Loading...
1994-04-26 ~ QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 26TH, 1994 INDEX Site Plan No. 11-94 John A. Shaffer 1. Subdivision No. 2-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE Pyramid Company of Glens Falls 12. Freshwater Wetlands Permit No. 1-94 Ronald Newell/Garfield Raymond 20. DISCUSSION ITEM Richard Schermerhorn; Bay Rd. 29. (Newell/Raymond Property) DISCUSSION ITEM Richard Schermerhorn 35. (Project on Meadowbrook/Cronin) DISCUSSION ITEM Hugh Sinclair Site Plan 48. 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 SECOND REGULAR MEET I NG APRIL 26TH, 1994 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER, CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK, SECRETARY CATHERINE LABOMBARD JAMES OBERMAYER ROBERT PALING CRA I G MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT ROGER RUEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES: January 25, 1994: NONE February 22, 1994: NONE March 15, 1994: NONE March 22, 1994: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 1/25/94. 2/22/94. 3/15/94. AND 3/22/94 I ntroduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 26th, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 11-94 TYPE I I JOHN A. SHAFFER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: WR-IA LOCATION: ASSEMBLY PT. RD. PROPOSED 6' X 36' DOCK COMPLEX, 822 SQ. FT. BUILT ON A 9 (NINE) 6' X 6' STONE FILLED TIMBER CRIB PIERS AND PROPOSED 16' X 20' (W/SKIRT) FLAT ROOF OPEN SIDED BOATHOUSE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 4/13/94 LAKE GEORGE PARK COMM I SS ION ADI RONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 6 -1- 5 LOT SIZE: 16,117 SQ. FT. SECTION: 179-60 JOHN SHAFFER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 11-94, John A. Shaffer, Meeting Da te: Apr i I 26, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appli cant is proposing to replace an existing dock with one within the existing footprint but slightly smaller and with the boathouse covering the right slip instead of the left. The slips will be reduced in size from 12' to 11'6" and 17'1" to 11'6"; the overall width of the dock will stay the same; the length it projects into the lake will be - 1 - "-- slightly less, and the overall size will be reduced from 871 square feet to 822 square feet. The edge' of the existing dock is 6' 3" from the adjacent property; the proposed dock will be 11'6". It is unclear if the dock will remain connected to the dock facility that services the adjacent property. If treated lumber is used it shall be nonleaching type. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The project was compared to Section 179-60 (b) Docks and Moorings and staff can recommend approval of this application." MR. HARLICKER-The Warren County Planning Board approved it with the following conditions: "Provided that there are no setback issues that have to be addressed and that they do not encroach on the setback, and that the proposed sundeck be accessed from the dock and not via a land bridge." MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anyone on the Board have any questions? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I do. Do you plan on removing the existing roof that's there right now and building a new roof? When I went up and looked at it, it was a steep slope roof. Do you plan on taking that off or are you utilizing the same roof line? MR. SHAFFER-That's actually coming down. We're moving that over to the north. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So the whole thing's coming down? MR. SHAFFER-The whole dock complex (lost wo r d) . MR. MACEWAN-How do you plan on accessing the sundeck? MR. SHAFFER-The ramp. MR. MACEWAN-From? MR. SHAFFER-From the wall, from the top of the wall. MR. OBERMAYER-It's a fairly new dock as it is, isn't it? MR. SHAFFER-Five years old. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. You're tearing the whole thing out? MR. SHAFFER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-The six foot three, do your neighbors have any complaints at all, being so close to their, it's attached to their dock, isn't it? Is that going to continue to be the same? MR. SHAFFER-It probably will. In fact, I think the property line actually goes over a little bit more there, and I'm going to have to end up probably losing some landscaping. MR. PALING-I have a question. How tall is this structure from the water level to the top, the highest point of the structure? MR. SHAFFER-I believe it's 10 feet. MR. PALING-You have a missing dimension on your print. hard to tell. So it's MR. SHAFFER-The water level changes. This time of year, the water level would probably be a foot, maybe a foot and a half from the top. So then you're talking about nine feet. MR. PALING-Well, you've got eight foot, just with the lowest structure itself, and then you've got thirty-two inches above that, and then there's a gap in between that there is no dimension on. MR. SHAFFER-Well, the railing height, you're looking at the railing - 2 - height. That's thirty-two inches. MR. PALING-Yes, that's the highest point of the structure. MR. SHAFFER-Right. The roof itself for the deck is eighteen above the dock surface. MR. PALING-That's the lower part of the roof. Now what's the missing dimension that you've got there. I have eight foot to the lower part of the roof. Then there's a gap, and then the top of the roof begins. There's no dimension in between. MR. SHAFFER-Okay. That can't be more than, the scale is one eighth, to a foot, you're talking about three feet, at the most. MR. PALING-Well, if you're talking three feet, then I think your building is too tall, unless I'm reading the regulation wrong. Fourteen feet to the highest point of the structure. MR. SHAFFER-Is for, what, deck? MR. PALING-To the highest point of the structure, fourteen feet, which would be the railing, if I'm reading that right, from the water level. MR. SHAFFER-Okay. The water level is almost up, this time of the year, it's about a foot from the top of the dock. MR. PALING-All right. Then you'd add that foot to the eight feet, right? That would give you nine feet. Then you've got two foot eight inches above that, and then three feet. So you're a minimum of fourteen foot eight inches, if my, and probably more. MR. OBERMAYER-Does the thirty-two inch rail height, is there anything in ther'e on that? Because that seems very low to me. Isn't it required to be, like, forty-two inches with a mid rail at twenty-one inches? I guess I'm not sure. MR. SHAFFER-That's standard rail. MR. OBERMAYER-Thirty-two inches? MR. SHAFFER-Yes. MR. BREWER-I guess the question would be, is that fourteen foot for flat roofs, is that considered to be to the top of the roof, or to the railing? MR. PALING-Well, it says the highest point of the structure for flat roofs is fourteen feet. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. SHAFFER-The property next door is John McCall. He had two (1 0 s two r d ) rig h t, and the y , r e , i n tot a I, from the top, six tee n feet. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, we're talking about your dock. MR. SHAFFER-Okay. feet. Well, I'm just saying that that was sixteen MR. PALING-I'm having trouble, with the way the drawing is made, I'm having trouble really knowing how tall it is. It may even be shorter than you're saying, but if you add them all up here, then you are in excess of fourteen feet. MR. BREWER-Is there any problem with lowering that ten inches? MR. SHAFFER-Yes. You wouldn't be able to get underneath it. - 3 - MR. OBERMAYER-How do you plan on accessing the deck on top? Is it going to be a ladder? Is it going to be a staircase? MR. SHAFFER-It's going to be a ramp. MR. BREWER-A ramp from the wall. MR. SHAFFER-But if you look at the, I've got a scale here. If you look at the twenty-four inches, do you have one to scale? MR. PALING-Yes, an eighth of an inch is a foot. MR. SHAFFER-The top of the dock is twenty-four inches, right? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. SHAFFER-That's almost exactly the same on that gap. MR. PALING-Now, do you consider the bottom of the twenty-four inches the water line? MR. SHAFFER-No. I'm just saying that twenty-four inches goes to the bottom of the dock. MR. PALING-Okay. That's right, but where's the water line then? MR. SHAFFER-The water line right now is almost up to the bottom of the dock, the high water mark. Then you talk about twenty-four plus eight, right? MR. PALING-Yes. You're talking two and eight is ten, twelve. No matter how you add it, it seems to be a little over the allowable height. MR. SHAFFER-I'm not fæmiliar with that regulation. MR. PALING-Okay. It's here if you want to take a look at it. MR. SHAFFER-It says from the high water mark? MR. PALING-No. It, Boathouses and covered docks shall not exceed eighteen feet in height measured from the water level to the highest point of the structure for peaked roofs, and fourteen feet for flat roofs. MR. SHAFFER-Does that include railing? MR. PALING-The highest point of the structure. MR. BREWER-So we have to make some kind of an adjustment, I guess. MR. SHAFFER-Do you know if there was an exception made for John McCall? MR. BREWER-I don't recall. I recall the application, but I don't recall, I can almost guarantee there was no exception made. don't recall any exception made at all. MR. SHAFFER-Okay, but he's got a cabin cruiser he puts in there that's about sixteen feet from the water line to the top. MR. BREWER-So there's something that's holding us back there. MR. PALING-The distance of eight feet from the deck top to the bottom of the roof, you said you couldn't get under there. I would think that could be lowered. There's not many people that are going to bump their head on that. MR. SHAFFER-Yes. The only problem is I have a lift mechanism that goes underneath there to lift that up. I don't want people hitting - 4 - their heads on it. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. SHAFFER-Eight feet is standard, according to the guy that's going to build the dock, and this whole dock complex is standard. MR. BREWER-Who's building it? MR. SHAFFER-Ted Creedence. He's the one that built John McCall's. MR. BREWER-Well, maybe we should get back to him and find out if there's going to be a problem lowering it. I mean, if it's not allowed, we can't allow you to do it. MR. SHAFFER-Okay. I'm just curious why John McCall's was not made an exception. MR. BREWER-I don't know if he was granted a variance Board wouldn't know if he was granted a variance. question for Staff. What are we considering this going to be an E Shape? Is it two U Shapes? or not. This I have one dock? Is it MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I'm looking at it more as a replacement of the existing dock. MR. BREWER-But I guess what I'm saying is that I'm considering this an E-Shaped. MR. HARLICKER-I would consider it an E-Shaped dock. MR. BREWER-I don't know how he can be allowed to do it, because it says no E-Shaped dock shall be allowed unless there's 150 foot of frontage. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, but the way that we were looking at this is that it's a replacement of what's already there. The existing dock is an E-Shaped dock. MR. BREWER-So if the dock is five years old, how was it allowed five years ago? MR. HARLICKER-I can't speak to that. MR. SHAFFER-The existing dock was an E-Shaped, replacing it, the boards are being replaced. and , we re jus t MR. BREWER-I guess what I'm saying to you, sir, is the Ordinance specifically says, no dock shall be constructed in any configuration other than straight, F, L, T, or U-Shaped. E-Shaped docks shall be allowed only where lots exceed 150 linear feet of shoreline frontage. MR. SHAFFER-I believe it's grandfathered. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's my only question. MR. SHAFFER-Yes. It was grandfathered all the time. The Park Conmission has already given us a permit on it. I have the Park Conmission Permit and I also have the Corp of Engineers Permit, both of those. MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, I guess we need to know from you what we can do about lowering the dock, so that it falls within the standards of the Ordinance. Is that something you can talk to your contractor about, lowering it? MR. SHAFFER-How much do we have to lower it? It depends on where the high water mark is. At times, the high water mark is over the dock. - 5 - ~'" '''- MR. BREWER-The ~ high water mark, which would mean the avera~e. MR. STARK-Bob, could you tell me, figure out your footage again, the height off the water, would you? MR. PALING-Okay. You add two feet, plus eight feet. MR. SHAFFER-Well, you're saying the high water mark is right at the bottom. The high water mark, at times, has been up to the top of the dock. MR. PALING-It would be the average. If you add two plus eight, and then take the thirty-two inch dimension, which is two feet eight inches, and then you're up to twelve feet eight now, and we don't know, although the gentleman tells us it may be three feet. MR. SHAFFER-Well, I'm saying two. MR. PALING-Two. Then it's a minimum of fourteen foot eight, is what I'm looking at, but if you clarified that missing dimension, you might not have a problem. MR. SHAFFER-The scale shows. MR. PALING-Well, I wouldn't trust the scale. MR. MACEWAN- I kind of rough seal ed it, and rough seal ing it, it comes out to be two foot, which puts you at that fourteen foot eight, which puts you at fourteen foot eight. MR. SHAFFER-Okay. You're saying it has to be exactly fourteen. MR. MACEWAN-Fourteen or less. MR. SHAFFER-From the mean high water mark. MR. MACEWAN-From the mean high water mark. MR. STARK-Now, when you say mean high water mark, Craig, the high water mark now is the top of the dock. Okay. What is it normally? MR. MACEWAN-I think the definition of it says avera~e mean high water mark. MR. STARK-So what's that, the middle of the dock? MR. BREWER-Well, we all know that it's going to drop. MR. STARK-I know it drops. It varies allover the place. MR. OBERMAYER-What's their definition of the mean high water? MR. SHAFFER-The highest water mark. MR. OBERMAYER-The highest water mark? MR. SHAFFER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-The Definition Section of the Zoning Ordinance does define mean high water mark as the average annual high water mark, but then specifically defines, for Lake George, the mean high water mark of Lake George at a certain level. The level happens to be 320.2 feet above sea level. I think that def ini tion comes originally from the Lake George Park Commission Regulations. The way typically this is dealt with by applicants with docks on Lake George is they have an actual survey with a surveyor, or somebody like that, or an architect or an engineer, who figures out where the mean high water mark is, in accordance with that regulation, and gives us that dimension with some precision. - 6 - - MR. OBERMAYER-You might be better off just lowering your dock by eight inches, save yourself some money. MR. SHAFFER-Last year the water was over the dock. an exception. Last year the water was over the dock. dock last year, you're talking about (lost word). Last year was To lower the MR. MACEWAN-No, but, not according to the Definition he just gave us. That they use that 320 foot mark. MR. SHAFFER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-So it wouldn't matter whether it was eight foot over, or eight foot under. They're using that set measurement that they're using, based on it. MR. SHAFFER-Okay. So you're saying I have to get a survey? Is that what you're saying? MR. SCHACHNER-It's not up to me, but that's typically, somehow, the calculation is supposed to be made from the statutorally defined mean high water mark. MR. SHAFFER-You've had other docks before you, right, I mean, similar to mine? MR. PALING-I've seen a few docks, yes. MR. SHAFFER-And has that fourteen foot come up as a question? MR. PALING-I haven't been here that long. know is it's in here. I don't know. All I MR. BREWER-Yes, it has. MR. HARLICKER-It did, last month, I think it was, with Joe Roulier's dock. MR. BREWER-Yes, and he did lower the dock. MR. SHAFFER-The problem is, I don't know how much to lower it. MR. PALING-Yes. That's one of the problems. Unless you know that, where your starting point is, it's going to be hard to say how far away from it you are. MR. STARK-Where's the water in July, like, on your dock? below the dock, or level, you know, half way down? Is it MR. SHAFFER-August it's probably down below the boards. They dropped the lake almost two feet. Right now, it's about six inches from the top of the dock. MR. MACEWAN-They're giving you a set dimension in the Zoning Ordinance, a set height. So it doesn't matter whether you have a. MR. BREWER-Whether the water drops three feet or it raises three feet. MR. MACEWAN-Right. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. It's the mean high water level. MR. BREWER-It doesn't make any difference where the water is. MR. OBERMAYER-And if it's six inches right now, from the existing, then you're definitely too high, fourteen feet. MR. SHAFFER-Well, six inches would be right there, right, just about. - 7 - MR. PALING-Well, six inches below the dock level, you're okay. It's measured from the bottom of the dock level, where you're getting in trouble. If we measured it from a hiRher distance, you wouldn't have any trouble. MR. BREWER-I agree with you. MR. MACEWAN-You need to determine, I think, with your contractor whether you have the affordability to lower the existing roof line down to meet that 14 foot measurement. MR. SHAFFER-I don't know how much lower. MR. BREWER-I guess the question is, we've got to find out what the mean high water mark is. MR. SHAFFER-So we have to get a survey done to find out what the mean high water mark is? MR. PALING-Is that easily done, to get a survey to do that? MR. OBERMAYER-It'll cost him some money, a couple of hundred bucks to have Coulter & McCormack go out and survey. MR. MACEWAN-And the other issue, too, we haven't touched on is the ramp. MR. BREWER-Did you want to say something, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, this is sort of out of my element, it's up to you all, but I happen to know that, you said Ed Creed is building the docks? MR. SHAFFER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, Ed Creed and his son John are the principals in a company called Pro Built Docks, which supposedly has a whole lot of experience building docks on Lake George, and I've got to think that they know where the mean high water mark is. So, I suspect that this is not, it's entirely up to the Board, but I would think it's very unlikely that Pro Built Docks and the Creeds, who I am quite certain have built a bunch of docks on Lake George, could not satisfy the Board on this issue. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-You have a permit from the Corps and APA, right? MR. SHAFFER-Well, Lake George Park Commission. MR. OBERMAYER-Right, Lake George Park Commission. MR. SHAFFER-They had no questions. They were completely satisfied with it. MR. BREWER-Okay. So is that something you would be willing to do is talk to your contractor and get back with the mean high water mark? MR. SHAFFER-I don't think he knows where it is, because I've talked to him already about it. He doesn't know where it is. What you have to do is you've got to get all the State maps out. The State map is the one that has the mean high water mark. MR. BREWER-Well, I don't see us going anywhere without knowing what that is. That's just my opinion. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. OBERMAYER-Why can't you just change your pitch on your roof, since it is a flat roof anyway? Why can't you just change that - 8 - pitch and lower it eight inches? MR. BREWER-It's flat, isn't it? MR. OBERMAYER-But it's pitched around the side. MR. SHAFFER-Yes, that's just the skirt. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. You can't give up eight inches, and then it would be a done deal. MR. SHAFFER-I don't want people to hit their heads on the, reason that's eight feet is because that's the standard height, or deck height that Ed Creed builds on every single that he's done on the lake. He drew these up. I did not draw up. These are his drawings that he's done on every single around the lake. the dock deck them dock MR. BREWER-Well, as far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see if Mr. Creed could come in and talk to us and tell us where the mean high water mark is. MR. SHAFFER-Yes. I know he does not know where that is. I'll have to have a survey done for $200. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else anybody wants to discuss? MR. MACEWAN-The ramp. I'd like, before I would lend my vote of confidence to that, I would like to see what the detail of the ramp is going to look like, and the height. It is not in favor, I guess, of the Warren County to approve these docks with that. I'm not saying that I would generally go along with their feelings on it, but I would like to see something, what you plan on building, before I would lend my vote for it. MR. SHAFFER-That's a handicapped access ramp, for elderly people to come up to the lake, that want to be able to go down the dock and then back up. Warren County wanted them to climb ladders. They said that. They said, if you're disabled, you can either stay down on the dock, or you can climb a ladder to get up. MR. MACEWAN-Tha t' s been standard procedure for War ren County, I think, all these years anyway, not to approve access via the ramps. MR. SHAFFER-That's against not only the Federal Disabilities Act, but the New York State Disabilities Act. MR. BREWER-I don't really have a problem with that, as long as it's railed, so nobody can falloff of it. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to see how he plans a nice job in doing these drawings, dimensions, I would like to see a sketch to look like. on building it. He's done and a couple of missing of what that plan is going MRS. LABOMBARD-John, you said it's coming out from the wall? MR. SHAFFER-Yes, the wall. MR. STARK-The ÌQQ of the wall, Catha MRS. LABOMBARD-The ÌQQ of the wall, but how far down is the wall from the grade of the land, like the land's, you're sloping down, and then right at the edge is the wall? MR. SHAFFER-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. So, in other words, you're going to start it from there? You're not going to start it up here and make a little bridge, like? - 9 - '- -- -- MR. SHAFFER-Well, we'll probably start it where the land is and go straight out. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. So would there be space underneath there? MR. SHAFFER-Probably, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Then that's not the same, starting from up here, or starting from the wall. That's what I just wanted to know the distinction. MR. SHAFFER-Right. We're going to make it level. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. SHAFFER-We've got somebody in a wheelchair, and we have a couple of friends down in Albany that are in a wheelchair, and they can get out to the dock, on the sun deck. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, do you think you can provide us those details, so maybe we can? MR. BREWER-Yes, Craig's asking for them, I guess. So do you know what we want from you, now? MR. SHAFFER-I'm not sure, now. MR. BREWER-Okay. We want to know where the mean high water mark is. We want a detail of the ramp going on to the top of the deck, and that's pretty much all l. MR. PALING-The only other thing I suggest is that you do clarify that missing dimension. We can scale it off, but I'd rather hear you tell me it is whatever it is. MR. SHAFFER-Right. MR. BREWER-Okay. Rather than have to renotice or whatever, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to comment on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Okay. We need a motion to table, with your consent. We'll have to do it next month. MR. STARK-The first meeting next month? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-Which will be? MR. PALING-The 19th and the 26th, isn't it? MR. BREWER-The 19th and the 26th. provided he has that information. It'll have to be the 19th, MR. SHAFFER-The 19th of May? MR. BREWER-Yes, sir. MR. SHAFFER-I've got a shareholder's meeting I've got to be at. MR. BREWER-Could your builder be present? MR. STARK-Tim, aren't we having a Special Meeting before that? - 10 - '--" '--' MR. OBERMAYER-The third we're having one. MR. BREWER-If he can get the information, I don't have a problem with that. MR. OBERMAYER-The third? MR. BREWER-We're turning that one item into a. MR. MACEWAN-He , s already got two on. MR. BREWER-That's fine. So it's three. I don't care. How about May 3rd? Is that a problem for you? Would you have time enough to gather this information by May 3rd? MR. SHAFFER-The only problem is the high water mark. I'm not even sure how to go about that. MR. BREWER-I would go right to your builder and ask him. I'm sure he knows how to do it. MR. SHAFFER -Okay. What I th i nk I' 11 do is go back to the Lake George Park Commission, because they approved it as it stands. MR. BREWER-Yes, but this is a different. MR. SHAFFER-Yes, but they must know where the high water mark is, and the Corps of Engineers, so they must know where it is, too, right? I would assume. MR. BREWER-I don't know, but I would, personally, I would go back to the builder and ask him, before I did anything. That would probably be your best bet. So, what do we want to do? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, I would think they would have the elevation of the lake, the surface of the lake. MR. SHAFFER-What I could do is call him now. MR. BREWER-Well, we want to see it on paper, with the detail of the ramp anyway. So you can't do that over the phone. MRS. LABOMBARD-The only thing, I have a comment about the ramp, in order to make it safe, obviously for a handicapped person, you're going to have to start, I mean, I can visualize just what it's going to be, and you're going to have to start it pretty far up on your lawn, in order that you don't get a real steep slope going down. So, maybe we're putting you to some extra, I'm just saying, I don't know if it's really that necessary, because it's going to have to go up higher than the wall, considerably higher than the wall. Is that going to be a deterrent, as far as our okaying something like this? MR. BREWER-It doesn't bother me, as long as it's safe. As long as it's safe. We did one last month. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. So our main thing is to make sure that it's safe. That's our primary reason for seeing a drawing. I just wanted to get that straight. Thanks. MR. HARLICKER-It's tabled until May 3rd? MR. BREWER-Is May 3rd sufficient time to do this, do you think, or not? MR. SHAFFER-Yes, I'll see what I can do. MR. MACEWAN-You have your choice of May 3rd, May 19th, or May 26th. MR. SHAFFER-May 19th is out. I've got a stockholder's meeting. - 11 - ~ ---,. MR. MACEWAN-How about the 26th? MR. SHAFFER-Lets try the 3rd, May 3rd. I'll see what I can do. MR. BREWER-Okay. We need a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 11-94 JOHN A. SHAFFER, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: For the present, and be taken up again at the next Special Meeting on May 3rd, 1994. Duly adopted this 26th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. STARK-Tim, I have an idea. Can we switch these around, maybe, because the next two items are the Newell Subdivision, and then one of the Discussion Items is for that building? Do you know what I'm saying? So, knock the Pyramid off, and then we're all talking about the same thing. MR. BREWER-So you want to do the Pyramid first? MR. STARK-Well, you know, and then I don't think Mr. Newell and Mr. Raymond, because then we'd be talking about all three items with you guys. This shouldn't take that long with the Pyramid. MR. OBERMAYER-No. MR. BREWER-Okay. I don't have a problem with that. MR. STARK-And that way there, everybody is talking about the same thing. MR. OBERMAYER-Ceorge, it sounds like a good idea. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: ESC-25A LOCATION: AVIATION MALL, AVIATION RD. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 56.57 ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 SMALLER PARCELS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN CONSTRUCTION FINANCING FOR THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 105,000 SQ. FT. GLA EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING AVIATION MALL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-1994 TAX MAP NO. 98-1-5.2, 99-1-4 LOT SIZE: + 56.57 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS BOB STEWART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Scott, any notes? MR. HARLICKER-Nothing formal here. I guess my only main concerns are that, it appears that it was dealt with, too, at the ZBA hearing, concerns regarding, just in case something goes wrong and these lots become permanent, that there's parking that goes along with each particular property, and access of easements and that sort of, legalities type things are taken care of. I think the proposal is something only somebody in finance could come up with something like this. Following planninR practices, it doesn't make sense. So I think the main concern would be the legalities of it, as far as easements and parking and that sort of thing is concerned. So as long as those concerns are met. MR. BREWER-Mr. Stewart. - 12 - -- -. MR. STEWART-Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen of the Board, my name is Bob Stewart, just for the record, I'm an attorney in Glens Falls, and I'm here tonight speaking on behalf of the Pyramid Company. I'm going to speak very, very briefly, because I know this Board has lived with this thing since about 1990 or '91 when it started. You've been through the site plan back in March. You've been through this several times, and I believe that you're well aware of what brings us here today, and what doesn't bring us here today. The subdivision that's being requested has absolutely nothing to do with how the Mall is going to be expanded or developed. You have reviewed that. You have put into effect the site plan telling us what we can do and what we can't do. We have met all permits and we currently meet all permits and requirements in that connection, and we cannot deviate one iota from your site plan without your telling us to. The reason this comes up at the last moment is a requirement by lending banks who are looking at it, and very briefly commercial properties like this are financed in two levels. There is the short term construction financing which lasts a year or two years, until the buildings are up, finished, and the tenant is in place. Then the permanent or long range financing comes in, buys out and pays off the temporary lender, and then they take over with a permanent mortgage on the entire project. Now, in this particular case, an organization called Teachers Annuity has been the permanent lender on this project, which began approximately 20 years ago. It's a huge organization primarily utilizing pension funds from teachers and groups like that, which they invest in long range projects, to go to fund teacher's pensions. They, by their Charter, do not get involved in the more volatile interim or building construction. They only come into play at the permanent loan. With that in mind, the temporary lenders that we're talking to, Key Bank and Fleet Bank, are saying, well, we want security. After savings and loan problems over the past couple of years, banks are very intense about securities and intense about bank investigators or bank officials looking over their shoulders. So they're saying, we would like to have a mortgage on the footprint of each building that we may build. We want that mortgage to give us some additional protection until such time as the building is up, occupied, and when Teachers comes in and buys us out, then the mortgage can go away. Teachers is agreeable to this. Teachers, which has a first mortgage on almost everything now, is willing to take second position to the short range mortgages on some of these small parcels, but all of this br ings us to the fact that, technically, it is does not conform to the zoning and we need this subdivision for purposes of getting this financing into place. In response to Scott's comment about the fact that there would be easements, what's normally referred to as Reciprocal Easement Agreements, between these lots, so that if, on a worst case scenario, something went wrong, and lets say the Penneys Store, which I think is the first one to go up, something goes askew, and the bank forecloses and Mr. X, or Corporation X comes in and actually owns that small piece of property, which means they'd be collecting the rent from Penneys, rather than Pyramid. As far as community would be concerned, the difference would not be visible, but the concern is that you wouldn't want that small lot separately owned, and it wouldn't have ingress and egress, and wouldn't be able to have parking and wouldn't be able to have the sewer and the I ighting and all that goes through the conmon mall. That was addressed in the Zoning Board's meetings a week ago, and I have a copy of their resolution tonight, in which the variances that they granted us, which we needed to come tonight before this Board, specified exactly that. It says that their variances, which would be required to have this legal, would terminate unless Pyramid's interest in the parcel, and anyone to whom Pyramid conveyed those parcels, if there was some sort of (lost word) a default, shall include easements and/or rights to parking, common mall areas, ingress and egress, utilities, sewer, water, lights, etc., siting and/or any other rights or easements. So that the use of the subdivided parcels may continue in the same fashion as if the parcel were still part of the whole, and under single ownership as currently exists. They had some other conditions in there, too, - 13 - --- "-'" but that's the one that directly answers that concern. We are committed that even though, technically, a small parcel may exist over here for financing purposes, if it ever, I can't conceive of it happen i ng, but if it ever ends up in the owner shi p of some outside entity, that ownership has the same rights, and they use phrases, all the benefits and all the burden of the entire parking facility and the site plan, and they can't do anything in violation of it, and they can't do anything more or less than what you have already imposed, as to what the entire parcel can be used for, and I think that's probably long enough, if not too long. I'll answer any questions. Mike Piazzola is here with me tonight, the Project Manager for Pyramid, and obviously he'll answer any questions that you might have. I know the background you've had with it, that you don't need a long speech from me on what we're about to do. MR. BREWER-The only thing that I wanted to ask, and I saw the letter in there from Charlie Wood, that you did obtain that property, and that's a done deal? There's nothing to worry about there? MICHAEL PIAZZOLA MR. PIAZZOLA-We closed last week. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else from anybody on the Board? MR. STEWART-One last comment, and, again, as you know, this whole thing came about because of the concern that some attorney for the bank would be looking over our shoulder saying, have you checked every, dotted every I and crossed every T. To try to cover that, we have prepared, tonight, a resolution, and I gave it to your attorney just a few minutes ago. I don't know how much of a chance he's had to look at it, but I will give you all copies, which simply recite, we've been through this, all history, its background, that we've been through the SEQRA Review several times. MR. BREWER-That's another question I was going to ask. Do we have to do another SEQRA on this, Jim, Short Form? MR. MARTIN-I believe you would, yes. MR. STEWART-All right. Now, that was submitted. In this proposed resolution, we're asking you to say that you don't see anything tonight any different than what you saw three weeks ago, as far as changing the environmental impact, because obviously the development of the Mall is going to be exactly the way it was, and with your permission I offer it up. Usually we're not this formal, but when this bank attorney looked at this, I wanted him to see something. If you would consider passing it in this form, I think we won't be back here again, in a month, saying, we need another paragraph. MR. BREWER-Can you make corrections to this? MR. STEWART-You can do anything you want. It's absolutely in your control. MR. BREWER-Just on Page 2, Whereas the Planning Board scheduled and held a public hearing on the application on April, I'm sorry, what am I thinking. MR. STEWART-That's tonight. MR. BREWER-Yes. was thinking it was next week. All right. MR. BREWER-Did you read this, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I'm just in the middle of it. MR. BREWER-Okay. 1'11 open the public hearing and let our Attorney - 14 - ~ -. finish reading it. Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-We can go through the SEQRA. MR. HARLICKER-You can go through SEQRA. They submitted a Long Form with this application. MR. BREWER-It's not a Long Form, though, is it? MR. HARLICKER-No, but that's what they submitted. You might want to go through that. MR. MACEWAN-Do you want to do the Long? MR. MARTIN-That's all we have on file. MR. HARLICKER-That's all we have on file, yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. Wait a minute. There's a Short Form in the application. Either way, it doesn't make any difference, I guess. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's Unlisted. So it can be a Short Form. MR. STEWART-Yes. This is an Unlisted action. So I think you should could the Short Form. I think that we filed with you, for your records, a Long Form that we went through the last time. MR. BREWER-The Short Form's just easier, that's all. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-1994 , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning PYRAMID COMPANY OF CLENS FALLS, and 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 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 - 15 - -- --- 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 26th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Mark, how does it look, all right? MR. SCHACHNER-Quick review, I don't see any particular problems with it, but I guess, it's eight pages, it's actually only seven pages. It's double spaced. It doesn't take too long to read. I'd be more comfortable if the Board members took a couple of minutes to read it, if you're going to, proposing to act on it. I don't see any particular problem with it. It recites a lot of history that I'm not f~iliar with, but if the recitation of history is correct, I don't see any problem with it, and the only other thing is that it doesn't seem to indicate anywhere that it's a resolution for preliminary subdivision approval, although it does indicate that the meeting for final subdivision approval is next week. So somewhere, if you decide to make a motion to approve, you should just add the words, "Motion for Preliminary Subdivision approval", in my opinion. MR. STEWART-Mark, if you look at the second sentence at the top of the first page, I think you've got it tucked in there. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, that the application is for approval of preliminary subdivision plan. Right. I see that. So I'm saying that when you get to the Resolved, they should say, preliminary subdivision plan, that's all. I guess my recommendation is the Board take a few minutes, either now or during a break, whenever you want, just to read the proposed resolution. MR. BREWER-Lets do it now. MR. STEWART-Mark's comment is right. At the bottom of Page Seven, we say approve of the application to subdivide, and it really should say, the preliminary application to subdivide, the last full paragraph on Page Seven. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. It could say, Preliminary subdivision, for example. It's just those words should be added. is hereby approved for It's not a big problem. MR. STARK-Tim, as written, with the following. MR. BREWER-With that one change? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. BREWER-Does someone want to make a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVI S ION NO. 2-1994 PYRAMID COMPANY OF GLENS FALLS, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: SEQRA RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS STATEMENT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN WHEREAS, Pyramid Company of Glens Falls (the "Applicant") - 16 - -- -' submitted an application for approval of a Preliminary Subdivision Plan on March 30, 1994 (as amended and supplemented, the "Application") and an Environmental Assessment Form and related materials (as amended and supplemented, the "EAF") to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board (the "Planning Board") for the subdivision of certain parcels of land, as more particularjy shown on one of the plans submitted in the Application which plan was prepared by Northeast Land Surveyors and Land Development Consultants, P.C., entitled "Aviation Mall Subdivision Plan Prepared for the Pyramid Company of Glens Falls" dated March 17, 1994 (as amended and revised the "Subdivision Plan"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant seeks to subdivide certain parcels of land assembled in connection with the Aviation Mall project into ten (10) parcels, as shown on the Subdivision Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board hereby establishes itself as the Lead Agency for purposes of uncoordinated SEQRA review of the Applicant's Application; and WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury Town Board (the "Town Board") previously reviewed the 106,000+/- square foot gross leasable area ("SF GLA") expansion of the Aviation Mall in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and concluded that the expansion would not have any significant environmental effects and issued a negative declaration; and ~ WHEREAS, by Resolution dated ,January 22, 1991, the Planning Board granted Site Plan approval for the 106,000+/- SF GLA expansion of the Aviation Mall in the Town of Queensbury, New York; and WHEREAS, by Resolution dated March 15, 1994, the Planning Board modified the January 22, 1991 Site Plan approval by reducing the size of the expansion to 105,000+/- SF GLA, and other changes, and found that the potential environmental impacts were previously determined by the Town Board with respect to the Aviation Mall expansion and that the Site Plan modifications did not result in any potential negative environmental effects and did not warrant further or additional SEQRA assessments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board scheduled and held a public hearing on the Application on April 26, 1994 and notices of the hearing were published, posted and mailed in accordance with the requirements of the Town of Queensbury Subdivision Regulati~s and state statutes, (collectively, "the Subdivision Regulations"); NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Planning Board establishes itself as the Lead Agency for purposes of uncoordinated SEQRA review of the Application and EAF; and that the Planning Board determines and concludes that based on the record before the Planning Board, the information set forth in the Applicant's EAF and Application, the approved final site plans and the Subdivision Plan that the subdivision of the subject parcels is an unlisted action as defined in 6 NYCRR Part 617.2(kk) and that no potential negative environmental impacts will result from granting the subdivision approval. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board hereby makes the following findings, determinations and conclusions: 1. The Applicant is the owner or contract vendee of 56.57+/ acres of land generally bounded by Aviation Road to the north, U.S. Route 9 to the east, lands of Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation to the south and Interstate 87 .0 the west. Applicant owns Parcels 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10. Parcels 3, 4, and 6 are to be conveyed to the Applicant in accordance wi th three executed Purchase Contracts. Parcel references in this Resolution refer to the Parcels as designated in the Application and on the Subdivision - 17 - '-' -- Plan. 2. The Applicant has applied for the subdivision of certain parcels of land, which is outlined in detai 1 on the Subdivision Plan and in the Application, in ~rder to satisfy lender imposed requirements necessary to finance the construction of the previously approved expansion to the existing Aviation Mall. 3. The requirements of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met with respect to the Application. The Planning Board and the Town Engineers have considered the full EAF, the prior SEQRA review of the 106,000+/- SF GLA expansion, which included comprehensive review of among other things, a Traffic Impact Study, a Drainage Report and a Soils Report, the Site Plan approval for the 106,000+/- SF GLA expansion, the March 15, 1994 Site Plan modification which reduced the expansion to 105,000+/- SF GLA and the March 15, 1994 Planning Board SEQRA Findings of no potential negative environmental effect in connection with the Site Plan modifications. The Planning Board hereby adopts and incorporates by reference those portions of the above referenced documents relevant to the issuance of this subdivision approval. 4. Approval of the Application will have no adverse impacts on the environment. a. As part of its prior SEQRA review the Town Board found and the P Ianni ng Board concl udes that the 106,000+/- (now 105,000+/-) SF GLA expansion will not result in any significant impact on site- related traffic or drainage. The proposed subdivision will not change the use or alter the existing Site Plan approval, and the Planning Board finds that the proposed subdivision will not significantly effect traffic or site-related drainage. b. Additionally, the Town Board also found that the 106,000+/- (now 105,000+/-) SF GLA expansion would not significantly impact soils or the permeability thereof and that the existing soils on site are capable of supporting the type of development approved. The Planning Board concludes that the proposed subdivision will not have any impact on the existing soils or permeability thereof located on the site. c. As part of its prior SEQRA review, the Town Board concluded that the proposed expansion would not have significant adverse effects on other issues such as parking, fire access, solid waste or noise. d. The Planning Board previously found that the Site Plan modifications would not result in any new potential environmental impacts not already studied and fully mitigated. Consequently, based on the Record before it, including the Appl ication and EAF, the Planning Board hereby determines that the granting of the subdivision approval requested by Applicant will not result in any potential negative environmental effects. 5. Except for the variances granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals by Resolution dated April 21, 1994, each of the proposed structures and relating parking improvements comply in all respects with the requirements of the Town - 18 - ~ -- of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance (the "Zoning Ordinance"), and the Town's Subdivision Regulations. Moreover, upon completion of the 105,000+/- SF GLA expansion,the expanded mall in its entirety will comply in all respects to the Town's Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations. 6. The proposed subdivision of the site assemblage parcels does not alter the character of the existing Aviation Mall nor the approved expansion thereto, does not change the i den t i ty of the i nvo I ved agenc i es or the scope 0 f their jurisdiction, and does not alter or affect the environmental analysis considered by the Planning Board in connection with the previously approved 105,000+/- SF GLA expansion. 7. Consistent wi th social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable al ternatives thereto, this action minimizes or avoids adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVED that the sketch plan review process as outlined in Article III of the Queensbury Subdivision Regulations has been waived by the Planning Board. IT I S HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVED that because the proposed subdivision does not involve construction of a residential subdivision, all improvements to be located on the subdivided real property have been previously approved by the Planning Board during site plan review of the expansion, and none of the improvements are to be dedicated to the Town upon completion thereof (but rather will be maintained in private ownership by the Applicant and operated as part of the extended Aviation Mall), the Planning Board hereby waives the requirement that the Applicant post a construction bond. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVED that the Application to subdivide the parcels of land making up the Aviation Ma-ll, as depicted in the Application and on the Subdivision Plan, is hereby approved for Preliminary Subdivision notwithstanding the recommendations of the Warren County Planning Board. IT IS HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVED that a special meeting is hereby scheduled for May 3, 1994 to review the Applicant's Final Subdivision Plan Application. DATE: Timothy Brewer, Chairman Town of Queensbury Planning Board Duly adopted this 26th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. MARTIN-How soon will we have the final application? next day or two we'll have that? In the MR. STEWART-Yes. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Bob, do we have any indication that the Zoning Variance was acceptable to the lenders? Have they seen that at all? - 19 - "-- -../ MR. STEWART-It's my understanding that they've had preliminary meetings. I haven't heard any squawk yet. MR. BREWER-Okay. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-94 RONALD NEWELL/GARFIELD RAYMOND OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE PROPERTY INVOLVED: CF-23, PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN COUNTRY CLUB RD. AND BAY RD. ZONE: UR-IA, SFR-IA, MR-5 AREA OF PROPERTY: + 30.81 ACRES A PROPOSAL TO CREATE A 3 LOT SUBDIVISION - TO CONDUCT A REGULATED ACTIVITY WITHIN 100' OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 24-1993 . RONALD NEWELL/GARFIELD RAYMOND, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Scott, we have notes? MR. HARLICKER-Nothing formal on this one, but I spoke with DEC Office up in Warrensburg regarding any sort of Wetlands Permit that they would require. Normally, in the past, what the Board has done is, with the Wetlands Permit, they generally defer to whatever regulatory agency has jurisdiction over the wetlands. In this case it's DEC, and they don't issue any permits until some sort of actual construction is going to take place. They don't consider a subdivision a regulated activity, as far as Wetland Permits go. So, you're free to do as you see fit with the Wetland Permit. I don't see any problems with it. MR. MARTIN-There's really actually nothing occurring within the wetland except merely the drawing of a lot line boundary. '* MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. BREWER-So, when they go to build something, then ENCON will issue a permit. Will they have to come back to us? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Yes. So it would be for site plan, and at that time, also, I think there would probably be yet another Wetland Permit needed from this Board, as well as site plan approval, and at that time, you'd also need a DEC Permit. MR. BREWER-Well isn't the wetlands on Lot One, or does it go into Lo t 2 ? MR. MARTIN-It goes into both. MR. HARLICKER-Both. MR. BREWER-But Lot 2 and Lot 3 are on Bay, and they're going to be commercial purposes? MR. MARTIN-Well, the rezoning that they got from the Town Board onl y goes to that hundr ed, or the flagged boundary 0 f the DEC Wetland. At that point, it changes from MR-5 to UR-IA. That's the zone change. MR. BREWER-And Lot 1 remains residential? MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's completely residential. In MR-5, as you may recall, the only commercial use permitted is the office within 1,000 feet of Bay Road. MR. BREWER-Okay, but, again, my question would be, if this Lot 1 is residential, why would they have to come in for site plan for that house? MR. MARTIN-They wouldn't for that. I was talking about the MR-5, any office development there, anything like that. MR. BREWER-Okay. It'll be monitored by you anyway, when they come - 20 - --- -- -- in for a building permit, because of the wetlands. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-I don't have any problems. Does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. MARTIN-There's a public hearing for this. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open the public hearing. here to comment on this project? Is there anyone PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DON MOHLER MR. MOHLER-My name is Don Mohler. I represent my wife. She owns the property that's adjacent to this land. Maybe you could explain to me a 1 i ttle bi t about this Wetlands Permi t. What does it consist of? I thought wetlands were wetlands? I thought once you had a designated wetland you couldn't do anything with it? MR. BREWER-Jim, he wants to know a little bit about the Wetlands Permi t . MR. MOHLER-I thought when you had land that was devgnated as wetland you couldn't do any building on it. MR. HARLICKER-Not without a permit. MR. MARTIN-Not without a permit from both this Board and DEC. MR. MOHLER-What do you have to do to get a permit? MR. MARTIN-Well, you'd have to show, there's various things that are involved, impacts to the wetland itself, plants and so on, development has to occur in a certain manner. DEC has a set of regulations for that type of development within a wetland, and I, it varies on what the development is. MR. MOHLER-I was told by the people up in Warrensburg that mY property is wetlands, that I couldn't even go up there and cut a bush down. MR. MARTIN-You couldn't without a permit. MR. MOHLER-They never even told me that I could even ~ a permit. MR. MARTIN-Well, anybody can get a permit. MR. MOHLER-One other comment here. The notice that was sent out by you people, here, talked about an area of 15 acres, proposing to subdivide it, and Mr. Raymond here sent a letter out which talks about lQ acres. Now, am I confused, or? . MR. BREWER-Scott, he says we have a notice that went out that says a wetlands permit for 15 acres? MR. HARLICKER-I don't know what the notice was. I didn't read it. MR. BREWER-May I see that? MR. MOHLER-Would you like to see that? MR. BREWER-Yes, please. MR. STARK-Total area of the wetlands is 15 acres. The subdivision is 30 acres. MR. BREWER-It says, area of property, 15 acres. - 21 - -- -" MR. STARK-No. The area of the wetlands is 15 acres. The property is 30 acres. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. BREWER-Okay. All right. Well, if they're talking about the area of the property of the wetlands, then this is right. There's 15 acres of wetlands on this property? MR. RAYMOND-Approximately. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. So then this notice is saying to you that the area of wetlands on this subdivision. MR. MOHLER-You're making three divisions out of this? Mr. Raymond says three divisions out of the 30 acres. MR. BREWER-Right. No. He's not making 15 acres. What they're saying here is, contains the wetlands is approximately for the subdivision is over 30 acres. things. One is a Wetlands Permit, and three divisions out of this the amount of property that 15 acres. The whole parcel It's two totally different one is a Subdivision. MR. MOHLER-Well, what bothers me is hearing you talk about a three lot subdivision, Mr. Raymond's letter, a three lot subdivision here, and you're talking about 15 acres, and he's talking ,bout 30 acres. MR. MACEWAN-But this notice is reflecting upon just the Wetlands Permit application, and that application for the Wetlands Permit is for 15 acres of wetlands, not 30 acres. They're not subdividing that 15 acres. They're seeking to get a permit for that wetlands which covers 15 acres. MR. MOHLER-Whoever writes this is not very clear in their english. Now, what's going happen, if this is approved? What's to take place here in this subdivision? MR. BREWER-We have no plans in front of us for it. Anything he puts on it will have to come in for a permit, for a building permit or a si te plan review on the Lot Number 2 or 3, for conmercial purposes. It will have to come in for site plan review. Then it will be reviewed by this Board, and approved or denied. If there's a home built on Lot 1, he'll have to come in and get a building permit, which Mr. Martin will review, and see where the,house is placed, or whatever, and if there's a permit to be issued to build that, then Mr. Martin will issue it, or ENCON will issue the building permit for the wetlands. MR. MOHLER-Well, was told that there was going to be consideration of an apartment going on that lot that's on Bay Road, and if that's so, my question is, you don't have sewer up there, and I'd hate like hell to live next door to a septic tank system that was taking care of an apartment house. MR. BREWER-I'm sure, sir, if that does come to this Board, it will be taken into consideration. MR. MARTIN-If you would care to stay around for the end of the meeting, there's going to be a discussion of that apartment project before this Board, and it's mY understanding that the preliminary proposal with that project is to extend the sewer to that project. MR. MOHLER-What assurance do you have that it will be extended? MR. MARTIN-It'll have to be in the site plan that comes before this Board. - 22 - - ~ MR. BREWER-And if this Board says that it's approved with that stipulation, then if the sewer's not extended, he can't build it. MR. MOHLER-It makes me feel much better, I'll tell you that. MR. MARTIN-So I would encourage you to stay around, beéause it's going to be disçussed. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to comment? PAULA NORTON MS. NORTON-Paula Norton. I'm on Country Club. I just want to know where the wetlands fall in regards to this, because this is going to, like be my side yard, my back yard. MRS. lABOMBARD-Paula, have you seen a map? MS. NORTON-No, I haven't. I just got the letter in the mail last week. Okay. They showed me. I just wanted to know where the wetlands were in relation to my property. MR. OBERMAYER-Do they have to come in front of us, the Planning Board, if we subdivide this, just to build one house on Lot Number 1? « MR. BREWER-No. MR. OBERMAYER-They don't? MR. BREWER-Not for a house. MR. STARK-Even if involves wetland? MR. OBERMAYER-Even if it involves a wetland, because it is a partial wetland. MR. BREWER-If they have to get a wetlands permit to build a house, then you would, but they have to go to EN CON also. They don't have to come in on a 15 acre lot to build one house. They don't have to get a permit from us to do it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Sir? BRYAN DURANT MR. DURANT-Bryan Durant. Who determines what is a wetland? Is that the State, or is that? MR. BREWER-The State, ENCON. MR. DURANT-ENCON. When was that last done? MR. BREWER-October '92. MR. DURANT-Okay, because it is wet in there. I was wondering what happens when you build the houses on Lot 1. MR. MACEWAN-A house. MR. BREWER-What's the zoning on that, Lot 1? MR. MARTIN-It's UR-1 Acre. According to the density, it would be allowed 15 dwelling units, but the wetlands is obviously a concern, and likely a limiting factor to that. p MR. BREWER-Fifteen units? MR. MARTIN-Fifteen dwellin~ units. - 23 - - -- MR. BREWER-That's the density allowed on it, but, according to the Subdivision Regulations, you're supposed to back out the deve~opabl7 land, ~irst of all, and I think would be a key consIderatIon. That s not developable, obviously, if i~'s wetland. M~. MACEWAN-Suppose they were able to bui ld, say, a maximum of eI~ht houses on that parcel. Wouldn't that kick it into another subdivision, for eight houses? MR. MARTIN-Yes. Any parcel, further parceling off of these lots or subdividing these lots would have to, again, come back for another round of subdivision review before this Board, and a public hearing, and so on. MR. BREWER-So, the whole Lot 1 is UR-l now? MR. HARLICKER-No. There's a small section fronting Country Club Road, about an acre, that's SFR-IA. MR. BREWER-Well, I thought that went to the Town Board for re- zoning so that they could get this thing straightened out, so it wasn't three zones? MR. RAYMOND-That's what we wanted to do, but if you remember, everyone was kind of. MR. BREWER-I remember, on the PlanninR Board, they wanted Country Club Road left residential. MR. RAYMOND-Left residential. So what they agreed to do was just rezone the front MR-5, to keep the remainder of the property UR-l, and the SFR, leave it as is. MR. MARTIN-It was discussed at the Town Board level that the presence of the wetland was really in keeping, if you read the purpose and intent of the UR-l Acre zoning. It was more in keeping with that than allowing MR-5 over the whole parcel. I think that's the way the proposal originally came in, and, obviously, that's the our most dense residential zoning district. That's eight units per acre. It didn't seem appropriate, given the amount of wetlands there. So the Town Board decided to leave it as it was, except for that front portion on Bay Road. . . MR. RAYMOND-But if you notice, you look at the property, the bIg buffer is the wet area, the wetland on it. So that's what they were basically saying. You're not going to build on that anyway. So lets keep Country Club area residential, and lets make Bay Road MR-5. So that's what we ended up with, and that's why basically the line's being drawn down the center. MR. BREWER-So how do you determine the density, Jim? It's either/or UR, or SFR, One Acre, anyway. So it doesn't make any difference. Okay. Any other questions? BILL PREECE MR. PREECE-Bill Preece. I'm right next to you. Why three? Why not just two sections? MR. RAYMOND-Because we wanted three sections. MR. PREECE-That's what I'm asking. Why three?... Why not two, because the long range forecast coming up is some sort of building. I know we went through all that, as far as DEC. MR. RAYMOND-I'm not sure I understand the question. MR. PREECE-Well, what we're looking at, most of us that live around there, I don't think we want more buildings, because, I'm on Country Club Road now, and that's pretty wet down there now. I - 24 - -- ...- don't want to be below water. I f you keep bui lding in that wetland, where the heck's that water going to go? MR. RAYMOND-Well, ask Westwood where it went, right down the middle of ours. We wanted three lots, and that's what we're here for. MR. NEWELL-You asked why we did three lots? MR. PREECE-Yes, why not two? MR. NEWELL-Because he and I are dividing the property. We haven't been able to sell it. So he's going to do what he wants to do, and I'm going to do what I want to do, and so we whacked it up this way, and it seems to be a (lost word) to the property. MR. PREECE-That's the answer. Okay. MR. MOHLER-Can I ask another question? MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. MOHLER-I was told that any subdivision here on Bay Road had to be 300 feet. Is that correct? MR. MARTIN-What you are referring to is there is a requirement for double the lot width, when you're fronting on a major arterial road or a collector arterial road, like Bay Road is, but what happened was, when that was rezoned along that front Bay Road portion, to MR-5, the minimum lot width went down to 75 feet, but then you have to double that, because they're fronting on Bay Road. You double it to 150, and they're at 164. Let me just confirm those numbers. It might be 80. MR. MOHLER-Is this a recent ruling? MR. MARTIN-That's always been the case, that you have to have double the lot width. Well, it's been that war· since 1988. MR. MOHLER-Well, I was up here a couple of years ago, when my wife first got this property, and I wanted to subdivide with my brother. I have 540 feet. MR. MARTIN-Yes. What would have changed that was their change of zone. This was, I think, UR-l Acre, this whole section, and when they rezoned that to MR-5, last year, the minimum lot width is, yes, is 80 feet, so you double that, it goes to 160. I stand corrected. MR. MOHLER-So it was changed? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. MOHLER-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else to c9ffiIDent on the Wetlands Permi t? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Any comments from anybody on the Board? Would somebody care to make a motion? MR. MACEWAN-Do we have to do a SEQRA for it? MR. MARTIN-No, I don't believe so. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACEWAN-Just so I have this straight. They need to retain a Wetlands Permit just for the sake of subdividing this into three - 25 - -- -- parcels? Correct? And any additional plans for this subdivision, anyone of those three parcels would require you to come in and get another Freshwater Wetlands Permit, to do any kind of building or site plan? MR. HARLICKER-No, only if the building or construction is done within the wetlands or within 100 feet of the wetlands. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. That's not likely to happen, that they are going to be infringing on that 100 foot buffer, based on the way things are now? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I t looks I ike they can stay away from the wetlands, if they, with some creative designs. MR. OBERMAYER-You see, they are, because Lot Number 3, on the drawings it says, 100 foot setback for Lot Number 3, for their proposed building, on the left hand side of the drawing. So they are going to proceed with developing Lot 3. MR. BREWER-Well, if it's commercial, it has to come to us. MR. RAYMOND-It's going to have to have a site plan. MR. BREWER-Site plan anyway, if it's commercial, for two out of the three. MR. OBERMAYER-For two out of three lots. MR. MACEWAN-And if you want to develop Lot Number 1 with more than one house, you're going to have to come back. MR. RAYMOND-We've got to come back. MR. BREWER-I'm saying, if it comes in for any type of commercial development on Lots 2 or 3, then it will have to come to us for a site plan. MR. NEWELL-You have to (lost word) commercial, period, unless it's rezoned. The best we can do is come in with the, MR-5. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry, MR, office building, I'm thinking. MR. RAYMOND-It has to come in for site plan. MR. BREWER-That's what I'm thinking. MR. MARTIN-Or even the apartment complex, apartments there, are site plan review. MR. BREWER-Yes. Lets move on. MR. MARTIN-Mark makes a good point. He's sa~ing, in terms of the actual resolution on the permit, you should hold off until after you do the SEQRA in connection with the subdivision. Then you can do a resolution on the Wetlands Permit and the Subdivision, after the SEQRA. MR. BREWER-Okay. We can do that. So we'll hold off on this until we get through the SEQRA on the Preliminary Stage. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Would you do it contingent upon the negative dec, and the SEQRA? MR. SCHACHNER-I'd just as soon you waited, just because you're supposed to have done your SEQRA resolution/before you take any action. MR. BREWER-Okay. - 26 - -- -- MR. SCHACHNER-It's just a cart and horse. That's all. MR. BREWER-We'll go to the next item, then. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 24-1993 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED RONALD NEWELL/GARFIELD RAYMOND OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ,ZONE: UR-IA/SFR- lA/MR-5 LOCATION: BETWEEN COUNTRY CLUB RD. & BAY RD. CREATION OF THREE (3) LOT SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: PlI-94 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-16, 11, 41.1, 44 SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RONALD NEWELL/GARFIELD RAYMOND, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 24-1993 Preliminary Stage, Ronald Newell/Garfield Raymond, Meeting Date: April 26, 1994 "PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to take four lots totaling 30.81 acres and subdivide them into 3 lots of 15.12 acres, 14.09 acres, and 1 acre. The property has a large DEC flagged wetland on it. There is 1.64 acres of lot 1, fronting on Country Club Road, that is zoned SFR-IA with the remaining 14+ acres zoned UR-IA. The front part of Lot 2 including lands from Bay Road back to the flagged wetlands is zoned MR-5 and the wetlands are zoned UR-IA. Lot 3 is zoned MR-5. PROJECT ANALYSIS: The conditions of sketch plan approval have been complied with. They included showing the zoning districts, combining the 1.64 acre pardel with lot one and making lot 3 conform to the lot width requirements. The applicant is not proposing any development on these parcels; however, a third party has expressed an interest in constructing a multifamily development on lot 3. Because of the wetlands and the low, level topography, development of the interior of lots 1 and 2 will be difficult. Extension of the sewer line up Bay Road will improve the development potential of lots 2 and 3 as well as aid in mitigating adverse environmental impacts associated with development of these parcels. Development of lot 1 wi 11 be difficult also. The 1.64 acres fronting on Country Club Road is limited to one single family home and development of the remaining 14 acres is restricted because of the wetlands." k A . f b d on the Board? I ' 11 MR. BREWER-O ay. ny questIons rom any 0 y open the public hearing on the subdivision. Is there anyone that wishes to comment on the subdivision? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-This is a Short Form, Jim? It's Unlisted. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 24-1993, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the Planning RONALD NEWELL/GARFIELD RAYMOND, and 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. - 21 - '- .-' 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a pro j ect has a s igni f icant 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 requiPed by law. Duly adopted this 26th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we can do a motion for the Wetlands Permit. Would somebody care to offer that? MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-94 RONALD NEWELL/GARFIELD RAYMOND, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: For property involving GF-23, Property 10caWed between Country Club Rd. and Bay Rd. Duly adopted this 26th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel MR. MARTIN-We have a resolution on the Subdivision. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 24-1993 RONALD NEWELL/GARFIELD RAYMOND, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Whereas, the Town Planning Department is in receipt of preliminary subdivision application, file ~t 24- 1993, to subdivide a 30.81 p~çel into 3 lots of 1 acre, 14.09 acres, and 15.72 acres; and Whereas, the above application following: 1. Sheet 1, survey map, revised 10/25/93; and referenced preliminary subdivision dated 3/24/94 consists of the Whereas, the above f i 1 e is s uppor ted with the fo llow i ng documentation: - 28 - -- -- 1. Staff notes, dated 4/26/94; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 4/26/94 concerning the above subdivision; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision has been submitted to the appropriate town departments and outside agencies for their review and comment; and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Whereas, the proposed subdivision· is subject to the following modifications and terms prior to submission of the plat in final form; Therefore, Be It Resolved, as follows: The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve preliminary subdivision Ronald Newell/Carfield Raymond, file ff 24-1993 Duly adopted this 26th day of April, 1994, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ruel DISCUSSION ITEM: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN PROJECT ON BAY ROAD (NEWELL/RAYMOND PROPERTY). RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT MR. SCHERMERHORN-My name's Rich Schermerhorn. I'm here to propose, onCarfield and Newell's piece, an eight unit apartment building on Lot 3. I know this is only discussion, but I just wanted to get the Board's comments and maybe the public's, at this point, before we get into the project, and just go from there. MR. MACEWAN-What's it going to look like? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The same as Meadowbrook, if anybody's familiar with the eighteen I put down there. I am proposing, also, to run the sewer line 550 feet. Now, I know there's some involvement in that process. We have talked to Paul Dusek, the Town Attorney. I am willing to run it, at my own expense, .,.the 550 feet. I have talked with Mike Shaw from the Sewer Department, and I'm fully aware of what's involved. I just wanted to, basically, get everyone else's comments on that. MR. BREWER-Whereabouts does the sewer end right now? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right in front of. MR. STARK-The Harvest Restaurant. MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Actually, it has been extended to the Ballet Center. The manhole is right in front of the Ballet Center, and they also ran another 10 feet past that. So you could tap on to it very easily and run it down. MR. BREWER-So how far do yoU have to go? - 29 - '-' -- MR. SCHERMERHORN-About, approximately, 550 feet to hit lot 3. Now I've had estimates already done by O'Connor's Construction Company, and a few others in the local area. I'm fully aware it's got to be done under State spec's, Mike Shaw's specifications, the Town Board's, but I'm willing to pursue it. MR. BREWER-What's the status of the sewer goiag up Bay Road anyway, Jim? I know there's been discussion because of Bay Meadows, or not necessarily Bay Meadows, but on Passarelli's development, the College? MR. MARTIN-The last I heard is Mike Shaw is preparing a scope of services to retain an engineer to do a map plan and report on an extension. I think, at the earliest, most ideal, you're looking at at least a year, and that's if everything goes smoothly and a decision is made to undertake the expense. MR. BREWER-And when do YQY plan on doing it, Rich? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, obviously, I have to wait for Newell and Garfield to get their final, but I have approval, at the present time, from a local bank to do this project. It's all contingent on, of course, getting the subdivision approved, and then, of course, just going through my site plan with you people, and meeting all the right steps, and. then I could start. Realistically, it looks like, I bet you August or September, by the time we're all done, but then again, Mike Shaw indicates to me that it may be a lengthy process, as far as getting the sewer extension. I don't know if we're going to call it a sewer extension, or whether, or an outside user. I'm not sure yet. MR. BREWER-I guess, who will determine what size pipe and everything, Mike Shaw? MR. MARTIN-Mike Shaw will comment on that. I know he'll want to likely see it in a size large enough to accommodate future growth north of here. MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-Rather than just a four inch line, or something like that, maybe take it up to a foot or a foot and a half, or whatever he deems appropriate. MR. PALING-If you're building before the sewer is really finalized, if that's putting it right, are you running a risk of getting into trouble if you can't hook up to a sewer? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, because don't believe you people would approve me at site plan, because I wouldn't be able to provide a septic system that would work properly for this building. So, I need the sewer to do this project. MR. MARTIN-And I doubt very seriously if you'll get your bank financing without that question locked down. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It's already approved. I've got the commitment for it. As far as they're concerned, as long as I have approval from the Town, it's like building a house. MR. MARTIN-That's what I mean. You don't have approval from the Town though, yet. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Exactly. That's why I'm saying. anything until I have the. MR. PALING-Okay. You're going to do that first. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I'm just here for, basically, to get your comments on this and see what you think. can't do - 30 - - -- MR. MARTIN-My only comment, from a Staff point of view, and you've heard this from me before, l' d ~ ike to see the parking in the rear, but that's just a personal opinion. MR. BREWER-Tha,t is a good comment, Jim, only because you drive around this Town, and drive around any town, and when you drive down the road, all you see is blacktop everywhere. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-That's true, but if you are a resident of that building, you may wish to park in the front and have a picnic area in the back, just as we do at home. Really, it isn't such a bad looking plan, if you consider that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I would propose to leave this densely wooded in the front. The lot is densely wooded now, but think of yourself from a renter's standpoint. For example, my Meadowbrook apartments. People like the apartments because of the privacy in the backyards. I know the car s, aes thet i call y, aren 1 t the mos t attractive, but it is a heavily wooded lot, and we can leave it buffered in the front. I.'m not opposed to moving the building back either. The only reason it was put in that position at the present time is because we were proposing to put a septic system in, but the time I figured out it was going to cost to do the system, it would be about the same to run the sewer line, and I think it would benefit everybody. MR. MARTIN-Well, then, my suggestion would be, then, to run the parking in a north/south configuration in the back. Then you have half of the backyard left for barbecues or picnic tables or what have you. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That's fine, too, but I just think, well, I think of the residents in that aspect. I f I was Mr., I bel ieve it's Mohler, next door, and the back of my building's facing his property, and people are out on their decks barbecuing and playing in the backyard, it doesn't offer any privacy, where on Meadowbrook, if you notice my apartments, there are no windows on the gable ends. So it protects e¡erybody on both gable ends of the building, and it's forever wild and wetlands out back, so it's a nice environment for people to have privacy, that's all. MR. BREWER-How far is it from the back of the bui lding to the wetlands setback? MR. MARTIN-He has no wetlands on this lot. MR. BREWER-The setback. MR. MARTIN-Just that setback. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, it's, about 150 feet. MR. BREWER-So you've got plenty of room, before anybody even gets ~ the setback. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That's why I'm here. If you would like to see the building back another 50 feet, I'll come in with my site plan and show it back 50 feet. MR. BREWER-How far back is it now? Is it 75, or no, not even. MR. STEVES-About 80 feet back from the sewer line. MR. MARTIN-It has to be 75 feet, with the highway corridor setback. MR. BREWER-Right. That's why I said 75. Well, how many parking spaces does he have to have, 17? - 31 - -' -- MR. STEVES-We have 17 showing. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I already have a landscaped plot plan as well. I didn't bring it because I figured it's too early for that, but I realize I need that for Beautification Conmittee now, but I'll address all the issues with drainage and everything else when we come for site plan. MR. BREWER-I would like to see the parking, possibly, I don't know. You can look at it two ways, I guess. The dumpster's right out in front. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Keep in mind, the property does slope, gradually, toward the back, and that is wetlands. So if the parking ~ in the rear, then you may have, someone may have greater concern of runoff from the automobiles and salt in the parking lot. MR. BREWER-It's back 100 feet from the 100 foot setback line, though. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. BREWER-So you're 200 feet away. I don't see any problems. Maybe you can just, conceptually just show it. It doesn't have to be a print like this. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just think of, I rent to people with children, and where's a child going to play, in the front towards Bay Road, or do you want them in the back, but in the back, if you've got all those automobiles and people coming in and out, you can't control their speed in and out of the parking lot. That's just a concern. ... MR. BREWER-Does anybody else on the Board have any questions? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. Well, Rich, I owned an apartment house very similar to this in the past. I don't own it anymore, and we had the parking in the front. There is, it is a lot more convenient for the tenants, and, I agree with you, that it's nice to have the play area and some privacy in the back. I think that, if you leave the trees and so some decent landscaping in there, I think it would be fine, but I think that the dwellings, the apartment dwellings on Meadowbrook, need a little, I mean, if they're going to look, if the finished product's going to look like that in the front, then I think it might not be aesthetically appealing. MR. MARTIN-Well, Mr. Schermerhorn is not yet done with his landscaping plan, and as soon as he puts in his third building on Meadowbrook, he is fully going to comply with his landscaping plan, as he's indicated to me many times. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. We've discussed that, and it's very hard to do things in phases, but we've only got one phase of the project left right now, and that's the center building. I mean, the next week or so, we are going to landscape the back and seed the fronts of those right now, and put the bushes across the other building. It's still just a preliminary stage, but. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because the way this is coming in, on each side of the road that's coming in, I mean, a lot can be done there. I see that you just have a narrow road coming in. So you're leaving this to be woods or meadow on either side of the driveway. Do you see where I'm talking about? MR. STEVES-Yes. Everything between the pavement, now, and the property line is wooded. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. That's what I'm saying. MR. STEVES-Of course, we couldn't touch that. - 32 - - -- MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. That would be lovely. That would be Y1li.Y. nice, but I think that just for the accessibility of your tenants, a~d th~ir privacy, it's nice to keep it in the back. That's my vlewpolnt. MR. BREWER-Questions or commenJs, Jim, George? MR. STARK-Yes. Leon, what's the distance between the Bay Road pavement and the property line? MR. STEVES-I don't have a scale with me. MR. STARK-Just roughly. MR. STEVES-On the north end, I'd say it's about 110, and on the south end, that's maybe 90, 80 or 90 feet. MR. STARK-So the building will be a couple of hundred feet back, roughly, 190 feet, from the pavement on Bay Road. MR. STEVES-Yes. That's correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, if that driveway's to scale, and that's 24 feet across, and you bring that out, it's not 110 feet. MR. BREWER-To the edge of the pavement. MR. STARK-On the north side, he said. He said on the north side, Cathy. MRS. LABOMBARD-It's still not. It's more like 72 feet. MR. STEVES-I do apologize, you're right. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, but I'm just saying, 60 feet to 75 feet. MR. STEVES-Yes, that's correct. I stand corrected. MR. STARK-The apartments on Meadowbrook Road, the buildings are fine, but the front is a mess. mean, they really don't look nice at all. MR. SCHERMERHORN-You mean, landscaping? as far as aesthetically, the MR. STARK-Yes. think. I mean, you would agree with that, too, I would MR. SCHERMERHORN-Listen, I've buil t several houses. lot of different. I've done a MR. MARTIN-He still has a whole landscaping plan to install there. He hasn't done virtually any of it yet. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just built ten houses last year, and I built sixteen units in less than a year down there. I mean, I only can do so much, but it is going to happen. I mean, I'm only one person. MR. MARTIN-When are the final two units proposed for that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The building permit's been filed. It was filed in the fall. I just, well, as you know, over the winter, leased everything up. Let's put it ~is way, probably I'll be starting it in July or August, the last few units, but I am, right away, going to seed the backyard, since the people are using that. I'm going to put the shrubbery in front of the other one and get that cleaned up. MR. MARTIN-Do you have your landscaping plan? - 33 - -" -- MR. SCHERMERHORN-And remember, spring haven't been able, it's wet everfwhere. be able to get out there. As a matter topsoil delivered down there now. is just here. I mean, I So, I'm jus t s tar t i ng to off ac t , I'm jus t ha vi ng MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? MR. MACEWAN-Maybe some consideration should be given for possibly moving it back 50 feet more, setback. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don't have any problem with that. The only problem I mi2ht have is if it slopes too much, you know, I'm not going to be able to elevate the building above Bay Road, because Bay Road is built up quite a bit. I just don't want to get involved in, if I have to have a pump system to pump raw sewage back up from the sewer line. MR. STEVES-I would like to make a comment, several comments. One, parking in the rear, now you're pushing the building back. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not worried about parking in the rear. Parking in the front's okay with me. MR. MARTIN-That's just a Staff comment. MR. OBERMAYER-It appears that the property is very level, though. I mean, it's only three foot from front to back. The site is pretty level. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? I guess we'll ask, anybody in the public want to comment? DON MOHLER MR. MOHLER-I'd just like to take a look at the site plan. MR. BREWER-Sure. MR. MARTIN-And just as a note to the public, you'll be officially notified of a site plan, when the site plan application comes in. This is just a very informal di.scussion at this point. MR. MACEWAN-Are you planning on being on our agenda next month? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, I am, if possible. MR. STEVES-Tomorrow's the deadline for submittal. MR. MARTIN-Tomorrow. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Then I don't think we'll make it. MR. MOHLER-Can I make a suggestion? MR. STEVES-Sure. MR. MOHLER-Why don't you move the dumpster over to this side. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That's no problem. They just, when they run this, I have no problem with that. MR. STARK-Tim, who woul~own this Parcel Number 3? Would that be Mr. Raymond or Mr. Newell? MR. BREWER-Or Mr. Schermerhorn. Rich will own it. MR. STARK-On the subdivision, somebody's going to keep two parcel's and somebody's going to keep one. Who's keeping what? I know they said it once before, and I forget. - 34 - .., -- .''''---~ -- MR. BREWER-I don't reme.ber, George. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't think they did make it that clear. GARFIELD RAYMOND MR. RAYMOND-I don't know if it's germane to anything. Mr. Schermerhorn's going to be the one that's going to own the property, whether it's Mr. Newell, or me, or the both of us. MR. STARK-In one meeting, Mr. Newell commented on who was going to own what, and I forget what. MR. RAYMOND-Well, I'll get into it, if it means that much. MR. STARK-I was just wondering, that's all. MR. RAYMOND-That lot will be owned by myself. MR. BREWER-Is that it? · MR. STARK-Yes, that's all. I just had a question. MR. BREWER-Okay. So, you'll bring in some plans, Rich? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, site plan. MR. STARK-But it'll be June, then. MR. STEVES-Our plans are all ready. engineering. We just need a little MR. BREWER-Okay. RICHARD SCHERMERHORN PROJECT ON MEADOWBROOK AND CRONIN RD. RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, PRESENT MR. BREWER-Okay. Rich. MR. SCHERMERHORN-My name is Rich Schermerhorn, again. My proposal is, I've been in here several times, as you probably know. We're in here as a discussion item now, after meeting with Jim, Scott, and a few other Town members. We're not asking for, it's not a zone change or anything. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it is. MR. HARLICKER-It wi 11 be. MR. MARTIN-It's going from SFR to SR One Acre. MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. Just, the problem I'm having is, obviously, I want to subdivide it into some lots. Currently, the way it's zoned now, I can do exactly what it's zoned, except for Meadowbrook and Cronin are arterial collector roads, which means you have to have twice the lot size, and what that means is, basically, on the 5.8, a.lmost 6 acres, it would allow me only one lot on Meadowbrook Road, and I'm just proposing to make it an SR-l Acre, because we are, there's a sewer line there, and City water, and it's not declared wetlands back there, before that issue comes up, and we have a letter from DEC, stating that, but our proposal is. MR. BREWER-You're just changing, you're taking the density of the whole parcel and just putting it on the road? MR. MARTIN-Right. See, SFR does not permit for clustering. Whereas, SR does, and this is a clustered concept, and that's why he has undersized lots of, basically, half acre, a little under a - 35 - ~ '- - half acre. MR. BREWER-So, basically, what's going to happen is he's going to come in for a zone change. MR. MARTIN-Yes, he has to. MR. HARLICKER-And then come back in again with a subdivision. MR. MARTIN-So you're going to be seeing him twice. If this goes through, you'11 be seeing him as a reconmendation for the zone change. - MR. BREWER-If what goes through? MR. MARTIN-This project. You'll see him as a reconmendation for the change of zone, and then you'll see him, obviously, again, at subdivision, if that gets approved. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Now the shaded green area, if the Town would like it, I would donate it for nothing, basically, use it as a conmon walk area for the lots where I'd build the homes, but also because there is an approved, I think, 99 townhouse subdivision right behind where this is going. I just believe, leave some green space and protect Halfway Brook, and that little 50 foot piece where it's shaded there, that's where the Town would have access. They'll get in, maybe service Halfway Brook. Regardless, if I don't buy it, it would still be, basically, landlocked. I just think it benefit the Town. MR. BREWER-You want to change this to SR-20, or SR-l? MR. MARTIN-SR-l. MR. BREWER-What kind of houses do you want to build? Family? Single MR. SCHERMERHORN-Exactly what's in the area now. They can't have basements, for one, over there, because of the high water table. The second thing that most people aren't aware of on Meadowbrook now, is all new homes over there. Through any bank you go through, they're going to be required to have flood insurance, because it's in the hundred year floodplain. Although you can build, you can put your finished floor elevation above the hundred year floodplain, to be out of the designated, whatever they're declaring the hundred year floodplain, but the people have to get flood insurance. So I'm not going to be able to build large homes. They're going to be, basically, what's in there now. MR. BREWER-Single family, though. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Single family. I'mnot proposing any multifamilys or duplexes, because I know that SR-l Acre says that you can cluster it and do like I did on Meadowbrook. We'd state that in the, I don't know, whatever, we'd state it in saying that I wouldn't do that. Also, as you can see, the way it's shaped, we'd have the driveways, to eliminate a lot of curb cuts, but we'd put them together on Meadowbrook, so that there'd basically be just two curb cuts on Meadowbrook, and the reason we cut it up this way is to, well, it works the best way, actually. MR. BREWER-Okay. Another question I've got is, what's going to happen to the water that's there now when you build these houses? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, when you say "there now", if you, all year long, I've been following these lots, particularly on Meadowbrook. They're very dry when you look in there. I don't see any signs of puddling or anything. . do admit down at Cronin, on the lower end of that lot, there is puddling in there. - 36 - '-- '-- - MR. MACEWAN-Which lower end? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Towards Bay Road, Lot 1. I do know that that's why that lot was larger than the rest of them. MR. BREWER-Let me put it this way, then, rephrase it. What's going to happen to the water that's there in the spring of the year, when you put those houses there? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. First of all, like I just indicated, I haven't seen any water on the Meadowbrook lots, any signs of puddling or anything, because I've been following that, on Meadowbrook. Okay. So when I do build the houses, I guess if we need site plan to address that issue, with gutters and drywell pits, like I did on Meadowbrook, for the runoff of the apartments, that's something that could be addressed. MR. BREWER-Weren't we there this spring, and saw big puddles of water there? MR. OBERMAYER-I thought so, yes. It looks very wet. MR. BREWER-It was like a pond there, when we were there this spring. MRS. LABOMBARD-Two weeks ago. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don't believe Meadowbrook. MR. BREWER-I do. We were there. I mean, we stopped and got out and looked. I guess the di spl acement of the water is what I'm wor r i ed about. \ MR. SCHERMERHORN-We're not changing the elevation of the lots that are there now. We're going to leave the elevation. Okay. We're not going to bring in fill or anything like that, because the elevations of the lots are fine. It's just, obviously, I'll probably put the foundations up about a foot, a foot and a half above what's there now, and I can just landscape around them or whatever. I'm not going to go in and change the whole contour of that land. MR. PALING-When you say a foot above what's there now, clarify that. What do you mean~ MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. Say the finished elevation right here, 304. My foundation may go 305, just finished floor, but as a builder, I always leave 12 inches to 18 inches, because you don't want your house sitting right down on the ground. MR. BREWER-Mine is that way anyway. MRS. LABOMBARD-Does that mean you bring in fill? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. MR. BREWER-No. that's there. It jus t means br i ng the block above the ground MR. SCHERMERHORN-You always figure, any house has a basement generally exposed about 12 inches above what's there now anyway. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And then you just, whatever mulch or landscaping you do, you just put a slight taper on it, but we're not going to go in and mound them up or anything. There's no reason for that anyway, because we have the (lost word). MRS. LABOMBARD-So you'll just have the house out of the ground more - 37 - ,,--,.. ' ----- - than 12 inches? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, basically, that's it, no more than what's on there now, what the houses are there now. MR. BREWER-Any questions? MR. PALING-Well, my recollection, when we visited this site, was that the water came closer to the road than you're telling us now. LEON STEVES MR. STEVES-Was that a flooding condition you observed, or was it the groundwater? Was Halfway Brook flooded at that time? MR. PALING-I can tell you the date we were there. MRS. LABOMBARD-I distinctly remember looking across the other side of the street and seeing all this water behind homes on the other side of the street, and I went I my gosh. I thought, those poor people. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. The water table's only about a foot anyway there, right? What's the water table? MR. STEVES-I don't know. It's not hydric soils. So I would say not. You'd have to have hydric soils to have high groundwater conditions in there. It's obviously high groundwater, based upon the elevation of Halfway Brook. MR. BREWER-It's hard to determine whether it was a flood condition or the water just laying there from melt. MR. PALING-And what difference does it make? Water is water. We were there April 13th, is when we observed that water, and it seemed kind of high. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Now when you say, high, did you say on Meadowbrook or Cronin? MR. PALING-Yes, Meadowbrook. MR. OBERMAYER-Meadowbrook, yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right, because the four proposed lots in front of Meadowbrook, like I said, I have the apartments. I go by there every day, and I have watched the water, and where these building lots are, I see no puddling, no signs of any water sitting there. I do know that the Cronin lot, the lower end, does have water on it. MR. OBERMAYER-We don't have to argue about that now. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, we do, because we've been here several times, and I want to, I spent a lot of money for th i s that I thought was going to work the first time, and I just want to put it to rest. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. I understand that. I'll go on, but I'm not here to upset the neighbors. I just want to put it to rest. That's why I'm here. MRS. LABOMBARD-I distinctly saw, on the 50 foot access into the donated land, that's where I saw deep water. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and that's why we're not proposing to do any building there. MRS. LABOMBARD-I mean, I distinctly remember that, because it was really significant. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. See, neighbors Kruger and Coleangelo, - 38 - -" -- there is puddling there. rain. You can drive by right now, from the MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. The thing was, I'm thinking, well, my gosh, if you wanted to go in there and fish or do something or walk in there, you'd have to have waders up to your waist to get through that access road, the little 50 foot access, but as far as your four lots, I'd have to go back and look. I mean, I can't tell you, rich, right now. I don't remember distinctly, but I do remember that that 50 foot access was very deep. MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. Well, I brought this out, I believe it was last September, and everybody's visited the site, and, you haven't, obviously. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, we did on April 13th. We did. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay, but you don't remember it being apparent on the four lots, then, you're saying, you just told me the 50 foot. MRS. LABOMBARD-Not as much as it, no, the 50 foot access is what stood right out. MR. SCHERMERHORN-But that's not fair to me right now, because the water table's going down. So, even if the water's not there, it may not still be 100 percent satisfying some of you people. I just know that the sewer district's there. It can be utilized. I'm not asking to build large homes. I'm not asking to build apartments. I just want to put, there's a need for single family residential affordable housing. MRS. LABOMBARD-What are you going to put, like, a 40 by 25 foot ranch, something like that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Small ranches. One car garage. They've got to be affordable, because, like I said, you can't have basements, which, that's perfectly fine not to have a basement, but everybody kind of knows, as far as resale, it is tough to sell a house without a basement. So that's against me, first of all, and then, people, when they go to get their mortgages, these attorneys now for the bank are going to pick that that's in the 100 year floodplain. They're going to make them get flood insurance. So there's another two to three hundred dollars a year. So that's another added expense that's going to make these lots a little less desirable to some people. So, they're going to have to be affordable homes. When I say affordable, you know that we're talking maybe $75 to $95. MR. MACEWAN-How many square feet are you looking at? MR. SCHERMERHORN-A thousand square feet, twelve hundred. You tell me. This is what I'm here for. What do YOU guys. I'm a builder. I know what the need is, and I'm just trying to do. MRS. LABOMBARD-Obviously, you do. I've got to be really naive, because I just think, I'm that much older than you. I mean, this just scares the heck right out of me to think that some poor person, you know, a couple just married, are going to pay $100,000 for a thousand plus house. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I didn't say $100,000. MR. LABOMBARD-Well, $75 to $100,000, with no cellar, on a wetlands, and then they've got to have that flood insurance haunting them, and it's going to go up, probably, every year. I mean, why do you want to do this? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I have buyers. It's a very desirable area. It's a very nice location. We have people that live, right behind me, that live on the street. It's a desirable area to live. It will, - 39 - - -- I mean, people will buy. I'm the one that has to warranty these homes. I've been in business seven years. I'm going to be in business, I hope, another 50 years in this area. I'm going to be the one that's going to have to put up with all the warranteeing of these homes and stuff. I do not see it being a potential Problem , ' or I wouldn t try and go after the project. MR. BREWER-Okay. George? MR. STARK-No. I'll wait to hear from the public. You're going to let the public speak tonight, aren't you? MR. BREWER-Yes, we are, George. MR. PALING-I've got one more question, if I could. You have inherited this water situation, whatever it is. Is there anything that you're going to do, when you build, that's going to aggravate the water condition for your neighbors, anything at all? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Is there anything I can build? MR. PALING-No. When you bui Id, wi 11 you aggravate the water condition of your neighbors in any way at all? Will you make it worse? MR. SCHERMERHORN-If the homes are built correctly, and they're examined under site plan review, and we put the gutters and we put the. MR. BREWER-We won't examine, well, as a subdivision we will. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, lets make a stipulation for it. I'm not looking to create a problem. I don't believe, for the size houses I'm talking about, we're talking about a lot of runoff that's going to come off these roofs that's going to create a flooding situation. I just built sixteen units on Meadowbrook over there, those large buildings, and I've had no complaints of runoff from anybody. MR. MARTIN-You can, in the context of subdivision review, ask for a drainage report. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I just built sixteen units on a lot that was 350 wide by 130, and this was a perfect spring to test out water problems. I had no complaints from the Highway Department. Jim Piper, the neighbor next door, didn't have any complaints, and the neighbor next door didn't, either. Now, if Jim Piper had any complaints, he would complain about the puddling of water between the two of us. I plan to alleviate that just by, where it's trapped, just trenching that out so that it can runoff out back, but if there was going to be a problem, it would have been there, because those buildings sit lower than what I'm proposing, for these small houses. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll open it up to the public. JANE POTTER MRS. POTTER-I'm Jane Potter, and I'm from Meadowbrook, and, first of all, I don't see where the sewers are going to help the water runoff, because we're not allowed to pump into the sewers. The fact that the sewer is on Meadowbrook Road does not make it buildable. I still don't like this many houses on that small amount of land, but he knows that, and it doesn't matter. If there was any way that he could keep these from being right on the road, he can't. He'd have to set them back in, and he'd be near the water in the back. What I'm saying is, he's now going to put in small houses like we asked for, small ranches, possibly capes, but - 40 - - '- - I still think if he puts in a foot of fill to bring that house up, that's displacing the water, no matter what you do. MR. BREWER-He didn't say he was going to put any fill in. MRS. POTTER-He's going to raise the house 12 inches. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The house, not the ground level. MRS. POTTER-Exactly. How do you pour cement on nothing? MR. BREWER-Blocks. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Blocks. They were poured. MRS. POTTER-The floor is still going to be ground level. The blocks are going to be 12 high, right? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. The floor will be 12 inches. The floor would be here, but I'm not changing the ground level. We're going to dig down to put our footings and foundation in. MRS. POTTER-Okay. What is holding that cement at 12 inches high? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The earth. MRS. POTTER-The fill. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, the preexisting ground that's there. You have a four foot frost wall, okay, because they're going to be (lost word) slabs, but you'll dig down three feet to put your, well, actually, you're going to dig four, a foot for your footing, and then three feet of wall, okay, and then you'll have just a foot of the foundation out of the finished grade of the earth, but even if the foundation is a foot, like I said, I'm not changing the elevation of the land. MRS. POTTER-You're not filling? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I'm not filling. MRS. POTTER-Because on the other houses that you did, on Meadowbrook, you brought in a lot of fill. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Keep in mind, the elevation of Meadowbrook is lower than all the other homes in there, still. If you drive by, it tapers down. Jim Piper's higher than me. MRS. POTTER-Because he has a full basement and he built higher. MR. SCHERMERHORN-How did he build higher? He filled up to it. MRS. POTTER-He brought up to it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and I'm not proposing to do that. So, actually, I should be fearing Jim Piper, not, you know, I should be worried about him, with his runoff, because he's much higher than me. MRS. POTTER-But he was there before, and you knew what you were getting into. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Exactly, and I don't proper ty, and the ne i ghbors don't, general, that's complaining about any no complaints. have a problem, now, with the ei ther. Any neighbor, in runoff on Meadowbrook, I have MRS. POTTER-Meadowbrook, this year, was flooded, completely flooded, just past your buildings on Meadowbrook. - 41 - -- '- ..-' MR. SCHERMERHORN-On the bridge by the Girl Scout. MRS. POTTER-Not the bridge, the road. The road eroded, on the other side of the bridge, near the road that goes into the Girl Scout Camp that sits back here. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, that's the Girl Scouts. That's been a potential problem. I can't control down the road. MRS. POTTER-I'm talking about high water. That's what I'm talking about, high water, and it happens everywhere. My backyard, this year, was totally under water, and it's never been filled. It's the normal grade of the land is all water. You cannot walk in my backyard. First of all, if these houses are going to be, say, round it off to $80, $85,000 houses, why do you have to have so many? You got the land cheap. Can't you just put in, like, two or three, and still make it? Why are you having so many? MR. SCHERMERHORN-What is cheap? Do you know the cost of developinR land? Do you know the cost of what these, everything is costing me so far, at this point? MRS. POTTER-Tops, $70 a square, and you're talking a 1,000 square foot house. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Where did you come up with those numbers? MRS. POTTER-From the lumber company, they'll tell you $65 to $70. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The relevance of a builder's profit, I mean, this is my living. MRS. POTTER-I'm just saying, why can't he build less, and not make so many in such a small area. He could still make a profit, and have less houses, and not so much congestion and so much displacement. MR. STARK-It's not our province. I don't care if he makes money or doesn't make money. MRS. POTTER-I don't care about the money. I'm just saying, can't he, I know he wants to make money, and that's good that he makes money, but he can still make money with less houses. MR. HARLICKER-What's less houses, one, two? MRS. POTTER-Well, whatever the zoning today allows. MR. HARLICKER-Well, he's allowed this, with the rezoning. MRS. POTTER-If you rezone, not with the zoning there today. He wants to rezone to do this. MR. STEVES-With the zoning that exists today, nothing is permitted in that area. Nothing. MR. HARLICKER-One, on five acres. MR. BREWER-One house. MR. STEVES-No, not even that. Double the lot width is 300 feet, on either road. MR. BREWER-He's got four hundred feet on Meadowbrook, Leon. MR. HARLICKER-He could put one house on there. MR. STEVES-One house. MR. HARLICKER-Because of double the lot width, you'd need 300 feet - 42 - "--' --- ...-' of frontage, per lot. MR. BREWER-So he could only build one house. MR. HARLICKER-One house. MRS. POTTER-On Meadowbrook, or one altogether? MR. BREWER-One altogether. MR. HARLICKER-One altogether. MR. BREWER-Okay. MRS. POTTER-Then maybe it's not feasible to build there. I guess if he hadn't already built those other ones down the road, I wouldn't be so against this, but having to look at that, and see how it's so open and so blah. It's a big house. It doesn't conform. It just doesn't look like it, and I honestly am afraid that's what we're going to end up looking at, and of tonight he's changed it to possible ranches. MR. BREWER-Well, we can find out, if this does get rezoned, ma'am, we can find that out, at subdivision, and we can make stipulations, and he's willing to abide by them, that they will be single family. I mean, we can get into that then. Now's not the time for that, but. MRS. POTTER-All right. Then, he would still get this many if it was rezoned? MR. BREWER-If it is rezoned, he'll be able to build five houses. MRS. POTTER-He'll probably get it. MR. SCHERMERHORN- I'd rather make you feel comfortable wi th the decision, than just for the sake of getting it. I'm not trying to do that to upset you people. TED TURNER MR. TURNER-Ted Turner, Meadowbrook Road. I live directly across from the proposed pro j ect. It's too much dens i ty for the land. There's too many houses there for what exists there today. That land is wet, wet, wet, the same as across the street where we live. We get ponding in the spring. We pump. We probably pump three months before we get done pumping in the summer time. That's how long it takes to pump the water to keep it out of our cellar, and then we can't keep it out, many times. I can't keep it out of mine. Now, he's buying this lot for $30,000, and he's putting five houses on this lot. Now he can put one house on there, just remain single family residential. We've got to put up with 91 units over here, that you approved, if they ever get bu i 1 t, and if they do, that's going to push the water table right towards the Brook, and it's going to raise the water table dramatically there. MR. BREWER-I think the water issue is addressed, when we talked to Bay Meadows, Ted. There's engineering for it. MR. TURNER-Yes, I know, but, I mean, their land even ponds. It's all wet in there. There's clay, blue clay, probably four feet down in the back of my house. MR. BREWER-Is your fear that the water is going to come from across the street to your house? MR. TURNER-I've got enough to put up with now. MR. BREWER-I understand. - 43 - ~ ~ MR. TURNER-And all the neighbors have the same problem. Even Jimmy Piper, who built on grade, just graded the topsoil, had water laying right there before he put the cellar in. It's just too much density. It shouldn't be changed, and if they can't sell it for single family residential, for one house, how are they going to sell it, SR, for five houses? Now, that's a complaint of the owner that owns the land, that they can't sell it as single family residential. Now, he's going to come in with five units, and how's he going to sell it, if they can't? MR. BREWER-That's not our concern, whether he sells it or not. MR. TURNER-I know, but I'm just saying, that's part of the problem, is the water, it's wet. You guys drove up and down that road. You know what it is. I've seen the water go right across Meadowbrook Road, by the Girl Scout Camp, 50, 60 (lost word) running. It's just too much. MR. PALING-Do you have a septic system in your house? MR. TURNER-Yes, I do. MR. PALING-You do, and everyone has septic systems? MR. TURNER-They do. MR. PALING-Who can hook to the sewers, when it's put in? MR. MARTIN-They're on there now, and these four here would be hooked on there. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. TURNER-It's there. The sewer s there. MR. PALING-The , sewer s there, but you're not hooked up. MR. TURNER-But you can't pump your stormwater into your sewer. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And I'm not proposing that, if you heard me. said I'm going to put them on crawl spaces or slabs. There are no basements. MR. TURNER-That's fine, Rich, but you're still putting all that weight on the land. The water's got to go some place. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don't believe there's going to be much displacement. MR. TURNER-Mrs. West's house, when Mr. Taft built Mrs. West's house, he dug the water line, the water line is on that side of, on mY s ide of the street. When they dug the di tch for the water service, the water was (lost word). Too much density. MR. BREWER-Okay. GARFIELD RAYMOND MR. RAYMOND-I'd like to make a comment on that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RAYMOND-Garfield Raymond. Listening to the comments going on here, one of the problems l have, being a tax payer in Queensbury, you ran a sewer line up Meadowbrook Road, and one of the ways with which you're going to get to pay for that, help pay for that, is by having a number of buildings hooking on to that sewer line. What you've got here, if you have one building hooked onto it, versus four or five, I don't know how many he's proposing, that's going to enhance, at least the tax base, in that area. The project that he - 44 - .-- -- has suggested is not going to displace any water, at least from what 1 can understand of what he's talking about. All you're doing is just putting in a building on the existing grade, which should not effect any runoff, should not effect any displacement at all. MR. BREWER-But I guess what the people are saying, lays in that 1,000 square feet area, and he puts a The water can't go there, where's it going to go? somewhere. Are you following what I'm saying? if the water house there. It has to go MR. RAYMOND-No, not quite. MR. BREWER-If you've got a sponge, and it's soaked with water, and you put a house on top of it, the water goes somewhere, doesn't it? MR. RAYMOND-That's correct. MR. BREWER-Okay. That's what they're talking about. MR. RAYMOND-But you're talking about a minimal amount of runoff on that. MR. BREWER-We're not talking just about runoff. MR. RAYMOND-You're talking a 20 by 40 foot building. MR. MACEWAN-We're talking displacement, ground displacement. MR. SCHERMERHORN-We're not digging a cellar. So we're not forcing the earth to raise. We're only putting a wall. You put an eight inch wall down on the perimeter of the foundation, and that's it. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a suggestion. I'm a math and science teacher, and I have a brother who's an engineer. Well, isn't there a way that you could calculate, mathematically, using calculus and other engineering techniques, that a hydrologist or a civil engineer could actually go in there, take the area of the foundation that's going to be put in, take a look at the way the perc tests have gone, which I'm sure they go pretty good, and come back and get some kind of mathematically calculations as to exactly how much water could actually be displaced when you have a snow melt that we have now? MR. MARTIN-That's what a drainage report does, and it's within the province of this Board to ask for that, in any subdivision, especially if you run into a case where you feel it's warranted. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, then has that study been done? MR. MARTIN-No, because we have no formal application yet. This is only a discussion item at this point. MRS. LABOMBARD-I see, but I mean, if those figures were there, and we find out, actually, that it would be very insignificant, then there would be really no problem with passing something like this. MR. BREWER-Right. Well, we can ask for that when it comes to subdivision, if it gets rezoned. MR. RAYMOND-I still would like to make a couple of comments. The other comments are, you have double the lot width in this particular area, and that's based on the arterial road, collector road, and, really, I don't know how they got in, I don't know how Meadowbrook and Cronin Road got in there as being zoned that. They're there, but for all intents and purposes, these are not heavily traveled roads. MR. MARTIN-Well, I think that, the reason behind Meadowbrook was, I think, for one thing, I think Meadowbrook has increasingly become more used with its repaving that happened, and also at the time the - 45 - -- --- rezoning was done in' 88, Hi 1 and Park was jus t approved. I twas going to park about 1300 units at the north end of this road, and I think that was the reasoning behind the. MR. BREWER-But there is going to be another 143, or 135 units. MR. MARTIN-One hundred and thirty-three with Mr. Passarelli. MR. BREWER-Right. consideration. So, you have to take everything into MR. RAYMOND-Well, I am. I'm thinking about the tax dollars, that's what I'm thinking about, because we have a problem with the sewer, as far as covering that cost, and if you don't allow construction to happen in areas which you've basically allowed construction to go, because you put the sewer line up through there, how are we going to take and pay for that, and that's my concern. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anything else from anybody on the Board? MR. MACEWAN-Rich, do you currently own the property? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. MR. MACEWAN-Who does? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Mr. McDonald. MR. BREWER-Is there anything else from anybody? MR. TURNER-Water's a problem right now. You get a heavy rain, say we get an inch or half an inch, two inches, that Brook floods. It floods around Mark Steele's house. Luckily they made the culvert bigger, a few years ago, but I've seen it where (lost word) the water, and it floods the Golf Course, on their side, and it floods the land that he's proposing to buy on this side. You don't observe any groundwater in there now because it's all vegetation. The trees are probably soaking it up, a lot of it. If that was a cleared lot, like it used to be, you'd see water. That used to be a cleared lot, when I moved there. MR. BREWER-What would make you comfortable there, Ted, how many houses, three? MR. TURNER-Well, one on Cronin. I don't have a probl em with the one on, that's right on the bend. That's the worst place in God's world it could ever be. We knew that some day it was going to be developed, like I said before, but, you know, you don't maximize just for the sewers. MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. STEVES-You shouldn't have more than four. I think that next time we come in I will bring in the records for my own information, if for no one else's, as to what the sewer taxes are on this particular lot, as opposed to the adjacent owners. MR. TURNER-What do you think 1 pay? MR. STEVES-I agree. MR. TURNER-And I've only got a 100 by 100 lot. MR. STEVES-I think what I'll do is bring it in, because, as understand the taxation, it's based upon the area as well as evaluation of the particular user, and this is raw land. There's no user on it. So I should imagine his taxes are probably burdénsome. It creates, if you will, a burden upon the individual owner to. - 46 - ~ '--' MR. TURNER-That's fine, but if the owner had taken the advantage to sell this lot when he cQuld have sold it, before the sewer district came, he'd have gotten out from under there. That's what the burden on it is, taxes, and that's all there is to it, right there. MR. STEVES-Yes. It's very unfair. MR. TURNER-It is. what's happened. density. It's unfair, but I'm just saying to you, that's I'm saying it's too wet there. There's too much MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have anything else? MR. PALING-I'd just make a comment that I don't think I could vote on this until I saw a detailed drainage report for the number of houses that would be built, and if it came in for one number of houses, and were going to build another number, I still wouldn't know what to do. MR. OBERMAYER-I agree with that, also, and I'd like to see a drainage report. If it is rezoned, I would request a drainage report for the area. MR. STEVES-If it's rezoned, we would have to provide that, as part of the subdivision application. MR. BREWER-Well, I guess this would come to us for a recommendation for rezoning, before it goes to the Town Board. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, that's right. MR. MACEWAN-Is your intent on going to the Town Board in the next month or so to ask for a rezoning on this? MR. STEVES-We are there. MR. MACEWAN-You're already at the Town Board? MR. STEVES-We've made the application. MR. BREWER-So they'll refer it to us, probably, next month. MR. MARTIN-I would say you'd be seeing it, within your next couple of meeting months, Mayor June. MR. STEVES-I'll try to have Charlie Main go over to the site and do some soil testing and see where the groundwater actually is. That might help, in the discussion. MR. BREWER-What's the difference if it floods or it's groundwater, Leon? MR. STEVES-Flooding is a condi tion that's per iodically done by addition either of frost culverts, plugging or undersized, as opposed to groundwater. MR. BREWER-Which is continuously there? MR. STEVES-Yes. It's continuously there. MR. MARTIN-Leon, just as a note on the petition, the Town Board referred that down to the Staff review. We've got a couple of things we found that should be provided, and Scott's written a memo, if you can come by and pick that up. MR. TURNER-I've just got one more comment. The property in the back of my house, in the spring, will pond, when snow melts off, and rain, and it doesn't drain away, probably, for two (lost word) depending on what the weather is. If we get more rain, then the pond still stays there, and the result of that is the soil that's - 47 - ~- -- underneath it, taking water away. In spring, when that Halfway Brook comes up, our water, that water is right there until that Brook goes down. It doesn't go away until that Brook goes down. My pump is still running. I've still got water in my cellar. That's what it is, it's the soil. Blue clay underneath there, and it just won't drain. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else from anybody? Okay, gentlemen, thank you very much. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. BREWER-The last item, I asked to be put on the agenda, just so everybody knows. Mr. Sinclair, his appl ication last week was denied, and I thought about it Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, just so everybody knows, and essentially what we did was put Mr. Sinclair out of business. So I called Jim Martin, asked him if he could have Mr. Sinclair come in and we could discuss his application and maybe come to some kind of a compromise. MR. OBERMAYER-How did we put him out of business? MR. BREWER-Because we denied ·his application, and his application was to run a business on the Corinth Road, and the ramifications of that was, when we denied it, he has no more business there. So, I guess what I'm asking the Board to do is reconsider it and possibly come to a compromise with Mr. Sinclair. MR. PALING-Could we go back over this, just sort of summarize it, so we're all aboard, as to what the background? MR. BREWER-The background was, two years ago, was it, he came in for an application? MR. MARTIN-It had to be September of '92. I think it was my last nigh t on the Board, and that was a September '92 meet i ng. remember it. MR. BREWER-He came in for an application to run his Service Master business. MR. MARTIN-Yes, and one of the stipulations of that, where this all began to go awry was, one of the stipulations was to run a fence along the property boundary along Corinth Road, so we would shut down the access point on Corinth Road, and we gave him a year to comply with that, and it was not complied, or a year to adhere to that condition, and it was not done. Enforcement action was initiated, to the point of going to court. He failed to appear for a court appearance. A bench warrant was issued. He did appear in court and agreed to file a site plan, and that's how it got back to you. In the interim, I think some time in the, we were in the court process, we were in the court process, he met with you, me, and Scott, one afternoon, and wanted to get a feeling for what might be acceptable, and that group that was there said, you might want to consider running the fence just part way, rather than the full distance, because he had a cost estimate that said running the fence was rather costly, the whole length, but it was clearly said at that meeting, as 1 recall, that you have to go back to the Board for this approval, you know, this informal group that's come together here, that's just our opinion, but you have to go back to the full Board, and that's, you know, ultimately, we did get that, and the site plan, but when he failed to appear. MR. BREWER-We denied the application last week. MR. MARTIN-Right. Well, actually, a resolution of approval failed, unanimously. MR. BREWER-Right, the same thing, right? - 48 - -- -- -- MR. MARTIN-Yes. So that's a thumb nail sketch. MR. BREWER-So I guess what I'm asking Mr. Sinclair is to please come up and tell us what you planned on doing. HUGH SINCLAIR MR. SINCLAIR-Well, the fence is up. Part of it's down now because the Kingsbury snowplow came by and pushed the snow up there, but we had the fence across the front blocking off the driveway, which, eliminates the front use of our building, and we've got handicapped parking, and we have parking for the few cars that do come in from our employees. I think we have everything done that we had agreed to. MR. MACEWAN-As I recall, the original approval of the site plan was to have the fence go the entire length of the property on Corinth Road. It doesn't do that. MR. SINCLAIR-No, it doesn't. When I met we a few gentlemen downstairs, they said that perhaps blocking off the driveway, which was the main reason for having the fence there, so people couldn't pull in to the driveway, was the main reason for having the fence there. By having the fence there, we've accomplished that purpose. MR. MACEWAN-But they didn't give you a go ahead to do that, did they? They told you that that would be acceptable to this Board, to just go partially down your property line? MR. SINCLAIR-I thought I was understanding that if I blocked that off, that that was meaning to me that people pull ing in to tha t driveway. MR. MACEWAN-Well, that's what I want to get clear in my mind, what was the understanding, and what was agreed upon. MR. BREWER-Jim stated the understanding. MR. MARTIN-I remember saying it, that we do not have the authority to approve this. You have to go back to the Board to get approval for this change. I remember that was said. MR. HARLICKER-That's what the new site plan application shows. MR. SINCLAIR-And so we sent a new site plan showing where this proposed fence would, accomplishing that purpose, that nobody can pull into that driveway. MR. BREWER-Okay, and I have just one question that sticks in my mind. I recall, when you came to meet with Scott and Jim and myself and told us the cost of the fence was in the neighborhood of $2,000. MR. SINCLAIR-I called Albany Fence Company and asked them what the cost would be for their time and labor to do that. MR. BREWER-I understand that. At that time, I think Scott called around, just to get an idea of the fence, because we thought that was a little high. I think it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $200. MR. SINCLAIR-For, who was going to do the work? MR. HARLICKER-That was just for materials. MR. BREWER-Materials. Just a split rail fence, correct? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MR. BREWER-Who did the work there, that's there done now? - 49 - -. MR. SINCLAIR-I hired a fellow to come and do it. All the people I have are out doing the work that they need to. We've got customers. There just isn't any time for anybody to do anything else. MR. MACEWAN-Has the handicapped access sign and access been taken care of to your satisfaction? MR. MARTIN-We have not gone out to look at it, because I don't officially have a site plan to look at. I mean, I have a new application. I don't even have an approval to, right now all I have is a disapproval. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I'll come right out and ask the question everybody on this Board is probably wondering in their mind. Why did it take you this long to get here? MR. SINCLAIR-I don't want to be disrespectful, but I just don't see the whol e pro j ect as be i ng necessary at all. There' ve been no accidents in that. MR. MACEWAN-I can appreciate where you're probably coming from. You have a simple little plan that you want to do, but zoning and rules are rules, and it's meant for everyone to follow. It's just not meant for a few people to just go off on a tangent and do what they want and ignore what this Town makes every effort to set up so that everyone will abide by it. MR. SINCLAIR-Well, I guess the point is, you know, the fence is up. The parking. MR. MACEWAN-The fence isn't up, according to the approval that we approved and the site plan, okay. It has to go all the way to the property line. That's what we approved that night two and a half years ago. Am I correct on that? MR. BREWER-Two years ago. MR. MARTIN-Almost two years ago. MR. MACEWAN-Plus to make the handicapped access out in the back. MR. SINCLAIR-Okay. Handicapped, and the parking. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. STARK-Craig, what do you propose we do now, though? MR. OBERMAYER-Is the handicapped ramp in? MR. SINCLAIR-There was no request for. MR. BREWER-There's no ramp. MR. MACEWAN-It was handicapped parking. MR. SINCLAIR-There is a sign there for handicapped parking. MR. OBERMAYER-That is in there? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes, and I'd tell you, the several years that been there, we've never had a handicapped person show up. , we ve MR. MACEWAN-I guess maybe I could put it to you in this light, Hugh. What would you if the gentleman across the street from you, on the other side of Merritt Road, decided that he was going to open up an all night truck stop and sell diesel fuel, but didn't bother going to the Planning Board or going through the necessary plans, wouldn't that tick you off just a little bit? - 50 - / '---' -- MR. SINCLAIR-No, honestly, it wouldn't bother me at all. I don't live there. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Well, suppose the guy decides to do it across the street from where you live currently? MR. SINCLAIR-Well, I can understand it, but I live in South Glens Falls there. MR. MACEWAN-Well, it doesn't matter, really, where you live. MR. SINCLAIR-I understand what you're saying, and I appreciate your tolerance with this whole situation. If I would have known it was going to be this much trouble, I would have never bought that property. MR. MACEWAN-But that's the whole thing, I don't think anybody on this Board, or myself included, think it's all that much trouble to ask you to put a split rail fence up the length of your property on Corinth Road. I don't think that's a great deal of trouble, and I think that's, we asked you to do two things on that site plan, put that fence up, and put a handicapped parking sign. That's all we asked you to do, to alleviate anybody pulling off onto your property, or off your property via Corinth Road, and that was the object behind doing that, for safety reasons, simple as that. That wasn't asking a great deal of your site plan. MR. STARK-What do you want to do? MR. MACEWAN-What 1 had in mind was possibly rescinding our motion and making a new motion, if this plan is acceptable to everybody, or would we have to rescind the motion? MR. MARTIN-Well, I was conferring with the Attorney, here. If you want to reconsider that motion, it's his advice that you schedule another public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't have much to say. I don't know, maybe it's form over substance. I have no idea if anyone spoke at the first public hearing, but you're allowed to reconsider your decision, but, obviously, it sounds like you're reconsidering it in a material fashion. In other words, you're not just saying, change something from 10 foot to 11 foot. You're taking a major reconsideration step, and, you know, in theory, the public's entitled to know that. I don't know if anyone spoke at the first public hearing or not. I don't know if there's any practical significance to this, but, you might want to consider that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. STARK-T im, did anybody, when you opened the publ i c hear ing originally, did anybody have any cOßl11ents or anything, that you remember? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think anybody was here for the public hearing. I don't recall anyone being there. MR. BREWER-No, there wasn't, but that's not to say that somebody wouldn't. MR. SINCLAIR-Can I ask, does this fence, now that the front is blocked off, where the people, anybody that's going to drive into our property, now if they have to drive across, there's a little rise there. Nobody in their right mind is going to drive through there. MR. BREWER-No, I agree with you wholeheartedly that's it's blocked up sufficient. The idea of it now is, if we have to reconsider our decision, then we have to go back and have another public hearing, or we can leave our decision as it is, whatever you want us to do. - 51 - '- -- MR. SINCLAIR-I'd like you to pass this thing so we can all put this thing to bed. MR. BREWER-Okay. Then we have to have another public hearing then, that's my understanding. MR. SINCLAIR-What's the other option? MR. BREWER-The other option is leave it like it is. means you're out of business. Then tha t MR. SINCLAIR-Well, lets have a public hearing. MR. BREWER-Okay. I thought that was what you would say. MR. OBERMAYER-Do you think you might show up for this next one? MR. SINCLAIR-Well, you know, I understand how busy you folks are, and this winter has been the most frantic winter we've ever had, hand ling a thousand cas es a month for ins urance ad j us ters, and we're handling a great portion of those, and every night I'm up until one, two o'clock in the morning trying to get these things done, so the public can be served, and that's part of my dilemma, right now, is there's just such a backlog. That's why I couldn't make it there last week, and I'm glad Jim called and said, hey, by the way, where were you last night? MR. MARTIN-Yes, in all candor, I Planning Board meeting last night, That's an exact account. said, were you aware of the and his words were, oh shit. MR. BREWER-Well, the applicant doesn't necessarily have to be here. Is everybody satisfied with this application? MR. STARK-Yes. It hasn't been a problem in three years. MR. BREWER-Well, the problem was, George, that we made conditions. He didn't meet the conditions. MR. STARK-Yes. Do you know what I'm saying? He hasn't had any problems, as far as people driving in, and so on and so forth, you know. MR. BREWER-Right. Do YOU have a problem with it? MR. MACEWAN- I'd I ike to see the fence go all the way to the property line. MR. BREWER-Okay. Bob? MR. PALING-It sounds like he should live agreement, as Craig is saying. Is there shouldn't live up to the original agreement? up to the original any reason why he MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. split rail fence. What's the big deal about I mean, how many feet is it? running a little MR. BREWER-It's 75 feet. MR. OBERMAYER-I mean, if you re that busy doing your work, then just go out and hire someone. MR. SINCLAIR-But, One, it's an economic problem, and, Two, it's a real maintenance trying to mow the lawn. You've got this split rail thing, and the motor, your fence, the grass is going to be this tall next to the fence. MR. STARK-You said nobody can drive in now because there's a hump there? - 52 - '--' ...- MR. MACEWAN-You can drive in there now. MR. STARK-You can? MR. MACEWAN-Yes, you can. MR. BREWER-You can drive into the property. the driveway. You can't drive into MR. STARK-Well, we're going to have to go out and look at that the next meeting, then. On the next site review, we're going to have to go look at it. MR. MARTIN-Well, we've got to have 10 days. So you're not going to make the 3rd. MR. STARK-No, not the 3rd. I meant by the first meeting in May. MR. MARTIN-Let me drop the little bombshell for Hugh while he's right here. Given the fact that we have to readvertise, the application fee is meant to offset our cost of the advertising. That means I need another $25. Just want to make sure we get this all out there. MR. MACEWAN-I guess I can only make this comment. Had you come back in when you were supposed to come back in, or had adhered to the original site plan condition, we wouldn't be going through any of this right now. MR. SINCLAIR-Are you saying that the extension of the fence is your way of punishinR me? MR. MACEWAN-No, sir, not at all. What I'm saying is that the extension of that fence all the way to the property line is what was approved to you in your original site plan, nothing more, nothing less. It is absolutely, without a doubt, not a punishment whatsoever. It is to make you adhere to the original site plan as this Board approved it. MR. SINCLAIR-I feel like the fence, keep people off. I can put a no parking sign. I've never had anybody pull in that area in the two years we've been here, and especially now that we, everybody, even our employees, are so used to pulling in the back. It works out fine. MR. OBERMAYER-I think the fence should go the length of the, what was agreed upon. MR. SINCLAIR-When you agreed, though, you didn't stipulate what the cost was going to be. When I called and asked what the cost was going to be. MR. BREWER-You agreed to it, though. MR. MACEWAN-It's not up to this Board to put a capital improvement price tag on what, if we ask someone to buffer their property with some more evergreens than what's in their plan, they do it, or they don't do it, or they don't get their site plan approved, or denied, it depends on the situation. Your scenario was that we asked to have that property line buffered from any traffic going in and out Corinth Road. You agreed to it. We weren't asking you to put up a ten million dollar fence. MR. SINCLAIR-The biggest problem I have wi th that is that was already there for the longest time. Nobody came by to inspect it. I mean, Fire Marshal Bodenwiser was there a couple of times, inspecting. Nobody from the Planning Board ever showed up. MR. BREWER-We don't inspect it. That's Mr. Martin's job. All right. I guess the consensus of the Board is they want the fence - 53 - '-- ~. to the end of the lot. MR. SINCLAIR-All right. So if it goes to the end of the lot, are we done with it? MR. BREWER-It seems to be, yes. MR. STARK-You've got to come to the next meeting, though. MR. BREWER-Yes. hearing. We're going to have to have another public MR. STARK-The first meeting in May, not May 3rd, but the first, the 19th. MR. BREWER-The first meeting in May. know exactly what day it is, Jim? You'll arrange to let him MR. MARTIN-He gives me $25. MR. PALING-If we're agreeing to do the original, fulfill the original agreement, why do we need another public hearing? We had one. MR. BREWER-That was the advice of our attorney, because reconsidering our motion that we made last week, Bob. , we re MR. OBERMAYER-We denied it, Bob. MR. BREWER-We denied it. We want to reconsider our. MR. HARLICKER-The active site plan before the Board right now is for a split rail fence halfway down. MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. HARLICKER-That old site plan is past. action was taken. It's gone, because no MR. MARTIN-There's nothing before the Board right now. You had an action, and it was denied last week. MR. BREWER-So there's no way we can reconsider that? MR. MARTIN-Not without a public hearing. MR. BREWER-Well, that's not a problem. We're willing to do that. MR. SINCLAIR-But, before we have a public hearing, all of you are saying that nothing is acceptable to you except going all the way to the end of the property? MR. MACEWAN-That's what I'm saying. That's mY opinion. MR. BREWER-That's pretty much the consensus of the Board. MR. SINCLAIR-I ask for a $25 rebate on the plan that I submitted, then. If I'm just going to go all the way to the end of the property, I went through all this paperwork again, to get to get this fence to go halfway across there. MR. BREWER-And we denied it. MR. MACEWAN-That's a chance you took. That's a chance you took coming in front of this Board or any other Town Board, that you might not get the end result you're looking for. MR. STARK-I'm going to reserve decision until we go out there again on site review. - 54 - '- '"-" MR. SINCLAIR-It's just not that dangerous of a project. MR. BREWER-Either way, we've got to come back, have another public hearing, no matter what we do, whether we decide it has to go to the end, or it can be as it is. MR. MARTIN-And the Board's going to accept the application that you had before you last week. I don't have to get him to submit another 10 copies. I want to get all the bad news out on the table here at once. MR. BREWER-Yes. We know what it is. We can, if we decide, at that meeting, that he has to go to the end, we can make it as addition to the fence , that's all. I wouldn't make him go through the application process again. MR. MARTIN-All right. MR. SINCLAIR-Now, what about if the fence goes to the end of the property. MR. BREWER-We'll talk about that at the meeting in May. MR. MARTIN-I still have to readvertise it. fee. I still need the $25 MR. BREWER-We have to have you pay the fee to readvertise. We'll have a public hearing, and we'll make a decision as to whether the fence goes to the end of the property, or it can stop where it is. MR. MARTIN-And you're officially, like, waiving the requirement for an application? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. SINCLAIR-Am I going to come back for another meeting and then I'm going to put the fence up? MR. BREWER-Or not put the fence up. MR. SINCLAIR-Why don't we just put the fence up and everybody agrees that that's what you want it. MR. STARK-You can do that, but we've still got to have the meeting next month. MR. BREWER-Unfortunately, that's not how government works. MR. MARTIN-All right. So you'll have the $25 to me, Hugh? MR. SINCLAIR-Yes. MR. PALING-Tim, what happened to Gray and Wilson? MR. BREWER-Gray had to submit new advertisements to the neighbors, and, Wilson, that's the third. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. BREWER-Jim, can I just ask you, Stewarts. What's going on with Stewarts? MR. MARTIN-I'll have an answer for you by May 3rd. MR. BREWER-Cool Beans. Did you talk to Cool Beans? MR. MARTIN-They're supposed to be in in May. something tomorrow. We should get MR. BREWER-Okay. K-Mart road, do you have any idea when the - 55 - '--' improvements are going to start taking place down there? MR. MARTIN-To the road? MR. BREWER-The walls are going up on K-Mart. MR. MARTIN-I know that, yes. MR. BREWER-I thought we made a stipulation that the improvements were going to be concurrent with the construction of the building? MR. MARTIN-Yes, they will be. I know they made investigations, already, into the signal boxes, to set the signals and all that. MR. BREWER-Physical road improvements, is what I'm talking about. MR. MARTIN-Yes, that'll be done concurrently. MR. MACEWAN-John Shaffer who was here tonight, regarding his sundeck, saying his neighbor has one that's 16 feet high, can you dig out the information on that site plan for us, for our meeting? MR. STARK-That's McCall. MR. BREWER-That's John McCall. MR. MACEWAN-Can you dig out the information on that for us. On motion, meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Timothy Brewer, Chairman - 56 -