Loading...
1993-08-17 r '-- >. ---r.J".~_. QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17TH, 1993 INDEX Site Plan No. 1&-93 McDonald's Corp. 7. Subdivision No. 7-1993 Cindy Jarvis 7. SEQRA Review Guido Passarelli 8. Subdivision No. 4-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE Guido Passarelli 9. Subdivision No. 14-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE J. Buckley Bryan, Jr. 32. Site Plan No. 38-93 Garth Allen 40. Petition For Zone Change 5-93 Kay Kuebler, Martin G. Gallup, 73. Marilyn Matriccino THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. ..-- '- QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 17TH, 1993 7:00 P. M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN CORINNE TARANA, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK CRAIG MACEWAN CAROL PULVER MEMBERS ABSENT EDWARD LAPOINT ROGER RUEL PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER TOWN ENGINEER-RIST-FROST, TOM YARMOWICH STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES April 29th, 1993: NONE May 18th, 1993: NONE June 15th, 1993: Page 2, Valenti, sIb Valente; Page 5, word shouldn't be road by prescription June 10th, 1993: Page 8, Mr. Williams is speaking, second line, last word, my is this, sIb a word there; Page 10, eight paragraphs down, sIb Mrs. Decker, not Mr. Decker; Page 14, Mr. Brewer is speaking, halfway down the page, we can just stop him because you people don't want him to build a house there, sib we can't just stop him; Page 43, down at the bottom, third paragraph up, Mrs. Tarana speaking, I wouldn't be any different, sib ~ wouldn't be any different MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABOVE SETS OF MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTIONS NOTED, Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 17th day of August, v ot e: 1993, by the following AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel, Mrs. Pulver MR. BREWER-Okay. The agenda state's McDonald's first. I've got one other item that we'd like to put in first. Bruce Carr is here for Lucas Wilson. BRUCE CARR MR. CARR-Thank you for allowing me a minute to be heard. I'm here to request that Mr. Wilson's tabled application in front of the Planning Board be put on the agenda for ne~t week. There seems to have been a mix up with the scheduling of the meetings. We had placed a variance application, that was to have been heard tomorrow evening, that meeting of the Zoning Board was canceled, or rescheduled until ne~t Wednesday, and we had originally planned to be on your agenda. I was not made aware of this change until after the agendas came out. I'm asking that this 1 - ----~ .~. Board hear Mr. Wilson's site plan application prior to the variance being granted. The variance is a request for a relief from the requirement that there be 40 feet of road frontage. It's a landlocked piece of parcel. The reason that I think that this Board would be able to make it's determination on the site plan without that variance is that the variance has nothing to do with what will happen within the site. The setbacks are all being met. So there's no setback variance. There's no use variance, no area variance. This just is more of a technicality, in that the, it came to the attention that the property possibly is landlocked. After discussing the situation with the Town Attorney and Jim Martin of the Department, they thought that one of the best ways to resolve this is to place it before the Zoning Board for a determination whether or not relief will be granted for the frontage on the road, from road frontage. As the Board may be aware, part of the problem lies with the Town of Queensbury. In that the tax maps all show Walker Lane going all the way practically to Country Club Road, when in reality that is not the case, and there does not appear to be a road dedication going that far. So we don't have the frontage, we believe, on a publ ic right-of-way, or thoroughfare. So I'm asking for your indulgence in letting us go forward with this. The other reason for the request is that Mr. Wilson has already received two extensions on his financing for this, hopefully in anticipation of a positive move by the Planning Board, and the bank is really very hesitant to give another extension at this time. We had hoped we had the planning right, but as I said, the Zoning Board normally meets the third Wednesday of the month, and this month they're meeting the fourth. MR. BREWER-Okay. application on, or Planning Board? I guess my response to that is, did you have an put in to be on the agenda in August to the MR. CARR-Yes. The application was tabled at a June meeting, and when I put in the variance application, I talked to Sue Davidson and asked, would you please put us off of tabling, back on to the agenda for the August 24th, I think is the date, meeting of the Planning Board. She said that would be no problem because the Zoning Board meets on the 18th. MR. BREWER-Is that so, Scott? Because I don't recall seeing it on any agenda that I approved. MR. CARR-It never made it to the agenda because the Zoning Board canceled the 18th meeting. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess the other problem we have is that we discussed, and I talked to you on the phone about it, is contingent approvals. We discussed it the other night at a me e tin g , and fro m wh a t I got 0 u t 0 fit, it' s not go i n g t 0 bet his Board's practice to give conditional approvals. I'm just speaking for myself, and I'll go right down the Board and asked everybody else how they feel. MR. CARR-Could I address that particular point? I agree with that policy, in general. I mean, a conditional approval, usually a variance means a setback variance, some sort of area variance or use variance, where this is not going to effect the site. Whether we get this variance or not, the building won't move. I mean, the building is there. This is strictly for border. It's a border variance. MR. MACEWAN-If you don't the building? get the variance, will you still build MR. CARR-We can't. MR. MACEWAN-Then the variance is very important to whether you go through with this. - 2 - -",/-'" -- MR. CARR-But it doesn't change the plan, which primarily concerned with, as the Planning Board. is what you're MR. MACEWAN-That's true, in a way, I guess. To me, I wouldn't want to hear or make an approval on the plan without knowing what the ZBA's going to do. If you're on their agenda to get a variance to go ahead with your project, I, personally, would just as soon wait for the Zoning Board to get either approve or deny that. MR. CARR-I don't understand how that would effect your decision. I mean, if we were on a road, we wouldn't need the variance, but how would that change the plan? This variance has nothing to do with, if we don't get the variance, we don't have to move the building. MR. BREWER-I guess it's not so much that you're going to get a variance or you're not going to get a variance. It's the idea that, months and months ago, we made a resolution stating that if things weren't in on a timely manner, they would not be on the agenda, regardless of the circumstances, and I can sympathize with you, but that's why we did it, because we had applicants coming in here a week before the meeting, two weeks before the meeting and saying, could we be put on the agenda, and we did it and it just creates problems. I'm not saying that's the case in this application, but you have to draw the line somewhere, I believe. That's my opinion. MR. CARR-But Mr. Brewer, we were on policy of this Town has always been general, has always met on the third followed by a Planning Board meeting. in a timely manner. The that the Zon i ng Board, in Wednesday of the month, MR. BREWER-I understand that, but wouldn't it still be put on our agenda, Bruce? I can't understand why it wasn't put on our agenda. MR. CARR-Maybe Scott could address that, because I asked that we be put on the agenda, but the problem was that the 18th Zoning Board meeting was not scheduled. It was only scheduled for the 24th, and it's something totally out of our control. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess I'll have to ask Staff why it wasn't put on the agenda. MR. HARLICKER-That was why it was never put on any agenda, because the ZBA meeting is after your last Planning Board meeting this month. MR. BREWER-Okay, then. quest ion. I guess that's the answer to the MRS. TARANA-What was the answer to the question? MR. BREWER-It wasn't put on the agenda because the ZBA meeting is after our meeting. MRS. PULVER-Well, they canceled their first, they were supposed to have a regular meeting tomorrow night, which they canceled. They would have been on that meeting, and once they weren't on that meeting, because it was canceled, then the Planning Department automatically put them on the next, took them off the meeting and put them on for next month, or actually did not put them on to our meeting, because you didn't meet with the ZBA. MR. HARLICKER-There were several projects, I think three of them, where that happened. They needed variances and they got put off unt i 1 September. MRS. PULVER-It's really the fault of the ZBA. They should be - 3 - '- having a meeting tomorrow night. should be meeting. If there was a project, they MR. CARR-I mean, in all fairness, if I had known that, I mean, I asked her specifically, and she said, no problem. If I had known that when the agenda was made up, I would have contacted somebody directly, and explained the same problem. MR. BREWER-What's your timing with the financing? When do you have to know by that, if we were to set up a special meeting? MR. CARR-The financing runs out at the end of this month. MR. BREWER-If we were to have a special meeting. MR. CARR-At the end of this month, I mean, if you're looking at, we've got an extension until the 31st. MR. BREWER-What happens if you don't get an approval? MR. CARR-Then we don't get our financing anyway. MR. BREWER-I mean, hypothetically, if we table it, what happens then? MR. CARR-Then I think we don't have much say with the bank, but I mean, we're hopefull y. MR. BREWER-I mean, as I recall, there was concerns with the neighbors, and I don't know that everything was done, was it? MR. CARR-Yes. I talked to Mr. Hughes. Gary Hughes architect on the project who has attended the meetings and there's no new information that will be supplied meeting, concerning the site, at next week's meeting. was the to date, at the MR. BREWER-Do you recall if we asked things to be done? MRS. TARANA-Did Mr. Wilson meet with the neighbors? MR. CARR-According to him, he did attempt, and they decided not to meet with him. He set it up for a Sunday afternoon, and word got back to him that they weren't interested in a meeting. MRS. TARANA-That, I think we had heard once before, and I can't remember the sequence, but it seems as though what we said was, until that meeting took place between the applicant and the neighbors, we weren't going to hear it. They were going to let us know when t hey want ed to come back. That's how it was I eft, I thought, with Mr. Wilson. MR. CARR-But if they don't want to meet with us. MR. BREWER-Well, if they don't want to meet with them, there's nothing they can do about it. I mean, they could not meet with them forever, and then he doesn't get his project. MRS. TARANA-But I mean, why didn't this come up, why didn't this come back to us, then, and that be told to us? MR. STARK-It did. MRS. TARANA-When? MR. STARK-He had said, room. at the meeting over there in that little MRS. TARANA-No, that was prior. That was a meeting before this. Remember, he came before us and we asked if he met, and he said no, and he agreed that they wouldn't ask to be put back on the - 4 - ¡- ~ -~ agenda until the neighbors and Mr. Wilson met. MR. HARLICKER-Another part of that was finding out who owned, or what the disposition of the. MRS. TARANA-The road, and all that sort of thing. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, the disposition of that piece of property. MRS. TARANA-And I thought it was very clear that when those things had been settled, then that other man that represented the applicant was going to come back to the Planning Department and ask to be put on the agenda at that point. MR. CARR-But if the neighbors won't meet with us, could never have a resolution. that means we MR. MACEWAN-This project was left at Sketch Plan, though, right? We didn't get to Preliminary. MR. HARLICKER-No. It's a site plan. MR. BREWER-It's just site plan review. There's no Sketch or no subdivision or anything. It's just site plan review. I guess I'll just ask everybody on the Board. MR. CARR-I mean, it's a proper building for the zone. MR. BREWER-George, what do you want to do? MR. STARK-We could have a special meeting, but that's all, after the ZBA meets. MR. BREWER-After the ZBA. MR. CARR-As I understand it, all that the call, I think, Mr. Brewer, you mentioned Pinchuk. notice requires is a this, is a call to Mr. MR. BREWER-I think, known. in fa i rn e s s, that the neighbors should be MR. CARR-Right, and that's fine. I will do it, and 1'11 do it any way you want, and give you an affidavit that I've complied with that. I would love a special meeting, if you want to do that, but it just seems tome that there's, I mean, it's not a notice situation where it has to be publically noticed. MR. BREWER-Right. MRS. PULVER-I'm having difficulty placing this project. MR. CARR-The end of Walker Lane. MRS. PULVER-Yes. Refresh my memory. What was it for? MR. STARK-It was a four unit apartment house. MRS. PULVER-Was it a duplex or a quadraplex? MR. CARR-A quadraplex. MRS. PULVER-Okay, a quadraplex off Bay and Walker Lane. MR. CARR-Yes, on over an acre of land. MR. BREWER-If you go down to the very end, that the back of it hits Country Club Road, it's an open field, I think. MR. CARR-It's about 30 to 40 feet off the end of Walker Lane, the - 5 ,r-- -- property. MR. BREWER-Can we do a special meeting? MR. CARR-We'd be fine with that, if you would prefer to do it that way. MR. BREWER-The 30th? MR. STARK-That's fine with me. MR. BREWER-It's a Monday. MR. CARR-We'd be very appreciative. MR. BREWER-Monday the 30th. MR. STARK-And if you don't get your. MR. CARR-Right, then we'd be canceled. MR. STARK-Then there's no meeting. MR. BREWER-Then there's no need to have it. MR. BREWER-All right. The 30th all right with you, Craig? MR. STARK-Where? MR. BREWER-Downstairs. MR. STARK-The Conference Room. MR. CARR-And at what time, Mr. Brewer? MR. BREWER-Seven o'clock. MRS. TARANA-That's after the ZBA meets? MR. BREWER-The ZBA meet s the 25th, on a Wednesday. It would be the following Monday, the 30th, because that room should be open, right? The 30th, 7 o'clock, downstairs. While Mr. Pinchuk's here now, will you take care of notifying the neighbors? So that if there's anybody there that wants to be there? MR. PINCHUK-I would rather not. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then we'll have, who would be a contact person? Could we find that out. MR. STARK-Patty Decker is their ring leader, like. MR. CARR-Okay. MR. BREWER-Or maybe, Scott, you can contact some of the neighbors, or one of the neighbors. MR. HARLICKER-It was left up to Gary Hughes to contact them. So he'd be the one to contact them. MR. CARR-Sure. I'll just contact for a name and your office, and tomorrow. Gary will be at that meeting as well. MR. HARLICKER-Gary Hughes has been representing them. MR. BREWER-All right. Then we'll see you the 30th at 7 o'clock. MR. CARR-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Okay. - 6 - / ',- -'-.-'., RESOLUTION: SITE PLAN NO. 16-93 MCDONALD'S CORP. MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN. SEE LETTER FOR JULY 26, 1993 DENNIS TOMS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 1&-93 Modification, McDonald's Corp., Meeting Date: August 17, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to modify the previously approved site in the following ways: 1. Relocate the dumpster from the area of the existing storage building to the other side of the rear entrance 10 feet from the north property line; 2. The existing storage building is to remain; 3. The number of parking spaces will be reduced from 51 to 49. PROJECT ANALYSIS: There does not appear to be any significant problems associated with these modifications. During the trash removal process, the two abutting parking spaces will be unavailable and access to a third will be impaired. Overall traffic circulation should not be adversely effected by the modification. The proposal still exceeds the required number of parking spaces, 45 are required and 49 are proposed. Because of the proximity to the adjacent property, staff would like to see some additional screening planted between the proposed dumpster container and the property line. " MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have someone here from the applicant? MR. TOMS-Dennis Toms, representing the McDonald's Corporation. MR. BREWER-Okay. Are there are any questions from anybody on the Board? Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE THE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 16-93 MCDONALD'S CORP.. AS INDICATED ON DRAWING SP-1, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Carol Pulver: Duly adopted this 17th day of August, vot e: 1993, by the following AYES: Mr. Brewer Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mrs. Pul ver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1993 CINDY JARVIS MODIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL - 5 LOT SUBDIVISION REDUCED TO 3 LOTS. LOTS 1 AND 2 ARE COMBINED, LOTS 3 AND 4 ARE COMBINED, AND LOT 5 REMAINS UNCHANGED. ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR THE SHARED DRIVEWAYS. JEFFREY MARTIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-1993 Modification, Cindy Jarvis, Meeting Date: August 17, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to modify the preliminary approval granted on 4/22/93 for a five (5) lot subdivision. The modification calls for three (3) lots, thereby eliminating the need for shared driveways. Lots one (1) and two (2) would be combined and lots three (3) and four (4) would be combined; lot five (5) would remain unchanged. Access to lot one (1) and lot three (3) would be from West Mountain Road and lot two (2) will be accessed from Luzerne Road. Lot one (1) has an existing house on it; lots two (2) and three (3) will be vacant. PROJECT - 7 / --- --.../ ANALYSIS: The modifications to the previously approved preliminary plat do not appear to have adverse impacts. The reduction in the number of lots from five (5) to three (3) will mean fewer cars entering and e~iting the property; the lots will increase in size to over two (2) acres each and the number of new houses will decrease from four (4) to two (2)''' MR. HARLICKER-All in all, Staff thinks it's an improvement on the situation over there. MR. BREWER-Okay, and we do have someone here for the applicant. Would you care to make any comments at all? MR. MARTIN-I'm Jeffrey Martin from Morse Engineering. I believe Scott's comments have said it all. In our previous discussions, leading up to Preliminary approval, most of the discussion centered around the shared driveways, and even though we got the approval, in studying the real estate situation, and what types of homes would be likely to be built, Mrs. Jarvis simply felt that this would be a much better way to divide the property, in as much as she plans to continue living in one of the homes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions? MRS. PULVER-I like this better. MR. BREWER-Would somebody care to make a motion? MRS. TARANA-I'll make a motion to approve, because I was your dissenting vote for just the reasons that you said. I didn't like that idea of the shared driveways, and I think this is a big improvement. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1993 CINDY Introduced by Corinne Tarana who moved for its adoption, by Craig MacEwan: JARV IS, seconded As it relates to map number 5-1, a modification. Duly adopted this v ot e: 17th day of August, 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Brewer Tarana, Mrs. Pu 1 ver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Rue! SEQRA REVIEW: SEQRA REVIEW: GUIDO PASSARELLI, RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF THE LONG EAF FOR SUBDIVISION #4-1993. MRS. PULVER-We have to read agency status? just have to read this, right, Scott? this resolution as made, to take over We just the lead MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I was just going to say, you should probably wait until after you do the discussion for SEQRA, because incorporated in this resolution are statements regarding whether you're going to require an EIS and that sort of stuff, are incorporated in here. So this resolution also incorporates your SEQRA decision. MR. BREWER-SEQRA finding? MR. HARLICKER-Right. MRS. TARANA-I just wanted to make a comment. In the past, 8 - ~ '-, --...-" regarding this project, I will recuse myself. possible appearance of impropriety, I won't discussion or the vote on this project. Because of the be part of the MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, not est hen, Sc 0 t t . I guess we can go right through your MR. HARLICKER-Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I RC-15, WR-3A GUIDO PASSARELLI OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE LOCATION: FROM GLEN ST., TURN EAST ONTO ROUND POND RD., APPROX. 7 MILES TO BIRDSALL RD. ON LEFT, PROPERTY IS N.W. CORNER OF ROUND POND & BIRDSALL SUBDIVISION OF A 18.9 ACRE PARCEL INTO 23 LOTS. LOTS WILL INCREASE IN SIZE FROM 18,000 SQ. FT. TO 59,000 SQ. FT. TAX MAP NO. 67-2-1 LOT SIZE: 18.9 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TOM NACE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-1993 Preliminary Stage, Guido Passarelli, Meeting Date: August 17, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 18.9 acre parcel into 23 lots. The 18.9 acre section is part of a total 82.57 acres controlled by the applicant. The property is located on Round Pond Road and Birdsall Road and is zoned RC-15. The subdivision includes the construction of a cuI de sac to service 15 lots, two lots will have access on Birdsall Road, six lots will have access on Round Pond Road. The lots will range in size from 18,655 sq. ft. to approximately 1.3 acres. The property is not serviced by town water or sewer. However, the applicant is proposing to extend the water line to service the project and individual on site septic will be utilized. The project is adjacent to the Round Lake Critical Environmental area, and, therefore, a Type I action for SEQRA. PROJECT ANALYSIS: After reviewing Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form submitted with this project, staff would like to see the following answers clarified to reflect staff's concerns. Part I - Project Information Section A. question 19 - The applicant states that the project is not substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area; however, the project is contiguous to the Round Pond C.E.A. Section B. question 19 - The applicant states that the project will not produce odors; however, staff believes that the odors produced during construction and site preparation periods should be considered. Section B. question 20 - The applicant states that the project will not produce noises exceeding ambient levels. Staff believes that noises produced during the construction and site preparation periods should be considered. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The Planning Staff reviewed Part 2 of the Long Environmental Assessment submitted with this project and offers the following comments: 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? The proposal will result in a physical change to the project site. The project involves construction on slopes of 15% or greater. In fact, much of the site has slopes greater than 25%. In order to build on these slopes a great deal of grading and fill will have to be done. The applicant states that more than 1,000 cubic yards of material will be removed from the site. The applicant should provide more detailed information regarding the removal of material from the site and information regarding erosion control. 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? There are no unique or unusual land forms on the site. 3. Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? The proposal will not affect any protected water body. 4. Will proposed action effect any non-protected existing or new body of water? The proposal will not affect any non- - 9 - / --- ---, protected water body. 5. Will proposed action affect surface or groundwater? The proposal could affect groundwater. Because of the sandy soils and the proximity of groundwater to the surface, consideration should be given to potential adverse impacts on the aquifer. 6. Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? The proposal will affect drainage flow and surface water runoff. Erosion problems are a concern because of the steep slopes. 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? The project should not impact air quality. 8. Will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? The proposed action should not affect any threatened or endangered species. 9. Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non-endangered species? The project should not affect non-threatened or non-endangered species. 10. Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? The project should not affect any agricultural land resources. 11. Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? The project should not impact aesthetic resources. 12. Will proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? The project should not have a negative impact on any site of historic, prehistoric or paleontological importance? 13. Will proposed action affect quantity or quality of existing or future open space or recreational opportunities? The action should not have an adverse affect on open space or recreational opportunities. 14. Will there be an affect to existing transportation system? The project could have an adverse effect on the transportation system. The intersection of Birdsall Road and Round Pond Road is less than satisfactory. Sight distances are a problem as is the alignment of the intersection; the roads intersect at a curve. Construction debris and dirt from the project will also cause problems if it is transported off site and onto the roadways. The increase in truck traffic during construction should be addressed." And there's a quest ion al so. The Warren County bike path also follows along Birdsall Road, and I guess that would qualify both as a recreational opportunity, as well as the transportation system, and the project's impact on that should be looked at. There wasn't any data really on current traffic standards and Levels of Service at the intersection with Birdsall Road and Round Pond Road. However, when the Roller Coaster did their EIS, they did their traffic study in 1991, and the Level of Service at Round Pond Road and Route 9, making left turns was a Level E, and making right turns was a Level B. There's a potential that this project might have an impact on that intersection. "15. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel and energy? The proposal should not impact the community's energy or fuel supply. 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise or vibrations as a result of the proposed action? During the construction and site preparation periods noise and odors wi 11 increase. The increase in truck traffic during this time as well as on site earth moving machinery will also contribute to the increase in noise and odors. 17. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? The project should not affect public health or safety. 18. Will proposal affect the character of the existing community? The project should not have a negative impact on the character of the community. RECOMMENDATION: In light of the above concerns, there appears to be insufficient information at this time to make an environmental determination on this project. II MR. MACEWAN-What were the Level of Services, intersection? again, on that MR. HARLICKER-This was a 1991, making left turns was Level E, and making right turns was Level B. MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom, do you want to respond? MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, my name is Tom Nace, with Haanen 10 /- "-' '--'" Engineering, representing Guido Passarelli. Do start from the top and work down through them, like to approach this? you want me to or how would you MR. BREWER-Yes. We might as well start from the top. MR. NACE-Okay. First of all, on Page One, his concerns regarding the answers in the EAF, Section A. Question 19 is correct. It should have been noted that the Round Pond Critical Environmental Area is adjacent to the site. That was either a typing error or an oversight on our part. As far as Question 19, the applicant states that the project will not produce odors, odors during construction, I'm not quite sure I follow what that would be. MR. HARLICKER-Well, you're going to have exhaust fumes and dust, because you're moving a lot of earth around on that site. MR. NACE-I can see there is noise, and I agree with your comment about noise during construction. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. NACE-But I'm not sure that odor is from exhaust fumes, from construction equipment, from a front end loader and a bull dozer is really an issue, but whatever. That can be answered positively, and the effect taken into account. Page Two, the project site, the physical change, there are, as you have noted I'm sure by looking at the plans, there are considerable areas with steep slopes, and we're trying, with our development of the site, to locate houses and do grading, to work in with that site as best as possible, and we think that we have pretty much addressed most of the issues regarding grading. Bouncing ahead a little bit to engineering comments and staff comments on the actual subdivision review, there are some issues that Scott brought up where I noticed we've got some drafting errors and things that need to be filled in with grading, which we will take care of. The next significant issue is five, is the groundwater. As you will note, looking at the percolation tests and the soil tests, the material is relatively sandy. It's not very rapid perc. It's not a gravel bed. It's a mixture of fine sands and gravel, so that the travel of water down through the material is not too rapid. There is an area, out along Round Pond Road, where we did encounter modeling, indicating, at some point in the past, a seasonal high groundwater table that I believe was about four feet down. I s that correct? Si xt y-seven inches. So that's a little better than five feet down, which still falls within the Health Department Standards for regular septic systems, and I believe that was the only indication of high groundwater on the site. Generally the site is very well drained, and the soils conducive to what we're trying to do. Drainage and erosion problems, we have indicated on the grading plan, we have indicated the use of the silt fence at the bottom of any slopes that are being graded, and we've provided standards, details for erosion control. Again, with the steep slopes, we realize we have potential for erosion, but with the types of soils, as long as we provide adequate controls to stop that from traveling down the slope very far, it's not fine colloidal material that'll go a distance. It's, as soon as it hits a silt fence or a barrier, it's going to settle it down or settle out, and the water allowed to continue, and quite frankly, because of the soils, most of the water, even on an open construction site, as soon as it gets to a lower grade of slope than the, within the development, any siltation will settle out and not run off the site. The next issue, 14, Transportation. Okay. We have a total of 23 lots. We're going to generate a total flow of somewhere in the realm of 23, 24 cars an hour, peak flow. Now that will tend to be either in the seven to eight a.m. range or in the four to six p.m. range. Those cars wi 11 be comi ng out of Bi rdsall Road, and a large percentage of those will be headed into or back from Glens Falls, which would put them on, taking a left on Round Pond. - 11 -- There would be some percentage going to the Northway that would either come out Round Pond Road and go left or right, depending on whether they're going to Exit 19 or 20. One thing, somewhere our computer, when we drafted this, we originally had shown, on our plans, that we were cutting back. There's a hill side which impedes the site distance. If you've looked out there, if you stop at the end of Birdsall Road, you have a hard time getting good site distance to the right, presently. It's not necessarily road alignment. You've got reasonable road alignment to provide site distance. It's this hill that comes right out to the edge of the road, that impedes the site distance, and our intention is to grade that off, when we are preparing lot seven for construction, is to get rid of that hill, so that we do open up the existing site distance and in fact improve the existing conditions. Site distance to the left is more than adequate, because you're on the outside of the curb looking back up. If you're concerned about the intersection out here at Route 9, my contention would be that if we're talking at a peak of only about 23, 24, even 25 cars an hour, and a percentage of those, even as much as 50 percent of those, taking a westbound on Round Pond Road. Those are likely to occur at different peak times than traffic into the Great Escape. They'll be coming out when Great Escape, well, they'll be coming out before Great Escape opens in the morning, and the peak in the afternoon will be coming back to this site, and would be coming in to Round Pond Road probably from the south, or a large percentage of them from the south, and would not interfere with the traffic generated by Great Escape, and the commercial development. It's not just Great Escape, but all the commercial development along the Route 9. So I don't think, even if we were talking a major percentage of our 25 cars an hour, I think it's minor compared to the traffic on Route 9, which may be in the realm of 5 to &00 cars an hour. I guess one of the last issues is noise during construction. There will, obviously, during our earth moving operations in here, there will be increased noise for a period of time. We would certainly agree to limit the construction periods to normal working hours during the day, so that that noise was not objectionable. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess my question to Scott would be, information do you think we need to do the SEQRA on this? what MR. HARLICKER-I going to be on project? Do you don't know. What sort of an increase Birdsall Road, the traffic generated have any ideas? is this by this MR. NACE-On Birdsall Road, if you're talking percentages, there's probably a great percentage, because there aren't that many houses on Birdsall Road. There are only a handful of houses. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. NACE-If you're talking actual numbers, if we're talking 25 cars an hour on a, actually, yes. Leon just pointed out, minus six lots because we've got six lots that front on Round Pond Road. So say that's 20 cars an hour. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. NACE-The percentage sounds high because it's probably two or three hundred percent of what exists as a traffic flow on Birdsall, but as an absolute number it really does not mean that much, because even the worst town roads have a carrying capacity of well beyond the 50 or 75 cars an hour that might, even a remote possibility, be using Birdsall Road. MR. HARLICKER-It's not so much the Level of Service, but these 20 cars are dumping on to an intersection that's, at least as far as Staff's concerned, it's a pretty bad intersection, because of the way, the curve of the road. - 12 - ',,-- MR. NACE-I think I've pointed out that we're going to help that tremendously by cutting that hill back. MR. HARLICKER-What about the possibility, the road so it comes to a T intersection, an obtuse angle like it is there? maybe, of realigning instead of at a, 1 ike MR. NACE-I don't know that that would have all advantage. That might actually cut down on the site the left, if you did that. I'm not sure, and it would I'm just not sure. It's fairly close to a 90 degree looks like maybe 75 or 80 degrees. I'm not sure that be. that much distance to certainly, angle. It that would MR. BREWER-I think by opening up that hill, you're doing, in effect, as if it was a T. If he cuts that bank back, I don't think, in ~ mind, it wouldn't make any difference whether it was a 90 or 80 or 70, because if you're cutting that site distance away, you don't need it to be straight, if, in fact, they do do that, and we can make that a condition of the approval or denial. MR. NACE-Yes, and I apologize. We did have one. of our draft grading plans we had that shown, evidently lost it. I know on some and somewhere we MR. BREWER-We can note that so that it will be shown. MR. HARLICKER-What about, did you address the impact on the bike path that runs through there? You're going to be crossing a major bike path for the County there. MR. NACE-The bike path runs on Birdsall Road. There, again, as I've said, we will be increasing, there's no question we will be increasing, as a percentage, increasing the traffic on Birdsall Road. I think I would have to question what the, when that interference is going to occur. It's probably most likely to occur on a weekend, and if you look at the traffic distribution on a weekend, you don't have the same peaks. The peaks are lower because they're spread over a longer period of time. MR. HARLICKER-Right. MR. NACE-So, yes, there's no question we'll be adding traffic to Birdsall Road, but I don't think that that's a, as far as the bike path, is going to be that significant. It will have some effect. There's no question. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. PULVER-Tom, are you going to do any blasting there? MR. NACE-No. There would be no reason for any blasting. MRS. PULVER-Okay, just bulldozing, just normal construction? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. How does everybody feel about going through the SEQRA? MRS. PULVER-This is just to take lead agency status, right? MR. HARLICKER-Well, det erm i nat ion. resolution, included that would be part and parcel It's included in the same, in the same thing. of the SEQRA part of the MRS. PULVER-How can we do the SEQRA if we haven't had a public hearing? MR. BREWER-We have the public hearing first. - 13 - r I ~ MRS. PULVER-We have to have a public hearing first. MR. BREWER-Then why has he got this before? MRS. PULVER-Yes. I think we just need the resolution to take lead agency, then we need to call Subdivision No. 4-1993 to come up and make their little presentation and then open the public hearing. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Okay, but what I'm saying is this resolution also incorporates a resolve that either the determination is made that an env i ronmenta I impact st at ement wi 11 not be requ i red, or that the action proposed by applicant warrants a positive declaration. I think you've got to make that determination before you adopt this resolution. MRS. PULVER-Well, maybe we won't adopt this resolution. MR. BREWER-The way I see it, I don't know how we can do the SEQRA until we hear all the public comment on it. MR. NACE-As far as lead agency status, I thought, last month, that you passed a resolution declaring lead agency status? MR. BREWER-We're acknowledging it now. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. BREWER-I think last month we noted that we wanted to be lead agent. Isn't that right, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. Last month was the 30 days. MR. BREWER-No. I'm talking about doing the SEQRA after we open the public hearing. MR. HARLICKER-You could do it that way. MRS. PULVER-Have we already accepted the lead agency status? MR. BREWER-No. It's in this resolution right here. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. I suppose you could probably do the top part of this resolution and split it up, if you wanted to do it that way, I guess. MR. BREWER-Break it in half, yes. Okay. Why don't we do that, accept lead agency status, and then we'll do the public hearing, and then do the SEQRA. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Because if we do that could be brought up, we the SEQRA now, without information can't honestly answer the questions. MR. HARLICKER-Correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. SEQRA REVIEW: GUIDO PASSARELLI, RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND REVIEW OF LONG EAF FOR SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1993 RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING LEAD AGENCY STATUS GUIDO PASSARELLI IN CONNECTION WITH RESOLUTION NO: 16-1993 INTRODUCED BY: CAROL PULVER - 14 - ',,-- WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION SECONDED BY: CRAIG MACEWAN WHEREAS, in connection with the Guido Passarelli subdivision No. 4-1993, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review. Duly adopted this v ot e: 17th day of August, 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we're the lead agent. All right. Now we can go on to your notes pertaining to the project. Then we can do Tom's notes, and then we'll open the public hearing. How's that? MRS. PULVER-Perfect. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. SUBDIVISION PASSARELLI NO. 4-1993 (CONTINUED) PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE I GUIDO STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-1993 Preliminary Stage, Guido Passarelli, Meeting Date: August 17, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 18.9 acre parcel into 23 lots. The 18.9 acre parcel is part of a total 82.57 acres controlled by the applicant. The property is located on Round Pond Road and Birdsall Road and is zoned RC-15. The subdivision includes the construction of a cuI de sac to service 15 lots, two lots will have access on Birdsall Road, six lots will have access on Round Pond Road. The lots will range in size from 18,665 sq. ft. to approximately 1.3 acres. The property is not serviced by town water or sewer. However, the applicant is proposing to extend the water line to service the project and individual on site septic will be utilized. The project is adjacent to the Round Lake Critical Environmental area and, therefore, a Type I action for SEQRA. PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has the following comments regarding this subdivision. 1. Lot 20 seems to be too narrow leaving no room for expansion, by modifying lots 20 and 21 so that one lot is fronting on Highpoint Drive and the other on Birdsall Road each lot would be 150 feet wide leaving ample room for bui lding. 2. There appears to be an area that will be prone to ponding located near the corner of lots 21, 22, and 23 that should be explained. 3. There appears to be contours missing on lot 8 adjacent to the east side of the proposed house location. 4. Because of the curvature of the roads, the adjacent hills and vegetation, sight distance is a 15 - ~- -- concern at the intersection of Birdsall Road and Round Pond Road and for the lot s wi th acce s s on Round Pond Road. 5. There appears to be a change of about 16 feet in elevation on lots 13 and 14. The impact that this massive amount of fill will have on the adjacent property needs to be explained as does how the new elevation will tie into the existing elevations. 6. Many of the proposed house locations are in areas where the slope is 25~. The applicant should explain what measures will be used so that erosion and drainage will not be a problem. 7. The vegetation between lots 13, 14 and 15 and the lands of the Great Escape serve as a natural buffer and noise screen; by cutting down this vegetation that buffer will be eliminated. 8. A 50' buffer is required between any residential use and any commercial zone. It appears that this buffer will not be maintained on lots 1, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 19." Since driveways are proposed along Round Pond Road, consideration should be given to an alternative plan that incorporates shared drives or some sort of internal roadway that might connect these lots, without using Round Pond Road as a main access for those lots. "RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the above comments should be addressed to the Board's satisfaction prior to the granting of preliminary approval." MR. BREWER-Tom, we have notes from you. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Staff, Tom Yarmowich, Rist-Frost, Town Engineer, August 17, 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the updated project information dated August 6, 1993. We have the following engineering comments: 1. Adjoining properties, including residuals from this subdivision to be retained by Passarelli, should be labeled on the plot (site plan dwg>. 2. The parcel from which the proposed lots will be subdivided includes frontage on both sides of Birdsall Road and frontage along parts of Round Pond Road. It may be appropriate to create right-of-ways of widths acceptable to the Town and Warren County for these existing public roads. 3. The grading plan suggests that lot 22 will be cleared. If so, the clearing limits plan should match. 4. The proposed 8" diameter public water main extension along Round Pond Road from Rt. 9 should be coordinated with the Water Department in relation to pipe size. Round Pond Road is a logical route for locating new transmission capacity to serve eastern parts of Queensbury and the Glen Lake area. If Round Pond Road is planned as a corridor for future water district transmission needs then the appropriate size pipe should be installed with this project. 5. The corner of lot 7 at the intersection of Birdsall Road and Round Pond Road should have a radius consistent with the road intersection geometry and type. Round Pond Road is a designated local arterial road." MR. BREWER-I would take it the July 20 letter is outdated? MR. YARMOWICH-Right. I referred to, previously, the only other comment in that July 20th letter was that, from the SEQRA determination standpoint, there didn't appear to be any significant engineering issues. MR. that BREWER-Okay, and we have a letter from, letter in, Carol, from Leon Steves? do you want to read MRS. PULVER-Yes. I have one quest i on here. You say Round Pond Road is a designated local arterial road, and then I have this letter, which I'm going to read, from Leon Steves that says neither Birdsall Road nor Round Pond Road are dedicated roads? MR. YARMOWICH-The dedicated road has to do with the legal status of a right-of-way. That means that they're a road. They're there. They're a road by use. They exist. The Town, the County, or whatever public entity is maintaining it. The property on which the road is located is not a right-of-way. It - 16 - ,r --- doesn't belong to the Town. The Town actually only owns the pavement. They don' t own the land under the road. What I'm say i ng is, there's no ri ght-of-way there now, okay, and that' s the difference between, Leon said it was a dedicated road, dedicated meaning there's a right-of-way there. A designated arterial is a status of use. It's a designated arterial. It's not a dedicated right-or-way. MRS. PULVER-Is that what you're saying, Leon? MR. YARMOWICH-No. He's saying that there's no right-of-way out there. There is no right-of-way. MR. STEVES-There's no deed to either road. MR. YARMOWICH-Right. MR. BREWER-Who maintains those roads? MR. YARMOWICH-The County maintains Round Pond Road, and the Town maintains Birdsall Road. MR. STEVES-My name is Leon Steves, for the record. As in most Town roads, there are roads by prescriptive rights. The public has used them a sufficient length of time that they have become public roads. For instance, Walker Lane that you were talking about earlier tonight is similar. There's no deed to that road. It's just by usage. Birdsall Road is the same thing. Round Pond Road is the same thing. MRS. PULVER-Okay. A letter to the Queensbury Planning Department, "Dear Jim: Responding to Rist-Frost letter of July 20, 1993, and in particularly items three and four, I offer the following: 3) Find enclosed a copy of the perimeter survey of the lands of Guido Passarelli, Please note the subdivision lies north of Round Pond Road and west, southwest of Birdsall Road, representing all the lands of the applicant in this area. 4) Neither Birdsall Road nor Round Pond road are dedicated roads, therefore, we have established both as being 50.00 feet wide, 25.00 feet each side of centerline as is customary procedure by surveyors when lacking evidence to the contrary. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Van Dusen & Steves Leon Steves, LLS" MR. BREWER-Okay. these notes? Now, Tom, would you like to respond to all MR. NACE-Sure. Let me start wi th Staff Comment s. The fi rst comment is lot 20, which is here on the corner of Birdsall Road and our proposed subdivision road. There were two reasons that we, I agree, first of all, that they are long narrow lots, both 20 and 21. However, the reason we did them the way we did, well, let me back up. First of all, the minimum lot width required in thi s zone is 75 feet, and they are both more than 75 feet. The reason we did them the way we did was to keep access on our subdivision road, and off of Birdsall Road, so that there's just one access point onto Birdsall Road. MR. BREWER-Lot 20 and 21? MR. NACE-Twenty and twenty-one. MR. BREWER-The width has to be, what, 75? MR. NACE-Seventy-five. MR. BREWER-And you're using this for the width? MR. NACE-No. This right here is the width. radius. That only comes from here up to here, It's 72 plus the okay, and then you - 17 / have about 25 feet of radius. This is about 80 here, and it's Q7, someth i ng 1 i ke that, up here, but even more than that, the problem with the grading here, if we divided the lots the way Scott is proposing, there would be one lot here that would have to have access on Round Pond Road. We're right at the top of, just over the crest of the hill. So site distance for that driveway on Birdsall Road would be a problem, and the grade. There's a very steep grade coming up there. We would have a tremendous cut to get the driveway in. We think it's developable. We know it's developable the way we've shown it, and even though they are long lots, they still do meet the minimum width requirements. They exceed the minimum width requirements. Number Two, the area prone to ponding he's referring to is we've created a little low area in here behind the houses on lots 21, 22, and 23. There's a little bit, the top of the hill up here is right about here, and there's a little bit of drainage that's going to come down into that area from this small area here, and from the backs of these lots here, and we just want some, that'll filter into the ground. That's no different than Q0 percent of Queensbury. It's flat as a pancake. The rain will go into the ground, it's just, we want to provide a place back here away from the houses that it can. So what we're doing is creating a low swale in there that can take the drainage. MR. BREWER-Does water gather there now? MR. NACE-No. There's no water that gathers anywhere on the site, because of the soils. It infiltrates into the soil. Again, similar to Q0 percent of Queensbury. The missing contours on lot 80 refers to, is simply that, where it's steeper here, in one section, we, instead of a two foot contour interval, where everything was pretty uniform, we just jumped 10 feet, and the rest of the cont ours fall in between there. I f we'd put them in, it would tend ,to obscure everything else. So we just jumped. On the other side of the house, where grading is more critical, along the driveway, we have shown the two foot intervals. Curvature of the roads, I think we've addressed that before with the site distance down here, and it is our intention to take care of the grading along these lots, on this hill adjacent to Round Pond Road. Back on lots 13 and 14, there is about 10 feet of cut on lot 14, and on lot 13 there will be somewhere in the realm of eight or nine feet of fill. Now we have not, and it's our mistake. We have not shown how that fill blends back into the existing slope adjacent to adjacent to Great Escape. We will show that, and by the time we reach final that will be complete. There was just an oversight on our part. As far as the erosion control, we do admit, obviously, that we've got a lot of existing slopes that are fairly steep. The steepest part of those slopes we've tried to stay away from. Where we're grading, we've tried to terrace things off a little bit, so if we've got a steep slope in, we flatten it out and have an area that we can stop any siltation or any sedimentation by putting in some silt fences and controlling it, and I think we have adequately addressed it. Vegetation on lots 13, 14, and 15, 13 is probably, if any of the lots would be a problem, I would anticipate that that may, and I think, although maybe I better check before I speak, I think we did some planting in our landscape plan to try to re-establish some vegetation there at the edge of the fill. Well, when we re- grade that area, we will show some planting there to get some trees re-established in behind the house on lot number 13. On lots 14 and 15, we are, as you'll notice, we have left the hill itself, so that we've graded in behind the houses, it'll be terraced down to where the houses are located, and that hill in behind there will provide a significant amount of buffering between the two developments. Comment Number Eight, the way I read your Zoning Code, the 50 foot buffer is a requirement between zones, not between uses. This is all Residential Commercial 15, meaning 15,000 square foot minimum lot size. Whether you have mixed uses within that zone or not, is not an - 18 - /- -- _.-/ issue of your zoning and the buffer. Mixes of use within that zone are permitted. It's where that zone is adjacent to other's is where the 50 foot buffer is required, at least that's my reading of it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. In the past, we've had applicants have to get variance for, they want to put up, for instance, a mobile home, or Mobile Home Overlay Districts include, are located in sometimes Light Industrial areas, and if they can't provide the buffer around it, they weren't real happy about it, but. MR. NACE-Yes, but all of our property and the adjacent properties to us are within the RC-15. MR. HARLICKER-Right. residential use. They're commercially zoned, but this is a MR. NACE-I think your analogy between the Mobile Home Overlay Zone is a totally different animal. MR. HARLICKER-Well, no. zone. It's a residential use in an industrial MR. NACE-No, that's right, but this is, these are both permitted uses in this zone. This Residential Commercial zone permits residential use. MR. HARLICKER-Right. I'm not disputing that, buy the quote says her e, " for any res ide n t i a 1 use, as de fin e din t his Ch a pt e r, wit h the exception of farm operations, abut any commercial or industrial zone at the lot line", which this does. MR. NACE-No. It does not abut an industrial zone. within the same zone. It's all MR. HARLICKER-But it's a residential use. residential use. Your proposal is for a MR. NACE-That's right. MR. HARLICKER-And where such residential use abuts any commercial or industrial zone, which it does, a 50 foot buffer. MR. BREWER-What page are you on, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Page 18046, Section 179-72C. MR. NACE- I t st i 11 say s, abut s and we're not, abutting a zone zone change line, and we're not. a commercial or means you're on industrial zone, a zone 1 ine, a MR. HARLICKER-But your use on 1 i ne, abut s a commerci al zone. for the Zoning Administrator. tonight for an interpretation. that property, at the property I don't know, maybe this a matter Unfortunately, he's not here That's my reading, as Staff. MR. STARK-What is your vegetation in the back? MR. NACE-Okay, in the back, where we can, obviously, we've stayed away from that division line. Unfortunately, the topography of the site has pretty much dictated where we put things, and there are the three lots where we're going to have to do some grading, up, relatively close to the lot line, or to the property boundary, and we've still set the houses back, it looks like it's maybe 60 or 70 feet from the lot line, and there will be, even after that is re-graded, there will be a chance to re-establish a buffer, a screening buffer back in there, and if you would like, we can modify the landscape plan to include some red pine, some thick, fast growing vegetation. - 19 - / ,- '---' MR. BREWER-What's there now? There's got to be trees there now, right? MR. NACE-It's mostly deciduous, medium aged deciduous. our side line. That's on MR. BREWER-I think, we were at Story town last week, and we looked up that bank, and there was all kinds of trees up there. MR. STEVES-Those are on our line. on the map. You can see the tree 1 i ne, is MR. BREWER-I think Mr. Wood I'm not disputing whose it told us that that was his property. is. I just want to know whose it is. MR. NACE-Well, I think it depends on where you're looking, okay. Here's the tree 1 ine, and here's the property 1 ine. So it depends on, and I'm not sure how to orient you by what's down here in Great Escape, so you may have been looking up here, or up here. It's hard to say, but on these part icular areas. MR. BREWER-Do you have a map that shows that slope right there, or not? MR. NACE-If you go back one drawing. Here are the lots that I've been talking about. These two will still have this hill back here, okay. We're grading. We're terracing it down a little bit on our property, but there'll still be a substantial buffer by 4& to 58, so at least a 12 foot high bank in back there. On this lot, this is a little low area in here now that we're going to be filling in, and I need to get some more contours shown there. So we will have some fill in here, and have a little bit of a bank down here, and that's probably the best place we need to fill in some additional planting, in that area. Was there anything else on Staff Comments that you? MR. BREWER-Well, I want to see what everybody else says on this Board about that paragraph. How does everybody else feel about the buffer, before we go any further? MRS. PULVER-Well, this is only Preliminary Stage. MR. BREWER-I thinks. know, but we can get a feel for what everybody MRS. PULVER-Well, we can get a determination before we have to go to final. MR. NACE-Yes. I would th ink, if you decide to proceed, that we will be glad to sit down with the Zoning Administrator and legal staff to get a full interpretation. MR. BREWER-Okay. We can get a determination from Jim on. MR. NACE-Make a determination of what the actual legal reading of what the actual legal reading of that is, and adjust our plan accordingly. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay. The other issue that Staff had, and I didn't see that in your comments, Scott, I think that must have been last minute, okay, was the possibility of and it's some sort of an internal circulation, or combination of access for the lots front i ng Round Pond Road. Those are doubl e frontage lot s. So they're 150 feet wide, double your normal required width, simply to address that kind of a problem. We've already cut in half what the minimum requirements are, as far as the number of houses, because of that, and that's, your zoning is already trying to account for that. Plus, I don't think, we might be - 20 - -------- ~---- -- able to combine common driveways for a couple of them, but they're fairly wide lots. The individual owners are going to have some choice of where exactly on that lot they want to place their house. I don't think I would necessarily want to tie them down to a common driveway where we don't have to. On other parts of the subdivision where the topography dictated where the house is and where the driveways would have to be, we've done that, but down here, I don't think it's that major of an issue, because of the double frontage. MR. HARLICKER-I mean, it just seems that it's a less than desirable situation to have six curb cuts on an arterial road in that short a span. MR. NACE-Well, I don't know. I guess I disagree with you. Okay. The engineering comments, we will, by the time we get to final, we will comply with number one. We'll label the adjacent parcels. The frontage, and the definition, or the road right-of- way, thing, Leon, can you address that, as far as wanting a dedicated right-of-way, versus leaving what's there now? MR. STEVES-Why? Really, the practice has been, in creating a subdivision, to come 25 feet off a road that's by prescriptive use, giving the Town, then, if you will, the ownership by lack of maintenance of that area between them. I'm not sure that we want to say that Birdsall Road is exactly 50 feet wide at this time. The area across the way, Birdsall Road, is a zone line, and to the east of that, northeast of that, is a WR-3 acre lot zone. We have, in that area right now, 3.32 acres to the center of Birdsall Road. If we are willing to give up 25 feet the length of Birdsall Road, it might cut down the size of that lot to a substandard lot, which would mean we would have to go for a variance for no other reason than it's substandard, by our own creation, and that would be tough to get a variance, then, because we have created our own hardship. I think we would have to look at that very hard before we would just say, yes, it's 25 feet to the east of that road, center line. MR. NACE-Okay. I guess to continue with the engineering comments, I have been in contact with Tom Flaherty, regarding the water main on Round Pond Road. We're in the process, now, of requesting a, the subdivision is outside of the existing water district. We're in the process of requesting an extension of the existing district, and preparing a map plan and report for that, and Tom is supposed to get back to me regarding what he would like to see in the way of water main size on Round Pond Road, whether he wants that upgraded for future contingencies or not. MR. BREWER-So we'll get a letter from Tom Flaherty? MR. NACE-We will work that out with Tom Town Board, as far as the water district obviously an issue. Flaherty and with the extension, so that's MR. BREWER-Can you get us a letter for final? MR. NACE-Yes, I wi 11, and the corner of lot number seven, I hadn't really look at that, but I think we can probably put a radius in there without any problem. We will do that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH~In addition to that, and a couple of things have come up here as a result of Scott's comments and looking at the plan, and they're not reflected in my letter. I missed them. I just want the applicant to know that there's some concerns with the grading on lot seven, at the corner, that really ought to be shown, with sediment control appropriate with it, because you're talking about cutting that down. That area on lot eight, between contours 420 and 430 was a target septic system area. I don't - 21 - / '- believe this contour spacing that you've allowed for will permit you to develop a septic system on appropriate cross slopes. Please review that grading for lot eight. In addition, up behind the hill there, after you get up above 440 on lot eight, it looks like you might not have pursued that slope until you got to the end of your grading limit, so clearing plans and so forth and so on should be adjusted, and look on lot 13, of course, at the bottom of that fill you'll need a piece of silt fence. Lot 19, at the base of the fill, you'll need some silt fence, and looking at the 460 contours on the top of the hill on lots 10 and 9, the silt fence may have to be moved out slightly, but I think that's going to be a matter of practical construction and not what has to be shown here, but the other two, the major low areas, I think they ought to be shown, okay, and I think that kind of is a little more specific as to what areas of the grading plan need to be looked at. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. MACEWAN-I don't have so much a question as maybe a comment. I'm really kind of wondering whether this is a really well thought out plan to begin with, now hearing everybody's response, and all the engineering, and the comments and so on and so forth. Maybe something could be better developed by utilizing a, just one road in there and have everything come off a cul-de-sac to service all the lots, so you don't have any lots on Round Pond Road. MR. BREWER-How can he do that? MR. MACEWAN-Well, maybe not developing the whole parcel to the extent that they want to do it now. MR. YARMOWICH-I guess, Craig, I mean, I recognize your concern. It's a pretty hilly area, and I looked at it, and I looked at other recent subdivisions that the Board has been through. Maybe you were or weren't a part of them, but I know that there's been subdivisions on Assembly Point that's dealt with similar slope and proximity conditions, and that was successful. Other things along West Mountain Road, where there's some very steep conditions that have been addressed and the roads and so forth that were installed were modified to suit the topography. The opinion that I have is, yes, there's a lot of grading involved here, but the end result is usable lots, in generally. I don't see any real problem with unusable lots that would, or undesirable lots that would be created here. MR. BREWER-Anything else? MR. STARK-Just about the 50 foot buffer on lot it. 13 or 14, that's MR. BREWER-Okay. I've got a question about lot 10 and 9, about the common dri veway. That's got to be, how long is that driveway? Who's going to be responsible for it, and how are you going to do it? MR. NACE-It'll be a common driveway, maintained by an agreement between the two property owners. We discussed this with Jim, and batted it back and forth for a while before we did it. It's just, it makes more sense to do that than to try to get access down onto Birdsall Road for those two lots, okay. Those are fairly sizable lots. They're going to be very nice lots sitting up on top of the hill there, and probably warrant the expense of a fairly long driveway. I think that the development of those will be commensurate with. MR. BREWER-One of them's about 29,000 feet. something, did I read those numbers right? The other's 56, or - 22 - ~ -- - MR. NACE-What, the driveway? MR. BREWER-No, no, the size of the lot. MR. NACE-One of them is 1. 1 acres, and one of them is 1. 3 acres. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-So they're substantial lots, and we could, we looked at actually getting driveways down to Birdsall Road, and it's physically possible. It's not very desirable, and I think from an erosion control standpoint, as far as long term erosion, coming down a steep driveway, as well as a safety aspect on Birdsall Road, it just made more sense to bring in a common driveway, and I think, in talking to Jim, there had been some precedents for that, in some of your recent subdivisions that you've seen. MR. BREWER-Okay. All right. I guess hearing. Who'd like to be first? I'll open the public PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LEE YORK MRS. YORK-I have a few comments on the subdivision. First of all, I'd like to say that, in my opinion, the important issues here are good planning practice and what's in the best interest of the Town rather than how many lots we can create, and whether they'll be good lots or not. "There are a number of issues related to this subdivision which the Board should consider. From a philosophical/Master Plan view point the current design of this subdivision is inappropriate. The plan shows six lots fronting Round Pond Road- a designated local arterial. The Master Plan, under the Traffic Section, states goals including: Limit driveways on collector and arterial streets, and Retain the rural character of roadways. This subdivision has six lots accessing an arterial road near a curve that has proven to be dangerous and where the level of service at the Route 9 intersection is a serious problem. The developer should be supplying sight distance and traffic impact data. The increase in traffic and the accompanying delays and hazards could substantially affect the corridor and an already impacted intersection. As Section 179-30 states 'Lots fronting on local streets rather than arterials shall be encouraged while lots fronting on collector or arterial roads shall be discouraged.' Round Pond Road is also a scenic rural road. The views from this roadway have been identified on the Scenic Map done for the Town. Because of the development which has impacted the Town, aesthetic resources are becoming more precious. In order to preserve a visual amenity and maintain traffic flow, the lots on Round Pond Road should be internalized with substantial amounts of natural vegetation left to screen the road. The subdivision also has about one third of the property showing 25~ or greater grades. Rather than cutting out lots and regrading them, the subdivision should be designed to utilize the natural features. It currently appears that drainage problems will occur on lot B, lot 14 and lot 15. It also appears that a retention pond is being created on lots 21, 22, and 23. This is a situation to be avoided. The Highway Superintendent, who is responsible for drainage should be requested to review these plans. The Town has a policy to discourage retention ponds because of the potential hazards. Also relevant to the slope concerns is Section 179-65, Soil Erosion Standards which states: Provision shall be made prior to, during and after construction to dispose of increased runoff caused by changed surface conditions, in a manner which minimizes danger of flooding, erosion and pollutants from urban runoff entering lakes, streams or rivers. Grading and development shall preserve salient natural features, such as trees, groves, natural terrain, waterways and other similar resources, and shall conform - 23 - ,.,.. - -,--" substantially with the natural boundaries and alignment of watercourses. The development shall be fitted to the topography and soils to create the least erosion potential. Cut-and-fill operations shall be kept to a minimum and shall transition smoothly into existing topography so as to create the least erosion potential and adequately accommodate the volume and rate of surface runoff. Cuts and fills shall not endanger adjoining property nor divert water into the property of others. This area is part of a Critical Environmental Area and part of the Glen Lake drainage basin. Any removal of vegetation or site modification has to be minimal and done with sensitivity. The planting plan shows the removal of large amounts of natural vegetation and the replacement of it with non-native species and grass. This is not good planning practice. To the extent possible, natural vegetation should be left. This area is shown on the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Map as being a Globally Significant Habitat, which the Town, through the Master Plan, has clearly indicated warrants protection. The subdivision map also shows common driveways. These situations are not best for the homeowners or for the local fire departments. One driveway is + 475 feet in length with two obtuse angles. The need for long driveways could be eliminated by utilizing a cluster design. The soils in the subdivision area are fast percolating. The creation of septic systems will most likely require non-native soils to be imported. The movement of the on-site soils and the importation of other soils will most likely create neighborhood impacts which should be mitigated. The test hole on lot 21 appears to be at the house location rather than at the location of the septic system. The fact that an action or project has been listed as a Type I under SEQRA carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. I agree with the planning department assertion that the developer has not provided sufficient information to allow the Board to make a determination. I have taken the liberty of attaching the SEQRA Criteria for Determining Significance. I believe that the Board should review this list as it relates to this subdivision. I believe there will likely be irreversible, long term impacts if this subdivision is not modified. The Planning Board should require a clustered alternative with a loop road which only accesses Birdsall Road. The areas of steep slope should be avoided and left natural to the maximum extent possible. A large buffer area should be left on Round Pond Road and adjoining the Great Escape. The Theme Park has already been limited by surrounding residential subdivisions. The Board should be aware that the purpose of the Recreation Commercial zone is to 'isolate, protect and encourage expansion of the recreation industry.' (p 17965). Although the Ordinance indicates that residential uses are compatible, this has not been the case. The Board should take the necessary steps now to protect the recreation commercial enterprise for which this zone was created. A cluster design can be created on this parcel which can provide the developer fair renumeration while taking into account the natural and man made limitations. Numerous studies have shown that clustered subdivisions where a Homeowners Association is in ownership of the open space have higher market values and retain those values over time. The Town of Queensbury Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance advocate clustering because of development limitations, traffic concerns, and maintenance of open space. This subdivision appears to be exactly what the regulations were designed for." Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Thank you. JOHN LEMERY MR. LEMERY-Thank you. Lemery. I'm here on Escape has no issue Passarelli was one of Statement and appeared I'll just be very brief. My name is John behalf of the Great Escape. The Great with the subdivision. However, Mr. the commentors in our Environmental Impact at the public hearing in opposition to the - 24 - "/ '-, -.-.---.,/ " roller coaster and the expansion of the Park into the area. So we just want the Planning Board to be mindful of the reason for the zone and the protections which have been mentioned, such as were mentioned by Mrs. York, and to make sure that the developer provides the necessary mitigation, so as to protect the homeowners here, and try to find a way that, if he can mak e it compatible, make it compatible, but be mindful of the fact that the Great Escape was here first, and the application for the roller coaster has been pending before this Board for some period of time. It's back here before this Board again, but has been in existence since about 1990, and would be located on the other side of the hill, as you know, having taken a look at it. So, we'd just ask you to be mindful of it, and we'd ask the developer and his consultants to be mindful of it, in planning the subdivision so as to not cause the situation where they come in later and complain about some problem with the Great Escape. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. JACK LEBOWITZ MR. LEBOWITZ-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. "My name is Jack Lebowitz, ~n~ ~ ~~~~ ~t ~~ ~~FF~~~n ft~A~ ~n ~~~~nsbury. I'm Vice President and Counsel of the New York Bicycling Coalition, which is a statewide advocacy organization to promote bicycling for transportation, recreation, and sport. I'm also Chairman of the Glens Falls Urban Area Transportation Council's Technical Advisory Committee for Bicycling and Pedestrian Transportation, and as you may know, the GFUATC is an official advisory body required under Federal and State Law to plan for the future transportation needs of the residents of Glens Falls and Queensbury metropolitan area. As part of our work on the GFUATC, we have been preparing a long-range transportation plan for the next 20 years which does a much better job of allowing people in this area to walk or bicycle to their destinations as an alternative to using cars on our increasingly congested local roads. As part of our long range plan, we are recommending that the existing Warren County Bike Trail running from Beach Road in Lake George to its current terminus near Glenwood Area be extended into downtown Glens Falls on the recently abandoned D&H railroad right-of-way. Our long range plan also calls for the bike trail to be connected to a Queensbury trail system being developed by the Queensbury Citizens Environmental Advisory Committee under the leadership of Professor Dave Hodgson of ACC, as well as being connected to the new Feeder Canal trail system. Under the leadership of the Warren County DPW and Parks & Recreation Committee, we are now preparing an application for federal-aid funding under the new ISTEA transportation act which will hopefully pay for 80% of the cost of the bike path extension into Glens Falls. Although the competition for this federal funding is extremely intense -- in that only 8.4 million dollars is available for all of upstate New York we are very optimistic that the County Bike Trail will be one of the funded projects. We are lucky here in Warren County to be seeking funds to complete a long existing, well used and popular facility, rather than one which is entirely proposed, and a project which has demonstrated substantial benefits for residents and tourists alike and can be justified on its proven value for transportation, recreation, tourism and regional economic development. Those of you who have biked or walked on the Bike Trail and have seen similar facilities elsewhere also know how fortunate we are to have a trail which is surrounded by park-like natural beauty for almost its entire length, which is equally amazing considering its closeness to Route 9 and its intensive strip and tourist-related development. I am telling you this as way of background tonight to express my deep concerns about the potential adverse effect of the proposed Passarelli subdivision proposal on safety and visual resources of the County Bike Trail. As many of you probably know, for historical reasons, in the area - 25 - ...... I " ! '---- ---..-F- of the Twicwood development and the Glens Falls Country Club, the bike trail was forced to depart from the grade-separated former railroad right of way and to use public roads along Country Club, Round Pond and Birdsall Road before rejoining its own separate right of way behind Glen Lake and thence to Lake George. When the Bike Path turns onto Birdsall Road, it ascends a steep hill on a curvy and narrow section of a Town Road with poor sight distances. Currently, because there are only a few residences along this dead-end road and automobile traffic volumes are light, the mixture of cars and bicycles on this road does not create a substantial traffic hazard, although there are sometimes troubling "near misses" because of automobiles which seek to pass the bicyclists ascending the hill in the poor visibility areas. Because Birdsall Road is only lightly developed, though, the Bike Trail corridor along the Town Road is also consistent with the scenic qualities of the grade-separated portions of the path to the north and south. The Passarelli development, however, must be viewed as a potential threat to the Bike Trail. As currently proposed, however, the main access to most of the 23 lot Passarelli subdivision will be from a new road and curb cut onto Birdsall Road called "Highpoint Drive" by the developer. To Mr. Passarelli's credit, he apparently proposes to keep most of the screening intact along Birdsall Road which will preserve some of the appearance of the Bike Trail corridor. However, I am concerned that the traffic from this new road will present a safety hazard to the growing numbers of users anticipated to use the expanded Bike Trail as a non-motorized corridor between Lake George and Glens Falls. There is a serious potential for car- bike accidents by south-bound cyclists descending the hill colliding with motorists leaving the subdivision and turning right onto Birdsall Road. There is also the increased potential for car-bike or car-car accidents from cars passing the northbound cyclists more slowly ascending the hill south of the proposed subdivision access road. Additionally, there is simply the impact of decreased functionality and appeal of the Bike Trail segment on Birdsall Road from the increased traffic this proposed subdivision will dump on that currently lightly- trafficked road. The Environmental Assessment Form provided by the applicant does not allow us to determine how substantial traffic or visual impacts may be to the Bike Trail users, or whether those impacts could be mitigated. It does not accurately disclose existing or projected traffic levels. It also incorrectly states that the action does not affect and open space or recreation area (I~~.3), or scenic views known to be important to the community (Item A.14) and is not located within or adjacent to a "Critical Environmental Area" (Item A.19, it is located next to the designated Glen Lake CEA). While I would not argue that every proposed 23 lot subdivision in the Town of Queensbury has the potential to create significant adverse environmental impacts and thus require an environmental impact statement under SEQR, I would submit that SEQR does require an EIS in this instance because of the potential adverse safety and visual impacts on the County Bike Trail. Such a Draft EIS would address such issues as: What precisely will be the safety impacts to bicyclists from the subdivision access road, and can these impacts be mitigated through alternatives such as moving the access road off the Bike Trail to access the subdivision off Round Pond Road, or better intersection design, lanes or traffic control devices? What are the existing and projected car and bicycle traffic volumes on Birdsall Road, and will this subdivision present a safety problem or hazard to cyclists? What will be the visual impacts on the Bike Trail from the development, including other future developments which may be induced along Birdsall Road, and can these be mitigated? If there are unacceptable impacts from the development as proposed on the Bike Trail, can such impacts be reduced by alternative subdivision designs, such as reducing the number of lots from the 23 lots proposed? While I understand that the Planning Board is reluctant to put the typical subdivision through a full SEQR EIS review, I would note that because of the location of the Bike - 26 - / ~ ,-.-/-- Trail at Mr. Passarelli's proposed access road, special circumstances are present which warrant a more detailed and careful review. I would also note that SEQR requires a full EIS in instances such as this where (1) a SEQR "Type I" action is involved which is one which is presumed more likely than not to be environmentally significant and to require an EIS and (2) where the EAF and public comments disclose the potential for "at 1 east one sign i f icant adverse env ironment al impact". I would re spect fu 11 y subm i t to you, Mr. Cha i rman, that, when the proximity and effect of the Bike Trail is taken into account, the potential for "at least" one significant adverse impact has been demonstrated. Under these circumstances, the legally-required and prudent course of action is to require the applicant and Planning Board "to look before it leaps" and to carefully determine and then minimize or avoid any potential adverse effects that Mr. Passarelli's subdivision may have on the unique and wonderful County Bike Path which many of us feel is one of the most important public amenities which makes Queensbury the great place to live and work which it is. Thank you for your consideration. " MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? leave the public hearing open. I' 11 MR. HARLICKER-There was a letter submitted very late, six o'clock, six-thirty this evening, from one of the property owners, Ms. Elisabeth Russell. "Dear Planning Board Members: I am a resident of Birdsall Road and, although I cannot attend the public hearing tonight, I wish to express my concerns regarding Mr. Passarelli's proposed subdivision on Round Pond and Birdsall Road. 1. SEQRA Segmentat ion - I seem to recall that at one time Mr. Passarelli had proposed a development for this area which included homes around Round Pond. Has this plan been abandoned or is future development of the entire 82.57 acres planned in the future? If so, perhaps these related actions should be identified and their potential impacts discussed. 2. Traffic- The Environmental Assessment Form states that the existing road network is adequate to handle the additional traffic. However, this additional traffic represents a very significant increase over the existing traffic levels and the intersections of Birdsall Road with Round Pond Road and Round Pond Road with Route 9 are already problematic. The Birdsall Road intersection is at a peculiar angle and along a curve in Round Pond Road. The congestion at Route 9 intersection during the summer months is well known. In addition, Birdsall has increased dramatically in recent years and automobile traffic on Birdsall Road must often stop because of bicycle traffic. The localized impact of this project on traffic and on bicyclists should not be lightly dismissed. Perhaps the development could have only one entrance onto each road. Is any entrance onto Birdsall Road justified at as all traffic must ultimately enter Round Pond Road? 3. Groundwater - The EAF states that the depth to groundwater is as little as 5 feet in some areas, and that the site is located over an aquifer. In addition, the perc test results of just over one minute show extremely porous soils. Will the approximately &,000 gallons per day of liquid waste entering the 23 on-site septic systems have an impact on this water supply? While this project will use water from a public water supply, other homes in the area are dependent upon on-site wells. 4. Aesthetics - The area is currently heavily forested and although the site itself is not used as a recreation area, the scenic nature of Birdsall Road is appreciated by bicyclists on the Warren County Bikeway as well as local residents. This natural area also acts as a noise buffer between Great Escape and nearby residences. The plan for this development includes an excessive amount of clearing and grading with little respect for the current topography and vegetative characteristics if the site and the area. A facade of this wooded character could be maintained by leaving an undisturbed buffer along Birdsall Road and using native species and planting patterns in landscaping the entrances to the development. A - 27 - /~- - --- ; '- ~~ natural environment also currently exists in this area along Round Pond Road and should be similarly maintained. The proposal for this project is reminiscent of Mr. Wood's total annihilation of the wooded hillside that could have mitigated the visual impact of the Bavarian Palace. While I appreciate the fact that Mr. Passarelli has the right to develop his land, it seems that his purpose could be accomplished while still maintaining the character of this area of Queensbury. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Very truly yours, Elisabeth Ann Russell Birdsall Road P.O. Box 2279 Glens Falls, NY 12801" MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom, I guess, I'm going to ask you, has any consideration been given to clustering? MR. NACE-Can I respond to the public comments? I'm not going to go through everyone, just some general topics. First of all, yes, the whole clustering issue. It usually involves a homeowners association. I believe Lee alluded to the fact that that increases, that the Homeowners Associat ion, increases the people's willingness to take care of the land, I guess, is a good way of putting it. I think that's just contrary to what the Town has found in the past, is that they go back two years later, and the homeowners association doesn't even exist anymore. Nobody's interested in it. It's still a legal entity, but as far as taking care of things, they're all tired of it, going their own way, and nobody's minding the store. MR. BREWER-Is that a necessity for association? clustering, homeowners MR. NACE-I think to achieve what Lee was talking about it becomes a necessity of having common space that's left pristine or natural and somebody has to take care of that. MR. MACEWAN-Why restrictions? couldn't that be achieved through deed MR. HARLICKER-Yes. You did that, that was on a small scale, with Mr. Vasil iou's subdivision, off West Mountain. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. NACE-Yes. Well, that was a totally different sort of thing. True clustering, the other issue is that people, in today's market, want to buy a lot. They don't want to buy a little small postage stamp with a half an acre behind them that they can't really develop as part of their lot. They want a front lawn. They want something that they can develop into a lot just like most of you have, and in clustering, that's very difficult to achieve, as opposed to what clustering really means. So, to answer your question, we've considered it, but really, due to the market conditions, and other factors, we just don't think it's feasible. One of the issues that has come up is the fact that we are clearing a substantial portion of land. I don't know how many of you have walked the site at all, actually walked back into the site and up on the ridge here. There's a substantial ridge up in front, here, that sort of screens this whole area behind from Round Pond Road, and there's a bowl that's formed by this ridge and by the ridge around behind here that is sort of all self-contained, and with our keeping the frontage on Birdsall Road fairly natural, I'm not so sure how visible that clearing back in that bowl is really going to be from anywhere. We've tried. We've used the low part of the bowl to bring our road houses around that. We're leaving bigger lots up on the ridge. I think we're achieving a lot of what Lee has alluded to, using regular lots, using smaller lots where the topography suits them, and bigger lots where there are areas that need to be protected. The idea of trying to put in some sort of a frontage road or a separate entrance off of Round Pond Road to serve the subdivision, just because of this ridge line here, is not 28 - / '-' practical at all. These lots in front here can be developed quite nicely, as most of the lots along Round Pond Road that have already been developed are, as individual lots. To put a frontage road in to serve those, because of the steep slope in behind is not feasible. By the time you put the frontage road in, you've driven the houses back up onto the steep slopes that you're trying to protect. The issue with the septic, the soils, we've done perc tests. The soils all fall above one minute percolation rates. We are not proposing to import any materials for the septic systems. They'll be like 90 percent of your septic systems in Queensbury. Again, because of the soils erosion on this site, even though we have steep slopes, erosion is something that can be, from an engineering and construction practicality standpoint can be addressed and taken care of. It's not an insurmountable problem. MR. STEVES-Tom, if I may, the concept plan, I bel ieve, the comment was made that we were trying to put too many lots on it, and we were asked to limit it to a 23 lot subdivision instead of the 24 or 25 that we had submitted. MR. NACE-Okay. The Bike Path issues. Something that comes to mind, and this, I don't want to say this to put a bad taste in anybody's mouth, but the road was there first, for public access, before the Bikeway came through. This particular section of the Bikeway, from here to the point that it takes back off on the old road bed is, quite frankly, if there's a safety problem with additional cars on that, there's also a safety problem presently, and it would be my recommendation that between the public funds available for the Bike Path, and maybe using some recreation funds that are set aside from subdivision recreation fees in Queensbury, that the proper way to address that is to put in an extra lane in here for bike traffic, the way it was done along Round Pond Road. That's taking care of the real issue. If there's a safety issue in the future, there's a safety issue now. All it takes is one fatality or one accident, and I've been over the Bike Path several times myself, and when you're climbing up this hill, it probably is, even at present, a safety issue with any car and bicycle traffic sharing the same lanes, climbing that hill. So my recommendation would be that we work together and provide enough access, or enough right of way that an extra lane can be put in there for bicycles, and that the Town use some of its recreation fee money, in conjunction with other funding sources, to make that a reality. MR. HARLICKER-Now, the applicant owns that other side of the road, right, the property over there? MR. NACE-That's right. MR. HARLICKER-Maybe consideration could donate some of the land as part of his like that, possibly. be given to rec fees, or having him something MR. NACE-To me, that's really working out the problem and solving it, rather than going through an Environmental Impact Statement that mayor may not solve it. I think that's really. MR. BREWER-Is that something that could be workable? MR. NACE-I think we can work on that. I think Guido was saying, just what I was alluding to, is that from this subdivision, there's a $500 a lot recreation fee, lets use some of that to solve the problem. MR. BREWER-Okay. Now how far up does he own, though? MR. HARLICKER-That's difficult to do. It goes into whatever sort of general recreation fund that the Recreation Department has, which the Planning Board has very little if any say over. - 29 - /' . ~,.---- - MR. NACE-I'm not saying that that's an issue that the Planning Board can sit here and dictate themselves, but it's certainly an issue that we, the Planning Board, the Town Board, and other interested parties can work together and solve. I think that's all I had in response to public comment. MRS. PULVER-Tom, I'd just I ike to say one thing, because there's only four members here. That I would like to table this, with your permission or consent, to take everything that we've got tonight, all the new informat ion, which I've just dumped on my lap, to review it, and then get together again and maybe you can even work out some better ideas, or whatever, over some of the stuff we've got, rather than trying to beat it out right here, and you need four votes. So if I don't vote, and you don't agree to tabl ing. MR. NACE-When, would you anticipate being back on for September? Is that what you're talking about? MRS. PULVER-When's our next meeting? MR. BREWER-Next Tuesday, and then the Monday after that. MRS. PULVER-Yes. We have a special meeting on Monday, on the 30th. Certainly, it's up to the rest of the Board, but if I don't vot e, three vot es don't. MR. NACE-Sure. How does the rest of the Board feel about the issues? Are there any other issues we need to have on the table? MR. BREWER-Well, about the SEQRA, I'd like to get an idea of how everybody feels is what I want to know about. MRS. PULVER-I think that's why I would like to table it, is I'd like to really look at all these comments that we've got, and I'd like the applicant to have time to look at the comments, to really sit down and see if they can address them, the bike trail certainly being a big consideration, and then when we meet again, we'll all have a better idea of what we're talking about. Right now, my head is swimming. I don't know about anybody else, and it's getting late, too. MR. BREWER-Well, lets make a list of what we want him to come back here with, if he can at all. I'd like to get a determination from Jim on the 50 foot buffer. That's one. I'd like to have you have Paul Naylor look at the road. That's number two. Possibly a letter from Tom Flaherty about the water. I'd like to see, you said you would be willing to write a letter to the effect that you are going to cut the hill on Lot Number Seven. MR. NACE-I will provide you with a plan that shows that. MR. BREWER-Okay, and also I'd like to ask you to have Kip Grant look at the common driveway and the adequacy of fire trucks getting back in there. That's five. Has anybody else got anything? MRS. PULVER-No, Bike Path. but certainly look into the potential for the MR. STARK-I was more worried about the buffer, than anything, in the back, the 50 foot buffer. MR. BREWER-Yes. That's something that maybe, Scott, you could talk to Jim, too, first thing in the morning about, about the 50 foot buffer on the property line, and maybe he can get back to us next Tuesday with that, just so we know, and actually get back to you, too, and those are the only five things that I had, and I would also like, if you could talk to Guido about possibly - 30 - / -- ---,' reducing the curb cuts on Round Pond Road from six to three. I mean, it fits, the way you've got the houses laid out, it doesn't disturb the septic. I'm not saying you have to do it, and I can't make you do it, but discuss it anyway. So that's six items, the last one being, just internally, you're going to discuss it. MR. HARLICKER-Are you going brought up, regarding contours, septic system is? to address the issues for instance, on Lot 8, that Tom where the MRS. PULVER-I think the engineering comments are a given. MR. BREWER-I think he's going to do that anyway, but these are Just items from us. MR. YARMOWICH-I don't know that you really need to do all that, to get through to the point where Carol was talking about, with SEQRA. If you want to go beyond that, I would expect you would. It's kind of up to the applicant as to how far they want to get at the next meeting. MR. NACE-We will certainly go far enough to satisfy ourselves that we can address all of Tom's concerns. MR. YARMOWICH-I won't need to see them and review them by the time of that next meeting. It's just not going to be feasible with my schedule and the time that you've allowed. MR. BREWER-Maybe in the meantime, I'll maybe talk to the Town Board can talk to them. Tom, if I can help in any way, about the Bike Trail, and you MR. NACE-Sure. the. We'd certainly be willing to meet with you and MR. BREWER-Well, that's up to the Board, if they want to them, I'll ask them. me to talk MR. MACEWAN-I would think a good idea would be, persuaded somehow, is in lieu of recreation fees, enough strip to run the bike trail up there. if it could be donate a wide MR. BREWER-Yes, have to do it. but we have to start somewhere, asking who I mean, the County isn't going to build it. we MR. MACEWAN-We can only make a recommendation to the Town, and the Town would have to approve it. MRS. PULVER-Yes. That's it. As I understand it, the last time someone came and wanted to give land, that if the Planning Board wrote a letter of recommendation to the Town Board, the Town Board would consider doing that, in lieu of whatever. MR. BREWER-But I think when we talked about Jim Girard and Potvin, the ultimate decision, naturally, is for the Town Board to accept the land, but I think the decision whether or not to accept the land is the Planning Board's decision. MRS. PULVER-You need a recommendation to send to the Town Board. MR. BREWER-Isn't that what Jim stated to us? MR. HARLICKER-I think so. MR. BREWER-And then they have to accept it because it's a. MR. MACEWAN-We can only recommend. po 1 icy. I don't think we can make - 31 - ./',/, .-------- MR. BREWER-No. We can't accept the land and take the deed to it, but I think they'd almost have to go with our recommendation. MR. MACEWAN-The only thing we can try to do is pull the strings together here and make a recommendation to the Town Board. MR. BREWER-Well, we can talk to the Town Board, certainly, about it anyway. MRS. PULVER-And I would just suggest, Tom, if you have copies of all these comments, that you just look them over and see if there's anything else, because I will read them. MR. HARLICKER-I've got a question for you. In the special meeting on the 30th, what's the expected outcome on that? Are you going to be doing just the SEQRA that night? Is that what you're looking to do? I mean, if you're looking to continue on into site plan review, I think it would be important to get Tom's comments and incorporate them into any review process. So I don't see how you could do any sort of site plan, either approval or denial, without his comments, and he said he can't get the comments to you by that time. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then then back in September, F i na 1. I would say at least do the SEQRA, and maybe the first meeting Preliminary and MR. NACE-Sure. MR. BREWER-Then we can have time for Tom's comments. MR. NACE-I think SEQRA may be involved enough that we could get that out of the way. MR. BREWER-Okay. Would somebody care to make a motion? MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE PASSARELLI, Introduced by Carol adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1993 GUIDO Pulver who moved for its For a subdivision on Round Pond Road, until August 30th, 7 p.m. in the Conference Room. Duly adopted this 17th day of August, vot e: 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Tarana ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED J. BUCKLEY BRYAN, JR. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: NORTH OFF AVIATION RD. ONTO FARR LANE. PROPOSAL IS FOR A SUBDIVISION OF A 18.97 ACRE PARCEL INTO SIX (6) LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 73-1-22.1, 22.3 LOT SIZE: 18.97 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 14-1993 Preliminary Stage, J. Buckley Bryan, Jr., Meeting Date: August 17, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 18.97 acre parcel into b lots. Five of the lots will have frontage on a newly create cul-de-sac at the end of Farr Lane, the sixth lot - 32 - ~ 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. PROJECT ANALYSIS: As indicated during sketch plan review, the site is mostly flat and wooded. The cuI de sac was recently constructed to provide access to newly approved and constructed senior citizen housing. This project opened up the rest of the area to development. There 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. During sketch plan discussion, the issue regarding PCB's on the site was raised. The Board requested that a study be done to determine if a problem with PCB's exists. The lots will be serviced by municipal water and individual on site septic systems. The site's suitability for septic systems will be reviewed by Rist- Frost, as will drainage and stormwater management. A landscaping plan for the planting of street trees should be supplied." MR. BREWER-And we have a letter from Tom Yarmowich. ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Rist Frost, Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer, August 17, 1993 "Rist-Frost has reviewed the project. Other than the results of environmental analysis of soils requested by Planning Board at last month's meeting, and the existence of habitat for an endangered species, there are no technical concerns. Subject to satisfactory resolution of these environmental issues, approval of the project is recommended from an engineering standpoint. II MR. BREWER-And Mr. Steves. MR. STEVES-As requested last month, I had Hudson Environmental Services do the actual testing and the laboratory work, and their results I got today indicate there are parts of PCB's, sampled two areas out there, are less than two parts per billion. I think it's ridiculous that they even say there's anything out there at all. I mean, when we get to a point where we can test the atmosphere and everything else, the parts per billion, it's ridiculous. I have to say that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-But nonetheless, they're regulated, Leon. MR. BREWER-So what does that mean? MR. YARMOWICH-The results are below the detection limit. don't know if there's really anything there. So we MR. BREWER-What's the limit? MR. YARMOWICH-Two parts per billion. detect it using soil gas analysis. Below that, they can't MR. BREWER-No. I guess, what have to do something, excavate would be the limit that they would it? MR. YARMOWICH-Fifteen parts per billion is the action limit. MR. BREWER-Fifteen parts. MR. YARMOWICH-So there's adequate detection capability to know when you're in a real action limit range. MR. BREWER-And we have a letter supporting that, so we can put it on file? Thank you. - 33 - --...- '- MRS. TARANA-Do they tell us where they did the tests, Leon? MR. STEVES-I haven't gone out and located it. I have not done that. I can do that and have it on the final plat for you. MRS. TARANA-Yes. I think, obviously I would assume that they would test by that air strip. MR. STEVES-I specifically asked them to do that, and I think they did address that in their letter, said that there was on the runway. Yes. That's why I didn't do it. I asked them to do it. Okay. MRS. TARANA-I just want to point out, authorization for Leon, Van Dusen & Steves, not signed or dated by Mr. Bryan. Scott, to act as that the agent is MR. STEVES-Yes. He had done that on the concept plan. necessary to have him repeat it each and every time? Is it MRS. TARANA-It's my understanding, and I'll tell you why, Leon, because we ran into that problem with that other, I can't remember the name of the project, where the applicant said he didn't know anything about what was happening. He didn't know that agent said this that and the other thing. He never signed the papers and all that. So I think we're just being a little overly cautious maybe, but making sure that everything is signed. MR. YARMOWICH-Wait a minute. This was signed, right below it. MR. BREWER-Okay. on the Board? Is there any other further comment from anybody MR. MACEWAN-I've got a quick question just regarding the Lupine areas. What's going to be done to insure that they aren't going to be infringed upon? MR. STEVES-I'm not sure that they are required to. I was told by the girl that came up in June and looked at it and found the Lupine that she would be back in July to see if there's any presence of the Butterfly itself. I haven't heard from her. So I'm not sure there's any presence of Butterflies. The area itself, though, is almost, it's so small, there would be no problem in preserving it. MR. YARMOWICH-It's advisable to designate that as a preserve area, because under the Endangered Species Act, you're not even allowed to do anything to habitat. Whether or not the species is present, habitat's also protected. So, it's just advisable, if it's acceptable to the applicant, to designate it as a preserve. MR. STEVES-Not a problem. MR. MACEWAN-How would we do something like that? it, through deed restrictions or MR. YARMOWICH-Just show the area on the map, and there shouldn't be. MR. MACEWAN-Well, what's to prevent a homeowner or whatever? MR. YARMOWICH-The problem is this, Craig. If you tell them you can't do anything there, the only option is to develop an active management plan, which means you've got to go out and cut it in August and burn it in October to make it a suitable habitat. The problem with Lupine habitat is it grows up and matures naturally. It comes and goes with natural acts like blow downs, forest fires, and things like that. That's part of the reason why the species is endangered. It gets cut off, and so on and so forth. The Lupine habitat is part of a successional habitat, and you 34 - rea 11 'I, i n order t 0 k e e pit , you' v e got t 0 put tog e the r a management plan which is somewhat unnatural anyway. The places where Lupine exist best is perimeters and farm fields which get mowed usually at the end of the year. Airports are the most common occurrence. Saratoga County Airport has the largest occurrence known of Butterflies. Places where there's a regular late year mowing is what allows them to survive. You can't really do it without an intensive management plan, by telling these people they have to manage their lots. That's not pract i ca 1. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. YARMOWICH-The best thing you can do is create a preserve and just leave it natural, and if it goes, it goes. If the people 1 eave it as a brush area, as it is now, it'll stay. I don't know that you can do anything more than that. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. STEVES-That is a problem, out there, they were surprised that we did discover it. because they were indicating to me to find it in the wooded area, MR. YARMOWICH-It probably won't last long. wooded area, the Lupine will be choked out. If it's already in a MR. BREWER-Usually it's in an open area. MR. STEVES-Yes, 1 i ke along the runway there. MR. YARMOWICH-Hedgerow transition areas and things like that where it doesn't get mowed. The edge of a hay field would be a good spot, but not out in the middle of the hay field, because they mow it in June and July. The active management plans that exist, you go out and you mow them in, I guess, mid September, late August, and then if you want you can burn them every few years. MR. BREWER-You'll whatever? mark that on the map, to preserve it or MR. STEVES-Yes, I wi 11. MR. BREWER-Okay. I' 11 open the publ ic heari ng. I s there anyone here from the public that would like to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HOWARD SHAMUS MR. SHAMUS-My name is Howard Shamus. I live at 40 Fox Hollow Lane. When the original project was presented, there was a strong community opposition to it because originally there was going to be some additional housing where the three acre lots are, with the four. There was also a major concern about an area of, now you're creating a traffic problem coming out of Farr Lane, and after listening to all that went on here today, I think that's really a major concern that we have to look at, the congestion of it, before we allow any kind of further development there. There's a problem for pedestrians. There's a problem for driving. It is becoming like demolition derby over there trying to get in and out of the streets crossing Aviation Road, from Fox Farm Road, from Farr Lane. What's not shown here is that Dixon Road is off center to that, and when you come out of Farr Lane, it is becoming a nightmare in trying to negotiate a left or a right turn out of there, and I think we also have a hazard that's growing daily over there. We have allowed in behind there a tremendous amount of additional growth, homes, and with a lot of children. These kids are trying to get to the schools where - 35 we've done a great job in making that a place for them to go, even late at night. It's becoming a hazard for them to travel there. There is no right of way for the kids to ride bikes, or even for people to walk. All we're going to do is add to congestion of that area right now, without planning anything further with helping the situation that we have now, without any further development, and I think that's something that the Board has to look very, very closely at before they give permission for any additional growth in that area. There was also some concern about, and Mrs. Collins, I believe, who lives on Fox Farm Road had brought it up, and I don't know if that issue was addressed or not, about some drainage problems towards the back part of those lots, and I don't remember whether or not that was addressed, or if that had been, some conclusions were made on that. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? MR. SHAMUS-That's basically it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would like to comment? ROGER LONGO MR. LONGO-My name is Roger Longo, and I also live on Fox Hollow, 35 Fox Hollow Lane, and I concur with Mr. Shamus. The traffic situation there leaves really something to be desired. There's really too much development there, and I think, really, some consideration needs to be done, in terms of traffic management, before we expand any further with more development. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? MR. SHAMUS-Howard Shamus, 40 Fox Hollow Lane. When we got the notice, I don't think some of the neighbors realized that this was going to be in addition to what, we thought there might have been some additional information that was coming forth on the lands of the National Church Residence, and I believe that's one of the reasons why, besides people being on vacation, is why no one was here, because I know Mrs. Collins was very concerned about any further development in that area, as one, and I don't see her here tonight. MR. BREWER-I don't coming from the? understand what you mean about information MR. SHAMUS-Well, I'm saying that there was additional, this goes back, the last time I know that there was any kind of discussion from the Planning Board was back in December or November, and they were, it sort of got passed on to the next Board after everybody was elected, okay. It was like a hot potato over there. There was still some issues, if I remember. I don't remember the entire thing, but there were still some issues that were still being looked into, dealing with the National Church Residence. Okay, and originally, like I said, when the original plan came out, there was a plan for development in the back there. There was even consideration whether or not they were going to come out Farr Lane or there was another road that was going, I guess, near the, where that gas station is, where that builder has some property over there. MRS. PULVER-Maille. MR. SHAMUS-Maille. Right. I think they were talking about how they were going to access to that property. Now it's been determined that it's definitely Farr Lane. Okay. Now that's the first that I see that. MRS. PULVER-Yes. originally you're Let me just interject a little bit here. talking about, too, was there was many What more - 36 ---- lots. Didn't he propose, when he was selling to the National Church Registry, he proposed the entire re-zoning of all the property, and there was going to be many, many homes there. Now we've gotten down to six homes, is all we're talking about there. MR. SHAMUS-Right. MRS. PULVER-And there was going to be another access, going to be a whole lot bigger than what it's turned out. MR. SHAMUS-Well, they were remember, and a park. also talking bicycle paths, I MRS. PULVER-Yes, and allow them only, configuration, he's besides the National the Town Board opted to zone it this way, to because of the traffic, because of the only allowed to have six units in there Church Registry. MR. SHAMUS-What will the size of the homes be? deeded or? Is that being MRS. PULVER-That would be up to the developer. MRS. SHAMUS-So you don't have any restrictions or? MRS. PULVER-No, but certainly on the size parcels that they are, I would say they would probably, you wouldn't put a small house on three acres. MR. BREWER-So I would say that they're probably going to be. MRS. PULVER-Sizeable. MR. SHAMUS-Okay. MR. BREWER-I can't say for sure what size the houses are going to be, but I'm sure they're going to match what's ever around them. MR. SHAMUS-Right. The only point I'm trying to make is that if there was going to be additional public opinion, I don't think that the public was really aware that it was dealing with an expansion, now a revised plan that was changed from the multiple housing that you're talking about. MRS. PULVER-Well, actually, this is not a revised plan. What this is is the zoning that he was given at the time those meetings that you went to, and now he's just decided to develop the property according to that zoning. So everyone knows. MR. SHAMUS-It was zoned that way? MR. BREWER-It is zoned that way. They never changed this zone. MR. SHAMUS-Okay. MR. BREWER-The only parcel that ever changed zone was where the Senior Citizen housing went. MR. SHAMUS-Okay. MR. BREWER-It was a five acre parcel, and they re-zoned that so they could accommodate the senior's home, and they made him leave the rest of the property as to what it was zoned already. MR. SHAMUS-Okay. MRS. PULVER-Yes. He had wanted to change it, but they said no. MR. SHAMUS-So this is just the original plan? - 37 - ----~ "'-...-' MRS. PULVER-So this is, right, Town Board got through with him, at all. This is exactly what he to just turn that property into have in the beginning. what he was left with when the okay. He hasn't expanded on it was left with. Now he's decided the lots that he was allowed to MR. SHAMUS-Okay. Now what say does this Board have of further consideration of the traffic situation Road, and the effect that this will have on that? on any kind on Aviation MRS. PULVER-Well, we can consider the impact. The road 1S already there. That cuI de sac and everything is already there, and I mean, really, making roads wider and adding traffic lights, and, that's a Town Board issue. That's not an issue that we take up. MR. SHAMUS-Okay. MRS. PULVER-If it comes out in a traffic study or something and some mitigation can be done, often the developer will do it, but it's not something that we can, you know, we can't make them widen the bridge, as much as I'd like to have them do that, because I'm on the wrong side, too. That isn't within our power. We are a citizen's board, and the only legislative board is the Town Board. So, you need to be beating on their door. MR. SHAMUS-They keep on sending us back here. there. You send us back MRS. PULVER-Well, they're passing the buck. MR. SHAMUS-Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Is there anyone else? Okay. I think what 1'11 do is 1'11 leave the public hearing open, Leon. If there's any other neighbors that want to come up, when this gets to final, they're more than welcome to, and we'll hear their comments, and I don't know that that'll change our decision or not, but we'll at least let them speak. Do we want to go through the SEQRA? MRS. TARANA-We have to do a SEQRA again? MR. BREWER-We never did it. MRS. TARANA-We didn't do it at sketch? MR. BREWER-No. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-1993, Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, there is presently application for: before the Planning Board an 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 - 38 - '---' ~ 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 vote: 17th day of August, 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Tarana, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we have to make a motion to go on to Final. MRS. PULVER-All right. MOTION BUCKLEY adoption, TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-1993 J. BRYAN. JR., Introduced by Carol Pulver who moved for its seconded by George Stark: Proposal for a subdivision of an 18.97 acre parcel into six lots, with the following stipulation: That you locate the Lupine areas on the final plat, and you designate these areas as a natural area. Duly adopted this vote: 17th day of August, 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Brewer Tarana, Mrs. Pulver, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay, and would you make sure we note that the public hearing was left open on that, Scott? MR. STEVES-Okay. You're going to leave it open, then? MR. BREWER-Yes. I'm going to leave it open, just in case there's some neighbors that want to say something at Final. MR. STEVES-Okay. evening. There were another couple here earlier this MR. BREWER-Yes. I did see them, and they left. MR. STEVES-Yes. Well, they do live adjacent to the property. MR. BREWER-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: - 39 - -- SITE PLAN NO. 38-93 TYPE I GARTH ALLEN OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE lONE: SR-1A LOCATION: NORTHSIDE OF CRONIN RD., APPROXIMATELY 1200' EAST OF BAY RD./CRONIN RD. INTERSECTION. CONSTRUCTION OF A CLUSTERED 90 UNIT TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: SUBDIV. 12-1993 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING - 8-18-93 TAX MAP NO. &0-2-5, 10 SECTION: ARTICLE VII - CLUSTERING MARK SCHACHNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. TARANA-It goes to Warren County Planning tomorrow? MR. BREWER-Why does it go to Warren County? DICK MORSE MR. MORSE-We've been there. MR. SCHACHNER-It's already been approved by the County. MRS. TARANA-It says, Warren County 8-18. means. I don't know what that MR. BREWER-Why would it go to Warren County anyway? Because of the property on Bay Road? MR. MORSE~It's within 500 feet of a County Road. already have been to Warren County, May 12th, and plan approval that night. We actually received site MRS. TARANA-And you don't have to go back. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I mean, we went to the County for site plan rev 1 ew. Count y recommended approval. As I recall, it was unanimous. I think the reason, anyone who wants to chip in from Staff can do so. My understanding of the reason that the notation on the agenda says County Planning Board for tomorrow night is because, if you recall, we had submitted our site plan application to the Town and to you all several months ago, at which time it was referred to the County, passed on by the County, and there was then a decision to change the order of submittal to you all to go through the Preliminary and Final subdivision approvals, and the Wetlands Permit approval before we got to the Site Plan Review stage. As a result, we made a second submission to the Town, which is substantially identical to the first submission, Scott's agreeing, but I think, correct me if I'm wrong, I think what happened is because we made a second submission, you gave it a new number. MR. HARLICKER-Right. It was a procedural thing that we did. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So since it got a new number, I think it just showed up on the list of things being, you know, there's a whole list of stuff sent over to the County, and I think this showed up on the list, but obviously we don't think we're going to the County again. We don't think they're reviewing it again, and I think Dick spoke with somebody at the County about that, and that's our understanding. MR. MORSE-Right. MR. BREWER-Okay. We have some notes. MR. SCHACHNER-Could I ask a question, or offer a suggestion? It's entirely up to you. I was thinking, it might be easier to have, and this is sort of a generic comment, to tell you the truth. It's entirely up to you, but I thought it might be easier for us to respond to points as they're made by Staff Comments. I don't think that's the way you usually do things, and it's totall y up to you. I don't care at all. We're just trying to do whatever's most efficient. If you want to go through them all, 40 - '- then we'll respond to them all. Whatever you all want to do. MR. BREWER-Well, I don't know, problem, if Carol has to leave, through this with four of us? if that's going to create a do you feel comfortable going MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's okay with us. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-And if impasse, but I don't, we come to an impasse, it's okay with us. we come to an MR. BREWER-All right. Lets go through them like we normally do. I'm a creature of habit. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 38-93, Garth Allen, Meeting Date: August 17, 1993 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct 90 townhouses on a 27 acre parcel which is adjacent to the Bay Meadows golf course. The development will be serviced by municipal water and sewer. There is a single access proposed from Cronin Road. The applicant is applying for approval under Section 179, Article VII Clustering. The applicant received a change of zone from SFR-1A to SR-1A; the SR- 1A zone permits clustering, the SFR-1A zone does not. SEQRA was completed during the rezoning. PROJECT 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 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. The applicant will have to supply traffic information in order to make an accurate assessment of the project's impact on traffic. In accordance with Section 179-38 D., the project was compared to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39. (l)d. The existing drainage and runoff patterns will be altered as a result of this project. The drainage and runoff plans have to be reviewed by Rist-Frost and any comments addressed. (2)b. Appropriate erosion control measures must be used both during and after construction to ensure that there are no problems relating to erosion. The erosion control measures will be reviewed by Rist-Frost and any comments addressed. (2)c. The project requires a Freshwater Wetlands permit and a permit for construction in a flood hazard zone. (2) i. Staff would like to see the detention area incorporated into an overall recreation plan for the development. Utilizing the detention area as a pond with walkways around it would be a benefit to the development. A development walking path system could be integrated into a potential greenway path along Halfway Brook and could also tie into future nearby developments. Because of the project's proximity to Halfway Brook, the dedication of land to the Town for recreational purposes should be investigated. (3)a. and (4)a. Because of the large amount of fill required for this project the applicant should provide information regarding the number and size of the trucks that will be required to bring the needed amount of fill. This information will aid in determining the impact of construction related traffic and its impact on noise and air. (S)f. As stated above, a Freshwater Wetlands permit is required for this project. The project was compared to the following standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The I ocat i on, arrangement, size, des i gn and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs; Typical elevations of the proposed buildings will be required in order to accurately assess the compatibility of buildings. It needs to be - 41 - - clarified if any property will be part of the individual townhouses or will they be footprint only lots. No lighting or signage plans have been submitted. There is a 24 square foot sign identifying the development proposed for the entrance from Cronin Road. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls; Because of the large number of units, consideration should be given to providing a second means of access into the development. The driveways for the quadraplex at curve 1 should be aligned so that they are perpendicular to the road. Curves 1 and 2 should be revised so that the curve radius are to town standards. It does not seem reasonable to expect traffic to stop at the location indicated on the two curves. The cars will be stopping in mid curve and in front of two driveways. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading; There appears to be room to park 4 cars in each driveway. It is unclear if garages will be included with the townhouses. The driveways for the quadraplex at curve 1 should be aligned so that they are perpendicular to the road. The driveways for the quadraplex at curve 2 are also in a less than desirable location. Because of the lack of space for parking when people visit, there will be times when cars are parked on the road. Consideration should be given to allowing parking on only one side of the street in order to maintain safe traffic circulation through the development. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience; A central location should be allocated for the placement of a bus stop to allow pedestrians access to mass transit. Sidewalks should be installed to allow safe access to the bus stop. Greater Glens Falls Transit System should be contacted to arrange connection into their routes and regarding placement of the bus stop shelter. The possibility of a walkway system that could tie into a future network of pedestrian and bike paths should be considered. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities; Rist-Frost comments have to be addressed. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities; Water supply is subject to approval of the Water Department and connection to municipal sewer is subject to Waste Water Department approval. Any comments from Rist-Frost regarding these issues should also 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; A landscaping plan for the development has not been submitted. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants; The Fire Marshall's Office will review this for emergency accessibility and hydrants. Staff spoke with the Fire Marshall on August 11, he did not find any significant problems regarding emergency access or the fire hydrants. His one concern related to the turning radius on the curves; the large fire trucks require a radius of at least 45 feet. It is not clear if curves 1 and 2 meet this requirement. It should be noted as to whether the hydrants will be private or Town owned. If private, a maintenance schedule should be developed and presented to the Fire Department for comments. q. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. The project is subject to a freshwater wetlands permit and a permit to allow construction in a flood hazard area." MR. BREWER-Who issues that permit, Scott? MR. HARLICKER-Dave Hatin's office. MR. BREWER-Okay. - 42 - ,./'/ MR. HARLICKER-I tried to get a hold of him today and I wasn't able to. MR. BREWER-Just his review, that's it? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's a special permit that they go through, and I'm not sure of the specifics involved with that permit. It has to do with certain construction mitigation measures that they have to use. I think putting the buildings a certain number of feet above the flood level or something like that. MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom, do you want to go through yours? ENGINEER REPORT Notes from Rist-Frost, Tom Yarmowich, Town Engineer, August 17, 1993 IIRist-Frost Associates has reviewed the prDject and has the fDIIDwing engineering cDmments: 1. The sewer and stDrm drain trench details shDuld stipulate bedding, haunching and backfill tD abDve the crDwn Df the pipe cDnsistent with recDmmended installatiDn practices fDr PVC pipe. 2. The earthwDrk and sediment cDntrDl sequences shDuld specify measures in the fDIIDwing general Drder: Stabilized cDnstructiDn entrances Clearing Perimeter silt fences and straw bale dikes Strip and stDckpile tDpsDil, install stDckpile perimeter sediment cDntrDI, stockpile temporary stabilization Embankment and ditches with temporary stabilization RDadways and Dther improvements Permanent stabilization Remove sediment controls when permanent stabilizatiDn is effective 3. Provide a stone and filter fabric sediment trap constructed Dver the inlet of the SWM basin outlet culvert. Refer to figure 5A.23 of the New York Guidelines for Urban ErosiDn and Sediment Control as an example of stone filter construction. 4. Provide rip rap rock outlet protection for all storm drain outlets in accordance with the material and cDnstructiDn specifications of the New York Guidelines fDr Urban ErDsion and Sediment Control, refer to pages 5B.21 through 5B.28 (1991 Ed.). Provide details Dn plans. 5. The rDadway geometry dDes not confDrm to Town standards at curves #1 and #2, and at the entrance to the prDject from Cronin RDad. If the Planning Board finds these private road deviations from subdivisiDn regulations acceptable then a waiver should be granted. b. The driveways for the proposed quadraplex unit at station 8+00 left should be arranged perpendicular to the road and preferably nDt on the stop sign corner. 7. The stop sign 10catiDn and driveway placement near station 15+10 should be rearranged tD allDw the stop sign to be placed priDr to the sharp curve #2 when approaching from the sDuth." MR. BREWER-Okay. Would YDU like to address the cDmments? MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. I didn't mean to be facetious in response to Mr. MacEwan's cDmment, Dr whoever it was that asked, but it's up to you all. I mean, if you feel, at some point, that we're just not going to make much prDgress, there Dbviously are only four of YDU. YDu're missing three Df YDur members. There's a lot of responsibility brought Dn you all tD carryon until midnight, and that doesn't seem that fair. It's up tD you all. We'd like to get as far as we can, if that's Dkay wi th you. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-There are basically, when you bDil it right down, - 43 - --.. , ,---'"' there are 13 comments from Planning Staff that require addressing in some fashion, and seven from the Town Engineer, and I guess what I'd like to do is kind of run through them all in somewhat summary fashion, but make us stop and ask any questions about any that you want more elaboration on, if that's okay with you all. MR. BREWER-Yes. Can I ask one question first? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. BREWER-At subdivision, requiring two exits? did we grant a waiver for the not MR. YARMOWICH-That wasn't an issue. Subdivision was strictly looking at the shape of the land and splitting it apart, making sure that it could be developed in accordance with zoning. MR. BREWER-Okay. Because I remember I did bring that up, why there weren't two exits, and I think we talked about it a little bit. MR. SCHACHNER-We discussed it at length, but actually where we discussed it at length was with the SEQRA Review, and we talked about it in terms of whether there'd be an impact on traffic, and we did discuss it at quite some length, in terms of separate exits. Remember we also talked about whether there should be. MR. MACEWAN-Emergency access. MR. SCHACHNER-And a divider, right, and a bunch of things, and just the traffic flow in general, and we talked about all that in SEQRA Review, and some of my responses to some of these comments are, we've already been through it and discussed it in SEQRA Review and the Board seemed comfortable with it at that time. MR. BREWER-Do we have to grant a waiver for that, Tom? MR. SCHACHNER-For the second access, you're talking about? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. YARMOWICH-It's difficult to say. Typically, you construct roads during the subdivision process. This is not, my understanding of it is there is not a subdivision of land involved with this site plan. These will be individual, all the property will still be owned by the applicant. The property here isn't being sold to the townhouse owners. So there's no land transfer. MR. BREWER-I guess my question is, back when we did subdivision, in the Subdivision Reg's, if there's more than 35 lots, there has to be two exits, and I brought that up, and we talked about it. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. more than 35 lots. I think Tom's point is that there aren't MR. YARMOWICH-This is not subject to subdivision because these are not individual lots. This is still one lot with 90 units on it. It's just like somebody building a 90 unit apartment building, okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. That answers my question. MR. YARMOWICH-So you're looking at it as a private, this happens to be Town water, private sewers. The Town's going to maintain the water, and as I understand, the sewer's will be private, the road's will be private. The Town won't have anything to do with maintaining the sewer and roads in here, but they'll still have to provide. - 44 - MR. BREWER-I thought the sewer was going to be hooked into the sewer system? MR. YARMOWICH-But it's going to be a private sewer. Is it? MR. MORSE-I'm quite sure we were looking at the Town taking water and sewer, but roads would be private. MR. YARMOWICH-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. YARMOWICH-Then I'm mistaken. MR. MORSE-And we are designing all things to Town standards, but we have received comment on sewer from not only Tom, but. MR. YARMOWICH-There'll be no Town right-of-way. There's no road right-of-way. There's no dedication to the Town of lands in this parcel, to access lots. That's not there. It's just one lot with 90 units on it, under one ownership. MR. MACEWAN-Is that a relatively common occurrence, having a private road with Town water and sewer on it? MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. In the Town of Queensbury, maybe not so, but in general, it's common. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Well, Queensbury specifically. that's what I was asking, Town of MR. YARMOWICH-I cannot, off the top of my head, think of any. MR. MORSE-Hiland Park, overlooking Hiland Park it's a. MR. MACEWAN-How do you go about maintaining something like that? MR. SCHACHNER-Road wise? MR. YARMOWICH-It's by easement. The Town gets an easement over. MR. MACEWAN-Road wise, and both for the Town to come in and, if they would have to service the sewer or the water lines? MR. SCHACHNER-The Town has easements to do that, over the privately retained property, and then the road wise, along with other common elements of ownership, are maintained by the homeowners association. MR. YARMOWICH-The question you're asking, Craig, is if the Water Department cuts the road, the Highway Department doesn't fix it. The Water Department fixes it. So the same thing happens h~re. If the Water Department comes in and cuts that road to make a repair, they fix it. The Sewer Department, if they cut the road, they fix it. The Highway Department doesn't. So the Highway Department is not involved in this project in any way. MR. BREWER-I guess what Craig's saying breaks, who goes in and fixes it? is if the water pipe MR. YARMOWICH-The Town, and they fix the road, and everything else they damage. MR. BREWER-And they fix the road also. to go in there, they have to repair it. Whatever Department has MRS. TARANA-Does that mean that you do the plowing, does it's own plowing and everything? The Town plowing, snow plowing? the project doesn't do - 45 - - - .../ MR. SCHACHNER-Right, because it's private roads. Right. MR. MACEWAN-Why not turn the road over to the Town? MR. SCHACHNER-We could consider that. always hungry to get more roads, and applicant's feeling was he wants to retain like plowing, access, and all that, and keep Generally, towns are in this case, the control over issues them pri vat e. MR. YARMOWICH-The regulations say that you have to build private roads to Town standards, and that's why some of the comments are there, and there is concern that it meet all the requirements for emergency access vehicle and so on and so forth that any town road would have, because the residents in this private development would expect the same response from the Town for their needs that it would be if it were a public road. As far as they're concerned, they won't know any different, except for snow plowing. MR. BREWER-Okay? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Let s see. The first quest ion re lat es to information about traffic, and I think that I sort of already answered that, without intending to jump ahead. As far as needing to supply traffic information, we did so for the SEQRA Review. We used a crazy number. We said, lets assume every single person comes and goes in a maximum peak hour, all 90 people come and go, it's still not any big traffic impact, and we don't believe there is a need for additional traffic information, and I think we've discussed that at great length in the SEQRA Review. The second point relates to the detention area, and Staff's interest in the possibility of some sort of comprehensive recreation plan, a walkway or recreational path, whatever, around the detention area, utilizing it as a pond, and again, we've discussed that at some length also. We simply don't agree on that point. We feel, you may recall, that this is a project that already has significant recreational amenities, namely the golf course, in particular, and we don't think it's appropriate to make the detention area into a recreational amenity, that's a pond that has problems of cost, and problems of maintenance, and problems of liability. So we really don't agree with Staff on that point. We simply don't think it's appropriate. It's not a public, it's not public property. It's not a public facility, and we don't think it's appropriate to do that with our detention area. MR. BREWER-What about the path along Halfway Brook? MR. SCHACHNER-I think it's pretty much the same thing. It's private property, and we don't perceive this as something that's going to become a public amenity, pretty much for the same reasons. The homeowners association could, obviously, decide, at some point, or the applicant could decide, at some point, to develop some sort of private internal recreational path access, but it's already got the golf course. We think that's appropriate, and that's plenty for recreational amenities, if you wi 11. MR. MORSE-One of the issues that we have discussed before is the issue of the market that we're trying to target with this, and it's basically the market that currently uses the golf course there. Garth Allen, on my right, has been discussing this with a number of people that play at his golf course, and the market that he's trying to key into is concerned with their dollars and how they spend them. The units are going to be in the $100 to $110,000 range, and we're trying to keep, at this point, the homeowners association cost at a very basic minimum. We don't want to add a lot of site amenities that are reflected in the - 46 - --...... ...... homeowners budget. . So that by adding picnic shelters or walkways that need maintenance, we, as the consultant for the AG submission have to provide all that data in worst possible budget scenarios, which inflates HOA agreements, and that's where some of these already existing HOA's have gotten into trouble, because they have this inflated budget. So it's a sales tool. If the homeowners ever wanted to put paths in, I mean, the land is open. It's readily accessible now. If they want to go out and walk on it, that's fine, but to put in formal paths that require maintenance, we've just decided not to do that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and again, keep in mind, as we've said, all along, that the market we target is the people that use the Bay Meadows Golf Course, or those demographic profiles, which tend, as generalizations, to be a lot of retired folks. A lot of folks that are not huge income folks, and that aren't going to have an intensive need for these types of recreational facilities, Number One, and, Number Two, when they're buying a unit for $100, $110,000, they're not going to want to be involved in a homeowners association dues problem, or obligation that would be typical of a more luxurious type place, a Top of the World Homeowners Association, things like that. The next issue appears to be the question of fill required for the project, and really that's going to be handled in one of two ways. We're not sure yet which. The question asked by Staff is, how many truck loads of fill. We would estimate over the life of the project, and keep in mind that it's going to be built in stages, that we might be looking at up to 2,000 truck loads, and that's obviously over the course of both phases at maximum buildout. MR. BREWER-Two thousand truckloads? MR. SCHACHNER-That's what you figured, right? MR. MORSE-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-The other possibility is, there is an area, between existing fairways Number Six and Number Seven, that has a substantial amount of material that could be utilized as fill on site, in which case there would be no truckloads. It would just be moved on site. If we do that, then obviously we would need, there would be an on-site mining permit requirement, which we would come back to the Town for that permit, if that's needed. MR. MACEWAN-What do you anticipate the life of the project to be, start to finish, over all the phases? MR. SCHACHNER-What did we say? It's really a two phase project, in essence, and I think we've answered that, in the past, as saying, Phase I we wanted to start this year, and Phase II would be as the market would bear, and other times, I think, didn't we say within five years would be our expectation? That's sort of what we have in mind, but the subsequent phases, really, depends on the success of the first, and the demand. MR. BREWER-Okay. I can tell you up front that if you're going to have 2,00Ø truckloads of dirt going in there, or fill, whatever, I would like to make sure that this Board makes a stipulation that that fi 11 doesn't go up and down Meadowbrook Road, it goes down Bay and comes over Cronin, so as not to effect the people that live over there. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That's a good idea. That's a real good idea. MR. YARMOWICH-That number, 2,0ØØ trucks, if that's 10Ø working days, that's 2Ø trucks a day. That's not a real big deal. MR. BREWER-Well, it's a lot of trucks. MR. MORSE-It doesn't matter. We certainly would accept that, and - 47 - "..,.."-'. '-' that's the corridor of least resistance to us. MR. YARMOWICH-I mean, they're not all going to come in a week. I mean, it's going to take hundreds of days to do, not hundreds, but. MR. BREWER-I understand they're not going to all come in a row, but I mean, over a period of time, if you take 2,000 trucks, divide it into 50 weeks, that's 20 a day. MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-It seems to me that you're going to want to put all the infrastructure in in one shot, right? MR. SCHACHNER-No, it's 20 a week, big difference. MR. YARMOWICH-No. They'll do up to here. MR. HARLICKER-And then this way, and then around like that. MR. SCHACHNER-We don't have any trouble with that suggestion. In fact, we think it's a good suggestion. MR. MORSE-That's fine. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-The next comment requiring a response is typical elevations of the proposed buildings required. Boy, we sure thought we gave you some of this stuff, but here's your floor plan, and as far as height elevation, we're only talking about one story structures, peaking out at about 15 feet, nothing exciting in height. We don't want a lot of stairs involved, and we're peaking out at 15 feet. Nothing exciting in height at all. MR. HARLICKER-Garages with the townhouses? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-There are two car garages, but I think you made me jump ahead. The next comment, asking a question is whether, we should clarify whether any property will be part of the individual townhouses or they'll be the footprints only that will be sold, and I think Tom Yarmowich actually mentioned this already, but as we've said all along, we would anticipate selling just the footprint, and all the other property will be commonly owned by t~e homeowners association. MR. YARMOWICH-You are actually selling the footprint with the property? Then that constitutes a subdivision, doesn't it? Technically, all you can do is sell the air space. Otherwise, you've got to subdivide the land. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think we went through this with Jim Martin, and I don't remember how exactly we characterized it, only that he said it's not a 90 lot subdivision. MR. YARMOWICH-The same thing has happened, what's the name of the subdivision off of Walker Lane? You look on the tax map, there's individual lots there. MRS. TARANA-Baybridge. MR. SCHACHNER-I know where you mean. MR. YARMOWICH-There's individual lots for each of those owners. The same thing happened in Queen Victoria's Grant. - 48 - -- ~ MR. SCHACHNER-All right. I think we went through this with Jim Martin, and I thought he said that if we're selling footprints only, I thought his determination was that that wasn't a subdivision, because people didn't own separate lots. MR. BREWER-Well, can we find out? MR. YARMOWICH-You will receive a tax map number and become a lot in the land records of Warren County. MR. SCHACHNER-We haven't submitted our homeowners association stuff to the Attorney General yet, and we don't really care, to be honest, is what Mr. Allen's saying. That's my understanding. You just wanted to pin it down, right? That's a fair comment. MR. YARMOWICH-I just want to make sure the right thing gets said, so that the process is treated appropriately. MR. BREWER-Where did we do that, in the last transferred from? year or so, we MR. YARMOWICH-Sherman Pines? MR. BREWER-No. Sherman Pines? MR. HARLICKER-Is it Cedar Court, just up the road, that way? They went from footprint only to including the property. MR. YARMOWICH-They did go to lots. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They went to lots. MR. YARMOWICH-They went to lots don't think I have the answer. Town Attorney, 'Jim Martin, and may be. as well as footprints. Well, I You might have to talk to the the Town Surveyor, whoever they MR. SCHACHNER-Why don't we just talk to them and clarify it. I think that's appropriate. MR. YARMOWICH-I'd just assumed they'd be air space condominiums. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We've represented them in the past as townhouses, not condominiums. It can certainly be done that way, but rather than confuse the issue, we'll revisit our steps that we took with Jim Martin and we'll tell you next month or whenever we're here exactly where we're at. As far as lighting and signage, which is the next question, there isn't any proposed, other than what people are going to put on their individual units. There's no street lighting proposed, nor do we think any is required, and the only signage that's proposed, I'm sorry, with one exception. 1'11 get back to lighting in a second, but the only signage that's proposed is the one sign that Staff makes mention of. On lighting, there is one other concern, and that is the mailbox area, we presume should be lighted, because some people get in, after dark, and want lights there, but we think we need to coordinate that with the Post Office, and that hasn't happened yet, but that would be the only other area of lighting. MR. MACEWAN-You don't think it's necessary to put lights in there, street lights? internal road MR. SCHACHNER-No. does. We really don't, and I'm not sure anyone else MR. YARMOWICH-They're not part design. of the Town standards for road MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and these roads are all wide enough, and safe enough, it seems like, and it's not that many people using them. 49 - We felt that was appropriate, and we didn't know of anyone who felt differently. The next one, I think goes back to what Tim started off our discussion with, which is, whether we need a second means of access into the development, and I guess our response to that is the same as our response to the very first comment, which is we have the same recollection that Mr. Brewer has, which is that we went through all that in the discussion of the SEQRA Review, and it was determined that we didn't need a second means of access. The next comment is about the curve, Curve 1 and Curve 2 alignments, and I think this is mentioned both by the Staff and by the Engineering comments. Both comments are appropriate. Both comments are consistent with what we've said all along and with what Staff and Engineering have said all along, and in both instances we are seeking relief from you. We think that what we propose is perfectly reasonable. We don't think Staff or Engineering necessarily disagree with that, but they do indicate that if that's to be approved, we need relief from you, in terms of your resolution of approval. MR. MACEWAN-But wasn't one of the questions regarding Kip Grant's concerns with the radius being adequate for fire equipment? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and we'll jump ahead to that right now, since you asked, but they are adequate. The requirement is 45 feet, and both of them are 50 feet. MR. HARLICKER-As long as we're in that one, you might as well finish it off. What about the fire hydrants? He had a concern about whether they would be private or Town owned. MR. YARMOWICH-They would be Town. MR. MORSE-They would be Town. MR. HARLICKER-Town. Okay. MR. BREWER-So the curves are to Town standards, right? MR. YARMOWICH-No. The curves are not, acceptable for emergency vehicles. but the curves are MR. BREWER-Well, should they be to Town standards? You said a private road has to be built to Town standards. MR. YARMOWICH-The Regulations say private roads should be built to Town standards. If they're not built to standards, then there ought to be a waiver to permit them to be built. Should they be built to Town standards? Have you decided whether or not you want to, you've cleared that up in your own mind. We did go over that, and there's been letters written. MR. BREWER-I haven't cleared it in my mind. MR. SCHACHNER-On those two curves, you mean? MR. BREWER-Yes, whether they should be built to Town standards. MR. MORSE-Well, Town, what we have proposed is that these are now a stop condition curve, very similar to what is at Inspiration Pårk. There's a similar. MR. BREWER-There's not a stop sign there. MR. MORSE~Well, we feel that because this is a private road, we can put in stop signs. We feel a stop condition is much more appropriate than that right angle curve that's there, and I think you've granted relief, in the last several months. MR. BREWER-I don't have a problem with that, as long as there's a stop sign there. I know exactly the road you're talking about in - 50 - ... _/ Inspiration Park, and there's not a stop sign there, and I in my mind, that there should have been one there. felt, MR. MORSE-And we have provided them here, at all, stop signs located in this. there are six MR. YARMOWICH-Okay, but I guess I want to clarify something for Tim. The situation with Inspiration Park, because I looked at that. The size of the parcel was narrow, would not have permitted a compliant turn and still have two access points onto Corinth Road. They provided two access points, and the relief that they were grant ed was the curvat ure rad i us so that, I mean, there they got two access points with noncompliant curves. They could have had one access point and they mayor may not have been able to have compliant curves. I don't know, but they satisfied that part of the Town standards. It's a little different situation as to what your conditions of accepting that were. It's a similar situation that would result, but the conditions under which you're considering it might be a little different. MR. SCHACHNER-Next would be the question about the garages, and the answer is, yes, there are two car garages and two spaces at each unit. So it's correct, as Staff says, that there's room to park four cars. From our perspective, especially targeting the kind of market we're targeting, we can't imagine that's not adequate. Four cars in every unit seems very, very appropriate, and we don't think there's any need for even considering parking on the road. We just don't foresee that happening, on any regular basis at all. Comment 10 relates to the bus, the Glens Falls Transit System and any bus stop. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. Would you have a problem, parking on one side of the road? then, wi th MR. SCHACHNER-I don't think we care, do we? MR. MORSE-We don't th i nk it's ever go i ng to, I mean, on a rare occasion, there might be a need for someone to park on the street. Is this a standard in the Town, that parking is only allowed on one side of the road? I mean, we have a number of curb cuts. I mean, this is a clustered development. I just don't feel that we'll ever get to that point. We're providing garage space for two vehicles, and then backed up behind that are two vehicles. MR. HARLICKER-So each unit will have a two car garage? MR. MORSE-That's correct. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. MORSE-And then you've got cuing space for at least two more. MR. SCHACHNER-So in the day to day sense, we don't need for that. perceive any MR. MORSE-I mean, maybe, an occasion, just like any place in Town, where some body's having a party, there might be a crush, but I don't think that going through the whole. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Basically, graduation weekend, or Father's Day we anticipate that, but that's about it. So, I think that brings us to the Glens Falls Transit System, and our understanding of that, as far as connecting into their routes and placing of a shelter, is that the Glens Falls Transit System wouldn't come within the road system, because it's a private road system. MR. HARLICKER-Well, think about that, shelter or something where the entrance but then maybe put is, out on Cronin Road. a - 51 - ..¡ ---- ./ MR. MORSE-They would, yes, because they install shelters. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-It would be their, wi th us. on a public road, that's fine MR. YARMOWICH-The homeowners association would agree to that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We don't have any problem with that. MR. BREWER-Okay. So you don't have a problem with that. Who contacts them to do that? You? Us? MR. MORSE-Well, I think the market should drive it. I mean, they're not going to come out and put one out there the day he breaks ground. I think, as need or, I mean, these people might all be very ambulatory. They might all have cars, absolutely no need for transportation. I think it's best left to the homeowners. I don't really want to micromanage this for them and impose other criteria on them that they really don't need, or want, and I think that goes to sidewalks. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-I don't know. I think the Town should try to encourage people to use the mass transit system, as opposed to driving everywhere in their cars, and if a bus stop is provided at that intersection, maybe some sidewalks along that stretch from where the turn in is into the loop, along there, to provide a safe walk along there, you would be encouraging people to use the mass transit system, as opposed to jumping into their car and driving every place. With the traffic problems we have around here, I think it's a concern. MR. SCHACHNER-Again, our feeling is, if people want to encourage the Glens Falls Transit System to put a shelter there, and to put this on a route, we don't have any trouble with that. We don't want to do something that's cost intensive, in terms of infrastructure, like we don't think sidewalks would facilitate that. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen. If it's not, it's not. Whether there are sidewalks or not. MR. BREWER-I don't think the shelter's a bad idea. I think if the shelter is there the paths will be there, and people will use them. I don't know about sidewalks. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We don't have any trouble with that. MR. HARLICKER-If you run a sidewalk stretch from Cronin Road in there, it wouldn't have to walk on the street. sidewalk around the whole loop. I'm that are going to use this project are forth, deliveries, whatever. along one side of that would get the people, they I' m not say i ng, run the just saying, all the cars going to be going back and MR. MORSE-I think, Scott, you're talking about, this area right up to here. Is that correct? from, let s say, MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, if the Board feels real strongly that, we're willing to do it. We just don't think necessary. about it's MR. BREWER-How about, right where it's on Cronin Road. it says, T Number 18? Then MR. YARMOWICH-You've got a ditch there you can't cross it. You've got to do it near the entrance. - 52 - :'" ~,/ MR. BREWER-All right. Well, in that first block. in here somewhere, rather than go in here? Why not right MR. MORSE-Well, one of the considerations during SEQRA, and other issues, was retaining this buffer through here, to keep our visibility. I mean, we've talked about that for a long time, a number of years now, about retaining this whole buffer and just bridging it right here where the road goes through. I think if we were looking at this, the easiest way would be probably to put a sidewalk in front of this first building on the right, as you're coming in. We could off set that five feet off the pavement. MR. BREWER-Yes, but then if the bus is coming down here, how is that, the only way for that bus to know if anybody's in there is he's going to have to drive in there. MRS. TARANA-No. They won't drive in there. MR. MORSE-No. I would assume that the shelter would be placed out here, on the corner of Cronin. MR. BREWER-Okay. I misunderstood then. talking about putting a shelter up in here. else feel about it? I thought you were How does everybody MR. STARK-When would the shelter go up, just for Stage One, or? MR. MORSE-Well, the shelters are at the jurisdiction of the bus. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. We don't have control over that. We don't have any trouble with the recommendation, but I guess we're trying to say, don't require it of us, because we're powerless, we can't, we're not empowered to fill that requirement. MR. MACEWAN-How many other apartment complexes have them, really? I know Regency Park does. MRS. TARANA-Does Robert Gardens, on the corner of Route 9, and Weeks? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think so. MR. BREWER-I think shelter there. if there's people there, they'll put the MRS. TARANA-I don't think it's a bad idea, but can make it a stipulation. I don't think we MR. SCHACHNER-That's all we're saying. MR. MORSE-Yes. I bel ieve there's through Regency Park, or doesn't go Cronin, goes up to the College and turns through the College campus. that. a route that comes around into Regency Park, comes out back down, and I think it I'm not 100 percent sure on MR. BREWER-Okay. So we can just mention it to them. Have them mention it to them. If they want to put a shelter there, they'll put it there, but the sidewalk, we have to decide whether we want to have them put the sidewalk in, so they can go on. What about the sidewalk? MRS. TARANA-Well, they said they'd put a sidewalk. MR. BREWER-You said you'd put the sidewalk in? MR. SCHACHNER-We said if you feel strongly about it, we're willing to. We don't think it's really necessary or necessarily even appropriate there, but if you feel strongly about it, we're 53 - '----""'" willing to do it. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think it's necessary. MR. STARK-You've got to maintain the sidewalk in the winter, plowing and everything. Actually, there's not going to be that much traffic on those roads inside. I mean, there's no sidewalks any place else. MR. BREWER-Don't feel you have to try to convince me. asking everybody's opinion. I'm just MRS. TARANA-And these are golfers. They're used to walking on grass. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess the consensus is, no sidewalk. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that brings us to my eleventh, which is Number Seven, talking about landscaping plan. It says a landscaping plan has not been submitted. We did submit a landscaping plan that shows foundation plantings only, and that's all we're proposing. Anything beyond that would be up to individual owners and/or HOA, as a group. Over on the last page, I think we've covered these now, but there was a concern about the radius on Curves 1 and 2 meeting the requirement of 45 feet, and as Mr. Morse mentioned, they actually are in excess of 45 feet. They're 50 feet. So that should sat isfy the concern expressed by the Fire Marshal, and I think we've already talked about the hydrants as well. The comments I've glossed over fall into two categories. One is, when Staff says, Engineering Comments have to be dealt with, which obviously we're about to turn to, and the second one is, there are a number of places' where it says th i ngs like, at the very end, aft er Number Ni ne, the project is subject to a Freshwater Wetlands permit and Flood Hazard permit, and that kind of goes without saying. We've already done that. MR. HARLICKER-What's the status of the DEC Wetlands Permit? MR. SCHACHNER-Good question. MR. MORSE-Yes. We have not Apparent I y, there were, the last no comments, no public comments, date, but I can't really remember received the final permits. conversation I had, there were and their advertising period to when that closed. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I was definitely publically noticed, because I saw it in the Environmental Notice Bulletin, and all that. MR. MORSE-So we're still waiting on that. the site September 1. The Corp will be on MR. SCHACHNER-Turning to the Engineering comments, which are numbered one through seven, one through four our response is pretty simple. We will add all those things to the plan, and if you wanted to make that a condition of any approval, we have no probl em wi th any of those. Number Fi ve' refers, agai n, to the waiver for Curves 1 and 2, and we've already discussed that, and we do seek a waiver from this Board. Number Six, talks about rearrangement of driveways at a particular quadraplex unit. This can be done if the Board feels strongly about it. We don't feel it's necessary. Number Seven talks about relocating a stop sign to rearrange a particular curve, and we agree with the engineering comment. We think it's appropriate, and we will do that. So we think that addresses all the comments. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I'd roads built to Town just like to get back on the topic of the spec's. I don't see anything in the 54 - ---, -....." Ordinance where it says that if it's a private road that it has to be built to Town spec's. Everything they're referring to is under the assumption that you're going to dedicate the road to the Town. MR. YARMOWICH-No. l' 11 try to fi nd it for you, Crai g. MR. BREWER-Wouldn't that be in the Subdivision Regulations? MR. YARMOWICH-It is. MR. MACEWAN-That's where I'm looking, 18317. MR. YARMOWICH-It may also be somewhere in zoning. It's in zoning, 179-56, Design Standards, and as applicable to site plan, all zoning requirements are, so whether or not it's a subdivision regulation doesn't, this ties into subdivision regulation, 179- 56B, Interior Streets, the arrangement, character, extent, width, grade and location of all streets shall be considered in relation to existing and planned streets, topography, public convenience and safety and in their appropriate relation to proposed uses of the land to be served by said streets. Whether private or public, said streets shall conform to all other street and road specifications in the Town, and then it goes on, there's more parts to it. It's in the Zoning Code. MRS. TARANA-That's under PUD? else? Is it the same, then, for anything MR. MACEWAN-Yes. publ i c. It doesn't matter whether it's private or MRS. TARANA-It's under the PUD clustering and everything else? Section, so it would Is that right? apply to MR. YARMOWICH-Yes. This is a cluster. So it's ostensibly applicable, because what you're doing, to facilitate the cluster, you have to have a road which meets all the access requirements. The same thing has happened, I don't know if this Board has addressed it, but private roads with more than two lots, three and four lots, become private roads. The driveway can be two lots, and I think it's fair to consider these as private roads. I think the applicant agrees. The question is whether or not you've got to build them to Town standards. In section, they're built, they're proposed to Town standards, cross section, width, drainage and all that is, the issue is geometry, strictly geometry, and in the analysis that I had done previously, and there's several letters in the file, through the prior site plan review, which, they've been discussed. I guess the question, from my standpoint, is why wasn't it laid out to Town standards in the first place? I don't see anything about this site, in terms of flood plane restrictions, property lines, elevations, topography, water ways, that prevents it from being laid out to Town standards. I think what it boils down to is simply a desire on the applicant's part to utilize this configuration, because it meets his development objectives. The decision is yours. MR. MORSE-I'll go through the design parameters that were used to lay it out. Number One, it is a private development. That's why we're keeping the roads private. We want a single point access assist in that. If there are problems in here of a nature of someone coming in that's not a member of the homeowners, single point access gives much more control to the HOA and the developer, but in speaking to geometry, there were actually a number of issues here that, from a geometric basis, setting this up. We didn't want to intrude into the front nine, and that runs right around us here. This is the golf course. So we set up this parcel, and when we did this, and we had the wetlands and flood plane both delineated, we see that the flood plane is here and here. These are islands. This is a channel through it, and - 55 - --~' .J then we have the wetland boundaries that were delineated to here, and then along in here. So we basically said we wanted to come and connect this high point, this high point, and this high point, and that's how the geometric shape came about. That was the design philosophy that we used. In doing that, trying to maximize this and minimize the fill requirement, getting from this high point to this high point, that's how we came up with this road configuration, and the platform, the elevation of that fill, was set by both flood plane requirements to stay at certain elevation, and then the grade requirements to have gravity sewers. So that was the design philosophy that we went into to come up with this geometry that prevents us from meeting the standards on those two curves. All the other curves in the facility meet the Town standards. MR. MACEWAN-Tom, what do you think about that? MR. YARMOWICH-What do I think about it? I think it's a matter of whether or not the developer's development objectives are consistent with what's acceptable to this Board. Certainly they're trying to minimize putting fill in a flood plane, which is an appropriate goal. You have to trade those kind of impacts, how much road do you want to build, how much water and sewer do you build and maintain, the overall cost of development, environmental impacts, what's the end result of the project. I looked at it and initially I felt that, with the spaces there, they could have complied with Town standards and design. There's a cost impact to that. I think what the applicant's engineer is telling you are relevant factors. MR. MACEWAN-What would happen, decided to convey the road to everything? fi ve years down the road, if you the Town? How would that effect MR. YARMOWICH-The Town would have the option of saying yes or no, based on whether or not the Highway Superintendent in office at that point in time cared for the geometry, the condition of the road, the functionality of it. There are a lot of things that would come into play, but that would be a decision between the Town Highway Superintendent and the Town Board. MR. BREWER-Does Paul go out and inspect that road when they're building it, even though it's not a Town road? MR. YARMOWICH-I don't believe he would. MR. BREWER-How do we know that it's ever going to be built to Town standards? MR. YARMOWICH-The Building Department would have to have enough road put in and constructed acceptably before they'd allow units to be constructed and occupied. You couldn't get a CO until the road was built right. MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm getting at is, does Dave Hatin or his Staff know enough about roads that it meets the Town standards? MR. YARMOWICH-I can't answer that question for you, Tim. MR. BREWER-So then I guess, look at the road? why wouldn't Paul Naylor go out and MR. YARMOWICH-He may, at the request of the Building Department, and may be able to assign somebody to perform that function. It's not in his duties, as Highway Superintendent. MR. MORSE-Well, yes. It's like asking Paul to go out and inspect the parking lot going in for a supermarket in town or something like that. - 56 - MR. BREWER-Well, I guess what I'm saying is if built to Town standards, who's making sure that Town standards? it's got to it's bu i 1 t be to MR. YARMOWICH-The Building Department. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Department short. I think, lets not sell Dave Hatin and his MR. BREWER-No, I'm not. MR. SCHACHNER-No. I know. I'm just saying, in general, I think that, I believe that it is part of their responsibilities. If they want to ask the Highway Superintendent, great, but I believe that it's part of their responsibilities, and I believe they can live up to them. MR. YARMOWICH-They regularly inspect pavement sections for, like, the Wal-Mart and K-Mart, with that heavy duty truck pavement sections, which are built the same as Town roads, or maybe to more rigorous standards, in some cases. I would expect that there's, who's ever doing the inspection would either know enough or go find somebody that did, before they'd pass judgement on it, because they'd become responsible for that determination. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody else guess I'll open the public hearing. like to speak on this application? have any other questions? I Is there anyone that would PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JANE POTTER MRS. POTTER-I'm Jane Potter. I'm from Meadowbrook Road, and I did not come to the last meeting in May, or whenever it was, we got our notices in May, because I couldn't believe something like this would get this far. Everyone who lives in this area knows we have a high water table. These gentlemen obviously know we have a high water table, or they wouldn't be going into wetlands and flood plane inspections. The first thing I want to address is, I have both of my notices here, and they are not identical. The first one is for 27 acres, and the second one is for 97, and I don't understand that. The same numbers, same map coordinants, but, has this plan been changed somewhere? MR. HARLICKER-I think the first notice might have been prior to the subdivision. MRS. POTTER-Meaning? MR. HARLICKER-Meaning this project was taken, they took the whole acreage of the whole Golf Course. MRS. POTTER-That's 27 acres? MR. HARLICKER-That's 90 plus acres, one, when the new notices went subdivided off from the 97 acres. whatever, 97 acres. The new out, this piece had been MRS. POTTER-My notices are in reverse. The one acres, and the one in August is for 97 acres, don't understand. Has this been enlarged notices? in May is for 27 and that's what I since the first MR. BREWER-No. I th ink it's, you should have got a not ice for the subdivision that said 97 acres, like Scott said. MRS. POTTER-Yes, and the map coordinant numbers are the same, but it has gone up 70 acres since the first notice went out. So I'm just curious. - 57 - r-- ~'< MR. BREWER-It's never gone up. I can assure you of that. MRS. POTTER-It's a typographical error? MR. BREWER-A typographical error. MRS. POTTER-Okay. First of all, I can't understand how they can call this footprint units. Basically, if they're footprint units, they're condominiums. They're not townhouses. Otherwise, they must own some land for their condominium, which is inside that property, and I think that falls under a whole different ball game. Why are they not transferring the land? They say these units are selling for $100 to $110,000, but yet they're not selling them anything but the unit, and a lot of these things I don't understand what they're calling, it's contradictory, in my opinion. They also claim there's 90 cars, and they're putting in two car garages. We're already up to 180. They have parking for 360. It's not 90 cars going in and out of there. It's as much as 360, traffic wise, and if the road's not up to standards, are they going to be able to put an ambulance or a fire truck in there? I mean, all the things that they're refusing to do are things that they should be doing. There are no sidewalks. There's no lighting. What are these people paying for, in their HOA's? Two thousand truckloads of fill. I just watched an apartment complex be built down the road from me, 16 units, and they're not finished, and I know there's been, that figured out to 100 days at 20 trucks, and it came out to a lot more than 20 trucks a day, and they're still filling. Our roads aren't prepared for that. Cronin isn't. Definitely Meadowbrook isn't. When the put the sewers in on Cronin, they left our roads very wavy. You put 20 trucks a day on it, it's just going to be even worse. I just feel that this whole project is going to cost the tax payers a whole lot more money, and I don't think they belong there. It's wetlands. It's going to push our water table up. I already pump seven months out of the year. I can't see pumping any more. The development in that area is just not good. I don't see how it was even looked at. Not only that, you start putting up, whatever these are called, condos or townhouses, and our property values are going to go down. The area, right now, on the corner, is Regency Park. They have townhouse units renting for around $500. They have almost a 50 percent vacancy. It's only around 65, but it goes up and down. The Westwood, Woodbury's, they sell for up to $185,000, and they're not all sold. Yet, he's going into Phase III very shortly. I don't understand. I feel like we're oversaturated, and now another 90 unit. Why can't these be built in an area where there isn't a water problem or a road problem. It seems to me that everything that's necessary to make these nice units, which is what golfers supposedly want to live in, they don't want to put in. They don't want the road up to grade. They don't want lighting. They don't want sidewalks. They don't have their wetlands report. So we don't know how that's going to come back, what kind of animals, butterflies. You were all talking about butterflies earlier, what's being displaced just to put in more townhouses. Silt fences did not work down the road at the townhouse complex. I don't think they're going to work here. They don't, they put them beyond, and then they just float out and everything's going through them. They're not being properly installed. That's a whole different thing to address, but you did mention you were going to use them on this project, and I think the Building Department has got to start watching those silt fences a little bit better, because they're not holding back. MR. MACEWAN-Did you ever call the Building Department and advise them that the silt fences weren't working? MRS. POTTER-No. I just found out about this two days ago, but I intend to let them know. MR. MACEWAN-Let them know first thing in the morning. 58 - /L_ ',-- -.-/ MRS. POTTER-When we started talking about this, a couple of days ago, none of us in the area thought this would get this far. That's why we just said, that'll never go, and here we are, and something's got to be done. Because we didn't think it would go this far, and we didn't start talking until a couple of days ago, we didn't get a lot of people here, but everybody over in our way doesn't want it. If we can continue this, we'll get more people here. I th ink I' 11 1 eave that for now. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Anyone else? TED TURNER MR. TURNER-Ted Turner, for the record. I live on Meadowbrook Road, and I'd echo Mrs. Potter's, a lot of her sentiments. I would like to know where the marketability study for this site 91 units, comes into play. Did they pick this out of the air? Did they go out and investigate and see if there's any availability for this type of unit? Now, if it comes down to subdivision, they can only build 35 units in there in the first phase, and you people are going to look into that issue, but my way of thinking, it is a subdivision. It's going to diminish our property values. We just got a new assessment, a new assessed valuation in the Town, which everybody's property has gone up 20 percent, some 30. In an area that's very wet, with a high water table. I'll echo Mrs. Potter's same sentiments, that we have to pump water out of our cellar. What happens if they can't move the units, and down the road they start selling them off to people with children? This is in the Glens Falls City High School District. This is not in the Town of Queensbury School District. MR. BREWER-I don't think, Ted, we can dictate who they sell them to. MR. TURNER-I'm not saying that, but I'm saying that could happen. So that puts a further burden on the roadways of the Town. You have the Elks Club, which is across the road. You have the Harvest Restaurant on the corner, and you also have the Golf Course. Traffic studies, there's been no traffic study. Nobody knows how much traffic's on that road. Fill, 2,000 truckloads. That's a lot of fill, a lot of trucks, and I'm glad to see that if you do decide that they do come the other way, like you suggested, because our road won't support it. The Schermerhorn project down the road, they ran trucks, till late in the evenings, with fill in there, until they filled it, and had we been able to do something about that, we would have fought that one. It doesn't belong there. Regency Park is 50 percent empty. Where's the community need for some more townhouses, condos, whatever? We don't need them. Again, very wet site. The whole site is wet. It's always been wet, and it's going to get worse, and we've seen it this spring with the tremendous rain that we've had, in our area. I would like not to see it there. It doesn't be long there. Thank you. MRS. TARANA-Could I ask one question? Are these going to have basements? They're on slabs. JIM PIPER MR. PIPER-My name is Jim Piper. Just a couple of points, or maybe just to enlarge on some of the points that have already been made. First of all, having worked on that new Golf Course, years ago, when it was first built, that's built on clay. I'd like to know, where is this going to drain to, this area? Is it supposed to drain towards the Brook? Is it supposed to drain to a storm sewer? Where is water supposed to runoff here? Because that it all clay. It wi 11 not absorb wat er. I mean, we buri ed enough tractors and bull dozers out there when we built that years ago. That's my main concern is that area is notably wet. You put 2,000 loads of fill in there, it's going to increase the - 59 - '-.- water table in that whole area. Granted, you have sewers now. You don't have the septic problem that there was years ago. That has been alleviated with the sewers, but you put 2,000 loads of fill in there, you are going to force the water table in that area to go somewhere. Where is it going to go? It's going to seek its own level. Secondly, they talk about, like Jane mentioned, they talked that they did a traffic study of q0 cars. Even if everybody left at the same time, you're talking q0 cars. We 11, I subm it to you, you put q0 cars on Cron inRoad at eight o'clock in the morning, and even split them 45 and 45. Forty- five go Meadowbrook and forty-five go Cronin to Bay. You try to get out onto Bay Road at eight o'clock, Monday through Friday, with 40 cars, and I guarantee you you're going to sit there, probably 25 minutes to a half hour. The traffic going to the College is non-stop, as soon as that light turns at Bay and Quaker, but if you mod i fy that, to the fact that each one of these units has two cars, two car garage, you could have 180 cars coming out of there, at any given time. Cronin Road is not set up to take that amount of traffic. We're already seeing an increased traffic load on Meadowbrook itself, going north from Cronin. It's been repaved, all the way up through now, and with the College, a lot of people trying to avoid Bay Road in the morning are going straight up Meadowbrook. So you're going to have increased traffic at that intersection. Also, you've got kids that walk that road. The late bus from Queensbury School, the Middle School and the High School, the activity bus, drops the kids at the Harvest, and they walk to Regency Park and they walk on the Meadowbrook Road. You put an increased traffic load on Cronin Road coming out of an apartment complex, we've got problems. We've got no sidewalks there, and you've got no shoulder, per se, on that road. I think you've got about an eighteen inch, maybe a twenty inch shoulder, since they've re- paved it, if that. Personall y, I don't th i nk that the area can absorb a townhouse compl ex of th i s size. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. TURNER-Jim alludes to the Cronin Road, and I'll allude to Meadowbrook Road. Meadowbrook Road and Cronin Road are 20 feet wide, pavement to pavement. The Cronin Road, as Jim says, has no shoulders. It's ditch. Just a further comment. MR. BREWER-Okay. Mark, would you like to comment? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. A couple of things, but first and foremost, I have to say that it's unfortunate that some of the neighbors or nearby residents feel the way they feel about the project. By my count, this is the eighth public hearing that this project has been involved in. There was one in front of the Planning Board, when we first requested a rezoning to allow the cluster development. There was one in front of the Town Board to get, again, when the Town Board was deciding on or considering our request for rezoning to allow the cluster development. There were actually two, I believe, before this Board, because there was a mistake in the public notice for one. There were two before this Board for both Preliminary subdivision approval and for the Wetlands Permit, as I recall. There was another one before this Board for the Final subdivision approval. So, by my count, that's seven public hearings, and this is over the course of, literally, I want to say a year and a half to two years, because the re-zoning process, your Board and your Staff has been very efficient. The re-zoning process with the Town Board took quite some time, and this is the very first time that I'm aware of that these residents or anyone has voiced any objections at all to this project. I've not included in my list the County Planning Board meetings, which there have been three that I know of, which, they're not really public hearings, to be honest, but they're public meetings, and nobody's ever, neither these residents or anyone else, has ever expressed these sentiments at any of the previous seven public hearings or three public - &0 - ',,-- --' meetings. Notwithstanding that, they're obviously entitled to their point of view. I don't mean to suggest otherwise. We're just very surprised. Very briefly, I think I'd like Dick Morse to respond to the comment about water table, and drainage and some other things. I guess I want to, first say that there is some difficulty in explaining to people the different forms of ownership, cooperatives, townhouses, condominiums. Our form of ownership has already been discussed at length with the Town Board and Jim Martin, and it's our understanding that, whether we're selling air rights, whatever we're selling, does not require further subdivision approval, and I think that's an important question that was asked earlier, and if you want to be comfortable with that, then you could add, as a specific condition, if you wish to approve this project, that the form of ownership does not require further subdivision approval. That would be fair and reasonable from your standpoint. The discussion of traffic and car trips, I didn't suggest that 90 cars would be leaving at anyone moment. What I suggested was, even if you took every single unit and had somebody either leaving or coming to it during the same hour, that that would be a peak hour calculation, and that what we discussed at the time of SEQRA Review was that 90 cars, which is a grossly high number, because it involves every single unit having a car coming to or from it, having that happen in a peak hour doesn't put any burden at a 11 on the road sin v 0 I v e d . Th ere sid en t s , or the p eo pIe t h at spoke at the public hearing, made some comments about the truck loads not going on Meadowbrook, and I think Mr. Brewer already mentioned that he would propose that as a condition. We thought that was a perfectly appropriate condition. I'm completely mystified at the notion that a townhouse project, affiliated with an existing golf course, Number One, should be built somewhere else, which is what one member of the public suggested. The reason it's being built here is because the applicant owns the Bay Meadows Golf Course, and the demand that has been told to him is that people that use the Bay Meadows Golf Course, and have specifically said to him, we'd be interested in purchasing a living unit on the property that's affiliated with the Bay Meadows Golf Course. So this was not some elaborate sophisticated market analysis where somebody from out of town came in and said, gee, where should I build a 90 unit townhouse proj ect. In fact, th i s is the owner 0 f the Bay Meadows Go If Course who owns the property, owns the acreage, and has felt the demand from his existing customers and clientele to construct this type of housing project. We think it's a real positive project for the Town. I think the Town Board felt that way when they enacted the re-zoning. We feel that the price range that's being discussed is especially appropriate, and that some of the other townhouse and subdivision projects that have been proposed and have been approved by the Town are much, much more upscale and much more expensive, and quite frankly, there's difficulty in selling them at this time. We are mystified at the notion that property values would go down. I think that's just not possible. That also addresses why we build in this area, and I think the other points are points that I think Mr. Morse should address. MR. MORSE-Yes. I think, let me just briefly hit on something, the pumping of basements, we are proposing slabs on grade, and as I previously mentioned, we're lifting this whole platform, and I want to address this, basically, to the public, because we've been over this several times with the Board, but what we did was, when we first got involved in this, and were trying to minimize the amount of fill required so that we could get our elevations up to where we weren't involved with a water problem on site, we met with the Town, and we discussed a balancing between where we were filling and basically that filling area is right in here, and then this bridge right in here. It's not a bridge, it's a fill area, and what we did, then, was to move an equivalent amount of fill that was calculated between this line of the 100 year flood plane that we were filling in, and this area that we would move that material in, so we could, basically, balance the - 61 - ,~ - fill to a removal, so that there's no net loss in storage volumes for that 100 year storm. That concept has been accepted by the Town for about a year and a half now, and we have backed that up on numerous occasions, and I think that your consultant has been satisfied with that. The drainage from this is all from these back lot s here. Here's the road syst em around here. We're picking up this stormwater from this location, the back perimeter of, and directing that all to this internal storage area. This is not a recharge area where we are anticipating putting that excess stormwater in the ground, but it's a relief area. It's a detention area. We're going to hold it and then release it through this structure to this channel, this existing channel, that goes out to Meadowbrook, so that the predevelopment and post development storm runoff will not be different up into the return period storm that it was designed for, and I think that was a hundred year event. So that that is how we've managed the stormwater on the site. We haven't increased our volume. By putting fill in there, we've been able to balance that, and that's another reason, when we were discussing earlier why did this geometry come this way, this is why that geometry came this way, because we needed to get this fill out of here. So that was those considerations. I think we've been over that on numerous occasions, and I think your consultant has been satisfied. MRS. TARANA-Dick, that retention area that mean that's water, that's a pond? in the middle there, does What does that mean? MR. MORSE-What that means is during storm events water could pond, if the rate of rain is greater than the rate of rain in the return period storm, and I think that first one is a 10 year storm. We would start seeing water, standing water, occurring in here. That will release, and that will be dry, normally most of the time, because this structure is on the floor of this pond. MRS. TARANA-And what will that look like? MR. MORSE-This will depression. be about a four foot to five foot deep MRS. TARANA-Just dirt? MR. MORSE-We 11, no, it'll be turf. It'll be grassed, and on occasion it will have standing wat er. MR. MACEWAN-On a day like today would there be standing water there? MR. MORSE-No, because the event today is such that it's just a slow rain. If we had a day like today, and then we had a thunderstorm on it, then there would probably be standing water, because we'd need a very quick event to fill that water up. Otherwise, this pipe would be releasing that water at it's normal rate. See, we don't have a return period event. Today is not a return period event. MR. PIPER-Could I ask Mr. difference in the elevation at the back? Morse a question? at the road level for What is the the elevation MR. MORSE-The road level, where we're coming in, is around 308, and this elevation back in here is 309, the road elevation is 309, and then the building lots are, the platforms are at around 310, and I think we've put a finished floor grade of 311. MRS. POTTER-You said it goes through that pipe line, and dispersed into Halfway Brook. it's MR. MORSE-An existing drainage swale. MRS. POTTER-An existing drainage swale, but ends up in Halfway - 62 - '-- --../ Brook? MR. MORSE-That's correct. MRS. POTTER-Were you near Halfway Brook this spring, when it went over its banks and flooded all of the area around it? MR. MORSE-I tried to coming up on their many an elevation in here existing Club House. above the Club House. get anything. visit this site, because I knew this was event conditions. We are going to be at that will be greater than probably, the I think we'll probably be about two feet The Club House, to my knowledge, did not MRS. POTTER-Your filling was pushing that water our way. MR. MORSE-And that's what I wanted to be very specific that you understood, that what we were doing is, if we could envision the flood plane as this table, okay, and we were going to put in a piece of material this big, next to it, we're going to take out the same amount of material. So that we're not, there's a net zero gain or loss on the project site, and that's what this area. MRS. POTTER-Is that what they were calling a pond, that you don't want to have, that depressed area? MR. MORSE-Yes. There was comment, at one point, and I'm not sure where Scott was going this evening, but about three months ago we discussed this, and they thought maybe making this a water, in other words, raising this pipe up so that we always had water in there. We did not want to do that for several reasons. Standing water breeds mosquitos. It's a hazard for children, and we know we're going to have children here, whether it be grandchildren or children of parents. We felt that that was inappropriate and there's been Town Board opposition to that sort of recharge area. This is not a recharge. It's a detention area. So we're just holding that water back. So, in light of all those issues, we held firm to this, and kept this plan. We've been with this plan for 20 months. We've been here a long time, and we have not waivered from this geometry, this philosophy, because we felt that it was appropriate for this site and this development scheme. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else from anybody on Board? I guess I want to find out what we're going whether we're going to do the SEQRA tonight, or whether going to entertain a motion to. this to do, we're MR. SCHACHNER-The SEQRA has been done by the Town Board, as lead agency. MR. BREWER-For the site plan there's not a SEQRA? MR. YARMOWICH-I understood it was all done. MR. BREWER-It was all done? MR. SCHACHNER-They did it for the entire project as SEQRA lead agency. MR. YARMOWICH-It was a coordinated review. So, unless you found environmental factors to be different than what the Town Board decided on, it doesn't need to be done again. MR. BREWER-If it doesn't have to be done, I don't want to do it. All right. Then I guess we can ask for what we want to do tonight. Do we want to entertain a motion, get more information, what do we want to do? MR. STARK-Lets settle it tonight. - 63 ---_.~-~~-~ ~_..--.--._._.._- --- - ---./ MRS. TARANA-I don't know that I'm ready to vote on it tonight, to tell you the truth. I have a number of questions in my mind about it. It seems like we had questions that we don't have resolved yet tonight, and I don't know if it's just me or if anybody else feels the same way. I really would like to get some of these things clarified. I guess the question of footprint lots. MR. MACEWAN-You haven't received the DEC permit yet? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. MACEWAN-It's my opinion, I don't want to do anything until they do or don't get the DEC permit. I'd like an answer as to whether they are condominiums or townhouses from Jim Martin. I'm still grappling with the issue of whether the road should be built to the standards of the Town, in my mind, or be waivered, and his marketing of this aimed towards retired senior citizens leaves me with the thought of having ample riding and sidewalk facilities within that development for that purpose. Those are the four things that I'm thinking about right now. MR. BREWER-Okay. When do we want to discuss it again? MR. SCHACHNER-Coul d I ask a quest i on, and maybe offer a suggestion? The question is, is there any possibility we could agree not to actual await issuance of a DEC permit? The only reason I say that is, if you would condition an approval on acceptance of. MR. MACEWAN-I won't do a conditional approval. too many times. I've been stung MR. SCHACHNER-How do you get stung? If the DEC permit doesn't happen, there's no project, but the reason for my request, if I could finish, is that you don't have any control whatsoever over the DEC permit process, and we don't have a lot of control over the DEC permit process. If you want to see that there's a DEC permit in place for this project to go forward, Number One, quite frankly, whether you put that into a condition or not, since the DEC permit is required, the project isn't going to go forward without the DEC permit. Number Two, if you're worried about being stung, you put an express condition in your approval that says, a condition of approval is the applicant's receiving a DEC permit. I don't understand how that wouldn't cover it, but what we don't want to. MR. MACEWAN-Point well taken. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Fair enough. The only other thing would be, if you, and again, it's tough. It's very late at night. There's only four of you. If you want us to, we'd be perfectly willing to, if you want to table it, we'd consent, as long as we have an idea of two things. One would be, what additional information you want from us, and I wrote down a list that is also four things, but I'm going to check off DEC permit, if that's okay, and leave three things, and that would be, the form of ownership, whether the road needs to be up to standards, and lighting and sidewalk. We can give you some more information about form of ownership, and we're comfortable doing that. On the road up to spec, on the lighting and sidewalk issues, I'm not aware of other information that we could present to you. If you want to think about those issues between now and whenever we agree to come back, we're not going to object to that, but if there is other information you want from us, we need to know that. Our position is that the road, as Tom Yarmowich said earlier, is up to specification in all respects except for a couple of places in geometry. Our impression is that he doesn't have a big problem with it, but he's pointed out the places that it doesn't meet standard, and we've asked for a waiver from this Board, and we've 64 - '---" explained why we want that. We're not aware of any additional information we could give you on that issue, and I just don't want to get caught in a situation where we come back and then you say, hey, where's the additional information. We don't think there is any. On the issue of sidewalks and lighting, our position, again, is it's a 90 unit project, not a 900 unit project. It's true that we're focusing the demographics of the customers on the typical people that use the Bay Meadows Golf Course, but we've also been very candid. This is not a senior citizen project, and I want to make sure that's clear. We're not suggesting that every unit owner will be a retired person or anything like that, although it's certainly true that we anticipate many will be. From our perspective, when you start talking about major infrastructure improvements involving sidewalks in particular, and lighting as well, that gets pretty expensive, and that drives up the cost of the unit and the homeowners association dues, and we strongly believe in the concept that we've presented from Day One, which is, housing targeted not towards the most expensive up scale richest people in Queensbury, but people that can afford the f100,000 home, not the f200,000 home. So, again, if there is additional information you want from us, we don't have any trouble trying to get it, but I'm not aware of any that we could supply you with on those two issues. MR. MACEWAN-Where I'm coming from with the sidewalk and the lighting issue is that, when we talked about it a little bit back, was regarding the bus line, and having the possibility of having a shelter put up there, and we kind of ditched that idea, but the idea was still left there, for the potential that it would be an attractive idea to have access out there for the bus line. I can't see, in the middle of winter, people wanting to walk out of that development, at seven or eight o'clock at night, or walking into the development at seven or eight o'clock at night off a bus, and having a tough time getting in there, not having access ~rom sidewalks and/or ample lighting. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. more information from sounds like. We understand, and you're not looking for us. You really want to reflect on that, it MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I don't need that's, I guess, my position that any more information I'm taking right now. on it, MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. All right. I guess, if it's possible, we hear, from past applications, that you have a number of meetings coming up. Well, it's not your fault that there's only four of you, but it's certainly not our fault that there's only four of you. So if possible, we'd like to be on an agenda sooner than next month. MRS. TARANA-I wanted to ask one thing that just came into my head. What about fertilizing the lawns and all that, pesticides, herbicides with this runoff the way it's going to go into that retention pit there, whatever it's called, and then it eventually runs into Halfway Brook. Does that serve as a filter? MR. SCHACHNER-I think there is a large measure of filtering, but, I don't know, Dick, do you want to respond to that better? MR. MORSE-Well, Number One, we're increasing the travel length, than it currently is used, and I had spoke, because you had brought this point up, I think, two or three months ago. MRS. TARANA-Yes. It just came back into my head. MR. MORSE-That's right, and we had even chatted about it. Garth, as the owner of the Golf Course, is very familiar with what they use on the Golf Course, which is, it's an EPA approved Scott's System TeliTie System which does require mixing or any blow off - &S - --- or any of those unusual things that happen to other pesticides and chemicals that are used as nutrient addition, and I don't even think we'd be looking at anything even near that for development of turf here, and of course eventually the turf will be lawn, homeowners association responsibility, and we can't make a commitment to what they will use, and I don't know how we could enforce anything anyway. MR. SCHACHNER-Your concern was more with the new development than the Golf Course, am I right, Corinne, or no? MRS. TARANA-Well, I didn't think we were even discussing the Golf Course. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. So, I mean, other than normal operating procedures for, I don't think there's anything unusual. MRS. TARANA-Well, I think, if people are putting in new lawns and everything, that that's not quite as normal a situation as a single family residence, because you've got all this fertilizer and whatever going into the lawn, and now it's all being, all the runoff is being directed into this retention place, and my concern is, with the fertilizers and everything going into Halfway Brook. MR. BREWER-We can make a fert i 1 i zers. condition that they can't use MRS. TARANA-Well, he just said they can't. MR. BREWER-If you feel strongly about that, we can make that condition, and there's nothing they can do about it. MRS. TARANA-Well, I don't know how it. If somebody else has got a. I'm no expert on this. MR. MORSE-I mean, can we use organic fertilizers? You get down to what is nutrient, and what does it do, and that's an extensive quest ion. MRS. TARANA-I don't have the answers. MR. BREWER-We can do the same thing like we do around the lake. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You can do that. MR. MORSE-We certainly have no objections. We don't going to have difficulty growing grass in this area. driving range out there now which is maintained. feel we're There's a MR. BREWER-Maybe we could go out there and look at houses are going to be. it, where the MRS. TARANA-Well, I'll tell you one of played golf there, and I can remember, are real wet, and I can remember when because it was too wet to play there. Were the back nine open then? my concerns is that I have well, even the first nine they closed the back nine Were you the owner then? GARTH ALLEN MR. ALLEN-They were open up until about two years ago. MRS. TARANA-Yes, and they were closed because it was too wet to play back there, am I right? MR. ALLEN-No. them mainly for driving range in. We didn't close them for that reason. We closed the purpose of development, and to put the Just for lack of play on the back nine, not - 66 -- because of water. MRS. TARANA-Well, differently, lets understanding, and people in put it that having played your way, the back Club House because nine. explained that was it our MR. ALLEN-Basically that was the finances involved. a management decision, because of MRS. TARANA-Okay, but I do know it was very wet back there, and I do have a concern about how wet it is back there, and the runoff into Halfway Brook. I don't know if this kind of a thing works. I mean, I assume this is something that some people look at. MR. YARMOWICH-Keep in mind one thing. One of the worst places you get runoff from is a place that's already saturated and wet, because obviously there's absolutely no place for it to go. By elevating these areas, he probably will exchange some, certain times of the year I would expect that the grounds that are going to be elevated by this filling, grading and filling plan, will be less wet, as a result of this project, then they would normally be, and to a certain degree, that'll diminish the amount of runoff you'll get. The exchange is that you increase impervious surfaces through roof tops, which don't really contribute significant pollutants, because they're not managed or maintained, and roadways. Pollutants are going to come from roadways. Pollutants are going to come from turf areas, whether it's animal droppings, candy wrappers, or whatever gets left around. Those things occur, but on the other hand, what you're getting is an elevated area, which will have the ability to accept and attenuate some of the rainfall that probably would occur on an area that, much of the year, would be wet, when the exaggerations are most damaging. For instance, if water falls on, an inch of water falls on a swimming pool, that goes up an inch. An inch of water falls on a lawn, you're not going to get an inch of water on that lawn. You might get an eighth of an inch at the peak of the storm. That's one of the effects you get by taking flood plane and drying it out. The problem, and we all know what happened in the National news, is when that flood plane becomes completely saturated, or what usually is there to absorb water isn't available, you have an adverse reaction. This project doesn't represent that. It is taking areas that sometimes are wet and raising them up, putting in developed infrastructure, channelized flow, but some of the effects that Dick Morse had told you about, as far as increasing the length of travel and pathways to meet and get to that outlet point are important in successful ways to manage stormwater runoff pollutant concentrations, allowing those pollutants to be spread out over large turfed areas where they can be absorbed and utilized as nutrients. All those things kind of go together, and those are the kinds of technical concepts, okay, and they're technical, strictly technical. They don't relate to whether or not you like the way it looks or you like the way it works, which have been developed to blend the needs for housing and development and all other kinds of public services and retail developments that we want, with environmental problems. This is a pretty well integrated approach. Dick is correct. I'm satisfied with his stormwater management approach here. MRS. TARANA-Do you look at snowmelt, or whatever that's called? MR. YARMOWICH-You can. Snow melt has nothing to do with rain fall character, because the ground is frozen. It can't take any water. It doesn't matter if you're on a lake or on a mountainside. The amount of runoff you're going to get is when the ground is frozen is the same. That's the worst problem, and what you saw in the spring happening out there has absolutely nothing to do with stormwater management in the conventional sense that we use it. We can't control the, the ground is always frozen here in the spring time when the rain comes. It may not 67 - "-- seem so. You may have three inches of mud on it, but believe me, there's two feet of frozen ground underneath it. That ground is taking no water, and we all know that that's mud season. It lasts six weeks. MRS. TARANA-So that's nothing that we ever look at? MR. YARMOWICH-No, and it doesn't matter whether development there or not. You're always going to get in the spring, and it's going to happen whether it's undeveloped. It doesn't really make any difference. there's a peak runoff developed or MR. BREWER-Okay. Is that it? Okay. We need a motion to table, and I guess we've got to decide first when we're going to table it unt i 1. MR. HARLICKER-Could I mention one thing that might be worthy of consideration? I guess it's, the Planning Department is attempting now, in larger projects and subdivisions, to give consideration to dedication of land, as opposed to fees for dwelling units and subdivisions. We're attempting now to get greenways along the various streams and brooks that run through the Town, and this would seem to be a case where that might be possible because of the frontage along Halfway Brook. MR. BREWER-Okay. Maybe that's something you could discuss, and then we can discuss it when we meet again? MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. BREWER-Because I had, in all good intentions, talked to the Town Board, just about that, because we have two other applications that want to do that, and the Town Board discussed it last night, and again they tonight discussed it. So I'd like to talk to them and have this Board, as a Board, talk with the Town Board. MR. HARLICKER-I mean, a good case is the subdivision that's right across the street from here. This would tie in nicely to that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. We'll think about that. MR. MACEWAN-Do you have a homeowners association plan put together? MR. SCHACHNER-Draft. MR. MACEWAN-Draft? Well, would it? it be possible to get a copy of MR. SCHACHNER-If you want. MR. MORSE-It's been submitted. MR. SCHACHNER-Has it? Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay, then Scott can look for that for you, a copy of the homeowners. Okay. I guess we need your consent to table. First we've got to decide when. MRS. TARANA-Well, do we know when we'll see the wetlands permit and all that stuff? MR. BREWER-You're not going to see a wetlands permit right away. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and I already said, I'm really uncomfortable, and I think Mr. MacEwan seemed satisfied with my response on that issue. MRS. TARANA-That's right. I take that back. - 68 - '- -- MR. SCHACHNER-All right. I won't belabor the point. MR. BREWER-When do we want to do this? MRS. TARANA-We can get the clarification that we that stuff from the Planning Department. We need weeks, what do we need on it? need, and all a week, two MR. SCHACHNER-Our part of this will be done tomorrow, seriously. MR. BREWER-How about next Tuesday? MRS. TARANA-On the 24th? What have we got happening? The roller coast er. MR. BREWER-That's just going to going to go through a long. agenda next week, is there? be acceptance of it. We're There's not really a lot on not the MR. YARMOWICH-I won't be here next week, if that makes any difference to you in this decision process. You've basically heard all you're going to hear from me on this one anyway. I mean, there's a few engineering details. I told you what I thought about the road geometry. I don't know that you need me here to make a decision. MR. MORSE-I was not going to be available next Tuesday, but if we've resolved most of the technical issues, and we're only down to, I was hopi ng. MRS. TARANA-Well, 30th? Well, we're what about the 30th? Will you be already scheduled for the 30th. around the MR. BREWER-I know, but, time. MRS. TARANA-What's the difference if you have more time on the 24th or if you have more time another day. MR. BREWER-It doesn't make any difference to me. All right. Lets do it the 24th. We'll do it next Tuesday night? MR. MACEWAN-That's fine. MR. BREWER-Either we will or we won't. MRS. TARANA-You better see if Mark or somebody is going to be here. MR. BREWER-You're not going to be available either? the 30th? How about MR. SCHACHNER-Monday the 30th? Monday the 30th would be great. MR. BREWER-Okay. We have you consent to table until the 30th? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I don't remember, but assuming you're closing the public hearing? if you didn't, I'm MR. BREWER-I'm leaving it open, just like we did with the last application. I'm telling you, I'll tell you, we're not going to get into a three hour drawn out thing. If there's anything new, fine, I don't mind hearing it, and I don't want to cut anybody off, but I just don't want to be here until 12 o'clock again the 30t h. MR. SCHACHNER-We're not supplying you with any significant new information. I'll be right up front with telling you my problem with keeping the public hearing open. This is the eighth public hearing we've had on this project. It was properly noticed. Public showed up. Public spoke. Public member has basically - 69 -- pledged to try to go drum up as many people as possible, come back and protest some more. I don't think that's fair to the applicant. I don't think that's the way the system's supposed to work. MRS. TARANA-I just want to say one thing, Mark. Maybe you could do it, or the Planning Department's going to do it. George and I were just going through a number of pieces of information we have, and it is contradictory. Sometimes it says 97 acres. Sometimes it says 27 acres, but tonight says 97 acres, and tonight should be 27 acres, am I right? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MRS. TARANA-And I just think some place we should have all of this consistent. MR. SCHACHNER-It's not all consistent, though. was 97. The subdivision MRS. TARANA-It should be 97, but tonight, the site plan, should be 27, and it's not. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know if I agree with that, only to the extent that when the Town Board re-zoned the property, they tied it to the Golf Course. MRS. TARANA-Well, then maybe it should all be all something maybe. be 97, but it should MR. YARMOWICH-The reason for the subdivision was to facilitate a homeowners association for part of this property, and Golf Course ownership by the applicant for the remainder. However, it's being reviewed under cluster provisions, which incorporate the entire 97 acre parcel. Is it a 27 acre site plan, or is it a 97 acre cluster development? MRS. TARANA-Well, don't you think that should be settled one way or another? MR. YARMOWICH-What it is, it's a 97 acre cluster development with a Golf Course on it and a townhouse development on it. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and it's really an either or. You can call it whichever one you want to call it, depending upon what you want to call it. The bottom line is that every single public notice that we're aware of has listed the correct property, parcel number. It's said what the public notice is for, and I don't dispute for a minute the member of the public's contention that she's got on I y two publ ic not ices. That's very poss i bl e. As far as I know, there are only two public notices that would have been required to be sent to her. Other public notices have been published in accordance with applicable requirements of law and regulation. I'm not disputing her contention at all. If she says she only got two notices, I totally don't have any problem with that. My problem is that it's our eighth public hearing about this project, and I don't have any trouble with that, but we have had input from the public. It's been very significant input from the public. It's the principal cause of us having to go, I believe, of us having to go and address some more issues and delay the process longer, but the public's had their say, and I don't see a reason to extend it because a member of the public has pledged to go drum up some more public opposition. I just don't think that's fair, and I don't think that's the way the process is supposed to work. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll listen to can tell you that, the 30th, when if there's somebody here that has one to say that you can't speak, that, but on the same hand, I we meet again, if there's some something new, I've never been and I'm sorry. I just think - 70 --- it's fair, whether we close the public hearing or leave it If somebody's got something new, I think that they have to be heard. That's just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong. why I'm telling you, but. open. a right That's MR. SCHACHNER-And, certainly, in my experience, that's consistently been the Board's policy, and I'm just suggesting that I think it's appropriate to close the public hearing, and to cross that road when we get to it. If there are people with new information, to make your decision at that time. MRS. TARANA-Just two things that I would like to see. One is, I noticed the site plan application has not been given a number. I assume it's been given a number, but it's not on here, and I would like to see some consistency, a decision made whether it's a 97 or a 27 acre lot, or whatever, that that be consistent throughout this entire application, unless it specifically say, just the townhouse section is 27, because the application says, proposed use of property is a Golf Course and townhouses. So it's 97 acres. I can see that, but the application also says the total lot acreage is 27. MR. YARMDWICH-That's the part that's under site plan review. MR. SCHACHNER-Exactly. MRS. TARANA-The proposed use of the property is a Golf Course and townhouses. MR. YARMDWICH-Right. MRS. TARANA-The total lot acreage is 27 acres. MR. SCHACHNER-That's the portion that's subject to site plan review. MRS. TARANA-Right. MR. YARMDWICH-The conforming use. Golf Course is not. It' s an existing Golf Course, nobody's reviewing the Golf MR. SCHACHNER-The Course. MR. BREWER-We're not going to do anything to the Golf Course. MR. SCHACHNER-And we also don't have any further applications to submit. There's nothing we can submit. Even if we agreed to make this consistent, there's nothing we could give you to do that. We're done applying. MR. YARMDWICH-Is process? it semant ics, or is it meaningful in the MRS. TARANA-I don't know that it's meaningful, but saw, another project that we saw, the question came up about the acreage, or the number of lots or size of lots, because there was inconsistency in the application. Do you remember that, the map? MR. YARMDWICH-Are you referring to American Equity? MRS. TARANA-No. another thing. The map said one thing, the application said MR. MACEWAN-I don't remember who it was. MRS. TARANA-Yes, and I just think if all our consistent, we might not have that problem. they're going to create a problem in the future, that one where you looked at the map and it was paperwork were I'm not saying but we did have one thing, and - 71 --- ........,. their application said another, was not what was approved. and they went by the map, which MR. YARMOWICH-Well, it should be, because the map's what gets filed. The application never gets filed, and the map is what should be correct. MRS. TARANA-Right, and I'm just saying, maybe stipulated, the whole parcel is 97, for site plan, somehow, just get these things. it can be you know, MR. SCHACHNER-We'll do that right now. your record ri ght now, if you 1 i ke. I'll put a stipulation on MRS. TARANA-Do that, then. I'll be happy with that. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. We'll stipulate, as the applicant, that this project consists of a total project area of approximately 97 acres, which has already been subdivided, and your Board has granted final subdivision approval, into essentially two parcels, one of approximately 70 acres, and one of approximately 27 acres. The 70 acre parcel consists of the existing Bay Meadows Golf Course. The 27 acre parcel consists of the area that's proposed for development, and that's all that's been proposed, from Day One, in this project, and that's all that's now proposed, and I hope, and I appreciate your concern, and I hope that clarifies any confusion. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. TARANA-Yes, I think it does. record. I think we needed that on the MR. BREWER-Okay. agreeable? Do we have a motion to table? The 30th is MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, except we still think you should close your public hearing. We just didn't know if you decided to or not to. We understand your comment about possibly accepting comments on the 30th. MR. BREWER-Well, I don't want to create a problem for another four hours, but on the same hand, on cut people off either. of being here don't want to MRS. TARANA-If it's new, different information is one thing, but I don't think we want to listen to everything again. MR. BREWER-How can we know until they say what they're going to say though, Corinne, whether it's new or not? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, in fairness, when I'm on the other side, everything's new and different information. That's what people say. We're not going to be presenting new information to this Board. MR. BREWER-No. I understand that, and you've heard our comments, and that's what we anticipate we want you to address, and I think that's all that we want you to do, and I think, in fairness, I'll leave it open, and if anybody wants to say anything, 1'11 let them say it, but again, I'm going to ask you, don't bring 40 people here, in fairness to us. Do we have a motion now? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 38-93 GARTH Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, Tarana: ALLEN, Introduced by seconded by Corinne Until August 30th. Duly adopted this 17th day of August, 1993, by the following - 72 - '- vote: AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE - 5-93 RECOMMENDATION ONLY KAY KUEBLER, MARTIN G. GALLUP & MARILYN MATRICCINO OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE PROPERTY INVOLVED: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF QUAKER & MEADOWBROOK ROAD CROSS REFERENCE: P9-90 TAX MAP NO. 108-1-1, 2 CURRENT ZONING: SFR-20 PROPOSED ZONING: HC-1A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 8-18-93 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Petition 5-93, Kuebler, Gallup, & Matriccino, Meet i ng Dat e: August 17, 1993 "A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a rezoning of two parcels from SFR-20 to HC-1A. The property is located on the southwest corner of Meadowbrook Road and Quaker Road. The lots are .317 and .ó17 acres in size. The properties are serviced by municipal sewer and water. The larger lot recently contained a single family house and garage; they were demolished in December 1991. The properties are currently vacant. The western 2/3 of the properties is part of a DEC designated wetland GF-19 (see attached map). B. EXISTING LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS: The existing land uses in the vicinity of the two properties is varied. On the southeast corner of Meadowbrook Road and Quaker Road is a restaurant, the Heidelburg Inn; to the south of that is property owned by a garden center and used for growing trees and shrubs. The propert y to the south is current I y vacant. The property to the west is home to Cypress Pools and a bike shop. The northwest side of Quaker Road is Midas Muffler and a car dealership. The northeast side of Quaker Road is vacant. C. ZONE CHANGE ANALYSIS: 1. What need is being met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The applicant states that a personal economic need will be met in the form of more saleable properties. However, because of the physical and environmental constraints that are associated with these parcels, their size and proximity to the wetlands, and the actual salability of these lots for commercial purposes is questionable. 2. What proposed zones, if any, can meet the stated need? A commercial zone that allows smaller lots such as Commercial Residential (CR-15) would allow commercial development on a smaller scale and would be more suitable for these properties. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The proposed zone would be compatible with the properties to the east and west as well as those on the other side of Quaker Road. However, HC-1A is not compatible with the existing residential zone to the south. 4. What are the physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? There are no physical characteristics of the site that make it suitable for designation as a HC-1A zone. 5. How will the proposed zoning affect public facilities? The property is serviced by municipal water and sewer. Rezoning this property to HC-1A would not have a negative impact on any public facilities. ó. Why is the current classification not appropriate for the property in question? Because of the property's proximity to Quaker Road, residential zoning does not seem to be the proper; however, because of the size of the lots and the environmental constraints, highway commercial is not appropriate. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? Because of the DEC wetlands, the high percolation rates of the soils and the shallow depth to the water table, the development suitability of the property is low. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The proposal is not compatible with several relevant portions of the Comprehensive Plan. It is not compatible with the goal of limiting access on - 73 '- -' arterial streets. It is not compatible with the goal and policy of providing a screen and buffer between commercial zones and residential uses. It is not compatible with the goal and policy regarding the preservation of wetlands. Development of the site would require a variance to the 100 foot setback from wetlands and a variance from the requirements to provide a 50 foot buffer between commercial uses and residential uses. 9. How are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal? The wider interests of the community will not be served by this rezoning. The rezoning of these two lots would result in the creation of two non-conforming lots. Development of the properties would require numerous variances, and would have a negative impact on the adjacent DEC designated wetlands. ~ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: Even if the lots are combined they will not meet the square footage requirement of one acre or the lot width requirement of 200 feet. From looking at the plot plan provided, there appears to be less than 10,000 square feet of developable area. If property line setbacks are met, there is even less available for development. The site cannot be developed as a commercial use without a wetlands variance and a buffer zone variance. It does not seem practical to rezone two pieces of property to a zone whose basic area and yard setbacks will not be met. These facts, as will the environmental constraints regarding wetlands, soil percolation and depth to water table combine to make these lots unsuitable for HC-1A zoning." MRS. TARANA-Scott, when you said that the Commercial Residential would allow commercial development on a smaller scale, it would meet the requirements? That lot would meet the CR-15? MR. HARLICKER-Well, they'd have to, that would be contingent on them combining the two, the two lots as th~y are don't meet the requirements of any zone in the Town. There was no proposal included with the paper work that we got of this rezoning that would indicate that they are planning to combine the two lots. An area of 15,000 is required in a Commercial Residential zone, CR-15, 15,000 square feet is required for the residential and professional office use. Any commercial use would require one acre. So, if they want to develop a commercial use, it still wouldn't meet the requirement. MRS. TARANA-Since the recommendation is for Highway Commercial, we don't have to recommend something else? MR. HARLICKER-The recommendation isn't for Highway Commercial. MRS. TARANA-It's not? MR. HARLICKER-No. It's just an option that might be explored. It was not a recommendation that it be zoned that. The recommendation is that is not be zoned Highway Commercial. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have any comments? care to make a motion? Does anybody MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE P5-93 KAY KUEBLER. MARTIN G. GALLUP & MARILYN MATRICCINO, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Corinne Tarana: Duly adopted this v ot e : 17th day of August, 1993, by the following AYES: Mrs. Tarana, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Pulver, Mr. LaPoint, Mr. Ruel - 74 - -- --" On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 75 -