The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-07-27 " ',;-- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27TH, 1993 INDEX Site Plan No. 36-93 John McCall 1. SEQRA REVIEW Ann & Irwin Johnson 1. Subdivision No. 12-1993 FINAL STAGE Garth Allen 2. S u bd i vis ion No. 1 3 - 1 993 SKETCH PLAN James Girard 3. Subdivision No. 14-1993 SKETCH PLAN J. Buckley Bryan, Jr. 4. Subdivision No. 15-1993 SKETCH PLAN William Potvin 12. S u bd i vis ion No. 1 6 - 1 993 PRELIMINARY STAGE American Equity 22. Site Plan No. 37-93 Dept. of Phys ical Faci lit i es for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints 24. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. " '-- -....../ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27TH. 1993 7:00 P.M. MEETING MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA. SECRETARY CAROL PULVER GEORGE STARK ROGER RUEL MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MACEWAN EDWARD LAPOINT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER TOWN ENGINEER-TOM YARMOWICH, RIST-FROST STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI (DUE TO A PROBLEM WITH THE TAPE A SECTION OF THE MINUTES WAS LOST. TAPE PICKS UP WITH J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR. SUBDIVISION!) OLD !HJSINES§.: SITE PLAN NO. 36-93 TYPE II JOHN MCCALL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-1A. C.E.A. LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT., LK. GEORGE CONSTRUCTION OF 2 BOAT HOUSES. STABILIZATION OF SHORELINE ON PROPERTY TO BE OCCUPIED BY A 2 STORY RESIDENeE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 7-14-93 APA TAX MAP NO. 7-1-16.1. LOT SIZE: +1. 5 ACRES SECTION: 176-16 D 3 HOWARD KRANTZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT AL MUGRACE AND JOHN MCCALL WERE ALSO PRESENT MOTION-10 APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 36-93 JOHN MÇCALL. Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: Duly adopted this 27th day of July. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver, Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint !iI!SOLQ,.IONS: SEQRA REVIEW: ANN & IRWIN JOHNSON - RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE LEAD AGENCY IN THE REVIEW OF AV #52-1993. (PER ZBA RESOLUTION OF JULY 21, 1993) RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY TO BE LEAD AGENT IN THE REVIEW OF Area Variance #52-1993, Ann & Irwin J... 0 h n S_QIl RESOLUTION NO.: 15-1993 INTRODUCED BY: Corinne Tarana WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: Roqer_Ruel - 1 - " -.../ WHEREAS. Ann & Irwin Johnson have submitted an application for a variance in connection with a project known as or described as a proposal to construct a single family dwelling and an attached garage on a vacant lot. and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Planninq Board desires to commence a coordinated review process as provided under the DEC Regulations adopted in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby determines that the action proposed by the applicant constitutes a ï~-i action under SEQRA. and BE IT FURTHER. RESOLVED. that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby indicates its desire to be lead agent for purposes of the SEQRA review process and hereby authorizes and directs the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies that: 1) an application has been made by Ann & Irwin Johnson for a variance; 2) a coordinated SEQRA review is desired; 3) a lead agency for purposes of SEQRA review must therefore be aqreed to among the involved agencies within 30 days; and 4) the Town of Queensbury Planning Board desires to be the lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review; and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED. that when notifying the other involved agencies. the Executive Director shall also mail a letter of explanation. together with copies of this resolution. the application. and the EAF with Part I completed by the project sponsor. or where appropriate. the Draft EIS. Duly adopted this 27th day of July. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1993 FINAL STAGE TYPE GARTH ALLEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: NORTHSIDE OF CRONIN RD.. APPROXIMATELY 1200' FEET EAST OF BAY RD./CRONIN RD. INTERSECTION. A PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 97.2 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CLUSTERED 90 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: P6-91. FWl-93 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-5. 10 LOT SIZE: 97.2 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DICK MORSE. MARK SCHACHNER. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 12-1993 Final Stage. Garth Allen. Meeting Date: July 27. 1993 "Proiect Description: The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision. It consists of taking a 97.2 acre lot and subdividing it into a 27.2 acre parcel and a 70.0 acre parcel. The 27.2 acre lot will be developed as a clustered housing project of 90 townhouses. The remaining 70 acre lot will continue to be used as a golf course. Access to both lots will be from Cronin Road. Future development of the larger parcel is not possible because the development rights will have been clustered on the 27.2 acre lot. The subdivision will also involve a wetlands (GF-22). Portions of this wetland, which generally runs parallel with Halfway Brook. are included in both of the lots and a wetlands permi t will be required as a result of the development that is - 2 - \.. -~------_._- '- --- proposed if this subdivision is approved. Pro;ect Analysis: During preliminary review there was found to be no significant problems associated with this subdivision. Recommendation: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with this subdivision and Staff can recommend final approval of this application." MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1993 GARTH ALLEN. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: For a proposed subdivision of a 97.2 acre parcel into 2 lots to allow construction of a clustered 90 unit townhouse development. Duly adopted this 27th day of July. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1993 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED SFR-1A JAMES GIRARD OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE CRONIN RD.. 1.100' EAST OF BAY ROAD PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 5.81 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR (4) LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 1 39-1993 TAX MAP NO. 59-1-5.1. 5.8 LOT SIZE: 5.81 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JAMES GIRARD. PRESENT MICHAEL O'CONNOR WAS ALSO PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 13-1993. James Girard. Meeting Date: July 27. 1993 "Pro;ect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.81 acre parcel into four lots. Three of the lots will be buildable lots. the fourth is proposed to be conveyed to the Town; it is adjacent to Halfway Brook and is mostly wetland. The buildable lots will all be approximately 1.1 acres in size and the parcel to be conveyed to the Town is to be 2.1 acres. The applicant received a variance to allow for lot 1 to have less than double lot width. Lot two has an existing house on it; lots one and three are vacant. There will be a shared drive between lots two and three. The proposal also involves the conveyance of .32 acres to an existing lot located between lots three and the property to be conveyed to the Town. The lots ,~ill have municipal sewer and water; is zoned SFR-1A. Pro;ect Analysis: The project does not involve the construction of any roads and the lots will be able to tie into the existing services along Cronin Road. The subdivision cleans up an undesirable situation by creating four lots of approximately one acre in size out of a split frontage parcel. The Town also gets the opportunity to obtain 2.1 acres of land along Halfway Brook. It appears that the subdivision involves a DEC designated wetland; the applicant should have the wetlands delineated and flagged." THERE WAS ALSO A LETTER FROM JAHES GIRARD. ON COULTER & MCCORMACK. LICENSED LAND SURVEYORS STATIONARY. TO TOWN OF QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD. DATED JULY 23. 1993. RE: Waiver Request SD 13-1993 Subdivision of lands of James Girard Cronin Road "The undersigned is an applicant for a 4 lot subdivision of a 5.81 Acre parcel on the south side of Cronin Road. The easterly 2.1 acres is a juri sdictional wetland. Lot 2 is already deve loped. with a house. garage & barn. Lots 1 & 3 are to be sold. for single family residences. I am requesting a waiver under Article XIV, of the Queensbury subdivision regulations. that require a Grading /Drainage - 3 - \ ---- )-- ...-- - Report and Topographic and vegetative Mapping. Based on the fact that construction of a single family residence on Lots 1 & 3, would not require any significant clearing or grading since Lot #1 is an open field and Lot #3 is a mowed lawn. in the area of proposed construction. The proposed joint driveway will require the removal of several trees along Cronin Road. The eXisting drainage pattern would not be affected. Lot #1 and 3 will be serviced by the existing water and sewer lines in Cronin Road. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Yours very truly. James Girard" THERE WAS ALSO A LETTER FROM HIKE SHAW. QUEENSBURY WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT. DATED JULY 8. 1993. TO: JIM MA.RTIN. RE: GIRARD SUBDIVISION REVIEW "The Girard subdivision is within the Quaker Road Sewer District and sanitary sewer service is available. The tapping of the sanitary main would have to be performed by an approved contractor. This list is available at my office." MOTION TO, APPROVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1993 JAMES_ GIRARD. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: For proposed subdivision of a 5.81 acre· parcel into four (4) lots. with the condition: A letter to recommend acceptance òf 2.42 acres and a grading. drainage report, topographic and vegetative mapping. under Article 14. Duly adopted this 27th day of July. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr.. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1993 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED J. BUCKLEY BRYAN. JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: NORTH OFF AVIATION RD. ONTO FARR LANE. PROPOSAL FOR A SUBDIVISION OF 18.97 ACRE PARCEL INTO SIX (6) LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 73-1-22.1. 22.3 LOT SIZE: 18.97 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O'CONNOR. LEON STEVES. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 14-1993 Sketch Plan. J. Buckley Bryan. Jr.. Meeting Date: July 27. 1993 "Pro;ect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 18.97 acre parcel into 6 lots. Five of the lots will have frontage on êl newly created cul de sac at the end of Farr Lane. The sixth lot will have access and frontage on Fox Farm Road. The lots will range in size from 3.53 to 3.0 acres. The property is zoned RR-3A and is serviced by Town water. Pro;ect Analysis: The site is mostly flat and wooded. The cul de sac was recently constructed to provide access to newly approved and constructed senior citizen housing. This pro ject opened up the rest of the area to development. 'rhere have been two areas identified as containing the Blue Lupine. These two areas. located on lots 3 and 5 are relatively small isolated areas and could easily be avoided during construction. The lots appear to be configured so as to allow for a large area of useable space. lot 6 appears to have an odd configuration in the south east corner. It is not clear if lot 1. with access via Fox Farm Road. will be tied into Town water." HR. BREWER-Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Leon Steves from the office of VanDusen & Steves. and wi th the lack of public participation. I don't know that there's any reason for me to hang this up on the wall. but I'll be glad to. The Lupine was located one day last month, with a girl from DEC, who located the Lupine itself, which is a habitat area of the Carner Blue Butterfly. She was going to - 4 - ,.--' come back this month. I haven't heard from her. I don't believe there's any Carner Blue's out there. I haven't seen any. but she wanted to come back to see if there were any at all. The area south, if you've been out there. you know that's the old runway for the old Floyd Bennett field. So that we have a unique situation there. We've got a lot of blacktop. It's old. but it's there. right down. almost paralleling the cuI de sac. running right through lots 5. 4, 3. and 2. even into 1. That was a good question that Scott brought uP. about Fox Farm Road. I assume that there's water out there. There's houses across the way. I would assume there's water there. I will check with Tom Flaherty tomorrow. The soils are all sandy. gravelly soils. to 15 plus feet. We've had perc tests done. They were all one minute soils or slower. They're huge lots. MR. HARLICKER-What's with this little odd thing down next to the National Church Residence? HR. STEVES-Well. there's that shed down there. Buck's property. and I would think he'd want to keep that on his property. and I want to make it contain the three acre lot there. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. STEVES-So I have to do something like th,at to maintain it. It's crazy. but without getting a variance to go less than three acres. MR. MARTIN-Just to reference. maybe. a concept that's rare here. in this process. as we plan for the future. any consideration ever given to the lands of Farone here? If we could. like. some way work in a right-of-way to connect. as a possible connector road that would connect those properties? MR. STEVES-That is a good thought. but it's an expensive thought. because unless the Town changes their desire to have the roads go to the property line. you're forcing an individual to go to an awful expense with no return, and this is the classic case of it right here. MR. MARTIN-No, I'm not saying actually putting the road in. I'm just saying. reserve the land to the Town for. MR. STEVES-Okay. Make it a 50 foot right-of-way in there? MR. MARTIN-Between lot lines or something like that. I know it's a concept. MR. STEVES-I think that's an excellent suggestion. Jim. I'm trying to think. how do I do that if I create a lot that's less than three acres in size? What am I doing to it? Am I conveying it to the Town? Do it convey it to the Town. then prior to a. I here you. MR. MARTIN-I've seen a lot of these plans lately and I see cul de sac after cuI de sac after cuI de sac. and, boy. Paul Naylor's head is going to get dizzy. MR. STEVES-The questions are rhetorical. but I mean. it brings up the questions that have to be asked. Do I get that dedicated to the Town before I get approval? Because otherwise. the Town is exempt from the regulations of the Town. but I can't go through and create a lot that's less than three acres in size. MR. MARTIN-I know. MR. STEVES-And I've thought of Mr. Farone and his property up there. MR. MARTIN-Well. I was thinking somewhere, like, between lots 3 and 4. but that would probably kick you under three: acres. right? - 5 - ./'~ " ',-- -------- MR. STEVES-Yes, or even on the anywhere in there. line between two and three, MR. MARTIN-That would be a logical extension of that the abandoned cuI de sac. road, from MR. BREWER-Do we have a, Farone has no road? MR. STEVES-Yes. Mr. Farone has an entrance on Fox Farm Road. That's his whole entrance. MR. BREWER-And what you're thinking is a loop, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I just think we ought to start becoming more aware of the developments around the subdivision, as we consider these things, and see if there's any way we can logically tie the infrastructure together, and that's why we're at Sketch Plan, to talk about those type of things. MR. BREWER-It's hard for me to figure out, I don't have any idea where Fox Farm Road comes around? Does it come around this way? MR. STEVES-No. It doesn't. For all practical purposes, Fox Farm Road ends right there, for all practical purposes, now. I'm not saying that's the end of the road, but if you're familiar with the area, there's a farm house right out there, and I would say that that's the end of the road. MR. BREWER-Fox Farm? MR. STEVES-Yes. That's not official. The Town has a link I don't know what that is, but that house is serviced Town. MR. MARTIN-I don't want to make it a big sticking point. rai se the issue, that's all. on it. by the I just MRS. PULVER-Leon, what's his intent here, single family homes? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. BREWER-Does anybody have any questions? MR. STARK-Are there any PCB's up there on that property by that runway or anything? MR. STEVES-Not to my knowledge, none at all. MR. STARK-That land, back in the 50's and early 60's, before the school was up and everything, they found PCB's over on the school property, where they had coated that, before the macadam was done like this and everything, and why wouldn't it be over there, that's all macadam over there? MR. STEVES-There could well be. Nobody identified it for me. MR. STARK-I think they're over there, and they're on the north south runway and they're on the east west runway also. I don't know what that has to do with what. MRS. TARANA-Well, you can't excavate where you've got PCB's. MR. BREWER-How can we find out if there are? Why wouldn't they, when they did the school, why wouldn't they continue their search for the PCB's, rather than stop right on the property line? MR. MARTIN-Was anything ever done through the National Church Residence, Leon, when they built that? MR. STEVES-No. - 6 - '--- ~' MR. O'CONNOR-It is not an identified site with the Registry of the sites that's kept at the County Clerk's Office. MRS. PULVER-I was just going to say. there's a list of active. and inactive. and I know that when you apply for a grant from the government. you have to list all your. MR. BREWER-Yes. but just because it's not on that list doesn't necessarily mean it's there. Is there any way we can. short of going out and checking every inch of the property. MR. HARLICKER-Require somebody to go out and check it? MR. BREWER-Can you see where the old runways used to be there? MR. MARTIN-Yes. They're just to the north of the road. and it runs basically parallel. MR. BREWER-Right where that wavy line is? MR. STEVES-Yes. It runs right over into the civil defense lot. if you will. MR. BREWER-All right. Is there any way we can find out if there is PCB's there. without going through great expense? MRS. PULVER-Well. who does that testing? MR. BREWER-I don't know. MRS. TARANA-DEC. MR. BREWER-Do you have any idea who does that. or could tell us? MR. STEVES-I could ask the Department of Health. Normally what they do is just go out and sniff. If they smell anything that smells like. they would say so. but otherwise. no. HR. MARTIN-I don't think, you can do some soil borings off of each lot. like four. five. three and two. on a random basis. some soil tests. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well. if we want to find out if there was. then we have to ask him to. We can't do it. So you want to know if there is. MR. STARK-Well. I don't know. thing. Jim? Do you think that's a relative MR. MARTIN-It's going to come up during your SEQRA. your environmental assessment. at the next step. HRS. TARANA-I think you might as well find out now. MR. BREWER-Then we can find out about that. else? Is there anything MRS. TARANA-I just have a question. Are these Farone lands landlocked. or do they have access out on Fox Farm? MR. STEVES-No. Access. Fox Farm Road, yes. MR. MARTIN-The terrain gets rather steep back in there. doesn't it, on the Farone property? MR. STEVES-Not until you get way up to the big swamp up there. Rush Pond. You get adjacent to the Rush Pond area. and then you have a steep bank. everything before that is pretty good. He's got about 75 acres of good land. I would say. - 7 - ...-- MR. BREWER-Okay. to. I guess we can make a motion. if someone wants HRS. PULVER-This is at Sketch? MR. BREWER-This is at Sketch. MRS. PULVER-So. Leon. you're going to check with the Department of Health? MR. STEVES-Yes. thing? I mean. how far do you want me to go with this MR. BREWER-If we could ask somebody from the Department of Health to go up there and smell for a while some afternoon. I don't know. Maybe get a letter stating they were up there and didn't find anything. MR. STEVES-I don't know if they'll go on record as doing that. MRS. PULVER-Well. what about DEC? MR. STEVES-The same way. MRS. PULVER-How about you get a list from DEC of where the active and inactive sites are. and it won't be listed. I know it's not listed on there. but I would get a list from DEC of where, so it shows that it's not on that list. MR. STEVES-I can do that. HRS. PULVER-Yes. That's a simple thing to do there. and then I don't know if you should have an engineer go out and test it or? I would think if there was anything there. the school wouldn't be there. MR. BREWER-Well. if they removed it, though. Carol. MR. STARK-No. no. The school was built before anybody considered this a carcinogenic. MRS. PULVER-So we're still letting our kids go there with? MR. STARK-Well. remember when the three or four teachers had cancer in the one wing. Carol. back about five, ten years ago? MRS. PULVER-No. MR. MARTIN-Yes. people. I remember that. There were like three or four HR. STARK-They were all in the one wing. and they all had the same type cancer. and all the teachers. the Teacher's Association. it was a long time ago. and they identified it then. that it was on PCB's. MR. O'CONNOR-Also your Little League is right out there. too. MR. STARK-The Little League on the north/south runway. MR. BREWER-Well. I think it's a relevant question. and I think we should find out if there are or there aren't. MRS. PULVER-What's the criteria for getting DEC to go out there? This is their jurisdiction. MR. MARTIN-We could investigate what that process is. If they would come out. like they flag wetlands. Maybe they would come out and do soil testing. - 8 - ..--' --- MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. HARLICKER-Maybe our engineer might have some idea. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Mayb.e you would have some idea. We've got a subdivision. Sketch Plan. just north of the National Church Residence. remember that project. on Farr Lane? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. MARTIN-George Stark raised the question that there's some suspicion on his part that there may be a PCB in that soil. due to the runway maintenance and things that were done there. Who would we get to confirm that? Would DEC look into that for you. or? MR. YARMOWICH-Is there going to be a property transfer associated with this. or is J. Buckley Bryan the developer? MR. MARTIN-He's the developer. MR. YARMOWICH-Because normally if there's would have that kind of an assessment done. of it. you may want to have that verified analysis. That's the way to do it. When transferred? a transfer. the banks If there's a suspicion through some soil gas was the property last MR. STEVES-1986. HR. YARMOWICH-So then it mayor may not have been. Usually lenders require that. if there's any question about. MRS. PULVER-Well. part of it was just transferred to the National Church Residences. and I mean. and I know that when they were applying for some of that grant money, they had to list all active and inactive sites within. HR. YARHOWICH-Did they buy it. or did they mortgage it? If they mortgaged it. it wouldn't have been a requirement. MRS. PULVER-No. but they had to. I don't know what they did with the property. HR. YARMOWICH-The banks usually get involved when they. MRS. PULVER-But to get some of the grant money that they were applying for. they had to submit active and inactive sites. MR. BREWER-Well. we can maybe find out from that. and. MR. YARMOWICH-That information may be available. and if the Board has a question as to. MR. MARTIN-Well. why don't we do one of two things at this point. because you're not doing your SEQRA until preliminary anyhow. is check both the transfer of the property for the National Church Residence property. and also in '86. when Buck Bryan first bought it. because there was also a lot of testing done on the soils out there. He had some soil testing done for the sands out there. too. Remember there was a question about septic systems out here. and that's why it went to the three acre zoning. MR. STEVES-Again. I don't think it was tested for PCB's. It was tested for PCB's. It was tested for the permeability of the soils. MR. BREWER-Maybe we could get a test on specifically where that runway was. MR. MARTIN-See. if there was any testing that was involved in the transfer of the property. - 9 - --- MR. STEVES-We had a hydrogeological investigation made. back in 1989. of this property. MRS. PULVER-When QEDC wanted to subdivide that property. and I was on the Board at the time. what was it. '89, '90. there was a lot of talk about Cieba Geigy. and was there contaminants on that property. Were you on the Board at that time. Jim? MR. MARTIN-No. MRS. PULVER-Like air borne. stuff coming through the air. I don't know. lead. remember that pond. or there was water on the QEDC property. They drained it. looked at the bottom. Somebody drained it. I don't know who drained it. but they had it drained. and I know when they were checking. they can't just. you had to be specific as to what you wanted them to check for. So we said lead and cadmium and. I don't know. a couple of other things. is what they specifically checked for. and they ended up finding a refrigerator and stove. and a couple of other things. but they didn't find that. Who did we use. and how did we get that done. that study? MR. MARTIN-The City of Glens Falls had the same exact problem on Mohican Street playground there. behind the Broad Street Plaza. or the Broad Street offices there, and the City wound up. there were $30.000 worth of soil dredgings done there. They excavated like three feet of soil off of the site. because there were PCB's found. MRS. PULVER-Yes. That was because that was where the West Side. MR. O'CONNOR-No. That wasn't West Side. That was Elky's. Elky's Junkyard was there. MRS. PULVER-Was it? Okay. MR. BREWER-Yes. I know where you mean. MR. HARTIN-It's not an expensive process to do the testing. The testing is not. I don't think. expensive. MRS. PULVER-No. but I'm saying. who did it? engineers then. Rist-Frost was our MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. I was not involved in doing Town Engineer work at the time. However. there are several qualified firms in operating and doing that stuff locally. Huntington Empire does it. I know. They're a Geotechnical Engineering type outfit. What it's known as is a Phase I Environmental Assessment. You do have to have target parameters associated with it. what are the particular things you're interested in. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I remember. they're going to find. You have to state what you think MR. YARMOWICH-That' s not general scan. but then whiddling it down. true. You you have to can go run. you could run a through a process of MR. O'CONNOR-Phase I. though. isn't any testing at all. Phase I is simply an on-site investigation. A paper search by an engineering firm to see if the site's listed. and if there's anýthing on the si te that indicates that soil testing should be required. You don't get to soil testing until you go to Phase II. MR. YARMOWICH-Phase II. but you have to generate some evidence to presuppose that there might be contamination. MR. BREWER-You mean you can't just hire somebody to go out there and take a bore. where the runway is. and test what it is? - 10 - ---- MR. YARMOWICH-You can. but. MR. BREWER-You have to go through Phase I to do that? I mean. it would seem that. why would you have to do all the paperwork to see if it was listed or not listed? Why couldn't you just go out there and dig some of it up and test it? MR. YARMOWICH-You can. MR. BREWER-Then why can't we just do that? MR. O'CONNOR-Doesn't Bender Lab do it? For a while. when people were buying single family houses over in South Glens Falls. when the Caputo site first became very much a concern to everybody. everybody did a soil sample near the house. and sent it off, I think it was the Bender Labs. I don't know. Leon says if Adirondack. MR. YARMOWICH-Adirondack Ecological Associates do that. MR. O'CONNOR-Hudson Environmental. They might even do it. MR. YARMOWICH-There's a number of people that do it. MR. O'CONNOR-You do this Phase I to see where they should take the sample from, basically. MR. BREWER-I think George is specifically saying right where. maybe where the runway was. where they may have oiled it down. through the years or whatever. MR. YARMOWICH-I don't know what kind of aircraft operations they had going there. It was probably real minor. MRS. PULVER-All right. sort of sample done. Well. do we want it done? We want some MRS. TARANA-You want a determination there are no PCB's there. MR. BREWER-Yes. That's all. MR. STEVES-I guess I'm not going to make tomorrow's deadline, am I? MR. MARTIN-Not unless you've got a shovel and flashlight. HRS. PULVER-I just want to be sure that we have this straight. That we're going to approve the Sketch Plan, but before you can go on to Preliminary. MR. BREWER-Maybe he could have those test results at Preliminary for us? Then he could still meet the deadline. Would that make you happy? MRS. PULVER-You can still submit tomorrow. but you have to have the soil test results by the night of the meeting. Well, lets have it by a week before the meeting. MR. BREWER-So that we know what we've got. MRS. PULVER-A few days before the meeting. so that we can have it before the meeting? MR. STEVES-Yes. I really want to submit tomorrow. but if I submit tomorrow. I'm going to have to say. no. under there's nothing there. under the SEQRA. and then if there's something that comes back in under the testing, then I have a bad SEQRA. MRS. PULVER-But you don't fill out the SEQRA anyway. MR. BREWER-We fill out the SEQRA. - 11 - -- -- MR. YARMOWICH-It could be mitigated. if it's a contamination problem, it's possible to be mitigated. MR. STEVES-Lets try it. I will see what I can do about getting a sample. MRS. PULVER-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1993 J. BUCKLEY ßRYAN. JR.. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: For a proposal for a subdivision of 18.97 acre parcel into six lots. with the following stipulation: That at preliminary review. you have the results of the soil test(s) on the property. Duly adopted this 27th day of July. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 15-1993 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM POTVIN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A CLENDON BROOK PHASE II LOCATION: FROM WEST MT. RD. EAST ONTO LUZERNE RD. FOR 1/2 MILE. THEN LEFT ONTO LAUREL LANE TO MARIGOLD LN. ONTO MARIGOLD LN. TO END - PROPERTY TO RIGHT. PROPOSAL FOR A SUBDIVISION OF A 39.29 ACRE PARCEL INTO SIXTEEN (16) LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 12-1993 TAX MAP NO. 121-1-53.1 LOT SIZE: 39.29 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O'CONNOR. LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 15-1993. William Potvin. Meeting Date: July 27. 1993 "proiect Description: The applicant is proposing to subdivide part of a 39.29 acre parcel into 16 lots. The subdivision is phase two of the existing Clendon Brook Subdivision located on the north side of Luzerne Road. Access to the subdivision will be through the existing road network of Clendon Brook. The lots will be serviced by municipal water and individual on site septic systems. The property is zoned SR-1A; however. the applicant received variances to allow for undersized lots. Of the 16 lots. four of them (4. 5. 15. & 16) meet the minimum size. The variances were given with the stipulation that 29.17 acres on the west side of the subdivision along Clendon Brook be offered to the Town. and that some restrictive covenants be put into the deeds; it is not known at this time what those restrictions will be. Proiect Analysis: The project site is mostly flat and heavily wooded. The lots will be accessed by a new loop road that will connect with Harigold Drive and Laurel Lane. Once in the existing subdivision internal access to the lots is satisfactory. However. there is only one way into this subdivision from Luzerne Road and that is not sufficient. There are currently 49 lots that have only one means of access. by developing 16 more lots they are increasing that number by one-third. Access to lots 11 and 12 could be improved by extending the pavement on the stub street. As proposed. access to lot 11 is limited to the northern 40 feet of the lot. This places some strict limitations on the placement of a house on that parcel. Proposed access to lot 12 is also limited. The lot is a corner lot but can only be accessed from one side." MR. MARTIN-And we have attached the Zoning Board of Appeals variance. MR. BREWER-Okay. We also have a letter from Paul Naylor. I think - 12 - '--' .- -- it's pertaining to this. about the road. because they asked for a waiver on the radius. MRS. TARANA-This is dated July 12. 1993. to Jim Hartin from Paul Naylor. regarding reviewing applications for July Planning Board Meetings. "Jim: Due to the vacations and cut in staff there just isn't enough time to allow me to review each and every permit. I know the Planning Board and Engineers look at the radius in the town and town specifications. So as long as they meet wi th the specifications and follow the rules. they will be safe. If there are any unusual circumstances. please feel free to give me a call. Sorry, Jim, there just aren't enough hours in the day. Respectfully. Paul H. Naylor Highway Superintendent To\m of Queensbury" MR. O'CONNOR-I'm Michael O'Connor from the law firm of Little & 0' Connor. and wi th me is Leon Steves. We're here on behalf of William Potvin and others. with regard to a 16 lot subdivision. which is an extension of an existing subdivision. Clendon Brook. This is a subdivision. which we were before this Board sometime last year. I think in either November or December. and we came in at that time. and at that time. there were a good number of neighbors that were involved in the process. and at that time. it was suggested that we go out and see if we could make our peace with neighbors. and make our peace with maybe adjoining owners. to see what we could do as far as access goes. We ended uP. and I think also at that time. it was recognized that we had to get a variance from the one acre lot to proceed on the level that we wished to proceed from the Zoning Board of Appeals. So we've gone through the variance process. We've met with the neighbors a number of times. and I think we've come back to the Board with something that we can feel pretty good about. in presenting to the Board. This is a unique piece of property. and just to give you a quick overview of the zoning question. and the variance question. I give you a composite. if you will. of the tax map. The property to the north of the site. and this is the site, right here. that \.¡e're talking about. This U-shaped site on this composite. and maybe you've passed that. The property to the north of it is the property that was approved by this Board for 10.000 square foot lots for single family residences. The property to the immediate east of the site is accessed along Burch Lane. and this is the 10.000 square foot lots. right through here. I'm not sure. is it Sherman Pines to the north of us. Leon? MR. STEVES-Sherman Pines. to the north. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This is an area that your access off of Burch Road. Most of these lots along here are 100 feet in width. and have mobile homes on them. MR. BREWER-That's another Mobile Home Overlay Zone that was just approved. right there. right? MR. O'CONNOR-And this is also part of the Mobile Home Overlay Zone. to be honest with you. both sides of the road. They had an actual park before you for approval. MR. BREWER-Right. and they got approval. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We're talking about coming in this way. right here. This was a proposal that actually. in the first initial approval. would have had a road continue out through here. and when this was re-zoned. I think Leon came in and talked about access from Burch Road or otherwise for this subdivision. so that there'd be a connection for some of this land. and at that time. the Town Board didn't do it. So. basically. we've got this envelope of land that we're trying to develop. We went in and asked the neighbors to consent to variances that would allow us to build 20 lots. They objected to that. and we ended up with an agreement with them. and a consensus of the people representing them. that 16 lots would be - 13 - ~-.... acceptable to them. That's the basis on which we got the variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The land that we're talking about dedicating to the Town. we've written a letter. and I don't know if that's in your packet. I wrote a letter June 24th. That letter was to the Queensbury Planning Board. and it asked that as part of the application for concept approval. that the Board consider granting of a radius of curves that are required. and I didn't have the actual radiuses at that time. but these radiuses do not comply with the 300 foot radius on a curve. MR. BREWER-It says in your letter, 325 and 225. HR. 0' CONNOR-Yes. We're talking radius. inside, of 200 and the outside 250. Centerline is 225 radius, Leon? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-This is the only curve that I think that we've talking about not complying with the regulation. It's not going to be a heavily traveled road. People are going to have to turn onto it. There is no great speedway to get underway. as far as being able to create a problem by speeding or something of that nature. Secondly. and this is maybe through the back door of what Jim Martin was talking about. As part of the agreement with the neighbors. there's a piece of land down here that's vacant. They wanted us. in our development. to include the possibility of connection out onto Luzerne Road. which is down here. in the future. and they wanted us to leave this roadway in here. even though we approached the neighbor and tried to negotiate a land swap, development swap. and we even actually designed. in Sketch Plan stage. his lands, and showed it to him. told him what lots we would trade with him. if we built the road. There's, like. 700 feet of road from this part down to Luzerne Road. We just couldn't get the fellow to agree. at this point. to become involved in the process. The neighbors wanted us to include that. though. Thinking that maybe he will change his mind in the future. Maybe somebody else that comes along that owns that property. when they develop it. will have a way of connecting. by loop, into their system. Some of the people in the back would like a secondary access. even though they're not going to be part of the new lots. part of the old lots. to come out onto Luzerne Road. So what we have asked for is a waiver of the requirement of paving of this last portion of this. We would like to dedicate, as part of our offer of dedication, the entire road system. So we don't end up owning this ear. So that in the future. if somebody comes in to develop the south parcel. then they have means of connection. and at that time. what you would say is for the privilege of connecting to the piece that the neighbor has left for you. which they didn't pay for. and actually get the benefit of. you will connect the improvements from your property up to the existing improvements. That's done in other communities. It's done in the County. and I think it's done in Greenfield. MR. BREWER-Then that road would be built by? MR. O'CONNOR-Whoever is going to connect to it. until the time it's buil t. or unti I the time it's actually going to be used for somebody. it remains unimproved. MR. STEVES-Well. I think that. back in 1973. when we did Phase I of this Clendon Brook Subdivision. we had planned for the roads to go north. and as shown on your plan right there. Marigold Drive was to go north to Sherman Avenue. As you can see here. the radius was provided for that. The road was there. The lot was created to accept that. then the Town decided not to go through to Sherman Avenue. MR. BREWER-That 700 foot you want somebody else to build? MR. O'CONNOR-Well. it actually will be 700 feet to our property - 14 - ---, line. but probably about 110 feet to where we end our pavement. We'll grade it. We'll put in the subgrade and everything else. We just won't pave it. Now this is something that maybe in final. between preliminary and final. we've got to work out wi th Paul Naylor. Up until this point, the Town hasn't wanted to take anything that's shown as a road. that's not fully improved to Town road specs. but this is what. I think Mr. Martin was referring to on this other piece. It would be nice. in the future. to be able to build a network of roads. interior roads. in all these developments. so that they are interconnected. MR. MARTIN-Just to show you the impact of this, as a concept. I was on the Board when we looked at it, with Sherman Pines. to the north of this. Leon recalls. I think. They offered a connection. I think in through this area. Wasn't it. Leon, or was it Burch Road? MR. STEVES-Burch Lane was within shouting distance. MR. MARTIN-And we. by design. decided not to do that. and in retrospect, it would have been better to provide the access. MR. BREWER-I remember that. HR. O'CONNOR-The down side of some of that is. and I'll give you. Dave Little owns what was the Northern Homes subdivision. right down here on Blackberry Lane. going north off of Blind Rock Road. Recently. in the new assessment, his road goes up like this. and the Town road comes over to almost the end of his property. but there's a strip left for a connection to the property next to him. and the same thing on the other side, there's a strip left for connection next to that. and these are like two little ears. if you will. The Town recently assessed them for $10.000 each for each of those 50 foot ears. You can't build a house on it. You can't do anything. I think they're going to change them. I don't know what the final assessment was. but it's a nuisance for somebody to own that in their own name for future protection or for future development. particularly if they don't own over here. You sell both sides of it. then why do you want the 50 foot strip? MR. BREWER-Why did you only decide to go 40 feet into that lot? HR. O'CONNOR-So that we would meet the zoning requirement that we have frontage of 40 feet on a Town road. That's negotiable. You tell us if you need 60 feet. We'll listen to you. You tell us we need to do the whole thing. we'll do it. but I don't think Naylor will let us dead end the paving against the property line. MR. BREWER-I can understand you not wanting to pave all that. but I can also say that I wouldn't. MRS. TARANA-Is that a road there. a dirt road or something there now. the one that you're talking about saving? There's nothing there now. MR. O'CONNOR-No. To my understanding. I don't think this was even grubbed out when they did it in '73. This was just. this was vacant land. This whole thing is vacant land. MR. STARK-Motorcycle trails and stuff like this and everything. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STARK-I know. because I've been allover that land. MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. TARANA-If you leave it like. the way you've got it there now. how will Lot 11 get out onto the road? - 15 - ..r- MR. O'CONNOR-He has 40 feet right here. and his driveway would go in there. Most people put their driveway about 10 feet off the property. You could put your driveway in there. and come in off that. it would be the north side of the house for his driveway. Another place where they did this, and you've got to take a look at, may be Helen Drive. On Helen Drive. they left ears. if you will. I don't know who owns that. MRS. PULVER-I owned that corner lot. MR. O'CONNOR-You owned the corner lot on Helen Drive? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Who owned the roadway? MRS. PULVER-The Town owned the roadway. Farrells were on one side, we were on the other side. The road butts right up to the water shed property. MR. MARTIN-What I think is needed here. Mike, is to get the specifics on this proposal. we definitely need to talk to Paul on this. MR. O'CONNOR-I wrote it out. probably longer fashion than what you needed. in that letter. just so you'd have it at this early stage. There isn't really much of an alternative or a different system that we can develop. The question is. do we preserve the possibility of connecting. which we told the neighbors we would, when they consented to the variance. They wanted that a possibility. MR. BREWER-That would if. rather than just don't know. 80 feet. but it just seems, to be fine with me, but I would just like to see leave 40 foot for Lot 11. to come down. I I'm not trying to make an expense for you. go the bare minimum on there. MR. O'CONNOR-Typically, if you had your driveway 10 feet off the property line. and then you have a 15 foot driveway. you're only in 25 feet. Your driveway would come in. and maybe take a right hand turn to the garage. if you face the garage that way. The house would still be faced out onto this road. Your driveway. usually. from the road is no more than 10 to 15 feet width. MRS. PULVER-Not mine. MR. BREWER-Not mine. MRS. PULVER-Mine is as wide is my garage. and my garage is 24 or 26 feet wide. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You've got 10 feet and 24 feet. You have 34 feet. You've still got six feet of pavement on this side of the road. I'm not arguing. I have no fixed distance in mind that is magical. MR. BREWER-Because you've got to allow for snow. MR. O'CONNOR-They're going to whack the snow down there pretty good. I don't think that's going to be a problem. Okay. We would consider that. Is that going to make. if that's Mr. Brewer's suggestion. does anybody else have any other feeling about that? MRS. PULVER-Well. my only feeling about that is I hate to have you say. I'm saying. all right. I have a two car garage. My paving is 24 or 26 wide. and maybe I want to be more than 10 feet from my property line. 20 feet. so maybe you should pave down 60 feet. Again, but the person that bought that may only have a one car garage, may only want it 10 feet. - 16 - ...., '- ----.~ MR. BREWER-Yes. we have no idea. but I mean at least we could leave them the opportunity to have a two car garage that's 26 feet wide. It's better to have more than enough than not enough. MR. STEVES-Tim. were you a member of this Board when Queensbury Forest Phase III was approved? Do you remember the argument I had. or the neighbor had at that time. we were told that we had to bring one lot off the end of that hammer head. so that we had 50 foot of frontage. but again. it's right at the end of the hammer head. and any plowing. the snow is going to be forced right into that person's driveway. Do you remember that? MR. BREWER-The lot is right at the end of the hammer head? MR. STEVES-Yes. I can draw you a quick diagram. MRS. PULVER-Yes. I remember that being at the end of the driveway. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. My concern is more the fact that I have in the back of my mind, they talk $100 a running foot for an improved road. So if we show you 40. that's going to cost us $400 to go from this point to that point. You tell us 60. it's going to cost us another $2.000. What did I say. 40 is $4.000. If we go another 20 feet. that's another $2.000. I just hate to waste it, but tell me what's going to please you. please the Board. MR. BREWER-Twenty feet would be fine with me. problem with that. I don't have any MR. O'CONNOR-Go 60 feet? Okay. MR. MARTIN-I think anything that's given as a number should contingent upon Paul Naylor's approval. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MARTIN-Because he's going to have a say in this. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We have no problem amending it to 60 feet. We will bring it to Paul. Our argument. our real presentation to Paul is that. Paul. we want you to take ownership all the way to the property line. I don't want to leave that as a No Man's Land. I think that's not good planning. MR. BREWER-What happens, just hypothetically, he says no. Then you have to pave all the way to the end, or you're just going to go that 60 feet. and make that part of the lot? MR. O'CONNOR-No. You wouldn't make it part of the lot. neighbors that we'd leave it for prospective road use. to leave it outside the lots. I told the So I'd have MRS. PULVER-Or just deed it to the Town, if the Planning Board suggests. like we just did previously. suggests that the Town take ownership of that piece of property for whatever. MR. STARK-Why wouldn't Naylor take it? MR. BREWER-I'm not saying he will or won't. I'm just saying. what if he doesn't? MR. STEVES-Tim. if you will. on Lot One. I told you before that Marigold Drive was planned to go north to the property line. and it hasn't, it can't, and it won't now, but we have a unique configuration on Lot One. whereas some 25 feet is in front of Lot 24. What we would like to do is make a boundary line agreement with the neighbor there. just so that we would have that land. be bothered. in the future. by having somebody else's expense. We would like a boundary line adjustment on that. - 17 - -------~\ ~ ---...... MR. BREWER-On Lot One. make that straight? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We're going to give them that parcel, just so that the guy next to him doesn't own in front of him. and squares it off. One of the other comments by Staff is they didn't know what restrictive covenants we had. These are the restrictive covenants that we submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals. and which the neighbors asked us to submit. and to which we agreed. We are going to have the same restrictive covenants on this portion of the development as on the first portion of the development. except that we are going to require the houses be 1500 square feet minimum. as opposed to what is now 1200 square feet. They want us to increase the size of the house a little bit, and we had no objection to that. Any other questions or suggestions? MR. BREWER-The only other thing is. like Jim mentioned. we can talk to Paul. and get a letter from him saying that the radius is okay. I'm sure he'll be able to do that between now and. MR. STEVES-His letter is indicating that. refer to the engineering. MR. HARTIN-Well, I think that the review of this particular application came at a bad time. The Deputy Highway Superintendent was on vacation for a couple of weeks, and he was all by himself. so he didn't have the time. Rick's back now. He hasn't even seen this. but he wasn't aware this was Sketch, and not Preliminary. because usually we don't send something like this over to Tom until Preliminary Stage. MR. BREWER-So if we could get a letter from Tom saying he's agreeable to that radius. then I don't have a problem with it. I don't know about everybody else. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The main concern is the plowing. It's not going to effect the emergency vehicle access. MR. O'CONNOR-Part of this also. and I just mention to you. if you look at the Tax Map, we are going to offer. in lieu of recreation fees. this acreage over here. As I understand it. the tax people show us having 39 acres. Approximately 16 to 17 acres. and I don't have the figure right in front of me, is in this area here. There are 23 acres over here. and this is John Clendon Brook. We are going to offer that in lieu of recreation fees. MR. BREWER-So we would have to do a motion, again. like we did with Jim Girard's? MR. HARTIN-Exactly. Do we have a letter. Mike. does that constitute a letter from the property owner? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I'm his designated agent. and that's included in that letter. MR. BREWER-It's included in here? MR. O'CONNOR-I think it was. MRS. TARANA-Is that property that could actually be used for recreation along the Brook? MR. O'CONNOR-It could be used for passive recreation. It's not a ball field type thing. MR. BREWER-No. It's all wet down in there anyway. MR. O'CONNOR-Well. there are walking paths, though. down along John Clendon Brook. HR. MARTIN-It does have frontage on Luzerne Road. - 18 - ,-- --~--- ----.-'----- ------ MR. O'CONNOR-And it has frontage on Luzerne Road. MR. BREWER-I know exactly where it is. There is paths down there? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. PULVER-What I'd like to do is see the configuration of it. and. do I have that? MR. 0' CONNOR-It's on the Tax Map. It connects throughout the Luzerne Road. It goes over to the back side of the Glen. that small piece of wetland on the Glen that's behind it. which is eventually going to end up in to be some type of Town ownership. Also. if you want to really get into the neighborhood. on the south side of Luzerne Road. there's a good continuation of this area that was offered by Herald Square for Section Two. and at that time. the Town. well. I think that was under the guideline. or a lot of influence from Mr. Parisi. and there appears to be a different process. or different thought right now that some open space is attractive. as well as ball fields. MR. MARTIN-You can see how these things begin to link together now. MR. BREWER-Yes. because that would be the stretch right from the Glen all the way over to. if I remember right. that goes all the way over to the Corinth Road almost. doesn't it? MR. O'CONNOR-Pitcher Road. MR. BREWER-Pitcher Road. MR. O'CONNOR-I think it goes around the back of the subdivision. Herald Square subdivision. MR. MARTIN-And as we see reviews of these projects come through. those are always the environmentally sensitive areas. is the areas around those brooks and the wetlands and things like that. That's the best protection of all. MR. 0' CONNOR-We had offered to convey it to the neighbors. and honestly the neighbors couldn't agree upon who would take title and whatever. and the consensus was. you're better off putting it to the Town. and I think if you look at the. MR. BREWER-That would preserve the whole stretch. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MRS. TARANA-The Town cannot sell property that's been conveyed to it? MR. O'CONNOR-I think it can. Yes. but under this provision. we can put a restriction on the conveyance. which is what Mr. Martin referred to before. MRS. TARANA-That's what. yes. I wondered if we could do something like that. MR. O'CONNOR-I'd go by the guidance of the Board. The idea is it not be developed. because that was in keeping with neighbors. We actually worked out a pretty good relationship the people who would be most effected by this subdivision. that the with MR. MARTIN-Is that a trout stream? MR. BREWER-Yes. it is. house. That same Brook comes right behind my MRS. PULVER-Right. Clendon Brook. - 19 - MR. BREWER-There's some nice trout in there. MR. O'CONNOR-Hudson Point is not going to touch it. MR. BREWER-No. I'm saying. it goes right by. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Corinth Road. I don't know who's between Hudson Point and MR. BREWER-My father-in-law owns one side of the Brook. We own the other side, part of it. a couple of acres. and then we own just two acres on the Brook. and then he owns all the back rest of it there. and then NiMo owns some property. So from Corinth Road. right behind his house. he owns all the way to where NiMo owns to the river. So there's only two or three property owners on the Brook. MR. O'CONNOR-To the river? Okay. So you may very well end up with a corridor all the way to. MR. MARTIN-From West Mountain Road. MR. BREWER-Corinth Road. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. There's somebody to the west of us. west of the Glen. on West Mountain Road. I don't know who that is. He's on the west side of the road. but there's a good possibility of doing some planting all the way from the Glen all the way through. MRS. PULVER-All right. What I would like. Mike, is that next. at Sketch. this is at Sketch. right? At Preliminary. if you could include in your packet. just the Tax Map. this has got a leg cut off it here, of the piece that you want to dedicate. MR. STEVES-I can give you the survey description of that parcel. MRS. PULVER-To dedicate. MR. STEVES-Sure. MRS. PULVER-You can give us the survey? No. I mean, we just need to look at it. I mean. right now. I would like to see it, the whole thing. MR. STEVES-Can I show it to you in the worksheet. MRS. PULVER-Do you have it? MR. STEVES-I do in the worksheet. MRS. PULVER-Okay. I'm looking at a leg cut off here. MR. STEVES-Right up on to the back side of all these properties on Clendon Ridge. right on up to the Glen. MRS. PULVER-Okay. This is the Glen here, right? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Who owns that property now. that wetlands. Is that just Vasiliou? MR. O'CONNOR-It's still in the name of the developer. and we were going to do a deed from the developer to himself to separate it from his other holdings. and then let it go for taxes. MRS. PULVER-How many acres is this now? MR. STEVES-Twenty-nine acres. MRS. PULVER-Twenty-nine acres. - 20 - MR. O'CONNOR-I'll give you the deed tomorrow. it. You can't record a deed to the Town resolution accepting it. I'll be glad to do unless there's a MR. BREWER-Yes. but can we really do that. because then that's creating a nonconforming lot. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town is not subject to zoning. MR. BREWER-All right. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town is exempt from zoning. With the concept, are you happy. if we change this to 60 feet? MR. BREWER-Provided Paul Naylor says it's okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Sixty feet. and subject to further change if that's not agreeable with the Highway people. MR. BREWER-And the radius. MR. 0' CONNOR-The radius. there isn't much. to make a straight connection. between, to get these lots this way. MR. BREWER-I think. if he looks at it and says, okay, fine. I just think he just didn't look at it period. HR. O'CONNOR-This is no different than what was in Herald Square. I think Herald Square was less of a radius. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Yes. it was. MR. BREWER-And I think in Inspiration Park it's even less. I don't know if you're familiar with that. That's almost at a 90 degree, and there's no stop sign on, coming this way. if you come around that loop. MR. O'CONNOR-Tom. do you have a problem with a 225 foot radius? MR. YARMOWICH-No. not really. I'd like to think that maybe the Town ought to go and have it. this particular street which addresses this situation. where you have lots. there's really no. you could plow. It's safe from a geometry standpoint. Three hundred feet is excessive in these instances. However. something like Bay Meadows. I don't agree, because you've got 180 lots in there. but where you're talking about 10. 15. 20 lots, yes. It's probably okay. MR. BREWER-You're talking 49 in there now. problem? It's still not a MR. YARMOWICH-Not. once you start getting to the 100. 120 lots. it makes a big difference. because you're getting volumes of traffic. 20, 30. 40 lots doesn't generate a lot of traffic. Another concern is people who are using the street not for vehicular movement. kids riding bikes and walking their dogs. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SKETCH PLAN SUBDIVISION RO. 15-1993 PQ.TVIN. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its seconded by Roger Ruel: WILLIAM adoption. For a proposed subdivision of 39.29 acres into sixteen (16) lots, wi th the following stipulations: That the plan be presented to Paul Naylor for review and comments, and the paving be extended 20 feet by Lot 11 and Lot 12. The Planning Board Chairman will submit a letter to the Town Board in accordance with 124-6. Parks and - 21 - "-- Recreation. Duly adopted this 27th day of July. 1993, by the following vote: MR. O'CONNOR-I will do you a formal letter with the specifications of that Regulation. I just simple said we want to offer 29 acres for. MR. MARTIN-If you could. MR. O'CONNOR-That would be no problem. AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Hr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint SUBDIVISION NO. 16-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I AMERICAN EQUITY OWNER: EARLTOWN CORP. ZONE: LI-1A, HC-1A LOCATION: NORTH OF QUAKER ROAD AT QUAKER RIDGE BLVD. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 39.65 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 110-1-2.61 LOT SIZE: +39.65 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MR. BREWER-Okay. Now. we got a letter from Miller. Mannix. and Pratt about American Equities. I think we ought to read that in. Scott, we got a letter that was sent to you today. I guess? MR. HARLICKER-Ye s. They reque sted to be removed from tonight's agenda, but another aspect of this project. when you guys did the SEQRA. the discussion and everything concerned the whole project. but when you did the resolution. you specified it just for the variances. So we need to modify the SEQRA resolution to include the whole project. not just the variances. MR. BREWER-I've got a question with that. because now that there's talk about wetlands in there, are we going to do that SEQRA over? MR. MARTIN-I. believe that's your right. as lead agency. if you find new information that you want to reopen that assessment. MR. BREWER-When will we have an idea whether there is or there isn't? We've asked for the Army Corp of Engineers. MR. HARLICKER-That's one of the reasons for the request. HR. BREWER-So can we do nothing with this. except table it? Because before we modify the SEQRA resolution. in my mind. I would rather know whether there's wetlands there. or there's not. MRS. TARANA-There are wetlands there. wetlands. The question is. how much MR. BREWER-Right, but we have no information at this point. so I wouldn't want to do anything with this. MRS. TARANA-We shouldn't have done the SEQRA in the first place. That was the point we tried to make before. we thought there were wetlands there. MR. BREWER-But we can do that over again. that I would want to do nothing with this. feel? That's why I would say How does everybody else MRS. PULVER-Are we talking wet land. or DEC Wetlands? MRS. TARANA-Wetlands. MR. MARTIN-Well. the only thing that makes these not DEC Wetlands. as we understand it right now. is the size. DEC requires 12 acres - 22 - and above. MRS. PULVER-Right. MR. MARTIN-However. just ball parking this. I think we're looking at, potentially. five or six out there, and there is standing water out there. We were out in early July. and as dry a summer as we've had. there was knee deep water out there. So the only thing that's not putting this under the jurisdiction of DEC is the overall size. However. they are jurisdictional to the Army Corp. MRS. PULVER-Of course. St. Louis is wetland now. too. MR. MARTIN-I think that's a reasonable concern. and if you just simply want to table it. MR. BREWER-And do nothing with the SEQRA. MRS. PULVER-All right. Now my next question is. though. going to go out there. or you're just trying to determine? The Army Corp is going to go out there? is DEC Okay. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They're currently working with a consultant that the applicant has hired. MR. MARTIN-It's a mirror image of the Zaremba application. where you saw they came in with the Army Corp. They delineated the wetlands. They accepted the delineation, and they offered mitigation of actual transferring of wetlands to another area of the site. I think you're going to probably see the same type of scenario here. MRS. PULVER-So, motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY ~'!'.bGE ___, SUBDIYISION NO. 16-1993 AMERICAN EQUITY. Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Corinne Tarana: Duly adopted this 27th day of July. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. LaPoint SITE PLAN NO. 37-93 TYPE: UNLISTED DEPT. OF PHYSICAL FACILITIES FOR THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS OWNER: CORP. OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS BY THE DEPT. OF PHYSICAL FACILITIES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF ROCKWELL RD./HAVILAND RD. INTERSECTION. PROPOSAL IS FOR A 65' X 82' ADDITION TO EXISTING CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS. BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE - 7-12-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 7-14-93 TAX MAP NO. 54-5-19.2 LOT SIZE: 5.55 ACRES SECTION: 179-19 D 3 DICK MORSE. DON SCHWARTZ. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 37-93. Dept. of Physical Facilities for the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints. Meeting Date: July 27, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 5.330 square foot addition to the existing church. There are also 26 new parking spaces proposed. The property is zoned SR-1A and is serviced by on site water. A new on site septic system is proposed as part of this project. P~Q~ECT ANALYSIS: In accordance with Section 179-38 A.. the project is in compliance with the other requirements of this chapter. including the dimensional regulations of the zoning district in which it is - 23 - - to be located. In accordance with Section 179-38 B., the project was reviewed in order to determine if it is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter. and it was found to be compatible with the zone in which it is to be located and should not be a burden on supporting public services. In accordance with Section 179-38 C.. the proposal was reviewed regarding its impact on the highways; there were found to be no significant impacts on the road system. In accordance with Section 179-38 D.. the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. Drainage and Runoff patterns; the applicant should address the comments raised by Tom Yarmowich's letter of 7/26/93. Groundwater quali ty: Tom Yarmowich' s comments regarding perc tests and the proposed sewage disposal system have to be addressed. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The location. arrangement. size. design and general site compatibility of buildings. lighting and signs; The project is an addition to an existing structure. The addition is to the rear of the existing building and is not highly visible from the road. The compatibility between the addition and the existing structure cannot be assessed without elevations. There are two new light poles to be placed along the north and south ends of the proposed sidewalk. No new signage is proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access an circulation. including intersections. road widths, pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls; Vehicular traffic access should be adequate. Access to the expanded parking area will be through the eXisting curb cut and parking area. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sUfficiency of off-street parking and loading; The adequacy of off- street parking cannot be assessed without knowing the number of seats; the parking required is 1 space for every five seats. The applicant states that there are 65 existing spaces and 26 are proposed in the expanded parking area. It is also difficult to ascertain the adequacy of parking without knowing what the addition will be used for. The applicant has to provide for handicapped spaces at a ratio of one space per every 25 spaces. The size of the parking spaces have to be modified to comply with the Town requirements that they be 9' x 20'. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian access appears to be adequate. However. handicapped accessibility is a problem. No handicapped parking spaces are provided nor is there a handicap accessible entrance. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; The comments raised in Rist- Frost's letter of 7/26/93 have to be addressed. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; The comments made in Rist-Frost's letter of 7/26/93 have to be addressed. 7. The adequacy. type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands. including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance including replacement of dead plants; Raised planters are proposed around the entrance to the addition. Additional screening should be considered between the parking lot and the adjacent residential property. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; Emergency access appears to be adequate. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways. and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. The area of development appears to be free of areas that are susceptible to ponding. flooding or erosion. However. area adjacent to the parking lot and addition are lower, as are the adjacent properties. Any additional runoff created by this project should be directed so, that it does not negatively affect these areas. FECOMMENDATION: Providing the issues discussed above are addressed to the Board's satisfaction. staff can recommend approval of this application." ENGINEERING REPORT Notes from Tom Yarmowich. Rist-Frost. Town Engineer. Dated July 26, - 24 - --- 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project and has the following engineering comments: 1. Parking spaces must be a minimum of 20' long and 9' wide to conform with Zoning Code parking regulations. 2. It is not indicated how provisions for an adequate number of handicapped spaces will be met. 3. The stormwater management (SWM) analysis is not acceptable. Infil tration, if feasible, should be utilized. If a detention basin must be used. then the specific tributary drainage area should be analyzed for existing vs. proposed conditions under a 50 year storm event using SCS TR55 methodology. The diversion berm height is excessive. top of berm should be 8' wide and side slopes should not be steeper than 3H:1V. Do not locate the spillway at embankment. Eighteen (18) inch outlet pipes are excessive for a 1. 5 ±. acre drainage area. 4. Perc test and test pit data must be submitted to ascertain the adequacy of sewage disposal system design. Based on the existing and proposed grade shown at the sewage disposal location the system appears to be some combination of shallow trenches in native material and a raised trench system." MR. BREWER-This went to Warren County. "No County Impact". It went to the Beauti f ication Committee. and they approved. Okay. Mr. Horse. would you like to Tom's comments? MR. MORSE-Yes. Thank you very much. For the record, my name is Dick Morse. I'm with Morse Engineering. We are working with Don Schwartz. who is here to my immediate right. Don is the architect of record for the project. He's with Architypes. out of Poughkeepsie. New York and has come up this evening to share his knowledge on this project. Let me. I think, move first to Tom Yarmowich's comment. Item Number One on the parking spaces. and Tom and Nick Scartelli of our organization have spoken today with reference to these issues. and we had sent to Tom some modified drawings. which he has had recently. I'm not sure when you got them. three o'clock this afternoon. but the parking spaces were shown striped at 18 feet. and I think this was a similar issue that we had talked. or the Board discussed with the Wal-Mart proposal. We have 69 feet of paving in there, I believe was the number, Tom, correct me if I'm wrong. MR. YARMOWICH-Sixty-five. MR. MORSE-Sixty-five. We meet the room. and we have since sent those modified striping. the striping was just extended two feet. So we do more than exceed the asphalt requirements. Handicap access on. the second drawing, SD-2. shows the existing parking lot. and it shows the existing parking lot 61 spaces and 4 handicap. So the four handicap are existing. and they're right near this existing entrance, which is the handicap entrance. which if we move to this next picture. come into the front of the building. and that's where handicap access will continue to stay. We are not making any provisions in the rear for handicap access. MR. BREWER-Scott said it was tough for him to tell how many were required because we don't know how many seats? MR. MORSE-Okay. Yes. and I'll get to that. There are 257 seats in the facility, which would give us a requirement. I ran through the numbers. of I think we need 51 spaces to handle the 257 seats, 51 plus. We more than meet that. We currently have 86. plus the 4 handicap. so 90 spaces. So if we reverse that number, we would be at around 450 seats that w~ could actually have in the building, but right now it's righted for 257. MR. BREWER-So that 257 is not going to change with this addition? MR. SCHWARTZ-For the record, my name is Donald Schwartz. I'm the President of Architypes architecture and planning. and we're the architects that have been retained by the Church to prepare this addition to this building. We have done. this is about the fifth addi tion of this type that we have done for the Church. and - 25 - ~ al though the existing building remains relatively constant. the site constraints are what modify, were brought in. modify the third phase of this portion of the addition that we're putting on. The existing building now has parking. the existing building. presently Rockwell Road is along here. You drive in and there's parking in this area and across the back. right up to this point. As Dick was saying. I believe there are the four handicapped spaces at this point. and an existing sidewalk network which provides handicap accessibility at this door. as well as at this door. Due to grade conditions in the rear of the building, if you toured the site, the grade's dropping down about five to six feet. So since we've more than addressed it here. we realize that it would be costly to do something back here. and it would be repetitive. They've already taken care of it at this point. Just a little history on how the buildings were built. The Church has. every three or four years. they modify their stock plan, but they basically have a stock approach to their building. throughout the Country. They build. in their old programs, they built over three phases. Nowadays they build typically in one phase. This is one of the three phase buildings that I believe from the Building Department records. I found was started in '73. The Phase One portion of the development was that right there. This portion of the building was built in 1973. Once the congregation grew. this was a multi purpose room as well their small sanctuary, or chapel space. When the congregation grew, they then qualified a full sized chapel. Again. the functions that occur wi thin the building had not changed. It's just that the congregation had enlarged. and they were able to handle the addition. in terms of seating capacity for the chapel. At that time. they did not seat the chapel out. Now they are up. to qualify for Phase III, they are now up to seating capacity in this chapel. Once they are able to seat the chapel. the adequacy. again, of these spaces for the support activities, such as the Men's and Women's Society. Sunday School. that type of thing. are outgrown in this facility, and that's the purpose of this. Now. in this area here. what we're providing. this is a multi purpose space, which opens up to the rear of the chapel. There are fixed seats in the chapel space proper. There are no fixed spaces in here. This room is divided uP. at the rear of the chapel, by a folding partition, and then internally by two additionals, so they've created three small spaces. They use these for two purposes. One. for. as you will be able to read. for the Men's Society. They have three Men's Societies. or Men's groups that would meet in these spaces. as subdivided. or petitions. there are two basketball back stops that would come down, and actually this is going to be a gymnasium wood floor. So the bulk of this addition is the gym in this area here. The Material Center is like and arts and crafts center that they house now throughout various classrooms. and that's congregated in the one space. This is table and equipment storage for the gymnasium. We've enlarged and provided bathrooms now meeting the full handicap code. The kitchen is presently located in this space. That will become what they call Nursing Mother's Room. which will have audio piped into it from the chapel. and now the kitchen will be located out in here. slightly enlarged. This is the young women's meeting group, directly off the kitchen. and this is the. kind of like the alternate site. The catholic church will be meeting to the rear of the chapel. Again. there are expansions of the existing activities that occur within these spaces now. and now that they are seating. or near capacity in seating in the chapel. the need for additional space back in here is important. HR. MORSE-I think the thrust of your question. though is. are they adding more seating. and actually they're not. They've just met their target limit here. So this next expansion. more augmented expansion in the gymnasium. MR. SCHWARTZ-There are no pews planned in this area. nor any pews being added to the chapel. and in my 10 years of working with the Church, though I'm not a member. I've had experience with them over the years. This is basically gymnasium space. - 26 - r '/ MR. HARLICKER-But as the congregation grows. will they open up that partition and then place temporary seating, folding chairs. and that sort of facilities in there, and utilize the whole area as a chapel? MR. SCHWARTZ-They have ability to seat folding chairs in this area, on occasion. yes. MR. HARLICKER-Right. Okay. MR. MORSE-I guess the point of my comment was that, based on the parking of 90 stalls. which is the threshold that. we're going to seat 450 in here, under your Ordinance. I think what would really help is. the Church is extremely well planned. I mean. they understand where they're going and what not, what congregation thresholds they need to meet certain things. I would defer to the Church on knowing how many parking stalls they would need. MR. SCHWARTZ-Obviously. their average Sunday seating capacity is to be contained within the chapel space, and they're not looking to seat. MRS. TARANA-Do they have dinners. and that sort of thing. where they bring the public in? MR. SCHWARTZ-No. It's just an internal type of thing. MRS. PULVER-BINGO. no BINGO? MR. SCHWARTZ-No. BINGO. MRS. TARANA-What do they do with the basketball court? They're going to have basketball games. but I mean. is it just for the congregation? MR. SCHWARTZ-It's for the congregation. One thing that the Church strongly believes in is scouting. Boy Scouts. and the young men's society in the Church. they bring. in fact. we'll have one area in here that's strictly dedicated to Boy Scouts. in terms of storage. The Youth Activities are what is planned for this gymnasium. and it's things. I believe they use the building two evenings a week for basketball. There'll be also volleyball stantions, but usually it's centered around youth activities. to try and keep the children involved in the Church. MRS. TARANA-And it's strictly for the congregation. They don't bring in. they don't play other Churches. or something. in the league? MR. SCHWARTZ-No, not to my knowledge. MR. MORSE-I think there was a question on elevations. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MORSE-We have two, and there's a. and maybe, Don. you'd want to speak to that. MR. SCHWARTZ-As I said. we've done about five of these types of additions to this building. or variations of the original building. the second phase building that they have. This is the latest one that we've completed. It's out in Schoharie Valley. and that was done. although it's a larger addition than the one that's going on here. that shows the level of work that they do. You can more or less see the L configuration of that building. and you can pretty much tell what it was being put on on the tail end of it. That was the original. The building that we're proposing at this site, what is shown as existing Phase II development. and not rendered. in terms of finishes. is the existing work on the building now. This is the addition going out. We're going to be matching the chapel. - 27 - /'" ---",. ......#' ridge height. going out across the back. The materials on the wall. on the exterior of the building, it will be Type 5B construction. which is wood frame. in this case. masonry veneer. It will be concrete block on the base. a band of brick. and then aluminum across the top. In terms of. and I don't need to get in too deeply in terms of our Code classifications. but we will be creating a masonry fire wall surrounding that gymnasium space and segregating it out, as one fire area in the building. but all the exterior surfaces will be masonry on the addition. and again. what is called that. as proposed Phase IIIA. is the addition we'll be putting on. MR. RUEL-Where's the mechanical room. under the relief society? MR. SCHWARTZ-No. The entire building is slab on grade. There'll be a stair up in this area. and it will be up in this area here. MR. RUEL-Thank you. MR. HORSE-Okay. I believe that addresses Items One and Two on Tom's. Item Three, Stormwater Management. we have. I believe, Tom. have you reviewed the new drawings that Nick sent over? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. I've had a chance to look at them. They seem to conform. I'll need to get some computation back up. MR. MORSE-Right. I know Nick did the TR55. He had basically done it on the rational method. which is a technique we use, and he's backed that up with the TR55. It works. We put a height on this berm. Basically. the stormwater will be diverted to this area, and we're going to put a berm. and there's a ditch that will bring stormwater from the parking lot to this area. and we'll be releasing through a pipe here. We've relocated the. basically. emergency spillway around this way. and this is the natural drainage swale. and our pre and post development storms will match. as per direction. The last issue on Tom's letter was the septic system. We have raised this system. back in this corner. We're in a little bit of a cut. So it would be in virgin ground. We will get additional data. We had two test pits here. We'll provide Tom with that information, and get another test hole here tomorrow for him. and run an perc in that. if we do not choose to pick the system up. If we pick it up and make it a true fill system. then we'd have him evaluate that. So I believe those address these issues. The one concern we had was the berm. Tom, I'm not sure, maybe you and Nick have got that squared away. I know the new sketch he showed you showed the top of the berm as two feet wide. MR. YARMOWICH-That is a relatively low berm. but it's acceptable. MR. MORSE-Yes. Okay. Fine. because we're trying to maintain as much of this. the existing tree growth in here as possible. because there are. there's a home site right here. and we'd like to just snake this through the trees. and leave as much there. undisturbed. as possible. and I think that was also a Staff comment. on some additional planting. Well. we're trying to leave as much natural there. Going through Staff comments. I believe we've addressed most of the issues. unless there's something else. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else on the Board have any questions? Okay. I guess I can open the public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Anyone here to speak on this issue? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-We've got to do a Short Form. - 28 - /' ~' ~/"'~-" RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 37-93. Introduced by Carol Pulver. who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS. there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: proposal for a 65' x 82' addition to the existing Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints. 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 27th day of July. 1993. by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. MacEwan MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we have to find out what we're going to do about Tom's comments. I guess as far as you're concerned, if they meet them. Tom? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. I think that Items Number One and Two of my letter appear to have been addressed. Item Three. in substance. but I want some calculations that back it up. a chance to look at that in a little bit of detail. and Item Four is the same. but. it appears as though there's no site constraints that would provide any difficulty. MRS. PULVER-All right. So if we made it contingent upon you receiving. you have to sign off on it. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. HR. MARTIN-Again. I'd just ask for a date by which that is to be submitted by. Also. I want on the record. to put the applicant on notice. that a Certificate of Occupancy for this building is subject to all elements of the site plan being addressed. and I'm - 29 - ,"'-- / going to do my little song about. we've seen here in the Town, lately. a sharp drop off of information. from you as the architect and applicant's engineer. to the actual contractor on the site doing the work. I want a copy of the site plan in that gentleman's hand. whoever that is. so he's fully aware of the requirements of this site plan. prior to the CO. I mean. I'm going to be looking for trees. plantings the whole works. MR. MORSE-We continue on forthcoming. construction have already entered into a contract wi th Don, to with the site issues on this. So that will be We've entered into a contract to bring these up to documents. and move the project forward. MR. MARTIN-All right. I just want them to be well aware that that is an issue of a Certificate of Occupancy. MRS. PULVER-All right. comments. Tom. how soon? When do you want these engineering MR. MORSE-What is the normal clock? I've got one issue, and that's Nick is going on vacation. MR. MARTIN-You've got a one year approval time here. but the approval would not take effect until you get it signed. MR. MORSE-Yes. I mean. I'm hoping to have it resolved. I mean. he told me he had this all done. and it's in the office. I'm hoping to have it to you tomorrow, but he's going on vacation tomorrow. So if there's something that you have to interface with him on. MR. BREWER-How long is he going for? MR. MORSE-A week. MR. BREWER-So if we give you 30 days. MR. MORSE-Fine. I didn't know whether this was a. MRS. PULVER-So. 30 days from today. MR. MARTIN-The other thing I would like in the motion is a request that two copies of the final site plan be provided to our office, one for our planning file, and one to be put in the Building Permit file. MR. MORSE-Okay. and just before we pass, I want. if there have been. Don. in working with the Church. there were just a few changes made in the planters, no species were changed or anything. but the location was modified slightly. down in the lower left hand corner. It's shown on these drawings. and I don't know. MR. MARTIN-You can correct that. and also I think you have to correct. in line with the Beautification Committee comment. they want to see the dumpster screened. MR. MORSE-It's already done. The dumpster is taken care of. MR. SCHWARTZ-The area it was shown. on Nick's plan. back in here. showed it a two sided. onto the new entryway in the back of the bUilding. That has since been changed. MR. MARTIN-Well. that final plan that comes in. for his review. I want two copies. I will stamp both. one for our file. and one for the Building Permit file. MR. MORSE-Fine. MR. SCHWARTZ-Would the Board or Planning require or wish to have copies of those elevations at this time? - 30 - --- MR. MARTIN-No. It's not necessary for our. MRS. PULVER-All right. tjºTIº~L_~º-A_~PRJ~JlL_ª;['l'E P~AN _NO-"__~7-93 _ DEPT. OF PHYSICAL FACILITIES ~Q,ILTH~__ÇHJ(RCH _ OF_JEª-º-ª-~ßR¡ª,!,_O~__I,.AT_T~_~-=,º1\.J_~_~I~TS, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel: For a proposal for a 65 foot by 82 foot addition to the Church. with the following stipulations: That the engineering comments be addressed by 30 days from today. and be approved by Tom Yarmowich. before final submission of the approved site plan. and two copies be supplied to the Planning Department, for signature by the Zoning Administrator. Duly adopted this 27th day of July. 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark. Mrs. Tarana. Mrs. Pulver. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Jim. could I just ask you one question? happened to over here? Whatever MR. MARTIN-Across the road? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-They're doing it. MR. YARMOWICH-Why didn't they move those poles? MR. MARTIN-NiMo didn't want them to move them. MR. BREWER-No. no. no. not the ditch. I'm talking about the apartment houses that were going to go in over there. MR. MARTIN-Cedar Court? MR. BREWER-No. down here. MR. MARTIN-Remember all the people that came in and didn't want the apartment house? HRS. PULVER-Hughes' development. MR. MARTIN-Walker Lane. MR. HARLICKER-They're coming in for a variance. MRS. TARANA-For what? MR. MARTIN-Yes. They're going to come in for a variance because they won't have the required frontage on a Town road. They have the easement across that piece of property. and that piece of property. it's just a black hole on the Tax Maps. Nobody owns it. There's no record of any recent ownership. They have an easement across that property, though. for access. So they're going to have to go to the Zoning Board for a variance on the frontage on the Town road. MRS. TARANA-I want to know what happened to the pigs? MR. MARTIN-An enforcement letter is going out this week. going to go to court. He's not going to take them off. We're MRS. TARANA-Is that right? - 31 - -- MR. MARTIN-He's coming back in with a new site plan application. too. MR. BREWER-You went up there and asked him to take them off, and he won't? MR. MARTIN-Well. Dave's going to write his letter. That's the first thing you have to do in the process. You have to have that in place. and then give him a compliance date. If he doesn't meet that. then you set a court date. MRS. PULVER-All right. Who are we talking about? MRS. TARANA-The pigs. MRS. PULVER-The pigs. Yes. I was just going to say. what. MR. BREWER-That was a week ago. though. You didn't even send him a letter yet? MR. MARTIN-It's going out this week. MR. STARK-Jim. why was Frank DeSantis here tonight? MR. MARTIN-I thought he was representing somebody. where he went. I don't know MR. BREWER-Do we have any word from Stewarts? MR. MARTIN-Not yet. HR. BREWER-So what do we do in a case like that? We gave them a certain amount of time to comply and they didn't, so what happens? I think we gave them 60 days. didn't we? MR. MARTIN-That would also be a matter of enforcement. MR. BREWER-I just don't want to forget it. MR. MARTIN-The other thing that may potentially come up here is. in terms of across the street, the drainage here, we had an amended drainage plan done. if you will recall. and that's what's in place. However, the last remaining component. and the most important. is the corner lot. The corner lot is no longer under the ownership of the rest of the park. It's owned by an individual out in Syracuse, and where this breaks down a little bit is that the Planning Board approved a site plan for that Prudential building that is in no way, shape, or form anything like the subdivision drainage plan which was approved, and shows very nicely a nice pond on the corner. MRS. PULVER-I was not on the Board. MR. BREWER-I wasn't. either. MR. MARTIN-So that is something. I think. there is a lesson to be learned here. When you see a site plan come in that's wi thin a Planning Board approved subdivision. and it's a lesson for us as well. for everybody to keep track of, is the drainage plan for that particular lot, now with a known building on it, is that in keeping with the drainage plan for the entire subdivision? MR. YARMOWICH-That is an element of review for work now being conducted. MR. MARTIN-So that causes a problem for enforcement, because now we have to go to that individual out in Syracuse and say. you will come in to compliance with your approved site plan, which is not currently the case up there. That's not what's shown on the site plan. the grade that exists out there now. but to complicate - 32 - - matters even further. the grades that are in existence out there now were done by the owners of the park. That actual. the lumps there and all that. that was a very simple attempt at correcting the problem. So. it's a complicated situation. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else from anybody? MR. MARTIN-Tomorrow night is a Greenway North neighborhood meeting on the Route 9/254 plan that I showed you. They have a committee I'm meeting with them tomorrow night. MR. BREWER-I don't think everybody saw that. Did you see that? MRS. PULVER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. Everybody was there. I guess. MR. MARTIN-Ed's the only one who hasn't seen it. Tomorrow night at 7:30 down in the Planning Board Conference Room. if anybody's interested. and also there's a Route 149 meeting Thursday night at 7:30. in this room. MRS. PULVER-Let me ask you a question. Red Lobster? What's going on with the MR. MARTIN-The Red Lobster, it's my understanding the applicant is going to ask the Town Board to make a decision before the middle of August. MRS. PULVER-I thought they had already done that? MR. MARTIN-No. MR. BREWER-They just said that they're not going to make any decision until they get a traffic solution. right. pretty much? MR. MARTIN-Right. and we now are. as you can see. that is beginning to gel. MR. BREWER-Yes, but how, that's the other thing we've got to talk about. How can they. if that's just on paper, how can they go ahead and approve or deny that go ahead and approve or deny that if they don't know this is ever going to happen? I mean. they've got to buy property from people. and. how can they make a decision on something that somebody just drew up? They have no way to know if they can ever do that or not. MR. MARTIN-What do you mean. somebody just drew up? That's going to be taking into consideration the contours. the topography. MR. BREWER-It's going to be taking it into consideration. but it hasn't yet. MR. MARTIN-It will. That's being done right now. MR. BREWER-What about all the property owners involved? MR. MARTIN-If it gets into a matter of a taking or a condemnation proceeding. then that's what happens. MR. STARK-It can't. that. A private individual can't obtain land like MR. MARTIN-No. the ~~wn. MR. BREWER-The Town can. MR. STARK-The Town can. The Town shouldn't do that. though. - 33 - -- -/' MR. MARTIN-It's not the preferred option. MR. BREWER-I can just tell you this. from my own experience knowing that. Charlie Wood owns part of that property where you guys anticipate putting a road for the Wal-Mart, and I can envision him saying. if you're not going to let me put a Red Lobster. he'll tie you up in court for 100 years, with the money he's got. I'm just saying. that'll happen. you mark my words. MR. MARTIN-It does not discourage people. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. MARTIN-We can't just sit on our hands and just wait for the intersection to go to gridlock either. because I'll tell you what. I'll tell you what's causing the traffic problems in this Town. and it's something that I've come around to see. it's not the Wal-Marts or the K-Marts or any of that. What's causing the problem with traffic in this Town is 162 uni ts of new housing every year. That's what's causing the traffic. Cars just don't materialize in these parking lots. MR. BREWER-Yes. but all these subdivisions that come in. and we ask for traffic studies. and they say. gee. there's not going to be that many cars. MR. YARMOWICH-The traffic studies are focused on the area of the subdivision. and not where those destinations. what the destinations are. MR. BREWER-I know. but when we get a traffic study. I can just give you an example where there's going to be 160 houses built. and there's going to be 75 cars. It doesn't make sense. MR. YARMOWICH-There's an underlying concept. and it mayor may not be true, that as those subdivisions come into place. the services that are required to support the transportation needs and all the other things are part of the tax base. MR. MARTIN-Right. That's part of the government's responsibility. MR. YARMOWICH-That mayor may not be a correct concept. but that's how things have evolved. and that's the way they are today. Impact fees in the State of New York are illegal. You can't assess a developer an impact fee for a subdivision. because. yes. it will in fact cause problems with traffic everywhere. You've got to change the law in the State of New York. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 34 -