Loading...
1997-01-21 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21, 1997 INDEX Subdivision No. 10-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE Richard Trzaska Tax Map No. 54-2-7.22 1. Cont'd Pg 10. Subdivision No. 7-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE Barbara Barber Tax Map No. 48-3-49.54 8 . Subdivision No. 7-1996 FINAL STAGE Barbara Barber Tax Map No. 48-3-49.54 9. Subdivision No. 10-1996 FINAL STAGE Richard Trzaska Tax Map No. 54-2-7.22 16. Subdivision No. 1-1997 SKETCH PLAN Cerrone Builders Tax Map No. 48-3-51.1, 53 23. Site Plan No. 33-94 DISCUSSION ITEM Charles & Craig Seeley 46. Site Plan No. 6-95 DISCUSSION ITEM Mike Hayes & Rich Schermerhorn 51. THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. -~ '- -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN TIMOTHY BREWER CRAIG MACEWAN ROGER RUEL DAVID WEST MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE LABOMBARD GEORGE STARK PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES September 17, 1996: NONE November 2, 1996: NONE November 19, 1996: NONE November 26, 1996: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES DATED 9/17, 11/2, 11/19, AND 11/26, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1996 PRELIMINARY STAGE RICHARD TRZASKA OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 8.212 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 4.1 ACRES EACH. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 4-1996 TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7.22 LOT SIZE: 8.212 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RICHARD TRZASKA, PRESENT STAPF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-1996, Preliminary Stage, Richard Trzaska, Meeting Date: January 21, 1997 liThe applicant is seeking preliminary and final approval for a subdivision on Chestnut Ridge Road. The applicant is proposing to create two lots from one existing lot. Both lots meet the dimensional and area requirements of the SR-1A zoning district. Staff recommends approval of both the preliminary and final subdivision applications as submitted." MR. HILTON-Now before you this evening I just handed out an updated - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) map. This just came in to us today. It's slightly different than the one that came in with Preliminary and Final applications. The lot areas are still conforming. The only difference is that a little bit of the acreage is shifted around where now one has 4.2 acres and the other lot has 3.9. That's a minor difference. The Staff is supportive of it, doesn't have any concerns regarding that and would recommend approval of both applications this evening. MR. BREWER-We have to do one at a time, though, right? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Yes, we will do one at a time. MR. HILTON-And also SEQRA has to be done for the Preliminary application. MR. PALING-Okay. about this? Does the applicant want to make any comments MR. TRZASKA-I'm the applicant, Rick Trzaska, and basically I tried to fulfill every stipulation that was suggested at the preliminary sketch meeting and included that on the site plan. MR. PALING-All right. MR. MACEWAN-In that Sketch Plan, were there discussions regarding a request for waivers from stormwater management and all that sort of stuff? Things that weren't going to be necessary for this application? MR. BREWER-I think we ought to list them, Craig, if we do. MR. HILTON-Yes. I believe there was some discussion on that. MR. RUEL-This was done last time. MR. HILTON-Well, we did a Sketch Plan. There was a Sketch Plan review that evening, at such time, you're correct, there was some discussion about seeking waivers. MR. BREWER-We have to formally do them, don't we? MR. HILTON-Well, usually, as we said before, it comes in the form of something written. MR. MACEWAN-While we're going through Preliminary, why don't you just have him write down something in the form of a letter. MR. HILTON-And submit it to us, certainly. MR. BREWER-Well, Final's tonight, Craig. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I know. How long is it going to take to write a handwritten letter? MR. PALING-Can you cover that, George? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think we can open the public hearing on this now. Does anyone care to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JANE LOWELL MRS. LOWELL-I'm Jane Lowell. I own land on Chestnut Ridge, and I - 2 - / ~ --- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) (lost words) subdivided with my children, and this was to have been eight acres, 360 feet frontage, I believe. There was suppose to have been one house on each eight acres. There was supposed to be a house, just one house. I subdivided with my children, four children. There's three of them on that same side of the road. (Lost words) on the west side, and I own land on the east side. MR. PALING-Okay. Now the way that they do it is well within the zoning for lot requirements, but you say there was a separate agreement? MRS. LOWELL-There was an agreement between us, yes. supposed to be one house on each eight acres of land. There was MR. MACEWAN-Who was the agreement between, ma'am? MRS. LOWELL-It was between my children, we subdivided. There was Dan Lowell and there was Joanne Morton, Eddy Lowell, and Phyllis Cooper, and my other son is over on the east side, and he has also, I have my map here. Would you like to see it? MR. PALING-Okay. I'm not sure if we've got jurisdiction in this. MR. WEST-Is there a deed restriction or something? MR. HILTON-Well, even if there was a deed restriction, that's a private matter that we would enforce. The previous map did indicate an eight acre lot, which also conformed to the SR-1A district. This is a further subdivision of that lot, which also conforms to the zoning. MR. PALING-Okay. So there's no deed restriction on this. MRS. LOWELL-No, really, no. This is the one. We just went through it here. MR. WEST-We did that last fall. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-So how did this get out of hand? MRS. LOWELL-Well, my son went ahead and sold it. That wasn't my intentions that it be subdivided again. I was in hopes it would stay the way that we had subdivided it. MR. PALING-Mark, I think I know the limitations here, but I just want to be sure how far we can go with something like this. MR. SCHACHNER-What do you mean, how far we can go? MR. PALING-Well, do we have any jurisdiction over an agreement external to anything we're doing? MR. SCHACHNER-No. In addition, I don't understand exactly if there is an agreement. I think the commentor says there is nothing in writing but it was just her understanding, which means, I mean, from the legal standpoint there is no agreement, for starters. Secondly, any agreement, as George says, between private parties, that's between private parties. There are remedies they can pursue to enforce any agreement between private parties, but that's not up to the Planning Board or the Town to enforce. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Now, is there someone else that wants to come up? DAN LOWELL - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. LOWELL-I'm Dan Lowell. I have the lot adjacent to the lot in question. I think what my mother is trying to make clear is that the family's intention, when the lots were split off, or sold or whatever anybody did with them, a lot of questions were asked by the neighbors, and it wasn't the intention to put houses on 175 foot lots. She's just trying to make that clear to everybody here. It wasn't the family's intention to do that, nor is it to do it with the remainder of our land. She just wants everybody to know that. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. LOWELL-That's what she's saying. The feeling is I have the adjacent lot because two houses across the road now are going to deteriorate the value of what's left because of views and things. When we came to you guys last year, our intentions were that they were going to be large lots, because that's the way that most of Chestnut Ridge is, and that's the way we felt it should be. That's all I've got to say. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. There was someone else, I think. LOIS CLEMENTS MRS. CLEMENTS-My name is Lois Clements, and I own land on the east side, and I am wondering, one, what is the requirement or what is the ruling as far as to notify the other property owners? It's my understanding that Mrs. Smith is the only one who received a notice of this meeting. That would be my first question. It's my understanding that other neighbors around there didn't get a notice either. My second question is, if they ~ to subdivide, what are the plans for these four acres, and what happens down the road? I mean, if they can subdivide eight acres now before, can they come back in a few years and then want to divide four into two? MR. BREWER-Technically, they could. MR. PALING-They can subdivide within the zoning allowances. MRS. CLEMENTS-I don't know what SR-1A is. MR. PALING-Single Family Residential One Acre. MR. BREWER-Suburban Residential One Acre. MR. PALING-That's what the zoning is. I think George might want to comment on your first question. MR. HILTON-Okay. First of all, on the further subdivision, in the SR-1 Acre regulations, it calls for 150 feet of lot width, and the two new lots here that are proposed would have 195 and 170. So it would be very hard to further subdi vide those and have any additional lots. MRS. CLEMENTS-But isn't an acre 200 by 200? MR. HILTON-Right, but I'm saying that you actually have to have a width at the, you know, the width of the lot has to be 150 feet, and if they were to try to split either one of these further, they wouldn't have that 150 feet. So it would be very hard to further subdivide it from what's proposed on this piece of paper. MRS. CLEMENTS-So they could put roughly how many houses then on four acres? MR. MACEWAN-One house each on each lot. MR. RUEL-Only two in this particular case. - 4 - '~ '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. HILTON-Yes. MRS. CLEMENTS-You mean one on the four acres and one on the other four acres? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. RUEL-Because of the frontage. MR. SCHACHNER-Unless there were a variance granted. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't want to see the public mislead and have the public leave thinking, under no circumstances whatsoever is there any possibility there could be further subdivision. That's not really true. There would need a variance. MR. MACEWAN-He would need a lot of variances. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand that, and not from this Board. Ma'am, I just didn't want you to get the impression that this Board is telling you that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that there could be further subdivision. I think that's what you were hoping to hear, and I understand that, and I thought maybe you were getting that impression, and I think that would be a mistake to give that impression. Any further subdivision, from what I'm gathering, would not conform with the Zoning Ordinance and therefore could not occur. This Board could not approve any further subdivision unless a different Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals, first approved a variance from the Zoning Ordinance. MRS. CLEMENTS-I understand that. Zoning Board of Appeals. I used to take minutes for the MR. HILTON-As far as notification, we are required, or the applicant in this case, is required to notify all property owners within 500 feet of the property that's being subdivided. Now, this eight acres is obviously different than what was subdivided before. So the number of people and the amount of area that he has to notify is less than what occurred before. MRS. CLEMENTS-Because there's nobody around it. MR. HILTON-Well, I spoke to Mr. Trzaska. He was in our office. We went through and we checked Town records, and I believe he also checked the County records, and based on the 500, within 500 feet of this lot, all the people, property owners, were notified. Now that list may be different, like I said, than the previous list because it's a smaller area and not as many people would receive notice. That's where it may be different. MR. LOWELL-Could I interject one thing? Just on that issue, one thing needs to be clarified there, too. When we did ours, we had to put up some nice big signs, fluorescent, that you people issued us. MR. HILTON-Right. MR. LOWELL-I'm working on a house up there that had to go through building permits and a lot of effort, and I didn't see any posted, that this was being subdivided. The Board here was real insistent that we had them up. We had to stake them. They had to be so high. That's when we started getting questions from the - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) neighborhood about what we were doing, and we made that point to people that these were not going to be little lots, and if you look at them yourselves, we've mapped off eight (lost words) lots throughout that so that there wasn't a lot of congestion, just based on what she said, the notification. I did receive one in the mail, but I did not see it on the road, the way ours was left. MR. HILTON-The applicant was in our office and we did give him a green fluorescent sign to post, and some of the Board members may be able to clarify if they saw it or not. The applicant indicated to us that he did post the sign. MR. PALING-I can't remember seeing it, but I would mention that I would say if half of those signs are there visible to us, it's about right. We, also, wish those signs were visible because it's hard for us, sometimes, to find where they're talking, especially if it's open country and just one lot, but I can't say definitely yes or no, but I don't think we did. MR. WEST-No. Actually, we drove out in back, remember? We didn't see it either way. MR. LOWELL-Ours went up and they were checked. people stopping. Like I said, I didn't see it. I mean, we had MR. PALING-No, we didn't, either. MR. HILTON-Well, the applicant may wish to speak to that, but we did give him a sign. MR. TRZASKA-Just to clarify that point. The sign was issued. It was given to me by the folks that work here at Queensbury and it was posted on the day that it was received. I drove by today. It is posted. It's posted on a center utility pole as close to the center of the lot that I could imagine. It's fluorescent green. It's there and it's been there for a week. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Is there anyone else who would care to speak? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-All right. We do need a SEQRA on this, Short Form. MR. SCHACHNER-I don't know. Short Form? Is it Unlisted? Did they submit a MR. BREWER-How come it doesn't say on our agenda anYmore what they are? MR. RUEL-What should it be, a Short one? MR. BREWER-I don't even know what type of an action it is. MR. HILTON-It's an Unlisted Action, which we usually go with the Short Form. We do not have a Short Form in the file. MR. BREWER-Did he complete? MR. HILTON-We don't have one in this file. I don't know if he did or didn't complete it. MR. PALING-Yes. We haven't got one either. MR. HILTON-Right. I think that's something that we can. MR. BREWER-Isn't that part of the application? - 6 - -- ~' -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. HILTON-It's usually handed in, yes, but I think it's something that he could fill out right now. MR. PALING-Well, where does that put us? That's supposed to be submitted. MR. BREWER-Right. That's part of the application, I think. Maybe not. MR. RUEL-It isn't always there. Many applications don't have it. MR. HILTON-Well, ultimately it's up to the Board how you feel about it, but I would suggest that we could give him a copy of a Short Form right now, have him fill it out, and pick this application back up at a later time within this meeting. MR. PALING-All right. Then lets put it off. We've got two things now, we're working on this same one. So lets put this off, then, until the end of the evening. Lets get the other stuff done. MR. BREWER-Bob, I don't think that's fair. These people are here waiting to see what we do. I mean, lets take 10 minutes, let him fill it out and come back to it. MR. HILTON-We could do that. MR. BREWER-Five minutes or whatever. I mean, that's only fair to the people that are here. MR. PALING-I'm going to re-open the public hearing. Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CYNDI SMITH MRS. SMITH-Hi. My name's CYndi Smith. I live on Chestnut Ridge, and I'm on the same side of the road as this property. I'd just like to say that as a resident of the Ridge, it's beautiful property. We were always concerned about what would happen to it when the farm was going up for sale, and most of the residents I've spoken to were delighted when it was eight acre lots, that it wouldn't destroy the ridge line and it wouldn't alter the water course. We're all on wells. I know my well changes every year, depending on what happens in that basin and what happens to my water level, and I would like to see, if possible, the eight acres be maintained. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. All right. What's the consensus, then? We want to just take ten minutes and get these forms done and then proceed with it? MR. MACEWAN-What else is there to do? MR. PALING-All right. Why don't you go ahead. MR. RUEL-Do you have a blank, George? MR. HILTON-We're going to get one right now. MR. PALING-Yes. We've got them here if you haven't. All right. We're just going to hold for a few minutes. MR. MACEWAN-Why don't we just move on to the next application and come back to this one. MR. BREWER-That's what my point was, Craig. with that. It could be a while - 7 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. WEST-We can go on to the next one and come back. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, we can come back. MR. WEST-It's only going to be 10 minutes. MR. PALING-All right. Is the applicant for the Barber application here? All right. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1996 BARBARA BARBER PRELIMINARY STAGE OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND MAID MARION WAY PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.00 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR LOTS OP 1.11 AC., 1.14 AC. & 1.36 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 106-1996 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-49.54 LOT SIZE: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS ANDREW MCCORMACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. HILTON-This application was approved previously by the Planning Board, and after that time there was a notification error that was discovered. The applicant was told to renotify property owners within 500 feet, and he should have the green cards, which I see that he has for us this evening. At which time it's the Planning Board's pleasure as to their vote on this, but we would recommend approval of the lots as submitted under the subdivision plan. MR. PALING-Now, we have done a SEQRA on this. Does that apply? MR. HILTON-I think you have to do another SEQRA again. MR. PALING-Now, again, do we have the form? MR. HILTON-I believe we do. MR. MCCORMACK-Mr. Chairman, I'm Andrew McCormack from the Survey Office of Coulter & McCormack, and I think Mr. Barber is also here, Daniel Barber. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. HILTON-Yes. We have a Full EAF which has been submitted, and I will remove this from the file and give it to you. MR. PALING-Long Form? MR. HILTON-Long Form, yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Then lets go to the public hearing on the Barbara Barber application. Does anyone care to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-And we'll go right to the SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIPICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-1996, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before BARBARA BARBER, and the Planning Board an - 8 - / -- '--' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and 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 21st day of January, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay, go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE BARBARA BARBER, Introduced by Roger adoption, seconded by Timothy Brewer: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1996 Ruel who moved for its To subdivide a five acre parcel into four lots. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. We'll go right to the Final Stage, then. MR. RUEL-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1996 FINAL STAGE BARBARA BARBER OWNER: SAME ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF BAY ROAD AND MAID MARION WAY PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 5.00 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR LOTS OF 1.11 AC., 1.14 AC., 1.14 AC. & 1.36 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 106-1996 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-49.54 LOT SIZE: 5.00 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS - 9 - -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) ANDREW MCCORMACK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT PRESENT MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-1996 BARBARA BARBER, Intro,duced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by T~mothy Brewer: Northwest corner of Bay Road and Maid Marion Way, to subdivide a five acre parcel into four lots. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1997, by the following vote: MR. BREWER-One question before we vote. George, on our previous motion, was there any conditions at all on this subdivision? MR. PALING-Previous motion there were no conditions. MR. BREWER-Okay. I'll second it. AYES: Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. That went a little fast for me. approval of the Preliminary we just did? Was that the MR. BREWER-Preliminary and Final. MR. RUEL-We just did the Final. MR. PALING-All right. Okay. Then we'll move on. Wait a minute. We can't. We've got to open a public hearing. MR. BREWER-Not for Final we don't, do we? MR. HILTON-No, not for Final, just Preliminary, which you did. MR. PALING-Well, it says public hearing under the Final Stage. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, but it always does on the Final that coincidentally happens to be the same night as tonight. MR. RUEL-Well, open it and close it. MR. BREWER-We don't have to. MR. HILTON-It's just saying that the public hearing is that date, which usually comes with the Preliminary. MR. PALING-All right. The public hearing covers both. MR. SCHACHNER-You also have the right to have a public hearing on Final if something's different than Preliminary and you feel the need to. That, presumably, was not the case here. MR. PALING-I don't feel the need, no. Okay. Lets proceed, thank you. MR. RUEL-Lets go back to Trzaska. MR. PALING-Yes. Are we ready for Trzaska now? MR. HILTON-Yes, we are. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets go back. All right. In Trzaska we're still at Preliminary Stage. The public hearing is re-closed. - 10 - / / - -./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. RUEL-AII right. I'll take care of ~he SEqRA here. II Cc;mld action result in any adverse effects assoc~ated w~th the follow~ng: Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or qua~tity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste product~on or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?" MR. PALING-No. MR. RUEL-"Aesthetic agricultural, archeological, historic or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? II MR. PALING-There is some feeling about that, yes. MR. MACEWAN-There's no development. property. MR. RUEL-How can that effect anything? They're just subdividing MR. MACEWAN-It can't. It's lines on paper. MR. PALING-All right. Subdivision only, if that's the definition of it, then it doesn't. Okay. Then it'll be a "No". MR. RUEL-IIIs there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?" MR. PALING-Environmental impact of this, no. MRS. SMITH-How are you making these decisions? MR. PALING-I'm sorry, what? MRS. SMITH-How do you make the decision as to whether it's a yes or a no? MR. PALING-This is a subdivision that we're working on. All we're doing is dividing a lot, and there isn' t much effect on the environment if all you're doing is drawing a boundary line. MRS. SMITH-You're not just drawing a boundary line. proposed plan. You have a MR. PALING-Okay. I'm sorry, but the public hearing is over. MR. RUEL-This would apply at the time of site plan. MR. BREWER-There is no site plan at subdivision, that's the point. There is no site plan on subdivision. MR. RUEL-No, no. I say it would apply if it was site. This is subdivision. Most of these things don't apply at subdivision. MR. PALING-Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the Board should be a little careful and not view this too narrowly, in that I believe this is a proposed two lot residential subdivision, and I believe each lot is proposed as a building lot, and I believe that the subdivision application shows building locations on each of the lots, if I'm not mistaken. MR. WEST-Proposed building. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So I think that, I think under the mandate of SEQRA, the Board has to review the potential environmental impacts as a two lot residential subdivision with the proposal to build homes on each of the two lots at approximately those locations. I'm not suggesting you reach a different result. That' s up to you, - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) but I think you should just be careful not to view the application too narrowly as merely drawing lines on paper. SEQRA says, specifically, that if part of the action is construction of something, then that should be considered as well. Again, you don't have fine tuned details about that construction, but you should view this as two residential lots on which presumably two homes may be built. MR. RUEL-There are actually three items on this list that could apply, even at subdivision level, things like traffic patterns, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems. I see things like community's existing plans or goals. I see growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action. MR. SCHACHNER-Those are your decisions. I mean, I can't advise you about those. Those are your decisions. We're talking about two homes here. I don't know if ~ were a Planning Board member, if I'd see those things that way, but that's up to you all. I just wanted to point out that you can't fairly call this merely drawing lines on paper. That's all I was trying to point out. MR. PALING-Mark, all of these objections that have been raised are raised outside of the zoning requirements, if you will. MR. SCHACHNER-Certainly the ones about density are. Correct. MR. PALING-Yes, but I don't see where this two lot subdivision has that much of an effect on the environment. MR. SCHACHNER-I'm not suggesting it does. All I was saying is I don't think you can fairly, under SEQRA, consider this only an exercise in drawing lines on paper. That's all I was saying. This is an exercise that, under SEQRA, I think you have to review as a subdivision that could lead to the construction of two single family residences, that's all. MR. RUEL-I don't think that we ever said that this does not have any application in subdivision. We only said, ~ said that it had limited application. MR. SCHACHNER-Roger, my comment was in response to somebody saying that this is only drawing lines on paper. I'm quite sure I heard that, actually from two Board members, I think, and that raises some legal concern. I think I heard another Board member say, well, we'll deal with those issues at site plan review, and I think it's important that the Board recognize that for single family residences on properly sized lots, there is no site plan review. So, that's all I'm saying. I'm just making sure that the scope of your SEQRA review is appropriate. That's all. I'm not suggesting a different outcome. I tend to share the Chairman's view on two houses, but that's not a legal call. The legal call is to make sure that you view this properly under SEQRA. MR. RUEL-Okay. Are you satisfied with these, do you want me to repeat them, or what? MR. PALING-No. I'm satisfied with the answers. Perhaps a couple of the remarks made were inappropriate, but I'm still satisfied with the answers given, based upon the Zoning Ordinances that we go by. Does anybody else have a different view? MR. MACEWAN-No. I share that view. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-I have a question, I guess. What were the waivers he's requesting, to what? - 12 - ~ '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. HILTON-The waivers that he has requested. He's requesting a waiver from the two foot contours over the entire property. He shows it on the front portion of each property, all contiguous property owners and property li~es within 500 feet, ~h~c~ are ~ot shown on the map itself, and ~t seems that the ut~l~t~es wh~ch should be shown adjacent or serving this lot have not been fully indicated. It seems to me that that's. MR. MACEWAN-Is that all he's asking for? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-What about stormwater management? MR. HILTON-Well, in going over the criteria, I'll go over them again, but it seems to me that that's all that he's looking for. Let me just double check this. MR. PALING-I think we better go back here. I don't think there was a motion on the SEQRA itself. MR. BREWER-No, not yet. MR. PALING-All right. Lets go back to that point of the meeting. Do I hear a second on the SEQRA? MR. WEST-Can we just hear what George has to say first? MR. RUEL-That's for waivers. MR. PALING-That's separate. We're going to come back to that. The SEQRA we've been through, and now we have to act on it before, we moved ahead too quickly. MR. RUEL-This is what I read and apparently got a "NO" on most of them. I heard no's. So now that's the motion. Now we need a second. MR. WEST-I'll second it. MR. PALING-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-1996, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before RICHARD TRZASKA, and the Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. - 13 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1997, by the following vote: MR. MACEWAN-What did you find? MR. HILTON-We are looking at sanitary sewers, stormwater drainage, underground utilities, clearing plan, grading plan and a drainage report, which also have not been supplied. The applicant is seeking a waiver. MR. PALING-We're on two different subjects. MR. MACEWAN-I'm just trying to get some information before I cast a vote here. MR. PALING-On SEQRA? MR. MACEWAN-He's asking for a waiver to that, then? MR. HILTON-Yes. He's asking a waiver from those items that are normally required with a Preliminary plat which do not appear on this map. MR. MACEWAN -Okay. AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark MR. RUEL-That's the SEQRA. MR. PALING-Okay. Now lets go to what George is doing. MR. HILTON-I just simply indicated, and the applicant has signed a form what he's seeking a waiver from. As I mentioned before, two foot contours over the balance of the property, all contiguous property owners and property boundaries, all adjacent utilities, sanitary sewers, stormwater drainage, underground utilities, clearing and grading plans, and a drainage report which have not been supplied with this application. MR. PALING-Go back to Number two, what was it? MR. HILTON-Contiguous property owners and the boundaries. All the notification has been done. Property boundaries do not appear on the map. MR. RUEL-Now, did you grant these waivers? MR. HILTON-That's up to you. He's asking. - 14 - <--- -..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. MACEWAN-It would have to be put in the approval if we approve it. MR. RUEL-You've got about 10 waivers there. MR. HILTON-Well, again, this is a subdivision of a previously approved subdivision, and that's why the applicant is seeking. MR. MACEWAN-And typically, Roger, we've granted waivers on two lot subdivisions. MR. RUEL-Yes, but not that many, you know, but I can understand. MR. MACEWAN-We haven't had that many two lot subdivisions, but historically, we have given quite a few waivers on them. The one that comes to mind is the one at the end of Ryan Avenue, by the Cumberland Farms. When he subdivided, we gave him some two foot contours, erosion control, or stormwater management. There was two or three other ones in there that we had given him waivers to. MRS. SMITH-Could you explain those waivers, please. MR. MACEWAN-It means that the subdivision, for this requirement for this subdivision he's asked for a waiver from the engineering request because of the size of the subdivision. MRS. SMITH-That's just on paper, or is that something that's not happening at all? MR. MACEWAN-It's not going to be done at all, if the waiver is granted. MR. LOWELL-That's sewage also? MR. PALING-Wait a minute. We're going to lose control here. MR. HILTON-I would just like to make a comment that any sewage, these two lots are going to need to come in for a building permit, and at that time, our Building and Codes Department will review sewer locations, well locations, building layouts, grading will be on those plans. It will be looked at by our Building and Codes people to make sure that they also comply with the Town Code, and specifically our Building and Codes section. So there will be review of those items at that time. MR. MACEWAN-Thank you, George. MRS. CLEMENTS-Will you open the public hearing again? MR. PALING-We can open a public hearing again, yes. We're in Preliminary now. We've held a public hearing. What I'll do is if this goes through and we go to Final, I will open the public hearing tonight, which will be in a few minutes, do it that way, to try to keep it in control. All right. Any other Board comments on this? Then, okay, are there any other questions about these waivers that are being requested? Now these were part of the original approval? MR. HILTON-The original subdivision which this is being subdivided off of now was submitted with information that basically the applicant feels the information has been provided or will be provided at the time of the building permit, and is asking for a waiver of the following times that I listed. MR. PALING-Okay. With that understanding, I think we can go to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1996 - 15 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) RICHARD TRZASKA, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: To subdivide an 8.2 acre parcel into two lots of 4.249 and 3.963 acres, with the approval of waivers as indicated by the Planning Staff. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark MR. PALING-All right. Then we'll go to the Final Stage. SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1996 FINAL STAGE RICHARD TRZASKA OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE AN 8.212 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 4.1 ACRES EACH. CROSS REPERENCE: SUB. 4-1996 TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7.22 LOT SIZE: 8.212 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RICHARD TRZASKA, PRESENT MR. PALING-I'm going to open the public hearing in a minute, but I'd just like to say that the Board is in a little bit difficult position tonight, because you must understand that we can only go by what the Zoning Ordinances tell us we can, and there's nothing in there that says that we have to limit it to eight acres or anything else. That we, in this case, Single Family Residential One Acre, and anything beyond that, that's outside of the laws, we can't have, like the separate agreement, verbal agreement. We don't have a place in that part of it. So with that in mind. Yes, go ahead, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, again, I'm awfully concerned about the record and giving the public the wrong impression. It's really not correct to state or it's not accurate to state that the Board cannot look beyond the Zoning Ordinance minimums. If this Board, for example, if the minimum zoning allowed 100, I'm making up an example, allowed 100 units here, and you had a compelling reason to find that that failed to meet the Subdivision Regulations criteria, you could, in theory, impose conditions or require mitigation or do a whole host and variety of things. So, again, I'm concerned not so much about the outcome or the result as the process of getting there. The reason that there's a Planning Board to review a proposed subdivision is so that potential impacts can be weighed against the criteria in this Subdivision Regulations. You're not duty bound to approve something just because it falls within zoning. By the same token, the second part of what you said is absolutely correct, which is we don't have the lawful authority to enforce alleged agreements among private parties. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we're coming from the same book. MR. SCHACHNER - I don't think we're changing the result. right. MR. PALING-And I think the result is going to be the same, fine. Okay. All right. That's MR. MACEWAN-Clarify yourself for me again on the first part, what you said. MR. SCHACHNER-Maybe I misunderstood, but I understood the Board to be indicating that in essence if you meet the minimum lot size, you have to get approval. - 16 - ~< '-...../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. PALING-No. MR. RUEL-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. misunderstood. Then I misunderstood, and I apologize. I MR. PALING-No, we have to stay within the confines of the Ordinances, when we're judging something, to the extent that if it's Single Family Residential One Acre and somebody says, well lets change it to three or eight or ten acres, we can't do that. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you can't make zoning decisions. MR. PALING-Yes, that's what I'm saying. We make no zoning changes, and we've got to be reasonable to the applicant and to the public, but with that as our limitation. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. PALING-All right. With that in mind, we will open the public hearing, if anyone cares to speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED LOIS CLEMENTS MRS. CLEMENTS-Somebody said something about notification going out again, when he went to the Building Department. So much has happened here that I've lost track of it. MR. HILTON-Well, there isn' t going to be any notification to property owners. What will happen is he will have to apply within our Department to our Building and Codes people for a building permit to actually build on these lots, at which time septic location, well location, building details, building location, how the house would sit on the lot as compared to the grading on the lot, will all be reviewed. I'm just stating that when the actual construction is proposed on these lots, there will be a further review by our Department to make sure that it conforms to our Codes. MRS. CLEMENTS-But I heard somebody say somewhere along the way that there would be a second notification, at a different stage, but I misunderstood. MR. PALING-I don't think so. MRS. CLEMENTS-Okay, and my other question is, what, as far as subdivision, what is the size, are there requirements for size when you subdivide? Now you're talking about the zoning being SR-IA, but what about a subdivision of say eight acres? MR. PALING-A subdivision of eight acres. We can read you the length, width setbacks and so on of any particular zoning requirement. We better do it for SR-IA, which is 150 foot wide lot. MRS. CLEMENTS-Okay. I'm misunderstanding you when you're saying that the Ordinance says that the land up there can be single residence one acre. MR. PALING-One acre, one house per acre, right. MRS. CLEMENTS-As it is now, but if they subdivide, this is where I get lost. If they subdivide, what is the size that is limiting a subdivision? - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. PALING-One acre. Unless they go to Zoning Board of Appeals and get it waived, they are limited to one house per acre. MR. RUEL-I think this lady doesn't understand the frontage on a road. It must have 150 feet. Now you're looking at eight acres and you say, gee, how come we can't put eight houses there. MRS. CLEMENTS-I'm against it. MR. RUEL-I know you are, but see, you can't put eight houses, even though it's eight acres, and why can't you, because it's not wide enough, you see. You only have enough width to satisfy the 150 foot requirements for each acre. So that limits it. You can't have any more than two, unless the Zoning Board comes in to play or whatever. MRS. CLEMENTS-Or could they put a road in there, and then, you know, you've got another. MR. BREWER-After they subdivide this, reasonably, they couldn't do it, well, without a lot of trouble, lets put it that way. MR. MACEWAN-They could apply to the ZBA. They would be asking, probably off the top here maybe three or four variances they would request. What are the odds of them getting all four variances, should they request them? Therefore, what are the odds of them getting approval from this Board to come back to further extend the subdivision? It's a long process. The cards are stacked against them. MR. HILTON-And I also just want to state that if any present or future property owner were to come in for a variance, now for the variance there would also have to be notification of property owners within 500 feet. So you, presumably, would hear about it. MRS. CLEMENTS-Mrs. Smith lives across the street. We live across from each other. How do you measure the size? MR. HILTON-It's 500 feet from the edge of the property line. MRS. CLEMENTS-Okay. So it adds more than (lost words) across, the east side? MR. HILTON-Right. MRS. CLEMENTS-That eliminates me? MR. HILTON-Right. MRS. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. If we're sure there's no one else, then we'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-The SEQRA has been done. We can go right to a motion. Now, do we need to talk about the variances in this motion? MR. MACEWAN-Variances? What variances? MR. PALING-Variances, I mean the waivers. MR. HILTON-Waivers, it appears that no waivers are required. MR. MACEWAN-I have a question for the applicant, just out of curiosity. When you purchased your property, was anything mentioned to you about the character of the neighborhood or wanting - 18 - '-- '....-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) to retain the eight acre building lots, and not further subdivision of them? MR. TRZASKA-No, sir. MR. MACEWAN-Nothing. For Staff, I guess, is that typical lot size up there for everything including the new section up there? MR. HILTON-Everything within the immediate vicinity, everything pretty much along Chestnut Ridge, yes, is zoned for one acre lots. MR. MACEWAN-No. The question I have is how big are the lots up there currently, even though it's zoned one acre? MR. HILTON-Existing lots, with the recent subdivision that preceded this, there are some five acre, some eight acre. It tends to be more toward that size lots, in the immediate vicinity. MR. MACEWAN-So this is in a minority. MR. HILTON-I guess you could say that within the immediate vicinity, it's probably the two, two of the smaller lots. MR. MACEWAN-What's the next sized lot to that that's small? MR. HILTON-I don't have an area map in front of me, but I believe, as I said, that there's some five acre lots in the immediate vicinity. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions, comments? MR. RUEL-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1996 RICHARD TRZASKA, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: To subdivide an 8.212 acre parcel into two lots of 3.963 and 4.249 acres each. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: Mr. Brewer ABSTAINED: Mr. MacEwan ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark MR. PALING-All right. So that's a 3, 1, 1, I think, right? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Where the justification is in approving a Preliminary and not approving a Final, I'm at a loss there. What's changed? MR. RUEL-Yes, what's transpired? MR. MACEWAN-I guess if you're going to ask me. MR. RUEL-It doesn't make sense. MR. MACEWAN-Well, it may not make sense to you, but I guess what I'm looking at is the overall neighborhood character, as far as where it fits into the zoning. I'd be more comfortable if I had little bit better handle on what the adjacent lot sizes were, how this is going to be either within harmony or out of harmony with - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) what's out there, and I also would like to know, considering the amount of waivers that we're giving on this, what was given as waivers for the first subdivision, that he's using as his engineering for this one. Because that first subdivision, the waivers that were granted, and I don't believe there were a whole heck of a lot, were based on eight acre lots. He's asked for quite a few waivers for this. Now he's really increased the density on the two lots that he' s subdivided. I don' t know whether the engineering that was done for the larger subdivision takes into account that you're further subdividing the property. I need to have those answers. MR. HILTON-I guess the one thing that I would say is that on the front of these lots he has indicated contours, proposed home locations, septic and well locations. It appears that it's the applicant's intent to only build or construct homes in that portion of the lot. If the Board felt more comfortable in approving this application with some type of stipulation saying that he could only construct homes in that portion of the lot, for instance, between the road and the 390 foot contour where the majority of the information is given, that's something that you could do. I believe that that's the applicant's intention, as was the intent with the last application, which only showed contours on the front portions of the lot. Zone setbacks are given, which identify an envelope which he can build in. So you may want to approach the applicant about that, but that's my understanding, is that he has asked for a proposed house location, and plans to build it, and has given more detail on this map in the areas that he does plan to build. Now, as far as the existing, the lot sizes wi thin the neighborhood, I do not have an area map in front of me. The zoning is SR-l Acre. I believe there are some five acre lots. Especially to the south, the lot sizes appear to get closer to one acre. I know that, given the eight acre lots that were part of the previous application, that I would believe that that's something that' s attractive to potential home buyers and potential property owners who would want to come in with similar requests of this nature. MR. MACEWAN-If you could supply me with that information, I'm assuming, obviously it won't be tonight, I can't see a reason why he couldn't come back next week, we do have a meeting next week. MR. HILTON-Well, we do have a preliminary approval, and we have a meeting next week. MR. MACEWAN-I mean, I'm looking to see how this fits, the engineering aspects of it, fit into the scheme of the eight acre subdivision, and to make sure that the density here fits into what the engineering and scope, and I don't remember what it was, and I'm just, for curiosity sake, I'd like to know what the surrounding lot sizes in the vicinity are. MR. PALING-You've put the word "engineering II in there. Engineering of, are you talking about septic systems, or what are we talking about now? MR. MACEWAN-The stormwater management was in there. tell me a lot, the stormwater management. That would MR. RUEL-George, would the Comprehensive Land Use Plan give him that information? MR. HILTON-The Comprehensive Land Use Plan could provide some information on, I guess, what the proposed density is for this general area, but an existing zoning map and an existing lot pattern would also help answer your question. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. I just want the GIS map, that's all. That's good enough for me, to show me what the sizes are. - 20 - / '--- ,-,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. PALING-Does anyone else have any comments about this? Tim? MR. BREWER-No, I have no other comments. MR. PALING-Yours was a no vote, right? Do you mind telling us why? MR. BREWER-Well, I just think the way the whole thing was handled. I mean, we did a SEQRA tonight that we didn't even have anything to review the character issue, the engineering issue, I mean, just a number of things about the whole subdivision. MR. RUEL - Wha t would you mentioned? would that available? want to satisfy the satisfy you if that items that information you was MR. BREWER-It might. I mean, the amount of waivers, I mean, just completely the whole kit and caboodle pretty much, to me. MR. RUEL-There was an explanation about the waivers, that it wasn't a normal thing. MR. BREWER-It wasn't. I didn't think it was a normal thing to waive almost every issue. MR. RUEL-Well, no, I questioned the waivers, too, especially the number of them, and the importance of some of them, and George explained that he had already gone through all of this. MR. BREWER-Yes, but I thought we were supposed to go through these? I don't want to debate the issue. MR. RUEL-I like to find out why. MR. MACEWAN-The scenario was that he was requesting the waivers because all that had already been previously done for the larger subdivision, which I don't remember how many waivers were granted for that one. MR. BREWER-I don't either, and I think the issue is when that subdivision was done, it was for an eight acre lot, not for two close to four acre lots. MR. RUEL-So where do we go from here, Mr. Chairman? MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I'm still a little puzzled with being able to turn someone down after approval, and on a basis of something like it was approved as an eight acre, but then when you split the thing in two, it doesn't apply. MR. BREWER-Bob, I didn't vote yes for the Preliminary. MR. MACEWAN-That's why you have a two step process, Bob. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I think, then, what we've got to do is to, Number One, perhaps rescind the motion, and then table this item until we provide information, Number One, regarding the size of the lots around, or how far around do you want to go? MR. MACEWAN-The map will show. MR. PALING-All right. Then we have to address the question of the waivers. Now what are we going to do with the waivers? We can go back to the applicant and tell him we turned him down, but? MR. MACEWAN-Well, this is a mission for Staff. I want to know, Number One, the previous subdivision, where this is now an offshoot of that original eight acre, several eight acre lot subdivision. I guess there was maybe like, what, four or five lots in that - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) original subdivision? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-I want to know what engineering was done for that subdivision, what waivers were granted from engineering that IS required in subdivision, and more importantly, how does that engineering that was done for that focus on another subdivision that further makes the parcels smaller, specifically the stormwater management? Are you with me? MR. PALING-Can that be done within the week, to be back on the agenda next week? MR. MACEWAN-I'm guessing it's already done. If I remember correctly, a gentleman from South Glens Falls did the surveying, Rourke. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MACEWAN-And I think he did stormwater management for it. MR. HILTON-Well, if that's the Board's decision, certainly we can look into it and we can preliminarily schedule it for next Tuesday. The only comment that I would have is that with other subdivision applications in the past, we have, I guess dealt with it on a case by case basis, and I honestly can say that I don't think that every subdivision application that's come before you has provided every detail that's listed in the Preliminary subdivision. MR. MACEWAN-But the laundry list of what he's asking for is pretty lengthy. MR. HILTON-That laundry list would apply to any application, then, in the past that has not received any waivers. MR. MACEWAN-Let me ask a question to you, what's the rush to approve? MR. HILTON-I'm not in any position to be a proponent of the applicant. I'm just seeking to have the Board, you know, maybe reflect on what's been done in the past. MR. MACEWAN-I'd rather have all the facts in front of me before I make a decision. MR. HILTON-That's certainly your prerogative. MR. PALING-All right. Then I guess we better do three things, then. One is we'll re-open the public hearing, and then we'll rescind the motion. MR. BREWER-You don't have to rescind it. It didn't carry. MR. RUEL-No, it didn't care. MR. PALING-But when it's killed. MR. SCHACHNER-It wasn' t killed. There was no motion that four members all voted in favor of. So therefore there hasn't been any action taken by this Board. MR. PALING-Okay. We don't have to rescind anything. We can just re-open the public hearing and table it? MR. SCHACHNER-That's fine, if that's your pleasure. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I'll re-open the public hearing. - 22 - "'-' . '--" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. SCHACHNER-Is on Final, I assume? MR. PALING-On the Final, only on the Final, because the Preliminary was approved. MR. SCHACHNER-That's what I thought. MR. PALING-We'll re-open the public hearing on the Final and leave it open, and leave it open into the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. PALING-Now do we all understand what we're asking for, and that George understands what you want, and when we meet next time that we've got what we want. That's not saying what the decision will be, but rather you've got the information that you need. MR. MACEWAN-That would be delivered in Friday's packets? MR. HILTON-We will have it to you on Friday. MR. MACEWAN -Thank you. MR. PALING-Any other comments? Do we need a motion to table this? Yes, we don't we have a motion to table. MR. RUEL-AIl right. MOTION TO TABLE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-1996 RICHARD TRZASKA, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Tabled until the next meeting of January 28th. Duly adopted this 21st day of January, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Brewer, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Stark MR. PALING-Okay. The public hearing is open, and we'll see you next week on this, assuming we get all the information. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1997 SKETCH PLAN CERRONE BUILDERS OWNER: CERRONE BUILDERS UNDER CONTRACT FROM RONALD & SHIRLEY HARRIS ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OP STONEGATE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESIDENTIAL CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION WITH 28 1/2 ACRE LOTS WITH INDIVIDUAL ON-SITE SUBSURFACE SYSTEMS. CROSS REFERENCE: PETITION 6-96 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-51.1, 53 LOT SIZE: +/- 57.97 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if I may just interrupt here, we may want to go ahead and hear the Charles and Craig Seeley application. It's my understanding that we may have someone coming in for the Cerrone application a little late. So if we go ahead with, maybe, the Seeley application first, and then go to Cerrone, if that's okay with the Board. MR. RUEL-Cerrone isn't ready? MR. HILTON-Well, no, they're ready. I believe that, my understanding is that they may have a representative that may be showing up a little late. - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. RUEL-They're here now. MR. HILTON-Is Mike coming tonight? AL CERRONE MR. CERRONE-No. MR. HILTON-All right. Well, then if you want to proceed with Cerrone. Okay, well I was just informed today that there may be somebody coming late. MR. PALING-All right. not scheduled, because allow public comment, hearing related, but George? Go ahead with Cerrone. A public hearing is this is Sketch Plan. However, we do usually even though it's not a hearing, public we will allow public comment later on. MR. HILTON-Okay. I guess I just have a few points to bring out this evening. Myself, Jim and the applicant have been discussing this application, which is right now being presented to you in a Sketch Plan phase. At the same time I'm sure the public has some things to contribute. So I guess the goal tonight is to come out of here with some kind of direction for the applicant. First of all, some of the things that we, as Staff, have been discussing, the applicant has indicated on this map a few hedgerows which are being, I guess they're going to be left alone and we would be looking for some type of deed restrictions to be written in to the final plat which would protect those hedgerows and eliminate any cutting or clearing within those hedgerows. Certainly on site drainage would be such that no water or any flow would occur off site on adjacent properties in other areas. In particular, if you look at what's indicated as Lot One on the subdivision, just to the north of that, there's a lot along Fieldview Road which currently has some drainage difficulties at certain times of the year. We were out there, Staff, we paid a visit yesterday, and I guess one of the things that we would be looking for is some type of drYWell to be constructed on that lot, which is technically off this subdivision, but on that lot nonetheless, to assist with the times that drainage is a problem, and, you know, extra care should be given to grading that area of this subdivision adjacent to that lot on Fieldview Lane. MR. MACEWAN-Is it the lot that's bordering Lot One in the subdivision? MR. HILTON-Yes, just to the north of Lot One. MR. NACE-Okay, and it's in the southeast corner of the lot? MR. HILTON-No, pardon me, the southwest corner appears to have some of the drainage difficulties on that lot to the north. MR. NACE-Up along the road? MR. HILTON-On Fieldview Lane, on the east side of Fieldview Lane, the southwest corner, it has some problems at certain times ponding. I believe the property owner's here this evening, but we spoke to Al today, and he did seem pretty amenable to including a drYWell. MR. RUEL-This is part of the property, right? MR. HILTON-Actually, it's in a different subdivision to the north, but it's adjacent, directly abutting this application. MR. MACEWAN-So what you're really looking for is if this thing is developed Lot One to have improvements on it to pull that ponding - 24 - ~ '-. ~ -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) off that existing lot? MR. HILTON-Well, Lot One would be carefully graded, and we would inspect that grading at the time of preliminary subdivision, but also the inclusion of a drYWell off site on the property to the north of Lot One. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. RUEL-Can you do that? MR. HILTON-Well, if the applicant agrees to it, certainly. MR. PALING-Did you say off site or on Lot One? MR. HILTON-Off site. MR. RUEL-Off Lot One. MR. NACE-He's saying on the adjacent lot, as part of the existing subdivision. MR. RUEL-This corner here. MR. BREWER-Bob, can I ask a question? Tom, you've got on the map a low point. Is there any way to channel that water to the low point? I presume you might have. MR. NACE-That's what my first objective was to look and see if there's any way of running a ditch line down one side or the other of the hedgerow. For the record, my name's Tom Nace, representing Al Cerrone, and obviously, I'm not quite sure where the low point is in there along that existing hedgerow between Lot One and the existing lot, but if we could, we would channel that down along behind Lots One and Two into the existing drainage. That would be the logical way, I think. We'll have to look at, once we get the final topo with the grades and see what we can do. MR. HILTON-Okay. To continue, the applicant has indicated of the subdivision. I'm not sure if the Board has a plan. provided with this plan today, a lot that is indicated that be open space for this subdivision. an area We were it will MR. NACE-Obviously, we did not want to make a last minute submission. I have extra copies of that available I can show the Board tonight. In essence I it's the Lot 26, which is the lot that's sort of tucked in behind, on the map that you have is what we're talking about for open space. MR. RUEL-Yes. Is that a buildable lot? MR. NACE-It is a buildable lot with the long driveway the way we have it, but after discussions with (lost word) what we're proposing is, instead of having that as a building lot, provide it as open space for recreation purposes. MR. RUEL-Because of the difficulty of putting in a long drive. MR. NACE-Partly because of that and partly because Staff feels it's important to have some open space and recreational facilities provided within this subdivision. MR. RUEL-There's other open space, too, isn't there? Is that the only open space? MR. NACE-That will be the only open public space, okay. Obviously, back in Lot Seven and Lot Eight there'll be some space included in the lots that's open and non developable. - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. RUEL-Wetlands, right? MR. NACE-That's the only public open space. MR. WEST-Is Lot Eight intended to be a building lot? MR. NACE-It's intended to be a building lot. Way in the very back end of the lot there is excellent building site. MR. RUEL-How do you get to it? MR. BREWER-Right down through here, on the edge. MR. NACE-It will be an extremely long road, extremely long driveway. MR. RUEL-You'd have a 40 foot wide space as a road? MR. NACE-Yes. Again, let me put a revised map in front of you to see. This shows two changes. What we've done is provided access out here that we didn't have before. MR. RUEL-Why don't you open this up when there's access? MR. NACE-It should be open. MR. RUEL-And here, too. You closed this one up. MR. NACE-What we did is took the access to Lot Seven and moved it down adjacent to the access of Lot Eight, so that these two, if they wanted to, could share, and it would make sense to share a common drive back to this point, and then Lot Seven. MR. RUEL-So it wouldn't have to be 80 feet wide. MR. NACE-Well, no, for your Subdivision Regulations we need 40 feet of frontage on a public road. This also has the advantage, if they share a drive in that 80 feet, that there's room for Paul Naylor's people to stack snow at the end. They can come in here with a plow, do the turn around, and come here, stack snow at the end, and still have room for the driveway on the near 40 feet of frontage. MR. RUEL-Good. Thank you. What does this indentation mean? MR. NACE-That's the existing, there's sort of a hammer head there. It's not a real turnaround. It's more like an abbreviated turnaround there. MR. RUEL-What does that mean? MR. NACE-It's smaller than your present standards. It's a little bit of a circle, but it's considerably smaller, and I guess that's the way the actual property lines are configured. Okay. Once the road is connected through here, there could be a boundary adjustment to deed that back over to the adjacent property owner. MR. RUEL-Is this an existing road? MR. NACE-That's the existing, it's going to be a drive, yes. MR. RUEL-And it stops here? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. RUEL-And this would be the same road? MR. NACE-This we would continue, yes. - 26 - ~/ "---' '-'" ' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. RUEL-Okay. You don't have any names? MR. NACE-No, not yet. We're proposing a phased subdivision, and that's not shown on here. It's shown on your original, where we would construct this connection out to here first, and then put this connection to Bay in on Phase II. MR. PALING-How many total units on this? MR. NACE-There's 27 now because we're using this as open space. There'll be 27 new building lots, plus this existing area in here will be simply remaining lands that Harris will retain ownership of. MR. WEST-Tom, what's the wedge between two and three of that (lost words) here? MR. NACE-This, we may need a drainage easement down through that lower area, some sort of drainage facilities. The drainage goes this way. There's an existing drainage pattern that forms from a low point in this field down across and out through the adjacent properties. We ended up, we're not really sure whether we need just an easement here or whether the Town needs to own some property. So we did it both ways, and this shows that we can get some room in there for that, in case the Town needs a 50 foot right-of-way there that might have some drainage facilities on it. We just don't know until we get into the full design stage whether or not that's needed. MR. MACEWAN-What's the plans for possibly further developing the 27 and a half acres that are out in back? MR. NACE-Absolutely no. MR. BREWER-And that'll be in the agreement, or some restriction or whatever? MR. NACE-Yes, that will be. MR. HILTON-Right, and on that note, if the Board so chooses to approve a design similar to this with a 27 acre lot, we would probably ask for some type of condition that there would be no further subdivision of that lot. MR. NACE-In fact, because of the wetlands on it, we would also agree to some clearing restrictions. MR. BREWER-Can I just come back to that point for one minute? The last application we just talked about, as far as agreements and whatever. How can we be assured that that will happen, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if I'm following the train of thought here, there's two very different situations. I don't think this Board put any condition regarding further subdivision on the previous subdivision of the last application. I think what some of the public commentors were saying was that there was some private agreement among the private parties, but what I think I'm understanding here is we might be, that the Board might be looking to this applicant for either volunteering an agreement with the Board or imposing some sort of condition regarding future subdivision, a very different situation. MR. RUEL-This is one acre zoning. MR. PALING-Yes. MR. RUEL-You're proposing a lot of, less than one acre. How many less than one acre lots? - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. NACE-Well, we're proposing a cluster, okay. We asked for this to be reviewed under the cluster provision, okay. So the minimum lots are approximately a half acre, just a hair under a half acre, that we're proposing. The overall density, we have 58 acres total. Okay. So the overall density is well over one acre, and even if you subtracted, we looked at the wetlands. MR. RUEL-Yes, but you're adding this. MR. NACE-Okay. Yes, so the overall density is well under one acre. MR. RUEL-The application didn't say anything about cluster. MR. BREWER-Yes, it does, doesn't it? MR. HILTON-The letter. MR. BREWER-The letter does. MR. RUEL-Clustered? I've got to get new glasses. MR. BREWER-Right here, on this letter, Rog. MR. HILTON-Just a couple of other thoughts that I had, to continue along with this discussion. The park land tract that I spoke of, if there are any plans by the applicant to deed this to the Town, that procedure should probably be started immediately. MR. PALING-Deed what to the Town, George? MR. HILTON-The open space to the Town as a Town park in lieu of a recreation fee. If that is the applicant's plan, that's something that should probably be started pretty quickly. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. HILTON-In addition, if you look at the proposed map, Lots 11 through 15, the fronts of those lots have a temporary, what appears to be turn around, and I believe it's temporary, based on the fact that eventually that road, and there's no time frame set up for it, but that it would eventually go westward and possibly connect to Bay Road. We would be looking for some kind of language in those deeds that when that does occur, that the property lines more or less would be straightened out at the front line, leaving a straight right-of-way and not a turn around, where we would get into a situation of having the Town Board, at that time, to have to deed property or sell property back to the property owners, if you understand what I'm saying, when that turnaround's eliminated, the portion that's not needed by the Town anYmore would then go directly to the property owners, and we would probably want to have something written into the deeds on that one. MR. BREWER-The cul-de-sac, Tom. MR. NACE-Yes, I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure that, it can be put into the deeds for the original lots, okay, because you're talking about the Town abandoning, if you were, a right-of- way. MR. BREWER-I think we did this for the previous subdivision that we approved. There was some land in a cul-de-sac. I just vaguely remember a subdivision we did where something similar to this was the other parcel did get developed and the land just went to the land owners in front or whatever. MR. SCHACHNER-It could be an abandonment proceeding. MR. NACE-At the time the Town just undergoes an abandonment - 28 - · '---'" ----"," (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) procedure, and abandons, you have to come up with new meets and bounds, to the fronts of those lots, but I'm not sure that it's something we would put in the deed for those lots now. We're obviously agreeable that that would happen. MR. HILTON-I guess we're just looking to make it as easy as possible, so that at that time there's a transfer of property or an alignment of the road, that makes sense for everybody. MR. RUEL-Tom, what is the percentage of the wetlands in the total area? MR. NACE-Okay. As I started to point out, we have not mapped all of the wetlands, okay. What we did, we knew, from our soils investigation and from walking the property with Roberts Environmental, we knew that the wetlands fronted on where we intended to develop. So we mapped, we flagged and mapped this portion up here adjacent to where lots in the road were going to be. As you go back through the property, there are a lot of little hummocks of high lands, and a great deal of wetland boundary if you mapped it all. MR. RUEL-What's the percentage, do you know it? MR. NACE-I'm guessing. MR. RUEL-Is it under 25%? MR. NACE-Percent of the property? The total property is 58 acres. If I took an extremely conservative estimate and maximized what I told you the wetland, what I thought it was, I'd say the wetland miqht be as much as 18 acres, 19 acres. MR. RUEL-Out of how many acres? MR. NACE-Out of 58. So it's a little over 25%. MR. RUEL-Yes. It's just that one of the procedures is wetlands occupy over 25% of the site, and then you have to have an alternate cluster design. MR. NACE-And that's what we're presenting, it's a cluster design. MR. RUEL-Yes, I know, but they're asking for an alternate if this exceeds 25%. MR. MACEWAN-No, no, a cluster design in lieu of straight subdivision. MR. NACE-Yes, in lieu of. MR. SCHACHNER-Alternate to conventional subdivision. MR. NACE-In other words, that requires us to consider a cluster, but if you take a look, just to give you some idea of the wetlands, this is the property here. This is sort of an oblique angle, so it's out of perspective, but what we're developing is this front, this little finger of wetland here is right up along here, and this piece of wetland in here is over up this little channel. This area in here is full of hummocks and wetlands in between. This is an old field back here which is definitely above the wetland, okay. So this is where the building site would be, but this whole piece in here is about 27 acres, okay. So I'm saying, of that, between this there's probably five to six acres of field, and hummocks in here might be as much as 30, 40% of this area. So that's why I'm saying a very, very conservative estimate would be 18 or 19 acres of wetland. - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. MACEWAN-And anywhere in here it would be very difficult to find a suitable building site because of the setbacks. MR. NACE-Well, no. There are no, this is Corps. This is not DEC wetland. It's not a DEC, it's not a Town designated wetland. It's just Corps of Engineers. So the setbacks with the Corps are zero. MR. RUEL-Is that what ACOE means? MR. NACE-Army Corps of Engineers. MR. MACEWAN-But isn't the Corps' standard practice if you disturb wetland you have to replace wetland, if it's over 13 acres? MR. NACE-No. The 13 acres is the threshold at which DEC becomes interested in a wetland. Corps, used to be you could disturb, totally eradicate, up to an acre of wetland, under what they call a nationwide permit, okay, which didn't require you to do anything other than flag the boundaries (lost words). That has just, in the past couple of days, become a third of an acre instead of one. You can disturb a third of an acre under a nationwide permit, but this, even putting a road back in to here, would disturb significantly less than a third of an acre, by putting a driveway back in, but we're not really proposing disturbance of anything up here. If you look at Lots 10, 11, and 12 that border the wetland and have some wetland in them, there's still sufficient building sites in all three of those lots where you would not have to disturb any wetland. MR. PALING-What land do you intend to offer or may offer to the City? Are you talking the wetlands now? MR. NACE-No. It's going to be this open space. MR. PALING-Just that one? MR. NACE-It would be this parcel that comes out here and has frontage out here, and has frontage across here, and this map doesn't show it, but Jim also suggested that we provide a corridor down through here, down between Lots Four and Five, okay, down along that hedgerow, so that if the land to the east of this ever developed, they could have access up through that corridor up into the open space. MR. RUEL-This would not satisfy it, right, this is for drainage? MR. NACE-Well, this is for drainage. This we mayor may not need, okay. MR. PALING-So the Town, right now, has no immediate interest on either side. It's just what will happen in the future? MR. NACE-That would just be in the future, yes. MR. RUEL-Good thinking. George, you know it would be nice if we could get maps that would show us the adjacent properties and zoning, as we discussed this evening. We're just looking at this, and we have no idea what's on either side. MR. NACE-I can show you right here. This is all the part of the property that was just re-zoned to one acre recently. MR. RUEL-What was it before? MR. NACE-It was three acre, I think. This is the parcel we're talking about right here. See this hedgerow going in there, out here? This corner is this corner, okay. This corner is way, way at the back here. This wetland line across here is right up - 30 - '- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) through here, down in and up in through here. MR. RUEL-Right, and then this is here. MR. NACE-That hedgerow is there, correct. So all of our development will really be from here to here, and then this little, there's a triangle here that goes approximately here to Bay Road. MR. RUEL-And this is the existing road. MR. NACE-That' s an existing. substandard cul-de-sac there. There's that little, called a MR. RUEL-And this is where you would come in. MR. BREWER-This is the open space for the Town? MR. NACE-The open space for the Town would be right up in this corner here. It's about, what, two acres, so it's 1.8 acres. MR. BREWER-It's all bare land. MR. NACE-The whole thing is bare land now. Obviously, over a period, I'm sure as houses develop they'll be landscaped and there'll be some more hedgerows. MR. RUEL-Yes. Did you take this picture, Tom? MR. NACE-No, Mark Levack did. MR. RUEL-On a tall ladder? MR. NACE-Yes, right. Those are the properties that were re-zoned. Okay. You can see these were all created. MR. RUEL-When was this re-zoned? MR. NACE-Just within the past six months. It was about three months ago. You can see these lots in here are approximately the same size as we're proposing. MR. RUEL-AII this is open? MR. NACE-AII that's open. We're going to do this initially in Phase I, and in Phase II we'll bring the road into the Bay Road, okay, and actually this'll be a much better access point on Bay Road than the existing Stonegate. MR. BREWER-It'll give these people a chance to go out here, too. MR. NACE-Yes, and I think they will, too. The visibility from here is better than (lost word) . MR. HILTON-Now a comment related directly to that is the applicant is planning two phases. During Phase I they will be relying solely on the access through Fieldview Lane. At that time, technically that would be considered a cul-de-sac longer than 1,000 feet, which is a requirement in the subdivision regulations that you cannot exceed, and again, that's something that the Planning Board can waive, and in speaking with the Highway Superintendent, he is agreeable to that. So just to make the Board aware of that, that at the time of preliminary, that's something that the applicant should probably be requesting a waiver from. MR. RUEL-Do you want to repeat that on the cul-de-sac? MR. HILTON-A cul-de-sac cannot be longer than 1,000 feet, and as part of Phase I, this subdivision will be relying solely off the - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) connection to Fieldview Road. MR. MACEWAN-Is that a Subdivision Reg? MR. HILTON-It's a Subdivision Regulation which the Planning Board can waive. As I said, the Highway Superintendent, in speaking wi th him, is agreeable to that, but again, that's something that you would have to approve. MR. MACEWAN-Have him send us a memo. MR. HILTON-We will certainly involve him in the discussion with the Preliminary and he will forward his comments. MR. RUEL-Well, how many feet do we have now? MR. NACE-What we propose is about 1500 feet. Now, just for the record, we have requested four waivers, okay, for Sketch Plan. Your regulations call for Sketch Plan to be submitted at 50 scale. It was submitted at 100 scale because we believe it's easier to view the overall concept from that scale. They also require two foot contour intervals on the topography. We've submitted it at 10 foot intervals from the USGS Topo, simply because we don't have the survey completed yet, and we believe that 10 foot intervals is adequate for looking at Sketch Plan. MR. RUEL-You have 10, and what's required? MR. NACE-Two foot. MR. MACEWAN-Are you going to do two foot, though, at Preliminary? MR. NACE-Yes, we will definitely. MR. RUEL-Just Sketch Plan now. Sketch Plan. Okay. Everything you're mentioning is MR. NACE-These are waivers from the Subdivision Regulations for Sketch Plan submittal. MR. RUEL-Right, and do not necessarily apply to the next Phase, next application. MR. NACE-That's correct. The next, at Preliminary, we will have 50 scale and we will have two foot intervals. Also, your regulations require a landscaped plan at Sketch Plan for subdivisions over 20 lots. We propose to submit that at Preliminary plan, not at Sketch, and the fourth is what George initially referred to as the length of dead end streets. We've requested a waiver for that. MR. RUEL-All right, that's 1,000 feet? MR. NACE-Yes. We propose 1300 and the regulation is 1,000. MR. PALING-Okay. I have no trouble with the first three, and I think we've got a sign off with the Highway people, I have no trouble with the fourth, either. MR. HILTON-Right, and I will provide his comments at the time of Preliminary. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-Tom, the cul-de-sac, do they pave the whole thing, these days? MR. NACE-No. They don't pave the center. Your cul-de-sac standards are wide now so that it's a road around the circle with - 32 - -- / ''---../ -./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) a center being dirt. MR. RUEL-Yes, I wish they would pave them. responsible for that circle? Who's going to be MR. NACE-For maintenance? MR. RUEL-For maintenance, for the landscaping. Where I live, we have a circle there. No one wants to touch it. MR. BREWER-Because the Town owns it, don't they? MR. RUEL-No. They won't touch it either. MR. NACE-It's part of the Town's right-of-way. MR. HILTON-The Town's right-of-way. MR. BREWER-The Town's right-of-way, and they're not going to send landscapers out. MR. RUEL-It's not a good idea. MR. HILTON-One other Staff comment before I believe we have some members of the public who are summoning you, but I have a comment, relating back to the wetlands issue on the southern end of this property. Certainly Staff is concerned with minimizing nutrient pollution by on site septic systems, and we would ask that the Planning Board take a look at this design. If they're comfortable with this, we would certainly ask for any Army Corps designations or nonjurisdictional letters be provided before the subdivision were filed, the Final Stage. We'd want to be assured that they were comfortable with on site systems being located in and around this wetland. MR. PALING-Well, who will do that? MR. HILTON-The Army Corps will have to. MR. PALING-No, I said who will ask them? MR. HILTON-The applicant. Who will invite them? MR. NACE-We will, as part of that, our wetland mapping (lost words) . MR. RUEL-You talk about subsurface systems. What's a subsurface? MR. HILTON-It's basically a leachfield. MR. RUEL-It's a standard system, right? MR. HILTON-Yes, just another term. MR. BREWER-Is that something that could take month after month after month of waiting though? MR. NACE-Well, the fact is that the Corps, they're different wetland regulations, okay, and each agency looks at things differently. The Corps maximizes the amount of wetland they map, okay, or they require jurisdiction over, but they say right up to the edge of the wetland with any construction, including septic system. DEC and APA come back to more realistic boundaries for the wetland, but then if it's DEC they have a 100 foot buffer you can't do any construction in. If it's APA, they have a smaller buffer for no construction, but 100 foot setback for septic systems. So the only one that has jurisdiction over this wetland is the Corps of Engineers, and they say you can do. - 33 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. BREWER-No, I guess my concern is getting them to sign off on it, in a reasonable amount of time. MR. WEST-Tom, how did you propose to get access to Lot 26, that open space? MR. NACE-To Lot 26, for the open space? MR. WEST-I'm sorry. I'm looking at the old one. MR. NACE-There are two accesses to it. One's along that boundary at the top of your map, and one's along the boundary line and hedgerow. MR. BREWER-You'd have to go through this lot to that. MR. NACE-What we're anticipating. I don't know, it would depend, obviously, on what the Town feels if we proceed with the idea of deeding this over to the Town, but it could be just walking access. It may not be a road, or if it's a road, it may be up along that western boundary line, where you could maybe just park your cars just off of the edge of the proposed road and a trail down to the facilities, but we have provided an access through there (lost words) driveway. MR. RUEL-I thought you said something about open space. MR. NACE-Yes. This is the access to that proposed open space lot. MR. RUEL-Yes. This would have to be approved by. MR. NACE-By the Town. MR. RUEL-By the Town Board and Recreation Commission. MR. NACE-We would go back to the Planning Board on that or the Recreation Commission. MR. RUEL-AII we can do is recommend. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets go to public comment on this, and I would just point out that this is not a public hearing, but we're accepting public comment, that when this, as this progresses, if you're going to comment tonight, you should also come back and comment at all of the other stages of this application, but if anyone cares to speak about this tonight, please come up. TOM CICCONE MR. CICCONE-My name's Tom Ciccone, and I live on Fieldview, and I live on a lot adjacent to the new building. MR. PALING-Are you adjacent to Lot One? MR. CICCONE-I don't have a map. MR. HILTON-Yes. This is the lot that I was speaking of. MR. NACE-You're on the west side. MR. HILTON-He's actually on the east side of Fieldview. MR. PALING-On the east side, that's over here. MR. NACE-Adjacent to Lot One. MR. CICCONE-The question I have is what I just heard that, I didn't know until the other day that they were going to open a road there. - 34 - .- '-- -./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) If my count is right, we have about 13 houses in that area, and we have it pretty well set up for ourselves down in there. Kids can play out there, and we didn't know that, ~ didn't know that there was going to be a road cut through there, and the gentleman just said that, the way I understand it is all these trucks, and I guess there are going to be 28 houses or more over in this area, everything is going to be coming through Fieldview. MR. PALING-I would think so, at least to start with, yes. MR. RUEL-That's Phase I, yes. MR. PALING-At least Phase I. MR. CICCONE-I don't know whether the community can handle all this traffic, and eventually, as the gentleman just said, they're going to cut through to the east side, where there's going to be more houses, and that's going to give more people access to Fieldview. I don't know if you gentlemen have been down there. You have an aerial map. I don't think we can handle that traffic, especially coming out on Bay Road. I have a whole bunch of questions. I don't know if you gentlemen have time for them, but I did say something about the water that runs off the road coming on my land, and I see that they reduced the size of the lots, and another question I had, is the going to reduce the value of my,house? Am I going to be looking at the back of these houses from my house, and if I am, if this does go through, will somebody provide a fence? MR. PALING-Which way is your house oriented? MR. CICCONE-My house faces the west, and the land is on the south that they're going to be building on, so you face Fieldview. MR. PALING-Right. You're looking right at Fieldview. MR. CICCONE-Right. Another question, there's several trees on the line, front and back, and they're pretty good sized trees, and they're rotten. Who's going to be responsible for that? They're on the line. MR. MACEWAN-Are they on your property line, in that hedgerow area? MR. CICCONE-I'm not quite sure. I think it's right on the line. It might be over a little bit, and I'm saying all this stuff could be an expense to me down the road. I'm retired now, and we do plan on selling our house in a couple of years, and it's very important to me, my wife has to work two more years, it's very important to me that I don't lose the value of my house. So I don't think it's right. I don' t understand the whole thing, and from what I understand there's going to be quite a few houses there, and I don't know what it's going to do to the value of illY house. MR. PALING-How big is the lot you're on? It looks to be about the same size as Lot One. How big is your lot? MR. CICCONE- I'm not sure. records. I didn' t have time to get out the MR. PALING-Less than an acre I would think. It would be about the same size. Do you have any kind of drainage problems now on your property? MR. CICCONE-Yes, we do. MR. PALING- In that corner we talked about earlier, southwest corner? Okay. That may be improved. - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. CICCONE-Yes, it would have to be, because now when they plow, they turnaround and kind of keep it clean for us, but now they're going to go right straight through and that whole lower end is going to catch all the snow. (Lost words) that just goes up, and we're on the lower part. I just built a garage a year ago, and I asked the Town to get a permit. Because of my disabilities, I'm not able to do a lot of shoveling. I wanted to (lost words) my garage out toward the front of the house to the rest of the houses on the street. My house sits back a little bit farther than the rest of the houses on the street, and at that time they told me I couldn't do it because I had to be so far from the road. I was just trying to shorten up my driveway a little bit. Okay, and now it seems I was just one little guy who wanted a driveway shortened, and now we're kind of bending the rules here, and from what I understand, they're supposed to be one acre lots, and why should we, in that community down there, suffer the loss of our community so other people can profit. I don't understand that. I don't have a lot of education. Maybe I'm talking out of turn, but it doesn't seem right to us that we should lose our own community. MR. MACEWAN-I don't understand how you'd be losing your community over there. I'm lost there. MR. CICCONE-Well, there's going to be a lot of traffic there, sir. A lot more traffic than there is now, and if you ever lived on a dead end street, on both ends, you've got kind of a quiet community. Kids ride their bike. My grandchildren come and they ride their bikes up and down the road. Now with all the building going on, and then once this is open, and then we open it to east field, the east side (lost words) can handle all the traffic. That's what I mean by ruining our community. If our property value goes down, who's going to fix that? MR. MACEWAN-I don't think there's anything ever been proven that property values would go down because of further development in the area. I think I've heard that question raised a number of times, and I've not seen any documentation that says otherwise. If anything, I would think it would probably be an asset to your area up there by having further development and opening it up. MR. RUEL-As long as the new development is somewhat consistent with the area where YOU live. If, however, there's a vast difference, you know, if they put up a mobile home overlay next door to you, that might have an effect on your property, but in this particular case, I'm looking at the size of the lots where YOU live, and it looks like it's essentially the same as what is being proposed now. The only thing I can see is that you'll lose a dead end street, which is sometimes quite an asset, but then again, when you moved there you knew that there was adjacent land that was, it was zoned for building, and that eventually that road would have to go through. I don't know if you thought about that then. MR. CICCONE-I knew about the road. I knew that people were going to build there some day. I realized that. I don't have a problem with that, but we don't want to lose (lost words). It seems as though all these people that own this land could bring it through on their land. Why don't they come through the Sunnyside way and open a road up there for the people that live there. Why come through our community and go? MR. RUEL-Yes, well, eventually they will open it to Bay Road, Phase II. MR. CICCONE-Yes, but in the mean time, that could be a year. It could be two years. MR. RUEL-How many homes in Phase I? - 36 - .-/ '----' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. PALING-Twenty-one in Phase I. MR. RUEL-That's the larger Phase, then? MR. PALING-Yes. It's got to be the larger Phase. MR. RUEL-It's a problem that's been expressed by many people, many times. It's called progress. MR. CICCONE-Well, I don't think, sir, that progress is, I don't think it's a laughing matter, progress, because progress sometimes sets something back. If I'd have known that they were going to put a road there, I'd have never bought the house, okay. I knew they were going to build there some day because the land was for sale, but I didn't know they were going to put a road through there. So why should we have to suffer because somebody let (lost words) Bay Road. If they're going to build on the east field, then they've got the east side and you've got the south side, and everybody coming through Fieldview. I guess I don't know how else to say it, but I'm definitely against it, and I want to know if there's going to be a fence put up, because I don't want to look at that house, and I don't want that expense, and I don't want the expense of moving trees. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm on a pension. MR. BREWER-I think your view, I think if you look straight out here, I'm not exactly sure how your house faces, but I'm getting the impression that you're looking at Fieldview, you're going to be looking across the street to your neighbor, if there is a neighbor there. On his side yard, he'll be looking at the back of a house. You'll be possibly looking kitty corner at the side of his house. Now whether they put up a fence or not, we can't make them put up a fence in somebody's yard. The hedgerow is on the edge of your property line, and it'll be on the back side of this house across the street. There's a map up there, if you can see what I mean. You can go right up and look at it if you'd like. MR. CICCONE-Can I have one of these? MR. BREWER-They're not mine to give you, but the applicant will happily give you one. MR. PALING-Do you have an extra, or if you want to take one of these. Okay. Did you have anything else, sir? MR. CICCONE-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Now remember, come back to the other hearings, too, when you've had a chance to look at it, when we've studied it, too. MR. CICCONE-Okay. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else care to speak? JOHN BRENNAN MR. BRENNAN-I just have a question. John Brennan from Sherwood Acres, which is off of Tee Hill. I just had a question. We're hearing one acre minimum building lot. Now we're down to a half acre. Could somebody explain that to me? MR. PALING- It's a cluster type of building. George, you'd probably put it in better words than I would. MR. RUEL-I can read to you what it is. MR. HILTON-Well, the zoning does call for one acre lots. The Planning Board does have the ability, under the cluster subdivision - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) rules, which are in our zoning and subdivision regulations I to lower the lot sizes if they feel that it's appropriate in the area, and one way that, the cluster subdivision is designed to protect wetland areas which the applicant is proposing to do with this application, by reducing the lot sizes of the other lots. What happens is, where you have one acre lots, there's no defined minimum lot size in a cluster subdivision, but, for instance, he has a total of 58 acres. He cannot exceed more than 58 lots within the entire subdivision, based on a density of one acre lot sizes, but again, that's a density in a cluster, and there's no specific design minimum. MR. BRENNAN-I got transferred here with the power company, and I had a look around, and my son who's sitting in at this meeting for school, asked me to come tonight and came with me, but after looking around, he asked me not to go in the Foothills conference. So that left out Queensbury, Saratoga, so I zeroed in on Lake George, and I ended up in Sherwood Acres, which is Lake George. Now I looked around here, and I saw some conventional buildings in the area, Hiland, for example, and I thought, this is just a comment now, they were restricted to one acre lots. Now, is the adjacent development to this one, one acre lots? MR. PALING-I think it is, isn't it, George? MR. BREWER-The zoning's one acre. It's a one acre zone. MR. HILTON-That's the density. MR. BRENNAN-Is it one acre, that density is about the same as Sherwood Acres. MR. BREWER-Right. MR. HILTON-The minimum lot sizes in the subdivision to the north are, in some cases, less than an acre, but the overall density figures computes to one home per acre. MR. BRENNAN-Yes, okay. MR. MACEWAN-The clustering that we had in mind with this application and the other two, when they came in for their re- zoning request, the thought that was behind not only the applicant's, but Staff and the Board, when we recommended for these parcels to be re-zoned to one acre residential, was that when and if they ever came in for development, we were going to push very hard for the clustering clause to be used because not only of the wetlands that were involved but the significant open space that's out there, the scenic vistas that are there, and to keep it a very rural type development, and with the clustering, that allows you to develop the land, but to put things closer together and leave a lot more open space. MR. BRENNAN-I understand what the developer's proposing and I understand what, you're taking the site plan as he proposed it and there'll be another meeting? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. BRENNAN-So then we can speak our piece at that particular point in time. Is there any restrictions that he can't have a one acre cluster? It has to be a half acre cluster? MR. BREWER-No. MR. MACEWAN-If it was up to one acre, it wouldn't be clustered. - 38 - L~ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. BRENNAN-Okay. MR. HILTON-I just want to clarify a statement I just made. The property to the north, I've just been told, and I assume that that pre-dates the zoning. Although the zoning to the north calls for one acre lots, that was developed at a different time when the zoning called for less size of lots. I just wanted to clarify that. MR. BRENNAN-No, I understand what you're saying. The only reason I'm commenting, I'm putting the situation, that the extension of Sherwood will be the same effect. That particular development, and the development I'm in are kind of open land, sited fairly well, housing wise, so that you don't have a cluster, you've got a little room. For me to accept a cluster, in my particular development of area, doesn't make sense. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. AL OUDEKERK MR. OUDEKERK-Hi. My name's Al Oudekerk, and I live just to the west. I own the land west of the development. (Lost words), and actually I like the idea of the clustering. I know it's an essential part of building in that area, and it'll be the same way, if we should ever sell our property, which we have no intent of at the present time, but it's something that's needed, and I really see no objection to it. I would like to see houses on a little bigger lots, but I mean, here again, today, and with the contractors building houses, they want as many as they can on the land that they can build it on, and actually it's equal to everything in Stonegate. They're all on about half acre lots, and as far as coming in from Sunnyside Road, there's no way you can get to that land from Sunnyside Road. That's another piece of property which is not for sale, at the present time, but it was all re-zoned (lost words) one acre. That's all I'm saying. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. There will be another opportunity, at least one more. MR. RUEL-I had a question for Tom. The Fieldview Road, you've proposed to open that when you start a Phase I, correct? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. RUEL-And the other road, unnamed, going to Bay Road, you will construct after you complete 60% or so of Phase I, to start Phase II? MR. NACE-When we come in for approval of Phase II, it will include this road. MR. RUEL-Yes. How difficult would it be not to go through Fieldview Road, but rather to build that road that you propose to build for Phase II at Phase I stage? MR. NACE-Until we get some of Phase I developed and we get cash flow going, as any developer can tell you, the long frontages here with minimal number of lots on this road make it impractical to do as your first piece of development, okay. You've got a real lag in the cash flow to pay for the construction of the road. So that's the reason we started it (lost word) . MR. RUEL-Yes, well I'm concerned about the existing properties on Fieldview road, and one gentleman expressed the fact that he felt that they have their own closed in community, and this would afford, would keep it that way for that, and you could still have your development and they would still have theirs. Things would - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) remain static. The fact that you have to build a road, I know, is an expense, and so forth, but the fact that you're getting clustering also is an economic advantage. Okay. MR. NACE-That helps, no question. MR. RUEL-If you were going to build this all one acre, you'd get very few homes in here. MR. NACE-We can certainly look at it and discuss it among ourselves and look at the economics in detail. MR. RUEL-I wish you would consider that. MR. NACE-No promises, obviously. MR. RUEL-Because apparently the people that live in that area have been there a long time. They have become accustom to the area, and I think they would like to maintain it. MR. NACE-I hear the concerns and understand them. If we were looking at 21 lots in here on Phase I, 60% of those is about 12 lots. So there'd be the potential for 12 of these to be built out before we can come back and ask you for Phase II. So, yes, there would be 12 additional families using that, which would generate approximately at a maximum peak of five o'clock in the afternoon, twelve trips. MR. RUEL-Where did you get those figures? MR. NACE-Institute of Traffic Engineers MR. BREWER-Mark, isn't there some provision in here, I think I recall reading it, that over a certain number of lots, there has to be two entrances to a subdivision or something? I'm thinking there is. MR. NACE-Yes, that's over 35 lots. MR. BREWER-Over 35? Okay. I didn't remember the number. MR. SCHACHNER-There's also a Phasing aspect to it if it's over that amount. MR. NACE-I think it's in the zoning. MR. BREWER-I think it's in subdivision. MR. NACE-There is a provision for emergency access. If it's over 35 lots, there has to be two access points. MR. RUEL-Would that apply to PUD and clustering as well? MR. NACE-Well, we're only at 28 lots. So after 35 lots, we're providing a second access point. We'll look at the economics. Again, no promises. MR. MACEWAN-I'm just curious. Tonight's meeting was not a mailer. It was just advertised, correct? MR. HILTON-It wasn't even advertised. listed on our agenda. It was just Sketch Plan MR. MACEWAN-How did this gentleman find out about it, just out of curiosity? MR. CICCONE-I'll tell you how I found out about it. Last Sunday somebody from Queensbury, with a Queensbury van, pulled out onto my - 40 - I ~ -_/ "-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) land, and they were in the middle of my driveway, half way up my yard, with a map, and they were pointing at my trees. MR. PALING-That was Saturday, not Sunday. MR. CICCONE-It was Saturday? Okay. MR. RUEL-I know that this is Sketch Plan, and it's very preliminary, but do you have any idea the average square foot home? MR. NACE-In lots? Yes, I do. MR. MACEWAN-What did you ask him, Roger, typical house size? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-Maybe Mr. Cerrone can tell us. MR. RUEL-I'm concerned about the builder. That's my concern. MR. NACE-The house? I'm sorry, I thought you said the lot. MR. RUEL-No, house. MR. CERRONE-We're looking at 1500 and up square feet. MR. RUEL-So the average would be about, what, 16 or 1700? Whatever you can sell. The larger lots you put a little bigger house? MR. CERRONE-My name is Al Cerrone, and I'm the proposed builder for the places. MR. RUEL-My question had to do not only with the average square footage of the house, but could you tell us something about the type of structure, a little bit of the architecture or the design? MR. CERRONE-We're going to have a map of about a half a dozen type of different designs. MR. RUEL-And you select from that? MR. CERRONE-To start off with, right, but if somebody wants their own design, (lost words) . MR. RUEL- You'll accept that, as long as meets the building criteria. MR. CERRONE-Yes, we have to go through the Building Department. I mean, if somebody comes up with a house plan that they want to build, as long as it's going to look good in the neighborhood, I don't have any objection to it. MR. RUEL-Would you say that they would be similar to the ones you're presently building? MR. CERRONE-I would say so, yes. MR. RUEL-Yes. Nice house. MR. CERRONE-Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-Well, what will your housing packages consist of? I mean, will you be doing landscaping driveways? MR. CERRONE-I'll be (lost word) into landscaping and paving the driveways. I don't want to commit to that at this point. MR. MACEWAN-Will you have a better idea before we get to Final? - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. CERRONE-Final, yes. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. RUEL-Good. MR. CERRONE-Everybody's different. Everybody wants different things, so you really can't say there's a specific type of home you're going to build in. MR. PALING-Okay. Any other questions? MR. CERRONE-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. George, do you want to comment? MR. HILTON-The only other comment that I would have is that based on all the discussion you've heard this evening, if you have any specific comments that you, as a Board, have and would like to direct the applicant so that he can prepare or work on the Preliminary and Final plats to reflect those comments. MR. BREWER-I've got four items that we need for Preliminary. Some kind of, I don't know where you're going to put it in the deed or whatever for Lot Seven, no further subdivision, and something on the map to show the drainage problem on Lot One is going to be taken care of. MR. RUEL-What about Lot Seven? MR. PALING-There'll be no further building. MR. RUEL-Yes, right. That was indicated in the letter, wasn't it? MR. BREWER-No. He's going to give us a letter to that effect, a letter from the Army Corps. MR. MACEWAN-Jump back one, Tim, to that deed language and stuff and preserving those hedgerows, they were going to be a no cut area. MR. BREWER-I'm not done yet. MR. MACEWAN -Okay. MR. PALING-Yes. The first one is the Lot Seven, right? MR. RUEL-And Eight, right? MR. BREWER-No. MR. RUEL-Why not? subdivision. It will be restricted from any further MR. BREWER-No. They're not going to subdivide Eight. MR. RUEL-Well, that's what they said in their letter. repeating it. MR. BREWER-I thought it was Lot Seven there's not going to be any further subdivision? I'm only MR. RUEL-It says Seven and Eight. It says two large lots, Seven and Eight, which will be restricted from any further subdivision. So why not pick up the same thing. MR. PALING-As long as they're saying it, sure. MR. BREWER-Okay, Seven and Eight, the letter from the Army Corps of - 42 - -/ '--' ',--, (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) Engineers, the letter from Paul Naylor about the road. Do we need a letter from him? MR. HILTON-Yes. We'll have his comments anyway. MR. BREWER-And some language about maintaining the hedgerows. That's all I've got. MR. MACEWAN-Did you say something about correcting the drainage on Mr. Ciccone's property? MR. BREWER-Yes, that was Number Two. MR. PALING-Yes, right, you've got that, and you did do the review by the Army Corps of Engineers? MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Then there will be a landscaped plan, but they've already committed to that. MR. RUEL-Well, I don't think you have to mention the contour or the scale or anything like that. MR. BREWER-No. He's going to do that. MR. PALING-And then we had a discussion about the cul-de-sac and the return of that land later on to the Town. MR. BREWER-Provided that this land here to the west. MR. PALING-When they open the road up to Bay that, that should be in there, though. That provision that if that is opened up, that they would then open this road to it, and then abandon, I guess we'd say the cheeks of the cul-de-sac. MR. RUEL-Yes. Could you have a note on the plan? MR. NACE-Mark, could you suggest some language that you would want to, I'm not sure what we would put in our deed. MR. SCHACHNER-For now, why don't you just put a note on the plan that the applicant will do that at that time, that they just described. There still has to be the process we talked about, but I think that would be helpful. MR. NACE-I'll get it on the subdivision plan so it shows the outline of the land that's to be turned back. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, and also that that's the intent. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. BREWER-As a matter of fact, it was Hiland Park that we did that. Remember? Where the land went back to the adjacent lot owner, when they cut the road for Hiland Park? You don't remember? MR. RUEL-Nobody remembers that. MR. PALING-I've got one more question in regard to septic systems that might be on Lots 10, 11 and 12, and Lot 8 and 7 also. Where we're saying we might be under a different set of rules with the Army Corps of Engineers and the setbacks are different. Do we want to go along with that or do we want to stiffen that for those lots to what we usually get, for setbacks from wetlands? MR. RUEL-Eleven is the critical. - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. NACE-There's going to be a practical situation there, that in order to get standard systems in, as we get back toward the wetland, the water table comes up. So we're going to be up where we've got better soils, regardless of what stipulations. MR. BREWER-Put the septic in the front? MR. NACE-Probably. MR. PALING-To get away from there. I would think you'd want to. MR. NACE-We'll have to do that for soil reasons anyway, regardless. MR. PALING-Okay, but I think we'll be asking you about it at the time. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. PALING-Yes, okay. Okay. Craig, are you all set? MR. MACEWAN-I'm all set. MR. PALING-Tim? MR. BREWER-I'm fine. MR. PALING-Dave? MR. WEST-I would just reiterate Roger's point about giving consideration to putting that road in (lost words) . MR. NACE-Again, no promises, but we will seriously consider it. MR. PALING-Okay. Roger, are you all set? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, I guess we don't have anything to do. It's just we're passing our comments on. MR. MACEWAN-What about the waivers from Sketch? MR. BREWER-There is no motion we have to do at Sketch is there? MR. SCHACHNER-I think the regulations say that if the Board wants to and feels appropriate or something like that, you can pass a motion, approving or encouraging a Sketch, but you don't have to. MR. RUEL-We don't have to. MR. PALING-I think we've communicated pretty clearly. MR. RUEL-That's it, right? There's no motion or anything. MR. BREWER-Do we want to make a motion or not? MR. PALING-I think we've communicated. MR. RUEL-Tom, did you get all these items that we talked about over here? Lets go through them one more time. MR. NACE-Okay. I've got existing drainage problem adjacent to Lot One. MR. RUEL-Right. MR. NACE-Lot Seven and Eight, deed restrictions of no further subdivision. - 44 - ',,-, ../ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. RUEL-Right. MR. NACE-Army Corps of Engineers letter. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. NACE-Paul Naylor road letter. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. NACE-Restrict hedgerow cutting, show on the plan outline of land to be deeded back to land owner at cul-de-sac, and on the lots adjacent to the wetlands, septic systems up front. MR. RUEL-Fine. Was there anything else? MR. PALING-Tim, how does that compare? MR. MACEWAN-I missed the beginning of that. Did you get the lots, about further subdivision of the larger lots? MR. NACE-Yes. subdivision. Lot Yes. Seven and Eight restriction, no further MR. PALING-Tim, did that cover what's on your list? MR. BREWER-The language about maintaining the hedgerows? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. All right, gentleman, we have, tentatively, maybe, George, CVS the 28th? MR. HILTON-Well, we still have a couple of items for this evening, but, yes, CVS on the 28th. MR. PALING-Now I've been asked again tonight, as I relayed to them, we want to see the written material at our homes Friday. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. PALING-And if not, we're in kind of a tough situation, especially. MR. BREWER-If we don't get the material, we don't have a meeting. MR. HILTON-Well, we've been in contact with them. I spoke with the applicant today. We do expect that you will have the materials Friday. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. I'm jumping the gun. We've got one more item here. MR. MACEWAN-And just to be very clear about that, and if we don't, I'm in favor of no meeting on Tuesday. MR. BREWER-Correct. No meeting if we don't get the material. MR. HILTON-We have someone else on. MR. SCHACHNER-You just put someone else on tonight, though. MR. HILTON-Right. - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. PALING-Yes, we have. We have Seeley to go tonight. MR. MACEWAN-No, no. Trzaska. talking about for CVS. We'll come back for him. I'm MR. HILTON-That you will not hear that application that Tuesday evening. MR. BREWER-If we don't have our information on Friday. MR. HILTON-Okay. I will pass that on to the applicant, and as I said, I spoke with him today, and we do expect that you'll have it Friday. MR. BREWER-That means us having it. MR. HILTON-Like I said, you will have it Friday. MR. BREWER-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Now back to Seeley. MR. HILTON-Yes, we're on to Seeley. ADDITIONAL ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 33-94 APPROVED SITE PLAN CHARLES & CRAIG SEELEY MODIFICATION TO BARBARA SEELEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay. Are you here for Seeley? All right. going to have to describe this for us, George, I think. You're MR. HILTON-Where we're at is the applicant has a previously existing or previously approved site plan, Number 33-94. They are proposing to modify it be increasing the level of clearing, or the limit of clearing, I should say, on the site, and what the applicant has submitted I believe you have a copy of. It's a little eight and a half by eleven sketch with a notation on it indicating where they plan to clear. We do have some concerns where we would like to possibly see some more information on this. We're concerned with runoff, of course, stormwater management in this area, possibly including some amendments to previously approved stormwater management plan to show that there will be no runoff on adjacent properties, certainly that's for the Board to decide, whether they choose to modify this this evening or not. That's mY comments as Staff, and in addition, you may wish to have this considered under a public hearing, so that all adj acent property owners within 500 feet can express their opinion and any comments they may have on how they may be effected. MR. PALING-Okay. I think there's been three concerns voiced over this so far. Number One is the map that we have is inadequate to do anything. That doesn't really tell us anything. Number Two is is that the clearing, the unauthorized clearing I didn't hear you say too much about that. We're going to have to get a report on that and see what is to be done, and Number Three, we visited this location Saturday, and I now see the dumping again of bricks and things in there, and are we monitoring this, or is it okay, and the storage of the, there' s extensive, I would call it, storage of older types of road clearing equipment, I don't want to say road clearing. Older types of equipment, be it farm or road or whatever it is, but it's getting to be quite a library, inventory in there of that kind of stuff, and those I think, I don't know if anyone else has any other concerns, but those are three concerns either I have or have heard from others. - 46 - ',,--- / '---" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. BREWER-That sums it up for me. I would like a clearer map, and the limits on the map, as to what they want to clear and the elevations or whatever, and the update on the stormwater, and lets advertise. MR. RUEL-Yes, I would like a public hearing on this. MR. PALING-Yes, a public hearing. You represent the applicant. Would you care to identify yourself? MRS. SEELEY-Yes, Barbara Seeley. As far as actually giving you a plan for filling or whatever, we have no immediate plans for filling anything, you know, with any intent of doing anything. What's happening is some fill becomes available, we accepted it, because it was approved fill. We don't have any immediate plans for building anything. We don' t have any immediate plans for anything, other than when it became available, we took it because we were denied access to our property from the other two roads. We can access it only from Big Boom Road, which (lost words) very definitely, access to the rest of the property. We have no intentions of clear cutting just to cut the trees and have, when fill becomes available and we need to cut a tree to make room for the fill, that's what we've been doing, but if you've been over there, which a couple of you have, you can see that there's a pretty big gully there, and if I live long enough to see it all filled, I'll be doing something. MR. PALING-Let me ask a question on the fill. brick cement wall allowable fill? Is brick cement, MRS. SEELEY-Yes. MR. HILTON-I believe cement is an appropriate fill. MR. PALING-There's a part of a brick wall, I noticed, sticking up out of the ground. MRS. SEELEY-I know it was construction, either from roads or from construction demolition type of thing, whatever becomes available. If it's approved fill, we take it. MR. BREWER-I guess I have a problem with, then does it become a demolition dump? That's a big question I have. MR. HILTON-That's an interesting question, and that's something that probably the Zoning Administrator would have to make a comment on. MR. BREWER-I understand, and I'm not trying to open a can or worms or anything. I just have a concern as to, hypothetically, if you had all the fill you wanted, how far would you go with it? MRS. SEELEY-Up to within the buffer zones. MR. BREWER-So maybe you could lay that out. Maybe that's the final plan. Maybe you could show us that. MRS. SEELEY-Like I said, if I live long enough to do that. MR. BREWER-No, I understand, but Craig's going to be around for a while, and I presume he goes with the property. MR. SEELEY-How did it come to be that you exceeded the clearing limits? MRS. SEELEY-Actually, I didn't realize that we had, as far as that goes. I didn't realize, and I don't know where it's written, and our attorney doesn't either, as to what is the approved clearing - 47 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) limits. know. Where is it written that he can't cut trees? I don't MR. PALING-It was a site plan that we approved that set the limits. MRS. SEELEY-The site plan set the limits for tree cutting? MR. RUEL-Yes. Everything was spelled out. MRS. SEELEY-Within the buffer zones. MR. BREWER-I think I'd like a copy of the old site plan to go with the map that they provide. MR. MACEWAN-You made a statement here earlier in your discussion that you were in no, I believe the way you put it, you were in no hurry to develop the back parcel of that land, but also you said that you were severely limited to access of that parcel, and the only way you could get to it was Big Boom Road. MRS. SEELEY-That's right. MR. MACEWAN-The message I'm getting is that you're clearing it out so that you can get access to it from Big Boom Road, and you have some plans down the road. MRS. SEELEY-That would be a long term range, yes, why not. I mean, we have seven and a half acres there that basically we've been denied the use of because of access to it. MR. BREWER-No. I think our purpose, when that site plan came to us, was that the machine shop was going to be up on Big Boom Road, and at that point, that was going to be the only use for that land. The reason we denied the access on Twin Channels was because of clearing the trees and the water and what not down below. I think that's how ~ remember it anyway. I think that was our position. I don't think we denied access to deny access. MRS. SEELEY-Well, but you did. In reality, that's what you did. MR. BREWER-Mrs. Seeley, with all due respect, the plan that came to us was a machine shop up on top of the hill. MRS. SEELEY-Exactly, but at one point, if you remember, we suggested to you that we would subdivide the property on the lower level, to appease the neighbors. Subdivide it into, I believe, a couple of lots down there, leaving the upper level for the machine shop and re-zone the lower property to residential so that the neighbors wouldn't have concerns, and we were denied. MR. BREWER-By this Board? We don't re-zone land. MRS. SEELEY-No. Well, I'm not saying this particular Board, but whatever Board we had to go before. No matter which way we turned, we were denied this and we were denied that. We have run into brick walls with this Town since Day One, whether we were on Glenwood Avenue or whether we were on Big Boom Road. Before we bought the property, we came to the Town and asked them, are there any restrictions with this land? It was zoned Light Industrial. It was 15 acres, and that's what we bid on was the 15 acres. We went to the Town. We went to Jim Martin. We asked for any restrictions. We went to the ENCON up in Warrensburg and asked for any kind of environmental concerns and brooks and streams and anything. No, we did not have any, and then we wound up in court and spent thousands of dollars to prove that you were wrong, that we did not have a brook on the property. MR. BREWER-I don't want to debate the whole process. - 48 - ..,/ --./ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MRS. SEELEY-No, I don't, either, but I'm just saying it has been one brick wall right after the other, and the fact that we have accepted some fill and would like to accept whatever comes along, because, I mean, we're not (lost words). It's whatever comes along for whatever construction purposes. It's not something that we're going out to solicit and it's not something that we're going to buy. It's just whatever happens to become available, we'd like to be able to accept it. MR. MACEWAN-How do people approach you to dump fill on your property? Do they call you up and say, I've got a truck load of blah, blah, blah? MRS. SEELEY-They come to us and say, we've got X number of truck loads of stuff and we have to have a place to dump it, and we dump it. MR. MACEWAN-And they don't pay you to dump it there? MRS. SEELEY-No, they do not. MR. BREWER-We had a concern about that when they were dumping when we were all out there, as to. MRS. SEELEY-We won't accept anything that's not approved fill. I can tell you that right now. MR. BREWER-No, about the compaction and all that, if ever that was all filled and if ever there was a building on it, we had a concern about that. That's why I have concern about the fill going in there. Does it become a demolition dump? MR. RUEL-Are there standards on fill? MRS. SEELEY-Yes. MR. RUEL-Do we have standards? MR. HILTON-There are standards on fill, and we do have them and we enforce all the results, regulations from DEC which we have to abide by. MR. PALING-Lets move back on this a little bit if we can and ask, why are we here, what are we trying to decide? If I understand this correctly, this whole meeting was brought about by a neighbor's complaint that the cutting was excessive on the property. MR. HILTON-Well, as far as I know, the application is here because the applicant does wish to extend the limits of clearing, which is a modification to a previously existing or a previously approved site plan. MR. MACEWAN-And John says that it's already exceeded. MR. HILTON-Already exceeded, and as a result, they wish to modify their site plan. MRS . SEELEY-John Goralski came to us and said that he'd had a complaint, which I do believe that we are entitled to know, and he said that as far as he could see, it would be a simply, put our intentions in writing and come before the Board, it wouldn't require a public hearing because it is not, we're not asking for anything other than what the property is actually zoned for. MR. PALING-There was a lot of interest over this, when it was before this Board before, and evidentally that interest still remains, and I think I'm speaking for the Board, we'll check in a - 49 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) minute, that we would like to see a public hearing on this. We'd like to see a public hearing, with regard to the site plan modification review. We're asking you to submit a site plan that clearly identifies the area as originally agreed, that which has been overcut now, and that where you would like to cut, and we want it such that we can visit the job site prior to the meeting, review the plans at the job site. So we're asking that there be a public hearing. We're asking for a complete description of what I just described to you on a map, and then I would like to know, just a clarification for myself, if the fill you're doing is okay, then fine, let it be, but I'd like to hear, I'm asking Staff comment on that. Now did I miss anything? MR. RUEL-I have one comment. I see here an applicant who is guilty of a violation and is looking for a modification to rectify it. MR. WEST-After the fact. MR. RUEL-After the fact. MRS. SEELEY-It's not uncommon in this Town. MR. BREWER-That doesn't make it right. MRS. SEELEY-I didn't say it did. MR. RUEL-This sure rubs me the wrong way, I'll tell you that. MR. WEST-One other point ~ would make is the number of vehicles on the property, unregistered vehicles. There was a bus there, and there was at least three or four vehicles there. MR. PALING-I think more than that. There was quite a conglomeration of different kinds of vehicles, including a bus. MR. HILTON-And John was out there and obviously did have a discussion with someone related to the applicant, and I haven't heard anything further back on unregistered vehicles. MR. BREwER-Maybe John could be at our next meeting about this. MR. HILTON-If not, I will certainly have a letter from him addressing your concerns. MR. PALING-Well, raising the question about vehicles and about fill and about clearing. MR. HILTON-Right. Yes. MR. PALING-And I don't see how we can avoid a public hearing with the interest that was shown before, and the interest that's been shown already on this. MRS. SEELEY-Fine, I don't have any objections. MR. PALING-Now is there anything else? Lets be sure that we're letting the applicant know what it is we want, so when they come the thing is complete. MR. HILTON-Well, as far as the Staff is concerned, we're obviously looking for a map that indicates probably little, your actual limit of clearing that you are proposing. In addition, we would be looking for some type of stormwater management plan, be it drYWells or be it whatever you propose. MRS. SEELEY-They do have one well, at the foot of the driveway, which basically collects runoff from the site. We also have a basin. - 50 - ~ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. HILTON-Okay. If you would indicate those, and any additions that you propose, in light of the new clearing. MRS. SEELEY-There's also a concern. The Town of Queensbury has run, they have a pipe running from across the street over to our property, which takes the runoff from the other side of the road onto our property. I don't think that we should have to contend with their runoff. MR. PALING-Could you get us a clearer print than the one that was submitted? MRS. SEELEY-Sure. I (lost words) to our lawyer, assuming that he was going to do whatever he had to do with it. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-When these packets go out to us, would you also put in our packet the original approval of the site, showing whatever we discussed, whatever we have agreed to as limits of clearing? MR. HILTON-Yes, and this is going to be advertised for February. MR. PALING-Okay. February. MR. BREWER-So that will be when, next month? MR. HILTON-Yes, next month. MR. PALING-Whichever meeting next month. MR. HILTON-Again, we haven't decided. We sit down at Staff, the beginning of the month, and assign meetings to applications, but we will let you know when it will be heard, and it will be advertised. MRS. SEELEY-Now, do I have to send out all these letters? MR. HILTON-No. This will be done by us. However, we are probably going to request a fee, a $25 fee, for this, to cover the cost of this notification. I will contact you and discuss this with you, yes. MRS. SEELEY-All right. MR. PALING-Okay. We'll see you next month. Thank you. MR. RUEL-Have you got dates for site, first and second? MR. PALING-Certainly. MR. HILTON-We've got a couple of more things here, a few more, actually. SITE PLAN NO. 6-95 MIKE HAYES & RICH SCHERMERHORN REQUEST FOR EXTENSION ORIGINAL APPROVAL - 1/24/95 EXTENSION - 1/16/96 TO 1/31/97 MR. HILTON-We have a Site Plan 6-95, Mike Hayes and Rich Schermerhorn. They are seeking an extension of this, and it's my understanding that the Board has granted extensions in the past. This was brought up to me this afternoon. It's your pleasure whether or not you would like to grant the extension this evening. MR. PALING-Now this is at the corner of Blind Rock and Bay. MR. HILTON-I believe so, yes. It's that storage. MR. BREWER-No, that's further up, Sherman Avenue. - 51 - -- -' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. HILTON-Exactly. It runs out 131/97. bays. It's off of Sherman. It's for some storage MR. PALING-This is a different one. MR. BREWER-Over by the Northway. MR. MACEWAN-Yes, I know, but what did you say the site plan number was? MR. HILTON-6-95. They were granted one extension that was effective from January 16th of '96, which expires the 31st of this month, 1997. They're seeking another extension beyond that date. MR. BREWER-If we don't do it tonight, we aren't going to do it. Well, I guess we've got a meeting next week. MR. PALING-How long is the extension they want? MR. HILTON-I would guess that they're asking for a year. I don't have anything in writing. MR. WEST-Where are they located again? MR. HILTON-Sherman Avenue. MR. MACEWAN-Right there, actually, before the overpass. MR. BREWER-They want to put storage. MR. RUEL-They want to put storage buildings. MR. PALING-They want to do that eventually, that's what you're saying, Roger? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. BREWER-How long are they going to keep getting extensions? MR. RUEL-They were in here. They had plans and they showed us the buildings. MR. BREWER-One year, two years, I don't have a problem with it, but three years? MR. RUEL-No, this is not the third year. MR. HILTON-This would be the second extension. MR. BREWER-They got an approval for a year, then we extended it for another year. That's two years. MR. HILTON-Right, but the second extension, I guess. MR. PALING-Okay. That would make it two years. MR. WEST-Why do they need another extension? MR. RUEL-They're not ready to build anything. MR. HILTON-Yes. That's the best way I could probably describe it, is that they're not. MR. BREWER-Why don't we talk about it next week. MR. PALING-I thought you said we've got to do it tonight? MR. BREWER-We're going to be here next week, right? Are we going - 52 - ~. ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) to be here next week or not? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. We've got Trzaska. MR. HILTON-Yes, we are, we've got Trzaska. MR. BREWER-All right. So we can discuss it then. MR. PALING-Why don't we finish it now? MR. BREWER-I don't care. MR. HILTON-We also have CVS which is the subject of my next comment. There's a letter that I just distributed to you from MarilYn VanDyke concerning the old Quaker Cemetery, for your information. You can read it over, and lastly, I've also distributed a letter to you from Lake George Campsite, Ed Gardner, concerning the previous approval of the Ermiger site plan. MR. MACEWAN-I have just one question on those calculations to the density of the trees in the 10 by 10 area, how do you get that many mature trees? What is a mature tree? That'll cover one, and how do you fit 13 mature trees in a 10 by 10 area? What is the definition of a mature tree, I guess I need to know? MR. HILTON-It depends on the tree, and in actuality, I guess they'd have to do individual measurements on that site to get the diameters. MR. BREWER-I'll count them tomorrow. MR. HILTON-Well, more importantly the applicant obviously is asking for the Board to reconsider the application. MR. PALING-Well, I think that's something we should take up next week. MR. MACEWAN-I'm not in favor of taking up any action on that, and I'll tell you why. The individual who wrote the letter knew there was a meeting there that night. He sent someone to act as his representative that night, that young lady who spoke. MR. BREWER-I wasn't here. I don't know. MR. MACEWAN-So he was represented here that night. MR. BREWER-Throw the letter away, then. MR. MACEWAN-As far as I'm concerned. MR. HILTON-Well, it's just for your information anyway. MR. PALING-All right. Well, lets get back to Schermerhorn. MR. MACEWAN-Let it lapse. MR. RUEL-Are we talking about this storage place? MR. PALING-Schermerhorn on Sherman Avenue. MR. BREWER-Rich Schermerhorn and Mike Hayes. MR. RUEL-I'll give them an extension. MR. WEST-I'm not familiar with the plan or anything at all. I haven't seen it. I'd abstain. MR. PALING-I don't see any harm in it. - 53 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) MR. RUEL-Yes, I don't either. What's the difference? MR. BREWER-I just, this'll be the last extension I'll vote for. MR. PALING-I'll go along with that. MR. MACEWAN-You're not going to carry it tonight anyway. So just let it go. You're only going to have three. You're not going to carry it. I'm assuming Dave's going to abstain. MR. RUEL-He did. Are you for it or not? MR. MACEWAN-I'm saying let it lapse. MR. HILTON-Well, if there is some confusion on this, I will contact the applicant and I guess he'll just have to be here next week and put his proposal to you. MR. MACEWAN-There you go. MR. RUEL-That's a good idea. MR. PALING-Okay. Here's some dates. Site visits, the 15th, nine a.m. All right. We have a meeting on the 18th, Tuesday, a meeting on the 20th, Thursday, that's for Indian Ridge only, and then the next regular meeting is the 25th. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, did you say the 20th for Indian Ridge? MR. PALING-No, I've got to ask, five of us will definitely be here, and we know that's your available night, Mark. So I say go ahead wi th it. You're going to get a hold of Cathy and George eventually? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. PALING-I think we've got a go. The five here will be there. MR. BREWER-All right. of time to read them? time? We will get information in packets in plenty When I say like a week, two weeks ahead of MR. HILTON-Do you already have your information that was handed out that last time, or did everybody throw it away? MR. PALING-I saved mine, yes. MR. BREWER-I gave mine back to O'Connor because he said. MR. HILTON-Then you'll get new information. MR. MACEWAN-This is the start of the subdivision process? MR. PALING-This is site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-And remember that it's site plan for a PUD. It's different than plain old subdivision or plain old site plan. MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-You might want to review your Code books, because there's actually a section in there about, in the Planned Unit Development section. MR. MACEWAN-What is going on with the litigation? MR. SCHACHNER-The litigation, nothing has happened and nothing will have happened before then. The return date for the court case is - 54 - I -,,-/ '----- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 1/21/97) March 28th. MR. MACEWAN-So they're saying that they're going to go ahead. MR. SCHACHNER-At least with the application process, evidentally they're going ahead, and they certainly have the right to make that application. MR. PALING-George, you've got to understand that if there isn't time for us to have good information with time to review it, it's going to be a sensitive situation. MR. BREWER-Yes. MR. HILTON-Certainly. review it. Staff, too, would like plenty of time to MR. MACEWAN-In our packet for that Indian Ridge, I would like a copy, for me anyway I don't know how the rest of the guys feel, of the minutes of the meeting where we made our recommendation to the Town Board to re-zone. MR. BREWER-I remember it like it was yesterday. MR. MACEWAN-I want to fill in my blanks. MR. HILTON-The first one or the second one? Actually, there was one zoning, but the PUD. MR. MACEWAN-We had only one meeting for the recommendation. MR. HILTON-Okay. MR. MACEWAN-And we had some definite thoughts on that. MR. BREWER-We don't have a meeting Tuesday, right? MR. HILTON-You have a meeting because Trzaska's still on. MR. BREWER- If I don't get any packet Friday, I don't have a meeting. MR. HILTON-You have a meeting because Trzaska and Schermerhorn are on. MR. BREWER-Bob, if I don't get a packet Friday, I'm not coming. MR. PALING-We would try to impress Staff that we want that stuff by Friday for the CVS meeting, George. MR. MACEWAN-Even Trzaska. MR. HILTON-Okay. Well, that's your decision, but we will do our best to, if the information is in to us, you will have it Friday. MR. BREWER-Very good. Thank you. MR. MACEWAN-I'll make a motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 55 -