Loading...
2001-08-28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 28, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ANTHONY METIVIER ROBERT VOLLARO JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER LARRY RINGER PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. I’ll call tonight’s meeting to order. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 31-2001 TYPE II MARTIN FARBER & SUSAN FARBER PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: LITTLE & O’CONNOR ZONE: WR-3A LOCATION: ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A BOAT COVER WITH SUNDECK AND STAIRS REPLACING A LARGER BOATHOUSE. PURSUANT TO SECTION 179-16 PRIVATE BOATHOUSE AND COVERED DOCK REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 55-2001 LGPC, APA, LG CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/8/01 TAX MAP NO. 1-1-10 LOT SIZE: N/A SECTION: 179-16 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 31-2001. Martin Farber & Susan Farber, Meeting Date: August 22, 2001 “Project Description and Site Overview: The applicant proposes replacing a covered boathouse with a sundeck. The applicant was informed the replacement of the boathouse roof with a sundeck is a site plan review use, see June 21, 2001 letter. The applicant has removed all existing boathouse roofs and a portion of the dock. The applicant’s letter explains in detail the alteration to the boathouse, dated August 8, 2001. The applicant is not changing the location of the existing dock configuration. The original covers were two roof structures. One roof structure was 400 +/- square feet covering one boat slip and the second roof structure was 1,311 +/- square feet covering two boat slips. The proposed surface of the sundeck not including the eaves is 784 square feet (28 x 28). The applicant has indicated the sundeck is no higher than the maximum 14 feet allowed for the rail.” MRS. MOORE-The only comment that I have is in regards to the size of the actual sundeck. It has been reduced, due to the Area Variance that was granted the previous week. It is now 392 square feet versus 784 square feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. O'CONNOR-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent Dr. Farber and Susan Farber. I apologize that they aren’t here. They’re taking one of their children to their first year of school, and today was the day to do it. So they could not be here. Basically, what they have been attempting to do is replace two boat covers with one boat cover, and make the replacement in part a sundeck. I’ll give you a couple of photos. I don’t know what you have in your packet. The area of those other boat covers is approximately 1700 square feet. The area of the boat cover that’s replaced, that we now have permission, or we’ve 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) sought the variance for, is about 1,000 feet. As part of the variance process, and the reason that we sought a variance was because this is a dock that was built many, many years ago, probably before zoning. It had an extensive crib system to it. We, I believe, had testimony, at the variance hearings, that to relocate this dock, move it in to the center of the property, which would have eliminated the need for a variance, would cost probably about $70,000, just the removal process of taking out what was there and reestablishing the cribs. We’ve gone through the variance process, went to the County Planning Board. The County Planning Board recommended both the variance and site plan approval of the application. The variance itself, just for background, is if you take a projection of the property line out into the lake, the dock structure itself is within 20 feet of that line as it’s projected out into the lake. The compromise, if you will, that was made at the time of the variance application was to cut the sundeck in two. So rather than have a sundeck 28 feet by 28 feet, it would be 14 by 28 feet, and it would be entirely outside of that 20 foot line. It would be entirely in front of just the Farber’s property. I have plans that we drew hastily and didn’t get into the original filing with the Planning Board, but we did file with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Okay. I think Staff has one copy of these. This would be a wood structure. The sundeck, as I said, will be 14 by 28 feet, and it’ll sit on the end of the dock structure that’s within the property. The outside of the structure will be a mansard roof, and as you can see from the first page of the plans that we have submitted to you, it will have a three phase roof or a three sided roof. There won’t be a great deal of pitch. It does comply with the height requirements of both the Lake George Park Commission and the Town of Queensbury. The second page is the entrance side of the dock structure, if you will look at it. That’s where the boats will come in to. This is a traffic pattern that is well established. It’s been there for the last 30, 40, 50 years. At one time I understand that maybe there was more than one property that had an interest in this dock, and that may be the reason it was built then where it was built. If you take a look at that side, you will see the mansard roof, or part of the mansard roof, and you will see the railing. The railing will be the maximum height of 12 feet for the dock structure, and it will be stepped back as it runs to the outside edges of the dock. If you look at the third page, that is one of the sides, whether it’s the shore side or the lake side. Bob Sutliff has joined me at the table. I can’t really tell you, but that’s what it’ll look like from both the shore and the lake side, and there’s two photos of that. The last photo, if you will, shows you how the sundeck is placed, if you will, over the top of the last cribbing or the last portion of the boat cover. The steps to the sundeck come off on the Farber side of the dock structure. They go down to the dock itself. They are not a land bridge. This is the type of material that will be used in the construction. It is the system of construction that will be used. Those last couple of photographs that I handed are not photographs of this construction, but they are the similar construction, and they are construction, I think that you approved for Mr. Wall, in a recent application. I’m sorry, Wall’s dock is not in Queensbury. They were approved recently in Lake George. He has a lot that’s split. I think you looked at some other part of his application. MR. MAC EWAN-What scale did you use to draw these maps, or these plans? BOB SUTLIFF MR. SUTLIFF-This was revised afterwards, because of, we couldn’t use the whole, we wanted a setback of 20 foot, so we weren’t encroaching on the neighbors. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you have in your application two tissue copies or two thin copies, like almost a mylar. That’s the draftsman. I think there’s a scale on that. MR. RINGER-Three sixteenths of an inch. MR. MAC EWAN-So these are basically, three-sixteenths of an inch you’ve got on there, Larry? MR. RINGER-Yes, three-sixteenths of an inch. MR. MAC EWAN-So basically what you did was just trace these over, right? MR. O'CONNOR-I believe so, and change the sundeck structure significantly in cutting it in half. The top of the railing, as I indicated, will be 12.2 feet from the dock top. The top of the sundeck is 9.2 feet, and the opening below the apron is 7 feet 6 inches. There was an engineering report that was also submitted as part of the application, that gave you those heights, and those heights have been maintained, and I think that’s basically our application, unless you have questions of us. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-The only thing that I had is a clarification, in the Albert Squires Engineering report. He talks, on the second page, not counting the title page, I guess it might be the third page in, it starts with the Farber boathouse, 33 Antigua Drive, Queensbury, New York, Sketch Plan, Boathouse for Planning Review Only. In the middle of that paragraph, he says elevation of the top of boathouse to be 10.4 feet above mean high water level. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. O'CONNOR-The mean high water mark is not, he did the sketching and did the 12.2 in the same graphic. MR. STROUGH-So that’s an error. MR. O'CONNOR-I believe it is, in that it’s a conflict. Yes. The Queensbury Ordinance allows 14 feet, I think 18 feet if you have a pitched roof on a dock. The Lake George Park Commission is 14 feet. MR. STROUGH-So I think what he meant to say was 12.2 feet, or 14 feet above. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Fourteen feet above the high water table. MR. O'CONNOR-And that was also submitted, and the size of that deck that’s on there has been compromised. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I see. MR. O'CONNOR-I would stipulate for your record. MR. STROUGH-Why was it the Zoning Board of Appeals wanted that deck surface area reduced? Did they give a reason? MR. O'CONNOR-The neighbor to the east objected to the size of the deck, didn’t object. The neighbor is here and probably can speak better for themselves than I can. They didn’t object to the boat cover. They objected to activity within this 20 foot buffer area, and it was a compromise that Mr. Farber was willing to do. MR. STROUGH-It seemed that the deck itself would be less visually obtrusive than the roof. MR. O'CONNOR-If you visited the site, you’re going to recall that probably whatever is there doesn’t block any view, because of the difference in elevation of the homes that are upland. They’re quite a bit elevated over and above the dock structures. In fact, that’s why the Farbers are attempting to have a sundeck down there for a place that they can have some activity, because they’ve got walkways down in there, steps down in there, not a real flat area, other than being right with the boats, and they’re trying to separate themselves from that. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and the only other question that I had is, I noticed in one of these, that the setback distances referred to the corner posts of the deck, of the dock? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Is that standard? Don’t we use the structure itself, the closest point of that structure to the property line as set back? MRS. MOORE-I understand it to be the closest point of the structure. MR. O'CONNOR-We asked that question of Craig, and Craig said that the apron was like the eaves on a roof, and that he measured everything from the dock posts. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, that’s all the questions I have. Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I’m all set. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, just to clear up something. On the sketch of the Farber boathouse, to speak to John’s question, the dock surface, the elevation of the dock surface, is 321.12, and the top of the railing is 12’2”, the distance to the top of the railing. So that gives him an elevation of 333.14, against 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) the max allowed of 334.20. So he’s within the max envelope. That’s the way I read the engineer’s note here. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve not had a question before. I’ve not had that question. So we think that we’re in full compliance. MR. VOLLARO-You are. I just wanted to talk to John’s question about the height. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that. I’ll tell you what, just give me a little brief on what the ZBA did with that, what the sum total of the ZBA variance? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The ZBA granted an Area Variance to allow us to build this boat cover within a 20 foot setback, if you will, of an extension into the lake. They allowed us to build it 7.10 from the line, gave us relief on the front corner of 13.2 feet. Do you have a survey within your packet? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll take a look and see. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, there’s one in the packet, right there. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I have a survey drawing, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the survey of the Farber property, you have a little bit of an anomaly, in that most of their property line that adjoins the Mackenzie’s runs pretty well parallel to the structures. The last 17 feet comes back toward their property, and by our interpretation of the Ordinance, we’ve extended a line off that 17 foot course out into the lake. You don’t go by setback figures and what not, but part of the Zoning Board presentation, Staff had a question that we were doing everything by scale. So we had VanDusen and Steves actually go up and set the line out into the lake, locate the dock in the lake, set up the 20 foot line, and then we worked with that as to what the setbacks were. I’m not sure what, you may have a copy, and this is why I was thinking of Coulter and McCormack. You may have a copy of the Coulter & McCormack survey. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a survey that I really, if you look at the survey I’ve got, it’s pretty tough to discern anything from it. MR. MAC EWAN-Did that answer your question, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll ask you guys to give up the table for a second here and we’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to come up and do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I have two written comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I have, this is from the Mackenzie’s. This says, “We have reviewed the plans for the proposed boat cover. We have no objections.” And then another statement. “We have reviewed the plans and have no objections”, and that’s from Ann Brown. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. O'CONNOR-For the purpose of your record, those were consent forms. The Mackenzie’s live on the east side of the property. After they signed that, they did have an objection to the project. They attended the Zoning Board, and it was at that time that the compromise was made. The Browns are on the other side of the property. They are the Antigua Point people, and they had no objection to it in either form. Mr. Brown wrote a letter, and that was in the Zoning Board record, as well as his wife’s signature at that time. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other correspondence, comments? Anyone from the audience? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments you wanted to add? MR. O'CONNOR-No, but I’d like to get the photos back if I can. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything from Staff? Other questions from Board members, comments? Do I hear a motion, one way or the other, please? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 31-2001 MARTIN FARBER & SUSAN FARBER, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 31-2001 Martin Farber & Susan Farber. Applicant proposes construction of a boat cover w/sundeck and stairs replacing larger boathouse. Pursuant to Section 179-16 Private Boathouse and Covered Dock require Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 1-1-10. Lot size: N/A. Section: 179-16. Cross Reference: AV 55-2001, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 7/25/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/17/01: 8/28/01 Staff Notes 8/28/01 Revised drawings submitted by M. O’Connor – sheets 1-5 8/21/01 Notice of Public Hearing 8/15/01 ZBA resolution 8/8/01 PB & ZBA from M. O’Connor 8/8/01 Warren County Planning Board - Approved 8/7/01 M. Farber from M. Gallagher of the LGPC – Notice of Need for Permit 8/1/01 Meeting Notice 8/01/01 Picture of Farber site 7/31/01 L. Moore from M. O’Connor – transmitting copies of eng. report 7/27/01 E-mail to M. O’Connor from L. Moore requesting copies of the eng. report WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 8/28/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, for the revised drawings (dated 8/28/01, sheets 1-5). 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) Duly adopted this 28th day of August 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2001 TYPE II SCOTT & CAROLE HUNT PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: PAUL E. CUSHING ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 15 SUNSET LANE, ASSEMBLY POINT APPLICANT PROPOSES ADDITIONS TO THE SOUTH END OF EXISTING BUILDING, ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING 1 FLOOR, ST ALTERATIONS/ADDITIONS TO 2 FLOOR AND RENOVATIONS/REPLACEMNT ND OF EXISTING DECKS. EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES IN A CEA REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SEPTIC VAR./AV 54-2001 AP A, LG PARK CEA WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/8/01 TAX MAP NO. 8-9-7 LOT SIZE: 0.184 AC./SECTION: 179-16, 179- 79, 179-60 PAUL CUSHING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 33-2001, Scott & Carole Hunt, Meeting Date: August 28, 2001 “Project Description and Site Overview: The applicant proposes alterations and additions to an existing non-conforming structure. The existing home is two stories with 1,316 square feet of living space. The applicant proposes increase the total living space by 585 +/- square feet. The existing home has one bedroom on the first floor and three bedrooms on the second floor. The second story improvements include a fifth bedroom, a study/office area, and a bathroom. The applicant has received approval for a holding tank that would accommodate five bedrooms, Septic Variance #23-2001. The building footprint increases from 924 square feet to 1,116 square feet. The footprint provides additional space to an existing family room area and adds a new sitting room. The applicant is applying for an area variance for setback relief due to the footprint increase (resolution attached).” MRS. MOORE-The only comments I have is that the applicant did receive their Area Variance, and that the building footprint increases from 924 square feet to 1,116 square feet, and the applicant also received a septic variance, #23-2001, in regards to a holding tank which would accommodate five bedrooms. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. CUSHING-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Paul Cushing. I’m an architect. I, too, have a situation where my clients, the Hunts, are involved in a college delivery situation, and they are unable to be here this evening. This existing residence is on one of the lots of the Shore Colony, you know, on Assembly Point. This subdivision pre-dated the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. It’s a very small lot, a little less than 80 feet by 100 feet. It was built in 1958. The family has grown. That’s why we’re requesting the addition on the second floor, to fill out that half of the building, and two small additions on the southern end of the building. We requested and received approval for holding tanks, recognizing that this is a temporary building, and cannot be used on a year round basis because of the State Health Department laws. We requested the variances for the two small, three small additions, plus the fact that when the building was originally sited on the lot, it would no longer comply with the existing zoning regulations. The Zoning Board saw fit to approve our applications, and we are here. One of the things that they had asked me during the process of the Area Variance was why did you not put the addition door on the lower level, and our comment on that was the fact that it is a very small lot. We did not want to increase the footprint situation, which would have exceeded the 65% percentage ratio for permeability, that’s exactly why we did what we did, as shown on the drawings. I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, in reviewing the information and the comments that were made during the Town Board meeting, it’s pretty obvious that the property can only be used as a seasonal residence. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. CUSHING-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So I think because of that I really didn’t have any concerns with the density. So I’m all set with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-It looks pretty straightforward to me. I didn’t see anything in here at all. The holding tank satisfied everything I had concerns about, septic systems, and the fact that it’s a part time residence. I didn’t have any further questions on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I didn’t have any questions on it, either, except that maybe in the resolution we should put there, again, that it is to be approved only on a seasonal basis. I mean, all the correspondence says that, but we should probably have it in the resolution, too, if we get to that. I didn’t have anything other than that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John? MR. STROUGH-The only question I had after reviewing this application was determining the setback. I see the corner of the house is almost right on the property line. MR. CUSHING-That’s correct, just a little shy of one foot off the property line. MR. STROUGH-But that’s not what they used for the setback when you got the relief from the Zoning Board, you used what I would call the front of the house. MR. CUSHING-It depended on where we were doing the addition. The additions are on the second floor closest to the road. So we had concerns with that aspect of it. The existing structure on that corner is .97 feet off the property line, and will remain so. That is the northwest corner of the building. The southwest corner also is existing and does not meet the setback requirements, and the addition on the south end for that corner actually is less nonconforming than the present situation, because of the angle. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but you received approval for those Variances. MR. CUSHING-Yes, we did. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Those were all the questions I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add, Mr. Cushing? MR. CUSHING-Nothing, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, anything? Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a resolution, please. MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll make a resolution to approve Site Plan 33-2001, Based on the resolution prepared by Staff. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, do we want to take Larry’s input on that? 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. RINGER-I’ve written it out, Chris, if you want me to read it here, and see if you agree with it. The application is approved as prepared by Staff with the following conditions. The application is approved with the understanding this is a seasonal residence and will continue to be a seasonal residence. MR. HUNSINGER-If you want to move it, I’ll second it. MR. RINGER-Is that all right? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-When you say seasonal, do you mean, or do you have to specify what season? MR. RINGER-I think the Zoning Ordinance defines seasonal. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, how many months. MR. RINGER-Whatever the Code says. The Code defines it. MR. CUSHING-It’s the Health Department law that says that you cannot use it for year round living. MR. RINGER-Yes, I realize that with the septic system. I just wanted to give another credence to our approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Here’s what I’d like to do. I’d like you to withdraw your motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-You introduced it, Chris seconded it. Let’s move it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2001 SCOTT & CAROLE HUNT, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 33-2001 Scott & Carole Hunt. Applicant proposes additions to south end of exiting building, alterations to existing 1 floor, st alterations/additions to 2 floor and renovations/replacement of existing decks. Expansion of non- nd conforming structure in a CEA requires Planning Board review and approval. Tax Map No. 8-9-7. Lot size: 0.184 acres. Section: 179-16, 179-79, 179-60. Cross Reference: Septic Variance and Area Variance 54-2001. WHEREAS, the application was received 7/25/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/24/01: 8/28/01 Staff Notes 8/21/01 Notice of Public Hearing 8/15/01 ZBA resolution 8/8/01 Warren County Planning Board 8/1/01 Meeting Notice 5/21/01 Town Board meeting minutes – Local Bd. of Health (Town Bd.) granting a variance to allow holding tanks WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 8/28/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan 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 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved based on the resolution prepared by Staff with the following condition: 1. The application is approved with the understanding this is a seasonal residence and will continue to be a seasonal residence. Duly adopted this 28th day of August 2001 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. Cushing. MR. CUSHING-Thank you. OLD BUSINESS: PUD SITE PLAN NO. 28-2001 TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF COURSE PROPERTY OWNER: TOW GOLF COURSE RESORT, INC., J. FEENEY AGENT: JIM MILLER ZONE: PUD LOCATION: BAY RD. TO LOCKHART MT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF THE NINE HOLE GOLF COURSE TO 18 HOLES. ANY ADDITION OR MODIFICATION TO A PUD REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 21-2000 APA – CLASS A PROJECT WARREN CO. PLANNING: 7/11/01 TAX MAP NO. 24-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.3 SECTION: 179-58 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on July 24 was tabled. th STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, PUD Site Plan No. 28-2001, Top of the World Golf Course, Meeting Date: August 28, 2001 “Project Description: The applicant was tabled at the July 24th Planning Board meeting for additional information in regards to stormwater, view shed, fertilizer maintenance, and traffic value for a 12 lot and an 18 hole golf course. Project Analysis (Section 179-38): Site Overview The applicant has supplied additional information as requested. Vehicle trip generation: 18-hole Golf Course ?? Golf Course -30 to 130 trips per hour per ITE ?? Golf Course varies because many urban golf courses include driving ranges to banquet facilities ?? Applicant’s engineer indicates 35 vehicle trips ends per hour for two months out of the year for a the 18-hole golf course Helen Mitchell Subdivision - ?? 12-lot single family home subdivision will generate 10 trip ends per hour View shed review: ?? The applicant provided a cross section map and a description of each cross section A, B, C. ?? Section A: New 10 hole, existing clear view from Lake George th ?? Section B: New 14 hole, Ridge Road view th 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) ?? Section C: Holes 3, 4, 5, and 6, Ridge Road will not be visible because of trees to be retained. Chemical Application program: ?? Adirondack Park Agency permitted (#86-332, 2/27/87) ?? Chemicals used (applied according to manufacture recommendations) Greens -wetting agent (LESCOFlo Granular) May o application, Greens and Tees - 5-2-4 21-4-11 and 14-0-26 Sustane May o –September Fairways - 30-5-10 and 21-3-21 Sustane May and August o Rough Areas –not fertilized o Road Maintenance agreement: ?? All arrangements are to be handled between the Association and the Golf Course Areas of Concern or Importance: The applicant has indicated that they are working with the Adirondack Park Agency Staff to amend the previous permit.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect, and I’m here with Jim Feeney, who is the owner of Top of the World Golf Resort. Since our last meeting here last month, we had submitted an application to the Adirondack Park Agency. We received a notice back of request for additional information, which I believe the Town was copied with. I was sort of happy to see most of the items they requested were the same things you had already requested. So we’ll probably just forward the same information along to them. In addition, they had made a reference for us to contact DEC and review the project for stormwater permit and any possible permits associated with the work. We have prepared that application and will be meeting with DEC next week to review that, and I was working with Tom Nace on that. So all of the stormwater information that has been previously prepared in the plans will be submitted to DEC. The additional information that was submitted, after last meeting, as requested by the Planning Board, I’d like to review that quickly. The chemical application program, you know, we submitted a summary of the applications that occur. You may recall we discussed that on the existing APA permit, there’s no applications of pesticides or herbicides allowed, without specific approval of AP A, and there has been no request to apply anything in the operation of the Course, and we assume that’ll continue. I also listed the fertilizer applications. The fairways are only fertilized twice a year, spring and fall. The tees and greens are fertilized monthly, six times a year, May through September, and we’ve listed the produce information of the fertilizers that are applied. In addition, I wanted to do some research to try to see if there was information available for leaching and runoff of fertilizers, and one of the pieces of information I found was by the USGA, working in conjunction with several universities, and I attached a copy of that to you, for you, in this submission, and the thing I found was most interesting in that, looking at the various test results, is the amount of runoff and leaching vary greatly from test site to test site, and, you know, what it comes down to is you actually could have less than one percent runoff if you used proper management and proper design, and I believe that’s the situation we’ve got, and if you looked at some of the specifics in there, they talked about over fertilizing at rates of 12 pounds of nitrogen per thousand square feet, and, you know, that lead to excessive runoff. The recommended applications is only one pound per thousand square feet, and that’s what’s used. They talk about using time released, slow release fertilizers which are always used, and they specifically made some recommendations in their report as to the ways to reduce the runoff and the leaching, and I believe, in looking through that report, you’ll see that we’ve used most of those. In addition, we have things like detention areas within the fairways and adjacent to all the greens, which wasn’t even mentioned in that report, which is, you know, additional protection. The next item had to do with the visual assessment, and we’ve prepared some, I mean, just some additional sections, and as a matter of fact, I think it was interesting, the sections we prepared were the same exact sections that were requested by, specifically, by the APA, and basically we went through in more detail what we had done preliminarily in the first study. This overall map is, you know, the USGS map is one inch equals two thousand feet, and this shows the area of the site. There is no view to the site from anything from the west, because French Mountain is sort of a ridge that runs to the west of us. We’re on a lower elevation on the east side, and even the existing townhouses for the Top of the World townhouse development is at a higher elevation than the Golf Course. So any views from the line straight northwest are screened by the top of the mountain. So there was actually only three potential views of the site. The one from the lake would be from a point approximately at the northern end of Assembly Point, looking back at the site across from where we propose the new tenth hold, which is looking back almost looking in reverse from where the overlook is up there now, back towards the clubhouse, and even if we drew an additional section, 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) over more to the east, it would be very similar. So we just prepared that one from the lake. Then two additional sections were drawn looking from Ridge Road back at the site, and the two areas that were selected there was one where the northern most one, Section B, was where that 14 hold was th being developed, which actually came down the hill, and then Section C, which cut in an area where the four holes furthest to the south of the property were being developed, and the sections, the vertical scale on these, is exaggerated two times, because otherwise you draw these sections, they’re very flat, but we didn’t want to distort it any more than that. You can see Section A, this is the one, obviously, from the lake. The property line of Top of the World Golf Course is this line right here, and that’s where the area for the new tenth hole is located, and you can see this area is fairly cleared, and the grade drops down. Route 9L is down in this area, and here’s the shore of the lake. This line is one mile from this site. So we’re over a mile from the shoreline, and then out to the lake, and I think what this section shows is there is some potential view. This area now is the existing meadow. The golf hole that’s being built there is a Par Three and it’s going to be located in that existing meadow, and the clearing exists. So I think, you know, from the lake, you’re probably two miles out, looking back at the site. I can’t imagine you can tell the difference between the existing meadow that’s there and the golf course fairway that’s there, because there’ll be no clearing, and so I think the view will be essentially unchanged. You could also see from this section, which is interesting, that French Mountain is really more of a ridge that runs north/south. You can see as we come here, this little area here is the existing Clubhouse. As you get up to the top of the hill here, it really starts to flatten out. So any view from the lake, the only area you really see is out there where the existing overlook is, and any of the golf course that’s located further to the south, and it won’t be visible. The two sections that were taken looking from Ridge Road, from the right looking back at the site, Section B is the northern most one, which is looking back at the site towards the new hole that’s being constructed, and one of the things that is interesting, you’ll see, you know, French Mountain, this is actually the top of the mountain. We’re down on sort of a flatter area along the mountain where that stream comes through, and so, you know, those trees above us remain, and we’re quite a ways down the mountain. The view, again, here’s the one mile line. So actually over to Ridge Road, again, is about two miles away. You can see it’s fairly flat. The west side of Ridge Road, there’s probably some houses in there. A lot of it is wooded, and then as you get out to the Dunham’s Bay marsh area, this is the marsh that you would look across. As you come across the marsh and the slope starts to rise up, you can see where Bay Road is fairly close, paralleling the marsh, and then you come up along the east side of French Mountain. There’s another small stream that traverses the ridge to the south, and you can see that’s where Lockhart Mountain Road comes up, basically follows that valley. So our property starts right here, and that fourteenth hole would be located in this area, and because that hole runs down the slope, we were concerned that would be the most visible area, but what happens when we develop the section, actually, we’re along the east side of Lockhart Mountain Road, there’s actually a little high point up here, which really will screen part of that. That’s one fairway that comes down. We’re looking at about 50 to 60 yards wide clearing, and I think what this section shows is there may be some potential views of that, but a lot of it’s going to be cleared by, or going to be screened by this hill to the east, and this hill, there’s several houses and things along there, now. Obviously, people built along the east side of Lockhart Mountain Road for some of the views there. So there may be some limited views, but I think between the vegetation in this area, the vegetation on the sides of that hole, and plus the vegetation that’s adjacent to Ridge Road, it’ll be, again, very limited. The other section was drawn to the southernmost portion of the property, and again, it’s very similar to that, you know, looking at Ridge Road . Actually, just to the south of where I drew that section, there’s some subdivisions in there. So there are some houses, basically, in this area. They’re essentially lower than Ridge Road. So it would be a better vantage point from Ridge Road. Again, you look across, you look down across Dunham’s Bay marsh. Now here’s Bay Road. You can see where Lockhart Mountain Road showed up in this section three times because that’s where the road’s snaking up the hill, fairly steep in through there, and as you see, you get up, this pond indicates the, where that stream comes through the property on the Golf Course, and in this area, where the section was taken, there’s actually four holes, two on each side of the stream, where clearing would occur, but you can see what happens. These holes are designed to run with the ridge, and in a northerly and southerly direction. So any view from that east, from the east side, there’d be large trees along each side of the holes, and between the holes. So there’d be no view of the clearings. So, you know, I think that the sections sort of conclude what we did in the preliminary analysis of the site for visual impact, is that, you know, there may be some sections of clearing visible, but it would be very limited and there’ll be no structures. The next item was the road maintenance agreement, which was submitted and speaks for itself. The next item was the trip generation. The trip generation was completed by Tom Nace, and in looking at the trip generation of golf courses, there was a broad range, and it ranged up from about 30 cars per hour to 130, and in looking at the different courses that they based their counts on, the larger numbers were ones that had tennis courts and pools and banquet facilities. So there was a lot of other things, other than just the golf course. We did an investigation into the existing tee times and number of golfers now, on the nine hole course, that’s a peak, and the number, it looks like it’s about 20 trips per hour, currently, and that would be like a Saturday morning peak, and then, you know, consistent with the lower end of the 18 hole courses, we’re looking at a final trip generation of 35 per hour, or an increase of 15 per hour peak. We were also asked to look at the Mitchell subdivision, and look at the impact of that. At the time we looked at that, I met with Matt Steves. It was a twelve lot 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) subdivision, of which two of the residences existed, and were occupied. So the twelve lot subdivision actually represented an additional 10 lots. My understanding is now, today, in talking to Matt, that that’s been reduced down from twelve to eleven lots, in dealing with the APA review. So it would be nine additional, but nonetheless, we used it at ten, and looking at the ITE trip generations, the ten residences would be an increase of ten trips per hour peak. So we were looking at a total, between the two, of twenty-five trips ins per hour, peak time, and then, again, in further looking at the site, Lockhart Mountain Road, it accesses onto Bay Road, and onto 9L, 9N, and the lake road, whichever, 9L. I always get those confused. So it would actually be split. Some of the trips would be people heading to Lake George or heading to 9L to the Northway, and some of them would be heading to Bay Road, coming down to Queensbury and to Glens Falls. So, looking at that, you know, the 25 trips would be split essentially in half. The other thing, the Golf Course we’re looking at, you know, a summer use. There’s no use whatsoever during the winter, and then finally one of the requirements was that we would work with C.T. Male and answer any of their comments, and we finally were successful in doing that. Tom Nace submitted some additional stormwater calculations, and we submitted additional information and clarifications, and those type of things, and we got a letter from Jim Houston of C.T. Male, agreeing, concurring with our responses. There’s several items that we have in letter form, clarifications on some storm drainage, some additional details and things which will be added into the final drawings, per our discussions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is that it? Cathy, we’ll start with you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I went through everything, Jim, as thoroughly as I could, and I just didn’t know what questions to ask. I mean, I guess what I’m trying to say is that it was pretty much in detail, and it was pretty conclusive, and I’m assuming all the information is correct. So, right now I think you’ve done a great job. I don’t really have any questions. I think I understand it as much as I’m going to understand it. I think you’ve done what we asked you to do. So, I’d like to hear what the rest of my Board members have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I just want to get some clarification on the chemical application program. The first paragraph in there talks about the existing nine hole golf course operates with restrictions set by a permit, permit issued by the Adirondack Park Agency, and we have the number of permit and so on. Now it says that the permit specifically addresses pesticides and herbicides as follows, toxic chemicals and so on. What they talk about, until such time as the sponsor documents to the satisfaction of the Agency that the pesticides will not have an undue adverse impact on the environment. Understood that. Now, the next paragraph says no request has been made to the APA to apply herbicides or pesticides, and it is anticipated that this practice will continue. That means, I’m confused. MR. MILLER-Well, that may be a little confusing. I think what we meant is to date there’s been no request made for any application of pesticides or herbicides, and what I would anticipate is that when we get approval from the APA, that the same items will apply, that no herbicides or pesticides will be applied to the new holes without specific written request and environmental review, and, again, I guess since there hasn’t been a need to, hopefully there won’t be a need to again, in the future, but it would be the same regulations, Bob, I believe, is what we’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was trying to make sense out of the words. It says the terms of the permit will most likely be extended to include the proposed nine hole expansion, and when I read these two, they just didn’t make good sense to me, when I read them. MR. MILLER-I apologize. That’s me, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Are those your words? MR. MILLER-Yes, those are mine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then I still don’t understand them. MR. MILLER-Now that you read them back, I was a little confused, too. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, all right. I don’t have anything else, other than, I guess, when Tom did the analysis on the road, I was looking for that to be quantified more in terms of can the road handle this. I mean, Tom made a good analysis of how many cars and it’s only going to be two months out the year, and I read that whole thing. Just my question was, does Lockhart Mountain Road support the cumulative impact, and I didn’t see that analysis anywhere. MR. MILLER-Well, I think the request that we saw there was to show that the trip generation, you know, obviously it’s very involved to go out and analyze the road to see what it would handle. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. VOLLARO-Well, all I’m saying is you take what the road does now, in terms of handling traffic before this nine hole expansion, and then apply the nine hole expansion analysis on top of that and see what’s the total cumulative impact on the road, and then make a judgement as to whether that road, you’re right, we don’t know how much that road can handle. MR. MILLER-I think what the projections say, though, is we’re looking at 25 cars, peak, per day, that’s peak. So it goes down from there, and you’ve got half of them going in each direction, and you’re looking at 12 cars per hour, and that’s during the summer months. I mean, the biggest problem with that road, obviously, is the hills and the curves and the gradients of the, you know, the bigger problems are obviously in the winter. So none of the Golf Course would impact that at all. So I think, in looking at 12 cars per hour in each direction, it’s really not a significant increase. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not. It’s not a significant increase. I just was looking for a statement of that kind for the record, that shows how, what the cumulative impact, because I’m looking at the letter that was submitted by Lionel Barthold, of 10 Woods Point Lane in Lake George, which talks a little bit to that cumulative impact on the road, and I think his letter was so well put and deserved some sort of analysis, a little more than what we’ve got here. Because I think he brought forth some good points, and his point was, basically, cumulative impact of that road. I think the stormwater runoff has been taken care of. I looked at that. The visual impact you did a good job on. I don’t have any problem with that. Those are my only comments on this thing, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-What has Male and Tom Nace got to complete yet, and how are they going to be worked into the plans? MR. MILLER-We’re all set. Everything is all set. There’s a couple of things, I had written a letter earlier, and a lot of what I had written was really clarification. Jim had asked a lot of questions about the existing septic and water and things which really didn’t have anything to do with the golf course, and he had some confusion about who owned the community septic system for the condo development, and we don’t. So we went through that. He was looking for some things like showing a delineation of the original 71 acres, and what new acreage was being added. That was actually on there. It just wasn’t labeled very clearly. So it was mostly things like that. It was just a matter, he talked about the grass parking area, the existing topography showed it as being fairly steep to use as an overflow lot, and we agreed that the best way to handle that would be by a note saying that it would be re-graded, as necessary. He also talked about looking at a couple of areas and wanting to see some additional silt fence, which we agreed to, maybe ask some questions about the limits of the stone swale versus the grass swale. It wasn’t labeled on the plans as to where they were, and what we agreed to do is obviously things like that is best made in the field, is that the New York State Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control by the Soil Conservation Service, you know, they say, a grass, once you get over eight percent, you shouldn’t use a grass swale anymore. You should go to stones. We were going to reference that document as a guideline, and those were the kinds of things. So they were like notes to be added. As far as what Tom Nace had done, they pretty much reviewed the stormwater calculations, and he asked that, we had shown where we had shown detention basins and we showed contour lines. He felt that that wasn’t very clear to a contractor building it, that what he wanted to see was a table that basically said which size each of those detention basins would be, and we generated a table and sent it to him, and that just simply would be added to the drawing, and he also wanted to see a detail of an overflow swale in those detention areas, and we talked about whether it would be stone or grass, and I convinced him that using stone on a golf course was probably not a good idea. So he agreed to a grass overflow area. So we provided him a detail with that, and that would be added, and the other thing was a note that if during the construction of the detention basins that things like rock or non granular, non well draining soils were encountered, that the contractor should contact the engineer to go out and relocate or reshape the basin, so it would function properly. So they were things we agreed to, and I think they’re pretty straightforward in the letters and things, and we would add those all to the plan. MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything else. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing, although I would like to compliment you on the chemical application program. I think you did a wonderful job on it, and we should look into this in the future with some applications, because it does answer a lot of questions for us. MR. MILLER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. John? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. STROUGH-Well, Tony, it made a lot of questions for me. Okay. Let’s start right off with that, chemical application program. Now you do mention that you don’t use pesticides and herbicides, and I’m going to assume that you don’t use fungicides. Okay, because that wasn’t clarified. MR. MAC EWAN-Was that a yes, Jim? JIM FEENEY MR. FEENEY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We don’t record nods. Sorry. MR. STROUGH-All right. Greens and tees are fertilized monthly, from May until September, using sustain, three types of sustain. Now when you fertilize, that’s where I was confused. I see a sustain 5-2-4, which is, what, five is the nitrogen, two is the phosphate and four is the potassium? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and a 21-4-11, and a 14-0-24. Now, there’s three different kinds. Now when you fertilize monthly, do you like use each type? MR. MILLER-No. You use different ones at different times of the year. It typically, typically what happens is, in the springtime, you’re getting a lot of top growth, the plants. So you typically fertilize with fertilizers that have higher nitrogen levels. It creates green on the plants, and then in the fall, you go out and you aerate and you put on a fertilizer that’s higher in phosphate, I believe, obviously, the potassium and phosphates portion is mixed up, but that promotes root growth, and the idea with the fall fertilization, and you see the advertisements for winterizing fertilizers. That’s what that is. This time of year, as the weather gets cool, the plants will start to spread. They’ll put out root growth, which makes for healthy grass in the spring. So what happens is those fertilizers are adjusted, you know, seasonally for the needs of the turf. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now I assume that also you use the same sustained fertilizers on the fairways? Do you fertilize those twice? MR. MILLER-Yes, it’s the same thing. They fertilize in the spring and in the fall typically, and for those reasons. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The sustained is just a brand name? MR. STROUGH-It’s a brand that is, it’s a slow dissolving type of fertilizer because it’s coated. MR. MILLER-Yes. It’s a slow release fertilizer. It’s 70 to 100% slow release, and that’s so it all doesn’t wash off right away. It stays available to the plants between applications. MR. STROUGH-And in the application report, you refer to the less one percent. I believe that’s less than one, when they read through a moderate rainfall cycle, etc., etc., and a certain type of soil, that at a four foot level, and you’re going to read a less than one percent nitrogen level being contributed by those fertilizers after a period of time. I think it’s one year, but it doesn’t address itself well to runoff situations. I mean, because it doesn’t address slope at all, and it doesn’t seriously address the type of soil that we’re talking about. It does talk about sandy soil, and it talks about sandy soil mixed with peat, especially for the green area, and that helps retain the nitrogen. So you’re going to have less nitrogen release there. So, you know, it didn’t address itself to the runoff so well, but I’ll get to all that later. Now, I’m still on the chemical application program. Okay. The greens and the tees are monthly. So that’s four times a year. MR. MILLER-No, that’s six times. I think it’s May to September. So it’s six. MR. STROUGH-Okay. You may be right, and the fairways are done twice, okay, and you’ve explained the different types, and, okay, with the greens and tees, the sustained says to use three to four times per season, right, instead of six? According to the instructions that you supplied me, by sustained. They say that only three or four times a year you need to fertilize the greens, of course that’s with the lower nitrogen. That’s the 5-2-4. MR. MILLER-Well, what happens with the nitrogen, typically what they do, when you have the lower numbers, that’s a percentage, and typically the applications are based on trying to put a pound per thousand square feet. So if you use a fertilizer with lower percentage, simply you’d apply more, because there’s a lot of inert additives to it. So if you use higher percentages, you use a lesser application. That’s just adjusted. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you going with this? MR. STROUGH-Well, where I’m going with this, because one of the concerns expressed earlier was an empirical analysis above how many pounds of nitrogen are we talking potentially could end up in the Dunham’s Bay, therefore Lake George Watershed area? So, I noticed in the specs that they gave us by the sustained people, you know, I’m reading what they recommend, one pound of nitrogen per 1,000 square feet for the 35-10. Then it gets three to five applications per year. You get a half a pound per 1,000 square feet of the 21-4-11. That gets monthly applications. You get 3.8 pounds per thousand square feet of the 14-0-26, but the timing on that varies, depending on the need and the conditions of the fairways and the greens, and also with the 21-3-21, which gets about 4.7 pounds per thousand square feet and that gets three to five applications per year. So if we wanted to do an empirical analysis, you certainly gave us the information to do so. MR. MILLER-Yes, but, John, all those applications don’t happen. What happens is they do the six per year, and they use, they don’t use the same fertilizer each application. They use different ones. So, you know, it’s just the six times and those different ones get used. So where it says for one of those type of fertilizers you should do it twice a month or something, they don’t really apply it like that, but it is applied at the rates recommended by the manufacturers. MR. MAC EWAN-But everything on that list is not all dumped on those fairways and greens throughout the course of the year. MR. STROUGH-Well, he just clarified that. That’s what I needed. Okay. Just for the public record. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-All right. Now, the visual analysis, now the Adirondack Park Agency asked you to provide two line of site profiles from Lake George. MR. MILLER-Yes, I had prepared this one before, and when I said when I went through this, I think if they look at this map, you know, because of the way the ridge comes out, and the townhouses, anything from this portion of the lake over is not visible. It’s clearly screened. So the only view is this corridor of the lake here, exactly. If you stood up, if you’ve been to the site, you know the view you get up the lake, that’s what you’re going to see. So to develop a, if I were to draw a second section from here, from three miles away, it would look essentially the same. So that’s why we only prepared the one here. In my opinion, it’s this one, I’m sorry. In my opinion, this is the worst view, right from the tip of Assembly Point looking back. That’s where the new hole is going to be most visible. I think what happens, as you go more to the east, there’s wooded property off of our site further to the east that would actually start to screen some of that. So what I tried to do was take the worst representative view, and I think it shows there’s really no impact. So if I drew another one, it would essentially be the same thing. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So you think that the APA is going to, that’s okay, because you made this up before the APA made this request? MR. MILLER-Yes, I did, and actually when I saw that, when I submit the information back to them, I’m going to explain to them just what I explained to you, and just show the one section. If they make me do another one, I’ll do another one. It’s going to show the same thing. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thank you. Now the amount of land affected. Now you put in your stormwater management report 33.5 acres, but in the short term environmental assessment form we have 30 acres, and. MR. MILLER-The 33.5 was an accurate number that was calculated from the grading plan from clearing line to clearing line. So that was a more accurate number. MR. STROUGH-I would think so. MR. MILLER-Where the first number was an estimate that was done earlier on and wasn’t revised. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MILLER-The stormwater information was provided later. MR. STROUGH-Just a clarification. All right. I went through in the stormwater, and, you know, overall, after looking at it, I gave this a close up look at the flow, the green area, where it’s going, and it’s generally pretty good. I mean, the detention basins seem to be falling in about the right areas for the most part, after a real close look. For example, I even graded them, hole number thirteen I thought was very good. So was hole fourteen. Hole fifteen I thought was fair. Sixteen was fair. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) Hole Number Three was good, although but limited in some of the fairway. Number Four I didn’t see any drainage basin/catch basins near the tee. Hole Number Six I thought was good, overall, considering the geographic limitations that you’re dealing with, but one of the other questions that came up in the prior meeting was, you know, some of the runoff, of course, because of the geography or what have you, is not going to be entirely caught, and some of it will be absorbed by the wooded area surrounding it, but, you know, there was a question of how much, but overall, and I was kind of skeptical. I gave it a close look, and the detention basins are located well, and the question remains, are the detention basins big enough to hold various stormwater events, 25, 50 year events, and I guess Tom Nace has given that a close look and has given it a stamp of approval, and so did C.T. Male. MRS. MOORE-You received a C.T. Male comment. MR. MILLER-Yes, Tom did an analysis, hole by hole, and based on the 50 year storm, which is what’s typically submitted to the Town, the runoff, because of the basins, after development, will be less than what occurs now from the wooded areas, and one of the concerns that C.T. Male had was some sizing for the proposed culverts, and he has indicated, looking at the runoff for those, that those proposed culverts were all adequate as sized. MR. STROUGH-All right. So, in the analysis of giving this a whole hard look, and I did, too, that one of the concerns, by one of the citizens was that, well, what’s going to be the total nutrient budget contribution from this project, and it seems rather minimal, from this perspective. Okay. Parking lot. Okay. We’ve got 105 spaces. Okay, North, I’m on C-2. Okay. The upper right hand corner, which would be the northwest corner, the parking lot. MR. MILLER-Yes, this is north. MR. STROUGH-That’s north. So go to the northwest corner, point to it, would you please? Now you see where those two spaces in the furthest corner, that space and the space to the west of that? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Is that going to work okay? MR. MILLER-Yes. I think that’s cleared up. What this is, pretty much the parking in this back corner, that’s where the golf course maintenance people park. They get in there early and they get blocked in and they don’t leave until late. That’s what’s there. That’s what’s existing, and I just kind of, actually, the spaces are not indicated up there. It’s kind of casual, and I just laid those on there to show what the capacity is, or show what capacity we’ve got. So that does function well up there. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, it is kind of casual up there, and I did go up there and did a round of nine holes last week, because it’s my duty as a Planning Board member to get very familiar with my applications. MR. MILLER-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-So how come you didn’t go on the bungee ride at the Great Escape? MR. STROUGH-Here’s another thing I noticed up there. It was kind of, sort of a busy day, and not being up there in years, I haven’t been up there since the first hole was where the third hole is now, the dogleg to the right that goes around the mound. So I had a little confusion about parking. Now, we have an expansion, should you need it, right, of the proposed overflow parking area in that grassy spot, that I guess might be developed into more of a parking area in the future, 36 spots, are you going to have some signage or a path that leads over to Clubhouse from there? Or is it just, you know? MR. FEENEY-We have a couple of signs, as you enter into the facilities, but if it becomes necessary, we certainly want to make sure they find the Clubhouse, so we’ll have signs over there. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. FEENEY-If it becomes apparent, we’ll certainly put them in. MRS. LA BOMBARD-John, where do you want those signs? Say that again. MR. STROUGH-Well, when they, see, this is the proposed parking area. There’s 36 spots here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. STROUGH-Now, when you come in, you come in this way, and I was getting a little confused about where I should park. I looked down there quick, and I see that looked full. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Full, it’s always full there. MR. STROUGH-So I parked up here near the trees, but then I wasn’t sure where the Clubhouse was. It’s been a number of years, and I was just wondering, if they develop that parking area, should there be like a path or something going to the Clubhouse? And maybe signage, and/or signage. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good idea. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, is that something, really, that we should be all that concerned about as a Board? I mean, as a businessman, it would be in his best interest to get his players in the Clubhouse. MR. STROUGH-Well, you could argue that for every application up here, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily. MR. MILLER-Well, the other thing that happens, too, is Jim’s wife will take care of that, because what happens is, this is their house here. So if anybody gets lost around there, they always end up coming to the door of the house. So when that becomes a problem, I’m sure they’ll put a sign up. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Then you’re not going to build the 10,000 square foot restaurant. Is that correct? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. FEENEY-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And on the site plans, you have labeled cart path and existing stone wall. Now is that labeling right? I mean, you’ve got contour lines there. MR. MILLER-Well, I’ll be. That should be existing contours and that should be proposed contours. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. It wasn’t me, then. Okay. Let’s see. The only other note that I had is the Adirondack Park Agency is going to require a stormwater management plan that shows the control of runoff. Now, they’re asking for a 100 year, 24 hour storm event? MR. MILLER-What happens, the Town uses 50, 25 and 50 are fairly standard. DEC has an application that has you look at I believe it’s two years, ten years, and one hundred years. So they look at the different levels, and those numbers, as a matter of fact, Tom has generated those numbers, you change the input number into the computer, but typically what happens, what works for a 50 year works for all the others, and typically like a two year storm you’ll get no runoff at all, because the detention basins will absorb it all, and usually the same with a ten, and then for a one hundred year storm, you’ll get a fairly proportionate runoff between, the same as a 50 and 100. You’ll detain a certain percentage of it, but then, you know, you’ll get overflow, but you’ll, you still would detain, it still detains, what we’ve done still detains the increase in a 100 year storm. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MILLER-Right, different agencies have different requirements. Thank God for the computer. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So the detention basins that have been addressed with the new information on here, address that to the APA as well? MR. MILLER-Yes. We haven’t submitted to the APA yet. Most of the information that we’ve submitted additionally to the Town will go to the APA. There’s a couple of things. One had to do with Historic Preservation Office. Jim has been in touch with them and they’ve signed off on the project. Verbally, we’re getting a letter from them, which, he talked to them and they’re sending that. So we needed that. They wanted us to contact DEC and review it with DEC prior to, and then give them either a permit or a non-jurisdiction from DEC and is going to meet with them next week, and then the other thing they were looking for, which we need before being complete, would be an approval from the Planning Board, before they’ll act on the application. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and now the construction sequence. What’s the construction sequence going to be? MR. MILLER-I don’t know, Jim, did we resolve that? I think one of the things that’s interesting about this is the one hole is kind of off by itself, the tenth hole, and then the main construction is 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) really two separate areas of four holes. So, you know, it’s fairly good phasing just the way it lays out, rather than having nine holes all together, but I don’t know that we ever, did we ever resolve what the sequence was going to be? MR. FEENEY-We haven’t resolved it, but what more than likely would happen is that there’s some clearings out there, like Number Ten, Thirteen and Six, and that represents about a third of what we’re going to be doing, and we’ll probably work on that first, and we’d work probably on Thirteen, Fourteen and Fifteen as one sequence, and Three, Four and Five as another sequence. I mean, what I’d like to do is I’d like to sort of stage this so that when it is complete, I’m not finishing three holes one year and then another three the following year. I don’t think it’s that large of a project, but we still would like to sequence it so that it doesn’t take us an inordinate amount of time to get completed. MR. MILLER-So we’re looking at three phases, three, three hole phases. Yes, one of the things we tried to do here in the grading plan with the erosion control, as well the storm drainage control, is that each hole is kind of handled separately. So if they constructed a couple of holes, they could be completed and seeded, and then they can move on to the other ones. There’s no area where like a detention basin serves multiple holes. So one construction, you know, one hole relies on the other. So they’re pretty independent. MR. STROUGH-All right. So, again, the tenth hole is in a clearing off of the, which is currently the third hole, just north of there? MR. MILLER-Right. That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Let me see. I think we’re close. Okay. I think I got through this. Thank you. MR. MILLER-Thanks very much. Very good job. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-It’s always hard to come up with questions after John. I guess I just wanted to reiterate some of the comments that Tony had made. The additional information I thought was pretty thorough, particularly the chemical application program and the visual impacts assessment. I really appreciate having those documents to review. I didn’t have any questions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I ask one more question? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Jim, back to what Bob had asked, about the pesticides, because they’re in a different category from the herbicides and fungicides, or no, excuse me, the pesticides are in a different category from the fertilizers. What, in regular, lay language, would you tell me what the proposal is for the application of pesticides, if there is one? MR. MILLER-If they have an insect problem that had to be treated chemically, they would have to put together an application to the APA, describing the problem, describing what would be applied and any environmental information that the manufacturer would have, regarding that chemical, and then they’d probably want a map showing specific areas where it would be applied, and then the APA would review that and make a determination. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So, in other words, you don’t put pesticides down to treat a grub problem, for example, if there isn’t one, if you don’t see any evidence of one, you know, with the skunks out? MR. MILLER-That’s right. Actually, golf course management has changed a lot over the years. It used to be they would go out and just put stuff down all the time, and now they use integrated pest management, where is you have a pest problem in certain areas, you only treat that. You fertilize specific areas certain ways, and even go so far as, if you have shaded areas, you plant grass tolerant, or shade tolerant grasses in those areas. Then that reduces the problem with fungus and the need for fungicides. So they’ve gotten a little better about it, and part of the reason is the chemicals are very expensive. So what they put down they want it to be effective, and that’s why the chemicals, the fertilizer applications and stuff are very specific and time released. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. I really appreciate that. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. MAC EWAN-One from me. Regarding your trip generations, and saying that the golf course is closed in the winter, you’re not going to have anything available, like cross country skiing, snowshoeing, anything like that available? MR. FEENEY-They’ve tried cross country skiing in the past, and what I’ve done is, I mean, if people want to come up there and do it at their own risk, we’ve got trails out there and what not, but to be honest with you, I mean, the only time people who would come up would be probably on a nice, sunny Sunday afternoon, and, you know, you’re not going to get that place crowded at all. I mean, if you had a handful, with three or four people cross countrying, that would be plenty, and it’s just not economical, from a business point of view, to groom the trails, have somebody available, and, you know, it just wouldn’t pay. So I don’t anticipate cross country skiing really to be anything. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thank you. Anything else you wanted to add? I’ll ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes and we’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? You’re welcome to come up and address your concerns or comments to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN HEATHER SHOUDY BRECHTKO MRS. SHOUDY-BRECHTKO-Good evening. My name’s Heather Shoudy Brechtko, and I’m from the Lake George Association. We made some comments last month about this application, and have had a chance to review the materials that have been submitted by the applicant. We do have a few questions, clarifications, and some exploration questions as well. One of the questions that came up, Mr. Strough, you mentioned this, where are the drainage courses on the map draining to, and you said there was some of that happening that was going into the woods and what not, and if they’re not going to the detention basins, should the runoff be diverted to these areas, and the LGA’s understanding of the stormwater reg’s is that the runoff needs to be retained on to the property, and if some of those drainage courses are going into adjacent wood lots, I’m not sure if that’s proper. In addition, this is an exploration question, what is being done to control stormwater on existing holes. I’m not sure about this. It’s just an exploration question. Could there be improvements made in this area? We’re very pleased to see that the applicant has done more analysis in regards to the visual impacts of the project. After more analysis, the LGA believes that the new nine holes will be less visible than the existing nine holes, and it appears also that the areas along the southern end that aren’t being cut for the expansion may be visible from the areas around the lake if they were to be developed. Therefore, we ask that the Board consider a condition of approval, if it’s approved, be made to not allow anymore cutting in this area, and to place a restriction that no structures, as the applicant said, be built on the course. In addition, in reference to the fertilizers used on the property, seeing that the applicant has provided extensive information on the type and application schedule, and the LGA is just wondering what types of integrated pest management techniques, I know the applicant just referred to some of those techniques in the industry, but what kinds are being employed currently, and will they be used in the future? We’re interested in this because this decreases the chance that pesticides and herbicides will be used in the future, and also what steps are being taken to reduce the amount of fertilizer used on the property? And we just ask, the LGA asks, that the close monitoring of the erosion control measures be taken during construction, and are just curious as to who will be monitoring this for the applicant. Just what are the plans. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What was that last one? MRS. SHOUDY BRECHTKO-The erosion control measures during the construction phase, and the stabilization of soils as they cut and grade and fill and all those things, who will be monitoring this for the applicant? I know sometimes the construction crews need a little bit more guidance. MR. MAC EWAN-The Town also does as well. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that was all. MRS. SHOUDY BRECHTKO-Okay. So those are our comments, and we thank you for your consideration of our concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MRS. SHOUDY BRECHTKO-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MRS. MOORE-I do have letters. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I’ll just ask Heather. There was a letter that was written back on, or received on July 27. Do you want that one read into the record? th MRS. SHOUDY BRECHTKO-I think I gave everybody a copy of that. MRS. MOORE-Right. MRS. SHOUDY BRECHTKO-So I trust that they read that. MRS. MOORE-Okay. There’s a letter dated July 25, received August 6 in our office from Mr. thth Barthold, and I don’t know, do you want that one read into the record as well? MR. HUNSINGER-We have copies of that, too. MRS. MOORE-You have copies of that one. There were also letters that were written back during the discussion of the Helen Mitchell subdivision that also reference the Top of the World application. So I’m going to go through and read those at this time. Okay? MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-I’ll start off. This is from Dale and Robert Walden, “Dear Helen Mitchell, Town Planning Board: We hope you will properly consider the ramification of expanding condominiums and golf courses on Lockhart Mountain. All drainage around Lake George finally ends up in the lake. There fertilizers and chemicals will enhance the nutrients in it. Our limpid waters are fast disappearing. Do not hurry along the utrophication of Lake George.” There’s another letter dated July 13, 2001. This is from Margaret and Joseph Sharkey, this is, “Attention: Helen Mitchell, We are writing to you concerning the hearings on Subdivision 1-2001, this is about the development of a golf course and 12 homes on Lockhart Mountain Road. We are upset that the planning process is not being fully advertised to all the residents in North Queensbury and other concerned authorities. This development will have severe impact on runoff water going into Lake George, and it needs to be thoroughly reviewed by your Planning Board, along with the Lake George Park Commission, the Adirondack Park authority, and other interested parties. Without a thorough review, irreparable damage could occur to the lake waters. Great visual harm could occur from the removal of trees and other vegetation on the mountain. Lockhart Mountain is a landmark on the lake and can be viewed from as far north as the Narrows and many, many places along the shores of the lake. It would be very unfortunate if considerations were not given to the nature beauty of this area and visual damage that could be caused by this development. Mrs. Sharkey and I would appreciate your intercession in delaying the quick review and instead opening the planning process to full reviews by all of the appropriate agencies.” The next letter is from David Wilcox, President of the Assembly Point Association, this is dated July 14, 2001. “Dear Planning Board Members: In reference to Subdivision 1-2001 and the PUD Site Plan No. 28-2001, a precious economic, recreational, aesthetic resource of our area is impacted by all activity within the Lake George watershed basin, including that which falls within the Town of Queensbury, that resource is Lake George. Since everything occurring within this basin effects the water quality of Lake George, the Assembly Point Association formally requests that the appropriate Town Board give greater opportunity for review of upland Lake George basin development falling within the Queensbury Town limits. Typical concerns include excessive runoff, damage to wetlands, scarring of mountainsides, and tree cutting. Enclosed are the signatures of 53 Assembly Point property owners who attended the annual Association meeting today and feel strongly about this issue. I request this for your immediate action to create adequate time to review the proposed Lockhart Mountain projects fully before irreversible damage is done, damage that will affect Lake George, a vital resource. This request in no way implies the position by the Assembly Point Association on the merits of the proposed projects, but simply asks for the fullest review process to be implemented.” This next one is dated, or received in our office July 16, 2001. It’s from Holmes, I believe. “Dear Sir: At the recent Assembly Point meeting held on Saturday 14 July 2001, we were made aware of proposed development on Lockhart Mountain Road and expansion of the Top of the World Golf Course. Because of the serious impact of upland development on the water quality and scenic appeal of Lake George, we are anxious that the proper review be conducted prior to any approval of clear cutting and construction above the lake. We, therefore, request that a postponement of final approval of said development and expansion be made at the meeting on Tuesday, July 17, until these concerns are satisfactorily addressed. Your time and th consideration in this matter are appreciated.” The last letter is dated July 16, and this is from th Florence Connor, “To the Planning Board Members: Subdivision 1-2001, a Lockhart Mountain development. As I understand, you are meeting to discuss and/or accept plans to construct new homes on Lockhart Mountain Road, as well as plans to expand the Golf Course to 18 holes from a 9. I write this letter to express my concern and to ask you to postpone your decision until more information is gathered to determine the environmental impact this construction will have on the quality of the lake and the land surrounding it. Lake George is a basin, which means any 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) development on the upland surrounding the lake will have a definite effect on the lake itself. It is important to take the time to create a plan that meets the needs of the environment. In addition, I have a great concern about the chemicals used on golf courses. There are streams that cascade down each side of Lockhart Mountain and enter the lake through Dunham’s Bay and along the east shore. The runoff entering these streams has an obvious influence on the quality of the lake. In addition, there are more obscure actions that impact the water and its plants and animal life. I have been a seasonal resident of Assembly Point since I was a child in 1949. The quality of the lake has deteriorated and continues to do so. People like us can make or break the future of this lake. Again, I ask you to please postpone the decision on this upland development until the environmental impact can be more thoroughly investigated.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else want to comment on this application? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Are you writing, too? MR. MILLER-I’ve made a few notes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, the first one was the drainage issue. She wanted to know, specifically, where is it going, and that the runoff should be retained onto the property. MR. MILLER-Okay. I’ll clarify one thing. The requirement is not you retain all your runoff. You retain any increase, and I think, you know, we’ve clearly shown that we’re doing that. We’ve provided a stormwater management plan, with adequate detention basin area. So I think that has been completed. There will be some areas where some runoff goes into the woods, but that currently happens. What we’ve done is we’ve located the stormwater detention areas specifically in areas near the greens, and in the fairways where we would collect most of the runoff from the areas that are fertilized. The areas we were less concerned with were the areas of rough, where it’s going to be course grass. It’s not going to be fertilized, and those areas, you know, there would be no detention, similar to some of the meadows that are there now, similar conditions. So I think we’ve addressed those adequately. MR. STROUGH-Now, there’s only three ravines that I see. There’s one going through and adjacent to Hole 14, the proposed Hole 14, and then I see one that goes parallel with the existing maintenance road over by 16 and 15, and then I notice one that seems to go adjacent and in between Holes 4 and 5, the proposed Holes 4 and 5. So that seems to be three areas where there’s ravines. I’m just wondering, could those edges or the lateral sides of the ravines and stream beds, or whatever they may be, be slightly bermed, so that stormwater runoff doesn’t flow directly into them. So they’ll get set aside and get some treatment by nature itself? MR. MILLER-Yes. I think we tried to do that in areas specifically where, if you look at the holes, such as five, that’s near one of the, that stream, we graded it so that the green is tilted away from the stream, so that the water would flow away from the stream and is collected in a detention basin, to avoid those kinds of problems. So I think what we’ve tried to do, John, as much as possible, is locate those detention basins to collect the most runoff. One of the problems, obviously, when you get a golf hole that’s 400 yards long, you’re probably not going to drain everything into a swale adjacent to it, but I think for the most part, and my biggest concerns was the areas, the greens, because that’s one where we’re going to have the fertilizer, the most fertilizer. MR. STROUGH-Right, that’s where you fertilize most often, and the rest of it seems to be pretty clear. I mean, it is between four and five, but five’s green seemed to, would mostly affect that stream, but the question is, would berming help reduce the direct flow of stormwater, untreated stream water, into those stream beds and ravines? MR. MILLER-Sure. MR. STROUGH-And would berming be, or swaling, whatever you want to call it, be a major factor, if it could be done where it could be done, easily, let’s say the new construction areas? MR. MILLER-Yes. I thought that’s what we did. I mean, if there’s some specific areas that you have in mind, I think pretty much, one of the things that is sort of confusing, we looked at each hole very specifically. Some are running uphill. Some are running across slope. So the drainage patterns, the existing drainage patterns on each of the holes was different. So what we tried to do is locate any swales or any detention basins, so that it would have the best impact, given the existing conditions. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, the ravine going between 15, that seems to be basically taken care of pretty good. That’s wooded area. The flow seems to be pretty much away. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. MILLER-Yes, everything’s coming across there, yes. MR. STROUGH-And 16, you’ve got some potential in there, but see, and this is all new construction. So if that could be bermed through that area. MR. MILLER-Well, what happens here, and this is, as a matter of fact, at one time we had this all fairway and decided to make it all rough, you know, so it’s a non fertilized area. So this area. MR. STROUGH-That’s all wooded. MR. MILLER-That’s all wooded. So this actually was one of the most difficult holes to control the runoff. So here what we tried to do was pick up the green in this area, and get most of the runoff from this portion of the fairway, we’re catching in a swale. So actually we’d swale it and berm it. So, you’re right, some of that there we missed, but one of the problems we’ve gotten here is, when you look at the gradient. It’s fairly steep, and you start to berm it, and you collect the water, and you’ll have a tendency. MR. STROUGH-Well, would it be helpful to berm it just in these two critical areas? MR. MILLER-I don’t think you’re. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we’re getting off the track here a little bit. I mean, C.T. Male has reviewed this thing. They’ve put their comments on it. They feel comfortable with the stormwater management plan. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s not the way I look at it. C.T. Male took a look at the detention basins and the capacity of the detention basins. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. STROUGH-I don’t think C.T. Male looked at the ravines to make the extra step necessary to try and prevent stormwater runoff from going directly into the natural ravines which is accessed, natural runoff areas that do go into Dunham’s Bay, which do go into Lake George. I don’t think C.T. Male specifically was asked to take a look at that. So I’m just asking the applicant, would adding a little bit of berming here and there, and it doesn’t appear to be that it’s going to be that much, because most of it appears directed, or it’s going through areas that are unaffected, but like the one part that I talked to Jim about, possibly berming that area, that would solve that whole ravine’s problem. MR. MILLER-We could. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you willing to do that? MR. MILLER-One of the things, in defense of C.T. Male, I mean, I think they did look at that, but I think their concern was more erosion control issue than the actual runoff from the established turf grass. I think, because a lot of their comments that we got and things we agreed to had to do with showing additional areas of erosion control fencing, like the area you’re talking about there, John. That entire area is surrounded with erosion control fence. So any runoff during construction from those areas of fairway, you know, that ravine is protected from the erosion, and I think they were looking at the erosion and the sedimentation problem as being the bigger one. F MR. STROUGH-Yes, but after construction is done, the bales of hay, they go, too. MR. MILLER-Sure. MR. STROUGH-And so what I’m just saying is a slight berm. MR. MILLER-We could do some additional berm in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s move to this next question that’s on the list, please. MR. MILLER-Which hole was that, John? MR. STROUGH-That was 16. MR. MILLER-It’s 16. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead, Cathy. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I know that this is probably part of the PUD Reg’s, but clarify that, for the areas on the south end, no more cutting and no more structures could be built. MR. MILLER-Well, we’re not going to do anymore clearing than we need to do for the golf course. There’s no additional clearing proposed. I think as part of the PUD, there is an approval for a certain number of additional buildings that can be built, and I think Jim has, you know, under his property, four. So, I mean, he chose to act on that. He has the rights and the purchase of the land he bought to build four homes, but it would probably require coming back for site plan for that. MR. MAC EWAN-It would. It would require coming back in front of this Board. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Then Heather had fertilizers and pest management. She wanted to know what is being used now, and I think you covered for the future, but we know it’s in the future, but she wanted to know what is being applied now. MR. MILLER-It’s basically the same. What we have submitted is what’s being used. As a matter of fact, the list that we got from the supplier was actually off of an invoice which they had purchased for application this year. So what’s being applied right now is exactly what we’ve submitted. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the next thing was, any steps to, any steps being proposed to reduce fertilizing of the Golf Course. MR. MILLER-Well, I think, in my opinion, I think what they apply is minimal for a golf course, and I think that the fact that, you know, they only apply it in specific areas where it’s required, and the levels, I think to reduce it further doesn’t make much sense. I actually think that, I was surprised to look at their application program, that it was as light as it was. I actually expected it to be much heavier. So I think, as far as golf courses are concerned, it’s a very minimal application now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And specific erosion control during construction. MR. MILLER-Well, that’s handled by the Town, I believe. Because there’s no requirement. I mean, we’ll probably be involved, we had some notes on the plan, required by C.T. Male, and if there are certain problems, in construction of detention basins and stuff, an engineer would have to be brought on site. It would probably be Tom Nace, and probably during construction, I will be on site consulting to our client as the course is being developed. I think, specifically, as for erosion control measures, the Town does those inspections. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So, back to that first one on the drainage issue, and if there’s anything that could be done additional, and John said maybe that additional berming on Hole Number 16. Do you think that would, could that be a condition? MR. MILLER-Yes. I think Hole 16, in looking at it, I thought that was the more difficult one to control the runoff, given the gradient and the direction of flow on the hole, and we’d be happy to add that berm to that lower part. It’s fairly close to the tee. It’s not going to be something that would be a problem to place. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So we could put that in, as a condition, but that erosion control, back to that, we don’t need to put in any of those fences that we’ve done? MR. MAC EWAN-No, that’s required. They’re required. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, that’s what I would think. That’s what I thought I had read it before. MR. MILLER-We show limits. We also show hay bales and swales. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, yes, I read all that. That’s why I didn’t understand Heather. Did I miss anything here? MR. MILLER-Well, I think her concern was the enforcement of it and the maintenance on it. A lot of times, you know, the problem during construction, contractors will put that stuff up, and then they start constructing, and then they don’t maintain them, and so I think it’s more to make sure it’s installed properly and maintained, and I think, you know, the Town typically visits sites during construction and addresses that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Well, that’s what I had read. That’s why I thought maybe I had missed something. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other questions, comments? 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I still have one on pesticide and herbicide application. The way you’ve got this worded, and this is a quote, really, out of the APA. It says, toxic chemicals, including pesticides and herbicides, shall not be used on the 1300 acre project site, except as part of interior building operation and maintenance. I don’t know what they mean, mice or rats or whatever. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-But it’s very, very clear that until a request is made to the APA, and the project sponsor documents to their satisfaction that pesticides will not have an undue adverse impact on the environment, they should not be used. I mean, it’s pretty clear, from what I read here, that the answer is no. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t use it. MR. MILLER-You don’t use it. MR. VOLLARO-Except inside a building. MR. MILLER-That’s right. I mean, it does say that if you want to use it, you have to show to them there’d be no adverse impact, and to date there’s been no request made. MR. VOLLARO-To date, you’ve made no request to that. So their position is they’re not using it. That’s what APA is thinking. MR. MILLER-Then the 1300 acres, that’s for the entire PUD. That clause was not just specific to the Golf Course. It was for the entire PUD. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, but it also encompasses your Golf Course, and one other last question is on James Houston’s letter of August 28, his last response, he says we have not received a revised set of th plans that incorporates the changes indicated in the letter, and the letter is referenced to July 24. th Now, John is looking at a lot of prints and so on. Are we looking at the same, at a revised set of drawings, or is this? MR. MILLER-No. What happened is the plans have, actually, I think some things have been updated, but they haven’t been printed and distributed. The thing is most of the comments were like adding some sections of silt fence, typical of what John just said, you know, add a section of berm, and we agreed to do that, and they were fairly minor. So we didn’t re-issue the prints. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. See what’s missing here is the dialogue that goes between you and Mr. Houston. I’m trying to follow this and the dialogue is missing. So, when I hear all this stuff going on and we don’t have the benefit of knowing what you and Mr. Houston had to say. MR. MILLER-I think if you look at, there’s a letter that I sent to Jim Houston, back on July 24, that th addressed a lot of his comments fairly specifically, and those comments, wherever it said modifications be made to the plan, those modifications would be made, and then more recently, the last letter of Tom Nace’s that included the table for the detention basins and some details, those tables and the detail for the overflow will be put right on the plan. So, I mean, he’s seen them. We just haven’t, you know, he’s agreed to it. We just haven’t taken it from the letter form and put it on the drawings. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and he says that. He says provided that the revised plans incorporate the notes, we will be prepared to sign off on the project. MR. MILLER-I think we would submit the revised plans to the Town, and I’d be happy to review the letters with Staff to show that we’ve addressed those items as discussed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just going to make a comment that when we do the resolution, if we do it, that this letter of August 28, 2001 from Mr. Houston be highlighted in our resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. Any other questions, comments? Has Staff got anything to add? I’ll entertain a resolution from someone, please. MR. RINGER-Do we have to do a SEQRA? MR. MAC EWAN-No SEQRA. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a second. Have you got it there, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Have you got some notes, Cathy, that you want to put into it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. The only thing I have here for conditions would be the additional berming on Hole Number 16, and that James Houston, professional engineer’s letter of August 28, 2001 be noted, and highlighted and incorporated into the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Just out of curiosity for Staff, as a boilerplate for our prepared resolutions, isn’t it just the normal mode of operation that any additional information received, between the time that this thing is drafted until the time that a resolution is adopted, be incorporated within that resolution? MRS. MOORE-That is. MR. HUNSINGER-It says it’s inclusive of all newly received information. MR. MAC EWAN-I just wanted to get it on the record. MRS. MOORE-Maybe just to clarify what Bob’s trying to say, is do you want to condition it that the C.T. Male letter be satisfactorily addressed, or that we obtain a C.T. Male sign off prior to issuance of, or prior to the Zoning Administrator’s signature, or something to that effect? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s a different issue, I think. Yes. I’m not sure if that’s what you were alluding to, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have a signoff yet. As we sit here, we do not have a signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-And what Mr. Houston said is provided that the revised plans incorporate the notes, we will then be prepared to signoff on the project. MR. HUNSINGER-So what you’re really saying is it’s contingent upon those items being addressed. MR. VOLLARO-I think the overall incorporate of the August 28 letter into the resolution would th do the job adequately. MR. MAC EWAN-Put a motion up there. MOTION TO APPROVE PUD SITE PLAN NO. 28-2001 TOP OF THE WORLD GOLF COURSE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 28- 2001 Top of the World Golf Course for expansion of the nine hole golf course to 18 holes. Any addition or modification to a PUD requires PB review and approval. Tax Map No. 24-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 6.1, 6.3, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 6/25/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 8/17/01: 8/28 Staff Notes 8/10 APA – Notice of Incomplete Permit Application 8/8 J. Houston, CT Male Associates from Nace Engineering copied to Town 8/2 New Info 8/1 APA – Project Notice 8/1 Meeting Notice 7/31 M. White from L. Moore – copies provided as requested 7/26 FOIL – M. White 7/25 Public Comment to Planning Board from L. Barthold 7/24 Planning Board resolution - Tabled 7/24 Staff Notes 7/24 Planning Board from LGA 7/24 J. Houston, CT Male Associates from Miller Associates – response to 7/20 ltr. 7/24 J. Miller from L. Moore 7/23 J. Miller from L. Moore 7/20 CT Male engineering comments 7/17 Notice of Public Hearing 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) 7/11 FOIL - LGA 7/11 Warren Co. Planning – No County Impact 7/10 J. Edwards from L. Moore 7/3 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 7/24/01 and 8/28/01 concerning the above project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan 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 WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as it has been prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. That there be additional berming on Hole 16, as indicated by blue on the plans (noted in file as, John Strough’s plan marked up sheet C-3), 2. CT Male letter of August 28, 2001 be addressed, particularly in paragraph 2 of that letter, 3. A revised set of plan that incorporates the changes and the notes be submitted in order to get a sign-off by CT Male on the project. Duly adopted this 28th day of August 2001 by the following vote: MR. STROUGH-Just a clarification that, the berming that we’re talking to, Jim, I think basically where it shows the stormwater runoff, just in the area of construction. It wouldn’t go anywhere else, but just as long as we understand that it’s pretty much the blue lines on there. Right? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. I think that one on your right, we’d probably even extend it a little further than you have. MR. STROUGH-How do we get a handle on this, Laura? MR. MAC EWAN-The southeast side of Hole 16? MR. STROUGH-Or you could say just as indicated by blue on the plans, and I’ll submit these to Laura. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s even better. MR. STROUGH-Would that work, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine, John. MR. HUNSINGER-My point of clarification was on the resolution itself. It’s the resolution dated August 28, not the one dated July 24. thth MRS. LA BOMBARD-We said the latest one. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. VOLLARO-It says here Duly adopted on this 28 day of August. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Just making sure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Mr. Feeney. Good luck to you. MR. FEENEY-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-John, are you going to submit that for the file, then? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DKC HOLDINGS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: J. LAPPER, M. STEVES, T. NACE ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN AVENUE, EAST OF SMOKE RIDGE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 23.14 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 27 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 2-2000 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-20.1 LOT SIZE: 23.14 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIV. REGS MR. MAC EWAN-Is anyone here representing the applicant? Who’s doing it, Jim, Tom? MRS. MOORE-No, Larry Clute, and I believe they’re out in the hallway. MR. MAC EWAN-John, would you go get them, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-2001, Preliminary Stage, DKC Holdings, Inc., Meeting Date: August 28, 2001 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a 27 residential subdivision of a 23.14-acre parcel for preliminary stage review. The applicant received a Petition for zone change November 6, 2000 Resolution 433-2000 from Suburban Residential one ace to Single Family 20,000 square feet. Study of Plat (§ A183): ?? Lot arrangement: The lots are located on a semi circle proposed drive having two accesses to Sherman Avenue. ?? Location and design of streets: The main street connects to Sherman Avenue at two points. There is access to two additional proposed access points to the West and South near lot #16. The plans have been forwarded to the Highway Department for review and comment. ?? Topography: The ground is fairly level with a small area to be filled and another area where material will be removed. ?? Water supply: The subdivision will be connected to municipal water ?? Sewage disposal: Individual septic systems are proposed for the subdivision. ?? Drainage: The applicant has submitted a stormwater report for review. The report was forwarded to CT Male for review and comment. ?? Lot sizes: A majority of the lots proposed are more than the minimum 20,000 square feet required by the zone. Internal lots 4-8 are proposed to be at the minimum 20,000 square feet. Twenty-one of the lots are proposed to be a half an acre or larger. ?? Placement of utilities: The project proposes 4 new hydrants. ?? Future development: The plan shows an interconnection possibility near lot 16 going to the south and to the west. ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The project is located in Neighborhood 12. This area was recommended for rezoning to 20,000 square feet and consideration to be given to the Karner Blue Butterfly habitat. ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act: A long Environmental form has been submitted 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) ?? Town departments: The application has been referred to the Highway Department and the Water Department Areas of Concern or Importance: The applicant has indicated that they are working with the NYSDEC to determine what will be done to protect or enhance the habitat. The applicant was notified by our Code Compliance Officer in regards to a building permit application that species and habitat areas would need to be outlined for SEQR considerations, see letter of March 21, 2001. Suggestions Staff would suggest the applicant resolve the issues of the Karner Blue Habitat because this could alter the arrangement of lots.” MRS. MOORE-And I currently have not received any comments from the Highway or the Water Department on this project. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to also highlight C.T. Male’s letter of August 24 letter into the th record, please. MRS. MOORE-Do you want me to read that into the record? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. There’s a lot to it. I think it’s important to get it in. You can highlight if you want. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Under the gist of C.T. Male’s comments, they highlight that the applicant has requested a waiver from landscape plans, and then under the review of the actual plans, it appears that there should be some notes that should be adjusted or modified on the plans, and then under the Stormwater Management Report, it looks like, again, that there should be some comments that should be addressed or adjusted I believe. I’m sorry, caught me off guard. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it? Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please. LARRY CLUTE MR. CLUTE-I’m Larry Clute, I’m the owner of DKC Holdings. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you tell us a little bit about your proposed subdivision? MR. CLUTE-To be honest with you, I’m a little unprepared. We were expecting to be fourth on the agenda. I just got off the phone with a bunch of people that are on their way here from Matt’s office right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Surprise, you are fourth on the agenda. MR. CLUTE-They thought that was first, Top of the World was first. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, they were third. All right. I wasn’t aware of that. MR. MAC EWAN-You have someone here that’s going to appear? MR. CLUTE-No, they’re on their way. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. How about we just ask you to take a seat, then, and we’ll move on to the next application and we’ll come back. MR. CLUTE-I’d appreciate that. MR. MAC EWAN-No problem. MR. CLUTE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED REGINALD BURLINGAME PROPERTY OWNER: SHIRLEY SIPOS, 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) L.E. & APPLICANT AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: SW CORNER OF MEADOWBROOK & CRONIN APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 2.88 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 0.88 AC., 1.00 AC. & 1.00 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: AREA VAR. 41-2001 TAX MAP NO. 59-2-2 LOT SIZE: 2.88 +/- AC. SECTION: SUBDIV. REGS, 179-30 REGINALD BURLINGAME, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 6-2001, Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Reginald Burlingame, Meeting Date: August 28, 2001 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a 3 lot residential subdivision of a 2.88-acre parcel. The applicant had received an area variance for creating a parcel less than the required one-acre at 0.88 acres. The area variance was granted conditioned that the two new building lots would be shared driveways and have an entrance on Cronin Road. The board reviewed the application at Sketch Plan Stage on June 19, 2001. Study of plat (§ A183): ?? Lot arrangement: The proposed lots on Cronin Road will share one driveway as noted on the drawing and as conditioned by the Zoning Board, AV 41-2001 June 27, 2001. The proposed lot on Meadowbrook Road has an existing dwelling, barn and driveway. ?? Topography: The plans indicate the property is located in areas subject to flooding either a 100-year flood or between 100 and 500 year flood. ?? Water and sewer supply: The applicant proposes to connect to municipal water and sewer. ?? Drainage: The minutes from the sketch plan stage indicate each of the new house lots will be required to bring in at least two feet of fill. This would ensure that the building slab (no basement) would be at least 8 inches above the flood zone. I have confirmed with the Building Department that this information is verified at the time the applicant submits a building permit. ?? Lot sizes: The applicant had received area variance approval to create lot # 3 at 0.88 acres. The other two proposed lots are 1.00 acre that meets the lot size requirement. ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The property is located in Neighborhood 8 of the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act: A short Environmental Assessment form was provided. Areas of Concern or Importance: The final plat should reference Area Variance 41-2001 and the conditions of the variance. The minutes of the sketch plan stage discussed landscaping due to the location of lots on Cronin Road. The Board should determine if the proposed subdivision requires additional landscaping and what type of landscaping, i.e. adding two or three trees or shrubs towards the roadside on Cronin and Meadowbrook. The applicant had requested two waivers at sketch plan: topographic features including existing grade and USGS datum; sketch grading and drainage plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. BURLINGAME-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. BURLINGAME-Hi. I’m Reginald Burlingame. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you tell us a little bit about your proposed subdivision, Mr. Burlingame. MR. BURLINGAME-It’s not really a subdivision. That’s an awful harsh word to use for this. I want to build two houses, one for myself and one for my mother-in-law. They conform to the one acre lot. There’s one driveway coming off the Cronin Road going to both houses. Originally I wanted to build just a duplex, something that we all could live in, and they said, no, that’s not zoned that way. It’s single family residential one acre. So we went to the Zoning Board and they gave us a variance to split the one portion of the lot that’s .88 acres off of it. For 35 years my mother-in-law has been paying taxes on 3.2 acres. Now all of a sudden it’s 2.88 acres. Because nobody had ever filed a survey with the County, and the way Queensbury does it, they go by a map and they measure 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) it, from what I understand, and that’s how they came up with the 3.2 acres. Subdivision, that’s awful harsh, for two houses. MR. MAC EWAN-Unfortunately, that’s the Code. Anything else that you wanted to add? No? Bob, we’ll start with you. Any questions? Do you want me to come back to you? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I didn’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-What’s your thought’s on the Staff’s request to add some trees along Cronin and Meadowbrook Roads? MR. BURLINGAME-The corner of Cronin and Meadowbrook is a very busy intersection. I would think, if you put trees and shrubs, you’re going to blind a lot of people. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know if they said on the corner. I think they were trying to. MR. BURLINGAME-Well, there’s already trees and shrubs along Cronin Road. It’s awful thick right now, but they can be thinned out, but I would hesitate to put them along Meadowbrook Road. You’re going to blind that corner off. People aren’t going to be able to see. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I passed here, because I use that intersection a lot, and I’ve got to completely inch out all the way into Meadowbrook. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I thought I’d run that by. That’s all that I have for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I use that intersection a lot, too. I live around the corner. So I appreciate all the comments. It seems like some additional landscaping could be in order, but not close to the corner. I guess I really just want to make a comment to you, Mr. Burlingame, and that is, you know, even though you want to build a house for yourself and your mother, we have to take into consideration who would be there 50 years from now, or whatever else. So that’s why we have to go through the process that we have to go through. MR. BURLINGAME-Unless you change that zoning on that corner, you can’t do anything else with it. That’s all you can do. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I didn’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Unfortunately, I didn’t go to see this site, and that’s not like me, but I know where it is, but I would like to know, Lot Number Three, which is the .88 acres, the house there, with the deck and the barn, is that where you live now? MR. BURLINGAME-No, that’s where my mother-in-law lives. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So she’s not going to continue to live there? MR. BURLINGAME-The home is too big for her. She’s alone now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. So she’s going to, you’re going to build one of those homes on either Lot Number One or Two. One will be hers and one will be yours, and then the house that’s now on .88 acres, you’re just? MR. BURLINGAME-That’ll be sold. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’ll be sold, and that access will still be off Meadowbrook Road. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. BURLINGAME-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And so the driveway goes right off Meadowbrook right into the house and to the back barn. MR. BURLINGAME-To the barn. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Getting back to the area of landscaping. I went over there again today, just to take another look, myself, and I would not propose any additional landscaping there. That’s my feeling, in terms of being able to see the road from Cronin to Meadowbrook, and coming up Meadowbrook to see down Cronin. That’s all the comments, I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute, Mr. Burlingame. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DESMOND SULLIVAN MR. SULLIVAN-Good evening, folks. I don’t know if it’s good or bad to be appearing this late, whether you’re tired out already from your very extensive attention to the Top of the World. My name is Desmond Sullivan. I’m the guy with the tie, and I represent Anita Rios who’s sitting here this evening, and her husband Ray. They’re a couple in their thirties who live to the west of this proposed subdivision, which has been granted a variance, if I understand it correctly, both for setback and area, by the Town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, on a close vote. It was four to three. May I say that, in addition, I believe that the variance in question changed, reduced the frontage requirement by 169 feet for one of these parcels, and if you examine the three lots, you’ll see in effect the layout is in the form of three generally funnel shaped lots, not rectilinear lots that, two of which are parallel to each other. The third fits in on the westerly end of the proposed subdivision to fit them in for the addition of the two lots and houses. The proposal meets with several objections by my clients. As you may appreciate, this young couple with their two children, this represents a substantial investment, or so far their life investment. Mr. Rios couldn’t be here this evening. He’s actively engaged in the family restaurant business. Mrs. Rios has come from the same business on her one day a week off, but he’s up there every day of the week, and of course, as we know in the seasonal businesses here in the North Country, we work while the visitors are here. The diminished, he specifically asked me to make point that the diminished minimum road frontages, as well as the other aspects of the plan, do affect, he believes, the property values and salability, as well as the quality of use of the property. His premises were approved back in 1987, under a site plan, and as you can see from the survey that I’ve given you, the actual location of the house was required to be moved further from the road, in order to meet the requirements for this water plain on Halfway Brook, or floodplain, on Halfway Brook. In fact, there’s a second water course which is shown on the applicant’s submissions. I’m looking to see which map it is, which is called Cemetery Brook, and runs, if you look at the, I don’t know what this is called, it shows on the location plan, which is in the upper corner of the map, and it also shows in the area map that has been submitted to you, and at this point runs sort of in a northwesterly direction, just south of this premises, and runs into Halfway Brook. The question was one, which I had substantial concerns, when I reviewed the matter. My clients tell me that in the spring freshets every year, that the applicant’s property, in fact, becomes flooded, and that the spring water rise up comes about 20 or 25 feet away from my client’s home. I had called and spoke with the gentlemen from the Federal Corps of Engineers about the flood question, because the other map submitted by the applicant clearly shows, of course, that the whole westerly portion of the property lies within the A Zone of the Floodplain which runs on either side of Halfway Brook. It’s actually designated A-2 on the map, and I am uncertain, and was unable to find out from the Staff, what exactly that means. I know that the “A” Zone, or the 100 year flood boundary’s, apparently, but as you can see, a great portion of the property is covered by that. The gentlemen from the Corps indicated he’d be glad to come and take a look, except he would need the invitation of the municipality. I spoke to Mr. Round, and Mr. Round said he wasn’t going to invite him to come up and take a look unless the Board itself here wanted or asked for that to be sought. It is a question, as I indicate, that I have. I don’t know what effect, if any, it may have, either on the structures constructed or for any possible affect on that little Cemetery Brook or Halfway Brook. I notice that they, in the initial application, there were no indications of requests for waivers, but when I read the Planning Board application today, in fact there were two waivers requested. One is for an engineering drawing showing the slope and topographical features, and the other is for the waiver for requests from the United Stated Geodatic survey data showing grade and drainage. As I say, I have no direct knowledge, but since it is a freely available governmental service, I would be very interested 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) in finding out what, if any, affect the construction and placement of these structures might have in connection with that natural and well known water course, whose floodplain includes so much of the property. My client, Mrs. Rios, is most concerned about the question of privacy. The structure of the three lots is such, or the placement of the three lots and the proposed two new structures on two of those lots along Cronin Road are such that, in effect, they’re bunched, pushed into the funnel portion of the lot shape, in order to comply with the Area Variance requested and to maximize the lot size, each of the two lots being just an acre in this one acre zone. As you can see, I’ve interpolated, in the light blue ink, my measurements today, and I left the cockleburs on my trousers so that you would know I had actually been to the site this afternoon to measure back where the actual structure was. We had asked to survey it to prepare a drawing for you showing that, but unfortunately, I didn’t complete it before we got notice, last week, of tonight’s meeting. As you can see, then I sketched in the location of that, westerly of the two houses, using the scale that was contained on that map, which is part of the application, which I think is one inch equals thirty feet, and these two houses, the existing Rios structure and the new proposal, are only going to be about fifty feet apart. Now I live down in Glens Falls in a working man’s area of town where the lots run about 60 feet, and I’ve only got about 30 feet between myself and my neighbor. We’re talking about a zone that has one acre zoning, and of course the notion of the preservation of that neighborhood, or that zoning is that we associate with that some degree of openness and space between residential structures, single residential structures. If you look at the zoning, not the zoning, the actual tax map I think that was submitted with the drawings, it shows that the lot frontages along Meadowbrook are in fact, which is in a different zone, I understand, for construction, are, in fact, much narrower in width in their facing toward the public thoroughfare. Whereas, in fact, on Cronin Road, while there is a minimum of an acre, that many of the lots running from like the Rios home, westerly, are, in fact, of multiple acres, and as you drive along that area, from Bay on Cronin over to Meadowbrook, which I did this afternoon, of course it gives you a feeling of spaciousness and openness and country, because the houses are, in fact, separated and there’s natural growth and landscaping. While I live and have my work office in Glens Falls, I certainly think of Queensbury as much as my neighborhood as my own municipality, and we share a common interest, I think, in preserving the notion and the nature of the things that surround us. I was particularly impressed on your review of the previous application for the Top of the World with the amount of, significant amount of time that was concerned with the visual aspects of the proposed development as seen from the lake, and certainly there are many, many beautiful areas in Queensbury that I, as a local resident, enjoy going around and seeing. The Zoning Ordinance itself talks about the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to maintain, among other things, the property values and aesthetics of the community, and I believe that in order to address that aspect of the proposal, we should, in fact, realize that, in this case, and on the corner road frontage, that the aesthetics are what we see as public members passing by, and certainly it’s a very pleasant stretch of sort of country road with the one acre zoning, and what we’ve got here is a shoehorning of these three lots into an area, so that the house placement is such that that’s right on top of the Rios’ present residence, and as I said, my client is concerned with the privacy question. Fifty feet away is pretty close, but for sound and vision, whatever. She tells me that she’s never put up a curtain or a shade or anything else, and of course she’s had the good fortune to be able to do that. The Ordinance also tells us that we should be concerned with the protection of public health, welfare, safety, and property values, aesthetic and recreational values associated with streams and wetlands, over in 179-60, and of course Halfway Brook is a very substantial, well known water course. I don’t know what, as I said earlier, I don’t know what effect, if any, this construction may have either on the course itself or in any related areas. This, I’m going to suggest to you, is a convenience for the applicant. There already is a structure on the property owned by Mr. Burlingame’s mother-in-law, in which she’s resided for years, and this permits two new lots, with the sale of the third, or two new structures with the sale of the third. So, as was mentioned earlier by Mr. Hunsinger, it isn’t just a question of who the folks are that are going to be living in here for the next ten years, but fifty or one hundred years from now, and I guess my last point relating to that would be the safety aspect. These two driveways, the presently existing, approved site plan drive that the Rios’ have, and the driveway that the applicant envisions, about 100 feet away. Again, as to the aesthetic question, as we go along, thinking of 300 feet frontage on Cronin as the minimum frontage of the Ordinance, we don’t expect to see driveways so close, nor houses so close, and I’d suggest that that might possibly be a safety factor. You were concerned, obviously, about probably the high traffic area at the corner of Cronin and Meadowbrook. I’ve forgotten the name under the Ordinance. Both of those thoroughfares have a sort of a high rate, somewhere in the Ordinance. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you thinking of a collector road? MR. SULLIVAN-Collector road, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and, similarly, with the driveways being so close, I think that this may very well be a safety question. I would ask, on their behalf, that you turn down the application for the reasons indicated. If you are considering it, I certainly think that the Board ought to consider the matters relating to the floodplain, since the applicant has asked for two waivers. I wasn’t able to obtain a copy of the Planning Board application when I was at the Town Hall today, but I clearly remember that there were those two waivers 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) requested, and I don’t seem to see a reason why that should be. I don’t know if you have any questions for me or Mrs. Rios. MR. MAC EWAN-Not at this point we don’t. MR. SULLIVAN-Okay. Thank you very much for your time and attention. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else want to address the Board on this application? Okay. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Could I get you back up, Mr. Burlingame. MR. HUNSINGER-Can I ask a question? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure, go right ahead. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just curious, when you drew up the proposed subdivision, why you didn’t try to maintain 150 foot road frontage, on Lots One and Three. MATT STEVES MR. STEVES-Well, because of the configuration of the property doesn’t lend itself to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you identify yourself for the record. MR. STEVES-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I am Matt Steves with VanDusen and Steves, and I represent Mr. Burlingame on this application. The shape of the property doesn’t lend itself to creating 150 feet. If you pull that over another 53 feet to accommodate that, you just end up jogging lot lines around. It doesn’t do any benefit to the road frontage. With the double lot width requirement, it says that you either have double lot width or a common driveway, which we have done with the shared driveway. As in the Zoning Board approval, as well as back to this Board, we have stated that that will only be a common driveway on that, and that Lot Two will never have a separate driveway, other than the common driveway shared with Lot One. MR. HUNSINGER-How about the frontage on Meadowbrook though? It seems to me like that would be a fairly easy one to get the 150 feet. You just, you know, move those lines up and down. MR. STEVES-Again, I can accommodate that, if you wish, but what it’s going to do is we’re still going to have the single driveway on Meadowbrook or on Cronin Road, and the area that I’ve placed it is the best for site distance and stacking from the intersection. You’re talking about two residential lots, a couple of traffic flows per day. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. I misunderstood. MR. STEVES-The position where I’ve placed the driveway, in my estimation, is the best. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m talking about the existing driveway. MR. STEVES-The existing stone driveway? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m talking about Lot Three. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Why you didn’t try and maintain the 150 foot on that one. MR. STEVES-That is the house and barn and the dashed line that is running right through the words “Lot Three” was the existing deeded lot in that. So we maintained that as close as possible to what is being used by that parcel. So that the other two lots could accommodate the one acre. Therefore, the variances would fall, or the burden of the variances would fall on Lot Three, which is the existing, existing driveway. There’s not going to be any new driveways on Meadowbrook Road. So any conditions that are on Meadowbrook Road are existing. There’s no proposed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-As far as the wetlands, the wetlands that were flagged by DEC are shown on the map. They do not fall on the subject property. We’ve delineated and noted the 100 foot setback. As far as 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) some comments were made by the public, as far as the location of the house on Lot One, I have talked to Mr. Burlingame, and like I say, this is schematics to show that the house can fit on the property, but he has no problem stipulating that it’ll be poled and the house, when constructed, will hug the easterly setback line, and not the westerly setback line. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. STEVES-No, not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions from Board members? MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, Matt, then what you’re saying is that, where the location is right now, where you have the proposed location of the house on Lot Number One, that you could bring it, conceivably bring it over 40 more feet to the east? And explain to me those dotted lines are the setbacks? MR. STEVES-You could bring it over about 20 feet. Those are the setback lines. Those are the required setbacks, and we’re not asking for a variance from the setbacks on Lot One or Lot Two. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, now, let me just ask you this again. Refresh my memory. What is the setback limit for Queensbury again? Isn’t it 30 feet? MR. STEVES-Twenty feet in this zone, on the side. Thirty feet on the road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Twenty feet on the side. Does that mean it has to be twenty feet exactly or it has to add up to twenty feet? MR. STEVES-Twenty feet on both sides is the current Town setback requirement in this zone, which we would meeting. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So you can move this house over 20 more feet? MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s all? That’s all? MR. STEVES-Yes. I can’t go any closer to the other side lines. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know you can’t go past this dotted line, and you have to keep it at that same angle? MR. STEVES-No. I’m just showing a conceptual. This, in no way, represents exactly what Mr. Burlingame is going to build. As you know on this Board, I have to be able to prove and show that the lot can accommodate a house within the setbacks. What I’m saying is that Mr. Burlingame will agree to put it as close to the easterly bounds as possible, without encroaching on the setback. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So, in other words, okay, so he will go as far east as he possibly can. Now I have another question. Maybe one of my Board members can answer this. How come, is the Rios house, their stone drive, how come that doesn’t have the same setbacks as we have on these three lots? MR. STEVES-That I do not know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that because that’s more than a one acre lot? It’s a different? MR. STEVES-If it’s in that zone, the required setbacks apply to all lots in that zone. MR. STROUGH-Well, it does appear to meet the setbacks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It does? MR. STROUGH-The house meets the setbacks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The driveway doesn’t. There’s no setbacks for the driveway. MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So in this case, the Rios basically put their house as far over as they could, without infringing on the setbacks. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. VOLLARO-You can’t move the Rios’. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, you can’t move that house, no, but. MR. STEVES-And like I said, we understand, and not to push the point too much, but we would agree to put the house as close to the easterly setback as possible without violating the setback. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think that that’s nice of you. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Can you describe for me what type of vegetation exists currently, between the Rios’ house and the proposed house for Lot Number One? There isn’t any vegetation? That’s all grass? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-That’s what it appeared to be. So then again there wouldn’t be much of a problem agreeing to moving the house at least 40 feet away from the westerly lot line of Lot One, and still meet all setbacks and be a little bit further away from the Rios. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-The driveway can be changed. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, comments from Board members? MR. RINGER-I’m more concerned with water in there. The comment by Mr. Sullivan was there’s water that goes onto the Rios’ property. How much water do you get onto your property and is that a flood area in the spring? MR. BURLINGAME-The houses have to be brought up two feet anyway. MR. RINGER-Is there a cellar in the current house? MR. BURLINGAME-In the current house, yes, but there’s no water in the cellar. MR. RINGER-And you don’t plan on a cellar in this? MR. BURLINGAME-No, I don’t plan on a cellar. I want two little houses, not big houses, little houses. MR. RINGER-In March, how much water is standing, in the area of Lot One, how much water is standing? MR. BURLINGAME-Lot One, there’s hardly any water whatsoever. There’s barely any water. There’s more water towards the Meadowbrook Road. I think maybe that comes from Regency Park when they built and pushed the water over, but there’s no water. I don’t know what stream they’re talking about, but there’s no stream. There’s no water. MR. RINGER-Well, I was just concerned about the comment we had was that there is regular water on the Rios property during the spring, and I was just wondering. MR. BURLINGAME-Well, I imagine, you know, they built on the wetlands. They had to build 20 feet up in the air to get up out of the wetlands. I mean, I would imagine there’s water there. It’s sitting right next to the brook. MR. VOLLARO-The question was brought up about the separation distances on Cronin Road, between the common driveway and the stone drive of the Rios. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-If you scale that off, it’s 175 feet, and we’ve got situations in Queensbury that are a lot less than that, and that’s what’s in, within the DOT requirement. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Of road separation. So I don’t see that as a problem. I think it was brought up, but that’s well beyond the separation distance required in the Town. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions or comments from Board members? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, my question is, could we put that as a condition, if we pass this, that they have to move the house over as far as it’ll go, still meeting the setbacks? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a problem. MR. RINGER-In a subdivision like this, the house is only proposed, possibly going to be there. They’re never committed to put it there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right, Larry. The original map I have of 1987, it has proposed house location, and if the house that the Rios built had been here, they would have had over 80 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’ve got 90 feet now, separation between the two houses. I just marked it off, between the Rios house. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s not what I got. MR. STROUGH-52.5. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, they don’t. Right now it’s 50. You’ve got the wrong scale there, Bob. One inch is. MR. VOLLARO-I’m using 50 and not 30. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s what you’re doing. MR. STROUGH-And the separation between the two driveways, you want to check that again, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m sorry. I made a mistake. MR. STROUGH-It’s more like 100 feet. MR. VOLLARO-I’m reading 105. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Questions, comments? Anything you wanted to add? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA, please. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 6-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: REGINALD BURLINGAME, 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 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) 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 28 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-One quick comment, Mr. Sullivan. MR. SULLIVAN-Yes. Well, there were two questions. Mr. Steves wasn’t here as the initial presenter. On the question about the water, sir. My client tells me, in fact there are ducks swimming on the Lot One portion that is shown to be in the floodplain zone on the applicant’s map, and Number Two, as to your question, ma’am, as you will see from my client’s survey, to meet the building requirements, they moved southerly from Cronin Road to increase their distance from the Halfway Brook. You’re correct, sir, in that there were, if the house is sited where it is, it’s only got 50 feet (lost word). So the Board asked the question on moving it easterly is also a possibility, and moving it southerly as well. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where’s their house? Is it that or this one? I’m looking at the wrong thing. Okay. I’m looking at the one right here. Yes, I’m all right. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Does someone want to introduce a motion, please? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2001 REGINALD BURLINGAME, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Preliminary Stage SB 6-2001, Reginald Burlingame. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.88 +/- acre parcel into three lots of 0.88 ac., 1.00 ac., & 1.00 acres. Tax Map No. 59-2-2. Lot size: 2.88 +/- acres. Section: Subdivision Regulations. Cross Reference: AV 41-2001. Zoning: SFR-1A, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 7/25/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 8/24 /01; 8/28/01 Staff Notes 8/21/01 Notice of Public Hearing: 8/1/01 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held 8/28/01 concerning the above project; 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 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) 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 for Preliminary Stage is approved in accordance with the resolution as its prepared by Staff with the following conditions: 1. The location of the house on Lot One, the one acre, be moved as far as possible in an easterly direction, so as to comply with the setback in the easterly portion of that lot, 2. The applicant has requested two waivers at the Sketch Plan and those waivers, I think, are being applied. They would be including the existing grade in USGS data, sketch grading and drainage plan (The waivers as requested are granted). Duly adopted this 28th day of August 2001 by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-The location of the house on Lot One, the one acre, be moved as far as possibly in an easterly direction, so as to comply with the setback in the easterly portion of that lot. MRS. LA BOMBARD-South or easterly. MR. RINGER-You can’t go southeasterly. You’d be way down in the. MR. VOLLARO-Easterly is, I’m not really interested in making that driveway any longer, Cathy. That’s my feeling. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And the second thing is that the applicant has requested two waivers at the Sketch Plan and those waivers, I think, are being applied. They would be including the existing grade in USGS data, sketch grading and drainage plan. The reason I’m putting those two in there is my look at this lot is extremely flat, and I really don’t see having to do a grading plan here, with the lot being that flat, or a drainage plan either. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second? MR. STROUGH-Should we include at this time that the final plat should reference Area Variance 41-2001 and the conditions of that Variance? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll get to that when we do Final. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll do Final. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second? MR. STROUGH-Second. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, and I’m saying no because I would like to have had it as a condition that the house be moved as far away, the house on Lot Number One be moved as far away from the Rios house as possible that the lot will allow, regardless of how long that driveway has to be. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll entertain a motion for Final, please. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2001 REGINALD BURLINGAME, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Final Stage SB 6-2001, Reginald Burlingame. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 2.88 +/- acre parcel into three lots of 0.88 ac., 1.00 ac., & 1.00 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) acres. Tax Map No. 59-2-2. Lot size: 2.88 +/- acres. Section: Subdivision Regulations. Cross Reference: AV 41-2001. Zoning: SFR-1A, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 7/25/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 8/24 /01; 8/28/01 Staff Notes 8/21/01 Notice of Public Hearing: 8/1/01 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, public hearing was held 8/28/01 concerning the above project; 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 for Final Stage is approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approved with the provision that the final plat should reference Area Variance 41-2001 and the conditions of that variance, 2. 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, 3. 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 28th day of August 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Good luck. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Next item on the agenda. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. We’re going back to Subdivision No. 7-2001 for DKC Holdings, and we’ve already identified that. NEW BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2001 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED DKC HOLDINGS, INC. PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: J. LAPPER, M. STEVES, T. NACE ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE SHERMAN AVENUE, EAST OF SMOKE RIDGE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 23.14 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 27 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 2-2000 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-20.1 LOT SIZE: 23.14 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIV. REGS TOM NACE & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 7-2001, Preliminary Stage, DKC Holdings, Inc., Meeting Date: August 28, 2001 “Project Description: The applicant proposes a 27 residential subdivision of a 23.14-acre parcel for preliminary stage review. The applicant received a Petition for zone change November 6, 2000 Resolution 433-2000 from Suburban Residential one ace to Single Family 20,000 square feet. Study of Plat (§ A183): ?? Lot arrangement: The lots are located on a semi circle proposed drive having two accesses to Sherman Avenue. ?? Location and design of streets: The main street connects to Sherman Avenue at two points. There is access to two additional proposed access points to the West and South near lot #16. The plans have been forwarded to the Highway Department for review and comment. ?? Topography: The ground is fairly level with a small area to be filled and another area where material will be removed. ?? Water supply: The subdivision will be connected to municipal water ?? Sewage disposal: Individual septic systems are proposed for the subdivision. ?? Drainage: The applicant has submitted a stormwater report for review. The report was forwarded to CT Male for review and comment. ?? Lot sizes: A majority of the lots proposed are more than the minimum 20,000 square feet required by the zone. Internal lots 4-8 are proposed to be at the minimum 20,000 square feet. Twenty-one of the lots are proposed to be a half an acre or larger. ?? Placement of utilities: The project proposes 4 new hydrants. ?? Future development: The plan shows an interconnection possibility near lot 16 going to the south and to the west. ?? Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The project is located in Neighborhood 12. This area was recommended for rezoning to 20,000 square feet and consideration to be given to the Karner Blue Butterfly habitat. ?? State Environmental Quality Review Act: A long Environmental form has been submitted ?? Town departments: The application has been referred to the Highway Department and the Water Department Areas of Concern or Importance: The applicant has indicated that they are working with the NYSDEC to determine what will be done to protect or enhance the habitat. The applicant was notified by our Code Compliance Officer in regards to a building permit application that species and habitat areas would need to be outlined for SEQR considerations, see letter of March 21, 2001. Suggestions Staff would suggest the applicant resolve the issues of the Karner Blue Habitat because this could alter the arrangement of lots.” MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening, gentlemen. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Again, I’m Matt Steves, with VanDusen & Steves, and Tom Nace of Nace Engineering. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. STEVES-To start off with, if you remember, this is a 27 lot subdivision proposed on the southerly side of Sherman Avenue, in an area that’s been rezoned to SR-20. Getting back to the one comment that the Staff had, as Laura knows, I had to miss a meeting with her this afternoon because I was on the phone, on and off for about an hour this afternoon, with Kathy O’Brien. Kathy likes the plan that we’ve implemented, as far as showing an area to the south of the power lines to be for planting purposes. It’s shown on your map as area to be dedicated to Niagara Mohawk Corporation. When she visited the site, back earlier this summer, she walked the entire property and found three plants located on the extremely easterly border, right dead center of the Niagara Mohawk right of way. She found quite a few more plants along both sides of the power line that were east of the subject property onto the parcel to the east, which isn’t in this application. So once she realized exactly where these plants were, and told her how we were proposing to donate or gift or convey to whoever this area south of the power line on the easterly bounds, to create some plantings, she was very happy, and commended the applicant for trying to set aside some property for starting some habitat. Her concern was who would be maintaining this, and asked me if the Board and the Town would be in consideration of taking the property. It is an easement by Niagara Mohawk, not an 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) ownership by Niagara Mohawk. This is the only parcel on this power line that Niagara Mohawk has an easement over, and not an ownership. To the west of here and to the east of here, all the way back to the Northway, and to the west until the pole line turns north/south, it is all owned by Niagara Mohawk. So this portion of it, her concern that we’re working on trying to find something agreeable to her is who’s going to maintain it, and would the Town be interested in taking it over. Since the Town has made an interest in the Karner blue, maybe they would want to own this property, and so that was her suggestion. The other suggestion she made, that I guess I made and she was agreeable to, was that, on the back of the lots that abut the Niagara Mohawk right of way, even though there is no habitat along the Niagara Mohawk that is abutting of the lots, I should say, only over in the area where we have graded about a 16,000 square foot reserve for that, is to say, well, so that people aren’t dumping grass clippings and such over there, in case any habitat does happen to pop up, not to suffocate it, is to put a sign on the back of every lot to say that this area is a potential habitat, please do not disturb, and so that was the conversation that I had with her today. MR. MAC EWAN-Every lot would have that signage? MR. STEVES-That’s what she was asking, something along those lines. She was just throwing out ideas as to, if this was to be owned by Niagara Mohawk, how would they be able to make people aware that have lots in front of them that this is a potential in there, and it’s kind of hard for me, and I understand it’s kind of hard for the Board, the potential could probably be anywhere that there, but the area that is, at this point, inhabited by the plants is completely protected. MR. MAC EWAN-How far have you gone in the pursuit of maybe working with the newly formed Queensbury? MR. STEVES-I have talked to a couple of the Board members. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone in particular we might know of? MR. STEVES-You might know the president of the new land trust, my father, Leon Steves, and at this point, the initial indications I get from them is that this is not the type of land that they were formed to gather. They’re looking for, you know, open space kind of stuff, passive recreation kind of areas, that kind of thing, where this really doesn’t fall into their game plan. That was an option that Kathy also discussed, and I said I can also, you know, I can bring that back up to that Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-There’s a scoping for that Conservancy and what it’s going to do is supposed to proceed through the next year. I mean, so we don’t know, at this point, exactly what we’d want to do and what we don’t want to do. MR. STEVES-I understand. I guess that it was just very initial, and at that the time, Leon said that, you know, at this point, he thought that that wasn’t exactly what they’re looking for. He didn’t say yes. He didn’t say no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom? MR. NACE-I think, just to add my two cents to the Lupine thing, is the fact that once those roads are across the power line for the subdivision, it’ll cut off a lot of the use of that power line by RV’s, because the road’s will be impediments to them. MR. MAC EWAN-Not in my neighborhood. MR. NACE-Really? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s an access to get to the power lines. MR. NACE-Well, it’s pretty open access right now. I think that a lot of the use out there is not necessarily by motorcycles, but by four wheel drive trucks, and I think that use will stop, simply because the residents wouldn’t put up with it. So I think it will help somewhat to protect the area and the power line just by having the roads across it. Okay. We received engineering comments from C.T. Male on Friday. I presume the Board’s gotten copies of those. I went through them. I talked briefly to Jim Houston on Friday about, and I have not had the chance to fully respond to Jim, but I have had the chance, this afternoon, to go through and start making revisions to the plans and to assure myself that we can adequately accommodate his comments, and I don’t have trouble with any of them, complying with them. If there are any particular ones that the Board would like to discuss, I’ll go through my detailed answers to them. MR. RINGER-We just got these tonight. So we really haven’t had a chance. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. NACE-Several of them are just housekeeping things. There are a couple of them that are a little bit technical, and I believe I can adequately address with Jim, such as the water. We will upgrade some of the water pipe to eight inches to accommodate possible future connections to the south, and, I don’t know, like I say, if you have any questions about particular comments, I’ll be glad to respond in detail. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-I have nothing right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m trying to think, I was curious if you would be interested in entertaining something for, not a fifty, maybe a twenty-five foot buffer along the back of Lots Three through Nine, Twenty-Six, Fifteen, to probably try and prevent, as you’ve mentioned, dumping or anything? MR. STEVES-Absolutely. There is currently a 20 foot setback, I believe, on the rear property line, and I would, myself, my client, and as I discussed with Kathy O’Brien, she said if we made that a no disturb, however you want to phrase it, no disturb, no cut zone, she’d feel very good about that too, even though there wasn’t any known habitat along the power line, backing up to these lots. It would help preserve that, absolutely, and we would agree to that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-John, don’t fail me. MR. STROUGH-Well, Tony, you’re saying lots that are adjacent to the Niagara Mohawk power easement? MR. METIVIER-Correct. MR. STROUGH-That those 20 foot setbacks be actually no cut zones? MR. METIVIER-Correct. MR. STROUGH-I think that’s a good idea. MR. METIVIER-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-Now, this is, Staff notes calls it single family residential one acre. I don’t think that’s right, is it? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-It’s 20,000, right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Could you explain this, C.T. Male’s comments that we got today? I have no idea. It’s Number Six. MR. NACE-Number Six? Okay MR. STROUGH-The K value for the sag and crest curves at Station A6+00 and A8+50 is whatever? MR. NACE-Okay. What the K value is, is a rate of change of the grade, okay. So it generally speaks to how safe it is. If you’re going along at X miles an hour, over a curve, how far you can see. It really speaks to the site distance, so that you can react in time to prevent an accident. These sag and crest, in this instance, the crest is right at the intersection of the two roads in the back. Okay. The crest curve is right here at that intersection. That would be a stop sign intersection anyway, and the sag is right here next to it. So, even though we don’t comply with the 30 mile an hour rating for that K value, we’re at a controlled area where speed won’t be 30 miles an hour. People will be stopping. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Is that what you’re going to reply to C.T. Male? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. NACE-Yes, it is. I had to use sharper vertical curves than I like, or than the standard suggests, simply because of the topography in that area. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, as well as the Karner blue habitat preservation, there seems to be a memorandum by Marilyn, some concern with pitch pine scrub. MR. STEVES-Scrub pine, pitch pine? MR. STROUGH-It’s called Pitch Pine Scrub Barren habitat. MR. STEVES-Right. Basically, what is west of the Northway in Queensbury is, in large part, Pitch Scrub Pine. That’s that kind of spindly pine tree you see all throughout western Queensbury. The reason they say that is the blue lupine is the host plant for the Karner blue, and that’s the one that’s on the endangered or protected list. The pitch pine, they say, could be a secondary plant, but it is not on the list, as far as being protected. MR. STROUGH-Well, she also gave a global and State rankings, and pitch pine scrub, at a G2, with G1 being the highest, G5 being the lowest, we’ve got a G2, and the State ranking, S1 being the highest and S4 being the lowest, we’ve got S1. MR. STEVES-And they’re generally along the power line, where clearing comes into play. MR. STROUGH-Well, see, that’s why I wanted to know, where is this located along here? MR. STEVES-That’s along your power line, which would fall within the 20 foot setback on the property. MR. STROUGH-Because it wasn’t clearly delineated exactly what this area is that Marilyn wanted. MR. STEVES-They’re the type of tree just, you know, that would come up in an area that has been either was a field or was a, it’s a primary plant. It would be one of the first ones. They grow along the edges of open areas. So primarily along the edge of the Niagara Mohawk right of way. MR. STROUGH-All right. So then, going along with Tony’s no cut zone would help preserve that. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-Then Marilyn also seemed to be concerned about people throwing their trash and rubbish and leaves and not necessarily household garbage, but rakings and things of that nature, onto this area, which would be adverse to, you know, the development of, the further continuation of the Blue lupine. MR. STEVES-I can speak to that on firsthand knowledge. I live in Hidden Hills, which there is a power line that runs right through, and the same scenario has been there, where there is Blue lupine throughout the power lines, and once the DEC came in, told the people, educated them what it was, it basically stopped. I mean, for a few isolated incidents, you’re always going to have those type of people. We’ve actually caught people driving in to the power line, not from that area, and dropping off bags of grass clippings. That’s why, if you’ll note in Hidden Hills now, the barriers across the power poles, from Sherman Avenue, where, you know, power pole barriers across to not allow people to drive in there, and that’s exactly what we’re talking about here. With a development, you can barricade off on the east and west property line, to avoid people driving in here and doing the same thing. MR. STROUGH-Well, Marilyn suggested a 50 foot buffer zone on either side, and I think we’re talking about between Lots 27 and 25, and there seems to be ample buffer between the power line and 25, but there seems to be no buffer between the power line area and Lot 27. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I agree with you. I noticed that, John. That’s a good point. MR. STROUGH-That’s adjacent to the power line. What Marilyn was saying, if you had some kind of a buffer, people have a tendency to throw their rakings and cuttings and things of that nature into the woods adjacent to the property. If there were a buffer zone that would maybe serve that purpose, and/or I was thinking the signage might be, but then the signs come and go and I don’t know how long they stay up. People take them down. So, that’s a thought of mine, of having some kind of a buffer between the power lines and the household that would be located on Lot 27. Because that’s a blue lupine area I think as identified here. MR. NACE-Move what? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. STEVES-Develop the house on the northerly end of the lot? No? MR. NACE-No, not easily, no. This is the lower area in here. I think the lupine, if I remember right, this is going back downhill here. This is mostly hardwood on this side. MR. STROUGH-Well, she’s got the blue lupine basically where I have the green here. MR. STEVES-Can I grab the map that I gave to the Chairman that shows, I’ve physically located that lupine. I had my survey crews locate the blue lupine, and the area that it is is right there, that cross hatched area. MR. STROUGH-Right there in the center. MR. STEVES-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s in the right of way. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-See, here’s how Kathy O’Brien’s identified it, as an occupied blue lupine area, goes through the whole thing. MR. STEVES-That was first identified in ’97, prior to her visiting the site earlier this year. She’s the one that flagged these particular three plants and had us locate them. As you can see here on your map, there was a substantial amount to the east. This larger pocket is actually east of the property line. This is a schematic from aerial photography that they get an idea, by looking at the vegetation from aerial photos, where would be the best place, you know, is most suitable habitat for this, and that’s how they depict that. Now when they go in and do a detailed survey, this is what happens, they pick up the actual plants. Now those were the three plants on our property. The rest of the plants, which I say, there was a substantial amount, were considerably east of our project. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, then any ideas on how we could? MR. NACE-We could certainly, in the vicinity of that area, put up multiple signs along the property line there. MR. STROUGH-And also, going along with Tony’s idea, that would be incorporated in the no cut zone of all properties adjacent to it. MR. STEVES-Yes. Just as an example for this Board, in the Town of Wilton, we did a subdivision a couple of years ago that just got built out last year, and they had a buffer zone in the back, which was they had a setback of the property was established as a no cut zone, and the Planning Board there, in cooperation with the Wilton Land Trust, did the same thing. They asked us to place a sign on the back of the lot, either nailed to one of the larger trees, or posted in, like a six by nine sign, that said entering no cut, no disturb zone, and we placed it on the back of every lot, and the Town of Wilton, Keith Manz in particular, has been very happy with the results from them. MR. STROUGH-Did it state why? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. STROUGH-I mean, so it was blue lupine and Karner blue habitat. MR. STEVES-In that case it wasn’t blue lupine, no, but in this instance it would be. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, we could do something there. What’s the above sea level of this site, above mean sea level height? MR. NACE-I’m sorry, what? Say that again? MR. STROUGH-How many feet above sea level, from mean sea level? MR. STEVES-Well, the topography on this map is based upon an assumed datum of 100, but the elevation in this area is about 340. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, that’s what threw me off. I’m looking at the contour, but, okay. MR. STEVES-The complete property was done with two foot contours. It just wasn’t tied to the USGS. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. STROUGH-Okay. So what did they use as a basis for that, then? MR. STEVES-It was a flight that they used at 100, somewhere on Sherman Avenue. As you can see the little “X’s” that indicate the spot elevations along Sherman Avenue, when they did the aerial photography for the flight topo, they established a benchmark of 100 feet in the centerline of Sherman Avenue, and based everything from that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-No, I think that pretty much does it. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s already been covered. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-The letter, the letter from the Kelly’s. MR. MAC EWAN-No, we haven’t addressed it. That will be read in at the pubic hearing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. We’ll just have it read in for the public hearing? Okay. No, John, I like that, what you said about that house being close to the right of way, and I hope that we could do something about that. MR. STROUGH-Talking about rights of way, these four wheelers haven’t been around for a number of years and established a public right of way on these trails. Have they? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Don’t look at me. MR. MAC EWAN-Say that one again? MR. STROUGH-Well, how long have these trails been used by the public? MR. RINGER-I think they’re all posted, John. MR. STROUGH-I was thinking of that. MR. RINGER-I used them 40 years ago, and they were posted then. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-In reference to Tony’s no cut zone, is that going to be coincident with the setback line? Is that what’s proposed? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-For Lots. MR. STEVES-All lots abutting the Niagara Mohawk right of way. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does that infringe in any way on other lot buyers? Or just that when they get their deed, that deed indicates a no cut zone on that lot? Is that correct? MR. STEVES-That’s correct, that and the copy of the approved plan at that time, any notations that this Board will make will have to be on it, and according to New York State law, every purchaser has to be given a copy of the approved plan. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any other questions on it. Tom, you have to answer, I guess, this letter, though. You’ve got to finish up doing this. MR. NACE-As I’ve said, I’ve made most of the changes on the drawings. I just have to put together a written response and get it down to C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t have anything else. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll ask you gentlemen to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BOB KELLY MR. KELLY-My name’s Bob Kelly. I think you all received my letter. The first thing I would like to thank the Board and the Planning Department. I found out about this meeting on the Internet. I was out visiting my daughter in Ohio, and I check the Internet every day waiting for this meeting. So it’s good that you post it on the Internet, these agendas. I think it’s very good, and in reference to my letter that I did write to the members of the Board, my wife and I built our house anticipating this road to be, but when we built it, the current owner then isn’t the owner now, and he was only planning a semi circle, and I know I’ve talked to Mr. Clute a couple of times, and he’s assured me that the plans he’s got out now, even though there’s a road showing there, I’m concerned about his future plans, or he’s allowing a spot for a connector, and as I addressed in my letter, a connector coming over to Luzerne Road, the traffic would be unbearable. It would be just unmerciful past my house, I believe, if all the traffic went that way, or like I suggested, if they could move this anticipated connector to the middle of the semi circle, and split up some of the traffic that would go over to Lupine over to Peggy Ann Road would go in one direction, and then those people going to Upper Sherman Avenue would come the other direction, and that’s my only concern. Otherwise, other than that, my wife and I are both very pleased with this development. We’ve been looking forward to it, and that’s why we built our house the way we did, anticipating this road. I’ll be on the corner of the road to be on Sherman Avenue. My house is facing this road to be. So we’re definitely, I think it’s a great idea, and my only concern is that possible future connector. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. KELLY-Thank you. MR. METIVIER-Can you just show me on the map, so I know where your house might be. MR. KELLY-I’ve got to get my bearings. This is the westerly portion? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. KELLY-All right. I’m that lot right there. My house faces this road to be, and here’s the connector, the future connector that I’m concerned about. I’m right here. I’m this lot right here. I’ve got my house facing this road to be. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Could I get you to read that letter into the record, please? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It doesn’t hurt to have it read in. MRS. MOORE-It’s addressed to each of the Board members, “We are writing to you in reference to the application for Subdivision 7-2001 that is on the agenda for the August 28 meeting. When we th had our house built in 1998, we anticipated this road, and built our house to face this new street. We support this project with one minor change. The original owner of the property had planned semi- circle only. We know the new owner owns property to Luzerne Road and has future plans to build a connector road to it. This additional connection is definitely needed for safety in the area. Our concern in this present application is where they are leaving a space for the future connector. It is at the most westerly end, a direct path past our home to Sherman. If this future connector could be moved to the middle of the semi-circle, through traffic would be split to the two accesses to Sherman Avenue. With the upcoming redesign of Corinth Road and the connector between Corinth Road and Luzerne Road, plus all the activity around the new ball fields and the new industrial park, we anticipate a significant traffic pattern change. This future road to be the route of choice for those residents living in the western part of Town. With the connector left where it is, all traffic will tend to come straight to Sherman Avenue. By moving this connector to the middle of the semi-circle, those residents going to the Peggy Ann Road area via Wintergreen should turn right, thus routing the traffic to Sherman Avenue. We brought this to the attention of the Town Board at the public hearing for the rezoning of this property, but were told that the Planning Board meeting was the place to raise our concern. At the meeting I met Mr. Clute who understood my concern and would take appropriate action. We have talked to him twice since, again raising our concern. We looked at the drawings on file at the Planning Department on August 16, and it still shows a future connector th 46 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) at the most westerly end of the site. Thank you for your consideration on this future safety issue. We will attend the meeting and present our concerns to the Board.” MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. I guess we’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Laura, I’ve been looking through everything. Was it the Short or the Long Form? MRS. MOORE-This is the Long Form. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It was? Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Can we ask questions? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, go ahead. I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any reason why you wouldn’t consider the request by the Kelly’s to move the connector road? MR. STEVES-We’re looking at that right now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about it. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a bad idea. He kind of had a point, too. It saves the potential for a speedway. MR. STEVES-I don’t disagree with that. Typically, when you look at a design for an interconnection, between, as this Board has looked at over the years in the Highway Department, you know, you always want to show the ability to be able to connect to properties that may be developed in the future, and typically they like to see it on a through intersection. So that was the reason for that. Tom is looking at maybe the possibility of sliding that to the east to just kind of shift the lot over and come in the middle of that. I don’t see that as a big problem, but he’d have to look at that more closely. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t see it as a big problem, do you, Tom? MR. NACE-I think it can be done. I’d like to take a further look at the property to the south and see what it does, as far as the configuration, the possible configurations down there, and maybe talk to Rick Missita, too, and see. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean (lost words) to him so he understands the concern is that we want to try to in a way prevent, so to speak, a speedway or a drag strip up through there, but if you have it off set like that, that would probably help deter some of that heavier traffic. The question I’ve got for you, though, is I’m trying to recall that parcel that would be to the south of that. Isn’t that still zoned light industrial land? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And we’re looking at another opportunity, should that ever become developed for housing, that’s going to be a zone change as well. MR. NACE-I think, if I can just make sure that I understand the person’s concern, there’s still going to be, you know, any through connector is going to have a certain amount of traffic, and I think what he’s trying to do is to put this coming into Road B, where people would have a choice of going east or west, okay, and so it would at least split up the traffic. The traffic’s still going to be there. I mean, if it’s just to try to, if the purpose of the jog is just to try to deter traffic from using that through connector, we could put that jog in the future development to the south. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the theory here is to funnel the traffic so that it has an opportunity to use two different routes to exit out through that subdivision, versus funneling everything right up that one road. MR. NACE-I think it’s feasible within our subdivision, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good. Anything else? The Long Form was it? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Keep those K values up there. That’ll deter them. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’ve been kind of informally talking to people up here, but the indication I’m getting is what’s left for him to really address with the C.T. Male and the signoff on this is just stuff that’s all got to be done prior to getting final approval anyway. MR. RINGER-We had eight items on there which Tom says he’s addressed with them, but I mean, we haven’t heard back from C.T. Male on this. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if C.T. Male comes back with negative responses and this and says it’s not adequately addressed, you’re not going to move it on to Final anyway. MR. RINGER-You only want to do Preliminary tonight, not Final? All right. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-I’m sorry. I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted to go. MR. NACE-We’d be happy if you want to give us Final, but we weren’t expecting it. MR. MAC EWAN-Sorry, no bonuses tonight. MR. RINGER-I just misunderstood where you were going, Craig. I thought you were going to go all the way with this. MR. MAC EWAN-No. Okay, Cathy. Go ahead. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Plants and Animals Will Proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. METIVIER-It’s mitigated. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it’s been mitigated by. MR. MAC EWAN-By creation of a buffer zone, and I’m guessing we’re going to have signage. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Impact on Open Space and Recreation Will Proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?” MR. MAC EWAN-No. MR. STROUGH-Wait a minute. The trails are used by. MR. MAC EWAN-They aren’t trails. MR. STROUGH-The trails are even delineated here on this map, on S-4. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But they’re not. MR. STEVES-They’re not classified recreational trails. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. STROUGH-No, but they’re used by people for recreation. MR. STEVES-They would be trespassing. MR. MAC EWAN-Nice try on that one, though, John. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 7-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: DKC HOLDINGS, INC., 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 28 day of August, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, Mr. Hunsinger? MRS. MOORE-Prior to you making a motion, can you list your conditions? MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe. Could you make a list of your conditions? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, I’ll do that. The conditions are that the approval be conditioned on the applicant’s satisfying comments raised by C.T. Male in their letter dated August 24. It would be th stipulated that the 20 foot buffer along the Niagara Mohawk right of way would be a no cut, no fill zone. MR. NACE-Can I interrupt on the buffer? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. NACE-It’s 20 foot along the rear. The buffer is coincidental with the setbacks. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. NACE-It’s 20 foot along the rear. What is it along the side line. Okay. I’m sorry. I misspoke. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NACE-I was thinking it was different from the side line. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. HUNSINGER-And finally that the applicant will consider moving the connector road to the east to eliminate a thoroughfare. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as your 20 foot buffer, that no cut zone that we discussed and kind of tossed around the idea of the signage. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I probably could make that condition at Final. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-If that’s what we decided. MRS. MOORE-Can I add something else in there? These were suggestions. Signoff from the New York State DEC, and that would be Kathy, I believe Kathy O’Brien, and that all notations be noted on the plat, in regards to the 20 foot buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry, what was the second one? MRS. MOORE-That all notations would be noted on the plat. MR. MAC EWAN-Referencing the buffers and no cut zones. MRS. MOORE-Correct, and the definition of a no cut zone. MR. MAC EWAN-Doable. Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Amended with Mrs. Moore’s comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, could you just read how you’ve defined the no cut zones, what lots? Did you just say lots bordering the Niagara Mohawk power line? MR. HUNSINGER-Lots bordering the Niagara Mohawk right of way. MR. VOLLARO-That’s good enough for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have a second? MR. STROUGH-Second. MRS. MOORE-You didn’t make a motion, yet. Did you? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I read the conditions. MRS. MOORE-He just read the conditions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Go ahead and do your motion. I apologize. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2001 DKC HOLDINGS. INC., Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of an application for Preliminary Stage SB 7- 2001, DKC Holdings. Applicant proposes subdivision of a 23.14 +/- acre parcel into 27 residential lots. Tax Map No. 93-2-20.1. Lot size: 23.14 +/- acres. Section: Subdivision Regulations. Cross Reference: PZ 2-2000. Zoning: SFR-20, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 7/25/01; WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 8/24 /01; 8/28 Staff Notes 8/21 Notice of Public Hearing 8/1 Meeting Notice 7/31 T. Nace from L. Moore 50 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) 7/30 R. Missita from L. Moore 7/30 R. Van Dusen from L. Moore WHEREAS, public hearing was held 8/28/01 concerning the above project; 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 for Preliminary Stage is approved with the following special conditions: 1. The applicant satisfy comments made by CT Male in their letter dated August 24, th 2. With the stipulation that the 20 foot buffer along the Niagara Mohawk right of way be a no cut, no fill zone, 3. The applicant will consider moving the connector road to the east to eliminate a thoroughfare, 4. The applicant received sign-off from New York State DEC, specifically Kathy O’Brien, 5. All notations will be noted on the plat with a definition of a no cut zone. Duly adopted this 28th day of August 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re all set. Any other business? MRS. MOORE-I have other business, not a lot. This is, Marilyn provided you with an opportunity to go to a conference. We would need to know, I believe, by this Friday if you’d like to attend. MR. MAC EWAN-Was that a conference or a concert? MRS. MOORE-A conference, actually. MR. STROUGH-Is that the one in October? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Yes, this is the one in October. MR. MAC EWAN-We have to let you know by Friday? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anybody that wants to go, let the Staff know by Friday, either Marilyn or Laura. What else? 51 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MRS. MOORE-That’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, do you have something? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. I would just like to state, and I recognize that, Laura, you were off on vacation and there was some problems. I have a problem with getting that much information that late. I just don’t have time to read it, assimilate it, and try to understand it. So, tonight I just, I put it aside, frankly, most of it, and didn’t consider it, because I just didn’t have time to review it, and I think that, in deference to the applicant, if they don’t have information here on time, they can’t, you know, then they don’t get on the agenda. MRS. MOORE-That’s up to the Board to do that, though. MR. MAC EWAN-And to follow up on his comments, this has been a discussion we’ve had numerous times in the past, specifically in workshop sessions, where the Board had been adamant about receiving new information the night of a meeting, and I can recall a particular site plan of last year where we had information that was given to us in the eleventh hour and we tabled it, and it created quite a political snafu, so to speak. So I guess what I would ask Staff to do is to convey to any applicants in the future that beware, should you supply us information this late in the day, there’s a very good chance your application is going to be tabled. MRS. MOORE-They’re definitely warned of that. MR. MAC EWAN-I see it was working for a while, but I’m seeing it’s not working anymore. MR. RINGER-I don’t think that’s Staff’s fault. I think that’s our fault, because we started out by saying, okay, we didn’t get the information. We’re not going to hear it. Then all of a sudden, our own Board started relaxing that and listening to them. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s true. MR. RINGER-I mean, we have to accept the blame when we goof. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely, and what I saw tonight wasn’t probably all that critical with stuff that was given to us tonight, but there has been stuff that we have been getting in the past where it’s just been burdensome. MRS. MOORE-The only thing that I cannot control is our C.T. Male comments. We have been in discussion with C.T. Male in regards to timeliness. So that, I think, is still going to be a problem. I try to get it as quickly as I can. MR. RINGER-What we could perhaps consider, if you have situations like that, and it’s very important, is have C.T. Male come to the meeting. Maybe by doing that, C.T. Male will get the information to you much quicker. Because he’s not going to want to sit at our meetings. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I’ll try. MR. RINGER-It’s just a suggestion, but if it works. He’s not going to want to come to our meetings. MR. MAC EWAN-When is your agenda meeting, Friday? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it must be Friday. MR. MAC EWAN-Morning or afternoon? MRS. MOORE-It should be in the morning. Actually, the one that we schedule a Planning Board member to come to would be on Monday. MR. MAC EWAN-He’ll be there all by himself, I’m sure, if it’s on Monday. MR. RINGER-That’s Labor Day. MRS. MOORE-I believe it’s Tuesday, then. MR. MAC EWAN-Tuesday. Can I get a volunteer to attend Tuesday’s agenda meeting? We’re back to Square One again. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 8/28/01) MR. RINGER-We’ve got a Planning Board meeting that night, too. MRS. MOORE-Yes, you do. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that definitely, though? I mean, that was based on the fact that they were going to get information supplied to Staff. MRS. MOORE-My understanding is that it’s still scheduled for Tuesday, September 4. If that th changes, I’ll let you know. MR. MAC EWAN-I will be in contact with you hopefully some time tomorrow. Either that or send me an e-mail, would you, please, and let me know that they did supply the information in the timeframe they were supposed to because we gave them a deadline that they needed to have it, so that they could get back to Frank. MRS. MOORE-Frank Palumbo, Sear Brown. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry, could I get you to cover that meeting Tuesday? MR. RINGER-Tuesday morning? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. RINGER-I can do that. Everybody else has had the opportunity? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we’ve all been up and down the pike already. One other thing, as far as the agendas go, and our meeting schedule, I will e-mail everybody and let everybody know when and where and what time. MR. RINGER-On site visits? MR. MAC EWAN-Site visits. MR. HUNSINGER-15. th MR. RINGER-The 15, 18 and 25 are normal. ththth MR. MAC EWAN-Right, and I’ll e-mail you in reference to this Aviation Mall thing. So let me know that tomorrow. Send me that e-mail and I’ll broadcast it to everybody. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question. There’s two applicants for building permits on Lockhart Mountain Road. Would they be the new Mitchell? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? Done. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 53