Loading...
1994-08-23 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23RD. 1994 INDEX Subdivision No. 9-1994 Craig Seeley 1 . FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 27-94 Eugene & Marion 0' Ne i I 24. Subdivision No. 12-1994 Keith & Kathy Pfeiffer 40. SKETCH PLAN Subdivision No. 13-1994 Charles Adams 48. SKETCH PLAN Petition for Zone Change Robert & Peter Nemer 71 . No. 2-94 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. ,_._···r-·~ aUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 23RD. 1994 7:ØØ P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT TIMOTHY BREWER. CHAIRMAN GEORGE STARK. SECRETARY ROBERT PALING JAMES OBERMAYER ROGER RUEL CRAIG MACEWAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-SCOTT HARLICKER PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1994 FINAL STAGE SEELEY OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: & TWIN CHANNELS ROAD SUBDIVISION OF LOTS OF 7.157 ACRES EACH. TAX MAP NO. ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS TYPE: LI-1A A 14.33 135-2-2 UNLISTED CRAIG LOCATION: BIG BOOM ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOT SIZE: 14.33 WILLIAM NEALON. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT MR. STARK-It was tabled from last week. MR. MARTIN-You want to hear my Administrator. regarding the stream. interpretations. I assume? as Zoning MR. BREWER-Yes. we do. MR. MARTIN-As I read the Ordinance. a 75 foot setback would be in effect over the stream. as shown on the Lot Two. So there'd be a 75 foot setback required from that stream. MR. PALING-Jim. when you say "that stream". could you be more specific. please? MR. HARLICKER-The one that's indicated. MR. MARTIN-From the stream as indicated on the plat. I assume. you know. this is a stamped survey. The survey accurately depicts the length and location of the stream. So from that line that indicates the stream. right along the word "zoned" there. on Lot Two. a 75 foot distance from that line that indicates that stream. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. MA R TIN - We' ve c a I led DE C. and the y say the Wa t e r S p e cia lis t . or Water Resources Spec i a list, is out on vacat ion unt i I Monday. Joe Prall. the Regulatory Affairs person in Warrensburg. said it's I ikely that any work on that stream. whether to culvert the stream or change it's direction. is going to require a permit from them. but they'd need further information on it to make an accurate and ful I determination. So that's ~ determination. That's the latest word we've gotten from DEC. Now the other thing that was just pointed out to me. just before the meeting tonight. regarding the buffer zone. I refer to 179-72. if you could. in your Code book. regarding buffer zones. and 1'1 I read it into the record. for the benefit of the applicant. 179-72B. - 1 - "Where any industrial use as defined in this Chapter abuts any residential zone at the lot I ine or at a street. said industrial use shall provide the following buffer zones from the adjoining lot I ine of the residential zone or street right-of-way:" And they have a small chart there. Light industry at the lot I ine is a 50 foot buffer zone. Light industry at the street is a 100 foot buffer zone. So. the portions of the lots. the light industrial lot. where it adjoins residential property. in this case. is SR-1 Acre. along Twin Channels Road. and WR-1A along East Branch Road. That buffer should be 100 feet from the far side of the street. because I think those are both. I know for a fact that East Branch Road. there. is a road by use. So the Town only has use of the portion of the street that's actually paved. There is no deeded right-of-way. in that case. MR. BREWER-So that would be. in effect. where the 50 foot minimum mark is on here actually should be 67 feet? MR. MARTIN-Yes. to give you the ful I 100 foot separation distance as required in that Section. MR. BREWER-On Twin Channels. we don't know. MR. MARTIN-On Twin Channels. it looks I ike the road is shown as being wider in that section. I would assume this is to scale. I'm not sure as to whether that's a road by deed or a road by use. but that would apply along that section of Twin Channels where we have the SR-1 Acre zoning. At that rather acute corner there. where it intersects with Big Boom Road. from that point on. it reduces down to a 50 foot buffer. because that's light industry over that section of the property. So there are a couple of fine points. MR. BREWER-Okay. We do have the appl icant here. Mr. Seeley. MR. NEALON-My name is Wi I I i am Nea I on. I'm an attorney. here on behalf of Mr. Seeley. We are particularly concerned with that portion which impacts the proposed development. that would generally I ie on the northerly portion of the parcel indicated as Parcel Two on the subdivision map. We are concerned about the impact of the setback at the intersection of Big Boom Road and Twin Channels Road. as it is the portion of the property which is the subject of Mr. Seeley's subdivision appl ication. and intended use appl ication. which we would expect to fi Ie shortly. Your indication is that it would be 100 feet from the far side? MR. MARTIN-Right. That's the way I would read that Section. MR. NEALON-So. essentially. what we're talking about. the road is about 50 feet wide there. MR. MARTIN-Yes. The survey depicts the road as being 50 feet wide in that section. Again. this was just pointed out to me before the meeting. So I don't have information as to whether that's a road by use or a deeded right-of-way through there. That would effect that. MR. NEALON-On Twin Channel Road? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. NEALON-I don't have any either. information about Twin Channels Road MR. MARTIN-That information's avai lable in the Clerk's Office. We could look that up first thing tomorrow morning. MR. NEALON-Assuming the road to be 50 feet wide. that's not going to change the setbacks shown on the map. - 2 - MR. MARTIN-Right. be no change. If this is true as depicted. then there would MR. BREWER-On the Twin Channels and Big Boom side. it wi II affect 13 feet. On the other. MR. NEALON-Speaking directly to the right-of-way on East Branch Road. that would be the smaller road running on the south end of the property. we don't have any opposition. MR. MARTIN-So it should be just a correction to the indicating the buffer along. and it's only to the point East Branch road para II e I s the property line. At that where it veers off. then it would reduce back down to 50 See how East Branch Road veers away from the property. plat where point feet. MR. BREWER-No. Big Boom. MR. NEALON-Not on the east. the east portion. where that triangle is. MR. MARTIN-Yes. See how it veers away from the property. At that point. it would reduce back to a 50 foot buffer. MR. NEALON-Now. what intersection of Twin property line at that the intersection. is of interest to us is that it is. at the Channels Road and East Branch Road. the intersection is actually in the middle of MR. MARTIN-I see. Is that that dotted I ine going through the word "Twin". it comes to a point at the corner? MR. NEALON-Where that corner point is. it is virtually in the center of the road. That road at that point isa very large "y". MR. MARTIN-I see. Yes. MR. NEALON-But from a phi losophical standpoint. we don't have a difficulty with the nominal 67 feet. MR. MARTIN-Yes. It's actually just an increase of 17 feet. MR. NEALON-For the purposes of clarity. we come down about 130 feet from the intersection. for the point where the road is no longer on Mr. Seeley's land. Are we talking 67 feet from the property line. or from the edge of the road. just so we know. MR. MARTIN-It should be 100 feet from the edge of the right-of- way on the far. side there. the far side of the right-of-way. MR. NEALON-Okay. That's fine. MR. MARTIN-In this case. it would be the southerly most edge. MR. NEALON-That's fine. The deeded right-of-way? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. NEALON-I have but one copy of a letter we received today from the Department of Environmental Conservation. in respect to the stream that Mr. Martin just spoke of. It's addressed to Mr. Seeley. I'll read it into the record. and then supply the clerk with a copy of the communication. It is from Thomas Hall. Environmental Analyst at the Division of Regulatory Affairs in the Warrensburg Office. "Dear Mr. Seeley: This wi II confirm my receipt today. via fax. of two letters from you. The letters describe a project that would involve the fi I I ing of certain tributaries of a protected stream identified as H336. H336 flows into the Hudson River near Big Boom Road in the Town of Queensbury. Your letters request that I advise you as to whether - 3 - a permit is required to fi I I in the tributaries of H336. Further. you request a response by five o'clock today." We had written to them earlier and hadn't received anything back. Hence. the further inquiry. "In response. I offer the following. Tributary H336 Is protected under Environmental Conservation Law - i.e.. prior to disturbing the bed or banks of the stream. a permit must be obtained from the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The tributaries of H336 that you want to f i I I are not shown on our off i cia I stream protect ion maps. As a result. these tributaries would be protected only if they are judged to flow year round. If they do not flow year round. they would not be protected and no permit would be required from DEC prior to placing fi I I. As you can see. the critical decision is whether the stream flows year round. For this purpose. my office rei ies on the judgement of one of the Department's aquatic biologists. In fact. it is my understanding that one of our biologists has been consulted on this question. Unfortunately. I wi I I be unable to confirm his determination unti I he returns to the office on August 29. In the meantime. if you have conclusive evidence that the stream does not flow year round. please provide it to me. Aside from the question of whether a permit is required. you should be aware that stream work must be conducted in such a way that water qual ity is maintained. Specifically. this would require that placement of fi I I not cause turbidity within tributary H336. Should you have any questions. please contact me. Thank you for your inquiry. Sincerely. Thomas W. Hal I Environmental Analyst 2" MR. BREWER-So where does that put us. Jim? MR. MARTIN-I would say. based on the reading of that letter. we need to get a determination from the aquatic biologist as to how he would view this stream. MR. NEALON-It would appear to me. Members of the Board. that whether this drainage area is characterized as a stream is a matter of what the actual biology. it's not a matter of whether there's water in it from time to time. would respectfully suggest that. as Mr. Martin has suggested. that any decision relative to setbacks. as that portion of any. I'm reluctant to even classify it as a tributary. because I've been there myself. and I would assume the rest of the Board members have. It is. essentially. a ravine that from time to time is wet. and I would. of course. defer to ENCON's wisdom as to whether it's a stream or not. but I would suggest that if ENCON rules that it is not a protected stream. and we are to fo II ow whatever recommendat ions it might have as to whether it might be fi lied. If it is not a protected stream. I would respectfully submit that the landowner does have certain prerogatives within the confines of sound engineering practices. MR. MART I N-We I I. the other thing I might want to point out. too. here. is I don't want to be mixing apples and oranges. DEC has their regulations and we have ours. and I'm charged. as Zoning Administrator. with making a determination of. among other things. when setbacks are applicable. and I started out by saying. that is the case in this instance. Now the DEC information may be helpful. from their standpoint. as to what they may require from a permit or anything I ike that. but from my standpoint. my determination is made. The setbacks apply to this situation. DEC's really not going to change that. in.!!!:i mind. MR. BREWER-Okay. So what you're saying is your determination has been made. That's the bottom I ¡net as far as we're concerned? MR. MARTIN-Right. If they're processes. obviously. to go to the I. quite frankly. encourage that. I ike to know for myself. aggrieved by that. there's Zoning Board. and so on. and in these cases. because I'd - 4 - ~' MR. NEALON-Well. Mr. Martin. I guess my query would be on that. and I don't want to belabor this point. but if ENCON says this is not a stream. then the Ordinance upon which you rely is not appl icable to this case. MR. MARTIN-Wel I. we. unfortunately, have no definition of stream. except that the term that's referred to in the definition under Shorel ine, and things I ike that. Any time our office has been, staff from our office has been to the site. I believe the Board can back this up, any time you've been there, water has been flowing. and it appears that the source of the water flow is an underground spring. MR. MACEWAN-There's two gull ies that 1.. saw in there. One of them was a shallow ravine that had some instance of a puddling in it, where there was some fi II put into it, but it really wasn't, per se, a flowing stream. The other gully that I looked at was probably 25 foot, 20 foot deep, and it did have a continuously running stream in it, the entire length of it. Are you referring to both of those instances. or just the 75 foot buffer on the one that was continuously flowing? MR. MARTIN-Just the one, and the other thing that's interesting to note. also, is that there is no delineation on this survey as this being an intermittent stream. It's shown with the same sort of detai I and symbol as the stream that it feeds into. So, therefore, the surveyor must have had some reason for putting this on. and any time we've been there to physically see it, it's been flowing. So that would be the basis for ~ determination, and not so much that DEC classifies this. MR. MACEWAN-Fròm your experience with DEC in the past. when they go to classify if it is indeed a year round running stream. what do they do? Is it the vegetation they look for. or do they actua I I Y watch it and survey it for a year to see if it does run year round? MR. MARTIN-I can't speak to that. don't know what their factors are that they consider for a year round stream. MR. BREWER-Well, I think what we have to keep in mind. what Jim said. is DEC has their standards and we have our standards. His determination has been made. and that's something we have to live with right at this time. MR. OBERMAYER-Jim, the 75 foot setback. is that off of the ravine? Where would that fall on this piece of property? MR. MARTIN-It should be from the edge of the water mark of the stream. which essentially in this case is the bank of the stream. or the point at which the stream meets the land, the edge of the stream. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. NEALON-Jim. if you would refer. just for my edification, on the map. are we talking about that stripe that has the three dots in it as being the point from which we're measuring? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. NEALON-Or are we ta I king about some contour line? MR. MARTIN-No. it would be from that point. Scott, has scaled off a 75 foot dimension. here, on our out I ined that in red, and it would be from that indicates the stream. I be I i eve. copy, and mark that MR. BREWER-Are you all set with where he's determining where the st ream is? - 5 - MR. NEALON-Well. understand what he's respectfully submit that if ENCON says it's it's not a stream. but. certainly. there are community where streams have been culverted. saying. I would not a stream. then many areas in this MR. MARTIN-I would just suggest that it's really not a topic of discussion for this Board. think this subdivision can go forward in the review. and if there is a question about my determination about the setback. whether it appl ies here or not. that's a matter for the Zoning Board of Appeals. and maybe you have your case to make for that with them with a letter from DEC when the aquatic biologist comes back. and like I said. I'd be interested to know myself. MR. NEALON- think that's probably the best. MR. MARTIN-My role as Zoning Administrator is administerial. It's black and white. cut and dried. I'm not supposed to be taking into consideration arguments or gray area. I have to make a decision. and once that's rendered. it's up to the Zoning Board. MR. BREWER-AI I right. That decision has been made. other questions from anybody on the Board? Is there any MR. STARK-Tim. I'll have some questions maybe after the publ ic. are you going to allow the publ ic to speak? MR. BREWER-AI I right. Yes. I wi II. MR. RUEL-I think I might have missed one of the meetings. but do we have al I the information. I ike sewer system. storm drainage? MR. BREWER-Do we have all the information. Jim. as far test pits and stormwater and all that? You don't need subdivision. Roger. just for site plan. as the it for MR. RUEL-How about a clearing plan? Do we need it for that? MR. OBERMAYER-This is just a subdivision. MR. MARTIN-No. You can request. it's up to the Board. as to what they feel is relevant. in terms of a clearing plan. or even a stormwater management plan. Typically. on two lot subdivisions of this nature. it's not an issue. MR. BREWER-Unt i I there's a specifically. for that. site plan. then we can ask. MR. MARTIN-But saying that's. issue. but you you want to. that's at the discretion of the Board. I'm just QQL advice. or our recommendation is it's not an certainly have the authority to ask for that if MR. RUEL-Wel I. when does the clearing plan come into effect? We've had a problem with that in the past. MR. BREWER-When he's going to clear it. MR. OBERMAYER-Site plan. MR. RUEL-At the site plan? MR. MARTIN-You're going to see this at site plan as wel I. any specific development proposal. MR. RUEL-Well. If we're going to see all of these at site plan. I'm not going to ask them now. MR. MARTIN-Typically. we have clearing plans in residential - 6 - - subdivisions where the use is something that's permitted by right and there is no site plan review procedure. and you have a clearing plan. Here. you're going to have an opportunity to see this before development occurs. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. There are some members of the publ ic here. neighbors and what not. I wi II allow them to speak. if anybody would care to speak on this issue. please come up and just identify yourself. Anybody feel free to speak. JOYCE EGGLESTON MRS. EGGLESTON-He I 10. My name is Joyce Egg I eston. and my property and my husband's is in the back. We're at the end of East Branch. We border the back part of Mr. Seeley's proposed project. Number One. I might be able to answer you about the brook. We've lived in this area. now. for going on 14 years. The brook in question flows approximately 100 feet out the window of our house where we see it every day. It's definitely a stream. There's no question of it ever being dry or not in use. and it's definitely a main stream that flows from the back of Mr. Seeley's property. I'd like to ask Jim Martin. Jim. you said that the buffers went from the far side of the road? MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. EGGLESTON-Could you tel I zoning book? me where you find that in the MR. MARTIN-I don't know that that's. in reading that Section that was read into the record. I don't see where it makes a case one way or the other? MRS. EGGLESTON-So why do you assume road. then? it's the far side of the MR. MARTIN-That would only make sense. would think. in how L read it. in that. obviously. there are no structures in the right-of-way. So the right-of-way itself. by the presence of the right-of-way. provides a dimensional buffer. further dimensional buffer. from the use. So. therefore. in ~ reading of it. I read that to mean that it would be the far side of the right-of-way. MRS. EGGLESTON-Even though that word is not there? MR. BREWER-What page are you on. again. Jim? MR. MARTIN-179-72B. Page 18045 and 18046. I'm just basing that on my understan~ i ng of what a buffer is. A buffer is usua I I Y a dimensional separation from uses. and the presence of a right-of- way provides that further separation. MR. BREWER-Well. it says. zones from the adjoining lot line. which would be. in this case. Mr. Fisher's property. which is across the street. That would be the adjoining lot line to the buffer. MRS. EGGLESTON-No. no. It says. adjoining lot residential zone or street. Now. the street is Fisher's property and the applicant's. line of a between Mr. MR. MARTIN-Right. and. again. reading that. I would say that the lot I ine of the right-of-way that's referred to is the one on the far edge of the right-of-way. again. because the buffer is providing a dimensional separation between uses. and the right- of-way. in this instance. acts in that regard. MR. OBERMAYER-Why wouldn't the 100 feet be on the east side also. - 7 - I think. is what she's asking. right? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-It is. It would be along the SR-1 Acre zone. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So it would be on the east side. then. along that perimeter. That would be a 100 foo~ buffer? Is that what you're saying. Jim? MR. MARTIN- 'm sorry. the west side. MR. OBERMAYER-What about the east side? MR. MART I N-The east side. if you read on there. it says. light industry at the lot I ine it's 50 feet, and at the street it's 100 feet. So. along where this particular lot adjoins a Waterfront Residential zone. there is no street there. There's only the property I ine. So it would be 50 feet. Again, I say the same thing to you as I did to Mr. Nealon. If you feel aggrieved by my determination. you as well as anybody. Joyce, knows you can go to the Zoning Board, on which you served. and make your case. MRS. EGGLESTON-I know. I just think it's a very gray area there. I mean. you're assuming it's (lost word). but I don't necessari Iy assume that. My next question is for, I guess Mr. Seeley would have to answer it. or his attorney. I notice as we go up the hi II where the East Branch intersects with Twin Channels there is a red marker out in the middle of the road, and I want to ask the appl icant if he contends that's the corner of his lot line? MR. BREWER-Yes. said it ï!.ä§. his I talked lot line. to the surveyor yesterday. and they MRS. EGGLESTON-In the middle of the street? MR. BREWER-Correct. The surveyor pointed it out to me. MR. MARTIN-Again, that's another instance where East Branch Road is a road by use, and that very well could be the case. Should the Town ever abandon that road. just for example, if that were to be abandoned, that. then the property under the road would revert back to the owner. and. in this case. that section of it would be Mr. Seeley. MRS. EGGLESTON-We I I, I don't have the benef it of see i ng sea I ed. could I see one of the scaled drawings? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-Actually, the road on this map is not the same as the original map that the surveyor had when I was out there yesterday. The road on the original map is kind of a wavy road, where this is pretty much straight, and that's not the case when they originally made the right-of-way, I guess. Rather than have the road be twisty. they straightened it out. just to make things easier, I guess. MRS. EGGLESTON-So. by changing the buffers. which he has as 50 feet minimum on East Branch Road, we' I I cal I it East Branch Road. that's going to alter this map. right. by how much? MR. MARTIN-Yes. The faint dotted I ine there that indicates the buffer area, where it says. 50 foot minimum. that dotted I ine has got to be shifted northward to reflect the proper separation from the right-of-way, of 100 feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-So in order to proceed with this matter, shouldn't these maps be made accurate so that we have ample, accurate information. as to how close it's going to bring al I of this to - 8 - the stream inquest ion? MR. BREWER-Yes. it should. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's up to the Board. whether they require. MRS. EGGLESTON-And also. a ruling from ENCON as to whether this is really a stream or not. which we know it is. MR. BREWER-Well. it doesn't make any difference. Like Jim said earl ier. he's made his determination. and that wi II stand. MRS. EGGLESTON-He's already interpreted that, and he wi I I stick with that. MR. MARTIN-Joyce, I wi II st ick with that. MRS. EGGLESTON-I st i I I and a I I. we the placement and in these buffers. know you're a man of your word. Jim. Okay, but should be able to see correct maps as to where everything is going to be. with the correction MR. BREWER-Agreed. MRS. EGGLESTON-So would the matter be tabled until that's done, and then we can talk? MR. BREWER-Thàt's not just up to me. That's up to everybody. as to how they feel. I think we should have a. I mean. we had confusion last week when we talked about the map. It's my feel ing the map should be correct before, not to say that we can't get al I the issues out and get everything straightened out, but we should have a proper map. MRS. EGGLESTON-It's very crucial to the people where our homes are. We have wells. We don't have Town water. Our wells are fed by springs that come from Mr. Seeley's property and within that area. and were any of those ravines or streams to be fi I led in. it could detrimentally affect our water supply and also in the ye~r, now. that we've I ived there. when we first came here. the Hudson River really was a dirty. messy area full of debris. not a place you'd want to swim in. In the years we've been there. it has become, now. a clean body of water with no debris within it. and a place where people swim. There's a lot of activity. There's a lot of fishing. and we would like to protect the river as well. Now. Mr. Seeley doesn't seem to have much respect for his neighbors. since he's already started a dump which contains rusty. 55 gallon drums. Heaven knows what's in them. I mean. I sure don't. within, I dare say, an approximate 1ØØ to 15Ø feet from the Hudson River. and also maybe 3Ø feet from the brooks. and I think in this critical environmental area. you really have to be careful of what we're letting in. We're invaded by the Batch Plant. as you well .know. and as Jim knows, we have an illegal garage at the top of our hill that he's been fighting for a year and a half to close and hasn't been done yet. So we have a lot of traffic on what's a little country lane. and to think that we would be invaded by more. it's just asking a lot. when this whole project could go in the further end of Big Boom Road. up near the United Parcel, and it really wouldn't disturb anything. and we have to think of clear cutting, too. because we get the noise from the Northway. that those trees act as buffer from the Northway. which as you know travels very close to us. So that gives us a. to be sure that this wouldn't al I be clear cut. it would be nice. I mean. I realize it's light industry. and there are uses that can go in there. but I th i nk that it can be done and not stomp allover the neighbors, really, and put it in the most, right in the center. so to speak. of the residential area. and there's a lot of space away from that residential area that could be used. So I would ask that it at least be tabled unti I the appl ¡cant presents corrected maps. - 9 - MR. OBERMAYER-Mrs. Eggleston. are you primari Iy against the lower elevation of the property? MRS. EGGLESTON-And fi I I ing in of the ravine. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. development? but you're really not against the upper MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. yes. That's a narrow road. MR. OBERMAYER-You're against that. too? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. because that is where. there's a residential home across the street. on both sections. two here. two here. So you're really right in to the residential area. and I might say. too. that. coming up this road. you were there. I think. al I of you. and you saw how steep that road was. We start from a dead stop at the bottom of that hill in the wi nter. and to get up that road in the winter. it takes the whole road. because they don't always sand it real early, and you really have to use all of your power. and half the time you skid. and whatever. to get up around that bend. then you've got to slow on that bend for traffic coming this way. So anymore traffic down in that. what I cal I really a country lane. would be detrimental to our neighborhood. It's a dead end street. There's no place for people to go. and it just would attract more down in there. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. which road are you talking about, a country lane? MRS. EGGLESTON-The East Branch Road. MR. RUEL-East Branch? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. and as I say. there's a lot of room up on the toP. on Big Boom Road. so that when Mr. Seeley needed suppl ies and things be brought in. all of that could be done up in the light industry area. without invading the residential area. and effecting the critical environmental area. which is part of the Town's master plan. MR. RUEL-He's up as far north as he can go on Lot 2. MRS. EGGLESTON-He could go on Lot 1. sir. MR. RUEL-That's what you're suggesting? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. sir. He just bought this. I don't think the deed's been fi led 3Ø days. and Mr. Seeley knew when he bought it. he walked the area. he lives in that area. and he knows the topography of that area. and he very well could go. to me. it's a self-imposed hardship. and he could very wel I go on the upper area. So I respectfully ask that it be tabled. at least unti I t he cor rect map work is done. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. speak. or comment? Is there anyone else that would I ike to DAVE COOK MR. COOK-Yes. My name is Dave Cook. I have two parcels of property, each of which are within 2ØØ feet of the end of the property owned by Mr. Seeley. Somehow I was misinformed as for the time of this meeting. So, obviously. I've come in a little bit I ate. I guess I have a quest ion. first . of a I I. somehow I gat her t hat somebody had deemed t he brook as not act ua I I Y be i ng a brook. is that correct? I don't know who to direct the quest ion to. MR. MARTIN-No. It's been determined to be a stream. - 1Ø - MR. COOK-It has been? Okay. would definitely verify that. I have I ived there for 47 years. I have never seen that slow. to say nothing about dried up. and there is also a branch off from the major brook that originates right in a deep ravine on Mr. Seeley's property. and that. neither. has. MR. MARTIN-That's the one that's in question. MR. COOK-Okay. play in there. experience. and That has never slowed up. As kids. we used to We used to form dams. and I'm talking 47 years of it has never dried up. MR. MARTIN-Wel I. it's been found to be a stream. MR. COOK-Okay. I'm not really sure what the question or issue is here? Is this sti II going back to whether or not the land can be subdivided? MR. BREWER-Yes. subdivision. sir. That's exactly what it's here for. MR. COOK-There's no intended use even being brought up. then? Is that correct? MR. BREWER-Exactly. There is going to be an intended use. but t hat's not i n fro n t 0 f us ton i g h t . The s u bd i vis ion 0 f the I and is in front of us tonight. and that's it. MR. COOK-Wel I. what determines whether or not that can happen? MR. MACEWAN-The use? MR. COOK-No. MR. BREWER-The subdivision. MR. COOK-The subdivision. it even brought before the can be divided? I mean. what's the question? Why is Board in the first place. whether it MR. BREWER-To make sure that maintained. the buffers. the zoning. it meets. the proper setbacks are lot size itself is within the MR. MACEWAN-That it meets the subdivision regulations. MR. COOK-Well. obviously. the brought into the picture here. intended use apparently has been Is that correct? MR. BREWER-Yes. it has. MR. COOK-Okay. Again. having I ived on that road. I ived there way before the road was ever even paved. It was nothing more than a 33 foot wide dirt right-of-way to access the camps. the river front camps. and they were all camps. There were no homes there. We were the very first occupant that moved there permanently. and I'm talking my family. Obviously. I was a I ittle bit younger then. and the roads going down into there certainly are not suitable for the traffic associated with industry. and I'm referring to East Branch. whether it's determined to be a road or sti I I a right-of-way. I don't know. and I'm also referring to Twin Channels Road. I think if anyone of you were to ask Mr. Naylor. he. obviously. is overseeing the maintenance of this. last winter. for example. a sanding truck sanded down the hill. attempted to go back up the hi I I. lost traction. slide backwards out of control. down the hill. and ended up in a ditch. This is just about across the road from Mr. Fisher's residence. Now. this is not a single instance. This has happened time and time again. Certainly someone like Mr. Naylor that's fami I iar with the road. maintenance of the road in - 11 - the winter. ought to have some say as to whether or not he feels that that is a good intended use for this. It's all uphi II grade. and it's not easy to get that good traction. School buses pick up children at the top of the hill. There's children walking up the road. walking back down again. Certainly we don't need the traffic associated with any I ight industry of any sort along either the Twin Channels or the East Branch. That's it. MR. BREWER-Thank you. comment? Is there anyone else who would like to STARLETT COOK MRS. COOK-My name is Starlett Cook. and I own property adjacent to Mr. Seeley's lot. also. and. again. this comment is probably more a I itt Ie bit on the intended use. but I wi II go ahead and mention it. because sometimes. like this particular meeting tonight. none of us in the neighborhood even knew about it unti I last night. So I just want to make sure that this gets put into the notes whi Ie I am here tonight. and I do have a map with me. and what have you. and, again, it's a traffic type thing. Okay. Th i s property here. I ands of Margaret Baxter, is what Cra i g now owns. This is my property here. Mr. Fisher's is right in here, just to give you an idea of what you're looking at here. The road comes down now, you can see where. I had a survey done in '93, because I have a new home right here, and the road is, this is macadam. okay. coming down here. This corner right here, as you can see. most of the road is on. al I of the road, at this point. is on our property. which we just found out, and this whole corner here. because it is a dead end road. is used as a big turn around. Everybody comes down. and they spin around right there. and I Intend. in the future, to probably make this part of my lawn. with a fence or lawn. or somehow. so that we don't have all this, because I have a 2Ø month old daughter. and I don't want her having to have the traffic spin around right there. and I just think that that should probably be taken into consideration. with heavier traffic on that road. because what that's going to end up doing to somebody. they're going to have to turn around somewhere. and probably Mr. Bennetts or Mr. Balcolms. who are both in the audience here, who I ive at the end of this road. are going to have al I kinds of trouble there or backing up, or I don't know where. I don't know where people are going to turn around, but this is not going to be left open in the future for everybody to just come down and turn around in. So I just wanted to get that on the notes at this point. and that's all. Thanks. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Something I'd like to point out. too. just for the public's information. I don't want anybody to think that this was a meeting that we tried to sneak one by you. This is a final stage of a subdivision. The only time that it's required to be advertised to the publ ic is at prel iminary stage. That was done. and this is just being reviewed at final stage. So that's. it's only required to be advertised for the preliminary stage. That's why you knew about the last one. but not this one. MRS. COOK-Okay. plan review, is notified? Maybe I could ask this then. what Mr. Seeley's trying to Before any site do, w i I I we be MR. MARTIN-Yes. MRS. COOK-Okay. We definitely wi I I be? MR. MARTIN-All uses in I ight industrial zoning require site plan review, and that is a public hearing where people within 5ØØ feet are notified. All right. - 12 - MRS. COOK-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else? EDWARD FISHER MR. FISHER-Edward Fisher. and I own the property that that right- of-way goes through and. apparently. I own property both sides of that right-of-way. Now I've been over to the Warren County bui Iding where they've got the real .!2..l...9. maps. that are registered and stamped. he told me. and he showed me that I own property both sides of that right-of-way. Now they're trying to tell me the surveyors bring it out toward the road. which it was surveyed before. and I know those flags were farther back in the woods. Now come up to Queensbury. on the tax maps. The tax maps show the same thing. that I own property both sides of that right-of- way. So I've been paying taxes all these years on that property across the road from my home. and now they claim I don't own it. After all the years. since back in the late 40's. taxes have been paid on it. and Warren County claims I own it and Queensbury c I aims I own it. MR. BREWER-Jim. do we have any means to verify what Mr. saying? Fisher's MR. MARTIN-Tax mapping is not always. MR. FISHER-If you go over to Warren County. and and stamped. it's registered MR. MARTIN-Tax mapping is not always the most accurate. but the survey here. that's supplied with this. does indicate that he owns both sides of the right-of-way. MR. fiSHER-I own both sides of that right-of-way. MR. MARTIN-That's what's shown here. That's what's shown on this plat. The road then curves up into a small. cl ips a small corner of what is now Seeley's property. but from that point toward the river. you own both sides of the road. according to what's shown here. MR. FISHER-According to Warren County. MR. MARTIN-Yes. and the same thing is shown here. MR. BREWER-I can see the right-of-way on this map. So what does that do to his frontage on East Branch. Jim? So. Jim. I don't understand. Does Craig own up to this right-of-way? MR. MARTIN-That's right. Right here is the edge of the Seeley property. and this here is shown as the edge of the right-of-way. So it's. from that point over is. MR. BREWER-So I guess !ill!.. question is. if. in fact. Mr. Fisher owns the property on both sides of the right-of-way. does that effect his frontage on this road. if he owns on both sides of the road? MR. MARTIN-You have to research the deeds out to verify that. MR. STARK-Tim. there's no question that Mr. Fisher owns the property on both sides. except up by Twin Channels Road where Mr. Seeley's property comes out. On the lower part. it's a definite. MR. BREWER-Okay. VIRGINIA BOWERS Ma'am. would you I ike to speak? MRS. BOWERS-My name is Virginia Bowers. ive on East Branch. - 13 - -.---------.-- at the end of Twin Channels, and as a property owner, I echo the concerns of al I the people that I have heard speak before me, and that is property usage, traffic, turnarounds. There is no place for people to go, and we do have a problem with the hi II, and the snow. As far as the usage goes, I would be very interested to know what kind of business hours are permitted in a light industry area. Are there hours that, set business hours? MR. BREWER-I don't think that's even an issue right now, because there's no proposed business In front of us for that piece of property. Right now we're talking strictly about a subdivision. If it comes to where he wants to put a business there, everybody wi II be notified, and we wi II have another publ ic hearing as to what business wi II go there, if any. MRS. BOWERS-Okay. MR. OBERMA YER-Bas i ca I I y, he's tak i ng t his piece property and cutting it in half. That's the intent of this. MRS. BOWERS-Okay. being cut in half. total piece? have no objection to mean certainly it's, a piece of property how many acres, the MR. STARK-Fourteen. MRS. BOWERS-Fourteen, so two seven acre parcels is not a big problem, as far as ~ concerned, but I am concerned with the usage of the property. I'm concerned with the traffic that it would generate, and, again, I'm concerned with weather and parking and all that other stuff. So, just, I am a concerned homeowner and property owner. We have a very quiet, residential ne i ghborhood, and we rea I I Y do not want it to become a heav i I Y trafficked area. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Okay. to speak? Okay. make? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would care George, you had some comments you wanted to MR. STARK-Wel I, Jim asked Mrs. Eggleston about the property up on top. Most of these concerns are for a future use on this thing. It doesn't effect the subdivision. MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. STARK-I mean, 1 think we can go forward with the subdivision, and then at site plan, whenever he plans on coming in, I thought it was next month or something, for the machine shop up on top, on Big Boom Road, can be addressed at that point, there. MR. BREWER-Okay. Jim? MR. OBERMAYER-I agree with George. MR. BREWER-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I feel the same way. I'm just a little concerned about al I the comments that you're making about the traffic in there, on East Branch Road, and yesterday, last evening, late afternoon, when I saw that big 18-wheeler tanker pu I I in, I thought, how can you be so comp I acent and not get upset to have that big monstrosity going down that road and turning around at the end. I mean, it just seems I ike you're contradicting, it's a little contradictory. I've been very, I've been listening to what you're saying, and I've been listening very carefully, but I just, bel ieve me, when I saw that truck in there last night, I could not bel ieve my eyes, what I was seeing, and from what I've gathered, yesterday wasn't the first time it's been in there. So, I know that has really nothing to do, right now, with the subdivision, but it's something that I just wanted - 14 - to bring back to. the people that have spoken today about the traffic that they're concerned about. MR. BREWER-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Well. I guess I would disagree with both Jim and George on this. because one of the considerations that I think we should be undertaking with this project is access to the second par'ce I. At Pre I i 01 i nary Stage. it was brought up in discuss ions by both Staff and the appl icant at the time. that any access to Lot Number Two. which would be the parcel that's part of Twin Channels and East Branch Road. would be only accessed from either Twin Channels or Big Boom Road. and since then the appl ¡cant has expressed a desire to access his piece of property off East Branch Road. which is a direct residential area. and I think that's one of the considerations we need to take before we either approve or deny this project. because access is very important to this. and for me. I think the access should only be granted via Big Boom Road. for both parcels. MR. BREWER-Okay. Roger? MR. RUEL-I "d I ike to answer the question that some gentleman had about why we have subdivision review. and it's. the Planning Board has to plan for an orderly. efficient and economical development of the Town. and then. we must make sure that it's used safely for bui Iding purposes. and we must check that it has proper provision for drainage. water supply. sewage. and another needed improvements. and we must be sure that it conforms to the master plan. and we have to consider traffic and fire protection to the area. Now these are the areas that we must consider when it comes to subdivision. and these are the areas that we wi I I entertain. MR. BREWER-Bob? MR. PALING-If we make any kind of approval on this without considering access. I think it's going to lead to people drawing some assumptions as to what can be done on this property which later on wOIJld not be allowed. and I think we should consider. I agree with Craig. we should consider access from Twin Channels. as we I I as East Branch Road. tonight. and whether it should be allowed. or what the restrictions would be. that kind of thing. MR. BREWER·-Okay. I think I agree with you. Bob and Craig. think there's some clarification that we need. in my eyes. I think we need to get the deed information straightened out in all of our minds. in everybody's mind. so that everybody can rest at ease. I think a new map would help us a lot. and del ineate the stream and the actual lot lines. where the actual. MR. STARK-Comment from the aquatic guy at DEC. MR. BREWER-Yes. as per comment from them. I don't think that has anything to do with Jim's determination. because now that stands. and there is a means to overturn that determination. but I think as far as we're concerned. that's a done deal. There's other ways to oVI~rturn that. In my eyes. "d I ike to see a new map and. again. I agree with the access. You have to look at the uses a II owed in that zone. Suppose you were to put a bus i ness in there that próspered. and there was traffic constantly in there? We all went down there. We all know there's small <, ittle houses down there, and I .don't mean that in a bad way. I mean. it's strictly residential. They used to be camps. as one neighbor stated. Now they're homes. and I think we have to take that into consideration when we make this subdivision approval. MR. MARTIN-I think it comes down to a matter of access management. and Staff stands by the recommendation that access be I imited to Big Boom Road. - 15 - MR. BREWER-In the previous minutes that we had of this meeting. and I think I have them here with me. Mr. Seeley said he didn't have any objection to access being on Big Boom or Twin Channels. It was mentioned in the minutes that a note be made on the plat. and Mr. Seeley agreed to it. I don't know what his plans are. It's none of my business what his plans are. but I think that if he said that he has no problem with it. then I think we ought to hold him to his word. That's all I've got to say. MR. RUEL-Is this part of the subdivision? MR. BREWER-Yes. it is. MR. STARK-Tim. do you want to vote on it. then? MR. BREWER-Well. I think. don't feel comfortable voting until we get a new map and get the information straightened out. George. I mean. that's my opinion. MR. STARK-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-It's up to the appl icant. though. MR. BREWER-I don't think it is up to the applicant. Jim. I think it's up to us. that if we require information. we have to ask for it. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think there's any point that we need to push this through. I really don't. I think. too. as far as the accuracy of the map is concerned. I didn't recal I anywhere in the approval of Prel iminary Stage that he was given a waiver to two foot contours. So that's an issue that has to be dealt with. MR. HARLICKER-We've got a letter that they submitted. We'd have to go back through the minutes to see if they actually. if you acted on it or not. but he submitted a letter requesting a waiver to two foot topo. ten foot waiver for construction details. landscaping for gradtng and irrigation control and drainage report. MR. MACEWAN-Was that in part of our resolution for approval at Prel iminary that we gave a waiver to two foot contours? Because that's the time we would have said it. MR. HARLICKER-Yes. I can't speak to that. MR. MARTIN-Wel I. why don't we read that letter into the record. at this point. then. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think that would want to say that we had given an approval for the waiver of the contours. MR. MARTIN-If you haven't. you haven't. MR. MACEWAN-I'm trying to determine. was made. and there's nothing in reference that we did do that. here. here. from in the motion that the motion. in MR. MARTIN-Well. nonetheless. as the request stands. I'll read it into the record. and then the Board can take it up. July 8th. 1994. "To Queensbury Planning Board: With regard to my a p p lie a t ion for S u bd i vis ion No. 9 - 1 994 . I' mas kin g for a wa i ve r of the following items: 1. From the two foot topographical to a ten foot topographical. 2. Of construction details. 3. Of landscape details. 4. Of grading and irrigation control and drainage reports. This property is Light Industrial One Acre. and al I of the above items wi I I be addressed for approval at a later date at site plan review. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely. Craig Seeley" - 16 - MR. BREWER-Okay. Well, don't have a problem with that. MR. OBERMAYER-Do we need to have more information, are we going to I jmit him on the access? The appl icant is going to accept, ut i I i ze (lost word) on East Branch Road. Wou I d that be enough? Is more information going to change our mind? MR. BREWER-Well, think Mr. on both sides of the road, doesn't have access to that. that I want to get clear in something, you can obtain that of time? Fisher stated that he owns property and if that's the case, then he I mean. that's the kind of thing QQL minds. Do you think that's information in a reasonable amount MR. NEALON-Wel I, Mr. Fisher was kind enough to provide me with a copy of his map, and I wi II read into the record, with the Board's permission.;the right-of-way provisions of his deed, and this is a conveyance which is dated the 8th day of September. 1969, between Clara E. Raffel, and Clara E. Raffel and Edward C. Fisher, both of Twin Channels Road. Town of Queensbury, County of Warren, State of New York, (lost word) survivorship, recorded at Book 513 Deed Page 61, and having been recorded on September 22, 1969. The relevant portion. as pertains to the right-of-way. provides that this conveyance was made and accepted subject to any and al I easements or rights heretofore acquired by three prior grantees of Ida Fisher. their heirs. assigns, the general publ ic or the County of Warren, by grant. use, necessity or otherwise. in and to the proposed right-of-way 33 feet in width, including the present roadway, which said proposed right-of-way and roadway runs from Twin Channels Road to the rear of certain lots fronting on the Hudson River, along the northerly and northeasterly boundary I ine of the premises herein conveyed. A right-of-way runs from Mr. Fisher's northerly boundary line 33 feet south, to the benefit of all. Now, I would respectfully submit to the Board that the new map showing where the traveled or paved way, if you wi II, of either Twin Channels Road or East Branch Road is not going to shed a great deal of I ight on the subdivision of a 14 acre parcel. the two, approximately 7 acre parcels, that are shown. Mr. Seeley wi I I be presentin9 to this Board for approval subsequent to this date, of a proposed development along the northerly portion of what is shown as Lot 2 on the subdivision plat. That is fora machine shop. That machine presently is situated approximately at the corner of Quaker Road and Glenwood Avenue. Mr. Mar·tin will recall a conversation, in a meeting between myself, Mr. Martin and Mr. Michel Brandt, when he was Supervisor, wherein it was the Town's express intention of doing what it could in order to faci I itate the growth and development of a quiet and responsible sma I I business person in this community. Mr. Seeley's enterprise was courted by the Town of Wi I ton. He was re I uctant to move out of the County of Warren and the Town of Queensbury because this is his home. He I ives not far from the proposed area of development. This parcel was zoned by the Town as light industrial. The proposed use is an approved use in the light industrial zone, which has yet to come, actually, before you, but the subdivision of the land is strictly wel I within the restrictions imposed upon an applicant by the Town. I would submit that it is nearing the reasonable end of the construction season. Mr. Seeley would like to be able to put forth his plans to this Board and the Town Planning Department before that window of opportunity closes. I would ask that the Board approve the subdivision. If there be issues at the time that the zoning is proposed, lets decide on those issues at the site at which the development is proposed. At present, there is no anticipation of developing the lands that I ie on the most southerly portion of this parcel. The proposed development that Mr. Seeley would intended to bring before this Board is on the northerly section of Parcel Two. As Board members have noted, there is heavy traffic that goes down that road at present. There is a large tanker truck regularly there. We are not proposing a use that - 17 - parks any vehicle on any publ ic street or any right-of-way in that area. That's not what's before this Board. MR. BREWER-Okay. I guess. in closing. I wi II say that I feel strongly about the proper maps have the proper information before we give him approval on anything. and I don't mind having a special meeting so that we can do that. if you can provide us with the proper maps. the proper setbacks. the proper buffers on this map. stream indicated. I don't have a problem with it. I just want everything done right before we approve it. no conditionals. only because. in the past. this Board has been stung too many times with conditional approvals. I'm not saying you're going to. I'm just saying. if we don't do it. MR. NEALON-AI I of the setbacks were prepared with the advice of the Planning Department. MR. BREWER-Okay. sir. New information has been brought forth tonight that shows that the buffer should be 67 feet. or whatever that determination might be. It's not shown on here. There's questions about the right-of-way. whether Mr. Fisher owns on both sides of the road. You say he doesn't. with his own deed. I'm not an attorney. I don't know what a deed says or what it doesn't say. I would just I ike to have everything out on the table so that we know and there's no confusion. That's ~ feel ing. I would also suggest that we I imit the access to any commercial business to Big Boom. MR. MACEWAN-We I I. I th i nk Tim's brought up a very good that the accuracy of the map. in rendering a decision thing. is important. point. on this MR. BREWER-The map should be proper when it's in front of us. MRS. LABOMBARD-I agree with you on that. MR. MACEWAN-I mean. this is a surveyed map that's going to be filed. and it's. right now. it's not accurate. and if we approve this thing and allow that map to be fi led as it is. that now becomes a legal. binding document that's fi led with the records that says that we approve that thing based on what that map says. and that map is wrong right now. MR. MA R TIN - I n res pee t tot he a p p lie ant's con c ern 0 f the timeliness of this. and also in respect to the members of the Board for having accurate information. we've done this in the past. We could accept a site plan appl ication for September. as well as the revised map. do the final the first meeting of September and take up the site plan the second meeting of September. and no time is lost. MR. BREWER-I don't everything is done. long as everything a problem with it. have a problem with that. as long as I don't mind having a special meeting. As is done before we grant approva I. I don't have MR. PALING-Would Twin Channels or condition? the app I i cant East Branch agree to Road? no access from either Is that an agreeable MR. NEALON-No. MR. MACEWAN-Why has the appl icant changed his mind on that? MR. NEALON-The reason that it's not an acceptable condition is that. if one looks at the contours of the land as shown on this topographical survey. one sees that the property from the northern end of Lot 2 to the southern end of Lot 2. looked at from. along the Twin Channels/Big Boom Road accessway. drops about 30 feet. It drops another 3Ø feet going down East Branch - 18 - ..--" Road. If one looks at the portion, that would drop requirements for emergency cannot real istically be met. alternatives of access to the lower roughly 60 feet, and the slope vehicles on a private drive really MR. MACEWAN-With al I due respect, the contours haven't changed since Prel iminary. They were the same at Prel iminary, and yet your app I i cant and you guys agreed that you wou I d have access only off of Big Boom. MR. NEALON-The agreement, such as it was, referred only to the development outl ined on the northwest corner of Lot Two. That is our proposed acces~, to come from Big Boom, for that northwest corner development. MR. BREWER-Maybe that portion developable. of the property just isn't MR. OBERMAYER-Right. You do have your stream in there, that you'll require a 75 foot setback in that area. You're really not going to be left with much space, with the 75 foot setback along those ravines where the stream runs, because the 75 foot setback wi II take place in that area, you're really, not much you're going to be able to use. MR. NEALON-I'm not going to get into whether that's a stream or whether that's not a stream. I believe we have some input coming from the Department of Environmental Conservation. MR. MACEWAN-Mr. Nealon, the determination by the Staff is that you wi I I have to adhere to a 75 foot buffer on that, because the Staff has determined that it is a stream, and that's their determination. That's not something, correct me if I'm wrong, that's going to be overruled by DEC. That's the Town of Queensbury's determination. MR. NEALON-With all due respect, I'm not saying it's going to be overruled by DEC. MR. MACEWAN-Then if this Board gives you an approval for a subdivision, and tel Is you you have to maintain a 75 foot buffer on that stream, you'll have to that. The only recourse you have is to go to the ZBA and ask for a variance. Is that not correct? MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. MACEWAN-Secondly, you have to deal with, we have to deal with the fact that the buffers that you currently have on Parcel Number Two are inaccurate, because now we've added another 13 feet on East Branch Road, and also you're adding another 50 foot. MR. BREWER-I think we're in a debate. I think we ought to make a decision. We'll end the public hearing and lets decide what we're going to do. Do we want to table it and have him come in, the first meeting we'l I do the final subdivision and then the second meeting we can do the site plan? Is that what we want to do? If we request the information be proper in front of us, then that's our decision. MR. STARK-Be concise with that information. MR. BREWER-We want the maps to be accurate. MR. STARK-Not a two foot topography. MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACEWAN-I wasn't suggesting a two foot topography, but we have to get that waiver issue cleared up. - 19 - MR. MARTIN-That should be in whatever, resolution on that, on those matters. I would recommend a MR. BREWER-Grant that waiver tonight, but when he comes back, have the maps accurate. MR. OBERMAYER-Do we want them to show the 75 foot setback? MR. BREWER-We want the setbacks on there, for the stream. MR. MARTIN-In relation to the stream, I would ask for two things. I would I ike the 75 foot setback shown from the stream, and I would also I ike the 35 foot buffer from the stream shown. MR. BREWER-The no disturb zone? MR. MARTIN-Within the first 35 feet from that stream, nothing at a I I can occur, and 75 feet back, no bu i I dings can occur. Those two dimensions should be shown. MR. OBERMAYER-That's along the ravine, too, right? MR. MARTIN-No. stream. It's just along the edge of, from the edge of the MR. MACEWAN-Doesn't the buffer on Twin Channels also have to be changed? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That has to be, but I'm speaking specifically to the stream. MR. BREWER-Not necessari Iy changed. We have to determine whether that's a road by deed or a road by use, right? MR. MARTIN-No. I think we have accurate information, based on what was read into the record tonight from the deed, that that 33 foot dimension does constitute the right-of-way. So it would, in fact, be 67 feet for the width of the buffer. MR. BREWER-What about Twin Channels, Jim? MR. MARTIN-I'm sorry, Twin Channels, yes. whether that's. I honestly don't know MR. know. with. BREWER-We II, lets find that out for him, so that they can So that when they come back we can do it and have it done MR. MARTIN-That's easi Iy obtained. MR. BREWER-Okay. So you'll find that information out, about Twin Channels? MR. MARTIN-And we' I I convey that to Mr. Seeley's surveyor or Mr. Nealon. MR. BREWER-You could probably find that out tomorrow, right? MR. MARTIN-Yes, from the Clerk's Office. They have the deed. MR. BREWER-Is that acceptable? MR. STARK-Fine. MR. OBERMAYER-That's fine with me. MR. PAL I NG- I should hammer going to be, find out. st i I I, if we have an impasse on access, maybe we that out tonight, or declare it that it just isn't and maybe we should, the polling of the Board to - 2" - MR. STARK-Let the appl icant know where everybody stands. MR. BREWER-AI I right. George? Where do you stand with the access. MR. STARK-Not on East Branch and not on Twin Channels. MR. BREWER-Okay. Jim? MR. OBERMAYER-Not on East Branch and not on Twin Channels. MR. BREWER-Cathy? MRS. LABOMBARD-Not on East Branch. but upper Twin Channels I can live wit h . MR. BREWER-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Not from East Branch and not from Twin Channels. MR. BREWER-Roger? MR. RUEL-Where is the access road planned now? MR. PALING-No. There is no plan. What we're saying is that. based upon what you feel. do you want access from East Branch and Twin Channels. yes or no? MR. RUEL-I'd I ike to see access from Twin Channels only. MR. BREWER-Bob? MR. PALING-I'd I ike to see access from Big Boom only. MR. BREWER-I'll agree. Big Boom. The consensus is that no access be granted on Twin Channels Road. MR. STARK-That's not to say he can't ~. MR. OBERMAYER-That's not to say you can't use the property. MR. BREWER-But there wi I I be no access for a bus i ness on that road. granted by this Board. either road. MR. NEALON-Well. what I would ask is that the Board make it's determination. MR. BREWER-We can't do that. motion for approval. I don't think. unti I we make our MR. STARK-He's asking for a vote. Tim. MR. NEALON-We wi I I provide you with requested. Let me just clarify. so want. you're requesting. the ten okay? the information that you have I understand what exactly you foot topographic standard is MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. NEALON-You're not asking for a two foot? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACEWAN-We' I I grant the waiver for that. MR. NEALON-And you're asking that a 75 foot setback be shown from the stream? MR. BREWER-And the 35 foot no disturb zone. - 21 - MR. NEALON-And the 35 foot no disturb zone from the stream. You're asking that the 67 foot buffer on East Branch Road be set forth on the map. and Mr. Martin is going to provide us with the information regarding Twin Channels. regarding whether the. it's a road by use or a road by deed. MR. MARTIN-It's a road by use or a road by deed. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. NEALON-Now. the surveyor and my cl ient and I wi I I endeavor to provide that to you. If the Board makes a decision. in the future. that it wants to I imit access. as indicated by a straw poll. then you make your determination of that. and we go from that point forward. MR. BREWER-Okay. table. Thank you. So we have to make a motion to MR. MACEWAN-First of all. I'd introduce a resolution to grant the appl icant a waiver. MOTION TO GRANT FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-1994 CRAIG SEELEY A WAIVER FROM THE TWO FOOT CONTOURS. CONSTRUCTION DETAilS. GRADING AND lANDSCAPING. AND EROSION CONTROL FOR HIS SUBDIVISION MAP. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: Everything I isted in the letter of July 8th. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August. vote: 1994. by the fol lowing AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Pal ing. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. Now we need a motion to table. with the consent of the appl icant. so that the information is provided. MR. NEALON-We wi I I provide it to you. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NEALON-With the understanding that you're going to act on this at the next meeting. and the site plan review at the second meeting. MR. BREWER-The second meeting. yes. MR. MARTIN-As long as he gets it in by the submission deadl ine. which is next Wednesday. MR. BREWER-Okay. The subdivision wi I I be the first meeting. The site p I an wi I I be t he second meet i ng. not necessar i I Y approved site plan. but the site plan wi II be held the second meeting. AI I right. Do we have a motion to that effect? Somebody has to make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION SEELEY. Introduced by Catherine LaBombard adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: NO. 9-1994 CRAIG who moved for its Tab I ed unt i I the first meet i ng in September. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August. vote: 1994. by the following AYES: Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. - 22 - Mr. Pal ing. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. MARTIN-What we wi II do for the Board is we resolution that wi I I be reviewed by the attorney. your straw pol I on the access tonight. so that we grounds for I imited access. will draft a that reflects have accurate MR. BREWER-Okay. Thank you. Joyce. you wanted to say something? MRS. EGGLESTON-Yes. Mr. Chairman. I'd just I ike to say that it's vital to this matter that it be determined. Mr. Fisher's lot I ine. and from the indication of where the surveyors put the marks going up the hill. it would appear that Mr. Fisher does own a sl iver of land on the side of the road across from his house. If that is true. which we bel ¡eve is true and Mr. Fisher bel ieves is true. that drastically alters the new drawings going to make. regarding the buffers. because the buffers would then come from that I at line. wou I d they not? MR. BREWER-Yes. MRS. EGGlESTON~And not from the oiher side of the road. So it's vital that that area be addressed, and once and for all it has to be determined if h~ has a piece of land there; and he s,ys he does. and the surveyor's marks indicate it. MR. BREWER-In al I fairness. I was there yesterday. and I talked to the surveyor. On the map. if you look at the map. the way the right-of-way goes. like I said in the beginning of the meeting. it's I ike a wavy I ine. okay. I ike that. and the way the road is. in actual. it's straight. So because those stakes are over here. the map. when it was made in '68. or whatever it was. maybe that's the edge of the right-of-way. but the road was put back further on Mr. Fisher's property. for safety reasons or whatever. I don't know that. MRS. EGGLESTON-However. if Mr. See I ey owns to the m i dd I e of the road in front of his property. then so does Mr. Fisher own into the road. in front of his property. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we have our attorney figure that out. Jim? MR. FRIEDLAND-Sure. sure of the question. do? if that's what you want us to do. I'm not Why don't you te I I me what you want us to MR. BREWER-Well. I guess the question is. where Mr. Fisher's property line is is what we want determined. Is it the edge of the road? Is it the other side of the road? Is it where the stakes that the surveyor? Maybe I can show you on the map. MR. MACEWAN-Very simpl ified. just from the standpoint of what the surveyor showed yesterday. they had a surveyor's marking of the top of the hi I I and the m i dd I e of the road. The map that they used tonight. here. showed the surveyor's mark as being on the northerly west edge of the road. not in the middle of the road. MR. OBERMAYER-Wel I. remember. we did take the straw vote tonight. to I i m i t the a c c e s s . ok a y. 0 nth at r 0 ad. jus t so yo u u nd e r s tan d . MRS. EGGLESTON-I understand that. but you're talking about future uses. too. and you have to look ahead. MR. BREWER-Yes. If he comes in from some other way. Jim. then that. determine whether the buffer .is 67 or 1ØØ feet. MRS. EGGLESTON-I just want to be sure it effects this map and how the map is done. - 23 - MR. BREWER-How timely do you think we could get that done. Jeff? MR. FRIEDLAND-And this al I goes to where the buffer begins? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. FRIEDLAND-Whether it's from the flat I ine or from the road. MR. MARTIN-The deed refers to a 33 foot wide right-of-way. was read into the record tonight. and so the southerly edge that. from what I read in when I started out the discussion this topic. that would represent the edge of the buffer zone. it would be 1ØØ feet from that point north. That of on So MR. BREWER-Okay. but if you go out to the property. Jim. the edge of the road is this piece of paper right here. The stakes are over here. MRS. EGGLESTON-And Mr. Fisher contends he owns that property. and we bel ieve there's a sl iver of property there. MR. NEALON-If I might. there is. perhaps. a lack of clarity in definition. The right-of-way describes a tract of land. It does not describe the travelled way. It does not describe what is paved. Mr. Fisher's ownership of that northerly 33 feet of his land is subject to the rights of the publ ic to go across it. and that was a condition of his acceptance of the conveyance. He took the conveyance by deed subject to the rights of passage across the northerly 33 feet of hIs land. That the road is partially on Mr. Fisher's land or partially on Mr. Seeley's land is not determinative of what the deeded right-of-way that was reserved to others. in addition of those northerly 33 feet of land. MR. BREWER-All right. Lets. Jeff. you figure it out for us and put it in laymans terms. where the buffer I ine starts. end of discussion. Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 27-94 TYPE: UNLISTED EUGENE & MARION O'NEIL OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF QUAKER ROAD AND EVERTS AVENUE PROPOSAL IS TO USE EXISTING BUILDING FOR SALE OF USED CARS. TO EXPAND PARKING TO 10 MORE SPACES. AND A GENERAL CLEAN-UP TO EXISTING STRUCTURE AND LOT. APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONNECT TO THE MUNICIPAL SEWER SYSTEM. BEAUTIFICATION COMM. - 8/8/94 WARREN CO. PLANNING - 8/10/94 TAX MAP NO. 107-1-1 LOT SIZE: 1/4 ACRE SECTION 179-23 DENNIS DICKINSON. REPRESENTING APPLICANT. PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Site Plan No. 27-94. Eugene & Marion O'Neil. Meeting Date: August 23. 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with Section 179-38 A.. Section 179-38 B.. Section 179-38C and to the relevant factors outlined in Section 179-39 and offers the following comments: Section 179-38 C.. traffic access from Quaker Road is a concern. Because of the proximity to Everts Road the driveway on Quaker Road shou I d be ut i I i zed as an ex it on I y and posted as such. The access on Everts Road could provide ingress and egress. The appl icant could also explore the possibi I ity of connecting to the adjacent property to the west and uti I izing that access onto Quaker Road. The access is directly adjacent to the O'Neil's west property I ine. This could allow for the el imination of the existing access on Quaker which is dangerously close to the Everts Road/Quaker Road intersection and only 8Ø feet from the neighboring driveway. The project was compared to the fol lowing standards found in Section 179-38 E. of the Zoning Code: 1. The - 24 - ,- location. arrangement. size. design and general site compatibi I ity of bui Idings. I ighting and signs. The appl icant is not proposing to modify the existing building other than repairs and repainting. However. the proposal includes enlarging the paved area. The new paved area could be moved to the rear to al low for green space along the Quaker Road frontage that could be utilized for landscaping. It would also place the existing sign within a grassed area not in the middle of the parking lot. There is to be one exterior light on the front of the building. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation. including intersections. road widths. pavement surfaces. dividers and traffic controls. As noted previously. access from Quaker Road is a concern. The access on Everts Road should be better defined. 3. The location. arrangement. appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. There appears to be enough room to provide adequate parking. It should be shown on the plat. If the parking lot is moved toward the rear of the lot spaces could be provided next to the building. Because of the size constraint of the property. con sid e ra t ion co u I d beg i ve n t 0 I i m i tin g the n u m be r 0 f car s displayed. By rearranging the paved areas. green space could be provided along the front and the existing sign would not be in the middle of the parking lot. The elimination of some of the paved area on the east side of the bu i I ding wou I d increase permeabi I ¡ty and allow for the planting of some trees. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation. walkway structures. control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overal I pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian access is adequate. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. It appears that stormwater will flow to the existing drainage swale along Quaker Road." I spoke with the applicant today on the phone. and she indicated that there are going to be some drywells put on the property. If that's the case. that shou I d be noted on the site p I an. From what was subm i tted. it just appeared that the drainage was going to flow. sheet flow. into the ditch along Quaker Road. and I don't know if the capabi I ¡ty is there to absorb that or not. "6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. The property is ser'v iced by mun i c i pa I water. The proper'ty wi I J, have, to be connected to the sanitary sewers prior to being occupied. (See Mike Shaw memo 8/3/94) 7. The adequacy. type and trrangement of trees. shrubs and other suitable plantings. landscaping and screening constituting a visual/and or n~ise buffer between the appl icant's and adjoining lands. including the maximum retention ,of ex ist i ng vegetat i,on and ma i ntenance i nc I ud i ng rep I acement of dead plan~s. By mov1ng the paved area to ~he rear landscaping can be pro v ide d a c ro s s the fro n tag eon Qua k erR 0 ad. Eli m i n at i ,0 n 0 f the pavement on the east side of the bui Iding would also allow for additional landscaping. There are existing shrubs across the front of the bui Iding and by moving the pavement back 4 or 5 feet fr'om the west side of the building additional landscaping could be provided there also. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Emergency access appears to be adequate. There is a fire hydrant located on Quaker Road. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures. roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibi I ity to ponding. flooding and/or erosion. This is not an issue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendat ion is that the Board cons i der rea Ii gnment of the paved area to provide for green landscaped area. limiting access on Quaker Road to exit only and provide proper signage. connection to adjacent property." And also. as the applicant indicated on the phone today. a revision to the plot plan. showing the proposed stormwater management plan. in the form of drywells. MR. BREWER-Okay. please. George. would you read Mike Shaw's letter in. MR. STARK-To Jim Martin. From Mike Shaw. Date. August 3. 1994. "This parcel is within the Quaker' Road Sanitary Sewer District - 25 - currently is not connected. This parcel was granted a variance from connecting in 1993. The variance states that this bui Iding must connect to the town's sanitary sewers before it is occupied. The proper procedure for connection should be followed. The information for the proper procedure is available at the Wastewater Office. If you have any questions on this matter. please cal I me at my office." MR. BREWER-Okay. Do we have anything from Beautification? Did they go to Beautification? MR. HARLICKER-Right. Yes. and they indicated. Eugene & Marion O'Neil. on corner of Quaker & Everts Avenue. East side of bu i I ding stone or grave I. Leave ex i st I ng rock garden. Leave grass that is there at present and culvert and existing trees. Leave existing blacktop and add to west side 10 extra parking spaces. Approved" MR. MARTIN-And Warren County approved with the comment: the condition that a sign be installed stating that the Road curb cut is not an exit and that the traffic exit on Road." "W it h Quaker Everts MR. RUEL-Just the opposite of our recommendation. MR. BREWER-Okay. and we have someone here for the appl icant. MR. DICKINSON-Good evening. My name's Dennis Dickinson. I'm here to represent the appl ¡cant. I'm a professional engineer in the State of New York. and a professional land surveyor. and my office prepared the plat that you have in relation to this application. I have a quick question. I thought the two recommendations for the ingress and egress were the same. that you could come in from Quaker Road. but you could not exit. MR. MARTIN-I'll read it again. "With the condition that a sign be installed stating that the Quaker Road curb cut is not an exit and that the traffic exit on Everts Road." So I guess it would be from leaving the site. that it's not an exit road. MR. DICKINSON-Correct. That was a requirement that was made. and the appl icant has agreed to it. MR. BREWER-You agree to exit only onto Quaker Road? MR. OBERMAYER-No. come ~ on Quaker. and go out on Everts. MR. RUEL-Enter only on Quaker. MR. HARLICKER-Enter only. MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MR. RUEL-And exit only on Everts. whatever that road is. MR. BREWER-We II. I'm confused. should exit only on. because QQL Staff says that they MR. HARLICKER-Yes. My concern was that If people are coming from the west there. they're going to be stopping right at that intersection in order to make a left hand turn across the traffic to get in there. if that's the case. MR. OBERMAYER-But then if they're exiting. they'l I Quaker Road. be crossing MR. HARLICKER-Yes. look at it there. It's a bad situation. no matter which way you MR. BREWER-I think wouldn't we rather have him come out at an - 26 - intersection, rather than at a curb cut? MR. STARK-Yes. Enter on Quaker. MR. OBERMAYER-And exit on. MR. BREWER-I mean, I would rather have a car come out of a street than out of a driveway. MR. DICKINSON-That's how we understood it. MR. BREWER-How are you really going to control that? MR. RUEL-Exit only on that side street? MR. DICKINSON-Well, I think once you get into a faci I ity like this, and you're in the parking lot and you're starting .to go out, and there's a sign that says No Exit, I think most people reasonably bel ¡eve that that's what you're supposed to do, and don't exit. You may get an occasional person that would ignore the sign, but by enlarge, I don't believe they would. You'd have better access on Everts Road anyway. MR. BREWER-You don't have a problem with defining that a little better? I mean, it's pretty well open, isn't it? How wide is the exit onto Everts Avenue? MR. DICKINSON-The driveway pretty significant drainage there. is pretty we I I def i ned.. There's a system both sides of the driveway MR. MARTIN-What's the width of the pavement What's the width of the pavement for that access Road? What does it look like, 30 feet? there, Dennis? point on Quaker MR. DICKINSON-Which one were you asking about, Jim? MR. MARTIN-On Quaker Road. MR. HARLICKER-Where the culvert is. MR. DICKINSON-Right, 22 feet, the actual pavement edge. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-I had a question of clarification. Here's a proposed parking area. It's actually a display area, isn't it, for automob i I es? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. RUEL-To be seen from Quaker Road? MR. DICKINSON-Correct. Most of these auto dealerships that you see along Quaker Road actually park in the right-of-way. If you go down through there, you'll notice, especially if they have a special display automobile, some of them are right out in the driveway. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. We did look at that. It does I imit your visibi I ity when you do park right close to that intersection. MR. DICKINSON-Our property I ine is actually 57 feet from the edge of Quaker Road. So from the edge of the shoulder of Quaker Road to our property line is 57 feet. Now if you've gone out there, you'll notice there's quite a lawn, actually, in front of this property. The property I ine goes through that. So we're quite a ways from the road. - 27 - ---------.--'-----------.-------.-.- MR. RUEL-So you want to park the cars as close as possible to the main road? MR. DICKINSON-Sure. They're going to be back quite a ways from what you norma I I Y see go i ng down Quaker Road. MR. BREWER-How many cars do you propose, do you think you might have in there? MR. DICKINSON-A maximum of 25. MR. BREWER-So that's not a problem if we put that in the motion? MR. DICKINSON-No. MR. OBERMAYER-You plan on coming in right here? Is that what you plan on doing, coming in right here, and not utilizing this access7 MR. DICKINSON-The access you're referring to, to the west of our property, is not avai lable to us. MR. RUEL-Just the one? MR. DICKINSON-Just the one. That's ours. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That's too bad. MR. DICKINSON-Yes. You'll also notice there's a fence across there. It's not open to us. MR. LABOMBARD-So, Den n is, culvert, there won't be any were concerned about. in that grassy area cars parked there? next to the That's what we MR. OBERMAYER-So you won't park cars beyond your property Is that what you're tell ing us? line? MR. DICKINSON-That's correct. These cars are going to be so nice you're going to notice, way back in there. MR. BREWER-What about not necessari Iy blacktop, but, what do they ca II those pavers, Jim, that Stewarts used? MR. MARTIN-I don't know. Maybe Dennis has seen them. They're perforated. Some of them are masonry. Some of them are I ike a plastic. They allow the grass to grow up through them, but they prov i de a honey comb type of a conf i gurat ion. They a I low the grass to go up through, but they provide a very firm, stable surface, even for heavy equipment to go over. MR. BREWER-Would that be a consideration7 MR. DICKINSON-It would be a consideration. MR. MARTIN-And it's considered permeable area, also. MR. DICKINSON-He's concerned with wanting to pave, of course, with his experience in the auto business, with being able to plow and maintain it. MR. BREWER-That's exactly what they're made for. They give you a hard surface so that you £All plow it, but it st i II allows the grass to go up through it, so that it gives the appearance of grass. MRS. LABOMBARD-Aren't they going to use it at the Stewarts store? MR. BREWER-They're going to use Aviation Road. it at the Stewarts store, up on - 28 - MR. OBERMAYER-But he's got to plant grass every year. MR. BREWER-Not necessar i I y. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, we'll check it out. MR. BREWER-Yes. mean, if it's a consideration, let him. MR. DICKINSON-Gene feels that may not be the best thing to do, in this situation, with used cars. He's concerned about people walking through wet grass to look at the cars. MR. STARK-Tim, that's what I was thinking. Like up there they're going to park their car and leave it there, for the regional meetings that they have up at Stewarts. Here, he's going to have a car, and you're going to be walking around it. So maybe that's not. MR. BREWER-Just a thought. MR. PALING-The heel on a woman's shoe might not go through that very good. MR. DICKINSON-There are two things I'd I ike to respond to on the Staff Notes. One about moving the parking back. We're already 57 feet from the road. We'd I ike to keep the parking display area out where it is, rather than pull it back on the property. The second issue is stormwater. My opinion, having been on site, is we have a two percent cross gradient slope on our property, from the rear of our property, to the significant drainage ditches along Quaker Road there. We have approximately 60 feet of porous, sandy material with grass cover on it. We were really looking towards sheet flow for stormwater management, and not putting in any drywells. MR. MACEWAN-And even with the proposed additional parking area? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. The grass area is not as large as the parking area. You've got a good cross gradient slope there that's enough to drive the water to the drainage ditch, but not enough so that you're going to develop any (lost word). You're going to get a real sheet flow there. Now, we don't want to make an issue out of this, if the Board really wants to have a drywell, we'd be glad to put one in, but I don't think it's necessary. MR. STARK-What was the other one? MR. DICKINSON-The other one was about moving the parking lot back. We're pretty far from the road there. MR. RUEL-What impr'ovements do you propose for this building? MR. DICKINSON-Basically what they want to do is put it back in shape. It hasn't been maintained in quite a while. Basically they're going to clean it, paint it, trim the existing landscaping that's there and make look I ike it's new. MR. OBERMAYER-So you're going to tie into the sewer, right, sanitary sewer? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. contractors who are In our appl ication, we submitted some icensed in Queensbury to instal I the sewer. MR. BREWER-Okay. we can place the parking lot? What about the sign so that sign issue? Is there somewhere it's not in the middle of the MR. DICK I NSON-We I I, what you have here, it's probab I y my fau It for calling it a parking area. It's actually a display area. So they have quite a bit of control over the parking. They can work - 29 - around sign. high. It may that. the It's It's need sign without any problem. It's a fairly decent shape in good shape. It's got a steel post. It's not too not too low. It's not too big. It's not too small. a new face. It needs to be painted. Other than MR. RUEL-Where do customers park? MR. DICK,NSON-Wel" when you I ine the cars up, they'll have room on the sides of the bui Iding to park, and we have an area there, when you come in Everts Avenue, where you could have handicapped parking also. MR. RUEL-And how much space have you a I located for that? MR. DICKINSON-We the handicapped. handicapped, and a with anybody. If there. have al located about four parking places, plus That would cover a couple of sales people, couple of cars at a time, without interfering you get a real rush, six or seven cars in MR. BREWER-And the permeabi I ity is met. No problem, right, Jim? MR. MARTIN-Yes, it's 30 percent. MR. BREWER-Okay. Has anybody else Okay. I I II open the publ ic hearing. would wish to comment on this? got any other questions? Is there anybody here that PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM ROSS MR. ROSS-My name is Tom Ross. I'm a CPA, and my partner and I own two parcels of real estate on Everts Avenue where we operate a CPA firm, and the second lot is vacant. I am here representing us, my partner and myself. I am not representing anybody else. I might also disclose to this Board that we are the accountants for two of the three dealerships, car dealerships, in that area, and I have not spoke to either one of them about the facts 1'm going to present tonight. Thirdly, we have no objection to used car lot, or new car usage on that property. Our concern is with several items that we feel are deficient in the plans we looked at, and to maintain independence, we engaged a law firm to review the plans on that, so that there would be no concern that we are representing any of the car dealers, and I assure you, we are not. I would also make it clear that I don't bel ieve I know anybody on this Board, except for Mrs. LaBombard, because we grew up together, and I do not represent anybody on this Board professionally. What I would I ike to do, at this point, is enter into the record some concerns ~ have that were pointed out to us by our law firm, and before doing that, I would like to make a couple of comments about water and access. I have worked at the location I'm in for nine years. I have worked next door to that location, which is now a Chiropractic Office, for seven years, and I can tell you that Everts Avenue, in those locations, is a dangerous street. I have personally had to go out and carry elderly cl ients of our firm because their car stalls in the water when they're trying to get into our office building in the middle of the winter, and I mean, carry them from the car into our office bui Iding. We have complained repeatedly about this to the Town of Queensbury, and I bel ieve you have a letter from a Dr. Sydney Hochman, who bought our former off i ce bu i I dings, po i nt i ng out those facts. MR. HARLICKER-Yes, we do. record. It was faxed to us. It's going to get read into the MR. ROSS-He has the same problems. I'm talking about water that we have deemed lake Brunne I I. There are three partners in our - 30 - --.---' firm. Mr. Silverstein has retired. Mr. Loftus. myself. and Brunnell. who's name isn't on the firm. That entire street. at times of the year. is completely flooded in front of our office building. So we have a concern. and I spoke with one of the co- appl icants today. the co-appl icant called me. about that. and I've been assured that that wi I I not create any further aggravat i on of that. but I want to make it c I ear that I th i nk this Board needs to take a look at that. Secondly. access. My private office. in our' professional office building. faces both Quaker Road and Everts Avenue. a corner office. There are windows on both sides. I can't remember the exact number of accidents that I have seen at this intersection. but I can tell you that to try to come out of Everts Avenue and take a left hand turn. forget itl Lunch time. dinner time. going home. I go to work at quarter of seven in the morning. I seldom leave before six o'clock at night. unless I have a meeting or something. and I c,an tell you. I can sit there. literally. f.or twenty to twenty- five minutes to get out onto Quaker. I don't even try anymore. I go down Homer. which is a very small. residential street. and that street is not wide enough for two cars to pass at once. and if additional traffic goes in there. it's going to be a real problem. I'd also point out to you that the roads that you referred to ear Ii er in your conversat i on. on the west side of this property. and in back of the Chiropractic Office. and alongside our office. are not public highways. They are right- of-ways which my partner and I own. and we have granted specific easements to the Minogue's Beverage Center. the Chiropractor. and I bel ieve Murray's Wine and Liquor Store. and Mi Ilbrooks. I wou I d a I so like to enter into the record. before you read our attorney's comments. that I have personally known one of the co- appl icant's. Mrs. O'Nei I. fo ~ at least 15 years. I know she is a quality person. She is a wonderful business person. and I have no conflict with either. I don't know Mr. O'Neil. but I have no confl ict. These are concerns ~ have. to protect QQL property rights. some of which were brought up when we renovated our building. which was built in 1981. and we renovated it in 1989. and it cost a considerable amount Of money. with architects and that. to straighten out. and get approval from this Board. According to our lawyer's comments. and our law firm was Fitzgerald. Morris. Baker. and Firth. they came up and looked at the plans. because. again. we wanted to maintajn an environment of independence. According to their comments. I'd I ike to read the following: "The application seeks to increase parking from a reported 15 spaces to 25 spaces. The appl icant states that there currently exists +/- 3600 square feet of paved area. A measurement of the plans submitted indicates only +/- 2500 square feet. In real ity. the appl icant is starting with less than 10 usable spaces. Secondly. the appl icant makes no provision for customer or employee parking. All site plans are required to indicate anticipated traffic patterns and detailed parking spaces. Under the Zon i ng Ord i nance. the app I i cant is requ i red to have five spaces placed aside for customers." There's al I sorts of legal quotes in here which I'm going to pass. unless somebody raises after. "Any deviation from this requires a variance." And I bel ieve in this case the Planning Board can grant that variance. MR. BREWER-No. The Zoning Board can. not the Planning Board. MR. ROSS-Or if the Planning Board attempts to issue the variance. they are (lost word). It also says here that Section 179-66D(4) requires that any access point must have a physical barrier separating the ingress and egress lane. This appl icant has two access points. neither of which contains a physical barrier of separation. Any deviation from this requirement needs a variance from the Zoning Board. and I'm not a lawyer. I'm a CPA. Section 179-66D(4). again. requires that access points must be at least 150 feet apart. This is almost impossible for this application to comply. Any deviation from this requirement needs a variance from the Zoning Board. There is also a notation, here. - 31 - footnoted. that if the preexisting usage of the property conforms. then that's not a problem. but the attorney goes on to say. the existence of this office use in this one quarter acre lot makes it a nonconforming use. Office bui Idings are al lowed in the Highway Commercial zone. but only on lots of one acre or more. The existence of this use on the substandard lot makes it a nonconforming use. Section 179-81 requires that when a nonconforming use is replaced by another use. this new use shal I conform to the entire Chapter. Section 179-660(5) requires that the lot be adequately I ighted. There's no provision for lighting in the application. Argument. number of cars and parking is another concern that's been pointed out before. Due to the change of the property from an office bui Iding to a retai I sales lot. the appl icant should be required to plant and maintain ample screening of sufficient height and density along the south border of the property. It's our attorney's opinion. and our opinion. and I spent a great deal of time. after talking with one of the co-applicants today. again. whom I respect greatly. that we just cannot envision. now we are. I don't want to say what the distance is. because I don't want to say something that I can't support. but when I look out my office window and try to envision 25 cars on a lot. customers going out onto Everts Avenue. and I think. I haven't seen the plans. I don't know. but where that comes out onto Everts Avenue. if somebody comes around that corner from Quaker Road. and somebody's pull ing out. it's going to be a real nightmare. much more than it is already. According to my partner. whom I met with late today. before coming here. we've witnessed awful accidents at this intersection. That's not Mrs. O'Nei I or Mr. O'Nei I's problem. but I think this Board has to take that into consideration. Where I ights have been placed on other streets. the traffic flow on this street is heavy. People use it to go from Ridge Street. by the Stewarts. over across Lexington. and cut over to Quaker Road. You also have Community Workshop. down the street. which has many people walking along this road. in the morning and afternoon. that work there. that are handicapped. retarded. and developmentally disabled. You have to be very cautious of that. Thirdly. the front of this property is a school bus stop. I don't know if that can be changed. or whatever. but the chi Id care center. which is on Homer Avenue. picks up between 15 and 20 chi Idren there twice a day. So I think you need to consider that. Again. we have no object i on to a used car fac i I i ty or a new car faci I ity. or any car faci I ity. going on that property. I'd just ask the Board's consideration on these points. and that's all. and I thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Thank you. sir. to comment? Is there anyone else who would like MARION O'NEIL MRS. O'NEIL-Mrs. O'Neil. I just want to address one issue. When I spoke with Russ O'Connor. initially. about the buffer. he had straightened out. in a different location. (lost word). We had a terrible water problem for years. and the man came in. when we added on. and dug up. and I don't know. he had topos. I'm not very good at this stuff. He put in drainage ditches and he (lost word). and we have no problem. and I think he's a genius. So. we went over to this little property. and I said. I want those drain th i ngs like you put in over there and so I ved a I I my prob I ems. and I did tell him (lost word). When he phoned us at 6:30 this evening. just before we came here. he has done whatever he does. and he does not feel that those drainage ditches are necessary. However. if you want them. and I want them. he wi II put them in. I wanted to just clarify that. MR. MARTIN-Could we just read the letter in. Tim? MR. BREWER-Sure. - 32 - -_,.,.r MR. HARlICKER-This is from Dr. Sydney Hochman, "Dear Planning and Zoning Office: This letter is in response to the notice to interested parties that was sent to my office regarding the application concerning the above property. After reviewing the f i I e at your off ice, I do have a few important concerns that I feel the Board should take i n toe 0 n sid era t ion. I bel i eve that these concerns are important to the residents of the Town of Queensbury, as wel I as the business owners in the adjacent areas. 1. There is a real problem in this area concerning water drainage. This area regularly floods during rains, sometimes so bad I y that Everts Avenue is part i a I I y under water. I have contacted the Town of Queensbury on several occasions concerning this lack of drainage, and the response has always been that there is nothing that can be done. This problem is upsetting, and dangerous, as automobile accidents could take place due to the lack of control whi Ie driving through the deep water. I am sure that if any more blacktopping (i.e. loss of green space) takes place in this immediate area, the flooding wi I I get worse. Whi Ie town green space rules are important, I bel ieve that special situations do arise in the management of land and drainage that deserve a more close look. In this particular case, any decrease in green space wi I I cause more flooding and water drainage problems. The best fix for this situation would be to instal I drainage pipes to lead the rainwater away from this area via piping. In real ity, this is a very expensive undertaking by the town. and wi II never take place. Short of that. please consider this issue of increased blacktopping causing decreased greenspace and decreased drainage. 2. My second concern is regarding the traffic situation on the corner of Quaker Road and Everts Avenue. Anyone who I ives or does business in the area knows how dangerous this corner can be. It is almost impossible to turn left onto Quaker Road from Everts Avenue whenever there is even a smal I amount of traffic. I have personally witnessed more than a few accidents on this corner in the past two years. I hesitate to think of the aggravation and possible accidents that wi II tak~ place if traffic is significantly increased in the immediate area on this corner. The right th i ng to do wou I d be to put a stop light on the corner. Barring this. I hope the Board takes into consideration the traffic congestion and safety issue regarding increased traffic through this corner. In concl.usion. I do hope that the Board takes into account my concerns regarding the development of this property in question. These concerns. I believe, are the concerns of the residents and businesses of the Town of Queensbury. Respectfully. Dr. Sydney R. Hochman" PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. BREWER-Do we know what the distance is from the exit, proposed exit. on Everts Avenue. to the corner. to Quaker Road. what the distance is? Do you know what the distance is from your driveway on Everts to Quaker Road? MR. STARK-To Quaker or their property I ine. Tim? MR. BREWER-No, Quaker. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. Quaker. because of the pu I ling out. They were worried about the turning. I wanted to know that. too. MR. DICKINSON-It's 60 feet from the edge of the access drive to the edge of the road. which would be the shoulder. It's got about a five or six foot shoulder. MR. MACEWAN-That's the closest edge. right? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. What BREWER-Your driveway's I'm talking about is. three feet your exit. off your property line? here. to Quaker Road. is - 33 - only 60 feet? MRS. LABOMBARD-It's got to be more than that. That's got to be more than 60. MR. BREWER-Your exit. wherever your exit's going to be. to Quaker Road. MR. DICKINSON-The I ine is. I measured from the edge of. MR. BREWER-No. not your property line. your driveway. pulling out. MR. DICKINSON-This is the pavement. here. on our driveway. MR. MACEWAN-This side is the only side that's going to be used for an exit. MRS. LABOMBARD-You said it was only twenty some odd feet wide. the exit. MR. BREWER-Your exit's right here? MR. DICKINSON-This is the edge of pavement. here. and then this is a paved way back in here. MR. BREWER-How wide is that driveway? MR. DICKINSON-Forty-five feet. MR. BREWER-Why can't we close it up some? MR. DICKINSON-You can. MR. BREWER-How would you feel about that. George? If we closed. that's forty some feet wide. where they're going out. which. if you brought that in there. twenty or twenty-five. then you're twenty-five foot further away from Quaker Road coming out. MR. STARK-How far are you from Quaker. 120? MR. DICKINSON-That would put it at about 80 feet. MR. BREWER-Eighty feet's better than sixty or forty. you to close up that. I guess it would be on the your property? If we asked east side of MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MR. BREWER-That's some 45 feet wide. MR. DICKINSON-Correct. MR. BREWER-If we asked you to close that up to. maybe. 25. or 20. is 20 wide enough for an exit? MR. MARTIN-Twenty's the minimum requirement in the Code. MR. BREWER-All right. So if we asked you to close that to twenty. would that be a problem? MR. DICKINSON-What I would I ike to do is close it to twenty-five. The first part of that provides us good handicapped parking space there. If we get down below twenty. we're not going to be able to do that. MR. MARTIN-I wi II say. from experience in the past. twenty feet is a little tight. MR. BREWER-Okay. twenty-five. but not bringing. would that be the east side of it. closer to Quaker Road. I would want you to take - 34 - ~ the side that's on Quaker Road and bring it back towards Lexington. MR. DICKINSON-Not a problem. MR. BREWER-Does everybody agree to that? MR. RUEL-Yes. It would leave you about. what. eighty or ninety feet to Quaker Road. right? MR. BREWER-Right. Now your driveway on Quaker is. how wide? MR. DICKINSON-Twenty-two. MR. BREWER-Twenty-two. All right. So we'll leave that as it is. MR. MARTIN-Might I inquil'y as to the nature Are we talking about. now. extending of that into that? of that narrowing? planted area down MR. BREWER-Exactly. MR. MARTIN-Is it just running a curb? MR. BREWER-Exactly. Well. we could put a curb and we could add some greenspace in there. so it would identify it better. MR. DICKINSON-That's fine. MR. MARTIN-So we're talking about an area how wide back from Everts Avenue? MR. DICKINSON-Well. what I'd do is bring it back to the property I ine. It would be about 17 feet wide. MR. BREWER-Twenty feet. I thought. going to come back to twenty. If it's forty-five. you're MR. MACEWAN-He's talking width. MR. MARTIN-The width of the green area. MR. BREWER-AI I right. MR. DICKINSON-From the edge of Everts Avenue to our property line is about 17 feet. MR. RUEL-Put plantings in there. MR. BREWER-Some sort of plantings. The curb and plantings. MR. BREWER-Not to obstruct Something low. the vision going out. though. MR. RUEL-Is this a change in use? MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's why it's here. refurbishing. or pool sales. I think there was a pool MR. RUEL-So it's non conforming. right? MR. MARTIN-No. it's conforming. MR. HARLICKER-The ~ is. The ~ isn't. MR. MA R TIN - S 0 m e 0 f the t h i n g s s tat e d d u r i n g the pub I i c he a r i n g . about conforming to the parking regulations. This is a preexisting situation. That refers to installation and new construction. - 35 - MR. RUEL-The gentleman prob I em. I wonder what that? indicated that there was a flooding bear i ng does th i s app I i cat i on have on MR. DICKINSON-If you look at my drawing, you'll see it's very flat. as flat as that table almost, but if you look at my drawing you'll see spot elevations. and if you go all the way around the outside, you'll notice that the side I ine in the back of our property, is the highest side, and the front towards Quaker Road, is the lowest side. There's about a two foot gradient across our property. This property is not creating. causing, increasing any flooding problems that you have on Everts Avenue. MR. RUEL-He seemed to indicate that mentioned it as one of the items. it possibly could. He MR. DICKINSON-No way. If they could get that water to run uphill. I'd like to know how they do it. That's an actual on- site field topographic survey right there in front of you. MR. RUEL-Okay. sewer? My other question is, you will connect to the MR. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. DICKINSON-They've app I i cat ion. submitted information with their MR. RUEL-And he also indicated you had no al location for customer and emp I oyee park i ng and hand i capped, but I be I i eve ear I i er you said you had 10 customer and employee parking spots adjacent to the bui Iding? MR. DICKINSON-I bel ¡eve that I stated we had five parking areas. MR. RUEL-Five customer. MR. DICKINSON-Five is the minimum for the sales people and customer, and one of those is a handicapped parking. MR. RUEL-Five total? MR. DICKINSON-Total. MR. RUEL-For customers, employees, and handicapped? MR. DICKINSON-Generally what they do when they drive in is they drive in, the park in the parking lot next to they want to own. I don't believe that they're going to have a problem with parking there. I don't believe they're going to have a significant amount of traffic. This isn't I ike Price Chopper or Stewarts, I ike a constant in and out. MR. RUEL-Besides, don't they drive away with the new car. and leave a spot? MR. BREWER-Jim, did you figure out the spaces for twenty-five cars, actually figure out the numbers? If we went by our standards for a parking spot. it would be what? Nine by twenty? MR. MARTIN-Nine by twenty, but you have to also consider drive aisles and that type of thing. MR. BREWER-Did anybody give that any consideration? MR. RUEL-That's 180 square feet, 25 spots, 4500 square feet. - 36 - - , MR. BREWER-All right. How much paved area are you going to have. 35ØØ? MR. DICKINSON-The total impervious area of that is the building. So you're What did you come up with? is 7.ØØØ. but about 1.ØØØ looking at around 6.ØØØ. MR. RUEL-Paved area. 5.245. MR. DICKINSON-Is that on the application? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. STARK-It's on the drawing. MR. BREWER-So he's got enough room. MR. RUEL-And 25 parking areas is 45ØØ. MR. BREWER-Twenty five. no. I'm sorry. it should be thir'ty. right. because he's got to have five more spaces. MR. RUEL-I don't know. Is the five in the twenty-five? MR. BREWER-No. and then five enough room. He's going to have a maximum of twenty-five cars. extra spaces. So that's thirty. So he's got MR. RUEL-Not quite. Have you got a lot of compact cars? MR. DICKINSON-Let me explain another point to you. Your parking regulations that you said for parking. for the general public to come in and be able to have enough room to park any. MR. BREWER-Actually. you don't need that. need that. You don't actually MR. DICKINSON-Right. When you've been in a used car lot. the average automobile. mirror to mirror. is only. I ike. seven feet. MR. BREWER-Okay. So you've got enough room. MR. DICKINSON-That's a maximum. MR. RUEL-Based on our standards. you're minus 155 square feet. MR. DICKINSON-Okay. How about we have 24 cars? MR. BREWER-Okay. wasn't leading to that. MR. MACEWAN-What are the hours of operation? EUGENE O'NEIL MR. O'NEIL-We'd be open nine to six. and Saturday. probably nine to five. MR. MACEWAN-Would that also be inclusive of winter time hours? MR. O'NEIL-Most of the time. unless we have a winter year. I ike last MR. RUEL-And how about I ighting7 MR. MACEWAN-That's what be adequat. with what proposed light there? I'm leading up to. Is I ighting going to the Staff says. that you only have one MR. RUEL-There's no I ights in the lot. - 37 - MR. DICKINSON-They seem to feel that the single light is going to be sufficient for the type of operation that they're going to have there. and for the hours that they're going to be open. MR. OBERMAYER-You don't think the lighting's needed for more security of your cars. though? MR. DICKINSON-Well. most of the area is pretty well I it. I mean. we're in with all the neighbors. They're pretty well I it. We don't. at this point. feel that that's a problem. If. at some later date. this thing becomes a problem. or they want to do something different. they' I I have to come back to you. MR. BREWER-AI I right. Lets do the SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 27-94. Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption. seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS. there application for: is presently before the Planning EUGENE & MARION O'NEIL. and Board an WHEREAS. this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental 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 action considered by this Board is unlisted 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 appl icant. 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 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 23rd day of August. vote: 1994. by the following AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Okay. resolution? We need a motion. Do we have a prepared MR. HARLICKER-Yes. there was. MR. BREWER-Wait a minute. Roger. have you got the stipulations? - 38 - MR. RUEL-Ves. What were they? MR. BREWER-That he's going to close. MR. RUEL-Connect to the municipal sewer system. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-And to close the entrance on Everts Avenue. MR. BREWER-No. no. exit. Correct? MR. MACEWAN-No exiting via Quaker Road. MR. RUEL-But entrance ¡son Quaker. right? MR. BREWER-Entrance on Quaker. MR. RUEL-AII right. MR. MACEWAN-Only. MR. RUEL-Reduce the driveway on Everts Road to 25 feet. MR. BREWER-Correct. MR. RUEL-With adequate curbing and landscaping. right? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. RUEL-And connection to sanitary sewer. That's it. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Entrance only on Quaker Road. MR. OBERMAYER-Enter and exit from Everts Avenue. MR. BREWER-Twenty-four cars maximum. MR. RUEL-Twenty-five. isn't it? MR. BREWER-I thought he didn't have enough room for twenty-five? MR. MACEWAN-We determined that requirement on the parking. that wasn't part of the MR. BREWER-Okay. twenty-five. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 27-94 EUGENE & MARION O'NEIL. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption. seconded by Robert Pal ing: As written. with the following conditions: That the entrance be on Quaker Road only. and we have signage posted on the site to that effect. proper signage. Two. reduce the driveway on Everts to 25 feet. with adequate curbing and landscaping. and. Three. to connect to the municipal sewer system. Parking area for a maximum of 25 spaces. Whereas. the Town Planning Board is in receipt of site plan application file #27-94 to use an existing building as an office for a used car lot and enlarge the existing paved area to accommodate 10 more cars; and Whereas. the above mentioned site plan application dated 8/2/94 consists of the following: 1. Sheet 1. site plan. dated 8/23/94; and - 39 - Whereas, the above fi Ie is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes, dated 8/23/94; and Whereas, a public hearing was held on 8/23/94 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal compl ies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning). Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Qual ity Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby move to approve site plan # 27-94. 2. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 3 . The a p p I i can t s h a I I pre sent the a b 0 v ere fer e n c e d sit e plan to the Z.A. for his signature. 4. The appl icant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of perm i ts is cond i t i oned on comp Ii ance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, vote: 1994, by the following MR. MARTIN-Okay, and could I ask that a date be set, as to a submission of a new site plan, indicating these changes? MR. BREWER-What's comfortable for you? MR. MARTIN-We need two copies, Dennis, of a site plan that wi II reflect those changes. No rush. MR. DICKINSON-If done ever. don't get it done right away, I don't get it MR. MARTIN-Okay. By Friday at four o'clock. MR. BREWER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Pal ing, Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. DICKINSON-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1994 SKETCH PLAN KATHY PFEIFFER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE 571 BAY ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A +/- 8.3 1.866, 2.1Ø1, 1.866, & 2.572 ACRES. 1991 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-48.1, 48.2 LOT SUBDIVISION REGS TYPE: UNLISTED ZONE: SFR-1A ACRE PARCEL INTO CROSS REFERENCE: SIZE: 8.3 ACRES KEITH & LOCATION: 4 LOTS OF SUB. 2- SECTION: KEITH PFEIFFER, PRESENT - 4Ø - STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. Kathy Pfeiffer, Meeting Date: ANALYSIS: Staff has the s u bd ¡vi s ion: 1 . driveway for lot 4. 2. Double the lot width is required for lots 1 and 2 unless a shared driveway is provided. 3. There is an area with slopes of about 25% across lots 2 and 4 which could impact drainage and cause erosion problems. 4. The possibi I ity of running a road into the property and al lowing for the possible subdivision of five lots instead of four with four of the lots fronting on the new road should be examined. This would also allow for future connection to the land locked parcel to the rear." 12-1994 Sketch Plan, August 23, 1994 Keith & "PROJECT following It appears comments regarding this the out bui Idings wi II be 4 lot in the MR. BREWER-Which would be what property, Scott? Limbert? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. There's a 48 acre parcel back there, and then possible property to the north, northeast, also, could be accessed back in there. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there someone here for the appl icant? Would you care to address any of the Staff comments? MR. PFEIFFER-My name's Keith Pfeiffer, and I'm the owner of the property, and I'v, spoken wi{h Jim Martin a few times about it. We didn't discuss access to the property behind. It's landlocked now, and I haven't had any contact with those people. So I don't know if they're interested in the access or not. As far as the northeast, the cemetery right to my property line. So that's going to be there forever. The property to the northeast, that wraps around to the farm over there, is owned by Hi land Park. So they have access to that property. It's not landlocked. Behind me, I assume, is. I don't know, as far as that goes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PFEIFFER-They're talking about a common driveway, which is shown on the drawing, which has been approved by Warren County for a road, and we did research (lost word) a road. I worked with my neighbor Larry, who has 10 acres to the south of me, and he subdivided into two lots and brought a common driveway in, and he's attempting to sell the two lots, and we looked about subdividing al I of the property. I have two pieces on my land right now. I have it subdivided into two, and the expense of the road, to bring it in, at this time, there just wasn't anybody interested in doing it, at $100 a foot, a 12 or 130Ø foot road, so that's $130,00Ø just to begin. So that wasn't an option. It's not an option for me. We'd I ike to sell the farm house that we're in now, and sell two of the lots. We have a bui Ider who's interested. We have some peop lei nterested, and bu i I d a house on one of the four lots, and have a common driveway in to all four houses. That's basically what the plan is. MR. BREWER-Who'd maintain the long driveways? MR. PFEIFFER-The driveway going out to the road would be on illY property, and I would maintain it, the way I do mine. MR. BREWER-What lot would ~ ive on7 MR. PFEIFFER-We would I ¡va on the lot right behind the barn, the largest .one. You see the barn there, on the south side of OUf' property. MR. BREWER-One, two, three, or four? MRS. LABOMBARD-Lot Four. - 41 - MR. BREWER-Lot Four. All right. I guess my question would be. this 40 foot strip would access Lot Three? MR. PFEIFFER-No. That's there right now to access the lot in the back. That back lot that I have right now is a flag lot. That 40 foot strip would disappear. It would become part of the Number One Lot up front. that 40 foot lot going all the way. are you talking about the north side of the property? MR. HARLICKER-If you do that. then Lot Number Two becomes landlocked. MR. PFEIFFER-No. Lot Number Two is going to be accessed from the common driveway coming right up the middle. MR. MARTIN-Technically. you sti I I have to maintain the 40 foot of frontage. MR. PFEIFFER-Yes. The back lot will have 40 feet of frontage. whether it be that piece or a piece next to the common driveway. I mean. this is a rough sketch. It has to be worked out. MR. HARLICKER-So you're saying one driveway will access lots two. three. and four. MR. PFEIFFER-One. two. three. and four. MR. HARLICKER-One. two. three. and four? MR. PFEIFFER-Yes. MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. PFEIFFER-The plan is to eliminate that driveway that comes out of that farm house now. MR. MARTIN-Nonetheless. though. the lots. physically. have to maintain frontage on Bay Road as the only publ ic right-of-way. MR. PFEIFFER-Correct. They have to have a 40 foot frontage on Bay Road. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. RUEL-The existing gravel drive is going to be taken out? MR. PFEIFFER-That is the plan. yes. MR. MARTIN-Now when we talked about this. I didn't have the benefit of the topography. The location of these houses. this whole area is going to drain right into the front doors of these houses. I mean. it slopes from a high of 408 down to 356. in the context of about. what. 300 feet. and it doesn't flatten out. even. It just continues to go down. MR. PFEIFFER-The back part of the property flattens out. but our house is going to be bui It on the first hi II. the farm house where it now is fine. The second lot. behind the old farm house. depending on where you put it. you can bui Id into the hi Ilside. or you could build off to the north side where it's very flat. on the north side of the property. right along where that property line. We'd still have enough setback for it. and the other piece. it flattens right out. and it's very flat back there. but it's very dry. We had DEC in. and we had foresters in. because we did some selective cutting of trees. which was an awful lot of pine trees. MR. RUEL-The existing residence is the highest point on this map? MR. PFEIFFER-Yes. - 42 - '~ MR. RUEL-The highest point. MR. PFEIFFER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. What's that contour residence? It's not marked. ine. right next to the MR. MARTIN-It would have to be 416. around the house. MR. RUEL-Four sixteen. MR. HARLICKER-You're talking percent. and you're trying to pretty steep slope. slopes that are greater than 25 get back to those houses. That's MR. RUEL-It's from 416 to 358. 356. That's some drop. MR. PFEIFFER-Wel I. coming across the top of the property to the second lot. you come across the top there. which would be. where the driveway. before you even reach the slope of the hill. Going to the other one. all the way in the back. yes. There's a large slope. MR. BREWER-Why couldn't. Jim. if he was to put a private road. I ike was suggested. right down the center of this. and had these lots front a private road. could he do that without maintaining the 40 foot. and making all these flag shaped lots? MR. MARTIN-No. they'd have to maintain the 40 feet. The other thing. per the Subdivision Code. 183-24J. "Driveway access grades shall conform to specifications established by the Highway Superintendent. Driveway grades between pavement and setback lines sha I I not exceed 10 percent. MR. MACEWAN-Did we do that for the Cardinale subdivision? MR. MARTIN-I can't recal I. MR. BREWER-I thought he had a private road. that private road went in, and Lot. I'll just use this for numbers. One was on the right of the road. Two was on the left. Three. Four. and I think he had five lots in there. and I don't recall all of those lots having 40 foot on. MR. MARTIN-No. He did a two lot subdivision. or something like that. with the intention that he was going to build a Town road, and when he did. he would bring in the rest of the lots. MR. BREWER-Okay. Yes. All right. You're right. MR. PFEIFFER-See. I have two lots. but the problem is. to divide the two lots in half. I can't bring a road in. because of the way the lots g,o. The lot I ine run north to south. So I've got a lot up front. on the road. and then I have a lot behind. with 40 foot access. If I divide them in half. then it doesn't work right. It's really two lots. but one of the pieces of property is taken from one lot. from the other. So the recommendation was. which hasn't been done yet. they haven't been deeded together unti I I've been here to talk to you and see what to do. MR. RUEL-The proposed driveway at the northern end lots, what. One and Two? is for the MR. PFEIFFER-No. That's just there to meet the Code. That 40 foot driveway is there just to meet the Code. because that lot needs to have a 40 foot access. Even though it won't be used. it has to be there. MR. HARLICKER-So the proposed driveway is not going to be put in? - 43 - MR. PFEIFFER-No. has to be there. It's going to be one common driveway, but it MR. HARLICKER-Yes, the frontage does, the driveway doesn't. MR. PFEIFFER-Right. MR. MACEWAN-You said you've had a developer who's showed some interest in purchasing this parcel but does not. MR. PFEIFFER-Well, the builder who I'm talking to about building our home, he has some people that are interested in purchasing some lots to bui Id on in Queensbury, and he's, we just met with him last week. MR. MACEWAN-And he's not interested in purchasing this parcel from you and putting in a Town spec road1 MR. PFEIFFER-Well, we've sent letters to 5Ø builders, in Queensbury and Vermont, okay, to try and work some kind of arrangement with them, and we, whether it be with my eight acres, or combining it with Larry's ten acres, eighteen acres, very equitable prices and everything, and nobody was interested, and we bought the property, five years ago, with the intention of bu i I ding a home on it and se I ling some pieces. MR. MACEWAN-And t he con sen s u s of I ack of i nt e rest was due t01 MR. PFEIFFER-The expense of the road, and they just, you know, it was just too expensive. MR. RUEL-For a couple of homes. MR. PFEIFFER-Right. back. They just, they wouldn't get their money MR. MACEWAN-But this is zoned one acre. I certainly be cut up into even more lots than now. mean, this could what you have here MR. BREWER-We've got two lots there. only maintain one there and one there. out of there, the way this is cut up now, Two there, and he could So the most he could get is another two lots. MR. PFEIFFER-If you bring the road, you could get, maybe, five. It would have to be 5Ø foot wide, paved swales. It would have to have turnarounds. Some of your regulations, it just wasn't worthwhi Ie. You couldn't make any money off of it. So I'm trying an alternative method. MR. BREWER-I think there could be a more creative, how you could really do it, but there's got to be a than this, I mean, in !ill£.. eyes. don't know better way MR. MACEWAN-You could get as many as six lots out of this, using the one acre zoning. MR. PFEIFFER-Once you put the road in, you can't, we had, the surveyor did it. He drew it up and he put the road in, and we could get five on our property, and the road was going to cost about $7Ø,ØØØ. It's just too much money. MR. OBERMAYER-$7Ø,ØØØ or $13Ø,ØØØ1 MR. PFEIFFER-Well, if you went all the way in to the other property that my neighbor has, but just in mine alone, would be about $7Ø,ØØØ. That would be more than $1Ø,ØØØ a lot, and you'd never get it back. MR. BREWER-Jim, do you think you could do something with this and - 44 - come up with a more creative design than this, or not? MR. HARLICKER-The thing is, you can't cluster either because it's single family residential, not suburban residential. So the clustering option isn't there. MR. PFEIFFER-We've had Van Dusen and Steves look at it. We've had Dave Harris look at it. Engineers have looked at it. MR. OBERMAYER-I know one thing, where the proposed driveway is, that's a very dangerous intersection, not intersection, but there is a big hi I I right on Bay Road. MR. MACEWAN-In back of the site. MR. PFE I FFER-We I I, t hey come right out on a hi I I. Yes. Warren County approved that already, if we wanted to do a regular road there, because of the site distance, where it comes out on Bay Road. We have 7ØØ feet in one direction and 5ØØ feet in the other. MR. MACEWAN-They approved it for one lot, one home, or did they approve it as a common road for three homes? MR. PFEIFFER-As a common road for either five homes, or, if we did the whole thing and it was fourteen homes, in the whole project, with a regular County road coming out at that location. MR. MACEWAN-And that was the driveway to the southern end of your property now? MR. PFEIFFER-Right, just north of barn, because we had elevations and everything done by an engineer, and he (lost word) the Warren County driveway, and they approved that, and I have those drawings. I have a letter from DEC that there are no wetlands on the property. MRS. LABOMBARD-Could you just show me how your proposed driveway would access Lots Two and Three? I'm having a tough time here. I mean, you've got this one going to here. MR. BREWER-Could you put everybody see. it right up on the board, to let MR. PFEIFFER-Okay. The driveway comes in this way, and it comes in at the highest point of our property. So there's over 6ØØ feet site distance this way, and the site distance al I the way down here to the curve in the road is almost 5ØØ feet, where they have the development of those town homes, and the driveway would come in here, and it would access this house, depending on where whoever we sold it to wanted to bring access in, because it's al I flat here. So the power driveway would run all the way back this way, and then come (lost word) to that property. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. So that would be more of I ike a, that would be a I ittle access driveway off the common driveway. MR. PFEIFFER-Correct. This would be more than a driveway. It would be a gravel road that would be wide enough for two cars to pass on, to bring you back to here. MRS. LABOMBARD-AI I right. What I was confused about was. you had a drawing where it kind of V's, where you had that first lot on the left, where you already live, right there, going in at an angle, and it looked I ike another drive was veering off there. See how that forks into an angle? That's where I thought the drive was going to, it was going to go in I ike that. MR. Dane PFEIFFER-Okay. I guess that's proposed from, Ferris put that on there, but. I mean, it I guess when could come in - 45 - anywhere in here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. MR. PFEIFFER-We have plenty of frontage here, so it could come in anywhere in here. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. So now finish it up for me. MR. PFEIFFER-It would come up in here, then a driveway would come into this home. This driveway would be, more or less, eliminated. MRS. LABOMBARD-AI I right. MR. PFEIFFER-When we had been here five years ago, and we subdivided in two, we had proposed that we were going to do something I ike this as soon as we could, and at that time, we talked about (lost word) this driveway and just putting some plantings here to stop it, because this is a dangerous area to pullout here, and then come back here, and we would access this house with a driveway through here, and then this house, our proposed house, would be accessed over here. The driveway would run back, and they would access off of this right-of-way here. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, basically, what you have is, that proposed driveway is really a I ittle road that you, yourself, wi II sti II own, and you would have to make some kind of a, put on their deed that this is a right-of-way that you would be? MR. PFEIFFER-Correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-What if you never I ived there? MR. PFEIFFER-Well, if this is a common driveway, and, attorney, Mike O'Connor, said that we just, it's in that it's a right-of-way that everybody uses. again, my their deed MRS. LABOMBARD-So then they al I maintain it? MR. PFEIFFER-Well, I'm going to maintain wife does day care. She's I icensed by the to continue to do it, and I have to do it done on a regular basis. it, as it is now. My State, and she's going now. So it has to be MR. BREWER-You' I I maintain it for Lot Two? MR. PFEIFFER-No. I'm going to maintain this whole common road, and they'll maintain their own driveways, I mean, just I ike any homeowner would. MR. BREWER-Right. So or however wide it is, you'll maintain this whole 4Ø foot strip, al I the way back to your house? MR. PFEIFFER-Right, driveways pick up. right back to wherever it ends and these MR. RUEL-Is there any reason why you have that upside down? MR. PFE I FFER-We I I, just because Bay Road's here. might be easiest. I thought it MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. I think it's good that way. MR. MA R TIN - I t h ink i t m i g h t be a d vis a b Ie, g i ve n , should submit this to engineering review, prior to normally do it, at Prel iminary, because there's some, I ike for example, density, you're supposed to back unbuildable areas of the property, prior to determining and one of those criteria is slopes over 25 percent think we when we it's hard, out the density, are not - 46 - '- supposed to be calculated in the density calculation. We need some. I think. technical review of this even to establish that. I didn't have the benefit of the slope before. I just think it might be advisable to. before we leave sketch plan. MR. BREWER-I agree. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. do. too. MR. MARTIN-Take a thorough look at al I regulations as they apply to this. the subdivision MR. BREWER-Yes. and what about fire. too. Jim. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's what I'm saying. I mean. I don't want to give. I don't want to mislead the appl icant. here. that they're not. maybe. some concerns here that would result in a reconfiguration or something I ike that. We're at sketch plan right now. MR. STARK-Tim. maybe we could get the appl icant's table it until the first meeting next month. and concerns could be addressed. approval to maybe these MR. BREWER-Well. I think. also. we should submit it to the eng i neel'. Bob. how do you fee I. Roger? MR. RUEL-Yes. I agree with that. MR. BREWER-Craig? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think there's a reason to table it's only sketch plan. at this point. and send it engineer. at this point. and get their input. and at you take it for what it's worth. it. I mean. out to the prel iminary. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We do it at prel iminary anyhow. MR. BREWER-There's no real action being taken here anyway. MR. MARTIN-I just want you to understand. then. preliminary review could change the configuration here. I don't know that this is set in stone. then. by any means. MR. HARLICKER-It could reduce the number of lots that could be bui It. depending on how much is considered unbui Idable. MR. BREWER-It depends., if the engineer takes the unbui Idable area out of here and only comes up with two houses. then that's what you have to I ive with. MR. MARTIN-And there's other driveways on slopes and things things here. I ike construction of I ike. I want to make sure that. MR. BREWER-Lets submit it to the fire company. MR. STARK-Well. that's pretty steep. that back part. that driveway. That's a 30. 40 foot drop there. MR. BREWER-What fire company would be? MR. MARTIN-I think this is Bay Ridge. MR. BREWER-We' I I send it to Bay Ridge. let them look at it. MR. MARTIN-I' I I have Kip look at it. the Fire Marshal. MR. BREWER-Send it to Bay Ridge. and Rist-Frost. and that's it. MR. MARTIN-Can you get a prel iminary appl ication fi led by - 47 - Wednesday? MR. PFEIFFER-Tomorrow? MR. MARTIN-No. it's a week from tomorrow. MR. BREWER-So. what do we do? approval. do we? We don't have to give a sketch MR. MARTIN-Really. it's just a. as I recommendat ion to proceed on to prel iminary. reca I I. it's a MR. BREWER-We can recommend to send it on to the engineer. and get his comments. MR. MARTIN-Wel I. that wi I I happen as a matter of course. We do that with preliminary applications. as a matter of course. MR. BREWER-We' I I do a mot i on to send it on to pre I i m ¡nary. guess. MR. MARTIN-Recommend that it be send on. MR. BREWER-Recommend that it approving it. be sent on. not necessar i I Y MR. PFEIFFER-I understand that. MR. BREWER-Okay. Does somebody want to offer that? MOTION TO SEND ON TO PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. 12-1994 KEITH & KATHY PFEIFFER, Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Sending it also on to the Town Engineer, Fire Marshal, Bay Ridge Fire Department. and Paul Naylor for their technical input. Duly adopted this 23rd day of August, 1994. by the fol lowing vote: MR. BREWER-And why don't we have Paul Naylor look at it also. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Sure. That can be done. MR. BREWER-We might as wel I get him in the picture. MR. PFEIFFER-He's looked at it already. MR. BREWER-We I I, you can get a note from him anyway. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Pal ing, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1994 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED CHARLES ADAMS clo HOME FRONT DEVELOPMENT CORP. OWNER: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GF ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: ROCKWELL ROAD SUBDIVISION OF A 29 ACRE PARCEL INTO 27 2B.BBB SQ. FT. LOTS FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. TAX MAP NO. 54-5-19.1 LOT SIZE: 29 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS TOM NACE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 13-1994 Sketch Plan, Charles Adams c/o Homefront Development, Meeting Date: August 23, 1994 "PROJECT ANALYSIS: Staff has the fol lowing comments regarding - 48 - this sketch plan application: 1. There is no easement into the green space along the north side of the road except at the end of the cui de sac. 2. The increase in traffic could cause problems because of the poor visibi I ity at the intersection of Rockwell Road and Havi land Road." And I'd also I ike to bring out something that was mentioned by a resident who came into the office this afternoon. The Board might like to look at. this property also has frontage on Clearview Lane. and the possibi I ity of making that the main entrance into the development was something that the residents of the area might look at. He wanted me to ment i on that. "3. The area is low and appeared to be fairly wet. Drainage and the depth to water table as well as seasonal high water wi I I require close scrutiny. 4. The landscaping plan should include street trees and I imits of clearing. 5. The length of the cui de sac is limited to 1.000 feet. " And t his shows over 1200 feet. The app I i cant has requested a waiver to that. and it's included in your packet. MR. BREWER-Okay. Tom7 MR. NACE-Okay. For the record. my name is Tom Nace. of Haanen Engineering. representing Charles and Mary Adams. The comment about access to the proposed green space being up at the top of the cul-de-sac. I have no problem. if we wanted to move that a I ittle further south. I wouldn't put it ä..!J.. the way down. MR. HARLICKER-And maybe put Lots 13 and 15. or somewhere a fourth one in down in there. maybe. there. between MR. NACE-What says that three isn't adeq4ate7 MR. HARLICKER-Nothing says that three isn't adequate. MR. NACE- I adequate. feel strongly that three is. actually. more than MR. HARLICKER-Okay. MR. NACE-We have. lets back up here a little bit. We are showing a deed restricted natural area. and proposing to cluster. in here. okay. and for now the lots wi II be deed. If the Town comes up with some mechanism for forming an open space. conservation law. where they can take over some of these open spaces around subdivisions that are being created. as land that's managed by something I ike the open space institute. or what have you. Then we have agreed that we would. at that point. deed. turn this back portion behind the road. behind where the lots are buildable. turn that over to that open space institute. or whatever mechanism it is. MR. BREWER-How would they have access to it. Tom? MR. NACE-Okay. That's what the question Scott has raised. Right now. we have shown an access here. We've shown an access here. and an access here. okay. Scott's say i ng. we I I. what if you put an access here. and I'm saying. MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC-Where are those roads there. that you. the accesses. MR. NACE-They're just pieces of land. what we're doing at present is keeping the buildable area. or the area which the homeowner can disturb. keeping that deed restricted to the front of the lot. and in the case where we have these accessways. that would be deed restricted so that the homeowner could not touch that proposed future accessway. MR. OBERMAYER-Is the reason for that more because of the difference in elevation. the steep terrain? I mean. what's the Town of Queensbury really going to do with this property? - 49 - MR. NACE-Well. it's our means of saying. we think this subdivision is a good one for clustering. okay. because we do have these steep areas in here. and in here. okay. that. okay. we're going to cluster it. and the Town has been saying. lets make provisions for getting green space that we really have control over. that we know is going to be kept green and is not going to be cleared. and we're saying that. okay. the Town doesn't have a provision for doing that now. the legal provision. but if you do. in the future. then we wi II put the provisions in our subdivision. so that in the future there's this block of green space that we can turn over to Town control. MR. MARTIN-See. the effect of this is that. to a certain extent. we've shortened the infrastructure. The road is shorter than it could be. meaning that it's less expensive for them to build. but from ~ standpoint. less expensive for us to maintain when it's dedicated over. We've narrowed the bui Iding envelope. So we're disturbing less of an area. The building envelope meaning that the construction's going to occur toward the center of the lot. and very tight toward the road. Leaving the perimeter of the larger lot undisturbed. and buffering it and shielding it from whatever development may occur within this from development adjacent to it. So there's a lot of sound elements in here. in terms of the clustering. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I agree with that phi losophy. However. can't see. being a tax payer in the Town of Queensbury. I can't see any value added. I'd much rather see homeowners paying taxes on that property. more than the Town of Queensbury absorbing it. MR. NACE-Wel I. that's in how you evaluate the property. MR. MARTIN-Yes. but from the standpoint of. say. you know. one of these lots in here. anyone of them. a lot with a house on it that's. say. two thirds of an acre in size. as opposed to a lot with a house on it that's one and a quarter acre in size is not going to be that much of a difference in your tax roll. but it's going to have a large aesthetic value to the community over time. that that area is conserved in the back. That's a comment we're hearing. time and again. in our master plan that we're going through right now. preserve green space. preserve open space. less pavement. less disturbance. That's clearly coming out. and this is a vehicle by which that can be accompl ished. It's a win/win situation. It's lesser for the developer to build it. It's less for us to maintain. and we're preserving more open space and disturbing less areas of the Town. MR. BREWER-So. actually. Tom. what you're saying is. this line going around here is going to be the I imit of the ownership of those lots7 MR. NACE-This will be. stated. okay. what we're doing is what Jim has MR. BREWER-I understand that. MR. NACE-But we're only providing a provision so that that can be done in the future. okay. We're sell ing. to the homeowner. this whole piece of land. but with the deed restriction that he can't do anything behind this I ine. okay. That he can only bui Id up here. and only disturb up here. and if. in the future. the Town has a legal means for forming this open space. then the Town can take the deed to that (lost word). This doesn't force the Town to do it. It just gives provision so that the Town can. MR. BREWER-I have a I ittle bit of a problem with that. How can you give something to somebody and say. that's yours. but if the Town ever comes up with an idea that they want to preserve that land. I'm going to take half of it back7 - 50 - -- MR. NACE-The lawyers think they can do it. them. 1'1 I leave that up to MR. BREWER-We I I. I understand the lawyers probab I y º-ªll. do it. but I would rather have you be right up front with the people and say. look. this is the end of your limit of what you're going to own. We're going to preserve this. and in the future. if the Town wants to take it over. we're going to offer it to the Town. and let it be in I imbo somewhere. Don't give it to them and then take it back from them. MR. NACE-We're trying to. in essence. do that. but with these other. okay. lets go the other route and say that. right now. we're just going to sel I them the front. The owner's going to retain the back. Okay. What happens then is the owner says. we I I. gee. that land is worthless to me. I'm not going to pay taxes on it. So it goes to the Town anyway. without any provisions there for its management. At least this way. it remains in this person's ownership. MR. RUEL-Yes. he pays taxes on it. MR. NACE-Unti I the Town decides that they want to do something about it. MR. RUEL-And then he gets a reduction? MR. NACE-Well. that depends on how your assessment works. okay. I don't. I ike Jim says. the value of that back piece of land. or the value of this lot. whether it's one and a quarter acres. or three quarters of an acre. is n.ot much. because the value's there in the house. not necessari Iy in the piece of land. MR. RUEL-You think this is a good sell ing feature? CHARLES ADAMS MR. ADAMS-I' I I get in my two bits. here. too. My name is Charles Adams. I just want to say that this concept behind this subdivision is one that intends to be the least intrusive into the environment. It uses the Queensbury Cluster provisions to do that. It attempts to bui Id untouchable green space around the subdivision. which provides a buffer to the property I ine and so on and so forth. It intends to make the least developed construction obtrusion into the environment as well. We'd be perfectly happy if the Town of Queensbury never decides that it wants to go into a conservancy to take this kind of land. We have been researching. however. mechanisms that are currently being used in Saratoga. where it is precisely that that's being done. with the municipalities and even the County. are attempting to ensure the perpetuity of green space. by having the municipal ity's court and/or the county become involved in either their ownership or their management. or their direction to a third party non profit. for example. that has that as a specialty. but this subdivision does not depend upon that. This subdivision. from Day One. was designed to have 2Ø.ØØØ square foot lots under the Cluster provision. and have a deed restriction. so that no disturbance or no development can occur behind this dotted line. and it's only a matter of option. that if. in the future. in a master plan. or five years. ten years from now. all ofa sudden. green space becomes so important. and conservancy becomes important. it could become avai lable at that time. MR. BREWER-Who would control that. so to speak. to make sure that nothing happens? MR. ADAMS-In this case. it's deed restricted. The homeowner owns that property. and as you say. pays taxes on it. The Town of Queensbury. if ever. they would want that conveyed to the Town. - 51 - ----- -- - ---- ...:-------------- --- would take into consideration there may be some modest loss of provision. but the actual raw land. taxes on the actual raw land. is probably not very substantial. MR. BREWER-No. I guess what I'm saying. Charles. is say this happens. and that goes into effect. Tomorrow. you bui Id the houses. two years from now. who's going to patrol that to make sure that nobody disturbs it back there? MR. ADAMS-Well. it would surely be a violation of deed to disturb it. It would be not unlike the kind of thing where there's a homeowners association that has title to green space. and. basically. (lost word) to keep the townspeople from going any place. So the point is that those wi I I be monumented. survey markers wi II be put in place. There wi II simply be a very clear cut deed restriction that you can't go back there and cut or do anything. MR. RUEL-Now the lot sizes are indicated on here. green space. correct? including the MR. ADAMS-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Okay. lot size less lots? Is it possible for you to put parenthesis. the the green space. so that we know the size of the MR. NACE-Yes. In essence. the lots are 2Ø.ØØØ square foot minimum. and some of them are a little bit more. MR. RUEL-Yes. and the zoning is one acre. MR. NACE-Yes. That's correct. MR. BREWER-But they're using the cluster provision. MR. OBERMAYER-Half acre lots. MR. NACE-We're clustering. MR. RUEL-I~d green space. I ike to see the actual size just put it in parenthesis. of the lot. less the MR. ADAMS-We'd be happy to do that. Just for discussion tonight. you can assume that they're 2Ø.ØØØ square foot lots. MRS. LABOMBARD-I have a question. as a mother of three children. and bringing them up. and having woods nearby. you have to. pract i ca I I Y speak i ng. there's go i ng to be young peop I e com i ng in here with fami I ies. with chi Idren that are going to go out and explore. and they're going to bui Id forts. and they're going to be out there disturbing the environment. which is good clean fun. but who's I iable if something should happen on that piece of land? MR. BREWER-The property owner. MR. ADAMS-The property owner. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then again. and I'm not trying to be a kill joy. but how do you prevent chi Idren from going back there and picking the. you know. and pull ing up the lady sl ippers and the jack-in-the-pulpits. and things I ike that. I mean. you can't. MR. OBERMAYER-Let me tel I you. aren't we establ ishing these green spaces for chi Idren to go to and play in? I mean. I have young chi Idren. I I ike for them to have woods to go in. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's what I'm saying. but my point everybody. if different people own each parcel of is that if land. then - 52 - there's going to be 28 different opinions parcel behind their house is going to be uti almost would seem better to deed it over there be a universal control over that land. as to how that back I ized. and. to me. it right away. and let MR. ADAMS-If that were an option. it would surely be. I think. really. a consideration. At the moment. we don't know of any mechanism to do that. The Town certainly doesn't have a mechanism to do that. and we don't have set up in the County, I ike Saratoga County has. to create a mechanism to do that. but on the other hand. in terms of restricting the type of activities on that land back there. I think. generally. the intent would be to have it good for recreational uses. I mean. that's what kids love to do. On the other hand. what's quite common and easi Iy done is set up deed restrictions which preclude the use of ATV's or any destructive use of the land. any cutting or clearing. We do that in homeowners association land (lost word). That's very common. MR. RUEL-Jim. is this part of the master plan. the new master plan. the allocation of green space. simi lar to what we're doing here? MR . MA R TIN - I can see w her e so met h i n g s i mil art 0 t his. and I. personally. would I ike to take it a step further in the master plan. in actually proposing that this conservancy be formed. whether it be on a Town basis or County basis. so we have a mechanism by which to accept this property. because that's the void we have right now. If we can't bui Id a ball field on it. or a basketba I I court. then the Town doesn't want it. but yet we want to have maintenance of open space and green space. and we're missing this component to accompl ish that. MR. RUEL-How about dedication of park area? MR. MARTIN-That's think. it could be qual ify. or wi II. area. or under our what I'm saying. This would not. I don't attempted. but I don't think this is going to and it wi I I not be accepted as a recreat ion recreat i on law. MR. BREWER-Wel I. it's the same kind of a thing that we through over at Clendon Ridge. with AI Cerrone's property there. We took that to preserve the Clendon Brook area. think this should be some kind of the same type of possibly. went over and I land. MR. RUEL-Herald Square Vi Ilage? MR. MARTIN-No. Potvin. MR. BREWER-Clendon Ridge. Potvin's subdivision. MR. OBERMAYER-Is the land usable. though. I mean. as far as green space? MR. MART I N-We I I. I th i nk when we see the topography shown on this. it's going to be. MR. BREWER-That's debatable. If somebody I ikes to go out usable. I guess. We could debate it al I night long. and sit and watch birds. then it's MR. NACE-I think the. you know. was with the Ree Commission when they looked at that Clendon Brook area. They took it. or were in favor of it. pr i mar i I Y because it had some neat potent i a I for fishing and passive recreation. and wasn't just open space. I agree with Jim. I think if we were to offer this to the Rec Commission or to the Town Board. I would be very doubtful that they would take it. - 53 - MR. RUEL-Probably because rather than just the sma I I it must be area. for the whole community, MR. NACE-R i ght, and wha,t we're headed for here, and a I I really doing is trying to make provisions for the future. not trying to force those provisions on the Town. we're We're MR. MARTIN-See, there's some key, phi losophical things that are brought to bear, here, and this is the way we've got to start looking at things, is we've got to look at things that are going to be less disturbing, less infrastructure, less for us to maintain, less highways to maintain, less catch basins to pump out, and I imit the disturbance. That's got to be a fundamental approach. MR. RUEL-That's the way to do it, I think. MR. PALING-As long as this is clearly explained to the buyers, it's a let the buyer beware situation, if it's clearly explained to them and they know exactly what they're getting into, then I don't see any problem with it, but if it's something that isn't then there could be a real problem with this. MR. MARTIN-I agree. MR. BREWER-Okay, can we move on to the next item, There's a lot of people that want to speak, I'm sure. please? MR. OBERMAYER-This is generally zoned for one acre? MR. NACE-This is SR-1A, yes, and our reason for clustering is to shorten up the length of the road, so that we can use the frontage on the road effectively. MR. OBERMAYER-You could have the same length of road, though, and sti II have one acre lots, right? MR. NACE-Much less lots than would probably, and would drive the cost of the project to the point where it would not be usable. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-I didn't get a real definitive answer on the tax question. Are they or are they not paying taxes on that land extension, and wi II they get a reduction? That's for sure? MR. NACE-They are, for sure, paying taxes on the full lot, because that full lot is deeded to them anyway. When the Town comes through, and if they choose to take that back portion, that's. MR. BREWER-That's up to them. MR. NACE-I can't control it. Okay. Moving on. Traffic, increase in traffic, we're talking about 27 lots. There will be ~ increase in traffic. Rockwell Road, I bel ieve, is a col lector road. Scott says there are some site distance problems at the intersection of Rockwell and Havi land. I'm not fami liar with those. I've looked at site distances here, where we come out, for Rockwell, but I didn't notice anything on the intersection of Rockwell and Haviland. That we can look at, but that's a Town road, Town road intersection. We really don't have any authority to do anything with it. The thought of coming in from Clearview, Clearview comes up right about here, and this is where we abut the end of Clearview. I bel ieve there are already some property issues at the end of Clearview that ~ don't want to get involved with. MR. MACEWAN-Long term property issues. - 54 - MR. NACE-The other thing is there's a fairly good grade there. There's. I see right there. 10. and I believe there's another 10 feet or so as you come off of this property I ine onto Clearview. We have a considerable grade difference. MR. RUEL-I have a question. Could you define affordable housing? MR. BREWER-Lets get that at the end. Roger. MR. NACE-Let me finish this. and that's something we'll address for you. There is. we have walked the area. There's a fairly steep grade above us that comes down. and it flattens out. and it comes down again fairly steep. on the bottom side of the subdivision. We've done some perc tests in here. and we recognize that there is relatively high groundwater. We're going to be looking at some mounded systems in some of the area. We sti II have to get in and do deep tests. and we'll be doing that in the next week or so. but we wi II. in our grading and drainage design. as wel I as our septic design. and design per house foundations. have to deal with that. and .we real ize that. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-Landscaping. street trees. as long as Paul's in office. we're clearing the whole 50 foot right-of-way. We really have no choice. The length of the cUl-de-sac. we've requested a waiver. and I wi I I let Charles talk about what is affordable housing. MR. ADAMS-It occurs to me that any discussion of affordable housing is just for general information. To my knowledge. there's no Town regulation that specifies price of house or. MR. BREWER-Yes. there is. Didn't we do that with Sherman Pines. prices and income and that type of thing? MR. MARTIN-That was a authorizing the rezoning. situation. result of the Town It restricted it. Board resolution That was a unique MR. ADAMS-There's no restriction. to my knowledge. MR. BREWER-Wel I. guess. restriction. but there is a way to do it. MR. ADAMS-Yes. I guess there is. Nonetheless. I'd be happy to talk about what constitutes affordable housing. I would simply commend you to look at a previous subdivision. in fact. two of them. now. One in Warrensburg and one on Cor i nth Road in Queensbury. Basically. affordable housing was defined. genera I I y. as hous i ng that can be afforded by fam i lies where the amount that they spend on the housing is approximately 30 percent of their annual income. Typically. the kinds of houses. and I would simply indicate that an affordable housing project is not approved for this site. This subdivision might be used for affordable housing. or it might be used for market rate housing. as far as the approval for this subdivision is concerned. Nonetheless. we do wish to bui Id an affordable housing project there. and we have submitted an application to do so. The affordable housing definitions then allow us to build housing for fami I ies who are employed with good credit. where they can be approved for first mortgages of approximately 30 percent of their annual incomes. That's basically the definition. MR. RUEL-Okay. In your opinion. do you feel that the affordable housing has any effect on the value of adjacent properties? MR. ADAMS-I would be doubtful that it does. Again. I think we can look at where affordable housing projects I ike this have been bui It throughout the State. and there's no evidence whatsoever there's any depreciation of adjacent properties and their - 55 - property values, but I think, as wi I I be evident from this particular drawing, and this is very simi lar to our Corinth Road project as well, it's totally secluded. Basically, even driving by Rockwell Road, if this is the entry way on Rockwell Road, we have allowed for some plantings, buffer zone plantings. It's very sma I I frontage on Rockwe II. It's on I y a 3ØØ foot frontage on Rockwel I Road, for some plantings, and no house faces on Rockwel I Road. The houses al I face on the new road going in here, and, basically, maybe except for looking at two or three houses up around the front, which face, not on Rockwel I Road, but interiorly, (lost word) how many houses are there. MR. RUEL-And of course the green space offers quite a buffer zone. MR. ADAMS-Yes. There's certainly no way even to see the subdivision from adjacent property areas, as far as I know, but the principal way of knowing that there might be something there was any dr i ve by on Rockwe I I Road, but it's a very sma I I frontage, with only two houses up front that do not front out, and even they are streamed. So, basically, it's almost totally secluded. MR. RUEL-Vou're almost indicating that you have to hide it, and, therefore, it must have an effect. MR. ADAMS-No, not at al I. We've designed it this way because that's the way we I ike to do it. First of all. the land requires us to design it this way. There's not any other way to design it. I'm simply trying to address the question as to what publ ic perception might be about it, but the hard objective criteria is that there's no substance to any thought that it depreciates your property values. I don't know, ask people in Bedford Close if they think Inspiration Park has depreciated their property values. Some of the stronger support for that subdivision was people (lost word). MR. RUEL-What price range house are you talking about7 MR. ADAMS-These would be in the, between $8Ø and $9Ø,ØØØ. MR. RUEL-How many square feet7 MR. ADAMS-They range anywhere, feet. MR. OBERMAYER-Will the, just north development. the elevation continues be overlooking the development7 roughly 1,ØØØ to 2,ØØØ square of this, where the proposed to cl imb, wi II those people MR. ADAMS-It's totally wooded, totally forested. MR. NACE-It's totally wooded by Gary Bowen's. MR. ADAMS-The po i nt is, no one ever prom i ses to bu i I d houses that can't be seen by anybody else. MR. BREWER-Okay. Any other questions7 MR. STARK-Yes. When we went out and visited the site, there was a barn and a house up there on a hi 1 I. and it was pretty steep going up to that property and the house, and the edge of this property is I ike, well. where the road is there, it's about 4Ø feet, 5Ø feet differential from this fellow's barn, on Rockwell Road. ~ think, if he was up in his house, he could look down on top of al I of these houses, because there's no buffer on the first two. three houses. MRS. LABOMBARD-Definitely. MR. STARK-And I think that would have a detrimental effect on the value of his property. - 56 - MR. ADAMS-Perhaps you' I I hear f rom that landowner, but I don't know that there's any objection to any of this. Just because someone can see someone else's house from a particular vantage point, doesn't necessarily have anything to do, particularly in doing it from that barn, or that ground. MRS. LABOMBARD-About the comment you just made, I, personally, in the 23 years I've lived in th i s Town, have moved out of two subdivisions, two homes, because after I iving there for five or six years, all ·the building that came behind us, or on the sides of us, we didn't have the same environment that we originally had, when we I ived or bought the house. So to preserve the qual ity of I ife that Y!.§. were used to, we just had to move, and that's progress, I suppose, but there's some good qual ity I ife up in that neck of the woods, and I just sometimes feel that, just going through this, maybe it wi II lower the qual ity of the people around there. MR. ADAMS-One can always speculate about that, but it seems to me that it's sti I I, an obvious point, that the citizens and residents in this area have a right to live where they can live, and these are not poorly designed projects and these are not poor qual ity people, as opposed to .h..l...9..!l qual ity people. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. It's just anymore, or the backyard that street came in the back. that you had the isn't woods aren't there there because the MR. BREWER-But, also, the woods aren't in Bedford Close, either. When..!. I ived up there, when my wife I ived up there 30 years ago, there's not woods there anymore either. MR. ADAMS-And the woods won't be in Hudson Pointe, either. MR. BREWER-I can argue al I woods there. night long, Cathy, but there was ~ MR. ADAMS-The other thing, I guess, that I really want to really hold to closely is try to position the subdivision as unobtrusive a way as we know how. We think we have been able to do that by employing a clustering concept that localizes it in the center of this property, which is best suited for construction of the (lost word). We don't think that it wi II be ·visually obtrusive, in the objectionable sense, although that's a matter of opinion, and we honor those diverging opinions, but that isn't OUt' intent. MR. RUEL-I was just going to say, it's a nice concept. it. It's much better than mobile homes. like MR. BREWER-Okay. There is not a publ ic hearing, but I guess, there's enough people here, I guess we' I I let you speak, if you'd I ike to. Just come up and identify yourselves at the microphone, and we' I listen to any comments or quest ions you have. CASE PRIME MR. PRIME-My name is Case Prime, and I'm a resident of Rockwel I Road, and I have been for many years, and I've seen many changes the r e , and t his i s a ve r y s tart I i n g c h a n g e , i n term s of 0 u r neighborhood. This is really the first opportunity we've had to see what's going to happen there, what's proposed, and you hear the people who are backing it talk about it. So that I think that there is a good deal of concern on ~ part about the total concept, and about, really, what impact this is going to have on the neighborhood. There are a lot of people here that want to say something. So I think what I would do, preliminarily, is just make sure that we understand the procedure here, that this is prel iminary, that there wi II be another publ ic hearing, or more hearings. - 57 - MR. MACEWAN-This is Sketch plan. It's not even prel iminary yet. MR. PRIME-AI I right. So that any other information that we want to submit. or make avai lable to the Board. we can do that? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-There' I I be a pub I i c hear i ng at pre I i m i nary. and more detai led information for everybody. The engineer wi II look at it. MR. PRIME-Is there an opportunity for us to go on the property and inspect it ourselves. or have somebody look at it? MR. BREWER-That's, That's not up to us. guess. that's up to the property owner. MR. PRIME-That's not within ~ jurisdiction? MR. BREWER-No, sir. MR. PRIME-AI I right. So that, we would have to go, National Bank is the owner? First MR. BREWER-I have no idea. Who owns the property. Charles? MR. OBERMAYER-That's what's listed. MR. RUEL-Yes. that's what's listed. MR. ADAMS-First National Bank is the owner. and agency for the purposes of this hearing. We'd discuss. make whatever arrangements necessary. ( lost word) be happy to MR. BREWER- I'm better not say sure that I'm sure. if somebody wants to go on there. MR. PRIME-AI I right. So we would deal with Mr. Adams. then? MR. ADAMS-And can. if we can't. we' I I help you find the person who MR. PRIME-All right. That's fine. We want to be fair about this. but I think we also want to have as much information in hand to put before the Board as possible. One of our main considerations is the traffic. and Rockwell Road is not a large road. It's called a collector road by Tom Nace, I guess. It runs from Havi land to Sunnyside. There is a large hi II in the middle of it, very steep, right in front of Dr. Brassell's house. Where this entrance is here is rather a short distance. I guess, to the south of the crest of that hi II. It's a dangerous crest right now. and it seems <to me that the impact of this size housing would really make it very, very much more difficult. The traffic would be very bad there. and in addition I think the intersect i on between Rockwe I I and Hav i I and is a very d iff i cu It intersection. It's a T intersection. It's on a slope. It's hard. now. to get in and out of there. and I think that, I don't know what the traffic studies wi II show here. I ~ there'll be traffic studies on this that wi I I show what the increase in traffic would be, but I'm sure that there's going to be a substantial impact on that intersection, and make it very difficult. I won't say anything more at this point, except. that I would I ike to ask the Board to do one thing, and that is to review the Highland PUD that's across the road from this. I think that that PUD should really be made a part of this file, because there was a great deal of effort and energy that went into producing that PUD, by the Planning Board and by the neighbors and by the Town, and there were some very good studies there, traffic studies, and things of that nature, that I think would be valuable in evaluating what this kind of a project would - 58 - have on the neighborhood. The neighborhood is basically much more open land. The houses are more expensive. Across the street, the Hi I and Deve I opment, is go i ng to come on and be developed, and that's going to have an impact. Another thought. that where the entrance is to the condos, on the other side of Rockwe I I. where that is now is sout h of where t his ent rance is, and it seems to me that ~ remember, when we reviewed the traffic studies on Rockwel I. that they agreed to move that entrance from, they had it hjgher up towards the Brasset I house, and higher to the north, and they moved it to the south, where it is now, to avoid the problem of the traffic and the I ine of sight from the crest of the Brasse I I hill, to that entrance into that development, and I think we're compounding that problem by doing it the way it is here, and just one more thought. I wondered if, why it has to be 27 houses. Why, if we're going to have these kind of developments. why can't it be something less than that? Why can't they have the entrance, for example. on the south end of the property, rather than the middle, where it would be less of an impact on the entrance. and I really, I'm very concerned about the surrounding property that they want to put into a green area. if it's not buildable, and it's going to belong to the people that have those houses. it's going to be taxed to them, and it's not going to be of any value to anybody else, and I just am very concerned that that concept is not in keeping with what they're trying to do here, with this low income housing. Okay. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. STARK-It's not low income. It's affordable. KEN COLLETTE MR. COLLETTE-My name is Ken Collette, and I purchased eight lots on Fairway Court last year. I'm on the end scale of the housing. and I'm quite concerned with what's going to happen here on the low end. When I here of a 2.ØØØ foot house for $SØ,ØØØ or $90,0ØØ, I get concerned of the qua Ii ty of it. As it is right now. we don't have any covenants, of how a neighbor's going to be protected with keeping the land up, green area, basically a way of taking one acre zoning and making it half acre, so you can squeeze more houses on the lot. My concern is to keep the neighborhood in conformity. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. ROGER BRASSELL DR. BRASSELL-My name is Roger Brasse I I, and I own the property immediately to the north of this proposed project. 1'1 I have more to say to you as this goes through it's stages, but I would I ike to clear your minds very much about a couple of issues that were raised tonight by the presentation that you were given. The first is a question of green space. Green space is a catch phrase that doesn't have a fine definition. Mr. Martin couldn't define it. not one member of this Board could define it, nor could the developer. The preservation of open or wooded, quiet housing is (lost word). The Town's planning Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance, provides for that, one acre zoning for this property. Now, clustered housing. in effect, increases green space by allowing more housing on a given bui Iding lot, and there's a very fine way to keep green space just as nice as can be. You put a 1,ØØØ square foot house on one acre of land. you .wi I I have 1,ØØØ divided by 43,65Ø percent of that land use for the housing. and the rest is green space. Do I need to c I ar i fy that for anybody? Now the Zoning Ordinance provides for one acre housing on that property. There. is how many acres of property there? Thirty. It's allowable to bui Id thirty houses? MR. ADAMS-Yes. - 59 - DR. BRASSELL-And you're saying to this Board tonight that there's no positive evidence that building this affordable housing decreases property values? Is there any positive evidence that it does not? MR. ADAMS-How do you prove a negative? MR. BREWER-Sir, please direct the questions to the Board. DR. BRASSELL-I want you to bear in mind that only a dul mind would think that bui Iding affordable housing of this nature in that location would fai I to lower the property value of the surrounding houses. Go up and look and see for yourself. There aren't any 1,ØØØ square foot houses there. The houses that are there are very well cared for. They were provided by the sweat and toi I of the people that bought the land and bui It them. I consider that my property wi I I be devalued significantly by a high density housing unit, high density housing development immediately to the south and to the east of it. It wraps right around my property, and I can assure you that it wi II not be, hardly know it's there or no one wi II know it's there at all. I'll see it from my house. I wi II hear it from my house. You put 29 houses in there, and you're going to have 29 rock and rol I radios and 15 motor~ycles, and 5ØØ jeeps and whatever you can think of blaring and blasting around, and peace and quiet is a positive value to a piece of property. So, too, is the view. MR. MACEWAN-I imagine, probably, that the people who were there prior to Hi land Park had the same feel ings. I i v i ng DR. BRASSELL-I did, and I would point out to you that there already is a high density housing per square foot development right across the street, that's to the west. If you put another one to the south and to the east, it wi II de-value my property. It wi II de-value the qual ity of my life. MR. MACEWAN-I don't think that it's fair, though, that you take the position that any housing development that's added to the neighborhood up there wi I I automatically bring in twenty-nine stereos, five hundred jeeps, or whatever it is that you said. I don't think that's a fair statement to make. DR. BRASSELL-You can come up and listen after it's bu i It, and I'd be happy to demonstrate that to you, the noise pollution and I ight pollution. Now the land is also wet, good and wet, because I've walked it. I walked it when I first moved into the area, and 1'1 I have more to say to you about these matters as time goes on, but to say that it wi I I not de-value the properties there or change the qual ity of I ife up there is a I ittle bit more than smoke and shadows. It's, I believe, deceitful, and the green space issue is a non-issue. A one acre lot provides green space. MR. MARTIN-It wi I I be proven, though, and it has been proven, that large lot zoning, in fact, disturbs more land than it preserves, due to the infrastructure required to access it. DR. BRASSELL-Well, I'm sure that there's a way to put a road in there, to access the one acre lots. I think you'd have to be pretty unimaginative (lost word). MR. MARTIN-That's proven to be the case. Plus, from the Town standpoint, it's more road to maintain, more catch basins to sweep. DR. BRASSELL-Well, that's basically what towns are for, isn't it? Are you there to function, or are you there to not function? MR. MARTIN-We're there to function efficiently and productively. DR. BRASSELL-Good. I think I'll say more later, but I would like - 68 - to just reiterate that this housing development wi I I not be unobtrusive. nor wi II it be anything other than. it wi II de-value the properties around it. particularly mine. of course. which is the one I'm most concerned about. We have a nice neighborhood out there. and we want to keep it a nice neighborhood. Twenty- nine houses on little. tiny lots isn't going to do it. There other issues (lost word) my tax dollars were used to subsidize houses that would de-value my property. MR. MACEWAN-I would be curious if you could elaborate a little bit on that. You said that you've walked the property and it is quite wet? DR. BRASSELL-Yes. it is. MR. MACEWAN-Specifically. could you tel I me where the wet areas are? DR. BRASSELL-I could show you some of them. and I'd be glad to walk over it with you. This is Rockwel I Road. Rockwell Road is off the edge of the map here. Our house would be situated about here. t h eb a r n here. and the side of the hill 0 n !illL property. flowing down there. that would be the east side of Lot One. Lot Three. Lot Five. Lot Seven. and Nine. and Eleven. and Thirteen. You can dig a hole and find standing water on it. There's an act i ve spr i ng right about here on Lot Five. and I be I i eve you cou I d find some more. I'd be g I ad to wa I kit. I've got a I I weekend off. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. Is there anyone else? DELORES STEIN MRS. STEIN-My name is Delores Stein. and I've I ived on Summit Lane for 29 years. This neighborhood has been the same in consistency for al I that time. MR. HARLICKER-I was wondering where Summit Lane was. MRS. STE I N-Summ i t Lane is off of Rockwe I I and it's off of Hi I and. It's off of Hi I and Dr i ve. Mr. Mart in. you have made ment i on of the Town of Queensbury having less to do in the area around Clearview. and in the area of this proposed acreage. MR. MARTIN-What do you mean. we had less to do? MRS. STEIN-Did you mention that if around this acreage. that there would Town of Queensbury? you have the green space be less work to do for the MR. MARTIN-Right. If the design here yields a shorter road. which. naturally. lowers maintenance cost for plowing and upkeep and drainage and all that type of thing. MRS. STE I N- I have been here for a long time. and heard about the excess work in that area. I have never MR. MARTIN-That's naturally something you'd I imit. Why would you not I imit that? I ike to try and MRS. STEIN-Would there not be more around that area if you had more houses? MR. MARTIN-Right. for. conventional but I'm saying. given what this area's zoned lot design would yield a longer road. MR. HARLICKER-The number of lots doesn't change. It's not a high dens i ty hous i ng deve I opment. There cou I d be a I lowed. accord i ng - 61 - to the acreage here. up to 29.3Ø lots. subdivision. They're proposing 27 lots. in a conventional MRS. STEIN-Maybe I misunderstood you in that area. I thought, I probably did. This green space that we've been discussing here, who is to pay the taxes on it? MR. BREWER-Each individual lot owner. MRS. STEIN-And when the Town takes it over. if it ever does, who has that responsibi I ity? MR. RUEL-The Town. MR. MACEWAN-It's taken off the tax rol Is. MRS. STEIN-It's taken off the tax rolls. but how is it going to be maintained? Wi I I L have to pay for it? MR. MACEWAN-It's left forever wi Id. MRS. STEIN-It's left forever wi Id, and how forever wild if there are people constantly without your knowledge? could it be left using that area MR. BREWER-That's the question L asked. who would control that. but there's no way to know if it'll ever even happen. That's something he's left an imaginary I ine there for. if. for some reason. the Town ever does decide to do that, or make a mechanism to do that. MRS. STEIN-Isn't that called Eminent Domain. when the Town or federal government or local or state government takes over land that really is not theirs? MR. BREWER-If they take it. yes. This is going to be offered to them. MR. RUEL-It's in the deed. MR. BREWER-It's going to be given to the Town, in so many words. Not to say that they'll ever take it. but it's going to be offered. MRS. STEIN-The next question I have is. who proposed this area. this specific area. for low income housing? MR. BREWER-It's not low income housing. MRS. STEIN-All right. Listen. I found a place to I ive. Everyone has the right to I ive where they wish. There is no one that should be denied that, but why would you want to bring something in that is less than what you have around you? Why? And who was it that proposed this in this particular area? MR. OBERMAYER-I think Chari ie did. MRS. STEIN-I'm sorry, are they out to se I I without regard to the al I these people speak sir. If the bank, which is First National. this land to just anyone and anything. peop I e that live around it? I have heard as if we were not here. MR. MACEWAN-That would be something you should take up with the Bank. not with this Board. MRS. STEIN-Wel I. how about the people that are in back of me? MR. MACEWAN-They should take it up with the Bank as wel I, because the Bank has got a contract, evidentally, with him, to sell him the property if this subdivision is approved. I would guess. That's only one man's opinion. - 62 - -..-' MR. BREWER-Would you answer that. Charles? MR. ADAMS-Yes. will. The (lost word) no consideration whatsoever given to it. but it is simply the case. it may not be a particularly popular case in this room. It is the case that public policy is dealing much more into a diversified housing program. In fact. a lot of subdivisions are required. in affordable housing. to be bui It into the PUD's that are being approved. There seems to be gathering momentum. and certainly there are plenty of court cases that have now been handed down in New York State Supreme Court. to support the idea that diversity in hous i ng is a worthwh i Ie kind of deve lopment (lost word) large clusters or low income housing. although this certainly is not defined. nor is it. low income housing. unless you regard your nurses and your teachers and your bank tellers to be low income people. So. I think this hypothesis that we're working on is consistent with publ ic pol icy as it's bein.g developed. not only in New York State. but elsewhere. to create housing in municipal ities that have diversified. that represents differing income levels. and that's not monolithic in that sense. and. basically. that's it. MRS. STEIN-Is this social ism. in essence? MR. ADAMS-In what sense? MRS. STEIN-In the sense that ·we're taking what we've sweated to earn. and to maintain. and now the people around us. who's going to pay the taxes if they don't. there isn't. they don't have to pay them? MR. BREWER-What do you mean. they don't have to pay? MRS. STEIN-I mean. they have to pay. but there's tax involved here. I don't understand about the green land? Who's going to pay the tax on that? MR. BREWER-Each individual lot. as you look on the map. forget there's even a I ine on there. Every lot owner pays taxes on that lot. okay. There's a deed restriction in the deed. as I understand it. that if at some time in the future. the Town comes up with a provision to preserve open space and they so desire this land. now put the line into place. which would be right here. on these lots. they could have that land. preserve it. They'll never be able to do anything with that land. These people. this lot here wi II never be able to do anything beyond this line to that land. They'll still pay taxes on it. MRS. STEIN-They'll still pay taxes? MR. BREWER-Up unti I such time as the Town might or might not decide to accept that land. MRS. STEIN-And then nobody pays taxes on that land? MR. BREWER-Right. MR. MARTIN-No. that's not entirely true. There are conservation organizations. or non profits. even if it's at a County level. They do pay tax on the property. but it's" drastically de-valued because of the deed restriction that's on the property. It can never be developed. so. therefore. it has very I imited value. Taxes are paid. but they're of a very minimal nature. because of the deed restriction. MR. RUEL-So that development is a poor ratable for Queensbury. as far as input on taxes. MR. MA R TIN - We I I. the h 0 use s w i I I bet a xed. at the i r reg u I a r rat e . - 63 - MR. RUEL-But they're only $SØ,øøø. So how much can you get? MR. MARTIN-Well, Roger, that's true of anything. MR. RUEL-But if it wasn't clustered, you'd sti I homes, wouldn't you, and larger property? have as many MR. BREWER-Maybe not. MR. MARTIN-Maybe not, maybe you would. MR. OBERMAYER-lt'l I sti I I generate probably more taxes than if it was undeveloped. MRS. STEIN~One more question. I don't mean to take the Board's time, but when Dr. Brassell mentioned people coming in with their terrain vehicles and whatnot, how anyone could say that there would not be noise or lots and lots of things, activity happening, with that many homes on this much land. I don't see how you could say that there wouldn't be noise. MR. BREWER-There's no guarantee that there won't own two and a half acres of land, and I motorcycles off ~ land. I don't even own that's different. be any noise. I can't keep the a motorcyc I e, but MRS. STEIN-No in the sense problem? Why it? it isn't. No, it isn't, sir. It's not different that you can't keep them off, but why create a compound something, when you don't have to compound MR. BREWER-Buy the land and he won't bui Id anything. MR. HARLICKER-So what's the alternative, leave the land vacant? MRS. STEIN-No, but you don't I ive up there. MR. HARLICKER-I know. I'm saying that the number of units that they're proposing in this subdivision, here, is no different than if they were, went in, cleared it off, put an extra road in there, and put in one acre lots. The same number of units is going on this property as there would be in a conventional subdivision. There is no difference in the number of units. You're going to get the same noise from these units as you would from the number of units. if they were one acre lots. MRS. STEIN-This is a cluster. You are taking homes that look one way. and then a I I of a sudden have someth i ng else look i ng another way. It's a shock. It's different, and maybe it'll be perfectly all right, but maybe it won't. and this man, this gentleman, mentioned that a third of the amount of the individual's gross income, or what was that you were saying? MR. OBERMAYER-Thirty percent of your gross income. MR. ADAMS-That's standard, FHA. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. That's pretty standard. MRS. STEIN-Right. What if somebody comes in with an income of $2Ø,ØØØ? Would that sti I I be effected? MR. ADAMS-They couldn't buy a house. MRS. STEIN-They couldn't buy a house. Thank you. MR. BREWER-They couldn't qual ify. MRS. STEIN~Thank you very much. - 64 - -' MR. BREWER-Thank you. Anyone else? SUE MONAHAN MS. MONAHAN-Hi. My name is Sue Monahan. I'm a real estate broker in this area and have been for eighteen years. I also live on Rockwe II Road. I'd like to address the fact that th is will effect property values on Rockwell Road. There's no way around it. Rockwell is a country road with properties. some of them worth half a mi II ion dollars. That's why the Town of Queensbury has zoning. unlike the Town of Fort Ann or the Town of A r g y Ie. w h i c h do not. w h i c h h a v eat r a i I era n d a ho use sid e by side. I think that this has to be considered. We don't want to end up I ike that type of area. We don't want to end up like CI if ton Park. over developed. and as far as affordable housing. I have a multJple I isting book with over 7ØØ pages of affordable housing. Have them call me. MR. BREWER-Thank, you. Is there anyone else? MARY JANE MOELLER MRS. MOELLER-My name is Mary Jane Moe I I er. and I live next to Mrs. Stein. and I'm also on Summit Lane. Did you all find Summit Lane? Are you st i I I lost? MR. PALING-We're lost. MRS. MOELLER-All right. From Dr. Brassell's house. MR. PALING-I've got it. MRS. MOELLER-You've got it now? Okay. There are only five of us up there. but we are a I I. in some way. effected very deep I y by this development. I have one question. and that is. I. at one time. was stenographer on this Board. So I know that you people are capab I e of do i ng a lot of research. and what I wou I d like to see is a study done of a comparable community. such as our area. where they have put this type of housing or this type of cluster within it. I do not mean Warrensburg. I also know that I was told by a friend of mine the other day. She's trying to sel I over at Bedford Close. and she is unable to because of some of the bui Idings over there. but I would I ike to see something. MR. BREWER-In Bedford Close? MRS. MOELLER-Yes. I would I ike to see a study done. somewhere. maybe three places. within New York State. of a comparable situation. so that you can prove to us. to Dr. Brassell. to the Mineconzo's. to the Steins. to the Moellers. we've got the Bergl ins. to the Spahns. to all of us up in that area that this will not deflate the value of our property. We are deeded two acres. We have beautiful homes. We try to maintain them. and as far as noise goes. you can hear it from Sunnyside. I can hear the music. I can hear the dogs. I can hear the squeal ing. I can hear the motorcycles. So we are going to be effected by the environment that this cluster wi II cause. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Is there anyone else? PEGGY PRIME MRS. PRIME-My name is Peggy Prime. We live at the end of Hi land. but we front on Rockwel I Road. So we're very concerned about what's going on Rockwell Road. We're concerned about the impact of the bankruptcy of Hi land Park. and what this wi II mean. when they come. whether they're going to be able to change the PUD. a II of these th i ngs are impact i ng on Rockwe II Road. or perhaps w i I I . The P I ann e dUn i t De vel 0 p men t has a nun d eve lope d are a t hat will come out into Rockwell Road. Sothe impact of all the - 65 - -- hous i ng that can be bu i I t back of, on the west side of Rockwe I I Road, has not even been deve loped yet, and cou I d act ua I I Y change and become more than is even in the PUD, I would guess. They're talking about dividing this, now, into sections. That's that section. So the impact of traffic on Rockwel I Road is already there. It hasn't occurred yet, but if by agreeing to the PUD, a future impact is bui It in, now here's another one, but the idea of this, actually the land here, the so called green space, without a homeowners association, seems, this is very different than on other clusters. Where is a homeowners association here? I don't see it, for control I ing the land. I haven't read anything in the I ittle sketch thing anything about creating a homeowners association, and that's what you do in these developments when you have land that is going to be used. I think that this should be done, a homeowners association, for sure, and then thev'rø responsible for it, a~d they're responsible for looking after it, if it's going to be this type of thing. What is really being done here, if it was regular lots, I heard Jim say earlier tonight, that the unbuildable land is backed out. It's not being backed out here, is it? MR. BREWER-That's where the cluster provision comes in. MRS. PRIME-It's not really being backed out, though. density has not been decreased? So that the MR. BREWER-To figure the density, no. MRS. PRIME-So it hasn't been backed out. So, actually, this development, and any development, whether it's for affordable housing, or just normal development, must back out that one third of the land, isn't that correct? You said it tonight, Jim. heard you. MR. HARLICKER-There's different criteria for a normal, for a conventional subdivision, as opposed to a cluster. You don't have the, I don't believe you have the backing out provisions in clustering that you do in a subdivision. MRS. PRIME-So in a fact, you've done in the zoning. Haven't you, in effect, you've done in the zoning by not backing it out, or you put the impact on the land twice as hard? I read the engineer's prel iminary report, the I ittle bit that's in the sketch. Seventy-five percent of this land is called, I forget what the term is, but lousy drainage, basically, is what they said, and twenty-five percent is marginal. That's one hundred percent. I don't think you want to create another development that comes back on you, I ike the development off Peggy Ann Road that we're hearing about. The ledging under this area holds the water up. There's free flowing water across this area now, and I haven't been on it. This was second hand. I'm so interested in it now, knowing nothing about it, I stopped and asked a lady what they were doing, and she kindly said that they were doing an archeological review, and I said, wel I, can you please find some indian homes, and she said, no. No indians would want it. It is wet al lover this property, and that was yesterday, when I talked to her. Now I don't want to put her on the spot. She was just tel I ing me she had a hard job doing it because it was hard to get through there because it was wet, looking for archeological remains. MR. BREWER-On this land? MRS. PRIME-On this land. Yesterday. MR. RUEL-She's trespassing? MRS. PRIME-No she wasn't. She was hired by them to do an archeological review, and she just gave her personal opinion about the character of the land and its wet. So I think the - 66 - /' wetness has got to have very. very careful study. I think if they didn't have Lot One and Two. their visual impact could be quite reduced. There doesn't seem to be any green space coming out for Ten. Eight. Six. Foul~. and so forth. in the backs of them. only out here. where there's unbui Idable land. is the green space. Green space hasn't been taken from the property (lost word). That's ~Iustering. however. there's that. So I think this whole project possibly could be accepted by our neighborhood if it was reduced at least by half. and we may have to accept it any way. given the way the laws of this State operate. but I think that on the wetlands alone this property. perhaps could not support four or five houses. and someone said that First National Bank is I isted as the owner. and then someone else just said. and we presume it's under contract. Is it? MR. ADAMS-There's an agreement. option to purchase it. Typically. it means that it's an MRS. PRIME-At a price. MR. ADAMS-Yes. MRS. PRIME-Well. I called the First National Bank. and at some time Sue called them. The Bank says that this property. at the moment. is offered for $15Ø.ØØØ, at $5.ØØØan acre. Now, that's an offer. and I'm beginning to wonder if there's something fishy here. and it's the first step for the First NationaJto start to recoup from taking back the Hiland property. I think. given the s t r etch of t his who let h i n g . t hat it' s got t 0 be done rea I I Y . really carefully. and not just to bai lout the Bank. MR. BREWER-Finances have nothing to do with us. ma'am. We don't even consider them. I don't care if he pays $1Ø,ØØØ for the whole piece of property. MRS. PRIME-Except that we just were re-assessed on the basis of the value of our land on Rockwel I. It was a special assessment. and we were al I told that we had auch valuable land. That we al I got upped. I don't know how much. Everybody did. We took care of our own selves. and tried to point out the wetlands. for instances. that can't be built on. and this property. according to the engineers of this gentleman. is 75 percent, basically. unbui Idable. and 25 percent marginal. I believe that's what it says. I don't know what, the little book. I just looked at it quick. but there was a I ittle folder there. So that I would think would have to have serious consideration, particularly. 27 houses on low. low perc. with ledging. open water right now. It doesn't make any sense to me. Thank you. MR. BREWER-Thank you. MR. MARTIN-Okay. In reference to those comments on the clustering, and density, how it's calculated. 183-34. Standards within the Clustering Article of the Subdivision Code, "The maximum bui Idable lots for a conventional subdivision shall be calculated as follows:" This is Letter F under this Section. "From the total area of the property to be subdlvided. subtract, A. the area to be occupied by the proposed streets or rights-of- way, B. the area to be set aside for other publ ic use. such as park land, and C.. the area to be occupied by other public easements or rights of way across the property, such as major power or telephone lines. Then subdivide the resulting figure into the remaining acreage by lot size allowed in the zone in which the lots wi I I be located." So within the Clustering provision. there is no reference to unbui Idable lots, and I'll read on. for the Board. 183-35. Procedures. "Request by Planning Board, a Cluster design alternative shal I be required if the characteristics of the site include any of the following: Significant wildlife or plant habitat exists on the site or may be impacted by the development of the site. wetlands occupy over - 67 - 25 percent of the site where streams are crossed by the development of the site. slopes greater than 15 percent occupy over 50 percent of the site. slope$ greater than 25 percent occupy over 25 percent of the site. soi Is with percolation rate of less than six-hundredths of an inch or greater than six inches per hour occupy over 25 percent of the site. soi Is with depth of bedrock at least 18 inches or less occupy over 25 percent of the site. soi Is with depth to seasonal highwater table of over 40 inches or fewer occupy over 25 percent of the site. sites exposed to views of Lake George. sites located in a scenic vista or view shed identified in the scenic views or vistas map. sites adjacent to or incorporate area. bui Idings or structures of historic significance." So. if there are. in fact. areas where slopes or wet areas are a concern. then clustering is not an option. it's required. because clustering is a provision by which we're trying to protect these areas and shield them from development and not i nc I ude them in it. MR. BREWER-Okay. Is there anyone else who would I ike to comment? MR. PALING-Tim. if there's no one else that's going to comment. would I ike to ask the gentleman that was up first a question. or maybe I didn't understand what you're saying. You talked about changing the entrance. am I remembering what you said correctly. and I can't see where you can change the entrance to anywhere. MR. PRIME-Well. that's why I suggested that maybe there could be fewer lots. because the sight distance between the top of that hi II to this entrance is rather small. in terms of safety. and if you're going to develop the property. it would make more sense to me to move the entrance down here. to the bottom of the property. you'd have less lots. So it would have a lesser impact. traffic impact. That's really what I was trying to say. MR. PALING-I see what you're saying. MR. BREWER-Okay. Anything else? MR. RUEL-Just to clarify what that lady mentioned about the soil. It indicates here that the soil drainage. it poorly drains 75 percent and moderately wel I drained 25 percent. No indication of w hat are a t 0 b u i I din. w hat's b u i I dab I e 0 r not. Th e y , r e jus t talking about soi I drainage. MR. NACE-For purposes of clarification. that is based on Warren County Soi I Mapping. Soi I Conservation Soi I Mapping. We have not been to the site to do the tests yet. So the so i Is mapp i ng. depending on how the land was farmed. some of it's accurate. if it had been farmed in the past. Woodland is generally less accurate. So we're waiting to get out and do the test pits before we determine really the what the soi I is I ike. and what we'll have to do in the way of drainage and septic systems. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. Is there any way to get information about the value of homes in the adjacent areas. from the tax rol Is or something. so that we have some idea of the surrounding area? MR. MA R TIN - Sur e . i f you wan t t hat i n for mat ion. MRS. LABOMBARD-Just drive around and look at the neighboring homes and the streets. MR. MARTIN-You could get the assessed values. MR. RUEL-I don't see any roads in there. MR. BREWER-Yes. There's houses in there. Roger. road right in there. You go all the way back. and there's a - 68 - ,..--" MRS. LABOMBARD-See. I just have a comment to make. I get concerned because when people have worked very hard al I their I ives to own a piece of nioe property. first øf al I. that property d i dn' t come just like that. They worked a II the i r lives to get it. and then when they express their concern about a subdivision I ike this being proposed. they get branded as sometimes being conceited. thinking they're better than others. egotistical. what have you. where. really. that's not the case at all. and I'd I ike to just say that it's too bad that people that own something valuable. that are concerned in something that is of lesser value is maybe threatening the value of the property. they shouldn't be looked upon as being highfalutin and snooty people. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. OBERMAYER-I think. as far as the development goes. I can't see any advantage to the Town of Queensbury to go with cluster development in this area. I can't see why the developer wouldn't be satisfied with one acre lots in this area. That's what it's zoned for. to cluster the development and provide open green space. and I can't see any value to. really. anybody. I don't necessari Iy agree with the whole concept. MRS. MOELLER-In respect to. what's her name? MR. MACEWAN-Cathy. MRS. MOELLER-Anyway. Yes. we did work. We are retired. and this is our home for the rest of our jives. and I th i nk that I can speak for several of our neighbors. So I agree with you. We're not conceited. We're not snooty. just to have a home for the rest of our lives. ·but I would I ike to ask. would it be possible for you to do a search. as I requested. of some communities. equal to ours. with this kind of housing. proposed housing. so that you can prove to us that it wi I I not deflate our homes. I don't think you're going to find it. and I know that you people do a lot of studies. You do traffic studies. You've done business "studies throughout the State. I know that first hand. So. I'm asking. would this be avai lable? MR. BREWER-We certainly could try. MRS. MOELLER-I would appreciate it. MR. BREWER-I can tell you. from my own experience. when Inspiration Park went in on Corinth Road. I was opposed to it. and I'm not trying to stick up for anybody. and I was vocal about it. and I thought the value of my house was going to go down. and I don't live in a castle or anything. My wife and I worked hard for what we've got. and Kenny can "attest to that. because he bui It the house for us. I was offended. personally. when they were go ing to bu i I d up there. and I don't know if any of you have ever been up there. They're not castles either. The people that I ive there. they take pride in what they have. and it's a nice I ittle development. You talk about the house that you I ive in. you worked all your life for. maybe this is the first house they'll have in their I ife. Think about that. MRS. MOELLER-I do. MR. BREWER-And I don't know what the houses up there are going to look I ike. and maybe I don't agree that 29 houses should come in there. Maybe 16 or 18. I don't know the answers. but when they do the engineering. we'll know that answer. I .don't know what to say. I'm not sticking up for them. again. like I said. Lets see what they've got to say. and hear them out. and if you've got problems with that. then we' I I I isten to you. I don't know that the prices of Bedford Close's houses went down when Inspiration Park went in. That's what I was going to say. I know there's a - 69 - lot of houses over there for that move in and move out. I to find out for you. MRS. MOELLER-Thank you. sale. but there's a lot of people don't know. We can certainly try MR. BREWER-You're welcome. DR. BRASSELL-I'd I ike to thank Mrs. LaBombard for her remarks. MRS. MONAHAN-I'd just I ike to add. too. I mean. as far as affordable housing. the Town of Queensbury has a lot of housing for sale. and. ultimately. a new development like this effects the sale of your house as wel I as my house. What happens is a first home buyer that could buy a nice little house in the Town of Queensbury for $Sø.øøø doesn't want it because it's an existing home. They want a brand new home. So they buy the brand new home. and the person that I ives in the existing house. that can't sel I his home. can't buy yours. So it creates I ike a round robin effect. Nothing gets moved around. What about these people that I ive in these homes that are trying to sel I them. that are already there. MR. ADAMS-I don't really want to extend the discussion. The hour's late. but these are discussions that we've had hundreds of times with that. and I'd love to sit down with you and show you that what you have just said is not correct. with respect to this kind of d&velopment. and it's not difficult to show you that (lost word) laying out the real estate (lost word) laying out the property. All I want to say is that. particularly 13 years ago. we had (lost word) discussions with the real estate community over this (lost word). MR. BREWER-Okay. We want to move this on to Prel iminary. MR. MARTIN-This wi I I be sent on for engineering review. as with the other. and we' I I be checking against al I those technical issues relating to percentages of. MR. BREWER-I'm sorry. I wanted to ask just a couple of more questions. Is that going to be hooked into the sewer district? MR. NAGE-No. We are looking. after the soi Is test. we wi II make the decision. but. initially. we were looking at subsurface disposal systems. MR. BREWER-Isn't that. are the people that Rockwe I I Road on t he sewer d i st r i ct now? ive up there on MR. NAGE-No. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NAGE-They are looking to extend the wait e r district. MR. BREWER-Okay. Do you have any plans of an HOA? MR. ADAMS-No. The substitute for that is simply to deed restrict it so that it's under private ownership. MR. BREWER-Okay. Can we ask Staff to get the traffic impact study on Rockwell Road out from the Hi land Park PUD for us. and give everybody a copy of it? MR. MARTIN..,Yes. MR. BREWER-And also. I've got aq u est ion about. I'd like Paul Naylor to look at the retention basin he's got in the back. the retention area. I know we've had problems. in the past. with them. MR. MARTIN-He also ought to discuss the len9th of the cul-de-sac. - 7Ø - ~.._..-".,.,..~ - , too. He's going to have concerns about that. too. being over the thousand foot maximum. MR. BREWER-Would you make note of that. please. MR. PALING-Did you intend that these houses would have basements? MR. ADAMS-That woulA depend upon the engineering tests. AI I of the technical issues having to do with drainage. ledge rock. water. those are engineering questions that wi II have to have satisfactory engineering answers. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-Did you not also say that some of the lots you thought would have mound systems for septic? MR. NACE-They probab I y wi I I. yes. MR. COLLETTE- You ca.n do that kind of a sept i c system and st i I I sell a house for $80.0001 Bring the water up to the Town of Queensbury1 You can? MR. NACE-The water from the Town of Queensbury is. essentially. across the road. and about 400 feet down the road. MR. BREWER-Okay. Maybe to save some time. maybe. Charles. you could talk with some of the neighbors. and maybe if they were wi I I ¡ng. you could get together and maybe have a I ittle workshop or something with them. so we can move on with our meeting. Okay. MR. ADAMS-Thank you very much. MR. BREWER-Thank you. and we' I I make a mot i on to move on to Prel iminary. MOTION TO RECOMMEND SUBDIVISION NO. 13-1994 CHARLES ADAMS TO THE PRELIMINARY STAGE. Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption. seconded by Robert Pal ing: Duly adopted this 23rd day of August. vote: 1994. by the followi ng AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. Ruel. M~. Pal ing. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 2-94 RECOMMENDATION ONLY ROBERT & PETER NEMER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE PROPERTY INVOLVED: 15.08 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF GARVEY VOLKSWAGON. CURRENT ZONING: LI-1A PROPOSED ZONING: HC-1A TAX MAP NO. 109-3-27.2 JIM TOWNE. REPRESENTING APPLICANT~ PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff. Petition No. 2-94. Robert & Peter Nemer. Meeting Date: August 23. 1994 "A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The app 1 i cant is seek i ng a rezon i ng of a 15.08 acre parce I located on Quaker Road (tax parcel # 109-3-27.2) from LI-1A. The appl icant is proposing to construct a car dealership and two warehouses on the property. B. EXISTING LAND USE CHARACTERISTICS:. The existing land uses in the area include residential. vacant wooded land and a car dealership across the street. There is also a Niagara Mohawk power I ine that crosses the front of the property. C. ZONE CHANGE ANALYSIS: 1. What need is met by the proposed change in zone or new zone? The appl icant states that the need being met by this rezoning is the abi I ity to uti I ize this - 71 - particular parcel for a car dealership and a warehouse faci I ity. However. by rezoning the property to HC-1A to al low for the car dealership the appl icant loses the right to construct the warehouse because they are not a permitted use in the HC-1A zone. 2. What proposed zones. if any. can meet the stated need? There is no zon~ that meets the stated need because there is no zone that permits both a car dealership and a warehouse. 3. How is the proposed zone compatible with adjacent zones? The proposed zone would be compatible with the adjacent HC-1A and the adjacent LI-1A zone but not with the adjacent SFR-1A zone. But then the current LI-1A zone is not compatible with the adjacent residential zone either. 4. What physical characteristics of the site are suitable to the proposed zone? The physical characteristics that make it suitable for LI-1A zoning also make it suitable for HC-1A classification. The location of the property along Quaker Road makes it very accessible which is desirable for both I ight industrial and highway commercial uses. Most of the site is relatively high with percolation rates and depth to water table that have developmental potential in the moderate range. 5. How will the proposed zoning affect publ ic facilities? The property is within the municipal water district but outside the sewer district. 6. Why is the current classification not appropriate for the property in question? The current zoning could not be considered inappropriate for this particular property. The properties to the west and across the road are zoned LI-1A. This particular parcel was zoned light industrial according to the 1982 zoning map. There are no physical or environmental reasons for this property to be rezoned to highway commercial. The rezoning could function as an extension of the existing HC-1A zone that is located to the east of the property and runs along both sides of Quaker Road. 7. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed change? The environmental impacts may actually be less with the HC-1A zone. The uses allowed in this zone are not as intense as those allowed in the LI-1A zone. The major environmental concern relates to the flagged wetland along Quaker Road and the eastern side of the property and the wetland shown in the rear of the property near the southwest corner. Any development of the lot would have to stay 1ØØ feet from the wetlands or else apply for a wetland perm it. The app I i cant shou I d contact DEC or t he Army Corps of Engineers regarding the wetlands at the rear of the property. 8. How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan? The rezoning of this property from LI-1A to HC-1A does not appear to directly confl ict with the goals. policies and strategies articulated in the comprehensive plan. However. one of the pol icies in the land use section highlights the desire to locate light industrial zones in areas that are easi Iy developable. accessible to major highway art e ria I s wit h 0 uti m p sc tin g re sid e n t i a I are a san d don 0 t compromise the natural resources of the town. This property was originally zoned with those considerations in mind. 9. How are the wider interests of the community being served by this proposal? There is no doubt that the interests of the appl icant are being served¡ however. there is some question as to whether those interests translate into the best interest of the Town. It is apparent that this property is wel I suited to both industrial and com mer cia Ius e s . Howe v e r. the I and use p:o 1 i c i e s we r e developed in consideration of the wider interests of the community. If an action is in confl ict with those stated pol icies and strategies. it is I ikely that the action is not serving the wider interests of the community. D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION: There does not appear to be any physical constraints on the site. The site is serviced by municipal water and is adjacent to municipal sewer. Municipal services should not be a I imiting factor in future development of the site. The rezoning is both compatible and incompatible with the Master Plan. The area is a high traffic area and the rezoning would al low for a use that would generate higher levels of traffic than those allowed under the current appl icable zoning. This is an environmental factor that requires consideration. This stretch - 72 - "- ~ -- a long Quaker Road is becom i ng a reg.i ona I automob i I e sa I es center. The des i r a b i lit Y 0 f ex ten din g t h j 51 tot his are a i 51 51 0 met h i. n g t hat should be considered along with this rezoning. This phenomenon has the negative characteristics of glaring lights, little landscaping, large amounts of signage, increases in t'taffic and g en era I vis u a I b I i g h t . The Boa r d has tom a k e a pol icy determination as to whether it wants this area to remain i ndust ria I or wou Ld like to see it change to commerc i a I. Shou I d the Board decide to rezone this property, consideration should be given to rezoning alternative areas of the Town to mak~ up for the industrial properties that wi I I be lost and an overal I review of the neighborhood regardi.ng the apparent changes in land use." MR. MACEWAN-The question I've got for Staff is, just out of curiosity, should this get to the point where the Town Board wou I d do a rezon i ng on th is, if it' 51 recommended from th i 51 Board, how do you deal with the issue of the fact that you have residences that line up within5ØØ feet of th.· proposed zone change that don't I ie within the Town of Queensbury? How do you let those property owners, or are you not under an obi igation to advise those property owners of what's up? MR. HARL I CKER-Do we ha\le to not i fy them,? Und.er a courtesy. MR. MARTIN-Without having the benefit of Jeff here, or Mark, I would say that we ~ould have to notify them. We would research that, and that wi I I have to be done, quite honestly, when the Town Board holds a publ ic hearing. That question wi I I come up when they hold a public hearing on this rezoning, should they decide to take it up after this. MR. MACEWAN-T~at's something I've been thinking about, because I rode in on the Windy Hi II Road up there. in the back side of it, and I was wondering, because it was in a different municipal ity. MR. MARTIN-I would think, my experience has been in that you would notify those individuals, as if they Town. these cases were in the MR. MACEWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. MARTIN-I' I clarify that for you. MR. PALING-It appears that we're being asked to autho~ize a dual zone. MR. HARLICKER-That was going to be ~ comment. MR. PALING-And I don't even see why we're being asked to do it, because there's no such thing as a dual zone. Unless this property is subdivided, zoned separately, how can we do anything? MR. HARLICKER-Yes. We don't I ike to see it, but the possibi I ity exists of a split zone, split the zoning, the front half be commercial and the back remain light industrial. MR. PALING-But you'd have to subdivide to do it. MR. MARTIN-And my question with that is, it's not spot zoning, sti I I, but my question with that is, how do we subdivide this in such a manner that we get conforming lots to the rear? MR. MACEWAN- agenda? guess ~ question is, how did they even get on the MR. PALING-Yes. I don't understand why we're, I don't understand what we're going to do, tonight, with this. MR. RUEL-Because the Town Board didn't want to handle it. - 73 - --~- MR. MARTIN-No. no. MR. BREWER-No. it's procedural. MR. MARTIN-It's procedural to have to go the route that it's taking. I think we maybe can get some answers. hopefully. MR. TOWNE-Hi. My name is Jim Towne. I'm sorry I'm the Attorney representing Robert and Specifically. perhaps the best way to do this is questions as they come up. if you'd just like to you like a formal presentation at this time? it's so late. Peter Nemer. to answer your start. or would MR. BREWER-You know what the questions are. as we just gave them to you. MR. TOWNE-Okay. With respect to the appl ication request that the Highway Commercial zone be extended. we are at the butt end of it here. We're not asking for spot zoning. Someone mentioned spot zoning. We're not asking for spot zoning. We're asking that the Highway Commercial zone be extended. This lot would then be in conformity with the property directly across the street. which is the Garvey property. and with respect to the Town's master plan. I think it would make sense. because of this development. with Garvey. and also with respect to the change which has taken place around the corner. with respect to the K-Mart plaza. the Super K Plaza. It appears that. despite the recent master plan by the Town. that this area of the Town is changing. probably in conformity with the change in the City of Glens Falls. MR. MARTIN-Wel I. can I clarify one thing? Is what is depicted as a separate lot for the car dealership here rather a trapezoid shaped. type lot. is that going to be the only area requested for Highway Commercial. or is the whole area over the ware. because when I talked to. maybe it was an associate of your office. on the phone. to clarify this. he said. no. it was only going to be the car dealership portion. The lots shown for the warehouses in the future are gOing to remain light industrial. MR. TOWNE-Okay. My recollection of our meeting with you and the Town Supervisor. in May. Jim. was that we were requesting a rezoning of the entire parcel. The property has been for sale for some period of time without any interest. as a light industrial parcel. The Nemers have. as you are obviously aware. a number of automobile dealerships. and they are expanding their operation. and decided instead of trying to market this land as investment. as it originally was. and it was not moving after six or seven years of ownership. that they would seek to develop it. Just as an aside. somebody mentioned. there were some negative comments about automobile dealerships. If you're fami I iar. at all. with the topography of .the land. the land is up. at one point. approximately. I think Jim could check this quicker than I. about 16 feet off grade. off road grade. So this is not going to be the situation where you're driving by either Quaker Ford or De I I a Be I I a. MR. MARTIN-Forty feet in elevation. MR. TOWNE-Forty feet in elevation above the grade. We're going to have to do some pretty innovative and different things. Glaring I ights aren't going to mean a thing because people are going to be driving by looking at glaring lights and not seeing anything. It's going to be a I ittle bit different than your typical automobile dealership. So. don't. please. address it as being I ike Della Bella's. or even the way Quaker was constructed now. they're 3Ø years old. This is going to have to be. because of the topography. and because of the change In the elevation. different. MR. MARTIN-Okay. So the Highway Commercial is over the entire - 74 - -... -"~ sight? MR. TOWNE-Yes. I thought we agreed. when we met with you and the Supervisor and the Town Attorney, that that was, in fact, what we would ask for the entire parcel. It is our desire, because of the topography of the land, and because of the fact that rezoning this as Highway Commercial. this entire parcel, that, in fact. there would be I ittle I ikel ihood of any Highway Commercial development here. The Nemers had been looking into, and that's why we provided the second access route," to subdividing these lots off. We would then come back to the Town, and ask them to rezone them in conformity with your true plan. which is that this parcel be light industrial. I don't know of any other way to do it. If you would like us to subdivide it, our suggestion would be that you go 500 feet back from the Niagara Mohawk property I ine and designate that as the designated Highway Commercial and the rear remain Light Industrial. That's the solution I can give you. MR. BREWER-Then how would you access that property in the back? MR. TOWNE-The plan. the site plan, provides for two methods of ingress and egress. Th i s method up here is for the automob i Ie dealership. This method back here would be for these two lots, or one lot. MR. MART IN-Yes, but when I speak to conform i ng lots. each lot is supposed to have a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on a Town road. MR. TOWNE-Then we wouldn't segregate the lots. We'd have one lot back there, if that'"s a problem. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-It comes right back to the subdivision we looked at a couple of hours ago. with the flagged shaped lots and the, crazy s~aped lots. It just doesn't make sense to do that. just to gain another lot. MR. TOWNE-Well the alternative, unfortunately, because, if you look at the wetland setback, you're not going to be able to do anything in the front. They've had this property for a number of years, and have had no interest in it at all as Light Industrial, despite that the Town has wanted this to develop as a Light Industrial area. They've had no interest in it. The property's been for sale. MR. OBERMAYER-Why are you bui Iding two warehouses, then? MR. TOWNE-Because of the fact that once they get this developed they're hoping that. over a period of time, as the entire area changes, that low density, storage faci I ities. or, where the publ ic wouldn't be, a warehouse faci I ity might be something that could interest people, and we've got no interest now. and we've got to do something with the land. It seems to make sense to extend the Highway Commercial district so they can use it for their own purposes. rather than have it sit (lost word). MR. MARTIN-Haven't you been bui Iding an excellent case for a Use Variance, then, if you've had this marketed as industrial land and you can't sell it as such? Isn't that an excellent argument for a Use Variance? MR. TOWNE-Yes, it is. However, when we came and met with you and the Supervisor and the Town Attorney, the consensus was that we apply for a change of zone, that the Town Board would want to review a change such as this, and also because, my recollection from the meeting in May. Jim, is that there was some talk about the fact that the master plan may be in the process of being amended. - 75 - MR. MARTIN-It is. MR. TOWNE-The Town Board would want to be aware of this. why we fol lowed your procedure. That's MR. STARK-Mr. Towne. I don't have any problem with the dealership in the front. for Highway Commercial. The warehouses in the back. the peop I e on Windy Hi I I Road and, so on. no. No way wou I d I ever ask for that to be a Highway Commeroial. you know. the bottom one there. no way. MR. OBERMAYER-That's really close. MR. TOWNE-I'm certainly not meaning to quibble with you. Whatever use we can make of this. If we don't put a dealership here. and we were able to locate a warehouse faci I ity. we could put it there. It qualifies within the zone. as it is now zoned. MR. STARK-It would have to go through site plan for it. MR. TOWNE-I understand. that's assuming we meet the setbacks and buffers and everythirrg else. I'm not trying to be argumentative. If we can find another use. or if this rear configuration. this is. just I et me back up. Th i s is a phased deve I opment. We need a dealership within the next 12 months. This is something for the future. What. if anything. we're going to do with respect to future development. we'll be glad to come back to the Planning Board and ask your approval for whatever it is. and go through whatever. MR. OBERMAYER-But you are asking us to rezone the front. though. to recommend to rezone the front. MR. TOWNE-Correct. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So that that has a associated with it. little bit of leverage MR. TOWNE-You're where we were at the meeting in May. and as Jim just indicated. we want to spl it. MR. BREWER-No. I said the whole parcel. Highway Commercial. MR. TOWNE-It would seem to me to make sense. and that was the consensus at the meeting. that we rezone the entire parcel Highway Commercial. Then if we have a use that does not fit within Highway Commercial. in this area. then we come back to the Town. the Planning Board. and you sayfine,and go through the whole rezoning process again. with respect to the ~ parcel. It would not be spot zoning because of the contiguous light industrial zone. and it may meet the Town's then master plan. MR. lot. BREWER-I sti I I have a problem with creating that flag shaped It doesn't follow good planning. MR. MARTIN-Well. the other thing I was just looking up. here. is that the whole thing could remain one lot. because the densities in each zoning district are the same. They're 12.ØØØ feet of building space per acre. You could keep it as one lot and just simply spl it zone the lot. I ike he indicated. 5ØØ feet from the front was Highway Commercial and then Light Industrial in the back. and leave it as one lot. MR. TOWNE-We're not looking to subdivide the lot at this time. MR. BREWER-Wel I. why don't we just re~one the whole thing to Highway Commercial. Jim. and if they want to come back some time and have it rezoned to Light Industrial. then let them try it. MR. STARK-Let them prove their point then. - 76 - -~ MR. OBERMAYER-Let them prove their point then. Why are we trying to do it now? MR. TOWNE-It's perfectly permissible with us. I was trying to be candid with you and ask if my cl ients could come up with. look. over the next 15 years. what do you anticipate might happen. So we wanted to lay our cards on the table now. If you're not going to al low this to happen. we stil I have to go forward with this. and that' s very clear. We may come i n here. f i v e years from now. and we have UPS who wants to put up a warehouse back there. ask you to subdivide this. say yes or no. MR. BREWER-Yes. but the subdivision's not a problem. but the zone in t he back ¡sa prob I em. or. no. maybe it's not. The warehouses would be a problem because they're not al lowed in a Highway Commercial. MR. MACEWAN-That would have to be for a rezoning. MR. TOWNE-We 1 I. we can't put a warehouse there now. MR. BREWER-Without site plan review anyway. MR. TOWNE-Site plan review anyway. MR. MACEWAN-You couldn't put anvthinQ there without site plan review. MR. TOWNE-So. you can. I guess. you can either approve a request. or suggest to the Town Board they rezone the entire parcel. or the 5ØØ feet. because we'd have to get site plan approval for anything that goes back there anyway. MR. BREWER-I Commercial. would recommend that we rezone it Highway MR. STARK-The whole thing. MR. BREWER-The whole thing. MR. RUEL- Yes. agree. MR. OBERMAYER-I agree. MR. PALING-I don't see any other way to do it right now. MR. BREWER-And then 15 years down the road. if you want to come back and dos.mething. I don't plan on being here 15 years. Let somebody else worry about it. MR. STARK-You don't have any problem with the whole thing being Highway Commercial? MR. TOWNE-No. not thing. No. if you don't have a problem with the whole MR. BREWER-AI I right. Board. It only makes down the road. Lets sense. make a recommendation to the Town There's car dealerships al I the way MR. STARK-I think it should be there. MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO TO HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ROBERT & PETER NEMER. its adoption. seconded APPROVE THE RE-ZONING OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL FOR PETITION FOR ZONE CHANGE NO. 2-94 Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 23rd day of August. vote: 1994. by the following - 77 - - ------.._._-----~-~_..---.._------ AYES: Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. Ruel. Mr. P·al ing. Mr. Stark. Mr. Brewer NOES: Mr. MacEwan MR. MARTIN- would advise the appl icant. at the request of the County. we hand lei t backwards. Th is app I i cat ion wi I I now go on to the County Planning Board. ,I bel ieve it's the second Wednesday of September. You should be there that night to address any County concerns. They mayor may not want a presentation from you. They mayor may not al low you to comment. but I would advise that you be there. MR. HARLICKER-Before everybody takes off here. MR. MARTIN~~es.we've got a couple of matters. MR. HARLICKER-The first one is Oral Health Care. They're coming in next month with a formal revision to the dentist's office there. MR. BREWER-One entrance? MR. HARLICKER-I wish. They're taking t~e parki~g from in front of the building. and putting it on the side and to the rear. That's the major change. and they're just looking for some feedback from you before they make their final submission next week. MR. BREWER-It's not a bad idea if they have one entrance. MR. MA R TIN - Act u a I I Y . it's ink e e pin g wit h a lot 0 f . we 0 f ten times ask for this and very seldom do we get it. the parking in the side and the rear. rather than in the front. MR. OBERMAYER-It's going to be a beautiful place. MR. BREWER-Okay. We haven't even had a chance to look at it. How can we comment on it? MR. HARLICKER-Wel I. just to get a formal. MR. MARTIN-It's coming next month. MR. HARLICKER-Just take a look at it now. any quick comments. MR. BREWER-I didn't really get a chance to look at it. Scott. If I have any comments. I'll let you know in the next day or two. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. BREWER-What's the deal with Gardentime? MR. HARLICKER-We're in contact. We've got a message in their office. I'll give them another call tomorrow. MR. BREWER-What was the other item. Jim? MR. MARTIN-Larry Gray. If I could indulge you to give just another 3Ø days on that. on his subdivision approval. MR. BREWER-He's the guy that was fighting the Town about the recreation fees. and we gave him 3Ø days? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. BREWER-~ don't think we should. MR. MARTIN-AI I right. That's fine. too. I just point it out. - 78 - .- -- ~ / MR. BREWER-We want to know about Larry Grav. if we want to give him another extension. MR. MACEWAN-No. MR. OBERMAYER-Tel I him to pay his recreation fees. MR. MARTIN-AI I right. that's fine. too. CORRECTION OF MINUTES June 21. 1994: NONE June 28. 1994: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 21. 1994 AND JUNE 28. 1994. Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption. seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 23rd day of August. vote: 1994. by the following AYES: Mr. Stark. Mr. Obermayer. Mrs. LaBombard. Mr. MacEwan. Mr. Ruel. Mr. Paling. Mr. Brewer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Timothy Brewer. Chairman - 79 -