Loading...
2007-05-15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 16-2006 Stephanie & Travis Norton 1. EXTENSION Tax Map No. 290.-1-84 Site Plan No. 55-2000 Queensbury Village Mobile Home Park 1. Tax Map No. 308.6-1-61 Site Plan No. 7-2007 Jolley Associates [Aviation Road] 2. 302.5-1-98 Site Plan No. 3-2007 Vance Cohen 2. Tax Map No. 295.8-1-2 Site Plan No. 50-2001 Jean Hoffman 13. MODIFICATION #2 Tax Map No. 227.17-1-9.1 Subdivision No. 5-2007 Prospect Child & Family Center 14. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 295.18-1-73 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 25-2007 Prospect Child & Family Center 32. Tax Map No. 295.18-1-73 Site Plan No. 23-2007 Great Escape 32. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20; 295.12-1-3, 4 Site Plan No. 30-2007 Great Escape Theme Park 41. Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20 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 05/15/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 15, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP THOMAS FORD STEPHEN TRAVER MEMBERS ABSENT TANYA BRUNO LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-MATT FULLER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: SITE PLAN NO. 16-2006 STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON: REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. HUNSINGER-Any discussion from members of the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-No discussion. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anybody like to offer a resolution? MOTION TO GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR SITE PLAN NO. 16-2006 STEPHANIE & TRAVIS NORTON, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: To July 18, 2008. th Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno SITE PLAN NO. 55-2000 QUEENSBURY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK: TABLED TH TO MAY 15 MR. HUNSINGER-The project was tabled until this evening’s meeting, and they did not provide the required information to be heard this evening. So Staff has provided a further tabling motion, and they haven’t provided a date. So we need to pick a date. MR. SEGULJIC-Have we heard from the applicant at all? MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-I believe so. MR. FORD-Well, why don’t we just table it and let them take their chances. MRS. BARDEN-Then we’d have to re-advertise. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, then we’d have to re-advertise. How expensive is that? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MS. HEMINGWAY-It’s not really that expensive because it’s all kind of consolidated together. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I know when we usually do it, if we have to notice it a second time, the applicant pays for that. Is that correct? MS. HEMINGWAY-Usually what’s done is the applicant pays the application fee again. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, today’s the 15. So, I mean, if they brought in their information, that would be okay for June, but if they haven’t, we’re looking at least July. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I guess I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 55-2000 QUEENSBURY VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. This is tabled until the second meeting in thth July, July 24. On March 22, 2007 this application was tabled to May 15 2007 [resolution attached]. Information requested by this resolution was not submitted. This information is to be submitted by the Community Development Department’s deadline thth date schedule [the 15 of each month unless the 15 falls on a weekend]. If the information is found to be responsive to the tabling resolution it will be placed on the next available agenda. th Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno SITE PLAN NO. 7-2008 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES [AVIATION ROAD] TABLED TO MAY TH 15 MR. HUNSINGER-This is very similar to Queensbury Village. We tabled it until this evening. They have not provided the requested information from this Board from the th tabling resolution of April 16. Have we heard from them at all, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-We did not. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 7-2007 JOLLEY ASSOCIATES [AVIATION ROAD], Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Tabling that until the July 24 Planning th Board meeting. On March 22, 2007 this application was tabled to May 15 2007 [resolution attached]. Information requested by this resolution was not submitted. This information is to be submitted by the Community Development Department’s deadline thth date schedule [the 15 of each month unless the 15 falls on a weekend]. If the information is found to be responsive to the tabling resolution it will be placed on the next available agenda. th Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno SITE PLAN NO. 3-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED VANCE COHEN AGENT(S) RON MOGREN SARATOGA ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) DR. MITCHELL COHEN ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 1159-1161 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) 18,000 SQ. FT. PUBLIC PARKING FACILITY. PARKING FACILITIES IN THE HC ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 7-2007 WARREN CO. PLANNING 2/14/07 LOT SIZE 0.57 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.8-1-2 SECTION 179-4-020 RON MOGREN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you’d like to summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, would you like me to summarize Staff Notes, or read the Vision Engineering letter? MR. HUNSINGER-I think we’ve all read Staff Notes. So maybe if you could read the recent letter, that would be the most helpful thing to do. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. I sure will. This was received today by Dan Ryan, via e-mail th attachment, and it’s dated May 15, Town of Queensbury Community Development Department, regarding Vance Cohen Parking Lot, To: Chris Hunsinger, Planning Board Chair and Planning Board Members. “A message was left on my voice mail today, May 15, 2007 at approximately 1:54 p.m. from The Saratoga Associates indicating that a test hole was dug today for my review if I had time to visit the site. Subsequent to that message, I did visit the site to observe existing subsurface conditions. The test hole present was located in the south-west corner of the property near contour 406.0 feet as shown on site plan drawing L-4. This corresponds to the lowest grade elevation near the proposed infiltration system in that corner of the site (see attached location map). The test hole was narrow and only 36-40 inches deep below existing grade. It appeared as though it may have been hand dug, making a thorough evaluation difficult. The observable portions of the test hole indicated site soils are predominantly medium and coarse sands with the addition of gravel and small cobbles at approximately 16 inches below existing grade. At the time of the site visit, standing groundwater in the hole was observed at an elevation of 24 inches below existing grade. Evidence of mottling could not be determined because of the size of the hole. Based on this information, the current stormwater design would need to be completely re-designed, as any infiltration practice would require at least three feet of separation from the bottom of the infiltration practice to high groundwater. According to the current design, the inlet or invert of the infiltration chambers is at elevation 403.0 feet. Based on the recent site visit, groundwater would be at or near elevation 404.0 feet, one foot above the infiltration chamber bottom. Unfortunately, the recommendation to perform site verification was made in my February 23, 2007 comment letter, and no site testing was conducted at that time. I presume that the urgency of performing a test hole today was a result of my re-stating this requirement in my May 10, 2007 comment letter. As expected the results of the site testing indicate a shallow depth to groundwater with wetlands and streams in close proximity. Based on this recent information, it is my recommendation that this project be tabled until a plausible stormwater design can be presented. Thank you, and please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions, comments, or require additional information. Sincerely, Daniel W. Ryan, P.E. Vision Engineering, LLC” MRS. BARDEN-I don’t have that see attached location map, just for your benefit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MOGREN-Hi. Ron Mogren from the Saratoga Associates, Vance Cohen. I agree with everything he just said there. I was surprised at the depth of the water table. So we need to re-visit that stormwater management plan, and recognizing that, I just would like to still kind of get some dialogue on some of the other issues that we’ve been talking about. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MOGREN-Okay. I think just based on, well, the Staff comments, too. Since the last time we were here, we were headed to the Zoning Board, and we thought that wasn’t a good idea based on what we’ve been hearing from you people and also Warren County. So we revised the plans, to, you know, meet the 30% requirement for green space. We’ve also, I’ve submitted a lighting plan that I believe hit the 2.5 average foot candles and are mounted on 18 foot poles. I think that the comment from Staff, when they were looking at that plan, they thought that there was a mix up between the 23.5 dimension on the lighting plan. What I think they were referring to in the table there was the 23.5 inches is the size of the box that was under the lamp. So just for clarification we’re planning on 18 foot poles, and we did achieve a 2.5 average foot candle throughout the 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) parking lot. So that’s the lighting plan. As far as the site layout goes, we’ve moved that up. You probably know that, you know, we’ve got the parking right on the right of way line there, and that helps us out quite a bit from getting it off the back and reducing the need for a retaining wall in the back and saving some of the vegetation up against there. So I’m just curious as to what you think about that and that’s about what happened since we’ve been here the last time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you clarify for me, the lighting plan we have, or I have, is dated April 9, 2007. Is that the? MR. MOGREN-Yes, I believe that’s the one. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the latest. MR. MOGREN-Yes, but I think up here in the luminare schedule is where, under the lamp, is where there’s, we’ve reduced the watt. I think I was here with 200 watts the last time, but we reduced the wattage to 150 watt, and then there’s that ET 23.5, and right after that is the high, but that’s the high pressure sodium is the lamp type. So, you know, I think the 23.5 inches is actually the size of the shoebox fixture, and that’s not referencing the pole height, and as your comments said, you know, the 18 foot is on the detail on the sheet. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I’m just confused because you had just said that the wattage is 120 now? MR. MOGREN-No, 150 watt high pressure sodium. MR. SEGULJIC-Because, pardon my ignorance, but the watts we’re showing is 567 for the Label C-1, A-1 is 567. MR. MOGREN-Yes. I can clarify what that is, but that’s not the lamp. MR. FORD-Well, you’ve got two different wattages. You’ve got the clear 150 watt lamp, but then your total wattage appears to be 567. MR. MOGREN-Yes. Perhaps that’s a summary of all of the pole. See, some of the fixtures have a three, I know what that is, yes. Some of them have three, there’s three heads, two heads, and single heads. So each single head is 150 watts, but that math still doesn’t come out quite right, but I’ll get that clarified for you, but, you know, the plan for each lamp is 150 watt high pressure sodium. MR. SEGULJIC-Then you had indicated you meet, you’re meeting the two and a half across the parking lot, foot candles? MR. MOGREN-The average foot candles in the parking lot is 2.4 foot candles, which is shown in the upper left hand table. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s the average, and then you’re going to come back with a new stormwater design. MR. MOGREN-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. One of my main concerns is the landscaping. Because you don’t have the buffering along the road, along Route 9, the screening along Route 9 that’s required. Nor do you have the five foot landscaping along, around the site perimeter. MR. MOGREN-Go back to your first, you said, I’m on the Planting Plan, 9/05, and our tree, we’re showing some screening there. It’s in the DOT right of way. MR. SEGULJIC-If someone else wants to take over while I, so I can refresh my memory. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else have questions or comments? MR. FORD-This may be a standard, and if so, just help me with my education here. MR. MOGREN-Okay. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. FORD-Where you make reference to, on more than one occasion, to typical shrub planting or typical evergreen tree planting, what does that mean? MR. MOGREN-Well, if you go to L-5, you’ll see. MR. FORD-That’s where I am. MR. MOGREN-Okay. Well, right in the planting legend there’s a symbol for a typical evergreen tree planting. There’s a symbol for a typical deciduous tree planting, and there’s a symbol for a typical shrub planting. So the details on the detail sheet is how those trees are planted. MR. FORD-That doesn’t help me. MR. MOGREN-Okay. Well, again, the symbols for the evergreen tree planting, you see on the plan where the evergreen tree plantings go, and then when you go to the Detail Sheet, that’s how we expect the landscape contractor to plant that tree. Is that, am I getting on your question? MR. FORD-If you can focus on the word typical. MR. MOGREN-Typical just means every time that evergreen tree symbol happens, that’s typical. So, you know, like I’ve only got typical evergreen tree planting labeled one time, but that symbol is throughout the plan. So that means that every time you see that symbol for an evergreen tree, it’s going to get planted like it’s shown on the Detail Sheet. That’s what typical means, same symbol throughout. MR. HUNSINGER-I think what Mr. Ford is saying is you don’t tell us the specific type of tree, the specific species of tree. MR. MOGREN-Yes. There’s a plant list on the bottom of the Planting Plan, Plan Schedule it’s called, and there’s three there, and under evergreen trees it’s the symbols TC. So there’s 16 Eastern Hemlocks are what those evergreens are. So between the Detail, the Plant Schedule and the Legend, and then for further clarification on that, if you can see, again, on the Planting Plan where I’m up on Route 9. You can see the Key in there, 3 TC, and that says that that’s 3 TC. The TC. The TC brings it down to the Plant Schedule, and that’s the Suva Cana Densa is what that is. MR. FORD-That helps. Thanks. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Back to the screening, under 179-8-040, B2, it says screening must be of plant species that grows a minimum of three feet high and extends along the entire street frontage of the parking lot. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not seeing that. MR. MOGREN-No, that’s a shrub planting three feet high the entire length of the parking lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Evergreen shrub. It would be selected from the list below. So they’re spelled out in the regs, the Code, as to what they’re supposed to be, what they should be. MR. MOGREN-All right. Okay. We’ll certainly comply with that. MR. SEGULJIC-As well as the other, the five foot buffer of landscaping around the entire site and the interior parking lot. MR. MOGREN-Well, you know, the interior parking calculation, every time I’ve done that calculation before, I’ve drawn like a perimeter line around the outside of the parking lot and maybe that’s not the way you guys do it, but I count a little bit for the corners. MR. SEGULJIC-Here’s the way I do it. I’ll cheat and we’ll defer to Staff to clarify that. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. MOGREN-Okay, and then you’ve got the little peninsula, so I counted a little bit of the corners. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom, what Section was that? MR. SEGULJIC-179-8-040B(2). MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else, Tom, while Staff is looking at it? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I’m all set for now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Don, did you have some questions? MR. SIPP-Go back to the demolition, which is L-2. When you demolish this wood frame building, obviously this is going to be new blacktop? MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. SIPP-All right. Is there a septic system buried some place in here? MR. MOGREN-Well, we’ve got the grease trap’s been located just to the underside of that that we’re removing, and that’s it, because the sanitary sewer line is shown on there, but we plan on, as the note says, remove the building and foundation and cap and abandon all utility connections, and then coordinate with the utility companies, and fill the void with a compacted suitable fill material is what we’re planning on doing up there. So we do plan on abandoning or demolishing any utility connections. MR. SIPP-But you don’t know if there’s a septic system in the field (lost words). MR. MOGREN-Yes. There’s no leach field there because it’s hooked up to the public system, which is right, runs through the site right below that building. So there is no leach field. MR. SIPP-That building was there long before the sewer ever came through. Where was the septic system for that restaurant before the sewer was laid on Route 9? MR. MOGREN-I’m not sure. Do you know, Vance? VANCE COHEN MR. COHEN-I’m not sure. I know there was one right out back here. I’m not sure if it was taken apart or it was like a brick system there that was filled in. MR. MOGREN-Your concern is just the proper disposal and removal of that system, then. MR. SIPP-Right. Now is the small building, the fast food building there, does that have a sewer system hook up? MR. COHEN-To the public. MR. MOGREN-Yes. MR. SIPP-That’s not shown, where it is. MR. MOGREN-Well, the sanitary comes out of the building and heads into the grease trap there also, which is hooked up to the public system. So that’s where the sanitary comes out. MR. SIPP-Well, I still say there’s a septic system under there some place. This sign that’s out on, just off the sidewalk, that’s going to remain, that size sign, same size? It’s going to say what? MR. COHEN-Scooters Parking. MR. SIPP-Parking. Is that lighted? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. COHEN-No. There were lights that were on the building that are shining on it, but there’s, it’s a hard sign. It’s not an internally lit sign, and this is a daytime business. So there’s no need to light that sign. MR. SIPP-I’d like to see the sign pictured, and I’d rather see it a freestanding sign, monument sign rather than something that’s hanging on the building like that. MR. COHEN-It’s not hanging on the building. MR. MOGREN-This is a freestanding sign. It’s not hanging on the building. MR. SIPP-It’s awful close. MR. MOGREN-It awful close, but it’s separate of the building. MR. SIPP-I’d rather see you lower it, than the height that it is now. MR. MOGREN-Okay. Now I believe they’re very close to submitting a permit for that sign. Is that right, Vance? MR. COHEN-We’re just changing the lettering now. MR. MOGREN-Yes. The plan of attack was just to change the copy on there. Why, it’s a nonconforming sign now? Is that the concern you have? MR. SIPP-No, I just think it’s too large for a parking lot. MR. MOGREN-It’s 100 square feet which is what is allowed by the Town of Queensbury for a sign. MR. SIPP-I think you need something smaller than that. Is there going to be a sign which directs the people from the parking lot towards The Great Escape on the sidewalk, directs them to the overhead walkway? MR. COHEN-We’ll have the interior signs that will say that. MR. MOGREN-That’s actually shown on L-3 right now, as the walk, on the north side of the site, as the walk goes up and meets the existing concrete walk. There is a sign shown right there that is going to have an arrow that goes to the pedestrian bridge, and that’s detailed on L-6. So at the moment that’s what we’re proposing to get people down to the bridge. MR. SIPP-Well, you know, The Great Escape went to a lot of trouble, and this Planning Board went to a lot of meetings here to get that overhead walkway in place, and last year was a race across Route 9 by people leaving this parking lot, crossing Route 9 on the dead run, because there’s no lights there now. MR. MOGREN-Okay. Well, I understand that, but I think the pedestrian bridge was pretty much located at the benefit of The Great Escape. They probably, when they were locating that, didn’t take into consideration anybody up at this end of the road. So we can’t help where they put that pedestrian bridge. We used to have a crosswalk right across the street with lights and everything, and now that’s gone. MR. COHEN-And a lot of those people that are crossing the road are coming from the Martha’s Motel. You can watch them come down daily and right across Route 9. MR. MOGREN-Martha’s, the pedestrian bridge is down there for The Great Escape Lodge. MR. SIPP-I know, but as I say, people pushing strollers. We went through this when there was a two light system there of people jamming on their breaks because people were dashing across Route 9, and it’s a safety problem, and we don’t want to create the same kind of thing happening again, and we’ve got to channel them down. MR. COHEN-Well, everyone is directed, and they’re told when they come to the property the safest way to cross Route 9 is using that bridge. People will cross the road, you know, based on their own experiences in crossing roads, anywhere up Route 9, people are constantly jaywalking, at their own risk. A majority of the folks that come down Route 9, especially from the Martha’s Motel, they walk right down in front of our restaurant and 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) cross the road, because they walk down the hill on the sidewalk, and then right across the road where it’s flat. MR. SIPP-Because later on this evening, The Great Escape’s trying to eliminate some of that, hopefully. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thanks. MR. FORD-While we’re on that topic, I want to reinforce what Mr. Sipp has said. We are causing, if we give you permission to go with this, we are causing and contributing to a safety hazard, a safety hazard that we spent enormous quantities of time with The Great Escape addressing, and I fail to see why this, why you shouldn’t be held to the same standard, because basically it is a parking lot for people to be able to access The Great Escape. MR. COHEN-And there is an access from the sidewalk to this pedestrian bridge that would allow them to cross in a safe manner. MR. MOGREN-Yes. Other than telling them and putting signs up, I don’t know what else we can do. If you want some more signs, we’ll put some more signs up. MR. FORD-How about fencing? MR. COHEN-We can’t fence in our property. You’ve still got to walk out to the sidewalk, you have access to the sidewalk. MR. MOGREN-Fencing across the front you mean? MR. FORD-Along Route 9. MR. MOGREN-I would think that they’re headed in this direction down towards the pedestrian bridge. So I’m not sure, if you think that’ll be an effective way to keep them, you know, maybe, but, you know, we’re trying to get everybody down here to this walk here, and at that point, you know, that’s where the sign is. MR. FORD-Well, all if we needed was signage, then we would have settled on that two years ago with The Great Escape, and there wouldn’t be a bridge there. MR. COHEN-Except they have masses crossing, whereas, you know, we have a few people, compared, and that’s where the problem was with The Great Escape. They had massive amounts of people crossing at one time. MR. FORD-I’ve had my say, and I consider it a real safety issue, and I’m really concerned with it, and I’m not satisfied with the answers. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MOGREN-So the fence, maybe a four foot chain link fence across here, would that alleviate your concern then, the fence? MR. FORD-I’d want to see it on the plan and see how it would work. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I guess I’m trying to understand how a fence would help, because once they got onto the public sidewalk, see, the fence at The Great Escape side keeps them in the parking lot, and doesn’t allow them to the sidewalk without going over the pedestrian bridge. Well, I mean, they can. MR. COHEN-The main entrance for The Great Escape has changed. Where it used to be across the street from us, they’ve now got a six foot wrought iron fence that goes across there. Now it’s a matter of just training the people to use the sidewalk instead of going where they used to go. Everyone’s been accustomed, for all these years, going, using that entrance right there, and as they see that it’s blocked off, and there’s no crosswalk or no light there, they continue to walk. Every single person that comes into the parking lot, we explain to them that, use the crosswalk. That’s the only way to get into The Great Escape in a safe manner, and that drops you right off, if you cross the bridge, it drops you right off by their front gate. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying that’s effective? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. COHEN-It is very effective. Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-It has been effective, then. MR. COHEN-Absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? Steve, Gretchen? We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here that had comments or questions for the Board on this application? I will keep the public hearing open. I guess the only question I have in my own mind is Don raised questions on the sign and the sign details. I have to admit, when we went on site visits that wasn’t something I paid a lot of attention to. So I’m not sure how I feel. I’m not sure how the rest of the Board feels. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I guess, why don’t we ask him to submit a rendering of the sign. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Sign details. MRS. STEFFAN-And it can just be a photograph of the sign. You said that you’ve amended an existing sign. MR. HUNSINGER-That would be fine. MR. MOGREN-And that’s just the one sign in front of the building to be demolished. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MOGREN-Because the other sign just got a permit. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on the building, right, the other sign? MR. MOGREN-Well, there’s a freestanding sign there. MR. COHEN-For the other business. MR. MOGREN-And I believe she just got a permit for that sign. MR. FORD-And if I may just reinforce the point, while you’re looking at your design, please look at fencing, and it doesn’t have to be where we discussed before, as possibilities for directing pedestrian traffic, rather than just relying on signage. Perhaps you could come up with something as you look at the design. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a tabling resolution? MR. MOGREN-Tom, a five foot buffer in the front and the screening there, and then you’re in pretty good shape? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I would just say look at 179-8-040. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-And if you would like, I mean, I questioned the interior parking lot landscaping, the five percent that’s required, and I just scaled that out. Maybe the applicant should go ahead and verify what areas that you used to meet that requirement. MR. MOGREN-Yes, it’s a little more than just the little interior island there. So, yes, I can do that. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So what it says is you have to have the one tree per fifteen spots, plus the interior. MRS. BARDEN-Plus the five percent. MR. SEGULJIC-Five percent. MRS. BARDEN-Of the total parking lot square footage. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Verify that for us. MR. MOGREN-Yes, again, if you’re not going to include corners, then I probably don’t hit that, but I can tell you how I came up with my calculations. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s like all inside the curbing? MRS. BARDEN-It has to be located in the parking lot, in the interior, primarily it’s the island area. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that clear now? I think it’s clear to me. MR. HUNSINGER-The only outstanding question is what date we table the review to. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-What does the Board feel about, we’ve talked about directing people to the pedestrian bridge. If this is a paid parking facility, when someone pays, what if the applicant handed out an instruction? What we’ve talked about is a verbal, you know, make sure you use the walkway, and the pedestrian bridge. What about a hand out to each car that comes into the parking facility, that they need to use the pedestrian bridge? MR. TRAVER-What about adding detail to the sign, putting that verbiage on there, with the arrows? MR. FORD-There’s only one way you direct pedestrian traffic, and it isn’t with a person suggesting it verbally or handing them a sheet of paper. That’s my feeling, and I think that’s critical. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think the piece of paper’s just going to be trashed. I understand what you’re saying. I’m uncomfortable with the pedestrian access also, but I don’t see, I mean, they do have a sidewalk going to the bridge. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, do you give them a stub when you give, when they pay? MR. COHEN-A flier. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So I don’t see what it would hurt to put that on there. I mean, if they’re giving them something anyway. MRS. STEFFAN-I know some of the discussion is, and certainly I believe that the deny without prejudice from the County Planning Board was because they didn’t see this as an appropriate use, the parking facility piece. I mean, it’s always been a fast food operation, but I believe that the reason that they wanted to deny without prejudice is because of the parking facility, and so I guess that’s a decision that we have to make going forward, you know, is this use appropriate for a fast food but not appropriate for parking. Do we make that decision this meeting or next meeting? MR. COHEN-Well, actually, I was at the meeting for the County, and their issue was a couple of the parking spots that were right in front of the ice cream shop that are currently in the DOT right of way, and we have a few others that are currently in front of the restaurant which are currently in the DOT right of way, and we were looking before to have everything consistent straight across, and we were, I guess, 10 feet into the DOT right of way with the parking lot, and they felt that that was not right, and so we said, okay, we’ll bring it back to the line, and have the parking begin there, as from our first submission. That’s where their without prejudice was. MRS. STEFFAN-Deny without prejudice. MR. MOGREN-Because both uses we’re proposing are within the zoning district, allowable uses in the zoning district. MR. COHEN-We’re currently a parking facility also. MRS. STEFFAN-I believe in the Staff Notes it was noted that because the Warren County Planning Board identified this as a deny without prejudice, we would need a super majority in order to pass this as presented, and I’m just not hearing unanimous support. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. MOGREN-Well, I’d like to hear all the comments, so next time we come back in hopefully I’ll have that. So from what I’m hearing so far, I’m not too discouraged. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I don’t care where that fencing is, it needs to be there. MR. MOGREN-I hear you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would you like to read off your tabling motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I will make a motion to table with the following conditions. That the applicant provide a new stormwater design. That the applicant amend their plan to include the three foot shrub requirement along Route 9 parking lot, please refer to Section 179-8-40B(2) of our Zoning Code for further details. To locate the former septic and leach field and identify removal and how they will dispose of the septic and leach field according to State regulations. To provide freestanding detail. To make lighting plan amendments, and also to verify the calculations for the interior landscaping design, and that’s the motion. MR. MOGREN-Can I speak? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. MOGREN-Well, the septic, the existing septic field, I’m not sure how we would go about locating that. Hopefully at the time that they hooked up to the new sewer system that that was, you know, addressed at that time. I don’t have any survey maps that pick that up. I really don’t have anything that I can hang my hat on for where that system might be, and short of going around and poking around the site. MR. SIPP-I think Queensbury’s Water and Sewer Department would have a map showing where the hook up hits their line. MR. MOGREN-I guess my question is when it was connected to the Town sewer system, why wouldn’t that have been handled, the proper disposal of the system, at that time? MR. SIPP-I don’t know, but I just want to make sure. That’s not their problem. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess we’re looking for you to verify it. I mean, go to the Health Department. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I think the concern, and I can only speak for myself. The concern that I have is that you’re not required to dispose of your now antiquated septic system. The fear is that in the process of doing the site plan as proposed, you’ll run into it, and then, so you need to have a plan for how you would deal with it, and I think that’s as much of what we’re looking for as anything. If it hasn’t been properly abandoned yet, what will the plan be if you do have to dig around the septic field, and how would that be disposed of, and we’re not looking for the exact location, but just approximate location. Is that fair? Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Gretchen, with regard to the landscaping, could you just clarify something? Did you just send them to the one section? Because there’s really the three different issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Just on the shrubs. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, because there’s three issues, the perimeter of the landscaping around the perimeter, along the road, and the interior. MR. MOGREN-I think the perimeter around the whole site except the road, I’ve got the five feet around the whole site except up on the road. MR. FORD-Perhaps it would be helpful, Gretchen, if you could read that entire motion again. MRS. STEFFAN-I have two sections. One just addresses the three foot shrub requirement along the Route 9 parking lot, and then I identified the zoning section, and then the last piece was to verify calculations for interior parking landscaping design. We can combine those. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. FORD-And the fencing was. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the applicant heard our concern. MR. FORD-You don’t want to put that in there? MR. HUNSINGER-No, because you can’t fence the public right of way. I mean, that’s the issue here. You’d have to fence the public right of way, which you can’t do. It’s different than the property owned by The Great Escape. The Great Escape can fence their property so that you can’t leave it without going across the pedestrian bridge. This applicant can’t. MR. FORD-We’ll see. MR. HUNSINGER-The applicant certainly heard our concerns. I think they’ll have to address them when they come back. MR. STEFFAN-So, Tom, are those items adequate for the landscaping? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, just to clarify, the exterior, you have to have a tree every 250 feet, and I don’t believe you do that. You have to have a minimum five feet from the other three sides, and you have to have a tree every 250 square feet. MR. MOGREN-I think it’s linear feet. MR. SEGULJIC-Every linear. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it says within the perimeter of the landscape strip, one shade tree shall be provided for every 250 square feet. I could be mistaken. I’m looking under E. MR. HUNSINGER-On parking. MR. SEGULJIC-Exterior parking. MR. MOGREN-I thought that was a typo, because when you’re on the right of way it seems like a linear dimension you’re looking for. MR. SEGULJIC-Two hundred and fifty square feet. I don’t think you have that. MR. MOGREN-Because I thought it was 250 linear feet. Is that really what it is? Okay. Now there was some talk about a ten foot buffer. You’re okay with a five foot all the way around the site? MR. SEGULJIC-I want as much as possible, but it says a minimum of five. MR. MOGREN-I’ll look into giving you some more. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Gretchen’s re-doing the motion. MR. SEGULJIC-I have one other question. It says super majority. What does that mean? MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, what’s a super majority, it’s two-thirds, right? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-So it would be five, five of seven. MR. MOGREN-Five. MR. HUNSINGER-Five of seven. MR. MOGREN-Five of seven. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, five votes. It’s a matter of how many are here. Gretchen’s ready to read a new resolution, I should say. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2007 VANCE COHEN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: thth Tabled to the July 17 Planning Board meeting, with an application deadline of June 15. This application is tabled so that the applicant can submit the following: 1.A new stormwater design. 2.That the applicant will submit a revised landscaping design to meet Town Code requirements, see Zoning Code 179-8-040. 3.That the applicant will locate the former septic and leach field and provide a plan removal and disposal according to State regulations. 4.To provide a freestanding sign detail. 5.To make lighting plan amendments. th Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: MR. MOGREN-Lighting plan amendments? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Correction to the label. MR. MOGREN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Where it says 23.5 to 18. MR. MOGREN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 50-2001 MODIFICATION #2 SEQR TYPE JEAN HOFFMAN AGENT(S) WILLIAM KENIRY, ESQ. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 93 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 978 SQ. FT. DOCK AND BOATHOUSE WITH A 704 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. BOATHOUSES IN THE WR ZONE REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 46-05, AV 90-04, AV 91-01 WARREN CO. PLANNING 3/14/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 7.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-9.1 SECTION 179- 5-050 MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here representing Mrs. Hoffman this evening? Okay. I guess I’m going to turn to Counsel. This will be the second meeting in a row that Mrs. Hoffman, nor a representative has showed, and I think maybe we should discuss. I don’t know if we should do it in open session, or maybe at a later date discuss what options we might have to get her back before this Board. MR. FULLER-I think we’ll do that at a later time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-As far as leaving it on, I don’t see it necessary that you leave it on your agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-No. Okay. I will, what should we do with the public hearing, open it and leave it open? MR. FULLER-Yes, that would be fine. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I will open the public hearing and we will leave it open. Should we have a formal tabling motion? Is one necessary when the applicant doesn’t show? MR. FULLER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-They can withdraw it and we’ll follow up with it afterwards. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2007 PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER AGENT(S) B P S R; V D S; MILLER ASSOC. OWNER(S) UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 160 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 3.98 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS OF 1.10 AC. AND 2.87 AC. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE SP 42-2003 WARREN CO. PLANNING: N/A LOT SIZE 3.98 TAX MAP NO. 295.18-1-73 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is a Preliminary and Final Stage subdivision application for Prospect Child and Family Center. The property is located at 160 Aviation Road. The property is zoned Single Family Residential One Acre. This is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. A Long Form EAF has been submitted. This is a two lot subdivision of a total 3.98 acre parcel resulting in two lots of 1.1 and 2.87 acres. Access to both lots will be provided from one shared driveway off of Aviation Road. This subdivision proposal is to accommodate a new independent residential alternative facility. Staff comments. Most th recently this application was tabled on April 24 to provide an opportunity for the Board to review meeting minutes pertaining to Site Plan 42-2003 for the Administration th Building. Staff has provided the meeting minutes from the September 26 and th November 25 meetings for the Board’s review. I had identified some items on the EAF, and for the subdivision plat, access to Lot One should be provided at the end of the common drive behind the building, and linked to the rear of the parking area. That way when the existing access from Aviation is removed, the driveway in front of the building could also be removed and replaced with vegetation. This would provide more of a residential look and feel as requested by the Board and the neighbors, and that’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Landscape Architect Jim Miller. I guess to start with you tabled it to look at those prior minutes. So should we start with a discussion of those minutes? MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, if you don’t mind, I could, because I was really the one that raised the question, and in my mind, my recollection was that there was at least, I don’t want to go so far as to say a promise, that the Prospect center wouldn’t develop the site further south of the Administration Building, and in the minutes from the September meeting, there was a statement, and I’ll just read it very quickly. It’s real short, that you made, Mr. Lapper, and I says, well, certainly there’s no plan to do that, and the that is to expand to a 7500 square foot admin building, but let’s say that in five years that changed, and we came back before the Board for a 5,000 square foot addition. The issues of buffer and noise and impact on the neighbors would be before the Board. You would obviously be looking out to protect the neighbors. So, there really wasn’t a promise made that you wouldn’t further develop the site, and that’s why I just wanted to read that comment. To me, that made it pretty clear that you did leave that door open. So I don’t know if we need to discuss that further, if you had additional comments about that or not. MR. LAPPER-No, I think that covers it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. LAPPER-In general, in terms of the subdivision, what we’re trying to create is a slightly larger than one acre parcel and an approximately three acre parcel in a one acre zone. So just in terms of the subdivision in a residential zone for two lots there’s obviously more than enough land to support two dwellings, two buildings on this site, and so we see the subdivision as pretty straightforward, and that’s on first as a separate item from the site plan. Some of the issues that Susan mentioned in the Staff Notes, about the access issue, we’d like to talk about, because we don’t think it makes sense to access the parking lot from the rear, but at the same time, you know, at the end of the day we’ll do whatever the Board wants in terms of buffering and site design to accommodate the neighbors or the Board. We have, we’ve responded to, the EAF comments, I think they were on the site plan notes rather than the subdivision notes, but it’s all the same. Would you like us to go through the EAF comments? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, yes. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Jim, why don’t you go through that discussion. MR. MILLER-I’m not clear on the first one where it talks about the acreage. The total site is the 3.97 acres, and I went through the lines on the EAF, and they appear to total correctly to me, unless I’m missing something. We’d be happy to correct it. The second one, Item A-8, we answered unknown to the depth to the water table. I probably, it is unknown because we dug eight feet and didn’t hit anything, or there was no mottling, and the plan shows that it was witnessed by Barton & Loguidice, who was the engineer for the Town at the time. So I should have probably said it’s greater than eight feet to groundwater. The Item B-13 says that we marked no and it should be marked yes. That item is the one that says is the property used for community use and green space, and the answer to that is no. This is a private lot. It’s a back yard to a piece of property that our applicant owns. It’s not community space, and the fact that there’s trees on it doesn’t make it community space, no more than it would make your back yard community space. B-21, we had no answer, but, you know, obviously, we followed up. That refers to, will this result in an increase in energy use, and we always check yes for these. Obviously, you know, fuel and electricity will be expended if the project is constructed. The next item, B-24, talked about, is funding involved, and we checked yes. Unfortunately, I didn’t know what the funding was, but it was OMRDD funding that would be involved in a project like this, and I don’t know, the access to the lot, I mean, that’s sort of a site plan issue. I mean, should we, do you want to address that now or wait until we get to site plan? MR. HUNSINGER-It is relevant to the subdivision. MR. MILLER-I mean, what we looked at, we looked at that, and there’s a couple of problems. It’s not possible for us to completely remove, you know, I’ll skip over to the site plan. What I believe Staff was talking about is that they would like to see a driveway developed from this driveway to access this parking lot. Well, part of the problem that we have in doing that is that there is a garage on this building on this side which is used, it’s used primarily for storage, but there’s overhead doors here that is accessed, and right now the driveway comes in here, and then it loops around to the parking area. If we developed an access point from the back, we would still have to have this driveway across to the garage to be able to access that. So we wouldn’t be able to completely remove all that driveway. So what we would be removing is, you know, this section here which is maybe 40 feet long, and then to do this, we’re probably over 100 feet and cutting through the trees. So that’s why we didn’t propose that. We looked at that, and we can’t come in this way. Our septic system is in that area. So that’s why we developed the access to that existing driveway across the front. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. LAPPER-I think that’s it for the subdivision. There were engineering comments on the site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-No questions, other than I’d like to hear what the public has to say. MR. FORD-I’ll wait for the public. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. SIPP-I have one question. Lot One is 1.10 acres, right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Lot Two is 2.87 acres. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SIPP-What is the remaining? What remains after that? MR. LAPPER-Nothing, that’s the whole thing. MR. SIPP-Nothing. MR. MILLER-Yes. The total site is 3.97. MR. SIPP-All right. So that, but can this 2.87 lot be divided? MR. MILLER-It’s not practical because the requirement is that each lot in the Town has to have a minimum of 40 foot of frontage. So there would be no way to have, on a Town road, there’d be no way to have any additional frontage. This rear lot would have 40 feet. So it couldn’t be further subdivided and still have frontage. MR. SIPP-So there could be no more buildings erected on this original lot? MR. MILLER-There couldn’t be another lot. I don’t know, in the future, if somebody wanted to put an addition on to this or something, but there would not be able to be another lot that could be created back there. MR. SIPP-I’m concerned that you could put an addition on this, that this could happen in the future, that an addition could be added to this proposed building. MR. LAPPER-To the Administrative Building, or to the Independent Residential Alternative? MR. SIPP-The proposed dormitory. MR. MILLER-Well, I mean, if it was, it would certainly have to come back here again. We couldn’t do it. MR. SIPP-Would Prospect look at the possibility of omitting anymore additions on this piece of property? MR. LAPPER-We’ll speak with our client during the public hearing and let you know. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Obviously we do have a public hearing scheduled. I know that it’s kind of difficult for the public to understand the difference, and we struggle with it ourselves, but there is a separate public hearing scheduled for the site plan and for the subdivision, and all we are considering at this point in time is the subdivision. So if you could limit your comments and questions to the Board only on the subdivision aspects of the project, it would be appreciated. I would ask that if you want to speak, that you state your name for the record. We do record the meetings, and we do publish minutes from the meetings, so it’s important that that be on the record, and if possible if you could limit your comments to three minutes. So who would like to be first? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CRAIG MOSKOS MR. MOSKOS-Craig Moskos, and I have a concern with this. If, in fact, this subdivision goes through, there are five other pieces of property next to them. Will they have the same rights to put a subdivision in? MR. HUNSINGER-If they meet the requirements they would be able to. MR. MOSKOS-Well, would they be grandfathered in as of the approval of this? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m not sure I understand your question. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. MOSKOS-Well, at one point we were trying to stop flagging property, and are we, because these people that own the adjacent property have not presented something tonight, are they being denied the opportunity to flag their property? MR. HUNSINGER-No. It’s one acre zoning. If they have two separate lots that they can identify on a subdivision plan and file the subdivision plan with the Town, they have the same rights that any other property owner in the Town of Queensbury does under the Zoning Code. MR. MOSKOS-But isn’t there pending, right now, a proposal to stop flagging property? MR. HUNSINGER-As a concept, it’s discouraged, but there is no prohibition. MR. MOSKOS-There is no prohibition. MR. HUNSINGER-There is no prohibition. MR. MOSKOS-So the adjacent owners can make commercial property in their back yard? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it’s zoned residential. This property is zoned residential. Within the boundaries of the Zoning Code, they have the same rights as the applicant before us, yes. MR. MOSKOS-And the building that this zoning is to put in there is residential? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s considered residential by State law. MR. MOSKOS-Multi-family? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s considered residential by State law. We can ask the applicant to elaborate, but that is my understanding. MR. MOSKOS-Okay. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Anyone else? RON ROBICHAUD MR. ROBICHAUD-My name is Ron Robichaud, residing at 17 Kiley Lane, behind the proposed subdivision. I have great regards for the Prospect School and the work they do, but I am deeply concerned about their aggressive growth in our residential area. At the previous site plan meeting on September 16, 2003, it was noted that no clear or removal of existing vegetation would take place. Now, not only will there be trees and vegetation removed, but also a 6500 square foot building will be put into that open space in a flag lot configuration. We already have one flag lot behind us now. Our area will become a more dense populated area, looking like some residential areas in Downtown Glens Falls, with some buildings located behind others, with access only between buildings. Do we want this kind of density construction in Queensbury? As a designer of electric facilities in area subdivisions, I have never seen layouts of flag lots, and it was stressed that green areas be set aside to lessen the density of the region. The proposal before us now goes against the norm of these subdivisions by decreasing green areas and increasing density. I’m against this for these reasons. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? DALE TAYLOR MR. TAYLOR-Dale Taylor, 15 Kiley Lane. I took the liberty of, and again, ignoring who the applicant is, and with all respect to my neighbors, looking strictly at property as you want to do. I took the liberty of taking those pictures. One is of the property at 220 Dixon Road, which is owned by the industrial development agency of Warren Washington County, from what I understand. I’m not sure that’s who would own whatever goes on this property, but be that as it may, as I took that picture, it’s a beautiful building, well designed. If you look at it and I realize the State of New York says that’s a single family residence. I think I’m terming that right. I think any of us in that room would look at that building and would not assume that’s what that is. So I think, as great as that is to look at site plans and subdivision site maps, it doesn’t tell you what it’s going to look like. I’m sure you folks have to consider that. If you look at that, I guess 5500 square foot 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) building, and this is going to be another 20% on top of that, and you put it behind the building that’s on the property now, how is it going to look? I mean, that must weight somewhat in your decision. On that, I can’t imagine how that’s going to look with that huge building. Much larger than the one that I have a picture of there. The other concern I have, and it kind of goes back to what this previous gentlemen said. What if one of my neighbors, I mean, I have a neighbor on each side, 100 foot lots. What if one of my neighbors decided, well, just to be a nice guy, you can eliminate your driveway. You can come into my driveway and cut over, and come into my property. That’s great. Would that be allowed? I mean, could you make a comment on that? MR. HUNSINGER-You’d have to come to this Board for site plan review, yes. MR. TAYLOR-Okay. All right. I mean, a flag lot, that’s a, I have to admit, that’s a new term to me, but from the start of this thing I’ve been concerned about a building being behind another building, especially as huge as that building is, which has probably got a footprint that’s as large or larger than most single family homes in the Town of Queensbury. There may be a few that are bigger, but I can’t imagine where, and you’re putting that behind probably a building that’s just guessing, 1,000 square feet, which is another residential building, or was. I just, I’m at a loss to see how you would put it back in there. If you look at the property on Dixon Road, there had to be a reason why they went there. It’s a great spot for it. It’s lined up parallel to the street or highway. It’s in an open space. You don’t have something in front of it and beside it. As I say, I’m at a loss to figure out why that would be allowed to be subdivided that way, and again, not referring to the site plan at all, strictly the subdivision. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? DARLENE KOSINSKI MRS. KOSINSKI-Good evening. My name is Darlene Kosinski, and I own the property at 150 Aviation Road, which is on the west side of the Prospect School Administrative Building. First of all, I want to start by saying I think Prospect School’s a great school. My concern is now they’re trying to become too big and it’s becoming too overwhelming for a residential neighborhood. The last time we were here was for the approval of an Administrative Building at 160 Aviation. This structure I can live with because it looks residential and it does not disrupt the appearance of the neighborhood. Now they want to build a 6,542 square foot building behind this office, and it would not be compatible with the neighborhood. The problem resulting with this would be the creation of a flag lot. Other problems would be the over densification of a narrow street, a large asphalt area created to access the building, difficulty in providing fire protection and other public services, and most of all it’s out of place with the existing neighborhood. I was going to question the building on Dixon Road, but you’ve now seen the pictures of it. Well, I understood the building was 4500 square feet. It sits on its own lot and it does not disturb the appearance of the houses around it. The new building would be 2,000 feet bigger and would be constructed on a flag lot among small residential homes. My house is 1,231 square feet, and this building would be five times the size, and totally out of character. How would it look in a residential neighborhood? In conjunction with being against a flag lot, my other reasons for being opposed to the subdivision would include the lighting, the noise, snow removal, and added traffic to Aviation Road. As far as having trees as a buffer, in the winter when the trees are bear this building will stick out like a sore thumb. Why do we keep destroying the woods and the greenery that are left? Queensbury has grown so much that the beauty and greenery are disappearing rapidly, and why do we keep allowing it to happen? When I look at my bedroom window and bathroom window, I see grass, trees and flowers. At night there are deer that come into the yard, eat the apples off the trees, and we have many other wild animals. If this project is approved, I will see a huge building through the trees, lights, and hear the noise in back of what should stay as woods. I’m opposed to this subdivision because it is not in configuration with our neighborhood. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. KEITH KOSINSKI MR. KOSINSKI-Hi. I’m Keith Kosinski, and I used to reside at that residence. I live around the corner now, but what I know of when I used to live there is that the snow removal, it always at the Prospect School now, takes place usually late in the evening and they haul the snow away. They stack up as much as they can. They haul a lot of it away, and where would be the concern, the snow removal here? Would they turn around and remove the snow from that property and bring it over to this? Or would they 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) be hauling that away? Because if that got hauled away, we’re talking about a process that could be going on, two, three in the morning, but I’m opposed to a flag lot, too. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MARK ORLOSKY MR. ORLOSKY-Good evening, Board. My name is Mark Orlosky. I live at 157 Aviation Road, directly across the street. My concern is, the previous owner, Ray Keyes, he had that. He put a nice addition on there, put a nice deck on there. It was nice. I used to go over there and drink beer with him, look out in his woods, as real nice lot, and I got to thinking, what happens when the IDA, Industrial Development Agency, decides they want to sell this? So you’ve got a big empty building there, a building used for who knows what behind there, and we’re stuck with it, for long term plans. It doesn’t seem like a very good idea to me. It’s like, there’s a proverb of the camel’s nose getting under the tent. Well, the camel’s nose is under the tent. Before you know it the whole camel’s going to be inside the tent, and that’s what this lot is. It’s such a small space, and it’s going to get filled up with this. The IDA decides they want to use it for something else. They’ll be down here saying, well, we’re going to use it for this now. We want to change this and change this. They’ve already started that whole ball in motion, and I would just like to see it stopped right now, before it gets any further, and that’s pretty much all I have to say. Besides all my other concerns were pretty much voiced already. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MR. ORLOSKY-Thank you for your time. NICK SIGISMONDI MR. SIGISMONDI-My name is Nick Sigismondi. I live at 168 Aviation Road. Mine and Prospect School’s property line is 700 feet long, the same exact as ours. They want a 24 foot wide driveway, over 200 feet deep. Now, what I was wondering, now, if there’s a fire, and an 85 foot fire engine has got to get back there, how would they turn around? They’d have to come back out. Also, how about the lights and the transformers? Do they make noise? What’s going to happen there? Also, after we lived there 20 years now, all the trees will be gone and dead. Also, I’m against that flag lot and the subdivision of this to be approved, and I thank you, folks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. ALICE GENTHNER MS. GENTHNER-Hi. My name is Alice Genthner, and I live at 21 Kiley. The proposed subdivision is bordering part of my back yard. I feel that if this flag lot is created and a single family residence is constructed, that it will not be compatible with the existing neighborhood. I feel that the new construction would change the character of the neighborhood, and I respectfully request that you do not allow this subdivision. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. EVELYN ROBICHAUD MRS. ROBICHAUD-Good evening. My name is Evelyn Robichaud, and I live at 17 Kiley Lane, and my house is located behind the proposed subdivision. First I want to explain to the Board that I do not have anything against Prospect School or the children that attend school. At the meeting on September 16, 2003, it was stated in the minutes on Page 45 that the purchase of the house on Aviation Road was to be used for administrative offices with minor changes. There hasn’t been any problems with that because it is set in with the configuration of the neighborhood. Now they’ve come back and they want a subdivision approved so they can expand and change the whole look of our area. The configuration of the flag lot does not belong in our neighborhood, and it’s not compatible with the adjacent land design. This definitely will make our present home values less marketable. Allowing a flag lot sets a precedent for future flag lots, which Queensbury does not need. The green areas will be taken away, and there’ll be many other drastic changes that we are very aware of. I think the Board has to look and take this into very careful consideration, and we would appreciate it. Thank you. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. LARRY VOSH MR. VOSH-Hi. My name’s Larry Vosh. I live at 29 Willow Road. I echo some of the sentiments that were said tonight. My understanding is that there is, and it’s been tabled because it’s taking a little longer than planned. The 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan is kind of looking at the thought of flag lots and perhaps eliminating them in Queensbury. I guess it just seems to me that if that is a subject that’s on that Comprehensive Plan, it seems kind of difficult to approve that subdivision tonight, if that’s involved in a topic that would set a precedence in a Plan that’s not already approved. So I think that at least some consideration should be given to approving the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to see what develops there, before this subdivision is approved. If the flag lots were looking to be prohibited, then essentially a precedent has already been set if this flag lot is approved this evening. Plus, in addition to, and I know it’s very difficult to separate the site plan from just the subdivision, but to echo, this, to me, looks more like a commercial building. On Dixon Road we’re talking 4500 square feet. This is 6500 square feet, 2,000 square feet bigger. Putting something of that magnitude behind in this little but back peninsula just does not seem to fit in the character of the neighborhood. I have nothing against Prospect School. I almost wish it could be a matter of purchasing residences and developing residences into mental hygiene facilities. They would fit into the character of a residence if it was like three residents together. To me it has more character than putting a 6500 square foot building. That’s all I have for the evening. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? JO ANN SIGISMONDI MRS. SIGISMONDI-Good evening. My name is Jo Sigismondi. I live next door to this property at 168 Aviation Road. We live next door to the property in question. We share a 700 foot property line with Prospect. We do not want them to get approval for this subdivision. Doing so will let them have a flag lot. With the Town of Queensbury 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the proposed zoning won’t let them have a flag lot. So why should they get one? I was wondering how come the thing that they had for this other plan got moved back and I’m wondering if it’s because so that the flag lot proposal hadn’t gone through yet. Their proposed driveway will start 23 feet from my property line. It’ll be 24 feet wide. West Mountain Road is only 20 feet wide, white line to white line. However, if it were to be made narrow, their road would be made narrower, it would restrict emergency vehicles. In the minutes of the 9/16/03 Planning Board meeting, Mr. Ringer was very perceptive to know Prospect would be looking to come back and expand on this property. I wish I had been as perceptive and had fought back then to keep it all residential. You will see from those same minutes before that meeting I had asked Mr. Craig Brown to take down my house and put up a two family. I figured I could do it since I have two acres. The minutes say he said it had to stay single residence. Looking at the new plans, isn’t that considered a duplex since the left side is a duplicate of the right side? In the same minutes, Mr. Lapper talked about the future expansion and how would there be enough of a buffer for the houses in the back? I don’t feel 23 feet is a good buffer for me. Prospect has said that they put up trees and bushes along my property line, but they’re not dense. If this goes through, I’d like to see thick, dense tall foliage like dense, eight feet arborvitae that could block noise and privacy and make it still look green. I would not want it to look like woods around Prospect School’s parking lot, mounds of dirt two or three feet high with a wooden fence on top with shrubs or trees that are dead trees and shrubs in front of the fence. If there will only be 23 feet before the 24 foot drive lane, where will the snow be plowed to, and where will the salt from that road go? Will it drain into the culvert that looks like it’s 10 feet from my line and kill my trees. This culvert looks like it will be taking water from at least two catch basins. This driveway which will have cars, vans, etc., will come out on Aviation Road about 100 feet from Crownwood, and I’m very upset with Mr. Lapper and what he said about people being mean spirited, because he doesn’t know me. He doesn’t know what my involvement was in Queens when I lived down there with people in different kinds of disabilities. I have my own disabilities for which I have been definitely discriminated against. My house is maybe, it’s less than 1,000 square feet. If people were going to be walking down during the winter when the trees aren’t visible, they’re going to look at that house. They’re going to look at my tiny bungalow, and they’re going to say, wow, there’s the outhouse for that great big house because it just isn’t going to fit into the, it doesn’t fit. It looks commercial, it will look commercial. As far as the real estate, I know it will be devalued. I’ve had real estate people who have told me this. They don’t want to get involved because it’s Prospect School to give me the evaluations. In other words, I 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) should be told that I have to get appraisers that come from out of town and that’s money that I just don’t have to prove this point. It’s going to totally destroy my buffer zone, and it will have a road wider than West Mountain, and I don’t want to have a flag lot, and I think the surveying that they have is wrong. As Mr. Heinzelman stated at the last meeting, while looking at the aerial view, the construction will take a huge chunk of greenery away and will look like the current school and parking lot. All of the above, but especially the flag lot, will change the characteristics of the neighborhood, and I ask because I think you’ve seen, if you look at the people who were here, that you have a tremendous amount of people who are involved from this area, and we ask that you stand by us and keep our neighborhood as it is residential. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MICHELLE GOTTLIEB MRS. GOTTLIEB-My name is Michelle Gottlieb, and I live at 35 Willow Road, and if you look at that site plan on 35 Willow, where the road curves to the left, you can see that our house backs up to the Prospect School. I have to concur with many of the people that, yes, your property will definitely be devalued. How do I know? Because we tried to sell our house last summer, and more than half of the 40 people that came to visit and real estate agents said, gee, too bad you abut back of Prospect School, because you see, they are correct, that in the winter they’re absolutely right, that that snow does get backed up along that fence, and those bushes are destroyed, and people are well aware, when they drive around the neighborhood. So right away I’m going to say to you that your house will definitely be devalued by this development. Second, I think we should all be honest and agree here. We have nothing to say, except great praise for Prospect School, but this is not the place for a school to increase and grow. Please do not tell me that Prospect School and all of their services and administrative buildings will not be increased in the future. Just go to Queensbury School. I have worked, and you’ll see that the attendance of that population has increased dramatically, and in this school, too, we must provide the services. This is not the time for you to be going into residential areas to build administrative buildings or even a house or whatever it will be. It is time for Prospect School to find other land. In Queensbury, if you go along where Adirondack Community College is on Bay Road, there are many roads that are much more conducive to building. I think that the School, you must begin thinking this way and stop incurring your building in our residential area. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. ART GOTTLIEB MR. GOTTLIEB-Good evening. My name is Art Gottlieb at 35 Willow Road, and when the initial road took place, I was not home. Now that I’m retired, I’m home. So I know what goes on during the day in terms of living right behind Prospect School. We talked about earlier about a sodium light. We have sodium lights in our bedroom because of the lighting scenario that’s there as well. The smell, we have approximately 50 buses that start at 7:30 to 8:30 that pull in. You can’t even describe the smell and the aroma that takes place, and of course at 1:30, 2:00 the buses are in there picking the children up. The sound is absolutely amazing, and of course during the day there’s clicking sounds. There are various activities that take place that they’re doing with the children that all day we have to listen to, because, again, it’s our neighborhood and so on, and there’s no way to stop that. There’s a green, I don’t know what you call it, a green canopy or something that’s been put up which is about eight or nine feet above the fence that we have, and of course the fencing, and we talked about the snow removal, the snow originally was originally supposed to be removed. It’s no longer removed. So now of course the snow is put there. It melts. It floods the back of our property. The drainage is absolutely atrocious. The trees that were put there that were supposed to be on top of the berm is on top of the berm, and we were promised it would be on top, but of course that didn’t happen, so you have a full sight of the entire Prospect School. We talked about the snow removal, the dead trees that’s there, and of course garbage removal. It’s amazing, three, four days in a row at 3:30, 4:00 o’clock in the morning, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep. The garbage that’s being picked up, it wakes you up. It’s absolutely absurd. Again, this is a residential neighborhood. Thank you. TOM HEINZELMAN MR. HEINZELMAN-Good evening. My name is Tom Heinzelman. I live at 27 Willow Road. I would simply like to say, the last time that we were here in April, it was about 12:00 o’clock, 12:30, 12:45, I don’t know what time it was, and I attempted to address 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) you about some of our concerns relative to this project, and quite frankly not only did I look at you and see you totally exhausted, but I was totally exhausted as well. So I appreciate the job that you do, and I just want to take a few moments to discuss some of the things that are of concern to me. I don’t want to talk about the Prospect School. I do take a little bit of offense to this gentleman behind me who, at the last meeting, said that neighbors need to be educated relative to the plight of the handicapped. I would like to go on record saying that I have a Masters Degree in Adaptive Physical Education. I have created the curriculum for two school districts in Adaptive Physical Education. Those of you that are not familiar with that term, that is physical education for the handicapped. I have a 32 year career. I deal with handicapped kids every single day. That is not the issue. My issue is with this subdivision, and I’m concerned about this subdivision simply because I’m learning more about these flag lots. I guess I never really understood that before. I listened to Jim Miller, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for. I’ve worked with him on several projects before. He mentioned the 40 foot space that you need on a roadway. I’m not privy to all the jargon and terminology relative to the type of business that he does, landscape engineering, and I’ve talked with him about several issues in the past. The big thing that I’m concerned about is that, if, in fact, school districts have unique characteristics based on State law, and they want to put a facility into a residential neighborhood, I think it needs to conform to a residential neighborhood perspective. One of the things that I’m concerned about with this subdivision is the fact that when you use a flag lot, we’re looking at a 24 foot driveway on a 40 foot opening going out into Aviation Road, I think that’s inappropriate. If, in fact, the 2007 Plan is for us to eliminate flag lots in moderate residential areas, I think it would be incumbent upon us tonight to think very clearly about what we’re doing if we were to allow such a subdivision because, quite frankly, it’s very much in opposition to what the philosophy, at least I think, of the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury is considering for the future, and whether or not there are these flag lots currently in existence, it doesn’t mean that we want to continue to do that. I think that we’re looking at a point in time where we need to take a stand and say that this is not appropriate for the Town of Queensbury. I opened my remarks the last time that we met, and I said that I was very privileged to live here for 25 years, and the reason that l live in the Town of Queensbury is because I choose to, not because I have to. I think it’s a wonderful place to raise a family and I’ve had nothing but wonderful experiences in this Town. I’ve met with this Planning Board before on other issues, and always have found them to be very cognizant of the role that they play representing the constituents of the Town of Queensbury and not necessarily the applicants for certain proposals. So it’s incumbent upon me to express, on behalf of the large contingent of people that we have here tonight, the fact that we’re opposed to this as a subdivision simply because it is a flag lot which is not consistent with what the future plans of the Town of Queensbury are. It has nothing to do with the Prospect School or who’s going to be building any kind of a facility in the back yard, and quite frankly I would be concerned if Donald Trump came in and wanted to build a magnificent facility back there. I just don’t think that it’s appropriate for the neighborhood where it’s surrounded on four sides by half acre lots, which basically you can see on the aerial plan up there. So it’s not about who it is, it’s simply that, in my opinion, as a resident of this Town, that it’s probably not appropriate if the future and the vision of this Planning Board and our Town Board is to eliminate, in moderate residential areas, flag lots, then probably this is the time that we ought to take a stand and make it apparent that this is the direction that we’re going, and I fully support your decision. I fully support the fact that I know that you’re going to take everyone’s concerns to heart and make the right decision because if, in fact, the future of Queensbury rests in your hands, I think we’re in good hands. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. BARDEN-I do have quite a few written comments. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve got a couple of more. Good evening. STEVEN SCOTT MR. SCOTT-Hi. My name is Steven Scott. I live at 25 Kiley Lane. For the record, I oppose the subdivision for the same reason that many of my neighbors have stated, and I won’t repeat them. Mr. Hunsinger, I just wanted to ask you for clarification purposes to go back to your initial instructions to the public. If I understood you correctly, if the Board were to decide that the subdivision is appropriate under Town and State law, applicable law. It would be later for the Board to decide whether a building was constructed on that subdivided lot and, B, under what conditions. Is that correct? 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. HUNSINGER-It’s partly correct. If we were to approve the subdivision, the new lot would be a new residential lot, and anybody would be allowed to put a single family home on it. Other than a single family home would have to come before this Board for site plan review. So it’s kind of a two phase answer. MR. SCOTT-Okay, but the site plan review still would be a separate? MR. HUNSINGER-The site plan review is a separate issue. MR. SCOTT-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s on this evening’s agenda, yes. MR. SCOTT-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? LARRY WAYMAN MR. WAYMAN-Good evening. My name’s Larry Wayman. I live at 178 Aviation Road. I had not planned to speak, but I did hear something that rankled me a little bit. I’m not as eloquent as this gentleman behind me who said everything and summed it up quite articulately. I’m from New Jersey. I’m a retired policeman. I came up here to get away from urban sprawl, selected our lot for that reason, and now I see all this encroachment and it can only amplify my distain and concern for all the visceral sensations we’re going to get, smells, noise, everything. I can’t add to that. I think you’ll understand that. I do object, however, to the implication that we’re somehow unempathetic to the plight of these kids. When the late Charlie “Papa Bear” Albert was alive, he asked me for money every year for a fundraiser every year. We always gave generously. My wife’s an oncology nurse at the Glens Falls Hospital. Never any strings. I took physical therapy with Christopher Reeve at the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation when I got run over by a drunk ambulance driver, while on duty. I have tremendous empathy for these kids, and for the Herculean effort the staff puts forward for them. I think it’s time that it be reciprocal and we, the citizens, get a little empathy and consideration back and be a little receptive and sensitive to our concerns and our right to pursue a clean quiet and healthy environment. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MIKE WEIRICH MR. WEIRICH-My name is Mike Weirich. I live at 33 Willow. I just moved here on October 30, 2006. I just wanted to let you know that some of the main reasons that I chose to move to Queensbury, to Willow Road, to the development that I’m in right now is, one, that it was developed, not developing. I was told that there was to be no more development around that area. That was one of the main reasons I decided to move my young family with an eye toward the future into a community that was settled, had an excellent community atmosphere, and now, six, seven months into it, most of the community members are in turmoil about what’s going on right now, not very settling for someone who just moved here. So I’m very opposed to any new development coming right behind my house, or any of my neighbor’s houses, because I think that the current community right now is very happy the way it is, very happy with the development that’s already happened, and that anything else should move somewhere away from us. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. BOB DALABA MR. DALABA-My name is Bob Dalaba. I moved to Queensbury in 1959 on 173 Aviation Road. When I moved up there, it was a dirt road. You probably won’t believe me, but it was. Prospect School wasn’t even there then. The little white school on the corner was there when I moved there. I’ve got nothing against Prospect School. I think they’re doing a wonderful job, and a beautiful job, because there’s a lot of need out there right now, and there probably always will be. So they’ve got to go some place I believe, but I don’t think they should be building a large building behind a little one. I think some other people have said the same thing. Maybe they ought to look some place else for a little bit of land, and give our neighborhood a break, okay. That’s all I’ve got to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-John Strough. I’ve been involved with community planning for about 11 years and nothing, I’m not opposed to the project at hand, but I am opposed to flag lots. So I did some research, other communities. Most other communities do not allow flag lots, and I listed a variety of reasons for you. It leads to excess paving. Some people say that this isn’t a flag lot. Well, it’s configured like a flag lot. It is a flag lot. I mean, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a flag lot, but it detracts from the neighborhood cohesiveness and connectivity, and I think if you look up there you will see one lot, flag lot. I think you’ll have to agree. It appears as an afterthought. Not compatible with adjacent land design. Allows increased densities beyond what was originally planned – allows infill in areas that were not meant to be in-filled. When they put in the Kiley Lane subdivision, Willow Road, and the Pines subdivision, and the Aviation Road subdivision which came before that, I don’t think they envisioned putting flag lots in or they would have done it. Flag lots just are an afterthought. That’s why we’re going to ban them in some forms of our zoning, but flag lots change the character of the neighborhood. They’re out of character with the surrounding subdivision. They’re out of character with the adjacent properties that are not flag oriented, and if the neighborhood is characterized by street orientation, as Aviation Road is, then flag lots lack that orientation. They lack the presence with the street, and therefore they’re not in character with the existing neighborhood. If the neighborhood is characterized and defined by front yard set backs and front yards, then flag lots violate that aspect of the neighborhood character as well. The lots tend to be less marketable and have the same effect on adjacent properties. They tend to devalue adjacent properties that are not flag oriented. They are more difficult to provide police patrol, fire protection, and other public services. They tend to degrade preexisting buffer zones, which may have existed by use and decree, and there is a buffer zone there, but if we allow flag lots, there’s not going to be any buffer zones. Most current subdivision standards do not allow flag lots, for obvious reasons listed here. They are awkward, more characteristic of helter-skelter development pattern. Allowing a flag lot would set a precedent for others to create flag lots. If flag lots would be prohibited for one, they should be prohibited for everybody, and they’re contrary to the original intent, integrity and spirit of the underlying subdivision and zoning. They’re not an approved aspect of the original subdivision, and the last point was made several times, and I’m sorry I ran a little over time. I’ll finish up. The proposed Town of Queensbury 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the proposed zoning for this area call for the disallowance of flag lots in the type of zone, which would be moderate residential, and I thank you for listening to the public and myself. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. We do have a written comment? MRS. BARDEN-I do. MR. HUNSINGER-Do we have more than one? MRS. BARDEN-We have several. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-I have them all together. Some may be more relevant to the site plan, but I will read them all now, if that’s okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. How many are there? MRS. BARDEN-Eight. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Okay. I don’t suppose they identify subdivision versus site plan, do they? MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I didn’t think so, and these are all new since the last public hearing? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MRS. BARDEN-“Dear Mr. Hunsinger: Yesterday the Director of the Prospect Center, Mr. Gouge, spoke to us about a home that is in the planning stage, and some concerns that are being raised about it. We were not aware of any of this, otherwise, I could have written this letter sooner. We have lived at 226 Dixon Road in Queensbury since June 1978, and over the years our one-home patch of road has grown into the attractive neighborhood it is today. The Prospect Center owns a duplex home immediately to the south of us on Dixon Road. The young men and women who live in the duplex, and the staff who assists them, have been our neighbors for about 4 years. Over the past 4 years, we have formed some opinions about our neighbors (residents and staff) that we believe everyone hopes to have for any neighbors: 1. we like that they are there, 2. we feel safe with them there, 3. our interactions are pleasant 4. and we continue to enjoy our home and neighborhood. Mr. Gouge has told us more than once that “being a good neighbor” is top priority. You can certainly trust him when he says that. Sincerely, Tom and June Burke” “To Whom It May Concern: This two lot subdivision is not practical for this property. This building and after paving driveway including driveway will cover too many square feet. It is not relative to other housing in this area of family homes. A flag lot should not be allowed because it increases the traffic, noise, and bright lights in this area. It is also more difficult to provide fire and police protection. This subdivision on a flag lot should not be approved. Gordon C. Stockman Carol B. Stockman 98 Aviation Road Queensbury, NY 12804” “This letter is in regards to the 160 Aviation Road request for subdivision. I currently reside at 157 Aviation Road directly across the street. I think that a subdivision would be a terrible mistake for this property. It would change the character of the neighborhood, degrade our buffer zones and is too much growth for this “Residential Area”. Not to mention that the Town of Queensbury 2007 Comprehensive Land Use Plan and proposed zoning calls for the disallowance of flag lots; exactly what Prospect Child and Family Center has asked for permission to do. If they (Prospect Child and Family Center) are allowed to subdivide what is to stop the entire neighborhood from applying for subdivisions? Would you (the Planning Board) approve us all? A flag lot is just not right! Colleen Orlosky 157 Aviation Road Queensbury, New York” “To Whom It May Concern: I am writing today to voice my objection to the proposed building being built by Prospect School on Aviation Rd. My objections are based on the following observations. 1. This is a residential neighborhood. There is no property within this neighborhood that is the size of this proposed building. 2. There is no residence in this neighborhood with a parking lot for 30 cars and large light posts. 3. This is clearly a business disguised as a residence to suit Prospects needs. There are no businesses operating in this neighborhood. This is a non-conforming property and should be voted down. I strongly oppose this building being built. It does not fit within the style of this neighborhood and will reflect negatively on property values. I am unable to attend Tuesday’s meeting due to having commitments to my children and request that my objection be included in others being presented at the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Wendy A. Schiavi 21 Willow Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804” “Dear Sirs: Please be advised that I am a senior citizen who does not drive after dusk and therefore will not be able to attend the May 15, 2007 meeting in regards to the above referenced subdivision. I wish to express to the Board in this letter that I feel that the subdivision of the property located at 160 Aviation Road is not appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. No homes in the immediate area are 6,500 square feet, which is the proposed plan for the construction of this new residence on the subdivided land. I feel that this new residence should not be built at this location. Sincerely, Mioara Auerbach” “As a resident in the area that will be affected by the Prospect Center Project I wish to voice my strong opposition with this project. I feel that the Planning Board has bent over backwards to give the center a yes vote for all the things they have requested in the past and I feel that you continue to grant them their wishes for projects that are not in keeping with the zoning and use codes of Queensbury. This is a residential neighborhood and the center has continually expanded without any concern to the existing residents as to traffic (expanding staff travel, parents delivery and pick-up and bus operations) ambient night lighting (lights are on continuously through the night), noise (by continuing to clear cut tree areas that buffet traffic and other noise). Creation of more blacktop (Queensbury’s favorite substance of abuse) for parking, which creates polluting run-off of oil, gas, cigarette butts and trash. Why don’t you consider making the entire Aviation Road corridor a free- for- all zoning variance district for anyone who comes up with non-conforming projects? How can you grant permission for an expansion that will cause more of the same inconsistent land use and neglect of resident’s opinions, and our quality of life and not make our neighborhood a “Home of Natural Beauty……A good place to Live”. Roman G. Jarosh 8 Crownwood Lane” Town of Queensbury Planning Board; My husband and I do not feel the Board should allow this subdivision. We share the same concerns that will be expressed by our neighbors in this st meeting. We would like to respond 1 to the insulting comments made by Mr. Lapper in the last meeting. Mr. Lapper insinuated we are ignorant, mean spirited and un-educated people in reference to the disabled or what Prospect School represents. We realize this 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) is a tactic to divert attention from the real issues and concerns the neighbors have but it was wrong. If Mr. Lapper reviewed the minutes from the last meeting, he would see that not one person expressed concern over who would be living in this home. As a matter of fact, we believe only positive and praising words were used to describe what Prospect does. The concerns were that this would be a flag lot. Flag lots are wrong for the neighborhood and any community! There will be a vote coming up in a matter of months that will determine the future of the existence of flag lots in our Town at all. Why allow the existence of a flag lot now before the vote happens? Flag lots are a poor design for both safety and density in our community. They look like an afterthought and in most cases are. We understand the State refers to this as a single family dwelling, but a 6,500 sq. foot building with 8 bedrooms plus workers, extra living space and a parking lot with lights does not resemble the other single family residences in the area. That’s 3 times the size of our home and most in our neighborhood. Does this mean that any person can come along and put a flag lot up? Despite the State’s definition of this building, Prospect School is a business and this is a commercial project! Speaking of commercial projects, how do we know who will own this in the future and what the use of this property will be? In 2003, it was expressed that the purpose of this lot was for administrative use only. Reassurances were given that are being reneged on now. We were reassured that trees were not going to be taken down, the septic system was adequate, and lights were not to be left on at night because it was only to be used as administration and would not be used at night. Now Prospect is back and wants more. We know that they have approached other neighbors to purchase their property in the future…..WHERE DOES IT END!!!! Please don’t allow this subdivision, because we know where they are heading next if this is allowed. The commercialization of our neighborhood must stop now. Thank you. Steve and Eileen Soprano 23 Kiley Lane Queensbury, NY 12804” “To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in reference to the Notice of Public Hearing that we received for the Prospect Child & Family Center’s proposal to build an Independent Residential Alternative Facility. We would like to oppose this plan until further information is distributed to us. Unfortunately, we are not available to attend the public hearing tonight. We would like to know how many residents will be living in the home, how many employees will be coming and going, and what the building will look like. Also, will there be a lot of visitors coming and going? If this information is available at the Town Building or at Prospect School, please send us notification at the above address or call us. Sincerely, Janice L. Casey 3 Pinewood th Avenue” And I have a, dated May 14, Record of Phone Conversation taken by Pam Whiting in the Planning Office “Received via phone message from Mr. & Mrs. James Coccia, 2 White Pine Road, Queensbury, NY 12804. Mr. & Mrs. Coccia would like to go on record that they are against the expansion in change regarding the Prospect Child & Family Center project. It is not in keeping with the character of their neighborhood. They th are unable to make the meeting on May 15 and would like to go on record with the above statements. Pam Whiting Planning Office” MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. I guess before I open it up for questions and comments from members of the Board, if there were anything that you would like to add as a result of the comments from the public. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I just have a couple of comments. First of all, the proposed subdivision is conforming under the current Zoning Code. No variances are needed or requested, and I’d like to read a very short Declaration of Legislative Findings and Intent under the Section of the Mental Hygiene Law that deals with community residential facilities for the disabled. Just a few sentences. The legislature, which is the State Legislature, hereby finds and determines that mentally disabled individuals have the right to attain the benefits of normal residential surroundings. It is further found that the opportunities for mentally disabled individuals would be enhanced and the delivery of services improved by providing these individuals with the least restrictive environment that is consistent with their needs, and that such environment will foster the development of maximum capabilities. It is the intention of this legislation to meet the needs of the mentally disabled in New York State by providing, wherever possible, that such persons remain in normal community settings, receiving such treatment, care, rehabilitation and education as may be appropriate to each individual. We shouldn’t be debating the nature of the use and compatibility, because it’s the State policy that it’s considered a family unit. Many of the comments went beyond the subdivision. Our position is that the subdivision itself is conforming, and by subdividing it as we’ve proposed as one shared driveway, rather than having two separate driveways for the two lots, most of the lots in the vicinity, or many of the lots, certainly in the Willow Drive area in the back, are half acre and what we’re proposing is a three acre lot and a 1.1 acre lot. So it’s much larger than most of the other lots in the neighborhood. Do you have anything you want to say? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. MILLER-Just a couple of things. Obviously most of the neighbors are on Willow and Kiley to the rear. The neighbors who spoke up, the majority of them are on Kiley and Willow which are behind the site. Actually, all the lots on Willow do not border on this property. As you can see, Susan’s map, that there’s an adjoining property to this lot, that all of the lots on Willow back up onto. It doesn’t back up onto this. There’s only a couple of the homes, a couple of the lots on Kiley that back up to this, in the subdivision. We’ve proposed a 125 foot no cut buffer across the back of those lots, and the other thing is, you know, they’re talking about clearing and the amount of pavement and things. As we get into the site plan, right now, of the four acre site that we have, two acres of the trees will remain after the project is developed. So this is not a situation where we’re clear cutting all of the trees that are there, and totally devastating the site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Is it necessary to have the housing unit located near the School, or can the housing unit be potentially located elsewhere? MR. LAPPER-They’re completely separate facilities, just like the one on Dixon Road is separate. You want to have them interspersed throughout the community, but it has nothing to do with, this is just a residential, you know, eight disabled people living in a house in a residential neighborhood. It has nothing to do with the proximity. It’s helpful to have it near the School because they could have some of the treatment facilities, like the therapeutic pool, etc., but in general it is a completely separate use. MR. SEGULJIC-Have you looked elsewhere? MR. LAPPER-It’s a piece of property that Prospect owns, and we feel objectively, because it’s a three acre site, which is a large site, and we can keep all these trees in the back, that it’s secluded, we’re not trying to protect the neighbors from, you know, dangerous people. We’re trying to create an area that’s secluded and private for the residents of this facility. So we think that having a three acre lot that’s wooded is a good place to put it. MR. SEGULJIC-Have you looked elsewhere? MR. LAPPER-They already own this site. I mean, if we looked elsewhere, the neighbors in the other area will say the same thing. MR. SIPP-Jon, are these physically disabled or mentally disabled? MR. LAPPER-They could be either. MR. SIPP-Either one. MR. LAPPER-Either/or. MR. SIPP-Of what age? MR. LAPPER-Young adults. Larry Gouge is here, the Executive Director, and he can talk about the existing facility that was built on Dixon Road four years ago, that someone gave you a picture of, and if you’d like, Larry can come up and tell you about the individuals that are in that facility, if that would be helpful. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’d like to stick with the subdivision for a minute. MRS. STEFFAN-I’d like to weigh in on that. That’s one of the points I wanted to make. I think we need to re-group and focus on the subdivision application that’s in front of us. There have been several points that were brought up, and they certainly support my concerns, and being on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Committee for the last over two years, one of the things we have talked about in the Subdivision Regulations were these flag lots. It is not something that is a preference for us, and we’re discouraging those in the new plan, and I think certainly some of the other issues that came up, regarding neighborhood character, related to flag lot, you know, related to a flag lot, I have to admit that Councilman Strough had a good idea. I mean, initially, when this particular subdivision was designed, was it designed with flag lots in mind? Probably not, and so from that point of view, I’m not looking at this particular subdivision favorably. I’m just not in favor of the flag lot issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Steve? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. TRAVER-Yes. I feel the same way. Looking at the layout of the properties surrounding the area and I know the comment was made that the public comments came from really one side of the area, but I’m pretty sure that we heard from people that lived on both sides of the property, and also both sides of Aviation Road, and in looking at the access to the various properties in that sort of triangular region that we’re addressing, clearly there was no plan for dividing up those properties any further. So I just think it’s, it does not fit in with the design of that part of the Town, and I believe it’s an inappropriate use. MR. SEGULJIC-Can I ask Staff a question? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-I have a question. 179-19-020 where it talks about residential lots abutting collector, abutting arterials. I look under “C”. From what I read here, it says you have to have two times the lot width permitted in the zone, and if I look at their plan. MRS. BARDEN-Or a shared driveway, which they have. MR. SEGULJIC-But it also says and, I believe. Shall apply circumstances where adjoining residential lots exist or are proposed to be established, and the width of each lot meets the required width. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. So they both meet the required lot width of the zone. So they don’t need double the lot width because they have a shared driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-But the width in the zone is 150 feet. MRS. BARDEN-Right. They have 150 feet on each lot. MR. SEGULJIC-One would be 189 and one would be 41. MRS. BARDEN-No. It’s the average lot widths. So you’d take the average of this Lot Two. You’re looking at the 41 feet at the road, which is required for road frontage. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the average, then, would be 110. MRS. BARDEN-You’d take 40 and 247.9, that’s at the end of the lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s the total lot. The total lot’s 247. MRS. BARDEN-Right, but that would be the lot width of this lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Not what’s along the road. MRS. BARDEN-At the road it’s 40 feet, 41. So you’d take an average of 41 feet and 247.9. MR. SEGULJIC-So that’s how that goes. MRS. BARDEN-It’s average lot width, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a comment, Tom? MR. FORD-I do. First a little personal history. I’m a retired school administrator and educator. I’ve been principal of numerous elementary and middle schools. I finished my career, and in each of those schools, I had Special Education classes. I finished my career as Director of Special Programs for the Glens Falls City School District. I have conducted and participated in classes at Prospect School. If I were to be prejudice in any way, and I would thankfully say this, it would be in favor and support of those people who have physical and/or mental challenges. So that’s my background, but the issue before us tonight really is about the appropriateness of a flag lot, not just in this neighborhood but in any neighborhood, and I heard an awful lot of good reasons why I’m sure they were taken into consideration and why the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan will call for them not to be given positive or active consideration. I’m in opposition to that flag lot. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a question, Tom or Don? MR. SIPP-No. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m still trying to (lost words). If you take 247 and add 41 to it, you’re still less than 150. MRS. BARDEN-It’s very close. Do you have a calculation on that, for average lot width? MR. LAPPER-I know that we did the calculation using that section, and we believe that it’s conforming. When we submitted, the Zoning Administrator didn’t determine that we needed a variance. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, just looking at the numbers on the plan, it’s 247.9, 41. It’s going to be 289. MRS. BARDEN-You’re right, divided by two is 144. MR. SEGULJIC-So they’re less, because this requires 150. MR. LAPPER-The average of that lot is, the average comes out to be more than 150. It’s not just the back and the front. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t know that we can take the width of the road and the width at the back of the lot and come up with an average, because the end part of the lot is probably 248 for most of it. So it would have to factor in the length of the road. MR. SEGULJIC-But even if you take in just the maximum of 247. MR. LAPPER-But it’s about how much that maximum exists for. Most of the lot is wider than 150 feet. I know that the surveyor did the math. I mean, in general, there’s nothing in the Code now that prohibits this lot, in terms of whatever anyone’s characterizing it as a flag lot. This is a conforming lot, and it’s much larger than the minimum lot size, and if we were just talking about putting a house there, I don’t know that we’d have this kind of controversy for a three acre lot, and the State policy and the law is that these people need a place to live and it has to be treated as a single family residence. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess one of the directions I want to give to the Board, and I really haven’t heard this yet, but one of the public commenter’s asked the question about what would be allowed if we were to approve the subdivision, and I did intend to say this to the Board, that if we approved the subdivision, it means that the new lot becomes a buildable lot and somebody could walk into Town Hall tomorrow and file a building permit for a single family home, and the subdivision is a separate and distinct action from the site plan review, which is also scheduled for this evening, and I think what I’m hearing from the Board is sensitivity to that. Because they’re not saying that it’s the use that they find objectionable, as much as the subdivision itself, the flag lot, the changing of the character of the neighborhood. At least that’s what I’m hearing, and I certainly am not hearing any consensus to move forward. So I guess I would pose the question to the Board, if people are interested in moving forward or if we want to, perhaps, take time to work on a denial resolution, or if someone wants to put forward a denial resolution. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, one thing I’d like clarification on the frontage, because I don’t think it meets the 150 foot requirements. MR. FORD-What’s your comfort level, Chris? Would you like time for preparation of that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we already heard from three members they weren’t comfortable. So, you know, we certainly don’t have a majority of the Board. Even if we took a vote tonight, it would be three to three. MR. TRAVER-I would ask, if it did meet that requirement, if it would fundamentally change the? MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Why don’t we table it for the 60 days? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. HUNSINGER-It’s 45. MR. SEGULJIC-Forty-five days. MR. HUNSINGER-Next meeting. MR. SEGULJIC-Because if we make a motion to deny, it’s going to take time to do. MR. HUNSINGER-We need reasons to deny, absolutely. Okay. I did leave the public hearing open. I will close the public hearing, and should we formally table action, or should we just? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to close the public hearing? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. FULLER-You should table it for the first available meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can I ask a question? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. AUDIENCE MEMBER-In terms of, I know I’ve heard a lot about the State says, by State law this is a single family residence. Where would I get a copy of that law? How can I get that for my own? MR. TRAVER-I think, isn’t that Part 624 Mental Hygiene Law? MR. FULLER-Yes, you could go to the State’s website, actually the New York State website for the New York State Government, and all of the agencies of New York State are under there, and if you click through them, if it’s OMRDD, I don’t know if they call it the Office of Mental Health anymore, but OMH, I think it’s OMRDD now. That would be online, and also there’s a New York State Assembly website which has all of the laws of New York State on a link, and that’s all free online. AUDIENCE MEMBER-We’re discussing subdivisions. We’re not discussing anything beyond the subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. AUDIENCE MEMBER-It’s my interpretation that everyone has had an opportunity to speak, and I would like to hear something, rather than sending us, we were here a month ago. We’re here again. We’re going to come back again for the subdivision. This really has very little to do with State law relative to how it affects the Prospect School. We’re talking about subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-The consensus of the Board is to deny the subdivision, and we’re tabling it so that we can prepare that resolution. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you very much. I just don’t understand. MR. HUNSINGER-I appreciate that. I was going to make that statement to the public, so that you knew. MR. FORD-We don’t want to shoot from the hip tonight. We want to get it right. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I understand. That’s totally acceptable. All I’m saying is I don’t understand the protocol, and I’m simply asking for clarification. MR. HUNSINGER-Like I said, I was going to make a comment before we ended this discussion, so that the public understood where we were. Is everyone comfortable with that? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, Jon. MR. LAPPER-So we don’t need to have the second public hearing tonight, because if we don’t have a subdivided lot, we can’t have site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, there’s no reason for the site plan. MR. LAPPER-At least mercy. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do we need a formal tabling resolution? MR. FULLER-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of deliberating the resolution, I mean, obviously the Board won’t be deliberating, because if the Board deliberates, it has to be done in public session. So in terms of the actual preparation of the resolution, we would certainly be looking for Counsel’s input. MR. FULLER-I could certainly sit down with one or two members, and Staff and formulate that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FULLER-And give it to the Board, and then bring your comments separately back to the meeting. We’ll just kind of leave it as a generic, open suggested resolution, and then you guys can review it on your own time, then bring your comments back to the next meeting, and then at the next meeting, any changes, additions, modifications would be made and deliberated in the public meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the frontage, I mean, should we ask the applicant, or should we go to the Zoning Administrator to get verification that it does meet that? MRS. BARDEN-I can get it. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could ask Craig, because, I mean, if that is a basis for a denial, we could certainly make that part of the resolution. MRS. BARDEN-Well, that would be a basis for an Area Variance. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. MR. FULLER-I’ll clarify that. It could be. Because that part that he was questioning came under the subdivision, minimum width. They’re not just the zoning minimum width. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FULLER-So zoning minimum widths obviously definitely an Area Variance issue, but you also have minimum width in your Subdivision Reg’s. MR. HUNSINGER-Subdivision. So it could be a reason for denial. Yes. Okay. MR. FULLER-So you stay away from the zoning minimum width. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2007 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Table this to the June 19 meeting to allow the Planning Board to prepare a formal resolution. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) th Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Now, just for the benefit of the public, obviously you’re certainly th welcome to come to the June 19 meeting. We did close the public hearing so there will be no more opportunity for public comment. The intention is that the Board will have a prepared resolution that would then be deliberated and acted upon. So that’s where we are this evening. Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 25-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER AGENT(S) B P S R OWNER(S) UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 160 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,542 SQ. FT. INDEPENDENT RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND SITE WORK. CROSS REFERENCE: AV SB 5-2007 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT SIZE 2.867 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.18-1-73 SECTION 179-4- MR. HUNSINGER-There is a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing and I will look for a tabling resolution since the subdivision was not approved. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2007 PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: th We would like to table that to the June 19 meeting, which is the same meeting where the Subdivision Preliminary and Final application will be addressed. th Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno SITE PLAN NO. 23-2007 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS EIS GREAT ESCAPE AGENT(S) LEMERY GREISLER LLC OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RC-15; HC-INT. LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,000 LINEAR FT. OF VARIOUS STAGES OF DECORATIVE FENCING ALONG ROUTE 9 AS WELL AS OTHER LOCATIONS ON PARK PROPERTY. COMMERCIAL FENCING REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 21-96, SP 74-89, AV 122-89 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT SIZE TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20; 295.12-1-3, 4 SECTION 179-9-050 JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. BARDEN-Just a couple of updates for the Board, please, on this. I did hand out to th you this evening a May 14 comment letter from Vision Engineering, and we have recently, Warren County Planning Board recommendation from their May meeting of No County Impact, for both site plans for The Great Escape. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. FORD-Before we get started, could I ask a question? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. FORD-This that we were just handed, this two page type written document, this pertains to what? What is it? BOB HOLMES MR. HOLMES-The letter that you just received is a response letter to Staff comments and to the Vision Engineering letter that we received yesterday, and we just wish to present you with some of our thoughts and ideas with regards to those comments. MR. FORD-Is this something that you’re going to be reviewing in detail? Or is the expectation that we’re to sit here and read this tonight? MR. HOLMES-I would expect, due to the fact that you just received it, we would be walking you through some of those thoughts and comments. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. The floor is yours. MR. LEMERY-Good evening. My name is John Lemery, Counsel to The Great Escape Theme Park, LLC. Scott Mauphin, the President of the Six Flags properties, is with me, and also a representative from Jarrett-Martin Engineering, Bob Holmes. We also have Ken Hoepeke, our Electrical Engineering consultant. He’s here also. One of the problems that we had here in this particular situation of recent date is that we never got the comments from the Town Engineer until yesterday, and I had to call the Planning Staff to see what comments there were from the engineer. It would be very helpful if the Planning Staff could make sure that, and the Planning Staff had their comments ready th April 26, and we got those, after we made a call this week and asked where those, if we could have a copy of the Staff Notes, and where the engineering response was. It would be very helpful if these matters that come before the Planning Board, and they’re referred by the Planning Staff to the Town Engineer, if the Town Engineer could get his comments back so that the applicant has a reasonable time to try to address those comments and get those issues flat that he raised, that we believe are appropriate. MR. FORD-Excuse me. Can we get a Staff response to that observation and recommendation? th MRS. BARDEN-We received these on May 14. MR. FORD-By “these”, you mean what? MR. HUNSINGER-She’s talking about the Town’s Engineer’s comments. th MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry. From the Vision Engineering comments are dated May 14. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s something we struggle with all the time, as I’m sure you appreciate. It’s an ongoing, I shouldn’t say struggle, and I mean, I realize this is not your concern, but each of the last, well, this will be the third month in a row where we’ve had three meetings. MR. LEMERY-Yes, I know. I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-Things get backed up and bottled up. MR. LEMERY-But to Mr. Ford’s remarks, that’s why the letter showed up. Our response got here today because we never got anything until, so it was very difficult for us to get our comments back. MR. HUNSINGER-Until yesterday. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. LEMERY-We have two matters before you tonight. The first has to do with the fencing. You remember when we had what I’ll call a clean up meeting of the Planning Board last June, when we sort of looked at the as built plans for the Hotel and the as built plans for the bridge. We thought we, at that time, had addressed all of the fencing. In fact, the Planning Board minutes reflect that the fencing issue had been addressed. It 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) turns out there was a six foot piece of fencing that was not included in that particular application, and that’s why the Planning Staff asked us to come back, and it’s a piece of ornamental fence located at the stream, located over the stream, at the pedestrian bridge. So the issue here in front of you regarding the fence is this six foot piece of fence that is in front of the stream, and one of the reasons it’s there is because The Great Escape has been struggling with people coming across the road, and we’re trying to get everybody to queue on the west side of the road, queue and go over that bridge and get people off Route 9, to the extent that people park in those parking lots that those folks tried to get approved, and then walk across the street to try to get into The Great Escape. So, other than that, there isn’t any change to anything with respect to the fencing. All the other fencing was approved in the Spring of ’06, the fencing at the former north gate, the billboard preferred parking, the south entrance, the Boomerang ride to the Rainbow Ride, the former Animal Land parking, Martha’s parking, Martha’s outdoor seating area and the west of the Martha’s hotel. There’s no change, folks, in regard to lighting. The tallest piece of the fencing is only six feet, and it’s well within, obviously, the height issues that we had approved historically. There’s no increase, really, in overall impervious soil issues, no landscaping issues, or disturbances to woods, lawns, etc., and the purpose of that piece of fence that we’ve added is safety related. The goal is to filter pedestrian traffic, as I’ve mentioned, toward The Great Escape’s main entrance, and prevent pedestrians from jumping over the DOT guardrail and running along the east side parking lot. The main purpose of the existing fences is the same, to promote the safety. It will serve to improve security and get people on to the bridge, which is what this Planning Board required from Day One. So we hope that it won’t be a big issue for you tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-I have an immediate question, and I want to make sure I understand this. So the only new fencing that has yet to be approved is the 315 feet along the east side of Route 9? SCOTT MAUPHIN MR. MAUPHIN-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All the other fencing was already approved last year when we cleaned up the site plan? MR. LEMERY-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. With that, I’ll open it up to comments or questions from the Board. MR. FORD-I have an observation. You have some of the most attractive and unattractive fencing. Truly. Where it is attractive, it is something we can point to with such pride in this community, and then there’s some chain link fencing and then we, on site review we also looked at some four by fours that are lopped off at the top and planted along an area, interior area, and some of these certainly are, they don’t meet the standards that you have set for other fencing. That’s my observation. If you’d care to respond, feel free. MR. MAUPHIN-Well, it’s a valid point. If I had my way, all 2,000 linear feet of our fencing at $100, you know, a linear foot would all be that ornamental fencing. The reality was, we had to go in and where some areas were completely unprotected for pedestrians or cars, or from pedestrians and cars, we had to make some quick decisions last year when we were going through and doing all of our parking lot work and everything else. So, while this fence that we’re before you tonight is the ornamental decorative, the plan going forward is to gradually start to try to change that chain link out. I don’t like it either, to be honest with you, but I’d like to get it all switched out eventually. I don’t have a plan in front of you right now to do that, but I think you can kind of understand the direction we’re heading here as we go forward, to really continue to beautify the property and get rid of some of that ugly that you do talk about, because, believe me, I do see it every day, and it bothers me just probably more than it bothers you, but it’s a good point. It’s a valid point. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SIPP-The fence that you have along Route 9, the old Animal Land property, I think they were up there working on it today. Is that going to continue to the property line of the golf course? The fence that goes on the west side of Route 9, along with the old Animal Land was, I think it does not continue all the way to the property line of the golf 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) course that’s to the south of you, and I saw they were out there today. Whether they were just fixing the part that had been blown down, run down, whatever it was, are you going to continue that fence all the way? MR. MAUPHIN-We don’t, what we did is we put that fencing in just to cover any entrance for any cars. We didn’t try, our method here wasn’t to contain that far south end of our property, and what they were working on today, during the wintertime we had a car that slid off the road and destroyed a good section of that fencing. MR. SIPP-So they’re just repairing it. MR. MAUPHIN-Just rebuilding it, yes, just putting it back together. MR. SIPP-Now, this new fence that you’re going to put in didn’t I read some place, and I can’t find it now, that there’s a small amount of blacktop you’re going to be adding? MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. Essentially what we’re trying to accomplish here is, I appreciate when you guys talk about safety, because as I sat before you last year, that was a major concern of mine with the former Chairman, Mr. Vollaro. What was an unfortunate sort of by-product of all the work that we did, and sort of unanticipated at the time, was the fact that not only would we have parking directly across from our property, in what right now there are a couple of businesses located there. We didn’t anticipate that, and what that did is it created more people to continue crossing Route 9, and because, the reason they were crossing is because it was very simple for them. They could see the low guardrail from that property. It wasn’t a very far walk. It was very attractive for them to come across the guardrail. What we’re trying to do is, from the stream all the way down to just south of the raised box planter, which is underneath the pedestrian bridge span, fence that, and then at the end of that span, in between that planter and the end of the fence, create an area right there for pedestrians to be able to cut through into our property, and the idea behind that is so that they don’t walk all the way down to what is right now an entry for cars back and forth. So I didn’t want to put them all the way down there. So that’s why there’s an asphalt pad there, to legitimize a walk through right there at the pedestrian bridge area, but to discourage people from crossing Route 9, because it’s essentially further to have to do that. MR. SIPP-Yes. I’ve got to commend you, because I drive through there every day, and for the past 17 years going down there when the lights were there and the crosswalks were there, and some afternoons when you had a thundershower and people streamed out of that place and ran across between cars and in front of cars, it’s a very nice feeling, now, to know that, in most cases, they can’t do this, and with this additional fence, they won’t be able to do it at all. MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. That’s our goal. I appreciate that, and that’s our goal, to try to mitigate it every where that we can, to prevent that kind of thing from happening. MR. SIPP-You can tell Mr. Lemery I just gave him a compliment. MR. LEMERY-I appreciate that. MR. MAUPHIN-He’s not the one that paid for the fence, though. MR. LEMERY-I paid in other ways. MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say. I think John and I were the only ones left from the original group when we started this. Yes. Anything else from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-No comments. MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to sort of echo Mr. Sipp’s comments. I think the ornamental fencing and the pedestrian bridge, I think we said this last June, I mean, I think it’s really worked well, and it looks great, too, and it is something that we can all be proud of. MR. MAUPHIN-Thank you. I appreciate that. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Do you want to comment? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED VANCE COHEN MR. COHEN-Hi, Vance Cohen again. I do have a couple of questions and concerns about this fencing, that I believe from the, I’ve gone down to the office to see where the permits were for adding these fencing that’s currently up, chain link fence. I didn’t see any permits down there, and I was lead to believe that there wasn’t a permit for the fence that is shown in the upper right hand photo right there, and I don’t know that it’s got the proper setback either, and that’s part of my concern. Further north on the property, there’s what used to be like people were able to turn around right in the driveway entrance, which they now use as a parking lot. It’s where the old train used to turn around right there, and it was lawn space which is now I guess crammed in parking. That’s part of my concern also. They built this really nice parking facility on the east side of the property, which now they’re turning their lawn space into a parking lot as well, and I don’t know if it’s been approved as a parking lot, but it’s certainly, every time I’ve gone through there in the summertime, I’ve never seen, you know, the proper distances for cars to park and aisle space and so on, and it’s right up against the road. It’s very hard for somebody to even pull off on the side of the road, right there, with that chain link fence up. I definitely don’t see any room for trees, which I believe was, what, 250 square feet, and with the setback there’s a certain amount of trees required. Anywhere along the west side of the road, from one end to the other, there’s not a single tree that’s in front of their fencing. From my standpoint as a neighbor, I didn’t realize, back in the day when all these plans were starting up, that I was going to be purchasing that property that I now own. I probably would have come to some of those meetings and voiced my concerns then. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. COHEN-That’s in the past. Now is my opportunity to do that, and as the Board is aware, now is your opportunity to make them come up to Code, based on Queensbury’s Codes and Regulations. I would like to see some trees along the road there, where there’s currently zero. The fence that’s overhanging right there, I saw a lot of people crossing over there, and I saw their concerns for that, and it was a good move by blocking that off. I saw more people trying to jump the curb at the guardrail, just to try and get over there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. COHEN-These are people coming from the motel up the hill. These are people coming from Martha’s wearing the blue Great Escape shirts, all the employees that work at Martha’s, or that live at Martha’s. I’m assuming they’re exchange students. They all come walking down Route 9 and run across the road just the same as some people that come from Martha’s themselves, and then on the southern side of my property, where the old Animal Land is, again, that fence is right up against the road. There’s no setback at all, and I don’t believe there were permits to do that, to put in fencing, and as far as I know in Queensbury you need permits to put this type of fence in. I understand they’re trying to curb people from pulling in to certain spots, but there’s also a process to that, and I think that they skipped a couple of things in that process. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. COHEN-And so I’d like to ask the Board to take those thoughts into consideration. Obviously you will with the trees, and I’m sure you will with the setback of the property, which is, as I learned today, you know, five feet back, at least five feet back, which, you know, my property, with my plans, we anticipate doing that exactly, and adding in our fence, according to Mr. Ford, to curb people to the sidewalk area, and so I would expect my neighbors to be held to the same standards. I think that’s it for now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Any comments? MR. LEMERY-I don’t have any comments, Mr. Chairman. I’m not sure what he was referring to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Susan, do you have any input for us on the permitting? 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MRS. BARDEN-I don’t. I’m sure that the applicant has a better understanding than I on what permits. I can only assume that all relevant permits have been issued. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was all part of the site plans that were approved. I’m not even sure how many years ago it was now, and then re-affirmed last June when we approved the as-built plans. MR. LEMERY-Yes. All the permits are in place to do the fencing. There are no DOT permits required here. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess, just to answer Mr. Cohen’s concerns or comments, we started this process in 2000 or 2001? MR. LEMERY-I think it was June of 2000, after the ’99 year when they had pay one and bring one free, and then they were parking all up and down Route 9, and up in the County Center, and that was the point where we started the process. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. It was a six year process. MR. LEMERY-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Of meetings and public hearings and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement that would fill a whole drawer of your filing cabinet. So it was all, you know, there was something that was instituted, and that was the concept of, what was the terminology, the special parking terminology that was implemented. MR. LEMERY-Festival parking. MR. HUNSINGER-Festival parking, thank you, and that’s why you don’t see the internal landscaping that’s generally required of a regular parking lot. I think that’s about all I could add. MR. LEMERY-I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-That was helpful, Chris, because not all of us were on board from the onset of this. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the most memorable evening, and I’m sure you can appreciate this, Mr. Lemery, was the public hearing at the High School auditorium. MR. LEMERY-Queensbury High School. MR. HUNSINGER-And for literally four and a half hours we had a public hearing, and that’s all we did, and we thought we were going to continue it to the next meeting, and at 11:30 we ended it, or quarter of 12, or something like that, but that’s all we did. There were four or five hundred people there. Okay. SEQRA is not required of this. We do have to consider whether or not the plan complies with the Environmental Impact Statement that was previously completed and prepared. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution, a motion? Or are there questions or comments to the applicant? Is there any additional permits required from the DOT for this 315 feet of fencing? MR. LEMERY-No. MR. HOLMES-It’s just a modification of an existing permit. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-The only reason I’m hesitating is I remember a comment I made in one of the hearings about the fence, that fence that was across the street, and I thought I remembered the comment, Mr. Lemery, that that’s not part of the plan. We were looking at the plan across the street at the Water Park, and the fencing that was on The Great Escape side of the road wasn’t part of this. So I’m just questioning, after listening to Mr. Cohen’s public comment, I’m questioning some of my own recollection. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. LEMERY-Well, this is Great Escape property, not HWP property. So the parking lot on the western side of Route 9 is Great Escape property, not HWP property, and I think we got ourselves a little bit, all of us, in terms of what was being addressed the last time when it was the wrap up to the Hotel/Water Park and issues affecting the east side. They all had to do, and were in relation to the pedestrian bridge, and it was all part of that site plan also, to get that cleaned up, and the parking lot. So that’s my recollection of it anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I have a question, Chris. The issue that Mr. Cohen brought up, relative to vegetation or specifically trees. That was covered under a previous site plan review. So it’s already been addressed. MR. COHEN-I’m sorry. Can I speak? There’s, I went through some of the, a lot of the plans down at the Town office, and I didn’t see anything about required vegetation in front, nor did I see anything, speaking of the fence that’s right in this top right hand corner going all the way north around the other property and continuing north, nor did I see it on the south side, on my side of the property, down by the Animal Land location. I didn’t see anything about fencing on those particular (lost words). They got permits to do the fencing, switching up the fencing in front of the Park, but not on the other sections. I’ve been going over this for almost the last year just because it was something that I was concerned about, and when I saw them putting it up and the permit wasn’t in (lost words). MR. HUNSINGER-Does the applicant or Staff have any response to that? MRS. BARDEN-I don’t, and the as built site plan was approved by the Board. I can only assume that all the building permits have been issued. I can certainly go through the files with Mr. Cohen if he has a spare couple of moments to do that with me, but I can look into it for sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Susan, were the as built plans for the Water Park side of the street or both places? MR. LEMERY-The as built plans came in and resolved, we think it even resolved this piece of fencing that we’re here for tonight, but Craig Brown was insistent that we had to file a site plan application for this piece of fencing, which we all believed, and I think if you go back and read the Planning Board minutes, you’ll see that the fencing issue was addressed. So we weren’t even sure we had to come in here for this piece of fencing, but the Planning Staff said, well, we think you do, and it really involves, we think that all of it was approved, except this six foot of piece that we’re referring to here, which is over the stream, back at the time when everything was cleaned up at that time. So, as I said, everything was installed in the Spring of ’06. We’ve never had anybody from the Planning Staff cite the Theme Park for, or the hotel, for having done something that wasn’t approved. It’s been there for a year. The former Northgate, all of the, the former Northgate, the billboard preferred parking, the preferred parking in the south entrance, the Boomerang Ride to Rainbow Ride, the former Animal Land, Martha’s parking areas, Martha’s outdoor seating areas, west of Martha’s hotel, they were all completed in ’06 and in place. So I’m not sure what Mr. Cohen is referring to. We could try to answer his questions if I understood what he was getting at, but I don’t. MR. COHEN-(Lost words) was my concern. I wasn’t looking to have them cited. I was just looking to have it done properly. MR. LEMERY-We put everything on there for clarity purposes. So it’s all part of the application that was provided, so that the Board could look back at what was done. MR. HUNSINGER-I know that from the very beginning, at the very first discussions of the pedestrian bridge, there was an expectation that there would be fencing on both sides of Route 9. Otherwise the bridge is obsolete. MR. LEMERY-It would serve no purpose if we didn’t close it all off. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So whether or not the paperwork was, a permit was issued, I certainly no that it was always part of the intention and the deliberation of the Planning Board. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. LEMERY-I’m pretty sure, the way the Park is monitored, Mr. Chairman, that if there was a violation, someone would have come up and cited the Theme Park and would have questioned the President here about that, and we were pretty careful to make sure that, before something got put up, that we addressed it. The only issue, as I said, that we had was this foot piece that apparently got missed. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I would just mention to Staff, you know, if when you do review the file, if there was something that wasn’t before this Board, you know, then we could consider it at a future time, but, I mean, you know, I think what’s before us is pretty straightforward, you know, this 315 foot piece. Are people comfortable with that? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t mean to speak for the whole Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the resolution says for an approximately 4,000 square feet, 4,000 linear feet of fence. MR. HOLMES-That is where some of the confusion exists. On the plans that Jarrett- Martin, we had prepared, the fence in question is the proposed fence, which we referred to as Fence D, and the remaining Fences, A through C, and then all the way up to J, we provided for clarity purposes. Whether there were questions or misconceptions of what was there, it was our intention that, hey, this is what’s out there. Let’s get it down on the documentation, straightforward at this time, and the thought was, whether there was some confusion of oversight, to just put it to bed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So 4,000 linear feet in total fencing on site now? MR. MAUPHIN-That’s everything. We’re here today about the 315 feet that’s as of yet, to be installed, and did not Craig tell us that we needed to develop this entire plan at the end? MR. LEMERY-Right, which is why we had to do it. MR. SEGULJIC-So in reality this is a clean up. MR. MAUPHIN-A clean up of a clean up, so to speak. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, plus the addition 315 feet if it’s not there. MR. LEMERY-Yes, the extra footage. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And according to Jarrett-Martin’s letter, in response to Item Three for Vision Engineering, the Town should request a copy of all permits secured from DOT, and in your letter didn’t it say you don’t need? We’re preparing a motion. MR. HOLMES-It’s indicating that no new permits are necessary. The existing Highway Work permit and the Use and Occupancy permit that was issued by New York State DOT for the pedestrian bridge project is going to be amended to include this additional fencing. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So it’s not a new permit. It’s an amendment. So we don’t have to include that in a motion. The Staff Notes are different than the resolution, and I’m a little, it just doesn’t add up. So I don’t know what to do. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have two choices. We can either leave in the 4,000 reference or we can change it. MR. TRAVER-And just make it the 315. MR. HUNSINGER-If everything else was already approved. MRS. STEFFAN-Now they asked for waivers. So that we can. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there were three waivers requested, stormwater management, lighting, and landscaping. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2007 GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan whom 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 construction of approximately 4,000 linear ft. of various stages of decorative fencing along Route 9 as well as other locations on park property. Commercial Fencing requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 5/15/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 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, 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, 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 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; and 8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and [NOT APPLICABLE] 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection [NOT APPLICABLE] 10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2007 GREAT ESCAPE, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Whereas, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: 1. The applicant proposes construction of approximately 315 linear feet of decorative fencing along the east side of Route 9. Commercial fencing requires site plan review by the Planning Board. 2. Paragraph Two is the same. 3. Paragraph Three is the same. 4. Paragraph Four complies. 5. Paragraph Five, we have considered SEQRA review and the previous Environmental Impact Statement is sufficient. 6. Paragraph Six stays the same. 7. Paragraph Seven is okay. 8. Paragraph Eight is not applicable, and in this situation Paragraph Nine is not applicable. 9. The Planning Board grants waivers for stormwater management, lighting and landscaping. th Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 30-2007 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS EIS GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK AGENT(S) LEMERY GREISLER LLC OWNER(S) SAME ZONING RC-15; HC- INT. LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION WITHIN A 6,000 SQ. FT. FENCES ENCLOSURE. CHANGES TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: MANY WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 LOT SIZE TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20 SECTION 179-9-020 JOHN LEMERY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-The applicant proposes construction of an electrical substation within a 6,000 sq. ft. fence enclosure. There are some Staff comments regarding traffic, lighting, potential sound impacts, landscaping, and some additional documentation, a letter from Craig Brown to Lynn Schwartz at Lemery Greisler, and again, No County Impact for this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening again. MR. LEMERY-Well, thank you for approving the fencing. The substation was also part of the 2000/2001 Impact Statement when it was made clear at that time that the electrical needs of the Theme Park had, in fact, reached their maximum potential on the system that was provided by what was then Niagara Mohawk, now National Grid, and that a new system had to be put in place to handle the electrical needs of the facility. There’s a 34-5 KV line that runs from Queensbury up to Lake George. It crosses the Round Pond Road, goes up, I think, not Birdsall Road, but next to Birdsall Road and it basically goes to Lake George. The plan is for National Grid to extend that 34-5 KV line over to the Theme Park where it will be attached to a substation, which will be a 34-5 KV substation, which will then, in effect, provide the power that the Park is going to need. There is no more available power. As a matter of fact, there are certain things that have to be taken off line today in order to operate certain other things. So it’s reached, Charlie Wood used to take a three-way plug, plug it in, and if it worked, it worked, and push one in and take one out, and so those days are gone. The substation is planned to be located at the north, to the north of the Bavarian Palace. Parking lot set back, it’s 65 feet, not the 20 some feet that’s pointed out in the letter from the engineer, from Round Pond Road. It will be elevated six feet above the parking lot. All transmission lines within the Park will be underground. It will be approximately 15 feet high at its tallest point. There was a question that the Town Engineer had about lighting. There is no lighting that is proposed here, other than maybe a light bulb or two if they have to go service the thing at night, they would turn on a light and service it. So, we asked for, when we met with the Planning Staff, it was made clear there was no plan to light this substation at any time, keep lights on. So that’s not part of what we’re putting in front of you. It doesn’t emit any noise beyond the 30 or 40 feet from the substation itself. There are no landscaping issues or disturbances to the woods, the lawns, etc. The substation is needed to provide the power for the Theme Park. There’s a substation pretty much like it in the parking lot of Angio Dynamics. So this substation will be fenced. There will be the visibility barrier on the fence itself. We don’t anticipate any increased traffic. The engineer mentioned something to do with traffic. The only traffic that we could think of would be maintenance people within the Park going to the substation from time to time, if that was necessary. It’s located in a place where it would not be accessible by the visitors to the Park. It’s completely enclosed with a fence. MR. FORD-I’m sorry, the height of that fence please, John? SCOTT MAUPHIN MR. MAUPHIN-The height of the chain link fence is actually an eight foot fence. There’s a visibility barrier on that. We have a green, sort of site screening fabric. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. LEMERY-Yes, eight feet high. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Is that on the side facing Round Pond Road? How about the ends? MR. MAUPHIN-The same thing. MR. SIPP-The same thing. So it’s not visible coming up or going down? MR. MAUPHIN-Correct. MR. LEMERY-I don’t think you’d see it. MR. MAUPHIN-Not only that, but the back side is completely surrounded by a retaining wall. So, in essence, the amount that you would actually see from either side is somewhat mitigated by the fact that that retaining wall wraps around the two end pieces, up to the gate. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you need a fence that tall on the three sides, since you have the retaining wall? MR. MAUPHIN-We don’t. We just chose it that way, to try to hide it, you know, once we put a barrier on it. Again, the one at Angio isn’t fenced at all, and it sits right in their parking lot, a very similar situation. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAUPHIN-So basically I threw fencing in there just to try to hide, you know, what’s behind it. So we just arbitrarily chose eight feet. MR. LEMERY-And you don’t want kids wandering over there. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. No, I understand that. I mean, especially where you have the retaining wall, you would need some sort of a barrier so people wouldn’t fall off. Maybe it didn’t need to be that tall. MR. LEMERY-Our electrical engineer is here, Mr. Chairman, if anybody has any questions. MR. MAUPHIN-The fencing does wrap around, also, on top of the retaining wall, just as a fall protection precaution. BOB HOLMES MR. HOLMES-The fencing around, as I understand, isn’t required around something like this, per any sort of code, electrical wise. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s not a bad idea. Round Pond Road is fairly remote, especially off season. You don’t want anybody messing with it. MR. SIPP-Isn’t the present substation down on Ash Road or Ash Drive, near Glen Lake? Is there a substation down there? KEN HOPEKE MR. HOPEKE-Where the 34-5 line crosses Round Pond, Ken Hoepeke. I work for Lewis Engineering, I’m doing the electrical engineering on this job. The 34-5 line that National Grid will be tapping in order to supply this substation is just up off of the Round Pond Road intersection, and basically traverses just along the bike path there. So, with regards to that, they’re developing their own plans for running overhead lines from that point down to a point adjacent to the Park property, and then there’ll be a riser pole going underground. This substation will accept an underground feed. So there’ll be no exposed overhead wiring, 34-5 KV wiring at that, from the Park property line on into the substation. I’m sorry, what was the original question? MR. LEMERY-Where was the existing substation? MR. SIPP-Yes, where was? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. HOEPKE-There is no substation up there, per se. What they have is an A-Frame structure that basically there’s two independent 34-5 lines that go from Queensbury up to Lake George, and what you see at that point is basically just support structures, and they do have some switching, overhead switching that they use to sectionalize various parts of the line. MR. SIPP-Yes, but where does this voltage step down? I mean, you’ve got a lot of voltage there, and you step it down to run these rides. Where is this taking place? MR. HOPEKE-Right. The substation that’s under, that we’re talking about here today accepts the volts from National Grid, and the substation basically has four components. It has a main switch, which serves as a service disconnect for that volts, and it goes underground from that to a transformer that kicks it down to a 13.2 KV level, at which point that voltage is distributed, will be distributed, throughout the Park. So the step down is performed at the substation. MR. SIPP-Maybe I’m wrong, but going back to the original conception, wasn’t there mention of something on Ash Road, as I remember, in the original? MR. HOPEKE-Yes. One of the original sites for this substation was off of Glen Lake Road, I believe. MR. SIPP-Glen Lake Road? MR. HOEPKE-Yes. MR. SIPP-But that never happened. MR. HOPEKE-No. MR. LEMERY-The alternative route was to come down. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. HOPEKE-That would have been quite a trick getting from that location into the Park proper. So this Round Pond location is much more accessible, in terms of distribution for the Park itself. MR. MAUPHIN-The Round Pond alternative was also demonstrated within the GEIS. MR. SIPP-It was? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because one of the concerns was, and this was the question I was going to ask, similar to follow up question. Does bringing the KV line to the Park require the installation of additional poles? Because aren’t these poles taller than normal poles? MR. HOPEKE-This system that National Grid’s using to tap the lines up at Round Pond is being run with a triplex overhead cable. It’s a relatively new technology that they have that enables them to utilize existing pole infrastructure. MR. HUNSINGER-Wow. Because that was one of the big concerns of the neighbors was these, you know, taller telephone poles and how they were going to look in the neighborhood. MR. HOPEKE-Well, initially we were talking coming underground the entire quarter mile length from that intersection down the Park property, but with the easement that would have been required for that, I was just deemed much cheaper, much more economical to look at an overhead alternative, and so National Grid has this, it’s relatively new. I say new, I mean 10 years or so. We’re actually able to actually use existing lines that now carry 15,000 volts, and string this line at an interim location on the pole, and because this is a single feed, single radio feed it’s called, certainly a single customer, a lot of the additional infrastructure that would be used for switching or, you know, basically transporting that line to another customer is alleviated. This is a single, dead end line, not to be expanded past the Park itself as a customer. The onus, the pressure that National Grid has put on the Park over the years was basically because of the 13,200 services that now feed the Park, which at last count I think is ten or eleven independent services, the main 15,000 KV distribution along Route 9 is seriously taxed, and so 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) National Grid has been pressuring the Park for some time to provide this substation in order to consolidate services and free up that 15,000 volts along Route 9. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I remember those discussions, too. MR. HOPEKE-So, I mean, it kills a few birds with one stone, and this particular location, although we did have to take half a hillside out in order to do it, it’s, you know, (lost word) some work here on that. It’s positioned such that we can pick up existing underground services that already feed portions of the Park, namely the Comet Rollercoaster and a couple of our services that now come along Round Pond Road, which would be decommissioned with the commissioning of this substation. So it neatens things up a little bit along Round Pond especially, in terms of overhead wires and service drops. MR. SIPP-Does the Park have a standby generator? I remember the year I worked there, lights going out at one time and Charlie kept it open until 10 o’clock, and everybody was fumbling around in the dark trying to get out of the Park. MR. HOPEKE-I’m not sure. MR. MAUPHIN-We don’t have backup power. Some isolated backup power to keep some computer systems operational, but we don’t have the ability to back up. MR. SIPP-I’m just wondering. Because you get up on the hill there where I was, at the Raging River, and all the lights go out and the whole thing empties, and people are stuck in those boats. MR. LEMERY-And he kept the place open? MR. SIPP-Well, he had to close down, but you had to get the people out, and this involved kids jumping in the water, pulling those boats up to a dock, and I never saw Charlie at that time, but I imagine he was hiding some place, but that, you know, it just hit me that a simple standby generator to give you a little power or light some of the main walkways would make it a hell of a lot safer. MR. MAUPHIN-We do have, in the event of major power outages, we own light towers and things. So if we had to very quickly bring in area lighting to bring people out, but in that case the Park’s closed. MR. SIPP-Running that Raging River, when the power goes off, everything empties, and that was a. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments? MR. TRAVER-There was a note about the noise. How much noise is generated by this substation, and what generates the noise? MR. HOPEKE-The primary noise generator of the assembly is the transformer itself. MR. TRAVER-It’s like a humming? MR. HOPEKE-Yes. MR. TRAVER-Okay. MR. HOPEKE-Not unlike what you hear on a pole top transformer that feeds a residential area, or the ones that are now positioned along Round Pond Road, and this being a transformer, it’s no different in that aspect. I think the positioning and the clearance from the road, you would have to be within a 10 to 20 foot range to actually start picking up on that, I believe. MR. TRAVER-Okay. Thank you. MR. SIPP-How about car radios? MR. HOPEKE-Once again, the same interference that you would get from an overhead power line driving down a road. MR. SIPP-You get it on Round Pond Road right now. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. HOEPEKE-Yes. Well, I think if anything, this would help reduce that, because now you’re taking the primary source of stepping that voltage down, and you’re pushing it 50, 60 feet off the road now, as opposed to right along the road. MR. SIPP-What’s the latest on the danger of power lines near schools? MR. HOPEKE-It depends who you talk to. If you talk to the utilities, it’s fine. Because this equipment does not, a lot of the older prototypical substations have an overhead structure that comes in and feeds in, the high voltage comes in overhead. This, with just strictly underground equipment, it’s lower in profile, the overall structure is strictly, it’s nothing but three pads, and most of the exposed higher voltages are kept underground, except to where they surface to enter the main switch. At which point in time it’s, once again, at this particular location, it’s rather ideal in that it’s off the main road, off the parking lot, in an area where you normally wouldn’t have people anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that parking lot still predominantly used for employee parking? MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I have a correction and observation, just for the record. In a letter from Craig Brown to Lynn Schwartz, dated December 11, 2006, in the first paragraph, it makes reference to a document, wanting to document our conversation on December 7, 2007. I don’t think we’re there yet. It probably in fact isn’t even supposed to be 2007. It should be probably referencing a conversation of December 7, 2006 in as much as the letter is dated December 11, 2006. MR. SEGULJIC-Are we ready to move this over? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing scheduled, but there’s no one from the public left. So I will open the public hearing and close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Now we’re ready to move it along. MRS. STEFFAN-We don’t need to re-visit SEQRA on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we have to take it into consideration. I think we had a letter from Staff stating that they felt it was consistent with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, not Draft, Final. MR. LEMERY-Final. MRS. STEFFAN-We’re okay with granting waivers for landscaping and lighting? MR. HUNSINGER-I just want to go back to the height of the fence. I certainly can understand it being eight feet high in front, where you have it cut back into the bank, but is it necessary to have it that high along the top of the bank, where you have it cut into the hill? MR. HOLMES-It’s really been a Park choice in this case. The equipment itself is tamper resistant, and could be installed without a fence entirely. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just wondering how that’s going to look from the parking lot when you look up, and you see it cut into the bank, and then you see something, you know, standing eight feet. MR. MAUPHIN-You know what, I’ll be more than happy, I’d prefer to put in a lower height fence, to be honest with you. It’s cheaper, when it’s all said and done. So, like I said, there was no real science put into whether or not it’s six or eight or whatever the height was. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. FORD-Will that be a constant height, even where it’s at the bank or the wall? Will it be even? MR. MAUPHIN-Well, like Bob said, on the top of the retaining wall, it’s more fall protection related, so you don’t wander along through there and fall down the retaining wall? MR. FORD-So will that actually be higher than the other three sides? MR. HOLMES-Yes, considerably higher. Along the back of the retaining wall, the maximum height of the exposed retaining wall is just shy of 18 feet in height. So we are settling this substation right into the embankment. So in order to protect, there’s a (lost word) protection that providing a fence is basically mandatory. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I can understand that. It’s just, it’s, you know, is six feet more appropriate, is all I’m saying. MR. HOLMES-The only reason that eight feet was selected, and, Scott, you may not even be aware of this, is there is presently an existing chain link fence that runs across that embankment, and you just chose eight feet to match that probably. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That makes sense to me, then. MR. MAUPHIN-Yes, you’re right. The existing Park perimeter fence is what we would essentially be matching. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it would basically match the fence that’s there now, along the top of that hill? MR. MAUPHIN-We’re just not going to put barbed wire on the fence. MR. HOLMES-Obviously the orientation and configuration of that fence changes. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. HOLMES-We had identified on the plans that above the retaining wall, we were going to provide a visibility barrier. That was on the drawing. That was an oversight on my part. It’s not our intention to do that, because if we were to put the visibility barrier on top of that, it’s actually going to create a larger façade in which you would be looking at, as far as the substation itself goes. MR. HUNSINGER-So it would only be on the three sides? MR. HOLMES-Correct. MR. FORD-You’re referencing this seven page document you gave us in response to yesterday’s received engineering report? MR. HOLMES-That is correct. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is only one page. MR. FORD-Somebody did some work. MR. HOLMES-On short notice. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2007 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes construction of electrical substation within a 6000 sq. ft. fences enclosure. Changes to approved site plans require Planning Board approval. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) 2. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 5/15/07; and 3. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 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, the Planning Board has considered the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the proposed action does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts and is consistent with The Great Escape’s Final EIS; and 6. 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 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; and 8 If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and [NOT APPLICABLE] 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection. [NOT APPLICABLE] 10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 30-2007 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following modifications: 1. Paragraph One, Two and Three are fine. Paragraph Four complies. 2. Paragraph Five, the Planning Board has considered the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the proposed action does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts and is consistent with The Great Escape’s Final EIS. 3. Paragraph Six is fine. 4. Paragraph Seven, as builts are appropriate. 5. Paragraph Eight does not apply. 6. Paragraph Nine does not apply, and this is approved with the following conditions. a)That we will grant waivers for landscaping and lighting. th b)That the Jarrett-Martin Engineering letter of May 15, some of the elements of it will be incorporated, specifically. That regarding Staff’s Comment Four, there will be a notation that noise generated by the substation shall be negligible above background noise existing at the right of way line in front of the substation. c)On Page Four of the Jarrett-Martin letter, the visibility barrier proposed is a woven geo-textile that is hung inside of the fence. On the Jarrett-Martin letter Page Five, there should be a notation that the appropriate rates, regarding the exfiltration rate used in the drywell design; there should be a notation that the appropriate rate should be updated in the calculations which correspond to the field test results. Again, on Page Five, regarding a comment, because of the steepness of the loose, sandy soils, present specifications should be added to the plans for the proposed vegetation and permanent stabilization of the side slopes surrounding the structure. It will be added to the plan, stabilize the slope with seed and mulch, which will include topsoil, geo-textile stabilization matting, seeding and mulching for areas disturbed as part of this project. On Comment Three, the pipe location of the daylight outlet for the retaining wall should be shown, that should be included. On Comment Five, design parameters for the segmented retaining walls should be field verified 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) or tested prior to construction for the actual soil conditions present. Jarrett- Martin’s response, which should be incorporated during construction, design parameters for the retaining wall will be verified. th Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. LEMERY-Thank you very much. MR. SEGULJIC-Under the SEQRA Long Form, Number Twenty deals with the public opinion on, is there. MR. FULLER-Is there or is there likely to be public controversy related to potential environmental impacts, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Environmental. What does that mean? Does that mean any of the ones from Nineteen? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So the fact there was public controversy tonight with that project. MR. FULLER-Could have been reasons, in addition to reasons which you may have cited in the Long Form for requiring. MR. SEGULJIC-They were all citing the flag lot as an issue, for example. MR. FULLER-That’s right, with the comments of impact on the neighborhood. MR. SEGULJIC-So the community character is an environmental? MR. FULLER-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-But that’s just a yes, no. It’s not a small impact, moderate impact. MR. FULLER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So we say yes. MR. FULLER-And then go on to the next part, Small to Moderate, Potentially large. MR. SEGULJIC-But there wasn’t that listed there, though. Small to moderate and all that was not listed in that list. That’s in Number 20 is just, yes, no. MR. FULLER-Yes. No, that is more grounds for whether or not you would move on to an Environmental Impact Statement, further environmental review. MR. SEGULJIC-What would you be asking for if you said yes to that, then, just the fact that there was public controversy to the project? MR. FULLER-Related to those issues. That it’s that much more of an important issue because there was controversy related to it. MR. SEGULJIC-So we’d go back to the community character, but that alone, Number Twenty alone. MR. FULLER-No, no, not grounds in and of itself. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MR. FULLER-If you had answered no to every question and then got to that one and said yes, you couldn’t. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 05/15/07) MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MR. FULLER-You couldn’t logically go through the first 20 and then get to that one and said yes, there is. Well, you haven’t identified anything. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s just a magnifier, then. MR. FULLER-Exactly. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-While we’re still in session, I wanted to ask Counsel, would there be a reason to go into Executive Session to discuss Hoffman? How do we want to handle what the options may be? MR. FULLER-We could. You could do it right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation? MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Traver, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MOTION TO COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan whom moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF MAY 15, 2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: th Duly adopted this 15 day of May, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver ABSENT: Mrs. Bruno MR. HUNSINGER-Just so everybody knows, I did get a phone call from Tanya this evening, and her daughter is in the hospital. Just so everybody knows. MRS. BARDEN-Don’t forget, it’s Thursday next week. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 49