A. Dulgarian: I just don’t want to regret something.

D. Yanosh: If we eliminate this here, all you’re looking at is Pennsylvania Avenue.

D. McGoey: What I’m saying is we don’t want to eliminate that. You want to bring this around through here.

D. Yanosh: We can shove that lot over and make it.

D. McGoey: Let’s get the overall plan down and acceptable so we make sure that the subdivision that you get approved.

D. Yanosh: Question #2 then to the Board is whether they want Weatherly Drive to connect to Pennsylvania Avenue? Again, Weatherly Drive is a small five, six hundred foot cul-de-sac. How many people are going to come in Weatherly and make a loop around to go to Pennsylvania? I don’t think many.

A. Dulgarian: One loop road through the project would be nice.

G. Lake: I think the problem right now is you want action . . .

D. Yanosh: I have no problem with you looking at it and put me on the next agenda.

G. Lake: Right now you have this twelve off of a cul-de-sac and at the same time the Board now has had a chance to look at the overall plan that may or may not be developed. I think that’s a big question that if it is developed what happens down the road. I think, and if that’s the case then maybe it might be better.

A. Dulgarian: I was going to say we’ve had these before where they either connect with the neighbors or some future road.

G. Lake: It wouldn’t work here though.

A. Dulgarian: I understand that but what I’m saying is or the point I’m trying to make is usually that interior road that initial interior road will lend itself to continue on to finish that project out. It is not a cul-de-sac that “T’s” off. It’s just a continuous flow. That’s what I’m looking for. I don’t know about the rest of the Board but it should come in and then continue out when the rest of the subdivision is done. If it never happens you still have a good road in there and if it does happen then it’s a nice clean flow right through the project.

D. Yanosh: Then you want me to loop this road around Weatherly . . .

A. Dulgarian: I’m not designing it for you, I’m just saying this road where it starts and then

D. Yanosh: From what I’m hearing, if you want it to flow to here all this land back here is worthless. I think it’s too much traffic for that small area. I will look at it again from the traffic standpoint.

G. Lake: I don’t know if you can but try and look at the whole thing as one.

D. Yanosh: We have no soil testing done on the other one.

D. McGoey: He has some wetland issues over there.

G. Luenzmann: After looking at this here, if there ever is a reason to connect Howells to Route 211 and do it coming down this way. It depends if that’s an objective to get the two roads together that might be a better solution. This right here doesn’t flow very well.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: I think he should also check with the Highway Superintendent.

G. Lake: Mr. Dulgarian, do you have anything else?

A. Dulgarian: No.

P. Owen: Nothing.

R. Carr: Nothing.

MOTION to table for further review made by T. Hamilton and seconded by G. Monaco.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES

7. SUSTACK - LOT LINE CHANGE - Turfler/Hickory Place & Sands Road (15-1-5) #008-004

G. Lake: Tell us what you want to do.

D. Yanosh: I’m the surveyor for the property. There are really two pieces of property. I’ve shown the third anyway. Sands Road, Turfler Street, and Hickory Place on the corner. The Sustack’s own the property on Turfler Street and Hickory Place, an existing lot that’s 0.37 acres right next to the Golf Course. The Golf Course is behind them. The lot on Sands Road, Mrs. Moshier owns. There are two tax map parcels. I show the house and the rest of the improvements there. It is a simple lot line change converting an area in the back behind the Sustack’s property which she uses now just to make his lot a little bigger. It will make his lot an acre. It will make this vacant piece of property of Mrs. Moshier from 2.44 to 2.81 acres and still meet the zoning.

G. Lake: I will go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: I have nothing.

P. Owen: Nothing.

R. Carr: Nothing.

G. Luenzmann: Nothing.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: Nothing.

MOTION for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION made by G. Luenzmann and seconded by G. Monaco.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES

G. Lake: Mr. McGoey: Is this a subdivision or a lot line change?

D. McGoey: I would call it a subdivision. Everything is a subdivision.

MOTION for a SUBDIVISION APPROVAL subject to D. McGoey’s comments made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES

8. GORSKY - 6 LOT SUBDIVISION - Scotchtown Collabar Road & Brook Road (20-1-30.21) #079-002

T. Ptak: I represent Nick and Vera Gorsky on the project. We’re here tonight to basically ask the Board to put us on to a Public Hearing. This property is about forty six acres. We were here previously and the Board gave us basically sketch plan approval to proceed with this configuration. It is a six lot subdivision. We show on the agenda seven lot subdivision. It’s now six. It previously was larger. There are two existing houses on the property on lots #1 and #2 and there are four proposed new lots. The new lots are seven acres, six acres, fourteen acres and ten acres.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board. We’re just setting you up for a Public hearing tonight, right?

T. Ptak: Yes.

A. Dulgarian: Nice sized lots but I don’t like the driveways on lot #5 and #6.

G. Lake: In this case look at the whole area out there.

A. Dulgarian: I’m not going to hold them up but . . .

P. Owen: Are they here for Preliminary?

G. Lake: No. Just to set a Public Hearing.

P. Owen: Nothing right now.

R. Carr: What did we, and I usually don’t like flag lots either, but how long are these driveways?

T. Ptak: They’re about, the one for lot #5 is probably about five, maybe six hundred and something feet long.

R. Carr: Is that wooded back there?

T. Ptak: Yes it is wooded.

R. Carr: I do have to say it is a beautiful piece of property.

T. Ptak: We looked at it hard in the initial work sessions and it is quite steep and really other than doing it this way, you wouldn’t be able to use the back part of the property.

R. Carr: I have nothing further.

G. Luenzmann: Nothing.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: Other than answering the comments before the Public Hearing.

D. McGoey: Yes. The site distance has to be certified. I’m not convinced that site distance is correct. You’re going to have to get the Highway Department agreement.

T. Ptak: I spoke to Mr. Lippert today about the project. If you would like, I will discuss it with you briefly. Really he had no exceptions with the proposal. He agreed that, or actually he liked the use of the property in this manner. His comments were primarily concerned with the road grading along Brook Road. We do have a couple of steep banks there. He requested that either we move back or remove the stone walls there which we have agreed to do. He also requested that we put some drainage, some cross drainage on the driveways so we don’t use it as a conduit to put water out onto Brook Road which we worked out the couple of things there. Those are basically what we went over. The other items, I went over the site distances with him. At that time he said he really didn’t see a problem with it.

G. Lake: You don’t have any problems with Dick’s comments?

T. Ptak: No. They are just standard things. We have to go to Eustance & Horowitz. He wants the typical right-of-way grading which I said I discussed it with Mr. Lippert and we actually show compliance with the new Department of Environmental Conservation stormwater regulations but I believe since this is residential and under five acres we only have to do erosion control and not water quality. Pins and monuments, of course. We will show the existing well on lot #2 and the dimension that the driveway be ten feet off the property line. I asked Mr. Lippert about the two flag lots how we could do that because if you have a twenty five foot roadway and you have a driveway that’s twelve or fifteen feet wide, you really can’t keep it ten feet off the property. He said he wants it ten feet apart between the driveways.

G. Lake: Maybe get us a follow-up letter on that for us please.

T. Ptak: I saw his hand written notes.

G. Lake: You will have time. Dick, do you need another work session on this?

D. McGoey: No, not before the Public Hearing.

A. Dulgarian: I have one little comment. On this map you have something I haven’t seen on any other maps and I like it. You have the posted speed and the estimated prevailing speed. We always what it is. It’s nice to see it on the map.

T. Ptak: Quite honestly, Dick wanted it.

A. Dulgarian: He’s been wanting it from everybody but I haven’t seen it on any other maps.

T. Ptak: We try to do one thing right once in a while.

A. Dulgarian: I like that.

MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for May 5, 2004 made by A. Dulgarian and seconded by P. Owen.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES

9. McGOVERN - 4 LOT SUBDIVISION - Lybolt & Brimstone Hill Road (12-1-29.2) #004-004

G. Lake: Tell us what you want to do.

K. Pinkham: I am from the Engineering firm of Kirk Rother, PE. What we would like to do is have a consideration for a Public Hearing. We’ve reduced some of the comments and we feel that we can have everything prepared by the Public Hearing.

G. Lake: Are these all new homes or are there some existing?

K. Pinkham: These are all new homes.

G. Lake: Did you get a chance to go through Dick’s comments?

K. Pinkham: Yes we did.

G. Lake: Do you have them with you?

K. Pinkham: Yes I do.

G. Lake: Do you want to just, or do you have any problems with any of them?

K. Pinkham: Not really. The bulk requirements as far as lot width. We do show the dimensions at the front of the lots. The problem is we don’t occupy the front setback line that would be covered by the dimension line itself. We can move that over to accommodate that. This is actually scaled from the setback.

D. McGoey: The question is do you have the adequate lot width at the building setback?

K. Pinkham: Yes we do. That’s what I just explained. It was actually dimensioned from the two corners out to the lot lines.

D. McGoey: The measures are taken from the building setback, not the required setback but the actual setbacks.

K. Pinkham: At the building?

D. McGoey: Yes.

K. Pinkham: We can review that, surely.

G. Lake: Do you think you’re going to have that on each lot?

K. Pinkham: We can modify it.

D. McGoey: I think the most serious issue here is site distance. There is a hump in the road out there.

K. Pinkham: That will have to be verified.

D. McGoey: It will have to be verified at the prevailing speed. I’ve been out there and the cars really move.

K. Pinkham: You’re definition of prevailing speed?

D. McGoey: Speak with the Highway Superintendent as to what he thinks the prevailing speed is.

K. Pinkham: I will do that. As far as any significant features, we can have a field person go out and determine the trees with a size of over six inches.

A. Dulgarian: We like to have as many saved as possible.

K. Pinkham: Certainly. Site grading, we did not put the site grading on yet until we figured out the lot configuration.

D. McGoey: We need them on for Preliminary.

K. Pinkham: The driveway profiles, we can accommodate that. Invert elevation, of course, that can be supplied and subject to Eustance & Horowitz verification.

G. Lake: Dick, do we have to send out on the Public Hearing for the agricultural district on this?

D. McGoey: I think it is in an agricultural district.

K. Pinkham: We will do the agricultural notices.

G. Lake: We do that at the same time as the Public Hearing. You will need to call to get the proper information.

A. Dulgarian: I have no issues. It sounds like that he’s moving in the right direction and I’m glad he volunteered to check for the old growth trees.

P. Owen: No issues.

R. Carr: Just a question on lot #4. (Not clear).

G. Lake: What might happen or once the wetlands are marked out, we might be asking on lot #4 a note stating no further subdivisions depending upon what it ends up looking like.

K. Pinkham: Yes.

G. Lake: You don’t think this is going to change very much?

K. Pinkham: As far as the lot width and such, it really won’t change much. We have the required frontage on lot #4 so we can pick it up from there. I would have to discuss with the client whether he wants to further subdivide this. It’s not up to me to say.

G. Lake: Okay.

R. Carr: The only other thing is which Mr. McGoey had commented on is to assure that we have minimum disturbance.

K. Pinkham: Certainly, the stone walls, the trees, etc.

R. Carr: I have nothing further.

G. Luenzmann: Nothing else.

G. Monaco: Nothing.

T. Hamilton: Nothing.

G. Lake: Dick, are you going to need another work session?

D. McGoey: No. He just needs to submit the plans in Preliminary form.

K. Pinkham: Certainly.

MOTION to schedule a PUBLIC HEARING for May 5, 2004 made by P. Owen and seconded by G. Luenzmann.

A. Dulgarian: Aye

P. Owen: Aye

R. Carr: Aye

T. Hamilton: Aye

G. Monaco: Aye

G. Luenzmann: Aye

G. Lake: Aye

MOTION CARRIED. 7 AYES

NEXT PAGE