Loading...
1991-12-19 '-' Petition for a Change of Zone P7-91 Subdivision No. 18-1991 SKETCH PLAN Site Plan No. 55-91 Site Plan No. 56-91 ~ IJ,IEENSIIJRY PlANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REWlAR MEETING DECEMBER 19TH, 1991 INDEX Guido Passarelli 1. Azure Park H. Russell Harris 6. OSCAP, LID 19. Keith Harris 28. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. .." () '~/ --- ~ QUEENSBURY PlANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGUUR 'IEETING DECEMBER 19TH, 1991 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT PETER CARTIER, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY JAMES LAURICELLA JAMES MARTIN EDWARD LAPOINT TIMOTHY BREWER SENIOR PlANNER-LEE YORK TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, TOM YARMOWICH STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MIJllTES 11/23/91: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE ABOVE SET OF MINUTES, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Edward LaPoint: Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint. Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano, Mrs. Pulver NEil BUSIflESS: PETITION FOR A CHAflGE OF ZONE P7-91 GUIDO PASSARELLI PROPERTY INVOLVED: HERALD SIJ,IARE SOUTH SIDE OF WZERfIE ROAD CURRENT ZONE: SR-lA PROPOSED ZONE: SR-20 TAX MAP fIO. 125-9-999 TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCES TO REINSTATE SR-20 ZONING TO THE REMINDER OF HERALD SIJ,IARE SUBDIVISION. THE FIRST PHASE OF IIUCH HAS ALREADY BEEN DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO SR-20 STAlDARDS. FOR CONTIflJATION OF AFFORIMBLE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING WITHIN AI EXISTIflG SUBOIVISION DEDICATED TO THAT PURPOSE. (WARREll COUITY PlAfIfIING) PuutNING BOARD RECOIIENDATION ONLY LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:04 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Petition 7-91, Guido Passarelli - Herald Square, 12-13-91, December 19, 1991 liThe application is for a change of zone from SR-IA to SR-20 on Phase II and III of the Herald Square subdivision located off of Luzerne Road. The 147 lot subdivision received preliminary approval in 1986. Phase I received final approval on March 17, 1989 and has reached the point where the next phase can be developed. In the interim the zoning changed from SR-20 to SR-IA. The application is requesting a change of zone back to SR-20 for the entire ± 83 acres. The property does contain Clendon Brook on it but the planned development will take place away from the stream corridor. This petition was reviewed with regard to the Planning Board review questions. 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The issues surrounding this re-zoning are basically related to fairness. The developer prepared a plan, paid for engineering, surveying, and design, went through the subdivision process and was approved. Development at a different density would now be a major investment and would require another subdivision review. As the Board has stated previously, development of larger lots for a subsequent phase would be inconsistent. There is no real community need that would be met by the re-zoning. The affordable housing issue has been raised. Acre lots would certainly be "less affordable", however, affordability is a concept which is measured by the borrowing power of the buyer. 2. What existing zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The subdivision was designed for half acre lots. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? To the south is a mobile home park overlay zone and the Ambershire Subdivision which is developed at half acre lots. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The site has already gone through subdivision review with half acre zoning in mind. Physical characteristics were taken into account at that time. 5. How will the proposed zone effect public facilities? The availability of public facilities was reviewed at subdivision and should not be affected. 6. Why is the current zoning classification not appropriate for the property in question? Development along the primary traffic artery has already taken place at half acre density. 7. What are the environmental impacts 1 -- --/ of the proposed change? The SEQRA review previously done addresses, environmental impacts. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? This question is not applicable to this situation. 9. How are the wider interests of the Community being served by this purpose? The issue is one of fairness to the developer by the municipality. In this instance the municipality has inadvertently created a hardship for the developer which was not the intent! II MR. CARTIER-Okay. We have a letter from the County indicating approval with no comment. I guess the only comment I'd have, at this point, is in reference to, again, the issue of affordable single family housing is raised and I'm not sure it applies here, but, that having been said, Mr. Steves, would you care to address the Board, please. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Leon Steves. I think the plan before you probably speaks well for itself. I could, if you don't have one in front of you, show you a Tax Map. It kind of gives you an idea of the surrounding neighbors density. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I think when we were out there we kind of got a look at that, I think. MR. STEVES-Okay. The intent, of course, you mayor may not have reviewed this plan, in the past. MR. CARTIER-No. We have not. Nobody on this Board, this is old, old business, as far as this entire Board is concerned. MR. STEVES-Okay. Well, lets briefly go through it, then. The scenario, at the time, was to have a three phase development. As you can see, Phase I was the outlying portion of it, here, and built through with the road, and now has had 60 percent buildout. MR. CARTIER-Phase I .1.!. at 60 percent? MR. STEVES-Yes, I do believe that's correct, yes, which is necessary to come back to the Board. MR. CARTIER-Yes, well, that was my question, because this is new to me, since nobody, including myself, was on the Board when this thing was originally approved, and was this pre phased approval, I guess, is my question, okay. In other words, was this entire subdivision approved prior to the phasing that showed up in the new Ordinance? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Let me ask a better question, because that question isn't really relevant. Phase II and Phase III is subject to phasing also, correct? I know that sounds very confusing. MR. STEVES-To buildout, is that what you mean? MR. CARTIER-Okay. You've got to get 60 percent in Phase I, then you can start Phase II. You've got to get 60 percent in Phase II, then you can get Phase III? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-We're on the same wavelength. Thank you. MR. STEVES-That's correct, and I would think, there is a slight difference in there between the old code and the new code, as to the amount of buildout, okay, and what you have to have done. I think, in the old code, it was started, in the new code, it's buildout, occupied. MR. CARTIER-Do we agree that the new code is what applies here? MR. STEVES-Yes. That's exactly right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. STEVES-I agree, because I wasn't on this particular phase of it, either. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-The 20 acre green zone speaks for itself, over here. It's along Clendon Brook and it's going to be forever green. The area has been set aside for retention areas, and all the calculations have been made. All the plans have been made and submitted to the Board, as well as water distribution, septic systems, and everything. The entire plan was approved, both in concept plan and preliminary stage. MR. CARTIER-What about final? MR. STEVES-Final could not be arrived at until you had the 50. 2 - -...../' MR. CARTIER-For Phase II Phase III you're talking about? MR. STEVES-Right. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-Phase I has full, but until they had 50 or 60 percent, they couldn't come back in for Phase II. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-So, that's where we stand. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Could I ask you a question? How come on Phase II, I see on Phase I you have the size of the lots. On II and III you don't. MR. STEVES-Only because this is a plan of Phase I, if you will. The Phase II, Phase III is not highlighted purposely. All the calculations are performed. All the lot sizes are made, not on this map, because that was at a 50 scale map of the whole project. MR. MARTIN-So, we're, essentially, just doing a housekeeping or a cleaning up, here, of Phase I zoning in SR-20, to bring it up to 1991, here, so to speak? MR. STEVES-Yes, that's why we're asking for are-zoning. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. STEVES-So, that these two phases that were approved, preliminary, can now come forward with a preliminary approval of the plan that has been presented. MR. MARTIN-And that's when we'll see the exact lot sizes and all that, at that time. MR. BREWER-That will come back to us? MR. STEVES- Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Understand, all we're doing tonight is making a recommendation to re-zone. We are going to see Phase II again, in terms of subdivision. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MARTIN-So, essentially, all we're doing is bringing a Phase I into modern day times, here. MR. CARTIER-Yes, essentially, okay, and also that, with the understanding that this was the original design. There may be some design changes in Phase II and Phase III when it comes back for subdivision review. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. BREWER-We'll see the changes, or whatever. MR. STEVES-That's correct. It enjoyed preliminary approval, not your approval, but preliminary approval, and you may wish to look at it, you know, and nobody's arguing with you about that. MR. CARTIER-I know that. I'm just trying to make sure that everybody understands, here, that preliminary approval no longer applies, however, to Phase II and Phase III, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, it does. MRS. YORK-Yes, it does. MRS. PULVER-It still does. MR. YARMOWICH-It still does. The preliminary approval, basically, works out all the technical issues, as Leon said, all the road grades are set, all the stormwater is done. The final stage approval is just basically making sure that all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. There's not a lot of work. The final review is usually relatively straight forward. Preliminary is where most of the revi ew occurs. 3 '-' - MRS. PULVER-This is basically the same issue that we had with Queensbury Forest, Phase III. They did not get to buil d Phase I II, and when they went to bui 1 d it, the zoning had changed, and they had to come back in to get the re-zoning, so they could go back to their original development, and that's all this is right here. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Understood, but all I want to be sure the Board understands is that we are not necessarily locked into what we're seeing here for Phase II and Phase III, because they've gone to preliminary only. In other words, we're not rubber stamping a preliminary, here, by recommending a re-zoning, if that's the way we're going to go. MR. YARMOWICH-The public hearing was held at the preliminary stage, at which time the Board that was seated here took the public comments and the plan was developed on the basis of that and approved on the basis of that. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Normally, you wouldn't see are-arrangement. MR. MARTIN-I don't think we're going to see a drastic redesign of this, though. MR. CARTIER-No. MR. YARMOWICH-Unless certain standards have changed, you know, there's statutory requirements that are different, and then they would be required to upgrade to that condition. MR. CARTIER-I guess my question is, when Phase II comes back in to us for subdivision, what are we going to be looking at, final? MRS. YORK-Yes. You'll be looking at the final approval. MR. CARTIER-Okay. That answers that. MRS. PULVER-The Phase II and Phase III will just have to come up to 1991 engineering standards, and that's it. I don't see where the lots in the subdivision itself will be redesigned at all. MR. CARTIER-I understand that. I just want it clear that we are not solidly locked in here. We're going to be looking at something else. MR. LAURICELLA-How many lots were there, in Phase I? MR. STEVES-Forty five. MR. LAURICELLA-Forty five. MR. CARTIER-And we're looking at a total of, what, 146, I believe? MRS. YORK-I thought it was 147. MR. STEVES-147. MR. BREWER-147 is the highest number I can see. MR. CARTIER-Okay. When will this appear before the Town Board, prior to or beyond January I? MRS. YORK-At this point, I could not get a definite answer, because this Board had not moved on it. So, I should be able to get you an answer. MR. CARTIER-That's okay. MRS. YORK-I would assume they will put it back on the Town Board's agenda at the earliest possible date, but I'm not sure when that would take place. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, the reason I bring it up is, in whatever recommendation we make to the Town Board, the issue of SEQRA, Lead Agency Status, is involved. That usually is part of our motion, and I don't know what the Board's druthers are, with regard to that, but I just bring that to the fore, for your awareness. MR. LAPOINT-It'll be after the first of the year. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I would assume that's true, also. MR. LAPOINT-This will make a good opportunity to shake that out. 4 - -- MR. CARTIER-Okay. Does anybody else have anymore questions or comments? Anything else? Is anybody prepared to make a recommendation? MOTION TO RECOIIEfID TO THE TOWN BOARD THE CHANGE OF ZONE FROM SR-lA TO SR-20 FOR ALL PHASES OF THE SUBDIVISION, INCWDIflG THE GREEN AREAS OF THE HERALD SIJ,IARE SUBDIVISION PETITION NO. 7-91 GUIDO PASSARELLI, AND WEILL RfiIJ,lEST LEAD AGEIICY STATUS FOR THE PuutNING BOARD FOR THE SEQRA REVIEW, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Martin: Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: MR. CARTIER-SEQRA status? MR. LAPOINT-And I'd like to defer the decision on SEQRA, Lead Agency status, to the Town Board. MRS. PULVER-Yes, because they haven't given it up. MR. LAPOINT-And my thought there is that, that way they can make what they feel is their judgement, after the first of the year. MR. CARTIER-Well, we can request. We have two other options. One is we can request that they be lead agent, or we can request that ~ be lead agent. MR. LAPOINT-Well, can we just leave it at, let them decide who, again, it's the same, six of one, half dozen of another, right? MR. BREWER-No, because that's almost as much as saying, if they want to be lead agent, they can. MRS. PULVER-Well, they've always been lead agent. MR. LAPOINT-If they want to be. MR. BREWER-They can. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Yes. If they want to be, they will be. We already know that, right. MR. LAPOINT-So, what I'm doing is leaving the decision up to them, and that's something. MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't know if it's so negative to just request it. They can always deny our request and take it, so. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. STEVES-Could I make a comment on that. Understand where you're from, the SEQRA Review tonight, that we're talking about is for the re-zoning. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. STEVES-Not for the subdivision. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. STEVES-Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. CARTIER-You're a meeting ahead of us, in terms of SEQRA, I think. Okay. MR. STEVES-Yes. AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-The only other thing I would ask, is that this portion of the minutes be forwarded on to the Town Board. 5 '-"'" ~ MRS. YORK-Along with the Staff comments. MRS. PULVER-Yes. (7:22 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1991 SKETCH PINt SUBDIVISION NO. 18-1991 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA AZURE PARK H. RUSSELL HARRIS OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE JENKINSVILLE, AZURE DRIVE/FROM IJIAIƒR ROAD 60 NORTH ON RIDGE ROAD TO JENKINSVILLE ROAD, SOUTH TO RAINBOW TRAIL, LEFT TO FAR END OF RAINBOW TRAIL FOR A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION OF lAND FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. TAX MAP NO. 52-1-11 LOT SIZE: 18.54 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:22 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-Okay. It's listed as Sketch Plan, but I'm not sure it really is Sketch Plan. MRS. YORK-No. That's incorrect. MR. CARTIER-Okay. No problem. STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Subdivision No. 18-1991, H. Russell Harris - Azure Park, 12-19-91, Meeting Date: December 19, 1991 liThe Zoning Board of Appeals last evening referred this request to the Planning Board for a recommendation." MRS. YORK-I'm just going to digress here a little. Basically, the Zoning Board got into a discussion of cluster development and the purpose of cluster development, and none of them had any experience or real hands on knowledge of working with clustering, and there were some environmental issues that had come up regarding this. so they felt that this Board was an appropriate Board to make a recommendation to them, because you had worked with cluster developments, and you knew the intent of clustering. Back to the notes. liThe application is for a variance to reduce the lot size in a 1 acre zone. Staff was unable to get a transcript to the Board because of the time frame. The ZBA reviewed this subdivision because 15 of the lots requested were substandard. (Please review attached staff comments.) The Environmental Committee submitted testimony regarding proximity to the landfill and possible migration of leachate because of new wells being drilled. The applicant believes that the proposed lots are more in keeping with the lot size in the neighborhood. The applicant does have the aggregate amount of land and could with Planning Board approval do a cluster design. He does not want lot 16 in common ownership, however, because of the cost of homeowner's association. Lot 16 will be utilized for drainage and has development limitations (and is planned as a single family residential 10t}.1I MR. CARTIER-Let me interrupt you right there, because I'm really confused here. Could we not design a cluster set up that excluded lot 16? Is that possible? MRS. YORK-Yes, you could. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Without need for a variance, correct? MRS. YORK-Right. The issue, here, is that if you read the Definition of Clustering, it states that. basically, you can have substandard sized lots. However, you have to provide Common Open Space. Common Open Space is, basically, the benefit here and the applicant does not feel that that particular benefit has to be given, because the space will remain open, even though it will be in private ownership. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. liThe re-zoning in 1988 was based on the carrying capacity of the land. The limitations on lot 16 indicate that the larger lot sizes were justified in this area. The applicant testified that his goal is to provide llmoderate income housing" and that half acre lots are necessary. The applicant stated the property was purchased in 1958 and that he has developed three subdivisions on it. The roads are in existence and the on lot wells and septics are proposed, so the developers costs are related to subdivision design and approval, rather than to infrastructure. Attached is the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution and staff comments. II And the tests for an area variance are listed here with the staff replies, and I believe there's Warren County, and there is a letter from the Queensbury Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Issues. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Let me just back up to the resolution from the Zoning Board last night. It says, "and a sketch will be made available by the applicant to show one acre lots at the time of the Planning Board meeting". Is that what's up here? MR. STEVES-No, sir. MR. CARTIER-So, we don't have a one acre look? 6 --- - MR. STEVES-Yes, we do. MR. CARTIER-You have it there? Okay. MR. STEVES-I have it right here. I've been told though, in the past, not to present anything to you that hasn't been presented to you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much. appreciate that, Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I don't want to, necessarily, have you read us your comments, unless you want to, from the variance to the Zoning Board. It's just that we just got them tonight, and I want to take a couple of minutes for us to be able to read them, here. I guess my reaction to staff notes of the Zoning Board is that I want to leave the practical difficulty issue to the Zoning Board. That seems appropriate. That's not an issue, I don't think this Board wants to get into. That's a Zoning Board function. 1'm still a little confused here. Is the Zoning Board asking us to make a recommendation as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a cluster design that would allow the density that would amount to half acre zoning? MRS. YORK-Well, I guess, I was there and I'm not real sure. I guess, basically, since there was testimony given regarding environmental issues, since there was testimony given as to the intent of the acre zoning in this particular location, and there was testimony given of the appropriateness of having a clustered subdivision without the benefit of Common Open Space. The Zoning Board felt that there were many issues involved here that they were not familiar with, or many areas of investigation, regarding whether a clustering design is appropriate, what the soil conditions are, whether this is an area appropriate for increasing densities and issues like that. Whether it is necessary, in a cluster design, to have Common Open Space, as the definition says, or whether the real intent, here, is to just have some space laid aside. The Zoning Board felt that these issues were more germane to this Board and they would like a recommendation. MR. CARTIER-Mr. Steves, because my frustration, I think, well, maybe that's too strong a word, but we're talking about a potential cluster design, and we don't see one, we don't have one to look at. MR. STEVES-Let me go through the scenario, then. Hi. I'm Leon Steves, again. This is a cluster design, in that we have 20 some odd acres of land and we're trying to cluster it into 15 or 16 lots, with the 16th lot being the large holdings, if you will, to do what the Code, I think, calls for, to provide for future residential development opportunities. I don't know how you can do that and maintain a one acre lot on everything you sell and have any future potential at all. You've used it all up. Fifty years from now, they'll be cussing us, but this is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, in that, as you look in the area map, you will see that the lots in the surrounding, for instance, down here, are 100 by 150 feet in size. These are basically 150 by 150 to 200 feet in size. There is but two lots to the west that are one acre in size, and one lot to the east that's four acres in size. Everything else is less than an acre, much less. The further southwest we go, that is, predominately, 100 by 150 feet. The roads are existing Town roads. We intend to bring drainage across the lots to the Rainbow Trail, down Rainbow Trail and into the larger parcel, lot 16. Also, where there's a culvert, here, bring it right on down, again, drainage into here. We've talked to Paul about this. I hope that Paul is satisfied with that. We don't want to put anything on his road, other than utilize it to get it off his road. The Board, last night, asked if we would demonstrate what one acre lots would look like. Incidentally, Tom made a comment of the soil investigation. That was all done by Charlie Main, okay. MR. CARTIER-Made a comment, what, last night? MRS. YORK-No, for these notes. MR. LAPOINT-We haven't gotten through the Engineering Notes, yet. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-No, but just to tell you whether that came from. The same plan, one acre lots. MR. CARTIER-And we are, how many? MR. STEVES-Eleven. MR. CARTIER-Eleven, as opposed to 15 lots. MR. STEVES-As opposed to ]i. MR. MARTIN-The orange indicating the one acre lots? 7 ---- -- MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-So, we're talking about a net difference of five lots, here? MR. STEVES-Five lots. I think Mr. Harris said it best last night. I think that the Board is probably inundated with moderate and low cost housing, and I have avoided using that terminology in the past. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. STEVES-However, he was asked a question last night, what's the value of the places out here, and his response was, the last house sold, this year, was sold for $65,000. I think that says it all, right there, in a nutshell. That included lot, everything, move in condition. MR. MARTIN-A brand new house? MR. STEVES-Brand new house. MR. CARTIER-Sold, when? MR. STEVES-This year. MR. CARTIER-This year. Is that a sweat equity, finished house, partly finished? MR. MARTIN-Turn key or contracted? MR. STEVES-Turn key, live right in house. The contractor built that house. MR. BREWER-How big of a house? MR. CARTIER-How many square feet? MRS. PULVER-It's probably about a 1,000 square feet or 900 square feet, but, I mean, a two bedroom. It could be done. MR. STEVES-But, if you've been out there, it's a nice little neighborhood. Well, what can I say, it's a clean, nice neighborhood. Okay. Now, let us compare this plan, then, with the neighborhood. We have one lot here, 1.8 acres in size, one lot, below and surrounded by a road, on the north and east, to the south, five lots, and to the west, one lot. That is not, in my estimation, in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. That's why we proposed a similar size. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Understanding all that, and appreciating your discussion, I guess my question is, and some other members of the Board please feel free to jump in, here, I'm a little bit concerned that we're being asked to make a recommendation with regard to a cluster design, that hasn't been through the review process, here, that hasn't been looked at by Staff, that hasn't been looked at by Engineering Staff. I know we have Engineering Comments. MRS. PULVER-No. I think all they want is a recommendation that this could be considered a cluster design. MR. STEVES-Right. MRS. PULVER-The Zoning Board just wants a recommendation to say, yes, we agree that this -could be a cluster design. MR. CARTIER-It could be clustered? MRS. PULVER-Yes, I mean, this is a cluster design. MR. LAPOINT-As shown. MRS. PULVER-As shown, originally. MR. STEVES-As shown. If for instance, we came to you and asked for a cluster provision, we have to ask for that. MR. CARTIER-They're asking for us to interpret the Ordinance, here, then. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. They deferred to us. MR. CARTIER-And that's, traditionally, their job. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. 8 '-' - MR. STEVES-Well, you see, the reason for our variance request was that, in the cluster provision, it says you have to have Common Open Land, all right. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. STEVES-That's ridiculous. Across the road from this place you have the park. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute. Ridiculous or not, it's part of the Ordinance, so we have to deal with it, regardless of our personal opinion about it. MR. STEVES-I hear that, but that's why I went to the Board and asked for the variance. I'm only trying to explain my position. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. LAURICELLA-Would lot 16 be your open land? MR. STEVES-Yes, it will, and marked clearly upon it, no future development permitted on this lot. MR. LAURICELLA-And that would be owned by the Homeowner's Association? MR. STEVES-No, owned by one individual. the owner of lot 16. MR. LAURICELLA-That doesn't fall in. MR. STEVES-No, it doesn't. That's why we asked for the variance. Now, to satisfy the Code for cluster provision, I wouldn't have had to go to the Board, if we wished to have a Homeowner's Association, which would create a lot, here. owned by the Homeowners, 16 of them, paying taxes on it and maintenance fees on it and insurance fees on it, for life, when you have, right across the road, a park. MR. LAPOINT-But, right now, lot 16 will have one dwelling on it? MR. STEVES-One dwelling. MR. LAPOINT-And owned by one person. So, it's in no way common to the other IS? MR. STEVES-No, that's correct. MR. BREWER-Right. So, if the other people wanted to go over and use that land, they really couldn't? MR. STEVES-No. They would be, truly, trespassing on somebody's private property. MRS. PULVER-But the owner of lot 16 is going to own the entire parcel, and be responsible for the taxes and the maintenance and everything of that parcel. MR. MARTIN-And he'll have a deed restriction of no further development. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MRS. PULVER-No further development, and if it were to be in a common area for Homeowner's, then whatever the maintenance or costs of that property would have to be spread throughout the 16 families for life. So, when you buy that house, you're not only paying your taxes, but you're paying the taxes on lot 16 that no one can build on, or whatever, and probably you can't play on unless you get your other 15 neighbors to go along with it. MR. BREWER-Yes, but that's in the, that's written in the Ordinance. MR. LAURICELLA-That's not in accordance with the Ordinance. They have an open space. MRS. PULVER-That's why they went for a variance. That's what they're saying. That's why they went for a variance. MR. CARTIER-You're changing your variance request, however. If I understand this, please correct me if I'm wrong, because this is very convuluted, here, and I want to be sure I understand it. You're changing your variance request. in terms of going from acre to one half acre zoning, to a variance request for a cluster design, without common space. MR. STEVES-No. MR. CARTIER-No? Without common space available to the homeowners of the other 15 lots? Is that a fairly accurate? 9 '- --/ MR. STEVES-That's true. MRS. YORK-What he is asking for is an area variance to reduce the size of his lots. The argument that Mr. Steves is using, that it would be allowed in the Ordinance under a cluster design, but this can no way be cons i dered a cluster des i gn, because there is no Common Open Space, but he is sayi ng that he would meet the intent of the Ordinance. because lot 16 would remain open space, even though it would not be available to all the residents. It is kind of a strange argument, but we've heard more strange. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but. in a sense, and I don't like the word I'm going to use, but I can't think of another one at the moment. In a sense, what we're saying is, we're circumventing the purpose of a cluster design, in terms of elimination of Commonly available Open Space, correct? MR. MARTIN-We're circumventing 50 percent of it, it sounds like, to me. We are getting the Open Space, but not for the common use and ownership. MRS. YORK-And, therefore, since that is the definition, by definition, this cannot be considered a cluster design. MR. MARTIN-Right. It strikes me that you're going to have an uphill climb on the variance, technically, and it's not within our purview to, but it looks like you're going to have an uphill climb on that one, no matter what we do here. That's a tough pitch to make, but, that's up to you. I've heard worse. MRS. PULVER-Well, in some cluster developments, the houses can be clustered so closely together that they will only own their footprint, and, therefore, having common land around them is really necessary, because they have no recreation area. MR. MARTIN-That's true. MRS. PULVER-In this particular case, it is a cluster design, the lots, 50 by 100, or whatever they are, by 200, does give the future homeowner some land of his own, to have recreation. So, it's not as important to have this Common Land for that as it would be for, say, Diehl's, when he comes in. If they are only owning the footprint, they need to have Common Land, I mean, where are they going to have their barbecue pit? MR. LAPOINT-I think the end result is what's important, here. We are seeing half acre, in character, lots in there. I think that's important, regardless of the cluster definition, or whatever. MR. CARTIER-Sixteen lots on a total of how many acres? MR. STEVES-I think it was 21 or 20 acres. MRS. PULVER-Lets not forget, he does have enough acreage to have 16 lots. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-I think Carol's point, there, is somewhat relevant, in that the point, if this were a cluster, like, we were seeing Zero Lot Line, by the footprint, then you'd need the Common Area, for, like you say, the recreation and separation distances, and all that, but, given the fact that you have individual lots with individual homeowners. MR. STEVES-You know where the park is, the Town park? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-It seems to me to be a good combination. I mean, if these people will almost have a clustering effect, yet have their own half acre, especially if it's a small house. MR. MARTIN-I just want to get this on the record. I appreciate the Zoning Board's appeal to us. I think this type of communication is good, and I just want to, I think that's constructive. MRS. PULVER-Many of these lots are bigger than lots in Bedford Close. MRS. YORK-Would you like to read the rest of the attachments? MR. LAPOINT-Yes, lets go through the rest of Staff. MR. MARTIN-Yes, lets, that would help. MRS. PULVER-Yes. 10 '-' -- MRS. YORK-Okay. There was a letter from Richard W. Sage, the Secretary to the Queensbury Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Issues, Dec. 19, 1992 liTo: Queensbury Planning Board Re: Area Subdivision No. 18-1991, Sketch Plan, Azure Park The Citizens Advisory Committee regularly reviews the agenda of the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Whenever a proposed agenda item has significant environmental overtones the CAC considers the potential impact and may make its thoughts known to the appropriate town board. On Dec. 18th we made comments on the above item to the Zoning Board. By this letter we are making the same general comments to the Planning Board. The proposed subdivision is located in the same area as the Queensbury landfill. Although the available data do not show contamination of the ground water by landfill leachate residents in the area have expressed considerable concern about such a possibility. It does have to be considered that such contamination, now or in the future, is possible. In our judgement it would be wise to consider this possibility in determining the wisdom of further development in the Azure Park area. If a leachate plume does move into the area and is picked up by domestic water wells, it would be essential to bring town water supplies via a waterline into the development. Since this might take considerable elapsed time, it might be well to limit further development until the Town is ready and able to bring in replacement water. The ideal approach would be to determine the location of the aquifer serving the Azure Park area and, also, of the possible interface with the leachate plume from the landfill. When the location and rate of movement of the leachate plume is known, a technically sound decision on further development would be possible. Obtaining such data would be costly and time-consuming. However, to allow further development without such information will, in our opinion, have some degree of technical risk.1I Warren County Planning Board, and my Staff didn't attach it, stated they believed it should be denied. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Tom, will you take us through your comments? ENGINEERING REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, December 11, 1991 IIWe have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. A completed environmental assessment form is required at sketch plan, as per Town of Queensbury Code A183-6B.3. 2. The test pit data indicates potential seasonal high groundwater at less than 2' in test pits 4, 8, and 9. This will require alternative sewage disposal system design. The data should indicate date of soil testing as well as the individual performing the tests." 1'11 depart from the letter. Leon's already indicated that that person is qualified to have done the work. liThe Town of Queensbury Sanitary Sewage Ordinance requires that all high groundwater tests be taken between March, April, Mayor June within 6 weeks of the time that frost leaves the ground. If this procedure is not followed, the seasonal high groundwater level may only be determined by an individual certified by the Local Board of Health. 3. A typical lot layout with setbacks should be shown. 4. All property owners in Tax Map Section 52, Block 4 should be indicated. Other property owner's within 500 feet to the west and south should be indicated. II MR. CARTIER-So, what this all boils down to is, the Zoning Board wants a recommendation from us with regard to the clustering design, simply stated. MR. YARMOWICH-I think, I'll just interrupt you there. Their motion says they wanted a recommendation as to the plan presented, now. MR. CARTIER-The clustering plan presented. MRS. YORK-Basically, is it a good idea to have a one acre zone with half acre lots in it? What is the intent of the zoning in that area, and, with the new subdivision, is it wise to walk in and give them variances for 15 out of 16 lots? MR. CARTIER-I'm trying to go back, in my head, to when we did, in fact, talk about re-zoning this, and I know a big issue out there was the landfill, the proximity of the landfill, and we did make significant reductions in density out there. I know that, nearby, is 10 acre, because of the landfill, is 10 acre. MRS. YORK-Yes. Just north of it, the zoning is Land Conservation 10 acres. MR. CARTIER-And that was a response to the proximity to the landfill, and I guess we did move that, we said, what, SR-30 to One Acre, for, basically, that same reason. We were a little bit farther away from the landfill, but that was, in fact, a concern. MR. STEVES-And we totally agree with the density. MR. CARTIER-Of One Acre? MR. STEVES-Yes. With 20 acres, we've gone 16 lots. MR. CARTIER-Yes, okay. This is a weird situation. MR. STEVES-To me, if you will, it's impractical to expect the developer to maintain a reasonable level of cost to these lots, to be saddled with a Homeowners Association development cost that will add nothing to the community whatsoever, because of the proximity of the Town park, as well as adding on the cost of your recreation fees. You're talking, in excess of $15, $16,000, just in fees, and that's the reason. 11 -- -- MR. CARTIER-Okay, but those are. MR. STEVES-I know, it's fixed, but that's the reason why we're trying to cut the cost, if possible, by avoiding the homeowners association, not avoiding the intent of Open Space. He can only build one house out here. MR. MARTIN-So, it all boils down to just the elimination of that homeowners association. MR. STEVES-That's right. MR. MARTIN-And the Common Area. MR. LAURICELLA-Isn't there two issues, though? Are we dealing with the first issue, that these are undersized lots, and the second issue is, can he cluster them? MR. CARTIER-Well, the undersized lot issue, we're going to leave that with the Zoning Board. MR. LAURICELLA-We aren't making a recommendation on that? MR. MARTIN-No, that's their bag. MR. CARTIER-We're going to stay out of that. MR. LAURICELLA-All right. MR. CARTIER-The only recommendation we have to make is, I guess, do we consider clustering, here, in this particular situation, an appropriate design. MR. LAURICELLA-And this is your presentation of cluster design? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. STEVES-That's correct. I think that really boils down to the question. MR. MARTIN-Of a homeowners association. MR. STEVES-No. That's their bailiwick, to grant the variance to avoid the homeowners, okay. You, then, are making a determination that this is a cluster design that's appropriate. MRS. YORK-I really don't feel that. MR. STEVES-You don't think that's the question? MRS. YORK-No. I don't think, given the definition of what a Cluster Design is, this can meet that definition at all, unless there is Common Open Space. MR. STEVES-Okay. This is true, but I haven't made that application for this purpose, but if I put a line on this map. MRS. YORK-So, I don't think the Board has to be concerned, I mean, we're getting tied up in an issue that is not relevant. MR. STEVES-We're getting tied up in this, but if I made an application to this Board only, then I would have to put a line on the map and call this Common Open Space, and ask for a cluster provision consideration. MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. If I had done that, I wouldn't have to go on to the Zoning Board. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. STEVES-I went to the Zoning Board to eliminate that line. The only way I could do it is to say, lets have the lots less than one acre in size. So, it isn't bad to have a dual review. If you're satisfied with the concept, the appropriateness of the half acre lots, so recommend. MR. CARTIER-The concept, not necessarily that particular plan right there. MR. STEVES-That's correct, that's absolutely correct. MR. CARTIER-In other words, that could change. MR. STEVES-That's your wish. 12 - - MR. MARTIN-And we're not even, technically, being asked to consider cluster, we just asking for the concept of this design. MRS. YORK-Right, whether area variances, in this particular location of Town, given the constraints that caused the density to be lessened there, is it appropriate for this to happen. MR. MARTIN-Right. So we're not doing a technical cluster, per se, but we're, it's just a concept. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-The density is maintained in a different way of shaping lots. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-We're talking about a difference of five lots in 20 acres, plus or minus. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess. MR. LAPOINT-In the minus side, though, I mean, he could have 20. MR. STEVES-Twenty acres, plus or minus. MR. CARTIER-Plus or minus. I don't know the exact number of acres, here, that's why. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. LAPOINT-But, I mean, he could have more houses. MR. CARTIER-The engineering fudge factor. MRS. PULVER-That's right. If we say this design is not appropriate for that area or whatever, he could just flip the map, show us the orange, and there we are. We now conform to our Zoning Ordinance and everything and he can have 20 lots. MR. MARTIN-And you can go out and get a building permit tomorrow. MRS. PULVER-So, you know, you have to ask yourself, this is four less units than he was in. Well, we're just using 20 as an example. MRS. YORK-Yes. That nine acres, there, is unbuildable, for the most part. MRS. PULVER-Maybe they'd find a way to do it. MR. STEVES-Well, I think what she was saying, Lee, is that this is one plan, flip it over, and now we have another plan. MRS. YORK-Right. Okay. Now I understand. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. MR. STEVES-And I think the question, if I may, one more time, I think the question here is that, if I had come in to the Board with a request for cluster provision, Common Land, would the Board consider this an appropriate plan, not that one, the one underneath it? MR. LAURICELLA-We aren't voting on that plan, are we? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. CARTIER-No. We're voting on a concept. MR. LAURICELLA-Not that plan, though? MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. LAURICELLA-Well, he's saying, he keeps going back to that plan. MR. CARTIER-Well, that's an example. MR. MARTIN-We're voting on the concept of 16 lots on this parcel. MR. LAURICELLA-On that parcel, not that. 13 ""-' -- MR. MARTIN-On the 20 acre parcel. MR. STEVES-I'll have to prove to the Board that that will work. MR. CARTIER-And we can make, in whatever recommendation we make, we can specify that we're talking conceptually, here, and not committing to a specific design that we've seen. MR. STEVES-In fact, I wish you would. MR. CARTIER-I understand. MR. STEVES-No, really, nObody wants to get locked in to this particular plan. MR. CARTIER-What's the Board's pleasure, here? Does anybody have any other questions or comments? MR. LAURICELLA-The cluster design would have Open Space that would be owned by a single individual? MR. STEVES-No. The Common Open Space would be owned by the homeowners association. MR. MARTIN-In a cluster design. MR. STEVES-In a cluster. MR. LAURICELLA-In a cluster design. MR. BREWER-In this design, there wouldn't be any Common Open Space, just open space. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MARTIN-You have the physical effect of nine acres undeveloped and open, but under single ownership of the person living at that site. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. LAPOINT-And everybody gets a half acre, to boot. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-That is their own. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-How much of that big parcel is unbuildable? MR. STEVES-I don't know. We haven't investigated the entire parcel at all. MRS. YORK-Would the Board please open their books, the Subdivision Reg's, to Page AI83-41, where it says, Density. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. YORK-If you look down at the bottom, what the maximum, how you calculate the maximum number of buildable lots. Now, lets just, for the sake of brevity, here, say that this is not a cluster design and cannot be considered a cluster design, because there is not going to be Common Open Space, okay. Do we all agree on that? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-All right. MRS. YORK-Therefore, he has to calculate his density on that of a conventional subdivision, is that correct? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK-Number Four says, any unbuildable areas of the lot, such as wetlands, rock out crops, slopes over 25 percent, and bodies of water, shall be calculated from the total area of the property to be subdivided. So you have to, in fact, take out the unbuildable area as part of your density. MR. STEVES-It doesn't say that. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, it does. 14 - -/ MR. STEVES-No. It says, wetlands, which we don't have, slopes over 25 percent, which we don't have. MRS. YORK-It says, any unbuildable areas such E, which are illustrative. MR. CARTIER-Such E. Those are examples only. MRS. YORK-Is it buildable or isn't it buildable? MR. STEVES-As I explained, we haven't investigated the entire site. We could well do that. MR. YARMOWICH-If there were, say, 20 acres available, and four acres were unbuildable, and you proposed 16 lots, you'd still have an adequate density. MR. STEVES- Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-That's why I asked the question, how much is unbuildable, in that you can't speculate on that. MR. STEVES-As you noticed, we created a plan, and investigated areas of that for building purposes. There's almost an investigation per lot. We did a percolation test and a deep test on each of those lots. MR. BREWER-I guess it comes back to, why did you pick that lot, to leave that not built on? MR. STEVES-Well, because there's another portion of the Code that requires 150 foot frontage per lot, okay? Now, you can't maintain that and very well develop it, without building a road. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. BREWER-I understand what you did. I just. MR. STEVES-The plan, here, demonstrates that. Now, the only way to increase, then, the density numbers that we have outlined here, is to build a road. MR. CARTIER-Is the five lot difference that we're talking about, which is what it boils down to if I understand this, that significant, in terms of cost? MR. STEVES-I think that, in terms of use, it does, it really does. I don't know how to put it in words, but I wouldn't want to see a trailer put into Bedford Close, and I wouldn't want to see Bedford Close put out in this neighborhood, and I think what we have here is an attempt to put Bedford Close into that neighborhood. This is in keeping with the neighborhood. MR. CARTIER-Well, the question has been brought up about. MR. MARTIN-In terms of cost of the ultimate. MR. CARTIER-Yes, the ultimate design, and all that sort of stuff. MRS. PULVER-Well, remember yesterday, when we were meeting, one thing Betty Monahan said, which kind of stuck in my mind is that we have to not only look at these things as to what the plan is, but whether or not it's good for the Town, and is addi ng another road goi ng to be good for the Town, to have to plow, maintain, take care of, have the expense of, because we want the lots, 200 feet frontage on the road, you know, 207 by 207 is an acre, or are we willing to go with this, keeping the road system as it is, not adding on it, he is probably, I'm sure, going to, if we put the road in, maybe he gets 18, maybe he gets two more. MR. BREWER-I think I'd like to know if that's buildable, before we even talk about whether he has to put a road in or not. MRS. PULVER-I guarantee you that if they wanted to build a house in there, they could figure out a way how to do it. MR. CARTIER-Well, there will be one house in there. MRS. PULVER-Yes. There'll be one house now, but, I mean, if they wanted to put two or three, they could. MR. BREWER-But it'll be on the road, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Under the design that they're attempting to do there, they have access off the existing road. 15 - ~ MRS. PULVER-They're pretty sure they can build two right there, right now, one on either side, splitting it up. MR. MARTIN-They can see, the back portion of it here is definitely unbuildable, this section of it here. MR. CARTIER-Even if it is buildable, it's getting locked out, in terms of the cluster design. That has to be left open. Sir? RUSSELL HARRIS MR. HARRIS-Ladies and Gentlemen, my name is Russell Harris, and I've been working away on this up there since 1958, and my main concern, as we talk about acres and lots that are smaller, I think most of protecting the people that have already built there, and there are a lot of people that have already built their homes there in the last 30 years. If we go to large lots which, normally, would call for larger houses, it's not fair to the people who were there with those nice homes, take very, very good care of their properties, it's as nice a looking area where the homes are to be. The rest of it is slightly grown up. It could very easily be cleaned up again, and my main theory, in talking with Mr. Steves about designing the lot, was to keep them in keeping with what was already there. Although we've enlarged them over what, originally, we had. It's still going to bring the same type of people, which will be, I call, working people, medium income and low income. It's just slightly off the highly traveled areas. The services are not too far away, with stores, but, again, the main purpose is to keep the same general trend for the people who are going to build, as the people who did build. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. So, again, the question before us, I think is. MRS. YORK-I think we're talking about, and I have no desire to get into an argument over this with anyone. I just want to point out everything, to give the Board an opportunity to make a judgement, here, and if you look on the first sheet, that says, in large letters, AZURE PARK, of your plan. Do you have that? It looks like this. It has just the area, and if you look to the north of Azure Drive, on the north side of Azure Drive, you have substantially acre lots existing, or three quarters to an acre. MR. STEVES-This isn't one there that's an acre in size. MRS. YORK-Well, it's about three quarters. MR. STEVES-Well, three quarters is not an acre. MRS. YORK-But they're larger than half acre, or 15,000 feet. MR. STEVES-Lets take any lot there and multiply it out. We all have that ability. MRS. YORK-Mr. Steves, your argument has been character of the neighborhood, okay, that's your argument. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MRS. YORK-Now, if, granted, below Rainbow Trails, yes, we've got a lot of very small lots and I would, but when we changed zoning in an area, if we never want to see any changes, why do we bother going through the exercise of re-zoning anything if we're not looking forward to changing character in some areas? MR. STEVES-No argument. The argument that I'm presenting is not the greater density, but to try to 1 ive wi th the purpose of the Code. As I've used in the di scuss i on wi th you before, in the APA, even with their restrictiveness of 42 acres, they prefer clustering to the complete raping of the land to develop ten, 42 acre lots, and service those lots, it would create, I really mean, a raping of the land, and they would prefer to see 10, one acre lots being utilized. MRS. YORK-Yes, I agree with you, but this isn't clustering. This is reduction of lot size. MR. STEVES-This is clustering without the provision of the Common Lot area requirement of the Code. That's all we're talking about. MRS. YORK-All right. I'm not going to say anything more. MR. CARTIER-One of the unfortunate things is we don't have the attorney with us tonight. Was Paul at the Zoning Board meeting last night, that you're aware of? MRS. YORK-I don't believe he was. MR. STEVES-No. I don't think he was. 16 '-- -- MRS. YORK-I have spoken to Paul about this issue, however. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MRS. YORK-So, he's aware, I would rather not speak for our attorney. He's aware of it. He, basically, said the applicant has three choices, get a variance, meet the clustering provision, or develop at the density required. MR. YARMOWICH-That's one acre. MRS. YORK-One acre. Okay. Thank you. MR. STEVES-If we went to one acre, that's what it would look like, in comparison to the rest of the nei ghborhood. MR. CARTIER-That's one acre? MR. STEVES-That's one acre. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. STEVES-The green is the existing acreage. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Well, we're back to our original question, and that question is, what is the Board's pleasure, with regard to making a recommendation to the Zoning Board regarding the appropriateness of clustering, given the limitations described by the applicant, in terms of, no common property held in ownership? Is that a terrible way to say that? MRS. YORK- Yes. MR. CARTIER-I'm not surprised. MR. STEVES-Should he even address that? MRS. YORK-No. MR. YARMOWICH-Clustering shouldn't be addressed. Just address the area variance. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. CARTIER-Somebody lay a question out for us. MR. MARTIN-The concept of this design is all we're addressing. MR. LAPOINT-That's right. Period. Right there. MR. STEVES-That's right. Period. MR. MARTIN-It's not clustering. It has the appearance of being such, but, by the books, it's not clustering. MR. STEVES-That's correct. MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-It's not totally inaccurate to say it is not reduction of lot size, but. MRS. PULVER-All right. I have to say, I don't believe the homeowner would be any better off with 207 by 207, than they are by 150 and 160 wide lots. MR. LAURICELLA-You could say that about any lot, though. MRS. PULVER-Yes, but there'll be, on this nine acre parcel, there will be two more homes. The homes will be spread out. He could have 20, right now. He could have 20. MR. LAURICELLA-Yes, if he could build on a moat. MRS. PULVER-Yes, as a homeowner, well, first of all, people are going to buy those lots if they're 150, because that's what they're happy with. People will buy them if they're 200. Will the Town be better off if they're 200? 17 '-' ~ MR. LAURICELLA-You could say that about any lot, I still say. MRS. PULVER-And it's all spread out, and now he's got two houses on that nine acre parcel. So, he's got a lot more clearing. If you want green space, you want less houses. MR. CARTIER-Is anybody prepared to hammer out a recommendation to the Zoning Board, without, in any way, getting into the practical difficulty issues, which is a Zoning Board function, or do we need more information? MR. LAPOINT-Any other comments out there? None. MR. YARMOWICH-I had a question. Did the Board understand, if there were any technical difficulties, with regard to area variance, at this point, from the stuff that was reviewed from an engineering, that the summary comment that I would make to you is they presented Sketch Plan information which showed, with little questions, that there was any real problem, in terms of drainage, accommodating drainage and accommodating water and wastewater disposal and water supply. MRS. PULVER-That there wasn't any problem. MR. YARMOWICH-There was not, no, and he was readily available to answer most of those, and I think that, in addition to the practicalities of subdivision requirements, in terms of lot size and shape. If nothing else, it was demonstrated that the sizes, as proposed, were buildable, and I just wanted you to realize that. It came through in the information presented, okay. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. That helps. I hope. Is anybody prepared to hammer out a recommendation? MRS. PULVER-I would, if I was really sure what we're going to. MR. BREWER-Could I just ask one question, to have somebody think about it, if we go ahead and say yes to this, the next person who comes in here and wants to do something like this and says that I have 20 acres, or 30 acres, or whatever it is, and I'll leave 10 acres as open space, but with one owner, we're going to have to do the same thing for him, aren't we? MRS. PULVER-Well, you don't have to do anything, no. The Zoning Board has to always make that decision. MR. LAPOINT-They make that decision, ultimately, and if it were the exact same circumstance as this, I would have to say, yes, myself. Everything's per circumstance. Again, this is kind of an island in between a half acre development already. MRS. PULVER-Remember, Tim, he has to go to the Zoning Board. All we're doing is making a recommendation. When they go to the Zoning Board, now, they have to make their pitch and try to make their variance. If they don't get their variance, they go back to the drawing Board. If they do get their variance. MR. BREWER-They didn't try to make a pitch last night? MRS. PULVER-But they didn't get any farther, because the Zoning Board said, we don't know if this could be clustering or not. That's why we're looking at it. MR. MARTIN-See, I think our ultimate recommendation has to leave out the word clustering. I'll throw this out for discussion. Recommend design which promotes preservation of open space. Maybe that falls short, but maybe it's a start. MR. LAPOINT-Can we say, does this meet that or not? MR. CARTIER-Well, understand that the Zoning Board is asking us for a recommendation as to the plan as presented, and what is our pleasure as to a recommendation with regard to that plan, as presented? MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. LAPOINT-We see this subdivision as in keeping with the character of the existing and surrounding neighborhood, and would recommend that the concept is in fitting with. MR. MARTIN-Okay, that this design is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, while preserving open space. MR. YARMOWICH-And density. MRS. PULVER-That's good. MR. LAPOINT-And density, yes. MR. MARTIN-And density, yes. 18 '-" -...../ MR. CARTIER-Do you want to make any comment with regard to staying out of the practical difficulty aspect? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Okay. All right. MOTIOIt TO RECOtIÐID TO THE ZOfHNG BOARD OF APPEALS THE ORIGINAL PW AS PRESElTED AS IT IS IfI KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUflDING NEIGHBORHOOD "ULE MAINTAIflIflG OPEl SPACE. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THIS RECOMMENDATION IS MADE WITH THE UflDERSTANOING THAT THE PlAfIfIIflG BOARD IS IN fIO WAY MAKING A RECOtIÐIDATION AS TO THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGN OR OBTAlflING A VARIANCE, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: MR. LAPOINT-If you throw in density with the open space? MRS. PULVER-While maintaining the density and open space. MR. LAPOINT-It doesn't need to go in. MR. MARTIN-Whatever anybody feels. MR. LAPOINT-No. It's covered. MR. STEVES-Maybe it should, unless you identified the plan that you're, because. MR. CARTIER-We have, we said, the plan as presented. MR. STEVES-Yes, but they asked me to present you with a one acre plan as well. As long as they understand it wasn't the one acre one you're talking about, now. That's all I'm saying. MR. MARTIN-The original plan. Maria, amend that to say, the original plan as presented. MRS. YORK-Does it have a number on the sheet, or something? MR. STEVES-Well, it's the plan that was submitted to both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board, and not the one that I drew up tonight. MRS. YORK-All right. MR. STEVES-I just wanted to be sure there wasn't confusion over that. MRS. YORK-Okay. AYES: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin NOES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Cartier ABSENT: Mr. Caimano MR. CARTIER-I'm going to vote no, with a comment. When we get into topics like this, I think there needs to be a way of hammering out a result that everybody can agree on. We're plowing new ground, here, and I think we have to be very careful when we do that. So, we're left, here, with a three to three, which means no recommendation to the Zoning Board. MRS. YORK-No action. What I will do is. MR. CARTIER-Let me just finish. There's no time line. Basically, what we've said is we can't make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. We are under no constraints to, in fact, make one. MRS. YORK-No. MR. CARTIER-But I would suggest that what, at least, ought to happen is that the minutes of this portion of the meeting be forwarded to the Zoning Board, along with our lack of a recommendation. So that they, at least, can have benefit of this erudite discussion that we've had this evening. Okay. MRS. YORK-We will send that on. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. (8:17 p.m.) \ ~ .. \~" '\ \ SITE PINt 10. 55-91 TYPE I HC-lA OSCAP, LTO OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE lEST OF INTERSECTION OF NYS ROUTES 9 AND 149 ESTABLISH 00 BUILDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF A RETAIL OUTLET CENTER, INCWDING RELOCATION AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING DEXTER SHOE OUTLET STORE. TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA TO BE 68,800 SQ. FT. WITH TOTAL GROSS LEASABLE AREA TO BE 62,000 SQ. FT. (IMRREN COUNTY PLANNING) TAX MAP 110. 34-1-10 LOT SIZE: 7.8 ACRES SECTION 179-23 19 "--' - JIM TUCKER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:17 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 55-91, OSCAP, LTD., December 16, 1991, Meeting Date: December 19, 1991 liThe applicant is requesting approval for a retail center of 56,800 square feet to be added to a site which currently has a 12,000 square foot building. The lot is located at the intersection of Route 9 and 149. The Board is aware that the major concern surrounding this development is traffic generation. Fred Austin of Warren County DPW and NY DOT have received copies of the traffic study. Staff has not received their comments at this time. II Now I have received, I believe they're part of your packet, NY DOT's comments from Ken Carlson. I am going to jump ahead with this, because when I wrote these notes, Warren County Planning had not moved on it. Last night they had a meeting, and they, once again, did not move on this particular project. I attached their Staff Comments, which I received today, and concerns, and I think you have them. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MRS. YORK-Okay. At any rate, what I reviewed was the internal traffic situation, and I requested a letter from the Fire Chief and Dave Hatin. "The internal traffic on site should be developed in a loop system. The rear parking area should be designed so an accessway on the south side can be cut through to the front parking area. This would aid in traffic circulation. Staff understands that the front parking area will be joined with Frank's Pizzeria. If the retail center were moved north, a road could be cut through on the south side." And, also, if Mr. Fasulo, the owner of Frank's Pizzeria, does want to have his property used or combine it with theirs in some way, make access through, we should have something from him. liThe rear parking area should also allow for a circular traffic pattern. The fire chief has suggested that the handicapped parking areas be moved so that an accessway to the main drive through can be provided. Staff supports this concept." And, do you want to go ahead, Tom. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, December 17, 1991 IIWe have reviewed the following engineering comments: 1. The data indicates soil testing was conducted on October 8, 1991. The Town of Queensbury Sanitary Sewer Ordinance requires that all high groundwater tests be taken between March, April, Mayor June within six weeks of the time that frost leaves the ground. If this procedure is not followed, the seasonal high groundwater level may only be determined by an individual certified by the Local Board of Health. 2. Stormwater management adequacy is based on conformance to supplementary zoning regulations (Section 179-65) and subdivision regulations (Section 183-27). We have the following concerns with respect to the SWM design offered: a. Infiltration techniques providing rate and volume control are preferred over detention. An alternate infiltration SWM approach may be suited to the available soil conditions. This should be investigated. Off-site impacts would be minimized if found feasible. b. Design calculations and construction details are requested for proposed subcatchments 2 and 4. c. The SWM detention pond discharges to the general area containing the sewage disposal absorption field for the adjoining "Chalet" restaurant. d. Downstream hydraulic conveyance capacity must be available for the peak runoff (3.5 cfs peak existing) developed. 3. Top of SWM detention pond berm should be not less than 8' wide. f. Auxiliary spillway depth of flow at peak generated runoff should be not greater than 12 inches. g. Top of berm should be at least one foot higher than the auxiliary spillway. h. The auxiliary spillway should not be located on embankment. i. The maximum depth of SWM pond between the service spillway invert and the crest of the auxiliary spillway should be 4 feet. 3. The proposed site plan represents a significant disturbed area. A detailed sediment and erosion control plan for a stipulated sequence of site development should be provided. 4. Retaining wall design and details should be provided. 5. Off-street loading areas should be provided and shall be at a minimum 12 feet wide and 40 feet long, in accordance with Town of Queensbury Code 179-66 D(a). 6. Slopes in excess of 1:3 should be eliminated. 7. Water piping to water meters should be ductile iron pipe. 8. Reserve areas for sewage disposal do not meet slope criteria for absorption beds. 9. Septic system Note 1 on sheet S-4 refers to effluent pipe contents draining back to the wet well. This may need to be considered when determining wet well volumes. 10. The traffic analysis indicates that revised traffic signal synchronization can be used to preserve existing overall levels of service at all study area intersections. It is not clear who will be responsible to implement this or if the responsible authorities agree with this approach. It should be noted that the traffic model with resynchronized light timing shows improved levels of service for the following individual intersection approaches: northbound on U.S. Route 9 approaching NY Route 149 and southbound on U.S. 9 approaching Gurney Lane. Deteriorated levels of service is expected for the following individual intersection approaches: southbound on U.S. Route 9 approaching NY Route 149, the 1-87 northbound off ramp approaching U.S. Route 9, and Gurney Lane approaching U.S. Route 9. These are impacts projected to stem from additional traffic generated by the proposed project. Weekend peak hour delays and level of service for the 1-87 northbound off ramp left turn on to U.S. Route 9 deteriorate from 38 seconds at level of service D, to 54 seconds at level of service E. The Board should be aware that the impact of longer delays will be additional to stacking on the Northway off ramp. Stacking is already observed regularly in the summer months. II MR. CARTIER-Thank you. We also have a letter from the Queensbury Committee for Community Beautification, recommending approval with stipulations. We also have a letter from Mr. Hatin. 20 -- ~ MRS. YORK-Yes, that includes the Fire Chief's comments. Do you want me to read it? MR. CARTIER-I'll read it. Dated December 13, 1991, from David Hatin, to Planning Board, RE: Dexter Proposed Expansion IIDear Board Members: After a meeting with Brian LaFlure, Chief of Queensbury Central Fire Company, the following items were addressed as concerns to the fire department: 1. Where the handicapped parking is located to the rear of the new proposed Dexter building the Fire Department would request that these spots be removed and that an open access aisle be placed in place of these handicapped parking spaces so as to allow a flow of traffic through the parking lot and not have to go to the rear of the parking lot to gain access to the proposed building. 2 The Fire Department would request that Dexter address the loading and unloading of tractor trailers in the loading dock area to the south west corner of the new building, as to how these trucks will not interfere with traffic or block fire lanes during loading and unloading activities. The Fire Department would like to propose possibly creating a road that goes around the building on the south side and comes out into the front parking lot allowing trucks to drive around the south side of the building and back up to the loading dock area and then exit toward the front of the building therefore not blocking any fire lanes or parking aisles. 3. The Fire Department would request that Dexter provide one or possibly two hydrants in the parking lot area around the new building as to afford the Fire Department access to a hydrant without currently be the situation or having to lay an extreme amount of hose up Route 9 to the fire area. I believe if the current building is proposed to be sprinklered, that hydrants would be required for the installation of the sprinkler systems. We would request that they be in a location convenient for fire department access. If you should have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. David Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement" We also have significant comments, here, from Warren County. I don't know how far we're going to go with this, tonight, gentlemen, but you do have a number of concerns that have been raised, that need to be addressed, and I don't mean, necessarily, tonight, each and every item addressed. I think the biggest issue has to do with the County. We're not in the habit of looking at things that the County has not reviewed and acted on. With that, I will ask anybody representing the applicant who would care to address the Board to please feel free to do so at this point. MR. TUCKER-My name is Jim Tucker and I'm with Dexter Shoe Company. What we would like to do tonight is a two fold process. First, introduce the Board to the building design, and as it fits on the site, and address any questions or concerns that you might have with that. MR. CARTIER-Well, is that something that has been through the Planning Staff and Planning Department, as to the building design. We don't usually look at things that haven't gone through the Planning Department. MR. TUCKER-In lieu of that, then we can move to the second phase. What we'd like to do is address some of the comments that you've read off, after your review, and we've brought some representatives of the LA Group, here, to explain some of those concerns, and a member of Roger Creighton's Association here to explain some of the traffic concerns. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. TUCKER-I think Mike Ingersall, from the LA Group, can probably start by addressing some of the groundwater problem, concerns that you have. MR. CARTIER-Let me throw a disclaimer out here. I don't want to spend two hours discussing some things that are going to end up having to be redesigned on paper and re-submitted, because I think we're just kind of chewing each other's time up if we do that. I think there's a lot of redesigning, I don't mean to turn anybody off, here. If somebody feels very strongly about something they want to talk about on any of these items, please feel free to do that, but for us to go through, item through item, and sub-item by sub-item through the Engineering Comments, when, in fact, a lot of these changes are going to have to be made on paper and re-submitted, I'm not sure that's a good use of time, at this point. I'm not completely cutting off a presentation, here, but I just don't want us to use time, here, tonight, when we don't have to. With that having been said, I'll, again, take any comments you'd care to make. If the Board has any questions or disagrees with what I've just said, please feel free to jump in. Mr. Joy. BOB JOY MR. JOY-Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'm Bob Joy of Robert Joy and Associates, architect for the project. I think what you're saying makes a lot of sense, because probably a lot of these are going to be revolving around technical issues and drainage rates and calculations and you're probably going to want to send whatever we show you back to the engineers, let the technical people work it out until they're satisfied. So, I'm not sure it makes sense to get into a lot of nitty gritty. What would really be helpful, I suspect, is to maybe have a more general discussion and at least identify the issues. We've heard a lot of technical issues. Most of these are solvable or have already been re-worked, worked out, whatever, and I don't think there's anything, from our standpoint, that we feel is insurmountable there. but I think there's some pretty general issues, about traffic, about site development and so forth that probably are very pertinent to your consideration of the project, and if we can at least accomplish 21 --- -' something in the short time tonight, perhaps we can at least set the menu, so that if we are back, next time, we've got a pretty clear idea of what hurdles we need to go over and what information you'd like to see, so that we can be more responsive to some of those concerns. I think we need to, maybe, here that and talk about that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. JOY-Maybe the best thing would be to just start with some questions. You've had a chance to see the project. It's not brand new, at this point. We've got a lot of stuff that we can share with you, as it's appropriate, but rather than bore you with it or take the time, maybe we'll just let you start with some questions and see the way the land lays, if you will. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I'm sure we may have some questions. The only thing I would say is that I'm in agreement with a lot of the comments that were made about traffic circulation. I'm not going to speak to the engineering issues. I'm not expert to do that, but I think you do have to corrmit to some sort of circular traffic flow back there. So, I'd reinforce the comments that were made, in that direction. I guess one of the basic questions, here, is, how far, and I'm tossing this out to the Board, I guess, how far we're willing to let this project go, in terms of the larger picture, in terms of the development, or improvement of developments, or doing something to increase this thing. I keep coming back to my original question, and, again, I don't need an answer tonight, is, how is this thing going to, how are we going to make sure that this doesn't make sure that this doesn't make the situation worse, and, hopefully, in fact, improves the situation up there? Anybody else have any questions or comments? Is there anything you would like this Board to specifically address? MR. LAURICELLA-Do they have any proposals to improve the traffic situation? MR. CARTIER-I think that's all kind of up in the air, because New York State DOT is working on something. Warren County DOT is working on something. Queensbury DOT is working on something. So, I don't know that there's anything specific, at this point, yet, specific enough for us to look at. Does anybody else have any comments? MR. LAPOINT-Well, they have proposed synchronization of lights, as part of this, correct? MR. MARTIN-I would assume. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. LAURICELLA-There's been no internal road system. MR. CARTIER-No. I know that came out in a discussion, some place, but we're not looking at it. MR. LAURICELLA-I realize that, but, I mean, there's no attempt to really, are they attempting to do anything? MRS. PULVER-Well, there was a discussion with many of the business owners up there. We had a workshop session, to look into ways to possibly solve the problem, but it's not their problem to solve the whole problèm. MR. LAURICELLA-No. I know that. MR. MARTIN-Bob, who on the team could address the DOT letter, here, that's part of our packet, received December 19, just today, I guess? The last paragraph, or thereabouts, makes reference to you beginning the permit process. Has that, in fact, started, or? CHUCK MANNING MR. MANNING-My name's Chuck Manning. I'm from Roger Creighton Associates, and I just got a copy, I just read that letter tonight and, essentially, I think what's important to realize a couple of points, here. Number One is that the bulk of the roads which are involved with this project are, in fact, State roads, and any improvements or changes that are made have to be approved by a Department of Transportation. When they review a project like this, the standard process is to take our traffic report, which your engineer has reviewed as well, look at that first on the Planning side, to see if they agree with our Trip Generation Analysis, Trip Distribution and so on, then look at it on the Traffic Engineering side, and see if the changes we're recommending and the signal timings and so on or any other geometric changes to the roadway system make sense. Then they will send a letter to that effect to the developer, probably a copy to the Town Board, to us as well, and at that point in time, that indicates that they have approved of the overall concepts that we're recommending. Then if there are any curb cuts or changes in curb cuts required and changes in signalization, that's when we get into the work permit process. So, it's a little confusing in the letter, because they're implying that we can go out and get the work permit, at this point in time. MR. MARTIN-It seems like you're quite a ways away from what you just described. 22 '-' -.-/ MR. MANNING-Yes, unless they've changed their process of doing things, I would expect to get a letter back from them either agreeing with our analysis or having some further clarification required. After that process takes place, then we would go through the process of getting the work permit. Getting the work permit is a fairly short time frame. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's all the submissions prior to that, or the investigation prior to that. MR. MANNING-Right, that's where the interaction goes back and forth, and the other thing I think that's important, that the work permit comes from the Warren County DOT residency, which is located up in this area, whereas the reviews and so on occur down at the Region One Office, which is down in Albany, and so those reviews are underway now. I talked to Ken Carlson, who's working on that, and I would expect, he hasn't given me a firm date yet, but I would expect to get a letter back from them, or some comments back from them, within about a month or less. MR. MARTIN-Well, just from a layman's point of view, traffic science escapes me. MR. MANNING-Well, just to ease your mind, traffic is not a science like bridge design. MR. MARTIN-I understand that, but. MR. MANNING-You're dealing with people, and people's perceptions. MR. MARTIN-There's no doubt about it, you're going to make things worse up there. It's just a matter of how much you can mitigate that, and are those mitigation measures going to do the trick. MR. MANNING-Yes, well, that's what we're looking at, from a technical perspective, really, and I think, I feel that what we've proposed has, in fact, maintained what's up there now. It's not going to solve all of the problems. MR. MARTIN-No, we don't want to put that on your shoulders, either. MR. MANNING-Yes. I think that's one of the issues, here. There's, clearly, a larger scale problem up there, which needs to be addressed with a larger scale study, but, in terms of the specific impacts of this project, I think what we're recommending will lead to a situation which is no worse than what would have existed if this project wasn't there, and I think that's the only reasonable expectation for this particular project. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Board members correct me if if you disagree, is it a fair statement for us to say that we would just as soon wait until Warren County is finished looking at this project and has come up with their vote, before we take a look at it again? MR. MARTIN-I would take that a step further and say, DOT also. MR. CARTIER-Well, yes. I'm kind of assuming Warren County is the stop gap for all of those people, too, that they're going to be the ones who are looking at that too. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I'm not suggesting that I throw roadblocks in your way. It's just that I'm not sure that we're accomplishing anything by going through this kind of scenario, because, normally, the County looks at it first, and we go from there. I'd hate to see Dexter spend a lot of money, coming to meetings like this, and nothing happens, we make no advancement, okay. MR. LAPOINT-I think we should see the County review, as long as it can be done by the end of next month, by the end of January. I mean, they do meet, and will have this on their agenda, January 8th? MR. CARTIER-Are you trying to put deadlines on this or something? MR. LAPOINT-No. I just want to make sure that, I don't want to put our action pending theirs, and if theirs is six months away, then I want to do mine now. MR. JOY-Bob Joy, again. As we understood, last night, from them and, Lee, maybe you're more familiar with this, I think they're on the 30 day time period, starting last Wednesday. Last night they had a special meeting simply to talk about this project, and we had a pretty good discussion with them. It sounds, you've seen some of their comments, but it sounds like they share some of the same concerns about internal circulation and a loop around and so forth. I think one of the main stumbling blocks, again, last night, was traffic. They got handed the traffic report and it really was unfair of us to press them to make a decision, although several on the Board said, well, we want to be sure that we get the Town our input, and not have the Town feel like you can't proceed. So, I think we agreed with them that you probably weren't going to sign off on something tonight, no matter what. So, in any event, they're going to look at it on the eighth, and I think that will probably give us a little 23 - -../ more time and you a little more time to digest some of the same things, but I think they were simply being responsible in wanting to spend some time and look it over. The dilemma here, and in this area, I'm sort of a layman in this whole traffic thing. Jim, you and I could probably, together wouldn't be much of a brain trust, in traffic. MR. MARTIN-No. I don't imagine so. MR. JOY-No. The difficulty is the State standards, and as the State looks at the two highways, and as we heard from Ken, when we were here at the Special, Joint Ses$ion a couple of weeks ago, they don't really see a problem. They're getting prodded to take a look at it and study it, and do long range, but that's a long range thing. The difficulty is how we equate that with what we all know to be the rea 1 case there, and maybe we have di fferent expectations, or di fferent standards. Maybe they have Long Island standards, you know, what's the problem. We're used to something a little bit different up there, but somehow I think we need to be sure that that as we perceive it, it's also acceptable, and I think that's what we can demonstrate, and the traffic study will demonstrate. Unfortunately, the State Standards are the only ones we can play with, I guess, because they own it, but I think that's the key issue. Certainly, some of the internal site conditions, the drainage, the access, all of those sorts of things, the connection to the neighboring property owner. There was a question from them about wanting to see something definitive, not just a promise that, yes, we've talked to them, and they're agreeable, and we're going to connect driveways, but something in the way of a legal instrument or an agreement or something like that, and I think that will be forthcoming. I think that can be produced and worked out to everybody's satisfaction. So, in a way, they, like everybody else, feel like they've been burned a few times, and they want to be sure that all the ducks are, in fact, in a row, and going to still be there when the project gets built. So, I don't see any reason why we can't get through some of those issues. I think the comments have been really on point and can be effectively resolved at the technical level and what you need to see, I suspect, from what I'm hearing from you, is a project that your Town resources and your engineering consultants have gotten together with our team and said, in general, we agree with the approach, we agree with the numbers. We think this isn't going to have the type of impacts that are not going to be able to be resolved and, at that point, probably put it back to you to make a reasonable judgement on it. MR. CARTIER-Yes. That's a fair statement, I think, and having you address it through the County first, too, is avoiding a duplication of effort, because, as you pointed out, a number of their concerns are also our concerns, and there's no point in addressing the same set of concerns twice. Once you get past the County, you will have addressed a considerable number of ours, I'm sure. Lee? MRS. YORK-Do you intend to be on the January or February agenda, just for my own Planning? MR. JOY-For here? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. JOY-When's your? MRS. YORK-The cut off date for the January agenda. MR. JOY-Right, is the 26th, right? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. CARTIER-Of December, the day after Christmas. MR. JOY-We can submit the revised, a lot of these technical revisions have already been worked out, and I think it would be appropriate, perhaps, to re-submit those and make sure that those are acceptable before we do much of anything else. MR. CARTIER-With the understanding that you've gotten past the County, at that point. MRS. YORK-Right. My concern, here, is for you people. If there's a change made because of something that occurs at the County or a recommendation that occurs there, then you do realize, if your plan has to be changed, you have to do another re-submission to us. We cannot have new information coming in at the meeting. So, I just wanted you to be aware of that. MR. JOY-That's right. Yes, any changes that come out of their meeting on the eighth would have to be re-submitted for February. MRS. YORK-That's why I didn't want you to be doing double duty, if you thought that there would be a problem in that. MR. JOY-Okay. I think, from what I was hearing last night, Mike, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that their concerns are fairly coincident with yours. MRS. YORK-Okay. 24 '- -- MR. JOY-And that that's a risk that we probably ought to just take on and keep it moving. MRS. YORK-All right. MIKE INGERSALL MR. INGERSALL-My name is Mike Ingersall. I'm with the LA Group. If I could address the Board, I studied up all day to talk about all these comments, and I understand we're not going to do all of them. think it would be beneficial to run through, and it's the Board's choice. MR. CARTIER-Which comments are you talking about? MR. INGERSALL-The technical comments from your engineer. MR. CARTIER-Engineer? As far as I'm concerned, that would be Greek to me. That would be right over my head. MR. INGERSALL-If I could continue, the only reason I say that is as a direction for us to re-submit, if they are, just to get your response back, because we have looked at circulation on the site. We have looked at infiltration, drainage, or if it's the Board's preference to simply work with the Town Engineer and resolve those. we can do those as well. MR. CARTIER-Sure. I have no problem with that. I don't think anybody here is going to have a problem with that. MR. INGERSALL-The reason I say that is, my understanding with the County, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that their issues are less site specific oriented. For instance, the septic design, in particular, the actual physical dimensions of the parking bays, and whatnot, and those are the things that we would like to at least, within the bounds of our property, be able to continue to work out with the Board. It's the access and egress, and the traffic, which we feel we have a solution to, that we will be addressing with the County, and that's where we're a little caught, and my other concern about postponing, here, and maybe Lee can enlighten me as to where we will stand in the SEQRA process and review of that. MRS. YORK-Okay. Nothing's been done. We haven't initiated anything, at this point in time. MR. INGERSALL-So, it would be the formal understanding that our application is not complete? MRS. YORK-That's right. MR. INGERSALL-How do we make it complete to start that process? MRS. YORK-I know, but then we don't want to make it complete. MR. CARTIER-Maybe I can answer it this way. You're going to have to have satisfactorily addressed all of the Board's concerns, with the exception of the environmental concerns, which will be taken up in the SEQRA process. Is that a fairly accurate statement? Does that answer your question? In other words, I think what you're asking is when does the SEQRA clock start, correct? MR. INGERSALL-Right, and I guess what I'm trying to determine is i$ the traffic environmental issue which starts the traffic clock, and if so, when do we start the SEQRA process? MR. CARTIER-Without benefit of our Town Attorney. MRS. YORK-Yes. Let me speak to the Attorney on this. MR. CARTIER-He's in three different places tonight. MR. INGERSALL-I just would like to. MRS. YORK-Yes. I realize what you're saying. It might be valuable for the Board to, within the next months, look at this and see if they feel some of the issues might require an EIS, or whether you feel that sufficient information has been provided to you. MR. INGERSALL-Because that's a valuable thing to us. MRS. YORK-Yes, I realize that. MR. INGERSALL-If we're headed in that direction, we'd like to know that as soon as possible. MRS. YORK-Yes. It's very difficult for us to come to grips with this at this time, because of the fact that the letter from DOT basically states that they will look at it at their earliest convenience. 25 '- --./ They act as our traffic analyzers for us, frequently, and it is their highway. We also look to the County for a recommendation on County impacts and we're waiting on that. I know you're concerned about the possibility of getting into an EIS, and if you have to do that, the time frames involved, and, believe me, we're not putting off making a judgement. The Board, I don't feel, has the necessary information, at this time, to make a relevant judgement, as to whether a supplemented Long Form would be fine or whether an EIS would be necessary. MR. CARTIER-This may help you down the line, too. Understand that you certainly have the right to request a Special Meeting of this Board, without committing the Board to such a meeting at this point, we have, in the past, made Special Meetings or created Special Meetings, and given the size of this project and all the issues that we have to deal with, it may, in fact, be more appropriate to have a special single item on the agenda meeting. So there is that. MR. MARTIN-What happens is that projects of this magnitude tend to take up the entire regular meeting, or a substantial portion of it, and other applicants sometimes suffer. MR. CARTIER-Which, you may have noticed, I'm trying to avoid tonight. MR. INGERSALL-And it's really too bad because, of the ten items, we really feel we will address eight of them, and we're down to two and that's why, and then we re-submit. Is it the Board's position that you concur with all the items presented. MR. CARTIER-Yes, it is, for me, anyway. MR. INGERSALL-And that we'll proceed. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Is there anything else that this Board wants to see from this applicant, and I guess my, I think I've mentioned already, is that we need to look at this in a large scale, in terms of how some of these other things are going to get mitigated, and so on. Does the Board have anything else that they would like the applicant to address that has not yet been brought up to them tonight? I think Staff's done a very good job of nailing all the issues down. Has anybody else got anything? MR. MARTIN-I think between the State and the County and the Staff, you've been through the ringer. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Do you really want more questions to deal with? MR. BREWER-He wants them now, rather than later. MR. INGERSALL-That's really what I'm trying to. MR. CARTIER-Speaking for me, I don't have any. MR. MARTIN-I can appreciate the need not to change the rules of the game, later on. MR. CARTIER-Does anybody else on the Board have any questions that they want to see the applicant address, that has not already been brought up by Staff or Engineer or any of the other agencies involved? Well, I think that answers that question. MR. INGERSALL-Okay. So, if I understand, I can inform you on our intentions. We will cover letter all these issues and address them with our submission on Tuesday. Is that? MRS. YORK-That's fine. MR. CARTIER-When you say, lIall these issues", recognize, you're talking about. MR. INGERSALL-All the issues as presented in the technical response. MR. CARTIER-Well, not just the engineering, but the letter from Fire and all these other lay, that whole package is what we're talking about. MR. INGERSALL-Yes. Correct. MRS. YORK-Perhaps some more concerns will come up at the public hearing, tonight, also. MR. CARTIER-Yes. I've still got to do that. I know. I haven't forgotten, but thank you, anyway, for reminding me. MR. INGERSALL-Okay. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-I will, in fact, open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who would care to comment or raise questions on this? 26 ',,-, ~ PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-Well, we will certainly leave the public hearing open on this issue. Sir, can we get you on the microphone? CHARLES KENNY MR. KENNY-Yes. I'm Charles Kenny. I own the property northbound of Dexters. I'm, in the fall of next year, planning a project on a much smaller scale, but I see there's quite a bit of problems here with the traffic, all I'm concerned about is also some sort of right-of-way, or something to get to that property, where, I'm going to end up coming up with the same problems, so I just want to be on record. Well, Route 9, the traffic problems coming in and out, I'm concerned, myself, and I'm a property owner. Like I said, I own the northbound, bordering Dexter. MR. CARTIER-Immediately adjacent, and it sounds like what you're asking is some sort of situation where you can tap into their parking and we can get some of this internal flow going? MR. KENNY-Right. MR. CARTIER-I don't mean to speak for Dexter, but I think that they would be amenable to that. I think we've been talking about that all along. I'm glad you came and I'm glad you brought that up, because that's precisely the type of thing we need to deal with, and that's something, perhaps, that Dexter Shoe Company could get in touch with you on, and talk about that and incorporate that into the design. Yes. That helps a lot. MR. KENNY-Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-I'm going to make a comment, Mr. Kinney, that not all of us see all this as problems up there. I see this as an opportunity for growth and to improve a situation up there, in terms of traffic flow, and that type of thing like that. So, anything you can input to the aggregate of all of this would be well taken. MR. KENNY-Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anyone else? Okay. At this point, we'll leave the public hearing open. Can we table this with your agreement, Mr. Joy, or? Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-I wanted to make a comment to the Board, with respect to this common access concept, which mayor may not come from work by the Task Force, and it wasn't an element of our review, because it's not specifically required. The Board may add to request for information concepts that would permit the use of this site and continue along that way the questions that may need to be looked at, if that was something the Board wants incorporated in some conceptual fashion, where do they put their septic systems, do they have grading of their parking lots so that there could be external roads connecting and that kind of thing. I haven't looked at that, and it's not stipulated within the regulations of zoning. It may be an issue that will come up, and rather than it be a roadblock later, by changed conditions, it could be good foresight to bring that to their attention. MR. CARTIER-Yes, good point. Maria, I'm not pushing, here, but when would minutes become available on this meeting, and I'm not asking for you to speed it up. I'm just asking for when, given the fact that the holidays are coming and factoring that in, what I'm getting at is, when might sets of minutes be available to the applicant? MS. GAGLIARDI-In a week or two. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Two weeks? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MR. CARTIER-There you go. That might be available to you, something worth having. Thank you. Okay. Can we entertain a motion to table? II)TION TO TABLE SITE PW NO. 55-91 OSCAP, LTD., Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: To establish two buildings for the purpose of a retail outlet center, including relocation and expansion of the existing Dexter Shoe Outlet Store. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano (8:57 p.m.) 27 '-' ......." BREAK (9:06 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 56-91 TYPE II RR-3A KEITH HARRIS OWNER: SAlE AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF PICKLE HILL ROAD BETlEEN BAY AND RIDGE ROADS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 FT. BY 40 FT. POLE BARN FOR HOUSING HORSES, COlIS, PIGS, AND CHICKENS (IMRREN COOflTY PuutNING) TAX""P NO. 26-2-10.5 LOT SIZE: 20± ACRES SECTION 179-15 JOHN RAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KEITH HARRIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 56-91, Keith Harris, December 16, 1991, Meeting Date: December 19, 1991 "This application is for locating a pole barn for animal husbandry. The Board should be aware that some required information on the checklist is missing from this application. Staff felt that it was important, however, to begin review of this property for the benefit of the applicant and the neighborhood. It is the staff's opinion that the applicant should provide, on the map: 1) the location of his residence and water supply, 2) an identification of the area devoted to commercial activities as differentiated from agricultural activities, and where all related structures, parking, and log piles are located, 3) an indication of where the neighboring residences are located, 4) how the agricultural waste will be handled. From the map presented, it appears that the applicant has placed the barn across from the Davidson home. The applicant has stated that he does not wish to locate the barn behind his residence because it is wet in that area. Also, he would prefer not to locate it toward Ridge Road, where the court determined animal husbandry had gone on because it was too far for his children to go to care for the animals. This location has been determined to have grandfathered rights for the use. At the Board's last meeting, the applicant was requested to come up with a plan where the barn would be 110 feet back from the road. The staff is taking the liberty of attaching public comment from the neighbors which was previously submitted. This information describes most of the concerns and shows where the Harris' and Davidson's homes are located. With the amount of property available, staff recommends that the barn be located away from the commercial activities and Pickle Hill Road. The prevailing wind is from the northwest and the manure pile should be where it will be the least offensive. The Board may want to give the applicant a general locational area for the facility rather than reviewing a new site plan every month. Warren County Planning had some stipulations on the development.1I MR. CARTIER-We already went through Warren County Planning's comments, at some time, or is this new from Warren County. I'm sorry, yes. MRS. YORK-These are new comments, because it's a new submission, and their comments were to approve the application with the fact that liThe Warren County Soil and Water Conservation District be consulted regarding the storage of animal waste and the impact and runoff of animal waste on the land and on the water. Also that the planned pine tree screening be planted and that the number of animals be 1 imi ted to what is 1 i sted in the appli cation. II MR. CARTIER-Okay. improve some things. Thank you. I'm going to do things slightly out of order, here, and see if we can I'm going to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. CARTIER-And I will start by reading a letter into the record dated December 15, 1991, IIDear Mr. Cartier: We are writing to remind you of our opposition to this application as proposed, and ask that you review of letter of October 10, 1991. We've attached a copy of Mr. Harris' plot plan, adding the locations of our residences, the Harris' residence, the commercial area, the prevailing wind direction. Thank you for your consideration. Very Truly Yours, Paul and Debbie Davidson.1I Is there anybody else here who would care to comment on this application at this point? DOROTHY BURNHAM MRS. BURNHAM-Dorothy Burnham, Boulderwood Drive. I merely want to say that I believe there is sufficient space behind the commercial garage or behind the Harris' residence for this pole barn to be located which would, in fact, improve the nuisance of the odors and the noise and so forth from the animals and the storage of waste products. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. Is there anybody else who would care to comment at this point? MR. RAY-My name is John Ray. I work with Walter Rehm's office. To start with, I'd like to clarify a couple of points. Obviously, this is not a brand new submission. This is, basically, a revision of the prior site plan application, with a few changes. It came about as a result of a misunderstanding on Keith's part after the last meeting. He was under the impression that if he were to submit a revised plan by October 3rd, that it would be considered at the next meeting, and he immediately left town, after the, I believe it was the September 29th meeting, and was not around for another two weeks. He didn't understand that if he didn't submit a revised plan that the plan that was on record would be acted upon, and that is what happened. It was, therefore, denied. 28 '-" ~ MR. CARTIER-Well, please understand, Mr. Ray, that we have done everything in our power to make Mr. Harris aware of what this Board requires, and the Staff has done the same. This has been a very, very frustrating application, and we all look forward to a resolution of it. MR. RAY-I understand that. There are a couple of things, by way of, almost apology, that I'd like to put forth, to the neighbors as well as to the Board. For one, in order not to drag this out for a number of more months, the application that you have before you now was put together in approximately two days. Now, there are, as was noted, a couple of things that are lacking from the application. I think, if I could, I can address those now. MR. CARTIER-Well, I think it came from the Board, and, Board, please feel free to correct me, I think what we have in front of us is an incomplete application, and I, for one, am not willing to make it complete by taking comments tonight. I think what has to go through the process is, what has to come through the entire planning process is a complete application, and we do have an incomplete application here. If you go back into the minutes of previous meetings on this thing, we've asked for a lot of things that haven't shown up on this plan. Let me see if I can wrap this thing, somehow, in a neat package. Mr. Harris has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. There's no denying that, and we're not trying to prevent that, but by the same token, so, also, do the neighbors have a right to the use and enjoyment of thei r property, and when the use and enjoyment of one person's property impinges on the use and enjoyment of somebody else's property, we have to take a careful, close look at it. It seems to me that, given the size of the property that Mr. Harris owns, he certainly can locate this activity that he wishes to indulge in, or partake of, in such a way, somewhere on that property, where he minimizes that impact on the neighbors. Having said that, I'm not going to say anything else. MR. RAY-If I could comment on that, granted, Keith has a right, permitted right, to farm on his property, and obviously the neighbors have a permitted right to enjoy their property. I don't think it's any more fair, if you will, for the neighbors use of their property to dictate that Keith's use be placed, one of the proposals in that letter is some 1500 feet in the far extreme corner of his property. Granted, that's far from their property, and won't effect them, but it's not reasonable to expect him to do that. MR. CARTIER-This Board is not saying, at least I'm not saying to you that the neighbors are dictating where he can conduct this thing. All I'm saying to you is put it some place where it minimizes the impact, and, personally, I haven't seen that, so far, in any of these applications. (END OF FIRST DISK) 29 '-...- ~ MR. RAY-The various locations where this can be located, obviously, none of these locations are perfect. There are drawbacks to every location. The sense that I get from the neighbors, the only place that they'd really be happy with this building being located is behind Keith's property, or behind his house. The area behind his house, quite simply, is wet. Now, it's not wetland type wet, but the topography comes in. MR. CARTIER-I'm going to interrupt you, here. This Board is not sitting here representing the neighbors. This Board is sitting here representing itself. You've got to satisfy this Board. You don't necessarily have to satisfy the neighbors. We take the neighbors concerns into account, but understand that this is the Board that is going to be voting on this. MR. RAY-I understand that. MR. CARTIER-So, lets not get into a debate about what the neighbors are saying, at the moment. MR. RAY-Okay, but what I'm seeing, and this is, again, from the Staff, on their recommendations that the building be located some place else, there are difficulties with a number of the other locations that have been proposed. Now, granted, he's got 20 acres. There are a lot of areas where this barn could be located. MR. CARTIER-Then give us a complete application with a barn located on it and let this Board vote on it. MR. RAY-Okay. Perhaps we could short circuit this. You indicated that you don't want us coming back, month after month, with a different application in a different location of the barn. MR. CARTIER-Correct? MR. RAY-Okay. Can we discuss location of the barn? MR. CARTIER-What's the Board's pleasure? MR. BREWER-I would just as soon hash it out, get it done with. MR. MARTIN-That's the meat of the matter. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. HARRIS-If I could just add. At the last meeting, you asked me to keep the barn 110 feet back. You asked me to screen the trees in the plan, and I don't have the minutes in front of me. You also asked me to explain where the manure was going. I did all three, and now it's incomplete again. MR. CARTIER-Then, Mr. Harris, what you have to do, and I'm not going to go through this again and again and again. What you have to do, as far as I'm concerned, is get copies of the minutes and review the minutes very carefully to be sure that you include on your application everything that was requested. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, but I'm not interested in sitting here, night after night after night and going through the same things over and over and over again, okay, and I'm sure you feel the same way. MRS. PULVER-Peter, what do you think is lacking? I mean, I don't know what's lacking on the application? MR. RAY-Well, they've indicated a couple of things, the location and the residence, and the water supply, okay. Quite simply, on the map, that's the little square part beside the, it's a different parcel. It's owned in a different land. MRS. PULVER-Okay. You don't have to explain it to me. Just tell me what else. I don't think that that's. MR. RAY-A delineation of the commercial area, okay, and that is defined by the edge of the bank, and the driveway on that particular site plan. MR. BREWER-We've got two maps in front of you. Which one are you going by? MR. RAY-I'm going by the one that's attached to the application. MRS. PULVER-This one was submitted with the letter from the Davidsons. MRS. YORK-Right. I attached that because I wanted the Board to have a map indicating where the neighbors houses were, and they. MRS. PULVER-Which, if you read this that they also sent, then you'll understand this, with the code. MR. BREWER-Right. 30 -- ~ MRS. PULVER-Okay. That's what they sent, and then this is what. MR. BREWER-He's talking about different locations, but he didn't give us any other locations. He only gave us one location. MR. RAY-I've given one location. There's one location on the map that I submitted. MR. BREWER-Right. I understand that, but he was tal king about several locations. He had a map in his hand, and I'm looking at this map and it's got five locations. and he only said one. MR. CARTIER-Yes. Lets narrow this down to one map to work with. Which map are we going to work with? MR. RAY-I'd like to work off of my map, okay. MRS. PULVER-The applicant's map. MR. RAY-Which is the one that we submitted with the application. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. RAY-All right. We were discussing the limitations on the commercial area, okay. The commercial area is limited, on this map. If you'll look where it says, NYT Number 8, at the property line, going back to the top of the bank, that is all filled. There's a sharp drop behind that. Then it comes up and is further defined by the edge of the driveway. You should note that that driveway as it presently exists, now, is about 20 feet further to the north, going right through, if you will, the area where we propose to locate the building. So what we are in effect doing is reducing the commercial area and defining it by the existence of a driveway, the top of the bank and the property line. MR. CARTIER-Can you run that by me again? I don't quite understand what you just said about the location of the driveway. MR. RAY-Okay. The location of the driveway immediately to the south of the proposed building, where that driveway exists right now runs right over, if you will, the footprint of the proposed building. MR. MARTIN-So, you're moving the driveway to the south? MR. RAY-We're moving the driveway to the south, and what I'm saying is that driveway is, in effect, defining the edge of the commercial area. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. RAY-Now, also indicated as lacking were the neighboring residences, okay. Granted, the neighboring residences do not appear on my map, okay. They do appear on the other map that was submitted. I believe that was Mr. Davidson's map. MRS. YORK-Right. That was submitted at the former review, but I felt it would be helpful to the Board tonight. So, I attached that. I take responsibility for that map. MR. CARTIER-No problem. MR. RAY-I might add that, obviously, we're going to be back before the Board, okay. These items can be included, well, I can revise the map very easily, but they don't address, really, the key issue. If you will, there's two key issues that I see. One, obviously, the big one is the location of the barn, and the second one is dealing with the animal wastes. The way we have the barn located, here, we've got a manure storage area behind the barn that will be screened from view. The way it is intended to be dealt with is there will be a manure spreader parked there. The manure will be put in the spreader. When the spreader is full, it'll be spread on the fields. Obviously, during the winter time, when you cannot spread on the fields, it's simply going to be piled. There was really no other alternative to that. Now, if there's a more detailed explanation of dealing with the manure that the Board would like, we'd be more than happy to try to supply it. I guess that takes us to the key issue, is the location of the barn. Now, with the location where I have it on my map, again, by putting it there, it satisfies a number of items. One of which is it's 110 feet back from the road. The required setback is 50 feet. So, we're more than doubling that. Also, in order to be practical, lets face it, the building has to be somewhere near Keith's house. You can't be storing livestock and animals 1500 feet away. You can't, also, be keeping them in an area that, in the winter time, is going to be nothing but a mud pit because of the natural drainage on the property. The area immediately behind his house is going to be a mud pit, in the winter time, in the spring, if animals are kept there. That's why proposed the building there. MR. LAPOINT-Quick question. You're relocating the driveway so as not to bring in fill to put the proposed barn on. So the proposed barn will go on grade, existing fill? 31 ---- ---- MR. RAY-Yes, but it'll go on grade and then, in effect, immediately slope off to the back. MR. LAPOINT-That's my second question. With the run for the sow and the litter is actually depressed behind the barn? MR. RA Y- Yes. MR. LAPOINT-From being at the site, I'm just trying to visualize, exactly, where we're going to put it. That's some place where you've got that oil tank, now? MR. HARRIS-To the east of the oi 1 tank. MR. LAPOINT-To the east of the oil tank? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-The oil tank is some place in between the garage and the proposed barn? MR. HARRIS-No. The oil tank is directly behind the garage. MR. MARTIN-It's on the north side of the existing garage? MR. HARRIS-Yes. The barn is 50 feet east, and then it's going to run 40 feet. So, it's actually. MR. LAPOINT-Because I don't recall seeing the oil tank behind the barn. I recall the oil tank out further to the east. MR. HARRIS-No. It's right behind the garage. It's almost center directly behind the garage, a little bit toward the east, if you were going to size it. MRS. PULVER-I'd like to, just for a moment, go back to my question which was, what other things were left off the application, besides the location of the water and the neighbors residences? MRS. YORK-There were some other things. I didn't make a list, Mr,s. Pulver. There are a number of things on the checklist that were not submitted, and it's just, if you go back through the checklist on your next submission, and make it right, okay. MR. RAY-Okay. MR. MARTIN-See, I would think the easiest way to accomplish this, I mean you don't have to be a draftsman to do this. You just go down to the County office and get a copy of the Tax Map and you convey the information on the Tax Map. That way you can put their houses to scale. His house to scale, and all this can be cleaned up very nicely, instead of all these confusing lines and it costs you $5. MR. RAY-Yes, but it isn't that easy. I have copies of all the Tax Maps, and the problem being that the other side of road is on a different scale than this particular site. can do that. I mean, I'll submit that the next time. MR. CARTIER-Okay, but, look, that's part of the process that all the applicant's go through, okay. They all go through that process, and it's a difficult thing for some people, and that's okay. They go through it. Lets go through this. Lets do this right and move on with this thing. This is taking up a phenomenal amount of Board time. MR. RAY-I realize that. MRS. YORK-I just want to ask one question. Mr. Harris, are the numbers of animals consistent with what you had last time, which was limited by the space in the barn? MR. HARRIS-It's the same. MRS. YORK-The same numbers? MR. RAY-I can answer that. According to, I believe it was a Cornell bulletin, number of square feet per animal, they total out to, we've got 800 square feet in the barn, and that's 796 square feet for those animals. MRS. YORK-Okay, and I didn't read anything on the submission limiting the size of the doors in the barn. Is that still agreeable to you? MR. HARRIS-It's the same design that was put in the barn. MRS. YORK-Okay, and the doors would be, potentially, limited to 10 feet? 32 "- --- MR. RAY-To 10 feet. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. HARRIS-All I did was try to come back with a plan which was recommended the last time. MRS. YORK-Keith, you don't have to explain that to me. I am aware of that. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Well, just a misinterpretation, here, is that you took the two central issues, the location of the barn and the manure, and you put those on the plat. That's fine, but we need these other things. We need to show how they relate to the neighboring properties and things like that. That's all, and I agree, you did the two main things, but we have some other supplementary things missing. MR. CARTIER-Yes, that's why I say, I may be repeating myself, Mr. Ray, please forgive me if I am. MR. RAY-Yes, I understand. There are things missing. MR. CARTIER-If you go through the minutes of this application and so on, you'll be able to go down through there and pick out everything that we're looking for. The only other thing I have a question about is, the County made reference to the number of animals, limited to the number of animals, and I don't see anything on that. MR. MARTIN-It's right here, Pete. MR. RAY-That's listed on the map. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. That answers that. MR. RAY-Okay. MRS. YORK-I'm trying to make things brief, too. What is Mr. Harris' problem with placing the barn so it's behind his existing facility, so that it would be less intrusive to the neighbors? That was a suggestion that was made before, and I'm just wondering about it. MR. RAY-Are you saying immediately behind the barn? MRS. YORK-Not immediately, but you have a built up area, an area with fill, back there, where it would be a couple of hundred feet behind there, and nothing would bother the neighbors. Is there a problem with that particular location? MR. RAY-Yes. Well, you've got one of two problems. If it's located close to the existing barn, and I know this won't be agreeable to a number of people, but if it's located in that area, on top of the bank, he's giving up what he has, in effect, won as commercial space. MRS. YORK-No, not near his commercial space. MR. RAY-Beyond that? MRS. YORK-Beyond his commercial space. MR. RAY-Then you're talking a considerable amount of fill to bring that up. MRS. YORK-Mr. Harris and I discussed the fill issue before, and at that time, he realized it would be, how many did you say, 1200 yards of fill? MR. HARRIS-I realized that it would be an expense for me. MRS. YORK-Yes. Mr. Harris did indicate he has the trucks to move the fill, and his father-in-law has a sand pit. At the time we discussed it, he didn't feel it would be a hardship, but if he's changed his mind we should be aware of the re-zoning. MR. HARRIS-I don't think, Mrs. York, that I said it would be a hardship. I said, if anybody was willing to share the expense, it wouldn't be a hardship. MR. LAPOINT-I'm going to jump in, just because I want to. I'm looking at 100 feet from the back of the garage to the top of the bank, correct? MR. HARRIS-Yes. MR. RAY-Correct. 33 -- --- MR. LAPOINT-Okay. If I take a 20 by 40 ft. barn and I put it with the back of it against that grade, you'd be losing 800 square feet of commercial area, that's 20 feet deep and 40 feet wide. That's the commercial feet you'd lose is 800 feet, correct? MR. RA Y- Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And you're not willing to give up that 800 square feet? MR. RAY-Well, there's more than giving up that 800 square feet. Then you've got 800 square feet that you're giving up, but you've got a barn right on the edge of what is a relatively steep slope. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Here's my question, because I don't like being cut off. I want to continue my train of thought, here, is that where it exists now, it is on the edge of a bank, correct, where it is proposed? MR. RAY-No. That's a gradual slope, from behind that. MR. LAPOINT-That's more gradual than it would be on the top of the bank, in back of the garage. MR. RA Y- Yes. MR. HARRIS-And it's a lot more accessible. By putting the barn behind the garage, I use that for access in and out with my trucks. I'm going to bring that driveway in front of the barn, and it's pretty dangerous to try to turn around in the middle of Pickle Hill Road, so I come in across from the Davidsons and out between my house. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, but you'd still have 80 feet in back of your garage? MR. HARRIS-Yes, but to have a barn, I mean, you've got a 20 foot barn, when you're loading and unloading, with feed and trying to get in, then you've got a barn, then you're trying to get trucks through there. MR. LAPOINT-At the same time, or? MR. HARRIS-It's just. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I mean, if you're unloading feed, and just, please, hear me out. If you're unloading feed on that driveway, doesn't that restrict you even further than you would if you were 80 feet away and back, because I mean, if you have a truck backed up to your garage, in the driveway, that totally blocks the driveway, correct? MR. HARRIS-Just about, not quite. MR. LAPOINT-Right. Now, if we go 80 feet in back of the garage, you're going to have 80 feet there, and you put a 20 foot truck in that, would that be less restrictive than it would be on the driveway? MR. HARRIS-It would be a lot more, because of the bank. MR. LAPOINT-It would be more restrictive. MR. HARRIS-Behind the garage it would, because I have no access to the back of the barn. MR. LAPOINT-The back of the barn, okay. Keith, so you're going to go around where the run is for the sow and the litter, and load from that direction? MR. HARRIS-No, no. I'm going to be in the front, where I propose the driveway, in front. MR. LAPOINT-But, I mean, the front's going to stay the front, even if it's in the back of the barn or along the driveway, correct? MR. HARRIS-What I wanted to do was use the proposed driveway that was there. Then I could have the litter go out back. By putting the barn behind the garage, I have no litter run because of the bank. I have no access to the back because of the bank, and I'm also taking away my commercial area for turning the trucks around and getting into the garage. LAPOINT-Okay. Yes. Right. That's 800 square feet. Okay. I'm just trying to get all my facts lined up. That's 800 square feet we lose there. Now, the grade is such, now you still could not go around the back of this garage, if you have your sow and litter run out there, could you? I mean, isn't that fenced in? MR. HARRIS-No, well, see, I'm 50 feet over from the garage. MR. LAPOINT-With the run. Yes, I don't see how that is going to be, to me, where it is is going to be more restrictive to the commercial area, because it is on the driveway, than it would be 80 feet of the garage. 34 "- - MR. RAY-We'll be back, okay. We will add the elements that you've indicated are missing, okay. Hopefully, we will, what I would like to do is submit a revised site plan, all right, with a particular location of the barn that we feel we can live with. Hopefully, the application will have the elements that have been indicated as being missing, and then you'll be able to either approve or deny that particular location. I think location is really the key. MR. LAPOINT-Great. Could I make one additional request, for something to be shown on the drawing, and this can be purely an approximation which I can drive by and verify, because I'm real good at approximating these things, is if you could put a five foot contour beyond the top of the embankment, directly behind the garage, versus a five foot contour directly behind the proposed barn, and what I'm getting at there is I, because memory is failing me, here, because I saw that oil tank out near the driveway. I didn't see it behind the thing, and I observe oil tanks like you wouldn't believe, and I recall that slope not being all the much different, and so the key, for me, is to see that contour's about the same, and if it's not, fine. I'll go double check myself, but that's going to be a key thing for me to know. MR. RAY-You're talking contours behind the proposed building? MR. LAPOINT-Well, the thing is, if it's going to come back proposed where it is, and I don't go out and verify myself or see that there is a hindrance of the contour behind the service garage, I'm going to have the same question next time, that's all. MR. RAY-Okay. MRS. YORK-You know what might be helpful to the Board, if you just stake out, Keith, the location of the proposed barn, if you just put stakes in the ground with some ribbons around them or something. MR. LAPOINT-Yes. I don't want to commit anybody else to going out there. MR. HARRIS-I have my wood there, right now. Right where the wood is piled is where I'm going to put the garage. MR. LAPOINT-No. I take your word for it that it's steeper out there. MR. HARRIS-You'll see the wood piled right up there. That's right where the barn's going to be, and my only problem putting it behind the garage is really the bank, and it's limiting turning the trucks around. If you could understand Pickle Hill Road. MR. LAPOINT-Again, the trucks come in, and I don't want to be argumentative, but you have 80 feet of clear space, the truck comes in and then backs into the garage, so that 20 feet is where you nose the truck up to the embankment, and then back it in? MR. RA Y- Yes. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. I understand that. I'm just looking for facts, and if that's a hindrance, that's a hindrance, and I can accept that. So, they back up and they pull in like that, and you have 65 foot ri gs? MR. HARRIS-Well, 65 down to 36. MR. LAPOINT-Okay, and you don't pull, of course, you don't pull in directly off Pickle Hill Road into the front of the garage? MR. HARRIS-Occasionally. MR. LAPOINT-Occasionally. Okay. Thanks. MR. CARTIER-Lee, I might impose on you a little bit, here, and offer you some of your time to Mr. Ray, in terms of being sure all of the items are addressed, at some point. MRS. YORK-Certainly. Please feel free to bring the revised application into my office and we'll go over it. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. RAY-What are we looking at for time limits? MRS. YORK-The submission deadline date is December 26th, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. You may want to wait a month and submit, given the constraints of the holiday season. I am only going to be in, I will be in Monday, and then I won't be in the office. MR. RAY-Okay. Well, we'll see what we can do. 35 "'-- -- MRS. YORK-All right. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, similar to like the Knox affair, where we go over these things on four or five different occasions. It's not like, I think the Staff has got to spend a lot of time on this one, as compared to a fresh, brand new application, and that's something that I'd take into consideration a lot on this timing thing, like, for example, Knox, for example, this one, that they come, I can't believe that we would have to spend more than 15 minutes on any plan, here, given what we know already. It's not like it's coming in fresh. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. LAPOINT-So, I wouldn't expect you to spend more than 20 minutes on it. MRS. YORK-Okay. MR. CARTIER-I agree. MR. BREWER-Keith, are you going to still have this portable fence, to move around in the fields? That's not shown on the map. MR. HARRIS-The last time I was here, you asked to keep that back 100 feet, and I was also going to ask, I got my neighbors, besides the Davidsons, I didn't ask them. They didn't mind any feñce near the property line. As a matter of fact, I had them sign a petition. MR. BREWER-No, not a permanent fence. You had a movable. MR. HARRIS-Yes, that was my litter run. MR. MARTIN-That's what this is indicated here. MR. BREWER-That's going to be stationary right there where it is. There's not going to be a portable fence down by the road somewhere that you're going to fence in. MR. HARRIS-I'm going to fence in the horses and the cows down there on the road. That fence is on the map. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Do you have any other questions? Forgive my shortness this evening. It's been a long day for me, and sometimes frustration boils to the surface when it shouldn't. Do I have the impression that we're going to hear some more comments from the public? DEBBIE DAVIDSON MRS. DAVIDSON-I'm Debbie Davidson. A couple of things I did feel I had to mention, looking at this map, and being told that his driveway outlines his commercial area, history of the pigs, originally that area to the east of his garage, outlined by the driveway was where he had the pigs, and the Town made him move them back, originally, because they were right up to the road, and they were on Town property, and then, subsequently, he's moved them back, onto the other side of the driveway. I'd hate to see, if he used that as agricultural then, to now have it deemed commercial, okay, because then you're giving him another area, in front of my home, which I'd really rather it not be used, for trucks and such, okay. I really would like to question that being called cOlIIITercial. I strongly disagree. Further reference to that, in the trial that went on, in reference to the commercial activities there, in the appeal, it is stated, specifically, that he does not process wood as part of his business. So the log piles you see there are there for his own private use, according to the decision of the judges in Albany, the appeal. So, there too, because you see logs, please don't assume it's commercial, because we've been told it isn't. I understand that fill's expensive, and it's difficult to bring in. I strongly recommend that the Board realize that if someone has to suffer with the location of the barn, it be the person who initiates putting the barn in, rather than people who have no control over the cleaning of it, the care of the animals or anything. I really strongly object to looking out my front windows and pigs and having, the visual is a problem, yes, but with that is the smell, and it's horrendous. It is horrendous. It strongly, strongly effects my yard. I don't care if it's 110 feet from his side of the road. It's still in my house. The smell is still there. That's probably why Cornell, in their literature that we sent copies to you of states that a pig farm should be located 500 feet from a residence. If that's not possible, I'd sooner have it closer to his residence than mine. I know that sounds harsh, but I really don't know any better way to put it. I strongly object to having it blowing into my windows, and he can't even see it from his home. MR. LAPOINT-Can I ask a question? This is all agricultural land across the road from you? MRS. DAVIDSON-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-And did you know that when you bought and built your house? 36 "'-" '-'" MRS. DAVIDSON-Yes. I don't object to the cornfield that was there, I really don't, but I see a difference in agricultural between a farm with animals and a farm with crops. MR. LAPOINT-But, again, you knew when you, because, again, I know. I'm going to throw in an opinion, here, because I bought a house, and when I bought my house, I was very careful to see what was around me, and the way it was zoned, and I think I paid extra for that. MRS. DAVIDSON-I thought we did, too. MR. LAPOINT-Well, what you did is you were across from an agricultural site where pig farms are allowed. MRS. DAVIDSON-Under site plan review. MR. LAPOINT-Under site plan review. MRS. DAVIDSON-Which means that you consider how it effects the neighborhood, in part. MR. LAPOINT-Right. True, but, again, this is the type of thing where developments push farms out. MRS. DAVIDSON-I'm not saying, don't stop them. I'm just asking that, when you locate it, or when he locates it, that it effect his residence at least as much as mine. MR. LAPOINT-Again, but I would say that you should have selected your residence accommodating for a pig farm, the possibility of one, in an agricultural use, correct? MRS. DAVIDSON-Under site plan review, I have to say that. MR. LAPOINT-I'm just jumping in here because I really object to development coming into, say, where a farm has not existed, or partially existed, or whatever, for a century, lets say, and that, all of a sudden, those concerns override that of the property owner of the agricultural side. MRS. DAVIDSON-I understand what you're saying. MR. LAPOINT-So, again, one side's going to override another. MRS. DAVIDSON-I hate to be up here saying I'm opposed to pig farms, okay. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MRS. DAVIDSON-I have a cousin with a big one. MR. LAPOINT-I wouldn't want to live across from one either. MRS. DAVIDSON-My husband wants to speak. I better let him. MR. LAPOINT-Sure. PAUL DAVIDSON MR. DAVIDSON-May I address your question, please? It's going to be a little wordy, because the questions you're asking, want, are delving into a deep subject area. Debbie and I purchased our property from a developer who purchased it from the Harris' for development, okay. It is in a Rural Residential which, farming, crop farming, is totally legal, totally under the rules and regulations and animal husbandry is proper under site plan review. We understood that when we bought the land. Commercial activities were not allowed, okay. A week after we broke ground for our home, a commercial garage went up across the street from our house. I believe you're familiar with that? MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. DAVIDSON-That's been all litigated, okay. So, we've been through a lot. We know a lot about the zoning. MR. LAPOINT-I understand that. MR. DAVIDSON-Now, when we litigated it, the statement was made by Mr. Harris that if you proceed with your litigation against me, I'll raise pigs in front of your house, and that's why they're there. MR. HARRIS-That statement was never made. It was never made. MR. DAVIDSON-I just want you to get the gist of the story, because we understood the zoning, well, we've been really irreparably harmed with property values and quality of life up there so far. Now, 37 "-' ....-' I wanted to let you know that fact about that statement because I think that has a lot to do with where the pigs have been located and are located. Mr. Harris', when the judge came down in his favor, there was no operations past 30 feet eastward of his garage. There was actually cornfield there. Then he brought the pigs in. Now he's moved the pigs back and now he's claiming that as commercial. I have already put a complaint into the Town that he's expanding his commercial business, okay. So, I just want to clarify that. Also, Mr. Harris is still bringing fill in here. That's why this is changing back here, this slope is changing. If he can continually bring fill in to expand his business, he can certainly afford to bring the fill in to put his garage in, because he has bulldozers available. He owns bulldozers. He owns heavy equipment. MR. LAPOINT-Right. MR. DAVIDSON-I'm sorry I'm getting a little out of control, here. MR. LAPOINT-You're fine. MR. HARRIS-It's free fill. MR. DAVIDSON-See, it's free fill. Okay. Free fill, he owns his own trucks. He has his own bulldozers. I am saying he will undergo very little hardship by locating the barn behind the garage, compared to the hardship that we've put up with, having the barn in front of our home, after we're already, now, forced to put up with the commercial activities that are 24 hours a day, and, by the way, the trucks very frequently back in from Pickle Hill Road to the garage. There are a lot of things that were said up here that were very misleading. Thank you. MR. LAPOINT-Well, thank you. It's better to get all the cards out on the table. Jim, again, to bring everybody up to speed so we're all at the same playing field, because, again, all I could read was the court documents I had and where we are now, and, again, this brings a lot to light, what was said right here about fill and the location of that barn and the ability to bring that in to expand in other areas. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Anyone else? MRS. BURNHAM-Dorothy Burnham. Since this is a new application, technically, would it be possible for the members of the Board to, again, go out and physically look at the property? I realize this is the holiday season and the weather isn't the greatest, but, in listening to this discussion, it occurs to me that you really looked at it quite a while ago, and you've looked at various maps and suggestions. One thing that cropped up this evening is relocating the driveway. I would like to see it shown on the map where the driveway currently is and where it's going to be relocated to. So, if possible, I would like to request the members of the Board go out and take another look at the property in person. Than k you. MR. CARTIER-Anyone else? Are we at a point where we can ask you if you would agree to table this application? MR. RAY-We would agree. MR. CARTIER-Thank you very much. MR. RAY-Excuse me. With the time constraints, I seriously doubt we're going to be able to get the information that you requested by the 26th. Is there any difficulty with agreeing to put it over more than one month. I don't want to be in a situation where he already had his application denied because he didn't re-submit a plan. MRS. YORK-So, you want to submit for February rather than January? MR. RAY-If I can get things together by the 26th, we will. I have serious doubts that we will be able to get the information that's needed by the 26th, and I'd just like to leave that open as a possibility. MR. CARTIER-Understand that what agenda you get on is controlled by when you submit. If you submit by the 26th, you'll be on the January agenda. MR. MARTIN-I think what he's asking is if this tabling is going to expire if he doesn't submit by the 26th. Is that sort of what you're saying? MR. RA Y- Yes. MR. CARTIER-No. As long as you and I agree to table, there's no clock running. MR. RAY-Okay. I just wanted to make sure of that. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 38 '- .~ tlITION TO TABLE SITE PINt NO. 56-91 KEITH HARRIS, Introduced by James Martin who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: For construction of a 20 ft. by 40 ft. pole barn for housing horses, cows, pigs, and chickens, pending the applicant's revised site plan. Duly adopted this 19th day of December, 1991, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Cartier NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Caimano (9:50 p.m.) MR. CARTIER-One of the things I may not have said was the public hearing will remain open. Does anybody have anything else before the Board? I would wish all of you a very Happy Holiday. We deserve it! On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Peter Cartier, Chairman 39