Loading...
2005-05-26 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 26, 2005 INDEX Freshwater Wetlands Adirondack Girl Scout Council 1. Permit No. 1-2002Mod Tax Map No. 296.16-1-10 Site Plan No. 30-2002Mod Adirondack Girl Scout Council 2. Tax Map No. 296.16-1-10 Subdivision No. 17-2004 John Dreps/Eugene Cerniglia 25. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 296.16-1-14, 15, 16.1 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 24-2005 Sean Garvey 31. Tax Map No. 303.6-1-5 Subdivision No. 7-2005 Richard Schermerhorn 37. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 290.13-1-1.1 FINAL STAGE THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 26, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, ACTING CHAIRMAN ANTHONY METIVIER THOMAS SEGULJIC GRETCHEN STEFFAN GEORGE GOETZ RICHARD SANFORD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK S. & MIKE H. MR. VOLLARO-Before we start, I myself want to get into a few things, and tell you that, is anybody here to hear or talk to the Western Reserve? Okay. They have voluntarily removed this application, and voluntarily tabled it, asked for a tabling. So there won’t be any public hearing on it tonight. If you want to stay and listen to the rest of this, feel free. On your agenda, we’ve moved a couple of things around just a little bit. The Girl Scouts were originally last on this, and they’re now first. We’re going to hear them first, and then we’ll follow right along from there, after that. With the exception of removing of Western Reserve, we’ll go right through it, just as you see it on your agenda. Before I start, again, I want to talk to the Staff on this for just a minute. I’m going to be asking for a third meeting in June. I already discussed this with. MR. SANFORD-July. MR. VOLLARO-June. MR. SANFORD-You’re going to go June? The memo I circulated, I mean, not that you have to follow that, but that suggested a third meeting in July. MR. VOLLARO-Well, looking at the way it’s backed up, I think maybe we can fit one into June, because July is liable to be a month when a lot of people are away. I’ve asked Staff about that, and see if we can fit seven into the month of June now. I talked to Craig Brown. It looked like nine June and thirty June were possible dates. MRS. BARDEN-You have a memo on that. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t had a chance. The memo is buried in here somewhere, I suppose. I don’t have a copy of it. MRS. BARDEN-There were two days on that memo that were suggested. MR. VOLLARO-Nine and thirty. I believe those were the two days. MRS. BARDEN-Your two regular meetings are the 21 and the 28. stth MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. So what we want to do is, maybe after this meeting, try to pick the seven that we’re going to put in on either nine or thirty. Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And with that, we’ll go to the first application which is the Girl Scouts of the Adirondacks. NEW BUSINESS: FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO.: 01-2002MOD PREVIOUS SEQRA ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL AGENT: JONTHAN LAPPER ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 213 MEADOWBROOK RD. APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN WITHIN NYS DEC WETLANDS. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 47-2002, FW 01- 2002, UV 12-2002, UV 44-1992, AV 37-2005 PENDING DEC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10 LOT SIZE: 13.38 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030, 070 JON LAPPER, TOM HUTCHINS, DEAN LONG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT SITE PLAN 30-2002MOD PREVIOUS SEQRA ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL AGENT: JONATHAN LAPPER, MATT STEVES, TOM HUTCHINS, STEFANIE BITTER ZONE: 213 MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTED CHANGES TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION; A 607 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING WINTER LODGE AND A 1,086 SQ. FT. SPLASH PAD. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 47-2002, FW 01-2002, UV 12-2002, UV 44-1992, AV 37-2005 PENDING DEC WARREN CO. PLANNING: 6/12/02 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1-10 LOT SIZE: 13.38 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030, 070 JON LAPPER, TOM HUTCHINS, DEAN LONG, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Dean Long, Biologist from the LA Group, and Tom Hutchins, project engineer, and we also have Tom Albrecht from Hilltop Construction, the general contractor, and Kit Huggard, the Executive Director, and some of the members of the Board of Directors are here as well if they have to answer any questions. To begin with, the Girl Scout Council has asked me to thank the Chairman and members of the Board for giving us the opportunity with a special meeting, the extra meeting this month. They’re just in a unique situation where their whole season at the camp happens in July and August, and they’ve got a whole bunch of Girl Scouts that are signed up for camp, and the place isn’t ready yet, and we need to get through site plan changes and we’re just appreciative to be here, because if it were next month, they would be in trouble, and for the different issues that we’re going to be talking about, just so you understand it, things come up that require additional 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) information, the only thing that the Girl Scouts need to get through with tonight is the minor modification to their winter lodge expansion, and they would like to get their splash pad, small little water park area approved, because those are two things that, they need the winter lodge to accommodate the girls for the summer and they’d like to have the splash pad, and if there are issues that come up on the Freshwater Wetlands Permit or the administrative office building, that it’s perfectly acceptable to the applicant that that could be tabled and discussed later if that’s necessary, because they’re just not as critical to their operation this summer. So, with that, I think you’ve got us on for the Freshwater Wetland permit first. MR. VOLLARO-There are two parts of this application. One is they need modification of Freshwater Wetland permit 1-2002, which has been now submitted as 1-2005, is that correct? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And that application, because of some changes in the back, and I guess, when this was approved by the Planning Board originally, the bridge over the creek was changed due to the existence of the floodplain, and as part of the review by C.T. Male, it was subject to approval by C.T. Male after the Planning Board it, and as part of that review, both with the Town engineer and with Dave Hatin, who also serves as the Town’s floodplain coordinator, changes were required for the bridge, which is part of the site plan modification, and there were some additional changes that were made, right at the back of the building, some to accommodate the new bridge, and some because it was a better design according to the general contractor, and the result of that was that the Freshwater Wetlands permit that was granted for encroachment in the back behind the building needs to be amended, and we were always going to create some new wetland in an upland area that was away from their activity area, to make up for the fact that they had to do a wetland disturbance. It was pretty minor, in terms of square footage to begin with, and now it’s a little bit bigger, and we’ve proposed to, as part of the Freshwater Wetlands permit, to create a larger new wetland area as a mitigation area. That is going to also require DEC approval as well as Town approval on that issue. So, any approvals that you were to give on the Freshwater Wetlands permit, would still require us to go to DEC and go through their process, but that’s the area right behind the office building. MR. VOLLARO-My understanding is that you went before the ZBA on Monday, I believe. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And did they table that because of this DEC permit? MR. LAPPER-They did, because they wanted us to go to DEC first, but ultimately, the Zoning Administrator made a determination, subsequent to that meeting, that was about replacing what was proposed as a boardwalk with a concrete path behind the building to get to the bridge, and we were before the Zoning Board for a variance for setback from the wetland, and the Zoning Administrator subsequently determined that that wasn’t necessary because it’s building setback and that the concrete walk didn’t count as building. So we didn’t need that. MR. VOLLARO-I talked to the Zoning Administrator today at about 2:30, and he said that the ZBA had tabled this. Now, you’re giving me a little different story here. I’m just trying to get it clear in my mind. MR. LAPPER-Yes, this all happened after the ZBA meeting. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask Staff. Marilyn, you understand that? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-What is the story? Because I just talked to Craig about two o’clock. MRS. BARDEN-The ZBA did table the application on Monday’s meeting, and it is true, I think at this point, that they do not need the shoreline setback. They still need front setback. MR. LAPPER-Right. MRS. BARDEN-They need continuation of nonconforming structure. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MRS. BARDEN-However, they still do need a DEC permit for that wetland mitigation area. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What I’m trying to get at is the tabling of the variance by the ZBA on Monday night was not necessary. Is that true? That’s what I’m hearing from Counsel. MRS. BARDEN-No. They still need two more variances. I have the resolution in front of me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, I’m getting a different story from the Counsel. I just wanted to know which is the right one here. I’m getting mixed signals. MR. SANFORD-Well, this is, I wasn’t even thinking in terms of this application. I was thinking of the other one that was tabled, but I did some research, going back to our procedures. When ZBA has business in front of it on variances, and an application is scheduled to come in front of this Board, we typically don’t hear that application, and I remember I raised that question on 1/25/05, on Page Seven of the minutes, and I stated, if we could approve, this was on an application off of Sherman Avenue, I was wondering if we could proceed, conditioning any approval on ZBA variance approval, and Mr. Hilton corrected me and said that we cannot go forward with this application, quote unquote, because of the Area Variance that’s in front of the ZBA. So there was more dialogue on that, and I wanted to make sure that this was consistent with how we’ve practiced in the past and Mr. Baker volunteered that I was correct, that we couldn’t go forward, and part of the rationale behind this is so that the Planning Board doesn’t find itself reviewing any application that doesn’t comply with the Code, either on its face or after having been granted a variance, and so I guess, you know, my initial reaction back in 1/25 was to proceed this way, but I was corrected by two members of Staff that that is not the way we do things. I guess my question, I guess directed at Staff, is what I’ve just stated at all applicable here, or am I totally missing the boat, or are we now making a change in how we proceed? MRS. RYBA-Excuse me. I think what I heard was, in that statement, was in terms of conditioning approval and that’s different than hearing a presentation. Because that’s correct. I don’t believe you will be able to make an approval until the ZBA makes their approval, but it doesn’t prevent you from listening to the presentation. MR. SANFORD-Okay, but if we worked with the applicant, and came up with some form of a meeting of the minds, that we’re all comfortable with, would it preclude us from giving some form of a green light to the Girl Scouts? 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re hoping you can approve part of this and table part of this. MR. SANFORD-Well, that’s my question. My question is based on 1/25 minutes, on Page Seven, it was clearly stated that an approval conditioned upon a ZBA variance approval, you can’t do it. MR. LAPPER-And part of our application deals with the Administrative building, which is still, still has variances pending, some of which are still required and some of which are not, and on that we understand that the Board is going to want to table that until we’re done with the ZBA. MR. VOLLARO-Well, don’t be sure of that. Don’t tell me what we’re going to do. MR. LAPPER-Okay. If the Board decides to do that, we understand that. What’s crucial, in terms of the applicant, is the stuff that’s on the other side of the creek, up on the hill, that doesn’t have to do with the Freshwater Wetlands permit and doesn’t have to do with the zoning variances, and that’s the winter lodge and the splash pad, as I mentioned, and perhaps it would be best to start off with the map to just show you how that’s separate. MR. VOLLARO-Well, before we do that, I think we have a requirement here. Prior to considering either of the above things, the Freshwater permit or prior to considering the modification to Site Plan No. 30-2002, I think this Board has to take a look at the previous SEQRA, and see that that SEQRA is now consistent with what we’re doing today. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And I would like to start to do that, to see where there’s a degree of consistency. Now what I see here is, and I’m going to bow to better knowledge than mine, and talk to Counsel, but are we in any way segmenting this by putting one aside and saying we’ll do this later and we’ll do this at some other time? MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not aware of anybody proposing to do what you just described for the purposes of SEQRA review. MR. VOLLARO-Not for SEQRA review, but for the application itself. MR. SCHACHNER-But we’re talking about, the concern about segmentation, there’s absolutely no prohibition or frowning upon having any applicant come in, Year One for something, Year Two for something, Year Three for something or Month One, Month Two, Month Three, so long as the SEQRA review takes into account all components. I don’t believe anyone is proposing to do a segmented SEQRA review, as you just described, Mr. Vollaro. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SCHACHNER-I believe everyone’s agreed, applicant, Staff, and certainly Counsel, have agreed that for the purposes of SEQRA review, you’re looking at a previous negative Declaration that was issued on a project or projects previous proposed and approved. You’re now looking at a multiple component, if you will, project that’s now back, or not back, but is now on the table. While you may end up, and in fact our advise as Counsel is going to be not to approve certain components this evening, consistent with what Mr. Lapper just said, although you objected to his statement. Our advice as Counsel is that on the matters that are applied for, that require zoning variances, and this also touches on Rich’s comment, on the matters that require zoning variances, even if, and this may or may not be the case, but even if you are ecstatic about those portions of the application, and are desirous of approving them tonight, our legal advice to you 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) as Counsel is not to do so for exactly the reason that Rich was mentioning and that Jon Lapper followed up on, which is there are components that require variances, and the Board should not be approving those components this evening, because as we sit here this evening, they are not in compliance with the law as Mr. Sanford mentioned. That’s correct, but they are, as I understand it, no one is proposing to do segmented SEQRA review. We’ve all agreed that the entire ball of wax will be reviewed for purposes of SEQRA compliance. Is that not the case from the applicant’s standpoint? MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. MR. SCHACHNER-So I don’t think your question, there’s no concern about your question. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, what I’m trying to do is see that there’s a degree of consistency between this application and what we approved previously on SEQRA. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, and another way of putting that is not so much consistency in the sense of I think it’s pretty clear that some of what the applicant is proposing is not identical to what was originally proposed, your responsibility under SEQRA is to see if any of the components that are now proposed have potentially significant environmental impacts above and beyond those potential impacts, if any, that were identified back at the inception of the project, and that goes for all the components currently on the table, those that you may or may not approve tonight, and those that you certainly won’t approve tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the previous SEQRA was based on their previous submission of June 25, I think it was, 2002, and there was, in my view at least, a great deal of th departure from that site plan we approved to what is being presented to us tonight. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So I want to go through and see whether what we did in the original SEQRA, and what’s been proposed tonight on the SEQRA that’s dated April 15, 2005, that these two documents, that we don’t have to go back and re-visit the entire SEQRA thing again. What I want to do is take the Board through the Short Form which was submitted and see whether we can answer all these questions in a negative fashion and come up with a negative declaration. MR. SCHACHNER-Based on what’s in front of us now? MR. VOLLARO-Based on what’s in front of us today. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s very appropriate. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Okay. Now, let me ask my Board a question. Has everybody reviewed the Staff notes on this that were prepared, and understand them? Because if not, we can have the Staff notes read, but I want to know from Board members if we all have at least read the notes. MR. SANFORD-Yes. Bob, I read the Staff notes as well as the material, but I do have a question, and this speaks to a memo that you prepared, but it’s a question that I don’t believe we have an answer for. In my own mind, I kind of had an idea where we wanted to go with this, and I think we’re going to have a lot of discussion and eventually I’ll get that out, but I believe Marilyn wrote a letter to the President of the Girl Scouts and/or to the Executive Director, and I thought it was a very good suggestion, and I think, just to paraphrase it, she was basically saying, you know, there’s 13 and a half acres here, and there’s likely to be other things down the road, and even though a master plan is not really what you’d call a legal document, like a 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) Comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement, it certainly can be a useful tool for both sides to have an appreciation as to where the build out in the future may be for the Girl Scouts. I didn’t see a response to her suggestion that the Girl Scouts and their agents will work with Town Staff to do such a master plan, but to me, that would be a terrific alternative to going the other direction, if we find environmental issues troubling and to get into something such as an EIS, and so I was wondering what the Girl Scouts’ position is to Marilyn’s suggestion for working in a cooperative way with Staff to prepare a master plan. MR. LAPPER-The simple answer is that there’s nothing in their budget right now, there’s nothing that they have formally adopted as a master plan for anything beyond what we’ve proposed now, a small modification to extension to the winter lodge, which is on the higher upland area, and this splash pad, which is in that same area, which are both, as Craig Brown talked about in his letter, already areas of activity for the Girl Scouts. MR. SANFORD-Just getting ahead of myself, and then I’ll turn it over and I won’t monopolize this Board’s discussion. What I was hoping to see, to get a meeting of the minds with the applicant tonight, and others, I think, as well, was say, okay, the headquarters was built and there’s some issues there. The winter lodge was built and there were issues there in that it didn’t go through the approval, proper approval process, but if we see ourselves through that process, you know, and grant, ultimately, a form of an approval on the headquarters as well as the winter building and the bridge and what have you, what I would like to see is a master plan that would incorporate addressing whatever impact the splash pad might have, simply because the splash pad hasn’t begun or hasn’t been completed, in my knowledge, and I certainly feel that what we want to address now is work that has taken place, quite frankly, in an inappropriate manner, without the proper approvals and what have you, and then sit down, have a master plan to look at to make a decision and a determination regarding future build out, which would be the splash pad. Of course, the wetlands have to be, there has to be a substitution of wetlands that would have to meet the approval of DEC as well, but that’s ultimately, at the end of this discussion, what I thought would be a very positive, win/win understanding. MR. LAPPER-Well, we have no problem with a master plan. They need to sit down and figure out what they want to do in the future, if they have the money to do more on the property, but for right now, the whole master plan is what’s before you, which is the splash pad and finishing the winter lodge, and modifying the Administration building. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t think so. Dick, let me just, so long as we’re into this, we’ll stay with this for a minute. I’m going to read something that I prepared, that all Board members have a copy of. Okay. I was going to recommend that initially we approve this modification as presented, further represented by Drawings S-1, S-2, and so on, the plan 5-61, relating to the winter lodge, which is currently under a Stop Work Order, but would be lifted by Building and Codes, if we went with that tonight, and an exception of this approval is the splash pad which is not yet constructed. Now this exception is further addressed in the following paragraph. Again, taking a piece out of what Richard is saying, in accordance with suggestions made by Marilyn Ryba’s letter to Ms. Gelder, dated 4/26/05, the above stated approval is conditioned upon the Girl Scouts meeting with the Planning Staff to discuss the creation of a master plan for the future incremental build out, which was what Rich was talking about, of the entire 13.53 acres. That master plan, following review by the Planning Board, will form a basis for review of all future applications on this site. The plan shall address stormwater, land use, grading, landscaping, lighting, etc. In order to validate this condition of approval, the Girl Scouts meeting with Staff shall take place within 30 days of the date of the resolution approving this modification. That’s what I had prepared, and that’s one of the things I want to. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. LAPPER-The Girl Scouts are happy to meet with Staff to talk about a master plan. At this point, they have to meet as a Board of Directors and decide if and when they want to do anything with the site. As you know, this site was, you know, created in the 50’s for a Girl Scout camp before there are wetland regulations like there are now. The site has a lot of constraints. It is helpful for them, in terms of ecological education, if you will, for the Girl Scouts, to be in a wetland area, in terms of plant and animal life, but it also has a lot of constraints, in terms of what you can physically build on the site. They’ve worked around that, with this project. The area where they have their camp, on top of the hill, is the upland area, and that’s really where all their activities happen. There’s no wetland impact of the winter lodge or the splash pad. There’s not a lot of land left where they could really do something. There’s that parking area on the north part of the site that has sort of a field, but what they would need to do is to sit down, as a Board of Directors, first decide if there is a wish list of what they want to do, and then come and meet with the Town and talk about it, but right now the full extent of their horizon is to just finish the projects that are on the table and build the splash pad. Certainly master planning is a good idea. MR. SANFORD-We never received an application for a splash pad, Jon. MR. LAPPER-That was part of the site plan application. MR. SANFORD-Back in? MR. LAPPER-The new one. MR. SANFORD-The new one today? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I understand that that’s mentioned in there. MR. LAPPER-They didn’t know about it two years ago. It wasn’t planned two years ago. MR. SANFORD-Right, and I guess what I’m trying to tell you is to get through what has happened already, which needs to be dealt with one way or another, what we were trying to do is be accommodating on that and say, okay, you know, you never came in front of us for the winter lodge or you never came in front of us for what happened, ultimately, with the headquarters or the bridge, and there’s outstanding issues with the wetland, but we’re willing to work to get those behind us, but we certainly want to see a comprehensive, as Mr. Vollaro I think more than adequately stated, master plan, sort of like what I think you represented Takundewide on up in the lake. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-On this piece of property, so that there’s a clear meeting of the minds, and we don’t run into an embarrassing situation for all parties, like we have right in front of us tonight. MR. LAPPER-I think when we get through this discussion, it’s not really an embarrassing situation. It’s really just a miscommunication between the Building Department and the Planning Department, because the Building Department was giving approvals, and the Planning Department may not have been aware of it. A tree fell on the winter lodge. They got a building permit to fix the winter lodge, and when the Planning Department found out about it, they issued a Stop Work Order, but the applicant thought that they did what they had to do to get a building permit, and I don’t think that’s embarrassing. I just think that it’s a complicated process. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SANFORD-Excuse my choice of words. Let me put it this way, without pointing fingers or anything else. Something that was done that was clearly a deviation from what this particular Planning Board approved, a few years back, and I think that we’re coming to terms with that. MR. LAPPER-Things changed. No question. I don’t think anyone, I don’t think that there needs to be blame. I think that the process is complicated. There are simple explanations for different things that happened, but, for example, I mentioned that the resolution of the Planning Board said that the bridge was subject to C.T. Male approval, and when they approved it, they approved it different than the site plan. So whether or not that should have come back to the Planning Board, I don’t know, but it was subject to C.T. Male, and C.T. Male said, yes, Dave Hatin’s right, it has to be moved because of the floodplain, it had to shift a little bit, and we’ll show you that. So I think that, to a certain extent, this took on a life of its own, which wasn’t probably necessary for anyone’s perspective. I don’t think that these changes are substantial. The building that’s there now is essentially the building that was approved, the same foundation, same foundation, same location. They got into the same thing that other applicants have in Queensbury, which is really a Zoning Board issue, that when you get started with a project, you find out you’ve got some rotted walls there, pre-existing, non-conforming. The Building Department said they had to come down because, from structural issues, but it has zoning implications, but unfortunately, the general contractor’s not a land use attorney, and, you know, so things happened, but the foundation is in exactly the same place as it was approved by this Board, and there was a minor change of a few feet in the front because of the handicap ramp, but none of these are significant issues. I think that it would have been better if this was dealt with with the Planning Board when it happened, but we’re talking about a few feet here, a few feet there. So we certainly don’t want the Planning Board to be offended and to feel like things happened without your knowledge, but I think these are pretty, mostly pretty minor issues. MR. VOLLARO-I can tell you this, and I won’t use the word “embarrassed”, either, but on April 19, you handed me a letter, the first letter, it said you’d like to get the Girl th Scouts on the May agenda. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I looked at that letter. I didn’t even know anything about the Girl Scouts at that time. I went to Staff the following morning and sat down and found out that it had been in with Staff for review for a long time, and a lot of issues to deal with. So I really didn’t understand how you had expected to get it on the May agenda, which it’s on tonight. MR. LAPPER-Yes, which we appreciate it. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but I didn’t understand how we were ever going to get there after I sat with Staff for an hour and a half and looked at their folder on the Girl Scouts, how that was going to happen. MR. LAPPER-We had met with Staff for a number of months to try and work through this, because we thought that a lot of the issues could come off the list, for example, we figured that if C.T. Male approved the final drawings of the bridge, that didn’t need to go to the Planning Board because that was a condition, but the Staff felt that if we’re coming back for any of these issues, we might as well come back for all of them, and I certainly have no objection to that, to lay everything out on the table, but that’s one example. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, that’s what I think Rich and I are trying to do. There’s a very convoluted situation we’ve got going here. I feel it’s rather convoluted, and what we’re trying to do is get you an approval. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay, get you an approval based on certain conditions that we would like to set around that approval, because for us to go through each one of these line, and try to understand all of these tonight, I don’t believe I can, as Chairman. I don’t know whether the other Board members can or not. MR. LAPPER-Well, and certainly it will help when we go through the maps, but the only thing, as I mentioned, that we were really hoping to accomplish tonight is the winter lodge and hopefully the splash pads, and everything else, if it takes a month or two months, is fine, and obviously we’re going to have to go to DEC on the mitigation area. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying if we approve those two issues tonight? MR. LAPPER-We’d be thrilled, ecstatic. Because that’s all that affects their summer. MR. VOLLARO-Without getting into a whole bunch of. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I’m pretty concerned, from the standpoint of the record, I’m a little concerned about some of your comments being deemed as prejudicial in favor of the applicant, in terms of prejudging the application. MR. VOLLARO-We’re not prejudging it, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-Here me out, okay. You just expressed the goal here as to get them an approval. This may be a wonderful project, and it may well be that that’s where you end up, but I’m sure Mr. Lapper, on behalf of his client, wants a record that’s unassailable. If anybody objects to this project and wants to attack anything, as you well know, the Board has to be neutral and unbiased and objective in reviewing the application in accordance with applicable criteria. With all due respect to your Chairmanship, I think your real goal here is to review the application fairly and objectively. If that ends up with an approval, wonderful. If it doesn’t, who knows. I’m just concerned about some of the comments. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Can we take a look at the two issues that the attorney would like to look at, one is the winter lodge, and the other one is the splash pad. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s all. That’s all he’s asking for. We’ll review those two. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure, that’s fine. MR. LAPPER-That would be perfectly acceptable to us, and I know that the Chairman is meticulous, and if we get any approval, it means that we deserve it. Tom, why don’t you, this is your area. MR. HUTCHINS-This is an enlarged plan of the camp side of the facility. The edge of the bridge is right here. Halfway Brook is here, Meadowbrook Road is here. The main camp building, which is the Friendship Lodge shown here, this little cabin, just northwest of the Friendship Lodge, is the winter lodge. MR. SANFORD-Excuse me. We probably have this drawing in our packet. What number is that? MR. HUTCHIN-It’s S-3. MR. SANFORD-S-3, because I can’t see it from where I am very well. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. HUTCHINS-The limits of winter lodge are shown in light line, on the front of the winter lodge is a porch, and the existing building shown here, the addition that’s being proposed is 620 square feet, I believe. It’s on the south side of the winter lodge. It’s a single slope roof, and there’s no plumbing or facilities in there, and the end use within the addition will be, Kit? KIT HUGGARD MRS. HUGGARD-Kids programs. MR. HUTCHINS-A program porch. As we said, a tree had fallen on the roof. This project was in the works at the time. They were in a position where they had to fix the roof, and it just completely made sense to do this work at the time. It’s a minimal disturbed area. I think I have 2600 square feet of total disturbed area. We’ve directed the roof runoff to the northwest, to a small little retention area. That’s about it for winter lodge. The splash pad, and the splash pad is something that the Girl Scouts have had an issue for some time with inability to get kids cooled down when we’re in warm weather, and there’s no swimming facility there, and this concept was perceived as a means of meeting that need, because in hot weather they need such a facility. It’s not a swimming pool. It doesn’t present some of the obvious issues that a swimming pool would present. It’s a concrete pad. It’s 35 foot diameter. There are five spray nozzles around the periphery that spray five to ten gallons per minute of water straight up, it falls back on the pad. This is a pre-manufactured equipment, which is on hand and in the center there’s a five way tumbling bucket thing. I think I submitted a rendering. Did I submit the rendering? MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t see it. MR. HUTCHINS-You didn’t see it? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. HUTCHINS-It’s really the best information we had on what it’s going to look like. I also submitted a concept section which gives you some ideas of the height and the way this is going to work, which is Drawing LS. MR. VOLLARO-No, the latest drawing I have is S-3. MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. You should have a concept section, SP-1 maybe, which is just a section through the pad. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, we do have that. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. One of the issues we faced in, initially it was conceived that we’d use fresh water and run the water off. We’ve decided we’re going to collect the underflow and re-circulate it and we’ll have a tank that’s chlorinated with a swimming pool style filter and chlorination equipment. Disturbed area is roughly 6,000 square feet, and we have a small retention area, southwest of the pad, and that’s it. MR. SANFORD-How about soil conditions? I mean, where is this, visa vie the wetlands? MR. HUTCHINS-Wetlands are, if you look on Sheet One, this is the new Administrative building. This is Halfway Brook, new bridge. Here’s the winter lodge. Here’s the proposed splash pad, Friendship Lodge, camp, driveway. The wetlands are over here near the Halfway Brook. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SANFORD-Just in terms of feet, how many feet from Halfway Brook are we talking about? MR. HUTCHINS-Three to four hundred. I mean, I don’t have a scale. Three to four hundred. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So this is on, it’s on, as you’re entering into the complex, it’s to the right of the driveway? MR. HUTCHINS-Correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So all the water’s going to be self-contained? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Then what’s the shallow grass retention area for? MR. HUTCHINS-That’s, I am creating an impervious surface. All the water’s going to be self-contained during the operating season, obviously. MR. SEGULJIC-So all the water from the splash pad is going to go through the filter and will only be used on the splash pad, then when it’s off during other times of the year, or when it’s off during the season, any rainwater that contacts it is going to be collected in a retention basin? MR. LONG-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask one question. On, I guess it’s S-1, I think that’s what you’re on now? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-If I transfer over to S-3, and I take a look at the finished floor of the nature lodge, the finished floor of the nature lodge turns out to be 313.44. MR. HUTCHINS-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the finished floor of the splash pad is down around something like 312. It’s in quite a depression. Is that correct? MR. HUTCHINS-Perimeter of 313, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now what’s the average water level in that area? In other words, the mean high, not the mean high, but the average seasonal water level in that area? Do you know what that is? MR. HUTCHINS-There’s very little soil on bedrock. MR. VOLLARO-And you’re saying that the under layment here is bedrock, underneath the splash pad? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I am. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-So there’s zero perc in that area. So you’ve got to have a fully self- contained system. Is that what you’ve got, in terms of a pump and chlorinated pump that pumps that stuff through? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, that’s the. MR. LONG-That was what lead us to, if we were in deep well drained sands, we might consider some means of not re-circulating using fresh water and, but you run the thing for a couple of hours, it’s a lot of water, and on this site, we’re not going to be able to infiltrate it. MR. VOLLARO-That pump and assembly filter handles the total amount, though. This is an enclosed system. That’s what I’m trying to get at. MR. LONG-That’s correct. The tank is a 1,000 gallon tank. MR. VOLLARO-So no more than 1,000 gallons will circulate through that at any given time. MR. LONG-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-And you won’t be using more than 1,000 gallons. MR. LONG-That’s right. We’re going to contain, normally, it’ll be less than 1,000 gallons, seven to eight hundred gallons. A small pump circulates 50 gallons a minute, which is the full circulation rate for all the water splash, and a filter, swimming pool filter, chlorination system. MR. VOLLARO-And a chlorination system. Okay. I don’t have any further questions on it. I don’t know if any other Board members do. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t have any questions. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There are no questions from the Board members on that presentation whatsoever? Now, I guess we want to talk about the next one is your. MR. LAPPER-Depending upon the Board’s preference, we would be happy to go deal with the Zoning Board and come back and talk about the modification next time, because these are the two issues that are time sensitive. MR. SANFORD-All you really want to do is be able to finish up the winter lodge, and that’s the building where you’ve basically extended, I don’t even know if you extended the roofline a little bit. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. SANFORD-And now you want to close it up. MR. LAPPER-Exactly. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and then you want to go, proceed forward with the splash pad. MR. LAPPER-Yes. When Tom said the program area, what he meant is that when it rains it’s so that the girls can have camp activities indoors under the roof in the summer. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SANFORD-I was there. I’ve been there. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve all been there, and so with those two things, I don’t have any further questions. I would like to take the Board through the SEQRA, and that SEQRA has to look at this entire project. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay, Bob, that’s fine, but just to clarify for me and for everybody, just future steps. Now they’re going to now, assuming this gets through the SEQRA, they’re going to go back to ZBA for. MR. VOLLARO-Once, I guess the ZBA has asked them to show the permit that comes from DEC to allow them to go into the wetlands and build the mitigation section. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-To replace the wetlands that they may have disturbed. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That’s my understanding. The ZBA, when they get that presumably approved, and then comes back to us. MR. SANFORD-For what? The wetland permit? MR. SEGULJIC-The remaining modifications. MR. VOLLARO-I guess for the remaining modifications, yes. In other words, there’s a more to this than just the winter lodge and the splash pad. MR. SANFORD-Well, identify what they are. I just want to be clear in my mind, I mean, I guess, are we going to revisit the headquarters building? MRS. STEFFAN-According to this, yes. There’s the Administration building. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, in talking to the Zoning Administrator this afternoon, I understand that there’s some stormwater issues on the main building that have to be dealt with. MR. SANFORD-The headquarters building. MR. VOLLARO-The headquarters building, particularly around the old foundation, something we have to look at. That’s what he talked to me about today. Susan, do you have any input on that at all? MRS. BARDEN-No. They have proposed some changes. They will implement the stormwater, as I understand it, the stormwater management plan as proposed, but what was proposed has to be kind of hammered out. It’s not working properly. I don’t think that the design has changed. MR. VOLLARO-Well, they’ve done a rather extensive stormwater, is this the document you’re speaking of? MRS. BARDEN-Right. I don’t believe the design has changed, has it, on the original? 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, this issue is dated May 29, 2002, and the revised is May 3, 2005, which is a fairly recent document. MR. LONG-Yes, Dean Long from the LA Group. Concerning the stormwater pond, the small stormwater, the micro pool that was going to be immediately adjacent to the, I think it’s two parking spaces. What happened is that those two parking spaces spilled water to the north, rather than directly to the west. So what we proposed is just re- shaping that basin slightly, because the basin wasn’t quite completed out on the wetland side, is to re-shape it slightly, increase it’s storage capacity a little bit, and capture that warping of that blacktop. MR. VOLLARO-Where would the discharge be to? MR. LONG-It was always going to be (lost word) overflow back to the wetland. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and right now it’s not performing that way. MR. LONG-Yes, it’s not performing that way because the warp is wrong, so it’s bypassing it, but by re-shaping the basin, we can capture it. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Bob, the only other comment I have before you go through your SEQRA is, since this is in front of us, SEQRA certainly isn’t limited to marginal impacts associated, necessarily, with the splash pad and/or the winter lodge, but it’s a SEQRA that, I guess, would be for the site, I assume, and I’m concerned because when we were there, the parking is problematic. It’s actually a potentially dangerous situation, the parking situation there, and I guess my question is, is that something that we deal with in the SEQRA review on this project, or can we isolate this to incremental or marginal impacts of the winter lodge and the splash pad? MR. SCHACHNER-It depends on the extent to which the parking plan was previously approved, which I don’t know the answer to that, but hopefully you all do, or Staff does, and the extent to which what’s now proposed does or does not have any impact on the parking. In other words, to the extent to which the currently proposed project all components, not just what you may act on tonight, cause an increase in parking or change in parking, and again, those are technical issues that I don’t know, but if what’s proposed has impacts on parking, then it’s fair game for your SEQRA review this evening, or whenever you do your SEQRA review. MR. SANFORD-Okay, but this is in front of us as a site plan, correct? MR. SCHACHNER-I think a wetlands permit and a modification of a site plan. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, the reason I bring it up is when we did the Home Depot, it was determined that that whole plaza was really under our jurisdiction to review in a comprehensive manner, not necessarily the back part of that, where the Home Depot resided, but we really could look at the whole plaza, and any concerns that we might have, and address them through the SEQRA process in that application, and I’m just trying to draw a parallel here. We have two particulars, but when we were on site plan, walking it, you know, we had a real hard time parking. It was a concern of mine. There was a lot of small children MR. VOLLARO-Well, that would be one of the things that could be discussed under the master plan at some future time, as to how this 13.35 acres would accommodate some of that. MR. SANFORD-I’m not sure, though, we have the full commitment of that master plan. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SANFORD-No, and again, that’s why I still feel strongly that in order to proceed forward with this without necessarily spending considerable time with a comprehensive review of the parking situation, I’d be willing to do that if it could somehow be addressed in the master plan, but if there’s not going to be any further master plan, then I think we probably owe it to the Town to address it now. MR. VOLLARO-And we can do that through the SEQRA. I agree with you. When we went there, we all, all of us were there. Everybody on this Planning Board was at that site, and we saw it, and we were having a difficult time parking our own vehicle there, with respect to what was going on on that particular Saturday morning. Our site visits are on Saturday. KIT HUGGARD MRS. HUGGARD-Was there a program going in camp? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-I think there was a program going on, and there was parking on all different sides of your driveway, of not really enough width for cars to negotiate out, if cars were parked on both sides, and I would be concerned if someone, a child, jutted out in there, that there was no clearance at all. It’s not a good situation. There’s no other way to describe it, and, again, Marilyn suggested the master plan, I think for reasons just such as this, and I think they all have to be factored in and considered. MR. LAPPER-Well, we’re certainly not opposed to preparing a master plan, sitting down with Staff and probably a committee of the Planning Board to start with, and talking about a master plan. I was just pointing out that they need to sit down, first, and figure out what they might want to do in the future with the site, but I think you’re talking about whether or not the site plan that was approved is adequate in terms of parking, and that’s sort of. MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, but it’s a modification. It’s not going back to the prior one. You’re now making a modification certainly with the expansion of the winter lodge as well as the splash pad, so there’s a change, and there’s a change to the site plan that we approved. MR. LAPPER-That wouldn’t affect the parking around the Administration building. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s something that would come out in the master plan. MR. SANFORD-Yes, that’s what I’m saying. I don’t want to put words in your mouth. MR. LAPPER-We’ll commit, on the record, to prepare a master plan and to come to the Town. MR. SANFORD-That’s what I want to hear, yes. What I thought you might have been suggesting is that there’s not future development in place, and almost suggesting that if there is a need to do something in the future, it would be addressed. Okay. MR. LAPPER-No. They would like to, they don’t have a plan where they’ve sat down, different members of the board, thinking, gee, it would be nice to do this, gee, it would be nice to do that, but they have to vote, as a Board, and come up with a master plan and say this is what we’re committed to. They have to have a consensus. MR. SANFORD-I understand. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. LAPPER-And so they would have to do that first, and then we can come and sit down with the Town, but master planning is always a good idea. MR. SANFORD-All right. That’s fine. MR. SCHACHNER-Bob, I have a procedural question at some point. MR. VOLLARO-Do it now, Mark. MR. SCHACHNER-I got the impression you were about to commence the SEQRA review analysis? MR. VOLLARO-I’m feeling that out, as to whether or not we have enough information to do that. That’s what I’m trying to do. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. My question is, typically, you’ve not, you typically have your public hearing before you embark upon that process. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I realize that, but I’m trying to decide how much. MR. SCHACHNER-Whether you have enough information. MR. VOLLARO-Whether we have enough information to go that route, and then I will open the public hearing. MR. SCHACHNER-Great. MR. VOLLARO-That was what’s on my mind, anyway. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, could you just clarify for me, under the SEQRA, what exactly are we looking at? MR. VOLLARO-On the SEQRA, we have a Short Form SEQRA that they submitted, and we go over these questions again and see whether or not we can come up with a negative declaration, based on what we know, now, about this application. MR. SEGULJIC-Not just the splash pad? MR. VOLLARO-Not just the splash pad. You’ve got to do the whole thing. Am I correct with that, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-The whole thing. MR. SEGULJIC-All the modifications. MR. VOLLARO-All the modifications and everything that is in this, all this paper, we would have to understand that before we can, you know, go through this SEQRA and perhaps give it a negative declaration, or a positive declaration, for that matter. I don’t know. MR. LAPPER-I guess our simple position is that we’re proposing to create more wetland than we’re proposing to impact. So we hope that that’s an important aspect of the SEQRA review. MR. SANFORD-You’re doing what, Jon? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. LAPPER-Creating more wetland mitigation area than we’re disturbing. MR. SANFORD-Actually, my understanding, unless, and I’m sure I probably did miss something,, that one of the concerns, in reading through all of this information, was that the proposed mitigation was shy of the disturbance by a certain number of feet. MR. LAPPER-We got that from Staff, and we responded by upping the mitigation area to 2400 square feet. MR. SANFORD-And is that what I have tonight? Okay. That’s why I didn’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That was initially brought up in one of the C.T. Male comments. That’s where that came from initially, that was the genesis of that comment. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-All right. So that was in the packet of information that was waiting for us tonight? Right? MRS. STEFFAN-Apparently, yes. MR. SANFORD-Okay. I didn’t miss it when I was doing my review? MRS. STEFFAN-No, that’s correct. It’s C.T. Male’s notes that says that. MR. VOLLARO-C.T. Male’s notes said it was short. MR. SANFORD-We’re not supposed to get this stuff on the night of a meeting. All right. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, before I go to the public hearing, I want to hear from the Board as to how they feel. Do we really have enough now, do we know enough to be able to satisfactorily answer the SEQRA questions? MR. METIVIER-I just was wondering, if we’re not looking at the complete application tonight, but only two parts of the whole application, why are we doing SEQRA this evening? Because we’re only going to typically approve or deny two aspects of the entire application. So why are we looking at SEQRA tonight? MR. VOLLARO-The reason for looking at SEQRA, Tony, is that we were instructed to do that by Staff. MR. SCHACHNER-Can I offer a different reason, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-The reason is not really because you were instructed to do so by Staff. The reason is because you’re required to do so under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but they just brought that up, that we should do a consistency, first, okay. MR. SCHACHNER-The point, Tony, is you can’t approve any pieces of it until you do a SEQRA review of the whole thing. MR. METIVIER-Any pieces of it. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. METIVIER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-So, I think Tony’s point, I think, is a very valid one. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think what he’s saying is would it not be more prudent to do the SEQRA after the other outstanding items have been addressed, and I do think that one of the reasons we’re doing it this way is to be understanding, I think, of the community organization and their timeline. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. SANFORD-And there’s no other way to put it, other than that. MR. METIVIER-That’s exactly what I’m saying. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. METIVIER-I mean, exactly. MR. VOLLARO-So, Tony, you’re saying that we shouldn’t be doing the SEQRA tonight? MR. METIVIER-Well, I guess we have to, we have no choice, based on what we have. I don’t foresee, I mean, I don’t know. Let’s trudge through it and see where we get. MR. VOLLARO-Well, why don’t we open the public hearing and see what the public has to say about this first. We may glean some additional information we don’t know about through public comment. Let me ask this question. Are any members of the public hear to discuss this application? Okay. Fine. We do have people who want to speak. So I’m going to hereby open the public hearing. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Vollaro, you can do the public hearing for both the Freshwater Wetlands permit and the Site Plan simultaneously. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM PIPER MR. PIPER-My name is Jim Piper. I live at 206 Meadowbrook Road, which is right across the street from the Girl Scout camp, and I guess you can say I’m here on a dual role tonight. Not only am I a neighbor, I sit on as a member of the Board of Directors for the Girl Scouts of the Adirondack Council. As a neighbor, the Girl Scouts have been there since 1949. They have always run a very tight ship. If you have walked the site like you say, you can see that that building is a wonderful addition to what was there, not only for Staff, but I mean for the general public. Secondly, as far as the request that we have in front of the Board tonight, as far as the winter lodge, like was alluded to by our lawyer, Jon Lapper, that building had four trees come down on it last November. The roof was trashed. We had to have emergency repairs done to the roof. We decided, since we had already had intentions of putting this program porch on, rather than try to tie into the old and existing roof, we decided it would be smarter, since the insurance company was going to pay for a good portion of a new roof, that we would bring on the new construction. We consulted with the Town of Queensbury. Dave Hatin was on the site. We asked him, what do we have to do to be in compliance. He explained to us, if, in fact, these costs were going to be over a certain dollar amount, we had to have stamped drawings. We had to have certain objects met. We did that. The contractor, Hilltop Construction, submitted the drawings. They were approved. We got a building permit. We started construction. All of a sudden, we get a stop work order that we 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) should have come to the Planning Board. I don’t know whether you plead ignorance or not that as an individual in the Town of Queensbury, if I was to do work on my house, if I decide to build a front porch on my house, the only thing I do is go to the Town and get a building permit, pay for my permit, and construct my front porch. The Girl Scouts were under the impression that they were doing what they were supposed to do, and now we find that we’re in error. That’s why we’re here. MR. VOLLARO-Can I say something while we’re talking? MR. PIPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I have a comment on the notes here, this is a comment that I made during my review in my overworked dining room. I have a note here, issuance of these four building permits may have caused considerable confusion for the applicant. Those were my words. So we, I think, have to fess up here to a problem between this Board and Building and Codes as to how this is done, and Marilyn and I have spoken about this on the phone just recently. So, I understand what happened there. I would probably be in the same position you were, if somebody like Mr. Hatin, you know, representing the Town of Queensbury, said, get a building permit and you’re all set. MR. PIPER-And as far as the splash pad is concerned, here again, now, maybe I’m ignorant. I met, last year, with Dave when we were doing some work on one of the lodges, and I said, this is what we would like to do in the future. What do I have to do as far as permits, since I also Chair the Property Development Committee for the Girl Scouts. Do we have to go through this, that or the other thing? He said what are you planning, and I showed him. He said, it’s not a pool. It doesn’t retain water. No, it’s just a pad, so on, so forth. He said, that comes under a play apparatus, you don’t need a permit or anything. You can go ahead, and this is the information that I brought back to the Board, and this is the information that we operated under, as we were planning to do this, until we got into April, when, in discussions, because we ran into problems with the winter lodge, that the Planning, they said, no, no, you’ve got to go to Planning, this is something that has to be addressed to the Planning Board for this splash pad. MR. SANFORD-I appreciate the position you’re in. I would suggest, in the future, give a call to Jon Lapper who represents you. I think he would have given you a different answer. MR. PIPER-And I believe that’s where we ended up, but, thank you very much. As a neighbor, I urge you to support this project, and as a member of the board, I urge you to support this project. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Anybody else? Sir. SHERM PARKER MR. PARKER-I’m Sherm Parker. I live on 23 Yorkshire Drive. I’m also a member of the Girl Scout Board for over a year. I’m a retired Superintendent of Lake George. I’m very concerned, most of all for the Girls. We have a summer program that we need to run for these young people, and I understand your role in protecting the environment, which I respect immensely. However, I think that the Girl Scouts have done everything they were expected to do. There’s an argument over the mistake that may have been made with the four foot, and I’m not sure it was a mistake or what happened there, but, it’s resolvable. The bottom line is that we need to move ahead, and I know you people as people that are environmentally correct and also interested in human services, realize the importance of running programs for young people. I’m concerned because I think we’re asking for two small items tonight, one, a damaged building, which we’re fixing with a minor alteration, and secondly a splash pad, and I don’t mean this to be demeaning, but it’s kind of like our kids running around in a sprinkler. We did that all 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) our lives. Yes, this is chlorinated, but it’s all being captured. So to me, there’s nothing that is damaging the area. We have a golf course on the other side. We have buildings up and around here. I’ve jogged this whole area. It’s some of the last woodlands we have in Queensbury. So I hope that you’ll say yes for the girls, because we’ve done everything we were expected to do, and we’re asking for minor things. We’ll fix the issue on the other area, and make sure that there’s more wetlands to protect the environment, because that’s what our girls believe in. That’s what we believe in, and that’s what we want to happen. So I hope we can move on and make it happen for the young ladies in our community. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Anyone else? TOM ALBRECHT MR. ALBRECHT-I’m with Council, but I wasn’t asked to speak. Tom Albrecht, Hilltop Construction. Good evening. I have to speak on this because I’ve been sitting back there and trying to be real quiet and still, but I’m struggling with it, because I’ve heard a little bit of negative comment here this evening, but I’ve heard much more out on the street, if you will, about the Stop Work Order and procedures not being followed correctly. I think for the record I’d like to make it very clear as to what happened. So that, I think it can be helpful for this Town, and get a better understanding of where we’re at and where we want to go. A building permit was issued for a patio, if you will, back on 11/30. We submitted for a patio, with the understanding that we were going to erect a building. We submitted a Sketch Plan because we needed engineered stamped plans, but because winter was coming upon us, we submitted a small sketch drawing to Mr. Dave Hatin, and Dave said fine, okay, we understand what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to get the concrete work in before winter falls upon us. So we did that, and in the meantime, of course, engineered drawings had been obtained, you know, four weeks later, the process takes time, winter’s upon us. We’re not able to do the concrete. So we submit the engineered drawings for the new building. MR. VOLLARO-To who? MR. ALBRECHT-To the Building Department. MR. VOLLARO-To Mr. Hatin? MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. On the first building permit, I have actual copies here of the building permit. On the first building permit that was issued, it says, foundation for future addition. That’s typed on here from the Town of Queensbury. We submitted the additional engineered drawings to the Town, assumed, and you can’t assume anything in this world, we were told that Dave said that this could be added to the first permit. MR. VOLLARO-Coupled to it. MR. ALBRECHT-Yes. We found out after the fact, it probably wasn’t the best thing to do. Nevertheless, here we are. We assumed that it was added to the first permit. Now why did we assume that? We assumed that because we continued construction on the building. We asked for a framing inspection, which was obtained. We asked for an insulation inspection, which was obtained. We’re continuing on, assuming that we had a building permit for this, trying to follow protocol and to make sure there’s a clear understanding as to what we’re doing. Obviously, there wasn’t a clear understanding. MR. VOLLARO-I think you’re right, and I’d like to just add that this Board probably was totally oblivious to what was going on, totally. Had no, zero, idea. MR. ALBRECHT-And that’s why I had to speak to this, so there’s an understanding, then. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SANFORD-Well, my advice to you is, I appreciate your statement, and I think you’re doing a nice job laying out the facts. We are a Planning Board. We have nothing to do with personnel issues. This is a personnel issue that you’re talking about, in terms of perhaps not getting the appropriate advice from a person who works within the Planning Staff. While I appreciate your statement, it’s something that we have, quite honestly, no control over whatsoever on this Board. That’s a fact. MR. ALBRECHT-Well, I don’t disagree with you. However, for the record, and that there’s clear understanding here, because comments have been made that things were not followed correctly. MR. SANFORD-For the record, I would suggest you would be better served to put your statement in writing and send it to the Town Board who does have direct responsibility for personnel issues and for, quite obviously, the management, and coordination of these issues. MR. ALBRECHT-Yes, but I have the opportunity this evening. MR. SANFORD-No, and I appreciate that, and it’s a learning experience for me. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s good that he got it on the record, and it’s good that we understand, and it’s good that this audience understands that there is an absolute mutual exclusivity between this Board and the Building and Codes and how they operate, on a day to day basis. MRS. STEFFAN-Let’s let Mr. Albrecht finish his chronology. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MRS. STEFFAN-He started. Let’s. MR. ALBRECHT-No, I pretty well have summed it up, and as we continue the construction, Craig Brown calls me up, what are you doing over there, you know, and I’m not privy to zoning. I’m not privy to, I don’t understand zoning, in other words, it’s not my business. I have to follow what I’m being told, you go to obtain a building permit, as the Girl Scouts, as Mr. Piper had just addressed. You try to follow things correctly so everybody’s happy here along the way. You try to do the right thing. No, we don’t always do the right thing, but we try, you know, but Craig Brown called. He said no longer to continue construction. Well, here we are. MR. SANFORD-I share, have sympathy for your position. On a somewhat personal level, I think I speak a little bit for the Board here. The way this has come down in the community has also been largely directed as if the Planning Board somehow was orchestrating all of this, and I think that what I’d like to clarify, as you’ve clarified your position is, as Mr. Vollaro had previously stated, we had no knowledge whatsoever of any of this until Mr. Lapper announced that he would like to get the Girl Scouts on the Planning Board agenda, and yet, boy, if you’ve been following the articles and what have you, it certainly sounds as if we were actively involved with everything from stop orders and what have you, which we have not. MR. ALBRECHT-Well, I’m speaking because at the beginning of this hearing, there were a few negative comments here with this Board. So I want to just make sure it’s known, throughout this Board at least, you know, we’re not going to cover everybody but at least this Board to hear me out. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-As I said when the other gentleman was talking, I had noticed that the issuance of these building permits that are listed here could very well have caused 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) confusion on the part of the applicant, and I made that as a note, that I was going to state that. MR. ALBRECHT-Right, and I appreciate that. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak to this application? Mr. Salvador? JOHN SALVADOR, JR. MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. It is most upsetting that we have these problems of communication in our Town, but that all seems to be a thing of the past. With regard to SEQRA, it is my understanding that it is extremely difficult to do SEQRA process on a total project unless you have good definition. However, there is provision in SEQRA to do an Environmental Impact Statement and issue a positive declaration on a small part of a project, providing, at a later date, when the addition comes on, you handle it as a supplemental to the original. Now, the danger of that is that as you quantify the cumulative impacts of that addition on what has already been approved, it might not be approved. That’s why it’s better to do the total project and then you can build it piecemeal. So there is provision in the law to do it both ways. There’s a risk doing it as a supplemental. MR. SANFORD-I think you meant negative declaration, Mr. Salvador, rather than positive. MR. VOLLARO-No, I think he meant positive. MR. SALVADOR-You can issue a positive on what you know and move ahead with it. MR. SANFORD-No, that would be a negative, a negative declaration. MR. SALVADOR-I’m sorry. Yes. MR. SANFORD-I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. MR. VOLLARO-Anyone else who would like to speak to this application? Hearing none, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And have the applicant approach the microphone. MR. LAPPER-I would just like, very briefly, to sum up what the three people who spoke on behalf of the Council were trying to say was that they did not knowingly try to violate anything that the Board, our prior site plan approval. MR. VOLLARO-Jon, just one minute. MR. LAPPER-I’m sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-If you close the public hearing, does that mean you’re closing it on everything? MR. VOLLARO-I’m closing the public hearing on these two items. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m just concerned about closing the public hearing, because then we. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, we had the same concern. We’re just concerned nobody be mislead. You’re not suggesting that the entire public hearing is closed for all that’s been applied for, right? MR. VOLLARO-No, we’re talking about these two, in my mind, we’ve kind of defined what we’re going to approve tonight as a very minor portion of what we’re going to continue to look at later date. MR. SCHACHNER-Then you’d only be closing the public hearing on that minor portion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I just think you need to make that clear, that’s all. MR. VOLLARO-On those two things. Well, hopefully I did make it clear, but maybe not. I’m closing the public hearing on the splash pad and the winter lodge, and when this comes up again, we’ll either have to advertise or whatever for the rest of it. Do you all agree with that? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m sorry, I just wanted clarification. MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s good. That’s fine. MR. LAPPER-Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I just don’t want the Board to think that the Girl Scouts started the work on the winter lodge knowing that they should have gotten site plan approval. They thought that their building permit was all that they needed. That’s what happened. MR. VOLLARO-It’s pretty clear there’s a big gap in the communication, I think, in that area, internally here. Not yours, ours. MR. LAPPER-It wasn’t the Planning Board, certainly. It was. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it turned out that way, though, Jon. I mean, you know, the events and the letters that I’ve got, by the way, at home, you would like to see some of them. MR. LAPPER-We were just asking for a special meeting because they were in trouble, in terms of timing, and that’s all. It was just a procedural thing. MR. VOLLARO-It didn’t turn out procedural, though. It probably really is, by definition, procedural, but what was perceived is not procedural. It was perceived as the Planning Board acting as an ogre against the Girl Scouts. MR. LAPPER-What happened was that I came with a letter, asked for a special meeting and we got it, and we’re very appreciative, because it was important to get before you this month. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Why don’t we just leave it at that and get to the chase here. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Do we want to go through our SEQRA now, or, everybody agreed we should go through SEQRA? MR. METIVIER-Let’s do it. MR. SANFORD-Yes. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’re going to be looking at a Short Form submitted by the applicant on April 15, 2005. Tony, do you want to go through it? MR. METIVIER-Sure. “Could action result in any adverse affects associated with the following: existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage, or flooding problems?” MR. SANFORD-Not in regards to the limited focus of the SEQRA. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, the two items. MR. VOLLARO-It’s no concerning these two issues? MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think you can do that. We have to do it on the total program as it sits before us and all this paper. That’s why I asked the Board the question, do we all agree that we understand and completely understand what’s in here? Because I’m not sure I do, but I’m asking the Board if they do. I have not reviewed some of this stuff that was given to us tonight, that is supposed to clarify a good deal of this information. So I haven’t read all of that. MR. SANFORD-I’m going to say no for all the reasons previously stated and discussed. MR. METIVIER-Anyone else? MR. VOLLARO-Do you want to read it, Tony, one more time? MR. METIVIER-“Could action result in any adverse affects associated with the following: existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage, or flooding problems?” MR. VOLLARO-I’ll say no. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll say no. MR. METIVIER-I’ll say no. “Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by this proposed action?” No. MR. SANFORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not sure. Didn’t we talk a little bit about there may be some growth and subsequent development on 13.35 acres, or is this it? We’re talking about, you know, some. MR. METIVIER-But nothing that would be a negative impact. MR. SEGULJIC-I would say no. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t know that. That’s my problem. MR. SANFORD-Tony, could you please read the question again? MR. METIVIER-“Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by this proposed action?” 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SANFORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. METIVIER-I don’t believe so, either. Are you all right with that one? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-2002MOD 30-2002MOD, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, 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 26 day of May, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now we have determined that we’ve got a negative declaration on the entire project. With that, I think we can proceed, now, to the second portion of this, and that would be the modification of site plan, the first thing we’ve got to do is talk about the Freshwater permit. MR. SANFORD-Well, that gets tabled. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. METIVIER-Yes, we’ll table that and then move on to site plan. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to table that until you get the DEC comments. So we’ll go down to Site Plan No. 30-2002 for two items. The two items that. MR. METIVIER-Actually, shouldn’t we officially table Freshwater Wetlands first? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MOTION TO TABLE FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT NO. 1-2002 MODIFICATION – ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUTS, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: For the following reason: Until they receive the Department of Environmental Conservation letter for wetland migration area. Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: None ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MOTION TO APPROVE MODIFICATION TO SITE PLAN NO. 30-2002 ADIRONDACK GIRL SCOUT COUNCIL, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan 30-2002 MOD Applicant/Property Owner: Adirondack Girl Scout Council Previous SEQRA Agent: Jonathan Lapper, Matt Steves, Tom Hutchins, Stefanie Bitter Zone: SFR-1A Location: 213 Meadowbrook Road Applicant is seeking approval for constructed changes to the previously approved Administration Building, along with additional construction; a 607 sq. ft. addition to the existing Winter Lodge and a 1,086 sq. ft. splash pad. Cross Reference: AV 47-02, FW 01-02, UV 12-02, UV 44-92, AV 37-05 pending DEC Warren Co. Planning: 6/12/02 Tax Map No. 296.16-1-10 Lot size: 13.38 acres / Section: 179-4-030, 070 Public Hearing: 5/26/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/15/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/20/05 and 5/20 Staff Notes 5/19 Notice of Public Hearing sent 5/19 CT Male engineering comments 5/18 ZBA resolution 5/10 Map SP-1 revised 5/6/05 5/9 J. Edwards from C. Brown: new info transmitted 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) 5/9 PB from C. Brown: new info transmitted 5/9 PB Chairman: agent response to C. Brown’s 4/26/05 letter 5/2 Meeting notice sent 4/27 Post Star article 4/26 K. Huggard from C. Brown: signed & returned by K. Huggard 4/26 D. Gelder from M. Ryba 4/25 C. Brown from S. Clickner NYS DEC: permit required 4/21 J. Edwards, CTM from C. Brown: referral 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 5/26/05; 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, 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 which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 1. This resolution is limited to the approval of construction changes to the existing winter lodge and addition of a newly constructed 1,086 sq. ft. splash pad. 2. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 3. I’d also like to add that before the final project is approved, that the Girl Scout Council come back with a master plan. 4. That in order to validate the condition of putting the master plan into our resolution, that the Girl Scouts meeting with Staff shall take place within 120 days of the date of the resolution approving this modification. 5. That no further additional applications come in front of this Board until that process is complete. Duly adopted this 26 day of May 2005 by the following vote: th MR. METIVIER-With only two approvals at this time, the splash water pad and the winter lodge, that construction can resume on the winter lodge and commence on the splash pad. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-No, Tony. The construction can’t resume until the Zoning Administrator lifts the Stop Work Order. MR. METIVIER-Well, this is what we’re trying to do is get him to lift it. MR. VOLLARO-Right, but you said they would assume, based on what’s in the motion, that they could go forward, and they’ve got to get a lifting of the Stop Work Order. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I think Bob’s comment is very appropriate. Let’s not have any further miscommunication. So my suggestion would be, if it’s the Board’s pleasure, to take Staff’s prepared resolution and simply modify, after it says we find the following, and it says the application is hereby approved/denied, I think the motion that you’re making seems to be approved, as opposed to denied, but I would suggest that language similar, something like, the application components of the winter lodge addition and splash pad are hereby approved, if that’s where you’re headed. MR. SANFORD-Okay. That makes sense. MR. SCHACHNER-And remember that Staff’s proposed resolution has a proposed condition. I’m not sure if that’s one that you want to keep in at this time or not. MR. SANFORD-Just for the following words, following the Staff resolution of the application, just put, components of the winter lodge and splash pad. MR. SCHACHNER-I said winter lodge addition. MR. SANFORD-Addition and splash pad. MR. SCHACHNER-Are hereby approved. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-And then you need to examine whether you want that condition to apply to this piece of the action, so to speak, because the condition is about the Notice Of Intent, stormwater issue. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about the first thing, a copy of the required NOI? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Is that what you’re talking about, be provided? MR. SCHACHNER-So if you want that to be a condition, leave it in Staff’s prepared resolution. If you don’t want that to be a condition at this time, and that would be a condition of the subsequent potential approval, then you would delete it from here. MR. VOLLARO-I think the NOI should apply, in view my at least, the Notice Of Intent ought to apply to the project as opposed to two limited portions of this project. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. So what I’m asking is do you want that condition in this approval or later? MR. VOLLARO-I would like it deleted from here. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s why I’m bringing it up. MR. HUTCHINS-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, can I just touch on that item? In that condition, by NOI, I assume he’s referring to a Notice Of Intent to discharge under DEC 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) general SPDES Permit for stormwater. That’s an item that’s required to file if we disturb more than one acre in our total project, which we are not doing. So we would not normally file an NOI with DEC under this project. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it should be eliminated from this. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because it says a copy of the required be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So it should be deleted from this. MR. LAPPER-Not applicable. MR. SCHACHNER-Which is why I was bringing it up. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, thank you, Mark. Okay. Tony, did you want to say, now, that this is limited to the approval of? Mark, do you think it would be prudent in this resolution to also state that, even though this is an approval by the Planning Board, the Stop Work Order has to be removed by the Zoning Administrator? MR. SCHACHNER-You can state that or not. That’s the law whether you state it or not. I think the applicant’s here. I think their agents are here. I think their Board of Directors is here. I think their contractor is here. I believe the press is here, although I’m not certain about that, but I guess I don’t think that that’s likely to be misunderstood, but if you want to add that to the resolution. MR. VOLLARO-I’m following your comment before, let’s not misunderstand things here. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s all right. I promote better communication. If you want to add it, I’m all for it. MR. METIVIER-I’d like to add that in no way should, am I even suggesting that you lift the Stop Work Order. We merely want them to. MR. SEGULJIC-One other thing, the master plan. Are we going to request that in our resolution? MR. SANFORD-No, they’ve agreed to that. I’m not sure if we need to formalize that at this point. MR. SCHACHNER-If you want it to be a binding commitment, you should put it in your resolution. MR. METIVIER-And I’d also like to add that before the final project is approved, that the Girl Scout Council come back with a master plan. MR. LAPPER-That may take a few months for us to get that, but we promise we’ll be back with it. MR. METIVIER-The intent here is to get your splash water pad set. MR. LAPPER-Yes, before the rest of this. We’ll go to DEC, but we promise to work on a master plan and we’ll be back later in the year. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-Do the principals of the Girl Scouts recognize the benefit of a master plan? MR. LAPPER-We’ve talked about it, yes. MR. VOLLARO-It means that you’ll very seldom have to come before this Board if you adhere to your master plan. That’s what that really means. MRS. STEFFAN-Mark, you had a comment. MR. SCHACHNER-No, actually I had a question. What timeframe were you proposing in that condition, Tony? MR. METIVIER-Geez, I didn’t get that far. MR. VOLLARO-I have it in my work. I said that in order to validate this condition, the condition of putting the master plan into our resolution, that the Girl Scouts meeting with Staff shall take place within 30 days of the date of the resolution approving this modification. In other words, I’m trying to get a time certain when they at least say come in. Now maybe that’s not necessary now, since they’ve said they would do it, but. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s up to you. MR. VOLLARO-But I feel that we wouldn’t want to let this thing just tail off into a long, long period of time. MR. LAPPER-We’ll need a few months to figure it out. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Why don’t we say 60 days. MR. LAPPER-How about 120, just in case, get us through the summer, because it really takes some planning. MR. VOLLARO-This is not going to be a, you know, an earth shaking event, actually, for you to do this. It’s not as, your master plan doesn’t have to be. MR. SANFORD-Bob, I think what Mr. Lapper stated earlier is, it’s not necessarily just the items that we’re concerned with right now which have to be addressed, but they want to come up with a vision for what future build out they might have, and certainly that’s going to take them some time. I have an appreciation for that, but I would also suggest that no further additional applications come in front of this Board until that process is complete, and in that way they’re not going to come in with splash pad number two. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. GOETZ-I think this is their busiest time of year, and I think 60 days is going right into the heart of their summer season, and I think they should be able to get through that and maybe 120 days is more practical. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll make it 120 days. MR. METIVIER-So noted. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. LAPPER-We really appreciate the Board working with us on this. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome, Mr. Lapper. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2004 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN DREPS/EUGENE CERNIGLIA PROPERTY OWNER: BAY MEADOWS GOLF CLUB, INC. J. DREPS, E. CERNIGLIA AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING/JOE WALSH ESQ., WALSH & WALSH ZONE: HC-MOD LOCATION: EAST SIDE BAY ROAD, NORTH OF CRONIN APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.37- ACRE PROPERTY INTO FIVE COMMERCIAL LOTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF BAY RD. NORTH OF CRONIN RD. LOTS ARE TO BE +/- 1.21 ACRES, 1.38 ACRES, 1.06 ACRES AND (TWO) 1 ACRE LOTS. CROSS REFERENCE: PZ 1-2005, SB 12-98, SB 14-98, AV 3-99, SP 65-98 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 2/9/05 TAX MAP NO. 296.16-1- 14, 15, 16.1 LOT SIZE: 0.61, 1.10 & 5.76 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGS TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN DREPS, PRESENT MR. NACE-Good evening. For the record, Tom Nace and John Dreps. MR. VOLLARO-The public hearing has been closed on this, and was closed the last time, and SEQRA has been completed. So we’re here to do a Preliminary and Final on this. Tom, you can go right ahead and present what you want. Let me just ask the question. Has the Board read all of the Staff notes that were presented by Mr. Baker on May 26, 2005? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Everybody understand that? Okay. Is there any need to read them? No. Okay. We’ll go forward. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s no need to read them, Mr. Chairman, but one of the things I’m wondering is that if there’s so many outstanding issues, I’m not sure why we have this application to review. Because I’m not sure if we have all the information we need to make a decision. MR. VOLLARO-Well, in my discussions with Staff, today, information, Stu Baker notified me that information contained by fax was received in his office on Sunday, from Mr. Nace, and in these additional notes that we’ve got, which it looks like I’ve packed away with the Girl Scouts, and some of this has to do with this application. I guess, Stu, can I just ask a question on this? Are some of the things in here, the small sections of the main drawing that Mr. Nace has presented to us, things of this nature, are they an attempt to clarify some of the issues? MR. BAKER-Yes, that’s correct, and really I’ve reviewed the response Mr. Nace faxed on the 22, and all of my comments have been addressed, except one, which I think is the nd remaining, a remaining discussion item for the Board. You may want to discuss the 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) issue of how interior circulation on these properties will work and whether that should be part of the current review or part of subsequent site plan reviews or a combination of the two. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that was to be a discussion by the Board, concerning cross easements for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Is that what you’re referring to? MR. SANFORD-Yes, but in terms of actual the traffic flow, that would typically be site plan. MR. BAKER-The cross easements issue has been addressed. MR. SANFORD-But I mean we normally deal with that other issue, I mean, on site plan, once we know exactly what’s going to be built, what the purpose of the business is going to be. I mean, how can we speculate on that at this point? MR. VOLLARO-We can’t, but the drawings have been faxed in, and they answered questions that are posed, I think, in 183-23C and 183-12E. That’s, these drawings are trying to respond to those questions, to those two sections of 183. That’s what’s in here. That’s my understanding, that what’s in here is now attempting, is that correct, Mr. Nace? MR. NACE-That’s correct. I’ve responded to all the Staff questions, and I think Stu just said that the responses were adequate. The only thing, I had responded to the, if you want to call it cross access between sites, primarily pedestrian, in that I felt that that was a site plan issue that normally once you know how the sites are proposed to be laid out and what the intended use of each site is, it’s easier to address whether there should be a sidewalk between the two properties or whether there’s need for circulation between one parking lot and another are better addressed at site plan review. MR. VOLLARO-I agree, but I had in my notes, under my notes I had discussion only, because I have certain conditions that I want to put into this, but under that cross easement and vehicular and pedestrian traffic, I said done on site plan review, but perhaps looking at this we could talk a little bit about it. We might not have to. If this Board doesn’t want to discuss it, we don’t have to discuss it. MR. SANFORD-Well, it’s going to come back to us on site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think you have a point. That’s why I said do this in site plan review. I have a note on that, so we can go that route. However, the comments in 183- 23C and 183-12E have to do with the response that Mr. Nace made in parts of this package, and our Staff is telling us that they’ve reviewed this, and feel that it has adequately answered the questions posed in 183-23C and 183-12. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Now, the big thing here is that, while Staff can say that all of this is okay with them, it’s got to be okay with us as well, on the Planning Board. I, personally, have not had a chance to look at this. Now, I don’t know, let me ask the Board a question, across the Board. If Mr. Baker has looked at all of this and has agreed that it answered all the questions that have been posed by those two sections of 183. Are we happy with not looking at this ourselves, and saying that Staff has done a thorough review and agrees that those two sections of the subdivision law have been addressed? MR. GOETZ-I skimmed it earlier, and it looked like they addressed, answered most of the concerns and the questions of the Staff. I think if Mr. Baker feels good about it, then I feel good about it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m all right with it. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SEGULJIC-I’m good with it. MRS. STEFFAN-I guess it’s okay. I just want to make a comment. We have addressed this issue over and over again about the timing of receiving information and we have not allowed it before, and, you know, yes, I would like to push the application through because we, you know, Stu says we have the information, but it’s just, we’ve been critical of this kind of scenario before. MR. NACE-From our side of the fence, we received comments Friday afternoon. We responded Sunday. I’m not sure how much more timely we could be. MR. VOLLARO-No, I can understand that. I understand what’s going on here, and it’s still an area that hasn’t been addressed on this side of the fence, how we’re going to do this. I’m not happy with it. I mean, the next Chairman that sits here may be. I am not happy with the way the information flows, because it always finds a choke point, and from one Planning Board member’s point of view, I have to sit and review this, without the benefit of anybody around me. Dead quiet in my dining room. The best I can do is get on the phone and talk to people. So without all the information in front of me, I find it very hard to make decisions in that room. I think you can appreciate that. MR. NACE-I understand. MR. VOLLARO-I hope all the other Board members can appreciate that as well. MR. NACE-We’re frustrated by the timeframe, too. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Having said all of that. MR. SANFORD-Bob, though, I think we’ve developed a comfort level with this application. This is not the first time we’ve seen it. We’ve seen it a few times. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. I’m just saying that I think Gretchen’s got a point. MR. SANFORD-Great point. MR. VOLLARO-And I wanted to make sure that everybody understood. MR. SANFORD-I mean, there’s no question about it, but this is a point that gets raised at almost every one of our meetings lately, and that’s the problem. MR. VOLLARO-And that is the problem, yes. Okay. Then we’re going to go along with the fact that the data that has been reviewed by Staff and has been presented in this package really satisfies both portions of 183. I think there’s a condition that the plat shall contain a statement that Lot One shall have shared access with the Stewarts property. MR. NACE-That is on the plat, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Is that on the plat now? MR. NACE-Yes, it is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Shaw’s resolution is in the extension. Shaw is in the resolution, Shaw’s comment on the extension, is part of the prepared resolution. So I just wanted to make sure that that’s, that that was there. Mike Shaw sent an e-mail in, and I think the prepared resolution talks about his e-mail. MR. METIVIER-It’s in there. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I haven’t seen Highway’s comment to the Planning Board. I understand what it is. I talked to Mr. Baker today about it. Essentially he’s asking that that road be made private. I guess he always. Is that correct? MR. BAKER-His last written comment stated a preference that the road remain private. When I say he, I’m referring to the Highway Superintendent, Rick Missita. In a discussion with him earlier today, he stated, you know, it’s the developer’s intent that it be a public road. He’s not going to object to that. MR. VOLLARO-Fine. MR. NACE-It’s always been our intent it would be public. If it were private, once the lots are sold, he’s there to maintain it. MR. VOLLARO-See, one of the problems I had with that, I didn’t have Mr. Missita’s letter in my packet. So I couldn’t tell what he was saying. The drawing should really show HC-Mod, as opposed to HC-Intensive. That’s been changed. MR. NACE-It does now, that’s been changed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, I think that’s all the comments that I had, really, on this. Now, on the site plan issues, just thinking ahead for just a minute, as each lot is sold through a particular buyer, you have to come back for site plan approval on each one of these. Is that correct? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s what I’m trying to get at. Okay. I don’t have any further questions. I’m going to open this to the Board and see what they have to say. MR. SEGULJIC-And if I didn’t bring it up before, I apologize. With regards to Lots Four and Five, they just don’t seem ideal for development, especially on Lot Five. How are you going to get a building on there, in there, and parking also? It would seem to be better if they would be squared up. MR. NACE-These two lots? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. NACE-There’s, yes, you can develop it with parking. MR. SEGULJIC-But aren’t you really limiting yourself? I mean, if you were to bring the. MR. NACE-It’s not unlikely that somebody with a little larger building requirement would buy both lots. Okay. We tried to break them into the smallest lots feasible, okay, with the realization that when somebody buys these to develop, they may well want more than just one acre, and when they do, you know, they have the option of purchasing two lots. So it would be logical, if those two lots were put together and a larger building located back here, but it’s still large enough, the depth of the lot, even here, to the cul de sac, is 150. So it’s probably 200 to there. It is still feasible to get a reasonable size office building on those. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, right now it would just make more sense to square it up. You’re saying that’s not necessary. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SANFORD-He’s saying it’s not as advantageous to the applicant to square it up because he has now the option of having someone purchase both lots for a larger building, or an interested party to purchase one lot and put a smaller building on it, on each lot. MR. SEGULJIC-But, I guess, I mean, if he squared them up he could do that also. MR. SANFORD-No, if he squared them up, if he squared them into one larger lot. MR. SEGULJIC-No, instead of having a line on a 45 degree angle. MR. NACE-You’d still have to have 40 foot on the road, okay, for access, and that’s what’s driving the shape of it. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Okay. Being there are no other issues, being that we have a closed public hearing, and being that we’ve completed a SEQRA, I think we can go forward with this, and we can forward and do an approval. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2005 JOHN DREPS/EUGENE CERNIGLIA, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: Subdivision No. 17-2004 Applicant: John Dreps / Eugene Cerniglia PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Bay Meadows Golf Club, Inc., J. Dreps, E. Cerniglia Agent: Nace Engineering / Joe Walsh Esq., Walsh & Walsh SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: HC-Mod. Location: East side Bay Road, north of Cronin Applicant proposes to subdivide a 6.37-acre property into five commercial lots on the east side of Bay Rd., north of Cronin Rd. Lots are to be +/- 1.21 acres, 1.38 acres, 1.06 acres, and (two) 1 acre lots. Cross Reference: PZ 1-2005, SB 12-98, SB 14-98, AV 3-99, SP 65-98 Warren Co. Planning: 2/9/05 Tax Map No. 296.16-1-14, 15, 16.1 Lot size: 0.61, 1.10, & 5.76 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: 2/22/05 Closed WHEREAS, the application was received in 1/18/05, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/20/05, and 5/22/05 Comments from Nace Engineering 5/20/05 CTM sign-off 5/20/05 Staff Notes 5/13/05 J. Edwards from C. Brown: forward Nace Eng. responses 5/13/05 Revised info received from Nace Eng. in response to CTM eng. comments of 2/15/05 5/2/05 Meeting notice sent 4/19/05 PB resolution: Tabled 4/19/05 PB minutes 4/19/05 Staff Notes 4/15/05 PB from R. Missita, TOQ Highway Superintendent 4/14/05 E-mail from J. Houston CTM to C. Brown 4/1/05 Meeting notice sent 4/1/05 New information received: Final Stg.. Ap., Long EAF, Stormwater 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) Mgmt. Report, 8/31/04 info from Nace Eng., Maps S-3 thru S-7 3/21/05 TB resolution 154,2005: approving rezoning request 2/22/05 Staff Notes 2/22/05 PB minutes 2/15/05 CTM engineering comments 2/9/05 Warren Co. Planning Board recommendation: 1/31/05 Bruce Ostrander, Deputy Superintendent of Water Dept. comments 1/28/05 Meeting Notice 1/25/05 Mike Shaw, Deputy Director of Wastewater Dept. comments 1/19/05 Summary Record card from Govern program WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183- 10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 2/22/05; 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 Granted. Duly adopted this 26th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We go to Final. MR. METIVIER-What would be the conditions? We have C.T. Male signoff. MR. VOLLARO-I think I went through them already. He’s already put that on the plat. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So your conditions are met. MR. VOLLARO-My conditions are all met, yes. MR. METIVIER-So we don’t have any conditions. MR. VOLLARO-Except what’s in there now. MR. SANFORD-You’ve got to grant the waivers. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. METIVIER-But that’s part of the resolution. MR. VOLLARO-We have to say waivers are granted. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 17-2005 JOHN DREPS/EUGENE CERNIGLIA, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Subdivision No. 17-2004 Applicant: John Dreps / Eugene Cerniglia Property Owner: Bay Meadows Golf Club, Inc., J. Dreps, E. Cerniglia FINAL STAGE Agent: Nace Engineering / Joe Walsh Esq., Walsh & Walsh SEQR Type: Unlisted Zone: HC-Mod. Location: East side Bay Road, north of Cronin Applicant proposes to subdivide a 6.37-acre property into five commercial lots on the east side of Bay Rd., north of Cronin Rd. Lots are to be +/- 1.21 acres, 1.38 acres, 1.06 acres, and (two) 1 acre lots. Cross Reference: PZ 1-2005, SB 12-98, SB 14-98, AV 3-99, SP 65-98 Warren Co. Planning: 2/9/05 Tax Map No. 296.16-1-14, 15, 16.1 Lot size: 0.61, 1.10, & 5.76 acres / Section: Subdivision Regs Public Hearing: 2/22/05 Closed WHEREAS, the application was received in 1/18/05, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/20/05, and 5/22/05 Nace Engineering comments 5/20/05 CTM sign-off 5/20/05 Staff Notes 5/13/05 J. Edwards from C. Brown: forward Nace Eng. responses 5/13/05 Revised info received from Nace Eng. in response to CTM eng. comments of 2/15/05 5/2/05 Meeting notice sent 4/19/05 PB resolution: Tabled 4/19/05 PB minutes 4/19/05 Staff Notes 4/15/05 PB from R. Missita, TOQ Highway Superintendent 4/14/05 E-mail from J. Houston CTM to C. Brown 4/1/05 Meeting notice sent 4/1/05 New information received: Final Stg.. Ap., Long EAF, Stromwater Mgmt. Report, 8/31/04 info from Nace Eng., Maps S-3 thru S-7 3/21/05 TB resolution 154,2005: approving rezoning request 2/22/05 Staff Notes 2/22/05 PB minutes 2/15/05 CTM engineering comments 2/9/05 Warren Co. Planning Board recommendation: 1/31/05 Bruce Ostrander, Deputy Superintendent of Water Dept. comments 1/28/05 Meeting Notice 1/25/05 Mike Shaw, Deputy Director of Wastewater Dept. comments 1/19/05 Summary Record card from Govern program 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183- 10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 2/22/05; 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 Granted and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. Waiver request(s) are granted: Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan. 2. Applicant shall submit a copy of the required NOI prior to final signature by the Planning Board Chairman. 3. 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. 4. 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 26th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. DREPS-Thank you very much. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 24-2005 SEQR TYPE II SEAN GARVEY AGENT: ETHAN HALL, RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE ZONE: LI LOCATION: 483 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1200 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP SHOWROOM. EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING USE IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD CROSS REFERENCE: SV 79-2004, UV 62-1997, SP 36-1997, BP 97725 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/11/05 TAX MAP NO. 303.6-1-5 LOT SIZE: 3.99 ACRES SECTION: 179-9-020 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SEAN GARVEY, PRESENT MR. HALL-Good evening. For the record, my name is Ethan Hall. I’m a partner with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Sean Garvey, owner of Garvey/Volkswagen/KIA. MR. VOLLARO-Go forward. It looks like a pretty simple application. MR. HALL-Pretty straightforward application. Mr. Garvey, the owner of Garvey/Volkswagen/KIA, proposes currently the project is on Quaker Road. The area in question is the dark shaded area right here. The lighter area is the total building itself. The darker area is currently underneath the canopy, on the front of the building. Mr. Garvey would like to enlarge the showroom space out into the canopy and address the façade of the building in total. The drawings that you were provided show the intent of what the building will look like. There is one additional request that we would like to talk to you about tonight. There’s an area that’s right down here that is also underneath the canopy. In our conversations with KIA Motors, these plans were also submitted to KIA Motors, they requested that there be some additional customer waiting area and service area added to the showroom space, so that it wasn’t quite as cramped. We would like to also include that area. MR. VOLLARO-Is that on the present drawings? MR. HALL-The area itself is. The plans for it are not on there. The area itself is covered by the canopy currently, and all we would be doing. MR. VOLLARO-What do you want to do? Do you want to enclose it, is that what you’re pointing to? MR. GARVEY-Yes. Currently the canopy goes all the way around the building, including this area and over here. The area that’s on the application is this 1200 square feet. After this was sent in to KIA, they requested this area under the canopy also to be included if possible. That’s another 800 square feet. So we’d like to amend the application from 1200 square feet to 2,000. It does not affect permeable area or anything. MR. SANFORD-Right now under that canopy, if I recall correctly, it’s filled with cars, and the applicant, you have a somewhat congested parking lot there. I’ve been there a number of times over the years, and it’s always been kind of crowded. So if you cover that up, and what are you going to do with the cars that you’re storing under there now, the new cars for sale that are under there now? They’re going to go out on the lot and I would think the lot will be even more congested. MR. HALL-Currently there are no cars under this canopy back here, this canopy, for the most part, stays open. MR. SANFORD-It does. MR. HALL-Yes. Right now, if you drove over there today, there’s no cars there right now. MR. GARVEY-Since Hyundai moved out. MR. HALL-Since Hyundai has taken all of their cars over to the new dealership on Dix Avenue, KIA and Volkswagen are the only two cars. MR. SANFORD-Okay, because they used to have new cars in there I think, for sale. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. HALL-There used to be. Mostly now they’re contained underneath the canopy on this front portion and over here. The ones that are contained underneath the front portion, they’re going to be moved into the showroom. Okay. So what’s parked there now, for all intents and purposes, winds up in the showroom. So there’s really only two car parking spaces that would be affected, and that would be those two that would be picked up by the extra 800 square feet. There’s plenty of room on the site for the extra two spaces. MR. VOLLARO-This is the 800 square feet you’re talking about. MR. HALL-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I don’t know how we can, in words, portray this change. We could try to define it very, very carefully on the. MR. HALL-On the proposed floor plan there’s an area that is shown, and that’s what’s colored here. MR. VOLLARO-What I’m trying to get at is, how do we, for posterity’s sake, make this modification so that the drawing speaks to the fact that it’s different than what’s been presented? MR. SANFORD-Revised drawings, you know, approval conditioned upon revised drawings reflecting the additional space. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t have that application, though. The application is for 1200 square feet, not 2,000 square feet. MR. GARVEY-It says plus or minus 1200. MR. SANFORD-Well, we approve it, but the final drawing has to have it mapped out. MR. HALL-We could do that as a condition of approval. MR. VOLLARO-The problem that I have there is that during, when we review subdivisions, the Chairman has an opportunity sign the plat, and usually we say they’re all conditioned. Well, I usually say that all conditions that are on the resolution must appear on the plat, so that they’re married to the plat forever. We don’t get that same situation on site plans. I don’t believe we sign site plans. MR. SANFORD-I’ve got you. MRS. STEFFAN-Counsel, can Counsel help us here? MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not sure I’m hearing a legal issue, but I think your concern is an appropriate concern, that what is contemplated, apparently, is somewhat different, if not arguably somewhat substantially different than what’s actually appearing on the site plan that’s proposed. I mean, you can do a conditional approval if you want, but I think Bob’s concern is appropriate, which is, how do you know when that condition’s fulfilled, that it shows up, but no building permits issued, no CO, no whatever, until you see that, but then it’s not yours. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HALL-On the drawing that appears up here, which is Drawing A-2 in your package, I believe you’re looking at A-1. Drawing A-2 shows, this area over here is shown as covered canopy, that is the area in question. That’s clearly defined on the drawing. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MRS. BARDEN-Can I ask a question on that, please? Isn’t that covered display canopy where the two bays are for the service area? MR. HALL-No. The service bay door is right there. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. HALL-And the area in question, the canopy right now comes down this line and across the front of the building and then all the way back, and the only thing that we would be including would be this little portion right here, which is currently covered by the canopy, and shows up on that drawing as covered canopy. MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s only one service bay door there? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HALL-All of the traffic for the service bay comes in through the back, goes to the service bay, Sean correct me if I’m wrong, there’s four on one side and four on the other? MR. GARVEY-Five. MR. HALL-Five and five. Everything within the service bay is one way traffic. It all comes in the back and goes out the front. MR. GARVEY-If I could add, since the canopy is part of the structure, we’d like to expand the front of the showroom out to the edge of the canopy, which is 1200 square feet, and possibly we may expand the canopy, expand the showroom to the left 800 square feet, staying within the structure, within the canopy, not affecting permeable area, runoff or anything. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So all the area would be. MR. GARVEY-Within the current structure. MR. SANFORD-No, that’s not what I’m saying. All enclosure would take place under existing canopy. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. HALL-That is correct. MR. SANFORD-So that’s how we define it, Bob. If we give an approval, we give an approval allowing enclosure of existing canopy. MRS. BARDEN-Well, there’s a lot of existing canopy, it goes all the way around. MR. HALL-Up to 2,000 square feet. MR. SANFORD-Is there any additional canopy that you have, that you’re not enclosing at this point? MR. HALL-Well, the canopy that runs up along this side of the garage would stay, but I think you’re going in the right direction. Under the existing canopy, up to 2,000 square feet. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SANFORD-Or we could say by direction, because that other canopy would be facing the west. We could say the canopy facing the southern. MR. HALL-Southern portion. MR. SEGULJIC-Could we just say the covered display canopy as listed on A-2. MR. HALL-As on Drawing A-2. That’s correct. MRS. BARDEN-One other consideration, either if you extend either way, if you want to extend those plantings out in front as well, covering whatever your showroom expansion is. MR. HALL-Right here, these would continue across the front, absolutely, yes. MR. VOLLARO-All these words are good. I understand them all. They make a lot of sense to me. My problem is that this piece of paper doesn’t speak to that yet, and I’m always sensitive that the drawing speaks to entire, I know that you understand. MR. HALL-Yes, and I apologize this did not come up until after we had spoke with KIA, and these drawings had already been submitted to you, and I didn’t want to give you additional information after your submission date. MR. VOLLARO-Let me ask you a question. If we were to condition this upon you preparing a modification to A-2 and submitting that modification to Staff, would that be okay? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. GARVEY-That’s fine. They’ll be getting it with a building permit anyway. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Don’t mix the building permit with this Board, because I’ve got to tell you, you heard the story before. MR. HALL-We just went through that, yes, we can certainly make that application. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the way I would like to handle it. MR. SANFORD-That’s fine. MRS. BARDEN-Have you run those permeability numbers, the new ones for the additional 800 square feet? MR. HALL-Yes, the numbers don’t change, and in fact actually. MRS. BARDEN-It’s still 55.5? MR. HALL-Actually, to address that, currently this canopy, actually all of the canopies, are shed, and the water runs off. The new portion of the building, this portion here and the portion over here, are going to have flat roofs which are internally drained. The internal drains go down into drywells that are on site. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-All those drywells are working properly? 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. HALL-Yes. MR. GARVEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll condition this application, this approval, and I sense the Board is going toward an approval on the fact that Drawing A-2 will be revised to show the 800, additional 800 square foot of showroom. MR. HALL-Yes, it’ll be customer waiting room and service, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Now, one last thing, and it’s minor, and I know that you fit this, but the application conference on 4/11/05, I guess you attended that. MR. HALL-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They required a Floor Area Ratio of .3 against the property. It’s well within, except it was never submitted. I didn’t get it. I didn’t get one. So I would make a comment or a condition that it be also supplied. I didn’t see one. MRS. BARDEN-Floor Area Ratio? I don’t believe that he needs one. That area, that’s in Waterfront residential zones. MR. HALL-Yes. According to our meeting, it was not a requirement for us. I mean, we showed it. We discussed it at the meeting, and we do show the Floor Area Ratio on the drawing itself. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at the pre-application conference that I think is dated 4/11/05, and it says FAR number shall be on the plan. MR. HALL-Yes, and that does appear on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-It’s on the plan. It’s just not on the worksheet. Okay. MR. HALL-Floor Area Ratio is 8.93 provided. It’s under the site data on Drawing C-1. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Fine. Normally I look for that form, see, in the general review process, and I don’t look for it on the drawing. MR. HALL-Right, and I think the discussion came up, Susan, the discussion came up in that meeting that that was pretty much for a Waterfront Residential, is what the form comes from. Because we weren’t in there, we decided that it wasn’t necessary. MR. VOLLARO-If you’re looking at .3 as a requirement, though, in the HC zone, I believe, it’s .3. MR. HALL-Yes, right, 30%, and we’re at 8.93%. We’re well under. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. That was just a formality to see that we had followed that rule, that’s all. Other than that, I have no further questions. Do Board members have any questions on this? I think we can make a motion. MR. SANFORD-Let’s move it. MRS. RYBA-You have a public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a public hearing on this? Does anybody want to speak to this application? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And now we can make a motion for approval. There’s no SEQRA involved on this. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 24-2005 SEAN GARVEY, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Site Plan No. 24-2005 Applicant/Property Owner: Sean Garvey SEQR Type II Agent: Ethan Hall, Rucinski Hall Architecture Zone: L1 Location: 483 Quaker Road Applicant proposes a +/- 336 sq. ft. addition to an existing Automobile Dealership showroom. Cross Reference: SV 79-2004, UV 62-1997, SP 36-1997 Warren Co. Planning: Tax Map No. 303.6-1-5 Lot size: 3.99acres / Section: 179-9-020 Public Hearing: 5/26/05 WHEREAS, the application was received on 4/13/05; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation and inclusive of all newly received information, not included in this listing as of 5/20/05, and 5/20 Staff Notes 5/19 Notice of public hearing sent 5/11 Warren Co. PB: No County Impact 5/2 Meeting notice sent 4/27 S. Barden from E. Hall, Rucinski Hall Architects: revised site dev. data sheet 4/21 Warren Co. PB referral 4/13 RPS, Govern data 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 5/26/05; 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, this approval does not relieve the applicant from obtaining all necessary permits whether Federal, State or Local, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plans submitted to the Zoning Administrator: 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) 1. For a +/- 1200 square foot addition to an existing automobile dealership, plus an 800 square foot addition to that same building, to accommodate a customer waiting room. 2. Drawing No. A-2 will be modified to show this 800 square foot addition and will be a condition of this approval, that the new drawing will be submitted to Staff, a continuation of the landscaping that currently exists on Drawing A-2 to match the landscaping across the front. Duly adopted this 26th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: MR. SANFORD-The resolution prepared by Staff, that I have, proposes a plus or minus 36 square foot addition to an existing automobile dealership. Now I know we get involved with canopies and enclosing canopies and everything like that, but is that the accurate number? MRS. STEFFAN-No, that’s not. MR. SANFORD-Okay. So that has to be changed to the new number that we were discussing. MR. VOLLARO-Where are you looking? MR. SANFORD-I’m looking at the draft resolution prepared by Staff. MRS. STEFFAN-It should be 1200. MR. HALL-Yes, as listed, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Twelve hundred. MR. HALL-Well, but we’re going to amend that to 2,000. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it proposes a plus or minus 2,000 square foot addition. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. GARVEY-Thank you very much. SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD SCHERMERHORN PROPERTY OWNER: MICHAEL TATKO, JR. AGENT: NACE ENGINEERING; VAN DUSEN & STEVES, BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES ZONE: HILAND PARK PUD LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HAVILAND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 65.95-ACRE PARCEL INTO 21 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM .69-ACRES TO 15.2-ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND WITHIN A PUD REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE: SB 1-2002 TAX MAP NO. 290.13- 1-1.1 LOT SIZE: 65.95 ACRES SECTION: 179-12-010 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-The floor is yours, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn, and Tom Nace. This subdivision that you have before you is a 21 lot single family subdivision, north of the intersection of Meadowbrook and Haviland, and of course right up the road from Town Hall, when this was part of the approved Hiland Park PUD, the site plan for Hiland Park had 92 units on this 65 acres, including a mix of single family and multi- family. We went to the Town Board for a consistency resolution, consistent with the PUD, and they were very pleased that Rich is only proposing 21 units instead of 92 units. What he envisions is a high end subdivision of really nice houses, sort of a signature project for Rich, with the boulevard and the cul de sacs landscaped and maintained by a Homeowners Association with sprinkler systems and the boulevard and the cul de sacs and street trees lighting on the road, the nice period lights with the glass tops that would also all be owned by a Homeowners Association. So the Town’s not going to be responsible. We’re not asking for a lighting district. It would all just be split up by the 20 lots that are on that road. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Lapper, you mentioned the boulevard. MR. LAPPER-The first, at the beginning of, three or four hundred feet from Haviland. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see it on the print, though. Is it going to be a center section on the drawing? MR. LAPPER-I think it’s on the landscaping. MR. NACE-Number Three or Number Four. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see it. Okay. It’s on Number Three. Got it. MR. LAPPER-And actually that’s a good place to start because that caused one of the biggest confusions with C.T. Male, because they thought the road was more than 1,000 feet, but it gets counted from the end of the boulevard, where it goes to a single lane. MR. VOLLARO-I looked at that twice tonight, and I looked at the words in the subdivision requirements, and I couldn’t find anything other than the 1,000 feet in there. Is there some place else that you look to show that it starts at the end of your boulevard? MR. NACE-No. I think that’s just been a precedent that has been set by previous boards and previous projects. MR. LAPPER-Susan’s aware of it. MRS. BARDEN-It’s at the Board’s discretion, how they want to, you can choose to look at it from, measure it from the end of the boulevard, or you can take the entire road. MR. VOLLARO-Where is that discretion shown in 183? If you go to 183-12, I don’t find it there. MRS. BARDEN-It’s, it doesn’t define where it’s measured from. MR. NACE-I think it says length of dead end road. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-We have the ability to waive that, though, on this Board. MR. LAPPER-The issue has always been with the Board, in terms of safety, that once, that’s a single road, in terms of emergency vehicles. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I like that. I think that makes a lot of sense. I’m trying to reconcile against the law, exactly what we do, and if the law says you can measure from the end of that, that’s fine, or if the Board says we’ll waive it, that’s also fine. I’m just trying to find out which way is the right way to go. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. SANFORD-This is part of a PUD, though. Does the PUD provide for deviation, as opposed to more traditional subdivisions? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think so. I don’t believe it does. I don’t think it supercedes the criteria of the Subdivision Regulations. MR. SANFORD-All right. That was a question that we were discussing. MR. VOLLARO-I see the commiserating here. MRS. RYBA-Essentially a Planned Unit Development does allow for deviation in size of lots, because a Planned Unit Development is actually changing the zone, but in terms of how the regulations, the Subdivision Regulations apply, they still apply. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now, if you go to 183 and read that, I’m not familiar with the fact that the Board has some tradition in saying, okay, we’ll measure from the end of the boulevard. I don’t know that. MRS. RYBA-And without researching Hudson Pointe, Surrey Fields. MR. NACE-We just recently did the one for Michaels on Quincy Lane, that was the same thing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. SANFORD-Well, what are we talking about, that turn off? MR. VOLLARO-We’re talking about where the 1,000 feet, you know, we have the discretion to waive that, by the way. MR. SANFORD-Well, which 1,000 feet? MR. LAPPER-After the boulevard to the end, to the cul de sac, to the throat of the cul de sac. MR. VOLLARO-That whole length, if you measure it on the print by the stanchions is approximately 1400, I think, all the way around. MR. SANFORD-I really don’t have any questions. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any problem with it, to be honest with you. I just wanted to make sure we’re following 183 correctly, that’s all. MR. SANFORD-All right. Okay. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MRS. RYBA-Susan did mention that she did speak with our Zoning Administrator about that, and he said it was at the Board’s discretion. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Then that’s fine. MR. LAPPER-In terms of the utilities, this is public sewer and public water. So it would just be an extension of the line on Meadowbrook Road, and the most interesting thing about this is that the County has a project, because Haviland is a County road, has had a project on the table for a while, to relocate the intersection of Meadowbrook and Haviland. It was 325 feet and I think they knocked it back seven, Tom? MR. NACE-Ten. MR. LAPPER-Ten, so 315 feet from the centerline of where it is now, because when you come up Haviland over here, the sight distance is so short, if someone is making left turns, you could slam into them. So the County wants to move that road 315 feet to the east, and when we first presented this, we had a straight road going right down the center of Rich’s property. We met with County, and they told us that they’d like it to be a four way intersection, which is safest for everybody, but beyond that, they said that even if they didn’t relocate Meadowbrook Road now or if never happened, the 315 feet is the right distance, the right place for Rich’s road because it creates the right sight distance anyway. The Planning Board’s always looked at that, if you’re in 150 feet it can be too little. So this is the right place for that road, regardless of whether that project ever happens or not, but presumably it will. MR. VOLLARO-I see the letter here from (lost words). MR. SANFORD-When I reviewed the material, it almost sounded like you were going to have the road meet at a four way. MR. LAPPER-Four way. MR. SANFORD-It sounded that way. You’re saying it may happen. MR. LAPPER-We expect that it will. They definitely are planning to do it, but they’ve got to work with the Town Board, because Meadowbrook’s a Town road. So everyone has to agree on that. I think it’s going to happen MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think the letter of approval, it’s almost tacit approval, and it says, this is from Warren County from Bill Remington’s operation, that the purchase and willingness of Mr. Schermerhorn would allow Warren County to relocate Meadowbrook Road directly across from this proposed driveway, creating a better sight distance, and safer intersection. MR. SANFORD-I kind of thought it was an agreed upon understanding, but I guess you’re saying you’re agreeable to it. MR. LAPPER-Yes, absolutely, and we think it’s going to happen. It just hasn’t happened yet. MR. SANFORD-I’ve got it. MR. VOLLARO-We’re approving this drawing on the basis that that will happen. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. LAPPER-And I’m saying that whether it happens or not, the road on this subdivision, on Hiland Estates, is in the right place, and we fully expect it’s going to happen. MR. VOLLARO-Right. So what’ll happen, when that moves over, there’ll be an S turn? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Or it could be angled. It’ll be maybe just, depending on how much land they’re going to take, it’ll be sort of directed out that way. MR. VOLLARO-Who knows. I mean, it’ll get to the old Meadowbrook somehow, some way. It’s certainly going to improve the sight distance from the top of that hill, I can tell you that. When you make a left turn going west off there, and somebody’s coming up fast. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It’s tight, no question. MR. LAPPER-So we were surprised that there were a few pages of comments from C.T. Male, only because we looked at this as public water, public sewer, very low density, very much like the PUD, only smaller, and some of the stuff, they just, frankly, missed a few things. They said, another one that jumped out at me, as a non-engineer, was that the slope was so great that they wanted individual grading plans for each lot, and then Tom pointed out in his comments that they’re one foot contours and that they missed that and that it’s relatively flat, and the steepest house location was 10%, which is not steep, and that was only one. So I don’t know how that all happened, but Tom responded, and we’re prepared to go through that tonight if the Board is okay with that. We think that it’s all pretty straightforward stuff. MR. VOLLARO-Tom responded at 5/24 comments from Nace Engineer in response to Staff engineering comments. Is that the comments we’re talking about? MR. NACE-Right, my letter of May 23. rd MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you have a letter of response that’s in this package right here, that we got tonight, that nobody’s really looked at? MR. LAPPER-That’s right, that you’ve seen tonight. MR. NACE-Yes. We’re prepared to go through that item by item with you, if you would permit us. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I would like you to. Don’t spend a lot of time on it, Tom, but I’d like you to go through, because I see there’s about 25. An awful lot of questions. MR. NACE-That’s true, 25 engineering comments. MR. VOLLARO-And 25 responses. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve responded to C.T. Male. They haven’t said I agree with you, Tom, signoff and we’re done, or have they? 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. NACE-They haven’t had the opportunity to yet, obviously. I did, prior to doing my responses on a couple of them where I had questions on how to interpret their comments, I did talk to Jim to make sure that I understood what his comments were. MR. VOLLARO-Let me try to ask this question. Can we short cut this by making this, much as we did the last one, we can, you know, do this approval based on the C.T. Male signoff. MR. SANFORD-I would agree to that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because going through this line, by line, by line. MRS. STEFFAN-And we still have a public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I realize that. We’ll open the public hearing, but from the standpoint of this particular situation, of C.T. Male versus your comments and their comments, going line by line, by line. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, there are some site issues on there as well, if you want to separate the site issues from the stormwater issues, that C.T. Male can certainly look at, that would probably be a starting point. MR. NACE-Yes, if there are any particular ones you’d like me to go through, just say so and we’ll go through them. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me take the time to review them. That’s what I’m trying to do here is to say that if we get a C.T. Male signoff on their letter of X date, the condition of approval is based on that signoff. MR. LAPPER-And we think we’ve nailed it pretty well with C.T. Male, but obviously they’ll have to tell us. MRS. BARDEN-Bear in minds that there are 25 comments from C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-What I’m very sensitive of is the time that it takes to process an application. You all understand why I’m sensitive to that, right? I want to make sure that if there’s a way to process an application that doesn’t step outside the requirements of this Board, I’d like to exercise that, and one of them would be a condition to accept this based on C.T. Male’s signoff of their letter of. MRS. BARDEN-I understand that, but there are 25 items here. I’m not sure if it’s maybe. MR. LAPPER-We’re prepared to talk about anything you’d like us to, Susan. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s quickly go through, if you want. Do you want to spend the time and go through this? I have no problem with that. MR. SANFORD-Well, why don’t we all read it, and then if anybody has questions they can go into it, but, you know, my initial review, not having this, I thought it was a pretty clean submission. MR. VOLLARO-I did, too, until I was aware of this letter from, Jim Houston prepared this? MR. NACE-I think his new underling prepared it. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This just doesn’t look like Jim Houston’s work, to me. MR. NACE-Catherine Sear, I believe, is her name. MR. VOLLARO-Is she new? MR. NACE-Is new. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s the reason you got 25 comments. I understand what’s going on here. It’s pretty simple. MR. NACE-Some of them were very good comments and picked up some items that we needed to correct. MR. VOLLARO-On Number Six, on the typical cross section of stormwater pond embankment has been added to the pond outlet detail, has been added? MR. LAPPER-He submitted it. MR. NACE-It’s been submitted as the, in the package. MR. VOLLARO-That was a question they had, then. MR. NACE-Yes. That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-It looks fairly straightforward to me. I don’t see anything in here that jumps out at me. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set with that. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I would, you know, just conditioned upon C.T. Male signoff, Bob. I mean, we want to hear public, obviously. MR. SEGULJIC-I just had a couple of questions. In Staff notes they make a comment about Lot 10, and subdividing that. MR. LAPPER-Here’s what happened on Lot 10. When the Hiland bankruptcy, or the last time it was sold before you guys bought it, this was purchased by the guy that Rich is purchasing the property from, a fellow named Michael Tatko, and in the contract, he’s retaining Lot 10. So we didn’t have the ability to do anything with Lot 10. It’s not going to be further subdivided, but there was a Staff comment about walking trails, and we don’t have the, that’s the one lot that Rich committed in the purchase contract that this guy, Michael Tatko is going to keep for his own home. So we don’t have control over Lot 10 unfortunately, but in terms of the more conceptual issue, fortunately at Hiland there’s the golf course and there’s the Town owns the 80 acres along the Halfway Brook corridor, which the Recreation Department is considering doing some sort of a recreational amenity there. So even though Rich can’t do it on Lot 10, there’s going to be other public access at Hiland, because it was all part of the PUD. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What about, what is the surrounding land? Most of the surrounding land is still vacant there, right? MR. LAPPER-It’s not part of Hiland Park on the north. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. I guess where I’m going with this is that my concern is that with the present configuration, let’s say there is another housing subdivision. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. LAPPER-I know what you’re talking about. You’re talking about from Rockwell Road on the other side of it? MR. SEGULJIC-Or wherever. MR. LAPPER-Because of the wetlands, the stream corridor, nothing is going to be west of this, because you can’t cross the wetlands, down at the bottom of the hill towards Town Hall. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what about to the east of it? MR. LAPPER-And to the east of it, there’s wetlands there as well. So there’s more development that can happen at Hiland between Sunnyside and Rockwell Road on the northeast side of this, that that would have, there’s an access on Sunnyside, by the cemetery by Sunnyside Lake, and there’s an access on Rockwell Road by Overlook, the Overlook Homeowners Association, and so there’s two entrances to that property, on the other side of Rich’s. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And just if I may, to the north, behind Lot 10 is Oeudekerk’s property, and that’s the one I was in front of you guys maybe a year ago, and if you remember, we conditioned the back portion of the Oeudekerk property that I developed to be forever wild, and then the one next to it I think is Levack. MR. NACE-Yes. It’s the same thing with Cerrone, that lot. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and that was with Al Cerrone in the first phase of Bayberry subdivision, and that is a single family lot, so that can never be developed, other than a single family, and then if you were to travel east, I believe it’s Zverblis, that piece, and I’ve contacted through the years, they have no interest in selling at this time. That back portion of the property, I don’t know what the delineations would be, but I assume there is some wetlands there, but the piece that I have, Lot 10, where it ends, there’s a significant amount of wetlands back in that portion. So as far as activity, as far as road connections, I don’t think that would ever happen. MR. SANFORD-But Lot 10, you sold Lot 10? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Part of the condition of the contract. This piece of property the owner wanted to retain that back acreage, for a single family house, we’ll put that on the record. He wanted that for himself to build a house. So that Lot 10, as large as it is, will only be a single family house. MR. SANFORD-Because it’s 18 acres or something, it’s it? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, 18.7. MR. NACE-Big wetlands. MRS. STEFFAN-Where they have a lot of wetlands. MR. SANFORD-One house will be put there, but that blows the chances for us to have like a nature trail or any kind of a recreational area obviously. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Unfortunately Rich didn’t attain that right. MR. NACE-The connectivity of that would be difficult, I think, because you’ve got the wetlands in here to block it off. MR. SANFORD-Yes, okay. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SCHERMERHORN-And Deb Roberts had indicated there’s much more wetlands to the east of that, but she was only hired to delineate the 65 acres that I purchased. MR. VOLLARO-Now is everything north of that property a part of the PUD still? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s not. MR. LAPPER-That’s the line. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the PUD line. That’s what I wanted to know. Okay. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, but the major two pieces have been developed and approved by the Board, and the outcome of those properties will be, well, one will be vacant, and then Levack one could be a, one single family home there. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, I understand. MR. SANFORD-I mean, I’m pleased with the lower density, as compared to what you could have potentially come in with. I think this is a big improvement. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that before I got into the 25 questions. I thought this was a pretty good project. I didn’t have any questions after reviewing it myself. The only question I had was on that 1,000 feet, and I think that you make a statement in here, Tom, about that. Your Statement 21 talks to the length of a single family road. MR. NACE-Correct. We’ve had several projects that have used the boulevard just for that purpose, to cut down the length of the dead end, and the Boards have, in the past, interpreted or given a waiver to get back that it was from the throat of the cul de sac to the end of the boulevard. MR. VOLLARO-Just a quick question I wanted to ask you, and it has nothing to do with this, but it has something to do with cul de sacs and the wings that are put on the road for the Town. Do those wings normally go around the cul de sacs themselves? Because part of 183 talks about that being flat under the terms of road. MR. NACE-There’s a lot of language in 183 that doesn’t get used because it was written 25 years ago, but the wings go around the outside of the cul de sac all the way. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, they do. All right, because I ran over that, in looking for this, I ran over that, and I said, it seems to me all cul de sacs have wings on them. MR. NACE-They do. MR. VOLLARO-They do. Okay. MR. NACE-They don’t have wings on the inside normally, unless there’s some special consideration. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but on the outside of the thing there are wings. It’s something for your PORC Committee to think about. Okay. That’s it. MR. SANFORD-Public hearing. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-We have a public hearing tonight. Does anybody here want to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAUL PREUSS MR. PREUSS-Hi. I’m Paul Preuss. I live at 59 Waverly Place on Meadowbrook Road, and I have three issues I’d just like to get some clarification on, because I don’t understand, fully, the functions of the Planning Board. What is your relationship to connections with infrastructure when you approve developments like this? I’m thinking specifically of Meadowbrook Road itself. I’ve been there just about three years. In that time, we have 56 townhouses in Waverly Place alone, and then there’s two apartment complexes to our south, maybe 120 units each, and then I was told before I arrived on the scene the College had opened up an entrance to Haviland which created Meadowbrook as a bypass route for Bay, really. A lot of people come down Haviland, hang a left and go to the College. I’m just concerned about, you know, that road and what your relationship is with upgrading that to deal with, now we have another development and no doubt, you know, the corner is going to be developed, the southwestern corner. MR. VOLLARO-Agreed. The problem is that the PUD has been already approved. So the PUD, when the PUD was done a lot of those kinds of questions were looked at in terms of the total PUD build out. So once the Town Board, and the Town Board has determined that this application is consistent with the PUD, and once they say that, we don’t have MR. SANFORD-You might want to explain what a PUD is, in case he doesn’t know. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a Planned Unit Development, PUD. MR. PREUSS-Yes. Thanks. MR. SANFORD-I didn’t know if you did. MR. PREUSS-Yes, but who, ultimately, is responsible to upgrade what I would call infrastructure with that development? MR. VOLLARO-The Department of Transportation, DOT, is ultimately responsible. MR. PREUSS-No, it’s a Town road. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but doesn’t DOT get involved? MR. LAPPER-It’s the County DPW. MR. VOLLARO-Right. That’s Bill Remington’s operation, Warren County Department of Public Works. That’s the guy that’s responsible. MR. PREUSS-Well, I know that, I’ve already talked with them about the intersection movement and, you know, I’m familiar, somewhat, with that, because it affects our north entrance. When they pull Meadowbrook away from our north entrance, I’m concerned with what the options are going to be there, but Meadowbrook is taking a lot more traffic than it should bear, and it’s not safe. It’s not lined, and I’d just make that point that when these projects are approved, I’d like to think that the highways are compatible with what the projects are. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SANFORD-It’s a fair point. I mean, certainly, if this was a super large project, probably considerably larger than what is being suggested here, we would look at traffic analysis and also the infrastructure issues that you’ve raised. A lot of those issues are somewhat pre-existing, and I think they should be looked at, but not necessarily in the context of this application review, but I think it’s a fair point, and certainly as Planning Board members we have concerns about that, but I would almost think that the primary party to address what you’re talking about would be the Queensbury Town Board, rather than the Planning Board. MR. PREUSS-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Like if this was, as previously set out in the original PUD, which you might have heard was, had townhouses and everything else, then at that particular point in time, we would be concerned about the increase in traffic and also the integrity of the road and things of that nature. MR. PREUSS-Because I’ve been to the Town Highway Department for the last two years, and each time I’m told, well, when Schermerhorn gets done with that project, we’ll pave the road and stripe it. Well, then there was a second Schermerhorn project, and, well, we’re going to wait until that, and I was told this spring, well, they’re done now and the heavy trucks will be gone, but now there’s a third. I mean, it’s like a blizzard, flake by flake by flake. So I’d just make the point, and I think, you know, I know where to go next, perhaps. The second issue was when you approve these developments, do you approve the lighting plan of how they’re going to be lit? My concern is night sky, and one of the attractive attributes of this area is you can look at the stars at night and enjoy the outdoors, and I think it makes Queensbury a little bit different than living in a city, and in our development, each homeowner has like three little candle lights out front that cast enough that you can see. The Hoffman Carwash went in, and I think they have a lot of lighting, but it all goes down. MR. VOLLARO-That’s all part of what this Board insisted upon, by the way. MR. PREUSS-I’m concerned with lighting that goes all over the place. MRS. STEFFAN-According to our zoning regulations, lighting has to be downcast in these units. MR. PREUSS-Well, I’ve seen a lot of developments, ones on Meadowbrook, where they have glass globes and it’s going all over. So, something’s not working. MRS. RYBA-Mr. Chairman, after the public hearing’s closed, I’d like to address a comment to that effect. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. If you take a look at what we did in certain projects, like the Wal- Mart project, the Home Depot project. We spent many, many, many hours in review on just lighting. MR. PREUSS-And I read about that in the paper and I’m grateful for that, but I’m also seeing, you know, the physical presence of lights that are spraying light all over, and the more that happens, the less our area is going to be nice at night. That’s all I’m making the point. So something’s not working there. If it’s a zoning problem, then somebody is not following through. The third thing, in the newspaper reporting, I’ve lived long enough to know that everything in the paper isn’t right, and we all have, but they reported this project as having a deli and some other stores with it, and I was wondering what that’s about, because it’s not on the plan. I know that The Michaels Group owns the corner and it’s commercial, and I was wondering if there was any merger of the two. MR. VOLLARO-Not that I know of. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MRS. STEFFAN-I think that might be a different development that might be on the other side of Town. MR. PREUSS-No, it was this development on Haviland. MR. SANFORD-I think they might have been referring, maybe I’m wrong, but they might have been referencing a mixed use type of a situation, but I think that might have been more in regards to the Blind Rock/Bay Road development. MR. PREUSS-Okay. I don’t think I misread it. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not this project, I don’t think, at all. MR. SANFORD-It was, I think hypothetically, wouldn’t it be nice if he could have more mixed use, and I’m a big supporter of mixed use. MR. VOLLARO-I think the PUD kind of talks to that kind of thing, doesn’t it? MR. LAPPER-Not on this site. MR. VOLLARO-Not on this site, but the PUD has those amenities in it somewhere. MR. PREUSS-I know the corner piece that Michaels owns has that type of mixed use. MR. VOLLARO-That might be what The Michaels Group is going to do with that corner. I have no idea. MR. PREUSS-Okay, not in this. MR. VOLLARO-Not in this. MR. SANFORD-Not this one, no. MR. PREUSS-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing with lighting, the lighting is in our Zoning Code, we do have regulations about downcast lighting, but once the house is complete, there are no guidelines in place where if somebody wants to put spotlights or driveway lights or those kinds of things, and so that becomes an individual issue. MR. PREUSS-But I’m talking about new developments that have those. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Downcast, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Sir? KENNETH LINTON MR. LINTON-My name is Kenneth Linton, and I own the property that’s that big white spot there on the map. MR. VOLLARO-To the right? MR. LINTON-To the left. MR. SANFORD-Right here. Okay. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. LINTON-And I’ve lived there 38 years, and 12 years in the house across the road on Bay Road. So I’ve been within the intersection of Haviland, Bay Road for 50 years, and I’ve, of course, seen an awful lot of changes. The one comment that I wanted to make sure that the Board understood, that they look at the old PUD. I’ve heard comments tonight state that the land that they’re talking about now was 90 some odd units, and I’ve also heard comments that it was multiple dwelling. On the original PUD, Hiland Park Terrace, it allows 48 lots of house size of 2700 square feet to 4,000, and listed it as luxury. This is bigger than the units over there at Master Commons South and Master Commons North. So when you’re giving approval here, this approval is for not many multiple dwellings. MR. VOLLARO-This approval is based on single family homes on those lots. MR. LINTON-Yes, based on those lots, and it’s not for multiple dwellings. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. LINTON-The comments have been made about multiple dwellings. You made that comment. MR. SANFORD-My comment was that I was pleased that they’re doing this project, which appears to be much less dense. MR. LINTON-No, you haven’t looked at the original plan. The original plan, the land that is used in there, if you count up the houses that he’s using, is about 21, 22 lots. The number that you’re talking, if you’re talking 48, you’re talking to Lot 10 over on the other side of the road. The original plan was for a road to come all the way around. The original plan had a road coming around, completely around, my property here. So what they’re, you’re giving credit for lower density for houses that are not going to go in this area because of the wetland regulation. I don’t think you want to think that Rich is doing something wonderful. (Lost word) original PUD plan. MR. SANFORD-Well, I will say this, and heaven forbid that I be the advocate for Rich Schermerhorn’s projects, but other applicants may very well come in with a plan that would argue that homes could be supported on those types of wetlands and come in with a much more dense project than what we’re seeing here. I hear your point, and I think it’s a valid one, but you’re basically saying, if you look at just the area that is actually being developed, it’s probably not appreciably less dense, but he isn’t developing other areas, instead of making an argument to do so, and certainly, in my history on the Planning Board, I’ve seen many applicants come in front of this Board and, well, one individual wanted to build a house on Lake George, actually on the lake, but that’s an extreme case, but many other applicants come in front of us and they want to build on very, very wet land, and it’s always very difficult for us as a Planning Board, and this application I am pleased that he’s staying away from some of those more sensitive areas and that sewage issues have been addressed and we’re not dealing with septic systems, etc. I hear your point, though, and it’s a valid one, and incidentally, I did not have the benefit of reviewing the original PUD, and I think it’s a good point. We should, in the future, get those. MR. LINTON-I think it would be a good idea for you folks to look at it. MR. SANFORD-I did not have the benefit of it. MR. VOLLARO-And when I look at it, I look at the original PUD, and then looking at this, I felt that, if he wanted to, if he wanted to purchase the rest of that land and build that all out, that would be a whole other case before this Board. Now you would be approaching the PUD density, but in this particular instance, I think that what he’s 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) proposed, rather than going into the wetland, is far, far better than exploiting land that should never be developed in the first place. MR. LINTON-I thought you wouldn’t be able to build on a wetland. MR. VOLLARO-You can engineer on any, you know, I could engineer on a foot of water. I can get an engineer to sit down and we can decide how to fill it, and it happens to this Board all the time. We’re always fighting, you know, the question of seasonally high groundwater and things like that always come before this Board that we have to wrestle with. In this case, we don’t have to wrestle with it at all. MR. LINTON-Don’t get me wrong. I’m pleased with what his plan is right now, but I just didn’t want the Board to think that it is something magical that’s been done, and I understand that the Town Board said that they would agree to the concept, as long as it followed the PUD. MR. VOLLARO-True, but they also looked at this plan, Mr. Schermerhorn had to present this plan to the Town Board, and in their resolution, they said that this was consistent, the word they used in their resolution, was consistent with the PUD. I have their resolution here. So, they, apparently, have looked at it, and I’ve looked at it in the same way, and I think that it is consistent with the PUD. It could have been, he could have made it a heck of a lot denser by going into a greater portion of that and try to build on those wetlands. MR. SANFORD-Well, Bob, one of the things we can ask the applicant when they come back to us is, and again, the land to the west of the project, where there’s no contemplated building, I’m not sure if perhaps the applicant would consider conditioning no further development on that. The statement was they couldn’t, but as a condition of approval, then that would assure that there’s not a plan down the road. Okay. MR. LINTON-See, if you look at the original PUD, the density that he has on the west, on the east side of my property, is what was planned on the PUD. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Yes, okay. MR. LINTON-That’s my point. MR. SANFORD-I understand. MR. LINTON-Okay. That’s all I had. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. LINTON-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Is there anybody else that wants to speak to this application? I don’t see anybody. With that, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. RYBA-Mr. Vollaro, if I could make one comment. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. RYBA-If you’ll indulge me, because it’s always a good opportunity when we hear things from the public, and to try to provide some understanding of our regulations. When it comes to lighting, our Zoning Code provides guidelines for commercial lighting 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) in multi-family developments. So if a subdivision comes forward with single family lots, the Planning Board does not have, that hasn’t been developed, the Planning Board doesn’t have any purview over single family residences for lighting. Also, at this point in time, commercial development, it’s not, the lighting is grandfathered until such time as a commercial development comes in for a revision to a site plan. So I just want to make it clear, because we do get phone calls from the public asking why we don’t regulate single family lighting, aside from the fact that I don’t want to go around changing light bulbs. It’s just not in our Code at this point. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have purview over that. That’s what we’re saying, and I think the gentleman that raised that issue probably understands that we don’t have purview over it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, as far as the lighting, the streetlights that are proposed are the ones with, the ones that are required, that shield down. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And as far as the ones that people put on their front doors, will be no different than everyone else purchases, but those will definitely be the ones that meet what the requirements are. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think we’ve run through an educational period here, over the last, probably two years, since we had, and we were educated, really, on Home Depot and Wal-Mart. We got to understand a little bit about lighting. The Planning Board got to read a little bit about it. We know a lot more about it now than we ever did before. So, whenever lighting comes up on a big project that’s commercial, we’re sensitive to it, but as Mrs. Ryba points out, we don’t have any purview on this Board for that. So, having said that, gentlemen, it’s yours. MR. LAPPER-If there’s anything you’d like us to respond to. MR. SANFORD-What I would like to follow up on the comment, the property to the west, which in the presentation that you guys made, you specified there wouldn’t be any development there because it’s wetland. I’m not sure what the acreage is exactly, but would Rich be willing, as a condition of approval, to merely agree not to do any further development in that piece of property? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. As a matter of fact, for the record, the neighbors that live in the house next to the small house I have, and unfortunately I can’t remember their name, but they were here tonight, and they were at ease once I sat down at the table and spoke with them. I said, for the record, that I would condition that to a residential lot, one lot, but I did say that the Town of Queensbury Rec Committee has expressed interest in purchasing the property. I’ve been approached. My only concern with selling it to them is for the neighbors in my development, if they were to put little league fields in, soccer fields and stuff like that, which is great for the kids, but I have two daughters that play softball, and I’m up at the softball fields and little league fields all the time, and it gets pretty noisy, especially because you get all the parents yelling and screaming. So if I did, I would just want to be able to reserve that if Queensbury wanted to buy that for, I guess we’d call it passive recreation, of if they did want to do cross country trails or something like that, I just do want the right to sell it for that, but I would condition that it is for a single family home, because I could see where that could be a single family home, and if someone came for site plan review, say they wanted to put a small barn up and have horses, there is 15 acres there. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and I think that’s reasonable. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SCHERMERHORN-And the neighbors were very happy with that when I. MR. LAPPER-So as a condition, that’s fine. MR. SCHERMERHORN-So I’d condition that one house. MR. SANFORD-One house, and/or the right to, for passive recreation with the Town. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. There’s already an existing home on it. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that occupied at this time? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, it’s vacant, and truthfully I’ve never been in it. MR. LAPPER-Lot 21. MR. SANFORD-Lot 21. So I think that sounds like an idea. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-And simple, the Board, it would be restricted from any development, really, of any nature, because the curb cut of where it is, it’s in a pretty busy section of Haviland Road and sight distance and everything else would come into play. So, that’s fine. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Anything else we missed from public hearing? MR. SEGULJIC-Just a general comment on the stormwater basins, detention basins. So they’re going to be maintained by the Homeowners Association, I assume? MR. NACE-No. There’ll be a maintenance easement to the Town for maintenance of those. MR. LAPPER-We have to convey that easement to the Town. MR. SEGULJIC-But the rest of the common area will be under a Homeowners Association? MR. LAPPER-The boulevard and the cul de sac. MR. SCHERMERHORN-If I may, just to comment on that quick, I’m trying to do something a little different than some of the other neighborhoods that I’ve done or other developers have done. A lot of times what happens is the cul de sacs on the inside, they don’t get maintained. So I’m requiring, and I’m going to move into this development myself. I’m going to require that, you know, we have, whether it’s Jim Girard or Volt Landscaping, we’ll have in the Association where they’re going to be maintained, as well as the street lighting in the development. We’re not going to form a light district, but we’ll have it in the Association where street lights will be on at night and stuff for certain hours, but the landscaping will be kept up in those islands, and I’ll have irrigation in there as well to keep up the aesthetics of it. MR. VOLLARO-Rich, are you planning to use this as a, convert this into a Homeowners Association? Is that what the plan is? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. The only Association is simply to pay for the, to maintain the grass in the cul de sac and the entranceway going in. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I see that. Each individual lot takes care of its own snow, takes care of its own grass cutting, takes care of everything that’s on it. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-So there will be a collective thing to take care of up front at the boulevard section? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. That I understand. That makes sense. MR. SCHERMERHORN-The only reason for that is cul de sacs, like I said, nobody maintains them. You go to any neighborhood, and they’re a mess. MR. VOLLARO-Look at where I live. Tom knows. He’s been there. Mine is absolutely a mess. They drive trucks up on it with the snow, and it’s, I put my tractor on it, even if I’ve got it all the way up, my blades go smashing in, down comes the deck, off comes the blades. You know the story. All right. That’s one of the questions I asked Tom is these wings help protect our, a little bit, because they come around and swing those, driving up there, but I see what you’re going to do now. Okay. That’s fine. MR. GOETZ-Just a little question. I might have missed it. What are you doing for the landscaping at the entrance and coming in to the boulevard? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Well, I actually like what Hiland has done to the entrance to the Clubhouse, how they have the brick entranceway, the wall, and I show a proposal of doing the same thing on mine, and I’m also showing, there’s, it’s kind of hard, the detail’s kind of small, but I’m showing flowers, plantings and bushes and things like that, and I’d like to be able to say, you know, with this collection of this small Homeowners that we’re doing, is to be able to just do, you know, flowers, mums in the fall, and, you know, I guess tulips in the summer, whatever they do, but I want to keep this neighborhood a little different. These are going to be homes that are probably going to be the $500,000 and up. So it’s a neighborhood that we’re going to try and do just a little different so, it is going to have a nice entranceway like Hiland has now. MR. SANFORD-Are you looking for a resolution? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m writing some of this stuff down now. MR. SANFORD-A motion, I mean. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SANFORD-If you’re writing things down, do you want to do it? I didn’t think there was much to put down. MR. VOLLARO-There isn’t much. I just wanted to make sure we didn’t miss anything. MR. SANFORD-Well, why don’t you do it then, okay, if you have some things down. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. SANFORD-But do remember to incorporate, I believe they said Lot Number 21 will not be further subdivided, and will be for no more than a single family home and/or for public use, should the Town purchase some of it for passive recreation. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MRS. BARDEN-Can I just bring one thing to your attention? Now that Lot 10 is not part of common area, specifically no nature trails there, consider some sidewalks. The next development, I think, is right across the road. It’s some proposed commercial something. To be able to connect through there would be nice. MR. SANFORD-Where are you talking? Are you talking across Haviland Road? In that area that’s now just a big field? MRS. BARDEN-They just did get consistency by the Town Board for the PUD? MRS. RYBA-There is a proposal. It hasn’t come before you at this point, to do another development across the road. MR. VOLLARO-When it does, we’ll look at it. It’s not part of this yet. MRS. RYBA-No, but I think what Susan was saying is do you want to consider, I mean, whether or not there was a development there, there could be some point, and whether or not you want to consider access. It’s that same kind of discussion that you’ve had and people wonder why you want to see connections to an empty lot next door. It’s because it could be developed in the future. So whether or not something goes in there, that’s the question. MR. VOLLARO-Where exactly on this drawing are we talking? Let’s look at S-3 and let’s get specific. MR. METIVIER-Are you actually talking across the road? MR. SANFORD-If you’re talking across the road from Haviland, I’m not sure what you have in mind? What do you have in mind? I mean, if this site is on the northern section, north of Haviland, are you talking about a lot that’s on the south? So what kind of interconnection would you be referring to? MRS. BARDEN-Well, if the road is going to be moved, and the road is going to continue down to the new proposed Meadowbrook, that would go all the way down to Waverly North, and that vacant parcel to the north of Waverly is going to be developed by The Michaels Group sometime soon, and hopefully some kind of commercial something. MR. SANFORD-But that parcel of land that you’re referencing isn’t part of what we’re talking about tonight at all. MRS. BARDEN-I know, but I’m talking about connectivity, of lots in the PUD. It’s all in the PUD. MRS. STEFFAN-So is that the issue that came up in the public hearing, where they’re? MRS. BARDEN-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. You want to get to Drawing S-3. Talk to me about where exactly you want to put an interconnection. MRS. BARDEN-Here’s the old one. Maybe this is better, because you can see the whole PUD. This is what we’re talking about here, this piece of land right here. This is Meadowbrook, or this will be the Meadowbrook coming over here, this piece of land right here. See where it says commercial expansion, this vacant parcel that says commercial expansion. I know that this isn’t your project, but across the way, if you relocate Meadowbrook Road with this development, right across the way there’s a big area that says commercial expansion, and this is the one that’s the one that’s slated to be 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) developed presumably soon, because they did get a consistency review from the Town Board to develop it. MRS. RYBA-I’m not sure they have it yet. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-Is this in the Planning Department for review? MRS. BARDEN-No. MRS. RYBA-And I was not prepared to answer that question this evening, but there has been some discussion. Where it is in the process at this point I don’t know, because it has to be. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not in the backlog anywhere, is it? MRS. RYBA-No, and I think it’s going to be considered for consistency review. I don’t believe that’s happened yet. MR. SANFORD-Well, of course we encourage that kind of a thing, but I’m not sure what kind of a statement we could even make to that effect. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m sure, as far as Rich is concerned, you know, he could put it in, but I don’t know what it does yet, and we’d have to specifically state, where do we want it? MR. SANFORD-We’re not even for sure for sure the road’s going to be moved. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you know, we think all this is going to happen, but right now we’ve got a thing in front of us that we have to. MR. LAPPER-He wants to do street trees and fancy lights along the edge of the road. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, that would be in the boulevard, and that would ruin your plan. MR. GOETZ-You know, I know in Hudson Pointe which has the boulevard with the fancy trees, I live in Hudson Pointe which has the boulevard with the fancy trees and stuff, and we walk up and down that, and bicycle up and down that, all the other kinds of things on there, and to put a sidewalk, it would be just a huge expense, I think, and be causing him a huge expense, when he has a boulevard, which you do the same thing. MR. SANFORD-Now I understand what Susan was saying. You’re say along the boulevard in that development that perhaps they provide some form of a sidewalk system rather than just a road. Is that what you were talking about? MRS. BARDEN-I’m just alluding to the fact that some kind of connectivity between these little, you know, developments, vehicular as well as pedestrian, is a good idea in a Planned Unit Development or in a community area. MR. SANFORD-I hear you. MR. LAPPER-The County’s not going to want a crosswalk. It’s probably just too dangerous on that road, but that would be a County issue, from Highway. MR. SANFORD-Well, I mean, there’s no sidewalks anywhere on that, in that whole Meadowbrook area at this point. I mean, I don’t know. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MRS. RYBA-There are trails in the PUD. In fact, Waverly Place, there were trails put in there, walking trails. MR. LAPPER-We’d rather not do that. MR. METIVIER-Are they still requiring you now to have bus pull overs for the school buses? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No. MR. METIVIER-Weren’t we looking at that, at any point, or no? MR. LAPPER-Commercial, sometimes, but not. MR. SANFORD-It’s just too many, I mean, I appreciate where you’re going with this, Staff that is, but there’s just, to me, it seems that there’s just so many unknowns that we really wouldn’t know what we were really talking about at this point in time. I think we would need to see what, if there is going to be a commercial application in front of us, that would be the time where it would come together and we should probably address it, and I appreciate that we may actually be forgoing some things with this development by not addressing it now, but I just don’t see where we have the knowledge and the ability to do anything, really. MR. SEGULJIC-I could agree with not putting a crosswalk across Haviland, but if ever the parcels to the east and west got developed, it would make sense to have sidewalks along Haviland’s development. So is it possible to have some wording like if ever those parcels to the east and west got developed, sidewalks would go in? MR. LAPPER-There’s no sidewalks anywhere at Hiland. MR. SEGULJIC-Not know, but let’s say another housing development went in on the west side. MR. SANFORD-That kind of development, I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, I mean, I don’t see that kind of area with the lot sizes that you’re talking about really working with sidewalks. I mean. MR. SEGULJIC-No, no. I’m not saying along into the development. MR. SCHERMERHORN-You’re talking along the edge of Haviland? MR. SEGULJIC-Along the edge of Haviland in case. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, and we discussed that. I was one of the ones that was actually for doing it when I did the Hiland Springs development, putting the sidewalks along the edge of the road, but it all came down to the liability issues and who’s going to maintain them was the big issue. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I’m going with this is I don’t see sidewalks in a development adding anything. Because people are going to walk along the road anyway, but if the parcels to the east or west get developed, as housing developments, and you had sidewalks along Haviland, then you could have people walk down the road of this development and then along the sidewalk into the next development. If we don’t have sidewalks, there’s no way someone could walk along that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I do know quite a bit about the property, and just to the west of my entrance is where Nace Engineering and the law firm, Van Dusen and Steves, have their office, and there’s a small area of land which is actually wetlands. We didn’t 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) delineate it, but we had to for the drainageway there. So the chances of a development, and that’s all golf course, by the way. MR. NACE-This is all owned by the golf course. MR. SEGULJIC-What I’m saying, if ever that gets developed as a subdivision, you go back in and put sidewalks in. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right, but I think under the PUD it’s already a golf course, unless they changed the PUD from the. MR. LAPPER-It’s in the County right of way. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Or, right, we’d put it in the County right of way I guess, but it dead ends, really, at the office. MR. LAPPER-The problem is it’s all wetlands along the road there, all those cattails that Rich isn’t touching. So you really couldn’t do that without an Army Corps permit. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, if you asked me to do it, and it was a condition, I would certainly agree with you, but the issue is. MR. VOLLARO-I certainly wouldn’t want to put a condition like that on this application. MR. SANFORD-And his point’s well taken. I mean, I remember reading a few years ago about all the problems with clearing the snow off of the sidewalks along Route 9, and who’s going to do it at who’s cost. Here we’re speculating on sidewalks that may not be utilized, and then, independent of the utilization of them, you’ve got to deal with cleaning them off in the wintertime, and who’s going to do that? I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, all of this, in my view tonight, is out of the purview of this application. We’re going pretty far a field from this application in trying to think out the future. Now this is a good planning. I understand what Susan’s saying, it’s good planning, but it’s certainly not within the contents of this application that we look at these things. MR. SANFORD-Yes, no. I understand what she’s saying, and I have a lot of appreciation for it, but I think you’re right, Bob. I think we could speculate too much on this. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m going to make a motion to approve. This is a Preliminary and Final, or is this just Preliminary that we’re doing? MRS. STEFFAN-Both, Preliminary Stage and Final Stage. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. They’re both. MRS. BARDEN-SEQRA on this? MR. METIVIER-It’s part of the PUD. MR. VOLLARO-Don’t they say something about previous? MR. SANFORD-It’s listed as Unlisted, but is that right? MR. VOLLARO-It comes under the previous SEQRA, I believe. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. SCHACHNER-That Staff notes correctly recite that it’s subject to previous SEQRA determination. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I thought I saw that in there. MR. SANFORD-Yes. You’ve got to change the draft resolution to eliminate the SEQRA Type labeled as Unlisted, all right, when you make your motion. MR. VOLLARO-I’m trying to find where they have it. MR. SANFORD-Right in the very beginning, right up in the very beginning, Whereas, an application has been made. MR. VOLLARO-Where it says Unlisted. MR. SANFORD-Yes. That just has to be eliminated. MR. VOLLARO-And inserted as originally approved under the PUD. MR. SANFORD-And Page Two has to be eliminated as well, where, the fourth paragraph down, where it starts, Whereas the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered…, that gets eliminated as well. MR. VOLLARO-I believe you’re right on that. I think that gets removed. MR. LAPPER-If you could just recite somewhere that it was previously subject to an Environmental Impact Statement, that SEQRA was completed. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going to say that the SEQRA type previously approved under the PUD. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-I think the simple statement will do it. MR. SANFORD-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2005 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 07-2005 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn PRELIMINARY STAGE Property Owner: Michael Tatko, Jr. Agent: Nace Engineering; Van Dusen & Steves, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes Previous SEQR Zone: Highland Park PUD Location: North Side of Haviland Road Applicant proposes subdivision of a 65.95-acre parcel into 21 single-family residential lots, ranging in size from .69-acres to 15.2-acres. Subdivisions of land within a PUD require site plan review from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SB 1-2002 Tax Map No. 290.13-1-1.1 Lot size: 65.95acres / Section: 179-12-010 Public Hearing: 5/26/05 WHEREAS, the application was received in 4/15/04, and 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/20/05, and 5/20 Staff Notes 5/19 Notice of Public Hearing sent 5/2 Meeting Notice 4/27 C. Brown from L. Penistan, WCDPW 4/25 E-mail to C. Brown from M. Shaw, Deputy Director of Wastewater Dept. 4/21 W. Remington, Warren Co. DPW from C. Brown: referral 4/21 R. Missita, Highway Dept. from C. Brown: referral 4/21 J. Edwards, CT Male Associates from C. Brown: referral 4/21 M. Shaw, Wastewater from C. Brown: referral 4/21 R. VanDusen Water Superintendent from C. Brown: referral 4/13 RPS, Govern data 4/4 TB resolution 189,2005 affirming consistency of proposed project w/Hiland Park PUD WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183- 10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 5/26/05; 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 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby Granted and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. The SEQRA Type on Page One of the resolution be changed to previously approved SEQRA was done as part of the PUD Duly adopted this 26th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 7-2005 RICHARD SCHERMERHORN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Subdivision No. 07-2005 Applicant: Richard Schermerhorn Property Owner: Michael Tatko, Jr. FINAL STAGE Agent: Nace Engineering; Van Dusen & Steves, Bartlett, Pontiff, Stewart & Rhodes Previous SEQR Zone: Highland Park PUD 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) Location: North Side of Haviland Road Applicant proposes subdivision of a 65.95-acre parcel into 21 single-family residential lots, ranging in size from .69-acres to 15.2-acres. Subdivisions of land within a PUD require site plan review from the Planning Board. Cross Reference: SB 1-2002 Tax Map No. 290.13-1-1.1 Lot size: 65.95acres / Section: 179-12-010 Public Hearing: 5/26/05 WHEREAS, the application was received in 4/15/04, and WHEREAS, the above is supported with the following documentation, and inclusive of all newly received information, not included is this listing as of 5/20/05, and 5/20 Staff Notes 5/19 Notice of Public Hearing sent 5/2 Meeting Notice 4/27 C. Brown from L. Penistan, WCDPW 4/25 E-mail to C. Brown from M. Shaw, Deputy Director of Wastewater Dept. 4/21 W. Remington, Warren Co. DPW from C. Brown: referral 4/21 R. Missita, Highway Dept. from C. Brown: referral 4/21 J. Edwards, CT Male Associates from C. Brown: referral 4/21 M. Shaw, Wastewater from C. Brown: referral 4/21 R. VanDusen Water Superintendent from C. Brown: referral 4/13 RPS, Govern data 4/4 TB resolution 189,2005 affirming consistency of proposed project w/Hiland Park PUD WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, Section A183-9J and A183- 10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 5/26/05; 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 Granted and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. The SEQRA Type gets removed, Unlisted gets removed on the first page and gets replaced with previous approved SEQRA under the PUD, 2. Under additional comments, based on sign-off by C.T. Male Associates on their letter of 5/20/05 Lot 21 have no further subdivision of that lot. The lot will be 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) reserved for one single family home or if it’s purchased by the Town of Queensbury it will be used for strictly passive recreation. 3. Recreation Fees in the amount of $500.00 per lot / unit are applicable to this subdivision. 4. Waiver request(s) are granted: Sketch plan 5. Applicant shall submit a copy of the required NOI prior to final signature by the Planning Board Chairman. 6. 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. 7. 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 26th day of May, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Hunsinger MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Good luck. MR. SEGULJIC-Are we going to discuss that July? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There’s a couple of things. I think Marilyn Ryba would like to address the Board on some comments that she’d like to make. MRS. RYBA-Yes. Thank you for your time. I’ll try to make this as quick as I can. The first thing is just in reference to a memo I wrote May 20 regarding meetings, and I just th wanted to make sure that there were no misunderstandings. I certainly encourage Board members to call Staff with questions. We definitely appreciate it, so we can be better prepared, and certainly if Planning Board members come in to visit, it’s usually not a problem. I think what I would like to make sure, though, is that we have the time to be able to meet with you, to have a room available so that we’re not disturbing other people who are trying to work, and also if, by any chance, and it hasn’t happened with Planning Board, but we came pretty close to having a quorum of Zoning Board members last week in the offices, and we certainly don’t want any appearance of impropriety. So it’s always a good idea to call us if you need to come in, and especially this time of year, as our construction season really gets going, so I just wanted to make sure that, you know, we’re certainly willing, eager, and able to meet with Planning Board members, talk with Planning Board members about any questions you have. Secondly is a memo I wrote May 23, and I’m not sure you got it, but I think it’s something that will help and rd has come out of this entire situation that we saw with the Girl Scouts, and, quite simply, we would ask your indulgence, and we’ll start putting it in all the resolutions, that there be some additional language that states final approved plans in compliance with this, fill in the blank variance, subdivision, site plan, etc., must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits, are dependent on receipt. What happens is the two Departments are very distinct. Building and Codes will often get plans and start reviewing those, hold it, waiting to get approval from the Zoning Administrator, and as you know, there is a 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) backlog, and there’s also a backlog that comes in, especially this time of year, with many kinds of building permits that the Zoning Administrator has to review, such as pool permits, deck permits, all of those kinds of things. So, in discussion with both Dave Hatin and Craig Brown, Dave Hatin being the Director of Building and Codes, and Craig Brown being the Zoning Administrator, and I, we came up with this, had it reviewed by Town Counsel, to make sure that we’re not violating any kind of administerial actions that we perform, and this is how we’re going to proceed, that the Building Department just will not accept a building plan until the site plan is there. Are we going to hear complaints from people? Yes, we will. Is it going to prevent some further problems down the road? Yes, it will. We’ll hold as steadfast as we can in that kind of thing because what happens, and there will probably be another situation coming up with another development from a couple of years ago, the developer hasn’t come in, still, with the complete final approved plans because of changes that have occurred, and many times they start out as very small, minor, seemingly insignificant things, such as landscaping, and then take on a life of their own. The other thing that’s happening, in terms of how our Staffing is set up, I made a number of changes in the Department with the addition of Staff that’s been extremely helpful, so that our Code Compliance Officer, Bruce Frank, can go out in the field at the beginning, rather than go out in the field towards the end of a project when somebody’s looking for a Certificate of Occupancy, that’s when, typically, Dave will say they’re getting close to getting a Certificate of Occupancy. I’m letting you know as a courtesy so you can go out and check for things, and we check for site plan items and often find that there’s a problem, people have to come back for a variance. So in the long run, it’s really going to help everyone, because hopefully we’ll see fewer people having to come back in after they’ve already done something for a variance. Bruce can be out in there in the very beginning so that, and continue to monitor so that we can make sure there’s compliance, or so that we can make sure that people come back before it gets too late. It still doesn’t resolve the fact that Building and Codes is very different from Planning and Zoning. Currently both Departments are, or both divisions are a part of the Community Development Department, and that’s, you know, in terms of our communication, which really hasn’t been too easy when Dave Hatin is out in the field most of the time. We do have an addition of a Building Inspector and the goal is to have Dave in-house so that we can make sure that these communications are facilitated and have our other Building Inspector go out and be out in the field to take Dave’s place. So it really does, I think, will make a difference with addition of personnel with how we communicate with, and it’s not just people, certainly, the addition of people. There are some other things that we’re working on currently that will help. The other thing we will be doing is on the bottom of our, and actually I believe our IT Staff has already done this, because we get a Certificate of Occupancy out of a certain software program, and we are putting language on the bottom of the Certificate of Occupancy that states issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy does not relieve the property owner of the responsibility for compliance with site plan, variance, or other issues and conditions as a result of approval by the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals. While all of this is already inherent in what we do, having it in black and white or yellow or whatever it’s going to take on that Certificate of Occupancy, it puts another set of notice for whoever is getting that permit. We cannot withhold a Certificate of Occupancy based on site plan issues, and that’s been another difficulty, because people will be in their building. As long as they meet Building Code, they get granted that Certificate of Occupancy. We cannot withhold site plan issues. Many times, we will tell people we want to see these things done before the Certificate of Occupancy is issued, but when push comes to shove, as long as they have met all of the Building and Codes requirements, there’s nothing we can do to prevent them. MR. VOLLARO-Do you usually issue a Temporary CO? MRS. RYBA-We usually do issue a temporary CO until the site plan requirements are filled. The difficulty there is in terms of follow-up. It’s like anything, and also in terms of, that’s why we have these deadlines that we try to stick to, for getting information, because, as you know, you get things in bits and pieces and we have an awful lot of 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) follow up to take care of, and that’s just one other item I wanted to mention was, and I know this Board in particular knows, but it’s interesting when, you know, an applicant states, well, we didn’t get, you know, any feedback until Friday from Staff. Well, Friday is the deadline to get information from a developer, and so if we were giving feedback on a Friday, then either we were ahead of the, we must have been ahead of the game. So I’m just, and that’s a whole other discussion, and we’ve tried and, with new Staff, Susan’s on board, I plan on having, in fact, tomorrow morning we’ll be setting up the meeting with C.T. Male and Susan and myself, just to go over process. These last couple of months, with new Staff coming on board, it’s been a little bit confusing, but I think everyone’s done an excellent job. I know Stuart Baker has taken on some tasks. George has continued to, in his role in working with the Planning Board as well as doing all of this GIS work. Susan has certainly stepped right up to the plate and has fit right in, and I think she’ll do very well. She’ll be pretty much on her own starting next month, and she’ll have a lot to do, and certainly, you know, Craig is out there trying to coordinate all of this, plus deal with the, let’s see, at last count 230 public inquiries and complaints that we’ve had this last month, and that doesn’t include all of the forms from the entire Staff, in terms of Planning and Zoning. Building and Codes keeps their own records. So I just wanted to just let you know what we’re trying to do to address these items, and I appreciate your time. I know it’s late but I wanted to make sure this was communicated and if you have any questions, give me a call. Thanks. MR. VOLLARO-I do have one before I relinquish it to, Mark would like to say something, but what I would like to see is the general public, when they sit out here, looking at this Board operate, I think that the thing goes right around, you know, in other words, I don’t know if they perceive that there’s a relatively dark line between this Board and the Planning and Zoning Departments. You work and do what you do. A lot of what you do slows down our ability to see a site plan, and yet we’re accused, at times, of saying that we’re not doing it fast enough. MRS. RYBA-I’m not sure what you mean by Staff slowing it down? MR. VOLLARO-Well, in a lot of cases, if you go into, when you go and take a look at the board that’s down in the conference room, like if something doesn’t come in in time, and it doesn’t meet the dates and that’s all pretty well packaged. You know what you’re doing, but it slows things down. You didn’t get it in by the 15, so you’re not going to th get on next month’s. MRS. RYBA-Okay. So then that’s an applicant, not Staff, that’s what I wanted to clarify. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and all of a sudden they say, look, the Planning Board isn’t letting us on. It’s not us, and that’s the line I’m trying to draw, to make sure that we’re not always. We’re very easy to accuse, you know, of not doing our job, of slowing things down too much, but it isn’t all our problem, actually. That’s all I wanted to say. I wanted to make sure that there’s a line, that the public knows that you do your job and we do ours, but it’s not, we’re not intrinsically locked together here. MR. SANFORD-The public has that perception for a number of reasons. One is they’re going to form their own perceptions because of what you just said, they don’t like the distinctions, and sometimes they’re told to form that perception, by some of our Town Board members. The Girl Scouts is a good example, and the letters that went back and forth. MR. VOLLARO-I still get them. I get hate mail in the mail. Can you believe that? I laugh at it now. When it first started, I wasn’t laughing. MR. SANFORD-Had nothing to do with this Planning Board. We didn’t put any Stop Work Order on any project or what have you, but the perception was we did, and the letters that came in were suggesting that we were holding everything up, which we 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) weren’t, and so, yes, if there’s some bad feelings here, that’s right on the table now. Make no mistake about it they are, they exist. We got painted with a brush when it wasn’t really our issue. End of story. MRS. RYBA-Except that they were not in compliance with the site plan. MR. SANFORD-Fine, but what the issue came down to was the big, bad Planning Board is limiting agendas to seven items and they won’t help the Girl Scouts out. MR. VOLLARO-The point of departure from that, Marilyn, was your letter, which was well written, that said to the public and to Mrs. Gelder, this is what’s missing. This is what you folks haven’t considered. It’s not that the Planning Board didn’t get you on in May, you know, I told Mr. Lapper tonight, he walked here, and handed me a thing on the night of the 19 of April and I looked at it and said, gee, fine, I’ll go in tomorrow and th talk about this, and I go in and I find out that there’s all kinds of problems with this Girl Scout thing, and then you finally put it down in the letter, and, you know, I took a little heat, but what the heck. MRS. RYBA-Well, that’s probably a good segway, into, I think, what Susan wanted to. MR. VOLLARO-Mark had raised his hand before that. MRS. RYBA-Okay. I’m sorry, but in terms of June, after Mark, I can get to that. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll get to the June thing in a minute. MR. SCHACHNER-I can be pretty brief. This is my partner, Michael Hill, who’ll be joining you for a lot of time while Cathi’s out, end of story. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Michael, welcome aboard. You got a little history on what’s going on here tonight. We have a full package, every time this Board sits. MRS. RYBA-One of the, in terms of June agenda items, and in terms of the communication aspect, the other somewhat handicap we’ve had is that our former Chairman MacEwan was not available for quite a stint, and, Bob, it’s not a reflection on you, because I know you had certainly come in to the office with questions, but this memo that Craig Brown put together, I mean, certainly, I realize this is the first time we’ve put down on paper, I mean, we’ve had it on our board, but put down on paper, here’s what the backlog is and here’s what’s coming in, and we can continue to do that and provide that to the Planning Board so that you do have an idea of what’s going on. Okay. It’s in your packet that was, there were a number of things, the very last thing, there were a number of things, the big one. MR. VOLLARO-It’s called June agendas, this is what we’re talking about? MRS. RYBA-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Now, when I talked to Craig this afternoon, he said there were two dates in which we could do this, one was the ninth of June and one was the thirtieth. That was his comment. The other Planning Board meetings would be, you know, I guess, regular meetings, on 21 and 28 June. So, what I’m trying to do here is to, items that were tabled from May was Diamond Point and Queensbury Partners. Now, Queensbury Partners, when I asked them, and I think that’s on the record, that was a very open ended. They said we’d like to be tabled to a date not certain, and I saw them going way out, because I think they’ve got to come back with something that reflects the Bay Road. Diamond Point Realty should be pretty easy to do, based on the last time I looked at it. The real question is, what meeting dates do we want? Craig said the ninth would pose a problem because of your having to do. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MRS. RYBA-Warren County. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the whole Warren County thing, and so we sort of lean toward the 30, more than the 9. The problem with the 30 is, it’s starting to get into vacation ththth period. People are starting to take the first two weeks in July. MR. SANFORD-Well, we have enough alternates, though, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-We only have one. MR. SANFORD-Well, I know, I guess you’re right, but we have pretty good attendance on this Board. So I think we could certainly, if not a full Board, have a quorum, during this vacation period you’re talking about. When I wrote the original memo, I didn’t have your e-mail, George, but I sent it, I think, to everybody else. I was thinking it might be too late to throw another meeting in June, but I thought that we could play catch up in July, and that’s why I suggested that we do three in July. I think with, my suggestion was with the understanding that we throw another meeting at everybody, and so if there’s a conflict, we may have to make due with six people, rather than the seven full Board, and bring in Tom Ford. MR. VOLLARO-Or five. MR. SANFORD-Yes, but we could do it, because, you know, I heard from somebody who heard from somebody who heard from somebody that it was one of those things that, wow, July’s being, is pretty much closed out at this point. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t have much latitude. MR. SANFORD-And so I said, wow, I knew there was always occasionally a backlog, but I didn’t realize we were looking at August at this point, and this was a week or so ago in May. So, it was my idea that maybe what we do is we let June go as planned, because it’s probably already pretty solidified, but we add yet an additional one in July, and that I think would be in my opinion perhaps easier than we run around like crazy and try to fill in slots for June. So that’s why I like the idea of playing catch up in July, and I think that, you know, if certain people are on vacation, can’t make it, we’ll deal with it, but I have every expectation we’d have a quorum. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s a whole bunch of new submittals received by May 16, th and there’s only a couple of applications, the only one I see that really we owe something to, in a sense, is Diamond Point Realty. Is that correct? I mean, applicants previously tabled to June, and applications that were bumped from May, they will be on the June agenda. MRS. RYBA-One of the things Craig didn’t put in here were ones that we have already anticipating for July and August as well, and that’s the other thing. I mean, we may have some discussion with an applicant, or we may, like here, there might be a workshop presentation with the Town Board. So we try to, we get a good feeling, too, when somebody’s going to come in with an application as well, and we try to anticipate what else might be coming in, in addition to those applications actually received. MR. VOLLARO-Well, Marilyn, you deal with the day to day availability of time and scheduling to put things into the Planning Board agendas. Supposing we were to say that this Board would be willing, in any given month, now, the new Chairman may not go along with this, so I’m maybe stepping out over the top of my tenure here, but in any event, your Staff should be able to say, okay, we’re going to take an extra meeting this month and we’re going to notify the Planning Board, because they’ve already agreed that they’ll go along with this third meeting for a while, at seven applicants per meeting, 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) and you give us a shot at it. You tell us, okay, here’s the seven we think are most appropriate for the third meeting. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I would think that, and again, Staff can get back to us on it, but we’re already walking into June pretty much. I would think that they could catch up in July, somehow fit in a third meeting in July, and then keep maybe with two and two. MRS. RYBA-I think the thing is, you may not catch up in June or July. That’s what I’m saying. MR. VOLLARO-It depends on how a lot of these Board members feel and what they’re going to be doing. You could say, as Staff, a recommendation to the Planning Board, will you accept a fourth meeting. I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-Well, I think what she might be suggesting is not a fourth meeting, but maybe the need to have a third meeting in June and a third meeting in July as well. MR. VOLLARO-Could be, yes. MR. SANFORD-And again, I think if the pressure is not on every single Planning Board member to have to make all three meetings, we probably can accommodate that. It would be helpful if the Town Board gave us another alternate. Okay. MRS. RYBA-And I think, didn’t you write a memo to the Town Board noting that? No? Yes. Because the Zoning Board made a recommendation for Chairman, and then noted that a Planning Board alternate was needed. So they do have that memo. MR. SANFORD-They haven’t acted on it. MRS. RYBA-I think she sent it out after the ZBA meeting. There wasn’t? Just Zoning Board? Okay. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So what you can do, Marilyn, is look at June and look at July both for three meetings in each month, and see if you can pick the most deserving applicants, if you want to call it that, and put them on one of those. MRS. BARDEN-So you’re saying June 30. th MR. SCHACHNER-Are you saying June 30? th MR. SEGULJIC-June 30. th MR. VOLLARO-June 30 would be better, I think, because it was the one that was th picked by Craig as being the easiest to do, for you folks, not for us. MRS. BARDEN-You want Diamond Point Realty in June? MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to let you do that. I think Diamond Point Realty probably is an easier one, but why don’t you pick the ones that go into it. MR. SANFORD-Yes, again, I don’t think we need to be setting the agenda here. MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. BARDEN-This memo is from Craig, and he’s inquiring of some questions for you, so that he can come up with a third agenda. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/26/05) MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m giving Craig all the latitude he needs to come up with that agenda all by himself. MRS. BARDEN-That sounds great. We’ll tell him that. MRS. RYBA-Thank you very much. MR. SANFORD-Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Acting Chairman 76