Loading...
2003-09-16 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN LARRY RINGER CHRIS HUNSINGER JOHN STROUGH THOMAS SEGULJIC, ALTERNATE RICHARD SANFORD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ANTHONY METIVIER PLANNER-GEORGE HILTON TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER, AND HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES July 22, 2003: NONE MR. STROUGH-I just have a comment, on the July 15 minutes, that was the Rooney docks, th and I don’t know if I made myself clear, but we were only approving, but I prefaced the motion, but then the motion went on. So, is it clear that I prefaced the motion? That only a certain number of those docks were being approved as a marina, in the July 15 minutes? It was just a th question I had. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s what the resolution showed. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I didn’t bring them with me. I carried them with me for a couple of weeks, here. MR. RINGER-Why don’t we delay, then, a motion, John, I’ll just make the motion to approve the minutes of July 22, and you can get an opportunity to look over the 15. ndth MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. RINGER-Would that be better? MR. STROUGH-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2003, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) EXPEDITED REVIEW: OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 1-2003 SEQR TYPE II RICK YANCY/FAITH BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH PROPERTY OWNER: WALTER BURNHAM ZONE: CI-1A LOCATION: 442 CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN OFF PREMISES SIGN TO BE PLACED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CORINTH ROAD, OPPOSITE OGDEN ROAD. OFF PREMISES SIGNS REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 308.15-1-39 LOT SIZE: 0.71 ACRES SECTION: 140-6B(5) RICK YANCY, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Comments from Staff? MR. HILTON-No comments other than the applicant has indicated the sign will not exceed 10 square feet. It’s a Type II Action, and it’s being presented to you as an Expedited Review item. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. For the record, you are? MR. YANCY-Rick Yancy, Pastor of Faith Bible Baptist Church. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s fairly simple, straightforward. Any questions from Board members? MR. STROUGH-Just a couple of simple, quick questions. You show on your diagram Faith Bible Church, and the top you say Other Sign. MR. YANCY-Yes. MR. STROUGH-What’s the other sign? MR. YANCY-This is an Off Premise sign that we’re putting for just directional purposes on the bottom. It would be a small sign, but the owner of that piece of property wants to put a, in the future, put a sign above that, what it’s allotted for his company there. So it would just be a small directional sign. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I just wanted my other Planning Board, that’s what I suspected, everyone to be aware of that. That’s actually going to be two signs, and is it going to be lit? MR. YANCY-We wanted the option to light it. We have not made that choice yet. MR. STROUGH-All right. If you do light it, downcast lighting. MR. YANCY-Okay. MR. STROUGH-In other words have the lighting on top downcast on the sign, not on the ground up cast. MR. YANCY-Can it be lit within the sign? MR. STROUGH-Within the sign, you mean like a plastic? MR. YANCY-Like a plastic. MR. STROUGH-That’s not a problem with me, just as long as it’s not up lit. MR. YANCY-Okay. MR. STROUGH-I mean, as one Planning Board member. So those are the two concerns I had. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Do we have lighting regulations in the Ordinance, as to what they need to do for signs and such, right, foot candles and stuff they need to meet? MR. HILTON-Yes. They could have an internally illuminated sign. That’s fine. I guess the size is the main thing, with off premise signs. If you felt like you wanted to stipulate, if it’s going to be external illuminated, that it be downcast, that might be something, but they’re allowed an internally illuminated sign. The Sign Code does address that. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STROUGH-No, that’s it with me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-Would someone introduce a motion, please. MOTION TO APPROVE OFF PREMISES SIGN NO. 1-2003 RICK YANCY/FAITH BIBLE BAPTIST CHURCH, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Off Premises Sign 1-2003 Applicant: Rick Yancy / Faith Bible Baptist Church SEQR Type II Property Owner: Walter Burnham Zone: CI-1A Location: 442 Corinth Road Applicant proposes an Off Premises Sign to be placed on the north side of Corinth Road, opposite Ogden Road. Off Premises Signs require approval of the Planning Board. Tax Map No. 308.15-1-39 Lot size: 0.71 acres / Section: 140-6B(5) Public Hearing: September 16, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 7/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 9/12/03, and 9/16 Staff Notes 9/9 Notice of Public Hearing sent 9/3 Meeting Notice & Project Identification marker sent WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator has identified this application as eligible for inclusion in the expedited review process and has placed the same on this Planning Board agenda as such and, WHEREAS, The Planning Board hereby confirms that this project is acceptable for expedited review and, WHEREAS, a public hearing has been conducted and the public in attendance and the Board members in attendance have been polled regarding this matter and, 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that WHEREAS, the following conditions of approval have been discussed and agreed upon; 1. Approved as per the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following condition: Any external lighting on the sign shall be downcast. Duly adopted this 16th day of September 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan, NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. YANCY-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 17-2003 PREVIOUS SEQRA MODIFICATION STEVEN HOERTKORN AGENT: JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS ZONE: NC-1A LOCATION: ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN BY RELOCATING A RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED PARKING AREA CLOSE TO NYS ROUTE 149. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF 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 CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-This is a modification of a recently approved plan. It’s pretty much the same restaurant that was approved. The location is slightly different, closer to the road. The applicant has submitted a request for lighting waiver, stating that lighting will only be used under the seating area. I guess the question would be, is there any lighting proposed for the parking area or building exteriors, and in terms of the landscaping plan, just to meet the 149/Ridge Road design guidelines, if 50% of the proposed trees could be evergreen, having the landscape plan be revised to reflect that, and if, any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed during the review of this item, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. CENTER-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. CENTER-Tom Center from Nace Engineering, representing Mr. Hoertkorn. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you explain a little bit about what you’re requesting us to do? MR. CENTER-What we’ve done is left the building is essentially the same. We’ve made no modifications to the approved building before. What we did is we moved the parking lot up to the front of the building, which complies with the Route 149/Ridge Road zoning ordinance in that area, and there is no lighting proposed for this. The hours of operation will be in the 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) summer and will be during daylight hours only. It’ll be seasonal in the summer. So the owner did not see a need for lighting at this time, and we have basically just moved the parking lot from the side to around the front, complied with the zoning code on all the design for the parking lot, number of parking spaces, septic system is to the rear, located so that for possible future expansion out in that area including building or parking. We’ve answered all of C.T. Male’s engineering questions. I received a letter back from them today, and as far as the Staff comments for the landscaping, we also, I had faxed some stuff over the other day that shows we changed some of the Summit Ash to Evergreen, to come into compliance with the 50% Evergreen in that area. So that’s not reflected in these plans that you have in front of you, but in the fax that I submitted yesterday to Staff comments, that shows the change in the Evergreens. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Tom, we’ll start with you. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So this plan I’m looking at for the landscaping, that’s been changed somewhat? MR. CENTER-Yes. The Summit Ash has been changed to White Spruce, and we’ve added three White Pines, which brings it to the 50% Evergreen ratio. STEVEN HOERTKORN MR. HOERTKORN-Just as a comment, there are numerous trees on this property already existing. We had pictures in our previous presentation which is why they allowed us basically to eliminate much of that landscaping and go to seedlings. There are a lot of trees on there. It’s bordered by trees on three sides. So in the last meeting, they basically waived all the requirements and told us we could use seedlings, and this one is actually a little more intensive than the previous one. It allows us to keep some of the trees that the previous plan might have destroyed also, some of the larger ones. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then the C.T. Male letter, you said you received approval of that, then? MR. CENTER-Yes. I received a letter back from Mr. Houston this morning. Which we met all of his questions. We made some changes in order to come into compliance. Do you have that, our letter? MR. SEGULJIC-I have the letter from C.T. Male to you. MR. CENTER-Okay. I can go down the list of engineering changes, what we did to answer those. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, just quickly. MR. CENTER-Okay. Number One, a note was added to the construction entrance detail stating that the construction entrance shall be located within the limits of the new existing entrance to the site and we added the location of the sediment control fencing onto the drawing. Number Two, The diversion swale around the southwest corner of the wastewater disposal area was extended around so it would eliminate any possible shedding of water off the neighboring property. Number Three, the grease trap, septic tank and the diversion swale were relocated so that the diversion swale is away from the septic tank. Also, the new building will be a slab on grade, and we’ve moved the septic closer to the building in order to put that swale around there. We added two, four foot by four foot drywells located in the detention basins. MR. HOERTKORN-What do you mean the building will be a slab on grade? MR. CENTER-There’s going to be a basement to this building? MR. HOERTKORN-Yes. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. CENTER-Okay. At this time, Number Five, the owner feels that sufficient lighting is available for the handicap ramp area and does not plan to add any exterior lighting at this time. Number Six, the dimensions to Route 9L, the entrance to the adjacent property to the west and distance to the accident marker were corrected to reflect the actual distances. Number Seven, the proposed wastewater disposal field was located so as to not interfere with possible future expansion. Also, with only 2 feet of change across the field and with the well drained, uniform soils, we do not see a need to rotate the field so that it is more parallel to the existing slope. Number Eight, the dumpster pad is oversized for one dumpster and will be emptied on off restaurant hours. Also, employees will be able to access the north section of the gated enclosure to access the dumpster if a car is parked in the handicapped space, and Staff comments, Number One, there is no new lighting proposed for this site, and, Number Two, he summit ash trees were changed to white spruce and 3 additional white pines were added to the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and the last thing is, so, with regard to lighting, you’re not going to have any lighting here, then? MR. HOERTKORN-Well, when we were at the last meeting, actually, that’s one of the reasons we, one of the agreements was that if there was any lighting that they wanted non-commercial type lighting, and that was something that I think that Mr. Strough and I were going to work on, in order to make it, you know, we’re trying to set something here that’s attractive, not just another roadside restaurant, maybe another roadside attraction, but, yes, we’ll get whatever lighting’s adequate, but once we move this building up, there’s huge lights back there on the street. So as far as the parking lot is concerned, there’s plenty of lighting, I think. I don’t know. We’ll deal with that. As far as the restaurant itself, it’s going to be an outdoor deck, that sort of thing. There’ll be some lights. MR. SEGULJIC-But those would be inside the deck, I assume? MR. CENTER-Under the canopy lighting, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Under the deck, but for now there’s no plans for lighting the parking lot. MR. HOERTKORN-Unless they’re necessary. I kind of misunderstood the waiver to some extent because, like I said, the last time we kind of got a waiver, and it was something that we were going to work on together. So when I saw that waiver, I didn’t know if it meant a waiver completely of the lighting and/or it was something that can be dealt with. So either way is okay with me. I’m not interested in having a dark parking lot. I’m not interested in putting lights up if we don’t need them. So that’s kind of an issue there, I guess, to whatever extent that is. What we didn’t want is those big knock down things that when they knock down they crash about three or four cars. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. You don’t want to look like an airport. All right. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I’m a little slow tonight. I just want to make sure I understand the proposed changes to the landscaping. The summit ash are going to be changed to white spruce? MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Plus you’re adding how many? MR. CENTER-Plus we added four white pine, or, I’m sorry, three white pine. MR. HUNSINGER-Those were the only questions I had. Thanks. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-No. I had nothing right now. I would think, though, that any approval would be, that if they weren’t going to have the lights, that they would have to come back, if you were going to put up exterior lighting or poles. I wouldn’t think that our approval would give you the right tonight, if you decided you do need lighting, to put up poles. MR. HOERTKORN-I’m not opposed to, isn’t that how it was left last time? I don’t know. I’m not entirely certain. MR. STROUGH-Well, you had pole lighting out there last time. MR. HOERTKORN-Right, and then there was a concern about the aesthetics of it. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I asked you, you know, was there anything you could get, because, you know, you’ve got exactly what we want there, is the Adirondack feel, and that’s great. I was just wondering, I asked you off the side, you know, is there any way that you could like make your own lighting. MR. HOERTKORN-Which is what I want to do, basically. Have a welder. MR. RINGER-I’m just concerned that if we give you an approval, I don’t want to carte blanche to put up any lighting that they want. I don’t want our approval to be the assumption that they can put any. So I think if we did approve the modification, which we probably will, we’d also probably approve it with the condition that the lighting would be as proposed in the original approval. Did we have that in the original approval, the particular type lighting? MR. HOERTKORN-Well, the building was laid back way different, the parking lot was in the rear. It was an entirely different situation. MR. RINGER-I don’t have a problem. I’m just concerned. I just don’t want to give a carte blanche that they could decide that whatever lighting they wanted to put up at a later date. MR. HILTON-No, I understand. I think the plan you’re looking at, though, and the applicant has stated that they’re not proposing any lighting. MR. RINGER-Right. He did say that if he needs it, he’d have to put it up, and I didn’t want him to go away with the idea that, well he can just put it up if he wanted to. MR. HILTON-No. I think that’s something that’s a major enough change that it would require a future modification, and you can certainly stipulate. MR. RINGER-Okay. I don’t have anything, then, Craig. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that Larry’s concern is very appropriate. I think there’s been enough confusion about this so that, if and when you make a motion on this, you should specify whether any lighting is approved or not. It sounds to me like not, in which case make sure the applicant understands that any lighting would require coming back before the Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Simple enough. Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. No, just curious. I recall the first application, and the reason for doing the modification is, I’ll let you answer that, but it looks to me that you want to be closer to 149. Is that correct? MR. HOERTKORN-Not at all correct. I was entirely misinformed by my previous engineer as to what the variances were, what the zoning was. I’d rather not go there. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HOERTKORN-It was pretty nasty, and, you know, just as a track record for some of you people that haven’t been here, I’ve been on this project for over a year, and I think that they’ll tell you that I’ve been extremely cooperative, and I don’t intend to change that now, and I don’t intend to put up lights that you people don’t approve of, or want. MR. SANFORD-It’s just that I remember when we did the first review, I thought it made a lot of sense, and now I see the revision, and I was just wondering if it was proximity of the restaurant in regards to the roads, but if it’s something that doesn’t involve us, that’s fine. MR. HOERTKORN-Well, this, you know, actually, specifically is what appears on Page 102 in your zoning book, and it took me a year and a half to get to that. MR. SANFORD-All right. Well, I have no further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No. The lighting I thought about and I tossed back and forth, but, now, you’re just going to test the waters with your enterprise on 149 there, and I assume that, are you going to be lunch and early evening dining, or just evening dining? MR. HOERTKORN-No, early evening, like pretty much 11 to 8, 9. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. HOERTKORN-From May through Mid-October. Relative to your previous question, you know, I have four acres here, and this present plan allows me to do future development in the back, which the other plan didn’t, because there’s a 75 foot setback on Route 149, which I was never made aware of, to be more specific. MR. STROUGH-The only other concern that I had, and I guess you’ve answered that, is the location of the dumpster. MR. HOERTKORN-They put it there because it’s convenient for the trucks and stuff. MR. STROUGH-Well, and it’s convenient for the employees where it’s located, I can see that, without a lot of walking distance, and the sidewalk’s right there, and probably, I’m thinking, the truck’s probably going to come in the morning ,because everyone complains about that, and you won’t be open then. MR. CENTER-That’s correct. MR. HOERTKORN-Actually barbecue, low and slow. I’ll be there. I’ll guarantee you that. I may not be there at eight o’clock at night, but I’ll be there at six in the morning. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, it seems like all those concerns have been addressed one way or the other, or they will be, but just as long as you understand that, you know, if you do want to put up lighting in the parking lot, you’re going to have to come back. MR. HOERTKORN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and I don’t know if you know, but I was at a graduation party and had some of your barbecue, and I think you’ll do pretty well, once word gets out. Pretty good stuff there. Okay. That’s it for me, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Those set of plans that you brought tonight, they reflect all the changes that were made, in accordance with the signoff letter from C.T. Male? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. CENTER-Yes, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a set of those plans? MR. HILTON-We have eight and a half by eleven copies of the portions of the plans. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I ask you to leave those plans with George tonight? MR. CENTER-Yes, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Discuss a motion? MR. RINGER-I have just that one condition on poles. That’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Run with it. MR. RINGER-Have you got the signoff from C.T. Male signed off, the complete signoff? MR. CENTER-Absolutely, yes. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Go, introduce it. MR. RINGER-I move that we approve Site Plan No. 17-2003, for Steven Hoertkorn, as per resolution prepared by Staff, with the following. MR. HUNSINGER-The landscaping changes? Did he already signoff? MR. RINGER-I assume they’re on there, but the new plans have got the landscaping? MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. They incorporate everything in the C.T. Male signoff. MR. RINGER-Okay. As per resolution prepared by Staff with the following condition, that no pole lighting is part of this approval, and any future pole lighting would need an approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Add that boilerplate to the end, please. MR. RINGER-And the, we have determined that there is no change in the SEQRA determination. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s already in the prepared motion, just so you know, the SEQRA thing. MR. MAC EWAN-Force of habit. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine, but two suggestions. One is that I would suggest that the motion be amended slightly just to indicate that lighting would approval from this Board, from the Planning Board, so that it’s crystal clear in the record, and secondly the prepared resolution indicates that the applicant’s agent is Jarrett-Martin Engineering, and from what I’m hearing and from what I’m seeing, my impression is that that’s no longer the case, and if that’s no longer the case, then I assume we have paperwork for whoever is the agent, and you might want to suggest that the draft resolution be modified in that way also. MR. MAC EWAN-So noted. Amend it. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. RINGER-Okay. Do I have to re-do it, or can I amend it with what Mark has said? MR. SCHACHNER-You have to amend it with what you say. MR. RINGER-Okay. Let’s start over, then. Make it easier to start all over. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 17-2003 MODIFICATION STEVEN HOERTKORN, Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Strough: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 17-2003 Applicant/Owner: Steven Hoertkorn Previous SEQRA Agent: Nace Engineers Zone: NC-1A MODIFICATION Location: Route 149 Applicant proposes to modify a previously approved site plan by relocating a restaurant and associated parking area close to NYS Route 149. Modifications to approved site plans require the approval of 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 [Approved] PH not required for modification WHEREAS, the application was received on 8/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 9/12/03, and 9/16 Staff Notes 9/15 CT Male sign-off 9/12 Agent response to CT Male 9/12 CT Male engineering comments 9/3 Meeting Notice sent 8/22 Application forwarded to CT Male WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a modification; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board reaffirms the previous SEQRA approval, 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 for MODIFICATION is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) 1. No pole lighting is part of this approval, and any future pole lighting would need approval of the Planning Board. 2. The application should show that the engineer for the project has been changed from Jarrett-Martin to Nace Engineering Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. MacEwan, NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, gentlemen. MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. MR. HOERTKORN-Thanks. OLD BUSINESS SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JEAN M. HOFFMAN ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 159 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 7.249 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS OF 3.821 AND 3.428 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 01-601, 602, DOCK; BP 01-664, DECK BP 02-142, BOATHOUSE; AV 60-99, SB 14-99, AV 30-01, AV 91-01, SP 15-01, SP 50-01 TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-9.1 LOT SIZE: 7.249 AC. SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS BILL KENIRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision 15-2003 Preliminary Stage Final Stage, Jean M. Hoffman, Meeting Date: September 16, 2003 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 15-2003 (Preliminary & Final Stage) APPLICANT: Jean Hoffman is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 7.249 +/- acre property into 2 single- family lots of 3.8 +/- and 3.4 +/- acres. LOCATION: The subject property is located on Cleverdale Rd. EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned WR-1A, Waterfront Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a Full Environmental Assessment Form with the subdivision application. PARCEL HISTORY: SB 8-1995, 3-lot subdivision, resolved 5/21/96; SB 14-1999, 2-lot subdivision, resolved 7/27/99. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed subdivision seeks to create two lots of approximately 3.8 and 3.4 acres in size. This lot currently has an existing home located toward the northern portion of the property. A new house, septic system and proposed access from Cleverdale Rd. are proposed for the 3.8 +/- acre lot. The area of the site where new development is proposed is generally wooded. Site topography slopes to the west from Cleverdale Rd. The applicant has 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) submitted a grading plan, which proposes to drain stormwater from the proposed house and drive way to an infiltration area at the southern area of the existing property. STAFF COMMENTS: Have any perc tests or test pits been done in the area of the proposed septic to verify soil conditions? The clearing limits, which appear to be shown on the applicant’s grading & utility plan, should be clearly identified.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The proposed subdivision seeks to create two lots of approximately 3.8 and 3.4 acres. The lot currently has an existing home located on the northern portion of the property. A new house, septic system and proposed access from Cleverdale Road are proposed from the 3.8 +/- acre property. The area of the site that’s proposed for development is generally wooded and the applicant has submitted a grading plan which proposes to drain stormwater from the proposed house and driveway to an infiltration area. I guess the questions from Staff would be have any test pits or perc tests been done in the area of the proposed septic system to verify soil conditions and the clearing limits, if any, well, the clearing limits which appear to be shown on the applicant’s grading and utility plan should be clearly identified, and that’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. KINERY-Good evening. MR. MAC EWAN-For the record, you are? MR. KENIRY-Mr. Chairman, I’m Bill Keniry, attorney for the applicant. MR. MAC EWAN-Tell us about your proposed application. MR. KENIRY-It’s probably one of the more mundane applications that you have before you, in the sense that it’s a simple two lot subdivision. We believe that we meet your bulk requirements. The acreage size is 3.8 and 3.4 acres. You will observe, when you look at the plan, that they are away from the waterfront area. The zoning is WR-, I believe it’s 1A, one acre zoning. With respect to the perc tests and the test results, I think that the tests have been completed. They were completed recently within the last few days. JEAN HOFFMAN MRS. HOFFMAN-Ten days ago. MR. KENIRY-Within the last ten days, and I think written results will be available. MRS. HOFFMAN-Unless you need them now. I don’t have them now, but if you need them I can get them for you. MR. MAC EWAN-Are they in your possession? MRS. HOFFMAN-No. MR. MAC EWAN-We would need them for Staff. They would need to be submitted to them. MRS. HOFFMAN-Okay. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MAC EWAN-As part of the record. MR. KENIRY-Okay. MRS. HOFFMAN-The only thing I know about the perc test is they turned out a whole lot better than the engineer thought they were going to be. MR. MAC EWAN-Who did your perc test for you? MRS. HOFFMAN-A young man by the name of John Hartnet. He came up from Melrose. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Anything else to add? MR. KENIRY-No. Respectfully we would ask that it be open for a public hearing, that the public hearing be closed. We’d ask for a negative declaration with respect to SEQRA, and respectfully ask for Final approval. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I’ll start with you. MR. HUNSINGER-I really didn’t have any questions, other than the one label on the site plan that shows the building on the new lot, it’s labeled the proposed bunkhouse. I’m just curious as to what that was. MRS. HOFFMAN-It was just a name we put on the building. MR. HUNSINGER-The proposed new lot would not have any access to the lake? MRS. HOFFMAN-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Just the easement for the water line? MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have any questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-I have nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Everything I had has been asked. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Just a question on the plan that says survey of land Jean F. Hoffman says reputed owner. MRS. HOFFMAN-That’s me. MR. KENIRY-Should be actual owner. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s it. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. What do we do about the test pit results? MR. HILTON-Well, as part of the subdivision review process, the Board, you’re, I guess, charged with looking at stormwater and septic system and making sure that there’s adequate solid waste disposal. If you feel comfortable enough, you could condition the application that the test pit results be provided and reviewed by the Director of Building and Codes. That’s always an option. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That’s doable. I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. My name is Chris Navitsky with the Lake George Waterkeeper. I had a couple of comments on neither opposed to the application, but regarding the project, it should be considered as a major stormwater project based on the amount of clearing, and there was no information provided on the design. Regarding that, and how the site would be graded and piped to the basin, and no information regarding the discharge and where that would be going. In addition, there is no erosion control information provided as required, and also I had just thought there should be some more information on the septic system regarding the perc and deep test pit, and that’s all I had. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? MR. HILTON-Mr. Chairman, just to, on the record, state that Mr. Navitsky has submitted a letter to the file dated September 16, and he pretty much just summarized everything that’s th contained in this letter. I just wanted to make you aware of the letter. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. STROUGH-I have a question for you, George. Because this is in a CEA, is it also going to have to go through site plan review? MR. HILTON-No, I think because, well, because it’s in the Lake George basin, and the amount of clearing or the scope of the project may and probably does require what Chris is saying, a stormwater report needs to be filed, and again, I think that’s something that, if required, could be reviewed by the Director of Building and Codes or Planning Staff. MR. STROUGH-But we’ve reviewed others that were new. If they were in a CEA, they had to go through site plan. Didn’t they? MR. HILTON-I think, well, I know that expansion of a nonconforming use within a CEA requires site plan. Now this is subdivision. There’s no building project proposed. MR. STROUGH-No, but I said when the people do go to a building project, don’t we do a site plan review if it’s in a CEA? MR. HILTON-I don’t believe so. MR. MAC EWAN-Really? MR. SCHACHNER-We can check the Code right here, if you’d like. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Glen Lake a CEA? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-We just did one last month. MR. STROUGH-Round Pond is a CEA. MR. HILTON-I think that project was a nonconforming use, and there was an expansion proposed. MR. MAC EWAN-The only thing that triggers it to come before us is if it’s a nonconforming use, if it’s a conforming use within a CEA, meets all the requirements, they don’t have to come in front of us. MR. SCHACHNER-It depends on what the use is. We’re talking about single family residences. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. That’s what we’re referring to. MR. SCHACHNER-I mean, we’ll check. We can check either now or in the future, but remember that all of Lake George, not only the part of the Queensbury, but as a critical environmental area, I think what you’re saying is every single single family residence built in Lake George would come to this Board for site plan review, and I don’t think you currently do that. Do you? I mean, think about it, there’s an awful lot of single family residences. I don’t think that’s the case. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Well, on Assembly Point, (lost words) was building a house on Assembly Point, or was that a pre-existing and he was doing a re-build? MR. MAC EWAN-There’s so many of them up there, most of them are re-builds, add ons. MR. SCHACHNER-There’s lots and lots of nonconforming stuff. That’s probably what you’re thinking of. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, too much. MR. SCHACHNER-And that’s probably what you’re thinking of. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Any other questions from Board members? Do you feel comfortable moving forward? MR. STROUGH-The one thing that mitigates any concerns is this is a fairly level spot. I mean, it’s not steeply draining in to Lake George, and the proposed use is rather minor, a house, and the septic system appears to be a considerably distance from the lake. It’s not on the shore, at least the parcel that we’re subdividing from the major parcel. So there’s a lot of mitigating, I think, situations. MR. RINGER-She’s got almost four acres of land for one house. MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, I’m just trying to tell Mr. Navitsky that I think we are taking a look at his concerns. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll close the public hearing. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions that I don’t think the applicant really addressed, and Staff had as well, is the limits of the proposed clearing. If those are as shown on the plan or not. I mean, that would be a reason for concern over stormwater management as well. MR. MAC EWAN-Mr. Keniry, could we get you to come back up please. Do you want that answered, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. KENIRY-I think with respect to the clearing limits that they are depicted. If the depiction is not to your satisfaction, I think we can certainly endeavor to do better, if that’s the direction. MR. HILTON-I mean, in looking at the plan, I see what appear to be clearing limits. I agree. If you could just add a label, I think if the applicant could somehow just add a label and clearly identify those clearing limits, that that would satisfy us. MR. KENIRY-Would that be acceptable? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. I just wanted verification that what was shown on the map is indeed the intent, because it wasn’t clearly labeled. MR. KENIRY-Okay. I think we can do it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Gentlemen, we need to do a SEQRA. MR. STROUGH-Long Form or Short Form? MR. MAC EWAN-It appears the Long Form is in their application. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right . We’ll do a Long Form SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-2003, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JEAN M. HOFFMAN, 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 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) 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 16 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to introduce a motion, please, for Preliminary. Hold off on conditions until Final. MR. STROUGH-And the only note I have is on the back, I notice that it says the application for Preliminary is hereby granted or denied. Should we also include granted, and is subject to the following conditions? Do we need to note granted? Do you have a copy of the resolution? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. All of your resolutions say approved/denied, and when you make your motion you say motion to approve or motion to deny. MR. STROUGH-So that’s an automatic grant, then, correct, if you approve. MR. RINGER-Yes. You want to say approved. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and you want me to save the conditions for the Final? MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2003 JEAN M. HOFFMAN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 15-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Jean M. Hoffman PRELIMINARY STAGE Zone: WR-1A FINAL STAGE Location: 159 Cleverdale Road SEQR Type: Unlisted Applicant proposes subdivision of a 7.249 acre parcel into two lots of 3.821 and 3.428 acres. Cross Reference: BP 01-601, 602, Dock; BP 01-664, Deck BP 02-142, Boathouse; AV 60-99, SB 14-99, AV 30-01, AV 91-01, SP 15-01, SP 50-01 Tax Map No. 227.17-1-9.1 Lot size: 7.249 ac. / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: August 26, 2003, September 16, 2003 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) WHEREAS, the application was received 7/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 9/12/03, and 9/16 Staff Notes 9/9 Notice of Public Hearing 9/3 Meeting Notice w/Project Identification marker sent 8/30 CB left 2 x 3 map for Ms. Hoffman for display 8/26 Staff Notes 8/19 Notice of Public Hearing 8/6 Meeting Notice 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 held on September 16, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Conditions for Final. MR. STROUGH-The only conditions that I noted was that they will have to submit. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ve got two. Submit perc test results, and lot line limits of clearing need to be shown on the plat. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and how about the stormwater? MR. RINGER-They asked for a waiver. MR. MAC EWAN-She asked for a waiver on that. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. HILTON-Yes, and again, my comment was there are certain thresholds within the Lake George basin that may require a stormwater report to be submitted. I think that’s something, again, that Planning Staff or the Director of Building and Codes can review, down the line. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you want us to note if it meets the threshold, then it’s required to be submitted to Staff? MR. HILTON-That they submit it. MR. MAC EWAN-And Town Engineer approval. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. That’s what I was going to make is mere submission is not enough. Make sure that the condition includes that somebody is having to approve it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do that, Town Engineer approval. MR. SANFORD-But wouldn’t they have to do that anyway, I mean, independent of our resolution, if it’s called for, then wouldn’t it be subject to a review process and so aren’t we being redundant, if that’s the case, in putting it into the resolution? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, for starters, it might not be required yet, and I think your practice typically has been you don’t want to approve the subdivision unless that can be done, but that’s up to you. MR. SANFORD-Well, if your recommendation is to include it, that’s fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Well, I think it’s appropriate and consistent with your past practice. I’m not saying it’s required now, but it’s consistent with your past practice in that you typical don’t want to approve a subdivision unless all the elements that would be required for constructing a single family residence could be met. MR. STROUGH-Well, what I have here, the applicant must obtain the Town Engineer’s approval of the stormwater plan? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine for stormwater. There was another issue, though. MR. STROUGH-Yes. A label will be added to the final plat that the clearing will be as depicted. MR. SCHACHNER-The other one I was thinking of is the perc test one. MR. HUNSINGER-As depicted on Map 2 of 2. MR. STROUGH-All right. Label will be added to the Final plat depicting the clearing plan as shown in 2 of 2? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, because Map 1 shows tree lines, but it makes it look like the entire site is going to be cleared, whereas Map 2 shows the trees in the center of the site. MR. STROUGH-Okay. I’ll give it a shot. MR. MAC EWAN-Read it back before we run with it. MR. STROUGH-All right. I’ve got submit perc test results, One. MR. MAC EWAN-No, submit perc test results for approval by the Town Engineer and/or Building and Codes Department, and your stormwater should read very similar to that. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay. I have submit test pit results for approval by Town Engineer or Building and Codes Department. Label will be added to the final plat depicting a clearing plan as shown to in 2 of 2, and applicant must obtain the Town Engineer’s approval of the stormwater plan. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2003 JEAN M. HOFFMAN, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 15-2003 Applicant/Property Owner: Jean M. Hoffman PRELIMINARY STAGE Zone: WR-1A FINAL STAGE Location: 159 Cleverdale Road SEQR Type: Unlisted Applicant proposes subdivision of a 7.249 acre parcel into two lots of 3.821 and 3.428 acres. Cross Reference: BP 01-601, 602, Dock; BP 01-664, Deck BP 02-142, Boathouse; AV 60-99, SB 14-99, AV 30-01, AV 91-01, SP 15-01, SP 50-01 Tax Map No. 227.17-1-9.1 Lot size: 7.249 ac. / Section: Subdivision Regulations Public Hearing: August 26, 2003, September 16, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received 7/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 9/12/03, and 9/16 Staff Notes 9/9 Notice of Public Hearing 9/3 Meeting Notice w/Project Identification marker sent 8/30 CB left 2 x 3 map for Ms. Hoffman for display 8/26 Staff Notes 8/19 Notice of Public Hearing 8/6 Meeting Notice 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 held on September 16, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) 1. The applicant will submit perc test results and must obtain approval by the Town Engineer or the Building and Codes Department 2. A label will be added to the final plat depicting their clearing plan as shown in Set 2 of 2. 3. Recreation Fees in the amount of $1000.00 for 2 lots are applicable to this subdivision. 4. All necessary outside agency approvals have been received by the applicant, with a copy sent to and received by Planning Department Staff within 180 days. 5. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set. MR. KENIRY-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, while it’s fresh in your mind, do you want me to just tell you about the provision about expansion? MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s found in Section 179-13-010, which is part of Article 13, Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots, and it says, “Site Plan approval by the Planning Board shall be required for any enlargement or extension of a nonconforming structure or a use of a structure containing a nonconforming use existing within a critical environmental area”. So I’m assuming that’s what you were thinking about. It would only be a nonconforming use situation. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. OLD BUSINESS SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2003 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM TAFT AGENT: MULLER & MULLER ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: COUNTY LINE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.26 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS OF 1 ACRE, 1 ACRE AND 2.26 ACRES. CROSS REFERENCE: 2 LOT ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION TAX MAP NO. 290-1-2 LOT SIZE: 4.26 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MICHAEL MULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 11-2003, Preliminary Stage, Final Stage, William Taft, Meeting Date: September 16, 2003 “APPLICATION: Subdivision 11-2003 (Preliminary & Final Stage) APPLICANT: William Taft is the applicant for this request. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) REQUESTED ACTION: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.26 +/- acre property into three lots ranging in size from 1 acre to 2.26 acres. LOCATION: The subject property is located on County Line Rd. EXISTING ZONING: This property is zoned SR-1A, Suburban Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This action is a SEQRA Unlisted action. The applicant has included a Full Environmental Assessment Form with the subdivision application. PARCEL HISTORY: This property was previously part of a two-lot administrative subdivision. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.26-acre property into three residential lots. All three lots will have vehicular access from County Line Rd. The two lots of approximately one acre will share a driveway off of County Line Rd. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has requested a waiver from the following requirements: Topographic contours - Grading Plan - Clearing Plan - Stormwater Plan - Sketch Plan Review - Have any perc tests or test pits been done in the area of the proposed septic to verify soil conditions? The proposed location of the well on lot 2A should be identified. The well must be 100’ from surrounding septic systems and 15’ from any property line.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes, please. MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to subdivide a 4.26 acre property into three residential lots. The applicant has requested a waiver from providing topographic contours, providing a grading plan, clearing plan, stormwater plan and Sketch Plan review. Again, the question would be, have any perc tests or test pits been done in the area of the proposed septic to verify soil conditions, and the proposed location of the well on Lot 2A should be identified. The well must be 100 feet from surrounding septic systems and 15 feet from any property line, and that’s all we have at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. MULLER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Michael Muller. I’m here with Mr. Taft, William Taft. We have a pretty simple plan here in terms of a three lot subdivision, and as Staff has requested it a couple of times, and we’ve made a valiant attempt to give them the information on those test pits that were dug, they’ve been dug. I’ve submitted it and I’ll read it to you again. It’s all part of what’s already in the package that was submitted. It’s actually been approved as part of a Crayford and Higgs plan on adjacent property. Mr. Maine, Charles Maine, went out there, dug some test pits, and managed to miss Mr. Crayford’s property and went up on to Mr. Taft’s property. So he was kind enough to report what those test pit results were, and I’m going to just hand in the whole thing that was originally submitted, and it’s part of Crayford and Higg’s plan, and it’s also part of our original submission, and it’s here again. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s going back a few years. MR. MULLER-It’s still the same ground. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I recall the application. That’s the only reason why I said it. MR. MULLER-I think George’s recommendation about making sure that we locate the well that would be on Lot 2A is a good recommendation. I didn’t foresee that. Everything else is pretty straightforward, and we’re prepared to answer any questions. We also brought the gentleman who would be building, Michael Crayford, in case there’s any questions about that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Larry, we’ll start with you. MR. RINGER-I have nothing, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Well, we have no idea about the elevation. It appears, just by driving by, to be relatively level, but do you have any information on that? On the lay of the land? MR. MULLER-No, we basically took the approach, quite frankly, that it was generally level, and the other approach that we’re taking is that we’re not changing any of the existing contours. MR. SANFORD-Okay. One other thought is, and I don’t know for sure, but I heard a comment that there may be historic or certainly existing stone fences out in that property somewhere. MR. MULLER-We hired Matt Steves to do the survey. Matt has shown all of them on there as monuments. You can see that they pretty much carry the perimeter of the property and none of them are intended to be removed or destroyed. MR. SANFORD-Okay. No, that’s the only comments I have. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Would you have any problem that we put in the resolution that the stone walls not be disturbed? MR. MULLER-Absolutely no problem. MR. STROUGH-For historic preservation purposes. MR. MULLER-They’re nice stone walls. MR. STROUGH-Yes, okay, and we’ve done this before, and I’m glad to hear that. The only other question I have is making out your SEQRA. You put down oftentimes no in your answer, and then you went on to answer as small to moderate impact, and I don’t believe you had to do that, if you answered no. Is that right, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t have the form in front of me, but you’re making it sound like the applicant has already completed Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form and the applicant should not do that. Yes. This is Part II of the Environmental Assessment Form. The applicant should not be completing this at all. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-This is your responsibility. MR. STROUGH-Well, it looked unusual. MR. SCHACHNER-So I wouldn’t quarrel with the applicant about whatever they put down for Part II. You can disregard what they did. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MULLER-And if that’s not enough, we withdraw it. MR. STROUGH-No, it was just unusual. I hadn’t noticed that before. So I asked about it and I got an answer, as counsel provides very good answers. No, that’s the only thing that was of big concern to me was preserving those stone walls, and if you’re willing to do that as a condition, that’s great. I’m done. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-No comments. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add? MR. MULLER-No, sir. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRED CHASE MR. CHASE-Some photographs. My name is Fred Chase. I own the property, approximately five and a half acres directly north of the property that Mr. Taft is asking to subdivide, that if you’d look at the topographical map that I just supplied, of this property, that you can see that it really isn’t flat. There’s really a low line section along County Line Road. Currently water runs into that property, at a very heavy rate, that stormwater does. The Town of Kingsbury who actually maintains the road and the sides of the road in the last few weeks have had to dig out all along the side of the hill that comes down to that, and put stone in because of the water runoff, and I’m sorry I don’t have copies of all these photographs. I just don’t have a printer that would run fast enough. We’ll be meeting next year about this, but that map is Photograph One. Photograph Two is a general view of the property, and shows where Mr. Taft’s driven out through there, the water just seeps right up through the ground. I’ve reviewed his application, and I believe it’s stated in that application that the water table is at a depth of approximately eight feet. I would question that. Also they spoke about perc tests being done. The review of a folder that I made back before the first scheduled meeting for this, showed no perc tests that were on that map. They were all done on the Higgs and Crayford property. So if something that they just submitted now shows perc tests, that may be true. Photograph Three, if you will, shows some construction that’s going on two lots south of the proposed area for subdivision. Actually it shows Mr. Taft working there, and if you’ll look at the bottom of the photograph, all of the lots where they have built along there, at this point, they’ve had to run a water line, or drain line from the property up to the ditch along the road just to drain the water off, and you can see that happening there. I think I have the same photograph in here a couple of times. I’m sorry. Photograph Four shows construction of that site two sites south, and you can see that the foundation or the excavation is down only four feet, because at that point they’d hit water, that was filled with water before they poured stone in there, and they’ve had to build the foundations up on that piece of property, as well as the other home that is just north of this, in between the proposed site. Mr. Taft has also started construction or site preparation, if you’ll look at Photograph Five, it’s the bulldozer running down through the woods, along that stone wall, which is in contention whether I own it or Mr. Taft owns it, and you’re right, it is a beautiful stone wall, and Mr. Crayford was running the bulldozer, starting preparation for the driveway that’s sited to come up through there, knocking down some small trees, and it also 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) took stones and so on from that stone wall, as he was doing it. There are a number of large hickory trees growing adjacent to that stone wall, and when I say adjacent, directly against it, that according to his site plan, that driveway is to come right up through there. Some of these trees have got to be removed, and pulling these out and the roots and so on and so forth, I can’t see how it would not disturb that stone wall. Photograph Six, again, as Mr. Crayford running the bulldozer coming down, out towards the road. Seven is just showing the area where they’ve already cleared the road going up along the stone wall. Photograph Eight is Mr. Taft again already starting site preparation with a culvert and dirt. Photograph Nine is an aerial photograph taken in the Summer of 2000 showing the total site here and my property which is directly north of it, and the agricultural field, I believe it was corn, just south of there. That has changed in the last three years. The area that’s outlined in red, those trees have been removed by Mr. Taft within the last year and a half, again, I assume in preparation for developing this land, and speaking of developing that, a year ago Mr. Taft came to the Town asking for a subdivision, a two lot subdivision, which he was granted, and on that proposal, he showed the construction of one home on this four acre lot. Now he’s coming back and saying, gee, I want to change my mind. I want to put three homes on it. The way he’s building the road up the side, his proposal technically meets Town Code for having enough road frontage because it’s average road frontage. He’s got a 40 or 50 foot right of way coming up or driveway, and then it spreads out across the back. That home, second home or third home that would be built up in back would have to drain directly down into the other two homes. Photographs 10 and 11 refer to the aerial photograph prior to that showing where the trees have been cut. If you look at Photograph 12, this was taken the first week of September, and again, it’s site work that is going on with dump truck bringing fill in, bulldozer spreading that fill in preparation for site work, and then 13 was just a duplicate of a photograph earlier. Certainly I’m opposed to somebody developing land, but one of the things in my letter, and I don’t know if that’s necessary to read into the record, that most of us that live in that area do so because we relish the quietness, the rural setting, and it was kind of interesting that in August of this year, the Glens Falls Business Journal came out. On the front page, there was Queensbury approves Open Space Vision Plan, and how important open space is in Queensbury. People are moving from Albany, from Clifton Park, coming up here, where there is some open land, and now we’re saying, let’s squeeze every house that we possibly can into this. I think that right now me and my neighbors live in an area that’s one of the prettiest parts of Queensbury, and that certainly isn’t to say there aren’t other parts that are attractive, but we live there because of the open space and now it’s being divvied up. In that aerial photograph, you can see that it was two years ago it was farmland. Now there’s a house on it. We start slicing this land up into these little tiny parcels, and we’re destroying what that neighborhood is. Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? GAIL SOLOMON MRS. SOLOMON-My name is Gail Solomon. I live at 238 Chestnut Ridge Road. This statement has been prepared by my husband, Joel Solomon, and myself. He was unable to be at this evening’s meeting. My husband and I purchased our home in 1978, and have lived and raised a family there since that time. We have seen many changes over the course of such an amount of time, not the least being the building of 20 homes on our small stretch of road but 1.3 miles in length. I also live next to a portion of property owned by Mr. Taft over the last four years. Over these four years, Mr. Taft has never lived there, but has made many changes to the property. Converting a barn to a house, a house to a garage/workshop, and altering the land contour. He has cleared the land behind the building and trucked in numerous loads of fill that were eventually graded. This has resulted in an elevation that has created a drop off bordering our property. Throughout this process, we have observed the dumping and covering over of construction and building materials. I have pictures that confirm this statement. We question the legality of such activities. This proposal of dividing, developing, and yes, changing the integrity of this 4.26 acre lot in question is not something we support. It further encroaches on our property with what we consider a poor plan of development. If Mr. Taft is granted approval to develop the acreage in question, with the same standards that he has changed and developed the piece bordering directly on our land, we will be left questioning the wisdom of 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) this Board. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. And one other thing to say, that land is not level. My children, for years, would sleigh ride on that piece of land. It is not level at all. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MICHAEL CRAYFORD MR. CRAYFORD-My name is Michael Crayford, and I’m the owner of the land that’s adjacent to Mr. Taft’s. I’d just like to address a couple of the questions that Fred Chase had brought up regarding the construction, and basically following good construction principals he made a statement about eight feet into the ground before water, according to those maps. That’s not the case. The test pits indicate mottling of about 24 to 36 inches, and we, in our laying out of our foundations, make sure that we keep our footings above the water table, and provide positive drainage, and in our particular case here, we made sure we had gravity drainage so we didn’t have to rely on sump pumps. We built one house that’s completed and lived in right now, Lot Number Six, and they have the same system, and the elevations are the same as the house we’re building at this present time. So I feel the comments that Fred Chase made about the drainage and the water and so forth were not appropriate, because everything’s being done according to Code. MR. MAC EWAN-What about the activity on the lots that have not been approved yet? MR. CRAYFORD-That is something that I won’t address because I’m not the owner of the land. I think Mr. Muller should address that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? We’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. Comments from Staff? MR. HILTON-I guess the only comment I have is first of all, I’m passing the previous subdivision plan around for you to look at. What you’ll see, I think it was Lot Six and Seven, on that map. MR. SANFORD-Which is the plot that we’re talking about here, George? MR. HILTON-I believe Lot Six and Seven that are indicated on that map. MR. STROUGH-Lot Six and Seven would be over six acres. MR. HILTON-Is the one piece you’re looking at. MR. SANFORD-It adds up to greater than what this combined subdivision is all about. MR. HILTON-Yes. I think there have been some modifications. Whether that subdivision, and I’m not familiar with that subdivision, if it was approved and later modified or maybe a completely different subdivision was approved, I don’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Whoa. Start that one again. MR. HILTON-Yes. I mean, it’s confusing to me because the current lot pattern is different than what’s represented on that map. MR. STROUGH-Have the flagged Federal wetlands changed at all? MR. HILTON-And I guess that’s my question. The extent of those wetlands, how does it impact this lot that we’re dealing with this evening. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. STROUGH-Yes, because we don’t see any flagged Federal wetlands on the plat that we’re shown here. MR. MULLER-You asked me to compare the map that I supplied. I’m sorry, but I’m far enough away from it that I can’t tell you. What’s the name of that map? Yes. The name of this map, Crayford and Higgs Preliminary subdivision plan that I represented to you had the test pits number six and number seven. This is the property that we’re talking about. MR. SANFORD-Up here? MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. STROUGH-But it also appears that these wetlands go on to that property. MR. SANFORD-It certainly would. MR. STROUGH-And we can’t approve a subdivision, I’m speaking for myself, unless we have these wetlands identified. MR. MULLER-I’m representing, I gave you that map to show you that Mr. Maine had dug test pits six and seven. It’s not within the subdivision, but I understand your point, that is that that shaded area. MR. SANFORD-This is wetland, this shaded area, here and here. MR. MAC EWAN-How do you know the wetlands don’t cross over the property line. MR. RINGER-We’ll be tabling this for contours and stormwater and wetlands. MR. MAC EWAN-What is it that he’s asking for waivers to? Could you read me off that list again. I beat you to it. Could you tell us about the activity that’s been obviously taking place on the property? MR. MULLER-Bill, can you explain to the Board the activity that has taken place on the property? What have you been doing? WILLIAM TAFT MR. TAFT-We’ve done nothing, the only thing we’ve done is put a culvert going from the main road back to where the subdivision’s going to be. There’s no part of that land that’s in the wetland that is to the south of the land. That plan was prepared by Nace Engineering. This is the two, six and seven, that were tested by Nace Engineering. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. MR. TAFT-That’s the property right here. The wetland you’re referring to goes down through here. There’s a stone wall right here. Excuse me, wrong here, a stone wall here. That’s where your wetland is. What you see here is on that six and seven right there. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Well, what’s the Board want to do? MR. SANFORD-I think we need to get more information regarding how wet that land really is, contours. MR. RINGER-I think we want contours, we want a grading plan, we want a clearing plan, we want a stormwater plan. I think we want all this stuff. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. STROUGH-We’ve got to get the wetlands identified, if they’re there or not. MR. MAC EWAN-How does Staff and Counsel feel about the test pits that were done for the original Crayford and Higgs subdivision, which obviously, if you look at the plat, shows it on this parcel here, and not asking the applicant to review it. Do you feel comfortable enough with? MR. HILTON-I guess, and again, my memory of looking at that map a few minutes ago, the location of those two pits seemed to be in the area of the southern lot of the subdivision we’re dealing with this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Proposed Lot 2C. MR. HILTON-Correct. I’m not sure what the soil conditions. I don’t think anybody is sure of what the soil conditions are in the other, the areas of the other proposed septic systems. I mean, I agree that that soil conditions probably haven’t changed for six and seven, but what else is out there, I don’t know. MR. STROUGH-Well, 19 and 23 inches is not exactly good. MR. MAC EWAN-The Board would request, am I hearing, not much comment here, but is the Board looking for test pits to be done? Agreement on that? Okay. Let’s come up with a list of things we need to have done, then. MR. RINGER-Do we want stormwater? Do we want contours? MR. STROUGH-Yes, I’d like to see a contour, topographical plan, identification of the wetlands, test pits dug in the area where the proposed infiltration beds are proposed to be. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MR. RINGER-Would we also like to see the previous subdivision of the map we’ve got here, that everyone could have, and also the minutes of the previous subdivision approval that Mr. Chase had been talking about when he first came, and now he wants to subdivide this. I remember when one of the gentlemen from the public came forward, he talked about approval of this whole lot that we had previously approved. I’d like to see how we approved that. MR. HILTON-Well, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think what that was was an administrative two lot subdivision, where this piece on Chestnut Ridge and the piece we’re dealing with this evening, they were all one, and you came in for an administrative two lot. MR. MULLER-You’re correct. MR. RINGER-So it wasn’t just this five acres we’re talking about now? MR. HILTON-Well, this used to be, the piece we’re dealing with this evening, used to be part of a larger piece that was administratively subdivided. MR. MULLER-Just to clarify that, that whole piece that Mr. Taft owned is actually depicted on the proposed subdivision map that you have before you. That additional map is actually adjacent lands, none of which was ever owned by Mr. Taft. MR. SANFORD-Yes, Larry. None of this really applies to this application. MR. RINGER-But apparently there was, when this 4.26 acres was subdivided, there was something else that was part of that. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that lot to the left, Larry. MR. MULLER-It’s right here on the map. Do you see what’s up on Chestnut Ridge? MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. MULLER-Right, and that basically, if you follow that off in an easterly direction where it comes down into a very narrowing, that line was drawn, and you basically then had a Chestnut Ridge Road lot and a County Line Road lot. That was the administrative subdivision. MR. RINGER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. SEGULJIC-The location of the well for Lot 2A. MR. MAC EWAN-Well location for Lot 2A. Are you writing down a tabling motion, there, Mr. Strough? MR. STROUGH-I think I’ve got a handle on it. Here’s what I have so far. I have all Federal and/or State identified wetlands must be shown on the subdivision plat. A well location for Lot 2A. The submitted plat will show contour lines as prescribed by the Town’s Subdivision Regulations. Test pits will be dug in the area of the subdivision’s, of the proposed subdivision’s infiltration beds, and data shown on plat. Is there anything else? MR. RINGER-What about stormwater report? MR. STROUGH-A stormwater plan will be submitted. Anything else? That no further site development, construction, clearing, drainage, or any such activity on the site will be allowed. Get the message out that until he gets approvals, if he gets approvals, that any activity on that site has got to stop. MR. RINGER-I don’t know if we can do that. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s doing it without approvals. If he’s doing it. MR. RINGER-All he’s doing is digging a trench is all he’s doing. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s cutting a driveway. MR. RINGER-He said it was a trench. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m looking at photographs that tell me otherwise. MR. MULLER-That’s all right. We don’t have to argue about it. We’re not going to do it. I take it you don’t want us to fill in the wetland either. MR. STROUGH-Well, at least you’ve got your sense of humor still. Okay. No further development, that is construction or otherwise, will occur, until the applicant receives approval. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Everybody comfortable with that? MR. STROUGH-We don’t have to table it, or do you want to table it with the, do you want me to go through this list again for the benefit of the applicant, or how do you want to handle this, Mr. Chairman? MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s do a formal tabling, considering the length of items that we want. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. STROUGH-Do we want to table it to the first October meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-Can’t, the deadline was yesterday. So we’re looking at November. MR. STROUGH-The first November meeting will be the 18. th MR. MAC EWAN-Provided they get their submissions in by the 15 of October. th MR. STROUGH-Is that understood by the applicant? MR. MULLER-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 11-2003, WILLIAM TAFT, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: Until the first Planning Board meeting of November, which appears to fall on November 18, so th that the applicant can provide to the Planning Board the following information: 1. A plat that will identify all Federal and/or State wetlands 2. The plat will show location of a well for Lot 2A 3. The plat will show contour lines as prescribed by the Town Subdivision Regulations. 4. The test pits will be dug in the area of the proposed subdivision’s infiltration bed and resulting data will be shown on the plat. 5. A stormwater plan will be submitted for this subdivision 6. No further development, that is construction or otherwise, will occur until the applicant receives Planning Board approval. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MULLER-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1993 MODIFICATION PREVIOUS SEQR GUIDO PASSARELLI AGENT: STEPHANIE DI LALLO BITTER ZONE: RC-15 LOCATION: ROUND POND ROAD & BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MODIFY THE GRADING PLAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AS PART OF THE PARADISE LAKE SUBDIVISION. MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION REQUIRES APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 296.5-1-15, 16 LOT SIZE: 1.3 ACRES, 0.70 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS JON LAPPER & MIKE LA MOTT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant is seeking Planning Board approval for grading changes to Lots Eight and Nine. Also in reviewing this subdivision, the boundary line between Lots 10 and 9 has also been changed from what was previously approved. A search of previous Planning and Zoning Board activity found no approval of this modification. Additionally grades previously approved on Lot Six have been changed as well, as indicated on the applicant’s revised grading 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) plan. The previously approved landscaping plan indicated vegetation in the areas between Lots Eight and Nine to remain. As the previous landscaping plan indicated the trees to remain, it appears an approval to the grading and clearing plan is required for the removal of this vegetation as well. The main concerns appear to be stormwater and erosion control, and C.T. Male comments should be addressed as part of this review. However, Staff suggests additional landscaping be provided between Lots Eight and Nine to provide a buffer between these lots. I guess a couple of questions, are any additional grading and clearing modifications anticipated as part of any future development, and vehicular access to Lot Nine, which was previously shown as being a shared driveway with Lot Ten, I guess a question would be, is that changing, and if so, if it’s going off of Birdsall Road, there may not be adequate site distance for access to this lot. And I guess that’s all we have at this point. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with my associate Stephanie Bitter, and Mike LaMott, who is the Project Manager for Guido Passarelli’s developments. I want to answer the simple questions first, just to get them off the table. The common driveway on Lots Nine and Ten is not proposed to change. They would not have access to Birdsall Road. So that stays as approved, and there was a mention that, by George Hilton, that the lot lines have changed and that’s not true. What happened was that there’s an error in the approved plans. If you look, and we have a set of the approved plans from last time, on the metes and bounds plat of all of the lots, it was exactly the same, but on the grading plan, for some reason of all these sets of sheets, on the grading plan the lot line is in the wrong place, between Nine and Ten, and I’ve got the whole set here. MR. MAC EWAN-Just the grading plan? MR. LAPPER-Just the grading plan, and the landscape plan, but this is a set of about eight sheets, and so it’s wrong on those two, but on the metes and bounds plan, which is first, it’s correct. I don’t know how that happened. I wasn’t involved in the subdivision when it was approved, but we have a copy of the final subdivision plat. So there’s no proposal to change the lot lines from what’s on the metes and bounds plat on the approved subdivision. George, if you look at Page Two. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Why don’t we move along while he’s looking for that. MR. LAPPER-Okay. While we research that, the Lots Nine and Ten were re-graded. The grade was changed. It was a very steep lot, and Mike did it to make it a better lot for development. So we’re here to explain to the Board that he thinks it’s in the best interest of the subdivision to soften that hill. He understands that he’s got to do re-vegetation. He wants to do the soil stabilization and plant it immediately, but because this was changed, he’s under a Stop Work Order. So he wasn’t able to do anything before we come before the Board. So he wants to immediately get in there and stabilize and plant the soil, and re-plant trees between those two lots, Eight and Nine. MR. MAC EWAN-Why didn’t you come to the Board beforehand? MR. LAPPER-I think that as part of the normal subdivision development, you change the lots somewhat to accommodate the houses, and he didn’t know that it rose to the level that he needed to come to the Board. I mean, on some of the other lots he’s had to add some fill to fill low areas, and that’s what George referred to, but just normal subdivision development, and nothing, he just didn’t anticipate that it was going to require a modification, but obviously it does, and here we are. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Rich, we’ll start with you. MR. SANFORD-Well, it looks like you have a mining operation there. There’s a big cliff. I don’t know how many of the Planning Board members were around in ’93, I believe it was, but 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) I certainly wasn’t, but we took a look at it, and I had a little confused when we took a drive around, what is this, on this map, Highpointe Drive, it didn’t seem to make sense. We couldn’t really, is that correct, is that an accurate? MR. LAPPER-Of the road, a depiction of the road? MR. SANFORD-Yes. Okay, because it didn’t seem to fit in appropriately with this design, but let me see if I understand what you’re hoping to do. You’re hoping to basically subdivide Eight and Nine, and along that. MR. LAPPER-When you say subdivide, you mean grade. MR. SANFORD-Grade, grade and plant trees in between, on this line here. MR. LAPPER-At the crest of the new hill between Eight and Nine. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and how much of that hill has to be leveled? MR. LA MOTT-Which lot are you talking about now, as far as leveled? MR. SANFORD-Well, I assume that the peak of the hill is on Eight, right? MR. LA MOTT-Yes. Eight slopes up to Nine. We’ve flattened out Eight and we’ve flatted out the top of Nine, for a couple of reasons. We’ve got a common driveway that runs in from Lot 10. It doesn’t show it on there, but the topo maps that were filed show it, and it’s on a steep slope and it runs uphill. Very difficult to run a driveway up like that. So what we did was bring down the hill on Lot Nine to meet the driveway, and we plan on sloping it down to Lot Eight, to have a flat surface on both lots to build houses, and one of the mentions on here is the fact that we, on Lot Six, which joins Lot Eight, we’ve already started to swale that wall around, to bring it right in to Lot Eight. So there’d be a slope running from Lot Eight into the back of Lot Six, and then up from Lot Eight to Lot Nine, and the stabilization would take place between Lot Eight and Lot Nine, on a much more gentle slope than what previously was natural. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Do you have any kind of a map showing the driveways? MR. LA MOTT-Yes. MR. SANFORD-I don’t think I have one. MR. LAPPER-You mean the approved map. MR. LA MOTT-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We can show you that. MR. LA MOTT-Do you see the topo lines showing that driveway going in? Not a very ideal way to run a driveway. Nevertheless, it’s what’s on the map. It’s running downhill and uphill at the same time. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and this was what was approved way back when. Right? MR. RINGER-In ’93. MR. LA MOTT-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Thanks. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. STROUGH-I don’t know why we didn’t get something like that in the first place. I had the darndest time trying to figure out where these lots were. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I didn’t understand. MR. STROUGH-Something more comprehensive like that helps a lot. MR. LAPPER-You’re right, but I think what was submitted was just the proposed change in grade, and obviously it would have been easier if you had a whole set. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Mr. Chairman, I’m all done with my questions. This helps out a lot. When we were up there on this, Highpoint Drive road, I guess we didn’t realize that Lot 23 and Lot 11 we were dealing with those lots, as well, or whatever it was, we were just a little confused in trying to get our perspective. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Well, given what I had, my first question is going to be, what’s the distance between the proposed grading change and Round Pond pond? MR. LA MOTT-Elevation. MR. STROUGH-No distance from the shore? Because it’s in a CEA, Round Pond is a CEA. Anything in a CEA takes on a kind of, I think a special significance and probably a different viewpoint, if not the fact the different aspects of the Code. MR. LAPPER-Is this in a CEA? MR. STROUGH-Yes. Round Pond is a CEA. MR. LAPPER-No, but is this property? MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s what I’m asking, and it might be, what’s the determination? MR. HILTON-Just about 500 feet, plus or minus. MR. STROUGH-Well, and the other question is, that I had is, just trying to get oriented, is Lot Seven, as depicted in the plat I have, is that the one that’s on the corner, it’s a nice looking Victorian? MR. LAPPER-Yes, that is the corner lot. MR. STROUGH-You took out quite a bit of the hill for that. MR. LA MOTT-Yes. Originally a lot was taken out to get approval for the subdivision. MR. STROUGH-Well, and the whole Town was asking questions, my God, they’re taking out a hill. Are they allowed to do that, and I said, well, gee, I don’t know. That subdivision never came before me. It must have been before me. They must have got approval, so I’m assuming that you had approval, but then I said, well that was a lot of earth moved out of there, and so I looked up in the Town Code what is the dividing line between, you know, doing work for your home, and when does it become an actual mining operation. So I looked up excavation, and anything beyond 20 cubic yards becomes an excavation, and then I looked under the part of the Code, I think it’s 179-50-010 I think it is, there’s a certain prescription, if it’s a mining operation, and you have to have buffers and all that, so I didn’t know if we should go there or not, defining it as an excavation. So I wanted to ask George what he thought and Mr. Chairman what he thought about that, 179-5-170. George, was that considered by the Department at all? Because it if is an excavation, slopes cannot exceed 30%, and the excavations shall approach no 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) closer than five feet to the average high point of the groundwater table. We need to know that. Site piled materials shall not exceed 35 feet in height. Buffer zones, an undisturbed buffer of 50 feet shall surround the excavation. Entry into the excavated area shall be curbed so as to prevent direct view, but if you want to look up excavation, it says any extraction from the land of more than 20 cubic yards of sand, gravel, clay, shale, rock, topsoil, or other natural mineral deposits. That’s the definition. So if we’ve. MR. LAPPER-So wouldn’t every subdivision in Town be considered excavation, if you interpret it that way? MR. STROUGH-Well, I just don’t know. That’s why I’m asking the question, Jon. MR. HILTON-I guess the answer is I don’t know if this section was reviewed, as a result of viewing what’s been, the changes to the grading plan, obviously what’s taken place out there. I think what happened is, it was recognized that the grades were changed beyond what was approved, as part of the subdivision, at least, and the applicant was informed that it would need Planning Board approval for those changes, for that modification, that was above and beyond what was initially approved. MR. STROUGH-Starting with Lot Seven. MR. LAPPER-We don’t think Lot Seven was changed. MR. HILTON-I think it was more with, no, I didn’t speak with the applicant and tell them to stop work or anything, but I think it’s with the excavation that you see in the area of Lot Eight and Nine that it came to our attention. Again, don’t quote me, but that’s. MR. LAPPER-This is certainly not an excavation project where they’re trying to remove or sell gravel. They’re just trying to build a subdivision. I think the Board saw that what was approved was this really steep driveway, and that Mike was just legitimately trying to make it something that he could build on, and certainly we should be here seeking approval of that, because it’s a change, but. MR. STROUGH-Well, at a minimum, you know, I’d like to see a demarcation of the CEA line from Round Pond. MR. LAPPER-How many feet is the CEA mark? Is it 300 feet? MR. STROUGH-Five hundred feet from. MR. HILTON-We’ll see in about two seconds. Well, while we wait in anticipation, it looks like the edge of the CEA may intersection this subdivision of these lots somewhat. MR. LAPPER-But would it be up at Lots Eight and Nine or just at Lot Seven? I guess Mike’s telling me that the best time for him to re-plant the grass and do the final grading is right now before winter sets in. So there probably is some urgency to fix this right now, because he’s not going to be able to plant grass in November. MR. STROUGH-And I would like to see, what do you plan on planting there? What will be the landscaping plan? MR. LA MOTT-Grass and Pine trees. That was our plan. MR. STROUGH-Okay, and to the extent, where would you plant that? MR. LA MOTT-Along that new slope between the two lots, Eight and Nine. MR. STROUGH-Right. It looks like it’s basically, in Lot Eight, trying to soften that knoll. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. LA MOTT-Yes. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LA MOTT-And the other reason, too, is Lot Eight was higher than you see it now, but that shares a common driveway from Lot Seven. MR. STROUGH-Does the driveway, does he? MR. LA MOTT-It’s a shared driveway. It runs right up the property line between Seven and Eight. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. LA MOTT-And originally it went right up the hill. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. LA MOTT-And we were required to run the common driveway because they didn’t want the double access onto Birdsall because of, well obviously joggers, bikers, whatever. MR. STROUGH-I support that concept. MR. MAC EWAN-If you look at the cover sheet on the original subdivision maps, 500 foot Round Pond line goes straight through to Lot Nine, Eight, part of Six, and Seven. So now what’s that do for us? MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t think there are any, I mean, it’s certainly a concern, or else I don’t think it would be called a Critical Environmental Area, but I don’t think there are any required set back distances. I think the Board, the Planning Board, considered it as part of SEQRA, any SEQRA review, it’s a question on the SEQRA form, but I don’t think there’s a magical set back from that boundary. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you got anything else, John? MR. STROUGH-I’m happy for now. MR. MAC EWAN-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess if you could just clarify for me what has happened. So in ’93 you got approval for the subdivision, and then as development came along, you started to realize that it was too steep so you had to re-grade. MR. LAPPER-Mike realized it was too steep both for the location of the house for a lot with a back yard and also for those driveways. He’s building on Lot Seven and Lot Six right now, and he started cutting down the hill behind it. MR. SEGULJIC-So then you started re-grading it to meet the development needs? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And then got a cease and desist order? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Met with the Town Staff, realized that he had to come in and modify the application and came to us to put in the application. MR. SEGULJIC-And so now we’re left with that naked mound there, shall we say? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-Cut back. What you’d like to do is cut that down and level all that. MR. LA MOTT-I’m sorry, I didn’t hear what you said. MR. LAPPER-What do you want to do with the naked slope that’s there? MR. LA MOTT-Plant grass, trees, but it’s going to slope more gently than what you see right there. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LA MOTT-Up there at the subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-Plant grass and trees on that, and you’d like to start that as soon as possible, I assume. MR. LA MOTT-Well, it would be, if we hadn’t had this delay, we’d probably be there now. Because we were starting to come around from Lot Six, when, where we’re building, and that’s when we got the Stop Work Order. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. That clarifies it for me. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-One of the comments from C.T. Male was comment two. It says appears that a septic system has been moved from the original approved subdivision map, and I didn’t hear you comment on that in your opening comments. MR. LAPPER-Which lot? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t believe it says which lot number. I’m reading from the September 12 letter from James Houston. th MR. LAPPER-We don’t have the C.T. Male letter. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I can read the comment to you, but I don’t know if it’s going to clarify it. It just says, it appears that the septic system has moved from the location shown on the original approved subdivision map. Soil information should be provided demonstrating suitable soils in the location of the proposed septic field. So I don’t know which lot number they’re referring to in the comments. MR. LA MOTT-Would that be referring to Lot Seven? I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know. MR. LA MOTT-I don’t, either, but Lot Seven is pretty close on with the septic. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LA MOTT-So it may be at Six. It’s probably Six. It shows it out by the road, which is down on the slope. We put it behind the house, in a flat area. As you face the house on Lot Six, from the road, by the back right corner is the line leading out to the septic tank and the septic system. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I didn’t have any other questions, Mr. Chairman. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add? MR. STROUGH-Yes, well, reading the definition of Critical Environmental Area, and skipping some, getting down to this sentence says projects undertaken in a CEA may be subject to a more detailed environmental review as determined by the reviewing entity in order to evaluation the project’s potential negative impacts on the designated area, and I know that, in CEA’s traditionally, we have desired stormwater management plans. For example, is there going to be any stormwater flow from Lot Nine to Lot Eight? Is there going to be any stormwater flow onto Birdsall Road if this is in a CEA? And I’d like the Zoning Administrator’s determination as to whether this would be defined as an excavation or not. MR. LAPPER-I guess this was an approved subdivision, and to the extent that, John, the only thing I could see, in terms of an impact on the CEA, would be if you had siltation running into the lake, and the best way to prevent that would be to allow this to be re-graded and planted and stabilized. MR. STROUGH-Which is where we would like to see a landscaping plan as well. MR. LAPPER-Well, perhaps we could get approval to do the grading and the planting of grass now, and we could come back with, or submit either to the Board or to the engineer or to the Administrator a formal re-planting plan for trees. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think I’m in a position where I want to wait for them to get on a November agenda to plant trees. By the time it’s approved and done, you’re looking at December. I’d rather do something and come up with a game plan now and get it taken care of. MR. LAPPER-If the Board wants to just recommend how many feet on center the plants should be around the crest, I mean, we’ll agree to whatever is reasonable. MR. SANFORD-What’s the, I mean, it’s the presumption that if you wait over the winter, there could be some kind of an erosion problem? MR. LAPPER-It doesn’t look good either right now, for the neighbors, as well as erosion. MR. STROUGH-Well, can we condition it that all stormwater will remain on site? MR. RINGER-It has to happen anyway. MR. STROUGH-Yes, that’s pretty vague in general, but I think that’s what we want, isn’t it? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I think the first thing we want to do is stabilize what they’ve got done, obviously, to prevent any future erosion and runoffs, we get some heavy rains or whatever. Certainly we’ve had enough of that this past several weeks. My preference is to come up with some sort of landscaping scheme right here, right now. Whether we dictate how many species of trees have to be planted on either sides or whatever, that’s got to be seeded, sodded or whatever. MR. STROUGH-Well, I’m inclined, believe it or not, if you’re inclined to go in that direction, and you don’t think it’s an excavation, and I might be just too picky with the Code, which I can sometimes be, white pines, they’re fast growing, and they provide great coverage and good root system for erosion control. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not saying that I disagree with what you’re interpreting in the Code, as far as excavation, but the reality is the damage has been done. What do we need to do to see to it that we get the situation fixed. MR. STROUGH-Right. So in my mind, the two important things, and I think I’m reading your mind as well, is make sure there’s some kind of stormwater protection plan, and a landscaping plan. It’s not the excavation that bothers us so much. MR. MAC EWAN-On this drawing you submitted with your application, where, specifically, are you talking about planting the trees? MR. LAPPER-Can you show what contour, Mike? MR. MAC EWAN-Give me a contour number or something, the area you’re referring to. MR. LA MOTT-You can see the new line at 430. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. LA MOTT-And follow it down. That, along that bank there, from about the property line down to the bottom topo, which is 426. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re basically looking to plant trees. MR. LA MOTT-Along that slope. MR. MAC EWAN-From the property line all the way down to Contour Line 426. MR. LA MOTT-Yes. I’m not going to put it every two feet. I don’t know what is recommended, but there will be. MR. MAC EWAN-What did you have in mind? MR. LA MOTT-Sodding it, planting trees, I don’t mean sodding, putting down. MR. MAC EWAN-How many trees? MR. LA MOTT-You tell me. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know. If you’re saying you don’t want to do it every two feet. MR. LA MOTT-If I say one, will you say two? MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, the problem here is self-created. MR. LA MOTT-Yes. Twenty-five or thirty? I don’t know. I’m not a landscaper. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you’ve got about 200 feet in that common property line. There’s, according to this plan, 213 feet of that common property line that we need to be concerned with. MR. LA MOTT-Yes. If you look up here, in this corner here to your left, there are trees up there. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you going to use the sod maps that they used where you’ve got more than a two on one slope? MR. LA MOTT-Stabilization mats? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. LA MOTT-Good. MR. MAC EWAN-Because they won’t allow runoff. They won’t allow erosion. They stabilize fast. MR. LA MOTT-Well, you’ve seen that. It’s been like that for quite some time, and I don’t think you’ll see any runoff. It’s all gravel. That’s primarily the reason. It’s in the ground almost immediately. MR. LAPPER-So you’re proposing 25 white pines? MR. LA MOTT-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-How many? MR. LA MOTT-Twenty-five. MR. MAC EWAN-Far short of my expectations. MR. STROUGH-Yes. I had 20 white pines, and I wanted to mix it up, just so we didn’t have all white pines, and I put down 20 sugar maples. I have 40. Maybe we can go with 15 and 15. MR. LA MOTT-I’m not so sure how sugar maples will make it along that slope. I know pines will do quite well, but. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking at a property line that’s 213 feet long. The rectangle area basically that’s 213 feet by 20 feet, roughly. Are you with me on that, John? MR. STROUGH-What’s that again, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking at an area that’s got to be re-claimed here, roughly 213 feet on the property line by about 18 feet, 20 feet wide. MR. STROUGH-No, no. I’m getting 70 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Seventy feet. Okay. MR. SANFORD-I mean, he’s going to level off the grade on that. MR. STROUGH-Yes, and on the steeper slopes, and he may have a point. I’m trying to look in my Code book. It does give us some descriptions of landscaping preferences. MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of caliper. MR. STROUGH-Caliper is one thing I was going to look up, George, and don’t we have a proposed mix, and I don’t know if slope is addressed. MR. HILTON-I think you’re talking about our buffer section, it talks about, and I can point you to that. It’s 179-8-060. I do think that pines would probably do better out here. I don’t know how well some deciduous trees would do, but the caliper sizes are in 179-8-090. MR. MAC EWAN-Why don’t we do this. Let’s take a five minute break and have Chris and John come up with a resolution to this thing. All right. I’ll call the meeting back to order. George, you have a comment? MR. HILTON-Actually, I just have a question, and I think it was in the Staff notes as well. Are there any additional grading and clearing modifications anticipated as this subdivision 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) develops? There are other areas throughout the rest of the subdivision with steeper slopes, and I guess my question, you know, as I’ve stated, is do you anticipate anything, or are the grading plans, landscaping plans, and clearing plans going to stay as approved? MR. LAPPER-There are some of the lots along the cul de sac that you probably saw because of the grade of the cul de sac, that the lots are low, and just to put a house in, there would have to be some fill around the foundations to bring that up, and I think that’s normal subdivision development. MR. MAC EWAN-They’re not talking about totally re-doing the contours on lots and stuff, but to the extent we’re seeing here. MR. LA MOTT-If you look at the metes and bounds of the topo, for the whole subdivision, you’ve got a few lots that are low, and some of them I think I can get enough fill out of the ground, too, rather than truck it in, but some of these, like Lot 22, that lot pretty much had to be cut completely, trees, and if somebody were to go over there now, they’d see that there’s about 2200 yards of fill in there, and I still need more to go in just to get that up to grade, up to the road. So, you know, there will be some trees cut. Nobody wants their house five feet down from the road. The road is built as it was designed. MR. MAC EWAN-All right, What have you got for conditions there, John? MR. STROUGH-I’m still working on the wording, but, so far I have 35 white pines, three inch caliper or six foot in height, whatever the applicant finds easier to obtain. Twenty white pines will be planted along the property line between Lots Eight and Nine. Ten of those twenty I just mentioned will be located 10 foot north of the property line, or five foot north, excuse me, ten foot apart, five foot north of the property line, and ten will be planted five foot south of the property line. MR. LAPPER-Can I just stop you there, John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Mike wants to do it based upon the contour coming down from that, the top of that new ridge, which would be a little bit south of the property line, I guess. You’re thinking about both neighbors, and he’s thinking about the topography. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that’s where the additional 15 would come into play. MR. STROUGH-We had a 200 foot distance, and we wanted to create a buffer zone between Lots Eight and Nine, and over the 200 feet, we’ve asked for 20 white pines to be planted in a staggered manner, five foot north and five foot south, or approximately five foot north and five foot south to create a wall. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I think the applicant’s saying, though, that. MR. LA MOTT-I’m not sure what you mean as a buffer between the lots because one will be up on a flat plateau area, and the other will be down below it, and I was thinking about sculpting that bank and planting along the bank, along the hill. MR. STROUGH-Well, you’re also going to be planting some of these white pines on Lot Nine as well. Right? MR. LA MOTT-If you want me to. MR. STROUGH-Because we have a slope. We have to stabilize there. MR. LA MOTT-Well, that’s what I’m saying. The slope is between both lots. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. LAPPER-That’s all on Lot Eight, the slope? MR. LA MOTT-No. It’s part of Lot Nine, and Part of Lot Eight, more on Lot Eight, but there is part of Nine. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think what you’re saying is you would not necessarily put them along the property line itself. MR. LA MOTT-Exactly. Not along the crest, but where you sculpt it. MR. STROUGH-Well, my first definition was I said that you would plant 35 white pines, interspersed evenly over the sloped area. MR. LA MOTT-Yes. MR. LAPPER-No argument there. MR. LA MOTT-Not a problem. MR. SANFORD-I think that’s about the best you can do. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay with me, too, John. I just wasn’t sure if that would be clear. MR. STROUGH-Okay. Well, it seems to work, then. We’ll go back to Plan One. All slopes will be grass seeded. Slopes exceeding 10% grade, erosion control mats will be used, and all stormwater will remain on site. Now that’s all I’ve got so far. Any other Planning Board members? MR. SANFORD-I think that does it. MR. MAC EWAN-It sounds good. Deliver it. MR. HUNSINGER-Should we go back, though, to George’s comment about additional changes in the approved cutting plan? I’m not so concerned about bringing fill in to maybe some of the interior lots along the cul de sac, but, you know, seeing, I mean, what really brought this whole thing to light was some of the grading that was done along Lot Six and Seven, what’s going to happen when you get down into Lots Four and Five, and you have to do some additional cutting into those lots. Are we going to run into similar problems? MR. LA MOTT-I never heard a word from anybody on Lot Six or Seven. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It was only when you started cutting into Lots Eight and Nine. MR. LA MOTT-It’s Eight and Nine, and they were out there early on, when I was doing that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LA MOTT-And I explained to them what I was doing, but then they received a complaint from somebody, and that’s when the Stop Work Order came. I just didn’t tear into that hill. MR. HUNSINGER-I wasn’t suggesting that. MR. LA MOTT-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m trying to anticipate something down the road. MR. LA MOTT-I mean, it kind of gradually went, but people were aware of it. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. HUNSINGER-I’m just throwing it out there. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. I know what you’re saying. I’m trying to think how you would word it to prevent this from happening in the future. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I guess in my own mind I’m thinking that if there are going to be additional changes from the pre-approved site plan that the applicant would come back for a site plan modification. MR. MAC EWAN-The question is, you know, in the course of developing a subdivision, you are going to make some contour changes that are different from what the approved plans would be. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. MAC EWAN-Albeit they might be small or minor. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So where’s the trigger? I mean, if we say that any change from the previously approved plan, he would have to come back in here for every lot he’s going to do, whether he changes the contour up or down. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-So what do we put in there for wording that says that we’re looking for a significant impact in upgrading changes? MR. RINGER-I thought I read somewhere in the Code it was six percent or more, or some place I thought I had read. MR. MAC EWAN-Some kind of threshold. Do you know what I’m saying? MR. HILTON-Yes. I understand what you’re saying. I guess I might look at it a little differently. In the subdivision process and the planning process, the applicant, I guess, would take it into account, the lay of the land and what they propose to do with that property, and would be incorporated in the grading plan or landscaping and all the other plans that they submit as part of the approval, and if you’re going to change that, it’s a modification, whether minor or not. I guess my concern is that as you go further west, Lots Four and in those, areas, you do have some steep slopes similar to the slopes in this area. I guess I just want to avoid a situation that we have in front of you this evening. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe we just put a footnote on there as another condition that no further modifications will be, no further, no changes to the originally approved grading plan can be made without, unless we get modification approval by the Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-And I would encourage you to go back and review those grading plans that you have been approved for those Lots Four, Five, and Six that you’re talking about, before you start cutting trees and moving earth. If there’s something that needs to be changed, you come back and see us first. All right. Are you ready, Mr. Strough? MR. LAPPER-We’re consulting with Tom Nace, who did the original plan, as to whether or not, what he’s saying is that the grading plan that was in here was the existing grade at the time, except for the few areas where it had to get addressed because of site distance for the roads, and the only thing that really is the new grades is the new cul de sac. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. STROUGH-How I worded that, Mr. Chairman, is this. This approval applies only to this proposal. Any other variations from previously approved plans must come before the Planning Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Good enough. Roll with it. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1993 GUIDO PASSARELLI, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 4-1993 Applicant/Property Owner: Guido Passarelli MODIFICATION Agent: Stephanie DiLallo Bitter Previous SEQR Zone: RC-15 Location: Round Pond Road & Birdsall Road Applicant proposes to modify the grading plan previously approved as part of the Paradise Lake subdivision. Modification of an approved subdivision requires approval from the Planning Board. Tax Map No. 296.5-1-15, 16 Lot size: 1.3 acres, 0.70 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: Not required for Modification WHEREAS, the application was received 9/15/03, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 9/12/03, and 9/16 Staff Notes 9/12 CT Male engineering comments 9/3 Meeting Notice 8/21 Application forwarded to CT Male WHEREAS, a public hearing is not required for a subdivision modification, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Subdivision application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is reaffirming the previous SEQR approval, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Modification is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will plant 35 White Pine of either three inch caliper or six foot in height, dispersed evenly over the sloped graded area of Lots 8 and 9. 2. All sloped to be grass seeded. 3. Erosion control maps will be used on slopes exceeding 10% grade. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) 4. All stormwater will be designed to remain on site. 5. This approval applies only to this proposal. Any other variation from previously approved plans must come before the Planning Board. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2003, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. SCHACHNER-A question, before the applicant leaves. Could we hear the last condition again, please? MR. STROUGH-This approval applies only to this proposal. Any other variation from previously approved plans must come before the Planning Board. MR. SCHACHNER-Great. Thank you. Staff had a concern. Your motion takes care of it nicely. MR. STROUGH-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Good luck. NEW BUSINESS SITE PLAN NO. 42-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED PROSPECT CHILD & FAMILY CENTER – CONTRACT VENDEE PROPERTY OWNER: GAIL KEYES AGENT: JAMES MILLER, JONATHAN LAPPER ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 160 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERSION OF RESIDENCE BUILDING TO ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING FOR EIGHT CARS. SCHOOL USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. TAX MAP NO. 295.18-1-73 LOT SIZE: 3 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, JIM MILLER, & LARRY GOUGE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 42-2003, Prospect Child & Family Center – Contract Vendee, Meeting Date: September 16, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 42-2003 APPLICANT: Prospect Child and Family Center is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes conversion of an existing 1917 sq. ft. building into office space for Prospect Child and Family Center, as well as the construction of a parking area for 8 vehicles, new walkways/ramps, site lighting and landscaping. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 160 Aviation Rd. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned SFR-1A, Single Family Residential One Acre. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has included a SEQRA short EAF. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found no previous Planning or Zoning Board actions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to convert an existing 1917 sq. ft. building into office space to be used by Prospect Child and Family Center. As part of the plan, a new vehicle parking area will be constructed. The plans also call for the addition of walkways and ramps to connect the existing building to the proposed parking area. The site plan also indicates new pole mounted lighting and landscaping adjacent to the building and parking area. The applicant has included a stormwater management report as part of the application. STAFF COMMENTS: The site plan proposes to collect stormwater and direct it to an infiltration trench located behind the parking area, just to the west of the existing building. Any comments from CT Male regarding stormwater management should be addressed during the review of this application. The proposed lighting appears to be consistent with lighting standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to use pole mounted cut-off fixtures, as well as decorative lighting fixtures that contain solid tops. This type of decorative lighting has the benefit of reducing light spill from the fixture, and directs more light to the ground. Staff suggests that the landscaping plan be revised to include either deciduous or evergreen shade trees adjacent to the parking area and along Aviation Rd. as called for in § 179-8-040 B of the Zoning Ordinance. After reviewing the proposed site plan, it appears that no clearing or removal of existing vegetation in the areas of the property behind the existing building is proposed as part of this site plan.” MR. MAC EWAN-Staff notes. MR. HILTON-The applicant proposes to use an existing structure for offices in support of the Prospect School. The property is located two properties to the east along Aviation Road. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan which appears to be consistent with the lighting standards, using some nice decorative lighting that contains solid tops, and just as an aside has the benefit of reducing light spill from the open top decorative lighting that you have been used to approving. I guess Staff would suggest landscaping plan be revised to include shade trees adjacent to the parking area, as required in the zoning code, and it appears, in looking at the plan, that no clearing or removal of vegetation will take place behind the residence, and in fact the applicant has submitted a larger site plan that shows the entire property boundaries and the area of the site in the northern portion of the property that they’re dealing with. That’s all we have at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening cast of thousands. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, John Lapper, Stephanie Bitter, Larry Gouge, who’s the Executive Director of Prospect Child & Family Center, and Jim Miller, the landscape architect for the site. To begin with, this parcel came under, it was advertised as for sale. It’s, as George mentioned, two parcels down from the main building, and it seemed like a smart opportunity to acquire this. They are proposing to put a small office in there for a part of the administrative office, and it required parking. So we are making very minor changes to the site. We concur with all of the C.T. Male comments, and Jim has already responded and we have a signoff letter from C.T. Male, and we concur with the Staff comments. As George mentioned, this is a very large site, and all of the activities that are proposed are on the northern side near Aviation Road and away from the back because there was just no need to disturb that at all, and I guess I can just ask Jim to quickly show you the site, if you’d like to walk through it. MR. MILLER-Thank you. The existing house is a residence. It’s a little under 1,000 feet. The existing house is a relatively small residence. It’s a little under 2,000 square feet. It sits on about 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) a four acre lot. This is Aviation Road. The house is very close to the road. The property is 825 feet deep. What you see here at the tree line is the existing trees. George is right. There’s no clearing proposed. Since the facility is going to be used as office, there’s got to be some renovation. There’s got to be some handicap ramps installed to meet Code, and we’ve shown how that would happen. We’re proposing a parking area for eight cars, and right now there’s a driveway that comes in to the garage. We’ve maintained that and we’ve proposed the parking area in an area that creates the most distance between the two adjoining residences. There’s a small lot here. One of the reasons we didn’t pull the lot, the parking area further back, the septic system is located, it shows here it’s actually, it’s located somewhere on that side of the residence, and we want to maintain that. The septic system is adequate because the use for the offices is substantially less than what would be required for a residence. Along the west side of the property, there are very large pine trees, a large grove of pines. None of those would be disturbed. There’s an existing maple tree that we designed around, and the area around the parking lot will be bermed and landscaped. One of the comments Staff had was that one of those trees that’s a falling crab be replaced with a shade tree, and if that’s the desire of the Board, I don’t think we have a problem with that, and site lighting, there’s just two new lights being installed. They’re going to be low pole lights, pedestrian residential style, across the front, and there’s one cut off fixture at the rear of the parking lot, and the intent of that is that would be cut off with the light directed down. It’s a 16 foot high, I believe, and just to light that back parking area, and obviously that light would be off when no one’s at the building, and that’s essentially the proposal. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? Tom, we’ll start with you. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess one of the Staff comments was about the vegetation along Aviation Road. Would it be possible to put some buffer along, between the parking lot and Aviation Road? MR. MILLER-Well, I believe the comment was, we had landscaping on the berm there, and what we had shown was two flowering crabapples, and the Staff’s comment, I believe, was that they would like to see a larger tree in there instead of a crabapple. So I would make that substitution, and the reason we use the crabapple, we thought something lower might provide more buffer along the parking than a larger shade tree, you know, because we’ve got large pines on the one side of the parking lot, and we’ve got the maple on the other. So that’s why we had proposed something smaller, but if the Board would like to see one of those be a shade tree, we would make that substitution. MR. SEGULJIC-Or something like low hedges or something like that. MR. MILLER-Pardon me? MR. SEGULJIC-Hedges. MR. MILLER-Well, there are a substantial number of shrubs on that berm, so that the parking area would be completely screened between the berm and the shrubs, but we also had some trees in there, and Staff was looking that one of the trees would just be a larger tree. MR. SEGULJIC-And how many people do you think will be working in this building, I’m talking from a traffic impact? MR. GOUGE-Three to four people, administrative staff. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s it for the foreseeable future? MR. GOUGE-For the foreseeable future. Our needs really, in terms of the growth area, is more administrative staff because of increased paperwork, and also storage of records and papers and materials, that sort of thing. So it allows some storage and some staff to meet those needs. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. SEGULJIC-Any plans to renovate the interior of the house at all? MR. GOUGE-Fairly minor, to make it suitable for office use, but actually there’s a rather open area that would be suitable for conference and office use, and a counter in the kitchen area that could be converted to use for computers and that sort of thing without a whole lot of renovations. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and you had indicated that the C.T. Male letter hadn’t been addressed then. MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have any questions of the applicant. I’m really kind of waiting to see what some of the neighborhood concerns might be. MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-Since this is an office, the operations will be strictly daytime, nine to five, or eight to four? MR. GOUGE-Pretty much eight to four. I guess there could be an occasional evening meeting, although I kind of don’t really foresee any of that, but it was really a Monday through Friday type of operation. MR. RINGER-No plans right now to enlarge your, I mean, each time you’ve come before us, you had a small package, and then two years later you come back with a larger. It’s not that important right now. I probably shouldn’t ask that, but I was, it just seems like you come before us and say we need this and this is going to take us, I think the last time you were before us it was going to take us for the next 15 years or something, and now you’re before us again saying, well I need this office space. MR. GOUGE-Well, I think actually the growth of our agency, in terms of the folks that we serve, tend to be mostly off the campus area. We provide a lot of in-house services, throughout Washington and Warren County. There certainly is some growth, as I said, in administrative requirements and some additional staff, and also the people that we serve tend to need more needs, the disabled children and that sort of thing, on the existing site. MR. RINGER-Yes, I think you do a tremendous job, the organization and stuff, it’s just we’ve had so much growth, and the way the community is growing is the reason for that, and each time you come before us we get more and more of the neighborhood coming out with concerns that they have. MR. LAPPER-Larry, we’re pretty proud of the compromise that was worked out on the major expansion. We tried to really, we worked hard to try and work with the neighbors and we think it looks pretty good. MR. RINGER-I think you did a good job on that, particularly the fence in the back and stuff, Jon, and it looks good, but I ride by there, the back of that, almost every day on my bicycle and you really can see, particularly this time of year, as the trees start to fall, you really can see through Aviation Road and see your building, and the fence did help. MR. LAPPER-Well, the building’s a lot more attractive than it was before the construction, though. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. RINGER-I don’t have anything else, Craig. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I would like to see the residential character of the building preserved as much as possible, which means that I would definitely like to see the parking take place preferably in the rear of the building or possibly in the rear and towards the side, the western part of the building, but I think it’s inappropriate to come here with a plan, where you’re basically taking out the front yard and paving it for a parking lot, when you do have such a nice deep lot where you can conceal that and preserve the residential character, and so I feel strongly on that, and I would certainly like to see a re-do on that. That’s my comment. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-Yes. My immediate thought, when looking at this, was, One, it’s a commercial enterprise in a residential zone. MR. LAPPER-It’s a school. MR. STROUGH-It’s a school. It’s a school. It’s funny because remember before I tried to get the Town Board to put flashing lights and a slow down zone, and if my memory serves me, the County said you can’t do it because it’s not a school. Okay. I guess everybody has their definition whatever is appropriate. All right. Well, let’s take it that it is a school, and so therefore you have certain extraordinary zoning rights, as churches do, etc. Right? MR. LAPPER-We do, but this is also a permitted use in this zone. A school is a permitted use. There are those extraordinary rights if it’s not permitted. MR. STROUGH-Well, this isn’t education, per se, it’s administrative offices. MR. LAPPER-That’s part of a school. MR. STROUGH-Okay. All right. Well, that didn’t sit well with me, but in light of that, I said, if I’ve got to live with that, okay, because I can’t do anything about it, and that may be the case, then what I would like to do is be able to drive by this place, and not even know that it’s been changed to administrative offices, in other words, it looks like a house. You’ve got, you know, a sodium light out in front, and the landscaping is bermed and all that’s nice, but, you know, you could put the parking lot in the rear. You could make this when I drove by I didn’t even know there was offices there. You could design is that way. You’ve got enough space. You’ve got enough property. I don’t know why you didn’t do it, but the way it’s presented now, with a parking lot and pavement up front, that’s the last thing I want to do is look at somebody’s front yard paved. Okay. No matter how well Jim landscapes it, and Jim is one of the best landscapers there is, there’s no doubt about it, but he can’t create miracles out of this. I think you’ve got to put your pavement, and your strong lighting, which is your sodium lighting, in the rear, and maybe even fencing, but like I said, if I’ve got to live with this, I want to be able to drive by and not even know it’s professional office. MR. LAPPER-Let me just explain, first of all, the reason it was because you both asked why the hell we came up with this plan, and the reason is that we were trying to minimize any impact on the adjacent residences. The people on the west side are pretty far from this, and the people on the east side are not that far from this house. So we tried to put it in a location that wasn’t a big impact to the people on either side, but this is site plan review, and it’s the Board’s prerogative, and if you tell us to move it to the back, we’ll move it to the back. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s the way, I agree with Richard, and I think in many, and possibly other Board members, too. I believe that, when I drive by this I want it to look residential. You can hide these things. Do what you need for handicap access. I think you can work it all in, and I think you can also work in some kind of a lighting, rather than this proposed high 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) pressure sodium light that would be more appropriate in a residential area. I think you can work it out. Like I said, if I have to live with this, I think you can re-work the plan so that it’s better, and I think that also we, Light D I couldn’t find anywhere on here. I assume it’s Light E is the lantern type post. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. That was one of C.T. Male’s comments also. I’d like to respond to what we did. I think we took, we looked pretty carefully at the locations of the parking lot. There’s basically three places we could put it. We could put it on the east side of the building. We could put it on the west side of the building, sort of behind it, or towards the front, and there’s very little vegetation to the east of the adjoining neighbor. So we kind of ruled that out, that it would be very difficult to screen the parking lot on that side. So we wanted to put it on the west side. If we pull it to the rear, we’re going to have to, you know, completely dig up the yard and replace the septic system, which we were hoping to avoid because that’s going to be adequate. Well, we’re going to put a driveway in to get to the parking lot, that’s not necessarily. MR. STROUGH-It’s relatively, here’s the leach field over here. MR. MILLER-The reason we didn’t want to put it in there is because the neighbor’s house on the east side is very close there. Those trees that you see along the property line on the east, John, those are very high crowned and you look right underneath them, and the house isn’t very far away. So that was one of the reason we were trying to avoid that and we wanted to stay on the west side where we’re up against the existing pine trees. MR. STROUGH-You can’t work the driveway in there? MR. MILLER-Well, you can. It’s going to be entirely visible, though. MR. LAPPER-By the neighbor. MR. MILLER-And it’ll be visible from the neighbor. It’ll be visible as you head west on Aviation Road. MR. MAC EWAN-What are you going to do with the garage area? That’s going to become living space? MR. LAPPER-Storage. MR. MILLER-It’s going to be, it’s storage, or maybe converted to office. We wanted to maintain that. Actually, that was one of the things, we were trying to maintain that existing garage door, or driveway in that location, because then we’d have had the access, you know, directly to that garage to maintain that access way. MR. STROUGH-So you’re going to use the garage as a garage? MR. LAPPER-Storage. MR. MILLER-No, but we want to have access to it if they need to bring some file cabinets over or something. We didn’t want to do away with it. So the intent was to keep the driveway where it is and keep the garage door there, keeping the residential character and then just park these eight cars to the side and buffer them. I mean, we could certainly change that cutoff light. We’ve had some discussion about that, and we felt that if that was a cutoff light, and it was a fairly non visible light source, just lighting for security lighting that back corner of the parking lot, that that would be better that continuing multiple, the pedestrian style lights. We certainly could switch to that, but we felt that by having a non visible source would probably be less impact than having numerous smaller lights. MR. STROUGH-Did you work out a plan with the parking in back at all? 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MILLER-Very rough, just for discussions with the client early on, and we’ve looked at the different, you know, discussed the options and decided this was what we felt was better. MR. STROUGH-All right. Well, you know how I feel. Let’s see how this thing evolves. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? I guess I’ll ask you to give up the table. We’ll open up the public hearing and hear what the public has to say. Does anyone want to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JO ANN SIGISMONDI MRS. SIGISMONDI-My name is JoAnn Sigismondi. I live on the adjacent property, which is to the east of what they were just talking about. I have very mixed emotions about this proposal. The School has been very cooperative in what they have said that they would do, and I can tell you that the reason that they propose to put the parking lot where it is, is it okay if I go over and show you? This area here, these people own five acres. We own two acres, which is here. From this side of the house over this way, you cannot see the house that is on the other side at all. From looking here to my property, my shed is within five feet of their property line, and to make it convenient for me, and how it looks and how it would be at night time, and to keep it like ours is country and I was worried about, we have a lot of wild animals that are going to be moved, even just with this little bit because we, everything seems to be coming to our area because there’s been so much building in the area, as far as animals go, but this here is virtually open. There had been a whole row of trees here, which would be on their property, and most of them were cut down, there must have been 30 to 40 cut down last year, prior to the time that they bought it, which leaves this area all open and exposed for me to see it, and I am sure that how they proposed this was for my convenience and to make it good for me, and they’ve been extremely cooperative. They’ve been very nice, Mr. Gouge, when I talked to him, and I do have some other concerns, though, that, as Mr. Ringer said, this is for now. I am concerned about what is going to happen down the road from now, in two years from now, if they need more space, and as far as expansion goes. I told Mr. Gouge that I preferred not to have a fence, I forgot that, between my property and his because it’s great. It’s like open, and I guess I moved here from the city because of the animals, and we’ve been here for 15 years that we’ve owned the property. We haven’t lived here full time, but it’s just so country compared to where we had come from, and I don’t want to see it big, high fences, and he was very cooperative as far as that one, but what I’m worried about is down the line, like you said, and if there have to be changes to the building. They have several buildings. I would like it, like on the outside fascia of it, to look like the building that they have on Dixon Road as opposed to, they have an administrative building, which is on their property at the School, which looks like an office building. It’s brick. So, the concerns about the driveway are much less important to me, or where the parking lot is, as to what might happen to the face of the building because the building they have on Dixon looks great, but the other one would not fit in with our neighborhood. My other very big concern is that, just weeks prior to finding out that this was sold to, or being sold to the Prospect School, I had spoken, in the Town of Queensbury, to Mr. Craig Brown, and I asked him, I have two acres, I told him because of monetary reasons I needed an income, and I would like to take down my home and put up a two family. He told me absolutely not. He said where I live has to stay SR-1, and there will be absolutely no changes, not for anything, and I just feel bad that, I feel like I’ve been discriminated against, that somebody else can come in, because they have a lot more clout than I do, and they can change the zoning, but I can’t get my zone changed. I just feel that’s an issue, and that’s all, but I must say, as far as the School and what they’ve proposed, they were very open to what I said, and they did it exactly how they said they would do it. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. NICK SIGISMONDI 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. SIGISMONDI-Gentlemen, this is my wife. My name is Nick Sigismondi. What I want to know, these houses that are in that area, when this place becomes commercial, what about these other houses? I couldn’t build another house on my property. It’s impossible. You can’t even have a chicken on your property they told me. Also, you have a firehouse right there. These firemen go in and out all day long. On the other corner you have kids every morning waiting for buses, school buses to pick them up, and you have all these cars parked in that street, the parents are waiting for the children to get on the bus, then they all pull away, but you know Aviation Road is a very busy road. So I don’t know what will happen. I’m really concerned the property will become commercial, too. He’s got no answer for that. MR. MAC EWAN-Not until such time as someone makes an application to come in front of this Board to do a project, I couldn’t answer that for you, and no one could answer that for you. MRS. SIGISMONDI-You mean I could put Sokol’s on my property? I could put another Sokol’s on my property? MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t know about that. MR. RINGER-Well, there’s no zone change here. The zone has not been changed for these people. It’s still the same zone as it was before. It’s just what they’re proposing is permitted in this particular zone. MRS. SIGISMONDI-I did not understand that. I’m sorry. MR. RINGER-There’s no zone change here. MRS. SIGISMONDI-I thought there was. I thought there would be. MR. RINGER-No, there’s no zone change, but what they’re proposing is an allowed use in this zone, or a permitted use. MRS. SIGISMONDI-Thank you. MR. SIGISMONDI-I thought they had a permitted zone right down the block from us. They put up a new building, another new part of the School. Now they’re going to take that property over, too. I don’t get it, but anyway, I thank you, gentlemen, whatever you say. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? ALICE GENTHNER MRS. GENTHNER-My name is Alice Genthner, and I live on Kiley, and our backyard would be adjacent to part of the property that they want to buy. Am I correct, sir, Mr. Ringer, that you said the zoning will not change to commercial? MR. RINGER-Right. There’s no zone change. MRS. GENTHNER-For now. What if they want to expand, say, two, three years from now they want to add on to the building that they’re buying? MR. RINGER-Well, there’d be no zone change, even if they added on, there’d be no zone change. MR. MAC EWAN-But if they wanted to add on, or if this project was to be approved, and down the road they wanted to put a 1,000 foot addition on the building, whatever, they would have to come back in front of this Board to seek approvals. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MRS. GENTHNER-Okay. MR. RINGER-For a site plan. MRS. GENTHNER-But do they have any immediate plans on putting a fence around their property? If you look at the property the Prospect School owns now, it’s all fenced in. MR. RINGER-That was a requirement of this Board when they put the addition on, that we required a fence to be put up. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, along the property line I think she’s talking about. MRS. GENTHNER-Like we’re concerned, I’m concerned for the woods. When I sit in my back yard now I look at woods, and we have deer and we have rabbits, and raccoons and if they fence this property in, then they’re going to kill the wildlife, and I really don’t want to look at a fence for the rest of my life. MR. MAC EWAN-There’s no fence called out on their plan. MRS. GENTHNER-So would they have to come back to have a fence approved by you? MR. MAC EWAN-Correct. MR. RINGER-If they want to put up a fence, no, but they probably would not put up a fence, unless we requested a fence because the lights, the lights wouldn’t come on to your property. MR. MAC EWAN-If they wanted to put up a fence, they’d have to come back in front of us. MR. RINGER-Their fence is on the other property because it’s so close to the property line. Yours is much further away. You’ve got a couple, three hundred feet, from where their building until your line. It’s much closer at the other. MRS. GENTHNER-Well, I just, I’m not for it. I’m sorry. That’s my opinion. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. MRS. GENTHNER-This is my neighbor. Hi. MR. STROUGH-No, but as far as the zoning goes, Mr. Chairman, Professional Office would not be allowed in a Single Family Residence. MR. RINGER-No, but a school is. MR. STROUGH-But if you call it a school, then it is with site plan review, but normally offices wouldn’t be. MR. HILTON-The Code, if I can just interrupt here, in terms of fences, states, fencing for commercial and industrial districts shall be approved by the Planning Board under site plan review. I’m not seeing anything under the residential zone section that would require any type of site plan review. This is a residential. MR. MAC EWAN-I think the catch is because this is an administrative building for a school, and it’s requiring us to do site plan approval and review for this, it would also trigger it to come back in front of us, should they ever decide to put a fence up. MR. HILTON-And you can certainly stipulate that any fence in the future. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. RINGER-That would be a Zoning Administrator determination. EILEEN SOPRANO MRS. SOPRANO-My name’s Eileen Soprano, and I’m Alice’s neighbor. We’re behind the proposal in front of you. I’m concerned, and also suspicious. There is so much acreage behind them that goes up to my property line that they purchased this, and we just want to really inform ourselves of what they have to do, and what they have to go in front of you to do, because I don’t, like we have woods all behind us, and I don’t want to be looking at a fence, and I don’t want to see a parking lot through my back yard or large lights, or have a lot of noise or a dumpster. The parking lot issue, you know, I’m concerned for the two people on each side. I understand their views, and I’m also concerned about the back, but mainly it’s, it is a growing school, and there are I don’t know how many acres behind going up to my house and I just foresee growth and them coming back and it’s going to be this, and then it’s going to be that. It’s, you say it’s going to be an administrative office. The garage the gentleman mentioned they’re going to keep as a garage, but he also said, and I don’t know if it was a slip or what, but he also said it may be a building. So, for our educational purposes, I don’t know what exactly they have to come back and we can be informed. We only had a week’s notice about this. For us to look in to, when we bought our house, we were told it was forever wild behind us. Three neighbors of mine were told it was forever wild. We bought the house under the impression that it was going to remain woods. There’s another property that, rumor has it that a gentleman passed away that Prospect’s been trying to buy for years. Now are they going to purchase that now the gentleman has died, from what I heard. So now they’re going to purchase that. That’s going to give them quite a bit of property, and I’m worried about the future and what Aviation Road is going to end up looking like. I’m also from downstate. You move up here to have some space. The area is beautiful, and I’m just afraid, even just going on to Willow, when I go running, I can see Prospect, from there through, you know, when the lights are shining. That’s a 5:30 in the morning. So, we just really want to educate ourselves to prevent things I don’t want to find out later, you know, exactly what they’re doing. If there could be stipulations put in which you guys have already just witnessing the other things coming before you, there could be some stipulations. I want some greenery, some woods left, no matter what their plans for the future, between their property and mine. I don’t want to be looking at just a few trees, and be able to see a parking lot, and that’s our concerns. We’re just very suspicious. This is a small house. There’s a lot of property back there, and like I said, there’s rumor that they were trying to purchase the other property from this gentleman, who has recently passed away, and if you could clarify, it is not commercial. It’s a residential, but they are not trying to change it to commercial? They fall in under residential because they are a school, even though it’s an administrative building for a school? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s absolutely correct. MRS. SOPRANO-Okay, and that was my concern, because say Prospect, down the road, sold it, you know, we were thinking that it would change to commercial and then it could be anything. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a good question to ask. We’ll ask those questions for you. MRS. SOPRANO-Okay. MRS. GENTHNER-Is the existing septic on the property going to be adequate for? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it will be. Because the use will be less intensive as an office, than it would be as a residential, because they’re not going to be taking showers, baths there. They’re not going to be running washing machines, dishwashers and whatever. MRS. GENTHNER-He did mention that they would be having a kitchen. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MAC EWAN-Well, typically in that kind of environment, and we’ll get it clarified, they’re usually something like a microwave, that thing, just a kitchenette area where people can have like a break room or something. MRS. SOPRANO-The only other thing which you guys, a lot of my concerns, I have to say, I’m really appreciative, is that it seems that you’re really interested in keeping the area looking as much residential as possible, and keeping the trees and those sort of things that we’re concerned about. Maybe the administrative building, I agree, if you can keep it looking as much residential as possible, instead of having brick, and those sorts of things that you guys are more knowledgeable than us, just to keep the area attractive, we really appreciate it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? DON THORNE MR. THORNE-Hi. My name is Don Thorne, and I abut the Prospect School property on the southwest corner. I live actually on Willow Road, and I’d like to just support the sentiments which have been expressed here about the concern of the aggressive expansions that Prospect School is going through. It does not make sense at all, if you need a little extra office space, to buy four acres of land. There’s just no reason for it, and I’m actually astonished that after this huge expansion that just went through, that they need additional space. It just seems incredible, unless you have grand plans that are coming down the road, and I think the Board ought to question them very carefully on just where this thing is going. This is a convenient exception to the residential zoning law to say, well, we’re a school so we can build what we want. Maybe that needs to be changed, too. The other thing I guess I’d like to, this is a question to explain the ownership of the Prospect School property. It’s listed as being owned by IDA of Washington and Warren Counties. I’d like to have someone just explain how that relates to Prospect School, the owners of the property, the use of the property, whether they’re tenants, whether they’re leasees, because I’m concerned about what comes, if Prospect School, for some change of politics, loss of financing, whatever, suddenly abandons the site. What comes after it? You’ve got commercial type buildings deep in a very desirable residential neighborhood, and I would think quickly the Board would change that zoning to the commercial in order to attract new tenants. If someone could answer the question about IDA, I guess I’d appreciate it. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? KEITH KOSINSKI MR. KOSINSKI-Hello. My name is Keith Kosinski, and we live on the west side, where they’re proposing the parking lot. Now my understanding is, do they just want to leave it open and just put a couple of trees? Because the lady that used to live there she cut down a bunch of branches that were on the white pines that were there, because they were dying, and I did the other side. So I’ve pretty much got an open look into, at her house, and I was wondering, if they’re going to do this, if they could put some kind of buffer of shrubbery up or something, because on the other side they have a fence, which, you know, is nice, it’s cut down on a lot of the noise, but we still get garbage coming through, and I’m worried about garbage, because, you know, if they put a parking lot, you’re going to get kids coming in at night, because I’ve seen it from the other side, and I’ve picked it up, unloading beer cans, bottles, garbage, everything, plus, you know, they have the blue bins over there for putting clothing in, which people are always dumping garbage in that, and I’m picking up all that because the wind carries it right down, but I’m just, you know, worried about people unloading the stuff in there. Because I’ve seen it numerous times at night, you know, when I’ve been outside doing stuff. These people pull in to the parking lots, and I hear the cans flying in the woods, and the bottles I’ve been picking up in the field that we have. So that’s my concern. If they’re going to put some kind of, whether they said a tree, I mean, if they can put like a buffer of shrubbery or something. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MAC EWAN-How far of an area are you asking that to be done? I mean, they have a berm, and they have it landscaped in the corner of the property where it looks to be where there’s the gaping area that you’re talking about where you can see through. If you look on the plan up there, you can see. MR. KOSINSKI-Yes. It’s about a 30 foot maybe of white pines, but the branches are cut up about six feet up, where I can see the house next door. MR. MAC EWAN-So you’re farther back then. MR. KOSINSKI-No. We’re actually equal across from her. If I look out the windows, I can see her house right there, and her whole front lawn. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. KOSINSKI-And then the woods thicken up where you don’t see it, but it’s probably about a 30, maybe 40 foot stretch. MR. MAC EWAN-Before you go back, just take a look at the plan up there and see if what they show is adequate. If you look in what would be the upper left hand corner of the plan, you can see where they’re adding new plantings there. Is there anyone else who wanted to comment? All right. I’ll leave the public hearing open for the time being. Do you guys want to come back up. Responses? One question was asked by a member of the public regarding ownership of the property. Are you the owner or lessee, purchasing, financing? MR. LAPPER-The way the property was financed, schools do qualify as a tax exempt. It does qualify for financing through the IDA, for tax exempt financing which just saves them money on the interest rate. So that we did this through the County IDA when we built the addition. The title is held by the County Industrial Development Agency, and when the financing is paid off, the title transfers back to Prospect School, but the IDA’s considered the legal owner, and Prospect School is the equitable owner because they’re paying it down, much like you pay off a mortgage, but here for the tax exempt purposes, it’s in the IDA. MR. SANFORD-But at this particular point in time, as a legal question, is the IDA, which is not the School, looking for this change in use in a residential area? MR. LAPPER-No. The IDA is merely a conduit that they just set up the tax exempt financing that the bank, in this case Glens Falls National, that does the financing, uses their conduit. MR. SANFORD-I know this because of 2 Broad Street Plaza was IDA. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. SANFORD-And in fact, in the case of a default, they had the building. MR. LAPPER-Well, if there was a default, it would be the bank that has the mortgage, Glens Falls National, that would own it. MR. SANFORD-Because they guarantee, the guaranteed bank. MR. LAPPER-Because they have title. Because they have a lien, because the bank has a lien. MR. SANFORD-Right. So what I’m wondering is, at this point in time, I mean, down the road it’s going to be titled to the School when the debt payment is paid off. MR. LAPPER-Right. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. SANFORD-But at this particular point in time, the School is not the owner. MR. LAPPER-The School is what is considered the equitable owner, but not the title holder. They have to pay it off to get the title back, but it is, in terms of zoning, the only issue is what the use is, and the use is a school use. MR. SANFORD-Any comment on that? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. It doesn’t matter who the owner is. It’s like any other facility. If there’s a mortgage, a bank could end up owning something. That doesn’t mean the bank has the right to change the use. It doesn’t matter who owns it. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The IDA owns property in title only. Only, as Jon explained, for the sake of financing and for the sake of tax exemptions. They don’t have any interest in the property. I used to be the Administrative Agent to the IDA. So I didn’t answer those questions for the reasons that Mark just said. It really doesn’t matter who has title to the property. Just because you hear the name “industrial”, doesn’t mean that the use could then be industrial, just because it’s owned by the IDA. MR. LAPPER-Thank you for clarifying that. MR. MAC EWAN-Changes to the exterior of the building. MR. LAPPER-We’re proposing to keep it residential, but, you know, we’ll do whatever the Planning Board wants. MR. MAC EWAN-I mean, are you proposing doing any changes, re-siding it or something like that, painting it or whatever? MR. GOUGE-No. I’m just maintaining it in its current state. MR. MILLER-The only thing we’d have to add is we showed some ramps there, and that would just have to be installed to meet the building code, and the intent is that that would be, you know, a residential sign with a residential ballistered railing and wouldn’t be a commercial concrete type. MR. MAC EWAN-What about the garage door? Is that remaining? I mean, is the garage remaining as a garage, used as a garage, or are you planning on framing that off and making it your cold storage that you were speaking of? MR. GOUGE-We’re not planning on making any changes to it at this time. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s still going to be just like a garage door, you lift up the overhead door and it’s going to be utilized in such a way? MR. GOUGE-Yes, but there wouldn’t, I doubt that there would be a car in it. MR. LAPPER-Probably boxes or file cabinets. MR. MAC EWAN-What about expansion? MR. LAPPER-At this point there’s no plans to expand. MR. MAC EWAN-Would you take exception if we were to consider approving this thing, that no expansion of this building be made, or this property be made whatsoever? 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. LAPPER-No. We would have a problem with that because we can’t anticipate what the future needs are, but any expansion at any time would of course require us to come back to the Planning Board for review. As a three and a half acre site, there’s more than ample buffer for the people in the back. I mean, you can see that clearly on the photograph that’s on the screen, how much trees there are there. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m just worried, what are we talking the square footage on this house? Roughly? MR. MILLER-About 2,000 feet. MR. MAC EWAN-Two thousand. I’m worried about a 2,000 foot home that’s being converted into an administrative building for a school over the next three to five years expanding to become a 7500 square foot administrative building, as the school grows. MR. LAPPER-Well, certainly there’s no plan to do that, but let’s say that in five years that changed and we came back before the Board for a 5,000 square foot addition, the issues of buffer and noise and impact on the neighbors would all be before this Board, you know, you would obviously be looking out to protect the neighbors. That’s quite a large site. So it could accommodate, I would argue that it could accommodate building and still protect the neighbors, if it was done right, but certainly there’s no reason to be talking about that now because that’s not what we’re here for. MR. MAC EWAN-No, but we have to look at the long range plans, though. MR. LAPPER-Well, the reason why a school is a permitted use in this zone is because a school is recognized as a necessary in the community and I don’t have to go into a lot of detail, because I know the Board understands it and the neighbors do as well. I volunteer my time as a Board member of Prospect because it meets an important community service to deal with kids that are handicapped, otherwise disabled, and that’s something that the public school system doesn’t deal with that they fill a void, certainly for the younger kids, and it’s just an important community service for Queensbury as well as Warren, Washington, northern Saratoga County, and that’s why it’s treated differently in the zoning code as John mentioned, and we’ve tried to be very sensitive in our design of the expansion last time, and in the design of this little parking lot to take into account the neighbor’s concerns, and as you’ll remember, we met with the neighbors privately last time, went back to the drawing board a number of times to make changes to make the neighbors happy. We want to make the neighbors happy, but somebody was pointing out that this was a really large site as a disadvantage and we think that’s an advantage to the neighbors because where this building is is nowhere near the people on Kiley. The distance is pretty dramatic. MR. SANFORD-Deep enough to put the parking in the rear. MR. LAPPER-Well, and again, if the Board wants it in the rear, we’ll put it in the rear, but we’ve consulted with the neighbor next door who says that if it was in the rear, she’d be looking at it from her house, and where it is now, she won’t be, and she’s the most impacted. MR. STROUGH-And while I empathize with the neighbor, I also empathize with the several hundred people that drive by this place who are residents of Queensbury, and are going to ask, who approved that, if we allow parking in the front. I mean, I’m going to get a lot less grief. I’m going to get grief probably from that person, the one to the right, but if we hedge it and put ballard lighting, low level ballard lighting for the parking lot rather than a big sodium, we can achieve the same purpose with a minimum of impact. MR. SANFORD-Or the entrance to the parking lot in the rear could come from an entrance to the west side of the property rather than from the east side of the property, which seemed to be her primary concern. I certainly feel there’s enough possibilities here that I certainly would like 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) to see an alternative to what you have here which is basically paving the front yard of a residential home. MR. MILLER-Well, I think, you know, one of the requirements is to maintain access that’s going to remain garage doors, and if we move that parking, what we’re going to probably do is move the driveway so that, you know, we don’t have to snake around the building to get to the parking lot. So then what now we’re going to have to do is that new driveway, we’re going to have to maintain the driveway across the front of the building, but we need to get to the garage on the other side, and then we’ll extend the pavement, we’ll have more pavement, twice as much, to get to the parking in the back and we’ll have to rebuild the septic system. So when we looked at it, we were ending up with a lot more pavement, and it would be put to the back, but we’re still going to have just as much pavement in the front, just for the circulation. I mean, that’s why we decided that the simplest thing to do was to minimize the pavement, put it in the front, and buffer it in accordance with the Code. MR. STROUGH-Well, my idea was you could use the driveway going in, slip around on the east side, go in the rear, hedge the east side of the driveway, put ballard lighting in the rear. MR. MILLER-But you’re still kicking it all the way around to the front of the building. You just don’t have any cars there. MR. STROUGH-You see it. You drive by the place and you would hardly know that it’s a commercial enterprise. MR. SANFORD-I agree with you, John. MR. MAC EWAN-I share the opposite opinion. I think in this particular case, while we try to strive to get parking located behind buildings, that considering the impact that the parking would have, although I think there’s small impacts, that the location of this parking lot is going to have the least impact on anybody involved who’s neighboring this parcel, that includes the people to the back parcel, the Sigismondi’s who live to the east. MR. SANFORD-How about the people who live across the street, though, Craig? MR. MAC EWAN-But you’ve got the berm there. MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, yes, how effective is that going to be? MR. MAC EWAN-Berms are very effective. We use them quite regularly and they’re part of our design standards in the Town. MR. STROUGH-Well, it’s a one foot berm. MR. MAC EWAN-Make the berm higher. MR. STROUGH-It still doesn’t address the aesthetic problems. MR. MAC EWAN-Let’s drive at it. What’s the aesthetic problems you’ve seen? MR. STROUGH-He’s got three acres of land behind this, Craig. Three acres of woods. MR. MAC EWAN-That we’ve pretty much heard from a lot of the neighbors that their preference is they would like to see that large wood lot remain as is. MR. STROUGH-I don’t think, I think what they meant is they did not want to see any further erosion of what is vegetated there, and you could the parking lot with probably not moving a single tree, and you have all the woods in the back there, and you drive by the place, you don’t even know it’s a. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MAC EWAN-And in the wintertime months, you know, when it’s dark at four o’clock, four thirty in the afternoon, you’ve got people coming in and out of that parking lot, suppose they get out of an eight o’clock meeting, seven o’clock meeting, you’ve got all those lights now coming in from around the circle, around the back of that parking lot, going through, shining through a wood lot that’s no, doesn’t have any leaves on it. MR. STROUGH-Wood lot? Well, look at the length of that wood lot. You tell me you’re going to see headlights through three acres of woods? MR. SANFORD-The reluctance to want to consider parking in the rear begs the question, do they have other plans for the rear of that lot? Are they looking for building expansion or not? We don’t know. MR. RINGER-Well, they said no, but that’s today. MR. SANFORD-That’s today. MR. STROUGH-Richard’s point is well taken. The parking lot in back would limit what they could do, at least for the moment. MR. RINGER-Well, just tear the parking lot up and move it further back. MR. SANFORD-Right, but they would at least have to. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll go with the flow. What’s the consensus of the Board? MR. RINGER-I’m content with it where it is, or on the side here. I don’t really want to put it in the back because I think you’re putting more lights out back there and cause more traffic back there. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m tending to agree with my colleagues at the other end of the table. There’s an adult group home in my neighborhood which, you know, I really have no problem with, and if you didn’t know that it was a group home for handicapped people, you’d never know, except for there’s always five cars in the front yard, up and down the driveway and also parked, you know, on the shoulder of the road, and it does change the flavor of the neighborhood to drive by a house that always has five cars in front of it. MR. LAPPER-Again, we’ll do whatever the majority of the Board wants us to do, but we met with the neighbor next door and she said this is where she wanted it and she’s the one who’s going to be looking right at it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, I understand that. MR. LAPPER-And that’s why it’s there. We were just attempting to do the right thing. MR. SEGULJIC-I could see it in front, being buffered properly, and I think it’ll work. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, guys. MR. STROUGH-I stand firm. Aesthetically, I’ve got to live with everybody that says, who the hell approved that. DARLENE KOSINSKI MS. KOSINSKI-Mr. MacEwan, I’d like to ask a question. Did they say they’re putting this driveway on the west side? How are they going to get in to the building? There’s no doors on the west side of that house. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. RINGER-It’s already an existing driveway that’s there. MS. KOSINSKI-Not on the west side. On the east side. MR. MAC EWAN-Folks. I gave everyone an opportunity to speak. If I open it back up again, I’m going to ask everybody to come back up to the table because we record our minutes. Just let us try to get through this discussion. MR. STROUGH-You know, how about this? How about a happy medium. How about if they take their parking, and move it to the side of the house, leave the front yard lawn and put some landscaping in there, put a row of hedges in there, move the parking lot to the side of the house, okay. That way the problems with the rear, the problems with the front, move it to the side. That would allow the front lawn to look like a front lawn, and might minimize the commercial aspect of this. MR. SEGULJIC-Which side of the house are you speaking of? MR. STROUGH-Well, keep it where it is, or maybe just move it back. MR. LAPPER-The west side. MR. STROUGH-Yes. MR. MILLER-John, if we move it back, do you see how the pines jut out from the property line? If we try to even put a driveway with parking on one side, we would have to remove some of those large pines. MR. STROUGH-Well, then so be it. MR. MILLER-Okay. That was one of the reasons, we were trying not to touch any trees. MR. STROUGH-Well, you’re asking for a tradeoff. You’re saying, I’ll pave the front yard, that’s not acceptable, or I’ll have to take down a couple of pine trees and move it to the side yard. To me, it’s a no-brainer. Move the couple of trees and put it in the side yard, keep the front yard looking like a residential front yard. MR. LAPPER-If that’s the prerogative of the Board, that’s what we’ll do. MR. RINGER-I could buy the side yard. MR. STROUGH-Well, that’s a compromise. MR. SEGULJIC-So the driveway would snake in front of the house then? MR. STROUGH-Yes, and put a row of hedges along the driveway, that snakes in front of the house, keep the front yard lawn, maybe even do some other nice landscaping, but putting it right smack out by the side of the road like it is, just isn’t it. MR. SEGULJIC-It sounds like a good idea. MR. STROUGH-We’ve got four votes. MR. RINGER-Well, I could go with the side, but I don’t want it out back. MR. STROUGH-Five. Five votes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m along on that ride, I guess. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. STROUGH-All right, six votes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’m not going to accept any public comment unless you come up to the microphone and we’ve already gone through that route. I’m going to hold off for a few more minutes, please. MR. RINGER-We didn’t close the public hearing. So you’ll have another opportunity to speak. MR. MAC EWAN-So that’s what you want to do? MR. STROUGH-Well, I’d like to see a couple of alternative plans. Let’s see what the neighbors have to say about this idea, and I just don’t like this plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Could I ask you to give up the table for a couple of minutes. We’ll welcome a second round of comments. MS. KOSINSKI-My name is Darlene Kosinski. First all of, they said they’ve approached the neighbors to the east of us about their plan. MR. KOSINSKI-How come nobody ever approached us? MS. KOSINSKI-Nobody ever came to us. We’ve never heard a word from them, and all of a sudden a parking lot’s being built on the west side, which is where we are. So I would just like to know why we weren’t told about the plans before we got the letter in the mail about the meeting. So we knew nothing. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s something you’d have to take up with the applicant. MS. KOSINSKI-Okay. MR. KOSINSKI-And another thing to me is, if they’re looking for an option, why don’t they take the garage off and just use the driveway in, and put a small driveway behind this house? MS. KOSINSKI-Or the parking lot. MR. KOSINSKI-Parking lot. MR. STROUGH-So, what I’m saying is maintaining this as residential looking protects the value of your home. MR. KOSINSKI-Yes, but if they’re not going to use the garage. MS. KOSINSKI-They’re saying they’re going to use the garage for storage. There’s only going to be three or four people in there working. There’s a whole upstairs. There’s a whole downstairs. I’ve been in the house, and there’s still plenty of room on the first floor for whatever they said, a cafeteria or office buildings. MR. STROUGH-So take out the garage, extend the driveway, put the parking in back. I love it. MR. KOSINSKI-That’s what I think. MR. SANFORD-I support that. MR. KOSINSKI-Because behind that garage there’s a deck. Nobody’s going to use a deck. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MS. KOSINSKI-And the other concern with the lighting on our side, like my brother said, those pine trees are cut quite a bit up. Unless there’s some kind of thing there, it’s on at night, it’s going to shine right on us. MR. STROUGH-Well, the ballard lights are like when you enter the Mall, the ballard lights are the low level, low lit areas when you go to the movies, amongst the vegetation. MS. KOSINSKI-All right. MR. STROUGH-I put them in. So, that’s what you could have, and it really, you wouldn’t even notice it from your place, and the other neighbors, the Sigismondi’s, I guess, they wouldn’t notice it either. I mean, with the vegetated, low level, low wattage lighting, enough to light up the surface area of the pavement, so that they can walk and get in and out of there safely. MR. KOSINSKI-Yes, because the other concern with the driveway out in the front lawn, would be snow removal. I mean, at the other school they use a pay loader comes in and they load it and take it away. I mean, where if the driveway was out back, it’s just one shot up push it and saves money. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. KOSINSKI-That’s it for me. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else want to comment? MRS. SIGISMONDI-I just want to say that I knew Gail Keyes who owned the home, and I knew about what was happening, and it was me who first approached the School, because I’m not a shy, reserved type of person, and they were very nice to me, and as I told you, they were cooperative with what my concerns were. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? STEVE SOPRANO MR. SOPRANO-My name is Steve Soprano. I’m at the house on the back end of the woods over there, and to me, if you’re looking to keep the residential look and looking to don’t take away the garage. Leave the garage there. Leave the porch there. I don’t know exactly where the driveway comes in presently, but there’s no reason why the driveway can’t come around the front of the house and into the back left hand corner. Get it into the back. I don’t want to see a parking lot in the front of that house. I don’t want to see it on the side of the house. I want it in the back of the house. If you put in the low level lights there, that does not affect. I’m directly behind this house at this point in time. So, those lights can’t be seen if they’re low lights, as long as they’re not big, tall lights. I’d much rather see it in the back left hand corner. I understand there’s a septic system there, but move it, because that’s the only spot that protects the person on the east side. It keeps the trees on the west side there. You don’t have to touch any of them, and puts the parking lot in the back, if you’ve got to have a parking lot at all. They say you need administrative here, okay. It’s a school. It serves a great purpose. I understand it serves a great purpose, but you’re commercializing the whole area at this point in time. If you’re allowing this administrative building because of growth, after two years, what’s to say the next house that comes up, they’re not grabbing that for administrative purposes. If it’s grown too big for the area, then they’ll have to move it. This is a residential area. I don’t want to see it taken away. I don’t want to see anything disturbed there. If they have to put a parking lot there, let’s get it in the back of the house. Have them just arrange it somehow that it’s in the back left hand corner so it’s protecting everyone, and you’ve got this woods back here. I’m kind of concerned of that because in my back yard, right up on to my back grass, it is orange (lost words) at this point in time. So they’re back there. It’s been surveyed. I’d like to know why and what the, you know, what the repercussions can be from that. Can it be turned? 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) Is it forever wild back there, am I protected that this woods is going to stay there? And those are. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re not the first one I’ve heard make the comment tonight about it being forever wild. Where did you hear that it was forever wild? MR. SOPRANO-Well, the realtor that sold me my house. The realtor that sold, well, it has been from a realtor, but obviously I have a week’s notice. So I haven’t been able to investigate it. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not. MR. SOPRANO-Okay. MR. RINGER-You’re on Kiley Lane? MR. SOPRANO-I’m on Kiley Lane. The two neighbors on both sides of me were also described that, you know, that area wasn’t, can’t be built on. MR. MAC EWAN-Your deed to your house may say something about that there’s maybe like a 20 or 25 foot buffer, or some dimension they’ll give you listed on your deed that you can’t cut into. Sometimes that’s a thing that developments will do, but as far as being a “forever wild” area along through there, it’s not the case. MR. RINGER-The lots were deep on Aviation, but 150 feet on Kiley, or 150 on Kiley, probably. You’re lot’s 150, and you’ve got 600 feet on the Aviation side. MR. SOPRANO-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? One more time. MRS. SIGISMONDI-For the record, I just want to say that I like the compromise much better. Mr. Soprano’s house, on one side of that property, goes back like 1,000 feet, and I’m like just wide open. I mean, he has from Aviation Road down to his property. All he looks into is trees, and if you look at that and my house, it’s all open. It’s grass, and I’m sorry, I don’t know their last names, Kosinski’s, I can see where that they would need a buffer also because it wouldn’t be good for them to get, you know, light coming from cars and stuff like that, but your idea with those things, the small one, that sounds good. The compromise, I think, sounded much better. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. Anyone else? All right. That’s it for tonight anyways on that. I will leave the public hearing open, ladies and gentlemen. I guess you know where we’re going with this, right? The parking lot in the right. MR. LAPPER-And you’d like us to resubmit to show you that? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Then we shall. MR. MAC EWAN-As far as the Sigismondi’s property, because they’re probably, at this stage, now, with the parking lot going out in back, it would be good to put something along the hedgerow along that portion of the parking lot to screen them, from any possibility of headlights or whatever. Is there anything else Board members are looking for? MR. STROUGH-Well, I think, Jim, you work with the lighting. So rather than a big pole light, we’ll go with a couple of ballards back there or something. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. MILLER-I’m just worried about safety with them. I mean, they’re good along walkways and things. MR. STROUGH-Well, you’ve got the back of the house, too, where you could use a switchable floodlight for people that are exiting and entering, and it’s switchable. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re creative. We have all the confidence in the world you’ll make it work. MR. MILLER-Okay, but the only problem with bollard lights, they’re 42 inches high. Cars are taller than that. So, you know, you create a lot of dark spots with lights that low. It’s a little bit unsafe. I’d like to try to strike a balance between safety. MR. MAC EWAN-Come up with a light that you think will work that won’t impact adjoining properties significantly. MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. STROUGH-You can do it. I’ve got faith in you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay? MR. MILLER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t forget, the 15 is deadline submission. So you’ll be on in November. th Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. GOUGE-Thank you very much. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 43-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED ABMAST, INC. PROPERTY: CAREY REAL ESTATE TRUST AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING ZONE: LI LOCATION: CAREY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 10,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW INDUSTRIAL USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB 6-87, SP 66-98, SP 23-99, SP 29-00 TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-3 LOT SIZE: 1.68 ACRES SECTION: TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 43-2003, Abmast, Inc., Meeting Date: September 16, 2003 “APPLICATION: Site Plan 43-2003 APPLICANT: Abmast Inc. is the applicant for this request. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 10,000 sq. ft. warehouse building with associated parking, lighting and landscaping. LOCATION: The subject property is located on Carey Rd., south of Corinth Road in the Carey Industrial Park. EXISTING ZONING: The property is zoned LI, Light Industry. SEQRA STATUS: This application is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has included a SEQRA short EAF. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) PARCEL HISTORY: A search of the parcel history found other site plan approvals within Carey Industrial Park, along with SB 6-1987, Northern Distributing, which created the lots within this subdivision. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to construct a 10,000 sq. ft. warehouse with associated parking, lighting and landscaping. The applicant has submitted a stormwater management report that has been sent to CT Male for their review and comment. STAFF COMMENTS: The site lighting plan indicates three wall pack lights to be used near the building entrance and the proposed loading docks. Although the light levels appear to be consistent with Town lighting standards, no cut-sheets have been provided for these wall packs. Are any other wall packs or free standing lights proposed? In order to allow trucks the ability to access the loading docks, the two proposed vehicular access points seem reasonable. Staff does not anticipate any access difficulties along Carey Rd. as a result of these two access points. Any comments from CT Male should be addressed during the review of this application.” MR. HILTON-Seems like a pretty straightforward application. Just a couple of quick comments. Light levels with the proposed lighting plan appear to be consistent with the Town standards. However, no cut sheets have been provided, and are there any other wall packs or freestanding lights proposed? The two access points off Bay Road seem reasonable, and Staff doesn’t anticipate any difficulties as a result, and any comments from C.T. Male should be addressed as part of this review. That’s all we have at this time. MR. STROUGH-We have a C.T. Male signoff, don’t we, George? MR. HILTON-I believe we do. MR. MAC EWAN-The floor is yours. MR. NACE-Okay. For the record, Tom Nace representing Abmast Incorporated. We have addressed C.T. Male’s comments as noted, and we have a signoff letter from them, and in response to their comments, we also provided a cut sheet for the cut off wall pack fixture. Any other questions, I’ll be glad to answer them. MR. MAC EWAN-Chris, I think it’s your turn. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have my map out yet. I really didn’t have any particular comments. I mean, it’s a pretty straightforward project. There was really nothing in particular that stuck out, other than sort of a general comment on the location of the truck docks. I’m not sure how else you could arrange them. I mean, if you’re coming, when you’re coming from the eastern side of Carey Road, the truck docks are sort of to the back of the building, but if you’re coming the other way, the truck docks would appear to be in the front of the building. I don’t know how you would arrange this site to do it any other way. MR. NACE-No. On those lots, on the pie shaped lots, it’s very difficult, and that’s really the reason for the one way driveway in and out, to get access to back in to the truck docks without having to back off of Carey Road into the docks. MR. HUNSINGER-The only other thought I had on that, to try to screen the docks a little better, would be to narrow the throat of the driveway, the exiting driveway. MR. NACE-Remember, it’s an industrial park. MR. HUNSINGER-I know. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. NACE-And the entire character of the Park is pretty much what you would see here. MR. RINGER-You’d have to have a pretty wide turn anyway on trucks coming in. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was the answer I was looking for you to comment on why the width of the driveway was. MR. NACE-Well, the throat’s big enough there to allow them to come up and back in to the docks, and to narrow it down, if we had a deeper lot we could do it, but without the depth, we really can’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I mean, I had similar kind of comments on the design of the building. I mean, it’s just a standard, pre-engineered steel? MR. NACE-Pre-engineered, and again, it’s an Industrial Park. All the traffic back there is related to the Industrial Park. There’s, you know, it’s off the main traveled way. It’s not seen by tourists. MR. HUNSINGER-How many employees do they expect to have in the building at one time? MR. NACE-I think, I don’t remember offhand. I think it’s possibly up to eight or nine, starting off, I think, with three. What it is, it’s a distribution warehouse. They manufacture cut off wheels, cut off abrasives, and they manufacture in Canada, and presently they distribute in the States out of Plattsburg, and they want to move that further south. So this’ll be a distribution warehouse where you’ll get a tractor trailer load in, you know, maybe twice a week, and then from there you’ll distribute out maybe five to ten small truckloads, or where a small truck enters, entrances into the facility per day. So fairly low volume. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I didn’t have any other questions? MR. MAC EWAN-Larry? MR. RINGER-I have nothing on it. I think it’s pretty straightforward. MR. MAC EWAN-Rich? MR. SANFORD-The only concerns we had when we did site plan was you’re on a curb of the road, and is visibility going to be adequate for trucks exiting the site. I know it’s not a heavily traveled road and people don’t travel too fast on it, but my thinking was that perhaps some of the trees that were close to the road would be actually removed in the process. MR. NACE-Well, the trees there, if you’ve looked, are fairly thin. I think we can certainly stipulate that some of the undergrowth in there be thinned out so that there is visibility through the trees. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I mean, again, we didn’t think it was a major problem. MR. NACE-Yes. I think it was a good idea if we removed the undergrowth. MR. SANFORD-I have no further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-John? MR. STROUGH-No, no questions. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else Staff wanted to add? I’ll open up the public hearing. Does anyone want to comment on this application? 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. MR. STROUGH-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 43-2003, Introduced by John Strough who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ABMAST, INC., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. Duly adopted this 16 day of September, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. MAC EWAN-Motion? MR. RINGER-We got the signoff, Tom said he got the signoff. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) MR. NACE-Yes. MR. RINGER-Did we get it, and they did sign off? MR. HILTON-Absolutely. We do have one in the file. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 43-2003 ABMAST, INC., Introduced by Larry Ringer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 43-2003 Applicant: Abmast, Inc. SEQR Type: Unlisted Property: Carey Real Estate Trust Agent: Nace Engineering Zone: LI Location: Carey Road Applicant proposes construction of 10,000 sq. ft. warehouse and associated site work. New industrial uses require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SUB 6-87, SP 66-98. SP 23-99, SP 29-00 Tax Map No. 308.20-1-3 Lot size: 1.68 acres / Section: Public Hearing: September 16, 2003 WHEREAS, the application was received on 8/15/03; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 9/12/03, and 9/16 Staff Notes 9/12 CT Male engineering comments 9/9 Notice of Public Hearing sent 9/3 Meeting Notice w/Project Notification marker sent 8/26 Water Dept. comments 8/22 Application forwarded to CT Male 8/21 Application forwarded to Water, and Highway 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 September 16, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that the proposal complies with the Site Plan application requirements of the Code of the Town Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered the environmental factors found in the Code of the Town of Queensbury (Zoning); and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and/or if application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered; and the proposed modification(s) do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and 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 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 9/16/03) We find the following: The application is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 16th day of September, 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Strough, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Metivier MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re all set, Tom. Did you want to discuss Wal-Mart? MR. HILTON-Well, I don’t know. The applicant isn’t here. I’m not sure if I feel too comfortable discussing the entire application with the entire Board. MR. MAC EWAN-Our packet’s pretty self-explanatory, what we’re looking for. MR. HILTON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I think that, based on conversations we had last month with them, when they were here, or the month before, I still think we’re kind of short of what we’re looking for. Thursday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 69