Loading...
1992-05-14 SP -- --- o ------ ~ENSIIJRY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SPECIAL MEETING MAY 14TH, 1992 INDEX Subdivision No. 13-86 Herald Square, Phase II 1. PRELIMINARY STAGE Subdivision No. 3-1992 Azure Park 6. PRELIMINARY STAGE Site Plan No. 5-92 Richard Schermerhorn, Jr. 9. Subdivision No. 5-1992 Sherman Pines 15. PRELIMINARY STAGE Subdivision No. 7-1992 Geneva Estates 39. PRELIMINARY STAGE Subdivision No. 6-1992 Debra Robinson Somerville 43. PRELIMINARY STAGE Freshwater Wetlands Permit FW2-92 Adirondack Girl Scout Council 46. 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 ŒETING SPECIAL ŒETING MAY 14TH, 1992 7:45 P.M. ŒMBERS PRESEIT JAMES MARTIN, CHAIRMAN PETER CARTIER TIMOTHY BREWER CORINNE TARANA ŒMBERS ABSEIT EDWARD LAPOINT CAROL PULVER JAMES LAURICELLA TOWN ENGlNEER-RIST-FROST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. CARTIER-I wasn't planning on being here. I notified Mr. Martin of that fact, because I had to go to Rochester and back today. When Mr. Martin called me, he apologized for having to call me, and I want this on the record, Mr. Martin owes no one on this Board an apology. If anything, there are people on this Board who owe Mr. Martin an apology for not notifying him that they would not be here tonight. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Okay. I will call the first regular meeting for the month of May of the Queensbury Planning Board to order. I should say, Special Meeting. Our regular meetings are for next week. OLD IIJSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I SR-2O HERALD S~. PHASE II (liNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI VANOOSEN I WZERfŒ ROADS PHASE II - 59 LOTS TAX IMP NO. 125-1-999 LOT SIZE: +83.13 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIV. REGULATIONS MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (7:45 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 13-86, Herald Square Phase II, May 7, 1992, Meeting Date: May 14, 1992 "The staff is attaching the previous notes since no new information has been submitted as of May 7. The outstanding issues were engineering in nature. Since no new plan has been provided to the engineer the former comments are attached", and I believe those have been read into the record at the last meeting. So, we don't have to go into that. MR. MARTIN-I just want to bring the Board up to date. I was contacted by an agent for the developer today. He requested a meeting at 3:30 in the Supervisor's Conference Room. I attended, and it was at that time that they presented this plan, and they would have had it to us earlier. Mr. Steves was on vacation for a substantial period of the time, and this just literally came off the press this afternoon, and that's why it wasn't received in advance by Staff or the Engineer. So, if you'll notice, the first loop, there, remains unchanged from what we had in our last packet, and the four road cuts along Herald Drive, from Lot 38 on through 45, that whole section has been revised. So, in the spirit of a workshop session, here, they wanted our comments on this, with the understanding that this has not been seen by any Staff or our Engineer, and we'll see where the discussion leads. Okay. I think everything's up to date. Is someone here from the applicant? MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Martin, members of the Board, I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little and O'Connor, and I'm here representing the developer, both the principals and the developers, who are here present tonight, Leon Steves, surveyor, and Tom Nace, who is doing the engineering. Basically, if you recall, the last time we met, we scheduled a special workshop meeting, which apparently got changed to tonight's meeting, which was a regular meeting, and after we had scheduled the workshop meeting, the public did leave, and I came back in and made a second presentation for, a little bit of an additional presentation to the Board, maybe to avoid the workshop meeting, if we could have, that night, obtained approval of the first, if you will, curvature, for the first section of lots and leave the other two sections as a Phase III. The Board, at that point, felt it unfair to the public to approve something after the public had left because there may be some improper, or some imprints that they do not want hanging out there, although the Board member, almost to a person, I think, didn't feel truly uncomfortable with approving the first section that we had, and in our discussions at that time, we asked Leon Steves whether or not he could assure the Board that approval of this section would not, in fact, prejudice the actual development of the other two sections, because somebody on the Soard 1 -....- ---- was asking him why we couldn't have a second entrance and maybe avoid some of the quickness of the curves, or the curvature of the curves that we had proposed in the first rendition that we had here. Leon, at that time, couldn't do that without some more work and review. There was quite a bit of engineering work that was done. There was actually a great deal of field check that was done, even while Leon was on vacation. They went back and verified everything that was on the prior map. You've got the same canoe, but you've got different people paddling, okay. You now have a different surveying fi rm. You' ve got di fferent presenters, and we want to be sure that what was presented to you was something we could back up. Basically, what we have done is we have gone out and we have verified that we can ask for approval of this section, here, and it will require a waiver for the curvature road, which is less than a 300 feet curvature required, and I put in a written request for that waiver, without prejudicing these lots here. We would like to do this, and we have separated this, and Tom has already asked the question why we didn't continue this all the way through, and basically we have not because the economics of the development are a little bit different. If you'll notice on the map that has been given to you, there are a great number of mobile homes that are along this section here. This will probably be a much down scaled sized house that would be developed in here, and we would physically like to separate them if we can, from this area in here, which will be a higher range pricing of housing, and if we have one continuous road through there, it would be rather difficult to distinguish the type neighborhoods that we're going to develop. If we included this next section in here, we really aren't going to change these configurations that much, because the front lots have already been sold off, so that we've got the entrance part. We're not talking, if you consider that this has already been approved, this curve to this point, and this curve to that point has already been approved, because the prior section approved this lot, that, 33, 34 and 36 and 37. What we're really talking about, for road purposes, is from here to here. Now, we admit that we have not passed this through all Staff, and that's what the brief conversation we were having with Tom outside was. We did try to get a copy to his office today, as soon as we got the news, but he was out of the office. So, his first chance to look at it, I think, was tonight. We did talk with Paul Naylor when he was here, and he has no problem with the new configuration. So, we would like to go forward, if we can. We would like to get the approval of this section, which is Lots 84 through 104, and call that Phase II, and we would then also like your comments as to what we have shown on the remainder, and if your comments are favorable, we will come back with the necessary engineering, to get the approvals that are required for that section. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, we still have then, in that first section, the problems with the radius on the road, there, but that is the best that it can be worked out, from your standpoint? MR. O'CONNOR-We believe it is. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and then on the new section, the revised section, that first curve there will require a waiver of the 300 foot radius, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it will, and the radius that we show here is 287. MR. MARTIN-Right. It had to be a little bit wider sweeping because, if you pulled it down any farther. MR. O'CONNOR-It would be off our property. MR. MARTIN-Right, and it would make the lots along the side, here, unusable, because it would pull the road down in too far. MR. O'CONNOR-Leon, do you want to address some of these comments. I'm not the best one to answer some of those comments, but that's what I've been told. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-What have you been told? MR. O'CONNOR-That you can't move this down through. MR. STEVES-That's right. MR. BREWER-Making the lots too small for development. MR. STEVES-We started the curve right at the end of the Lot 38, and brought it in the best we could to come down here without encroaching upon the adjacent property owner. So far, we have no lots there at all. MR. MARTIN-Right, and you did add an extra, I'm just trying to highlight all the points of the discussion tOday. MR. STEVES-By bringing the road through here, we've added about 1,000 feet of road, and three lots, and that was basically because of this large lot over here. There was a large unnumbered lot to the east side of the subdivision right here. 2 - - MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-There was a T lot there. It's not necessarily a flag lot. MR. BREWER-So, this road right here will come right out to VanDusen Road? MR. STEVES-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-Well, how does everybody feel about what you see there, in terms of, I guess we're looking at a two step process, here. Number One is, the first, I don't know whether you want to call it, Phase, here, to the left of your sheet, here, remains unchanged from the last submission. All the engineering and everything has been reviewed for that. So, what they're asking for is our Preliminary approval of that tonight, that piece, and then our comments on, I guess this concept of the remainder. Is that a fair characterization of? MR. STEVES-Well, we would like to go a little further than that, in that, on this section, we have proposed the configuration that the Board had wished us to demonstrate, this type of curvature and coming right out to VanDusen Road. If this is what the Board is agreeable to, we want to go ahead and get that right back in for approval. MR. CARTIER-Well, I guess my only comment would be, again, we're setting precedent. We're changing gears, here. If that section hasn't been through Staff Review, yet, and if we do that tonight, we can expect to be asked to do that a significant number of times, for an applicant to come in with a revision that hasn't gone through Staff, and we've been very resistant to do that. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that's why I wanted to characterize it as a concept that is now, if they get our okay of that, then it will go to Staff. It will go on to Staff. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that. MR. STEVES-Well, I hear what you're saying, Mr. Cartier, but what you're doing to us is you're pushing us back, and telling us that we have to re-invent the wheel, if you will. I mean, this has all been through the Board, and the approval process has been granted, and now we're backing up and going to Tom Yarmowich, creating an extra step for us that wasn't there before. MR. O'CONNOR-I think what we had before is we had concept approval of this whole layout, which is down here. We had concept approval. MR. CARTIER-I have no problem with your design, Mike. I think the design is much better. I think that's exactly what we're looking for. I'm uncomfortable when we start changing procedure unilaterally, here, and it's a difficult situation, because we don't have a full Board, here. MR. 0' CONNOR-My point might be that, and maybe you won't agree with me in final, but my point is that we aren't changing procedure, because we've had concept approval of this. We were in for Preliminary approval for it at last month's meeting. At that time, it was reviewed in total for Preliminary approval. The only thing that we really have done, here, is change the configuration of the road to what has been here for Preliminary approval, per your suggestion of Preliminary approval. It's a little different than if you came in with a brand new concept, looking for concept approval and preliminary approval all at one time, without you or Staff having seen anything from us before. MR. CARTIER-I'll buy that. MR. O'CONNOR-And we would acknowledge that we're at risk. If you do give us Preliminary approval of this, and Preliminary approval of that, and we come back and we're also going to ask you, I would ask you for your conditional approval, final approval, and I say conditional only because Tom has told us that there is a waiting period for the SEQRA, 10 days, well, from the time the, I don't know when the SEQRA was approved. MR. YARMOWICH-Is this going to be subject to any more SEQRA determinations? Normally, there's a 10 day period between. MR. BREWER-I don't think so, because it was given a Negative Dec, back in. MR. YARMOWICH-Then it won't occur. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, then I withdraw it. Aside from, this, if you do give us Preliminary approval on this, Mr. Cartier, I would understand that when we do the final engineering and do everything, it's at risk. If something develops than what we actual present in the final draft, in the final grading of this road that is not approvable, it's at our risk. MR. CARTIER-Okay. Let me understand what you're asking us, then. You're asking us for final on the first loop, final approval on the first loop? 3 '-- - MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARTIER-And Preliminary on the rest? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I don't have a problem with that. MR. BREWER-Can we split that up and do that, only certain lots? MR. CARTIER-I don't know. MR. MARTIN-I think we can. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you certainly can approve less than what is before you. The whole map was before you at last month's meeting for approval. MR. MARTIN-Well, I just want to make sure, now, Tim, you say the SEQRA has been done? MR. BREWER-It says in our notes that it was done. MR. CARTIER-Yes, 12/16/86. MR. MARTIN-Okay. The SEQRA on the whole subdivision was done. Okay. MR. CARTIER-The only question you'd have to ask yourself is, has this changed significantly, enough that we'd need to go back and do SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-No. I don't have a problem with that. MR. CARTIER-I don't have a problem with that, either. If anything, it's an improvement. MR. MARTIN-I think there is something to be said, they're creating two different characters, here. This first loop, here, is a continuation of an upper end type housing style, here, and then this other new section, they're smaller lot sizes adjacent to a trailer park. So, that's going to be of a different nature, and I don't have any problem with a breakdown like that. MR. BREWER-When they come back next month, then we'll have the size of these lots? MR. MARTIN-Well, they're on for Tuesday night already. MR. BREWER-For Final? MR. STEVES-Well, all of that's in the computer. So, they're all 25. MR. CARTIER-Are you saying that next Tuesday night you're going to come in for Final on this whole thing? MR. O'CONNOR-If we get the Staff Comments by that time. MR. CARTIER-Well, okay, then I go back to my original question. What's gained by giving you final tonight, if we're only four days away from Final, four working days away from Final? See, we're looking at an agenda that say Preliminary Stage, and for us to start changing gears and say, well, it's here for Prelim and we're going to give it Final tonight, we're only talking four working days difference. I hate to set precedent, because what's lost, as far as I'm concerned, far out-weighs what's gained, in terms of process, here. MR. O'CONNOR-I can't make a strong argument for four days. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. MR. BREWER-I misunderstood you, because I thought you were coming back the next week. MR. O'CONNOR-I didn't know we were coming back in four days, because I didn't think we were on the calendar. MR. MARTIN-Well, you're on for Tuesday evening. MR. O'CONNOR-But is Tom going to be able to review it in the four days? That's going to be a critical part we may have to get past on that calendar, although we may not want to get past. 4 .~ - MR. MARTIN-Well, I would have no problem, we have, also, another meeting a week from tonight. MR. BREWER-We could change the agenda and put you on a week from now. That would give him time to review it. MR. MARTIN-Well, Tom, give me a time, here, or a date. If it comes in, at what time can't you have enough time? MR. YARMOWICH-I guess I just wanted the Board to understand what it is that I'm looking at. Because of the time frame of original review, I pointed out some problems, conceptually, with regard to the 1986 Subdivision Regulations, and they had the impact, in terms of the roadway, which was something that I wanted the Board to understand they had to be comfortable with, as the proven Board. I have not had the opportunity, nor think it's appropriate, in this case, to look at detailed drainage calculations, sizing of drainage facilities and so forth, because they were generally covered under the previous SEQRA determination, and I was looking at compliance with geometric standards and lot sizes and things like that, in accordance with the Ordinance, not all the detail of every engineering principal in the design of this subdivision, nor do I think that it's appropriate to look at that again for anything that remains unresolved tonight. So, the amount of time that it'll take to review this is relatively short. What we'd be looking for is to make sure that the road geometry is clearly stated on the plans and that you have a subdivision plat, as opposed to a detailed subdivision design, because most of that was approved on the basis of conceptual engineering, or limited detailed engineering in 1986 and '87, and I don't care to revisit that, and I don't think that the Board should expect that of the applicant. MR. MARTIN-So, in layman's terms, it's not really a long term. MR. YARMOWICH-As long as I get it at least 48 hours before your meeting. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute, are you on for Tuesday? There are two meetings. Which are you on for? MR. MARTIN-He's on for Tuesday. MR. CARTIER-You're on for Tuesday? MR. NACE-Can we change that to Thursday? MR. MARTIN-Well, the only way that it couldn't be is if there were a public hearing involved, and I know we left this, well, scheduling of a public hearing, right? MR. CARTIER-Well, if you're on for Final Tuesday, right? Then there should not be a public hearing scheduled, because usually we're getting through Preliminary, the public hearing would be over. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes. I'm going to close the public hearing tonight. I'm going to get into that. MR. CARTIER-So, we shouldn't have a problem with that. What you have to do, do they have to do that in writing, request to be tabled to the following meeting? I don't have a problem with that. MR. STEVES-I hear you. That's a good point. We'll bring up a letter Tuesday night. MR. MARTIN-You don't even have to be here. Just bring in a letter to the Department. MR. CARTIER-So we have it by Tuesday. MR. O'CONNOR-Can we ask you tonight to table it until Thursday? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It might be good to put it in the record, and then we can. All right. Just to summarize, here, though, what we're looking at is granting Final approval on, Preliminary tonight, but Final a week from tonight. MRS. TARANA-I thought we were doing the Final on the first meeting? MR. MARTIN-Well, we were just saying that there was no advantage gained in doing that tonight and then doing the rest of it a week from tonight. We might as well, well, we can grant Preliminary tonight on the whole thing, and then Final would then be forthcoming next Thursday. MR. CARTIER-With a stipulation that Staff takes a look at this. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. CARTIER-And we're also looking at a waiver request from the 300 foot radius. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We can also do that as part of the motion, tonight. I'm just trying to summarize, here. 5 "--- --- MR. BREWER-Do you have a problem with this first curve being left as it is, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-It doesn't comply. I can't make a complete judgement, really, because there's no grading plan for the road. There's no road profiles in the design, and never was, and that was all things that happened before I looked at the project. I have to trust that the geometry and the layout that the engineer and the surveyor is offering is something that works within the Town guidelines. The process will be controlled during construction to meet the Town standards as best it can. We're looking strictly at geometry and plan, and Mr. Naylor has indicated he's so satisfied that this can be built, and something he'll maintain. MR. MARTIN-All right. The other thing, we could have some mitigation through signage and so on, right, speed zones? MR. YARMOWICH-You can't have a speed limit less than 30 miles an hour. You can post curve signs, but that's it, and they're not real good in this kind of a subdivision environment. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. So, we're all up to speed, there. The public hearing was left open. Is there anyone from the public here tonight for this applicant, for this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COIIENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-Okay. SEQRA has been taken care of in the prior submission. So, anymore discussion? Then I'll entertain a motion. IIJTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-86 HERALD S~ARE. PHASE II, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: With the following stipulations: Number One, that Staff receive copies of this new material for examination and provide information back to this Board on Tuesday May 19th. Secondly, that the waiver with regard to curve radiuses be granted, and, third, that the final application pending Tuesday May 19th, be changed to Thursday May 21st, and that the applicant submit that final material by Tuesday, 2 p.m., May 19th. Duly adopted this 14th day of May 1992, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-If we're making a motion to approve, how can we make a motion to table, too? MR. CARTIER-We're not tabling this tonight. We're changing their Final application from Tuesday to Thursday, okay. MR. BREWER-All right. AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella MR. MARTIN-And I still would feel better if you did give a letter to Lee as soon as possible, informing her of the tabling, okay. (8:11 p.m.) SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA AZURE PARK CllNER: H. RUSSELL HARRIS BE11ŒEN RAINBCIf TRAIL MID AZURE DRIVE FOR A 13 LOT SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. TAX IMP NO. 52-1-11 LOT SIZE: +18.54 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:11 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 3-1992, H. Russell Harris - Azure Park, May 7, 1992, Meeting Date: May 14, 1992 "The applicant has submitted subdivision plans for the Board's review. As these are intended as the final approval plans please retain these to the next meeting. The applicant had to re-notice the neighbors and address engineering concerns. The previous staff comments are attached for your review." MR. CARTIER-Tom, we have these from you before? MR. YARMOWICH-These May 11th comments? 6 '-'-' -- MR. CARTIER-No, April 16th? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. Those comments have been largely addressed, and to the extent the re-submission addressed them, the only outstanding comments are those on the May 11th letter. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, we didn't go into any of the comments before, because we ran into this snaffu with the public notice. So, you've got some remaining that are unaddressed? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, I do. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Lets just go through those. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 11, 1992 "We've reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: One, proposed well should be a minimum of 15 feet from property lines, in accordance with New York State Department of Health Rural Water Supply Guidelines. Two, the well and septic system on Lot 1 does not meet New York State Department of Health Separation Requirements. Three, in general, wells should not be located downslope of proposed or existing septic systems. When not otherwise practical, separation distances need to be increased. Refer to New York State Department of Health Rural Water Supply Guidelines. In particular, well locations for Lots 1, 2, 3, and 9 should be reevaluated. Four, both well and septic systems locations are not shown for all adjoining properties. Five, the proposed drainage easement across Lots 1 and 2 should be labeled with the widths specified." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Anyone here from the applicant? MR. NACE-My name is Tom Nace from Haanen Engineering. I guess really the only comments to address, at this point, are engineering, and I've been through the comments, looking specifically at particular lot layouts, and Comments 1, 2, and 3, I agree with and I have actually been through and revised drawings for my own satisfaction, that we can locate septic systems and wells which will comply with all the regulations. Basically, because of the general slope of the land, we needed some of the wells, we needed to separate septic systems by 200 feet, because they were down gradient, rather than standard 100 foot. So, I have done that. I am confident that we can show your engineer that there are adequate locations on the property for them. Comment Number Four, I have not shown all of the adjacent septic system locations, simply because at the time the surveyor were out picking up information, either ' weren't home, or it wasn't apparent where septic systems were. The ones that we could locate we did. The wells that were apparent we located. What I have done on my revised layout is get an Azure Drive where the adjacent lots are up grade. I've been able to locate the wells down the lots on our new lots, down away from Azure Drive farther. So that, even if somebody's septic system were close to Azure Drive, we'd have sufficient separation. So, we've picked up the best information available on the existing systems, and we'll try to make provisions that we can accommodate the worst case conditions on the septic system locations, and we will change the drawings to comply with Comment 5, so that this drainage easement is labeled and the width is shown. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Did we even open the public hearing? MR. BREWER-It was tabled the 21st. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It was probably opened. Yes, I remember we did accept comment that night. The public hearing, then, remains open. Is there anyone the public who wishes to address the Board regarding this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMEIT PUBLIC HEARING ClOSED MARTIN-And next on the list would be the SEQRA, but I want to make sure anybody doesn't have any concerns left unaddressed, here, before we get into that. MRS. TARANA-I'm wondering, does anybody know when water is proposed up there? MR. YARMOWICH-It is currently not in any formal Town plan. MRS. TARANA-Do we have water tests on wells? MR. MARTIN-I think what she's getting at is the proximity to the landfill. She probably has some concern about if there's any danger of contamination, or leachate. 7 "-"-' - MR. NACE-I don't know what tests. I'm sure the State has done a good bit of testing. I don't know first hand. I haven't reviewed their data, but from what I've seen in the papers, I've never seen any conclusive evidence that shows that there..:!..! groundwater contamination, and there are wells from houses adjacent, to the north of us, that are closer to the landfill. MRS. TARANA-I understand the people don't drink their water up there, their well water. I don't know if that's a fact. I wish there were somebody here from that neighborhood, but it's my understanding that they bring water i.!!.. They can't drink the water. MR. NACE-That may be on an individual, prerogative basis, but from what I understand the Health Department hasn't. MR. YARMOWICH-As far as I'm aware, there's no advisory regarding potable water consumption from groundwater sources in that vicinity. MR. NACE-I'm fairly sure, with all of the publicity about it, that the Health Department has done testing up there. MR. MARTIN-I think if it was of a wide sweeping serious nature like that, I think the Town would be notified. Tom would be aware of it. MRS. TARANA-The Town has received a study, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-I don't know that. I know that DEC is responsible for monitoring groundwater quality. The Department of Health is responsible for monitoring drinking water. There's a little difference there. DEC did a lot of work with regard to monitoring groundwater at the landfill, and to the best of my understanding, there was not excessive levels of contaminants in the groundwater to make it impaired groundwater. As far as the Department of Health, and looking at it from a potable water standpoint, I have no information on that, and to my knowledge, there is no advisory regarding consumption of that water. That's not conclusive, but that's the best available information. MRS. TARANA-I guess my concern is whether or not the landfill is going to be declared, the landfill to be closed, or whether it's going to be one of the. MR. MARTIN-It's already been scheduled for closing. MRS. TARANA-I thought that was still a question? MR. MARTIN-No. They've just gotten an extension on the closing, but it's to be closed, I think, within the year. MR. NACE-I think it's just the schedule that has changed. MR. MARTIN-It was due for last month, and I think they've been extended into the fall. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Yes. We were going to sell one last year, on the north side of Mud Pond. MRS. TARANA-So, our landfill is definitely scheduled to close? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of when. All right. MRS. TARANA-Are there 13 lots or 17 lots? MR. NACE-Thi, rteen I believe. What is it you're? MRS. TARANA-I've got a different map than you've got. How come I have 17 lots? MR. STEVES-This is the Tax Map showing the parcels around it. Cross hatched is the area of the subdivision. Just turn the page. MRS. TARANA-Okay. MR. MARTIN-All right. Lets try the SEQRA. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MDE RESOWTION NO. 3-1992, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: 8 "--' --- WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: a 13 Jot subdivision of land for single fany residences, to be know as AZURE PARK, and CNned by H. Russe]] Harris, bebH!en Rainbow Tran and Azure Drive, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. DulY adopted this 14th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'd like to enter into a discussion here. Is there anything left unresolved in the engineering, or have we got all the? Okay. MR. CARTIER-I think it's just a matter of addressing Tom's items at Final. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. NACE-I will have those changes to Tom for his review. The changes are 95 percent already done. MR. MARTIN-All right. Then we have a motion. IIJTION TO APPROVE PREll MIlIARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1992 AZURE PARK, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: For a 13 lot subdivision of land for single family residences, with the stipulation that the Engineering Comments of Rist-Frost's letter of May 11, 1992 be addressed, and that revisions be submitted 48 hours prior to the meeting. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella (8:28 p.m.) SITE PLAN NO. 5-92 TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR. ClØER: F. OSCAR SUNDBERG EAST SlOE OF IEAIXIIBRooK ROAD - + 900 n. NORTH OF CRONIN ROAD APARTMEIT C_l£X CONSISTING OF THREE IIJILDINGS - TOTAL OF 18 UNITS. TAX IMP NO. 46-2-9.4, 9.5 LOT SIZE: +19.54 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:28 p.m.) STAFF INPUT 9 ~ "---'" Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Site Plan No. 5-92, Richard Schermerhorn, Jr., May 9, 1992, Meeting Date: May 14, 1992 "The applicant has submitted new plans. The Board's resolution on this project must include a statement that the applicant must either pay recreation fees or dedicate land to the town per the Recreation Fee Law prior to any approvals becoming final. The applicant is requesting a conditional approval which would address recreation fees and floodway encroachment. The planting plan submitted appears to provide some screening from the road and the side properties. Signage and storage have been addressed. The Board discussed lighting with the applicant at the previous meeting. Also, the applicant discussed the facade of the structure and that no maintenance of automobiles or boat storage would be allowed. A review of the previous minutes indicates that some of the concerns to be discussed were: 1) buffering from the neighboring properties, 2) provisions for children who may be living in the complex, and 3) engineering concerns." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Tom, we have engineering notes? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 11, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. FEMA 100 year floodplain and floodway information does not appear on the grading and drainage plan. 2. Planning Board approval of this project, if considered at this time, must include the stipulation that the applicant satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with Queensbury Code 91-17 which regulates development in floodways. Because of the technical nature of analysis required to demonstrate compliance with Code Section 91-17, it is recommended that applicant information regarding this item be subject to engineering review." MR. MARTIN-Okay. We have someone from the applicant? MR. NACE-Tom Nace, for the record. The main comment regards the floodway analysis that's required because we're within the floodplain and the floodway of Halfway Brook. The actual floodway boundary that I haven't shown on here, runs approximately, Halfway Brook comes up here. This is north. Halfway Brook's about here. The actual floodway boundary runs somewhere about right through here. Now, I am working to try to get the information. In order to do the analysis as Tom has requested, it's necessary to get the FEMA data that they used to generate a determination of where that line is, and that information, right now, is tied up in some firm down in North Carolina that's reviewing it, spend more government money, for whatever reason, and I've run against a stone wall so far trying to get the information. I'm continuing to try, and I would ask that you go ahead and review the rest of the project, and if possible, approve it, contingent upon my being able to generate the information sufficient to satisfy your engineer. MR. MARTIN-So, that's all in regards to this first comment? MR. NACE-First and second comment, as to FEMA. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Tom, could you address Lee's comments, also, third paragraph, buffering, provisions for kids? MR. NACE-Yes. I thought that she had said that they had been addressed. What is it? MR. CARTIER-Third paragraph. MR. NACE- Third paragraph. Okay. Buffering, what we have done is we have kept the orientation we've had, but we have gone to a landscaping plan that will do a couple of things. It will provide some buffering along the borders from the adjacent neighbors. It'll also, we've relocated the dumpsters from up in here, where they originally were, back to the corners, and we've provided a T turn around, it would be their backing strip at the end of the parking lot, and we're providing some sizable trees to not only hid the dumpsters, but also to break up the visual impacts from Meadowbrook Road. MR. MARTIN-What are the size of those trees going to be, Tom, those larger ones? MR. NACE-The ones here are inch and a half caliper, and the two in the middle are two and a half inch ca 1 i per. MR. MARTIN-So, that would yield a height of approximately? MR. NACE-Two and a half inch caliper looks like about a 20 foot tree. MR. MARTIN-And that'll be that way from installation? MR. NACE-That's from installation. Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay, and what's the distance off the road, now, again, from the front of the building to the road side, approximately? 10 ""'"""' -- MR. NACE-It's 80 feet. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. CARTIER-Number Two, comments? MR. NACE-Provisions for chiJdren. We really don't have any specific play areas. The intent of the apartments is not necessarily for a large population of children. We're fairly near to other facilities in the Town they can go use. There are storage areas within the middle unit for storage of kids bikes and that kind of stuff, so they're not scattered all around, and it's really not out intent to try to provide a playground for the children that are there. We're close enough to Crandall Park and other facilities, that we don't feel that it's really necessary. MR. CARTIER-What's the speed limit on Meadowbrook? Does anybody know? MR. BREWER-Forty. MR. CARTIER-Forty miles an hour? MR. NACE-Does it change to 40 up north? MR. BREWER-It changes to 40. MR. NACE-I think somewhere maybe up across the bridge, but I'm not sure. MR. MARTIN-It's 55, way out by Hiland Park, but it's 40 in through there, I believe. MR. CARTIER-The reason I raise the question is, I apologize, because I haven't looked through the May 14th stuff. I wasn't planning on being here tonight. So, I'm up here cold. Is there a fence? What I'm concerned about is kids playing along that green strip right near the road. MR. NACE-Well, there's a ditch line. The ditch line, on this, doesn't show. There's a ditch line in there. So, that's really not a place where you can play. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. NACE-And the engineering concerns I think we've addressed. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll open the public hearing on this application. Is there anyone here from the public who wishes to address the Board regarding this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COIIEIT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-So, we can do a Short Form on this. RESOWTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 55-92, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: An apart.ent co.plex consisting of three buildings with a total of 18 units on the east side of lleadowbrook Road. to be operated by RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 11 '"-'" -........v 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella MR. W\RTIN-Okay. So, we just have the outstanding concerns regarding the floodplain and the floodway. How do we feel about a conditional approval, based on obtaining the proper permits? MR. CARTIER-Well, it's unfortunate there's only four of us sitting here tonight. Again, I'm bothered by, to me, that's a significant thing that needs to be addressed, and it seems to me that when we do give final approval, it should be just that. All the ducks need to have been put in a row, and so on. So, I hate sitting here saying this with four members, but I've got to say it anyway. I'm uncomfortable giving final approval tonight, on this thing. MR. W\RTIN-Okay. Tim, how do you feel about that? MR. BREWER-I feel about the same way, with conditions, I just was going to ask Tom, how long of a time frame you think it might take to get that? MR. NACE-The problem is, it's tied up. What happens is that that information is done by one engineering firm, gets sent to FEMA, FEMA sits on it for a year. They send it to another engineering firm for review of it. They sit on it for a year, then it comes back to FEW\, and then it finally goes to DEC, and then when it gets to DEC, we can get it. Now, there is an avenue by which I can get it, snab it somewhere along the way, but it takes the approval of this administrator at FEW\, and that administrator in the engineering firm where it's sent out for review. MR. W\RTIN-Can you get your building permit without that? MR. NACE-No, I cannot. So, I can't go any further unless I can show that this doesn't impact the floodplain, okay. MR. CARTIER-Let me try this. You can't go anywhere without that approval. So, what I'd like to suggest is maybe as soon as Mr. Nace does get that approval, maybe he could get on the next available agenda and we could waive some deadline submission for him. Would that take care of it? MR. NACE-Well, there's not going to be anything, really, for you to review. It's either going, he's going to say, yes, he agrees with it, or, no, he doesn't, and that's going to be it. MR. CARTIER-But he's an engineer. That's significant when he says yes or no. MR. NACE-I'm not going to go anywhere or do anything unless he says yes, regardless of whether you approve it tonight or not. MR. BREWER-If we approve this tonight, if when he gets that report and says no, you're dead in the water? MR. NACE-I'm done. MR. YARMOWICH-No. That's not true. If it turns out that this particular project has an impact on floodway or floodplain, that is not in compliance with the Queensbury Code, at the applicant's discretion, they can go back to FEMA and ask for a letter of map revision. The whole reason for the Town of Queensbury Code to require that no changes in the floodplain occur as a result of the development is to preserve the status of current flood insurance program. The Town is responsible for maintaining that program and making sure that no changes in the flood insurance, or the flood boundaries occur as a result of their approvals. If this applicant wants to get a letter of map revision from FEMA, if it turns out that the project is going to change it, which we don't know, if the applicant wants to do that, he's not dead. They can go ahead and do that. MR. NACE-So, there is another avenue. 12 --- --- MR. YARMOWICH-Right. It's not an appeal or anything like that. You have to go back, and it's another, enormous bureaucratic step, and what Tom is relating to you is, to the best of my knowledge, true, in terms of dealing with FEMA. MR. CARTIER-So, in other words, you are subject to another approval from FEMA? MR. NACE-No. I'm not subject to an approval from FEMA. See, the Town administers that on a local level. If I can show that. MR. MARTIN-You can't get a building permit without meeting that Code, this part of the Building Code in the Town? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. MARTIN-That's plain and simple. MR. NACE-Right. So, I can't go anywhere unless I meet that anyway. If I don't meet it, then I'm on a treadmill with the bureaucracy. If I can, it doesn't really mean anything to this Board. MR. CARTIER-I'll withdraw my objection, then. MR. MARTIN-I would agree with you, normally, on any other issue, but this is an issue of a unique nature that has it's own separate review process and approval process, and the Building Permit is very strictly in conformance with that, as far as I've ever known. MR. YARMOWICH-What will occur is if the technical analysis of floodway and floodplain indicate that there's going to be a negative impact, there would be no point in me reviewing it. The applicant will decide, at that point, whether they want to go forward with a letter of map revision, and it will change the floodplain map for Queensbury and allow the project to proceed. That's basically how it would go. MR. CARTIER-Well, when you say the Town administers this, who are we talking about, the Planning Department? MR. YARMOWICH-Mr. Hatin, the Codes Enforcement Officer, is responsible for the flood insurance program. MR. CARTIER-Building and Codes. Okay. MR. MARTIN-See, this, by its nature, kicks up a red flag, in terms of his building permit process. MR. CARTIER-Okay. I've got it. MR. MARTIN-All right. Do you have any questions on it, Corinne? MRS. TARANA-I don't have any questions. I still have a concern about the children, about safety for the children. I think about children having to go out to the school bus. They have to walk through a parking lot. They have to stand on that road, which, when we drove down it, you know how fast the cars go, and there's no place, whether it's children or senior citizens or anybody else, there's no place to just go out and be in a yard, type situation. I think that the use of that property is so dense that it doesn't afford any type of, really, any green area at all. MR. CARTIER-Where would kids wait for a school bus? They'd have to wait in the driveway, wouldn't they? MRS. TARANA-They'd have to wait on the road. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-The density is not in violation. There's a 19 acre parcel that's being used for the density in the front. There is a parcel of land. MR. BREWER-Yes, but, pretty much, it's unusable land. MRS. TARANA-I asked that question, last time, if there were any area in the back that could be used for any type of recreation. Someone should know. RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR. MR. SCHERMERHORN-There is several acres in the rear that is usable, because I've walked out there. Several acres in the back are usable, but a major portion of it is declared wetlands, way out in the back. There are woods and places for children to play, but as far as, regarding the school buses, I almost think the Town of Queensbury, the bus drivers, the school determines where they wait for the 13 - '- bus, because I know Regency, they an stand on that busy intersection. There'n be 15 or 20 of them in the morning, right there. So, I don't know if they request that they walk to the corner, or whether they pick them right up in the front, and I agree the speed limit is fast, and Mr. Piper, the deputy that lives next door, would like to reduce the speed limit, if possible. I'm an in favor of that. So, that is a concern of mine, too. MR. MARTIN-We can put in, as a recommendation to the Town Board, that they review this with the appropriate agency for the speed limit there, whether it be, it would be the County, wouldn't it, Tom, probab ly? MR. YARMOWICH-It's a Town Road, Meadowbrook. MR. MARTIN-Okay, then the Town. We could have the minutes of this meeting forwarded on to them, with our recommendation that the speed limit in that area be reviewed for consideration of being lowered. MR. NACE-In reality, as far as the safety of children waiting for a school bus, it's really no different than any place else in the Town. I drive into Potter Road every morning. The lots along Potter Road are half acre and bigger, and all the kids still wait right out on the edge of the pavement. MR. MARTIN-Well. those routes are all set by the school district. MRS. TARANA-Yes, but one of my concerns is they come out of the building and they walk straight through a parking lot to get to where they have to wait for the school bus. MR. STEVES-Their school bus, this is the first place that the bus would stop, because just below this is the Glens Falls School District, and all the kids walk to school. This is right on a school district line. MRS. TARANA-But say it stops anywhere, when they walk out the door. MR. STEVES-I hear you. All the kids there walk south now to school. MRS. TARANA-So, let me just get this clear. The last time I raised the question, where would children? Could they play in the back? Could anybody walk in the back, for recreation, I was told absolutely not, but now there is. Am I right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don't remember that comment that it wasn't useful. MR. YARMOWICH-What I reconect having been conveyed was that it could not be developed, because of the fact that it's a wetland. You can't fin back there. You can't put a playground back there, or anything like that. MRS. TARANA-No. I know you can't develop. That was not the question that was asked, I'm quite certain. MR. BREWER-Can you walk from the front to where it's dry, to where the kids can play? MR. SCHERMERHORN-There is several acres, as a matter of fact, the right side of the property, if you go back about 900 feet to my property line whiçh is all dry, I've walked it with the owner. MRS. TARANA-So, there's an area in the back of the apartments where children can just throw a ban and people can put chairs out? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. There's better areas. I know some are wet, but I know they're going to play in that, too, but that's further out. MRS. TARANA-That was not the message that was sent the last time. I'm satisfied with that. MR. NACE-I think that may have been my fault. I was thinking of a developed play area. MRS. TARANA-No. I knew that they couldn't develop it. MR. CARTIER-Kids will not be prohibited from going back there, will they? There will be no prohibitions about kids going back there? In other words, I want to get that on the record. I win be available to kids as an unorganized play area. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I believe, even if I was to put a fence up, to prohibit them, they're still going to go back there. MR. CARTIER-But you have no plans to put a fence up and prohibit them? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Not at the present time. 14 ~ ...-- MR. MARTIN-All right. Okay. I think that's a worthwhile comment, in terms of the speed limit in that area. If we're seeing higher densities there, it's zoned for higher density, I'd like to, in the context of a resolution approving, maybe, well, maybe not in that context, but at least these minutes of this meeting sent on to the Town Board for their consideration of looking at the speed limit in that area of the Town. MR. CARTIER-Could we not also require the applicant to make a request to the Town Board? MR. NACE-We can do that. We're going to be requesting a waiver of a recreation fee, in lieu of land dedication anyway. MR. MARTIN-Would that be all right? MR. CARTIER-What I'm saying is we do both, something from this Board and the applicant. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. I think that addresses, as best we can, those issues. So, I'll entertain a motion of disposition, here. IIJTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 55-92 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, JR., Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: For an apartment complex consisting of three buildings, for a total of 18 units, on the east side of Meadowbrook Road, to be developed by Richard Schermerhorn, Jr., with the following stipulations: Number One, the applicant must demonstrate to the Town Building and Code Department that the site plan is in conformance with Code Section 91-17, and require that the applicant submit a request to the Town Board for a reduction in the speed limit along that section of Meadowbrook Road. Duly adopted this 14th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella MR. CARTIER-Do you want a resolution or something, now, to the Town Board? How do you want to do that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I think a resolution/recommendation, or something of that nature might at least convey the. IIITION THAT THE PLANNING BMRD, AS A IfttOLE, SUBMIT THIS PORTION OF THE MIflJTES OF THIS MEETING TO THE TOWN BOARD, WITH THE RECOIIENDATION THAT THE TCIß( EXAMINE TIE SPEED LIMIT ISSUE ALONG MEADCIIBROOK ROAD AND GIVE CONSIDERATION TO LClŒRING THE SPEED LIMIT, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 14th day of April, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella (8:51 p.m.) ý\~'J, SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I SR-20 SHERIM PINES (JßIER: CHARLES DIEHL SOOTHSIDE OF SHERMAN AVEflJE 1,490 + FT. EAST OF WEST IlJUITAIN ROAD SUBDIVISION OF 83 RESIDEITIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 3 BEDROOII HOMES WITH COIIØI SEPTIC SYSTEMS ON 48.275 ACRES OF LAND IN ACCORDMCE WITH AFFORDABLE HooSING RE-ZONING. TAX MAP NO. 121-2-22.1 LOT SIZE: 48.275 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (8:51 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 5-1992, Charles Diehl - Sherman Pines Preliminary Stage, May 8, 1992, Meeting Date: May 14, 1992 "The subdivision is at the Preliminary Stage. The Town Board has already done the environmental review when the re-zoning on the property took place. The staff realized that a concern of the Board has been whether another EAF review is necessary because of the changes to the project. A request has been made to the attorney's office that the Board be provided with direction in this matter. The staff believes that a SEQRA review can be done because of the changes to the project. The review should focus on the impacts because of the changes. There are fewer units in the subdivision but the area of land consumed by the lots has expanded. The re-zoning file has been put in the box for the Board's review. The Board has requested at Sketch Plan that the septic tanks be on the individual lots but that the leach fields could be placed in the common area. 15 "'-'- --- Limits of clearing have been established which wiH aHow for the placements of roads, septics, and 83 housing units. The applicant is required to meet the criteria set forth by the Town Board during the re-zoning process. Burch Road, which attaches to Luzerne Road, extends partially into this development. The Board may want to consider extension of this to the proposed Casey Road per Section 183-23F. The Highway Superintendent has indicated that the Burch Road neighbors are not in favor of this and that he will accept a turn around, which the developer will provide. The developer previously discussed development of the infrastructure at one time, however, since then the project has changed, the construction of the development is required to be phased. The Board should have an indication of the phases and time tables." MR. CARTIER-We also have a letter dated May 7, 1992, from Dave Hatin, Director of Building and Code Enforcement, "Dear Board Members: I have reviewed the preliminary stage submission for Sherman Pines and find that they stiH have a number of single family dweHings attached to a cOlllOOn leach field. It was my understanding at sketch plan approval and in talking to Wilson Mathias that every single family dwelling would be on its own septic system and leach field. This does not seem to be the case in the drawings that I have looked at for submission to you. I would stiH suggest that the Board seriously consider individual septic systems including septic tank and leach field for each dwelling unit otherwise the problem that I outlined in my earlier letter to you regarding a failure of the septic system will result in three units being affected. Perhaps if the lot sizes for a subdivision were increased to allow the installation of individual septic systems in the front yards this would eliminate the need for common systems between single family units and not drastically effect the common space for the subdivision. Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me." MR. MARTIN-Okay, and, Tom, you have engineering comments? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 12, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the foHowing engineering comments: 1. Because some subsurface sewage disposal absorption beds are proposed within 100 feet of the subdivision boundary the existence of any adjoining weHs needs to be addressed (AI83-9A). 2. Lots opposite tee intersections should be configured as nearly as possible to have property lines directly across from the intersection to minimize nuisances to residents from vehicle headlights. 3. To the extent possible fire hydrants and drywells should be located to coincide with lot property corners to minimize potential conflicts with driveways. 4. Road profiles should also be labelled with street names. Road profiles should indicate pavement centerline elevations at minimum 100 foot stations, and at all low and high points, and points of vertical tangency. Profiles should also show water mains and drywells. Profiles do not conform to the scale requirements of subdivision regulations (AI83-9C). 5. The intersection of Taylor Drive with Sherman Avenue should be a right angle (90 0). 6. Tee intersections at both Nicholas Lane/Casey Court intersections do not have minimum 100 foot tangent lengths in every direction from the center of the intersection (AI83-23B). 7. No landscaping plan other than an entrance sign detail is offered (AI83-9D). 8. Limits of existing vegetation and type should be indicated (AI83-9E). 9. Grading plan contours should be reevaluated in the following areas to provide continuity between existing and proposed contours: - Elevation 438 contours west of Taylor Drive in the vicinity of station 17+70 to 18+60. - Elevation 436 contour north and south of Taylor Drive in the vicinity of station 21+50 to 25+00. - Elevation 436 contour north and south of the Casey Court/Nicholas Lane intersection at Casey Court 14+00. Elevation 434 contour southwest of Casey Court in the vicinity of station 16+40 to 17+30. - Elevation 446 contour north and south of Nicholas Lane in the vicinity of station 15+25 to 17+80. - Elevation 436 contour south of Casey Court in the vicinity of station 24+70 to 25+20. - Elevation 434 contour north of Casey Court in the vicinity of station 21+20. 10. Subdivision phasing is not indicated (AI83-36). 11. A sediment control plan should address soil drag-out at construction entrances and runoff protection at the Casey Court/Sherman Avenue intersection (AI83-26). 12. The total cleared area resulting from this project is probably understated in the LEAF. The estimated total cleared area is likely to be in the vicinity of 24 acres based upon 50' wide cleared road right-of-way, 83 lots at maximum 60% cleared area (per proposed declarations of the Sherman Pines Homeowners Association), and a typical allowance for septic system components in common areas. 13. Burch Road abuts this subdivision to the south. Provisions for road continuance and an intersection with the Sherman Pines roadway system should be considered. This could include right-of-way without road construction to allow a future connector link (AI83-23F). If connection with Burch Road is contemplated then Casey Court geometry should be redeveloped to provide an intersection of Casey Court/Burch Road with proper tangent geometry, right-of-way corner geometry and layout of lots lines opposite the intersection. 14. Regarding drainage and stormwater management: a. The basic drainage and SWM concept proposed is acceptable and well suited for identified site characteristics and the goal of "affordable" development. b. Because unconsidered areas of both residentiaHy developed and undeveloped lands may drain naturaHy into parts of the roadway system adequate infiltration/storage capacity should be provided to eliminate any significant ponding from aH drainage to roadways for a 10 year storm. SWM should address aH increases for 50 year return interval storm events. The analysis should be accompanied by a drainage area map. c. Percolation tests conducted in a 12"x12"x6" deep excavation (standard perc test hole) provide three square feet of infiltrative area. Drywell design should account for this. d. Drywell details should include footings for drywells located in traffic areas. Rectangular or square grates that function properly with a wing swale roadway section should be used. Stone around the drywell should be wrapped in a geotextile fabric or filter cloth to prevent 16 '-'- --- sand from migrating into the stone. 15. Regarding the water system 1ayout: a. Provisions for interconnecting the Burch Road water main at Casey Court shou1d be provided. b. Water main a1ignment at a11 intersections throughout the subdivision shou1d be uniform based upon the 1ayout indicated at the Casey Court/Nich01as Lane intersection in the vicinity of Casey Court and station 14+00. 16. Regarding sewage disposa1 systems: a. It shou1d be c1arified how site conditions, c1earing areas, and access provisions re1ate to Homeowners Association responsibi1ities for sewage disposa1 system maintenance. b. The typica1 absorption bed detai1 shou1d indicate so1id (unperforated) pipe from the distribution box to the 1atera1s and between the 1atera1 ends. c. NYSDEC design standards app1icab1e to mu1i-home subsurface sewage disposa1 recommends dosing for absorption beds. d. Absorption bed designs shou1d be based upon the perc rate specified for amended soi1s systems in NYSDEC standards and as indicated on the typica1 section through absorption bed as shown on the p1ans. e. Residentia1 subdivisions of more than 49 10ts uti1izing on-site sewage disposa1 require a NYSDOH variance from 10NYCRR 74.4(a)." MR. CARTIER-Okay. We a1so have a memo dated May 12, 1992, from Pau1 Dusek, Town Attorney, "With regard to your question concerning the app1ication of the SEQRA process to the Sherman Pines subdivision, I wou1d agree that a SEQRA Review cou1d be done by the P1anning Board on new matters which have resu1ted as a resu1t of a change in the project. To some extent, since the Town Board was the Lead Agency and a joint SEQRA Review was conducted ear1ier, the P1anning Board wou1d be 1imited in this new review. The exact detai1s of what cou1d be reviewed wou1d have to be determined on what new information or change of circumstances exists that were not considered before. I trust that the foregoing wi11 be of assistance in the P1anning Board's review in this matter." MR. MARTIN-Okay. We11, anyone here from the app1icant? MR. MATHIAS-My name is Wi1son Mathias, the attorney for Mr. Dieh1. I have offices at 525 Bay Road in Queensbury. A1so here tonight is Dick Morse, who's a principa1 in Morse Engineering, the engineer for the project. I think what I'd 1ike to do is, basica11y, give a quick overview of what we have, in terms of, I know you f01ks are very fami1iar with it, but anyone here for purposes of a pub1ic hearing isn't. MR. MARTIN-I think that wou1d be appropriate. MR. MATHIAS-And then what I think I'd 1ike to do is ask Dick to address the technica1, engineering comments. This is approximate1y 48 acres of 1and 10cated on the souther1y side of Sherman Avenue. This past December the Town of Queensbury re-zoned this property. It had been Sing1e Fami1y One Acre. It was re-zoned with some conditions for Affordab1e Housing and 100 residentia1 units were authorized at this site. At the time, the Town did the re-zoning and went through a SEQRA process, taking a 100k at what impacts this project wou1d have on the environment, and made a determination that there were no significant environmenta1 impacts. The next step, rea11y, we went before the P1anning Board with a variety of p1ans. We went to severa1 meetings with the P1anning Board and the Town Board, and fina11y res01ved on a c1uster deve10pment that you see before you right now. What is being proposed is 83 individua1 and sing1e fami1y homes on rough1y 10,000 square foot 10ts. In addition, the common area, a11 of which is designated here in the very dark green, wi11 be owned by a homeowners association. A11 of the 10t owners wi11 automatica11y become a member of the homeowners association. There is a prohibition of any type of bui1ding construction or any type of improvement to any of the common area. We are proposing a system of 83 three bedroom houses. There's specific prohibition that wi11 1imit anyone from bui1ding more than a three bedroom house. That's for severa1 reasons. One, in terms of mitigating any impact that this project has on the aquifer, and a1so in terms of providing basica11y a chance for a resa1e from one of these things, one of these units, the opportunity for it to be an affordab1e house as we11. MR. CARTIER-Can I interrupt you right there for a second, and this wou1d not be subject to variance. This wou1d be a deed restriction, correct? MR. MATHIAS-It's in the covenants and restrictions, three bedrooms, that's it. What we've proposed to do, we've notified the Bui1ding Department, here, so that someone cou1dn't get a bui1ding permit to construct an additiona1 bedroom. The homeowners association or any homeowner have a right to go after them and say, you can't do that. That's specifica11y in the deed restrictions. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MATHIAS-Just, again, to kind of step back a Htt1e bit. When the deve10per was ab1e to obtain the re-zoning from the Town, which a110wed him to obtain this increase in density, in other words, to get more units on this property than had been origina11y, we11, it was zoned the 1ast time. Actua11y, there's no more units proposed here than what was permitted in the Ordinance before the one we're 1iving with right now. I think it was an MR-5. I think we were a110wed a 10t because of the p1ace next door. In any case, it was a one acre zoning before the change in the Ordinance. In order for the deve10per to be given an increased number of units, he had to agree to certain things, and that's spe11ed out in the covenants and restrictions which are fi1ed in the Warren County C1erk's Office and which kind of cover everything. The most significant part of those covenants and restrictions, one was that you cou1d never have any more than 100 sing1e fami1y and we're significant1y 1ess than that, and, two, impose, basica11y, an initia1 bonafide sa1e cap on the sa1e of a house on these units, 1imited to 100 17 '-V - percent of the mean family income within Queensbury. The figures that we get for that are somewhere around $36,200 is the number, which basically makes us feel that the housing prices here for 50 percent of the units are going to be somewhere between $79 and $84,000. In talking with Mr. Diehl, he tossed out a figure of $83,000. That would include a house, garage, basement, lot, etc. So, that's what half of those units will be sold for, and we can't sell them for anymore. The remaining half, we are permitted under the re-zoning resolution, to sell at a price of 120 percent of the median family income. So, that some of the units can be 120 percent times that, to raise the figure a little bit, but we're really talking about affordable housing. The $83,000, in one sense, seems like a lot of money. In another, there are very few places in Queensbury that you can get a brand new house in a nice section of Town that's wooded for those kinds of dollars. I think the main feature here, and we think a pretty good one, is that there's a 200 foot buffer along the southerly side of Sherman Avenue. Those trees and everythi ng else in there won't be cut, other than the two roadways. We'd i nterna li ze the roads. We've got roofing for the water system, and I think that there are also covenants and restrictions within the homeowners association documents. In other words, someone buying one of these units, in addition to the initial cost constraints, will, as I told Mr. Cartier, be required to build no more than a three bedroom house. They're not permitted to clear cut any of the lots. We'd limit the cutting to no more than 60 percent of the lots, of each individual lot, and the other thing is we've provided for, within the covenants and restrictions, a requirement that if any of the leachfields, the common leachfields that we're proposing, if they have to be replaced, then the new one's obviously installed, but the homeowners association is required to re-forest where the leachfields were, so that it's, in one sense, although the engineers think we may have understated how much clearing's going on, when you think we're going to have to be replacing any septic or any leachfield area that is covered, I'm not sure that we've stretched the figures. When you look at the map, I mean, you can see, we're talking about keeping this area. We're certainly talking about keeping it unobtrusive, in terms of anybody driving along Sherman Avenue. I think those are really the main points that I want to hit. The one comment that I would make, that maybe is somewhat engineering in nature, but I'm going to get into it anyway, has to do with the question of why we aren't going to DOH for a variance in connection with our, because we exceed 49 lots, and as I understand the rules of this, when common systems for sewage disposal are used, the DOH variance procedure is not required, if one gets a permit from DEC, and that's what we are proposing to do. That's basically why we have proposed the common leachfields. What we've done, really in response to the Planning Board and also to Dave Hatin's initial comments, is we've made sure that the septic tank itself will be on the individual owner's lot. Everyone of those is going to have their own tank there. If there's a problem with it, the homeowner's got to take care of it. I mean, the individual lot owner's going to have to take care of it. It's my understanding that when you have problems with septics or with sewage disposal, I guess, that the bulk of those problems occur at the septic tank level, as opposed to the leachfield level. MR. CARTIER-I think "bulk" is the operative word in there. MR. MATHIAS-Let me just say one other thing. Also one of the reasons we're going this route is, this is affordable housing, and it's a cost saving attempt to save some costs, as well. MR. YARMOWICH-I think that's an important observation that if the homeowner's association is going to hold a SPDES Permit, which they're going to be collectively responsible for, it will be looked at as one system by DEC. That would eliminate, and correctly stated by the applicant, the need for a variance. The question that I had was with regard to the septic tanks. Typically, well, I guess, do you have reaction from DEC about the private ownership of the septic tanks and where does that step in, and when do you anticipate getting this through DEC, I guess, is the question. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I know that we've had ongoing discussions, really, from the onset, here, in terms of where we are, but I think, at this point, I'll let Dick respond to that and the other engineering comments. MR. CARTIER-Let me toss a comment in. I thought when we walked away from this the last time it was pretty much this Board's understanding that we would, in fact, see individual septic systems. Correct me if I'm wrong. It sounds like we're now looking back at the original idea and the purpose being to avoid a permitting agency from having to get involved. Is that an accurate description of? MR. MATHIAS-And economy. Now, the septic systems are individual. There's going to be a common leachfield. MR. CARTIER-Well, leachfields also create problems. I haven't had problems with my tank. I've had problems with my leachfield. That's what I've replaced. MR. LAPOINT-You have a common leachfield area, but individual levels? MR. CARTIER-Tank. MR. YARMOWICH-Septic tank. MR. MARTIN-Individual tanks. MR. LAPOINT-The laterals are individual to each homeowner, correct? 18 ""-'-' --- DICK MORSE MR. MORSE-No. My name is Dick Morse. I'm with Morse Engineering here in Queensbury. We looked at several options here, and Jack Huntington was here the last time this issue came up. We have continued along this vein, Number One because of the economy is a major factor. These are leach beds with amended soils. This is approvable by both DOH and DEC. We've had communications with them, and if the reaction from the audience is correct, that while septic tanks usually don't give us a lot of problems, that ..1.!, however, where the problem is generated that causes the leachfield to fail. It's usually a carry over from the septic tank, and I think most everybody would agree with that. Something happens when the septic tank is not pumped out, or there's too much grease in it, that carries over, gets into the the leach bed in this area. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but then you've got to go in and you've got to fix the leachfield. MR. MORSE-That is correct, if the leachfield fails, but in this case, with individual septic tanks, it's a traceable problem. I think that's important. MR. CARTIER-I don't understand that. If you've got more than one septic tank hooked into a leachfield. MR. MORSE-Right. I can go look into septic tanks and tell who basically hasn't had it pumped out, but cleaning out of the septic tank is going to be a homeowner's responsibility. MR. CARTIER-But who fixes the leachfield? Does the guilty party, is the guilty party responsible for fixing it? Do you pro rate it or what? MR. MATHIAS-No, no. Somewhere in that document that's like this, the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, does provide that, if the problem can be traceable to somebody, that it would be their responsibility to bear the cost of replacing the leachfield systems. If there's a failure that can't be traced to someone, it's a homeowners association responsibility. MR. CARTIER-I think you're solving one problem, but creating another problem that's even worse. That's what it sounds like to me. If I were in on one of these deals, and if it were ~ septic system that failed, I would certainly be willing to pay for my share of replacing that leachfield, but the other two people on that leachfield would be getting a free ride on my repair, and lets face it, there's still going to be some contributory effect of a non failing septic system to those leachfields. Leachfields are not good in perpituity. They eventually fail and must be replaced. MR. MATHIAS-Right, and as part of the contribution every lot owner makes to the homeowners association, there's monies collected to be able to do that. The problem that I see is, yes, it would be great to have everybody gets their own, lets make the lot bigger and put everything on its own system. Well, we can't do that and comply with the re-zoning. MR. CARTIER-No. That's not what we were talking about the last time. What we were talking about is not having the thing self contained on the lot, but everybody be on a separate leachfield out into this common area, rather than a common leachfield. That was my understanding of the direction we were going. MR. MATHIAS-I think that, as I understand it, the problem with that, from our standpoint, is that that begins to press DEC to a position of saying, wait a minute, you don't have a common system. MR. YARMOWICH- That would not necessarily constitute a community system, under the DEC. I mean, you have one house, one user, one disposal system. Though it may not be owned by the homeowner, it's still an individual system. It creates a problem for them. MR. MARTIN-Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't sizings of leachfields determined by number of bedrooms and number of people using it? MR. YARMOWICH-As are septic tanks. MR. MARTIN-So, how is their an economy of saving if there is nine bedrooms and one leachfield, then there has to be some many linear feet of pipe, correct? MR. YARMOWICH-These are amended soil systems, where you go in and you take out a bunch of soil because it's very fast perced, and you've got to either blend or import, and in addition to what you replace, or in addition to what's directly beneath the leachfield, you have to go out five feet in every direction. Well, when you add that five foot peripheral area onto three individual systems, and then multiply that 33 times or 30 times, or however many it takes to go through subdivision, it's a very large quantity of material work, more clearing. So, there's some negative effects economically, as well as environmentally. MR. BREWER-You're saying to put those fields in, you have to go five feet each side? 19 -" '-'" MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, outside of the trenches. You've got to modify the soils around it, too, not only below. but also around. MR. MARTIN-But still, though, my question was, you still need the same amount of pipe. MR. YARMOWICH-No. It's actually a little bit less in total material, because lateral lengths and ends and things like that, and when you start multiplying it 80 times, it's a significant overall amount. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. MORSE-The area is the same. The square foot is no different, whether we had individuals, or they're all in one. Now, they're not all in one, we've got them in clusters of three or less, I believe. MR. MARTIN-Well, I'll be more specific with my question, then. You must have done this calculation. What is the presumed effect on the cost of a home, if you were to go individual systems? MR. MORSE-The presumed effect is that we don't have each one cleared in an individual area, and we are using multiple sewers to get them. It runs out, and we have three people going in with the same sewer, after it leaves. MR. MARTIN-Right. I understand, but by question was, on one of these that has the shared system, the cost is $83,000. What is the cost if it has an individual system? MR. MORSE-I don't have that with me. We can generate a number for you. MR. MATHIAS-The problem with generating a number for it is if we do that, we've got to wait until a very, very long time period for the Department of Health to give us a variance, and that's. MR. CARTIER-So that's, essentially, what you're trying to avoid, here, is a time frame to get through the Department of Health permitting. MR. MATHIAS-They may say no. MR. CARTIER-Well, it might be appropriate for them to say no. MR. YARMOWICH-Let me offer something. The concern, as I understand it, from the Board is the fact that you have individually owned septic systems where one individual, possibly, would bear responsibility for failure. There are other homeowners associations which have gone through this Board, which I don't know whether or not they have individual septic tanks, as they do in this case, but there the responsibility is solely that of the homeowners association. You've got to be a good neighbor to be a good member of the association. That may be the kind of situation that may be more appropriate, as far as the way this association could be arranged, that the septic tanks be owned by the association and be pumped by the association, so that the maintenance is regularly scheduled. That may be one approach to it. The idea of a community septic system has a lot of merits. MR. BREWER-Is it effective? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes, in that you have a SPDES Permit to waive over the homeowners association head if there's a failure, something is going to get done. Whereas, if you have an individual homeowner, it takes an act of the local Board of Health to do anything about it, and because that has political implications, it doesn't usually occur. MR. MARTIN-Yes, see, that's my concern, that one of these things fail, and the guy is identified who caused the problem and, well, the credit cards are full this month, I can't take care of it, and the other two people, meanwhile, are left holding the bag. MR. MATHIAS-The homeowners association, initially, makes the replacement, because it's collected the funds to do that, and then it goes after the party causing the problem. Just like anybody, they've got to pay their taxes. Somebody says, I'm not paying my HOA dues this month, the association's still got to send in its money. MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, lets open the public hearing on this. I think the public has heard a pretty good overview of the project. Is there anyone from the public wishing to address the Board on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RONALD BALL MR. BALL-My name is Ronald Ball, and I live 500 feet within the development. My question is, each house has a septic tank on their own property. Now, they each have a leachfield. Now, if a leachfield fails, if it's on common property, how can they go back to the homeowner? Nine times out of ten, if 20 '~ - the system fails, there's a leachfield, but I'll tell you right now, a leachfield is probably only good for five to six years in that soil up there. You're only talking about an area maybe six feet or eight feet away from a drywell, and as soon as that area's saturated, it's not going to take anymore liquids. So, you're tank is going to fill up, and you could have problems with your septic system. So, here you are. You've got this clustered, all these houses, to try to put too many houses in such a small area, and now they're going to put all their waste into one little small area, that's going to be filled up and all the rest of the neighbors are going to smell it, and there's nobody that's going to take care of it, because nobody's going to own it. That's all. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anybody else wishing to comment? RICK EAGLESTONE MR. EAGLESTONE-My name is Rick Eaglestone. I live on 6 Cranberry Lane, the property behind where some of the leachfields, as a matter of fact, my property's going to be flooding some of the subject we're talking about. The gentleman said the homeowners would pay for the problems. I've been a part of some of the homeowners associations and, in my humble opinion, I think the homeowners associations I've seen are a farce. Yes, they say they're supposed to pay into these. I've seen people who don't pay into them, and then when they default, who takes care of it, in that if this is tied up into somebody's suing someone to get it paid for, in the meantime neighbors, specificallY myself and my family, our new residence that is right on the back of that suffers, and I'm very concerned about no one paying for something, and the homeowners association, and I think some of us from around the area have seen it, in the Queen Victoria's Grant, where they have the rules. They have the regulations. They're a joke. They do not adhere to them. Go out there and you can see where doors have been painted the wrong colors. People are putting things up. They build fences out of, supposedly, the Code of the association guidelines, and it's been done much differently than what's proposed, and if it's happened there, and they said it would not happen there, well it has happened there, what's going to prevent it from happening here, and I guess maybe I'm more concerned now than I have been in the past, because I live the within feet of this project, and I'm very concerned about myself, about my daughter, about my wife, not only with the septic system, I think it's a real problem that we have to address. I'm concerned about the amount of occupancy on square footage, that I think it's going to be a squeeze. I'm concerned about storage, where are these people going to store some of their goods. I'm glad to see at least there's going to be a garage. I don't know if these gentlemen live there. I live there, and I'm very concerned about that, and I'll do everything I have to to fight this, to make sure it's done right. I don't want to hold off progress, but at the same time, I think we've done something, we're trying to squeeze a gallon of syrup into a cup, and I think we're looking for some problems, and I'm really asking the Board to really look into this thing very closely, because I think we have some problems that, for whatever reason, get by. I don't know who's not going to suffer. I know we are going to suffer, the immediate homeowners. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to come forth? SCOTT SHEVY MR. SHEVY-My name is Scott Shevy. I live on 4 Michaels Drive. In one of the stipulations, it said, no more than three bedrooms. This doesn't preclude no less than three bedrooms. This could be affordable housing of two bedroom and one bedroom, possibly, legally, in keeping with the area, excluding the "trailer park" that's in there. It would be in the best interest to keep it at three bedrooms, no less. We would like to see it changed, in your stipulations. Also, this is the obvious way out of this problem, and there is a problem with leachfields. I just replaced mine last year. The gentleman who did the work for me said it was five years over due, and I've been in the house 15 years. The problem with it was the leachfield. He was surprised it lasted as long as it did, and according to my codes of the place, as I remember it was three runs of 60 feet each, for a three bedroom house. MR. CARTIER-Is this the new one, the replacement, because the Code has changed on that? MR. SHEVY-Yes. MR. CARTIER-How long ago did you have it done? MR. SHEVY-A year. MR. CARTIER-Okay. So, you'd be on the new Code. MR. BREWER-Four runs of 50 feet is the. MR. SHEVY-Four runs of 50? MR. CARTIER-Four runs? MR. MARTIN-That's what mine was. I put mine in last year. 21 '~ -' MR. BREWER-My father-in-law had his done two weeks ago, four runs of 50 feet, a 1,000 gallon tank. MR. SHEVY-There's no way that three houses of three bedrooms will not run into problems with a short run like these are. So, we're just asking for trouble, and I don't want to be in that. The obvious solution to this thing is just to cut down by one third what you've got, because you've got three times as much population. We don't want to see anybody, especially with affordable housing. People have to live some place. Nobody wants to deny them the chance to live wherever they want to live, but you've got to do it under the same conditions, and 10,000 square feet. It just seems to me it's going to be overbearing on your leachfields, and, with the anticipated number of cars increasing in the area, there would be increased traffic. If the average family has two cars, possibly more, we're looking at upwards of 240 automobiles in the immediate area right away, and I'm not looking forward to a large traffic increase. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Anymore comment, please? LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves, representing a client who lives on Burch Road. We're asking that you address the safety of that road, as it is one of the longest dead ends in the Town, and yet there's no consideration for its continuance if there was subdivision on Sherman Avenue. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Is there anyone else from the public? RUTH GOLDMAN MRS. GOLDMAN-Ruth Goldman, 3 Amy Lane. I just have a question. The buffer to Sherman Avenue, and could someone just tell me about how much, how close that is? Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. GEORGE THOMPSON MR. THOMPSON-George Thompson. I also live on Amy Lane. Could somebody give us an idea of what these houses might look like? The dimensions don't seem to favor a ranch type house with three bedrooms on the lot size available with clearances. Would there be two story houses, how about the garage, a single story garage? MR. MARTIN-Are you looking at Capes, or? MR. THOMPSON-A typical example of what a typical house might look like, or describe it. CHARLES DIEHL MR. DIEHL-It'll be Capes. That's what they are considering. MR. THOMPSON-How about the garage, what is the height? MR. DIEHL-It'll be singles, no doubles. MR. THOMPSON-And the clearances between those property lines would be about what? MR. DIEHL-I think it's 30 feet. MR. MATHIAS-The total side yard, whatever the Zoning Ordinance provides, which is, I think, a side setback, a total of 30 feet, total, in other words, 15, 15, or 20, 10. MR. DIEHL-You can't really put in more than one garage for the cost of what they're building, and any additional cost that you add to it is just going to put it out of the affordable range, being able to build it for that price that we are trying to offer these people today. MR. THOMPSON-It looked like a lot of restrictions on the homeowners association about cars on the road and the driveway. It seems to me like it's going to be very, very dense for that amount of space. MR. DIEHL-Well, even at that, when you've got 48 acres totally, that you have 83 houses, there's a lot of houses in Town that are even built on smaller sites, like half acre, and these, by far, are not even approaching that, when you've got 83 on 48 acres, but a lot of it is used for common area and cutting down on the size of the houses. MR. THOMPSON-Will these have their own plans? MR. DIEHL-No. They will be submitted by the builders and sold, even in advance possibly. MR. THOMPSON-Who's going to be in control of the type? 22 -- -.-' MR. MARTIN-I think what you're going to have is a series of models available, maybe five or six to choose from, with slight deviations in floor plan or something of that nature, I would assume. MR. THOMPSON-Full basement? MR. DIEHL-Fun basement, yes. It's rather difficult to bring the price of the house in at that cost and give them away amenities, and there's no way that you can cut the size of the project down and put less houses on and be able to bring this in to the Town at that price. You can't do it. MR. THOMPSON-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Thank you. Would anyone else like to comment? PAUL GRAY MR. GRAY-MY name's Paul Gray. I live on Sherman. I have a question, as far as the runoff goes. Bedrock is 13 feet down there. I can't find bedrock in my area. If you have any problem out there, that water is going to come right towards me. What's that going to do to my drinking water? MR. CARTIER-Where does it say bedrock's 13 feet down? Does it say greater than 13 feet? MR. MORSE-Greater than 13 feet. In other words, we dug a hole to 13 feet. We didn't encounter it, so we said. MR. GRAY-Well, I went down 30. Am I guaranteed my water's going to be safe? MR. CARTIER-You're talking about leachate stuff from leach system and so on? MR. GRAY-Yes. MR. MORSE-Dick Morse, again. Septic systems are designed on, these systems in particular, are designed on the Department of Environmental Conservation standards. They've been amended in the last two years to reflect more stringent regulations. more leach area for gallon of sewage, and there are separation distances to other structures. There is no problem getting approval, we could get approval in this soils for either DEC or DOH standards. There's no difference between those. What we were referring to is that anything over 49 lots, from the Department of Health, requires a variance from the local Health Department and the State. MR. MARTIN-All right. Is there any other comment from the public? MR. EAGLESTONE-I just want to address a couple of other things real quick. As far as the homeowners association, will it be a volunteer management company or will it be a paid management company running the homeowners association? MR. MATHIAS-I think that we have to anticipate having a volunteer, I mean, just to be realistic. MR. EAGLESTONE-To keep the cost down. Okay. Fine. So, we're keeping the cost down. Again, I'd like to reallY hit the point, who's going to suffer to keep the cost down? It's great that we really want to help out low income housing, but who's going to suffer, in the mean time, to try to get someone low income housing. Again, going back to Queen Victoria's Grant, you started out with a paid management company. It didn't work. Well, we want to keep the cost down because the dues were going up and people were saying, we're not going to pay it. Then they put the volunteer management company in and appoint your neighbor, and so on and so forth around. It's caused problems. It's caused arguments amongst the neighbors, and then what happens is then you get the people parking on the driveways, or like they said they have a single driveway. I don't know if they're going to be blacktop, more likely stone, and keep the cost down. Well, if they have a car in the garage, the next thing you know, they have a car on the lawn, and, again, this isn't opinion, this is fact. You can go over to Queen Victoria's Grant and you can see it, where they haven't had enough parking space, where they have parked on the lawn, and, again, maybe I'm looking at this a little selfishly, but I want to make sure that we an understand that what sounds good on paper, with homeowners association, does not necessarily always hold true, and we're trying to make an affordable housing. We don't want to say low income housing, but it's affordable incoming housing, and the people that are paying the full shot are going to suffer, in the long run, for it, and I think, again, we've got to take a hard look at it, because it doesn't always sound in the end-product as it does in the beginning. MR. MARTIN-Is there any other public comment? MI KE LAW MR. LAW-I'm Mike Law and I live at 8 Cranberry Lane. I just want to know how much of a buffer zone between Cranberry Lane and this project? 23 ---- -- MR. MORSE-This is 100 foot, right in here, to our property line, and I'm not sure how far Cranberry Lane is away from that. I don't know how far you are away from this, but the construction is just 100 feet away from the property line. MR. LAW-From the existing property line? MR. MORSE-Yes. MR. LAW-And the leachfield is going to go into this, will be closer to the property line? MR. MORSE-Yes, 30 to 40 feet will be a cleared area where the leachfield. MR. LAW-I'd just like to voice my disapproval of a leachfield being so close to Cranberry Lane. MR. LAPOINT-I think what you have to look at is the distance from your own leachfield to your own well, and compare that distance to what you would be away from an adjacent property owners line. MR. LAW-Well, you've got to clear the land to put the leachfield in, don't you? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. LAW-Well, then there's going to be less of a buffer, visible buffer. MR. LAPOINT-If your leachfield is closer to your well then one of theirs. MR. LAW-My concern was visible, visible buffer. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. MR. LAW-The visible buffer in between the leachfield and our property, that's my main concern. MR. MARTIN-All right. Is there anybody else? Any other comment? MR. GRAY-Paul Gray, again. These houses preclude bringing in double wide and putting a cellar under it, or what? MR. MATHIAS-You can't do it in this part of the Town. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Depending on how we go with the discussion, here, I'm not going to do anything with the public hearing right now, until we see how the discussion goes, here. So, I'm going to leave it open, and it will probably remain open until we get a better grasp on the issues at hand, here. It strikes me as we have an inordinate amount of engineering comments, here, and I know Dick is. MR. YARMOWICH-Before you get stricken with that, let me, hopefully I could make that go away. Much of these engineering comments, Jim, are of limited impact, as far as what kind of a concept you're seeing and whether or not the concepts are well blended to the restrictions in terms of lot size, zoning, waste water disposal, stormwater management. In general, the opinion that's not really written here but you should know, is that, from a concept standpoint, it's well integrated with the land, in terms of curves, roads, intersections, breaking things up. These comments are not of the nature that would reconstruct or reconfigure this subdivision in any material way. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I didn't have that in mind. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. Well, I think that, what I feel is that the comments about adjoining wells is something that we should hear more about before you can make your decisions that you may be interested in making tonight. The idea about Burch Road, what the subdivision phasing is going to be, the connection of the Burch Road water main to this subdivision, because it would have a positive impact on the Town, if that were to be accomplished, and the fact that there mayor may not be some adjustment in the size of the disposal fields, based on the design criteria for application rates, but I think those are the main points in the letter that mayor may not effect any decisions that you make. The rest of the stuff is, to a certain degree, of advisory nature, to make the subdivision the best it can be, and in other cases, of minor discrepancies between the design and the Town standards for subdivisions. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I was using that only as an introduction. There seems to be the larger issue looming here of the septic system issue. I get the definite impression that certainly members of the public are concerned, and I also get the impression there are members of this Board that are concerned. MR. YARMOWICH-Jim, if you'd like, can I maybe take a minute and clarify for you? MR. MARTIN-Sure. 24 -- MR. YARMOWICH-Some of the comments that I think I heard had to do with the size of these systems, as they may relate to an individual residence. These systems will be sized to provide an equivalent amount of disposal area for each user of the system, as it would be if they were individual systems. That is, for the residents of Cranberry Lane, they're three bedroom home will have the same absorptive area, if built under current standards, and likely has less if it was built before 1990, than these systems will have for the same number of users. That is, there's no more potential for development of odor, seepage reaching the surface. There's no difference in the anticipated service life of a facility designed in accordance with these applicable standards, and what would happen in a single family individual system, and that may be some of the concern that you were hearing. The standards are set up to eliminate that. Just because you're putting three homes together doesn't mean you're increasing the loading on the soil. The major criteria that DEC applies in looking at loadings to the groundwater, nitrates in particular, that can impair water quality, is based on the occupancy of up to six to eleven people per acre. That occupancy is more dense than what's being offered here. So, I think, in terms of this project and impairment of groundwater quality, just based on sheer density of occupants, it's no different than, it's about the same as one acre subdivisions, which are typically acceptable and don't impair groundwater when properly designed septic systems are installed. So, I don't think that there's a connection between the density of this development and the type of septic system design offered, and an impairment of groundwater quality. So, maybe that helps you out a little bit. MR. MARTIN-Well, it's a step in that direction. So, what's everybody's feeling, here? MR. LAPOINT-Well, I feel fairly strong about Dave Hatin's letter. I tend to go with what our professionals recommend. Between sketch plan and now, you did take a look, obviously, some of them are on their own leachfields, correct? MR. MORSE-Again, there was a cost function. There are several that are on individuals, and that was to avoid pumping costs, in other words, to get to a three plex system. That was basically a function of cost. I think the concern that Tom has addressed and that I've attempted to address, that square footage is not going to change. MR. LAPOINT-No. I understand all that. I do appreciate that if this thing fails, who does take care of it. I mean, that's..!!!.l main concern. MR. YARMOWICH-Let me put it this way, the only leverage to get an individual homeowner to correct a problem is, One, the degree of severity and how is it effecting him, is it backing up his plumbing. If it's not effecting him, in terms of his conveniences, and it becomes a health nuisance, by way of overflow or seepage, the mechanism is the local Board of Health. In the case of this particular system, because it's a community system, the mechanism is the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which is not politically attached to residences, as might the local Board of Health be. DEC will address failure problems. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. So, we are looking at a SPDES Permit, here, which does have enforcement opportunities above and beyond what an individual. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Lets not get so technical, here, that we go over the heads of the public, here, for their own benefit. Lets explain the SPDES Permit, what it is, and what kind of mechanism of control that is. I mean, I think they have, rightfully so, some concerns, here, and let them hear what we're talking about, here. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. Well, the SPDES Permit is State Pollution Discharge Elimination System, okay, and it came from the Clean Water Act of 1972, when the State had authority to issues these. Any time there's a discharge of over 1,000 gallons a day, from any single source, and in this case the single source is the community, a SPDES Permit is required. That's why, like, this Board will review an apartment, say, another good comparison for the interest of the public is, four apartment units in the same building, where there may be eight bedrooms. The flow from such a system is large enough to require a SPDES Permit. There would be very little difference in a four unit apartment flow, which would be eight bedrooms, if they were each two bedrooms, and there houses connected under these systems. You're basically talking about eight, nine bedrooms. All throughout Queensbury and many other areas of this region, you'll find properly designed and functioning multi unit septic systems. So, the SPDES Permit is a mechanism used under State Law to control the discharge, control the quantity and the design of the systems and the maintenance of the systems for large groups and groups of discharges. Places like associations up and around Lake George have joint SPDES Permits because there's a number of people using the same system. So, that's what it amounts to. The only difference is that it's a differently regulated activity than an individual disposal system, but the standards under which it's regulated are approximately equal. MR. LAPOINT-So, the bottom line is, the adjacent property owners would have to turn to the State for enforcement of some type of failure. I'm just trying to clear this up. MR. YARMOWICH-That would not preclude the local Board of Health from becoming involved. 25 -- -- MR. CARTIER-Yes. Wel1, I think what bothers me about al1 of this is we're being told that the reason for doing this is going to hold them up for another six months. When we first looked at this thing, this plan was in place. I would assume that that would have been the time for the applicant to have applied for that SPDES Permit. MR. MATHIAS-Well, Peter, six months ago, we were looking at a totally different concept. I think that fact that the time delay is only one factor in this. Another, in terms of doing this, is the cost, and I think that both the engineers basical1y say it is a little less expensive, in terms of going the route that we're suggesting, and this is what we're talking about, in terms of affordable housing. We're also cutting down the cost of engineering and legal expenses, in terms of dealing with the Department of Health over a protracted period of time. MR. CARTIER-But I think those costs, in the long run, are going to get passed on to individual homeowners, if they have to go through al1 this stuff to get a leachfield fixed, or a screwed up leachfield fixed. MR. MATHIAS-But there isn't any reason why, if it's properly designed, they're going to have to pay anymore than any other homeowner is. MR. CARTIER-Wel1, I just take very great discomfort with the idea that I'd have to be sitting on a, the condition of the leachfield I am using depends on two of my neighbors. I have real problems with that, and I'm not going to say anymore, at this point. There's no way I can, personal1y, say yes to a Preliminary on this, just based on this shared leachfield idea. That does not mean I have no sympathy for the applicant, here, but when I look at the gains and the losses, here, it just doesn't come out for me. That's it. MR. BREWER-I feel very much the same way Ed and Pete do. I understand that the system will work, but the system that they're going to have afterwards I don't think will work, the homeowners association. I don't think that's. MR. MARTIN-You mean the maintenance system and all that? MR. MATHIAS-Wel1, here's the problem. There's not enough lots here to put the leachfields in, right? I mean, that's just a fact. Who's going to pay for the leachfields, the homeowners association, because it's in the homeowners association property. I mean, that's just the way it is. You can't do that and sell houses at $83,000. MR. BREWER-What's the top price that you can go on these houses? MR. DIEHL-You've just about reached that now. MR. BREWER-83 is the limit? MR. DIEHL-That's a restriction that the Town put on. MR. MARTIN-Based on the median income calculation. MR. MATHIAS-Right. Maybe it'l1 go way up, but I doubt it. I mean, there's a lot of things these projects do, in terms of generating some jobs, and helping the building industry and that kind of thing. MR. BREWER-I understand that, but to push the project through because it's going to create jobs and then have it fail in the end is not good planning. MR. MATHIAS-But I don't know what engineering basis you're making, saying that this system is going to fail. MR. BREWER-I didn't say the septic system was going to fail. I said the system to repair the failure. You, ultimately, know it's going to fail at one time or another. MR. MATHIAS-But what's the difference between that and an individual homeowner who knows it's going to fail, too. He's got to set his pennies aside and be prepared for the rainy day when that happens. MR. CARTIER-There is a huge difference, because an individual homeowner then takes care of his individual septic system, and the condition of his individual septic system is not dependent on what his neighbor eats, and that's the issue. I don't understand where we're going. The last time we looked at this thing, and we looked at this multiple leachfield idea, we kicked it around a lot, already, and I was under the strong impression that everybody, on both sides of the microphone, walked out saying, yes, it's a good idea if we set this up in individual systems. Now we're seeing the same thing again, and the only rationale I'm hearing, in support of this same idea is, we're going to avoid another permitting process, and that's going to save us a few bucks. That's a gain on your side, but I think the long term loss, in terms of this multiple sharing just isn't worth that short term gain. MR. MATHIAS-What you're saying is, basically, make these acre lots. You can't do it. 26 --- -...; MR. CARTIER-No, no, no. There's a communications gap here. We're not talking about putting the leachfields on individual lots. We're talking about, and this was my understanding of what we walked out of here with the last time. The tank is on the individual lot. The leachfield is on common property, but they are individual leachfields. So, when one individual leachfield fails, it does not effect the neighbors on each side. It effects that one individual homeowner. He's got to do something. MR. MATHIAS-Let me ask you this. Is that the only problem that you have, as a significant one? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. LAPOINT-When we had the other engineer, here, we were talking about the same common area, the same number of laterals, the same square foot. It was just that these two laterals came from this separate tank, and these two laterals came from this one, and these two laterals came from this one. That's the way, I can't remember exactly what, it was my motion, but that's what my intent was. MR. MATHIAS-Let me ask something else, too, since the public hearing's still open. Lets say these are on individual systems, you folks aren't going to be any happier, are you? Is that the only? MR. MARTIN-What I'm trying to do, here, this is the way I believe the process works, is, there's a priority of problems, here. This strikes me, it's my impression this is A Number One, okay, and there has to be, we're not going to make both sides of the aisle here happy, completely. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think there are some here who don't want anything to happen. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's true, and that's a recognized fact, but the fact still remains that this development has to be allowed to progress, that's true also. So, what I'm striving for here is a compromise, and to eliminate the largest problems in arriving at that compromise. So, if this is the largest problem, lets deal with this the best we can. MRS. TARANA-Well, I'm not into leachfields, but I have a problem with this being referred to as a low income housing unit. MR. MARTIN-That's median income. MRS. TARANA-What is it called? Affordable. Okay. The houses are going to be $79, $83,000. The fact tha t you have a homeowners assoc i at i on, there a re so many hidden cos ts. I f you have only one ha If , one third of those places occupied, the entire homeowners association has to be the burden of those few people. MR. MATHIAS-What happens on that is, the burden is on the developer. That's the cost. I mean, the homeowners association is going to be Mr. Diehl, initially, and he owns all the lots. Then as he sells one, there is a prorated cost based on that one lot. He has all the control because he's the only person there, but if the bill is getting divided up 83 ways, and initially we're only talking about 35 in the first phase, but lets say it's divided 83 ways, he's got to pay 82, and the individual homeowner pays one. MRS. TARANA-Tell me what this means, each owner shall pay an equal share of the expenses, based on the number of units, subject to this declaration. What does that mean? MR. MATHIAS-I think it means just what I said. He's going to pay his 1/83rd share. In the first phase, he's going to pay 1/35th of. MR. MARTIN-I don't think the number of units in that declaration refers to the number of units sold. It refers to the number of units approved. MRS. TARANA-A homeowners association is, typically, the homeowners assume the expenses of the project, okay. If, initially, it's got 83 people and 50 of them move out, are you going to tell me that the developer is then going to pick up the cost of all those empty units? MR. MATHIAS-No, but the homeowner still has to pay, even if he moves. Like his mortgage, if he moves out, he's still got to pay his mortgage. MRS. TARANA-But it makes a difference if he's paying 1/83rd. MR. MATHIAS-And that's all, ultimately, he'd have to pay. MR. BREWER-I understand what you're saying. She's saying, hypothetically, if all the houses are filled, for whatever reason 10 people move out, the bank takes the house back or whatever. MR. MATHIAS-Well, then the bank would have to pay, just like it has to pay its taxes. 27 --- -- MR. BREWER-Right. The bank would have to pay for those 10 shares that are missing. MR. CARTIER-Whoever's the legal owner of that particular. MR. BREWER-Of that property has to pay. MR. MATHIAS-Absolutely. It's part of the payment, you know, the liability that they incur, just like if you don't pay your taxes and the property's foreclosed on, the buyer, genera11y the bank, has to pay the taxes. MRS. TARANA-That surprises me if it works that way, because I've talked to people about homeowners associations, and that's not the way it works. It's based on the number of homeowners in the project. MR. MATHIAS-I don't think that that's the way that this is drafted. MRS. TARANA-It sounds like typical ones that I've read before. I mean, that's what they mean, if there are 40 occupants, 40 occupants pay. If there are 83, 83 pay. MRS. MATHIAS-But they're based on ownership, and what happens, Mrs. Tarana, is that, initially, what's in this homeowners association wi11 only be the first phase, for the first 35 lots, the first 35 lots. They won't dedicate the remaining lands until the second phase is sold. MRS. TARANA-So, can you assure the people that move in there, if, lets say, several people can't pay their homeowners association dues, then the developer is going to pick it up? Because I think that's a real problem. If you're saying that this is going to be low income people moving in here, when it comes to paying, whatever they may have, medical bills, car insurance, whatever, a homeowners association fees is going to be real low on the bottom of their list of priorities, and they may not be able to pay it, but they're moving into an area that they think is low income, that they can afford. They may get in there and not be able to afford the homeowners association assessments, as they're ca11ed in here, of which there can be, it can change, it can go up, for whatever reason, from mY understanding. MR. MATHIAS-Yes. Once it goes up, if the Town of Queensbury raises the taxes, the thing's going to go up. (END OF FIRST DISK) Z8 -- -' MRS. TARANA-Yes, but that's a little bit different. You live in a house, and your taxes, you can assume they're going to go up a little bit every year, but a homeowners association, you don't know what costs may be incurred, and you get assessed for more money than you budgeted for. MR. MATHIAS-What the developer has to do, when he files these documents with the Attorney General's Office is he's got to say, this is what our budget is. This is what you are going to have to pay. We're representi ng to you that we know that he's got to pay taxes on the common area. We know that he's got to pay for replacement cost of the septic systems, however we design them, whether they're individually sort of responsible or not, and he's got to pay for insurance. He knows that those are the costs incurred in this thing. You're not having a management fee because we think that that's just an excessive cost that this entity can't bear. I'm going to take issue with you a little bit and say, this is not low income housing. It's supposed to be a chance for somebody to get their foot in the door. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's target toward the average income level of the area. MRS. TARANA-But I don't think a homeowners association is appropriate to affordable housing. I think there are a lot of hidden costs that a homeowner will get into without knowing what they are. MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think these are something we have to disclose, but I think that you can't have, it's very difficult to design a cluster without a homeowners association, and I think that that's just a fact. MR. MARTIN-And I don't know what we can do, Corinne, about that. That was part of the resolution of the Town Board, if I recall. They have jurisdiction over that. They have accepted it. MRS. TARANA-I understand that, but I think it plays into the neighbors concerns, because if for whatever reasons the homeowners association does not have money to do whatever they have to do, the property value could go down. It will effect these people. MR. MATHIAS-But you're also thinking about, I mean, these are homeowners, lot owners, who are concerned about their values, too. We're not talking about bringing somebody in here who's going to say, I'm going to let my property run down the tubes. Everyone of these owners is going to take the same type of pride as these people take in their houses. MR. MARTIN-I think there has to be a distinction made, and it's something I, personally, push for, in terms of, this was originally proposed, the public didn't see the original proposal, here. There were 16 unit multi plex buildings proposed for this, to the tune of 100 units, and what happens in a situation like Queen Victoria's Grant is, investors come in, buy a building, and then you have rentals in there, transitional people, tenants who don't care about their homes. Now, the thing that's more likely to happen, I'm not going to say some of these homes won't turn into rental houses. Nobody can avoid that. You can't avoid that anywhere in Town, but you at least diminish that from happening when you have a single family on a detached single family lot. MR. EAGLESTONE-Again, just to talk about the investment into a property. Take a hard look at Queen Victoria's Grant, where there are absentee ownerships over there now, and, again, it goes back to the homeowners association supposed to maintain those properties. Go over there now and look at the For Sale signs. Look at the grass that's brown. Look at the weeds. Look at the empty buildings over there now, where, again, in theory, no, no. That was told to me, sign the documents, sign the bylaws. Mr. Eaglestone, we guarantee that will not happen. Well, somebody pulled the rug, because it's happened. They've had water leaks over there. They've had bad structural problems over there. MR. MATHIAS-Mr. Eaglestone, those problems are not going to happen in this instance, any more than they would in any other individually owned home situation, because the homeowners association has nothing to do with the home. MR. MARTIN-I have a question. Is there an ownership requirement, in terms of length of time? I know, like, the New York State Affordable Housing Corporation requires 15 year ownership? MR. MATHIAS-No. MR. MARTIN-No? Okay. So, I'm not saying that we've eliminated the problem with absentee ownership and a lot of tenants and people moving in and out, but I think that's reduced with a single family detached home on its own, individual lot. I'm not saying it's foolproof, but it's going to be better than Queen Victoria's Grant, I would imagine, because these aren't attractive to investors. Queen Victoria's Grant is, because they buy one building, they get two incomes, whereas, this here, this is just an individual house. MR. MATHIAS-To meet the criteria, someone with an income of $36,000 per year in Queensbury is not likely to buy a three bedroom home as an investment for $83,000. That just isn't going to happen. 29 --- MR. MARTIN-All right. Well, I want to get back to what seems to be the principal issue of the septic, here. I was getting the impression that you were willing to offer a compromise, Wilson, or was I? MR. MATHIAS-I'm always willing to compromise. MR. MARTIN-You seemed on the brink of accepting individual leachfields. MR. MORSE-Well, lets review this individual, because I want to be clear what you people consider an individual, and I think, you know, I hear one thing, and lets get them on the table. Somebody, I think, suggested, well, lets just put those together and everybody have their own line out there, so that you've got a piece of that bed? Is that correct? MR. EAGLESTONE-Yes. MR. MORSE-All right, because, Number One, we do want beds because the soil is fast, and to keep the cost down, we need that. If we do that, if each septic tank had a four inch line that ran out to that bed, and we didn't change another thing, we would be under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health. So, if we don't get the DEC time line that we want. MR. LAPOINT-And I think that's a disadvantage to the neighbors, myself, because if they go bad and nobody wants to fix it, there's no State, you don't have the SPDES Permit. MR. BREWER-The homeowners association will take care of that. MR. MORSE-Well, we've got a number of levels of bureaucracy, here, that we had talked about, as far as enforcement, but that doesn't change anything. We could go to the Department of Health with that concept, although the Department of Health doesn't particularly care for beds. They prefer individual trenches, okay, but individual trenches, they still want us to amend the soils in the trench, all right. So, when we have to go in six foot intervals, it takes up more space, okay. So, now we're going to eat up more area, because we don't get the soil count between in the bed, and Tom can allude to that, what I'm saying. So, it's going to take up more green space. More trees are going to come down, not only to go to the Department of Health, do we face a Iproblem in time, but you're going to see a different layout, different geometry and those areas are going to expand, and it's definitely going to cost more money, because I've got to do trenches that will, and then amend the soil in the trench, and that's going to cost more than doing a bed, which is the large area, which I do the whole thing, okay. So, we're looking at more disturbance, and we're looking at more time, much more time. We're working on one now, and we've been working on it for eight months, and we don't have it yet, and I'm not sure we're going to, but we're in another jurisdiction. It's not here, but it's in the same jurisdiction, same Department of Health that we would be dealing with. MR. CARTIER-But understand, what's holding you up at this point is not this Board. What's holding you up at this point is your decision to go back to this original idea that we all looked at the last time and said, no. Lets go to individual systems. Now, what you've decided to do is not go to individual systems. If you had walked in here tonight with individual systems, we wouldn't still be sitting here right now. So, we're not the Board that's holding this process up. MR. MORSE-No, I understand, but I want to put on the table the considerations why we stayed with this system, time and money, okay, and if it pleases the Board, we can show you, we could table this, and I can't speak for the applicant, but we could table this, come up with time and money, at the next meeting. I don't have the money numbers tonight, and I'd have to go to the Department of Health. MR. CARTIER-Time wouldn't matter to me, and, quite frankly, this Board is not empowered, I guess is the word, to consider the economic issue, here, of some of these things. We're a Planning Board. MR. MORSE-We are under an economic constraint on this project. MR. YARMOWICH-If individual leachfields are installed in homeowners association property, is that what you're getting at? MR. CARTIER-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-If a failure occurs, the remedy has to be done by the homeowners association, because the individual does not have the authority to do that work. MR. CARTIER-But on the other hand, the individual is responsible for the cost, and his failure has not created failure problems for other neighbors. MR. YARMOWICH-The homeowners association would have to initiate the repair and back charge the owner. MR. BREWER-They would anyway, with the other system? MR. YARMOWICH-Correct. 30 -- -- MR. BREWER-So, it's the same thing, only different. MR. YARMOWICH-Only that you're not involving more than one unit at a time, that's the difference. The only difference is you're not involving more than one unit at a time. MR. MARTIN-I think that's a big difference, though. MR. YARMOWICH-You're not taking the responsibility of the homeowners association out of the equation. MR. MARTIN-I think that's a big difference, though, not effecting other homeowners. Well, what are we saying then? Are we saying individual systems? MR. BREWER-These other comments from Tom, he's says they're not real, they're not going to change much. The 100 foot tangent length in every direction from the center, Number Six, Tom's cOllll1ents. We went through this last month, with another. MR. CARTIER-Right. We've also got to decide about the SEQRA issue. MR. MARTIN-I don't want to do the SEQRA until we get this straightened out about the design. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, what do you feel about individual systems? MR. DIEHL-My name's Charlie Diehl, the developer. What happens here, when you break down your systems to that extent, you cut back on the number of homes that you can build, you're going to cut it back to 49, according to the legal laws, the way DOH would require, the number of systems put in there. MR. CARTIER-Unless you ask for a variance. You can get a variance from that. You can still do 83 with a variance. MR. DIEHL-I've been going through it in Moreau, now, for about eight months, and we still haven't gotten, but that's really what you do when you break the systems up. When they asked about the break down, would each one be individual, I think the confusion was, yes, we can put in individual tanks, and I think it went over so particularly that the Board didn't realize what he was saying, if we remember it right, and everybody thought there was going to be an individual tank, as well as an individual field. When you take the field and you split them up, you change the whole concept, here, of the number of houses. As far as the homeowners association, I remember back last, we had an approval, final approval on 46, Queen Victoria's Grant type of arrangement, here, and we've come from that, in two years, and there's a big difference in what we have here, that's where I'm coming from. MR. BREWER-Mr. Diehl, I guess the question that I had was, if you're going through this process in South Glens Falls, in Moreau, why would you go through that process over there and not go to a system like this, that you have proposed here? I'm just curious. It doesn't have any bearing on this project. MR. DIEHL-There's no homeowners association over there. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Well, we've come to a bit of a stalemate, here. If 49 is the number, that's certainly not workable for the developer. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute, 49 in order to avoid the variance from DOH? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. CARTIER-It's not 49 chiseled in stone. It's not like he has lost options, or it's not like he's down to one option, which is no option. MR. MATHIAS-Well, it is in the sense, Peter, that you can picture, you're still going to have a heck of a lot of infrastructure cost, and instead of bearing it over 83 lots, you could do it for 49, and then you can't bring the houses in under the affordability criteria, and that's the impact of your decision. I mean, I understand it isn't your problem, and you're saying, hey, if you did what we asked you to do, we'd say this was fine. If we get that variance, these people aren't going to be any happier. I mean, that's for sure. We'll just have gone through the step of dealing with another agency and getting them to do something, if we can do that. MR. CARTIER-I think it somewhat misrepresents what I'm hearing from them. Lets face it, no matter what we do in any public hearing situation, somebody always walks away unhappy. This Board is not about to sit here and try to make everybody happy. We're not that dumb to try that. We 11, for what it's worth, I'm not sitting up here, and it's not my job to make people happy, Mr. Mathias. 31 - --- MR. WlRTIN-Well, we had a consensus, here, I thought, that we're pretty much, we're not going to buy the shared system, is that it? I'm not going to phrase that as being such that, individual systems, and I'll re-phrase that and say we're not going to buy the concept of the shared system. MR. LAPOINT-When you really look at it, it really doesn't make that much difference if it's on homeowner association property, whether it's shared or not. The mechanism for cleaning it up would be the same, correct? MR. WlRTIN-No. The difference. to me, is that if you have an individual system on homeowners association property, and it fails, it only impacts one household, and if that household wants to consciously decide to have their toilet keep backing up, then fine. MR. LAPOINT-Exactly, that that does not effect the neighbors. MR. WlRTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-Directly, does not effect the neighbors, that decision, one way or the other, that what we'd be talking about is the perspective buyers of these, that would be inconvenienced by this, and no the property owners. MR. WlRTIN-That are here tonight, you mean? MR. LAPOINT-Yes. MR. WlRTIN-Yes. When I said neighbors, I mean, when you have these all built and the house next door. MR. LAPOINT-Internally it would be an issue, but externally it shouldn't be an issue. MR. WlRTIN-Right. MR. LAPOINT-How strong a language can we get into the homeowners thing to fix this? Can you weave something into this, I mean, really strong stuff, full page. MR. CARTIER-Well, wait a minute, that doesn't go to the enforcement issue. MR. LAPOINT-Put the enforcement part in it. MR. BREWER-We have a Department of Health right here in the Town of Queensbury. If there's a problem and a neighbor complains, I've got to believe they're going to be out there, but it's still inconveniences two other families, not two other people, two other families, is the way I look at it. MR. LAPOINT-Yes, I know. Buyer beware, when you buy, again, some people would go in, blindly, and buy something, and not even knowing they're on a shared system. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. LAPOINT-Most people would do that. MR. CARTIER-Well, it bothers me that, it seems like what we're trying to do here, I hope, is create a neighborhood setting, and we have the potential for creating conflict between neighbors, from Day One, which does not lead to good neighborhood relationships. MR. YARMOWICH-What about eliminating the provision that anybody be held individually responsible for a failure, and just making the homeowners association collectively responsible in all cases, as are most of the existing arrangements in this Town. MR. CARTIER-It still inconveniences me, if I'm one of the guys on one of these shared septic systems, and my neighbor screws up, and because of his screw up, I can't use mine. MR. YARMOWICH-That's true. MR. LAPOINT-But, again, that's strictly an internal development type problem that people, when they buy this type, that's part of the cheapness of $83,000 is that you buy this risk, that I paid more for my house to have less of that risk, because I'm an individual and I'm out there. I mean, there's trade offs and compromises everywhere, and what I want to make sure is we're not going to impact the adjacent people, because I really don't, the people who buy these things, it's buyer beware, and, again, I like the idea of making a, that's a good idea, keep the individuals out of this, and make the homeowners association responsible for cleaning it up, the whole thing. MR. CARTIER-But now, all 83 homeowners have to pay for one person's screw up. 32 -- --- MR. LAPOINT-That's right, but still what we're doing is protecting the people who live outside of this, and I think that's our responsibility is to protect who lives there now, who moves in there has got to be aware of what the problem is. MR. MARTIN-Well, that's, essentially, what a sewer district is, when you get down to it. MR. BREWER-Yes, but it's the Town's responsibility, when it's the sewer district. MR. MORSE-And it's the sewer district people that live in the sewer district are responsible. It's not a Town responsibility. It's a sewer district responsibility. MR. BREWER-But who would fix it? MR. MORSE-The sewer district would fix it. MR. BREWER-If a sewer line broke in the Town of Queensbury, the Town of Queensbury Water Department wouldn't go and fix it? They would bill back the people, but the Town of Queensbury would go, I would have more faith in the Town of Queensbury going to fix something than I would with a homeowners association. That's my gut feeling. MR. MORSE-But this is a SPDES issue. It's in front of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that has an enforcement arm. MR. LAPOINT-Do you think you could craft something like that in your restrictions, that would take it out of the individual's hands and make it, in the strongest terms possible, make it the homeowners responsibility to fix common leachfields within certain, I mean, 48 hours? MR. YARMOWICH-There is a benefit to having a homeowners association responsible for septic tank maintenance, as well, that includes the scheduled pump out, whereas, an individual may neglect that, and that's often a common cause of failure, is neglect to pump out your tank, well, not always, sometimes it's just plain old abuse. Sometimes it's neglect. I don't want to characterize them as one being more responsible than the other, but that's one thing about a homeowners association, that it will do for a system. MR. LAPOINT-A 1200 gallon tank every two years. MR. CARTIER-But have you not just built in an additional expense into the homeowners association? MR. YARMOWICH-Not an expense that a normal user wouldn't be burdened with anyway, or should not be expected to be burdened with, by virtue of accepting responsibility. MR. CARTIER-If we took a poll, in this Town, of people who have septic systems, and asked how many pump that out every two years, there's going to be very few. MR. LAPOINT-That's right, so if we stipulated it, it would be an improvement over that. The point is, if we can make this maintain, tax the adjacent property owners, and that's the big concern, because I really don't care about, I mean, the people who buy these are responsible for what they buy. If somebody's willing to jump in with both their neighbors and take on that kind of risk, the best we can do is assure that it's pumped out routinely, it's maintained, that the adjacent property owners aren't effected. As a Board, that's the best we can do. MR. CARTIER-I disagree that that's the best we can do. MR. EAGLESTONE-But is it affordable housing if we're just barely getting in on it? How can they afford, if we keep putting in these mandatory other restrictions on it? MR. LAPOINT-It's the developer's job to bring it in for that cost. If he can't do it, he can't do it. MR. MORSE-Seeing we're going this way, let me just throw something out. I mean, we went back. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute, what do you mean by, "we are going this way"? MR. MORSE-No, I'm going this way. Let me say this, that we went to our, Morse Engineering made a decision to offer the individual septic tanks, because of what we perceived as what the direction of the Board was at the last meeting. I apologize Mr. Huntington's not here tonight, because then he might be able to refresh your memory as to what he said, but what he told me was we were going to go to the individual septic tank, but if we went to one large septic tank for three homes, I mean, the things that normally, the thing that 1 have seen, in my experience with septic systems, the biggest failure is grease. Someone doesn't understand that they're on a septic system, and they are using grease, okay, and they flush it down or run it down the drain or something like that. If one individual is doing that, if we had one larger septic tank, instead of three individuals, we would have much more grease storage. We'd 33 "'--" - have much more solid storage, and that, in my opinion, would make a better system than having three, and if we're going to make a homeowners association pump out these systems, one tank is much easier to get to, to service to, and to pump out than three individual tanks spread out, where he has to move the honeydipper, physically, to get to the three, find the three, dig them up, instead of one which would have an approved manhole. MR. LAPOINT-And now we've gone completely 360. MR. MORSE-We've gone back to where we were, but with merit. MR. LAPOINT-You're right, maintaining 83, versus 20. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, if you're going to buy into this communal sanitary solution, yes, it would make sense, if you're going to buy into that, to cut down on the number of tanks, in that case, and maybe reduce the chance of failure. MR. EAGLESTONE-That's not going to solve the problem. The problem's with the drywell. The whole problem's with drywell. It's being pumped in no man's land, and nobody's going to be held responsible for it because nobody owns it. You aren't going to get me or anybody else to go and clean out somebody else's drywell, if they think somebody else plugged it up. MR. MARTIN-You mean leachfield, by drywell? MR. EAGLESTONE-Yes, drywell. Now, he said, if you cut this back, you'll end up with 49 houses. What about if you just eliminated 10 houses, and make this one big loop, okay? Now he's down to 72 or 73 houses and then run all the leachfields, septic tanks, and their own drywell, each house, and they could do the same thing, here, because they've got one, here. It's obvious they've already got them. They've already got them here. The only place that they lack room is in here. So, if you eliminate these houses in here, make one big loop, each house could have its own tank and its own drywell, that's all. Eliminate 10 houses. MR. MARTIN-Well, would you like to respond to that? MR. MATHIAS-Well, I think the problem is, you make a big road like that, and that's a great idea, but it costs you money to build a road, in accordance with the Town of Queensbury's stats, and that's just the way it is. MR. LAPOINT-Well, would this be less road? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, somebody would have to fix the topography to make that idea work, and there's more than just roads and sizes, it's the thing all kind of flows to the south. MR. MATHIAS-In terms of the issue of the language that's in the homeowners association, what I tried to address was the situation where I got the sense that, you know, I had the same sense that Peter did, I guess the engineer didn't, but I knew that we wanted to have individual septic tanks. I drafted it so that an individual owner would be responsible to the homeowners association for any problems that it caused to the leachfield and also making them responsible for their own septic system, or septic tank. It certainly, by changing the language in the reciprocal easements, it isn't a problem, legally, to give the homeowners association the right and responsibility to enter into the individual lot owners, clean out either one septic system or the common septic system, and that that's just a cost that's borne by the homeowners association, in addition to capitalizing the replacement costs of the leachfields, which we all know, ultimately, are going to, you know, it's something they're going to have to do. There it is, and if the homeowners association is responsible for that, yes, it's a cost, but we do have to, all of us have to, unless we're on a sewer system, we all have to pay that, at some point. If we don't do it every two years, every four or every fifteen, and pay for a whole new system. There's an economy brought on by the fact that if you have 20 of these things that you're going to get cleaned out every two years, and you did that contract, you're certainly going to get somebody to do it at a less expensive price than 83 individual ones. MR. LAPOINT-We could make this part of the SPDES provision, could we not, ask the State to make that part of the SPDES Permit. MR. YARMOWICH-The maintenance of systems? MR. LAPOINT-Correct. MR. YARMOWICH- That's a standard condition of any subsurface SPDES Permit. The owner of the system, which is the homeowners association, is ultimately responsible and subject to any and all remedies that the State has to get them to fix it. MR. GRAY-I just have one other question. If you did away with 10 or 15 homes and put a tank or leachfield on each site, why would you need a homeowners association? 34 -- - MR. CARTIER-Because there's still open space there. One of the stipulations of this whole thing is that there be open space maintained, somebody has to own it. MR. GRAY-Why not the developer? MR. MATHIAS-The problem with that is, the Town's had that situation before, and the developer moves away to Florida, stops paying taxes on it, and who takes care of it. MR. GRAY-Incorporate that into the lots. MR. MATHIAS-See, you can't do that. That's the Catch 22. MR. GRAY-Couldn't the same thing happen with the homeowners association? The developer says, I'm moving to Florida, when we're saying, well, they don't get the right amount of dues in, and potentially it could happen that the developer did move away, so we default on the homeowners association or default on the common area? MR. MATHIAS-Absolutely, and you know what, anybody buying into these things is going to get a big prospectus that the Attorney General's Office has to approve of, that says, here folks, here's the risk you're buying into. I mean, are these folks going to read it? The homeowners association here is going to be responsible for significantly less than what the homeowners association was responsible for at Queen Victoria's Grant. The only thing, basically, are the insurance, taxes, and septic. MR. EAGLESTONE-One thing we are saying, though, is that if the homeowners association does default that the liability will go back on the developer, but lets make it clear, the developer can also default and leave, whether it's common area or whether it's, he has the completely responsibility or as the association. MR. MATHIAS-Sure, that can happen. MR. EAGLESTONE-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I think we've heard all we need to know. I don't get the sense, with some of the issues that are out there, regarding engineering, I don't know that we can grant a Preliminary approval tonight. MR. LAPOINT-Well, I don't think we'd get a second to a motion if I made a motion, my guess is. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, you may want to try SEQRA, on the basis of what you've got, or you may want to see if you can go farther than that and look for some response from the applicant. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Well, I've got to back up a little bit, then, before I feel comfortable going through a SEQRA. Before we go through a SEQRA, when we do that, we're going to say that this is the accepted design. MR. LAPOINT-If I were to make a motion to table, based on the applicant going back and redesigning to totally common shared septic tanks and leachfields, with them to develop an acceptable covenant and restriction that, in the strongest language possible for maintenance, a routine pumping of this, and that we ask the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation make that restriction part of the SPDES Permit, a condition of the Permit. MR. MARTIN-I don't know that that would be necessary. MR. LAPOINT-No, but I get SPDES permits all the time, and they lay on all kinds of extra restrictions to you, be caring around in a hand truck. They will do this if we ask them to, and have the, again, even stipulate the amounts of monies in the homeowners association would have to be there for the different phases of development. So, I mean, they go for 35, they'd have to have so much money in there to clean that out, and come the second year, before they could proceed to the second or third phase. MR. CARTIER-I think you're doing the applicant's job. MR. LAPOINT-This is what they've got to come back to us with. I'm saying that my motion to table would be that, for them to come back with all this stuff for us at Preliminary, but I want to send them back, clearly, with, my opinion is we've gone full circle, maybe the common septic tank, the common leachfield's the way to go, and just really firm up the responsibility for it. Otherwise, we're not getting anywhere. We tried going to the individual thing. That doesn't appear to make sense for the adjacent property owners. MR. CARTIER-I'm not hearing that from adjacent property owners. MR. MARTIN-That doesn't make sense from the standpoint of, you just can't bring it in as an affordable housing project with individual. 35 -- -- MR. LAPOINT-Any individual can default and not clean up their mess, and I think we're going one step better than that. Anyone of these people in the audience can walk away from their home and leave it with a septic problem or not, just as wen as anybody in this development could, and what we're trying to do is firm up, because that's their main issue, is what effect that would have on them. We'd have money set aside and all the restrictions for it to be cleaned up. MR. CARTIER-Yes, but their on individual septic systems. If they walk away from their individual septic system, that does not effect the neighbors on each side of them. MR. LAPOINT-They're going to have to live with the problem of seepage out on the top of the earth. MR. CARTIER-If they move away, there's no more seepage, there's no more source of seepage. MR. LAPOINT-It would drain away, correct. MR. BREWER-So, you're not effecting the other families. MR. LAPOINT-Okay. Then I disagree with everybody. MR. MARTIN-All right. How do you feel about the shared system, totally shared? MR. TARANA-I don't like the shared system at all. MR. MARTIN-Ed, you like it. Tim? The totally shared system. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MARTIN-Pete? MR. CARTIER-No. MR. MARTIN-I'm trying. I really am. MR. CARTIER-Wen, look, the simple way out of this is to table this. There's nothing that says we have to go anywhere with this tonight. MR. MARTIN-See, I don't mind tabling it as long as I give the applicant a direction to go with, with a tabling. MR. CARTIER-All right. How do ~ feel about the shared versus the single system? MR. MARTIN-How do I feel about the shared versus the single systems. I don't think the shared system, there still is the major drawback of two other people being effected by the failure of another person, and we're not just talking about like a garage here or something. MR. CARTIER-Is that enough for you not to vote yes on this? I'm not trying to back you into a corner. I'm just trying to help. MR. MARTIN-Yes, I understand that. MR. YARMOWICH-Jim, let me just bring something up, maybe it will help you think about it in a clear way. When you consider a multi unit apartment building, is there a time which you think, in terms of having to have individual systems for each unit, and I think the way DEC looks at it and the way the regulatory bodies look at it and the way Mr. Hatin would be effected by it, if it's all community systems he won't be effected by it. MR. CARTIER-Wait a minute. I understand your analogy, but I'm not sure it's accurate. MR. YARMOWICH-Because there's individual homeowners, as opposed to a management of an apartment complex. MR. CARTIER-Correct. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay, and here the management mechanism is an association, as opposed to an individual owners. MR. BREWER-And that's what we have reservations about. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay, as long as that's the reason for it and not just the potential inconvenience of one person of another, because in an apartment complex situation, or a quadra plex, you have the same potential for one bad user to effect everybodY else in that dwelling, the multiple dwelling. 36 --- - MR. MORSE-Yes, and if that fails, all are effected, and an entity has to come in and fix it, and what we're saying, that entity, here, is the homeowners association. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think we've got to take a step back and look at the parameters under which we place this particular development, and when I say "we", I mean the Town, the Town Board specifically, said they've got to be affordable. They have to sell to median income. Is that right, Wilson, 100 percent of median, okay, which is, that is a limited figure for them to operate. This developer can't go out and sell this to anybody. That is a tremendous limitation, all right. So, if we're going to say they have to be at a certain income, then they have to go at a certain price, and with that as a stipulation, it's not the typical development, and I'm not trying to blame the Town or the Town Board, either. I think we're discovering some of the problems with this so called "affordable housing" concept. I'm not saying that you should bear the brunt of fixing it, but these are the realities of the problems that we're seeing, and we're working under those parameters. I mean, we can't do anything about that. MR. BREWER-I think you're looking at the affordable part of it, in that the whole thing's affordable. We have to remember that 50 percent of it is 100 percent of the median, and 50 percent is 120 of the median. So, we have to keep that in mind. MR. MARTIN-Okay. One hundred and twenty percent of median, so you increase the cost of the house by 20 percent. So, say they go up from $84 to what? MR. MATHIAS-I01. MR. MARTIN-I01, okay. MR. BREWER-That's quite a jump. MRS. TARANA-Is everybody in the homeowners association going to put in the same amount of money? MR. MATHIAS-Yes, absolutely. You buy into a share. You're not getting a bigger bed or anything. MRS. TARANA-I really think the homeowners association's a problem. You've got people that are going to have more expensive homes. You're going to have a Board of Directors. If that Board of Directors comes from all those people, with more money, with more homes, more expensive homes, and they make decisions which the other people in the less expensive homes can't afford, I think you've got a problem. MR. MARTIN-But the thing I want to avoid, I think you're looking right in the face of coming to a complete stop, here, with no way out, and it's something that's been self created, so to speak. MRS. TARANA-There's a way out. Lee York had a suggestion. who can answer it. don't know if it's viable. I don't know MR. MARTIN-What was that? MRS. TARANA-Lets see, "the Staff is not sure if it meets the intent of the re-zoning, however, if the intent is to provide moderate income housing, then perhaps the developer should sell half acre lots with on lot septic systems and not require payment into a homeowners association, since the design is getting closer to a traditional subdivision. This would require modification of the re-zoning approval, but this may be the appropriate way to proceed". MR. MATHIAS-But then we're back to the same place we were before, Mrs. Tarana, where the Planning Board was saying one thing, and the Town Board said another. MRS. TARANA-And I sympathize, but I don't see a solution to it. Maybe the Board does. MR. MORSE-Well, lets try and focus, here. Technically, the system will work, all right. This system, the septic system will work on this site, and we have proposed a mechanism to maintain the system. Now, we can talk about what if forever, but the mechanisms are there for the Board to make a decision on, and we, as a developer, can't offer anything more than the mechanism. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. MATHIAS-And that's what we're stuck with. Your points about the homeowners association are well taken, but that would apply to any homeowners association proposed for any project. MR. MARTIN-Right. I'll propose a solution of sorts, here, okay. We have supposedly developed this self limiting situation, here. I would propose a joint meeting between us as a full Board, and the Town Board as a full Board, and the developer, and publicly notice it and get lets get the cards out on the table, here and get this solved. I don't think we've got enough ammunition, here, to deal with this appropriately. MR. CARTIER-I think that's a good idea. 37 - ~ MR. MARTIN-Because we're working with things that were imposed upon us, and you're working with things that were imposed upon you, and lets get all the actors in the room together, here, because I don't feel comfortable and well equipped enough, here, just as a Planning Board, to deal with this particular issue. I don't, it's not solving itself out. I mean, we've been beating out head here for two hours. MR. CARTIER-Plus we ought to have a Planner here and we ought to have the Town Attorney here, okay, I think. MR. MARTIN-How does that sound? Does the applicant, and I'm not talking about doing this two months from now or a month. I'm talking about, as soon as we can get together with the Town Board, if it's two weeks, fine. MR. DIEHL-You've been cooperative in that respect. I have no objection to that. MR. MARTIN-I will leave the public hearing open. MR. GRAY-If you have the half acre lots, you could still have eighty some odd homes, right, you wouldn't need any buffers. I live on a half acre lot. There's no buffer, there's no common ground, there's nothing. MR. MARTIN-Yes, but that's what I was talking about before, well, the infrastructure for one thing, and this developer has been limited to what he can sell these for. MR. EAGLESTONE-Who sets that? Who sets that particular price? MR. BREWER-The Town Board, back when they. MR. MARTIN-That was arrived that in the Town Board resolution. That's why I'm saying, lets bring in the Town Board, here, and. MR. LAPOINT-We're going to work on Lee York's comments that Mrs. Taral'la read in, and we're going to work and focus on that with the Town Board, everybody get together, the applicant agrees to the tabling to do that, correct? MR. DIEHL-That was what the change of zoning was all about, to lower the price on it. MR. MARTIN-Well, yes, you were targeting a certain section of the market, this supposedly median income. So, to hold you to that restriction, the Town Board said, here's the restriction. MR. DIEHL-Right. MR. MARTIN-There's supposed to be a social good done in this. That was the whole reason for it, and, hey, if it's not working out, it's not working out, or if it can be adjusted, and I think adjustments are required by a power greater than us. and we're not the legislative body of the Town, the Town Board is. So, let them have a try. IIITION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-1992 SHERMAN PINES, Introduced by Edward LaPoint who moved for its adoption, seconded by Peter Cartier: Tabled at the applicant's request, for subdivision of 83 residential single family, 3 bedroom homes with common septic systems on 48.275 acres of land in accordance with affordable housing re-zoning, with the following comment: That Staff try to get a meeting between the Town Board, the Town Planning Board, the applicant and interested members of the public, as soon as it's convenient, to discuss the whole concept of the project, in terms of zoning, the concept of affordability, individual systems, etc. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella MR. MARTIN-Now, just for members of the public, this is not going to be the type of public notice where you got a notice in the mail. You're going to have to watch the paper, okay. It's going to be a legal notice in the Legal Ads. MR. LAPOINT-Call the Town. Call Lee York. MR. MARTIN-So, you might do best to call the Town. Call the Town Clerk's Office. Call the Town Planning Office. Either one will know. (10:56 p.m.) 38 -- .......,; SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED SR-lA GENEVA ESTATES ClIMER: R. MICHAEL ELJI)RE EXECUTOR OF ESTATE OF GENEVA ELMORE NORTH OF RALPH Ro.\D AND WEST OF H(llARD STREET. TEN (10) IIJBIlE HOME LOTS OF 15,000 +SQ. FT. WITH ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL AND IIJNICIPAL WATER TO BE CWSTERED ON +11 ACRES. TAX MP NO. 120-1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 10.93 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WILSON MATHIAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (10:56 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 7-1992, Charles Diehl - Geneva Estates, May 11, 1992, Meeting Date: May 14, 1992 "The applicant has submitted for a 10 lot subdivision off of Eisenhower Avenue and Ralph Road. The only outstanding planning issue was the roadway connection between Ralph Road and the subdivision road. The staff has spoken with the agent for the applicant and the Board should be given a letter of understanding between Mr. Diehl and Mr. Elmore that a transfer of the small piece of property necessary to connect the roads is taking place. Other than that, the subdivision conforms with good planning principals. A Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions has been submitted. If there are no outstanding engineering concerns, the staff recommends approva1." EWGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer. May 13, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. All parcels and property owners within 500 feet of the subdivision boundary do not appear to be completely identified on the drawings (AI79-103). 2. Well locations on adjoining property needs to be addressed. 3. The drywell detail should indicate geotextile fabric or filter cloth surrounding the stone fill to prevent migration of soil into the stone. 4. The grade of Ralph Road for the first 100 feet from Eisenhower Road must be 3% or less. The sharp grade break (6%±) where Ralph Road paving meets Eisenhower Road should be eliminated (AI83-23I). 5. The need for a drywell east of lot 9 should be clarified. 6. The drywell right of Geneva Drive station 31+25 should be located at a property corner if possible. 7. The elevation 406 contour south of Geneva Drive needs to be properly blended into the road grading. 8. At a minimum the sediment and erosion control plan should stipulate by note compliance with New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 9. A grading easement across private property east and west of Ralph Road will need to be acquired by the developer to construct the road as shown. 10. The drywells at the end of the cul-de-sac should be separated by at least 20 feet. 11. The east end of Geneva Drive has no temporary provisions for turning around in the right-of-way. 12. Lot 10 dimensions and area should be revised to indicate a single lot of 6.75± acres. 13. Water main and drywells should appear on the profiles." MR. MARTIN-Okay. Do we have someone here representing the applicant? MR. MATHIAS-He'll talk about the engineering aspects. Let me just briefly state, this is within the Mobile Home Overlay zone within the Town. Mobile homes are authorized. We're calling for them here. It's anticipated as double wide, but there's no restrictions on them. It could be single wide. A lot owner gets an approximately 16,000 square foot lot. It includes water and its own individual septic system. There is a six plus acre parcel of land which we propose to convey, along with one of the lots. We have set up a meeting with the Town Board to discuss the possibility of granting to the Town some type of conservation or recreational easement over that parce1. It certainly would be, I talked to Lee York about this. It's an area of the Town that could use some additional recreational resources. It's large enough to put in a ball field or something like that, if the Town wanted to go that route. That's why we've laid out the roadway to that point. If the Town weren't willing to do that, even the idea of just plain conservation type easement may make some sense for that. We'd be looking for some concessions on the part of the Town Board, in connection with $500 recreational fee. Dick, I guess, will deal with the real engineering issues. I've got one comment about the 500 feet aspect of things, and I spoke with Lee York about this earlier, the other day. The Subdivision Ordinance regulations state what you have to do, in terms of sending out the certified mail, is you have to attempt to notify all property owners of land contiguous to the proposed subdivision. We did. We listed on our plans, and then it has an alternative, or within 500 feet in each direction from the boundary lines along a common roadway. Now, we take the position that you have to do either one or the other, notify either all the adjoining owners or the 500 feet stems as an alternative along a common roadway. That's, I guess, an issue, and that's our explanation. We say there is a provision in the Ordinance that allows us to do what we did, and we gave it our best shot on this one, given the time constraints, to try to get the project through. MR. CARTIER-It doesn't say, and/or. It just says, or. MR. MATHIAS-Right. Yes. So, I think we did one. We've done our best, here, and Mr. Morse will address the engineering comments. MR. MORSE-Right. Dick Morse, again. Basically, I will respond to Tom Yarmowich's conrrents. Item Number One, as Wilson has just addressed, all parcels and properties within 500 foot is the issue. Item Number Two, well location on adjoining properties be addressed, I'll respond to that. All adjoining properties are serviced by a municipal water district. Individual wells are not required. No well 39 --- --- casings were visible on adjacent properties within 100 feet of the site, when our survey crew was out there. Item Number Three, the drywell detail would indicate should indicate geotextile fabric or filter cloth surrounding the stone fill to prevent migration of soil into the stone. We will comply with that direction. Item Number Four, the grade of Ralph Road for the first 100 feet from Eisenhower Road must be 3% or less. The sharp grade break (6±) where Ralph Road paving meets Eisenhower Road should be eliminated. Our response to that, this portion of Ralph Road, station 10+22, station 1200 is a Town Road. We don't know who's responsible for grading that, but we're not. That's an existing Town Road out there. MR. YARMOWICH-You're showing grading on this plan as though you're going to construct it to Town Road standards? MR. MORSE-Only on our parcel. MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the alignment and so forth, so you're going to construct it from the edge of your parcel in, and the Town is going to have to bring it up to standards on their own? MR. MATHIAS-Absolutely. I don't think we have any authority, ability, or, and I'd certainly advise against improving the Town property there. That's it and we're not going to touch it. MR. YARMOWICH-The Subdivision Regulations provide for a subdivider to provide certain road improvements for certain distance from the edge of the subdivision to get to Town roads. That may be a requirement that the Town would have to use in a case like this, to get Ralph Road properly done. If the Town were to reconstruct or the developer to reconstruct Ralph Road, that should be evaluated as to exactly, what's being shown here is grade changes for Ralph Road, is that correct? That's your design? MR. MORSE-Yes, this is. That's correct. MR. YARMOWICH-Then, in any event, your design ought to be modified to reflect the Town, regardless of who builds it, the design should reflect a compliance with the Town road standards, if it's going to be built to Town standards. I guess that's the real point of the comment, and whatever you show, and whoever does it, it doesn't really matter to me. Just try to keep it at 3 percent. MR. MARTIN-Well, it matters to me. MR. YARMOWICH-It will matter to the Board. It just doesn't matter to me. MR. BREWER-So, what's the answer to the question? MR. YARMOWICH-The answer to the question is that it's got to be set up so that it can be graded in accordance with the Town standards. MR. MORSE-Well, we can show the grading. We show grading that matched and had existing grades on it. It's the existing gravel out there, so we assume that existing gravel road was by the State. To answer your question, I don't know, because it's not our road. It's the Town's road. MR. YARMOWICH-But the design of your subdivision road is going to be blended into the existing Eisenhower Road so that all Town specs can be met from Eisenhower Road to your subdivision. MR. MORSE-That's correct. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. MORSE-So, we will revise any contours there that needs to meet Town spec. Item Number Five, the need for a drywell east of lot 9 should be clarified. Our response, there's a storm runoff from the adjacent area which will flow westerly over the northern lot. The drywell and berm is installed to intercept this runoff. MR. YARMOWICH-How's that going to be dealt with from a maintenance property? That's going to be on private property, again, and it's supposedly to handle runoff from the Town Road? MR. MORSE-No. This is what they're talking to the Town about. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. MORSE-The drywell right off Geneva Drive, station 31+25 should be located at a property corner if possible. The drywell at station 31+25, right, can be located at station 30+75 right. So, we will modify that. Item Seven, The elevation 406 contour south of Geneva Drive needs to be properly blended into the road grading, and we will comply. Item Number Eight, At a minimum the sediment and erosion control plan should be stipulated by note, and we will comply with that. Item Nine, A grading easement across private property east and west of Ralph Road will need to be acquired by the developer to construct the road. We will re-contour that, so that we are in the right-of-way. Item Ten, the drywells at 40 - .-- the end of the cul-de-sac should be separated by at least 20 feet. Our response, the low point of the profile is at station 32+90. One drywell can be relocated to 32+65, with a connecting perforated pipe. Item Eleven, The east end of Geneva Drive has no temporary provisions for turning around in the right-of-way, and this gets into the potential agreement that the developer is proposing to the Town for use of that parcel, and until we, that meeting has to take place, and if that lot is to not go to the Town, then a hammer head would be shown at that location. MR. YARMOWICH-There's only two lots down there, and those are the only users. It may be of some interest to this Board to consider a waiver on that item, because it's a Subdivision Regulation, the temporary turnaround, provided that other Town officials, Mr. Naylor, don't have any major concerns about that. I mean, I can't see the practicality of constructing a hammer head. MR. MORSE-But that is the regulation. MR. YARMOWICH-Correct. MR. MORSE-Item Number Twelve, lot 10 dimensions, again, this is alluding to the large parcel, and if the Town isn't going to do it, that would be incorporated into one of the lots, and I think Wilson addressed that. Item Thirteen, water mains and drywells should appear on the profiles. We can do that. MR. MARTIN-Okay. All right. We've heard from the applicant. I'll open a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED R. MICHAEL ELMORE MR. ELMORE-The only thing I would like to see, I'd like to see the Town do something with that six acres. Now I have offered, there's another parcel down below it, and I've offered that to the Recreation Board. We have no recreation areas over there for children. The closest thing you've got is Luzerne Road, and you're not going to have a five year old go over Luzerne Road. We need something like that. This is a great idea, a great opportunity for the Town, and I'd like to see it. You go down Howard Street. You go down Eisenhower. You go down Leo street, and look where the kids are, and if you put this development in without a recreation area, you're going to see where those kids are. I'd just like to see something done in there. MR. CARTIER-That's a Town Board function, and I'm sure this Board can reference something to the Town Board, but you may also want to approach the Town Board about that. You're in Mr. Tucker's Ward? MR. ELMORE-Yes, I'm in Pliney Tucker's Ward. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. ELMORE-I've talked to Pliney a little bit about this, and back when Queensbury Better Homes donated, at one time, Queensbury Homes owned this area here, and they wanted, my parents owned all this, but they owned the likewise area. It was all donated to the Town for a playground, and immediately, as soon as the Master Plan was drawn up, all these things were lost. The minutes were lost, the deeds were lost, the whole works were lost. So, this was no longer a valid playground, still owned by Queensbury Better Homes. I tried to get the Queensbury Recreation Department, this year, to consider taking this parcel as a playground, and was turned down flat. So, I would like to see the Town do something with this area, before we get children run over. We've got quite a few over there. It's a great opportunity. You give our kids a sand lot to play baseball onto. They don't need a Queen Victoria swimming pool with tennis courts and all that. Just something in there, a nice little nature area in that six acres would be great. Now, I expected somebody, maybe from Queen Victoria's Grant, to give you some static, or Mr. Diehl some static on this, because we've had motorcycle problems in here. If the Town owns this, it's got to regulate it, and to me, no more motorcycles, it could be a nice place for people over here. In fact, they were lied to by their developer, because they were told this was State land. Nobody could ever do anything in here. I've caught them over there stealing facades and things like this. This should please them, that this area in the back, the people that were protesting mostly lived in this area, here. This should please them that this would be forever wild or whatever's been there, in case somebody does show up, and I don't happen to be here, because otherwise, my attitude was, if we can't develop this thing or somebody gives us some static back here, I don't really own it right now. It's still in my parents name, and I'm going to be Executor. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Anymore public comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-Okay, and I believe we can move on to a SEQRA on this. MR. BREWER-One comment, Jim, the cul-de-sac. You talked, last time, about planting it and paving it. What did you decide you wanted to do? 41 --- ....,/. MR. MATHIAS-WeB, the great compromiser, I said to not pave it over, but not plant it either. Leave whatever's there as natural vegetation. The hope, rea11y, is that somebody wi11, probably, Char1ie wants to sell these things, he'll get out the first couple of years, or the first year, and have grass and some plants and stuff 1ike that. Obviously, the hope is that someone buying into one of these things will continue that. MR. CARTIER-Are you ready for a SEQRA? MR. MARTIN-Yes. RESOWTION IlHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOWTION NO. 7-1992, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: Ten (10) ~bne hœe lots of 15,000 ± sq. ft. with on-site sewage disposal and ..nicipal water to be clustered on +11 acres, north of Ralph Road and west of Howard Street, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT: RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the proposed project and Planning Board action is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella MR. MARTIN-We need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1992 GENEVA ESTATES, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: For ten (10) mobile home lots, with the fol1owing stipulations: The engineering comments in the May 13 Rist-Frost letter be addressed, and Number Two, a letter of understanding be submitted to the Planning Board on or before the final stage, referencing the transfer of property necessary to connect Ralph Road with the subdivision road, and, three, that the center of the cul-de-sac be left in natural vegetation, or planted appropriately. That the property, the six acres, be deeded to the Town for recreation land. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella (11:29 p.m.) 42 -- -- SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1992 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RR-SA DEBRA ROBINSON SOMERVILLE CllNER: SAME AS ABOVE OLD WEST IlJUITAIN ROAD TO PlACE THREE RESIIEITIAL UNITS ON THREE LOTS. ONE LOT TO BE SOLD, THE REMAINING 1110 LOTS TO BE FOR THE HEIRS. TAX IMP NO. 32-1-31.1 LOT SIZE: +95 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (11:29 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A; York, Senior Planner, Subdivision No. 6-1992, Debra Robinson Somerville - Preliminary Stage, May 8, 1992, Meeting Date: May 14, 1992 "All outstanding planning concerns were addressed with the addition of the berm separating the driveway and the stream. The applicant has been in contact with the water department as requested. If there are no outstanding engineering concerns, the staff recommends approval." ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, May 13, 1992 "We have reviewed the project and have the following engineering comments: 1. The tax map and property owner information may not be complete within 500 feet of the boundaries of the subdivision. Ownership of parcels 74-1-3, 74-1-5, and 32-1-28 are not listed. Parcels west and northwest of the subdivision are not clearly indicated on the map. 2. A note should appear on the plat stipulating soil erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented with lot clearing and construction as required by the New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 3. The location of existing wells and septic systems serving existing residences across Old West Mountain Road and south and east of the subdivision should be addressed. 4. Subsurface sewage disposal areas indicated for lots 1 and 2 exceed the maximum permissible slope of 15%. The suitability of lots 1 and 2 for subsurface sewage disposal systems conforming to the Queensbury On-site Sewage Disposal Ordinance is questionable based upon the lack of suitable areas with slopes no greater than 15%. 5. Seepage pits are not acceptable for subsurface sewage disposal where soils are suitable for conventional absorption trenches. 6. The tax map indicates a right-of-way abutting the subdivision to the west. The existence of such a right-of-way should be addressed and shown on the plat as appropriate." MR. MARTIN-The applicant, please. MR. STEVES-Hi. For the record, my name is Leon Steves. The three parcels that Tom has talked about ownerships, 74-1-3 is the cemetery, 74-1-5 is Warren County, 32-1-28 is owned by the Robinsons. MR. YARMOWICH-The Robinsons are property owners, were notified? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. STEVES-There's a note for Number Two. Three, existing wells and septic systems, there's one house across the street from us that's better than 100 feet away from the road. The septic system is in the front yard, between the road and the house. They are serviced with Town of Queensbury water. The well that they were using was the well that's shown on this plan, on Lot 1. MR. YARMOWICH-Nothing to the east or the south, within 100 feet? MR. STEVES-No. Four, the reason I used drywells was because of the slopes. I felt that the systems themselves have a better chance of working by having a greater cover on them. With the drywells, you could cover about two to three feet, but that's not an issue. If Tom feels it desirable, we would be glad to do it. The tax map indicates a right-of-way. That is not really a right-of-way. It's an ownership by New York Telephone Company who refuses to sign the letter sent to them. It's over there, I believe. MR. MARTIN-All right. So, there's nothing there of any great consequence, that can't be worked out between now and final? MR. YARMOWICH-Well, the issue of the steep slopes and the suitability for on-site sewage disposal, in accordance with the Ordinance, I guess, is something that hasn't been, well, Lot 1. MR. STEVES-Lot 1, we went up there the other day and did topo on it, and we've got, this is no problem. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. Just so the Board knows, and I did talk to Leon. He told me that this topo, as shown here, is not based on actual field survey. So, it may be less than completely accurate, and when scaling it, you come up with 17 or 18 percent slope, which would be marginal, or outside the limits of acceptable. It's entirely possible, with more detailed field work, you could find an area that will work, and that's what you're telling me, on Lot 1, you can find an area? 43 -- ---- MR. STEVES-Yes, we have. The area shown is perfectly suitable. Coming over from Lot 2 and 3, Lot 2, we can find an area in there of 17 percent. The fi11 wi11 put it right back into shape. Lot 3, I don't think we can find an area. MR. YARMOWICH-On Lot 3? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-Lot 3 is okay. I mean, the topo on here. MR. STEVES-As shown here, yes, but in the actual field conditions, it is not. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. So, as opposed to Lot 1 appearing on this plan and not be suitable, it is, and Lot 3 is appearing to be suitable, it's not? MR. STEVES-That's right. So, in discussion with the appHcant, at this time, they have no problem at all in combining Lots 2 and 3 into one lot and call this a two lot subdivision. MR. MARTIN-So, you want to do a two lot subdivision then? MR. STEVES-That's correct. For internal reasons, the economics of the situation, they have a buyer for Lot 1, and they wish to se11 it. So, they had no objections whatsoever to going back to a two lot subdivision, to expedite this matter. MR. MARTIN-Okay. Then does that satisfy the situation, Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. There's no other limitation that's there. MR. MARTIN-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Is there anybody here to address this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARK BRILLlNG MR. BRILLING-I'm Mark Brilling, and I'm here for both myself and Roy Tonnesen, who are the two property owners directly across the road. We've got absolutely no problem with the subdivision as it's laid out, with the two things there. There is a lot of rock ledge in there, and they'l1 have trouble with the septic, but I'm sure they can work that out some way. Our only concern is the runoff water, if and when this property is logged, and if there's any way to address those problems before it happens, in that the property, actual1y two lots down the road from this, and a11 the property there is very simi1ar in terms of its steepness and rock ledge through it, and one house there did log it, and there was substantial ice in the road, which I've already discussed with Paul Naylor, with regard to that, and it real1y did have, with water down onto other property on the other side of the road. I'd 1ike to see it addressed when it gets to that point. MR. CARTIER-Is it appropriate to not log, does not logging within X number of feet of the road take care of something like that? That's kind of site specific. MR. BRILLING-I don't know, part of our concerns would address where the headers would be, which is where a lot of runoff comes down through, and it didn't in the two areas, there, where they locate the headers and how they address the runoff down from the mountain. MR. CARTIER-What's a header? MR. MARTIN-A header is where they stack the logs. MR. BRILLING-If that could be put further up in the woods or whatever, where you wouldn't have the open area where the water would collect down through from the skidders, I guess. MR. YARMOWICH-Logging regulations don't preclude a header being right by the side of the road. MR. BRILLING-No. MR. YARMOWICH-You can't cut within 50 feet. You can't put a skid road within 50 feet, except to enter and get out. The actual logging regulations won't give you any more protection than that. I don't know what the Board can do, if anything, about that. MR. BRILLING-Our only concern is the runoff of water after the logging, because we've seen experience of it right down the street. MR. YARMOWICH-The Town does have enforcement authority over even harvest activities, in terms of sediment control. No one is allowed to have sediment leave their property and Mr. Hatin's Office is the place to go if those kind of problems occur. 44 --- - MR. BRILLING-We don't have any problems with the subdivision, and I think that right-of-way was Niagara Mohawk's. I think that's the Telephone Company's, and I think they've abandoned it. MR. MARTIN-Well, it would strike me that even if the logging is done in conformance with the regulations, then some erosion control measures can be implemented. MR. YARMOWICH-You could do logging in conformance with the regulations and stil1 create some problems from time to time. MR. CARTIER-If they've logged nearby, the chances are greater that they're going to log, than not logging. MR. BRILLING-There has been logging on the property. MR. CARTIER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it's an enforcement. MR. CARTIER-Well, can't we stipulate, as a Board, that any logging that's done on the property in the future has to be done in such a manner that, do you know what I'm saying, it doesn't impact the road? MR. YARMOWICH-You might need a legal opinion as to what legal mechanisms exist in the Town, with regard to agriculture and forestry activities, things like wetlands. For instance, the Town can't stop somebody from going into a wetland and cutting wood. They can go in there with as big a piece of equipment as they want, but you can't build a house in there, and you can't build a driveway through there, but you can go in and conduct logging activities. So, I'm unsure as to what authority the Town has to really regulate forest/harvest activities. MR. CARTIER-It sounds like your option, then, is by way of the BuiJding and Codes Department, if something does show up out there. MR. MARTIN-Any more public comment? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MARTIN-And, Peter, could you take us through the SEQRA? RESOUJTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOUJTION NO. 6-1992, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: To p1ace three residentia1 units on three 10ts. or as a1tered into two 10ts, on 01d West Mountain Road. owned by DEBRA ROBINSON SOIERVILLE, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Comp11ation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. 45 - -- Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella MR. MARTIN-Motion. IIJTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-1992 DEBRA ROBINSON SOMERVILLE, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: For two residential units, one lot to be sold, with the following stipulations: That the Rist-Frost letter of 5/13 comments be addressed, the ones that are still left out, and that Lots 2 and 3, as shown, be combined into one lot. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella (11:45 p.m.) NEIl IIJSINESS: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT F1f2-92 ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOOT CooNCIL PROPERTY INVOLVED: GF-19 TO CONSTRUCT A 24' X 24' STORAGE BUILDING AND BREEZEWAY. TAX MAP NO. 60-2-6 CURREIT ZONING: SFR-lA AREA OF PROPERTY: +13.53 ACRES JOHN GORALSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT (11:45 p.m.) STAFF INPUT Notes from Lee A. York, Senior Planner, Freshwater Wetlands Permit 2-92, Adirondack Girl Scout Council, May 8, 1992, Meeting Date: May 14, 1992 "The facility on Meadowbrook Road is requesting to put up a garage to store cookies and camping gear. The garage will be within the 100 foot buffer of an identified wetland. The staff's understanding is that DEC is considering this a Type II review under SEQRA. The Board should do the same since this is construction of an accessory building. At this time DEC has not issued a permit. The staff's understanding is that the applicant will request to be tabled until a permit is issued." MR. GORALSKI-Lee is correct in that this is basically a garage. It's going to look like a garage. It's going to be used to store cookies for the cookie sales and for camping equipment. This line here is the wetland boundary. It will be, approximately, 10 feet away from that. I met with Al Koetchline at DEC and Bill Normand. The comment period for our DEC Permit ends tomorrow. We should have a permit Monday. They had absolutely no concerns. They consider it a Type II Action. So there's no SEQRA Review. They asked us to do a little bit of grading here so that any runoff from the parking area would be directed away from the wetland boundary, and that's all we've done. What I'm asking you to do is save us from sitting through four hours of meetings next week by giving us conditional approval, in that we get the DEC Permit and meet all the conditions of DEC. MR. CARTIER-Yes. We've normallY done that anyway, haven't we? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. CARTIER-Is there a public hearing necessary? MR. BREWER-I don't think there is, is there? MR. GORALSKI-There's no public hearing necessary. MR. MARTIN-I don't think we've got much of a problem, here. MR. GORALSKI-And I would like to say one more thing. When Dick Roberts left the Board, Paul Naylor genuflected. I'm not going to genuflect, but I'd like to thank Mr. Cartier for everything. MR. CARTIER-Thank you. I appreciate that. All we need is a motion here, correct? MR. MARTIN-I hope so. MR. CARTIER-Okay. 46 -- -'" IIJTION TO ISSUE FRESIllATER WETLANDS PERMIT F112-92 ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOOT CooNCIL, Introduced by Peter Cartier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: To construct a 24' by 24' storage building and breezeway on their property on Meadowbrook Road, with the stipulation that DEC permit be issued, and that the applicant comply with any conditions so stated in the DEC permit. Duly adopted this 14th day of May, 1992, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Cartier, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Martin NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Lauricella On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Martin, Chairman 47