G. Lake: And then you have some that are going to be actually one hundred percent bigger.

G. Lithco: Correct.

G. Lake: Do you have that breakdown?

R. Galsworthy: Yes, on sheet #2.

G. Lithco: Sheet #2 shows the lot sizes for each lot as actually proposed. It isn't broken down by percentage but as you can certainly see it exceeds the minimum requirements.

G. Lake: How many lots did you lose through this process? You came in at . . .

R. Galsworthy: Twenty five. I lost two lots.

G. Lake: You lost two lots.

G. Lithco: The final issue I think that was raised or actually there are two more issues. One with respect to a water problem. The drainage from the site will be retained on site. We have detention basins for that purpose to ensure we will not exasperate any existing problems from our site. The second is the setback from Sunglow I believe is, it's not an adjacent property but the setback lines are shown on the plans. We clearly meet the zoning requirements for the setbacks.

G. Lake: Any idea how far Sunglow Terrace is from this project?

G. Lithco: It's not nearly shown on the plan.

G. Lake: Let's go back to the water problem. The gentleman that asked about the water. What is being done is there's retention ponds that they have to build on their properties to retain all their water so no additional water will leave their property to affect your property. Not only do they engineer that out but our Engineer, Mr. McGoey, has checked this probably I hate to think how many times. We've worked on this a long time. Mr. McGoey has checked all their figures to make sure that we don't end up with any new water. That's the key question, new water. You won't end up with new water.

T. Spencer: Thank you.

G. Lake: As far as Sunglow, that's not even on the area map. You are quite a ways away.

G. Lithco: I think it is safe to say there will be no intrusion from these properties. There are a couple of issues that we would like to resolve.

G. Lake: I was going to ask you to go through Mr. McGoey's comments.

G. Lithco: Comment #1 has been addressed. The road specification now included does meet the Town specifications. We understand it is acceptable to the Highway Superintendent through your Engineer and I presume to the Board as well.

G. Lake: Comment #2, there were two related issues. One was the speed analysis. That's been reviewed with the Highway Superintendent and Engineer. The conclusion is that there is an existing speed analysis which is adequate for the purposes of the site distance determinations. The second part with respect to site distance is that the Lutheran Church property presents a bit of a challenge. There are some existing trees on the property that we hope to be able to work with the Lutheran Church to remove, setback and replace so that the site distance will be maintained. The alternative that we discussed with the Highway Superintendent is basically restricting our movements to right turn only which I understand will be acceptable. What we would propose to do is make a Preliminary Approval subject to one of those two solutions being resolved by final.

G. Lake: That is probably one of the issues you will have to get with Mr. McGoey on.

D. McGoey: I haven't seen the site distance for twenty three miles an hour yet. No one has given that to me.

G. Lithco: We will resolve that by the next meeting. The comments from the Fire Department have been addressed. I believe the size of the cul-de-sac and road width we've addressed those concerns.

T. Hamilton: Dick, do we have anything saying that?

D. McGoey: No, not unless Carol got something recently.

G. Lithco: If I may, the only two issues were road width and the provision of the additional hydrant. That is shown on the plan.

G. Lake: You are down to item #3?

G. Lithco: Yes.

G. Lake: I think we've agreed with the Fire Department on that.

G. Lithco: Comment #4 concerns the wetlands delineation for Army Corps of Wetlands. That delineation has been provided to the Army Corps. We expect that with the nature of time, probably some time in June they will be able to confirm that but we do not believe there is going to be any problems. Comment #5 concerns the easements for the retention basins and the ownership of that and what we have proposed is that there will be easements to the two gravel roads which will provide the access to the easement and there will be a drainage district established which will maintain those basins.

G. Lake: So, those drainage ponds easements . . .

D. McGoey: I've asked the Attorney to see if that's acceptable.

G. Barone: I had a conversation this afternoon with Mr. Lithco's colleague Larry Wolinsky and he assured me that he would look into this in the next week or two to provide us with title insurance, to verify ownership, the language of the agreement.

G. Lake: And, the drainage district being paid by them.

G. Barone: Correct.

T. Hamilton: Can we get notes, Dick, on each lot saying that they are in the drainage district.

D. McGoey: It's a general note on the plan.

T. Hamilton: When people buy lots they don't always see the whole plan. Sometimes we try to get a small note on each particular lot so when you buy the note is there.

D. McGoey: We need a note that talks about the drainage district, lighting district, water district, sewer district.

T. Hamilton: This drainage district is fairly new. A lot of people will be taken by surprise.

G. Lithco: Comment #6 refers to the road cross section which I understand has been reviewed by Mr. Patenaude and meets the Town's specifications. Comment #7 is something we would like to discuss. The requirement for sidewalks in the project. Based on the conditions in the surrounding area as well as along Silver Lake Scotchtown Road, there are no sidewalks and there are not any in surrounding subdivisions. It seems rather pointless at this point to be requiring them here. We would respectfully request that it be waived which I understand has been the Board's practice in some recent subdivisions as well.

G. Lake: We have been asking for sidewalks in certain areas just to hopefully connect them eventually some day. I was always hoping that the Town would create a sidewalk district.

T. Hamilton: On that item, Mr. Valentine please be aware that in previous years in the beginning we were requesting sidewalks through different Town Boards and had given us their opinion that they were having problems with maintenance of sidewalks and so forth. That is where we were backing off on the sidewalks. It is something we didn't bring up ourselves. It was forwarded to us by different Town Boards that have been before us. If there is some kind of change that the new Board is looking to do, please let us know so we would know how to act on other applications when they come in.

E. Valentine: The previous Board, I don't remember us having that. It may have been before that but I know the previous Board we were for sidewalks because of safety and the comments on and on. The development over by Woodstock Lane has sidewalks. You can see the difference in.

G. Lake: You are one hundred percent right on that. I still would like the Town to create a sidewalk district and do the whole district. I think it would be nice.

E. Valentine: It's a big plus for that type of area. It is just obvious to do it right than just keep doing it wrong.

A. Dulgarian: Came in at this time.

P. Owen: I don't have anything else except I just don't think sidewalks fits in that area. I would like to see them not go in.

R. Carr: I want sidewalks.

G. Luenzmann: Yes.

G. Monaco: I would like sidewalks.

T. Hamilton: Yes.

G. Lithco: May I make a request. There is a cul-de-sac which means there's going to be traffic coming in and out.

A. Dulgarian: I would like sidewalks.

G. Lake: I think if we're going to do them we aught to do them.

R. Carr: It reduces the Town maintenance by half.

D. McGoey: The Town doesn't maintain the area of the property line.

G. Lake: We have neighborhoods that have sidewalks on both sides of the street.

G. Lithco: If we could we will take a look and see if we can come up with a suitable arrangement.

G. Lake: You have another meeting. You know the feeling of the Board right now.

R. Carr: I thought this common drainage was draining off and across other property. Is that how it's being drained?

D. McGoey: The drainage is. . .

R. Carr: That drainage ends up where? It comes up behind Rockwood Gardens.

D. McGoey: Correct.

R. Carr: And how does it get out of there?

D. McGoey: It crosses Fortune Road in a Town culvert.

R. Carr: It ends in a Town culvert.

G. Lake: They worked pretty hard.

R. Carr: Walking this property I thought it was a major thing. It's way up on top by the church is wet. Who is responsible for the retention ponds?

D. McGoey: It would be a Town, part of the drainage easement and the property owners will take . . .

G. Lake: What happens is that the Highway Superintendent will set the figure on that and then the crews from the Town will go in and maintain it.

R. Carr: So these detention ponds are in the back yards here but the Town goes in and mows?

G. Lake: They will have the right-of-way to get into them and everything.

R. Carr: I guess I haven't seen it where it is so much in the people's back yards.

A. Dulgarian: Where are the wetlands on this map?

R. Galsworthy: It is on sheet #2.

G. Luenzmann: I would like to pick up on the detention ponds in people's back yards. How deep are they going to get? Is there a safety factor? Where is the easement? I don't see the easement on this drawing right here.

R. Galsworthy: Sheet #2 shows the easement. Sheet #3 shows the roadways down through it.

G. Luenzmann: Can you point it out to me? How deep do you expect the water to get back there?

R. Galsworthy: During a peak storm they would fill up and then drain out but there's a low flow drainage.

G. Lake: Dick, let's explain to everybody how the detention ponds work and where it's going?

D. McGoey: All the storm water flows from the stream and the yards go down into the detention basins. Two detention basins are connected. It's piped out of the last detention basin down to the Town storm drainage system in the end of Greenway Terrace. It's discharged into that storm drainage system and then there is a closed pipe system existing which goes behind the apartments out to Fortune Road.

G. Luenzmann: What would be the depth of the water we would see back there?

D. McGoey: The ponds are from the top of the berm eight feet in one location and six feet in the other location.

G. Luenzmann: How high?

D. McGoey: The water will not stay in the ponds. The water will dissipate from the ponds over the period of the storm. There won't be any standing water in the ponds.

G. Luenzmann: Is this accepted practice to do this, put it in the back yard? Also, these are all townhouses back here, correct?

D. McGoey: Right.

G. Luenzmann: What's the affect of this development on those townhouses in terms of water?

G. Lake: The Public Hearing has been closed.

Unidentified Individual: I live right there where they're talking about.

G. Luenzmann: What kind of screening do you have between the two developments?

D. McGoey: Right now there is a fence along there.

G. Luenzmann: One single contiguous fence or does each townhouse have a fence?

D. McGoey: I can't tell you that.

R. Carr: Each townhouse has their own fence.

G. Luenzmann: I'm concerned about the detention ponds in back yards especially at that depth if you have a flash storm you are going to have a lot of water. Also the wetlands and I was going to ask you Dick about the wetlands that go into the foundation of the homes. Is there a problem with that? Some of these wetlands go straight through foundations.

D. McGoey: They will be filling those wetlands.

G. Luenzmann: I understand they are going to have to mitigate that but do we have a problem with that?

D. McGoey: Not really. It's a low lying area. It's not seriously wet in terms of standing water. It is vegetation more than it is water.

G. Luenzmann: I kind of think they are squeezing in a project. The lot sizes are fine with me. I don't see a problem with that but they are squeezing in a project that's going to generate a lot of water and the way it is being taken care of in the back yard of these homes here it just doesn't seem to be appropriate to me.

G. Lake: This was approved ten or twelve years ago.

G. Luenzmann: I'm just telling you what I think.

G. Lake: I'm just telling you that we have reduced it. They have reduced it to solve these problems.

R. Carr: The houses around here Dick, they drain into the . . .

D. McGoey: The street. It all goes down into those detention basins.

R. Carr: Even from the high side?

D. McGoey: Yes.

G. Monaco: Not only do I see the wetlands hazard here or the water issue. You also said this was approved ten years ago. Ten years ago we didn't have a breeding ground.

G. Lake: They don't stay wet. Detention ponds do not keep water. All the water from this property is going to be controlled on their property and let out into a catch basin out into the local streams and not go down the hill.

G. Monaco: I understand what you are saying but looking at the delineation of the wetlands it doesn't really make sense to me perhaps.

G. Lake: I'm just telling you how the detention pond works.

T. Hamilton: What I'm looking at right now, is one detention pond right now crosses four separate lots, Dick?

D. McGoey: Yes.

T. Hamilton: We've had other developments where we've made these detention ponds on one lot by itself so that we don't have detention ponds in peoples back yards where we have a problem later trying to get in to maintain and going in someone's back yard. We've made them isolate the detention ponds in one particular lot.

D. McGoey: Right.

T. Hamilton: We don't normally have it stretched between three houses through their lots.

D. McGoey: That was one of the questions I asked the Attorney for the Board to research as to whether easements are sufficient or whether we should require the detention ponds be on their own parcel.

T. Hamilton: I know developments like this, they are either going to have to put fences up to separate one yard from the other.

D. McGoey: We had that problem in Hickory Village.

Continue