1994-07-26
QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
JULY 26TH. 1994
INDEX
Subdivision No. 8-1994
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Wi I I iam Buckingham 5.
Subdivision No. 11-1994
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Malcolm & Betty Batchelder 13.
Subdivision No. 10-1994
PRELIMINARY STAGE
Upper Glens Fal Is Development 20.
Corp.
Site Plan No. 29-94
Upper Glens Fal Is Development 23.
Corp.
Petition for Zone
Change No. 1 -94
Richard Schermerhorn. Jr. 30.
Subdivision No. 9-1994
FINAL STAGE
Craig Seeley 45.
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 MEETING
.JULY 26TH. 1994
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN
GEORGE STARK. SECRETARY
CRAIG MACEWAN
ROGER RUEL
ROBERT PALING
JAMES OBERMAYER
CATHERINE LABOMBARD
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN
PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. BREWER-The first item. Mr. Passarelli. you have something you
want to address us with?
GUIDO PASSARELLI
MR. PASSARELL I-My name IS Gu i do Passare I Ii. I was supposed to
plant trees at Route 9 and Round Pond Road by the first of
August. Because of a delay of DOT. I would I ike an extension of
60 days. tops.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Sixty days.
MR. OBERMAYER-Maybe you could expla)n to us what the reasoning is
behind it.
MR. PASSARELL I-The reason is because DOT is supposed to go
through (lost word) and they're delaying the application.
MR. BREWER-Is there a reason why they're delaying it?
MR. PASSARELLI-One is the entrance. the extra entrance.
MR. BREWER-Is there controversy over that?
MR. PASSARELLI-Well. there's controversy from Jim Martin, who
wants only one.
MR. BREWER-So they should have that straightened up by October?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. We expect. actually, I think that gives plenty
of cushion. We expect that approval on the work permit for the
drainage next week, and he would just miss August 1st. for sure,
but I think as a practical matter, you already purchased the
trees, right? You have them in your possession?
MR. PASSARELLI-Yes.
MR. MART I N-So I th i nk, as a pract i ca I matter. you I I I see them on
there some time in August. but.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
unt i I October?
You're going to do it, not necessarily wait
MR. PASSARELLI-No. They could be down in a week.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Does anybody have a problem with that?
MR. OBERMAYER-No.
- 1 -
MR. MART N- think that was a condition of the subdivision.
MR. MACEWAN-Do you have a number for it?
MR. BREWER-I read those minutes last night. Jim. and
think it says anything about the trees in there. in the
resolution. I think in preliminarv it does. but not
Maybe we can make that a part of this resolution tonight.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. if you're changing your preliminary approval.
T hat was c e r t a i n I y a con d i t ion 0 f the 0 v era I I s u bd i vis ion.
I don't
final
f i na I.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-Guido. with all the rain. has there been any
erosion problem?
MR. PASSARELLI-None.
MR. MARTIN-I think we've been very fortunate. in that that's very
high perced soi I there. a lot of gravel.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Questions from anybody else? Would somebody care to
make a motion for an extension for 6Ø days?
MR. MARTIN-I think if you refer to it as the subdivision on the
corner of Round Pond Road and Route 9.
MR. BREWER-The Passarel I i subdivision.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
MOTION TO GIVE AN EXTENSION UNTIL OCTOBER 1ST. 1994 FOR THE
PASSARELLI SUBDIVISION ON THE CORNER OF ROUND POND ROAD AND ROUTE
9 FOR THE PLANTING OF TREES. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who
moved by James Obermayer:
Duly adopted this 26th day of July. 1994. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan.
Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-Okay. The second item. we got a letter from. do you
want to discuss this letter last. Jim. that you wrote to Ron
Newel I. or do you want to do it now?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
I can discuss it now.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Mr. Newel I made a request of. a request came in from
him. over the telephone. last week asking what would be needed
from the Town for him to clear cut his lot on Bay Road. staying
out of the wetland and the 1ØØ foot buffer. It would be.
essentially. that piece of the lot that fronts on Bay Road
between the edge of the road and the 1ØØ foot buffer of the
wetland. I looked into it. and he has an active subdivision
appl ¡cation before this Board. or he and Mr. Raymond do. It's
rece i ved Pre I i m i nary approva I. and I saw no ev i dence. in the
con t ex t 0 f t hat s u bm i s s ion. t hat he c a I led for any a I t era t ion 0 n
the clearing. and it was my assumption. then. that the Board
approved that appl ication with that understanding. and to adjust
that now at this time would require approval of this Board. given
the fact that there is an active appl ¡cation under consideration.
MR. BREWER-Why does he want to clear it. Jim?
- 2 -
"",
-'
MR. MARTIN-He just indicated to make it as more developable
property. He wants to clear it and bring in some fi II. He
ca I I ed me today on t he phone and he sa i d he doesn't necessar i I Y
agree with my determination on that. and he's going to do a
I ittle looking into the laws relating to that and get back to me.
but I am not of a mind to change my determination. and if he
feels aggrieved by my interpretation. then I think he should go
to the Zoning Board.
MR. BREWER-So
you can't cut
his property?
do or don't.
what happens if we say. okay. Jim. you're right.
it. how can we prevent him from cutting trees on
I don't know that we have a basis for that. or we
MR. MARTIN-This is different than the situation that we had on
Round Pond Road. in that that property had no action before this
Board. There were no current applications or reviews on going.
We have an on going review on this property right now. and in the
context of that Prel iminary appl ication. as a matter of fact. it
went through Sketch and Pre I iminary. in this case. there was
never any indication by the applicant that clearing would be
involved or any selective cutting or anything like that. So. I
think it's going to require approval of this Board to change
that.
MR. MACEWAN-What's the scenario if he withdraws his application.
cuts it. and t hen comes back and re-app lies to us. three. four
months down the road?
MR. MARTIN-Well. then he's into the five year restriction. again.
and I'm trying as best I can to make time to write a Clearing
Ordinance for the Town Board to consider. I think it's a glaring
need. an increasing need. and I'd like to fast track it as best I
can from a Staff level.
MR. BREWER-Is this the piece of property that Rich Schermerhorn
came in and had plans. possibly. to put a building on?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. that's ~ of it.
MR. STARK-That was on Garfield Raymond's hunk of
after they were breaking it up.
it, though.
MR. MARTIN-That's why it was a three lot subdivision.
those lots was a one lot subdivision. on which it was.
One of
MR. BREWER-And that's the lot we're talking about, that he wants
to clear?
MR. MARTIN-No. As it was described to me. it was the whole Bay
Road frontage.
MR. OBERMAYER-Is it more than 5Ø percent of the property?
MR. MARTIN-No.
MR. OBERMAYER-So he could. conceivably. clean it and not be under
any five year.
MR. MARTIN-He can't go within the 1ØØ foot buffer of the wetland.
If you recall there's a wetland. a DEC regulated wetland. going
through there. and there's a 1ØØ foot buffer back from the edge
of that wetland. So it would be just that portion between the
edge of the road and that 1ØØ foot buffer. the boundary I ine of
that 1ØØ foot buffer.
MR. PALING-But we Oouldn't act on this anyway. unless we had a
more accurate description of what he's doing. could we?
MR.
MARTIN-Right.
and from a Staff point of view. we'd be
- 3 -
commenting on temporary erosion control measures. and we would
certainly look to retain as much of the existing vegetation as
practical and al I that. without simply clear cutting the site.
MR. RUEL-We're making an exception here? Has this ever been done
before?
MR. MARTIN-Not since ~ been here. but that's the stand ~
taken. as Zoning Administrator. I don't know what happened prior
to that. if they ever encountered a situation on clear cutting.
but. tom e . it's par t 0 f the s u bd i vis ion a p p I i cat ion. t hat I i m its
of clearing have to be shown. and there were no indications that
any clearing would be done on any of these sites. It was just a
subdivision. and the Board approved it. I think. with that
understanding. I have no knowledge to the contrary. So. to me.
it would require approval of this Board. if that were to change.
MR. STARK-Jim. do you want a resolution from the Board backing
your determination. or what?
MR. OBERMAYER-Is that what you'd I ike to see?
MR. MARTIN~Mark doesn't have a copy of the letter.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Jim. you faxed this to Ron on Friday?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-And he hasn't cal led?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. he cal led today. and he said he doesn't agree
with my interpretation and that he's going to research it on his
own and get back to me.
MR. SCHACHNER-I guess ~ opinion would be that this is a
determination made by Jim. as Zoning Administrator. and that it's
not necessary to have a Planning Board resolution. nor even
necessar i I Y appropr i ate to have a P I ann i ng Board reso I ut ion
agreeing that this is the appropriate way to interpret the zoning
law and the previous approval. As Jim said earl ier. if Mr.
Newel I feels aggrieved or disagrees. or whatever. one avenue for
relief he has is to appeal Jim's determination as Zoning
Administrator to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. BREWER-But isn't the I imit of clearing on the Site Plan. or
the Subdivision. Mark? Doesn't he have to show that if he's
going to clear it?
MR. SCHACHNER-I think the answer is yet. and I think that if what
Mr. Newel I is doing is seeking modification of the previously
approved plan. that's a different story. Then he can make
application to this Board and then we. as a Board. you. as a
Board. wi I I rule on that. but that's not my understanding of what
he was doing.
MR. MARTIN-See. I would view what's
that. It's a modification to the
approved. albeit at Prel iminary Stage.
proposed here as
subdivision plan
exactly
that was
MR. SCHACHNER-Right. but what you're saying is if he wants to
make that an appl ication to the Planning Board. then the Planning
Board has to rule on that.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-But you're saying. as Zoning Administrator. it's
your determination that under the Zoning Ordinance he can't clear
cut unless he makes application to this Board.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
- 4 -
'-.....,
- .</
MR. SCHACHNER-He hasn't done that.
MR. MARTiN-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Then if he wants to do that, then we should either
take a stand and say, yes, it is a modification. and he should
come back to the Planning Board, or, no. it isn't a modification,
and go ahead and do what you want.
MR. SCHACHNER-We I I, guess
determination as to whether
modification I think is his call,
what .L...m. saying is, that
or not this constitutes a
not the Board's call.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. SCHACHNER-If and when it comes back as a request for a
modification. that's clearly the Board's call.
MR. MARTIN-I was just alerting. was copying you on this. so
that you would be informed of what's been going on. I know this
has been before the Board. It's not a completed action yet. and
should this come up, I want you to have. this is the first piece
of correspondence that's gone out on this. and I want you to have
knowledge of it.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So what do we want to do?
MR. PALING-We don't have to do anything.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-That's the background on it,
apprised as it develops. I may even have
Thursday night.
and I'll keep you
more word for you by
MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED
WILLIAM BUCKINGHAM OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: LI-1A
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF CORINTH RD., +/- 350' EAST OF MINNESOTA
AVENUE PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A +/- 6.89 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO
COMMERCIAL LOTS OF 2.955 ACRES & 3.93 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE:
SP 10-94 TAX MAP NO. 127-8-25.2 LOT SIZE: 6.89 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGS
LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 8-1994 Preliminary Stage,
Wi I I iam Buckingham, Meeting Date: July 26. 1994 "PROJECT
DESCRIPTION: Th~ appl icant is proposing to subdivide a 6.89
parcel into two lots of 2.95 acres and 3.93 acres. Both lots
wi II be serviced by municipal water. The larger lot has been
approved for a logging supply business and the smaller lot is not
proposed for development at this time. PROJECT ANALYSIS: 1.
Both lots will be accessed from a common drive which will be
located on a 30' wide strip along the east property I ine. This
strip along the east property line. This strip also provides the
frontage for the rear lot. 2. The rear lot also has frontage on
the dead end of Wisconsin Avenue and the dead end of Michigan
Avenue. However. because these two roads are residential, access
to the rear lot should be from the common drive only. 3. The
appl icant is proposing to extend the water I ine from Wisconsin
Avenue into the rear lot to provide for water service and a fire
hydrant. The clearing for the water I ine placement wi II be
- 5 -
diagonal in order to I imit the visual
impact on the required buffer along
zone."
impact and minimize the
the adjacent residential
MR. BREWER-Okay. I just have one question on your comments,
Scott. It says that both lots wi I I be accessed from a common
drive, which I presume has to be 40 feet to give frontage for the
back lot.
MR. HARLICKER-No. AI I they need is 40 feet of frontage.
MR. BREWER-I understand that. They need 40 feet of frontage, but
you're saying here, on a 30 foot wide strip.
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. BREWER-So the driveway's going to be 30 foot wide, but it's
on a 40 foot wide strip.
MR. MACEWAN-It's actually 35, but he picked up the extra 5 feet
to gain the frontage.
MR. OBERMAYER-How come Staff recommended not to access the site
from two different locations, Corinth Road and Michigan Avenue?
Is that because of the difference?
MR. HARLICKER-Because the rear back there is a residential zone,
and you're going to be having Light Industrial traffic going
through a residential zone. Staff just did not feel that was
appropriate.
MR. RUEL-How do you propose to barricade that?
MR. HARLICKER-Just not clear it. There's a note on the plan that
access wi I I be via a common drive only.
MR.
area?
PALING-But would you not extend the common drive into that
Is that what you're saying, with one curb cut?
MR. HARLICKER-Right. One curb cut wi II service both parcels.
MR. PALING-Okay, and that you would al low at both ends of the
property.
MR. HARLICKER-No, just off of Corinth Road.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay, and the other question I have to the Staff is
how come you didn't recommend making that road a Town road, to
access both commerc i a I I ocat ions?
MR. HARLICKER-It just didn't seem necessary to put in a Town road
to access just two parcels. In the past, it's been done on a
couple of occasions with common driveways. To run a cul-de-sac
in there, which is what would be required, just seems to be a,
take up a lot of land and be a lot of work and expense to service
just these two parcels. Just didn't feel it was necessary.
MR. RUEL-Does this driveway in a right angle at the top up to the
hydrant meet the fire equipment requirements?
MR. HARLICKER-Run this by me again?
MR. RUEL-This long driveway, common driveway, 30 foot wide, is
al I the way to the end, and then it makes a left turn into?
MR. HARLICKER-Well, it just opens up into the, it doesn't really
make a left turn anywhere.
- 6 -
----------~~
--------
-
MR. RUEL-And they propose to put a hydrant there?
MR. HARLICKER-A hydrant way at the top.
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. RUEL-Does al I of this meet the requirements of the fire
department, fire equipment?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They have the hydrant and then the 30 foot
wide access back in there is wide enough.
MR. RUEL-They have turn around space and so forth?
fire equipment have to turn around?
Doesn't the
MR. HARLICKER-Well, it would get in there. and then they've got
the 30 foot wide to. and then they'd access the fire hydrant back
in there. There's no development proposed for it right now.
MR. RUEL-Does this get reviewed by the fire department. or?
MR. HARLICKER-It wi I I.
MR. RUEL-It wi II?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. This is just at Preliminary Stage right now.
Normally with two lot subdivisions I ike this they don't go to the
fire department for review. It would go to the fire department
for review when it came in for the development of that rear
parce I.
MR. RUEL-AII right. I asked earlier about barricading those.
Michigan and Wisconsin. Would that be closed? Could that be
open for emerQencv use, or barricaded permanently?
MR. HARLICKER-It could be.
MR. RUEL-For emergency use it could be open.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. MART IN-Any deve lopment of that rear parce lis go i ng to
require Site Plan Review. and that certainly would be.
MR. RUEL-At that time we could pick that up?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-If you're going to retain a buffer back there. a
wooded buffer. how is it going to be open for emergency access?
MR. MARTIN-That was the one thing I was just going to say. The
definition of buffer is it's supposed to be a total undisturbed
area. If you had an overriding concern about safety and welfare.
or. for people using that lot. that might be something that would
be justification to violate the buffer and go in there and put in
that emergency access.
MR. MACEWAN-We I I. back when we were deal ing with the Cardinale
Subdivision over there on Peggy Ann Road. they had what was it.
four lots, three lots over there. with a common driveway.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. MACEWAN-And I think the only thing that ~ did to ensure for
safety and emergency purposes. we had them widen that road in
- 7 -
there, just so fire apparatus could get in there.
should be a consideration we should have here.
Maybe this
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. They could have that, when they cut in to
draw the water line in there for the hydrant, they cou I d make
that cut wide enough to provide emergency access.
MR. MARTIN-I think that's a very reasonable comment, for access
to that rear parcel.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
Bob, any questions7
MR. PALING-Just a minor one. In Paragraph Three, is there any
significance to pointing out that the water I ine is going to be
run diagonal7 Is that a so what7
MR. HARLICKER-It's just more of a, it's less of a visual impact.
You're not going to be looking down the road and looking right
into the property.
MR. PALING-Okay.
That's fine.
That's all I had.
MR. HARLICKER-It's a visual and aesthetic concern.
MR. BREWER-Okay. George, any quest i ons7
take care of the road7
Yes.
Leon, who would
MR. STEVES-For the record, my name is Leon Steves, and this is
not a road. This is a private drive.
MR. OBERMAYER-Right.
MR. STEVES-So it's not a road, per se.
because of the nature of the business
have to be compatible, I'm sure, (lost
It would probably be maintained
homeowners.
I have to admit, though,
in front of it, it would
word) in the back of it.
simultaneously by both
MR. STARK-Do you have any idea what would be going into the back
of i t at a I 17
MR. STEVES-No, I don't. No. even the owner doesn't.
he's trying to do is protect his options.
I think all
MR. STARK-Okay.
MR. MARTIN-Would it be possible.
access over that water I ine to
privately maintained. and the tap
Avenue7
Leon. to get an easement for
the hydrant. or is that a
is at the edge of Wisconsin
MR. STEVES-We could give that to the Town. I suppose. if the Town
wants it or not.
MR. MARTIN-The water connection or the proposed hydrant off of
Wisconsin Avenue, if that is a publ ic I ine. there should be an
easement over that for access. a 2Ø foot easement for
maintenance, but what we'll do before the final stage is we'll
send this over to Tom Flaherty and see what they want to do.
MR. OBERMAYER-Leon. is that the only location of a hydrant7 Is
that the only proposed hydrant location. is the one al I the way
to the back of the lot7
MR. STEVES-Yes. it is.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
MR. STEVES-The reason for it is. to put it on the property. so it
would be visual to any fire apparatus or firemen.
- 8 -
"-
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. They would be coming in from Corinth Road and
then go a I I the way to t'he back of the lot.
MR. STEVES-That's correct. and when they get back there. they're
going to find trees as a buffer. and not see any hydrants on
(lost word).
MR. OBERMAYER-Well. especially if you put a bui Iding right in
front of it.
MR. STEVES-That's true.
MR. BREWER-So. can I jump i n7
here7
Why wouldn't you put the hydrant
MR. OBERMAYER-Along the roadway.
MR. BREWER-Along here. so then it could service here and it could
service here. If they come in here. it's. bang. right there.
MR. OBERMAYER-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Pu I I your water off of here.
MR. OBERMAYER-Or put two hydrants in.
MR. BREWER-Because there is a hydrant already right there. if
they needed it.
MR. STEVES-It's not visual. though, from the property.
MR. OBERMAYER-Why wouldn't you put two hydrants
hydrant. as Tim says. in the center, towards the
lot7
in. or one
center of the
MR. STEVES-I suppose because of the expense of putting it there.
MR. OBERMAYER-I don't see where this is going to serve you any
purpose. back here.
MR. STEVES-Then we'd be glad to et iminate it. but we thought for
fire protection it would be a good place to have it.
MR. OBERMAYER-I don't want you to el iminate it.
MR. BREWER-I guess the question would be. would you be wi II ing to
put it back here7
MR. STEVES-Into the middle of the lot7
MR. BREWER-Wel I. on the edge of roadway.
MR. OBERMAYER-Towards the roadway.
MR. STEVES-You call it a roadway.
I'm not ca I ling it.
MR. BREWER-Driveway.
MR. STEVES-That's his satisfaction of his frontage on Corinth
Road. so he doesn't have to come in to a residential area.
MR. BREWER-I understand that. but would you be wi I I ing to put the
hydrant. if you were driving in your common drive, to the léft of
that7
MR. STEVES-No. L wouldn't.
to ask him.
If the owner wi I I or not.
I ' I I have
MR. BREWER-Okay. Would you7
- 9 -
MR. STEVES-Yes. I will.
MR. OBERMAYER-Great.
MR. MARTIN-I'd also get. you know. we could get input from the
I oca I fire company on th is one. you know. the oca I fire
district. on where thev'd I ike to see it.
MR. STARK-That's West Glens Fal Is.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-I think that would be a great idea.
MR. BREWER-Cathy. any questions?
MRS. LABOMBARD-No.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Mr. Steves. any other comments?
MR. STEVES-You real ize that this is a two lot subdivision being
considered tonight?
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-But that any development of that rear
necessitate a Site Plan Review.
lot would
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-So we'd be right back here anyway.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-I mean. that's clearly understood as a proposed
location. I ike for the fire hydrant. That may change with the
development of that rear lot.
MR. OBERMAYER-Right.
MR. MACEWAN-For safety's sake. why
having just the 40 foot frontage on
entire width of your driveway 40 feet.
not consider.
Corinth Road.
instead of 35?
instead of
making the
MR. STEVES-Quick question. The reason for that is that Site Plan
approval. the (lost word) for Logger's plant. rather than
interrupt that. by maintaining the 30 foot wide driveway or
strip. I'm five feet off the parking lot. Therefore. I don't
have to interrupt. change for site plan approval.
MR. MACEWAN-You're five feet off the parking lot as it stands
now?
MR. STEVES-As it's proposed. which is a requirement of the Code.
MR. RUEL-You would have to reduce the size of the parking area.
MR. STEVES-That's correct.
MR. RUE L - T hat's po s sib Ie. i s n ' tit?
MR. STEVES-I didn't want to interrupt nor change the Site Plan
approval that had been obtained.
MR. RUEL-I see.
MR. MACEWAN-And it's always been my opinion. from the standpoint
of common driveways for emergency purposes. as much room as we
can get in there. for apparatus to get in there. it would be
beneficial. I think. for everyone.
- 1Ø -
-
-
MR. STEVES-We might wel I re-pave the entire area. and (lost word)
is 30 feet. okay.
MR. MACEWAN-How much of a clearing? I know it's quite wide there
right now. What do they have cleared for gravel road bed they
have in there now?
MR. BREWER-That's al I
there?
of 30 feet. isn't
it. when we went out
MR. STARK-More like 45. 50 feet.
MR. MACEWAN-It seems to be pretty wide.
MR. OBERMAYER-Thirty feet's pretty wide. though.
MR. RUEL-Jim. didn't you mention a moment ago that this will be
reviewed by some fire?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. I would recommend you send it off to the fire.
local fire district. Pose a few questions to them. I'd have
question as to where ~ would make a suggestion for a proposed
hydrant. and how would they feel about access off of Wisconsin
Avenue. or Michigan Avenue?
MR. BREWER-How about
where we suggested or
whether we ask them
in the back?
if they'd
prefer it
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. BREWER-Put it to them that way.
MR. STEVES-It might be. under Site Plan review. that the building
would necessitate a sprinkler system. so that it's al I academic.
what we're talking about.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
You're absolutely right.
MR. BREWER-Okay. One last question. from me anyway. When
Logger's was originally in here. I think some of the neighbors
had a concern about development in the back. and we asked about a
subdivision. and there was no plans. just changed his mind7
MR. STEVES-No. You know me. if you had asked me that question.
would have told you that we are not closing the door on that.
MR. BREWER-I understand that.
MR. STEVES-We've been through this. People sometimes. not
thinking the way 1 do. wi II say. we have plans.
MR. BREWER-Actually then this common drive wi I I be actually owned
by the back property. won't it7
MR. STEVES-Yes. it will.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
lot.
So actually this strip is owned by this back
MR. MARTIN-Yes. typically the Board also asks for proposed deed
language on that common driveway.
MR. MACEWAN-Yes. for maintenance and etc.
MR. BREWER-If we could do that. please.
MR. STEVES-No problem.
MR. BREWER-Does anybody else have any quest i ons7 I f not. 1'1 I
open the publ ic hearing. Is there anybody here that would like
- 11 -
to comment on this project. or subdivision?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-SEQRA. Short Form.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 8-1994. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for
its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel:
WHEREAS. there
application for:
is presently before the
WILLIAM BUCKINGHAM. and
Planning
Board
an
WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Qual ity Review Act.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The fol lowing agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed act i on cons i dered by th i s Board is un listed in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Qual ity Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
app I i cant.
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 Compi lation of Codes. Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York. this Board finds that
the act i on about to be undertaken by th i s Board wi I I 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 July. 1994. by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel.
Mr. Pal ¡ng. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-Okay. We need a motion with the items described that
you wi II bring in with us.
MR. HARLICKER-There's a prepared resolution you can use.
MR. BREWER-There is.
MR. HARLICKER-Just put in the modifications.
MR.
date
think
STEVES-Mr. Chairman. if you wi II. tomorrow is the submittal
for this appl ication. I would I ike to get it back in. I
that probably the biggest concern we have is the fire
- 12 -
hydrant. If I put a note on the map that the final location. the
size wi II be required. wi II be considered at Site Plan review.
would that be sufficient?
MR. BREWER-We II. can we st i I I send a I etter to the fire company?
MR. STEVES-Sure.
MR. MARTIN-I can get you word back from the fire company and the
Water Department by the next time this is seen.
MR. BREWER-And we' I I have that for next month anyway.
MR. STEVES-But can
submit tomorrow?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Sure.
MR. MACEWAN-For ~ benefit.
subdivision approval.
I'd like to know before final
MR. MARTIN-Yes. that's what I'm saying.
MR. MACEWAN-What the recommendation
the Water Department.
is of the fire department.
MR. MARTIN-I would hope to have letters from the fire department
and the Water Department in your packets for August.
MR. OBERMAYER-Great.
MR. BREWER-Yes. I
anybody else? Okay.
don't have any problem with that. Does
Would somebody care to offer a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-1994
WILLIAM BUCKINGHAM. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
To subdivide a 6.89 acre parcel into 2 lots of 2.955 acres and
3.93 acres, with the following conditions: One, location of the
fire hydrant and driveway width to be asked of the Fire
Department and Water Department personnel for their
recommendation. and to be shown on the plan, and. Two.
maintenance of the common driveway to be the appl icant's
responsibi I ity.
Duly adopted this 26th day of July. 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel, Mr. Pal ing.
Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: MALCOLM &
BETTY BATCHELDER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION:
SOUTH SIDE CLEMENTS ROAD, SOME 9ØØ' EAST OF RIDGE ROAD.
SUBDIVISION OF A +/- 4.39 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.53 ACRES
AND 2.86 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 2-1993 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 27-3-1.1 LOT SIZE: +/- 4.39 ACRES SECTION:
SUBDIVISION REGS
LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Subdivision No. 11-1994 PRELIMINARY STAGE.
Malcolm & Betty Batchelder. Meeting Date; July 26. 1994
"PRO~ECT DESCRIPTION: The appl icant is proposing to subdivide a
4.39 acre parcel into 2 lots of 2.86 acres and 1.53 acres. The
- 13 -
property is not serviced by municipal water or sewer. This
property received approval for a two lot subdivision in February
1993. PROJECT ANALYSIS: This is a simple two lot subdivision.
I t meets a I I the requ i rements of the zon i ng code. Because of the
proximity to water and the shape of the proposed lot, the
bui Iding envelope is smal I. A letter from the APA dated 12/15/92
seems to indicate that there is a wetland adjacent to this
property. This issue should be clarified. If there is a wetland
adjacent to the 1.53 acre parcel. there is a 100 foot setback
from the wetland boundary that wi I I have to be shown on the plat.
This wi II also necessitate a change in the lot I ine because there
wi II not be enough room to bui Id a home without infringing on the
100 foot setback."
MR. BREWER-Mr. Steves.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. In the final. I have an NDA letter from
the Adirondack Park, on the previously submitted two lot
subdivision that was approved back in 1993, and at that time.
they had made a Non jurisdictional determination. I have written
to the Park and asked them to respond and (lost word) this two
lot s u bd i vis ion. The y w i I Ire - con fir m the pre v i 0 u s let t e r .
have yet to hear from them, which is not uncommon.
MR. BREWER-Okay. So where do we go from here, Jim?
written to him. and no response. about the wetlands?
If Leon has
MR. STEVES-I have no problem with whatever determination you
make, in the process, whatever they come back with. If they say
it's NJ. fine. If they come back and say it's jurisdictional.
1'1 I have to ab i de by whatever ru ling they may app I y to the
situation.
MR. PALING-Well. if this is found to
Scott's description here. you won't
land. Am I looking at that right, if
setback.
be I ike is described in
be able to build on that
you've got to a 100 foot
MR. HARLICKER-They would require a wetlands permit to bui Id
within the 100 feet.
MR. STEVES-The Adirondack Park permit generally is not as
restrictive as DEC. Whereas they wi I I al Iowa bui Iding within 50
feet. The Town would have a requirement of 75. so that we would
have to abide by those two restrictions, not the 100 feet. One
hundred feet is something that must be maintained for sewage.
MR. PALING-The way that's drawn now, 75 feet, right?
MR. STEVES-Yes, it is.
MR. PALING-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-Leon, how hard would it be to project some topography
on this? I know I'm probably aSking the mi II ion dollar question,
here.
MR. HARLICKER-It just seems that by that pond there it goes up
pretty steep and then levels off at the top.
MR. STEVES-Again, I think that the determining factor is going to
be. is a wetlands permit.
MR. BREWER-So how can we get a,
out whether it is or it isn't?
is there any quick way to find
MR. MACEWAN-I think this was one
Batchelders were here a month or
initiating this whole project.
of our concerns when the
two ago. when they were
- 14 -
MR. STEVES-Right;
MR. BREWER-Wel I.
it's not.
think we should knoW Whether
it's there or
MR. STARK-When do you anticipate hearing from the APA7
have any idea7
Do you
MR. STEVES-No. I don't.
MR. MARTIN-Do you have any boundary of the water course on there7
MR. STEVES-The bounds of the lot is shown. So if they find any
vegetation whatsoever there. making it a wetland, then the whole
thing is a wetland. then we still have to abide by the 75 to 1ØØ
foot. Am I right in saying 75 foot requirements for setback from
any stream7
MR. HARLICKER-If
wetlands permit.
it's a wetland, it's 1ØØ feet.
You'd need a
MR. STEVES-Town wetlands permit.
MR. HARLICKER-Right.
MR. STEVES-I was under the impression the Town was going to do
away with that because it was redundant.
MR. HARLICKER-They haven't yet.
MR. MA R TIN - The y h a v en' t yet. We'd I i k e to, but, you k now. I
don't mean to introduce information. here, the night of the
meeting. I'm not trying to do that, but I think in this
particular case, even if we can get some projected topography off
of a USGS map. It would be useful, because that's going to effect
the bui Iding envelope on this site. I think it, in this
particular case, has special relevancy.
MR. BREWER-Are we, Cathy just asked
him subdivide it. and then APA says
it, am I true in saying that we are
if we do that7
me. if we go ahead and let
they can't do anything with
creating a nonconforming lot
MR. MARTIN-You're only bound by our standards. what's required in
our zoning code, if he's meeting those standards.
MR. BREWER-So then we're not.
MR. MARTIN-The APA has, they have jurisdiction even to override
the Boards of this community. They've overridden the ZBA before.
MR. STEVES-Tim, I won't be party to anything like that.
MR. BREWER-No, I'm not saying you would, Leon.
MR. STEVES-I wouldn't file the map until such time as I had all
the approvals in my hand, so that I would expect that the APA.
six months from now, if I haven't got that approval yet. that map
won't be filed unt i I I have that approval.
MR. BREWER-I have no question of your integrity or anything like
that, Leon. She asked me a question, didn't know.
MR. STEVES- know. That's one of ~he reasons I don't I ike to
sign maps, unti I I'm ready to have them fi led, because anybody,
nowadays, with the technology, can copy maps, and that's not
the way it should be. Don't put your signature on anything
unless you want it filed.
MR. STARK-Leon, when were you coming in for a final7
- 15 -
MR. STEVES-I was hoping to come in next month.
MR. STARK-You might hear from APA by then?
MR. STEVES-Yes. if I'm lucky.
MR. STARK-So if we give you the Pre I iminary approval tonight.
you've sti I I got to come back for final anyway.
MR. STEVES-Yes.
I'd really have to have everything in order.
MR. OBERMAYER-And you'd need a wetlands permit anyway. right?
MR. BREWER-Can you get some qUick topography for Jim and us for
final?
MR. MARTIN-Well. I mean. could that be projected onto this?
MR. BREWER-And an out line of the. where the water is.
MR. MARTIN-I'm not looking for two foot contouring.
looking for something that' I I give us an indication
slope that's present along that.
I'm
as to
just
the
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-I' I I work with you on the deadl jne. Get your
submission in tomorrow and then if we can get that plat with the
topography in a week's time or something I ike that. prior to
their next meeting.
MR. BREWER-As long
map in the packet.
as before we get our packets.
it's not a problem.
if we get that
MR. MARTIN-They go out. I ike, the second week in August.
MR. BREWER-No. usually the first week, because of the second
Wednesday is our site visits.
MR. MARTIN-The end of next week.
MR. STEVES-No problem.
MR. BREWER-It's not a problem?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. MARTIN-I' I I accept whatever you hand in tomorrow, and then
we' I I replace it with that.
MR. BREWER-You can st ill file for tomorrow, and then get that
second map?
MR. STEVES-Yes, I wi II.
MR. MARTIN-Because I understand the fairness of introducing an
issue I ike ~his the night of the meeting, but I think it's
especially relevant on this parcel.
MR. STEVES-You're talking topo just for that one lot.
sufficient?
Is that
MR. MARTIN-It flattens out at the toP. I assume?
MR. STEVES-Yes, 1'1 I make it I arge enough so that you can see the
entire effect.
MR. MARTIN-And I would.
on there. too. You
boundary?
I'd
say
I ike an indication of the shorel ine
it basically follows"the property
- 16 -
----.--.--..-----..- -------
_e
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. MARTIN-I think the shore line should be shown.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Bob. any other questions?
MR. PALING-As a result of the vote tonight. what wi I I you do now?
MR. STEVES-If I get 'a favorable vote tonight. I will submit
tomorrow. I wi II go out and do the topography next week. I wi II
have a plan for next week. I wi II call APA and ask if they have
accurate boundary lines.
MR. PALING-So between now and final. you're not going to do any
d i 9'9 I n 9 0 r?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. PALING-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-For Staff. is this a Type I or Unl isted?
MR. HARLICKER-It's Unl isted.
MR. BREWER-It's Type I.
It's got to be. pretty much.
MR. HARLICKER-I was under the impression. I feel it's an Unl isted
action.
MR. MACEWAN-Unlist~d?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. BREWER-No?
It's not in a Critical Environmental Area.
MR. MARTIN-Not that L see. Why do you think it's a Type I. Tim?
MR. BREWER-I thought it was the last time we did it. with the
other two lot subdivision.
MR. MARTIN-It's under five acres in size. Ten is the threshold.
and I don't see.
MR. BREWER-Maybe it was. because of the other parcel was bl~ger.
Maybe that put it over the 10 acre for threshold.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. BREWER-Okay. 'II open the public hearing.
here to comment on this subdivision?
Is there anyone
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PHIL HARRIS
MR. HARRIS-I'm Phi I Harris. an adjacent owner. and my concern is
with the wetland and the possibi I ity of putting a house there.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I think we're going to t~ke action so that
that's looked into.
MR. HARRIS-Someone wi I I be looking into it?
MR. BREWER-Yes. they wi II.
MR. HARRIS-Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
- 17 -
MR. MARTIN-I would almost say, Leon, that's going to be a wetland
in that area. I'll bet you the jurisdiction comes back, I would
say.
MR. STEVES-Well, I hear what you're saying, but it didn't before.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Do we have their file, their original
subdivision? I don't know for what reason, but I
was, that we did a Long Form SEQRÁ and everything
there was jurisdiction there? No?
file for that
thought there
on that, and
MR. MARTIN-Was that for a 10 acre?
MR. STEVES-There was only 7.17 acres. Why it's fi I led out.
MR. BREWER-I think it had something to do with the APA, and I
don't know why I keep thinking that.
MR. STEVES-Of course, anything within the APA, APA is exempted
from SEQRA, because their revi~w is more stringent.
MR. RUEL-Well, it wouldn't hurt to do it twice, would it?
MR. BREWER-That's why I asked if we had their fi Ie. Do we have
their fi Ie here wit~ us tonight?
MR. HARLICKER-Not tonight, no, we were just looking for it.
MR. BREWER-I don't know why, I just, in my mind, I think that it,
there was a jurisdictional wetlands or something that brought us
into that. APA Nonjurisdictional, determination received, right
there. it says on this. Jim. it says APA Nonjurisdictional.
determination received. on this EAF, here. I don't know who
typed that in. but.
MR. MARTIN-What part is that on, Tim?
MR. BREWER-That was on Part I.
MR. MARTIN-Then that would have been the appl icant had some
information to that effect. If they have that letter. that's
relevant even now.
MR. STEVES-It is for that one lot, not for this one. because at
the time. he was retaining this lot and sel I ing off the other
one. So the jurisdiction came back that his lot. house lot. was
not part of the Nonjurisdiction.
MR. BREWER-I just remembered .the APÞ;. or somebody, mak i ng comments.
the last time this subdivision came in.
MR. MARTIN-I don't have any reason why
though. The only thing that would kick
Critical Environmental Area.
it's a Type I Action.
it in is if it's in a
MR. STEVES-No. it's not.
MR. BREWER-Wel I. what should we do. Long or Short?
MR. MACEWAN-Do the Short. That's what Staff recommends.
MR. MARTIN-Mark raises a good point. You did a SEQRA
determination on the last action. and if this is viewed as being
s i mil ar to that, it may not even need a new assessment.
MR. BREWER-But isn't this a whole new subdivision. though. Mark?
MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know what the background is.
I haven't the
- 18 -
-~~
faintest idea. All I said was, if.. this is part of the original
action ~hat was reviéwed underSEQRA, then It doesn't need to be
reviewed under SEQRA again, but I don't know the answer to the
first part, the" If" part.
MR. BREWER-Wel I,
shown there, were
that above there,
map.
the subdivision before, the two lots that are
one lot. There was a lot, if you're look i ng at
that was sp lit off. Jim can show you on that
MR. MARTIN-They were goin~ todo it like this.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and that was approved.
MR. STEVES-Here's what it was
They wrote back and said NJ, as
before,two lots, this and this.
it effects this lot here.
MR. SCHACHNER-The APA said?
MR. STEVES-Yes.
MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not so concerned with the APA right now. The
question is. what was the previous action reviewed under SEQRA by
this Board?
MR. HARLICKER-Two lot subdivision.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. dividing this into those two lots?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. SCHACHNER-Okay, and the current proposal Is?
MR. MARTIN-This.
MR. SCHACHNER-Within tha~ one lot.
MR. MARTIN-Right, within this lot. to do this two lot subdivision
now.
MR. SCHACHNER-It's probably new.
subdivision to me.
I t h ink
it Sounds I ike a new
MR. MARTIN-All right. I would say it's a Short Form, because it
says right here in the APA letter. December 15th, this is not a
Critical Environmental Area.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. MACEWAN-AI I right. Lets do the Short.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 11-1994. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for
its adoption~ seconded by Roger Ruel:
WHEREAS, there
application for:
is presently before the Planning
MALCOLM & BETTY BATCHELDER, and
Board
an
WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning B~~rd action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Qual ity Review Act,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The fol lowing agencies are involved:
- 19 -
Potent i a I I Y APA
3. The proposed act i on cons i dered by th i s Board is un listed in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Qual ity Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
app I i cant.
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
env i ronmenta I impact as t he same is set fort h inSect ion
617.11 of the Official Compi lation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that
the action about to be undertaken by this Board wi I I have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
f i I e as may be necessary a statement of non-s i gn if i cance or
a negative declaration that may be required by law.
Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1994, by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark,
Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-We need a motion for approval.
MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-1994
MALCOLM & BETTY BATCHELDER, Introduced by George Stark who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Robert Pal ing:
With the fol lowing stipulations: That Leon Steves obtains the
letter from the APA, or tries to, before final, and also we have
the topography map of the first lot by August 5th, to show
contour I ines and edge of the water.
Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1994, by the fot lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Pal ing, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer,
Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
OLD BUSINESS:
SUBDIVISION NO. 1Ø-1994 FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED UPPER
GLENS FALLS DEVELOPMENT CORP. OWNER: ROGER & BARBARA BRASSEL
ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND CRONIN
ROAD SUBDIVISION OF +/- 9.68 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS - 1 LOT
WILL BE 7.65 ACRES. THE OTHER WILL BE 2.Ø3 ACRES AND WILL BE USED
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 11.4ØØ SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING WITH
FRONTAGE ON CRONIN ROAD. TAX MAP NO. 6Ø-2-11 LOT SIZE: +/-
9.69 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS
JON LAPPER, JOHN GORALSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-1994 FINAL STAGE, Upper
Glens Fal Is Development Corp., Meeting Date: July 26, 1994
"PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has the following comments: 1. The
7.70 acre parce lis a pecu liar shape. Future access to the
interior of this parcel could be difficult. Perhaps a single
access drive from Cronin Road could be used to access the
proposed office bui Iding and any future development of the 7.70
acre parcel."
- 2Ø -
MR. HARLICKER-They also submitted. I don't know if you received
copies of it or not. a revised subdivision plat. They altered
the west property i i ne just s light I Y on it. So it's not whatever
it was. as indicated in the.
MR. LAPPER-We mentioned at the last meeting that we'd be making a
slight change in frontage to accommodate Dr. Brassel. the owner
of the rest of the parcel. It's just a few foot difference.
MR. HARLICKER-It's 1.98 acres instead of 2.03.
in the description.
as was indicated
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. LAPPER- guess. it's nice that there are only two issues. and
before John shows you what we aid to change the configuration of
the parcel. which is very small. I guess I'd just I ike to ask
that. in response to the comment about the access. think that
it's clear that you would want to reduce access whatever
ultimately gets developed on the second parcel. on the seven acre
parcel. but I guess we'd ask that at this time you make it a
condition of the subdivision that there could never be one access
on Bay Road. We think that there is an appropriate place on Bay
Road that there could be one access. and this isn't on behalf of
Howard Carr and Upper Glens Falls. but on behalf of Roger and
Barbara Brassel who are retaining the rest. This is Bay Road.
and I know that what Dr. Brassel had always envisioned was that
there could be one access coming in here. far enough from the
intersection so that it shouldn't be a problem. We are going to
grant an easement through our parking lot to the Brassel 's so
that. in terms of access here. that there could be traffic
crossing between ~he two properties. between the two parking
lots. We don't know what's going to get' develo'ped here. It's
Highway Commercial One Acre. It could be a retai I commercial
use. It could be another office building. like what we're doing
here. poss i b I Y two bu i I dings. one in back and one here. and I
think it's clear what Scott's saying. that you would want to
reduce the number of accesses. and whatever got bu i It. if they
were two uses. they could certainly have a shared driveway here.
which is what the Brassels are envisioning. but I would ask that
you didn't make a condition that there couldn't be any access
along Bay Road. That would significantly reduce the value of the
property to some future owner. and something that you have the
a b i lit Y t 0 I 00 kat i nth e f u t u r e. w hen the rei sap r' 0 p 0 s a I for
the development of that. which may be soon. or later. but I'd
just ask that you didn't make that condition now.
MR. GORALSKI-The other issue. as Scott mentioned. was that
frontage on Cronin Road was changed. Basically what we did was.
using this corner as a pivot point. we swung this -ine down. so
there's now '286 feet of frontage on Cronin R6ad. I bel ieve the
or ¡gins I map showed 30121. The change was just 'made ,to accommodate
the additional frò'ntage on Cronin Road. here. for the rest of the
parcel. and I've reviewed' it with the Town Engineer~ and it
rea I I y doe s nit imp act a ny ih (n gel s eon t h ~ sit e .
MR. BREWER-Any questioris"ffom anybody on the Board?
MR. STARK-Scott. you would prefer a single entrance. where?
MR. HARL I CKER- I dea I I Y. off of Cron inRoad.
MR. STARK-For both parcels?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. but I understand the appl icant's coricern about
the val~e of the property. fronting Bay Road. but not having
access from it. I dea I I Y. yes. a sing I e access off of Cron inRoad
to service the parcels would be nice. From a planning point of
view. that would be the ideal way to do it.
- 21 -
MR. MACEWAN-From a safety
be off of Cronin Road.
somewhat of a control led
sign.
point. too.
Correct?
intersection
it would make more sense to
I mean. you already have
right there. with a stop
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. PALING-What's across the street. on Bay Road. from where you
propose the access to be?
MR. GORALSKI-On Bay Road?
It's currently vacant.
MR. PALING-Okay.
So it's developable land.
MR. BREWER-But if you do that. then you almost. you force any
business. or whatever they put there. to be facing Cronin Road.
or an extremely long driveway to get to something. if they were
to bui Id it on Bay.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. I just want to address one more issue. Bay
Road is a major arterial in the Town. Cronin Road is not. and is
not designed for heavy traffic. I agree that there should be
some connection between the lots. which the Town Ordinance. in
fact. requires. and we wi II provide. but to say that there wi II
be absolutely no access on Bay Road. without knowing what the
rest of the deve I opment is go i ng to be. wou I d rea I I Y prec I ude
planning it correctly in the future. If you don't know what's
go i ng to be on the rest of the parce I. to say a I I the traff i c has
to go on to Cronin Road to get onto that parcel wouldn't be fair
to the people who are using Cronin Road.
MR. PAL lNG-We I I. this would give you one curb cut in
feet. if you add on the Golf Course area. So
burdening. I don't think. that particular part of
that side of the road. but if you have something
street from it. you might have compl ications.
nearly
you're
Bay Road
across
aøø
not
on
the
MR. MARTIN-John. how many feet is it to the north along Bay Road
unt i I the next dr i veway from the northern corner of th i slot on?
I know we have a residence further north.
MR. GORALSKI-There's almost about 75Ø feet just to this property
I ine. I don't know exactly where the driveway. 75Ø feet.
MR. MARTIN-When Mark. and this is for the Board's future
reference. when Mark Kennedy was in to see me about the
Passare I I i dr i veway issue. he was say i ng a genera I standard or
rule of thumb for safe access along a major arterial is 3ØØ foot
separation distance between driveways. So there's another piece
of information to fi Ie away as you look at these site plans for
possible parameters to look for in access. So I can understand.
too. the appl icant's concern over a seven acre site being
accessed from Bay Road. We have separation distances of. how
many feet. to the Cronin Road intersection?
MR. GORALSKI-There's about 3ØØ feet to the Cronin Road
intersection. and about 45Ø feet to the next property that could
be developed.
MR. MARTIN-Then it's a fairly wide. according to what
from Mark Kennedy. that seems to be acceptable
distances for good access management.
I I earned
separation
MR. LAPPER-And it's certainly something you can look at if Dr.
Bras.el comes in for Site Plan. at some point in the future.
MR. BREWER-You're going to show the easement on the final plat
anyway. Correct?
MR. GORALSKI-We' I I
show it on the Site Plan review plan and on
- 22 -
--,'
the final plat. if you'd like.
MR. BREWER-On the plat. I think. for the subdivision.
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. MARTIN-I think it would be appropriate.
reference it.
That way we could
MR. LAPPER-And that's going to be a cross easement. going both
ways, for traffic.
MR. BREWER-Yes. Okay. Any quest ions?
MR. MACEWAN-Are there any plans that you know to further
sùbdividethe seven acre plus parcel in the future?
MR. LAPPER-Dr. Brassel has it for sale. He's hoping that some
commercial entity wi I I see this as a hot corner, and he' I I be
able to sell it, but as to whether or not, as to one or two, it
would fit nicely with two, but at this point there's no plan,
because he doesn't have, he's not going to build it himself.
MR. BREWER-How would you ever get back to the back part,
did subdivide it again?
if you
MR. LAPPER-We I I, if the access went in where I suggested, a long
the northern most corner, it would be possible to have a driveway
go in two ways.
MR. BREWER-You'd draw a 40 foot I ine right down there, right?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, but there's no plan, at this point, to do that.
MR. BREWER-Okay. If nobody else has got any questions, I'll open
the publ ic hearing.
MR. MARTIN-This is final, Tim.
MR. BREWER-I guess I don't have to have a public hearing. Okay.
Would somebody care to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1Ø-1994 UPPER
GLENS FALLS DEVELOPMENT CORP., Introduced by Craig MacEwan who
moved fôr its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel:
With the stipulation that the easement for interconnection of the
lots be shown on the final plat.
Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1994, by the following vote:
A YES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Rue I, Mr. Pa ling,
Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
NEW BUSINESS:
SITE PLAN NO. 29-94 TYPE: UNLISTED UPPER GLENS FALLS
DEVELOPMENT CORP. OWNER: ROGER & BARBARA BRASSEL ZONE: HC-1A
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF BAY AND CRONIN ROAD PROPOSAL IS
FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 11.4ØØ SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING. CROSS
REFERENCE: SUB '1Ø-1994 BEAUTIFICATION COMM. - 7/11/94 WARREN
CO. PLANNING - 7/13/94 TAX MAP NO. 6Ø-2-11 SECTION 179-23
JON LAPPER, JOHN GORALSKI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 29-94, Upper Glens Falls
- 23 -
Development Corp.. Meeting Date: July 26. 1994 "Staff has
reviewed the project for compl iance with Section 179-38 A. B. C &
D and to the relevant factors outl ined in Section 179-39 and
offers the fol lowing comments: 1. The location. arrangement.
size. design and general site compatibil ity of bui Idings.
I ighting and signs. The location and size of the bui Iding is
compatible with this site. It meets all setbacks as well as
permeabi I ity. No dimensions shown for west property line. 2.
The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and
circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement
surfaces. dividers and traffic controls. The access point to the
site presently looks as though it wi I I directly be across from a
single fami Iy house. The potential problem is the shining of
headl ights into the house on rainy days in and in the winter when
it becomes dark earl ier in the day. The driveway for the house
is about 25 feet east of the access point. Moving the access
point 15 feet west should rectify the situation. 3. The
location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street
parking and loading. The required number of spaces for this size
office building is 78. the site plan has identified only 72
spaces. Handicapped parking is ample and well located. 4. The
adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and
circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with
vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. The flow
seems to be fine. except for the question of if this is going to
be one way or two. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage
faci I ities. The stormwater drainage plan wi I I be reviewed by
Rist Frost. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal
faci I ities. This site wi II uti I ize both Town water and sewer.
7. The adequacy. type and arrangement of trees. shrubs and other
suitable plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a
visual and/or noise buffer between the appI icant's and adjoining
lands. including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and
maintenance including replacement of dead plants. The
appl icant's landscaping plan seems adequate. but would be
enhanced by leaving as much of the existing vegetation along the
eastern property I ine as possible. It would act as a buffer
between the first tee of the golf course and the retention pond
of the office bui Iding. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other
emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. There is a
fire hydrant near the southeast corner of the property. 9. The
adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in
areas with susceptibility to ponding. flooding and/or erosion.
Keeping the existing vegetation along.the eastern property line
is also along the drainage swale. This could cut down on erosion
along the swale."
MR. HARLICKER-There's comments from Warren County.
Impact" .
"No County
MR. BREWER-We've got Rist-Frost comments. also.
MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I spoke with Bi I I MacNamara on the phone. and
also with John today. and it appears that the engineering
concerns have been worked out. and John can speak more directly
to that than I can.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. PALING-Scott. does that apply. also. to the parking spaces.
that they worked that out?
MR. GORALSKI-I can go through each one and address each one.
MR. BREWER-If you would.
MR. GORALSKI-I wi I I start with the Planning Staff's comments.
The first comment. the dimension on this westerly property line
is 3Ø1.33 feet. That's what it is on the subdivision plans. As
far as the access to the site. in meeting with Jim. and I forget.
- 24 -
-
at this point, who else was at the meeting, we discussed options
for accessing the site. We wanted to keep the access away from
the first tee of the golf course. We wanted to keep it away from
the intersection. We also wanted to locate it so that the
ácce~ses on eith~r side of 'the road Wire in the sãme spot, so
that people weren't looking al lover the ro~d, peopl~ coming in.
So what we did was we al igned it with the driveway on the
opposite side. We think that's the safest access on this lot.
As far as t n e n u m be r 0 f par kin 9 sp ace s , I doh a v e a f' 00 r p I an 0 f
the' bui Idlng. The gross area of thè'biJi Iding is 11,340 square
feet. The gross leasable area, sJbtracted wltri the wal Is and the
common area and that type of thing, is 10,096 square feet. So
10,096 square feet, at 150 square feet per space, requires 67.3
spaces.
MR. MARTIN-That's the proper calculation.
MR. GORALSKI-As far as traffic flow, therê wi I I be two way
traffic arou~d the en~ire site. We have circulation on the
entire bui Iding. Stormwater drainage plan, what Bi I I MacNamara
asked us to do is to provide some additional storage in this area
to the north of the parki'ng lot. "explâined to him what I
intended to do was widen the 314 foot contour and put a retention
basin in thê~e with t~e bottom elevatio~ of about 313.5. He said
that would be fine. That would provide a little safety factor,
which he'd like tÔ see.
MR. BREWER-So how deep w í I I that" retent i on 'bas i n be?
MR. 'GORALSKI-It wi I I be a
itt I e over a 'foot.
MR . BREWER-A ' little over a foot.
water stay in there, John?
So that means,
how' IÒng wi II
MR. GORALSKI-How long wi II it stay there?
MR. BREWER-Well, say in a storm I ike you have today.
Meadows is constantly under water.
I know Bay
MR. GO R A L SKI - Rig h t . T ti e y , rea ì t tie I owe r t h a nus. T he I and
s lop e s d ow n her e . You can see, we' reg 0 i n g t 0 be u 'p , 0 u r
bulldin'~, floör elevat'ioh'S göingto be 317. The first tee of
thè golf course is around 310 or 311. So, everything is
basically flowing that way right now.
MR. BREWER-So you're not going to push any more water to them?
MR. GORALSKI-No, that's why we're going to have 'the retention, we
have to put our retention area on this side of the site, and
that's why Bi II asked, just to be sure. (lost word) with all the
rain we've been having.
MR. OBERMAYER-You're going to bring in fi I I, right, to raise the
elevation?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We're going to raise it up, so that we're
separated from groundwater, so that we can provide our storage on
site.
MR. OBERMAYER-Right.
MR. BREWER-So my question is, how
going to stay there?
long do you think the water is
MR. GORALSKI-The perc rate
inch, something like that,
rate.
on the. I bel ieve was 12 minutes and
16 minutes per inch, that's the perc
MR. BREWER-So that means that' I I
area as?
be the same
in the retention
- 25 -
"-
MR. GORALSKI-Yes.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. GORALSKI-And then the last issue was landscaping. Right now
the notes talk about maintaining vegetation along the east
property I ine. The only thing along the east property right now
is grass. There isn't anything. We're going to bui Id up a berm
here. It'll serve two purposes. One. it wi II retain the
stormwater on the site. The other thing it wi I I do is start to
create some screening. We're also going to put some (lost word)
along the top of that berm. and put some actual vegetation there
that doesn't (lost word).
MR. MACEWAN-Is there going to be foundation plantings around the
bu i I ding?
MR. GORALSKI-The foundation along the west side wi I I have some
foundation plantings. Those were requested by the Beautification
Committee. There wi II be lawn area around the rest of the
building. except for this. in this back area where this seeding
area will be. there'll probably be. like. a perennial garden. in
these sma I I areas.
MR. MACEWAN-Was there any stipulation that there would be a final
plan approved by them. or how was it left. with their approval?
MR. GORALSKI-No. We discussed with them our screening of the
parking area from the road. They asked us to add. we added some
photi Ila along this I ine here. and. otherwise. they were very
happy with the plan.
MR. MACEWAN-Then there's no plantings being proposed for the area
where you've got the contours on the northern side of the
property?
MR. GORALSKI-Back here?
MR. MACEWAN-Yes.
MR. GORALSKI-No. That was going to be lawn area. and now we're
going to put some additional stormwater in there.
MR. MARTIN-You' I I show the easement for the interconnection on
t his as we I I?
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We'll show it on this and on the subdivision
plat.
MR. RUEL-The easement would be on the north side?
MR. MARTIN-I think it's on the northwest corner.
MR. GORALSKI-The easement could be right here. going out here. in
I ine with this.
MR. MARTIN-Drive aisle.
MR. RUEL-Right past the retention pond.
MR. GORALSKI-Yes. We would have to. if at any point there was a
roadway built here. they would have to culvert. size the culvert
to.
MR. OBERMAYER-In your Stormwater Management report. you indicate
that you're going to have an infiltration trench around the
building? Where is that going to be.
MR. GORALSKI-When we bring the fi II in. we're going to bring in a
sand fi II. so that there wi II be significant percolation.
- 26 -
--
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. but the report was based on. I ike. Number Two
Gravel. I guess I don't see that.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. What we're going to do. it's going to be.
MR. OBERMAYER-I see lawn.
MR. GORALSKI-Right. You
there's an overhang here.
here. So there's dirt down
here wi II be (lost word).
see how this bui Iding is designed.
So we' I I have a retent i on area in
into the gravel. and this portion out
MR. MARTIN-John. wi II your involvement with the project continue
on through actual construction. so that al I these conditions are
verified. or will there be a method for verification?
MR. GORALSKI-My firm is not involved in the design of the
bui Iding. We do not design the bui Iding.
MR. MARTIN-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-But we know you won't
with.
issue a CO unt i I it's compl ied
MR. MARTIN-You beat me to the punch. Jon.
MR. PALING-We don't know even how tall the bui Iding is. then.
MR. GORALSKI-At this point. don't know.
MR. LAPPER-Howard just said it's one story.
MR. OBERMAYER-It is one story?
MR. BREWER-One story.
MR. GORALSKI-It's a one story bui Iding. probably 18 feet. I'm
not positive.
MR. PALING-We would
that consideratió~
equipment that you
conditioners. and so
suggest. I think
be given to
might have on
on.
is the right way to put it.
concea ling any mechan i ca
the roof. ventilators. air
MR. GORALSKI-It's going to be a hip roof. So there won't be.
MR. MARTIN-This
structure. then.
is al I going to be contained within
There's going to be a sloped roof to it.
the
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
equipment be?
So
where would the air conditioning
MR. BREWER-Probably an air pump or something.
MR. OBERMAYER-Heat pump.
MR. BREWER-Heat pump.
MR. GORALSKI-To be honest with you. I don't know.
MR. OBERMAYER- was just curious.
MR. MARTIN-Is there a utility room indicated?
HOWARD CARR
MR. CARR-Howard Carr.
MR. PALING-And the condensers wi I I be in the parking lot?
- 27 -
MR. CARR-The condensers wi I I be placed to
bu i I ding. Wherever they get p I aced. once the
final ized. they'll be covered with plantings.
one side of
design has
the
been
MR. PALING-Okay. So the roof
be involved.
is uncluttered.
It's not going to
MR. GORALSKI-It's a hipped roof.
MR. PALING-Yes.
You can't do much with that.
MR. MART I N-Th Is' I I have a res i dent i a I appearance to It.
MR. HARLICKER-Slmi lar to Dr. Jung's.
MR. LAPPER-It's a lot bigger than that.
MR. OBERMAYER-What's it going to be constructed out of. just out
of curiosity?
MR. CARR-It's slab on grade construction. wood frame structure.
MR. OBERMAYER-It wi I I be a wood frame structure.
MR. CARR-Yes. We're playing with exactly what the detai I wi II
be. but I think there's going to be some masonry treatment around
the doorways and windows and then a detai led drivet type finish.
MR. BREWER-Anything else? Okay. 1'1 I open the publ ic hearing.
Anyone here to comment on this project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BREWER-Okay. We're ready.
RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE
RESOLUTION NO. 29-94. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for
its adoption. seconded by Roger Ruel:
WHEREAS. there
application for:
is presently before the Planning Board
UPPER GLENS FALLS DEVELOPMENT CORP.. and
an
WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed
project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the
State Environmental Qual ity Review Act.
NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT
RESOLVED:
1. No federal agency appears to be involved.
2. The fol lowing agencies are involved:
NONE
3. The proposed act i on cons I dered by th i s Board is un listed in
the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations
implementing the State Environmental Qual ity Review Act and
the regulations of the Town of Queensbury.
4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the
app I i cant.
5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas
of environmental concern and having considered the criteria
- 28 -
_/
for determining whether a project has a significant
environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section
617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and
Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that
the action about to be undertaken by this Board wi I I have no
significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the
Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and
fi Ie 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 July, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan,
Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Brewer
NOES:
NONE
MR. BREWER-Okay.
Would somebody care to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 29-94
DEVELOPMENT CORP., Introduced by Roger Ruel
adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard:
UPPER GLENS FALLS
who moved for its
For construction of an 11,4ØØ square foot office building, with
the f 0 I I ow i n g co n d i t ion s : 0 n e, t h at the par kin g spa c e s s h 0 u I d
coincide with the floor plan. Two, that the retention basin be
shown on the north side, and, Three, that the Rist-Frost
engineering comments be met. Four, that you meet the
requirements of Queensbury Beautification Committee. Five, CO to
be granted upon all conditions being met. Six, indication of the
easement. Plans to be submitted by August 1st, two sets.
Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1994, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling, Mr. Stark,
Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer
NOES:
NONE
MR. BREWER-Can wedatch a moment of your tfme, Mr. Lappár and Mr.
Carr, before you go. Cra i g wou I d like to address you about
something.
MR. MACEWAN-Question regarding the Queensbury Plaza, landscaping
timbers aroun~the landscaped islands. We've noticed that there
are boulders tháre and not landsòaping timbers.
MR. LAPPER-Aren't the boulders in one area where the Board said
we could put boulders, because of people driving?
MR. MACEWAN-The boulders were to be al lowed only where the access
was being taken out, behind the Olive Garden Restaurant, where
the current wooden barrier is.
MR. LAPPER-Right.
MR. MACEWAN-Every place else within the
landscaped timbers around al I the landscaped
parcel was
islands.
to
be
MR. LAPPER-That's correct.
MR. MACEWAN-They are now al I have boulders around al I
islands.
those
MR. CARR-Right, because we don't think that the timbers are going
to be enOugh to keep people off it, and we're going to do both.
MR. MACEWAN-Very good. When would the timbers be put in?
MFL
CARR-We I I, we t r i ed gett i ng some pr i c i ng today.
I would
- 29 -
assume, two to three weeks we should have them in place. Within
two to three weeks they'll a II be in p I ace.
MR. MACEWAN-Within two to three weeks.
say by the middle of August7
So it would be safe to
MR. BREWER-The end of August, give them unti I the end of August.
MR. CARR-Yes. By Labor Day it'll all be in place.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
MR. MACEWAN-That's all had.
PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 1-94 RECOMMENDATION ONLY RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN, JR. OWNER: RICHARD E. MACDONALD PROPERTY
INVOLVED: CORNER OF CRONIN ROAD AND MEADOWBROOK ROAD CURRENT
ZONING: SFR-1A PROPOSED ZONING: SR-1A TAX MAP NO. 60-2-7.1,
7.3
LEON STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Petition No. 1-94, Richard Schermerhorn,
Meeting Date: July 26, 1994 "A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The
appl ¡cant is seeking to re-zone a 5.63 acre parcel from SFR-1A to
SR-1A. The property is located near the corner of Cronin Road
and Meadowbrook Road with 258 feet of frontage on Cronin Road and
5ØØ feet frontage on Meadowbrook. The app I i cant wou I d like to
uti I ize the cluster provision and subdivide the parcel into 5
bu i I ding lots and a rema in i ng 3 acre parce I as open space. !L..
EXISTING LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS The property is currently
vacant and is surrounded by property zoned one acre residential.
The property is bounded on the west by a single family house and
Halfway Brook. to the north by single family homes and the Girl
Scout camp. Across Meadowbrook from this parcel are single
fam i I Y homes. across Cron in is vacant I and. The Regency
Apartments are located on the southwest corner of Cronin and
Meadowbrook which is in the vicinity of the parcel. C. ZONE
CHANGE ANALYSIS: 1. What need is being met by the proposed
change in zone or new zone? The appl icant indicates that the
need being met by this re-zoning is the abi I ity to uti I ize the
cluster provision to create 5 bui Iding lots. The proposed
bui Iding lots wi II be about the same size as the existing
residential lots in the area, about 2Ø,ØØØ square feet. 2. What
proposed zones, if any, can meet the stated need? The clustering
prov is i on is a I lowed in a I I res i dent i a I zones except SFR. 3.
How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? Most of
the proposed uses al lowed in the proposed zone are compatible
wit h t he ad j acent zones. However, t here are some uses a I lowed in
the SR-1A zone, such as multifami Iy, which would not be
compatible. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are
suitable to the proposed zone? The site is mostly flat with
about 665 feet of frontage on Halfway Brook. There is a flagged
wetland along Halfway Brook, part of the property is in the
Halfway Brook floodway and the 1ØØ year floodplain. The property
is low and level and these two characteristics make the property
susceptible to flooding. The depth to water table (Ø-18") will
I imit construction to slabs without basements. Clustering, which
is al lowed in the proposed zone, wi I I al low development to occur
away from the brook. The proposed zone wi I I enable the property
to be subdivided into smaller lots which are more practical for
homes on slabs. 5. How wi II the proposed zoning affect publ ic
facil ities? The property is serviced by municipal water and
sewer. The re-zoning should not put an undo burden on those
faci I ities. 6. Why is the current classification not
appropriate for the property in question? The appl icant states
- 30 -
that the current zoning. because the property fronts on a
collector and arterial road. would only allow one lot without
variance. The current zoning does not allow clustering. The
proposed zoning would allow a more practical layout than would
result with the existing zoning. The proposed zoning would also
a II ow for the preservat i on of a gr<een space a long the brook. 7.
What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change?
Halfway Brook and the associated wetland. the inclusion in the
1ØØ year floodplain and the floodway and the fact that the
property's low elevation and flat topography make it highly
susceptible to flooding are environmental factors that wi I I be
impacted by the re-zoning. 8. How is the proposal compatible
with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master
Plan? The proposal would be compatible with the section of the
plan which seeks to I imit development in floodplains and along
streams. This re-zoning would allow for the preservation of 3
acres along Halfway Brook. The proposal is compatible with the
s e c t ion 0 f the p I a n w h i c h de a I s wit h co mm un i t y i s sue, s . T his
section's goals; pol icies and strate~ies look to guide
development towards areas which have sewer and water and
encourages the uti I ization of clustered development. The re-
zoning would allow protection of the wetlands which is a goal of
the Terrestrial and Aquatic section. 9. How are the wider
interests of the community being served by this proposal? This
re-zoning would allow for the development of affordable housing
whi Ie also preserving green space along Halfway Brook. The
development wi II be serviced by municipal sewer and water thereby
minrmizi~g i~páct~ on the adjacent wetlands and groundw~ter. The
I and use p I an. go a Is. pol i c i e san d s t rat e g i e s we red eve lope din
consideration of the wider interests of the community. Since the
action is compatible with the relevant portions of the
comprehensive PLAN it can be inferred that the action is serving
the wider interests of the community. D. SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS The proposed zone change for this specific piece of
property from SFR-1A toSR-1A requires careful consideration.
The zone change wi II allow for the uti I ization of the clustering
provision. which would enable the applicant to develop this
parcel whi Ie at the same time preserving green space along the
brook. However. the SR-1A zone also allows for uses that are not
compatible such as multifamily. The zone change would not
increase the density allowed on the parcel; even if multifami Iy
units were constructed. they would sti I I require per acre per
unit. The lot sizes propòsed are similar to those in the
neighborhood. The parcel is in the municipal sewer and water
districts so septic and water are not I imiting factors. The
Planning Board. along with its recommendation. should consent to
the Town Board being Lead Agency for the purposes of SEQRA. This
re-zoning would al low clustered development of this parcel
without increasing the density of development and would be in
character with the surrounding properties."
MR. BREWER-Okay.
Leon.
MR. STEVES-Since we last met. we've had Chari ie Main visit the
site and do some soi I 'investigation on it. and he did two tests.
(lost word) and he found seasonal high groundwater. or mottling.
at 14 inches and 17 inches. The groundwater itself is below the
surface. and I have this for the Board.
MR. MARTIN-What was the date of that?
RICHARD SCHERMERHORN
MR. SCHERMERHORN-July 14th.
MR. MARTIN-That he was on site.
MR. STEVES-In addition to that. the
out t~o plans. one of which we cal I
a part of. in consideration of the
firm flood insurance rate map. They
United States Governmént put
a floodway. which we are not
subdivision. Second. is a
give elevations across there
- 31 -
of. bas i ca I I Y a long Meadowbrook Road. 304. D i agona I I Y across the
property. at 305. and at Cronin Road. 306. We would plan to have
each and everyone of the house. floor above those elevations.
Basically. along Meadowbrook Road. where the plan. the houses at
305 and a half. and the one on Cronin Road at 306 and a half.
MR. MARTIN-There are certain restrictions
anyhow to get the necessary. meet the
requirements on those houses. right?
you'd be
necessary
I imited to
insurance
MR. STEVES-Yes.
We would have to be above that flood elevation.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But the map says they're al I 304.
MR. STEVES-No.
groundwater.
The map says that's the elevation of the
MR. BREWER-Today.
They're go i ng to f i I I.
MRS. LABOMBARD-You're going to put in fi I I.
MR. STEVES-The house itself wi II have it bui It on slab. and it
wi II be on a fi II condition. with that slab. to ensure that the
floor elevation is at the stated elevation or above.
MR. OBERMAYER-That's for insurance purposes you said?
MR. STEVES-Yes. it is.
MR. OBERMAYER-Flood insurance? That would be the responsibi I ity
of the homeowner. though. purchasing the house. When they go to
purchase their homeowners insurance. then they would get flood
insurance.
MR. STEVES-No. I don't think flood insurance is necessary if we
can give a certificate stating that the elevation of the bui Iding
is above the flood elevation.
MR. MARTIN-What happens. typically. for any bui Iding permit that
comes in for a home in a flood zone is Dave Hatin. at that point.
ensures that the design of the home and the elevation of the home
is set so that it wi I I meet these requirements. prior to even the
footing inspection on the foundation.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other comments?
MR. STARK-Mr. Schermerhorn. would you have any objection to the
Board putting conditions on a recommendation. such as they have
t 0 be sin g I e f am i I Y h 0 m es. b u i I ton a s I a b . I i k e t h at ?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. not at all. think. the last meeting. I
did indicate that maybe. and I talked to a couple of residents on
the street. I would I imit this strictly to the single fami Iy
residential. My intentions are a slab. although if I put one on
a crawl space. it sti II would not effect the elevation of the
land. if I did it on a crawl space. but I'm sti II not going to.
that crawl space cap that I'd pour may be ground level to begin
with. So ,'mstill not going to be putting any more ground
pressure on the ground. but I'd have no problem with that. My
intentions are not to do multifami Iy. At one time. back in
September. it was. and I have changed the plans to residential.
and I have no problem stipulating that in the deed. or whatever
it takes to make sure that it goes no further than single fami Iy
residential.
MR. PALING-It should be stipulated. as George
the deed. so it would carry forward in the
before you bu i Id.
is saying.
event of
a I so in
re-sale.
MR. MACEWAN-I've got a question for Staff along those ines. If
- 32 -
~.
he's agreeable to do that. why
zone change? Why couldn't he
variance to do the clustering?
would it be necessary
go to the ZBA and try
to give a
to get a
MR. MARTIN-That is another avenue, to get variances for each one
of these individual lots. However. clustering allows for this
concept of an open area here along this stream. Halfway Brook.
and it's really a choice of the appl icant. but clustering does
have that one element to it. that, obviously. we avoid the need
for minimum lot size. and we get this common area left open. with
the environmental concern that this is predominantly a wetland
area.
MR. MACEWAN-Which. couldn't you'd you sti I I
requirements by doing it with a variance?
meet those same
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
avai lable to him.
Technically. he would have either option
It's his option.
MR. MACEWAN-If you were to get the zone change. I mean. once the
zone is changed. how can you stop -ª..!lY app I i cant f rom want i ng to
build whatever is allowable in that zone?
MR. BREWER-Because when he comes
stipulate that that's al I they can do.
in for subdivision.
Can't we. or not?
you
MR. MARTIN-No. The real power for stipulation or
comes at the zone change by the Town Board.
I imitation
MR. MACEWAN-It's an allowable use in the zone.
MR. MARTIN-No. The Town Board. when they legislate on a zone
change. can restrict uses within the zone. Even if they're
al lowed in that zone. they can. by resolution. approving that
zone change. restrict certain uses. They've done it in the past.
For example. a zone change occurred on Bay Road. just south of
the intersection with Quaker Road. to Highway Commercial. and
there were some restrictions put on that. I ike no drive-in movie
theater. That type of thing was disallowed. even though it's in
the Use Schedule. and that's why when we note zone changes now on
the official subdivision map in our office. the two that are
maintained by the Town Surveyor. we note the resolutions now. the
resolution numbers on the plat. so a flag is put up that this
was. the zone that occurs on that lot as a result of a change by
the Board. and that resolution should be looked at prior to a
zoning determination being made by the Zoning Administrator.
MR. RUEL- I have a quest i on for the app I i cant. I f you d i dn' t have
a change in zoning.< what would you build on this property?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-At the present time. probably nothing. The way
it's currently zoned. because Cronin and Meadowbrook are arterial
and collector roads. I've got to have double the lot width. and
there's only al lowed one house on the six acres.
MR. RUEL-Yes. but that's nothing. one house.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-One house.
That's all I can do.
MR. RUEL-The reason I ask is that Staff made a statement about.
you would have the same number of occupants on that land. whether
it was zoned or not re-zoned. Didn't you make that statement in
the notes?
MR. HARLICKER-The density wouldn't change.
one acre. It's sti II one acre zoning.
The density is sti II
MR. MARTIN-It's sti II density one dwell ing per acre, but the
other factor. in association with that. as a practical matter.
given. like. the lot width requirements along arterial road. the
- 33 -
effect is you I imit this to one dwell ing unit.
density wise. you could have.
Straight up.
MR. RUEL-Density increases considerably.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. RUEL-Yes. All right. and. also. the impl icat ion was that if
it was not re-zoned. perhaps the green area along the Brook would
not be preserved. because many statements were made that by
getting a change in zoning. that you would preserve this green
area. Does that mean you wouldn't preserve it the other way?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. As indicated. I probably wouldn't bui Id
on it. if I could only do one house. but that is a concern. if I.
lets say I don't subdivide the property. or if don't buy it and
somebody else buys it. there is no control over someone
purchasing that property. maybe even fi II ing it. and then
clearing back to the clearing I ine. We're proposing to give
three acres of basically open area.
MR. MARTIN-Yes. It wasn't the intent of the Staff Note. in that
regard. to say that. well. this is it. It's this or nothing.
The intent is to note that. with the current plan. under this
current scenario. that is an option that's available to you.
It's being offered. and given what has recently happened with
this Board last week. the Girard piece was accepted as a
recreation land. right across the street from this. The Town
owns land further to the south. Garth Allen has indicated he's
interested in conveying property on the Bay Meadows Golf Club
project. the 9Ø unit townhouse development. just on the other
side of this Brook. So what happens is you're beginning to piece
together a greenway al I along Halfway Brook here.
MR. RUEL-Is the appl icant the owner? Are you the owner. sir?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It's under contract. but not at the current time
do I own it.
MR. RUEL-I guess what I'm saying is that when the owner bought
the property. he knew it was I imited to one dwel I ing. right?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. sir. The zon i ng changed. I'm not sure. but
I think it was 1988. It was zoned. I believe. SR-1 Acre. at the
time. and then it went to SFR-1 Acre. the same that Garth Allen's
Golf Course was. but that got changed back to SR-1 Acre. So.
that was 1988 it was changed.
MR. RUEL-Yes. well. the reason
considerably increases the value of
zone change.
I ment ion it
the property.
is that it
if you get a
MR. SCHERMERHORN-It increases it in the sense that. it's not a
larQe increase. but it certainly. if I could only put one house
on six acres. it's not going to be a very large home to begin
with. You can't have a ful I basement. which anybody in real
estate or in my business knows re-sale in this area is tough
without a basement. and you're going to be required. possibly. to
get flood insurance in this area. and the sewer district. with
six acres of land. isn't feasible for an affordable home.
MR. RUEL-If it's not much of an
through al I of this?
increase. why are you going
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The five versus one lot is.
MR. RUEL- thought it was considerable? You said. no.
MR. STEVES-Wel I. the taxes. return sewer tax on this lot. just
the vacant lot. is $931. That's not usage. That's just a fee.
- 34 -
'-
~-
$931 .
that's a lot of money for a lot in there.
MR. BREWER-That's for the one lot, right, Leon?
MR. STEVES-One lot.
MR. BREWER-Yes.
That's six acres.
MR. STEVES-That's right.
MR. RUEL-That's not bad.
MR. STEVES-And you aren't even using it. The pressure of
development is created by the Town, not by the individual. The
Town elected to put this into a high density area, and they put
the sewer and the water, and made it avai lable to the residents
and people, right? He didn't do it. The Town did it.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
Any questions?
MR. STARK-Leon, Mr. Schermerhorn builds his five houses. and
they'd probably be ranch houses or capes. and they'd have a
certain amount of roof area. Could this water be control led on
the individual lots, without it running off?
MR. STEVES-Yes. it could, I believe, through the use of eaves
trenches and/or drywells in the back yard.
MR. STARK-Because the main concern of the neighbors. l. think, in
talking to them at times, and having their comments. was, you
know, if you put more development over there, it would in'crease
the amount of water. Where would the water go, come across the
road onto our property and so on. That was a concern of the
neighbors, and I was just wondering if you could control it on
each individual lot?
MR. STEVES-Yes. In fact, that's a requirement of subdivision.
(lost word) control it.
MR. MARTIN-It would be a requirement for, if this were to go
through, in a hypothetical scenario, it would be a requirement
for completeness of an application that came in, that a
stormwater management plan be submitted for this subdivision, if
you were to see a subdivision with this configuration.
MR. STARK-Okay.
Fine.
MR. STEVES-Also. I'm reading between the I ines. if I'm hearing
correctly, you're concerned with a plan being submitted and then
perhaps changed on you. I don't think the applicant has any
restrictions at all, and any restr'ictions}!..QJ! want to apply, if
you want to say that you are recommending approval of this plan
as submitted. he has no problem with that whatsoever. You're not
recommending a change of zone to al low six houses or seven
houses. but five.
MR. BREWER-And no mu I t if am i I y?
MR. STEVES-Single Fami Iy Residential.
MR. STARK-As submitted, he said.
MR. STEVES-As submitted. Now that doesn't mean
approving the subdivision plan, but that you are
recommending the zone change to allow that condition.
that you're
approving,
MR. BREWER-Okày.
MR. STARK-I know there's no public hearing scheduled, but maybe
we could hear from Mr. MacDonald and the neighbors, or whatever
- 35 -
you want.
MR. BREWER-Sure.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. and I just have a comment to make. Just by
going over this. I was very impressed by the thoroughness of it.
and the way you propose to manage this property. and I have the
same concerns that George and the rest of us have. that you stay
with this plan. and have the stormwater management. and who would
approve that? I mean. that meets who's approvals?
MR. BREWER-Our Engineer would look at it.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It would be our Engineer.
MR. OBERMAYER-If we recommend a zoning change. though. does that
al low them not to have the subdivision now?
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. OBERMAYER-Can they develop single fami Iy homes in there
without subdivision?
MR. BREWER-No.
MR. MARTIN-That has no bearing at
application. It is just strictly that.
that in mind.
a I I on a subd i vis i on
It is a re-zoning. Bear
MR. BREWER-Then. if they want to do this. they have to come back
in for subdivision.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Excuse me. To use some sort of a comparison. as
far as stormwater management. the Meadowbrook Apartments that I
had bui It. the frontage of that lot was 315 feet. and I have two
8 foot units that are 1Ø6 feet long and 3Ø feet wide. and that's
approximately 6.ØØØ square feet each bui Iding. and the way it was
proposed under Site Plan. we have the gutters. and then we have
the catch basins. where the gutters were down into the earth. and
to my knowledge. speaking to the neighbor next to me. Jim Piper.
the people next door. we haven't had any problems. as far as
excess water due to the buildings. the runoffs off the roof. and
what we're talking here. you know. maybe 1.ØØØ square foot capes
or ranches. maybe even a smal I colonial. so the amount of water
is going to be considerably less. coming off of those type of
roofs. and I ike I said. we controlled it on the Apartments. and
there's been no problem. No runoff into the road at all. So. I
know we can control this without any problem.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. RUEL-I've got a couple of questions.
square footage of the house. houses?
What is the average
MR. SCHERMERHORN-That I'm proposing to bui Id?
MR. RUEL-Yes.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-We I I. that could be more or
customer. but I would assume.
less up to my
MR. RUEL-Average.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Average? Nine hundred to twelve hundred.
MR. RUEL-Smal I home. very smal I home.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
neighborhood now. That
neighborhood has now.
With what's in character
Y!.LLl be in character with
of
what
the
the
- 36 -
-'
-/
MR. RUEL-Yes.
Single story?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Single
story. As a matter of
space than a r~nch.
colonials, or whatever,
would be a ranch.
story, maybe a
fact, your two
So, I mean, if
there'd be less
cape, which is a
stories have less
I was to bui Id
roof space than
two
roof
sma I I
there
MR. RUEL-AI I right. The other question has to do with the pond.
What is the elevation of the pond, above or below Halfway Brook?
Because I notice you have a lot of ditches around there:
MR. STARK-It's probably the same.
MR. RUEL-What feeds the pond?
vice versa?
Does the Brook feed the pond, or
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, from the
was a man made pond at one time.
knowledge I have, I bel ieve it
As far as the depth ~f it.
MR. RUEL-No. I didn't ask about the depth.
the pond feed the Brook, or vice versa?
I want to know. does
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. I bel ieve it's just a spi II over, just from
water, from rain water.
MR. RUEL-But you've got ditches connecting the pond to Halfway
Brook. Which way is the water running?
MR. HARLICKER-I think the term "ditches" there, it might be kind
of misleading. I think, how are you picturing a ditch, as
something I ike this, or is it more? When I walked it. those
,ditch~s appeared more I ike depressions in the soi I. than somebody
went out there and actually, with a trencher. and dug a trench or
a ditch thr~ugh the property. I don't know if that makes any
difference to your comment.
MR. RUEL-I just want to know if the pond
Brook, or vice versa. Nobody knows.
is higher than the
MR. HARLICKER-The ditches were dry when I saw them.
MR. RUEL-They were dry?
MR. HARLICKER-Yes.
MR. RUEL-So, and Halfway Brook wasn't?
MR. BREWER-Right.
MR. RUEL-Okay.
So that answers it right there.
MR. BREWER-Is that it, Roger?
MR. RUEL-That answers it, yes.
Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Okay. There is no publ ic hearing, but I wi II let the
pUblic speak, if they care to. Would anybody care to speak?
JANE POTTER
MRS. POTTER-My name is Jane Potter. live direct I y across from
this proposed project, and some of our reasons for objecting to
this project have been stated before, but for the record again,
we feel that the area cannot support more development, unti I
something is done to cure the problem of the high water table.
We pump almost continuously now, and more buildings displace more
water, and make it impossible for our pumps to keep up. The
Brook needs to be widened and dredged, or the water piped out of
the area, as was done in the Feeder Dam area of South Glens
- 37 -
Falls. This would also help keep the road from washing out near
the Girl Scout camp when the Brook overflows. We feel the
property should be studied by the Corp of Engineers, DEC, ENCON,
before any more development is approved. We also recommend al I
studies and work be done by an engineering company from outside
the area, to prevent local influence. Zoning was created to
control what is bui It in certain areas. Ninety-nine percent of
us I ive with that. We feel it should be 1ØØ percent. Mr.
Schermerhorn a I ways seems to want to bu i I d where the zon i ng has
to be changed. He should go where this type of bui Iding is
already allowed, not ruin a residential area. At one point, he
was go i ng to do sing I e fam i I Y homes, and we agreed, as long as
they conformed with our existing neighborhood and were I imited to
no more than three. Now he wants to cluster it and not conform.
He seems more interested in profit than the people already living
there. Does he feel that since he sl id the last project through
with I ittle or no objections that he can continue to deface our
neighborhood? We would have fought him then if we had had any
idea that the Boards of this Town would have al lowed such a
project in a residential neighborhood with a major water problem
already. The bui Idings he already bui It have always had at least
one vacancy. He never finished the third bui Iding, and now the
whole complex is for sale. How unfinished wi I I he leave the next
project? We're a smal I group of people who'd rather not have to
be here, but we have sat back long enough whi Ie people I ike Mr.
Schermerhorn and others have been a I lowed to ru i n what we have
bui It. We wi II not stand back any longer and let this happen.
We're putting this Board on notice. If this or any other similar
projects are approved without the proper studies and remedies of
the existing water problems, we're prepared to sue the Board as
wel I as the bui Ider for damages to our homes created by the
raised water table. The reason I wrote this is, I have not
stopped pumping yet this year, and I real ize we've had a lot more
water than normal. We've argued the point of buildings
displacing water. It's I ike pushing the glass against the water.
It makes it come up. Every time you bring one truck load of fill
in, that's pushing water out. A remark was made, you don't mean,
it goes over the road, it just goes through the ground and keeps
coming up. As far as this green space he wants to donate back,
or give back, or whatever you call it, to the Town, that's just
three or so acres that he doesn't have to pay for. It isn't
giving us anything. It's just green space that's water. It's
not usable. It's not I ike a park, or something we can use. The
main thing that we object to is the re-zoning of this property.
We have already been here before, and we said two or three houses
is one thing, but this going on for five or six is too many.
When you mentioned the sewer tax on this six acres being over
$9ØØ, I agree. It is high, and it's something we all have to
I ive with. We didn't ask for it to be put in our community, and
we're stuck with it. My house, alone, is over $3ØØ, and I have a
sma I I lot. I have a sma II house, but I st i II pay over $3ØØ. If
there were three houses put there, it would be the same amount
taking care of that $9ØØ. Three houses at $3ØØ would take care
of that $9ØØ. I can't understand why, if there's no high water
table in this area, why every single project that's come to this
Board has had to have catch bas i ns and ways of contro II i ng the
water. It's definitely the high water table. Now, Scott, I
know, walked it before the last rain. It is dry only in certain
sections, but the major part of it is sti II wet. We can't live
with that. Anyway, thank you again.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
JIM PIPER
MR. PIPER-My name is Jim Piper. I I ive just south of the project
that Richie built last year. had an opportunity, last night,
to talk to Richie at length on his expectations of what he wanted
to do with the property across the street, and I have said al I
along, to bui Id single fami Iy homes over there, I have no
- 38 -
objections. My wife has no objections to that. If there was a
way that that could be incorporated into some type of zoning
change or some type of language that would say. the only ~hing
that could be built there would be five single family homes. I.
personally. and my wife. would riot object to that. My biggest
fear is that we get this zoning change and. al I of a sudden for
some unknown reasòn. Rich either has to sel I the property. or
somebody else takes over. and al I of a sudden you've got a
quadraplex right across the street. This ¡é my biggest fear. If
there's some way to control that and bui Id single fami Iy
residences over there. I have no problem with that. I think it
would enhance the neighborhood. I think it would give Mr.
Schermerhorn an opportunity to make money on a project there. It
would give the MacDonalds an opportunity tô sel I their property.
and I' m not opposed to t hat . My big g est fear i s t hat i f you
allow a zoning change. I ike was said earl ier. a zone is a zone.
which means anything that goes with that zone is applicable.
Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
MR. MACEWAN-Can I ask a question of you. first. Mr.
you experie~ced water problems on your property?
Piper.
Have
MR. P I PER-No. not on !!!JL property.
MR. MACEWAN-Not at a I I?
MR. PIPER-None.
MR. MACEWAN-Okay.
fhank you.
MR. OBERMAYER-Where do you I ive in relationship to them?
MR. STARK-Next to the Apartments.
Right here.
MR. MACEWAN- I ive just south. it' I I be right across the street
fröm what would be a 50 foot right-of-way. I guess. it would be
to the Town's green way. that's proposed. and my lot is bui It up.
When I bu i It my house. I took the topsoi I off and I went up 14
feet. So I do have a ful I basement. that. during high water
times. in the spring. I have a sump pump that runs. but other
than that. my basement is dry.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
Is there anyone else?
TED TURNER
MR. TURNER-Ted Turner.
the proposed project.
den.ity. Four houses
added. You're talking
wide.
I ive directly across the street from
and. again. I think there's too much
front Meadowbrook Road. three would be
changing an SR zone. The lot's 112 feet
MR. BREWER-Yes. 112 and a half.
MR. TURNER-The lot width in the SR zone is 150 feet.
MR. BREWER-In clustering. though. it's allowed to be smaller.
MR. TURNER-All right. Let me address another issue. Collector
road. If you recommend to change the zone to SR. are you tell i ng
me he doesn't have to get a variance from a Collector road? He
certainly does.
MR. MARTIN-He's got one access point. He's got shared driveways.
and that removes him from that requirement.
MR. TURNER-Does it?
- 39 -
MR. BREWER-He's got how many access points?
MR. MARTIN-Two. on Meadowbrook Road. and one on Cronin.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. TURNER-Okay. but then again. you're still talking 3ØØ feet.
You're talking double the lot width. Tim. The lot width is 150
feet. even if you cluster it.
MR. MARTIN-Whereas Pursuant to the resolution of the Town Board.
the Town Planning Board has been empowered to modify the minimum
lot area and minimum lot width requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance in accordance with provision Section 281 of the Town
Law. I'm reading under Cluster Development. A183-31.
MR. TURNER-Subdivision Regulations?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. A183-31.
MR. TURNER-We I I. aga in. I've just got to echo Mrs. Potter's
thoughts. that that is a high water table area. I am pumping
water right now. just from the rains that we've had. and in the
spring. 1 've got to install another. in fact. I've got to install
another pump right now. because in the spring I've got so much
water there I have two pumps running. So he's going to grade
this off and he's going to bring in fi I I. He's going to change
the water table in that area. and we're going to get more water
than we've gotten before.
MR. MACEWAN-Do yöur pumps run continuously?
MR. TURNER-Pretty much.
It's running right now.
MR. OBERMAYER-Do you have a basement. a ful I basement?
MR. TURNER-Yes. I do. I can't really use it for anything because
I can't keep anything down there. There's just rust and mildew.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
MR. TURNER-And the other neighbors in the area also pump. The
on I y reason Jimmy doesn't pump is because when he bu i It his
house. he built his house at ground level. He just scrapped off
the top soi I. That's why ~ doesn't get water. He bui It the
front of his house up and around. but the other people get water.
everyone of them. MacDonalds. the Sundbergs. the Potters.
myself.
MR. MARTIN-Did you notice any increase in water. Ted. after they
bu i I t the Apartments?
MR. TURNER-Well. lets see. last year I had 15 inches of water.
MR. MARTIN-Did you ever have anything
Apartments were bui It?
I ike that before the
MR. TURNER-On I y one ot her time. I had 1 ø inches of water. I had
to get the fire company over to pump it out. because I couldn't
take it out. One other thing I want to add. if you're going to
recommend a zone change. only let them bui Id residential. no
multifami Iy. no quadraplexs. nothing else. just single fami Iy.
MR. BREWER-Okay.
comment?
Thank you.
Is there anyone else who'd care to
MARK LEVACK
MR. LEVACK-Good even i ng. My name's Mark Levack. I'm a rea I tor
in Glens Fal Is. I have a real estate company. Rich Schermerhorn
- 4Ø -
...--'
and I started our real estate. he started his building company at
the same time I started my real estate company. We've had a lot
of dea lings over t he years. and Rich has a I ways proven to be a
very conscientious. very qual ity bui Ider. That's evidenced with
his projects on Bay Road. Dr. Jung office building. and I think
even the project on Meadowbrook. Some issues have been raised
here by Jane Potter this evening that I see are four fold issues.
She addresses the issue of high water table in that area. There
clearly is a high water table in that area. I feel that Rich's
engineering and Rich's bui Iding abi I ity has addressed those
concerns adequately. I think that Mr. Potter has taken some
I iberties with Rich's character this evening. She's taken some
pot shots at him about alwayé seeming to go where a zone change
is needed. That's not true. I think it's a nonsensical comment.
I t h ink it was u n C a I led for . and it' s just not correct. R i c h has
been involved with a lot of very good qual ity projects that have
not required re-zoning. and I think the record should be set
straight on that. As it relates to her comments regarding
vacancies at the Meadowbrook Apartment complex. they're currently
1ØØ percent occupied over there. and. yes. we do have the project
I isted. Rich is a bui Ider. He is in the business of sell ing.
bui Iding and sell ing real estate. I've had an opportunity to
manage large apartment complexes in the past. and I have to say
that this Apartment complex. as small as it is. I have to say. is
probably one of the best run complexes in the area. It's new.
It's neat. and. yes. there are some areas that are sti I I needing
to be finished. but it is a project that are still under
construction. So. I just wanted to addressth~ couple of issues
here this evening regarding that. and then close by saying that.
again. I feel that Rich is a very good qual ity bui Ider and he is
extremely. extremely conscientious about the outcome of his work.
and I think that if you approve the r~-zoning this evening.
you'll enable this individual to continue on with his I ivel ihood.
in a time frame that he needs to. within the construction window
here this summer. So I would urge you to approve the re-zoning
this evening. Thank you.
MR. BREWER-Thank you.
debate.
All right.
As long as we don't get into a
MRS. POTTER-No. We won't. What I was talking about was the last
time I was here. Mr. Schermerhorn was also involved in the
project between Bay and Country Club Roads. which is also a
wetlands project. I think it's (lost word) someone ~Ise was
involved. That's where I heard his name. There was another
time. that it was a wetland section. As far as 1ØØ percent
occupancy. I drove by there today. There is a For Rent sign in
the window of the upper floor center unit. I have seen these
signs al I along in different units. As far as his units on
Meadowbrook Road. I've stated before. my objection to them is the
fact that they don't conform. They are large. gold bui Idings.
That's what I was talking about. I was not attacking his
character.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Excuse me. There is a For Rent sign in the
window. I have a lease that's up in September. As a matter of
fact. I have two that were up j n September. I've a I ready rented
the one. and I'm showing the other one.
MR. BREWER-Okay. I'm sorry. I don't mean 1'0 cut you off. but I
think it's irrelevant.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-There is no relevance to my apartments to the
re-zoning. That's why I don't know why it keeps coming up. I'm
sorry. I shouldn't have mentioned that.
MR. BREWER-No. you can talk about it if you want. but I
don't know that it's relevant to this re-zoning. whether
apartments are for rent or empty or ful I or ~ot.
just
your
- 41 -
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes.
anything.
So, I don't know what it had to do with
MRS. LABOMBARD-Rich, just have a question about, you said that
maybe you' I I put in a crawl space instead of a cement slab.
Would that mean something I ike three feet down, where you could
get at the pipes, if you had to?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Basically a crawl space is, say this is
the earth right here, this table, I would sti II put a frost wall
in, which consists of an eight inch concrete wall, basically,
sunk into the ground below your frost level, which is four feet.
Rather than fi I I from this level up 18 inches to get my floor
he i ght up, I'd I eave that ho I low. put my wood deck across, and
just pour, like, a two inch cap on top of the existing earth
there, and that would allow access under. So when she was
referring to the glass and the water example, a slab or crawl
space is not going to put pressure down on that earth, because
I'm not hollowing out the earth by any means. I'm just putting a
frost wallin there, back filling to it again, and I'm not
changing any pressure or ground pressure on that earth at al I.
MRS. LABOMBARD-So you're really having air under there?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Just air for access of plumbing.
MRS. LABOMBARD- mean, it's not dirt or footers or?
MR. OBERMAYER-It's going to be a frost wal I.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. You' I I have a footing in the ground, but
that's four feet in the ground, and that's it, and the neighbors
next to me ~ on concrete slabs. the two next to me, and one's
across the road from the property are fu II basements.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But, I mean, cou Id that crawl space get water in
it, or it'll be up high enough that it won't?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, not by the indications of Chari ie Main's
mottling, of 14 inches and 17 inches. If I was to put, well, Jim
Piper said he bui It right on the existing earth. Now I bel ieve
his topo's probably close to mine, but he doesn't have water.
Well. he has a sump. but regardless, I don't bel ieve there'd be
any problem with a crawl space, and if there was, it wouldn't do
any damage, but I may find it suitable just to do slabs. and if
that's the way you want it stated, we could leave it at that,
too.
MRS. LABOMBARD-No.
to do that.
I was just curious as to how you were going
MR. SCHERMERHORN-The only difference when you do a concrete slab,
in the State of New York, they require that you use al I cast iron
plumbing under the concrete, which gets rather expensive. It
doesn't serve a better purpose than the PVC, but I just want to
leave that option open, because, here again, some people feel
different about concrete slabs.
MR. RUEL-Excuse me, wi I I you have rad i ant heat
slab?
in the concrete
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. I wouldn't. have gas available over
there. So I'd put a gas hot air heating system, probably hot
water, which is the most economical, because if I do a slab. hot
air is very difficult to get on the floor up if there's a slab
there. So I'd probably do hot water, and then you can do the
laterals around the bui Iding, and I can make a I ittle furnace
room for it. The same with the hot water tanks, so nothing would
be, ever have to worry about getting wet.
- 42 -
----'
MR. BREWER-Okay.
George?
MR. STARK-I have no questions for Mr. Schermerhorn. I have a
question for Mark. that if we were to make a recommendation for
approval of this to the Town Board. what kind of language would
be used to ensure that M~. Schermerhorn cannot deviate. or even
if he bought the land. and then sold it again. whoever buys the
land in the future. wi I I not deviate from the plan submitted
tonight?
MR. SCHACHNER-We I I. I th i nk we have to remember that our ro I I
here is strictly as a recommender to the Town Board. and it's
easy. I mean. you cari recommen~ anything you I ike. and you can
literally recommend it conditioned on anything you I ike. That
doesn't mean that the Tòwn Board wi II necessar i I Y adhere to that
same strict condition. and I don't say that because they
shouldn't. I only say thât because they'll have to decide. first
of a I I . as a matt e r of po I i è Y . whet her t hey w ish to . Second of
all. they'll have to be counseled by the Town Attorney. Paul
Dusek. as to how restrictive they can be in a re-zoning. but as
far as .Q..!:LC. roll here. as a Planning Board. you can recommend it.
I'm comfortable with ª-!:lY. recommendation. because it's strictly a
recommendation. You cèn I imit it any way you want.
MR. STARK-You don't have any problem with us saying. the plan as
submitted. in the future. by you. or if you sold it. you know?
MR. SCHERMERHORN-No problem whatsoever.
No problem.
MR. BREWER-You can say we recommend single fami Iy residences
only. with a maximum number of five.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Exaètly as submitted h~re.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-There could be a deed restriction. as wel I. that
was drawn up.
MR. BREWER-But we have no control over whether the Town Board
makes you deed restrict it or not.
MR. SCHERMERHORN-I could give you a signed statement that would
hold up. If you recommend it. and it goes to the Town Board.
will abide by that.
MR. BREWER-No. I unde~stand what you're saying. Okay. Does
anybody else have any other questions? Is there anyone else that
would I ike to comment?
MR. STEVES-A moment ago you said that the plan should be exactly
as shown. I don't think you want to shoot yourself in the foot.
If you see something. in the future. that yoU want to modify. you
ought to have that abi I ity. substantially 'as shown, and I'm not
saying that for any reason. I can't think of any reason it would
be chan~ed. but I think you ought to have the ~ption.
MR. MARTIN- thi~k we've got to see a real thorough stormwater.
if it ever did get to the point of a subdivision. we'd need to
see a real thorough stormwater management report here. and the
other thing that might even be appropriate is to get into some
landscaping requirements that would go along the I ines of maybe
absorbing some of the water.
MR. STARK-If the Town Board recommended
for site plan review anyway.
it. it has to come back
MR. MARTIN-Wel I. no, they're going to come subdivision only. not
site plan.
MR. BREWER-That's right. It's just subdivision. Okay. I guess
a recommendation's in order. if somebody wants to make one.
- 43 -
>-...~
MOTION THAT THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD
TO RE-ZONE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 1-94 RICHARD
SCHERMERHORN FROM SFR-1A TO SR-1A, Introduced by Catherine
LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
With the following stipulations: That we keep it just about as
it's proposed here, with five single family residences, limited
to five.
Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1994, by the following vote:
MR. MACEWAN-No, and I think I'd I ike to explain why I'm saying
no. I think that the plans and the goals that the developer has
in mind here can be better met by obtaining the necessary
variances through the ZBA. I think one of the criteria that we
were looking at the Board was the possibi I ity, on the Town's
behalf, of acquiring the acreage along the Brook. That could be
acquired through subdivision and through donation in I ieu of fees
for recreation. The bothersome part about this is that a
recommendation that this Board would make to the Town Board is
not necessar i I Y the recommendat i on the Town Board wou I d set in
action. If we were to recommend to the Town Board that the
applicant be restricted to three, four, or five single family
residences in here, with the re-zoning change, is not necessari Iy
that the action the Town Board would take. On that note alone, I
think I would feel much more comfortable with the appl icant going
through the ZBA and trying to get the clustering variances that
he would need to do his development. That's why I'm voting no.
MR. RUEL-I want
table. B, it
conditions of
restrictions.
to qual ify ~ vote. A, it has a high water
will increase density, and, C, I don't want
types of bui Idings, etc., to be part of the
Therefore, I vote no on the recommendat ion.
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Pal ing,
Mr. Brewer
NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel
MR. BREWER-Now you can comment, if you want to, Leon.
MR. STEVES-I don't think we can ask for a re-zoning, I don't
think we could ask for a variance in that zone because clustering
is not permitted in the present zone.
MR. MACEWAN-Not necessari Iy the clustering clause, but you could
obtain the necessary variances to do what you want to do, would
be I i eve.
MR. MARTIN-The other thing I would remind the appl icant is, per
the County's request, we are taking action first. This will go
on to the County Planning Board in August, and then after that,
completion of that, it wi II go to the Town Board. So I would
advise you that you show up at the County Planning Board meeting
in August. You'll be on their agenda.
MR. BREWER-Jim, we also have to consent to the Town Board being
Lead Agent?
MR. STARK-For the purposes of SEQRA.
MR. MARTIN-Yes, wel I, it would help. Yes. It would be helpful
to do it now. You need a motion to that effect.
MOTION THAT THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD CONSENT TO THE TOWN BOARD
BEING LEAD AGENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SEQRA FOR THE RE-ZONING OF
RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for
its adoption, seconded by George Stark:
Duly adopted this 26th day of July, 1994, by the following vote:
- 44 -
''''''-
---'
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obêfmáyer. M~s. LaBòmba~~. Mr. pål ing.
Mr. Brewer
NOES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel
MR. HARLICKER-You
Subdivision.
also have
to take action
on Seeley's
MR. MA R TIN - Yes. his r e que s t for tab I i n g .
MR. BREWER-We need a motion to table Seeley's.
MOTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISiON NO. 9-1994 CRAIG
SEELEY. Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption.
seconded by Roger Ruel:
Subdivision of a +/- 14.3 acre parcel into 2 lots of +/- 7.157
acres. unt i I the first meet i ng in August.
Duly adopted this 26th day of July. 1994. by the fol lowing vote:
AYES: Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling. Mr. Stark.
Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. Brewer
NOES: NONE
MR. BREWER-Okay. We have Andrea Gray. there's a note that I
have. They would I ike an extension. The subdivision was
approved. That's the subdivision up here. It was a three lot
subdivision?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. BREWER-They asked to have an extension of. what was it. 60
days?
MR. STARK-Why?
MR. BREWER-Why?
I guess they're having a. Jim. you fill him in.
MR. MARTIN- just heard about this late today. He brought in his
plat late for sIgnature. and he's.
MR. BREWER-And he's protesting the recreation fees.
understand.
guess I
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. BREWER-That matter's to be settled. and his fi I ing time is 60
days. and it expires today.
MR. MARTIN-We don't accept. or Tim doesn't sign the plat unti I
al I appropriate fees are taken in.
MR. BREWER-And
whether we want
the problem.
he hasn't paid the fees.
to grant the extension or
It's up to this Board
not. until he settles
MR. MACEWAN-Well. wasn't he aware that
subdivision that there were fees involved?
when he did the
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MR. BREWER-He certainly was.
MR. MARTIN-'It's in the applicati'on.
MR. MACEWAN-And he was. at the time of the appl ication. wi II ing
to pay the fees?
- 45 -
~,
MR. MARTIN-I don't know about that.
in the application.
All I can tell you is it's
MR. MACEWAN-We I I. I guess I need to understand. Where is th is
beef coming from al I of a sudden. that he's protesting paying the
fees.
MR. MARTIN-Well. in all honesty. think there's recent court
action. or there's at least been a change in the State law. a
Supreme Court case relating to imposition of fees like that. and
that is relatively new.
MR. SCHACHNER-That's United States Supreme Court case. not Warren
County Supreme Court.
MR. MACEWAN-He's basically waiting to hear what the results of
this case is?
MR. SCHACHNER-We I I. that case has been decided already.
MR. BREWER-That case has been decided. and
protesting the Town charging him recreation fees.
think he's
MR. RUEL-I agree.
MR. BREWER-And he wants to get that issue straightened out before
he files his plat. I guess. He doesn't want to pay them. That's
totally up to the Board. If somebody wants to make a motion to
extend it. fine. if they want to make a motion to deny. that's
fine.
MR. MACEWAN-I'm not in favor of doing it.
MR. PALING- don't think so. either.
MR. RUEL-I say yes.
MR. BREWER-You say yes. what?
MR. RUEL-Extend it. give them the extension. whatever he wants.
MR. STARK-Jim. every single person in Town. then. Guido could
turn around and say. well. I'm not.
MR. MARTIN-I think this is an issue that's large in scope and
certainly beyond our authority. I think this is a matter for the
Town Board. as the legislative body of the Town. to wrestle with.
and for the Town Attorney to look into. Right now. this Board is
empowered to deal with the Town laws as they exist. and right now
our recreation fee's in existence. and until I hear differently.
MR. RUEL-Wel I. can't we object to it?
MR. MARTIN-You can object to anything you like.
MR. RUEL-That's why I'm in favor of giving this individual the
extension he wants.
MR. MARTIN-I mean. in fairness to the applicant in this regard. I
don't think fee has resulted in the delay to this point. I think
he's just been trying to get his plat in order. and everything
I ike that. for signature. We have the plat on Pam's desk in the
office ready for signature. That's there. but in the last week
or so. he's heard about this business with the recreation fee.
MR. RUEL-If we don't give him the extension. then what?
MR. MARTIN-Then the subdivision's void.
MR. BREWER-The subdivision is dead.
- 46 -
c"-"
.,.-
MR. RUEL-It dies? When?
MR. BREWER-It dies. tonight.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Well. if we don't give them the extension. wi II
they just pay their money up front? If we don't give them the
extension. wi I I they come in tomorrow and pay their money?
MR. MARTIN-No.
MRS. LABOMBARD-It's too late.
It's after the fact.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
The time wi I I have lapsed.
MR. STARK-Then he has to go through the process al lover again?
MR. MARTIN-Right.
MR. BREWER-Exactly.
MR. PALING-Does he have a substantial reason fo~ letting it go
this long and making it a last minute thing like this is7
MR. MARTIN-I really can't answer that.
today. and this happened in the past.
him. necessari Iy. but it 'happens from
w h at eve r rea son. don' t g et i t don e .
All know is it came in
I will say that. not with
time to time. people. for
MR. PALING-What does he want. a 60 day extension?
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
MRS. LABOMBARD-Do you have to give him 60?
MR. OBERMAYER-We gave Guido a 60 day extension.
MR. MARTIN-You don't have to give him 60. You could give him 30.
You could give him 10. You could give him none.
MR. OBERMÀYER-Why do we have to do 60 days?
MR. BREWER-You don't. Give him 30. Give him 10.
I don't care.
MR. MACEWAN-Why do you have to do anything?
MR. STARK-
re-f i ling.
hate to make the appl ¡cant go through the expense of
MRS. LABOMBARD-I know.
MR. PALING-Why don't we give him 30 days. and then if there's
going to be a big fight. it'll give~. give him some time to
explain it to us. too. a little bit better.
MR. RUEL-Thirty days from what date?
MR. MARTIN- think. what works best for me. when you do these
dates. is that if you cite the end of the month. the last day of
the month. That way we get by our meet i ng dates. incase we need
to take action.
MR. PALING-August 31st.
MR. RUEL-Allright.
MOTION TO GRANT AN EXTENSION FOR FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-
1994 ANDREA GRAY. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its
adopt ion. seconded by Robert Pa ling:
To August 31st. 1994.
- 47 -
Duly adopted this 26th day of July. 1994. by the following vote:
MR. MACEWAN-Just to clarify this. Jim. their position is that
they don't feel compelled that they have to make recreation fee
payments for the subdivision? Their contesting that?
MR. RUEL-That's not part of this.
MR. MARTIN-That's part of the problem. from what I. I only had
this told to me I ike about 3:30. 4 o'clock today. That's part of
the explanation. Yes. I don't know that it's all of it.
MR. MACEWAN-What's the other part of the explanation?
MR. MARTIN-Is that he. for whatever reason. did not get his plat.
his mylar. in order for signature. I don't know whether he had
problems with the surveyor who did the plat.
MR. MACEWAN-So it's not just the issue of the fees?
MR. MARTIN-No.
don't think it is.
AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan.
Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE
MR. MARTIN-And 1'1 I indicate to him that he's got 30 days.
MR. BREWER-All right. A couple of things .L wanted to ask you.
Jim. Gardentime?
MR. MARTIN-Coming in.
It's in.
MR. BREWER-You said that two months ago.
MR. MARTIN-No. it's in.
MR. MACEWAN-What are they coming in for. the new roof they're
putting on in the site plan. or they coming in for the houses
across the street?
MR.
lot
that
from
HARLICKER-They're coming in for a site plan to uti I ize the
just to the west of where that Honda Dealership. They bought
I ittle triangular. they're in contract. I guess. to buy it
Earltown. and that's what they're going to uti I ize.
MR. BREWER-Did we change the submission date. so that we'd get
our Staff Notes quicker?
MR. MARTIN-I was going to try
meetings. So the August would
prior to the last Wednesday.
and do it
be pushed
for the September
back to that Friday
MR. BREWER-So you' I I send out notices so that everybody knows?
MR. MARTIN-We're going to send out a general notice. yes.
MR. MACEWAN-That's what we had talked about in our workshop.
MR. MARTIN-Right.
however we can.
It was the Friday prior to the last Wednesday.
MR. BREWER-So it'll be done in August. so that September's
meetings wi I I be.
MR. MARTIN-Will reflect that.
MR. BREWER-We' I I get our Staff Notes a I ittle earl ier.
MR. MARTIN-Right. and that was done with the understanding of the
Board that. with that last meeting in August. you may have to
- 48 -
....,.,~' ,
deal with some individual cases for submission dates and stuff.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Has anybody else got anything?
meeting here Thursday night.
We've got a
MR. MARTIN-And I want to tel I the Board. you probably read in the
paper. we're kicking off our Comprehensive Plan in a big way.
You're all invited to come Monday night August 1st to the Town
Board meet i ng. We' I I be mak i ng a forma I presentat ion. and we' I I
begin our neighborhood meetings August 4th and August 11th. and
they are going to occur the first and second Thursday of every
month. right through November.
MR. PALING-Are we going to get a copy of that Comprehensive Plan?
MR. MARTIN-Most dèfinitely you wi I I.
You're bound by it.
MR. PALING-Because I can't be there August 1st.
MR. MARTIN-This is going to be a long time in development. We're
looking at. probably. September of next year before we have a
document.
MR. MACEWAN-When were those dates again. Jim?
MR. MARTIN-The first is August 4th and 11th. and then you can
remember. as a general rule. marking your calendar. it's the
first two Thursdays of every month there after. through November.
MR. MACEWAN-This is for the Master Plan?
MR. MARTIN-Yes. We're going to have a general
presentation meeting to the Town Board August 1st.
now. according to current State law. they are the
approves the plan and adopts it. so to speak.
kick off
as they are
Board that
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
Staff?
Who' I I be giving the presentations. your
MR. MARTIN-Planning Staff. yes.
MR. OBERMAYER-Okay.
MR. RUEL-Jim. you gave us dates. where?
MR. MARTIN-The first one. August 4th. wi II be at Bay Ridge
Station Number Two. Firehouse Station Two. and the second one is
August 11th at the North Queensbury Firehouse. and 1'1 I get you a
schedule for there after.
MR. RUEL-It' II be in the newspaper. I guess.
MR. MARTIN-Yes.
We're going to get it in the newspaper. too.
MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else from anybody?
MR. MARTIN-Just to let you knoW. I've issued an Order to Remedy
Violation to Cool Beans.
MR. BREWER-And. also. why don't you tell them about up on 149.
just so you know.
MR. MARTIN-Martindale was issued a court summons to appear for
having a seasonal vegetable stand without site plan review.
MRS. LABOMBARD-But. Jim. he has that every year over there. You
can drive in there àny year and buy vegetables.
MR. MARTIN-Only since 1990.
- 49 -
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
Timothy Brewer. Chairman
_~o-