The URL can be used to link to this page

2000-12-26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 26, 2000 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, CHAIRMAN ANTHONY METIVIER LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2000 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED S. KEITH & KATHLEEN PFEIFFER OWNER: SAME AGENT: MICHAEL O’CONNOR ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF TWO LOTS INTO FOUR LOTS OF 1.866 AC., 2.101 AC., 2.438 AC. AND 2.0 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 2-1991, SB 12-1994 TAX MAP NO. 48-3-48.1, 48.2 (289.16-1-1, 289.12-1-12) LOT SIZE: 8 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 10-2000, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, S. Keith & Kathleen Pfeiffer, Meeting Date: December 26, 2000 “Project Description The applicant proposes a four-lot subdivision for preliminary and final review. The Planning Board reviewed the application at sketch plan. The applicant addressed comments about shared driveways, drainage, and utility connections. Study of plat (1) Lot arrangement: The applicant proposes to create two new building lots. The new building lots will have shared driveways with the existing building lots. The subdivision is for a four-lot subdivision due to significant amount of boundary line adjustments for the existing parcel(s). (2) Topography: The arrangement of the building areas and driveway access were designed to minimize development on the steep areas of the property. (3) Water supply: The plans show the existing well locations and the information pumping capacity at 5 plus gallons per minute. The Board may request the final plans show proposed well locations for the new building lots. (4) Sewage disposal: The applicant has provided perc test results for the new building lots. (5) Drainage: The long EAF indicates the soil type of the project area is 100% well drained. (6) Lot sizes: The subdivision is located in the single-family one-acre zone and the proposed lots are greater than one acre. The plan also identifies the average lot width for each proposed lot as greater than 200 feet. This exceeds the 150 feet lot width requirement for shared driveways. (7) Placement of utilities: The plans show utility poles extending from Bay Road west to east with access to all four lots. If there is to be a utility easement for NIMO and or the landowner, the easement should be shown on the final plan. (8) Future development: The lot arrangement and the topography discourage further development on the site. (9) State Environmental Quality Review Act: The applicant has completed a long environmental assessment form. (10) Town departments: The plan has been referred to Bay Ridge Fire Company for review of the driveway width and arrangement. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) Areas of Concern or Importance The proposed subdivision involves a significant amount of boundary line adjustments. The adjustments provide the adjacent lot “Glens Falls Business Cards” to have a more conforming lot. Suggestions Staff would suggest the final plans include the following notes: 1. Percolation test results 2. Easements for utilities if applicable (specific for Niagara Mohawk to install utility lines to lots 1, 2, 3, 4.) 3. Grading and Erosion Control Note: The development of this subdivision will be in compliance with the New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control as published by the Empire State Chapter of the Soil and Water Conservation Society.” MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve received all the mailers? MRS. RYBA-Just got them. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. RYBA-That is all. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. O'CONNOR-We have no objection to the comments, except I guess it was Staff’s suggestion number two, Niagara Mohawk won’t talk to us about utilities at this point until we have a map ready for filing, and also when we give final location that the house is on the lot, they’ll talk to us about easements. So it’s premature to talk about putting Niagara Mohawk’s easements on the final map. I think we’ll have the map long filed before we finalize those easement agreements. As the Staff suggested, one, two and three we have no problem with that being a condition. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? MR. O'CONNOR-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Wow. John, we’ll start with you. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-My concern just was with that long driveway going back to Lot Number Three. It’s less than ideal. I see that Chip Mellon of the Bay Ridge Fire Department looked at the map and looked at the turning radii and determined that would be enough to get some of his trucks back there at least. He didn’t exactly address the slope, which has me concerned that he didn’t address that in his comments. MR. O'CONNOR-The roadway, or the driveways were changed from what was originally planned when we started this back in the summer. So that we would accommodate slopes. All slopes are less than 10%, or 10% or less, which is a road subdivision standard for the Town of Queensbury. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know if that applies to driveways. Do you? MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think they ever required greater than that, or less slope than that. MR. STROUGH-Well, the slope on the northern bend, the first one, that’s a 30 foot drop, that would be 11.4% slope. MR. O'CONNOR-The engineers have done calculations and have indicated in writing that the slope is less than 10%. I’m not sure if I would agree with your calculations. KEITH PFEIFFER MR. PFEIFFER-Which driveway is that? MR. STROUGH-It’s the one going to Lot Number Three, the big, long one. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. PFEIFFER-There’s no, I mean, that’s virtually flat. I mean, when you folks were out there in the van that day we were there, and when you turn that circular driveway, that field is just flat all the way to the back. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I know, but if I’m looking, see where it says 10% slope there? MR. O'CONNOR-On the bottom of the map? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m looking at the first bend, the top of the gravel driveway going to his house. MR.. PFEIFFER-Right. MR. STROUGH-I get a 30 foot drop. We go from 408 to 378 at the bottom, okay, and (lost words) 262.5, which gives us 11.4% grade. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. What you’re pointing to, Mr. Strough, is not a calculation that I made. It’s a calculation that was made by the engineers, and I think reviewed by, was it reviewed by Rist-Frost? MRS. RYBA-No, C.T. Male reviewed. MR. O'CONNOR-It was not challenged by them. Typically, (lost words) showing on the map (lost words). MR. STROUGH-Well, the only concern that I have, because these are, you know, his lots, is, my only concern is that people that buy the place are going to obviously understand what they’re dealing with, so that’s up to them. It’s not a concern of mine. The only concern that I would have is in that Chip Mellon didn’t address the degree of slope and getting emergency vehicles in and out of there. MR. O'CONNOR-Probably you’re looking at the buyer of Lot Number Three. MR. STROUGH-Yes, Lot Number Three. MR. PFEIFFER-Right, well, our plan is to build on that lot ourselves. I mean, at the moment that’s our plan, because we don’t really need the big house anymore. That’s one reason we’re doing this. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Now, are you going to be moving your day care center down there as well? MR. PFEIFFER-No, my wife will be closing it up. MR. STROUGH-So there won’t be general public access like there is up above? MR. PFEIFFER-No. MR. STROUGH-Another question I have, that test pit 3.1, which is also located on Lot Three, you see it’s located in the northwest corner. The perc rate of 37 minutes. I mean, when you compare the perc rate of that to the others, the others seem reasonable, but the perc rate for 3.1, pit 3.1, which is the pit I just referred to, has tests bearing from 33 minutes to 37 minutes. Yet, just adjacent to that, test pit number 3.2, has got one minute, thirty second perc rate. Is that just a typo error or something? MR. PFEIFFER-I don’t know. I’m not an engineer. The engineer did it. So I don’t know. MR. STROUGH-We’re talking less than 200 feet, maybe 150 feet apart. I just didn’t know why that variation would be from 37 minutes to one minute. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I wonder if it’s a misprint. MR. RINGER-I think what you’re going to see up there, John, is that’s all rock. You’re going to hit certain areas, you’re going to hit rock. That’s what you’re going to find out. MR. STROUGH-Well, I was just curious as to why that difference was. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Are you looking at the soil report? MR. STROUGH-Yes, the professional engineer’s certification, dated November 18. th MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. You mean, test one, test two and test three? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-In the 33 minutes to 37 minutes? MR. STROUGH-That’s correct, and you see test pit number two, 3.2, Lot Three, Number Two, you see one minute thirty seconds? Do you see what I’m saying? Being 150 feet apart, that variation. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s some areas in there that have some veins, and again, this is something the engineers did, and I presume that the Town engineer has reviewed, but there are some areas up in there that have some veins of heavy clay. MR. MAC EWAN-Just for the record, Larry just informed me that C.T. Male did not review this application. Is that correct? MRS. RYBA-I’ve been looking through the files, I don’t see anything. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think it was. I don’t think it was referred to them. MR. O'CONNOR-My understanding is they reviewed it for the low grades. I don’t know if they reviewed it for the balance. I don’t know that. That was an issue that Staff had in the very beginning, John. MR. STROUGH-Well, if that’s the case, common sense would tell you you can’t even put a leach field over there. Maybe put your well there or something, but. MR. VOLLARO-It’s certainly not shown on the resolution. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, those were the only concerns I noticed, the differences in the perc rate and the slope of the driveway, which has me concerned about getting emergency vehicles into and out of there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-The only concern I had was with the driveway also. I think this memo from Laura, based on her conversation with Chip Mellon, I think allayed most of my fears. That was really the only issue that I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I looked at the slope. I got six and a half percent slope from taking a look at Elevation 406 down to 350, and an 850 foot run, came out to 6.5%. I just took an average of the overall 850 feet, the driveway, took your 406 elevation at the top, took your 356 at the bottom, and came up with six and a half percent slope. I think the 10% is on there because they didn’t want to exceed that, but they would help a lot if they just took a minute to make the slope determinations and put them on there. See, 10% is the end of the spec. Whenever I see something at the end of the spec, I get concerned, because that’s right up against the stops, you know. So I took a look at it myself, but I think you’re okay in that area. Mike, on your letter and your sketch plan application, you talked about approval subject to showing completion of boundary line adjustments. Rev. One and Rev. Two show exactly the same. Now what document describes the completion of the adjustment? MR. O'CONNOR-We would have no objection to your requiring that we show a boundary line agreement in recordable form or having been recorded, as a condition of your approval. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just a question, and it’s just an academic question from me, is what purpose does the pump house serve, at the present time? You’ve got a pump house that terminates Niagara Mohawk’s hook up. MR. PFEIFFER-No, that’s just an old, dry, hand dug well that used to be there. There’s just a little building there now, nothing in it. It’s used as a landmark to just kind of measure off of. The architect, the surveyors put it on there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s not used to drive any kind of meaningful pump of any kind for water or anything? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. PFEIFFER-No, there’s nothing in it. MR. VOLLARO-You’re using deep well pumps? MR. PFEIFFER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-The status of easements for the Niagara Mohawk power poles, I think you spoke about that a minute ago, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. Once we get final approval or submit the map to them, I’m not sure they will even locate the easements at that point. Because there’s going to be such limited use here, they may make us actually locate the houses, and we can’t locate the houses until we actually have somebody that’s going to purchase the lot. MR. VOLLARO-Well, their easements are basically for maintenance anyway, I think, aren’t they? Aren’t there easements going to be for getting maintenance trucks down there, cutting grass, keeping things next to the power pole, so they can get to it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and they’re probably not going to run public easements all the way to the back of the lot. They’re probably going to run a good portion back, and then we’re going to take it back by private easements that’ll be reserved in the conveyance of say Lot Number Four. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask Staff a question. Should we include a statement on these easements, when the motion is made, when the resolution is drawn, or do you think it’s not necessary, as far as the Niagara Mohawk easement is concerned? MRS. RYBA-Is there something on the plat? I thought I saw something on the plat that said, or somewhere, that said the easements would be. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only thing I’ve got is a drawing that shows new poles going down to that pump house, and that there are words within the application that talks about the Niagara Mohawk easement. MRS. RYBA-Well, you can ask legal counsel his opinion, but I believe it’s really up to the Board how they want to handle it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can certainly put it in the motion. Is there any problem with putting it in the motion? MR. SCHACHNER-There should not be any problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There was a note in Staff notes about the well being five gallons a minute. I can’t find anything on this drawing that says this well pumps, the existing wells pump at five gallons a minute. Where’d that come from? Does anybody know? MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have a well test on your existing well? MR. PFEIFFER-What do you mean a well test? When they put it in I guess they tested it. I don’t know, but that only tests the purity of the water. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody must have read it. I don’t know whether it was Laura or somebody, but it’s in the Staff notes, and I guess I just couldn’t understand, I scoured this drawing to try to find that. I couldn’t find I anywhere. MRS. RYBA-I’ll take a peek at the application. It just might be in with the application. MR. O'CONNOR-Typically, when Mr. Pfeiffer applied for his mortgage financing on his existing house, we would have had to show. MR. VOLLARO-That I can understand. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, we would have had to show well test results for both bacteria count and that we would have a capacity of five gallons a minute. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The Chairman is pointing something out in the Long Form, or in this questionnaire. MR. MAC EWAN-Project information. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On the drawing, where we have, this is the revision number 916, the Town of Queensbury, and they have the map thing, the tax map numbers there, you notice that it’s right above the location plan. Those tax map numbers don’t agree with what’s on our GIS, and I don’t know why. The GIS for this has 48-3-48.2 and 48.1. This has 48-1 instead of –3. Is there? MR. PFEIFFER-Is that map by VanDusen and Steves? MR. VOLLARO-This says surveyed by David Barrass, a Land Surveyor. MR. PFEIFFER-Okay. No, I don’t. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to ask Staff, are our tax map numbers right on the GIS, 48-3-48.2 and 48.1? MRS. RYBA-They’re about six months behind, but if this hasn’t had a subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I would like it to jive. The two should be the same, I would think. I don’t know. I don’t know what input you’ve got in the GIS system. So I can’t tell you what. MRS. RYBA-Right now we have three different systems, and none of them coordinate. MR. O'CONNOR-In our Long Form application, we use the same map numbers that are on the Town’s GIS, 48-3-48.1 and 48.2. MRS. RYBA-And actually the County has just changed all of the tax map numbers. MR. VOLLARO-Those are the correct numbers. That’s what I have here, the GIS numbers, but if this plat’s going to be signed by the Chairman of this Board, I think the plat ought to be correct with respect to the numbers. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, this should be three. Okay. I agree with you. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Make a note of it, so that when we do a resolution, we incorporate that. Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to look at my paper. Okay. My last question is, what is Staff’s, the significance of further development? Do you mean further subdivision of this property, when you say no further development can be used, or do you mean construction? MRS. RYBA-I’m sorry, could you repeat the question? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Within Staff notes, it talks about, what is the significance of, you talk about no further development without the variance on this property. I assume that means no further subdivision of this property, and not construction. Is that correct? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s what we believed it to mean. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman, I’m through. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No, I don’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No, I don’t have any either. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? Staff? MRS. RYBA-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add, Mike? MR. O'CONNOR-We can, we’d be happy to accept as conditions of approval the correction to the map number, and any other suggestion that you’d have as to completeness of the map, and submit a 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) map to you for signature, in accordance with that. Along with, we can submit to you at that time, a signed that is executed boundary line agreement, for the boundary line exchange that we’re making. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and this is the Long Form, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-2000, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger : WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: S. KEITH & KATHLEEN PFEIFFER, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 26 day of December, 2000, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a resolution, please. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll make the resolution approving the Subdivision No. 10-2000 for Keith and Kathleen Pfeiffer, in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following additions. That a grading and erosion note be placed on the drawing. I didn’t see one on there, so I’m asking that to be placed on in accordance with the New York State requirements. A boundary line adjustment to be submitted, an executed agreement of a boundary line adjustment to be submitted. Also, a tax map adjustment to be submitted, tax map adjustment to be converted from the tax map number appearing on the drawing, revision number two, dated 11/22/00, and the new number 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) should be 48-3-48.1 and 48-3-48.2. The easement should be prepared for Niagara Mohawk power poles to be used for maintenance by Niagara Mohawk, and I think that’s all of the additions to this. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we move on to the second, just for the record note that that’s a preliminary approval, and my question is, regarding the easements for Niagara Mohawk, would that require them to come in and ask for a modification to show the easements on the map at a future date? MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn’t sound like it, from the way that motion was made. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Do we have a second? MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. Understand that the way that motion was made, those are conditions of preliminary approval. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SCHACHNER-So we can’t proceed to final approval until those conditions are fulfilled, or you can make them, you’d have to make the conditions again at final approval, in which case there’s not much purpose to having them be conditions of the preliminary approval. Am I making sense? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you are. So those same conditions ought to be re-stated in the final approval? MR. SCHACHNER-Generally, what I would suggest is if those are going to be conditions that are not going to be fulfilled until after a conditional final approval, then they not be conditions of preliminary approval. The problem is, you’ve just expressed those as conditions of preliminary approval. You can’t move on to final approval on a conditional preliminary approval, until the conditions of preliminary approval have been fulfilled. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe the best way to do this is rescind that motion, just do a straightforward preliminary approval, based on the written prepared resolution. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. My point was that most if not all of those conditions struck me as conditions that were more appropriate for final approval than preliminary approval, unless the Board is envisioning something that I was not understanding, which is that those things would all happen prior to final approval. MR. VOLLARO-No, they were intended to go to final approval, Mark. That was the intention, and I probably made an error in bringing them on preliminary approval. We’ll just scratch that, do up preliminary approval of resolution on Subdivision 10-2000. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2000 S. KEITH & KATHLEEN PFEIFFER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of preliminary & final stage Sub. 10-2000, S. Keith & Kathleen Pfeiffer for subdivision of two lots into four lots. Tax Map No. 48-3-48.1, 48.2. Cross Reference: SB 2-1991, SB 12-1994, and; WHEREAS, the application received 11/29/00 consists of the following: 1. Application Materials as outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 12/26/00 Staff Notes 12/14/00 C. Mellon (Bay Ridge Fire Chief) from C. Round 12/8/00 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 12/26/00 concerning the above project (certified mail receipts received); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved for Preliminary Stage as per resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 26th day of December, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ll make a resolution approving the final approval for subdivision 10-2000 for Keith and Kathleen Pfeiffer, in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Let me stop that. I don’t have a resolution in front of me for final. I have SB 10-2000 for preliminary. Either that, or I’m missing it. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have it. Mike, did you want to say something? MR. O'CONNOR-I have a question as to the Niagara Mohawk easement requirement, and I think I’m misunderstanding, but Keith has spoken directly with, Mr. Pfeiffer has spoken directly with Niagara Mohawk, I have not, and they may or may not do this by easement. They may provide 100 feet of pole in, and they will require an easement, Keith, for the 100 feet in to the private property, and then each lot owner will pick up the charge beyond that, directly as a service. Each of these lots actually have frontage out onto Bay Road. So there doesn’t need to be an easement, in the sense that it’s across somebody else’s property, necessarily, to those lots to get service from Niagara Mohawk. So I can’t tell you, as I sit here, whether or not there will or won’t be a Niagara Mohawk easement until we actually get into more detailed discussion with them, which is down the road. I also would tell you that we won’t prepare the easement for them. They do, if there is going to be a Niagara Mohawk easement, they prepare it, and they send it to us for signature, after their planning staff has laid it out. So, if you made that a condition to final approval, we would never get the final approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, do you want to comment on that? MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to punt on that. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don’t think, I think the Board decided, as I understood it, the Board was inclined not to make that a condition of preliminary approval, in order to get final approval, but I guess I’m not understanding any problem with making that a condition of final approval, if those easements are necessary, that those easements be presented to the Board, prior to final sign off. I don’t think the Board cares who prepares the easement. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know if the easements are going to be necessary, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I said if required. MR. O'CONNOR-The way that it was worded is that we would present the easements to them. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-What do we do if they aren’t required? MR. SCHACHNER-Right, to that extent, what I’m suggesting is some phrase like if required or if necessary be added to the motion. I agree with that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Niagara Mohawk may say, we will provide service to these four lots without formal easements, and if they do, then that’s the way they’re going to, they set the table. They set the rules. We don’t set them. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as your motion, you don’t need to reference a prepared resolution because it is assumed that the preliminary conditions of approval are met in the written resolution, in the 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) prepared resolution. So your new one that you’re going to do for final is just going to outline these three or four conditions of approval that weren’t noted in the preliminary stage. MRS. RYBA-And all the background information is the same. All you’d have to do is just strike out the word, “preliminary” and put in “final”. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine, too. MR. HUNSINGER-Usually it’s the same resolution. MRS. RYBA-Well, actually the resolution, in the body of it, says, whereas the Town is in receipt of preliminary and final stage information. So as far as I can see, it’s just in the title. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Mark, can they do one resolution? MR. SCHACHNER-No. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2000 S. KEITH & KATHLEEN PFEIFFER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of preliminary & final stage Sub. 10-2000, S. Keith & Kathleen Pfeiffer for subdivision of two lots into four lots. Tax Map No. 48-3-48.1, 48.2. Cross Reference: SB 2-1991, SB 12-1994, and; WHEREAS, the application received 11/29/00 consists of the following: 1. Application Materials as outlined in the Official File WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation: 1. 12/26/00 Staff Notes 12/19/00 L. Moore regarding phone conversation with C. Mellon, Bay Ridge Chief 12/14/00 C. Mellon (Bay Ridge Fire Chief) from C. Round 12/8/00 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 12/26/00 concerning the above project (certified mail receipts received); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved for Final Stage and is subject to the following conditions: The resolution being essentially the same as was prepared for Preliminary with the following conditions applying to Final: 1. Addition of grading and erosion control note in accordance with NYS requirements [“New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control”]; 2. Easements, if required, for Niagara Mohawk power poles to the pump house for maintenance by NiMo; 3. Changing of the tax map numbers on Drawing revision No. Two (2) dated 11/22/00 and those drawings should be changed to Tax Map No. 48-3-48.1 and 48-3-48.2; 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) 4. A boundary line adjustment would be prepared as an executed agreement; 5. A letter from Laura Moore, as a phone conversation with Chip Mellon dated December 19, 2000 be entered into the record; 6. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 7. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 26th day of December, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Does the record show that you also voted on preliminary? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we did. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-You did? Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-We did preliminary and we just went straight to final. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I didn’t know if you voted on it. I know you did the resolution. MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I thank you. I’d like not to come back if it’s not necessary. MR. PFEIFFER-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: PZ 4-2000 RECOMMENDATION YAFFEE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP/GLENS FALLS ELECTRIC OWNER: YAFFEE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP/IDA OF WARREN, WASHINGTON COUNTIES AGENT: MARTIN AUFFREDOU CURRENT ZONE: PC- 1A/SFR-1A PROPOSED ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: CORNER OF QUAKER RD. & COUNTRY CLUB RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES REZONING OF FOUR (4) CONTIGUOUS PARCELS FROM PC-1A, SFR-1A TO HC-1A. CROSS REFERENCE: TB RES. 457,2000 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 63-1-5, 4, 3.1, 3.2 (296.19-1-3, 4, 6, 5) LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-101 MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MRS. RYBA-Okay. This is a petition for rezone. In this instance, the applicant has not proposed any other development than what’s existing on the site because the site already is developed. Therefore, the Town Board has taken the lead agency status on this. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PZ 4-2000, Recommendation, Yaffee Family Partnership/Glens Falls Electric, Meeting Date: December 26, 2000 “Site History: Town records concerning this site go back to 1969. Owners have asked for setback and sign variances and a building addition for warehousing purposes. The site has been used for electric supply, office, and storage. Project Description: The applicant proposes rezoning of four (4) contiguous parcels from PC-1A and SFR-1A to HC-1A. The four parcels are 63-1-5, which is PC-1A; and 63-1-4, 63-1-3.1 and 63-1-3.2, each of which is SFR-1A. One building, which currently houses Glens Falls Electric, is located on three of the parcels, and an accessory shed is situated on the fourth parcel. The parcels contain a total of 8.21 acres (as determined from parcel maps). No development is proposed at this time. Application: 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) The application has been forwarded to the Planning Board from the Town Board. The applicant has responded to questions as outlined. These questions are also to be considered by the Planning Board., and form the basis for Planning Board recommendation to the Town Board upon review.Upon consideration, the Planning Board is to submit answers to the Town Board for each of the ."The County recommended no impact questions outlined in the "Petition for a Change of Zone as per their meeting of 12/13/00. Site Environment: Access to the site is from Country Club Road. Adjacent to these parcels to the west is the NIMO right of way. Directly north is the NIMO utility station. Plaza Commercial uses are located to the south across Quaker Road, and Highway Commercial zoning is to the east, across Country Club Road. The site has minimal slope, and does not contain any DEC wetlands, flood hazard areas, or other environmental development constraints. Areas of Concern or Importance: The applicant has provided answers to all questions. The Planning Board may decide to accept these answers as written, or make modifications. The answer to Question #8 as written addresses the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) indirectly, since it refers to zoning, and not the CLUP, as requested. Recommendation 7.4 of the CLUP suggests that properties from the NIMO substation south be zoned commercial. It refers to Map 7.6, which is attached. There is a minor mistake in the CLUP recommendation. Parcel 62-1-2 is not shown on the map, and is already in Highway Commercial. The map does include parcel 63-1-5, which is located at the corner of Quaker Road and Country Club Road, but is not noted in the recommendation. Since one building covers parcel 63-1-5 and adjacent parcels recommended for change, parcel 63-1-5 should be in the rezoning. Conclusions: The proposal for change of zone is consistent with the recommendation in the CLUP.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. RYBA-That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. AUFFREDOU-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Chairman, my name is Martin Auffredou. I’m with the law firm of Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart and Rhodes in Glens Falls, and we represent the Yaffee Family Partnership, the owners of the Glens Falls Electric property. I really don’t have too much to say. It’s a fairly straightforward application, four parcels involved, and you wouldn’t think that three out of those four parcels are zoned SFR-1A, but they are. The current building extends over three of those parcels. The parcel that’s along Quaker and Country Club is about 3.37 acres in size. That’s zoned Plaza Commercial One Acre at this point in time. The remaining three parcels to the rear, which all have frontage on Country Club Road, are zoned Single Family Residential One Acre. To the north, as I think you know, of this property, is a Niagara Mohawk substation, utility station, which is, I guess an industrial use, I would call it. To the south is Quaker Road, and across the way commercial uses, Highway Commercial type uses. To the east is the insurance building and the bank building there, and to the immediate west some utility land owned by Niagara Mohawk, and then some wet area and some commercial property in there as well. Again, we think it’s a pretty straightforward application. Obviously, we don’t have anything to talk about tonight, by way of a site plan, anything that we’re proposing to do at this location, but we think that this proposal will correct a situation there for us. We might want to do something with this land in the future. Obviously, that’s why we’re here, but we don’t have anything in mind right now, but we think that, should we want to do something with this land in the future, it makes sense to have it zoned properly. So that’s why we’re here. MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity, is this one that fell through the cracks when the Town did their town wide rezoning, Marilyn? MRS. RYBA-You mean the proposal that’s in place right now? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It’s just hard to figure why an SFR-1A would be right smack dab in the middle of that. MRS. RYBA-Well, the new proposal hasn’t come forward, and the new proposal does follow the recommendations of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. MAC EWAN-It’s just one of those curious things. MR. AUFFREDOU-Why so long ago it was zoned this way? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. RYBA-I don’t know, but it is covered under the proposed. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only question I had was why wasn’t it corrected during preliminary, you know, initial site plan when the project was developed? MRS. RYBA-The project was developed quite a while ago. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I really didn’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have any questions. My only thing is that all four parcels, I guess, should be rezoned, even though 63-1-5 is currently Plaza Commercial. I think all four of them ought to go to Highway Commercial. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, Mr. Vollaro, if it’s not clear in the application, I want to make it clear tonight that that’s what we hope to achieve through this rezoning. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. It just seems straightforward. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-It’s not identified, but it’s the scale, one inch equals one hundred feet. MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, I did the best I could there. I’m an attorney, not an artist. I didn’t take any graphic design courses, and I think, I’ll tell you, I worked with Marilyn on this. She was an absolute delight and very helpful to me. I’ll be very candid with you. What we were trying to do here is to save some costs now. We didn’t want to go ahead with a full blown survey. I gave it my best shot. If there’s a way we can waive that scale, I did my best shot with it. It’s close. It’s not the best, I’ll admit, but if we could do a little waiver there, or I could request that, I’d appreciate that, if that’s necessary. MR. MAC EWAN-An “A” in presentation, a “B-” on graphic interpretation. MR. AUFFREDOU-I’ll take it. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t know quite what was accurate. MR. AUFFREDOU-What we did was I took this from some tax maps and tried, through our title company, to plot out some scale there. It represents, again, sir, it represents what is my best effort in getting this application to you. MR. STROUGH-Well, just, in the long run, I mean I, conceptually, have no problem with this. It only seems natural, surrounded by Niagara Mohawk and being on Quaker Road. I just, for along Quaker Road, your map states it’s 697 plus or minus feet. On the application, petition for a zone change, it says it’s 577 feet, and I just didn’t know what was accurate, 697 or 577. MR. AUFFREDOU-I think the 697 is more accurate, and I’ll tell you why, because I put the application in with the information that I had, and Marilyn contacted me and said, you probably 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) really need to do something a little bit better than what you’ve provided. So, we got out copies of the deeds. We tried to line them up and run them through the machines that the title company had, track them and do all this fancy stuff, but I have no idea what they did, but they brought the information back to me, and I transposed that on this, and what you see is what you’ve got. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, there’s also a discrepancy between the 70 and 77 feet in Lot 63.1.4, but, you know, there’s just, I would get my, everything accurate, one way or the other. Seventy-seven feet doesn’t make any difference to me. I just like seeing the same thing. MR. AUFFREDOU-I appreciate that. Again, the land is there. It is what it is, and the tax maps are what they are, and we’re seeking a rezoning of what’s there. MR. STROUGH-Okay. What is this bargain and sale deed, dated November 6, 2000, Counties of Warren and Washington Industrial Development Agency Grantor and Grantee Yaffee Family? MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, that small parcel there, the smallest parcel, there was some IDA financing that was involved in this property at one time. That IDA financing has been satisfied, and as a result of the IDA financing, title to that small parcel was in the name of the IDA. So that land has now been transferred from the IDA back to the Yaffee family. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you for that. The new zoning does propose, I think, that this go to some kind of a commercial. I mean, I have no problem with rezoning this Highway Commercial. It seems ideal for that. Thank you for answering my questions. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments? MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s only just one in Staff notes, that Staff has asked us that the Planning Board submit answers to the Town Board for each of the questions outlined in the petition for a zone change, and I’ve gone through all of those, and if you want me to, I’ll read them off. I don’t know how you want to accomplish that, and why that’s in there, but there’s only one change that I would make to that, and that’s on Number Eight, where it says “How is the proposal compatible with the relevant portions of the Comprehensive Land Use Master Plan”, and the answer is parcels are slated to be rezoned to Highway Commercial under the proposed Town wide rezoning. Well, the Town wide rezoning is currently just a draft. I think the answer to that might be the CLUP specifically includes parcels 63-1-3.1 and 63-1-3.2 and 63-1-1.4 in its recommended rezone. So I think that that fits it perfectly. This thing fits the Comprehensive Land Use Plan like a glove, and I would say that I would use the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as the answer to Number Eight. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not necessary that we, as a Planning Board, go down through that checklist. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just reading what’s on the Staff notes, and it says may decide. MR. MAC EWAN-The operative word is “may”. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. We don’t have to if we don’t want to. MR. MAC EWAN-Historically what this Board has done is we make whatever kind of recommendation we make, whether for or against, and it’s just through a resolution. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. I’m just bringing it up because the Staff has brought it up, and that’s the only thing, but I think that one question in there, rather than rely on zoning that’s still in the draft form, it would revert back to the CLUP. MR. MAC EWAN-We could give a one or two or three line reasoning why we think it should or shouldn’t be rezoned. Anything else to add, Marilyn? MRS. RYBA-No, that’s perfectly correct. The only reason that I had suggested that you go through all the items is just for consistency, but this is a simple, straightforward item. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. RYBA-So if you want to make it more concise. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a recommendation? MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND REZONING OF PZ 4-2000 YAFFEE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP/GLENS FALLS ELECTRIC FOR REZONING OF FOUR (4) CONTIGUOUS ACRES [PARCELS] FROM PC-1A, SFR-1A TO HC-1A. THE FOUR (4) PARCELS ARE 63-1-5, WHICH IS PC-1A, AND 63-1-4, 63-1-3.1 AND 63-1-3.2 EACH OF WHICH IS CURRENTLY SFR-1A TO HC-1A, TO THE QUEENSBURY TOWN BOARD, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption seconded by Robert Vollaro: Duly adopted this 26th day of December 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. AUFFREDOU-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 77-2000 TYPE II ROBERT WALL TYPE II OWNER: SAME AGENT: KEVIN MASCHEWSKI, JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: WR-3A, AP A LOCATION: 15 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF SEASONAL RESIDENCE TO A FULL TIME YEAR ROUND RESIDENCE WITH THE ADDITION OF A SECOND FLOOR, ENTRANCE FOYER, LAKESIDE GREAT ROOM, DETACHED GARAGE AND NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 101-2000, SP 73-2000 (WITHDRAWN) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 12/13/00 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-5 (239.17-1-5) LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION 179-16 MR. HUNSINGER-I just have a general question on the Site Plan 77-2000 for Robert Wall. Should we hold on to our? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. They’re still weeding through the ZBA review. MRS. RYBA-Don’t you need to open up the public hearing for that, and table it, though. MR. LAPPER-We hope to be back next month on Wall. We’re just going to modify the application. MR. MAC EWAN-Site Plan 77-2000 is tabled, for Robert Wall. I’ll open up the public hearing and leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PUD SITE PLAN NO. 8-2000 TYPE: UNLISTED QUEENSBURY PARTNERS, LP OWNER: BAY MEADOWS CORP. AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING/JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SR-1A/PUD LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF CRONIN ROAD – BAY MEADOWS APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION AS PART OF THE PUD TO ACCOMMODATE ONE 27.1 ACRE LOT FOR ELDERLY HOUSING PROJECT, ONE 66.2 ACRE LOT TO BE LEFT AS OPEN SPACE, AND ONE LOT OF 4.0 ACRES TO BE DEDICATED TO THE TOWN. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 96 APARTMENTS FOR ELDERLY, FIXED INCOME HOUSING AND ONE MANAGER’S RESIDENCE ON LOT 1. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 18-93, SP 38-93, SB 21-1993, SB 12-1993, P6-91, P10-89 BEAUTIFICATION COMMITTEE: 10/9/00 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 10/11/00 TAX MAP NO. 60-2-5 LOT SIZE: 97.3 +/- ACRE LOT SECTION: 179-58 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-The public hearing was tabled on October 24 and December 19. thth MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MRS. RYBA-Okay. The application and requested items came in by noon today. I took a look. Everything was in order. Mr. Nace just submitted the cut sheets for the lighting and my only concern that they be cut off fixtures, which they are. There are copies here if the Planning Board wants to see that. The only other thing that does need to be mentioned is that, at some point, the applicant will need to come in for a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands application. That’s still on the books, and I know that they’ve submitted things to DEC and Army Corps of Engineers. That’s the only other note. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. RYBA-I believe that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Not right now. Just skip me for a minute, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I just want to take one look at, I guess it’s SP-2, Sheet Two of Eight, revised November 13, 2000. It’s just a question on the fifth floor level of that unit that’s within the 100 foot flood plain there. The finished floor on that is 309.5. MR. NACE-You’re talking about this unit right here. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the one that’s within the 100 foot flood plain, and it’s got a finished floor of 309.5 on it, and the closest elevation I can come to on that is 306, and this is just a question for you. I don’t know whether this ought to be raised some to something over four feet. I notice the one next to it is 311.4, just to the west of it. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There’s an elevation of 304 that’s right next to 306. So it comes up just a hair before you get to the building. MR. NACE-Okay. The flood plain in that area. MR. VOLLARO-It’s just within the 1,000 foot flood, just the other side of it. MR. NACE-It’s within the 100 year flood plain. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-But the 100 year flood plain base elevation, base flood elevation, at this location, is approximately 306. So we’re three and a half feet above the 100 year flood plain, which, in that stream, is more than adequate. MR. VOLLARO-You’re comfortable with that? MR. NACE-Yes, very. The actual floor elevations were picked to fit in with the overall grading, so that stormwater management systems could be fit into place. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we asked most of the questions last week. The status of the PUD agreement with the Town, that’s still, that’s going to have to be part of the condition, I would guess, that that’s got to come later on, the status of the deed restriction preventing the future development of the golf course, that’s a later on. MR. LAPPER-We’ve said last week that we didn’t necessarily have to submit something because that would be a condition of the PUD, or a condition of the site plan, that if we didn’t necessarily need to submit language, and Mark agreed, because the language was so simple. MR. VOLLARO-Did either of you two get any feedback from the Rec Commission on this piece of property, or is that still in limbo? I mean, that’s something that has to be determined by the Town? MR. LAPPER-Well, we will go talk to the Town Board next, after we have Planning Board approval, but what I mentioned last time, and the way I read the letter from the Rec Committee, is that they would like the land, but they’d rather not give up the whole $46,000. So I think that there’s probably a compromise of dedicate the land and pay something on top of that, and we discussed that on the record at the Town Board earlier. I expect something like that will be worked out, but that would be for the future. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. VOLLARO-The only thing I had in question in my mind on that was, you know, I went up there the other day, and I stood right on the road before the turn, looking east, and the site distance there is darn near zero, you know, from where that piece comes out onto Cronin. MR. LAPPER-The Town may not decide that that’s an appropriate location for access of vehicles, and it could be that you park up at Hiland, you know, somewhere and you walk down with your fishing pole, and what I would envision is that that would be for fishing access. MR. VOLLARO-I would walk around with my canoe almost and go for a ride. Anyway, okay. You say the cut sheets are up at Staff level? MRS. RYBA-They’re right here, if you want to take a look. MR. NACE-Yes. The lighting fixtures, I apologize. We should have submitted those last week. The lighting fixtures, Fixture B, which is the majority of the fixtures all around the parking lots, are what’s called a very sharp cut off. There’s a very sharp cut off in the back of those, so that they don’t spread light into the buildings, and there are a couple of fixtures labeled “A” on the plan, which are called a roadway cut off. They are a cut off fixture. MR. VOLLARO-I notice you don’t spill much onto Cronin Road. MR. NACE-No. MR. VOLLARO-There’s very, very little spillage onto Cronin. MR. NACE-With the low mounting height and the low wattage of these fixtures, there’s very little spill over. MR. VOLLARO-Now, how does the status of the sewer district extension go with this? Is this something that’s a condition of this approval? MR. LAPPER-Yes. That would be another approval that we would have to have before we would start to build. MR. VOLLARO-And how are you making out with DEC and Army Corps Wetlands permit, concerning the mitigation of that seven tenths of an acre there? MR. NACE-We’re negotiating the actual mitigation at this point. They haven’t fully accepted the idea of giving money to the County for work along the stream way, but we’re still negotiating that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So those wetland permits would be a condition of approval of PUD. MR. NACE-Absolutely, DEC wetland permit, the Town wetland permit, and the Corps of Engineers wetland permit. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t have any further questions, Mr. Chairman. That’s about all I’ve got. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I was just asking last week, and maybe Mr. Nace can help me out, with the situation with the water that currently exists over there, and how this project might affect that, especially in some of our more severe storms. MR. NACE-You’re talking about flooding? MR. METIVIER-Flooding. MR. NACE-Okay. You’ll see on the map there are two different lines that we’ve shown. FEMA, Federal Emergency Management whatever, regulates what is done in floodways in order to minimize flooding potential, and they establish two different boundaries. One is what’s called the flood plain, and within that flood plain, their regulation says that if you build any building, the floor of that building has got to be above the flood elevation or else you negate your flood insurance, the National Flood Insurance Plan that the community participates in. The other line, which is here, is called the flood way boundary, okay, and the flood way boundary is what they’ve established as an area which is necessary to carry water down stream during flood conditions, and their regulations say that if you do any 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) construction within the flood way boundary, you must demonstrate to them that you don’t impact upstream flood elevations. In other words, if you came in here, if we were building some buildings in here and raising them up and putting fill in this area, we would have to demonstrate that that fill would not impact upstream water levels. Okay. What they’ve done is determined that this is the area that if you do any work within that, you have the potential of affecting upstream flood elevations, okay. So all that we’re doing is filling one little area here within the flood plain, and that does not, in any way, significantly affect the flood elevations of either upstream or down stream flood waters. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony? MR. METIVIER-With your stormwater, that will be managed through sewers? MR. NACE-Excuse me? MR. METIVIER-The stormwater would be managed through sewer lines? MR. NACE-No. The stormwater, what we’ve done is tried to duplicate what happens naturally, okay. You’ll see, all through the site, we have little depressions that we’ve formed. Between almost every building you’ll see there’s these little depressed areas, and at the low end of those test areas, we’ve shown what I call a check dam, just a rock filled or crush gravel filled area that slows the water coming out of those areas, and all these little areas will, in effect, decrease the amount of runoff, the rate of runoff, of the existing site. So what we’re doing is providing all these little storage pockets on the site that will hold our stormwater and let it out gradually. MR. METIVIER-So you don’t feel there’ll be any effect to that little white house there? MR. NACE-No, there will not. The effect will be an actual net decrease in the amount of runoff. MR. METIVIER-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Tony touched on all my concerns, but I’m trying to find my notes from last time. I haven’t had a chance to look at your new plans at all yet. Stormwater management report. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want us to come back to you? MR. STROUGH-No, I’ve got a few questions right here I had for Tom last time. MR. NACE-I apologize that I wasn’t here last week. I was flat on my back trying to get rid of the pain. MR. STROUGH-Now this area, the soils on this site are loamy, fine sand. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Which is part of the reason, I suppose, when I used to go golfing, when that was the back nine, it was always wet. MR. NACE-It was always wet, sure. MR. STROUGH-You’d get this mud on your feet, I don’t care when you go. I mean, a week after the rain it’s still spongy. Now that kind of concerns me, and you do mention that on this site there’s a seasonal high water table that varies from zero in the low areas to a maximum, four or five feet in the upland areas. How much of this zone is considered to be saturated zone? Do you know off hand? MR. NACE-Saturated in who’s? MR. STROUGH-In that the water table is near the surface? MR. NACE-Well, okay, you can pretty much use the wetland, the Corps of Engineers’ wetland mapping to demonstrate that, because in this area, the Corps has different ways of classifying wetland, what is wetland and what isn’t, and in this instance, because it’s meadow and it’s, there’s no, or there’s very little vegetation that gives you a delineation for wetlands, it’s mostly soils, and what the Corps says is if the soils are saturated for a certain length of time out of the year, they’re hydric soils, and therefore they’re classified as wetlands. So pretty much this area down through here, this finger over in here, and then everything down this way is, you know, what we would call hydric soil or soils where the water level is within, you know, a foot of the surface for a significant period of time during the year. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now we’re bringing in some fill in here, and I think we’ve mentioned this Type B soil that you’re bringing in. MR. NACE-Yes, we’d be bringing in sand. If you look at the site, you know, almost all of the units, well, certainly all of the units, and most of the road, is a foot or two minimum above the existing grade, okay, and that soil will be sandy soil. It’ll be. MR. STROUGH-Much more permeable than what’s there. MR. NACE-Exactly. MR. STROUGH-And that’ll be good for drainage. Now, one, I was trying to look it up, and I just didn’t have enough time, but I can remember from my old engineering days, now the water table generally follows the land form. MR. NACE-It depends on the underlying soils. Around here, in many places we end up with impervious layers in the soil, especially as you come west to east, across from Glen or Route 9 across to Meadowbrook, the soils are changing in that area, and a lot of times you end up with lenses. MR. STROUGH-Yes, an impervious layer can block the water table. MR. NACE-Yes, correct, but generally they fit the land form. MR. STROUGH-Now, bringing in this fill, will that change the saturated table, and the capillary trench areas? Will that also generally go in and follow these forms? MR. NACE-It should not significantly. I’m trying to think of the best way to explain. We’re staying away, if you look at it, we’re staying away, because of the Corps of Engineers wetland issue, we’re keeping our fills out of the low wet areas, okay, with a few minor exceptions. So most of our fills are placed on what is now upland, okay, and, you know, based on that, I don’t think that there’s that much potential. We’re not putting fills in here, where they would wick the water away from what’s there, if that’s what you’re. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just wondering if we’re going to be changing the hydraulic gradient? MR. NACE-No, we should not, you know, the main drainage courses down through, you know, the drainage right now is down through this low wet area, and that’s being maintained, okay. We have a road across here, but we also have a culvert that’s maintaining that drainage, and displacing of the fill in the upland areas should not, really should not significantly effect, like you said, it’ll help our drainage, because the fills here are more permeable and will absorb some of the precipitation, and it’ll take a while for that precipitation to get over to the lower areas, whereas the existing soils are a little tighter, a little siltier, and that same precipitation presently gets over here quicker. MR. STROUGH-That’s another thing. This is a little bit of an aside, but that concerned me, too, is we’re going to be bringing in the fill, and then we’re going to put foundations on this new fill, and this probably isn’t within the parameters of the Planning Board, but I’m concerned about the foundations and especially with the movement of water underneath it. MR. NACE-No, it would be compacted. One thing, the soils underneath here are not soft clays, okay, so that you don’t have, you know, that settlement issue that you would be worried about. So, no, as long as the fills are adequately compacted, and obviously, putting buildings and roads on them, they have to be. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now this one unit that is in the 100 year flood plain. MR. NACE-Down here. MR. STROUGH-Do you need to get approval from the Army Corps of Engineers to locate that within the 100 year flood plain? MR. NACE-No. If it were within the flood way, we would need approval of FEMA to do that, but what we’d need to do for this, in order to the Town’s flood insurance plan in effect, we need to give a certification, once this is built, once the foundation is built, a surveyor needs to certify to the Town, to Dave Hatin, that that is above the flood elevation, okay, and that’s simply to keep the flood insurance plan that the Town participates in active, or keep it valid. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, I was looking at, Tony brought out, and you’ve showed the localized depression systems, and then there will be outlets, okay, with check dams, now that’s just to slow down? 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. NACE-That’s just to slow down, well, it serves two purposes. It slows down and it filters out any sediment that might occur. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Just that stormwater depression number five has a 97% of capacity used. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-What does that mean? MR. NACE-That means that, at a 50 year storm, okay, that the storage volume of that depression is just about at capacity, okay. If you’ll notice a lot of them have, you know, access capacity. It’s just the way the grading turns out. That particular one is adequate for a 50 year storm, but during a 75 or 100 year storm, there may be a little overflowing the top of the check dam, but during a 100 year storm, everybody’s running for high ground anyway. So it’s normally, we design. MR. STROUGH-Well, where would that water go, if that was the case? MR. NACE-Well, it would go where it naturally goes. It would just, this number five, I’d have to look back at the, you have the plan and the report right, the plan in here, back a couple of pages. Okay. Five is here. It would go where it goes presently, which is out around and down into here. MR. STROUGH-Okay, basically back into the valley. There was, I think, a question, too, I had more, and I wanted to get you while you’re up here instead of making you come back up again, but, so I might let you move on here. If I find any other questions, I’ll ask. Thanks, Tom. More for Jon, now, probably. Jon, has this been reviewed by emergency services? The thing that bothers me is, I’ll think out loud, okay, is the one way into the 96 units, is if that was blocked, is there an alternate access to the site? MR. LAPPER-I guess he’s talking about the subdivision. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Yes, your main entrance is off of Cronin Road. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And if that were blocked, and there was an emergency situation, what would be my alternate way of getting in there? MR. NACE-Well, in most emergency situations, there’s a way to get around, okay, if there’s another emergency that occurs further back, okay. Say there was a fire in one of the front units, and the fire trucks were set up along the road, there’s still a way to get around those fire trucks and get on back for some other emergency. This, you know, you’re probably going to the Subdivision Regulations, which, you know, require two entrances or two accesses after so many units or whatever, but for a site plan like this there’s, you know, there’s always a way to get around, and if you look around, you’ll find that there are quite a few instances existing where we’d have that issue to deal with, and, you know, it is dealt with successfully by the fire companies. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it doesn’t mean we have to have more of them, Tom, I mean, you can give that argument, but I’m just wondering why this wasn’t designed in a “U” shaped pattern, we could have pulled out those units from the 100 year flood plain, that one building anyway, and those units that are in that building, put them over on the west side of this, and just made a “U” and gotten your same number and provided two access points to reach this. MR. NACE-I see what you’re saying. Unfortunately, we have the wetlands, the Corps of Engineers wetlands to deal with, and that area over there on the left is all Corps of Engineers wetlands, okay. This whole ribbon up through here is wetland, okay, and, yes, it would have been easy to bring this down across here, but we would have ended up with a situation where we would have had more wetland impact than it’s feasible to deal with, with the Corps of Engineers. MR. STROUGH-Well, since this is a PUD concept, though, and I think as part of your PUD argument, you threw in, the restaurant down the road, Stewarts, and the golf course. Why couldn’t you utilize that golf course where the entrance is for an alternate way of getting in here. MR. NACE-Unfortunately, they’ve got their putting green right here in front of the clubhouse, and there’s really no, there’s no access between the ninth green here and the putting green. There’s really no route to get across there. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. STROUGH-Well, that bothers me, but has emergency services reviewed this at all, do you know, Marilyn? MRS. RYBA-I’m trying to think back. The curb cut is one thing that has to be reviewed by the Building Department, I believe, because it’s not a County road. So that’s one review, but generally the emergency department, we’ve been sending things, for example, if they’re a steep slope. The other is for turnarounds, to see, in situations where there may not be a lot of width for a drive, but I think what Tom Nace was saying is that there’s enough width for both an emergency vehicle and other vehicles to get around if there has to be, in these drives. MR. STROUGH-Well, the Achilles Heel seems to be that if it were blocked, right at the intersection of this new road, to just about the Meadows, and Cronin Road, and this is a housing for elderly people, right? MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Then how would emergency vehicles get in? MRS. RYBA-When you’re looking at your width for your access way, it’s. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s, so emergency services hasn’t reviewed this application for those kind of things. MRS. RYBA-No, but your Subdivision Regulations cover your access width, so that it covers vehicles. I don’t know what else to tell you there. MR. LAPPER-I would also point out, like the Eddy project, by comparison, also has only one entrance, and that’s a much larger senior project. MR. NACE-John, I think the bottom line is that we’ve got a road that’s 24 feet wide, okay. There are very few instances that I can even envision where that whole 24 feet, plus the shoulders, would be blocked to the point that you couldn’t get an eight foot vehicle around it, okay. MR. STROUGH-It was just a concern, and I’d still like it reviewed by emergency services, just so we did get their input, because it is elderly housing, all right, but those are the other questions. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the only question I really have is, getting back to the stormwater management, and kind of picking up on where I think Tony with his questions. During the public hearing, we heard from a number of neighbors on Cronin Road that, during significant storms, not even necessarily 50 year or 100 year storms, that the Brook overflows onto their property, and I guess what I’d be looking for is some assurance that, as a result of bringing in fill and raising the elevations on your site, that that would not impact other adjacent property owners also on the north side of Cronin Road. MR. NACE-Sure. I guess the best way I can answer that is that, as I explained before, the flood way is what really sets the flood elevation, okay. It’s the ability of that flood way to be open and to pass water down stream, and in fact in this flood way, because I looked at it for a project years ago, the controlling factor is the bridge on Meadowbrook Road. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-Yes, it acts as a control point, and if you look at the flood stage elevations of the stream, you’ll see there’s a significant drop in the flood elevation, as you go from the west side of the bridge to the east side of the bridge, and it really controls that up stream flood elevation. What we’re doing back in the, within the 100 year flood zone, okay, flood plain, we’re putting in a little bit of fill. Yes, you could probably argue that we’re taking up a little bit of storage capacity that was there before, but, as far as having any effect on the actual flood elevation, it is so insignificant it could probably not be measured. MR. STROUGH-Now the flood way that we’re talking about, that goes through the center of the development, does that, that generally flows in the direction toward the driving range? MR. NACE-You’re talking about this? MR. STROUGH-Yes. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. NACE-It’s a wet depression, and it gradually, you know, brings water out here, and I presume, from here the water, because of this upland area, the water probably moves this way, but most of the water movement within that is not surface water movement, it’s subsurface water movement. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, guys? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question about the fill that you’re bringing in. I was thinking about this when I left last week. Now, these apartments, these buildings are on concrete slabs? MR. NACE-They’re all slab on grade, right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There’s no cellars. So they have to have footers. MR. NACE-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And are the footers going to be built first and then the fill brought in to, in other words, the footers would be sticking out of the ground, like if you wanted to build a cellar, that you didn’t want to go so far deep into the ground, you would build it out, and then you would bring the fill around the house? Would you be doing the footers the same way, or would you bring in the fill first, and then put the footers in? MR. NACE-Probably you would bring in the fill first, compact everything, and then construct the footers. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, the fill is going to be put how far, in other words, when the footprint of the house, of the building goes in, then the fill will be like how many feet from the perimeter of the foundation? MR. NACE-How many feet around? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. In other words, is the road going to be on fill, is the parking lot going to be on fill, and the building is going to be on fill? MR. NACE-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then I’m thinking about all the other lands that are grass and permeable materials. Will they be just depressions that could become catch basins for the water? MR. NACE-That’s what the design for that is, okay, is all the depressions, that’s really the design intent of the stormwater system, that all these little depressions, in between the units, are there to receive the water, the runoff, and detain it and let it out slowly, okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, are you putting in a lot of drainage pipe. MR. NACE-No. Almost everything is surface runoff, okay, almost everything is. The only drainage pipe we’re putting in is the culvert under the road. So all the grading is worked out so that all of the runoff from the units and from the road is channeled down on the surface, and into these depressions, and one of the reasons that that works is that there are a lot of depression, so that that surface runoff doesn’t have to go very far before it’s intercepted. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So could these little depressions conceivably, like the storm we had a couple of weeks ago, I know, could they become like little ice skating rinks, in other words, where the ground has frozen, that water’s just going to stay there until the ground thaws? MR. NACE-During the winter, that’s possible anywhere, yes, with any drainage system. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, remember how, well, you weren’t here last week. John was concerned about some amenities for the tenants, like even a peripheral walkway around the property. Would that be almost impossible to do because of the stormwater runoff problem? In other words, if that’s the permeable ground where the little depressions are, then it would be kind of hard to put in a kind of nice walkway that maybe would be just a path or whatever. MR. NACE-Well, one of the things, the traffic in here is going to be very, very, light, okay. With these seniors, a lot of them don’t have cars, and they make very few trips. The roadway system itself can serve as a walkway for people to get from one unit to another if they want to. What we’ve done 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) is, for other amenities, we’ve taken this area in here, across from the community building, and showed some tables, like picnic tables, and a bocci court, and a horse shoe setup. So that would be an area available for people to do things outside. As far as a walkway, it’s an extra maintenance headache for a facility like this, and, in reality because of the low traffic volume, the roadway serves just as well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I wish I could just stop trying to envision these units and this road and the parking lots like a causeway in a sea of water. I mean, that’s not going to happen? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, that’s definitely not going to happen? MR. NACE-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And another thing is, I mean, our engineer, C.T. Male has signed off on this? MR. NACE-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you’ve put your professional stamp on this plan, so, if anything should go wrong, then the people that buy these units just come back to you guys. MR. NACE-My reputation is there on the documents, okay. As far as your envisioning a causeway, it’s definitely not, you know, the area will be a series of little hummocks with the units on them, and the road and depressions in between. It’s not, you know, I don’t envision it as a causeway. MRS. LA BOMBARD-In other words, it’s not just sticking up on this fill that’s been brought in? MR. NACE-No, the slopes are gentle, the slopes are all designed that they’re maintainable, easily mowable. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And, you know how we’ve had the retention pond at Lowe’s, the retention pond in there? MR. NACE-Yes, in the back, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, in the back. You couldn’t do anything like that? MR. NACE-On this site it’s very difficult. Well, the previous development of this, the previous plans that were on the books, you know, eight years ago or whatever, had that idea of a large retention pond, but they also had the site filled about four or five more feet than we’re filling it, okay. We’re bringing in much, much more fill, and it would really have looked like a sore thumb sticking up out of the ground, but we’re trying to keep it as natural and unobtrusive as possible. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And should this be passed, when is this going to be, when are you going to start on something like this, and are you going to just, it’s all going to be built out in one phase? MR. NACE-It would all be built out in one phase. Yes, they’d like to be constructing this year, this summer. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And just finish it up and just get in and out. MR. NACE-I presume, yes. It’s probably eight, nine months worth of construction. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what’s the method of heating these units, do you know? MR. NACE-Offhand, I don’t know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is there natural gas in there? MR. NACE-Yes, there is, and I presume that would be used. I just don’t know what that actual units, I presume probably gas/hot air, but I really couldn’t speak to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, thank you. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. MAC EWAN-That raises an interesting question. When they bury utilities, because the water table’s so high, how do they lay utilities six feet down? MR. NACE-The same way they put the sewer in along. MR. MAC EWAN-How do they do it? MR. NACE-Well, if you have to, you do water, using well points. Depending on the soil and the length of trench, sometimes you can do it by simply having a pit that you do water from, other times you have to use well points. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. A couple of other questions. I notice on site plan SP-2, there are several mature trees throughout the site, some of those obviously were within footprints and disturbance areas. I’m assuming they’re going to be cut down. MR. NACE-Obviously, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The areas that aren’t going to be touched, there’s no reason to get in, those trees will remain? MR. NACE-No, they will remain. MR. MAC EWAN-Army Corps of Engineers, you cannot develop within their boundaries whatsoever, without their? MR. NACE-They have different thresholds. There’s one tenth of an acre that you can do under a notification type permit, Nationwide, actually there used to be a one acre threshold. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that the reason why the recreational facilities are placed so closed to those two buildings near the road, and not more centered in the site? MR. NACE-Yes. I thought it would be nice to have them near the community building, okay, so that, for instance, horse shoes and stuff could be kept, any equipment could be kept in the community building MR. MAC EWAN-Going back to the Garth Allen site, development that we had here a couple of years ago, regarding emergency access, the same issue came up during his thing, because he had just one road in, and what was done was a boulevard, for the first 200 feet. Why can’t we do it here? We have plenty of room, and all you’d have to do is just basically move your main entrance just a little bit more westward, offset it, because of your 50 foot wide, and I think that would ease a lot of concerns on the Board. I mean, you’re only talking 200 feet, you’ll bring it up, kind of like Hudson Pointe where it goes in. MR. NACE-Yes, we’d stop it at the first intersection. MR. MAC EWAN-The first intersection, and that’s enough, that gives you an alternate access in and out, for emergency vehicles, if you had, God forbid, some emergency up there where you were tying up at least one lane, you’d have another lane open to get in and out. MR. NACE-Could we maybe have emergency services review this, and if they say they want it, we would do it? MR. LAPPER-I’d rather just. MR. NACE-Just do it? Okay, I’ll do it. Sure. MR. LAPPER-There’s no reason not to. MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-A planted boulevard, similar to what we’re thinking of at Hudson Pointe. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-It might not be quite as elaborate as Hudson Pointe. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s really not that elaborate. I mean, you’re looking at maple trees planted every 40 feet, maybe. So you’re only talking a maximum of five trees, maybe. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. STROUGH-Yes, just as couple. Why the summit ashes? I mean, what advantage, do they grow particularly well in wet areas? MR. NACE-I’m not the landscape architect. Jim Miller selected the trees based on. MR. STROUGH-They’re all summit ashes. I mean, there’s no variety. I mean, in this type of geography, you’d think that the willows would work well, especially, you know, in the low areas MR. NACE-The willows are a high maintenance, as far as I know, but I’ll review with Jim. Jim selected the trees, and I don’t want to second guess him. MR. STROUGH-Another concern, too, is if the Town does take this as a recreation area, and, you know, we’ve mentioned amenities before, and I’m not quite sure what the Recreation Department would do with this. I’m just saying maybe, as a possibility, they might provide public access for the parking area, and possibly a place for a deck, even where people could fish off of it. I mean, I’m not sure, I mean, just thinking as a possibility, and I’ve seen expressed somewhere on this paperwork difficulty in accessing this site from the Cronin Road and that it seems to suggest, at least to me, that access to this public area, should it become public area, might be best achieved from the Meadows Road. MR. LAPPER-Let me respond to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. That’s a different venue for a different Board. I mean, that’s not something that we should be concerned about at this point. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m just saying that if we had to get easements and improvements, I would think that now would be the time that we’d have to do this. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not our review. MR. STROUGH-In other words, I wonder if, let’s look at the scenario. What if the Town says, well, okay, that would be good as a publicly controlled area. We would like to get permission from the Meadows to gain access or an easement over their property to this site. Wouldn’t this be the best time to try and attain this? MR. MAC EWAN-No, because that’s something that has to come from the recommendation of the Rec Board, through the Town Board, and when they get ready to do their PUD agreement, then that’s the time that the Town Board would enter into. MR. STROUGH-Well, what came first, the cart or the horse? MR. MAC EWAN-But it’s not a Planning Board issue, though, John. MR. STROUGH-No? MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, you can comment on them and make suggestions and recommendations, but essentially I think the Chairman’s right. MR. STROUGH-So, isn’t it entirely possibly, though, that let’s say we receive this land, and we accept it, that maybe the Meadows would not give us an easement or an access over their property to this site, whereas I could probably obtain that right now. At this time I could probably get them to agree to a public access. MR. MAC EWAN-But you’re trying to get them to agree to something that you don’t know that the Town wants to take acceptance of. MR. STROUGH-Right, what came first, the cart or the horse. MR. SCHACHNER-No, but you can have a contingent agreement, if you feel strongly about it, and you’re suggesting that the applicant might be willing to grant that, you could have that sort of an arrangement as a contingent agreement. In other words, the applicant could agree, and I’m not 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) saying the applicant has to do this. I’m not putting words it the applicant’s mouth, but you could ask, if I’m following your reasoning, whether the applicant would agree that if the Town accepts this property, the following access will be provided. If that’s where you’re coming from, that’s certainly a fair question to ask of the applicant. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. SCHACHNER-Am I on track with where you’re coming from? MR. STROUGH-Yes. That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Here’s my response. After you raised the issue last week, I did talk to our client, and what they’re concerned about is additional traffic on the roadway because it’s a senior and a very senior project, but what they would be willing to grant would be, I understand that, right by the curb in the road, that there’s a problem with sight distance, but there’s plenty of land between there and the project where, if the Town wanted to construct an entrance road and a parking lot, that the developer would be happy to grant an easement for that purpose somewhere in the center of that map, but they’d prefer not to have the additional traffic on the roadways. MR. STROUGH-So they’d be willing to grant, let’s say, parking area, and then maybe a path that goes to? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay, so now it’s on the record, but it might be something we’d have to put words in a condition. MR. LAPPER-That’s not a problem. MR. STROUGH-And the interconnecting walkway, now, it’s an elderly housing, and I know Cathy brought it up, and, you know, I’d just like to think that people would want to visit somebody that might be in another building unit, and I really am not happy with them using the roadway. MR. LAPPER-Well, John, in general in Queensbury, there aren’t a lot of areas that are sidewalked. When my elderly neighbors visit me, we walk on the road. MR. STROUGH-This is elderly housing, right, Jon? So this is kind of unique. We can’t use what might be elsewhere. MR. LAPPER-But Tom’s answer was that the traffic count is so low here that there’s no danger for people to be walking on the road area, or on the shoulder. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know, and you said there’s been a couple of things added, too? MR. LAPPER-Well, Tom’s cover letter just addressed the four issues that the Planning Board requested last time, cart path access, pedestrian access to the golf course parking lot, passive recreation facilities that we spoke about, three lots with the delineation of the four acre lot, and the lighting that was on a separate plan has been put on the main site plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Everything that we had requested has been addressed. MR. LAPPER-And on the record, I would like to thank the Board for the courtesy of allowing us to resubmit and come back a week later, when I could bring Tom in person. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-The only thing is, I don’t know if somebody is going to put a motion up tonight, or we should just sit down and discuss the conditions that we’re going to add to this? Are we going to work that out tonight? MR. RINGER-What conditions are you thinking, John? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not sure, but certainly a condition about working out a contingency agreement with the Town on providing some kind of an easement to the public area, should that become a public area, or dedicated to the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-You just did it. You just said it. MR. STROUGH-That’s just one. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. MAC EWAN-I know. You said you wanted to think about how you wanted to say it or word it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And you just did a great job. MR. MAC EWAN-You could leave it very general. MR. STROUGH-Emergency services is going to review this and maybe go to a boulevard entrance. MR. MAC EWAN-They’ve already agreed they’re going to do it. So, I don’t see any sense to send it to the emergency services or Fire Marshal to review it when they’re agreeing to do it. They’re going to agree to put in a boulevard, all the way to the first parking area. That’s about 250 feet. Has Staff got anything you want to add? MRS. RYBA-Let me just check my notes. There was something in reference to Lot Number Three, and the language you want to do there. I think it was suggested that you might want to say you approve a maximum of three lots. That way, if the Town doesn’t accept that land, that they don’t have to go back and merge it, that they can put together whatever plat comes forward, once they get that PUD agreement. I don’t know if they intend to file the, well, they couldn’t file the plat until I guess that agreement’s in place. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. RYBA-So you might want to put your language forward in that manner. MR. LAPPER-If the Town doesn’t accept that dedication, that lot line would be removed on the final mylar that’s submitted for approval. We wouldn’t have any need for that lot. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s consistent with what we discussed last week. MRS. RYBA-Okay. The other concern I’ve heard is that, in reference to the project being complete, within, the guess was with eight to nine months worth of construction, about having the project complete within 24 months. Whether or not you want to make that a condition, I don’t know, but it’s just something I’ve heard. MR. VOLLARO-They’ve accepted that 24 months in lieu of phasing, I believe. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MRS. RYBA-Okay, and that’s all I have, other than I think the typical ones which, you know, the sewer has to be, there has to be that condition in place, and then the PUD agreement, by the Town Board. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things, looking at the resolution itself, there are a lot of letters that are not on this resolution. Even though it’s packed with a lot of stuff, there’s a lot of stuff that’s missing. One is, of course, the recent letter from Mr. Nace, dated December 26, 2000, and there’s a 12/15 letter from C.T. Male, a 12/14 Rec Commission to Brower, cc: the Planning Board, a 10/24 Nace Engineering and so on. I’m just wondering whether this resolution should cover all of the. MRS. RYBA-Typically, the support staff goes through each of the resolution and makes sure that all of those items are covered. For example, today, I mean, support staff didn’t have the opportunity to put the letters in for today, for example. MR. LAPPER-All those letters are new, that you mentioned, or since the resolution was prepared. MRS. RYBA-And then from last week as well, the information had already been put together and. MR. MAC EWAN-Typically, just as a housekeeping measure, they take our resolutions, when we adopt our resolutions, and if there’s any additional information, that’s just automatically put right in to that prepared resolution, the supporting documentation. MRS. RYBA-Put in, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because I went through this. Okay. I just wanted to raise the issue that, on the resolution we prepared tonight, they won’t be there. MR. MAC EWAN-We could very easily say that, you know, if we adopt a resolution to approve something or deny something, you could just say as in the prepared resolution, plus all supporting documentation that we have received that’s not incorporated in the written resolution. That way you 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) cover yourself that way as well. Okay. Anything else? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a resolution, or further discussion? What do you want to do? MR. SCHACHNER-What’s your SEQRA review status? MR. LAPPER-The Town Board. MR. SCHACHNER-This is a PUD, the Town Board’s already neg dec’d, I’m sorry. MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-Cathy’s been feverishly writing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I know. The only thing that I don’t have on a note here is I lost my train of thought, when you were, John, what were you saying right before? MR. STROUGH-That the applicant has agreed, is the contingency, based on our accepting them, that the proposed dedication, that the applicant has agreed to provide public parking off of Cronin Road. MR. LAPPER-If the Town accepts the parcel, and if the Town requests this access. MR. STROUGH-And if the Town requests this, that the applicant would be willing to work with the Town on providing some kind of parking and pedestrian access to the proposed dedicated site. MR. LAPPER-What you’re saying is that from the lands retained by the developer, not part of the four acre site, above and beyond the four acre site, to the west of the four acre site. MR. STROUGH-Yes, above and beyond, in other if they find, the way I understand you, Jon, you said, if there is a more acceptable site between, along Cronin Road, between the dedicated land and this road one, or whatever it’s called, that would be more suitable for a parking area for access. MR. LAPPER-Rather than a location on the four acre site. MR. STROUGH-Then there’ll be some parking area provided, and a kind of pedestrian pathway to. MR. LAPPER-If the Town accepts dedication of the four acre site, and if the Town requests an easement for a parking/pedestrian access area, that would be acceptable. MR. STROUGH-I was just wondering, too, I’m looking at this cart path that goes from the clubhouse and it goes through the parking lot, or an as covered parking. How wide is that? MR. NACE-How wide? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Would that be wide enough for emergency vehicles to gain? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, not a cart path. MR. NACE-A typical cart path is about eight feet wide. MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s that. MR. LAPPER-Six. MR. STROUGH-Well, who’s going to put in the cart path going to the relocated golf ranch? Is that going to be Bay Meadows’ responsibility? MR. NACE-That will have to be worked out between Bay Meadows and Queensbury Partners. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. STROUGH-Well, eight foot wide, is that big enough for them to gain access if they had to? MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’ve got it covered with the boulevard. Don’t we? MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. Are you going to condition that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-That was a condition that the emergency services are going to review all this. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we’re conditioning it on the fact that, if we approve this thing, conditioning it on the fact that they’re going to put in a 200 plus foot long boulevard. MR. LAPPER-Separated by an island. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So in other words, you’re going to have a median in the middle of there. MR. STROUGH-It’s going to have a median with two twelve foot (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-A planted median. MRS. LA BOMBARD-With those trees every, you said you’re going to put trees in there. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. NACE-It’ll be a planted median, with street trees. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, if it’s 200 feet long, then you would probably need five trees every, on each end, and then fifty feet. MR. NACE-Correct. We would use the same detail that we used for Hudson Pointe. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute. Before we start, the emergency services have to still review it to make sure that they can get in and. MR. MAC EWAN-No, they don’t. MR. VOLLARO-They’ve agreed to put a boulevard in that would allow emergency services to get in on one side of that boulevard. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So if you have a boulevard. MR. MAC EWAN-Picture Hudson Pointe. They’re going to do the same thing. They’re going to do the same thing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So with the boulevard, then Hudson Pointe has, on each side it’s a double lane. You get two cars to pass through. MR. MAC EWAN-No, it’s a single lane, but it’s wide. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When I jog that, it’s pretty wide. MR. MAC EWAN-It is wide. MR. NACE-What we do is a 12 foot lane and a 3 foot shoulder, okay. If you’re driving on the road, it’s just a single 12 foot lane, with a 3 foot shoulder. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I thought the boulevard was more for aesthetics. MR. LAPPER-It’s both. It is for aesthetics as well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, but once you put that median in, then you’re automatically going to increase the width of the road on either side of it? Okay. I didn’t know that. So then the emergency services doesn’t have to be a stipulation. All right. MR. LAPPER-The theory is if you have a burning car on one side, you can drive around the other side, not that that happens too often around here. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, back to the support staff and all the information and documentation. Anything that we haven’t gone over today, that could, that you know that should be included in the final resolution, it would just automatically go in there, any documentation or anything that would support? MRS. RYBA-Well, there are all the items that were received today, that would go in there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s items like the 10/24 letter from Nace Engineering to Chris Round, in response to C.T. Male’s letter dated 10/20, is not in here, and so there’s information that’s not listed in this resolution, had we approved this resolution back on, I guess it was the 19. I had prepared th the resolution with all of the letters that were missing. Now there are other things that were added tonight, like Mr. Nace’s letter of December 26, which is today, but I think what Cathy is saying, is th somebody going to do a complete review, so that this resolution has all of the documentation associated with this application stated in that resolution? I think that’s what you’re saying? MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I’m saying. MRS. RYBA-Support staff keeps a running list, they’re supposed to be keeping a running list, which is in the front of each file, with all of the documentation that’s in each file, and so that’s referred to when the final resolution is drawn up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So all documentation that’s germane to this project will be included, will be? MRS. RYBA-For that matter, the resolution could simply not refer to any of the documentation, other than to the fact that the documentation is in the file. I mean, to simplify things, or it could refer to, you know, the running list. I think the resolutions are something that are always in progress, because the support staff tries to use it as a running list of everything that’s in the file. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, the prepared resolution, I suppose it could be taken two different ways. If you look at item one, the application materials as outlined in the official file, it’s generic in speaking, but then the next sentence says, whereas the above is supported with the following documentation, that’s when you get into your specific listings. MRS. RYBA-Right, and part of that is to show that all of those items are part of the official file, and those items are reviewed, and I think that if you went through all of the minutes, you would know that everything had been reviewed because of the references to the letters that the Planning Board has made through the process. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, you don’t want to get tacky about this, but I mean, if we had a resolution that said, you know, just like this, by prepared resolution, and then a sentence that said, and inclusive of newly received information, not included in this listing. Is that acceptable, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. Actually, that’s preferable to what I thought you explained, I understood you to earlier explain something along the lines of staff will add in after enactment of a resolution additional items, and without the language you just described, that’s actually not appropriate. I mean, in other words, when you vote on the language you vote on in a resolution has to be encompassing whatever information you want it to encompass, and people can’t add it in later. If you want to phrase it the way you just phrased it, that’s great. MR. MAC EWAN-All you’d say was additional information received not listed in the prepared resolution, including. Okay. Are we ready to move on this, one way or the other? MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a resolution, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question before I do this. How come we used to say, I’m going to make a motion to approve, and now we’ve changed it to, we’re going to introduce a resolution? MR. SCHACHNER-It makes no difference. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’ve changed it over the past couple of months, because I can remember, when I was first on this Board, I said, I would like to make a resolution, and you all were like, Cathy, no, you’re supposed to say you’re going to introduce a motion. So I’m like, where have I missed the correct terminology here? MR. MAC EWAN-That was a class we took, July 17 at three in the morning. th 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. I missed it. MR. MAC EWAN-You missed it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I’ll start it. All right. I’d like to make a motion to approve PUD Site Plan No. 8-2000, Type Unlisted, for Queensbury Partners, LP, with the following stipulations. First of all, that it would go along with the resolution prepared by Staff, and with the following, that there will be a 200 foot long boulevard with three extra feet width on each side of the road, that will extend from the intersection of Cronin Road to the first parking area, with five trees planted, at least a minimum of five trees planted, probably deciduous trees, but I don’t think it really matters. MR. STROUGH-It was summit ashes, probably. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Don’t get me mixed up here, John. MR. STROUGH-They’re all summit ashes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, no, we’ll, whatever trees that would work the best in that kind of environment. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me. I apologize for interrupting. I think that the Board is in a difficult position, obviously, because you didn’t have some of this information, and you’re trying to formulate what sounds to me like it’s likely to be a fairly complex motion. From the standpoint of Staff, I think, and Counsel, I know, it’s much more advisable to formulate a motion that does not include phrases like, whatever will work best, I think it might be deciduous but I’m not really sure. I’m not criticizing. You’re doing it sort of under the gun here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand. MR. SCHACHNER-This may be a situation where you want to take a five minute break and formulate a motion or do something. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the best course of action, we’ve talked about doing this when we get into these kind of situations, I think the sense here is that we’re going to try to approve this, but what I would like to do is have Cathy give her notes to Staff, Staff make up a prepared resolution, we’ll take action on it at our workshop on January the 8. It’ll give you time to prepare the resolution and th incorporate all this new information into it. Does that sound reasonable. We’re going to miss something in the loop here. MR. SCHACHNER-Can I ask a question? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure, January the 9. I’m sorry, not the 8. thth MR. SCHACHNER-What workshop January the 8? th MR. MAC EWAN-Well, that was going to be the next topic for discussion. You were going to be notified about it tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Well, January 8, there’s a Town Board meeting January 8. thth MR. MAC EWAN-January 9. I misspoke, it’s the 9. thth MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Doesn’t that sound reasonable with everyone? MR. STROUGH-And get all this together? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, and have Staff update with the drawings, the additional information. MR. LAPPER-Since it’s that quick, we appreciate it. We need to get this approved so we can get on with the other parts of the application, but that’s only two weeks. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So noted. We’ll do that. All right. Very good. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. That was a first. Quite frankly, we’ve gotten to the point where we just get overwhelmed and consumed with new information being put in front of us. We just want to be sure everything’s going to be included in the resolution. MR. LAPPER-We try and make it as complicated as possible. MR. STROUGH-Well, thanks for adding the bocci court and the horse shoe. MR. LAPPER-As you requested. MR. MAC EWAN-This discussion item of Referral of Certain Land Use and Development Applications for Advisory Recommendations between the Town of Queensbury and City of Glens Falls, is that something you wanted to discuss? MRS. RYBA-I think that was an item on other, whether or not you wanted to, I think there was a section in there that referred to support by the Planning Board, or some kind of resolution by the Planning Board. I don’t have it in front of me. I apologize. MR. MAC EWAN-The one that John had worked on, that you guys were going to take and summarize? Is that the one? MRS. RYBA-No. MR. MAC EWAN-No, that wasn’t the same one. No, no. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There’s another one in here. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you want to discuss that tonight, or do you want to do it at the workshop? What do you want to do? MRS. RYBA-Why don’t we do it at the workshop, so we’re all prepared, and all have it in front of us, and, the only thing I had given to me was something that the Town Board, a resolution that the Town Board passed on, and that resolution, asked the Planning Board to consider also passing a resolution. MR. RINGER-That’s the one we were going to inform the City of the 500 foot? MRS. RYBA-Right, that’s the only thing I had. MR. VOLLARO-I thought I had it, but I don’t have it. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have that. MR. RINGER-I had it. I think it left it home. MRS. RYBA-So there is going to be a workshop January 9, that’s a Wednesday. th MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s a Tuesday. MRS. RYBA-Tuesday. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-And I had sent my beloved Staff an e-mail, to see if that room was available, the Conference Room was available, and if that was okay with everyone. MRS. RYBA-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you not get my e-mail? MRS. RYBA-I got your e-mail, but Pam was coordinating that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll send her a nasty e-mail tomorrow. MRS. RYBA-All right. She’ll appreciate that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What day is it? MRS. RYBA-It’s a Tuesday. MR. RINGER-I have a conflict on the 9. th 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MRS. RYBA-Okay. The items to be covered, then, are this resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m writing it down, too, Marilyn. MRS. RYBA-Okay. You want to cover the Glens Falls resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-How long is that going to take? MRS. RYBA-I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Five minutes or so, it should. MRS. RYBA-Okay. The third item, we talked about policies and procedures, try to finish that up. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. RYBA-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else anybody wants to discuss? MR. RINGER-What was the first item? I wasn’t writing it down. MRS. RYBA-Tonight’s resolution, for Queensbury Partners. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing else? MR. STROUGH-Nothing other than what I thought Bob suggested before. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Yes, we’re going to cover that one, too. Okay. That would keep us pretty busy that night. MRS. RYBA-Very. Seven o’clock? MR. MAC EWAN-Seven o’clock. MRS. RYBA-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Seven o’clock the ninth, on a Tuesday. MRS. RYBA-You’ll get an agenda. I’ll get an agenda out and make sure that everything’s in place. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other business? MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want any Counsel at that workshop? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, if you could be there. MR. SCHACHNER-I cannot be there, but we can get you Counsel, if you’d like. MR. MAC EWAN-If Cathi comes, we’ll get out early. MR. SCHACHNER-We got a notification last week of a possible workshop in the first week in January. This is first we hear about Tuesday the ninth. MRS. RYBA-So it did get sent out, then. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I don’t know. What we heard was the first week. MRS. RYBA-That was notification, the first week of January. MR. MAC EWAN-Typically, we’ve kind of like been gearing ourselves in adopting a policy if we have a workshop, no matter when we have the workshop, we try to have it on Tuesday nights, just to keep people consistent with a Tuesday night Planning Board. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine, you just won’t see me at them, but that’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathi will be there replacing you? MR. SCHACHNER-She’s out of town this week, but I will, I imagine she will. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if Cathi can’t be there, we’ll just reschedule the meeting. MR. RINGER-Site visits on the 20? The 23 and the 30 for the meetings? thrdth MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the third and fourth Tuesday. Site visits the Saturday before the first meeting. MR. RINGER-The 20. th MR. STROUGH-Do we want to sit down with the members of the Glens Falls Planning Board and discuss the things, as far as. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What time is the workshop? MR. RINGER-We don’t have any projects going right now that that resolution would apply to. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think I want to pursue that until we get some sort of official notification from the Town Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Have you not received copies of the Town Board resolution? MRS. RYBA-You should have gotten that, yes. MR. SCHACHNER-You were supposed to receive copies of the resolution. MR. RINGER-I did, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t get it. MR. RINGER-I got it a couple of weeks ago. MRS. RYBA-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It’s home. I’ve got it on my desk. It’s not here. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I’m quite sure the Planning Board was sent copies of the resolution that the Town Board adopted about a month ago, rough numbers. You say you got it. So I think the Town Board adopted it about a month ago. It’s a resolution, essentially, I’m paraphrasing, but it’s a resolution requiring applications of commercial or industrial nature of larger than 50,000 square foot buildings, located within 500 square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-I remember, but that’s not what you’re talking about. MR. STROUGH-Remember that night I went to the Town Board to see if they thought it was a good idea if we sat down with members of the Glens Falls Planning Board? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you asked that question, and the Town Board said, if you want to do it, do it. MR. STROUGH-Yes, so now I’m asking the Planning Board if they want to do it. MR. SCHACHNER-Fine. I don’t think that the Planning Board understands that that’s what you’re asking. MR. RINGER-Without having an agenda. MR. STROUGH-Well, no, just to discuss common things. I mean, it could be a half hour meeting, forty-five minute meeting. I just don’t know what their thinking is. I think introducing ourselves would be a good first start. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll reiterate it again. I don’t think I’m in a position to want to go ahead with this unless we have some sort of formal acknowledgement from the Town Board to do it. I mean, it was brought up in discussion with you, but I would rather have something come formally from them, 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 12/26/00) initiating it that we should sit down and have a discussion with the Glens Falls Planning Board, and I’m all for it, if that’s what they want us to do, but I would want them to give us the direction. MR. STROUGH-So you want the direction to come from the Town Board, asking us if we would meet with the Glens Falls Planning Board? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think, in fairness, I think the Town Board’s already addressed that, and the Town Board said it’s up to this Board. If you want to meet with them, meet with them. If you don’t, don’t. I mean, that’s what I, I got that pretty clear. MR. MAC EWAN-See, I’m not privy to exactly what was talked about and how things were left. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s basically what Mark just said. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, that’s how things were left at the Town Board level. MR. STROUGH-Well, if you don’t think it’s a good idea. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I didn’t say it’s not a good idea. I’m certainly not saying that whatsoever. MRS. RYBA-Should I just put that on the agenda for discussion, topics in general. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s have a quick discussion about it. At this point, I guess my only thought, what would be the advantage of sitting down and talking with them now? MR. STROUGH-I thought the advantages would be, one, is that, do they think this is a good idea, two, get to know them, introduce ourselves. Three would be there might be some areas of interest to them that we’re not aware of, that a discussion with them might make them aware of. There might be areas of concern to us that they’re not aware of. That’s just an open, introductory discussion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay Let’s talk about it a little bit more at our workshop. The 16, site visits. th Let me see your calendar, so we have it down pat. MRS. LA BOMBARD-January, the 13 is site visits. th MR. MAC EWAN-The 13 is the site visits. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-The 13 is a Saturday. The 16 is Planning Board, and the 23 is Planning ththrd Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And what time is the workshop? MR. MAC EWAN-Seven. MRS. RYBA-It would be seven. MR. MAC EWAN-Downstairs. Any other business? MRS. RYBA-That is it. MR. MAC EWAN-I move we adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 35