The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-06-24 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH ANTHONY METIVIER LARRY RINGER SENIOR PLANNER-MARILYN RYBA PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-CATHI RADNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MOTION TO QUANTIFY CHANGES TO THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD BY-LAWS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, Introduced by Mr. Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Hunsinger: Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. LaBombard SUBDIVISION NO. 10-02P DANIEL AND PAMELA VALENTE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED DANIEL & PAMELA VALENTE PROPERTY OWNER: DANIEL & ELIZABETH VALENTE AGENT: CHARLES SCUDDER, P.E. ZONE: PO LOCATION: BAY ROAD @ WALKER LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 14.05 ACRE PARCEL INTO 15 LOTS FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE COMPLEX. TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-21 LOT SIZE: 14.05 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS CHARLES SCUDDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DANIEL VALENTE, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Discussion from Board members before we move on this? The applicant is aware that we were going to move on this tonight. Any Staff comment? MR. HILTON-No, no comment. We did make the applicant aware of your meeting this evening. So, at this point, if you have any questions of the applicant, we’re all set. MR. VOLLARO-My only question, has the applicant seen a copy of the resolution? MR. HILTON-I don’t believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-Any comment from Board members? 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. STROUGH-I just had a question on the specifics as to how it’s not consistent with the design guidelines for the Bay Road corridor as identified in Article Seven, Chapter 179-7, just to get it out in public purview. We find that the applicant is not consistent with the design guidelines for the Bay Road corridor as identified in Article 7, Chapter 179-7. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 179-7-040. MS. RADNER-Bay Road corridor, it talks about the, I’ll hand you a copy of the Bay Road corridor regulations that has to do with the characteristics of the entry, the design objectives, streetscape elements, etc., architectural elements, and you can review it and determine for yourself whether you think that’s an accurate provision. MR. STROUGH-Well, I did. I just thought that a lot of those could have been answered with site plan issues, and so, I didn’t know why it was on there. MR. RINGER-I agreed with you on that, John, also, but we’re talking about a resolution that’s never been put forward yet. MR. STROUGH-So that was one of my questions. I mean, we just got this. So we haven’t had time to, as a Planning Board, talk about this or anything. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve had this, John, for approximately a week. At least I got mine in the mail a week ago. MR. RINGER-Are we prepared for a resolution, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what we were going to do tonight. MS. RADNER-My recollection is that the particular area of concern was under streetscape elements number five, parking being provided in the rear with access via a shared drive, and that the various plans that were presented did not show that or did not show reasonable alternatives for that. MR. STROUGH-And that’s an issue I can buy into. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, is somebody going to move it? If not, I’ll move it. MR. RINGER-I was going to make one, too. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Go ahead, Larry. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going with the prepared resolution? MR. RINGER-I’m going with the prepared resolution, but not the prepared resolution that Bob is going to. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry? MR. RINGER-I am going with a prepared resolution, but not the prepared resolution that you were intending on presenting. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Let’s first go with one that was done by Staff. The one that I set up with the Committee to sit down with Staff over the issues that were the concerns. Do you want to do something different? MR. RINGER-I have a resolution that’s different than what. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Then go with it. Go with it, if you want to go with it. MR. RINGER-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE, SUBDIVISION NO. 10-2002 DANIEL & PAMELA VALENTE Introduced by Mr. Ringer who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Strough: As per resolution prepared by Staff, dated 5/22/03 with the following conditions: 1. Final approval will not be granted until the applicant has provided a wastewater treatment contract from a municipal or private wastewater treatment facility. 2. All DEC permits are approved and on file with the Town Planning Department before Final approval is given, final subdivision. Duly adopted this 24 day of June 2003 by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-Larry, would you please read that one a second time for me. MR. RINGER-Which one, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-The one you just read. MR. RINGER-Okay. The Condition Two was that All DEC permit approvals will be on file with the Town Planning Department prior to Final subdivision approval. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the resolution dated 6/24/03? MR. RINGER-No. 5/22/03. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Ringer NOES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan ABSTAINED: Mrs. LaBombard MR. MAC EWAN-Robert, do you want to introduce yours? MOTION TO DENY PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 10-02P DANIEL & PAMELA VALENTE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Craig MacEwan: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board by: Subdivision No. 10-2002 Applicant: Daniel & Pamela Valente PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Daniel & Elizabeth Valente SEQRA Type: Unlisted Agent: Charles Scudder, P.E. Zone: PO Location: Bay Road @ Walker Lane Applicant proposes subdivision of a 14.05 acre parcel into 15 lots for a professional office complex. Tax Map No. 296.11-1-21 Lot size: 14.05 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: November 19, 2002 [Tabled] December 19, 2002 [PH left open] 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) March 25, 2003 [Re-advertise] WHEREAS, the application was received in 2002, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 6/20/03 and 6/4 D. Valente from Mr. MacEwan: 6/24 meeting 5/30 Planning Office from NYSDEC: Notice of Complete Application 5/22 D. Phillips from M. Auffredou [BPSR]: HOA and Valente relocated easement 5/22 FOIL request from D. Auer 5/22 PB resolution: Tabled 5/22 PB resolution: SEQR 5/22 PB minutes 5/16 Staff Notes 5/16 C. T. Male engineering comments 5/7 Meeting Notice 4/15 New information received 3/28 D. Valente from GH 3/25 PB resolution: Tabled 3/25 PB minutes 3/25 GH from D. Phillips: Deeds 3/23 PB from V. Meyers: in favor 3/21 Staff Notes 3/18 Notice of Public Hearing 3/17 C. T. Male engineering comments 3/14 G. Hilton from NYSDEC (R. Speidel) 3/13 C. Scudder from NYSDEC (R. Speidel) 3/5 Meeting Notice 2/21 C. Round to G. Hilton, forwarded e-mail from K. Brude, ACOE 2/10 G. Hilton from NYSDEC (R. Speidel) 12/16 G. Hilton from K. Kogut 12/13 Staff Notes 12/13 CT Male engineering comments 12/9 D. Valente from K. Bruce [ACOE] 12/9 RPS data re: K. Sulliven (new owner) / previous owner 12/6 FOIL request: D. Auer 12/5 Revised info forwarded to CT Male 12/5 Revised info received: Letter w/revised map (7) 12/5 Meeting Notice letter 12/4 G. Hilton from C. Scudder 12/3 Notification to 500’ homeowners of change in meeting date 12/2 C. Scudder from C. Scudder 11/27 D. Valente from GH: request for info 11/26 PB minutes 11/22 CT Male engineering comments 11/19 Staff Notes 11/19 Public comment received from R. Schermerhorn (faxed to applicant) 11/19 Public comment received from R. Morris 11/19 Public comment received from M/M Longhitano 11/19 Highway Dept. comments 11/15 CT Male engineering comments 11/12 Wastewater Dept. comments 11/12 Notice of Public Hearing 11/7 FOIL request: D. Auer 11/7 Fax to C. Scudder of 11/4 letter 11/5 Meeting Notice 11/4 D. Valente from G. Hilton 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) 11/1 Application forwarded to CT Male 10/17 FOIL request: D. Auer 10/17 FOIL request: R. Schermerhorn WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on November 19, 2002, December 19, 2002 and March 25, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application 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 Preliminary Plat of Subdivision No. 10-2002 is hereby disapproved Reference: Chapter179 Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance Chapter A183 Subdivision of Land Code of the Town of Queensbury The property is located in the Professional Office (PO) district abutting Bay Road and is located in area designated the Bay Road Corridor Design Guideline district. We find that the application is not consistent with the design guidelines for the Bay Road Corridor as identified in Article 7 /Chapter 179-7-040. Specifically, in the judgment of the Planning Board the preliminary plat presented (“Fairfield Professional Park Subdivision Plat” Sheet 1 of 7 dated April 2003) for approval does not meet the design criteria as established in Section 179-7-040. The referenced plat proposes 15 professional office lots ranging in area from 27,800 sq. ft. to 59,400 sq. ft. (ave. 38,013 sq. ft.) with five (5) lots fronting and gaining access from Walker Lane. The balance of the lots are accessed from a roadway (internal road) proposed to link the subdivision to Bay Road and Bay Bridge Drive. Walker Lane is primarily residential in nature. The construction of professional offices on Walker Lane will have a detrimental affect on the character of Walker Lane. The Planning Board requested the applicant prepare an alternate design and the applicant responded (received April 15, 2003) with a figure entitled “Fairfield Professional Park –Alternate Subdivision Layout” dated April 2003. The alternate layout proposed 10 lots ranging in area from 25,000 sq. ft. to 93,960 sq. ft. (ave. 53,633 sq. ft.) with all lots fronting on a proposed internal road. The alternate layout did not propose any lots to front or gain access from Walker Lane. The Planning Board judged this proposal as meeting the intent of the Bay Road Design Guidelines. However, the applicant withdrew the proposal for further consideration. The property is not currently located within a sewer district and no information documenting the project site’s capacity to accommodate on site (conventional subsurface) wastewater disposal systems. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) We find the proposed preliminary plat does not have adequate provisions for wastewater (sewage) disposal. The applicant has made several submissions to this board that propose connection to municipal wastewater collection system. The submissions have included documentation of the applicant’s intent to establish a sewer district extension. An extension of sewer district infrastructure on Bay Road is currently under construction, which will bring sewer infrastructure into close proximity to the proposed project. As of this date, the infrastructure is privately held by a transportation corporation <Schermerhorn reference>. We have no verification from the transportation corporation that the district extension proposed by the applicant is a feasible proposal. In lieu of some form of verification that the proposal is feasible and in fact constructible we find there are no provisions for wastewater disposal. Any proposal for a new application should include: 1. An alternate subdivision layout minimizing the extent practicable the number of lots fronting on Walker Lane. 2. A Municipal Sewer connection plan which is acceptable to the town’s wastewater Superintendent. Duly adopted this 24th day of June 2003 by the following vote: MS. RADNER-Before you vote on that, I think you need to clarify the second Whereas, as you read it. I believe that you intended to say that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirement, in terms of the application being complete, but as you read it, that wasn’t consistent with the rest of what you read. MR. VOLLARO-The second Whereas, “The Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town of Queensbury”? MS. RADNER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And Whereas, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and MS. RADNER-No, it’s just that second one that I was referring to. I don’t think that’s consistent with the rest of your, as you read it. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. It’s corrected. MR. RINGER-In regards to the conditions, I find that the article that Bob referred to in his first condition applies more to site plan than subdivision and architectural design, not necessarily lot design. So I believe that’s flawed. MR. VOLLARO-Excuse me, Larry. MR. RINGER-That’s my opinion, Bob, I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-Wait a minute. You keep referring to the proposal that Bob wrote. This proposal comes directly from Counsel. MR. RINGER-From who? MR. VOLLARO-From Counsel. This is not something. MR. RINGER-Well, Counsel doesn’t make proposals. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MS. RADNER-No. This was mainly formulated by Staff. MR. MAC EWAN-It was a cooperative effort between Staff, Counsel and Planning Board members. MS. RADNER-With Counsel’s input. MR. RINGER-Okay. So, you know, that’s my opinion on that. The Board had asked for an alternate plan, and we say here that the applicant withdrew that. The applicant did not withdraw that alternate. The applicant stated that the alternate plan was requested by the Board. He gave it to us, but it was not practical and feasible for him because of the cost factor. The plan was never withdrawn, and if you read the minutes, that was also referred to Counsel, and Counsel agreed that he didn’t withdraw it. He complied with our request to provide an alternate plan. It did not mean that he had to go with that alternate plan. He never submitted that alternate plan as a practical one that he would use. So it was withdrawn. The plan was not withdrawn. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with Larry on this one. I also read the minutes. I know that I asked specifically during that meeting, was this plan off the table, and the answer was yes. To me, that’s a withdrawal. MR. RINGER-I think you’d have to read Counsel’s comments on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What other points do you have? MR. RINGER-As far as the five lots on Walker Lane, I don’t see that anticipate that to mean a major impact on Walker Lane. These offices, if there are five of them, will be small in nature. I also feel that the, what the applicant has provided is something we ask for all the time. This is the worst case scenario, the number of lots here. Chances are because of the size of these lots they will never be developed all as single lots. It just doesn’t seem. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t know that, though. MR. RINGER-We don’t know it, and that’s why I’m saying what the applicant presented is a worst case scenario. So he has presented what we’re asking for and looking to, a worst case scenario, but chances that are that won’t be developed that way. As far as the wastewater treatment, I think that can be handled by holding any Final approval until a wastewater treatment facility contract has been established either through the municipal or private sector water treatment plant, wastewater treatment plant, and those are my comments on it. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other comments? MR. STROUGH-You know, all in all, you take a look at the big picture, and I concur with Larry on his points that he made, that a lot of these could have been addressed at site plan. The sewer is a major issue, and that’s no secret. I stated that in my last comments in reference to this application the last time they were before us. The alternate plan, I personally feel is a better plan, but like I told the applicant in the very beginning, I wouldn’t use that by itself as a negation for the application, and like Larry, I think a lot of these issues could have been answered in site plan. I mean, landscaping, building design, and even some additional lot layout questions could be answered as we go along with this process. So, although, you know, I was on the fence about this for quite a while, going back and forth, but I think on the whole, I think I just am not comfortable with this resolution as it stands, entirely. So I’m going to have to vote no on it. MR. MAC EWAN-I haven’t done the roll call yet. Any other comments? AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) NOES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-I guess at this stage, Mr. Valente, we’d encourage you, if you want to pursue another application, is do something that’s a little closer to what was the alternate plan that you withdrew, I think you’d probably get a lot farther ahead with it. Okay. MR. PHILLIPS-Can I ask one question? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. Did I hear that, as part of the Preliminary aspect of this resolution, that there was a Whereas that says that this does comply with the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury? MS. RADNER-As originally read, it just said that the proposal complies with the Subdivision Regulations. The word “application”, I suggested, belonged there. One of their preliminary tests is usually where you’ve met the application requirement, which I believe they found did meet the application requirements. MR. PHILLIPS-What does is say as written? MS. RADNER-As written it does not have the word “application” which is why I requested clarification before they voted. MR. PHILLIPS-Could we ask that that be re-read to us as written? Because we don’t understand the writing. MR. MAC EWAN-Re-read. MR. PHILLIPS-Re-read as written the first time. MR. MAC EWAN-You can get a copy of the minutes, Mr. Phillips. MR. PHILLIPS-I mean, we’re just asking for a clarification, because there seems to be an inconsistency in the Whereas that indicates that there is a compliance with the Subdivision, we thought we heard, Regulations. MR. MAC EWAN-Application. MR. PHILLIPS-And so does it read “application”? MS. RADNER-The motion as it was presented and voted on will be that it does meet the Subdivision, complies with the Subdivision application requirements. That’s what was voted on. MR. PHILLIPS-But you make that determination a long time ago, don’t you, when the application is complete? I mean, isn’t the issue of an application being complete when that is determined? As opposed to on a motion to approve or disapprove? MS. RADNER-With all respect, I’m here to answer their questions, and unless directed to answer their questions, I’m not supposed to engage in this sort of back and forth deliberation with Counsel for the applicant. MR. PHILLIPS-Well, we understand what the Board did. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MR. RINGER-You wanted a copy of the resolution. Here’s a copy of the resolution. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2002 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WESTERN RESERVE, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: SAME AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A, RR-3A LOCATION: WEST SIDE WEST MT. RD., SOUTH OF POTTER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 34.8 ACRE LOT FOR 6 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 26 TOWNHOUSE UNITS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 52-01, AV 22-02 TAX MAP NO. 300-1-19/87-1-21 LOT SIZE: 33.53 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, MATT STEVES, & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the past two public hearings have been tabled, and there is one tonight. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-Just a quick summary of our June 18 memo. I’ve listed the updated th information that the applicant has provided, including a Full Environmental Assessment Form, stormwater management report, test pit logs, density calculation sheet, layout plan, grading a drainage plan, stormwater pollution prevention plan, landscaping, lighting and site utility detail sheet. At the previous meeting the Planning Board informally agreed, I guess, to accept the applicant’s Karner blue management plan. A portion of that plan indicated that a survey would take place to determine the exact nature of habitat and species, and I guess a couple of questions would be, has that survey taken place, and if not, what type of permanent management, habitat management, is proposed by the applicant. Secondly, I guess, if a permanent plan has been prepared, what are New York State DEC’s comments on that plan. The applicant has submitted information describing eight test pits. However, the locations do not appear to be shown on the plan. Also, have any perc tests for this site been performed. In terms of density, the applicant has submitted information regarding on site easements and other things that need to be taken into consideration for density. One of those is slopes greater than 25%, which the applicant has provided a tabular listing but no mapped reference for independent verification or locating those areas. Consideration should be given, as has been stated in past comments, for stipulating that no future development or subdivision of this property will occur, so that the areas of higher elevation that the applicant has said they wish to protect will be, in fact, protected. Any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed, and we have public comment on this application that we will read into the record at the time of the public hearing. That’s all we have for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Before we dive into this too much, I’ll tell you my intentions tonight is to table this application again, because we were handed more information tonight. No one’s had an opportunity to review it, and we’d like to take some time to review that. Okay. With that being said. MR. RINGER-Before Jon starts, the letter from Craig Brown, could we have clarification on what he’s saying? Are we only looking at, in a six lot subdivision, no longer multifamily, or? MR. HILTON-I believe this is in response to, I’m trying to find the letter, a June 23 letter from. rd MR. RINGER-June 24. th MR. HILTON-June 23 letter from Stan Pritzker. I believe is what Craig is responding to. rd MR. RINGER-Okay. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. HILTON-So I think, you know. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, you know, quickly looking at this thing, because I haven’t had an opportunity to read this, what I’m reading it is he’s telling us, for purposes of SEQRA, we should be looking at only the subdivision portion of this application. Not what’s down the road, and what they propose at site plan. MR. LAPPER-That’s incorrect. MR. MAC EWAN-SEQRA says we have to look at the cumulative impacts of the project as a whole, and I would wholeheartedly disagree with his determination. We need to look at the big picture, not just part of the picture. MR. LAPPER-That’s why we submitted the site plan, for SEQRA purposes. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, just to comment on that, there was a memo from Counsel, you know, this application has been before this Board for a long time. There was a memo from Counsel of 12/23/02, and what my question, are we still looking at the Bell Nav application in terms of SEQRA segmentation, or has Bell Nav withdrawn and the only thing we’re reviewing now is Western Reserve? I still have a question whether those two applications are coupled for the purposes of segmentation on SEQRA or not. I had a question on that. MR. HILTON-Really quickly, I guess, just to answer, your, the initial question that was raised, in reading this, Craig Brown’s letter, I don’t think he’s saying that you shouldn’t be looking at the big picture for SEQRA, but he’s simply stating that you’re not approving the multifamily portion, that there will be a site plan review required, at which time there could, in fact, be another SEQRA review, could at that time. As far as segmentation and considering other applications within the area, I would defer to Counsel. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if Bell Nav has withdrawn, that’s not an issue, I would think, but if Bell Nav is still in the max, from several, several months back, then. MRS. RYBA-Bell Nav has not withdrawn. They have been in contact with Staff and they are currently working on their study of Frosted Elfin and Karner blue butterfly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but then my question is still on the table. That based on that 12/23/02 memo from Counsel, talking about SEQRA segmentation, that we were to be looking at that collectively. MS. RADNER-I think we’re overlapping the concept of cumulative impact with segmentation of a project. If Bell Nav is under separate ownership, and is a separate project, it’s not segmentation for purposes of SEQRA, if you look at just the application that’s before you. It is, however, within your power and discretion, as a Planning Board, to consider the cumulative impacts of both projects together. If you believe that they’re close enough, geographically, and that the results of these two projects proceeding at the same time put together have an impact, on the environment, that one project alone might not have. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions? MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m still looking for clarification on this one. Are we looking, I guess I want to get a simple answer on this. Are we reviewing Western Reserve in absence of Bell Nav tonight, even, taking into consideration Mr. Brown’s letter? I understand what he’s saying all right. I just want to make sure that we don’t have any obligation to be reviewing the Bell Nav application, in terms of SEQRA, as a combination between the two. I don’t have any feelings toward it one way or another, but I’d like to get some direction. MR. LAPPER-I’m hoping I can clarify that when it’s our turn. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? It’s your time. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, for the record, Jon Lapper on behalf of Western Reserve. Mickie Hayes is one of the members of Western Reserve LLC to my left. Tom Nace, the project engineer, and Matt Steves, the project surveyor. It’s been five months since we were here on this project. So I’d just like to make a few preliminary comments. In general, this is a proposal for six residential conforming building lots, which were designed to be on the road to maintain the single family character of West Mountain Road, with one multifamily lot in the back, which is conformance with zoning in every respect. We only submitted the multifamily because since we had indicated that that was the applicant’s intention that that would be the ultimate development of the interior lot. It is correct that, for SEQRA purposes, that you need to do a SEQRA review that contemplates all of the worst case possible impacts, environmental impacts. So we wanted to provide you with a Long Environmental Impact form which covered the subdivision project now as well as the future townhouse project, and we’ve provided a proposed site plan, a concept plan for the site plan, that just laid that out, but we did not submit a site plan application. There’s nothing pending before you, other than for the sake of your SEQRA analysis, with respect to the interior lot. So we’re here to seek permission to develop six single family building lots at this time, and we would have to come back for site plan approval for the multifamily portion of this, the townhouse portion later. For that reason, a lot of the C.T. Male comments, I’m not sure they were aware of that, go more towards the future site plan issues which are not before you tonight. The Karner blue issue, to answer Bob’s question, the Board voted, at your January meeting, that, the circumstances here, remember the Bell Nav project had lots of blue lupine and lots of potential habitats. We have two small areas, one in the center of Lot Six, and one at the very border of Lot Six and Lot Seven. I’m sorry, Lot One and Lot Seven, and so what we said is that that lot, as a condition, would not be developed until there was a management plan in place, that we went through, under DEC Regulations, in the worst case, we can’t, we have to protect that habitat, which they would be willing to do if it turns out that there are not just lupine but in fact larvae or butterfly. They have started the process of going on the site and conducting studies. They’ve been out there with Kathy O’Brien from DEC, but that’s a process that’s going to take the summer to do it right, to go through August, to keep checking, and so they have retained a biologist, a wildlife biologist from the LA Group to work with them to do that study, but for the sake of this really simple subdivision, we’re saying that that lot will not be developed until there’s a signoff from DEC, either in the form of a management plan, or a clearance that that small patch of lupine doesn’t have to be protected, because there are no butterflies. We don’t know which way it’s going to go, but either way is acceptable to the applicant, and that’s what the Board said, we submitted a management plan last time, and if, in the worst case, it turns out that there are butterflies, that the management plan would govern how they would be protected. So that’s how we got to this point in terms of the butterfly, just one of the issues that are before the Board for consideration. Taking a step back, this is a site that’s been an abandoned industrial site for perhaps 25 years. The applicant has purchased it and has gone to great expense and great lengths to chop up all the concrete that was out there, to remove vast amounts of steel, vehicles, a lot of tires, and a bunch of just garbage and junk that was, that has been left on the site. Because the site has been vacant, it’s been somewhat of an attractive nuisance for kids partying. Many other developers have considered developing this over the years, but the potential costs of cleaning it up kept them away from it. So the Hayes’ have gone in and purchased it and have been undertaking the clean up in advance of the Planning Board’s approval. What we’re trying to do now is just build single family houses on West Mountain Road. Once that’s approved, we’ll come back with a detailed site plan for the interior. In terms of the design of the interior, I understand that the neighbors have been happy not having this lot subdivided, not having it developed. Some kids in the neighborhood have used it as a playground. I understand that, but the way this has been designed as a townhouse project, it is, that part of it can be clustered so that the units will be in the center of the parcel, stay completely away from the steep slopes on the north. Stay away from the higher terrain which would be visible from elsewhere in the Town, and stay away from the boundaries where the neighbors would be seeing it. If this were developed completely as a single family subdivision, you would have lots up and down the boundaries. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) So they would be much closer to the neighbors. We think that this is good planning, but what we’re asking for now is merely the subdivision so they can build single family lots. The information that the Chairman referred to that was submitted tonight, I think is the response to the C.T. Male letter, but for the most part, and we’ll go through that response, but for the most part, those are site plan issues that, you know, for the sake of SEQRA, you should consider them, but they really have nothing to do with the subdivision. We’ve done the perc tests, and that information, that was not a, it was already on the plans, on the perc test. The soil tests for the leach fields, those were all done in the right locations, but that wasn’t on the plan, so that’s been, the place where the soil tests were has now been added to the plan to just show that it is where the leach fields would be built, and the groundwater was, what, at 64 inches, Tom? I’ll have Tom go through the list. I’m just giving you a brief overview, and then the Staff comment about stipulating no future development, I mean, we can stipulate that there would be no future development north of the power line, because that’s the intention and the proposal, but that really is for, water line, excuse me, not the power line, the water line, but that is really a site plan issue, when you take that up, but whether you do that now or later is okay with us, because nothing is proposed to be built north of that. They raised the issue about, that the cul de sac is more than 1,000 feet, which is also a site plan issue for the interior lot, but this isn’t a subdivision of that lot, and it’s not a Town road. That would be a private road. So that rule doesn’t apply to a private road that’s going to be maintained by the applicant rather than being maintained by the Town. So those are just really site plan issues, but the questions have been asked so we want to answer them. I guess at this point, and in terms of how we calculated the density issue with the 31 lots, the 31 potential units, we have submitted the topo, so you can tell, the Staff said they couldn’t tell what was taken off of the acres. I’ll have Matt go through what he’s done where he’s shown cross hatched where the steep slopes are, but in general, I think, for the consideration for the subdivision, all you need to know is that there are at least seven development rights on this, and there’s far in excess of that, one for each of the six single family building lots, and one for the other lot. So whether or not we wind up with 25 or 26 multifamily townhouse units, at the next phase is really the density issue, but that doesn’t affect the subdivision. It’s just one unit, more or less, depending upon how you count the steep slopes and the other aspects of this that, in a cluster, wouldn’t count towards the density, but we certainly have the density on this 33 acre site to cover the six lots plus the, six single family lots plus the one future lot. Let me first turn it over to Tom. MR. MAC EWAN-Before you turn it over to Tom, could you jump back and give us a little bit more in- depth on where we are with the Karner blue and the Frosted elfin surveys on the lots? MICKIE HAYES MR. HAYES-Mickie Hayes here. Hello. We have contracted with the LA Group a biologist to do a formal survey of the property. There’s a few different broods, so it’s going to take through August, I guess, to determine the final nature of the Karner blue. He’s been there quite a few times. He logs his, we’ve been doing our own survey. We’ve worked with Kathy O’Brien ourselves to do our own survey as well. We decided to also hire Rich, the doctor, to do a formal survey, up to whatever criteria. So we did our own survey for future experience for ourselves, working with Kathy O’Brien and to hire and outside firm to accommodate that. MR. MAC EWAN-When did you hire the outside firm? When did that actually start? MR. HAYES-He’s left a couple of weeks ago. MR. MAC EWAN-A couple of weeks ago. MR. HAYES-He’s been to the site a couple of times. He hasn’t found anything yet. MR. MAC EWAN-When does the brooding season start for the Frosted Elfin? MRS. RYBA-April. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-So you missed the brooding season for the Frosted Elfin. MR. HAYES-I believe it goes according to the doctor that goes to mid June and probably later this year being that the temp has to be 65 degrees to be able to see a Frosted Elfin in movement. The temperature dictates the brood season to a certain extent, according to the doctor. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any questions relative to that? Okay. MR. HAYES-Plus we’ve done our own survey as well. MR. VOLLARO-Are these your responses? MR. NACE-These are my responses to C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-Has C.T. Male seen these, Tom? MR. NACE-No, they’ve just gone down. So they did not have a chance to respond. MR. MAC EWAN-So there’s really no point in giving them to us tonight, if they haven’t even taken a look at them. MR. NACE-Well. MR. LAPPER-Most of them are really site plan issues. MR. NACE-Yes. Exactly. Okay, but they’re relatively simple. As Jon, Jon has already hit on most of them. The test pits were inadvertently left, the locations were inadvertently left off the previous plan. They are now shown, and there is at least one test pit on each lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe if I could get you to swing that around a little bit, so the audience can see that plan as well. MR. NACE-Sure. Okay. Can the Board still see it? Okay. There is a test pit on each lot, and two of the lots have two test pits. There were perc tests done, and those were shown on the previous plan. To answer your question, George, this was revised today to put the density calc’s on, and were the slopes put on today? MR. STEVES-They were previously, but (lost words). MR. NACE-Okay. So they were here, but they’ve highlighted them to make them show up a little better. MR. HILTON-Just to clarify, yes, I hadn’t seen that plan. MR. NACE-There was a question about, again, a site plan question, really, on the site plan for Lot Seven. Down at the foot of the road on the drainage plan, we have some drywells down here, and there was a question about test pits to the drywells. The test pits over on Lot Six are very close to those drywells, and there is adequate depth for the drywells. They are shallow drywells. They’re four foot instead of the normal eight foot to keep them above water table. There was also a question about drainage, down on to Lot Six. There currently is, let’s flip to the grading plan, there currently is drainage off the existing hillside down onto there. We’re actually, with the road we’re cutting off some of that drainage, and no hard surfaces, all the hard surfaces in our proposal are going to drain either to the pond or to these drywells down here. So the only thing that could possibly drain onto this lot is a very small lawn area that’ll actually produce less drainage than the existing conditions. There was also a question about drainage and the sizing of drainage pipes, and again, it’s a site plan issue. The sizing of drainage pipes and detention pond to accommodate runoff from uphill of the development, and the pond is a groundwater pond. It’s dug down into groundwater. There is no overflow from 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) the pond. The pond’s approximately 12 feet lower than the lowest ground anywhere around it. So it’s just a big infiltration pond, is really all it is, and the water currently goes into that, raises the groundwater in the spring a little, and it gradually goes down over the summer. We’re not changing with conveying that water from uphill down to the pond, we’re not changing what presently happens. So it will not have an impact on the pond, and the sizing of the pipes to get it there will be part of the actual final site plan submission for Lot Seven. MR. RINGER-Does that pond ever dry up? MR. NACE-I have never seen it dry. Maybe some of the neighbors would know better, but I have not seen it dry. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any idea how deep it is? MR. NACE-In the middle of the summer, it can’t be any more than about four or five feet deep. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NACE-When the water comes up it’s, I think, close to 10, 12 feet. MR. RINGER-When we were there it was quite large. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, just a quick question for myself. That level of that pond would be indicative of the groundwater level, I assume. Is that correct? MR. NACE-That’s what I’m saying. It’s what I call a groundwater pond. It is dug, it is not natural. It was man made. It was dug down into groundwater, and the groundwater fluctuates, spring to fall to winter, and that’s what changes the level in the pond. If you look, you know, West Mountain Road, out adjacent to the site, it’s about 10 or 11 feet higher than the pond, or the surface water in the pond, and the other thing, two things in C.T. Male’s letter, Jon’s already touched on the access road will be private. So it’s not necessarily designed to Town road standard, as far as length of cul de sac, and the lupine we’ve already dealt with. MR. MAC EWAN-Is it your turn? MR. STEVES-Matt Steves for the applicant. As far as the slopes, and the density calc’s, they are also on this map, as we stated earlier. The areas of slopes over 25% are denoted on this map by these small cross hatched areas. We did the slope analysis on the entire parcel, and you can see that that area is completely north and west of the water line easement, and there are some small areas, that, you know, third of an acre, quarter of an acre or less, tenth of an acre areas, they’re not in the large areas, kind of spattered all throughout the site, mainly on the, after the mountainside, up in here, and then even taking out the water line easement, which is not a paved surface or anything like that, it’s an easement for the City for that water main that’s underground. You have RR-3 Acre zone, and they have 3.21 acres, taking out .09 acres of over 25% slopes. That’s the total, .09 acres, not even a tenth, in the three acre zone. In the one acre zone, 25.18, .38 acres for the pond surface, .15 acres for slopes over 25%, and then even taking out the easement, the total ground and the width of that City of Glens Falls water line easement would be .79 acres, or leaving 23.86 acres for density. So we’re at total density units for seven lots of 24.93, basically 25 units. So when Jon was stating they were looking for the subdivision of seven lots, and you can see that we have density for basically 24 in the one acre, and one in the three acre. So we’re well within the confines of your density calc’s. MR. VOLLARO-Was that density done on the entire, the whole, I believe it’s 34 acres. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-Yes, correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. LAPPER-If there are no other questions, we’re set for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, let’s start with you. MR. METIVIER-At this point, if we’re only looking at the subdivision, then that’s it. I really have no questions about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have any specific questions, either. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Again, if we’re only looking at the five lots, and not the big lot, I have no questions. I’m confused on SEQRA, how we’re going to do SEQRA, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I am, too. Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I don’t have any doubts as far as all the engineering and all the groundwater problems or potential problems. I think that there’s not going to be any problem, as far as the SEQRA goes, except, I’ll be quite honest with you. I don’t know why you’re so intent on making those single family homes in the front to conform to the rest of West Mountain Road. I think West Mountain Road looks fine without, with trees there or with not the trees, but with the way it is. I think I would like those lots configured differently. I have no problems with anything else that you’ve done. I think you’ve done, you’ve been ambitious. You’ve got a great vision. It’s just I think that the whole configuration of your plan could be improved upon. That’s the end of my comments right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just go back on my notes. I noticed there was a memo from George Hilton dated November 4, 2002 to Matt Steves that mentioned a lot line adjustment along the northern property. Is this still a requirement? Is this still in the hopper, or? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. (Lost words) is the existing lot line here along the northerly bounds of Lot Six. That’s the existing lot line, and we’re proposing this boundary line adjustment with the neighbor to the north. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Has that been done? MR. STEVES-It’s been agreed upon, subject to the. MR. LAPPER-There’s a contract, and the neighbor to the north has signed the application, the agency form to allow the Board to consider the application. The closing would take place after we receive subdivision approval, but that’s all part of the proposal. MR. VOLLARO-That lot line adjustment, I’m looking at map on the floor, because I can’t put it up on my desk here. Does that adjustment provide for the boulevard entrance? Is that what it’s there for? Okay. I just wanted to get a feel for that. Incidentally, talking about, I’ll just put it on the table for whatever it’s worth. I’ve read just about everything that Kathy O’Brien has written, and frankly, from my point of view, as one member of this Board, I’m not too concerned about the butterfly issue on this property. I’ve read, I’ve tried to read everything that she’s written. Some of it is rather inconsistent. Some of it is confusing. There’s not very good direction. That’s my opinion. Many of the Board members here that are maybe more conscious of that than I am would disagree, and I would respect their disagreement. However, I think if we’re talking only those lots on the eastern side there, west of Bay Road, those seven lots, of West Mountain Road, I have a, there’s a conflict between what the Adirondack Glens Falls 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) Transportation Council counts were, traffic now, on West Mountain Road. Those presented by the applicant, now the Glens Falls Transportation Council said there’s 6,128 cars per day, and the applicant talks about 2500 vehicle trips per day. There’s some conflicting information there from two people that I can’t quite resolve myself. MR. NACE-Okay. I’m just looking for my correspondence, but I talked to Warren County, and got the latest traffic counts from the DPW up in Warren County, and that’s where my information comes from. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s where the 2500 vehicle trips per day comes from? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a great disparity between the two agencies there. I could understand 10%, 15% disparity in traffic counts, but we’re talking three to one here, and so I’m somewhat concerned about that. My next, that’s going to lead into my next position on those seven lots. Now, I travel West Mountain Road every single day since I moved, and I’ve only traveled it now since December, but I go by this every day. I went by the other day and slowly, if the cars on West Mountain Road will let you go slow, that’s another little problem. You get blown off the road if you do less than 50 over there. I looked at the stand of pine trees that are along the road. Quite a decent stand of pine trees right along West Mountain Road there. Now, I would like to eliminate those shared driveways if it’s possible, because of the curb cuts on West Mountain road, and have those lots face inward, and have the back yards on West Mountain Road with a fence. I looked at the fence requirements. I think a six foot fence would be allowed there, set back, typically how we would do a no cut zone. In a lot of applications that we’ve looked at we use no cut zones, and we put that fence at the no cut zone line, with plantings on the east side of the fence along West Mountain Road, but now that I look at the trees that are there, when I looked at it today, I don’t think there’d need to be any plantings. They quite well mask off a back yard that would be there, turn those lots 180 degrees around, and have everything from that subdivision in the future, that I know you’re going to be coming back, you know, your drawing SP-1 here is a complete drawing of the overall layout, we would be approaching that whole subdivision or that whole area, with one driveway. MR. LAPPER-I understand what you’re saying, in terms of the traffic issue, but I guess our response is that that is one of the arterial roads in the Town. So what we’ve done to take into account that it’s an arterial road, and to comply with Code, is that we’ve got the shared driveways, but that’s what the Code requires, to minimize curb cuts and to have the separation distance between the curb cuts. I think in terms of salability, we have an issue, because if you’ve got fences in rear yards, that’s not as attractive, I mean, even for the people that live there, along the road, than the front of the house. We just think that rear yards are where people put their stuff, and front yards are more attractive. So we just don’t think, visually, it’s going to be as attractive, if you’re looking at a fence, rather than at somebody’s front lawn. The other issue is that it would be more Town road that the Town would have to maintain because we would have to build yet another road, on the inside, but I think, we think that we addressed the traffic issue. MR. MAC EWAN-From the point of view of public safety, a Town road that services those six or seven lots from the interior of that parcel far outweighs the endangerment you would have with shared driveways backing out onto West Mountain Road. MR. LAPPER-I guess, backing out is not a good idea. MR. MAC EWAN-Or driving out. It doesn’t matter. I think that’s three or four shared driveways. MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that, even though people do travel fast, that West Mountain Road, there’s a danger. There are plenty, plenty of driveways. We’re keeping, we’re minimizing the driveways, but I don’t think it’s at the point where the Board needs to say that there shouldn’t 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) be any more driveways anywhere on West Mountain Road. There are plenty that have been added over the years, lately. I just think that’s going a little far, in terms of design. You know, we want to be mindful of safety, but I guess our position is that, by having turnarounds on the site so cars can pull out forward and by having the shared driveways, we’ve addressed it the way that the Code requires. We just don’t think that there’s a really significant issue there. There are lots of other driveways on West Mountain Road that don’t have problems, with all due respect. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll see how it shakes out with the rest of the Board. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I guess my next question, and I think Mr. Nace has answered some of that with C.T. Male’s 19 June letter is their latest letter. In the final analysis on the overall development, there’ll be a SPDES Permit required for discharge, I would think here? MR. NACE-Yes, there will. When we get back to lot, well, a SPDES permit for the septic? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-Yes. For Lot Seven there will be. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Okay. I guess my big hang up is really the orientation of the six lots. That’s one of the biggest things I’ve seen. As I said, I reviewed everything that, by the way, in Paragraph Five of Kathy O’Brien’s letter of July 7, it talks to the survey requirements in there, th and she says that this can be looked at from early May to early August. So these folks still have a window to do that. I think that’s her position. Is that, Marilyn, you wanted to say something on that? MRS. RYBA-For Karner blue butterfly. MR. VOLLARO-For Karner blue. MRS. RYBA-Right, which is the endangered species. The threatened species is a different story, I think, and you might want to ask for clarification on that from the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes, I guess that early May to early August is basically a Karner blue thing, and I don’t know about this, I’ve never seen a blue elfin. So I can’t tell you too much about it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Frosted. MR. VOLLARO-Frosted elfin. I don’t even know how to say it. MR. LAPPER-They have been on the site this week looking for Frosted elfins and didn’t see any. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, you know my position on what I’ve read about the butterfly issue and having said that, I’ll turn it over to somebody else, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, looking at this comprehensively, so we’re not segmenting our look, I mean, I like the idea that you propose, as a potential, and I know that it’s not a real factor. You’re just presenting what could occur, but I like it. I like it because it’s in accord with good planning, better planning. You increase the density of development, not only decreases the cost of the infrastructure for the builder, but it also allows more open space for the community. So, I support the idea of putting 20 some odd units, whatever it may end up being, 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) in a manner that you propose, because it is in accord with what is good planning. As opposed to taking this 30 some odd, 34 acres, plus or minus, and subdividing it up into 30, 31 units, and including devastating the hillside with residential development. I mean, I know some of the residents almost have said in the past they would prefer that, but I wonder, in the end, in the end, after they saw what they might get, they would be sorry that they wished for that. I think your plan, they way it’s proposed, conceptually, and allowing that rear area to be open space, and undeveloped, is in accord with where we’re going with the open space plan, too, in leaving West Mountain as a desired visual asset that would not be harmed by, you know, the scars of development. So I think your plan is good. It is in accord with good planning. Now, also, though, I think you’ll have to admit, what would be in accord with good planning is, and I’ve got two thoughts here, again, is to have one access onto West Mountain Road. Now this is going in accord with what Bob was suggesting here, I mean, having one road, you know, supplying your apartments, if that’s the route we go, as well as these seven lots, six lots, just makes better planning sense, but there may be other issues involved, and that’s not a kicker for me. We would be in accord, and I think you would agree, with better planning, but anyhow, conceptually, I like what you have here. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STROUGH-Now, what I did notice, a few things, and I noticed this conceptually, so when we go back I will be looking for that nature trail that was there at one time. MR. LAPPER-That’ll be there. MR. STROUGH-Now, even though it’s a private road that you may or may not propose, you’re offering us a worst case scenario, and that’s the way we look at it, but also in a worst case scenario, we would run your plan by emergency services, and many of the projects have come back with a support for a boulevard entrance. Now I know you’re proposing a small one, but I might suggest that emergency services would ask for a longer one. However, if we ended up with a loop road that came back around, that might be a moot point. I’m just saying things to consider. Okay. The Karner blue plan, we’re working on one as a Town, a management plan. Hopefully, and you’re doing your survey. Both are ongoing. Hopefully they will converge and come to a happy conclusion, and as a matter of fact, I just want to add that I think you were pro- active when you came forward with a management plan of your own that, you know, I personally gave you credit for. I like that. With the signage and everything else you had. I thought it was very good, and maybe some of those ideas will incorporate in our Town plan, and like I said, maybe the two will converge and we’ll work this out. Okay. Well, that’s been answered and that’s been answered, and that’s been answered. Just one little question. On one of my plans, Tom, it showed, there was a dotted line going to the Glens Falls Watershed access. Is that an access to the Watershed access? It’s on this one. Now here’s the Watershed access. Now there’s a dotted line. MR. STEVES-Runs perpendicular to that? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. STEVES-An existing road path up through there. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I didn’t know what it was. That’s what it is? MR. STEVES-Yes, it is. MR. STROUGH-Now, what kind of arrangement are we going to work out here in the long run with Glens Falls to get access, let’s say for example it has a break in the line, midway in your property. MR. LAPPER-They have an access easement. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. STROUGH-So they would be able to get to it. They’d have to drive over the lawns and stuff? MR. LAPPER-That’s their whole line. That is just one small piece of it. They’ve reserved all those easements, I think in the late 1800’s when that line went in. MR. STROUGH-So they would have the right to access that in any way that was appropriate? MR. LAPPER-Right. Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. It was just a question. All right, well, that’s, conceptually, you know, like I said, the plan’s not bad. It’s pretty good. I agree with Bob. I would like to see all the, everything directed to one access to West Mountain Road, ideally, but it’s not going to hang me either, but, okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Board members? Does Staff have anything to add? Anything you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No, not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a few minutes. We’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. RYBA-I’m sorry. I did have a couple of questions, which is, I’m wondering what a short- term management plan is, what the definition is of that, because I know back in January there was a discussion of a short-term management plan until a study was done, but my concern is if the Frosted elfin study has to be done next year. MR. LAPPER-It’s being done right now. MRS. RYBA-Frosted elfin, I talk with DEC continuously, as John had said, we are working on a plan, a management plan, and my understanding from DEC is that the Frosted elfin time has been by-passed, and that’s why you’re probably not finding any. So, maybe there should be some clarification from both DEC and from your scientists on that. MR. HAYES-We were with Kathy O’Brien on Thursday and she captured a Frosted elfin at the power lines, but that was a few days ago. MRS. RYBA-Okay. MR. HAYES-Where the power lines, in the Hidden Hills are where they’re doing the surveys currently for the overall Town plan, she captured one, which we went through orientation with Kathy this latter week. MRS. RYBA-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have anything else, Marilyn? MRS. RYBA-Only that if for some reason there need to be some other kind of permanent measures that the Board think about that. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get an answer to your temporary measures? MRS. RYBA-I believe them when they say they were out with Kathy, and, you know, they found some. That’s their testimony. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-But that’s not a temporary. That’s just doing a survey. What’s the temporary? MR. LAPPER-I can answer that. The temporary is that we’re saying that Lot One will not be built on until all of these surveys are done. So we’re saying as a condition that we would not build on that until we came back with DEC clearance, either of a management plan or saying that there’s no threatened or endangered species on that site, because that’s where the blue lupine are. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anyone want to comment on this application? JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. I believe I commented previously on this project, and it was probably at the November 26, 2002 meeting, and so some of my comments tonight might be repetitive. With regard to the subdivision, there has been mention made here of a lot line adjustment. I think, in the way they’ve described it, it is, in fact, a boundary line change. What they’re talking about is going to take a deeded transfer of land, and that will produce a new boundary line between the two property owners. I would suggest that if this subdivision is approved as a seven lot subdivision, that there be a stipulation that there be no further subdivision of the seventh lot. There is talk about townhouse units, 26 townhouse units on 26 acres. Townhouses are of a particular type. They can be something that is sold in shared ownership, or they can be built as rental units. As sold in shared ownership, they definitely qualify as a residential unit. However, if they are built as 26 rental units, then you have a commercial undertaking here. It’s no longer a residential use. If they’re sold as residential units, then they, I believe they’d need an offering plan. Also with regard to talk of this private road, I think in any case, we have a section in Town law that requires that private roads meet certain standards, and I’m going to guess, but I think it’s Section 286A. It makes it quite clear the requirements for a private road. That’s all I have. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you, John. Anyone else? KELLY CARTE MR. CARTE-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Kelly Carte. I’m the land owner to the south, and west of the project. I believe you are in receipt of several pieces of information that I brought to the Planning Board of Staff, I mean, as recently as this morning, actually, but I wanted to start out by asking a question. In the last meeting that we were at, my attorney, who couldn’t be here tonight, supplied a court case that dealt with this segmentation of a property, and only considering partial subdivision of it at one time and not considering the rest of it, even though you know that the rest of it is going to be developed. I don’t think there’s any of us here that don’t understand that what’s going to be done with the rear of this property, and I wanted to ask the Board and/or Counsel what became of that. I mean, it was pretty clear from the court case that he cited that this was not something that could be allowed under New York State law, and the court upheld that, and here we are back talking about doing something with just the front lots and ignoring what’s going to go on with the rear of this parcel. Does anyone have? MR. MAC EWAN-The short answer is, under SEQRA, we’re looking at the cumulative impacts of this entire project and we will continue to look at the total aspect of this project in its entirety. We’re not going to deviate from that. MR. CARTE-Okay, but you are contemplating allowing this to go through as a partial subdivision as it is now? MR. MAC EWAN-As a partial subdivision? I don’t understand what you’re asking. MR. CARTE-As a partial, well, dealing with only six acres of the 33 acre parcel here, and ignoring what’s going to go on with the rear of the project. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-We’re looking at the whole picture, Mr. Carte. MR. CARTE-Okay. Well, let’s go on. As Mr. Vollaro said, there’s a lot of inconsistencies in the information that these people have supplied here. Number One I guess, to answer a couple of the Board member’s questions on the layout of these lots and the shared driveways, I don’t know, do you have the letter that I, did anybody have a chance to read the letter that I applied to? MR. MAC EWAN-It was handed to us tonight, Mr. Carte, along with a pile of other information we haven’t had a chance to review it. That’s one of the reasons why we are going to table this application tonight. MR. CARTE-Okay. Let’s do one thing here, then. I’m going to read parts of it. I’ll leave out other parts if you don’t want to consider the land in the back here, but some of it, some of this is germane anyway. The subdivision as proposed consists of more than four lots. Section A183-23 of the Subdivision Code states, when a subdivision abuts or contains a local arterial highway, West Mountain Road, the Planning Board shall require that no new lots shall front or have direct access on such highway. Now, I don’t know why this has gotten to this stage, with this plain as day specification in the Town Code. There’s no internal street access to these lots shown on this plan. MR. VOLLARO-What Section of that 183? MR. CARTE-It is Section 183-23. I can read it to you if you’d like here. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to read it. MR. CARTE-The statement made by several people here, I guess, that this is going to be a private road that they’re proposing in the back, and doesn’t necessarily have to meet the length of the public road, that a public road would, the Code also says, a private road must meet all the requirements for a public road. I can find the Section in here if you’d like, but that’s also quite plain. All the requirements for a public road, as in the construction of it, the width, the curvatures, and I would assume the length. So the fact that this is a private road has no bearing on it. It still has to meet the same requirements. So 1225 or anything less than 1,000 is not acceptable. As shown in the plan here, I’m picking and choosing things that only deal with the front lots, I guess. The pond, as shown on this plan, is completely erroneous as to the size here. I understand Mr. Nace calculated the size of the pond, the size of the high water and everything, some time in late February or early March. There was 18 inches of snow on the ground at that point in time. I assume he calculated it by digging test pits and looking for soil mottling. However, I have since, since the snow has melted, I have talked to another engineer, who indicated, let me just read this, I wrote it down better than I’m saying it here. Let me just read this part here. The developers have seriously understated the size of the pond. In order to lessen the amount of land, they would have to subtract for density calculations. They have proposed making it even smaller, have not included the slopes around the pond in their density calculations and have used a 25% slope factor instead of 15% as stated in the clustered subdivision rules. Mr. Nace calculated the high water elevation and supposedly the one-third acre pond size in late February/early March of this year with 18 inches of snow still on the ground. While test pits dug to show soil mottling are the only means available in the winter, they are obviously not the most accurate. Another engineer has assured me that direct observation in the wet season of the shoreline plant and soil types, etc., and the actual pond size gives a more accurate picture of how high the water usually is. As anyone can see from the enclosed pictures, and you will have them if you don’t, this pond is no more one-third acre in size than my bathtub is. Mr. Nace also calculated that a 50 year storm would only raise the water level of his one-third acre pond by nine inches. My pictures clearly show the actual water level of the actual two plus acre pond actually rising by about sixteen inches, after two successive one day rainfalls, a week apart in mid-April of this year. This is without the added runoff generated by the proposed project. They want to make the pond smaller. If the pond 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) were drawn on that map to the actual size, it would be encroaching on the first three lots on that subdivision. Portions of the first, lots one, two and three on there would be underwater. I just want you to keep that in mind here when you’re looking at this. Let’s see. There is, Mr. Vollaro commented on an interior road to go to the back of these lots, which obviously, according to the Code, is what is supposed to happen. If you’ll also note the pond being even the size that it is, but being the actual size, the road would be under water, if you put a road along the back side of those lots also. Mr. Strough says that the density, that he’s happy with this project because the density has been reduced from what the applicants originally proposed. I would contend that there never was a higher density allowed for this piece of property. The Code say what the density is, and they are only asking for, supposedly what they are allowed. However, the means of calculating the density for this are flawed also, in that they should not be allowed anywhere near the number of lots that they are looking for. I want to also preface this with a statement made by Mr. Lapper that said that, you know, the neighbors are opposed to anything being done with this parcel. That is completely untrue. While some of the neighbors have stated that they would like the thing to be left as a park or the way that it was or whatever, anyone that I’ve talked to has acknowledged that the owners of the property have the right to develop it. They have some leeway as to how to develop it. We are only asking that they develop it in conformity with all the rest of the single family lots in this area. There is nothing, the rental complex like this, anywhere near this piece of property. The fact that, I think Mr. Strough commented on a previous meeting that he liked the idea of rental units in amongst regular housing, and this kind of stuff. There’s no doubt that a rental business complex like this, next to single family residential housing, will devalue the property around it, mine in particular, because I’m the closest one, and have the most impact, other people to a lesser extent. Steve Borgos just bought ten acres across, kitty corner across the street from this property. He indicated to me that he would not have bought this, had this project already been a fait accompli. So, while it could be debated as to whether or not rental property in amongst single family residence is good or bad, the point is that it will devalue the properties around it, if this is allowed to be developed or made to be developed as a regular subdivision with one acre lots, 150 frontage, 300 feet deep, and everything, the other things that go along with it. It will be conforming to the neighborhood. It will not be devaluing to the houses around it, and none of the neighbors have a problem with this, and I think you can poll them to a person and none of them have a problem. They know that this is an acceptable use for it. No one thinks that a rental complex is an acceptable use for this property. A couple of other, we’re done with the street, the length of the street. I also wrote the water studies presented by Tom Nace only deal with the disturbed area of the project, do not show anything about dealing with the tremendous spring runoff from the mountain on the rear of the parcel. There are numerous references in the Code about not disturbing existing water flow patterns and existing catch basins. Section A183-27 states, for subdivisions greater than four lots, the rate of runoff from the subdivision shall not be greater than existed prior to construction. There’s very little runoff from the parcel onto my land now, but what would be the result of building these structures on a raised land area, and if you’ll note in the previous thing that they had a plateau there, built to avoid the high water table, obviously, that blocks the natural flow of water coming off the water and into the pond. If the natural flow is interrupted or the pond size is decreased, we will end up with tremendous amounts of water in our yard. Some of us are currently running sump pumps continuously now because of the wet spring. I see another Peggy Ann Road subdivision in the making, and one last thing, I know that this deals with the thing in the back, but I want to get it on record, also. The proposal shows Lot Seven with 25 dwelling units on it. Section 179-2- 010 of the Zoning Ordinance states, in areas zoned for single family dwellings, including SR zone, a maximum of one single family dwelling may be constructed per lot, regardless of lot size. Section 179-2-010 defines an apartment house as a building arranged in single dwelling units, and I would assume a townhouse could use the same definition, and further defines a dwelling unit as a building or portion thereof providing a complete housekeeping facility for one family. There’s no distinction made in the Code between owner occupied family dwelling units and non owner occupied family dwelling units. What possible reason is there for letting these applicants propose to put eight buildings with 25 family dwelling units on one lot? It should be obvious that the intent of the Ordinance is to require further subdivision for more than one dwelling per lot, and on that vein, my attorney also presented an argument and a court case detailing precisely that, that this type of thing is required to be considered as a 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) clustered subdivision. I don’t know why the Town has not required this. I don’t know what their reasoning is, as I said in here, why this has not been, as I have written, I’ve been told the Town does not consider this a clustered subdivision, without rational explanation as to why multiple units are allowed on one lot. How can it not have to be considered a clustered subdivision, since it deviates from all the setbacks, frontages, etc., for the zone in which it is located. Allowing those types of deviations is one of the main reasons for clustered subdivisions. Multifamily housing may be allowed in SR-1A zones, but that doesn’t mean the requirements for that zone can be thrown out the window for rental units. Additionally, Section A183-35 of the Subdivision Code lists several site characteristics that require a cluster design, and I see nothing in the application showing where these calculations were even made, much less considered. I think I’ll end it there. Any questions? MR. STROUGH-Well, the apartments on Manor Drive, have they adversely affected the home values in Indian Ridge? MR. CARTE-I’m not familiar with that. MR. STROUGH-The apartments on Dix Avenue, have they adversely affected home values on Helen Drive? MR. MAC EWAN-Dixon Road, you mean. MR. STROUGH-Dixon Road, thank you. The Roberts Gardens, or formerly called Roberts Gardens, did they adversely affect property values? MR. CARTE-Well, I don’t know the timing of these things, Mr. Strough, as to whether the apartments were there before the houses were built or the houses were there before the apartments were built. MR. STROUGH-The point is that you stated that you believe that apartments negatively affect the value of your property, and I’ve showed you several examples where they don’t seem to, or appear to have a negative. MR. CARTE-How would you know whether the houses that surround there could be sold for more money or not if the apartment houses weren’t there? Let me just preface this. I’ve talked to a real estate appraiser, somebody that I’ve hired and has done appraisals for me in the past regarding this. I didn’t think it was necessary to get an actual opinion from him, but I can. He has definitely told me that it will adversely impact the value of my house, obviously to a lesser extent the houses on Applehouse Drive or whatever, but mine and I assume anything that Steve Borgos does across the street from this, on a large acreage, will be adversely affected, not to mention the fact that, you know, I own all the land in the back. You were talking, somebody was talking about a road going up there to the watershed property. It’s not watershed property back there. It’s my property. MR. MAC EWAN-No, water line, City water line. MR. CARTE-I’m sorry. Excuse me. I thought they were talking about a road. MR. MAC EWAN-And all it is is access. They have an easement to maintain that water line. MR. CARTE-They certainly do, across my property, yes, also, okay. MR. STROUGH-But another thing, too, in doing a community design, and I think I’ve stated this before, we learned lessons from urban renewal back in the 60’s, that one thing you don’t want to do is put all your apartments, zone one area of the city and put all your apartments there, that you have a healthier community if you mix the living styles. It’s healthier for everybody. So, you know, we try and take a look at the community at large, at least I do. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Gentlemen, we could debate this thing all night long. There’s other people that want to speak. Chris, you had a comment or question you wanted to ask? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t want to belabor John’s point. In fact, I was going to make the same comment. I respect most of your comments that were made tonight, and will certainly take all of them into consideration, but I happen to live next to Regency Apartments, and when that apartment complex was put in, the Planning Board, and I couldn’t tell you who was on the Board at the time, required them to put in a very large buffer between the apartment buildings and the residential units behind them, and it’s wonderful. I mean, I don’t even have curtains on my back windows. It’s all woods. You’d think you were out in the middle of the forest. So I don’t necessarily agree that just because there’s apartment buildings in your neighborhood that that will bring down your property values. I might surmise that the value of the single family homes being constructed, if those are of higher value, could actually increase your property value, but it’s all speculation. I just don’t necessarily agree that it’s a negative thing. I think it can be a negative thing, and I think it could also be a positive. MR. CARTE-Well, I think you would agree with me that there’s no doubt that houses built on one acre lots in the Town of Queensbury are going to be $200,000 houses or something like this. The land value alone dictates the value of the house. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Absolutely. MR. CARTE-Which is in keeping with the other, it certainly isn’t devaluing the property around it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CARTE-Whether or not it increases it is debatable. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. CARTE-But a commercial rental complex, is that going to be even, is it going to devalue? As I said I have an opinion from a professional real estate appraiser that it would devalue my property in particular. MR. HUNSINGER-And I guess what I’m saying is I that I think, generally speaking, that may be true, but I don’t think it’s necessarily true in every case, and I think part of the job of the Planning Board is to make sure that the project is well sited, so that those kinds of problems won’t happen. I mean, I say that as being on a roll, and I’m sure my colleagues would agree with me. I’d just ask you to keep an open mind, that’s all. MR. CARTE-I would just ask you to take into consideration that several of the apartment complexes that I note, that come to mind to me, were done before there were any single family residential houses around. I mean, the closest one to this is down on Peggy Ann Road, Queen Victoria’s Grant. There’s nothing there. I mean, it’s easy to do an apartment complex when there’s nothing there. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. CARTE-When there’s an existing neighborhood of all, you know, north, south, everywhere around the thing, of all single family residential housing, then, you know, the Code clearly states that these things have to be taken into consideration, for allowing. MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? JOE BRAYTON 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. BRAYTON-My name’s Joe Brayton, 231 Fuller Road, Queensbury. Am I missing something here, it seems to me the last meeting I was to they tabled this until there was a full plot plan, or whatever you call it, for the whole, not only your six homes, but the whole project, you were supposed to have a, they were supposed to bring you up a full plot plan of the whole thing, and you tabled this. I haven’t seen this full plot plan. They’re right back with six houses again. They tabled that the last time because you told them they had to come back with a full plan of the whole lot, and also this fellow here, if he likes to look at fences in the back of people’s houses going down the road, I think he better think again, too. I would much rather see the front of people’s houses facing the road than to look at somebody’s fence all along the back of the road, and all their garbage in the back, and not garbage, I don’t mean, but they have to have places to put their garbage and all this, all in the back of their homes. Well, what happened to this plan, originally, why did you table this, or did you have a hidden meeting somewhere and said, well, we’ll go back to these six again? Something wrong here. Let’s keep an eye on the boys. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? CHARLIE BAKER MR. BAKER-Good evening, my name is Charlie Baker. My family, my wife’s family, was the previous owner of the property that we’re talking about. Originally, this was farm land. Like I stated before, the pond, all the area through there, they grew potatoes, they grew corn, they grew wheat. They raised cattle there, for 200 years or better. My wife was born and brought up on the property. The home north of the property that we’re talking about was her home. She was born there. We’ve been married for 46 years. We’ve lived two doors above this property. I dug the pond that has been discussed earlier. There has never been any water running into that pond or out of that pond because it wasn’t there. When I dug it, it was during a drought. I dug 27 feet from the top of ground to water level, the first year. We produced washed sand. The next year, the drought continued. The water level dropped. We went another seven feet and hit water again. Granted that every spring the water is in that pond, but it does not run out. There is, I don’t believe there is any danger of it running over onto anybody’s property, flooding anybody out. It’s groundwater. It’s not surface water coming off that mountain. Now what is going to be done when the buildings are put up, the amount of water that I don’t believe is going to raise it, that was stated before, and the other thing is, Mr. Borgos was brought up as not wanting to buy the property if he knew what the process or whatever was going on there. Well I know, in fact, he did know it. The lady he bought the property from, who is deceased now, he bought that property approximately a year ago. Now this has been going on for over a year, trying to get this project through. That’s all I have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? All right. I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. Gentlemen. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just a comment here. We have a letter from Kelly Carte received, or dated June 22, received in our office June 24. Mr. Carte touched on pretty much all the ndth items in it. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the letter we have in front of us tonight. MR. HILTON-And just to reference also a letter from Stan Pritzker, June 23, which you also rd have before you. MR. MAC EWAN-Which we have not had an opportunity to read. MR. LAPPER-I guess just very briefly, it was in response to Stan Pritzker’s letter and the Board’s review of the issues at the last meeting that we submitted the full detailed site plan for Lot Seven for the maximum development of the proposed Lot Seven. I know the Board is aware of that. I think the second to last gentlemen who spoke said, where is the plan, and the 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) plan is behind this plan. It has been submitted. Obviously, it’s before the Board. The Board knows that, but that may not have been communicated to some of the neighbors. The neighbor next door was talking about permeability issues. We have to keep in mind that this site, when we started the process, was an acre and a half of pure concrete with all this other stuff. We’ve calculated that when the, starting with what the property was when they bought the property, they’ve obviously already started the remediation, going through to the proposed full development, the site will be less impermeable after development than it was to begin with, because of what was on the site with all the concrete that is now chopped up and being removed, and in terms of property values, which really isn’t an issue, I mean, what we’re doing complies with the zoning, obviously. The Town, I’m digressing, but the Comp Plan and the Town Zoning Code call for a mixture of housing choices recognize that the Town needs to have rental units for younger people and seniors and everyone in between that, for whatever reason, doesn’t want to own a single family house at any given point in time, and that’s something we’re just complying with what the Town Code calls for. In terms of the multifamily near the single family, multifamily certainly, people have been quibbling over definitions, but multifamily is a permitted use, and I would also point to Hiland Park where there are new single family homes going in and new residential dwellings going in at the same time, right up the street. So it’s common throughout the Town. The areas where there are rentals are pretty much interspersed around single family homes, and as long as it’s done right, and this Board wouldn’t let it be developed any other way, it can be lovely. Somebody misconstrued Mr. Strough’s point that he was talking about, the fact that Mr. Strough was saying that he likes the fact that it’s denser in the center, that it’s the design that allows for the open space on the perimeter, and that’s what, we propose that, because that does soften the view of this. That’s a positive, in terms of open space, in terms of open space, and also from the higher, the higher elevations which are more visible from elsewhere in the Town, and that wouldn’t be developed, and I guess, just in terms of, you know, the applicants feel strongly that they want to have the houses facing the road, that it just wouldn’t be visually attractive to have the rear, I mean, having frontage on a Town road enables you to put houses there. We think that we meet the intent of the Ordinance by minimizing the driveways, but we don’t want to eliminate them. We don’t believe that there’s going to be any safety issue. The pond, the size of the pond that was used for the calculations of density is the pond after the project is developed. I mean, that would all be site plan issues for that seventh lot, but we’re obviously talking about making changes so that the pond doesn’t, isn’t incredibly shallow but very wide. That’s not a good use of the site. So the pond would be modified so that it would be a visual water feature, but it would be smaller than it is now, and the calculations were done based upon post construction. MR. NACE-Just some clarification. The pond is configured the way it is because, in the spring, as everybody says, when the water table comes up, the level of the pond rises, and if you look at the topography, as it rises, the periphery of the pond becomes very shallow, for a long ways out in the spring. What we’re attempting to do is make it something that’s more maintainable, can keep it landscaped nicer and look nicer for the development, is to make the actual bottom of the pond, when the water comes up, make the edge or the shoreline of that bottom a little steeper, so that it’s not just a big mud flat when the water’s high. MR. STROUGH-So, have you seen Mr. Carte’s pictures? MR. NACE-I, yes, the pond, if you go out there in the spring, right now this past spring I’m sure, the pond is fairly large, okay, when the water’s up, and we did establish the high water level by going out and actually measuring the evidence of high water on the ground, not in the winter but last summer, when you could see things, established where that upper limit of water table fluctuation is. MR. STROUGH-Now Mr. Carte’s position is that your higher level is 463 feet in elevation, and he shows a picture of it three feet greater than that. So have you figured for worst case scenarios? MR. NACE-What do you mean at three feet greater than that? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, in his picture, he claims that your contention of the high water mark being 463 feet in elevation above sea level, he points out that this spring, in April he said, that it was three feet higher than what you stated was the high level. So, he’s stating that it’s 466. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, I don’t know how he measured that elevation. We measured it with survey crew, and I established where based, looking at the shoreline, and looking at the evidence of high water, where it normally gets to at the high water level, but if you look, I mean, here is the pond the way we want it shaped, so that the shoreline is maintainable. Four sixty-three, currently, is way out into here. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I would ask you, why are you showing the pond the way you want it to look after the fact when this is just a subdivision. You should be showing things the way they are. MR. NACE-Okay. Because you’ve asked us, okay, you have asked us to provide a site plan of the entire proposed development. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We did. That’s on the site plan drawing, but if you subdivision drawing reflects how it would be after development of a site plan, that’s inaccurate. MR. NACE-I don’t know, the water level varies, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-But you just got through telling me, you started telling me anyways, that that first drawing, go back to that subdivision. You started to say, that’s how we want it to look when we’re done developing. MR. NACE-Correct. Okay, now. MR. MAC EWAN-That should reflect what it is now. MR. NACE-And it’s proposed, that’s exactly what it says, proposed pond site, or proposed pond limits. Okay. The actual limit of that pond varies from way out here, to way down in here. Okay, depending on what time of year you measure it, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All I’m asking, does that pond reflect what existing conditions are now? MR. NACE-The inner line does, okay. The outer line reflects what it’s proposed to look like. MR. STEVES-The 460 contour, which circles around the word “pond”, is what is existing at the time we did the survey. During spring highs, Mr. Nace just said that even if it raises up eight to ten inches, it floods a larger area because of the fact of the matter is it’s very shallow in grade and what we’re proposing to do is steepen that grade, basically fill in around the sides so that the limits of the pond are smaller but the volumes remain the same. So what you’re asking me is when I located the pond, as a surveyor, what I have inside that circle is what I located as the pond at the time I did the survey. What it exists exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-So the light line on the interior of the pond is the pond as you know it to exist today. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. Yes, because I couldn’t go underwater to do topography. So that’s why the contours stopped. Four sixty was the edge of the water at the time I did the survey. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. RINGER-Jon, Mr. Carte on, I don’t know if you got his letter or not? MR. LAPPER-No. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. RINGER-He was referring to Section A183-23 of the Subdivision in regards to the driveways. Did you take notes when he was talking about that, and would you care to answer him? MR. LAPPER-I don’t have a copy of the Subdivision Regs in front of me. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Can you give me that cite again, Larry? MR. RINGER-He cited A183-23 of the Subdivision code, regarding the number of driveways being allowed for a four lot subdivision or more. MR. LAPPER-Can George address that? MR. RINGER-Can you address it now, or did you want? Okay, George? If you want to look at his thing, Jon. MR. LAPPER-I’d rather look at the code than look at his recitation of it. MR. HILTON-Honestly, I mean, I can point to that Section, but I’m still looking in that Section of the Subdivision Regs as to the exact language that he’s referenced. I can, however, point to the zoning code, 179-20-010C, that says that all lots on arterials such as West Mountain shall have double the lot width or shared driveways, and in the past, with other applications, that’s how we’ve dealt with the lots fronting on an arterial road. MR. RINGER-That’s his point, too, that he’s referring to that code in his point, too, with his point one of his letter. MR. VOLLARO-I think what we’re dealing with here is Subdivision Regs primarily. We’re not in to site plan yet. So I don’t know that 179 is going to take that strong a role in this until we get to site plan. Right now it’s a, Subdivision 183 is the thing really we want to be looking at. MR. HILTON-Well, I think you can consider the zoning code. It’s part of Town Code as well, and again, I’m simply saying that that’s the way it’s been calculated before. MR. LAPPER-We did the double wide between the driveways. We increased it to double the normal distance between the centerline of the driveways. We think that’s what is required, but, you know, rather than do the research tonight. MR. RINGER-I want to make sure that all of his questions were answered. MR. LAPPER-Yes, thank you. Anything else that the Board wants us to answer we will as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions, or comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I do have a comment, Mr. Chairman, if I might. The information I got to review, when I got my packets, I came in here ready to review an entire proposal, and I thought I was going to be looking at a thing called SP-1, Site Plan One, which was dated November 2002. Those are the new pieces of information I got in my plan. I did not come here tonight prepared, really, to look at six lots. I guess maybe I didn’t do my homework correctly. MR. LAPPER-C.T. Male did the same thing you did. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. VOLLARO-Well, I can take some credit on that, but I wasn’t prepared to look at the six lots tonight. MR. STROUGH-Just a question of the applicant. Have you considered doing a loop road and coming to us for a clustering and maybe making 30 half acre lots. Would that be financially viable? Have you considered that. MR. HAYES-We considered that, but, being the nature of the slopes of the upper property, the road costs would be tremendous to cut into those banks. As you can see the pitch up on the top, we’d have to use a substantial portion of the lot to accommodate 30 lots, even if you reduce the size of the lots. Septic, and then you get above the Queensbury Water service is the easement, that’s the limit. You get into water pumping stations, the whole, it would be quite the project. It was very heavily wooded there. It would be very expensive to cut through and to clear all those lots for development. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mickie, have you thought of making them town homes, instead of like you have it written on the, stated on our application or instead of rental property. MR. HAYES-We’ve looked at everything, and I think most developers have, in Town, looked at this piece of property and sat for 20 years, even though we’ve had a tremendous boom in the area, I think we all know it’s a tough site because of the nature of the site, the slopes in the back, the cement. It’s, with some of the conditions there and the slopes with the concrete and such, that we’re more comfortable retaining ownership of a portion that we can control instead of saying (lost words) Surrey Fields where water lines, if we had to put a water line a certain way, we’d have to blast through concrete. This is a difficult site to develop, and it would be very difficult to do that. We’ve looked at every which way. Of course we’d love to do a development where you could sell these properties in the upper region, the way the market is today. We’d love to, but economically it’s not feasible. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I just don’t understand why you can build a dwelling that is that big to rent, why can’t you build the same thing and sell it, and make it into ownership types of homes? I don’t understand where you’re coming from on that. MR. HAYES-Well, we construct homes in a lot of different manners, and everybody has a different idea of what they want. A lot of people don’t necessarily want to own a home. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I know that, but you just said that there is a market for town homes like Surrey Fields or what Michaels has over on Meadowbrook Road, and the thing is, you have your plans. You present the plan to the public. You present the offering to the public, and then they bite, and then they buy it, and it’s a beautiful piece of property. MR. HAYES-Exactly, and we develop, currently we have under contract 20 homes to construct in Queensbury of different, shapes, size and configurations, but we also feel that there’s a need for these style homes, because not everybody wants to purchase a home. Older, younger, I think it takes all kinds to make a pie. So we want to address that segment. Plus, when we expand this to make it a genuine townhouse Surrey Fields style, we’d have to use a substantially larger portion of this property again. The reason that it’s able to be as tight as it is is because it’s a rental property controlled by one entity. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, that’s where, I respect what you’re doing, as far as keeping the open space issue, but personally, I would sacrifice that to not have the rentals, and also another thing is, and I would like to get this out, and I’m not targeting you, but it seems like, in the past three years, we’ve had an awful lot of rental buildings go up in this Town, and I would just like to direct the energies to more of a townhouse type of concept or a condo type of concept where people can purchase them, but I’m not the person financing this and you’re the. MR. HAYES-The Ordinance calls for this style of project. Being that, we’re conscious of the population as aging at the moment, across the country, and a lot of people don’t want to mow 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) their lawn. They don’t want to have any ownership. A lot of people are very scared of associations and agreements with who plows, who does that. A lot of people have had bad experiences. A lot of people want to be able to throw away the keys and go to Florida. They don’t want to be restrained to a home. It’s a lifestyle choice. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, I know you’re always going to have a comeback, but I thought if you bought one of these town homes, that part of the offering is to have these amenities included. MR. HAYES-But a lot of people don’t want to take $200,000 an invest it into a home where they could just have a year lease and they can leave. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. MR. HAYES-Our average age of our rentals on these properties are going to be in the 50’s. A lot of them go to Florida for the winter. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But you did say that you could probably sell them. MR. HAYES-To be honest with you, I think you could sell anything in Queensbury at the moment. MR. MAC EWAN-What was your response to having those six lots, five lots along the West Mountain Road accessed from behind, instead of having shared driveways coming out onto West Mountain Road? MS. RADNER-Before we go into that question, can I just clarify one thing for the record? Cathy LaBombard’s questions might have caused some confusion. For purposes of site plan review, the Code really doesn’t distinguish between how the individual units are going to be owned. The same identical building could be built, and whether the units were rented as condominium, or sold as condominiums doesn’t really come into the equation. The ownership issues are separate from the site plan issues. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. MR. HAYES-About the lots in the front, we looked at putting a road, obviously the lots would be worth more if it was on a Town road in the back. We find it very difficult to install a Town road along the back of those, and we’re a little uncomfortable of having the backs, to be honest with you, we just don’t think that would be aesthetically pleasing. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there are planning concepts where you still have the front of the house facing the major thoroughfare with access to garages and such from what they call almost kind of like an alley, although it’s not an alley alley concept, where it’s a common drive that serves it. It’s part of what you do in clustering. MR. STROUGH-Well, on Peggy Ann Road there’s several housing developments where there’s a loop, interior loop, and if you look through the woods, you’re looking at the backs of the houses, but it doesn’t seem to have strongly negatively affected anybody’s opinion of that. MR. HAYES-I think that these lots are still one acre lots. We’re not talking about a high density urban style. These are still over one acre. These are very large lots. This isn’t an urban style setting at all. There’s, that’s six houses on approximately seven acres. MR. MAC EWAN-It would be an opportunity to explore an alternative idea. MR. HAYES-We certainly will look at that. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I just have concerns with shared driveways stacked up like that on West Mountain Road. I see an opportunity to do something different, something a little innovative that will work and be successful, from a safety standpoint and even from a design standpoint. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Mickie, what is the frontage on those lots again, 150? MR. HAYES-It’s 150 and 160 feet. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you could do a, I mean, you could even do a nice circular in and out. I mean, what I’m saying is, I don’t agree with going in from the back unless you restructure the whole thing and put in like 30 single family homes and change the whole configuration, but if you’re not going to do that, and you keep it like this, I mean in Bedford Close, we have one acre lots, and the frontage is anywhere from 140 to 170 feet, and there’s some very nice, you know, half circle driveways that go in and come out, and that gives you an opportunity where you won’t have to back out, you know, you don’t have to. MR. HAYES-We provide turnarounds in all the driveways. This is 900 feet. That would be only three driveways on 900 feet. If that was the case, it would probably be the least cut up road, of all the roads in Queensbury, that would be very smooth sailing. That’s a football field in between each driveway. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, well, I don’t really believe that six houses on that property is going to, that people are going to have a tough time getting in and out because I’m on that road all the time, too, pulling in and out of people’s homes, and I’ve never ever had a problem. MR. HAYES-A football field’s a long way in between driveways. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what I’m saying is, is that maybe the houses that go there could have a little more diversity instead of that shared driveway. MR. HAYES-The only reason we propose a shared driveway is because the Town proposes that to reduce curb cuts. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fewer curb cuts, yes. I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-To respond to your comment about a football field being a long way between driveways at 50 miles an hour, it goes by at a pretty good clip. MR. HAYES-That’s a long distance, and most roads there’s a lot closer driveways than that. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re not dealing with those roads. We’re dealing with something new in front of us, and we have an opportunity to maybe examine some alternate ideas. MR. HAYES-I understand. The point is well taken. MR. HUNSINGER-I would like to see you look at some sort of a loop road, and I agree with all the comments that were made by the Chairman and by Mr. Strough before, but my primary concern is the dead end driveway for the proposed 28 units, 25 units. So, I mean, maybe it allows you to do something different with those so that you don’t have a dead end, but you could loop it out, and that would be my primary interest in looking at that. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Hayes, I think one of the things that I looked at when I was looking at this six lots, one of the things that drove me toward concern for that was, again, getting back to this conflict between the Glens Falls Transportation Corporation and your, and that comes out of, I guess, Highway Department or of Department of Transportation, DOT, Warren County, and when I looked at the Glens Falls Transportation’s Counsel’s count at 6,128, I drive that road almost every day, and that seems to me just, intuitively, to be closer to the right answer. I don’t know what the right answer is, but what was driving me was to get those dual driveways off 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) the road was the amount of traffic that is starting to build up on West Mountain, and the speeds at which we travel on West Mountain Road. In some cases, it’s a 50 mile an hour road, where I’ve been tracking, I’ll get behind a car and keep an even distance and I’m reading my odometer at 60. So, people are traveling at high rates of speed on West Mountain Road, no question about it. I’m concerned about the safety of another three driveways. Your counsel says, well, there’s a lot of them out there, but I’m concerned about adding to that lot already. That’s a concern I have. It’s a safety issue with me, primarily, as opposed to a subdivision or even an aesthetic conflict in my mind. So I just wanted you to know where I got my basis from. MR. HAYES-I understand. There’ll still be the same amount of cars pulling out onto the road, regardless. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but from one source. I can deal with a single source better than multiple targets. MR. HAYES-Okay. I understand. MRS. RYBA-While we’re talking about driveways, one of the things that had been asked for was showing where the lupine is in the County right of way, and I know that the applicant had stated earlier that they didn’t want to show that because it wasn’t on their property, but counsel can correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding, in terms of SEQRA, is that you want to know that for cumulative impacts, but more importantly, you want to know where that is in terms of any curb cut driveway access or if there are going to be any changes where that lupine is in the County right of way, and that should probably be shown on the map. MR. STEVES-That is shown on the map. It’s been located and depicted on the map. MRS. RYBA-Okay. We don’t have a copy of that yet. MR. VOLLARO-Just a quick comment. Steve Borgos was mentioned tonight as buying the property. Are we talking Bell Nav? Is that the property that Steve Borgos is buying? Does anybody have any idea? MR. RINGER-It’s across the street from Bell Nav. On the south side of Potter Road. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s not Mrs. McEchron’s property? MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Borgos is here tonight. He could probably speak for himself if he chose to. Would you like to? STEVE BORGOS MR. BORGOS-My name’s Steve Borgos. I live on Butler Pond Road. My wife and I are here tonight. Just to clear up a lot of things about what I knew and what I thought I knew and all this other stuff, my wife and I did buy ten acres on Potter Road, at the intersection of Potter and West Mountain, to build, hopefully, our retirement home, and we bought it, actually had the closing a year ago last April, I think, but we decided on it in February, and I knew absolutely for sure that we were going into another area of only single family homes, which is where we live up on the side of the mountain now, but the hill’s too steep as I get older. I even had the zoning map, and I used the zoning map which I purchased from the Town when I was the Town Supervisor, to help decide just where we could go, and on the map, the property we’re talking about tonight is zoned just like it is on our land, which is single, I think it’s single family residential, much more restrictive. Does not permit, the map that I had does not permit multiple family dwellings, and even if it did, the multiple family dwellings we talked about back then when we re-did the entire zoning map in 1989, were duplexes primarily, and some up to four plexes to take care of the needs of senior citizens who would want to own part of their little home, and then they would be built, four units could be on four acres in one little cluster, and that was based on a Florida style that’s being used where my mother at that time was 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) living. So that’s the basis for that. Nobody envisioned the private apartment complex, and I’ve got nothing against business and private apartment complexes, but the Town has set up MR-5 sections, MR-5 zones all over the Town to accommodate that kind of a development. So the apartment complexes you talked about before are in the MR-5 districts, and they’re set up for that purpose, and they were done that way so they’d be near transportation. They’d be near other services for people. When you go up around Wal-Mart, you’ve got the apartment complex up there. The idea was that they’d be easy to get to, but as far as what we knew and what we did, we bought it thinking for sure, because we had the zoning map in front of us, that that was safe. Now just to be able to confirm that, feel free to talk to Darlene Dougher, and Matt Steves can talk to his father Leon who came over to meet with Darlene and I about two months ago now at Darlene’s office to try to clarify why the zoning map from 1989, which wasn’t amended in that area, would be different from the way it looks now, and Leon indicated to us at that point that he had created the map and he could tell from his notes that he made a mistake. He never makes mistakes, believe me, I know the guy, never makes mistakes, he had made a mistake when he transferred his notes to the official map of 1989. Thereafter, it was corrected, and then, according to Leon, and I’ll take his word for it, that zone now would permit what’s known as multifamily residential, but again remember, and you can go back to the minutes of the meetings we had, our idea of multifamily residential was not an apartment complex. Not in any way, and of course I was one of the members who voted on the Board for that, but that’s what was said. I don’t remember what other comments, questions just came up, but my wife and I do not own the property of Bell Nav. My wife is a real estate broker, and she has under contract the property on the other side which had been owned by Sara McEchron and we were trying to raise some money for Sara to be able to pay her medical bills, so when we bought, we were able to pay right away without having to think about a subdivision. The other people are under contract, such that they will not buy or pay until such time as it’s approved for that use. Unfortunately, Sara passed away about two weeks ago at the age of 97, and we all felt kind of bad about that, but that’s what happened, and, you know, we all love butterflies, but there’s a time and a place for butterflies, and I used to catch them when I was young. If you’ve ever seen a Karner blue, it’s smaller than your thumbnail. Okay. Maybe that’s enough. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. George? MR. HILTON-I guess the only thing I can say in regards to the zoning is the property is zoned SR-1A, which allows multifamily dwellings. The zoning has been as such since at least April 2002, which is before I came back to the Town. I’m not sure if it was changed in the Town wide rezoning at that time, but , you know, as I said, since April 2002, it’s been zoned Suburban Residential One Acre, which allows multifamily dwellings. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. Discussion amongst Board members? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we have to table this. MR. MAC EWAN-Obviously. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So should we make a, do we have special things that we need to have the applicant answer for us? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what I want to know. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-The first thing, Mr. Chairman, is that there is so much on my desk right now, so much information that I haven’t even had a chance to look at. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s one of our main reasons. MR. VOLLARO-And some of it that I don’t even think I got, you know, this is a little tiny table and I’m getting a ton of information on it, that I can’t assimilate tonight. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t expect any of us would, Bob. I made that very clear at the beginning of this presentation that we were going to table it tonight because of the new information that was presented to us tonight. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. I just wanted to get that on the record, Mr. Chairman, so that when we look at these things in the future, we know where we were and where we came from here. MR. STROUGH-Well, Mr. Chairman, what do you have on your list? MR. MAC EWAN-Just off the top of my head, without giving it a lot of thought, I’ve got two that came right up to me. Staff has requested that the Karner blue habitat on the County right of way be shown on the subdivision plat. I’d like an update, via the applicant I guess this would go two ways for me, is the applicant provide an update as to where they are in their Karner blue/frosted elfin survey from a DEC standpoint, and conversely along those lines is where we are with C.T. Male on doing our Town wide management plan. I’ve not heard anything in a couple of months on that. I’m curious as to where we are on that. I think the consensus I’m hearing up and down the Board is that we’re looking for an alternate roadway design to service those lots fronting West Mountain Road. I think Chris pretty much hit the nail on the head. He’s looking for a loop road, which I would support as well. MR. STROUGH-And just to allay everyone’s concern, have Tom take another look at that pond and make sure that, you know, he is addressing the worst case scenario. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, but won’t C.T. Male sign off on that? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-The other thing I think we’d like to get is copies of all, at least I would, copies of all the latest planning maps that are available. I don’t have that one. I’ve got a whole bunch of other ones that I looked at, and once the venue for the application changed, from a complete application to six lots, I lost it, totally lost it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a minute. When the applicant comes again, are we going to do six lots or are we going to do the whole thing? MR. HILTON-I don’t understand the six lot thing. I mean, we’re looking at. MR. LAPPER-That’s the application that’s pending, for a seven lot subdivision. MR. HILTON-Right. Correct. It’s a seven lot subdivision. That’s my understanding of the thing we’re looking at, seven lots that are going to be created. MR. VOLLARO-What we’re looking at is six lots, aren’t they? MR. LAPPER-Seven, six plus the remaining lot for the back. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the subdivision. MR. HILTON-Yes, and that’s what we’re looking at. MR. LAPPER-We’re only here for subdivision approval at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-But we will be looking at the project in its entirety. MR. LAPPER-For the sake of SEQRA. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. HILTON-Right. I understand, but I just want to be clear, because I keep hearing six lots being thrown around, and I just want to be clear. It’s a seven lot subdivision. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it was because we had all this information in front of us that we hadn’t read. So some of us got the impression that we were just going to look at the six lots fronting West Mountain Road, which we didn’t really have any information on. So we could take care of those and worry about the other 28 acres next time. That’s the impression I got. MR. HILTON-I guess I don’t understand the confusion. As I stated in my memo, Full EAF, stormwater management report, and, you know, complete property boundary with the seven lots was submitted. I still don’t understand the confusion, but just to make it clear, it’s a seven lot subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. RINGER-I think Craig Brown’s letter confused it a little bit. MR. HILTON-It may have. MR. RINGER-I think that Counsel also probably should review Stan’s letter and see, you know, what his comments are and where we should stand, and if we are standing. MS. RADNER-As long as you give me enough time. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll give you plenty of time. MR. RINGER-Tomorrow would be nice. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re going to probably have to extract this, well, it may be in Mr. Carte’s letter, but as he was speaking, I was jotting down some references he was making to both Subdivision Regs and Zoning Ordinance. I guess I would ask you to do something maybe a little bit of a different twist for us. Respond to us in the form of a memo to those comments he made, in particular I’m thinking of the comments he made regarding private roads versus the public roads both having to meet the same criteria as a public road. That struck my interest. I looked through the zoning, quickly was looking through the Subdivision Regs while we were speaking here and I couldn’t really digest it quick enough. I don’t know if I’m on the same page with him. He also made reference to, I think I wrote it down right, ordinance 179-2-010 regarding dwellings and one maximum, a maximum of one dwelling per lot. Maybe some clarification on that for us as well. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think his whole letter of June 22, I think you’re talking Kelly Carte’s nd letter of June 22 needs to be really analyzed pretty thoroughly, as far as I’m concerned, and I think that’s what you’re really driving at. Somebody’s got to sit down and pay attention to that letter, because it’s pretty well drafted and I, myself, have to go through it in some detail. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else we want to add to this? MR. VOLLARO-Just want to know what is going to happen from the standpoint of the letter from this fellow, the attorney Stan Pritzker. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ve asked Counsel to review it, and offer a memorandum. MR. VOLLARO-Counsel will do that. Okay. I might have missed that. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything from the left wing down here? MR. HUNSINGER-You’ve already got my issue. MR. MAC EWAN-John, have you got anything? MR. STROUGH-Nothing more than I’ve already said. MR. MAC EWAN-Does somebody want to put a motion together, then, please. MR. CARTE-Mr. Chairman, could I make a couple of rebuttals to what’s been said? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I think what we’re going to do, Mr. Carte, is I’ve left the public hearing open for the next time we meet. We’re close to the point where we’re going to make a motion here to table it, what we’re looking for, and I think that you can either send in written comments to us if you want to or save it for the next time we get together. MR. CARTE-Well, it’s not new information. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I’m not going to. We’re at the point where I gave everyone an opportunity, and we’re ready to move on a little bit. MR. CARTE-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thanks. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You didn’t mention all those things. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I didn’t. I just went through and picked and chose. Some of them were my own thoughts, that’s all. MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, if you want to take a couple of minutes and maybe draft something MR. MAC EWAN-Bob and Cathy, I’ll give you four minutes to put something down, four and a half. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2002 PRELIMINARY & FINAL STATE WESTERN RESERVE, LLC, Introduced by Mrs. LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr. Strough: So the following information can be obtained, and so also the following criteria can be met here: 1. So the Planning Board can have ample time to read over the new information that was given us this evening. 2. That the Karner Blue Butterfly and the Frosted elfin habitats be shown on the subdivision plat from a DEC standpoint. The applicant should provide us with an update as to where they are on the survey for the Frosted Elfin and the Karner Blue, additionally , Staff to provide us with an update as to where we are in our drafting of a Townwide Management plan. 3. An alternate roadway design to service the lots on West Mountain Road be devised. 4. To have Nace Engineering take another look at the pond for the worst case scenario. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) 5. We’d like to know the criteria for developing a road, a public road versus a private road, are the designs the same, that’s aimed at Staff. 6. We’d like an alternate subdivision plan for the entire project, the thought was that if they’ve got to go with a loop road, they may be looking at some kind of a redesign of the subdivision, and if we ask for a loop road, they’re looking at a different lot layout. 7. That our Counsel for the Town of Queensbury comment on the letter dated June 23, 2003 from Attorney Pritzker from Hudson Falls, 8. That the applicant will provide the latest drawings, in other words, the ones that we’ve reviewed tonight, which are dated today, 6/24/03. Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 2003, by the following vote: MRS. LA BOMBARD-Number Six, we’d like an alternate site plan for the entire project. MR. MAC EWAN-We need a site plan? Subdivision. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Excuse me, an alternate subdivision plan for the entire project. I’m sorry. MR. MAC EWAN-Not to keep interrupting you. Do we want to be a little bit more definitive with what we’re looking for? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I’d like to have somebody comment on that besides me. MR. LAPPER-He means reduce curb cuts on West Mountain Road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. We’d like to, well. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob, what were you guys thinking? MRS. LA BOMBARD-This is what John wanted. MR. MAC EWAN-Your input, John? MR. STROUGH-Well, the thought was that if they’ve got to go with a loop road, they may be looking at some kind of a re-design of the subdivision, and if we ask for a loop road, they’re looking at a different lot layout. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think they’re going to end up with that because of the location of the pond. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-One more. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What’s that? MR. MAC EWAN-You mentioned about the Karner and the elfin habitats being delineated on the plan, which we’re referring to the County right of way one. I also want the applicant to provide us with an update as to where they are on the survey with the frosted elfin and the Karner blue, and additionally Staff should provide us with an update as to where we are in our drafting of a Town wide management plan. That’s all I had. Anything else anybody wants to tag on to that? Do I have a second? MR. STROUGH-I’ll second. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Footnote that that we’ll put you on the first meeting of August provided you make the submission deadlines for July. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. HAYES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 20-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED AFTAB BHATTI AGENT: JARRETT- MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: HC-INT LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 8,000 +/- SQ. FT. FREESTANDING HOTEL BUILDING. HOTEL USES IN THE HC-INT ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 25-02, 55-02, 85-02 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 4/9/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51, 52.13 SECTION: 179-4 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the public hearing on April 22 was tabled. nd MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-As a follow up to the tabling of this application at a previous meeting, the applicant has provided new information, updated information, including cut sheets and noise information on the air conditioners, floor plans, building elevations, revised lighting and landscaping. The landscaping plans have been updated to show additional plantings in the buffer area between this site and the properties the south. Additionally, a more recent update, dated June 3, which we’ve received addresses emergency access concerns and there should be rd a letter that you guys have that is in the file from the Fire Marshal of the Town of Queensbury, pretty much signing off on these changes. Copies of these updated plans have been forwarded to C.T. Male and their comments should be addressed during this review, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Jarrett, the floor is yours. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin engineers. We’re here tonight representing Sam Bhatti, who is present to my left, who owns the Econo Lodge on Aviation Road. He is proposing an expansion of which you’ve seen during a prior meeting. To my right is Trent Martin in my office. Essentially, at the last meeting we attended, the Board, as well as residents, had concerns regarding we believe primarily the buffer but also some drainage concerns that C.T. Male raised. We’ve attempted to address those concerns in the plans that you have before you. The latest revision on those plans is dated 5/31/03, the revision block. Primarily, those plans update the buffer which is shown on the board tonight for presentation to you. MR. RINGER-Tom, what’s the date of your plans? MR. JARRETT-The revision date, the revision block is, pardon me, 5/15/03. The later plans of 5/31 were transmitted to the Town, but following the deadline. They were transmitted to the Town on June 3. George, can you concur with that? rd MR. HILTON-The plans of 6/3, is that what you’re speaking to? MR. JARRETT-We submitted on 5/15, the normal deadline, and then after we met with the Fire Marshal, we submitted on 6/3. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. HILTON-Yes. One sheet on 6/3, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have in front of us the most current plans? MR. HILTON-You have the full set from 5/15. Let me pull the 6/3 and compare it to what you have. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom, very quickly, what’s the difference between the 5/15 plans and the 6/3 plans? MR. JARRETT-We adjusted the entrance to accommodate the Fire Marshal’s comments for emergency vehicle access. We widened some of the access lanes so they do not have to enter underneath the canopy for the motel for fire access. MR. VOLLARO-Just let me make a quick comment on that. When I looked at the plans that were submitted on 5/31. MR. JARRETT-Do you have the 5/31 in front of you? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got the 5/31 in front of me, where it says revised per the Fire Marshal’s comments. I’m not sure, and I looked at the five revisions that the Fire Marshal made to the plan, one is the island gets beveled. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Two, there’s a new no parking area right out front of the building. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-He deleted one space, added one space to the east most parking lot, moved the transformer, changed the landscaping plan near the transformer. Those are the five things that the Fire Marshal put in. I would submit that the Fire Marshal should make a proposal and the Planning Board makes the change to the, you know, to the plan. This says revised per Fire Marshal’s comments. I was surprised to see that, frankly. MR. HILTON-Just to clarify, I mean, I guess just to give you an outline of the way things happened. There was a submission, as Mr. Jarrett said, on 5/15. There were a couple of meetings with Steve after that date. He had some suggestions and in response to those suggestions, the applicant submitted a plan on June 3, which adequately, I believe, addressed rd those suggestions. MR. VOLLARO-The Fire Marshal’s suggestions. MR. HILTON-Correct. The Fire Marshal has seen this plan of 6/3 and his letter is a signoff, if you will, on the 6/3, and the only difference I believe that I’ve seen, and the applicant can speak to this, between the 5/15 submission and the 6/3 deals with the widening of that curb cut and the no parking area in front of the new canopy. MR. VOLLARO-But I have a 5/31 plan. Is that the same as your 6/3? MR. JARRETT-That’s the one that was transmitted on 6/3, but the revision date is 5/31. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Those are the five things that I picked up on the 5/31 plan, or your 6/3 plan. There were five changes made. MR. MAC EWAN-All I want to know is we’re looking at the most current plan in front of us tonight, according to what George and Bob are saying, we are. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. VOLLARO-I have one that says 5/31. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. He revised it on 5/31, transmitted it on 6/3. Correct? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-The 5/31 plan revisions reflect our Fire Marshal’s comments. So we’re okay. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Back on track here. MR. JARRETT-After submission of that plan, we obtained C.T. Male comments on Friday, which were very minor in nature, and I know you’re trying to reduce any input from applicant to (lost words) to the meeting. They were so minor in nature, we got a signoff from C.T. Male today. That’s what you have, Mr. Chairman, and George has, and what that amounts to is one extra drywell in the buffer area, as well as adding the top of frame elevations to the existing drywells, just for clarification and construction purposes. MR. VOLLARO-What about reducing the slope of that, in the parking, reducing that eight percent slope. Is that also part of it? MR. JARRETT-Yes, when we addressed the prior comment, we had mistakenly adjusted contours and increased the grade slightly, and we’ve now backed that off to a six percent grade, and he’s comfortable with that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and that drywell goes in at Elevation 94, roughly? Is that correct? MR. JARRETT-The top of frame on the two existing ones in the parking area are 9825, and the new one is 9525, grade, 9575 grate. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because I looked, the lowest point along there is at 94, and I thought he said, add a drywell elevation 94, being the low point, and that wasn’t his words. Those are mine. Don’t let me mislead you, but when he said add a drywell at the low point, I looked at elevation 94 as being the low point in the back of that motel. MR. JARRETT-Okay. He was clarifying it as the low depression in the swale area which is a 96 elevation. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Which is a little higher on the site than what you’re looking at. MR. VOLLARO-The last elevation I see on my drawing is 94. Maybe that’s, let me take a look at the grading plan. MR. JARRETT-Jim Houston obtained a fax from us showing this, and then he signed off on it today. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s right to your right. MR. JARRETT-I could have made some more copies but I thought it would be very confusing. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got those, Mr. Chairman. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-He just handed them tonight. Mr. Strough has it. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Strough has it. MR. STROUGH-It’s actually a good idea. Putting the drywell down there is an extra precaution. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, right. Okay. So it’s at 96 as opposed to 94. All right. MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see it. MR. JARRETT-I think Jim wanted it for frozen ground conditions. So we acknowledged. MR. MAC EWAN-How did you end up going first anyway, asking questions? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. I just sort of usurped your authority, I guess, a little bit. MR. JARRETT-Could I jump in with one more thing before you go to the Board? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. JARRETT-The buffer we changed by adding trees and changing some of the deciduous trees to evergreen trees to increase the screening between the neighbors and the motel. We’ve also added the berm to shield what we believe will shield the headlights, and I think you have a profile in your plans that show how we’re trying to do that. MR. VOLLARO-Which of the plan package shows that? MR. JARRETT-Bear with us a second. MR. VOLLARO-Is that the landscaping plan, C-4, is that what we’re looking at? I’m just trying to follow that. MR. JARRETT-Site elevations of that Drawing D-4 shows actually two sections. One section is the, that’s in the 5/15 submissions. That shows the section at the south end of the building looking north, and then at the north end of the building looking north. One through the building and the buffer and one through the parking and the buffer. Did you find D-4? MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at really C-4. MR. STROUGH-Which shows the same thing, but. MR. JARRETT-There’s a section through the site, shows the berm and a car representing. MR. VOLLARO-I see. Okay. All right. MR. JARRETT-That should be in your package. MR. VOLLARO-It is. It’s C-4, right? I see it as D-4. Okay. I’ve got it. That’s a 5/15 submission. MR. JARRETT-Yes. Correct. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I think we can start. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. VOLLARO-Start it off, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Can we go right to the Amana air conditioning units. MR. JARRETT-Yes, we can. Assuming I can find my copy of it. Go ahead and pose your question. MR. STROUGH-Which unit are we going with? MR. JARRETT-I tried to get that answered this afternoon. I think Sam knows which model he’s going to use. Well, we seem to have misplaced our submission on the air conditioning units. MR. STROUGH-Do you have the cut sheet, Tom? MR. JARRETT-Yes. We have the cut sheet that was submitted. MR. STROUGH-Well, let’s go with the worst case scenario. MR. JARRETT-So the worst case would be seven bells. MR. STROUGH-Yes, can you change that to decibel levels for me. MR. JARRETT-Seventy. One bell equals 10 decibels. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. JARRETT-I don’t know why they listed it in bells, but. MR. STROUGH-Seventy decibels. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a pretty high number. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, it depends on the distance. What’s the distance? Then there’s a cumulative factor. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you all done questioning there, Mr. Strough? MR. STROUGH-Well, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let’s keep it moving. MR. STROUGH-Well, my next question is, what would be the decibel reading, then, after we consider a distance factor, and possibly some vegetation factors, when it arrives at the neighboring properties? MR. JARRETT-I can’t speak to specifics. I don’t know how Amana has measured the decibel levels, to be honest with you. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know how anybody could give an answer to that if you don’t have the factors. MR. STROUGH-Well, the comfort level, generally speaking, of ambient noise at night is around 45 to 55 decibels, depending on who you’re talking to and how conservative a level you are, and I’m just trying to ascertain that if these decibel levels are going to be in a reasonable, comfortable range by the time it reaches the residential areas, and so I was hoping to come to some conclusion there. So, it doesn’t like we know that, Tom. Right? MR. JARRETT-I’m sorry? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. STROUGH-At this point. MR. JARRETT-No, we don’t know what it would be at the homes nearby. We do know we have a buffer in between, and we have to actually physically measure those decibel levels with the unit running to be able to know that. We haven’t done that analysis. It certainly would be less than these values. MR. STROUGH-It’ll be less. Seventy’s high, and we are going with worst case scenarios, but even 67, all right. So that’s a concern, but I guess we’re not going to come to a conclusion to that. MR. JARRETT-The only rebuttal I can make is that these units have improved over the years and are better than prior units in older motel units. Specifics I can’t address tonight. MR. STROUGH-Well, the only thing I’m trying to do is picture myself as the neighbor. MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Am I going to have to close my windows at night, on a hot summer night because the noise of these air conditioners going, which on a hot summer night they’re going to be doing, is going to negatively impact the quality of my life? MR. JARRETT-I guess the only answer I can give you is that Sam, you know, operates the Econo Lodge right now, immediately adjoining, or adjacent to the units in Greenway North, and you’re saying there’s been no complaints regarding air conditioning units? SAM BHATTI MR. BHATTI-Seven years I’ve bought it. Nobody’s complained about air conditioners. MR. STROUGH-Nobody does? I mean it might be satisfactory. I don’t know. I’m not assuming that it’s bad. I just wanted to know, and we might hear something from the residents that says, yes, well, I only live 100 feet away from the hotel and they’ve got the air conditioners going and it really isn’t that bad. Fine. MR. BHATTI-They are very old units, and they make more noise. These are new ones, very quite. Because I’ve got some new (lost words) last year because Ken was gone. He wanted quieter, and they’re quieter. MR. STROUGH-Well, and Amana is a good product. So, I really think you went the effort, and I know you went to the expense to buy the better unit. So that I’ll give you some praise for. Let’s move on until we hear otherwise, then. Now, I notice there’s a dusk to dawn light, but I couldn’t find the location on the lighting schedule. Because the dusk to dawn light fixture, it’s Cooper lighting. It’s 175 watt mercury vapor, and I just, I mean, I just didn’t know where. MR. JARRETT-The existing motel, those fixtures are on the existing motel. MR. STROUGH-They’re already there. So there’s nothing new. Okay. That’s good. The dumpster. Now, I know that you, Mr. Bhatti, you want the people that are sleeping in your hotel to sleep in comfort. So I’m sure you don’t allow that guy to come in there, back up with a beeper going, and banging and slamming that dumpster at an unreasonable time during the night or early morning, right? MR. BHATTI-We don’t allow in the morning time because people checking out, the parking lot is full, so normally the truck driver comes between eleven and to three. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. STROUGH-That’s what I figured. Yes. Okay. Unless otherwise, I didn’t think it was an issue, but I thought it was a good question to ask. Because if it is an issue, the residents will probably bring it up. The D-3 lighting. All right. The cut sheet shoes Aeris, and the light plan shows Aries. Is that just a typo? That’s what I figured. So they’re not different fixtures. I’m just making sure. So it actually is, it’s the Aeris. That’s how it should be a little change noted on the light plan. Okay. Now, one last item. The SP is labeled as a Norway spruce, which is a good choice, I like it, on the landscaping plan, okay, but we also have SP as a shrub. It’s a little princess, spirea. Can we get that clarified that those are not going to be little princesses. Those are going to be nice big? MR. JARRETT-Yes, we certainly can get that clarified. Yes. That’s inadvertent. We’ll have to label it differently so that it’s clarified. MR. STROUGH-Okay, just to make sure, because you know how these people go. They’re putting in shrubs, and it says, hey, this is a shrub, and we want nice trees there. MR. JARRETT-No problem. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That was it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I had sort of a follow up question on the sound levels from the air conditioning units. You probably don’t have an answer, but I’m going to ask it anyway, because it was really one of my main issues. You list the noise ratings for the different units. What about the cumulative effects? I mean, I assume the noise ratings are for one unit. So if you have, you know, 20 units on a wall, would it be 20 times as loud, or? MR. JARRETT-It would make it certainly greater, you’re right. Cumulatively, it’s certainly greater. MR. HUNSINGER-But you wouldn’t know how much? MR. JARRETT-Not without doing some kind of a specific study or asking Amana if they’d have a study of that nature. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was the only specific question I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing further. MRS. LA BOMBARD-How about a SEQRA? MR. MAC EWAN-How about a public hearing? Have you got another question to ask? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I wanted to talk about the dumpster. I want to follow up with John on that dumpster in the back. That dumpster is still pretty close to all of these residential properties here, it seems to me, right out in the back. What would be wrong, or is there already a dumpster in back of your existing Econo Lodge? MR. JARRETT-There is, but that’s being moved. Now there’s one in the front of the, to clarify, there’s one near the east end of the existing buildings, in front of the east end of the existing building, there’s a square shown there right now. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. VOLLARO-I see it, right alongside the seven parking spaces. MR. JARRETT-Yes. That’s where the dumpster is right now. That has to be relocated, obviously. MR. VOLLARO-I was going to say to get it away from the neighbors and all of that, and taking a page out of John’s book, why can’t we just shift these dumpsters out in back of the existing. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but you’re just switching who you’re affecting. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, but you’re affecting. MR. STROUGH-Right there is single family. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Why didn’t you put it over here where this (lost words), put it some place in back of this lodge, where you get the noise factors and all of that and the smell. MR. STROUGH-How would you get to it? MR. VOLLARO-Well, he’d have to drive in and get it, I guess. I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think he’s got that kind of room there, Bob, to drive around behind that building. The property line to the Silo, you haven’t got room to go out there with any kind of vehicle. That’s almost on the lot line. MR. STROUGH-Just as long as they do it during reasonable hours, I think, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. JARRETT-That’s not enough room to put a dumpster in and gain access. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t think it was. They’re pretty close to their property line. MR. VOLLARO-If that’s the best place, and if there’s no objections from this audience when they get up to speak, if anybody does, than I withdraw that, but I think it’s still pretty close to that. So, I don’t have any other questions. I looked at the lights, and 179-20 says we can accept or we can modify. I think the lighting fixtures are fine. So I don’t have any other questions. I noticed that the noise value, though, from these air conditioners are back in 1968. Boy, that’s a long way back. MR. JARRETT-’98. MR. RINGER-’98. MR. VOLLARO-’98 I guess it was. MR. JARRETT-Correct me if I’m wrong, I think it’s ’98. MR. RINGER-’98. MR. VOLLARO-November 4, 1998. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it, Robert? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything you wanted to add? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. JARRETT-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff got anything? I’d ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-All right. We need to do a SEQRA, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Could action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. STROUGH-Well, the noise level is the issue that we haven’t been able to get down to final terms. I mean, it might be fine, but we don’t know that for sure. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, you know, John, I think that the fact that he said that he has air conditioners running in the other units and there’s even more of those and they’re older, and he’s never had any complaints, and the fact that he’s going with a good quality product also goes in his favor, but I’m still not 100% sure it’s going to be okay. MR. STROUGH-I might just be being too sensitive. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I think you are, because I think if there was a potential issue, you’d see the neighbors that were in close proximity here. MR. STROUGH-You’re probably right. MR. VOLLARO-I think Chris Hunsinger brought up a very important point, and that’s the cumulative effect of the sound of X number of those units running concurrently. I think that pretty much is, you know, something that we should be concerned with. IF a unit is 70 db, what is five at the point source of the noise. MR. STROUGH-Well, another thing is, though, Bob, on the applicant’s behalf, about half of this new proposal is west of the residential area. Only about, the north half really abuts residential areas. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s right. A lot of it’s on the road and the inside of the courtyard. MR. MAC EWAN-The question is do we think it’s significant enough of an impact that it warrants more information or takes it to the next step in SEQRA. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I don’t think so. MR. METIVIER-You know what my thinking is on that? If you have 60 decibels times six units, it’s not 360 decibels. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not. That’s true. MR. METIVIER-It could be 62 decibels, dispersed over. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. STROUGH-You’re right. It does jump to something like, 62, 64 decibels. You’re right, Tony. So I didn’t really press the point, but it is a factor. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ve got five who think that it’s not going to be significant at all. MR. STROUGH-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 20-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: AFTAB BHATTI, 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 24 day of June, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Motion. MR. STROUGH-All right. Now, before we go to a motion. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, conditions. Changes. MR. STROUGH-Well, the conditions, if the applicant submitted, this is the unit he’s going to use, the Amana unit . It’s going to be one of these Amana units. We don’t know which one, but 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) we do know that, you know, the maximum potential noise output , do we have to say that he’s going to use the Amana unit or because he supplied this cut sheet, that’s an automatic? MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s an automatic. MR. RINGER-And you could also say if you put that in and he ever had to change, then every time he changed it to another manufacturer, he’d have to come back to us. So we sure as heck wouldn’t want to stick him with something like that. MR. MAC EWAN-Counsel, if it’s part of the official application, what’s being provided to us to render a decision on. MS. RADNER-I think Larry’s point is a very valid one, that that’s what you have and that’s what you’re considering now and that’s what he’s presented to you, but if you make it a condition of approval, so that, in the future, when something better’s on the line, and he needs to replace five of these, he’d have to come back in for a modification could be a problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Then maybe the thing to do, if you want to get into that level of detail, John, is to say that the air conditioning units be provided for this application, not to exceed X number of decibels. That way if he change to a GE or Frigidaire or whatever, he knows that he can’t exceed certain decibel levels as per the manufacturer’s cut sheets. MR. STROUGH-Or would be as good as or better. MS. RADNER-I like Craig’s way better. It’s much more enforceable. MR. RINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-That would be acceptable to us. MR. MAC EWAN-You’ve got a couple of things here. So you want the air conditioning. MR. METIVIER-What was it, 64 decibels or 60 decibels? MR. RINGER-Seventy was the worst case scenario. MR. JARRETT-Seventy was the absolute worst on the sheet. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know, I just would say decibels wouldn’t exceed the cut sheets provided. MR. RINGER-That might do it. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The decibel levels of any air conditioning units not to exceed the cut sheets as provided with the application. What was your deal with that planting schedule, John, the species? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There were two species labeled SP. MR. JARRETT-There were two different labeled the same. We will clarify that. We will change that. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we’ll clarify it here in our motion, so that it’s understood, but we want to know what we want to change it to. MR. STROUGH-Well, there’s 15 Norway spruce on the western side of the property. They are labeled as SP. The clarification is that those 15 SP’s will be Norway spruces, in along the lines of the landscaping plan. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. What about the lighting verbiage, the typo? MR. STROUGH-There’s a typo on the plan. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, the official part of the packet is the cut sheet provided with the application, that’s the tooth in this thing. If it says something different as far as the spelling error on the plat, I don’t see that being an issue. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think we need to clarify a typo. MR. MAC EWAN-No. That’s the point I’m trying to make. MR. STROUGH-On Plan D-3, the cut sheet, the detail labeled as Aries, will be changed to. MR. MAC EWAN-No. Did you just hear what we said? We’re not going to bother with it, because the cut sheets provided is the documentation we’re looking for. MR. STROUGH-Fine. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s only two conditions. MR. MAC EWAN-Three, no, two, you’re right. We took that one off. MR. STROUGH-I thought you wanted me to give you some input. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2003 AFTAB BHATTI, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 20-2003 Applicant / Owner: Aftab Bhatti SEQR Type: Unlisted Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers Zone: HC-Int Location: 543 Aviation Road Applicant proposes to construct an 8,000 +/- sq. ft. freestanding hotel building. Hotel uses in the HC-Int zone require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 25-02, 55-02 85-02 Warren Co. Planning: 4/9/03 Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51, 52.13, 392.5-1-52.13 Section: 179-4 Public Hearing: April 22, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 3/17/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/20/03, and 6/24 Staff Notes 6/24 C. T. Male engineering comments 6/3 Meeting Notice 6/3 Revised drawings per Fire Marshal’s comments: C-1, C4, D1 revised 5/29/03 5/28 PB from Van Dusen & Steves: no easement found recorded in Clerk’s office or in previous abstracts of title 5/15 Revised Information Received Magazine cut sheets for Heating/Air conditioning, 1 catalog for Heating/Air conditioning, cut sheets for lighting, C-1 thru C-4, D1 thru D-4, ECI revised 5/14/03, A1 thru A4 revised 5/14/03 4/22 PB resolution: Tabled 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) 4/22 Staff Notes 4/17 C. T. Male engineering comments 4/15 Notice of Public Hearing 4/11 CB from Agent: replacement page for page 1 of SEQR 4/9 Warren Co. Planning: Approved 4/2 Meeting Notice 4/2 Wastewater Dept. comments 4/1 Water Dept. comments WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on April 22, 2003 and June 24, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the draft provided by Staff with the following special conditions: 1. Drawing C-4, the Landscaping Plan be revised to correctly differentiate the two SP labels, specifically that the 21 SP labels on the west side of the proposed building will be Norway Spruce, and 2. That the heating and air conditioning units to be installed shall not exceed the decibels provided in the cut sheets submitted by the applicant. 3. That the documentation includes the most recent fax submitted by C. T. Male on 6/24/03. 4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 6/24/03 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 2003, by the following vote: 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. STROUGH-Can we have one more clarification? There’s also two more SP’s on the northern side. MR. JARRETT-I was just going to clarify. I think Chris put a number in the motion, but we actually have 21 Norway spruce. So you may want to leave the numbers out, and refer to the plantings, just have us correct the nomenclature. MR. HUNSINGER-I just wanted to make sure that the one’s, as you mentioned, John, on the west side. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I think I think Tom’s suggestion is more apt, that the 21 identified SP’s will, in fact, be Norway spruces. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Revised. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED THE MICHAELS GROUP PROPERTY OWNER: SANDRA & MARTIN CECH AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: MOON HILL & BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF A 10.30 +/- ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS RANGING FROM 3 +/- TO 4.04 +/- ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 40-01 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-13.21 LOT SIZE: 10.38 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is a hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 9-2003, Preliminary Stage/Final Stage, Meeting Date: June 24, 2003 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 09-2003 (Preliminary & Final Stage) APPLICANT: The Michaels Group is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 10.30 +/- acre parcel into 3 single- family lots. LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Moon Hill Road and Bay Road. EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned RR-3A, Rural Residential Three Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a Full Environmental Assessment Form with the subdivision application. PARCEL HISTORY: Most recently, Site Plan 40-2001 proposed mining activity at this location. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 10.30-acre property into 3 lots ranging in size from approximately 3 – 4 acres. Two of the proposed lots will share an access 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) drive off of Moon Hill Road. The proposed lot farthest to the east, will have it’s own access drive. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has supplied information indicating a large area of the site with slopes greater than 25%. § 183-22 of the Town Code states that areas of slope greater than 25% are to be subtracted from the total lot area in order to determine allowable density. Factoring in the areas of this site with slopes over 25% could reduce the allowable density to 2 residential lots. § 183-47 allows for the Planning Board to grant waivers from the subdivision regulations (such as density calculations) if , “ the Planning Board find, due to the special circumstances of a particular plat, that meeting a certain requirement of these regulations is not requisite in the interest of the public health, safety and general welfare”. The proposed subdivision shows a driveway to be shared between lots 1 and 2 that appears to exceed the 10% maximum grade listed in §183-23 I (2) of the Town Code. If this driveway design is acceptable to the Planning Board, the applicant should address stormwater management related to the development of the new driveway. Have any test pits or perc tests been done in order to determine the suitability of the proposed on-site septic systems? Limits of clearing associated with the grading and development of this site should be indicated on the plat. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-As stated, the application before you proposes a subdivision, the creation of three lots ranging in size from three to four acres. The applicant has supplied information indicating large areas of slopes greater than 25% which in this case could, and I stress could, reduce the allowable density to two residential lots. Section 183-47 of the Subdivision Regs allows the Planning Board to grant waivers from density calculations and pretty much any item in the Subdivision Regulations, if the Board finds, I guess, no negative impact on the health, safety and welfare of the public. One thing in considering the plat is that the driveway to be shared between Lots One and Two exceeds the 10% maximum grade listed in Section 183-23I of the Subdivision Regs. If this design is acceptable, however, the applicant should address stormwater related to the development and construction of this driveway. A couple of questions. Have any test pits or perc tests been done to determine suitability of the proposed septic systems, and the limits of clearing should be shown on a, as some sort of a clearing plan, which, at this time, we don’t seem to have on file. We would recommend one be provided, and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during this review. That’s all we have at this time. MR. STEVES-Good evening, Matt Steves of Van Dusen and Steves, representing the Michaels Group on this application. Pretty simply, it’s three lots on approximately 10 acres of property on Moon Hill Road, north side. Also fronting a small portion on Bay Road. To address the Staff comments, yes, there were test pits done, and perc tests. They’ll be placed on the final map. Test pit data, anywhere from 96 to 150 inches and didn’t encounter any groundwater. One of them was done, basically in the low spot on Lot Three, and that was dug down to 96 inches at that particular location, and no groundwater or mottling was observed. Perc rates on all three of the lots range between three to four minutes. Test pits in there, fine, sandy loam from eight to twenty inches, twenty to one hundred and twelve, fine sands with a trace of silt, and basically fine sands with traces of silt down to 150 inches. As far as the grading, or the clearing plan, we have no problem in providing one. We gave, on the Long Form, the acreage that would be cleared. That included the house sites, area for lawn, area for the septic and the driveway. I’d gladly put that on the plan. That’s a good thing to have. We don’t have any objections to that. As far as the C.T. Male letter that we received late last week dated June 18 th to Mr. Craig Brown, reviewed all those comments. Have no problems with any of them. I can 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) go through them very quickly. In dealing with Jim Houston, we can take care of every one of these. On the Full Environmental Assessment Form, he states that more than an acre will be cleared. So therefore stormwater preventative plan, Jim Miller will be working on that. I’m sure you’ve seen some of his stormwater preventative plans. It is now a new requirement from the State, and he will be developing that. Pretty simple. The sight distances on the proposed driveway, they have been done. They exceed, in both directions, the requirement for the speed limit on the road. The lot numbers should be shown on the grading plan. We have revised the grading plan to include the lot numbers. A culvert under the driveway, 12 inch culvert has been shown. Location of the wells servicing the home on Bay Road adjacent to Lot Three needs to be shown. We’ve, in discussions with them, we have relocated and created a swale around that septic system on Lot Three, so that the septic system is beyond 100 feet from the property line of the neighbor. So therefore, unless the neighbor’s well was on us, which we know it is not, we would not be within 100 feet of their well. The well servicing Lot Two he said was less than 15 feet. Another minor change, so we relocated the well and the septic there to accommodate his comment on Number Seven and Eight, and relocation of those has addressed both of those issues. Test pit results should be provided on the plan. We have those provided now. After review of this letter, we have placed, all of what we are discussing here has been placed on the plan. The driveway profile for Lots One and Two shows an 18% slope. I wanted you to look at the profile on the Detail Sheet. That is for only a 35 foot section of the road. Fifty percent of the road is between, around the 10 to 14% slopes, and 40% of the road is at 0 to 10%. That’s for the driveway. It’s a very small section that’s that steep, but he is correct. On the Details sheet we took off the hay bales and we show the correct stone check dams every 15 feet in the steep sections, along both swales of the driveway, and that detail has been added to the Detail sheet, and that would address all of their comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, we’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t, in reading the C.T. Male comment, I didn’t recognize the acronym, SWPP. So I wasn’t sure what it was, but the question that I wrote down was, you know, could we get past SEQRA with that being in place. I guess it’s really more a question for Staff than for the applicant. MR. STEVES-It’s a preventative plan, the proposed clearing, that we have to set, since on the SEQRA plan, as Chris brings up, we are showing, you know, I’ve got to be realistic when we say we’re not going to clear the entire site, but we’re going to clear with driveways, houses, and people reasonable to have a lot about two and a half acres. So I think George might be able to answer the question specifically, regarding SEQRA on that. MR. HILTON-Certainly I think you are going to consider stormwater prevention, erosion control and stormwater management, in terms of SEQRA, but the specific stormwater pollution prevention plan, as I understand it, is a requirement of the Phase II regulations. So, yes, you can consider it for SEQRA, and it’s also a requirement at the Federal and State level that they have to provide. So I hope that answers your question. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I guess the question was, can we even do SEQRA, can we reach a finding without that plan being in place? MR. HILTON-I guess my answer would be yes, but again, with the regulations in place with the Phase II stormwater reg’s, that plan is required, in addition. So, I would say, yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-You can make it contingent upon that plan being accepted. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think we would, well, if you have to get it anyway, I don’t know if we would even need to make it a contingency. MR. STEVES-Right. It has to be done either way. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t really have any other questions, but I certainly do have concerns about some of the slopes of the driveway and some of the slopes of the site, and, you know, we’ve all looked at this site a number of times for various proposals and reviews, and, you know, it’s a tough site, and I just, in my own mind, am not sure that this is the best use for it. MR. STEVES-We looked at that also when we were in the last time. We had shown the house on Lot Three, we’ve reconfigured Lot Two in three line. We put the house down in the lower end, down in the corner, near the intersection of Bay and Moon Hill, so we didn’t have to worry about the slope, as far as with the septic system. You minimize the driveway cuts and share a driveway with two of the lots, and we understand, you know, the Michaels Group were envisioning actually Mr. Michaels, John Michaels, to be building on Lot Two himself, and the other two homes, they’re talking in the range of $350 to $400,000 homes, on the other two lots. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t think the price of the house has anything. MR. STEVES-I’m just letting you know what they’re envisioning here. I mean, it’s not going to be, you know, they’re going to do a lot of work to maintain and do a nice job on these driveways. Every stormwater measure that is required will be in place. It’ll be done as you would expect it would be done. MR. HUNSINGER-And I also do have some concerns about the length of the driveway into Lot Two, but you almost already answered those questions. So, that’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-My concerns are the same as Chris’, the length of that driveway into Lot Two and the pitch, and I’ve voted against, I think, the last five that have come before us, and I’m not happy with them, and, you know, I just have a concern about them. I don’t like them, and I don’t have any comments, other than that. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Doesn’t like the length of the driveway and the slope. It’s your turn. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with what Matt’s saying. The owner of the property, he’s certainly an experienced builder and developer. He’s going to make sure that this works, and I think everything will be all worked out. I don’t have any problem with it at all. As a matter of fact, I think it’s going to be very, very nice. MR. STEVES-The lot for Lot Two, and I understand the length of driveways. We could lengthen it even more and reduce the slope, but in our viewing of the site and the grading and drainage, you know, that we would be concerned with, meandering it back and forth to lower the road a little bit, as far as the slope, would be lengthening it to the point where we’d have to disturb way too much property. So, that’s the reason for the configuration. MR. RINGER-I’m just always thinking of getting a fire truck up there, Matt, and no water, and you’re going to have to run a tanker operation and you’d have to run tankers up there, tankers back. MR. STEVES-I don’t disagree with you, Larry, if was servicing five or six lots. If this lot was to be sold as one lot, and not need this Board, I can guarantee you that would be the spot that the house would be built on. MR. RINGER-You’re not talking a little house that he’s going to build up there. You’re talking a big house, and if something does catch there, you know, you’re going to need 10,000 gallons of water. I didn’t mean to interrupt. Go ahead. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Bob? 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. VOLLARO-The thing that jumped out at me, I guess, was the same thing that everybody else has talked about, is the, this 18% slope. Matt says there’s only a small portion in the profile, and he’s correct. I looked at that, and there is only a small portion in the profile that’s 18%, but, you know, in the wintertime, that 18% could prove to be very detrimental to getting up to the top. Again, if a buyer wants to buy at that level I think there’s a safety issue there. That’s my personal opinion, but I don’t know, in the answering to C.T. Male’s question number ten on Detail One, on D-1 Details, that’s where he talks about that 18% slope, what are you going to do to answer C.T. Male’s question number ten. What’s that? MR. STEVES-The travel, potential for erosion is what he is concerned with, and the stone check dams. MR. VOLLARO-It says this very slope for vehicles to travel and on the potential for erosion. He mentions two points there. MR. STEVES-Worried, he was worried about erosion across the driveway, with already a steep slope, creating it even more difficult. So by creating the check dams and swales on either side, we prevent erosion from coming across, or water from cutting across the driveway to create a ditch on a steep road. MR. VOLLARO-You won’t get four wheel drive machines to get up there. MR. STEVES-I can only vouch for the fact that I have a 15% driveway and I have a front wheel drive car, and I’ve paved it, and I’ve never had a problem. MR. VOLLARO-I guess, are we going to get a stormwater plan? Because there’s a waiver here for stormwater. Are we looking for a stormwater plan, or are we satisfied with what we have? I guess that’s my question. I guess it’s to Staff. They haven’t given us a stormwater plan. MR. HILTON-No, they haven’t. MR. VOLLARO-They’ve asked for a waiver. MR. HILTON-They’ve asked for a waiver. I guess I would just be concerned with the areas that are being cleared, I think presently for the driveway, and just determining that there’s not going to be any negative impact, and that there are adequate stormwater management facilities in place for that. MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying that probably we would not grant a waiver, based on the stormwater plan. MR. HILTON-Unless the. MR. STEVES-I think the review from C.T. Male, looking at the proposed driveway with the slope and the grade and the check dams, you know, I don’t disagree, Bob, but I think at the same time that’s basically a stormwater plan that they’re looking at for that driveway, and if they had other concerns, I think Jim would have addressed them in his letter, but I don’t have a problem. I think it’s already been addressed, is my point, but if you want a formal plan, I’ll gladly do that. MR. RINGER-You didn’t ask for a waiver, but I don’t know if you need one for a three lot subdivision anyway, stormwater management plan. MR. HILTON-Well, I think it is a requirement. MR. VOLLARO-You think for three lots you don’t need that, Larry? 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. RINGER-They didn’t ask for a waiver. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they did. MR. RINGER-Not on the sheet I’m looking at. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a waiver request here. MR. RINGER-I’m looking at the waiver request and it doesn’t have one. MR. VOLLARO-It says they want a waiver for the lighting plan and a waiver for the landscaping. MR. RINGER-Lighting and landscaping, not stormwater. MR. VOLLARO-But I didn’t see a stormwater plan. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s why he’s asking the question. MR. RINGER-I thought he said they had asked for a waiver. MR. MAC EWAN-No. The waivers they asked for are not from the stormwater management plan. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I haven’t seen the stormwater management plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know. I’m trying to interpret between you two. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-I may be able to clarify slightly. I don’t know if you’re talking for a stormwater report or a plan. The plan that we have shows the check dams, the infiltration stuff, and that’s the plan that we have, we didn’t ask for a waiver because we were planning to control erosion, and we’ve shown the details on the detail sheet, and addressed it with the comments back and forth with C.T. Male, and if you’re looking for a stormwater management report, that’s different than the plan. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a typical thing that comes off the Hydro CAD. MR. STEVES-Yes, that’s the report. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. RINGER-Were you looking for that, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Frankly, I don’t think so, no. This is a tough site. No question about it, primarily an engineering exercise. If people want to buy up there, that’s fine. That’s the way I look at this one. It’s okay. I don’t have any major issues with it, personally. The grade bothers me. I think Larry brings up a very good point about firefighting and getting 10,000 gallons of water up there, but, you know, again, people have to understand that they may be subject to that in the future. I’m not going to make an issue out of it. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, the Board has to have a comfort level with any application that comes in front of us. If you don’t feel comfortable with it, because of site conditions, restrictions, whatever. MR. VOLLARO-I really can’t say I’m uncomfortable with this, no. I really can’t say I’m uncomfortable. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. RINGER-My concern never was with the applicant. It was with the emergency personnel who have to go up there, and the problems that they could encounter and their safety, not necessarily the safety of the homeowner themselves. I mean, you worry about it, but, you know, that’s his choice. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. RINGER-It’s not necessarily a choice of someone to, again, that’s a personal opinion, only a personal opinion of mine. I wouldn’t want to influence anybody on that. That’s just my own opinion. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a good opinion. I think it’s a valid opinion, from your point of view. I guess I don’t place as much emphasis on it because I’ve never been in the firefighting mode like you have. So I don’t, maybe can’t appreciate that, but as far as I’m concerned, this application is okay. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well my number one item here was limits of clearing, and you did make reference to the SEQRA form, where we’re clearing, rounding off, about three acres? MR. STEVES-About two and a half. MR. STROUGH-Two point eight. MR. STEVES-Two point five, two point eight, correct. That included all the driveways, septic areas, and lawns for all three lots. MR. STROUGH-So, it’s an acre per lot? MR. STEVES-Not quite an acre per lot, yes. MR. STROUGH-So can we condition it that no more than one acre would be cleared per lot? MR. STEVES-I would be careful of that, because the driveway for Lots One and Two is entirely on Lot Two, and that’s going to take up the majority of that clearing. So I would say outside of the driveway, then you can limit the clearing on Lot Two. MR. STROUGH-Well, what’s the length of the driveway? MR. STEVES-Five hundred feet. MR. STROUGH-Mine’s 400. Mine’s 400 feet, then I have a platform up there and I’ve got a three car garage, and I’ve got additional parking for two, three other cars, and that’s 10,000 square feet. So that’s a quarter of an acre for the driveway and the worst case scenario, and then the house itself is, let’s say the foundation is going to be another couple of thousand. So I’m saying, would an acre per lot be a comfortable margin? MR. STEVES-Yes, it would, but in looking at the plans with, like I say, the bulk of the driveway being on Lot Two, I would like to see more of a happy medium. If you said an acre and a quarter on Lot Two, that would give Lot One and Lot Three a lot more of a lawn area than Lot Two, because they had the driveway in place. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m more concerned about Lot Two, because that’s going to be where it’s going to be visually prominent. You’re going to be able to see that if they do too much clearing, and last time this was before us for a Preliminary, I mentioned, can we get clearing plans, and 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) you said yes, and, well, I don’t see any clearing plans. I’m not too worried about the lower lots. I think they’re well placed and they’re not an issue, but. MR. STEVES-I have no problem with that restriction. I don’t even have a problem if you wanted to put no cutting within the setback, which are 30 feet in this zone. I have no problem with that restriction either. MR. STROUGH-Well, then you wouldn’t get your driveway in. MR. STEVES-I said, except for the location of the driveway, as I stated in the beginning. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, 30 feet. MR. STEVES-Well, you’re primarily concerned, you said, with Lot Two. So you’d be talking about the triangular portion of Lot Two on the northern end of it. So you’d have no more than an acre of clearing including the driveway, plus no cutting within the 30 foot setback. MR. STROUGH-Well, if you cut everything except for the 30 foot setback, you’re clearing out three acres of property. MR. STEVES-No, I said limit it to one acre of clearing and no clearing within the 30 foot. I could then say would you, take the one acre entirely within the 30 foot buffer zone. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, I could live with that. All right. I can live with that. MR. STEVES-Okay. I’ll say one acre per lot, and no clearing within the 30 foot setback. MR. STROUGH-That’s fine. MR. STEVES-Except for the location of the driveways for Lot One and Two, within the 30 foot. MR. STROUGH-Right. Right. Okay, that’s fine. Okay. Now, what percent of the driveway exceeds 10%? I live in the same situation, so I can’t be too critical. MR. STEVES-Like I said, so do I. Mine’s only about 90 feet long, but, as you can see on the upper half of the driveway, which is about 135 feet, it’s at one and a half percent, but we’re taking out a few feet of cut there. I can take more out, but I don’t want to be grading back as I just told you earlier. We’re trying to avoid these long side cuts in the driveway, because then you’ve got to clear a lot. Then instead of having a 25 or 30 foot wide driveway path up there, you have a 75 or 100 foot wide. So if you get back to your question, you have between and 10 and 14%, you’re at 50% of the driveway. You’re at 0 to 10% for 40% of the driveway, and you’re at between 14 and 18 at about 10% of the driveway. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, that’s not too bad, now we, with the Inglee application, we had emergency services review his driveway, and they suggested like curves be 16 foot in width so that the bigger equipment could get around those, but he had sharper curves than what the applicant has here. MR. STEVES-And a 21% drive I think it was. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and, okay. No, I guess the big issue with me is just get some kind of clearing limits, and we’ll move on. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t know if I have anything to add, it’s just, you know, the last time I looked at this with another developer, everybody was arguing that they didn’t want them taken 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) down. So now we’re arguing that it’s too steep. So there’s no happy medium there. I just don’t get it. So I just hope that we come to some kind of agreement on this one. That’s all. MR. MAC EWAN-I was almost ready to echo your sentiments, until you said come to some kind of agreement on this. I’ve said it all along. As we see less desirable land in this Town become available for development, the less than desirable has a tendency to make application to come in front of us, and not everything can be developed to the potential that an applicant would like to see it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But see I look at this as a very desirable piece of land, because people like to live up high. King of the mountain. I mean I think this is an unbelievable piece of land to build three houses on, the way I look at it. MR. VOLLARO-I think Helen Otte would like this proposal, from what Matt tells me of the kind of houses that are going in there. MR. MAC EWAN-What are the big issues that we’ve got here looming on this thing? MR. VOLLARO-Well, it looks like the bigger issues that I see up and down, not one of my concerns, but from what I see on the Board is probably slopes, the slope of that. MR. METIVIER-To me that’s not a concern, and it probably should be, but we have members of the Board, members here, not members, excuse me, I have a brother that lives on a slope that exceeds that. Life goes on. You know what you’re buying. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. METIVIER-I mean, truly. My brother lives, you know. MR. VOLLARO-You know what you’re buying. It’s a buyer thing. MR. METIVIER-Even in snowstorms, I’ve never had problems getting up to his house. Truly, and I plow it for him, so I have to get there. No one else does it. MR. MAC EWAN-John, you wanted to see limits of clearing? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’ve got it pretty much. No more than one acre will be cleared for each lot, and no clearing will occur in the 30 foot setback, except for the shared driveway, for Lots One and Two, as shown on Site Plan S-1. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you guys want to move forward on this thing tonight? MR. VOLLARO-I’m inclined to move on it, yes. MR. MAC EWAN-With 12 outstanding issues from C.T. Male that we haven’t gotten sign off on yet? MR. STROUGH-C.T. Male hasn’t signed off on those? Well. MR. VOLLARO-I thought we had a recent C.T. Male letter. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They have three issues they haven’t signed off on, I thought. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, we’ve got C.T. Male. It says that the applicant’s going to have to do a stormwater pollution. MR. STEVES-We discussed that at the beginning. I said I have no problem with the C.T. Male letter, just like with an application we had last month where you made it conditioned upon that, 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) and I’m sure you got that fax with the Hayes one on Ridge Road, we got the sign off. I assure you that, in discussions with Mr. Houston, I’ll have a sign off on this. That’s totally at the discretion of this Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Where are you getting three? I’m seeing 12 issues. I’m looking at a June 18, 2003 letter. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. MR. MAC EWAN-Bullets, 12 items. You haven’t got those signed off yet. Staff hasn’t received that. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think I want to move forward on this thing until we do, until we get it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’d go along with that. MR. MAC EWAN-John, you had mentioned something in your discussions about wanting to show clearing limits on the plat. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we get those revised, too, Matt? MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-Everyone seems to be comfortable with the slopes, no big issues with that, and the details relevant to those? MR. STROUGH-Well, he’s not going to know his exact clearing limits, but he can show where probable clearing limits would be, with the notation that we’ve basically agreed with. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you know if there’s going to be deed restrictions with this thing from future clearing? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-So we don’t look like the potential of some other mountaintops in this Town. MR. STEVES-There will also be deed restrictions on these lots, as far as the clearing of these lots. MR. MAC EWAN-Can you supply that, some language for us? MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we’re thinking along the lines of. MR. VOLLARO-You want to table this based upon approval by C.T. Male? MR. MAC EWAN-Sign off with C.T. Male. We want to show these clearing limits on the drawing. He’s going to, is anybody writing these down? MR. HUNSINGER-Three issues. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Clearing limits on the drawing, the deed language for future lot clearing. MR. HUNSINGER-And C.T. Male signoff. MR. STEVES-I have actually one more, the one acre clearing limits, also, and then define where they are. Right? The no cut zone, we’ll denote that in the 30 foot setback. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STEVES-Okay. Deed restrictions, and the signoff from C.T. Male, and if we’re going to that, you might as well add the stormwater preventative plan, and we’ll have it all at once, so that there’s nothing left unturned. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’m not ready to quite table this, but I’m getting a laundry list together, because I want to do a public hearing. Could I ask you to give up the table for a minute and I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DREW MONTHIE MR. MONTHIE-Drew Monthie, Tee Hill Road. I spoke to you folks last year about this piece of property, when it was proposed for a different project, and I have the same concern Mr. Strough has about how much will actually be cleared, not so much about the slope of the driveway. I kind of agree with some of the members of the Board that people choose to live where they want to live, but my experience has been, in looking at pieces of land, is that the more area that’s cleared, the more the property owner that purchases it tends to convert to turb grass, and because of the slopes and the fact that there is a wetland below this, you have the potential for a lot of leaching and the sandy soil from pesticides and the nitrates from fertilizers, and I don’t know whether it’s in the scope of your discretion if you can require that in a deed restriction, that they limit pesticide and fertilizer application on the site, or limit the size of the lawns. MR. MAC EWAN-Probably we could put something together like that. MR. MONTHIE-Okay. Thank you. That’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. Anyone else? I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Now, does someone want to introduce a motion to table? Anything you wanted to add, Matt? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, do you want to do it? MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE, FINAL STAGE, THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Mr. Hunsinger who moved for its adoption seconded by Mr. Metivier: So that the applicant can submit a clearing plan. So that a final sign-off from C. T. Male Associates can be obtained. That the applicant will provide language on deed restrictions on their proposed clearing, and that the applicant provide the stormwater prevention plan permit Duly adopted this 24 day of June, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Deadline. MR. HILTON-To be on in August. MR. MAC EWAN-Is July 15. th MR. STEVES-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 10-2003 TYPE I NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP PROPERTY OWNER: CEDAR HOLDING ASSOCIATES AGENT: GARRY ROBINSON, PE ZONE: HC-INT LOCATION: 713 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF A 2,244 SQ. FT. DUNKIN DONUTS BUILDING AND SITE. RESTAURANT IN AN HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 98-2002 (12/18/02) WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/13/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER, JERRY BURKE, GARRY ROBINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-Before we get started, Mr. Chairman, since the meeting went so long and we had all this extra time, we were able to agree with the neighbors that we’ve been usually unable to up until this point, but because we had time to chat, we worked out some pretty minor changes, I think, as far as the Board will be concerned, but stuff that was real important to the neighbors. So, after we go through the changes that we’ve shown you on the map that we’ve made at the request of the Board since last week, we now have a couple of minor changes to just get your consent to, and if it works out, we would just like to have them on as conditions so that it’s on the record that we’ve agreed to them. MR. MAC EWAN-You might just as well go with it, Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Very quickly, we moved the building up two feet so that the distance between the existing building in the back where it is now, and where it will be is even greater than it was. So it’s away from the neighbor’s building. We eliminated three foot planting area on the north side so that there’s more room. Mr. Strough was measuring the distance for the passing lanes. So we’re able to add two feet, three feet on the north side. We had talked about two feet. We were able to eliminate three feet on the north side. Initially, what we had, to make up for that green space strip, was to put scrub willows, pussy willows, all along the top of that brook, that stream area. That would serve both to increase the green space. So we brought it up to ten percent, before the good stuff that we’ll tell you about in a minute that we just agreed to with the neighbors, but we brought the green space up from eight percent to ten percent, and we planted how many, ten pussy willows along the top of that bank that would also serve as some additional stormwater system, just because there’s more ground to infiltrate, plus the plants, to protect the stream, or that area. So that was what we had done at the request of the Board. What we just agreed to with the neighbors, what we’d like to do is as follows. The neighbor has offered that we can have a ten year lease at a minimum for parking on their site in the back to park our employees, and what we’d like to do then, as a condition, is to say that the plan would get approved showing where the three spaces in the back, in case we can’t work it out with them, but we expect that we will, and we would have the right to, instead of putting these three spaces here, we could make that green, with the exception of the area for the dumpster, which would be moved back, and there would just be the little drive aisle for the garbage truck to pick up the dumpster. This would allow the whole area here to be green, including around this curve, which we haven’t calculated obviously, but it probably gets it, you know, closer to 13%, from where we were, eight percent when we came in, you know, originally, and then to ten percent. So the neighbor would also like, in front of their building, that we green the curb, so that it would just look a little prettier and it’ll show the cars which way to go, and that’ll add green space as well, in that corner right in front of the U Rent All building. They’d like us to, and we’ve agreed to pay to relocate the NiMo pole from where it is 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) now on the Dunkin Donuts property to behind the blue building. So it would be on their property, so it wouldn’t interfere with people driving by, and at the same time, once the pole, the pole was blocking the light pole that we’d proposed. So we would relocate the light pole a few feet so it will be on the green area in front of their building as well. So there would be nothing blocking vehicles coming in now. You’ve got a power pole plus the light pole that we had proposed behind it. I mean, that will have a slight change in the off site lighting, but the neighbor feels it would be beneficial to them. It’ll light up the front of their building as well as the back of ours here. That’s conditioned on them granting NiMo the easement to relocate the pole, but that’s what they want. So they’re confident that’ll grant NiMo that right, and we’ll pay to relocate the pole, and at the same time, they’ve agreed to let us plow the snow to the back of their property, as necessary. So we may not have to take it off site, except in a really big storm. MR. VOLLARO-Is that light fixture you’re talking about the one that’s in the drive lane here? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I couldn’t see it from here. MR. LAPPER-Yes. Unfortunately we drew it up on the smallest map possible. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROBINSON-There is a light fixture that is right near that existing power pole. We’re going to move that back. We’re going to have some green area across the back right here. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought we talked about that green area last week? MR. LAPPER-We did, and we were going to put it there, but because that’s in the easement area, we didn’t know if the neighbor would want it there. So we talked to George Hilton after the meeting and he thought that if we did this whole strip here, we’d be adding a lot more green. So we proposed it here, but the neighbor thought about it, and decided that they would like it in front of their store. So we’re going to do both, and move the pole there. MR. MAC EWAN-That satisfies the easement issue? MR. LAPPER-Their happy. We’re happy. We’d just like that to all be as conditions after we answer the Board’s questions, and they’ll come up and speak on the record, when we get to the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. All right. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions, comments from Board members? I’m not going to go right down the Board. It seems like we’ve got everything pretty well nailed down. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to get the drawing number. The latest drawing, 6/18/03, you’ve just got to correct that 39, I think that that’s gone to 42. Is that the number? MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the only thing I see on this. MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. HILTON-There was just one thing, minor thing, I think. The two areas behind the Dunkin Donuts that are shown as green area on that plan are shown as gravel area with plantings in 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) them on this plan. I just want to have you guys clarify, is it going to be actually like green and no gravel? MR. BURKE-No gravel. Green. MR. HILTON-Okay. Then the plan should just be changed to reflect that. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking 6/18, George? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. STROUGH-George, are they going to have to submit those that were being shown tonight to you? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we will resubmit it to just reflect on paper the agreement that we just reached. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-I know you like hearing from me, and this is a, I’m glad to see we’ve resolved everything, and this is going to be generally one way flow? MR. BURKE-Yes, sir. MR. STROUGH-And you’re going to have signage to that effect? MR. BURKE-Yes. We’ve agreed to that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Just double checking. Don’t need any more. MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. HILTON-One last thing. This is one thing that Staff, we’ve touched on in the past, is some kind of language on the plan for future connection to the existing use to the south, understanding that when the property to the south comes in in the future, that the potential would be. MR. MAC EWAN-That was on the previous plat. Mr. Parillo said that there wasn’t an interest from the auto dealer, the auto supply store to have that (lost words), but they could be gone two years from now. MR. HILTON-And that’s fine, exactly. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’d ask you to give up the table for a minute. We’ll open up the public hearing. Did you want to come up and comment Pohl? Are you sure? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 10-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP, 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 24 day of June, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Now, quickly looking through the draft resolution that Staff has put up over the many meetings, adding to the list, I’m wondering if it’s covering everything we’ve talked about, at least over the course of the last two meetings. The most recent site plan map you submitted reflects the changes we want to see, not inclusive of the arrangements that the lawyers made tonight. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. That’s the 6/18 letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-The 6/18 map reflects the changes. MR. MAC EWAN-Now, the only thing that that map does not include, which was discussed tonight, is the landscaping, and what’s going to be achieved in the island area, the green space area, in the far southeast corner of the building, parcel, I should say, not building. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. VOLLARO-Also this green space. MR. MAC EWAN-I said that curbed green space. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-So we need to know what we’re looking for as far as plantings, so we can be definitive on that, and that, to me, other than what the arrangements were between the lawyers, is the only outstanding thing I see that’s got to be incorporated into the resolution that we don’t already have. Let’s cut to the chase. What are we putting in there? MR. LAPPER-I’d say subject to the neighbor granting an easement to NiMo, which they’ve agreed to do . MR. MAC EWAN-Right. You know, I’ll get you to work out your language of what you want in there, as far as, I’m looking for what we’re calling for for a schedule of plantings, whatever it may be. MR. BURKE-I will go above and beyond. If you look at any of the sites that we start from the ground up, no, I’m just saying that. MR. MAC EWAN-No, and I realize that. MR. BURKE-I’ll put sod in, in all the green spaces. MR. MAC EWAN-No, I only say that, I chuckle because I look at it strictly from an enforcement ability. So if our Code officer goes out there and says, well, you didn’t go above and beyond, he wants to know if you put five petunias in there or 16 blue spruce or whatever the case may be. Something needs to be documented like it is on the previous schedule. MR. LAPPER-If it’s okay with you, we’ll submit the final one in a couple of days that’ll show the planting in the area that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s good. Yes. MR. LAPPER-For the Chairman’s signature. MR. MAC EWAN-Counsel says it’s doable. MR. LAPPER-And it’ll have the same type of species, but there’ll be more of them in those areas. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. What I’d like to do is take a five minute recess. Have Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, and highly unusual, Mr. Lapper, help draft this resolution, and the reason I’m asking for this, for the record, is because I want incorporated into our resolution, the deal that was struck between the two parties accurately reflected in our resolution. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know if we can get that in a resolution. MS. RADNER-You’ve got to condition it up this applicant’s agreement to provide these conditions to the other applicants provided that they, you can’t condition it on requiring action from the neighboring property owner. MR. MAC EWAN-No. Right. MR. LAPPER-Provided that the neighbor grants (lost words), NiMo and grants us the lease to park in the back, we will make these additional changes. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Right. All right, Bob, have you got a resolution? MR. VOLLARO-We’ve got a resolution, Mr. Chairman, but I understand that Mr. Hilton is looking something up for us here. Give us a minute. MS. RADNER-Go ahead with your thing while he looks it up. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 10-2003 NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 10–2003 Applicant: North Star Donut Group, LLC Type II Property Owner: Cedar Holding Associates Agent: Garry Robinson, PE Zone: HC-Int Location: 713 Glen Street, 302.6-1-10, 0.44 acres Applicant proposes demolition and reconstruction of a 2,244 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts building and site. Restaurant in an HC-Int. zone requires Site Plan review by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: AV 98-2002 (12/18/02) Warren Co. Planning: 2/13/03 Tax Map No. 302.06-1-10 Lot size: 0.44 acres / Section: 179-4-030 Public Hearing: February 25, 2003 [PH left open] April 15, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 1/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/13/03, and 6/20 New Info: Sheets 2 & 3 of 8 6/17 PB resolution: Tabled to 6/24 6/17 Staff Notes 6/5 Letter from M. Dickinson, owner of U-Rent All 6/4 Meeting Notice 5/19 Letter from John & Mary Anne Doty 5/19 C. MacEwan from J. Lapper, requesting placement on 6/3 PB mtg. 5/16 C. T. Male Engineering comments 5/14 Copy of info sent to C. T. Male by G. Robinson, agent: changes to revised sheet attached 5/14 J. Edwards from G. Robinson in response to 5/12/02 engineering comments 5/13 J. Edwards letter from G. Robinson dated 5/5/03, color rendering of Dunkin Donuts bldg., Plan Sheets 2, 4, 5, & 7 5/12 C. Brown from J. Edwards: comments to updated set of plans 4/15 Planning Boar d resolution 4/15 Staff Notes 4/10 New Information received: Stormwater Management Plan, Lighting Cuts 4/9 C. T. Male Associates engineering comments 4/2 Meeting Notice sent 3/17 New Information Received: Sheets 1-4 (plans); Sheets 1-2 (floor plans) 2/25 PB resolution: Tabled with conditions 2/25 PB minutes 2/25 Staff Notes 2/25 PB from New Wave Hair Salon 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) 2/25 PB from J. & M. Doty 2/25 PB from G. Robinson: Catalog cuts for lighting fixtures 2/21 Fax to applicant/agent of staff notes 2/20 PB from M. Dickinson: Public Hearing info, letter w/pictures 2/19 C.T. Male engineering comments received 2/19 PB from E. Wynn 2/18 Notice of Public Hearing 2/13 Warren Co. Planning: No County Impact 2/12 C. Brown from W. Logan, NYS DOT 2/6 C. Brown from G. Robinson (agent): Layout & Materials Plan 2/5 Meeting Notice 1/30 Referrals to CT Male, NYS DOT, Water, Wastewater WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on February 25, 2003, April 15, 2003, June 17, 2003 and June 24, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That the neighbor agreed to make the following concessions for the neighbors to the south. An area of additional green space in front of the U-Rent All building with low growing Junipers. 2. To relocate the fixture entitled S-1 at the northwest corner of the area described in No. 1 above. S-1 is a light fixture. 3. Locate the Niagara Mohawk pole at the applicant’s expense from the northwest to a location behind the eastern most building to the adjacent parcel to the north, if utility easement is granted and Niagara Mohawk agrees. 4. The three parking spaces in the southwest corner labeled No. 12, 13, & 14 shall be eliminated if the neighbor to the north grants the applicant a 10 year lease for six parking spaces. 5. Relocate the dumpster to the parking space now labeled No. 14 and landscape a portion that is not utilized by the dumpster access driveway. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) 6. The Planning Board will receive a landscaping plan to be approved by the Zoning Administrator. 7. A notation of a proposed shared access with the southern property will be included on the final site plan. 8. To grant a waiver for the minimum number of parking spaces per 179-4-040 (B3). 9. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 6/24/03 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 2003, by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-There’s more line items? MR. STROUGH-There’s one on, you know, we are willing to grant a waiver from the minimum number of parking spaces, but I asked George how specific do we have to be about that, and he was looking it up. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think we have to be very specific. MR. HILTON-Yes, I’ve got the Section. It says in any district at your discretion you can approve the joint use of a parking facility, and reduction in the parking requirement of up to 30%, by two or more principal buildings or uses, either on the same, adjacent, or nearby parcels, and it goes on to say that there shall be a covenant on the separate parcel or lot guaranteeing the maintenance of the required off street parking facilities during the existence of the principal use. So it’s saying, through that Section, you can grant a waiver. MR. VOLLARO-George, what is that Section? MR. HILTON-179-4-040(B3). So it’s just saying you can do it up to 30%. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILTON-Your motion said the landscaping plan would be submitted to the Planning Board Chair, and that’s fine, but assuming that you’ve spelled out all the requirements that you’re looking for, we could just as easily have that submitted to our Zoning Administrator who signs off on the plans anyway, the three copies. We could check it against the resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Saves me a trip. MR. VOLLARO-To be approved by the Zoning Administrator. You want to replace “Chairman”? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. It saves them having to hunt me down. AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. Finally. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-When are you going to knock the building down? MR. BURKE-Monday. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll be there, just to take a look at the ball. MR. BURKE-You’ll see me again. MR. MAC EWAN-Just remember about the Dix Avenue site. MR. BURKE-I know. That’s why I said you’ll see me again. MR. MAC EWAN-Access road only. MR. BURKE-I hear you. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 33-2003 SEQRA TYPE II HENSSGEN HARDWARE PROPERTY OWNER: RED SQUIRREL, LLC AGENT: JAMES SECOR, P.E. ZONE: LI LOCATION: 43 EVERTS AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 50’ X 50’ UNHEATED WAREHOUSE ADDITION TO EXISTING FACILITY. WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/11/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.12-1-45 LOT SIZE: 1.14 ACRES SECTION: 179-4 JIM SECOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-Public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 33-2003, Henssgen, Hardware, Meeting Date: June 24, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 33-2003 APPLICANT: Henssgen Hardware is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is seeking approval to construct additional warehouse space. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 43 Everts Avenue. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned LI, Light Industry. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Type II Action. No further action is required. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 2500 sq. ft. warehouse addition. The plans also show a new stormwater detention basin as well as a new enclosure for relocation of existing garbage dumpsters. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested the following waivers: Stormwater Management Plan - Grading Plan - Lighting Plan - 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) However, the applicant has included stormwater information and a lighting plan. The lighting plan proposes only one additional wall-mounted light, and lighting levels appear to be consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements. The stormwater information has been forwarded to CT Male for their review and comment. Currently this site has a wide area of impervious surface/open driveway along Everts Avenue. Additional green space and street landscaping along Everts Avenue in front of the existing building would provide a visual buffer from the residential properties to the east as well as provide better access definition and management for vehicles entering and exiting this site.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please. MR. HILTON-As mentioned, the applicant proposes to construction, it’s actually a 2500 square foot warehouse addition and the applicant has requested the following waivers, stormwater management plan, grading plan, lighting plan. However, the applicant has included stormwater information and a lighting plan, and the lighting plan shows only one additional wall mounted light, lighting levels appear to be consistent with zoning requirements. The stormwater information has been forwarded to C.T. Male for their review and comment. Currently this site has a wide area of impervious surface along Evertts Avenue, and additional green spacing and street landscaping along this section would provide a visual buffer from the residential properties to the east, as well as provide better access definition and management for vehicles at this location. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. SECOR-Good evening. I’m Jim Secor, Project Engineer, and the Shaws are the folks that own Henssgen Hardware. Would you like me to give just a quick overview of the project? MR. MAC EWAN-Sure. MR. SECOR-Presently, there’s Evertts Avenue. There’s the existing facility. We’re proposing to build in the back of that existing facility with the 50 by 50 warehouse space, which then ties directly in to their existing warehouse facility. It also allows us to use the loading dock areas that presently are exposed. Part of the project, we’ll be also looking at closing the dumpsters back behind that building and hiding them. The storage trailers that are presently on site will disappear because of the warehousing facility allows them to be inside. By placing them back here, we’re utilizing the existing screening of the existing building, plus these three sides of the property are densely vegetated at this point in time. We did get our variance for the setback last week from the Zoning Board. We did get comments back from C.T. Male. I don’t know if the Board got those or not. We didn’t receive them until last Thursday. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re referencing the June 18 letter? It had three bullet items, basically? th MR. SECOR-Yes, and I spoke with Mr. Houston on that Friday. His comment, or his recommendations were, we had originally designed a settlement pond catchment area for overflow back into the existing drainage swale, which right now is on Duke’s property. With the fence, though it’s all grassed area into this piece, but the fence is on the opposite side. They didn’t like that idea. We came back and I discussed it back and forth with Mr. Houston. He recommended going to a grass swale design, which I, in turn, faxed out to him Monday morning, with new flow calculations. I don’t know if he’s, we didn’t receive any comments directly back from him, but it was his recommendation to go to that design, and that’s why we went that way. The only other issue was the lighting plan that I did submit in the package, originally we had called, leave the existing mercury vapor fixture on the building and go with a full cut off metal halide on this building. The lighting package that was in the package, I inadvertently didn’t realize it, but that is representing two new full cut off 400 watt metal halides, and getting rid of that old mercury vapor. The light wash from those mercury vapors are a lot more distinct than these new fixtures, plus the full cut off, the lamps fully conceal. So 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) as part of our application, we are going to change both those fixtures to that new style. I do have a revised print, which I don’t know if the Board wants it. Basically it just reflects just that new swale design system that was asked for by C.T. Male. MR. MAC EWAN-You haven’t gotten any comments back from them? MR. SECOR-No, but I assume that they’re going to agree to it, considering it was his recommendation. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, we can condition it that way. MR. SECOR-That’s fine. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-It seems pretty straightforward. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. SECOR-No, I think that about does it. There’s elevation drawings. That’s the other thing. We also are going to re-side this whole front section or side section of this building to match the new building. That’s what’s reflected on the elevation drawings. Right now, it’s chopped up as a little bit of everything, and there’s old overhead door openings and stuff that wooded over. That way we can blend this whole structure, this is the viewscape from the parking lot. So this is all going to look as one contiguous structure. The color scheme, we’re looking at a dark green trim on the new building areas, as well as on this back section of the existing. It’s going to be metal sided. It’s an earth, it’s Egyptian White is what it’s called. It’s a slightly off white tannish type color, to blend in the brick veneer system that’s already on the front of the building, which will be left intact. MR. MAC EWAN-And the light fixture you’ve got shown on your new submission tonight, the LuMark? MR. SECOR-Yes, that’s the one we’re proposing to use for both fixtures, and that’s what the lighting, the photometrics are based on. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re going to take the light off the old building and both of these lights will be the same. Is that the idea? MR. SECOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SECOR-And they’ll match that detail (lost words). MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Ringer, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-I have nothing on this. I think it’s a good project, and C.T. Male’s signoff is all we need, and we’ll get you out of here before 11:30. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Ditto. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert, it’s your turn. MR. VOLLARO-Is it my turn, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-Officially it’s your turn. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have no comments, believe it or not. I think it’s a good site. I’ve looked at it. I think it’s fine. Commenting on the Staff’s comment about some more 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) landscaping along the front, I went over to look at the site again on my own, and I just couldn’t see anymore landscaping along Evertts Avenue. I think it’s fine the way it is, frankly. So, the only three things that have to be done is the C.T. Male, as Mr. Ringer said, the three items on the C.T. Male, change the 4.8 runoff to rainfall. I mean, that’s a no-brainer. That’s probably a given. MR. SECOR-Yes. That was just an oversight when we put it into the computer database, as a matter of fact. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and adding a grass line swale, which this now shows. MR. SECOR-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And the agreement or easement with the adjoining property, I guess that’s. MR. SECOR-Yes. I don’t know if anybody got a chance to come into the back side of the facility. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SECOR-Yes. The natural grade in this back corner is toward that swale area. I don’t feel we’re going to have to do any grading on Duke’s property at all. MR. VOLLARO-So you don’t think an easement is going to be required? MR. SECOR-No. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SECOR-And the other thing I did add to this print, that C.T. Male didn’t ask for, is we want to put the silt fence at the end of that swale area, until we get vegetative growth in the swale, so we don’t have any off site sedimentation issues. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you jump back to that comment about grading on Duke’s property? Elaborate on that a little bit. MR. SECOR-Yes. The C.T. Male, Mr. Houston never got a chance to go out to the site, and that naturally drains, this whole corner drains right toward that swale, and what we’re looking at, and it shows up on that print, that our 50 foot swale is going to be on our property, but the outfall from that swale is just going to go back over natural grass vegetation that’s going to meander its way right back into that swale. So we don’t have to make a direct cut into there, into that swale area. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what the easement would have been is a direct cut on Duke’s property? MR. SECOR-Correct, because we’re not increasing the discharge into that drainage swale. That existing area of the property is already almost as impervious as the rooftop area. We don’t need a drainage easement. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t our stormwater reg’s say you’ve got to keep your stormwater on site? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-What prompted my question is why would C.T. Male ask them to do excavating on someone else’s property, A, and, B, why would they give them a directive to say, let your stormwater go on to an adjoining property? MR. HILTON-Well, I guess I can’t answer for C.T. Male, but you’re supposed to keep your stormwater on site, yes. There’s no additional impervious surface. I believe this is going over an existing area. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. MAC EWAN-As I recall, that property line, so to speak, vaguely, is very marshy wetland type, and it’s been that way for literally years. Right? MR. SECOR-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-And then if you follow that, that would take you all the way over to almost behind where like Haanen Engineering is over there, where it meanders into the brook over there, if you followed it all the way over. MR. HILTON-Quite possibly. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have any issues with that? Considering the lay of the land. I know before we’ve had previous applications where we’re pretty steadfast about keeping stormwater on site, but given the nature of the topography of this particular area, that all this drainage from all these industrial sites go into that natural drainage swale, I guess it is, I mean, it’s not something I think that’s manmade. You especially notice it when you walk the bike trail, you can see portions of it. MR. HILTON-Yes. To the extent that infiltration and stone and other stormwater and erosion measures can be used to slow that rate, and then possibly allow some infiltration before it gets to the wet area, you know, consideration for that. MR. MAC EWAN-Is everyone up here comfortable with that? Have issues with it? MR. VOLLARO-I’m reading C.T. Male’s words, say that it appears that the connection to the existing swale will require some work on the adjoining property. One, the engineer for the applicant says, no, we’re not going to be doing any work on the adjoining property. C.T. Male then goes on to say, in this case, then some form of agreement or easement should be obtained. Again, the engineer for the applicant says, we’re not going to be doing that, and therefore no easement is required. That’s how I read that. MR. SECOR-When I talked to Mr. Houston, he had also commented in there that he’d like to see a pipe put in, if we went with a detention basin. If I put a pipe into that detention basin, we’d have to get an easement and put that pipe, that pipe would have had to have gone across Duke’s property to get to that swale, just because of the lay of the land, but now if we went with a swale, that’s not going to be necessary. It’s going to flow the way it’s always flowed before. It’s going to go out in that back corner of the Shaw’s property. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m comfortable with that. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t have any problems with that. I just wanted to clarify that. MS. RADNER-Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, the way it reads, it doesn’t say that all stormwater has to be retained on the property. It reads that the post development runoff has to be equal to or less than the pre development runoff, unless waived by your Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Then we’re okay. Thank you. Anything else, Robert? MR. VOLLARO-No, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Strough? MR. STROUGH-No, Bob brought it up about the landscaping in front. Now, I was at the Zoning Board meeting, and, you know, the neighbors were pretty happy with the project, especially making the building look uniform, but if my memory serves me, didn’t they ask for, they didn’t ask for much, but kind of a minimal landscaping up front, a tree, I think the lady said maybe a tree or something? 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. SECOR-That was an abutter, she’s kitty corner to this on Patton. I met with, well, I showed her the print. She hadn’t seen it before. I met with her afterwards, and explained it to her and showed her what her viewscape was going to be for the addition from her house, and invited her to walk over and take a better look at it, and she was satisfied. I mean, she was going to come tonight, she said, if she had any more concerns. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. That’s it for me. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No, I just felt bad to make him wait this long. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I agree with you. Unfortunately, that’s the way we set up our agendas. Has somebody got a motion? I’ll open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 33-2003 HENSSGEN HARDWARE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 33-2003 Applicant: Henssgen Hardware SEQRA Type II Property Owner: Red Squirrel, LLC Agent: James Secor, P.E. Zone: LI Location: 43 Everts Avenue Applicant proposes a 50’ x 50’ unheated warehouse addition to existing facility. Warren Co. Planning: 6/11/03 Tax Map No. 302.12-1-45 Lot size: 1.14 acres / Section: 179-4 Public Hearing: June 24, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 5/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 6/20/03, and 6/24 Staff Notes 6/18 C. T. Male Associates engineering comments 6/18 ZBA resolution 6/17 Notice of Public Hearing 6/11 Warren Co. Planning 6/3 Meeting Notice 5/23 CB from James Secor, MSk Eng.: response to request for information for stormwater and site lighting. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on June 24, 2003; 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, approval of the application means that the applicant can now apply for a Building Permit unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency Jurisdictional or other approvals are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That the C. T. Male letter dated June 18, 2003 is signed off by C. T. Male. The three items are rather minor. 2. The motion shall delete the fourth Whereas in the resolution referring to SEQRA [so deleted]. 3. The fixture that’s on the existing building shall be removed and both buildings shall have a replacement of a LUMARK MON-4, 400 watt metal halide fixture. 4. All conditions are to be noted on the final approved plans submitted for the Zoning Administrator’s signature in a form to read as follows: Plans have been approved under authority of a resolution adopted 6/24/03 by the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, New York with the following conditions: 1. Duly adopted this 24th day of June, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE MR. MAC EWAN-Finally, after all your patient waiting, you’re all set. MR. SECOR-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. Any other business? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are we having any more meetings in the near future? MR. MAC EWAN-July, probably three, August you’re probably looking at four. MR. HILTON-Three tentative dates, the two regular dates and the 17 for the Wal-Mart. th MR. VOLLARO-How many are moving from July into August, since we did our completeness review last week? 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 6/24/03) MR. HILTON-Possibly none, because there were some that were incomplete, and once you eliminate those, I think we’re all set for the two meetings and then the special Wal-Mart. MRS. LA BOMBARD- George, did you tell us the date of the Wal-Mart? MR. HILTON-The 17. th MRS. LA BOMBARD-Of July? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re still keeping that on by itself? MR. HILTON-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Here? MR. HILTON-Here. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 77