Loading...
1992-04-01 SP '-' ----- ~EENSIIJRY PlANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 1ST, 1992 INDEX Subdivision No. 11-1991 PRELIMINARY STAGE Sunset Hi" Farm Owner: Paul Knox, III 1. 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. \) / '~ '---- ~EENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 1ST, 1992 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN CAROL PULVER, SECRETARY PETER CARTIER CORINNE TARANA TIMOTHY BREWER MEMBERS ABSEIT JAMES LAURICELLA EDWARD LAPOINT SENIOR PLANNER-LEE YORK ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTED BY TOM YARMOWICH STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM (lINER: PAUL ICIIOX, III MR. MARTIN-This is a Special Meeting of the Planning Board for the Sunset Hill Farm project, Subdivision No. 11-1991. To subdivide 25 acres into 10 lots, to be developed by individual lot purchasers. I spoke with Lee earlier today, and she didn't have any new comments. She said her previous comments remain in effect, and so we just have, I believe, in terms of Staff Notes, Tom's letter of April 1st. if you want to take us through that, Tom. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, April 1, 1992 "We have reviewed the additional documents furnished to Rist-Frost by the Town. Those documents consist of various letters received by the Planning Board, our reviews of engineering issues previously raised by Rist-Frost, and engineering issues contained in the letters written by others to the Planning Board. It is our opinion that the applicant's agent has prepared responses that, if followed, should successfully address the engineering related comments received to date by the Planning Board. Further, it appears that the proposed subdivision development can occur in a manner that offers acceptable engineering solutions to Town Subdivision Regulations and local codes. These conclusions are predicated on the presumption that the applicant will successfully complete additional soils investigations, make the minor alterations to the subdivision drawing notes, details and design, and that an updated presentation of the additional and revised engineering information will be subject to review for conformance. In addition to the statements above, we have the following specific engineering comments: 1. The silt fence detail should be revised to conform to the New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Contro1. Zoning Ordinance Article XI Code 179-65 stipulates conformance with these guidelines. 2. A development envelope practice could be established to direct that individual lot improvements be in conformance with the subdivision plan or else be subject to site plan review. Development envelope constraints for each lot should be identified and should stipulate the demonstrated maximum capability of each lot to accommodate building footprints and other impervious areas, driveway locations and sizes and stormwater management systems proposed, subsurface sewage disposal and land clearing activities. The Board may wish to consider other non-engineering criteria in establishing constraints. Because it will likely be necessary that the Town Building and Codes Department monitor development envelope compliance through the building permit process, the Planning Board may wish to consult them. 3. The applicant's agent has indicated that steeper cut and fill slopes, in conjunction with grading to maintain 10 percent driveway slopes, will reduce clearing requirements. We concur with this. If after discussion with the Planning Board, the applicant should pursue this by a waiver request, then the applicant should demonstrate the stability of slopes in excess of 33 percent, and should deal with the added erosion potential during and after construction." MR. MARTIN-Okay, and I don't think we have any other staff comments, right, Lee, nothing else? MRS. YORK-No. We do have a couple of letters that came in. MR. MARTIN-Okay. The public hearing remained open, so we'll read those letters into the record, and then we'll continue on with anyone from the public. MRS. YORK-Okay. The first one is from Lois Weer Stoops, "Dear Mr. Martin: I am writing concerning the application of Paul Knox for the right to subdivide his Knox Road property that runs down the middle of Assembly Point on Lake George. I've spent summers on Knox Road for many years and have a great love for the area. My mother and father, the J.H. Leers, owned property there until the 1970's, and 1 --- -.--' my daughter Carol Hearst still owns property there. As you can see, my interest in the area is of long standing. I have many worries about what a subdivision would do to the already over taxed environment. To further extend Knox Road through to Shore Colony would impact adversely the wetlands at the end of the present road. This, I believe, is against the Adirondack Park Regulations. With the more winterized homes with their washing machines and dishwashers, etc., it would seriously overload an already precarious drainage system. These among many other things are very serious problems that I believe needs your serious consideration. Thank you for attention to the above concerns. Truly yours, Lois Leer Stoops" And the other letter is from Stuart A. Rosenberg, "Dear Mr. Chairman: I have recently received notice that the above 26 acres of land on Assembly Point is being reviewed by the Queensbury Planning Board for a possible subdivision and development. I own a home on Knox Road and am certainly very concerned about the development of this land. I certainly respect the right of the owner to develop the land for subsequent sale. I was concerned, however, looking at his proposal, which included multiple roads into the development off of Knox Road. If you walk the property, you will immediately see that the property involved is the highest most mountainous portions of Assembly Point. Any roads constructed onto Knox Road would certainly be prone to carry wastewater runoff, especially after heavy rains and snow melts in the spring. After living on Knox Road for five years, I certainly appreciate the over-development of this peninsula. It is tragic that we did not have the benefits of Planning Boards many years ago when postage stamp lots were allowed to take full advantage of lake front vistas. Unfortunately, the only remaining undeveloped land remains in the central core of this peninsula and I feel it would be a loss of the Adirondack Park vista to yet develop this land. Despite this, I realize that it is the right of an owner to develop his land as he sees fit, and as the Planning Board agrees to. I would certainly favor a central core road rather than radial spokes of roads that carry the potential of stormwater and wastewater runoff into the dependent Lake George basin. Thank you very much for your attention." MR. MARTIN-Okay. The public hearing was left open. I don't know whether the applicant would like, at this time, to address the Board in any fashion, or would the Board like to proceed on with any further public comment before we move further on? Do you want to make sure the public's all? MR. CARTIER-I think we've got to do both. MR. MARTIN-All right. Do you mind if we finish up with the public comments? MARK SCHACHNER MR. SCHACHNER-I think that's appropriate. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Is there anything else that anyone from the public would like to bring to light in regards to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DENNIS MAC ELROY MR. MAC ELROY- Thank you. My name is Dennis MacElroy. I'm a resident of Assembly Point, and property owner on Knox Road, the property which is adjacent to the proposed subdivision. I have some prepared statement and I guess I wanted to start, though, by saying, this planning process is at least, or I should say, always at least a two party system, with the Planning Board and the applicant, and at times, there's another party, interested neighbors, whatever, that may participate, and I think that's what I'm here for. I don't oppose the subdivision of that land. I just hope that it's done in a reasonable fashion in accordance with the applicable regulations. It's our right to comment and to provide you additional information that we might be able to provide. Being residents, and those that might know, well, maybe not technically, we know intuitively, maybe, the conditions that exist in that area, and that counts for something, I think, in the process that we're in. We not only have the right, but the responsibility to do that, and again, that's why I'm here. Let me read, now, from a letter that I'll submit to you. "Dear Mr. Martin: Yesterday I received a copy of the applicant's most recent submittal to the Planning Board and I have several additional comments. These comments refer to the applicant's responses to previous project comments. Please see attached sheets. In general, the applicant has responded, in some form, to the issues questioned by the Town and members of the public. In my opinion, some are adequate and some deal with issues that have yet to be thoroughly addressed. My concerns are as follows: General, throughout the applicant's responses, there are many references to items and notes that will be put on the plans. When does that happen, in relation to any approvals? If conditional approvals are granted, who follows up to assure that appropriate revisions and additions are made. I would suggest that due to the cumulative effect of all these proposed revisions and additions, that the plans be completed prior to any approvals. I would also note that the applicant's acknowledgment that clearing plans, view development plans, individual site conditions and restrictions, and maintenance plans for stormwater management that are required should be followed through. This information would be pertinent in determining the visual impact of this project, so in fact should be completed prior to the Board making any decisions. You must have all that information to make an informed judgement. Regarding stormwater, the previous two stormwater designs have been determined to be inadequate, and thus subject to redesign. Reference has been made to a third design, using an infiltrator device, but no details or computations are provided. Various questions arise from this new design. Please 2 -- ---- refer to the attached comments. This information needs to be presented for the Planning Board to make an informed decision. Maintenance plans for stormwater management must also be provided. Visual impact, the length, width, and orientation of the proposed driveways and the required c1earing across these exposed slopes must be considered. This is an issue which, whi1e much harder to define, must sti11 be qualified and quantified. The app1icant has discussed the physical areas of c1earing, but has not properly addressed the subsequent impact or the nature of any mitigation measures. In regards to visual impact, the areas of building envelope and septic system must also be included. These issues, perhaps, fit better under the SEQRA discussions and determinations under SEQRA. The Planning Board, as Lead Agency, is responsible for making determinations related to the project's impact on the land and aesthetic resources. It is II1Y opinion that you wi11 require additional information on these issues before you can make an informed decision. Please be diligent in your pursuit of this information. Whi1e these concerns cover the entire the project, I must specifica11y ca11 to your attention the proposed access to Lots 9 and 10. Please consider the potential impacts that this design offers. It is my opinion that when this project receives it's subdivision approval, the driveway configuration as we now see it should not be part of your approval. Sincerely" If I could just cover a couple of points. Maybe if anybody else wants to speak, they could go first, but I just wanted to cover a couple of points in response to a couple of the comments that came back, as far as the applicant's response. MR. CARTIER-You're referring to the March 24? MR. MACELROY-Correct, those series of letter. MR. CARTIER-And could you reference the specific items you're referring to? MR. MACELROY-Yes. I think the first deals, both in a response to Lee's comments, and then also to, I think II1Y first letter. It has to do with density calculation. I'm maybe on the edge of nitpicking, but I want to make a point, as far as how this is perceived. The area that's been calculated, here, I don't think is as accurate as it should be. Within the Code, Section A183-22Al, it indicates that area of road right-of-way should be deleted from the total acreage. Now, that wasn't done within that calculation that you see in the response. What I would say is, not the driveway, but the road right-of- ways, Knox Road. If you take the sum of Lots 1 through 10, that deletes the area of the proposed right- of-way. That comes out to 23.88 acres. If you, then, subtract the calculated undevelopable lands of 3.74. You come up with 20.14, and then I would still contend that you should delete something for this power easement, determination whether it's major or not. I guess that's a questionable call, but I would contend that it is major to the 14 people who are served off that power 1 ine. It's not simply a one line into one property. It serves the majority of Knox Road. If you take that off, you're down just a shade under 20 acres, and then if you divide that 20 or a little less, by one lot per acre, you come up with 20 lots, lets ca11 it, if clustered. I want to make that point. If clustered, you could get 20 lots within that area. I would also say that, as it's proposed, a subdivision of this type, you really should be looking at what area, what density, is allowed in that area, within this major section. This road subdivides a portion of the property. You're not going to cross roads over here. Potentially, you could subdivide this three acres further, but lets talk about that section. Now, if you add up Lots 2 through 10, you come up with 20.46 acres. You deduct the same undevelopable land of 3.74, then take out the quarter of an acre, the power easement. You're at 16.48 acres. So, now we're talking about, in this section, 16 lots. Maybe that could be further subdivided into three other lots, although you have wetlands to deal with, here. I want to make that point. Now, whether that's the proper starting point or not, you're really talking about 16 lots in this area. You'd also have to serve those by access, septic systems, that type of thing. So, that's really the starting point we're at, not the 22 or 22.89 lots that are shown there. Clustering, 20 lots, that's the black and white of the Regulations, but as far as what can go in there, we're really talking about 16 lots. I have just a couple of other points, here. In response to the Planning Department letter, under comments five and six, the applicant proposes that clearing plans, view development plans, individual site conditions and restrictions and/or guide1ines should be developed. These should be completed and approved as part of any preliminary approvals. We have not seen anything, to date, regarding these issues, just that reference that, yes, they should be part of this, and we certainly agree, and the applicant agrees. So that's really a basis of a decision that you would make. So, I would suggest that that is done prior to any further approvals. In II1Y letter of February 25th, there's a response to Item Number Four, and this has to do with. MR. BREWER-Where abouts are you on? MR. MACELROY-Okay. This is the letter of, LA's response to II1Y letter of February 25th. MR. CARTIER-That's the March 24th set we have from the LA Group. MR. MACELROY-Correct, March 24th letter. MR. MARTIN-March 20th. MR. MACELROY-March 20th. Thanks. It's a response under Item Four. It has to do with the intent of Section 183-21B of the Town Subdivision Code. I had previously questioned whether that design was meeting the intent of that Code. I would say I still question that in regard to the Lot 9 and 10 driveway, 3 '- ----- and ask that the Planning Board carefully consider that requirement. Again, you'd have to refer to your Code, but it has to do with preservation of vegetation, and really comes down to an interpretation of whether that's the best way to approach that access or not. A comment, in general, regarding the stormwater design. The stormwater design is being changed again, as indicated in the LA Group response. I'm asking, where are the new design figures. Are the infiltration devices acceptable to the Town of Queensbury? It's a device that's not uncommon. I'm not sure if the Town of Queensbury has used that in the past. That would be simply answered, I guess. In regards to the issue of the amount of clearing, I'm not surprised that my computations and the LA Group's computations differ. Mine were done using relatively primitive tools, but the point I guess I would make is that the amount of clearing that's proposed for all the lots, this Lot 9 and 10 driveway is about half of it, and that's pretty significant in itself, and that's really my main point, is that that driveway is requiring that amount of clearing. Now, as previously mentioned, by changing the slope requirements, that does something. I mean, that does make a difference, but I still think it's important to consider what potential that type of driveway and that condition leads to. An argument was made in the response, or a point was made in the response, that, for a center road option, and I only really presented that as a comparison. I recognize that's not part of the project that we see. The applicant hasn't proposed it, doesn't really want to do it. It doesn't meet his goal and objectives, and that's something that the Planning Board has to consider very carefully. You can't make him do something that doesn't really meet his goal and objectives. You can deny something that doesn't meet your regulations, but we can't force him to build a center road. That's not the intent of why I had brought that up. It was merely a comparison. The comment was made that, in fact, a 700 foot long road would require clearing of 118,000 square feet, and it's far more than the driveway consideration. Well, I would contend that clearing of a 900 foot center road in a different configuration. They made their comparison based on the alternative that was presented, that it was a 700 foot road. I won't argue that. That might take that amount of clearing, but if you did a little bit more longer a road, following more the grades that exist out there, then the clearing, I would contend, could occur within the right-of-way limits. That's maybe a minor point, but, again, the more important issue is the potential visual impact that such a driveway, such as 9 and 10, and the additional susceptibility of those disturbed slopes, as the driveway slaps across the steep side slopes. I think that's really the important issue, is what that driveway and that configuration does. In LA's response to my March 16th letter, Item 2, the question of the APA jurisdiction. If APA does have potential jurisdiction, then some indication of that should be on the plan, so that potential lot owners, future buyers, would have that indication, that that's a condition of any subsequent development of that lot. Now, it's been stated that Paul would like to retain that within his family, and that may be true, but that also might change next week. Again, a comment related to the stormwater design. Reference, again, is made to a redesigned stormwater system. The question is, what is it? What are the details? Where is it, and how much more clearing is required for that? In general, we've talked about the lack of control of what happens after an approval leaves your desk, or at least a perception that there might be a lack of follow through of that situation, and how do we best deal with that? I'm not saying that it can't be done, but historically, there have been problems with that, and I suspect that all the ills won't be remedied. Regarding the lack of finality that a subdivision plan provides in its design, perhaps the Planning Board should consider requiring site plan approval before any further development could occur on these lots, within this Critical Environmental Area. It's designated as a Critical Environmental Area. Your process doesn't normally deal with site plan approval of residential lots, but I would propose that for consideration. It potentially adds to your workload, and maybe that's reason enough that you won't like it, but I don't know that your regulations prohibit that or don't allow that. I've talked briefly with Lee about it. Possibly, that's a further check along the way that, in five years, when one of these lots is sold, or two years if one of them is sold, that the plan, the development of the lot occurs in a fashion that was considered at this point in time, some of the concerns that are being brought, and then regarding the SEQRA Long Form. It's the Lead Agency's responsibility to make determinations under Part II. Before any approvals are granted, I would request and advise the Planning Board take a hard and thorough look at the issues of impact on land, Item One, and impact on aesthetic resources, supplemental information on the impacts, and related mitigation measures may be required. I guess that covers it. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the public who'd care to address the Board? CAROL COLLINS DR. COLLINS-Hi. I'm Dr. Carol Collins. I spoke with you last time, and just recently I received a copy of the comments that the LA Group had concerning my comments, and I'm here to comment on their comments on my comments. In relation to a letter transmitted to the Town by the LA Group, pertaining to the Preliminary Subdivision plan, I offer the following preliminary response. Their comments assert many facts that are either inaccurate, misleading, or unacceptable extrapolation. I will address each of these points, here, but I need to say that more time is needed to address each of these in detail. I also believe that a major consideration has not yet been addressed, and I will initiate this issue, and hope significant intention and discussion will follow. On the issue of multiple driveways, the applicant states that stormwater runoff will not be a problem. I submit to you again that clearing of 3.8 acres of land is of great significance. The re-vegetation of part of this land with grass, and creation of .94 acres of impervious surface is of significance. The applicant has incorrectly stated my alternative action. I suggested a roadway be built to access the subdivision, but not at the high density level of 16 houses. I suggest that the number of lots be less, eliminating Lots 9 and 10, due to steep slope and wetland problems. I am sure this would reduce the severe tree cutting 4 '-- --- that would be required. In regards to my concerns about multiple driveways and individual lot stormwater runoff controls, the applicant did not address the need for individual lot controls. They simply responded that they intend on changing the stormwater control measures to infiltrators and address the minimum requirements for dealing with the 50 year storm volume control. The applicant has not made any considerations of the need to control the 100 year storm flow rate as per regulations. In regards to the applicant's fact number six. The LA Group states that on-site detention and infiltration will remove nutrient and metal components of runoff to a level to insure no degradation of water quality. As a scientist well versed in nutrient dynamics, I am in total disagreement. They state that total phosphorus and nitrogen removal can be expected to be 60 to 80 percent under these conditions, according to Schuler in his 1987. However, they do not mention that these values are only estimates, and that this reference as well as other references state that removal mechanisms are quite complex, highly variable, and subject to many factors, including physical suitability at the site, including soil, slope, depth to bedrock, depth to seasonably highwater table, maximum depth of reservoir, proximity to wells and foundations, and to water shed size. They also do not mention that there is no data presented that would allow one to project, as they did, that they could expect 100 percent removal for the 50 year storm. They also do not mention the routine maintenance required, including inspection, mowing, debris and litter removal, erosion control, tilling, and the non-routine maintenance, including structural repairs, restoration of infiltration capacity, which diminishes yearly, and sediment removal. They also do not mention the risk of groundwater contamination. It is therefore my conclusion that without the necessary individual lot stormwater runoff control plans, it is very likely that future lot buyers will be left with inadequate stormwater retention capabilities. MR. CARTIER-Can I interrupt you for a minute, and go back to something you said about infiltration maintenance decreases annually? Why? MR. MARTIN-It strikes me that sediment just generally builds up, and the capacity is reduced as the sediment builds up each year, in layman's terms. DR. COLLINS-Yes. They usually give these things, like, five to ten year finite capacity. MR. CARTIER-Okay. DR. COLLINS-In regard to fact number seven. They state that all cleared areas which are subsequently re-vegetated will not produce a significant increase in runoff over presently forested conditions. The forest canopy reduces the impact of rain droplets and reduces the forces that result in erosion. The forest duff also mitigates the velocity of runoff. This is reflected in runoff coefficients for grass covered, sandy soils. MR. MARTIN-Pardon me. What is forest "duff"? DR. COLLINS-Duff? It's that loamy stuff with the organic matter and logs and decomposition and all of that. That's actually one of the most important parts of a forest, in case you're interested. What I want to do for you is just compare two coefficients. One is for a sandy soil, grass covered, on a flat slope, and one is for sandy soil, forested cover. These two coefficients, one is .07, for the grass covered, and .03 for the forested cover. This simple comparison demonstrates that forested areas are at least two times more efficient in runoff control, and this amount would be even more significant on steep slopes. The applicant used Manning's N, which is a number used in channel flow, to demonstrate something, but I'm not quite sure what, since we are not dealing with channel flow. They say that the lack of significant change in Manning's N is sufficient. I believe their exercise is meaningless. I also do not understand what they mean by the 1500 foot proposed buffer of native vegetation on lots with slopes of 15 percent. I mean, I just don't know what that is. I haven't seen it. In regard to fact number eight. They state that on-site soil survey indicates the presence of B soils, or soils with a boundary layer. Septic disposals will utilize shallow trench absorption systems. Regulations specify that shallow absorption trenches must show that there will be sufficient depth to boundary conditions in the base of the proposed system. So, we don't know. All we know is that they're B soils. We don't know anything else about these soils, their depth or anything. I do not know if this information has been determined. Similarly, additional information besides A soil classifications is needed to determine if conventional systems can be used. In regard to the MacElroy wetland, the appl icant states that the project would hardly over tax the wetland. The applicant 's cursory analysis of the wetland indicates that this was of no concern to the hydrology or to the water quality. The project area, and I'm not sure, in their letter, what they actually mean by this, but the project area represents seven percent of the wetland watershed, and I think that's really just the developed part, but I can ask them later. So, the project area represents seven percent of the wetland watershed. This represents a significant percentage of the watershed of that wetland. The applicant assumes that they will capture all nutrients and pollutants so they will not impact the watershed, or I should say wetland. This has not been demonstrated, since the stormwater fernal plan has not been prepared. The applicant also assumes that a major storm only raises the level of a wetland .5 inches. This is not considering all the other impacts that are happening to a wetland during that storm. What we call a raising of the wetland that much is erosion. The only way we know what the impacts will be would be to perform the analysis needed. For general consideration, I submit that according to regulations, this subdivision should be considered a major project, and should require review as a major project. This subdivision represents a development or re-development occurring on a site where development has previously occurred. 5 -- In addition, when determining whether to treat a minor project as a major project, the criteria to be considered shall include, but not be limited to, whether the site lies within or substantially con~iguous to a Critical Environmental Area, a wetland, a stream corridor, and an area of significant habltat for any wildlife or plant species, or an area of particular scenic, historic, or natural significance. I submit that this project fulfills many, if not all these requirements. In summary, I feel the project needs further planning. Thank you for your consideration. MR. CARTIER-Are we going to get copies of that, for the Department? DR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Dennis, and you have copies you're going to hand in, also? MR. MACELROY-Yes. MR. MARTIN-All right. Is there anyone else from the public who wanted to address the Board on this project at this time? TOM WEST MR. WEST-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom West. I'm an attorney. I represent mY father-in-law who owns property adjacent to this proposed project. If you don't mind, I'd like to step over here to the proposed preliminary plat, here, and see if I can try and put some things into perspective. I think that everything that Dr. Collins has said and everything that Dennis MacElroy has raised are all important technical issues that have to be addressed, and the issues have to be resolved before this project goes further, but I think it's very important, really, to put the property into perspective. I know, earlier in your consideration of this, there was some consideration of the connection between Knox Road and other roadways on Assembly Point, particularly the roadway that we refer to, I think it's Brunning Hill. Brunning Hill is a good way to get a feel for the character of the slopes that we're dealing with on this part of the subdivision, this part of the proposed subdivision. I guess it would be on the easterly, really, I guess this being north, here. So, we're westerly side. I should know. I only live there in the summer. This hill over here is so steep that one of our neighbors on the other side of the hill, here, who happens to be a very active ski racer, uses that hill to train. That gives you some idea of the character of that hill. It is very steep. This area has the same character. In contrast, if you've taken an opportunity to look at the property, and I don't know if any of you have had an occasion to do that. The top part of this property that's being proposed to be subdivided, here, is very flat and very gentle, it's almost like an elevated plateau. It's probably not a plateau because it's more like a hill that gently crests, but there's a marked difference between the top section of this property, where some of these houses are proposed, and particularly this steep slope section on the northwestern corner of the proposed subdivision. Now, you go back to all the technical issues, the runoff issues and all those kinds of things, you don't have to be a rocket scientist or anyone of these other experts whom the project sponsor has brought with them tonight, to know that it's a lot better to put a road in on a flat area, then to try and go up some very steep slopes as they're proposing, particularly for Lots 9 and 10, and the dual driveway that was referenced by Dennis MacElroy, and so I think there really is a very fundamental issue of whether or not this project should be approved as proposed, without going back to the drawing board, and if it's by denial, as Dennis MacElroy suggested, or just saying point blank to the project sponsor, you've got to go back to the drawing board, it's just not right to try and access Lots 9 and 10 by cutting up that steep slope. There are other problems here that were alluded to in mY letter that was submitted at the last meeting. I think it's been brought out and it's clearly evident on this map that Knox Road is a very substandard road. It's really become a public roadway by use and by maintenance. Although, for many, many years, the Knoxs avoided that. They used to put a gate across here, once a year, to try and maintain the fiction that it's a private road, but even though it's become a public roadway, it has the character of a private roadway. It's only lane. It's really nothing more than a private road that has now become public by use. As you proceed northerly along Lots 5 and 6, you go down a fairly steep grade, here. My father-in-law's property would be just westerly of Lot 10, here, on the other side of Knox Road. This area, here, that was referred to in my letter, on Knox Road, experiences a lot of washouts. My father-in-law and I go out there every year, and I'd say a couple of times a year, and have to deal with the washouts, just caused by Knox Road in its present condition. So, there's already a drainage problem existing. Now, I know the project sponsor has said that they're proposing stormwater controls, but again, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if you bring a driveway down this steep slope there's the possibility for more water coming out onto Knox Road and exacerbating an already bad situation. This is also a very congested area right here, right where these two driveways are going to intersect. It is, there's a bank. There are two camps noted here, that are virtually on the road surface. They have cars typically because of the congestion in Dr. Rosenburg's property. He uses these as rental cottages. The cars park right adjacent to the road. They're out on the road, and so now we're going to have an area which serves as a parking lot for rental cottages, where we're going to have this driveway coming down this steep slope, and right where Knox Road is, in relation to that driveway, there's a bank of eight to ten feet, and I'm not sure how they're proposing to cut into that bank and deal with that issue, but I do know that it doesn't take much consideration to realize that people coming up Knox Road this way will not be able to see cars coming down these driveways, and unfortunately I think a lot of people drive too fast, particularlY in these kind of semi-private 6 road situations, because it's a hill. There's a number of houses, in addition to the MacElroys down here that use this. People tend to speed up to get a running start, and so I think you have a safety consideration. If you go back and you look at this property, if you've walked the property, if you look at it in perspective, the concept of bringing a center line roadway in along this gentle slope, and giving access to these back lots via a center line roadway with some sort of cul-de-sac, just makes imminent sense. It's one of these things that, quite frankly, this proposal with this dual driveway and all, I don't even think it passes the red face land use planning test. I'm really surprised to see an outfit with the credentials of the LA Group coming in here and supporting that kind of proposal, because it just does not make sense. As to the responses, I think we appreciate the commitment of the project sponsor to the tree cutting issue. There is a real opportunity, however, a lot of good things are said at Planning Board meetings about tree cutting. We all agree. We don't want to have massive corridors cut around the lake and end up with some of the eyesores that we have, most of them on the other side of the lake, but a couple of them in the Town of Queensbury, and so the project sponsors and their professionals come in and say, yes, we agree. We should have filtered views. We shouldn't have panoramic views. Unfortunately, what happens is you don't end up with any long term control of that issue, and so, first of all, I think that the Planning Board should require the project sponsor to do something to articulate, whatever their plan is. How are they going to impose, what kind of obligations are they going to impose upon these lots so that this guy in Lot 10 or Lot 5 doesn't come in and propose to clear cut, as, I think it was Marianne Crupshank, or whoever did on the other side of Dunhams Bay, there, to try and get their million dollar view of Lake George. What kind of controls are they proposing? That should be before this Board, now. Whatever this Board agrees is appropriate. I think we're all in agreement with the goal and objective. Now we have to do it, whatever we agree is appropriate, we now have to find a way to make it legally binding, not only upon this project sponsor, but upon the people who buy the lot today, and if this guy doesn't develop it today, but sells it to somebody 10 years from now, the ultimate purchaser, it has to be binding upon them. I think conditions of this approval process are good, but the better way is to require that deed restrictions, incorporating some actual developed plan to avoid that kind of view shed problem is implemented. I think Dr. Collins has raised some very interesting issues regarding stormwater, here. I am not an expert on the stormwater regulations of the Lake George Park Commission and did not have time, prior to coming up here tonight, to take a look at that. To the extent that the hearing record remains open, I'd like an opportunity to submit some comments on that, but it would appear to me that what's been proposed here is deficient. In just looking at the Reg's on the way up in the car, it would appear that in addition to what's been done here, a more comprehensive stormwater management plan is required for this project. Also, the spirit and intent of those regulations is to require that everything be considered at one time, wastewater and stormwater. I know you've heard discussion of the problem that, you give this subdivision approval, and then individual lot owners come in and they have to make due, and we've had other problems, in the Town and elsewhere, with that kind of problem. So, it's very important that all of those issues be considered, and as Dennis MacElroy noted, that they all be considered under SEQRA, as part of your SEQRA responsibilities, before this project goes forward. If you find that it's too adhoc, there's too much too handle, you can require them to do more under SEQRA to tie all this together, instead of having letters going back and forth and all of the confusion. In closing, my father-in-law is not opposing reasonable and responsible development of this property. What's before you is not reasonable responsible, and any concept of threatening to come in and put more lots in is equally irresponsible. The density objectives of Mr. Knox are reasonable in what he's trying to do, here, but in terms of trying to access them through steep hillsides, again, it just doesn't make any sense. That issue, along with the other technical issues, should be more fully considered before a final decision is rendered. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public who would like to address the Board? GARDNER HARRIS MR. HARRIS-I'm Gardner Harris from Assembly Point, on the other side, on the east side of that land. At one of the other meetings with him we couldn't, I wasn't supposed to talk. You did allow me to get up and talk. I wanted to inform you about the idea that we were working, or the Board is working, in regards to, do something about the road along the side on the east side there, where very shortly I'll be having brown water in my system, due to the sand on the road and runoff there. We I ve been trying to get the road moved, but what the Board should take into consideration, if this is going to go through, why not take into consideration, maybe, that road along the side, the road through the middle, the road over the top, and I think this all should be tied in with the Board who is looking into the idea of doing something about this road, which has gotten to be a dog walk, and as I say, it's also brown water, very shortly, as soon as the ice goes out, the lake will get all brown from the water coming down off the road, just the road itself, the sand washing into the lake. So, I think it ought to be tied into what the Town Board is looking into with regard to the road. I've been away for three months. I don't know what is being done, but very shortly, they are supposed to have an answer with regard to the runoff this road is causing, the Lake George Park Commission should be looking into that. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Anyone else from the public who would like to address the Board? Dennis? MR. MACELROY-I just want to make one additional comment that Tom reminded me of. Dennis MacElroy. At the last meeting, there was, I think, possibly, a perception of some members of the Board that stormwater 7 -- '--' design, related to this project, would address some of the deficiencies that might currently exist. That's not the intent of a design of a subdivision. You would address the difference between the pre-development and post-development flows, and that's what the design considerations would be, not to say that they couldn't be over-designed and handle certain things, but I just wanted to clear that up, because it was something that sat in mind, that I thought that there was some consideration that the project would be of benefit to the area because of that, and that's certainly not the case, if the interpretation of the regulations are held to. Thank you. MR. WEST-Mr. Chairman, Tom West, again. If possible, I'd like to just submit three pictures that Dennis MacElroy was kind enough to provide to me, that show Knox Road in the vicinity of Dr. Rosenburg's property, where the two driveways for Lots 9 and 10 are proposed to intersect, and they're instructive because they show the two cottages, the narrowness of the area and the steepness of the bank, approximate to that area. MR. MARTIN-Are these for us to keep? MR. MACELROY-Sure. MR. MARTIN-We make site visits, but this will be put into the file. All right. Is there any further comment from the public? All right. I guess, do you think it's appropriate for the applicant to respond at this time? All right. Do you have anything you'd like to say, in response to the comments we've heard so far? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Mark Schachner, attorney for the applicant. I guess, to try to be efficient, we appreciate you conducting this Special Meeting, and to try to be efficient, we do have, as you can see, a substantially large project team with us, and I guess what I'd like to suggest is if we took a five minute break we could better organize our response. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Yes, you've heard a lot. MR. SCHACHNER-Rather than sort of be a little less efficient. MR. MARTIN-That would be fine. Okay. We'll break for five minutes. BREAK MR. SCHACHNER-I guess, first, in the biggest picture context, I take it, although I didn't ask earlier, but I take it that each of you did receive the packets of information that we submitted in response to the various comments? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And I think, in the biggest picture sense of all, the comments raised by those who are concerned about the proposed subdivision, in the biggest picture sense of all, really boil down to philosophical differences, even more than technical differences and differences of interpretation, and my understanding, I don't live on Assembly Point, but I've certainly traveled Knox Road. I've been on Assembly Point on numerous occasions, both prior to and during my representation of this applicant, and it appears to me that, and several of the concerned citizens have, in fact, stated that you have to have a feel for the property, and they've indicated, several people have indicated, commenters, that their comments are personal and somewhat subjective, based on their feel for the property, and that's not to discount that at all. I mean, you can respect that, certainly, but I think, in large measure, my own personal, philosophical impression here is that those who are concerned seem to live in areas on Assembly Point where, for example, in terms of access, rightly or wrongly, they're serviced by a road that's been described by the concerned citizens, or to several of them, as sort of a windy, private type road, meaning private in character, I think they said, although not technically and legally private. One that I've driven and found to be, I agree, fairly windy, fairly narrow, sort of private in character. I sort of agreed with that characterization, not a paved, up to Town spec road that people are likely to drive very fast at all on. I'm surprised to hear anyone that lives up there suggest that people try to drive fast. I guess that depends on what you consider fast, but it didn't look to me like a road that you'd want to drive fast on, for the sake of your vehicle, but in large measure, the comments are the comments that I think can really be summed up by saying that if an applicant were to come forward and propose this subdivision, without a competent engineering and environmental back up for the proposal, the commenters and the concerned citizens are saying, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say, maybe you shouldn't do something on a steep slope area. Well, in the abstract, in the hypothetical, I would certainly agree with that statement, and I think that if an applicant were to come forward and suggest development, whether it be residential development or commercial development, or anything else in a steep slope area, without having a competent stormwater techniques, erosion control techniques, competent, you know, analysis of relevant environmental factors, then I think it would be appropriate, frankly, not so much to send them back to the drawing board, but to say, no, you can't do it the way you've proposed to do it, and, essentially, what the concerned commenters have done is just dismiss out of hand the engineering and environmental mitigation back up that's been performed, and I guess in the biggest picture sense, I'd have to indicate that you all have a very competent, 8 '--' a very large local engineering firm as your Town Engineering Consultant who, tonight, for the second time, has indicated that the proposal seems to meet the applicable rules and regulations that you govern, subdivision in the Town of Queensbury by, and in fairness, obviously, the letter did indicate that a few minor details would need to be changed and some comments would need to be added on the plat and things like that, and I think that's appropriate. Again, trying to stay big picture from the standpoint of my responses on behalf of the applicant, if you were to require this or any other applicant to do as much T crossing and I dotting at this stage of the proposal, as is requested by the concerned citizens, there would be no meaning left to final plat approval. There would literally be nothing to do at the final plat approval stage, and I don't think, for example, that Mr. MacElroy's comments were particularly inappropriate. I just think there's a cart and horse problem, meaning putting the cart before the horse, in that, if those final T's were to be crossed and I' s dotted, just to get the preliminary plat approval, you would really render completely meaningless, and make an empty exercise out of final plat approval. A good example that comes to my mind, although I don't think, yes, I guess this i! what Mr. MacElroy focused on. A good example that comes to my mind, and I think Mr. West focused on this as well, is acceptable language for a final plat condition relating to filtered views. It would seem to me it's very appropriate to have that issue aired, and I think that these folks have done an admirable job of raising the issue, both in their written comments and in their verbal presentations. It seems very appropriate to me, and I think it's been discussed in the context of other subdivisions in this Town, and certainly in others as well, that that's a legitimate concern. I think it was Mr. West, accurately characterized us as pretty much being in philosophical agreement, and I think it's a perfect example of something that would be an appropriate topic of a condition on a preliminary approval, that says something like, this has to be appropriately addressed to our satisfaction, these aren't the words that you would use, at final plat approval stage, and if you don't, you don't get your final plat approval. A big theme, a very significant theme in several of the citizens comments has been, I use the word enforceability. The enforceability of any of your conditions, I think both at preliminary and at final stage, and I think I made the comment, at the last meeting, that Mr. MacElroy, in particular, must not have dealt with Mr. Hatin and his Department very much, because my experience with them is they're extremely rigorous in enforcing each and every applicable condition, rule, regulation, or anything else, and I think Mrs. York referred to that Department as monitoring things like this, in here previous Planning Department Staff Comments, and I think she's right. Again, I think that there's a very painfully obvious to some applicants enforcement mechanism, in terms of the conditions on a Preliminary plat approval. I think it's pretty obvious. If you don't meet the conditions of your Preliminary plat approval, you never get your final plat approval. You don't get to sell your lots. You don't get to file a signed mylar with the County Clerk's office. So, I don't think that's a legitimate concern. As far as final plat approval, it's no secret that this Planning Board, and in my opinion appropriately, typically has some conditions on a subdivision approval. I agree with Mr. MacElroy's characterization of history, but I think that we're dealing with a new time, now, and I don't just mean starting today. I think in the last several years, and again, I think I mentioned this at the last meeting, in the last several years, we've come an aWfully long way, in my opinion, and I'm sure in yours, in terms of enforcement of the building and zoning laws in the Town of Queensbury, in terms of diligence in all the Departments in the Town of Queensbury, to make sure that things that are envisioned are included as conditions. They're enforceable, and in fact they are enforced, and you've dealt with folks and I've dealt with folks that are involved in enforcement of the conditions. So, again, I think those comments are appropriate, but as far as being concerned that there won't be diligence from this Planning Board or from the Town or from the applicant, who, his family's been there for tens of years and he's not, by our admission, a professional developer. He's somebody that's going to keep living there and his children are going to live there. I think everyone's going to be diligent and rigorous, and, again, that's a philosophical difference. If the concerned citizens don't believe that, there's nothing we can say to prove that to them. I think that's a philosophical difference. Coming down a little bit in priority order, a little bit off the big picture, but responding to some of the comments that are made, without belaboring the point, Mr. MacElroy concedes that he's not surprised that there are some differences in calculations. I think he said he used some more primitive equipment or techniques than we used. We don't intend to quibble about that. Whether you're talking about whether the density calculation results in 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 lots, or whatever the number is, we're all in the same general ball park, as to what that density calculation results in. As a matter of philosophy, this applicant, whose family has owned the property for many, many years and who intends to stay there for many, many years, has indicated that he is not applying for, and we have not applied on his behalf for, a 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20 plus lot subdivision with smaller lots, with what's called a center line road. We've indicated a number of reasons for not doing that. The only one I'll reiterate, aside from the philosophical personal ones, the only one I'll reiterate is that, obviously, if you put a center line road, whether it's up to Town standards or not, you're going to start pushing the building sites, and more importantly the septic sites, onto the steeper areas. Instead of coming forward, willy nilly, what used to happen 20 years ago in front of Planning Boards, I think including this one, and doing something on the back of a napkin without sophisticated environmental control measures, and instead of you accepting our first submission without forcing us or asking us, I should say, to go back and do some environmental back up. We've done it. They don't agree with it, and they're entitled to not agree with it, but your Town Engineer does agree with it. One specific thing that I want to sort of harp on for a moment is the driveway on Lots 9, 10, the shared driveway. We have expressed to you previously our request for a waiver for a particular specific provision that would enable a substantial reduction in the amount of clearing for that shared driveway. Again, we're not just proposing that you waive that without us having environmental mitigation measures in effect that will make sure that it's done in an environmentally proper manner, and it seems to be recognized by your Town Engineer who indicates that he concurs with 9 -- -../ that philosophy and standard. In doing so, we will adequately take care of what is admittedly a steep slope situation, and, again, it sort of ties back in with II1Y earlier comment. If you just went in there and did the development, without any of the mitigation measures, it wouldn't be responsible development, and I don't really think it's appropriate to get into, we can if you want, get into the credentials which have been attacked, of our project team, and things like that. I don't think that's appropriate now and we don't intend to do that. One of the points that one of the comnenters made had to to with requiring each and every lot to undergo site plan review upon ultimate development. As far as I know, that's unprecedented here. It may be unprecedented elsewhere, but, and I don't know that the individual who made this comment is aware of this, in fact, as I recall, the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, in fact, does require, in certain instances, that an applicant, for simple residential single family development, will have to take site plan review measure, or application, if certain things happen, like for example, lets say a future applicant wants a variance of some sort, and doesn't want to build in the envelope that we've identified that we hope you will approve. My recollection, correct me if I'm wrong anybody, is that at least in certain contexts, if you seek a variance, and if you get the variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, even just for development of a single family residence in a lake district, and I know this is true on Glen Lake, and I've got to think it's true on Lake George as well, as I recall, Mrs. York please correct me if I'm wrong, in fact you do need site plan review after getting your variance. MRS. YORK-In certain cases, not always. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. So, again, my point is that, and I'm not even sure the individual who made this suggestion was aware of that, but if you, hopefully when, you approve this subdivision, you're not allowing rampant development in a sensitive area without any controls, and in fact, if an applicant doesn't like the way you've approved this subdivision plan and wants to change it, they can't just go do that. If they want to do it and they need a variance, they will end up needing not only a ZBA approval, but also your Planning Board's approval in site plan review. The only other comment I want to make, and I think I have stayed pretty much big picture, is that, ties it right in with what I started with, about philosophy. We haven't been talking about the 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 lot, whatever, clustered subdivision as a threat of any sort, which is a term that one of the concern citizens mentioned. What we've indicated is that, and I think that at least some members of the Board seem to recognize this, that we've indicated two things. We've indicated, first of all, that the applicant himself, for reasons involving his family history and his continued involvement with the property does not want to create a larger scale subdivision, larger scale meaning more lots, more sophisticated access. We find, as his design professionals and his attorney, that a more sophisticated or more up to Town spec access road doesn't make much sense in view of the manner in which everyone has agreed Knox Road is traveled. It doesn't seem to us to make sense, whether we're talking up to Town spec or slightly under Town spec, it doesn't make sense to us, any more than it made sense to Mr. Naylor in a different context, to suggest a wide, fully paved, up to spec or slightly under spec Town road through the center line of the property when the road you take to get there is going to be Knox Road anyway. As far as keeping in character of the existing neighborhood, and that's a somewhat subject judgement, obviously. That's not a hard and fast, numerical, quantified judgement, but as far as keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood, it seems clear to us that these somewhat narrow, somewhat windy driveways really are much more in keeping with the existing neighborhood, and more importantly, keeping the number of lots down and the size of the lots up has to be more in keeping, not so much more in keeping with the existing neighborhood in that respect, but more in keeping with the Town's Master Plan for future development, and we have said every single one of the six times that we've been before you on this application that the applicant feels very, very strongly that it's more in keeping with the Town's Master Plan, and I have actually quoted Chapter and Verse out of that, of previous meetings, to stay with the much larger than minimum lot size lots, to stay with the much smaller than allowed number of lots, and to go with the private, shared driveways, and I think at this point, I'd like to ask Dean Long, the Aquatic Ecologist from the LA Group, to discuss some of the specific concerns mentioned by some of the comnenters on the environmental side. DEAN LONG MR. LONG-As Mark has indicated, what I'm going to speak specifically about is some of the stormwater issues, and our view of the stormwater issues and how we perceive that this project and the mitigation and our plans are actually going to work quite well. Stormwater management, one of the key things that has been discovered over the last five to six years, and what the Lake George Basin has fully embraced, now in the Lake George Park Commission Rules, is the absolute necessity of, whenever possible, of getting the water from the surface and getting it back into the ground, slowly and at the rates that the ground can accept. In a stormwater management plan that the LA Group has been developing, and that your Town Engineer has been reviewing, this has been the overriding concept, is to infiltrate and recharge the soil. Now, recharging the soil, just as we are all familiar with it as a method of septic disposal, septic effluent disposal, works very much in the same way when you're dealing with stormwater. That is, when you have soils that are, what I'll call aerobic, or full of oxygen, the soil will remove the phosphorus, provided that it's not overloaded. That's what all the computer simulations that we do, when we submit to your Town Engineer to look at, and everything is trying to work out, is how big do these structures have to be? How much water are we going to deliver to these structures during a storm of whatever various period that we choose to model. Once we determine that, then we can make the structures the right sizes, and the key factor here is that we have good soils. We have 10 '~ --- soi1s that are dry, soils that tend to be sandy and stony, so that the water will move into the soi1s and move away from the soils rapidly enough so that they stay this aerobic, this oxYgen rich. That will remove the phosphorus. That's why we were confident in drawing our conclusions in our report that said we would expect 80 percent or better phosphorus removal in these soils. The second facet of stormwater management, and again, this is another important factor that everybody has looked at is, what are you going to do with the other important nutrient that you have in stormwater, that being nitrate. Nitrate removal, unfortunately, doesn't happen in the ground, in that rich aerobic zone, in the sands, in the gravels. Nitrate removal happens in the surface layers where the plants live, because they uptake this nutrient and incorporate it into their biomass. So, any type of plant material will rapidly up-take it, up-take the nitrates. So, what you can get into is all kinds of various comparisons and discussions, which is the best kind of plant. Well, if you're going to have something that you want to soak up a lot of water, you're going to be looking at, and actively move the nitrate around, you're going to be wanting to look at turf layers. Trees and forest covers and those types of cover work very good at slowing down rates and such, but their root mass is not sufficient and is not as dense as when you have a turf mass. The other thing that we always have to be looking at is remembering exactly what kind of project we have planned here. These are large lots. These are two acre plus lots. These lots will not be extensively developed, are not going to have large amounts of impervious surface, so that we can handle the stormwater efficiently, on-site, nearby, where it's generated. It's not like Lake George Village. It's not like any places in Lake George Village where you have massive amounts of impervious surface and all of a sudden you've got gargantuan quantities of stormwater that you can't do anything with. We can, what little bit of stormwater that will be generated here can be moved to areas that are going to be undisturbed, and rapidly infi1trated back into the zones where the nutrient removal can take place. So, that's the process, and that's why we firmly believe that by using the appropriate modeling techniques to discover what the volume is, and knowing the quality of the soils, that we can design the appropriate systems, and the primary and the bottom line with this system is that it needs to infiltrate. Now, whether it infiltrates with a concrete stormwater basin, infiltrates by the way of a shallow surface basin, or infiltrates by an infiltrator, which is a specialized type of subsurface basin, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that you want a plan that gets the water into the soil and allows it to recharge at the natural rates. MR. CARTIER-Can I interrupt you a minute and go back to something you said? Lets go back to the phosphates for a minute. We're talking about using your figure 80 percent removal of phosphates? MR. LONG-That's correct. MR. CARTIER-By aerobic decomposition, basically, okay. MR. LONG-Well, it's aerobic incorporation, both by the bacterial layer that's natural, that's within the soil, plus additionally, by the iron oxide and falite formations. MR. CARTIER-What happens to the 20 percent that doesn't? Where does that go? MR. LONG-That 20 percent is either going to continue to be reduced as it moves out further away from the site of recharge, or become incorporated into the regional groundwater, and dilute it at that point. That's why it's important to look at this subdivision, and look at it's relative distance to the critical water resources. MR. CARTIER-All right. It becomes part of the regional groundwater. Then you have a phosphate level of regional groundwater which can become part of wetland water or Lake George water, correct? MR. LONG-It could. MR. CARTIER-Okay. At what part, this is a very unfair question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. At what part per million are we talking about that we're getting regional groundwater with a phosphate content bleeding out of this area? MR. LONG-Fortunately, I was at the Freshwater Institute for six years and I did look at regional groundwater and groundwater levels are in the same ball park as Lake George type levels. So, you've got groundwater levels that are in about the three part per billion, three to five, depending on exactly where you are. Now, into this you're going to have this stormwater runoff which, after infiltration and such, is probably going to be in the 10 to 50 part per billion. That's the rough values. So, I'm not a great one for standing on my feet and doing math, but that's the relative comparisons. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and at what rate, what part per billion does that begin to have effects on Lake George? MR. LONG-I'm not going to start discussing modeling. MR. CARTIER-The reason I'm bringing this up is, my understanding is Lake George is limited by, phosphate is the limiting factor in Lake George, the phosphate content. MR. LONG-That's correct. 11 -- -- MR. CARTIER-Okay, and my guess to boil it down is, are we enriching the phosphate content of any portion of Lake George, in terms of this 5 or 10, or 10 or 50 parts per billion that, theoretically, can become part of the regional groundwater in there? MR. LONG-It is that sma11 incremental increase which is what's being discussed, and whether or not this Board be1ieves, or any other Board be1ieves is acceptable level of development. We currently understand what is unacceptable 1 eve 1 s of development, and now what we're tryi ng to judge and get a hold of is what we believe is acceptable. That's why lot sizes are increasing. That's why stormwater is being infi1trated rather than discharged as a surface runoff factor and such. So, we're using the best technologies avai1able to minimize to the best extent the stormwater impact, and that's what our goals have been, here. MR. CARTIER-But is it fair for me, then, to assume that, without getting into the number part of this, is it fair to say that there will be ~ phosphate enrichment of Lake George? MR. LONG-There has been some phosphate enrichment whenever anybody takes an activity on in the Basin. Whether it's significant or not is a difficult thing to judge. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. LONG-So, additionally, the groundwater in the same way as we've just basica11Y discussed, the groundwater issue and what type of impacts we can have. As far as the wetland issues go, again, this project is insulated by a significant distance to those wetlands, and just as we have just discussed and reviewed, there won't be any direct storllMater. There wi11 be some regional recharge to these wetlands of the stormwater, at low levels of nutrients. The bottom line is, with wetlands, as probably many of you have heard and read, is that wetlands have fina11y been rediscovered at exce11ent nutrient purifiers. Not to say that they should be abused by direct discharges and such, by improper planting, but the bottom line is, is that a wetland can deal with nutrients, both due to its plant mass, and because of the extremely complex microbiology of a wetland. So, this project is compatible with protection of that wetland because we are, again, recharging the storllMater. The major factors for the project is basica11y, we're not on the lakeshore. We're not making a direct discharge. We're using the best technology that is available to try to recharge the stormwater. When you look into the maintenance factors of the types of faci1ities, each type of faci1ity has a level at which it can be easi1y maintained, and what you have to look at is what things damage stormwater faci1ities. The thing that damages stormwater fac11ities the most tends to be areas of uncontro11ed runoff, especially during construction. That's why it's important, through the construction monitoring process, to protect a11 your stormwater facilities during that process. Subsequent to that, once the site is stabilized, very 1ittle additional soi1 and erosive material should reach these basins, except for when you get into situations where you're maintaining municipal roads and County roads where you end up with lots of sand and salt. That's what really damages, and that's what really dissipates the capacity of most stormwater facilities, ends up being the road's sands and salts. So, since these types of roads, these driveways and such aren't going to be exposed to those large volumes of road maintenance salt, the stormwater faci1ities should be able to be easi1y maintained. Also, you have to look at the character of the soi1s. The concept that a11 stormwater faci1ities are absolutely doomed to a slowing of the recharge rate is false. What it is based on, the recharge rate is based on, again, the native soi1. Since we have sandy percable soi1s here, the basins themselves wi11 always perce What may be slightly diminished, because of an unstabi1ized slope or something, if a basin should get filled up, is that volume, but basically the basin will continue to recharge. Thank you. MR. CARTIER-Can I ask one other quick question, because I'm learning a lot, here, because you're bringing up issues that I can see apply on a much large scale in the Lake George Basin. When you talk about wetlands load, and I understand what you're saying. A wetlands can handle an increased load. The wetland in question, do we know what it's capacity is to handle an increased load? What I'm saying is, and I don't know this for a fact, but what I'm saying is, if this wetland is at capacity, if it's handling the load that it can handle now, and you increase more, you've gone over the capacity of the wetland to break that stuff down, and I'm just raising the question, that seems to be a question you need an answer to. If we're going to talk about using the wetland as a degradation point for this stuff, then you have to know how much it can handle. Do we know that, at this point, about the particular wetlands that we're talking about here? MR. LONG-The wetland in question we have looked at and discussed its size, its size of the watershed, and how much of the watershed is going to be impacted by this project. The development of this project is a very small portion of its watershed, and when we're talking about development, we're talking about development in a loose term. We're making a very minor change in this site. It's not like we're paving the site that's going to cause a great influx of new nutrients to this wetland. Our relative differences are going to be sma11. So, we do not be1ieve that the impacts are going to be great, or of a great detriment to this wetland. MR. CARTIER-You're saying that, as far as you're concerned, the wetland could handle the additional impact? MR. LONG-Yes. 12 '"-' -- MR. CARTIER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Mark, coul d you just have one of your people there refresh my memory as to the amount of clearing as proposed, if we were to build this to Town specification for the slopes and all that? I just want to, the overall lot size is how many acres, roughly 25 acres, or thereabouts, right? MRS. PULVER-26.63. MR. MARTIN-And what is the amount of clearing as proposed, if we were to, aCknowledging the fact that you have to deal with the Town's, as you have it designed there, to deal with the Town's Regulation as it now stands? JEFF ANTHONY MR. ANTHONY-My name's Jeff Anthony, for the record, from the LA Group. What we did, Jim, for the. MRS. PULVER-Excuse me, Jeff. Would you just tell me what page you're on? MR. ANTHONY-Yes. I'm on Page 5 of the response, I believe, to Mr. MacElroy of February 25, and I think I'm reading under Item 15, at the bottom of the page, and it carries over to Page 6. MRS. PULVER-I've got it. MR. ANTHONY-This is a difficult one. What we actually did here is, for the design that we're proposing, we have a grading plan, and at the last meeting, when we were discussing comparisons of land clearing, we were really using apples and oranges. The suggested 900 foot long road was really a hypothetical road with a hypothetical cul-de-sac with a hypothetical set of driveways, and nobodY every had a grading plan for that that you could really measure how much land you cleared. So, at the last meeting it was suggested that, there's roughly 80,400 square feet of cleared area for the road, and that was done by a simple calculation of multiplying the length of the road times the width of the right-of-way times the area of the cul-de-sac times the length of the driveways and things like that, but what we had for our plan was an actual grading plan, and we used the computer system to calculate cleared area. MR. MARTIN-For the center line road? MR. ANTHONY-No. We used it to compute, at the last meeting, our cleared area, which was 81,100 rough square feet. What we did, after the suggested numbers were in, last month, was to take and layout a roadway. We didn't do the 900 foot road. We had already given you a plan, our drawing S2, which was a 700 foot road with a cul-de-sac, and we actually had a grading plan for that, and we designed the grading plan, and we had the road layout, as if it were to meet your Town specifications, and we didn't go to the length of adding the extra 200 feet to the roadway, but we did get is a total of 118,480 square feet of clearing for that 700 foot long road with the cul-de-sac and the driveways. MR. MARTIN-So, you're essentially talking almost four acres? MR. ANTHONY-Right. What you should keep in mind is that clearing is for the roadway and driveways only, and any comparison of numbers of lots and numbers of cleared areas that would require for the home site and septic systems, whether we have 10 or 16 lots, is not part of that calculation. That was for the roadway and driveways only. MR. SCHACHNER-I want to make sure we appreciate that what Jeff just said is consistent with both plans. In other words, the numbers that the LA Group crunched, in terms of clearing, they did not consider the actual home sites and all that, which would be the same, if you stayed with the same number, but if you go with the center line road and you have 16 homes, versus 10 homes, obviously, that will skew that out. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. ANTHONY-And another calculation we did, for that plan, the 3.8 acres of clearing in total, is representative of the driveways, home sites, and septic fields, and areas that we proposed to be developed. That's a separate and different calculation, not part of this calculation. Now, the only one comment I could make on our 81,000 square feet of clearing for this plan, versus the 118,000 for the Town road plan, is our 81,000 square feet could be reduced by 20 to 25,000 square feet, if the Planning Board gives us the little variance to not have the 3 on 1 side slopes on the driveways on Lots 9 and 10, and the degree of reduction really is a function of the amount of relief you give us. It's how far you let us go with that. We're proposing a 2 on 1 slope, and what that would do is it would allow most of that area, 20 to 25,000 square feet, to remain in its natural state, without clearing the duff, I'm using Carol's term, and really what's happening there, if we were to comply with your 3 on 1 slope, we're not doing anything. We're just pushing six inches to a foot of earth around. We probably could 13 -- --' get around the trees and probably could save most of the trees, because taking six inches to a foot off probably won't ki11 a major tree. We could shape and move that stuff around, but you're taking the land surface off. You're taking that duff layer off, and that's what you don't want to do, and by getting that relief from the Planning Board, we could rea11y reduce that grading on driveways 9 and 10. MR. MARTIN-I just want to pose a quick question to Mark, and he can tell me I'm nuts, no, this is not on the table. Would there ever be any thought given to sharing the driveway system further, so that we eliminate the driveway serving those northerly lots, and have that shared even further with the next nearest driveway? MR. ANTHONY-Lots 5 and 8? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Just to clarify what I'm suggesting, is to eliminate this here, and share this, somehow, further, through here. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I just want to be sure I understand the question. Would you end up with three or four, sharing it? I assume you're saying four. MR. MARTIN-You would add these two houses, here, right onto this driveway system, here, and e1iminate the need for this driveway going along right here. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I understand the question. We wish you'd asked us these questions sooner, but our qualified answer is, it seems like that we wouldn't have a problem with that. I'm told by one of the members of our team that there was some totally informal discussion along those lines with some combination of the Planning Staff and/or some of the emergency service personnel who thought that you might not want to have more than two on a shared driveway, or maybe three at the most, as opposed to four, but our position, on behalf of the applicant is, we don't believe we'd have a problem with that. MR. CARTIER-A problem with what? MR. SCHACHNER-What Mr. Martin has suggested. MR. MARTIN-Eliminating that most northerly driveway, and having Lots 9 and 10 shared off of the nearest next driveway, because I would think that if we're talking about, it seems to me clearing and runoff from these driveways seems to be the big issue, and if we were to eliminate that, we would be sUbstantially reducing, even further, the clearing. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, probably significant. MR. MARTIN-I mean, if we're going to get into this concept of shared driveways, then it's the responsibility of the people who buy these lots, that they're going to buy into this, in the interest of reducing the environmental impacts. MR. BREWER-Where do you suggest the driveway go through? MR. MARTIN-What I'm saying is to eliminate this here. MR. SCHACHNER-A11 right, and by this here, we're talking about the shared driveway proposed for Lots 9 and 10. MR. MARTIN-Lots 9 and 10, because this seems to be, I would think in the calculations of your clearing, this probably is amounting to, of how much, 80,000? MR. SCHACHNER-No, no, but he's saying, out of a total of, so we're talking roughly, yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. So, say 50 percent of your clearing, if we were to use this driveway, here, if we're going to buy into this shared concept, then have these two lots here share off of this even further, and we're essentially getting that center line road, but it's a private driveway. MR. CARTIER-Yes. You're building a substandard road and calling it a driveway. MR. MARTIN-I just don't want to see this large slice going up through these, you know, a slope of that. I'm not saying how anyone else on the Board feels about that. I was just. MR. CARTIER-Well, that kind of goes to some of the major concerns I had. Does that eliminate the flag shaped lot on 9 and 10? We're going to reconfigure 9 and 10 so there's no flag shape to it, essentially? MR. ANTHONY-We can eliminate the flag shaped lots on 9 and 10, only if you allow us to not live up to the standard of the Town that we have 40 feet of road frontage for those two lots. MR. CARTIER-We're talking subdivision, well, wait a minute. 14 --- MRS. YORK-No. That's in the Zoning Ordinance. That's zoning. MRS. PULVER-That requires a variance, though, doesn't it? MR. BREWER-No. It's in Subdivision, right here, Pete. MRS. PULVER-That wouJd need a variance. MR. ANTHONY-But, to be honest with you, if we didn't change the configuration of Jots, and you specificaJJy wrote into the approvaJ a condition that said we couldn't access those Jots from the fJags, then we can't, then we have to use the shared driveway. It's a way of getting around the reguJation. MR. CARTIER-Let me Jay out my concerns for you, here, and I think we're talking about maybe addressing some of them. My concerns remain the same, from what they aJways were. I don't Jike the idea of fJag shaped Jots. I don't like the idea of shared driveways, but what we're taJ/(ing about now at Jeast begins to start minimizing that sort of thing, even though we now have a shared driveway for four Jots, but it does eliminate, as you say, more than 50 percent of the cJear cutting we're taJking about doing, which is a major help for me, which brings up the other issue, regarding waiver from 40 foot frontage. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and it's certainJy important, from the applicant's standpoint, that we pin down, and maybe we can take a break and I can try to pin this down, whether that wouJd require mereJy a waiver from this very same Board that we're taJking about the suggestion with, or whether we'd have to go to the Zoning Board of AppeaJs, which is rather a different forum. Again, on behaH of the appJicant, I'JJ be gJad to ask for a five minute break, and I'Jl try to pin that down if you Jike. MR. MARTIN-Yes MR. CARTIER-AJso, perhaps another approach, here, wouJd be, instead of taJking about a driveway in there to get the four Jots, we're talking about a road that's Jess than Town standards to maintain some of the character of the area, if you w11J, from which those four Jots can be accessed. Now we take care of the 40 foot access on the Town road probJem. I'm just tossing out ideas off the top of my head, here. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Cartier, I didn't understand that. MR. CARTIER-What I'm saying is, instead of taJking about a driveway for four Jots, okay, we taJk about a substandard Town road for four Jots. MR. SCHACHNER-CaJl it a road instead of a driveway, and then say, therefore, there is frontage? MR. CARTIER-Yes, so that takes care of your 40 foot problem from Lots 9 and 10, because now they would be accessed through a Town road. MRS. PULVER-Doesn't it say it has to be a deeded Town road? It has to be on a deeded Town road. So, it would have to be a road that was accepted by the Town in order to have 40 foot frontage. MRS. YORK-You can have private roads, but they are supposed to be up to Town standards. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Right, and then you have to have easements. MR. CARTIER-Wel1, wait a minute. Are we saying that anything less than a 50 foot road is out of the question, here? MR. MARTIN-That's something we don't have the power to waive a requirement on a 50? MR. SCHACHNER-Wel1, in my opinion, you definitely have the ability to waive the width of the road requirement. MRS. YORK-What couJd happen is you could dedicate that amount of road, but pave or gravel a lesser area. MR. SCHACHNER-You mean offer for dedication the entire width? MRS. YORK-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-It would keep it a private right-of-way. MRS. YORK-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-But if the Town accepts that offer, then it wouJd be paved. 15 ---./ MR. YARMOWICH-No. It would not be a dedication to the Town. It would be a private right-of-way, held in common by adjoining lot holders, okay. That would be an easement for all those lot holders in width that conform to Town standards for a Town road. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not sure, and this is what I'm suggesting I would need to look at. I'm not sure you are then over the hurdle of 40 foot minimum road frontage. MR. YARMOWICH-The frontage is then on that private road. MRS. YORK-Right, and you need 40 feet on a Town road. That's what I'm saying. MR. SCHACHNER-That's where I'm coming from also. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay, in addition to the private road? MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not so much, in addition to. I believe that requirement is a Town road. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, let me also say this, and this came to mind, because it gets deeper with respect to stormwater management and the sharing of common driveways. Two property owners in common with a single driveway will have equal interest in complete common road maintenance. Four presents a different situation in addition to the responsibility for common stormwater management maintenance. All of which are goals which the Board is trying to work toward something that win have at least an opportunity to be perpetual with this development that's approved. The concern would be, from an engineering standpoint, how do you deal with a road system that more than one person relies on, with no clear responsibility. I would think that there would be some obstacles to that, where do you place structures. Who do they impact. MRS. PULVER-You'd almost have to set up a homeowners association just to maintain the driveways for the four houses. MR. YARMOWICH-No, because it's not the same as common space. It would be private property with a common easement going across it. It would not be a right-of-way. It would be an easement. (END OF FIRST DISK) 16 '--- --.-r MR. SCHACHNER-But with all due respect, I have to say that I think Mrs. Pulver has a very good point there, because the laws a regulations from the New York State Department of law, governing when you ~ave to establish, a .fO rma 1 h~meowners association have been changed, recently, and are still being lnterpreted, and I m lnvolved ln some projects, not in the Town of Queensbury, where things like common ownership of elements like driveways, trigger a whole new set of requirements that's pretty onerous to an applicant. I guess I'd like to reiterate mY request for a, and I apologize for this, but another quick break, so I can look at the law and try to evaluate this issue, and I'll just, I mean, I think I've got the Subdivision Reg's and the Zoning Ordinance right here, and I'll do that very quickly. MR. MARTIN-Okay, five minutes, then. BREAK MR. MARTIN-But that still leads us to the issue of your 40 foot of frontage, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, maybe, but I think we've got an alternative to suggest, and we don't have a drawing, obviously, but I'll try to describe it as best I can, and maybe Mr. Anthony will help me, because he's better with these than I am. I guess what we would propose for your consideration right now, conceptually, see what you think of this, is we have certain problems with the four person shared driveway. MR. MARTIN-I admit it has its drawbacks. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Well, we have certain legal problems with it, also, not only planning problems, but both, frankly, but what we would propose is consideration of two common driveways that are located much nearer each other, much nearer to the current proposed shared driveway for Lots 5 and 8, but what we woul d do is have the one driveway come in and serve Lots 8 and 9 together, and a driveway right immediately adjacent, or fairly close to that, serve 5 and 10, the benefit being that it would enter, obviously, that there would not be the entrance on Knox Road in the steeper area that's currently discussed for a a proposed shared 9 and 10, and it would enter Lot 10 up into this area and avoid some of the steeper slopes. MR. CARTIER-Don't you create an easement problem through there? You're going to have to have some easements through there. MR. SCHACHNER-I think the answer is, yes, there'll have to be some easements there. MR. CARTIER-The way I'm following your finger, it's going to change where you locate the structure on that lot. What I'm saying is, you're going to have to adjust, somehow, where you're going to put the houses. MR. ANTHONY-Yes, that's true. What we would have to do, and this is no big problem. I mean, we would have to get the driveway that's servicing Lots 8 and 9 to come up through this light green area and then come comfortably by a house site and septic site, and then go by onto Lot 9, and there would have to be an easement for Lot 9 to go across Lot 8. Similarly, under the current plan, we're working with easements on these shared driveways anyway. So, this is not a new idea. That would be a 40 foot frontage. Then in the next 40 foot frontage, we'd have a driveway come up, just a little bit slightly, right about there it would be, a driveway come up, service Lot 5, comfortably get by a house, stay off the steep slopes, and service Lot 10, and then 10 would have an easement over 5 to do that. That would eliminate the need for the driveway on Lots 9 and 10, here, but what we would also have to do is allow the geometry of these lots to stay the same so that Lot 9 had its theoretical 40 foot frontage on Knox Road, but you would write a condition that said Lots 9 and 10 could not access off of Knox Road. That would be a condition of the subdivision, a deed restriction, condition of the subdivision approval, or whatever. MR. CARTIER-Why not put a road in that serves those four lots, get the 50 foot right-of-way deeded to keep the Town happy, and then go with what Lee is suggesting, in terms of not paving the whole thing, then you get driveway access. That seems to free things up a lot more for them, and then you get rid of that 40 foot strip down to Knox Road. This is all thinking off the top of my head, here. Suppose you ran that road up along this property line, okay, and you're going to have to reconfigure this to get access off that road to here, but then that takes care of this problem. MR. SCHACHNER-For how many lots, all four? MR. CARTIER-The road will serve four. This, this, this, and this, too, actually. You could service this lot, too, and get rid of this. MR. ANTHONY-That's 50 foot of land, again, right-of-way. MRS. PULVER-I don't believe there's any benefit to that at all. I mean, if there was a real benefit, I would probably be in favor of it, but we're moving the houses around. We're creating a new stormwater management plan, more shared driveways. As the plan stands right now, there's nothing wrong with the stormwater design or the drainage design, and they've handled erosion control. Why do we want to tamper with it again? 17 -' MR. MARTIN-Because if I can reduce the clearing by 50 percent, I think that's weJJ worth the tampering. MRS. PULVER-Wel1, you can reduce it by reducing the slope, there, on the Jast driveway, but I think it's, it's not any reaJ benefit, that I can see, doing it that way. MR. WEST-Can I ask a question, Mr. Martin? MR. MARTIN-Yes, please. MR. WEST-I know the concept of a cuJ-de-sac has turned out to be a problem because the Highway Superintendent's, but is there any way that any kind of mini Joop can be put in, in Jieu of a cuJ-de-sac, that's on a radius that would become a Town road, and then give you a focaJ point, with onJy maybe two intersections to Knox Road, a focaJ point for the various driveways. I mean, wouJd that, I reaHze that may have some Town specification issues, but a substandard road has been. MRS. PULVER-I think that's probabJy it, and the appJicant hasn't asked for that either. MR. YARMOWICH- The concern with any right-of-way with a traveJ surface dedicated to the Town wouJd be deviation from Town standards, in terms of curvature slopes grading within the right-of-way. MR. WEST-WelJ, sJopes aren't going to be a problem up here because this is very fJat, up in this. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, they wilJ be, in terms of meeting the initial requirements for departures. When you Jeave a roadway, the first 100 feet can't be more than 3 percent sJope, okay. You can do that with a driveway or private road. Now, when you cut in that first 100 feet at no more than 3 percent slope, it's going to cut that road way down. The other probJem that you're dealing with is curvature, and for this particuJar type of street, you need a minimum of 300 foot radius. It wouJd be very difficult to configure a road within those Hmitations on grades, cuts, side sJopes, the requirement for drainage to meet Town standards, if it were to be a Town owned road. In addition to that, if it were to be a Town owned road and met the standards, you'd have a cuJ-de-sac at the end, and I think we've aJready been down that road. MR. WEST-I was trying to come up with a suggestion that wouJd avoid a cuJ-de-sac and. MR. YARMOWICH-WeJJ, the point I'm getting at is that there wouJd have to be, aJmost aJJ Town standards for road construction be waived by the Town, if it were a Town road. The l1keHhood of that, as Mr. NayJor has aJready toJd you, is zero, because he has to be the one to recommend acceptance of that road to the Town. The avenue that ought to be considered, if a common traveJ surface is to be pursued, wouJd be a private road, built to standards through a waiver that don't compJy with the Town, because Mr. NayJor's office won't have any objection to that approach. That wouJd be a private road buiH across multipJe property owners Jand. MR. CARTIER-But I thought private roads were not alJowed to be buiJt in the Town? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, private roads ~ be buiJt in the Town, each Jot must stilJ have frontage, and under the Subdivision ReguJations, they must be buiJt to Town standards. However, this Board has the authority to waive Subdivision ReguJations regarding road construction standards. MRS. PULVER-For onJy a private road. MR. YARMOWICH-Or pubHc roads. However, if it's to be a pubHc road, and this Board were to waive a standard, and Mr. NayJor find it to be unacceptab1e, you wouJd have a road which was not ever accepted by this Town, and then, therefore, you wou1d not have access. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-So, you have to avoid that, un1ess there's a c1ear understanding, and I think that understanding has aJready been met with Mr. Naylor. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Yes, so the route to go is a private road. MR. YARMOWICH-Correct. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-On behaJf of the app1icant, I guess I can say we're not wiJ1ing to consider, the appJicant is not wi11ing to consider any cu1-de-sac or horse shoe proposaJ for a number of reasons, but basicaJJy we want to stay on track, and frankJy, I don't think the app11cant's wining to go back to something that's so different from what's currentJy proposed, that wou1d be back to the conceptual Sketch Plan discussion. However, that's not to shut the door on the notion of shifting the proposed 9/10 driveway slightJy toward the other lots to get around that steeper area and staying with the current configuration of Jots. 18 "--- - MR. BREWER-What is the advantage of two driveways going in there? MR. CARTIER-Over one private road? MR. SCHACHNER-You mean, serving four lots? MR. CARTIER-Serving four lots. MR. SCHACHNER-We11, I think there are a number of, I thought we already heard a couple of practical considerations mentioned by some of the Staff folks, but I can ten you from the legal standpoint, it raises a different set of concerns, then just having the two people sharing, and I think Mr. Yarmowich mentioned, from his standpoint as we 11 , but from the legal standpoint, it definitely raises a number of issues, including possible need for a Zoning Board of Appeals variance, possible formation of a homeowners association, or some type of formal entity for cOllll1on maintenance of a four person, or four entity shared driveway, which two do not. Quite frankly, if we wanted to go through the formalities of homeowners association formation, that's the type of step that is typically accomplished and required if we went back to a 16 plus lot subdivision, with some type of common road going through, which is just the direction we don't want to go. However, as a I said, I want to make myself clear. I think that Mr. Martin raised an excellent comment, and I think what we've offered would accomplish the same goal, or close to the same goal, which I understand to be trying to avoid what's deemed to be the sensitive area that's currently proposed for access to Lots 9/10. We're sti1l comfortable with that, and again, if the Board feels that that's approvable and wants to approve that, obviously, we're comfortable with that. We're also comfortable considering shifting the proposed 9/10 common driveway closer to the other driveway to get around that steep area, but keeping the lot configurations the same. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. CARTIER-I think, Mr. Schachner, I'm speaking for me, here. It sounds like you're operating under severe restraints from your client, and I think what your client needs to recognize is that there is a considerable degree of discomfort with this design of some members of this Board. MR. SCHACHNER-I mentioned that to him. MR. CARTIER-Okay, and he may want to develop some degree of flexibility, because one of the other things that just pops into my head is we had talked about, you haven't, but the topic has come up, of a road coming in across Lot 3 along the plat, and up along the top of this thing. That could also be a private road situation. I'm just tossing that out as a possible flexible alternative. I understand there are problems with all of these scenarios, but lets get as many options out on the table as we can, here. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess we think we've done that, kind of at great length, through four Sketch Plan discussions, including the concept that you just mentioned. I mean, we've discussed that one and we've discussed an the rest of them, but frankly we hadn't discussed Mr. Martin's suggestion, and I think what we're proposing would keep both the spirit, would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Master Plan, with the spirit and intent of the subdivision regulations, and would accomplish the goal of getting over the hurdle of the discomfort that at least some members of the Board seem to have with the specific area that's currently proposed for access to 9 and 10. MR. MARTIN-An right, wen, I think we've heard about all the information that we can hope to retain. MR. BREWER-I would like to just ask Tom one question. Mr. MacElroy came up with some numbers in the beginning, and he brought the size of the developable land down to 16.48 acres Do you agree or disagree with that? MR. YARMOWICH-I would think that the evolution of his calculation is rationale. It is predicated on taking Lot One out of the picture entirely. So, consider that as a future subdivision. That's one of the points that Mr. MacElroy's analysis contained. So, setting those three and a half acres aside, there you can see where you're quickly getting the difference between 16 and change to 20 and change, that's a big part of it. In addition to the fact that Knox Road, if it's dedicated to the Town under the proposal, is going to reduce developable areas, yes. I think that Mr. MacElroy's conclusion of 16 for the area now occupied by Lots 2 through 10 is probably reasonable, recognizing that there may be, eventuany, three more on the other side of the road. It's perfectly entirely possible with the removal or relocation of existing structures, and the amount of access that's available, notwithstanding wetlands and other things, too, that he brought up. So, from that standpoint, I think it's valid. To look at the practical uses of that land, what's proposed is a little more appropriate, in terms of slope and the developable, usable areas, the desire to minimize cutting, to suggest that 16 is the maximum allowable limit for those areas 2 through 9 is probably in the correct vicinity. MR. MARTIN-An right. Is there any further cOllll1ent from the public? There being none, I'll close the public hearing. 19 -- - PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTI~-And now it's time to put up or shut up, here, in terms of what we're going to do with this, her~. We ve gotten all th~ information we can ever hope to have. We've heard from our Town Consulting Englneer. The next step ln the process, usuany, is the SEQRA, and I want some discussion, here, as to how comfortable everybody feels with going through that process. Given the information we have and the questions that have been answered or are still unanswered, do you feel comfortable with proceeding through that at this point, or do you want some more information to be provided on the plan. Do you have enough? What's everybody's feeling? MRS. PULVER-I can't imagine having any more information. MRS. TARANA-Regarding the SEQRA, or anything? MR. MARTIN-Wen, SEQRA, first of an. I think that's going to take care of a lot of it. Then, we ultimately have to come to disposition on this, and then everything. MR. CARTIER-Wen, if we go through SEQRA and then we vote on this proposal, are we saying to the applicant at final, go ahead with a plan that incorporates these changes that we've been talking about, in terms of moving the driveways of Lot 9 and 10, or are we acting on his plan? I guess the question I'm raising is, are we ready to do a SEQRA, given. I guess my answer is, not unless we're talking about changing this. Hopefully, the changes that we're talking about incorporating win address some of the concerns that might pop up in a SEQRA Review. I'm uncomfortable with pushing this to final, at this point, if we're talking about looking at a change in the design, because our attorney has said to us, make sure you've got all your ducks in a row by the time you get done with the Preliminary. MRS. PULVER-Why are you suggesting, Peter, that the appHcant change the design when, as the design is right now, it complies with all of Queensbury Town Codes? MR. CARTIER-I don't necessarily agree with that, okay. I have some problems with the concepts of flag lots. The Master Plan discourages flag lots. I have some serious problems with shared driveways. I think we're creating a nightmare for owners out there. So, I'm not sure that it does conform to what we are supposed to do when we consider applications. MR. MARTIN-And besides, whether it conforms or not, I still think, the reason why you have a Planning Board is to make those decisions between which designs are good and which ones are better. Several designs could conform to this Ordinance, but among those severals, there are going to be ones that are arguably better than others. So, that is the reason why we go through this process, to try and weed out what is the best design, and although, as Mr. Schachner pointed out at the last meeting, we're not supposed to sit here and ten him what we want, and then he just conforms. Maybe through denial we come about through that, but I know we've had an informal discussion, here. This has sort of acted more H ke a workshop, but I think that's been more positive than just shutting the door in the appHcant's face and saying, come back with whatever, but we don't Hke this. So, that's what I've been trying to work for, here, is some compromise in the spirit of working with the appHcant, rather than just slamming the door in his face on a particular design. MRS. PULVER-Wen, it's only.!!!l opinion that that's exactly what we've done is work with the appHcant to come up with a design that conforms with our Town's regulations, which is this design. MR. MARTIN-Well, that would be true if we had a unanimous vote from this Board at the conceptual stage, but that was not the case. So, there's clearly going to be some more struggling with the design that was coming out of Sketch Plan. MRS. PULVER-Well, didn't we have an approval of this at Sketch Plan? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. PULVER-This was the design the Board unanimously approved at Sketch Plan? MR. MARTIN-No, not unanimous. MRS. PULVER-I'm sorry, right. It was four to two. MR. CARTIER-But that doesn't automaticany predi spose an approval at PreHminary, simply because we approved a conceptual. MR. SCHACHNER-Could I make a comment? That most definitely is a correct statement that Mr. Cartier makes, in my opinion. That does not preordain this it must be approved at Preliminary. However, this is not our first appearance at PreHminary Stage, and I think that we've done everything that's, we the applicant and project team, been asked of us, in terms of addressing the concerns. One thing that I find a little unusual about this particular subdivision is that, clearly, there are philosophical differences which I don't think necessarily have to be or are going to be resolved, and more power 20 - to everyone's opinion on them, but as far as the actuaJ comments, especiaJJy from the pubJic, many of them reaJJy are technicaJ comments which we have addressed, and we have done so to the satisfaction of your technicaJ consuJtant. I don't think we're ever going to get to a situation where we necessariJy are aJl in unanimous agreement on some of the phiJosophies of AssembJy Point deveJopment, specificalJy, and maybe not even in generaJ on, for exampJe, fJag shaped Jots and other things. For exampJe, I see things in the Master PJan that seem to, in my mind, out weight the statement about flag shaped Jots, but that's just my opinion. Other people feeJ that other statements out-weigh that, and that's fine. MR. MARTIN-WeJJ, that's what I'm trying to work, with aJJ these opinions coming into pJay, here, what 1'm trying to strive for is a compromise, and aJso wiJJ mitigate, to the Jargest extent possibJe, environmentaJ concerns and so on, and that is why we're going through, I acknowJedge to be maybe unusual, tedious, time consuming designing of this, so to speak, with a major shift, such as moving that driveway over a few hundred feet and so on and so forth. The uJtimate end result wiJJ be that hopefuJJy the subdivision and the neighboring community will be best served. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. Understood. CouJd I ask a question. Mr. Cartier, I don't think I understood one of your previous comments. I take it you wouJd not be comfortable conducting a SEQRA Review unJess the applicant agrees to mitigate, in some of the fashions that we've discussed tonight. MR. CARTIER-What I'm saying is, I'm not sure what we're being asked to deal with tonight. Are we being asked to deaJ with this, or are we being asked to deaJ with a pJan that incorporates the changes we've discussed? That's alJ I'm referring to. MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess, from our standpoint, what we wouJd say is, we are wiJJing to offer and have you review tonight, for purposes of the State EnvironmentaJ QuaJity Review Act, if nothing eJse. If we couJd at Jeast get that accompJished~ the current Jot configuration pJan, if you wish, with reJocation of the proposed shared driveway of 9/10 closer to the other driveway. We submit you shouJd be abJe to do that easiJy, tonight, if you wish, especiaJJy because you've got your Town Engineer here, and because, frankJy, aJJ it's going to do is further minimize any potentiaJ environmental impacts. MR. CARTIER-Then we're doing it on the fJy, and I'm bothered by that. I think this needs to go through the process. If we're taJking about a revision of this pJan, then the revision has to go through the process. It's got to go through the PJanning Department. It's got to be a matter of the Town Engineer getting a chance to sit down and Jook at it, okay, and Jets not just design this tonight and kick this up to finaJ tonight. That's my personaJ opinion. MRS. PULVER-Lee, can I ask you a question. Can you just kind of direct me to the Master PJan, where there is any information on flag lots? MRS. YORK-I don't happen to have a Master PJan here with me. If you can give me your copy, I can probabJy find something. MR. MARTIN-AJl right. What's your feeJing, Corinne? Is it something that you feeJ comfortabJe? MRS. TARANA-I have some questions, maybe because I wasn't in on the first discussions about this. Maybe they've been answered, but I'd Jike to ask a coupJe. How many year round residents are on Knox Road? MR. MACELROY-Two. MRS. TARANA-There are just two? And where are they? MR. MACELROY-At the very beginning and at the very end. MRS. TARANA-So, when you go north on Knox Road and you pass the Number 10 Jot, and you keep going and you go onto a littJe dirt road, and you go over a stream, is that a residence over there? MR. MACELROY-There are three residences. MRS. TARANA-At the very end. MR. MACELROY-Mine and three neighbors. So, there's actuaJJy four. MRS. TARANA-Those are aJJ year round? MR. MACELROY-One of those is year round. MR. TARANA-I guess the probJem that I see, because I went out and drove that, and didn't teJJ anybody where I was. As I toJd Jim, I had visions of being stuck there untiJ spring, but it was very wet there, right in front of 10. There was aJready a Jot of runoff. It was muddy, with aJJ the vegetation. My concern was, I had to go down to your property to turn around. What if peopJe can't get up that driveway in the winter time, which is something which happens frequently in my neighborhood. They park their cars on the road because they don't have any pJace eJse to go. How wouJd he get to this property? 21 -- - MR. SCHACHNER-You're asking, what if somebody parks on Knox Road instead of going on their property. MRS. TARANA-Which I think, with the driveway as it is in Lot 10, could be a real true scenario in the winter time. MRS. PULVER-Well, is Knox Road a Town road? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-And so probably if they got a complaint they'd be towed away. They shouldn't be parking on the road. MR. SCHACHNER-They're also going to have a bit of a hike ahead of them, and I guess I'm hard pressed to think of somebody doing that. MRS. PULVER-I mean, it sounds silly, but that's actually what would happen is they would be towed away. MR. SCHACHNER-Let me say this, I'm reminded of Mr. Martin's previous comments. MR. MARTIN-I've made that walk, and I wish some members of this Board were with me when I've made it, and when I've been out there sanding it and pushing my car out of my 400 feet of mud and a11 that. MRS. TARANA-I guess to pursue my line of thought, probably what that owner would do would be to salt that driveway. MRS. PULVER-They would probably maintain their driveways the same way you would maintain yours. MRS. TARANA-So, then my question is, that salted driveway leads right into a very sharp drop off, right across Knox Road. What do you do with the salt that's running off that driveway? MR. MARTIN-Mark, a question has been posed. The individual owns a driveway, natura11y has to maintain it in the winter time, salt it and so on. I know, for me, for example, on my 400 feet of mine, I typically dump three to four hundred pounds per snow fall. MRS. PULVER-Do you have it paved? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. PULVER-A paved driveway, you probably wouldn't do that. MR. MARTIN-I don't know, ice storms or whatever, but that was the question that was posed. MR. SCHACHNER-In the context of a problem with, ecology wise, salt wise? MRS. TARANA-Right across the driveway, right across Knox Road it just drops right off, drains right toward the lake. I mean, it's obvious. You can see it. MR. SCHACHNER-I have not actua11y seen this in a residential context. I've seen it in a commercial subdivision context. I've actually seen that as a condition, believe it or not, of approval. MRS. PULVER-I was going to say, I suppose if the Planning Board requests that out at Glen Lake they use no fertilizers or anything if they're going to re-seed and plant because the fertilizer might go into the lake, I suppose you could request that these driveways, you don't use any salt because the possibility it may go into the lake. I don't see where it would be much different than asking them not to use fertilizers. MR. YARMOWICH-There's a likelihood that that'11 be dealt with by a new Town Ordinance, under the requirements of the Lake George Park Commission and the Stormwater Management Regulations. Any condition that this Planning Board may effect is going to have to be dealt with in a Town wide, or basin, Lake George Park Commission wide regulation that will address dispersable chemicals, their application for pesticides, de-icing agents. DR. COLLINS-And the use of porous pavement in any application possible. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the details of the plan have not been established. They are statutory requirement and this Town will be involved with that in the near future, or should be involved with that in the near future. MR. MARTIN-So, what you're saying is, through separate regulation, the introduction of salt into the Lake George Basin is going to be prohibited? 22 '-- -- MR. YARMOWICH-We11, it wi11 be contro11ed and reguJated and wilJ be managed with specific goaJs that this Town determines and the Lake George Park Commission agrees are desirabJe for the Jake. That is going to effect Mr. MacEJroy, these potentiaJ on subdivided lots as weJJ as everybody eJse in the Basin, from their personaJ use on their property as weJJ as the Town operations on the roads. I want to bring that up because it ties into your concern. It is an area that needs to be addressed and wilJ be addressed in the Lake George Park areas of the Town of Queensbury. MR. CARTIER-I'm reaching the point, I'll toss this out as a rhetorical question for thought for some other time, is are we designing a bunch of Jots out here that wi11 end up having so many restrictions and stipuJations on them that somebody's going to Jook at this Jot and say, I don't want to buy this, okay. I don't know the answer to that, but I'm beginning to wonder if that is not something that ought to get factored into whatever we consider, here. MR. SCHACHNER-We11, I guess I have two responses. One is, we, frankJy, on behaH of the appJicant, think that some of what's been discussed and some of what's been commented on probabJy does go a JittJe too far. We believe that the current proposaJ, and the Town Engineer seems to think, that the current proposaJ at Jeast compJies with the engineering aspects not only of the subdivision regulations themseJves, but of the comments, the very good articuJate comments that have previousJy been submitted. The Town Engineer's Jetter that's been submitted tonight so states. I share, Mr. Cartier, beJieve me, your frustration with the situation. We've obviousJy been, I think it was, four times through Sketch PJan review, and I think this is our third time on the PreJiminary. I may be wrong. It may onJy be our second, and each time certain new comments are made and certain new considerations are taken into account. I'm going to have to say again, in addition to never, necessarily, coming to agreement, phiJosophicaJJy, on some of the just generic pJanning issues, the odds are very strong that we're never going to get to a situation where the handfuJ of concerned neighbors are thri11ed with the proposed subdivi sion, and I don't think we can take thi s through a process that doesn I t ever end. I think you have to look to your, in addition to your reguJations, to your own Staff, to your own Engineer, and to yourseJves, obviousJy, to see if you feel we compJy with the reguJations. We feeJ it's appropriate to conduct a SEQRA Review on the current pJan and perhaps to take a vote on somebody's motion for a PreJiminary approvaJ or disapprovaJ. If we don't comply with the regulation in some fashion, then perhaps that's not appropriate. MR. CARTIER-So, are you asking us, then, to vote on what is before us tonight? MR. SCHACHNER-Wen, to be honest, we were hoping to get some formal action tonight, SEQRA Review, hopefu11y, as wen as perhaps PreJiminary plat. Now, if I'm not mistaken, we're missing two of the Planning Board members. That's unfortunate. ObviousJy, we'd Jike as many to participate as possibJe. I guess we're groping for options as we11 as you are. We might consider, if it's appropriate, voJuntarily offering, on behaJf of the appJicant, to tabJe this discussion, if we couJd deveJop a reasonabJe time frame for the steps that we hoped would occur tonight to occur in April, presumabJy at your reguJar meetings, but by the same token, I think the appJicant does not feel it appropriate to go through more rounds of, certainJy not of Sketch PJan discussion, nor of public hearing. We've had pubJic hearings now for three meetings, and that's fine, but I think it's been cJosed. We appreciate the fact that it's been closed. The suggestion was an exce11ent suggestion. I was being very serious when I said we wished it had been made sooner. I'm sure you wish you'd made it sooner. I mean, you weren't hoJding back on us. We understand that, but in the spirit of the Ordinance and in the spirit of good faith and working with the PJanning Board, I think if we couJd come up with a reasonabJe time frame, so that these things couJd occur during the month of April, which I beHeve just started, we might be wining to come back with what we wouJd consider a fairJy minor revision, which is what we taJked about, the change in the access for Lots 9 and 10. It wouJd not change the configuration of Jots, the Jot boundaries themseJves, okay, and hopefuJJy we couJd accompJish some things in that respect. MR. MARTIN-But in that spirit, and in fairness to you, and in fairness to everybody who's had just about enough of it for whatever reason, is I want to give a comprehensive, a11 incJusive Hst this time of what you're to Jook at or have to deaJ with or were to consider and next time, by God, that'JJ be it. MR. CARTIER-Are you talking in terms of tabling? MR. MARTIN-WeJl, he's aJready acknowledged he might accept that as Jong as we can get him on in ApriJ, again, I beJieve, is what you were saying. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, we'd consider that, as long as we had a reasonable ApriJ schedule. MR. MARTIN-And, again, I don't want to just have you come back for the sake of talk, here, I want to get this moving along, and it's nobody' s secret that I'm no fan of this des ign, and it's Jess of a secret as to what I'd Hke to see, but again, in the spirit of compromise, I would Hke to see that driveway shifted. I made some other notes here, filtered clearing, if the engineer has stated that he is buying into this concept of the reduction in the sJope, from 3 to 1 to 2 to 1, or whatever. MR. YARMOWICH-That may not be an important factor if the driveway is shifted. It wouJd be my advice to the PJanning Board to not waive that, if they can shift that driveway and sti11 come up with reasonable cJearing limits that you wouJd care for. 23 -- --- MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right, then that takes care of that. Deed restrictions that state Hmits of dearing, I would like to take advantage of a reference in the Ordinance, although it doesn't apply to this section of land necessarily, the memorandum of understanding to be reached with the Soil Conservation Service for tree dearing, things of that nature I'd Hke to see as mitigation measures built into this, and maybe we can, although it's not perfect as you say, philosophically, with everybody, from a compromise standpoint, it's something that we can, hopefully, all live with. MR. SCHACHNER-It sounds like a reasonable approach. MR. MARTIN-I reference Page 180-21, for your, in the Zoning Regulations, Mark, not in the Subdivision. That's why I say, it doesn't necessarily apply, but I do think it may be appropriate in this case, given the setting we're dealing in. MR. SCHACHNER-And it was a memorandum of understanding with the Soil Conservation Service with respect to clearing, I take it? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-For views or? MR. MARTIN-It's Supplementary Regulations that relate to ShoreHne and Wetland Regulation, and I'll read it to you. Cutting Plan, as an alternative to the above subsections a special cutting plan allowing greater cutting may be permitted by the Planning Board. An appHcation shall include a sketch of the lot, provide information of the topography of the land, existing vegetation, proposed cutting plan and proposed re-vegetation plan. The Planning Board also shall request Soil Conservation Service to review the plan and make recommendations according to the memorandum of understanding signed by both parties. Again, it's one of those things where I feel at a loss, as to what's a reasonable cutting plan, here, and so I will look to someone else who is an acknowledged expert, objectively, in the field. This is something you're being hit with for the first time. It's a point of discussion. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. It's not clear to me whether that refers to cutting for view purposes. MR. MARTIN-Well, no, what I'm saying is that Soil Conservation, given this particular setting of this property, and the intent of the applicant with their subdivision would know better than I would as to how to clear this property. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, I think the Soil Conservation's focus is not going to be on visual an aesthetic impact. It will be on the mechanics of soil protection, as opposed to maintenance of root systems and so forth. There are other groups that have clear guidelines in these matters, APA is one of them, but I think that you want to look to a group that can give you some guidelines and recommendations in a timely fashion, that'll be focused in on your intent. MRS. YORK-I want the Board to know. I was requested to call the APA and see about, if they had any regulations or any standard practices of how to go about filtering views and things like that. According to Jim HotaHng, they do not have anything standardized, but he was going to send me some information regarding just general practice. MR. SCHACHNER-Requested by whom? MRS. YORK-It was requested by the Board to have me look into it. MRS. PULVER-Not myself. It's the first I've ever heard of it. So, I was not one of the people that requested that. MR. MARTIN-I think it was done at the last meeting. MRS. YORK-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I guess maybe I'm misunderstanding, but my understanding is that the provlsl0n that we're talking about in the Zoning Ordinance is if you want to do a special cutting plan that allows greater cutting. MR. MARTIN-Right, with that not being the motivation, but I'm saying I want some guidance as to what trees up there should be saved, are there particular species or size that should be retained, height. MR. SCHACHNER-We can I t do it. We certainly can't do it in the month of April, because the amount of work necessary would be completely onerous, and I just don't think it's a reasonable request. MR. MARTIN-No, no, I'm not saying. Before final, this is an issue that I want to see addressed. 24 "--" '-../ MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. If we're talking about in the context of filtered views, we might be able to do that, and we might have a problem with that, if that's the context we're talking about. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, because that's way different than what this provision discusses. That's in the context of cutting in general for development purposes, for the purpose of filtered views. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Consult with the Soil Conservation Service for the purpose of filtered views, is essentially what you're saying. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's what I'm trying to get at, yes. MR. WEST-How can the Board make it's SEQRA proposal without a concrete proposal on the table? MR. SCHACHNER-First of all, I don't know how formal you want to stay, here. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The public hearing's been closed, but in the spirit of glvlng you an all inclusive list, here, like I was saying, these are the types of issues that I think we should be looking at. MR. CARTIER-At Prelim or Final? MR. MARTIN-Right. That has yet to be sorted out, but I just want to give him something to go on, here, before we come back here next time and just sit around with our hands in our pockets. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, which is what we all seek to avoid. MR. CARTIER-The question we need to answer is, what is it going to take to get this thing, what do we need to do to get this to the point where we we're voting at Preliminary on this thing. MR. MARTIN-Right, and be able to go through the SEQRA process. MR. CARTIER-Exactly, be able to go through SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-In just the reverse order. I agree, but could I just add one comment to what Mr. Martin was focusing on. We've dealt, and the LA Group have dealt with the filtered view issue in before, in the past, in different projects. What we would propose to you is we will write what we can a performance standard that win discuss how the filtered views will be achieved. I just want to make sure we're on the same wavelength. It win not be an actual survey of the actual trees on each lot saying, that tree stays, that tree goes. MR. MARTIN-No, I understand that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and I think that's all or perhaps as much as can reasonably be requested of us. MR. MARTIN-My next question on that is, what is the method of enforcement of something like that. Is it a deed restriction? Is it something on the plat, either or? MR. SCHACHNER-It could be any of the above. We've, I think, previously, suggested, on that issue, before I mentioned it in as much detail as I just did, I think we've said that that would be up to you, but that we would be comfortable with any of those means, and all of them, if you wish. MR. CARTIER-Which could be done at Final. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, we'd propose to supply you with that language for final plat approval. MR. MARTIN-That's pretty detailed language, I would imagine. MR. CARTIER-And would you assume that this filtered view thing he's going to submit would be enough to satisfy whatever questions we might have on the SEQRA Review? MR. MARTIN-I think there's a lot of issues that are tied together, here. The number of trees that remain are going to impact your stormwater runoff, and whether we get into this slope issue or not, to what degree. These are an going to tie together as to what kind of environmental impact results. Once we get that in a design, those reflected in your design, then we can do our SEQRA Review. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, except that you've already got, and you will have, again, our proposed stormwater management techniques, and you already have your Town Engineer saying, that's not going to create an adverse environmental impact, in terms of stormwater management, but I guess I don't see that there's any relevance to the filtering, the view filtering discussion relative to that. 25 ----- --- MR. MARTIN-We11, there's the aesthetic question. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I was saying, not relevant to the stormwater. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Mr. Cartier says, wi11 that be enough to answer the SEQRA questions about aesthetics. I submit, amply so, and what we wou1d propose, and what I've done in other projects in other municipalities is had one of the conditions of Preliminary p1at approva1 be fina1 plat approva1 will including something like language setting forth a performance standard for clearing to achieve fi1tered views as opposed to c1ear cutting, stuff like that. MR. MARTIN-And I think the consensus is, if we're going to go to a tabling, here, we'd want to see that driveway moved, right? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Serving Lots 9 and 10. MRS. PULVER-Well, I'm not necessarily in favor of that. MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess a 11 I can say is that we're wi 11 i ng to, we' 11 consent to tabling if we can come up with, as I said, a reasonab1e April schedule and we will, I can't, because we were just hit with that tonight, I can't stand here and say I'm sure it wi11 work, the moving of the driveway, but we wi11 try. In other words, if we see, at the design stage, that there's a major prob1em with it, then we're going to come back and te11 you that. MRS. PULVER-And I guess the reason why I can't fu11y approve that is because I'm not rea11y sure it's going to have any benefits whatsoever to move it, and so I wou1dn't want you to go through the troub1e to do it because I said so, and then have it come out that there real1y isn't any benefit to it. MR. SCHACHNER-And that's a possibi1ity. MR. BREWER-Can we get him in in April? MRS. YORK-You're talking in April? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. YORK-You have a meeting on the 29th at which I think a11 the same p1ayers wi11 be here, and our engineer is already invited to. MR. SCHACHNER-That's okay with us, if that's a good date for you a1l. Mrs. York makes a good point. Some of the same people will be here. Obviously, it's our expectation and we believe an understanding that we'11 have reached with the Board that we wi1l accomplish the formal steps of SEQRA Review and Preliminary p1at vote. MR. MARTIN-Right. I'm trying to get to a point where we get a11 the issues raised now, so they can be addressed at that meeting, and we can move forward. MR. CARTIER-It seems like maybe what we need here is a straw vote, as to whether we want to go with this plan or look at a revised plan that reflects discussion tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-And I already sense a problem, here, which is that we have two members not here who may feel, this project's been the victim of this before, and I don't mean on purpose. MR. MARTIN-We1l, yes, I think if several members that are here tonight can be convinced, I don't think you're going to have a problem, but again, I can't speak for them, but I don't think you'd have a prob1em for. MR. SCHACHNER-No. I meant I'd hate to see us come back with that revision made and have the two members that aren't here be vehement1y opposed to the proposed revision. That's what I meant, but we have none of us have any way of knowing the resu1t of that. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-And Mr. Cartier's point is we11 taken. MR. MARTIN-A11 right. Well, I think that's a good idea. A litt1e informal vote, here. Tim, what's your feeling on? 26 '-- - MR. BREWER-I'd like to see the revision. MR. CARTIER-I'd like to see the revision. MR. MARTIN-I would like to see it. Carol? MRS. PULVER-I'm not convinced it would work. If the applicant wants to take on doing another planned revision, then it's entirely up to him. I'll be glad to see it. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Corinne? MRS. TARANA-I'm not sure that it will work either, but my problem is any access onto Knox Road. I think it create a public safety hazard. MR. CARTIER-Yes. We are in no way committing ourselves to approving a revision. All we're saying here is we're willing to look at a revision. MR. BREWER-Would you prefer to look at a revision or this? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the word "prefer" is important. I appreciate that comment from Mr. Brewer. MR. MARTIN-I would prefer to see the revision. I suspect that it will be an improvement, in terms of the clearing required. MRS. TARANA-I'd like to see the reV1Slon, and even if you can think of anything more, now that you're thinking along those lines of doing something else with those driveways down at the other end. I don't know. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, in fairness, Mrs. Tarana, you obviously weren't around on this Board to participate in the Sketch Plan discussion, but we're not going to go back to the drawing board, to Square One, because we've already been through this a whole number of times. MRS. TARANA-No, I realize that, but I think in all honesty, I'd have to tell you up front that, after looking at it, I mean, I just, in good conscience, couldn't vote for something that so obviously doesn't seem right to me. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, unless you want to, I don't propose to debate that with you tonight. MRS. TARANA-No. I don't want to debate it. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, what are we looking for, a motion to table, here? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, before you make that motion, could we suggest that we submit those things by Friday the 10th? MRS. YORK-Friday the 10th? MR. MARTIN-For you to be all set by the 29th? MRS. YORK-Certainly. MR. CARTIER-What time? MRS. YORK-Two o'clock. MR. SCHACHNER-Fine. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, I want to make sure that he's fully understanding of as many concerns as we can get out there now. We've got the revised plan, the filtered view clearing as it relates to filtered views, the grading we really can't get into at this point. MRS. PULVER-Wait a minute. One question. Supposing this revised plan doesn't work? So, he has to have all this done on this plan as well, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think we have it all done on this plan. MRS. PULVER-I mean, but if he's talking about a site filtering. MR. SCHACHNER-No. I was going to jump up and say, we're really not proposing to do much more with the view filtering for the Preliminary Stage. 27 -- MR. MARTIN-I'm talking about, again, I should c1arify myse1f, here. I'm ta1king about, to get to fina1. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That we total1y understand and we agree, but Mrs. Pulver, I would reiterate Mr. Brewer's response. I agree with Mr. Brewer, and I said, I can't stand here and promise that it will be an improvement. If it's not, then we're going to stick with this p1an and, as Mr. Brewer says, we wou1d propose some sort of forma1 action on this p1an. MRS. PULVER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-That's agreed. A11 right. Then the app1icant accepts a tabling unti1 the Apri1 29th? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, sir. MR. MARTIN-Do we have a motion to that effect? MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1991 SUNSET HILL FARM, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Tab1ed with the agreement of the app1icant, unti1 the 29 Apri1 meeting to prepare reV1Slons as discussed, and that a submission date of Friday Apri1 10, 2 p.m. to the P1anning Office be met. Duly adopted this 1st day of Apri1, 1992, by the f01lowing vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Pulver, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Laurice1la On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 28