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

Planning Board members in attendance were Chairman Peter Jensen, Gary Dickinson, James Edwards, Ronald Zimmerman, Tom Field, and John Arnold.

The minutes of the August 20, 2007 were reviewed and approved.

The minutes of the special meeting of the 30th were tabled until a time that they can be reviewed.

I. Rourke Subdivision - Project Update

William J. Rourke: I am Bill Rourke; I am buying Doc Joseph's property. Doc Joseph's house sits right here. He is retaining the 6 acres along with the house. It is zoned R5. We have 10 lots with one common driveway. I intend to build them on lots 6, 7, 10 and 11 are also going to use one driveway. Lot 5 and 4 are going to have one common entrance onto Fedor Road. We have this lot, lot 9 and lot 8, using this common driveway. We originally had a driveway out to Route 32. The Saratoga County Planning Board suggested that we eliminate this driveway. We are trying to cut down on the driveways onto Fedor Road. The town engineer suggested we have a permanent easement and a temporary easement in case they have to work on this culvert crossing the road. I think that's about it.

Chairman Jensen: Bill thank you. I have one question, are there signs up.

Mr. Rourke: Yes, my sign is up, all 3.

Chairman Jensen: Good, thank you. As in keeping with all the open forums, we have very few ground rules. The first one being that anyone that has a question of Mr. Rourke or would like to make a comment concerning this proposal are encouraged, invited and welcome to do so. Ground rule #2 is that so we may keep an accurate record, because accuracy is important, that if anyone does wish to make a statement or ask a question, you state your name. We are informal; you do not have to stand. Ground rule #3 is the most important of the process; we will maintain some sense of decorum. It is time now for the Planning Board to sit back, generally close its mouth and open its ears so we can hear what exactly is going on.

Mrs. Farnsworth: I still wonder why we can't come off 32 because you have three other roads going west off of there that is into the development that is going into the hill. Why can't there be one going off of 32 onto that development that you have going?

Mr. Rourke: I know just north of the intersection of Fedor Road and 32 there are several lots, probably 3 or 4, with driveways coming out on 32. Saratoga County Planning Board has had the maps and they suggested we take this one driveway out of 32.

Mrs. Farnsworth: It's a perfect entrance into this area; it would keep it away from the country road, Fedor Road.

Pat Killian: It would also reduce the traffic. Pat Killian, 120 Burt Road. As far as limiting the amount of traffic onto Fedor Road and once in a while you get cows out and we want to try to minimize traffic as much as we can. The more traffic going through Fedor Road and stuff like that, you just have to be careful. I think it would be more permissible on Route 32 than it would be on Fedor as far as controlling traffic. So, what other alternatives could you have? It's not mandatory as far as the roadway going out to Route 32?

Mr. Rourke: Personally, myself, we had a driveway. I think nobody goes 55, they really speed along there.

Mrs. Farnsworth: Take into fact that is deer crossing. In fact, a deer hit my car not too many years ago and it is right there where the deer cross. In fact, the Conservation Department says it is forever wild which we discussed one time. There are fox that live there, deer live there. In that area there are a lot of animals that are out wandering, as well as farmers.

Darrell Finlayson: Adjacent property owner. I can understand their concerns on Fedor Road, but on 32 I can understand the county's position. That is a straight away through there and if you live on that section there, right now every time I come out of my driveway, you are taking your life in your hands all the time. Actually, there should be a double line through there. It is unbelievable. They don't go 55 and there have been so many close calls there, it is unbelievable. I can understand the county's position on that as far as safety.

Dan Farnsworth: They still have Fedor Road, now you're talking one driveway coming onto it with all this traffic. I am Dan Farnsworth, I own the proper across the road from him. If you have all the driveways coming off onto Fedor Road, now you got all that congestion into this area which is on the corner where you're talking the driveway up there is on the straight away. Now they're going to be pulling out on the corner which is more dangerous than it is on the straight away which you will be able to see both ways. Fedor Road has a couple of blind spots.

Mrs. Farnsworth: There are accidents on our road, at least 4-5 a year.

Dan Farnsworth: Not on the straight away, they're always right there on the corner.

Mr. Rourke: Well, we have tried to cut down. We've combined driveways.

Mrs. Farnsworth: Like I said, going onto Fedor Road. You're going out and that's another blind spot. If you have all these cars coming down, that's going to be a bad corner too just like the one at the other end. There are at least 1-2 accidents every year, some of them fatal.

Mr. Farnsworth: You're talking about coming out on a corner where a straight away seems sensible.

Mrs. Farnsworth: If you ever come down Fedor Road you have trees pretty well, the road curves, there is a big stop sign that says bus stop which has been a

close call for a lot of kids getting off the bus right there. It is a bad corner. They come around that corner so fast. If it was a straight away, at least you could see it.

Todd Kuznierz: 238 Gansevoort Road. I think having the driveways come out on 32 could help the argument that we've been in with the state for a number of years as far as either trying to get a double line or reduce the speed limit between that section of road because of both bends in the highway. If you had a development coming out in that stretch of highway, Route 32 speed limit is already 45 MPH from Reynolds Corner north, it's when you come south of 197 where the speed limit increases to 55 MPH there are several bad bends in the road. I think having the entrance and egress located in that location would certainly help the argument in reducing the speed limit through there.

Mr. Rourke: Well, the higher the speed limit, I don't know what Fedor Road is, is it 25 or 35? The higher the speed limit, if it's 30 you have to have 350 or so, if it's 55 you have to have 950 feet. You don't have 950 feet. There is a bend here and a bend here. You don't have the proper….that you have to have for 55 MPH. For 30 it's only 350 I think. You don't have the 950 feet.

Todd Kusnierz: What I would suggest, if it is something that becomes workable as part of the approval process, that a request be made to change the speed limit, at least through that neck of the woods.

Mr. Rourke: I tried to do that on another subdivision we have. It's a county highway.

Mrs. Farnsworth: We have a hard enough time now going with the machinery to the fields and stuff.

Mr. Farnsworth: It is going to increase the amount of traffic.

Chairman Jensen: Anyone else with any questions for Mr. Rourke.

Pat Killian: We are concerned about certain developments going in on the north end as far as pushing water back over onto Finley. I think it needs to be addressed also because our cows went underneath the actual fence. It is getting worse since the last rain we had, it’s been a few inches. I think it needs to be addressed if it gets worse.

Mr. Rourke: Scott Reece is the engineer on the storm water. He has done the storm water study and all this is wet lands, the west boundary is wet lands.

Pat Killian: Each year it seems to be getting worse. Like I said until you get back there and see it, which I didn't see until this weekend. I saw the cows going to the actual culvert. As far as the washout of water that is there now, depending on what occurs on the north end of your development, northeast if you will, as far as coming up another 500 or even 150 yards from there. Is there going to be some kind of lawn, what type of drainage is going to be there.

Mr. Reece: There is a 100 foot set back we have to keep away from, which is this line, so as far as the development from there we are not going to be getting any closer than this particular line. We won't make any effort to cross over through here, so this is the line. All the drainage coming through here is coming from the location up here. All the drainage points that his development will be going to is the culvert that is down there. The way it is designed is to make sure post development did to exceed predevelopment growth. This is what the state makes sure we follow.

Mrs. Farnsworth: It has been a dry 4 or 5 years now. There have been years when it has been so wet. How far back do you check?

Mr. Reece: The houses are 20 feet higher than the where the wet land is located. Actually the houses are located along above the ridge, above the areas of the wetlands. Each of these areas is approximately 20 feet higher than where the stream runs through.

Mr. Farnsworth: Are you saying down from there they'll get more drainage where you have that red spot on your map?

Mr. Reece: Not more drainage, the same. The same amount.

Mr. Farnsworth: I just want to make sure I'm not getting a washout of everybody's.

Mr. Reece: As far as we submit a report, tell them what we're going to be doing, how we're going to hold back the additional water and how it's going to be treated. They will make sure we don't just deposit water.

Mrs. Farnsworth: Isn't the water table very high? I know it is, let's put it that way. In that area if you have a wet spring you won't get into that area until the end of August. I mean I know you're going to be grading and all that. The water table is still very high.

Mr. Reece: They have done test holes to find out where the water goes.

Mrs. Farnsworth: When?

Mr. Rourke: Mr. Berger, who works with Scott, did a test in April or May.

Mrs. Farnsworth: This year?

Mr. Rourke: Yes.

Mrs. Farnsworth: It’s been dry this year.

Mr. Rourke: With a high water table, they require us to do a soil investigation.

Mr. Farnsworth: You can't do an actual test until you get an amount of water? Right now it's dry. So you really don't know until we get the actual amount of water we get every year in that area.

Mr. Rourke: Our soil scientist can tell, whether the water is there or not there, he can read the soil. He can tell where the high water table was.

Mr. Reece: A soil scientist can see where the high water table generally is by analysis of the soil. It is a certain stain, a certain way they interpret.

Mrs. Farnsworth: With all these houses, is that water going to be good enough for the cattle to drink? Is it going to be guaranteed?

Mr. Reece: The water quality, we have to treat what is flowing on the surface, which are the roofs and driveways, so the way we're going about that is that each of the houses and driveways, the way that they pitch are going to be going along a rail alongside the driveway. At certain locations that we are submitting with our storm water report they are going into New York State DEC approved sand filter. The water flows off the driveway, goes down the grass line, goes into the sand filter which then percolates through that and gets into perforated PVC pipe and then exits out down towards the low spot. That is the way DEC has approved water quality for impervious surfaces. The rest of the grass and everything else is going to be running off towards the low spots.

Mr. Farnsworth: So the quality is going to be up to DEC, not what it is now?

Mr. Reece: They set their own standards. Small ravines will have a culvert, so we're not going to impede the natural flow of water.

Mr. Rourke: Everything that comes off of the driveway is going into the sand, it's not a driveway ditch.

Mr. Reece: Each will be located on the individual driveways, so there will be several.

Mr. Rourke: We're not just going to put the driveway in, we're going to put all the drainage in also. If you divide the acreage by 5 acre zoning.

Mr. Kuznierz: I'd like to follow up on the direction Mrs. Farnsworth was heading in. First of all, I understand as a property owner you have rights to make a return on your investment. People have been paying taxes on this property for almost a lifetime. In particular, in the instances of farmers, they are entitled, that is their retirement in many instances, and this is something the town certainly allows and is permissible. I want to make sure it is impressed and recorded in the record tonight that the #1 purpose of the R5 zoning in the Town of Moreau is to promote, enhance and protect agriculture by limiting development. I don't know if that is necessarily being accomplished here because I view this project as trying to put a 17 foot in size 11 shoe. If you look at the schedule of requirements for R5 zoning, you are required to have 250 feet of front of property line as part of the 5 acre lot. In this project we're talking shared driveways. It is my understanding under the code you can, and it kind of contradicts the R5 zoning, you can have a driveway as long as 40 feet of

land accessible to the town highway, but you can only do it per buildable lot. Why are we talking about shared driveways here?

Mr. Rourke: All these lots along here have a minimum of 250 feet of frontage. The properties in the back have a width of 250 feet at the building line.

Mr. Kuznierz: I guess my question to the Planning Board, is that within R5 zoning to circumvent the 250 requirement with 40 foot driveway?

Mr. Patricke: I can answer that. That was put in 1994 at the request and went through the Town Board for just that purpose, creating lots that were in the back so they could service them, they didn't have the frontage on the road.

Mr. Kuznierz: To the Board, is that something that is keeping with R5 zoning or is that for instances where you don't have enough in R1s or R2s?

Mr. Field: That is the way the frontage was designed so that kind of lot could be created.

Mr. Kuznierz: What is the definition? From the frontage of where, the house?

Mr. Jensen: Our hope is the Town Board recognizes this, they are redoing the Master Plan, and so we are stuck with this. The Master Plan has been in the works for several years and we would love to see that come out.

Mr. Rourke: I came to the board probably about a year ago and I was concerned about that and I asked the board can we develop the back lots and have 250 feet at the building line. They said we don't like it, but it’s been done. All these lots are very large. I think it's the only way to access the back of the property. It has been done before several times. That was my main question before I thought about buying the property.

Mr. Kuznierz: Any idea how many time the Town of Moreau has allowed a flag lot?

Mr. Jensen: Off the top of my head I can't tell you.

Mr. Edwards: It is becoming common on lots like this where there is less flat high ground to build on. We never liked it in the first place, but it is becoming more prevalent.

Mr. Kuznierz: On follow up of that, how are shared driveways permitted?

Mr. Rourke: By a maintenance agreement. Everybody that's going to buy this back lot, my attorney has a maintenance agreement. They share the snow plowing and if anything happens to this road, some kind of construction, anything as far as maintenance. It is in the deed. If they want to buy the lot, they have to sign the maintenance agreement.

Mr. Zimmerman: To be clear, in the precedent we sent previously, that was contingent upon the shared common driveway that was used to access those roads. They had a maintenance agreement, but it was also part of a homeowner's associations, which helped to support and uphold the logistics. That was a

distinction between that one and this. That project had a homeowner's association that came with the agreement, whereas this one so far is just a maintenance agreement.

Mr. Rourke: This project is a lot simpler. The other project is more elaborate.

Mr. Killian: Is an R3 zoning an AG district also?

Mr. Patricke: Yes.

Mr. Killian: The reason I ask, I am working on West River Road on a subdivision, I'm not really sure as far as 250 feet what you can and cannot do as far as flag lots. I'm learning a lot. R5 is agriculture. As far as R3, where is R3?

Mr. Patricke: It's down in the AG district, down Route 9, 32, off of Fort Edward Road, I can show you.

Mr. Field: It's not just one area. It just defines various areas.

Mr. Finlayson: Isn't this a fairly new concept for the town?

Mr. Field: Which?

Mr. Finlayson: The shared driveways.

Mr. Field: Yes.

Mr. Finlayson: Are you trying to get away from cul-de-sacs?

Mr. Field: Actually, I think a cul-de-sac would work well. The alternative that has been shown, we have not discussed it, nor has the developer proposed it or embraced it.

Mr. Rourke: We have laid out a cul-de-sac. There would be a lot more crossings of the ravine. I can show you what it looks like. It just doesn't make very much sense to me. This is not our first layout. This is down in the area of the proposed road. There would be crossings here, here, here if we put the cul-de-sac on this side. I think crossing this one time makes a lot more sense than a whole bunch of times. We have had a lot of proposals of the layout and I know the Board doesn't like the common driveway. I asked a year ago if we could do this and they're stuck with it.

Mr. Field: No we're not.

Mr. Zimmerman: To be clear, did you indicate you had tried also an alternative cul-de-sac, not this one, but one after you crossed through the ravine?

Mr. Rourke: No I didn't.

Mr. Field: What I suggested was the proposal for the shared driveways will have a hard time getting my approval. As it has been pointed out, this is new area for us. We have done shared driveways, but to me when you start making 3 driveways, you're no longer talking about shared driveways, you're talking about private roads, which we always reject. I am dead set against 3 shared driveways.

Mr. Rourke: I can see why, but I feel this maintenance agreement, if anything goes wrong with the driveway, that's the people who are buying their lots and it's their obligation and not the town.

Mr. Field: From my perspective, that is fine, as long as there is an agreement that is enforceable by someone. If you're leaving that up to two neighbors, that puts them in a position of simply having a squabble. We have not in general been in favor of shared driveways. Even after the county came out in favor of them, we have stayed away from them as much as possible. In their reports supporting shared driveways, they pointed out they were a cause of conflict and they were not favorable among the people involved with them. There were other issues, particularly traffic issues, where consideration of this is important. A local road, like Fedor Road, I think there are other issues that are probably more important and the nature of the soils is one of those. I have a long private driveway of my own, it's a quagmire. A neighbor to try and fix that would be a nightmare. It is not simple, it’s expensive, and it takes several days of work every year. The more people you're going to have involved in that the less likely it will be able to work out. My point is view is that when we're reviewing these subdivisions, particularly in these difficult soils, we owe it to people who are buying homes in our town to make sure those driveways are going to work well. That is what I'm hoping we're going to get one way or another here as this review goes on. That is where I stand at the moment.

Mr. Jensen: Please identify yourself.

Mr. Arnold: John Arnold. Adding on to what Ron was saying, I would like to point out the cul-de-sac in the same location where the shared driveway is right now is technically possible.

Mr. Rourke: With 3 crossings of the ravine.

Mr. Arnold: It is not technically possible to bring a road across that ravine and then put a cul-de-sac in to serve those three lots? Technically?

Mr. Rourke: Anything is possible.

Mr. Arnold: It is just economically difficult to justify doing that and still develop that.

Mr. Rourke: Right.

Mr. Arnold: It boils down to what is not necessarily best for those lots. With the shared driveway, you gave us a maintenance agreement. With that maintenance agreement I could not find how that was enforced. There is a portion of it that says, at that time there were 3 driveways. That can give you a possible 2:1

vote on something. Anything over $100 with a majority vote would go forward. Let's say the people on lot #6 decide they want gas lights for the driveway, as long as they can talk one of the other two homeowners into it, how do they force the third one to kick in their money? If that third homeowner can't afford that and still pay for their house, what legal action is there to force them to pay or force them to sell their house because they can't keep up with what is considered maintenance by the other two residents?

Mr. Rourke: I think maintenance is snow plowing, any repair of the road, not gas lights.

Mr. Arnold: It's not paving it?

Mr. Rourke: Yeah.

Mr. Arnold: How long is it?

Mr. Rourke: About 600 feet.

Mr. Arnold: I have a long gravel driveway, about 100 feet long, and it costs me about $300 a year in gravel alone. So you can understand my concern on this. If the homeowner decides they don't want anything but a gravel driveway, cut the brush back, keep snow off of it, keep potholes filled with gravel and the other two decide they want it paved. I guess this is where I see a problem without a homeowner's association. With a homeowner's association there would be shared funds, some kind of a set up as far as how it's run.

Mr. Rourke: It is in black and white. Before lot #11 buys that lot, he will read right in the deed, does he want this or not. If he's going to buy the lot, he's subject to it.

Mr. Arnold: Would you have lot #11?

Mr. Rourke: I have lot #6.

Mr. Arnold: Right, but would you have lot #11 where you own the road, you're responsible for what happens on that driveway and it's on your property. I'm asking you, would you want that lot?

Mr. Rourke: Yeah, I would. I was going to have my driveway come out onto Fedor Road. There's actually a driveway there, I was going to have a new driveway put in, but I don't mind coming out onto this driveway that's going to be built.

Mr. Arnold: Okay, one more question. Who covers the insurance on that piece of property, that driveway?

Mr. Rourke: I'm sure lot #11 does.

Mr. Arnold: So lot #6 is coming down the driveway in a hurry and lot #10 pulls out of his driveway in front of him and they have a car accident right there or someone runs over someone's kid, I'm not saying that's going to happen, but there's liability involved with that driveway that you're throwing completely on lot

#11, whereas if there was a homeowner's association, they would have to purchase the liability policy for that shared property, right?

Mr. Rourke: Yeah, sure.

Mr. Arnold: My very first meeting you were being berated about the homeowner's association and you said you didn't want to do that because you thought it might be some infringement on people wanting to buy the property, if I understood you. Myself I would not own #11 if you put a gun to my head. I know there are other people who won't see a problem with it. I would be more comfortable with more than a maintenance agreement.

Mr. Edwards: What was the intent on building 3 shared driveways was it as housed developed, as lots sold, or were you going to build a certain portion of that?

Mr. Rourke: No, we were going to build it all. I followed everything, this was a minimum of 10%, I know the other development goes over 10%, I don't know how that happened.

Mr. Jensen: While we're checking on the technicalities, I have a tongue in cheek to throw out. Can we assume Mr. Kuznierz that the Town Board will be enacting a moratorium so we can get the Master Plan completed and resolve these things.

Mr. Kuznierz: I would be in support of a moratorium.

Mr. Jensen: Does anyone else have any questions for Mr. Rourke?

Mr. Killian: Are there any codes as far as being an AG district, selling, and possibility of development rights to keep it an AG district as much as we can? Has that been checked into? Is that a possibility?

Mr. Rourke: You're talking about other property?

Mr. Killian: No, as far as this property here.

Mr. Rourke: Well, it's in an AG district. They say we have to be over 5 acres. Anything that is in there, I'm not asking the board for any special request. I'm meeting all the zoning on it.

Chairman Jensen: Does anyone else have a question for the board?

Mr. Zimmerman: You had made a note earlier to the board prohibiting any livestock and I was wondering if you had settled on that?

Mr. Rourke: No, I haven't. I'm going to have a restriction as far as size of the houses and no junk cars, but I don't have anything.

Mr. Zimmerman: Do you plan to?

Mr. Rourke: Yeah.

Mr. Zimmerman: You do plan to put that in?

Mr. Rourke: I don't know.

Mr. Zimmerman: So you do plan to put that in? You said you were going to.

Mr. Rourke: I don't know. I'm going to protect the houses. They're going to be nice houses and I'm going to protect the lots.

Chairman Jensen: Does anyone else have any questions?

Mr. Kuznierz: That's new to me. I just want to point that the Town of Moreau has a right to farm law, town wide, we're in an AG district. I don't think legally you can do that.

Mr. Rourke: I don't know.

Mr. Kuznierz: There's always the potential.

Mr. Rourke: My intention is to protect no unlicensed cars, certain size building, and trash.

Mr. Kuznierz: You wouldn't be trying to word any of these where livestock isn't allowed.

Mr. Rourke: I have come up with a little bit.

Mr. Kuznierz: I just want to make sure.

Mr. Rourke: I don't remembering mentioning that, maybe I did, I don't know.

Mrs. Farnsworth: Well you have 5 acres there, what if you have a little girl who wants a pony, there's no pony?

Mr. Rourke: I didn't say that. You have to have 5 acres, if you own 5 acres, you can have livestock.

Mr. Zimmerman: Bill, I'm not making that up, I can go back and find the specifics.

Mr. Rourke: Okay.

Mr. Zimmerman: I'm curious about whether that was going to still happen.

Mr. Field: I think when you were talking you were talking about your personal one because you have an allergy problem. You did say in the meeting, as I remember it, as Ron said.

Mr. Rourke: On my lot I won't have horses, I'm talking about my lot.

Mr. Kuznierz: You're not going to restrict future owners?

Mr. Rourke: I haven't come up with any list of restrictions. There are going to be restrictions.

Mr. Kuznierz: Right, you can't restrict livestock.

Chairman Jensen: Does anyone else have any questions?

Mr. Farnsworth: I have a question. The letters we got in the mail, were they supposed to be certified?

Chairman Jensen: No. By action of the Board we deemed it not necessary to certify the mail for this project.

Mr. Kuznierz: I don't think the Board has the authority to do that.

Chairman Jensen: According to council we do.

Attorney Auffredou: My understanding is the Board has a longstanding history of not requiring certified registered mail in individual cases. I believe they took this up recently, my have been respect with this particular project, at a recent meeting we took this up and reaffirmed their position on this. Their position is, as I understand it, is that the Board can in any particularly case waive application of whatever the procedural technical positions are. You had deliberated on that, debated it and decided in this particular instance it wasn't necessary. You weren't necessarily establishing an across the board that is not required in each individual case, but in this instance we decided it wasn't required.

Mr. Kuznierz: So this Board can pick and choose which parts of the code it will follow?

Attorney Auffredou: Yes.

Mr. Kuznierz: I don't agree with that. That would circumvent the whole zoning process.

Attorney Auffredou: They don't circumvent the whole zoning process, if they have a particular reason or rationale for an application or provision or waiving a particular provision, they do that. The Zoning Board and Planning Board do that.

Mr. Field: Except for environmental issues.

Attorney Auffredou: Right.

Mr. Kuznierz: So why does the Town Board require the zoning requirements and have specific land widths for subdivision of land, notification of property owners, the Town shall notify property owners by registered mail within 500 feet, they can pick and choose whether?

Attorney Auffredou: Todd, if the Town Board wants to tell the Planning Board they don't like it, the Town Board can tell them that.

Mr. Kuznierz: The Town Board adopted a law that has language in it.

Attorney Auffredou: The Planning Board also has discretion to waive particular provisions, other than environmental provisions, that they deem appropriate in any instance.

Mr. Field: That's part of the same law.

Mr. Kuznierz: I have question for the Board then. Wouldn’t each one of you think its important when you have a project of this magnitude that you make sure the neighbors are notified and the way you do that is an indication from the property owner that they have received notice of a public hearing?

Chairman Jensen: That would be a decision the Board would make as to the size of the project before us and we would not make a decision based on because it is a particular zone. Therefore, when you establish a higher requirement we would use the opinion of the Board, by proposal, whether it would be proper to require a certified notification. We can go back to the time in ancient history where the last Master Planning was done. The town did a mass mailing and for something as important as creating codes for the town, they did not feel it was necessary to do a certified letter for that public hearing, also. The Board has to take into consideration the magnitude of a project not be driven by which particular zone.

Mr. Kuznierz: Based on that reason, I respectfully request that allowing 40 foot land per driveway not be permitted and we stick to with the 250 per building lot.

Chairman Jensen: You can obviously have an opinion and request. In this particular instance it would be up to whatever the Planning Board ultimately decides amongst the 7 members.

Mr. Kuznierz: I'm reiterating, because this project impacts the AG district, I view this as groundbreaking putting a development of this magnitude down there and I encourage this project be carefully scrutinized.

Chairman Jensen: All projects are carefully scrutinized.

Mr. Kuznierz: I guess the point I'm trying to make, we're talking about an R5 zone in an AG district versus an R1 zone.

Mr. Field: As a general rule, we do not waive requirements of any part of a subdivision review. The only time we look at that is when we have a piece of land that appears otherwise impossible to develop that a land owner has the right to sell. Under those conditions we will discuss and take a vote on whether we will allow the review to go on without receiving a complete set of documentation. For us to take a vote that we're going to say the definition of lot width in the zoning law is going to be abandoned for this project would be out of character for what we have used that power in the past and we're not

likely to do that. This is a relatively small project and it has been controversial enough that it's pretty clear that people knew this was being reviewed. It's a project that is tough for us because of the site conditions, but we are darn lucky we don't have someone coming in here and wanting to put in 50 or 60 lot subdivision in our R5 zone. We aren't really prepared to review that. Our laws are so low and so antiquated this is going to be a tough issue.

Mr. Kuznierz: I agree with you.

Mr. Zimmerman: Whatever we approve here is going to be groundbreaking and precedent setting for every subdivision that we get in R5 here on out whether it be for shared driveways, access, whatever.

Mr. Field: Bill is aware of that. We are grilling him harder than we would be if he were on sandy soil some place out in the town.

Mr. Rourke: I have been told that notices have not been sent out certified in 30 years.

Mr. Kuznierz: I think it protects the Town. No land owner within 500 feet of that location can come back and say that they weren't notified.

Mr. Rourke: I don't send those out.

Chairman Jensen: If we go certified you would. Historically we have not done it. Does the Board have any questions?

Mr. Zimmerman: When we met with Bill last we talked about sending a copy of the maintenance agreement to the attorney general. I was just wondering if you have had the opportunity to do that.

Attorney Auffredou: The attorney called me this afternoon. I'm going to chat more with him this week. I don't believe the maintenance agreement has gone to the attorney general's office. He needs a clarification from me as to what they were looking for. I expressed my concern about the shared or common driveway with lots 6, 7, 11 and 10 and I would not be comfortable recommending this board move forward without a determination by the attorney general's office on no action. Is the attorney general's office going to say a homeowner's association is not necessary? They need to look at this and tell Mr. Rourke whether a homeowner's association is needed here or not. If it is not, then the attorney general's office would issue a no action letter. Until that is received, I'm not comfortable with you moving forward with any determination.

Mr. Zimmerman: Martin, would be comfortable with us moving forward with a SEQR although we haven't received that?

Attorney Auffredou: No. I'll tell you why because I just don't think you're in a position where you know that this project is going to look like in the final analysis. The SEQR says the Planning Board should have all the information to make a determination of significance or non-significance. I don't know how you'd do that. If this does have to go to a homeowner's association it may be a different project.

Chairman Jensen: Thank you. One last time, anyone else have any questions for Mr. Rourke? If not, we heard the advice of council. We have a motion to table the hearing on the Rourke subdivision until such a time as we have necessary information to complete the SEQR review?

Mr. Field: So moved.

Chairman Jensen: We cannot go through with a review without the SEQR. That we do not have a discussion on.

Mr. Field: So moved.

Chairman Jensen: Motion has been moved to table the discussion on the Rourke subdivision until such a time we have adequate information to complete the SEQR review. To that motion, would you call roll please.

Mr. Edwards: Yes.

Mr. Dickinson: Yes.

Mr. Field: Yes.

Mr. Arnold: Yes.

Mr. Zimmerman: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: Yes.

Chairman Jensen: I have 6, motion carries. We will continue the review and as soon as we have the information necessary we can go forward.

Chairman Jensen: The next meeting of the Planning Board is October 15, 2007.

Mr. Field: I have made myself clear with my unhappiness of the proposed driveways. The cul-de-sac, I think by time you would have paid for 3 crossings of the stream you would have quite an expense.

Mr. Rourke: I don't think 3 crossings of the ravine is a good idea.

Chairman Jensen: This is not a continuation of the public hearing. This is a dialogue between the Board and the applicant.

Mr. Field: A proposal I would like you to consider. Put a road back between lots 4 and 5 which would come down by access to the houses to lots 4, 5, 9, 10 and two long driveways for 7 and 11 and your driveway would go right out to Fedor Road. You would have a lot less driveway to construct which would make up for part of the cost of the road.

Mr. Zimmerman: If you look at the Saratoga County document we got regarding shared driveways, they give an addendum about the construction of a long private driveway. Some other folks are requiring that any driveway that is in excess of 500 feet needs to hold a 50,000 lb. 30 foot long vehicle.

Mr. Rourke: Tom, you suggested a driveway through here to get to 9 and 10.

Mr. Field: Right. You can put the driveways for 4 and 5 on that road.

Mr. Rourke: Are you cutting back on lots?

Mr. Field: I don't think you'd have to.

Mr. Rourke: You're going to build this?

Mr. Field: Put a cul-de-sac. There would be no shared driveways.

Mr. Rourke: I don't think I can cross this ravine with the town highway.

Mr. Edwards: If you keep 11 the way it is. By the time you build that down there is some serious money there. That driveway has to be at least 20-22 feet.

Mr. Rourke: If it has to be 22 feet, it has to be 22 feet.

Mr. Edward: It's almost cost effective to look at something else.

Mr. Field: If you can't convince us to let you put 3 shared driveways there, you'd be looking at losing one lot.

Mr. Rourke: You're talking about this.

Mr. Field: Which you haven't convinced me of.

Mr. Arnold: If I buy 11, I actually own pieces of 7 and 10 in order to get to my lot.

Mr. Rourke: 11 goes all the way out.

Mr. Arnold: But I actually end up owning part of 7 and 10.

Mr. Rourke: We will have an easement. I don't know. I will take it under consideration. I don't think this is feasible money wise. I came into the Board a year ago and the Board said no we don't like it, but we can do it. How is the other subdivision, they have a maintenance agreement. I have the maps, I can bring in. How many lots are they coming out of a private road, not a town road, across the top there.

Mr. Patricke: 6

Mr. Rourke: How are they doing that on a private driveway?

Mr. Zimmerman: I think the width is 30 feet.

Mr. Patricke: It is the same width as a town road minus the two walls. So that would be 28 feet or 27.

Mr. Patricke: You need to design that driveway to carry an 85,000 vehicle.

Mr. Field: Come March or April you will have a tough time getting a fire truck in there.

Mr. Rourke: As I understand that's what it has to be designed for. I'll take a look at this, I don't think it is feasible. So is this going to shut down or are we still in discussions?

Chairman Jensen: We tabled the public hearing.

Mr. Rourke: Until we get a no action. If I come back with a no action from the state about a homeowners association, are we still in discussion?

Chairman Jensen: We will reopen the public hearing and get a SEQR. At the conclusion of the public hearing and SEQR we will move on it from there.

Mr. Field: At this point, if you are still showing driveways shared by 2 residents, my intention is to vote again in which case you can drop a lot in the back and we can then discuss how we will design the roadways. That's my feeling.

Mr. Rourke: I took the precedence of this other subdivision. I got 6 lots going on a private drive. I'll take your consideration, but I can't build a road back there. There's no way.

Chairman Jensen: Any other questions? Do you have questions for us?

II. Bonzinski - Site Plan

Chairman Jensen: Moving on. The Bonzinski Site plan, do we have one of those?

Mr. Patricke: I don't see Mr. Bonzinski here. After last month's meeting he felt he had received approval and it was clear by the minutes it was not the case because you had not completed SEQR and you had asked for information about the fish and wildlife and there were two items in the minutes that you had not received. I told him he had not received approval. His engineer didn't know anything about the letter from DEC for fish and wildlife. They had some great confusion. I can only assume that is why he's not here tonight is they didn't finish that.

Mr. Edwards: I think he came to us and he thought there was a meeting that was postponed.

Mr. Patricke: He can't go back to zoning until he comes here.

Mr. Edwards: Which he did initially.

Mr. Patricke: But he didn't do SEQR because you actually had two questions.

Mr. Edwards: He did SEQR, we did not determine anything on SEQR.

Mr. Patricke: So you can't make a decision until you get that.

Mr. Edwards: That is pretty clear.

Mr. Patricke: I felt it was very clear, I think he didn't finish that or he would have been here. He wanted to go to zoning next week. I'll call him. He should appear at our next meeting on October 15.

Mr. Arnold: What is our requirement to recent precedent? If the Board has set a precedent allowing multiple use driveways, can the Board set one not to?

Chairman Jensen: The attorney can answer.

Attorney Auffredou: I think each property is judged on its own individual merit. There are a lot of aspects about that other project that easily distinguish that project from this project. I'm not overly concerned about Planning Board precedence.

A motion to adjourn was made. The motion was approve unanimously. The next meeting is scheduled for October 15, 2007.

Respectfully submitted,

Missy Norton

Recording Secretary

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