STEVES-No. As it's shown, it will be in effect after the boundary line agreement has been entered into. MR. CARTIER-In other words, what we're looking at? MR. STEVES-Is the final configuration. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and you've just got to come up with some boundary line agreements that will be in agreement with we're looking at. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-Thåt's exactly all that's going to say. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Enough said. A two lot subdivision. The house that is existing and a proposed house to the west. The drainage way that we have talked about will be in the entire 20 foot strip along the back of the Cartier parcel, the Blackwell piece and the LaMore. MR. CARTIER-What's this, somebody named Cartier back there? MRS. YORK-Yes, the lands of Andrew Cartier and Robert Blackwell. MR. STEVES-Andrew Cartier. MR. CARTIER-For the record, that's nobody I know or that I'm related to, just to make that point. Okay, anything else? MR. STEVES-That's it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do the Board members have any questions or comments? I'll open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-Lee, you have a letter, I believe, that we got handed at the beginning of the evening. Would you read that, please. MRS. YORK-The letter is from John F. Schumaker, and he lives at 223 Fuller Road, Queensbury, New York, liAs a homeowner immediately adjacent to the lot under review, I am writing with two concerns regarding it's proposed subdivision. If the subdivision would create a building lot that is smaller than required for an SR-IA zone, then I would object to the subdivision. If the subdivision meets the minimum lot size and setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, then my only other concern is that consideration be given to my request that any residence that might be constructed on the new lot be at least consistent wi th the average home whi ch currently exi sts on our street. Shoul d both of these concerns be answered to my satisfaction, I would have no objections to the proposal. Respectfully, John F. Schumaker" MR. CARTIER-Would you care to address the first question, Mr. Steves? I think we already know the answer, but lets get it on the record. The first question dealt with the size of the lot? MR. STEVES-It meets the requirement. 28 '-' -- MR. CARTIER-It meets the requirement? MR. STEVES-Yes, it does. MR. CARTIER-Would you care to address the second question, Mr. Steves? MR. STEVES-I think that that would take too much consideration, tonight. MR. CARTIER-Well, basically what he's asking is. MR. STEVES-Well, yes, but is he asking for it in square footage or in value or in what? MR. CARTIER-I think his general concern is that whatever's built there is in the same general character as what's there in the neighborhood already. MR. STEVES-Well, that's very difficult. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. MR. STEVES-Have you seen the character of the neighborhood? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. Across the street you've got a house that's worth $150,000, and adjacent to it you've got a house that's probably in the neighborhood of $100,000. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm just trying to get a general feel. The gentleman had a private conversation with me at the beginning of the meeting, or prior to the meeting, and brought it up, and he told me that he knew who was going to be constructing the home and didn't have a problem with it, but wanted to be sure that thi s Board was aware of hi s concern. Well, whether thi s Board can address that specifically, we really can't, but I did want to bring it up because he brought it up. Okay. Let the record that show that we have raised the issue and have discussed it and it's the understanding that this Board really, it's not within the power of this Board to specify the type of house that's built, but certainly his first concern has been addressed. Is there anybody else who would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-If the Board has no other questions or comments, we can entertain a SEQRA Review on this application. MR. MARTIN-Short Form. RESOLUTION NO. 13-1991, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROSAIRE GAUDREAU for a two lot subdivision., and 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 area 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 Com~ilation 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. 29 '- ---- Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion. We have a request, again, for a stormwater management waiver. We have some engineering comments that need to be addressed, and we have a drainage easement that needs to show up. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1991 ROSAIRE GAUDREAU, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For a 2 lot subdivision, with the stipulation, Number One, that a 20 foot drainage easement be put along the northern boundaries of Lots A and B. Number Two, is that the details of Tom Yarmowich's letter of October 11th be complied with. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: MR. YARMOWICH-This project is scheduled for next week's meeting as well. MR. CARTIER-For Final. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, in that, if you're looking at some changes for Final plat, is there anything that this applicant can do to submit that stuff beforehand? MRS. YORK-Basically, it's some notations on the map. So, if it would be possible for him to make notations and just add that to his current submission. MR. CARTIER-The first question is, is the Board willing to allow revisions between now and Final, in other words, we're waiving deadline on this? MR. CAlMANO-Sure. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Secondly, do we need to establish a deadline? MR. CAlMANO-Thursday afternoon? MRS. YORK-That's fine with me. MR. CAIMANO-Thursday afternoon? MR. STEVES-No problem. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-I intend to write a description of the easement that should be dedicated to the Town, as well. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. MRS. YORK-Mr. Naylor appreciates that. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver 1])..\ \1f/ SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SKETCH PlAN TYPE I WR-lA SUNSET HILL FARM mINER: PAUL KNOX, III KflOX ROAD OR ASSEMBLY POINT TO SUBDIVIDE 25 ACRES INTO 10 LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED BY INDIVIDUlll LOT PURCHASERS. DRILLED JELLS AND ON-SITE WASTEWATER WILL BE CONSTllJCTED FOR WATER AND SEWER SERVICES. LOTS lULL BE ASSESSED BY PRIVATELY OWNED AID MAINTAINED DRIVEWAYS. LOT 1 CONTAINS THE OWWERS RESIDENCE AID WILL BE RETAINED BY THE OWNER. TIIX MAP NO. 7-1-16.1 LOT SIZE: 25 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 30 '- ~ MR. CARTIER-I note a number of people sitting here, I would assume it's in reference to this application. A public hearing is not scheduled at this point. Normally, we conduct a public hearing at Preliminary, which is the next stage of this. What's the Board's pleasure, here? Does the Board care to take comments from the public at Sketch Plan as far as this application's concerned? I want to decide that first, before we go any farther. May I ask, are people here to make comwents, or just observe? GENTLEMAN IN AUDIENCE-Possibly to make inquiry, depending upon what's said. MR. CAIMANO-I think that you should open the public hearing. My opinion is you should open it for inquiry, but reserve, especially since the public, if they make inquiries, might want to make some arguments for themselves for the Preliminary. Lets keep on the Preliminary, but I don't see any reason why the public can't raise the inquires at Sketch. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-At this point in time, the Board is aware that we have not noticed, the Town nor the applicant, has not noticed any of the neighbors. These individuals have simply heard about the application from one source or another and expressed interest. MR. CAIMANO-All the more reason why you shouldn't have a public hearing, other than the next time. MR. CARTIER-Not now? MR. CAIMANO-I think you could open it for their. MR. CARTIER-I'm confused. It sounds like you just reversed yourself. MR. CAIMANO-You can open it up, but you can't just have the, you asked if we could have the public hearing tonight, right? MR. CARTIER- Yes. MR. CAIMANO-You can't. You've got to have it at Preliminary. MR. CARTIER-Yes, I know that. This is not an either or. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-All I'm asking is, are you willing to take comments from the public, tonight, and we'll leave the public hearing open. MR. CAIMANO-Sure. I am. MR. DUSEK-Mr. Chairman, I think in fairness to the members of the public that are here, if the Board chooses to take comments from them tonight in some fashion, they should, of course, understand that if they do speak in some fashion that this is not a public hearing that's occurring tonight, that in order to preserve their rights, etc., should come back at another time and make those same comments, if necessary, at a future public hearing, because this is not a public hearing. It's designed so that the public can watch what's going on, and if the Board wants to accept comments or whatever, that's perfectly acceptable, but the members of the public should understand that these will not carry the same type of weight as they would if you spoke at a public hearing. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, are we in general agreement, here, that we are going to take co~ents? MR. CAIMANO-Sure. I don't mind. MR. CARTIER-Great. Thank you. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 11-1991, Paul Knox III - Sunset Hill Farm, 10-10-91, Meeting Date: October 15, 1991 IIThis sketch plan is for creation of a 10 lot subdivision on Assembly Point. The zoning is Waterfront Residential One Acre. The smallest lot is 1.3 acres and the largest is 3.58 acres. The access is from Knox Road. The layout of the subdivision appears awkward because eight driveways are existing on to the road rather than the lots fronting on an internal road servicing the subdivision. The driveways exit onto a small steep road and are angled and steep ranging from ± 160 feet to ±580 feet in length. The roadways on Assembly Point are most heavi ly used during the sumrner months since this area is a destination point. The roads which encircle the points are designated Regional arterials on the Street Hierarchy map. It would be advisable to have an interior subdivision road accessing all the lots rather than a number of road cuts. This would allow for better emergency vehicle access and improved traffic circulation.1I 31 --- -' r'íR. CARTIER-Let me interrupt you right there, for a minute. Is Knox Road a Town road? Is that a public road? MRS. YORK- Yes, it is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. YORK-It is not built to Town standards, but it is a road by use. liThe Board may want to request at least one alternate design. Clustering is allowed in WR-IA. The site is part of the Lake George drainage basin and has been designated a Critical Environmental Area. An analysis of the resource maps indicates the following: Depth to High Water Table - A portion is > 72" or high development suitability and a portion is 0 - 18" or low development suitability. The property has moderate slopes A Warren County Soil Survey Map done in 1988 which indicates soil potentials for on site septic shows a portion of the site with high potential and a portion not suited for on site septic. The soil potential ratings for dwelling foundations shows a portion of the site rated very high and a portion rated low. The percolation rates on the site are .6 - 2" per hour which is moderate development suitability and .06 - 6" per hour or low development suitability. It would seem that this is the type of location that a cluster design utilizing the most developable land for construction and leaving the least developable land in undisturbed open space would be appropriate. The Board should discuss the 45 foot strip to the east which provides access to Lake George. What is anticipated for this area?1I Ed, I left the maps up there to illustrate to the Board what I was talking about, that these are pretty consistent with all our other resource maps showing that a portion of this particular site has high development potential and a portion of it has very poor development potential and those are pretty consistent, across the board, with all the maps, and the applicant should be aware that I have discussed this matter with other agencies. The APA representatives did want me to mention that, depending on how you are treating the wetlands on the property, they may involved and you should get in contact with them. MR. CAIMANO-Who was that? (END OF FIRST DISK) 32 '---' '-../ MRS. YORK-The Adirondack Park Agency, and we have a letter here from the Lake George Park Commission and one from the Lake George Association. MR. CARTIER-Tom, your comments, please, and then we'll come back to those. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, October 11, 1991 IIWe have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. A sketch stormwater management plan or request for waiver from it, if applicable, should be provided. The applicant should also address the placement and design of driveway culverts, if necessary. 2. The utility layout plan should demonstrate that horizontal separation distances required by NYSDOH regulations can be maintained between the septic system components and the wetlands. 3. The grading in conjunction with driveways for lots 9 and 10 indicates cut and fill slope steeper than 3 horizontal to 1 vertical, the maximum permitted by Town Code A183-25 A.(I). 4. Because the project is substantially in or contiguous to the critical environmental area designated as lands within 500' of Lake George and associated wetlands, a long EAF is required. II MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lee, you made reference to a Lake George Park Commission letter and, what's the other letter? MRS. YORK-Right, one from the Lake George Association. Would you like me to read those now? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK-You would like me to read the letter from the Lake George Park Commission first? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK-Okay. These comments are not to do with SEQRA. What I simply did was, in order to give the applicant all possible input at this point, that there was, I did send plans to any agencies I thought might be involved and the LGA came over and picked up one of their own. So, just be aware of that, that they will make an actual submission, regarding SEQRA, when we do a coordinated review, but this is just to give you their input at this time. This is from the Lake George Park Commission, to Lee York, Senior Planner, dated October 11, 1991 IIBecause the Town of Queensbury has entered into an agreement with the Lake George Park Commission for the Administration and Enforcement of our Wastewater regulations, the Town will be issuing any wastewater treatment system permits for any of the dwellings in this subdivision. Therefore, we have no comments concerning wastewater at this time. Although the Town of Queensbury has not yet adopted a Stormwater Plan and Program as required by the Lake George Park Commission's Stormwater regulations, it is very likely that such plan and program will be in place prior to any construction in this subdivision. Because of this, we suggest you require the subdivision plans to address stormwater by designing each lot as well as any infrastructure to be in conformance with the Commission's Stormwater regulations. Related to this, we see an extensive (excessive?) amount of impervious areas created by each dwelling having its own driveway. A better solution might be to create one common roadway with shorter drives to each house. We currently have an application pending before the Commission for an additional wharf proposed to be located on the northeastern most portion of the property. Action on that application has been suspended pending receipt of additional information regarding possible marina use of the current facilities. A copy of our letter dated July 16, 1991 to Mr. Knox is attached. No response to that letter has been received to date. We would further point out that there appears to be an omission on the plans as submitted regarding the existence of an additional area of lakefrontage on the southeastern most portion of the parcel. Commission staff visited the site earlier this year and have noted an existing E-shaped wharf on that lakefrontage. Will there be a deeded lake access or boat slips included in the offering of the proposed lots? If so, more specifics on that issue should be provided. Sincerely, Thomas Wardell, P.E., Director of Engineering", and attached is a letter to Mr. Knox stating that they are reviewing his application for a Class A Marina facility within the park. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. That's not what I get out of that second letter. MRS. YORK-I'm sorry, maybe I'm misreading it. MR. CARTIER-No. I think this has to do with, when he came in to put a dock at the end of that 45 foot strip, this may have. MRS. YORK-That is exactly what happened. When we reviewed Mr. Knox's previous dock, he had submitted an application to the LGPC also. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MRS. YORK-Okay. This is in response to his application. MR. CAIMANO-Wasn't he here this year? MRS. YORK-Yes, just, I think, possibly, two months ago. MR. CARTIER-July or August. 33 "'--.0 ~'" '" MR. CAIMANO-He was the gentleman who was here to tell us about this large dock that was going to be used by he and his two kids, but it was really going to be rented out to 50,000 people, and now we're paying a penalty for that. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK-I don't know if I'd phrase it exactly in those words. MR. CAIMANO-I phrased it that way. MRS. YORK-The second letter we have is from. MR. CARTIER-Is this from David Brown? MRS. YORK-No. I have one from Kathy Vilmar of the Lake George Association. I'm sorry, David M. Brown, you're correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lets hold that until we take public comments. MRS. YORK-All right. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody on the Board have any questions, or do you want to take public comments and then the Board will get into things, here. Do you want to do it that way? MR. CAlMANO-Well, I think you should, are you going to let the applicant speak first? MR. CARTIER-Sure, but I'm trying to get to everything so the applicant gets a chance to hear everything and can respond to it. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-All right. Let me open a public hearing. Lee, do you want to take us through that David Brown letter, please. MR. DUSEK-For the record, this is not a public hearing, right? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Public comment. MR. CARTIER-I'm going to open the floor to public comment. MR. DUSEK-Thank you. MRS. YORK-Okay. This is from David Brown, to Mr. Peter Cartier, October 14, 1991, I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed development entitled IISunset Hill Farm", a project bei ng presented to the Queensbury Planning Board by Paul Knox III on Tuesday, October 15th. Mr. Knox's proposed developed poses serious dangers and potential damages to the environment, the lake, and the neighborhood. The majority of the area proposed for development is high ground. Stripping the land of its natural foliage and bulldozing unnatural pathways into this wild area will seriously disrupt the watershed. Presently during a heavy rain, water rushes down the road and runs off through the back of my property causing drainage problems across the back of my house. Removing the natural buffer against the momentum of this run off and providing unnatural pathways of least resistance will surely produce flood-like conditions on the first floor of my home. The proposed development requests ten lots with TEN INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC SYSTEMS. If the proposal is successful and the area developed, all home owners on Assembly Point will be subject to wastewater leaching through our backyards on its way into Lake George. I, for one, am staunchly opposed to having either my home or Lake George turned into a sewer. An additional Ten home sites accessed from Knox Road will over-burden an already inadequate road. The turn into the road at the southwestern corner of the proposed development has been a hazard to pedestrians and motorists for years. In the past, Mr. Knox himself has proposed changes in this road, presumably anticipating his desire to develop this 25 acre parcel and the public dangers such over-development would pose to the community. Finally, I respectfully suggest the Planning Board consider Mr. Knox's past deceits; specifically, the request and approval of a dock on the 50 feet of lakefront on the northeast corner of the property. The evidence in front of us today, albeit circumstantial, indicates Mr. Knox's intent was not that the dock be available for use given an existing residence but for another use entirely. Please consider Mr. Knox's other property holdings in the immediate area and what his intent may be regardless of what his stated intent claims. The issue of contractual access to a large group of people through a small right of way and the corresponding effect on the Lake warrants serious consideration of all interrelated facets of this proposed project. Sincerely, David M. Brown" 34 --- -- MR. CARTIER-Is Mr. Brown here? Mr. Brown is not here? Okay. Is that 50 feet, that strip, somewhere I ran into reference that it's 45 feet. Is it, indeed, 50 feet, because if it's 50 feet, that opens up some interesting possibilities here. To put a road in, you've got to have a 50 foot right-of-way, correct? MRS. YORK-Yes, it's 50 feet. MR. CARTIER-It is 50 feet wide. Okay, thank you. Is there anybody else here who would care to comment during this public comment period? JAMES DUGAN MR. DUGAN-My name is James Dugan. I'm a resident of Assembly Point, actually a member of Shore Colony, owning property which abuts a portion of the property under consideration. My only point of inquiry this evening, in as much as, just one preliminary note, and that is that we received a notice from the Lake George Association which I believe was sent out to a number of residents. Some seem to have received it. Some haven't received it. I don't know, but it merely brought to the attention of the residents of Assembly Point that this proposal was going to be made and that a preliminary meeting was to be held this evening. That's the only reason we're here, having nothing to do with the public hearing. My inquiry is simply that, in looking at the Planning Office and looking at the map and looking, briefly at the application, I did not see there was any reference to what water rights these lots would be entitled. In other words, they are all inland lots, except for this one lot, and this strip of 50, and it is 50 feet, sir. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUGAN-This 50 foot strip is presumably, as far as the map shows, part of this Lot Number 9, and this part of Lot Number 9, presumably, would be owned by the owner of Lot Number 9, as opposed to all of the other lots, and I would like some expression of intention as to the fact that these lots, being all inland lots, what is intended, insofar as providing them with waterfront, if any. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Rights. Yes. That was a question I had, too. Understand something, here. I don't know how we got tangled up with the Lake George Association, here, in terms of notice, but understand that what we're doing here, tonight, is Sketch Plan. This is, basically, an informal look at the first step of a project, okay. This thing will still go through two other looks by this Planning Board. It will go through Preliminary Stage, at which point, hopefully, it will be pretty well defined, and then final stage, where everybody's ducks need to be in a row. So, we're at a very early stage. What you're seeing here, tonight, may not, in fact, be what we end up with, okay, and basically all we're doing here is trying to collect some information to provide the applicant to take back. Is there anybody else who'd care to comment? DENNIS MACELROY MR. MACELROY-My name is Dennis MacElroy and I'm a resident of Knox Road, as well, down at the end of the road. I would just add to the comments that have already been made, related to water supply and the condition of Knox Road. As Lee indicated, the road is a road by use and the Town, probably six or seven years ago, paved it, haven't maintained it very well since that time, and this addition of traffic may be only ten lots, but add some traffic to that road and we, as residents, like the road the way it is, the road by use, even though it may only be a 15 foot wide road. It's the way we like it. The maintenance of it we'd like to see improved. If the Town had decided they owned it. MR. CARTIER-That's another department, Mr. MacElroy. MR. MACELROY-Yes. Just a comment, though, related to the addition to that, and the fact that an internal road may better serve the lots as well as the existing road. The other point being water supply. I noticed, from some information that I read, that on-site water is intended. It's known through the area that deep wells are not all that reliable in the Assembly Point area, either in quantity or quality, and if, obviously, the applicant would have to meet any Health Department standards, but at some substantiation, I suppose, of adequacy of water supply in that area should be considered by the Planning Board and if not, then the option to that is some community water system, the Lake being the source. So, I just put that in your mind as far as, once you move on to site plan, or subdivision of site plans. Thank you. MRS. YORK-Excuse me. I just want to clarify one point. The Lake George Association is on our list to receive our agendas, okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-A number of organizations do, routinely receive our agendas, and then if they want to come and look at plans or advise their membership of something going on, they take the opportunity. MR. CARTIER-That may answer the question why some people got a notice and some didn't. I'm guessing that if you're an LGA member, you got one, and if you're not an LGA member, you didn't, pure speculation. 35 -- - FRED HART MR. HART-Fred Hart. I'm a part time resident of Assembly Point. As far as the LGA sending out a letter, I think they sent a letter out to all Assembly Point, a copy of it to everybody on Assembly Point, based on the Assembly Point Association mailing list. MR. CARTIER-All right. Thank you. It's not a huge issue. I was just curious. MR. HART-I'd like to just follow up on a question that Jim Dugan raised, and it just, I don't want to say disturbs, but the question is compounded by what I first heard, tonight, Lee York saying that Paul Knox has applied for a Class A Marina permit on Assembly Point. One of the things that we've all been very much concerned about, and I had a letter questioning the reason why he wanted to build a dock for his own use, when he's already got three existing docks. My question, looking at the personnel involved. MR. CARTIER-Let me just clear something up, here. He didn't apply for a Class A Marina. If I'm reading this letter right, the Lake George Park Commission took a look at what he had, last July, and said, it looks like you are operating what appears to be a Class A Marina, and gave him a definition of it. So, he hasn't applied for one. MR. HART-All right. I misunderstood that, but that's the question. My property is near Knox Road. It's bounded by other properties that Paul already owns. One section is up for sale at $600,000, but one has to wonder, this piece of property that's up for development now, at 25 acres, the amount of investigations that will have to be done to put this into a developable plan, the engineering, the legal fees. The price of these lots is not going to be cheap, but who is going to pay the kind of money for that lot, unless they have access to the Lake, and we and myself very much so, because two of Paul's existing marina operations are very close to my own property. Now. where is the access to the Lake going to be? I think that's a question that Jim has already mentioned that we are all very much concerned about. Call it selfish or whatever you want, but we all are faced with a very hefty amount of taxes that we pay to enjoy to live on Assembly Point, and I think there's many, many questions, and I don't want to take up your time, but I would really appreciate the Board researching as best they can to determine what is going to be the deeded rights for access to Lake George. Where is it going to be? Is it going to be through that 45 foot strip? Is it going to be at two of the other docks that he currently owns? The third dock is on a piece of property that's separated from this parcel, that currently now is up for sale. So, I don't think that will become a deeded lake right, but there are at least two other access points that the owner could provide deeded lake rights. I'm sure 1'11 have many more questions as this develops into a plan, but that is one question that I'm very much interested in your pursuing. I appreciate it. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else care to make comment? KATHY GOWER MRS. GOWER-My name is Kathy Gower, and I'm also a neighbor of Paul Knox, directly next door to him, and I'm concerned about the way he will be going about this, and his past history, as far as not involving, always, the Planning Board before he does something, so I just think that should be taken into account. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Anyone else? FRANK DILLON MR. DILLON-I'm Frank Dillon, also from Assembly Point. Just as a matter of curiosity, they selected the name Sunset Hi 11, and it just so happens that the next road down from Knox Road is Sunset Lane, and I'm just wondering if there's going to be any confusion with your name selection on this, because of Sunset Lane running up to Sunset Hill, and I thought you might take that under consideration. MR. CARTIER-Correct me if I'm wrong, Knox Road turns into Sunset Lane? MR. DILLON-No, it doesn't. MR. CARTIER-It doesn't? MR. DILLON-It could, if there was a through cut, but there is not a cut. MR. MARTIN-Remember there wasn't. We had to go around that time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, I guess we didn't go quite far enough. It ends there. MR. DILLON-But right from that point, up in the top northeast there, about 300 feet down, is Sunset Lane, and we just didn't want to see a lot of confusion on Assembly Point, when there are such a selection of names, and now we have somebody using a conflicting one. Also, I wanted to bring up the water supply 36 "--- ...-" system, as Mr. MacElroy discussed. The Shore Colony has its own water supply system. Are they considering a privately owned water supply system or are they going to ask for the Town of Queensbury to provide a water supply system, as it was provided for Shore Colony? MR. CARTIER-That's the blue tank? MR. DILLON-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DILLON-You should change that to a green. MR. CARTIER-That's not our Board. MR. DILLON-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anyone else? Okay. Well, I guess I'll end the public comment portion of this meeting, and, Mr. Schachner, would you care to address the Board at this point? MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you, Mr. Cartier. Gentlemen, I think you all know me. I'm Mark Schachner from the Glens Falls law firm of Miller, Mannix, and Pratt. I'm one of the attorneys for Paul Knox for this application. The other members of tonight's project team are, Jeff Anthony from the LA Group, the project's environmental consultant and engineer, Mr. Knox's personal representative, Jeffrey Schunard, Dave Willenbrach, also from the LA Group, and Sandra Allen, another attorney from my office. I guess we'd like to just, if we could, give the Planning Board sort of a thumb nail sketch of what's anticipated, what's being applied for, and, in fairness to the Board, and to the Planning Staff, and to the concerned members of the public, also perhaps drop a bombshell or two and tell you what's not being applied for, and what we don't seek approval of and what's not intended here. Briefly, Mr. Knox, as I suspect the Planning Board is well aware, owns one of the most significant pieces of land in the Town of Queensbury and is one of the largest, as we understand it, residential taxpayers in the Town of Queensbury. This property has beèn in the Knox family for many, many years, for tens of years. I believe his grandfather is who initially acquired most, if not all, of this property, and it's been in the family for all that time. Contrary to some other developments in the Town of Queensbury and in other towns as well, this is not a large scale major or maximum development by a professional development entity. This is really a proposal by an individual applicant to develop a portion of the property, the substantial property, that his family has held for many, many years, for which the carrying costs have become, as you can well imagine, quite substantial as well. It's, I guess the highlights of what we want to point out tonight are that this is a 25 acre parcel of land. It's in the Waterfront Residential One Acre zoning, so if a professional developer type entity came along, or if this property was to be sold to a professional developer type entity, presumably, they would be seeking the maximum possible, or maximum potential development of this property and, presumably, they would be seeking something along the lines of a 25 lot, or at least 25 unit development. 1'11 come back, in a minute, to the comrrents about possible cluster development, but whether you want to take a single family lot, individual lot approach, or a cluster development lot approach, presumably, this is 25 acres in a one acre zone, and if you're trying to maximize your development, here, you're going to be looking at, to come as close as you can to either 25 single one acre lots, or at least a 25 unit cluster development of some sort. Mr. Knox has given this long and careful thought and consideration, and has really come up with a plan that we believe is substantially less intrusive than any of the maximum development potential plans that might be presented to this Board. Obviously, this is only a 10 lot proposal, but it's very important that we realize that two of the proposed lots already have existing structures on them. So, in that sense, in terms of new structures, new traffic, and things like that, we're talking about eight lots only, not ten lots, in an area which could conceivably have as many as 25 lots. Let me just clarify that for a moment. There are two small portions of wetlands. Although they're not DEC designated Freshwater Wetlands, the LA Group has surveyed the site and found that there are two small wetland areas. So, when I talk about what good guys we are because we're looking for only 10 lots as opposed to 25 lots, let me back that down a little and suggest to the Board that it's more likely that we'd be looking at the order of 21 or 22 one acre lots, probably not the full 25, but the point remains, we think very valid and very compelling, that Mr. Knox has decided because he's going to remain in ownership, himself, of one of the lots, he's going be giving three of these lots to his children, okay. So, that leaves only six lots that will be sold at arm's length to whoever wishes to purchase them. Mr. Knox has made a decision, consciously, to not maximize the development potential of this property and to stay with these large scale lots which vary in size from about 1.3 acres to 3.5 acres, with the average lot size being right around 2 acres, which is obviously double that which is required by the zoning. I'd like to, I guess, address, if we could, what we feel are the highlights of the comments that have been raised by the Staff, by some of the other people that have commented, and by some of the concerned members of the neighborhood who have come here tonight. I guess, first, I'd like to drop the bombshell. The bombshell is, no deeded access to the 50 foot strip. Lot 9, on which that strip is located, the lakefront strip, is one of the three lots that Mr. Knox wishes to give to his three children. The three lots are Lot 9, which contains that 50 foot shorefront piece, or frontage, and Lots 2 and 3, nearest the existing Lot 1, which Mr. Knox intends to retain for his own use. So, the bombshell is, first and foremost, I told you I would also tell you what we don't seek approval for. There will not be deeded access on that 50 feet or anyplace else on the Knox holdings, for the 37 - --,,' remainder of these lots, to the extent that anybody feels that that may render these lots less marketable than if they did have deeded access, we would agree. That would make them less marketable. It will make the price, presumably, lower than if they did have lake access, but, again, it's important that we realize that Mr. Knox is only an existing land owner, but he and his children will be there for years to come, and they've made that decision. If. in fact, that decision is a foolish decision, from the business perspective, the lots won't sell, but that's Mr. Knox's problem, not the Town's problem or the Planning Board's problem and, presumably, that's, to the extent that the neighbors would prefer the lots not sell, that's to their advantage, actually. The existing plan, again, has been the subject of a great deal of internal debate with Mr. Knox and his consultants and several of the comments from Staff and from others have noted, obviously, there are proposed a series of some fairly long driveways to Knox Road, as opposed to, for example, an internal road that might service all of the lots. Keeping in mind that we're only allowing six lots to be sold at arm's length, we simply cannot justify the infra structure cost and expense of creating an internal road when only six lots will be sold at arm's length. Perhaps a professional development entity could, Mr. Knox cannot, and that's why we're proposing the driveways as we're proposing them. Again, keep in mind that we're talking about adding only eight new houses, in terms of traffic. So that Knox Road, to the extent that it's already used by whatever number of people it's used by, we're talking about eight new families, if you will, adding to the load on Knox Road and, obviously, we'll get into this at detail at Preliminary submission stage, but we contend that that's just not a significant addition. If we were looking at the 25 or 22 or 21 or whatever number of lots we might be considering, if, in fact, this were developed to its maximum potential. That would be three times what we're looking to add through this relatively minimal development scheme. I think I mentioned the wetlands. Some of the cOlllrents made about stormwater and wastewater controls, and this would tie in, also, with some of the cOlllrents made by the Planning Staff, the maps, the Town Resource Maps that you all have reviewed and that have been prepared so diligently over the years are certainly valid. We don't contest them, to the extent they paint a broad brush picture throughout the Town, but the LA Group has already done substantial on-site testing to make sure, and, well, this is how they came up with the proposed building areas, to make sure that each of those locations is amply well suited in both water supply sense, for wells, and for private, on-site septic systems. Jeff Anthony from the LA Group certainly can explain to you in a little bit more detail, the testing that's been done and the results that have been obtained, but just so you understand, this is not just something we're proposing with no homework being done, even at the preliminary Sketch Plan Stage. These specific locations on these specific sites have already been tested and have ample capacity for both the sewer, or septic I should say, and the water supply factors, and I guess those are the highlights of what I'd like to present, at this point. Mr. Anthony can tell you a little bit more about the testing that's gone on and what's been involved in coming up with this plan, and, as always, we welcome, and would be glad to try to respond to any questions that the Board may have. JEFF ANTHONY MR. ANTHONY-Thank you, Mark. You took away a lot of my explanation of the design. My name's Jeff Anthony from the LA Group. We are the consultants on the project for landscape, architectural, engineering, and environmental considerations. The project site, like Mark said, is 25 acres in size and Mr. Knox's intent was to really develop the property so that it could have a low density subdivision, development on it, with the intent of really locating structures high on a hill, which, the property is completely wooded and there's kind of a crest running down the center of the property and lots could be designed or configured so that units could get a glimpse of the lake looking either that way or this way, since this is on kind of a peninsula. That's one of the major concerns for the configuration of the building locations. Some of the work that we did in preparing this plan involves an extensive amount of on-site testing. We have had our soil scientist, who is an in-house soil scientist of 25, 30 years experience, do both on-site deep test pits and percolation tests. The results are in a report which I don't believe we forwarded on to you yet, but I can assure you that percolation rates throughout the areas proposed for sewage disposal, which are these light green colored square areas, are in the 10 to 25 minute range. Some being eight or so, most being in a 10 to 15. The soils are all of well graded gravelly loam. There are no real soil problems for sewage disposal on this piece of property. No bedrock was encountered anywhere's on the property and water was encountered only in test pit's when they got down, probably, eight to ten feet in some of the test pits. Our Staff also went out into the site and checked out the property for wetlands, like Mark mentioned. There are no DEC regulated wetlands on the property. There are two small areas of wetland, however, that would be considered by the Adirondack Park Agency or the Corps of Engineers. One is in this location, of Lot Number 3, and it's just this corner of Lot Number 3, right in here, and that's a little less than, well, it's just about an acre of that lot, and the other is right in this portion of Lot 9. Actually, the wetland extends on to some adjacent landowners property at that point and it is a pond with standing water in it with some immersed wetland vegetation around the edges. The proposal, here, is to keep, not subdivide the wetland. This wetland will stay completely within Lot 9. This wetland stays completely within Lot 3. They are not being sold out of the family. Therefore, it's our consideration or our opinion that the Adirondack Park Agency does not have jurisdiction over the subdivision of wetlands in this instance because they are remaining within the family. The only other things I could point out to you is that we have done traffic counts on the peak holiday weekend. We have not performed any analytical work on the implications of this project on the background traffic levels that we did survey over the Labor Day Weekend, but that will be forwarded to you as part of our next round of application materials. For Tom, we are planning on doing a detailed stormwater management plan for the project. We have not done that yet. We are not going to be asking for a waiver of that request from the Planning Board, so we will be providing 38 --- -- you with that data. In addition, we will be providing you with our full amount of background research on water quality. We have already tested wells on the site, one being on Lot Number 2, and we have that data available from testing labs and from the pump testing information we got from the well driller, and that data will be forwarded to you, also, as part of our program. I don't think I've got any other comments, but if you have any questions, we're here to answer them. MR. CAIMANO-Can I start? MR. CARTIER-Go right ahead. MR. CAIMANO-First of all, you always get the tough ones, right. I'm not sure whether it's because the Harris fiasco is in the air or whether I'm sitting here in a late, departed members chair who is prone be off the wall a little bit, or whether it was dealing with Mr. Knox ourselves, here, but my concern is, Mark, that we all play on level playing field, and I have to tell you that, from dealing with Mr. Knox in the past, I'm not sure that's so. I'm not sure, this system doesn't work unless all of us agree to play on the same field, and Mr. Knox has got to be able to play on that same field. If he says something, then we have to be able to believe him. If we tell him something, because of what the neighbors say or because of what we say, and he agrees to do it, then we have to believe him. I've got to tell you that you weren't here last time, but the last time Mr. Knox was here and I sat over there where Mr. Brewer is sitting, we got a bunch of stories, and we got a bunch of stories on a bunch of stories. So, when you tell me that you're going to do something, I believe the professionals in you, but I don't believe these people are going to be treated right, and I don't believe we're going to be treated right. Now, I may be wrong, but somebody has to convince me. We have to play on the same field, and if we're going to play on the same field, then we can keep moving on this thing, but if we're not, then I don't want to vote on this thing. I don't want to be any part of it. I sat here and had Mr. Knox tell me a story. He told us all a story, and he didn't care whether he told us that story or not. He doesn't care about the rules and regulations. He's Mr. Harris, who comes here and makes the game and plays the game and then decides what he's going to do. Fine. Don't come here then. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think, to add to that, understand that this Board has some significant input, the last time around, in that, that was disapproved. MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we have some control over this situation. MR. CAlMANO-I understand, but what's the sense of going through all this if we're not going to play on the same field. MR. CARTIER-I understand what you're saying. Do you want to go down the line, here. Ed, do you have any comments you want to make on this. MR. LAPOINT-Just general curiosity on how this relates to his application for the dock. The dock came first and then the subdivision, or the subdivision and then the dock. I mean, did he decide, when he didn't get the dock, that he wanted to subdivide all this property? I guess just general curiosity. MR. SCHACHNER-Let me see if I can try to answer Mr. LaPoint's question, but also, perhaps address Mr. Caimano's comments very briefly. I think we can get into a philosophical debate about the effectiveness of the system in which we all are operating, but I guess all I can say is that, Number One, Mr. Knox has, obviously, hired this team of professionals to present this application, seeking your approval. I can't, again, without getting into a philosophical debate, and also without drawing any analogies to the national incident which has recently occurred, Wttt:c'h has involved some credibility issues as I understand it, although I don't pretend to know much about nation~l politics, it's no more appropriate to subject Mr. Knox, or his professionals to a polygr~ph test or anything else than it is to engage in the philosophical debate that we're not going to engage in. I guess, Mr. Caimano, as Mr. Cartier says, you folks have an awful lot of control over the situation in several ways. You've obviously expressed what I hope is your personal perspective on this and not the Board's perspective. MR. CAIMANO-Right. No, no, it's.!!!l. perspective. MR. SCHACHNER-And which I would interpret as a credibility problem, I would suspect that we can get over that, but, in any event, as Mr. Cartier' points out, you folks have a, you're in the driver's seat, okay. You're the Planning Board. You're in the driver's seat in several ways. Way Number One is that, although we believe that we will submit to you a very competent, very thorough, very diligent application for what we believe is a good project and is certainly not the maximum development that could be sought, for which approval could be sought, here, you have a certain amount of discretion, and although we may disagree, if you end up denying this project, we may disagree and we may disagree so vehemently that we may challenge that denial and who knows how that will turn out, but the fact remains that you all are the decision makers, okay. It's our burden to give you the best application we can and to meet every standard that exists in the zoning and the subdivision regulations, but, ultimately, the ball really rests in your court and, secondly, to the extent you have specific concerns as we go through this process, obviously, this won't be a factor tonight, but to the extent you have specifi c 39 -- -- concerns as we go through this process, it's my experience with this Planning Board as well as others that from time to time you impose a condition or two on various approvals and, assuming as we must, we'll be optimistic, that ultimately you do approve the proposed subdivision, it's my suspicion that you may include a condition or two in those approvals and, ultimately, if in fact somebody's pulling the wool over the Planning Board's eyes, which has been my experience elsewhere, frankly, including towns in which I represent the Planning Board, then there will ensue an enforcement situation in which the Town of Queensbury is likely to flex its enforcement muscles, just as the towns that I represent have done so in the past, and I don't really have a better response than that, but I don't think we should pursue that at this time, and, Mr. LaPoint, I don't think I really addressed your question very specifically, but my understanding, and as Mr. Caimano indicates, I was not at all involved when Mr. Knox was here previously, and just so the record's clear, Mr. Caimano said I wasn't here. I mean, I was not involved. I wasn't representing Mr. Knox and not involved, I wasn't involved, but my understanding is that, at the time, as I understand it, Mr. Knox was proposing a dock on that portion of the property, and at the time already knew he wanted to give this lot to his son, and he still wants to do that, and I'm not standing here saying that he will never again seek approval from the Lake George Park Commission or this Board for a dock on that property for his son. His son may stand here some day, but his son's very small, but what I am saying is he's not seeking that approval now. What I'm also saying is that we are not talking about deeded access to that lot by anybody else. MR. LAPOINT-Again, to qualify my question, I was one of the two members of the seven of the Board who was in favor of that dock, and I don't recall any lot issue associated with that dock. It was just the 25 acre parcel, which is just, again, relevant to Mr. Caimano's question, is that I believed what I was hearing and was one of two of seven members to support that dock, even though he had plenty of dock space all around the lake, etc., etc. I felt like that was an isolated circumstance where he deserved hi s 50 feet, and now I look at thi sand, di d he know he was going to subdi vi de by ten? Di d he know he wanted that lot for his son? MR. SCHACHNER-The only thing I can say is I know for sure that he did not have this subdivision in mind at that time. He did not know it was going to be a 10 lot subdivision. I'm not sure if, at that time, it would be safe to say that he had absolutely no idea that he would ever need to subdivide this property, and I guess I'm not, since I wasn't involved, I'm not really comfortable going any further with the dialogue. MR. CAlMANO-Yes, we shouldn't hold you to. MR. LAPOINT-No. Again, if this is an individual lot, then it is, a dock's acceptable here, and, again, I'm just going through my thought process because I was at the center, against my colleagues. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. I appreciate that. That's certainly what's proposed. Meaning that that is an individual lot. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, again, but I put that in the context of the overall attitude expressed by my colleague. MR. MARTIN-Having thought that the proceedings of this weekend were a sham, I'm not going to make a sham out of these proceedings and get into a credibility issues in the context of a subdivision review, let me assure you. However, I can respect the gentleman's limitations on monies for a collector road or what have you, but I think this particular subdivision layout is horrible for this particular piece of property. I know you're trying to do the best you can with individual access and having the individual property owners responsible for that access, but I think you're going to create an incredible burden on them, in terms of establishing these driveways, and the resulting is going to be a nightmare. I mean, you've got so many road cuts on this road. I mean, this could be handled so much easier with a centralized access road with a cul-de-sac or something of that nature, especially given the topo that I'm seeing. This is just horrible and it really is taking a very nice piece of property and, I mean, we have all these flag shaped lots. I mean, I know, technically, he's in conformance with the Ordinance, I imagine he's meeting his minimum lot width requirements and so on, and he has the required entry way, the width for entry ways, but this is just horrible, and at this time that we can really, that's what subdivision review is meant to do, we can really make this a lot nicer than it is, if he can just rethink this, because this is just horrible. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Martin, I'd like to just respond to one tiny piece of that which is that, if we're talking about only six lots being sold at arm's length, and I don't know if I said this specifically or not, but it's not really just Mr. Knox's financial limitations that would impede the ability of making an internal collector road, I mean, I don't think, all though I've raised the specter of some more hefty developer coming along and seeking more of a development, I don't think anybody, no matter how they're funded, or how well, I should say, they're funded, would be able to financially justify an internal collector road, given, if you take as a given, that they're only going to develop six lots for arm's length sale. MR. MARTIN-No. I appreciate that you went to great extent in your presentation to provide us with that aspect, and I can appreciate that, but, boy, still, this is a beautiful section of the Town and a beautiful area of the Town, and to create lots of this configuration, to me, knowingly do it and go through this arduous process and have this as the end result is just, boy, these are horrible. 40 -- --..,.; MR. ANTHONY-Jim, let me answer one, give you some input on that. We did study an individual road going into the site, with a cul-de-sac at the end. I'm sure that the Town would not give us any relief on the cross section standards and the widths and all of the other requirements for a Town roadway. We would be putting a piece of roadway in this part of the Town which would be completely out of character with anything else around it, first of all, and secondly, we would be developing a rather wide, large, graded, paved highway, roadway through this piece of property, or at least to come in and have a cul-de- sac. If you look at the area and you look at the little driveways that kind of cut through the woods and traverse between and around trees and the character of what happens all around this piece of property, that's essentially what we would like to see happen here. We'd like to have the individual lot owners, if they elect, bend thei r driveway to save bi g trees, because they 1 ike the bi g trees. They're going to be making a very narrow carriage way. When I say narrow, I don't mean so narrow that you can't drive by it, but it's not going to be a two or three lane highway, roadway, that you can drive both ways on and park on one side and or do whatever, with paved gutters and other stuff. MR. BREWER-I think when you start to put your driveways in, they're going to have to meet the 15 foot width so that access can be obtained. MR. ANTHONY-Right, but the road can be. MR. CAlMANO-Wait a minute. The engineer wants to. MR. YARMOWICH-I guess I'd like to ask a couple of questions, because I think what Jim is saying can be translated into some terms that, one, there's going to be an enormous cost to each lot owner to extend electricity up there. I mean, a lot of these, you're talking 4, 5, 600 feet of electric line. They're all going to be individual services. Some of these driveways are so steep right now that, and the lengths and the visibility are such that what's going to happen, should two cars meet in that driveway. What's going to happen for snow removal, fire access, because you know now, you sat there and you heard that there was a 15 foot requirement placed on that four lot subdivision where it was relatively easy to deal with grades. The requirements for building thousands of feet of 15 foot driveway, as compared to a 22 foot section of standard Queensbury Wing Swale road with a cul-de-sac, you know, what I'm saying, here, is I think that this Board should ask for that evaluation that you did to see what it's going to look like. MR. MARTIN-I can't support this current configuration. I just can't. I can't knowingly enter, if this was something we were accepted or it was grandfathered or something, it would be horrible enough as it is, but, like I said, to knowingly go through this process which is designed to produce the best subdivision possible, this is just. MRS. YORK-If it were possible to cluster, do a cluster design, you could, conceivably, save the views for the individual property owners, limit the amount of blacktop, and the services required. MR. LAPOINT-I think I agree with the developer, though, that a Wing Swale, paved road in here would be just totally out of character, and would be much more objectionable than all of these little dirt trails. Driving through the area, that is the character of the area. Everyone in there has these, they curve around trees, they go left, they go right, and these are families. Two cars coming together, we do this at Hadlock Pond all the time, you stop, you know, you don't crash into someone else, and I think that running a cul-de-sac with a 22 foot wide Wing Swale wall road through the center of Assembly Point is just totally out of character, and I would agree on that point. MR. CARTIER-But, on the other hand, if you maintain a lot of the trees up there, that road won't be visible, or very little of it will be visible, anyway. MR. YARMOWICH-Very little of it would be. I think you'll find that, well, if individual stormwater management solutions are required for each of these driveways, the responsibility for maintaining that's going to rest with the individuals. The effectiveness of that and the potential impact to people who are downstream and reliant upon those controls to be maintained is not as well secured, if in fact, that it were a Town facility. MR. MARTIN-I know, first hand, you all know I'm building a house. I'm 300 feet of the road. I had to install a transformer, at my cost. It was $1900 to provide electrical service to that house, 300 feet off the road, at my cost, and it would be double that, because you'd need a transformer due to the power drops and things like that, after you get so many feet off the road. What you're saving Mr. Knox in not putting in the road, and then you're going to, on the other end, lower the cost of the lot, you know, the raw sale, the development expenses to actually place that house in this location, it starts to become a wash, as to if you were to build the cost of the road in up front, and recover that out of the lot, even though you only have six. I'd like to see the economic analysis of that. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but that's not our job. I don't see where we should even have any input on that at all. Like Mr. Schachner stated, I mean, if they're a wash, they're a wash. I don't really care whether they're economically feasible. 41 -- --- MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I guess we would submit that's sort of the applicant's province, to make that decision and if, in fact, it turns out, as I think I mentioned, if in fact it turns out that the proposal is prohibitively expensive, in terms of would be buyers, then would be buyers aren't going to buy, and I guess the only other comment, relating to the notion of the cluster, again, is if we talk about clustering, we're going to have to see that number being pushed way up in excess of 20 units. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me address that right now, because that's something I'm kicking around here. Seeking 21 units and getting 21 units are two entirely different things, and we have to recognize that. This property has some severe limitations and they've been outlined by Lee. What I'd like to see, and I agree with Mr. Martin. This bothers me something terrible, and I think you have to look at a clustering design, okay, and you may have to consider the number of units you can put in, but I don't see where the property is going to support 21 individual units, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if you cluster, Mr. Cartier, I would think it would be very easy, maybe I'll defer to Mr. Anthony, but easier than if you didn't cluster. MR. CARTIER-Possible, maybe not. MR. SCHACHNER-But easier than if you didn't cluster. MR. LAPOINT-And out of character. MR. SCHACHNER-And we think totally out of the neighborhood character. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, what I would like to see is a map of this property with the pieces of property that have some severe limitations on it outlined and a map of the property showing us where the highly suitable property is, okay. Secondly, with regard to deeded access to the lake, that does not prevent Mr. Knox from renting out present dock space to these owners. He can still provide dock space by way of rental without deeded access. So, we have to be, this goes back to Mr. Caimano's issue of credibility, here, is I don't want to provide Mr. Knox with a way around this issue, in terms of saying no deeded dock space, or no deeded access to the lake. I can rent you out a dock at the lake. I don't have to provide you with deeded access to the lake. I can do it simply by renting you out dock space. So, that's an issue that's going to have to be addressed, not necessarily tonight, but some time. I'm going to get shot down for this, maybe, but I'm going to say it anyway, dollar cost doesn't cut a lot of ice with me. I'm not about to approve a project simply because, approve a lousy project simply because a good plan would be too expensive. That's an issue that the owner of the property has to bear. So, how much something's going to cost to design doesn't cut much ice with me. I'm kind of sorry you put this much time into this thing. You guys have obviously put a lot of time and work into this project already, but I wish you'd come to us a little bit earlier, because I'm in agreement with Mr. Martin, here, I think we need to look at a cluster design, or at least some other alternative, and that's why I brought up the question of what, is that a 50 foot strip or a 45 foot strip? What popped into my head is maybe there's one place to cut the road in. I do not know. MR. MARTIN-The pond is there, the wetland. MR. CARTIER-The wetland? MR. MARTIN-You'd have to traverse that wetland if you were to access from there. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. CAIMANO-Is that shaded area wetland? MR. ANTHONY-No. The dark shaded area, these areas right here, are where slopes exceed 30 percent. These areas are where they are 15 to 30. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MR. ANTHONY-These are under 15. The wetland which is not highlighted in color or anything is really limited to that portion of Lot 3, and then the little pond right here. MR. CARTIER-By opening that map, you've answered my question as to what's good and what's not so good. I had problems with that map, figuring out exactly what that was. So, we do have that outlined to a certain extent. Is it fair to say, I'm just trying to get us narrowed down, here. Is it fair to say that our primary concern is the driveways and the road access into this thing? MR. CAIMANO-Right. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody have any problems with the development along the top of the ridge? MR. MARTIN-No. I think that's the best place to put it. I think that's been done well. I think it minimizes the impact on the neighbors and new houses by insulating the development with those trees and it will make, hopefully, your lots that much more attractive. 42 '- -./ MR. CARTIER-You know, you mentioned the fact that you want owners of individual lots to be able to zip around trees and so on and so forth, but by the same token, you're also talking about providing views of the lake from these places on this ridge, which is going to have to involve some cutting of trees. MR. BREWER-If he's going to sell each one of those lots individual, who is Mr. Knox to say where that individual can put that house? I understand what your plan is, but if I were to buy this house right here, or this lot, and it was going to cost me several thousand dollars to put a driveway back here, I I d put the house up here, if it was feas i b 1 e. I mean, you can't tell somebody where they can put their house. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, well I guess I think you can, but I'm not suggesting that we should. MR. BREWER-How can you? If they meet the setbacks, how could you tell, if you sell me this three acre piece of land and I go to the Town for a building permit, you can't tell me I can't put it here, if I own it. MR. DUSEK-That may be one of the conditions or two that Mr. Schachner referred to earlier, in terms of, when you issued a subdivision approval, I think you might have the authority to. MR. BREWER-There's regulations as to what you can build and where you can, I don't think where you can build, is there? MR. DUSEK-If there were environmental concerns and there were legitimate subdivision concerns, I think you could designate a given area where a house could be built. MR. SCHACHNER-If I could add to that, without getting into detail, I would submit that there are actually a variety of ways that if you wanted to exercise that level of control over a subdivision, you probably could, but frankly Mr. Brewer, to some extent, we share your own sentiment, in that what we would propose for the Planning Board is that we have identified on each lot, your concern should be, in our opinion, when you're approving a subdivision, is there some place on the lot, is it a buildable lot, essentially. Is it not just barely buildable, but is it an adequate, satisfactory buildable lot so that you're not approving a subdivision where somebody down the road's going to be taken to the cleaners because they unwittingly purchased a lot and it turns out it's not a buildable lot. So, therefore, our advice to this client and, frankly, to anybody in this capacity, is to make sure that there is an adequate, suitable, appropriate place on the lot to be designated as a potential building site, that meets every standard there is, you know, stormwater, wastewater, septic, water supply, everything there is. Typically, we suggest to Planning Boards that you're approving the subdivision to this number of lots with the lots at this configuration with the knowledge and understanding that a subsequent purchaser may well come back and say, you know, I'd li ke to put mY actual building here instead of there. That person, obviously, has to meet the requirements for a building permit, has to show that where they propose to put the house is also a perfectly suitable building lot from every sense of the term. MR. CAIMANO-The key, here, is that if we looked at this thing as a subdivision of land, would you approve it if those roads weren't there and those little rectangles weren't there showing where the house is? That's the key. Would you approve it? MR. MARTIN-No, no. That's not my concern. MR. CAIMANO-We have no, as much as I admire what you're saying, right to say that it's going to cost $50,000 to put electricity, and, that's not our decision. That is an economic decision of the subdivider. That's his or her decision to make. The question I have, though, is, absent any other thing and you've convinced me, if that was simply a subdivision of land, he took 25 acres and he was going to subdivide it with those lines, take out the rectangles, take out the roads, would we approve it. Are they buildable? MR. MARTIN-I think that there is a weakness in this Ordinance, in that, we only require 40 or 50 foot access ways on major road, when we deal with lot width. I think the Ordinance should be, in my personal opinion, lot frontage is the key. There should be minimums of 100 feet or 150 feet, maybe in special environmental areas like we're trying to protect, here, with waterfront areas it should be greater than that. MR. CAlMANO-But, Jim, we have to deal with is, not what ifs. MR. MARTIN-Right. I agree, but I just don't like these flag shaped lots with little narrow accesses. It's just not good planning practice. MR. CAlMANO-I know I sound like a senator, but I'll ask the question again. If this was a subdivision of 25 acres and those rectangles weren't there and the roads weren't there, would we approve this? MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. MARTIN-I would still have a problem with it. 43 "--- --/' MR. CARTIER-No. I wouldn't. MR. BREWER-Because we're planning, Nick. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. CAIMANO-That's what I want to find out. I'm trying to get rid of this stigma of where you can build a house on a lot. MR. MARTIN-No, no, no. I wasn't concerned about that so much as. MR. CAlMANO-No, but Tim was. MR. BREWER-I was just. MR. CAlMANO-And rightfully so, but I think we're, you wouldn't approve it? MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. CAlMANO-Why? MR. LAPOINT-Again, you want to see that the sites are indeed developable in every criteria, stormwater management, etc., etc. MR. CAlMANO-But that's an issue they can deal with, I think. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, yes, and I agree with that. MR. LAPOINT-That they are demonstrating to us now with this particular plan. It just, and I don't want to engineer this, but if you had a common access, you have, what, four driveways within 100 feet? If you came off, and just off the road 50 feet and branch from there. MR. CARTIER-Well, lets be careful, here. What we're looking at is a bunch of flag lots, lets not miss that. Flag lots are specifically discouraged in the Town of Queensbury. Now, we kind of, at least I do, I kind of grunt when we get one flag lot buried some place, but we're looking at a bunch of flag lots, here. So, we're being asked to approve, conceptually, something that is specifically discouraged in the Town. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Now, what I was just saying was just one way around that. Again, it may not be feasible, but if you had one common access, 22 feet wide, and then went in 50 feet and then branched off with one, two, three, four, and I don't know if you could do that or not. Again, that may answer some concerns. I don't think I would want to see six units clustered. I rather see ten units spread. So, I would disagree with my other colleagues, in that I think clustering eight units with an official road in that area would be the wrong thing to do and I don't want to hear comment on that, but this is more in character with what exists. MR. MARTIN-If you notice, in my comments, I never mentioned the word "cluster". MR. LAPOINT-No. MR. MARTIN-I still think you can maintain the same number of nice, single family, detached homes on the same number of lots with a common access road up through the center of the property. I still believe that, and maintain your views onto the lake from each side, with your road coming into the center and have a rectangularly shaped or more square shaped lots along each side of the road. That was what I had in mind, not clustering. Clustering, if you need it, for economics, but. MR. CARTIER-Lets see if I can move this thing along. What I'm hearing, I'm getting a sense of the Board, at least a majority of the Board is they're not happy with this design. This is one of many possible designs. What I'm hearing the Board say is they don't like this one, okay. So, we're at a point where we have to come up with this one. I think we're wasting each other's time if you sit here trying to defend this plan and we sit here telling you we don't like it. This could go on all night, okay, and 1'm not about to get involved in something like that. I'm hearing clustering. I'm hearing some other possibilities. For me, lid like to see the elimination of this flag lot thing, or at least it be kept to a minimum. I think you've got a good handle on what portion of the property is developable and what is not, and you've narrowed in on that stuff, but I think there's another, there's got to be another way of doing this. It's going to get by this Board, because I'm hearing half a vote, here. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I think it's important that they understand everyone's concerns. MR. CARTIER-I agree, but lets not spend our time, here, going back and forth on this particular plan when this just isn't sellable to the Board. Fair enough? 44 '--' -- MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but I'd like to ask a couple of questions if I could? I think, following along Mr. LaPoint's comment, I mean, with the Planning Board, and I appreciate that we're sort of, obviously, we're dealing with somewhat divergent views, but to the extent we're getting the input from everybody, that's obviously helpful. We have to convince, ultimately, at least four of seven. What would the Board members think about preliminarily, and I think this is following along with that comment, some type of notion of shared driveway access, by which I mean, for example, adjacent lots, two adjacent lots sharing ~ driveway? MR. CARTIER-Two adjacent lots? MR. SCHACHNER-Pairs of adjacent lots. MR. ANTHONY-For instance, if we took the long piece of property to Lot 9 and gave it to Lot 10, and created Lot 9 back here, had a driveway come up, and Lot 10, obviously, it went across Lot 10's road property, but Lot 9 had an easement across that, then it's by easement, and you have one driveway serving two lots. We would, essentially, have the number of driveways. MR. CARTIER-Then you've got a mortgage problem. Then you've got a bank mortgage problem. MRS. YORK-Yes, you can't subdivide unless you have frontage on a Town road. MR. ANTHONY-I live on a piece of property just like that, and it's mortgaged. MR. CARTIER-But I think somebody walking in to get a mortgage is going to have a problem. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, but that's not our concern. That is not our concern. MRS. YORK-Yes. Maybe you could come up with a couple of alternatives without a lot of effort. MR. CARTIER-I don't have any problem with what you've got on the right, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know if anybody's got any problems with any of the lots at this end, okay, the right side, south side, correct? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Up through Lot 4, it's all right. It looks pretty good. MR. SCHACHNER-Going south to north? MR. CARTIER-From where Knox Road first comes in, including. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Starting at the south end. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-One is certainly fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Two is, this is my personal opinion, fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if anyone disagrees, lets hear from him. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Three is reasonable. 5, 6, 7 is the worst. Eight is okay. and ten's not bad. Four is reasonable, but you start running into problems with I don't see much of a problem with that. Nine is horrible, MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we're talking, from Lot 5 on needs work. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm sorry, Mr. Cartier? MR. CARTIER-If I'm hearing Jim right, we're saying from Lot 5 on it needs work. We can live with one through four. MR. SCHACHNER-And eight, also. MR. CARTIER-Well, when you start messing around with five on, you may have to change eight, too. MR. SCHACHNER-But I mean as they're currently configured, eight and ten are not troublesome, I take it. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but I think in re-working some of those other ones, you're going to have to re-work those, too. 45 --" MR. SCHACHNER-That's true. MR. CARTIER-I think what I'm saying is maybe, from Lot 5 on, you take a look at that whole chunk and you re-work that. MR. LAPOINT-Lots 5, 6, and 7. You have four cuts at 150 feet. MR. MARTIN-Yes, you run the risk of some tremendous water runoff problems down those roads. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, they're dirt roads. MR. MARTIN-Everybody says that we have limited, a Planning Board's jurisdiction only goes so far, but that's what the Master Plan concept is all about. We're supposed to not purposely give people $4,000 bills to establish utilities to their properties if they want to buy. I mean, that's why we're here. MR. CAIMANO-I don't deny that. MR. MARTIN-No, but that's a Planning consideration. If you can avoid that, that's why you're here doing this. That's a public concern. MR. LAPOINT-I don't think so. MR. SCHACHNER-Could I ask one more, sort of big picture question? Is there a strong feeling, Mr. Knox feels very strongly, as I understand it, Mr. Knox feels very strongly about, at least he did initially when we spoke with him about the notion of restricting the number of lots to this, you know, basically a handful plus one. MR. CARTIER-Wonderful. I don't think anybody's got a problem with that. MR. MARTIN-I like, think the idea of 10 lots on this property is. MR. SCHACHNER-All right, but just so the Board can appreciate the tension of the situation in which, you know, when we try to advise him, we also assume, obviously, that the neighbors would prefer to see something on the order of 10 lots or, basically, we make the general assumption that the smaller number the better, from the neighbors perspective. I mean, that's how we all feel from wherever we 1 i ve . MR. CARTIER-Zero is good, and it goes downhill from there. MR. SCHACHNER-Exactly, but I guess what I'm trying to gauge is the strength of the Board's feeling on that issue, if you can give me any guidance, versus the notion of trying to look at some of these other a 1 ternati ves, and the reason is because I think that, once we start talking about common access or internal roads or clustering, we're talking about, not because of Mr. Knox's finances, no matter who the applicant is, I think we're talking about increasing the number of proposed lots and/or units. So, I'm trying to get informal, I understand nonbinding, preliminary read from the Board as to how you weigh those two things out, because I do see a tension there. MR. CARTIER-Speaking for me only, I can see, if we go to a cluster design, the possibility of increasing the number of dwelling units up there, but it would be tough for me to accept 21 up there, because, look, we're not talking about, we've essentially eliminated four lots from the discussion, okay, do you understand what I'm talking about, in terms of the south end? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-So, now we're talking about from Lot 5 on. So, we're not talking about, I don't think, packing 21 units on those remaining five lots. MR. SCHACHNER-No way. We're definitely not talking about that. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but I, personally, I can live with some moderate increase in dwelling units. I don't know, at this point, how I would define the term "moderate", but you understand what I'm saying to you? MR. SCHACHNER-But that's still helpful input. Do other members feel similarly. MR. LAPOINT-No. I don't think we're going to up in that number. I would disagree. I think that you are going to have a lot more trouble getting more than 10. MR. SCHACHNER-Anyone else? MR. CARTIER-So, we've just cancelled each other out, which is just fine. 46 -- -- MR. SCHACHNER-So, there's three more. Anybody else have a strong feeling on the issue of going up? MR. MARTIN-Number of units? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. CAIMANO-The less, the better. MR. LAPOINT-That's right, and 10, you figure is the starting point. MR. CAIMANO- You've got to remember somethi ng, we're not, and I know you know thi s , but I'll say it anyway. MR. SCHACHNER-Your job is not to plan this subdivision. MR. CAlMANO-Our job is not the economic viability of Mr. Knox, either. Our job is to protect the Town. That's alL MR. MARTIN-I would not be opposed to seeing more potential units on the parcel, overall. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Brewer? MR. BREWER-I would not be opposed to, no, I don't think I'd be opposed to more. I don't know how many more, though. MR. MARTIN-I appreciate what you've tried to do, here, but. MR. LAPOINT-I'm opposed to more and clustering. I'm opposed to both ideas. MR. CAIMANO-Me, too. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm sorry? MR. LAPOINT-I'm opposed to more units than 10 and clustering, and any type of 22 foot wide Wing Swale. MR. MARTIN-I'm opposed to clustering. I do agree it's out of character for that. MR. SCHACHNER-Am I safe in assuming that the member that has departed is Mr. Hagan? MR. MARTIN- Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And that the member that is missing is Mrs. Pulver? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Unless anybody has any questions, we would like to just thank you for your patience and your input. We don't have anything else to add. MR. CARTIER-Well, we've got some work to do, here. MRS. YORK-Are you asking to be tabled, or are you asking to be denied? MR. CARTIER-We have to take some action. MR. SCHACHNER-We'd propose tabling. MR. CAIMANO-Lets table it. MR. CARTIER-Do you want to table it? Do you have enough information from this Board to come in with a design that you think is going to? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I mean, we've got substantial input. We have to go back and advise the client and think about some options. MR. CARTIER-In spite of what I said about dollar cost, I guess I'm kind of contradicting myself, here, is I hope you don't put a ton of money into a redesign, here. I know what you're trying to do, in terms of the detail, but remember, we are at Sketch Plan, conceptual plan only. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, there's a problem, Mr. Cartier, which I've long felt, personally, and that is that, if you look at your checklist for what we need to submit for Sketch Plan review, we can't do something on the back of a napkin and come in here and say, okay gentlemen, and if Mrs. Pulver is here, ladies, 47 ~ -- what do you think about this proposal. We personally would prefer, I think, the opportunity to appear before you with a minimal amount of re-working, but that's very difficult to do, in light of the current regulations. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. You've spent all the money, the testing, you've got your survey. You've spent 80 percent of your money right through final right now, I would imagine. So, you've got all your data and that's a CAD drawing and you just fix it up, right? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the answer is yes, but, Mr. LaPoint, while you're speaking, Mr. Martin is making a proposal that we would endorse. MR. CARTIER-Let me just see if I can run down a 1 i st for you, here, of the concerns, and I may have missed some, and if I have, pick them up. I don't mean to editorialize on these at all. These are just things that have been raised. MR. CAIMANO-Why don't you put it in terms of a motion, then, to table, and read them out, instead of doing it twice. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, lets do it that way. MR. CARTIER-Well, I want to be sure we all agree with this list. MR. CAIMANO-We'll tell you if we don't. Why read it twice? That's all I'm saying. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SKETCH PlAN SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: For the following reasons and suggestions: So, the applicant can consider revisions to Lots 5 through 10 to minimize the flag shape nature of the lots, to minimize the cuts off the access road, to address Planning concerns, to address Engineering concerns as spelled out, to address drainage concerns that have been raised. Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: MR. SCHACHNER-Question, do I still understand that eight and ten, as currently configured, are not objectionable? MR. CAlMANO-Yes, but I don't know how you're going to get around that. MR. MARTIN-I don't know how you can change the other ones without effecting those. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I just want to make sure I understand correctly. MR. CARTIER-Lets give you a big chunk of land to mess with, okay, five through ten. AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver MR. CAIMANO-One last comment. I opened it with a comment. You answered it. As far as I'm concerned, that comment is dead. It's all done. MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you all very much. MR. CARTIER-We have to go into Executive Session, here, to discuss personnel matters. MOTION TO 60 INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MITERS, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver 48 '- '- MOTION TO COlE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 15th day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Caimano, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 49