12012009 by zhangyun


									                                  Town of New Scotland
                                    Planning Board
                                       December 1, 2009

Present: Robert Stapf, Chairman, Charles Voss, Robert Smith, Kevin Kroencke, Lorraine
Tuzzolo, Cynthia Elliott, Joanne Davies

Absent: Elizabeth Stewart

Also Present: Louis Neri, Town Attorney, Paul Cantlin, Town Inspector, Keith Menia, Town
Engineer, Peter Barber, Town Attorney

Public Hearing 7:00 p.m.:

Update Subdivision Application #355: Preliminary and final plat for Kensington Woods, a
cluster subdivision submitted by Lansing Engineering on behalf of Garrison Projects, LLC. The
site contains 187+/- acres of land and is comprised of 4 individual parcels which are identified by
town tax i.d. numbers 73.-1-9.11, 73.-1-9.12, 73.-1-9.2 and 73.-3-1.1. Approximately 100+/-
acres lies on the west side of Hilton Road and the remainder is situated on the east side of Hilton
Road. The application is presented as a 169 residential unit “cluster” development with proposed
lots sizes ranging from 15,000 to 40,000 square feet. This application is submitted pursuant to
Article III, Section 164-17 of the subdivision law and as referenced in Article III, Section 190-22
and Article VI of the zoning law.

Mr. Stapf invited Ms. Slevin to explain her subdivision application #355 to the public.

Ms. Slevin: I am counsel for the applicant. Appreciate the time this evening to present the
project once again to this Board and for the public. I wanted to review for the Board sake and the
public sake some of the process that we have gone through to get here this evening. This
particular application was submitted back in October of 2005. Believe it or not we’ve had almost
20 separate meetings between the Town Board and the Planning Board. We had reviewed such
things as the DEIS and the scoping document before that. Various issues that were relevant for
the TB to address for the project to provide an opportunity for the TB to get specific feedback on
the DEIS and the issues that the TB will ultimately have to address in its review of the project.
Similarly we’ve had almost a dozen meetings with the PB over that same period of time. Again,
the purpose of those meetings was to review the scoping document originally and then the DEIS
as it was developed and accepted by this Board. Then the ultimately FEIS and the adoption of a
finding statements back in October. This project, as you know, is a cluster subdivision. It
includes 169 homes on approximately 185 acres of land off of Route 85 and Hilton Road. We
have Scott Lansing of Lansing Engineers will provide more specific details of the project, but this
will provide municipal water and sewer ultimately for the project. Those facilities will be
dedicated to the town after a portion of the development with the project is completed. The
infrastructure will also be dedicated to the town upon completion as well.

Mr. Lansing: I am with Lansing Engineering. We have been working extensively with the PB
and the town designated engineer to come to this point where we have been working extensively
on the project and the Board is very familiar with the project, but for the public I would like to go
over review of the project. The overall parcel is approximately 184.2 acres. Hilton Road bi-sects
the parcels on a few separate areas on Route 85A down the southern portion and Route 155 down
the western area. The parcel is owned MDR class one, which requires a minimum lot area of
22,000 square feet. Minimum building line of a 120-feet. Front yard of 40-feet, side yard of 25-
feet and rear yard of 30-feet. The applicant can take look at the parcel of some previous homes
that were prepared for the project and we decided that the MDR cluster development was a better
utilization of the land providing the variety of housing. What we come up with are 169
residential units. Overall 147 structures with various housing types. There are essentially four
different housing types on the parcel ranging in lot sizes from a minimum 10,000 square feet to a
minimum of 32,000 square feet. They are for the active adult and conditional residential. We are
proposing roadways meandering threw the project to access all the residential structures. These
roadways will ultimately be dedicated to the town. We are proposing some street lights focused
primarily along the main entrance. Also as far as lighting goes as part of the development we are
proposing house lights. Also, at the roadway entrances we are proposing signs. As far as water,
storm and sewer. Public water is proposed on the northwestern portion of the project would have
well head in this location. Water storage tank in this location and water would be distributed
through the entire project. Sanitary sewer is proposed in a public manner as well. There is one
septic in this area that would go to a central pump station. That would be pumped up to an area in
this proximity and the balance of the project would all go gravity to a pump station located here.
From that pump station it would go through a waste water treatment plant and treated and
discharged. Storm water would be managed on site as well. We have a number of storm water
management areas located throughout the project. Storm Water Prevention Plan has been
approved for the project. All of the infrastructure for the project would be dedicated to the town
and all cost for that would be worn by the developers for the construction of that infrastructure.
As far as open space we are proposing approximately 62.07 acres of open space. Overall that is
34% on the project that is well in access of the 10% that is required for the project. As far as
open space areas we do have a passive recreation area in the back portion of the parcel. We have
several HOA open space areas located in this vicinity. We have been working extensively with
the PB and the town designated engineer on any comments. At this time the town engineer is
satisfied with how we addressed all this issues. With that I would like to turn this over to Mr.
Michael for a review of the proposed documents.

Mr. Michael: I would like to thank members of the TB and the PB and the town engineer for all
your diligence in working hard with us on this project and the quality comments as well as the
public that we tried to incorporate into the project to make is truly what the Massulo Group and
the Michaels are trying to accomplish that is a well down class act community that’s planned and
is very sensitive to the area that it is being built as well as the needs of the target market. We see
a strong interest in people that are interested in selling their large homes, you may call them
empty nesters, or active adults that is probably 70% of the target market for the project. People
that have their large homes and the kids have left the nest. This is maintenance free living, full
grounds maintenance, snow removal, but a quality structure, master on the main level, open space
in a nice community where they interact with their neighbors. Provide that with a significant
amount of open space, which Scott says we have 35% dedicated open space and then the
amenities which were very critical. Scott talked a little bit about the bike trail. We are going to
dedicated this area to the Town of New Scotland. We are going to do the improvements to the
Town for the benefit of the town residents, as well as for the people in this project. This will be a
key point for a park or playground area activities, and picnicking and also provide for a potential
access for future bike trail park that has been talked about being proposed along the D&H rail line
at this location right here. The project also has extensive walking trails in this area here. As well
as trail systems on town designated open space in this area that will also be maintained by
Homeowners Association. These types of communities, as Scott mentioned, we have a mixed
product. All the homes are located well off of Hilton Road, so visually there will be a natural
setback that are already in place here on these estate lots and then on this side of the roadway the

first homes don’t start until way beyond the bike trail park. The amenities further include as you
can see a divided boulevard entrance way on both sides. This will be manicured landscaped
instead of just a thru road it is going to have some visual interest. Some limited lighting for street
lighting will be on the initial entry way parts. It will be irrigated and landscaped totally
maintained by Homeowners Association. Along with that we will have background views of the
pond areas and use of the open space. The types of architecture that we envisioned for the project
I would call traditional New England theme. Being from the Town of New Scotland,
Voorheesville, I attended school at Voorheesville. I actually played on Tall Timbers Golf course,
I mentioned this earlier. I am very familiar with the land. Our families have had a long heritage
as well as the Massulos of building homes in the Capital District. Our attention would be to do a
top notch job. Leave a community that everybody would be proud and associated with whether
living here or whether they are in the Town of New Scotland. Thank you!

Mr. Stapf asked if any Board members had any questions.              No questions from the Board
members. Mr. Stapf opened up the meeting to the public.

Mr. Peter Lynch, I am here tonight representing Mr. William Cade, who lives at 195 Hilton Road.
If I may digress for a moment to point out where his house is. It appears on the applicants plan
right here. This is approximately 400-foot away from the location of the water tower. I just
noted for the purpose of this public hearing there is a lot of discussion about the quality and the
types of homes, and that is fine. We are here tonight on behalf of Mr. Cade to talk about the
water tower. You all know because this application has been before you for an extended period
of time on multiple occasions that this water tower while it has been reduced in height from 110-
feet to 90-feet. It has a 10-foot antenna on it. You also all know there has been a visual study
indicating what it would potentially look like. The key thing for this water town what I would
ask you to consider is that when people come into a community and they spend their lives. Bill
and his wife has spent 9-years building that home. They have lived there for three years. This
water tower is going to essentially be in their backyard, literally. When they built their home like
anybody who comes into a community that has zoning in affect you have a right to rely upon the
provisions of the ordinance, and as you well know this ordinance has a height restriction. This
tower exceeds it times two plus. This tower requires a variance from the ZBA, so the first thing
that I would encourage you as a PB to do is not to rush into judgment and I know that may sound
silly given the fact that this has been before you for years, but unless until such time that the ZBA
has made a determination on whether to grant or not the height variance in this case. It is simply
unfair for the applicant to ask you to make a determination of the issue. You know under
SEQRA you have to take a hard look at the environmental impacts that are relevant. Here the
visual impact smacks of relevancy. The tower not only impairs the integrity and value of my
clients home to most immediately impacted, but it is clearly completely out of character with the
rural area that we live in here. Now what are the things that the applicant is required to do is to
make a determination as to whether or not they have truly mitigated the potential impact of this
tower to the fullest extent practicable. When in fact there are engineering means to developed a
water system that would provide not only the water for the residence, but also for fire protection
which would not require any height variance for the applicant to spend the money to put in the
appropriate pumping system. Pump the water up, pump the water down. The fact of the matter is
this tower height, this tower that violates the height restrictions of the town ordinance is
completely and utterly unnecessary. The applicant just indicated that the one of the designs of
this project, one of its goals, was to be sensitive to the areas existing conditions. I submit that the
provision of this tower is not even remotely sensitive, but is in complete disregard of the quality
of this area. You as a PB are being asked to approve a subdivision of great significance. The
intensity of a 169 new homes, new families, on Hilton Road, which is as I’m sure you all know a
very narrow roadway is a separate and distinct issue that really should be taken a look at. I didn’t

hear the applicant proposing any improvements to Hilton Road. So safety concerns become a
pivotal issue. Going back to the tower, which is what is what I think is one of the key
components of this project and is the only one that I know of that actually requires a variance.
Variances should be granted only in those occasions when there is really a true need and when
you really balance out the impacts. The fact of the matter is from a purely engineering point of
view this project can be built with a water tower that does not need a variance. I submit that even
though you have gone through the SEQRA process and Ms. Slevin has advised me that the
finding statement has been adopted. It is not too late to reopen the SEQRA process. It is not to
late to require the developer to go back to the drawing board and redesign that tower from a
engineering view point that does not require a variance. Ladies and gentleman of the Board I
would encourage you not to rush. Set back and wait until the ZBA has made a determination.
You know what the issues are. You’ve all had the opportunity to examine it. You ought to ask
yourselves do we really need this tower here. It is a 90-foot tower on a hill. It is a 90-foot tower
on the highest point of the project. Well you know what this has come to about a 15-story office
building built in a rural setting. It is a high tower that will clearly become an attractive nuisance
to children and it is entirely unnecessary. So ladies and gentleman I would ask you tonight take
the public comment as it is you have no need to vote tonight. There is no rush here. Give
yourselves the benefit of knowing what the ZBA is going to do before you make your
determination, because you know when you make a decision to approve a project like this which
has a tower like that, that is so out of character with the community. You owe it to yourselves as
well as your fellow residence to take a hard, hard look, so that when you do make your decision
you know that you have given it an intellectual honest and objective evaluation of all the facts.
Frankly, once the ZBA makes their determination I think it will be very clear to the Board
members that the granting of the variance is entirely inappropriate. Entirely unnecessary and if
the economics of the project requires the developer to spend a little more money on their design
well then so be it. It is the developer that is coming in with the intent project to make money.
True and everybody understands that. There has to be a balance. If that developer can go back
and redesign that water tower, spend the money to do it, without that variance then this albatross
of, really it is a monstrosity in the landscape, but it is particularly compelling to my client because
it is right in his back yard. Thank you for your time and I would ask you once again wait for the
ZBA to act before you do. I know many times when we have overlapping agencies we have the
ZB and the PB that it is not uncommon for a PB to say to an applicant okay we are going to
approve your project on the condition that you get the variance from the ZBA. I know that is a
methodology that is adopted from time to time, but frankly in this circumstance when you have
the power that is so out of character and is entirely from an engineering point unnecessary I think
you owe yourselves the benefit of first finding out what the ZB is going to do before you act.
Thank you.

Mr. Jim Leonard, I’ve been before the PB before myself. I have been treated very fairly. I have
always been treated fairly. This is a great project. I live on the corner of Hilton Road and Route
85A, so this project does really impact where I am. My concern is the traffic that is on Hilton
Road right now. I mean it’s probably 100 cars an hour when the traffic gets heavy there. Where
the flight path is that’s quite, there is no sight distances there at all. I don’t know how they are
going to do whatever they have to do there, but I haven’t heard anybody talk about the Hilton
Road aspect on this. The other end where Mr. Cade is on his end it is really a dangerous
intersection right now. Nobody has addressed that at all. I would like to see an entrance from
155 where there wouldn’t be this problem. Hilton Road is just a small little road there is going to
be a lot of problems. He said 169 houses this is an average of two cars, that’s what 340 cars that
is going to go onto Hilton Road. I think it is going to be a bottle neck and a dangerous situation.
That is the concerns that I have. I just wanted to air them. Thank you!

Mr. Steve Zimandonis, I live on Hilton Road, I am also curious too what improvements are going
to be made to Hilton Road. It is a town road not a county road. The speed limit is now 40. I
have two young kids who aren’t allowed to go near the end of the road, because the cars go down
there going at least 50. There needs to be definitely some looks at what is going to go on with the
road itself. Also, I’m curious if this project goes through what type of provisions of water and
sewer are going to be made, if this ever goes through, for the people that live on Hilton Road. I
see how everything butts up to Hilton Road. They are putting in their own roads and
infrastructure. It is almost like this project is going in, but nothing is going to be helping anyone
that is living right in the center of this. We don’t have water. I had water delivered this year. If
this project goes through I would like to know what type of provisions are going to be for the
neighbors that have no water. Everyone has dug wells and runs out. I had two deliveries this
year already and that costs a lot of money. I’m curious what the builders is going to do for the
neighbors if this project does go through.

Ms. Susan Otterman and my husband Corey and I actually live on Route 155 and Frank Warners
property is about a football field behind us where the development is going to be. I just have
some questions. I just wanted to thank you for giving us a copy of the notice to come tonight. I
think it is a lovely development and it looks like it is well planned, but I just have some questions.
We have wells. We have underwater springs that feed the wells and we have septic. Has there
been any studies or impact analysis that has been done with the digging and the pump station that
is going in that area. What if my springs run out and I run out of water? Is there any provision or
any recourse that my husband and I have to recoup that because it could certainly impact us. I
know that is generally a concern for us. The second question that I have is that I understand that
your target market it sounds like it’s for the active adults, but you know it could very well be a lot
of kids that end up moving into neighborhood. Has studies been done to make sure that the
school district is prepared to support the additional students. We don’t have kids. Are my school
taxes going to go up in support of that? I don’t know of any analysis was done or any other
studies have been done in that area. The other question I had was about emergency services. I
see especially on my side of Hilton. I see one entry into the development. Is that for emergency
services? Are we properly staffed and resourced in the Town of New Scotland to be able to
support the additional homes? Again, these are just questions. Maybe there has been some
studies done that have proven this, but I would to at least be able to see them. My final comment
I see all the open space but is there any provision to make sure there is not a phase 2 or a phase 3
that ends up building out the remaining property on this lot. Those are my questions and

Ms. Denise Cara, I live next door to the people who just spoke. I’ve been there for thirty years
and the question has to do with, and I agree with the gentleman who spoke earlier about the site
impact of the water tower. To me it looks like a marshmallow on sticks and that is not something
you want to look at. My property is at the back to where this water tower would be. My property
abuts this project. I have an issue with what this is going to look at. Is there a way we can adjust
this so that it is not as tall and the impact is less. I would say that should be done. The last
meeting is the first time I’ve heard about this tower even though my property abuts this property.
The other thing this gentleman talked about the traffic. I’ve been with the ambulance for over 25-
years and I can tell you there is a lot of accidents where Johnson Road, Normanskill Road, and
Hilton Road come out that end. People coming in and out of Guilderland and Voorheesville they
are going 50 miles per hour because they are running back and forth along that straight away.
The people who get hit are the people who are coming off of Hilton Road and the other road
because it goes up higher. You really can’t see there. We need a traffic study I guess.

Mr. Dan Mackay, 454 New Salem South Road, I want to reinforce the call for this process here.
There are variances that are due to be before the New Scotland ZBA I think those issues need to
be addressed first at the Zoning Board and then come back here to the PB. This is one of the
things I’ve tried to emphasize over the past two years in other issues is this process. I think this is
one of those process related issues that the ZB should really have a say on this and other
components of this application prior to the PB making its decision on this and I agree this process
of condition approval is what I think personally we should try to avoid going forward. I want to
note that the D&H rail corridor which is on the south side of this property is in the process, is
intended to be converted to a public rail trail for primarily for pedestrians and bicycle access.
Linking the Village of Voorheesville with the City of Albany. I’m an active user of rail trails in
other parts of the state. I do a lot of cycling. I just want to note that the buffer between the
properties on the southwest side of this property development and the rail may not be appropriate
enough for the eventual public use on that rail trail. I am also presuming at this point there may
be an issue with the cluster subdivision setback requirements from that property line. There was
an issue with the Colonie Country Club. I’d like it not to be an issue with this application.
Perhaps that is another place where a variance is going to be requested from the ZBA. Perhaps
that’s an issue that needs to be addressed there first but should there rail trail actually be funded
and reclaimed for that new use it is going to see a lot of use by local residents as well as residents
from neighboring towns. It is a real economic opportunity and a recreational opportunity for our
town and the region, but I do think the property owners there will want some privacy and some
distance from that public use. A proper and appropriate buffer is not yet in place between the
development and that public use resource. I just want to call that out and ask for the PB opinion
on that.

Mr. Cade, Hilton Road, Mr. Lynch is looking out for our interests. Let me address for one second
Hilton Road. Now the lawyers here are probably aware of the case that I tried that resulted in a
verdict that far exceeds the amount of coverage that this town has. I have handled cases where
the verdict has been $22 million where the road was far, far better than Hilton Road. Your town
attorney or the PB attorney can certainly check the Ketron vs. the Town of Wilton. It is a Federal
court case I tried that verdict came back at $6.25 million. Your town attorney can check Slate vs.
the Town of St. Lawrence. That case was $3.7 million for roads that are better than Hilton Road.
If you folks have driven on Hilton Road, which I’m sure everyone of us has. There is no shoulder
on either side. Telephone poles are within two-feet of the pavement. There is no sight distance
as you are crossing over the railroad. When we have guests coming we’ll have them go the long
way over Krumkill Road and then turn south on Hilton Road in order to avoid the inherent danger
of the old railroad crossing. Hilton Road has to be revamped and if it is going to be revamped the
heavy oar ought to be right here on the developers. I refer you to the town of Bethlehem and
Fischer Boulevard. It was the developer who had to undertake the financial responsibility of
rebuilding Fischer Boulevard to accommodate Fischer Hollow and Cedar Ridge. That was the
Amedore Group who built that. You folks can certainly check the validity of those things I’m
saying now. That which I find rather interesting is that the last time I was here the attorney had
indicated no one other than people in that development will see that water tower. Look at the
photographs the tower sticks out like a sore thumb. Look at the options. The engineer said
gravity is a wonderful thing. Gravity is a wonderful thing for the builder because he doesn’t have
to pay for additional pumps. If the water can pumped to the tower they can maintain that power
or whatever pressure they need which is 2.31 pounds per foot by having a pump there. Lets look
at the development right off Appleblossom. I’m talking about this area here. There is no water
tower there. Lets look at the water tower on Woodhill Road. That doesn’t stand on stilts. It
doesn’t represent an attractive nuisance. Someone pointed out that kids here, kids will climb. If
you look at the proposal you will see that there is nothing but four ladders that these kids can go
up. Therefore who will be the stuckee. I guess I’ve said enough. I would suggest that everyone

get together after this meeting and sign a petition for the ZBA and come out as a group that is the
only way that I know we can defeat the water tower and deal with the problem of the roads.
Thank you very much.

Mr. Dan Mahoney: Are they planning on back feeding the other subdivisions? That is what the
buzz was. That once they actually get this water system in they are going to back feed the one on
Appleblossom, so what I worry about is how many wells and what they are going to do with the
water table, because I have a well. If they end up back feeding existing town lines what is going
to happen to me if my well runs dry basically?

Mr. Cade: There is an additional 132 taps that the town engineer indicated were going to be
placed on this system. Therefore the system is larger. Your comment would be a valid comment
because they are planning on take all of our water and I happen to have a licensed trout hatchery
there. We raise trout and salmon, so I too share your concerns.

Mr. Stapf made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Tuzzolo seconded the motion. In favor
of closing the public hearing: Mr. Smith, Ms. Tuzzolo, Mr. Kroencke, Mr. Stapf, Ms. Davies,
Ms. Elliott. Opposing the closing of the public hearing: Mr. Voss. Motion so approved.

Regular Meeting:

Discussion/Action Minutes for November 10, 2009. Mr. Kroencke made a motion to
accept the November 10, 2009 minutes and Mr. Voss seconded the motion. Ms. Elliott
abstained. All others in favor of the motion.

Mr. Stapf mentioned that Ms. Stewart was unable to attend tonight’s meeting because of
a work emergency. Ms. Davies sat in for Ms. Stewart.

Discussion/Action Subdivision Application #355:

Mr. Stapf asked Mr. Cantlin if he had gotten anything back from Albany County
regarding this application.

Mr. Cantlin: The Albany County recommendations what they have here is to modify
local approval to include and there are a number of these items. Review by the Albany
County Department of Health for water supply, waste water discharge and other required
permits. Review the Albany County Department of Public Works for assessment of
potential impacts to future rail trail. Any wetland disturbances will require notification
and review by the US Army Core of Engineers for permits under Section 44 of the Clean
Water Act. Subdivision plat should include a note that the property being subdivided is
located within 500-feet of a farm operation and county agricultural district as per Albany
County Right to Farm Law 2007. Submission of an agricultural data statement that the
town has required by town law for site plan special use permit variance and subdivision
approval of sites within 500-feet of the farm operation located in an agricultural district
has been done. NOI followed NYS Department Environmental Conservation confirming
the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared, is being implemented for
submission of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that is consistent with the
requirements included in the NYS Department of Environment Conservation SPEDES

general permit for Storm Water Discharges GP008001 April 2, 2008, for construction
activities that disturb more than one-acre of land. Notification to the local fire
department. They have been notified in the past. Final plat should show and include a
note residential lots that border the future Albany County Rail Trail have a 20-foot no cut
no disturb vegetated buffer. The HOA regulations should also note that fact.

Mr. Stapf: The comments that we received tonight are comments we have heard before
in the past. We have discussed them in length in various studies into the Environmental
Impact Statement that was prepared by the applicant and dually adopted by the PB. The
site distance, if there are site issues that are relating to the water tower were reviewed by
the Environmental Impact Statement. Since then the elevation of the tank has been
lowered by at least 20-25 feet. So the impacts are even less than what was in the original
findings of the Environmental Impact Statement that was adopted by the TB. The
reference to the buffer zone and the TB and Colonie Country Club made by Mr. Mackay
was entirely different situation in that case the PB had not properly dually notified the TB
of its actions and the TB did have additional comments after the fact. The TB has already
referred this to the Town PB with no requirements on the buffer zones allowing the PB to
make any determinations on any variances or modifications to the buffer zone
requirement and the TB has on two separate occasions reviewed it without any additional
comments to that buffer zone. There was a traffic study done on the roadways
intersections. There has been mitigating funds that will be submitted by the applicant to
any improvements that the Town Highway Superintendent feels needs to be done on the
roadway system. We have requested the Department of Transportation to allow us to
lower the speed limit on the road to this point they have denied the application. It is the
intent of the town highway superintendent to re-submit that after this application has been
approved to see if we can get that speed limit lowered, but studies have shown that it
meets proper standards with the road way system, which we have already adopted. As
far as Albany County is concerned the applicant has supplied the town with an ag
statement. The other references that the County has made are referenced in a proposed
conditions that we adopted except for the 20-foot buffer zone which we had modified
slightly and that some lots will have a 20-foot buffer zone. It would be an increase from
15-feet. Other lots which are specified out in the conditioned application they will be 15-
feet. With that in mind I believe counsel has reviewed the procedures that we have gone
through and pursuant to town law are you willing to state that we have complied with all
rules and regulations associated with the project?

Mr. Neri: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stapf: We have also gotten approval from the Town Attorney that all documents
have been submitted in a format that is acceptable to the town divisions.

Mr. Barber: There are a number of documents that are going to have to be reviewed and
approved by either the Town Attorney or the TB. They are in the process. In other words
they are not in your jurisdiction to approve anyway, but as part of your condition you
would probably make reference of those additional approvals required by the TB. They

have been reviewed by the Town Attorney and they are generally in an acceptable
format. The TB may still have some modifications to them when the TB reviews them.

Mr. Stapf made a motion that we grant preliminary and final approval to the Kensington
Wood cluster subdivision subject to the following conditions. The PB has the authority
under the cluster subdivision to modify or waive various conditions associated with the
standards that the town has set forth and in doing that I would make a resolution that we
have modified the buffer requirements, we have from 400-foot buffer down to 15-foot
buffers around the project which is noted on the map. They have been discussed at
previous meetings before us. I will also make reference to our surveying monumentation
and requirements and in the conditions there is a reference to modifications of those
procedures for monumentation of the subdivision.

Mr. Barber: Can you also discuss at some point the park fee?

Mr. Stapf: We also have in lieu of park fees we have accepted land to be developed for
park purposes and we have also accepting passive recreational which will be developed
with trails that will be dedicated to the town on that project. There will also be other
passive recreational areas that will be under the HOA in reference to the HOA
documentation. I believe that is all the modifications that we needed to make reference
to. Under Section 164-27 on the final plat we talk about also having the ability to waive
the requirements of a public hearing. We have had a public hearing. It was a joint public
hearing on the final plat which was for clarification purposes. In reference to what I just
said I would make that into a motion for waivers and modifications to the town’s laws
and standards. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. On the question?

Mr. Voss: One quick question. Peter did the TB approve yet the ownership management
of the open space that is dedicated to us as being turned over?

Mr. Barber: The TB with discussion about six months or a year or so ago about
collectively the open space being part owned by the town in the preference for a
homeowners association as opposed to the other four or five types of organizations listed
in there. They wanted an HOA.

Mr. Voss: They had discussions so did they formally approve that?

Mr. Stapf: They did approve it by resolution in reference to the draft. They discussed that
and also at that meeting it was also discussed the transportation corporation and the storm
water management issues.

Mr. Barber: Chuck, also there is a provision in your code that deals with HOA’s and how
they are created and the responsibilities and duties and also any declaration that might set
forth the covenant, the easements, charges, and all that sort of stuff would be approved by
the Town Attorney and the TB.

Mr. Stapf continued with the motion. Are there any other questions in reference to the
motion? None. I will call for a vote. All in favor motion so carried. In reference to
again we have done the environmental studies and we have adopted the final statement of
the Environmental Impact for this action. We have before us right now the preliminary
and final plat approval of this cluster subdivision. I would make the motion that we
approve this Kensington Wood cluster subdivision with the following conditions: The
Town of New Scotland PB adopts the following conditions which shall be performed and
satisfied at no cost to the Town of New Scotland:

   1. All applicable governmental permits and approvals, including, but not limited to,
      by NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, NYS Department of Health
      and Albany County Department of Health.

   2. Compliance with all mitigation measures and conditions set forth in the Statement
      of Findings adopted by the PB on October 6, 2009, which are incorporated herein
      by reference.

   3. Subject to Town approval, the establishment of a water district, and the creation
      of Transportation Corporation for providing water for the development.

   4. Subject to Town approval, the establishment of a sewer district, and the creation
      of Transportation Corporation for providing sewer service for the development.

   5. The submission of, and Town approval, of an agreement for the two
      Transportation Corporations governing the operation, maintenance, and eventual
      transfer of the water and sewer facilities, and related infrastructure to the Town.

   6. All road, water, sewer, and storm water improvements shall be constructed in
      accordance with the approval plans, with all necessary inspections required by the
      Town and other governmental agencies.

   7. A performance bond or other security for any improvements not completed at the
      time of offer of dedication of the improvement, upon terms acceptable to the
      Town Board pursuant to Town Code § 164-47 (F).

   8. The roadways shall be offered for dedication to the Town, free and clear of any
      liens, in accordance with the approved plan upon substantial completion of each
      phase, with only top coat and punch list items remaining to be completed in the
      relevant phase. The acceptance and dedication of roadways shall be in a form
      acceptable to the TB.

   9. The water and sewer facilities shall be offered for dedication to the Town, free
      and clear of any liens, in accordance with the approved plan, upon the earlier of
      issuance of the 50th certificate of occupancy or two years from the issuance of the
      first certificate of occupancy. This deadline may be extended for one-year by the
      TB with the approval of the Albany County Department of Health. The

   acceptance and dedication of water and sewer systems shall be in a form
   acceptable to the Town Board.

10. The well heads for the existing wells adjacent to the Vly Creek and associated
    structures and devices shall be satisfactorily remediated prior to the issuance of
    the first certificate of occupancy.

11. The creation of the operating entity for the storm water management facilities as
    approved by the TB. Town shall approve the agreement governing the
    maintenance and operation of the storm water management facilities.

12. The storm water management shall be offered for dedication to the Town, at no
    cost to the Town, free and clear of any liens, in accordance with the approved
    plan, at any time deemed appropriate by the Town. The acceptance of the storm
    water management system shall be in a form acceptable to the TB.

13. The Bike Trail Park, as shown on the approved plans, shall be offered for
    dedication to the Town upon the earlier of issuance of the 50th certificate of
    occupancy or two years from the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

14. Each walking trail system shall be completed within six months of the dedication
    of the road adjacent to the particular walking trail.

15. Submission and Town approval of any easements required by the final plat.

16. The creation of a Homeowners’ Association (“HOA”) as required by Town Code
    § 190-63, and review and approval of the HOA’s Declaration by the Town

17. An agreement(s), approved by the Town, under which the Developer and the
    HOA are responsible for the maintenance of:

       (a)     Bike Trail Park for a period of two years after dedication of the park to
               the Town.
       (b)     Landscaped area and irrigation facilities within the median of the
               Town’s right of way on Endinburg Court and the cul-d-sacs located on
               Fairfax Boulevard, Tipperary Way, Hazelwood Boulevard, Farleigh
               Court, and Belfield Court;
       (c)     Walking trail system on the final plat;
       (d)     Open space on the final plat;
       (e)     Storm water management facilities; and
       (f)     Well-head protection.

18. Preparation of legal descriptions (metes and bounds) approved by the Town, for
    the following:
        (a)    The lands of the HOA, including lands owned in fee and easements;

        (b)     All roadways, easements for storm water, utilities, park land, open
                space, and other improvements to be dedicated to the Town;
        (c)     All districts to be served by the two Transportation Corporations; and
        (d)     The lands owned by each Transportation Corporation.

19. The mitigation fee of $110,000 for road improvements for Hilton Road and its
    intersections shall be paid by the Developer as follows:
        (a)     prior to the issuance of the 25th certificate of occupancy, the sum of
        (b)     prior to the issuance of the 50th certificate of occupancy, the sum of
        (c)     prior to the issuance of the 75th certificate of occupancy, the sum of
        (d)     prior to the issuance of the 100th certificate of occupancy, the sum of
                $35,000; and
        (e)     any unpaid balance shall accrue interest at the annual rate of 5%
                commencing on the 4th year anniversary of the stamping and signing of
                the final plat by the Building Inspector.

20. The Developer may apply for four building permits for model homes. No
    certificate of occupancy for a model home shall be issued until, in the sole
    discretion of the Building Inspector, the infrastructure for the phase in which the
    respective model home is located is substantially complete.

21. All erosion and sediment control devices installed pursuant to the Storm Water
    Pollution Prevention Plan shall be removed from each lot after soil stabilization
    has been established and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a
    dwelling on the particular lot. The Building Inspector shall have the sole
    discretion to extend this requirement for an additional period of one year.

22. Prior to any ground disturbance, a pre-construction meeting pursuant to Town
    Code § 164-47 (B) is to be scheduled with the Building Department, Town
    Engineer, Highway Superintendent, Developer, and contractors.

23. Permanent reference monuments, with ties recommended by the Town’s
    engineers, and markers set at the beginning and ending of all curves and angle
    points along street lines, at all angle points in rear interior property lines of the
    project, at all rear property intersections where buffer areas exist, and all corner
    lots as shown on the final plat. Markers shall be placed for each of the project
    prior to dedication of infrastructure within that particular phase as approved by
    the PB and Town’s engineers.

24. As-built drawings shall be provided for all improvements pursuant to Town Code
    § 164-49.

25. The final plat shall be amended as follows:

             A 15 foot buffer shall be provided for the following lots
             which are adjacent to the proposed Albany County Rail
             Trail: C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-7, C-8, EX-17, EX-
             16, EX-12, EX-11, EX-10, EX-9, EX-6, and EX-5. The
             remaining 13 lots adjacent to the proposed Albany County
             Rail Trail shall have a 20 foot buffer.

 No accessory structures shall be installed or maintained in a buffer area and all
 buffer areas shall be maintained or supplemented with vegetation for screening or
 general aesthetic effect.

26. All construction demolition material that is buried on site shall be delineated on a
    map and filed with the Town Building Department.

27. Site and individual lot/dwelling shall comply with following requirements:

       (a)      each lot shall have a post light at its front driveway, 911 identification,
                and a mailbox that will be like all others;
       (b)      landscaping of the site is to be accomplished as shown in the landscape
                drawing submitted and approved; and
       (c)      proposed deeds shall make reference to the easements and restrictions
                on the final plat.

28. The final plat shall contain the following notes:

   “Prior to any land disturbance activity taking place, a „Land Development
   Activities Application‟ must be filed with the Building Department for review
   and approval in accordance with Article I, Section 4 of the Town‟s Local
   Law for Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment and Control.”

   “Agricultural operations exist throughout the Town. There are present and
   potential future farm uses adjacent to or in close proximity to this
   subdivision. These uses are protected by the Town‟s Right-to-Farm Law and
   the Albany County Right to Farm Law 2007.”

29. Approval by the Town of New Scotland Zoning Board of Appeals for area
    variance for the height of the water tank if deemed necessary by the Building

30. All fees associated with this development shall be paid as follows:

       (a)      fees for required applications and their associated reviews relative to
                subdivision approval, including, but not limited to, SEQRA review
                fees, applications fees, engineering fees, legal fees, water and sewer

                   district establishment fees, are to be paid in full prior to the stamping
                   and signing of the final plat by the Building Inspector.
           (b)     Infrastructure escrows required for, but not limited to, performance
                   securities, infrastructure inspections, reviews for in-field
                   modifications, shall be paid in a manner consistent with these
                   conditions and a time frame acceptable to the Town Board and set
                   forth a the pre-construction meeting; and
           (c)     Prior to the issuance of building permit for each lot, after the water and
                   sewer facilities have been accepted and dedicated to the Town, the
                   payment of water and sewer “hook-up” fees for the Town’s actual
                   anticipated costs subject to the approval of the TB.

   31. These conditions of approval shall be incorporated on the final plat.

Mr. Smith seconded the motion. On the question?

Ms. Davies: Item #26 which relates to the construction demolition material. I would like
to recommend a change in wording that would read as such any construction demolition
material that is proposed to be disposed of on site shall be approved by the Building
Department and shall be delineated on a map filed with the Building Department prior to

Mr. Stapf: I would amend my motion to make that adoption and modification to #26. Mr.
Smith seconded the motion. No other questions?

Mr. Voss: I have one quick comment. I would like to keep the public hearing open just
until we had heard from the ZBA. Paul when is that meeting scheduled?

Mr. Cantlin: December 22nd.

Mr. Voss: Have we heard from the Chairman as to any minutes from the last session they

Mr. Cantlin: The minutes are in but they are in draft form.

Mr. Voss: I don’t have the benefit of that, so I would like to read those.

Mr. Stapf: I think the comments that I have heard associated with the tower is that the
wording in our recommended condition of approval are that this may be considered
construed as a municipal water tower and therefore would not require a variance by the
ZBA, because of it would be under the TB preview. The TB has already expressed an
interest that this tower be constructed in this manner and since that conversation it has
been mitigated even more by lowering it by 25-feet. That is my comment to you. I don’t
have a direct answer to it. I don’t know what the decision will be I haven’t heard one way
or another. I know they are looking at the color of it. I know they are looking at the
visual impact issue. Again, we have through the environmental impact statement we did

take a hard look at the visual impact of the tower and we did approve the environmental
impact statement. Since that time we have, the applicant has through discussion with
their engineers and our engineers has been deemed that they can lower it an additional
25-feet so the impact as you may guess that was originally approved by this Board with
the environmental impact.

Mr. Voss: We were given almost 60-pages of new information today and I haven’t read
threw any of it. It is all relevant to this subdivision application.

Mr. Stapf: I have given you e-mails on this before and what I did as a courtesy I did
some modifications to the documents, Peter to you want to talk in reference to the
modifications they are more legal in nature.

Mr. Barber: Which are you referring to Chuck?

Mr. Voss: The HOA, the documentation and the maintenance agreement.

Mr. Barber: That stuff is more for your information. That is not something that you have
to approve. That is all for the TB. It is a courtesy to give to you.

Mr. Voss: The fact is though I haven’t read threw it.

Mr. Barber: I just sent it to Bob for him to take a look at it and share with the Board
members, but not because we needed you to read it. In fact, you don’t have an referral
back to the TB anyway on that issue.

Mr. Voss: Well the applicants comments and response to the comments are here, Stantec
comments are in here.

Mr. Barber: Oh, that is something different.

Mr. Stapf: This is on the declaration of easement, maintenance agreement and so on.
The letter from Lansing Engineering.

Mr. Voss: This is 15-pages of material.

Mr. Menia: At the last PB meeting we had made a recommendation to the PB that the
application was complete for public comment. Basically substantially complete set of
plans. The things that Lansing had provided on this last iteration had been really in our
opinion clean up items. Very minor in detail and we received it this morning and we took
a look at the items identified in the Lansing letter and we agreed that they had been
corrected to our satisfaction.

Mr. Stapf: Any other comments.

Mr. Stapf called for a vote on the resolution as stated in this document that the recording
secretary has a copy of it the amendments made to item #26.

All in favor: Mr. Smith, Ms. Tuzzolo, Mr. Kroencke, Mr. Stapf, Ms. Davies, Ms. Elliott
Opposed: Mr. Voss
Motion so carried.

Area Variance Application #429: Application submitted by John Hormovitis on behalf of
Mardee Johns, LLC for relief from the front yard set back of Article II, Section 190-17 of the
Zoning Law. The parcel is located within the “Com” District at 2070 New Scotland Road and is
identified as New Scotland Tax parcel i.d. #84.-1-29. Section 190-17 of the Zoning Law requires
a minimum front setback of 50 feet within the “Com” District. This request is for 15 feet of relief
to allow for a new pavilion to be erected with a front yard setback of 35 feet.

Ms. Elliott made a motion to refer to the ZBA with a favorable response. Mr. Stapf seconded the
motion. All in favor motion so carried.

Variance Application #430: Application submitted by Edwin Snyder for relief from Article III,
Section 190-30F of the Zoning Law and relief from Article 16, Section 280-a of NYS Town Law
to be allowed to re-build a dwelling on a parcel owned by him. The lot is a landlocked parcel
with access to Krumkill Road by an easement over lands of others. The parcel contains .95 acres,
is located within the “MDR” district, and is identified as New Scotland tax parcel i.d.# 63.2-7.
The Zoning Law, Article III, Section 190-30F requires that pre-existing, non-conforming lots
must have a minimum of 15 feet of fee frontage on a public highway. NYS Town Law Article
16, Section 280-a requires a lot to have a minimum of 15 feet of fee frontage on a public street in
order to obtain a building permit.

Mr. Stapf made a motion to refer to the ZBA with a favorable response. Mr. Kroencke seconded
the motion. All in favor motion so carried.

Variance Application #431: Application submitted by Spenser Flansburg for relief from Article
II, Section 190-13 of the Zoning Law to be allowed to reconfigure the boundary line between two
parcels resulting with lot one having a lot width of 130’ and a lot area of 26,000 sq. feet and lot
two having a lot width of 90’ and an area of 18,000 sq. ft. The lots lie within the MDR district
which requires a lot width of 130’ and a total lot area of 30,000 sq. ft. Lot one needs an area
variance of 4,000 sq. ft. for the lot total area, and lot two needs an area variance of 40’ for the lot
width and a total lot area variance of 12,000 sq. ft. The lots are located at 105 and 107 North
Main Street with tax i.d. #61.-3-32 and tax i.d.# 61.-3-33.

Ms. Elliott made a motion to refer to the ZBA with a favorable response and she also requested
that the applicant bring more information on the septic system to the ZBA meeting. Mr.
Kroencke seconded the motion all in favor motion so carried.

Special Use Permit Application #516: Application submitted by Garry Guyette for a Special
Use Permit to allow for the housing and operation of a mobile “food coach” on a site owned by
Mr. Guyette. Article II, Section 190-18(E)(1) requires that a Special Use Permit be obtained to
allow for “commercial and retail uses to service the industrial area”. Mr. Guyette’s site is located
within the industrial district on New Scotland South Road and is identified as tax parcel #84.-1-
44.14. The “food coach” will be mobile to allow for the use to be extended to servicing off site

premises on a temporary basis to cater private or public gatherings or functions as well as
servicing the industrial district in which it is based.

Albany County Health Department approved the food coach.

Mr. Voss: I would like to disclose that Susan is my neighbor. I have a couple of questions.
What are your hours of operation and who are your clientele?

Ms. Guyette: The customers are people who pick up their equipment. They are landscapers.
They come in at 7:00 a.m. for breakfast. The hours would be from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. seven
days a week from March until November. This is in the back of the property on the other side of
the power lines.

Mr. Voss: Tell me about outside events?

Ms. Guyette: We have a bunch of companies that Garry works with and they have a big thing
sometimes on a Friday, Saturday and Sunday we would take it down there for three days.

Mr. Stapf made a motion to schedule a public hearing for January 5, 2010. Ms. Elliott seconded
the motion. All in favor motion so carried. Bring some photos in of the site.

Special Use Permit Application #518: Application submitted by Martin Flansburg to allow for
the placement of more than 100 yards of fill on premises owned by him. The purpose of the
project is to fill a portion of his parcel, up to 3.5 +/- acres, allowing for site grading and for a
septic system to be installed. The parcel consists of 5.8 +/- acres, is located within the
“Residential Hamlet” district at the intersection of Delaware Turnpike and Feura Bush-Unionville
Road in the Hamlet of Unionville and is identified as tax parcel i.d.#95.-3-11.1. This application
for a special Use Permit is submitted pursuant to Chapter 89, Section 89-5 of the Town of New
Scotland Dumps and Dumping Law.

Mr. Flansburg: I am trying to fill in an area so I can get some kind of perk out of it to build or try
to sell the property. Just try to improve the property to make it worthwhile. I have a gentleman
on Hackett Blvd. who can bring in some top soil for me, free, which is nice. He has 20,000 yards.
I would spread it over this area. I would bring up the grade about two and half feet.

Mr. Stapf: I see that you’ve have some SWM processes already done. They are indicated on
your map here. You will be required to file a NOI for the project, which you can do with Paul.
The fill that you are talking about bringing in on your property is all clean fill?

Mr. Flansburg: No, it is all clean fill. We are going to bring in stone too in the entrance and the

Ms. Elliott: The northern part of where you’ve been dumping. I would not exactly call it soil.

Mr. Flansburg: Correct.

Ms. Elliott: What perhaps would you be thinking about that? That’s not the place I would be
doing the perk test.

Mr. Flansburg: No. The pieces of blacktop and the concrete are from the Bethlehem Library. It
was there outpost, the blacktop just happened to appear and that is being taken care of. I didn’t

realize it myself until I saw it. That issue will be addressed, if it needs to be removed, they will
be removing it.

Ms. Elliott: You have three trees there that are marginal at best. I think you killed them already.
They are gone. The other concern I have is the parcel located to the east as you face it on the
right hand side. My concern is that you elevation of your site presently is already probably 4-feet
higher than their site and then as we come down now you are talking 20,000 yards we are going
to raise the elevation of this site. I’m not going to tell you, you shouldn’t because the soil
conditions are poor. To make a useable parcel how are we going to prevent any run off coming
down into their house?

Mr. Flansburg: A silt fence and water out to the front. We have a drainage pipe out there and
culverts. I’ll try to keep it on my property.

Mr. Stapf made a motion to schedule a public hearing for January 5, 2010. Ms. Elliott seconded
the motion. All in favor motion so carried.

UPDATE – Special Use Permit Application #509: Application submitted by Mark DeAngelis
to be allowed to construct a pond on a parcel owned by him located on Font Grove Road and
Pauley Lane. The parcel is situated within the MDR district and is identified as New Scotland tax
parcel #73.-2-13.2. The pond will be primarily be dug in-ground, with little or no berm, and will
have an approximate area of one half acre. The intended use for the pond is to provide drainage
control and prevent excessive soil erosion. This application is a Special Use of Article II, Section
190-13 of the Town of New Scotland Zoning Law.

Ms. Elliott recused herself from this application.

Mr. Stapf: Prior to this we had granted a special use permit for the construction of this pond. In
the construction of the pond there was swale that went down through there and the contractor did
a little bit more than you expected. There needed to be some modifications to what we had done
and we relooked at this situation, because it exceeded what we thought was approved by PB.

Ms. DeAngelis: We have the proposed map and you have copy. What happened once the
construction began that area was covered with brush, so the contractor and we couldn’t actually
see that there was a bit of a swale, so as he went in and started cleaning it he suggested that we do
it the way he had done it. That is how he recommended it, so because he was the professional we
took his recommendation.

Mr. Stapf: There was some issues on the outlet and on the overflow and some issues with the
berm itself. The material that was placed in the berm.

Mr. DeAngelis: They cleared out the brush and took all the big trees, my neighbor wanted to use
them so we took it across the street to use as firewood. The berm was constructed out of clean
clay and soil. That has all been removed also. It is basically clean clay and is seeded. There are
no longer sticks or logs any more.

Mr. Stapf: You also rip-rapped the out flow and cleaned out the out flow so the water could go
out the out flow.

Mr. DeAngelis Yes, the outflow is clean and the water seems to be flowing properly. We will
monitor that.

Mr. Stapf: You didn’t put an emergency spill way in did you?

Mr. DeAngelis: We did not put in an emergency spill way, but if you look at photograph E there
is a large log on the berm. To the right of that we plan on raising up the soil a little bit, the berm
a little bit. To create an emergency overflow. Right now it is full and it is going out the outlet,
but we will address that.

Mr. Cantlin: The concerns we had Bob was the fact that it was suppose to be a totally inground
pond and when we first went there we were kind of afraid of what it was, if you were to walk off
the dam end of that thing it went down so deep in the ravine we considered it that it might be
dam, I’m not sure the true definition of a dam. We are also concerned that we could see a lot of
vegetative roots and sticks and portion of stumps sticking out there, which we know can’t be in
that, so we were just concerned about this. Thought it should come back for PB review. They
had some issues with the first contractor. They did call in someone else. They immediate took
care of the issues that they could take care of.

Mr. Menia: I don’t consider it a dam. It does not appear to meet the classifications. It is an
impoundment with a berm. It does not meet the thresholds by DEC for a dam. The sticks and
twigs are not something you want to put into an impoundment. Get an emergency spill way in
there that is definitely recommended. We can give you a little bit of advice, but your contractor
should know how to do that. There are standards Soil & Water Conservation Services they have
a lot of information regarding pond design. An engineer could tell you how to design it.

Mr. Stapf: The rip-rap needs to go down the slope at least below the bottom elevation of the pond
to the total slope. Both for the outlet culvert, which needs to cleaned out it needs to have rip wrap
all the way down through there. Heavily rip-rapped about the outlet itself to hold the soil back up
in that area there. Then rip-rap down where the water is going to be flowing, because the rip
wrap will slow down the flow of the water. You need to put an emergency spill way over on the
opposite side of the common area there. West of the rock. I would recommend that the common
area be slightly below the existing grade there and just rip-rap it. If you put more fill on top of
that you are just going to create more of a problem there. Just a little bit above that water level
with your emergency spill way to deal with that. Then the same thing rip-rap it down the
embankment on the other side, so that it will not erode, if it does go over. There needs to be a
little bit more rip-rap over by the culvert area. We are talking 35-feet off the center line of the
road. Bucky had an issue if someone was coming down that road and didn’t know what was
going on and it was slippery day or something, someone could end up in that pond very easily.

Mr. Menia: What grading activity occurred between the road and the pond?

Ms. Elliott: The culvert is existing. No change was done. No change is done in the road right of
way that I can see, what I will call 25-foot off. Map number two, if you look at the culvert and
your proceed westerly 180-feet you’ll find a small pipe that has been buried. It is a 6-inch pipe.
That is to close to the road. Bucky could clip it with a plow. That is the one that Bucky is really
concerned about. He wants that cut back farther away from the road.

Mr. Stapf made a motion to amend Special Use Permit #509 to require the applicant to mitigate
the issues that we have been discussing tonight, which is cleaning the outflow out and rip-
rapping the outflow. The creation of an emergency spill way with the appropriate rip wrapping
down the face of the impoundment. Removal of any roots that may be existence in the
impoundment area and modification of the flexible pipe and additional rip wrapping as needed for

the inlet. This is to be reviewed by Mr. Cantlin and deemed necessary to be brought back to the
Board. Install the riprrap during the winter. We would like this done within four months. Ms.
Tuzzolo seconded the motion. All in favor motion so carried.

Workshop – “Guidelines and Standards” – Scheduled to re-start in February 2010.

Respectfully submitted,

Lori Saba


To top