Loading...
2007-01-16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 47-2006 Hanson Ventures 1. Tax Map No. 296.16-1-16.11 Subdivision No. 27-2005 Shirley Harvey 8. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 301.17-1-3.1, 3.2 Subdivision No. 18-2006 Larry Clute 21. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.14-1-21 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 14-2006 William & Deborah O’Reilly 24. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 265.-1-73 Site Plan No. 67-2005 Jeff Schwartz 40. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 Subdivision No. 1-2007 Cerrone Builders, Kathryn Kennah, 43. SKETCH PLAN William Joslyn, & Cynthia Bishop Tax Map No. 315.5-1-1; 315.-1-1 Subdivision No. 2-2007 Frank Jelley 53. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 279.19-1-4 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY TANYA BRUNO DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MOTION TO NOMINATE THOMAS SEGULJIC FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD AND GRETCHEN STEFFAN FOR SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD, Introduced by Thomas Ford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 2006 AND NOVEMBER 28, 2006 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by Tanya Bruno who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2006 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HANSON VENTURES AGENT(S) RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL MODERATE LOCATION BAY RD. ADJACENT TO STEWART’S APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5,400 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL DELI FACILITY WITH FUTURE OFFICE SPACE. RESTAURANT USES IN THE HC-MOD ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE PZ 1-05, MR. BAKER- 17-04, SP 65-98, SB 12-98, SB 12-98, AV 3-99, SB 14-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING 11/8/06 LOT SIZE 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-16.11 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper and Ethan Hall. This, as you’ll remember, is for a new deli to go next to Stewarts, as the first lot to be developed on the Dreps subdivision on the east side of Bay Road. We were here at the November meeting which we thought was a very positive meeting. The Board was very supportive of the project, and we had to respond to a C.T. Male engineering letter that we had just received a couple of days before that meeting. So we made that submittal to get on this agenda, and what happened subsequently is that the Town Board replaced C.T. Male. So there’s a new Town engineer, and we got sort a different set of comments. We were expecting our signoff from C.T. Male, and we got sort of a new set of eyes and a bunch of other things that were raised by the new engineer, and I guess that’s kind of our third go at it from engineering on a pretty simple project, and I’m not being critical, because it’s just understandable that there’s a new engineer, but what we’re hoping is that the 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) Board may find it appropriate tonight to give us an approval of the site plan conditioned upon a signoff from the engineer, just because we’re at that stage where we have a new engineering letter review the issues as all fairly technical, and we’re here to go through it with you and hopefully we can make you comfortable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I’ll open it up for questions from members of the Board. I don’t know who would like to go first. MR. FORD-Is there a formal presentation that will be made? MR. HALL-I didn’t, if you’d like, I can spend a couple of minutes going down through the response letter, I don’t know, did you get copies of the response letter to the engineering comments? MR. HUNSINGER-The latest correspondence we have is from the new Town engineer th dated January 9. MR. HALL-Yes. We formulated a response to those comments and given those back. I apologize. Carl Schoder, the civil engineer who was here with us last time, is not here. He’s in the Bahamas on a boat right now. So, I can go through the comments that were raised by Dan Ryan and we can give you our response to those. Basically, the first couple of issues dealt with the stormwater management report. The first one refers to Appendix D and the fact that he was not provided with that. I’m not sure why he didn’t get a copy of it. It was in part of the stormwater management report. Basically what he’s referring to is a copy of the letter from Warren County Department of Public Works that was all part of the stormwater management report where George Van Dusen, the assistant engineer for Warren County DPW accepts where we’re tying our overflow from our detention basin into the stormwater out on Bay Road. So that’s what Appendix D refers to. I’m not sure, that was all provided as part of the stormwater management report. I’m not sure why, why Dan didn’t get a copy of it, but I have additional copies here that we can give that back with those things. The next couple of items were just kind of technical items. The detail that’s on one of the drawings showing the handicap parking spaces denotes the handicap spaces as being eight feet wide and the unloading area as being eight feet wide. Obviously that’s just a technical error. The parking space itself is nine feet, on the site plan it is nine feet. I went back and double checked that. So that’s just a matter of updating that detail. There was a question regarding the future, the accessible parking and its location to what we’re terming to be future office space, and one of the questions from Dan Ryan was that maybe we shouldn’t think about moving the parking spaces. The future expansion that we have noted is 1,000 square feet, and that is going to be strictly ancillary space to the deli itself. It wouldn’t necessarily be for public people to come in. We would rather leave the parking spaces for the handicaps up near the front main entry to the building, rather than move them farther away from the front entrance. So I think where we have them shown is the best place on the lot for them to be. If we move them, they’re going to be farther away from the main entrance. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-I thought that made sense. MR. HALL-The next one is just kind of a housekeeping measure. He’s saying that the zoning calls for a 75 foot travel buffer on Bay Road. The building is set at 76 feet. We know obviously there’s that. It is in an HC Moderate zone, which the front yard setback is 50 feet. So that’s what’s listed as 50 feet. We know we have the Bay Road overlay, and we’ll just update that on the card. The future expansion space is mentioned again, regarding consideration for underground utilities, again, this is strictly ancillary space that will be as the deli grows or as they need additional office space for the deli or bookkeeping or whatever they can expand into that. We’ve taken that into account when we’re sizing the water mains and the sewer and everything else that’s coming in to the building. We won’t need separate services. The next comment is regarding some stormwater coming off from the small storage building at the back of the site. Down at the very bottom of the site there’s a little 400 square foot storage garage in the back. Any of the stormwater that comes off of that has been accounted for in the stormwater management report. We don’t necessarily, that’s going to come off onto the ground and it’s just going to get accepted into the stormwater detention area that’s in the back. MR. FORD-Remind us of what kind of a roof that is, would you, please. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. HALL-It’s just a gentle pitched roof. That’s going to be just a little tiny garage back there. It’s 400 feet. It’ll have a very shallow pitch to it. Just enough to put in snow blowers, snow removal equipment, tractors to mow the lawns and that kind of stuff. It’s an unheated building. It’s just an Alaskan slab frost wall type building. It won’t even have any heat in it. So we don’t expect there to be a ton of runoff from that. The next comment regards clean outs for the French drains along the eaves line of the main building and that’s a simple, we can add that without any problem at all. The next comments start to get into some technical issues regarding the stormwater and the detention basins. The first one is in regards to we added a catch basin at the main entry drive. That was one of the comments from C.T. Male, one of the original comments that they were wondering what’s happening with the water right there at the main entry drive. We want back and took a look at that and decided that while we had enough pitch and everything was going to travel to our main detention basin up front, that we would add a catch basin so that we wouldn’t have any problems with anything flowing over onto the Stewarts property. So they added on single catch basin. The outlet of that catch basin comes into the detention basin up at the front of the property and it has a flared in section at the bottom of it and what Mr. Ryan’s asking for is to denote some rock riprap at the end of that to slow the water down and for that turbidity. We already have that at the bottom of that detention basin. So where this outlets, it’s going to outlet onto rock and a flared in section, and there’s going to be very minimal flow rate going through that catch basin. So we don’t feel that’s a huge deal. The next item is in regards to the placement of the trees. The placement of the trees, what Mr. Ryan is saying is that it appears to be along the top of the embankment. They are, in fact, right along the top of the embankment. The three street trees out on Bay Road, they’re right on top of the bank for the detention basin. They’ll be right along the top edge of it. So it’s not like they’re going to be in the bottom of the detention basin or anything. The next comment we get back to the lighting that we had discussed with the Planning Board the last time. Both Mr. Ryan and C.T. Male are saying that they feel that there’s not enough light being provided. We’re providing one foot candle in all the places that we need to have lighting, and I’ll go back to the statement that I made last time that right next door is the ATM for the bank that has six or eight probably 400 watt metal halide lights that are shining on that. As I drove by on my way in tonight, there’s enough light shining off from there right now that I would walk through that I would walk through that lot without any additional lights on it. We are adding enough light to the project. I don’t feel that we need to get, there’s enough light pollution down there that we don’t need to get very much more. The next comment refers to, what Mr. Ryan is saying is he feels that the construction sequence for the stormwater management plan was a little unclear in his mind, and he’s questioning why we’re not utilizing the detention basin at the front of the site as a temporary stormwater management control measure. As Carl discussed when we were here last time, the main flow on the site now is from Bay Road side towards the back of the site, and it’s our intention that that be maintained during construction, so that stormwater, any rain that we get during construction, still continues to flow towards the east, towards the back of the site. That will allow us to build the permanent stormwater management detention basin at the front of the site, and any rainwater or anything that comes down during construction still gets diverted to the back where we have our temporary stormwater detention basin in the back, and that way everything is still running towards the back of the site and then the permanent one will be installed up front. The problem with trying to use that as a temporary stormwater measure is if it gets full of silt during construction then we’re going to have to go in and dig it all back out at the end, and its overflow goes directly, any overflow from that, goes directly out onto Bay Road or would wind up in that stormwater system along Bay Road and eventually wind up in Halfway Brook. So we’re trying to avoid doing that intentionally, and I think that Carl formulated an answer that basically does what I just said in his response back to Mr. Ryan. MR. HUNSINGER-Just refresh my memory. Are you bringing in any fill? MR. HALL-There’s going to be approximately three to four feet of fill on this site. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought. So what you’ve just described really kind of makes sense, because you’re going to allow it to go from the front to the rear and then as you build up this site, then it will begin to reverse and use the, okay. MR. HALL-Correct, and as it goes along, we want to build that permanent stormwater basin out front as one of the first things that gets done. So we start bringing in fill and we bring that up and we put all the stone in that we need and the overflow basin and the whole nine yards, and get it seeded. That way we can start to get grass established on it, so that if we do get some stormwater that runs in there during construction, It’ll have a chance to get filtered out, and then as work progresses towards the back of the site, all 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) the stormwater will continue to go towards the back and into our temporary stormwater measure. Once we’ve got the permanent one done, we’ll take the temporary one out, and the permanent one will become the stormwater detention basin for the whole site. The diversion swale, one of the questions that Mr. Ryan asks is shouldn’t there be some check dams along the diversion swale along, I believe he’s saying the west, the south portion of the site. The diversion swale that he’s talking about is coming down the sides of the site to our detention basin, our temporary detention basin in the back. The pitch of that is so shallow that rock check dams really aren’t going to, there’s not enough height, there won’t be enough flow in there to put those check dams in. We did that on purpose. We’re putting a staked nylon mesh in the bottom of that to slow the flow of that site down, which is basically the same thing that the check dams will do. So we’ve kind of taken that into account, but just a different measure. We’re using the nylon mesh at the bottom as opposed to rock check dams. MR. FORD-Well, that has to do more with absorption rather than flow? MR. HALL-Right, and it’s a very shallow trench that’s running down the sides. We’re not going to get a lot of flow from that anyway, and again, as we’re bringing in fill, that gets filled in as it goes along down through. The next question regarding the temporary swale along the property line going to the sediment trap, we do have that going to that. There was just a little question on the stormwater management plan as to a direction of an arrow for the flow. Everything is going to the back as we had stated before. There was a question regarding stone in a detail that we clarified. We do have a one foot thick layer of Number Two Stone is added to the upstream detail of the outlet. It’s just basically if that temporary stormwater management, if that fills up with water, as it runs over the outlet over the top has a big stone cover over the top. So as it runs out, the particles filter out as it goes over, and the last question that Dan had was regarding site constraints and the stockpile area. We do have that listed on Drawing C-5. I’m not sure why, I think he just missed where we had that indicated, and I believe that answers all of Mr. Ryan’s questions. MR. HUNSINGER-So have you actually formally responded to his comments? th MR. HALL-Yes. This was sent to Craig Brown on the 11 of January, two days after that. Do you know if these comments went back to Dan yet, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-I don’t know if they went back to Dan yet. MR. HALL-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-I know that the Board hasn’t received them. MR. SEGULJIC-Personally I don’t think there’s anything substantial in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add? MR. HALL-No, that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, if I could. Could you explain to me how the access and egress is going to work from Bay Road, along Stewarts? MR. HALL-Sure. Basically we have to maintain the driveway, as we discussed before, part of this lot, when it was part of the original subdivision, required that we share an ingress/egress with Stewarts. Currently, this is the ingress and egress that we’re talking about. We are actually widening this ingress/egress by eight feet. We’re adding eight feet to it. So there will be one in lane and two out lanes. One will be a left turn lane and one will be a right turn lane, so that a couple of cars can stack there on their way out and we share that. So this is the area right there in question. Our traffic will come out of the site, and there’s a yield sign in this general location, and this is the out from the bank, and traffic will merge here and make either a left or a right on Bay Road. MR. SEGULJIC-So on to the new site, if I can call it that, this road is going to serve as an ingress and an egress? MR. HALL-Correct. It already does. It serves as an ingress and an egress for the Stewarts lot, and it was a requirement that we share that same drive, that same shared 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) lot. Actually part of the existing driveway, the ingress coming in to Stewarts, is on this property. The property line corner is right kind of in the center of that driveway. MR. FORD-How are you intending to differentiate between the two outgoing and the one incoming? MR. HALL-We’re going to put stripes on the pavement. MR. FORD-That’s it. Arrows or something? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes, okay. MR. HALL-I don’t think that putting an island in there would be beneficial. It’s just going to get smashed up if and when we ever get any snow. MR. SIPP-Where is the sign being moved to? MR. HALL-On the plan that you have is the new location for it. We moved it about 15 feet north. The question that we got from C.T. Male was it looked like the sign was right over the top of the sewer line. MR. SIPP-Right. MR. HALL-It was close. It wasn’t directly on top of it, but we moved it about 15 feet north towards Adirondack Community College, towards the offices here. It will be a ground mounted sign. MR. SIPP-Planter? MR. HALL-Planter underneath it, yes. The intention, we’re using some stone around the building as we had talked about last time. The intention would be that there’s more than likely going to be a couple of pillars and some stone around the bottom with the sign sitting in that, and then ground plantings underneath it. MR. SEGULJIC-On the lighting plan, you’ll note that there’s six bollard lights I believe. MR. HALL-Bollard lights. MR. SEGULJIC-Where are those going to be located, along the sidewalk? MR. HALL-We’ve basically got a sidewalk along the front up here, and there are three lights, there are three bollard type lights along that sidewalk. Those bollards are, they’re about three and a half or four feet high. The light is in the top and it has a cone that shines down onto the ground only. All we’re doing is providing lighting along that sidewalk. It’s an emergency exit from the deli out to the parking lot. So we’re providing those there, and then there’s a couple of more along the sidewalk as you come down that are not bollard lights. They’re recessed up underneath the canopies that’ll shine down onto the sidewalks. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and my last question is, I think you’ve done this. You showed us renderings before, if I recall, correct? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And we saw the color scheme, I believe. Okay. All right. I’m all set, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have questions? MR. SIPP-Now, that’s the view from looking at the south side? MR. HALL-This is the west elevation. This will be the elevation that faces Bay Road. MR. FORD-And we have specifics as far as coloration and materials and all of the rest of that, so there won’t be any question in the future as to whether there’s compliance as to what has been approved, assuming approval? 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. HALL-Yes. All of the material types are denoted on the drawing and the colors are as we’re presenting them tonight. MR. FORD-But there is a specific name for those colors? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. FORD-And a manufacturer of the materials or paint or whatever? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. I just want us to have to revisit this issue. MR. HALL-There was one question, I believe, that came up at the last meeting about adding an additional tree, which we’ve done. We added a tree right here by the Stewarts dumpster, along that property line. There was also a question regarding, that came from C.T. Male, regarding a barrier of some sort to keep cars from rolling off from the property down over towards the edge. We’ve added a pressure treated wooden guardrail fence all along that property line. So that no one can drive over the edge and head down over that way. MRS. BRUNO-Did we discuss at the last meeting, something in my memory tells me that we were saying that there were arborvitaes on Stewarts side of the property over there? MR. HALL-Yes, well, right around their dumpster, they’ve got a couple of arborvitae there. Our dumpster’s down here on the bottom and we’re doing the same thing. We’ve got a wrap of arborvitae around there. We also have, the generator and the AC unit are along the outside of the building, and we’ve got some arborvitae around those as well, just as screens to kind of cover them up a little bit. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? Okay. We do have a public hearing that was opened at the last meeting, and was held open. Is there anyone here from the public that had comments to make for or against this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Hearing none, are we ready to move forward on SEQRA? It was a Short Form. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 47-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: HANSON VENTURES, WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I actually meant to say, before we did the SEQRA, that I would close the public hearing. Therefore, if there was anyone in the public, I’d give them the one last opportunity to make a comment. If there are none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-There is a question. Do we want to ask for a letter of credit or any of that, as the motion calls for? MRS. BRUNO-I liked the idea of the lighting plan being available to the future developers in the other parcels. MR. HALL-Yes, they’ve already gotten a copy of it. Yes, we’ve given them copies of all of our stuff. MRS. BRUNO-Great. Okay. I didn’t realize they were that quickly down the. MR. HALL-Yes, they’re a little ways down the, I think they’re a little ways down the pike. MR. LAPPER-We actually already applied for a typical parking variance these days for extra spaces. So it’s already pending before the Zoning Board. Adirondack Cardiology. MRS. BRUNO-All right. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-I see no need for a letter of credit, personally. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-So the only condition is that we’re looking for a Vision Engineering signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2006 HANSON VENTURES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes a 5,400 sq. ft. Commercial Deli Facility with future office space. Restaurant Uses in the HC-Mod zone require review by the Planning Board. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and scheduled for 11/28/06; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) 4. WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. WHEREAS, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection, and 7. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt, and 8. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 47-2006 HANSON VENTURES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. Paragraph Four complies. 2. Paragraph Five, negative, 3. Paragraph Eight, we will not be looking for a letter of credit, 4. This application is approved with the condition that they will get a signoff by the Town of Queensbury engineering consultants Vision Engineering, LLC. th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you very much. SUBDIVISION NO. 27-2005 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED SHIRLEY HARVEY OWNER(S): S. HARVEY/LARRY CLUTE ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 489 WEST MT. ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO UTILIZE INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS TO EACH LOT. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SUBDIVISIONS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE AV 50-2006 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.26 AC., 1.0 AC. TAX MAP NO. 301.17-1-3.1, 3.2 SECTION A-183 LARRY CLUTE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question for members of the Board. In the past we have asked Staff to summarize Staff notes. Do members have a feeling one way or another about that? MRS. STEFFAN-I think that that’s a very positive thing to do for the public. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Susan, if you could summarize Staff notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure will. The applicant is Shirley Harvey for this two lot residential subdivision on West Mountain Road and Sherman Avenue Extension. The property is zoned Suburban Residential One Acre, and it is a SEQRA Unlisted action. This 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) th application was tabled at the November 28 meeting for the presence of the applicant and her neighbor to discuss the rationale for the modification. The modification is a request for two separate accesses to the residential lots created. The applicant’s justification, as stated previously, was for the separate driveways, is the location of the existing water line along the shared property line and the 15% grade change across the two properties. This Area Variance was granted in September for the double the lot width requirement for the residential lots abutting arterial roads. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record and tell us why you’re here before the Board this evening, and if you could speak right into the microphone, please. GAIL MOREHOUSE MS. MOREHOUSE-I’m Gail Morehouse. I’m here representing my Aunt, Shirley Harvey. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CLUTE-I’m Larry Clute who assisted Shirley in getting this subdivided initially, and I’m also the builder of the home to the south of Shirley’s. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything you wanted to mention to the Board before we ask you questions? MR. CLUTE-No, to expand upon what was said about the Staff Notes. Hindsight always being 20/20 I guess with my lack of homework as a builder, when we come in for the subdivision, I wasn’t quite aware of the grade coming off of Sherman Avenue heading south, and also I wasn’t aware of the, how do I want to say, there’s a neighbor to the west, to the rear of these two homes. That water line literally goes right on that property line, and when we started cutting the grade for the new home, that neighbor came forward. I mean, I was like two foot above his water line. So we’re suppose to, by Code or regulation, be a minimum of five foot from top of grade to water line. So I put that back, but again, with that grade, it just became problematic to create the common drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anything else you wanted to add? MR. CLUTE-Shirley herself, when we initially came in for the subdivision, she’s not able to attend any f these meetings, she’s kind of limited in movement, but when we came in, she had wanted her own drive. She’s been there forever, and we had put that in front of the Board and they were somewhat sympathetic and understanding I guess, but the requirement of the Code was the shared driveway at the time, but they did take, you know, they did hear that Shirley had wanted and that we were probably going to come in for, in front of the Zoning Board to get the variance, which we did, and that was the initial Planning Board where we got the subdivision approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Does anyone have questions? MR. SEGULJIC-Could you clarify? The water line is under the driveway now, or it’s in the future? MR. CLUTE-No, the water line would have been under the common driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-Can’t you move the common driveway to avoid the water line? MR. CLUTE-Not really. Once you visit the site, it’s rather complicated. The shared driveway literally is supposed to be on the property line, I mean half/half. One half to feed Shirley Harvey, one half to feed the new home, and dead center of that driveway is the property line. Hence the shared driveway, the access, and unbeknownst to me at the time is that water line of a rear neighbor, and that’s right there, and when I started cutting that grade in to give Shirley a much smoother access, so to speak, rather than a dramatic rise, Darryl, the neighbor to the rear, came forward and made it clear as to where his water line is. We called Queensbury, sure enough, there it was, and so at that point I stopped. I actually put the dirt back that we had already pulled off. MRS. STEFFAN-Was it five feet down? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. CLUTE-It is now, it wouldn’t have been. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, but it is five feet underground right now. MR. CLUTE-Right, and the reason, I mean, it’s not impossible to put a water line under a driveway. It’s just not a recommended practice. At five foot you’re fairly safe. The whole point is to obviously avoid your frost, but an exposed area, especially a drive or a road, pushes the frost much further in the ground much faster. That’s why, like I said, it’s common practice. There is no regulation or code telling you you can’t be under a driveway. It’s just recommended to avoid it, but at a two foot depth, that would definitely have frozen. MR. TRAVER-We have actually visited the site, and to the south of the structure I think the area you’re talking about is what appears to be, what might be a common driveway, but the area toward the building, the north is quite a bit thicker, that’s where that water line? MR. CLUTE-That’s where the water line is. That, for lack of a better term, that temporary driveway to the north being elevated is on top of that water line. MR. TRAVER-What about putting some material in and raising the other half of that double driveway so that they’re both the same level? MR. CLUTE-Then what you’re going to have is you’re going to have a dip going down into the neighbor’s home, becomes problematic as far as runoff, which that’s part of the issue, too. Even if I’d have gotten the proper grade, again, it’s a dramatic drop coming off from the Sherman Avenue elevation heading south, and I didn’t realize how much of a drop. So even if the waterline wasn’t in existence, we would have had an issue trying to divert or gully or swale to avoid the new home, and then again, cutting into Shirley’s home, or cutting into her lot, essentially duplicated what West Mountain does. So it’s a complicated entrance, and exit for that matter, and then exiting safety wise, Shirley’s, I’m in awe of this, but I’m going to assume Shirley’s is a safer entrance/exit because she’s at the peak of that rise, whereas the neighboring home is slightly down, and it’s kind of a blinded area, so to speak. MR. TRAVER-Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-So we’d be getting away from a common driveway and going to? MR. CLUTE-Two. When we first came in, to be honest with you, there was already two driveways. Where the new home was, there had been, I guess, a one building structure. Somebody had lived there, Shirley’s mother, I believe. So there already was two driveways at the time, but again, part of Queensbury’s Code, in order to authorize the subdivision that Shirley was looking for, put that combined. So what she’s asking is to literally put back what she had, which is two separate driveways. One of them wouldn’t be hers, at this point. One would be the new owners, Mr. Belanger and Ms. Perry. MR. SEGULJIC-Because our concern is we’re trying to reduce the curb cuts and sight distance and all that good stuff. How about if you took one of the driveways, I think it’s the northern parcel, and came in off of (lost word) Sherman Avenue, and then the other parcel has its own driveway. So you have one. MR. CLUTE-Clendon Ridge, I don’t know if it’s Clendon Ridge. I call it Sherman Avenue Extension, but I think it’s Clendon Brook. That’s even more of a dramatic drop. MR. SEGULJIC-What kind of a dramatic drop? MR. CLUTE-It’s like this. The hill is literally, I mean, the bank coming off at Clendon Brook, you can’t even see the top of the bank from Clendon Brook to Shirley’s elevation level. So it’s even more of a problematic elevation drop. Plus, I think there’s a transformer right there, now that I think about it. I think there’s a transformer also on that corner, and then she also has a barn. So it’s a pretty, as far as development, it’s a pretty busy edge of property so to speak. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s why we’re concerned. That’s exactly why we’re concerned. MR. CLUTE-Right. No, I don’t mean traffic busy. I mean busy as far as the development, not development housing. I mean, per property, there’s a transformer. There’s a telephone pole and guide wires. There’s a barn. So she really doesn’t have 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) the access. Actually, that was brought up during the first Planning Board meeting was to try and gain that access, but that elevation rise is dramatic. Clendon Brook is already doing this, and like I said, it’s a pretty high bank. If I were to run a guesstimate, you’re probably 16 foot off from Clendon Brook to the top of Mrs. Harvey’s parcel, if you were to pull it off that four way intersection. MRS. BRUNO-Could you go over the sequence of events again, in terms of when you came in front of the ZBA and when you discovered the pipe there and when you had begun to dig the foundation, all of that. Can you just put that in order for me? MR. CLUTE-Sure. The initial Planning Board, we came in for the subdivision, two acre lot separated into two one acre lots. Part of Queensbury’s regulations require the shared driveway because I forget what it, main artery or corridor. I’m not really sure what the terminology was. MRS. STEFFAN-And that was January of 2006, a year ago, right? MR. CLUTE-I’m not sure of the timeframe. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. CLUTE-But roughly a year ago. I’m going to say roughly a year ago, and so we came in for that. The subdivision was approved with the contingency, or the requirement of the shared driveway. I got my building permit, went in and started, well, we did the foundation first, and then you start cutting your grade, hence the waterline dramatic pitch, all this stuff was discovered at that time. MRS. BRUNO-So you put the foundation in when frost broke, and then you started working on the grade thereafter. So say March, April, May? MR. CLUTE-Absolutely, this was a Spring timeframe, right. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. CLUTE-When this work actually started, and again, probably because of my lack of homework, no probably, absolutely because of my lack of homework, I wasn’t quite aware of how much of a pitch came from the upper end, or that main intersection, Sherman and West Mountain Road. It makes a dramatic drop going south on West Mountain Road, and so hence, with the elevation of the new home in comparison to Shirley’s, there’s quite a pitch, and so that’s not an issue. I mean, we could deal with that as far as runoff. I could have put a swale of sorts on the outskirts of the property of the new home, but it did become an issue with the waterline, concerned with the depth for the frost coverage, but also that entrance/exit for Shirley, because it’s not coming in on a level surface on top of a blinded area. So she’s coming in to a rise, dramatic slow down coming down this hill and then having to rise back up into the driveway and the front yard isn’t really, there’s not a lot of depth. So literally hit the face of the driveway, dramatic rise, tight right. It really became problematic once this grade was starting to be established. MRS. BRUNO-I think what I’m starting to ponder, I almost would have preferred to have seen at the point where you started the site work, and I can appreciate that the foundation is permanent at that point, that perhaps instead of coming back and asking for two driveways, perhaps asking to re-visit maybe a lot line adjustment to the subdivision so that the one driveway could still be shared but then it would not be over that pipe. The 15% grade, I think with just a little bit of. MR. CLUTE-It’s actually in excess of 15% grade. We were just, when we came in, we just, 15% is what you use as a guideline. You really try not to exceed 15%, even the Highway Department, when they’re putting in new roads. So we were just saying 15% or greater. It’s much more than 15%. So even if I’d have adjusted the property line, actually it would have been tough to do so, because the majority of the new lot, there’s a huge ravine to the south of it. So really the footprint for the new home was pretty, it was determined by, it’s a dramatic ravine to the south. I don’t know if you can actually see it, but it makes a huge drop. So you can’t build into that bank. So you’re forced to the right northern property line, and so, I mean, the owners of the new house are here. When you come on in, the driveway’s already pretty tight. Had we adjusted that property line it would have been even tighter, and in order to meet the setbacks, again, of Queensbury, the site really became problematic. I don’t know how easier to say that, once we got on it and started constructing. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MRS. BRUNO-I don’t recall. On Mrs. Harvey’s house, is there a garage on the right side? MR. CLUTE-Yes, there is. MR. SEGULJIC-So at what point was it determined that you had to come back to the Planning Board? MR. CLUTE-As soon as we passed zoning. When we passed zoning. MR. SEGULJIC-Who told you that this was an issue? MR. CLUTE-What’s that? MR. SEGULJIC-When you found the water pipe, and then what happened? MR. CLUTE-Correct. I put it back. Queensbury Water Department came on out and identified the waterline. I put the depth back. MR. SEGULJIC-But at what point did you decide you had to go to the Zoning Board? MR. CLUTE-When I wanted to do a separate driveway. I actually already knew we were going to come to the Zoning Board. Mrs. Harvey wanted two separate driveways right from the get go. MR. FORD-That’s my recollection as well. MR. CLUTE-She really did, and there were two members that were sympathetic and somewhat understanding to her request, but again, their hands were tied. Queensbury’s Code in this main corridor forced to share driveways. So right from the onset, before the construction even began, I knew I was coming back in front of zoning for separate driveways. MR. HUNSINGER-We were all there on Saturday for site visits, and we actually pulled off West Mountain Road onto the area where the shared driveway, as you call them, the temporary driveways. There’s a lot of gravel there. I mean, it looks to me as though there’s the beginnings of two separate driveways along the property line. MR. CLUTE-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-How would those, as you call them, temporary driveways differ from a permanent shared driveway? MR. CLUTE-Well, Mr. Belanger’s and Ms. Perry’s is permanent. That’s where their driveway’s going to be. That’s the new home. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CLUTE-Shirley’s would literally have to be dropped and combined. Right now they literally are separate. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CLUTE-But to do a shared driveway, they’re actually supposed to be touching. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, when we say shared driveway, we mean shared driveway at the mouth where it meets the road. I mean, if they split off into a “Y” configuration, that’s certainly appropriate and fine. MR. CLUTE-And that’s what they did during the initial plan. Steven Jerrys comes in at a typical driveway grade. It looks normal, looks right. As you approach Shirley’s lot, you can see that we rise probably four foot, and we can do the shared, but by doing the shared as I described, sooner or later you’re going to have to do that four to five foot rise, and more than likely you’re going to do it closer to the mouth because you’re approaching the home. So that four to five foot rise creates a tough situation for Shirley entering, I mean literally coming off this high corridor she’s got to come in, belly down, because there’s a swale right there on the edge of Sherman that takes care of that runoff 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) coming off the peak. So she hits the swale, automatically does a four to five foot rise, forced right hand turn, out in front of her home. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, we pulled into that driveway. There was no bump or swale, which is why I asked the question, but the other thing I wanted to say is we were all th provided with copies of the meeting minutes from January 17 of last year, and in the initial presentation from Mr. Steves, he’s defining the project, and it’s the fourth or fifth sentence, he says they would share a common drive, and then later on in the discussion there was a comment from, and I’ll just read what it says, there was really very little th discussion about the driveway from the January 17 meeting, and a little further on it’s sort of obvious that the Board is comfortable with the project, and I’ll just read it, it says, “Mr. Vollaro-Okay. I think that’s the only stipulation that we would have or two of them really. We want the driveways to be removed, seeded and grass covered, that’s one. Two, there will be a maintenance agreement reading identical to what the reading was on the Blackburn application”, referring to another application, referring to the shared driveway. There’s really no, at least that I could see, comments from Board members saying, you know, we think there ought to be two driveways. All the discussion is, there will be a shared driveway. The Board agreed. MR. CLUTE-They didn’t say anything about demanding or that they should be two driveways. This was just undertone, and I know it was two members, and they understood, and they were sympathetic. I’m not sure exactly of the minutes, but I was sitting right here with Matt Steves and there was two of them, because I had brought up Shirley’s request or she would like the two separate driveways to stay, and the members explained, right then and there, that it wasn’t a demand of the Board that it be shared driveways. It’s a requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe that was a meeting prior to the January meeting. MR. CLUTE-I’m not positive. I just know that there was, they were, there were two members sympathetic. Nobody else really said anything, and it wasn’t, you know, it wasn’t a question and answer sort of thing. They just understood, but they explained the process and they explained the regulation and we understood. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess part of the reason why I brought up what I did is I don’t specifically recall the discussion. I was at the meeting, and in reviewing the minutes, seeing how there was really no opposition of the Board. The Board seemed to be unanimous in, at least in these minutes, in having a shared driveway, and I do remember some discussion about how, you know, there was an existing attached garage and how that would have to be abandoned and the existing driveway abandoned and seeded and everything else. So I guess where I’m kind of coming from is if the Planning Board was unanimous in their decisions to require a shared driveway, there would have to be some very compelling reasons for me to want to change my opinion on the project. MR. CLUTE-There was no decision or requirement. It wasn’t a question of whether the Board was demanding a shared driveway. It’s a requirement of the Town of Queensbury to have a shared driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CLUTE-So it wasn’t their question or desire to have the shared driveway. They wanted the contingency of shutting down two driveways and having them grass. Yes, they were unanimous, but not in contemplation. They were unanimous in the regulation, and again. MR. FORD-We were supportive of what is called for in our Code. MR. CLUTE-Right, exactly, but the shared driveway, there were two members, and again, it just, we’re re-visiting the past. The site as is, again, hindsight being 20/20, is problematic. Even the two driveways, if you parked on there and that was a shared entrance, I’m not sure how they’re going to do a maintenance agreement. One’s going to be flat and the other one’s going to rise four foot, even though they’re all connected by stone. It’s going to look odd, and it’s going to be hard to operate. If Shirley were to come in off of Sherman Avenue side, which is the majority of traffic flow is coming from that end of Town, rather than from Glens Falls part of Town, she’s going to come in to her driveway and have a three to four foot drop at a 12 foot, you know, she’s going to be 12 foot wide. She comes in. Not only is it problematic just to entrance it, but if they’re off by just a little bit, they’re in Mr. Belanger’s driveway, simply because of the elevation change. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. SEGULJIC-So the waterline doesn’t matter, then? MR. CLUTE-No, the waterline matters, in order to alleviate some of the issues that I’ve just described, which is the elevation difference, I can cut that entrance down, and that’s what I did initially, without knowing that the waterline was there. MR. SEGULJIC-Can’t you move the waterline? MR. CLUTE-It’s not my waterline. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think that’s what you should do, then, get an agreement to move the waterline. MR. CLUTE-It’s Darryl’s waterline. MR. SEGULJIC-Have you approached him at all? MR. CLUTE-No matter how I do it, it’s going to be under a driveway, under the driveway, and either on Mr. Belanger’s property or Shirley’s property. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, have you approached the neighbor about moving the waterline? MR. CLUTE-He was adamant that I bury that line back up. He wasn’t belligerent, but he was pretty adamant. MR. SEGULJIC-So you have not approached him about moving the waterline? MR. CLUTE-We talked to him right then and there. We were trying to expedite. This home was sold so I had a timeframe to get Mr. Belanger. So at the time when we hit it, I called up Queensbury, tried to get some sort of suggestions at that time, and they recommended I get it buried, too. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, did you do a mark off before you did the digging and it didn’t show up? MR. CLUTE-No. You have no idea whether a waterline is there or not there. Shirley’s waterline, there was no written agreement. There’s no easement. We would have discovered the easement at the time of subdivision because we had to re-write the deeds. There was no written easement. Shirley just gave authorization for this rear neighbor to come across the property. We would have discovered an easement had there been an easement, though. MRS. BRUNO-Just out of curiosity, did that neighbor show up at your subdivision hearing? MR. CLUTE-Darryl? No. MRS. BRUNO-That’s unfortunate, because we probably could have avoided all of this. MR. CLUTE-Right, but he probably didn’t really think about it, either. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Ford has a comment. MR. FORD-I know how much thought and consideration goes into decisions on this Board relative to sight distances and curb cuts. I appreciate your honesty, Mr. Clute, in the lack of homework or planning that went into this project, but I don’t see either lack of planning or lack of homework being done, I don’t see where that constitutes a reason for us to modify our approval of the original approval. MR. CLUTE-I’m giving you my background, Shirley’s background, and Gail will probably hit on a few points as well. Shirley, in hindsight, in order to cut across this, her lot’s going to be very commercial. Right now she’s got her spruces. She’s got her flowering trees, literally you’re taking those all out to put a driveway right out the face of her home. They not only add aesthetic value, they add the lighting. This is a very busy road. So they buffer the lighting. She’s, at the time of the subdivision wasn’t chair bound. She’s now chair bound. It just, her driveway is nice and level, easily maintained. It’s an elderly woman. She’d just prefer, it just makes her much more comfortable to stick with what 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) she’s had, and that’s hers. What I’ve been giving you is my point of view, not necessarily Shirley’s point of view. MR. FORD-But she wanted the two driveways from the onset? MR. CLUTE-She wanted it from the onset. MR. FORD-And that was not approved from the onset. MR. CLUTE-No, and the Board explained that, and they actually, at that time, said that isn’t to say that you can’t go get the variance. We can go get the variance, an that’s what we did. We went in front of the Zoning Board. They heard the same issues or the same wording that I’m giving you right now, and they authorized the variance or the zoning change, I forget what it was specifically, but they had authorized that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Was this lot sold as a lot and the Belanger’s built their own home on it or was there, Mrs. Harvey, did she have a house built on the property and then sell it? MR. CLUTE-No, she sold the lot and then it went to Mr. Belanger and Ms. Perry. She wanted the revenue from the sale of her lot. MRS. STEFFAN-Of the lot, okay. MR. CLUTE-But she had a home on that lot. There was, I mean, it was a small home, but her mother had lived there with its own paved driveway. There was literally two homes on the lot, and this was prior to probably, I don’t know, whatever regulations Queensbury had at the time, but it had two residences on one lot, which isn’t authorized anymore, but at the time, there were two residences on this lot, and the old house is right where the new house is, or was, I’m sorry. MRS. BRUNO-Was that removed at the time of site work? MR. CLUTE-Yes, and the driveway. There was a paved driveway. The paved driveway was actually I believe further south. I’m not absolutely sure. It may be designated on the old survey map when Matt initially submitted. It might have had dotted lines for old driveway, but I’m not quite positive. MR. HUNSINGER-Any of the other members that haven’t spoken yet, did you have any questions or comments? Mr. Sipp? MR. SIPP-Is there any reason why this driveway can’t be moved to the south? MR. CLUTE-It’s as far south as it can go. MR. SIPP-It’s as far south? MR. CLUTE-Yes, the property line between the two, the southern part of Shirley’s property and the northern part of Mr. Belanger’s property is the shared driveway. So Shirley really can’t go any further south. MR. SIPP-Well, what about Mr. Belanger moving his driveway to the south? MR. CLUTE-Then where would Shirley go with hers, onto his property? I guess. MR. SIPP-She left hers where it is. MR. CLUTE-And then he moved his further down? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. CLUTE-Then we’d still be in the two driveway situation, I guess. Hers is much safer, to be honest with you. Her curb cut, from a safety point of view, is the safest location. She’s at the top of West Mountain Road where it intersects with Sherman Avenue, whereas this driveway, I’m not sure of the actual distance, is actually blinded. You can’t see up to the top of the peak. So Shirley’s curb cut is a much safer egress, entrance and exit driveway, even with the traffic on that corner. She has full 360 degree view. The driveway that is now in existence doesn’t. So from a safety point of view, Mrs. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) Perry and Mr. Belanger, two cars. Shirley Harvey, there’s like five cars. She has some elderly sons also sickly as well that live with her. So there’s numerous cars on Shirley. So rather than have say seven cars at the lower level, five of them would be moved up to the upper level, which is a, if you’re standing on the site, you can’t miss it. It’s just, it’s a much, much safer entrance/exit, Shirley’s driveway. MRS. STEFFAN-As I’m listening to all this, I just, I have to express my disappointment because, you know, oftentimes the Planning Board, folks who serve on the Planning Board, we get a bad rep in the community because we say no when folks want us to say yes, and we have zoning guidelines in Queensbury that are very rigorous, and they’re rigorous for a reason, because folks have gone around systems and processes and approvals and have changed their plans from what was approved, or maybe they didn’t provide all the information that we needed to make the best decision possible, and so as I’m reading all the Zoning Board minutes, and I’m reading the Planning Board minutes, and he identified that Mrs. Harvey had an alternate decision in mind, she wanted to get the approval, but she wanted to have it changed, I’m just very disappointed, because here we are talking about this again, and now we’re faced with a very difficult decision and whether we vote yes or no, it’s the Planning Board that’s going to be the bad guys here. Either we’re not following the zoning guideline and following a decision that we made, or, you know, in this situation we have an elderly woman who’s not well and if we say no to her, we’re all bad guys, and so I just want to go on the record because, you know, this is a really tough job, and it’s situations like this that don’t make it any easier. MR. CLUTE-I understand. From the onset, she wasn’t adamant, she wasn’t here, but she made it clear to me that she wanted the two driveways. I had brought that up, knowing full well that it was a combined driveway. Mr. Brown, at the time who was here had stated, there’s no problem in, after the fact, the Planning Board to go in front of zoning and go for the variance. So in the back of my mind that’s what I knew Shirley was going to do, and so we came back in front of zoning. There was no, the only lack of information was on my part, the problems associated with the excavation, but as far as the two separate driveways, that was right on the table from Day One, and Mr. Brown told us right here at the meeting that we could go in front of zoning, and that’s essentially what Shirley did. She went in front of zoning, got the variance. That Board understood her situation, and now we’re back in front of planning to make you aware or to give you some insight into the situation as well, but most of the difficulties is excavation, elevation. It’s a dramatic drop. It’s much more than 15 degrees, and so it would be very complicated, as a builder, to get that properly in place, and literally service the two houses as best as possible, and deal with the rear neighbor’s waterline, plus there’s a drainage, there’s just a lot of site issues that weren’t really apparent at the time of subdivision. Subdivision tends to be very two dimensional. The site is far from two dimensional, and it really became problematic excavation wise. So, hindsight being 20/20, I would want the variance for my purposes. I have to please both homeowners, and then both homeowners want separate driveways, because of this elevation rise. So I guess that’s why we’re back in front of the Board. Not to make anybody out to be a bad guy or change their minds. We just have further issues that we weren’t quite aware of at the initial Planning Board meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-And some of the things you’re bringing up about the contours at the back of property, I mean, this is a very one dimensional map, and usually when we’ve got a subdivision where there are issues on slopes, we ask for. MR. CLUTE-Topos. Like I said hindsight being 20/20, when we came to Craig initially, because you’ve got to go, before you go in front of the Planning Board, you come and you just do an informal chit chat, and again, all we’re sitting on is a two dimensional piece of paper, and it was essentially an administrative subdivision which the only reason we had to come in front of the Planning Board was because it was a main corridor that shared driveway issue. If it had been on a lesser traveled road, he could have done the subdivision without any approvals, because it’s just same homeowner and it’s a two lot administrative subdivision. So essentially it was an administrative subdivision with a regulation that had to be contended with, which was a shared driveway. MRS. BRUNO-May I ask, Gail, the left rear of her house, do you know off the top of your head what’s there? Is that her private quarters? I mean, usually when you’ve got, over toward? MS. MOREHOUSE-You mean inside the home? Her bedroom is on the south end. The north end towards where Clendon Brook is is the garage, the kitchen, living room. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MRS. BRUNO-Right. Okay. Is she looking, I’m trying to think out of the box right now, just so that maybe we can expedite this a little bit. Is she looking to upgrade her house at all for the handicapped accessibility? Will she be making any changes inside? MS. MOREHOUSE-They’re contemplating that right now. She’s like checking with Community Action and different sources to help the elderly to build the ramp, because she can’t afford to build it. So she’s looking for alternative funding to help her to get a ramp built. MR. CLUTE-She’d be going for County assistance, State assistance, whatever departments might be available for her purposes, I guess. MS. MOREHOUSE-Right. MR. CLUTE-Right now they’ve got, what is it, like a makeshift in the garage of sorts, coming up into that, how do you do that? There’s a kitchen right there off the garage, just like a typical ranch, and that’s her main entrance, her personally, in and out, is that entrance right there. MR. TRAVER-Well, just looking at the map here, kind of trying to come up with a way that we can solve both problems, you talked about the steep hill and the sharp turn with a single driveway. What about reducing the sharpness of the turn by having the driveway end at the back of the house instead of the front? MR. CLUTE-The map, you can see, we tried to make use of this as a, you can actually see the contours where they were actually driving around the house. Her garden is just to the south and rear of her home, and then you can see the rough lines of the cars when they were actually making use of. MR. TRAVER-Yes, okay. MR. CLUTE-All right. Aesthetic wise, she wasn’t real happy with that, and wanted to keep the cars to the face of her home rather than to the rear of her home, but you can see where there was a roughed in, I mean literally, that traffic flow, that was there for a while. You can just see it. MRS. BRUNO-What’s that shadow? Is that from a tree or is it? MR. CLUTE-This is where she was coming in. It literally looped right around, came in right here and just looped around, and you can see in the short term what was happening, and she’s got like a private garden of sorts right here, but this is literally where the temporary traffic flow was happening, and it was kind of distracting for her . Aesthetically it was killing her backyard. MRS. BRUNO-The shadow on I guess it would be the southeastern corner, is that a tree? MS. MOREHOUSE-Yes. MR. CLUTE-Yes, that’s where the ravine actually, I mean, the next lot, if you come down this, the ravine actually is right here. MRS. BRUNO-No, not the one on the left, over towards the right, right near West Mountain Road, the corner of her house. MS. MOREHOUSE-Yes, that’s a tree there. MR. CLUTE-Yes. She’s got some pretty mature trees there, and they’re nice trees. She’s got some flowering trees. I believe there’s a hardwood there. All that would have to come out, and all that shadows, that traffic as you come up Sherman Avenue, it shadows that. MR. FORD-I appreciate all the sympathy that has been afforded this applicant by Board members, but I believe that we followed the Code. We did it in good faith. A year ago we voted to approve the plan as we approved it. I find this to be an erosive format to follow where a year later we would re-visit this and with no more information than we have right now or more reason to go against Code and go against our decision, I can’t see us doing it. I think what we’re doing is opening the door and encouraging others who perhaps didn’t like the decision made by this Board a year ago, some time in the future, 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) or already in the past, to come before us again and we’ll be revisiting not just this project but many more in the future, and I’m opposed to it. MR. CLUTE-We tried to come sooner, to be honest with you. We went to the Zoning Board as quickly as possible, and I understand. MR. FORD-You understand what I’m saying about revisiting a decision that was already made following Code and with due deliberation. I see no reason for us to revisit. MR. HUNSINGER-We have at least three members that have expressed their opinion on this. I guess in an effort to move this along, I really don’t see where there’s going to be any new information, if we ask any additional question. I guess I’d like to get the feeling of the Board if we want to either move forward with a resolution or, if not, perhaps table it. I think I already spoke my opinion. Mr. Traver, do you have a feeling one way or another? MR. TRAVER-Well, I tend to agree with Tom. I think, you know, it would be nice to certainly accommodate Shirley, but in this case I think, I don’t feel that I have sufficient reasons to support change. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mrs. Bruno? MRS. BRUNO-Being a frequent traveler of West Mountain Road, I know what the traffic is like. I was just traveling back this evening at quarter after six, trying to make it back to my house with somebody right on my tail, going under the speed limit, and I have to agree with the other Board members. Just in terms of reducing the curb cuts, I really do feel for the applicants. I think Mrs. Steffan and Mr. Ford put it very aptly, and that we are in a tight position. I think perhaps you might be able to come up with another design, still having only one curb cut. Appreciating what those, what the topography is and everything, I think it could be done if maybe you just toss it around a little more. It might end up including working on her house a bit, which is why I was asking that if it was something that was already going to be done. Some of that interior circulation might need to be changed, but, you know, we do really work hard, and it’s for the whole community, and understandably each individual is a member of the community, and it’s tough. I’ve been in your seat before, but I think we’ve deliberated. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom or Don? I don’t know if either one of you have expressed a definitive opinion. MR. SIPP-I agree, this was done a year ago, and I think that what Tom said, that we could be revisited weekly, and I think that as much as I would, and I don’t think there’s any good solution. If there was an alternative, I think it might be worthwhile, but I don’t think there’s any real good alternative with the traffic pattern the way it is, the waterline the way it is, and I would not change our decision. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything you wanted to add, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think we ought to change our decision. I think if you really work at it, you can come up with a way with a single driveway. MR. CLUTE-So you’re saying that I could table this action? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s up to the Board. MR. CLUTE-What I’d like to do is I’m going to get engineering between the houses. It’s not just Shirley, that was just a separate argument. It really is. I put a lot of thought into it. This is what I do. I build houses. I’ve been doing it for a long time. If I could have come up with an alternative, I would have. I brought in a lot of opinions at that time between these two homes, and it was just complicated. There was no real way to come up with a decent grade. So if I hire an engineer, show all this runoff, all this complications that are involved, it may be a compelling reason, not just Shirley, but I mean just the problems involved between these two homes. There’s really no excavation answer. It’s complicated. That’s why we put the temporary drive to the right because there’s just, there was no straightforward answer. MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me. I’d rather see you put your time and effort into finding a solution. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. CLUTE-That’s why I would hire an engineer. That’s why I’m saying, it’s beyond, I’ve already. MR. SEGULJIC-Spend your time finding a solution, not (lost words) an argument against a single driveway. MR. CLUTE-Well, that’s why, I’m not arguing. I’m saying if I get a professional then I’m going to get his opinion. I honestly am a home builder. I’m not, I mean, I know what I’m roughly doing pitch and grade and so on and so forth, but it is above my capacity. So if I hire an engineer and get some drainage calculations and we get some pitch calculations, is that something to consider? MR. FORD-Based upon your client’s initial desire, you might be a year late in bringing in the engineer. MR. CLUTE-Go back in front of the Zoning Board? MR. FORD-No, no, but you indicated what was preferred by your client, from the outset, and now we’ve revisited a year later and you’re anticipating now hiring an engineer that perhaps could have been employed a year ago and taken care of this at that time, or prior to this meeting. This is elongating this and prolonging it. MR. CLUTE-Right. The Zoning Board is actually the start point because we had it tough. We didn’t realize the issues at the onset. Again, we were dealing with a two dimensional. So at the Zoning Board, not only was it Shirley’s request, but again, at my behest as well, because I was kind of tied. I just didn’t know what to do between these two buildings, to service both buildings adequately, and then it just, for whatever reason, the Board’s overwhelmed and then I happened to not be present at the last meeting. So we’re at a one year point, I understand, but I’m kind of asking for a table if at all possible, to come up with further. MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question for Counsel. If the applicant is requesting a tabling, I suspect that the Board is moving in the direction of a denial. If the applicant is requesting a motion to table, or requesting a table, are we obligated to honor that? MR. FULLER-No, but the applicant could withdraw it completely and come back. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess where I was going is if there is engineering that he may have now or in the future to defend his position, and he later comes back with that, is there any restriction for him to reapply if there’s new information? MR. FULLER-He can reapply anyway if he had new information. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CLUTE-Can I specifically then no table, or if the Board felt the table was okay. MR. FULLER-If the Board wants to table, it’s completely up to you. MR. CLUTE-Or vice versa. I can withdraw the application and then just simply reapply and revisit the situation at that time. Okay. I just needed clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-We have an application already. We’ve gone through this before where applicants have, the night of the meeting, after feeling how the Board’s headed, then tried to withdraw it. I mean, we would have to allow you to withdraw it at this point. I mean, we wouldn’t have to honor that request, because we do have an application before us. MR. CLUTE-He saying I can withdraw it. MR. FULLER-He can withdraw it. MR. HUNSINGER-He can? Okay. MR. FULLER-I mean, really, if the table is denied and the project is denied, and he gets additional information, he can come back and reapply. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. FULLER-Tabling it’s not a bad idea. He’s going to come back anyway. MR. CLUTE-I’m going to listen to your recommendations. I apologize. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if we do table it, what are we going to table it for? MR. FORD-Let’s move it. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s the problem. I mean, to me, there’s no compelling reason for us to table it. MR. CLUTE-So then I’ll withdraw the application and come back, as your attorney has asked for. MR. SEGULJIC-His statement is enough to say he’s withdrawing? There’s no vote? MR. HUNSINGER-So then if he wanted to revisit this project, he would have to submit a new application? So this application? Okay. So that’s the risk you’re taking. You’re back at the back of the line, if you will. MR. CLUTE-I come up with a new argument, so to speak, or more compelling information for this case, then I come back in for another review, so to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the further questions I would have for Counsel is the applicant currently has a project that’s out of compliance with their site plan because they didn’t see the driveway and remove the driveway. MR. CLUTE-They did initially, and this is why we left the temporary. There was large stones in Shirley’s driveway and it was grassed, and at the time of variance, I wasn’t aware that I had to come back in front of the Planning Board. I was going to take the stone, and Mr. Brown said, no, leave the two driveways. I asked if Shirley could have access, he said yes, with the anticipated fact that I was coming back in. MR. HUNSINGER-You mean the northern access? MR. CLUTE-Yes, so we removed the stone. She did comply. She definitely complied. There were large stones. You couldn’t get by the stones, and then there was grass planted. The stones acted kind of like a stone fence, but it wasn’t really a fence. They were sizeable stones. MR. HUNSINGER-So that the north driveway couldn’t be used? MR. CLUTE-Correct. Yes, you couldn’t. They were using the temp, well, the temporary driveway and you can see where they were driving around to access her garage as well as her barn. They put divots right along the backyard. That’s what that mark is. MR. FORD-I have a question for Counsel. Just for future reference, if a presentation is made, and we have revisited it, as we did with this case here, and the applicant or the agent sense that a disapproval is forthcoming, they can, at that point, withdraw prior to the motion actually being made, and then we have to then the ball is in their court and they can come back, modify, or come back with the same thing or whatever? MR. FULLER-That would be their option, correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-But again, that starts the application process anew. It’s not without risk or expense. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-It conceivably could be an unending process, couldn’t it? I fear that. MR. CLUTE-Any suggestions that you guys would have. I understand the position that I have put the Board in. It’s not really Shirley. I, myself, have put the Board in, and I do appreciate where you’re coming from. Any suggestions that you can have. Even if I were to meet somebody out there. I could probably show easier than I can verbalize the complications involved in front of that, and between these two houses, and again, I’m definitely not averse to any engineering, pitch and drainage. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. FORD-Unfortunately, you would not be there, Mr. Clute, the next time we had to revisit this, and we may be doing it tonight, as we are being asked to go against our Code. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, since the applicant has withdrawn, I guess we’ll move on to the next item. Thank you. MR. CLUTE-Okay. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2006 PRELIMINARY & FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LARRY CLUTE AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION ELDRIDGE & BENNETT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 1.03 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 0.72 ACRES AND .031 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REFERENCE AV 66-05 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.03 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.14-1-21 SECTION A-183 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LARRY CLUTE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-This is a subdivision application for Preliminary and Final subdivision stages. This is a two lot residential subdivision located at Bennett and Eldridge Roads. The property is zoned Single Family Residential one acre. This was previously a three lot subdivision. The Planning Board saw Sketch Plan review on a three lot subdivision application. The Area Variances were subsequently approved for a two lot subdivision, specifically relief from the minimum lot size and minimum lot width requirements for both lots, that being one acre. The applicant proposes a two lot residential subdivision of a one acre land hooked parcel resulting in lots of .72 and .31 acre a piece. Just a note that the proposed subdivision layout will likely result in additional variance requests for the smaller lot, the .31 acre lot. There appears to be a limited area available for the construction of a single family dwelling. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-For the record? MR. NACE-For the record, Tom Nace, Nace Engineering, and Larry Clute. MR. CLUTE-Larry Clute. MR. HUNSINGER-If you’d like to summarize your project. MR. CLUTE-Yes. The subdivision, what we’re asking for as far as subdivision is literally already divided by a road in existence, call it Eldridge, call it Bennett Road, but it’s right there on the loop. It’s two separate parcels separated by a paved road, and we would just like the subdivision, I don’t know what you call it, technically a subdivision I guess, even though it’s separated by a road, the authorization to have two lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. It’s possible to have one lot separated by a road, as in this case. MR. CLUTE-Well, that’s what was, or is, that’s what’s in existence. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have anything else to add? MR. NACE-I think at the last meeting there were questions that they wanted to make sure that the septic system would fit on the lots. We did test pits with Ralph Van Dusen from Barton Loguidice and perc tests, and presented Ralph with the design for the septic system for each lot and layout for the house to make sure everything would fit on the lots. Ralph had some initial questions. We’ve answered those, and you should have in th your file a letter dated December 14 to Dan Stec from Ralph Van Dusen, summarizing and stating that everything was to his satisfaction. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else to add? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. NACE-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’d like to go down through the subdivision review criteria, even though it’s a simple two lot subdivision, starting with design standards. Any comments or questions from the Board on design standards? Development criteria, things like site condition, utilities, street design and layout, traffic, pedestrian access and circulation, sight distances, emergency access or services? Stormwater sewage design? Buffering landscape design? Neighborhood character? Environmental or any other involved agencies? Comments or questions in general? MRS. BRUNO-The houses that you are proposing, do you have something in mind, or are these really basic footprints? MR. CLUTE-They’re fairly basic footprints. The larger lot, which comprises that corner, a more sizeable colonial can go on. The other lot is fairly restrictive and essentially would have to conform with what’s already there. There’s, if you continued down towards Aviation Road, all these lots are of that depth, and it’s just simple ranches. They’re less deep, so to speak. So a ranch would be forced on that last lot. MRS. BRUNO-I do have to applaud you, Mr. Clute, for being interested and willing to introduce more affordable housing in Queensbury, as I think we’re starting to see a bit of disparity between some of the local incomes and what’s being provided. It’s nice to see that being considered. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-We were glad to see you put your sign up. MR. CLUTE-I apologize. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if there’s no more questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here from the public that has questions or comments on this project? If there are none, I will open the public hearing and also close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENTS PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s Long Form, it’s a subdivision. Are we ready to move forward on SEQRA? It is a Long Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LARRY CLUTE, WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion for Preliminary? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2006 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: 1. WHEREAS, a subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 1.03 acre parcel into two lots of 0.72 acres and .031 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and heard on January 16, 2007; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and 5. WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit; and 8. WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 9. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2006 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: According to the resolution prepared by Staff: 1. Paragraph Four, complies. 2. Paragraph Five, negative declaration. th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2006 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. WHEREAS, a subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 1.03 acre parcel into two lots of 0.72 acres and .031 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and heard on January 16, 2007; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and 5. WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit; and 8. WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 9. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2006 LARRY CLUTE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff: 1. Paragraph Four complies. 2. Paragraph Five, negative declaration. 3. No conditions. th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. CLUTE-Thank you very much. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2006 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WILLIAM & DEBORAH O’REILLY AGENT(S) MULLER & MULLER OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RURAL RESIDENTIAL THREE ACRE LOCATION UPPER BAY ROAD, EAST SIDE ACROSS FROM ELLSWORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 60+/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 6.001 AND 54.824 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 60+/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-73 SECTION A-183 MIKE MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Just a correction. I believe this is just Preliminary Stage. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, yes. The agenda had Preliminary and Final. MRS. BARDEN-This is a Preliminary Stage subdivision review for a two lot residential subdivision located on Upper Bay Road across from Ellsworth Road. The property is zoned Rural Residential Three Acre. This is an Unlisted SEQRA action. A Long Form has been submitted. This is a two lot subdivision of a 60 acre parcel resulting in lots of six acres and fifty four acres. An APA jurisdictional determination letter was attached th with your packet and it’s dated January 30, and states the proposed two lot subdivision and construction of a single family dwelling does not require a permit or variance from this Agency. As requested by the Board at the review of the Sketch Plan on October th 24, the applicant has provided notes on the subdivision plat identifying that the surveyed premises are partially within the Lake George CEA and are entirely within the Lake George basin. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MULLER-My name is Michael Muller, and I’m here with the O’Reillys. The O’Reillys are the owners and hopefully once we get the subdivision eventually approved I will be the owner of the small parcel. My wife who’s sitting in the audience told me say as little as possible, keep it brief. It’s a 60 acre parcel. The result of this subdivision would be two residential lots, one is six acres. It’s in the northwest corner of the parcel, and it conforms in every way with Code requirements. Actually it’s in the zone that’s RR-3A, so that the minimum lot size would be three acre. We’ve hit a double size lot. It’s got all the right frontage, involves no wetlands. We have a non-jurisdictional letter from the APA. This is, quite frankly, the type of subdivision that shouldn’t have to be here, that it would be administrative but for the fact it is in the Adirondack Park, and so with the non- jurisdictional letter, we’ve kind of satisfied them that they’re not involved, and I’m not sure what other things you would like us to answer or respond to. There is no present intention to build on either of them. I will speculate on the six acres, and I’ll certainly leave the O’Reillys to the 54 acres to do with as they wish at some later date, but we have no immediate plan. You will not see me stepping up getting a building permit next week or anything like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MULLER-We would hope that, because this map has not varied at all from its Sketch through the Preliminary and ultimately in Final, that it could perhaps procedurally go Preliminary and Final if you found it satisfactory. I’m not sure what else we can add to the application or to the map. When we were at the Sketch Stage, your Board asked that we show that it is in a Critical Environmental Area, and we did, because a portion of the land is, and that it is in the Lake George Park, and we did. That’s about all I can tell you, unless you have a specific question. MR. HUNSINGER-Did either Mr. or Mrs. O’Reilly have anything else to add? WILLIAM O’REILLY MR. O’REILLY-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, procedurally, then, if that’s accurate that the only thing that had them here prior was the APA jurisdiction, which was then clarified that it’s not, APA has no jurisdiction, why are they here, then? MR. MULLER-I’ve been trying to get Queensbury to change that, and you do have a requirement that we be here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It’s not a question of jurisdiction. It’s a question of if it’s within the Adirondack Park, then it requires them to come for subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-Then if these plans do not meet our Preliminary requirements, then I’m not comfortable going forward. I don’t see any septic systems. I mean, it does not meet. MR. FORD-For what purpose? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. SEGULJIC-183-9 says that, for Preliminary Stage. It has a list of all the information that’s needed to be provided. The septic system’s not located. The wetlands are not located. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Seguljic, I believe there’s a letter from Mr. Muller requesting a waiver be granted for that, due to the fact that they aren’t building anything, and so what you could do is just make sure that there is a statement on the plat noting that they would do that at time of their building permit. MR. MULLER-Absolutely agreeable. MR. SEGULJIC-I always thought we requested septic systems be put on there to show that they would be. 183-9 says that you have to put the. MRS. BARDEN-You’re right, and you do, but they have requested a waiver. It’s not saying that you have to grant it. It is a requirement. MR. MULLER-We have no idea where we’re going to build on this. MR. O’REILLY-What should I design a septic system for? There’s no house. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it would show that you could if you were to do that in the future. MR. MULLER-I would hope that everybody on this Board would be shocked to think that you couldn’t find a place for a septic system on 54 acres or six acres. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just saying what the Code says. MR. MULLER-I don’t think the Code requires it if you’re not going to build. MR. FORD-I recall the point being made that this would be a fictitious. MR. MULLER-It’s in your minutes from the Sketch, right. MR. FORD-Right. MR. MULLER-And it would be fictitious. A hypothetical house is not the house that some future owner will build. I don’t know what it is, but it won’t be me. MR. SEGULJIC-Also we have areas designated as wet on the plans. We don’t know if there are wetlands and how big they potentially are. MR. MULLER-The Adirondack Park Agency found that there were no jurisdictional wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s APA. We also have Queensbury. We have State. We have Army Corps of Engineers. We have a whole series of potential wetlands. MR. MULLER-There are wetlands on 54 acres, and there are no wetlands on the six. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think we should have those mapped, then, and also I notice in the letters that there was an insinuation that during the Sketch Plan we give approvals. There are no approvals given during Sketch Plan. MR. MULLER-My letter didn’t insinuate. My letter specifically addressed Mr. Brown’s characterization that we were required to do stormwater compliance, which is specifically not required. I actually photocopied the section of the stormwater regs that indicated that you did have to comply if you were going to construct a structure or building, and there is no intention to do so, and he also indicated that he wanted to see septic calculations, again, on a fictitious construction. There is no construction. There’s no location of any building. There’s no size of any building. What would that exercise achieve, other than a fictitious exercise? I have no problem with an approval condition that it goes on the map that the applicant has to come back when they’re going to develop the site and prove that. That’s totally reasonable, as we would have to comply with stormwater regs, totally reasonable, but now we’re just drawing an imaginary line, so I can own one piece and the O’Reillys can own the balance. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m just concerned with what happens in the future. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. MULLER-Well, I don’t know how I could speak to the future, other than if you put it on the map and the next person who wants to develop the six acres has to come and comply with whatever the Town of Queensbury imposes, and I’m sure that stormwater regulations will be imposed if there’s more than 5,000 square feet of clearing, and there probably will be. I’m sure that there’ll be septic requirements, and I couldn’t tell you right now, and I don’t think you would expect me to tell you that there will only be a three bedroom, a five bedroom house. I don’t know what to tell you, but there won’t be any house that I built. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I get hung up is I have a map here that says we have a portion of the site as wet. I have no idea how big that is. MR. MULLER-I would say if all of it was wet and none of the six acres was wet, then it would be an approvable plan, and none of the six acres has wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-I am not sure, when it comes to SEQRA, how I can respond to that, then. MR. MULLER-I don’t know how I could possibly answer it, that is that if there’s wetlands on the 54 acres, and I don’t doubt that, in fact, I make that representation to you, I also represent to you that there’s none on the six acres. I hope to carve the six acres out. There’s no wetlands on there, on the six acre. MRS. BRUNO-We have to make sure, though, that the balance, the 54 acres, will be a buildable lot, don’t we? We’re not just looking at the six acre. MR. MULLER-No, you don’t. There’s no guarantee that these are buildable lots. I happen to know that the six acres is. I happen to know that the 54 acres is, but there’s no requirement that by subdividing it to a minimum lot size in the zone, and in this case it’s double the lot size, for the smallest lot, that it’s guaranteed to be a building lot. It’s just guaranteed to be subdividable. MRS. BRUNO-Did we discuss at the last meeting, refresh my memory if you would, please, potential, non-potential, of in the future, again we’re looking at the future here, of subdividing your 54 acres more? MR. O’REILLY-We want to use the land to whatever is allowed by the Town of Queensbury. I don’t have any idea right now. I’m a simple fellow who wants to build a house. I’ve got 60 acres of land. I’m pretty sure I could find a spot for the house. I would like to sell six acres of it off because since when I bought it to now, it’s worth a lot more money. That’s the Town of Queensbury. I can build my house by selling off a six acre piece. If it’s zoned RR-3, I don’t necessarily want to be a three acre or two acre, come for a variance for a half acre lots. We figured we’d carve off six acres. That leaves a relatively big piece, and a really big piece, and that’s all I’m trying to do is put a house on one of them. MR. SEGULJIC-So, Mr. Chairman, clarify for me. So, if this is a zoned 3A, when it comes to SEQRA, we have to look at the maximum for it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and I think the applicant has addressed that, though, in the SEQRA submission that they’ve provided by saying that there’s 20 building sites possible. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the maximum build of 60 acres in a 3 acre zone would be 20 lots. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and we’re looking at a site that indicates it’s wet, but we don’t even know, technically, if it has wetlands on it or how big the wetlands are. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m a little uncomfortable with that. MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, do we know if there’s a Town designated wetland on the property, other than the applicant’s admission that there’s wet areas of the site? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MRS. BARDEN-I was going to check another later, but I don’t see anything. That’s not to say that there aren’t any, but we don’t show them. MR. HUNSINGER-And the Town wetland maps don’t necessarily show any, they don’t necessarily show all of the Army Corps potential wetlands. They would only show DEC or APA wetlands. Is that correct? MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions or comments from Board members of the applicant? MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. and Mrs. O’Reilly, you are selling off a parcel of land, a six acre parcel. Would you entertain an option for a subdivision approval that would allow for the remaining portion of the property to be, a condition of approval be no further subdivision? MR. O’REILLY-That would be asking us to give up potential for the site, is what you’re asking me for. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the reason I ask that question, it is often a condition that we put on subdivisions, but I’m also trying to address Mr. Seguljic’s comments. If you’re asking for waivers, and I understand there’s some ambiguity in the zoning, according to the conversation, but if there are no plans to subdivide this, then that could be a condition, but if you’re looking to subdivide it at some point in the future, then the debate will continue about whether to grant you waivers or not. MR. O’REILLY-Well, again, I look at this with the 54, for example. I have two children. They’re only 12 and 16, but maybe they’ll want a house some day, and that’s even a moot point if there are conditions to the property that won’t let it be subdivided. If the property cannot be subdivided are we talking about a point that’s not as relative to this conversation, because if it can’t be subdivided, I don’t know. MR. MULLER-Well, what Bill doesn’t understand, and I wouldn’t want either Bill or Deb to agree to, is that I wouldn’t want them to prohibit the further possibility of subdividing their 54 acres, but I guess I would point out to you is your concern is shared concern here, and that is that those 54 acres would again be subject to this same process, and within the process, again, there would be delineations, again on the hypothetical, that we’re subdividing 54 acres, we would show all of the topography on the 54 acres and all of the wetlands. Here, I guess, criticize us if you will, the way we’ve looked at it, we’ve tried to look at it as it exists, the 60 acres, and we’d like to take 6 out. So we’ve completely mapped the six, that is exhaustively, drew lines around it, made sure that it didn’t cut through any wetlands, really ran the gauntlet with the APA. They will not allow you to subdivide wetlands, and so what we have is a really first class parcel, that is that if you had a chance to look at it, it’s got 150 feet of frontage. It’s high. It’s dry. It’s got rock walls, trees. What remains is 54 acres, which I admit, at this proceeding, contains wetland. It’s way off in the back, but as a 60 acre parcel, I’m only guessing that it is in a Critical Environmental Area because it contains part of what would be Dunham’s Bay, I think, but not a water course, just wet. Actually, when the surveyor went down into that area, he commented and said that it really is a wetland because some farmer blocked it off and if you move this and move that that it would drain naturally. I went, no, we’re not touching that. We’re staying away from that completely, and that’s what brought us to the northwest corner of this parcel and we drew a six acre parcel. It’s high. It’s dry. It’s highly visible. It’s highly prized, but then so is the 54 acres, and so in specific answer to question what becomes of 54 acres, from here on, I don’t know. If they build one house on it, they’ll have to come back and certainly, again, run the process of site plan and stormwater, septic. Same thing for the six acres. If it’s a subdivision plan, they’ll be back here again with a Sketch, with a Preliminary and with a Final. So I wouldn’t want them to preclude the possibility of taking what last year some people were offering a half a million dollars for and saying, okay, we’ll just consider it a building lot, because a building lot would then be probably a $400,000 loss. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you stipulate the same conditions on Lot One, though? MR. MULLER-On the little lot? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. MULLER-I’ll tell you what. What I’m concerned about there is that a buyer will come along, and I believe that your Code permits that one lot to have a shared driveway, and 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) then have two, three acre parcels on it. So there’s the value in that. That is that it’s probably in the neighborhood of a $50, $60, $75,000 lot as a nice lot for one house, but I’m not the developer. I’m the speculator. I would honestly say to you that if a developer comes along, he’s likely to want to put a shared driveway in and split that, making it two, three acre lots, which the Code allows. Of course they’ll be back here, and that’s probably more than a $75,000 lot, if it’s got two building sites on it. So it’s not my cup of tea, in terms of trying to make six into two three’s, but I just would like to allow that possibility because the Code permits it. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, for clarification, if these two lots are subdivided, and he gets approval, if they were to build a single house on each, they would just go get building permits. There would be no site plan review. There would be no designation of wetlands. There would be no clear cutting limits. The Building Department wouldn’t, they would just grant the permit. MRS. STEFFAN-Unless there’s a plat notation. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, or unless they exceed a threshold, that would trigger a site plan review. MR. SEGULJIC-Which would be? MR. SIPP-Which would be? MR. HUNSINGER-Clear cutting would be one. MR. MULLER-Stormwater regs would be another. MR. HUNSINGER-Stormwater would be another. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’ve seen the way our Building Department handles those things. I mean, that’s my concern. MR. MULLER-Well, put it on the map. Put it on the final map that says that that’s a requirement. MR. SEGULJIC-The Code says you need to designate where the wetlands are, and if this is such a valuable piece of land, I don’t see what the issue is. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, but it also says that we can grant waivers. So I guess we’re almost back at the point where are we comfortable with the waivers that are requested, and if not, which ones are we okay with, and which ones are we not okay with. It’s not unusual for an applicant to request waivers, and this has always been, you know, it’s been an ongoing issue between the Board and Staff, because Staff can say well, you know, we know the application’s not complete, but they requested a waiver, and then the applicant has a right to bring it before the Board, and I think in the correspondence, you know, you kind of get some of that flavor, if you will. MR. SEGULJIC-Which waivers are you requesting? MRS. STEFFAN-According to Craig Brown’s letter, septic system, stormwater and a clearing plan. Those are the three things that made it insufficient for completion review. MR. MULLER-That’s correct, and I pointed out in my submission that there was no clearing plan because there truly is no clearing plan, and there is no stormwater management requirement, because your very section stormwater regulations do not impose a requirement unless there is a building construction or development. As for depicting a proposed septic system or design for a septic system for either lot, I guess if that’s a requirement, I’m not an engineer, but I don’t believe that engineers pull those off a pad. You’re asking me for a typical plan, perhaps, but I guess I would do what, photocopy a typical plan that’s in your Code or pull one off the Internet? Because I don’t know what the size of the house is, and I don’t know how many bedrooms there’ll be, and I think that all of those plans are site specific, as well as how they’re going to be utilized. So we’d be, I think, you know, perhaps playing a game. MR. SEGULJIC-I do not believe we asked for a specific design. We asked to show that the land can support a septic system. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. MULLER-I think that Craig Brown specifically asked for a proposed septic system design, not a letter, or a test pit, but a specific septic system design for either lot, and I can’t believe that that’s what this Board or the Code intends to do, and that is to challenge every applicant and say show us what might be your plan some day if you build. I think that its appropriate to require it at the time that something in fact will be built. MRS. BRUNO-To play Devil’s advocate, on one of the waiver points, just because of some things that we see, and I’m not putting any onus on you or saying that you’re planning on doing this or anything, it’s just things that we have seen in our community, and neighboring community’s and that is, you know, if we give the waiver for the clearing, and you were to go in there and over clear, clear cut, you know, even if, as an applicant, you ended up being fined by the Town, we still have a very large loss of what makes our community so valuable and viable for people moving into the area and staying in the area. Again, I’m not saying that you’re planning on going in there and logging. I’m just trying to play a little bit of Devil’s advocate that, you know, we’re trying to get people to be able to use their land, but we have to be, again, as you’ve heard all evening, careful about how we proceed, so that we can maintain our natural resources. MR. MULLER-That’s okay. I think we share the same concerns, and in the effort to perhaps answer the question from the Devil’s Advocate, the answer would be that I think the proper thing to do would be if we can obtain an approval that the actual map that eventually gets filed in the Clerk’s Office specifically imposes that requirement, that before there be any development, before there be any clearing, before there be any construction, that again, that person who’s going to develop the six or the 54 acres comes with their specific plan, shows their specific septic system, shows their specific clearing plan, and basically, again, has to present what constitutes what I think you need to know when they get developed, but here there’s really no present intention to develop, and you know I’m not trying to invent this challenge so that you can all be baffled by why would anybody subdivide a piece of property and not have present interest to build. I sure don’t, but I hope to be able to sell it to somebody who will. So I don’t want to guess what their plan is, and I don’t think you want to guess either. The O’Reillys, they’d like to build some day, and when they do, they’ll find a place somewhere on the 54 acres that’s very far away from wetland, and certainly with the appropriate setbacks from all sidelines, and then they’ll have a specific plan, and it’ll be right on that map. They can’t build until they have a site plan review, and they satisfy the septic requirements that are specific and they not clear until it’s approved by the Town of Queensbury. What I do, when I practice in other municipalities, those requirements are imposed in every case where there’s no present intention to develop, and this is not a big developer. It’s not like we’re coming in and we’re asking to actually take 60 acres and somehow suggest to you that we will cut it into 20 and later on we’ll tell you where we might put the houses. I mean, this is just truly an exercise in put some magic lines there so that I can own a piece and pay for it and they can have money that eventually they can put into their house. MR. FORD-It seems pretty straightforward to me. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see how we can approve a subdivision that has been stated it has wetlands on it, and we do not know where those wetlands are. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question. MR. FORD-How about with those stipulations on the plan? MR. SEGULJIC-I think we’d have to know now where the wetlands, if they exist on site and how big they are. MR. HUNSINGER-I have a question of the applicant. On the map it says that a portion of the survey premises are within the Lake George CEA. Does that apply to both lots or just Lot Two? MR. MULLER-Well, honestly, I think it was Mr. Vollaro on the Board who suggested that it was in the Critical Environmental Area, and we accepted that as true, and the surveyor challenged and said he didn’t think that was true, and I said it didn’t matter, just put it on the map. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MULLER-So I don’t know. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MRS. BARDEN-That’s what, excuse me, that’s what we show as well. That you see as a Critical Environmental Area. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that what that yellow is? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, and that’s why Mr. Seguljic asked that that be on the plat that you see. MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s too hard to tell if it does apply to Lot One. What would be anyone’s best guess? MRS. BRUNO-I didn’t hear what you said about the yellow. That indicates DEC? MRS. BARDEN-CEA. MRS. BRUNO-CEA. Okay. MRS. BARDEN-You can see the APA jurisdictional wetlands, not on this property, but shown on either side. The CEA line just follows the contour. It’s my understanding that APA made a jurisdictional determination that there weren’t any wetlands on the six acre lot, right? MR. MULLER-That’s correct. MRS. BARDEN-Because they wouldn’t allow you to subdivide the wetlands. MR. MULLER-A layperson could determine that, that is that there are no wetlands on the six acre lot. As for the controversy, if there is a controversy as to what wetlands are on the 54 acres, if that up on the screen there is showing some APA designated wetlands, I would venture to say that in addition to what’s actually shown on the map, there are APA wetlands on this parcel. APA wetlands are defined as connectivity, meaning that is there a flow between this and larger bodies of water, and the answer simply is absolutely. The APA, however, takes a non-jurisdictional position because we are not subdividing any wetland, that is that there is absolutely no line that goes through any wetland, none. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other questions? MR. SEGULJIC-My guess would be that a portion of the CEA does go through the six acre lot, but you’d have to go to George Hilton to get that determination. MR. FORD-On the east side. MR. MULLER-I don’t know. What is the significance of that? MR. SEGULJIC-Good question. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, what’s the will of the Board here? We do have waiver requests. We also have a public hearing. MRS. BRUNO-Let’s go to the public hearing. MR. FORD-Let’s go to the public. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Is there anyone here that has questions or comments of this applicant? I’ll open the public hearing. If you could just state your name and your address and address your questions to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANDY DOBROSKI MR. DOMBROSKI-Andy Dobroski, 1471 Bay. I was just wondering where the subdivision was going on the property. That’s my only question, and they answered that in their opening. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Was there somebody else that had a question or a comment? Mr. O’Connor? 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-There’s more than one section to the Code. The waiver section has as much importance as the requirements, and you really have to read the waiver section, and I think for a precedent, you’re really going down the wrong lane here. You’re supposed to be judging whether or not the request for the waiver is something that would harm public health, safety or general welfare or can you put conditions on the plat which would protect those issues? The offer here is to put conditions on the plat that don’t leave you in any other position, as if you had a wetland delineation. Wetland delineation probably on the 54 acre thing would cost maybe $5, $10,000. It’s an expensive process, and what purpose does it serve at this point? And the same thing with septics. I don’t know why you have no faith, and, Tom, I guess I direct this to you, to the Building Department? If you come in here with a pre-existing lot, whether it be six acres or three acres, you have to show that you have soils that will sustain a septic system. You have to show the exact location where the septic system is. You actually have to have test holes there, and I think we now have a Town engineer on Board that is going to actually get involved in that process. So the two particular waivers that I heard were requested aren’t issues that are going to be for public health, welfare or safety. I mean, I just don’t understand why you’d have somebody spend all that money on engineering right now when it may be completely out of line. The best way to do a septic test is where are you going to put the septic field, and until they design where they’re going to put the house, what are they going to do, clear the whole lot and put tests all over? I mean, it doesn’t make sense. If they have no plans and they’re willing to stipulate that they will do those tests when they do have the plans, and submit them whether to you or to the Building Department, there’s no risk to the public health, welfare and safety, and I don’t really feel comfortable sitting in the back listening to the thought process that you may, simply because somebody’s subdividing, make them do a complete survey of the whole parcel. APA does an in-depth study, when you send in a jurisdictional inquiry as to whether or not there are wetlands, and as long as you’re retaining all the wetlands on the parcel that you presently own, they allow you to subdivide. They have like five different layers of maps, most of them aerial maps, some of them soil maps, that they go through to determine whether or not you have a wetland. It’s not a simple process. I find them more conservative than not conservative. They typically will, if they have any question at all, send somebody out, a hydrologist out, to take a field check. I mean, this is not something that they send in a letter and simply got back a two day response. It’s a process that you go through. There’s a process within the APA that protects property, if you will, that is wetlands. So I think if you look at the actual section on waivers, and you look at the offer of conditions that are offered, I think you’re obligated to give the waivers. That’s part of the Ordinance. I understand what Mr. Seguljic is saying that there’s another part of the Ordinance that says that you have these on a typical application, but I don’t think that’s the case here. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Staff, could you answer a question for me, before I drive myself nuts here. I cannot find the page that is the actual request for waivers. Perhaps I’m looking right over it, in the packages. Could you point me directly towards that? MRS. BARDEN-It’s not actually part of the application anymore. There’s not a check off sheet. MRS. BRUNO-It isn’t? MRS. STEFFAN-There used to be a page. MRS. BRUNO-Right. Okay. MRS. BARDEN-It was in a letter. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Muller’s letter. MRS. BARDEN-From Mr. Muller to Mr. Vollaro, in response to an incomplete letter he received. th MRS. BRUNO-December 11? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. I was looking for that particular sheet, trying to save time. Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone else here who had questions or comments on this application? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. Any other questions or comments from the members of the Board? MR. SIPP-Mr. Chairman, I’d like clarification. If this is accepted as a subdivision, on the six acre parcel, the person only needs, then, a building permit? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s my understanding. MR. SIPP-So the same thing would hold true with the 54 acres? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, in terms of the existing 60 acres, you know, the owner could go and request a building permit today. I mean, there’s nothing to preclude the applicant from doing that. As was commented, though, you know, they would have to file for a building permit and provide all the information that’s required of a building permit, and if they exceed a threshold that would trigger them to come back to the Planning Board for further review. MR. SEGULJIC-But at what point in the building permit triggers a wetland review? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if there’s any part of it, necessarily, in the building permit process that triggers a wetland review, other than Staff review. Susan, maybe you have something to add. MRS. BARDEN-They would need to show a separation distance between any building and the edge of the wetland for the septic system and the wetlands. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but if we’ve identified it, we’ve had this discussion, if there is a plat notation that requires that for either lot they have to come before the Planning Board for site plan review, before any development happens, then we’re covered. They can’t try to get a building permit because there’s a plat notation. MR. HUNSINGER-They can’t get a building permit. MR. MULLER-I believe that, too, and we’ve offered that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-And we’ve done that before with clearing, we’ve put plat notations on lots of things in the last year. MRS. BARDEN-Absolutely. MRS. BRUNO-I’d be willing to put forward a motion under those ideas if I can ask for the help of a more senior Board member to do so, that would be of like mind. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Are you comfortable with that, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Our regulations say you have to map out the wetlands. We have an APA letter that says there are wetlands on site. We’re not going to have them map out wetlands? They’ve indicated in the future they have intentions of developing this land. MRS. STEFFAN-But they’re not doing it today, but somewhere down the road, if somebody wants to develop the six acre lot or if somebody wants to develop the 54 acre lot, they’re going to have to come back before the Planning Board for site plan review. They can’t get a building permit, if there’s a plat notation. MR. SEGULJIC-I think they should map the wetlands. MRS. STEFFAN-So in essence what we’re doing is we’re changing, we’re helping them to change ownership, but we’re not allowing them to build anything. MR. FORD-Will the plat notation not give the direction that you’re looking for, not tonight, but when it is more appropriate and they know what the land is going to be used? 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. SEGULJIC-In a lot of ways it’s going to help them because they’ll know how much land they have to develop. MR. FORD-I don’t think that’s our issue. MR. SEGULJIC-Our Code says they have to map any surface waters, which I’ve just been given the idea that there’s a stream on site, but I don’t know where the stream is. It says you also have to map wetlands. That’s what our Code says. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it also says that we can grant waivers, and I just want to read a sentence in the Section 183-47 under waivers. “In granting waivers, the Planning Board shall impose such conditions and will substantially assume that the objectives of the standards and requirements so waived are met”, and then it goes on to say, so, in other words, if we consider the waivers and then make additional requirements that provide the same protection that we would by having the information now, that’s, in essence, what we’re required to do, and I think, at least in my own mind, by the applicant offering that any development would come back this Board for site plan review gives us that protection. I mean, we don’t have to be unanimous in our opinion of that. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just very uncomfortable. We have a site that has known wetlands on it. MR. HUNSINGER-We do. MR. SEGULJIC-I can’t think of a time when we did a subdivision that did not, that had wetlands on it where we just waived the wetlands. MRS. BRUNO-We’re not just waiving it. MRS. STEFFAN-They’re not developing anything at this point. They’re just putting their, changing ownership. MR. FORD-We’re forced to address it. MR. SEGULJIC-They’d have to address it. MR. FORD-Yes, and we’re putting it on the plat that they will. MR. SEGULJIC-And I’m just saying let’s do this in the proper order. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’m sensing that the majority of the Board is interested in moving forward. Are we ready to move to SEQRA? It is a Long Form. MR. SEGULJIC-So we have to look at SEQRA as if it was a 22 lot subdivision. Correct? MRS. STEFFAN-No, because it says in there, when they filled out the Long Form, potential, they said 20, and that’s an RR-3, but it would not be possible for them to do that if they do density calculations and subtract for slopes and wetlands and those kinds of things. I mean, we know that. MR. SEGULJIC-Don’t we have to look at this. MR. FULLER-I know where your question is going on segmentation, right? No. Segmentation, if that’s the gist of your question, is do we have to look at it on full build out scenario, no, it’s not what’s planned. That question in the Environmental Assessment Form is to provide you information of what possibly could come down the road. There’s nothing to say that if they say we have 20 building lots, there’s nothing to say that that land could support 20 buildings lots. One thing I wanted to point you to that was along your point is the opening sentence of your subdivision guidelines. The land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it can be used safely for building purposes without danger to health, or peril from fire, flood or other menace. So all the information that you were looking for, including your wetlands, flows under that initial sentence. That’s the basis for everything that you’re reviewing. What they’ve done is ask you to waive that and potentially impose a site plan requirement that may or may not otherwise be required depending on what they do. So that is the variance and that is the specific condition that they’ve asked you to impose to address your specific concerns. On the question of the 20 lots, again, that goes just to information. It’s not a segmentation issue. Indeed, if you were going to go forward on a SEQRA review and I don’t have any 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) inclination as to which way the Board would go on this, but the SEQRA review is not necessarily over at this stage either. It’s going to come back up. Any declaration here is going to be subject to review once again when the matter comes back up. The issue you guys need to be concerned about is that segmentation, and what I’ll advise you is, no, it’s not because as part of your SEQRA review, you’re going to state that this is not over, that this review is not over, that it’s part of the process based on what they have applied for now. What they’re applying, with the understanding that one of your conditions going forward, if the Board were to approve it, is that site plan review be required (lost words). MR. SIPP-If we were to accept this as a subdivision without the waivers, that would lead us to a site plan review when this came up for any subdivision? MR. FULLER-Say that to me again? MR. SIPP-If we were to accept this as a subdivision. MR. FULLER-Without the waivers. MR. SIPP-Without the waivers, this would lead us to, any further subdivision would lead us to a site plan review. MR. FULLER-If it triggered something else. MRS. BARDEN-Any further subdivision would lead you to another subdivision. MR. FULLER-Absolutely, another subdivision review, not necessarily site plan review. MR. SIPP-So we could approve this as a subdivision without the waivers tonight. MR. FULLER-You should or should not? MRS. BARDEN-You can. MR. SIPP-Could we? Could we approve this just as a subdivision without any waivers? MR. FULLER-That’s really up to you guys. I think, flat out, no. I don’t think you want to approve a subdivision as precedent without a waiver. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, the applicant has already acknowledged that waivers are required to approve a subdivision. I guess I have of Counsel, and I guess it’s really more of a comment than a question. In terms of considering a SEQRA for a two lot subdivision, that is all we are considering. We’re considering the maximum impact of what could occur from a two lot subdivision. We are not required to consider a 20 lot subdivision if they’ve only requested a two. So, in essence, and I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but what you have said is this is not the end of SEQRA. So if the applicant then comes back with a, you know, pick a number, 10 lot subdivision for the larger parcel, we do a whole new SEQRA, taking into account all of the things we have been talking about this evening, and this subdivision, too. So really in terms of thinking about SEQRA, it’s just the maximum impact of the requested two lot subdivision, nothing more. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and I can understand that, but, riddle me this. A two lot subdivision is an administrative procedure. So technically they could get this approval, come back again. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s within the APA jurisdiction. MR. SEGULJIC-So you can’t take that six acre lot and subdivide it again? MR. FULLER-It’s very specific. No, you can’t. MRS. BARDEN-They’d have to come before you because they’re in the APA, and you only can do that one time. You can only do one administrative subdivision. MR. FULLER-You only get one administrative subdivision, even if you’re not in the APA. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. SEGULJIC-And one other question. Under SEQRA, what is considered a protected water body? Is a wetland a protected water body? MR. FULLER-Sure, but even more important a Critical Environmental Area. MR. SEGULJIC-How can we answer the question on impacts on water, when one of them says developable area of the site contains protected water bodies? Where we don’t even know where the wetlands are. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not developable yet. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t know that. MR. HUNSINGER-Which question are you on, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Number Three. MR. HUNSINGER-Number Three. Okay. Well, then you have to look at the examples, and then we have to consider what the impact would be, and, you know, unless they’re dredging a channel of a stream or developing, the developable area of the site contains protected water body, I don’t think they’re proposing to develop the water body. They’re not proposing to extend a utility through the protected water body, and they’re not proposing construction in a designated freshwater or title wetland. They’re just saying we know there’s wetlands there. We won’t build on them. So there is no impact on, at least in my opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-But keep in mind, we don’t know where these wetlands are. We know APA said there are wetlands on site. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t know where they are. MR. MULLER-Could I respond to that? MR. SEGULJIC-Sure. MR. MULLER-The Adirondack Park Agency carefully looked at it, as Mr. O’Connor explained to you, but more to the point, we gave the exact boundary lines on the same map that you have to the APA. By them issuing a non-jurisdictional letter, you have their guarantee that there is no boundary line going through any wetland, any water course, any stream, any pond. If you did walk on that property, the entire six acre rectangle has even to a layman no apparent wetland, none. It’s all high ground, but in the event that you didn’t have the opportunity to walk on that land or that you didn’t go that far back, the guarantee is that the Adirondack Park Agency held us to their standard, which is that no boundary line may intersect or subdivide a wetland. We’re not. By encompassing that six acres in that rectangle, there’s no wetlands in there, none, and that’s probably the issue in terms of what is going to be developed, because we have guaranteed you that the 54 acres that remains does have wetlands, and we’re not subdividing it, and when the point come where you want to know are we going to somehow intrude on it or build in it, the answer simply is that by having it specifically shown on an approved subdivision map that’s in the Warren County Clerk’s Office, would not even be a requirement upon Mr. and Mrs. O’Reilly or any subsequent owner of the six acres. The challenge would be that they would have to come back to Queensbury and run the gauntlet, so to speak, whatever the application process is, to prove to your satisfaction, or seek a variance. I don’t see any variances out here. Potentially there’s none. There’s lots of land, and get their approvals, and I believe that the map would be sufficient to show that they must have site plan approval and site plan would, you layout your concerns on that subdivision approval map, that is if you want to see what the clearing will be, when it’s specifically known, it’ll be presented. I think that it’ll be specifically known what sort of septic system is required, and it’ll be presented, and in addition, I know that the concern ought to be stormwater, and although not having a plan right now, I cannot imagine these large lots not having large houses. So they’re going to exceed all of the thresholds and probably a major stormwater, long driveways, all of which we can’t show you now, all of which we would only give you fictitious criteria, and I think realistically Queensbury as well as the O’Reillys as well as what I hope to do here is well served by allowing the waivers, allowing the process to then get specific by showing on the map that the next owner or the next developer has to basically prove to your satisfaction clearing, septic, stormwater, and distances from those wetlands that are specifically noted, but it’s only 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) on the 54 acres that they’re specifically noted. I guess when somebody comes to develop the six acres, I can’t imagine what that process would be other than a certification from an engineer, again, stating, or wildlife biologist stating there are no wetlands on that property, because there are none. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Can we do a SEQRA? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, let’s move forward with the SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. “Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area established pursuant to Subdivision 6NYCRR Part 617.14?” And it asks specifically to list the environmental characteristics that cause the designation of a CEA, and then the questions underneath that, “The proposed action to locate within a CEA. Proposed action will result in a reduction of the quantity of the resource. Proposed action will result in a reduction in the quality of the resource. Proposed action will impact the use, function, or enjoyment of the resource.” And obviously for those questions you’d have to identify small to moderate impacts, potentially large, or could it be mitigated. MR. HUNSINGER-Based on the examples provided, I would say no. MR. FORD-I would agree. MRS. STEFFAN-Because we’re just subdividing the land. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s no action that’s going to be taken. Does everyone else concur with that? MR. TRAVER-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WILLIAM & DEBORAH O’REILLY, WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I’ll entertain a motion for Preliminary. I guess my own personal opinion is that the applicant has offered language on the final plat that would make it so that we couldn’t approve final at this point. MR. SEGULJIC-Was it advertised as Final? MRS. BARDEN-It was advertised as Final, but, again, there was no application submitted for Final Stage. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So it’s two things. MRS. BARDEN-It’s two things. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think that’s the answer. What we do is approve Preliminary, and then the applicant would submit the Final and as long as the Final plat met our requirements, then it’s almost a defacto approval. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. All right. MR. FORD-And we will stipulate, as part of Preliminary, what that will be. MR. MULLER-Yes, you have to tell me, so I can get it on the map. MR. FORD-Exactly. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Well, I’ll make the motion and then we can provide the opportunity for discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2006 WILLIAM & DEBORAH O’REILLY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. WHEREAS, a subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes subdivision of a 60+/- acre parcel into two lots of 6.001 and 54.824 acres. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and heard on January 16, 2007; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and 5. WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) 6. WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Subdivision, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt; and 7. WHEREAS, the applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and if applicable, to be combined with a letter of credit; and 8. WHEREAS, the Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and 9. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2006 WILLIAM & DEBORAH O’REILLY, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff: 1. Paragraph Four complies, 2. Paragraph Five negative, 3. This Preliminary Stage approval is granted with the following conditions: a. The applicant requested waivers for septic system, stormwater and a clearing plan, which the Planning Board will grant, b. The other condition is that when the applicant comes back for Final Stage approval, they will provide plats that have a statement for both of the lots that site plan review will be required before any development on either parcel. th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: MR. SEGULJIC-Just for clarification, did we grant waivers from septic system approvals? They can just go out and develop these as single lots, then? MRS. STEFFAN-No, on this subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-So with subdivision they can still go out and build two houses, then? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Why not? They can just go and get the building permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Because we just stipulated. MRS. STEFFAN-And I did put any development, I did add the word any development. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. MULLER-And I think the important part is it’s not only the people who sit in this room who are bound by that. Once it becomes filed in the Clerk’s Office, it is the property that is bound by that requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MULLER-That’s completely understandable and completely acceptable. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. MULLER-All right. We’ll be back with the magic language, and an application. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2005 SEQR UNLISTED JEFF SCHWARTZ AGENT(S) PETER BROWN OWNER(S) SAME ZONING LI LOCATION 53 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MODIFICATION TO AN EXISTING APPROVED SITE PLAN. SPECIFICALLY, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO REMOVE A CONDITION REQUIRING A LETTER OF CREDIT BE PROVIDED FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. CROSS REFERENCE SP 69-00, SP 23-99, SB 6-87 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.7 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-2 SECTION 179-4- 020 MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, whenever you’re ready, if you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Really this is just a modification. You received, in your packet, a copy of the resolution approved July 18, 2006. This is a request to modify that resolution, specifically to eliminate the provision for letter of credit or performance bond requirement. The request has been submitted by the applicant, Jeff Schwartz, dated September 18, 2006. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. SCHWARTZ-Hello. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. SCHWARTZ-Jeff Schwartz. MR. HUNSINGER-And just summarize, or elaborate, I should say, further why you’re here. MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. I’m requesting to eliminate the requirement to have an LC required for the project. Basically, I have a number of reasons here, but the two main reasons are first it significantly adds to the cost of my project. Estimated, it could add $50,000 to the project, when basically it’s double financing. Another concern of mine is that say the Town wants like a million dollar Letter of Credit, which Craig Brown said whatever the project costs, that’s what they’d be looking for, and the Town could unilaterally say they don’t like some part of the project and then, you know, financially for me to take that risk, it doesn’t pay for me to do that. My banker and my lawyer recommended, they said a prudent person wouldn’t take that risk. People I’ve talked to have never heard of this requirement before in any other area, and my banker, in fact he told me at a meeting, they didn’t mention my name, but he said he told a bunch of his peers from the area that were there, and he said nobody’s ever even heard of this type of requirement anywhere else, and in fact he even told me, he said, you know, if Queensbury is going to require that, it’s going to affect building in the area because people can go some other place and put up a building, and another point is why is an LC needed for this addition when you could just not give me the Certificate of Occupancy if I don’t meet the requirements. Another thing is I’d never even heard of this for my project ever being a consideration until literally two seconds before the vote. In fact, Mr. Vollaro at the beginning kept saying at the final meeting, this after six months or a long time talking about this project, he said, well, I have one more condition, I’m going to say it at the end, and then the last thing before the vote, you know, he said this is the condition, and it just took me aback because I had, you know, no idea that this was even a potential requirement. As far as in Queensbury, I’ve heard, talking to Craig Brown, that one other person’s been required to do this, you know, if I’m required to have a letter of credit, how come other projects aren’t? For example, the first person, the first project that was approved, they weren’t required to do it. I don’t know, you know, their project seems to be a higher profile one on a main road. Mine’s an addition on a side road. So why would mine be required and other projects not be? So I guess to summarize, cost is the main reason, and in the interest of fairness, another reason, and those are basically my thoughts on it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I guess I’d like to make a comment on your request, and I guess before I even do that, I had a question. The resolution that was approved mentions a Letter of Credit or Performance Bond that’s satisfactory to the Comptroller, 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) and is that what the Comptroller came back and said it would have to be equal to the full value of the project? MR. SCHWARTZ-Okay. When I tried to talk to, find out who the Comptroller was, nobody at Queensbury told me, said there’s no Comptroller. So they said the closest thing is the Budget Officer, and this was a new person that was taking over, and she had no idea, and she said I have no idea about this, and then they directed me to Craig Brown, and then he told me that the money they’d be looking for is whatever the value of the project is. So basically nobody knew anything about this or how to handle it because it’s not never been done before in the Town, and I’m the first person, and I guess according to Craig Brown, only one other person, and this has been since July that I was here, it’s been required for this, to do this. MR. HUNSINGER-If you reviewed the motion you would see, and it’s on the public record, that I was one of the dissenting votes, and I also had a problem with the Letter of Credit requirement. Now having said that, the will of the Board at the time was that when we approved your last project there were elements of the site plan that were not completed, and there was a concern by the Board that if we were to approve a new site plan, that there needed to be some assurance that the entire site plan would be built as stipulated, and that was one of the reasons why we asked for a certification of as built drawings, and I know, I don’t remember if you were here the evening of the meeting or not. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes, I was here. MR. HUNSINGER-But in summarizing the Board’s feeling, and I don’t pretend to speak for the whole Board on this particular issue, but I think that there was some desire of the Board to get some greater assurance than just a Certificate of Occupancy that the project would be built to spec. MR. SCHWARTZ-As far as everything not being done, there’s a discrepancy about that. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand, and in fact that was another reason why I voted no. I’m just trying to summarize the feeling of the Board and where the Board was in their deliberation. MR. SCHWARTZ-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know if it’s worth rehashing it, because it was what it was. MR. SCHWARTZ-I don’t want to get into internal politics of the Town and all that, and we can talk about it, but I’ll just say, if people want me to talk further, I will, but basically there was, we can debate that point about if everything was done or not. Whatever, if you want me to talk about it, I will, or it doesn’t matter, but the bottom line is there’s a discrepancy or a debate about that. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, I’m with you. I have no problem with relieving the primary Letter of Credit. Maybe it’s best if you poll the Board on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mr. Ford? MR. FORD-As I recall this was, if not the first, one of the very first after the recommendations for as built certification and the Letter of Credit was added to that, and we have subsequently not made that a requirement for, I don’t know of any others. I certainly don’t have a problem with withdrawing it in this instance here. MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Sipp? MR. SIPP-I don’t see any problem. MR. HUNSINGER-How about down at this end? MR. TRAVER-I don’t have any problem. MRS. BRUNO-I would like to abstain, just because, at the previous meeting, I was actually on vacation and I don’t feel educated enough on the project, and that might partially be my fault, since that time, I apologize for that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Chris, I think that you’ve summed up the feelings of the Board at the time we voted on this particular resolution well. This project took a long time to come to completion, and I think that I would be willing to change my mind on the vote right now, because this was part of a policy decision, I believe, but there are some group dynamics and some position changes that have happened in the Town and so we weren’t able to execute the policy, and so I think that we should relieve Mr. Schwartz of this responsibility until we get our policy structure in place and so that it’s appropriate to each application. MR. HUNSINGER-I will add, for the benefit of the applicant, one of the requirements that was fairly new is the submission of as built drawings which we now almost routinely request. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s in all of our resolutions. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-And the other is also an option, but we very infrequently pick that up. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Is there any further discussion? Any additional comments from members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MR. HUNSINGER-There is no public hearing on a site plan modification. We do have to take into consideration any SEQRA changes, but we are not required to re-conduct SEQRA. So if there’s no further discussion or comments from the Board, I will entertain a resolution, motion. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 67-2005 JEFF SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant is requesting modification to an existing approved site plan. Specifically, the applicant is seeking to remove a condition requiring a letter of credit be provided for the completion of the project. 2. A public hearing is not required for a modification; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. Where appropriate, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 8. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection 9. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 67-2005 JEFF SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff: 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) 1. Paragraph Four, complies. 2. Paragraph Five, there are no changes in the SEQRA, so we did not revisit that. 3. Paragraph Seven, there is a new condition on your approval. That the applicant will provide as built plans to certify that the site is developed according to the approved plans prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. th Duly adopted this 16 day of January, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Bruno MR. SCHWARTZ-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. You’re all set. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-2007 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE NOT NEEDED AT SKETCH CERRONE BUILDERS, KATHRYN KENNAH, WILLIAM JOSLYN, CYNTHIA BISHOP AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING, VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A, RC-3A, WR-3A LOCATION WEST MT. & CORINTH RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 222.2 ACRES OF LAND INTO 26 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 1.0 ACRES TO 47.13 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. FLOOD ZONE C. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 222.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.5-1-1; 315.-1-1 SECTION A-183 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes. MRS. BARDEN-This is a proposal, Sketch Plan proposal, for a 26 lot residential lot subdivision of a total 222 acre lot. Lots range from one acre to 47 acres. The properties are zoned Suburban Residential One Acre, Recreational Commercial Three Acre, and Waterfront Residential Three Acre. A 39 lot cluster subdivision design was submitted for these same parcels but withdrawn before the meeting of July 27, 2005. These lots were all sited in the Suburban Residential zone and sized in the range of .5-acre each. Additionally, one through road from West Mountain to Corinth was proposed. An alternative cluster subdivision layout is required, if among other characteristics, “Slopes greater than 25% occupy over 25% of the site,” per §179-11-050 (see environmental features GIS map). The density calculation for clustering should subtract site slopes in excess of 15% from the total acreage (the plan subtracts slopes over 25%). This may be why the differing density calculations, the previous applicant’s cluster design gave a density calculation of 39 lots, while this traditional subdivision proposal calculates a total of 49 lots. An alternative cluster design should be submitted, this modified plan should show only one roadway through the development by adjoining the two shown roadways east of the wetlands on lot 19, furthermore, the roadway on the West Mountain Road side should line-up with Founder’s Way. The cluster plan should be characterized by smaller lots and preservation of the slopes in excess of 25% (west of the property). Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Gentlemen. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Kathy Kennah, Bill Joslyn, and Cynthia Bishop and Cerrone Builders. The three individuals are members of the Joslyn family that have owned this property since 1893. The family’s owned this piece of property for over 100 years. Behind me is Bill Joslyn and Cindy Bishop. Kathy Kennah is out of Town, as is Al Cerrone, who’s the principal in Cerrone Builders. Basically what you have is, in my opinion, the better of two worlds. You have an application that takes into account all the topographical features of the property and preserves them. It’s an application that doesn’t try to take advantage of clustering and in fact uses less density than would be permitted under clustering as a prior developer did indicate and did show you on a map that was submitted to you. Tom Nace can run through the map, and I think we can talk about each of the comments that Staff has and try and tell you why we think what we have is a good design and probably the best planning design for the property. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. NACE-As Staff has pointed out, there was a previous subdivision design for this, and I have the cluster layout for that design with me. First, though, basically what we’re proposing now are two roads, two dead end roads, one coming off Corinth Road and one coming off West Mountain Road. The one coming off West Mountain Road is not quite lined up with Founders Way. We can probably realign that a little bit, so that if it’s not exactly across, it can get very close to being directly across. So that’s something we certainly can work on in the Preliminary design. We have chosen to use two short cul de sacs in place of a circular road for two reasons. One, if we were to take a circular road, the way the original cluster design showed it in this drawing, up through the steeper slopes, avoiding this wetland area, and back down to Corinth Road, it’s a significantly greater disturbance than what we’re proposing, and it also creates a great deal more roadway to maintain than we’re proposing. The second alternative would be to bring a road directly across the back of these two remaining lots. However, in there there’s an approximately 25 foot deep ravine plus a stream and a wetland to avoid, that makes it impractical. So what we’ve tried to do is utilize the lower areas of the lot that are relatively accessible and good for development with low impact and we would end up developing or have houses at least on an area something like that on one side, and on the other the houses would be within an area approximately there. Now if you compare that, as opposed to here, where you have houses spread out over some steeper, higher terrain, and throughout that site, I think that what we’re proposing in these two smaller clusters, if you will, even though we’re not clustering, we’re still conforming with the existing zoning. MR. FORD-Excuse me. Are both of those to the same scale? MR. NACE-Yes, they are. This is, they’re both one inch equals 200 feet. Okay. This honors the land form. It keeps the roads off the steeper slopes. It keeps the roads out of the wetland area and out of the stream area, and we just felt that it was a much better design. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Did you have anything else to add before I open it up for questions? MR. O'CONNOR-The other thing that we would anticipate is that we would put in a no cut, no build zone, and we would be amenable to either actually putting a line on the map, we would put a line on the map, but putting it on according to a topographical elevation, or put an arbitrary line on. As Tom indicated, where he has shown on that map, all the lot will be on the lower flatter area. We do not intend to promote or have building on the slopes, and nothing high up in. If you use the topographical map on the north end of it, the line of like 475, nothing above 475. You might even be able to go maybe a little bit some place between 475 and 450, and on the other side, probably about the same, but we can show you that, you know, you can tell us what you’re thoughts are. The area that’s the steep slope nothing will be built on, and it will be preserved and there’ll be strictly a no cut zone, and that’s basically what we’re talking about. The entrance on the north will have 10 lots that will be served, and the entrance on the south will actually have 12 lots that are served, or 14 lots that are served, and two that would have direct access to Corinth Road, with a common drive. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions or comments from the Board. MR. SIPP-This stream that runs through Lot 13, and comes out, goes under Corinth Road and ends up in the Hudson? MR. NACE-Through Lot 13? MR. SIPP-19, 19. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. SIPP-It comes out at the wetlands that are on the Lot 19. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. SIPP-Goes under the road off the Corinth Road and ends up in the Hudson. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. SIPP-Are we calling this a clustering situation? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. NACE-Well, since all the lots have been shown to conform to the zones, we aren’t calling it clustering at this point. Okay. It is not, I mean, we’re clustering in the fact that we’re willing to stipulate that all of the actual building on the lots will take place in the smaller area, that portions of the lots won’t be built on, but as far as the zoning goes, we are not clustering. We think our design is actually better than the cluster. MR. SIPP-You’re clustering, but not clustering. MR. NACE-Well, in essence, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re not meeting the strict definition of clustering is what you’re saying. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Other comments? MR. SIPP-I’m just wondering about pollution from that stream that runs across there. Are you within 500 feet of the Hudson? MR. NACE-There’s a zone line you’ll see over on Lot Number One, the WR-3A. The definition or the defining limit of that zone line is approximately 500 feet from the Hudson. MR. O'CONNOR-Everything to the south of that line is probably within 500 feet. Everything to the north is not. MR. SIPP-Well, I’m just reading under the standards for clustering which says that there’s no, there should be no clustering development within 500 feet of a high water mark of the following, and the first one is the Hudson River, followed by all the ponds. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-We recognize that, and that’s why we didn’t submit a cluster subdivision. I didn’t think we were entitled to it in part. MR. SIPP-It’s semantics. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s the plain reading of it. It says if you’re within 500 feet, you can’t cluster. MR. FORD-That’s why the mention made before about clustering without calling it clustering. MR. NACE-We’re getting the benefits of clustering. If you read through your clustering requirements, it’s to encourage flexibility, promote appropriate use of land, facilitate economic use of streets and utilities, preserve natural scenic qualities, encourage affordable housing. I mean, we’re trying to make a development that has the least impact possible. I mean, depending on whether, say you’re clustering and have an availability density of 39 lots or whether you’re not clustering and have an availability density of 49, we’re only proposing 26. So we feel that’s significantly less than an aggressive (lost word). MR. O'CONNOR-We give all the benefits of a cluster subdivision to the Town and don’t take advantage of using significantly smaller lots. We made the lots comply to the one acre zone in the one acre area, and they certainly comply to the three acre zone and the three acre areas. Typically that’s, when you give, when you do the cluster, the benefits to the Town are shorter roads, preserving scenic views, like the hillside here and what not, and the benefit to the developer is that he builds on smaller lots, but we’ve got a mish mash of both, but this does qualify. It does not require variances that we’re aware of for the standard zoning that’s in that area. MR. SEGULJIC-My only concern with the present design is you’re kind of breaking it up into two neighborhoods. There’s no connectivity between the two. What you’re saying is that there’s actually a ravine that goes through there? MR. NACE-Yes. If you look at the detailed, on C-2 if you look at the detailed topo plan, there’s approximately 25 foot of grade difference down into that ravine and back up the other side. Those are five foot contours you’re looking at. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. SEGULJIC-You’re talking about on Lot 19? MR. NACE-Yes. Exactly, down just below, you know, down to the wetland and back up out of the wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We could do, if you wanted a walking trail, or you suggested actually I think that would be, that might be something that we’d do. I’m not sure the exact location of it at this point. The walking trail would not be as disturbing as trying to build the road up around to (lost word) and we could probably do some type of walking trail up around the high. MR. SEGULJIC-Something like that. MR. O'CONNOR-We could do that. That worked over in the one across the road that Niagara Mohawk did. MR. SEGULJIC-I just like to see things connected. MR. NACE-You probably have in your packet a letter from Mike Travis. I’ve talked to Mike about it, made arrangements. He and Rick and I are going to go out and walk this site so that I can show them the reason we’re not connecting those. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know what the term is, whatever the term is, conservation easement. MR. HUNSINGER-Conservation subdivision? MR. SEGULJIC-Whatever, they have all this land up here. MR. NACE-In back, yes. Well, we thought about land conservancy, but they’re not really into, they’re looking at stuff where they can connect two other pieces, you know, to make contiguous parcels, and we could certainly talk to them again, but the initial conversation. MR. FORD-What stipulations are you willing to make for? MR. O'CONNOR-No building, no cutting. MR. SEGULJIC-So these, like Lot 20, 47 acres, no further subdivision? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. No further subdivision on any of them. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-That answers my concern. MR. O'CONNOR-The Hudson greenway is over here. There’s intervening parcels that are there. McDonald owns a parcel, and I don’t know who else owns the other parcel there, that we don’t connect to the greenway. That was set up by open space. MR. SEGULJIC-So you said you approached the Land Conservancy? MR. NACE-Early on, when it was a subdivision proposed by another developer, they talked to Leon Steves, and Leon said he didn’t think, you know, based on where the Land Conservancy was going at that time, that they’d be interested in just mountain land. MR. O'CONNOR-I went to a meeting up in Bolton with the Lake George Conservancy and they were talking about how they were going to put in place the Lake George Conservancy easements. If there is a group that’s going to do that in Queensbury, it’s something that we probably would entertain. Actually what it would do it would give us a third party that would enforce the no build, no cut, and that’s how they sell their conservancy easements to people. If they have property that they personally don’t wan to see developed or encroached upon or whatever, they will take an easement. It’s an involved process, and it’s not exactly cheap. You don’t just give them the deed. They want something for it so that they’re going to be able to pay somebody that’s going to go out and make annual checks, and they want, there’s three or four things that they look 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) for. A cash contribution with the conservation easement, and I don’t mean to speak for them, but that’s the way that they’ve set it up, and if there’s a group in Queensbury that is going to get into protecting the mountain and the hillsides, our intention was to do it by restrictive covenants. We can make the Town a party to the restrictive covenants if you wanted to, if the Town wanted to. Typically a restrictive covenant is enforceable by the property it serves and those that benefit from it, but you can put in a provision in there that the Town also have the rights of enforcement. Typically the towns don’t want to get into that, that type of process, but, and I don’t know what we’ve done in the Town for conservancy, but our intention is we come to an agreement with you as to what’s a magic line here that’s reasonable, and we will put it on the maps and file it, and nothing to the west of that line will be disturbed. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, Gretchen, do you have any thoughts on that? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. My thought on the subdivision is that I would like to see a conservation subdivision proposed, but I know that there’s a great deal of controversy because there’s no templates to use. We’ve talked about it, but there’s no. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, we think this is, Gretchen. I’ve gone to those seminars, too, and I don’t know how you distinguish it. I mean, it’s taking into effect the full mountainside that this family has preserved for the last 100 years and is going to preserve it in the future. MRS. STEFFAN-But it allows everyone to use the land, instead of breaking it up into these individual parcels. MR. O'CONNOR-The Lake George Conservancy does not require public access, and that’s the way they’re going to preserve the watershed of Lake George. In fact, they seem to be encouraging that. I don’t know why, but that was my take that I got out of that meeting. That’s always an issue as to, if you allow public access, where do they park? Who cleans up after them? I mean, if you want somebody to give up something, I don’t know if we’ve got the mechanics. MRS. STEFFAN-But based on the videos that we’ve seen and the discussions we’ve had in re-writing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, you know, the folks who are part of the cluster of homes have the advantage of using the property. They face the open space. They pay for that because the land costs are higher because they have the availability of open space. It wouldn’t be a public access. It would be access for the people within the cluster, but, you know, I have heard some feedback through our prior Chairman that some of the landscapers and such have said we don’t have a template to use, so what do we do? It sounds like a good concept, and apparently we don’t have anything yet. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if you’re ever going to see, and maybe this is just personal judgment, I don’t know if you’d ever see something there where you have Hudson Pointe so close by with their established trail systems, and their proposals for, I think they’re now part of the Moreau State Park, that’s going to take that greenway, even on this side of the river, all the way to Corinth, and actually develop it into trail systems and whatnot. You would be in poor competition with them. I mean, people will go out and walk it. There’s no doubt people are going to go out and walk it, but there’s probably 100 trails on there already right now. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s hard to know what the market is. There’s so much discussion and hype, you know, with some of the development south of us, and the kind of housing folks are going to want, and they’re talking about high end homes with properties and those kinds of things, and if you’re going to spend $500,000 on a home, you’re going to want some property that goes along with it. Conservation subdivisions are allowing that to happen in the $500,000 to a million dollar range, and based on some of the salaries that they’re talking about folks that are going to have that come up, those are options, and I don’t know, you know, I’m not in economic development. However, in some of our discussions on the re-write of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, those ideas have been generated, and some of the economic development folks are telling us that those things are possible. I don’t know whether they’re probably, but they’re telling us that they’re possible. So this is a big piece of property. I mean, we don’t get many 222 acre parcels to look at, and there are very few left in Town. MR. O'CONNOR-If you put a homeowners association in, which is basically what I think you’re talking about, I don’t know. You can do a, there’s a Short Form filing where you aren’t going to make improvements to it, Article Seven filing or something like that, that you don’t have to make your annual filings with the Attorney General’s Office, but you 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) still have to have the insurance policy and you still have to have an accountant that collects the dues and does the annual tax return. I don’t know. If that’s something that you want us to consider, I could talk to the folks and talk to Al Cerrone to see if that’s something we could do. Typically, we only do that where you’re going to put a, like some towns won’t take over stormwater. The Town of Moreau makes you now have your stormwater go into your homeowners association. The Town of Lake George, the Town of Bolton makes your roads go into a homeowners association, and you do them. They’re a pain in the neck to set up, but you get them set up and, I don’t know, you never hear too much about them afterwards except that people have to pay so much, you know, there’s just a minimum cost for like I would think minimum cost for a homeowners association is probably some place around $12,000 a year. That might be a little high with there’s no improvements to maintain, but probably, the insurance policy is some place between $2,000 and $2,500 bucks. The accounting fee is like $500 bucks. The management fee to collect the dues from 26 different people, is probably going to run you $1,000, and then they all, once you get a homeowners association, people say, well, why don’t we build a picnic place up there, and that might be contrary to what your goals are, and you want that to stay forever wild, and basically that’s the offer on the table right now. We’ll make that forever wild, but you’re paying $25 a month, $300 a year, and you see that you’ve got 75 acres over there and your tendency is, well, we ought to be using it for something. At least maybe that would be my tendency if I lived I that subdivision. I don’t know about yours, and if you’re walking, well, maybe we could have better trails than what we’ve got. Maybe we need to clear a little bit for the trails. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s great you’re proposing to further subdivide it. As far as these conservation easements, it would be great to do, but I don’t know if we’re there yet. I think that’s our problem. MR. O'CONNOR-We would give a conservation easement that says no building, no subdivision, no, if that’s something, then the Town would have the right of enforcement. I don’t know, as opposed to just making the Town a party to the restrictive covenant. I think it’s the same thing. I think say that the Town Board has the option if they think it’s in their best interest, and this Board might. The next Board might not. The Board after it might, but if you give them the full option, and also then, another thing which is interesting, that makes it very difficult to eliminate those provisions that you put in there that you wanted. Because then the Town Board would have to sign off on an amendment. I can sit here, as a developer, and tell you that I will give you a declaration of restrictive covenants, and I will give you a declaration of restrictive covenants, and I will file it in the County Clerk’s Office. We sell all 26 lots. The 26 lot owners could get together and change it. I have no control over it. You have no control over it. So it doesn’t hurt to throw a third party in there that would then have to be consulted for any change. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see how it would be different if the ownership of the upper property was joint or individual. I don’t see why that would be a different ability to. MR. O'CONNOR-It creates a separate entity that you’ve got to file a tax return for, that you’ve got to have insurance for. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I appreciate that complexity, but I’m just saying in terms of restrictive covenants, it wouldn’t be any different. MR. O'CONNOR-If you put somebody on other than, you make the covenants for the benefit of somebody other than the 26 lot owners, then they can’t be amended unless that party agrees to it. MR. NACE-And that party would be the Town. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess maybe I wasn’t clear. What I thought I heard you saying is that that protection would not necessarily be there if it was a homeowners association or some sort of conservation subdivision. That’s what I thought I heard you say. I just wanted to clarify that it wouldn’t be any different. Maybe it would be. MR. O'CONNOR-If you put it in a homeowners association, the tendency then is that people want to get some benefit out of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. O'CONNOR-We did a simple walking trail down in Wilton, went around the whole subdivision, a U-shaped subdivision, and there were more problems with that than if they had just left it natural, and let people walk through the woods. MR. HUNSINGER-I know it’s something that’s kind of new here, in our area, but I know it’s something that a lot of communities specifically in further east in New England and further south in the lower Hudson Valley are using with, you know, with great success, and off the top of my head I can’t give you an example, but I know there are some, but the other thing I wanted to comment on, if I may, is I appreciate the earlier comments, comparing this plan to a previous plan, and it’s real clear to see that this is a better plan, but one of the issues that I wanted to raise is the combination of driveway distances and cul de sac distances, and it is something that I’ve brought up with other projects. For example, Lot 23, you know, if my math is correct, between their driveway and the length of the cul de sac, you’re going to have essentially a dead end that’s greater than 1,000 feet. MR. NACE-If you include the driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Because I mean if I’m reading the information, the map correctly, the driveway alone is going to be over 600 feet long. MR. NACE-That’s correct, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-And then, you know, I don’t know if it’s almost a 600 foot cul de sac. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s 510 feet is the length of that driveway, before it gets to the full lot. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The second cul de sac, the longer cul de sac to the south, what’s the length of that? MR. NACE-That’s under 1,000 feet. I don’t offhand recall, but it is under 1,000. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wonder if maybe there’s a way to modify, until this evening, I was more of the opinion that a loop or something else would make more sense, but based on what you’ve just told us, I think you’re almost forced into two access points. I just wonder if there’s a way to design them so that you can have the same number of lots without having the length of driveways or the lengths of the cul de sacs, by more of a cluster design, for lack of a better term, and I think, you know, that term gets kind of over used and misused. MR. NACE-I don’t think we can modify much the length of the cul de sac. The driveway, this is the first I’ve ever heard of the driveway being incorporated with the cul de sac as far as being concerned about a maximum length. I mean, typically the length of cul de sac has been interpreted as a safety issue, and we can sit here and debate for a week about that, whether it’s real or not. MR. HUNSINGER-But it is in the Code. MR. NACE-It is in the Code, but in the Code it hasn’t been interpreted as cul de sac plus driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I realize that. I realize that. That was my own logic coming to that. MR. NACE-I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-But part of it was over just the lot design, and is that the most appropriate. MR. NACE-Flag shape lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. NACE-We can certainly take a look and see if there’s some way of getting around that. MR. HUNSINGER-For example, if you were to lengthen the northern cul de sac by, I don’t know what the number would be, I don’t know if it’s 100 feet or 50 feet or whatever, 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) could you then cluster the same number of lots around a slightly longer cul de sac without the flag shaped lots? MR. NACE-I might if I went to lots that were under one acre, on the lower part, because I’m going to have to curve that cul de sac up in to the north a little bit in order to do that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-But if I were to truly cluster and use smaller lots, three-quarters or half acre, something might be possible there. MR. HUNSINGER-Which then starts to lead you more towards a conservation subdivision with small individual lots with large homeowners association. MR. O'CONNOR-You’ve only got two lots that really have those driveways that you’re looking at. One is 243 feet, which is not that long. The other one is 510. Would you get any comfort if that particular lot, building permit, was conditioned upon the driveway being a certain width and being paved? So that you know that there’s decent access to it, and maybe even us doing a design for that driveway. Your issue is safety, I take it? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, it’s safety, it’s lot design. I mean, you know, these long pencil shaped lots I’m not sure makes sense. It’s starting to put the combination of those thoughts together, I think sort of would tend to lead you towards, again, a conservation subdivision with more of a cluster design around each cul de sac. MR. NACE-Looking at this and thinking back to what my thought process was when I laid these out a while back, was that probably Lots 22 and 23 would share a driveway back in to the point where Lot 23 or Lot 22 building site would lead off from that, so that it would be a shared combined driveway along the lot line. That was my original intention. MR. HUNSINGER-Just going back to, you know, I think Gretchen’s earlier comment, you know, it’s not too often, in fact, I think it’s the first time in the seven years I’ve been on the Planning Board that we’ve seen 200 acres like this. MR. NACE-See, that’s where we differ a little bit. When I looked at it, I kind of said, okay, the back end of this is really not a subdivision. The back end of this is conservation or whatever you want to call it. My subdivision is really two simple little cul de sacs like we’ve done 100 times before. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess maybe that’s the problem I have. It looks too much like the types of project that we’ve said aren’t thought provoking enough. They aren’t, you know, there’s still, you almost just said it, it’s a standard subdivision. MR. O'CONNOR-You’ve got open space, you’ve got the appearance of open space. You’ve got open space. You’ve got the slopes protected. It would be very difficult to design something to be built up there, but I suppose you could do a switchback. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, you can engineer anything. MR. O'CONNOR-You’d create a monstrosity problem. I wouldn’t do that, though. MR. NACE-I’m not sure, you know, like we were talking about. If we were to do something in the way of a cluster on that northerly cul de sac, we would end up with lots that were significantly smaller. That’s something we could talk over with the developer and see if that, I’m not really sure where the market is going right now with lots, what people really want. Just talk that over, and if it turns out to be a viable sales point to have the little smaller lots, we can look at doing something in that term. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, there’s a pretty good example in the proposed new Comprehensive Land Use Plan that shows, you know, a conservation subdivision and a traditional subdivision, and you can’t quite take that example and lay it out on this lot because this lot is too unique, but, you know, it gives you a different idea, and I’m not suggesting that you’re not preserving the mountainside, you are, you know, but I think there might be a better way to do it. You can still achieve what your desires are in terms of the development potential. MR. O'CONNOR-We can look at that when we go out, when Tom goes out with people from the Highway Department. Maybe they can talk about that. Whether or not you 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) make the lollipop bigger. Basically that might get it closer to those lots over there. I don’t know. They can see what they can do. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Okay. I didn’t want to dominate the discussion. If other members have comments or questions, jump in, please. MRS. STEFFAN-I just have an observation, and we’ve talked about homeowners associations, and I remember voting no on a project that had a homeowners association with what I felt was too few members, and I felt that it was an extreme burden on the people who would buy houses in this subdivision, because there was so much responsibility associated with buying a home in this place, but, you know, some of these shared driveway situations, yes, there are developments in the area where folks like their neighbors and they like to do block parties and get along, and then there are other parts of Town and I’m sure there’s places outside of our area, where folks really want to remain anonymous and they don’t want to have anything to do with their neighbors, and so the thought of a shared driveway or a homeowners association where they actually have to interact with one another is not desirable. MR. O'CONNOR-I have less problems with the homeowners association than I do the shared driveway. Because, you know, I may want to get my driveway plowed when there’s an inch of snow and the other guy, I’ve got a four wheel drive and I can drive through anything and I don’t want to pay for plowing unless you’ve got four inches of snow. MR. FORD-Somebody wants to salt and somebody wants to sand. MR. O'CONNOR-You could even go there. MRS. STEFFAN-And in the homeowners association, someone wants a playground and someone doesn’t have any kids and doesn’t want to have anything to do with it. So there’s always those conflicts that come along in group process. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s why I kind of stayed away from the idea of a homeowners association up in the upper part, or having control of the upper part, because I think that’s going to promote somebody trying to develop some uses which is contrary to our intent of keeping that as just an open space as is. MRS. STEFFAN-Speaking of land uses, the land above this, West Mountain Liquidating Partnership, is that part of the West Mountain Ski area? MR. O'CONNOR-I truthfully don’t know. MRS. STEFFAN-East Slope Holdings, do you have any idea? MR. O'CONNOR-To the west of you, is that part of West Mountain? AUDIENCE MEMBER-To the west? No. To the north. MR. FORD-At the end of those long lots. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is, and I think on the east or on the north also, even though it’s East Slope Holdings, that’s a West Mountain, or used to be West Mountain. MR. NACE-I think it still is, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if that’s the same people that was in West Mountain, but that is the West Mountain property is to the north and to the west. MR. TRAVER-When we did our drive around last Saturday, we noticed sort of a trail or like a logging road coming out of the property on the south side. Is that the approximate location of that southern driveway? It was almost right across from the treatment plant. MR. NACE-If I remember correctly, the existing trail is a little further to the south than what the road is. MR. TRAVER-The logging trail was. BILL JOSLYN 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. JOSLYN-Here’s this little lot right here. Here’s the sand place. You see the existing road goes in right about right here. You’ve moved it to the end of that open area about. MR. NACE-We moved it a little south to get better sight distance. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-Lot Two, where would you put the house on Lot Two? MR. NACE-Down in the very front below the steeper area. MR. SIPP-How much space have they got there? MR. NACE-We have about 150 feet deep and about, a little better than 100 feet wide. MR. SIPP-The house and septic system on there? MR. NACE-Actually the house would, on a lot like that, we’d probably develop it with a split level back at the edge of the bank and then the septic system out front. MR. SIPP-Now, is this where it goes above 25%, is this rock outcropping? MR. NACE-In this particular area? No. There is some rock outcropping that occurs over on the steep area, Lot Four, Lot Five. Okay, but it’s not the full extent of the steep area. It’s only. MR. SIPP-Have there been any test pits done on this property? MR. NACE-Yes. In fact, we’ve done two sets of test pits. One an initial exploratory look for ourselves, and then a second set of test pits, and I think, yes, the second set show up on Drawing C-2, okay, they were done with the Health Department. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s 17 test pits or better. MR. SIPP-I’m still concerned that everything, not everything, but a good share of this property slopes towards that stream, and I’m just concerned about drainage to that stream into the Hudson. MR. NACE-Well, actually our cul de sacs are, and all of our potential development, is really removed from the drainage that goes in, directly in to the stream. The only thing, well I say all of them, Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, the very back end of those lots would drain down to the stream, but the lots are 400 plus feet deep. MR. SIPP-Yes, but if you take Lot 6, 7, 19, 20, even to the point of 4, and 5, they’re all sloped towards that stream. Go from 500 down to 425. MR. NACE-Very gently. It’s a relatively gentle slope, and the soils are good, in all the locations that we’ve done test pits for septic systems. MR. SIPP-I would like to know, on Lot 5, 6, 7, so forth, where the bedrock is. MR. NACE-Our Preliminary submission will have complete test pit logs with all the test pits, and we’ll locate all the rock outcroppings. MR. SIPP-You’ve got a lot of septic systems that I’m afraid just drain towards one area. MR. NACE-The soils are all, you know, obviously it’s rock outcroppings. The soils in all the proposed development areas are good deep, four plus feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-There was a comment in the Staff Notes, the density calculation for clustering should subtract site slopes in excess of 15% from the total acreage. The plan subtracts slopes over 25%. MR. NACE-Okay. Your Subdivision Regulations and clustering regulations are kind of weird. I hope those are going to be corrected. They penalize you for clustering. Okay. If you calculate density for a normal subdivision, you subtract slopes of over 25%. If you 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) calculate density for a cluster subdivision, you subtract slopes over 15%. Okay. Now you can easily develop on a 15%. You can develop over 25% if you do it carefully. Most ski area developments are well over 25%, but at any rate, that’s the difference, okay. The density that we calculated on what was just submitted to you was based on a normal subdivision, okay, but either way you calculate it, we’re not coming anywhere close to those densities. MR. O'CONNOR-The prior submission did calculate using 15%, and they had a density of 39 lots, and that’s on file with you, but as Tom said, we’re looking at 26 lots. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else? I think we’ve give you some good input and comment. MR. NACE-Yes, you sure have. MR. O'CONNOR-We thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, you’re welcome. Thank you. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2007 SKETCH PLAN REVIEW SEQR TYPE UNLISTED FRANK JELLEY AGENT(S) OWNER(S): ROBERT & COURTNEY SMITH ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 129 SUNNYSIDE EAST APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 12.73 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 3.0 AC. & 9.73 AC. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE ADMIN. SUBDIV. 3-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 12.57 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.19-1-4 SECTION A-183 FRANK JELLEY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-This is Sketch Plan Review for a two lot subdivision located on Sunnyside East, across from Brookfield Run. This property is zoned Rural Residential Three Acre. The applicant proposes a two lot residential subdivision of a total 12.73 acre parcel, resulting in lots of 9.73 and 3 acres. This two lot residential subdivision was approved administratively with shared access. An Area Variance is requested to allow individual driveways. The parcel is split zoned Rural Residential and Suburban Residential One acre. This should be labeled on the plan with a note identifying the amount of acreage within each zone. The attached environmental features GIS map identifies the existence of DEC and Army Corps of Engineers wetlands. These wetlands should be flagged and their areas calculated for density consideration. It appears that a cluster design alternative may be required if the wetlands occupy over 25% of the site. The areas within the designated 100 year floodplain need to be shown. Soils data determination of depth to high groundwater and perc test results should be provided on the Preliminary plat. The separation distance between the proposed septic system and the wetland should be provided on the plat. A note, too, this will go to, the Area Variance th that I spoke of earlier is pending, and on the agenda for tomorrow night, January 17 Zoning Board meeting for Lot Two for relief from the double the minimum lot width requirement. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. If you could, for the record, state your name and tell us what you’d like to do. MR. JELLEY-Okay. My name is Frank Jelley. I’m representing the owners, Robert and Courtney Smith. Just to give you a little history on the project, Bob and Courtney, a little over a year ago, went ahead and did an Administrative Subdivision to subdivide three acres of their land off to assist in paying off their mortgage, to try to help relieve some of their debts, and since then, since the approval, they have marketed the property themselves, and through a realty company, and they have had trouble with the selling of the shared driveway. Since then, we have had an agreement with a client that they would purchase the property but not with a shared driveway. That’s the condition. So that’s the essential reason why we are here, to try to do something with the property. As probably you guys have heard a lot of people aren’t willing to share. So, I guess the main issue is maintenance agreements, you know, all that kind of stuff. So that’s really the history and why it’s back here. The Smiths would have certainly have loved to have 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) sold it as is, and not have any additional expense, as they’re already trying to pay down their mortgage and so that is essentially what’s happening. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up for questions or comments. MRS. BRUNO-In your SEQRA form you had stated that the project is to subdivide a residential lot and build a 1900 square foot home. MR. JELLEY-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-I’m just confused. I’m sorry. Perhaps it’s the hour. The house that is there now, I think it’s a white colonial, is that where the applicant currently lives? MR. JELLEY-Yes, it is. MRS. BRUNO-And will they be moving in to this new house? MR. JELLEY-No. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. They’re going to build that house to sell it? MR. JELLEY-They’re not going to be building it. Their client is going to purchase the lot, and then sell, it’s a different person, eventually sell their house and then they’re semi- retired so they’d be here seasonal, and that’s where the shared driveway is becoming a problem because of that. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. TRAVER-This would be a seasonal residence? DON ROSS MR. ROSS-Not really. Right now my wife’s still working. I’m semi-retired, and until such time that she retires, we’d be using it seasonal. MR. HUNSINGER-Sir, if we could get you on the record, please. If you could just, for the record, state your name. MR. ROSS-I’m Don Ross. I live on West Mountain Road in Queensbury, and as Frank said, right now we are under contract with the Smiths to purchase the property, as long a we can get the driveway straightened out, so it’s no longer a shared driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. To me, the most obvious question is the map that you’ve provided, it doesn’t show where the zones change, between one acre and three acre. So I couldn’t determine, by looking at what was provided, if there is an easy way to make the proposed Lot Two so that it would comply with the double the lot width requirements for the collector road. So, to me, that was the obvious question. I presume the answer is no, otherwise you wouldn’t be here. MR. ROSS-Right, no, if there was a way to, well, Van Dusen and Steves designed the property, the proposed property, and essentially the zoning, on the right hand side of the map is where the one acre zoning starts, and I honestly don’t know where the zone line changes, but that area is low, and most likely some wetlands, because there’s a brook that runs through the property. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, we saw where the. MR. ROSS-Yes, so basically where the only buildable area would be is on the left hand side, and because of the existing buildings, the garage and the setbacks and that kind of stuff, they ended up with this design. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, obviously one of the things that would need to be shown on any subdivision proposal is where the zones are located. MR. ROSS-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess, pardon my ignorance. So you administratively subdivided these lots already, and you originally were going to have a shared driveway? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. ROSS-That’s a requirement for the administrative subdivision for the collector road is a shared driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-But why didn’t they get the variance first before they came before us? MRS. BARDEN-It’s a Sketch Plan review. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s not site plan. MRS. BARDEN-You don’t, there’s no. MR. SEGULJIC-Wouldn’t they go first and get the variance anyway? MRS. BARDEN-There’s no resolution tonight. It’s just an advisory recommendation on Sketch Plan. They would have to get their variance before they come back to you for Preliminary. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Preliminary subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s already been subdivided. Has it already been subdivided? MRS. BARDEN-It’s not a Planning Board approved subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-But it’s already been subdivided. MR. JELLEY-It’s similar to the one you had on earlier, with the two lots where they’ve actually already started building. This one, they’re in the position that you wanted the people earlier to be in, if I could put it that way. Instead of centering the foundation and then coming back to you, they’re here now. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-We like that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-No. I think the zone needs to be identified. Certainly it is a collector road. There’s not a tremendous amount of traffic there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, you certainly can’t compare this to West Mountain. MR. JELLEY-They’re very straight roads. Both ways there’s four or five hundred feet of line of sight. MRS. STEFFAN-We pulled over on the road and visited and talked and no one came. MR. SEGULJIC-Why don’t you want a shared driveway? MR. ROSS-For the main reasons that everybody said right here. If there’s four inches of snow, yes, I want it plowed. If there’s an inch of snow, no, we have two four wheel drives. I’m not going to plow, and I’m not going to pay somebody to plow, and if I’m not here in the wintertime, yes, I’m going to keep it open for fire protection, but, no, I’m not going to keep it open for two inches of snow, and he says, well, I’ve got kids, I need to get in and out of that driveway, I’m going to have it plowed. Well, who’s going to pay for it, if it’s a shared driveway, and like he said, I might want salt and he might want sand. I’ve got pavement, he doesn’t want pavement. So we’re going to fight over that, and with the way my house is the way I want it, it’s going to come in from the left side, not from the right side. MR. HUNSINGER-There are a couple of Staff Notes, one specifically being areas within a designated 100 year floodplain. You’d want to show those on the map, as well as labeling the brook, and identifying the wetlands. MR. ROSS-Okay. To have a surveyor go back out and flag out the wetlands is going to be a pretty large expense that, and you guys have seen the site. It’s a very nice sloping site that’s nowhere near, the top of this bank is 50 feet above the water line and cuts the other way. So as far as delineating. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Would we be able to use the Town maps? MR. SEGULJIC-Exactly. GIS maps? I mean, how accurate can we get? We can get pretty accurate with GIS, though. MR. ROSS-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Especially if it follows topography. MR. SEGULJIC-And I know we’ve done that a couple of times, I can recollect from the past we’ve just used GIS to map the wetlands. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they do depict the top of the hill. MR. ROSS-Yes, it’s just the expense is really going to be hard on the Smiths. MR. HUNSINGER-You lead the discussion on the other one. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. Well, we have to map the wetlands. I would say, I mean, there’s no regulation that says how you have to do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That’s true. I mean, they could be very conservative in what they, Susan might correct me, but if they take a very conservative approach, and say, you know, this is the maximum, you know, that anybody could possibly imagine the wetlands encroach onto the lots, and they still have more than enough room to develop, and that’s basically the argument that the prior applicant made, without depicting it on a map. If they could depict that on a map somehow. MRS. BARDEN-You could have them identify an approximate wetland line, I suppose. MR. HUNSINGER-And then if they subtracted that out and still showed there was enough property to develop and everything else. MR. JELLEY-Yes, they did show the top of the bank as an outline, which, like you said, if you walked back there, it drops straight down. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s pretty obvious where that is. MR. JELLEY-And I actually, I was the one who altered their septic system when they had it done, and it’s sandy loam soil. It’s very good building, no water at all, and that was a building permit approved right through the Town. So, you know, it’s a very good building lot. It’s just no shared driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think that would be fine. The only other thing would be, does the floodplain have to get mapped? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, that’s kind of what we were talking about. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, you have to map the floodplain and? MRS. STEFFAN-MR. Aren’t they available through the GIS? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s available through our GIS. MR. SEGULJIC-George would have that, correct? MRS. BARDEN-Right. They’re approximate as well, though, what he has. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Anything else from Board members to add? Okay. Thank you. MR. JELLEY-Yes, hopefully we’ll see you again. MR. HUNSINGER-If there’s no other business before the Board, I will entertain a motion to adjourn, but before we do that, we did get notice that Mr. Sipp is going on vacation for a while, so we will need both alternates at the next few Board meetings. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 01/16/07) MR. FORD-And a week from today is our anniversary, so I will not be here a week from tonight. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 57