october 4, 2011 planning board minutes · 2015-12-29 · 3 october 4, 2011 planning board minutes...

1 October 4, 2011 Planning Board Minutes

Minutes of the Town of Lake George Planning Board Meeting held on October 4, 2011 at the Town Center, Old Post Road, Lake George, New York, commencing at 6:00 p.m. Members Present: Keith Hanchett, Chairman Charlie Portes Jack Abrahams Ed LaFerriere John Carr Linda Varley Joe Mastrodomenico Also Present: Robb Hickey, Adele Behrmann, Sean Quirk, Attorney Michael O’Connor,

Kathy Bozony, Mike Seguljic, Dana Seguljic, Melissa Vito, Tom Jarrett, Mike Ludwig, Carol & Dick Brining, Kitty Rooney, Claire Decker, Douglas McCall, David & Rochelle Adams, Tony Casale, Gene Quinn, Tom Andress, Dennis Dickinson, Tom Hutchins, John Michaels, Attorney Donald Boyajian and others

Chairman Hanchett opens the meeting at 6:00 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Application #SPR24-2011 submitted by Douglas McCall to replace existing 21’x27’ sundeck.

Repair existing dock and construct new u-shaped dock; for property located at 37 Cramer

Point Road. Tax Map #238.08-1-58. Lot Size 30,000 sq. ft. Zoning Classification RCH-LS.

Owner is Francis Bosco. Douglas McCall: He summarizes that this application is to replace the existing sundeck since the one that is currently on site is old and needs to be replaced. It will be replaced with one that matches the house which is an early 1900s log home. Secondly the existing dock will be replaced and a slip will be constructed.

Chairman Hanchett: He announces that he received correspondence from the Lake George Water Keeper and opens the meeting to the public.

Kathy Bozony: She is from the office of the Lake George Water Keeper and has no objection to this project however her office looks at all constructions of boat houses and docks as having minimal disturbance on the shoreline. She would ask that if a buffer exists to maintain it as best they can with the construction; if there is no buffer the approval should be conditioned with buffers and restrictions on use of fertilizers. Jack Abrahams asks the applicant if the application was submitted to the Park Commission and he has received an approval to which Mr. McCall replies that it has been approved. Robb Hickey has not received a copy of the approval yet. Robb Hickey informs Charlie Portes that the phosphorus free fertilizer is a Town Law and it does not have to be conditioned on approvals.


A motion is introduced by Jack Abrahams and seconded by Charlie Portes to close the public hearing. All in favor, motion carried.

A motion is introduced by Jack Abrahams and seconded by Linda Varley to approve Site Plan

SPR24-2011 with the condition that a copy of the Park Commission approval be obtained and filed

in the Planning and Zoning office.

Linda Varley yes

John Carr yes

Jack Abrahams yes

Charlie Portes yes

Joe Mastrodomenico yes

Ed LaFerriere yes

Chairman Hanchett yes

All in favor, motion carried.

2. Application for Site Plan SPR27-2011 submitted by William Wasserbach to construct a 4

bedroom single family dwelling for property located at 2 Lake Street. Tax Map #251.20-1-

30.2. Lot size 0.40 acre. Zoning Classification RSH. Owner Jean G. Albright Trust.

Dennis MacElroy: He is with Environmental Design representing the applicants. John Michaels is also present, he is the builder. Last month the application was approved and a public hearing was scheduled, subsequently they submitted a new set of planting plans which should address some of the issues. The applicant is in the process of purchasing this lot with the understanding that the proposed residence can be built with access from Lake Street; the driveway will be made of permeable lot pavers in order to reduce run off. The house will be approximately 2,400 sq. ft. and the impervious surfaces will be managed through a series of rain gardens proposed on both the lake and the side of the house. The municipal sewer runs through the front yard and the connection for waste water will be simple; as for the water supply the plan is to draw it from the lake. The Michaels Group has prepared a rendering which has been submitted to the Board Members. There are several large, mature trees on the lot which will remain. There will be a proposed vegetative buffer along the shoreline with native species as proposed by the LGA in addition to supplemental planting. Jack Abrahams confirms with Robb Hickey that this lot was a non conforming lot approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2009 to which Robb replies yes. John Carr adds that the applicant is proposing to build to the same specifications but due to the 100 ft. from the lake set back requirements a variance was needed or else he would almost have to pump the storm water up hill to keep it away from the lake. Charlies Portes asks the builder if a construction fence or a silt fence can be put up in the disturbed area in order to protect the two trees to the left since these are critical trees and should not be damaged.

John Carr: He asks how big the tree in front of the home actual is. On the drawing the size is 2 or 2 ½” caliber tree but the height of the tree should be clarified as well; he wants to make sure that the rendering the public sees at tonight’s meeting matches what it will actually be. Additionally he would like to see the density


of the buffer zone on the shoreline clarified. Clarification is needed on whether it will be a uniform full type of landscaping or plants every foot. The color seems to be a silvery grey with possibly white trim. John Michaels: His reply to Jack Abrahams is that there is a dock and stairs; part of the garage will be used at the rear of the property as a retaining wall; the actual house will be used to retain (not audible).

John Carr: He adds that it looks as though there is a 40˚ slope behind the house in front of the driveway. Is Dennis MacElroy comfortable with the absence of a retaining wall in this area? Dennis MacElroy: He replies that it is 2 on 1 and not an unusual slope. 3 on 1 is where one might need retaining walls, etc. He then confirms to John Carr that he is comfortable with the soils and what is there and that there is no need for any kind of retaining walls. He also informs the Board that they have notes on the plans on the types of erosion controls they will be using and even though it is not shown on this area they do have them in place. He will arrange for a note to be written on this area to alert the contractor or builder.

Kathy Bozony: She advises that a letter pertaining to this project was submitted by the Lake George Waterkeeper. Storm water management was reviewed by Chris Navitsky, the Waterkeeper and she would like to share his findings and comments with the audience. She reads the letter a copy of it is on file at the Planning and Zoning Office. She believes that there is an opportunity to move the house back further in order to get better infiltration and treatment of storm water; to expand the buffer so the lake can be better protected and an actual planting plan should be required and not just a list of native species and as always a restriction on fertilizer and pesticides is recommended. Phosphorus free fertilizer is allowed in the Town of Lake George whereas in Queensbury a law was just passed that requires no fertilizers application of any kind within 50 feet of the lake since phosphorus is not the only chemical that promotes algae in the lake.

Mike Seguljic: He consistently hears that there is no reason to condition the use of fertilizers within 100 feet of the lake because of the fertilizer law that Lake George passed; however many people do not know about the law as well as the lack of knowledge about the harm that these chemicals are causing to the lake. He heard that there are chemicals in fertilizers that are not listed on the labels as well therefore every time it is unknown what goes into the lake; as he said many times before, the lake is turning green. He pleas with the Planning Board to start conditioning the use of land use chemicals on these properties that slope into Lake George. Eugene Albright: He is the present owner of the property which has been in the family for 65 years. He reviewed the Wasserback’s proposals and finds it very tasteful, modest, and stately and an appropriate structure for this lot. He believes that the proposal takes into account the size and the topography of the property and he is in full support of it. Dennis MacElroy: He informs John Carr that there is a note on the plan regarding the slope area with a proposed erosion control map and the details. In answer to the Waterkeeper about the storage area, he comments that the rain gardens will provide over 500 cu ft. of storage which conforms to the Town’s standards.


Charlie Portes asks why the tree on the south side of the entrance way is being removed. Dennis MacElroy: He replies that it is due to the swale; his office felt that the root system would interfere with it although he fought to keep the tree. John Carr adds that he feels the swale could be easily moved slightly to which Dennis agrees. John Carr states that in order to move this project along, Dennis needs to present a very detailed planting plan or buffer zone at the next meeting. Dennis MacElroy: He replies that they will comply with the standard density of one plant every 4 square feet as well as additional landscaping such as vegetative buffers and rain gardens. John Carr refers to the vegetative buffers indicated as a no cut zone. Dennis MacElroy adds that this particular area is a turf or grass area. Their proposal is for a rain garden strip along the buffer area which will be made up of herbaceous and evergreen ground covers. He informs the Board that Mr. Wasserbach is under a time constraint because of the closing on this property.

John Carr: He states that the optimum would be for the applicant and Dennis MacElroy to define a plan with exact planting rendering.

Dennis MacElroy: He replies that he hesitates to comply with this request because they can provide all the pretty drawings with the plantings but then when it is actually built, the landscaper may have other suggestions. If they present a list with specific plants and density will this be satisfactory to the Board?

John Carr: He replies that it would be acceptable however the applicant needs to comply with the Town’s codes which call for natural shorelines. He believes that 1 plant every 4 square feet is not unreasonable. Robb Hickey asks if the Board would like to see a detailed planting plan before he issues a Land Use and Development Permit or before he issues a Certificate of Occupancy. John Carr replies that due to the fact that there may be opportunities that a good landscaper brings to the table, it can be anything off the list at the time of the Certificate of Occupancy. Joe Mastrodomenico asks Dennis the reason why he did not continue the shrubs on the shoreline across the rest of the property to which Dennis replies that it is due to the dock. Robb Hickey replies that the dock is 14 feet wide. Dennis MacElroy: He says that the nature of the shoreline in this area is wide between the deck and a terrace area and not necessarily a planting area. In answering John Carr’s suggestion that a planting area be put in, he suspects that there may be a dock site plan in the future which is the one that exists there now. There is a note on the plan that the existing site plan review does not include any modification to the existing dock.


John Carr asks why not continue with the shrubs since there is an opportunity to do so. Dennis MacElroy: He confirms that on the plan submitted for Land Use and Development Permit they will continue with the same buffer. John Carr asks what the height of the new tree will be to which John Michaels asks if the Board would accept multiple trees instead of one tree. John Carr reiterates that he is not as much concerned with the caliber but the fact that the Board is showing the public a rendering with a tree which is most likely about 20 feet tall whereby he is looking for a more specific height for the tree or at least the type of tree. John Michaels adds that they will not be able to get equipment in this area therefore the tree will start out as a 12 ft tree. John comments that they may be able to preserve the maple tree in front of the porch as well to which John Michaels replies that they will try to save the tree.

A motion is introduced by Charlie Portes and seconded by Jack Abrahams to close the public

hearing.

Linda Varley yes

John Carr yes

Jack Abrahams yes

Charlie Portes yes


Ed LaFerriere yes



A motion is introduced by John Carr and seconded by Charlie Portes to approve application #

SPR27-2011 with the following conditions:

1. The shoreline buffer shall be continuous as much as possible from boundary to boundary

along the shore of the lake at the depths shown on the plan.

2. The density of plants shall be every 4 square feet off the list of plants that the Lake George

Park Commission provides.

3. The new tree placed in front of the home shall be at least 12 feet tall with a growth up to 20

feet or be multiple trees.

4. The maple tree in front of the porch shall be saved by diverting the drainage path around

the tree as the engineer deems fit.

5. During the period of construction there shall be very clearly identified parts of the property

which shall not be touched with heavy equipment or anything that could damage the root

system.

6. A construction and a silt fence shall be placed along the northwest side of the property for

protection of two trees in that area.

Linda Varley yes

John Carr yes

Jack Abrahams yes

Charlie Portes yes


Ed LaFerriere yes




3. Application for Site Plan #SPR30-2011 submitted by David and Rochelle Adams to construct

a single family dwelling with attached garage on property located at #12 Lochlea

Subdivision. Tax Map #251.11-1-22. Lot size .33 acres. Zoning Classification RCH-LS. Chairman Hanchett: He states that the applicant submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals requesting a 4.1 foot left side variance; a 3.3 foot right side variance and a rear variance of 12 feet as well. The original Area Variance #20-2008 was approved for 44.6 feet where 50 feet is required. The applicant requested an additional 6.6 foot variance. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineering is representing the applicant.

Tom Jarrett: He begins by stating that as Chairman Hanchett read from the notes, this lot was subject to several variances. The subdivision was originally approved as a cluster subdivision however the Adams, due to personal circumstances, are proposing a single family residence that needs variances on three sides. This lot is served by municipal water and sewer and common storm water from the subdivision. The approved common storm water system is to be supplemented by rain gardens as well. There are three rain gardens with this project that would handle the entire area of the property as well as a portion of the common road. The buffer on the rear north side of the property has been maintained and as many trees as possible on the east side. The only area being encroached on is the one with the rain gardens and the hickory tree will be preserved. Goulds has proposed the landscape rendering as well as a planting plan. Charlie Portes asks Tom Jarrett if there are any rain gardens with the subdivision to which Tom replies that no rain gardens were conditioned with the subdivision but apparently Chazen discussed them orally. Charlie then asks if the applicant could build a rain garden to which Tom replies that they are going to get an easement from the Lochlea Association to add a rain garden in order to prevent having to cut down more trees. He then confirms that it is a one story home with a basement which will be used for storage and the reason for the public hearing is due to the home being 300 ft. of the lake.

Kathy Bozony: She announces that she sees a few issues with this project. The approved subdivision did not include garages with attached breezeways which increases the impervious surface areas on the parcel. The second issue is that the applicant presented a home of approximately 2200 sq. ft. which is a 54% increase in building size and site impervious area. The area variance was granted with the intention that single family dwellings would be small, modest cabins. Thirdly the proposed planting plan incorporates a nice variety of native shrubs, perennials and groundcover but no trees in fact approximately 26 trees will be removed for the construction of the dwelling. A privacy buffer was conditioned between this lot and the neighbor’s to the north and it appears that 5 trees will remain in the existing woodland buffer. The notation to supplement the buffer area with hemlocks or equivalent that was previously proposed in the August 2011 planting plan has not been included in the new Planting Plan. She asks that being so close to the water, fertilizer use be restricted. (Copy of letter is on file at the Planning and Zoning Office). Mike Seguljic:


He states that from the lake the Lochlea property is a beautiful property. He attended a number of the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and he remembers that the homes proposed were suppose to be quaint and small however the structures are beginning to enlarge into a much larger foot print that the ZBA was led to believe. More lots have now been created needing variances in order to be built upon and this fact has been a complaint of his for a long time. Restricting density is important in order to protect the lake which is experiencing a large growth in algae which is for the most part due to density and the use of land use chemicals. He asks the Board to consider restricting them. Robb Hickey makes two comments. The density on this total subdivision is exactly what it should be and no variance was granted for it. Secondly, the ZBA has seen this lot twice; it was originally approved but had to come back because the incorrect set backs were given to the applicant. The ZBA reapproved this house with the set backs. The Board Members confirm that the ZBA has seen the proposed house exactly as the Planning Board is seeing it at this meeting.

Tom Jarrett: He confirms that the ZBA has seen and approved the exact same project. This project created a lot of variances which is the whole premise of creating small lots so the common area in the center can remain common and green. The whole purpose of a cluster is to have small lots around the perimeter of the common area. He clarifies that the dwelling will look like a single story dwelling but it will have two bedrooms upstairs. John Carr states that he would rather see a lower house with a bigger footprint than a higher house visible from the lake. Tom Jarrett: He agrees that this house’s footprint is bigger but in answer to Kathy Bozony, as for clearing limits, none of the trees in this area will be cut in fact additional hemlocks will be planted if needed to fill the hole. The owner and the neighbor both want a nice buffer. The only place where there will be some clearing is on the west side, away from the lake, and in the front which was necessary in order to put a rain garden in. All this was presented and approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals and he takes issue with the Planning Board making an issue of it at this meeting.

Jack Abrahams makes a motion seconded by Ed LaFerriere to close the public hearing.

Linda Varley yes

John Carr yes

Jack Abrahams yes

Charlie Portes yes


Ed LaFerriere yes



A motion is introduced by John Carr and seconded by Jack Abrahams to approve SP30-2011 with

conditions that the basement shall not be used for living purposes but rather only for storage.

There shall not be an expansion of the dwelling going up without prior approvals from the Planning


Board. A copy of the easement agreement for the rain gardens onto the common property for the

Lochlea Subdivision shall be provided to the Zoning Officer. The rear portion of the property,

between the rear of the house and the property line, (including the underbrush) shall be deemed a

not cut zone on the plans with supplemental trees being added.

Linda Varley yes

John Carr yes

Jack Abrahams yes

Charlie Portes yes


Ed LaFerriere yes



Robb Hickey: He clarifies that the “no cut zone” means no cut, no vegetation etc. to which John Carr replies yes, in other words it should be left alone. Tom Jarrett adds that they have a note on their drawing that underbrush can be thinned out to which John Carr replies that if Tom would like to start the process over again he can, however his motion stands as approved by the Board. Tom Jarrett proceeds to read the note which states “existing woodland buffer to be maintained. Scrub undergrowth less than 2” in diameter breast height may be removed. Supplement with evergreen shrubs, hemlocks or equivalent as desired.” He confirms that the Board’s motion was “no cut.” John Carr replies yes, to leave it natural. Charlies Portes feels that the Board should try to clear the issue with the “no cut zone.” John Carr feels that 2” is fairly large and it will not leave very much in that area.

REGULAR MEETING

1. Application for site plan review #SPR31-2011 submitted by Joseph Gross to construct a

driveway for property located at Route 9N. Owner is Michael Kent/Stover. Tax Map

#276.00-2-16. Lot size 68.26 acres. Zoning Classification is LC-25/RCM-2SA.

Tom Hutchins: He is with Hutchins Engineering and is representing the applicant. He is back with more information that the Board requested at last month’s meeting. Chairman Hanchett confirms that the Board has received the soil analysis. Tom Hutchins: He begins by stating that this parcel is off of Route 9N for several hundred feet and shows the Board Members on a plan the location of the dwelling. The driveway is the one challenge with this project since it is vertical on steep slopes of approximately 12% grade for a considerable distance. The residence was reconfigured just a little from what previously presented to the Board based upon the test pit and the actual house data. Test holes were conducted for the driveway, around the wastewater system in the building and accessory barn area. They found that the soils were reasonably good of a granular nature; further in a westerly direction they saw a little shallower bed rock.; based upon these holes, the septic


system was relocated to areas with deep soils and separation distances can be held. The system is a conventional one to Lake George’s criteria which is shallow trenches. The profile of the driveway is in the package to the Board and it follows existing grade; he also provided, as requested, the elevation of the house. Chairman Hanchett reminds Tom that at this time they are only considering the driveway and not the house. Charlie Portes asks Tom if he has incorporated the house, the barn, etc. in the drainage plan to which he replies yes. Jack Abrahams confirms that the applicant is appearing to get permission to start the driveway. Joe Gross adds that he thought the Board wanted to see the house. Robb Hickey: He replies that the Board wanted to see something about the house and he believes that the Board may have to approve the entire site plan with phases for the road, the upper area, etc. Joe Mastrodomenico asks if the applicant needs pre-approvals so he can go to the State. John Carr: He states that the original application was to build a single family residence with barn and a 1500 ft. long driveway but then the applicant announced that he is not looking to build the house. Tom Hutchins: He says that there were a number of discussions however the applicant’s interest is to get the driveway constructed in order to get access but he would also like to have the site plan approved. A discussion ensues among the Board Members; they now have the house plans and could technically approve the whole project however Charlie Portes is confused about having to phase it. John Carr adds that it is the applicant’s prerogative to change the house plans. Charlie Portes asks the applicant if the footprint of the house will remain the same as on the plan to which Joe Gross replies that is should be the same with some minor changes. His intent is to build a barn and enjoy it for recreation for a while. The barn will be approximately 48x50. Charlie Portes makes a motion seconded by Jack Abrahams to waive the public hearing. Linda Varley yes John Carr yes Jack Abrahams yes Charlie Portes yes Joe Mastrodomenico yes Ed LaFerriere yes Chairman Hanchett no Motion carried. Charlie Portes:


He would like to add conditions to this approval. A motion is introduced by Jack Abrahams and seconded by John Carr to approve the application with conditions that before a Certificate of Compliance is issued the engineer shall supply a certified as built in addition to a storm water maintenance agreement with a bond. The engineer shall certify that the plan is in compliance with all the Lake George storm water regulations. Linda Varley yes John Carr yes Jack Abrahams yes Charlie Portes yes Joe Mastrodomenico yes Ed LaFerriere yes Chairman Hanchett no Motion carried.

2. Application for Site Plan Review SPR23-2011 submitted by Richard and Carol Brining to construct a 20’ 6” x 13’ 6” one car garage with storage above and an 18’ x 10’ 3 season breezeway on left end/west side of house for property located at 70 Christiana Court. Tax Map #238.20-1-30. Lot Size 3723 sq. ft. Zoning Classification RCH-LS. Cross Reference Area Variance #11-2011.

Richard Brining: He begins by saying that they have had a home in Lake George for 24 years at Village Estates. They own a log cabin and with the new proposed addition they would be adding on a garage with a breezeway which would be on the opposite side of the lake. Chairman Hanchett: He informs that the applicant was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals for a 17.9” variance where 20 feet is required. Jack Abrahams reads the application into the record. A motion is introduced by John Carr and seconded by Linda Varley to accept the application as read.

Linda Varley yes John Carr yes Jack Abrahams yes Charlie Portes yes Joe Mastrodomenico yes Ed LaFerriere yes Chairman Hanchett yes All in favor, motion carried. Charlie Portes asks how the applicant would get to the storage area above the garage to which Mr. Brining replies that it would be from an outside access door as shown on the plan therefore there will no stairs going to the attic; he then confirms that he puts stairs they will be pull down stairs and not fixed ones.


Jack Abrahams makes a motion seconded by Linda Varley to waive the public hearing. Linda Varley yes John Carr yes Jack Abrahams yes Charlie Portes yes Joe Mastrodomenico yes Ed LaFerriere yes Chairman Hanchett yes All in favor, motion carried. John Carr asks Robb Hickey if this project is more than 300 feet from the lake to which Mr. Brining replies that the distance to the lake is 218 feet. A motion is introduced by Jack Abrahams and seconded by John Carr to rescind the motion to waive the public hearing due to the distance being within 300 feet of the lake. Linda Varley yes John Carr yes Jack Abrahams yes Charlie Portes yes Joe Mastrodomenico yes Ed LaFerriere yes Chairman Hanchett yes All in favor, motion carried. A motion is introduced by Jack Abrahams and seconded by John Carr to conduct a public hearing because of the location of the dwelling being within 300 feet of the lake. Linda Varley yes John Carr yes Jack Abrahams yes Charlie Portes yes Joe Mastrodomenico yes Ed LaFerriere yes Chairman Hanchett yes All in favor, motion carried. Chairman Hanchett informs Mr. Brining that the public hearing will be held on November 1, 2011 and that he is required to attend the meeting.

3. Application for Site Plan Review #SPR34-2011 submitted by Michael Ludwig to repair an existing boat house and dock for property located at 34 Ledges Lane. Tax Map #251.16-1-21. Lot size 1.49 acres. Zoning Classification RS-1.


Michael Ludwig: He is representing the owner of the property, Nick and Mary D’Ambrosio. He would like to make a correction; they are not repairing but rather tearing down and rebuilding the boathouse with same footprint but a flat roof. Jack Abrahams asks if he has been to the Park Commission yet to which Mike Ludwig replies that he has not but has spoken to them and there should not be a problem. Chairman Hanchett brings the fact that the information on the application is correct on the first page but incorrect on the second page to Mike’s attention. He apologizes for not editing the second part. John Carr asks if Mike will be rebuilding the dock as well. Mike Ludgwig: He explains that the dock is in terrible shape as well. They need to take down the boathouse in order to repair the dock and then put up a new boathouse similar to the current one but only with a flat roof. They will leave the existing crib which is in good shape, everything from the water line up will be new. Robb Hickey informs the Board that since the applicant is not changing the foot print he does not need anything other than the approval from the Planning Board. John Carr states that they have talked about the foot print of the cribs and the docks but will the building itself change to which Mike replies that the building will be the same and all he will be doing is to take off the peak. Mike Ludgwig: He answers that the height of the new boathouse will be approximately 14 ½ feet in order to keep it less conspicuous from the shore line. Charlie Portes asks Robb Hickey if the stairway meets the set backs. Robb Hickey: He replies that the stairway meets the set backs and he made a determination that they do not need a variance since it is on the far southwesterly corner. A discussion ensues among the Board Members and Robb Hickey with the Board needing more clarification on the stairs. Charlie Portes recommends that this application be treated as a sketch plan since there are too many details missing. John Carr: He agrees and states that there should be a drawing which shows what is existing and what is being proposed as well as colors. Robb Hickey: He states that when the applicant showed him the application, he made the determination that no variances were needed although he cannot remember the reasons for the determination. He confirms to the Board that with this project the stairs do not count as set backs.


John Carr: He is guessing that most likely the stairs do not need set back because they are incorporated in the boat house which is not drawn on the plans. He informs the applicant that the Board needs to know what colors will be used, pictures of what currently exists at the site and exact measurements, what he is actually doing on the siding and as well as showing the railing and its color on the plans. Mike Ludwig: He states that the color of the railing will be Australian mahogany stain while the siding will be green. John Carr reiterates that the applicant needs to submit a complete set of plans since the ones they currently have are just a rough sketch. A sketch of the existing boathouse in addition to the new boathouse possibly done as an overlay with dotted lines, colors, what type of siding and roof, etc. He advises the applicant that he will need all this information for the Park Commission as well. Charlie Portes asks Robb Hickey to check into the stairs. Robb Hickey: He responds that he can guarantee the decision he made is correct but the reasoning behind it escapes him at the moment. He then states to John Carr that the Board will not get in trouble since he is the one who made the decision. John Carr asks if Robb can give the Board the reason in writing.

4. Application for Site Plan Review SPR35-2011 as submitted by David Dibelius to construct a 3 bedroom single family dwelling for property located at Diamond Point Road. Tax Map #212.00-2-4 and 212.00-2-5. Lot size 22.7 acres. Zoning Classification RR-10.

Robb Hickey informs the Board that these two lots will be coming back to the Board next moth for a subdivision modification to merge the two however the Board can entertain a motion to approve a simple modification to the original application. Charlie Portes confirms that it would entail removing the lot line to which Robb replies yes. The Board agrees that the modification can be included in the motion. Dennis Dickinson is representing the applicant. Dennis Dickinson: He is the surveyor and engineer for the project. He directs the Board to a plan showing the site plan which includes lot #4 and #5 of a previously approved subdivision. The house is planned to be built in the middle of both lots’ property line; outbound surveys, intensive topographic survey of the area and fairly intensive soil testing have been done. They have done 5 different soil pits and percolation tests for both the sewer design and the stormwater. A major stormwater plan has been designed; the driveway has been designed according to Town’s standards with a 5% grade by the road. The sewer system is near the road for two reasons; first due to the existence of good soils and secondly there are good slopes in this area. There will be a 1250 gallons septic tank and a 1250 gallons pump station. An Elgin system is being used which meets all the requirements of the Town and the NYS DOH. The stormwater is comprised of two basic sections, one is for the driveway and the other is for the house and garage. The stormwater is 100 year storm with major design.


John Carr asks Dennis what the scale is for the contour lines, the elevations and which way is up and down to which Dennis replies that the scale is 2” and on the road it is down. Charlie Portes: He confirms with Robb Hickey that the reason for the applicant to appear is due to the major stormwater proposal due to slopes and disturbance to which Robb replies yes. Dennis Dickinson continues by stating that the upper portion of the driveway’s stormwater will be collected into two treatment basins followed by a settling and recharge basin and the remainder of the driveway which is fairly flat, is collected by a man hole going into infiltration ponds which will overflow into another pond and pick up stormwater from the house. He adds that there will be minimal cutting since the applicant would like to keep the natural feel of the property. John Carr: He states that this dwelling will not be seen from the road. He asks there are plans to slow down the speed of the water from the stone line ditch coming from a 30 ft. drop into a dead end. Dennis Dickinson: He replies that this is an issue and they have designed it accordingly. It is based on the amount of energy that is produced by the slope. John Carr confirms that the proposed stones are big enough to slow down the water to which Dennis replies yes. Jack Abrahams reads the application into the record. A correction needs to be made on the application, both lot numbers need to be listed as well as the conversion of lot #4 and lot #5 into lot #4 with a new mylar filed at the County. A motion is introduced by Charlie Portes and seconded by Joe Mastrodomenico to accept the application as read. Linda Varley yes John Carr yes Jack Abrahams yes Charlie Portes yes Joe Mastrodomenico yes Ed LaFerriere yes Chairman Hanchett yes All in favor, motion carried. A motion is introduced by Charlie Portes and seconded by Jack Abrahams to waive the public hearing. Linda Varley yes John Carr yes Jack Abrahams yes Charlie Portes yes Joe Mastrodomenico yes Ed LaFerriere yes Chairman Hanchett yes


All in favor, motion carried. Charlie Portes confirms with Dennis that the septic from the sediment basin is 100 feet; Dennis replies that it is. He then confirms that the house is a three bedroom house designed as four bedrooms. A motion is introduced by Jack Abrahams and seconded by Charlie Portes to approve SPR35-2011 with the condition that the applicant shall appear in front of the Consolidated Board of Health and that the engineer shall certify the storm water upon completion. Linda Varley yes John Carr yes Jack Abrahams yes Charlie Portes yes Joe Mastrodomenico yes Ed LaFerriere yes Chairman Hanchett yes All in favor, motion carried.

5. Application for a Major Subdivision SUB3-2011 submitted by Paul Ryan to subdivide 9 acres to develop 23 townhouse units for property located at Sun Valley Road and NYS 9L. Tax Map #: 264.11-1-37. Lot size 9 acres. Zoning Classification RH/RCH.

6. Application for Site Plan Review SPR13-2011 submitted by Paul Ryan to construct 23

townhouse units in 5 buildings for property located at Sun Valley road and NYS 9L. Tax Map # 264.11-1-37. Lot size 9 acres. Zoning Classification RH/RCH.

Paul Ryan: He states that this is his third appearance in front of the Board. The project started as a sketch plan from which the feed back was to tailor the project to an Adirondack style structure. They in turn engaged Williams & Williams to render a proposed structure with wooden siding which is a combination of lath and wood shakes. They needed to have an engineering review the storm water plan for the Town. They in turn asked Tectonic the review the stormwater. Chairman Hanchett: He adds that the Board received a letter and a memorandum from Tectonic stating that they reviewed the plan and concluded that the Board may consider approving the application and enable the applicant to proceed with the necessary design works. The memorandum had a considerable amount of comments made on all aspects of the project. Charlie Portes: He explains that the applicant is at the meeting tonight to be put on the agenda for a public hearing. At the last meeting the Board asked to have a report from Tectonics prior to scheduling a public hearing. A motion is introduced by Charlie Portes and seconded by Ed LaFerriere to schedule a public hearing for November 1, 2011. Linda Varley yes John Carr yes


Jack Abrahams yes Charlie Portes yes Joe Mastrodomenico yes Ed LaFerriere yes Chairman Hanchett yes All in favor, motion carried. John Carr asks the applicant if he can provide more details about the landscaping and trees. Paul Ryan replies that he has provided erosion control and landscaping plans already to which John Carr adds that what may be causing confusion for him is the fact that on sheet 2 different clusters of trees are shown, he wants to get clarification of what the Board can expect once the project is finished.

7. Tax Application for modification to Major Subdivision Application #2-2009 submitted by Lochlea Partners, LLC to modify the approved landscaping plan for property located at NYS Route 9N (across from Hubble Lane). Tax Map # 251.11-1-9. Lot size 13.28 acres. Zoning Classification RCH-LS.

Tom Jarrett: This plan has a number of components and the he will go through them one by one. When the Board first approved the subdivision, some landscaping components were approved as well. The reason for tonight’s appearance is to try to modify some of these components in order to enhance the subdivision as well as protect English Brook and the lake. In addition, the damage done by tropical storm Irene can be discussed also. They would like to do some cutting in the areas near the lake shore on the south side of the new English Brook channel and on the north side near the docks. They propose to cut some of the dead trees since these areas are very thick and overgrown and if some of the undesirable species are taken out, the native trees and plants will grow much better. No ground disturbance will occur in one area which has been declared wet lands by the APA, since the cuts will be from above and the proposal is to cut 12 trees into the wetlands. John Carr: He asks what type of invasive species they need to cut from a bucket truck. Tom Jarrett: He replies that there is a lot of overgrown brush, vines, dead and diseased trees. They are not cutting anything within 6 ft. of the lake shore. John Carr: He asks Robb Hickey if has gone to the site and has defined what dead and dying is and make sure that what Mr. Jarrett is proposing is conforming with the APA guidelines and the Town regulations to which Robb replies that the Town’s regulation specifies dead, dying and diseased within 35 feet no vegetation can be removed and no more than 10 every ten years. He just wants to make sure that his proposal does not violate the Town’s code. Charlie Portes confirms that nothing other than dead, dying and diseased can be removed within 35 feet of the lake. Tom Jarrett replies that they are proposing to remove only the dead, dying and diseased trees. John Carr asks that the applicant determine which are the invasive plants.


Tom Jarrett explains that on the north shore wooded area they propose to cut dead, diseased trees, cut vines, invasive shrubs above the ground. The cutting shall be done by equipment from above, no ground disturbance will be allowed, no cutting of healthy trees, shrubs, etc. within 6 feet. A discussion ensues among the Board Members and Tom Jarrett. Tom Jarrett hears the Board’s concerns and it might make sense for Robb Hickey to visit the site. Charlie Portes suggests that all trees are located and marked since this modifies the original subdivision approval. The Board needs to see a plan so they know exactly what trees are being removed. Ed LaFerriere believes that an arborist can provide a list of what needs to be cut and why he thinks it is a good idea to which Tom Jarrett replies that he can have Gould’s arborist provide the list. John Carr’s concern is that some of the not necessarily beautiful shrubbery but nonetheless native shrubbery may be all removed. This is a native shoreline, it looks beautiful, it is part of an approved site plan and it is within the 35 ft. rule. Joe Mastrodomenico: He asks if the reason for the clearing is to get a better lake view from the lots to which Tom Jarrett replies that this is not the intent although there may be some selective clearing. Ed LaFerriere: He adds that by clearing the area the applicant will improve the quality of the soil and the good trees that are there so they can survive and grow better. Currently the vines are taking the existing trees, chocking them and eventually killing them which means that eventually it will be an eye sore; this project is meant to prevent this from happening. This site has been allowed to overgrown for many years and if done properly the end result will be that it will look good. Tom Jarrett: He continues by stating that this is part of a comprehensive plan. There were 20 trees approved by the Board, they are trying to relocate some of these trees and add 11 more trees and shrubs. The trees they would like to move will be relocated to different areas in order to provide privacy to some houses. In addition, for those who have been down at the site and have seen the gaps by the tennis courts, they would like to enhance the buffer by planting several trees and allow the vegetation to grow on either side of the stream. John Carr asks if there will be any cutting performed in these areas. Tom Jarrett replies that there will no cutting within 20 ft. and between 20 and 50 ft. cutting will be allowed to anything above 4 feet. John asks if any cutting will be proposed in the areas that he is proposing to enhance to which Tom Jarrett replies no. Chairman Hanchett asks how many trees are being planted in the southern area to which Tom Jarrett replies that there will be 5 different trees and shrubs as well as rain gardens and shrub buffers. Chairman Hanchett asks what the proposal is for the northern area along the new stream bed. Tom Jarrett: He explains that tropical storm Irene deflected the channel to the pond area and it day lights next to the beach, in fact it washed away about 1/3 of the beach therefore the current proposal from Soil and Water in


front of DEC and this Board was to relocate the main channel with a sediment trap and use the old channel just as an emergency overflow so during severe storms both channels will be used. Chairman Hanchett asks about the proposal on the banks to which Tom Jarrett replies that the emergency work that was done by Soil and Water Conservation cleaned out the channel and created higher banks on the sides which should protect this area however the other shoreline is very unstable. There is currently a proposal in front of DEC and APA to put some rock lining in front of the shoreline in order to stabilize the area; however more erosion has been noticed and he may come back to modify his proposal. Chairman Hanchett states that he believes that the applicant would want to protect the beach somewhat to which Tom Jarrett adds that they have notice some more erosion and it is possible that he may come back to modify the proposal. Tom Jarrett: He continues that currently the woodland, with the exception of what was eroded by the stream, is intact on both sides. A couple of trees need to be cut in order to access the sediment trap for routine maintenance. Robb Hickey was on the site with DEC and Soil and Water and they discussed putting in a reinforced turf access way. He further shows the Board on a map all the other proposed plans. They are also proposing to relocate several of the rain gardens. There is a large infiltration basin with no plantings in it which they felt would be difficult to maintain; they would like to split it up into three shallower infiltration basins with plants and landscaping. They are also proposing to relocate two wet swales to the bottom of slopes so they can pick up run off from that area. Lastly and more important, the meadow area of the original subdivision plan was proposed to be entire torn up but they believe that it is impractical and unnecessary and would like to leave it as meadow grass. He informs the Board that DEC is working with him on this project along with Soil & Water and the APA. The Board Members agree that without the original, approved planting plan, it is difficult to distinguish the changes. Ed LaFerriere asks Tom when he is planning to do this work to which Tom replies that a lot will have to be done the spring or next summer. They would like to do some of the cutting during the winter months specifically due to restrictions imposed about cutting in the summer. Jack Abrahams asks if DEC will be dredging to which Tom replies that it is scheduled to be done this month. They currently have a proposal to finalize the moving of the materials by December 31st. Charlie Portes: He feels that Tectonic should be reviewing the proposed changes since they were the engineers with the original approval since these changes may affect the storm water as well. Tom Jarrett explains the changes on the map again and he states that they are enhancing the plan with these changes and the storm water will not be impacted. Ed LaFerriere asks about the diameter of the trees that are coming out of the wetlands to which Tom replies that they are approximately 10” in diameter and announces that it may make sense for the Board to go to the site. The Board Members agree that it would be a good idea to go to the site and if there are still concerns than the plan can be modified if not the applicant can move forward.


Chairman Hanchett also believes that it is a good idea as long as the family agrees to it. Tom Jarrett replies that he believes the family would cooperate as long as they are notified as to the time the Board Members will be at the site. Chairman Hanchett states that this application can be added to the November 1st agenda so the Board can have time to visit. He asks Tom Jarrett if he can provide them with a map showing exactly which trees will be moved and removed for the Board to review by the next meeting and clarify the numerical calculations.

8. Modification to Site Plan Application #33-2007 submitted by Anthony Casale to remove two blocks from the existing retaining wall as recommended by the Planning Board for property located at Hubbell Lane Extension. Tax Map #251.10-1-28. Lot size 1800 square feet. Zoning Classification RM-2.

Chairman Hanchett announces that the statement “as recommended by the Planning Board” needs to be stricken from the record since the Planning Board never made this recommendation to the applicant and this application is strictly a modification to the site plan application to remove two blocks from the existing wall. Tom Andress from ABD Engineers and surveyors is representing the applicant as well as Attorney Donald Boyajian. Tom Andress: He begins by stating that this project has been going on for a number of years and the last time they were in front of the Board was in May 2011. At that time they made a presentation to try to resolve a lot of the issues such as drainage, the wall, access etc. Chairman Hanchett asks if this is the only modification being proposed to the property. Tom Andress: He replies that there are other modifications as indicated on the plan which were previously denied by the Board. When they last appeared in front of the Board, Tom Jarrett, as requested by the Board, provided a summary letter dated April 15, 2011 of all the issues with this property and the fact that not all of them had been resolved. They were in general agreement with Tom Jarrett with the drainage however Tom recommended that a structural analysis of the wall be performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer and submitted that the safety of the wall would be improved by lowering it by two blocks. Chairman Hanchett informs Tom Andress that he has the letter with him and that Tom Jarrett also stated that the conditions not specify how many layers needed to be reduced by since the Board does not know how many. This statement by Tom Jarrett is in the minutes of the meeting but not in the letter. Tom Andress adds that they used the recommendations in the letter instead to which Chairman Hanchett reminds him that the Planning Board never made this recommendation which is the reason why he asked for it to be stricken from the record. John Carr: He is confused as to why the applicant is appearing. The proposal they recommend does not remedy the violation that exists on this property. Tom Andress:


He replies that the proposal is bringing back the application before the Board and asks if the Board would review the original application with all the conditions. John Carr asks why not go to the Town Board since a violation still exists to which Tom replies that they feels this is the proper procedure since they came to the Planning Board before the application was denied and they are now back before the Board with a slightly different plan although it is very close to the prior one. They are now proposing to reduce the wall height by removing some of the non engineered block portion of the wall. John Carr confirms that this is a modification to the original denial of a few months ago to which Tom Andress adds that as a result it is a new application. Charlie Portes asks if it is safe to say that the Board denied the application but the only difference is that the applicant wants to remove two blocks. Robb Hickey: He states that technically the applicant needs to address the same problems that were present when the application was denied such as removing the two blocks, change the wall design in the front, stormwater, the location of the house, the proposed addition of jersey barriers, etc., whereas this application only states that the proposal is to remove two blocks. John Carr: He states that taking two blocks down does not remedy the denial. A resolution was adopted at the last meeting that the application was denied for a variety of reasons and the proposed change does not remedy the reason for the denial. Subsequently the applicant went to the Town Board and advised that he was going to bring the property back to exactly the way originally approved it which is not what is happing. Construction is continuing on the site in violation of the original approved and the denied site plan. He does not feel that the applicant should be appearing at tonight’s meeting for whatever reason. This should be a new application and he does not see one furthermore if this is the only proposed change it still is not going to be approved for the same reasons that it was not approved the first time. Anthony Casale informs the Board that there is an application with a letter just as he was told by Robb Hickey. Robb Hickey disagrees with the above statement and he has not seen an application. Mr. Casale states that he filled an application just in case but did not bring it with him tonight. Robb Hickey looks into the files and finds the application which is a modification to the original one and the plan is to remove the two blocks from the wall. Tom Andress: His reply to John Carr is that this application is a modification to original application since they removed the parking area and reduced the length of the non reinforced wall and are asking to remove the two blocks. John Carr reiterates that some of the issues with this modification of the originally approved site plan are that the house has been moved, the storm water, the wall, the parking etc.; in conclusion there are a lot of issues and not just one. Tom Andress states that there is a 20 page report from Tom Jarrett that addresses some of these items and he has been working with Tom for the last year to address these items and he was hoping that the Board would be considering the fact that they are now conforming to what the agreements were from that letter.


Charlie Portes: He realizes that this has been going on for a long time and the applicant spent a lot of money on engineering fees, has he considered twisting the house to the original approved site. Tony Casale replies that it cannot be done because it is a concrete house from the roof to the foundation. It has 8” inch walls with poured concrete therefore it is not feasible to move the house. At this point he would entertain anything since he just wants it to end. Chairman Hanchett clarifies that the APA has determined that the Town is Class A in the project and they have a right to consult with the Town but they will be making the ultimate determination therefore it does not affect this modification. Tony Casale states that he has been speaking to the APA and they don’t have any problems with the wall and he is willing to make both the APA and the Planning Board happy because he wants all of this to end and would like to live in the house. John Carr reiterates that after the denial by the Planning Board, Mr. Casale went to the Town Board to ask for the stop work order to be removed. He was at the Town Board meeting along with some other Board Members and he does not agree with what Mr. Casale presented to the Town Board; they lifted the stop work order on his word that he would bring the site to what was an approved plan. Mr. Casale was asked repeatedly if he would be moving the house to which he answered yes. He is now back to the Planning Board with a different plan and John Carr believes that he should go back to the Town Board to let them know that what he proposed to do is not feasible and would like permission to appear in front of the Planning Board with a modification. Donald Boyajian: He understands the Board’s concerns however one of the reasons they are appearing is due to the fact that the Planning Board has jurisdiction over the site plan. The Town Board had jurisdiction to issue the stop work order which they did. He believe it is in everyone’s best interest to bring this project to a conclusion however the only feasible and practical way to do so is to reappear in front of the Planning Board. They have been discussing this with Tom Jarrett to see if the Board can give any consideration to this modified plan. John Carr: He informs the Mr. Boyajian that Mr. Casale advised the Town Board and informed them that he was going to return the site to what was the original approved site plan and in turn the Town advised that they would lift the stop work order as long as Mr. Casale was willing to do so. However, Mr. Casale did not do that therefore he needs to advise the Town Board that he would like to make a proposal to the Planning Board. Chairman Hanchett announces that there is a lot more information about this project that he nor the other Board Members don’t have and he would like to obtain it. A motion is introduced by Jack Abrahams for Mr. Casale to appear in front of the Town Board at their October 17, 2011 meeting explain to them his plans and get permission from them to be put on the Planning Board’s agenda for November 1, 2011 under a public hearing. Charlie Portes asks Jack Abrahams why he feels that the applicant needs permission from the Town Board. A discussion ensues.


Chairman Hanchett: He clarifies that Mr. Casale has come to the Board with a modification; he is not suggesting that this modification will make everything legitimate, however he has the right to come to this Board to present this proposed modification and this Board will not deny him that right. He explains to Jack Abrahams that even though his motion does not deny Mr. Casale the right to appear to the Planning Board, they need to move on such as reading it into the record, etc. so a public hearing can be scheduled. Charlie Portes agrees and asks the applicant to have all the necessary information onto one map; he then asks Tom Andress if they ever considered taking the wall down and rebuilding it to the approved specifications. Ed LaFerriere intercedes by stating that the Board never approved the wall. Robb Hickey informs the Board that this is a modification to Site Plan #33-2007 and he agrees that the application has not been filled out properly which needs to be worked on. Charlie Portes confirms with Robb Hickey that at this point the only thing that is on the table is the letter that Mr. Casale wrote to the Board, all the prior discussions with Tom Jarrett and Tectonic are not currently on the table. Donald Boyajian: He explains that the original, approved site plan stands; the applicant then submitted a modification which was denied which is a nullity. The applicant now goes back to the original approved application however, due to a circumstance, they are now seeking to modify that original site plan. Ed LaFerriere adds that the Town Board approval was required on the first application because the applicant was in violation of his original site plan. Chairman Hanchett states that the applicant has the right to propose a modification to make it right. Ed LaFerriere believes that this has to be directed to the Town Board and not the Planning Board. Charlie Portes ask for clarification on how can the Board approve to take two blocks off a wall which was never approved to begin with therefore his belief is that a new application should be submitted. Chairman Hanchett moves to accept the letter Mr. Casale wrote the Board instead however Robb informs him that the problem with the letter is that the applicant only listed one item whereas he needs to list everything such as the wall, etc. Tom Andress: He concludes that it must have been an oversight on Mr. Casale’s part. They are seeking approval of the last modification therefore they need to list all the modifications. Chairman Hanchett: He confirms with Tom Andress that the applicant would like approval for all the modifications he seeks to which Mr. Andress replies yes however he nor the attorney have seen the application. In this case the modification cannot be read into the record and cannot move forward since it is not complete. Tony Casale informs the Board that he requested what needed to be in the letter and he filled out both forms in the event the letter would not be good enough.


Jack Abrahams states that based on the conversation the Board just had with Tom Andress and the Donald Boyajian, what they state is entirely different than what he applied for. He suggests that the three of them should decide on exactly what they want to do and modify. Mr. Casale’s reply is that he filled out the application before the letter and submitted the letter and the application as he was told. Chairman Hanchett reads the letter from Mr. Casale “Please accept my application for modification of my approved site plan for Hubbell Lane. I have made the changes to the plan removing two blocks from the existing retaining wall as recommended by the Planning Board.” A discussion ensues among the Board Members and the applicant. Chairman Hanchett asks if the applicant would like to come back to the Board and re-do the application to which the attorney replies that they would like to finalize it. Charlie Portes informs the applicant that everything needs to be listed on the application. John Carr: He advises Mr. Boyajian that the applicant needs to tell the Board exactly what his intentions are both in words and with pictures so the Board knows exactly what Mr. Casale’s intentions are and since he is representing him, he highly recommends that since at this time he has constructed a structure which is in violation which put him in front of the Town Board with a stop work order. This stop work order, to his knowledge, still exists if he is not going to fulfill his promise to the Town Board which was to build everything the way it was approved on the original plan. If Mr. Casale is not going to do that, he needs to go back to the Town Board. Donald Boyajian: He states that the Town Board wanted the applicant to appear in front of the Planning Board as long as the two blocks were taken down from the wall and it was clear that the Town Board would have been satisfied with this. Charlie Portes informs John Carr that the applicant has a right to appear in front of the Planning Board to which John Carr replies that the Board is forgetting that this project is still under a stop work order since the applicant did not bring his property back as it was approved. Robb Hickey: He comments that he believes the applicant should go to the Town Board and advise them that he cannot comply with the condition set by the Town Board and ask them if he can go back to the Planning Board. Donald Boyajian: He adds that in the interim the applicant realized that the house cannot be moved which is why he is appearing tonight. He states to Chairman Hanchett that they will submit a full modification to the application. Chairman Hanchett announces that the applicant is now aware of what is needed and as long as they submit the material by the submission date of October 11th, the project will be added to the November 1st agenda.


Daniel Boyajian asks what the Board’s intention would be at that point; will they have to wait for a public hearing have to be scheduled? Chairman Hanchett replies that the Board needs to review the information first. Joe Mastrodomenico asks Robb Hickey to provide the applicant with a copy of the original application approval to which Robb replies that Mr. Casale has a copy of it. Chairman Hanchett asks Robb to be in touch with Mr. Andress to make sure that he has the correct information.

9. Sketch Plan Application submitted by Barry Feinman, VanGuard and Fine to construct a one story 30,500 sq. ft. grocery store, 10,580 sq. ft. retail, 2,200 sq. ft. retail building and a 2,400 sq. ft. bank with drive through windows with 229 parking spaces for property located at Prosser Road and Route 9 intersection. Tax Map #211.03-1-5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Lot size 569,440 sq. ft. or 13.1 acres. Zoning Classification RCH.

Joe: He is with ABD Surveryors representing Barry Feinman. They presented a sketch plan in order to get some input from the Board on this project and proceeds to go over a map with all the access points, etc. The site is comprised of 6 parcels of land that are being put together which will be approximately 15 acres. It is a tough piece of property because of the slopes and wet lands which have been delineated and they have been in touch with APA which agrees with the delineations as long as they are not disturbed. They are dealing with National Grid to see what can be done to relocate power lines. Portion of the sites look like were mined at one time and it is pretty much all sand and gravel with the exception of some areas with boulders. He proceeds to show the Board where all the proposed buildings and parking lot will be located on a map. There will be entrances to the retail space with the loading docks and trucks being in the back of the store. He is told that there is water on the site for the fire extinguishers which comes from Warrensburg; there is no sewer at the site however Barry Feinman was told other commercial property owners would be interested in sewers as well and may be looking to form a Town sewer district which will entail putting in a pump station which would be pumping into Warrensburg’s treatment facilities. They have also talked to Warrensburg and were told that they have adequate treatment facilities however they will be developing data for the flows etc. As for stormwater, it will all be on site due to the sand and gravel with infiltration being located under the parking lot. They will go through the Town’s and DEC’s regulations in regards to stormwater. Due to the difference in slopes, 6.7 acres will have to be disturbed on the site in order to have a level grade for the structures and parking lot; two retaining walls may be built with the existing rock one of which will be there so not to disturb the wetlands. Some of the site will be left undisturbed and the calculations are that approximately 8% of the site is building, 22% pavement and 70% will remain as is with all the parking regulations and set backs being met. Lighting will be standard. Chairman Hanchett: He asks where they stand with the Department of Transportation to which Joe replies that they met with DOT and have a traffic study going; some improvements need to be made to handle the traffic however they would like to see a traffic light installed on Route 9. Charlie Portes: He asks what the retaining wall in the back will be made of to which Joe replies that it will most likely be a rock wall using the rocks currently on the site. He confirms that one wall will be approximately 18 ft. tall and the second one approximately 27 ft. tall. Ed LaFerriere:


He asks whether it will be a 24/7 operation to which Charles Chisholm from Price Chopper replies that they will ask for it to be 24/7 but he is not sure if it will be approved. John Carr: He asks if there is a correct ration of square footage to parking spaces to which the answer is approximately 4 or 5 per thousand. Charles Chisholm explains to the Board of the map that some of parking will be season with it being busier in the summer than the winter. This project is a new prototype for them since the Price Chopper will be smaller than their typical stores. John Carr asks what the proposed design of the building facing Route 9 will be to which Joe replies that it will be Adirondack style with tall trees behind the motel which may not make it very visible however they are currently working on the design. Chairman Hanchett: He informs the applicant that everyone thinks it is a great plan and presentation and to continue obtaining more information such as DOT, elevations, landscaping, trees, design of the buildings etc. to further present to the Board. Michael O’Connor asks the Board Members their feeling about the lead agency since a number of agencies will be involved in this project. The Board agrees that Lake George will be the leading agency since it is the one that will be the most heavily impacted. A motion is introduced by Jack Abrahams and seconded by Charlie Portes that Lake George be deemed the leading agency for the project. Linda Valley yes John Carr yes Jack Abrahams yes Charlie Portes yes Joe Mastrodomenico yes Ed LaFerriere yes Chairman Hanchett yes All in favor, motion carried. Michael O’Connor confirms that the Board authorizes the administrator to send out notice to this affect to which the Board Members reply yes. Joe states that with this site they have to deal with a lot of issues they never had before making the most difficult site they have worked on. The first issue is the difference in grade which varies from 80 to 100 ft. followed by the amount of rock on the site, sewer lines, power lines, etc. They have been working on this site for almost one year and every time they thought they had it ready they ran into another problem. Linda Varley asks if the applicant will be blasting to which Joe replies that possibly in one corner. They are working towards providing a beautiful store and recognize that the community is currently being underserved. However they would like to ask the Board for a little latitude because of the amount of dollars that are being spent on this site.


John Carr: He understands however using Stewarts as an example they changed their style in Lake George and built a beautiful store which they are now using as a prototype for all other Stewarts. He does not want to see a store like the one on Glen Street. He would like to see something that fits the area and does not believe the cost will be any greater. Joe: He states that the company has looked at other sites in Warrensburg and have not committed to this site yet because they are trying to finalize all their studies and research. John Carr adds that if the choice for a roof is between green and blue, to choose green, the cost will be the same since with a little creativity the store can be built with the same cost as other stores that they are building today. Charlie Portes asks if they will be using the fill from the site to which the answer is that they will use the fill on site most likely with some more coming in. Chairman Hanchett thanks the applicant and announces that the Town is behind their project. John Carr asks Chairman Hanchett to possibly arrange for some of the smaller project that are within 300 ft. from the lake, to have the Zoning Administrator arrange the public hearing at the same time as the application the meeting. Other municipalities are already doing it this way for the sake of streamlining the procedures. Chairman Hanchett replies that the 300 ft. from the lake law was instituted to protect the lake but asks John to write something up about it and he will consider. John Carr replies that he does not have time for this however the Zoning Board of Approvals is doing it as well as other communities. This is something that would benefit the applicant so they don’t have to attend a number of meetings and the Board does not have a long list of applications on the agendas and two meetings a month. The reality is that the applicant and the public can attend a meeting and everyone hears the application at the same night. Robb Hickey informs John Carr and the Board that all applications within 300 ft. of the lake have to go to the County therefore at least two meetings are needed regardless of the size of the project. He asks the Board how they feel about not reading the application into the record at the meetings. Linda Varley adds that the application does not have to be read out loud and currently other municipalities do not read them. A motion is introduced by Jack Abrahams and seconded by Linda Varley to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. All in favor, motion carried.

october 4, 2011 planning board minutes · 2015-12-29 · 3 october 4, 2011 planning board minutes...

Documents