Loading...
1997-03-25 ---./ QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 25, 1997 INDEX Site Plan No. 2-96 EXTENSION Site Plan No. 57-96 MODIFICATION Site Plan No. 12-97 Site Plan No. 13-97 Perry Noun 1. Tax Map No. 61-1-37.3 Story town USA - The Wave Pool 2. Tax Map No. 36-2-3.1 M & W Foods, Inc. 4. Tax Map No. 98-4-3 Lambi Investments, Inc. 6. Tax Map No. 60-7-7, 8, 9 Subdivision No. 3-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE H. Croswell Tuttle Tax Map Nos. 1-1-22, 23.1, 23.2 15. Site Plan No. 6-96 DISCUSSION Kenneth Ermiger RE: Letter from E. Gardner Tax Map No. 73-1-4.1 Charles Seeley/Craig Seeley Tax Map No. 135-2-2.1 19. Site Plan No. 33-94 MODIFICATION 21. Subdivision No. 1-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE Cerrone Builders Tax Map No. 48-3-51.1, 53 25. 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 3/25/97) QUEENS BURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 25, 1997 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT PALING, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LABOMBARD, SECRETARY ROGER RUEL GEORGE STARK DAVID WEST CRAIG MACEWAN MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-JOHN GORALSKI TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT, MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI RESOLUTION: SP 2-96 PERRY NOUN LETTER DATED 3/20/97 FROM JONATHAN LAPPER REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL SEE ATTACHED RESOLUTION JON LAP PER , REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. PALING-Okay, John, do you want to identify yourself and tell us about this one? MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, on behalf of Michael and Ralph Woodbury. Almost a year ago, Perry Noun Associates, as agents for the Woodburys, who are the property owners, applied to the Board for site plan approval for a congregate care facility on Bay Road near the corner of Quaker that is adj acent to the Woodbury's Westwood residential development. I represent the Woodburys. The contract required that that should have closed by now, and the proposed purchaser has not been able to close. So the Woodbury's are stepping in now and would like to pursue the project themselves, since they don't have a sale. I think you know the reputation of Ralph and Mike Woodbury. The Westwood project is very nicely done, and they've done other projects in the area. They feel that the project as approved was a good project and they would just like to pursue it themselves. They haven't pursued it because they've been waiting the purchaser to close for this year, and that's what occasioned the delay, and now that the year's up, we're looking for an extension for another year so we can get this going. MR. STARK-When is it up, Jon? MR. LAPPER-This week. MR. GORALSKI-Tomorrow. MR. MACEWAN-And Perry Noun has no interest? MR. LAPPER-I'm not sure whether he'll be able to, but they were supposed to have closed by January, and they haven't been able to get together. MR. PALING-Okay. Any questions, comments? - 1 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. RUEL-Yes. The only question I have is that the original site plan application was for Perry Noun. Now this particular extension probably should be changed, since it's Woodbury instead of Perry Noun. MR. LAPPER-Well, even though the application was done with Perry Noun as the applicant, when we submit in the Town of Queensbury, there's the owner, and the owner designates the agent, so that the application still went in with the Woodbury's as the owner of the property, and the approval would run with the land, if you will, rather than with the applicant. MR. RUEL-Well, it's just that Perry Noun was the agent for Woodbury, but Perry Noun is out. MR. LAPPER-If you did this in the name of the Woodburys as the property owner, I think that would be appropriate. MR. RUEL-Yes. I think it should be. MR. PALING-Okay. We need a motion on this. MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 2-96 TO MARCH 31, 1998 FOR PERRY NOUN ASSOCIATES AS AGENT FOR MICHAEL AND RALPH WOODBURY, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue I , Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. We're going to go off schedule a little bit tonight. Hopefully in the interest of efficiency. We're going to cover the SP 57-96 for the Wave Pool, followed by a quick request by Mr. Gardner. We'll do the Wave Pool now. MODIFICATION: SP 57-96 - STORYTOWN USA - THE WAVE POOL JON LAP PER , REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MARTIN-If you want to just go ahead and identify yourselves and tell us what you're going to be doing. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, representing the Great Escape, and with me is John Collins who's the General Manager of the Park. Just to clarify what John just said, this was applied for by Story town USA, which was the former owner of the Park, before the sale this fall. So these rights also would have transferred with the land, and the project is now being pursued and constructed by the new owner, Premier Parks, Inc., doing business as the Great Escape. This is a request for a very simple modification of the site plan. I'll just show you on the map. When this was approved, the approved site plan shows the play area at the end of the Wave Pool. This is a series of platforms and slides for kids to play on. This change was necessitated by the Department of Health review, which came after the Planning Board. They have a SO foot setback requirement from drYWells, and there's also a SO foot, which are located up here, close to where it was proposed, and there's also a 50 foot setback from the septic system, which is back here. So staying SO feet from here and 50 feet from there, this was the obvious location, so it's just being - 2 - .,I ~ ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) moved 50 feet back, and I'd like John to tell you a little bit about just the aesthetics and how he picked this location. JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-I've got our sales kit that's got a photo on it of the piece. Would you like to see a copy of that? I can give you that. Basically what it is, this is going to be a lumberjack theme, and there's a clump of pine trees that are currently at the site that we would like to have as a back drop to this piece. Aesthetically, it would look a lot better than having this piece sit up against the front or back side of the Wave Pool. So moving it forward, taking into account the 50 feet offset from those septic tanks, using those pine trees as a back drop would add to the aesthetic look of this attraction, and that was the main reason for this site location. MR. RUEL-Excuse me. Do you have a before and after plan? MR. LAPPER-We could show you the prior site plan. MR. PALING-Yes. John has a print. MR. GORALSKI-I have a copy of the prior site plan, too. MR. COLLINS-The piece that you see on the cover of that jacket is actually the SES unit that was originally proposed. We went with a different manufacturer, six slides, four platforms, which is what this piece has. It was just due to budget. We got the other piece a little cheaper. MR. WEST-This is this? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. COLLINS-The thing that says IISES unit" on the previous map is the piece, the identical piece that's on the cover of that jacket. MR. LAPPER-These are slides, and these are platforms. So there are four platforms and six slides, and that's exactly what's proposed now. It's just more elaborate. MRS. LABOMBARD-How long are the slides? They just kind of come off, I mean, they're not like SO feet long. This is it. MR. PALING-This is comparing the original print to the current. Okay. Comments, questions? This is a modification we're talking about, minor. All right. Do we have a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 57-96 STORYTOWN USA, INC., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: Changes near the activity pool, as indicated on Plan S-2 dated 3/18/97, and this modification will in no way impact the SEQRA review. Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. - 3 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. COLLINS-Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. DISCUSSION ITEM: LETTER DATED 1/2/97 FROM E. GARDNER REGARDING SP 6-96 ERMIGER MR. GORALSKI-I don't see Mr. Gardner or his attorney here. MR. PALING-Neither one are here? MR. GORALSKI-No. I would put it off until later. MR. PALING-Okay. Yes, just put that off, and lets go to M & W. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 12-97 TYPE II M & W FOODS, INC. D/B/A KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN OWNER: NORTHGATE ENTERPRISES ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF AVIATION AND UPPER GLEN STREETS INCREASE SIZE OF DINING ROOM BY 40 SEATS AND BRING RESTROOMS TO ADA SPECIFICATIONS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 14 -1997 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 3/10/97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 98-4-3 LOT SIZE: 2.86 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 JIM MATHIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 12-97, M & W Foods, Inc., Meeting Date: March 25, 1997 "The applicant is seeking approval to construct a 30 ft. x 40 ft. addition to the existing KFC restaurant on Route 9. The addition includes new seating and will be built on the northeast side of the building. Parking requirements for this addition will not conform to the Zoning Ordinance, however a variance for this requirement has been granted by the ZBA. The applicant plans to continue operation of the drive thru at this restaurant. The site plan indicates parallel parking spaces to be placed on the property line next to the drive thru. Staff is concerned about vehicular access in this area should cars park perpendicular to the adj acent lot line and recommends that the applicant stripe this area and use signage to indicate that the parking spaces around the drive thru will only be used for parallel parking." MR. PALING-Okay. Lets see, we have Warren County Planning. They approve it. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-And Beautification Committee. MR. GORALSKI-Approved. MR. RUEL-They said something about dumpster screening. MR. GORALSKI-IIDiscussed placement of dumpster to rear of building. Discussion as to dumpster screening - set by KFC guidelines - must be fenced. Discussion of planting bed along Rt. 9 entrance, KFC has sprinkler system from building to care for plants. Reviewed planting by road and Committee recommended several perrenials supplemented by annuals." MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourself, please. MR. MATHIS-Yes. My name is Jim Mathis. I'm one of the owners of KFC. - 4 - '-" .~. (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. PALING-Okay. Are you familiar with the comments by John and by the Beautification Committee? MR. MATHIS-I am. MR. PALING-Do you want to tell us about it and you'll do it and so on? MR. MATHIS-Yes. I've no problems. We're the ones that have been taking care of the flowers out front. In fact, we've put them in. We've added a sprinkler system to it, to maintain them, and we will be increasing the amount of shrubbery around the front. MR. PALING-Okay, and you'll take care of the signage and the designation of the parallel parking spots, that's okay, and everything is done, requested by the Beautification Committee. MR. RUEL-Should that be a condition of the resolution? MR. PALING-Yes, both of them, I think, should be conditions of the resolution. Now, you're not changing any of the permeable area. Everything you're working with has already been paved. Do I understand that right? MR. MATHIS-Yes. Well, on the north side, where the addition's going on, there is a strip of shrubs, and we're just going to move those with the building out. So we have an actual net increase in the permeable area. MR. PALING-And there's no problem with drainage, then? There's evidentally no problem with permeation or nothing with drainage either in this case? MR. GORALSKI-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Those were my questions. Okay. Anyone else have any questions? Did you have anything you want to add? MR. MATHIS-No. MR. PALING-Okay. There's a public hearing on this matter. So we'll open the public hearing now. Does anyone care to talk about this matter, pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-This is a Type II. No SEQRA. We can go, then, right to a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 12-97 M & W FOODS, INC., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: As written in the resolution, with two conditions. One, stripe the area and use signage to indicate that parking spaces around the drive through will only be used for parallel parking, and Two, the applicant must meet the requirements of the Beautification Committee comments dated, 3/10/97. Whereas, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 12-97 M & W FOODS, INC. to increase size of dining room by 40 seats and bring restrooms to ADA specifications; and Whereas, the above mentioned application, dated 2/26/97, consists of the following: - 5 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) 1. Application 2. Map of Northgate Plaza revised 9/11/84 Whereas, the above file is supported with the following documentation: 1. Staff Notes 2. Beautification Committee resolution dated 3/10/97 3. Warren Co. Planning Bd. resolution dated 3/12/97 4. Zoning Board of Appeals resolution dated 3/19/97 Whereas, a public hearing was held on 3/25/97 concerning the above project; and Whereas, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the site plan review standards and requirements of Section 179-38 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in Section 179-39 of the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and Whereas, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and Therefore, Let It Be Resolved, as follows: 1. The Town Planning Board, after considering the above, hereby moves to approve Site Plan No. 12-97 M & W Foods, Inc. 2 . The applicant shall present two copies of the above referenced site plan to the Zoning Administrator for his signature. 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized to sign the above referenced plan. 4. The applicant agrees to the conditions set forth in this resolution. 5. The conditions shall be noted on the map. 6. The issuance of permits is conditioned on compliance and continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and site plan approval process. Duly adopted this 25th day of March 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Rue I , Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer SITE PLAN NO. 13-97 TYPE: UNLISTED LAMBI INVESTMENTS, INC. D/B/A OLDE COACH MANOR OWNER: FRANCES & ORMONDO LEOMBRUNO ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 565 BAY ROAD PROPOSAL IS TO BUILD 10 APARTMENTS AND 10 GARAGES TO EXISTING 33 UNITS. ALL LAND USES IN MR ZONES ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/97 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-7, 8, 9 LOT SIZE: 13.6 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT - 6 - -' ',- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 13-97, Lambi Investments, Inc. D/B/A Olde Coach Manor, Meeting Date: March 25, 1997 "The applicant proposes to construct 10 multifamily units along with 10 garages. The total number of units at this location will be 43 units. Density and permeability will be within the requirements of the MR-5 zone. The site plan indicates 3 proposed buildings. Two of the buildings toward the rear of the property are not identified as to what they will be used for. The applicant should indicate what uses these buildings will have. Past discussions between the property owner and Town staff have indicated that there may be Army Corps of Engineer wetlands at this location. Staff would recommend a stipulation that an Army Corps permit be submitted for this project prior to issuance of a building permit", or a letter of nonjurisdiction. "Any comments from Town's engineering consultant should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this application." MR. PALING-John, this was the letter I was looking for when you were over here earlier. MR. GORALSKI-Okay, yes, from Rist-Frost. MR. PALING-But it's the answer to the Rist-Frost letter I was concerned with. It's March 20th, dated to. MR. GORALSKI-I think I just gave you another letter from Rist-Frost MR. PALING-All right. We do have another. MR. GORALSKI-A March 18th letter. MR. RUEL-John, also in your Paragraph Two, you may want to change the second sentence, since those buildings are identified on the plan. MR. GORALSKI-Are they? Okay. Well, I have a March 18th letter. I thought there was another response from Rist-Frost. My understanding was Rist-Frost had not changed their position and was not able to make any additional determinations, but Tom Jarrett's been working with Rist-Frost, and maybe he can address some of those issues. MR. PALING-Okay, because quite a number of items in this letter say under separate cover. Okay. Lets continue with your end of it. There's no County impact on this. MR. GORALSKI-No County impact, and that's it. MR. PALING-Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please. FRAN LEOMBRUNO MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Fran Leombruno. Investments, Inc. I'm one of the owners of Lambi MR. JARRETT-And Tom Jarrett, representing sewage disposal and stormwater runoff for the project. MR. PALING-Okay, and this is what got my curiosity, was your letter to Jim Martin, quite a number of references under separate cover, and I visualized a whole bunch of stuff being dumped on us tonight, which we mayor may not be able to handle. So I'll let you take it from there. MR. JARRETT-Potentially you would have been dumped with a lot of materials tonight. However, Mr. Levandowski has not been able to finish his review of the grading plan, and we have not finished the calculations on the stormwater runoff. So we have not submitted - 7 - ---' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) any of the further attachments that referenced in this letter, to you tonight, that is. MR. PALING-Okay. Well, then do you want to just table it? We'll open the public hearing, and table it? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-I'd prefer to proceed as much as we can, see if there is a necessity to go further, if Tom can address any of these areas and satisfactorily. MR. STARK-Bob, take all the questions from Levandowski and maybe he can answer them tonight. MR. PALING-By this letter, he can't, according to the March 20th letter. MR. STARK-I didn't say he could answer them all, but maybe he could answer most of them. MR. RUEL-There are about five or six open items on that letter. MR. PALING-Well, more than that. MR. RUEL-Yes, at least. MR. JARRETT-Well, if you'd care to, we can go down the list and see where we stand with each item. MR. RUEL-I think it should be tabled until we get an answer to all these. MR. PALING-My inclination is to do it all at once, rather than, I don't see anything we gain by doing it tonight, halfway. Sometimes these questions and answers lead to other questions and answers, and if we have a complete picture, then we can do it all up. We're liable to get, next week, and want to come back to something we did this week. My inclination would be to table it. Open a public hearing, leave it open, table it, and then when you come back with a complete story, we should be able to do the whole thing. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Okay. next Tuesday night? Is it my understanding that we could do this Is that what I'm hearing? MR. PALING-Our next regular meeting isn't until the third Tuesday of April. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Can I request a special meeting? MR. PALING-Yes, you can request a special meeting. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-I've spoken with Bill Levandowski, and he feels that everything would be, he could have everything processed by Tuesday at the latest, as long as everything is submitted to him by Thursday or Friday of this week. MR. PALING-We want to cooperate with you or any applicant as much as we can, but we hesitate to just have special meetings for the sake of having them. Is there any reason you can't wait until the regular meeting? Do you have something pressing? MRS. LEOMBRUNO- Yes. It would make an undue burden on my contractor and on my subs that are potentially lined up. It would make a hardship, because of the fact that it's going to take us quite a period of time to construct the buildings units, in order to g~t them finished in time for our proposed rental. MR. PALING-When do you propose to open these units? - 8 - /' ',,--, .......,/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MRS. LEOMBRUNO-By September 1st. There's 15,000 square feet of construction. It's pushing it. Even if we started immediately, September 1st is going to be a burden. MR. STARK-Bob, what's the problem with having a special meeting next week, next Tuesday or Wednesday? MR. PALING-Well, lets not call it too tight. Lets make sure if we call one, that everything is right. John, how do you feel? MR. GORALSKI-Well, the only issue ~ have is arranging for a room. I don't know if this room is available. We may be able to get the Supervisor's Conference Room. MR. PALING-Yes. In this case, I don't think we need this big room. I doubt it. We'll find out. MR. GORALSKI-If you give me a couple of dates, I can find out if we have a room available. This room may be available. I don't know right now. MR. PALING-All right. Now we're saying that we're looking at a week from tonight, right now, and are you sure? MR. GORALSKI-Maybe when you're doing your site visits for April. MR. PALING-The site visits for April will be on the 12th. I'm sorry, it will be on Thursday or Wednesday, the ninth or the tenth. MR. STARK-That's the following week. MR. PALING-Yes, that's the following week. I would like, personal schedule, I'd like to see it that following week. work that out if we do it the week of the seventh? from a Can we MRS. LEOMBRUNO-If there's no time earlier. MR. STARK-What's wrong with next week? MR. PALING-Okay. I won't be here. That's the only thing wrong with it from my standpoint, but we can still. All right. Do you want to try for Tuesday the first, John? MR. GORALSKI-All right. I can see if we can get a room somewhere. MR. PALING-All right, and is that going to be time enough to have all the information in? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Absolutely. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Tom is working on the final details right now, and he's assured me that he can have them to Bill by Friday morning at the latest, and that was fine with Bill. MR. PALING-All right. Now this is Unlisted. So there'll have to be a SEQRA, but we'll have to have a public hearing tonight, as well as the night of the meeting. It'll continue then. So if everyone is satisfied, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. MR. GORALSKI-The only other thing that I would suggest, if there are any other issues beyond the engineering issues that the Board wants to address, they would then have the time to address them. MR. STARK-It says here on the Staff Notes, site plan indicates three proposed buildings. Why doesn't the applicant just answer the questions that are on here as much as they can, and then get to - 9 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) Levandowski's, you've got these Staff Notes? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. Paragraph Three, the uses that the buildings will have, the other buildings on the property. There are evidentally three proposed buildings. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-This is the layout that we have. This right here is an eight unit apartment building with seven garages. The second building I believe you're questioning is this area right here, which is three additional garages, and this building right here is two apartments, for a total of ten apartments and ten garages. MR. PALING-Okay. I think that those are the ones you're questioning, aren't they, John? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RUEL-I have a question about that garage, that new garage. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-The addition? MR. RUEL-Yes. How do you gain access to that? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Right here. The drive-in area. MR. RUEL-You're going to have to widen that pavement, right? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Just this little corner right here. MR. RUEL-Yes, you'll have to pave that. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-It's this little corner, the width of 89 feet by 3 feet. MR. RUEL-Yes, it's in front of one of the garages, right? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Right. MR. RUEL-Okay. So that will be paved, and you will indicate that on the plan? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MR. PALING-Okay. Now, John, I was going to ask YOU about the next one, first. I was a little surprised to see it, the permit regarding wetlands. MR. GORALSKI-Well, we spoke with Mrs. Leombruno about that today. Given the presence of that stream there, there is a possibility, or there's a strong possibility that there is presence of Army Corps wetlands on this site. There's no grading plan provided in the paper work that ~ have, or even a plan showing additional paving on that side of the buildings that would be able to even determine the proximity to the stream or whether or not it's impacting on any potential Corps wetlands. We just felt that it would be prudent to contact the Army Corps of Engineers and have them make a determination before too much effort got put into this plan. MR. PALING-Okay. Have you done that yet? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-No, I have not. I did not feel there was a necessity as the closest even corner to any of these buildings to - 10 - ",,--, '--' ./ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) that stream is at least 100 feet away from the stream. The closest part of the proposed blacktop would be roughly 80 feet from that stream. The land raises up roughly 10 feet at the closest area above the elevation level of the stream level. We do not propose to disturb anything down by the stream, and do not feel that there's any need to contact anyone from the Army Corps of Engineers, being as how it's a great distance in elevation away from the stream itself. MR. PALING-One hundred foot is the requirement to wetlands, right? MR. GORALSKI-No. For Army Corps wetlands, there is no buffer zone. The Army Corps makes a determination of wetlands, and if you're not disturbing more than a third of an acre of a jurisdictional wetland, than you don't need a permit. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-And I'd like to propose that that entire area from the macadam all the way down to the stream from the existing road bed all the way to our property line does not exist more than a third of an acre, even as is, and we're not proposing to disturb any of that area. So therefore I do not understand why there would possibly be a need to call in the Army Corps of Engineers when even if we nicked a corner, certainly that whole area is a third of an acre to begin with, and if we're allowed to disturb up to and including a third of an acre, I do not see the need to necessitate a further delay on our project. MR. STARK-If you get them involved, you know yourself, in dealing with them, how long it takes some times to get them to even respond to a letter or a call, in this case, I don't think it's necessary. MR. GORALSKI-I am not a biologist, I'm not a hydrologist, and I don't enforce the Federal Clean Water Act. I'm just pointing out that there's a potential that there may be Army Corps wetlands on this site, and given the fact that I don't have a grading plan, I don't have a paving plan that shows how the pavement's going to go around that side or a clearing plan, certainly we're not in a position to say that there's no problem with Army Corps wetlands. If you're comfortable with the fact that they're 80 feet from the stream and you don't feel it's going to be a problem, that's certainly your prerogative. MR. PALING-I think I'm comfortable with the explanation that was just given, except I would like to see added to it what you're talking about, grading and a paving plan. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-I believe we do have that. MR. PALING-You do have that. Okay. MR. JARRETT-The grading plan is not absolutely complete, but very close to it. I think it would show you the general intent of grading in that area. MR. PALING-But you could have both of those items by the meeting next week? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. PALING-My feeling is, with both of those items, and if they are as described, I wouldn't have any trouble with it. What other comments do we have in that regard? MR. WEST-What are the implications of not contacting the Army Corps of Engineers? I guess I'd like to know that. MR. GORALSKI-And then disturbing more than a third of an acre of wetland? - 11 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. WEST-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-The Army Corps would come in, maybe Mark can better address this. MR. SCHACHNER-The short answer is an Army Corps enforcement proceeding, is the short answer. MR. WEST-Who's the responsible party at the other end? MR. SCHACHNER-It's the Army Corps of Engineers enforcing against the applicant. MR. WEST-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Typically causing the project to halt, and then going through an enforcement process that depends upon how the Army Corps and the applicant, well, especially the Army Corps, views the severity of the violation. MR. STARK-Are there any Army Corps of Engineer wetlands on Valente's property? Which is immediately to the south of this. MR. GORALSKI-I don't know. MR. STARK-His property is to the west. MR. GORALSKI-To the west. Maple Row Farms. I'll be perfectly honest with you, at the time that that was approved, the Army Corps did not have a presence in this area, and Army Corps wetlands were never an issue. So I doubt if anyone even checked to see if there were Army Corps wetlands. MR. PALING-Let me ask the dumb question, then. If you've got a stream, and you've got a border 100 feet or more away, or whatever, a building or pavement, are you saying that the land in between could be designated wetland? MR. GORALSKI-It very possibly could be. The Army Corps wetlands are determined on three criteria, soil type, hydrology, and plants present. Anyone of those three, the presence of anyone of those three or a combination of those three as they're outlined in the act will deem this area to be an Army Corps jurisdictional wetland. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-The point is, though, that we're not intending or planning on going into that area by any means whatsoever within that 100 feet. The land we are proposing to build on is 10 feet in elevation above the back elevation of the stream area, and the land down near there, as well as the fact that it's been an existing field that was dry enough that we had to install underground sprinkler systems in that field for the past six years, since we've put underground sprinkler systems throughout our complex. It's elevated land that is dry land. MR. PALING-If the applicant is volunteering not to use that land for any purpose but let it mow the grass or whatever, that is allowed. If they're committing themselves to it. We're not asking them to, but they're volunteering it. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-We would prefer to leave that as a natural setting because it's aesthetically pleasing as is. MR. RUEL-You own that land on the other side of the stream, also? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Yes. along that nature. We have another almost 260 feet, something MR. GORALSKI-Let me just reiterate a couple of things that I said. - 12 - ',,--, ''--'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) One is, I don' t know how close to the stream they're getting, because I don't have a plan that shows how close to the stream they're getting. MR. PALING-That you will have. It's my understanding at the next meeting. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-The other thing is, you know, if you're comfortable being 80 feet away from that stream, minimizes the potential for the need for an Army Corps wetlands, that's your prerogative to do. MR. PALING-Well, I think at this point perhaps we should go to the public hearing, if there is any other. MR. RUEL-Before you go, John, you mentioned you don't have a plan showing a stream. MR. GORALSKI-I have a plan showing a stream. I don't have a plan showing how close they're going to be to the stream with their paving and their grading. MRS. LEOMBRUNO- I'm ready to submit the general layout of where including any paving will be. I'll submit that tonight. MR. RUEL-Is this part of the application? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Yes, it is. That is the front part of our property. MR. RUEL-Okay. This does not totally agree with these. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-That' s the back part of the property. They actually need to be put together. MR. RUEL-Yes. They aren't the same. MR. WEST-What's different, Roger? MR. RUEL-Well, you show, for instance, a concrete slab next to the one story frame, on the building in the southern, southwest corner, and on the plan it's a brick patio with a planter around it. It doesn't have timber retaining walls, as indicated on this. The drive, the macadam drive and macadam parking, in the area of the basketball court or hoop, whatever it is, is entirely different. The number of trees and their sizes are different. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Excuse me, sir. The original survey for the front part of this property was prepared in 1968, and the back part of the property was prepared just recently. MR. RUEL-This is '68, right? And this is recent. Well, all I'm saying is that they should be compatible. That's all. You have to update one of them. MR. PALING-Or get rid of one. MR. RUEL-Or get rid of it. You don't really even need this one. MR. GORALSKI-Well, they need to show the entire property. need some way of showing the entire parcel. They MR. RUEL-AIl right. You need something similar more compatible with what you have here. differences throughout the whole thing. It's a it out. to this, but to be There are slight matter of checking MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Right. There's probably been some subtle changes - 13 - '- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) made since 1968 when the front part of the property was, it abuts up, not onto the existing changes. The original one is just showing vacant land in that area. I believe the one story frame, there was an additional garage which was put on about five or six years ago, which was approved by the Town, and that should be the only major change. We did add a basketball court for my son. MR. RUEL-You'll have some updated drawings for us the next time anyway, right? MRS. LEOMBRUNO-You want the front portion updated? It blends, the only thing that's missing, this one story frame butts up and it is represented right here, where this larger square area is the new garage area that was built about five or six years ago, and approved by the Town. MR. GORALSKI-How about if we put a note on the new plan showing, just stating that this plan reflects an update from the original 1968 survey, so that there's a note on it? MR. RUEL-Sure, do that. MR. PALING-It's only showing the overall anyway. MR. GORALSKI-A note on the plan that says. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-On this one right here? MR. GORALSKI-The new one, that says this represents an update of the conditions on the site from 1968 survey. MRS. LEOMBRUNO-Okay. MR. RUEL-I just want to add some clarification, Bob, about this wetland area. You're familiar with Clendon Brook and its travel through Herald Square area? Well, there's no swampy area around there. However, that's designated wetlands, on both sides, a considerable distance, for a long length. MR. PALING-We have, in our computer, the ability to designate wetlands on a little map? No? What happened to that? MR. GORALSKI-Not Army Corps of Engineer wetlands. wetlands. That's DEC MR. PALING-There's a difference. Okay. Lets open the public hearing on this matter. Does anyone care to speak for or against this matter? Pro or con? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. PALING-All right. If not, the public hearing will be continued, and tentatively, it's Tuesday night. MR. STARK-What time? MR. PALING-Seven o'clock, and either here or in the meeting room at the Planning Staff. It is April 1st. MR. SCHACHNER-I just want to make sure the Board knows, I will be at another meeting. I don't see any legal issues here for that. MR. PALING-No, I think we'll be okay, and I won't be here either. All right. Then if that's the case, if there's nothing else, I think that we should table this. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 13 - 97 LAMBI INVESTMENTS, INC., Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by - 14 - -" "--' -../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) George Stark: To April 1, 1997. Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Is the representative of Mr. Gardner here this evening? Okay. You'll be on after the Tuttle. Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED H. CROSWELL TUTTLE OWNERS: H. CROSWELL TUTTLE/CHARLES H. TUTTLE, II/THOMAS F. CURRIE, III/JULIA L. CURRIE/THOMAS F. CURRIE, IV/WILLIAM D. CURRIE ZONE: WR-3A, C.E.A. LOCATION: EAST SIDE LAKE GEORGE OFF LOCKHART LOOP, BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY LADD'S GAS STATION PROPOSAL IS TO SUBDIVIDE A 2.23 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 32,297 SQ. FT., 29,939 SQ. FT., AND 31,454 SQ. FT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 4-1997 TAX MAP NOS. 1-1-22, 23.1, 23.2 LOT SIZE: 2.23 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; CROSWELL TUTTLE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-1997, H. Croswell Tuttle, Meeting Date: March 25, 1997 "The applicant is seeking preliminary and final subdivision approval to subdivide a 1.4 acre parcel into two properties. The size of the two parcels, zoned WR- 3A, will be .72 acres and .68 acres in size. The applicant has received variances for lot area and setbacks from the ZBA for this application. This subdivision was filed in 1991 with Warren County without going through the proper procedures of the Town of Queensbury. The buildings indicated on this subdivision are already built on this property. Staff anticipates no adverse impacts with this subdivision application which only seeks to draw lines over already developed property." MR. RUEL-You're talking about Lots Two and Three, right? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. MR. RUEL-On the map? MR. GORALSKI-Right. There's actually three lots, total. MR. RUEL-Lots Two and Three combined. MR. PALING-John, do you have anything else? Are there any letters? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. There's a letter from the applicant's agent, requesting a waiver from the following items, Contours at 2 foot intervals on the property extending 100 ft. off the site. "The location of electric, telephone and cable television lines, the setback requirements for each lot, the elevation of proposed monuments, areas where slopes are greater than 25%, Grading and erosion control plans, a drainage report, A statement that applicant agrees to install all required improvements and set all monuments as indicated", and then there's also a statement for Final, requesting waiver of setbacks, fire and school district boundaries, existing zoning within 200 feet, a statement that the plat conforms with the Zoning Ordinance, drainage report, erosion control plan. - 15 - '- '-' ----- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. PALING-All right. There's quite a number of them if you start back at the two foot intervals. MR. GORALSKI-Right. The items that deal with construction, which are all on the first page, as far as Preliminary goes, except for, well, actually all of them. So I don't really see a problem with those. I would recommend that on the final plat, that the fire districts by added, the existing zoning be added, and a statement that the plat conforms with the Zoning Ordinance be added. MR. PALING-Okay. You're saying fire district be added? MR. GORALSKI-Right, just a statement that says that this is within the North Queensbury Fire District. MR. PALING-Okay, and the second one was what? MR. GORALSKI-Existing zoning of the site and property within 200 feet, which I believe is all WR-3A. MR. MACEWAN-You don't want the setback requirements for each lot on the plat? It might be helpful. MR. GORALSKI-It might be helpful in the future. MR. PALING-Okay. Then add setbacks on all three lots. MR. GORALSKI-They can just put a statement saying that the setback requirements in the WR-3A zone are. MR. PALING-Okay. No other letters? MR. GORALSKI-No. It was this, as the comments indicated, this was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the undersized lots. MR. PALING-Right. Okay. Would you identify yourselves, please. MR. RYAN-Yes. My name's Dan Ryan. I'm an attorney for Mr. Tuttle. This is Mr. Croswell Tuttle, the owner of the property. MR. PALING-All right. Any questions or comments? MR. RUEL-Well, the only question I have is this statement on the, where the subdivision was filed in 1991 with Warren County without going through the proper procedures. What was lacking there at that time? MR. GORALSKI-They didn't get Planning Board approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Subdivision approval. MR. RUEL-They didn't get it? MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. RYAN-I have a map from 1984 that this was one of my questions in 1984, that we had gotten subdivision approval. It's signed by the Planning Board Chairman. MR. GORALSKI-But that was never filed, and therefore it expired. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Is that significant to anything now? MR. GORALSKI-That's got nothing to do with this. MR. RUEL-No, it doesn't matter. You had it, but it wasn't filed. - 16 - "-' -r- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. RYAN-Correct. MR. PALING-Okay. This is Unlisted. So we have to continue the, did you have any other comments before we proceed? MR. RYAN-Not at this time. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. RYAN-(Lost words) done by not filing timely in 1984. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. The public hearing is open. So is there anyone that cares to speak about this matter, for or against, or pro or con, as Roger tells me I've got to say. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-We'll go to a SEQRA. This can be Short Form, I believe. MR. GORALSKI-It can be. It's an Unlisted Action. MR. PALING-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-1997, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Stark: WHEREAS, there application for: is presently before the H. CROSWELL TUTTLE, and Planning Board an WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental 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. - 17 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-And we don't have a resolution. MR. RUEL-Now this motion will only be for Preliminary, correct? MR. BREWER-You're going to have to make two separate motions, one for Preliminary and one for Final. MR. RUEL-AII right. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1997 H. CROSWELL TUTTLE, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: To subdivide a 2.23 acre parcel into three lots of 32,297 square feet, 29,939 square feet, and 31,454 square feet, with the addition that the map indicate fire and school district boundaries and also existing zoning of site and of property within 200 feet, and the required setbacks in the zone, and also grant approval of waivers, the preliminary waivers, the request is to waive items: Contours of two foot intervals on the property and extending 100 feet off the site, the location of electric, telephone and cable television lines, the setback requirements for each lot, the elevation of proposed monuments, areas where slopes are greater than 25%, grading and erosion control plans, a drainage report, a statement that the applicant agrees to install all required improvements and set all monuments as indicated. Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue I , Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Now that's the Preliminary. have another public hearing. We don't have to MR. GORALSKI-No. There's no public hearing at the Final. You just make a motion for Final. MR. RUEL-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1997 H. CROSWELL TUTTLE, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by David West: To subdivide a 2.23 acre parcel into three lots of 32,297 square feet, 29,939 square feet, and 31,454 square feet. Granting a waiver from the requirement of a drainage report and waiver from the requirement for an erosion control plan. Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Rue I , Mr. Paling NOES: NONE - 18 - -, ,.~'" ,/ ~ ..../ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. RYAN-Thank you. MR. TUTTLE-I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Board. MR. PALING-You're welcome. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. Now we'll do the discussion item, from E. Gardner regarding Site Plan No. 6-96 for Kenneth Ermiger. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to identify yourself and just kind of tell us what's going on here. MARTIN AUFFREDOU MR. AUFFREDOU-My name is Martin Auffredou. I represent Ed Gardner, proprietor of the camp ground. Thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. Mr. Gardner is in Town. We didn't expect to be on this early. So we do expect him to be showing up this evening, but I think rather than holding you up, I'll take the opportunity to go over his share. This subject has been discussed a number of times by this Board, and what I'd really like to talk about is the re- vegetation plan, toward the rear of the Ermiger property. We're asking for re-consideration of this Board's determination concerning the plan to re-vegetate the area. The area, which by our estimates, is approximately 24,480 square feet, which was impermissibly cleared. We feel that the area is approximately 100 to 160 feet deep, 200 feet wide. A determination was made by this Board on December 17th, and it's been the subject of some correspondence between Mr. Gardner and the Town, and discussions as well with this Board. Our request is founded upon two concerns. First, that Mr. Gardner and the public at large were not afforded an opportunity to review the re-vegetation plan prior to the meeting of December 17, 1996, when the plan was approved, and second, the re-vegetation plan, which is, in our opinion, inadequate. As I understand it, the re-vegetation plan which was offered by the applicant, and ultimately approved by this Board, was for 60 White Pines at this location. If you're familiar with the property, I'm sure you are, this property is characterized as a dense area. It's characterized by having, traditionally by having White Pine, grey birch, white birch, popular, ash, as well as maple and some other varieties of trees as well. The plan, I think, is of concern to us, and we're asking for reconsideration, because if you look at this property from clearing, from the perspective of Mr. Gardner, if you look at his, from his viewpoint, this area that has been cleared was basically used by the applicant as a reason to find what ~ concerns were voiced some time ago, and the reason for a determination that those concerns are unfounded. Basically, we raised concerns of noise. We raised concerns of privacy. Mr. Ermiger' s representatives who represented him during the site plan approval process did a pretty good job of demonstrating to this Board that there was a sufficient buffer area back there, so that there would be privacy. Their go-kart track would not create noise because there was an area there that was sufficiently dense, some 300 to 350 feet of area, of trees and what not would remain, and now that's no longer the case, and I know you've considered it. I know you've talked about it here, but what we're looking for is something quite more than what's been offered and what's been approved. We're asking you to give consideration to that (lost words) specifics as far as what they're looking for, and that mayor may not be something that you can review tonight. We admittedly, I don't believe we've had an opportunity to speak with Mr. Ermiger and/or his representative. That's something that perhaps we might be willing to do. It might prove to be a good idea, but I think that in the long run, if we can get something - 19 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) that's a little bit more than 60 White Pines and would call for a variety of trees, different types of trees to replace what was there, and also to put in something along the lines of some rye grass or something along those lines to try replace some of the underbrush that was there, and try to bring the area back to the extent that we can, to what its historic and traditional condition was. Sixty white pines, in our opinion, just isn't going to do it. It's not a criticism of you all. I'm not here to do that tonight. I'm here to ask you to reconsider the matter and to just allow us an opportunity to see if we can demonstrate that the applicant should be required to put in something more than 60 white pine trees. After all, your own Code would provide for monetary sanctions, even imprisonment, believe it or not, for violation of your Code. Now I'm not asking for that extreme tonight. You have alternative remedies. I recognize those remedies, but I think that something more than 60 white pines is in order here. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-I agree with you that 60 isn't enough, even though we approved it, but to say that there was 78,000 bushes in there. That's a little out, okay. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes. I'm not here tonight representing that. MR. STARK-Why don't you get a hold of Ermiger, okay, talk to him, see what he's willing to voluntarily do, and then come back next month, the first thing, and we'll see. MR. AUFFREDOU-I'm encouraged, Mr. Chairman, sitting with Mark Levack who is Mr. Ermiger's agent tonight. I'm informed that Mr. Ermiger is willing to discuss this, and perhaps we can come back next month with some type of agreement on the number of trees and the variety of trees, etc. MR. PALING-Yes, lets hope it works out that way, but I would ask, so that we touch all bases, Mark, do you want to tell us, we can, I guess if we choose, rescind a motion, if necessary, or do you want to tell us where we stand on this, just to be sure. MR. SCHACHNER-I'd be awfully concerned about what your legal basis would be for rescinding a motion. I mean, if there were some material misrepresentation or fraud perpetrated by the applicant in the context of this, that would be one thing. If that's the case, then that's certainly a legitimate basis for rescinding the resolution. I was present at the meetings. Obviously, I have no expertise in the subject matter involved, meaning the planting and re-vegetation, but as far as I can recall, and I've reviewed some of the minutes and the correspondence that's gone back and forth, as far as I can recall, correct me if I'm wrong, the Board did in fact, as George Stark says, approve what was presented by the applicant back on December 17th. I have no problem at all, and in fact I would endorse and encourage Mr. Auffredou' s efforts to contact the applicant and/or his agent to come up with some kind of proposal that the applicant would voluntarily undertake, but I'm not sure I've heard anything that leads me to say that I'm comfortable with you rescinding the motion. MR. PALING-Okay. Lets hope we don't have to bring the subject up, and that step can be taken and it works out, so we won't even hear about it except in the rumor mill. MR. AUFFREDOU-That's certainly fair enough. I'm not here suggesting tonight that there's been any misrepresentation. I'm just simply suggesting that I think, if given the opportunity to properly presented our side of the story, and maybe some of the blame on that is on our part not being here, not having an opportunity, not taking an advantage of that opportunity, but I - 20 - ''---- '-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) think that in all fairness really when you get right down to this, 60 white pines for that particular area, from what was there, is completely inadequate, and even if we don't have any type of a basis to rescind the motion, I think that you have would have discretionary power to go back and take a look at this. MR. PALING-Okay. Good luck. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thanks. MR. PALING-Okay. Seeley is next. SITE PLAN NO. 33-94 MODIFICATION CHARLES SEELEY/CRAIG SEELEY OWNERS: SAME ZONE: LI-1A LOCATION: BIG BOOM ROAD MODIFICATION OF APPROVED SITE PLAN. MODIFICATION INCLUDES REVISION TO LIMIT OF CLEARING AND RELATED MODIFICATION TO GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN. TAX MAP NO. 135-2-2.1 LOT SIZE: 7+ ACRES SECTION: 179-26 TOM NACE & WILLIAM NEALON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LABOMBARD-The public hearing was on February 25th, and has been left open until tonight. MR. PALING-Now, we have no comments from the Staff, I believe, because the information has not been received for you to make comments. MR. GORALSKI-That's correct. We have not received any additional information. However, we have had discussions with Mr. Nace, who's been retpined by the Seeley's, and I've also been in touch with Mr. Nealon, and they can bring you up to speed as to where we stand right now. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to identify yourselves and bring us up to date? MR. NACE-For the record, my name is Tom Nace. I'm representing the Seeleys. I was contacted by the Seeleys about a month ago or a little better than a month ago to take a look and see what could be done regarding the filling and the clearing past the limits of what was shown on the previous site plan. Unfortunately, this time of year it's difficult to get survey information, with snow in the ground. It's hard to really see the shape and the condition of the existing fill slope that's there. We'd like to beg your indulgence to wait until spring, when the snow thaws, so I can get out there and take a good look at what exists, to come up with a plan that we can all live with, that will hopefully rectify any of the existing problems that are there, and present that before you in the next couple of months, okay. At this stage of the game, I don't have any preconceived notions of exactly what that plan's going to look like (lost words) limits of what we eventually want to fill in there. It will include the erosion control and sediment protection measures, as the fill is brought in so that it can be done in an orderly fashion without creating any environmental problems, but to sit here and draw a plan for you now, to tell you exactly what it's going to be, I can't. MR. PALING-What kind of activity, or there shouldn't be any activity going on there on the site between now and when you come back with this information. MR. NACE-I believe what, or at least my understanding of what has been allowed to occur, and I guess could occur between now and final approval of the plan might be stockpiling of material back on the top, behind the edge of the existing fill slope. I think the conditions, as I understand them there, are that the Seeleys eventually want a little more working pad area outside. They want to be able to eventually, if they need another building, have a pad - 21 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) site available for that building, when the time comes, although right now they don't know exactly where or how big that building might be, but they want to be able to accept fill as it becomes available. MR. PALING-That fill is the stockpiling of material you referred to earlier? MR. NACE-Right now, yes, they'd still like to be able to accept that material on site, but not place it in its final destination, be able to stockpile it back on the top of the existing flat area that's there, where they've already disturbed, back on the top of what's already been filled, back well enough from the edge of the slope so that it won't create erosion problems. If material becomes available, they'd like to still be able to accept it, with the understanding that we'll be back in here April or May with a set of plans that will address the final site plan modification. MR. STARK-What do you want, an extension for two months? MR. NACE-Yes. That's really the bottom line. MR. RUEL-John, on this stock pile of fill, do you look at this material for quality? MR. GORALSKI-Do~? No. MR. RUEL-Who? Does anyone look at it? MR. GORALSKI-No. I mean, obviously if I'm in the area and I see that they're burying stumps and trees and things like that, then I would address it, but other than that, I have no jurisdiction to check and see. MR. RUEL-There's no actual control over fill? MR. NEALON-We can (lost words) there is not going to be organic tree stumps and the like. It will be quality fill. MR. RUEL-But Queensbury doesn't have a regulation governing that, examination of material? MR. GORALSKI-We have a regulation governing burying of stumps and organic matter, but I don't go to every single site in Town and make sure that every truck load of fill. MR. RUEL-The applicants are aware of this. MR. GORALSKI-They should be. MRS. LABOMBARD-John, are you aware, and the applicant, that there's an old school bus that is used to store all the electrical equipment? MR. NEALON-This is a Light Industrial zone, Mrs. LaBombard, and there are things, there is equipment stored there. There are a variety of other industrial related activities that go on there. In the ideal world, there would be a storage building already there. MRS. LABOMBARD-Right. MR. NEALON-Unfortunately, resources are finite, and we're attempting to address some of the storage issues. We're attempting to address the storage issues, along in an orderly fashion, as Mr. Nace has indicated, and the Town has created this as a Light Industrial zone, and are Light Industrial uses going on there now. - 22 - ./ '-" ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MRS. LABOMBARD-So then, in an LI zone, then, that's in compliance? MR. NEALON-It's not out of compliance, that I am aware of. MRS. LABOMBARD-Then it's in compliance using a school bus to store equipment. I just was wondering. MR. GORALSKI-There's nothing that says you can or cannot use a school bus to store equipment, okay. There are regulations. For example, you can't have more than two unregistered vehicles on the property. MR. WEST-Which we did observe, you'll recall. We did observe, wasn't there two or three, or three or four vehicles there. MRS. LABOMBARD-But would that school bus be considered an unregistered vehicle if it's used as a storage building? MR. GORALSKI-Yes, it's still a vehicle. I mean, all I can tell you is, the last time I was on the site, the only violation that I observed was the clearing beyond the limit of clearing. MR. WEST-When we visited the site that one Saturday, I think I can say I think most of the people who were there, that saw it, that the housekeeping associated with that area was abominable. There was metal cuttings overflowing from buckets that who knows if any oil was leaching from those cuttings getting onto the ground and so forth, but I know this is somewhat unrelated, but just in general, I would say that a much better job could be done by the applicant in terms of keeping the site up better. MR. PALING-I think there's certainly more than, the number of vehicles on there is more than what you stated as being allowed, and the property is beginning to look not very good. MR. NACE-I'm sure the applicant can take that into advisement. I think one of his goals, and it may not be something that happens tomorrow or next week, or even next year, is to provide a building pad site where he can build a storage building for some of this machinery to be stored. MR. STARK-Craig had the idea that we could make it a condition of the approval for the modification that the area is cleaned up. You're talking about coming back in May, not June now, right? MR. NACE-Yes. I need to be able to get survey data, and to be able to take a hard look at everything, once the snow's off. I'm presuming that. will be in April. If I will submit the end of April, it will be for May Planning Board. MR. PALING-Well, I think you might add to that that it would be in compliance, and compliance being such things as, or the only thing perhaps, as John mentioned, and that's the number of vehicles stored on the property. The stuff I'm not sure, if it's out of compliance, we can ask, but if it's in compliance, there's nothing we can do. MR. MACEWAN-You might want to keep in mind Bill Threw's site on Big Bay Road. As part of the condition of that site approval, we asked him, and he did so comply, and he cleaned up the site. There was a lot of stuff. There was all sorts of debris from excavation site debris. There was used equipment, rusted equipment, old tires, there was a whole bunch of stuff, and he got it all cleaned up. MR. RUEL-Make it a condition. MR. STARK-Do you want to table it until May, the first meeting in May? - 23 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. NACE-We would like that. MR. PALING-All right. We're just going to table it. The public hearing is open, I believe, if not, I'll open it, but we'll leave it open. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. It remained open from the last meeting. MR. PALING-But I think that, if I'm reading the Board and what I feel, also, correctly, is I hope that the applicant is reading us accurately, and we've been out there several times, and we've made these comments several times, and then, you know, one of these days we're going to say, hey, that's it. We've asked for your cooperation, and if it isn't forthcoming then there could be a surprise from us when we don' t approve. So asking for his cooperation in regard to clean up and compliance. MR. RUEL-Agreed. MR. PALING-Then that's the message, and the public hearing remains open, and we'll table the matter. MR. GORALSKI-Since the public hearing remained open, you might want to just ask if there is anyone here who wants to comment. MR. PALING-Yes. I will. Seeley application? Is there anyone here to speak on the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN DOUG IRISH MR. IRISH-What's the use of the property now? What's the property being used for right now? I'm Doug Irish. MR. PALING-It's Light Industrial. There's a machine shop there. MR. MACEWAN-An excavating business and a courier service. MR. NEALON-There is no excavating business. separate issue. That's an entirely MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone else who would care to speak on this matter? All right. If not, the public hearing remains open, and this, we'll entertain a motion to table it, for, are we talking two months? Two months. That would bring it to. MR. GORALSKI-On the May agenda. MRS. LABOMBARD-May 25th, whatever that date is. MR. PALING-Not the 25th. MRS. LABOMBARD-No, but that second meeting in May. MR. PALING-The third Tuesday is the 20th of May. We can either go the third or fourth Tuesday. You want to do it the third Tuesday in May. MR. RUEL-The 20th. All right. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 33-94 CHARLES SEELEY/CRAIG SEELEY, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: Until May 20, 1997. Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: - 24 - ./ ./ ~ '-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ruel, Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Cerrone. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1997 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED CERRONE BUILDERS OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD SOUTH OF STONEGATE SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES RESIDENTIAL CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION WITH 28 - 1/2 + ACRE LOTS WITH INDIVIDUAL ON- SITE SUBSURFACE SYSTEMS. CROSS REFERENCE: P6-96 TAX MAP NO. 48- 3-51.1, 53 LOT SIZE: 57.97 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; AL CERRONE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-1997 Preliminary Stage, Cerrone Builders, Meeting Date: March 25, 1997 "The applicant is seeking preliminary subdivision approval to divide approximately 58 acres into 27 single family lots. The property is currently zoned SR-1A. the subdivision map indicates that 27 lots with varying lot sizes will be developed under the cluster provisions found in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed lots range in size from .49 acres to 22.86 acres. The applicant proposes two separate phases, both of which will require subdivision approval before construction of single family homes can begin. Staff has reviewed the submitted subdivision application and has the following comments: The subdivision plan indicates an approximately 6 acre piece of property which is to be used as an open space. The map indicates this land will be dedicated to the town as open space. Recently there was an offer of dedication of land for recreation purposes within this proposed subdivision. That request was rejected by the Recreation Commission and the Town Board. According to Zoning Ordinance requirements, cluster developments are required to have access to common open space. Without an acceptance of dedication from the Town Board, common open space is usually provided through the creation of a Homeowners Association to own and manage the open space. To date, no documents have been received by staff indicating whether a Homeowners Association has been created. It is important to determine whether or not common open space will be provided within this subdivision. Without common open space, this subdivision may not be able to be considered a cluster development according to Zoning Ordinance definition. As this would have an effect on the lot sizes, density and layout of this subdivision, staff recommends that the issue of common open space be addressed prior to review of this subdivision as a cluster development. Staff has some concerns about the phasing of this subdivision in relation to vehicular access from the proposed lots to Bay Road. The applicant is proposing to construct the first phase of 21 lots which will have access out of the subdivision through Field View Lane and Stonegate Drive to the north. Development under this phasing plan would result in 19 lots from Stonegate and the first 21 lots to be created in this subdivision with only one access point on Bay Road. The use of one access point to Bay Road by 40 different properties could result in unsafe driving conditions in this area and may have some adverse impacts on the Stonegate subdivision. The subdivision regulations, Section 183-23K, currently require any subdivision with~35 lots or more to have 2 entrances to the subdivision from a public street. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed phasing plan conflicts with this regulation and recommends that the phasing plan be changed so that the construction of a second access point to Bay Road is built within phase one. The subdivision plan should be revised in order - 25 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) to indicate protective easements around existing hedgerows within this subdivision. The applicant has not included a landscaping plan for this subdivision but has a landscaping package which will be discussed with the Planning Board. The portion of the proposed street network in front of lots 11-15 indicates what appears to be a temporary cuI de sac. In preparation of the extension of this road to the west, staff recommends that arrangements be made so that lots 11-15 would gain ownership of portions of this cuI de sac at the time the street is straightened and extended to the property to the west. Any comments from the Town Highway Superintendent should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this subdivision plan. Any comments from the Town's Engineering consultant should be addressed prior to Planning Board action on this subdivision application. II MR. PALING-Okay. What else do we have? MR. GORALSKI-We have a letter from Rist-Frost Associates. "We have reviewed the comments submitted with the above referenced application and have the following comments. 1. A landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect is required for subdivisions with more than 20 lots. 2. Access road connection to Bay Road is subject to the approval of the Warren County Department of Public Works. 3. Subdivision road layout and construction details are subj ect to approval of the Queensbury Highway Department. 4 . Locations of buildings, walks, septic systems on adjacent properties if any should be shown. 5. The location and elevation of all proposed monument locations should be shown. 6. The design of the sewage and water systems are subject to approval of New York State Department of Health. 7. The pre-development runoff co- efficients assumed in the Stormwater Management Report appear to be on the high side. Would pre-development peak flows still exceed post-development if that coefficient were reduced to 64?" MR. NACE-John, did you get the subsequent letter from Bill? MR. GORALSKI-Lets see. I don' t see one here. Okay. We have another letter that's addressed to James Martin, but I don't have it. "We have received and reviewed Nace Engineer's letter of March 24, 1997 in response to our comment letter of March 21, 1997. Responses 1 through 5 provide the Board with information about the status of Items 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 of our review letter. The applicant's response to our Item 7 on stormwater runoff is satisfactory. No information has been provided regarding Town Highway Department approval (Item 3). Please call if you have any questions. II And I can tell you that we spoke to the Highway Superintendent today, and he has not had an opportunity to make any comments regarding this plan. MR. PALING-John, would you elaborate a little bit on Item Number Seven in Bill Levandowski's letter. MR. GORALSKI-That's a technical issue of the numbers that Tom is using to design his stormwater management system. MR. NACE-Can I respond? Okay. I wrote a response to Bill Levandowski, and that's probably the easiest thing just to read my response there. MR. PALING-Would you, for the record, sir? MR. NACE-Thomas Nace. The pre-development runoff coefficients used in the stormwater management report are taken directly from the US Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service manual, TR55, for straight row crops (corn) in good condition, and hydrologic soil group C. These runoff coefficients are empirical numbers which Soil Conservation Services developed over years of testing, primarily on agricultural lands. In answer to your question, the - 26 - ~ ,--,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) post-development and pre-development peak flows are equal if pre- development runoff coefficients are assumed to be 64 in the southern drainage area and 73 in the northern area. Now what that really means, his question, Bill Levandowski's question, was really kind of rhetorical. The actual coefficients that are used and are accepted are the ones that I used in the report, and they show a relatively high rate of runoff. The runoff coefficients, the higher the runoff coefficient, the more the water goes down gradient and ends up in the stream, and when you have open ground such as a cornfield without any grass, or anything to slow the runoff down, those coefficients are fairly high. So, you know, when he was asking whether 64 would equal the post development flows, it was just a rhetorical question. In fact, it does for one area, but it's really rhetorical. It has no basis in fact. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-John said that he had contacted, have you contacted the Highway Department? MR. NACE-No. In fact, I have a meeting tomorrow morning with Paul Naylor on another subject, and I want to try and corner him and get any comments or review it with him. MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to comment on the various items in John's letter, and Jim's? MR. NACE-Yes, I do, very definitely. The first issue is the one of this common open space. Okay. As you will recall, we originally, in the concept plan, we had a subdivision proposed which had an area in the middle of it, particularly an area right here, which was proposed as land to be dedicated to the Town in lieu of recreation fees, okay. We were coming before this Board, I think, a month ago, to review that request for dedication, and received word that afternoon that the Recreation Commission or Committee had already reviewed it and voted against it, and the Town Board had taken a straw poll and voted against it. So we said, well, there's no point in coming here for a recommendation when it's going to go back to the Town Board. So we pulled the request, and then we had a dilemma with the fact that, in one place, in the zoning definition of cluster development, it refers to this common open space. It doesn' t really talk to it anywhere else in specific regulations, either in subdivision, where it gives the specifics of cluster developments, or in the zoning where it also goes into cluster developments. The only place it talks to it is in the definition, but, regardless, with the common open space requirement there in the definition, in order to comply with that, we have offered as common space to be dedicated to the Town, not in lieu of rec fees, but just dedicated to the Town or dedicated to the Open Space Institute or any other entity that the Town wants to use, we've offered a piece of land here that's about six acres, 6.2 acres or something like that. It would have access out to the right-of-way here. It would also be right along this property line, where if adjacent lands were developed as a subdivision, it could be married together with additional land to be dedicated as open space, and we discussed that with Jim Martin who we thought was supportive of that idea, and that's where we are, okay. MR. RUEL-Tom, I really don't see access to that six acre. Where? MR. NACE-There is a strip coming up along here, along the property line, to the right-of-way here. MR. RUEL-It's very narrow. MR. NACE-That's all that was felt, in discussions with Jim, all that he really wanted was a 20 foot access, would allow him to put a dirt road in if he wanted to, but what we're talking about is - 27 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) open space. It's not going to be a ball field. It's not going to be an active recreation area. He just wanted a place where you could get a trail back to it, it could be accessed and used by any of the neighbors. MR. RUEL-So every home owner could have access to that area? MR. NACE-That's correct. MR. RUEL-And that's actually wetlands, isn't it? MR. NACE-Part of it in the front is wetland. It comes back in here, if you look at some of the photos. There are (lost word) of higher area that's treed, that's forested. There is some area up in front that's wet, and in the back there's some areas of (lost word) . MR. PALING-What's the plan for Lot Seven, if any? MR. NACE-One lot, no further subdivision. In fact, none of these lots are to be further subdivided. The covenants to that effect will be included in the deeds. Access to Lot Seven is a 40 foot strip here, and Lot Seven is to share a driveway with, I believe it's Lot Eight here. MR. RUEL-It's going to be difficult to build on that lot, isn't it? MR. NACE-It will be. It will be very difficult to build, but it is still feasible. There's a very nice chunk at the back of this lot it's a big field, and very nice area. MR. RUEL-I had an idea about open space. Would you just bear with me? MR. NACE-Sure. MR. RUEL-Move Lots Nine and Ten east 40 feet. MR. NACE-Nine and Ten east 40 feet. Okay. MR. RUEL-And provide accessway between Lots 10 and 11. MR. NACE-Between 10 and 11. MR. RUEL-And delete Lot Eight, and make Lot Eight, the six acres, all open space. That would make the access to that area in the center of the development. MR. NACE-Say that again? Delete Lot Eight? MR. RUEL-Yes, Lot Eight, or the one in the corner there. The one in the wetlands. MR. NACE-Lot Eight here? MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. NACE-And make this all? MR. RUEL-Yes, make that whole area open space, put the accessway in the center, so it would be accessible to everyone in the area, and it would be at least 40 feet wide, and then you would have access to the common open space, and you'd have a lot of open space there. MR. NACE-Well, nothing, in fact the Town regulations specifically say that you cannot require any more than, I think it's 10 percent of the entire subdivision, or the land acreage, okay. - 28 - -- ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. GORALSKI-That's for recreation, not for clustering. That's for recreation fees, not for clustering. MR. NACE-Okay. Yes, I'm not going to get into a legal argument. I'm not even sure, if you're talking about this common open space, then there's really no parameter, if you don't use that section, then there is no parameter at all in the Code to say what that should be, whether it should be six acres or one acre or twenty acres. MR. GORALSKI-It's the discretion of the Board. MR. NACE-So we discussed this with the Planning Department. These comments that came up here tonight are something new that landed on my desk this afternoon, okay, and this, what you see in front of you, is a result of our discussions with Jim and George, in fact three weeks ago, four weeks ago. MR. RUEL-Did you have a Homeowners Association to go with that? MR. NACE-There are several ways that ownership of this could be worked out, okay. Obviously, when we discussed it with Jim, his feeling was that what he really wanted to do is have the Town start to collect some of these open spaces in cluster developments or unwanted areas in regular subdivisions, and have some way that the Town could maintain them in a land bank that is open space. We'd obviously like to dedicate it to the Town for that purpose. If, for some reason, the Town Board doesn't want to accept it, and I'm not sure what the reason for that would be, but if they don't want to accept it, then I think there are some other ways that could be found to put ownership. There's, I think there's something new in the way of a limited, what's called a limited homeowners association that can, that's a very simplified method of doing homeowners, where they can own land that doesn't have any improvements on it, but a normal homeowners association we really don't want to get into, because it's a very cumbersome affair, but we can do this limited homeowners association or some other means, we can probably find some way to work out the ownership of that, if the Town doesn't want to accept it, but again I'll stress, we're not asking that the Town accept this in lieu of fee. We're simply asking that they accept it and meet the definition of your cluster development, which, you know, if you really dig into it, I'm not sure what the original intent of that definition was. MR. RUEL-I'm concerned about the maintenance of that area. MR. NACE-Well, the idea is that it's open space. There shouldn't really be any maintenance. MR. RUEL-Well, the access road would be. MR. NACE-The access road may be just a trail, or may just, you know, it's down along that fence line that's there. It's open field along the fence line. It may be nothing. MR. STARK-Rog, are you all done with the open space, or what? MR. RUEL-Yes, with the open space. MR. STARK-Tommy, what about the secondary entrance? MR. NACE-Okay. What we'd like to offer there, again, I'm not sure whether the regulations really speak to adding on to a pre-existing subdivision that was not part of this development, but regardless of that, we do see, you know, some good reason for that regulation. What we could offer there is that, as part of the approval, make a condition that there be no more than 16 building permits issued for Phase I, until such time as Phase II is built and accepted. What - 29 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) our concern is, and why we've phased it the way we have, is that this piece of road becomes relatively expensive, okay. We'd like to get constructing a couple of houses in here, and get some cash flowing going, before we have to build this piece of road. We will want to build it. In fact, I think one of the concerns that has been voiced, in the past, about a construction entrance, okay, that maybe it's not so good to have heavy construction equipment coming through the existing development. One thing that we would offer, we have, and when we cut the roads in for Phase I, we're going to have some excess material out of the road cuts, and we would like to be able to use that for the fill up in this section of the road here, in Phase II. If we could dedicate this right-of-way as a construction entrance for Phase I, then that would relieve the construction traffic off of the existing subdivision. It would also give us the ability to bring some of that fill up here and use it as we're building the roads for Phase I. MR. RUEL-Without necessarily building that road. MR. NACE-Without fully finishing the road. It is our full intent to, you know, as soon as cash flow from here permits, to get back for approval for Phase II. MR. RUEL-You'd still have the road open to Stonegate? MR. NACE-Yes. The actual Town road servicing this Phase I would still be through Fieldview Road and Stonegate Drive. MR. RUEL- Is that a dead end there, in Stonegate, or is that a turnaround? MR. NACE-Here? It's sort of an odd shaped turn around, okay, right now. MR. RUEL-And that would be opened up? MR. NACE-That would be opened up straight through. MR. RUEL-At Phase I? MR. NACE-In Phase I. MR. RUEL-I see. MR. NACE-There is land that the Town owns now for the turnaround, but once the road goes straight through, that land would be dedicated back to these two these two adjacent homeowners. MR. RUEL-So both Phases I and II would have two access roads? MR. NACE-Well, no. Phase I would have one road used as the Town road, the public access for the homeowners. It would also have a construction road, just a construction road, for the construction traffic only, up through the Phase II portion. It would not be a road for the homeowners to use. MR. RUEL-Would that meet the requirement for two access roads for Phase I? MR. GORALSKI-Tom is right. I'm not sure exactly whether or not that thing about the number of lots with one access applies. However, I just need to say that it's Staff's position that that second means of access to Bay Road should be built prior to building any houses in this subdivision. MR. NACE-Prior to building any houses? MR. GORALSKI-Correct. - 30 - ~ '-.-' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. NACE-Why any houses? Your (lost words) regulations say 35 off of the single entrance. MR. GORALSKI -As we said in our notes, we feel that having the impact of this development on the existing Fieldview Road and Stonegate Drive with only one access of all those houses and all these onto Bay Road is going to just put too much stress on those roadways. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, what we are offering is to take the construction access relief, the construction traffic off of the existing subdivision, and to limit the number of building permits that are issued in here, to 16, which would bring the total number of lots being accessed off Stonegate Drive to 35, which is what your regulation stipulates. To limit that to 16, prior to building this second access, as a Town road and having it accepted as a Town road. MR. MACEWAN-What you're suggesting is that you're going to build enough of a road so that delivery trucks of either cement or cement blocks or wood trucks with building materials could all go down that road without going through that development? MR. NACE-That is correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-And is this for the first houses that you build? MR. NACE-This will be for the construction equipment that builds the road, even. Okay. We'll clear this down through and get enough of a road bed to use for the construction equipment coming in, the trucks, the construction equipment coming for building this piece of road, even before the houses are started. MR. MACEWAN-Let me ask you, then, why would you need to open up that other road onto the cuI de sac there at the end until you're absolutely ready to convey that over to the Town? MR. NACE-Here? No, we wouldn't. This could be opened up just before we're ready to dedicate this road to the Town, and have the houses occupied. MR. MACEWAN-Is that acceptable to Staff? It takes all the burden off that development. MR. WEST-Right, but it's still a construction road. MR. GORALSKI-It doesn't take the burden off that development when you start building houses here, only during construction of the road. MRS. LABOMBARD-No. He said he was going to leave it open for the construction of the houses. MR. MACEWAN-That's not what he was just saying, if I understood him right. MRS. LABOMBARD-Isn't he leaving? MR. PALING-I thought he was going to leave that Fieldview Road closed and use the construction road for everything, was what I thouqht he was saying. MRS. LABOMBARD-For everything until the houses were all built. MR. RUEL-No, he wasn't saying that. MR. GORALSKI-He can't get a building permit until he dedicates the new road to the Town. Once he dedicates that new road to the Town, - 31 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) that road has to be open. MR. PALING-And what condition does it have to be in, paved? MR. RUEL-New. MR. GORALSKI-Yes. MR. PALING-It has to be paved. MR. RUEL-That's what he should do, then. MR. WEST-So he can't build a house along that road until it's been dedicated to the Town? MR. GORALSKI-That's right. Well, yes. MR. PALING-And he can either do that through one of the two accesses, however, that could go that way. It wouldn't have to be the access to Bay Road. MR. GORALSKI-Not if you approve it in this form. MR. PALING-Yes. Okay. I think you better clarify. MR. NACE-Yes. I better get a clarification of exactly what you're saying. MR. PALING-No, we thought we heard YOU say that the road you're referring to as a construction road to Bay Road could be used by the people who buy houses in there? MR. NACE-No. They'd be used for construction traffic for road construction, construction traffic for the house construction. MR. PALING-And you would open up the other road into Stonegate and that would have to be dedicated to the Town? MR. NACE-That would be dedicated to the Town residents. That has to be open, in my scenario, open before you get your first CO. to serve the that has to be MR. PALING-Right. Now the eventual plan on this, and I think Staff would insist upon it. There's two accesses to this subdivision. One from Bay Road and one through Stonegate. MR. PALING-When this is done, when all phases are done, there's going to be two accesses. So there isn't a question of shutting off a road. That road is going to be opened into Stonegate, eventually. MR. RUEL-To meet the cluster requirements, you must have two roads? MR. NACE-No. MR. PALING-No. MR. RUEL-In other words, they could close that road to Stonegate? MR. NACE-If this thing goes far enough, from what I'm hearing, we'll forget that, and make our own access. MR. RUEL-I don't think people in the Stonegate area are necessarily crazy about having that road open. AL CERRONE MR. CERRONE-My name's Al Cerrone. I thought that it was the - 32 - "--' ~ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) Highway Department situation here that they would want, for plowing purposes and everything, to come through. I don't need to go through Stonegate. MR. GORALSKI-Let me clarify. I'm not saying that I'm opposed, or the Staff is opposed to tying this road into Fieldview Road. What we're saying is, if you're going to tie into Fieldview Road, you should also build this road out to Bay Road to relieve the pressure that will be placed on Fieldview Road and Stonegate Drive. That's all we're saying. MR. PALING-But you're also saying that a subdivision of 35 lots or more will have two entrances, from a public street. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. PALING-So you'd have to use both of those roads. MR. GORALSKI-Well, I think what Mr. Cerrone just said is he's building 27 lots, and he could do that, well, I don't know because you can't have a dead end of more than 1,000 feet either. So I don't know if you could do that. MR. MACEWAN-Are we in power to grant him a waiver to thaticul de sac? MR. GORALSKI-1,OOO foot per dead end? MR. NACE-Only with Paul Naylor's blessing. MR. GORALSKI-That's part of the Subdivision Reg's, but I wouldn't do that without Mr. Naylor approving it. MR. MACEWAN-He needs to have approval on this anyway, for the road layout. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. MACEWAN-Would you be willing to make your access through, off Bay Road and forego going through Stonegate until you get your second phase opened up? MR. CERRONE-Come in through Bay Road, forget about Stonegate. MR. MACEWAN-Forget about Stonegate until the very end. MR. CERRONE-What we'll do is, at that point, we'll probably go to a certain point and put a temporary cuI de sac in, if I don't want to do the whole thing. MR. GORALSKI-Right. MR. CERRONE-And I have no problem coming in off of Bay Road. Actually, I think it's better from a sales point of view, too, okay. MR. PALING-Then would you intend, ever, to open the road into Stonegate? MR. CERRONE-No. MR. PALING-Okay. Then that would never be opened. I'm still going by what I'm reading here in the Staff notes. Now we'd have to do two things. One is there'd be one entrance to the subdivision, and the other is we're going to have to get a waiver of 1,000 foot. MR. RUEL-I thought there was a request on that? - 33 - --,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. GORALSKI-I mean, I haven't measured it out. I'm just saying. MR. NACE-It's more than 1,000 feet. MR. GORALSKI-If what you're telling me is that the area between Fieldview Road and where this road that comes in from Bay Road intersects the new road, do you follow what I'm saying? MR. CERRONE-John, I've got to ask a question. The way we're proposing to do this right now, is this legal or illegal, the way we're doing it? Based on the Town reg's. I'm talking about as far as 35 lots for one access. MR. PALING-That's question one, I think. MR. SCHACHNER-That's not really the issue. The issue is not a compliance issue. The issue is a Planning Board subdivision review issue, and whether the proposal meets with the various criteria including adequate flow and circulation of traffic. MR. GORALSKI-It's a discretion issue. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. PALING-Okay. So it doesn't have to be two entrances. It's a discretionary decision regarding the amount of traffic? MR. SCHACHNER-In essence, that's right. This is not a check list here. MR. PALING-Okay. discretionary. So we're not nailed to two entrances. It's MR. RUEL-But the Bay Road entrance you would pave immediately? MR. CERRONE-No. We'll use it for construction purposes. I mean, paving it, you're doing the whole thing. I mean, you've got stone drainage in and everything else. So you might as well do the whole thing. MR. PALING-When would you pave that road? MR. CERRONE-I just said prior, probably next spring. MR. PALING-So the people with houses in there would be going over the temporary road? MR. CERRONE-Through Stonegate. MR. NACE-No. Lets go back, okay. I think we're talking about two different proposals. I think the original proposal that I put on the table was that we would use the Bay Road access for construction, okay. We would not build any more than 16 lots, which would bring us up to a total of 35 lots off of the existing Stonegate Drive, and we would connect, for public access, we would connect through to Stonegate, okay, in Phase I. Then in Phase II, we would construct this road. We would, at that point, once this is accepted by the Town, then we would have the ability to exceed 16 building permits within the subdivision. MR. PALING-And what about Stonegate Road? MR. NACE-This is saying, we use Stonegate Road for 16, no more than 16, okay, without having this second entrance, okay, that we do eliminate this cuI de sac, that we do, you know, come through Stonegate, okay, but that after, by the time we have 16 building permits, we have to have this road completed and accepted by the Town. - 34 - -- ~' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. PALING-And the other road is closed? MR. NACE-No. The other road would remain open. MRS. LABOMBARD-That other road is open. MR. NACE-I've got to be truthful with you. Looking through Paul Naylor's eyes at this, I think he's going to want that, okay. Because he's got, right now he has a turnaround that's fairly difficult to plow, very little area for snow storage. This would eliminate that. It would allow his plows to come around the loop. MR. RUEL-Don't get lost here. Just five minutes ago, we said that that would be closed. MR. MACEWAN-They aren't going to (lost words) because if that isn't a finished road, they aren't going to loop out of there and use it. MR. NACE-Until we dedicate this, okay, but he's looking, I'm sure he's going to be looking at the long term. MR. MACEWAN-You're painting a scenario now that it's the intention that he would use that, and he wouldn't go on that. MR. NACE-No, no, back up. We've got too many things on the table. Okay. The original proposal that I made was that this, for Phase I, that this be a construction road, Phase I, not a public road. Not accessible to any other vehicles other than construction vehicles, either building the road or building the houses in Phase I. Okay. That during Phase I, the road come through Fieldview as a public road, accepted by the Town, and that residents in here, in Phase I, use that access up to the point of no more than 16 houses, okay. When we come back for our 17th building permit, we would have to have Phase II approved, and have this road constructed and accepted by the Town. That was the original proposal on the table. MR. RUEL-And the Stonegate still open? MR. NACE-And Stonegate still open, and then we started talking about, well, if that was such a problem, if we had to build this right away, as a finished road, accepted by the Town, as public access, then it may be beneficial just not to bother with this at all. MR. RUEL-Yes, that's what ~ like. MR. NACE-I understand you like it. I'm not sure that Paul Naylor's going to approve that. I'm just cautioning, okay, before everybody gets their hopes up. We need, for that to work, we would need not only a waiver from this Board of the dead end length of road, but we would need Paul Naylor's approval of it, too, and I'm not real optimistic that that's forthcoming. MR. PALING-Okay. I think we understand the proposal and the possibilities. My suggestion is now we move on to the next step. We're not making any decisions. We're just moving on in the process. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. RUEL- I have a question about Lot 14. turnaround? That's a temporary MR. NACE-Back here? MR. RUEL-Yes, somewhere around there. MR. NACE-There is no temporary turnaround. This turnaround here is - 35 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) permanent until such time as the Town wants to, or anybody developing this property wants to take the road through. MR. RUEL-Then you would straighten that cuI de sac out? MR. NACE-Then this would become straight road. The pieces of land in here, at the side of the cuI de sac, would be dedicated back to the adjacent homeowners. MR. RUEL-Yes. Now Lot 14, the frontage would be reduced next to nothing. What's the minimum frontage? MR. NACE-No, not necessarily. The minimum frontage is 40 feet. Right now it's 70. When this reverted back to this homeowner, that property line would probably come straight out anyway. It wouldn't keep coming out at an angle. MR. RUEL-You think it would be all right? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. RUEL-Okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Tom, when you come up with the 16 lots that would be completed for Phase I before you start, before you dedicate the second access road onto Bay, that's more than half the development right there. . MR. NACE-That's right. By that time, we're going to be back here looking for approval for Phase II and getting Phase II under way. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I'm just thinking, do you need to do all 16 before you could do that road? I mean, I'm just thinking of all the amounts of traffic that are still going to be put on the people on Fieldview and Stonegate. I mean, couldn't we get it down to maybe 10? MR. CERRONE-We're offering to put in a construction road, for construction, and probably realistically I could do up to 10 lots, okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I'm just saying that 16 is more than half. MR. CERRONE-It's, a little less than half, well, a little more than half. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because you know once that other road gets in, it's the people in your development will start using that one. I would assume they would, okay, but that word "assume" can get you in trouble. MR. CERRONE-I don't have to go through Stonegate. approval with Paul Naylor. (lost words) MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, I can see where Tom's coming from. I mean, we can't speak for Paul Naylor, but I know that you can read him a little bit better than most people because you work with him a lot. MR. NACE-Sometimes. I don't profess to. MR. PALING-Why don't you go ahead, Tom, and tell us the rest of what's going on. MR. NACE-Sure. The other issues, the protective easements around the hedgerows, I imagine George probably didn't see, but there is a note already on the plans that said, deed restrictions will be included in all lots to prevent cutting of trees over two inch caliper and existing hedgerows, except for necessary removal of - 36 - '-' -- (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) dead and diseased trees, and I think that really addresses what he's looking for, and then we spoke just a minute ago, there's also a note here, in this cuI de sac, that says lands to be deeded to adjacent property owners in future, if road is extended. So these two pieces of the side of the cuI de sac would go to the adjacent properties, if the Town ever takes this road through and through, or if another developer takes it through. So hopefully that addresses these issues on Lots 11 through 15. We've talked about the Highway Superintendent's approvals, and the Town Engineer comments I think we've cleaned up. MR. PALING-Okay. Does the Board have any other questions or comments at the moment? MR. GORALSKI-I have a bunch of letters for when you open the public hearing. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. Why don't we open the public hearing on the Cerrone subdivision matter. Whoever would like to speak pro or con, please come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED KEN SIMMONS MR. SIMMONS-My name is Ken Simmons. I'm a resident of 4 Fieldview Road. I am the husband of the property owner of 4 Fieldview Road, and I was very, very heartened to hear Mr. Cerrone say he did not need to go through the end of Fieldview Road to have his development. I am not against development. As some of you here know, I work for Glens Falls Electric, and construction is what keeps me in food. By my quick count, there are about eight children on the side of Fieldview Road between Stonegate and the end of the road. Five of them are under the age of four, and we have a very, very close bond with each other and our children. The street is our common meeting place. Our children are just now learning how to ride their bicycles, use their roller skates, play a little street hockey, and the only way they can do this is because we know that that turn around cuI de sac at the end of Fieldview Road gives us a lot of safety, that there's no high traffic pattern or density, that anybody who drives along the road cannot go fast because you come down Stonegate and you turn on to that side of Fieldview and there you are at the end. You can't accelerate much beyond what a moderate second gear would give you in a standard transmission. This is very important to us. Our children are the most important thing to us. If the road gets extended, you know there's going to be more cars. It is going to be more dangerous, especially for children of that age. If they were all 15 or 16, then, you know, they would have had a chance to absorb safety rules and practices. Right now they're just barely learning how to do it, and how to navigate on their wheels. I think it would also destroy a good part of the community atmosphere that we enjoy, that is the reason we live there, and that is why I am opposed to any extension of Fieldview Road, and I wish Mr. Cerrone all the best and hope that he can create this development with access to Bay Road or to Sunnyside, wherever they want to go, without cutting through Fieldview. They might be some dog gone good neighbors, and I think it'll be good for that development, too, because it will cut down traffic speed in that development, without people cutting through. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who's next? MARY LEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-My name is Mary Lee Gosline. I was here during the Planning Board meeting when they brought their concept plan here, with Mr. Nace and the real estate man, Levack, and during that - 37 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) time, they proj ected this whole subdivision differently. They made it sound like it was going to be one acre lots. So I was very happy to hear that. It was conforming to all the different neighborhoods, and I've got quotes from Mr. Nace, from the Planning Board meetings, where he says, "The clustering concept that's been discussed, I think, with the open nature of this property, the large lots and more openness of this subdivision, will actually be an aesthetic benefit to this area." Another statement he makes is Mr. Nace, he makes reference to Stonehurst and Hudson Pointe, showing how these are opposites due to trees and clustering. Then refers to proposed development and says "I'm saying that clustering is good, and I think from a planning perspective, it certainly has its place, but I'm not sure this is the one". He goes on and on saying how they're going to be one acre lots, and even when I went to the Town Board meeting, they referred to one acre lots, and how Mrs. Oudekerk refers to how she wants it to be consistent with all the other developments in the area, and they talk about Bay Road, Ridge Road, and then I hear they want to do this clustering idea, and I guess it was just annoying to me because all through the way they projected it, it was going to be one acre lots, nothing less. I mean, there were parts, Mr. Paling, when he asked you, what is your average size, again, as you have it here, Mr. Paling said, Mr. Nace says, I don't know. We just penciled this in. I made sure, when I penciled in, that I had at least an acre. Mr. Paling, at least an acre is what you are saying. Mr. Nace says a minimum of an acre, and this was what was all said during that Planning Board meeting on 8/27/96, and I think everybody was very happy to hear about the acre lots and such, and that's why it was approved, but that was just one of my gripes, and another thing is you keep talking about the Bay Road entrance. That's a County road. Has the County approved this curb cut, the curb cut that you're talking about onto Bay Road? That's a County road. MR. RUEL-It'll have to be. MRS. GOSLINE-Yes, because that should be approved before this whole thing starts, because what's to say, he gets to this first section and decides not to open up that other road? He just leaves it dirt. I mean, they've come and projected it one way once before. They could do it again, tell us everything we want to hear, and then not do anything. That's all. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MARV LEMERY MR. LEMERY-My name is Marv Lemery. I'm a resident of Fieldview Road. I'm going to wear three hats tonight, one as a resident, one as Director of Emergency Services for Warren County, as Fire Coordinator and EMS Director, and the other is as a Building Code Enforcement Officer for Warren County, and I think you should be concerned about the safety of the neighborhoods, the two neighborhoods, one the Stonegate Subdivision as it exists today, and the other that is proposed by Mr. Cerrone. As Mr. Goralski has indicated, there are some requirements and some absolute need for a second means of ingress to these developments, and if you don't do that in the very beginning, you could be risking the lives of the residents of both. Those of us who live on Fieldview don't believe that our road that is there now is strong enough to handle, not only the construction equipment, but just the additional traffic, and that's a concern that you really should be looking into. As far as Mr. Naylor accepting the road, I'm not sure that he would. I'm not sure that he would allow the cut through from Stonegate as it exists today, Fieldview into the new development. That's all I have to say, thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Who's next? - 38 - " '--- ,-,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) TOM CICCONE MR. CICCONE-My name is Tom Ciccone. I'm a resident of Fieldview. There was a couple of things said tonight about a construction road. I'm just wondering how you can govern to tell people to use one road and not the other road. If the road's there, and some of these construction guys are looking for a place to park their car or work. What tells them they can't use Fieldview? I don't think our Fieldview can handle 16 more houses. What I'd like to see is I'd like to see them go ahead with their project. I'm not against that. I would like to see them go ahead and build their new road to Bay Road first. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. ROSS SCHLINGER MR. SCHLINGER-My name is Ross Schlinger. I live on Fieldview. I think there's been a lot of good points made tonight, but I think to be fair to both sides, if the Board would work with Mr. Cerrone, gave him a little latitude on that construction road. Instead of saying it has to be paved immediately, give him until the spring time, and that would make us happy, and it could make him happy. Granted, it's got to be approved by Mr. Naylor, but I'm sure he's not down on trying to keep the Town of Queensbury down, as far as workmanship and expanding the community. Just give Mr. Cerrone some latitude on that road, keep both parties happy. MR. PALING-Thank you. Anyone else? MARK LEVACK MR. LEVACK-Hi. My name's Mark Levack from Levack Real Estate. People can throw darts at me here this evening because I'm the realtor on this project, and my only motivation is to see another development come in and sell more lots, but I've been a resident of the Town of Queensbury, Glens Falls my whole life, and been in real estate since 1985. So we know a little bit about planning and what works from a subdivision perspective. I think if we get down to the issues here, what I'm hearing is that the Town of Queensbury Staff has no objection to this plan. They just want to see the road built all, right up front. Ten years from now, when the Oudekerks to the north want to sell their property and subdivide their property, this room will be filled with the same people objecting to opening up that cul-de-sac because it ruins the neighborhood concept of their cul-de-sac. What this plan does, from a planning perspective, is it ties one tract to a second tract, to a third tract to a fourth tract, and really, you know, the need to eliminate that substandard cul-de-sac and create a flow that transitions from one property to the next. So I think that this plan meets all of the current Town Subdivision Regulations, and I would encourage that it be approved as designed. Thank you. MR. PALING-Thank you. Is there anyone else that wants to speak that hasn't spoken before? MR. GORALSKI-Do you want to read these letters? MR. PALING-Yes. We'll be back. Go ahead, John. MR. GORALSKI-Okay. First we have a petition to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board, I'm assuming it's for the Planning Board, "We, the undersigned, all residents of Stonegate Manor, would like to express our concerns over the new subdivision that is being planned on the property of Ron Harris off Bay Road. We would like to see the road to this housing project come off from Bay Road, rather than breaking through Fieldview Road. Our small community is not capable of handling the added traffic that this would - 39 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) require. Also, we request that the new home be built on one-acre lots. The reason most of us purchased homes in Stonegate was because of the privacy and the limited amount of traffic on each of the cul-de-sacs. We appreciate your consideration of our concerns. " And there are 14 signatures. "To Queensbury Planning Board, from Eleanor H. Oudekerk, owner, After reviewing the preliminary site plan for the Bay Road property to be submitted by Mr. Cerrone, and discussing the grading of the proposed access road which will border the north side of my property, I find no objection to the plan as presented. I also have no objection to providing the easement necessary to bring the road grade to standard with whatever fill is necessary, with the stipulation that it will be graded and seeded appropriately. As neighbors with two adjoining parcels, neither my husband nor I feel the proposed development will adversely affect us, and we urge the planning board to approve the application." This letter is addressed to Jim Martin. "I have been notified of the subdivision proposed by Elio Cerrone and wish to register my obj ection to the proj ect using Stonegate Drive as the only access. I understand that another access road onto Bay Road is planned for the future, but I am concerned about construction traffic, and also increased traffic once homes are sold. The intersection of Bay and Stonegate has never been an ideal situation. It is icy in winter and generally poorly maintained. There are no shoulders or sidewalks and children walk up the street to the bus stop. Access for emergency vehicles is marginal for the number of homes on Stonegate and Fieldview. It would be a dangerous situation to allow another subdivision to use this road. In addition, there are no guarantees that the second phase of this plan will ever be implemented and a second road built. I strongly urge the Planning Board to insist on a second access road before the project is started. Respectfully yours, Kathleen Barrie" This is addressed to the Planning Board, Town of Queensbury, "I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed development of lands adj acent to my home. The proposed zoning change from 3 acre to 1/2 acre lots is a major difference in the character of the area and I think it would adversely affect our quality of life. Please reconsider this increased density. This area is very wet and we are very concerned about the effect all those septic systems, wells and lawn pesticides will have on the water table, our water quality and on the natural environment we enjoy. Also, whatever density is decided I do not want our road used as access. If the developer wants to pursue this project let them build a new road connecting to Bay Road before construction begins. We bought and built this property because it was secluded. I am very upset at the prospect of any additional traffic on our road. We have a small child and chose to live in this country setting for his safety. Many of our neighbors have children under the age of six who have been able to play safely because we all look out for them. Increasing the traffic will put them at risk. At the time our home was built there was a lot of talk about green space in our town and preserving the natural habitat of animals. I have lived in Queensbury all my life and am not adverse to change or development, as long as it is well planned and does not have a detrimental impact on the things that are most important; our children, our natural resources, our values and the residents' quality of life. This development seems to be more about taking advantage of trends in the housing market than planning what is the best use of the property and resources we have available. Sincerely, Christine Purdy" "Dear Members of the Planning Board: I am writing to express my disapproval of the access to the proposed subdivision of Mr. Ron Harris. Mr. Harris wishes to utilize Stonegate Drive to Field View Road as access to develop his property. I understand that there is a subdivision regulation that states that a cul-de- sac cannot be longer than 1000 feet. I realize this Board has authority to waive this, but feel that it would pose a definite hazard to our families if this is waived. Our children are accustomed to playing in a quiet, dead-end neighborhood. They are - 40 - ~ ,--".< (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) able to play with virtually none of the fears or worries of abduction, etc. that affect our world today. This is a rarity and it's nice to know that they can have this security in today's world. Our neighborhood was developed in the early 70's. Most of us have lived here for over 10 years and purchased our homes because we chose to live and raise our families in a quiet, rural setting. We are a neighborhood of 17 homes. In phase one of this proposed subdivision, there are 20 homes. Figuring 2 cars per home, that will be an additional 40 cars per day that will use our road. That does not include any additional vehicles that may come to visit, etc. This will more than double the amount of use our road currently receives. I am not opposed to Mr. Harris developing his property, BUT not at the expense of our families' safety. Our children are accustomed to a quiet neighborhood atmosphere with a minimal amount of traffic. If this Board waives the 1000 foot regulation, this will mean that during the entire construction phase, Stonegate and Field View Roads will have to endure the construction equipment and heavy machinery accessing this property on a daily basis. Can this road take this daily abuse? Is this fair to the property owners and children of Stonegate Subdivision to have his additional use of our quiet neighborhood? Why should we have to completely alter our life, when it isn't necessary for it to be affected to this degree, if they would not use our subdivision for access to their property. If they don't have enough money to construct a road to access their property, why should that become our problem? As far as a road being constructed in the future, I will be surprised to ever see that happen. The vertical drop from Bay Road is steep. Therefore, I'm sure it will be costly to construct a road with proper grading, drainage, etc. Stonegate and Field View currently have a drainage problem. Snowplows have a tough time trying to plow and maneuver on our road. For these reasons, I feel they do not wish to build this road from the onset.. .it isn't cost-effective for them. From what I understand, there are only 6 homes in what they are calling II Phase 2"... Their intentions seem obvious to me... Once they have developed Phase 1, with 20 homes, why bother to go to the expense of building a road for the 6 homes that are planned for Phase 2? Why even have a so-called Phase 2, when Phase 1 is more than three times that size? Then. ..we will be stuck with all this additional traffic "using" our once quiet, rural development as an access road to the new development... just so Mr. Harris can profit from developing his property to his cost-effectiveness. I also need to touch on the fact that this property was recently re-zoned from 3 acre to 1 acre. Most of the homes proposed are on less than 1 acre lots. The majority of the homes in the Stonegate subdivision are all on at least one acre lots. Our neighborhood may be considered unique too, due to the fact that there are not two home designs in Stonegate Sub-division that are identical. I assume the new subdivision may have about 6 home designs to choose from, and most likely will have a few similar homes. Therefore, the size of the lots and the character of this new subdivision will not tie-in with ours. . . so why connect them together? I understand the density issue with clustering, but why should Mr. Harris benefit from both the clustering advantage and at the same time not have to construct a road to develop his property? It would seem that he should have to invest something...less homes on more land, so that it ties in with our development...or his own road to his development. I ask this Board not to allow the access to this proposed sub-division through our neighborhood and not to waive the 1000 feet restriction on a dead-end road. Please consider the reasons we chose to invest in Queensbury and purchase our homes and raise our families in this quiet, rural area. Mr. Harris has the right to develop his property, but why must it be done to totally infringe on our families? Let Mr. Harris have his own subdivision with its own road, not affiliated or affecting our subdivision. Thank you for your considerations. Very truly yours, Kimberly Sawyer, 7 Field View Road, Queensbury, NY" Queensbury Planning Board, II Dear Chairman: I am writing in support of the proposed subdivision by - 41 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) Al Cerrone on the east side of Bay Rd. We are the largest landowners on the opposite side of Bay Rd. and feel that the application conforms to and is in good taste with surrounding properties. We also support the clustering of these lots as it uses the proper potential of the land and also allows for more affordable housing. Thank you, Daniel & Barbara BarberI! That's it. MR. PALING-Okay. Are there anYmore first time speakers? KEN HARRIS MR. HARRIS-My name is Ken Harris. My parents are Ronald and Shirley Harris. I'm here to speak tonight on behalf of my parents. I understand that there's a lot of people here, homeowners, that have concerns regarding the children that they have. I have five daughters of my own. I just recently built off Big Bay Road, and I was one of the first houses in twelve to go into this development. Now, my children, too, because it is a dead end road, they do enjoy riding their bikes, skateboarding, and having a good time. Since we've moved in there, we've had four additional houses built. I, too, built there because I wanted some privacy. No, I did not enjoy having the heavy trucks coming in next to my house, building in the middle of the summer time and hammering and things of that sort, and having to worry where my children are. It's the parent's responsibility to know where their children are. I have five daughters. They shouldn't be just out running the roads and playing in the streets, playing field hockey or whatever, without proper supervision, okay. The other is, my grandparents have owned the Harris farm for over 100 years. These folks behind me are building, and have bought homes and property that was home to my family over 100 years. The field that Field View and Stonegate is on, I used to work as a kid and field in that, hay and crops and what not. My parents built where they built for, one, privacy. Just like these folks behind me. They chose to buy or build their homes where they were because they wanted the privacy, okay. There's nothing wrong with having privacy, but we all have to accept there's got to be some changes in this world. My grandfather chose, in the early 70' s, to sell that section of property where Field View is, where Stonegate, okay, across the road where the new development is, he sold that all off to Dr. Barber, okay, and it took a lot of heart for my grandfather to do that, after working his whole life on the farm, and so he chose to sacrifice properties, okay, and make changes to better himself and his family. My parents wanted that privacy, and they lost that privacy when those developments went in, and trucks came in, the dust came in, the workers, and everything came in, okay, caused the heavier traffic. Bay Road, I remember when I was younger, I used to be able to sit on Bay Road. It would be 20, 25 minutes before a truck or car went by. I used to walk my track line down Bay Road, and it would take forever and there would not be any traffic, okay. The thing is, we all have to accept there's going to be some changes. These people behind me say that they don't mind seeing a development. They don't want their community, their neighborhood disrupted, because there's going to be some more traffic. If we have to make some changes in the road systems, then lets do so. The Town of Queensbury ought to work with the developers to make sure that these roads are proper, that they're safe for our children, and that everybody is happy. Mr. Harris, okay, is not out to, for his own selfish reasons, sell this property to disrupt the lives of these family homeowners behind me. The thing is, it's my father's and my mother's financial future to sell that piece of property, and it's none of anybody else's concern behind me, okay, for their well being, but, it's their financial future to be able to make some choices. It's hard for my father to be able to give up that piece of property. He loves that piece of property. He grew up on that farm, okay, and it's very tough for him to do that. So for these folks behind me to either accuse my father for doing - 42 - \..., '- -- --' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) it for selfish reasons, for not looking out for the best welfare for their children, is totally unacceptable. So I'm here today to ask that this plan go through, that this developer develops those roads the way that is going to be safe for our children, and it's going to meet the Code, okay. That second road, if that's what it takes, lets get this second road in here. The Town Board here needs to work with the developer, work with the people, and lets get it done, get rid of all the red tape, and lets get on with business. So that, one, illY father can financially either plan his future, that these folks behind me here, they'll have to make some adjustments, and they better watch where their kids are. Because I have to watch where my children are. That's all I've got to say. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. VALERIE WEINGART MR. WEINGART-My name is Valerie Weingart, and I live right at the cul-de-sac. Let me bring up my stuff first, and then I'll answer some of his qualms. In addition to the letters that were read, mine was not read, and I do want to voice my opinion, because I am right there. "This letter is in regard to the proposed access road that is being planned on Fieldview Road for the new Harris land development. As a homeowner on the corner lot we feel that the access road will be an invasion to our privacy. We will be losing our "corner lot" atmosphere on the road which was one main reason we purchased the house only two years ago. With the access road being at the end of our house, we are concerned about the heavy increase in traffic and for the safety of our children. As you know, if no road is going to be built from Bay Road, then Fieldview Road will be the main thorofare to and from the new development. Our development is a nice, quiet area in which all the neighborhood children can come and go. This access road is going to create heavy traffic flow where we will not be able to use our front yards leisurely. We are not anti-housing, but we feel that for this new development to be completed, it should be accessed from Bay Road leaving our road as is. By doing this it would keep the charm and uniqueness of our development alive and the new proposed development will be able to create their own. Thank you, Charles and Valerie Weingart" I also want to add that of the number of small children that was already said, two of them are mine. I have one that just turned four, and I have another who's 16 months old, one who wasn't even born when we bought this house. We spent more time looking for our ideal house and saving our money for it. We're the youngest people here with the youngest children, mine is one, and the main thing we were looking for in our house was for it to be in seclusion, by itself, with people that we could trust, with that family feeling. I grew up in a very small town. This is all very much new to me, as to how any of these new developments happen, and I will plead ignorance to all of this, but for you or, I don't want to put any blame, but just not to adhere to anything of what we're saying, I think, you know, is not fair to any of what our letters are stating. As far as Mr. Harris is concerned, I never heard anyone say, this is Mr. Harris' fault. I don't think anyone is blaming him. It was his land. He chose to sell it. Fine. Now this development's coming up. Fine. We don't have a problem with the development. What we do have a problem with is just that access road. There's a cul-de-sac on both ends. If the snowplowing is a problem, it's a problem on the other end, too, you know. You can't just use that for the excuse. As far as me, I took that very personally as far as me not watching my children. I'm a teacher. The first thing I'm going to do is watch my children, no matter where they are. I watch them like glue. If they go out in the road, even if it is a dead end, I still make sure my four year old looks both ways, just in case, you know, we're somewhere else and they're not out in the road, and thank God, because if this road does open, she'll know enough to look both ways, but the thing is, even without, there isn't even a stop - 43 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) sign right now, at the end of Stonegate going into Fieldview, that some of these new people who aren't aware of what children are even there might just veer around this corner, thinking, I've got another 400 feet before my house. I can go as fast as I want, and you can put speed limits or whatever, but if you have a 10 mile speed limit in there even, how many people do you think actually might do 15, maybe 20, and not be aware that there might be a person, you know, in a driveway or in a yard, like they're used to for so many years. That's all I have to say. MR. PALING-Thank you. MR. GORALSKI-Mr. Paling, I just have to apologize. I did find Mrs. Weingart's letter. MR. PALING-And that's the same letter you read? MRS. WEINGART-Yes. MR. GORALSKI-That's the same letter. I'm sorry. MR. PALING-Okay. Anybody? DOUG IRISH MR. IRISH-My name's Doug Irish. I don't live in the area. I was just talking to Mark Levack, and apparently the average price on these houses is $125,000, and $175,000. You're talking about 16 houses in buildout in the first phase, roughly $2.4 millon. I haven't heard any of these development say they don't want this development in there. None of them have a complaint about that. It's basically this the access road to the new development. At $2.4 million, I'd think the builder could bend over a little bit and absorb some of that cost. I mean, they talked about just providing that single road to begin with. If they were to spend some of that profit beforehand, if they're sure this development is going to go to full phase, I mean, the Town Board showed good faith by giving them a re-zoning from three acre to one acre, and then letting them cluster the houses. I don't think it's unfair to ask them to go ahead and complete the road, dedicate the road, use that as the access to the new development, and leave the people in Stonegate alone. I mean, they haven't complained about the development at all. Their only point of contention is the access road from their development to the new one, and I don't think that's unfair to ask to be able to do that, and if you sat down and did the numbers on that, I think it would probably be to his benefit. MR. PALING-Thank you. RON HARRIS MR. HARRIS-I'm Ron Harris. I'm the owner of the property in question, and I can understand everybody's concern about the privacy and (lost words) and reasonably so. The privacy part, I can remember, I had built my home and I watched all of the other homes being built and taking away mY privacy, but I realize that privacy isn't the real issue here tonight. The real issue is the entrance from Stonegate into the new development, and I think Mr. Cerrone has already said that he does not have to have that, just from what was said up here tonight. Another thing that bothered me was Mrs. Sawyer's letter insinuating that I'm going to be hansomly rewarded when I sell the property and saying that I was the developer. I'm not the developer. I only own the property. I have it for sale, and I have a developer who wants it, and I have a need to sell this property. I'm not selling it out of greed. I'm not a greedy person. I'm only selling it because I have to sell it, and so I do resent the implication that I'm going to be - 44 - ',- "--' . " --.-/ (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) hansomly rewarded, because I'm not going to be hansomly rewarded for it. I only am asking for a fair market value for the property, and I've owned this piece of property since my parents passed away, and I just would like a fair return on it, so that I can basically plan my future. It's a tough thing for me to sell the property because I love the property, but it's just one of those things that has to change, and we all have to change, and I think it's, some people here are a little bit angry with me to a point for selling the property, but I've had it sold, or on the market since 1988, and I think anyone that moved into that development knows it because signs have been up, and so anyone that moved into that area knew that that property was for sale and would eventually be developed, and that time has come now, and I'm not (lost words) does approve it. I guess that's it. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIMMONS-Ken Simmons again. On a slightly light note, I do, whoever's in touch with Mr. Naylor, as far as the snowplowing goes, I can tell you all what happens to the snow. It goes on my driveway, and that's just because of the configuration of the cul- de-sac and the laws of physics as to when snow goes off the blade and the distance involved, and it comes to my driveway, and I've said many bad things about the people about it before, that I would certainly be willing to put up with it if I could maintain the cul- de-sac. I think Mr. Cerrone has shown his willingness to be a good neighbor, and I'd certainly urge the Planning Board to work with him as far as possible, when he says he does not need to go through Stonegate to achieve what he wants to achieve. I think he sounds very fine, and that's a good overture. We want to be good neighbors, too. We're practicing on how to be neighborly in our own little development, and as to what Mr. Levack said, I do think that the wishes of people living there are more important than flow of tracks or something. I don't know what that means, but certainly I think people in place are not to be so easily dismissed, and Mr. Harris the elder seems like he's going to be a good neighbor, too. I don't think anybody can blame him for selling this property. It is his right to do so, and we have not yet had a communist government in this country to prevent him from doing it. So, you know, our best to Mr. Harris, and I think he realizes that Mr. Cerrone is willing to be a good neighbor as well. So I think there is common ground here, amongst all the principals, and I would urge the Planning Board to sort of work with that consensus we seem to have, or that we might be able to reach. Thank you. MR. PALING-Okay. MR. CICCONE-I'd just like to just to answer young Harris', some of his questions. Tom Ciccone. I appreciate him standing up for his dad, but I know he said that he's concerned about his father's retirement, and this is what he's doing, and we're all on that street, I guess we're all kind of worried about our retirement, if we can sell our house when the time comes, if this new development is going to help our property values, and, you know, there's been a lot said here tonight, and I think the people don't have anything against Ron Harris' development plan, and I really think that this land could be developed, and I don' t think it has to hurt us. There was a gentleman that got up here with a suit on, and I don't kind of like his attitude about, everything is all right. Just blow the doors down and go ahead and build it. Forget about the people, and I don't like that attitude at all. I think the people have a lot to say, and I don't think you ought to be shoved aside for any development. I think everybody should be able to speak their piece and have something to say. Thank you very much. MR. PALING-Okay. Thank you. - 45 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. LEVACK-Was I the gentleman in the suit that you were referring to? My name is Mark Levack, and I intend on being a homeowner in this subdivision, and like I said, people can throw darts at the realtor, just blow it down, disregard everything. I have a safety concern by only having one access point into the subdivision. If an emergency vehicle needs to get in there and that road is blocked, how does the emergency vehicle get into the subdivision? So, the point I was trying to make earlier was that, from a flow perspective and a planning perspective, the two points of egress are essential. That was my only point, thank you, but I do plan on being a neighbor and as a life resident of the area, I do hope to think that we're involved with proper development. Thanks. MR. PALING-Okay. Is there anyone else, now, that would care to speak? Okay. Everybody's had an opportunity? All right, then I will close the public hearing on the Preliminary stage. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. PALING-Okay. Do you want to say anything now? MR. NACE-Well, I can address a couple of issues if you'd like. MR. PALING-Yes, go ahead. MR. NACE-A couple of things I noted were, first of all, the curb cut on Country Club Road. We, obviously, will go to the County, generally with the County and the State. MR. GORALSKI-Bay Road. MR. NACE-I'm sorry. I had County road written down and County curb cut. On Bay Road, we will go to the County. Normally, either the County or the State, if we're going onto their road, don't like us to come to them with an application until we've at least gotten through this Preliminary stage subdivision so they know it's a viable project, but we will, as soon as we're done with Preliminary, go to the County and talk to Roger and give him a set of plans to review. I don' t anticipate any problems. We've looked at the site distance, and the site distance at this entrance will actually be better than the site distance at the adjacent road. The issue was brought up regarding lot size comparison. I believe the lots that we are proposing here are very comparable to the lots in the adjacent subdivision, as far as size goes, and I guess the real issue, obviously, is whether we connect to Fieldview Drive. Mr. Cerrone has indicated he is certainly willing to put in just the single access to Bay Road. I think, if we could leave here with a waiver from this Board on the dead end length of road and go to Paul Naylor, sit down with Paul this week, see what sort of feedback we get from him on that kind of a proposal. I think that's maybe where we want to be headed. We have no problem with the single access onto Bay. We, obviously, would have a few things to work out with that, and a few minor revisions to the plan to accommodate that. I understand you have a meeting next Tuesday? If we could possibly be carried onto the agenda for that, we could come back with some sort of a determination from Paul at that time, as to whether he would permit it. In lieu of that, then we'd obviously have to go back, if Paul wouldn't permit it, you know, we're sort of in a box inbetwix in between, and then maybe it's an issue of how many houses we could build in Phase I before we have that road. I don't know. That's a bridge maybe we need to cross at next week's meeting. MR. PALING-Well, in your first proposal that you're making now, you're saying that you'd never open Fieldview Road, if we could get the waiver. MR. NACE-If you could give us a waiver, and Paul Naylor agrees, we - 46 - '" ",,---, ' ,-,,' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) will be glad to put in front of you a set of plans which shows no connection with Fieldview. MR. PALING-No connection to Fieldview. Okay. MR. RUEL-Can I just add something here? Someone expressed some concern about dual access for emergency vehicles. This, at that point, we could have a break through wooden barrier, which I think we've done in other cases. It closes a road, but allows access to emergency vehicles, if that's a problem. MRS. LABOMBARD-But right now there's no double entrance into Stonegate or Fieldview. MR. RUEL-I know there isn't. I'm saying when they put that road in, don't put it through to Stonegate. Just put the wooden barrier up. That would prevent traffic from going through, but would allow access for emergency vehicles. MR. NACE-I think that's been done in some extreme cases before. I'm not sure it's ever been done in the middle of a subdivision, a residential subdivision. MR. RUEL-It was done twice in the years I've been here. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't think this is an extreme case. MR. RUEL-So it could be done again. MR. STARK-Tommy, let me, you want to come back next Tuesday with something from Paul Naylor? You want to table it for a week? MR. NACE-What we'd like to do is take a vote tonight on a waiver for a dead end length of cul-de-sac, okay, from this Board. Once we have that, we'd then go to see Paul Naylor during the week and come back next, I guess it's next Tuesday you have another meeting, come back next Tuesday to you with the results of that meeting, and hopefully a final determination of which way we're going to go. MR. RUEL-Will Paul Naylor be at that meeting? MR. PALING-He doesn't have to be. during the week. They would consult with Paul MR. NACE-It would be up to us to get his written input or written, at least. MR. RUEL-I'd like to see him there, if possible. MR. PALING-Okay. John? MR. GORALSKI-Tom just said that he would ask you to vote on the waiver, and then go to Mr. Naylor for his input. It would be mY recommendation that you get Mr. Naylor's input first. MR. RUEL-Yes. MR. PALING-Before we do anything, yes. MR. GORALSKI-And then you can discuss waivers. MR. PALING-We'll get to the same point and accomplish the same thing, but, yes, I agree with you. That's the way to do it. MR. NACE-Can we get at least a consensus at this point? I don't want to go to Paul Naylor and then come back here and have you say, we don't want to grant you the waiver. - 47 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. PALING-I think we can poll the Board, is what we'll do. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I'd be awful reluctant to go through a hypothetical exercise like that. You don't really know what the Highway Superintendent's opinion is, and a lot of times when you, you know, polling of a Board turns into something that people try to rely on. I think that's a mistake. I think Staff's position, and I would endorse that position, is that the applicant has indicated its willingness to go to the Highway Superintendent and get some kind of recommendation from the Highway Superintendent relative to this idea. I think that's a very sound idea, and I think if the Board wants to take the applicant up on that and wants to afford them that opportunity with next week's special meeting spot, that's fine. I'd be reluctant to have the Board vote on a hypothetical or abstract scenario that you don't really know what's going to play out. MR. PALING-All right. Then let me do it this way, if we can. I understand what you're saying, and you're right. I'd like to just, now I made a whole bunch of notes here, and I think the major one is the one that they're addressing right now, and so lets put that aside, and we have the item of double access is still with us. We have the neighborhood character is another one. Lot size is another one. Do any of the Board have comment on any of these as we're going through this? MR. STARK- I don't think any of the neighbors would have a complaint about the project going in, if the road would be left the way it is, and total access to the other project. I don't think anybody would have a question about that. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don't think we need to address any of that other stuff. It just makes it more complicated. MR. NACE-Yes. I think it's similar anyway. I think the lot sizes are similar, the houses that we're proposing to construct would be of a similar size. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, when you say that, the only thing, Tom, is I thought the other lots on Fieldview were an acre, and Stonegate? MR. PALING-No. MRS. LABOMBARD-Well, when we were in there that day, we said they were an acre, and I thought, boy, they looked a little small for an acre, to me. MR. NACE-I'll be glad to pull up a tax map, but I believe they're in the range of .6 to .8 acres, in there. There's a couple of corners that are one acre. MR. PALING-But there are lots that are under one acre in Stonegate, yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because when we were there, you guys had said these are one acre lots. Yes. I distinctly remember that. I was surprised. MR. PALING-Okay, then. What I think we ought to do is to lets say re-open the public hearing and then table this matter until Tuesday night. MR. MACEWAN-I'd like to get a couple of things clear, if I might. Two questions I've got for you, Tom, is, Number One, can you explain to me the methodology used in determining the phasing concept of this development, and Number Two, just one more time, tell me what you want to do with the road system, as far as the development of it. - 48 - " ~ '"'-'" (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. NACE-Okay. The phasing, the original phasing concept, as you see it on the map, was simply to be able to open up, build enough road in Phase I to get lots started without having the relatively expensive construction of the road out to Bay Road, until the cash flow was generated out of Phase I to do that, or at least out of the first portion of Phase I. If we go with the concept that I have just proposed and that Paul Naylor approves, of a single access on Bay Road, we are under, I think your number of lots is 30 for, is it, John, what's the number of lots that require phasing, is that 30 or 35? MR. GORALSKI-Thirty. MR. NACE-Thirty, okay. We're under that number. We'd probably come back with a single phased plan, or possibly a plan with a temporary cul-de-sac, down in here, okay, make everything up to here Phase I, and then this would be Phase I I . So, I believe there'd be there or a single phase, if we come back with a single access, okay. MRS. LABOMBARD-It makes sense. MR. NACE-Does that answer your question, Craig? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MRS. LABOMBARD-And then Craig wanted you to, he did address the road situation, what he just proposed, at the end of the phasing plan. MR. PALING-Okay. Craig, are you all set? MR. MACEWAN-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay. George? MR. STARK-What's the difference between the proposed road and the Stonegate Road, on Bay Road? MR. NACE-On Bay Road? MR. STARK-The separation distance, do you know, just roughly? MR. WEST-It's not very much. MRS. LABOMBARD-There it is. MR. NACE- I'd have to get a scale to get real accurate, but I believe it's about 550 or 60 feet. MR. PALING-And that's straight. MR. NACE-That's straight, yes. We're, with this access coming on Bay, we're on the outside of a bend, which is the preferable place to be for site distance, and we're up at the crest of the hill here, so it's relatively flat off the north, and it falls away to the south. MRS. LABOMBARD-What do we do now? MR. PALING-Okay. Then I think we agree that we'll re-open the public hearing and we'll table this. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. PALING-I've re-opened the public hearing, and we'll table this motion until a week from tonight. - 49 - (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) MR. GORALSKI-Now, because you're adding this to that agenda, and because I'm assuming that there'll be several people here, we're not going to be able to hold the meeting anywhere but here. So I'm going to have to get back to you and let you know. MR. PALING-All right. How do we let everybody know? MRS. LABOMBARD-How about Wednesday night? MR. GORALSKI-Tuesday night may be fine. I just don't know. I can't tell you, yes, lets have a meeting, because I don't know what the schedule is for this room. MR. PALING-Is it out of line to suggest that anybody that wants to know about it call the Planning Office and ask? MR. GORALSKI-Yes. answer. If you call us Thursday, we should have an MR. PALING-What I'm saying is I think there's a lot of cooperation on both sides. MR. GORALSKI-Call the Planning Department at 761-8220. Anyone will be able to help you. MR. MACEWAN-I have a question. Under the Subdivision Reg's, 183- 23E, it's talking about, and the comment was made here regarding subdivisions of less than 35 lots not having to have two accesses, but it also says in here, and if I'm understanding it correctly, it says, " in the case of an internalized subdivision where requirements for two entrances may be satisfied by the provision of double widths of the access road", would that fly for this subdivision, that he'd have to have a double width access? MR. NACE-No, that's if you exceed 35 lots. MR. GORALSKI-If you exceed 35 lots. If you're under 35 lots, that doesn't apply. MR. MACEWAN-Okay. MR. GORALSKI-The only thing that'll apply here is the 1,000 foot dead end street. MR. PALING-Okay. again, please. John, would you just repeat the phone number MR. GORALSKI-761-8220. MR. PALING-And when should they call, how soon? MR. GORALSKI-If you give us tomorrow to get the whole thing ironed out, by Thursday, we should have a date, because if that day is not good, tomorrow we'll have to contact all the Board members and try to figure out a date that's better. MR. PALING-All right. Does everyone understand that? You can call the Planning Office Thursday and they'll let you know when the next meeting will be, and then we'll keep the public hearing open and take it from there. Okay. We need a motion to table this. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1997 CERRONE BUILDERS, Introduced by Roger Ruel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Until early April 1997, exact date and location to be determined. Duly adopted this 25th day of March, 1997, by the following vote: - so - '-, "--' --../' (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 3/25/97) AYES: Mr. Rue I , Mr. West, Mr. MacEwan, Mr. Stark, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Paling NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer MR. PALING-Okay. MR. STARK-What about, before we go, what about the dedication of Crossroads Park in lieu of recreation fees? MR. PALING-Okay. It's not on the agenda. MR. STARK-No, I'm just wondering. I thought everybody was going to go up and look at it and then get back to us on it, and then talk about it. MR. PALING-Okay. Crossroads Park? John, has there been any discussion about MR. GORALSKI-I thought Rich was going to be here tonight to discuss the land dedication. I thought Rich was going to be here on that. MR. PALING-All right. Maybe for the first meeting next month you can put it on the agenda. MR. GORALSKI-I'll talk to Rich and find out what he plans to do. MR. PALING-All right. Could I have your attention please, just for a minute. Okay. In April, you realize there may be one special meeting. George, I will probably not be here for that, okay. The regular meetings, Maria, will be the 15th and the 22nd, and we're changing over, in so far as site visits are concerned. George and I, I think, are pretty flexible on this, and the four of us that are always there, I think it's between Cathy and Dave. MRS. LABOMBARD-I'm okay Saturday. MR. WEST-I'd prefer to do it on Thursday, you know, go back to the Thursdays in the afternoon. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. Okay. So Thursday at four? MR. PALING-All right. So we will start this on April 10th. All right. Site visits, four o'clock Thursday afternoon on the 10th. Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Paling, Chairman - 51 -