A. Dulgarian: I defer to Mr. Carr.

R. Carr: Usually I don’t have a problem with flag lots. I know the area and I know about this property. I’m not crazy the way the driveways are.

T. Ptak: If you look on lot #2 the distances are two hundred, four hundred. Again, and I think we’ve seen some people like to be secluded.

R. Carr: You know what, in general I have no problems with the way you did that. I just didn’t like the way those two driveways running right there next to each other. That’s just my first impression.

G. Monaco: Not clear.

T. Hamilton: Lots #4 and #5, where do you propose to put any driveways on that without being right on top of each other at that point and what about site distance where you don’t have control over that property to the east on that curve? I know on some of the lots you actually put dashes where you show driveways. These two you didn’t show them especially with your septic systems right there.

T. Ptak: This is an one hundred scale. On lot #4 is sixty four feet wide. The driveway there, I would anticipate is going to come somewhere around the lot line and go into the side of that house. The one for lot #5 would go parallel to the easterly lot line and into the side of the house. So they would be fairly well separated.
T. Hamilton: What about the easterly side?

T. Ptak: Yes.

T. Hamilton: Where does that property actually end? Where does that triangle meet in front of that lot line there. What if they own what they don’t own to even get a driveway there?

It almost looks like it’s landlocked, that piece.

D. McGoey: That’s a question I raised.

T. Ptak: Quite honestly one thing we’re working on right now there is a (not clear) with that adjacent property. The surveyor is working on it. What we have shown here is the conservative lot line. This is the worst case scenario. It may be further to the east but those are items that we would have to work out and yes, I agree with you. The site distances would have to be shown for those.

T. Hamilton: Especially if that lot line isn’t in that property in that triangular area isn’t in your control. How do you tell somebody else that they have to cut down trees on theirs to give you site distance.

T. Ptak: There is a right-of-way or at least twenty five feet there for the Town road but we will look into that line and exactly where the road right-of-way ends, we still have to determine.

G. Lake: Didn’t the Town just do a lot of work out there?

Mr. Gorsky: Yes.

T. Hamilton: Dick, if they surveyed seven lots you mean to tell me they couldn’t pick where that point was when they were surveying on what each owner has.

D. McGoey: Tom says, you still have a problem there trying to figure out.

T. Ptak: There is a survey for the adjacent lot which shows a property line which is further east than the result that our survey shows and the surveyors are trying to work that out. Again, what we’re showing is the conservative property line right now.

G. Lake: I think you got some suggestions tonight and to see what the Board had to say.

T. Ptak: Right.

G. Lake: I think they would like to see an option if you want to keep seven. Maybe without going too crazy show them a couple of options of what you think you could work out even if it is open development instead of flag lots. And then clarify this point that was brought up.
I think you have the feeling of the Board.

T. Ptak: We will certainly do that but . . .

G. Lake: I think when you come back and prove to the Board that these flag lots are the way you have to go or if you look at it a little differently, arrange them a little bit, or if you prove you point out why you can’t do it unless you are prepared to do that right now.

T. Ptak: That’s fair enough.

G. Lake: Maybe another work session.

T. Ptak: We will look at the open area development alternative. I think that ultimately that something close to this is really what we would like to propose because as we discussed at the work session there’s a lot of slope on the property, there’s a lot of wetlands and only a few areas that you can use.

G. Lake: In the meantime, let’s get to another work session.

T. Hamilton: On lot #1 and lot #2 you don’t give us any indication on where the septic is going to go or well but you show them on all the other ones.

T. Ptak: They’re existing.

T. Hamilton: It doesn’t say that.

A. Dulgarian: They should probably be shown.

T. Ptak: I can point to them to you right now if you want. Like I said, this is for sketch. They are existing and they really don’t impact anything at this point.
T. Hamilton: What about the distance between septic systems and wells. We would like to see where they are.

T. Ptak: I understand, no problem.

TABLED for further review.

1. AIDEN ESTATES - 19 LOT SUBDIVISION - Bart Bull Road (31-1-29.4) #081-002

D. Yanosh: I am the surveyor for the project. This is owned by Edie Wright and is located on Bart Bull Road and Interstate 84. This property was formerly zoned in an M-1 zone. It had a zone change from the Town Board in June. We changed it to RA which is contiguous to the land across the street. This property was before you a couple years ago, not too long ago a guy wanted to do recycling on this property and had a lot of public comment about it. Mrs. Wright went to the Town Board and the zone was changed from M-1 to RA. It’s a fifty seven acre piece of land. The proposed nineteen lots, one road going in to a “T”. We have a lot of wetlands on here, Department of Environmental Conservation wetlands. They’re all marked on there. The one hundred foot buffer is on. We would have to a Department of Environmental Conservation permit to cross the wetlands to get back to the back property. Right now most of the land that we’re going to be building on is good. We had a couple of work sessions. Dick has a question about the open area development or a cluster development. We looked at it. We think if it is all open in the middle where we can build because of the wetlands and the buffer, we didn’t feel a cluster development would work out.
The smallest lot would be #18 which is 1.46 acres. The biggest one is lot #19 which is eight acres. A lot of it is because of the wetlands that are in there. Again, this is sketch plan to have the Board look at it for the first time. We’ve done some soils testing out there, random percolation’s, random test pits in the back area. The applicant has requested possibly since this was an area of contention with the neighbors whether it would be possible to have a Preliminary Public Hearing to get the people out early and receive their comments before we go any further with it. I don’t know how the Board would feel about something like that.

G. Lake: It’s up to you. I will poll the Board on that.

A. Dulgarian: I don’t think they want anything there.

T. Hamilton: They didn’t want the re-cycling operation, now this is different.

A. Dulgarian: Is this part of Blue Sky?

D. Yanosh: Oh, he’s way at the end.

G. Lake: I will go through the Board. At the work session we talked about a cluster here. They felt this is what they needed.

R. Carr: It might be better if you had a road that went through..

D. Yanosh: This is all wetlands.

R. Carr: So you can’t.

A. Dulgarian: I don’t have anything.

R. Carr. Nothing.

G. Lake: As I said, this is sketch.

R. Carr: It just seems to me that everything is jammed in there.

G. Lake: We’re not saying he can’t ask for trees or something to help block.

D. Yanosh: The wetlands are right in here. We can’t touch anything for about one hundred twenty feet from Route 84 any way.

G. Monaco: There is a lot of wetlands.

D. Yanosh: We do have a lot of screening from Route 84 and the rest of it.

T. Hamilton: Maybe when you come back, let’s not waste half of the paper on empty space. You have tables here that twice as big as they should be. Maybe if you can show us the lots in a size that we can read without. Everything is crammed in the middle of this page. It’s hard to read it for one thing.

D. Yanosh: True.

T. Hamilton: You have a curve table. What is a curve table?
D. Yanosh: If you look on the plan, you see the road designations.

T. Hamilton: Plus you have all this page taken up with a lot of these items that could probably be smaller. Give us something that we can look at and be able to read without trying to get out my other set of bi-focal glasses to read that small print. I just can’t do it.

D. Yanosh: True. That takes money to make a fifty scale map. I wanted to get the layout worked out first. This is just sketch. The lots are 1.65, 1.7, 1.8. We meet the two hundred foot frontage.

D. McGoey: You have a little too much information. It would be easier to read it to scale if you didn’t have so much information on it.

A. Dulgarian: It’s hard picking out where the wetlands are.

T. Hamilton: Let’s do less lots. I know he got in under the time frame with getting in here before the new zone changes take affect but our zoning also says these are minimum. We don’t have to go with the minimum size. We can ask for a larger size lot.

D. Yanosh: Again, the smallest 1.46 acres. The majority of them are close to the two acre that you were looking for in the beginning. The biggest thing is the layout.

D. McGoey: The “T” intersection should be at ninety degrees.

D. Yanosh: It’s not a thoroughfare but I can make that curve in.

A. Dulgarian: How wide is that?

D. Yanosh: Fifty feet.

A. Dulgarian: Everyone comes in and tries to get as much stuff as they can on their property.

G. Lake: You knew this was changed from M-1 to RA.

T. Hamilton: Putting houses out there I will say yes, the rest of it I will reserve my decision.

TABLED for further review.

2. PARLAPIANO - TWO FAMILY - SITE PLAN/SPECIAL USE PERMIT - Midland Lake Road (24-1-4.2) #105-002

D. Sawransky: My relationship here for the two-family is that I get the other half. We have some comments that Mr. McGoey put together already. There are other houses presently in the area on the street, one of them directly across from our driveway. That was in the paper a couple of months ago for 1.2 million as a legal two-family. One thousand feet further up Midland Lake Road closer towards Kensington there is another two-family. You can see it from the road. We have the driveway permit already in so we could start doing the work. All I’ve done is cleared the brush.

G. Lake: You’re doing fine.

D. Sawransky: The next one would be the septic system is being designed right now. It’s still in the design phase. Ninety percent of the driveway is already in. You can see it’s going through the wetlands. We’re just going to be widening that area with a cul-de-sac and then it’s going to a fifty foot wide for about another one hundred fifty feet going in to where it opens up.

D. McGoey: Just have your Engineer verify the wetland disturbance.

D. Yanosh: These are the wetlands. We’re in to the Department of Environmental Conservation for their permit right now.

D. Sawransky: The application is already in. Everything has been flagged which I think is on that survey.

G. Lake: Let me go through the Board.

A. Dulgarian: I’m not so sure what I’m looking at. I’m looking at a flag lot. What are the dimensions on the proposed two-family house?