Loading...
2001-02-20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 20, 2001 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LARRY RINGER, VICE CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH CHRIS HUNSINGER ROBERT VOLLARO MEMBERS ABSENT CRAIG MAC EWAN PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. RINGER-The first thing we’re going to do is announce some of the things that are cancelled from tonight’s meeting. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 56-2000 CHURCH OF THE KING TYPE: UNLISTED OWNER: AGENT: ROBERT FLANSBURG ZONE: MR-5 LOCATION: 685 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 6,000 SQ. FT. CHURCH WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AREA. ALL USES IN MR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 50-2000 BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 8/7/00 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 8/9/00 TAX MAP NO. 60-7-2.1 LOT SIZE: 1.06 ACRES SECTION: 179-18 MR. RINGER-Church of the King was scheduled for tonight, and that is cancelled, or postponed, tabled until next month. MRS. MOORE-You could table it pending their C.T. Male comments. MR. RINGER-Yes, which may be the first meeting in March. Is that the one you’re interested in, ma’am? Okay. MRS. MOORE-Can you make a formal tabling resolution for that one? MR. RINGER-Okay. I can. I want to get my calendar out to get the date exactly, Laura. MR. STROUGH-I think it’s the 20. Do you want me to make the motion? th MR. RINGER-Yes, a motion to. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The first meeting in March will be the 20, right? th MR. RINGER-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s the third Tuesday. MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s get a motion to that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s the first day of spring. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 56-2000 CHURCH OF THE KING, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Until the March 20 Planning Board meeting, pending C.T. Male’s review of the applicant’s th application. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-We have a public hearing. So I probably should open the public hearing on that, and leave it open, too? MRS. MOORE-That’s already been opened. MR. RINGER-It’s already been opened? Okay. So we’ll just leave it open. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED STEWART’S ICE CREAM CO., INC. OWNER: FRANK J. PARILLO AGENT: BRANDON MYERS ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: CORNER OF CORINTH ROAD & BIG BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2,400 SQ. FT./GASOLINE FACILITY WITH OVERHEAD CANOPY AND UNDERGROUND TANKS. RETAIL BUSINESS AND GASOLINE STATIONS IN CR ZONES REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. BEAUTIFICATION COMM.: 2/12/01 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/14/01 TAX MAP NO. 136-1-9.1, 9.2, 10, 11 12 LOT SIZES: 3.53 +/- ACRES SECTION 179-24 MR. RINGER-Okay. The next item on the agenda was Stewart’s Ice Cream, and that also is tabled. Do you have a date when you think that might be, Laura? Okay. Well, it’ll be the March. MRS. MOORE-I would say possibly a March meeting. MR. RINGER-Yes. For the zoning? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. RINGER-The reason for the tabling there is they need a zoning change. So I need a motion to table. Is that the one you’re interested in, ma’am? Okay. It’ll either be the first meeting or the second meeting. The first meeting is the 20. The second meeting is the 27. thth MR. STROUGH-When is it scheduled to be on the Zoning Board? Do you know, Laura? MRS. MOORE-The Town Board is it’s next step, and I believe it’s the upcoming Town Board meeting. I’m not certain of that because the applicant has to still submit an application. MR. RINGER-Laura, if that’s going to go to the Town Board, then the Town Board’s going to have to refer that to us for a recommendation, and then back to the Town Board. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. RINGER-Okay. So, ma’am, what’s going to happen with that, because it’s a zone change, they’ll have to make an application to the Town Board, for the request of a zone change. The Town Board sends that application to us for a recommendation. We make a recommendation, and that goes back to the Town Board, and they’ll either approve or disapprove the zone change. Assuming the zone change was approved, then they would come back to us for a site plan. There’ll be notices sent out on the zone change? MRS. MOORE-They’ll be notified by the zone change, people within 500 feet of the property, but I would encourage you to call the Planning Office, and stop down and take a look at the plans and ask any questions that you need to, and hopefully get some of them answered prior, you know, to the next meeting date. AUDREY KIERNAN-RUMPF MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-Will it be in the paper? MRS. MOORE-It’ll be notified in the paper, for the petition of zone change, yes. MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-And that’ll refer to what meeting to go to? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. RINGER-I hope that helps you. MRS. KIERNAN-RUMPF-Thanks. MR. RINGER-Okay, and that’s all the tablings that we’re doing for tonight, and now we’ll get into the meeting. MR. STROUGH-Do we have to make a motion to table that? MR. RINGER-All right. I thought I had one. Do you want to give me a motion, please. MR. STROUGH-You don’t want me to say an expressed date, like the 27 or something? th MR. RINGER-Well, because it’s going to be a zone change, John, it’s not going to be site plan that it’s going to be tabled for. I don’t think we can table it that way because so many things have to happen before it even comes back to us. MR. VOLLARO-John, it’s an indefinite tabling, that’s what you’ve got to use. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2001 STEWART’S ICE CREAM CO., INC., Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Because it has to go through the process of a zone change, and at this time, we cannot ascertain a permanent date to set it on the agenda for the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Now is approval of the minutes. CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 26, 2000 - NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 26, 2000, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 20 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan SITE PLAN NO. 3-2001 TYPE: UNLISTED KENNETH & HOLLY WHEELER OWNER: SAME ZONE: CR-15 LOCATION: 10 RICHARDSON STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY ADDITION OF 714 SQ. FT. TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL USE BUILDING. RETAIL BUSINESS IN A CR ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 6-2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 130-2-10 NEW TAX MAP NO. 309.10-2-47 LOT SIZE: 0.47 ACRES SECTION: 179-24 KENNETH WHEELER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 3-2001, Kenneth & Holly Wheeler, Meeting Date: February 20, 2001 “Project Description 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) The applicant proposes a 714 square foot addition to the existing sign business. The addition will be utilized as a customer assistance area and workspace area. There is an existing driveway to access the site and the owner of the business resides on the property in a separate building. The site is currently landscaped with a maintained lawn and small gardens on the property. Project Analysis Site Overview ?? The property is located on a residential street, but near Corinth Road. Corinth Road contains more commercial uses than residential uses in this area. The addition will be constructed to match the existing style of the business building. The lighting for the addition will be similar to the existing residential fixtures. There is an existing sign located at the entrance of the driveway. Traffic, Circulation, Parking ?? The site plan shows four parking spaces for residential and client use. The total parking need for the commercial and residential use would be 10: 2 for residential and 8 for the commercial use. The gross floor area used to calculate the parking requirement would be less than the proposed building footprint 1,494 square feet. The site has adequate room to accommodate additional spaces if needed based on the existing permeable information; 77% of the lot with the addition is permeable, only 30% of the lot is required to be permeable in the CR-15 zone. Utility, Stormwater, Landscaping, Emergency Services ?? The applicant does not propose any alterations to the existing utility, stormwater, landscaping or emergency services Areas of Concern or Importance The proposed project is located in Neighborhood 13. The Land Use Plan identifies Corinth Road as mixed-use commercial and residential area. The plan indicates the residential use will decline due to traffic.” MR. RINGER-Good evening. MR. WHEELER-Good evening. MR. RINGER-Would you identify yourself, please. MR. WHEELER-Okay. My name is Kenneth Wheeler. MR. RINGER-Okay. Would you tell us a little bit about what your plans are, Mr. Wheeler. MR. WHEELER-Well, I’m hoping to put an addition on an existing shop building that I’m using for my commercial sign business. The addition is a one story, single story addition, about 714 square feet, I believe. MR. RINGER-I got a little out of order, there. I would like to get the Staff notes from Laura, then. MRS. MOORE-“ Project Description The applicant proposes a 714 square foot addition to the existing sign business. The addition will be utilized as a customer assistance area and workspace area. There is an existing driveway to access the site and the owner of the business resides on the property in a separate building. The site is currently landscaped with a maintained lawn and small gardens on the property.” MR. RINGER-That’s it, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That’s it. MR. RINGER-Okay. Anything else you want to tell us, Mr. Wheeler? MR. WHEELER-No. I can answer any questions you may have. MR. RINGER-Questions from the Board. John? MR. STROUGH-No, and the reason why is I was at the Zoning Board meeting last month, when Ken was there, and so any questions I may have had were pretty much answered at that meeting. So I’ll pass on that for now. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. RINGER-Okay. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any. MR. RINGER-Catherine? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. RINGER-Okay. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Nothing. MR. RINGER-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Nothing. MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ve got a public hearing scheduled on this. So I’ll open the public hearing. If there’s anyone from the public who has questions on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. RINGER-Okay. We’ve got to do a SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-2001, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: KENNETH & HOLLY WHEELER, 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 20 day of February, 2001, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-Okay. I need a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 3-2001 KENNETH & HOLLY WHEELER, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, the Town Planning Board is in receipt of Site Plan No. 3-2001, Kenneth & Holly Wheeler for a single story addition of 714 sq. ft. to an existing commercial use building. Retail Business in a CR zone requires Planning Board review and approval. Cross Reference: AV 6-2001. Tax Map No. 130-2-10, and; WHEREAS, the application was received 1/31/01; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 02/16/01; 2/20/01 Staff Notes 2/14/01 Warren Co. Planning – NCI 2/13/01 Notice of Public Hearing 2/8/01 Meeting Notice w/copy of Project ID notice 1/17/01 ZBA resolution – approval 11/28/00 Application w/letter (see waiver request) and drawings Other: 3/21/89 Planning Bd. minutes – SP 13-89 3/21/89 Planning Bd. resolution BP 90-163 (Cold Storage, Woodworking shop), BP 95-1784 (Sign) and BP 95-566 (Interior Alt.) WHEREAS, public hearing was held on 2/20/01 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that The application is approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff with no further comments. Duly adopted this 20th day of February, 2001 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. MacEwan MR. RINGER-You’re all set, Mr. Wheeler. I’ve never had one go by that quickly before. MR. WHEELER-Thank you very much. The only question I have is, with this approval, am I given a limitation on when I should start this project? Based on the fact that there was a delay in getting this approval, I’m now unable to secure my contractor before I get too busy to do this project. I’d like to hold it off until the fall. MRS. MOORE-You have a year. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. WHEELER-I have a year? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. WHEELER-Okay. That was my only question. MR. RINGER-You’re all set. MR. WHEELER-I’m all set. Thank you very much. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have a question of Laura. Should we save the Staff notes for the other two applicants that were tabled? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Save the same Staff notes? Okay. MR. RINGER-The next item on the agenda was a discussion item. However, John has asked to speak. So, John, I’m going to ask you to come first, before we get into that discussion item, if you would, and you said you were going to be brief, but try to be brief you said. JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-I’ll try. I’ve got good news and I’ve got bad news tonight. Which one would you like first? MR. RINGER-Identify yourself for the record, first. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Always take the good first. MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. The good news is that as of January 9, the U.S. th Supreme Court has taken the Army Corps of Engineers out of the business of regulating wetlands that are not contiguous to a navigable body of water. This has a lot of significance for the Town of Queensbury. We’ve got wetlands that are contiguous to navigable waterways, and we’ve got a lot of wetlands that are not. I don’t know what’s taken so long for this to come to the attention of the Town, but we’re in the process, now, of developing a new zoning ordinance. MR. VOLLARO-What is the date of that legislation? MR. SALVADOR-January 9. MR. VOLLARO-Of this year, 2001? MR. SALVADOR-This year, yes, and it’s a 22 page decision. It’s interesting, a 5-4 decision, very close. The dissenting portion of it is very powerful. Good arguments, okay, but in any case, I’ll just read you a couple of sentences out of it. “The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the seventh surrogate which held that Congress has the authority, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate intrastate waters, and that the migratory bird rule is a reasonable interpretation of the Clean Water Act”. MR. VOLLARO-The migratory bird? MR. SALVADOR-Bird rule. They ruled that if migratory birds were moving around and nesting in these lowlands, migratory birds were termed to be a part of intrastate commerce. MR. VOLLARO-It sounds something like how the government would think. I could buy that, yes. MR. SALVADOR-Well, it’s a long treatise on this, okay, and, you know, migratory birds, people hunt them, people view them. There’s an economy around migratory birds, and this economy is intrastate, and they were able to show that there’s so many billions of dollars a year that transfer, change hands as a result of that. So that was the extension under which the Army Corps of Engineers was regulating these wetlands that were not contiguous to navigable waterways, and so the Supreme Court reversed and said that “the Army Corps of Engineers has interpreted Section 404A to confer Federal authority over an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois which provides habitat for migratory birds. We are asked to decide whether the provisions of Section 404 may be fairly extended to these waters, and if so, whether Congress could exercise such authority consistent with the Commerce Clause, U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section VIII, Clause III. We answer the first question in the negative, and do not reach the second.” And the rest is all fill around those. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. VOLLARO-Does that whole thing now fall on DEC? Is that what, essentially, we’re saying here? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-If the Army Corps backs out. MR. SALVADOR-Now, I have here, by the way, this is quite, the issue here is State’s rights. What they’re saying is the Federal government doesn’t have the right to interfere in the regulatory program concerning wetlands in the States. The States can do that. So, what I have here also is Chapter 614 from the Sessions Laws of New York State, from 1975, and it’s called the Freshwater Wetlands, is the Act, and this is the Act that put the DEC in the business of regulating wetlands, and what the legislature said was, in their definitions, they defined Freshwater Wetlands. It means lands and waters of the State, as shown on the Freshwater Wetlands map, which contain any or all of the above. This Act empowered the DEC to map the wetlands in the State. They’ve done this in Warren County. You’ve heard a lot in Saratoga County, where they, just getting on to it, and there were some, I think, re-mapping in Saratoga County, and they had some problems there, but in any case, important here is that they defined wetlands. The legislature defined wetlands, lands and submerged lands commonly called marshes, swamps, sloughs, bogs and flats, supporting aquatic or semi-aquatic vegetation. MR. VOLLARO-Did they have an acreage on there? MR. SALVADOR-No. I think the DEC, in their regulatory, I’m not sure of this. I think the DEC, in their regulatory program, came up with this 12 acres. MR. VOLLARO-I was wondering, because I know there’s a line of demarcation called acreage. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Above and below, and that’s how DEC and Army Corps have shared these responsibilities. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Well, I think, I’ll guess, in 1975, the Army Corps, because of the Clean Water Act, was all over the place, and the DEC, well, let them do that. We’ll take these 12 acres. You can’t do everything, so we’ll do the 12 acres and up. I don’t know. I’m guessing, but the important thing here is that the legislature said that we define wetlands, commonly called. That means all of us should be able to tell a swamp, a marsh, a slough, a bog or a flat. We shouldn’t need a Ph.D. in biology to be able to determine that this is a wetland. Perched wetlands, you know, do we really have wetlands up, do we have 12 acres or more up in a mountain some place of wetlands that has to be regulated? So I think it’s important for the Town of Queensbury to, you know, define what they’re going to do. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve brought this subject up, in the Comprehensive Planning Committee that I served on, that the Town should map its wetlands. Map the wetlands. We’ll all know where they are. They refuse to do it. Refuse to do it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What was the reason? It was expensive? MR. SALVADOR-Yes, expensive, can’t do it. I know an easy way to map the wetlands. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I mean, most of us know where a lot of them are. MR. RINGER-Have you talked to Chris at all about any of this? MR. SALVADOR-No. The government’s shut down for the last few days. Everybody’s off some place. MR. RINGER-So you’re coming to us just to give us information. MR. SALVADOR-What I would like you people to do, because of your role in planning, is to pressure that staff, that Town government to get going with this, and what are we going to do? We can no longer turn our backs, as a Town, of regulating wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-John, let me just say something. From this seat in this knothole right here, this Board doesn’t do anything in this Town but review site plans. We do zero planning, from this Board’s perspective, zero, in my two and a half years on this Board. Have never, never really done any thinking about planning. What we do is what you saw us process Mr. Wheeler tonight, and a lot of other applicants that come before us with site plans and subdivisions, because that’s what this Board does. This Board doesn’t know how to plan, and that’s not trying to throw any aspersions against anybody on the Board at all, but that’s not what we do here. We should. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. SALVADOR-You’re the best we’ve got. MR. VOLLARO-We should, but we don’t, and I don’t know that we know how to even take the first step. It’s a real problem, always has been. MR. SALVADOR-I think it’s a, what I think we have here is a policy problem. It’s a policy that the Town has to come to grips with. You can no longer, you know, you’ve heard the expression, Corps wetlands, delineating wetlands. This Earl Town project over here, you know why that didn’t move ahead? Army Corps wetlands. That was it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the Army Corps’ definition of wetlands is much more stringent than DEC’s, as you’ve sort of pointed out in your discussion with DEC’s interpretation. There’s a lot of property that DEC would not be concerned about that the Army Corps is. MR. SALVADOR-Because of the area, not the type. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, no, their definition is a lot different, because they look at other things. I mean, the definition that you just read, that DEC uses, is not the same definition that the Army Corps uses. In there you get in a Ph.D. and read biology, for crying out loud, to determine what it is, because they look at things like the flora and fauna of the region, and things like that. They have some specific thresholds, if it’s wet for more than six consecutive weeks within the course of a year. I mean, I don’t remember the exact definition, but it’s something like that. Watersheds. MR. SALVADOR-Well, if we’re going to hold developers to a certain standard, with regard to how they can hand and what they can do, with a wet area on the property, regardless of how big it is and how long a year it is, we’ve got to have a program, and I think it starts with a policy, a Town policy, and then that has to go down to a planning unit that’s going to put a standard in place. We can no longer, you know, you’ve heard Leon Steves say, you know, Corps wetlands, a tea cup size is a Corps wetlands. Well, that’s no longer the case, and we’ve got a lot of areas in this Town that, under the State’s definition of wetland, would be a wetland, except for the 12 acres. The DEC has put a regulatory program in place, and I don’t see 12 acres in here. They were given a job to map, to map the wetlands, and to say how big, how small. They have to draw a line some place, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-You know, John, when I have an opportunity, I usually like to sit down with Chris Round and just chat for a little bit, and I’ve done this a few times, and I have a better understanding of the work load that Staff is, at least in Chris’ eyes. I haven’t really sat down and tried to look at that, but in Chris’ eyes, from what I see of what you’re trying to get this Staff to do, and it’s probably the right thing to do for the Town. I’m not saying that it’s not, but this Staff is as ill-equipped as this Board is to do that. That’s a real problem that’s got to be wrestled with. They don’t have the capacity, and I don’t know if I’m speaking out of turn, Laura. As long as this is an open discussion, you can jump in here, but that Staff is not, isn’t even staffed up to do that kind of thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that the, my somewhat limited knowledge, but I think that the Town has a real good handle on where the DEC designated wetlands are, because it’s on your GIS program. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And the reason that we always put the burden on to an applicant or to a developer is because of the interpretation of the Army Corps wetland issue. If the Army Corps wetland issue was gone, I think we’d have a real good handle on where the wetlands are, based on DEC’s definition and DEC’s mapping. So I think that makes life a whole lot easier. MR. VOLLARO-When Schermerhorn was going to do the development next to me, I sat down with Army Corps, DEC representing Schermerhorn, on the back end of a truck, by that property before he built those barracks out there, and I was flabbergasted at two people, Army Corps and DEC talking to each other, neither one could determine whether they had jurisdiction over the wetlands that Schermerhorn was trying to get mapped and flagged. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t doubt it. MR. VOLLARO-I was, I said to myself, what is this. It’s impossible. MR. HUNSINGER-When I was with the Development Corporation, we had a project languish for over a year while DEC and the Army Corps fought over jurisdictional issues, and the Army Corps even has different rules and regulations, depending upon the use. If it’s farm land, most of their rules and regulations don’t apply, and the property that we were looking at had been farmland. So no one had really cared what was done there, but then all of a sudden, because there was going to be a 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) change of use, and we actually set national precedents, because they had never worked that out before, the Army Corps hadn’t. It was incredible. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it sounds like what John has read there says that if a body of water is contiguous to a navigable body of water, then this comes under Army Corps. If it’s not contiguous to a navigable water, it’s DEC. Is that a fair statement, John? MR. SALVADOR-It’s not Army Corps. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not Army Corps. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s just not Army Corps. MR. SALVADOR-If it’s not contiguous, it’s not. That’s as much as it says. Who’s it is, that’s the State’s problem. MR. RINGER-What I’d like to see, John, is to have you give that information you’ve got to Chris, and then maybe we can schedule this as a workshop agenda, perhaps in March or some time later, and try to discuss it. We, as a Board, aren’t going to do anything. Maybe we can motivate, if that’s what’s necessary, but may our legal should also look over the papers that you’ve read, too, before we get into too much on this. MS. RADNER-May I just caution you, you’ve only heard a very small portion of a Supreme Court decision that, from what Mr. Salvador read, may have no impact on New York State at all, since it’s dealing with a different Circuit, and depending on how it’s worded and what it says, it may or may not be applicable. MR. SALVADOR-This is a U.S. Supreme Court. MS. RADNER-Absolutely, and depending on how it’s worded and what it says it does, it may be limited to the fact of that case, or it may be very wide sweeping, and until we review it, I’m not prepared to tell you to change anything you’re doing. MR. RINGER-That’s why, John, I’d prefer you give it to Chris. Everything should go through Chris, and then Chris can refer it to legal, and we can go from there. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the case number? MR. SALVADOR-It hasn’t been assigned yet. MS. RADNER-What’s the name of the case it’s under? MR. SALVADOR-Here it is. It’s Solid Waste Agency, I think it’s Northern Cook County vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. MR. RINGER-So would you do that, John, give that to Chris and then Chris can review it and send it to legal, if he feels it should be, have them read it over, and then we can perhaps go from there with it. MR. SALVADOR-Do you have any projects before you that would involve wetlands? MR. RINGER-Not that we’re acting on tonight. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Now for the good news? MR. RINGER-Yes, that’s right. You had some good news. MR. HUNSINGER-I thought that was good news. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That was the good news. MR. SALVADOR-Well, really, I think this brings the subject of wetland regulatory control back into our bailiwick. We don’t get this, you know, this. We’d have to do this job. MR. RINGER-And, John, you may be right, and you certainly know more about it than I do, but I’d still like to get more input from Staff and stuff before we did anything, and that’s the way I think it should be. That should be the procedure that we should follow. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. SALVADOR-This has a U.S. Supreme Court Number on it of 99-1178. MS. RADNER-Thank you. MR. RINGER-And you’ll get that to Chris? Okay. MR. SALVADOR-You can get it off the Internet. Get it off the Internet. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, if you get it to him, then you’re sure he has it. Okay. If you wouldn’t mind. What’s your next thing you had, John? MR. SALVADOR-All right. This one’s a little more thorny. MR. RINGER-But you said you weren’t going to take that long. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Where to begin on this one. This one deals with the Gregg dock and sundeck in North Queensbury, at Takundewide. If you recall, this application came before you for a site plan review some time around, first in September of last year. You tabled it because you couldn’t find the site, or something like that. It came, again, before you in October. It was conditionally approved. They had to define the mean low water mark. They got into that back and forth, and finally the applicant convinced you it wasn’t the mean low it was the mean high, that type of thing. MS. RADNER-May I stop you here. You don’t even have this applicant here, and this isn’t on the agenda for tonight. This seems very inappropriate to continue discussion of an application that’s not here. MR. SALVADOR-All is said and done. It’s been approved. It’s been issued. Okay. This is follow- up. This Board does not have to vote on this application again. MS. RADNER-Then they have no power over anything that’s (lost word) them. MR. SALVADOR-Right. I understand. I’ve asked to address the Board under such other business as may come before the Board, and this is other business I’d like to bring to their attention. Okay. MR. RINGER-Go on, but we may stop you, John. I may ask you to come in, okay, but go on and then we’ll see. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. What I’ve done is, since you made the determination that the applicant had to file a map showing this elevation, and then changed it to another elevation, and that the issuance of the building permit was predicated on them first filing this map, I have been at the Planning Department, on a regular basis, since October 19, asking for a copy of the map, when it’s th submitted, and of course it wasn’t submitted, it wasn’t submitted, until late in January of this year, I learned that they had, in fact, submitted the map, and so I foiled it, a FOIL application. In the meantime, I happened to be driving up around Assembly Point, and I cast my eyes across the Bay in the direction of Takundewide, and I see this green wood going up, I mean all over the place. I thought maybe, and it was just about in the location where this dock and boathouse was going to be built. If, in fact, it was being built there, then it looked to me like they were in violation, they were building without a permit, because to the best of my knowledge, the building permit had not been issued. It was waiting on this plan. I called Craig Brown, and he said, well, in fact, he had issued the approval of the site plan, of the drawing, and that it was there ready, the permit was ready for them to pick up. Well, it still looked like they had done a hell of a lot of construction before this permit was issued. It could only be issued in that day that I was talking to him on the phone. So I asked him to go to the site and satisfy himself that they were not in violation, that is building without a permit, which he did. He visited the site, and he informed them that the permit was ready for them to pick up, and they came down to the office and picked it up, and I was there when they came. We just happened to cross paths, and they were picking up the permit, the builder, the dock builder, was picking up the permit, and there was kind of a harsh exchange of words, not from my side, but I was characterized as, you know, a guy that was guilty of the very thing that I was accusing others of being guilty of, that is building without the right permits. In any case, they took their permit and went on their way. It was only after that that I learned from Craig Brown that in fact, this project is composed of two projects. It is a boat dock for which they received a permit from Building Department on March 30, and a sundeck, for which they had just received a permit on January 31, th okay. Now, a boat dock that they got a permit from on March 30 does not need a site plan review. th That does not need a site plan review. Dave Hatin can issue a building permit for that. He gets a zoning approval from Craig Brown, and there’s a form in the file, and he has a basis, then, to issue the building permit, which he did, and it was issued on March 30. Then they started to submit their th application for the sundeck/boathouse, and that took them through the fall. So, in fact, when Craig Brown went to the site, that day, before they had the building permit for the sundeck, they were not 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) in violation. They had a permit to build a dock, and that’s what they had been working on. I looked back through the record. I’ve gone, I have the application to the Park Commission. I have the application to Warren County. I have application to you folks, all the permits, the meeting minutes, records. Believe me, when you do a site plan, I would think it’s the total project. You don’t do a site plan, you don’t get a permit to build a foundation, for whatever, and then you go and get site plan for something that’s going to sit on top of it, be it a house or a boathouse. That just defies logic. The other thing that this project is just incredibly, errors, misstatements, not adhering. We have a very, very strict requirement for site plan and subdivision drawings. I mean, it’s spelled out in here, everything’s required. Take a look at these drawings. You know, there’s not even a name of who made the drawing and a title block. MR. RINGER-John, again, have you gone over any of this with Chris? MR. SALVADOR-Chris is not in the office. Okay. Chris is not in the office. MR. RINGER-Not in the office, when? I mean, I’ve been in the office and Chris has been there. What I’m saying is that I think you should go through Chris for the, we’re not the enforcement portion of the thing. If you feel that there’s been an approval of a site plan and it hasn’t taken, then you go through the channels. We are not that enforcement channel. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I’ll go to Chris. I’ll take care of that. I’ll take care of that, but I want you to know that this application, the submissions, everything that’s been done by all the reviewing agencies, it’s like the three blind men feeling the elephant. MR. RINGER-Well, okay. That’s a statement you’re making, John. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. RINGER-And it’s a statement from you. MR. SALVADOR-Excuse me. It’s substantiated by the record. MR. RINGER-Well. MR. SALVADOR-All right. No place in this record, no place in this record, would you get the impression that these people who are making application for this boat dock and boathouse are members of a homeowners association, and their land and the things they can do on their land is a part of a homeowners association. No place in this, you know, we have a zoning ordinance, and for a one acre waterfront lot, okay, which is the zone this is in, we have some minimum requirements. Waterfront Residential zones, lot width, 150 feet. This, from the get go, is a substandard lot. That’s not recognized in this site plan and in the review. The drawing shows 66 feet. The Park Commission measures 63 feet. Now we’re putting, on this lot, a lousy 66 foot width, we’re putting 24 feet of structure in, okay. That’s not the intent of our zoning, to put this massive a docking facility on 66 feet. It’s nonconforming. MR. RINGER-John, we can’t answer those specific questions, at all, and if you’ve got that problem, I suggest you bring it to Chris. If you don’t feel you’ve gotten satisfaction, then go to the Town Board or Dennis or whoever you feel you must go to to get the situation rectified. For us to sit here with nothing in front of us other than. MR. SALVADOR-I have it, here. MR. RINGER-And we’re not going to read that tonight. MR. SALVADOR-Of course. MR. RINGER-And I appreciate, and I’m sure the Board appreciates, all of your comments, but I think that the right direction, since we’re not the enforcement agency, is to go through Chris, and then if you feel you’re not getting necessary satisfaction, then go from there into the proper channels, but I don’t think that proper channel is us here. Okay. MR. SALVADOR-Well, I really think someone should repeal these permits, and I’ll go to Chris with this. The errors and omissions in this process are incredible. You can’t tell me it’s accidental. MR. RINGER-And I couldn’t answer that, John, and no one on this Board can answer that tonight. MR. STROUGH-Well, wasn’t one of your other contending points that the property between the median high water mark and his property line was homeowners association property? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely. Absolutely. MR. RINGER-But, again, if we have approved something like that, we can’t do anything about that now. If there’s errors we have made, then there’s ways to come back to us through the legal process, if that’s what’s necessary, but if there’s errors, then Chris should be the avenue that you should go through, and not come to us. MS. RADNER-This is not the appropriate forum to discuss any of this, or to have any dialogue. MR. SALVADOR-Now I don’t expect this Board to take any action. I expect to be heard. MR. RINGER-And I hope we have listened to you, John. MR. SALVADOR-No, you haven’t, really. You don’t want to, but I will take your advice and I will go to Chris and I will ask him to make a determination, and if he doesn’t make a determination, or if he does not agree that there’s sufficient evidence here to withdraw, then I will appeal it to the ZBA. MR. RINGER-And that may be the proper forum to go, and, John, I would appreciate it if that’s what you did, and everyone up here would. If we make a mistake, we certainly want to know about it, and we want to rectify it, if it’s in our power, but we do have to go through the proper channels. MR. VOLLARO-John, let me ask you a question. Do you think we made a mistake because all the data wasn’t in front of us, or that we misinterpreted what we had? MR. SALVADOR-You could not act properly because you were not aware of all the circumstances around this permit. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a different story, and if that’s the case, then I think you have a position. You have a standing in that area, I feel. If you feel, and can prove that. MS. RADNER-Bob, don’t get into the ground of giving legal advice, or direction that may be inappropriate. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not. I’m just trying to just say to John, if that’s what he thinks, then he should go forward, but I’m just trying to take away from the idea that this Board made a mistake on data it was presented. We get presented data. We get presented drawings. We act on what we see in front of us that night. If it’s wrong, it’s somebody else’s problem, not ours. MR. RINGER-Well, that’s our problem. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it is somebody else’s problem, Larry. It’s not ours. MR. RINGER-He has to go through the channels, and then it could come back to us if we (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine, but I just want to make sure that this Board’s not put under the hot lamps and say we made a mistake if we got information that was not complete, and we didn’t know that. If we don’t know it, we don’t know it. We act on what we see. MR. RINGER-Again, bring it to Chris. MR. SALVADOR-I will. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-But be aware that I will continue. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I would like to say for the record that I always am very receptive to Mr. Salvador’s comments, and it’s nice that there are concerned citizens in Queensbury out there, and Mr. Salvador spends a lot of time, and I do believe that he researches it and he has the good of the community in his interests, and I just think it’s too bad that sometimes when he comes up to speak in front of us that we give him an antagonistic attitude. MR. RINGER-I don’t think we’ve given him an antagonistic attitude. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. MR. RINGER-We’ve given him direction on the proper way to handle something. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but I think that we did hear him out, but I didn’t feel that we had to give him such a run around before we heard him out. That’s only my opinion, but I wanted that to be on the record. MR. SALVADOR-I’d just like to add one thing, not only the interest of the community, but I am subject to the same regulatory program that Takundewide is, okay, the same waterfront regulatory program that Takundewide is, and I see them do certain things and act in a certain way, and are able to obtain permits because of certain wrinkles in their approach, that I don’t understand, and I don’t think that’s the spirit and intent of the regulatory, that’s all I’m saying, and so I will take your advice. I’ll be back to Chris, and I will ask him to make the appropriate determination. MR. RINGER-Thank you, John. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. I have, if anyone is interested, I am ready to show what I have here. Okay. MR. RINGER-Thank you. You have a good evening. What’s next on the agenda? DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. CHARLES BRUSH, GREEN MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT CORP. PROPOSED SENIOR FACILITY MRS. LA BOMBARD-We have discussion items. Do you want to discuss the Number One, one, which is the Green Mountain Development Corporation, by Charles Brush? MR. VOLLARO-Do they have an application before? MRS. MOORE-They do not have an application. I looked out in the auditorium area there, and I did not see them. MR. RINGER-They’re not there? Well, we aren’t going to discuss it if they aren’t here. MR. HUNSINGER-What was the purpose of having it for discussion anyway? MR. RINGER-From what I can gather, they just wanted to get a feel of their project. They wanted to present their project to us in an information setting, so to speak, and tell us what their plans were, and to get some information, perhaps not even feedback, just to present it, and, I mean, there’s nothing we can do except listen to them and hear what they’ve got to say and what their plans are. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I saw an e-mail from Mr. MacEwan stating that, to Chris Round, I think with copies to the rest of the Staff, I believe, where Craig was saying that he didn’t think it was appropriate for them to come before this Board without having an application in to Staff. MRS. MOORE-I understand that. I do not believe that we contacted the applicant to indicate that he should not show up this evening. We felt that that information was posted as part of an agenda item, and that the applicant chose to come in to talk about the topic, that’s what he was here to do. He wasn’t here to get feedback from the Board. He was here just to present them, present something. MR. VOLLARO-That he also present the same thing to the Town Board. I believe he’s had that opportunity to go before the Town Board. MRS. MOORE-I believe he did. MR. RINGER-We’ve had these discussion items on different things before, similar to this. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just reiterating what the Chairman said in an e-mail that I happen to get a copy of. MR. RINGER-Craig said the same thing on Saturday, also, but it was on the agenda, but they’re not here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I think this is where I’d like to make a comment about Marilyn’s very informative memo here on housing affordability, and I think this is probably something that, the two are related here, this new senior facility that’s coming in, along with her comments that she made and the research that she did, not that one has to negate the other, but I just want, I wish she were here that I could say thanks. I appreciated her research. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. RINGER-Again, you’ll have a workshop before this comes up, and you’ll be able to discuss this with Marilyn at that time. MR. VOLLARO-Do economic issues play into the Planning Board’s site plan or site plan reviews? I mean, I thought Marilyn did an excellent job on that piece. I read it myself, as far as affordable housing. MS. RADNER-I don’t believe that I’ve seen it, and I’m not sure that I understand your question, in terms of? MR. VOLLARO-Well, Marilyn did, essentially, a piece of research to determine, in this County and in this Town, what incomes would be classified as affordable housing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because the applicants describe their projects as, this is going to be affordable housing, and it’s supposed to be a perk. It’s supposed to be something that is positive, and then she defined affordable housing, along the measures that HUD does, and then she goes into median incomes and affordability calculations and it was quite interesting. MR. RINGER-I think Bob’s question was that, is affordable housing one of the reasons for accepting or declining or review of the site plan. MS. RADNER-Right, and that’s something I’d have to look into a little bit for you, to see what our Town Code says. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s my question, too, because it’s like, because it’s affordable housing, you better okay this. You better pass this. MS. RADNER-It may be just one of several factors you’ll consider, but let us look into that definitively. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-A lot of times affordable housing has some interesting twists on it, in that the developer gets assistance from things like IRS, and they couch this as affordable housing, when Uncle Sam is putting money in their pocket to do this, and I have a big problem with that, but it’s not a Planning Board issue. MR. RINGER-It very well may not be a Planning Board issue, and that’s what you’re going to look at. MS. RADNER-Right, and I’ll be the one at the next Planning Board meeting, a week from today, and so I’ll try and have an answer to you before then. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-What else do we have, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-The workshop in March? What is the date? MR. RINGER-Before we get into that, let’s go over this Hayes and Hayes thing, Laura. That was March 6? th MRS. MOORE-March 6, and I need to know if members think that they’re going to be available to th attend the special meeting for the Hayes & Hayes? MR. RINGER-We’ll start with John. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that works for me. MR. RINGER-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Tuesday the 6 is fine. th MR. RINGER-Okay. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, fine. MR. METIVIER-That might be an issue with me. I might be out of town on that day. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. RINGER-Okay, and I’m out of Town on that day, too. MRS. MOORE-Did Bob say that he was available? MR. RINGER-Bob said he was available. MR. STROUGH-How are we coming on alternate members? MR. RINGER-As far as, I asked Craig about that the other day, and he said he didn’t know. He didn’t know if they’d interviewed or anything. MRS. MOORE-I know they’ve posted. MR. RINGER-Yes, I saw it in the paper, the advertisement, but that was in December or January I saw that. MRS. MOORE-We have not heard anything further in the Planning Office, no. MR. VOLLARO-I talked to Dennis about it, and they got little or no response from that ad. MR. RINGER-Now, the next thing was a workshop for March. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. RINGER-I don’t know if we’ve got to schedule that tonight, or we can wait until next Tuesday to schedule that one. Craig will be here. I think I’d rather wait until next Tuesday to determine if we’re going to have a date for that one, when Craig can, since I won’t be here. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the subject of that workshop? Has that been defined? MR. RINGER-No. The final approvals for the by-laws and the procedures, and then. MR. VOLLARO-That can be done in a few minutes, though. I was wondering if there’s an agenda set for the workshop. I haven’t seen an agenda for that workshop. MRS. MOORE-Not at this time. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s hard to set a date without an agenda, it seems to me, because. MR. RINGER-I mean, you can set the date but you might cancel it because you don’t have a strong enough agenda, I suppose. MRS. MOORE-I’m assuming you’ll have an agenda. MR. RINGER-But, yes, it’s easier to put the date in now, and then you can always cancel it, rather than try to put a date in later when everybody’s booked for a particular evening, but I still would prefer to wait until Craig is here on next Tuesday to schedule a date. MR. VOLLARO-That makes sense. MR. RINGER-Okay, and the last thing on the, or not perhaps the last, but the SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The discussions and the concerns on the SEQRA. MR. RINGER-Yes, and I think that was in regards to the letter that Schachner, Mark wrote, and he’s not here tonight, and Marilyn is not here tonight, either, because she wrote him a letter, and then he answered her, and that was what that was. So, without either one of them here, we probably can’t discuss, handle that, and that might be something for the workshop also. Okay. Unless you had something. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I sent an e-mail in to the Planning Department, but particularly in to Chris Round, with copies to Dan Stec and to Jim Martin, concerning some of the issues that I had in reading the SEQRA itself, and it seems to me that what we’ve got to do when we do this SEQRA thing, is to take a look at the most intense use of a piece of property, as opposed to reviewing it under SEQRA for a hotel. MR. RINGER-Well, you’re looking at a specific SEQRA now, versus, you’re looking at an application that’s not before the Board right now. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. VOLLARO-No, but I know it’s coming. I mean, this, when Chris said, give me your comments on this, these are the comments that I gave to Chris, after reviewing the SEQRA very carefully. He said, when he was standing in front of this table, he said, if you’ve got any comments, and John has put some comments in as well on this. MR. STROUGH-You know what my return was? We’re not going to respond to individual Planning Board members. MR. VOLLARO-I did not get a comment like that. MR. STROUGH-I got it from Marilyn, I got a comment saying we’re not going to respond to individual members’ concerns. We’ll respond to the Planning Board, in general, concerns. Well, how are we supposed to get a general concern? MR. RINGER-Well, this sounds like something you’d want to discuss at a workshop, although this particular issue you’re talking about may come up before the workshop. MS. RADNER-I believe is looking into some of those issues for you, and is going to get you answers, but the bottom line really is that sometimes there’s more than one SEQRA involved in a single project, that sometimes you have to make very clear on the record that what you’re reviewing at Stage One is a rezoning, or what you’re reviewing at Stage Two is the possible uses of a property zoned a certain way versus the use for a particular property, and it can be very complicated, and you just have to be very clear for the record what it is you’re doing and do it one step at a time, and there’s some additional information that’s going to be on it’s way to you from Mark, on the issue of getting answers to individual Board members. The concern is that we don’t want Bob to have an answer that Cathy doesn’t have, and then she asks the same question. So we either want to send responses to the whole Board, because we represent all of you, or perhaps have you filter your questions through Craig, who’s your Chairman, so that we know that, once we give an answer, everybody is on the same page, and that we don’t need to respond to the same question four times. MR. STROUGH-Well, that was my concern, especially on an issue like we’re facing with the Hayes & Hayes rezoning, is that the way Marilyn responded to my request for further information, in that she said that we’re not going to respond to individual Planning Board members, only to the Planning Board as a whole. Then we have a procedural problem. MS. RADNER-Right. MR. STROUGH-When do we get together to set our minds up as a Board in whole what further things we want to see to make the determination on that application? MS. RADNER-Probably, and again, this is something you can work through better amongst yourselves or at workshop meetings, but what would probably be the easiest way to do it is when one of you has a question, send it to your Chairman, copy your fellow Board members, so that they know what question you’ve presented, and then leave it to your Chairman to, it creates additional work for him, but. MR. STROUGH-Well, and he negated that. MS. RADNER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-I suggested that. MS. RADNER-So you might want to consider having another person that’s designated, then, as the go between, you know, the filter for Town Board inquiries or, but all of you have a right to have your question answered. We just want to make sure they’re getting in. MR. STROUGH-Then we should have the workshop prior to this rezoning, because this rezoning issue is a hot one. MS. RADNER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I just want to say one thing, in reading from this, this is from the SEQRA. It says a municipality should consider the most intensive uses. This could be generic. It doesn’t have to be Hayes & Hayes or anybody else. “A municipality should consider the most intensive uses allowable under the proposed zoning to judge potential impacts. MS. RADNER-Yes, but now you’re talking about a SEQRA rezoning, SEQRA on the rezoning. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, correct. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MS. RADNER-So that if, for example, you’re rezoning it as commercial versus industrial, you have a completely different SEQRA to review because of the different allowed uses under each. You’re right. MR. RINGER-Does that answer your question, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it does. MR. RINGER-Does that answer your question, John? MR. STROUGH-No, it doesn’t. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it answered my specific question, but. MR. STROUGH-Well, my question is a procedural thing, in that, if we, as a Board, are going to get together and discuss what items we agree on, that we want further information on from a certain applicant, over a certain application, then maybe we could sit down and have our workshop at the beginning of the month, knowing what applications that we have, and then we can ask the questions as a Board. I don’t see how, I’m in a Catch-22 here. I’ve got some concerns. I can’t get those concerns addressed unless it comes from the Board, and I can’t get the agreement from the Board unless I sit down and talk to you about my concerns, and then you either share those concerns or you don’t. I mean, the rest of the Board probably knows what I’m talking about. MR. RINGER-You can fax me. You can print a hard copy and just fax it to me. MR. STROUGH-I didn’t know you had a fax. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have your e-mail number, either. MR. RINGER-I don’t have e-mail. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t have e-mail. MR. RINGER-When I retired, I got rid of my e-mail, but I kept my fax machine. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what has happened, since that, is if John, you came up with a very well worded set of questions. Craig MacEwan’s got his own set of questions. I have my set of questions, and I’d like to see these things mixed up so we get a position, so we know what we’re doing. You’re right. I’m agreeing with what you’re saying. MR. RINGER-Your set of questions in regards to procedures on the SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, sure. MS. RADNER-Again, there’s going to be more information coming to you on this, specific to this project. MR. STROUGH-Not necessarily procedural. Some are substantive, in relation to the application, in that there’s certain information that we feel we need to know, in order to make this determination that we have to make. We’re dealing with a rezoning issue here, and I think this is probably the hot button that started me thinking in this direction, and so in order for me to make a determination as to whether this is an appropriate rezoning or not, then, in my mind, there’s certain questions that I would like to have answered, and I think the applicant can answer these any ahead of time. Because at the meeting, I’ll bring up the same questions, and there’s a good chance, I think it’s a reasonable inference that maybe the applicant won’t be prepared to answer the questions I have. So then I’ll be, later on I might be asked to make a determination on this application when I don’t feel I have all the answers. I’m trying to give the applicant the benefit of having that information supplied to me before the meeting. MR. RINGER-Well, I would think, John, if you’ve got questions to ask the applicant, and he doesn’t have the answers to come back to you, then the Board may not vote on that SEQRA or not have the SEQRA thing tonight. Now you may be a minority. The majority of the Board may feel they have enough information to do it, and you not. So you could lose in that situation, but, to me, it seems like, if we’re going to discuss an application, then the applicant should be here. It just seems. MR. STROUGH-Well, no, we’re not discussing, we’re discussing what information we would like from the applicant. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. RINGER-Well, I think really, you’re really getting into the application itself, and the applicant should be here. MR. VOLLARO-I think this is just trying to clear up some of the direction in the SEQRA law, and I want, like John, I want to understand it before that applicant comes before me. I don’t want to sit here. MR. RINGER-And generically we could do that, but not when you’re talking about a specific application. MR. VOLLARO-We can talk about it generically. We can talk about the SEQRA law generically. MR. RINGER-Then I would say we do that at a workshop session. MR. VOLLARO-Fine, that’s fine. I don’t have a problem with that. MR. RINGER-And if the majority of the Board feels they need a workshop session before a particular application comes before the Board, then you could ask the Chairman to schedule that workshop, prior to that time. MR. VOLLARO-But somebody like John, and I’m going to include myself in there, may not be satisfied with that approach, and I’m getting to the point on this Board that if I can’t be satisfied with information, I’ll recuse myself from an application, and state the reason. MR. RINGER-And there may be times when you may have to do that, Bob. You always have a choice to do whatever you wish to do on the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. RINGER-And there are some times when you may not have all the information you may want, or John may want or I may want or Tony, and you have to take a vote without it. MR. VOLLARO-Then every Board, we may have to recuse ourselves, and you may not have a quorum. MR. RINGER-And that may happen. I’m saying, things are going to happen, but I think we have to handle things in a proper procedure, and to me, something like this, if you’ve got questions about the SEQRA, then it should be handled in a workshop session. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. If you don’t want to talk specific, I can understand that. You’re probably right, but my questions are certainly going to be pointed toward what I know that application, I can’t stick my head in the sand and say, they don’t exist. They’ve already surfaced, and I’m not going to say, okay, one half of my brain is going to say, they don’t exist, and so I don’t want to ask any questions pertaining to that particular zoning application. I can’t do that. They’ve surfaced. They’ve put themselves out front. Now I’ve got to deal with it. MR. RINGER-Then those questions should come up when we’re having the meeting with the applicant for that application and the SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RINGER-And if you have generic questions about it, I would say they should be handled at a workshop where legal may have to give us an interpretation. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, true enough. I would like to know, for example, in one simple statement, when I’m looking at any application on a SEQRA basis, for zoning, do I look at it for the most intense use, or do I look at it for the specific, for a specific use? I’m trying to look at what the SEQRA law says, that I’m supposed to do, and if you start really reading this stuff, you take the time to read it and study it, a lot of questions begin to surface, and I think we do things a little superficially here, because a lot of people don’t read it well. MR. RINGER-I have an opinion on that, too, but see I separate a little bit the site plan from the SEQRA review. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think they are separate issues. MR. RINGER-Yes, but I think we’re trying to combine, and now I’m talking specifics, but (lost words). 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. STROUGH-Well, is it possible we can make the workshop on the sixth and put Hayes and Hayes on a later meeting? MR. RINGER-I think we can, I don’t want to make that decision, because I’m not going to be here in March, and I really feel that this is something that the Chairman should handle. So I’m not going to make that decision on that tonight, John. The idea is great. Unfortunately, I don’t feel, since I’m not going to be involved in it, and I’m only the acting Chairman tonight, that it’s something that Craig should make the decision on. I’ll try to get a hold of Craig tonight, and give him this information. If he feels that way, then he can get a hold of Staff and change the Hayes & Hayes to another night, or schedule a workshop prior to that time. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. RINGER-And we may be able to discuss it next Tuesday night, too, and get some more information on it. Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The most feasible thing is to have the workshop on the sixth of March. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think that’s true. Have it before the H & H. I hate to say the word now. MR. RINGER-And it very well could be, and Craig can make that decision, and we, as a Board, can make that decision next week, next Tuesday. What else have you got, Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about this agenda policy? MR. RINGER-Well, that was part of the workshop session that we were going to do, adopting the by-laws and the policy and the procedures. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. I think Mr. Brush is here. MR. VOLLARO-I am not going to sit for that. MR. RINGER-Okay. So the next item on the agenda, then, would be going back to the discussion item. MRS. LA BOMBARD-On the Green Mountain Development Corp. MR. RINGER-Okay. DISCUSSION: CHARLES BRUSH, GREEN MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT CORP. PROPOSED SENIOR FACILITY CHARLIE BRUSH, PRESENT MR. RINGER-Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. BRUSH-Yes. My name’s Charlie Brush from Green Mountain Development Group, from South Burlington, Vermont. I’m here tonight to talk to you about a project I’m proposing on 25 acres of land just east of the Community College, owned by the Woodbury’s, and it’s a senior housing development. What I’d like to do is do three things, give you a little history on my company and what we’ve done, tell you about the affordable senior housing model that we’re using, and then discuss, more briefly, specifically, a few things about the project, and I would like to get some feedback from you as to what you might see as issues which you would like me to address as I go forward, and whatever else you usually do in these meetings. I have not been before you before. MR. RINGER-Okay. Well, we don’t have many items like this where someone comes without a site plan. MR. BRUSH-I do have a site plan. MR. RINGER-Well, an application. You don’t have an application. MR. BRUSH-Okay. MR. RINGER-So, what I think we’d like to do, there’s some disagreement on the Board, rather we should even entertain this discussion. Okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. BRUSH-Okay. MR. RINGER-So, nothing against the company. It’s just a procedural thing. So, what I think I’d like to see is, give us your history, you know, tell us a little bit about your project. Whether you get ideas from us tonight or not, I don’t think we’re going to be putting forth many ideas, until we actually have an application in front of us. MR. BRUSH-That’s good. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And I would just like to add, would you show me, on that map, where ACC is, where the College is? MR. BRUSH-Would you like to see that right now? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. When you’re in the process of pointing things out. MR. RINGER-Well, we don’t want to take you out of your, I’m sure you have a planned presentation. So, we don’t want to take you out of your format. MR. BRUSH-Well, it’s as planned as it is unplanned, but I’ve done it a few times. MR. RINGER-So, you’ve got the floor. MR. BRUSH-Okay. I sent some packets to Chris. MR. RINGER-We all have it. MR. BRUSH-It should have a bunch of stuff in it, probably there’s more in there then I’m going to tell you tonight, and I’ll get through this as quickly as I can because I know you have a lot to do. Green Mountain Development Group has been in business for 25 years. I have a partner. We’ve developed all sorts of real estate projects, from commercial condominiums to lavish, large single family residential projects, condominiums, townhomes, what have you. Got into developing affordable senior housing about six or seven years ago, started with a project called The Pines Senior Living Community, which you see there on the left, in South Burlington. Fifty-three independent living apartments, is started off it was 100% rented, Day One. We had three more phases to go after that. All three of those phases were leased up before putting the shovel in the ground, and we have 185 units in South Burlington, now, 100% occupied, with a waiting list of more than we can handle. We have since expanded that. MR. RINGER-That’s on Dorset Street? MR. BRUSH-That is on Dorset Street, right down from the University Mall, if you’re familiar with. MR. RINGER-Yes, it’s a very busy area there. Quite a bit of traffic there with the Mall and all the stores there. MR. BRUSH-It is a busy area. No question about it. We then, because this has been successful, we’ve done another one in Hanover/West Lebanon, New Hampshire. Seventy-eight units, we’re currently constructing the thirty-eight units on that. That is also 100% leased. Fifty-one units in Rutland, which is 100% leased with a waiting list of more than 100 people. We’re trying desperately to get the second and third phases of that built, and we’re also currently doing an historic rehab of the St. Johnsbury Hotel in St. Johnsbury, Vermont, which is 39 senior apartments in historic rehab. Now, the concept we use is we make this affordable by using what’s called a low income housing tax credit, which some of you may know about or not. Basically, it’s a tax credit issued by the Federal government to projects which allows us to raise equity, which in turn makes the rents affordable, and we’re restricted on the rents for basically forever, but what we do, which is unique, is we provide ala carte menu of optional services for seniors, which means meals, health care, social programs, exercise programs, that type of thing, typically what you would see in an assisted living, if you know what assisted living is. An assisted living, however, is extremely expensive. I believe The Landing’s down here, $3,000 a month, $2500, up to, up or more, up to $5,000 a month, for that, and the project the Eddy Group is doing over here, that’s another project with an entry fee type of system starting off at, I believe, $75,000 a month. It’s a $75,000 entry fee, $3,000 a month after that. Our apartments rent from anywhere between $450 and $650 a month for the restricted units, and then all the services which people buy on top of that can run from, you know, nothing a month to whatever they need to help them age successfully. It’s been extremely popular. It functions very efficiently. People maintain their independence, but yet there’s a big support system of services available. A typical resident is a 75 year old widowed woman, or single woman who’s living on social security and a little small pension maybe. There also are some market rate units, which are unrestricted in the rent, maybe 80% we call them tax credit units, as opposed to 20% market rate units, in the projects, and 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) those are, the rents on those can run anywhere from $650 up to $900 for a one or two bedroom apartment. So, it’s a, we call it a supportive senior housing type model. It is functioning extremely well. We initially had planned to do this project down on some land, on the Passarelli property, 80 acres, I believe you know and you’ve seen the project coming in for Rich Schermerhorn for an office park on 37 acres on the east side of that. We could not keep that deal together with him so we went to the Woodbury’s, and have an agreement with the Woodbury’s to purchase roughly 20, it’s about 27 acres of land from them, for the project. More specifically, on the project, if you have the location map, does everybody have a question on where it is? MR. RINGER-That’s what Cathy had. MR. HUNSINGER-I had the same question. MR. BRUSH-The question is where is the Community College? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, exactly where the site is. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You said directly east of the College, and I’m trying to figure out, is Bay Road the access or Meadowbrook the access? MR. BRUSH-No, no. It’s off of Bay Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got to see where the College is. MR. RINGER-It’s on the other side of the street, Cathy. MR. BRUSH-It’s on the west side of Bay Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You said it was east of the College, when you came in. MR. BRUSH-I did? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. STROUGH-You’re making use of that 60 foot right of way, just to the south of the Church of Our King property? MR. BRUSH-That’s exactly correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know where it is. MR. RINGER-The driveway to this is right next to the driveway to the Church of the King. MR. BRUSH-Right. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. Because when you said east of the College. I know, I’ve got you. MR. RINGER-It’s right next door to the Church of the King that’s on the agenda tonight. MR. BRUSH-If I said east, I said wrong. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. BRUSH-So we’re on the west side of Bay Road, and this is a 60 foot right of way just south of the Church building. I don’t know what to call that because it doesn’t look like a, whatever it is. A 60 foot right of way going back into basically a rectangular piece of land which is about 25 acres, and then there’s another lot which attaches on to the back, which you should see in there, which goes up to Blind Rock Road, which is about 1.8 acres or so. MR. STROUGH-Will it come out on Blind Rock Road, or will it come out on that intersection? Because this looks like it comes out right to that intersection of Country Club Road and Blind Rock Road. MR. RINGER-There’s a little loop there that looks like it comes out to Blind Rock. MR. BRUSH-Yes. It does have frontage on Blind Rock Road. The entrance will be off of Bay Road, and the potential to use an area up Blind Rock, if we need to. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got you. I like that in one and out the other. MR. RINGER-You say if you need to. MR. BRUSH-Well, I know there’s one issue of traffic. One thing about this project, it’s a very light traffic generator. About 60% of the people will have cars, about half of those won’t even move, about once every two weeks, and during the winter probably don’t move for a while, and they use, they don’t create peak trip ins. They are usually using their cars when there’s light traffic. So they don’t generate much traffic. We have very light loads on civil services. I think one of the bigger benefits for the community is we will pay full property taxes to the Town and the County. We will put no kids in the schools. So I think we pay our fair share and more, and we expect to do that. We’re not going to ask for any tax breaks in any way. MR. RINGER-What percentage of your people would be under Medicaid or Social Services? MR. BRUSH-I would expect almost none. Because to qualify for the Medicaid program, you have to be I think like under $11,000 in income. Somebody with $11,000 of income could not afford to be in this. You’d need to probably make about $18,000 to $20,000 to be there, and that question has come up, are we going to stress the County/Medicaid contribution, Social Services. The answer to that is, I believe, we’re going to do the opposite. We are going to help that situation, because we’re going to keep people from needing those types of services in that kind of a setting in an assisted living facility or a nursing home or what have you, by, the idea is aging in place and prevention and wellness, that kind of thing, and believe me, you know, it all sounds good. It is real. It happens, and as you know, in Vermont anyway, there’s a huge drive to reduce the occupancies and the load on the State funding of nursing homes and that type of thing, and they are embracing this type of project, in Vermont and New Hampshire to help alleviate that situation. MR. RINGER-In Burlington, how many of your people come from that area, or how many come from a wider area? MR. BRUSH-Well, we study it. It’s about 80%, anyway, from right around the area, then we did have some people, some folks that lived in Florida, let’s say, but their kids lived in Burlington. So they came back to live at The Pines, to be closer to their kids, and then there were some people that moved into the area from private, I don’t know why, but I expect most of the people will be from the County area. MR. RINGER-I think one of the concerns from our social, from County Social Services, was that they were going to be importing people in from Saratoga County, Washington County, or whatever, and that’s where the burden would be put on to Social Services. MR. BRUSH-Yes. I’ve had that discussion. MR. RINGER-I’ve heard that. MR. BRUSH-Yes. I’ve heard that, too. I don’t have a great answer for that. I don’t think that’ll happen. I think the opposite will happen, as far as, we are going to help that Social Services budget, not demand more of it. MR. RINGER-How about EMS, the Adirondack Manor, which is just down the road from you, which is assisted living, and The Eddy. It seems like on average, four to five ambulance calls a week at those facilities. How does that work in Dorset? MR. BRUSH-Well, we have an emergency call system within the building and within each apartment unit. MR. RINGER-I’m more concerned, not about getting there, the strain that it may put on the emergency services. MR. BRUSH-Right. Well, what we do is we have, during the normal business hours, we have somebody there, and then we have what’s called resident security teams, and most of the time those calls are either a mistake or something. So we try and handle it first to determine the level of need, and then if there is something we need to react to, then it goes to the emergency. MR. RINGER-How many times a week is the ambulance there? MR. BRUSH-Not more than once a week, if that. MR. RINGER-It’s certainly better than what our record is here. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. BRUSH-There’s no question that there will be times. You have a bunch of old people together, there’s going to be times when there’s an event. We haven’t, that I know of, burdened any community that we’ve got a project in so far. They’ve been very cooperative with us in working with us to make it work. Regarding, this is essentially a rendering of what the building looks like. MR. RINGER-Yes, we’ve got that. MR. BRUSH-Okay. A two story building, white clapboards, green shutters. It looks like a grand hotel, very attractive building. The project in Pines here, in fact, won the award in 1998 as the best seniors housing project in the Country from the National Association of Home Builders (lost words) blending all the services together, community services together for this project. More specifically, here’s Bay Road, and I’m not sure, you can see right there, that’s an entrance to the College or not. I think it might be close to it. So there’s a 60 foot right of way coming out down here, and this is the 25 acre piece of land. We would propose 62 units of Phase I. A Phase II of roughly another 62 units, and then if we have the land, just do cottage units, which look like this, which are a slightly more expensive version of the same thing. This is the guy that has a house that maybe is worth $200,000, and he pays an entry fee, and puts the rest of the money in the bank, and has a monthly rent, but has the availability of al the services over here. The Eddy Group, they’ve got some cottages. It kind of works in the same way, but it’s a totally different market that we’re going after. The person that’s going to live in here is the Fireman who’s worked for the Town of Queensbury all his life, and he’s got social security and a pension. In here might be the two earner income, the teacher and the, somebody. If you’ve got the money to do The Eddy Group, it’s a great solution, but that’s for an elite few. There are some wetlands on the site which have been delineated. You see in the cross hatched area. I’ve spoken quite a bit with the Town, Ralph VanDusen, the water would come in off of Bay Road. We would prefer to hook in to the Town sewer, if that becomes available, and we’re going to quickly work out an arrangement. We have very good soils up here. So we would dispose of our sewage initially, I think, unless the sewer line gets done, on site, but we’re going to make provisions such that we can hook on to the sewer line, if and when it comes by, and I have told the Town Supervisor that we would the cost of that sewage line, if and when it happens. We are not in a position to make that happen. Although I understand it’s close. MRS. LA BOMBARD-How long is that driveway that you say, the road leading in there? MR. BRUSH-This is a roughly 600 feet. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s way in there, set right in. MR. BRUSH-It’s set back from the road probably, I expect you’ll see it because there’s some trees here, but it’s back off the road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, where would the proposed cottages be? They would be your Phase III? MR. BRUSH-Yes, and probably back in this area back in here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I see. There’s another road with a cul de sac. I see it now. MR. BRUSH-I kind of drew in the road so you can see it here, and then it’s dotted way back. This would be the first chunk of it. Then the next piece would be this here, and then, if we can do this, we’ll come back in here and do cottages back in here. I figure the density, it’s roughly, if you just take the acreage less the wetlands, and divide by 5,000, roughly we’d do 176, 177 units on this property, and this would be built over time. It would take three to six years, probably, for the whole thing. MR. STROUGH-I don’t see where the road comes out on Blind Rock Road. MR. BRUSH-It doesn’t at any point now. MR. STROUGH-So you’re only going to have one access? MR. BRUSH-Well, we would either do a split road coming in, in other words a median down the middle here, until we got to here, or we would come through and make an emergency type road off of Blind Rock. I don’t think that would be a great entrance up there. It would certainly be most appropriate to have it down here. The fact that it’s up there, the topography there, it certainly could serve as an emergency exit, emergency access, but I’m not sure it would be great as a primary access. I think our preference would be, if you think we need, my best solution is a 30 foot wide road to make it a wider road. To do the split road I think really is kind of overkill, and we’re, to get us back here, and once we’re in here, there’s plenty of room for emergency vehicles to maneuver. The chances of having blockage along this are slim, but I suppose it could happen. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. STROUGH-So when do you plan on bringing this project before us for a preliminary? That would be the next step. MR. BRUSH-Right. Our plans are, we have to make an application to the State of New York for the tax credits before we can really make this happen. I’m not going to take on the expense of having Tom Nace prepare all the detailed plans that are required for the site plan review until I know I can make this project go. So I wouldn’t expect to see you again until June or July, and that’s when I would hear from them. If we don’t, we applied last year and got turned down. We were the last project to be funded, or not to be funded, off the list on the Meadowbrook Road site. We were encouraged to come back (lost words) Kubricky project, to service a need in the County. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there other projects in Warren County that are applying for the tax credits that you’re aware of? MR. BRUSH-I understand that the project on Cronin Road down there that has. I understand that they’re doing something similar, and only one guy I think will get funded, for sure, and if I understand what that is, it’s eight plex buildings, four up, four down, and senior housing is a completely different animal than we are. MR. RINGER-Yes. They’re not assisted living. MR. HUNSINGER-But they are looking for the housing tax credits. MR. BRUSH-That’s what I’ve heard, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, they told us that they were. MR. BRUSH-And I heard that, too, through the grapevine, but that is a much different project from us. (Lost words) this is all handicapped accessible, grab bars. You could live in a wheelchair with this thing (lost word). MR. BRUSH-Any other questions or comments? MR. RINGER-Some of the things we’d be looking for is stormwater management, septic, sewer. Actually, with sewer might be, you know, that project with a septic system may be a hard sell. I don’t, you know, but these are things that may come up during your site plan that you’re going to be getting questions on. Traffic, there’s certainly going to be some questions on it. That is a busy road. Although you’ve indicated, and I think most of us do agree that this type of project doesn’t generate a lot of traffic. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think one thing we would be looking for would be amenities, as far as walkways and paths and things for the people that live there to be able to go outdoors, and walk around. MR. BRUSH-We’ll have all that stuff (lost words) garden outside where (lost words). There’s a lot going on there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So they’d have safe walkways to, let’s say if one person had a friend that was way at the other side of the building, she could walk there, outdoors, if she wanted to. In other words, we had one project that came in front of us that, because it was really affordable, they really disregarded a lot of those amenities, that we thought were just basic things. MR. BRUSH-Right. I think you’ll see that this has got a lot of that stuff in it. The walkway thing, what we’ll do is, you see this road back here will be an access for emergency fire vehicles, and what’s happened in another project that we have, is that becomes a walkway that circles the entire project, and the people use that area here, but then the road keeps going on up in here. There’ll be walkways. There’s a large dining room, a library, common space downstairs for a t.v. If you look in the book there, you’ll see a bunch of pictures. So there’s a lot of amenities in the project. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And will there be like transportation to bring the people that live there to the Mall? MR. BRUSH-What we hope to do is work with the transportation, with the bus system, and we’ve been able to, at other places, have them come right in, and do a pick up right at the front door. It usually begins as an on call type of thing, but then once they figure out the timing, they’ll schedule a loop right through. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will the people that live there be able to have their own vehicles if they’re still driving? 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. BRUSH-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And they can park them just in the front? They’d be left outdoors. MR. BRUSH-We’d have them, some garages, carports, and we’ve found that people really (lost words). MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are those gas fireplaces in the units? MR. BRUSH-Yes. Those right there. Fireplaces in those are optional. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m talking about in the diagram, in the drawings there, or is that a common room? MR. BRUSH-This is the common area here. This is the living room, and that is a gas fireplace in I call it the living room. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But they don’t have their own living rooms? MR. BRUSH-No, no, no. Not in the apartment units themselves. In the cottage units back here there’s an option to put a fireplace in, which would be a gas fireplace. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s an elevator? MR. BRUSH-An elevator (lost word) fully sprinklered building. All wheelchair accessible, handicapped. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just have one more question. You don’t have to answer this. I have some answers that I feel, but what is the attraction in Queensbury for, that this just inundation of these kinds of living facilities? MR. HUNSINGER-This is the third one that’s come before us in the past three months. MR. BRUSH-Well, I know, well, you’ve got The Landing. I mean, Queensbury’s a nice place. We have to do significant market studies. There is a huge demand for this stuff. The senior center that runs in this place is 1700 members of this senior. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Really? MR. BRUSH-Yes, and that is a big number of senior citizens that are doing things, and, you know, The Landing, that’s a different animal, okay, that’s an assisted living which really comes from the hospital, nursing home, family. Okay. This is residential with the services to keep you out of that. That’s what that is, but you have to have a lot of money. The Eddy Group thing, it’s a great answer, but it’s $75,000 to $100,000 check up front, and a big check every month. That’s a group that’s going to pull from a lot of places in the Town. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is that assisted living, can that come under the same rules and regulations, as far as paying for it, that people that go to nursing homes have? MR. BRUSH-No. MR. RINGER-It’s just an apartment. MR. BRUSH-As you know, it’s a very complex system of (lost words) reimbursements. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. BRUSH-The bottom line, you know, if somebody is basically desitute, the State, the government is going to put them in a nursing home, is going to pay for it, but you have to be down to zero before that’s going to happen, and I deal with a lot of senior citizens. Believe me, the desire to never have to get into that situation is intense, and they do not want to go there, and that’s why it will (lost words) so popular, because it really lets you do your own deal, and not have somebody else telling you what to do, and it’s inexpensive. It’s not the cheapest, dirt cheap, but it is, there’s a huge, huge population of people. MR. HUNSINGER-So this is more of an option of the typical elderly woman who’s still in the family homestead and has a 15 room house that she’s trying to take care of. I mean, this is the option for that type of person. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. BRUSH-Well, if she owns the 15 room house, she probably owns it free and clear, and it’s probably worth pretty good money, but she would be the candidate for the cottage thing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BRUSH-Okay. It’s the person that probably lived in an apartment or a condo, townhouse. They have social security and maybe a small pension. They make $20,000 a year. Those are the people, $18,000 to $20,000. That’s not a lot of money, and for $450 a month, they get an apartment with all the utilities and everything, and still have some money left over to do some things with. So they spend another $300, $400 on some meals, seeing the nurse and getting the house cleaned up and some help getting in and out of the bath tub maybe. They still have some money left over, but if they have to go to an assisted living facility to do that, right out of the box is $2,000, and they can’t afford it. So they’re stuck. I believe we have a pretty unique concept. The only way it works is with the tax credits that we’d get from the State. That’s the thing that drives the train, and allows us to do all of the things. Believe me, when you walk into this, this looks like, you go, wow, this is pretty nice. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And how many units did you say you were proposing in the first phase? MR. BRUSH-The first phase would be 62. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And that’s three stories? MR. BRUSH-Two stories. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So, okay. MR. BRUSH-It really takes, to get, it needs enough of a critical mass to drive all of the services. You can’t do it with 30 units. It just won’t work. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. BRUSH-And because we make everything optional, the meals are optional, but you can’t, and we have a unique way of doing this, we need to get 25 to 30 people doing meals every day to be able to do it, otherwise it’s just a total loser and we can’t do it. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I was going to ask, how many units is it before you, for it to make sense? MR. BRUSH-Well, let’s put it this way, it’ll survive at 62, right. It’ll be a lot sweeter at 120, when it finally gets there, and our experience is, once we get the first up and get that revved up, the second one is a done deal before we start. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Now, you said three stories, but it says two stories. MR. BRUSH-I hope it says two. MR. RINGER-Yes, the one in Burlington is three. MR. BRUSH-The one in Burlington is three, that’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So are the apartments up and down? MR. BRUSH-No, They’re flats. There’s an elevator off the corridor, with apartments coming off the corridor. MR. HUNSINGER-So, sort of inside it’s more like a hotel? MR. BRUSH-I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-So to speak. MR. BRUSH-But the apartment is very generous. There’s a nice kitchen in it, you know, so you can do your own thing. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And they have a little living room? 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 2/20/01) MR. BRUSH-Yes. I mean, if you look in the book, you can see. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I didn’t know which one was the common room and which one, that’s one of the units? MR. BRUSH-That’s an apartment unit right there. There’s the little kitchen. So you’ve got the kitchen, little dining room table. That’s looking from your kitchen out to the living room. They’re not huge, but you’d be surprised at how much furniture they can get in there and how much it looks. MR. HUNSINGER-So how big is each apartment? MR. BRUSH-About 500 square feet, for a one bedroom. There are some two bedroom units. (Lost words) some people use it as a den or study. We have some couples. MR. STROUGH-Are people allowed to visit them and stay there? MR. BRUSH-Sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, I was just going to ask that, too. MR. STROUGH-If it’s a two bedroom. MRS. LA BOMBARD-If they’re children wanted to visit them. MR. BRUSH-Yes. One of the ideas here, too, is we’re not trying to burden anyone with a whole lot of rules and regulations. We’re trying to keep it, a framework under which, you know, you just keep living your life, but you’ve got all this support stuff available, so when you need it, you grab onto it, but you keep doing what you’ve normally been doing, and the idea is, the term these days is aging in place, because we know if you’re 70 years old and you start living there, and you live there for 10 years, you’re condition’s going to change in 10 years, as healthy as you want to be, and as you, (lost words) years as you go along, you don’t have to then move out and go somewhere. You can stay right there, at a certain point, maybe we can’t take care of you, but we can take you a long, long way. We had one person in our original Pines, who moving out of a nursing home in Manchester, New Hampshire, actually, to move up to be near her kids, moved out of a nursing home, into our place, was there six years, just had to go back to the nursing home at Christmas. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Is this your first endeavor in New York State? MR. BRUSH-In New York State, yes. Actually, we tried to do one in Plattsburg and just, we couldn’t get it going, but that was much different. We’ve done them in Vermont, New Hampshire (lost words). Any questions? MR. RINGER-Anything? Laura, did you have anything? That’s it. We thank you for coming in. MR. BRUSH-Thank you very much. MR. RINGER-Okay. Nothing else on the agenda? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, sir. MR. RINGER-Motion to adjourn. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Larry Ringer, Acting Chairman (Vice Chairman) 28