The regular meeting of the Planning Board, Town of Moreau, County of Saratoga and State of New York was held in the Town Office Building, 61 Hudson Street, South Glens Falls, New York at 7:00 p.m. on November 20, 2006. 

Planning Board members in attendance were Chairman Peter Jensen, Mr. Edwards, Thomas Field, Gary Dickinson.

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jensen at 7:00 p.m.

Chairman Jensen: Any additions deletions or corrections with regard to the minutes of the October 16 meeting? The correction to page 906 of the September minutes should read, "with no vacant land left." The consultant for the Leonelli Apartment Complex and Westgate Estates is Garry Robinson, not Gary Robertson.

Mr. Field motioned to approve the minutes with corrections and Mr. Edwards seconded. No discussion, all in favor.

Mr. Garry Robinson, consulting engineer representing Mr. Leonelli, presented a subdivision map. The applicant has presented a few changes and incorporated comments in the last few months. At the last meeting, concern was expressed about the density of the project. The applicant wants to talk about the applicable codes and the Board’s feelings about density, having already removed a couple of buildings and changed one to a clubhouse. That is located at the rear of the project. 1 per 5500 square feet is the proposed density, and the guideline is 5000.

Chairman Jensen: Board, comments?

Mr. Edwards: How far have you taken the planning with regard to the amount of fill that will be brought it in, and impact?

Mr. Robinson: The project is definitely fill intensive. Each building will be on fill to enable us to create underdrains, which have been discussed with soil engineers. There was some high groundwater in the front of the project.

Mr. Edwards: Will the buildings be above ground as far as living space?

Mr. Robinson: On slabs. Through all the changes, we have kept all the density we had from the start, going with what the code required.

Tom Field: I don’t think you had heard from EMS and the Fire Dept. on your changes to the curves last time.

Mr. Robinson: The fire dept. is interested in doing something different in the front area, which is not a problem.

Chairman Jensen: Different how?

Mr. Robinson: This one radius doesn’t have the turning radius and we explored the idea of this road coming out here (near the front). We will meet with them before the next meeting to see what’s best.

Tom Field: Is the clubhouse where you will have the mailboxes?

Mr. Robinson: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Within the structure?

Mr. Robinson: Actually it’s outside, but it’s covered in a lean-to style.

Chairman Jensen: How many boxes are we talking about?

Mr. Robinson: 256.

Chairman Jensen: So you have decreased the number of units. Is that going to trigger a change in the number if entries on your EAF?

Mr. Robinson: Yes

Mr. Edwards: It’s 256 now, you had 272 before, equivalent to one building removed.

Mr. Robinson: Yes. We still do need to get the archaeological review finalized but tonight I want to make sure we’re not missing something.

Mr. Edwards: It still does seem dense according to the neighborhood to me. I know you are allowed to build according to the code. Joe, has the town engineer commented?

Mr. Patricke: Nothing written, but they have been working together.

Mr. Edwards: It’s hard to determine what a reasonable number of apartments is here.

Mr. Robinson: We do meet all the setbacks, building separations and all those codes.

Mr. Field: My concerns are the same, that you meet the minimum reqs for the zone, but this is a lot of units to be going out on one roadway, boulevard or not. Given the nature of the neighborhood, it seems like a lot of units to me. There are hard

numbers to meet but we have latitude we can use in reviewing this. Your plan is considerably improved but I am still uncomfortable with the number of units. Because of the road and the proximity of the school, and that there are no other exits. It meets the requirements and I don’t have an alternative to offer you.

Mr. Robinson: I think two locations with ins and outs would be worse.

Mr. Field: I agree.

Mr. Robinson: Can you quantify what you are thinking?

Mr. Field: I can’t.

Mr. Edwards: It’s hard when the traffic study comes back with no impacts. There’s no particular problem to go back to. I think there will still be some stress with truck traffic and I would like to see results from the engineer.

Mr. Patricke: Have you had input from him?

Mr. Robinson: We have not had any negative comments from him, mostly he has addressed the water and sewer management.

Mr. Patricke: We will get something from him and get comments to you all.

Chairman Jensen: Any other questions or comments?

Mr. Edwards: Can the public comment?

Stuart Messinger, land use planner who lives near the project: I want to comment that density is a SEQR question, not determined just by zoning. There are a number if impacts in SEQR that you need to look at.

Chairman Jensen: Do you have any questions about layout?

Mr. Messinger: We’ve heard opinions but we have to discuss it through SEQR. It is a Type I action and you have an obligation to make a positive declaration and there are also fiscal and school district impacts yet to be discussed.

Chairman Jensen: This Board is not done with SEQR, but we will do our due diligence.

W.J. Rourke Associates’ Bill Rourke, representing himself, presented a map of a 72-acre parcel on Fedor Road and Route 32. There are fields along both roads and woods in the middle, R-5 zoning requiring 5 acre zones. The subdivision proposed is 14 lots, roughly 5 acres each. As far as I know it is sand. There is currently 1 house owned by Doc Joseph, and one barn. There will be 40 feet frontage minimum on Fedor Road. There’s about 1 car per hour on Fedor Road. There is a stream but no flood plain, and some wetland on the end closest to Burt Road and Route 32. I would like to have the Board give sketch plan review.

Chairman Jensen: Of the 72 acres, how many acres are wetlands?

Mr. Rourke: Less than 5 acres on this side and 150 by 800 feet on this side, 4-5 acres, total of 8-10 acres of wetlands. I view these lots like my home lot, where we have a long driveway and of the 5 acres lot we use 1-2 acres of it.

Chairman Jensen: 5 acres are the zoning reqs.

Mr. Edwards: Are they Army Corp wetlands?

Mr. Rourke: These are.

Mr. Edwards: Did you use the DEC requirements for buffers on wetlands?

Mr. Rourke: We are going to use those buffers.

Mr. Field: Has Charlie Main done any soil tests?

Mr. Rourke: We did a percolation test in one area and found a couple inches of topsoil and then sand.

Mr. Field: Did you look at the soil map from Saratoga County?

Mr. Rourke: I guess we did, I didn’t note anything.

Mr. Field: I believe you will find mostly Deerfield silt and loamy sand. Those have very limited septic system use, those are limitations that you will have in siting the homes.

Mr. Rourke: We will get into taking deep hole tests, but the wetlands are deep in the contours, and we will stay on the higher ground.

Mr. Field: I think you’ll find that they are not as well drained as your statement says they are. It is an R-5 District because of those poor soils.

Mr. Rourke: I have driven around the back of the property and they seem ok.

Mr. Field: This is a good year to do those tests. Another question- in the flag lots, you want to make sure that you have good emergency access for vehicles.

Mr. Rourke: We will sell them with existing driveways.

Mr. Field: Did you consider a short roadway and a cul d’ sac?

Mr. Rourke: I did look at a cluster development, but I didn’t want to look at building a town road. I have a long driveway and it’s nice and private.

Chairman Jensen: You may want to revisit the question of density later in subdivision guidelines in pages 12244 and 12245. Density is determined by deducting areas occupied by proposed streets and right of ways, public use, and wetlands, rock outcroppings and slopes greater than 25%. You may have less total land to work with when you measure all your wetlands.

Mr. Rourke: Is that cluster guidelines?

Mr. Edwards: That is the standard.

Chairman Jensen: I think you are caught no matter what by that section.

Mr. Rourke: Is that for the density of the total number of lots, not per lot?

Chairman Jensen: For the entire subdivision.

Joe Patricke: You are saying deduct the supposed 10 acres of wetlands from the original 72, and divide that?

Mr. Edwards: You also have to deduct your steep slopes which lead into the wetlands.

Mr. Rourke: I wasn’t aware of that.

Chairman Jensen: You can work around it, make 13 instead of 14 sites, etc. Board, there is no approval or disapproval for sketch plan review, but is anyone opposed to this if it meets codes?
(None).

Mr. Rourke: We will also have storm water management engineers. Also, we were

going to build one driveway instead of three and give the owners easements, is that ok?

Chairman Jensen: How will that be constructed?

Mr. Rourke: We will guarantee it. You have no problem with building that one gravel driveway?

Mr. Edwards: What about mail service?

Mr. Rourke: I would think on Fedor Road.

Joe Patricke: We have been asking all developers to group mailboxes on one side of the road for plowing concerns. Are you aware that you need 14 feet clearance and 24 feet width of the driveways per the fire company?

Mr. Rourke: Yes.

Attorney Auffredou: Do you have covenants and driveway maintenance agreements?

Mr. Rourke: Yes, but I will look at putting in one road, it may be cheaper.

Chairman Jensen: We need to ask for guidance from counsel as this project has been in front of us for years.

Atty. Auffredou: The DOH and Planning Board refused to make a final decision because of soil vapor intrusion measurement techniques and wanted the Planning Board to look at the potential for intrusion. DOH has left it in the hands of the Planning Board, which reopened it to look at SEQR in November 2005. There were recommendations from DOH regarding the potential that soil vapor intrusion will occur. There was a public hearing in Jan 2006, and in April 2006 Mr. Robinson wrote a letter indicating the conditions under which Mr. Diehl would proceed, which were: Sub-slab ventilation system, a notice in the deed of the issues, and notice of the importance of maintaining those sub-slab ventilation systems. The Planning Board needs to revisit the SEQR and the EAF. I have now prepared a findings statement, which you have before you. Unfortunately, there is not a full Board present tonight to make a decision on this issue, which affects other sites in Moreau under the plume of GE Moreau. You could take up SEQR tonight, or wait until you have a full complement, you do have a quorum tonight.

Mr. Edwards: I know we are missing some people tonight but I think we will not have a difference of opinion as we are all similarly informed.

Mr. Field: I would be happier if there were more people here, but willing to give it a shot.

Atty. Auffredou: Does the applicant want to move forward?

Gary Robinson: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Board, do I have a motion to reopen?

Mr. Edwards: So motioned

Mr. Field: Second.

Unanimous to reopen.

Atty. Auffredou: Under these circumstances I recommend that you review Part One of SEQR.

Mr. Patricke: This property is now in Water District 4, the action should state that it is Water District 4 and serviced by public water supply. That is why Water District 4 was created.

Chairman Jensen: (reviewing the Project Information) Any questions or comments 1-6?

6-10- no. 11-16?

Mr. Field: Yes, on 11, did Evans query DEC on rare and endangered species?

Chairman Jensen: We did have a letter the first time we did this. Section B- The water district has been completed, so we are changing that on page 5. Questions on No. 17-20- no, 21-end, no Part B?

Garry Robinson: Construction schedule will change, anticipated date of commencement May 2007, completion Dec 2009.

Mr. Field: Question 16c changed to "transfer station."

Chairman Jensen: Federal agencies?

Garry Robinson: Army Corp of Engineers.

Chairman Jensen: Does EPA get involved?

Garry Robinson: No.

Mr. Edwards: The DEC for stormwater management plan.

Chairman Jensen: Questions C2-9, no questions. No. 10 response there is no.

C10-12- No comments

Atty. Auffredou: This copy is not signed. Will you sign as the agent for Mr. Diehl?

Garry Robinson: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Is anyone aware of any concerns for this site? (None).Part Two and Three:

Mr. Edwards: The project will continue for one that one year, a small impact. Sewer services will be constructed, small to moderate impact.

Mr. Field: There is a small to moderate impact in wildlife species with any development. On #18 Yes, small to moderate potential impact with regard to chronic low level discharge or emission. The guidelines from DOH say that there are no standards to be used for this, and the Dept. of Health is content that the mitigations will handle the potential for soil vapor intrusion.

Garry Robinson: Usually SEQR is about what the project will create. This project will not create the discharge, the site already has it. You can just mention that it’s over an existing plume area and make it clear that it’s not a result of the project.

Mr. Field: But if you didn’t put the houses there, there would not be a public health concern.

Atty. Auffredou: I do think that the potential for soil impact intrusion should be listed and indicated that the project lies over a plume.

Mr. Field: We are going to indicate that the impact can be mitigated, so we should indicate that in both places.

Atty. Auffredou: Yes.

Mr. Field: Question 20 could generate some controversy. There are other residences built over this plume and nothing is required of them. Yes on this one.

Atty. Auffredou: Do you want an explanation there? It’s not required.

Chairman Jensen: How would you like it explained?

Mr. Field: The factors that brought the public health issue under review in this project exist in other locations in the town where residential housing already exists.

Atty. Auffredou: Going back to Question 19, is this an action that will create important precedent for future projects?

Chairman Jensen: Yes, it will because we have another one, don’t we Mr. Robinson?

Garry Robinson: I’ve heard that.

Chairman Jensen: I think we should change 19 to yes, small to moderate impact.

Mr. Field: No one else has demonstrated how we can make any other decision. We don’t know what another project would be.

Mr. Patricke: We know it would be residential.

Mr. Field: Then it can be mitigated in the same way by what DOH has proposed. Let’s call it N/A.

Atty. Auffredou: Part Three must be completed only if we identify any large impacts, which we did not.

Chairman Jensen: Before we do anything else, I should have asked if there were questions or comments. (none). Everyone has had an opportunity to review the materials prepared by counsel.

Atty. Auffredou: There are two things before you: A negative declaration, and the applicant’s letter regarding the mitigations they are willing to utilize. They are the installing, at their expense, sub-slab active ventilation systems. The subdivision plans will indicate where samples have been taken and that this is a hazardous waste site. The owner will provide an operation and maintenance manual for the homeowners so that they will know the O&M, and that notification will be placed in the deed.

Mr. Field: It does reference our completion of part three, which we just decided we weren’t going to do.

Atty. Auffredou: That will have to be changed to show that we found no potentially large impacts to evaluate. I’ve also changed it to reflect that the subdivision is located in Water District 4 and has public water supply. Garry’s letter of April 10 2006 is attached.

Chairman Jensen: Public hearing is closed 8:43. Board, what is your pleasure?

Mr. Field: Move that we make a negative declaration with regard to SEQR to the appeal known as Westgate Estates.

Gary Dickinson: Second.

Chairman Jensen: Counsel will attach background determination

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Field- Yes Mr. Dickinson-Yes

Chairman Jensen- Yes

Chairman Jensen: This project had already given final approval, do we need to re-approve?

Atty. Auffredou: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Motion?

Mr. Field: Motion to grant final approval of Westgate Estates subdivision and for the chair to sign the amended plans.

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Field- Yes Mr. Dickinson-Yes

Chairman Jensen- Yes

Motion carries.

Mr. Field: Motion that the chairman and one other member sign the plats as soon as presented.

Mr. Edwards: Second.

Mr. Edwards- Yes Mr. Field- Yes Mr. Dickinson-Yes

Chairman Jensen- Yes

Motion carries.

Atty. Auffredou: Under this decision it’s necessary for you to get to me the proposed deed language, and that all the proposed mitigation measures be placed on the plat.

Garry Robinson: Ok.

Atty. Auffredou: Garry needs to sign the EAF.

Atty. Auffredou: I just want to disclose that my office has represented April O’Hearn in the past and she is on the Planning Board in the Village of Hudson Falls.

Chairman Jensen: There is no conflict on this matter.

Atty. Auffredou: Right.

Ms. O’Hearn: The property has 800 feet along Route 9, goes back to power lines, and has already been subdivided. It is down to about 43 acres. They would like to divide a portion 290 feet on Route 9, about 7 acres total. The reason is that the three owners have differing ideas about what they would like to do with the property. This section is 290 feet South of the old motel. This division creates an L shaped piece. Zoning is C-1.

Chairman Jensen: What is your intent?

Ms. O’Hearn: It’s a buyout for a quarter owner.

Mr. Field: A real estate subdivision.

Mr. Edwards: This piece is 290ft. with 510ft. remaining frontage.

Chairman Jensen: 200 feet is the required frontage, with depth of 275.

Mr. Field: It’s a straight section of Route 9?

Ms. O’Hearn: Yes.

Mr. Field: And you are coming to us because there’s been another recent subdivision?

Ms. O’Hearn: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Board, any concerns? What do you want to see?

Mr. Field: I don’t see any objection. I’d prefer to see a proposal for developing the whole site, but there’s nothing in the zoning.

Chairman Jensen: The larger parcel is jointly owned?

Ms. O’Hearn: We are taking off an equal value piece for one of the three owners.

Chairman Jensen: I haven’t found any place in our code where it says that we can’t do it.

Mr. Edwards: Why this small piece, is it just based on value? 7 acres is a small part of 43.

Ms. O’Hearn: It’s considered an equal value piece because it has frontage.

Mr. Edwards: It is a nice opportunity for a small commercial use.

Mr. Patricke: You should be looking for an application for sketch plan review, if the idea is feasible.

Mr. Edwards: They have to go through sketch plan review for this type of action?

Mr. Field: I think there’s a statement that we can waive everything except environmental review.

Chairman Jensen: Do you want two foot contours?

Mr. Edwards: I think USGS is enough.

Chairman Jensen: Section 124-18, we may waive two foot contour intervals, clearing plan, grading and erosion control and drainage report, and because of the size we can accept a short form EAF. And 124 7 c -2, do you wish to so waive?

Mr. Field: I would like to see some mention of soil types, though I suspect it’s well drained.

Mr. Patricke: How so you want it substantiated?

Mr. Field: Saratoga County soil survey included on the short form EAF.

Chairman Jensen: Do you see any reason to reject the application? Consensus is no. If you decide to go forward, you have the requirements that the Board would waive.

Mr. Patricke: You need an application for the Dec. 18^th meeting by Dec 4^th, to go ahead with the application.

Ms. O’Hearn: Can the board do preliminary and final approval together?

Chairman Jensen: You may request it at the time. It may be advisable to look into endangered species before that meeting.

Mr. Patricke: You won’t get a response from the County before January. She’ll probably have a February public hearing.

Mr. Edwards motioned to adjourn the meeting at 9:18p.m. and Mr. Dickinson seconded.

The motion passed unanimously. Next meeting December 18, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

Tricia Andrews

Recording Secretary

Cc: Zoning Board, Town Board, Town Clerk, Supt. of Highways, Building Inspector, Assessor, Saratoga County Planning Board