Loading...
2003-03-18 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 18, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO ANTHONY METIVIER JOHN STROUGH RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT LARRY RINGER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES January 21, 2003: NONE January 28, 2003: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 21, 2003 & JANUARY 28, 2003 QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Duly adopted this 18 day of March, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 18-72 MODIFICATION SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM HARRISON SEQRA TYPE II AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES LOCATION: LOTS 8 & 9, BUTTERNUT HILL SUBDIVISION APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOTS 8 AND 9 TO ACCOMMODATE A WIDER REAR YARD FOR LOT 9 NEAR PROPOSED BUILDING SITE. ANY MODIFICATION OF A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES SUBDIVISION REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 297.6-1-35, 36 LOT SIZE: 1.25, 1.07, & 1.02 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing that’s required for a modification. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. HILTON-This is a simple, I say simple, modification of an existing lot line between two existing lots, which doesn’t decrease or create any nonconformities. There are no structures out there that would be effected by the adjustment of this line. It’s a simple application. Expedited review applies to this application. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything to add, Mr. Steves? MR. STEVES-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Any questions, comments from Board members? MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 18-72 WILLIAM HARRISON, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board by: Subdivision No. 18-72 Applicant/Owner: William Harrison MODIFICATION Agent: Van Dusen & Steves SEQRA Type II Location: Lots 8 & 9, Butternut Hill Subdivision Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between Lots 8 and 9 to accommodate a wider rear yard for Lot 9 near proposed building site. Any modification of a Planning Board approved subdivision requires Subdivision review and approval by the Planning Board. Tax Map No. 297.6-1-35, 36 Lot size: 1.25, 1.07, & 1.02 ac / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: Not required for Modification WHEREAS, the application was received 2/18/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 3/14/03, and 3/18 Staff Notes 3/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff. The Board does not see the need for any further SEQRA review in light of minor modification. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 17-2003 SEQRA TYPE II STEVE HOERTKORN AGENT: JARRETT- MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION: ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,880 SQ. FT. BARBEQUE PIT/RESTAURANT. RESTAURANTS IN THE NC-1A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 12-90, TB 322-90 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 279-1-8 LOT SIZE: 3.81 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STEVEN HOERTKORN, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 17-2003, Steve Hoertkorn, Meeting Date: February 18, 2003 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct an approximately 1880 sq. ft. restaurant along with associated parking, lighting and landscaping. Restaurants in the NC-1A zone require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. This property is also within the Route 149 / Ridge Road Design Area. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Restaurants in the NC-1A zone require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. The proposed restaurant appears to meet the setbacks of the NC-1A zone. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? No increased burden on public services and facilities is anticipated as a result of this proposal. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? No adverse traffic impacts are anticipated with this proposal. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed construction appears to be arranged in a feasible site location. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Vehicular access and on-site circulation appear to be adequate at this location. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The amount and location of proposed on-site parking appears sufficient for the proposed use of this site. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. Pedestrian access to the building is proposed from two (2) walkways. The walkways will be required to be ADA compliant. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, which has been forwarded to CT Male for their review. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Water and wastewater services will be private systems. The applicant has submitted details on the water supply infrastructure, however no information has been provided indicating potential well yields or adequacy. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan as part of the Site Plan. Comment on this plan will be provided in the Staff Comments section of this note. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. It appears the proposed construction would not have a negative impact on emergency services at this site. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an approximately 1880 sq. ft. restaurant on an approximately 3.8 acre property. The property is zoned NC-1A and is located in the Route 149/Ridge Rd. Design Area. The property to the east is zoned LC-42A and currently has an 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) industrial use on site. The property to the south is zoned SR-1A and is currently vacant. Properties to the north and west are zoned NC-1A. Although there is a considerable amount of information on the plans indicating future construction, there is not enough information for Planning Staff to provide comment on any future expansion. Any future expansion will require Site Plan review and approval from the Planning Board. The following is a brief summary of the design objectives of the Route 149/Ridge Rd. Design Area: log or stone construction (Adirondack Theme) - buildings 1-2 stories in height - continuous landscaping per Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance - street trees to be 50 % evergreen - monument signage preferred - The proposed landscaping plan calls for two white pines to be located at the front property line. This type of planting is in keeping with the street landscaping requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Route 149/Ridge Rd. Design Area. A 20 foot buffer from the Industrial use to the east and a 50 foot buffer from the Residentially zoned property to the south are required per § 179-8-050. The required buffers and the minimum contents as listed in § 179-8-060 have not been provided on the proposed landscaping plan. Instead, the applicant is seeking a waiver from the exterior parking lot requirements of § 179-8-040 E and has proposed to plant 33 saplings to be purchased from Warren County Soil and Water Conservation Service to be planted around the exterior of the property as well as near the proposed parking area. The proposed site landscaping does not appear to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements for buffering and landscaping. This site is currently a mix of vegetation and exposed surface. The exposed areas must be seeded and stabilized. A note should be added to the plan indicating that seeding and stabilization will occur. The proposed lighting plan presents light levels that appear to conform to Zoning Ordinance requirements. The proposed freestanding light fixtures meet the height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Are any lights proposed for the access drive? Wall pack cut sheets must be provided showing down-facing lighting. The proposed ramps that will provide access to the restaurant must be ADA compliant and will be reviewed by the Building and Codes Department at the time of Building Permit review. Water and wastewater systems will both be private systems. Comments on water and wastewater, as well as other comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application. SEQR Status: SEQR Type: II, no further action required.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The application proposes an 1880 square foot restaurant on approximately 3. acres of property which is zoned Neighborhood Commercial One Acre. The property is located roughly in the southeast corner of Route 149 and Ridge Road, and the Route 149/Ridge Road Design Guideline area. The applicant’s plans indicate substantial information, I guess a great deal of information on proposed future construction and expansion. However, there isn’t enough to grant any kind of approval or for Staff to provide comment. So, just a note that any 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) future construction would require site plan review. A 20 foot buffer from the industrial use to the east and a 50 foot buffer from the residentially zoned property to the south is required per the Zoning Ordinance. The required buffers do not appear to be noted on the plan. Instead the applicant is seeking a waiver and would like to provide 33 saplings to be purchased from Warren County Soil and Water to be planted around the perimeter of the property. Again, the proposed site landscaping doesn’t appear to meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. As far as lighting goes, light levels appear to conform to zoning requirements. However, the question Staff would like to raise is are there any proposed for the access drive, and that wall pack cut sheets should be provided showing down facing lighting. All ramps and all construction at this location should be ADA compliant, and any comments from C.T. Male on water, wastewater, or any other comments should be addressed during this review. That’s all we have. MR. MC NULTY-Good evening. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett-Martin Engineers. With me tonight is Steve Hoertkorn. Steve is the owner of the property and the applicant. He wishes to build a 1900 square foot restaurant on the south side of 149, just east of Ridge Road. It would be a single story structure, gable roof, wood siding, probably a chestnut brown or cedar color. Parking would be constructed along the western portion of the property, approximately mid depth. Proposed immediately would be 48, seating for 48 restaurant patrons. Parking required for that is 16. We propose 20 immediately. Later on Steve is hoping the business will expand. He’s proposing potentially up to 100 seats and parking would expand to 30. The wastewater system would be constructed in the rear corner of the property, the southwestern portion of the property. Stormwater would be managed through three depressions, two existing and one new depression toward the front of the property. One of the depressions is in the northwest corner. One is near the entrance drive, which is at the northeast corner of the property, and another stormwater basin is located immediately north of the parking area. Landscaping is one of the issues that was brought up by Staff. What we’re proposing to do is buy saplings from Warren County. We have more than enough, based on Town requirements. We propose to place them in areas where there is not existing tree cover. As you’ll see from the plans that there’s plenty of cover right now in the northwestern corner and the southeastern corner. We have enough saplings. What we’re proposing are smaller than the required size by Town Code. I believe that’s it. MR. HOERTKORN-Just that, eventually, if it facilitates this, the whole four acres will look like a park. That’s the whole idea with the barbecue. So rather than just plant a lot of trees in the perimeter, I’d rather just spread them throughout the property. The future development that’s been noted is basically just a back up in case the restaurant really doesn’t do that well. So, essentially the idea is to make this look like a four acre park. So, I’m not going to not plant trees. I’d just rather have a little more (lost words), than to just put them on the border. We already have probably two, three hundred trees on the property. It’s just that they’re sort of clustered. So what we’d like to do is spread them all throughout the property (lost words). That’s basically an economic issue rather than it is a (lost words). MR. JARRETT-Steve’s acknowledging that if future development is to occur in that northwestern corner, he’d have to come back for a site plan review on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. JARRETT-Not at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-John, we’ll start with you. MR. STROUGH-All right. First and foremost, the most important part, is your barbecue going to be better than Izzy’s? MR. HOERTKORN-Would you like me to tell you what I tell other people that ask me that question? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. HOERTKORN-Izzy’s going back wherever he came from. A lot better. MR. STROUGH-Good. Well, Izzy’s is pretty good. I like Izzy, but it’s good to see that you’ll be competitive anyway. Okay. On a more serious side, now, the adjacent property owners weren’t named, but they should be, Tom, but is that to the west of this property, is that the old Len and Peg’s property? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Which is Adirondack something or other now. MR. JARRETT-Adirondack Bar and Grill. MR. STROUGH-Bar and Grill. Okay. Mr. Hoertkorn, when you have delivery trucks come, where are they going to go? How are they going to deliver? MR. HOERTKORN-In that front there. Somebody was asking that. They’re all smaller trucks. It wouldn’t be any large trucks. The Pepsi truck, I assume, would be one of the larger ones, Double A, that type of truck. They’re all relatively small. They’ll have to come in that front entrance and apparently they just address that as far as increasing the turn there. MR. STROUGH-Now your entrance road is, what, I measured 18 feet. Is that going to be sufficient for two way traffic? MR. JARRETT-What we’ve done, in response to the Warren County Planning Board’s comments is we’ve proposed, we’re now proposing a 24 foot wide entrance for the 50 feet and increase the turning radius on that drive. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. JARRETT-We can show you that drive, if you wish. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, that’s good, both cases. I don’t need to be shown it. The turning radius is going to be 30? MR. JARRETT-Thirty. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and 24 foot. So that answers all those questions. The only other question is, now you’re going to have, and it looks like a nice little Adirondack style barbecue place, right? Now, can you tell me. MR. HOERTKORN-I have a model out here if you want to see it. MR. STROUGH-Do you? Please, that would be nice. MR. HOERTKORN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-In the meantime, Tom, while he’s getting the model of his barbecue place, which I think is a heck of an idea and it’s hopefully a good location and I hope he does well. By gosh, it’s a big, big, big model. MR. HOERTKORN-I left it uncovered on purpose, but you have a drawing. Basically, these are all going to be 12 by 12’s. This whole area here, here, here, which is approximately I guess 1300 square feet, which is listed there. That’ll all be basically outside. It’ll be covered, but these will be probably 8 by 8’s, 12 by 12’s, and this part is just the actual building itself, which will be 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) about six or seven hundred square feet, and that’s the kitchen. So this is all entirely like a Caribbean shed except up here in the Adirondacks, you leave it all open. MR. STROUGH-What’s the siding going to be made of? MR. HOERTKORN-Just some beveled wood, like on a boathouse sort of house sort of thing, you know, pine, beveled pine. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and stained browns or earth tones and things like that. Okay. It looks like it’s going to be nice. MR. JARRETT-Chestnut color is the color you mentioned. MR. HOERTKORN-That’s what it is, but as you can see, I only put it on as you can see there. MR. STROUGH-So the color is kind of what you have there? MR. HOERTKORN-Essentially, yes, and then I had a green roof, and the neighbor has a green roof. So that’s kind of open to discussion, but this will all be tin, 12 and 12, and this could be a canopy, as opposed to tin down here. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, thank you. Yes, that’s going to be a nifty little spot there. MR. HOERTKORN-This appears rather large. It’s not a large building at all, actually. MR. STROUGH-No, I’d say it seems sized right for starting off and testing the waters here. MR. HOERTKORN-That’s basically what I had in mind. MR. STROUGH-Now, there’s going to be people eating around the outside. MR. HOERTKORN-Yes, they’ll sit here, and they can sit right here, and there’ll be like a thing there. MR. STROUGH-Will there be a picnic area? MR. HOERTKORN-Well, that will be basically where the development will go. This building sits in the middle of about 10, 12,000 (lost words) of plateau up here that we’re going to see. So if we get (lost words), we basically put some picnic tables out, I guess. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. SANFORD-So it’s seasonal. MR. HOERTKORN-Yes. MR. SANFORD-It won’t be open in the winter or anything? MR. HOERTKORN-I hope not. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, my other concern was, you know, if you had a customer, hopefully this never happens, but if you had a customer that had some kind of an ailment, a heart attack or something like that there, how would an emergency vehicle access the building itself to get to this person that needs help? MR. HOERTKORN-Well, there’s that pathway which is probably, there is a (lost words) walkways. I mean, it’s probably 30 feet, about a 10% incline. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. JARRETT-There’s a six foot wide pathway. We’re proposing actually anything? MR. HOERTKORN-I hope not. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, my other concern was, you know, if you had a customer, hopefully this never happens, but if you had a customer that had some kind of an ailment, a heart attack or something like that there, how would an emergency vehicle access the building itself to get to this person that needs help? MR. HOERTKORN-Well, there’s that pathway which is probably, there is a (lost words) walkways. I mean, it’s probably 30 feet, about a 10% incline. MR. JARRETT-There’s a six foot wide pathway. We’re proposing actually two of them, pretty stable material. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not proposing to pave it or anything? MR. JARRETT-It’s going to be a gravel, like the driveway. Crusher run, a very stable surface, but not asphalt. MR. STROUGH-Now is that the handicapped access that goes around and is probably less steeply sloped? MR. JARRETT-Correct. MR. STROUGH-And the width of that is six foot? MR. JARRETT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Would six foot wide be enough for, let’s say an emergency vehicle to get access up there do you think? MR. JARRETT-Even if the wheel base extends off the pathway, it’s a stable material, granular soil right now. It is granular soil. I don’t see a problem with it, but I think the smaller ambulance could get up there easily. MR. STROUGH-Right. Okay, and I had trouble because some of the contour lines, as I jump from C-2, C-4, C-3, they got varied, but does any part of that slope exceed 10%? That pathway, the handicap walkway? No, it’s all less than 10%? MR. JARRETT-Actually it’s less than that, mostly, but it meets ADA Code. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So it’s got to be less than 10%. Now, it’s my feeling, as far as the landscaping and things like that, you know, a person starting off in business, like Mr. Hoertkorn is, and it’s kind of a small enterprise to start, my personal opinion, but as we go down through the Board here, and I’m almost done we’ll see if they agree or not, but I’m willing to relax a little bit on the landscaping standard, given the landscaping that’s there, and given the fact that you’re starting out, but should you become successful and expand, as you come before us, we’ll expect, I think, a little bit more, but that’s my philosophy and we’ll see if that goes down the Board, but thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I agree with John on the landscaping part of it. I think that the building, if I’m not mistaken, is set back so far that really it’ll be a subtle change in that area. If we saw correctly in our site reviews the other day, I saw some stakes out in the woods, by a big pine tree, is that typically where the building would be? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. HOERTKORN-No, actually up on top of that knoll, probably in the middle of that snow field you saw. MR. METIVIER-Yes, and there was a big huge pine tree that kind of sat by itself with others clustered around it, there was a stake underneath it. MR. HOERTKORN-I’m not sure, to be honest with you. I think that might be down at the lower end, down toward Adirondack Bar and Grill more. MR. METIVIER-Well, it was quite a ways a way. MR. HOERTKORN-Was it? MR. METIVIER-Yes. I mean, it was up on the knoll. MR. HOERTKORN-No, that’s it, then. It’s pretty much in the center of the property. MR. METIVIER-Yes. I mean, it’s so far away that, you know, and it’s such a gently rolling hill there that, you know, being so far off the beaten path, you don’t want to overdo it with landscaping there, either, you’ll never see the building, but if you maintain the area around it, as it is now, I don’t foresee it being a problem. It’s certainly a nice looking building, I mean, from the elevation that we have. I really don’t have any other issues with it at all. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-No, I think it looks like it’s going to be a fun place. I can’t see you because your house is in the way, but it looks like it’s going to be a nice place, highly suitable for, I think, that corner, and the only thing I had is that I’m a little confused. I thought when I was reviewing everything that you were talking in terms of a 3,000 foot building, but what I’m hearing is this is going to be significantly smaller, and maybe expansion later on, and I was wondering what nature the expansion might take, if that’s what I heard. MR. HOERTKORN-Actually, the expansion that’s shown on there is more developable land. It’s separate from this. I wouldn’t even envision, maybe a pavilion that would be covered to get out of the rain, on top of that plateau. Maybe nothing. To be honest with you, if you do enough take-out. I really don’t want to put in a formal dining room per se. Are you familiar with PJ’s? MR. SANFORD-No, I’m not. MR. HOERTKORN-It would be nicer looking than that, but that sort of concept. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I also, just since John seemed to informally look, was looking for opinion, I would agree with him in terms of relaxing on landscaping at this time. So, that’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it’s a great piece of property, and I like the way the elevation, how it goes up, and where you’re going to put your restaurant here, your barbecue pit. I have a question. What are your planned hours of operation? MR. HOERTKORN-Probably 11 to 9, something like that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Are you going to have lampposts along this driveway? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. JARRETT-We have not proposed that at this time. We’re lighting the parking area, but since he’s open only 11 to 9 seasonally, there’s only going to be a few hours in August and September when he’s going to need any kind of lighting at all. MR. MAC EWAN-He just said yes, and you said no. Which one is it? MR. HOERTKORN-Actually, I knew there were lamps, but I wasn’t certain where. He knows where they are better than I do. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So the proposed lighting. MR. JARRETT-Is not along the driveway, it’s in the parking lot. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and you’ve got, I didn’t get to the. MR. JARRETT-There’s the lighting plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-There is the lighting plan and everything. Is the kind of lights that we’ve been trying to push here? MR. STROUGH-No, you bring up a good point, Cathy. Well, that’s one thing, Tom. The lighting that’s proposed is kind of your, and, Mr. Hoertkorn, kind of your industrial commercial style, and I don’t know if that’s the kind of theme that you’re trying to send out. I thought maybe we want to consider something more Adirondacky looking, if you could find such a thing, Tom. MR. JARRETT-We have started to look for that. We didn’t find anything in a cut off style. MR. STROUGH-But you know what I’m saying, those styles that you’ve got now kind of don’t go in with the barbecue theme. They’re kind of commercial looking, too commercial looking, I think, but it’s good to see that you’re looking and investigating alternate. MR. HOERTKORN-I can find something, I can make something, at the very least. We can stick a twelve by twelve in the ground and do something with it, I’m sure. MR. JARRETT-We could work with Staff to come up with something. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I mean it still has to be the box effect so you don’t get too much of a wash. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s what they’re saying, finding something that looks Adirondacky and has the cut offs and meets Town Code I can imagine is not an easy thing. MR. JARRETT-It gets kind of expensive, but we can try to find. MR. STROUGH-Yes, they said they’ll try and work on it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You can always look in Adirondack Life, but I think the whole concept of this is perfect for that piece of property, and I wish you a lot of luck, and, good luck. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll stay on that theme for a minute with Cathy. What I tried to do is come up with the four to one uniformity ratio for lighting, and I fell short. I came up with an average level of 3.5. Is that pretty close? 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. JARRETT-We did check it. We thought we had four. We’ll have to go back and check it, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I did a very rough calculation of 3.5 and I think you’re, I would figure if you had .05, .9 lumens times four would have been 3.6. That would have done it, as opposed to .5, but that’s okay. You want to take a look at the uniformity ratio. That’s all I’ve asked you to do. I did a quick check of it myself, just to see what the story was. MR. JARRETT-Well, we propose alternate fixtures, we’ll have to look at that again anyway. MR. VOLLARO-If you do what Cathy and John are thinking of, putting just a minor amount of lighting coming in, you might meet that very easily, because you don’t have very far to go. I’m just going to go down through my notes real quick here. C-1, I think the Route 149 travel corridor setback of 75 feet should be listed on C-1, and incidentally, that cuts through quite a bit of that future development on the northwest corner. So, you know, the northwest corner area, to me, is an unknown, probably an unknown to you right now, as a matter of fact, I would think, but there’s a 75 foot setback on Route 149. I think Mr. Strough mentioned that the names of the landowners to the west and to the south and to the east should be noted on the plat. I looked in C-2, and taking a look, it’s rather an elaborate water design for that size building, particularly, it’s the first time I’ve seen UV, and I’m a proponent of UV, as opposed to chlorine, but it’s the first time I’ve seen it really used and when I got involved a little bit with it, it was going to require somebody that had a license to look at those UV systems to see whether they’re performing or not. MR. JARRETT-It’s not going to for this size. We’ve done a number of these in commercial establishments in the last few years. MR. VOLLARO-I think they do a better job than chlorine. Much, much better job. I’m just wondering why you went to it in this particular case. MR. JARRETT-Because we don’t like chlorine. I’m trying to get away from chlorine. It’s an easier operation. MR. VOLLARO-Good idea. UV works much, much better. It’s a much cleaner system. On C.T. Male comment number six, where he talks about this 10% grade, I couldn’t verify that on the plan, myself. I guess he has that in his answer, he answer your questions here, and number six has been addressed, but was it greater than 10% or not? MR. JARRETT-The very southwest corner was slightly less than 10%. We’ve now grade that down. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. On the landscaping I’m going to go along with what everybody else said. I’ll just put in my notes, the 50 foot buffer between the, on NC-1 and the residential area, now per 179-8-060, which is our Code, as you know, would require 17 trees 10 feet high. I thought that was excessive, for what you were doing here. The 20 foot buffer to the west on NC-1 and industrial would require 14 trees, six feet high. That’s also excessive, as far as I was concerned. In both cases, what I would go along with is take those saplings and put them on the buffer lines, bring them back a little bit. You’ve got a 20 foot buffer. There’s some buffering requirements, according to the Code on this property. There’s a 50 foot buffer between residential, between your NC-1 and your residential properties, and maybe you could bring your trees back a little bit off the property line, closer to that buffer line, and I think the saplings will, what size are these saplings going to be anyway? MR. JARRETT-They’re very small. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Probably under those circumstances it might not even pay to move, I mean, they’re so small that they’ll be lost in the noise there. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. JARRETT-I think Steve actually wants to put more trees in, but he’s not sure where. So we’ve shown at this point. MR. HOERTKORN-Yes. I’m going to buy some intermediate size. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I said, asking for 17 trees 10 foot high, that’s an expensive tree, when you go out to buy one. So, I didn’t see the need for that. The building landscaping seems adequate to me. We need a cut sheet, I think, just to show that the down lighting is down lighting, versus the 22 degree wall pack you’ve got proposed. I think you talk about 22 degree wall packs. MR. JARRETT-Drawing C-5 shows a cut off fixture. MR. VOLLARO-C-5 talks about 22 degree down lighting on the wall packs, I believe. MR. JARRETT-On the wall packs. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Up where it has lighting fixture schedule, up at the top, it has 22 degrees. You probably want to get one that’s totally down lit. Okay. We went through the four to one uniformity ratio. I’d just like to quickly go over, just real quick, C.T. Male’s March 17 response th to their original letter of March 11, and Number Four has to do with the runoff from the th hillside south of the entrance drive should be intercepted and conveyed under the entrance drive. Their answer to that was the response indicates that additional field information will be gathered, and that the plan will be modified as needed. We do not envision that new information will significantly alter the plan, but recommend C.T. Male be given the opportunity to review the additional information and modification when it becomes available. So I don’t know what that means to this review. I think that, incidentally, he makes the same comments to Number Ten and Number Eleven, which is the length of the inverts under the driveway and the soil information included in your stormwater report should be added to the drawing. Taking into account that he doesn’t think that these are going to alter your, the application much, I would go along with, and say in my view, anyway, that you’ve responded to C.T. Male adequately. That’s my feel on this particular one. So I wouldn’t hold up this application for that, Mr. Chairman, and that’s the end of my review. MR. MAC EWAN-Could we jump back to your two walkways for a minute. The one walkway that you said was going to be impervious is six foot one wide, the proposed one. Is that primarily for patrons to use? MR. JARRETT-Both walkways are for patrons. The one is an ADA compliant. The other is a shorter walkway that’s not ADA compliant. MR. MAC EWAN-And both of these are going to be impervious material? Or pervious material? MR. JARRETT-They’re a crusher run, crushed stone, so it packs down tight. It’s a stable material, but it’s not asphalt. MR. MAC EWAN-How is that for, you know, moving a wheelchair across it or a hand truck for delivery or whatever? MR. JARRETT-Once it’s compacted, it’s fine. If it’s not compacted, it can be loose. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, does weather conditions have a chance to loosen it up after it’s been compacted? MR. JARRETT-I believe we show fabric under that, and we’ve not experienced that on this type of sub grade, with a granular sub grade. You’re worried that a wheelchair won’t be able to negotiate that? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I’m thinking for two reasons, to follow up on Mr. Strough’s comment that maybe the width of that isn’t, of the proposed six foot one isn’t wide enough, in case an ambulance does have to back up to the building, I would prefer to see something a minimum of eight foot wide, so that you would have vehicle access. I’m thinking from the standpoint of a wheelchair trying to move up and down that sidewalk. I’d rather see something more permanent in design, and thirdly, anybody that’s going to deliver anything there is going to do it on a hand truck. I can’t imagine somebody like Double A or whatever trying to pull something up that incline. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So how do you want that proposed there, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-I’d prefer to see either concrete or macadam. I mean, with the seasons from the winter to spring and thaw and stuff like that, before you open I would think you’d, I just don’t think that’s the best idea. I may be all alone on that. How does everybody else feel about that? MR. STROUGH-Well, widening it to, it’s during the summer and it’s graveled, that would be all right, but I would feel better with an eight foot handicap walkway than a six foot, as far as getting vehicles up to the building. Is that a problem with the applicant? MR. JARRETT-I don’t think the eight foot is a problem. You’re not wishing to pave. MR. HOERTKORN-Well, because down the line it’s possible I might put some brick in there, something cosmetic. MR. STROUGH-Well, down the line, but for now, eight foot. MR. HOERTKORN-Yes, the eight foot is not a problem. The Schedule Four should work. MR. STROUGH-Well, what do you think about that, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m still not comfortable with it. MR. VOLLARO-That stiffens up pretty good, Craig, that Schedule Four. That gets pretty hard. MR. STROUGH-I think, given the turning radius and everything else, I think it would keep it a fairly stable, but I think, I agree with you, the eight foot width would be. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you go with the eight foot width? Okay. You sold me. Any other questions, comments from Board members? Anything else to add, Tom? MR. JARRETT-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a second. I don’t think I’d wander too far. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? No takers? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Has somebody got something drafted here? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I do. I’d have to take a look at the resolution. We may have to omit the sentence that refers to the SEQRA because there isn’t one that needs to be done here. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STROUGH-I have seven items. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. You have seven, I have five. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I’ve got the accommodation that the applicant says they will with the C.T. Male notes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I missed that one. MR. STROUGH-I’ve got the handicapped access walkway will be widened to eight foot to better accommodate emergency vehicles. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. STROUGH-I’ve got the Planning Board grants the landscape waiver request. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. That’s the one I didn’t, okay. MR. STROUGH-And the names of the adjacent property owners will be listed on the site layout plan, and I’ve got applicant will work with the Planning Department Staff to investigate alternative lighting fixtures, ones that would be more compatible with the Adirondack theme. MR. MAC EWAN-Not enforceable. MR. STROUGH-No, but. MR. MAC EWAN-You need to frame it in such a way that it’s going to be enforceable. I mean, if you’re asking him to suggest to work with Staff, which I’m sure he’s going to do, but if he and Staff don’t come up with a consensus of what kind of light they’re going to use, you’ve got to condition of your motion that’s not enforceable. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but we’ve got a unique problem here. They don’t readily sell, that I’ve ever seen, these Adirondack themed lighting fixtures. MR. MAC EWAN-If he can’t come up with another light fixture, are you satisfied with what he’s got proposed? MR. STROUGH-Well, what else is he going to do? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no point in putting it in. MR. STROUGH-Well, my point in putting it in is so that they investigate it. It doesn’t do any harm to put it in. MR. JARRETT-The default is to stay with what we’ve designed. MR. STROUGH-The default would be that you stay with what you designed, if you can’t come up with an acceptable alternative, but even Mr. Hoertkorn said that he would like to investigate it, but I don’t know if they’re going to come up with anything. MR. MAC EWAN-But the purpose of our motions, when we approve or deny applications, is to specifically say why we’re approving them, why we’re denying, and the conditions that’s part of it, and those conditions are for Code Enforcement or Staff to follow up and make sure the conditions of approval are met. MR. STROUGH-Yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-You put something in there that suggests that they’ll work with Staff, which I’m certainly guessing they will. MR. STROUGH-Well, then it doesn’t do any harm to put it in then. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want to chime in? MR. SCHACHNER-I would agree with the Chairman. Feel good type, it’s what lawyers always, what I call feel good language. It’s not enforceable. I think if the applicant is willing to do it, and it sounds like the applicant is, certainly Staff’s willing to work with the applicant, and let them work. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and like I said, does it do any harm? MR. SCHACHNER-My opinion would be legally it would be less, it would not be appropriate as not putting it in the motion. MR. STROUGH-So you don’t even think you should put it in the motion. MR. SCHACHNER-I think it’s legally, correct. I think it’s legally not appropriate because it’s not an enforceable condition. I agree with, I think Chairman’s characterization of what an approval motion is all about is a very good one. MR. JARRETT-We’ll go on record saying we will try to work with Staff. MR. STROUGH-And I’ll delete it as a condition. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. STROUGH-And then I’ve got the access exit drive will be widened to 24 foot, 30 foot turning radii will be added to the 149 intersection. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got that. MR. STROUGH-And then Bob has one about the saplings. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have the saplings that goes to the buffer line. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, then. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the four to one lighting ratio, to check on it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that the applicant will look in to the four to one lighting ratio. Just to make sure, get as close to it as you can. MR. MAC EWAN-Another reason, you’ve got to be very clear on what you’re asking. His close may not be your definition of close. MR. VOLLARO-Close is four to one. It’s a mathematical equation. MR. MAC EWAN-You have to tell him what you want him to do. Clear and precise language. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I want him to meet the four to one ratio. That’s the precise language. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Okay, John, you’ve got it down. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t have that four to one ratio, and I don’t have Bob’s wording for the saplings, exactly how he wants that. Do you have that written down anywhere? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Just bring the sapling trees back closer to the buffer line. MR. VOLLARO-I think to bring them closer to the buffer line, the saplings closer. I don’t even know that it’s going to make an awful lot of difference. MR. STROUGH-So do you want to put it in? MR. VOLLARO-I would leave it out. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. STROUGH-All right. MR. VOLLARO-Just leave it out, because if they’re the little saplings, they’re going to get lost in the noise anyway. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Do you want me to go with this, Cath? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Go for it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2003 STEVEN HOERTKORN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 17-2003 Applicant/Owner: Steven Hoertkorn SEQRA Type II Agent: Jarrett-Martin Engineers Zone: NC-1A Location: Route 149 Applicant proposes a 1,880 sq. ft. Barbeque Pit / Restaurant. Restaurants in the NC-1A zone require Site Plan Review from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: PZ 12-90, TB 322-90 Warren Co. Planning: 3/12/03 Tax Map No. 279-1-8 Lot size: 3.81 acres / Section: 179-4-020 Public Hearing: March 18, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/18/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/14/03, and 3/18 Staff Notes 3/12 Warren Co. Planning 3/11 CT Male engineering comments received 3/11 Notice of Public Hearing 3/5 Meeting Notice 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 March 18, 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 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) 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. The applicant will work with C.T. Male as noted in the C.T. Male March 17, 2003 letter, that No. 4 says that it is recommended that C.T. Male Associates, PC will be given the opportunity to review the additional information, modifications when it becomes available, and must receive C.T. Male signoff, specifically in reference to Items Four, Ten and Eleven as noted in the March 11, 2003 C.T. Male Associates letter. 2. The handicapped access walkway will be widened to eight feet to better accommodate emergency vehicles. 3. The Planning Board does grant the landscape waiver request. 4. Names of adjacent property owners will be listed on the site layout plan. 5. The access exit drive will be widened to 24 feet and 30 foot turning radii will be added at the 149 intersection. 6. In the prepared resolution there’s a word missing in the last Whereas, it should say unless the lands are Adirondack Park Agency jurisdictional. The word “Agency” should be added. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SITE PLAN NO. 13-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: HC-INT LOCATION: 616 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES EXPANSION OF PARKING AREA FOR AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE BUSINESS. AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE USES IN THE HC-INT. ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SPECIAL PERMIT# 95, SV 38-94 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 303-10-1-11, 12 LOT SIZE: 0.96 ACRES, 4.55 ACRES SECTION: 179-4 TOM NACE & KEN LENDRUM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 13-2003, North Country Imports, Meeting Date: March 18, 2003 “Project Description: Applicant is seeking approval for the expansion of a parking area of an existing Automobile Sales and Service Business. Automobile Sales and Service uses in the HC-Int zone require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Automobile Sales and Service uses are permitted with Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? No increased burden on public services and facilities is anticipated. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? No adverse traffic impacts are anticipated with this proposal. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. The proposed parking lot expansion appears to be compatible with other existing site features. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Vehicular access and on-site circulation appear to be adequate at this location. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) The amount and location of existing on-site parking appears sufficient for the existing use of this site. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. No new pedestrian walkways or structures are proposed as a part of this site plan. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, which has been forwarded to CT Male for their review. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. This property is served by municipal water service. SEWER SERVICE ??? 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The applicant has submitted a waiver request from providing a landscape plan. The site plan does not provide for street landscaping as called for in § 179-8-040 B. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. It appears the proposed expansion would not have a negative impact on emergency services at this site. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan, Staff comments: The applicant is seeking approval for the expansion of an existing parking area for an existing Automobile Sales and Service business. The applicant has requested a waiver from providing a landscape plan with this application. Staff recommends that the proposed site plan be revised to include the required landscaping (shade trees) called for in § 179-8-040 B of the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has not submitted a waiver request from providing a lighting plan. Is any new lighting proposed with this site plan? The site plan contains a note that an existing parking area for six cars is located near the entrance of the proposed parking area. Without the location of the six parking spaces, it is difficult to assess the impact these existing spaces may have on cars entering and exiting the new parking area. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) SEQR Status: SEQR Type: Unlisted. A SEQRA short form EAF has been submitted.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant is seeking approval for the expansion of an existing parking area and an existing automobile sales and service business and has requested a waiver from providing a landscaping plan. However, Staff recommends that the proposed site plan be revised to include the required street landscaping, shade trees called for in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has not submitted a waiver request from providing a lighting plan. The question would be, is there any new lighting proposed. The site plan contains a note that an existing parking area for six cars is located near the access way of this proposed expansion and without the location of any existing parking, it’s difficult to address what impacts that might have if there are cars parked in front of an access drive. So maybe some clarification is needed on that, and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed as part of this review. That’s all I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace and Ken Lendrum. I apologize for last minute, but I do have a response to C.T. Male’s letter. I’ll hand out copies of that. MR. MAC EWAN-Has C.T. Male seen the letter? MR. NACE-It just went down to them late today, and they did not have time to look at it today. MR. MAC EWAN-We are going to table it, you know. MR. NACE-Okay. I’ll run quick through Staff and C.T. Male comments. Engineering first. The first comment from Male was regarding the existing soil, the first two comments, were regarding the existing soils and grading and the acceptability of using an infiltration trench along the bottom portion of the proposed parking area. The material that’s in there, around that area where the infiltration trench is located, is all imported fill material. If you’ll remember what the site looked like, the applicant has graded off the top of the hill that was there. The middle of the parking area, the new parking area, was a high spot of rock. He’s excavated that rock and used it as, the shot rock, as fill around the edge to try to level that site out. This was a site that he has used for many years, for parking display automobiles, and his intent was to go in there and simply make it a little nicer looking, for lack of a better word, from the road. So they wanted to level it out and create a nice bank along the edge of it, and have not only a more usable area, but also something that would look nicer, but at any rate, the middle of the parking area was a high spot of rock. That’s been taken off and used as fill material over on the outside edge, and there’s been a lot of imported fill brought in. It’s all granular material, and as such will allow good infiltration. In the storm report I’ve used a five minute perc rate which is very conservative, given the type of material it is. I’ve added, on the plan view I’ve added spot elevations and notes indicating the berm along the bottom edge of the parking area, which is shown on the section of the infiltration trench. It’s simply a small six inch high berm. So that any runoff coming off the parking area is allowed to soak in to the infiltration trench and doesn’t go on down the bank towards Quaker Road. On their item, C.T. Male’s Item Number Four, I have added up at the south end of the infiltration trench I’ve added a ripraped section of overflow down to an existing swale along the southern property line where drainage presently collects. That would be used only in the event that the infiltration trench wasn’t accepting water because of frozen conditions. Item Number Five, C.T. Male was asking for protection, slope protection on the bank out adjacent to Quaker Road. That bank is presently shown graded off on a two to one slope. I’ve added a note that if it does end up being a two to one slope, and the owner has indicated he’d like to pull that back so it’s a little flatter and he can mow it, but if he does have to leave any of it as a two to one slope, I have a note which requires an erosion blanket to be used along those areas. We realize that there is a small portion of 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) grading that will have to take place on the County right of way. I’ve put in a call to County DPW, and we will obtain a work permit for doing that portion of work within the County right of way. I have added a note to the drawing requiring that the top of the infiltration trench not be paved over in the future. If the parking lot is ever paved, the intention now is to leave the parking lot as gravel, but if it were paved in the future, the infiltration trench would have to be left open. I’ve also shown on the plans a swale that actually is already there, if any of you have been to the site, along the south edge of the new parking area that will take drainage from the upland area behind the existing body shop building. As far as Staff comments, we are not proposing any new lighting on the site. So we have not provided a lighting plan, and did not request a waiver of the lighting plan. The plan shows that existing, the existing parking area or existing area in front of the body shop presently is used for parking approximately six cars. Those obviously could not be parked there with the new parking area in place, but those six cars will be absorbed into the proposed, you know, parking with the new area, and as far as landscaping, we had asked for a landscaping waiver. That’s an issue we can discuss, and if landscaping is desired by the Board, we maybe can come up with a proposal to provide some landscaping along the front. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. NACE-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I certainly would like to see a little bit of landscaping there. I understand you can’t get too much because you want to show cars. That makes perfect sense, but in the same sense, just something, even low lying bushes would be suitable, as far as I’m concerned, or, due to the fact that you’re close to the road there, even seasonal, something, and I don’t know if we can do that. MR. NACE-Actually, one of the things we were talking about today would be to put a couple of street trees along the top of the bank, and then, down in that triangle adjacent to the driveway going in to the NiMo building, there’s a triangle down there that is down at road level. We were thinking about grading that bank off in there and providing an annual bed for flower bed in up, sort of coming up the side of the bank a little bit, a triangle. MR. METIVIER-I think that would be acceptable. Again, it would be hard to visualize, and I don’t expect you to, you know, putting a whole bunch of trees, but something there would be nice, just to break it up a little bit. Besides that though, I mean, it seems pretty straightforward. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I don’t see any problem with this. It’s really no new building or anything. I agree with Tony, with just minimal amount of landscaping, I would find it acceptable. It just doesn’t seem like much of a big deal. I know the site. I’m very familiar with it, and it would be an improvement over what it looks like now or what it is. So I’m fine with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think the property is just so well kept up all the time, and I think this is a nice location for another parking lot, to show the cars up. Is there like a little, we talked about there’s like a little bank in the front where, to stop some erosion, some crown vetch or something along in there possibly? MR. NACE-Yes. In fact, that’s a good idea. That bank, if we want to do something along a steep portion of the bank, it’s low maintenance, crown vetch, or birds fit trefoil. MR. LENDRUM-What we’ve done, because we have banks all over, because it’s multi-level, we’ve just planted grass on there and worked hard to get it seeded and then strengthen it. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. I was going to say. MR. LENDRUM-We do it out between the buildings, you know, as I told Tom today, we wear out a string trimmer every other year, but if you’ve got a better idea, that’s fine. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Well, as long as there’s something covering it, I just thought, you know, so you’re just cutting the grass with the trimmer, with the stringer, the string trimmer. Yes. I have really no problems. Maybe some low lying bushes maybe like I can understand where you can’t put anything right across the front, but maybe something in the corners, you know, where you might have just some yews or whatever. MR. LENDRUM-We also talked about the back perimeter, it was along the back perimeter. This was as we were developing this idea, but we would put a row of trees across the back so that the back of the parking lot was, the whole back of the parking lot, instead of seeing the brush that’s behind it on the neighbor’s property, we would back it up with, I don’t know, evergreens I guess. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. That would be very nice. That would be nice. MR. LENDRUM-Because otherwise you have, you know, from our perspective, you know, we’re looking at Niagara Mohawk power lines. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It would set the cars off a little bit nicer, too. Okay. I’m fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. My first question, is this site served by municipal sewer? MR. LENDRUM-Interesting question. Last year when they were trying to solve the problem at Warren County, they came to us and said that since we were an adjacent property owner to the new sewer line, that we could have it available, and as of this point it’s, well, way over on, I guess you’d call it towards Garvey Volkswagen side of our property. It does come across the road. It would be usable by next fall, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-So you plan to hook to municipal sewer in the fall? Is that the plan? MR. LENDRUM-With the other building, yes. MR. VOLLARO-This building here, because I’m a customer of yours. So I know what’s going on up there pretty well. This is where you do your body work up at this building here. Right. The main building would be going on the sewer line. Is that the idea? MR. LENDRUM-That’s going to be another whole project in itself, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Looking at the Code of 179-8-40(B) would require two trees north of the steep slope, if you take a look at that Code, and what I had looked at is putting probably two shade trees, this is the slope here, and put two shade trees right out here, and you’d be in conformance with the. MR. NACE-Well, you’re out in the highway right of way at that point. You’d really have to put them up along the top of the slope to be back into your own property. MR. VOLLARO-In here? I had some juniper plants up in there. MR. LENDRUM-You mean below the slope? Right where your finger is, just to the left there. Right there. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-Well, I was going to say up in here, but I guess that is the right of way of the road. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. LENDRUM-Right in here. It would work real well right here. MR. NACE-We could put one down in the lower, just below the bank, you know, just south of where you were pointing. Right there, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Right here, yes. That would be nice. Something, put something in there, I think it’s, you know, appropriate. MR. LENDRUM-There was a real beautiful oak tree there, and it got struck twice by lightening. It was sad, but it was, it just wrecked it, but it was a beautiful tree. MR. VOLLARO-In this area right here I was looking to put some, possibly some juniper bushes just on the side of this retention area here. MR. LENDRUM-We’d like to anything in there kind of sparse, okay, maybe a shade tree that allows some sight through. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the junipers. MR. NACE-Okay, yes. MR. LENDRUM-You mean over the slope? MR. VOLLARO-No, just, this is where you’ve got this retention here, right. MR. NACE-Right, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Right in here. You want to put maybe just some juniper bushes right in here. I don’t know whether it adds a lot to it or not, but I was just, when I did the review, that’s what I looked at, and on the steep covered slope I have a note on here to go along with the crown vetch as well, as opposed to these control blankets. MR. NACE-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-I think that makes a nice looking bank. MR. NACE-It’s a low maintenance. MR. VOLLARO-Low maintenance. You don’t have to cut it. You don’t have to do anything with it. It works great. I notice that there’s 31 new spaces proposed, 26 of those in Queensbury and five of them are in Glens Falls. I noticed that this is a split. MR. NACE-You’re right. MR. VOLLARO-Five of them are in Glens Falls. So out of 140 spaces that you’ve got now spread across the property, adding another 26 spaces is about 18% increase, which doesn’t appear to be excessive to me, for this type of business. I mean, we had this discussion with Saturn a couple of weeks ago, and I think it goes with the kind of business that it is. Now, I wanted to ask a question from Staff if I might. Considering that 35% of this 8.29 acre site is in Queensbury and the rest is in Glens Falls, I know we sent them a copy. Did we ever get a response from Glens Falls at all? 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. HILTON-No. There is a municipal agreement that if I guess there’s an application within a certain distance of the City boundary that we send it to them, which we did, and as of yet we have not received a response. MR. VOLLARO-You haven’t heard anything. I was just interested to whether they responded in any way or not. I agree with the waiver from the lighting, by the way. If you’re not going to put anymore lighting on, I don’t see any necessity to even ask for a waiver in the lighting. I think the lighting is adequate at that location, and that’s it. That’s the end of my review, Mr. Chairman. I’m finished. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-The only issue I had was landscaping, and Tony, Cathy, and Bob covered that, and the applicant seems to be willing to work out something there, and all the ideas sound nice. Junipers or sugar maples don’t make any difference to me, but the upgrades in landscaping that have been suggested tonight have all been good ideas and I’d look forward to seeing them. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else you wanted to add? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open the public hearing. Does anybody want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-SEQRA Unlisted. I think they supplied a Short. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Got it. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 13-2003, 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 COUNTRY IMPORTS, 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. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) 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 19 day of March, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-So the only issue is landscaping. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And the C.T. Male going over the letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Getting a signoff from them. What you came up with is acceptable to you and to the rest of the Board, the landscaping idea? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, that’s fine. MR. METIVIER-I was curious if, Tom, how would pachysandra do in salt? MR. NACE-Pachysandra is pretty sensitive, I think. MR. MAC EWAN-Shady. MR. METIVIER-And what about erosion control? Probably not. MR. NACE-Pachysandra for erosion control? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. NACE-No, I haven’t seen it used for that. MR. MAC EWAN-Crown vetch would be much, much better. MR. VOLLARO-Crown vetch works well. MR. METIVIER-No, that’s fine. I just thought it would be a lot easier than grass. Let it do it’s thing. MR. NACE-Right. I don’t know that we’d cover that whole slope. I think part of the slope we’re going to try to grade back some, so it can be mowed, but any place it’s steep the crown vetch would be a good solution. MR. METIVIER-That’s fine with me. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-Tom, what do these erosion control blankets look like, just academically. I haven’t seen them. MR. NACE-They’re a whole different type. There’s a bunch of different types. Some of them are nothing more than nylon netting with straw woven in them. Some of them are a geo textile, more like a geo textile synthetic netting. It’s simply something to hold the soil in place until the grass grows. MR. VOLLARO-And they stay there permanently. MR. NACE-Just until the grass grows. There are, if you get in, there’s some fancy applications. There’s some real thick ones that are intended to be permanent, but most of them are simply intended to be there long enough for the grass to establish. MR. VOLLARO-I’d still go along with the crown vetch. I think that will hold. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. What I’d like to do is take a five minute recess, let Cathy and Bob pen up the resolution that you need to, specifically detailing what you want for the landscaping, and the only other condition would be getting a signoff from C.T. Male on their letter dated the 11 of March. So let’s just take a four or five minute recess. All right? th MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 13-2003 NORTH COUNTRY IMPORTS, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 13-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: North Country Imports SEQRA Type: Unlisted Agent: Nace Engineering Zone: HC-Int Location: 616 Quaker Road Applicant proposes expansion of parking area for an existing Automobile Sales and Service business. Automobile Sales and Service uses in the HC-Int. zone require Site Plan Review from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: Special Permit # 95, SV 38-94 Warren Co. Planning: 3/12/03 Tax Map No. 303.10-1-11, 12 Lot size: 0.96 acres, 4.55 acres / Section: 179-4 Public Hearing: March 18, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/18/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/14/03, and 3/18 Staff Notes 3/11 CT Male engineering comments received 3/12 Warren Co. Planning 3/11 Notice of Public Hearing 3/5 Meeting Notice 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 March 18, 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 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) 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 resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. That we have a signoff from C.T. Male on the March 11, 2003 letter. 2. The second condition has to do with landscaping and we have noted it on the drawing no. 47358-1 and John Strough is going to give this plan back to Staff where we’ve drawn everything and I’m going to tell you where everything is right now: a. There will be two sugar maples planted, one in the north corner adjacent to Quaker Road, just south of the existing parking for 30 cars, and b. The other one above the street bank adjacent to the parking lot, and c. A perennial bed be planted in the southeast corner of the property, and d. That there would be a row of evergreens in the back, six evergreens, and e. Crown vetch will be planted on any steep portion of the slope that is a portion that exceeds a pitch of one to three. 3. Waiver request granted: Lighting Plan Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Tom. MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. LENDRUM-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 5-2003 SKETCH PLAN SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED *NO SEQR REQUIRED THE MICHAELS GROUP PROPERTY OWNER: FRANCIS PENO AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF 24.62 ACRES INTO 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 315-1-10 LOT SIZE: 24.62 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MATT STEVES & JOHN MICHAELS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-No public hearing is required for Sketch Plan review. MR. MAC EWAN-Nor is there a SEQRA required because Sketch is nothing more than a discussion item with no approvals granted. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, but I mean down the line we’re going to have to do one. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, we will at Preliminary. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves and John Michaels of the Michaels Group, representing this project. This is property located on the east side of Corinth Road, just a little bit northeast of the intersection with West Mountain Road, property borders up on the east side against the lots in Hudson Pointe, and the Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association and consists of 18 proposed one acre lots with a proposed boulevard entrance on the subdivision, going back to a cul de sac. Pretty straight forward. The subdivision and the zone one acre minimum, they’re all one acre with at least 150 foot of frontage. Lots in the back, there is a little bit of a ledge or a bank in there, in the extreme east of the property, and we have the cul de sac stop so that we can accommodate houses, septics on the back lots, which will be larger lots to the range of two and a half to three and a half acres in the back, and we open it up to any questions the Board may have. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich, I’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-Yes. Just a bit of clarification, please. I have two maps that look pretty much the same, although one actually has the acreage all greater than one acre, and the others had smaller acres. I take it you’re presenting the one where everything’s over an acre at this point? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. You have one that has everything with the acreage of at least one, with the contours of the existing topography on the site, and that’s the one that we’re representing. That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, I remember briefly discussing this last month it must have been, and I’m glad you were able to come in with a design that, one acre or greater and be able to meet your needs. The one issue I would like to raise, on lots nine and ten, if I recall, there’s going to be no development on those lots at this, or planned for any development on those lots? MR. STEVES-Well, those are proposed to be house lots, single family. MR. SANFORD-But in the. MR. STEVES-In the rear, you mean future subdivision of those? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. STEVES-No. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and the housing will reside where on Lots Nine and Ten? MR. STEVES-Most likely they will reside up closer to the road, so that you don’t have a long, long driveway, but I mean, if somebody wanted to put in the driveway and build the house way in the back, they could. We would certainly be open to some kind of a buffer zone along the back of those lots. There’s no question that’s why we left them large enough, that and the 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) reason that you have the 1,000 foot rule for the cul de sac, so therefore those lots in the back do become deep lots. MR. SANFORD-That was what I was getting at, from Lots 19 through 22, what can be expected, in terms of a natural buffer area there. MR. STEVES-Quite large. MR. SANFORD-Okay. What would quite large be? MR. STEVES-You could actually impose 50, 75 feet worth of buffer on those lots, and it would affect those lots. That’s the reason we left them so large. MR. SANFORD-And that’s acceptable to you? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. They’re deep. MR. SANFORD-They’re deep. Okay. I have no further questions at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’m okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I thought this was originally going to be proposed as a cluster, but you moved into a, to comply with the zone. Is that correct? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. It’s really a small enough piece of property that to comply with the one acre, it wasn’t that hard to do and there’s not much else to do with the property. The difference between the cluster and the conventional is 47 feet of road. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m glad you went this way anyway because there would have been some questions as to what would the benefit to the Town be. MR. STEVES-I read your mind. MR. VOLLARO-If we went to cluster. Yes, and based on that, I think this is a very acceptable subdivision. I have no problem with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Much better than the first design. John? MR. STROUGH-No, just a couple of little things. I agree with Richard Sanford, and the applicant’s awfully willing to do that, of increasing the buffer on Lots Nine and Ten. I think that’s appropriate. Staff, and I’m glad you’re not clustering. This plan seems to be, it’s all within Town Code, and that’s good. The Staff asked me, there was a memorandum changing the road name, for one thing. MR. MICHAELS-That’s correct. We’ve got a proposal. We’re going to propose Quincy Lane. MR. STROUGH-And I’m wondering if you investigated a pedestrian link to the eastern properties. MR. MICHAELS-Well, again, as far as the Homeowners Association, that Homeowners Association is private property. It’s not public access at that point, and their insurance will only cover the Hudson Pointe Homeowners Association. That’s not property that we can really, that’s their property. It’s not public access. The public access is once you get through the Town road and then over there. So, we think it’s very doubtful that the Hudson Pointe Homeowners, 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) that might need all 151 to signoff, to allow other people to use their property. It’s private property. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, I thought I’d ask. MR. STEVES-We were going to let you ask. MR. STROUGH-It’s a nice idea when we get to it, and that’s it for me, Mr. Chairman, thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Did we lose our boulevard entrance on the new map? MR. MICHAELS-It’s supposed to be there. The map. MR. STEVES-The width is shown as a boulevard. We just don’t show the island in the middle, but it will be a boulevard entrance. MR. MICHAELS-The island is supposed to be. MR. METIVIER-And do you foresee any problems buffering the sides, too? Or actually I take that back on the Inspiration Park side that’s all woods anyway. Correct? MR. MICHAELS-Right. MR. METIVIER-So, what about Lands of Brennan? MR. STEVES-No, no problem at all. MR. METIVIER-I mean, what would that be? MR. STEVES-You’re talking 257 foot deep lots. So, I mean, if you wanted some kind of a buffering along the southern side of those lots, you know, to the tune of 25, 30 feet, somewhere in there, I don’t think that the applicant would be objectionable to that either. MR. METIVIER-Is this densely wooded, or is it semi? MR. MICHAELS-It’s pretty heavily. Well, you can see from the picture. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d say it’s densely wooded over there. MR. STEVES-The front third of the property is kind of a little mix. It’s got an old field in the back that was actually planted corn, stuff like that, and it’s got a few small wood roads in it, as you can see, but it’s primarily wooded, to two thirds of it. MR. METIVIER-Besides that I think it’s great. I like the fact that you didn’t go with clustering on this. I really do. You still made it work. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-See, planning works. MR. STEVES-You’ve got it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So I guess the overwhelming consensus is everyone is comfortable to move on to Preliminary. Just look for a 75 foot buffer on Lots Nine and Ten. MR. STEVES-Thank you. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. MICHAELS-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re welcome. Are you going to be in next month? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you submit already? MR. STEVES-No. We’ll be submitting this next submission. We’ll be submitting in April. MR. HILTON-To be on in May. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re submitting in April for May? MR. STEVES-May. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: ALBERT OUDEKERK AND HOWARD TOOMEY, ET. AL. AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY ROAD OPPOSITE MAID MARION WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SUBDIVISION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 62 ACRE LOT INTO 22 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. TAX MAP NO. 289.12-1-8, 9, 10/48-3-51.5, 49.1, 51.4 TOM NACE, MATT STEVES, JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-2003, Preliminary Stage, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: March 18, 2003 “Project Description: The applicant proposes the subdivision of approximately 62 acres into 22 lots. The applicant is proposing to develop the lots under the Town’s cluster provisions. The subdivision would connect to Cherry Tree Circle to the east and would create an unnamed cul-de-sac and another stub street located in the southwestern area of the site. The applicant has indicated the future development of 21 single-family homes. Study of plat: Lot arrangement: The 22 lots are to be created to the south and west of the Bayberry subdivision off of Bay Rd. The lots are shown as fronting on the extension of Cherry Tree Circle, and off of an unnamed cul-de-sac and an unnamed stub street. Topography: The site is generally level in the eastern section of the property with an upward slope toward Bay Rd. to the west. Water supply Sewage Disposal: The proposed homes will be served by private water and sanitary sewage facilities. Drainage : The applicant has submitted grading and drainage information as part of the application. This information has been forwarded to CT Male for their review. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) Lot sizes: The proposed lots range in size from approximately .5 acres to approximately 1.5 acres. A lot proposed for open space is also provide which is listed as 33.11 acres. Future development: The subdivision plat indicates 21 single-family homes to be constructed with on site wells and septic systems to be constructed on each lot. State Environmental Quality Review Act : This project is listed as an Unlisted action for SEQRA review purposes. A SEQRA long form EAF has been submitted. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to subdivide approximately 62 acres into 22 lots. Twenty-one of the lots are proposed to be developed as single-family homes with a 33.11 acre property proposed for open space. The applicant seeks to subdivide this property under the Town’s cluster provisions. The applicant has submitted a conventional subdivision layout for comparison with the proposed cluster subdivision. Staff believes that comparison of the proposed cluster subdivision and the conventional alternative clearly shows the benefits of allowing the creation of lots under one-acre. The development of lots under one acre in size appear to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood with an added benefit of providing a 33.11 area of open space. In order to preserve and protect the proposed open space, staff suggests that any approval contain the following conditions concerning the proposed open space: No future subdivision or development of proposed open space Lot 19 - Language will be added to the deed for Lot 19 stating that no future subdivision or - development will occur on Lot 19 Are any park facilities planned for the proposed open space? Although the future use(s) of the proposed open space parcel is unknown, the applicant has indicated that they have approached the Queensbury Land Conservancy about potentially purchasing this property. From a Planning perspective this open space parcel could eventually be used with potential open space from the Hiland Park PUD to the south as an amenity in the center of an area that is expected to grow into single family homes in the future. The applicant has submitted a waiver request from providing a Landscaping Plan, stating that no plantings are allowed in the proposed Town ROW. If the Town Highway Department will not allow plantings in the ROW, street trees could be planted off of the proposed Town ROW (along the street) on individual lots. The applicant proposes to connect to Cherry Tree Circle to the east, which is presently a cul-de- sac. The Town Highway Department should be consulted concerning requirements for opening up this cul-de-sac and connecting to the subdivision to the east. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant’s proposal indicates 21 single family homes and one 33 acre proposed open space lot. The application is being presented under the Town’s cluster provisions. The applicant has submitted a conventional layout for comparison. Staff believes the comparison shows the cluster option as probably a more preferable option for preserving open space. Staff recommends a couple of conditions, however, concerning the open space, that no future subdivision or development of that proposed Lot 19 occur and that language would be added into the deed stating that no future subdivision would occur. Just a question. Are any park facilities planned? Also, the applicant has submitted a waiver from providing a 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) landscaping plan stating that no plantings are allowed in the proposed Town right of way. If the Town Highway Department will not allow plantings street trees could be planted off the proposed right of way along the street on individual lots. The applicant proposes to connect to a cul de sac to the east, and comment on that should be obtained from the Town Highway Department. It’s preferable, from a Planning perspective, to connect to existing street networks and provide another outlet to Bay Road, and not connecting to the east could result in a cul de sac longer than the 1,000 foot requirement, if the applicant were to propose a cul de sac. Any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during this review. That’s all we have. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Matt Steves, Rich Schermerhorn and Tom Nace. We were here recently for Sketch Plan. The primary issue at that time was what to do with the open space lot. Since that time, we’ve met with the Town’s Open Space Committee and they indicated, we thought that we would offer them an easement, and they indicated that they’re probably going to want to own it, which was nice that they thought that this was a beneficial lot for their purposes, which means that it could ultimately be used as park land or as open space land by the Town, and we’re expecting that when we’re back for Final approval that we’ll have something in writing from them, excuse me, the Queensbury Land Trust, rather than Open Space, but that went very well. So now we’re here with our formal application. I think we’ll ask Tom to go through the C.T. Male notes and just show you the subdivision, and then we’ll answer some questions. MR. NACE-Okay. Basically the subdivision consists of a road which was envisioned, actually, when they did the original subdivision coming off of Bay Road and connect to the cul de sac that was left at the end of the Cerrone subdivision with a right of way stub off to the adjacent property line. It’ll provide not only access to Bay Road, or another access for people in here, if they have emergency conditions, but also will allow more direct access for people in this existing subdivision to get to Bay Road. The road system consists of the single road in, a cul de sac, a short cul de sac accessing the northern portion of the property, and a stub road off here that could be used for future development of the adjacent property, and also gives access to Lot 20 for the owner of the existing property. The engineering comments basically were regarding stormwater and septic systems. The property is very similar to, soils on the property are very similar to the adjacent subdivision. We have done a series of about 30, or about 25 or 30 test pits throughout the property. The Health Department has witnessed them, and based on those test pits, we’ve come up with septic system layouts to fit the properties. I’m presently working on final response to C.T. Male’s comments, for their technical review, but that response will include some specific grading for some of the lots that they were concerned about drainage on, and that will be incorporated in the overall grading plan for the site, and also methods of allowing stormwater from adjacent upland properties, mainly in here, to bypass some of the stormwater collection system for the subdivision and allow it to naturally flow out to the low area to the south the way it presently does. If there are any specific questions that the Board has regarding the itemized engineering comments, I’d be glad to go through each one, but those, in general terms, mostly regarded the grading of specific areas. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll start with you, Cathy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Could you just run by me one more time what you’re going to do with the left over lands that are part of the clustering? I missed that a little bit. MR. STEVES-What would be Lot 19? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. STEVES-We’re in negotiations and talking to the Queensbury Land Trust. During their regular meeting last month they discussed this property. They’re interested in looking at it. They wanted to wait, naturally, until some of the snow was down enough so they could walk in the back and could take a good look at it with their entire Committee. Harry Hansen from the Town, who was also at that meeting, had an interest in it. Also for Town recreation purposes. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) So we’re looking at either the Queensbury Land Trust or maybe Mr. Hansen’s Department looking at that, and there would be a conveyance to them. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Now, the Queensbury Land Trust, is that the same as the Land Conservancy? MR. STEVES-No. MR. MAC EWAN-The Land Trust is the local entity. MR. SCHACHNER-Let’s understand one another. Then what are you talking about, what’s the Queensbury Land Trust? MR. STEVES-Queensbury Land Trust is an organization that was set up. My father, Leon Steves, is the President of that. MR. SCHACHNER-Excuse me for interrupting. You’re correct, and I’m one of the principals that founded it, and it’s the Queensbury Land Conservancy. That organization is the Queensbury Land Conservancy. What you’re talking about is the Queensbury Land Conservancy. There’s no such thing as the Queensbury Land Trust. MR. STEVES-Sorry, Queensbury Land Conservancy. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you, Mark. I wanted to make sure. MR. SCHACHNER-I wanted to clarify that also. MR. STEVES-My apologies. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you. So it could be, in other words, the Queensbury Land Conservancy could take it, or the Recreation Department? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And my next question is just how would it be accessible? MR. STEVES-That frontage on a Town road of 40 feet for that entire parcel. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know you probably said it. MR. NACE-This stub road that comes out here has a 40 foot right of way that will allow access into this whole back parcel, along the side here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. So you’re not, you’re kind of dismissing the idea, as far as having a homeowners association owning that? MR. STEVES-Correct. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Like they do at Hudson Pointe. MR. STEVES-Right. When we were here on Sketch Plan, we had discussed possibly having a conservation easement on the back of lots, and looking at and talking to the Board, the Board was saying, could you look at somehow conveying that property, and that’s what we looked into, and we thought that they might want to just take an easement, but they took and interest in maybe acquiring the property, in fee. So therefore, we have shortened up those lots, being Lots 13 through 17, and to about I think it’s two or three acres, and then made all of Lot 19 up for conveyance to either one of those two groups. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The first thing we want to do, I think, is to change the name on the drawings. From Sherman Avenue to Cherry. MR. NACE-From what? MR. VOLLARO-If you take a look at your drawings, subdivision plan, it says Sherman Avenue on it. MR. NACE-This is my mistake. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all right. I’ve been there, Tom. I understand the problem. The cluster is definitely the preferred design. I think everybody agrees with that. So we don’t have a problem with that. Could we come up with a boulevard entrance for about the first maybe 150 to 200 feet, shave a little off Lots One and Twenty-two, and try to get kind of a boulevard entrance to that, so that it has some appeal coming in? MR. STEVES-We were trying to match it up as best we could with Maid Marion Way, which is a straight road, but I think Tom might be able to answer that question. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just asking if it’s possible. Sometimes these boulevard entrances kind of give you a nice approach to the property. MR. NACE-It might be possible. I’m not sure, because of the match up with Maid Marion Way, whether it would look, you know, out of kilter a little bit. MR. VOLLARO-The intersection would look funny, is that what you’re saying? MR. NACE-Well, yes, from an aesthetic viewpoint. MR. MAC EWAN-The centerline of the intersection would remain the same. You’re just widening the road. MR. STEVES-Well, your four way wouldn’t line up as well, your cars opposite each other. It would be offset. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It would be the whole length of those lots. MR. STEVES-I guess I’d have to think about that a little bit before I really give you an answer. MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I guess I got the answer to this question, where the additional 21 lots will be located after the north (lost words), it’ll be to the south, right, the additional 21 lots you’re talking about would be to the, that piece way up in the corner there? MR. NACE-The additional 21? MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’re talking about future development of 21? MR. LAPPER-No, this is 21. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STEVES-This is 21. MR. NACE-This is 21. MR. VOLLARO-This is 21. MR. LAPPER-Future development was the landowner for whom Rich purchased, has under contract to purchase a little parcel that he’s retaining the rest of his land which is south on Bay Road, and Tom was just pointing out that the stub road goes there, in case that’s developed by somebody else in the future. MR. NACE-Yes, that was this. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, that’s that piece. MR. NACE-This will allow connection in the same fashion, the connection will come out here. MR. STEVES-It’s the property with that large barn. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not something you’re planning on developing up in that corner at all? MR. LAPPER-It wasn’t for sale. So he didn’t have the option. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I think on the C.T. Male letter Number Four, he talks about fill versus a pump. He notes that the wastewater disposal systems for 13, 14, 15 and 16 are located higher than the ground elevation of the house. MR. NACE-That’s where he’s asking for additional grading and we were working on that. Wherever possible, we’re going to grade the houses up high enough to go by gravity. There may be one or two that would have to be pumped, and if so we will provide pump details for those. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that has to come in the response to his letter? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and stormwater pollution prevention plan and the water quality volume stormwater management design manual, that’s something you have to answer all of those questions? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The one that I’m kind of concerned about is, what’s sort of interesting is Number Eleven is the maintenance of the detention pond that lies between 14 and 15. There’s a detention pond that lies between the two, and I guess, would that be in a deed agreement between the owners of those two properties, as to how that would be maintained? MR. NACE-Well, there will be an easement there for the Town to be able to access it to maintain it. There’s a pipe that runs along the lot line between those two lots, and there will be an easement along that pipeline to allow the Town to access. MR. VOLLARO-To get to that. MR. NACE-If they ever had to get to it. It’s a relatively no or low maintenance detention basin. It’s right next to the wetland, and it’s a very low, it’s not a deep basin. It’s a very shallow basin. So maintenance of that would be fairly minimal. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STROUGH-I think what Bob’s saying is, can I interrupt? MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. STROUGH-Let’s say I bought that property, and I want to put my kid’s swing set back there, so I fill in the detention basin and put my kid’s swing set. MR. NACE-No. There will be a deed restriction that would not allow you to do that. MR. LAPPER-That’s there to drain the road. So the Town’s going to want that easement to go along with dedicating the road. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but the easement and the restrictions that Tom was saying? MR. NACE-Correct, yes. The easement will include language to prevent them from building over top of the pipe or doing anything to the grading around the basin. MR. STROUGH-And that’ll be written right into the deed? MR. NACE-Correct. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. That’s good. The other one is the sight distances along Bay Road. I think that has to be looked at. I guess he asked that question. You’ll have to provide that. MR. NACE-Yes. I have, in fact, I sent plans to Warren County DPW for road access to Bay Road, and I provided them with sight distances. To the south it’s about 3,000 feet. I don’t have the letter right here in front of me, but it’s about 1700 feet to the north. So there’s loads of sight distance both directions. Okay. The trees on the individual lots, as opposed to, because they can’t go into the right of way, how many and what type caliper would you be proposing for those lots? MR. NACE-Well, what our concern is, okay, we can’t put it in the right of way. If we put it on the lot, we can’t, historically, the logical place to do that is on the property line, so that it doesn’t interfere with where somebody wants to put a driveway or whatever. Unfortunately, NiMo takes the property corners now. So, you know, you’ve got your underground utilities coming in right in that location where you would want to put a tree. What we’d rather do is have a landscape package that we would commit to for each lot that would include one or two street trees per lot. MR. VOLLARO-Street trees are, you know, if you have winters like we just had with the amount of snow and the amount of salt that’s poured up alongside the, on the property itself, some of those trees are going to get badly buried. MR. NACE-Well, the one nice thing about having them on the lots, you can get them back far enough that they don’t receive a great deal of salt and sand. MR. VOLLARO-So that that doesn’t happen, yes. So you would be proposing a landscaping package along with it. All right. Fine. I guess we got the answer on the open space on that 33 acres, and that sounds good. Other than that, I didn’t have any questions, other than the fact that the C.T. Male letter has to be responded to. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, a lot of my questions have already been answered by other Planning Board members asking them. I just had trouble with the insert is just the opposite of the way. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. LAPPER-That’s a little confusing. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Well, then I realized what was going on. Now, the stub road, have you talked to the Toomeys? I mean, they don’t want to sell at this time? MR. LAPPER-They’re actually retaining Lot 20. Under the contract that’s going to be their lot. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. LAPPER-So the only thing, we really only bought that little piece up at the top to give the access to Bay Road, and they’re keeping the rest. MR. STROUGH-But it looks like you’ve talked to the Toomeys and the Toomeys have eventual plans to develop that, otherwise? MR. SCHERMERHORN-John, in the future, yes, they would like to possibly develop the property, but at this time, Toomey was not interested in selling anymore land to me than what is proposed on the map, but to answer your question, a year from now, two years. MR. STROUGH-All right so their driveway is probably going to, you’re going to pave right up to about where you showed on here? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-And then their driveway is going to come out to there somehow. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay. Now, my bigger concern was, and I’m on S-2, now, I’ve drawn out the flow tendencies here for water and the thing that bothers me, and people ask me, you know, because I used to build right next to you, Rich, you know, back in the old days, and so people still consult me on what to buy, what to look for in a house, and (lost words) no complaints there, but some of the driveways that I’ve seen other builders, the driveway has, you know, it’s pitched towards the garage, the driveway is pitched to the garage, and then they have stormwater runoff and then the freezing and they can’t get their doors open, and then they have water in their garage and, I mean, it just leads to one headache after another, and I’ve noticed with some of these lots, the way they’re currently graded, and, Tom, you alluded to the fact that they may be graded differently, but the way they’re currently graded, if the house were put on the current grade, it would be a negative pitch that driveways towards the house, the kind of thing that we want to try and avoid, unless the driveway were bent, so it would have stormwater runoff in another direction. That was a concern of mine, and this is just a preliminary. So we’re sharing thoughts here, and like I said, that didn’t occur with all of them, like Lots Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Six, some of the others. You’re going to have positive drainage on the driveways, and I notice with Indian Ridge, too, that they actually cut in to the road so you would get positive drainage on the driveways and the hills, the houses would be setting up higher, and everything would get positively drained down to the road. So you would avoid those kind of problems. So I noticed that, but, again, I’m willing to wait and see how the final grading’s going to go here. This is just at preliminary. MR. NACE-That’s why I don’t have response to C.T. Male yet because we’re doing all of that grading, there’s quite a bit of it, to show that you can, and we share the same concern about driveways. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. NACE-We’ve had some experience there that indicates the same problem. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Now, the other thing that I noticed, too, is that in Test Pits I, F, the test pits near our drainage basin that we referred to before on Lots 14 and 15, the bottom of that basin is about where we’re finding mottling in some of the test pits. Is that going to be a problem, Tom? MR. NACE-No. I tried to keep the bottom above, so it wasn’t permanently wet, but it’s right close. You’re right. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 24 inches is what it looks like. MR. STROUGH-Yes. If you go 24 inches down you’re at 362 feet above sea level and that’s about where the bottom of the basin is. Do you think that putting maybe granular material in the bottom of that and then coating it with, might be helpful? MR. NACE-No. You’d just build a bathtub. We try to keep it above, the soil down in that area is tight enough that if you dig down and fill it with granular material, you’re just creating a bathtub. MR. STROUGH-Okay, well that was the concern, and I think that pretty well summarizes my concerns, otherwise, you address those and we’re fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-Why are you connecting the two different subdivisions with that cul de sac? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, it’s my understanding, and I know that’s a concern of the audience here, but when we met with Planning staff, and we pulled out the old Al Cerrone subdivision, if you look on the map, it actually shows on the east end and the west end, and it was a Planning Board recommendation, or Planning staff, I think two and half a years ago when this was approved, to have these connector roads for. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s in the Subdivision Reg’s. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. NACE-In fact, Tony, you probably weren’t on the Board then, but if you go back to the original Al Cerrone subdivision, this whole area, which I think there were four major chunks of land in here, or five major chunks of land, when it was re-zoned, to this zone that it is now, a concept layout was done for the whole parcel, which showed all of the individual parcels interconnected with the road system, to provide better circulation. I mean, one of the concerns originally was the old subdivision to the north connecting to it. Everybody was concerned, but I think, over time, that it’s provided a convenience without a major load of traffic. MR. MAC EWAN-The main thrust behind doing the interconnection was just for emergency access. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the main thrust for doing that. MR. LAPPER-I guess also you guys are all very familiar, in the commercial context, the access management issue of connecting parking lots, and it’s really the same thing in the residential context here, to just have different accesses to Bay Road and keep, so that everyone’s not just going on to one driveway on Bay Road. There’s also the issue of the bus. I know that I’ve read in the newspaper, there have been articles that there aren’t enough kids in the subdivision and some of the residents have requested that the school bus comes down into the subdivision. So 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) hopefully this would allow a bigger loop with more homes so that the bus stop could be off of Bay Road, which obviously is one of the arterials and not the best place for kids to be waiting. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a school district issue, though. MR. LAPPER-But this subdivision may, by connecting it, may facilitate that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. I just wonder, I mean, is this being treated as part of that, the complete subdivision with Cerrone, or is this something different? MR. MAC EWAN-No, I mean, they’re different parcels, but what Mr. Nace was referring to was that when these five major parcels, of large acreage, was re-zoned a few years back, the concept of being able to develop these parcels and have interconnects was done at that point. Do you understand what I’m saying? MR. METIVIER-No, I know what you’re saying. I just, I don’t know why, I just don’t understand why they’re doing this. MR. SANFORD-I think Tony might be, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but you might be concerned about traffic patterns. MR. METIVIER-Well, I mean, you’re taking an existing neighborhood, with a cul de sac, and I know the area very well. So, you know, you have cars, and everybody goes to their house and does their thing and there’s very little through traffic here. Now you’re introducing a new subdivision that is connected and was part of the original phase, and I remember that, looking at the original subdivision years ago, that there was a Phase II, and yet I count 22 lots. So you don’t need to have emergency access through. It’s just, why would you disrupt what’s already there? MR. MAC EWAN-How are you basing your thought on whether you have 22 lots, whether you need emergency access or not? I don’t understand that. MR. METIVIER-Well, if that, in my eyes, is that one of the things they’re looking at, as far as why they’re going to connect this? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think the issue is the number of lots. The Subdivision Regulations say whenever possible you have interconnects between subdivisions, and basically the concept was for emergency access. If you turned it around and just said, and you left it as a cul de sac, and you had an emergency in there where you needed to get into say one of the back lots in there, and then on top of that you had another emergency up in front which blocked the road, you have no access to the back portion of that subdivision. That’s why we try to strive as well, with the new boulevard entrances, to eliminate that potential to have the whole access cut off. MR. NACE-I think one thing, Tony, when you think about this logically, probably the only people using that interconnect wouldn’t be the people in this proposed subdivision now. It would be the people down in the existing subdivision, and, you know, there are not that many people that would actually be driving through that existing cul de sac or that existing dead end subdivision. There’s no reason for it. MR. METIVIER-So what will happen to the existing cul de sac? Will it be removed totally or will it just? MR. NACE-It would be removed. I think there was a language in the original approval that said once it was, if it ever was removed, then the adjacent lands that are now occupied by the cul de sac would be transferred to the adjacent property owners. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. METIVIER-So what happens to their driveways? MR. NACE-When the new road goes through, the driveways would have to be extended to that new road, as part of the road construction. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Tony, if I might address you, I’m not opposed to not connecting this and doing a cul de sac, because I understand where the neighbors, how they feel about this, but again, we’re going against the Subdivision Regulations. We’re only following the regulations. I certainly would be very happy to end this road, if we can do it under the Queensbury guidelines legally. We’re at a stage we could do that, but I don’t know if it’s what is currently in the planning in the Code books. It is proposed the way it’s supposed to be done right now, but I’m not saying that I wouldn’t change that, and not access the people. I could leave that up to the Planning staff to decide that, but we’re at a stage where we could, we certainly could do that. MR. METIVIER-I guess, in all fairness to everyone, just, you know, I know that there has been some comment made to me about the cul de sac. So why don’t we give the public a chance to view their opinions or address their. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m certainly going to. MR. METIVIER-And we’ll take it from there. MR. SCHERMERHORN-If I might just add one other thing. I’m sure some of the public wants to know, I guess, what we’re going to do there. It is going to be single family homes. There would be a covenance that’s going to be very similar to the one that they have now. The only difference is the restrictions on the square footage, the homes are going to be a minimum of 2200 square feet. I’m not sure, I think there’s, maybe 1800. I’m sure somebody can correct me in the audience, but these will be a minimum of 2200 square feet, regardless if it’s a ranch or a colonial, and again, these are all single family homes, colonial in style, in keeping with what their neighbors, or the neighborhood that exists now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Rich? MR. SANFORD-Just a couple of quick points on clarification. The land organization, the Conservancy organization or trust, not trust, I guess, but what’s the pros and cons, in terms of handing that land over to an organization like that, as opposed to the Town assuming it, and what’s the criteria that would be used in making that decision? MR. LAPPER-Well, the Land Conservancy is more interested in open space, so just preserving it, it would not be developable, obviously. That would be deed covenant, but that they want to own tracks of land for the Town, so the Town would retain rural character to the extent possible. If it went to the Park and Rec Department, they would be doing it for some sort of a public park that would have public access and that 40 foot access drive would probably be to a parking area. MR. SANFORD-So the Town would be able to do what they might want to do with it, whereas if it went to the other organization, it would be forever wild? MR. STEVES-It would be a passive recreation type, maybe like a nature trail or something along those lines, but it wouldn’t be a parking area with jungle gyms and stuff like that. That’s correct. MR. LAPPER-We’re leaving it up to them to tell us, the two groups, and we’ll come back at the next meeting. MR. SANFORD-Who are the two groups? 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. LAPPER-Either the Recreation Department. MR. SANFORD-Okay, but I would think that the Town might have a legal say in this, but obviously. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it’s the Rec Commission of the Town that governs to purchase land for recreational purposes, and that’s made up by a seven member board. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And the Land Conservancy is a not-for-profit, separate organization, but it’s something that, it was formed with the Town in mind, I mean, so that it’s for the Town. It’s a separate entity, but it’s for open space for the Town that works in conjunction with the Town. So they’re both really entities that the Town Board is looking at and aware of. MR. STEVES-I think the Planning Board, at the Sketch Plan, was looking for an entity that might be able to own that property or take rights over that, besides just leaving it as a conservation easement within the landowners, if I’m not mistaken, and they asked us to pursue that, and so we did, and those were the two entities that came forward. MR. HILTON-This is something that can take place, I mean, after any Planning Board action. Our comment of deed restrictions and some language in a resolution protecting this would do just that, and then any discussion with QLC or the Town Board or Rec Commission or any of the other bodies could take place beyond this. That’s our take on it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the Board just wants to get an understanding. MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. SANFORD-I just wanted to understand who’s decision it was where to go with this, and, yes. MR. NACE-That’s fine. MR. SANFORD-That’s really all I have. I’ve heard, I’m interested in the public hearing, too. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else you wanted to add? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d ask you to give up the table for a few minutes. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CINDY HURLEY MRS. HURLEY-I live 25 Berry Patch Drive. MR. MAC EWAN-And your name, please. MRS. HURLEY-Cindy Hurley, and we’re on the cul de sac, and we don’t want the road there. We don’t want the connecting road. Originally when Al built the development, we did have that that was a right of way, which is right in front of my house, because he was possibly going to build another phase into that development and did not have access to Bay Road. That was the reasoning that the right of way was left there because he couldn’t land lock the land. Now that they have access to Bay Road, we don’t see that there’s a need to have the connection from the cul de sac to the other development. We all have children and we bought the cul de sac 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) because we wanted to be on a cul de sac, and I think it’s going to be a big disruption in our lives to have that. There’s two entrances into Bayberry Meadows, for emergency access, because there’s one on Stonehurst, and Bayberry Meadows. So the only one that wouldn’t have two accesses is the new development, and we’re also concerned about drainage. Right now we’ve had my basement flooded the first year I was in my house. It’s clay soil and we’re concerned, you know, possibly with the drainage problems that we may have with the development. I don’t know how that’s going to be addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re the last house, you said, on the cul de sac? MRS. HURLEY-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The south or north? MRS. HURLEY-North. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? JIM PAIGE MR. PAIGE-My name is Jim Paige, and I live across from Cindy on the other side of the cul de sac, and our concern is that if you have to put the road through there, we really would like to not see it, could you do it at the end of construction and have all the construction come down through the top, instead of going through our development? And also, why would you take the cul de sac out that already is there? Why not just extend it from there, if you are going to? MR. MAC EWAN-You mean leave the cul de sac in? MR. PAIGE-Yes, just to slow things down a little bit. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s an option worth discussing. MR. PAIGE-Okay, now, and the drainage. Now this land that he’s developing is quite a bit higher than our area. Where is all that water going to be drained out to? It’s going to be drained to the end of that lot? I don’t understand. The water is going to come down the hill, and that’s going to be right into our development. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll ask them to go over the drainage again so people can hear it. MR. PAIGE-While he’s drilling these wells, is this going to have any effect on our wells at all? And just one other thing, on the two entrances to any cul de sac or anything, I’ve talked to Steve Smith, who is the Fire Marshal, and he says that Queensbury has no issues with, there doesn’t need to be two entry ways into a development. MR. MAC EWAN-Who said this to you? MR. PAIGE-Steve Smith. He’s the Fire Marshal. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. This Board’s governed by the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury, and in those Subdivision Regulations it talks about interconnects and doing those. I mean, while he’s offering you an opinion, his position. MR. PAIGE-Well, actually, he was looking it up in the book, and he was reading it to me from the book, and. MR. MAC EWAN-He was reading what to you in the book? MR. PAIGE-And you said there was an emergency, he needed an emergency? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-No. The object behind doing interconnects from one subdivision to another is for emergency access and having a better flow of traffic. That’s the design of having subdivisions interconnect. That’s the reason behind it in the Subdivision Regulations. MR. PAIGE-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it’s not something we’re opposed to, I don’t think, as a Board, you know, not having them interconnect, but from a Planning standpoint, it makes much more sense, just from the standpoint of emergency access, for your safety and everyone else who lives in the proposed subdivision. MR. PAIGE-Well, I understand that, and if it does go through, that we would like to see it at the end of the construction, if possible. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MR. PAIGE-No. DAVE DI CENZA MR. DI CENZA-I’m Dave DiCenza and I live next to Jim. So on the south side of Berry Patch Drive. I’m actually the back part of my home is a designated wetlands for the development. We also have the street water, the stormwater drains through the back of our property, and I think the big concern, you know, that’s been shared by both Cindy and Jim is the drainage and where the stormwater is going to go. Because of where we are, in the development. You know, we’ve all had problems with water in our basement, and have subsequently had to. MR. MAC EWAN-You have as well? MR. DI CENZA-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-You have as well? MR. PAIGE-No, I haven’t. MRS. HURLEY-There’s been four of them that I know of, four of five, I think five of them. MR. DI CENZA-There’s five people that have had flooded basements, which I’m not sure why pumps were never required for those homes down in there, because of the problems that we’ve had, but in any event, we do have a big concern about the water. Aesthetically, with a cul de sac, with the circle that they have, deeding that property back to all the homeowners aesthetically, you know, I don’t think is going to make the neighborhood, towards our end, look very nice. MR. SANFORD-When you say you have water in your basement. MR. DI CENZA-Coming up through the floor. MR. SANFORD-How much water? MR. DI CENZA-I had, this past fall I had five inches of water in my basement, that I had to drain out. MR. SANFORD-Along most of the floor of the basement? MRS. HURLEY-The whole floor. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. DI CENZA-The whole floor, the whole basement. MR. SANFORD-Okay. No, I’m just trying to get a handle on it. We talk about this a lot on this Planning Board, and I guess what one person refers to as water in their basement might not mean a lot to another person. MR. DI CENZA-No, it was five inches of water, the entire basement. So, you know, and I agree with Jim, too, that if, you know, ultimately you guys decide to break through the neighborhoods, one, if we could leave the circle, because we all do have, there’s probably, there’s at least, I mean, there’s 10 small children under the age of five in that neighborhood, right in that area, that all play in the street in that cul de sac. So that’s a big concern to all of us, as far as allowing the traffic to come in from Bay Road down through our development, and I disagree, in terms of the traffic pattern, and I would imagine that, as the homes are sold, and the people settle into their homes, that the traffic pattern will slow down, but it’ll be a huge traffic pattern while all the construction is going through, if you allow cars to come in down in through there, in order to look at the homes as they’re being built. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MRS. HURLEY-I have a question. The road that’s coming in is labeled Cherry Circle Lane. We’re Berry Patch Drive. How would that work? If you included the road. MR. MAC EWAN-Good question. We’ll ask that. MRS. HURLEY-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. JOE MARASCO MR. MARASCO-I’m Joe Marasco. I’m probably the last person who lives on the cul de sac. Just a couple of questions. You say these are subdivision rules and regulations. Is there, for emergency purposes, I mean, we already have two entrances, and you talk about pattern flows. There would probably be maybe 30 cars this effects, people who live there, and also, I mean, if we agree to it and Mr. Schermerhorn also said he wouldn’t mind doing it, keeping the cul de sac, is there something we can do to petition you to change or amend these rules, or? MR. MAC EWAN-The short answer, I think the Board is considering, you know, what option is the best, and we’ll listen to everyone’s input and take it from there. We’re only at Preliminary Stage at this point of the subdivision. Any action we take tonight will be not a Final approval of any kind. There’s still engineering issues that need to be responded to. I’m more curious, right now, about your drainage problems and how that may effect the other subdivision build out, how that would effect your subdivision behind it. I think the cul de sac thing is something that can be worked with. MR. MARASCO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MR. DI CENZA-I just have one other question. Just with regards to the parcel of land that’s going to be left to either be deeded back to the Town or to the Recreation Department or to a Conservancy, would their be future meetings held with regard to, if it got turned over to the Recreation Department? MR. MAC EWAN-I’d defer that one to Counsel. I mean, if the Rec Commission was entertaining purchasing this land, their meetings are open and publicized? 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. SCHACHNER-That is correct. They meet once a month on the first Tuesday of every month at 7:30 in the morning, and they are open to the public. MR. MAC EWAN-And if the QLC, if they entertained wanting to purchase this land? MR. SCHACHNER-The Queensbury Land Conservancy, as has been discussed before, is a private, not for profit entity. It is not required to have its meetings open to the public. My understanding is that they often, or always, welcome public, but I don’t know if, but I know they’re not required to, and I don’t know if they have a certain policy about that. MR. DI CENZA-Well, in terms of if they were going to, I know generally they, it sounds like that they like to keep the open space, but if they were looking to do anything with the property, that would have to be brought before the Planning Board? MR. MAC EWAN-Not the Land Conservancy, no. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think, I’m not sure, but I think the commenter is asking, is if the Land Conservancy wanted to do something with the property, could it, might it be subject to site plan approval. MR. MAC EWAN-You mean if they wanted to develop it in a certain aspect? MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s what he’s asking. MR. DI CENZA-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it would require them to be in front of us. MR. SCHACHNER-Most, I mean, we don’t have a crystal ball to know what you’re thinking of. MR. DI CENZA-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-But most, correct me if I’m wrong, George, but most developments, again, depending upon what sort of development you mean, but if, for example, you’re talking about some sort of commercial development, then I think all commercial development in this zone is subject to site plan approval by this Board. Is that right? MR. HILTON-Most of the uses that are identified as part of the SR-1A district do require site plan review, with the exception of allowable uses such as home occupations and produce stands. So, more than likely, the short answer is yes, they would have to come back. MR. DI CENZA-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. SANFORD-Well, one clarifying question that I have for Staff, as part of our review, couldn’t we impose certain restrictions on what could be done with that land? In other words, I think that’s basically what the compromise here is, is that this is not going to be developed into another housing development, for instance. So, aren’t we within our rights to place certain conditions on what the future use of this land could be? MR. HILTON-Absolutely, and that’s why I’ve included a couple of suggested conditions saying no future development for that open space Lot Nineteen. Should they want to amend that, they would have to come back for either a modification to this subdivision approval or a site plan. MR. SANFORD-So QLC, if they ended up in possession of this land, might be restricted in whether they could sell it back to another developer? I think that’s the point that you’re trying to get at? MR. DI CENZA-Right. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. SCHACHNER-The condition would run with the land. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. DI CENZA-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. Anyone else? MRS. HURLEY-I have one more thing that I just wanted to bring up. The tree line that’s between our property and the adjoining property, where you would build. MR. MAC EWAN-The existing hedgerow? MRS. HURLEY-Yes. Where you would build the road, in between, there’s actually two tree lines there. In between that there’s a big drainage ditch that would have to be taken into account if a road was put in there. MR. MAC EWAN-They would have to build it to Town standards, road standards. MRS. HURLEY-What would that mean? MR. MAC EWAN-What would that mean? It would mean they’d have to conform to the Highway Department’s design standards for any road in the Town. So if there’s a natural drainage ditch there, they would have to re-develop that drainage ditch either with culverts that would meet Town Codes, or Highway Department guidelines I guess is the best way to put it, and the Highway Superintendent signs off on all those roads. MRS. HURLEY-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. HURLEY-Now, some of us have talked here and some of us haven’t. Should we all let you know, like, how we feel about the road? MR. MAC EWAN-I’m going to leave the public hearing open. I don’t plan on closing the public hearing tonight, because there’ll be, obviously, at least one more step in this process. So I would encourage anybody, you can speak tonight. You can hold off and speak the next time. You can write letters. If letters are written, they certainly will be read into the record, at every meeting we have. So I encourage you to address the Board at any time when we have our public hearings. MRS. HURLEY-Okay. RICHARD LENAGHEN MR. LENAGHEN-My name is Richard Lenaghen. I live on Berry Drive, 21 Berry Drive. I’m going to broach a new topic. I’m here to talk on behalf of all the wild turkey and deer that are pretty saddened by this development, but on a serious note, I live on Berry Drive. I’m the second from the top, and aesthetics is what I was concerned about. We really enjoyed sitting on our porch, and we were one of the few homeowners that didn’t have anybody build in front of us, and we were very appreciative of that fact, and I was wondering if Mr. Schermerhorn, because all these houses are going in here, would consider putting in a hedgerow of trees, of some sort, so that as the years go by there’s a wind row, if you will, to kind of demarcate the neighborhoods. I’d rather look at a row of pine trees 10 years down the road than another housing development. So if they could just consider that, I’d appreciate it. That would be specifically Lots Nine, Eight, and Seven. Thank you. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re welcome. MR. NACE-Craig, can he show us on the map (lost words)? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. His house is sitting in, if you look at the. MR. LENAGHEN-The second one down on the left. MR. MAC EWAN-The Bayberry Meadows Road, that’s his house right there, and that would sweep around to the corner of Lot 10. Okay. MR. LENAGHEN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. JIM PRUIKSMA MR. PRUIKSMA-I’m Jim Pruiksma. I live at 42 Berry Patch Drive. That’s kind of like a dead end of 17 houses roughly that turn into the cul de sac. There’s been considerable concern about the bus that was mentioned earlier coming in picking the kids up at the top of the hill. The road is approximately 30 feet wide. You get snow banks. You get people on both sides of the road trying to wait for their children, understandably. I think to not break through the cul de sac and make it join Bay Road again would definitely make the school system not even look at coming down through and making one turn through there, picking everybody up. So I think that would be counterproductive not to remove the cul de sac or at least connect it back through to the new development to Bay Road. That’s all I have for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. I’m going to leave the public hearing open. Do you gentlemen want to come back up, please. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. I guess what I’m hearing is there seems to be five large concerns, well, actually four, I can’t speak on behalf of some of the individuals that have water in their basement. As a builder, that is a builder’s absolute worst nightmare, when you build a house and the homeowner calls you back and they have water in their basement. Now, I’m very familiar with the clay conditions, silt conditions, high water tables. A lot of this stuff that I build in Queensbury in high density areas is typically the soils are not great soils. So typically we stone the basement floors. We elevate them. We bring fill in. We put drainage tiles in. We put sump pumps as backup. We try and gravity feed line to daylight, if and when possible. So the homes that I will construct in there, I’ll be certain that we won’t have those problems. As far as the drainage and concerns go as far as, okay, Tom will address the drainage, but as far as the hedgerow, from the one woman, down by the cul de sac, if there’s a pre-existing hedgerow close to the property line, we have absolutely no problem leaving that, and the gentleman that was speaking about Lots Eight and Nine, I certainly would have no problem proposing putting, across that whole property line, of Eight and Nine on the rear, of possibly spacing white pines maybe 10 feet apart, and possibly starting with, I don’t know, maybe three foot tall, because they do grow very quickly. So I’m not opposed to that, but the last major item, which I guess isn’t really going to rest on my shoulders, it’s, I guess, what the Town can work out. I have absolutely no problem with not connecting that cul de sac, but again, it comes down to Town regulations. I would be very happy not to connect the cul de sac. I could certainly dead end the road. I believe it’s only 40 feet that we need off a Town road for a plow truck to come down and back up and turn into my cul de sac. It wouldn’t change my lot layout, but I also understand the importance of why these regulations are in place. So, basically what I’m saying is I’m willing to do whatever, basically I think I’ve responded to all the people in the audience’s concerns, but I guess the cul de sac is. MR. STROUGH-Is there a plan to take out the cul de sac? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, because that was never, I didn’t think it would be, well, I shouldn’t say it wouldn’t have been a topic of discussion. I just, I think Staff, in previous subdivisions that we’ve done or have been done in the Town, it’s always been pretty much a standard thing to connect them. If you look to the east of that property, the Cerrone property, it shows another interconnection going to another large parcel. So I’m sure this same issue will probably come up again. Maybe it won’t, maybe it will. MR. STROUGH-So there’s no problem with leaving the cul de sac and just attaching to it? MR. STEVES-You’re talking about leaving the existing cul de sac in place? That’s not a problem. MR. LAPPER-We wouldn’t be doing, working with that anyway. That’s not on your property. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I mean, I could certainly leave the cul de sac that’s there now. It certainly makes my life a little easier. I don’t have a problem doing that, either. So basically it’s how the Board feels, and what we can do to work with the neighborhood adjacent to me. MR. VOLLARO-I think leaving the cul de sac there is a good idea. It’ll slow traffic down a little bit, because they’ve got to go around that cul de sac, but it’ll also give the school bus a complete route off Bay Road and back on to Bay Road again. So, it would be able to service these communities. I think that that was something that most of the people said they would agree to in the audience. MR. NACE-Okay. Real quick I’ll address surface drainage, between the two properties. There’s an existing low area in behind these properties, and the drainage from the existing subdivision, before it was built, all of the drainage kind of funneled into here. This hedgerow is really pretty much, the hedgerow just a little bit to the east of that is pretty much a ridge, a high point, and down in through here is another low area that funnels down into the wetland back here. All of the drainage from our site gets funneled internally, and it comes down to the south. Even the road, the road connection, if you look at the road profile, I believe the high point in the road is actually just into the adjacent property. So all of our road drains to a low point here, and down, even including a little bit into the existing subdivision. MR. STROUGH-Now when you did your calculations, Tom, did you include in your calculations the storm runoff that would be coming from the high point, which I agree is near the cul de sac? MR. NACE-Yes. Everything from here down is included in the storm calc’s. MR. MAC EWAN-What would you suspect are the problems that are plaguing those two lots in the existing subdivision? MR. LAPPER-Tom, you’ll be diverting that water. MR. NACE-The groundwater? There is high groundwater in there. It’s a clay subsoil. The groundwater gets perched on top of the clay. It’s probably just the elevation at which the house basements were constructed. MR. MAC EWAN-Typically when you design, do these designs for developers, I mean, do you give them elevations where you recommend basement? MR. NACE-Yes. In fact, with Rich’s, if you look at his apartment complex over in Hiland, Hiland Springs, that’s all the same thing. It’s a clay subsoil. Relatively high water table, a lot of that field had originally been under drained, and the same thing, we set the buildings up. You probably observed over the past two years how much fill Rich hauled in there. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-There was a question regarding wells, what would happen, potentially could happen with this proposed subdivision, how would that, or potentially affect the wells in the entire vicinity? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, according to the Town’s regulations, as far as the wells go, it’s still, as far as I believe, you have to have 100 foot separation from another individual’s septic system, your own septic system. I certainly, as long as, well, I believe Health Department, Tom can answer. MR. NACE-Okay. The Health Department typically looks at the overall area and how successful the wells are in the general vicinity. Typically, for a residential use, you’re drawing so little water out of a large aquifer that adjacent wells on typical, you know, half acre to acre properties don’t affect each other. It’s when you get into a commercial or a municipal well where you’re drawing a couple of hundred gallons a minute that you start affecting adjacent wells significantly. MR. MAC EWAN-Where is the Town on extending the water district up that way? Do you know what the long range plans, short range plans are? MR. HILTON-I can’t speak for the Water Department. I don’t know their immediate plans, but I believe the Town Code has a distance requirement, I’m not sure if it’s 2,000 feet, where if you’re within 2,000 feet you have to connect and I believe this is just outside that area. MR. NACE-I think that’s Health Department, and we are, I think the northern limits of the existing water system are where we brought water in to Surrey Fields. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s where it stops? MR. NACE-And that’s about 4,000 feet away. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. NACE-That’s a lot of pipe. MR. MAC EWAN-Any other questions from Planning Board members? MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about the comment where somebody wanted to, inquired about not having any trucks go through, and not, if you’re going to open the two roads up, to just hold off until you’re completely done, built out? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. We certainly can leave the road closed off, and we can certainly direct all the drivers and workers not to access on the Town road. I mean, we, unfortunately, sometimes get enough grief when we build these developments with mud on roads and everything else. I see no reason, unless it’s an absolute emergency, that we would have to access that road, but, I mean, I guess for the record we will do everything in our power to keep the trucks off the, out of the subdivision, have them enter and exit on Bay Road. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess the question is, Rich, why couldn’t you just make that cut through the very last thing you do in that subdivision? MR. LAPPER-Let me address that. There’s two issues. Construction trucks, Rich is saying he’ll agree that they’ll come in from Bay, but if everyone on the Planning Board agrees that there’s a safety issue, if you’ve got half the people living there, you could still have somebody break down. I mean, the same issue still applies, that it ought to be attached to the back for safety, for emergency access, whether you have all twenty lot owners, or whether you have ten or whatever. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. NACE-Jon, I think you misinterpret the question. I think, now, Craig, this is the same thing we actually did with the Cerrone subdivision, that connection to Fieldview was made after the rest of the road was constructed and we were ready to make the final tie in and paving. So there wasn’t any through traffic until, or wasn’t any construction traffic, you know, during the main part of the construction only when that tie in was made. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I think that’s where we were going on that. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I guess that’s where we’re going to go. So it’ll all be access for construction purposes, and I remember that, and I think it was you, Tom, that came up with the plan, too, of putting a rip rap right next to the intersection of the road that the trucks were coming out, so the mud and everything else wouldn’t spill out so much onto the main road. MR. NACE-That, with the new stormwater pollution prevention plnas, that has become a standard detail for us. MR. STROUGH-But that was a couple of years ago, and that was a good idea. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to do a SEQRA. MR. STROUGH-Are we going to do a SEQRA now, or at the Final? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I mean, how comfortable does everyone feel moving forward with this to Final, or do you want more questions answered? MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’d be some comments that we ought to give the applicant on, for Final, so t that he knows what we’re thinking. I’ve got some. MR. SCHACHNER-Mr. Chairman, correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought you indicated earlier that you’re leaving the public hearing open, at least throughout the meeting, and I think at least one member of the public wanted to say something and hasn’t had an opportunity. So I’m not sure where you’re headed, but if you’re starting to talk about closing the public hearing, I wanted to make that comment. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re in discussion right now. MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to have discussion now? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I want to get everybody’s feelings on how comfortable or uncomfortable they are at this stage, and where we’re going to go. MR. STROUGH-Well, we’re going to do Preliminary, and I think Bob’s got a list for the developer to address, and we’ll do. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, there’s a couple of steps here. We’ve got the public hearing open. So if there’s more comments to be made, if people want to make comments. If we do a SEQRA, I have to close the public hearing. So there’ll be no more comments. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think we should hold off on the SEQRA. MR. STROUGH-Yes. Let’s hold off. Let’s get the rest of the public comments. MR. VOLLARO-The public wants to continue to comment now? MR. MAC EWAN-From the Board’s standpoint, though. I mean, how does the Board feel? Are there outstanding issues you want to see addressed? 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-I can go down through what I have written down, and we can, and the Board can discuss some of my questions, if they’d like. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, run them off. MR. VOLLARO-Of course there’s got to be a response and a signoff to the C.T. Male letter. That’s something I know you’ve got to do. You’ve got to change the name on the drawing from Sherman Avenue to Schermerhorn Bay Road. Tom, you said you would look into a boulevard entrance, at least examine what the feasibility of that might be, without disrupting the two lots engaging that boulevard. My understanding is there’ll be a landscaping package with the sale of the house. So that takes care of our landscaping questions, I believe. The deed will have a maintenance easement concerning the detention pond between Lots 14 and 15. That’s something we discussed. Lot 19 would be defined, I guess, finally by your discussions with the Town as to whether this would be taken over by the Town or by the Conservancy, one or the other. I think that still has to be resolved, and I think those are the end of my notes, Mr. Chairman. If the Board wants to comment on any of those and have a discussion on any of those, that’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-George? MR. HILTON-As far as any comments concerning the boulevard entrance and interconnection, I would suggest that some kind of comment from the Highway Department be provided, if not now, at the time of Final, somewhere along the line. MR. VOLLARO-Would you make that, in other words, when you do the Final, you would ask Mr. Missita to make a comment on this? MR. HILTON-Well, he’d have to sign off on it anyway, but I’m suggesting that the Board entertain, at least, trying to get some kind of comment to consider for your review on those two issues. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-You can’t grant an approval unless you’ve done a SEQRA, or denial. Any other concerns? MRS. LA BOMBARD-But if we do a SEQRA on Preliminary, then you have to close the public hearing. MR. MAC EWAN-That is correct. So before I do that, I’m going to invite the public one more time to make comment. MR. VOLLARO-I think that would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, let the public come up. MR. MAC EWAN-These guys are reading my mind. Now’s your chance. MRS. HURLEY-One thing I wanted to clarify about the school coming in, since that has been mentioned a couple of times. The school already has a way to come in and out of the development. They can come in through Stonehurst and go out through Bayberry Meadows. There’s already a loop there, that the school will not come in. This actually is going to make a shorter distance that the kids have to walk. We’re the farthest house, right now, and we’re like 100 steps short from them coming in. This is going to actually make us closer to Bay Road, because we’re going to have that other entrance. So they won’t come in. This isn’t going to make any impact on the school bus having easier access in and out. That’s not going to make the difference. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-My whole thought process, I’ve been saying it all night long, is emergency access, and that’s what I’m more concerned about than anything else, fire trucks, ambulances being able to get in there. MRS. HURLEY-Emergency access for who though, for us or for the new development? MR. MAC EWAN-For you people as residents. You’re the ones that live there. MRS. HURLEY-But if this development wasn’t there, we still would, you know. MR. MAC EWAN-Then we wouldn’t be doing our job. MRS. HURLEY-If the new development wasn’t there, then emergency vehicles still could have gotten to us. We still have two entrances. MR. STROUGH-Well, if Fieldview South were blocked by an auto accident, they wouldn’t be able to get to you, if there wasn’t another access. MRS. HURLEY-But if the development wasn’t going in, we’d still have the same thing. MR. STROUGH-That’s one thing, we look at interconnecting in management of these communities and I agree with the Chairman. I mean, this is a public safety issue. MRS. HURLEY-Okay. ANN MARIE CONBOY MS. CONBOY-Hi. My name is Ann Marie Conboy. I live the third house from Cindy, and what about making a road that is not, anybody can’t drive except for emergency? Like a one car road, and the only time you can use that road is just for emergency? So we don’t really have any traffic coming through, but there is always access for emergency, put a gate up, something that will open, you know, when they need to go through if they really need to, because I just don’t see why we need that entrance. MR. STROUGH-Well, you’re talking 21 lots here. MS. CONBOY-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Most of these people are going to access their lots from Bay Road. They won’t even drive by you. MS. CONBOY-I know. MR. STROUGH-The only people that are going to drive by you, probably, are people that already are in your own existence and looking for a better route out than they have now. I mean, it’s not a Super Wal-Mart. MS. CONBOY-Why don’t you ask them if they really want a better route out. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s not a Super Wal-Mart. We’re not talking about a large amount of traffic flow here. The numbers are going to be pretty small. MS. CONBOY-No, but still we built our home there because we wanted to live in a cul de sac. So there’s not a lot of traffic, and you’re making a lot of people angry by doing that, putting a second entrance in there, and people are going to, who knows, maybe they’ll want to move. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What’s going to happen is, you people are going to use, probably go through their. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MS. CONBOY-No, we’re not. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, I hope you don’t have the same. MS. CONBOY-Yes, maybe I will if you put it there, but I won’t if you don’t, because I don’t really want to. Maybe I’ll make the other people mad then because there’s going to be more traffic for the new development. The new people, the people that are going to move into the new development are going to see, wow, we’re getting all the traffic from the old development now. So they might get mad at us for going through. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MS. CONBOY-No. I just hope that you hear what we’re saying. We’re going to be very angry with people, you know, with you guys if you’re going to put that second entrance in there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. PATRICK HURLEY MR. HURLEY-Patrick Hurley, Lot 25. Not to beat a dead horse, but you say emergency exits. What about Surrey Fields? They only have one entrance in. MR. MAC EWAN-They have a boulevard in there. It’s a boulevard entrance. Right, in Surrey Fields? Which gives you two accesses to it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. HURLEY-Because they’re one way roads. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. HURLEY-One in, one out. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, it gives you a wider than normal Town road. So that if a portion of it is blocked off, you still have access to get in and out. Do you understand what I’m saying? MR. HURLEY-What about over here on Meadowbrook? MR. MAC EWAN-Over on Meadowbrook? Where on Meadowbrook? MR. HURLEY-Those townhouses going in, Hiland Springs. They have one in and one. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not a Town road. It’s a private drive. I’m not trying to exchange barbs here with you. MR. HURLEY-No, no. That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what it is. It’s a private development. It’s a private road. It’s not a Town road. It’s a commercial entity. MRS. HURLEY-If you’re going to close the public hearing tonight, does that mean you can still write letters, or no? MR. MAC EWAN-The Board’s flexible. If you wrote letters, I’m sure that we would make note of it at our next meeting, although there isn’t a public hearing scheduled. I mean, all the members would get copies of the letters that you would send in, that would come in our next packets. Okay. Anyone else? 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. HURLEY-So because if there’s grass between the roads, that’s okay? For having one entrance in and coming out on a separate road? In Surrey Fields? MR. MAC EWAN-What you’re making is double the road width, is really what you’re doing. MR. HURLEY-Okay. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MR. PAIGE-I don’t want to make this long, but Surrey Fields, there is actually two roads there with something down the middle. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s called a boulevard. MR. PAIGE-Okay. So you’d be able to use those two boulevards, but what about the development right up next to it there, Woodlawn, I believe it is, right straight across here? There’s only one entrance into that one, and that is a public road. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. That was done before, I believe, this subdivision regulation was adopted. The new regulations were adopted, what, two years ago, roughly, a year and a half ago, maybe? MR. SCHACHNER-A little less than that. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-The Woodlands subdivision was done probably about 10 years ago. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Almost eight, about eight. MR. PAIGE-That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Will proposed action affect drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff?” MR. SANFORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-I think there’d be a slight impact there, but it’s being mitigated by the applicant’s engineer, I believe. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Wait a second. You said small to moderate impact. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, but which, I don’t have an EAF in front of me, but where are you putting that, which box? MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re going to check that in the first box. What do you mean what box? 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. SCHACHNER-You have a Part Two Environmental Assessment Form in front of you? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and it’s got small to moderate impact. That’s the first box. MR. SCHACHNER-Under which of the bullet items? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Oh, the bullet items. Excuse me. MR. STROUGH-C-3. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s Number Six on Impact on Water, and the bullet items, okay, here they are, “Proposed action would change flood water flows. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed action is incompatible with the existing drainage patterns”, and the last bullet is “Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway”. I would say, it’s no flood water. How about existing drainage patterns. MR. MAC EWAN-That would be accurate. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“Proposed action is incompatible with the existing drainage patterns”, Mark, we’re on Page Eight. MR. SCHACHNER-Staff doesn’t have a Long Form EAF. I’m just making sure, what you started to do was check a box that didn’t exist. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. Okay. So we will say that as far as. MR. SCHACHNER-You’ve answered the question yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, and the bullet is. MR. SCHACHNER-You’ve checked one of the bullet items in the box labeled small to moderate. Is that correct? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, and it’s going to be, the proposed action is incompatible with the existing drainage patterns, and it can be mitigated by the applicant’s engineering plans. MR. SCHACHNER-Great. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. “Open Space and Recreation Will proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities?” MR. SANFORD-No. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s an interesting question. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, this is more in a negative sense. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What are you on, 13? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. This is what they’re looking for in a negative. For example, the first bullet says, “The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity.” That’s not going to happen. MR. VOLLARO-I think we’re enhancing it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We’re going to enhance it. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. SCHACHNER-It’s correct, as Cathy says, that the goal of the Environmental Assessment Form, generally speaking, is to identify adverse environmental impacts, but what many boards do, in the face of a question like that, because obviously it doesn’t limit it to that in asking the question, is they say yes, but then write under “Other Impacts” something positive or something beneficial, if that’s what you feel the impact will be. That’s a perfectly appropriate way to handle the question if you wish. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So, yes, we could say yes, it would, and put it under the bullet where it says “Other Impacts”, and it could be in a positive way because we’re going to acquire some open space land, one way or another. MR. SANFORD-But aren’t we looking for a negative SEQRA? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, but the thing. MR. SANFORD-So why are we addressing a positive? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well because you can, if you want. MR. SANFORD-Okay, but what’s the benefit of doing that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because it’s a positive comment. MR. SCHACHNER-And then, again, you would characterize that presumably as either, I mean, I’m guessing a small to moderate impact, but you have to check one of the boxes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay, and the box that I would check would be the other impacts where you have a blank space. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That’s not a box. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, that’s a bullet. MR. SCHACHNER-What I’m saying is, under “Other impacts”, you’ve identified the bullet item, and you said something to the effect of, I’m not sure how you want to complete that, but something about positive impact by creating future open space, but what I’m saying is you then need to characterize that, and I’m guessing you would do that as small to moderate, but that’s up to you, as a Board. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Small to moderate. Okay, guys. MR. VOLLARO-Small to moderate, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-We beat that one up. Okay. “Impact on Public Health and Safety Will proposed action affect public health and safety?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait, back up. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I hear you. You think it’s going to affect public health and safety? MR. SANFORD-If you do a connector road, you’re potentially improving, positive impact. MR. MAC EWAN-And the other side of the coin is if you don’t, does that impact? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think it depends on who you’re talking to. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s right. That’s why we’re asking the question. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, here’s some bullets. “Proposed action may cause a risk of explosion of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission.” “Proposed action may result in the burial of ‘hazardous wastes’ in any form”. “Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquefied natural gas or other flammable liquids.” Or, “Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste.” So, if you don’t like any of those, you have to write your own in. Will proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. MAC EWAN-Say no. MR. VOLLARO-I say no. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I say no. MR. SANFORD-I say no. MR. STROUGH-Not adversely, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And then, “Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community?” Now, I think I would have to say yes here. MR. MAC EWAN-No. They’re building houses. MR. STROUGH-The compatible use is just a continuation of the same type of use in the same area. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. All right, guys, you’ve got it. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, 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. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) 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 18 day of March, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The big issue, I guess, is the cul de sac, and what to do. Let me take an informal poll, starting with Mr. Strough. MR. STROUGH-Keep the cul de sac. MR. MAC EWAN-Keep the cul de sac but not do an interconnect? MR. STROUGH-Keep the cul de sac and do an interconnect. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Vollaro? MR. VOLLARO-Same. MR. MAC EWAN-Mrs. LaBombard? MR. VOLLARO-I’d make one exception to that. That that interconnection doesn’t get made until after the construction is complete to alleviate trucks from going through the neighborhood. MR. MAC EWAN-I understand. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I have to concur with Bob. Keep the cul de sac, and don’t open up the connection until everything is done. MR. LAPPER-Does everything mean the road or the houses? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, the houses. MR. LAPPER-I don’t think that makes sense. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you talking about? MR. LAPPER-If you wait until the last house is done, then all the people, you could have 19 people, 18 people living there that won’t have the benefit of the safety of the double access for emergency vehicles. MR. STROUGH-I was looking at it more or less as you’re pointing out, Jon, with the heavy construction. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, during the road construction. MR. VOLLARO-During the road construction. MR. STROUGH-Because the workers are going to access this from Bay Road. I mean, if I was working on a house, why would I drive all around the neighborhood to get to where I’m working on? MR. LAPPER-We’ll stipulate that construction vehicles will always enter from Bay Road and put up a sign, like the Michaels Group did on Meadowbrook. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Well if that’s the case, then I’m okay about that. MR. STEVES-Just like they did on Waverly, with the entrance road on one end construction vehicles would do that for construction vehicles on this subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the main objective, really, to keep heavy construction vehicles out of the picture. MR. MAC EWAN-What else have we got? Do you have a laundry list there? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I read it off to Tom before. It’s the same list I have that I read off to Mr. Nace. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. He got it already. MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone like to introduce a motion, then, Mr. Vollaro? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll give it a shot. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-2003 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 2-2003 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Albert Oudekerk Type: Unlisted and Howard Toomey, Et Al. Agent: Van Dusen & Steves Zone: SR-1A Location: East side Bay Road opposite Maid Marion Way Applicant proposes a 22 lot residential subdivision. Tax Map No. 289.12-1-8, 9, 10 / 48-3-51.5, 49.1, 51.4 Lot size: 51.45 ac., 41.07 ac., 5.08 ac. Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: March 18, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 2/18/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 3/14/03; and 3/18 Staff Notes 3/11 CT Male engineering comments received 3/11 Notice of Public Hearing 3/5 Meeting Notice 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) 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 March 18, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution as prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The response and signoff by C.T. Male. 2. Change the name on the drawing from Sherman Avenue to Schermerhorn Bay Road. 3. The applicant will look into the boulevard entrance, and he will look into that, and when he comes in with his Final, he will direct his design to this Board. 4. The landscaping package will be sold with the property. 5. The deed will have a maintenance easement concerning the detention pond between Lots 14 and 15, and it’ll run to the Town, for purposes of maintaining that detention pond. I would like to see the language of that to be contained, to make sure that the final owner doesn’t fill that in, and Lot 19 will be defined as to whether this would be taken over by the Town or by the Conservancy, and that’s something that has to be decided before the Final. 6. The applicant will also provide a landscaping plan with their final submission. [Landscaping plan to show landscaping on Lots 8 and 9 for visual screening]. 7. No future subdivision of development of the proposed open space Lot 19 will take place. 8. Language shall be added to the deed for Lot 19 indicating that no future subdivision or development will occur. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2003, by the following vote: MR. VOLLARO-Approved with the following comments. MR. SCHACHNER-Are the comments conditions? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want to condition a Preliminary. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-I want to make them comments so that the applicant has an idea what the Planning Board is thinking on this Preliminary application. The applicant will look into the boulevard entrance. One of the things I wanted to, well, will look into a boulevard entrance. You, obviously, want to look into whether an HOA is something you want to propose here or not? The answer is, no, Homeowners Association? MR. NACE-For what purpose? MR. MAC EWAN-Just keep your comments short, brief, and to what you’re looking to have them do. MR. VOLLARO-Look into a boulevard entrance. That’s basically it. MR. STROUGH-And at the same time, while we’re on that topic, I think we would like the Town Highway Department to review any plan that you do submit. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. METIVIER-Well, time out for one second. What’s the purpose of a boulevard entrance if you’re going to make them cut that road through? MR. VOLLARO-It’s just an aesthetic thing, from my point. MR. METIVIER-So if you’re asking them to do a boulevard entrance, why don’t you still look into the possibility of not breaking the. MR. VOLLARO-You mean not connecting up the road? MR. METIVIER-Yes, because you’re solving your number one problem with a boulevard entrance, and that’s emergency access. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think what Bob is talking about is for aesthetic purposes only. MR. METIVIER-I understand that, but we’ve been arguing. MR. STROUGH-Well, then you’re going to have to continue the boulevard entrance all the way down to the housing project. MR. METIVIER-That’s not true. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not true. MR. STROUGH-Well, a good portion of it. MR. METIVIER-No, that’s not true. MR. MAC EWAN-No. That’s not true, either. I mean, Hudson Pointe, it goes down, what, Hudson Pointe’s probably the longest one, that goes down about 1,000 feet. MR. NACE-Well, Hudson Pointe, Surrey Field, most of them go into a point where the road system breaks off into a loop, okay, into a place where you have alternatives to go. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I think in this case, what the applicant will do, the Planning Board has asked the applicant to look into a boulevard entrance. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: Mr. Metivier ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you on next month? So these people know? MR. LAPPER-No. We’ll be back in May. MR. MAC EWAN-May? MR. NACE-We’ll be submitting in May. SUBDIVISION NO. 6-2003 SKETCH PLAN SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED *NO SEQR REQUIRED HAYES & HAYES PROPERTY OWNER: DENNIS & ERIN MILLER AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF DIXON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 12 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. CROSS REFERENCE: 2 LOT ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION TAX MAP NO. 302.14-1-79 LOT SIZE: 9.08 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS JON LAPPER, MATT STEVES, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there’s no public hearing for Sketch. MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes? MR. HILTON-As previously mentioned, the subdivision, which is at Sketch Plan, proposes 13 single family lots. The zoning here is SFR-20, which requires 20,000 square foot lots. All lots conform to the area requirements of the zoning district. The proposed cul de sac that’s part of the subdivision conforms to the 1,000 foot limit in the Subdivision Regulations for dead end streets. Stormwater management and grading plans will be reviewed at Preliminary plat. Made mention about a New York State sound study, which at the time of the writing of these notes we didn’t have a copy of. We do now, and we will be looking at that, just for some recommendations. They did a study on noise impacts along the Northway and just to bring the Board up to speed, and the applicant, we will be looking at that and possibly have some comments at the time of Preliminary, and it’s anticipated that this action will be a SEQRA Unlisted Action and a Long Form EAF will be required at the time of Preliminary plat. That’s all I have. MR. VOLLARO-George, can you just give me a little insight of what was the decibel reading alongside the Northway for that report? Did you happen to look it up? MR. HILTON-I have not. We just received the report the other day, and I haven’t had a chance to really get in-depth with it. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. HILTON-That’s all I have. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Nace, Matt Steves. The Staff notes pointed out that these lots conform to the Subdivision Reg’s in all respects. The only interesting issue that was raised was the buffer issue. What we’ll propose when we’re back at Preliminary is a no cut zone for the existing vegetation which is fairly dense along the Northway. It’s not on the entire site, but most of it does have that dense vegetation on that side. So we’ll have a proposal for restrictive covenant in all the deeds along the Northway, that there would have to be maintained that existing vegetation, and there’s also that 100 foot buffer that’s outside of the property between the Northway property line and this project. MR. STEVES-It’s actually a State taking. They went through, on the Northway where they could, back about 20 years or so ago, and created what’s called a 100 foot scenic and noise enhancement zone, on either side of the Northway, similar to what buffers on the Hidden Hills side. That’s that strip you see along there are westerly bounds, and behind the existing house where it jogged back to the original Northway bounds because of the fact that the house was there. So therefore they jogged around that. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Steves is this dotted line the Northway? MR. STEVES-That was the original Northway boundary. That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you want to go through it? MR. STEVES-Okay. This is property located on the south side of Dixon Road, just east of the Northway and the overpass with Dixon. It’s currently, the first half of the property, northerly half, is kind of an open field with some sparse, patchy woods, as shown on the plan, a fairly level site. We’re proposing 12 single family homes along a cul de sac, all of them with the approximately 160 foot frontage, until you hit the cul de sac, and I think we go down to about 85 at the shallowest one, or narrowest one on the cul de sac, but still fairly wide lots on the cul de sac, all single family as we were saying, all meet the zoning. That’s pretty much it. We’ll be back with Preliminary with stormwater, road profiles, all the engineering. MR. LAPPER-I just want to point out that the agenda says that it’s owned by the Millers because that’s what the tax map still showed as of that time, but I submitted the deed to George that Hayes and Hayes has closed on the purchase. So they’re now the owners. MR. STEVES-Right. Miller is only the owner of what is shown as Lot A on the property. MR. LAPPER-Right. They kept the house. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Can I ask a question about Lot 6? Is that just large because of its location, it’s the only way it can be configured in there? Or is there any reason why you can’t build on it? MR. NACE-Yes, there is a bit of a reason. There’s an area of high groundwater table that’s fairly narrow, but traverses the property back about where that ditch line is shown. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. NACE-And behind that there’s some usable land. So Lot 6, the house will be located somewhere back to the south of the ditch line, but it’s a fairly deep lot. So there’s still substantial area around there for buffering and for, you know, woods to remain. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Bob? 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, just, this is going to be on site septic I would guess? MR. NACE-Yes, it is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is this within the water district? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It is. So it’s just on site septic. MR. NACE-Just on site septic. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Other than that, I don’t have any further questions. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But what about the size of the homes here? The lots are smaller than what we’ve seen all evening. MR. NACE-They’re half acre lots. Some of them are bigger than half acre. I live on a half acre lot. I’ve got a 2400 square foot house. So, you know, it’s possible, it’s with on site septic and municipal water. I don’t know exactly what size house Mickie intends to build. MR. LAPPER-We’ll have the Hayes with us next time, but I can tell you what they’re building in Queensbury generally is over 2,000 square feet, and what the market is right now. MR. VOLLARO-Does Mr. Hayes expect to make a Homeowners Association out of this, or is this just a straight purchase? MR. LAPPER-Just a straight, own the fee and the Town will own the road. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, the problem that plagued me, bothered me about this project from the very beginning is it’s next to the Northway. So I went and did a little research, and here’s what I found. First of all let me say that two or three times it states in the federal papers, as well as other miscellaneous things, don’t locate a development next to a major highway, period. It says it’s a bad thing, try not to do that, but I’ll come across that, but here’s what I found in some of these, this first article it says that studies have shown that the exhaust from cars, trucks, buses may impact the nearby environments and residences. Noise and vibration may affect nearby residential developments, heavy traffic can create potentially dangerous situations. Air quality is an issue with residential areas adjacent to highways. Gaseous, particulate pollutants, pollutants include nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, total hydrocarbons, but you’ll also have a dust issue, especially during the winter and during a dry spell. You can sometimes get haze near there. There’s particulate matter with trace elements, aldehydes, ketones, polycylicaeromatic hydrocarbons. All these are going to impact adjacent residences. Then there is a transportation cost and benefit analysis done, and that’s here in this article, and in that article, it says motor vehicles cause various types of noise, engine acceleration, tire, road contact, braking, horns, etc. Heavy vehicles cause vibration and infra sound low frequency noise impacts. Trucks, buses, motorcycles are major contributors to traffic noise at low speeds most noise comes from vehicle engine and drive frame. At higher speeds aerodynamic and tire and road noise dominate, noise increases with speed and density. This study goes on to compare the sale price of homes with noise exposure levels, and it says, you know, you can expect up to a 25% decrease in a home value next to an area of high noise, and it goes into detail. I’m going to skip a lot of that. The third article is from a highway traffic noise in the United States problem and response. Noise can affect the quality of life. It can be annoying. It can interfere with sleep, work, recreation. It can cause physical and psychological damage. Federal agencies encourage state and local governments to protect land use planning and control in the vicinities of highways. The Federal government advocates that local governments 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) use their power to regulate land development in such a way that noise is not an issue and they suggest prohibit any kind of development adjacent to a highway, and it goes on. MR. MAC EWAN-Where did you say you got this information, John? MR. STROUGH-From these articles right here. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, I know, but from where though? MR. NACE-The Federal Highway Administration? MRS. LA BOMBARD-The EPA? MR. STROUGH-This is the U.S. Department of Transportation. This is the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration office of Environmental and Planning Noise and Air Quality branch, Washington, D.C. 21995. MR. NACE-The same Department of our Government who is having to pay for a lot of the sound walls down in New Jersey and in the very populated areas adjacent to very, very, very high traffic roads. Obviously, you know, if they can prevent development next to those roads, they mitigate the cost of having to build barriers, and to a point I agree. MR. STROUGH-And they say that it depends on distance and other factors, but you can expect an average noise level of about 70 decibels living X distance from the thing, and you will experience up to 90 decibel peaks. Especially a problem, they pointed out in the Federal study, if you’re near an incline, and this is near an incline. It goes up to a bridge that goes over Dixon. Any time you’re near an incline, you’re going to get even more noise levels. Doesn’t this go to the bridge over Dixon? MR. NACE-Yes, but it’s about a one percent grade. That incline that I notice is out at Great Escape. You hear trucks coming down off the hill by Great Escape both directions. MR. LAPPER-But your point is well taken, but I guess we’re going to just say that we have a 100 foot buffer you can see from the photograph that it’s pretty heavily wooded. We will come back and propose a no cut zone. MR. STROUGH-Well, how do I know that a 100 foot buffer is going to be enough? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, John, I can tell you right now, the first house we owned was 75 Dixon Road, and it was way farther back from the Northway, and you could hear the Northway all the time, but you couldn’t see it. I mean, we were a good half a mile away, but I think the bottom line is that we’re really coming to the end of developable land in this Town. I mean, here we’re just, I feel that we’re groping. We’ve got a parcel here, we’re going to make the best of it, and get some houses in here, but everything he says, being a chemist myself, everything you’re saying is true. There’s not one thing you’ve said about any of those hydrocarbons or those toxic organic chemicals that isn’t true. MR. STROUGH-And one thing I don’t want to hear from the public again is you approved that? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, but you know, like we said on our site visits, buyer beware, you know. MR. NACE-Well, and I’m not even sure that that needs to be as strong as that. I mean, look across, and the photograph shows it explicitly. Look across at Hidden Hills, okay. The home values in Hidden Hills haven’t decreased specifically because of the Northway. People aren’t moving out of Hidden Hills all the time, and they’ve got just that 100 foot scenic buffer to work with. Their back yards back up on that buffer. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Most of Hidden Hills isn’t this close to the Northway. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it is. They’ve got the 100 foot buffer on the hillside. MR. STROUGH-I worked on houses that are nowhere near, I built two houses in Hidden Hills nowhere near the Northway. There are some, but what I said was most of Hidden Hills isn’t next to the Northway. MR. STEVES-There’s actually more houses in Hidden Hills that border the Northway than this project. MR. STROUGH-And I’ve heard the complaints in Hidden Hills about the noise affecting, standing in their back yard and they can’t hold a conversation with somebody. MR. MAC EWAN-But, you know, that goes back to comment that Cathy made, John, and she’s absolutely right. Buyer beware. MR. STROUGH-That’s fine, buyer beware, but, you know. MR. STEVES-Personally, John, I live in Hidden Hills, and I love the neighborhood. Okay, and you’re talking about house values. I have a 1400 square foot cape across the street from me that just sold for $161,000 two months ago. So I don’t hardly think that the land values in that area are hurt by this, and if you’re asking if people want to move in, that place was on the market two days. So, I don’t want to say anything more about it. MR. STROUGH-I have concerns about the air quality, vibration, the odors, the dust, the noise, and the impacts. I didn’t approve Hidden Hills. MR. LAPPER-I guess I want to just point out that the Town Board just rezoned this from Land Conservation 42 to SFR-20 within the last two years. So this is designated for this. MR. STROUGH-Well, I think we’ve made mistakes before, and this is another one. MR. LAPPER-Well, I mean, it’s not for everybody. I wouldn’t want to live 100 feet from the Northway, either, for the noise issue, but obviously it doesn’t matter to a lot of people. MR. SANFORD-Well, John, I think part of the problem is they might purchase a house there and then later realize what kind of an inconvenience or a problem they have. MR. LAPPER-It’s not like it’s a secret that you’re buying next to the Northway. MR. SANFORD-Well, no, but unless you’ve lived there for a while you might not realize just what it’s like. I don’t know exactly where we go with this, but I think John Strough makes some valid points. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, when we went in there on Saturday, on Griffing Place, so we could see the other side, the back end, it was, you would have to be deaf not to realize that the Northway was an adverse impact. So I think that anybody that goes in there, walks the lot, you know, they’re going to, they’ll be able to choose and decide for themselves. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. SANFORD-Well, Cathy, you know, I’ve got a Grandfather Clock and everybody thinks it’s charming when you come over and visit, but when you’re trying to sleep, night after night, it’s not, you either get used to it or you hate it. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true. I grew up with one of those in my house. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. NACE-I had a house with a bedroom right back, 15 feet from Bay Road, or Bay Street down in the City, and I moved in from Granville out in the country, and it took me maybe a month, but after that, I never noticed the traffic. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, if it’s been rezoned. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I think if somebody was going to buy in there, they’re going to decide, or at least realize the Northway is there. It’s not a hidden secret. It has been there a long time, and the people in Hidden Hills/Dixon Heights, the Northway was there before them, too. I just don’t foresee there being a problem with it. Sorry, but I just don’t. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s not only the noise that I’m talking about. The other issues that you haven’t addressed are the air quality, the vibration, the dust. It’s not just the noise. It’s other things that you might not realize until after you live in the house for a while, where is all this dust coming from, well, it’s coming from the Northway. What’s that smell and odor, well, that’s coming from the Northway, and how about the pollutants in the air. Don’t we have a public safety issue here, and aren’t we in charge of public safety? I say so. So, that’s the way I see it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-All right. Craig’s going to tell us what we missed. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, I just can’t believe all you guys missed the whole effect of a boulevard. I mean, that’s what we’ve been talking about for the last application, until we’re blue in the face, and here’s a perfect example where one should be used. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, we have the cul de sac that’s not very far in. MR. NACE-Yes, this is 900 feet back in. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s why I didn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-Why not double the road width, then, for, you know, the first 150 feet or so. MR. SANFORD-The lots would be too small. MR. MAC EWAN-It goes back to Cathy’s comment about less than desirable land being available to develop in Queensbury. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The lots are narrow as it is, and is there going to be, impacting these other. MR. STROUGH-I don’t know. I think Craig has got a valid point. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But it’s only a few lots, but you’ve got a point, Craig. MR. LAPPER-We see this as a really simple subdivision that conforms to the Code in every respect. It is next to the Northway, and that’s a real issue, but, you know, people are going to buy it if they want to be there or not buy it if they don’t want to be there. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you address the effect of not having a boulevard? Or a portion of the main entrance coming in that’s wider for access for emergency vehicles? That’s something we’ve been discussing in depth tonight with other applications. Why should we treat this one differently? 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-The reason we did that, Craig, the way I looked at it, it was a fairly short shot. That’s why I didn’t mention it, and because the lots themselves will have to be, some of that Lots 12 and Lot 1 would have to be sacrificed considerably. MR. MAC EWAN-Does it go back to the philosophy, you know, of trying to put 10 pounds of cantaloupe in a 5 pound bag? MR. VOLLARO-Now I think you’re getting close to the issue. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, that’s the point. As we see land, and we’ve been talking about this for months, as a Board, that we see land as being. MR. LAPPER-Look what’s on that photo. It’s exactly, what we’re proposing is exactly what’s there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re right. It conforms. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re proposing to use the land exactly that’s there. MR. LAPPER-No, I mean, look at the subdivisions that are there, what’s already built. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-But we can’t deal with something that was done 35, 40 years ago, Jon. We deal with the Ordinance that’s in front of us today. MR. NACE-I think, Craig, with this boulevard entrance thing, I know at least historically the way we’ve addressed that is once you get up over 1,000 feet, now, you do have a safety issue because, typically, you get over that, you’re starting to accumulate enough lots that there’s more and more potential for emergency situations. So, typically, we’ve only used that boulevard where we’ve had, for some reason or another, to go over 1,000 feet in order to access the property correctly. MR. MAC EWAN-So if that road becomes blocked at any given time, how do you gain access to the back parcel, if you have to? MR. NACE-The same way as you do, I mean, I guess you could argue this boulevard thing many different ways, but typically, emergency access vehicles will get to where they’ve got to go, regardless of whether it’s a boulevard or a single road. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there something you can do in your design to widen it somewhat and taper it back? MRS. LA BOMBARD-You could, right here on the west end, as you’re coming in, that little part there, you have the latitude there to do something. MR. NACE-For the length of Lot 12 we could widen the road some. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right, on 12 you could. MR. NACE-I’m not sure that it really accomplishes any specific purpose. I mean, talk to some of the emergency crews that serve the North Country and there are miles and miles and miles of Town road, 20 feet wide, that are dead ended. MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ll have the Highway Department, emergency services review this. MR. LAPPER-That’s fair. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. NACE-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other comments from Board members? MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going to echo what Cathy said before. I think what we’re beginning to see as a Board is we’re beginning to get proposals for, yes, it’s within the Code, yes, everything is right, but I think Mr. Strough has a point, you know, that there are planning groups that tell us that this is really not the thing to do, and buyer beware, sure, people will come in and probably buy those lots, but I think that we have an obligation as a Board to look very carefully at what’s happening, because there is a finite amount of land left to develop in Queensbury, and we’re beginning to see that as a Board. We discussed that. MR. STROUGH-You know, one of these studies, there was a recommended distance to stay away from highways, and I’m trying to find it now, and I can’t, but this is 82 pages and I’m not sure if this is the one, but there is a recommended distance. How far away would the back lot of Lots Nine, Eight, etc. be from the Northway, how far away? MR. NACE-Nine, eight, from the Northway lane itself? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. NACE-I don’t know. You didn’t locate the lane, did you? MR. VOLLARO-It’s one to fifty. MR. STROUGH-So about 150 feet to the Northway itself? MR. VOLLARO-It’s about 150 feet to that Northway line. MR. LAPPER-Plus the setback on the property, the buffer on the property. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and I’m sure the distance from. MR. NACE-It’s about 160 or 170 feet to the property line from the pavement. MR. STROUGH-I think the study exceeded that by quite a bit. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. From personal observation, this one doesn’t give me the warm and fuzzies. It really doesn’t, and I don’t know what can be done to improve its layout or improve its accessibility. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think there’s a risk on the part of the developer. The Hayes brothers have really got a, they’re going to have to deal with this, as well as the buyer. MR. MAC EWAN-We’re going to have to deal with it first. You have to deal with it in the sense that you’re going to be comfortable with it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m comfortable with the layout. I’m comfortable with the fact that it meets the zone. I’m uncomfortable with the fact that it’s close to the Northway, and uncomfortable with the things that Mr. Strough has just pointed out. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You can’t have everything. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s where I’m at, but I would let the thing come to at Preliminary, and the applicants have heard what we have to say, and they’ll have to take that into consideration and they’re developing their Preliminary. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. So when are you coming back? 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. NACE-It’s been submitted for April. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-If it’s been submitted, what are you going to do about the front of that? Are you going to try to re-widen it? MR. NACE-I’ll look at, see if I can re-widen it and submit a supplemental plan as soon as I can get it available. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT – FWW 2-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: PO LOCATION: MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONDUCT/CAUSE A REGULATED ACTIVITY ON OR ADJACENT TO A FRESHWATER WETLAND PURSUANT TO FRESHWATER WETLANDS PROTECTION LAW, LOCAL LAW 1, 1976 – NYS DEC GF-23. TOTAL AREA OF WETLAND: 12.62 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: NYS DEC PERMIT #50-84-0190 TAX MAP NO.: PART F 296.12-2-24 LOT SIZE: 39.6 ACRES SECTION: 179-6-100 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is a public hearing tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Freshwater Wetlands Permit – FWW 2-2003, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: March 18, 2003 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct 128 multifamily units in 16 multifamily residential buildings on an approximately 39.6 acre property. Some disturbance is proposed within 100 ft. of existing NYSDEC and ACOE wetlands. A portion of the proposed access drive will be constructed within a small portion of an existing NYSDEC wetland (.04 Acres). Staff review and comments are based on consideration of the criteria for considering a Freshwater Wetlands Permit according to Section 179-6-100 E of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance. Staff comments: The applicant’s proposal requires a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit due to the fact that disturbance and/or construction is proposed within 100 ft. of a freshwater wetland. The applicant proposes to disturb some areas within 100 ft. of NYSDEC wetlands and ACOE wetlands by constructing stormwater management basins and installing some piping to direct stormwater. The plan also indicates a .04 acre disturbance at the eastern edge of the property that would directly impact a NYSDEC wetland. This direct wetland disturbance is required in order to provide vehicular access to Meadowbrook Rd. § 179-6-100 E (2) outlines the requirements for granting a Town of Queensbury Freshwater Wetlands Permit. In regards to § 179-6-100 E (2) it is Staff’s opinion that the applicant’s proposal is consistent with the Town’s stated goals of protecting freshwater wetlands and their benefits. The overall site plan indicates wetland creation/mitigation on the west side of the property and the only direct disturbance of an actual wetland appears to be the .04 acre area to be used as a proposed private road entrance. The amount of construction within regulated buffer areas appears minimal and limited to stormwater basins and some stormwater management infrastructure. Staff believes 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) the proposed activity is compatible with the public health and welfare. The proposed activity appears to be reasonable and necessary in that no other alternatives for providing vehicular access exist due to the amount and location of other wetlands on site. The Town’s Zoning Ordinance requires that all freshwater wetlands permits granted by the Planning Board contain the conditions listed in § 179-6-100 F (2) of the Zoning Code. A reference to this section of the Zoning Ordinance has been included in the prepared resolution for this item. Staff suggests that a condition be added to any approval stating that the applicant will apply for and receive a NYSDEC wetlands permit and that any conditions of the NYSDEC permit be included as part of the granting of a Town Freshwater Wetlands permit. Additionally, Staff recommends that an ACOE non-jurisdictional determination be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction on this site. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted, applicant has submitted a short form EAF.” MR. HILTON-This is the first part of the review of a site plan for a multifamily development on Meadowbrook Road. This Freshwater Wetlands permit is required because the applicant is proposing disturbance and/or construction within 100 feet of an existing New York State DEC and Army Corps wetland. For the most part, it appears that construction is limited to just basin, stormwater basins and infrastructure, with the exception of a .04 acre actual physical disturbance of wetland for a private road entrance off of Meadowbrook Road. As noted in my notes, Section 179-6-100(E2) outlines the requirements for approval. It appears that this is consistent with the Town’s stated goals of protecting Freshwater Wetlands. It’s minimal in nature, and is reasonable and necessary in that no other alternatives appear to exist for access along Meadowbrook Road. The Planning Staff suggests a couple of conditions, one that the applicant will apply for and receive a New York State DEC Wetlands permit, and that any conditions of the New York State permit be included as part of the granting of the Town Freshwater Wetlands permit, and also that an Army Corps of Engineers non-jurisdictional determination or a permit be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for any construction on this site, and this is an Unlisted Action, with a Short Form that’s been attached. That’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-He did submit a Short Form? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn, Tom Nace for the record. This is the first part, the Freshwater Wetlands permit, and then we’ll move on to the site plan. This entire residential project was designed to stay away from any wetland impacts and this very small, .04 acre wetland impact was required because it was the only way to get access to Meadowbrook Road. Tom picked the location for that driveway that was as far away from the wetland as possible. It was a very small disturbance. We do have the Army Corps jurisdictional determination. We have the Army Corps permit for the whole project. MR. NACE-Do you want me to walk through what it is we’re doing with the wetlands, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, go ahead. MR. NACE-Okay. As you’ll recall, the entire site with the subdivision over on Bay Road, we went through last summer with the Army Corps and with DEC to delineate the wetlands, with the subdivision, we were impacting some Corps wetlands, and with that we worked with the Corps and got a permit from the Corps, or got their authorization to work under one of their Nationwide Permits, with specific conditions for us that allowed us to disturb wetland over 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) there where we were crossing the stream, and to disturb this little piece of wetland here where we knew we were eventually going to have to get access to Meadowbrook Road. With that permit, the Corps required us to take two pieces of existing Corps and DEC wetland, being this piece up here in the northeast corner and the piece down here in the southwest corner and connect those two pieces with a piece of creative wetland that is part of our permit. We’ve got to come in here and dig this down, seed and put in wetland plants and create a wetland strip in that area. I think if you remember when we were modifying the subdivision, that was one of the constraints we had to work with, with the new outline or with the new layout for the subdivision. Now what we’re doing, this apartment complex, we had shown to DEC and to the Corps of Engineers so they knew this was coming, and as I said, we already have the Corps of Engineers permit for this. We have applied for the DEC permit to allow us to do some of the activities, mostly grading and stormwater management, within the 100 foot buffer from DEC wetlands. Okay. The Corps simply, well, let me back up. The Corps and DEC, in this instance, have agreed to the same wetland delineation for wetlands on the side of the project. The Corps allows us to go right up to the wetland with any disturbance. DEC requires a 100 foot buffer for any disturbance. So our permit at this point is simply to DEC for disturbance within that buffer. Also one of the things I should mention is that in our Corps permit, one of the other requirements was that, if you look and see these existing mapped wetlands form a lot of fingers, fairly narrow fingers. They ask us to take some of the upland areas in the middle of those fingers and deed restrict them so that no disturbance would ever be done in the future to those areas, okay, and those are these little pieces like here you see filled in, here, here, here, this whole big upland area up here, these upland areas up here. So we’ve agreed that those will remain natural, will not be disturbed with any future development. So that’s where we stand. We’re currently going through the DEC process to get the permit. Our disturbance within the buffer is mainly for the grading of the stormwater detention basins, and for the access road. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you point, Tom, to aerial photograph, primarily the area that you plan on developing? Isn’t it the lower half of that parcel? MR. NACE –Okay. Well, here, yes. Their road is coming in right about here, coming down. The main apartment complex is right in here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-So just again, the Town permit, Freshwater Wetlands permit, is just for the .04 acre disturbance for that entrance drive, and as Tom said, that’s being mitigated by the creation of the wetland to connect the other two wetland areas in the middle of the site. MR. MAC EWAN-Questions? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The Freshwater permit itself is basically in answer to the DEC 100 foot restriction? This is the Freshwater Wetlands permit from the Town? MR. LAPPER-The Town. MR. VOLLARO-Is really against the DEC requirement of 100 feet? MR. NACE-The Town regulations are in parallel with DEC. MR. VOLLARO-With DEC. Okay. I looked at this, I do have some questions on it, though. MR. MAC EWAN-Relative to the permit? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, relative to the permit, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-Particularly with the proposed resolution relative to the permit. It talks in here about, in the second resolve on Page Two of the prepared motion, it says, and I’ll get into that, the second resolves talks, on Page Three I think it is, of that, the applicant will submit an ACOE, a non-jurisdictional letter prior to the issuance of the first building, the word should be “permit” in there, by the way. MR. HILTON-It should probably be “or permit”. MR. VOLLARO-Building permit, or building permit. MR. HILTON-Yes, you’re correct, at the end. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-What is the objective, what is our objective to getting a non-jurisdictional letter from, because they seem to be very jurisdictional, to me. When they first got into this program half a year ago it changed this site plan completely. MR. NACE-Can I address that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-We’ve already submitted. There is no non-jurisdictional letter we’ll get. They are jurisdictional. They’ve issued us an authorization to use one of their Nationwide Permits with their specific conditions on it, and we’ve submitted a copy of that correspondence with the Corps allowing us to use that Permit. MR. LAPPER-Submitted to the Town. MR. NACE-Submitted to the Town. MR. VOLLARO-Submitted to the Town. Yes, when I saw non-jurisdictional, I thought that was very jurisdictional. MR. HILTON-Yes, no, absolutely, and that should read non-jurisdictional letter or permit. In this case you’re correct. A permit is required, and a permit should be supplied. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, or permit. MR. SCHACHNER-Do you want to make that or authorization? Because my understanding is, correct me I’m wrong, but aren’t you coming under a Nationwide Permit here? MR. NACE-Yes, it is authorization. MR. SCHACHNER-So, just so the Board understands, what you really get from the Army Corps, and I think the applicant’s already obtained this. I think I saw a copy of it, that you don’t get, the applicant does not have and will not get what I call a project specific or site specific permit. What they have is an authorization, what I call an authorization from the Army Corps of Engineers allowing them to proceed with the work under what’s called a Nationwide Permit. That’s my understanding. MR. NACE-Absolutely. MR. STROUGH-Is that the same thing as non-jurisdictional? MR. SCHACHNER-No, it’s not. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. NACE-No. MR. SCHACHNER-Non-jurisdictional means, as you know, that the Army Corps doesn’t have anything to say about it, but it’s neither non-jurisdictional nor is it a site specific or project specific permit. The Army Corps of Engineers has issued a series of about a dozen or thirteen or so Nationwide Permits which basically work by way of, if an activity falls within the scope of what’s described, then instead of getting a project specific or site specific permit, you get an authorization to proceed with the work under what’s called a Nationwide Permit, and I think this is that sort of work, and I think this is the sort of authorization they have. MR. STROUGH-You’ve already got the Nationwide Permit? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-They’ve got the authorization. MR. VOLLARO-They got the authorization. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct, and that’s all they’re going to get. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s all they’re going to get. MR. STROUGH-I’ve often wondered, why doesn’t the Army Corps of Engineers and the New York State DEC get together on these wetlands, so we don’t have to do the double paperwork? MR. NACE-They’re finally starting to do that, not with this same permit, necessarily, but the permit processes are starting to run in parallel and they’re starting to delineate wetlands the same way. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you pay a fee for these? MR. NACE-For what? MR. MAC EWAN-To make an application for these permits? MR. NACE-No. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no fee involved? MR. NACE-No. MR. LAPPER-Just for the consultant to map out the wetland. MR. STROUGH-Well, but it would be nice if they got on the same page on this. MR. NACE-I think so. It’s better than it was five years ago. Mark doesn’t necessarily agree with me. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-One last question, Mr. Chairman, and that’s on the application itself, Page One, under information about the project, item four, I see where it says, Will the project require any other Federal, State or Local permits, and one says the Town site plan, which they’re going to be showing us soon, and the other is a sewer district extension, which I believe is no longer applicable. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-We could either do it as a district extension or a contract use. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but here it says the project will require a sewer district extension and as a contract user, Rich doesn’t need a sewer district extension to operate. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Isn’t that correct? MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So I think we could delete from Number Four sewer district extension. MR. LAPPER-Either way we’re going to be hooking up to the Hiland sewer line. It’s just a procedural issue as to which way we go, and, yes, we’re planning to do the contract user. MR. VOLLARO-In my world, I guess, in yours too, sewer district extensions mean map plan and report, etc., and this is not going to require. MR. LAPPER-That’s right, because it only services his private complex, we can do it as a contract user, and it’s just a similar procedure as the last time. MR. VOLLARO-I guess, should this be in or out in the application? MR. LAPPER-Probably it should say that, or a contract user. MR. VOLLARO-Or contract user? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Tom has the application. MR. SCHACHNER-How about out of district contract user? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That’s good. Or out of district contract user. MR. MAC EWAN-What else have you got, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-That’s the end of my comments, Mr. Chairman. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Now, I’ve highlighted the disturbed areas. Now this is what DEC looked at, right? MR. NACE-That’s correct. That’s disturbance to the buffer. MR. STROUGH-Now, when DEC looks at that, they’ll assess what’s going to be the future use? I mean, what I’m a little bit worried about is will they address the fact that maybe fertilizers will be used on these and there might be stormwater runoff into the wetlands? MR. NACE-Yes, they will. MR. STROUGH-Will they address that? The only thing, like I say, I wish they’d make it easier, get these wetlands together, the wetland, to me is a wetland. I think they should get together and agree on it. MR. NACE-At least we aren’t in the Park Agency. 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Where it would be even tougher, I guess. MR. NACE-Well, different. MR. STROUGH-That’s it for me, Mr. Chairman. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Just about the wetlands? Is that all we’re talking about right now? MR. MAC EWAN-All we’re talking about right now is the wetland permit. MR. SANFORD-It seems like a highly sensitive area to me. I guess, you know, the agency’s fallen in line, though, is what I’m hearing, but. MR. MAC EWAN-Part of the mitigation to the impact is improvement to the wetlands. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. NACE-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-So there’s a plus that comes out of this. MR. STROUGH-Are we going to see the plan that you’re going to propose at all, for that, the mitigation proposal that we construct the wetland, I mean, when we get to Final? MR. NACE-It’s already been. MR. STROUGH-Submitted? MR. NACE-Yes. You looked at it as part of the package, I believe, with the modification of the subdivision. MR. STROUGH-You mentioned you’re going to have to dig it out, re-plant it. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. STROUGH-I just find that interesting. MR. NACE-I’d be glad to get you copies, sure. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Give up the table for a couple of minutes, we’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this permit application process? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, I have a procedural question. I’ve heard a couple of you say we’re only talking about the Freshwater Wetlands permit right now, and I know that’s the first item of the two on the agenda, but remember that when you conduct your SEQRA review, that’s going to be on the entire project. I don’t care, but you can have comments from Board members and/or public on both if you wish to. I’m just making sure you know you have that option. 78 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I was going to ask you about that. I’d rather hold off and do the SEQRA when we do the site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but you understand you can’t decide on the Freshwater Wetlands permit until you do the SEQRA review, one SEQRA review for both. We’ve talked about this before. MR. MAC EWAN-We can’t do the SEQRA until we do the site plan. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. That’s the reason for my interjection was you might want to have either, you’re going to have to do one of two things, either open both public hearings and have them together and debate all this at once, or, hold off on your Wetlands determination until you get involved in the site plan discussion, so that you can have one SEQRA review, meaningfully, for the entire project. MR. MAC EWAN-The later is the choice I’d rather take. MR. STROUGH-Yes, I agree. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. No comments? All right. I’ll close the public hearing on that. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. So we’re going to move along to Site Plan 15-2003. SITE PLAN NO. 15-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. TOM NACE ZONE: PO LOCATION: MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 128 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN 16 BUILDINGS (16 BLDGS. @ 3,776 = 60,416 SF), ACCESS ROAD, PARKING AND UTILITIES. MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE PO ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: FWW 2-2003, DEC PERMIT, SB 9-2000 TAX MAP NO.: PART OF 296.12-1-24 LOT SIZE: 39.6 ACRES SECTION: 179-4 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 15-2003, Richard Schermerhorn, Meeting Date: March 18, 2003 “Project Description: Applicant proposes to construct 128 multifamily residential units in 16 individual buildings with associated lighting, and landscaping. Multifamily developments require Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. Criteria for considering a Site Plan according to Section 179-9-080 of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance: 1. Does the proposed project comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance? Multifamily residences are allowed in the Professional Office zone with Site Plan Review and approval from the Planning Board. The proposal appears to meet the required dimensional and setback requirements for the PO zone. 79 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) 2. Will the proposed use be in harmony with the intent of the ordinance, specifically, could the location, character and size of the proposed use increase the burden on the supporting public services and facilities? No increased burden on public services and facilities is anticipated as a result of this proposal. 3. Will the proposed use create public hazards with regards to traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the town? Traffic impacts have previously been discussed and addressed during the previous approvals for SB 9-2000. 4. While considering any benefits that might be derived from the project; Will the project have any undue adverse impact on the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resource of the town or Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project? Impacts on wetlands located on the property are being addressed as part of a Freshwater Wetlands Permit application for this proposal. It appears that any impacts can be mitigated and should not have an adverse impact on any natural or environmental resources. Impacts of this type are not anticipated with this application. The following general standards were considered in the staff review of this project: 1. The location, arrangement, size, design and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting and signs. Proposed buildings and lighting and general site design appears appropriate as proposed. 2. The adequacy and arrangement of vehicular traffic access and circulation, including intersections, road widths, pavement surfaces, dividers and traffic controls. Vehicular access will be provided from a private drive off of Meadowbrook Road. Staff will provide additional comment on traffic circulation in the Staff Comments section of these notes. 3. The location, arrangement, appearance and sufficiency of off-street parking and loading. The amount of parking is more than required by the Zoning Ordinance. The location of parking facilities is adequately arranged to serve the proposed residences. 4. The adequacy and arrangement of pedestrian traffic access and circulation, walkway structures, control of intersections with vehicular traffic and overall pedestrian convenience. A pedestrian walkway is proposed on the southern and western portions of this site. Staff will provide additional comment on pedestrian traffic and circulation in the Staff Comments section of these notes. 5. The adequacy of stormwater drainage facilities. 80 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report, which has been forwarded to CT Male for their review. 6. The adequacy of water supply and sewage disposal facilities. Water service will be provided through the municipal water system. The applicant plans to tie into an off site sanitary sewer system. Whether or not the applicant plans to become a contract user to an existing district or expand and existing district will be discussed at the Planning Board hearing. 7. The adequacy, type and arrangement of trees, shrubs and other suitable plantings, landscaping and screening constituting a visual and/or noise buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, including the maximum retention of existing vegetation and maintenance, including replacement of dead or deceased plants. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan as part of the Site Plan. The landscaping plan appears to be consistent with Zoning code requirements. 8. The adequacy of fire lanes and other emergency zones and the provision of fire hydrants. Adequate emergency lanes and zones exist to provide adequate emergency access. 9. The adequacy and impact of structures, roadways and landscaping in areas with susceptibility to ponding, flooding and/or erosion. Impacts of this type are not anticipated with the proposed site plan. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct 128 multifamily residential units housed within 16 separate buildings. Vehicular access will be from a private road off of Meadowbrook Rd. The proposed development requires a NYSDEC permit to allow construction within a portion of a NYSDEC wetland and/or regulated area. The site plan indicates a substantial portion of ACOE wetlands on the property. The proposed development appears to not impact any ACOE wetlands, however Staff suggests that a non-jurisdictional determination be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first building to be constructed at this site. The lighting plan submitted with this application indicates light levels consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements. Cutsheets for proposed building mounted lighting as well as notation of a light uniformity ratio not to exceed 4:1 should be added to the final Site Plan. Comments concerning the applicant’s plans for connecting to off-site sanitary sewer service should be addressed during the review of this application. The applicant’s proposal calls for 286 parking spaces which exceeds the parking requirements for the proposed use by more than 20 % as outlined in § 179-4 040 B. A variance will be required to provide more than 231 parking spaces unless the Site Plan is revised to provide no more than 231 parking spaces. The parking areas to be removed should be converted back to green space. The site plan calls for access to be provided from a private road off of Meadowbrook Rd. The Planning Board should explore the possibility of a full vehicular access connection to the areas to the west of this site along Bay Rd. Currently the only east-west connections between Bay Rd. and Meadowbrook Rd. exist at Cronin Rd. to the south and Haviland Road to the north. With the increased use of Meadowbrook Rd. another east-west connection between Meadowbrook Rd and Bay Rd. would most likely have a positive impact on traffic in the residential areas north and south of this site along Bay Rd. Any potential east-west access to the Bay Rd. properties should also include pedestrian walkways in order to allow pedestrian access from the residential units on Meadowbrook to the Professional Office uses to the east. 81 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) The Town of Queensbury has plans for development of a recreation area on lands to the east of this site on the east side of Bay Rd. Staff suggests the site plan be revised to include a pedestrian walkway from the proposed residences to the east property line (Meadowbrook Rd.) A pedestrian connector along the proposed access road would allow residents to access recreation land directly adjacent to the east of this site. In addition, Staff suggests that the Site Plan be revised to include bike racks (1 per 50 parking spaces proposed) as required per § 179-4 040 E of the Zoning Ordinance. SEQR Status: SEQR Type: Unlisted, the applicant has submitted a SEQRA short form” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes 128 multifamily residential units within 16 separate buildings. Again, we talked about conditions concerning the wetlands. A lighting plan has been submitted which appears, light levels appear consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Cut sheets for proposed building mounted lights, as well as a light uniformity ratio not to exceed four to one should be added. Comments concerning the applicant’s plans for connecting to off site sanitary sewer service should be discussed and addressed. The applicant’s proposal calls for 286 parking spaces, which exceeds the parking requirement by more than 20% as outlined in the Zoning Code, and a variance would be required to provide more than 231 spaces. The site plan calls for access to be provided from a private road off of Meadowbrook Road. The possibility of full vehicular access between this parcel and the parcels to the west along Bay Road should be explored. With the increased use of Meadowbrook Road, another east/west connection in this location would probably alleviate traffic flows going down Cronin Road or up to Haviland. Also the Town has plans for development of the recreation area on lands just to the east of this site, and Staff suggests that the site plan be revised to include a pedestrian walkway from this project to the east property line to Meadowbrook Road. The plans should be revised to include bike racks as called for in the Ordinance, and that’s all I have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Go back to your pedestrian walkway. Where are you saying you want to see that? MR. HILTON-Well, a couple of places. If the Planning Board decides, or wishes to pursue some connection to the west, vehicular connection to the west, we’d be interested in seeing some pedestrian access on the road to the west, but, as proposed, some kind of walkway, let’s say, on the south side of the proposed private drive going to the east, adjoining Meadowbrook Road, would provide access, pedestrian access, for residents in this development to the east where the Town has plans for recreation trails and uses along Halfway Brook. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. The floor is yours. MR. NACE-Okay. The C.T. Male comments, I think you’ve got response in front of you that I sent to Male on Monday, and a letter back from C.T. Male of yesterday. I responded to, Male had two remaining comments on Items, I believe they were number, Items Number Seven and Eleven. I’ve responded to those today, to Male. I don’t know if you got, I faxed a copy over to the Town. I don’t know if you got a copy of my fax of today, March 18, on those two issues, along with attached calculations. Those were actually just technical issues regarding stormwater, including the pond surface in the stormwater calc’s, which makes a small bit of difference in the pond elevations, but does not in any way impair their ability to function correctly, and also the bottom elevations of the pond, I talked to Jim Edwards at C.T. Male. He is looking at those, but he did not have a chance to get a letter back to us this afternoon, but I’m confident those two issues have been or can be easily resolved. If you want to go through any of the particular engineering concerns, initial engineering concerns from Male, I’d be glad to address any particular items you might want. MR. MAC EWAN-Tony, we’ll start with you. 82 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. METIVIER-It’s large. I do like the fact, however, that at this point it appears to be off the road quite a bit. It’s really set back. I just, I don’t know what to say about it. Like I said, it’s just a big project. MR. LAPPER-I guess this is really very similar in size to what’s across the street, Hiland Springs, but because of the wetlands, the density here, there’s a lot more green space because it had to be left undisturbed. So it’ll appear less dense than the project across the street. MR. METIVIER-How far back from the road will this be? MR. NACE-At the nearest point, it’s about 500 feet from the edge of Meadowbrook Road at its closest point here, yes, 500 feet. MR. METIVIER-Roughly how much is that compared to across the street? MR. LAPPER-About 75 feet I think we’ve got across the street. MR. NACE-Yes. MR. METIVIER-So you’re looking at probably the third phase almost? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Roughly, yes. MR. NACE-That’s right. It is quite a ways back. I don’t know if anybody from the Board actually walked up in the property, because it’s kind of brushy and hard to get back in there, but when you get up in here, it’s relatively high. You look down a little bit either direction, and it’s sort of isolated. It feels like you’re back there by yourself a little bit. MR. METIVIER-The design of the building is going to be the same as what you? MR. SCHERMERHORN-As far as across the street, I supplied 15 copies of the plan. I don’t know if you have them, but I brought a copy. I can pull it back out, but they’re certainly not going to be as, look like the Hiland ones. These are going to be ones that are more of a middle income range. I have a copy. Do you guys have a copy in your plans? MRS. LA BOMBARD-What was the income range of the other ones? MR. SCHERMERHORN-The other ones currently rent, the lowest one at Hiland is $725, and the highest is $1,000. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So that is a high income range. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Those are what we would consider in Queensbury high end rentals, and every one of them is full. Our, well, I guess I don’t need to get into income levels, but these apartments are going to rent more in the $600 range. This is more what we consider like the median income level, these particular apartments. They’re still very attractive, a tremendous amount of landscaping, street lighting, and again, I know I’ve been in front of you several times with apartments, but there’s in operation 356 units, and every one of them’s full, and we only had a .5 vacancy factor last year, and there’s a very high demand for the particular ones that I’m doing at this particular site. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the architecturals going to look like? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I did supply. MR. VOLLARO-We didn’t get it, Rich. I was going to ask you that. 83 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. SCHERMERHORN-I did bring my copy MRS. LA BOMBARD-Are these going to be the same architecture as the one’s on Dix Avenue? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, very similar, but upgraded. I just did a project across from BOCES called Spring Brook, and it’s similar in nature to those, but these are a little different. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And those little projections sticking out are those little decks that are, what, five by six in the back? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. These decks right back here are approximately four foot by eight foot, and then down below we have little concrete patios off the back of these. These are eight unit buildings. There’s only two entranceways going in. When you enter in this door, there’s two ground floor apartments, and then there’s two upper apartments, staircases up there, and it’s going to have the hip roofs, architectural shingles, we’ll, you know, again, limit it to the earth tone colors, seems to be a favorable color. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, Rich. MR. STROUGH-Can we vary this a little bit? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. See when you came in front of us the last time, for the ones on Meadowbrook, you showed us three or four elevations. They were earth tone colors that were different colors, like a nice colonial yellow and a nice beige, and then they all went up the same color. I’m talking about Hiland Springs, yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I think, if we go back to our Staff notes, I did exactly, I was conditioned by the colors for that 120 unit project. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I didn’t know they were all, I guess I was mistaken, they were all the same. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, but if you look at the Eddy Group next to me, that’s a, you know, a very large building with cottage buildings, but they are the same color, but I was told that they had to remain, we discussed all this, because I brought the samples in. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. The color is fine, I just didn’t realize that there’s so much of that color. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t have a problem with altering the colors in here. This is a project that’s nestled in the woods, and to be honest with you, I think the only thing you’re probably going to see when it’s built is some rooftops, because when you drive down Meadowbrook, it’s very hard to see in there, but I mean, I have no problem, obviously, changing the colors and things like that. MR. METIVIER-I don’t know what to add. I just have a feeling, the fact that it’s so far back, that as far as the aesthetics of it, it’s not going to be a main concern. Even now that you get into colors, if we were really going to stress on colors, we should have stressed on colors back at the other one that’s closer to the road. I just visualize this being so far back that if you look at driving down Meadowbrook Road, across the street, like I said, you’re looking at, you know, your third phase, which is about the same area back, and at that point it’s so far back, I don’t know. I really have nothing else right now. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I wish it wasn’t in front of us, but it’s just a personal thing. We tend to look at every one of these projects in a singular view, in a singular manner, and I don’t think anybody collectively looks at that whole Meadowbrook Road and what’s happened to it over the last 84 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) number of years. It’s one big, huge sea of vinyl buildings and I’m wondering, you know, what are the impacts of the traffic. Here we’re building, and you may get the approvals and what have you, but an area that’s surrounded by water. I certainly, I’m not thrilled by it, but I’m also concerned about the impact to Meadowbrook Road, and you have seniors living there, and you have a lot of new construction, and you’re going to come back with some kind of a study and say it’s not going to be a problem. When does it become a problem? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, Richard, if we back up just a little bit, maybe you weren’t here at the time, but I hired Creighton Manning, over a year ago, and I did a complete traffic study, and as a matter of fact I did it right before Waverly Place went in, and I did all of Meadowbrook, Quaker Road, Cronin, Bay Road. I even did up to Moon Hill when I had that project going, and if everyone can recall, the original master plan actually showed 286 units of multi family, and then when I came back to you, in the fall, if we recall, Army Corps DEC had this major differences of delineation. I’m down to 128 units from 232 units. A significant, significant drop in density, but this traffic study was extremely thorough. I was scrutinized by this Planning Board, and, you know, this was all reviewed, and it did take into account for the Michaels Group when they were just in the preliminary stages of Waverly Place and the full build out and effects of Meadowbrook Road. Currently, I mean, I travel Meadowbrook Road every day. My office is certainly there. I’m not going to say Meadowbrook Road traffic has not picked up, but I will say that when you get down to the Meadowbrook Cronin Road intersection, there’s a stop sign there. There’s never more than two or three cars at any one time there stacked in that location. So, I mean, this project has, I’ve spent over two years on this project, and it’s been well thought out, but I mean, it certainly is, I think you know me by now. We’re open for suggestions if you want the theme of the colors, but this is a. MR. SANFORD-No, again, I think this is because it’s late and I’m a little cranky. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I understand. MR. SANFORD-It’s just that if you take a look down that road, and you start right at the beginning of Meadowbrook. You have Regency Park apartments. Then you go down, you have your small little, I think they’re yours, right? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. SANFORD-To the right, and then you have this which is going to be over to the left, and then you go down and there’s more, and then there’s the Eddy, and there’s no creative imagination on what is going to happen to Meadowbrook Road. It’s become nothing but housing for apartments and seniors. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and you know I live up on Masters Common North. I can say that as far as build out goes, there is only one piece left on Meadowbrook Road, the corner of Meadowbrook and Haviland. The piece that I’m developing now is one of the last major pieces on Meadowbrook, because the Girl Scouts have a camp, but we’ve all got to remember that for years and years and years, Bay Road, Meadowbrook Road, that was always the high density, MR-5, multi-family. We just spent, I think, seven years on the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan that was advertised in the paper, the Chronicle, mailings to people to come in. If density was going to be an issue, I mean, it should have been addressed. This is the current zoning at this time. I’m not saying, you know, I’m not saying, well, I guess what I’m saying is I didn’t put this zoning in this place, but Meadowbrook as a whole, this is pretty much the build out for Meadowbrook except for the corner of Meadowbrook and Haviland where the Michaels still have a piece and I think the golf course. MR. SANFORD-See, zoning, I think the intention is to have the appropriate buildings, you know, in the right places within the Town, but quite often I think what happens is zoning becomes an argument for why you can’t disallow or why you shouldn’t discourage a certain kind of building, and that seems to be a repetitive theme that I hear a lot, on this Board is well it’s zoned for this, so we’ll approve it, but we don’t consider the fact that we have 15 other 85 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) projects that are just identical right down the road, and well it’s zoned that way so we have to approve it now. With that in mind, I’ll pass it on to somebody else who might care to comment on the project. MR. MAC EWAN-Cathy? MRS. LA BOMBARD-When you said that you’ve got a street filled with vinyl clad buildings, that just hit wrong. I think that what happened there on Meadowbrook Road is we’ve done our best with the resources that we have. It’s not that we live in Alexandria, Virginia here, you know. We’re in a poverty type of area. I mean, we have very little industry. We have very, we don’t have a big basis for people to come in here and make a living. We just lost IP up in Corinth. I ought to know. I teach at Luzerne. So I think we’ve done the best with the resources we have and with the population that we’re trying to service. People have to have a place to live. I understand, Rich, if you want to make affordable housing for people you’ve got to build something like this, and people have to have a place to live, and where are you going to put them? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That is correct. Just last week I was at a Town Board meeting and the Town Board just authorized a $25,000 agreement to do a study on how to get affordable housing in the Town of Queensbury. So they know there’s a need. They’re looking for it. So this is, you know, this is where it’s at. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I think the way you’ve configured the buildings on that piece of property is, looks nice aesthetically. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, if you’ll remember, when we did the modification, I brought the new master plan in. This is a result of what we discussed. I have the walking trails, playground, turning all the buildings. I believe I’ve done everything that’s been asked of me, and I’ve been carefully listening to everything you people have said, but, you know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I know, and I think that as far as the mitigating factors here, and, you know, by the time you and C.T. Male and you go back and forth you’re going to have this fine tuned. It’s just that we’ve got to deal with what we have. MR. LAPPER-Cathy, I’d also like to point out just, if you look at Hiland Park, which was approved in 1988 or in ’87, that the Meadowbrook corridor was the high density area of that project. So for a Planned Unit Development you’ve got the whole golf course corridor, which is the open space area, which is an open space resource because a golf course has a lot of open space views, and Meadowbrook was, because it was behind the College, that was looked at as the high density area, so that’s why you have Waverly Place and the Eddy Group, and, you know, Rich will say also, in terms of the zoning, but the project that we have in the front for the office, the Bay Road corridor is the Professional Office zone for 1,000 feet, and then becomes multi-family in the back. So this was what was intended for the Meadowbrook corridor. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I know. You’re right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-As a matter of fact, I’d have to get a variance to even do a single family home. I’m only permitted to do, under the current zoning, either duplexes or multi-family. That’s it. MR. LAPPER-For what it’s worth, Rich really did think he could get 240 in before we got into all the wetland issues. So it’s a lot dense than it could have been. MR. STROUGH-I remember 208. MR. LAPPER-208? 86 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes, and some of the arrangements, like Rich pointed out, backing out on this road, where originally the road went from Bay Road over to Meadowbrook, and there was a lot to that arrangement that I didn’t, but I think it was 208, and this plan, the configuration is better. MR. SCHERMERHORN-What did I say, 228? MR. STROUGH-Or something like that. Whatever. Whatever the case may be, and this configuration, I think, is a lot more pleasant. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I guess, and I just have one thing to ask you, as far as, you know when your other project went in on the other side of the street, you know how we had the problem on the second fairway at the golf course, where all that water was, and we had to? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That I’m very, very well aware of. I was asked, as a matter of fact, they wanted me to correct the problem, and how they wanted me to correct it was to put a swale through my property. Eddy Group, it was the Eddy with the drainage, something got missed, but they wanted me to run a drainage ditch through my property, and then for me to maintain it for life, because they didn’t want to go out on the golf course. To make a long story short, O’Connor Construction went out on the golf course on the edge of the fairway and they put drainage tile out down through there. It had nothing to do with me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And it worked, but I just want to make sure after all the T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted nothing like that’s going to happen from this property. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I hope that, over the years with some of these projects that I’ve done in Queensbury, they have been in sensitive areas, because a lot of the high density zoning is in sensitive areas with sensitive soils, and knock on wood, to date, I haven’t had any issues or problems or any zoning issues. So I can assure you that it’ll be done according to the plan. As you can see C.T. Male, there’s just two contingent items, which are not large items. It’s just something Tom has to respond with, but we were able to address all their issues. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And one other thing, the road to the new supposedly proposed recreation complex will go right through this. Right? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Are you talking about the Recreation Committee, the new proposed? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, I’d like to comment on that. Is anybody on the Recreation Committee? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. I know Mark was a former. MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. Well, I’ve had, for quite some time, interest in the 52 acres next to me. Mr. Slack, Dave Slack is his name, which currently has just sold the golf course. He’s been wanting to sell that property to me and I’ve been wanting to buy it, and I know the Town already had a trail that goes through there. As a matter of fact, he called me today, and I had a contract on it six months ago and it expired because we couldn’t get the wetland delineations done because that was my only contingency. That land currently, because he called me today, it is still up for sale, is not under contract with the Town of Queensbury. They have expressed interest in it, but there is no contract. So I guess what I would say is I would propose doing a, if you’re going to ask me for a walkway down to the edge of Meadowbrook Road, should a recreation center happen, I would condition my approval that we would put a walkway down there. I have no problem with that, but I do know, with my preliminary walk throughs with a woman that does delineations for me last fall, there’s only about two acres of upland that is usable land. That’s her opinion, and it’s more behind Fairway Number Two. So if they’re thinking the vacant field is going to be a recreation. 87 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I’m talking about the one by ACC. Isn’t that where that proposed? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, the Michaels Group, from what I understand, granted or was going to give a, well, it’s gone a couple of places. Rec Committee first was going to go on a piece that the Michaels Group granted, all right, to the Town. Then it switched over to the College. It was supposed to go on the College property when the new access road went in off of Haviland, but now I understand that that has fallen by the wayside, and maybe that’s what they’re talking about now. Maybe it’s back to the Michaels Group piece, but if that’s the case, I wouldn’t be able to access it, because I have five, six hundred feet of wetlands and buffer zone. That’s quite a ways away from me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ve got it. You answered my question. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Robert? MR. VOLLARO-I guess I’m going to ask a question concerning, I read the Army Corps e-mail of March 7 on the emergency access gravel drive, and I’ve laid it in on my drawing here so I can th see where it’s going, but I notice that, in Staff’s comments, they talk about full vehicular access. Now, just what are we talking about here? Are we talking about paved type of road or one that’s widen enough, or what’s the definition of full vehicular access? MR. HILTON-Well, that’s something to explore. I mean, I think if you had some kind of vehicular connection between the proposed apartments and the office areas to the west, you know, you provide another east/west route to connect to high traffic corridors such as Bay and Meadowbrook. We talked earlier tonight about Nationwide Permits, which I believe the applicant has. Certainly there are project specific permits that the applicant could seek. It’s just a question. What’s the feasibility of providing a full vehicular access? And something that maybe could be explored. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, I’m just looking at what Army Corps had to say about that, when they talk about their mitigation proposal to include the construction of a gravel emergency access drive that would cross the wetlands. I mean, I think in their minds, as I read this, this paragraph reads to me like, you know, you’re going to put a small emergency access road in there, a gravel road that you can get things back and forth on if you need. I think that was the intent of this letter. However, I just want to make sure what Staff’s position is when they take, use the words full vehicular access. Are you thinking something other than what Army Corps had mentioned here? MR. HILTON-We, quite possibly, are. Craig Brown had a meeting, met with the applicant, and initially brought this up. The applicant’s response is what you see, the gravel emergency access. We’re saying let’s give consideration to something above and beyond what’s been offered by the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Do they have to go to Army Corps, or can they operate under this Nationwide Permit and just do it? MR. HILTON-No, I believe that would require a site project specific permit. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. See what I would say there, I guess maybe I’m looking at this from another point of view. If the Town of Queensbury wants that to happen, I think this is a discussion between the Town of Queensbury and the Army Corps, as to whether or not that’s okay with them or not, as opposed to having the applicant go back to Army Corps and try to discuss widening this road or topping it with a hard surface or making it full vehicular access. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe take it one step farther. Maybe that’s not what this Board wants. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that’s correct. I just want to make sure that I understood what their position was on full vehicular access. That’s all. I wanted that term defined so I understood 88 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) what they were, exactly what Staff was talking about there, because I see where the Army Corps Wetland letter is very specific, to me, as to what they’re looking at. Looking at Mike Shaw’s letter, I think his letter is dated February 28. I don’t believe that his letter is any longer valid, I th think, because of the contract user situation, I think that, you know, where he talks about a map plan and report, etc. MR. HILTON-Yes, again, I guess I would agree, but that should be ironed out and discussed. MR. VOLLARO-Well, isn’t there a Town Board resolution that was created Monday that talks about exactly what this is all about? I mean, there was a Town Board resolution that said. MR. LAPPER-That’s for the Bay Road corridor. MR. VOLLARO-Corridor. Okay. MR. LAPPER-This is simpler, because we would just be doing a lateral into the existing Hiland line. MR. VOLLARO-But that would also require, this wouldn’t require a map plan and report? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. There’s a sewer line there. We’re just utilizing as a contract user. That’s all. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-A single user. MR. VOLLARO-Right. So I don’t know whether Mike Shaw’s comment, what I’m trying to do is determine whether Mr. Shaw’s comment is applicable to this application as it’s written now or not. It was February 28, long before we got into this contract user definition, and he th thought that that would be another map plan and report, another sewer district extension which is not going to happen. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and we’ve talked to him since that, and it’s his understanding and our understanding that it’s just a simple contract user, because it’s a single contract, it’s single user, which is myself. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Agreed. So what I’m getting at, Mr. Chairman, is that letter from Mr. Shaw is no longer applicable to this application. Elevations of the buildings I have. I saw those. They look very much, to me, like typically the buildings that you build. I mean, you know, I see a high resemblance from what you put up there to what you usually do, for that category of tenant. I would like to take a look at, I took advantage of Mr. Nace’s, put the two cut joints together, I joined the Two and Three here so I could see the entire project in big scale. What I’d like to take a look at, again, Tom, is a boulevard entrance up at the front there, nothing we’re going to need. It’s primarily for. MR. STROUGH-Up to the first turn off. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m looking at about, I think I measured that off at 100 feet from Bay Road. MR. NACE-At 100 feet from Bay Road? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Meadowbrook. Sorry about that. MR. NACE-One hundred feet? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 89 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s my quick shot at it, 100 feet. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but don’t you want to go to the first turn off? The boulevard should go to the first turn off. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The boulevard should go to the first turn off. Now you’re talking 400 feet, 350. MR. NACE-To the first turn off, for up here? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-That’s more like. MR. VOLLARO-Up further. MR. NACE-I’m sorry, here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. NACE-Yes. That’s more like 400 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Because then emergency vehicles have an alternate route. MR. NACE-Well, if we do this emergency vehicles have this route. MR. STROUGH-I know it’s not my turn, but while you’re on that, Tom, are there going to be problems with the wetlands and DEC, ACOE? MR. NACE-No, this is just for a 12 foot wide gravel road, and that’s, when I talked to Bruce at the Corps, or Kevin Bruce, he was specific that it had to only go through the area of created wetland. It could not go through either of the existing wetland areas, and that it be minimized, as narrow as possible, so that we could hydrologically connect the two wetland areas with culverts that would allow, I guess allow the Eco systems to be the same on both sides. MR. STROUGH-And what’s it going to connect to on the other side, Tom? MR. NACE-Okay, here, the way we’ve shown it, would connect to a future project that Rich has, you know, in the very preliminary stage for here, okay. In the interim, I suppose we could provide enough of a, just a gravel road to connect to the cul de sac until that project is done and then when it’s done we’d connect to the circulation road within this project. MR. SCHERMERHORN-John, if I might interrupt. Army Corps made it very clear, too, that they wanted a break away gate, well, he said a gate, but maybe a thin wire, something that, he does not want vehicular traffic going through there, other than emergency. So actually, there’s a gate shown on there, and I’ve got to put some sort of thin wire that an, you know, emergency vehicle could bump and open. MR. STROUGH-Well, I don’t know about thin wire, Rich, but people in a snow mobile. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Or, yes, well, no, a regular gate, but a thin wire holding the gate. MR. VOLLARO-So it could tap the gate. 90 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. SCHERMERHORN-They could tap the gate, right. That’s what I meant. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Touch on that gate for just a second. I mean, where it’s proposed location is, not being able to get that far into the wetlands, but what would the drain be like on either side of where that gate would be along the edge of the road? I mean, is it really wet and marshy that you’d have to build up a road in there? MR. NACE-Yes. You would have to build up a road. It wouldn’t be standing water, okay. I mean, most of these wetland areas out here are not what you and I would think of as wading through in hip boots. With the exception of some areas up in here, most of this wetland is just, you know, you’d get your feet wet if you had shoes on, but, you know, in essence, it’ll be lower, maybe two to three feet lower than the road surface. MR. MAC EWAN-The question I’m thinking of here, and, you know, while we were discussing this, and I kept look at that, what would prevent someone from utilizing that road as a regular travel corridor and just circumventing the gate? MR. NACE-Just going around? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I mean, is there a portion where the road cuts through the wetlands where it actually goes through standing water that the road bed would have to be built up? MR. NACE-Well, yes, this whole area in here the road bed would be built up, because we’re lowering, in order to create this wetland, we’re lowering the land there. MR. MAC EWAN-So that a gate could be located in such a proximity that you wouldn’t want to try and go around it because you’d like lose your car? MR. NACE-Actually, we could locate, there’s no reason that gate couldn’t be located over in the wetland area where it would be impossible to go. MR. MAC EWAN-Where you couldn’t get around it. MR. NACE-That’s correct. That’s a good idea. MR. MAC EWAN-Because I can see that as a potential big problem. I’m sorry. Go ahead. MR. VOLLARO-I guess we’re back on my number four, which is the boulevard entrance, and now we’re looking at probably about 400 feet, as opposed to 100 feet. It’s fundamentally an aesthetic thing. It’ll look nice. That’s basically what it will look like. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I agree with the boulevard. Actually, it was, I suggested in the beginning, because I do like what the Michaels does with their projects. We do have some, the problem is with the narrow entrance way on Meadowbrook. We’ve received everything we can get from Army Corps and DEC. To go back to them and ask to expand that, I don’t think we’d get it, and the other. MR. VOLLARO-I see what you’re saying. There’s wetlands north and south. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and the other, I don’t want to speak out of school here, but I just had a meeting, not two weeks ago, and my understanding is, now this is only from Rick, but it’s my understanding he doesn’t, well, no, it’s a private road. It doesn’t matter, but he doesn’t care for the boulevards, but this is a private road so it doesn’t matter. Sorry. Disregard that. 91 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. NACE-My concern, Bob, is the wetland proximity on the side there, and to make a boulevard look like a boulevard, you need 15 or 20 feet in the island width, okay. If you try to do a boulevard with a five foot island, it looks funny. MR. VOLLARO-It looks funny, and there’s just not enough width there. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Particularly for that wetland to the south. MR. NACE-We’ve found, typically, with the boulevards we need to go to somewhere between, from a 50 foot right of way to somewhere between 75 and 100 feet. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I also feel, if you look at the site plan, based on John Strough and all the meetings we’ve had about landscaping, landscaping, landscaping, there’s a tremendous amount of landscaping. There’s landscaping lining that road all the way in. So we did take a great deal of consideration, as far as the aesthetics of entering this project. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s one of my bravos for you, is that you did a nice landscaping job on this. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I made one other point. Let’s take a look at Unit B & P. They’re the only two units, those two units of B & A are not connected to this walkway. If you could make a walkway between those two, there doesn’t seem to be any wetland problem right there. Just continue that walkway around. MR. STROUGH-Well, they do have a walkway on this copy. You have a copy on your overview, the sidewalk, but the sidewalk in this disappears on the blow up. MR. NACE-Really? MR. STROUGH-Yes, but it’s there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I put the two together with the major blow up, so I didn’t see it. MR. STROUGH-I see it on mine. I don’t see it on Bob’s. Yes, but, see, the walkway does connect P & B. MR. NACE-You’re right. MR. VOLLARO-I was looking at the big drawing. MR. NACE-Yes, and the walkway that’s here doesn’t show. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STROUGH-But it is here. MR. NACE-That will be corrected. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at C.T. Male’s original letter. Number Eight on C.T. Male’s letter of 11 March, and I just had a comment on mine. This is where he talks about detention basins should address all rainfall. That’s for any stormwater plan, I mean, takes that into account, doesn’t it? MR. NACE-Yes. I neglected, there was such a small area that I neglected it and didn’t include it 92 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-But doesn’t the software just drive you into it anyhow? Doesn’t the stormwater software just drive you into that, or? MR. NACE-Not unless you map out and tell it what to, it tells you what, you know, what you put in is what you get out. So, you’ve got to put in the right stuff, and I omitted the areas right around the stormwater basins. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Because they were so small? MR. NACE-Well, actually, when I laid the stuff out, I missed it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Number Seven I wanted to ask a question on. I thought your SP-4 addressed the stormwater quality? Didn’t SP-4, as a drawing, talk about quality? MR. NACE-That’s drawing, you’re talking about the stormwater pollution prevention plan? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. NACE-That’s during construction. Okay. That addresses water quality during construction. He’s talking about permanent stormwater features, okay, and plans do address them. We’ve got, in the bottom of the basins we have those infiltration trenches that allow water to percolate in. What didn’t show correctly on the plans, and I’ve corrected the set of copies, the letter that you got today from me included that, is to show the fact that the bottom of the basins are below about a half a foot, there’s a large flat area about a half a foot below the outlet pipe, so that that initial water will stay in there and filter into the ground, rather than going out the outlet pipe. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now the bottom of that basin is not below the water level, is it? MR. NACE-No, it is not. MR. VOLLARO-Good engineering would indicate that you keep that above the water level right there. The sight distances along Meadowbrook Road. I was there. It looks like it’s. MR. NACE-They’re unlimited. MR. VOLLARO-Unlimited. It looked like that to me as well, and the last thing I had was to check the page on the resolution itself. I did have a question on parking. This 192 versus the 289 units. I think in your site data sheet you said there were, that 192 was the requirement but you wanted to go to 289. MR. LAPPER-Well, the Town says we can go 20% with your consent. Rich feels that, from his experience with the 356 some odd, that was the number that he mentioned, that he has, that he really wants to have more parking because he feels that in practice that’s what you need, because people visit, and he’d rather not have people parking on the grass. So what we would propose is to say that we will either, as a condition, that we would either reduce it to the 20% more, which is the 231, or we will get a variance from the Zoning Board to go to the full 286 that he wants. Obviously, if it was the 231, we would add green space to replace the parking, but we would like to go to the Zoning Board, subsequently, to ask them, just out of practice, he’s not trying to build too much pavement or spend too much money on pavement. He’s just trying to do what he thinks he needs. MR. VOLLARO-Does Rich have empirical data of some kind to support the need for a larger parking, you know, data that you’ve picked up from? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, it’s what, from all my other complexes, it’s basically, under the old zoning, it’s what we approved on all my other site plans. I just used, the new zoning 93 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) allowed you one and a half cars per unit. Well, every individual, most people, have two cars today, if you have a few guests over, but my numbers are based on previous plans that I’ve done in Queensbury, other communities, and I know it works. Otherwise, the concerns come up when people are parking on the side of the road. They’re parking on the grass. One of the other options I brought up to George is I could simply take one of the larger areas, take the stripes off I guess, and, you know, have it as an overflow, because what happens, if you have people move in, North American Van Lines and moving trucks or these tag along trailers, and people take up four or five spots because they’re just leaving it overnight while they’re unloading, but, you know, that’s where I came up with my numbers. MR. STROUGH-And I’m not a big advocate of more parking, but I think Rich is right. I think the one and a half figure is too low, and just what Rich says is you get the overflow and the parking on the lawns and it starts becoming a mess real fast. I’d rather have it neat and orderly, and I don’t think this is excessive. I think it’s reasonable. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the 231 is 20% over the allowed. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-That would be the minimum. MR. VOLLARO-What’s the applicant’s position? Would they like to go to the ZBA to get their total amount, or do you want to go to 231? MR. LAPPER-We’d like to do it this way so that we don’t have to table the application while we go to the ZBA. We’d like to have it approved with the condition that we would either do 231, if we couldn’t get the variance, or else if we get the variance we’ll do what we proposed and what you have on the map, and we can submit a plan showing 231, as an alternate, but that’s not what we want to do. So we’d like you to approve it either way. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you feel about that procedurally, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s what George and I were just talking about, but I missed of what the applicant just said. So run it by me again real quick. MR. LAPPER-That we would submit an alternative plan, so that you’d have, for the site plan, for the final site plan approval, you’d have, you know, this could be conditioned, then you’d have a plan showing exactly how it looked with the 231, which meets the Code plus the 20%, but that the Planning Board would say that, subject to getting the ZBA parking variance, that they would approve the site plan, as we’ve laid it out, with the 286. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s certainly, my gut reaction is that does not comply with the general process that we observe, which is if an applicant wants to do something, well, either needs to, which this applicant does not, or wants to do something that requires a variance, that they’d be required to get the variance first. I guess what I’m going to say is typically a Planning Board would not be comfortable with an either/or scenario, in the context of a final approval. MR. MAC EWAN-I agree with you. It would seem the appropriate way to go would be to approve the 231. You’d go to the ZBA. You’d get your variance and come back and ask for a modification. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the simplest way to do it. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, I don’t see us approving 280 some odd parking spaces which would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. 94 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. SCHACHNER-Exactly, and that’s why that doesn’t conform with our usual process. Getting the variance would not obligate the applicant to utilize the variance, and in fact the applicant would not be able to utilize the variance, even once obtained, until this Board approved the modification. MR. LAPPER-Hey, it doesn’t hurt to ask. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll give you an A for effort this late in the hour. What else have you got, Robert? MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, Mr. Chairman. I’m finished. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Okay. I like the idea of you incorporating without us having to force you to do it again, not that, you’ve been very willing to work with us, but the walkways, and the kiddy play park especially with the kind of apartments that you want, I think that’s most appropriate, and the lighting fixtures that you picked I think are very nice and blend in with what we’ve been doing all along. So everything worked out, and the landscaping looks very nice. So, on the pro side, that’s what I saw. Now, a couple of other things. Now, how about the bike racks? The Staff speaks to maybe putting in some bike racks here and there. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I certainly have no problem with that. Just tell me what you’d like. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, they suggest one for fifty parking spaces. So it would end up, you’d put in some kind of bike rack. If you’re going to be looking at kids, right? Kids have got bikes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. A lot of these lower units, I will get a lot of seniors. I’ll have designated buildings where seniors go and children, but I assume it would be safe to say if we figured 50%, maybe bike racks enough for 100 children. I think there’s 10 spots per, like, the 10 foot ones that I buy. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Yes, well, and even older people these days, hopefully, are taking their bikes out, but, okay, and as far as the boulevard versus, I think the important thing to the boulevard was emergency access, and you’re going with that western route anyway, and I can see your argument. You’d have to go back to the Army Corps of Engineers. All right. Aesthetically, I agree with you, Bob, but I think, in this case, since they’ve provided alternate emergency vehicle access, and they have the wetlands problems, I understand the applicant’s position. Now there was a couple of things, C.T. Male, we just got this today, Tom. MR. NACE-Yes. I apologize. MR. STROUGH-Okay. What’s not addressed is One, Six, Seven. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, Seven, Eight, and Nine. MR. STROUGH-Would you go over some of those with us, Tom? MR. NACE-Okay. Sure. I think we did. Bob and I went over Seven. MR. STROUGH-Yes, you did do a couple. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. STROUGH-I think Number Eleven is, I was kind of confused about what they’re getting at for Number Eleven. That’s referring to the western drive we’ve been talking about, but, C.T. 95 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) Male asks, it’s unclear who will own and maintain, including plowing this access, and did you respond to that Number Eleven? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I don’t believe we did, but I’ll own and maintain that, regardless if I sold the lot in the back. I’ll put an easement in place that says that, you know, I’ll own up to my lot line, but I will also agree to plow the other part of it. MR. STROUGH-And then when we do the other part, we’ll have to do the same thing for that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-So you’ll include that in the final package? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Now, are we going to try and close this package up today? Tonight? MR. MAC EWAN-If the Board desires. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, is somebody keeping track of all the things that we’re going to make sure that we get? Okay. The bike rack, well, and we just got the maintenance agreement that the owner of these apartments, I mean if Richie sells them, is going to be whoever the new owner is, is going to have to maintain that western walkway up to the property line, and that includes plowing it, and then when we get to the other side of it, and another thing we have to do is, do we want that walkway to go all the way to the cul de sac for now, for emergency access? Because this project’s going in, when? When do you propose? MR. SCHERMERHORN-A month or two. MR. STROUGH-Okay, fairly soon. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-On the other side, you know, the other side maybe next year or whenever, I mean, do we want this to go all the way to the cul de sac for now? So that it connects to some place where an emergency vehicle can access this from the west? MR. LAPPER-Craig, there’s a lot in between the cul de sac and the other side of the wetland that’s not developed yet. That’s why (lost word). MR. SCHERMERHORN-Remember, you will have another crack at site plan review, when I come in on the other applications on those two lots on that other side. So that could be. MR. STROUGH-Yes, but in the meantime we have to assure that there’s emergency vehicle access to this site. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, currently I own it. So we can condition an easement, I guess. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, you own all of it. So, right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. STROUGH-I think that’s the safest thing to do is to, he connects to the cul de sac. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now, make sure I understand what (lost words). This emergency access road. MR. STROUGH-Does connect to some place so an emergency vehicle. 96 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-Well, Bay Road can come on down. MR. STROUGH-Bay Road can come through. MR. VOLLARO-And come through this? MR. STROUGH-Right. Okay. That’s the safest thing for the community, and okay, what else was there? So that’s it, for C.T. Male, and, well, the one thing I wanted to get away from is the routine look of some of these developments that are going in, with every building looks the same. It’s not attractive. So, some variation, and this is pretty level. I think if you stood on Meadowbrook, you could almost, that’s pretty level, isn’t it, all the way over to Bay? Fairly? MR. NACE-There’s you stand up on this site, this site’s about eight or nine feet above Bay Road. MR. STROUGH-Yes. So what I’m saying, these could be seen from Meadowbrook, Bay Road, and so on. MR. NACE-The tops of things will be seen. If you look in from Meadowbrook now, the brush, and then scrub growth, you know, blocks out. MR. SCHERMERHORN-There’s a fair amount of trees, surprisingly, if you walk back there, it’s amazing how many trees are actually full grown trees, especially on the northern side by the golf course. There’s quite a bit of, it’s going to be nestled in its own little area back there. MR. STROUGH-Well, see, Cathy did bring up the idea of variation and Tony said he didn’t think you needed it because you wouldn’t be able to see it anyway. I’m not sure, to be on the safe side, a little variation, I think, would be nice. MR. LAPPER-What do you have in mind? MR. STROUGH-That’s the problem. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, as far as variation, I mean, I certainly can vary the colors, but sometimes that works against you. MR. STROUGH-Well, yes, that’s what I’m saying. That’s why when Jon asked the question. I don’t want a pink here and a green. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I know. It’s very difficult when you have large apartment complexes. Anywhere you go when you look at large apartment complexes, there’s not a tremendous amount of variation. Hiland Park was a little different, but to do another development like that, I don’t think I could fill it like I did that one. I mean, that one’s kind of unique. We changed the buildings, and did three different styles, but to keep these apartments at a level that’s what we’ve got, we consider affordable for Queensbury, if I change roof lines and do too much more to it, I’m getting to a point where I don’t know how affordable I can make these apartments, and then I’m risking the fact that I might not rent these. MRS. LA BOMBARD-You know the colors like Waverly Place? They’re all together, but they did vary the colors, but they’re very subtle. MR. NACE-Ethan and Ron are fairly good with colors. I think we can work with. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I can vary, because there’s different, I don’t know, jog outs, I mean, I certainly can vary these colors. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Without being, you know, loud. 97 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. We just stick with the earth tones. There’s so many different shades of beiges and almonds. MR. STROUGH-Yes, subtle differences. MR. SCHERMERHORN-One of the things I did do, and hopefully you picked up on it, is I really landscaped them heavily. You can take a plain, plain colonial that you’ll see on Horicon or Garrison, absolutely flat face colonial, but if someone does a beautiful job of landscaping, it looks like the nicest house in the world. So sometimes it’s not always the design of the building, it’s the landscaping and the upkeep of a property. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Definitely. Definitely. MR. STROUGH-Well, and the landscaping is good, and with some subtle shades and some subtle differences between buildings, nothing too drastic. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. I’ll make variations. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, I don’t even know if we have to condition it, Craig, because, you know, obviously Rich is before us on a regular basis. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you suggesting is may impact future consideration of applications or something? MR. STROUGH-Well, we’ll leave it at that. All right, and I guess we are going, our sewer connection is going to be a non district contract user, period. MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s correct. MR. STROUGH-And you’ve run that by Mike White? MR. SCHERMERHORN-It would only be a burden on the tax payers because if I did a map plan and report, the Town would be servicing my sole complex, where, as a contractor user, I’m responsible for taking care of my own sewer line, and I’m still paying the same sewer rates. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well this whole road is going to be yours to maintain? I mean, the Town’s not, this is all private property. MR. SCHERMERHORN-It’s all private. MR. NACE-It’s all private. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Thanks. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. 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 RICHARD HUGHES MR. HUGHES-Richard Hughes, adjoining neighbor at Bayberry Drive. Just a few questions. If it was possible for a boulevard entrance, which at this point it’s probably not going to happen, but if it did happen, would he not be allowed the emergency gate set up so that it would keep 98 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) the property separate? And the other question is, if he didn’t do the boulevard, and did put the emergency route in, would that route always remain emergency and never become an inter- connector between Bay and Meadowbrook Road so we wouldn’t create a through traffic situation? MR. MAC EWAN-The design is for it to remain as emergency access only. MR. HUGHES-Forever? MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s defined by the Army Corps wetlands letter. MR. HUGHES-Okay. He addressed the building design with the little variation there. I think it’s a great idea to have some, and I think Rich is willing to do that. So that’s no problem. The other thing is the parking lot situation. Is there any type of a buffer in the plan so you don’t just see stark parking lot? Is there plantings and stuff sort of hiding the parking lot with the curb areas and that type of thing? MR. STROUGH-Have you seen the landscape plan? MR. HUGHES-No, I haven’t. That’s why I was asking the question. MR. STROUGH-Well, they did a nice job. MR. HUGHES-And the other issue is where is all the stormwater runoff going? MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll have him respond to the stormwater for you. MR. HUGHES-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Next? We’re going to assemble the questions then we’ll go back to the applicant. MIKE HUTSENPILLER MR. HUTSENPILLER-Okay. My name is Mike Hutsenpiller. I live on Bayberry Drive. I have a question. I’m looking at this print out here, and I’m assuming this is for Final approval, this whole thing we’re here for tonight. Correct? MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Was there ever a Preliminary? MR. MAC EWAN-Not on site plan, no. Site plan does not require preliminary. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Really? How come? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s the way the Ordinance is written. Subdivisions require Preliminary, Final, with an optional Sketch. Site plans are only site plans. There is no Preliminary. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Plus the overall view of this project started two years ago. MR. HUTSENPILLER-Right, but it’s changed a lot since then. MR. STROUGH-Yes. 99 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. HUTSENPILLER-Well, I, too, would like to see something, in regards to the architecture, changed. Nothing against Rich, I’m just not a big fan of the type of architecture that gets put up for apartments. It’s just too barracksy looking for me, but, you know, if he’s willing to do something that’s fine, but he can put in anything he wants, I guess, because he’s within the guidelines of the Town, and the Town’s kind of created this situation. So, what you see is what you get, but hopefully he can come up with some different designs. I’ve seen some different designs that might work for the price range he’s looking at. Not being a contractor, I don’t know the full pricing, but I think things could be done if he was willing to do something, which I think he is. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. DOUG COON MR. COON-Doug Coon. I also live in Bayberry Drive. I live 16 acres just north on Meadowbrook Road, and I just had a couple of comments. The flow of the water right now is generally in a southeast direction, and I know you’ve addressed this, and I just want to make sure that, there’s a lot of water there, that really is addressed, because there is a lot of water there and it does flow southeast, and of course I’d want to make sure that that was maintained or looked at in a good way. Also, I guess the plan is to go to the Hiland pump station, and I’ve had a beef with that pump station over the years, and I’ve talked to Rich about it and Jon Lapper about it. It’s, years ago, when it was first put in, the supervisor then actually put some shrubs in front of it, just because it was really, if you looked at it, it was chain link fence with pipes sticking out of the ground, and it still is from three sides, but it would be nice if that was actually, had something over it that made it look aesthetically nice, because I don’t see it so much because I’m looking at the shrubs, but that’s what it is. It’s a chain link fence with piping above, and the other beef I have with it is that every Friday at eight a.m. you hear the grinder pumps come on, and I can hear them just as plain as day, and I really think that maybe, I don’t know. I’m not really literate in pump stations, but I think there might be something that could be done so that you wouldn’t be able to hear that noise. I’m sure Rich hears it, and the apartments probably right adjacent to it, I’m sure they hear it as well. It’s always been that way, and it was that way before he had his apartments there at Glen Meadow, and it’s still that way. Nobody should have to listen to that on a weekly basis. MR. STROUGH-Just be thankful you’re not next to the Northway. MR. COON-I know. I heard that discussion, and I guess lastly I just, I was hoping that he might have done a little bit more upscale units there, just because his ones have all rented across from Meadowbrook, but, of course, that’s his decision, and I guess that’s it. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Stormwater. MR. NACE-Stormwater, is maintaining existing flow patterns. The stormwater currently finds the low wet areas and it will continue to do the same. Actually, do you mind if I just to something else while I have this plan out? MR. MAC EWAN-No. Not a problem. MR. NACE-Okay. The question came up about the visibility of the parking, okay, and the expanse of parking. Most of these, in fact, all with the exception of this run, all of these pods have the parking internalized. So from outside the pod, from out in the periphery of the project or adjacent properties, the parking is hidden behind the units. So the visibility should be zip or none, especially when given the fact that we have such a wooded buffer to any external 100 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) property lines. Additionally, as you can see, even from an internal standpoint, there’s a tremendous amount of landscaping to help buffer the parking areas. As I was saying, stormwater, all of the stormwater from the site is collected and taken to, I think we have five small detention basins around the periphery of the site. Those basins will outlet onto the areas adjacent to the wetlands, and will be allowed to filter down through the existing ground cover before it reaches the wetland, plus there’s, as we discussed before, there’s provisions in the basin for treatment of that first flush of groundwater coming off the site. So we’re not changing any drainage patterns. Doug, I believe, referred to a southeast drainage of water. That would, I think, be specific to his property. His property is up in here. There is an existing culvert where the stream that comes out of this area crosses Meadowbrook Road up in here. His area drains down to that stream to the southeast. This area drains to the northeast, and this area down in here, drains to the east, and then along the road a little bit toward the southeast, I’m sorry, I’m in the wrong, in here drains down to the road, and then a little bit to the southeast and then it’s kind of stagnant in here. There’s not a real well defined stream, as there is in the northeast corner. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else from Board members? Anything to add? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, as far as the variations of the buildings go, you’ve got my word. I will do some variations, not just colors. I can do some door changes. I can do some, I can do some small gable changes and stuff to the building. So I will make alterations in the building, and one of the other comments, from Doug, and I don’t think he meant this derogatory, but as far as the grade of the apartments, I don’t know if he meant the style of the building or the type of tenant I’m going to get. One thing I’ve learned in this business is, you can have a tenant that pays $1,000 a month and they can be your worst tenant. I have units that my lowest rents are $400, in Village of Fort Ann, and I get some of the best tenants. It’s all in screening the individual and management of the apartment complex. So just because these apartments are going to rent for less doesn’t mean these people are going to be any less of quality than a person who pays higher rent. I just wanted to address that. MR. MAC EWAN-Thanks. That’s a good comment. All right. We need to do a SEQRA, please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Here we go. “Will action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted actions in 6NYCRR Part 617.6?” MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. STROUGH-Well, wait a minute. Aren’t they coordinating their review with DEC and ACOE? MR. VOLLARO-That’s been done, hasn’t it? MR. STROUGH-Yes, but they have coordinated their review, though. Right? MR. SCHACHNER-You’re talking about the SEQRA review. MR. STROUGH-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-You’re saying they’ve coordinated with DEC? MR. STROUGH-I’m saying, I’m not making a statement. Just a question. MR. LAPPER-It’s an Unlisted action. It’s not coordinated. MR. STROUGH-Counsel? MR. SCHACHNER-I haven’t the faintest idea if they’ve coordinated review for the SEQRA project. It’s not required. 101 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Has somebody sought to be designated a lead agency? I’m assuming no. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STROUGH-No, but I’m just saying, would that be considered to be coordinated review because they were included in the review? So you’re saying not necessarily so. MR. SCHACHNER-Coordinated review is a determined part of your SEQRA which means that there’s an agreement among the involved agencies as to which will be the lead agency. I’m thinking that never happened. MR. STROUGH-All right. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-That’s for a Type I, isn’t it? MR. LAPPER-Right, it’s required for Type I. MR. STROUGH-All right. Thank you for the clarification. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“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, surface water. Right? But they’ve mitigated it. I mean, that’s a small to medium impact, and the mitigation has been proposed. I mean, it’s easier to say no, but don’t we have to address this? MRS. LA BOMBARD-You’re fine. I think that’s. MR. VOLLARO-Well, read that again, Cathy, would you again, one more time. MRS. LA BOMBARD-“ 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-I don’t see any adverse effects, John. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. FWW 2-2003 & 15-2003, Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, 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 102 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) 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 18 day of March, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s jump back to the Freshwater permit and do that. Someone can introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FWW 2-2003 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, 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: Freshwater Wetlands Permit – FWW 2-2003 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn SEQRA Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Guido Passarelli Agent: Nace Engineering Zone: PO Location: Meadowbrook Road Applicant proposes to conduct/cause a regulated activity on or adjacent to a freshwater wetland pursuant to Freshwater Wetlands Protection Law, Local Law 1, 1976 – NYS DEC GF-23. Total area of wetland: 12.62 acres. Cross Reference: NYS DEC Permit # 50-84-0190 Tax Map No.: Part of 296.12-2-24 Lot size: 39.6 acres / Section: 179-6-100 Public Hearing: March 18, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/18/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/14/03, and 103 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) 3/18 Staff Notes 3/11 Notice of Public Hearing 3/5 Meeting Notice WHEREAS, pursuant to Art. 6 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on March 18, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Freshwater Wetland 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 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 Condition 2 under the first resolve, where it says the applicant will submit an ACOE Non-Jurisdictional letter can be struck. 2. The actual application for the permit itself probably ought to state, under No. 4, information about the project, that really should be sewer district extension or contract user or out of district contract user. 3. Applicant shall apply for and receive a DEC permit for construction/disturbance within a DEC wetland and/or regulated area. 4. Any conditions of a DEC wetlands permit shall be incorporated as a condition of FWW permit 2-2003. 5. Applicant will comply with conditions for Town Freshwater Wetlands Permit approval as listed in Section 179-6-100 F (2). Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. MAC EWAN-Now, have we got a motion worked up for the site plan? MR. STROUGH-Well, I think we could use a couple of minutes on that, Mr. Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 104 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Take five. Okay. I’ll call the meeting back to order. Have you got a resolution there, Mr. Vollaro? MR. VOLLARO-We’ll give it a shot, Mr. Chairman. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2003 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, 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. 15-2003 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn SEQRA Type: Unlisted Property Owner: Guido Passarelli Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Esq., Tom Nace Zone: PO Location: Meadowbrook Road Applicant proposes 128 multi-family residential units in 16 buildings (16 bldgs. @ 3,776 = 60,416 sf), access road, parking and utilities. Multi-Family dwellings in the PO zone require Site Plan Review from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: FWW 2-2003, DEC Permit, SB 9-2000 Tax Map No.: Part of 296.12-1-24 Lot size: 39.6 acres / Section: 179-4 Public Hearing: March 18, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 2/18/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 3/14/03, and 3/18 Staff Notes 3/12 Warren Co. Planning 3/11 CT Male engineering comments received 3/11 Notice of Public Hearing 3/5 Meeting Notice 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 March 18, 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 105 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) 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 one bike rack available per 50 parking spaces, and they shall be available and accessible to all buildings. 2. There’s a maintenance agreement to be added that the owner of the property will maintain and plow the access road. 3. The emergency road itself will be connected to the properties to the northwest, to the Schermerhorn properties to the northwest and attached to the cul de sac. 4. The color variations would be in subtle earth tones. 5. The Board will approve a 20% increase over the Code requirement, which will equal 231 spaces. 6. The applicant will obtain a C.T. Male signoff. 7. We will remove No. 3 from the resolution (this refers to the draft resolution and has been removed). No. 3 stating that the sewer district extension map and report shall be submitted to and accepted by the Town Board prior to issuance of the first building permit. 8. We will be deleting No. 2 as well (this refers to the draft resolution and has been deleted). 9. Applicant will apply for and receive a DEC wetlands permit for proposed disturbance and construction within NYSDEC wetlands and regulated areas. Duly adopted this 18th day of March, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Ringer MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 SKETCH PLAN SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED *NO SEQR REQUIRED 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 PROPERTY INTO 3 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 3.1 +/- TO 3.6 +/- ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 40-01 TAX MAP NO. 48-1-13.21 LOT SIZE: 10.38 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS MATT STEVES & JOHN MICHAELS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-No public hearing. MR. MICHAELS-Matt Steves and John Michaels from the Michaels Group. MR. STEVES-Good evening. This is three lots on Moon Hill Road and Bay Road. This property has been in front of you before, and what we’re proposing is three lots, utilizing the common driveway. All the lots will have a minimum of 40 feet of frontage. Lot Two, being the middle lot, having 40 feet where the common driveway would be, only accessing the site with 106 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) one driveway (lost words). Placing the houses to minimize clearing and grading on the lot, to accommodate three single family. MR. STROUGH-Have you done the density calculation for this project yet? MR. STEVES-As far as removing the 25% slope? We’re working on the slope analysis now. MR. STROUGH-Okay. So I think we’re going to end up with two lots. MR. STEVES-Or we ask for a waiver from this Board because that’s in the subdivision and not in (lost words). Correct? MR. HILTON-You can certainly ask for the waiver. MR. STEVES-I didn’t say that you would grant one. I said that we could ask for one. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. STEVES-I think in light of the size of the property and the rural character of the three lots being all in three acres, I don’t think that’s an unrealistic proposal. I would do the analysis as we’ve been asked for that and give you that calculation. MR. STROUGH-Well, I, for one, will also want to see a grading and clearing plan. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Like, where will the fill go? MR. MICHAELS-We’re not going to (lost words). MR. STEVES-We’re just grading just enough to place the houses and septic. We’re not taking fill off the site. MR. STROUGH-See, that was my concern. That’s good news. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but if you take away slopes greater than 25%, well, I guess you haven’t done those calculations, but if I recall, there’s quite a bit of elevation on that lot. MR. STEVES-Yes, there is. If you’re asking whether or not I have to grade and remove fill, like with the last application. MR. SANFORD-No, I’m just wondering what you’ll have left over after you remove that area. MR. STEVES-You’re probably in the neighborhood of, if you average it out, probably about two and a half acres. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-How difficult would it be for you to provide us, at Preliminary, a cross section elevation? Could you do that? That’s a heck of a run for lot three to the septic system. MR. STEVES-Well, (lost words) there’s other areas on that lot. I did show (lost words) there are also areas (lost words). MR. STROUGH-The only other thing, back when Schermerhorn had plans for this property, the low point of this whole property was with the area where you’re planning on the infiltration bed for lot three? MR. STEVES-Possibly, that’s not a guarantee. 107 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STROUGH-But I’m saying, that was used as a retention basin, because it was a low point previously. MR. STEVES-Right, where all the drainage would be. MR. STROUGH-And if that’s the case, if that’s a water collector area, I don’t know if we want to put our infiltration bed there. MR. VOLLARO-Just as long as we’re talking about that bed, just taking a look at that slope, I think we’re looking at roughly a 22% slope there between where the house is and that bed is. The effluent’s going to get under a high speed. MR. STEVES-We just dropped on there schematically to see (lost words) there’s areas on the north side of Lot Three that can accommodate a 12 and a half percent slope, and can accommodate the septic. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s correct. I just, you know, where you’ve got it here, if this is just a schematic representation. MR. STEVES-But I didn’t say it was Sherman Avenue. MR. VOLLARO-You’re right. Poor Tom. I’m sorry I had to do that to him. MR. MICHAELS-The thing with the three lots, (lost words) we’d like to make this very nice. With three lots we could do some nice signage and some lighting and some nice stone walls, and we could make it something that would be really high end. (Lost words) trying to make this like a very high end estate enclave (lost words). If you go up there, especially Lot Two, and One, that’s very flat up there. We can do it without a lot of grading. It’s heavily wooded. We do have to clear the site, but there shouldn’t be a lot of grading in there. MR. STEVES-Strategic locations for the (lost words), absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Just an observation, that’s all. MR. VOLLARO-That D Box would be taking a beating, though, I’ve got to tell you. MR. STROUGH-Are we going to get a plan that shows, a plan that meets Town Code? As an alternative look see when you come before us next time? In other words, we might be looking at two lots? Mr. Chairman, do you think that’s a good idea? As an alternate plan, one that meets Town Code? MR. MAC EWAN-Off the top of my head, the response would be, any applicant can come in front of this Board and present an application they so desire, and it’s up to the whim of this Board if they want to follow through on it. MR. STROUGH-Well, we sometimes ask applicants to also submit a plan so we can look at, that would meet Town Code, and then we can decide from there. MR. STEVES-I don’t disagree with you, John. When you get into a subdivision that’s 30, 25, 50 lots, but when you’re talking three lots, you would remove one lot. I mean, I can do it. Most certainly. I can show you a two lot subdivision. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m not saying that I am totally opposed to three lots, but what I am saying is I want to take a look at both. MR. MICHAELS-This Code is 25% slope. (Lost words) cluster in determining developable land, I mean, because there is a way to do this and not have a 25% slope just grade it out. 108 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. STROUGH-Well, we haven’t used it in just a cluster. We’ve used it with wetland situations and Schermerhorn just had to use it. MR. MAC EWAN-I think you’re out on that limb by yourself. MR. STROUGH-All right. I guess I’m by myself. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t have any issue with the three lots. MR. MAC EWAN-I think those informal polls work really good sometimes. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s all part of the process. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I would, though, like to see a cross section elevation. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. We’ll do a cross section elevation with the driveway profile, the whole nine yards. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Will these be like brick homes, masonry homes? MR. MICHAELS-They’re going to be high end. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Next month? May? May. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got a couple of questions, I guess. MR. MAC EWAN-Relative to this? MR. VOLLARO-Relative to this subdivision. Why are the property lines not coincident with the right of way on Moon Hill Road? Why are the property lines defined as they are? MR. STEVES-Why are the jogs along the property lines not parallel with the actual pavement? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVES-That’s a County road, and that’s the dedicated portion of the road. MR. VOLLARO-I see. It gets that skewed, does it, along that road? MR. STEVES-All the way along that road. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, this is going to be a private road? MR. STEVES-It’s not a private road. It’s really a shared driveway by three homes. MR. VOLLARO-I was reading in the Code, 179-4-90B where private roads are proposed, the minimum frontage on a public road shall be the width of the right of way for the public collector. I was just wondering if you made that 50 feet wide, it would fit that requirement. MR. STEVES-Yes, but it’s not a road. It’s a driveway. We’ve done this many times previously. I can easily widen it to 50. I have no problem with that. It’s just, to be on the safe side, let’s widen it to 50. MRS. LA BOMBARD-So those driveways would have to be, they’re private drives. 109 (Queensbury Planning Board 3/18/03) MR. VOLLARO-They’re private drives. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They’d have to be maintained and plowed. MR. STEVES-I don’t want anybody ever thinking it’s going to become a Town road. It’s never going to become a Town road. MR. VOLLARO-No, making it 50 foot off Moon Hill up to the first set of driveways. MR. STEVES-I have no problem with that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, okay. MR. STROUGH-Well, back to my clearing permit, I’m a little bit concerned about getting the hilltop cleared. I don’t think that’s part of your plan. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not. That’s what he said. MR. STROUGH-So, a clearing plan, does the Board agree with me on that? MR. VOLLARO-It said here that we would have a grading plan, and the grading plan would show us. MR. STROUGH-How about a clearing plan, because we’ve asked for it on Gurney Lane and things like that. MR. STEVES-Yes, we will do that. MR. STROUGH-Okay. That was easy. MR. MAC EWAN-What else? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything other than that, other than what I’ve mentioned, the septic location and the 50 foot wide on the inbound road. MR. STEVES-Done. MR. MAC EWAN-We’ll see you in May. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Sorry for the late night. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 110