Loading...
1996-02-20 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1996 '1NI!:>EX1", '~~(\I: I 'I, ~.I , subdivision No. 5-83 Country club Manor Tax Map No. 65-1-5.4, 5.5, 5.6 I - 1 ¡ ",:' :~ t.~" ¡ , .. : subdivision No. 1-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE Kenneth Ermiger Tax Map No. 73~1-4 Sudivision No. 2-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE (Cont'd on P. 29) Leon McCotter Tax Map No. 134-6-42, 134-1-1 Phasing Revision Hudson Pointe PUD Site Plan No. 1-96 Hudson Pointe, Irl~~ Tax Map No. 148-1-2.1 . ¡Hi Site Plan No. 2-96 Perry Noun Associates Tax Map No.' 611:':"1-37 . 3~! ,I j, r, il. ' , ~,i 1. \: 3. 11. 14. v 20. 31. 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 STATË SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. " {I " ¡. ',,¡ !~: ~/l: 1, ,', 11' , , .; ! ~- : ""l ! J .) ~ '''~:1 Îi : j, ! " 'I' i ¡ d. , ',' i, I H, ! ili.l ! ...... I' ";('I'{ " ' ',I;;; :, , i VJ ;'1 I '-------' ' '..../ -----' (Queens bury Planning Board Meeting ,2/20/96) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 1996 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY GEORGE STARK JAMES OBERMAYER TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-JAMES MARTIN PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, & PRATT, JEFF FRIEDLAND STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. PALING-Jim will be talking a little bit about the generic approval process and the amended SEQRA Regulations and something about the Planning Staff and Board's record of meetings and all from last year. MR. OBERMAYER-Our achievements. MR. PALING-Our achievements, yes, you could put it that way. MR. OBERMAYER-That's what I like to hear. MR. PALING-We'd like to welcome aboard George Hilton, who is an addition to Jim Martin's staff. He just came fresh from Kansas, where he occupied a similar position out there, but he's from Connecticut. So he's got a good combination. So we welcome you, George. MR. HILTON-Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. Then we can go ahead. Now the approval of minutes, Maria, they didn't put any dates on there. So I assume we have no minutes to approve. MS. GAGLIARDI-I believe there were December and January's. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets do that again next time. You might ask Pam, okay, about that? I was thinking it was the 16th we were to approve, of January. If you would ask her about that. Okay. Do you want to go ahead on Country Club Manor. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 5-83 COUNTRY CLUB MANOR DANIEL & ELIZABETH VALENTE APPLICANT PROPOSES A BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOTS 4, 5 & 6. SECTION A 183-13F REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL FOR ANY MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION. TAX MAP NO. 65-1-5.4, 5.5, 5.6 DAN VALENTE, PRESENT MR. PALING-George, we customarily ask, at this point, if there's any comment from Staff on this. Did you have anything you wanted to say or read into the record on this? MR. HILTON-I have nothing additional to read into the record at - 1 - (Oueensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/?0/96) this point. I believe Jim was going to present this item to you. I'm not sure if there are any changes. MR. PALING-All right. Well, I think, h~'ll be'back any minute. So I think we can just go ahead with any question or,di~cussjons that the Board might have on this, and we'll maybe 't~lk slowly until they get here. Is anyone here from the applicant? MR. VALENTE-My name's Dan Valente, Valente Builders. owner of all three lots. I'm the MR. PALING-Okay, and it's as you show it on the print, the dO,tted line is the old and the solid is the new, I believe, ri~ht? MR. VALENTE-Right, and where all the trees are now on one side of the lot line. MR. PALING-Right. 1\t-I, ' ;1 , MR .'1 "VALENT.E -:-what I)él.Pl?ened,w,as I ,'1,~~ rea,dy í t? si,g,q 01>1'I~r t.J)e ilqt, I think: ,i t'$ 'Nu:fI?ber::~,qur, t,c)~!:~yl s,?n ;ji :II/!i,jf ':" i Ì'I'\'''! "'il/:L: ~.. .ii,." ""1' :t\",.,JI, ; ,;t·,,·'; ¡·'Ît,::·:I,'-j.-:,¡ ¡. Jd. iL-;T~~Jf: MR. PALJ;NG-Four 1$, on the nór,tÞ¡~fs11 c,qr:ger " , I "'\r! " ,<,~', .;.'", I >< '~: , .'~~,H -;' L>·:~·..d/f:':~~:·{'-j ! ,"') (:"'.'1. :1\-)"> - ',1'-": I(~, ,MR .~ALENTE·-T\1at\:'rli1,qrrect.~, Lqt;.FoY!j1),:\epd'Y ~oJsfJ~hf,t~at: l?tÖver to hlm, and we notlced that when tne plantlngs were planted 10 years ago, that some were on that bi9,lot. So we,~ecide~, before we turned it over to him, to move a ldt line so all the plantings were on my lot. Incase we ever sell the piece of property, there wouldn't be a 'dispute b~tween the two ow~ers on' who owned the plantings. That's the reason for the, change. The lots are more than sufficient in size to me~t the re~uirements of the zoning. So it was just a matter of a formality. ì U"'lki ¡ MR. PALING-Does anyone on the Board have any questions or comment~? It looks, pretty routine. Did Jim have any significant commerit? 1 don't think there is any to make. , ' MR. HILtON-No, there isn't. ¡ 'I MR. OBÈRMAYER-It looks pretty simple. MR. HILTON-Pretty straightforward. MR. PALING-Yes. I thi nk we can just go ahead _ There is no public hearing scheduled, and we doh't need a 5EQRA on this. MOTION TO APPRÖVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-83 COUNTRY CLUB MANOR, Introduced by Timothy Brewer who moved for its adopti¿~, seconded by George Stark: As the map is amended. boundary line adjustment betwe~n lots 4, 5, & 6. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 199&, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwari, Mr. ~tark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, M)-. Pal i ng' NOES: NONE MR. VALENTE-Than'k you. There is a mylar that we supplied ,to be signed. MR. PALING-I think'that'll be ~one, in due course, I guess. MR. VALENTE-I didn't see you this morhirig. I brought 'it to one - 2 - '----- ---/ '---'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) of the girls in the office. I brought it to morning at eight o'clock, and I'd told her I'd tomorrow or the day after to pick it up. the office this come back either MR. MARTIN-It's just a matter of Bob coming in and signing it. Then we're all set. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I think the fees are all paid on this. MR. PALING-Okay. I can come by tomorrow. MR. VALENTE-All right. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH ERMIGER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: RT. 9, BETWEEN AGWAY AND ANIMAL LAND PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 8.4 ACRE COMMERCIAL PARCEL INTO 2 LÖTS OF 5.6 ACRES AND 2.8 ACRES. ÇROSS REFERENCE: SUB. # 13-1995 SP 58-95 TAX MAP NO. 73-1-4 LOT SIZE: 8.4 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JOHN RÄY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-George, Jim, do you want to comment on this? MR. HILTON-I'll go ahead. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-1996, Kènneth Ermiger, Meeting Date: February 20, 1996 "This application for a Preliminary subdivision was previously heard before the Planning Board at the September 21, 1995 meeting. The application is being reviewed once again due to the fact that the Final Subdivision was not filed at the Warren County Registrar of Deeds within the time limit outlined in Section 183-13 G2 of the Subdivision Regulations. This proposed subdivision is a two lot commercial subdivision. Each lot meets the area and dimensional requirements outlined in the Ordinance. Lot "A" is currently the site of Whitney Electronics and what appears to be a single family residence. At the present time Lot "B" is vacant. Howev~r, on October 24, 1995 a,site plan ~as approved for a miniature golf course to belocat~don Lot "B". The subdivision map indicates that the two northerly drives will be abandoned. Access for both lots will be from a shared southend drive located on a common lot line. I would recommend that this be a condition for approval. It has come to staff's attention that this application may be in conflict with the Subdivision Regulations, more specifically Section 183-23C. That section states that no new lots should have direct access from a regional arterial unless the frontage of each lot is increased by 100%. However, because this application is in conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Board has the ability to waive this requirement from the Subdivision Ordinance in the form of a resolution. The intent of Section 183-23C may be to limit direct access of residential subdivisions on arterials which this subdivision is not. Staff would also recommend that the Planning Board direct staff, in the form of a resolution, to study Section 183-23C and provide a clear determination of its meaning. The only other issue is the location of any existing septic systems. The creation of a new property line should not cause any septic system to become nonconforming with regard to setbacks. This should not be an issue because this septic system will be removed - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) from the property. If this is not an issue, I would recommend approval of this Preliminary Subdivision aþplication." MR. PALING-Okay, and there's someone here fo~ the applicant? Would you identify yourself, please. MR. RAY-My name's John Ray. I'm here on behalf of Ken Ermiger. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Okay. In regard to that conflict with the Subdivision ordinance, it appears that the way that that was written may have been that was intended to cover residential only, but it certainly doesn't state that. As a matter of fact, it becomes part of the commercial. I ,think two things on this. One, we can perhaps go along on that basis, but there's another basis, too. If we look at the way this is laid out, they're combining two lots with the single access, or a shar~d ~~cess to it, and even if you double, looked at it as qne lot and doubled the size, you'd only need 300 feet wide and this is 384 feet wide, and I think that's another way where I co~ld be comfort_ble with this as it's being requested. MR. MARTIN-Just as a point, in regard to the referenc~ð section, I'm going to go to two different sections. First, YOU know, obviously Georg~'s reference to Alé3-23C, which' is on Page A18343, but then also if you look at on the Zoning Co~~, 179~30, and that's Page 17987, I think what was trying to be d~~¿ here is when the Ordinance was first revised in '88, they tried to make the Subdivisi6n Reg's consistent with the Zoning Ordinance about doubling the lot width was amended in November 2~, '92 to allow a provision of a shared driveway, and I think it was a mistake on the part of whoever did that change in "92 that they didn't follow through and make that same change within the Subdivision Reg's, keep it consistent, because until George found this the other day, I, quite frankly, didn~iknowthat ~as in the Subdivision Regulations, about ,the double the lot width. I only thought it was in the Zoning Code. . MR. RUEL-Then there's no need to have a study on that, is there? MR. MARTIN-Well, I think it should be studied, the true .intent. MR. RUEL-You recommend that we study this section, and at the same time, we can grant a waiver? MR. HILTON-You can grant a waiver because this is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. In addition to that, I would recommend that you, in the form of a resolution, direct staff to review the section of the subdivision ordinance that I've discussed and provide a clear determination to its meaning. MR. BREWER-Separate of this particular subdivision. M~. RUEL-It's not clear? I thought it was cle~r. MR. MARTIN-I think it needs further research. George. I agree with MR. RUEL-It seems to be clear in the zoning. MR. HILTON-But if you were to read, that' section in the subdivision ordinance, word for word, it would say that ev~n this subdivision would need each lot to increase its lot frontage by 100%. For instance, Lot B, which has 150 feet of frontage, would then have to have 300 feet, and I wasn't here at the tjme, but the intent may have been fof residential subdivisibns, to discourage their development on regional arterials~' ' MR. MARTIN-I think what he means by research is w~ can g6 back to - 4 - '-- -.-/ ,--./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) the past Subdivision Regulations, see if it was in there, and if it wasn't, then try and research through the notes and see what change was made and when, and maybe say why that was introduced. I don't think that was in the old Subdivision Reg's. MR. RUEL-But that has no affect on this particular application, correct? MR. BREWER-Not if we grant a waiver. MR. HILTON-Not in our opinion. MR. PALING-I thiDk it does have, but we've got a way around it. MR. MARTIN-Right, the shared driveway or shared access point. MR. PALING-That's right. Then you've got the right width. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-That's recommended in the notes, I think. MR. BREWER-Yes, it is. MR. MARTIN-That's what we get for having a new Planner on the staff, somebody who really looks at the regulations. MR. HILTON-Well, I'd have to actually congratulate Bob. He brought it into us and fo~-ced us to look at it. MR. OBERMAYER-Bob brought it in, Mr. Chairman. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay, and the septic tank referred to earlier will be removed, is that correct? MR. RAY-Yes. MR. PALING-There's no question there. have other questions, comments? Okay. All right. Do we MR. RUEL-Actually, I guess we have several conditions, right? A shared driveway would be one. MR. PALING-Yes. driveway. That's part of their application is a shared MR. MARTIN-I think any resolution should make reference to a waiver of 183-23C. MR. BREWER-Do we have the previous resolution where we approved this? Maybe we could go right from that resolution. That'll refresh our memory, and just include this waiver in that, because wasn't there something about a fence also, or something in there? MR. MARTIN-See, John did the review on the previous application. MR. BREWER-Right. There was a couple of things in, there that we discussed at the meeting. MR. STARK-That was at the site plan, not for the subdivision. MR. BREWER-Yes, I'm sorry. That was the subdivision. came to my mind when we did the. That just MR. MARTIN-The site plan approval still stands. - 5 - (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. BREWER-All right, but we could still look at the resolution. ¡¡ . , MR. move would other HILTON-Right. I have the initial resolution hete that says, for its adopti6n with the following stipulation, that there be a shared driveway b~tween Lot A, and ~.That's'the only stipulation that's mentioned in the r~solution. ¡, ' MR. BREWER-Okay. So the site plan will stand on its own merit. . ".i," MR. MARTIN-That's right. MR. PALING-Okay. Anybody? Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Nothing. MR. PALING-Anybody else? All right. Unless you wanted to add something, we can go right to the public hearing. MR. RAY-Nothing else. MR. PALING-All right. We'll open the public hearing on this matter, if anyone would care to comment. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED ;' MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think we ~an go right to a mo~ion. No, we've got to do a SECRA. MR. RUEL-Short or Long? MR. BREWER-Short. RESOLUTION WHEN D~TERMINAT~ON OF NO SiGNIFICANCE IS MADE ¡ : . id' - RESOLUTION NO. 1-199~, Introduced by Cath~Yine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roger Ruel: WHEREAS, the1"e application for: is presently before KENNETH ERMIGER, and the Planning Bo~rçj . an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has project and Planning Board action state Environmental Quality Review determinedthat th~ Þro~¿sed is subject to r~v~~w under the Act. " NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be invo10ed. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is ur¡listE?d in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environme,ntal Cualit')' Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Cueensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the crit~ria for determining whether a project has a signif¡~ant - 6 - "---" -.-/ ------- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations'for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: MR. MARTIN-The attorney they submitted a Long Form, and we really need to go through a Long Form. They submitted a Long Form with the application. MR. BREWER-Is that required? MR. MARTIN-That's what they submitted. MR. RUEL-Who gave them the form? MR. MARTIN-It's the standard one they get with the. app¡ic~tion packet. Right, John? MR. RAY-That's the one that came with the application Þa'cket. ., . .i,..' . MR. STARK-Jim, once before when they submitted the widng cine, we gave the applicant a chance to go out, complete the correct one, and then biing it back. Remember that? MR. BREWER-Yes, on two occasions in one night. MR. OBERMAYER-Does it really matter which one we do? MR. MART.lN,-It's your d~Siçre4ion as the lead qgent qndertaki ng the review, :ßÜt a-3 Jeff sàiê:l, they submitted the Long one', and you really have to go through the Long one, but if he wants to submit a Short one. . MR. PALING-Okay. This is an occasional oversight kind of thing. It just happened? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-Well, I think, what's the shortest way, going through the Long Form, I would think. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, 1 would think so. MR. BREWER-He's going to have to fill it out. So if he's got to fill something out, why doesn't he just fill out a Short Form and submit it and we'll go over the short again. MR. MARTIN-Filling out the short form would be easier, at this point. MR. PALING-Rather than just read through it. MR. RAY-Yes, but where do we stand? Can we do that tonight? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. RUEL-Sure. It'll take you two minutes. MR. RAY-Have you got a Short Form? MRS. LABOMBARD-Right here. .. 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MARTIN-Just the front sheet there is your responsibility, John. MR. RAY-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. SEQRA is done, so to speak. MR. RUEL-Why don't you take this time to come up with a resolution to study. MR. PALING-Yes. We've got to have tw~ motions. I think ~e can I' proceed with a motion on this, can't w~? It's goiné to take a little while to get it together. MR. STARK-We need a waiver, too. MR. PALING-Yes. So why don't we proceed. Are you ready to ~ake a motion on this? Okay. He's formulating a resolu~ipn. The SEQRA will be done. Then he'll make å resolution. I want to he~r tb,e res,?~u}io~, t,}ìat,'S ¡i?¡lJ"'J¡: U¡:, Til::,\r-1( "..1'1 ':!' ,t¡ MR!. MARLhN'2TheyJ're j0~t!ki~ri~~'Klto' diE\cuss it!.~~"TK~y':rb "i?~;t ~9ing to act. I'; MR. PALING-We're looking for the motion that you're making, but we won't act on it until aftef the SEQRA is do~e. MR. RUEL-AIl right. I'll make a motioQ to approve Subdivision 1- 1-1996 fo,' Kenneth Ermiger, to subdiv'ide an 8.4 acre parcel into two lots of 5.6 acres and 2.8 acres, with the following conditions. One, that access from both lots will. be from a shared southend drive, located on a common lot line. Second, that a waiver will be granted for the section that states that no new lots should have direct access from a regional arterial unless the frontage of each lot is increased by 100%. , I MR. PALING-That the Planning Board will grant the waiver, yes. MR. RUEL-Right, and, that's all L have., MR. MACEWAN-Why don't you change that to say, grant a waiver from Section A183-23C. MR. PALING-Good suggestion. MR. RUEL-Well, I don't know what the whole section , is. 1, thought it was just that one part. MR. MACEWAN-That is just that one part., MR. RUEL-That's the whole thing? All right. So change that second one to grant a waiver to Section 183-23C. MR. PALING-Okay. That was practice. Are we all set? Okay. Now we've done the SEQRA. Lets vote on it. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, ~rs"" LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling , NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Now, the sa~e resolution. MR. RUEL-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 1~1996 KENNETH ERMIGER, Introduced by Roger Ruel adoption, seconded by Georg~ Stark: , , ÞRELIMINARY STAGE who ,moved for its - 8 - --- ,----../ --../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) To subdivide ari 8.4 acre commercial parcel into 2 lots of 5.6 acres and 2.8 acres, with the following two conditions. One, that access for both lots will be from a shared south end drive located on a common lot line, and, Two, that he be granted a waiver to Section 183-23C. The third condition would be that the existing septic system be removed. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-All right. Now we'd like to have another. MR. RUEL-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO RECOMMEND 1ª3~23C TO PROVIDE R~LATED TO 179-30, adoption, seconded THAT THE PLANNING BOARD STAFF STUDY SECTION A CLEAR DETERMINATION OF ITS MEANING AS Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its by George Stark: Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. RAY-A question before I go. You just passed on the Preliminary Stage. Would it be possible to waive the requirement to appear back here next week on the Final Stage? MR. PALING-Waive the requirements to appear? MR. BREWER-He doesn't have to appear, does he? MR. PALING-You don't have to appear. MR. RAY-You don't have to appear, but could you act on that this evening I guess is my question. MR. PALING-No, we won't act on it this evening. It will be acted on next week. MR. RAY-Yes. I understand that. MR. PALÍNG-But you don't have to be here. MR. BREWER-There's no public hearing or anything. MR. RAY-I was wondering if you could waive the requirement of waiting another week and act on it, and act on the Final application this week, being as how .it was already approved. MR. STARK-There's no public controversy, Bob. MR. PALING-There's no public controversy on this. MR. MACEWAN-But wasn't it only advertised for Preliminary? MR. MARTIN-Tha,t's a.ll that's neC,e$sary. MR. PALING-There is no advertising because there is no public hearing following this. - 9 - (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. RAY-And we have submitted the final application and the fee. MR. BREWER-What's the difference if we wait another week? MR. OBËRMAYER-Do it right now. I think it's great. MR. PALING-Well, do we have any procedural or legal problem involved with this? MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't see any problem with it. MR. RAy'~ActuaTly, \.¡e discuss:~é' it th~( .ía~t.c'>:tiri\e ! _'w'å~'hi~re. You've got the po~er to waive pr00isions of th~ a#~~i2~tion process. It's just one more stage in the applicatio~ process. MR. OBERMAYER-I agree. It would save you a trip. MR. PALING-Why don't we wait a minute. Just let us hear from our friends over there, just to be sure. MR . MACEWAN-- I subdivisions. don't have a problem doing simple tWQ lot There's no engineering. There's nothing involved. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. It's straightforward. MR. STARK-Bob, there's no problem with that. the past. ,MR. 'PALtN'G--E;vldehtalI'/, we'~e:",dòMJ':lthis' before~ ~'nd H:.'s þeen oka y " T h'e~þ is .'0,6 pub 1 i c ¡~q,ryt)2 qV~~,~y i nvo 1 ved . .' , , ,,-~". .; , ' , ' . -', _..\ I MR . BREWE~'-'WhY d9,f¡' f ,we just let,., it go, unti I th'ê, ef)ct: of the ag~nda o! ~~h~~eV¿Y, ót ~f~er tb¿ n~xt app¡icât¡on'~ftH~Y're gol ng to 'research 1 t. .',' , We've done it in MR. PALING-Do you guys want a few more minutes? this until after the next applicant. We'll just delay ~ ,I ~ , " MR. STARK-He's going to want the same thing. MR. BREWER-Well then we'll have the ariswer by that time. So lets just go on to the next one or whatever. MR. PALING-Yes. both the same. Lets j~st delay this and we'll maybe do them MR. OBERMAYER-They might as well decide~ because they~re going to have to concentrate on the next application. MR. FRIEDLAND-Yes. I don't see anything in here that prohibits that at all. MR. PALING-All right. If it's been dor;e before, vJhy dòn't we do it. MR. MACEWAN-!f we make a mistake here, The worst case we're going to have resolution and do it again. it's going to come up. to do is rescind the MR. MARTIN-The usual thing for final is that if you have a condition of Preliminary that the plat has to be changed and your notes have to be changed on the þlat, then they have to go back, but the conditions that came out of ýour Preliminary approval are things that are already on the plat and are a condition of the project going forward. So I don't see why you can't do it tonight. It's your discretion. - 10 - ~ ---' ----./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. PALING-Okay. 1 think we should go ahead with a motion. All right. MR. MARTIN-I would make reference in your motion to the fact that a final application has been received and the proper fees have been paid, and that's why you're willing to consider it, and in light of the fact that this is really an extenuating circumstance here, that this was fully approved. It just didn't meet the filing deadline. MR. PALING-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1996 FINAL STAGE KENNETH ~RMIGER, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: With reference to the initial motion for Preliminary approval, and with note that all the submittals and payments are in order. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Moving right along. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED LEON MCCOTTER OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: SOUTH END OF RYAN AVE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.22 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 2.464 ACRES AND 2.548 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 43-1995 SUB. 12-1995 TAX MAP NO. 134-6-42, 134- 1-1 LOT SIZE: 5.22 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS LEON MCCOTTER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, subdivision No. 2-1996, Leon McCotter, Meeting Date: February 20, 1996 "This application was originally heard at the August 22, 1995 Planning Board meeting as Preliminary subdivision 12-1995. The application is being heard again due to the fact that the Final Subdivision was not filed at the Warren County register of deeds within the time frame outlined in Section 183-13G2 of the Town Code. This Preliminary subdivision represents a two lot subdivision located at the end of Ryan Av. This property is zoned SR-1A and the lots contained in this subdivision contain the required area and setbacks for this zoning district. Lot 2 will be accessed from a forty foot wide crossing easement on land owned by Niagara Mohawk located between the two lots. The applicant has received a variance (Area Variance 43-1995) to build on Lot 2 without the required 40 feet of road frontage. Their appears to be no other issues involved with this preliminary subdivision. Keeping in mind that the two stipulations of Area Variance 43-1995 will be met, I would recommend approval of this application." MR. PALING-What are the two stipulations of the Area Variance that you refer to there? MR. HILTON-I was just searching for that file. One of them remember off the top of my head was that Lot 2 would only one home on it. The other one, I can't locate the file, can't recall offhand what it was. However, they would be by them anyway. I can have and I bound - 11 - (Oueensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MH. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-I have a question. You mention the fact that Lot 2 will be accessed from land crossing Niagara Mohawk, between the two lots. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. RUEL-But isn't there also access through Lot 1? MR. HILTON-Lot 1 already has the required access on a Town road. Lot 2 didn't, and was befote the Zoning Board for a variance. MR. RUEL-Okay, that short access considered the access road to Lot 1, road there on as well as Lot 2? Lot "1 is MR. HILTON-Well, it's a public road in front of Lot 1, and then for Lot 2, it's an access easement. The lahd is owned by Niagara Mohawk. It's the required width of a Town road, and the ZQning Board granted a variance to allow that lot to be develo~ed~ith that access. MR. RUEL-I see. So Ryan abuts the property? against the property, Ryan Avenue? It's right up MR. HILTON-Ryan, yes. It comes right into Lot 1. MR. RUEL-And that short strip is part' of the acce§s' to Lot 2, through NiMo property? MR. HILTON-At the end of it is the access for Lot 2 also, yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Is that a new easement? MR. MCCOTTER-I'm Leon McCotter. I'm the owner. I went through this and I had your final approval on it. I didn't get it recorded. That easement has been in effect probably six years. MR. RUEL-Is this documented, this easement? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Did you get the easement? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-I'm just curious, how difficult was it to get an easement? MR. MCCOTTER-It was a big problem. It's quite an undertaking. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. I can imagine it is. MR. MCCOTTER-The water is the biggest thing. carry a million dollar liability (lost word). They want you to MR. RUEL-So with this easement also through Lot 1, that leaves triangular section, A1, very awkward little corner there. MR. MCCOTTER-Yes, it's really useless. Y~s. MR. RUEL-And that dirt drive will not exist, the dirt drive shown on the map? " ; MR. MCCOTTER-Will not exist? .·1 ¡'.~ -<;11 , !\ II i MR. RUEL-This one, the curved one. , " '1\ i, ! - 12 - --> -" '----, '-"" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96 ) MR. MCCOTTER-Yes, it still exists. MR. RUEL-It will exist? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. RUEL-And it'll take off from the end of Ryan Avenue, as well? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. RUEL-I see. So, at the end of Ryan then you will' have two accesses? MR. MCCOTTER-Right. MR. RUEL-One going to Lot 2 across NiMo, and the other one going to, what, an existing building? MR. MCCOTTER-Right. There's a house and barn on that lot. MR. RUEL-I don't see it on here. MR. OBERMAYER-Rog, we've already approved this. MR. MCCOTTER-Yes, it's been approved. MR. OBERMAYER-They didn't file the deed. MR. RUEL-Well, look how firm this will be. MR. MARTIN-I was going to ask you if you intend on coming in tomorrow with it signed and submit it to the County. MR. MCCOTTER-Is that what I have to do, come in tomorrow and have it done? MR. MARTIN-Yes, well, Bob signs it, as Chairman, and then you file it with the County, once it has his signature on it. MR. MCCOTTER-He signs it now? MR. MARTIN-No, tomorrow. You have a mylar. MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Bring that in tomorrow, Bob will be in signing plats. File it with the County. I'll escort you up there. MR. OBERMAYER-Can Bob just sign this stupid thing tonight? MR. PALING-No. I wouldn't want to sign it tonight. MR. MARTIN-No. I'd have you come in tomorrow, have everything laid out, see that all the fees are paid. MR. PALING-All right. Comments? Questions? MR. BREWER-None. MR. PALING-Lets go to the public hearing. The public hearing is open on this matter if anyone would care to speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. PALING-Did you have any other comments or questions? MR. MCCOTTER-No. My only thing i~, I would lik~ to get a final on this tonight, too, if I could. MR. PALING-What kind of a SEQRA did you submit, Long or Short? MR. HILTON-Long Form. MR. PALING-Long. Okay. Ii ¡ MR. BREWER-Give him a Short Form to fill out. MR. MACEWAN-Who says this Board's not willing to work with applicants. MR. MARTIN-Mr. McCotter, you did do your 500 foot notice, right? MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. I've got all the. MR. MARTIN-Yes. Could yoU give those to George, here. MR. MCCOTTER-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-That was a sticking point the last time around, wasn't it. MR. MCCOTTER-I'm finally getting it do~e right here. MR. PALING-Okay. Why don't we go on to the ~ext applicant, and if you'd vacate the table, please, we'll come back, to you when we're finished. Why don't we go ahead, Cathy, to HudsonPointe. PHASING REVISION HUDSON ÞOtNTE PUD THE ÞROPOSED REVISION COMBINES THE OLD PHASES II, III & V INTO A NEW SECOND PHASE. THE OLD PHASE IV WILL THEN BECOME THE NEW PHASE III. (FOR FURTHER EXPLANATION, SEE LETTER DATED 1/31/96) TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MARTIN-The first item is a revision to the Phasing Plan. MR. RUEL-Yes, is that part of the same resolution? MR. MARTIN-No. That would be one consideration, and'thénthe next would be the site plan. MR. RUEL-All right. 50 we'd cover phasing ¡irst then. MR. PALING-And we're going to do them both tonight, yes. George. Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Phasing Revision, Hudson pointe, Inc., Meeting Date: F~bruary 20, 1996 "The applicant is prop~sing to r~vise the overall phasing plan for the Hudson Pointe PUD. The original phasing plan called for a total of fiv~ phases for the projects. The revised phasi ng plan combi nes the old Phases II, III ,& V into a new phase two. The old phase IV will now beco~e phase III. The number of overall residential lots within the project will ,-emai n the same at 96. The only difference is the 'number of phases which will now be three. With this new phasing plan, .over one half of the remaining homes and approximately 6000,I~neal feet of road will be built as a part of Phas~ II. Wit~ the pace of development in Hudson Pointe, this roadway will be built and maintained by the town without homes along it for some ttme. Both the Highway and Water Departments have been notified about - 14 - -../ '--' ---- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) this matter. The new phasing plan contains the same number of total lots and has the same lot configuration as the previous phasing plan. Any other issues concerning the two remaining phases of Hudson Pointe will be addressed at the time of final site plan review. If there are no concerns from the Highway and Water Departments, I would recommend approval of this revised phasing plan." MR. HILTON-The only concern that we had, as staff, would be that the Highway Department and the Water Department would be taking care of over 6,000 lineal feet of road, without the benefit of some homes being located on those roads for some time to come. I notified both the Water and Highway Departments in the form of a letter, and have received no response from them. I would take that to indicate that they don't have any concerns with maintaining the road, as the development in phase II goes on. MR. PALING-When did you notify them of it, just roughly? MR. HILTON-I notified them, well, I have a copy of the letter that I can dig up for you, if you'd like, it was a week and a half ago. MR. PALING-About a week and a half ago. MR. MARTIN-We did sit with the developer, with Paul Naylor, in a Preliminary session, and Paul expressed no problem with it at that time. So, we did raise that question directly, and he's out of town, I would suspect that's why. He's been on vacation since early last week. So I would expect that's why there's been no response back. I I,MR.,:PALING:-W,ell""built and maintained means they're going to ~bui14~t and plowsnow~, ~hat else is involved? ,"..... "1 , .'! ,.;!' 1 MR ~ 'RUEl -We ll, yoù'v'e got w.:tter t'o ta ~e care of. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You've got the plowing and probably the maintenance of the drainage. ' MR. PALING-The drainage, yes. MR. MARTIN-Vacuuming the drywells out and so on, but other than that, that's pretty much it. MR. RUEL-Is there a regulation stating particular phase must be completed before started? what percentage of a the following phase is MR. MARTIN-Normally, you would have that, if this were a conventional subdivision, but given the fact this is a Planned Unit Development, there is latitude in the phasing plan. It's really, from what I can read out of the regulations, it's like a negotiated plan between the developer and the Board, but the normal approach, in a conventional subdivision is 60 percent of the prior phase must have Certificates of Occupancy before you can move into the second phase. MR. RUEL-That's not the case here. MR. MARTIN-You're not bound by that here, but that is, if you want a reference point or a guideline, you could use that for that purpose, but there's nothing here in a PUD regulation that that~s a requirement. It's really, like I said, a negotiated point between you and the developer. MR. HILTON-And actually I bring up that issue in the next item, related it~m, the final site plan approval for phase II. - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MARTIN-Yes. It might be worthwhile to read those notes also, just to give you some background. MR. HILTON-At this point, I was just concerned with, you know, approving or taking some action on the phasing plan, ,and then in the final site plan review for phase II, we'd get into the bigger issues. MR. RUEL-Okay. It's not necessarily part of this. MR. MARTIN-They are related somewhat, but they're still two separate actions. MR. RUEL-Yes. This only has to do with the designation of phases, at reducing the total numbe+ down to a smaller number, is that it? MR. HILTON-Well, the overall lots stay the same, You'fe increasing the number of lots you'll have We're changing the number of lots for each phase. as I've said. in phase I I . MR. RUEL-Yes. Perhaps the applicant can give us spme indication of why he wants to reduce the phases from five to thte~. MR. NACE-Sure. For the record, my name is Tom Na¢~ with Haanen Engineering. Dave Michaels is with me, from the Michaels Gr6up. Basically, I'll let Dave speak to some of the underlying of, why they wanted to combine phases. Basically, we've'discussed 'this with Paul Naylor, as Jim related. There is a little bit more road in the new phase II than there was in phase I. It's very close. I think there was within a couple hundred feet ,of the same amount of road of phase II as phase I. Dave', ,if you want to add a little bit as far as why. DAVE MICHAELS MR. MICHAELS-Well, the nature of the whole concept approval was it was a Planned Unit Development, and the concept that we had coming in was to offer three distinct product types, one being a one third acre lot, one on a half acre, and then the larger lots, the one acre plus, another type of product. So what we really have here is almost three different neighborhoods, three type of housing, three subdivisions almost within one, which is the advantage of this kind of approval. It also opens up the market to different price ranges and different types of homes, which is what our goal has been. Now in the first phas8, you know, we had our model in. Right now, we either have closed or under agreement, under construction, 20 lots of the 29. We're really 70 percent sold and closed out already. With pending closings, we anticipate, if this phasing goes through, we were to get our pavement, the roads in and dedicated for the new phase II some time in June, which we think would be realistic, by that time, I>Je'll be at a poi nt, selli ng prodl,).ct, that we'll be out of product. We'll need more of what we're offering in the one third acres, which are the continuation where you see the number two. In addition, we've already done pre-marketing, and have major in'terest, via questionnai res and buyer feedback from all the people coming in, people very much interested in the half and the one acre lots, and we basically have been telling those people that we're going to be in a position, we hope, to announce the product and the pricing some time this April. So, the timing,for us is such that we plan on opéning, if we can work the things out on the advanced approval where we can open up two actditional product types, and right now with our successingwith Phase I, we're going to be in need of additional inventory just on the current product line. In addition, some of the advantages here, too, is that we're able to, there's only like 100 more feet of road. We're able to loop that boulevard load system right around - 16 - ~ '--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) to have a good highway network right out of the box. You don't have to put in a temporary cul-de-sac or something like that, which wasn't even shown on the preliminary plan, which probably would have had to have been a concern of the Board, something to deal with. So what it'll do is it'll tie around a loop road, for b~tter egress, ingress and egress. It will also allow us to get into the main open space access parking lot at an advanced schedule from the anticipated original start, because where you see at the bottom, you can hardly read it, but where it says the day care center, that's really where the main amenity area is going in, and that is the site of the parking lot that's going to be provided to the Open Space Institute to access their lands. In addition, we have the one playground in which we installed in phase I where it's planned to be as part of this year, realistically by year end, is get significantly underway with the amenities planned fo)- the area right there, which'll be the baseball field and the tennis courts, and some of those improvements, which again is sort of advancing things along, but we feel it's the sales, success, the interest that we have in the new product certainly justifies itself. MR. MARTIN-I had a question about Old Sherman Island Road. I know there was discussion about what would be done with that. I would imagine that would also be included in this phase. Wasn't the pavement supposed to be torn up? MR. NACE-Well, in the original, or existing phasing plan, we were anticipati~g reusing a section of Sherman Island Road in order to meet the Town's requirements for a maximum length on dead end roads, okay. So, in the original phasing plan, when we came in with this phase II, which is right here, we were going to have to open up Hudson Pointe Boulevard over to Sherman Island, come back up Sherman Island, and use this as a temporary loop. Now by constructing this entire loop, we don't have to do that. We can shut Sherman Island Road off permanently. It allows it to be turned off earlier for access to the NiMo site. They can use the other entrance off of Corinth Road, and it makes it cleaner. MR. MACEWAN-What will you be doing to the road? What will you be doing to Sherman Island Road, to abandon it? MR. NACE-To go back to the original developer's agreement, in the PUD, and look at that. I believe we were tearing up sections right adjacent to the loop road to Hudson Pointe Boulevard, putting up berms. MR. MACEWAN-That's already done. MR. NACE-Up here? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. It has been done a long that what we had talked about in one tearing up the road itself per se, but it putting down topsoil and seeding it over. time ago, but I thought of our meetings wasn't was just seeding over, MR. MARTIN-Yes. I can't recall if it was tearing it up or putting soil on it and seeding it. MR. PALING-I don't think it was tearing it up. MR. MACEWAN-Can we get you to agree to do that? MR. NACE-Whatever was in the original agreement. MR. MACEWAN-I formalized. don't believe there was ever an agreement MR. PALING-Yes. - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. RUEL-We wanted them to tear it up, initially, but then they decided they would cover it and seed it. That's wh~t L remember. MR. NACE-I believe you're right, Roger. MR. PALING-Yes. I know there's an agreement there, and I don't dare to say what it is specifically, and I don't think we can ask them to go beyond what's already been agreed to. MR. NACE-I think that's already been addressed. MR. MARTIN-There's probably abandoning that road, too. some protracted process for MR. NACE-That's correct, and I believe that's underway, already. MR. MARTIN-I know it was for that short section from the cul-de- sac south, right where the berm area was yOU just pointed to, that was done, that section, and then that same thing would have to be done for the remaining. MR. NACE-Right. MR. RUEL-The recent acquisition by Q~eensbury of land alon~ the Hudson, green acres or whatever you call it, is it close to this area or not? MR. MARTIN-What's being discussed is Open Space Institute is looking at purchasing the Faith Bible Church property, which is the next property, I guess you would say from the north, adjoining the Open Space land, somewhat off the map, right in there, but that's not been sealed or committed to, but that's being investigated. MR. RUEL--I was just wondering, would this have any affect on your plans, as far as recreational activity or parklánd or anything like that? MR. MARTIN-I think the only affect would be it would accelerate it, by viYtue of the fact that we'd have a dedicat~d permanent access to the trail system earlier than we would have under the old phasing plan. MR. MACEWAN-How do you feel about opening up this much of the development this soon? MR. MARTIN-My standpoint, 98% of the planning work is done. We're in an implementation phase now. I, personally, like the idea of having permanent acces~ to the trail system earlier, and I'd defer to the Highway Superintendent on the ácceptance of the road. I was there for that meeting with Tom. He indicated he had no problem with it. I'd defer to him on that aspect, but I do like the idea of the permanent access to the trail system. MR. OBERMAYER-You mentioned that you're going to construct the day care centerlrecreational area earlier. You say construction will also mean that the day care center/recreation area will be available for earlier development. Does that mean you're going to start construction on that earlier, the day care center? MR. MICHAELS-The day care 'building, we're going to wait until '97, because we're going to need more residents. There's 91 residents, total, that would be in the community, and to justify the. MR. OBERMAYER-So really that statement then isn't necessarily, you're not going to construct the day care center any earlier than you had originally anticipated? - 18 - .-/ -..-/ '.'-"" '-...../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96 ) MR. MICHAELS-Well, it will be earlier. Originally it would have been probably '98. This way, we're going to be able to do it in '97, but the other amenities that will be accessed there, which is the tennis court and the baseball field and the parking facilities, the playground lot, we'll be able to get all those underway. MR. OBERMAYER-In '96? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-That will be completed this fall? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. OBERMAYER-Is it going to be a lighted softball field? MR. MICHAELS-I don't know. We haven't gotten into the details. MR. NACE-What you have in front of you is just a concept plan. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. There's a real need in the Town of Queensbury for night time recreational facilities. MR. RUEL-Bob, does this have anything to do with phasing? Shouldn't we resolve the phasing? MR. PALING-All right. Lets stick to phasing first. Right. MR. NACE-I think the relevance to phasing is that it allows the Michaels Group to get in and develop these amenities sooner, especially with the access to the Open Space Institute land. I spoke with them today, Dan Luciano down there, and they had been anticipating having to put in a temporary access point back in this location somewhere, and that would have been wasted work, okay, because once the loop road is finally opened up, they would have had to replace that. So they're very happy now that they might be able to put it in once and be done with it, and he has looked, there was some question that arose from Planning Staff regarding the location of the parking area, and the configuration of the parking area for that access to the OSI land. Dan has reviewed his concept plan you see in front of you, and he has agreed that that parking configuration is what he will go with. MR. RUEL-I have a question. In your estimation, how long do you think that 6,000 feet of road will be idle, with no homes on it? MR. NACE-Probably no longer than the almost 6,000 feet that was built last summer, and now has 20 lots on it. MR. RUEL-Are you talking months? MR. NACE-If that. MR. RUEL-Yes? Okay. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, well, this year in our plans on the cul-de-sac, which is going to open up the half acre lots, 14 half acre lots. We anticipate actually closing, you know, Certificates of Occupancy, this year, conservatively four to six homes based on (lost words), and then on the balance of the one third acre lots that will be opened up, probably three to four closings this year, but that means CO's. That also would mean that there will be a number of homes under construction, too, in process. MR. RUEL-That's in phase II? MR. MICHAELS-Correct, and then on the larger lots, we anticipate - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) one to two CO's this year, and probably at least two more under construction by the end of the year. So we're going to open up all three areas. MR. PALING-We wish everyone were as busy as you are with this project. All right. Are there anymore phasing comments, questions on this? I think we can, there is no public hearing on this part of it. So we can go directly to a motion. , MOTION TO APPROVE PHASING REVIS!ON FOR HUDSON POINTE PUD TO COMBINE THE OLD PHASES II, III, AND V INTO A NEW SECOND PHASE. THE OLD PHASE IV WILL THEN BECOME THE NEW PHASE III., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES; NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MARTIN-Could I have some agreement as to wh~n we could get copies to distribute for .the new phasing plan, Tó~? The Highway Department will want them, probably the Water DeÞa~tment. MR. NACE-Within a week? MR. MARTIN~That's fine. Whatever's convenient fòr you. I'd say 10 copies. MR. NACE-Now, are you talking about just the phasing plan, or the detailed plans? MR. MARTIN-Don't they already have those? MR. NACE-Well, y~s, but the phase line has changed. MR. MARTIN-Right. changed phase line. I just want Okay. them to have some record of the MR. PALING-All right. SITE PLAN NO. 1-96 TYPE I HUDSON POINTE, INC. OWNER: SAME AS ABOVE ZONE: P.U.D. LOCATION: SHERMAN ISLAND ROAD, EAST OF CORINTH ROAD. PROPOSAL IS FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PHASE II OF THE P.U.D. PHASE II CONSISTS OF 48 LOTS - 19 1/3 ACRE LOTS, 14 1/2 ACRE LOTS, 14 ONE ACRE LOTS AND 1 THREE ACRE LOT. TAX MAP NO. 148-1-2.1 LOT SIZE: +1- 140 SECTION: 179-58 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. There are no changes in the number of lots in the total development. ,There is no change in any lot by itself. We have been over just about everything that's within this. So, do you have any other comments? MR. HILTON-Yes. I have a few more comments. STAFF INPUT Not,es fr om Me<-?ting D'ate: plan review for phase contained staff, Site Þlan No. 1-96, Hudson pointe, Inc., February 20, 1996 "The applicant is seeking site the second phase of Hudson Pointe PUD. The first a total of 34 single family lots. Of thosÓ lots, - 20 - ~ ---- ~ -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96 ) a total of 16 (47%) have received building permits. This final site plan contains 48 residential lots, one commercial lot which will be used for a day care center and an access point for the trail system which will be located throughout the development. Staff has the following comments about the site plan for Phase II. Staff is concerned about continuing the development of Phase I once Phase II is approved. Measures should be taken to ensure that this development occurs at a steady pace. As a result, staff would recommend that before any building permits are issued for Phase :r I~ that at leà:st 60% of the hOffi.es in Phase I obtai n bui ldi ng permits. .. Thi$-, .is, a requirement of th'e town's SubdivisionÒrdinance,and'staff feels that it is an appropriate step to ensure the complete development of Phase I. This site plan also proposes over 6000 lineal feet of roadway which will be dedicated to the town. I have contacted the Highway Department and the Water Department to see if they have any concerns about maintaining the roadway contained in Phase II given the fact that the road may not contain any homes for some time. If both departments do not have a problem allowing this amount of roadway in this phase then the planning department is comfortable with this part of the site plan. Phase II also indicates an OSI trail access point on the proposed day care center lot. At this time st.aff has not seen any final plans showing the parking lot layout and landscaping for this area prior to approval of this site plan. In addition, staff would recommend that any access to the proposed parking lot would be located directly across from the common lot line of lot 82 and 83. This would minimize glare into the homes which will one day occupy these lots. The lot that will be used as a day care center is being shown in Phase II, but no plans are being submitted for approval at this time. Staff would recommend a stipulation that the applicant seek final site plan approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed day care center." MR. RUEL-So both the Highway Department and the Water Department are out of this now? MR. HILTON-We have contacted them and we have never received any concerns from them, and based on Jim's prior discussion with Paul Naylor, we feel that. they're supportive. MR. MARTIN-I don't anticipate any question. It's just accelerating the schedule again. They have all the plans for water connections and so on from the previous Preliminary approval on the entire site. MR. PAL,.1Nq-There' seemed to be' two thi ngs ~addiessed. One is the 60 percent factor of other'ii the OSI, trail layout and parking'lót. ask; the applical}t, to ,a,ddressboth of tho~7HSf~ they've addressed one'o{ them already. ' MR. NACE-Okay. Lets, I guess, take the parking area first. We have in front of you a schematic plan. It's not a final plan. It doesn't include grading or drainage. We would ask that this whole recreation area, obviously, you're going to want to see some sort of a site plan on them. We'd ask that the parking for OSI be included in the site plan for that parcel, and not by subdivision to Phase II approval for the lots. OSI has agreed today that the configuration you have here in front of you is what they will use. I believe that the plan of Jim Miller shows the lot line opposite, which is what George had pointed out about headlights. So I guess we'd ask that the parking lot, 'we'd be willing to address, get a site plan in front of you with grading and drainage, but we'd prefer that that not be tied to Phase II approval of the site plan. The other issue is the buildout. I think that one thing that has to be taken into account is that there are five lots here that the developer does not own and that should be Phase I, and the Perhaps we could although I think - 21 - -.. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) control the development on. Those were a part of a package that was transferred to MacDonald in his dealing to get the Yoad out to the Corinth Road in this location on MacDonald's old subdivision. So these five lots 1-eally, the developer here has no control over when those are developéd. So we take thé total remaining 29 lots, the percentages look a little different, and when you consider that what has been done in Phase I has been done, since the middle of that summer, we think it shows a record that the new Phase II will be built out in fairly quick fashion. MR. OBERMAYER-What's the percentage? MR. NACE-I don't have a calculator in front of mé, the 29? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. What percentage are yo at right ~ów? MR. NACE-Twenty. MRS. LABOMBARD-Twenty out of thirty is sixty-seven percent. So twenty out of twenty-riine is about. MR. RUEL-It's 46 now, isn't it? MR. MICHAELS-Right now we have closed, under agreement, or actually under construction, a total of 20 of the 29. MR. OBERMAYER-You're constructing actually 20? MR. MICHAELS-No. Some are under agreement, but we haven't gone in for building permit. MR. RUEL-In any event, the 60 percent does not apply to PUD. MR. PALING-But it's in excess of that, from these figures. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. It's more than 60 percent. MR. PALING-He's got two thirds committed, lets say. MR. RUEL-The document ~ read said 46 percent was completed. MR. MICHAELS-We have 47 percent that have received actual building permits. MR. OBERMAYER-Well then you wouldn't have any objection with the 60 percent, then. If you've already got them in the bag, you don't mind 60 percent then. MR. RUEL-I don't think there's a problem there at all., MR. PALING-I don't think so. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, if they've got them in the bag, then why can't they agree to 60 percent? MR. RUEL-Even if it was 47, I don't think it's a problem. MR. PALING-Well, 60 percent is not part of the PUD ányway. MR. OBERMAYER-I know. MR. NACE-No. It's an extra bit of paperwork we'd rather not have to, when they get ready to start, they'd like to get a building permit to open a model, to construct a model, in .Phase II, and we'd like to do that as soon as we have access back into the new area in Phase II. MR. MARTIN-Where do you anticipate the model being built? - 22 - -- ----./ --- ----./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MICHAELS-The model would be built on, we haven't decided on which side of the road, but you see the cul-de-sac where the Roman Number Two is, to the top? It would be one of the first, either the first, second lot on the left, or the first lot on the right. It would be near the front. We may not go right on the corner. We may go one lot in. MR. MARTIN-And that's for the half acre lot? MR. MICHAELS-That would be just to get a model underway. MR. MACEWAN-When would you plan concern about the site plan for system and the day care? on wanting to address staff's the parking area for the trail MR. NACE-Well, the day care center may be a year away yet, okay, so that the final plans, we'd rather just address the parking lot in any of the recreation facilities that are going to be constructed first, and then site plan, and then the day care center, we'll leave a space for that out there. MR. MARTIN-So you're saying dedicated day care center, you'd like two site plans for and the OSI entrance, and the that commercial area, then, that's recreation area and OSI entrance, that, one for the recreation areas other for the day care center? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MARTIN-So then you're not asking for approval on that tonight? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. RUEL-Either one of them? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. RUEL-Okay. So you will seek site plan approval when you're ready, on these two items? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Two separate site plans. MR. MICHAELS-And the day care, there into that, in terms of the actual are. has to be a lot of research facility and what the needs MR. MARTIN-The only thing we have is a 75 child limit, I believe. That's only reference made. MR. OBERMAYER-Back on the 60 percent, you know, you're telling you have 60 percent already under contract, but then you don't want to agree to the 60 percent. MR. NACE-The way your regulations for subdivision reads, it's 60 percent with CO's, before you can get the next building permit. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. MR. NACE-Okay, and the timing of that just may throw us off, even though there are enough lots that are committed. We may not have the CO's on those in time to be where we want to be when we want to start the model for Phase II. MR. MARTIN-I think staff's position was 60 percent building permit, not 60 percent CO. - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, 60 percent building permit. MR. MICHAELS-This is similar to subdivision regulations requiring a Certificate of Occupancy. MR. OBERMAYËR-Which is different than a CO. MR. MARTIN-The staff's position is you are cutting them a little slack. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. MR. MARTIN-You're probably giving them another two or three months by doing that. MR. MACEWAN-When would you want to see a site plan for this thing for the t'"ail system, consider ing the trail system" P~Ht of the reason for opening thi~ up is to get access back there. MR. MARTIN-If we ~an get a óömmitment by mid-summer, I think that would in keeping with OSI's timetable. MR. NACE-Now you say, "trail system". ~e're talking about just the access to the trail system, not the trail system itself, because that's OSI's, they're building that. MR. MACEWAN-You don't have anything to do with tH~ building of the trail system. MR. NACE-That's right. That's OSI. MR. MACEWAN-We're talking about just the parking area to gain access to the trail system MR. NACE-Certainly within a couple of months. MR. PALING-And where would the playground plan fit into that, same schedule? MR. MICHAELS-As far as submission for the site plan review? Yes. MR. PALING-It would be on the same, you'd do it the same time. MR. MICHAELS-That would be right included with it. MR. PALING-Oka/. MR. OBERMAYER-Good. MR. MICHAELS-A couple of additional issues that !'d like to bring up, and that is that we would like to propose, on the final submitted plan, we've only showed the street lighting that we've installed, the lanterns, basically ending at the, where the boulevard itself stopped, at the entrance to Phase I. That's 'where the lanterns stopped. In the submission's final appt6ved plans, we did not contemplate extending it any further than that. Thi idea was to create the entrance with the split of the road was. We're now looking into what the feasibility would be of extending those lanterns. It would be the responsi~ility of the Homeowners Association, as it is currently, along thé entire boulevard, not make a median. The/'d be on one side or the other. MR. RUEL-Good idea. MR. MICHAELS-Then provide the lighting and everything else. MR. MARTIN-You mean the entire loop road, Dave? - 24 - --- "--'" '--" " --" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MICHAELS-Yes. Now the spacing, you know, because of the cost and things like that, we may go a little farther on the spacing than what we did in the main entrance coming in, but we would like to carry that on as a theme, and we're researching that right now, in terms of cost and layout, and another issue, just this past week, I met with adjacent owner Cathy Arcuri, on Lot 31. She called the office this week on Monday and expressed some concerns in terms of her home, which that map shows as vacant. They built a home and moved in within the past year, year and a half, and she expressed to me some concerns that some of our half acre lots were directly contiguous to her property. It is wooded and it is pines, but she felt that there was no restrictions in terms of the homeowner could theoretically come in and cut their yard right up to the property line, and (lost words) buffering to her property, and over the phone with her yesterday, I met with her husband and went out to their site. I expressed to them that we would propose and make it a matt~r of record at this meeting that for two of the lots, 53 and 54, that we would deed restrict those lots as undisturbed, so that the homeowners could never take any trees down, but leave a natural buffer, and restrict our lots, basically, and then the next lot over, we would put into effect the 20 foot buffer zones. So, you know, meeting with her, that's something that we're going to want to do, and make as a matter of record. MRS. LABOMBARD-That's very nice. MR. OBERMAYER-You're not putting sidewalks in this development, are you, sidewalks? MR. MICHAELS-No. MR. RUEL-This woman that talked about the buffer zone, did she have a buffer zone on her property? MR. MICHAELS-No. MR. STARK-No. She clear cut it, Rog. MR. RUEL-She clear cut right up to the line? MR. MICHAELS-Yes, but I don't think that would be her intent. MR. MARTIN-Could we just have a notation to that effect, then, on the plat. MR. RUEL-What was that, 53 and 54? MR. MARTIN-Three lots, actually. 53 and 54 would carry a 30 foot no cut zone, and 55 would be a 20 foot. M~. PALING-And what are 53 and 54? MR. NACE-Thirty feet. MR. RUEL-Thirty feet. MR. PALING-Okay. Staff, if I understand you right, you are still concerned with the 60 percent factor, you want to see a limitation there, in some form? MR. MARTIN-I think building permits would be reasonable, instead of co. I could see the concern over that, because we have building permits, there's a commitment there to build and construct and occupy. usually. MR. PALING-And you would hold building in new Phase II until 60 percent building permit is? -, 25 - (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MARTIN-Well, what we do as a matter of course is, and this is true of any subdivision, we allow one home to be built, even prior to the road being installed. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. MR. MARTIN-As a matter of policy, that's don~, and that probably would accommodate their model, getting that underway. That's what they did in Phase 1. So we would allow that as a matter of course anyhow, but then after that, we would like to seè 60 percent building permit, I think is reasonable. MR. NACE-BaSed on the 29 lots that they have control over? MR. PALING-It would not include the MacDonald part of it, in my mind. Right? MR. MARTIN-That's up to the Board. MR. PALING-I wouldn't think it would. I wouldn't think we'd hold them responsible for that. Sixty percent of the balance of Phase I with building permits. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, that's no problem, because we're really going to be there right now with what we have. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MICHAELS-Plus I think that with the number of lots in Phase I, one or two building permits is going to put you over, the 60 percent, come pretty close to that. MR. MARTIN-I just signed one today. figured in your figures for tonight. I don't know if that was 'J MR. t1ICHAELS-No. MR. MARTIN-And do we have a date of commitment for a submission of a site plan for the trail system and the recreation area? MR. NACE-How about within 60 days? MR. MARTIN-Sounds agreeable. MR. OBERMAYER-That'$ good. MR. MARTIN-Say by the end of Aþril? Why don't we say by the April submission date, Tom, the last Wednesday in April? MR. NACE-'Sure. MR. PALING-The last Wednesday is April 24th. MR. RUEL-For what? MR. MARTIN-The trail system and the recreation area. , ' MR. NACE-Just the recrei.':\tion area, the trail access parking. MR. PALING-And parking, not the trail. comments, questions? Okay. Any other MR. MARTIN-Now this lighting, Dave. How would you propose to, is this something you're going to do or investigate? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. It's something, in fact, we're meeting our electrician on tomorrow morning, an idea. What would yqu like to see me do? - 26 - --,' "-' --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MARTIN-I just want to have something so we know it works with all the other utilities that have to go in and all that. MR. MICHAELS-Okay. MR. MARTIN-That's what I'm looki ng for. We don't requirement one way or the other on the lighting. I'd like to see it. I think it's great you're doing it. looking for is to make sure it fits in all right with other utilities going in along the side of the road. ha ve a, actually What I'm all the MR. MICHAELS-Okay. What I'll do is when I get the preliminary layout I'll come in and meet with you and show you, and see. MR. MARTIN-Yes. We can sit down with Tom Flaherty and Paul Naylor and make sure it all fits. MR. MICHAELS-Right, and we can then revise it. MR. MARTIN-You want to say by that same time in April? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. PALING-April, same date. Okay. All right. We've got a lot of provisions here. You've got them too, Roger? MR. RUEL-Yes, I think so. MR. PALING-Okay, between the two of us, we'll get there. All right. At this point, why don't we open the public hearing on this matter. Is there anyone here that would care to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TIM BREWER MR. BREWER-Tim Brewer, Candleberry Drive. Just a couple of points. I would agree with staff that 60 percent should be upheld, and agree with Tom that subdivision is not part of the PUD, so that shouldn't be calculated. One big concern I have is with the borrow pit area, at the end of Sherman Island Road. As recently as, well, since they began they've been putting brush and trees what not down in there. I was told that it was a temporary measure, that the stuff would be taken out of there. It's not been taken out of there. I think with the addition of this phase and the amount of stuff that's going to be taken out of there, as far as trees and brush and what not, that that stuff would be taken out of the borrow pit. I don't know, as far as the Ordinance, what kind of regulation there is, Jim, but I can just envision that if they're going to cut 6,000 feet of road, they're going to have to some place to put all the trees and stuff that they take down. I don't think it's a good idea to put it there. I think you should address that. I guess that's all I have to say. I just want you to consider that point. MR. PALING-I hate to be dumb, but what pit is this you're talking about? MR. BREWER-It's at the very end of Sherman Island Road. MRS. LABOMBARD-I know where you mean. MR. MARTIN-It's the pit which, when they built the dam, they took the sand out of there to build the dam. MR. PALING-Okay. - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MARTIN-And what's· been happening. I don't think all the stuff went there, but at least some of it~ they've been storing stumps, brush, limbs~ wood chips down in there. John Goralski's been keeping an eye on it. We just, I think, talked to John Michaels probably a week or two again to remind him that. MR. BREWER-I guess I would like an answer as to when' it's going to be taken out of there. MR. .M~C~AE,L.S-;r.hi~ spr~ng, w€~at~~F Rermittin~,:, we'rego~Q~ tq be takIng In a s'tumþ machIne and fIr'st grind all the 'stumps up,'and then get the deb~is out of there. MR. BREWER-You're not going to leave any of it there? MR. MICHAELS-No. It's going to beâl1' ground up, and after it's all ground up, then we're going to get that trucked off f:3ite. We've gone over this with John. MR. PALING-Okay. John knows about this, or we could put a date on it, too. MR. MARTIN-It's part of Phase II, technically speaking. part of the Phase II site plan. It is MR. PALING-Okay. Would you volunteer a date that it would, the borrow pit would be cleaned up? MR. MICHAELS-I would say we should say it'll be simultaneously with road dedication, or before. MR. PALING-When is that? MR. MARTIN-They were looking for June, for road dedibation. MR. MICHAELS-Why don't we say no later than July 15tH. MR. PALING-All right. July 15th. Okay. MR. BREWER-How about making that contingent upon road dedication, that that area be cleaned out. MR. PALING-Well, we're going t,c> make it, a requirement,tl)at it happen b)l that date, but I dó'ìl ' t wa nt to tie it' 'to sornet.hi ng . It's a requirement like any other requirement. They'll be held to it. MR. BREWER-If you tie it to the road dedication, then· they can't dedicate the road until it's cleaned up. MR. MACEWAN-It would be in their own best interest to cleaned up anyway, because some of the lots and part road's probably going to infringe on that borrow pit. get it of the MR. STARK-The applicant agreed to that, so fine. MR. PALING-Well, he's agreed to clear it out by July 15th. That's good enough for me. MR. OBERM,A.YER-It's fine with, me. , ' " MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone else who would care to comment on this? Okay. If not, then the publich~àring is cio~ed. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. anyone, staff? )- ¡ Do we havé any 6ther comments or questions from Roger, do you want to take a shot at a motion? - 28 - '- --' "-- .......-' (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) We've got to do a SEQRA. MR. OBERMAYER-Why do we have to do a SECRA? MR. MARTIN-That's right. We did an Environmental Impact Statement on this. I'm sorry. MR. RUEL-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 1-96 HUDSON POINTE. INC., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Star k: For Final approval of Phase II of the PUD, with quite a few conditions. One, allow building in Phase II when 60 percent of the building permits have been issued for Phase I. Two, lots 53 and 54 will be left undisturbed by 30 feet with a no cut zone, and lot 55, with a 20 foot no cut zone for a buffer zone, on the northern property line, and the plan will reflect that. The applicant will seek site plan approval for the parking lot layout and the recreational center. That they'll seek a separate site plan review for the day center. The recreation and access area plan to be submitted by April 24th. Revised plan to reflect new additional lighting by April 24th. Brush, trees, etc. will be removed by July 15th from the borrow pit area. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: , AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MARTIN-Bob, you've got Mr. McCotter there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. Lets take care of Mr. McCotter first. MR. PALING-Yes. (subdivision No. 2-1996 Leon McCotter Cont'd) MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Do you have to read that Short Form now? MRS. LABOMBARD-Did we? MR. RUEL-No, you didn't. MR. PALING-We didn't do anything. MRS. LABOMBARD-So we Okay. We're going approval, here, and SEQRA. have to read it right now, for Mr. McCotter. to continue with Mr. McCotter's Final we're going to do the Short Form of the RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-1996, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by WHEREAS, t he1- e application for: is presently before LEON MCCOTTER, and the P lånni ng Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: h!ON!;: , 'f 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Jniisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the crit~ria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Sec~ion 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will havs no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of nón-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly vote: adopted this 20th day ,of Feb}~uarY' 1996, Þx tl]e following . 'r. 1(',,('( ; ,I ' ',fj, " , ' '!' ~ ,,". . '1 .;' AYES: , Mr. MÇicEwan, Mr., Star k, MY. O~t1rmaYèr\ Mr~.' 'L,aBombard, Mr. Ru:e¡, r-h·' .F;',5id i n9' , ' NOES: NONE í!. ","j ,,'; ). r' 'r~'" 1 ABSENT: Mr. Brewer , ¡ .~, .^.- ¡ MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-96 MCCOTTER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who seconded by James Obermayer: PRELIMiNARY STAGE LEON moved for it~¡ adqption, To subdivide a 5.22 acre parcel into 2 lots of 2.464 acres and 2.548 acres. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MARTIN-He'd like Final. MR. OBERMAYER-You have to give him Final, too, so he doesn't have to come back. MR. PALING-Okay. If we did it before, we can do it again. There was no public controversy on this. MR. MARTIN-No conditions on the Preliminary approval, right? - 30 - "'-' -/ '----" -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96 ) MR. PALING-No, no conditions. MR. RUEL-So we can make a new motion? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-For Final. MR. PALING-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-96 FINAL MCCOTTER, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for seconded by Robert P~ling: STAGE LEON its adoption, To subdivide a 5.22 acre parcel into 2 lots of 2.464 acres and 2.548 acres. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. MARTIN-I better see that plat tomorrow and you better go up to the County with it. MR. MCCOTTER-Thank you. $ITE PLAN NO. 2-96 TYPE: UNLISTED PERRY NOUN ASSOCIATES OWNER: WOODBURY DEV. GROUP, INC. ZONE: HC-1A, MR-5 LOCATION: BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 70 UNIT SENIOR HOUSING COMPLEX WITH ASSOCIATED ROADS AND ESSENTIAL UTILITIES. ALL LAND USES IN HC AND MR-5 ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCES: AV 76-1995 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 2/12/96 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/14/96 TAX MAP NO. 61-1-37.3 LOT SIZE: +1- 4.05 ACRES SECTION: 179-23, 179-18 PERRY NÇ)UN, PRE,$ENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 2-96, Perry Noun Associates. Meeting Date: February 20, 1996 "The applicant is requesting approval of a final site plan to allow 58,940 square foot senior housing' building consisting of 70 units. The plans also indicate a future second phase which is not being considered at this time and will need it's own site plan approval in the future. Staff has reviewed the site plan in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and specifically Section 179-38 and has the following comments. Section 58-3 of the Town Code of Queensbury requires any senior housing complex with 10 units or more above the first floor to have an elevator serving those floors. Construction of this building must comply with this section of the code. Pole mounted lighting is not shown on the site plan. The locations of these fixtures should be indicated in order to determine what impact they may have on adjacent properties. The site plan provides no information on fencing which may be used to screen this use from adjacent properties. The board may request that fencing be provided if they feel it is necessary. An island to separate the ingress and egress lanes of the main drive is not provided. Staff would recommend that an island be provided in order to limit the potential of vehicles traveling in opposite directions coming in contact with each other. The proposed use of the smaller accessory building which is shown on the site plan - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) is unknown. Staff needs to know the proposed dimensions of this building. The dimensions are needed to accurately determine the required setback for the structure. Staff would require that the site plan comply with the comments to be provided by the Health Department and Rist Frost." MR. HILTON-Now what I'm going to do is I'm going to read into the record two letters, one from the Town of Queensbury Department of Wastewater, one from the Water Depártment, and then I'm going to have Bill MacNamara with Rist-Frost read his comments into the record. To begin with, the Departm~nt of Wastewater's letter had some comments on the utility plan it says that, "UTILITY PLAN-- shows a Sanitary Sewer Line coming from Manhole #4-3~ going approximately 270' onto the applicant's property. Ourrecórds indicate that this line was never inspected by our office, and may never have been installed. A field inspection of manhole #4- 31 shows that there isn't a connection at this point. There was a 6" lateral stub left for future connection for this parcel. Those measurements are available at the Wastewater Office. If there has been a pipe connected to this lateral, a, TV inspection will be required, (and repair if necessary) before any connection is made. CONSTRUCTION DETAIL$: Precast Sanitary Manhole: 1. Standard manhole frame cover should be S~r,cuse#1009 'no pickholes'. The note that refers to Saratoga County Sewer District#l should be omitted. 2. Adjust to grade for the frame and cover should be done with precast concrete donuts risers only no bricking. Use non-shrink grout only. 3. Manhole#l must be designed for traffic loading. (H20-44) Sanitary Sewer notes to be added: 9. A minimum frost protection of 4' cover and minimum pitch of 1% required. 10. A backwater valve and main line 'u' trap must be installed insidè the building and be accesèible. Detail of this is available at the Wastewater Office." Secondly, I have a letter from .the Water Department, from Tbm Flaherty, the Superintendent. Tom states that he has reviewed the above project, "and noted that the developer proposes to connect the project to the existing water main at Westwood. The water mains at Westwood are privately owned and can not be used for any other purpose. Originally, when Westwood was built it was owned by the Woodbury Group as was the site of the above project, which was at that time intended to be used for the 'Offices at Westwood'. Apparently this parcel has been sold and/or. subdivided which will require its own separate water connection to the municipal system." And that is signed by Tom Flaherty. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. HILTON-Now I'm going to hand the mike over to Bill MacNamara of Rist-Frost, and he's going to summarize. MR. PALING-All right. letters in after Bill is George, will you also read finished, that we have? the other MR. BREWER-Can I just ask one question before we go on, Bob? MR. PAL ING--Yes . MR. BREWER-Can you tell us where that water main that Tom Flaherty's talking about is on this map, at Westwood? MR. PALING-Jim, why don't you point it out on the one up here, so we'll all know what we're talking about. MR. MARTIN-Well, it's on the separate utility plan, Bob, Page Two of your submission, it's noted in the lower right hand corner, utility plan. Okay. See to the rear of the site, the water line that shows coming in between the two buildings at Westwood, indicated by a "W", approximate location of eight in~h water main. -- 32 - '-.--' '-- -----' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. PALING-All right. Is this the private water main? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, and they're not going to be allowed to connect to this. Right. MR. MARTIN-Yes. That's not a publically maintained water line. MR. PALING-Yes. Right. Okay. Just as long as we're all on the same sheet. MR. MARTIN-We also have the Warren County. MR. PALING-That's what I meant. George will take care of that. Yes. Okay. BILL MACNAMARA MR. MACNAMARA-Okay. In addition to the plans that were submitted, we also had use of the previous site plans that were approved a number of years back, for what~ver extra information that's worth. We had noted a couple of access arrangement issues, and for the record, I went over most of these with their engineering contact this afternoon, also. I don't believe they've done any changes for this evening, but I know that they're thinking about them already. Access arrangements in particular, the entry point right there where the entry drive splits and goes each way, looks a bit tight for, in particular, some of the fire department vehicles, and we had some discussions with the Fire Marshal in terms of truck lengths and turning templates, and we did put some templates and some geometries on, and it's pretty tight, In fact, we're not sure it could make it by the curves, as well as some of the corners around the building. You might want to look at the dimensions we'd given in terms of truck lengths and make sure that access is adequate. There's also a question about a loading area. They show some kind of a loading area that would be good for passenger cars, but anything larger than a passenger car would have a tough go of it. The next note, we suggested that some kind of internal traffic control notes or directions and symbols be shown on the plan. We~re assuming it's two way around, but weren't sure of that, and in terms of that intersection right there, right by that drop off point might want to have a stop sign. I'd just kind of throw that out for your thoughts. There weren't any notes in terms of a gas service. I believe there's a gas main out on Bay Road, but if there wasn't going to be gas, there may be storage tanks, above ground or underground, and those are certainly site plan notes. We had some of the same notes that Tom Flaherty did for the water and sewer. In particular, there's a sanitary manhole, the new sanitary manhole noted out in front of the structure that probably wants to have some inverts shown it, some slopes, clean out per Queensbury's codes, as well as to confirm whether or not that line exists, and it sounds like Tom has done that. It's also not clear if you're going to have any kitchen facilities, and if so, if it's going to be a significant kitchen, then there may need to be some thought for a grease trap, similar contraption. Water supply. We had the same notes as Tom. Tom and I talked about, if it's a private main, of course, it would want to remain private ownership, and (lost word) arrangements would need to be agreed on. There's an existing hydrant shown that I do believe, in fact, is out there. We're assuming that's the one that's going to be relocated, but it wasn't noted. I didn't know if you were going to actually relocated that somewhere else and have more than one new hydrant. Two more. Erosion and sediment control notes are very well noted in the Stormwater Management Plan, and they refer you to the site plan in a couple of spots, and it looks like they may not have - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) actually made it on the site plan, but they do have erosion control measures proposed, not on the drawings, though, and lastly, the drainage plan. They did a real good job in terms of showing 50 year storm control on site accommodation of the existing storm sewer that runs out to Bay Road and runs into the County sewer, as well as a wet basin out front and a dry swale kind of a retention area out back. ,Our only note was that we noted that the front retention basin shows a water elevation that's going to be permanent of anywhere from two to three feet, depending on where the elevation exactly where you read it and contours, and I know from past reviews you've had here that there's always some discussion and concern about retention basins with water levels in them to remain all the time, and we just noted in the past there's been some concern about that and there may need to be some measures, such as a fence or something that may be discussed. Those are our only notes. Thanks. MR. PALING-Why don't we get all of the letters and what not out of the way before we get into a discussion that we have. We have the Beautification Committee, and so on. Are there any of these you wanted to comment on, George? MR. HILTON-Yes. I would. I also have an additional letter here from the Fire Marshal for the Town of Queensbury, C.A. Grant it's signed. He has a few comments which I will read into the record. Number One, he states "Check that the driving lane around the building will accommodate the 45 degree turning radius of the largest piece of fire apparatus that would be required to access the rear of the building, Queensbury Central's tower ladder. 2. Assure that the water line serving the property will accOmmodate the demand of the sprinkler system which I believe will be required for this 83, 3-story occupancy. 3. Bring the Water Department into the review, as usual, to asSure that it's requirements are met. Additionally, I would at this point, strongly recommend a fire hydrant in front and another at the rear of the complex. Pending re0iew with the Fire Chief, the two hydrants may in fact, be required." The Warren County Planning Board resolution, at their meeting óh the 14th of Þebruary, 1996, stated approval with the comment that it should çoncur with local conditions. The Beáutification Com~ittee, on Monday February 12, 1996, recommended approval of the plan as submitted. The motion was seconded and carried out. MR. PALING-Excuse me on that one. Is this the one, Queensbury Committee for Community' Beautification, there are some provisions, though, to t-Jhat they wanted, evidentally. This is the February 12th letter. We'll ask the applicant later if they concur with what's being asked for in the letter. Okay. MR. MARTIN-Then you have the variance as a means of a cross reference, the Area Variance, granted by the ZBA last December. MR. PALING-Okay. What about, Ivan Zdrahal Associates? We have a letter here from them. Should we also read that into the record? No. Forget it. MR. RUEL-That's a submittal. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. I think we're through with the papers, and we have to keep out the Beautification Committee. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. NOUN-Yes. My name is Perry Noun. I'm the President of Perry Noun Associates, Inc. This is Chris Scoringe, my attorney. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Does the Board have any questions at the moment and comments? Have you seen all of the comments prior to tonight, that were made by engineering and staff and the - 34 - ----- '--"' '--./ (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) Beautification Committee? Have you seen them all? MR. PALING-Okay. Wow. We've got a long way to wondering if we can even do it. Perhaps if they everything in writing and defer it to another day? go. I'm were given MR. OBERMAYER-Yes. Why didn't they get it? MR. HILTON-We had them prepared and they were available Friday. MR. PALING-Okay. It appears that there's quite a bit to do, and it can't be done. MR. NOUN-Too much. I was going to suggest that. As soon as I started hearing the list, my personal opinion is I would like very much to address all of those issues because until we address those issues, I don't know if it makes any sense to go through the presentation. MR. PALING-No. I think we can hold a public hearing tonight, and could we put this back on the agenda for next week, because we're meeti ng . MR. RUEL-As long as you have the answers. MR. NOUN-We will have the answers. MR. PALING-All right. Well, why don't we say, if everybody agrees, that you'll try to put them on the agenda for next week, bu t, we'll. MR. BREWER-Can we get their answers, or some sort of answers from them, possibly by Monday, so I have at least a day to read them? MR. MARTIN-Yes. I was going to say by Friday. MR. BREWER-Well, I was being a little bit lenient. MR. NOUN-May I suggest, then, that you put us on the agenda for next week, and I will answer your question tomorrow. MR. PALING-No, no. It's not just his question. MR. NOUN-I mean all of the questions, should we go ahead with it. MR. BREWER-Staff comments, so that we can at least read them and absorb what your answers to their questions are. MR. OBERMAYER-Right. MR. PALING-Staff is asking that yOU have it to them by Friday. MR. MARTIN-If that's possible. If not, we can do it Monday. MR. RUEL-And when would ~ get it then? MR. MARTIN-By Friday. See, if I can get it Friday, I can get it delivered to you by late Friday afternoon. MR. PALING-It's nice if we have the weekend to look these over. We can't just sit and look at them and do anything. We've got to have a chance to read them, too. Okay. Lets just be sure that you have everything. Do you have all of the Rist-Frost comments from Bill MacNamara, and you may have already started to address those. MR. NOUN-If we could get copies of those. - 35 - (Cueensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. PALING-All right. MR. RUEL-Fire Marshal, Wastewater. MR. PALING-Okay. I'd like to do this through you, George and Jim, so that we're sure that the applicant has th~ information that he needs. He needs a copy of the Rist-Frost letter. He needs comments, also, from the Fire Marshal, Water Department, Wast.ewater. MR. MARTIN-Hé can fax them off the first thing in the morning. MR. PALING-Okay, because I think we're just going to table this anyway. MR. STARK-Bob, are you going to open a public hearing? MR. PALING-Yes. I'm going to. All right. I think we can continue. Tim, I think you had some comments you wanted to make. MR. BREWER-No. I just wanted to make sure that if anybody had any comments, we got them out. I had one specific comment that Bill already had made about the standing water in the retention basin. I have a big problem with that, especially if there's going to be elderly. If somebody was out there walking or whatever, and they happened to fall in there, God knows that somebody could get hurt in two or three foot of water. MR. PALING-And that's in Bill's, part of Bill's. Okay. MR. BREWER-It is in there. I jwst wanted to reiterate that I have a concern about that. MR. PALING-All right. public hearing? Any other comments before we open the MR. OBERMAYER-I think a lot of them were addressed through the engineering comments and the Fire Marshal, I think. MR. PALING-All public hearing matter? r ignt. Lets go to' the pJbl ic hêär i ng, then. 'The is open. Does anyone care to speak on this MR. MACEWAN-Why don't you leave it open? MR. PALING-Yes. I agree. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-Because I think we're going to go to tabling this, the public hearing will remain open, and we'd advise ánybody that's interested that we intend to put this on the agenda for a week from tonight. All right. Are there any comments at all here? TED JONES MR. Would mor e? JONES-President of the Westwood we have an opportunity to speak Homeowners next week, Association. when we kno~.¡ MR. PALING-Yes. The public hearing is open and will remain open into next week's meeting, yes. MR. MARTIN-It'll 7 p.m. next Tuesday evening in the same building. MR. PALING-Now this will not be re-advertised, - 36 -- ---' '--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MARTIN-That's correct. MR. PALING-Okay. So be sure that you let everyone know that should know. MR. OBERMAYER-If you do have questions, though, for the applicant, you might want to raise them now. That way they have a week to respond to any issues that you might have. MR. JONES-Well, they're aware of the few questions that we have, but there's been a number of things that have just come up, such as the water main situation and so on. MR. PALING-You mean that came up tonight? MR. JONES-Yes. I had no idea they were going to try to tap into our water main. MR. OBERMAYER-Well, they're not going to. MR. JONES-No, I know, but I don't know what else is happening. MR. PALING-All right. No. This meeting is open. invited to speak again next week. You will be MR. JONES-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? hearing is not closed. It's just postponed. applicant's approval to table this matter, meeting. Okay. The public We have to have the until next week's MR. NOUN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Do we need a motion on this? MR. MARTIN-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 2-96 PERRY NOUN ASSOCIATES, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Until 2/27/96, for a 70 unit senior housing complex with associated roads and essential utilities. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MR. PALING-Okay. Then we'll see you next week on this. Okay. Jim Martin, I believe you have the floor. MR. MARTIN-A couple of issues I wanted to discuss with the Board, the first being, I think we gave everybody a copy of the new SEQRA Regulations, if anybody has any questions on them, I was going to give you a brief summary tonight, but if anybody has any detailed questions, you're certainly free to come into our office and pose them. If we can't answer them, we'll get the answers for you. The primary change comes in the Type II list. Type II list, if you recall, are those actions which are exempt and do not need further environmental review. That list has been greatly expanded, actually, and I think it's going to have probably a pretty dramatic effect on our agendas and how we normally do things. I think it's going to speed things along a - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) great deal. There's references in here even to the effect of, for example, commercial projects less than 4,000 square feet do not need site plan review. Yes, here is it. Construction or expansion of a primary or accessory nonresidential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area is now exempt from environmental review. So, we sent you all copies of this. I would review that Type II list, b~come familiar with it. The other changes, each of the forms have been changed. We gave you new copies of those tonight, thanks to Roger's assistance. The real change in those really is one question has been added, and that is, in the Short Form, Question D, will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of the CEA. This was really a tradeoff for the old provision in the law that any unlisted action in a Critical Environmental Are~ was by definition a Type I action. Well they took that out, and as a tradeoff, they put in a direct question about Critical Environmental Areas. MR. RUEL-When was CEA initiated in Queensbury? MR. MARTIN-I think the Town put in place their Critical Environmental Area in 1989. They're essentially two vast areas, well, three, the shoreline of Glen Lake, Rush Pond, the shoreline of Lake George extending down into the Dunham's Bay wetland, really are the three Critical Environmental Areas in the Town. MR. RUEL-And all this will be in the CQmprehensive Land Use plan? MR. MARTIN-Yes, definitely, and then in terms of the Long Form, Question 14 on Page 10 now is, impact on Critical Environmental Areas. Will proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14? Those are the major changes in the law, if you want to read through it. I tried to get a copy from the State that would highlight the changed sections, but that wasn't available, to make it a little easier, but that wasn't available. MR. STARK-Jim, when Salvador builds his house in the middle of the lake, will we have to do a Long Form or a Short Form? MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, what's the status of that? MR. MARTIN-He's been denied. First and foremost, he doesn't meet the setback provisions. Obviously, the shoreline setback is from the body of water, not out into the water extending from the shoreline. MR. RUEL-Landscaping is bad too, right? MR. MARTIN-Well, there are other smaller things, like no parking was shown. Permeability wasn't on~ of them. MRS. LABOMBARD-Doesn't he have parking on his regular property? MR. MARTIN-It wasn't indicated. He's already got 11 docks on the site. This would be an additional dock, which already exceeds the number allowed for that amount of shoreline. MR. RUEL-Have no fear, he'll be back. MR. MARTIN-He'll be back, but that was outright denied. Plus it needs an APA permit to drive pilings in the middle of, APA has that section of the lake, they call that a deep water wetland. So driving pilings in a deep water wetland requires an APA permit. - 38 - "---" "'----" "---" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MRS. LABOMBARD-So he can't even do anything with us until he gets that first. MR. RUEL-He's in trouble. He can't do anything. MR. MARTIN-Technically he could get a building permit, but APA would step in and put a stop Work Order. MR. PALING-Jim, going back to this. me on Page 14. Just clarify one thing for MR. MARTIN-Page 14 of the law? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. MARTIN-Okay. MR. PALING-Commissioner. I "commissioner" . I know what instance, I don't think I do. just had run across the commissioner means, but in term this MR. MARTIN-That's the Commissioner Environmental Conservation. of the Department of MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-Okay. The next thing was, I think you got in your packets the memo about the generic environmental impact statement and approval process for the industrially zoned areas of the Town. This is an idea of mine, I'll take the credit or the blame for it. This is a reaction to, certainly, I feel was a very firm opinion of the community that economic development is principally manufacturing and so called quality job is suffering in the Town, and it is a priority item with the Town Board in 1996. So in response to those issues, this idea was developed that would speed the approval process for a potential industrial developer in the Town, and I say speed and not necessary sacrifice any quality of a review or approval for that, but it would allow a developer to have a known quantifiable time to get a building permit, and that would be done by means of a generically approved environmental impact statement on industrially zoned property and a generically approved site plan for industrially zoned property. So, in other words, out of these two processes would be a series of thresholds that would be established. If a project comes in and falls within those thresholds, then they can go directly to a building permit. MR. MACEWAN-Can you give me an example of a project that would fall within those thresholds? MR. MARTIN-All right. I'll give you a hypothetical, because obviously that's all that can be done at this time, and say we have a project for a warehouse and distribution center on, say a 25 acre parcel of industrially zoned property. Coming out this approval will have standards set forth for landscaping, stormwater, parking, building setback, any other issues that would come to mind with a site plan review. MR. OBERMAYER-How about waste generation or something like that? MR. MARTIN-Yes. As long as it's on the approved list in our industrially zoned areas. If it's not on the approved list, obviously, then it would come for a Use Variance and then all this is off the table. What I'm saying, an approved use, like a distribution center, it's already on our approved list. If they meet those thresholds set forth in this generic approval, then they can go to a building permit. If they don't, then they'd still have to go through the regular process. - 39 -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96 ) MR. MACEWAN-So basically what you're doing, then, is kind of setting up a generic system of checks and balances to attract "clean" type industry. I mean, the first thought l thought of when I saw this thing is I said to myself, well, lets suppose we took the old Ceiba Geigy site. Suppose you have two competing interests that want that site, one happens to be a grocery distributor and the other one happens to be a fertilizer plant. So how is your generic thing going to either deter or help either one of those into that site? MR. MARTIN-Well, first of all, if the property owner there, we don't negotiate the sale. I mean, that's up to the property owner, if he wants to sell either one of those two, but in terms of either one of those two uses, as long as they're approved uses on our use schedule, in that zoning district, that's one test, and then if they come in with that proposal, and that project, either one, meets all the thresholds that are laid out in the generic approval, then they can go to a building permit. I don't know that I have a preference over either one, as long as they're on the approved use schedule for that zone. MR. MACEWAN-I guess maybe where I was trying to go with how do you handle a generically, a potential usage hazardous chemicals or something that's not, that environmental concerns? How does this generic? this is of maybe has some MR. RUEL-It wouldn't meet the requirements, I don't think. MR. MARTIN-Well, it would have to, and if it's something that's not foreseen in the approval, then it's got to come for site plan, if there's a'n aspect of that project that. MR. MACEWAN-Then you're going to have like a clause or a catch in there that if it wasn't something that was perceived as a use in this zone, it kicks it automatically into a site plan. MR. MARTIN-Right, and it's also part of your new law here, for the SEQRA law, 617-10, on Page 26, lays out the process for generic envirónmental impact statements. MR. OBERMAYER-Okay. So you're kind of following along in that pattern? MR. MARTIN-That's exactly the process we woúld use as laid out in the law. MR. BREWER-So it doesn't senior citizen home or development. necessarily pertain to something like something like that, just industrial MR. MARTIN-No, nothing about commercial or anything, just industrial development. MR. RUEL-so it bypasses the Planning Board. MR. MARTIN-That's the thing I wanted to speak with you about, is I don't see it as a bypass of the Planning Board. MR. RUEL-But we get involved in this generically. MR. MARTIN-You're involved in a generic process, in setting up those thresholds. MR. RUEL-But it reduces OUT workload. MR. MARTIN-It may have the effect of reducing your workload, and it does take you out of the individual review. - 40 - "-- - ---' ---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. RUEL-Right. MR. PALING-But that's not the real factor in it. MR. MARTIN-Where the Planning Board I saw was involved was during the, establishing the generic threshold. MR. RUEL-I have a question here. This is a great idea. How does a prospective developer know that this even exists? MR. MARTIN-Well, then, once it's in place, I would say a guy like Chris Hunsinger, who's the Warren County Economic Development person, if he's marketing the area, or has a potential developer, this is one of the things he can offer. MR. OBERMAYER-I think it's great. MR. RUEL-Yes, it is. MR. BREWER-So it's strictly industrial development? MR. MARTIN-Strictly industrial development. MR. SREWER-We only have one or two areas in the Town that's zoned that way, isn't that? Not light industrial, strictly heavy industrial? MR. MARTIN-No, light industrial also. MR. BREWER-So then that means almost the whole end of West Glens Falls is light industrial. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. RUEL--Yes. MR. MARTIN-This is not intended to be an easy process. It's not intended to be a broad brush thing. This is meant to be a real analytical approach to this generic approval. It's not meant to be just an easy. MR. BREWER-So then you would have to go out and do soil samples and everything then, wouldn't you? Would you have to update the soil analysis that the Town has now? MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. RUEL-That's an incentive to get people to come in here and develop the area. MR. MARTIN-I think you're talking about something that, on the expense side of things. MR. BREWER-I think $10,000's on the low side. MR. MARTIN-No, I think you're looking at $50, $60,000, at least. MR. OBERMAYER-Yes, but I think it's good, because you'll have documented what's required, in order to, you know, up front. MR. MARTIN-In some ways, it may even help the process, because, like, you know, the Big Boom Road area for example. If I had to do it over again, I certainly wouldn't have some areas of that road that are zoned light industrial carry that designation because of the topography there. MR. BREWER-Well, you have that opportunity right now, though, with the Master Plan. -- 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MARTIN-Right, but this is accelerating that, though. This is doing that, I'd like to do this this year, you know, have this done in this calendår year. MR. BREWER-But does it make a lot of sense to do that process and then come to the point where the Comprehensive Land plan says that, gee, maybe that area shouldn't be industrial. MR. MARTIN-That kind of thing will be exposed early on in this generic process. That may be, Tim, one of the mitigating things that's done. If there's so many factors, or something that's so severe that it can't be mitigated. MR. BREWER-Then that may kick it into a review. MR. MARTIN-No, the last form of mitigátion is to take it right out of industrial zoning. MR. RUEL-If this works, this could apply to other zones as well. MR. MARTIN-Well, I don't know about that. MR. BREWER-No, that's what you have those zones for, is just for that kind of development. MR. MARTIN-The only reason I raised it for this is I think there's a community need certainly identified in the neighborhood meetings we've had on the Comprehensive Plan, and it was something the Town Board said they want' to pursue in this calendar year. MR. RUEL-Other communities have? MR. MARTIN-Not that I'm aware of~ I've heard of other communities that have gone through and they've done a piece of their industrial zoning. I'm not aware of 'anybody who's done a town wide. I think it's been done, because that generic process exists here in state law. I think some communities have done their entire Comprehensive Plan that way. ' MR. PALING-Jim, what participation are we going to have in this, the Board? MR. MARTIN-I see your participation on the environmental impact statement as an involved agency. MR. PALING-Yes, but how are we going to participate, in what form? MR. MARTIN-You're going to have copies of the dràft to review and comment on, the specifics of that, and I would also think that you'd be commenting on the generic approval law that's going to be developed, because right riow we don't have anything in our code, obviously, that allows for this to be done. You'll have a say in that, and then you'll ob~iously have a say in the thresholds that are established for these various items. MR. PALING-Okay. So we'll be getting letters on this to look over. MR. MARTIN-Yes. You'll be very heavily involved. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-I think it's probably going to involve maybe even two or three workshops on this subject matter alone. MR. PALING-Yes. I think that would be good. - 42 - .~...,-' ""----" ---/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MARTIN-I want to have standpoint, that only helps if this idea. you fully involved. From ffiZ we have this Board's support of MR. PALING-I hope we support it. think we would, and would like formulation. Basically it's a great idea. I to participate, too, in its MR. MARTIN-I think it's one of those things that sounds good conceptually, but like to quote Ross Perot, the devil's and the details type thing. I mean, when you get into this real analysis is when you. MR. BREWER-Boy, that's going to be the cumbersome part of it is the analysis of the zones and the land and everything. MR. MARTIN-Right. MR. PALING-Yes. That's methodical, grind away. MR. MACEWAN-How long do you feel this process is going to take? MR. MARTIN-I would say if we got it done by mid to late fall we'd be doing very well. MR. PALING-That's a lot of work. MR. QBERMAYER-I think it's great effort. MR. MARTIN-But if we get it done, I think we'd really have a leg up on most other communities in the State. MR. OBERMAYER-And hopefully it'll benefit our community. MR. MARTIN-Right. Yes, we're making an investment in industrial development. Whether it pays dividends, we'll see. MR. BREWER-Does the QËDC want to kick anything in on this? It's food for thought. I mean, they're promoting the area. They have funds available. MR. MARTIN-Well, something I've identified as a means to pay for this is, you remember the original, there was $400,000 made as a donation, so to speak, to QEDC to start the tech park out on Dix Avenue. Well now that that is all just about full, the QEDC now has retained that money from the Town, and the Town has set up an economic development fund as a place to put that money when they receive it. They got their first payment, to the tune of $56,000. I made a proposal to the Town Board that that be the source of money to pay for this. MR. BREWER-Then it doesn't take anything away from the taxpayers. MR. MARTIN-It was originally, not the current funds, though. It was originally taxpayer's money. MR. PALING-Okay. Jim, before you do your last thing on sort of a numbers, whatever it is last year, tell us about the attorney situation now, with Mark gone. MR. MARTIN-Well, Mark is not gone. Mark is probably more heavily involved than ever. You probably read in the paper Mark is the interim Town Attorney. MR. PALING-Yes, right. MR. MARTIN-And his role in our office now is not just one of a Planning Board role, but now has expanded, he's the attorney we - 43 - ~ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) use now for enforcement actions. John Goralski will be using him, Dave Hatin. I mean, he's the Town Attorney, even our Animal Control cases will be handled through their firm. So, he's working with us more than ever now, but there is some discussion as to how much of his time 1S really needed here at the Board. Bob and I talked a little bit. Maybe we could back it off a little bit, in the capacity that we use Bill MacNamara, as needed or when a project, if something comes up, we table it until Mark can be present, or if we know a legal project is coming, we have Mark present ftom the outset, but I just did our end of the year report for the Department. We spent $19,000 on attorney's fees last year, and $15,000 the year before that. Probably the bulk of the increase from one year to the next was that we had a defense on the Great Escape lawsuit, if you recall, which we won, but we're always trying to assess our costs in that, always trying to keep it reasonable, and that might be one method that we could keep it a littl~ more reasonable. MR. MACEWAN-How many more applications did we have from '94 to '95, though, that would have required extra meetings or whatever? MR. MARTIN-Well, it's interesting. If you look at the numþers, you'll be seeing this will all be set forth in my report. I hope to have it to you next week. I'm writing it right now, but we've gone th,"ough the numbe," section of it. The P Ianni ng .Board was actually very much more efficient last year than you were the previous year. You had almost twice as many site plans came through last year, but you did it in five less meetings. I think it went from 48 site plans to 70, but you had five less meetings. You only had two less subdivision applications, but it resulted in five more lots being created. You had 45 in 1994, and you had 50 in 1995. So the workload went up, but we had fewer meetines. MR. BREWER-Didn't we do this about three years ago, though, when we had the attorney, and then we kind of backed off, and then we all? MR. MARTIN-It's uþ to the Board. MR. BREWER-It doesn't make any difference, what everybody feels, but I just, I don't know, was it three years ago, four years ago? MR. MARTIN-We did it with Paul, right before we went to our own full time counsel. MR. BREWER-And then we all decided that we should have an attorney. MR. PALING-Okay. My reply to Jim was that I thought that perhaps I could sit with he and George or whoever and talk about if we foresaw anything that would have a legal implication that we'd ask for an attorney to be present, but if we saw it was a clear night, then we wouldn't ask for help. MR. OBERMAYER-Like tonight for example. MR. PALING-Only one real time that we had to do it. MR. RUEL-Why don't you poll the Board and find out. MR. MARTIN-Well, it's just preliminary at this point, but I saw, you know, maybe there's a way to save some money here. MR. OBERMAYER-I think if you can save the taxpayers of the Town of Queensbury money, I'm all for it. MR. PALING-And also if we would try it that way, and it doesn't work out, we can quickly go back to the other way. - 44 - \---~ --./ --/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MARTIN-Yes, you can always go back. MR. FRIEDLAND-Let me Just add, get my two cents in, that, first, my appearance here tonight has nothing to do with our firm being named Town Attorney. MR. MARTIN-No, that's right. MR. FRIEDLAND-Mark is out of town, so he asked me to fill in. MR. MARTIN-Actually, he's at the Association of Towns annual meeting in New York City. MR. FRIEDLAND-And I've filled in before, occasionally, and that's all this was tonight, and secondly, you know, we do a lot of Planning and Zoning Board work, and municipalities range the whole thing from having us come to every meeting, which I think Mark's been doing, to coming only if there's, you know, if they foresee a problem, like you were talking about before. We'll do whatever you want. MR. MARTIN-So maybe that's something that needs more discussion. Now in terms of some of the other quantities, I've talked about a lot of it, but in terms of meeting decisions, if you ever hear anybody out there in the community complaining about the length of the Queensbury process, that we're anti-business and we're not business friendly, well, you approved 100% of your subdivisions in one meeting last year, and 82% of your site plans in one meeting. So I don't want to hear about how arduous this process is. MR. MACEWAN-Gee, you should have brought that up earlier in the evening. MR. BREWER-You always hear it, though. MR. MARTIN-None of the projects went three meetings. 18% were dealt with in two meetings. The other MR. PALING-Why don't you somehow get a summary to the Post Star. MR. MARTIN-They're given a copy of the report every year. MR. PALING-Are they? I hope they read it and summarize it. MR. MARTIN-Now some people would even turn that on its head and say, well now you're doing things and I disagree with that. MR. PALING-Yes. My rejoinder to that, as I said to you is, what was the wrong doing, or where was the complaint, or what's the fault? We didn't have any feedback because we were hasty with anything, anything went wrong, and I don't we have been hasty. MR. MARTIN-I think there's been a lot more work done up front, in the last couple of years, with applicants, getting an application ready for submission, by the time you see it. MR. MACEWAN-Here's a curious observation. workshops did we have last year versus '94? HO~<J many more MR. MARTIN-I didn't break the meetings down that fine, but I could. MR. MACEWAN-That would be an interesting statistic, because a lot more applicants came up in front of us last year and asked for a workshop to know what the heck the concerns were going to be before they even hit a site plan or a preliminary subdivision. - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. PALING-Okay. The last item on the agenda. Does anyone else have anything before we get to election of officers? MR. BREWER-No. MR. PALING-I guess not. off ice1-s . All right. We'll go to election of MR. OBERMAYËR-Okay. with that, I would like to nominate, I'd like to just say, thank the Planning Staff in 1995, and hopefully we'll have a successful year this year. According to the statistics, it sounds like we have. I'd like to nominate Bob Paling, again, for Chairman. MOTION TO NOMINATE BOB PALING FOR CHAIRMAN, Introduced by James Obermayer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBomba,rd: I think he's done an outstanding job. He's been very consistent in fairness to the applicant. He has a willingness to seek solutions and has compromised in a positive way to the applicants. He has lead the Board in making decisions that are both win/win for both the applicant and the Town, I believe. This is my opinion. He has shown great effort and endless effort and participation in presenting future Town Planning and recommending positive changes in the elimination of the bureaucratic obstacles in the Town Planning approval effort, and he is always willing to extend a helping hand instead of a controversial hand to industry willing to expand and create jobs within the Town of Queensbury. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: MR. RUEL-No, I'd like to qualify it, though. Nothing personal, but I'm reacting, again, to the Town Board's recommendation a year ago, that we should periodically change Chairmanship, and on that basis I'm voting no. AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer MR. RUEL-I'm for term limits. MOTION TO NOMINATE GEORGE STARK TO BE VICE CHAIRMAN, Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Obermayer: Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE MOTION TO NOMINATE CATHERINE LABOMBARD AS SECRETARY, Introduced by George Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Obermayer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Ruel - 47 - ',- -' -~ "-" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. MARTIN-Some years you're heavy with workshops. I remember just the K-Mart project alone, for example, you had a half a dozen workshops on that, even before you got to your first site plan meeting. MRS. LABOMBARD-And Hudson Pointe was very time consuming. I mean, that's one, and how much time went into that. MR. MARTIN-And like you've got another, in all l~kelihood, another PUD coming up this year, potentially two. MRS. LABOMBARD-Vasiliou's. MR. PALING-Vasiliou, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Whati,s the other one. MR. MARTIN-Just one came in today. It may come down conventional subdivision or a PUD. Believe it or not, the Broadacres area? Well, between Broadacres and the there's 40 acres in there, open property, and it's single ownership. So it depends on how it all breaks may be a PUD. It may be like a clustered $ubdivision. either a you know Northway, all under out. It MRS. LABOMBARD-It comes out behind, way back where Coolidge ends. MR. MARTIN-Right. MRS. LABOMBARD'-Way bac ki n there. MR. MARTIN-Nice property. I never realized there was that much land in there. It's north of Sherman, south of Dixon and west of Coolidge. MR. RUEL-Which side of the Northway? MR. MARTIN-East side of the Northway. MRS. LABOMBARD-Dr. Hopper has a big piece of property way up at the end, and when you go up there, it's all woods way up in there. MR. BREWER-Yes. That house that sits back up in on the hill. Is that the one with the gate out in front? MRS. LABOMB~RD-N9t the one on the hill~ no. ! ~ ' MR. STARK-Who are you talking about, Hopper's property? MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm just saying, he's at the end of Coolidge, way up there, and then if you walk, I used to walk in there. We used to live down in there, and there's all kinds of woods back in there. MR. MARTIN-I never realized. there, but not that much. I knew there was some vacant land MRS. LABOMBA8D-I didn't think the~e was that much eith~r. MR. PALING-Thank you, Jim. MR. MARTIN-But you'll have a written report by your meeting next Tuesday. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MARTIN-It makes for interesting reading, especially if you're involved in it. - 46 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/96) MR. PALING-I'll make a motion that the meeting be adjourned. MR. BREWER-Second. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 48 -