Loading...
1991-10-22 --- U ,/ IJ,IEENSBURY PlANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGUlAR MEETING OCTOBER 2210. 1991 INDEX Subdivision No. 14-88 FINAL STAGE Hickory Acres 2. Site Plan No. 46-91 Dr. Al Kristensen 3. Subdivision No. 12-1991 FINAL STAGE Andrew and Eileen Marissal 3. Subdivision No. 10-1991 FINAL STAGE Alene M. Brown 4. Site Plan No. 48-91 Alice MacLean James 5. Site Plan No. 49-91 Woodbury's 7. Petition for a Change of Zone P5-91 Thomas J. Farone & Son, Inc. 7. Petition for a Change of Zone P6-91 Garth Allen d/b/a Bay Meadows Corp. 18. Site Plan No. 50-91 Joyce and Art Buckley 23. Subdivision No. 13-1991 FINAL STAGE Rosaire Gaudreau 24. Site Plan No. 51-91 Dr. Randall S. Lockhart 25. Subdivision No. 14-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Daniel D. Lewis 31. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. '- I -'" IJ,IEENSBURY PuutNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGUlAR MEETING OCTOBER 221D, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES MARTIN NICHOLAS CAIMANO EDWARD LAPOINT TIMOTHY BREWER SENIOR PlANNER-LEE YORK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH TOWN ATTORNEY-PAUL DUSEK STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-Before we get into the regular agenda, we have some other minor items we're going to take care of. First of all, if there's anyone here for Site Plan 49-91. Woodbury Lumber, for construction of a fence, that has been withdrawn. CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 17th, 1991: Page 27, Mr. Harris' second comment from the top sIb Mr. Cartier, not Mr. Harris MR. CARTIER-Okay. We'll hold on the 26th of September minutes. Apparently, not everybody has those. MOTION 10 ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 17TH, 1991 AS AMENDED, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-We have two minor items pending from past action, here, one minor and the other one not so minor, necessarily. You have a letter in front of you dated October 22nd, 1991 from VanDusen and Steves, IIDear Board Members: On April 23, 1991, we received conditional approval on Hickory Acres Subdivision and it looks like all conditions have been satisfied. However, as it is at the end of said six months, we are seeking a 30 day extension of your approvals to allow time for filing of said map." Do we have anything on record that says that all of the conditions have been met? MR. YARMOWICH-We received some revised information from the applicant. They had met all of the stipulations, with the exception of one item regarding the stormwater management. I have prepared a letter. The Planning Department has received it, and in there we detailed some of the outstanding concerns, hoping that they can finalize that with us very soon. MR. CARTIER-Is this Final approval that we're talking about, an extension of Final? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MRS. YORK-An extension of his ability to file his mylar. MR. CAIMANO-But he still hasn't completed his application? MR. CARTIER-There's still some outstanding matters, and this is a final? MR. CAIMANO-From '88? MR. YARMOWICH-The Final approval was April 23rd, 1991. to file the plat. Taking care of the comments and so regardless of whether or not they were complete as of properly filed with the County offices. They have six months from that date in which forth will require them to have an extension, tonight, in order to make sure that they were MR. CARTIER-And his six months is up tomorrow? 1 '------' -' MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Well, what we're doing, in effect then, is extending, if the Board so chooses, another conditional approval at Final. If we do not extend it, what happens, he starts from scratch. Well, what's the Board's pleasure, here? MRS. PULVER-What were the outstanding? MR. CARTIER-Just one stormwater management item is left. MR. YARMOWICH-Just to remind the Board some of the areas that caused the project to go on were DEC Freshwater Wetlands permits and the stormwater management system which, originally, was cited in those wetlands and then deleted from the project and then resolved to the satisfaction of DEC. We still had some outstanding engineering concerns, which they have submitted some information on and have yet to satisfy all of those, but the relationship with the Freshwater permit from DEC, as well as his complying with the Town's Stormwater Management Ordinances gave them the need to refine their design to comply with everybody's requirements. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, if we extend this approval, I guess we're going to have to extend it with stipulations. MR. CAlMANO-Thestipulation is that we want to see a written report from you that it's completed. MR. MARTIN-I was going to suggest that within that extension, that we maybe even set a date that they should have these things in, prior to the 30 day expiration. Maybe, like, a couple of weeks from now have the remaining issues resolved. MR. CARTIER-In your awareness of the situation, does two weeks give them enough time to get this stuff taken care of and submitted? MR. YARMOWICH-It should. MR. CAlMANO-Well, I don't even think that's a germane question. They've had six months. MRS. PULVER-Well, part of it was satisfying DEC, right? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, that was the initial step, before they could even come to this Board for Final approval. There were several tablings between the time period of December through March, in order to make sure the DEC permit was acquired. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Well, what's the Board's pleasure, here? MR. CAlMANO-Lets approve an extension with a written report by the first meeting of November. What's the date of the first meeting, Lee? MRS. PULVER-November's first meeting is the 19th. MRS. YORK- Than k you. MOTION TO EXTEND APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION 10. 14-88 HICKORY ACRES, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: In order to allow time for filing of his map, on the condition that on or before the November 19th Planning Board meeting, and the applicant show written proof to the Planning Department that all outstanding items have been complied with. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CAIMANO-Just a word for the record. We talked about this at the last meeting, regarding these conditional approvals, why we lose control of this. I mean, just to let everybody know, we lose control. We're trying to be nice guys, but we lose control. This is a thing that started in '88 and it's still not completed. It's kind of scary. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. The other item, going back to last week's agenda, we had Site Plan 46-91, Dr. Al Kristensen, to construct a 28 ft. by 28 ft. addition for living room and kitchen area, no bedrooms, on Fitzgerald Road, Glen Lake area, and we tabled this in order to get a letter of intent. One of the things that was required was that the lots be joined and we said that we wanted a letter of intent 2 ------ ,----- from the with regard to that joining of lots. We have that letter in front of us from Michael O'Connor, attorney for the applicants, dated October 17th. You have that in front of you. We also have, Tom, attached to that is a letter from you, dated October 18. This was after last Tuesday's meeting, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Mr. Barber, you're here. Can you address Tom's letter, here, just to clear this thing up? DANIEL BARBER MR. BARBER-Daniel Barber for Dr. Kristensen. Good evening. We just discussed that. I had those in the calculations, but, do you see it, five minutes per inch, there? MR. YARMOWICH-What's the source of that information, Mr. Barber? MR. BARBER-Okay. That's test on site. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. Then that's the same as what the calculation's based on, so that the previous comments are satisfactorily addressed. MR. CARTIER-So, your October 18 letter is taken care of, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, it is. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. I guess we are at a point where can entertain a motion with regard to this application. MR. CAIMANO-Have we completed the SEQRA? MR. CARTIER-Yes. That was done prior to, we did the Lead Agency status for the Zoning Board. SO, SEQRA was completed. MR. CAlMANO-So, all you need is a motion to approve, or not? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PINt NO. 46-91 DR. AL KRISTENSEN, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: To construct a 28 ft. by 28 ft. addition for living room and kitchen areas, no bedrooms, with the stipulation that the Little and O'Connor letter of October 17th be made a part of the motion. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Pulver OLD BUSINESS: EXPEDITED MAillR SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1991 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A ANDREW AND EILEEN MARISSAL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE MOON HILL ROAD FOR A SUBDIVISION OF INtO INTO 2 LOTS. THERE WILL BE NO DEVELOPMENT. ALL UTILITIES ARE INSTALLED, ALL UNITS ARE EXISTIflG. THERE IS ONE MOBILE HOlE AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY. CROSS REFERENCE: USE VARIANCE NO. 56-1991 AND AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-1991 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-12 LOT SIZE: 2.5 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REWlATIONS MR. CARTIER-This is for Final Stage, Expedited Matter. We've conducted a SEQRA Review and a public hearing. Does anyone have any questions or comments? If not, we can entertain a motion on this application. IÐTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1991 ANDREW AND EILEEN MARISSAL, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For a subdivision of land into 2 lots. There will be no development. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE HOWARD KRANTZ 3 '--' ---./ MR. KRANTZ-My clients tell me that they brought the map this evening? MRS. YORK-I have the mylar. MR. KRANTZ-You have the mylar? So the time for signing is, how does that work, Lee? MRS. YORK-The Chairman will sign it at his earliest convenience, and I'll call the applicant. MR. CARTIER-What's tomorrow, Wednesday? Do you have it in the office? MRS. YORK-I have it right here. MR. CARTIER-I'll sign it this evening. MR. KRANTZ-That's what I was wondering, if that would be possible. MRS. PULVER-Howard, do they want to take it with them? MR. KRANTZ-Well, I think they'd like to, if possible, or maybe during the break. My clients thank you very much. It was expedited and it was appreciated, and you should get credit where it's due. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. EXPEDITED MAmR SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1991 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ALENE M. BRO'" bWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF RIDGE ROAD AND CLEMENTS ROAD TO FURTHER SUBDIVIDE LOT 3 OF PREVIOOSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION 10. 12-1990, APPROVED ON JAflUARY 22, 1991. TAX MAP NO. 27-3-1.2 LOT SIZE: 11.02 ACRES SECTION SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS MR. CARTIER-Okay. Again, this is Final Stage. We have done the SEQRA Review on this. Unless the Board has any questions with regard to this matter, we can entertain a motion. MRS. YORK-I would just like to mention one minor item, and I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to ~ntion it to the applicant. Do you have your Staff Notes? Did you pick them up? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK-Just a minor item. Please add to the mylar the school district that it's in. That's one of the conditions that is supposed to be on the mylar. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is there somebody who is here to represent the applicant? You are here. MRS. YORK-And if he could just do that, we will be happy to facilitate this. MARK BOMBARD MR. BOMBARD-My name is Mark Bombard. I work for Coulter & McCormack, and I represent the BroWns in the situation. I don't think I have a copy of the Staff Notes. MRS. YORK-They're right here. Mark, you can pick these up, and they're available in the offic!e the day before the meeting, for future reference, and I'm real sorry I forgot, tonight, to mention this to you. It's just a very minor thing, and we can still sign tomorrow. MR. BOMBARD-Okay. I have the copies of the mylar with me, but, if this is the only change, then I will change thi s and I wi 11 have them ready by tomorrow morning, or I coul d actually put them on the mylar tonight, if you would like. MR. CARTIER-If you want to put them on the mylar tonight and catch me in between, here, I'll be glad to sign it. MR. BOMBARD-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and that will take care of that. So, we are at a point where we can entertain a motion to include an addition to the mylar with regard to school district boundaries. Would somebody care to make that motion? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1991 ALENE M. BROWN, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: 4 '---' -- To further subdivide lot 3 of previously approved Subdivision No. 12-1990, approved on January 22nd. 1991. with the provider that the mylar be adjusted for fire and school district boundaries. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MRS. YORK-If I may just take a moment to address the Board. The reason that, typically, we don't sign the mylar at the meeting is because, usually, applicants do owe recreation fees and they p~y the recreation fee and then they receive their mylar. In the case of the two previous subdivisions, that was not the case, just to make you aware of that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. So, the mylars, in effect, are held hostage until such time as the recreation fees are paid? MRS. YORK-That's correct. .,,'" NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 48-91 TYPE II WR-lA ALICE MCLEAN JAMES OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE PILOT ICfIOB ROAD, ¡WARNER BAY lAKE GEORGE TO RECONSTRUCT EXISTING SEASOfIAL RESIDENCE TO INCREASE 6 FT. AREA BY 500 ~. FT. INCREASE CEILING HEIGHT IN LOFT AREA. (WARREN coum PuutNING) TAX MAP NO. 19-1-29 LOT SIZE: O.2± ACRES SECTION 179-79 F JOSEPH LANARO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 48-91, Alice MacLean James, October 21, 1991, Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 "The site plan is for reconstruction of an existing structure on the same footprint. The only addition of space will be the ceiling height in a 10ft area. The Board $hould be aware that the application and EAF show a minor inconsistency. The documents state in ona case that the residence is to expand six feet and in others four feet. This is a Type II action under SEQRA since it is reconstruction of a facility in kind on the same site. The applicant has supplied both a long EAF and a short EAF. The square footage of the increase is, however, consistent at ± 500 sq. ft. The zoning district is WR-IA, and the lot size is ± .2 acres. The applicant has installed a holding tank on the property and has received a septic variance. Given today's regulations this property would be difficult to develop, however, the applicant does have the right to reconstruct what is in existence. This project was reviewed with regard to the criteria for a site plan. 1. The site is already designed and this will be a reconstruction of existing facilities. 2. Vehicular access is off of Pilot Knob Road. No modification of existing access is anticipated. 3. Off street parking and loading will not be changed. 4. Pedestri an access wi 11 not be altered. 5. Storm dra i nage wi 11 not be modifi ed. Water saving devices will be installed. A drainage swale is provided for on the property. 6. A holding tank was recently installed. Water is taken from Lake George. 7. No new plantings are proposed. 8. Fire access will remain the same. 9. The seasonal high ground water is at a depth of 1.8 ft. A site inspection showed that the cellar or footprint was receiving waves from the lake. This situation appears to have been in existence for many years." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Engineering Comments, please, Tom. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, October 15, 1991, "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Calculations addressing holding tank flotation should be provided. 2. Sediment and erosion control measures during construction should be indicated. II MR. CARTIER-Thank you, and we have a letter from Warren County Planning, approval with no comments. Sir, would you identify yourself, please. MR. LANARO-Good evening. My name is Joseph Lanaro. I'm with C.1. Male Associates and I'm here representing Alice James. The inconsistency that was described was a typographical error on the application. It was to read, seasonal residence to increase 10ft area, not six foot area. So, I brought some copies of that for you to pass around. I did provide four copies of the calculations for buoyancy analysis. Considering the as built conditions in the field, two additional bals pads were provided in a half inch strap, and, based on that analysis, we have a factor safety of approximately 2.14. and I brought some copies of the calculations for you so you can review that. To address the soil erosion plans, I highlighted some general notes on the site plan which indicate provisions for the contra~tors responsibility to maintain surface runoff on the site. We didn't indicate any specific measures beçause the area of impact and the type of disturbance that was anticipated wouldn't yield very much disturb~nce. 5 '---' -./ MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think, also, that addresses, however, being sure that nothing, since you are so close to the lake, in the process of re-construction, that nothing get into the lake. MR. LANARO-Yes. I was informed that the contractor intends to do a more manual demolition of the building than mechanical, in other words, taking it down piece by piece. So, that way we would not impact the lake by losing any material to the lake. Special care will be placed, at the contráctor's responsibility, to insure this during the actual construction phases of the project. MR. CAlMANO-Which is going to be when? MR. LANARO-Well, what we're intending on doing is demolition this fall, while the lake level i!s low. There is intended some foundation repairs after the building has been removed. So, that's why we 'didn't want to wait until this winter when we would have ice on the lake. It would, therefore, mi!nimize anything going into the lake, but that would make it very difficult and costly to do the foundation repairs. So, we're targeting, as soon as we receive our approvals, is to seek the demolition permit and then start construction, foundation repairs, and then construction of the residence. The residence is intended to be completed in the fall, or in spring, sorry. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The foundation repairs are along the lake edge, too? MR. LANARO-All the way around the perimeter, I would suppose. I'm not familiar with the structural components of the project. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LANARO-Would you like to review the calculations, or, I could just submit them to you now? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, a factor safety of 2.14 is pretty liberal for the type of thing being installed. It's something that probably should be looked at. MR. LANARO-New York State requires a minimum factor safety, for hydrostatic lift, of 1.25. MR. YARMOWICH-It's quite a liberal allowance that's been made in the design. MR. CARTIER-Okay. The question is, are you satisfied, or? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, I am. MR. LAPOINT-Why don't you give the engineer a copy of the calculations anyway, for his records. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, for my records. This is not something you can really do too big of a screw up with. It either works or it doesn't. MR. CARTIER-Well, it sounds to me like it ought to be called anti flotation device. MR. CAIMANO-Well, the danger, here, is they ought to construct during the winter time when there's ice on the lake, right? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, they're anti flotation measures. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you for that clarification. MR. LANARO-Well, the tank is actually placed in about five foot of solid rock. We had to do some blasting to complete the excavation. So, that's also considered, the fact that there's quite a bit of rock in that area. You're only looking at about four feet of soil over rock. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is this building going to be higher than the present building? MR. LANARO-It's going to be approximately four feet higher. The reason being, there's an existing 10ft area, the proposed architectural plans showed an increased pitch to accommodate a new dormer, and increasing the 10ft area by an additional 500 square feet of living space. So, based on that increased peak or the increased pitch, the peak is approximately four feet higher. There's elevations, and an architectural rendition of the elevations of the building, what she intends to do. There's some modifications to it, but I don't have that on the board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. 1'11 open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd care to comment on this application. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COtIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 6 "--' -- MR. CARTIER-Do the Board members have any questions or cOlllllents? Okay. If not, we can entertain a SEQRA Review on this. MRS. YORK-It's a Type II. MR. CARTIER-It's a Type II, so we don't have to, even though it's right on the edge of Lake George. It's not a Critical Environmental Area? MRS. YORK-Because it's a Type II action under SEQRA. It doesn't matter. If it was an Unlisted action under SEQRA, then it would become a Type I. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That being the case, if the Board has no further questions or cOlllllents, we can entertain a motion. I think we want to stipulate in the motion Tom's last comment, with regard to sediment and erosion control measures. Lee, have all your cOlllllents been satisfied? MRS. YORK-Yes. There's nothing that's going to change. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Would anyone care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PINt NO. 48-91 ALICE MCLEAN JAMES, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: To reconstruct existing seasonal residence to increase 6 ft. area by 500 sq. ft. Increase ceiling height in 10ft area, with the stipulation that sediment and erosion measures during construction be indicated on the plat. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MRS. YORK-If the applicant would simply bring a copy or mail a copy with the changes for sediment and erosion control to my department, I would appreciate it, for the file. Okay? Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Woodbury's is withdrawn, as I previously mentioned. SITE PlAN NO. 49-91 IIJODBURylS HAS BEEN WITHDRAIIf PETITION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE P5-91 RECOIIEfIDATION ONLY THOMS J. FAROfIE & SON, INC. OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE PROPERTY INVOLVED: IJ,IEENSBURY FOREST, PHASE III SOUTH SIDE OF PEGGY ANN ROAD CURRENT ZOftING: SFR-lA PROPOSED ZONING: SR-20 TOTAL AREA: 25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 121-11-999 (1MRREfI COUNTY P~NING) TO PROVIDE FOR tlJDERATEL Y AFFORDABLE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING WITHIN AI EXISTING SUBDIVISION DEDICATED TO THAT PURPOSE. BOB STEWART, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-Okay. I need some direction from the Board, here. We have a letter dated October 22nd from Paul Naylor, Highway Superintendent, IIIn regard to the Thomas J. Farone & Son, Inc. Petition for a Change of Zoning, the Highway Department and the Town as a whole have been effected by drainage problems on the existing phases of Queensbury Forest. Until such time as these problems are remedied, I would suggest no action be taken on this proposal. II What we need to do is decide whether we want to take no action on this proposal, with regard to making a recommendation to the Town Board, until such time as Mr. Naylor's concerns are addressed, or do we wish to go forward and look at this application and make a recommendation to the Town Board? What's your pleasure, ladies and gentlemen? MR. LAPOINT-Mr. Naylor's not here, but I have some question. It's implied that this development is causing the problems, here? I mean, that's for sure? MR. CARTIER-Lee, do you have more information beyond what's in Mr. Naylor's letter? MRS. YORK-I really haven't discussed this in any length with Mr. Naylor. All I know is that he has been in contact with a developer, I believe, and he feels that there are some existing drainage proþlems on the existing two phases that should be mitigated or should be taken care of before anything else is done on this project. I really don't know anything more than that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Paul? MR. DUSEK-I think I can offer the Board some information on this, as I've been very much involved in this situation and I also spoke to Mr. Naylor, at the time, or just before he was going to issue; this letter. A couple of observations, fi rst of all, as part of the Phase II of the development of the 7 -- '--' subdivision, there is a basin that was part of the drainage project. The basin, we noted, I think it was earlier this year or it may even be a little longer, had water in it, and the theory at the time, at least my understanding was when the project was approved and what everybody thought was sUpposed to happen was that the basin would not have water in it, except that for an immediate storm, then it would infiltrate back into the ground. When this problem arose, we had meetings, negotiations with the developer. Paul. Naylor was involved. My office was involved, and it was, basically, somewhat of an agreement was reached that the developer would review the problem, submit it to the engineer, Town Engineer, and then the Town Engineer, in turn, would give his thoughts back to the developer, developer's engineer and said, come up with a solution to fix this problem, and also to make sure that it stays consistent with the Planning Board's original design concept for the Phase II, becalilse if . I ~ lt doesn t, then obviously, you have to come back to the Planning Board. The thought was that they probably could remedy the situation and stay consistent with Phase II, but there may be an imp~ct on Phase III, which is where Tom comes in. Paul is concerned, at least when I spoke to him, that he wanted to make sure that the problem was addressed before any further, at least when I spoke to him, and the letter surprises me a little bit, and I wonder if there's not a little bit of a misunderstanding going on, but I think Paul's primary concern was that the problem be addressed before any new projects are approved, not necessarily that there was no action to be taken, and I think what Paul, and of course only Paul can tell us what he means by his letter, but I think that what he means is no action, in terms of approval, not that the project can't be commented on by this Board, at least that's wlilat my understanding was when I spoke to him the other day. He just doesn't want the thing approved and ahother Phase III added in until you know what's going to happen with Phase II. MR. CAIMANO-Well, all we have to do is turn around and look at that to find out that we make a mistake if we do that, the building across the street. We approved the second phase before the first. phase was taken care of. My concern, though, is that with all due respect to your knowledge and background and intelligence and ability, here, we have a technical person who, apparently, is going to put a hold on this and yet we have a letter which even you, as our attorney, can't interpret as to what he means. I think that's wrong. I think that he should be here, to explain. If we're going to hold up a project, he certainly ought to be here. I would certainly agree with him, but you bring up a question as to what his intent was in this memo. So, we're going to hold up people for a question of intent in a memo in which it would have been just as easy for this person or a representative to show up and tell us what they meant. MR. LAPOINT-I guess we have a drywell backing up? I mean, just that simple. Is that what it is? MR. YARMOWICH-It's not quite that simple. It's an infiltration basin which was excavated to such a depth where there's some standing water in it. In terms of what the zoning means and the way in which the development will occur, because it's been through Sketch Plan, there isn't going to be any change as a result of a change in zone, in terms of the amount of roadways to be constructed, because it's already laid out by Sketch Plan. They'd have to go back to the beginning of that process if they do change the zoning and change the roadways, but the point of view that I'm expressing is, is that the stormwater management technique that's being employed out there is generally satisfactory. The question has to be answered as to whether or not they can continue on the basis of the conceptual design. Any change in zoning wouldn't change the amount of roads or the amount of drainage involved. The eventual movement towards Phase III in this project would require the resolution of the drainage issues regardless of the zoning, and the resolution would be the same. MRS. YORK-Okay. Just in defense of Mr. Naylor, it is traditionally handled through Staff Review that if a department head has something to say to the Board, they do it in the form of a memo to the 60ard. They do not come and address the Board in person, and that's just been the historical way we do these things. MR. CAIMANO-Fine, and then we have to take Mr. Naylor's memo at face value. We can't try to interpret noes and yeses and ayes and whatever. We have to take it at face value, in spite of Mr. Dusek's attempt, rightfully so, to try and change it. MRS. YORK-Well, let me just state this, you are not giving an approval, Mr. Caimano. MR. CAIMANO-The question is, do we even want to discuss it. That's the question before the house, right? MR. CARTIER- Yes. MRS. PULVER-I understand this drainage problem's in Phase I. MR. YARMOWICH-It's combined in Phase I and Phase II, and they're all eventually interrelated. MRS. PULVER-Because, I mean, I've been over there and they have the stakes and everything where they're going to dig up a portion, there, and put in a new stormwater drain where there was not one, ¡ where there was supposed to be one originally, but there never was one put in. I was just over there tod.y. MR. YARMOWICH-I'm not aware of that, Carol. 8 ~ '--' MRS. PULVER-Yes, and I mean, they have a lot of water problems, there, in the winter, because this particular, where this turn is, the two streets kind of come together, there is no drain there, no stormwater drain, so the water just all collects in the street and everything freezes and the water just goes. MR. YARMOWICH-That's not related to Phase III in any way. MRS. PULVER-All right, well, that's in Phase I, though, and that is a problem, and it's my understanding that drainage which was supposed to be put in by the developer was not put in. Now the problem exists, and Paul Naylor is trying to get it corrected, however he's trying to get it corrected. I don't know how they're correcting it. MR. MARTIN-I think his memo was very straight forward. It's just simply saying, development is occurring and there's problems with it, so before you allow it to occur any further, correct this. MR. CAIMANO-And it's written to us, to the Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-There's problems there and he's saying, before you put more homes in the middle of these ponds, you know, that measures should be taken to correct it. MRS. PULVER-I think the ponds only happen in the winter, though. There's none there right now. MR. BREWER-I think we're looking at two different spots. If you go down, I think it's Ferris, right here, where it's all fenced off. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. BREWER-And there's a big gully where it goes over to the pole lines, that's where, I think, Tom's talking about. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. BREWER-There's a big gully there and the water just lays in there. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I'm talking about between Ferris. MR. BREWER-There's nothing there now, except for this hole. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I'm talking on the street, where the problem is. It's on Ferris and then whatever that turn is. The fi rst one is Bri ggs, but the next street down. I don't know that one is,· ri ght there. That's where they've got the stakes and everything, that they're going to put a new stormwater drain or something in. MR. BREWER-But I think that's the one that Paul's talking about. MRS. PULVER-But, still, I guess the question to the Board is, do you want to discuss it when there's problems with Phase I and Phase II? MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lets see if I can spell out the options, here, without trying to push this Board in one direction or the other. The option is to take no action, based on Mr. Naylor's letter. The other option is to go ahead with our recommendation to the Town Board, with regard to this re-zoning issue. It's as cut and dried as that, I think. What's your pleasure here? MR. CAlMANO-Well, there's an A to the 2. The A to the 2 is we could, without taking action, simply listen to what the applicant has to say and discuss it, without taking an action tonight, so that we don't have to do this again another night. MR. CARTIER-Well, the only action we're going to take is a recommendation, here. We're not doing a subdivision or a site plan. MR. CAIMANO-No. I just don't know, I haven't a clue, yet, as to why there needs to be a chaoge of zone. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'd like to know. MR. STEWART-Might I make a suggestion? An alternative might be to hear what the applicant has to say, and if that satisfies your concerns as to this issue, so be it, go on and vote in that fashioO. If it does not satisfy your concerns and you feel Mr. Naylor's letter still troubles you, then vote that way, but you'd have, maybe, a clearer picture of what's afoot. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Mr. Naylor's letter is one issue, to be sure , but I think there's other thing~ that need to be discussed, here, before an ultimate decision is made. 9 ~ --- MRS. PULVER-Well, I'm willing to listen. MR. CAIMANO-Me, too. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Stewart, are you referring to the engineering concern, that's been addressed? MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, you're prepared to make comments to that effect? MR. STEWART-Yes, I am. This was a three phase subdivision approved back in '87, '88 period of time. Phases I and II are built and now Phase III comes to the fore. We were notified by Mr. Dusek and Mr. Naylor two months ago, maybe, something like that, that that Town had a concern that the storm drainage system which was designed, really, for the whole three phases, contained a retention basin, which may be an accurate word for it, among other pipes and channels and things. The retention basin, in concept, was to be at a depth where water would pour in and be held during heavy storms and that would go into this soil, which something like 90 feet of sand, pretty good percolation, and would go out. After the first two phases were developed, they began to realize that the bottom of the retention basin was slightly higher than the water table in that particular area. So that, maybe not all times of year, but in many times of the year there would be a standing puddle of water, the exact depth, it might have been a foot. It might have been 18 inches, something. MR. CARTIER-Let me interrupt you. The bottom of the retention basin was lower than the water table. MR. CAlMANO-Lower, not higher. MR. STEWART-Okay. Right. So, the question came up, and we met at the site, Mr. Farone, the owner of the property, myself, Mr. Naylor, Tom, Mr. Dusek, and we looked at it, somewhere about seven, eight weeks ago, in my best recollection, and the discussion at that time was, well, one thing to do is if we fill the bottom of the basin which is there, readily available, to bring it up to where the water level is, then you won't have any water. It won't be unsightly, and there won't be any risk 'that a child might get down in there and drown or have some problems. I think when we left the meeting the general concept is, that's probably the way to go. Lets raise that level so that the bottom of the retention basin is dirt, not water. It won't eliminate the capacity of the retention basin to rèceive water, because if there's a foot of water in the bottom of it all the time, that amount of retention's eliminated anyway. We just substitute dirt for water. Tom felt, and he wrote within the ne>tt day to all of us, that that was the concept, but that he wanted our engineers, Morse Engineering which had done the studies, to do some recapitulation, re-studies, and so on, to make sure that, not to fill it until some further arithmetic was done to make sure that wouldn't create some problem, but it appeared that was the way to go. Communication back and forth. My client was out of town. Mr. Morse finally got his authority to spend the money to do this engineering and that's going back and forth. As far as I know, now, the basin has not been filled. I don't know that you've gotten the final calculations, but it's my understanding that that's going back and forth between the two engineering firms. If that's a problem, and I have no reason, right now, to think it is, but if that's a problem, or if that impacts on how the storm drainage system for Phase III might have to be redesigned to make some accomodation for this, then that is a problem and it will have to be accommodated as you review Phase III and decide whether to approve it, not approve it, and under what standards and conditions. Okay. Having said that much, what is before the Board tonight, and, incidentally, I did not see Paul Naylor's letter. To this moment I haven't seen it and I'm a little bit disappointed. Is it dated recently? I wasn't given the courtesy of a copy of it. MRS. YORK-It was received at quarter of five this evening in the parking lot. MR. STEWART-What's before the Board tonight is the concept of should we re-zone the third phase of this subdivision to put it back the way it was; so the developer can finish this phase. As I understand it, if you make a recommendation, it will go to the Town Board. They will decide whether the re-zoning will or will not take place. Then we will be back before you on the details, specifics, storm drainage, all of that. We do not have plans filed with that detail here tonight. MR. MARTIN-Could you go back to that one statement, there, you made, to put it back the way it was. What do you mean, put it back the way it was? MR. STEWART-Okay. That gets into my pitch. Do you want me to do that? MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me ask a question, first. Does the Board feel that the engineering concerns brought up by Mr. Naylor have been adequately addressed so that we can go on with this thing and take a look at this? MR. CAIMANO-I have a question to your question. Are we expected to answer, to fill a SEQRA out, or is that the Town Board? MR. CARTIER-No. 10 ~ MR. CAIMANO- Then I think that, my own personal feeling is that we can listen because what Mr. Stewart says is absolutely right. All we're passing on tonight. MR. MARTIN-Well, I just want to get a general comment from Tom. MR. CAlMANO-Wait a minute. Let me finish what I'm saying. My feeling is what we're doing is not technical at all. It's a matter of a recommendation of a zone, and, therefore, Mr. Stewart is right. We don't need to necessarily know all the ins and outs until site plan review. So, I would have no problem. MR. MARTIN-I just have a general question. The situation down there is such that it can't be overcome with some adjustment on the part of the developer, meaning these types of solutions that Mr. Stewart has outlined, those type of things might well in fact take care of the situation. MR. YARMOWICH-They may, and that's incumbent on the applicant to demonstrate that before anything happens further with Phase III. MR. MARTIN-Right, but all I'm trying to hear is it's not an impossible situation down there. MR. YARMOWICH-Because of the prior zoning conditions, the densities involved, the original storlllwater management concept is not necessarily based on what's current zoning. It was based on something more dense, and I think that's a fact, in terms of how this whole issue of stormwater weighs and where you make your recommendation on the zoning change. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, am I correct in assuming you're willing to go ahead with this thing, in terms of listening to or reviewing this proposed re-zoning? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Lets do it by the numbers, here. Do you want to take Staff Comments first? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lee, would you take us through your Staff Comments. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Petition 5-91, Thomas J. Farone & Son, Inc., October 21, 1991, Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 "The request is to re-zone Phase III of Queensbury forest to SR-20 from SR-IA. The justification expressed is to provide moderately affordable single family housing in the Town. The zoning changed in 1988 and the changes were based on the environmental capacities of the lands involved. Many areas in the community were re-zoned to less density because of soil, slope or other limiting factors. The zoning districts around this property have also been affected, and, are at one acre or greater. Criteria and circumstances which should be used when considering re-zoning properties are listed in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Zoning Administrator is submitting a letter regarding former approvals on this project. A review of the resource maps reveal the following: Depth to High Water Table - greater than 72" which is high suitability. Percolation Rate is 6 - 20" per hour or limited to unsuitable for development. Water Resources - Aquifer Recharge Area. Community Service - This area is recommended for study for sewer expansion. It is within the water district. Highway - Peggy Ann Road is a collector road and as of 1988 had free flowing traffic. This application was reviewed with regard to the questions for review stated on the application. 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant states that llmoderately affordable" housing is needed. The Town has recently re-zoned a site on Corinth Road for 42 affordable single family residential units. '(Inspiration Park). A site on Sherman Avenue has recently been re-zoned to allow for up to 100 multifamily affordable housing units (Sherman Pines). The Boards have recently reviewed a site off of Fox Farm Road for affordable housing for Senior Citizens and those with special needs. The requested zoning on this ± 20 acre site is requested to be MR-5 which, would supply the town, potentially with a large number of units. The Planning Board has no real way of assessing whether the stated need for lIaffordable housing" has been met. The re-zoning requests in the recent past have all indicated a desire to lower the density to meet this need. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The applicant in question number 3 indicates that clustered duplexes might be part of Phase III. If that is the case then SFR-IA would not meet the need, as duplexes are not an allowable use in that zone. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The zoning in the area has all been increased to one acre since 1988 and is SR-IA. The prqposed SR-20 zone would be an island of ± 25 acres which is zoned differently. II MR. CAIMANO-Excuse me just for one second. Should that be SFR-1A, or was it Suburban Residential One Acre? 11 --- -- MRS. YORK-I believe is was Suburban Residential. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MRS. YORK-"4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? Please refer to the resource map analysis. The applicant did receive Preliminary approval for the subdivision on April 21, 1987. The Board at that time indicated that most concerns raised can be mitigated, however, traffic was a major concern. The Planning Board wanted the Town Board and other agencies to bè made aware of this concern. The Planning Board discussed phasing specifically. The subdivision regulations in Section A183-37 state that subsequent phases shall comply with any new standards instituted by the Town. The rationale being that as the Town changes and its standards take into account new information or criteria for development, undeveloped phases will come into compliance. A good example is the h!ighway standards which changed in 1987. The applicant requests to return to zoning standards used ill 1986 and 1987. 5. How will the proposed zone affect public facilities? As indicated above, the Planning Board had a concern about increased traffic. Since the preliminary approval, traffic has not decreased. The Highway Superintendent has expressed concern about drainage. Mr. Flaherty has not indicated any concern about water facilities. 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? Please refer to the Resource map review. The updated resource inforlJlation gathered in 1988 indicates that this zoning is appropriate. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan states that when sewers are extended to this area consideration should be given to increasing the density. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? The Planning Board in 1987 gave a negative declaration to an environmental assessment form presented by the applicant. At that time they mentioned traffic concerns. Since then substantially updated information has become available and in 1988 the zoning on the site was changed given this criteria. It is difficult to determine what the environmental impacts would be unless another long EAF is submitted and a site specific analysis completed. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan? The Comprehensive Land Use Plan states on Page 67 - Density Changes - The densities, especially on the west side of the town were determined in part by thè lack of sewer facilities and the presence of high perc soils. Once sewer facilities where high perc soils is the major determination for density, consideration should be given to raising the permitted density levels. Since poHution of the water table is a primary concern, the application of lawn and garden chemicals should still influence development patterns. The creation of lawns should be discouraged in favor of the retention of existing woodlot. Clustering or strict cutting requirements should be considered when deve10ping these areas with higher soil percolation rates. Special Committee on Affordable Housing - The question of providing affordable housing is complex and beyond the specific scope of this Master Plan. A special committee should be established to identify the existing and future potential for providing affordable housing within the Town of Queensbury for senior citizens, young couples, and other sector's of Queensbury's population. These comments do not appear consistent with the proposed development. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this proposal? As previously stated there projects have been granted density changes to provide affordable housing. One acre parcels have been successfully built and marketed in areas already developed in largely half acre density. The Board is aware of these developments. The proposed Phase III is separated from Phase I and Phase II by a Niagara Mohawk right-of-way and essentially would form its own neighborhood as distinct from other phases." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We have comments from Warren County Planning Board, approved, with the stipulation that no more than 35 lots be developed and a Soils Analyst must be consulted in regards to the building footprint and sewage disposal so as not to adversely effect neighboring properties and the aquifer recharge area. Does anybody have any questions at this point? You've done a very thorough job, Mrs. York. Thank you. Mr. Stewart? MR. STEWART-Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen and Lady of the Board, my name is Robert Stewart, and attorney in Glens Falls. I'm here tonight representing the developer, Mr. Thomas J. Farone. By way of background, back in the fall of 1987 and the spring of 1988, I represented Mr. Farone who wanted to develop this particular area of property into a subdivision called Queensbury Forest. Simultaneously, I was representing other developers, Veltro and Goldy and Howard, who were developing right next door to a development called Queen Victoria's Grant. Queen Victoria's Grant was slightly different in that that was duplexes and they were clustered and areas were left forever green. Queensbury Forest was developed into half acre lots. Now you get into these phrases of affordable housing, and I used llmoderately affordable" in my petition. I don't mean that to be a work of art. We're not talking about housing which is funded by the federal government or anything of that nature. What I was trying to suggest is to provide housing that young couples starting out, people of moderate income, older people retiring, could afford. Queensbury Forest has been developed. You're probably familiar with it, maybe better than I, and I'm not exactly sure what the selling price of those homes were, but they were of the $90 to $110,000 range, I think I'm accurate, within maybe $5,000. That still doesn't seem cheap to me, but that's maybe moderately affordable. Now, in sequence, what happened was, we came before the Board at that time and we did environmental studies. We submitted the entire project, and it was approved. Now, let me very careful what I mean by that phrase. Queensbury had a rule in those days that when you wanted a project to, this Planning Board had the rule, that when you wanted the project reviewed, you showed the whole project. You didn't come in piecemeal and get, you showed the whole project. You did an environmental impact statement, SEQRA studies, everything for the !whole project and then the Board indicated, yes, we like it, or no, we don't, but then they would say, and the State Law also had a rule at that time that you 12 ----.. -- approve the project first, but you phase the development. Nobody wanted a situation where the developer builds one house on the east end, one house on the west end, huge road in between, and then goes broke, walks away, and leaves a cobbled up thing for the Town to inherit. So, State Law said, approve it as a whole, but sign the plan and let the developer build only phase at a time. I think 45, 50 lots was the limit. Queensbury adopted the same rule, but you used a little bit different language. You said, we will approve the subdivision in its entirety, under what you called Preliminary approval, and then at that time, Phase I, the first 45 houses roughly, would be given Final approval, and sign the map for Phase I and the developer could start to build. When the developer came back and reported to you that he was 60 percent started on Phase I, and you would verify that, then you would sign the map for Phase II and you would say, okay, you've got Final approval for Phase II. You would not go back and re-study the project. The project had been studied to death, if you will, at least from the developer's point of view, by then, but you only can start Phase II upon proving 60 percent stlirt up in Phase I, and then when you come to Phase II I, you have to come back and show 60 percent stlirt in Phase II. That was the way we proceeded, and the developer developed 50 percent in Phase I.· Came back, got approval, and started to develop. Now we're into the midsummer, into the fall of 1988. In the fall of 1988, as you know, the Town of Queensbury enacted a new subdivision law, and it said that, it re-zoned, literally, the whole west side of the Town of Queensbury, and you zoned it, one acre, three acre, five acre, I think ten acres in there. You put some pretty good breaks on what was considered incredible growth, and everybody thought growth in Queensbury was just out of control, so some breaks got put on. Fine. At that time, this area was re-zoned one acre instead of the half acre zone that it had. Mr. Farone had not, at that time, come in for final approval of Phase III, and he couldn't because he wasn't 60 percent started in Phase II when the Town re-zoned in October, I believe it was, of 1988. Then, as you know, the economy went slow. Building slowed right down to a crawl. Little by little, Phase II was developed, and now, to my knowledge, with the exception of maybe one or two lots, Phase II is completely built and sold out. Now, Mr. Farone would like to start on Phase III. He called me and said, what do I have to do to turn on the faucet and get going on Phase III, and I looked up the law and said, you have a problem, because that old subdivision ruling, not the new zoning, but the old subdivision ruling said, if there's any later re-zoning, subdivisions which have final approval are grandfathered, and they can work under the old zoning, but if you don't have final approval, you're stuck with the new zoning. Well, we didn't have final approval, as this Board used that phrase, for Phase III. So, here we are. Now, what arguments do we have to suggest that it would be fair to re-zone us? Number One is we went ahead in good faith, once we got those basic approvals, Mr. Farone has this land under contract. He bought the land. He committed the money. He put in the roads, not the roads in Phase III, but he put in the roads in Phase I and II. He developed Phase I and II into half acre lots of the corresponding value that would be appropriate, and the only way to get to Phase III, you have to drive through the subdivision, which is Phase I and Phase II, to get to Phase III, now one problem, obviously, a developer has, is how can you all of a sudden go to one acre lots and the price and the housing that would be appropriate to fit that, and think you're going to sell those in a subdivision that's already two thirds developed into half acre, less expensive houses. Who is goi ng to buy, and is it a wi se investment for an owner to buy where he I s buyi ng above what is the value line if you will, or level, of a preexisting, committed subdivision. That's problem number one and I suggest to you it's a real, legitimate problem. Problem Number Two is to develop on the half acre lots back in 1988, we needed water. We went to the Town of Queensbury to see if the water district could be extended to both Queen Victoria's Grant, our neighbor, and Queensbury Forest, which is this one with Mr. Farone. An agreement was reached and a contract was entered into whereby the two developers paid every penny of the cost of running the water lines from where the existing water district ended, a quarter of a mile, Paul, sticks in my mind, but I'm not sure, a considerable distance, and we brought water and we put into the ground an enormous infrastructure structure to bring water to both of these subdivisions. In addition to paying all of that expense, the Town of Queensbury says, you know, years ago the water plant was built and taxpayers paid a lot of money, and you are sort of getting a free ride on the water plant, even though you have paid the cost of all the pipes and everything. So, why don't you pay us $245,000 over and above the cost of installing the water lines, to the Town of Queensbury. A written agreement was entered into and that was to be done over a period of phases, as the houses were developed and sold, and both of the contractors agreed to it. Incidentally, that's $245,000 split between the two. That's not each. They each agreed to go 60/40 or something. I think Queen Victoria's Grant was a little bit bigger, so they divided it proportionally, but what I'm saying here is that in good faith an awful lot of money was spent and an awful lot of money was committed, in the future, to bring the water in, to see this project through to conclusion, and then to say, afterwards, when we've changed the rules, after you've bought the land, spent the money, got the development committed, now we're going to change the rules and say you can't finish off the rest of it unless you go one acre development with the cost that's involved, puts the dev~loper in a really tough bind. So, that is, I think, the two key points of my argument, as a matter of fairness to the developer. Another point I'd like to mention is I am not at all sure, and I really doubt that when the Town Board amended the Ordinance in 1988, it ever meant to cut out the third phrase of Queensbury Forest. Reference has been made, in Mrs. York's article, on the Master Plan. The Master Plan was written and in effect at that time. It pointed to both Queen Victoria's Grant and Queensbury Forest as being developed subdivisions that were already there to provide housing in that area. I don't think those who drew the Master Plan ever thought that that housing was suddenly going to be taken away. It's mentioned as being the housing that's available. I just don't think, the developer didn't see it. I didn't see it, and I really can't speak for the Town Board, but I don't thin~ they thought that when they changed the zoning throughout the western part of the State, they were going to take a subdivision two thirds developed and just cut the legs right out from under it, and I will tell you, frankly, that 13 "--" -- when we went before the Board the other night to file this petition which they sent to you for your opinion, they indicated to me, at least informally, that they didn't, but we'll see, when they vote, how that comes down. I think it was just a mistake. I don't think anybody spotted the problem. I don't know, honestly, of any other subdivision that got caught this way. There may have been one. I honestly don't know, but I don't know of anybody who got caught two thirds developed, but didn't have the mythical final approval and couldn't finish its project, and maybe you do know of some, but I honestly don't. The concept was reviewed by this Board back in 1988. Environmental impacts were made in 1988. Soil studies were made. The project is two thirds developed. There has been no complaint about soil or pollution or sewage or anything of that nature. It's gone smoothly. I think it's been a very well received. I think it's a quality subdivision. It's not junk. Mrs. York made a comment, here, about the road, somewhere, okay, she says something about, the percolation rate may not be appropriate. Leon Steves is here tonight. He did the work on the project then and now. I'm going to leave that to him to talk about, but I don't think he agrees with that. What I mean by IImoderately affordable", I tried to discuss that, that it's not some sort of a subsidized project with just homes. Something about, I indicated that clustered duplexes might be part of Phase III. I don't think I did, and I certainly didn't intend to. We filed a proposal that shows 35 single family houses on this Phase III. In describing the general character of the neighborhood, I said that, to the west is the first two phases of Queensbury Forest, which is already in half acre, one family housing, and I mentioned that next to it, on the east, was Queen Victoria's Grant, which was developed into clustered duplexes, but I didn't mean to suggest that this project would be clustered duplexes, and it will not be. She then mentioned that if this re-zoning were granted, this 25 acres, which is the size of Phase III, would be, and I quote would be an island of ± 25 acres which is zoned differently. Well, this is the third phase of a subdivision that's completely built in half acre SR-20 lots and is next door to a project that was built on even tighter constraints. So, the concept that we would somehow be an island that would be non-compatible with what's already there just is not true. If we tried to go one acre, we would not be compatible with what's there, and we would have a very difficult time, I think, selling that property. She mentions some question about traffic being a concern. Well, as far as I know, traffic was met, reviewed, and approved at that time. I have driven up and down that road. I honestly suggest to any of you drive up and down, morning, noon and night, I don't believe you're going to see any staggering traffic on Peggy Ann Road. I think down near Dixon Road, there is a debate about whether or not there are sidewalks for school children to walk in the winter, and if they have to walk out in the road, any traffic is a legitimate concern, but I don't believe that there's any suggestion that there's any enormous traffic on Peggy Ann Road. It's really pretty remote out there. Highway Standards Mrs. York mentions, and she says, we want to refer to zoning standards back in '86 or '87. If that's a suggestion that we want to go back to some highway standards that were different then, that simply is not true. When this project was approved, the new Town Highway Standards were in effect, and that is the developer had to develop those roads to the last inch, final coating, everything. That was all part of the terms and conditions of your original approval. The only change in highway standards came from me at the request of the two developers of these two projects. We met with Paul Naylor, and then we finally met with the Town Board and Mr. Borgos and we made a suggestion, that the law at that time required the highways to be completely finished before the developer could start to build, which we were perfectly willing to do, but then the developer starts to build, in goes tractors, Catapillars, bulldozers, cement trucks, in and out, back and forth, building those 45 houses in that phase. By the time the developer walks away, the roads are just beaten up. We suggested a new thing, that the roads would be done, everything except final code, that we would post a bond or a letter of credit to guarantee final completion, but not complete the roads until all the construction work was done. Then, when the last house was built, put on the finished coat, and hand the Highway Supervisor a beautiful road, clean, polished, and Paul Naylor just thought that was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The Town Board approved it, and that has been the rule that we have followed ever since. As a matter of fact, Phase II of this subdivision, I think, got Final paving within the last week, as the last houses were done. but there has been no going back and saying, we want to go back to get a cheap shot and build cheap roads or anything like that. The whole approval that you gave us back in '88 was, we had a build a road right to the nines. I think that is essentially my pitch. I would ask if Leon Steves would come to the mic, just for a moment, unless you want to ask me questions, first, to see what his feeling is as to the percolation and the soil there, which Mrs. York has raised as an issue. MR. CARTIER-I don't have question of Mr. Steves, and I'm very aware of the percolation rates over there. They're extremely high. They're not extremely high? LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Hi. I'm Leon Steves. I think this is something you should ask your Town Engineer to review. There is obviously something wrong with the way that is written up. Lee has taken it perfectly the way it is written, but I believe that it's written wrong. If you ask Tom, I think Tom will agree. Any soils that have a percolation rate of 20 inches per hour and six inches per hour is ideal soils. MR. CARTIER-Ideal for what? MR. STEVES-For septic systems. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-You're talking three minutes to ten minute soils. 14 '--' --,' MR. CARTIER-All right. We're also talking in terms of aquifer protection, here. MR. STEVES-I understand that, but now you're talking a different beast. You're not talking percolation. You're talking aquifer protection. That's not the same thing. MR. CARTIER-Well, there's certainly a connection between percolation rates and aquifer protection. MR. STEVES-This is true, but now you're getting really into it. If you want to talk about aquifer protection, you want to consider the type of soils that are there, not the rapidity of the soils. For instance, if you have a gravel out there that's percolating at a one minute rate, that's a very fast soil, and that's not cleansing anything, but if you have sands out there that are percolating at the same rate, you have a much better condition. Sands have been used, historically, as a cleansing too 1. MR. CARTIER-I am under the impression, and Tom correct me if I'm wrong, that those standards have changed, in fact, to a slower rate of percolation. MR. YARMOWICH-The current standard for individual single family construction is a limiting rate of one minute per inch, which is 60 minutes per hour. There are also other factors involved and they have to do with the density. With the current guidelines, and these are not regulations and rules, but they're good practice, suggests that on-site wastewater disposal in areas with perc rates less than five minutes per inch should be limited to 11 persons per acre. Now, this number of 6 to 20 minutes per inch as being excessive percolation rates may have contemplated very dense developments. In cases where the density of development and the application of effluent nitrogen in particular, which is the characteristic of concern for groundwater problems, all that has to be looked at in the context of, one, the development, the density of occupancy, as well as the available percolation rates, the depth to groundwater, and that's the reason, I think, why the soils analyst idea was brought into focus by the Warren County Planning recommendations. I think it's too simple to say that any site given any particular percolation rate is either suitable or unsuitable until you understand more about the densities, the characteristics and locations of septic systems with regard to groundwater. If, in fact, this is, in fact, an aquifer recharge area, one should know more about, if in fact, water is being withdrawn from that aquifer and being used for consumptive purposes. There are many issues involved. I wouldn't care to tell you whether or not 6 to 20 minutes per inch is suitable or unsuitable. The general information that's available in the Warren County Soil Survey is a good guide, a place to start asking those questions and the questions need to be tailored for the specifics of the circumstance. MR. STEVES-I couldn't agree with him more. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Lets back up, here, because we're getting into some detail that I don't think we need to get into, in terms of this application. I think what we've got to do is go back and, you should pardon the expression, look at this thing philosophically. Without oversimplifying Mr. Stewart's comments, which were very thorough, what we're being asked for, here, is to re-zone this back to what it was originally, simply because that's what it was zoned originally, and I guess the question I have is, if we accept that rationale, what's to prevent us from accepting that rationale for anyone who comes in and says, I want my property re-zoned back to the way it was before October '88? MR. BREWER-Because this is an overall picture of the whole subdivision. MRS. PULVER-Right. This was already in progress. MR. BREWER-This was all subdivided. He just got caught in the process. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-I have a question. I want to be sure that I have this correct. You're asking to return this development, as it was originally proposed, and we've got 25 acres, and you're asking for 35 units? MR. STEWART-That's right. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I just want to be sure that that's. MR. MARTIN-Are we talking single family detached, or duplexes, or? MR. STEWART-No. The original zoning would allow for duplexes, as is in the application. As a matter of fact, I think back at the time we got the approval, back in '88, Mr. Farone contemplated duplexes in the third phase, but market conditions, whatever, being what they are, we have filed an application that we want to abandon any concept of duplexes. We will limit ourselves to 35 single family detached residences on a 25, roughly plus or minus, acre lot, and the County Planning Board asked us to make the commitment, they made the commitment that their approval would be contingent upon that limitation. 15 -- --' MRS. PULVER-So, it's less than one and a half houses per acre. This map that I just looked at, which has the 35 lots on it, okay, that is the map, right there. You're not going to ask for any changes on that? MR. STEWART-Can I fudge a little on that? We may well appear before this Board for site plan review a month or two months from now. There will be no more than 35 lots. We may, our engineers, or Leon, or somebody may say. MRS. PULVER-Lot line adjustments? MR. STEWART-Lot line adjustment to fit it into the soi 1 or something, but no, you know, I'd hate to say, that was drawn up to show you what we have in concept. I don't want to tell you, you can't change a lot line. MR. CAlMANO-Paul, I think you answered this before, but I don't remember what the answer is. If we approve a subdivision, lets assume this one, SR-20, and we put a stipulation, as the County Board says, to this applicant, does the stipulation carry to a new owner? MR. DUSEK-If you condition a subdivision, which I feel you can, and you make the applicant fill out or complete a convenant and restrictions which will be filed at the County, then you have, first of all, two things going for you. One is, yes, I think it does go to the subsequent owners, and, two, you have adequate notice of it going to the owners, because a subdivision plat, once it's approved, has the effect of being the Zoning Ordinance, or part of the Zoning Ordinance. They've got to comply with what's on that plat. If they don't, we can bring a zoning enforcement action against them, just as we could if they were violating the words of the Ordinance itself. MR. STEWART-Even tougher than that, I can't build, develop, or sell a single lot until this Phase III map is signed by this Board and filed, and it's filed showing 35 lots with those precise configurations. I cannot sell a thing different from what's on that map unless I come back to this Board and say, I've got some sort of a problem. Will you help me out, and everybody knows that. That's as solid as a rock. It doesn't even need a restriction in the deed. You can't sell a subdivision if you violate the map. MR. CARTIER-Is this the map that was submitted for Phase III, previously? MR. STEWART-No. MR. CARTIER-This is a new map? MR. STEWART-That's right. The map submitted for Phase III was duplexes of some, I think around 24 duplexes which would have be 48 living units. We're down, now, to 35 all single family. We've got to come back to you for new, I'm not going to argue that if we get re-zoned, you've already approved it the way I was. I've got to come back. MR. CARTIER-Just one other quick thing for the Board, here. I have just been handed to me 36 copies of a form letter addressed to us that reads, liTo Whom It May Concern: As a resident of Queensbury Forest, I am opposed to the developing of townhouses in Phase III. Many townhouses turn into rental property, thus are not maintained as meticulously. I feel this could potentially compromise the value of my property in Phase I and Phase 11." Am I correct in assuming we are not talking about townhouses here? MR. STEWART-No. MRS. PULVER-Single family detached. MR. STEWART-I don't want to, in any way, mislead this Board. as I did the Town Board, to ask for re-zoning back to SR-20. I bel i eve. What I have to do is come before you, SR-20 allows single family or duplexes, MR. CAIMANO-It does. MR. STEWART-But I will make the commitment, here. I will make the commitment to the Town Board. I will make it in writing, that all we want are 35 individual homes, regardless of what that zoning might allow. MRS. PULVER-Well, even in the recommendation, you could recommend only 35 single family detached homes. MR. CAIMANO-I don't mind that, but Jim brought up something, too. Just for the record, Lee, while Pete was readi ng those 36 1 etters, I had a telephone call from a Mrs. John Goral s ki who is a 1 so a neighbor and who objects, also, to multiple family dwellings in her neighborhood. That's for the record. 16 ~ ~ MRS. YORK-Well, let me just state that there is a statement on the front of application that says the general area was developed when zoned SR-20 and consists entirely of single family residences on 20,000 square foot lots and clustered duplexes on 10,000 square foot lots, and the proposed zone would be identical with existing development. MR. CARTIER-There are clustered duplexes out there now? MRS. YORK-So, that's where I got the opinion. MR. STEWART-What I said, the general area was developed. which was right next door, which was cluster duplexes. for duplexes, clustered or otherwise. That reference was to Queen Victoria's Grant, We never asked then, and we don't ask now, MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, my opinion of this is I'm someone who usually takes a very hard look at these things. I don't, as this Board well knows, I am very much against the Town bearing the brunt of a developer trying to keep his cost down on a per lot basis for development. I think there's a bunch of other ways that that can occur, at his expense, rather than the Town having to increase its densities, but I think this is an exception. He got caught up in the system, so to speak. He had Preliminary approval and, for all practical purposes, had Final approval of this subdivision, and it is in keeping, I think Mr. Stewart's point about the neighboring uses, it is in keeping with the neighboring uses, in terms of the density, which is a key factor, and I'm all for the single family detached, and I will accept that written commitment to that. I would be very much in favor of that. I understand what this is doing. We're saying we have a little triangular piece of property out here on its own. You don't want to call it an island with the neighboring uses, and I acknowledge that, but in terms of the zoning map. it is an island. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All I'm saying is, understand, at this point we are making a recommendation only. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-All we could do to the Town Board is recommend that it be. MR. MARTIN-Well, the reason why I say all thi s is because I don't want the appearance of there being any inconsistencies between what I say now and what I've said in previous applications for zone changes. MR. CAIMANO-Why don't you see if somebody else has something to say, wants to talk, Pete? MR. CARTIER-Yes. Hang on, okay, but you understand the point I'm making. At this point, we are making simply a recommendation. MR. MARTIN-Right. I understand that. MR. CARTIER-And we can recommend, only, at this point, that it be kept at 35 units within 25 acres. ,MR. MARTIN-I understand that. MR. CARTIER-We, I think what you're trying to do, and I agree with you, is let the applicant know that when they come back in for subdi vi sion of thi s final phase or approval of thi s final phase, that's all this Board would be willing to accept. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-Right, and I would even put that in the form of a motion of recommendation, if we do, in fact, do that, that we recommend the Town Board do obtain written commitment to that effect. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Excuse me, what did you say? MR. CAIMANO-Why don't you see if anybody else has anything to say? MR. CARTIER-From the audience? MR. CAlMANO-Yes, please. MR. CARTIER-Well, this is not a public hearing. MR. CAIMANO-I know. MR. CARTIER-We're not required to hold a public hearing on here, but is there anybody else who'd care to comment at this point? Okay. Does anybody else on the Board have any comments or questions? I guess my concern here, and I understand the argument with regard to being caught in the change, here. I have some reservations, and my reservations are in terms of setting a precedent, here. MR. CAIMANO-Well, let me ease your mind, here, a little bit, and I think Jim already eased it a little bit and I think Mr. Stewart eased it a little bit. On the record, I'm not sure that we're setting 17 "--" -- a precedent or correcting something that was done in the past. This is a situation where the subdivision was approved exactly for what Mr. Stewart is asking for it now. They are half acre lots. The current residents are half acre lots. We are not recommending anything more than that. In fact, we're going to be very adamant in requesting that it be nothing more than single family residences and that we specifically don't want duplexes, but it isn't like, you know, truly this man was caught in the system. I don't know Mr. Farone for all the tea in China, but he was caught in the system. He was developing something. It stopped because of economic circumstances and now he just wants to complete it, and as long as we're not getting into multiple family residences, I don't see where there's much of a problem, here. MR. CARTIER-If Mr. Farone owns other property in the Town that was re-zoned, that did not get caught in the middle, what would be this Board's reaction, if, in fact, Mr. Farone came in and requested a re-zoning of that other property? MR. LAPOINT-Too hypothetical. MRS. PULVER-I think he would have to go through this same process. MR. CAlMANO-I'd refer him back to the minutes of this meeting, and I think Mr. Stewart would, too. MR. LAPOINT-Again, each circumstances has. MR. CAIMANO-It stands on it's own. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly. I agree with Mr. Caimano, and Mr. Martin, and Mr. Brewer, that, again, this would be consistent with what's out there. MR. CAIMANO-I came in here prepared to turn this down on the strength of the fact that I thought you were getting into multiple family dwellings and duplexes, and I couldn't, in good conscience, saddle the rest of the residents with that, and I would have said no, but since it is going to continue to be what it was, then I just don't see any reason for not recommending approval. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. PULVER-And I agree with Nick. I'd like to think that we are correcting something that accidentally got overlooked during the time of the re-zoning, and I don't think there's a whole lot of them out there, so I'm not real worried about setting some sort of a precedent with that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Has anybody else got a comment? What is the Board's pleasure, at this point? Are we prepared to make a recommendation to the Town Board? MR. CAIMANO-I am. MOTION TO RECOIIEfID TO THE TOWN BOARD APPROVAL OF PETITION FOR A CHAflGE OF ZONE P5-91 THOMS J. FARONE I SON, INC., Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: We further recommend that that the Town Board obtain written commitment from the applicant to develop all 35 lots as indicated on the original plat as single family detached homes for moderately priced affordable housing. That we forward a copy of Mr. Paul Naylor's letter dated 22 October 1991 to the Town Board for its consideration, relative to the substance of Mr. Naylor's comments. That all Staff Comments, as well as minutes of this meeting, and the action of the Warren County Planning Board at their meeting of October 9th be forwarded on to the Town Board for their consideration in this matter. Furthermore, it is assumed that the Town Board will be lead agent in this matter, in terms of the SEQRA Review, and that this Board consents to that designation. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE PETITION FOR A CHAflGE OF ZONE P6-91 RECOIIENDATION ONLY GARTH ALLEN D/B/A BAY MEADOWS CORP. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE PROPERTY INVOLVED: BAY MEAOOWS GOLF COURSE BAY AND CRONIN ROAD CURRENT ZONING: SFR-lA PROPOSED ZONING: SR-IA TOTAL AREA: 95± ACRES (I6\RREN COUNTY PuutNING BOARD) TAX MAP NO. 60-2-5, 10 TO PERMIT RESIDENTIAL CWSTERING AND TO MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE CHARACTER OF SITE IllILE MAINTAINING SAME ONE ACRE DENSITY AS EXISTING ZONE. MACK DEAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. Staff Comments, please. Does the Board wish to have Lee go through her individual comments? I know you've had these in front of you. 18 -- -' MR. CAlMANO-I don't need it. MRS. PULVER-No. MR. MARTIN-No. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Give the applicant an opportunity to address them as we go through them. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Fine. We have comments from Warren County Planning Board with an approval and no stipulations or conditions. What's the Board's druthers? Do you want to take comments from the applicant, at this point? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. DEAN-Just for the record, my name is Mack Dean representing Garth Allen and Bay Meadows Corporation. I have also read Staff Comments, and. MR. CARTIER-Just let me interrupt you for a second. I don't mean to shortchange Mrs. York's work by not reading them into the record. Understand that these are very thoroughly done and I think this questionnaire format is working very nicely. It's given us a lot more information than we've had previously, with regard to re-zoning issues. Excuse me. MR. DEAN-I'd like to comment on that, also, and they also help give us some direction in explaining the purpose and intent of our project, and to go forth wi th that, in readi ng Lee York's comments, I really have no additional comments to give the Board. I think they're very thorough and pretty well express our position on the matter before the Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I think I have just two brief comments that are on a, actually, subdivision of site plan level, having to do with, you're obviously aware that you've got some high groundwater problems over there that you are going to have to deal with at some point. MR. DEAN-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-The only comment I have on this thing is that when you come in for subdivision, site plan, at that point, that you give some serious consideration to two entrances in there. There are a lot of dwelling units in there that are only going to be serviced by one entrance, and it may be appropriate to consider a second one. MR. MARTIN-This is what used to be the back nine, right? MR. DEAN-Yes. I thought there were some restrictions on entrances. That will certainly be taken into consideration. MRS. PULVER-I have a couple of questions. This whole parcel, including the golf course, is 95 acres? MR. DEAN-The entire holdings, the entire property, consists of about 97 acres. MRS. PULVER-And you're trying to put on how many units? MR. DEAN-There would be a total of not in excess of 90 units. MRS. PULVER-And you're still going to keep the golf course? MR. DEAN- Yes. MR. MARTIN-As a nine hole golf course. MR. DEAN-It probably will be nine holes. Hopefully, we'll be able to redesign it into an 18 hole, if that's possible. MRS. PULVER-So, why are we re-zoning? MR. CARTIER-Because it allows clustering. You're going from a single family residential that does not allow clustering to a suburban residential which does allow clustering. MRS. PULVER-I know, but the reason he doesn't want to cluster is because he doesn't want to give up the golf course. MR. CAIMANO-No. He does want to cluster. 19 -- - MR. DEAN-We do want to cluster. MR. CARTIER-No. He wants to cluster. Changing this zone will allow him to cluster and allow him to maintain the golf course. MRS. PULVER-The golf course. That's what I mean, but he, without the zoning, it's one or the other. MR. CARTIER-Without the change in zoning. MR. DEAN-Without the zoning, we'd have individual one acre lots. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. DEAN-You can't have clustering in SFR-IA. MR. MARTIN-It's the same density, but they can't cluster in the current zoning. MR. DEAN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, the plus side of this one is that we're gaining open space, here, okay, open space is going to be maintained. MRS. PULVER-I'm not convinced that we're gaining, here. I'm almost thinking that we're giving something away. MR. CAlMANO-What? MRS. PULVER-We're allowing him to have a business there, the golf course, as well as, now, the homes. By the re-zoning, he'll have both. MR. DEAN-That's correct. MR. CAIMANO-So does Gary Bowen. So what? MRS. PULVER-But that's a PUD. MR. CAIMANO-I know that, but I'm saying, so what? I don't understand why you're concerned with that. MRS. PULVER-Well, I think we're re-zoning for the benefit of the applicant, not for the benefit of Town. MR. DEAN-Is that improper, philosophically, I mean? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CAIMANO-It should be both. MR. CARTIER-Let me answer it this way. Lee, correct me if I'm wrong. This is a parcel of land that, in previous times. we had looked at at Sketch time, in which the golf course was completely gone. Does that ring a bell, what I'm talking about? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-It was Dr. Schutze, I believe. MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-That this was all going to be developed as a mixture of well, some of this was MR-5. It wasn't all SFR, but the entire golf course was going to get blown away, in other words, and it would all be residential and professional office, I believe, throughout this entire thing. I don't know whether I'm hel ping you or not. I'm just trying to give you some background. What this thing does, as I said, maintain open space, some open space. MRS. PULVER-Well, I don't know. I'm just thinking, if I had ten acres and I had a garage on five of them, but I was zoned to have five houses and I came in and said, well, look, I want to put my five houses and cluster them on the five acres, and you said okay, you've allowed me to keep my garage and cluster my five houses on five acres. MR. DEAN-Well, Mrs. Pulver, we're looking at 97 acres, of which our maximum density under clustering would be less than a quarter of the entire acreage. 20 -- '-' MRS. PULVER-I just wonder if this is fair to the Town and to everyone else who comes in, now? How about Harris? MR. CAIMANO-Well, you're assuming that everyone that comes in is altruistic. That's not so. It's give and take on both sides. Everyone coming here is not re-zoning for the sake of the Town. They're re-zoning, primarily, for the sake of themselves and, hopefully, we will guard the Town. MRS. PULVER-I'm just trying to decide, Nick, whether or not the benefits to the re-zoning are, you know, there are going to be some benefits to the Town. MR. DEAN-Well, the benefits to the Town, also, is that you will not have, lets say, 90 developed one acre lots with the intrinsic roadways and, you know, the pavement, fencing, stop signs, and the whole bit. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but I could also have 90 clustered houses and no golf course. MR. CAlMANO-You could. Maybe they're more saleable with the golf course. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. You've got to be careful, here, because by going to clustering, he is committing himself to keeping the remaining property open. That's the only way he can be allowed to cluster. In other words, we're taking 97 acres and we're putting all the housing in one area. That does not mean, because it's clustered at one end, that he can come back later on and further develop that open space. MRS. PULVER-What about selling off the golf course? MR. MARTIN-See, he's sacrificing all his developable rights, in terms of housing units, in this one area, this entire parcel. MR. CARTIER-If this is clustered, he can't sell off the golf course and then somebody else can come in and develop that. MR. BREWER-He could not sell the golf course? MR. CARTIER-That land, once this is clustered, is committed to this development. MR. DEAN-That's correct. MR. CAIMANO-To this structure. MR. DEAN-That's right. It's a one shot deal. MR. BREWER-So, if somebody wanted to buy that, if he has that golf course and somebody, say he decides that he doesn't want to be in the golf business anymore, he can't sell off 20 of that acreage? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. DEAN-Right. MR. CARTIER-In other words, you are committing not just the property that the cluster development is on, but you're committing the entire property. MR. DEAN-Right. MR. BREWER-So, that parcel of land will always be 97 acres, no matter who owns it. MR. CARTIER-Unless we get a re-zoning later on, but, ignoring that. MR. DEAN-Well, unless they pick up some additional property, but. MR. BREWER-Well, that's what you've got to think about. MR. DEAN-Right, but under the rules today, that's correct. It will remain as open land, whether it's put to agricultural use or a golf course. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's the other thing. There could be some other uses there besides a golf course, but it would have to be some sort of a. MR. DEAN-I don't think agricultural's permitted in that zone, but it could go fallow, but it is committed. MR. CAIMANO-It is. 21 ~ "--- -- MRS. PULVER-I also remember, though, Garth Allen, himself came before the Board one time, for a re-zoning. MR. DEAN-In 1989. He requested an MR-5 density. MR. CARTIER-For this area? MR. DEAN- Yes. MRS. PULVER-Lee, do you remember what he wanted to build, then? MRS. YORK-I believe multifamily units. MRS. PULVER-Yes, it was multifamily, but on the whole 97 units? MRS. YORK-It substantially took up a lot of the course. MR. DEAN-I think at that time they were looking at 150 to 200 units. MR. CARTIER-Yes, and I think the problem had to do with groundwater concerns and the land just wasn't suitable for that kind of density. MR. DEAN- Yes. MR. CAIMANO-Make sure we don't lock ourselves in here. Farming is allowed in the Suburban Residential. MR. CARTIER-Right. MR. MARTIN-I think a benefit, here, is that there are a lot of environmentally sensitive areas within this parcel, in terms of wetlands and so on. They may not be designated as such, but I think it is a positive aspect to the environmental impact of this that he is keeping it away from those areas or limiting the disturbance of those areas, as he is here, in this one small portion of the lot. MR. CARTIER-Has anybody else got any questions or comments? MR. CAIMANO-Ask the audience if they have any comments? MR. CARTIER-I did not, but do you want me to conduct public comments on this? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. We did last time. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Is there anybody here who would care to comment on this application? Okay. There is none. MRS. YORK-I have one comment. I just want to mention to the Board that I believe the Tax Map Number changed, and you may not be aware of it. It went to 60-2-5, 10. MR. CARTIER-60-2-5,10? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. DEAN-I think that's what submitted. MRS. YORK-I have a note that there's an error on the application, just for your information. It's not real significant for us, here. I just did want to make that part of the record. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DEAN-60-2-5,10, I believe, yes. MR. DUSEK-What it was is that, maybe if I can just, on the application it was indicated as 60-1-5 and 60-1-10. In reality the Tax Map Number is 60-2-5 and 60-2-10. So, it's just a clerical error, I'm sure. The Town Board adopted a resolution just correcting it on their own. It doesn't change anything. We're still talking about the same parcel. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Understand, however, in whatever recommendation we're going to make, here, if I'm reading the Board right, this thing's going to go to the Town Board with a favorable recommendation. Understand that it's being presented to us that, we are, in fact, going to see clustering here. MR. MARTIN-That's the stipulation. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think we want to stipulate that. I don't want to have the Board put in the position where we okay this SR-l and then all of a sudden down the line we're looking at a completely different application that does not allow clustering and gets into the kinds of things that Carol was talking about. 22 '-' -- MR. MARTIN-You don't have a problem with the stipulation of? MR. DEAN-Clustering? MR. MARTIN- Yes. MRS. PULVER-These are going to be duplexes? MR. DEAN-One will be. I think the rest will be quadraplex. MRS. PULVER-Quadraplex? MR. DEAN-There will be fewer buildings overall. MR. MARTIN-They're going to have to be for the number you're showing. MR. DEAN-The intent is, there again, the moderate, not terribly expensive, senior citizen housing, but there are a lot of older people who do play golf there and they're very excited about the prospect of this. MR. CARTIER-All I want to do is be sure we understand that, that we're pushing this forward with the understanding that it's clustering. That we're accepting it on the basis of clustering. If somebody would care to make a motion regarding a recommendation, please do so. MOTION TO RECOtlEND TO THE TOWN BOARD APPROVAL OF PETITIOfI FOR A CHANGE OF ZOfIE P6-91 GARTH ALLEN D/B/A BAY MEADOWS CORP., Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: A change of zone from SFR-IA to SR-IA, on the stipulation that the plan presented to us is to have a clustering of residences in order to maintain the open space character of the site while maintaining the same one acre density as the existing zone. Further, all Staff Comments, approval from the Warren County Planning Board, and the minutes of this meeting should be forwarded with this motion, and, finally, it is assumed that the Town Board will take lead agency status and that this Board consents to that designation. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SITE PlAN NO. 50-91 TYPE II WR-lA JOYCE AND ART BUCKlEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE HILLMAN ROAD, CLEVERDALE FOR THE AOOITION OF A 12 n. BY 12 n. OPEN DECK TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR THE FOT OF THE HOUSE. (WARREN COUNTY PlANNING) TAX MAP NO. 11-1-34 I 1.2 LOT SIZE: 10,000 SQ. n. SECTIOfl 179-16, 179-60 ART BUCKLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 50-91, Joyce and Art Buckley, October 21, 1991, Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 liThe request is to build a 12 ft. x 12 ft. open deck. The property is adjacent to Lake George. It is a Type II action under SEQRA since it is the addition of a minor accessory structure. The applicant received a lake shore setback variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Warren County Planning Board stipulated that this structure cold not be enclosed in the future. The deck will provide access to the front of the house. II Which is the lake, they are discussing that the lake side is the front of the house, rather than the road side. liThe application was reviewed with regard to the criteria for Site Plan review. 1. Vehicular access is off of Hi 11 man Road and will not change. 2. Pedestrian circulation will not change. 3. Off street parking is sufficient. 4. Signage or lighting is not a concern. 5. Stormwater drainage will not be affected since this is a permeable deck. 6. Water and sewage disposal are not an issue. 7. Arrangement of plantings is not an issue. 8. Emergency access will not be affected. 9. Ponding and erosion are not a concern.1I MR. CARTIER-Okay. We also have approval from the Warren County Planning Board, with the stipulation that the deck cannot be enclosed in the future. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here who'd care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BUCKLEY-For the record, I'm Arthur Buckley. I'm the husband of Mrs. Joyce Buckley. Is there any questions that you people would care to ask me about this? MR. CARTIER-I don't have any questions at all. I really don't. 23 '- -- MR. CAIMANO-Any problem with the enclosure? MR. BUCKLEY-Absolutely not. The fact is, I don't want it enclosed. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. BUCKLEY-I'd be glad to sign a protocol regarding that matter, so that it can never be covered or enclosed. MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can stipulate that in the motion, and that it be passed on to the Building and Codes Department. This is a Type II, so it does not require SEQRA Review. If there's no further comments, 1'11 close the public hearing. Does the Board have any other questions or comments? If not, we can entertain a motion on this application. MOTIOlf TO APPROVE SITE PW NO. 50-91 JOYCE AND ART BUCKLEY, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For the addition of a 12 ft. by 12 ft. open deck to provide access for the front of the house. It is to be stipulated that this deck could not be enclosed in the future. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caímano, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE SUBDIVISIOlf NO. 13-1991 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA ROSAIRE GAUDREAU OIlNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF FULLER ROAD, JUST OFF lEST NT. ROAD FOR A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 88-1-20 LOT SIZE: 2 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Subdivision No. 13-1991, Rosaire Gaudreau, 10-11-91, Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 IIIf all engineering comments have been addressed and drainage easements satisfied; then the final approval is recommended. A final plat with the easements indicated should be presented to the Planning Department.1I MR. CARTIER-And Engineering Comments, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, October 18, 1991 IlWe have reviewed the project and all previous engineering comments have been satisfactorily addressed." MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Mr. Steves? MR. STEVES-No comment. MR. CARTIER-This is, okay, Final Stage, SEQRA has been done, public hearing's been done. If no one has any questions or comments, we can entertain a motion, and we have a request from Staff that a Final Plat be issued with the easements shown. You may want to make that a stipulation. MR. STEVES-It has been done. MR. CARTIER-It has been done already? MR. STEVES-It has been done. MR. CARTIER-And the Department has a copy? Thank you very much. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION 10. 13-1991 ROSAIRE GAUDREAU, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: For a 2 lot subdivision. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE 24 '- -- SITE PINt NO. 51-91 TYPE: UNLISTED LI-lA DR. RANDALL S. LOCKHART OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE FOR OFFICE EXPANSION FOR LOCKHART CHIROPRACTIC PRACTICE. (BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE) (WARREN COUNTY PLAflNING) TAX MAP NO. 107-1-4.2, 36 LOT SIZE: 0.65 ACRES SECTION 179-79, 179-26 KURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 51-91, Dr. Randall S. Lockhart, 10-21-91, Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 "The request is for an expansion of a Chiropractic Center on Homer Avenue. The applicant has already received an area variance to allow the expansion. The application was reviewed with regard to the site plan criteria. 1. Vehicular access is provided from Homer Avenue. Since there are two entrances the Board may want to consider one way in and one way out to avoid traffic conflicts. The use would not appear to create an influx of traffic at the same time, however. II But if there's ever future occupancy of this building, you might want to consider that. "2. Pedestrian access appears adequate. 3. Off street parking and loading appear sufficient. Handicapped parking has been provided for. II A consideration might be that handicapped parking be moved closer to the main entrance. However, in this type of business, I think most of the people entering are probably in some form handicapped. So, I didn't really get to detailed in my discussions. "4. The location, arrangement and size of the building are not a concern. The lighting is existing. 5. The storm water drainage will be reviewed by the engineer. 6. Sewage disposal adequacy will be reviewed by the engineer. 7. The Beautification Committee has submitted a report on the planting plans. Since this is a light industrial zone, noise impacts of a health clinic would not appear to be a concern. 8. Fire, and emergency access are not a problem. 9. Erosion control standards should be used during construction. II MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Engineering Comments, please. ENGINEERING REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, October 15, 1991 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. Handicapped parking should be located adjacent to the building entrances. 2. The driveway at the west side of the site is between 10-12' wide and is therefore only wide enough for I-way traffic. Signage and pavement marking should be provided indicating I-way traffic direction or 20 foot wide travel lanes for 2-way traffic should be provided. 3. With Regards to the Stormwater Management: a. The grading plan is unclear on how the paved areas will drain to the proposed infiltration basins. Spot elevations should be provided to ensure positive drainage from added impermeable areas to the basins. b. Test pits, indicating depths to groundwater, at the stormwater management basins should be provided to ensure the groundwater will not interfere with the recharge of water in the basin. Time of the year testing was performed and depth of perc test hole should also be indicated. c. The depths of the basins used in the calculations of storage volume indicate that the storage of stormwater would occur up to elevation of 313. However, if stormwater were actually allowed to be stored to elevation 313 the parking and driveway areas would become flooded. Stormwater should be contained within the limits of the basins provided. d. The methodology used in the computation of additional stormwater runoff generated is not clear. However, the proposed storage volume to be provided appears to be adequate. 3. The change in permeability from crushed stone (semi-permeable) to asphalt (impermeable) should be considered in the stormwater calculations. 4. Snow removal should be addressed. Areas other than SWM facilities should be available for snow removal, or it should be stipulated on the plan that snow be removed from the site.1I MR. CARTIER-We have approval from the Beautification Committee, with comments. We have approval from Warren County Planning Board without comments. Mr. Dybas, would you care to address the Board, please. MR. DYBAS- Yes. My name is Kurt Dybas from the fi rm of Cushi ng Dybas Assoc i ates , and I'm here to represent Dr. Lockhart. MR. CAIMANO-My first question is, I do use Dr. Lockhart, and the current front door of the current building, when you have inclement weather, whether it's heavy rain or whether it's snow, is under water. He has to use a pump to clear the sidewalk. How is this going to effect that, and what are we going to do? MR. DYBAS-We are aware of that problem. He has pointed that out to us, and that entire area is going to be re-graded and that sidewalk raised. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. Are we in a water plane of some kind, a creek bed or something? MR. CARTIER-I think you've got shallow soils here. I think the bedrock's up pretty high here, if I recall. Does that answer your question? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. CARTIER-So, you don't have a lot of place for water to go. 25 -- '- MR. CAIMANO-Right. Well, there seems to be a lot of questions that the engineer has. Do you want to address those, Kurt? MR. DYBAS-Number One raised was the handicapped parking. I think Mrs. York addressed that. The driveway situation, we are trying to re-use the two existing curb cuts, the east and the west, and if the Board so desires, it can be designated one way traffic. Currently, the patient load is such that, really, there's no problem with entrance and egress from the site. MR. CAIMANO-But you have tenants, though, right, upstairs? MR. DYBAS-There are tenants upstairs. MR. CARTIER-Let me go back to handicapped, though, because that's the first thing that hit me when I looked at this design is handicapped's way back in the corner, and given the fact that most of the people who are going to walk in here are going to have some problems, hopefully, and when they come out they won't, but it seems to me handicapped should be designated close to the entrances, simply because somebody's going to show up in really tough shape and they need easy access to that. MR. DYBAS-The Ordinance has calculated, I believe we needed 35 spaces. There's 36 show on that site plan. By locating the handicapped in proximity to the entrance, you would, basically, lose the one space on that one run, so you would be back down to the 35 spaces. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but we're still within the Ordinance. MR. DYBAS-You're still within the Ordinance. MR. CARTIER-And it would be much more convenient for somebody with a handicapping condition to get into and out of that building. MRS. PULVER-But if you have two people, and that place is taken, you know, the guy's got to go, you know, who's to say the most handicapped person is going to be in that site when the next handicapped person comes in? MR. CARTIER-That's true, but my point is, look at where these are. They're as far away as you can get from the building. MR. MARTIN-I think, if it's not much of a hardship, they should be moved closer to the building. MR. DYBAS-Other than losing a space, I mean, they can be moved. We just tried to optimize the parking on the site. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Engineering Comments. MR. MARTIN-Okay. He's got to go through all the stormwater management and Number Four. MR. DYBAS-Okay. Number Three, regarding the stormwater management. We have had a survey done. There are spot elevations, I believe, on the two copies of Leon Steves survey that were included, just not the middle of the drawing, we did not include all of those. The final paving will have to be spot graded. The site is virtually flat. The primary portion of the site is 313, and to get any type of drainage, you're going to be down to minimum slopes, but it can be made such to drainage toward the retention basins. The rain water off the roof would be run directly into the basin adjacent to the building to the west. Test pits, again, both on the site plan, it's noted the location that the perc test was taken. I believe it was four minutes and so many seconds, as far as the perc. The perc was performed when the site survey was done. MR. CAlMANO-Which was when, what time of year? MR. DYBAS-The date, I believe, is on that site. I don't have it. MR. YARMOWICH-It's July '91. MR. DYBAS-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-Well, is it on the drawing or not? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, no. It doesn't say when the perc test was taken. It says what the date of the survey was. MR. DYBAS-The date of the survey is when it was performed. MR. YARMOWICH-And from Mr. Dybas, we can say that that's July '91. 26 - --..,/ MR. CARTIER-Tom, does this need another go around, as far as you're concerned? Do you still need some more information before you can sign off on this thing? MR. YARMOWICH-The elevation of the water appears to be elevation 310, and they're looking at recharging down at an elevation of 311, some 50 feet, 60 feet away. There's some question in my mind as to whether or not groundwater's going to be a problem for this particular design. I think they should confirm that. Whether or not that can be done here, maybe Mr. Dybas is prepared to answer the rest of these. MR. DYBAS-I'm, obviously, not prepared to answer the depth to groundwater, because the perc was done at standard depth, and no test hole was taken in the area of retention basins. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So what's your pleasure, here? Ed, feel free to comment on this, with your engineering background, here. MR. DYBAS-We assumed that the groundwater would be no higher than the water in the creek, or Halfway Brook, I believe. MR. CARTIER-Do we need another look at this, from an engineering standpoint? MR. YARMOWICH-I think it's my opinion that the grading plan needs a little more definition with some spot elevations to show, in fact, that the volume which is proposed for stormwater management can be obtained without creating other problems in the parking lot. It's based on an elevation which appears to flood some of the parking lot, and because of the use here, we're real concerned about winter time conditions. Snow removal, also, is an element I think that maybe either now or if this project doesn't move, should be dealt with. MR. CARTIER-Okay. What I'm hearing is, if we go for an approval, here, we're going to attach a lot of conditions, and I think we seem to be trying to get away from conditional approvals. Is that correct? MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but can I ask one more question? Did you, Kurt, on this Number Two, did we decide that we're going to go one way in, one way out, or we're going to forget that? MR. LAPOINT-Well, it's been vague. I mean, I'm still vague on the handicapped parking. MRS. PULVER-They will move it. They said they will move it. MR. CARTIER-I think the direction is, we're going to move the handicapped parking to the entrances. We're going to get it out in the corner. MR. MARTIN-And he did consent to one way, I thought. MR. CARTIER-If we want it. MR. DYBAS-If the Board desires one way. I mean, the current driveway to the east serves both directions. If the Board wants one way, it can be one way. I don't see where it's going to be a problem on the site. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DYBAS-I'd like to come back to the question. MR. CARTIER-Hold on. Lets finish that one off. MR. CARTIER-Does the Board want to see one way ingress, one way egress? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, that answers that. MR. CAlMANO-Well, he has to, otherwise he's got to widen the lane. MR. CARTIER-Right. Okay. MR. DYBAS-Or it can be widened, that's the Board's pleasure. MR. CAIMANO-Well, it seems to me it would be easier to swing around, but it's up to you. I don't care MR. CARTIER-I think he wants a definite answer, though. MR. LAPOINT-Again, it's the applicant's choice whether you have one way through or widen the driveway. We'll take either or, and you tell us. MR. DYBAS-We'll leave the curb cuts as is and go with one way through. 27 '- -.,./ MR. CARTIER-Okay. That one's taken care of. MR. DYBAS-Now, site elevations. I think this survey does not extend off the parcel, obviously, but if you flood at 313, I think you're flooding a lot more than just this parking lot in this particular area, and with the proximity to the stream and everything else, I think we're going to flood the entire basin down there if we get to 313. MR. YARMOWICH-No. That elevation 313, as I understand it, is based on the amount of runoff that's going to be generated from this site. I think the way to clarify that, and what I'm seeing here is, there is that there is more information that I would want to see, a drainage plan showing the various drainage areas, by indicating precisely what the limits of drainage are or which direction it's going to flow and providing spot elevations on your grading plan. Because the site is so flat, contours alone can't reveal that to me. That's what I would like to see, a drainage basin plan, individual small drainage basins. I'm not convinced that a lot of these additional impermeable areas are even going to make it to the stormwater management area, in particular, the new pavement to the west of the site. It appears as though that may drain to the west and never really go through any functional controls. MR. CARTIER-Do you have the direction you need from Engineering Staff? MR. DYBAS-Other than timing, I think we just crunched it for this Fall. I'm looking for a means to expedite the project. Obviously, this is November 1st. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, but I'm confused again. You said a moment ago that there were some elevations, just contours are what you're talking about, right? MR. DYBAS-There are contours and some spot elevations. What is being requested is a detailed spot by spot elevation through all the parking areas to plot or indicate. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I don't think that's what he's asking for. I think he's asking for spots. MR. DYBAS-That's what, I hear what he's asking for. MR. YARMOWICH-I am requesting more detail. What I am requesting is a map of this site broken down into drainage areas with enough information to show that all your impermeable areas that you're creating are going to be dealt with by these stormwater management facilities. Because of the subtle grades out there, I can't determine that from this plan. MR. DYBAS-Yes. So, I understand you correctly. You're looking for detailed spot elevations. MR. YARMOWICH-To the level necessary to show that, that's correct. MR. DYBAS-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, we're going to see a revised drawing showing handicapped moved, one way ingress egress, and engineering, drainage concerns, stormwater management concerns addressed, and some statement to the effect of how you're going to deal with snow. Have I left anything out? MR. DYBAS-One question. We're talking about added impervious areas? MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. DYBAS-Added. Okay. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Before we're finished, let me open the public hearing. Is there anyone who would care to address this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'll leave the public hearing open. We might as well wait and do SEQRA on this when we get the finished product. Mr. Dybas, do you agree to table this application? MR. CAIMANO-Well, before we go any further, are we sure, are we clear, does Mr. Dybas have, for example, D of Three says Tom was looking for the methodology and the computations. MRS. PULVER-Well, he's going to take them with him, so. MR. YARMOWICH-No. I believe I've asserted to myself that the volume that they will provide, as stated on this plan, is going to be okay for the increase in permeable area. MR. CAIMANO-So, D is out. 28 - ----- MR. YARMOWICH-The reason that that comment is there is the previous comment, which says that elevation 313 may cause other site problems, and this design is based on 313. If this volume is changed in order to accommodate a different design condition which may be necessary based on available site grades, it's a very flat site. I wanted them to be aware that there was some question about the methodology. MR. CAIMANO-All right. Okay. So D is out. E, I have a question for you. We sit here on this Board, I don't know about the other five members, but we have always gone under the assumption that crushed stone and asphalt, for our purposes, were to be the same. MR. YARMOWICH-That's correct. MR. CAlMANO-You're not changing that with this? MR. CARTIER-He couldn't change that, anyway. We would be the ones to change it. MR. YARMOWICH-What I'm saying is that the existing condition here is crushed stone, and they're changing it to impermeable, okay, so when you change existing from gravel to pavement, gravel to asphalt, there is an increase in runoff as a result of that. It is the practice of the Town to require everyone to consider new areas as asphalt, so that when they do get paved in the future, there will be an adequate facility to accommodate that. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. DYBAS-But that's not what that says. MR. CAIMANO-No. I know that. MR. DYBAS-For the means of our approach, we consider it all as the same. MR. YARMOWICH-No, you can't. Your existing condition is a semi-pervious surface. Your proposed condition will be an impervious surface. MR. CARTIER-I understand what you're saying now, okay. MR. DYBAS-I'm sorry, but I still, as far as I'm concerned, in calculations, crushed stone, concrete, asphalt are all the same. This is the way we've done it for years in the Town of Queensbury. MR. YARMOWICH-The existing condition is gravel in part, is that correct? MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but he assumed it was concrete. MR. YARMOWICH-It is not concrete. The existing condition is a semi pervious situation, and you must manage runoff from the existing condition to the proposed condition. MR. CAIMANO-Yes, but he's managing for worst case condition, is what he's saying. MR. YARMOWICH-No. In his existing condition, it's assumed that it's impervious and not semi-pervious. MRS. PULVER-But he said he figured it on the asphalt. MR. CARTIER-We have treated crushed stone as an impermeable surface in this Town, with the full understanding that there was some permeability to it, and I think what Tom is saying is you have to take into account the fact that some water was draining through this semi-permeable surface, even though you are changing it, now, to an impermeable surface, and you have to deal with that. I understand what you're saying, Mr. Dybas. You're caught in a kind of Catch-22, here. MR. DYBAS-I can remember, three, four years ago, this came around, and it came from the Board that, from now on, crushed stone, a hard surface was a hard surface, it didn't matter, whether it was crushed stone, concrete, asphalt, and this is the premise that we have designed on for three or four years now. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but the rationale behind that was that it would, you couldn't count crushed stone as green space or permeable surface, okay. MR. DYBAS-That's right. MR. CARTIER-So, we're treating them as kind of two different situations here. I would tend to go along with Tom, in terms of what he's, not tend, I would go along with Tom in his rationale, it says, okay, you are, in fact, in the real world, going from a slightly permeable surface to an impermeable surface, even though the Town considers what is in reality a slightly permeable surface to be an impermeable surface. 29 ''"-- --- MR. CAIMANO-Having said that, the question is, so what? The sky is high. MR. CARTIER-The point is, if I'm understanding Tom, is that Mr. Dybas has to take that into consideration when he does a stormwater management runoff study on this. MR. CAIMANO-But he's already done that. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. DYBAS-No, but for the purpose of the calculations, it's already been taken as the same. MR. CARTIER-I thought I was clarifying things. If I'm just confusing the issue, I'll stop. Okay, any other questions or comments? MR. LAPOINT-Just 20 seconds, just to simplify this whole thing, if you were to show a grading plan for this west parking lot, that somehow brought it around the building, into that retention basin, that covers virtually all of these engineering comments, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-I guess, if I can just for a moment, for Mr. Caimano and Mr. Dybas, there is an area of crushed stone involved. I want to stop and say that I concur. The addition, the increase in paved area or building roof coverage is 5,777 square feet. In addition to that, there are several thousand square feet of existing crushed stone that will become asphalt paving, and that is not included in that 5,777. I feel that that additional area of crushed stone which will become paved needs to be included in the runoff that's generated from this site. Does that clarify what I'm talking about? MR. DYBAS-Well, I think we're talking the same thing, Tom, just different wavelengths. What I'm saying is, in the calculations, when you go down through redeveloped site, the paved area, including walks, includes that area which is now crushed stone and is paved over, as a hard surface in the calculations. MR. YARMOWICH-No. it does not. I disagree with you, is what I'm trying to say. The area of the building, plus the area of new asphalt paving totals, less the area of concrete sidewalks to be removed, 5777 square feet. In addition to that, there are several thousan.d square feet of existing crushed stone which will become asphalt. MR. DYBAS-But, in comparing the existing to the proposed, we addressed the crushed stone as a hard surface, for means of calculations. Whether or not it's crushed stone now or it's paved now, we considered it a hard surface, because it goes back to the premise that I mentioned to the Board. For three or four years, we've been considering crushed stone and asphalt as the same thing, as far as calculations. It's been a requirement of the zoning. MR. YARMOWICH-I suggest that perhaps we get together and resolve precisely what the basis of the stormwater management design is and how your methodology is going to apply, if we don't, right now, agree on what the situation of this crushed stone and asphalt, I think that's the best way to resolve it, if the Board would direct us that way. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody care to sit around and listen to two engineers argue? MR. DYBAS-No. MR. CAIMANO-Not me. MR. CARTIER-That being the case, I think your comment is well taken, in that you can get together and work this out among yourselves. Okay. Mr. Dybas, would you agree to table this application? MR. DYBAS-Yes, I would. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I'll leave the public hearing open, and we will conduct a SEQRA the next time around. We need to entertain a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PlAN NO. 51-91 DR. RANDALL S. LOCKHART, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Pending clarification of engineering issues. I further stipulate that the handicapped parking be shown on the revised plan as closer to the entrance. Two, that one way ingress and egress be shown on the plan, and that the snow removal situation on the site be addressed. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE 30 -- MR. MARTIN-Long. RESOWTION NO. 14-1991, Introduced by Nicholas Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a tw lot subdivision, by DANIEL D. LEWIS, Dream Lake, Sunnyside Road to Drea. Lake right-of-way, 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 is involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed project and Planning Board action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of 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 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. We can entertain a motion with regard to the Preliminary application. We're talking about a waiver from two foot contours, and if you should desire, a stipulation with regard to clearing access for emergency vehicles. MOTION 10 APPROVE PRELIMIflARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1991 DANIEL D. LEWIS, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Nicholas Caimano: With the following stipulation: That the proper clearance be shown for emergency vehicle access on the final plat and also a waiver to the two foot contour requirement is hereby granted. A waiver regarding the stormwater management report also be granted. Duly adopted this 22nd day of October, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brewer, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE MR. CARTIER-Okay. Bits and pieces. You have a letter in front of you, I believe, from Bob Joy with regard to Dexter Shoe, that's the one on the west side of Route 9 at the light, entertaining the idea of an expansion. They would like to meet with us, briefly, at a workshop session for either us to give them some direction or for them to give us some direction. I'm not sure which it is. Are you amenable to meeting next November one half hour early? Let me back up a minute. Queensbury Factory Outlet, have they already formally applied for variances? MRS. YORK-Yes, they have. MRS. PULVER-Where is the Queensbury Factory Outlet? MR. CARTIER-The Queensbury Factory Outlet, Jon Lapper and Company, down here, across from Grand Union. MRS. PULVER-Okay. All right. So, November 19th we're meeting at 6:30? 32 -- -- SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-3A DANIEL D. LEIIIS OWNER: DANIEL D. LEWIS DREAM lAKE, SUNNYSIDE ROAD TO DREAM lAKE (RIGHT-OF-WAY) FOR A TIIJ LOT SUBDIVISION. TAX MP NO. 50-1-1 LOT SIZE: 9.52 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS CHARLES NACY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 14-1991, Daniel Lewis, 10-21-91, Meeting Date: October 22, 1991 liThe applicant intends to subdivide a ± 9.5 acre parcel in an RR-JA zone into two lots. The lots will be conveyed to the children of the owner. The applicant has received a variance to subdivide without frontage on a Town Road. One lot will access a right of way which appears to be an extension of Sunnyside North. The other lot will access a gravel drive which is a right of way which accesses the lot adjacent to Dream Lake Road. This development should not negatively impact the traffic. The area is substantially wooded and the plans indicate that the area cleared will be minimal. A concern is the emergency vehicle access. That is why it is required to develop on a Town Road. The driveway on lot 2 is ± 350 feet in length. A turn around is provided. The width appears to be 15 feet. The Board may want to request that clearing be maintained so that snow removal will not prohibit emergency access. There are no other planning concerns. I agree that a waiver from the two foot contours and drainage report should be provided given the size of the lots and the limits of clearing. II MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Engineering Comments, please. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, October 15, 1991 IIWe have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. A waiver has been requested from providing a SWM report. Because the increase in runoff from the site will likely be minimal, it is recommended that a SWM waiver be granted. II MR. NACY-Good evening. My name is Charles Nacy from Scudder Associates. I am here on behalf of the applicant, Daniel Lewis, and I think that the Staff Comments probably substantially describe this project, two lots dividing approximately nine and a half acres. If there are any questions that the Board might have, we'd like to address them. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board have any questions? We are at Preliminary. Is there anything beyond the comments made by Staff with regard to clearing and the waiver request that needs to be incorporated in a Final application? MR. CAIMANO-What about the emergency vehicle access? MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's what I mean, the clearance. MR. CAIMANO-There's a question about the emergency vehicle access. MR. NACY-Okay. Well, obviously, it's in an area which is accessed, now, basically, in the summer. Lot One would have no problems, we believe, with access for an emergency vehicle. The road is a big gravel road now, and with a driveway, there should be no problem. Lot Two will be accessed by the long driveway coming off of another right-of-way, which is not quite in as good repair as the first one we talked about. Upon the construction or prior to the construction of anything on Lot Two, it would be, obviously, in the interest of the builder of Lot Two to do whatever is necessary to improve the road, so that they have access themselves and maintain it in such a fashion that they will not only have access to their own residence, but have provisions for any type of emergency vehicle. MR. CARTIER-Not only in the summer time when it's being used, but also in the winter time. MR. NACY-But in the winter time, that's correct, and it's understood that this would require plowing wide enough to allow not only access but turn around areas for these particular vehicles. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does the Board have any other questions or comments? I'll open the publ ic hearing. Is there anyone here who would care to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COtlŒNT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. CARTIER-We need to do a SEQRA Review. MR. CAIMANO-Short? 31 ''-" -- MRS. YORK-I'm sorry, Mr. Cartier, I'm not absolutely sure they have submitted something at this point in time. MR. CARTIER-All right. My question was going to be, then, given the fact that they are coming in seeking, two variances, three variances? MRS. YORK-There would be a number of them, I believe three. MR. CARTIER-A number of variances for that property, I wonder if this Board would be amenable to meeting with them in workshop session to give them some direction. This is the commercial center of town. My understanding is that they are looking for a variance with regard to permeability. They have 20 percent. They're looking for less than 20 for setbacks and I forget what else. Given the fact that this is, in fact, the commercial center of town, it's already heavily impacted by other things. I don't even know if these guys are willing to come in, but I sure would like to get a handle on this thing, prior to their going through any formal process. Would you be willing to do that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I would just like to make one comment about the workshop session for Bob Joy, though. I don't really like to have a workshop session prior to our normal meeting, in case there are some complications and it goes longer than the designated half hour. Nothing gets resolved, and then it would either put the meeting behind or add it at the end of the meeting. MR. LAPOINT-Well, we'd have to cut him off when we start the meeting. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but if you're going to have it, why not just have it, then, for him, rather than trying to sandwich it all in. MR. MARTIN-I agree. We've done this in the past, and I'd be willing to come in on a separate night for maybe these two combined. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I like that. MR. CAIMANO-Well, I just want to make sure that this is a workshop with the intentions you have in mind, Pete, because I happen to know, from another direction, this project has been kicking around for quite some time. What I don't want to do is to have a so called workshop in which you and Jim, especially, your intent is of the purest motives, to help these people, when in fact it is an attempt to, potential attempt to usurp the normal meeting. That's all I want to be aware of. MR. CARTIER-No. Let me be very up front. I'm very concerned with the fact that in the commercial center of town, in what is already, as far as I'm concerned, a property that needs some considerable improvement, when you drive by that, you see the backs of buildings, and I know that their previous approval, additional buildings, you would continue to see backs of buildings from Route 9. MR. CAIMANO-Okay. MR. CARTIER-All I'm trying to get at is I don't want these guys to go through a very, long drawn out process and then come to us and we say, forget it, go back and redesign it. I'm trying to get these guys in on an informal basis, first, and make them aware of our concerns. I have some concerns and I hope the rest of thi s Board wi 11 also have some concerns about thi s, because I know we had talked about this in the past, the original approval that lapsed, that they failed to get unlapsed, included things like tearing up pavement and getting it back to 30 percent perm, and putting in some trees and redoing the parking and making that thing look decent, because it's in the middle of town. When I hear them coming in for three variances, maybe more, my concern is, we're looking at a piece of property that they're going to try to get maxed out again, and we've already gotten burned on a maxed out piece of property, okay. MR. CAlMANO-Okay. MRS. PULVER-So, lets pick a night. MR. LAPOINT-How about the 12th? MRS. PULVER-Is a Tuesday okay for everybody? MR. CARTIER-When's election day, the 5th? MRS. PULVER-Yes. So, it's got to be the 12th. MR. CARTIER-Tuesday the 12th, at seven o'clock? MR. MARTIN-Fine. 33 ~ ''-1' MR. CARTIER-I'll tell you what. Suppose we put Dexter Shoe on for 7 p.m. and Queensbury Factory Outlet on for 8 p.m. Does that make sense? MRS. PULVER-Or second. MR. BREWER-Can we get something to remind us about it? MR. CAIMANO-Yes. MR. BREWER-A letter or something. MR. LAPOINT-They ought to come at least, you know, sketches or. MR. CARTIER-Who's "they"? Dexter or both? MR. LAPOINT-Both. They have to come to us with some kind of concept of what they want to do, am I correct? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes, something on paper. MR. LAPOINT-Something on paper we can look at, maybe even in advance of. MRS. PULVER-Maybe even two or three different concepts. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but also, understand, as far as I'm concerned, at least with regard to the Queensbury Factory Outlet, I want to get them in here for them to hear .!:!!., and much as, if not more, than the other way around, okay. MRS. PULVER-All right. So, it's November 12th. MR. CARTIER-Lee, could you draft a letter to, and send a letter out to Queensbury Factory Outlet and let them know our intent and that we'd like to see them. If they have already applied for variances, that's a wash out, as far as I'm concerned. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH- The consul tant from the Dexter Shoe factory has already made contact wi th me, just to go over the basic ground rules for site plan. MR. CARTIER-Through the Planning Department? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, no, they knew of my role, and did contact me by telephone, and we've only briefly discussed it, to this point. MR. CAIMANO-Well, that's why I'm concerned about it, because I have already been contacted, about a month ago, by the Marketing Department, saying that the thing is complete and that we're going to be doing some additional advertising. MR. LAPOINT-Well, see, again, all of us don't have that knowledge base, apparently a few guys here know what the heck's going on. I have no idea what they want to do, absolutely none. MR. MARTIN-I have none, either. I have no idea. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's what the workshop session's going to do, is we'll all start with the same basic information from that point. MR. MARTIN-November 12th at 7 o'clock. MRS. YORK-November 12th at 7 o'clock, and you want to see the Dexter people first and then the Queensbury Factory Outlet at 8 o'clock. MR. CARTIER-Lets do it this way. Get Dexter for seven. Get Queensbury Factory for seven thirty, and if we run over seven thirty, it's no problem. Okay. December meetings have been changed. One December meeting has been changed. They are now scheduled for 12/17 and 12/19. That's to avoid Christmas eve. Okay. Paul, do you want to tal k to us about legal services? Do we need to go into Executive Session for that? MR. DUSEK-Is there anything to discuss, at this point? I don't think so. MR. CARTIER-Well, you want to give us a date, you said. 34 ~ MR. DUSEK-I could, you know, very easily, once I get all the dates tied down, I could just contact the Board. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. DUSEK-I thought just send a memo out to the Board, rather than tie you up tonight. MR. MARTIN-Excellent. MR. CARTIER-Has anybody got anything else? I guess not. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 35