1992-02-27
~
~EENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
THIRD REGULAR MEETING
ÆBRUARY 27TH, 1992
INDEX
Site Plan No. 56-91
Site Plan No. 53-91
Site Plan No. 9-92
Kei th Harri s
1.
OSCAP, LTD
8.
James Merrigan
Michael Homenick
15.
Subdivision No. 3-1992
SKETCH PLAN
H. Russell Harris
21.
Subdivision No. 4-1992
SKETCH PLAN
Guido Passarelli
22.
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.
D
/
~
-<
~EElSIIJRY PlANNING BOARD MEETING
THIRD REGUlAR MEETING
FEBRUARY Zl, 1992
7:04 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESEIT
JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN
PETER CARTIER
TIMOTHY BREWER
JAMES LAURICELLA
MEMBERS ABSEIT
EDWARD LAPOINT
CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY
SENIOR PIA_R- LEE YORK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
OLD IIJSINESS:
SITE PLAN 110. 56-91 TYPE II RR-3A ICEITH HARRIS CllNER: SAME AS ABOVE NORTH SIDE OF PICKLE HILL
ROAD BETWEEI BAY AND RIDGE ROADS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 20 FT. BY 40 FT. POLE BARN FOR HOOSING HORSES,
CCIIS, PIGS. AND CHICICENS. (IlARREN coum PWNIN&) TAX MP 110. 26-2-10.5 LOT SIZE: 2O:t ACRES SECTION
179-15
JOHN RAY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:04 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 56-91, Keith Harris, 2-6-92, Meeting Date:
February 27, 1992 "The applicant has submitted a revised site plan for location of his barn. There
has been on going concern on the part of the neighbors about proximity to the road and neighboring
properties, visual and smell impacts, and the mixing of commercial and agricultural uses. The revised
plan shows the barn 163 feet from Pickle Hill Road. The area dedicated to commercial use has been
identified. The area for cOlllßíercial use has been filled and, therefore, created a drop-off to the
back fields. The applicant has stated that he needs ready access to the barn and, therefore, needs
to utilize existing driveways which are close to his home. Manure production and disposition has been
a concern. Prevailing winds are from the north west. From the testimony previously given the issue
appears to be the pigs. The other animals do not appear to be a significant concern in the neighborhood.
Since there has been reams of information written on this development previously, the Staff will limit
comments to concerns and Board options. The appl icant has the right to raise animals on the property
in a location that was found during litigation to be the area historically utilized for this purpose.
The site plan is aimed at raising animals in another location. A number of proposed locations have
been advanced and evaluated. The options of the Board are: 1) To house only the pigs at another
location. 2) To place the manure storage behind point A or B to lessen the odors because of the more
sheltered nature of these areas. 3) To move the barn to a less obtrusive area on the ± 20 acres.
4) To approve the site plan as presented. 5) To deny the application for specific reasons. The
applicant has modified the plan to more closely conform to the Board's expectations. Pine trees will
be provided as visual buffering."
MR. MARTIN-Okay, and we have a letter I received, February 10th, from the Town Attorney regarding this
project, and you can review that over, but it essentially says that we should be sure to focus our
comments strictly on the site plan before us and try not to deviate off of that. So, that's all the
staff comments. Do we have someone here for the applicant?
MR. RAY-My name is John Ray. I'm here on behalf of Keith Harris. I really don't see any need to belabor
any description of this plan. You're all very familiar with it. I believe that the plan that we've
submitted tonight addresses the concerns that have been raised at all previous meetings, and includes
all the information that has been requested. Obviously, this is not a perfect solution, but to a
circumstance like this, there can be no perfect solution. The sides and their concerns are just too
far apart. This plan, however, does offer a reasonable solution, and I think it incorporates both
the rights of Keith Harris and the desires of the neighbors. I don't believe there's much more to
be said. If you have any questions about the plan as submitted, I'd be more than happy to answer them.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I know we've all been out there a second time, I believe it was in January, was it,
when we were out on site visits. Keith called and asked us to come again, and we went out again on
a Saturday morning, and I think we walked the location of the barn, as it's depicted here, and, was
there any comments from the Board?
1
------
--...../
MRS. YORK-I do have a letter, here. I'm not sure if they were previously read. One's dated February
19th?
MR. MARTIN-No, I don't believe so.
MRS. YORK-Okay. January 24th, possibly that one was read, or not?
MR. MARTIN-I don't believe any of those have been.
MRS. YORK-Okay. Well, would you like me to do that?
MRS. MARTIN-Yes.
MRS. YORK-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-We'll go into the public hearing portion of the meeting, here, and we can have those read
into the record.
MRS. YORK-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Do you want to read them into the record?
MRS. YORK-Okay. "Greetings. Because we will be unable to attend the February 27th meeting, we submitted
the following comments. The long history of problems at this site is the result of improper actions
of a former Town employee. Please review the minutes of the December 19th, 1991 meeting, specifically
pages 37 and 38 where the remarks of Paul Davidson briefly and clearly describe the entire situation.
We are opposed to the proposed location of the pole barn, as shown on the map submitted, for reasons
outlined in the previous meetings. We urge you to deny this application as submitted. We do not oppose
locating the barn behind the commercial garage, as recommended by staff. Please review the background,
visit the site, and give careful consideration to the concerns of the neighbors. We sincerely appreciate
the time and efforts of this Board in dealing so patiently with a difficult project. Thank you. Dorothy
M. Burnham and Frederick E. Burnham", on Boulderwood Drive. This next letter is from Phyll is Marvin
and Richard Marvin "Dear Mrs. York: We will not be able to attend the February meeting when the Harris
barn issue is to be discussed. At the December meeting, Keith Harris denied threatening the neighbors
with pigs. Let me assure you that he did indeed state that he would put pigs on his property if we
opposed his logging business. We were at a Grant Acres neighborhood meeting, and Keith attended
uninvited. Another neighbor would not attend the meeting or support our efforts because Keith had
told him that he would have a pig farm, and he was intimidated. Justice through the courts has been
denied us. The Planning Board is our only hope. It does not seem fair that Harris' pigs should be
located so they pollute a neighbor's air. Nor does it seem fair that Keith should be allowed to build
a barn which will hurt their property values. The pigs in the barn should be far back from the road.
Sincerely, Phyllis Marvin and Richard Marvin"
MR. MARTIN-Does that constitute all the letters?
MRS. YORK-Yes, it does.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anyone here from the public that has further comments on this project?
PAUL DAVIDSON
MR. DAVIDSON-Hi. I'm Paul Davidson, the closest neighbor to this proposed pig farm. I have some
questions regarding the map in the application, here. First of all, the prevailing wind isn't shown
on here, and the location of my home isn't shown on here. With those two items added, you will notice
that the barn has actually been physically moved further eastward, although further back from the road,
and more directly in line with our home, and the prevailing wind is directly from the barn to our home.
Also, there's a proposed row of pine trees to cover 200 linear feet. The proposal is to plant 10 trees
as a screen. Ten trees on 20 foot centers are going to have to be fairly large to be a screen. I
propose that a stipulation be made regarding size and number of trees, because there's no way that
that's a screen. Also, regarding this, and I believe you have a letter from the Attorney, we are,
right now, working with the Town to re-border the existing commercial activity, as there has been
expans ion, which is covered by the zoning 1 aws. I guess that's all I have to say, regardi ng the
application map, but I have a short statement. I'd first like to point out that, as neighbors, we
have never denied Mr. Harris' rights to raise animals on his property. As a matter of fact, we don't
see anything wrong with that, but Mr. Harris himself has stated this isn't for livelihood. This is
for his own pleasure, of he and his family. Yet, he doesn't want any hardships. He wants the neighbors
to have the hardships. I don't think that's fair. We've already been unfairly imposed upon because
of the misdeeds of an incompetent former building inspector, allowing the commercial activity in that
area. This will further devalue our house and make it less of a pleasure than it already is, with
all the smoke and noise. there, to live. So, we strongly request that if Mr. Harris is allowed to go
through with the project, the barn be moved in back of the commercial property, and to the west, not
to the east. In our previous letters, we've established that Mr. Harris has considerable assets,
including sources of fill, excavating
2
'~
equipment and that very much minimizes any hardships to him to relocate that barn, and we also ask
that, whatever the outcome, it be stipulated that no household or commercial wastes or any matter of
that type be imported as feed for the livestock. Currently, there is waste vegetable matter being
brought in, and in the summer time the stench is unbearable at our home. I guess that's all I have
to say. Thank you very much.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd care to address the Board? There being no other
comment, I guess we can close the public hearing on this. I think that's reasonable. I think we've
exhausted the comments on this. So, I'll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MARTIN-And I'd like to get some view, from the Board here, as to what the feelings are, before.
This is Type II, though. We have no SEQRA Review?
MR. CARTIER-Right.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, then I'd like to get the feeling from the Board before we move to disposition
on this.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I can certain1y agree with Mr. Davidson, in terms of the tree line, and that's
something that popped up in my notes, when I was looking at this. I think there needs to be an increase
in the number of trees planted.
MR. LAURICELLA-Or specify the size.
MR. CARTIER-And specify size. With regard to the manure location, it seems like Point B would be,
certainly, less convenient for Mr. Harris, but might be more appropriate in terms of the neighbor,
in terms of the drop that's there, and that might 1 imit some of the problems associated with that.
Mr. Harris, can I ask you a question? How do you feed these animals?
KE ITH HARR I S
MR. HARRIS-I do use some of the day old doughnuts and some vegetation that's leftover in the
supermarkets. I kind of consider it a wise way of recycling.
MR. CARTIER-How long does it sit there before it gets fed?
MR. HARRIS-Lately, not at all. It's all fed up as soon as it comes in.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. HARRIS-Occasionally, it does sit for a few days, but I've never smelt it, and my house is closer
than any of the neighbor's houses.
MR. CARTIER-Well, you've got a wind direction situation there.
MR. HARRIS-Yes, but I'm around the garage a lot, and I don't smell it.
MR. CARTIER-Well, what kind of guarantees could you give us that this isn't going to generate any odors,
in terms of the vegetative matter?
MR. HARRIS-I guess, being a farm, none, but I can guarantee you that it's a personal thing for my family,
and I don't think I'm asking for 25 acres of land for a commercial dairy farm or anything.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. I guess I got my questions answered.
MR. HARRIS-And I'm not a bad neighbor. I know there's been a lot of litigation. I'm sorry. We were
there, and I guess everybody knows there's a lot of hardship when things happen like this.
MR. BREWER-I just would like to see, maybe, more trees.
MR. HARRIS-The trees, we're figuring 10 foot trees, or 20 foot trees. Whatever anybody would like.
I've already buffered over 200 feet, that Mr. Davidson hasn't stated, but if anybody could drive by.
I took all expense to landscape his property. I mean, I went over and asked Paul, like an American,
if he'd like these trees so he wouldn't have to look at my business. He said, go ahead, but now it
sounds like something out of the ordinary.
MR. MARTIN-I understand, and it's all well known to us.
MR. LAURICELLA-Did you say those trees, they're not planted yet?
MR. HARRIS-No. They're not. I'll plant whatever you need.
3
--"
MR. LAURICELLA-Okay.
MR. HARRIS-I don't want to put hundreds of trees in, but whatever it takes to screen from the Davidsons,
I'll do whatever it takes. I've got a backhoe.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I just did some quick calculations, here, and I think we can specify a specific number,
here. If we were to do them every six feet, even, that would be 35 trees.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but I don't want to make the guy spend $1,000 to put trees in to buffer, if those trees
are going to get bigger, he's going to end up cutting them down, if he puts in 20 foot trees.
MR. CARTIER-Twenty foot tall trees?
MR. BREWER-That's what he said.
MR. CARTIER-Evergreens? What are we talking about?
MR. HARRIS-Anything that's not going to shed. It'll be an evergreen.
MR. MARTIN-Scotch Pine?
MR. HARRIS-Well, I was thinking more of a Pasture Pine, something cheap, but occasionally I get a job
that has some nice shrubs.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I think we're going to lock you into a number, here, and a specific time, that they
have to be planted by, and a minimum height of a tree.
MR. HARRIS-Yes. Just try to be reasonable.
MR. MARTIN-Well, that's why we're doing this now, here, in front of you, but I want something of a
nature that's going to supply us some screening, here, and not be seen through. That's why I was
thinking of a Scotch Pine or something along those lines.
MR. CARTIER-Have you got a Christmas Tree farm out there? Do you have Christmas Trees growing on the
property now?
MR. HARRIS-Yes, I do.
MR. CARTIER-How big are they?
MR. HARRIS-Some are 8, 9 feet tall.
MR. MARTIN-Is that where you would get them from?
MR. HARRIS-I wasn't going to, because to get into the 8 or 9 footers with a backhoe, there's not a
road. I mean, it's a Christmas Tree farm. I'm going to be harvesting a few this year.
MR. BREWER-Well, I guess what we're getting at, Keith, is we don't want you to put three or four in
today and then, six months from now, put three or four more in.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, when you come across a job. I'd like to specify a time.
MR. HARRIS-Yes. If you could just understand that I've already done 200 feet of this, voluntarily,
from my own personal convenience, and Paul's.
MR. BREWER-Where is that 200 feet?
MR. HARRIS-That's on his property, and the property that I have across the road.
MR. MARTIN-Remember, we saw it when we were out there. Across the street, remember? Well, I think
we're coming to a couple of things, here, with the stipulation on trees, the location of the manure.
Location B, as it's depicted there on the site plan is, I think, the preference of the Board, if I'm
right.
MR. BREWER-You mean for the barn, Jim?
MR. MARTIN-No, for the manure pile.
MR. HARRIS-And this might not end up to be as many animals that I have, but my children are young.
They're eight and nine.
4
'---'
'-"
MR. RAY-Let me just address a couple of things. With the trees, all right, what we propose here is
20 feet on center. Perhaps. could we double that, put them 10 feet on center, with some kind of
reasonable minimum height for those trees.
MR. MARTIN-And stagger them, like people are saying.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. I'd just as soon see them left 20 feet on center and you put a staggered row behind.
Let me show you what I'm talking about. Okay. Put a second row in, and you stagger them like this,
on echelon, like this.
MR. RAY-I see.
MR. MARTIN-It has the effect of being every 10 feet.
MR. CARTIER-That will screen, you'll get the 10, and the trees have got more room to spread out, which
is what we want them to do in the first place.
MR. RAY-Okay. So, what we're looking at is two rows of trees, 20 foot on center, staggered.
MR. CARTIER-Off set by 10 feet, one row is offset from the other by 10 feet.
MR. RAY-And that would be a total of 20 trees?
MR. CARTIER-Correct.
MR. MARTIN-So, we're looking at the manure pile, the trees. Is there any other stipulation anybody
can envision, here?
MR. RAY-Can I address the manure pile? I believe you indicated the preference, for the Board, is
Location B?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. RAY-The reason we had had it where it was indicated was because if it's directly behind the barn,
obviously, it's convenient for cleaning out the barn. Also, you've got visual screening, and a wind
screen being created by the barn itself. What the intention is, he's got a manure spreader, it would
be to park the spreader right there. Clean out the stalls, put it right into the spreader, and then,
when the spreader's full, you just go spread it on the fields. Now, there's a real problem in getting
the manure from the barn over to Location B.
MR. MARTIN-I agree. If it is that close, it might provide some wind screen, there, from the building
itself.
MR. BREWER-I think that's fine.
MR. MARTIN-I dòn't really like, I wouldn't usually get this specific with a manure pile placement,
but this has been an exceptional case. All right. Is there anything else?
MR. CARTIER-The only thing that just occurs to me, and maybe Lee can help me put IItY hands on it in
the Ordinance, right now. Somewhere, written in there, with regard to Farm Operation, is that manure
not be spread any closer than X feet, and I don't remember what the figure is. Would that be under
Supplemental Reg's, or?
MRS. YORK-I think it's under the Farming.
MR. CARTIER-When you said, spread the manure, that's what made me think of it.
MR. MARTIN-"Manure shall be applied to land in such a manner as to minimize offensive odors to neighbors,
and in no case shall be closer than 10 feet to the property line", that is Page 18033.
MR. CARTIER-It has been just pointed out to me that that's a minimum, and the Board may want to consider
increasing that, or changing that.
MR. MARTIN-Right, or, to take that a step further, increase it along one property 1 ine, as opposed
to, certainly the back property line doesn't matter, but along, where he fronts with the neighbors,
here, we could say a greater difference.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. We could say that the manure wouldn't be spread any closer than, what, 163 feet.
MR. BREWER-Just an imaginary line right across the front of that barn.
5
'"-,,
'.-'
MR. MARTIN-Yes, keep it that far back, at a minimum, or why don't we say, to the back of the barn,
even, 183 feet.
MR. RAY-We're talking all the way along the property, parallel to Pickle Hill Road?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Right.
MR. RAY-That's a fairly large amount of land that, in essence, he won't be able to fertilize, then.
MR. CARTIER-But, in essence, we're also trying to address neighbors concerns, with regard to odor,
and the more we can keep that stuff spread, keep that stuff away from the line.
MR. MARTIN-It doesn't look to be much of a problem, here, because you've got so much of a cleared area,
here, that's been filled in, around this commercial garage, here, that none of that's planted anyhow.
So, I don't see where that really impacts you that much.
MR. CARTIER-I hear what you're saying, that there's a strip that's not going to get fertilized, but
it hasn't been fertilized right a long, is my understanding.
MR. HARRIS-I guess. I really don't know exactly how much I'm going to have.
MR. BREWER-How much manure is he going to have with six cows and three horses?
MR. RAY-Yes. I think we could stipulate to that. If you want to make 163 feet, running parallel to
Pickle Hill Road, for the entire length of the frontage of the property, that would be acceptable.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Anything else?
MR. CARTIER-Number of livestock. Are we going to talk about number of livestock, or not?
MR. MARTIN-I don't know that we can.
MR. CARTIER-All right.
MR. BREWER-We should stipulate the barn door height.
MR. RAY-On the revised site plan, we do indicate that the barn doors are limited to 10 feet in height,
and we do also stipulate to the amount, numbers of livestock.
MR. BREWER-I understand that, but if we put that in our motion, then it's there.
MR. RAY-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-That's true. It's on the plan. So, we can stipulate in the motion with regard to livestock,
correct?
MR. BREWER-Yes, but if those pigs have litters, Pete, those eight pigs turn into.
MR. CARTIER-Well, he says one sow and litter.
MRS. YORK-Yes. It says one sow and litter.
MR. HARRIS-One of them's ready to come in, too.
MR. CARTIER-Here's what I've got, so far. I'm just trying to make a list here, number of trees, in
regard to size and how they're planted. We've got to stipulate size, here, I guess.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. CARTIER-What do we want to do about waste vegetable matter, with regard to its importation?
MR. MARTIN-See, the thing I like to think about, when we're making these stipulations, is, from an
enforcement officer's standpoint, how are you going to actually say, well, these vegetables, this minute,
now they smell. Get them out of here. I mean, I understand what they're trying to do, here, but I
want to have something that can be applied, in reality.
MR. BREWER-How are we going to be able to tell how old they are, anyway?
MR. LAURICELLA-Day old doughnuts.
MR. BREWER-Day old doughnuts are usually about a week old.
6
MR. HARRIS-They're marked.
MR. CARTIER-I'm sure Mr. Hatin would love to sit out there and check dates on doughnut boxes.
MR. MARTIN-That's exactly what I'm talking about.
MR. HARRIS-They very seldom sit. Occasionally, in the summer.
MR. BREWER-No. What I'm saying is, there's no way you can really tell, unless you're there every day,
and watch them come in and be fed.
MR. RAY-Perhaps, could we stipulate to the location of where they'd be stored? Again, time wise is
going to be difficult, from an enforcement standpoint.
MR. BREWER-Exactly.
MR. RAY-We can stipulate that anything brought in for feed would be stored to the north side of the
barn.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Manure location, I think we've got that covered.
MR. MARTIN-Again, directly behind the barn.
MR. CARTIER-As shown. Number of livestock, we've got. Manure will be spread no closer than 163 feet
to Pickle Hill Road, correct, the boundary, the property line, abutting Pickle Hill Road?
MR. RAY-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-Barn door height be limited to no more than 10 feet, and proposed livestock be limited
to, and I'll just go through that.
MR. MARTIN-Is everybody agreed?
MR. LAURICELLA-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Any additions to that list?
MR. LAURICELLA-No.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. The only thing we've got left is the size of the trees, minimum height planted,
and a date, you said, right?
MR. BREWER-Well, I just don't want to see three trees put in, today, and then six months from now,
three more put in.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, lets get some agreement, here.
MR. BREWER-Ten foot? Ten foot's a pretty big tree. I don't want to get too expensive for him.
MR. RAY-Yes. Ten foot's a good sized tree.
MR. MARTIN-Eight foot?
MR. RAY-From a visual standpoint, if you've got a six foot tree.
MR. MARTIN-Well, you're not going to get any growth this year. Six foot?
MR. CARTIER-A minimum height of six feet.
MR. MARTIN-Okay, six foot.
MR. CARTIER-Twenty trees to be planted in a double row, in a double staggered row.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, a double staggered row.
MR. LAURICELLA-Within what time frame?
MR. MARTIN-Within what time frame, now, Keith?
MR. HARRIS-Lets say, by this fall? Either I do it this spring or fall.
MR. CARTIER-By September 21. That's the first day of autumn.
7
MR. RAY-I believe the original site plan application indicated all the work could be done, I believe,
by October 20th, if you want to stick with that date. That gets it in by frost, basically.
MR. CARTIER-Well, the pigs are there now, and the odor's there now, and the site work's being done
now.
MR. HARRIS-That's good, September 30th.
MR. RAY-Okay. September.
MR. HARRIS-Hopefully, I can do it this spring.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. Are we ready?
IIJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 56-91 IŒITH HARRIS, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
For the construction of a 20 ft. by 40 ft. pole barn for housing horses, chickens, cows, pigs, with
the following stipulations: Number One, that a double row of trees, minimum height six feet, a double
row of 20 trees with a minimum height of six feet be planted in a staggered fashion along the line
shown on the map submitted on or before September 21, 1992. That Mr. Harris make every effort to
minimize the odors generated by waste, vegetable matter, fed to animals by storing it on the north
side of the proposed barn, directly behind the barn. That manure be stored as per the location shown
on the plan submitted, and that, in the spreading of manure, no manure be spread any closer than a
line paralleling Mr. Harris' property line, abutting Pickle Hill Road and being 163 feet from said
property line along Pickle Hill Road. That the barn door height be limited to no more than 10 feet.
That the number of livestock be limited as follows: six cows, three horses, eight pigs, one sow and
litter.
Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver (7:34 p.m.)
SITE PLAN NO. 53-91 TYPE I HC-lA LEAD AGENCY STAlUS OSCAP, LTD (lINER: AS ABOVE WEST OF
INTERSECTION OF NYS ROUTE 9 AND 149 ESTABLISH lVO IIJILDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF A RETAIL OOTLET CENTER,
INCWDING RELOCATION AND EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING DEXTER SHOE OOTLET STORE. TOTAL GROSS BUILDING
AREA TO BE 68,000 SQ. FT. WITH TOTAL GROSS LEASABLE AREA TO BE 62,000 SQ. FT. (WARREN coom PLANNING)
TAX MAP NO. 34-1-10 LOT SIZE: 7.8 ACRES SECTION 179-23
MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:34 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 55-91, OSCAP, LTD, 2-27-92, Meeting Date:
February 27, 1992 "At this meeting it is anticipated that the Planning Board will take Lead Agency
Status for the purposes of SEQRA. Comments which have been received from other involved agencies are
attached. Once Lead Agency is established the Board must determine what the significance of the project
is and decide whether an EIS is required. This has to be done within 20 calendar days of receipt of
all information the Lead Agency may reasonably need ,to make the determination of significance. The
criteria for determination of significance is listed below. "
MR. CARTIER-Are you saying we need to do that tonight?
MRS. YORK-No. Within 20 calendar days you do, though.
MR. CARTIER-Is it worth taking a shot at doing tonight, do you think? Do we have enough information,
at this point?
MRS. YORK-I think you would want the rest of the Board here.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MRS. YORK-It's my opinion.
MR. MARTIN-Will 20 calendar days take us into that first meeting?
MR. CARTIER-That's 20 calendar days, right?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
8
~
--.-r
MR. CARTIER-March 18 would be the 20th day.
MRS. YORK-So, St. Patrick's Day, your usual meeting, is.
MR. CARTIER-That's right, March 17th. That's cutting it a little fine.
MRS. YORK-It's up to you. If this Board wants to meet and discuss it earlier than that, that's entirely
up to you.
MR. CARTIER-Well, we had talked about, didn't we talk about getting a workshop session?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, we did, but we ran into the problem of so many applicants for this month that we were
going to have them on their own night, and it was to be tonight, and we had so many applicants we opened
up a third meeting.
MR. CARTIER-What I'm thinking about is if we have a workshop session somewhere in the beginning of
March, we could do it then, or we could hold it off until the 17th. What's your pleasure?
MR. MARTIN-I'd rather have a workshop session, would be my preference. How does everybody else feel?
MR. CARTIER-Tuesday, 10 March, the second Tuesday of the month?
MR. MARTIN-3/10, is that a problem for anybody?
MRS. YORK-I'll have to check and see if we can get a room, but I'll do that.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, even if it's the small room downstairs. That would be fine, I think.
MR. BREWER-Like I just said, that time clock we started, yes, we did, to determine who was going to
be lead agent. It was 30 days.
MR. CARTIER-That's been established.
MR. MARTIN-Did we start the time clock last meeting?
MR. CARTIER-That's been established. Now another clock runs.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, and it had to be within 45 days of that, right?
MRS. YORK-Yes. So, you're okay.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, that's what this 20 calendar days takes this into account? I see.
MR. CARTIER-So, we're talking, tentatively, March 10th. Okay.
MR. BREWER-At what time?
MR. CARTIER-7 p.m.?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. Seven o'clock, Tuesday March 10th. All right. I guess we can continue on through
staff notes.
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, February 24, 1992 "We have reviewed the project
and have the following engineering comments: 1. With regard to SWM design: a. The infiltration
capacities used for the detention basin and drywells design is based upon an assumed perc rate value,
significantly less than septic system perc test data. Normally SWM infiltration design is based upon
field identified soils data. The infiltration aspect of the SWM design should be reevaluated taking
the above into consideration. b. The detention basin auxiliary overflow spillway width should be
indicated on the plans. The width shall be such that the maximum depth of flow at design conditions
is not greater than 12 inches in accordance with the Town Code A183-27 F.2.(h). 2. With regard to
traffic: a. The traffic study addendum anticipates that project generated traffic on the existing
roadway system, under an area wide light re-timing scenario, will create longer traffic delays for
some signal approaches. Peak hour traffic signal approach delays increasing from level of service
C to D, or D to E, may be significant impacts. The traffic study data indicates level of services
changes from C to D for: - Westbound Rte. 149 at Rte. 9 (weekends) -Northbound Rte. 9 at Rte. 149
(weekends) - Southbound Rte. 9 at 1-87 Northbound connector ramp (weekdays) The traffic study data
indicates level of service changes from D to E for: - Southbound Rte. 9 at 1-87 Northbound connector
ramp (weekends) - Exit from 1-87 Northbound at Rte. 9 (weekends) b. Traffic study comments from NYSDOT
have not been available for consideration as part of the project review." We do have some comments
9
"----'
from them tonight. "c. Traffic signals involved with the assumed re-timing scenario are NYSDOT
equipment. The applicant should be requested to obtain a NYSDOT commitment to modify traffic signal
re-timing. d. The traffic study recommends geometry for the project entrance driveway to accommodate
right turn entries by large trucks. The site plans do not reflect this. e. The entrance driveway
throat area has very 1 imited space for vehicles to stack-up during congested periods. Three or more
passenger vehicles, or a tractor trailer truck waiting to leave the site can block off access into
the parking lot located in front of the proposed retail center." And there's a letter from the
Department of Transportation, to Lee York, dated January 27, 1992 "Dear Ms. York: We concur with
your letter designating the Town of Queensbury Planning Board as the SEQRA Lead Agency for the Dexter
Factory Outlet Expansion. Our review of the traffic impact study for the proposal is underway and
we will provide you with the results of the review as soon as it becomes available. As you know, The
Glens Falls Transportation Council will soon be conducting a study of the immediate and long term
transportation needs in the Rte 9/149 corridor. That study is being done in response to local interest
in improving vehicular and pedestrian circulation in this rapidly developing commercial area and is
scheduled to be completed in fall of 1992. A major question that needs to be answered is how the
proposed Dexter expansion can be made compatible with plans for improving vehicle and pedestrian
circulation in the corridor. Issues that need to be addressed include: 1. Adequate set backs for
possible widening of NYS Route 9. 2. Compatibility of the Dexter site plan with an overall pedestrian
circulation plan for the corridor. 3. Compatibility of any traffic improvement work done to mitigate
the Dexter expansion with improvements planned for the entire corridor. 4. Connection to adjoining
sites including possible future connector roads. Ideally, the review of the Dexter proposal would
not take place until the results from the Corridor study are available. This would insure that the
expansion could be formulated in a way that is consistent with the plans for the entire corridor.
Our concern is to prevent the situation where improvement work would have to be re-done soon after
its completion to accolllrodate corridor based improvement work. If delaying the Dexter expansion is
not deemed feasible, a second, although less ideal, review process could be accomplished as follows:
1. Complete the review of the traffic study and agree on the improvements that are needed to mitigate
the impacts of the Dexter expansion. If these are not too extensive (the traffic impact study proposes
only improvements to the signal timing at the intersection of route 9 and 149), then conflicts with
corridor plan actions can be assumed to be minimal. 2. The 75 ft. set back proposed on the Dexter
site plan will be adequate to accommodate any widening of NYS Route 9. The Town should determine if
adequate parking will remain if the widening requires the removal of the parking in front of the Dexter
buildings. 3. The pedestrian circulation improvements on the Dexter site should be compatible with
corridor pedestrian circulation needs. At a minimum, the developer should demonstrate that pedestrian
circulation improvements be proposed for the Dexter Site have been logically related to the adjoining
sites. 4. The developer should demonstrate that adequate interconnections to adjoining sites have
been provided. Provisions should be made to insure that connection will be made to potential future
service roads. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. Sincerely, Kenneth A.
Carlson, Senior Transportation Analyst"
A letter from Marilyn J. Van Dyke, Town of Queensbury Historian, to Planning Board members, February
25, 1992 "Dear Planning Board members: This letter is written in my capacity as Town of Queensbury
Historian to call your attention to the historical and archeological significance of the site currently
being considered for development by OSCAP, LTD at the intersection of Routes 9 and 149. At or near
the proposed construction site, the old Military Road from Fort Edward to Lake George crisscrossed
Route 9 in this area during the 18th century and was the site of several military skirmishes during
the French and Indian War. According to Janice Henke, an archeological investigator who prepared a
study in response to a proposed sanitary sewer district in the area in 1977, the road was constructed
from trees and brush with a base of logs designed to move cannon and heavy wagons to Fort William Henry
and Fort George. It is Henke's belief that while no effort has been made to uncover the road, it would
be possible to recognize the old road and its corduroy construction were archeological studies
undertaken. Later, the Plank was constructed in 1848 to carry stage coach and wagon traffic between
Glens Falls and Lake George. One toll gate was located at the intersection to Routes 9 and 149. No
archeological study has been made to determine if the Plank Road coincides with Route 9, if remains
of the road exist or if the remains differ from the old Military Road, or if Route 9 and its fill could
be excavated. Many unanswered questions remain as to the sitings of these two roads, both of whom
have historical significance to the development of the area over two centuries. On or near the proposed
construction site was located the Halfway House, a famed stopping place and inn for travellers who
took the stage coach from Moreau Station to Lake George. The Halfway House burned on May 9, 1946.
The Lake George Fire Company responded as the inn was in that fire district at that time. A substantial
stone foundation remained visible for many years close to Route 9. No determination has been made
as to the whereabouts of this foundation. About 20 years ago, Paul Loding, the present historian for
the Town of Kingsbury and the Village of Hudson Falls, and Howard Cornell conducted an on-site
investigation of the Halfway House area. Through the use of a metal detector, the remains of a dumpsite
used by the Halfway House was located near the Northway fence of the property. Mr. Loding found old
bottles, silverware, and shards of chinaware, some of which are still in his possession. Since questions
remain as to the possible existence of early road construction and remnants of the Halfway House and
its dumpsite at the proposed OSCAP LTD site, a more thorough historical and archeological study is
recommended prior to the undertaking of any new construction. Further work is also needed to determine
the placement of historic markers at this site."
MR. CARTIER-That's something we're going to end up talking about during the EIS.
MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. So, does the Board want to get into a further review of the site plan, at
this time, in anticipation of cOlllrents from any participating agencies?
10
"----
-~
MR. CARTIER-I guess my only question would be, where are we, in terms of traffic study stuff?
MR. MARTIN-That's probably a good question to start with.
MR. SCHACHNER-Good evening. I'm Mark Schachner, from Miller, Mannix, and Pratt, representing the
applicant. What we anticipated doing tonight, I guess, was essentially two things. The formal, official
one was we were hoping that you all would formally adopted SEQRA Lead Agency Status. It's our
understanding that the other involved agencies, or potentially involved agencies, have been notified,
have responded, have either failed to respond or responded that you all should be the Lead Agency.
So, we would certainly urge you, if you see fit to be the SEQRA Lead Agency, which we hope you do,
to take that form step this evening, and the only other thing that we proposed, initially, to accomplish,
was essentially to address the question you just raised, which is we would update you on where we're
at, traffic study wise, and I think, if 11m not mistaken, Mr. E~S will tell you a little bit about
that. He's going to talk about the task force that you're familiar with, discussing the area. Formally,
you know, as Mrs. York just read in Mr. Carlson's letter, DOT has not yet submitted its response to
the current plan, and we're anticipating that happening in the near future. Before we get into the
Task Force, the only thing I did want to mention was you sort of surprised us with the notion of the
March 10th workshop meeting. If you want to do it at a special meeting, it's entirely up to you.
We are perfectly comfortable if you want to hold off until the March 17th regular meeting, acknowledging
that if there's a shortfall in a few number of days, we'll gladly waive that and allow that to go.
It's sort of up to you.
MR. CARTIER-Well, I think one of the reasons I brought it up is that could be a lengthy process, and
we have no idea what's coming in at us in March, because we've had three meetings this month already,
and rather than have a very long meeting, I think maybe that's the position to go in.
MR. MARTIN-Right, and, again, with a project of this magnitude, both in fairness to you and other
applicants, I think it's good that this be segmented off in its own meeting.
MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine. I just wanted to make it clear, we weren't requesting that.
MR. MARTIN-I understand. It's a preference of our own, I would say.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Fine.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, I guess I'd feel more comfortable hearing about the traffic now, because
that could impact on the SEQRA Review. So, I'd like to hear about the traffic, I would say.
DAVE EADS
MR. EADS-I'm Dave Eads. I'm with Dexter Shoe. As a result of Lee York and some of the meetings that
we had with both the Town and the County, a task force was formed to address the traffic issues up
in the Route 9 corridor from the Gurney Lane area up past the Route 9/149 light. We're in a position
to meet with Lee York tomorrow, along with Pat Tatich and Dan Kane from the County to present our first
draft of the results of meetings with the property owners through that area. We've been very pleased
by the response that the property owners have had, and the suggestions that they've had for improving
the areas. We've had a meeting, we had one very large meeting with 10 of the property owners. Every
property owner within that group has had some input into the report. All of them have met with, we
have met with all of them, sent them a survey for the report and whatever, and it addresses appearance
standards, pedestrian safety and convenience, and traffic flows. We're now in a position that we have
taken and talked to all of the property owners, certainly the major players there, and their positions
have been represented to us, and what we will be doing tomorrow is sitting down with more or less the
government people and saying, these are our impressions. This is what we're prepared to do. This
is what we need for you to come back and do with us, because, to a certain point, because of a lack
of a master plan, because of a lack of prior development, we're now in a situation where we have to
come back and say to you, as outlined in the report, yes, there are some things that we all agree with.
We all agree with doing crosswalks. We feel positive about linkage. We feel positive about some of
the other items that have been mentioned through the course of the meetings. What we now need to do
is to come back and address the governmental agencies and say, you now have to become a partner in
all of this. You need to tell us what we need to do, what next steps we need to do, either as a lighting
district, sidewalk district, or, obviously, in some areas, we're going to need help for the ongoing
process. We can come back and say, we agree to the crosswalks, but we can't move on the crosswalks
without government help. Likewise, in order to, well, there was one meeting that we had with these
folks that was very positive. They wanted to get out and put bulldozers onto the road right now.
Lets lay the sidewalks. One fellow was ready to get out there and do the deed, and when we went in
and gave our first comment back and said, what can we do with this, they said, whoa. So, what we're
going to be doing is coming back to you folks and saying, if you're as interested in making these
improvements as we are, then we need to have some kind of a cooperative effort to grease the wheels,
to make it a little bit easier, and so forth. So, that's what we'll be doing with those three folks
tomorrow, and we'll be presenting our interim report, expecting some feedback from them, and going
to the second process. We do have to tell you that, as individuals who have worked on this, the LA
Group, Bob Joy and Associates, plus the rest of the members, we have gotten exceptionally good response
from the property
11
'-~
-'
owners, and I wish that I could convey to you their concern at solving the problems that are there
and addressing the issues as much as you felt that way. So, we've made good progress on this and I
hope that we'll have a good presentation tomorrow.
MR. CARTIER-Good. Can I ask you a question, there? Can we assume, then, that you are going to be
the spokesman for the majority of property owners up there?
MR. EADS-Until tomorrow.
MR. CARTIER-Until tomorrow, but will there be a single spokesman for that group, at some point, when
we get into all of this?
MR. EADS-At the moment, the Board holds us, Dexter Shoe, in the palm of their hands, and we are faced
with pushing this issue forward, cutting through all the bull. The gun's at our head. We're the people
who are taking a lead status in trying to push the project through, get people together to do it.
Where it goes from this point depends, in large part, on what we hear back from the governmental agencies
about, are we going to be trading quid pro quo, here. If we have as much cooperation from the
governmental agencies as we seem to have from the landowners, yes, I think there are some individuals
who are willing to stand up and be spokesmen for it.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, because I would encourage that. I think that would help the whole process greatly
if we have one or two people as spokesman, rather than 20 different owners. Okay. Great. Thank you.
MR. EADS-Good.
MR. MARTIN-Is there anything that has been envisioned, to date, as a result of this, that can be actual
hard and fast improvements to this site plan, or have they already been incorporated into this site
plan, or is, what types of measures are we talking about, and is there anything, because the sense
I'm getting, from Mr. Carlson's letter, here, is that if this project does move forward, prior to this
other study being done, can certain items be included into this site plan, in advance of hearing what
these improvements might be, and incorporate them now, rather than later, and that's planning.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I think the key is compatibility, it seems to me.
MR. MARTIN-Right. Exactly.
MR. SCHACHNER-And to some extent, it's an exercise in the abstract because it's compatibility with
something that we don't know exactly what the future will bring, in terms of the corridor.
MR. MARTIN-Right, but you have a pretty educated team there, and they can, I imagine, in 10 cases,
hit 9 of the suggestions, I would say.
MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. The one word answer is yes, and I think Mike Ingersall from the LA Group would
like to up date you on the specific site plan, and some proposed on-site improvements that relate to
the revised traffic study that you and DOT received from Chuck Manning of Roger Creighton Associates.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MI KE INGERSALL
MR. INGERSALL-Just to reintroduce myself. My name is Mike Ingersall. I'm with the LA Group, and we're
the site planners and engineers for the project. The letter that we're referring to, of January 27th,
much has happened in the past month, and this is actually the first time we've seen this letter, but
our consultants have met with Mr. Carlson, and have re-submitted data that I believe the Board should
have.
MR. MARTIN-Is it this red bound?
MR. INGERSALL-Yes, and just to bring you, in a nutshell, the Department of Transportation requested
us to rerun our numbers. We've had many discussions about the long term effects of the traffic in
the area, I'm talking about 10 years down the road. We had done our report at five years. DOT wanted
to do it at a three year projection, which forces all the calculations into probably a worse scenario,
and they wanted to be sure that we could handle this, and in doing that, what happens, we had anticipated
this may happen, but in respect to our site, it pushes us into having to install a right turn lane
from the north, coming into the site, and Dexter has agreed to do that, and that's what Mr. Carlson
is currently reviewing. There's no graphics shown, but the calculations and discussions, this is the
recommendation, I believe.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. INGERSALL-If that's the report you have, but that, currently, Mr. Carlson informed us today that
within two weeks they would have the ability to review that and have a letter back. So, by the time
12
'--
---
we have our workshop meeting, we should have that input. What we were gearing to, as we've talked
all along, is that we've, and I believe you'll see from the engineering letters, that we're really
down, the rest of what's going on here, I think, has been to our satisfaction, and I hope the Board's,
resolved, but we're down into the nitty gritty of what's happening with DOT and the Transportation
Committee. So, this is what Dexter's, in addition to what they've agreed to do with the resignaling,
the crosswalks that will be installed, they have committed to installing this turn lane, and really
this is all that they can do within the irrrnediate area, and I'm assuming, and we'll hear from Mr.
Carlson, that this should not be in conflict with any improvements that should be within our immediate
site.
MR. MARTIN-And you already have pedestrian crosswalks on-site and all that, to encourage the pedestrian
flow that everyone's been talking about. That's pretty much been maximized, at this point.
MR. INGERSALL-We feel it has, yes. In regards to the taking, our buildings are way beyond the 75 foot
setback. If there were to be a taking, I guess we really don't know what that means. I'm not sure
how far they would come, but they'd probably also have to take part of Frank's Pizza away, and it becomes
much more complicated, but if we did lose parking, I assume that's where he's at, we could accommodate
that in the back. We have the room to do that. So, depending on what happens, that's really all that
can be done at this time, at the intersection, on our behalf. The engineering comments, again, about
the drainage, are down, we've had conversations, they're really down to just re-submitting some
calculations.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's what my other suggestion was going to be, between now and the 10th, if you
can get those items squared away with Tom, that will be one more thing out of the way.
MR. INGERSALL-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Can I ask a site plan oriented question, a non traffic issue? I thought we had talked,
at one time, about access to adjoining properties, walking access, pedestrian access. Is that still
in there?
MR. INGERSALL-This, we still have the vehicular access right here.
MR. CARTIER-It's still there? Okay.
MR. INGERSALL-Yes. That's still there. This plan actually shows. It's from the last meeting. It's
kind of colored up for other reasons. This is really all that's, and this hasn't been submitted to
DOT, in drawing form, because that's actually part of this whole work permit. We wanted to make sure
they agreed in concept before we proceeded with that. Also, it should be noted that Mr. Yarmowich's
calculations for the impacts at the different intersections, the way I read that, from mY conversations
with our traffic consultant, those would happen, in these new projections, irregardless if this project's
here, the downgrading that happens. There's no question that it impacts it, but crunching those numbers
in, the exit ramp problems and the downgrading, whatever, it happens anyway.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. INGERSALL-It's not stated there, but that's what's in the report. So, I think that's really it.
MR. LAURICELLA-Mike, have you considered, at all, another access to the back parking lot, it would
be to the end of the building there, near Frank's Pizza?
MR. MARTIN-To the south.
MR. LAURICELLA-To the south.
MR. INGERSALL-Back here?
MR. LAURICELLA-Yes.
MR. INGERSALL-Yes, and I think, we have a bunch of scenarios that can explain, really, why that can't
happen, with the grades, that we could talk in the workshop about, but in a nutshell, there's not enough
room here. It's, like 60 percent grade there right now, and if you graded it out, it could happen.
It would just be very awkward. We'd end up with a 25 percent driveway, which exceeds all Town standards,
and also we'd be reintroducing probably more conflict to the traffic there, but, in the past, to
alleviate the safety concerns on the building inspector and the fire chief, that's why we included
the emergency lane in the back for the last submission.
MR. CARTIER-Was any thought given to putting the buildings in the back and the parking up front?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I was just going to ask you, was there a scenario where the building was even farther
back from the road? That came to mind, as a result of Tom's comment about the stacking of tractor
trailers and the driveway throat, as he calls it.
13
',,----,
---
MR. INGERSALL-We have a site that we have to live with. I mean, going back to our concept of tucking
this building into the hill and having secondary access from the back, it wouldn't work with the program
that we've been presented from Dexter. You wouldn't be able to park cars on that slope anyway, and
that's really where the building has to go to make the program work.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, due to your physical, topographic limitations.
MR. INGERSALL-That's right.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, I don't know what we can say, beyond, this is an update at this point,
and it's been, I think, useful, from the standpoint that we've had an exchange of information, here,
and we have a firm date, now, on the Lead Agency business, and I think it's obvious on everybody's
mind that traffic is the concern, and if we get that DOT letter between now and the 10th that'll, again,
maybe clear the picture even further.
MR. INGERSALL-Right. We committed to that, earlier, that that was, to continue along, we needed to
have that answered. So, we're aware of that.
MR. CARTIER-Am I correct in assuming that we'll have the results of this task force meeting tomorrow
available to us at the 10 March meeting?
MRS. YORK-I will make a report to you, if you would like.
MR. CARTIER-Great. That would help a lot, too.
MR. SCHACHNER-And the only thing I was wondering, when you said we're committed on a Lead Agency thing,
I mean, I think we would be proposing, and we think that SEQRA would require that you would still
formally, by resolution.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I mean committed on the date.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Of the 10th, and I just, on something of this magnitude, has there been any elevations done,
to date, for the building?
MR. INGERSALL-I believe, Mrs. York, I think we submitted them, didn't we?
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I just wanted to make sure so that we don't get caught in another Quaker Plaza
scenario.
MR. INGERSALL-Yes. I believe you got the first, again, realize that these are preliminary, but the
character's there.
MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. Well, I think we are making progress, and I'd just like to ask the applicant,
is there anything else that you were looking for, at this time?
MRS. YORK-Mr. Ingersall, would you like to put this up, for a moment, just to explain it to the Board?
They probably have this at home, but if they can see it now.
MR. INGERSALL-Just for clarification, this is what was submitted. This is the front elevation of the
major building, the Dexter building.
MR. MARTIN-Right. I just wanted to have that available for public viewing, here.
MR. BREWER-Is that the front as you look at it from Route 9?
MR. INGERSALL-Yes, and in the back here, this would be what you'd see from the rear parking.
MR. MARTIN-What type of color scheme are we looking at?
MR. INGERSALL-They've been discussing, it hasn't totally been resolved.
MR. MARTIN-We're not looking at any fuchsias or purples or? I just wanted to be able to say I asked.
MR. INGERSALL-I think the traditional Dexter colors have been brown and red, and I believe there's
greens.
MR. MARTIN-Pretty much along the lines of what's there.
MR. INGERSALL-Earth tones.
MR. CARTIER-It's going to blend in up there. It'll be compatible with what's there, correct? Let
the record show, he's shaking his head yes.
14
-'
MR. INGERSALL-I think also to be noted is the plan for what the actual Dexter, remember, we're taking
the existing building and putting it up on a masonry foundation, for the other building. This is the
schematic of what that would look like.
MR. MARTIN-Is that from the? Okay. I see.
MR. INGERSALL-The intersection. This would be as you come up, the side view. It's really the same,
there's a new entrance put on, but it's the same building. It's just raised up, and put into the hill.
MR. MARTIN-All right. I guess we would accept a motion for tabling. Is that the proper way to dispose
of this, Lee, at this time?
MRS. YORK-Sure.
MR. CARTIER-We need to make a motion to accept Lead Agency status, too, don't we?
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN 10. 55-91 OSCAP, LTD, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption,
seconded by James Lauricella:
Until all issues that have been raised can be appropriately addressed. Secondly, that the Town of
Queensbury Planning Board accept Lead Agency status, and that a special meeting to be held on Thursday,
March 12 at 7 p.m., a special workshop meeting to be held to determine the necessity of filing an
Environmental Impact Statement.
Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver
MR. MARTIN-Okay. That's the next step along the way, here, and I appreciate your level of detail,
and hopefully we'll have a DOT letter by the 10th.
MR. SCHACHNER-Thank you very much.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. (8:10 p.m.)
NEil IIJSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 9-92 TYPE: UNLISTED
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES 386 BAY ROAD
SITE WORK. (BEAUTIFICATION COtIIImE)
0.60 ± ACRES SECTION 179-18
MR-5 JAMES MERRIGAN MICHAEL HOIENICK CllNER: SAME AS ABOVE
FOR AN ADDITION OF A 1,092 SQ. FT. OFFICE SPACE AND ASSOCIATED
(WARREN CoolTY PLANNING) TAX MAP 110. 60-7-10.2 LOT SIZE:
JACK HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT (8:10 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan Review No. 9-92, James Merrigan & Michael Homenick,
2-13-92, Meeting Date: February 27, 1992 "The applicant is requesting to add 1092 square feet of
office space to an existing facility along Bay Road. A variance was granted for 12 feet of relief
from the 75 foot contour setbacks on Bay Road on February 26. This plan was reviewed with regard to
Section 179-38: 1) The location, arrangement and size of the addition is compatible with the site
and the corridor. 2) Vehicular access is from Baywood Drive and is adequate for the development.
3) Parking and loading are not an issue." Although the back parking into the little area that comes
out might be difficult, and the Board may want to look at it. "4) Pedestrian access and convenience
is handled logically. 5) The adequacy of the storm drainage facilities should be addressed by the
engineer. 6) The lot is served by Town water. On site septic existing. The applicant assumes that
no modifications will be necessary for the addition. The engineer will comment on this. 7) The
Beautification Comm. reviewed the applicants plantings. 8) Emergency access is provided for adequately
and will not change. 9) This area is not susceptible to ponding. Erosion control standards should
be utilized during and after construction."
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, February 21, 1992 "We have reviewed the project
and have the following engineering comments: 1. The detention basin design depth to maintain
predevelopment
15
---.'
-..../
runoff rates is established at 8 inches (W.S. = 320.2 ±). The detention basin area should be
reconfigured to provide 850 cubic feet of storage based on the design depth. 2. Available passenger
vehicle turning radii to enter handicap parking space #20 is not adequate. Parking spaces must be
180 square feet per Town Code (179-7). Access aisles of 20 feet width are required for proper vehicle
movements. A 5 foot planted buffer area is required surrounding parking areas. Designated existing
parking spaces immediately south of the existing building do not have an adequate access aisle to enable
use as 9' wide parking spaces. A reconfigured parking layout considering the above should be provided."
MR. MARTIN-Okay, and we have Warren County Planning Board approval, and the minutes from the meeting
of the Queensbury Committee for Beautification, of February 10th, Item Number Two, "Site Plan No 9-92
- James Merrigan, Michael Homenick, Psychological Associates, 386 Bay Road - addition 1,092 sq. ft.
office space and associated site work; existing bldg. 2,156 sq. ft.; addition on North side same material
as present bldg.; parking increased to 28 spaces (22 required) & some Pine Trees will have to be removed;
paved parking & berm in back & drainage to this area; 13 Andorra Junipter to be planted on Southwest;
Shrubs in front of bldg & Pine Trees to remain; trees on East to remain; several Pine Trees on side
to be removed; existing sign to remain; all disturbed areas to be seeded to lawn; no dumpster-no outside
storage of any waste. Mrs. Wetherbee made motion for approval, seconded by Mrs. Seney of plan submitted
by Jack Huntington, Morse Engineering" Okay. We have a letter, I believe, here, it looks like, from
Richard J. Hughes, Construction Developer.
RICHARD HUGHES
MR. HUGHES-11m here tonight. I'll address what I wrote today.
MR. MARTIN-All right, and we have, what is this offices of Dr. Kana?
MRS. YORK-Those are attached to Mr. Hughes letter.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MRS. YORK-Those are attachments.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Orthopedics and Sports Rehabilitation, a letter from Jeffrey J. Foss.
MRS. YORK-Okay. That is also an attachment.
MR. MARTIN-"This letter is to inform you that we have been approached by the principals of Psychological
Associates regarding purchasing a parcel of land abutting their property. We are unable and unwilling
to sell this parcel at this time, however may consider it at a later date".
MR. CARTIER-Can I ask a question right there? Does that mean that the proposal we're looking at involves
this piece of property that?
MRS. YORK-No.
MR. CARTIER-This is entirely separate, a separate piece of property?
MRS. YORK-It's a separate parcel. Right.
MR. CARTIER-Thank you.
MR. LAURICELLA-What does it have to do with this, then?
MRS. YORK-Well, as it's been explained to me, this pie shaped parcel on the side of Psychological
Associates, which would square up the property, was originally offered to the property owner, in the
event he would want to expand. He did not choose to take that offer, and now is expanding. There
was some discussion last night at the variance meeting regarding this. The Board should decide how
relevant, if at all, it is regarding this case.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Is someone representing the applicant here?
MR. HUNTINGTON-My name is Jack Huntington and I'm with Morse Engineering here in Queensbury.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Where would the Board like to start, here?
MR. CARTIER- I'm confused. The letter from Orthopedic and Sports Rehabi 1 i tation, is that attached to
Mr. Hughes letter?
MRS. YORK-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Why don't we begin with the engineering letter of February 21st. Do you have
a copy of that?
16
--
---
MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Can you address the concerns regarding the detention basin design, and the turning
radii for space number 20?
MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. I have a print that we marked up here, if you want to see it.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. We can look at that.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes. We can extend the berm out about four feet, six feet out here, and that'll solve
the problem. Nick Scartelli has talked with Tom Yarmowich, and this is satisfactory to him.
MR. MARTIN-Okay, and the parking space number 20?
MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay. Vehicle turning radii to enter handicap parking space number 20, Tom's contention
is that the traffic cannot come in and turn in one sweep and enter this, okay. Our contention is,
they come in, back up, and enter it. We have supplied 28 parking spaces. According to our calculations
for 3,248 feet of building, we need 22 parking spaces.
MR. CARTIER-But you're asking a handicapped person to do that, to go through all those maneuvers.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Then we'll move them over here.
MR. CARTIER-Well, that makes it worse. Now, they're farther away from the door.
MR. BREWER-Why can't they eliminate one parking space, there, and just make them bigger.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Move it up one. Eliminate this one?
MR. BREWER-Yes, just eliminate this one.
MR. MARTIN-I thought handicapped spaces were supposed to be a little wider anyhow.
MR. HUNTINGTON-They are.
MR. CARTIER-Well, they've got this strip.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I see.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Your regulations say it has to be eight feet with a four foot strip. We furnished eight
feet with an eight foot strip in between them.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. There's a new code. Lee, excuse me, there's a new code for handicapped. What is
it?
MRS. YORK-It's really a Building and Codes function. I'd rather you got the information there.
MR. CARTIER-I'm just wondering if that meets it. That's only. I have a question that I don't have
an answer for.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay. Two parking spaces, to my knowledge, can take up 20 feet, okay. That leaves
you a four foot strip in the center.
MR. CARTIER-Right.
MRS. YORK-Right.
MR. HUNTINGTON-We have furnished that with an eight foot strip in the center. If you want us to move
those up, we can move them up.
MR. CARTIER-Okay. We're talking about eliminating that and turning that into a parking space, and
there's your strip in between there.
MR. HUNTINGTON-All right.
MR. CARTIER-Is that what we're doing? Is that still allowed, to take care of what Tom, well, we're
not going to know.
MR. HUNTINGTON-We will satisfy Tom on that, okay.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
17
~
--../
MR. HUNTINGTON-We can justify that.
MR. BREWER-He's got 28 spaces. You only require 22. Then you're only losing one.
MR. MARTIN-Right. I think we have some room to work with, as a cushion. Okay.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Parking spaces must be 180 square feet per Town code. We did show them at 9 by 18.
We have made these 9 by 20, and we still have room for sufficient parking spaces.
MR. MARTIN-Does that reduce your number?
MR. HUNTINGTON-No, with the exception of this one here.
MR. MARTIN-Right. Okay. I understand.
MR. CARTIER-Suppose you also got rid of this one. Wouldn't that help? If you've got that many parking
places to mess with, if you move this over, what is that?
MR. HUNTINGTON-Number 21.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I'd rather have a parking lot that works functionally, rather than cram in six extra
spaces.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay. A little more room. I think with the space we have we do show that we can provide
the number of parking spaces that the Town requires.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. HUNTINGTON-A five foot planted buffer area is required surrounding parking areas. This is along
this edge, and I believe, Mrs. York, didn't Pat talk to you about that today?
MRS. YORK-Yes, and 1'm reading the Ordinance. What the Ordinance appears to say is that all parking
areas shall have a planted buffer area at least five feet deep surrounding the parking lot or area,
but that specifically refers to enclosed shopping centers or any parking lot containing more than 150
cars. So, basically, I don't see where that applies, here.
MR. MARTIN-But that's meant to offset the large macadam parking lots.
MRS. YORK-Right.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Impervious area.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MRS. YORK-I mean, the Board certainly has the choice of requesting that, if they feel that there's
too many pieces of concrete or macadam abutting each other.
MR. MARTIN-This is a pretty wooded area. It has a nice character to it. I don't see where a five
foot planted buffer's going to enhance that, in this particular spot, but that's just my.
MR. CARTIER-We've got some redesign that's going to have to be done, here, and be re-submitted, and
I think Tom is going to have another chance to take a look at this thing.
MRS. YORK-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-And I think we can get it all straightened out that way. Don't you think?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MRS. YORK-All right.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Could we get a conditional approval?
MR. CARTIER-We get burned on that something terribly, and given the fact that we don't have an engineer
here tonight, I'm very uncomfortable with that. I don't know how anybody else feels. Conditional
approvals just haven't worked out for us, and I'm speaking for me, the number of changes here, and
the fact that we've still got a question suggests that maybe we ought to table this thing and get a
redesign, and get a finished package to look at here. Otherwise, we're going to start running into
prob 1 ems.
18
-
-
MR. MARTIN-Have you seen any of this at all?
MR. CARTIER-You haven't seen any of this at all, have you?
MRS. YORK-No.
MR. CARTIER-See, this hasn't gone through staff. Normally, we don't take that. We take stuff from
staff. It's got to go through staff.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Right. No, I just did this to show you that we can satisfy that.
MR. MARTIN-Right. It can, in fact, work.
MR. CARTIER-No problem. It's just a matter of submitting a finished package that our engineer can
go back and look at, and say he's happy with.
MR. MARTIN-Because we've done this in the past, when we have a conditional approval by such and such
a date, that you submit a revised plan, and it leads to a lot of problems. It's better if it comes
right back before the Board.
MRS. YORK-Yes. What I would suggest is perhaps the Board would like to extend the deadline date for
these gentlemen, since yesterday was the deadline date, and then.
MR. HUNTINGTON-We can have it back Monday or Tuesday. Is that satisfactory?
MRS. YORK-Okay, by Tuesday at two would be fine.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-We'll make that part of our resolution.
MR. CARTIER-Tuesday being?
MR. MARTIN-The third.
MR. HUNTINGTON-We would be on the agenda for the 17th?
MRS. YORK-Or the second meeting. I can't guarantee which at this point, but one meeting or the other.
MR. MARTIN-It will be in March.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I guess, then, that brings us to, if that's all from the applicant, we can open up
the public hearing on this, and any comments from the public on this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RICHARD HUGHES
MR. HUGHES-The only question that I have is sort of the question that I asked the Building Department
today, and you guys are sort of questioning it also, is about the five foot buffer between the westerly
exposure to Foss', is about our only concern, at this point. Some of the other applicants in the
development had to put buffers around their parking lot, low or whatever, at least something cosmetically
to make the parking lot sort of appealing. So, maybe in fairness to the others in the subdivision,
maybe that ought to be looked at.
MR. MARTIN-Is there any comment from the Beautification Committee on that? I don't see anything.
No.
MR. CARTIER-Well, that's a fairly well developed system going in 'there, and in order to keep things
looking fairly nice, maybe that's something we might want to consider. We still have to settle whether
or not it's required. So, it may be taken care for us.
MR. HUGHES-Okay. The only other question that we have is just possible maybe a view of their water
retention, of what they're planning due to what we had to do on the adjoining property, due to water
retaining on the property and stuff, and slowing the flow down and all that. We're just a little
concerned, are they going to have to do that, an elaborate system as we had to do on the adjoining
property, is the only other thing.
MR. CARTIER-Speaking for me, that's a rhetorical question. Our engineer's going to have to answer
that.
19
'---
'--"
MR. HUGHES-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-Our engineer's going to get another look at that.
MR. HUGHES-Okay. That's our only concerns at this time, then.
MR. CARTIER-Does that take care of everything that you had in your letter?
MR. HUGHES-Yes. Everything else was answered today in the departments.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hughes, your concerns, then, were satisfied, about squaring off the
property, here?
MR. HUGHES-Yes. The Building Department answered that today.
MR. MARTIN-They did?
MR. HUGHES-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. So, I guess, based on the fact that we have some changes in the engineering
configuring of this, we're looking at a tabling. Would the applicant be agreeable to that?
MR. HUNTINGTON-We would like to avoid cluttering up your agenda again, that's all.
MR. CARTIER-I would feel better about having it cluttered up, because that way we can get a final look
at it.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-I think there's some details that have to get cleaned up, and some questions answered,
here.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's been our policy not to go ahead, especially on an engineering matter. I mean,
we're obviously lay people, here, in terms of that engineering review, and we generally look to our
staff and consulting engineer for clarification of those changes.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Will there be a public hearing next time? Will it be still open?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. It will be left open.
MR. HUNTINGTON-Left open. Okay.
MR. MARTIN-So, you're in agreement with the tabling, then?
MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes.
JAMES MERRIGAN
DR. MERRIGAN-I'm Dr. Merrigan, a partner in Psychological Associates, and do you have any questions
about that pie shaped piece of property? I don't think it's relevant.
MR. MARTIN-Well, they were from an individual who said he had his concerns addressed by the Building
and Codes Office today.
DR. MERRIGAN-Yes. In regard to the five foot buffer, it's our understanding that that's not required
for this area, and what I'd like to do is submit three letters from other members in the subdivision,
particularly Jeffrey Foss, who adjoins us there to the west, and would be effected by the parking lot.
There's quite a bit of distance there, indicating that he supports the program as it is, and two other
doctors in the subdivision that they have no problems with the plans as they stand right now.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. We can just hand those right in to, Lee, I believe we'll pass them around to the
Board and then put them as part of the file.
DR. MERRIGAN-Also, to indicate that our neighbor to the north, Mr. Leombruno, I think, contacted you.
MRS. YORK-Right. As I stated last night, and I'll state again for this Board, Mr. Leombruno contacted
my Department and said that he was in favor of this project and had no problems with it.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, that will be on the record.
20
--.-/ '
DR. MERRIGAN-And that we are, on his side, keeping every possible tree that we can to keep the area
intact as it is, but you can see the parking is tight and we need as many spaces as possible and do
not wish to have a five foot buffer if it's not absolutely necessary, and as you look at the subdivision,
you'll find that there is very little planting, that it's mostly what was there, natural.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
DR. MERRIGAN-Not exactly as Mr. Hughes stated it is. Thank you.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, I guess we'll entertain a tabling on this application, until Tom has a chance
to look over the new site plan which we have an agreed upon date for submission, and Lee has a chance
to look it over, and this will be back before us next month. So, I will entertain a motion.
IIJTION TO TABLE SITE PlAN NO. 9-92 JAMES MERRIGAN AND MICHAEL HOJENICK, Introduced by Peter Cartier
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
For an addition of a 1,092 sq. ft. office space, with the stipulation that the deadline for submission
be extended to Tuesday March 3rd, for submission of revisions on or before 2 p.m. to the Planning
Department.
Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver (8:32 p.m.)
SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1992 SIŒTCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA AZURE PARK H. RUSSELL HARRIS (liNER:
SAME AS ABOVE JENKINSVILLE, AZURE DRIVE/FROM ~IŒR ROAD GO NORTH ON RIDGE ROAD TO JENKINSVILLE ROAD.
SOOTH TO MIND TRAIL, LEFT TO FAR END OF RAINBOIf TRAIL FOR A 13 LOT SUBDIVISION OF IMD FOR SINGLE
FAMILY RESIŒNCES. TAX IMP NO. 52-1-11 LOT SIZE: 18.54 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:32 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 3-1992, H. Russell Harris - Azure Park, 2-3-92,
Meeting Date: February 27, 1992 "The Azure Park subdivision is located between Rainbow Trail and
Azure Drive. The applicant will be creating 13 lots. Lots 11, 12, and 13 are smaller than the acre
required in the SR-IA zone. The applicant received variances for them in January. Lot 10, however,
is 7.63 acres in sizes which is substantially larger than the requirement. The lots will be accessed
from Azure Drive or Rainbow Trail. No new roadways are anticipated. No subdivision grading is required.
An existing drainage swale and easement on the property will remain unchanged. On lot septics and
wells are proposed. There are no planning issues at this time."
ENGINEER REPDRT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, February 24, 1992 "We 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 AI83-6B.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 soils data should indicate date of soil testing as well as the
individual performing the tests. The 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. 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. 4. Lots 11, 12 and 13 shall have an area of 1 acre minimum per Zoning
179-19, SR-IA." Which I've already explained, they did receive variances.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. We're only at Sketch Plan on this one. Tom?
MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, 1'm Tom Nace from Haanen Engineering. I guess first let me take care
of the engineering comments. The Environmental Assessment Form, we thought we had submitted it. If
Tom did not get one, it may be our mistake. I'm not sure. I looked in lIlY package and I didn't have
one. So, it may not have gotten xeroxed with everything. If so, I apologize. We will have a complete
Long Form Environmental Assessment with the Preliminary submission.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. NACE-Number Two, the test pit data, there are three lots. These three lots do have test pits that
indicate groundwater somewhere around two feet, seasonal high groundwater, and those lots will require
21
---
a fill system. It will be designed when you see Preliminary plans. The test pit data, we will put
the data on and the name of the person that took them. It was Charles Main, and he is certified by
the Town to do groundwater determination out of season, so to speak. The property owner's tax map
section 52 block 4, I think Tom must have had an older map with the previous submission that he was
looking at, because these were added. This is 52 block 4 right there, noted. Those are on the plans,
and Comment Number Four, on the zoning, minimum lot size, has been taken care of by the variance.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. Any comments from the Board? We're only at Sketch Plan. I think we've
seen this before in the context of, I think it was the environmental review for the Zoning Board.
So, this is not being seen for the first time. I think it's, for my personal point of view, a fairly
well laid out subdivision, given the constraints they have there.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. I don't have any questions.
MR. BREWER-I have none.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I guess Tom, so you'll take care of the engineering comments between now and
Preliminary, those ones that are outstanding?
MR. NACE-Yes. They will be fully addressed on Preliminary.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
until Preliminary.
I have no comments. We're unable to do SEQRA at this time.
I guess we can move for disposition of this application.
So, no public hearing
IIJTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PIAN SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1992 AZURE PARK H. RUSSELL HARRIS, Introduced by
Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Lauricella:
For a 13 lot subdivision of land for single family residences, with the stipulation that, at Preliminary,
the comments made by Mr. Yarmowich in his letter of February 24, Comments 1, 2, and 3 be incorporated
into the revisions.
Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver (8:38 p.m.)
SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 SKETCH PIAN TYPE I MR-5 GUIDO PASSARELLI ClߌR: SAlE AS ABOVE EAST SIDE
OF BAY ROAD, OPPOSITE WALKER LANE TO SUBDIVIDE 81.86 ACRES OF LAIID INTO 145 LOTS. PHASE ONE CONSISTS
OF 27 LOTS. TAX IMP NO. 60-1-4 LOT SIZE: 81.86 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGUlATIONS
TOM NACE, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:38 p.m.)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 4-1992, Guido Passarell i, 2-27-92, Meeting
Date: February 27, 1992 "The applicant is submitting a sketch plan proposal. There will be 129
duplexes making 258 residential units and 16 office lot complexes. There are identified wetlands on
the site and a stream corridor. The subdivision is laid out on standard size lots. The maximum number
of buildable lots for a conventional subdivision have to be calculated by subtracting from the total
area of the property, the area occupied by streets and rights of way, the parkland, the area occupied
by easements or rights of way, and any unbuildable areas. These calculations should be provided to
the Board. The plan indicates a line 100 feet from the flagged wetlands. This line in places comes
up to the proposed structures. The Board may want to give clear direction on how they want the wetlands
protected and what legal or environmental options might be used. These might include limiting the
clearing and use of chemicals. The stream and wetlands should be disturbed in a minimal way. The
Soil Analysis/Percolation Rate resource map indicates .06-6" per hour to 6-20" per hour (Low development
suitability to limited to unsuitable). The Soil Analysis-Depth to High Water Table map indicates a
depth of 0-18" over the majority of the property (low development suitability) with an area of 18"-72"
(moderate development suitability), and some other areas of greater than 72" (high development
suitability). The Water Resources map shows a AA stream on the property and organic soils subject
to flooding. The Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology map indicates habitats which are considered regionally
significant (reflects rarity within New York State) and locally significant (reflects exceptional
community value). The Intrinsic Development Suitability map shows areas of limited suitability, planning
considerations needed and areas of low suitability - major planning considerations needed. These
findings do not mean that development cannot take place, only that the development that does take place
must be done with sensitivity. The MR-5 zoning designation was placed on this corridor because of
the infrastructure which could potentially 1 imit the concerns. Also the highway access and desire
to see a "main street" develop. The plan presented to the Board appears to be a maximization of the
site. The Board may want to consider requesting an alternative plan which incorporates the wetlands
and stream corridor as amenities to the development. What is being considered is the development of
a community which contains a large number of residences, a commercial area and some sensitive lands.
These have to be
22
integrated to provide a development that maXlmlZes the potential for harmony, and benefits the greater
community. The developer has requested some waivers. The first is from A183-6 B involving the scale
of the plan. The staff believes that this request provides the Board with a better opportunity to
view the entire development and should be granted. The second request is to waive the 35 unit phasing
requirements. The Board may want to wait until preliminary stage of review to consider this request,
if an alternative plan will be requested. The Board may want to determine if a DEC stream crossing
permit will be required and how the crossing will be accomplished. The staff assumes that this
development will be serviced by the municipal sewer but this should be confirmed. Maintenance of the
open space, which appears to be the sensitive lands, should be discussed (i.e. homeowner's assoc.,
etc.). It appears that the structures along Bay Road are not 75 feet from the property line. The
developer should check this. This property was reviewed under the name of Baywood Park in 1988. The
staff has taken the liberty of bringing that plan if the Board cares to review it. Given the scope
of this project and the potential impacts and demands, the Board should give consideration to requesting
a EIS or detailing areas which will require special addendums."
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, February 25, 1992 "We have reviewed the project
and have the following comments: 1. The type of stream crossings proposed should be indicated. 2.
SWM facilities shall be located to provide a 35 foot undisturbed buffer strip between streams and
wetlands (179-60 B(I)(a)[I]). 3. The proposed subdivision relies upon the municipal wastewater
disposal. The project area is not located in an existing sewer district in the Town. The applicant
should be requested to obtain letters of commitment from the Town Sewer Department to insure that sewage
disposal capacity will be adequate. 4. A subdivision layout that blends interconnectivity between
wetland habitats with surrounding residential development should be considered. 5. It is not clear
what the status of undeveloped land within the parcel will be under this proposal."
MR. CARTIER-We further have a letter from Town of Queensbury Department of Wastewater, to Lee York,
February 18, 1992, from Mike Shaw "I have recently reviewed the concept utility plan for Mr.
Passarelli's Subdivision. Although I have several concerns on the actual construction of this
subdivision, the concept seems good, except for the easements on Lots 2-5. These type of back-yard
easements have not worked in the past for a number of reasons. These lots should be serviced in some
other matter that does not require an easement. If you have any other questions on the matter, please
call me at my office. Thank you."
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. NACE-Okay. Again, for the record, Tom Nace from Haanen Engineering. Let me address these. There
are a bunch of different concerns, here, and I'm sure there are going to be questions and comments
from the Board. Stop me when we come to places where you have questions or you want to discuss further.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. NACE-And we'll lump everything together that belongs together. First of all, engineering comments,
the stream crossings, there are two, one here and one here, will both be culverts. They will require
DEC permits, Article XV Stream Disturbance permits, and we will apply for and obtain those. The
stormwater management facilities, they will probably, with the exception of, there's a stormwater basin
that's located up front here. That one we will try to construct out of the buffer area of the stream.
There are other ones that come down into the wetlands. Our basic stormwater design is going to use
the wetlands as storage area, and DEC likes that, in general, because it keeps the wetland active and
it keeps a good water supply to it, but they require treatment, or pretreatment, before you get into
the wetlands. We wi 11 probably be working with DEC to try to get some of that pretreatment area into
a constructed wetland buffer that may infringe on the wetland setback. If it does, we will obviously
be working with them to get Disturbance permits, Wetland Disturbance permits, from DEC.
MRS. YORK-Okay. If that happens, you know you also need a wetlands permit from the Town of Queensbury.
MR. NACE-From the Town. Now does the Town still pretty much follow DEC's lead on the permit, or?
MRS. YORK-What we have done, in the recent past, is do a coordinated review and allow them to be the
Lead Agency.
MR. NACE-Okay. Good. Tom is right, we would not be putting a subdivision in here if we had to have
on-site sewage. We have worked, in fact, over the past year I've worked with Tom Flaherty and Mike
Shaw to make sure that there's capacity available. There's a sewer that comes down from Hiland Park.
It comes down in the form of a force main. Hiland Park pump station is up about here. That force
main comes down and turns into gravity sewer, down almost to Cronin Road, and we will be putting in
a pump station here and pumping into that force main. I've worked with them to make sure there's
capacity in the force main and the pump station. Obviously, this will be outside the district. In
fact, I just talked to Mike Shaw today regarding some sort of formula he's got to eventually put together
for users outside the existing districts to be able to connect, payment formulas for them to be able
to get into the district. So, we'll be working closely with them to get, not only a letter of
commitment,
23
---
integrated to provide a development that maximizes the potential for harmony, and benefits the greater
community. The developer has requested some waivers. The first is from A183-6 B involving the scale
of the plan. The staff believes that this request provides the Board with a better opportunity to
view the entire development and should be granted. The second request is to waive the 35 unit phasing
requirements. The Board may want to wait until preliminary stage of review to consider this request,
if an alternative plan will be requested. The Board may want to discuss having a mix of housing unit
types with the applicant. Also if this will be an "affordable housing" project. The plan shows the
road crossing the stream. The Board may want to determine if a DEC stream crossing permit will be
required and how the crossing will be accomplished. The staff assumes that this development will be
serviced by the municipal sewer but this should be confirmed. Maintenance of the open space, which
appears to be the sensitive lands, should be discussed (i.e. homeowner's assoc., etc.). It appears
that the structures along Bay Road are not 75 feet from the property line. The developer should check
this. This property was reviewed under the name of Baywood Park in 1988. The staff has taken the
liberty of bringing that plan if the Board cares to review it. Given the scope of this project and
the potential impacts and demands, the Board should give consideration to requesting a EIS or detailing
areas which will require special addendums."
ENGINEER REPORT
Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, February 25, 1992 "We have reviewed the project
and have the following comments: 1. The type of stream crossings proposed should be indicated. 2.
SWM facilities shall be located to provide a 35 foot undisturbed buffer strip between streams and
wetlands (179-60 B(I)(a)[I]). 3. The proposed subdivision relies upon the municipal wastewater
disposal. The project area is not located in an existing sewer district in the Town. The applicant
should be requested to obtain letters of commitment from the Town Sewer Department to insure that sewage
disposal capacity will be adequate. 4. A subdivision layout that blends interconnectivity between
wetland habitats with surrounding residential development should be considered. 5. It is not clear
what the status of undeveloped land within the parcel will be under this proposaL"
MR. CARTIER-We further have a letter from Town of Queensbury Department of Wastewater, to Lee York,
February 18, 1992, from Mike Shaw "I have recently reviewed the concept utility plan for Mr.
Passarelli's Subdivision. Although I have several concerns on the actual construction of this
subdivision, the concept seems good, except for the easements on Lots 2-5. These type of back-yard
easements have not worked in the past for a number of reasons. These lots should be serviced in some
other matter that does not require an easement. If you have any other questions on the matter, please
call me at my office. Thank you."
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. NACE-Okay. Again, for the record, Tom Nace from Haanen Engineering. Let me address these. There
are a bunch of different concerns, here, and I'm sure there are going to be questions and comments
from the Board. Stop me when we come to places where you have questions or you want to discuss further.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. NACE-And we'll lump everything together that belongs together. First of all, engineering comments,
the stream crossings, there are two, one here and one here, will both be culverts. They will require
DEC permits, Article XV Stream Disturbance permits, and we will apply for and obtain those. The
stormwater management facilities, they will probably, with the exception of, there's a stormwater basin
that's located up front here. That one we will try to construct out of the buffer area of the stream.
There are other ones that come down into the wetlands. Our basic stormwater design is going to use
the wetlands as storage area, and DEC likes that, in general, because it keeps the wetland active and
it keeps a good water supply to it, but they require treatment, or pretreatment, before you get into
the wetlands. We will probably be working with DEC to try to get some of that pretreatment area into
a constructed wetland buffer that may infringe on the wetland setback. If it does, we will obviously
be working with them to get Disturbance permits, Wetland Disturbance permits, from DEC.
MRS. YORK-Okay. If that happens, you know you also need a wetlands permit from the Town of Queensbury.
MR. NACE-From the Town. Now does the Town still pretty much follow DEC's lead on the permit, or?
MRS. YORK-What we have done, in the recent past, is do a coordinated review and allow them to be the
Lead Agency.
MR. NACE-Okay. Good. Tom is right, we would not be putting a subdivision in here if we had to have
on-site sewage. We have worked, in fact, over the past year I've worked with Tom Flaherty and Mi ke
Shaw to make sure that there's capacity available. There's a sewer that comes down from Hiland Park.
It comes down in the form of a force main. Hiland Park pump station is up about here. That force
main comes down and turns into gravity sewer, down almost to Cronin Road, and we will be putting in
a pump station here and pumping into that force main. I've worked with them to make sure there's
capacity in the force main and the pump station. Obviously, this will be outside the district. In
fact, I just talked to Mike Shaw today regarding some sort of formula he's got to eventually put together
for users outside the existing districts to be able to connect, payment formulas for them to be able
to get into the district. So, we'll be working closely with them to get, not only a letter of
commitment,
23
'-
.-.-'
but to make sure that they review and agree with what we're doing. I don't know what Tom means by
Number Four. I am a little bit at a loss. "Interconnectivity between", I don't know. I think maybe
what he is referring to is trying to connect, allow the wetlands to be connected through a natural
buffer. I've been out and walked the site several times. Those two wetlands have absolutely no, that
I can see, habitat interconnecting features right now. The wetland area really doesn't become very
wet, or doesn't become heavily vegetated until you're down in here. This little neck that they've
flagged is more like a little swale coming up through there that's still pretty much grass covered,
and this is all field in between, and I cannot see wildlife from one wetland being dependent upon a
connecting stroke. So, I really can't react to that comment. The undeveloped land within the remaining
parcel. There are two pieces of that. One is down here, mostly wetland or wetland buffer, and the
other up here, again, mostly wetland or wetland buffer with the exception of a piece up in here that
is relatively good developable land, but not readily accessible.
MR. MARTIN-It's more like an island there, as it appears.
MR. NACE-It looks like an island here. Actually, when you get out there, again, this coming in here
is more like a swale with a very narrow wet portion down at the bottom. Again, we want to work with
DEC and eventually see if we can't utilize this piece of land, maybe do some enhancement of this wetland,
in the way of additional vegetative planning and maybe even some nature trails of some sort in here
to make it accessible, in trade for being able to gain access across this stroke. If you'll notice,
we've left a right-of-way here that we could get a private drive out here to be able to develop that
as one or two residential lots, or whatever.
MR. LAURICELLA-A park?
MR. NACE-Well, our hope is, it coul d be a park. How much property? It's about two acres, two and
a half acres maybe.
MATT STEVES
MR. STEVES-Matt Steves of VanDusen and Steves. That's about two and a quarter acres, but that doesn't
include the buffer of the wetland. If you included the wetland buffer, it's approximately four acres.
MR. NACE-At any rate, our intention for the wetland is either for the owner to retain that, or if the
Town is interested in having that deeded to the Town as a recreation area, as a nature walk type of
area, we certainly would be willing to discuss that with you. So, that's engineering comments. Any
questions before I go further, or any comments?
MR. BREWER-Has Mr. Naylor looked at the roads here?
MR. CARTIER-That was my question.
MRS. YORK-I don't think he has.
MR. CARTIER-But he hasn't looked at this yet.
MR. MARTIN-See, this is the type of thing that just drives me crazy. Here it was such a pivotal thing
on a previous applicant for one cul-de-sac, and now we've got five of them, but anyhow. I guess I
would like to start out, since we're at Sketch Plan, more of a, or look at the planning considerations.
What is the ultimate intent of the structures to be built here? I know it's a duplex with residential
housing, but is it going to be of what style, market niche, that type of thing.
MR. NACE-Well, they'll obviously be individually owned. Let me put something else to rest that was
sort of brought up in Tom's letter. We do not envision a homeowners association, okay. We're looking
at individual ownership. The market will really dictate what gets built, okay, in the way of housing.
Duplexes, what is presently envisioned, if there were a way to build single family homes in there,
it might go well with the present market, but it's not allowed under the zoning, okay. So, I don't
know, again, your question has come up in the comments, about mix of housing. In the MR-5, there's
really not a lot we can do, other than duplex or apartment houses.
MR. CARTIER-Doesn't that, though, in terms of marketability and stuff, want to push you more toward
phasing than away from phasing? It seems like if you're going to test the market, it seems more
appropriate to test the market with a small, starting out small and see what's going to happen.
MR. NACE-The phasing is really driven by a consideration of how you can construct the roads. We don't
like to, and I'm sure Paul Naylor doesn't want us to, go in there and put a temporary cul-de-sac that
gets knocked out later on, as you extend the road. We can't afford to put a road all the way through
the development, in the initial phase. We're going to have to put a sewer all the way through. That's
going to be expensive enough. We would like to get more houses in Phase I, because right now we only
have, I believe it's 11. Yes, it's 11 residential lots. We'd like to do more in Phase I. We have
11 residential and 16 office lots in Phase I, okay, for a total of 27. The office space mayor may
not sell in the initial phases. That may sit dormant. Right now, the Town is, there's plenty of office
24
--.-r
space available. So, if there were some way feasible for us to increase the number of residential
lots in Phase I, we'd like to, but the logical place to break that off for road circulation was where
we broke it.
MR. CARTIER-The only thing that pops into my head is, Lee, when we did the phasing stuff, I don't
remember including any discussion of commercial stuff included in phasing. That applied only to the
residential, correct?
MRS. YORK-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-So, in other words, you could build, in Phase I, 35 residential units, plus however many
commercial units.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, that didn't seem to ring true with me either, that that commercial office is not really
the point of phasing.
MR. NACE-I realize that. I think the regulation reads, lots, so many lots, and I don't think it speaks
specifically to residential. I think it speaks to subdivisions.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, but given the fact that we're in subdivision reg's, where we've got some room to
play, that certainly some you could take care of.
MR. MARTIN-I would have no problem with more.
MR. NACE-Okay. So, if we increased Phase I to pick up some more residential lots, to go up to 35
residential lots, you wouldn't have a problem with that?
MR. CARTIER-Sure. In effect, I guess what we're saying, are we saying, that the commercial lots are
exempt from phasing? They do not have to be included in the phasing, is that what we're saying? In
other words, they're not part of the 35 count?
MRS. YORK-Right. Let me just get it and read it to you, here.
MR. LAURICELLA-How come we're discussing the phasing now?
MR. CARTIER-I don't know. I tend to want to get into things before I lose them in my head.
MR. NACE-Well, it's one issue that has to be addressed tonight.
MR. CARTIER-And something that Tom said kicked that off in my head. That's why I brought it up.
MR. NACE-Well, do you want me to go ahead with a couple of these others?
MRS. YORK-Yes. Go ahead, and I'll find it and get back to you.
MR. NACE-Okay. Let me go on to Lee York's comments. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean,
Lee, when you're asking for a calculation of the maximum number of lots. These lots, each and every
lot complies with the zoning requirements for this zone. We're not clustering or anything. So, the
calculation of the maximum number of lots, I'm not quite sure where that fits in.
MRS. YORK-Okay. It's just stated in the Ordinance that way, that that's how you calculate your density
for standard lots. You're probably dandy, but I just thought I'd bring it up, because I didn't work
through the calculation myself today. Do you know how much roadway you have, Tom?
MR. NACE-I don't have the number of linear feet on the tip of my tongue, but.
MRS. YORK-Okay.
MR. NACE-But I thought that that calculation was only a part of a clustered subdivision requirement.
MRS. YORK-No. That's how to calculate a standard subdivision. See, that's it, with a clustered
subdivision you would have. more opportunity' to manipulate your density and may even gain a little bit
there, and reduce your infrastructure cost, if that's something that the applicant would want to
cons i der.
MR. NACE-Well, I think we would definitely consider it, if we were in a one acre or even a half acre
zone, but in the MR-5, that's clustered for you already, in effect.
MRS. YORK-Right. This is true.
MR. NACE-And it doesn't, unless we were building 10 story apartment complexes, seem to play in.
25
..-
MRS. YORK-Okay. If I could just interject for a second, please. "Approvals for subdivisions shall
be phased. Thirty five dwelling units shall be the maximum number of units that may be approved in
anyone phase". So, you're all set there.
MR. NACE-Okay. Great. You can assume, then, that we will increase the number of residential units
in Phase I, and that'll help back off on Phase II and III, then.
MR. CARTIER-Yes, but pick up on dwelling units. There's a difference. A duplex, like Tim's saying,
is two dwelling units.
MR. NACE-Two dwelling units, that's right. So, that's only 17, 16. We're still going to ask for a
waiver on that Section.
MR. MARTIN-Well, it's good to get it clarified now, as to what you're actually getting a waiver from,
or requesting a waiver from.
MR. NACE-Yes. That's only 17 lots. So, we would definitely, if we have to come back 729 divide by
17, if we have to come back that many times for approvals, it's going to tie up a great deal of time
and expense. So, we would still request that waiver.
MR. MARTIN-I guess the one paragraph I'd like to focus on, and again, I don't know how much this can
be resolved. "The plan presented to the Board appears to be a maximization of the site. The Board
may want to consider requesting an alternative plan which incorporates the wetlands and stream corridor
as amenities to the development." I like that idea of wetlands and stream corridors as amenities to
the development, and I don't know, I know what you're up against here, how much you can accompl ish
that, or something can be done to that effect, given your physical constraints, but yet what the
developer would like to see out of his property.
MR. NACE-Well, let me try to address it. We have, in fact, incorporated the stream corridor as an
amenity to the development. It has become our buffer between the office building lots and the
residential lots, okay, and because of the 75 foot setback corridor along the stream, it will provide
a very nice visual screening between the two different types of developments. The 1,000 foot that
we would have to develop office buildings would actually come somewhere back in here. So, we're giving
up that development of office space in order to use that as a buffer, and I think that's a significant
fact. I colored the wetlands, here, in this light green to illustrate the fact that we are leaving
a great deal of the, we do have a significant amount of unused buffer between the development and the
actual flagg€!d wetlands, and believe me, when they flagged the wetlands, they built in some buffer
in the flagging, too. So, that's providing some. As I have said previously, we do want to try to
enhance the wetlands, work with DEC a little bit to provide some nature trails around them.
MR. MARTIN-Because I think that's the type of thing that may make it more marketable, in terms of.
MR. NACE-Definitely. We've realized that, and it's going to make the lots that back up there, you
know, it's going to give them an extra back yard, in essence, that buffers them from neighbors. So,
I think, in a way, we already have addressed it.
MR. CARTIER-While you mention that, let me interrupt, Tom. Here's another plan that we looked at,
originally, for this thing, that got approved, and I don't even have this opened up. I just look at
this and there are cul-de-sacs.
MRS. YORK-Yes, I'm sure there are.
MR. CARTIER-This was a conceptual that got approved in '88, or something like that.
MRS. YORK-I think it was '88.
MR. CARTIER-I had forgotten there were cul-de-sacs in there, and I don't remember any objections from
Mr. Naylor, at the time.
MRS. YORK-Mr. Naylor really doesn't take a hard look at subdivisions until Preliminary, to be quite
frank.
MR. NACE-Let me add, that Paul does have a standard for the design of the turn arounds that allows
him to plow them.
MR. LAURICELLA-How do you protect this stream in here?
MR. NACE-With the Town standards, okay. There's a 75 foot building setback. A 35 foot hard surface
setback.
MR. MARTIN-So, in other words, the lots are going to be laid out with this boundary, so when someone
comes to buy this lot, per se, that's going to be the boundary line.
26
--
-'
MR. NACE-Well, actually, our lots come back to the stream.
MR. MARTIN-I see.
MR. NACE-The lots are, you know, why leave that no man's land there. The lots come back to the stream,
but there will be a boundary there, according to your zoning, that there will not be any building in.
MR. MARTIN-I see. Yes. Okay.
MR. LAURICELLA-How are you going to enforce that?
MR. NACE-A building permit.
MR. LAURICELLA-Well, I realize the building can't be there, but I mean.
MR. CARTIER-This is pretty similar to what we're looking at here. I hadn't realized that.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but they have more multiplex housing on that one.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. They picked up green space that way, because as Tim has pointed out, they were building
six plex units in there.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. NACE-Yes. I think their overall density may have been a little more.
MR. LAURICELLA-See, they could build lots all the way back to the stream.
MR. MARTIN-Well, it's according to the how the Ordinance was written for what are allowed uses within
the setback. I don't believe there's any allowed structural uses within the setback, right?
MR. NACE-No. You can pave back to the, it's a 35 foot hard surface setback, and then a 75 foot building
setback.
MRS. YORK-I think it's 50 feet for hard surfacing, and 35 for clearing.
MR. NACE-I'm sorry. You are right. Yes. Do you want me to continue further with Lee's stuff, or
do you have more?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay. We had gotten down to, okay, she said we've maxed out the site, and we have tried,
pretty much, to build as much development into it as we think is feasible and, in fact, your own
regulations sort of require that. We're at Sketch Plan, here, and we're showing you additional phases
which we won't come back for quite a while to show you Preliminary on, and your regulations pretty
much say that to evaluate the impacts, you've got to consider full development of the remaining parcel.
Okay. I guess we're to waivers, and we're still at a point we would like to request, since your
regulations would require a maximum of 17 lots, residential lots with duplexes on each, per phase,
because of the size of the development, we would like to obtain a waiver of that requirement.
MR. MARTIN-Up to 35.
MR. NACE-If we had 35 lots, that would.
MR. MARTIN-Thirty five lots constituting 70 dwelling units, right?
MR. NACE-If we were able to obtain 35 lots per phase, I think we would still be able to do it in four
phases, and that would be reasonable.
MR. LAURICELLA-What was the background on why we limited the phasing?
MR. CARTIER-Well, this goes back a ways, but basically we wanted to be sure that what was going in
and getting sold was going in well, that we didn't end up stuck with a very large subdivision that
was only partially completed. This way what we get, what the Town gets, is a small segment that's
completed, in terms of roads and everything else.
MR. MARTIN-Being that if he gets halfway into it, that there's not going to be a change in the market.
MR. CARTIER-That's also part of it, yes. In a sense, you get to test the water with a small segment
of it developed.
MR. LAURICELLA-Okay.
27
----
'-.-<
MR. CARTIER-It's been so long since we've done anything with phasing, I can't remember. Do you have
to come back in and get approved for every phase? You have to get re-approved for every phase?
MR. NACE-Yes. Preliminary and Final for every phase.
MR. CARTIER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. We had one the other night, there, just Tuesday night, on Bonner Drive, Phase II.
MR. CARTIER-That's right. Thank you.
MR. NACE-Let me ask a question, just sort of to feel out the Board's thinking. There have been several
comments about mixing the development up a little bit. We realize it doesn't meet with the zoning,
but what would the Board's feeling be toward some of the development in there being single family.
MRS. YORK-I think you might have to get a variance on that, Tom.
MR. NACE-I realize we would have to get a variance, okay. I'm just sort of putting my toe in the water.
MR. MARTIN-Well, in this particular pond right here, you're going to find warm water, because I liked
single family detached. I think you're gÒing to get into a problem selling this many duplexes in this
kind of density. You can propose what you like, but.
MR. BREWER-The reality of it is it's out there.
MR. MARTIN-Plus the character, what little is there, you know, there is some single family already
out there, and I think you'd probably be better off, and I wouldn't have any problem with it.
MR. NACE-Quite frankly, in the present market place, we'd prefer to build single family.
MR. BREWER-I would like to see some single family, but not more lots.
MR. NACE-No.
MR. LAURICELLA-Do you remember what we just went through with the other development?
MR. CARTIER-Well, at least we're getting to this up front.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, but we're being asked first, rather than.
MR. BREWER-This is Sketch. It's not a re-zone or anything.
MR. CARTIER-It wouldn't be are-zoning.
MR. BREWER-It wouldn't be a re-zone. It would be variances.
MR. MARTIN-It would be a use variance.
MR. NACE-I think what we would like to think about, consider doing, is to go ahead with the subdivision,
based on duplexes, and then ask for vari ances, once the lots are there, okay. I don't think we can
ask for variances if we don't have lots.
MR. MARTIN-What's the basic size lot, average size lot, would you say?
MR. NACE-The average sized lot, here, is 100 by 100.
MR. MARTIN-A quarter acre.
MR. CARTIER-What about a PUD, Tom?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. A PUD would be a way to do it.
MRS. YORK-But the length of that process might be unwieldy for him, if the only thing he wants to do
is change from multifamily to single family.
MR. MARTIN-That one change. Yes.
MR. NACE-No. A PUD, we really don't meet the requirements for a PUD. A PUD's really, I think, intended
for a mix of commercial and recreational.
MR. MARTIN-I'd have a warm reception to that, because I think this is going to be a pretty bland looking,
to be quite honest.
28
--,'
MR. NACE-Well, I'm not sure about the lot size. Obviously, we've got to look at the market and see
what's feasible in the market. It may be a little smaller lot, okay. Whether it's 100 by 100 or single
family. I don't know, okay, but we've got to look toward, obviously, if we go toward all single family,
we've got to look toward increasing the density a little bit, because we've cut the number of units
in half. So, we may be proposing a lot that, for a single family, would meet, probably the most
stringent thing would be the setback requirements, okay. We'd still have to meet the setback
requirements for the building, and that'll probably dictate the size of the lot, not the 5,000 square
foot minimum lot size.
MR. CARTIER-I'm thinking off the top of my head, here. I would agree that I'd like to see some single
family, too, in there. I think the more options we have, the better, and it seems like if you did
some single family, plus, if you could somehow cluster some duplex stuff, I know what you're saying
about the size of the lot is so small, but you might be able to gain some green space by doing some
minor clustering of duplex stuff, to get some of the green space back.
MR. BREWER-A quarter acre lot is an awful small lot.
MR. CARTIER-Well, yes, but for a duplex, you've got to have a half acre, okay.
MR. NACE-No. This is MR-5, a duplex requires a quarter acre.
MR. CARTIER-I'm sorry.
MR. NACE-And that's what I'm saying. With single family.
MR. MARTIN-It's one dwelling unit per 5,000 square feet.
MR. BREWER-He's going to have to double to put single family, and that's awfully tiny.
MR. NACE-Exactly. You'll find, with single family, it's not the acreage that dictates the size of
the lot, but the setbacks for the building size.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. NACE-So, that's something we would have to sort out.
MR. MARTIN-I'd like to see us stay at the quarter acre lot size if you were to go to single family.
I know, from a feasibility.
MR. NACE-That makes it tough, feasibility, when you compare it with the duplex, that makes it tough.
MR. MARTIN-You've got a lot of road area there to pay for.
MR. NACE-And the infrastructure is not cheap, with putting in sewer. We've got a lift station to put
in and a good bit of sewer to put in.
MR. MARTIN-But on the other hand, from a feasibility standpoint, if you extend yourself and put all
that sewer in and have a bunch of two family lots, or duplex lots that don't sell.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but that's for him to decide.
MR. MARTIN-Right. I'm just bringing that to your attention.
MR. NACE-We're well aware of that.
MR. MARTIN-Like, the people across the street, here, I think are having a tough time of it.
MR. NACE-Yes. Okay. So, I think we've felt out your feelings. We'll have to, obviously, if we decide
to go single family, sit down with the powers to be and figure out what the correct route is to get
the proper variances, when and how to do that, okay, but I think we've got a good feeling of your input
on that. We still haven't addressed the phasing, for sure. Can we get to the point where there's
some agreement on whether or not we can get a.
MR. BREWER-Well, that depends on whether he's going to put single family or duplexes. It comes right
back to that.
MR. NACE-Well, again, if we were to base it on 35 lots, to get a variance for 35 lots, whether those
lots are single family or duplex.
MR. BREWER-I would go along with the lots, 35 lots. The maximum units is going to be 70, right?
MR. CARTIER-So, you phase it in at 70, that's max, 70.
29
"---'
----
MR. BREWER-Seventy units or 35 lots.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think when you consider that you have to, bear in mind what area of the Town we're
talking about here, and under what zoning. Seventy may sound like an awful lot, but in this particular
area, this is meant to be dense.
MR. CARTIER-That's true.
MR. MARTIN-I don't think I would have a problem with it, given the scale of this project, and in this
location.
MR. CARTIER-I don't think I would either.
MR. NACE-Okay. Super. Do we need a motion on that?
MR. MARTIN-Well, it would probably be in the context, we would normally do it in the context of an
approval for the Sketch Plan, but I don't know if we're at that point, now.
MR. NACE-Okay. Well, lets see how far we get, by the time we get through all the comments.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. NACE-I think we just addressed the mix of houses. As far as affordable housing, that seems to
be, whether you call it affordable housing or minimum cost housing or whatever you call it, that seems
to be where the market is now. So, we're going to make it as affordable as possible, obviously, but
the market's going to dictate, as the project builds, the type of house that's built. The stream
crossing, I think we've already addressed. We will work with DEC and get a permit for that. Municipal
sewer we've addressed. Open space, sensitive lands, I think we've addressed. We do not envision a
homeowners association.
MR. CARTIER-Back up to that one, for a second. How, you may have answered it and I missed it, because
I was buried in something else, here.
MR. NACE-On?
MR. CARTIER-Maintenance of open space. Who's going to take care of that?
MR. NACE-We will probably want to, eventually, talk to the Town Board and see if they are interested
in having the wetland and the wetland buffer deeded to them, along with any improvements we make on
it. Stream corridor, no. We've included that with the individual lots. Lee is right. We missed
the Bay Road travel overlay corridor. So, we've got to knock an extra 25 feet off the front of these
lots, for building setbacks. It will probably require that we end up changing the configuration of
these two lots a little bit, maybe losing one of those, and down in here change the configuration and
probably lose this lot, and we will address that at Preliminary.
MR. MARTIN-As I think about this, in your discussions, if you do go back to your developer, maybe you
shouldn't give up on the PUD concept. I mean, if we're looking at Bay Road, in terms of the master
plan, being the so called main street of the Town, and you're going to be creating, within this
development alone, a community and a population of a significant size, and there may be a need, based
on what's created there, and what is already in existence in the immediate area, for a broad range
of services, retail, commercial, office, professional, housing. You've got a substantial size piece
of property there, and I just throw that out. I know that's a big chunk to swallow.
MR. NACE-Yes.. Right now commercial development in the Town, there's a lot of open commercial space
available, not far away from this. I won't say within walking distance, but we're very close to the
Quaker Road corridor, and not far away from the Route 9 corridor. It's close enough that we envision
it, you know, it's on bus routes, that we envision it as not an enclosed community to itself, but rather
a residential development adjacent to those services. We've got the golf course right here, for
recreation. ACC is close at hand. So, I'm not sure, you know, we looked at the PUD, looked at it
very closely, to see if it was viable for us, and our gut reaction said, no.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, I just wanted to throw that out to you.
MR. NACE-Okay. As far as, I guess, Lee's last comment, then, the EIS or detailing areas which will
require special addendums, I think we need some input from the Board. My feeling would be that the
two critical areas here for environmental assessment would be the wetlands, and our impact on the
wetlands, and the traffic. Traffic I can address real briefly. We're residential. We're going to
have a potential of, what did Lee say, 260, say, residential dwelling units. The traffic generated
by the residential units peaks twice a day, going to work and coming home from work. During those
times, the critical movement which would effect Town roads would be people trying to get into this
entrance, either of these entrances on Bay Road, if they are traveling south, okay. You're concerned
30
'-'
---./
about their stacking up on Bay Road waiting to make a left hand turn against oncoming traffic, and
I think the number of people coming into this from the north is going to be fairly minimal, okay.
People in here are going to work, primarily, to the south.
MR. MARTIN-Services are primarily to the south.
MR. NACE-Services are primarily to the south. So, my thinking was, the primary problem with traffic
is going to be people stacking, trying to get out of the development, especially when ACC is getting
out, or just about to start classes. That seems to be the peak on Bay Road, and somebody that comes
out of the development and wants to make a left hand turn here, the first time they sit at that
intersection for five minutes in a line of traffic waiting to turn left, it's going to be the last
time they do it, because the next time they're going to go through to Meadowbrook and go down
Meadowbrook. So, I will provide traffic figures, the traffic generation rates.
MR. BREWER-It's an awful maze to get from Meadowbrook to there.
MR. NACE-Not really, when you think the average person in the development is going to somewhere in
the middle, here. It's as hard to get out to Bay as it is to Meadowbrook, almost.
MR. MARTIN-I think it's reasonable to assume that you're going to see more and more traffic on
Meadowbrook. I think anybody looking to travel to the northern part of the Town, or I know I do.
I use Meadowbrook every time I get a chance. It's just better.
MR. NACE-But there again, we don't have, the worst condition will be at night, people coming back to
the development waiting to turn left off of Meadowbrook, and at that time there's going to be minimal
traffic headed south on Meadowbrook. So, I will give you a narrative that analyzes traffic a little
bit, but I don't see it as a major problem. Environmental on the wetlands, we're going to have to
work with DEC to get permits for anything we do with the stormwater, and the stream corridor crossings.
There again, I think DEC is going to be tough, and that should alleviate most of the concerns there.
MR. CARTIER-The only thing l'd add to your list is, going back to Lee's second page, top of the second
page, "The Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology map indicates habitats which are considered "regionally
significant", and the locally significant stuff, too. So, that might become part of that same package
you're talking about.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. CARTIER-In terms of the EIS.
MR. NACE-We can get somebody to, I'm not qualified to look at that, obviously. So, we will find somebody
who is.
MRS. YORK-Okay. It would be my suggestion to the Board that we do have a traffic study here, because
of the commercial and the residential uses, and the magnitude that we're looking at.
MR. CARTIER-I hate to sit here and say, well, okay, there's hardly any development out there. So,
we don't have to worry about it, because that's how things get started, how they get started on the
six million dollar mile on Aviation Road. Lets get on top of this ahead of it.
MR. MARTIN-Exactly. That's planning.
MR. NACE-But right now you're seeing that DOT's only looking three or four years ahead in their traffic
studies. They've come to the conclusion they don't know how to look 10 years ahead, nobody does.
MR. CARTIER-The only other thing that occurs to me, is somehow, before you go much farther with any
of this, is you want to run something by Paul Naylor and see what his reaction is to cul-de-sacs, because
I'd hate to see you go through all of this other stuff and then we get Prelim, and we're sitting here
with five cul-de-sacs and Paul says no. So, I think maybe that might be one of the first things you'd
want to check out.
MR. NACE-I will talk to Paul. I won't guarantee you that I will agree with his reaction, because I
think I know what it's going to be.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't guarantee that I will, either.
MR. NACE-If cul-de-sacs are allowed for in your regulations, and they're designed for snowplowing,
then, I will work with Paul as much as possible.
MR. MARTIN-There's just some times you can't get around it.
MR. NACE-No.
31
'~
-----"
MR. LAURICELLA-Tom, that one cul-de-sac, you're providing access to the property to the north, I assume.
MR. NACE-Here?
MR. LAURICELLA-Yes.
MR. NACE-That's to provide an access back, in case we are able to cross this wetland.
MR. LAURICELLA-Okay, but if the Town wanted an access?
MR. NACE-We could. We have nothing against that. That corridor's open, there.
MR. LAURICELLA-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-All right. So, we have a rather detailed resolution, if you want to dispose of this tonight,
in terms of waiver requests, and.
AL ATKIN
MR. ATKIN-Can I ask a question, please?
MR. MARTIN-Certainly. The public hearing's not specifically at Sketch Plan. That's why I didn't ask,
but we'll certainly accept comment.
MR. ATKIN-My name is Al Atkin. I live on Bayberry Drive, which is the adjacent development to this
property, and I think, three years ago, the Town Board held a public hearing on providing a sewer
district for our area. I don't know how many times I raised the question with our Councilman at the
previous Board, as to what the status was, of that project, and the pat answer that I usually got was
that, due to a change in the Quaker Road project, the way that was carried out, there was not capacity
to provide sewer to our area. Now I sit here and listen where you're going to have 200 or 300 residences
adding onto that sewer district, or sewer line, I should say, and it just seems to me that the Board
ought to be considering providing service to existing residential areas that need the sewer, rather
than creating new problems of requiring considerable sewer capacity, and it just seems to me, I'm just
curious as to where all this sewer capacity is coming from all of a sudden.
MR. NACE-I'm not sure where all of the previous comments about the sewer capacity have come from.
I've worked, over the past year, year and a half, or I guess year, with Tom Flaherty and Mike Shaw
on it. There is capacity available in the force main that comes down from Hiland, and I think recently
Hiland has given up some of the original capacity that they purchased through the Town system and through
the Glens Falls City Sewer System. There's always been capacity available, if improvements were made
downstream, okay. There's a next phase improvement that eventually has to be made to the Queensbury
Quaker Road pump station. There's an eventual improvement that has to be made down in the City of
Glens Falls, between Bay Street and Glen Street, where there's a sewer that limits the overall capacity.
Those have to be made as capacity from the outside comes in. We've been asked, when we originally
started this, discussions with the Town on this project, we had been asked by the Supervisor to see
if were possible to provide capacity for other developments around the area. There is some nominal
capacity available, through the system that we're proposing, that could be made available to, say,
the Bayberry Court area, if the residents there wanted to get together and form a sewer district to
pump into the sewer that, eventually, the sewers that we put in will be deeded to the Town, and there
will be capacity in our sewers there, because the minimum sewer size just, you know, the minimum sewer
size is eight inch, and that provides a half a million gallons a day capacity at minimum grade, which
is a lot more than we need. The limiting factor on what we're doing for capacity will be, our pump
station that we put in, and the connection to the force main that comes down from Hiland, but for the
number of houses in Bayberry Court, I'm sure service could be provided for all of those.
MR. MARTIN-Well, what's the size of the force main that you're going to connect into?
MR. NACE-Well, the existing force main is a 10 inch, and we're going to be kicking the capacity of
that up there pretty good.
MR. MARTIN-And is there any septic line currently serving Bay Road?
MR. NACE-No.
MR. MARTIN-And you're on Bay Road, right?
MR. ATKIN-We're on Bayberry Drive, which is the development just north, between this property and the
College.
MR. LAURICELLA-But you're off of Bay, right?
MR. ATKIN-We're off of Bay, right. True.
32
'--
~
MR. NACE-The actual development of Bayberry is, the houses are.
MR. MARTIN-But they have no property fronting on Meadowbrook, correct?
MR. LAURICELLA-No.
MR. NACE-No, but they do have property fronting, I don't know if the road fronts on. I don't think
the road actual fronts on it.
MR. ATKIN-No.
MR. MARTIN-Well, what I'm trying to get at is, you're able to provide this new capacity by virtue of
being able to connect to the force main on Meadowbrook, where they don't have that available to them.
MR. NACE-That's right, presently.
MR. MARTIN-Presently.
MR. NACE-But we could make that available through this development.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. ATKIN-I mean, they're going to be right in our back yard.
MR. NACE-That's right.
MR. ATKIN-And it just seems to me it would make sense.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. This may be your opportunity.
MR. ATKIN-To provide the service that, I feel, the area needs very badly.
MR. MARTIN-And you're putting in your septic main right away, all the way through the property.
MR. NACE-With our first phase, we're going to have a small pump station up here that serves these
commercial lots. I'm sorry, it will be down here. That serves our frontage on Bay Road and gets it
up over the stream, or across the stream, and then from here on down it's all gravity, to a main pump
station back here. So, I don't know, in Phase I, depending on how we restructure Phase I, whether
there's a sewer that's right there that they could connect to or not. I don't know, but certainly
by Phase II there will be.
MR. ATKIN-I don't know what the mechanics would be, but I sure would like to see that, if this project
goes through, that that would be part of the stipulation.
MR. CARTIER-Yes, well, that's what I was just trying to sort out in my head. I think this Board, that
is the Planning Board, could stipulate that a connection be made available, but as far as the sewer
district is concerned, that's a Town Board function, correct? The Town Board would have to take care
of that, establishing your own local sewer district.
MR. ATKIN-Well, the point I raise is this question of capacity. If the capacity is there to handle
that size project, it would seem to me that it could handle another 18 individual houses.
MR. MARTIN-Well, it appears, based upon what Mr. Nace is telling us, that, yes, the 10 inch main, he's
not going to use up all the available capacity, and there would certainly be able to accommodate whatever
capacity needs would be in Bayberry Development right now.
MR. ATKIN-Because that was one of the suggestions we made, of running over to Meadowbrook to tie in
with the line, when they built it for Hiland Park.
MR. MARTIN-Well, we're only at Sketch Plan now, but I'm sure this Board would be happy to consider
a stipulation for a sewer connection be made available on the northern boundary of this property for
connection to your development.
MR. ATKIN-Well, I sure would appreciate if you would do it.
MR. MARTIN-Well, I'm glad you came forward.
MR. ATKIN-Because I can tell you, the water tables in that area, they come right up to the surface,
when we have two, three, four feet of snow, like we have some winters.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, or a lot of rain.
33
'--
MR. ATKIN-Or a lot of rain, but mostly the melting snow and rain. It just brings the water table right
up to the ground level.
MR. MARTIN-Well, certainly, that will be duly noted, and we can make that a condition, at least we
can make the connection available.
MR. ATKIN-Thank you.
MR. NACE-Just for the record, we have approached other developments in that area, at the Town Board's
request, to see if they wanted to come into this sewer. Most of them said, yes, we're interested,
but we have septic systems we paid for, and we're not, you know, willing to put forth the money to
make that happen, because, obviously, if there were significant capacity that was going to come in
from other places, say ACC or any of the adjacent developments, we'd have some help in paying for the
sewers and paying for the pump station increase in size, that type of thing, but for the number of
houses in Bayberry Court, I don't think we would have any trouble accommodating those, and we'd be
glad to help out.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. While I guess we have it open, is there anybody else from the public who'd like to
comment at this time? Bear in mind that this is only Sketch Plan, and it's very conceptual.
CHARLES JARVIS
MR. JARVIS-My name is Charles Jarvis and I live, also on Bayberry Drive. Our property abuts the northern
portion of this property, this proposed plan, here, and 1'm concerned about the buffer zone, as to
what might be there to give us some protection. I gather, from the way you're talking, you're going
to build a much lower grade house than what we have in our areas, which is certainly going to effect
the values of it. I would like to think that we're going to have some sort of protection in that regard,
buffer zones or whatever it takes to do it.
MR. MARTIN-Is that something that can be considered, as you provide details of this plan?
MR. NACE-We can look at it. The zoning does not require a buffer zone.
MR. MARTIN-That's what was going through my mind, exactly. The point is well taken, that there is
a potential large difference between the character of the housing, and so on.
MR. NACE-I think, since that's open field right now, what we might be able to do is look at some
landscaping buffer across there, okay. The building setback on MR-5 is, according to the zoning, is
not very much. It's fairly minimal. We could increase the building setback on those lots across the
back. I would not like to have to give away an extra 50 foot buffer there that we didn't include in
any of the lots or anything, because our layout just doesn't accommodate that, but certainly we could
do something in the way of landscaping buffer that would help that situation.
MR. MARTIN-And an adjustment of the building setback, potentially?
MR. NACE-Adjusting of, you know, we've shown the buildings up toward the front of the lots, now, and
we'd try to keep them up there. I think, what is the setback on MR-5, 10 feet, something like that.
It's very small.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. NACE-We could certainly increase that. Yes.
MR. CARTIER-I think the landscaping buffering would be a good idea too, because there would be some.
MR. MARTIN-I was going to say, maybe a combination of both.
MR. NACE-A good evergreen buffer grows up quickly and would provide a substantial buffer.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Anyone else from the public?
MARY FLANAGAN
MRS. FLANAGAN-My name is Mary Flanagan. I live at Bayberry Court also. I just want to make two
observations. From my experience living near a wetland, wetland boundaries are not carved in stone.
They may be on that map, but they are not carved in stone. They tend to expand. The other thing is,
I don't think that sewers are going to solve any groundwater problems. That land is wet, and I think
it's going to be wet, sewers or no sewers.
MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Are you going to have basements in all these, Tom?
34
---
MR. NACE-I'm told no, and I probably should point out, I think the land to the north is a little bit
flatter. As you come south, you start gaining some relief. Obviously, it falls off toward that wetland
down toward the golf course, and as you go from west to east, it also falls off. So, I think .!Q!!!!
of the groundwater problem is not quite as severe, but soil's still very tight. I won't kid you.
So, no, we're not anticipating basements. Of course, the stormwater management will address most of
the surface runoff.
MR. LAURICELLA-You don't plan on a pond in this one, to collect stormwater?
MR. NACE-No. I'd much rather use the wetlands themselves. If, in our discussions with DEC for the
enhancement of that land to the northeast, they'd like to see a pond in there, we would certainly
consider it. Aesthetically, a pond would be nice in there. If they would consider that a wetland
enhancement that they would want to see, we'd try to do that, but we don't, it's not part of our plan
at this point. In fact, I think there was a little bit of a pond that somebody started to build in
there, somewhere back five, ten years ago. I don't know, but if DEC would like to see that deepened
and made a little nicer.
MR. MARTIN-That would come through your permitting process?
MR. NACE-That's correct.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Anyone else from the public. We sort of have an informal public hearing going here.
I would like to make mention that you'll be formally notified, if and when this reaches the Preliminary
Stage and, again, you'll have an opportunity to speak on the Preliminary plan as well. Well, what's
the Board's feeling on this one? Do you think we have a Sketch Plan that we can work with, here?
Do you want to see any further adjustments on this?
MR. BREWER-Well, if we're going to waive anything, that has to be in the motion, right?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. You've requested, you have two waivers, one on the unit phasing.
MR. NACE-One on the unit phasing, and one on the submittal that you're actually looking at, being at
100 scale.
MR. MARTIN-I like that. That's no problem. I think everybody likes that, rather than having it spread
out so, or on two sheets. Well, is this a concept that we want to embrace, here?
MR. CARTIER-Yes, but I don't know if we have enough, we're going to see a lot of changes. Do we want
to see them at Sketch?
MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm saying.
MR. CARTIER-Or do we want to see them at Preliminary or what, here?
MR. LAURICELLA-Are you going to make many changes or not, Tom?
MR. NACE-I would anticipate that, between now and Preliminary submission, if Sketch Plan is approved,
that we will change the phasing line to incorporate more lots. In doing that, we may end up with a
temporary cul-de-sac in here somewhere, that we've got to show. I don't envision changing the layout
of the roads significantly, no, or the infrastructure.
MR. CARTIER-But you will talk to Paul prior to?
MR. NACE-I will talk to Paul, very definitely, and the other thing we'll have to nail down is whether
or not we're going to look at single family, and if so, how we go about the variances for that, okay.
MR. MARTIN-That's the big one. I'd 1 i ke to have that, the concept for that type of thing known as
early as possible.
MR. NACE-See, our problem with that is, if we come back and propose single family, I'm not sure what
mix, and, depending on the mix, I'm not sure that we can say, this lot's going to be Single Family,
that lot's going to be duplex, that lot's going to be single family, etc.
MR. MARTIN-Well, we just had an applicant who had a Sketch Plan approval for a mixed use concept, mixed
multifamily and single family, and he has indicated that he wants to go to all single family now, and
we required him to come back for a new Sketch Plan approval, and it's on a project of a smaller scale,
even, than this.
MR. CARTIER-What occurs to me is, where is it easier to get tabled, Sketch, because that's what I see
happening here. Where is it easier to get tabled? Is it easier to get tabled at Sketch, or is it
easier to handle getting tabled at Preliminary?
35
-
--
MR. MARTIN-Easier and probably less expensive for the applicant to be tabled right now.
MR. CARTIER-That occurs to me, too.
MR. MARTIN-I think we've had a fairly good, open discussion, here, and we've got all the issues out
on the table, and we've heard from the public.
MR. LAURICELLA-But if he's going to go single family, to maintain that lot size.
MR. MARTIN-That's what we've indicated that we want to see.
MR. BREWER-No smaller than that.
MR. MARTIN-I know the Zoning Ordinance allows for, essentially, eighth acre zoning, here.
MR. CARTIER-Yes, but as Lee's pointed out, we've got all this stuff from the maps, on highwater table
and so on. We're certainly within our purview to put some limitations on this thing.
MR. LAURICELLA-Right.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay. We probably will be coming back with single family, as long as we can see our way clear
through the zoning issues. We probably will not be changing the infrastructure layout, just shifting
the lot lines to accommodate single family homes, okay.
MR. MARTIN-On what size acre lots?
MR. NACE-My guess is, and I'm only guessing right now, okay. I don't think we can do it on 5,000,
okay. I just don't think we can fit a house on 5,000 feet and make it look like something that we
can sell. Ten thousand square feet is probably the high side of what we would have. I would say
probably it's going to be somewhere, seven or eight thousand square feet.
MR. MARTIN-I would really like to see 10.
MR. BREWER-Yes, a minimum of 10, I would, personally.
MR. CARTIER-Yes. I would, too. I think you've got a very sellable house there. I think you really
do.
MR. NACE-Well, remember, a sellable house also depends on the infrastructure cost, and the affordability,
and we've got a great deal of infrastructure to spread over a number of houses.
MR. CARTIER-Well, if you phased this, as we're talking about, and things don't fly the first time around,
you certainly have the option of changing the approach, in further phases, which is one of the reasons
why we built phasing into the Ordinance.
MR. NACE-That's true.
MR. MARTIN-As someone who's in the housing development business myself, on a daily basis, I would have
a real concern about being extended out there for infrastructure, on the basis that 1'm going to pay
for that by selling two family houses and duplexes. In this current market, and that bill comes to
be paid, that cost may be offset more quickly and more easily with saleable single family homes, even
on quarter acre lots, than it will be by a bunch of empty duplex lots that you're not selling.
MR. NACE-I realize that.
MR. MARTIN-I'm just offering that as food for thought.
MR. NACE-I would still like a little leniency from the Board, though, on a 10,000 square foot minimum
lot size, since the zoning says 5,000, okay.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but it doesn't say 5,000 for single family, does it?
MR. NACE-No, it says 5,000 per dwelling unit.
MR. BREWER-Per dwelling.
MRS. YORK-For multifamily units.
MR. BREWER-Yes, but not for single family.
MR. MARTIN-Well, single family's not allowed, yet. He has to get a use variance.
looking at a use variance anyhow, right?
I think you're
36
'-
----
MR. NACE-Yes. Correct. We are looking at a use variance, and I'm not saying, I don't want to approach
5,000. I'm saying we're probably going to be more like eight, but I'd like to be able to put what
is reasonable.
MR. BREWER-To me, a multifamily unit is a lot different than a single family, because a single family
has a home. They're going to want to have a yard and what not. When you get a family that moves into
a multifamily dwelling, they're not going to expect to have a huge yard and what not. That's my own,
personal opinion.
MR. MARTIN-The thing I'm concerned about is the impact on the overall density, and also how that's
going to effect the configuration and the character up there. I mean, that's really going to, well,
you're talking about a medium sized city lot. The City of Glens Falls is a lot size of 7500 square
feet, and that's tight.
MR. NACE-But you're sitting here looking at a duplex which is bigger, on 10,000 square feet and saying,
yes, it meets the zoning okay.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. All right. Point well taken.
MR. NACE-I don't want to come back with something that's unreasonable, that the Board doesn't like,
okay, but at the same time, I don't want to be forced into trying to make every single lot 10,000 square
feet, when it may not be the logical size.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. NACE-Well, why don't you simply say, instead of saying it has to be a certain size, say you would
like us to give you 8,000 square foot lots, okay, and you're going to have approval over what comes
back.
MR. MARTIN-It is a point well taken that an 8,000 square foot single family lot will look less, the
density will be more appealing, visually, than duplexes on 10,000 square feet, because you are, you're
getting one dwelling unit on 8,000 square feet, as opposed to two on 10.
MR. NACE-Yes, and your parking spaces, your blacktop and everything else.
MR. MARTIN-I'm not saying it's right. I'm just pointing it out.
MR. LAURICELLA-Of course, if you change the character and go back to something like this, you've got
more open space. If you go back to a plan like this, you've got more open space.
MR. NACE-You sure do, because none of it's going to sell. In today's market, the townhouse is not
moving.
MR. CARTIER-It's just not there.
MR. LAURICELLA-Dixon Heights is not selling? No?
MR. MARTIN-Well, that's not our, again, we get criticized for maybe entertaining economics.
MR. CARTIER-I can live with eight, I guess. You've got a tough situation, here. You've only got four
members sitting here. We're talking about between eight and ten. Is that a fair?
MR. NACE-That's fair, and some of them that may be more than 10. There are lots in there that are,
I think, what, 12, 13.
MR. CARTIER-We're saying eight is the minimum, but we're not going to look at 127 8,000 square foot
lots?
MR. NACE-No. We're going to take that road layout and make the lots.
MR. MARTIN-Due to radius and so on, you may get into the occasional 8,000 square foot lot.
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. LAURICELLA-That's what happened the last time, when we got away from townhouses, we told him he
could put in single family development, and then all of a sudden everything was single family.
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
MR. LAURICELLA-So, you're going to have all 8,000 square foot lots? You might have one or two 10.
37
--
-"
MR. NACE-We don't have a rectangular layout.
of the same size.
So, there's no way we're going to end up with lots all
MR. LAURICELLA-I know, but you've got to take the worst case scenario.
MR. CARTIER-If Mr. Nace came back in here will all 8,000 foot lots, I think he would be very surprised
if we said yes. I would like to think he's got a pretty read of what we're talking about, here.
MR. NACE-I hear you.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right, then, I think we're looking at a tabling of the Sketch Plan, with a response
to the waivers, and consideration of a new concept that incorporates single family housing, to some
degree, on lots in a range from 8 to 10,000 square foot in size.
MR. NACE-Okay. Let me ask you a question. If we come back with that, at what stage, and how do we
get a variance.
MR. BREWER-That's what we were asking you to find out how we could go about that before you come back.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MRS. YORK-What you're going to need, it appears, is a use variance, because a single family residential
unit is not an allowed use in that zone. Now, I'm not the Zoning Administrator, but.
MR. NACE-Do you think we can go after it, without having this thing already subdivided, we can go after
that for the whole parcel?
MRS. YORK-You want to go single family on the whole parcel?
MR. NACE-No, I'm saying that's all we have. They have to issue the variance for a particular parcel
of land, and the only parcel we have defined right now is the whole parcel.
MRS. YORK-Right.
MR. CARTIER-Are you asking when?
MR. NACE-Yes.
MR. CARTIER-I think I have an answer for you. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think that's going to have
to happen between Sketch Plan approval and Preliminary application. So that, when you come in to us
for Preliminary, you will have been granted your variance.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. NACE-Okay. That settles the issue, then.
MRS. YORK-I think you should talk to Mrs. Crayford about that.
MR. NACE-Okay, but I don't have to have the variance before I come back with another Sketch Plan?
MR. MARTIN-No. I don't believe that would be needed.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Because then we'll have an approved concept that will be much more hard and fast then what
we're at right now.
MR. NACE-This is Thursday. Deadline was yesterday. Here we go again.
MRS. YORK-Come in and talk to us, Tom, okay.
MR. NACE-Okay. About deadline, or about the layout?
MRS. YORK-About the Ordinance and the criteria for that variance.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Deadline.
MR. NACE-I don't know how long it's going to take me, whether it's going to take me two days or two
weeks. If it's two weeks, obviously, I'm off until May.
38
--
--...;'
MR. MARTIN-Well, do we have anymore dates in our sack of dates to be given out?
MR. NACE-Since it's something you've looked at in a lot of detail, and what you're going to see coming
back will not be major changes requiring full engineering review and everything, you're going to just
want to see what impact the single family size of the lot has. If I could get that back to you in
a week?
MRS. YORK-How about Tuesday by two?
MR. NACE-I've already got two projects due Monday, that I'm working nights.
MRS. YORK-Well, I'll tell you, it's just because we have Staff Review Wednesday, and I'd like it to
be there for Staff review.
MR. STEVES-How about eight o'clock Wednesday morning?
MRS. YORK-We can do that. Sure, you can do that, eight o'clock Wednesday morning, if you feel
comfortable with that.
MR. NACE-Okay. We'll be back.
MR. MARTIN-All right, then, yes. We have an extension on the submission date, and that'll get you
into the March meetings, at some point.
MR. NACE-Okay, and I've got your, at least, concurrence, at this point, that we can go to 35 lots.
MR. MARTIN-Well, we're going to do a resolution. That will be in the tabling resolution, here.
MR. NACE-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-All right. Anymore discussion? All right, then I would entertain a motion for tabling
at the request of the applicant.
IIJTION TO TABLE SIŒTCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1992 GUIOO PASSARELLI, Introduced by Peter Cartier who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer:
With the following stipulations: That the waiver request regarding Sketch Plan scale be granted again.
That the subdivision be phased in at a maximum of 70 dwelling units, and that the deadline date for
submission be revised to Wednesday March 4th at 8 a.m., in the Planning Department, and that all other
concerns and comments raised by Planning and Engineering Staff be addressed in a revised Sketch Plan.
Duly adopted this 27th day of February, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Lauricella, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver (10:06 p.m.)
MR. MARTIN-Okay. I've just got a couple of items. I just want to bring to your attention. I think
we got a memo from Paul regarding the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, on the 1988 subdivisions from
the previous Ordinance. We have to get any comments collected from the Board on that. If you have
any comments on that amendment, please bring them to our workshop session.
MR. CARTIER-I sent them in already.
MR. MARTIN-You did?
MR. CARTIER-I sent them back to Pam or somebody, yes.
MR. MARTIN-You did?
MR. CARTIER-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, if anybody has any comments, get them in by the end of next week, so the Board
can consider those. There's a zoning amendment change, there's a small one there.
MR. CARTIER-Minor subdivisions.
MR. MARTIN-Minor subdivisions. Remember that night we had the joint meeting of the Boards? Remember
what they were talking about there?
MR. CARTIER-Minor changes in subdivision, it's the family deal.
39
.,,-
--'
MR. BREWER-With the two lot?
MR. MARTIN-Yes, right.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Okay, and while we have this workshop session coming up, which we have to reschedule.
just remembered, I can't make it the tenth. How about the 12th, Thursday the 12th?
MR. BREWER-I guess.
MR. MARTIN-Jim, is that all right?
MR. LAURICELLA-Right now.
MR. BREWER-I'll let you know if it isn't.
MR. MARTIN-Could you inform the applicant that we had to push it back?
MRS. YORK-I'll be seeing him tomorrow morning.
MR. MARTIN-Okay, and the other thing I'd like to do at that workshop is take an opportunity to talk
about our committees, and the items we discussed from the first meeting of the year, there, where we
get some committees formed and get going on some of these goals.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Martin, Chairman
40