Loading...
2005-11-15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2005 INDEX Subdivision No. 13-2003 James Newbury 1. Tax Map No. 307-1-47, 46.2 Subdivision No. 8-2005 Western Reserve 15. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No.300-1-19 FINAL STAGE Subdivision No. 18-2005 Luzerne Holding, Inc. 35. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.12-1-7 FINAL STAGE Site Plan No. 62-2005 Steve Cardona 43. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-34 Site Plan No. 57-2005 Northeast Dining & Lodging 45. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6 Site Plan No. 59-2005 Nicholas Daigle 60. Tax Map No. 303.20-2-34, 33 Site Plan No. 46-2005 Richard Pennock, Jr. 65. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-15 RESOLUTION TO TOWN BOARD Town wide Traffic Study 69. 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 11/15/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 15, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD GEORGE GOETZ THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM EDWARDS STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. HUNSINGER-I do have a slight modification to the agenda. Under New Business, we will hear Site Plan No. 62-2005 for Steve Cardona first under New Business. Having said that, the first item on the agenda is approval of minutes from August 16 and 23, as well as thrd September 20 and 27, 2005. Is there a motion? Do we want to wait until next week? Why thth don’t we wait until next Tuesday for approval of minutes. Under Old Business. There was some discussion about a SEQRA workshop with our Counsel, and originally there was some discussion about having that this evening at 6:30, and then it was suggested we do it at 7:00. I’d like to do that at the end of the meeting this evening, if we have time. If not, we can do it next week at 6:15. Is that all right? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I don’t think we’re going to have time tonight, though, based on the agenda. MR. SEGULJIC-Sounds good. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED JAMES NEWBURY AGENT: VAN DUSEN & STEVES ZONE: LC-10 LOCATION: 62 CORMUS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 52.24 +/- ACRES OF LAND [24.34 +/- ACRES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, 27.9 +/- ACRES IN THE TOWN OF LAKE LUZERNE] INTO 4 LOTS OF 5.11 ACRES, 4.31 ACRES, 8.44 ACRES AND 6.48 ACRES IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY [WITH THE TOTAL SIZE OF EACH LOT BEING 10.64 ACRES, 14.24 ACRES, 14.1 ACRES AND 13.26 ACRES]. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES CROSS REFERENCE: AV 22-2004 TAX MAP NO. 307-1-47, 46.2 LOT SIZE: 24 +/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JAMES NEWBURY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. Just an update from the tabling on August 23. It was tabled for two rd items the APA review of AV 22-2004 as well as the applicant prepare and submit a restrictive covenant concerning the cutting of trees “to the West toward Luzerne” Both of those have 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) been submitted. I do have a chronology as well. If you want me to read that into the record as well. Maybe just the first paragraph. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-As you will recall, at the August 23, 2005 meeting, the Board tabled this application for APA review of AV 22-2004 and for submission of a restrictive covenant. The Board received a copy of the letter from APA dated September 20, 2005, in which the agency concurred with the ZBA findings, “With the understanding that no additional principal building may be permitted on these lots by either town without a permit and/or variance from the Adirondack Park Agency.” In addition, the applicant’s agents submitted, and we received in our offices on November 8, 2005, a document titled, “Permanent easement and restrictive covenant for lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of James W. Newbury Subdivision, Cormus Road, Town of Queensbury”. That’s all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing the applicant, James Newbury. As Staff has stated, there was a letter that was submitted to the Chairman of the Zoning Board dated September 20, 2005 from the Adirondack Park Agency, saying that they had reviewed the variance and have no problems with that variance, with the stipulation that no further action be taken, as far as subdivisions on that parcel without further review. As we have already stipulated, by the applicant, we have no problems with that, and we would also place that condition on ourselves that no further subdivision be allowed. There’s a restrictive covenant. People had mentioned, I think Bob had mentioned something about the property that was over near the golf course. I can’t remember the applicant’s name. We’ve reviewed that, along with a couple of other covenants. There was a couple of things on that one that we didn’t feel applied to this application, because of the fact it was kind of reciprocal for views over there, that we allowed cutting. We were trying to do the opposite and not allow cutting, kind of like a preserve, and that 75 foot strip all along the westerly line of the property, on all four lots, and we’ve submitted that. Basically the only thing that can be taken out of there is any trees that would be to promote the health and vigor of larger trees, or anything that might pose as a hazard, and they would all have to be reviewed by a qualified forester during removal. I think the Board has a copy of what we submitted, if that is suitable. If there’s any changes, we have no objections to making changes to anything you see fit within that easement. MR. VOLLARO-It looks good to me. I read it over. It seems fine. MR. STEVES-I know that Gretchen had a couple of questions regarding some of the vistas we looked out over heights in that area that you may be able to see within varying places in Queensbury, specifically like coming up Sherman Avenue down near the Sherman Pines, in that area looking up, and denoted areas on the map that would have some potential to be a scenic knoll, noted as a scenic knoll line. We denoted that on Lots One, and at the very edge of Lot Four, and westerly portion of Lot Three, as well as on the Lot One where the existing clearing is, if anybody’s been up to that site, it’s, you know, nicely vegetated going up through there, but there is an existing clearing, and we said that no existing clearing will take place in that location on Lot One. So what is there currently, prior to approval of this subdivision, will remain. Lot Two is the existing farmhouse. So there’s no proposed there. Lot Four, there isn’t any scenic knoll that would be affected by the placement of the house. The knoll is actually on the southeasterly corner of that lot, and we would have no problem leaving that a no cut zone, and the area where the proposed house is on Lot Three, we have a limit, no matter where it is, that if you go above the 1250 contour, you’d be limited to 25,000 square foot of clearing, which is just about what is shown on the plan, and that still does not go anywhere near the 75 foot restrictive cutting area on the westerly bounds, and I’d leave it up to any questions the Board may have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions from the Board? MR. SANFORD-Yes. Staff notes indicate that C.T. Male, they use the date of 6/21/05, but according to the letter I’m looking at is 6/20/05. They claim that C.T. Male’s comments have been not responded to by you, that were dated some half a year ago, close to it. Comment on that? 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. STEVES-There were a few comments. I know C.T. Male, that some of them had to do with the Stormwater Prevention Plan, which Tom Nace is actually, a stormwater report has been developed existing well on septic system on Lot Two, Mr. Newbury’s is supplying that location for me. We’ve revised the sections of the driveways on Lot One for the slopes. We’ve revised the proposed septic systems on Lot One and Four. The silt fence and stone infiltration trench should be shown on the Drawing S-1. I have no problem with that, taking it off the Detail Sheet and putting it on to the actual subdivision plan. MR. SANFORD-I guess my question here is, as I was reviewing this material, this is more to this Board rather than to you, the applicant. I noticed on a couple of occasions, three occasions I think it was, the first three hearings, that we have the same situation happening where C.T. Male’s comments haven’t been addressed by the applicant, and there seems to be an ample time for that to have taken place. I find it disturbing to see this trend where, back in June, C.T. Male lays out what they show as concerns, and we don’t get a written response to those concerns. MR. STEVES-That was submitted to them. MR. SANFORD-No, no. I’m talking in general, to Chris and also to the Board. I would like to see these things nailed down, rather than to have to deal with the anticipation that we’re going to be able to condition approval upon those items being satisfactorily addressed. I think that’s almost suggestive that there’s going to be a meeting of the minds, when in fact we have no way of knowing that. So I just want to state that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, point well taken. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments, questions from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll just say this. One of the things that I’ve been concerned with, and I’ll go along with Rich on this, is that I don’t know how much we should be conditioning a lot of these applications. I would like to see a minimum amount of conditions and have the application in the primary, if it’s, this doesn’t happen to be, I guess this is a Preliminary and Final that we’re in here. I’d like to see the Preliminary pretty much nailed down, so that the Final is almost a stamp for us, as opposed to have to condition these estimates, and then have those conditions, what happens is the Planning Board tends to lose that over time, if these conditions are allowed to run, like I notice in some of the new wording that we have on our resolutions, that this can run for a period of almost a year. So, you know, we would totally lose the ability to track that, as a Board. That’s all I have to say about that. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. It was held open since June. If you would give up the table. Is there anyone here that would like to speak about this application? If you could state your name for the record, and if you could try to keep your comments to within five minutes, that would be appreciated. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN PATRICIA WASHBURN MRS. WASHBURN-Good evening. My name is Patricia Washburn, and I live at 107 Cormus Road. First I wanted to say congratulations to Mr. Sanford for winning the election for Town Councilman. Tonight, I would like to make several points about this very controversial and poorly planned subdivision, which Mr. Newbury has presented to you. My first concern is the way in which this application got approval by the Zoning Board. As you know, at the June 15 meeting of the Zoning Board, the informal vote clearly going against the applicant, the th applicant was allowed to table the agenda, which he did. At the conclusion of the tabling motion, I asked if the public would be notified of the next meeting, and was told by the Chairman, and I quote, absolutely. The neighborhood would be notified. On August 17, by th chance, I called the Queensbury Planning Department to inquire when the Newbury agenda would next be on the scheduled, and was told it was scheduled for that night. I asked why the neighbors were not notified, nor was it published in the paper, and was told it was Old Business and did not need to be advertised. Even though, on the public hearing, we were 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) assured, by Mr. Abbate, that we absolutely would be notified. So with no public input that night, a very close decision, four to three, approved this application. Three members were very much against granting Mr. Newbury so much relief on the required acreage, and all three of them had repeatedly asked for a feasible alternative, which, at no time did Mr. Steves provide. Furthermore, one of the yes votes was made by an alternate member of the Zoning Board who may not have heard the neighbors’ concerns at previous meetings. So it is my very strong feeling that this determination by the Zoning Board on August 17 should be th recalled and proper notification of the affected residents should be made. Now I realize that no one wants this application to drag on any longer. Over two years of meetings, and at least seven public hearings, we have said it over and over. We, the neighbors most affected, do not want this subdivision. So, please, vote no tonight and put an end to this. My second point I would like to make is that throughout this process the applicant provides the information he or she feels will win approval. This information may not be accurate, as we pointed out to this Planning Board. The map which Mr. Steves submitted shows Mr. Newbury’s property touching the Luzerne Mountain Road, and therefore it was concluded by the Zoning Administrator in Lake Luzerne that access to the Luzerne acreage could be made from Luzerne Road, but then Mr. Steves, when challenged, said the map was inaccurate, that Mr. Newbury’s property does not touch Luzerne Road. So why, then, did he submit a map which was misrepresentative of the applicant’s property? Another discrepancy concerning the proposal, that of the surveyed acreage versus the acreage which Mr. Newbury pays taxes on. Hopefully that five acre discrepancy has been corrected at the Assessor’s Office and Mr. Newbury will be paying his fair share of property tax on the full 24 acres, versus the current 19 acres for which he is assessed now. Thirdly, Mr. Steves neglected to tell this Planning Board that the proposed driveway for Lot Number Four, a pre-existing driveway as he described it, is actually a deeded right of way for West Mountain Corporation to access their property. This deeded right of way may not be a suitable driveway for the next property owner, as my husband will explain later, and fourthly, information that was submitted concerning the test pits dug for future septic systems, were those tests conducted in the Springtime when the water table is at its highest? I don’t know. I have not seen that information, but water is a big concern on this Mountain, and in every project. Just look at the Western Reserve project at the bottom of West Mountain. I believe residents surrounding that subdivision tried to impress upon the Zoning and Planning Boards that Mountain water runoff could cause problems, and it certainly is causing problems. So I hope that you will listen to the concerns of those of us who have lived on Cormus Road for over 20 years. We know the terrain and the problems that come with each and every season, and that brings me to my final point. Winter is coming. We get a lot of snow on top of the Mountain. Cormus Road dead ends at the start of our driveway. There is no turnaround for the plow. The driver must sweep in towards the gate, which accesses the right of way, and push the snow. He then has to back up and jockey the tremendous plow loaded with sand and salt, several times, to be facing north, and continue plowing the east side of Cormus Road. This is an awkward intersection, and if two more driveways are added at the southern end of Cormus Road, as proposed by the applicant, where will the plow put the snow, and how will he turn around. This will create higher snow banks and poorer visibility and more potential for accidents. Also, the three new driveways being proposed are all on the west side of Cormus Road. When those are plowed, where will the snow go? It is my understanding that it is illegal to plow snow across a public highway, and yet Mr. Newbury plows his snow across Cormus Road and dumps it on the neighbor’s property every snow storm. Frequently, we have had to come to a complete stop, and wait for Mr. Newbury to move his tractor out of the road for us to get by during a snowstorm. Multiply this by three, and it could take us all night just to get home. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. RICHARD UDALL MR. UDALL-Good evening. I’m Richard Udall. When I first moved up to live on West Mountain, at the end of Cormus Road, there were only four houses up there where families lived. People at that time realized, over the years following, that it was a very unique situation. It’s a very isolated area, and the people who have moved up there and built houses over the past few years have relished the serenity and the lack of density that is there. Later, as more building took place, the powers that be changed the zoning to provide for a 10 acre site, and there was a major reason for this. It was to preserve that beauty and uniqueness of the area, the main purpose of it. Now, at this point in time, Mr. Newbury wants to change all that. He wants to ask you to change an issue that was given for a reason, for his own self- interest. I don’t think there’s a hardship here, and I think that things that are proposed are 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) going to add to the changes that have been negative all the way down the line. I think that this is such a unique area that every consideration should be given to preserve this beauty and not disturb any more than is absolutely necessary, that environment that’s existing there now, and I urge you to reject the proposals that he’s asking for. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? THOMAS WASHBURN MR. WASHBURN-Thomas Washburn, Cormus Road. Mr. Ford, we haven’t met. I have been here a number of times. I see you’ve been thrown into the fray tonight, and unfortunately we haven’t had the presence to be before you. MR. FORD-I have been up on your road, the Cormus Road, however. MR. WASHBURN-Have you? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. WASHBURN-That’s great. Great. I’m very happy to hear that. Why should the Town of Queensbury allow property to be subdivided into substandard lots, five acres plus or minus, when our Town zoning shows 10 acres? We know what the APA looks at. This is our Town. The property here should be looked at, what is in the Town of Queensbury, and does it meet the zoning, not what is added from Luzerne. Mr. Newbury has submitted to you what is profitable to him, not what meets the zoning already in place. I would like to give you an example of property that exists in the Towns now. Mr. Newbury’s 27.9 acres of Luzerne property assessed value, $16,000. Ten acre vacant lot, Queensbury, mine, $35,700. With the subdivision of the property, going from a possible two lots, in Queensbury, to four lots, will this not have a large economic impact on the residents on Cormus Road? If I may. Pass that down. If I’m not mistaken, this is proposed Lot Number Four. We discussed this at the previous meeting. This is the proposed drive using existing deeded right of use by West Mountain Corporation that you see. Maintenance of this drive is by West Mountain Corporation’s use. I don’t believe it will be suitable for a passenger car or that West Mountain make it passable. This is just a deeded right of use, and this is the drive that they’re going to use, that we discussed in the last meeting, that Mr. Newbury stated to you that it would be accessible. This would mean one more drive would have to be installed. So now my parcel of land, viewing north, would be looking at three driveways right there. Now Lot Number One was all woods, up to three years ago. Now that has been cleared, as you have all seen, you’ve been up on top, we’ve discussed tonight was brought up, the knoll up there. You place a two story home on the top of that knob, I do not believe that this would be an aesthetic view pleasing to the rest of the community, and who is to say the few remaining trees would survive during construction, such as drilling and blasting. This had to have been done on two other parcels that were fairly new up there, the drilling and blasting. There is ledge. You can see it on the road. I’m just putting that there. Mr. Steves, who represents Mr. Newbury, has given you what is in the best interest of his client, and now he’s trying to sell it to you. That’s his job. That’s not what’s in the best interest for Queensbury or for Cormus Road residents. One last thing. We’ve turned out in numbers, maybe not quite as much tonight as what has been going over the past year, but we’ve expressed our views of discontent with this project. I haven’t heard anybody that has been really in here saying, hurray, let’s go for it. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. TOM BARROWMAN MR. BARROWMAN-Good evening, Tom Barrowman, 956 Luzerne Road, and my wife Ruth, there, is also in agreement with what we’re saying tonight. The neighbors from West Mountain have been faithfully attending over this long process. Almost all of the Mountain residents have voiced their opposition to this project. We have to wonder whether the procedures of tabling the process was used against us. In doing so, the Town was not required to notify the group of affected residents, therefore if we didn’t show up, it would be easier to ignore our views from that tabling process. We weren’t notified at all that the meeting was taking place. In fact, I was out of Town at the time myself and couldn’t make it to the meeting. In fact what occurred that night, we were not notified and we were completely left out of the picture. A substitute for an absent Board member saw only one interested 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) neighbor in attendance, and assumed no one cared, and so voted in favor of the project. I have to wonder why the other Board members that night didn’t inform the substitute of our regular attendance, of the views we have stated, and why we were not there that night, because only one family attended, and that was kind of an emergency. I think they found out about 4:00 o’clock that night. MR. SANFORD-Excuse me, you’re referencing a ZBA hearing, is that correct? MR. BARROWMAN-The tabled hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-For the Zoning Board. MR. BARROWMAN-For the Zoning Board. MR. SANFORD-For the ZBA, okay. Thank you. MR. BARROWMAN-Yes. We implore you to consider the views of the affected residents of the Town of Queensbury, rather than following the money. I have to assume that the APA is leaving the decision to the Town of Queensbury, whether they wish to destroy a ridge line and alter the characteristics of a rural area. I would like to bring up one other point that no one has mentioned, and that all of the families that live on Cormus Road put up with daily, and that is turning left off of Cormus Road, being able to visually see 50 feet of road in front of them, and they must use the hope and pray technique or the cut and run technique to make that left hand turn, and if you think that’s just my opinion, there were four accidents there this summer. In fact, it’s so bad, that for about four weeks this summer, a target remained up there for the traffic because one of the neighbors was so upset that they put a gigantic target sign on a stump of a tree that’s in the middle of that triangle as you turn up the road. They put a target sign up there, and it lasted for about a month up there. I mean, that was whatever reason. You do realize that this was a carriage road that was built years ago to get from the Town of Luzerne, as a shortcut into the Town of Queensbury. That road at the top has never been altered. It is a 14 degree grade, which is illegal to be built, using present standards. So it is really old. It has never been upgraded, at the time, and the grade is as it stands illegal. The post office doesn’t deliver to us. They deliver up West Mountain, but they won’t, they deliver the West Mountain Ski Center, and the new homes there, but they don’t deliver to us. MR. SANFORD-How do you get your mail? Do you have a P.O. Box? MR. BARROWMAN-We have to drive down to the bottom of the Mountain and get to our post office boxes there, at the very bottom, and that is just a scene of untold accidents. In fact, they can’t even keep that fence up there. MR. FORD-Have you made the appeal to have the boxes put up on Cormus Road? MR. BARROWMAN-The post office keeps suggesting that we put it on the corner of Tuthill Road, where Tuthill Road intersects that, but if we’re coming home, that isn’t going to help us, because we’d have to stop and get the mail and cause more problems right there. So they deliver up that far, but that’s it. MR. FORD-But they refuse to come in on Cormus Road? MR. BARROWMAN-No, they refuse to go up the road any farther than Tuthill Road, any farther than Tuthill Road. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. BARROWMAN-So, with increased traffic turning left, it’s only going to be a matter of time before more accidents happen there, because you just can’t get across that road. You can’t see. Thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. If you want to come back to the table. I don’t think there were any new comments or information presented that hasn’t already been discussed by this Board. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. STEVES-Right, and I just wanted to bring up one or two small facts. That’s all, but everything else I believe the Board has heard before. We’ve heard before. Just a remind, this is two tax parcels now, in Queensbury. I’m sure the Board is aware of this. There’s currently two tax parcels in Queensbury. MR. SEGULJIC-A couple of questions. This scenic knoll line, again. That is what’s visible from where? MR. STEVES-That’s what we believe would be potentially visible from areas, you know, if you had a structure on there that you may possibly be able to see by looking at tree heights below it on the other side of Cormus Road, on the Mountain, coming up from like John Street, Sherman Avenue, Luzerne Road, on the lower end. If anybody drives up there now and you look, you see two or three homes above, north, I should say, of Mr. Newbury’s house, on Tuthill Road. In that area you can see some of the outline of the houses from John Street and Sherman Avenue, down east of West Mountain Road. There would be the potential for that. That would be if there was no trees left on either side, below it there would be a roof height. MR. SEGULJIC-Since one of the concerns is the upland development and the scenic vistas, can we, can you take the proposed homes and put them below the scenic knoll lines? Because on two out of four lots, you’re, if I’m understanding this correctly, you’re within those scenic knoll lines. MR. STEVES-On Lot Two is the existing house, which there isn’t any. Lot Four, there is none. Lot One is the existing clearing, and, no, we would not move it below that. It’s the existing clearing that’s there. The driveway’s there. That’s the place that the house would go. Lot Three, yes, we could slide that down the slope, if need be. We wouldn’t have a problem. Like I said, that’s if every tree in front was out of the way. I mean, that’s why limited clearing. The driveway kind of meanders back. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s what people would probably do is cut down every tree in principal to get their view. MR. STEVES-I don’t think that they would cut down every tree. They would have to cut down every tree from there to Cormus Road. I’m just saying that’s the elevation. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re saying you would not drop the house on Lot Three below the scenic knoll line? MR. STEVES-I don’t think you would see the house that was built there. I’m just saying, that’s the elevation that you’ll be able to see from West Mountain, or looking at West Mountain, driving west on Sherman Avenue, John Street, in that area, with no trees east of the proposed structure remaining, that’s what you would be able to see, and I don’t hardly think that every tree from that elevation down to 1210, along Cormus Road would be removed. MR. NEWBURY-Even so, that’s set back a long ways. See, the only person that could see that from a view would be the back side of the Ski Center. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, just, my concern is it’s within the scenic knoll line, which indicates to me, as Mr. Steves said, you can see it from various locations. MR. STEVES-Potential. I didn’t say you would. I said potential, if there wasn’t any trees. If you wanted to slide it down on Lot Three, no problem. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. What did you say about Lot One, then? MR. STEVES-Lot One you would have to do substantial clearing, and we’re trying to limit the clearing, and the clearing exists where the proposed house is shown. MR. SEGULJIC-If you were to move that house down closer to the road, you could avoid being in the scenic knoll area again. MR. STEVES-No, I could not. Not and maintain the 100 foot setback from Cormus Road, and maintain the 15% slopes for septic. That is the place the house has to go on Lot One. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and then this 75 foot wide restrictive cutting area. How was the 75 feet selected? Where did that come from? MR. STEVES-You asked me to emulate the plan that was developed by another applicant, and that’s exactly what I did. MR. SEGULJIC-So that was a 75 foot? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, in this cutting easement, it’s just for that 75 foot wide restrictive cutting area? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s just within this area, then? MR. STEVES-I was asked by this Board to produce a restrictive cutting zone along the westerly bounds of the subdivision, and that’s exactly what I did at the direction of this Board. MR. SEGULJIC-I think, Bob, correct me if I’m wrong, the application you cited, the cutting plan was for the entire site, if I’m correct. MR. VOLLARO-It was for the entire, Oakwood Drive, is what we’re talking about. MR. SEGULJIC-The entire section. It’s not just a sliver of the site. MR. VOLLARO-It would have to go back to that, but there was a fairly extensive forester’s report that went along with that application that talked about the cutting, and it was throughout the site, because they were afraid of what people would cut to get views of the golf course. MR. STEVES-We don’t have a problem stipulating that on the entire property. We do not. MR. SEGULJIC-Continuing along with this 70 square feet of basal area per acre across the entire site. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-I really don’t have a feel for what 70 square feet of basal area is. MR. STEVES-I’m not a forester to be able to tell you exactly what that is. That’s pretty heavily forested area. I know that went through the whole gamut of review on that parcel near the golf course, and that was suitable with everybody involved. I don’t know the exact amount. MR. SEGULJIC-Just for my understanding, does that mean that that there’s 70 square foot of trees within that area? MR. STEVES-I believe so. Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Per acre. MR. STEVES-But as far as the clearing that is shown on these lots, Thomas, Lot One, additional clearing, no additional clearing to take place in this area. We could restrict that to that lot, and apply the restrictive cutting, the wording in the restrictive cutting easement to the remainder of the lots, except for what is needed for the houses, septics and driveways. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, something like that’s what I’d like to see. MR. STEVES-And I did that. Lot One we say no further clearing to take place, and that’s right, I’m telling you right now, that’s where the house has to go. Lot Three we show the clearing. You asked us to show proposed clearing limits. We show the proposed clearing 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) limits, and we say that there would be no more than 25,000 square feet, and you’re looking that a lot that is 463,000 square feet. So you’re looking at five percent. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s in a very critical location. MR. STEVES-I will slide that below that knoll line. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Steves, just a quick question. When we kicked off this discussion, I did ask, you know, I was concerned about the number of the applications where C.T. Male’s comments weren’t responded to by the applicant, or the applicant’s engineer. In this case, it’s almost five months since they provided comments. I never did get the opportunity to hear why you hadn’t responded to the eight. MR. STEVES-I did. MR. SANFORD-You did respond to them? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. SANFORD-And, Susan, do you want to provide me with why your comments suggest that they have not responded to them? MR. STEVES-Look at the plan. The stone infiltration trench is shown, as asked for on that letter. The eaves trench is shown as asked for in that letter. The septic systems were re- visited as per that letter. If you want a specific signoff from C.T. Male of that letter, I can gladly obtain that. MR. SANFORD-So your approach to responding to these eight comments was to, I guess do revisions to your plans but not to communicate with them through a letter stating that. MR. STEVES-Our copies of the plans went to them. MR. SANFORD-Again, I’m just trying to understand your thinking process here. When they mentioned, for instance, in Question Number Three, that there are slopes that they’re concerned about, you didn’t communicate with them, you merely did some revisions to address that? Is that what you’re saying to me? MR. STEVES-They’re talking about Lot One, and that’s an existing road, an existing driveway to the existing cleared area. It’s not proposed. MR. SANFORD-And so you didn’t comment at all? MR. STEVES-Yes, we did. MR. SANFORD-Well, what was your comment? MR. STEVES-My comment was, I just said, Richard, it’s an existing driveway. It is not proposed. MR. SANFORD-Where is that comment? MR. STEVES-Okay. To C.T. Male. MR. SANFORD-In a letter? MR. STEVES-Probably verbally to the engineer, after I sent him copies of the map. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. STEVES-But I’m telling you, if you want a letter back from them addressing these comments, I have no problem with that. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think we should, because we have this open-ended issue here. We’ve got to close it out. MR. SANFORD-I mean, your telephone conversation, or your personal conversation to C.T. Male, I’m not telepathic. MR. STEVES-I don’t want to get argumentative. I have no problem with that letter from them, and I have no problem, there was nothing there that was that substantial, and I’ll have them sign off on it, but as far as the map went back to your Town, and your Staff is required to send that back to C.T. Male. So they have the ability to review it again, and again, and again. MR. SANFORD-Fine. I think, Susan, your comment is correct. MRS. BARDEN-I have, just for clarification, I have an e-mail correspondence from C.T. Male on Tuesday, November 8, from Jim Edwards, the status of a number of applications, th including this one, Subdivision No. 13-2003, Newbury. C.T. Male has received no response from the applicant to their 6/21 comments. MR. SANFORD-Thank you. Actually, it’s 6/20. You can correct C.T. Male on that. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-One of the questions I’ve asked before, regarding the permanent easement, restrictive covenants. As far as enforcement goes on that, if this went through, and there was, for example, tree thinning that fell out of the scope of this clearing plan, what would be the recourse? Is it a planning issue? I mean, is it a Code Enforcement, or neighbors have to take action? MR. SCHACHNER-As to enforcement of the easement, that would be a private matter between the parties that are the subject of the easement. The Town doesn’t have the lawful ability to enforcement easements, restrictive covenants, what have you. Sometimes, I’m not suggesting you do this, this is up to you, but sometimes you sometimes take provisions that are in restrictive covenants and easements and also make them conditions of approval. If they’re conditions of approval, then the Town has some ability to enforce. Here, what I understood from earlier discussion, was the condition you were proposing was that this restrictive easement, I’m sorry, that this easement contain this restrictive covenant, and that’s fine. If that’s the condition, then as long as they put that easement into place with the restrictive covenant, they’ll fulfill the condition. If someone then breeches the restrictions in the covenant, that’s a private matter between private parties. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question that was brought up during the public hearing. On the site plan, you show the perc test information but there was no date provided to when the perc test was taken. MR. STEVES-February 23, 2004. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-I have a question. I’d like to have you address the issue of the increase in density and its impact on vehicular safety. MR. STEVES-What increase in density? MR. FORD-Number of homes, therefore number of cars. MR. STEVES-Okay. Two additional homes could be built than what could be built there now. We don’t see that two homes on Luzerne Road and Cormus Road, yes, Cormus Road is a dead end road. With the number of homes there, I might be increasing, I don’t know the total number of homes, six or eight, that are on there now, and you’d be adding two additional homes than what currently could be placed there, three total. Luzerne Road, I would say that that’s a very minimal impact on Luzerne Road. Since Cormus Road is a dead end road, the only cars that will be traveling most likely on Cormus Road are the residents 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) that will be living on Cormus Road. So you’d be adding a couple of cars, trips a day per home, twenty-five hundred foot of road frontage. You’d be adding vehicular traffic for three new homes. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. GOETZ-Excuse me, but last meeting I asked about, again, the septic situation, because having walked the properties, it just seemed like it was a very hard, not much of a place to go, and I don’t see where anything, obviously I’m not an engineer, so I really don’t understand the drawings, but just based on commonsense, it seems like there could be a problem. MR. STEVES-No, there’s suitable areas for septic. Charlie Maine has viewed this property. There’s no problem with septic. Yes, there are areas that obviously that will have rock outcropping. There are obvious areas that are not shallow or too shallow for septics, but there are suitable soils on the property for septic systems. MR. FORD-Could we address that perc test again, please, the date, and could you just review briefly the procedure and results? MR. STEVES-Perc test is the ability of the ground to absorb effluent. So you dig a hole that’s one foot in diameter, 18 inches deep, and then you pre-soak it with five gallons of water. After the five gallons of water has run out of the hole, you fill it to a certain level, usually about six, eight inches above the bottom of the hole, basically emulating where your pipe would be for a septic system in that area, and then you time it to drop an inch. When it drops an inch, you pour water back in, back to that same inch mark, and you time it to drop the next inch, and you keep doing that until it stabilizes, and your stabilized rates are what the saturated soil at that location, how fast it can absorb. MR. FORD-And the date of that again? MR. STEVES-Was in February of 2004. MR. FORD-And the frost line was at what depth? MR. STEVES-I don’t believe there was any frost line, due to the snow coverage. MR. VOLLARO-If you take a look at our 136 Code, which is our Septic Code, I think it talks about the time, and I’m trying to recollect what that is, when perc tests should be done, and I believe it’s somewhere between March and June, and they try to get that test done in a period where you’ve got, where the ground was the wettest, and February, I don’t think, is mentioned in our 136 Code. I don’t have it with me. I should have brought it, but I believe 136 mentions a time when that should be done, and I believe it’s around March to June. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t recall the exact time. Any other questions, comments from the Board? What’s the feeling. We already did the SEQRA. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And entertain any motions or further discussion from the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that Rich’s question has been thoroughly answered, in terms of a response from C.T. Male. It’s been further collaborated by our Staff that C.T. Male considers this to be an outstanding requirement for them to receive something from the applicant. So this is still an open topic on this particular. I don’t know if we can close it until C.T. Male has been satisfied. Apparently they haven’t, from what Staff has told us. MR. STEVES-I don’t have a letter from them, but I will obtain a letter, and we have no problem with that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, apparently they’re saying they still waiting to hear from you. You’ve already talked to them by your map, and it seems that there’s some discrepancy there, between the fact. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. STEVES-Understood, and we will gladly forward them a letter outlining the changes we have made, in detail, along with the plan, carbon copied to Staff, to the Board, and send it to them, and obtain that signoff for you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t know whether the Board wants to continue to table this issue for that or not, or whether they want to go for a vote on this, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-I’d put it to the Board. MR. SANFORD-Well, I’ll be right up front with you. I didn’t find that Mr. Steves satisfactorily answered my questions. If you’re going to call it a vote now, I’m going to vote no. MR. SEGULJIC-I think we have to spend a few minutes, at least, on better defining these clearing limits. For example, on Lot One, instead of saying existing clearing, no additional clearing to take place in this area, I think we should say existing clearing, no additional clearing to take place on this lot. I think, you know, no additional clearing on Lot Two, and with regard to Lot Three, we have to move the house down and take off the no clearing limit to 25,000 square feet above the 1250 contour line, we have to say something like, you know, just clearing on this lot limited to 25,000 square feet, and on Lot Four, instead of saying proposed clearing, we have to say clearing limits, and really this, whatever this clearing (lost word) is irrelevant. MR. HUNSINGER-George? MR. GOETZ-Well, I agree with Mr. Sanford at this time, if I were to vote, I’d have to vote no, based on what’s in front of me. I still would like to see what C.T. Male, see that finished. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom? MR. FORD-I’m concerned about the density and the lack of maintenance of the 10 acres required. I’m concerned about the timing of the perc test, the lack of response to the previous engineering comments, concerns still about vehicular safety, and I’ve still got more questions about the preservation of the scenic knoll line. If you’re calling for a vote, I think you can tell, mine is going to be no. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have anything else to add, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. My big concern here is, a lot of these concerns concern me about clearing and view sheds, but the basic concern, fundamentally, with me, is that the APA looked at this from their perspective, and I understand where they were coming from. However, I feel the 10 acre zoning requirement in Queensbury has not been met, and that’s my concern, and that’s very fundamental to me, that it should be, we should be looking at our Town Code for this acreage, and the APA has every right in the world to look over it as a complete 10 acres. That’s how I feel. MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I wouldn’t mind calling it to a vote. It’s been around for a long time, and I think many of us have made up our minds on this. So, I would be compelled to bring it to a vote, but our Counsel has a comment. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, I have a comment when it’s appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead. MR. SCHACHNER-A number of you have expressed a number of different concerns about the application, and the vast majority of those concerns are within your discretion as Planning Board members, conducting Planning Board review. I do want to, however, caution you very strongly about one specific concern that only a couple of you mentioned. I think Mr. Ford mentioned it briefly, and I think one other member mentioned it as well, but I’m not sure who. The lot size issue. You don’t have the authority to, if that were, for example, your only concern, which it’s not, obviously, but several of you mentioned that as one of your concerns. The lot size issue, in and of itself, is not a valid concern basis for denial by this Board, and the reason is that you have to be mindful of the fact that, for better or for 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) worse, rightly or wrongly, our Zoning Board of Appeals granted variances from that provision. Staff’s gone to correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s my understanding, and if that’s the case, then all your other concerns are within your discretionary authority as Planning Board members, but I’m going to caution you in the strongest terms possible, if you, in fact, end up voting, and if you, in fact, end up with a motion for denial, if anyone makes that motion, I’m going to urge you to not include, as grounds for denial, the failure to comply with the minimum lot size requirement because that’s already been the subject of a favorable to the applicant variance. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, thank you. I guess I’m getting the sense from the Board that you want to table this. I think Gretchen’s the only one that said she wanted to put it to a vote. MR. SANFORD-Well, I think Gretchen’s point’s very well taken. I think, I said if you were to ask me to vote, I would vote no. I’m not sure that it needs to be tabled. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-We can table it, I guess, if you feel it’s important. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if your sole reason for voting no is because there’s outstanding C.T. Male issues, I think that’s one issue. If there are other reasons for you to vote no, then that’s entirely different. MR. SANFORD-I think I personally share pretty much the opinion of what everybody else said in part. I hear what Mr. Schachner said, and I don’t disagree with him on that as well, but I think we’re all a little concerned about the impact in Queensbury, even though the ZBA did, in fact, give their approval. It’s up to you, Chris, again, you’re the Chair. MR. STEVES-We’ve heard some concerns with the knolls, moving the houses around, applying restrictive covenants to more of the property. We don’t have a problem with that. It’s been a long process, we understand. Another month of getting some more issues resolved, coming back in front of this Board with some more information, we don’t have a problem with. If this Board doesn’t have a problem with that. We’re looking at it as four lots and fifty-two acres. That’s how we’ve always looked at this, averaging over 11, 12 acres a lot, 13 acres a lot, and some of the concerns with the clearing, putting more restrictions on the clearing, sliding the houses down the slope, having another report from Charlie Maine, we have no problems submitting that and coming back in front of this Board. As far as the configuration of the lots, that’s not going to change, but there are some changes that I’ve been hearing from this Board that we may be able to accommodate that may help the situation. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see anyone jumping to offer up a resolution. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, Jim Edwards is here. We have the pleasure of his company tonight, if you want him to address the C.T. Male comments of June 21. MR. EDWARDS-Okay. I don’t recall if we ever got a response back from the applicant on these comments or not. Honestly I didn’t study this project before I came in tonight, but I talked to Susan for a minute outside, and there’s nothing really earth shattering here as far as our comments go, although they’re not addressed as of yet. A couple of issues were the driveway slopes, even though it is a private residential driveway. They are fairly steep in a couple of lots. The septic systems appear to be above gradient, if you will, of the houses, also on Lots One and Four. So I think more detail is needed for the septic design for those two lots. Those are probably two of the significant comments that we would have that are outstanding on this comment letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, personally I didn’t think any of the comments were of sufficient issue to continue to table the application, but that’s just my own personal opinion. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think we should put it to a vote. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a resolution prepared by Staff. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. NEWBURY-Excuse me. I’d like to table it and continue to get the rest of the information, if it’s possible. MR. HUNSINGER-I certainly think that’s your prerogative, if you’d like to have us table this for the next month. I don’t know, what’s the agenda load look like for December? Do we know yet? MRS. BARDEN-I don’t know. I think if you want to table to one of the meetings in December, it would be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. STEVES-That’s fine. MRS. BARDEN-The 20 and the 27. thth MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, there isn’t a need for us, and I’d like to ask Counsel this question. There really isn’t a need for us to make this motion tonight. How long do we have, if we wanted to make a motion either to approve or deny? MR. SCHACHNER-Sixty-two days from tonight, because it’s measured from the date of the close of public hearing. Since the public hearing was closed tonight, you have 62 days from tonight. MR. VOLLARO-That was my understanding. I just wanted to clear it up. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, there’s no requirement for us to. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I think if somebody on this Board, and I’ll take on the responsibility, if that need be, is to prepare a motion within that timeframe, concerning this application. MR. SANFORD-I’m a little concerned, Bob. I know in the past when there’s a denial that seems to be linked with a SEQRA, it’s the Part III that gets completed. In this particular case, SEQRA has taken place, and this is merely, I guess, an approval or not an approval of a subdivision, but it’s not tied to SEQRA. So I guess the 62 days still applies, according to attorneys. I’m not sure what, by way of explanation, is needed by this Board, in this scenario, because it’s not a Part III of a SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In terms of an explanation, you mean an explanation to deny it for example. MR. SANFORD-If it was not approved, yes, and I guess that’s my question. My question is, if, in fact, the majority of this Board did not feel comfortable with approving this application, what is it that is required, in terms of a motion? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, within 62 days after tonight, you’re supposed to make a decision on the application, you’re either supposed to approve it or deny it, or approve it with conditions. Any of it, no matter which of those things you do, you’re supposed to ground that decision in the criteria that are in our Subdivision Regulations, that you’re all relatively familiar with, I think. The Staff, for what it’s worth, the Staff pre-prepared motions, I think largely because statistically speaking you approve way more applications than you deny, the Staff pre-prepared motions are generally phrased in the manner leading toward approval. The underlying phrase is approve/deny, but the supporting language is generally phrased in a manner leading toward approval, not because Staff thinks you should approve, just because, again, as a majority of the applications, the fate is that, but the answer is that somebody would make a motion, if I’m answering your question accurately, Mr. Sanford, and I hope I understood it correctly, somebody would have to make a, if the Board’s sentiment is to deny the application, someone would have to make a motion for denial. That motion should include, as specific as possible reference to the various criteria in the Subdivision Regulations. Knowing Mr. Vollaro as I do, I imagine that’s what he has in mind. I think his suggestion is an excellent suggestion, from the standpoint of its very hard to make decisions on difficult projects like this shooting from the hip, so to speak. It’s especially hard to make decisions on difficult projects shooting from the hip if in fact the motion is to deny. So I think Mr. Vollaro’s suggestion is an excellent suggestion. Let’s just remember to take into account 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) something Mr. Sanford says, which is that, I’m not sure I understood the lingo he was using, but I think I understood the sentiment of what he was saying. Remember you’ve issued a negative declaration on this project. That means that you’ve previously made a determination that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts. So if you, as a Board, decide to deny the project, you’re going to have to be careful in your motion of denial to not ground the denial on the basis of negative environmental impacts, and I think that’s more or less where Mr. Sanford was coming from. MR. SANFORD-To some degree, but another question. Let’s say the motion is not to deny, but someone advances a motion to approve and it doesn’t pass, does that conclude it, or do you need, then, an additional motion to deny? MR. SCHACHNER-You’re supposed to make a motion, eventually, one way or the other. The mere failure of an approval motion to pass does not constitute a denial, or a decision, for that matter. In order for a decision to be made one way or another, in some manner, some motion has to pass, by at least a simple majority of four members of this Board. MR. SANFORD-So, it’s a pre-requisite or it’s a requirement, if it was a motion to approve and it didn’t pass, that there has to be an additional motion to deny, it’s required. MR. SCHACHNER-There should be. MR. SANFORD-There should be. Does it have to be? MR. SCHACHNER-Well, if you don’t do that, you run the risk of default approval. Only on subdivisions, by the way, not on site plans or other applications. MR. SANFORD-It’s a good answer. Okay. Thank you. I think, Bob, we’re clear on this at this point. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So what’s the pleasure of the Board? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I’ve been trying to get at. MR. SANFORD-Bob, I’m willing to go with what you’re recommending. If you want to give it 62 days, and you want to take a stab at a motion, I’m with you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I will have a motion prepared within the 62 day period, a lot sooner than that, probably, and I’ll try to stay away from, I’d have to take a look at our responses to the SEQRA questions, too, as well, to make sure that my motion doesn’t stumble into SEQRA at all. MRS. BARDEN-Would you like the minutes from that meeting? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, please. MR. HUNSINGER-This is somewhat new ground here. In fairness to the applicant, shouldn’t the applicant be notified to the meeting at which the resolution will be considered? MR. SCHACHNER-Most certainly. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So we do sort of defacto need to table it to a specific date. MR. VOLLARO-Well, for me, would take the whole 62 days, and if I do it earlier than that, we have plenty of opportunity to notify the applicant at that point, but I would take the whole 62 days, not that I’m going to use it, but I certainly would take it. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the first meeting date in January? I didn’t bring my calendar. MR. SCHACHNER-January, you’re looking at the 17. I would suggest you stay away from th that, because that sounds like that’s exactly 62 and possibly 63 days. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s 63 days, because there’s 31 days in December. So we will have to deal with this in December. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. SCHACHNER-I sensed there was a notion of maybe 63 is sufficient, and I’m saying, as your Counsel, that’s not the case. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-Let’s tell the applicant the December 27 meeting. th MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and by that time I will come to that meeting prepared with a motion. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and do we need a vote on this, Chris? MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not hearing anything to vote on. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-If we don’t act on that in 62 days, there’s a risk of default approval? MR. SCHACHNER-On subdivisions only, not site plans, there’s a risk of default approval if you don’t act within 62 days. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Will the public hearing be re-opened? MR. HUNSINGER-No, the public hearing was closed, and the reason why I closed the public hearing was because the public record had been clearly established and all the public comments had clearly been made. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED WESTERN RESERVE AGENT(S): JONATHAN LAPPER, B S P R VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING RR-3A & SR-1A LOCATION WEST MT. ROAD APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 26.15-ACRE SUBDIVISION INTO 14 LOTS, INCLUDING 13 TOWNHOUSE UNITS (WITH BUILDING FOOTPRINTS/BUILDING LOTS RANGING FROM 523 SQ. FT. TO 1230 SQ. FT.) AND ONE COMMON LOT (24.97 –ACRES). SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. CROSS REF. SP 46-03, SB 16-03, SB 17- 02, AV 22-02, AV 52-01, AV 36-05 LOT SIZE 26.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300-1-19 SECTION A-183-31 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. The Board tabled this application on October 18, specifically for th C.T. Male to attend tonight’s meeting, November 15, as well as visit the site to inspect the th stormwater management. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Gentlemen, the floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Nace, the project engineer, and Mickie Hayes, on behalf of the applicant. As Susan just said, when we were here last time, the Board wanted an engineering signoff by C.T. Male, and it was suggested by some of the Board members that it would be appropriate to have C.T. Male go to the site and take a look at the stormwater controls, and we thought that was a good idea as well. So since we were here last, that’s been done, and there’s been a letter from Tom Nace and a response letter from C.T. Male. I think that my understanding is that C.T. Male has signed off on the project, but I know that Jim Edwards is here to talk about it. We can have Tom Nace go through the engineering issues, or we could, maybe you want to start off and ask Jim his comments, but we’ve submitted the HOA documents. We agreed to the conditions that the Board wanted last time, in terms of maintenance of the stormwater facilities for the greater of five years, or until all of the units are sold, and again, this is the identical project, in terms of the 13 units that are actually built. That was approved by the Planning Board for 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) apartments and now it’s just a proposal to change them to single family ownership, and the only thing that changed was some upgrades in the stormwater facilities, and that’s what C.T. Male has signed off on. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess my preference would be to hear from C.T. Male, with all due respect, Tom. MR. NACE-No objection from me. MR. HUNSINGER-So I guess you’re on the hot seat, Jim. MR. EDWARDS-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Before we begin, just one quick question of clarification. I’m a little concerned because I received these Staff notes and I never did get their comments in writing, and the explanation was because Friday was a holiday perhaps they wouldn’t be in the packet, and they weren’t in the packet. I still don’t have them. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t either. That’s why I thought we’d start with Jim. MR. SANFORD-I thought maybe, I’m wondering why, even at the date of this meeting, or subsequent to Friday we didn’t get comments to us. I don’t have them now. I thought at the very least we would have received them at this meeting. I mean, am I out in left field on this, Chris? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, have the author there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. That’s why I gave Jim the floor is so he could. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. EDWARDS-There’s been about three go arounds, if you will, of comments and site visits and re-submittals from the applicant on this project, and the last time we received something was November 8 was the last, like Tuesday, Wednesday. So in response to that, th we did put another comment letter out, summarizing the result of a site visit and the last responses from Mr. Nace, and that was dated November 10. I did attempt to fax that letter th before they left for business on Thursday. Apparently it was too late. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. EDWARDS-So, again, it probably didn’t get there until Monday, perhaps today, but it was attempted to fax out on that Thursday, so that you guys would have a copy of it at least in your hands before the meeting was held tonight, but nonetheless, there have been a couple of different comment letters back and forth, and the last letter from Mr. Nace was I think November 8, and to that letter we tried to summarize those comments, of the site visit, and th the prior comments that were back in October into one letter, which is the one I have in front of me here. It’s a two page letter dated November 10. Basically I would call what they’ve th done in the upland area of the property certainly an improvement. It’s also a work in progress. It’s not complete. The attempt was made by the applicant to control the rate of runoff from the mountainside and to re-direct that runoff around the newly developed house sites. Without those improvements, the stormwater would be in risk of running right straight down the hill and impacting the houses directly that sit in front of that big pond. If you have a plan view of that, Tom, that you could put up, it might be of some help, but basically the improvements that were made to what we’re calling the upland area were consisting of several stone line channels, some drywells, and some basins, and the purpose of that, again, my understanding was, was to help contain and slow the rate down of the runoff coming off the hillside above, and prior to these improvements, the stormwater was coming right straight down the hill, and would have impacted those house sites just down gradient of the improvement area, and what it does now, it takes the water that runs through these basins and ultimately to the south, where that new cul de sac is located, and eventually it slows the rate of runoff down to that existing large pond, which is shown under One, which is Pond One in that drawing, and the pond itself has tremendous capacity in terms of volume. I mean, there’s very little risk of that thing ever coming close to overtopping the banks, and Mr. Nace did prove that in the subsequent stormwater management reports he sent to us. In fact, the pond is probably at a greater risk now of running dry than it is overflowing because of the 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) fact the work that was done above here does control the rate so effectively, there’s not much water coming down around that southern swale, which now wraps around and misses, of course, the house sites, and there’s not a lot of water that makes its way into the pond, unless it’s a very heavy rain event. Even with that, there is some infiltration that can leave that pond, because the groundwater table is below the pond bottom level. So that pond may be actually in risk of being somewhat depleted during the summer months, in my opinion, and there’s tremendous capacity inside that pond, the way it’s set up right now and the way it’s graded that it will not overflow its banks. There’s just no risk that we can see of that happening. So again, it’s a work in progress. There is some work to be done out there to complete the process, if you will. There’s a gravel access drive that needs to be cut back in the bank to be completed. That’s partially graded off. It’s not 100% done. We recommended, in our last letter, to put a berm on the west side of that access drive, to help in the event that water does overflow the channel shown on the square one. If that ever does overflow, if a berm was placed along that access road, it would at least direct the water, again, away from the house sites and down to that existing, what’s becoming an existing swale, and would eventually go into the pond. That’s one thing that’s not complete. It’s, again, a work in progress, to be sure. There’s also going to be, my understanding is, a cut off trench placed at the base of the access road where it meets the home sites, where that dark dashed line is. My understanding is there’s going to be a cut off trench placed there as well to trap any water that does make its way down that narrow hillside area, and it’s going to divert the water, again, down to the south and into that existing trench that was just cut recently into the hillside. There’s also some work that has to be done inside the pond area itself. There’s got to be some safety benching put in, just for the public’s safety. MR. SANFORD-What’s that mean? MR. EDWARDS-That’s going to be basically a five foot wide bench cut into the side of the bank of the pond, in case something does fall in there, it gets caught by that bench before you go straight down to the base of the pond, and that is not complete as of today. There’s got to be some more grading, I understand, in the pond, too, to make it more aesthetically acceptable to the applicant and there’s got to be, I think, some safety improvements made on the upper end of the pond that would probably result in wrapping some guide rail around the entire top of the pond. So again, I didn’t sign off on the stormwater, necessarily. I signed off on it in saying that it’s an improvement to what was there. There are some additional items that have to be addressed by the applicant and they’re well aware of that, and I’ve called those out in my latest summary letter to the Town. MR. SANFORD-You keep using the expression a work in progress. Is that the expression you used? MR. EDWARDS-That’s what I would use. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I guess what I’m wondering is, what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that things are heading in the right direction, but there’s more work to be done, or that everything that they’ve laid out is fine, but they haven’t yet done it? What is it exactly that you mean by that? MR. EDWARDS-They’re on the right track, and the intentions they have, and what they’ve shown and what they’ve modeled are all correct assumptions, and the design is intact and correct, but the work, physically, is not done yet. MR. SEGULJIC-So they haven’t finished the work? MR. SANFORD-They haven’t finished doing it. MR. EDWARDS-That’s correct. The physical improvements that need to be done to make it whole and to make it align with the as built and with the stormwater management are not done yet. MR. SANFORD-Okay, but they’ve identified what needs to be done? MR. EDWARDS-That’s correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Now, let me put it to you this way. I don’t know if you know the history of this application. This was an approved application, and then basically the issue 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) came up where they wanted to change from rental to selling them, and so the issue of liability to the new owners was of some concern to this Planning Board, for whatever reason. We were concerned that some people might buy these and then find problems down the road. Now, if you were interested in a townhouse, and you were looking at this property, are you here and comfortable in stating that you would have no reservations about purchasing one of those townhouses and you wouldn’t have any concerns about stormwater problems associated with the configuration that has been proposed? MR. EDWARDS-Would I, being a prospective buyer, be concerned? MR. SANFORD-Yes, you personally. MR. EDWARDS-Unless I had the full, factual, you know, list of concerns in front of me, I guess I wouldn’t know any better. MR. SANFORD-I’m not looking at you as ignorant. I’m looking at you as an informed buyer, you, being the engineer, you’re interested in a townhouse, you’re looking at the townhouse. Are you going to buy this, feel comfortable? MR. EDWARDS-Yes. There’s no real safety concerns in terms of stormwater management at this point in time. There’s some incomplete items that have to be addressed. There’s no real issues with a flood, you know, destroying my townhouse, or there’s no big concern about the road flooding out. There’s no concern with safety. There is some work that has to be done in order to, the drawing here actually was called an as built drawing at one point, and that’s sort of been consistent, in that it’s not really as built. Some of it is still in progress under design, and some of it is as built. So the as built drawing that Mr. Nace produced has to be amended as these improvements are made, to make it a real as built drawing, to reflect the full intent of what has to be done out there. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess just as a follow up to Richard’s question. You used the term the full intent. I just want to make sure that the full intent, as you referred to it, is on the record currently, either on the plans or in transcripts from the applicant, you know, between you and the applicant. MR. EDWARDS-Right. I think, ultimately, I need a response from this last letter to confirm the applicant’s intent to complete the recommendations of this letter. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So what I hear you saying is that, once everything is completed, you’re confident it will work. MR. EDWARDS-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-What about 40 years out from now? MR. EDWARDS-In terms of maintenance? MR. SEGULJIC-In terms of maintenance. Is there a lot of maintenance? MR. EDWARDS-That’s a difference issue. The maintenance issue I think is also address in the letter, and that needs to be maintained for sure. It’s not something that you can walk away from and it will take care of itself. MR. SEGULJIC-How big a effort is that? MR. EDWARDS-So I think that needs to be addressed in a different context, and I think one of our prior comment letters did address that maintenance issue. I think it has to be washed, it has to be maintained like any stormwater management facility does, and the proper people have to be watching out for it and maintaining it. MR. SEGULJIC-I would assume more maintenance is required than would be typically expected of a stormwater, in other words that there’s a lot of maintenance with this. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. EDWARDS-Sure there’s some maintenance. Absolutely. There’s ponds. There’s access roads. There’s stone lined swales. There’s certainly things that have to be maintained. Absolutely. MR. SEGULJIC-Ponds that have to be excavated of the silt build up, things of that nature. MR. EDWARDS-Over time, sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Now, what happens if, you had said this is a work in progress. What happens if they don’t continue, if they don’t complete the design, shall we say? MR. EDWARDS-Again, we haven’t really signed off on this. We haven’t signed off on everything that we’ve seen and recommended needs to be done, and we will not sign off on it until we are confident the work has been done in accordance with our latest recommendations. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, let me ask it this way. What do you think would happen if they didn’t do anymore work? MR. EDWARDS-It wouldn’t function. There’s a safety issue in the pond that has to be addressed. There are some other issues with the recommendations we made in terms of putting a berm up that are just that, recommendations. If it’s not maintained, those are things that are going to be at risk of failing. So those are more safeguards than actual recommendations, but we understand it’s going to be maintained in accordance with the HOA agreement. MR. SEGULJIC-And you feel that all the items have been identified, then, that need to be completed, correct? MR. EDWARDS-Yes, that’s where we’re at, and we’ve identified what’s been done. We’ve identified what needs to be done. Again, we haven’t signed off on anything yet. We have identified things that are in progress that need to be done, though. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. To the applicant, how long do you think it’s going to take to complete these items, whatever they might be? MR. HAYES-Approximately a week or two. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m not talking about the design. I’m talking about the actual physical work. MR. HAYES-Well, the physical work, 95% of the work on the system is done. There is, the points of interest that he was concerned about that have to be, post to his site visit, that we have plans to actually make those meet exactly what he’s specified. MR. SEGULJIC-Just so I understand. What you’re saying is that within a week or two you’ll complete all of the stormwater management structures that are required? MR. NACE-I think if we can maybe quantify the pieces that that need to be done, okay. One is the safety bench in the pond, okay. That is noted on the plan as a requirement, but it has not physically been constructed. Another is the berm between the road and the channel in back of those couple of lots. That has not been noted on the plan. It needs to be put on the final plan as a requirement, and needs to be constructed, and the third is a ditch at the bottom of the bank behind those same lots, again, as a failsafe means of conveying any runoff that could possibly come out of channel and get down that far, a belt and suspenders, if you will. Those three things, and thus, are there any other physical construction things that come to? MR. EDWARDS-The cutoff trench, infiltration trench. Was that mentioned? MR. NACE-At the bottom of the bank behind the houses. MR. EDWARDS-Okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. FORD-There’s at least one other issue, and that pertains to the road that is going to be discontinued behind Lot Seven. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. FORD-You’re going to discontinue that, and you’re going to re-vegetate it? MR. NACE-That’s correct. That’s noted on the plans, but it has not been completed. So in essence we’re talking about four items that need to be completed. MR. HUNSINGER-This is a little different, because usually what you sign off on is the design, and if I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying, well, the design is okay, you don’t have a problem with the design, but they just haven’t finished all of the work. So it’s almost like we’re putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. MR. EDWARDS-I think it’s a unique case, too, we haven’t been asked to do, to look at something in progress either, that often. So we’ve been asked to do that, and these are my observations, and these are my recommendations based on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I mean, I guess I mention that more for the Board’s sake than for your sake. MR. SANFORD-I appreciate what you’re saying, Chris. In other words, what they typically will sign off on is if you do A, B, C, and D, it will work. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the drawing, yes. MR. SANFORD-And now what I’m hearing kind of is, I kind of want to hear it before I’m comfortable signing off on it. Is that a safe statement? MR. EDWARDS-Only because we were asked to do so, basically. MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t know if that’s what you were asked to do. I mean, maybe you were by Staff, but I mean, basically what happened was, it didn’t seem like we were going to find a way in which this particular project could move from a rental unit situation to an ownership where the liability issue would be satisfactorily addressed because it’s an LLC and all kinds of legal issues associated with that kind of a corporate configuration. So the point was made that, you know, if we could feel very confident, totally confident that this is not going to be a problem in terms of stormwater issues, and that people who buy these things rather than rent them will not have problems with runoff issues, then the liability issue becomes subordinate. It’s no longer as important as it once was. So, in order to ascertain that, we decided that, hey, we’d bring in our engineers. They’d take a look at this, and they’d come back and they’d give their warranty. Basically, that’s why I asked the question, would you buy one of these, because we’re looking at C.T. Male’s representation, and if a year from now, or two years from now, there’s major problems here, I’m going to scratch my head and I’m going to say, I relied on C.T. Male. Our paid engineer, our Town engineer told us there wasn’t going to be a problem, but there’s a problem. So I’m asking you, you seem pretty confident this is an okay thing, and I think that this is what this Board is looking for, but I’m surprised that you want to see the actual work completed, rather than just the design and the intention to do it, as Mr. Hunsinger pointed out. That’s typically the path we follow. MR. EDWARDS-Just based on my observations in the field, for matter of closure, this stuff that I pointed out should be done, as I indicated, that’s the only reason, just for closure. MR. FORD-May I pose the question a little bit differently? Hasn’t the history of this project indicated that there have been plans, and plans implemented, only to find that additional plans and additional accommodations needed to be employed. Hasn’t that been the history of this project? MR. EDWARDS-I don’t recall, honestly. It’s been going on for so long, I don’t recall it being the history, but the liability issue you brought up, I guess I hadn’t focused in on that. I didn’t really understand that issue before I went out to visit the site. MR. FORD-Let me put it another way. In other words, there were runoff issues from up high, and so because there were, then a plan was drawn up and implemented to try to 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) accommodate that? And there have been several instances of this occurring, without it ever having been a part of the original plan. It’s been in response to one more, whether it be emergency or emerging possible difficulty. Isn’t that accurate? MR. EDWARDS-I don’t know whether it is. I don’t recall honestly. I haven’t followed this that closely over the last few months. I just tried to respond to the latest. MR. LAPPER-I guess, if I could, this was a case where we had this one neighbor that was screaming and yelling at us for a few years, and this was a site that was this old industrial site. I don’t need to go over the whole history, the concrete, the trucks, the tires. So they went in. They cleaned this up. We had an approval for the single family and for the multi- family, and along the way, because of the market, they decided it would be better, instead of renting it, to sell the townhouses as well as to sell the single family, but in terms of the concept of what was there, that was something this Board approved a while ago. The reason why it’s under constructed, as Chris said, it’s under construction because they started building it for the rental and as part of that, they did make improvements to the stormwater system, but you’ll recall that the neighbors were screaming that the pond’s going to overflow, that there’s too much water, and now the situation is that we have the Town Engineer saying that there’s not going to be a problem with the pond overflowing, that that’s been addressed. So there have been improvements that were made, you know, at pretty good expense for the applicant, and I think that the Chairman’s point was that usually the Town’s engineer signs off on plans. Here, because it’s a work in process, because they already started to do it for the apartment project, it’s probably 95% done. I’m just guessing that that’s the number, and so not only, we have to make these four changes to the plan, so the plans are all set, which of course we agreed to as a condition, but not only that, the applicant is saying that in a week and a half or two weeks, all the work will be done as well, and we have no, there’s no problem with having C.T. Male come out one more time, you know, at the applicant’s expense, and not only signing off on the plans now, for an approval tonight with the Board, but also signing off, as a condition of approval, that they want to see the thing done, and they’ll go out to the site and verify that it was done in accordance with the plans, but we’re real close to this being done, not only for approval, but for actual construction. MR. FORD-The plan is in place. We don’t anticipate any further modifications to the plan? MR. LAPPER-No. Jim Edwards asked for these three changes, and then you brought up the fourth one, and so we’re sitting here saying, yes, that those four things have to be added as a condition. The bench, the bench is on there, but the berm, the trench have to be added to the plans, as a condition, and then they have to be finished. MR. FORD-May I share with you some observations from this afternoon? There, in fact, is a second pond that has been formed, besides the original pond, as of this afternoon. Anyone wish to address that? MR. NACE-Sure. That is on the plans. It shows in the grading. I presume, you’re referring to the area over here to the south of the main pond. MR. FORD-Of the main pond, correct. MR. NACE-That’s simply an additional overflow area to, again, a belt and suspenders, that if the level in this pond were ever to get high enough, that provides additional infiltration area and storage where water would have a place to go. MR. FORD-Okay. Well, it’s going there. It’s going there. MR. NACE-Not an overflow from the pond. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question I’d like to ask, and it kind of hinges on the whole maintenance discussion that’s been going on here, and I’m looking at Article Six in the Homeowners Association. It says 6.0.1 on Page 14, and it’s entitled “Repairs and Maintenance Provided by the Association”, and except as specifically otherwise provided in this section, all maintenance, repair and replacements of property, etc., etc. It goes on to talk, the Association shall be responsible for maintenance of shrubbery and so on, and it gets down to the area where they talk about maintenance. In small e, the Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater management system as set forth in addendum one. Said system may be at the discretion of the Board of Directors be improved 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) beyond or in addition to the existing infrastructure placed there by the builder during its construction. This leads me to believe that those words mean that if this doesn’t work, for some reason or another, that the 13 people who are going to be responsible for this are going to have to live up to that little e, that says said system may be at the discretion of the Board of Directors. They’re talking about the Board of Directors of the Association now, be improved beyond or in addition to the existing infrastructure placed by the builder during construction. That little paragraph in there leads me to believe that if something does happen, that these 13 people have got to get in gear to do this. Now, in addition to that, there are 13 people that are going to have to fork up the money. They’re not going to get out and clear all of this additional infrastructure that’s being put in here for stormwater management. They’re going to have to pay to have that done. So I’m just, I’ve always been concerned about the encumbrance of 13 people on this large acreage of ground, and I know that the Attorney General’s Office, the Division of Law puts a limit on what you can encumber a person for. There is some number, I don’t know what it is yet. I’ve been trying to figure that out. I know that I knew, at one time, what it was, as far as fees were concerned, but they do have a number that they try to limit the exposure to, and I don’t know what that is. At the time I was working, I think it was fees in excess of $400 per month, I believe it was at that time. MR. LAPPER-I’m not aware of that limit, because there are very expensive projects on the lake that have really expensive budgets, but the Attorney General, and I know you know this. MR. VOLLARO-Well, those budgets are spread over maybe more people. We’re only talking about 13 people here. That’s my concern. MR. LAPPER-The Attorney General cares about disclosure, that the budget has to be disclosed, and they have to review it, and there has to be a management company reviewing the proposed budget to see whether it’s reasonable for this project. So there are all those enforcement mechanisms by the Attorney General to make sure that the people know what they’re getting, but in terms of that language that you just read, that’s boilerplate language, in terms of what the rights and obligations of the Association are, that they have the right, that’s not something that was tailored for this Association. That’s just what’s in our standard Offering Plan. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that, although if they have to do it, in other words, if they try to get out of it, somebody, the sponsor may say, that is your responsibility by the fact that you signed on for this, and you bought into this project. MR. LAPPER-Usually, when you get into a maintenance issue, and we’ve said as a condition that the applicant would agree to maintain it for five years, that the issue is erosion at first, until it’s all stabilized with riprap and grass being planted. So, you know, once it’s there, like any other stormwater management system, you have to worry about siltation, you have to do some annual maintenance, but you’ve got the Town engineer looking at the design, and the applicant’s engineer designing it, saying that the system works now. It needs some minor improvements. It works now, in terms of the Planning Board’s role and the Town’s role, to make sure that it handles the stormwater, and I don’t think that anyone’s saying that there’s a problem with that, but, yes, it has to be maintained. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I guess I’m just looking at our ability, as a Board, to protect the 13 people that buy this property from having excessive expenses in terms of what now appears to me to be a fairly extensive stormwater management program. It’s not the garden variety kind of program that I’m used to seeing. It’s a fairly extensive amount of work that has to be done. MR. EDWARDS-There’ll be some clean up, siltation clean up, brush clearing, tree branch clearing, and things like that. I’m sure there’ll be some mowing, eventually, and that sort of thing. , as a homeowner in a Homeowners Association MR. VOLLARO-This is what the Association has to contract for to keep. MR. EDWARDS-That’s right. It’s a large area for sure. So there is some work to be done there on an annual basis to maintain that. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-And just knowing the kind of fees that I got involved in, in a very small neighborhood ion, and then looking at that as a baseline and to try to extrapolate that to this, I see some fairly large fees in the downstream on this. that’s my position. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say earlier you had sounded like the voice of experience. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I was President of the Association for three years. MR. SANFORD-Bob, this looks like the Rube Goldberg of stormwater management systems. I don’t know if you follow that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand what you mean. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Let me ask Mr. Schachner a question. At the Planning Board’s request, our Town Engineer has come in and has given a representation that this will work, and we’re going to have to factor that in with a decision. Let’s say, okay, we’re going to go with that, and it doesn’t work. Bob was looking at it from the perspective of protecting the purchasers of this property, rather than the renters. I’m looking at it from protecting the liability of the Town. The Planning Board gives an approval, based upon our engineer’s representations, then if they don’t prove to be accurate, are we, as a Town, subject to potential lawsuit from the owners and the associated costs, should this thing fail? Is there a material, or even a meaningful risk element here that we’re asked to undertake? MR. SCHACHNER-Short answer no. Anybody can sue anybody for whatever they want, but the Town Engineer is in a reviewing capacity, not a stamping with a license capacity. The engineers that are stamping things with licenses are presumably the applicant’s engineers. So the actual liability would rest, in that sort of situation, with the applicant or their consultants, not the Town, unless somebody can prove gross negligence on behalf of the Town’s engineering consultant. Generally that’s not where these things go. Where they go is against the applicant. MR. GOETZ-I have a question. Rather than going on and on and on, as we’ve been going on for months with this, I think somebody said a couple of years, it looks like it’s very close, and why can’t we do this subject to a final field approval by C.T. Male? You’re talking about four things, and Mr. Hayes has said he expects two weeks, given a little chance for weather, maybe take 30 days, and why can’t we make this subject to their approval? It just seems like we’re going to keep coming here night after night going through the same thing, hour after hour, and what’s to stop these gentlemen from saying, well, to heck with it. We’ll go back to the rental program, and not finish what they started? What would happen then? MR. SANFORD-Well, they’re supposed to have inspectors look at that, I think. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m comfortable. I think we should vote on it. MR. FORD-May I continue my observations for today and get responses please? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. FORD-You say the road back of Lot Seven is to be abandoned and re-vegetated, and that will take place next Spring? MR. HAYES-Well, the process, we’ll topsoil and seed that (lost words) plant trees, as you can see, plus people would be attracted to go through somebody else’s back yard. So we were going to have to almost put a line of trees, and then we’ll stagger the trees and make it look like, so it’s not a desired place to traverse through somebody else’s property. MR. FORD-There was standing water on Lot Six this afternoon that is higher than the basement floor that is already in on Lot Seven. MR. HAYES-Well, that’s on grade with the ruts and stuff like that. There’s an open cellar, as you probably saw there now, that has a floor that’s down six, seven feet from there, and there’s no water at all in that basement, if you’ve seen that. The water table is 15, 20 feet below that, but there are parts where there’s ruts where the water sits temporarily when you have rainstorm, of course, where the site’s all chewed right up. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. LAPPER-Not final grade. MR. HAYES-It’s not final grade. MR. FORD-Okay. It’s over by the trees that exist there. MR. HAYES-There’s pockets where there’s tire ruts and stuff. MR. FORD-Is it referred to, where all the stone is, is that a riprap channel? Okay. That was really working today. Water was gushing down that. Gushing, and emptying into the pond. I raise a question as to whether or not we may have overreacted, in trying to get some relief for the main pond, that other pond be sited, and from what I observed today, have we created a bit of a safety monster with that? MR. NACE-I’m not sure what you mean. MR. FORD-Well, in terms of, just safety for the people who live there, for the children who live there, and so forth in the future, because we’re not talking about any kind of safety barricades or anything of that sort around that particular pond. MR. NACE-I didn’t see it today, so I don’t know how deep the water was in it, but most of the summer that I’ve observed it, that second, or latter part of the summer or fall that second basin is fairly shallow and does not hold water, except during a rainstorm for a very short period, maybe you’ve probably observed it more than I mean. MR. HAYES-The reserve pond to the left, is that the one you’re referring to, Tom? MR. FORD-Exactly. MR. HAYES-Usually because you can see a lot of the things work, there’s almost like a natural cuff that comes around that, besides what was graded the natural, well, there’s no natural terrain on that piece of land, but that was left natural after the cement. Whenever you get substantial rainfalls, water does reserve there for a couple of days and then it dissipates through there, 95% of the time there’s no water at all in there. Today it’s probably about six inches deep, in the front part of it. It doesn’t really spread to the back portion, because it slopes backward toward the townhouses. MR. SANFORD-When the ground’s frozen, again, we’re all anticipating that eventually this stuff will all seep in, but when you have a frozen ground situation, has that all been factored in? I mean, you have a lot of rain these days in the wintertime, and the ground’s frozen. Is that going to prove to be an exception to your comfort level, looking at it now when we have good ability for the ground to absorb water? MR. EDWARDS-No, that wouldn’t really change our opinion as to the safety of the large pond. There’s tremendous volume in that pond. MR. SANFORD-Well, how about the pond to the side? I mean, that’s what Mr. Ford was referencing. MR. EDWARDS-I don’t even recall seeing any water in the pond when we were out there the last time. So it didn’t jump out at me as being a pond that’s going to hold water for that long. I didn’t even notice any standing water. This was about, I think it was last week some time I was out there. I didn’t observe any water. MR. FORD-But it is there. It is a depressed area in the soil, specifically by design? MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. NACE-Correct. MR. HAYES-It’s been a good test. This fall’s been a good to be at the site all the time it’s been good to see, because the amount of rain that we’ve had. As you probably know, that October we had the greatest rainfall we’ve ever had in the modern day history. We had eight and a half inches of rain, which is 5.32 inches greater than the average, and so far in November, prior to today it was 2.3. So we’re on pace to double the amount of rain. So we 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) actually got to see a lot of extremes. This fall’s been extreme rainfall condition. So it’s been interesting to see how it actually, you know, like that pond it rained over an inch, it would show up. It was interesting to actually see how it worked. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. FORD-Does the Town’s Engineer have any concerns that you wish to voice relative to that depression in the soil beside the main pond? MR. EDWARDS-None that I observed. I’ll have to go back and look at the stormwater analysis to revisit it as to whether I had any concerns. Today we do not, though. MR. FORD-And there’s to be some sort of a structure, how do you refer to it again, around the, at the five foot level? MR. LAPPER-The bench. MR. FORD-The bench. MR. NACE-Safety bench. MR. FORD-Okay, and there’s to be no type of fencing? I mean a guardrail is nice. That’ll keep the cars out of there, but it isn’t going to keep a child, or someone else who is walking around. MR. NACE-No. The DEC now recommends, for all these stormwater ponds, recommends the safety bench as a place where people don’t slip down into the water accidentally. They have that bench that is at a level area for them to recover on, but they don’t recommend fencing. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m going to beg the indulgence of Staff for a second. The agenda doesn’t say that the public hearing is scheduled for this evening, and I couldn’t recall if we closed it in October. My recollection was that we did, but I could be mistaken. MRS. BARDEN-You tabled until a specific date, until the first meeting in November. MR. HUNSINGER-So the public hearing is still open. MRS. BARDEN-The public hearing is still open. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there anyone here that would like to speak about this application? Okay. We do have one. If you could give up the table. If you could state your name for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHARLES BAKER MR. BAKER-My name is Charles Baker. I own the property adjacent north to this project. I would like to read you this letter and submit it. Mr. Chairman, I have followed the review of the Mountain Hollow townhouse project for several years now, specifically four years. Being an immediate owner to the north, I have always been in favor of the project and the subsequent clean-up. Throughout the proceedings I have watched my neighbor Mr. Carte first oppose the project based on rental units and now without them. At the end of this long analysis one thing is certainly true from my perspective; having individual owners of these units will be a benefit to the neighborhood and community. Private citizens looking after their homes and participating in a homeowners group will ensure, in my mind, a high degree of attention to the homes and grounds. People who pay their hard earned money for a new townhouse will not need to be prompted by me or the Town to take care of what is their own. Please take this letter as my vote in favor of finishing this project as owner occupied townhouses. Sincerely, Charlie Baker. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mr. Baker one quick question? 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SANFORD-Mr. Baker, do you now, or have you ever had, any kind of a relationship with the applicant, an employment relationship? MR. BAKER-I work for them. MR. SANFORD-Thank you very much. MR. BAKER-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the public? Okay. Since there are no additional public comments, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-If the applicant could come back to the table. MR. FORD-I have an additional question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Go ahead, Tom. MR. FORD-What is the current minimum size for a single family dwelling in Queensbury? MR. LAPPER-Eight hundred square feet in the Town. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-No, I think we’re ready to make a motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Does anybody know the status of SEQRA review? MR. HUNSINGER-I was just checking. MR. FORD-May I ask for one more clarification, Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Building footprints and building lots ranging from 523 square feet to 1230, that pertains to the footprint, as opposed to the square footage of the structure itself? Is that correct? MR. HAYES-Some of the structures, Tom, are ranch style, and some are townhouses. So they’re stacked, so some are up and down. So the footprint of 553 footprint would be roughly 1100 square feet, subtracting out your interior walls. MR. FORD-I just wanted to clarify it, because we, at no time, approached that minimum size for a single family dwelling. MR. HAYES-They’re all between 1100 and 1300, three bedrooms. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a question by counsel regarding SEQRA. It’s an Unlisted Action. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. My question was whether or not it’s been conducted, and we don’t seem to know, at the table. MRS. STEFFAN-I have it written down that it was done previously. So I must have. MR. SANFORD-I mean, it was completed on the original application when it was going to be rental units, but we have not, to my knowledge, done a SEQRA on this application. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MRS. BARDEN-Has a Long Form been submitted with this application? MR. FORD-Chris, I have one more issue that I’d like to bring up. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Tom. MR. FORD-And forgive me if you’ve already addressed it. I know you have. Just refresh my memory, please, on the issue of future liability, the extent of that, how long you’re going to be associated with the project, and have a legal obligation to address any issues that may be forthcoming, particularly regarding stormwater runoff. MR. HAYES-I guess there’s a couple, there is a New York State Warranty, that is New York State forces you, as a contractor, to provide to any buyer of any new home with varying things for structural, for water and basements and such, it’s all spelled out according to New York State Law, which we provide, which is for major structures a lot of it’s seven years that you have to back up structural issues and such, and some are one year for minor like paint and flooring and such like that. As far as the stormwater, we agreed to, if they sell out quickly, we’re still willing to guarantee, we’ll do the five years of the maintenance of that. So there’s no surprises or anything from the people, so when you go out that far, five years, normally I guess the procedure would be once they’re sold out, you (lost words). We’re confident enough and feel there would be no problem if that’s to provide for a five year maintenance, no cost to the Homeowners Association. MR. VOLLARO-That’s in conjunction with your Article Five. MR. HAYES-Which will be spelled out into the HOA documents which will probably be required by the Attorney General, but also our warranty is an automatic thing required by New York State Law as well. MR. LAPPER-These conditions that the applicant has agreed to with the Board will be incorporated into the HOA documents. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FORD-The Offering Plan. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I’m looking at a Long Environmental Assessment Form which was submitted in April, when we applied for the subdivision. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Five years from which date now? MR. HAYES-Well go five years from the last CO I guess. There has to be some definite, the last CO issued for the last unit, and then we’ll go from that point, so it’s actually a hard date, because it could be (lost words) I guess. MR. LAPPER-From the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy for one of the units by the Town. MR. VOLLARO-For the 13 unit. th MR. HAYES-Yes. That would be fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We discovered we have a SEQRA Long Form, Gretchen. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. SEGULJIC-I would say no. MR. VOLLARO-I want to look at the question in print. Where are we? 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MRS. STEFFAN-Number Five. MR. HUNSINGER-And we have to remember what we’re doing the SEQRA on. MR. VOLLARO-Is the second part. MR. HUNSINGER-Is the difference between what was previously approved, which was the 13 unit rental, and now the townhouse. MR. VOLLARO-Right. That’s the key. MR. FORD-Thanks for that clarification. That addresses my concern. MR. VOLLARO-I would say no. Going from a rental to an ownership will not affect the surface or groundwater quality or quantity. That’s the key thing. MR. SANFORD-Let’s ask for legal clarification on your understanding on that. I hear what you’re saying. I just want to make sure that it’s accurate, that what I’m hearing is that we’re contemplating a Long Form SEQRA on only the delta between the condition of rental versus ownership. I’m not sure that’s accurate. MR. SCHACHNER-I wouldn’t put it that way, the way either of you put it, but what’s accurate is that, as I understand it, this Board previously approved, under site plan review, as opposed to subdivision, a very similar project, similar from the standpoint of what’s being built. What I know about what’s changed since then is largely form of ownership. So in that respect, what you now have in front of you is a subdivision application. If you had in front of you a modification of the previous site plan review only, you wouldn’t even have to go through SEQRA review unless you felt there were substantial or material changes. In essence, that’s what you have. The reason you have to go through a SEQRA exercise is because the form of that modification has a different label on it. The label is subdivision. Although I started off saying I wouldn’t put it the way either of the Board members put it, I think as a practical matter, that’s essentially and conceptually correct. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-But clarify also, the stormwater management wasn’t part of the original approval. MR. LAPPER-It was, but it’s changed. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. My understanding is that there were actually substantial stormwater management measures that were part of the original approval, although they’ve been modified. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess the reason I raise the issue, this is to Counsel again, is the point of our reference to be, now that it’s a subdivision, are we concerned with the entirety of all these environmental impacts, or are we to basically say that only to the degree that a rental versus an ownership has an impact, is it of a consequence? MR. SCHACHNER-Neither, in my opinion. You don’t have regulatory authority over a mere change in ownership. The reason this is back before you at all is because it’s not a mere change in form of ownership, although some may choose to label it that way. What’s happening is, as a result of that change in form of ownership, you have a different animal in front of me, from the labeling standpoint, and the label now is subdivision. Why? Because lots are being sold, or proposed to be sold, and that falls within the definition of subdivision. What you’re reviewing now is the environmental impacts, or potential environmental impacts of the subdivision. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-But what are the environmental impacts of the subdivision? What’s your baseline? Okay. Your baseline is you don’t have a pristine, undisturbed heavily 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) forested piece of property, as I understand it. Your baseline is that you have a property that has already been the subject of a previous approval, and some construction activity as a result of that previous approval. So that’s your baseline. Now you’re looking at, okay, given that that’s our baseline, what are the potential environmental impacts of subdividing the property? MR. VOLLARO-I think the baseline has changed, though, because, even though, what’s happened is, as a result of this subdivision, there have been stormwater corrections put into place, or stormwater management changes put into place that I do think we have to look at in terms of this SEQRA. It is a change from the past. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t disagree with that. I don’t think anything I said could be labeled as disagreeing with that, but the applicant wouldn’t even have done those things, and arguably could not have done these things, had they not been operating under a previous approval, which they were, and they went ahead and took some action in furtherance of that approval, including stormwater management system installation. MR. VOLLARO-When we’re answering all these questions on the SEQRA, we have to consider the added stormwater corrections that they’ve made to a previous product. MR. SCHACHNER-Sure. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I would go so far as to say we basically have to evaluate the inherent integrity of the stormwater, period, not necessarily the point of departure from the previously approved, but almost like, does it stand on its own merits at this particular point in time? I think that I’ll let Mark correct me if I’m wrong on that. I think that that’s basically our test here is when we answer this SEQRA, the question isn’t, well, since we approved before, but we may have been correct in our approval, that that doesn’t provide any safety net, that the bottom line is we’re looking at it right from the beginning, and we need to make sure that we’re comfortable with the integrity of it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think we have to have, and I don’t want to answer for Mark, but I’ll just take a crack at saying there’s a point of departure from which we go from the original design to the changes that have been made. The point of departure is from where we were on the original SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-What we previously approved. MR. VOLLARO-What we previously approved, that’s the point of departure. That’s how I’m viewing this baseline, and I’m trying to understand, when I answer all the questions in this Part II, how has what has been proposed affecting these questions? MR. SANFORD-I appreciate that, and I think that my point is more technical than that. I’m saying that that’s a convenient and an easy way for us to get our arms around this. I’m saying our responsibility is to. MR. HUNSINGER-I disagree with you. I think it makes it more complicated to get your arms around. I mean, we could do this all night. Can’t we just get back to the issues at hand here? MR. SANFORD-Well, I guess my question is, are we to make an assumption that we’ve reached a certain threshold, before, and so we don’t have to go back and look at it, and I don’t know what the answer to that is. My thinking is, when we do a SEQRA, we have to be pretty well assured that it stands on its own merits. MR. LAPPER-That’s what the engineer is for. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. We were on Number Five. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. GOETZ-No. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-In this particular instance. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Can it be mitigated? MR. HUNSINGER-Small to moderate, mitigated by the stormwater prevention plan. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 8-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: WESTERN RESERVE, 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 15 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We have a draft resolution prepared by Staff. There were some additional items that the applicant has mentioned. There’s a couple of different ways to handle those. Some of them are already on the map but not yet completed, like the safety bench and the pond. MR. LAPPER-You’ve got to go through Preliminary first, and then you usually put those in Final. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Would anyone like to offer a resolution for Preliminary approval? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE WESTERN RESERVE, Introduced by George Goetz who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s) Western Reserve Subdivision SUB 8-2005 P/F Owner(s) Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s) Jonathan Lapper, B P S R Lot size 26.15 acres Van Dusen & Steves Location West Mt. Road Zoning RR-3A & SR-1A Tax Id No. 300-1-19 Section A-183-31 Cross Ref. SP 46-03, SB 16-03, SB 17-02, AV 22-02, AV 52-01, AV 36-05 Public Hearing 5/26/05, 6/28/05 [Tabled]; 10/18/05 Project Description: Applicant is proposing a 26.15-acre subdivision into 14 lots, including 13 townhouse units (with building footprints/building lots ranging from 523 sq. ft. to 1230 sq. ft.) and one common lot (24.97-acres). Subdivisions of land require Planning Board approval. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 5/26/05, 6/28/05 and 10/18/05; 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 Preliminary WHEREAS, the modifications to the preliminary plat are acceptable; and WHEREAS, the character and extent of any required improvement for which waivers may have been requested and which, in its opinion, may be waived without jeopardy to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and WHEREAS, approval of this preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of the subdivision plat but rather, it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the design submitted on the preliminary plat and as a guide to the preparation of the subdivision plat. WHEREAS, the developer shall sign and date a copy of the Planning Board's findings sheet, and such approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the return of such signed findings sheet to the Planning Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-I have a reservation on a yes in here because of some words that are prepared in this Preliminary resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes or no, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-The answer would have to be no. AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Vollaro MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t know when we got into the practice of qualifying our votes, but, you know, when you vote, it’s yes or no. If you want to qualify it later, that’s certainly your discretion. MR. VOLLARO-First of all, this is a draft. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-And the draft is subject to our vote. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Our resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-And I do not agree with what’s in this resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-When it says it shall be deemed as an expression of approval. That’s very broad. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s your prerogative, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it certainly is, and we’ll have to discuss that at some future date. I don’t buy that at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have an approval of Preliminary. Is there a resolution for Final? MR. SEGULJIC-As far as the Final goes, are we going to, whereas the concern about the homeowners association and the number of years. MR. LAPPER-I could tell you the conditions that we’re aware of. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to say, I can runoff the conditions that I had. The first one can be handled a couple of different ways, because it’s basically items that the applicant has agreed to do, that just haven’t been completed. One is labeled on the map, on the plat, and that’s the safety bench and the pond, but there were three others, a berm along the road, a ditch at the bottom of the bank as a failsafe behind the houses, and complete vegetation of the old road behind Lot Seven, and then there was the other one where the applicant agreed that they would maintain the stormwater management for a period of five years following the final Certificate of Occupancy. I don’t know if there were any others. MR. SEGULJIC-The only other thing I would say for discussion is C.T. Male go out and do a final inspection on there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. In the draft resolution prepared by Staff, it does say contingent on final signoff with C.T. Male, but it doesn’t say anything about field inspection. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. If you want that, I mean, it’s up to you if you want that, but if you want that, Tom, add that, because that’s not signoff. That’s field. MR. SEGULJIC-Does the applicant have any problem with that? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Final signoff of field inspection, that the stormwater management has been built to design. Susan? MRS. BARDEN-One other thing, updated HOA document. You indicated that you made the revisions that we talked about. MR. LAPPER-We will add these conditions of maintenance to the HOA document. When we submit it to the Attorney General, which will probably be in about eight weeks, we’ll send a copy to the Planning Staff as well, to verify that all that’s in there. That can be another condition. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there items in the draft resolution that you’re uncomfortable with, Bob, or was it just in the Preliminary? MR. VOLLARO-I have it in the Final as well. MR. SANFORD-I would like to hear what you have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Let’s get it out on the table. MR. VOLLARO-In the Final resolution, it talks about any conditions in the approval. We’re conditioning the approval. It’s about two-thirds down. Conditional approval of Final Plat shall expire 180 days after the date of the resolution granting such approval, unless the requirements have been certified as completed within that time. The Planning Board may, however, extend the time in which is a conditionally approved plat may be submitted for signature, if, in its opinion, such extension is warranted in the circumstances, for one or two periods of 90 days each. That means that this conditional approval can be in the hopper for a period of one year. MR. LAPPER-That’s under Town Law. That’s just quoting Town Law. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it may be quoting Town Law, and I understand that, but that really takes the control away from this Board, and that’s what I’m mostly concerned with. MR. LAPPER-That’s about doing the work. That’s getting it done, those conditions of construction. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but who follows up on that? We? MR. LAPPER-Well, you can’t file. MRS. BARDEN-Code Compliance Officer does the site inspection. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. All of that takes away oversight from this Board almost totally. That’s how I see it. I may be wrong, but I see these conditions in here as slowly sort of eroding the control of the Planning Board with respect to this kind of operation. I may be wrong. MR. HUNSINGER-We don’t have oversight over the actual development. We only have oversight over the site plan and subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-No, but it’s our conditions of approval that are being talked about. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And we want to make sure that our conditions of approval, if they go on for a period of one year, we probably lose the ability to track our own conditions. That’s the concern I have. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. SANFORD-But we don’t do that, I think Chris’s point is accurate. We don’t do enforcement anyway, Bob. MR. SCHACHNER-And you can’t, and you’re not lawfully authorized to do so. They’re both right, Chris and Rich both. MR. SANFORD-We don’t. I mean, in fact it goes over to the Building Inspectors, really, and project inspectors, not the Planning Board, and occasionally remember we get some things that come back to us because they haven’t complied and we have to deal with it, and they’re forced to come back to this Board, but we’re never the ones who initiate that compliance. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, what I’m looking at here is if we could get a Preliminary. We’ve been doing Preliminary and Final on the same night for as long as I’ve been on the Board, and I’ve always struggled with doing those two entities on the same night. I would much prefer to see us get a Preliminary with no, or a minimum of conditions and have the Final be just a plain old stamp. So that the plat, when it’s finished, and it’s up at the County, is a completed document, from this Board, the Preliminary has no conditions, essentially. It may have a minor amount, but I have a real problem with conditional approvals, and then we say, well, we threw those conditions on and everything’s fine and somebody else will take care of that, and I’m not comfortable with that approach, I guess. MR. VOLLARO-I think that that section is referring to the requirement to file the plat within 180 days. If you have outside agency approvals, like DEC and DOH, you have to get them within 180 days. So I think that that’s what that language is really referring to, that Town law, subdivision plat, not your conditions. MR. VOLLARO-As long as we’re embarking on this, and the Chairman has allowed this to be debated, what I’m really looking at, and we can discuss this, possibly, at a future workshop which is coming up, I understand, perhaps, between the two Boards, that we deal with Preliminary, and continue to deal with Preliminary. Preliminary and Final on the same night has always been a problem for me. MR. LAPPER-The reason is that you don’t do Preliminary earlier. You really don’t do Preliminary until you’re really comfortable to do Final. That’s why they happen on the same night. Some other Boards would give Preliminary, when you get to the Preliminary Stage, and then you’d go back and fix the plat and add the Final stuff, but this Board doesn’t get to Preliminary until the very end. MR. SCHACHNER-Chris, could I make a comment? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. SCHACHNER-Just to make sure this is clear to everybody. This Board is under no obligation, tonight or ever, to do Preliminary and Final on the same night. The Board has chosen, frequently, to do so, and you can do so lawfully, and you’re not obligated to, and I just want to make sure everyone understands that, because my impression is, you’re suggesting, Bob, that somehow this Board has to do them on the same night, and that’s not true at all. MR. VOLLARO-No. I know that. It’s just that it’s practice that we’ve maintained over a long period of time. MR. SCHACHNER-You often don’t. You often don’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. There has been times. MR. SANFORD-Are you suggesting that we condition a Preliminary approval, and then we hold back on Final, we wait, make sure that the conditions on Preliminary are satisfied. MR. VOLLARO-They’re on the drawing. MR. SANFORD-They’re on the drawing and what have you. The applicant comes back and says, okay, now it’s pretty clean. We’re going for Final, and then at that particular time we approve it. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Without conditions, did you say, on the Final? MR. VOLLARO-Probably. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s your goal. MR. VOLLARO-If the Preliminary is done correctly, there should be no conditions on the Final. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. Just so it’s clear, though. Many aspects, and I think Rich was about to go this way, many aspects of an approval cannot be performed prior to Final approval. MR. SANFORD-No, I think he’s looking just to clean it up somewhat before it does go to Final. MR. SCHACHNER-That’s fine. MR. SANFORD-Because what we’re basically doing here, and I think it’s a judgment call. Depending upon how many outstanding items there are, you’re saying sometimes you’d rather see some of those fulfilled before we deal with Final. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. That’s my point. MR. LAPPER-And here we have a pretty short list, but that makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes, you certainly have the authority to do that, the way Rich phrased it. That’s fine. That’s up to the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Point well taken. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do we have anyone who would like to offer a resolution for Final approval? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 8-2005 FINAL STAGE WESTERN RESERVE, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Goetz: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s) Western Reserve Subdivision SUB 8-2005 P/F Owner(s) Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s) Jonathan Lapper, B P S R Lot size 26.15 acres Van Dusen & Steves Location West Mt. Road Zoning RR-3A & SR- 1A Tax Id No. 300-1-19 Section A-183-31 Cross Ref. SP 46-03, SB 16-03, SB 17-02, AV 22-02, AV 52-01, AV 36-05 Public Hearing 5/26/05, 6/28/05 [Tabled]; 10/18/05 Project Description: Applicant is proposing a 26.15-acre subdivision into 14 lots, including 13 townhouse units (with building footprints/building lots ranging from 523 sq. ft. to 1230 sq. ft.) and one common lot (24.97-acres). Subdivisions of land require Planning Board approval. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 5/26/05, 6/28/05 and 10/18/05; 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 Final WHEREAS, upon granting conditional approval of the final plat, the Planning Board shall empower a duly designated officer to sign the plat upon compliance with such conditions and requirements as may be stated in its resolution of conditional approval. Within five days of such resolution, the plat shall be certified by the Chairman of the Planning Board as conditionally approved and a copy filed in the Planning Office and a certified copy mailed to the subdivider. The copy mailed to the subdivider shall include two findings sheets, one of which shall be signed by the applicant and returned to the Planning Board. Such requirements which, when completed, will authorize the signing of the conditionally approved final plat. Upon completion of such requirements to the satisfaction of the duly designated office of the Planning Board, the plat shall be deemed to have received final approval, and such officer shall sign the plat accordingly. Conditional approval of a final plat shall expire 180 days after the date of the resolution granting such approval unless the requirements have been certified as completed within that time. The Planning Board may, however, extend the time within which a conditionally approved plat may be submitted for signature if, in its opinion, such extension is warranted in the circumstances, for one or two additional periods of 90 days each. [Amended 6-3-1991] WHEREAS, the final plat shows exact location and depth of sewer and water service. It has also set forth the exact layout and dimensions of proposed streets with the street names and house numbers. WHEREAS, final approval of the subdivision plat plan shall be limited to that phase of the development currently pending before the Planning Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby Approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. That the final stormwater management plans include the safety bench, the berm along the access road, the stormwater control ditch behind the houses, the abandonment of the road behind Lot Seven, and the re-vegetation of such road. 2. Maintenance of the stormwater management system for five (5) years by the applicant following final Certificate of Occupancy, and 3. Final site inspection of stormwater management system upon completion by C.T. Male, and 4. Recreation fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision modification. 5. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman signature on mylar. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) 6. Waiver request(s) are granted / denied [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan]. 7. No-Cut Buffer areas shall be field located by surveyor and flagged in a color that is different from boundary markers. 8. 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. 9. The plat must be filed with the County Clerk within 60 days of receipt by Planning Department Staff of outside agency approvals noted. 10. Final, approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt 11. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. Steffan MR. LAPPER-Thank you all very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. Thanks, Jim. SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2005 PRELIMINARY FINAL SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LUZERNE HOLDING, INC. AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): SAME ZONING LI-1A LOCATION 240 LUZERNE RD. PROPOSED 2 LOT SUBDIVISION OF 33.64 ACRES RESULTING IN LOTS OF 3.86 AND 29.78 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. CROSS REF. SP 10-2004 LOT SIZE 33.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-7 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Summary of Staff notes, Susan. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. The applicant is Luzerne Holdings. It’s a proposed two lot subdivision located at 240 Luzerne Road and is zoned Light Industrial. This project is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The applicant has submitted a Full Environmental Assessment Form. Project Description: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a total of 33.64 acre parcel resulting in two lots of one being 29.78 acres, and one being 3.86 acres. Staff comments. Lot 2 has had site plan approval for a storage facility, and no plan for lot 1 at this time. Therefore, the applicant has requested waivers from a Stormwater Management Plan, Grading Plan, Landscaping Plan, Sketch Plan approval. In Part 1 of the submitted EAF, Section A., question 11, “Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered?”, marked “Yes” by the applicant, specifically, Karner Blue Butterfly, according to DEC. Has the applicant contacted DEC? The applicant should delineate these areas on the plan. As of this draft (11/9/05), CT Male has not received revisions or comments from the applicant relative to their 9/21/05 comment letter regarding this project. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Luzerne Holding on this application. A two lot subdivision on the north side of Luzerne Road, and west of West Drive. A couple of comments that the Staff had made regarding the waiver requests. That’s because of the fact that Lot Two, there’s nothing proposed at this time. Lot One there was a stormwater plan developed and approved by this Board, and all that was implemented and put in place on the 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) site plan development of Lot One, with construction of the storage facility. As far as the comment on the Karner blue habitat, this was all, at one time, part of a property owned by DKC Holdings that went all the way out to Sherman Avenue, which included the Burnt Hills subdivision, and at the time when the Board approved Burnt Hills, we did have some Karner blue that was located along the power lines between all these parcels, the open areas of the power lines. This particular parcel doesn’t go right to the power lines, but there is potential for the Karner blue near those power lines, and we’re talking, you know, a couple of thousand feet north of the existing Lot Two that is developed and nothing is proposed on Lot One. We’re just making you aware of the fact that near the power lines that there’s an open area in there. There is the potential for that. Once Lot Two ever came in for further subdivision or a site plan because it is a Light Industrial zone, absolutely that would be looked at again by Kathy O’Brien of DEC. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Why don’t we go through the subdivision review criteria. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, may I, for just a moment? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-I have a problem here that I think we’ve got to clear up. I’ll just go through my notes real quick on the history. This site plan came, Site Plan 10-2004, came before this Board as DKC on March 30, 2004, and the tax map was cited as 308.12-1-7, with a lot size for that tax map was 31.48 acres. This application comes before the Board as Luzerne Holdings, which was transferred from DKC, with tax map 308.12-1-7, as lot size 33.64. That’s a difference of 2.16 acres on exactly the same tax map, and there’s a quick claim deed from DKC to Luzerne Holdings referring to 36 acres, more or less, on this property. We now have three descriptions of the property, and I’m concerned about which, what are we really talking about in terms of property size here? There are three descriptions here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you have a quick answer? MR. STEVES-Yes, I have a quick answer. MR. VOLLARO-You have a quick answer. MR. STEVES-Yes. Since the purchase by Luzerne Holdings, the original easement that was developed by DKC was based upon the record tax map and record information. Since then a boundary survey has been prepared on the entire piece to accommodate a two lot subdivision, and it is found out, as you are aware, Bob, a lot of different tax maps, there’s a slight discrepancy sometimes or differences between what the tax roles are called for and actual survey lines. When the parcel being developed for the site plan was defined by a 3.86 acre parcel, back in 2004, and the bearings and distances around that were shown, the remaining property that was part of that site plan was the remainder of the property that didn’t show, necessarily, metes and bounds. It has now had a complete survey, and I can tell you that what is defined as 33. something acres now is the actual acreage of the entire project. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to get a clarification as to why it was different on the same tax map number. MR. STEVES-Understood. MR. VOLLARO-And the other thing is, I guess Staff notes refers to a 9/27 C.T. Male letter. The only C.T. Male letter that I have is dated August 20, 2005, and it refers to the June 20, 2005 drawing. Do we have a 9/27/05 C.T. Male letter? I haven’t seen it, if we do. MR. STEVES-I have an August 20. th MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s what I have. I have an August 20. I do not have a 9/27. Does anybody on the Board have a 9/27? I might be missing mine or something. MRS. BARDEN-Just a clarification. Again, this is in an e-mail to myself from Jim Edwards, that Subdivision 18-2005, Luzerne Holding, C.T. Male Associates has received no response from the applicant to their 9/21/05 comments. Again, that’s an e-mail from Jim Edwards. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-Their 9/21? Okay. MRS. BARDEN-And that’s basically just what I’ve put, again, in the Staff notes. MR. VOLLARO-So this is really an e-mail and not a letter? MRS. BARDEN-No. This is a e-mail to me saying that they haven’t received any response to their letter to the applicant’s. MR. VOLLARO-To their August 20 letter? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SANFORD-You know, Chris, forget my own personal preferences, okay. I’ll qualify this statement with that. We can not walk away from this Karner blue butterfly issue and be consistent with the action we took last month when we tabled an application because there was some degree of uncertainty pending site analysis of a DEC agent and signoff on Lupine as well as Karner blue, based on Mr. Steve’s representations, which I have no reason to feel aren’t accurate. It’s just not enough for us to say, hey, we’re comfortable with it. We’ve got a problem with this stuff. We all know that, but I just feel that we have to be consistent with what we did last month. That’s my own feeling. MR. HUNSINGER-For your information, it was a simple subdivision. It was a three lot subdivision that there was questions raised about potential Karner blue habitat and we could not get through SEQRA because of that. So we tabled it pending documentation from DEC that either there was or was not the presence of, without going through a lot of details and specifics about the project. So I would certainly agree with your comment. MR. SANFORD-And again, I just want the applicant to know this isn’t my personal opinion, but I think it’s the way we’ve been acting, and it’s a problem. MR. STEVES-Understood. I just have one quick question or comment regarding that, but we can hear from anybody else on the Board before that. MR. SANFORD-All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-I have one that’s rather minor, but I’ll bring it up. I was forced to go through this because I was out during the time this took place, so I went back to some other minutes. Going back to April 30, 2004 application for DKC, the motion to approve Site Plan 10-2004 contained a condition, that information contained in a fax dated March 16, 2004 to C.T. Male from the applicant shall be included on any future drawing. The drawing dated June 20, 2005 does not contain that information, and I can go back to that, back to the actual motion that was made. MR. STEVES-Regarding approval for the site plan, Bob, that’s what you’re saying? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll just go back here for a second. This was a motion that was made, and it happened to be made by, I believe, Mrs. Steffan, and it said with the understanding that the information faxed to C.T. Male, the fax to C.T. Male dated March 16, 2004, shall be included on any future updated drawings with those instructions. Now, I don’t know what was in that fax, but I don’t see anything on the drawing that shows that there is an annotation of that type, and I think I can get back to the section of the minutes that actually talks to why that’s been done. I think it was a comment made by you, Matt. MR. STEVES-I have a letter to Craig Brown, a faxed copy, actually. Craig attached is a signoff letter for the above referenced project. Please call me with any questions. Jim Houston, and that was regarding the. MR. VOLLARO-Is that dated March 16? th MR. STEVES-Yes. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-March 16, 2004. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. STEVES-That the additional three, or the maps that were, let me back up. When that was approved, there was two or three small items that were to be dealt with with the site plan. Jim Miller Landscape Architect who had done the work on it made those two or three changes, faxed them to Jim Houston. Here’s a copy of the fax. As far as the hay bale dams on the drywells, and such as that, for the actual implementation of the site plan, temporary sediment trap to be relocated in one corner, which was done, and then Jim, in turn, signed off on it. I believe that was for the site plan itself. We’re asking for a subdivision. We’re not asking for an expansion of the site plan at this time. I mean, if you want those conditions, as far as showing the stormwater that was approved and actual put in place on the site plan, I’ll gladly put it on here. I don’t think that affects the subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going back to say that the understanding was that that information in that fax would be included on future updated drawings with those instructions. MR. STEVES-Right, future updated drawings that we had to submit three copies of to the Staff before we get the final OK to get a building permit. That’s the requirement of the site plan is to have three copies of any changes made, not like subdivision where it comes back in front. The Staff makes sure that those three things were changed and then can sign off on the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Shouldn’t those comments be on the June 20, 2005? MR. STEVES-Subdivision drawing? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVES-It’s up to you. I don’t see any reason why they should be, but if you want them on there, I’ll gladly put them on there. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just going along with the understanding that this information would be on any future updated drawings. MR. STEVES-I believe, Bob, what they’re saying is these changes, these three changes they wanted for the site plan be incorporated on updated drawings that are submitted back to your Zoning Administrator for a signoff on the site plan, and that’s exactly what was done. MR. VOLLARO-I have. MR. STEVES-I have no problem incorporating these into the subdivision, but I don’t see where that affects the subdivision application. MR. VOLLARO-I’m just looking back to see the things that we asked to have done in conditions are actually done, and a good way to do that is to read the minutes. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. STEVES-Can I respond to that one? MR. HUNSINGER-The Karner? MR. STEVES-Yes. A question I have, I guess. Understand, this property, at one time, there was, I believe, four or five tax parcels, all owned by DKC Holdings. They came in for a re- zoning on this property. The portions of it to the north were re-zoned to 20,000 square feet to accommodate the Burnt Hills subdivision, and that rezoning application, a Long Environmental Assessment Form was provided saying that there is the Karner blue along the power lines. When the subdivision came through, the same thing was supplied, and again, that is primarily near the power lines, but since all this property was the subject of other actions over the years, and now this is a portion of it, I didn’t feel that I could take a Long 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) Form and say that there was no potential for Karner blue with the subdivision, but I want to know what impact the subdivision, when there’s nothing proposed with the vacant lot, and Lot Two being a developed lot is already developed, has any impact on the habitat. I agree that there could be habitat and it should be looked at under further site plan or subdivision of Lot Two, but if nothing is proposed under this application for any improvements on Lot Two, what impact does just the subdivision impose upon the Karner blue? That’s my question to the Board. MR. SANFORD-Right now it’s one lot, and there’s the potential for Karner blue and I believe we have to rule that out, prior to the subdivision. We certainly don’t know with certainty that there isn’t lupine or environment elsewhere on the lot. MR. STEVES-I don’t deny that. On Lot Two, or Lot One, that is basically 29.78 acres, but I don’t know, you know, if we’re saying that there’s no proposed, and there will be no proposed action on Lot One until that is reviewed, put that stipulation on here, then could you continue? I’m looking at a client that has a three acre lot that he wants to get broken off for finance reasons for an existing site that’s developed and the rest of the property remaining vacant, and you’re saying that he can’t move forward until Spring. MR. SANFORD-You’ve got a valid point. I mean, the whole thing’s very frustrating, I think, to everybody on this Board. What we’re trying to do, though, the reason I raised the issue, is just trying to be consistent with our recent applications where we’ve, unfortunately it looks like because of the nature of our climate in this area we’ve put them off until next summer for final review and approval of their project, and I don’t think anybody on this Board felt comfortable about it, but we felt we had to do it because of what we’re dealing with here with these environmental issues and endangered species issues. I threw it out for the Board to consider. MR. STEVES-If they had a subdivision, and I agree with you. MR. SEGULJIC-I think we’re going to go in the same place. That plan was a subdivision with actual proposed development. This is just a subdivision with no development. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-The question is, will proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species. MR. STEVES-The subdivision itself. MR. SEGULJIC-The subdivision itself wouldn’t. It’s when you do the site development, I guess, is that correct? MR. SANFORD-Well, before Mark weighs in on it, I think it’s somewhat problematic. In a way, we could be establishing a situation where all subdivisions come in with no proposed project, if we take this position. In a weird way, you know, that seems almost self-defeating to propose a project. MR. STEVES-And I’ll back it up, and I don’t disagree, okay. I really don’t, but I’ll back it up with another aspect. You’re looking at a site that you just said had a site plan approved on it when it was the entire property. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-And it didn’t segment SEQRA at that time. It had to be a SEQRA determination made at the time of site plan. MR. SANFORD-When was that? MR. STEVES-2004. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I’m not sure when we wrestled, we’ve been wrestling with the Karner blue butterfly thing, and it was supposed to be a big comprehensive study done that kind of didn’t go anywhere, but I think that might have been subsequent to 2004. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. STEVES-I’m just stating that I understand the position, Rich. I really do. I’m just looking at it in the perspective that nothing is proposed, and if we put the stipulation that nothing will happen on that lot without review of the Karner blue, and the other one is already a developed lot, I don’t think, by SEQRA standards, that that puts you in a bind. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have a comment, Mark? MR. SCHACHNER-I just want to make sure if I understand the application correctly. Is the proposed application proposing to take one of the lots of the two lot subdivision and merge it with some previously approved lot? MR. STEVES-No. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. What is this about a commercial? MR. STEVES-The entire property is 33 acres. Three acres is developed as a storage facility. MR. SCHACHNER-Currently. MR. STEVES-Currently. All we want to do is take that 3.86 acres that is incorporated inside the storage facility and break it off the remainder of the property, and we will stipulate that no action will be taking place on the remainder of the property until such time as review of Karner blue, or, you know, everything has to, it’s a Light Industrial zone. Nothing can happen on that property without coming back in front of this Board for site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-And that’s the difference between this applicant and the applicant last month where there was a three lot residential subdivision where, if we approved it, they could start construction immediately. So that is the difference. MR. SCHACHNER-And the smaller lot of the proposed subdivision currently is already developed, with this facility that under went SEQRA review as recently as 2004. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I just wanted to make sure I was understanding the applicant. MR. STEVES-And I wholeheartedly agree. MR. SANFORD-I think that makes sense. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions of the Board? Comments? There is a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to speak on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Unlisted. Long Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 18-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LUZERNE HOLDING, INC., and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) 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 15 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a motion for Preliminary approval? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2005 LUZERNE HOLDING, INC., Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s) Luzerne Holding, Inc. Subdivision SUB 18-2005 [P/F] Owner(s) Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s) Van Dusen & Steves Lot size 33.64 acres Location 240 Luzerne Rd. Zoning LI-1A Tax Id No. 308.12-1-7 Section A-183 Cross Ref. SP 10-2004 9/27/05 Tabled; 11/15/05 Public Hearing Project Description: Proposed 2 lot industrial subdivision of 33.64 acres resulting in lots of 3.86 and 29.78 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 9/27/05 and 11/15/05; 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 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) 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 Preliminary WHEREAS, the modifications to the preliminary plat are acceptable; and WHEREAS, the character and extent of any required improvement for which waivers may have been requested and which, in its opinion, may be waived without jeopardy to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; and WHEREAS, approval of this preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of the subdivision plat, but rather, it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the design submitted on the preliminary plat and as a guide to the preparation of the subdivision plat. WHEREAS, the developer shall sign and date a copy of the Planning Board's findings sheet, and such approval shall be deemed to have occurred upon the return of such signed findings sheet to the Planning Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Preliminary Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 18-2005 LUZERNE HOLDING, INC., Introduced by Richard Sanford who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant(s) Luzerne Holding, Inc. Subdivision SUB 18-2005 [P/F] Owner(s) Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s) Van Dusen & Steves Lot size 33.64 acres Location 240 Luzerne Rd. Zoning LI-1A Tax Id No. 308.12-1-7 Section A-183 Cross Ref. SP 10-2004 9/27/05 Tabled; 11/15/05 Public Hearing Project Description: Proposed 2 lot industrial subdivision of 33.64 acres resulting in lots of 3.86 and 29.78 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review. WHEREAS, the application was received; and WHEREAS, the above is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter A183, Subdivision of Land, A183-10C, D of the Code of the Town of Queensbury a public hearing was advertised and was held on 9/27/05 and 11/15/05; 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 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) 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, upon granting conditional approval of the final plat, the Planning Board shall empower a duly designated officer to sign the plat upon compliance with such conditions and requirements as may be stated in its resolution of conditional approval. Within five days of such resolution, the plat shall be certified by the Chairman of the Planning Board as conditionally approved and a copy filed in the Planning Office and a certified copy mailed to the subdivider. The copy mailed to the subdivider shall include two findings sheets, one of which shall be signed by the applicant and returned to the Planning Board. Such requirements which, when completed, will authorize the signing of the conditionally approved final plat. Upon completion of such requirements to the satisfaction of the duly designated office of the Planning Board, the plat shall be deemed to have received final approval, and such officer shall sign the plat accordingly. Conditional approval of a final plat shall expire 180 days after the date of the resolution granting such approval unless the requirements have been certified as completed within that time. The Planning Board may, however, extend the time within which a conditionally approved plat may be submitted for signature if, in its opinion, such extension is warranted in the circumstances, for one or two additional periods of 90 days each. [Amended 6-3-1991] WHEREAS, the final plat shows exact location and depth of sewer and water service. It has also set forth the exact layout and dimensions of proposed streets with the street names and house numbers. WHEREAS, final approval of the subdivision plat plan shall be limited to that phase of the development currently pending before the Planning Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved in accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff and is subject to the following conditions which shall be listed on the final plat submitted for Planning Board Chairman’s signature and filing: 1. There will no development whatsoever on Lot Number One until the applicant has presented any proposed plan to the Planning Board with particular interest being whether or not there is any threatened or endangered species or habitat on Lot Number One. 2. Recreation fees in the amount of $ 500.00 per lot are applicable to this subdivision modification. 3. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Planning Board Chairman signature on mylar. 4. Waiver request(s) are granted / denied [Sketch plan, Stormwater, Grading and Landscaping Plan]. 5. No-Cut Buffer areas shall be field located by surveyor and flagged in a color that is different from boundary markers. 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. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) 8. Final, approved plans in compliance with this subdivision must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt 9. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 62-2005 SEQR TYPE II STEVE CARDONA AGENT(S): SHAWN CALLAHAN RIDGESIDE CONTRACTING OWNER(S): SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 175 ASSEMBLY PT. RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 560 SQ. FT. OPEN-SIDED BOATHOUSE/SUNDECK. BOATHOUSES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-34 SECTION 179-4-020 SHAWN CALLAHAN, REPRESENTING APP., PRESENT; STEVE CARDONA, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, summary of Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. Steve Cardona is the applicant for this project, seeking site plan review for construction of a 560 square foot boathouse/sundeck. Subject property is located at 23 Sunset Lane, Assembly Point, and is zoned Waterfront Residential One Acre. This application is a SEQR Type II. Project Description. The applicant proposes demolition of existing boathouse and construction of a new 560 sq. ft. boathouse. This project is for a new 700 sq. ft. “U”-shaped dock, with 560 sq. ft. boathouse/sundeck. The proposed structure will be compliant with the side line setback, existing is a nonconforming 15-feet, proposed is 25- feet. Has an LGPC permit been issued for this project? That’s it. MR. CALLAHAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening, gentlemen. The floor is yours, if you’d like to just summarize your project. Anything to add? MR. CALLAHAN-Whatever questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m all set. MR. VOLLARO-It looks pretty straightforward to me. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought, too. MR. FORD-No concerns here. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that would like to make any comments about this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It is a Type II Action under SEQR. MR. VOLLARO-There is no SEQR. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. So if there’s anyone that would like to offer a resolution. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 62-2005 STEVE CARDONA, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s): Steve Cardona Site Plan SP 62-2005 Owner(s): Same SEQR Type II Agent(s): Shawn Callahan Lot size 0.77 acres Ridgeside Contracting Location 175 Assembly Pt. Rd. Zoning WR-1A Tax Id No. 239.7-1-34 Section 179-4-020 Cross Ref. Warren County Planning 11/9/05 11/15/05 Public Hearing Adirondack Park Agency Yes Project Description: Applicant proposes a 560 sq. ft. open-sided boathouse/sundeck. Boathouses require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/05; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 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 November 15, 2005; 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 WHEREAS, the use complies with all other requirements of this chapter, including the site plan review standards as set forth in Subsection F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Table 4),EN the applicable requirements of Article 4, Schedule of Regulations, the applicable requirements of Article 5, Supplementary Regulations, the applicable standards and requirements of Article 6, Environmental and Performance Standards, the standards/guidelines in Article 7, Design Guidelines, and the requirements of Article 8, Landscaping and Buffering Standards. WHEREAS, the use is in conformance with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Chapter 147, Stormwater Management, and other applicable local laws. WHEREAS, the use is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use. WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of such projects the Planning Board considered and will make a finding that traffic access and circulation, road intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls are adequate. Additionally, the Board finds that the off-street parking and loading facilities are appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated by the new use. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board has determined it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a twenty-foot connection way must be provided. If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall be identified on the site plan for future linkage. The Planning Board shall also consider interconnection of commercial use areas or other properties to allow for pedestrian access and circulation. WHEREAS, the project will not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the determination hereunder, the Planning Board has considered those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under this § 179-9-080 of this chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board has made a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in this § 179- 9-080 of this article. 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: 1. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright. 3. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator on approved plans. 4. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. 5 Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Goetz MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED AGENT(S): THE CHAZEN COMPANIES OWNER(S): RICHARD & MONIQUE CUNNINGHAM ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION NORTH QUAKER ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE A 10,330 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RESTAURANTS REQIURE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. PLANNING BOARD MAY ACKNOWLEDGE LEAD AGENCY STATUS AND MAY PERFORM SEQR REVIEW. CROSS REF. AV 68-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/12/05 LOT SIZE 3.104 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-6 SECTION 179-4-020 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) JON LAPPER & CHRIS ROUND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, Staff notes. MRS. BARDEN-As you will recall, at the October 18, 2005 meeting, the Planning Board sought Lead Agency Status for SEQRA purposes. This Board, upon accepting that Status, will conduct a coordinated review on behalf of the ZBA, which requested it at their September 28, 2005 meeting. This is a proposal for a 10,330 sq. ft. Golden Corral restaurant and associated site work to be located on Quaker Road. The applicant has submitted Part 1 of the required EAF with informational details. I go into some questions, primarily addressing wetlands on site, traffic impacts, and archeological impacts and access management. Would you like me to go through those, or would you like to just touch them individually? MR. HUNSINGER-If you could just maybe summarize. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Question A 6. Is the project substantially contiguous to or contain a building site, or district, listed on the State or National Registers of Historic Places? Applicant’s response, “No”. “The site is in close proximity to archeologically sensitive sites.” (See endnote 3). Has the applicant contacted SHPO with regard to this project? Question A 8. What is the depth of the water table? Stated response, “2 to 9 feet”. Corresponding endnote 5 states, “Information obtained from the Geotechnical Engineering Report, prepared by Gifford Engineering for a prior project proposed for the site”. This report should be submitted for review by this Board and CT Male. As well as any test pit and percolation test data derived from any recent investigations conducted on site. Question A 16. “Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area”. Stated response, “Unnamed Federal Wetland, sized .552-acres”. Has the applicant obtained a permit from the ACOE for wetland disturbance? Under B g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour: Stated response “172, weekday P.M. peak” trips. The potential traffic impacts of an additional 172 vehicles per hour between 4-6 p.m., onto this section of Quaker Road should be of concern. Chazen’s cursory review of traffic impacts, dated 9/28/05, concludes that “there are no significant impacts to the local roadway system associated with the proposed restaurant”. B j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is: Applicant’s response, “335 feet”. There is approximately 110-feet between the proposed roadway and the existing curb cut to Mark Plaza to the West. In § 179-19-010, the driveway spacing standards for this use on an arterial road is 440-feet. Furthermore, there is approximately 200-feet between the proposed roadway and the intersection with Lafayette Street. There is potential for conflicts on Quaker due to the positioning of the access road. An alternative which would help to reduce these potential conflicts could be shared access with Mark Plaza, with the proposed utilizing the existing roadway to the plaza. Alternately, a right in/right out only access from Quaker Road could be considered. The Board should require that the applicant provide safe traffic circulation for their patrons and the community. MRS. BARDEN-And that’s all I have at this time. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Thank you. Gentlemen, the floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, with Neral Patel, who’s the President of the applicant, Northeast Dining & Lodging, Inc., and Chris Round from the Chazen Companies. We also have Mike Hartman, the traffic engineer from the Chazen Companies here as well, in case the Board has any questions for him. We started out with the project at the Zoning Board, because what we need are two variances, which I’ll explain in a few minutes, and the Board was very supportive of the variance request, but thought that it would be best for the Planning Board to act as Lead Agency for coordinated review, which we certainly agreed with, and that’s why it came to you first. So we need to get through SEQR, so that we can get back to the Zoning Board for variances and then come back to you for the detailed site plan review, but obviously some of the site plan issues have to be delved into as part of the SEQRA review. In general, what we did on this site was to design it so that we could minimize wetland impacts. There are no DEC wetlands, but there are Army Corps wetlands. Susan asked a question about whether we needed an Army Corps permit, and the answer is no. The only place where we’re impacting an Army Corps wetland is just at the driveway, and it’s less than a 10 of an acre threshold. The whole rest of the site was designed to avoid th the wetland in the back at great expense to the applicant, two ways. One is that we’re building a retaining wall, a masonry retaining wall along the back, so that the developed area stays away from the wetland. If it wasn’t for the retaining wall, it would have to be graded 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) on a slope which would require impacts on the wetland. So by being able to stay away from the wetland and build a masonry retaining wall, we just completely avoided impacts there. The other issue was in terms of stormwater management, and Chris will get into much more detail, but the stormwater management system is sophisticated and expensive to filter out any sediments in a big underground filter system, which will have to be installed and then maintained by the applicant, so that what goes out off site and back into the wetland is filtered clean stormwater. The two variances that I mentioned, one is there’s a small area of cattails right in front of where the restaurant building will be located on the southwest corner of the site, and under the Town Code, there’s a building setback, a 75 foot building setback from a wetland because it’s considered a shoreline for that building setback. There would be no problem putting a parking lot there, which doesn’t count under that building setback, but we wanted to put the building in front of the parking lot, for two reasons. In terms of the design guidelines, there’s no design guideline for this part of Quaker Road, but the design guidelines in general, in the Town Code, calls for building and streetscapes, which is just more attractive. The other issue is that this site butts up against, really, the back end of Mark Plaza. It’s a loading dock. There’s frequently wooden pallets out there, if you drive by. So we don’t want to have the building in the back of the site, so that you have to be looking at the side of Mark Plaza, which is just not attractive. In terms of the impact of that variance, that little area of cattails was created by just a drainage way from when Quaker Road was built. So it’s not a significant wetland. It’s a small wetland, but in terms of making sure that we’re not impacting the wetland, the entire stormwater drainage system, stormwater management system here is designed to collect the water, to direct the water away from the front of the site, towards the back of the site, and to collect it underground. So there’s no stormwater that’s going to run from the building or from the driving area into that wetland. So there’s no water that’s going to go into that wetland untreated. Nothing will go into that wetland. So there’s no impact of granting that variance in terms of stormwater. Because the stormwater will be treated and released in the back of the site. The other variance that we need is for additional parking. As you know, compared to all other towns in Queensbury, the parking requirement is not a minimum, but it’s also a maximum, and you’re allowed to go 20% over that if the Planning Board says it’s okay, but we’re asking for an additional 20% over that. We’re asking for 154 spaces. Neral owns and operates the Golden Corral at Exit 15 in Wilton, which is right across from the Wal-Mart. Very busy area of Wilton, and very similar sized facility, and he knows what his traffic needs are, what his traffic generation is and what his parking needs are. That facility is also combined with a Super Eight motel. So his parking lot is bigger because it accommodates the peak hour both the hotel and the restaurant, but in terms of the parking under the Town Code, he felt that it was important to get 154 spaces so that he could meet his maximum need without creating a parking issue. So that explains the variances and just the design, the overall design of what we want to do with this site. We’re on Quaker Road which is a five lane road with a turning median in the middle for left turns. We’ll explain, or Chris will explain about the distance to the traffic light and Mark Plaza. Susan asked the question of whether we could have a shared entrance, and because of the way Mark Plaza is laid out, where the location of the building, it wouldn’t be practical to bring all the traffic in through Mark Plaza and onto this site, but that’s not their principal driveway next door. Their principal driveway is towards the western part of their site, and the secondary driveway, by Passano Paints, is right next to this site. So it shouldn’t be a big conflict if people are turning out of Mark Plaza. They would generally use the other entrance. I think that covers the big picture. Let me hand it over to Chris and let him walk you through the site plan. MR. ROUND-Thank you. As Jon mentioned, the site has some design constraints, the principal one being wetlands, and the first thing that we did on the site was a wetlands delineation, and this figure which you have in your package is actually an erosion and sedimentation control plan, and it shows a point by point delineation. It’s a Federal wetland, not a State wetland. Federal wetland regulations are such that less than one tenth of an acre disturbance does not require notification to the Army Corps of Engineers, in most, if not nearly all circumstances. So if you’re able to keep your disturbance down to a tenth of an acre, you don’t need to contact them. You are receiving coverage, under what they call a Nationwide Permit, and it’s like the stormwater permit system. It’s basically a self- certification process, and so Jon didn’t very clearly explain the impacts, because there are some minor impacts to wetlands around the perimeter of the site, all total, still below the one- tenth of an acre threshold. We accomplished that through two design processes. One, the grading plan, we were given direction to limit that impact because if you get into the Army Corps of Engineers permitting process, it’s time-consuming and can be costly, and so we used the grading plan that incorporates some retention walls, retaining walls, that are generally less than five feet tall, and in some areas they’re two to three feet. They’re not an engineered 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) structure. It’s a very simple plan, and we were extra careful in that we allowed, if you see where we’re showing our impact area, our retaining wall in this area, we’re allowing for five to seven feet of additional impact, outside of the footprint of the retaining wall, to allow for different types of construction of retaining walls. Some retaining walls would require a foundation to be poured. Others, if you’ve seen like the gabian walls, a wire cage with rocks in it, those are another, that don’t require foundation. So there’s different particular details for retaining walls. So that was the first design method we used to minimize impacts to wetlands. The second is this rather elaborate stormwater system, and, Bob, hopefully, I’ve got a prepared speech. So I’m hopeful you’re going to pay attention, because it’s quite a unique system. It is a system that is permitted under the Phase II regulations. Generally most of the systems we’re seeing come in are pocket ponds, wet ponds. They’re two bays, you know, four bay and a retention system. This is a subsurface system, and just let me try to explain this to you briefly. Basically, you see a series of catch basins at the surface. All stormwater is going to be collected, if you would, in a catch basin system. All stormwater is going to flow to this device that’s here on the plans. It’s called a flow splitter, and what’s going to happen is during most storm events, you need to treat quality and quantity. So stormwater quality, you need to treat that first flush event. There’s a design storm that you have to treat, a certain quantity of water, and what this flow splitter does is during normal events, it directs stormwater over to this series of devices over here, the first device, the manhole, and discharges water to this, basically a chamber, a subsurface chamber that acts as a sediment chamber, and then this third device, under most normal conditions, goes in this direction, and it would be treated through a cartridge system, a stormwater, it’s a manufactured device. It’s basically a drum that looks, it’s basically a sand filter cartridge that’s a replaceable cartridge. So what that does is all stormwater goes to this location, and flows out and is discharged to the wetland, after receiving treatment, and so that’s what’s going to happen out of, you know, 90% of the times. In the case where you have larger events, larger storm events, water’s going to flow through here, and this flow splitter will allow that first flush to be transported to this filtration system and discharged. All the volume above that water quality treatment volume is going to come back in to this retention device, and these are basically a series of horizontal pipes, 48 inches, laid side by side, so you just imagine these as being culverts laid in the ground, and they’re a tank, you know, they combine to hold a certain volume of water, and then it’s discharged to the wetland, both permittable. So what happens with stormwater ponds is that all water’s going into a pond, and that first flush is the stormwater that’s carrying all the pollutants with it. The first, you know, 30 minutes of a rain event, the first half inch of water that falls on the ground, basically carries all sediment, any pollutants in an urban environment, brings them to the pond, and the pond is supposed to trap those, allow some retention sediment to fall out, allows for some contact with grass or other biological material, then it goes to the second pond and then it’s discharged. Large events, all that water’s mixed together. So you’ve got that polluted water, mixed together with the balance of a large rain event, and you dilute, and it’s treated. Not the most effective method. This system isolates those two storm events and all the pollutant laden water is transported through this system, filtered and discharged. The larger volume of water that happens after the rain event might continue after you receive the first two inches of rainfall, it comes over to here and is retained and discharged. It’s very much an engineered system, very much an engineered solution. DEC likes it. It’s a permitted system. It doesn’t require a design approval by DEC because it’s a recognized treatment method. It’s very, very expensive, and that’s our big concern, but the site area is at a premium, and so looking at that, when we started the feasibility of this project, that was something we looked at and we talked closely with the owners. It will consume less land for our surface needs and it will provide the stormwater management treatment that we need. So that was where we went. So those were the two big design constraints on this site. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, is that self-propelled? MR. ROUND-Yes. It goes in, it’s a series of weirs and flows and grabbing devices. I think one of the engineer’s comments that you have is that we had a typo on a number on one of the elevations, and the concern was how the flows were going to be split. We responded to the engineers comments. I’m not going to go through those, but then we had a conference call with Jim Houston this morning and Jim was basically, I believe maybe he’s corresponded with Staff, I don’t know that, but he indicated he was, and basically all his comments were very much, not even technical issues, but were very much quality control type of issues. They weren’t design issues. So there’s none of the design of this system that’s going to change as a result of this. MR. VOLLARO-You had a lot of problems with your inverts. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. ROUND-Yes. There was one invert that was wrong, and it threw everything else off, and it should have been a seven versus a nine, and he’s okay with it. So we’re very comfortable with that. I mean, we’ve spent a lot of time on this. I mean, it looks like line work on paper, but there’s a lot of thought and a lot of engineering process that goes into that. The other design constraint, you know, that was further impacted by the wetlands was our driveway location. If you go out there today, if you’ve been to the site, there’s an existing entrance to the site at this location, and we met with Warren County Department of Public Works, as one of our early tasks. We said, you know, would you like us to move the location. Is this an allowable location. Their big concern is drainage of the highway system, Number One. They had a couple of comments on that, and they said, we had asked them for a letter to correspond with you to give you folks a comfort level. They said that’s really putting the cart before the horse. Why don’t you go through the local review process. Our curb cut permit is very much an administerial action, and provided that you meet the drainage requirements, we’ll allow you to place your curb cut at that location. I’m going to let Mike, in a minute, Mike Hartman, talk about traffic and trip generation and the placement of the location separation distance to the Lafayette Street and the adjoining driveway, but I do want to touch on a couple of other issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Before you leave stormwater, I had a question on the filters. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-How often do they have to be changed? MR. ROUND-I have that in our stormwater management plan. I don’t have it in my head, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ROUND-You’re required to prepare a maintenance plan for ponds, and that’s incorporated in a SWPPP. You’re required to do a maintenance plan with this, and basically it will be a contracted service. The installer/manufacturer, it’s a proprietary device, and so you’re not going to go out to Ed’s stormwater treatment system and have him do the maintenance. You’re going to go back to the installer/proprietor of the facility, and he’s going to be on a program. MR. HUNSINGER-The follow-up question is, what’s the net effect to the stormwater treatment if the filter fails? MR. ROUND-I don’t know. MR. HUNSINGER-Because I remember we had looked at these on a prior application a couple of years ago. MR. ROUND-Were you looking at filter systems? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and the applicant ended up not doing them, for a variety of reasons. Expense being one of them. MR. ROUND-Cost, yes. It is cost, I know, and there’s other systems that you’ve probably seen that are similar to this, called a Vortex system. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. ROUND-Vortex systems do not meet the water quality standards that this filtration system does. It is an interim means to remove sediments and effluents, but it doesn’t meet the treatment standards, not by itself. I would have to be incorporated as part of a system or a series of stormwater management devices. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. ROUND-They are, I’m not sure what the failsafe devices are in them. I’m not the design engineer on it. I’d have to look at that and whether it’s an alarm system or whether, I don’t know what that particular device is, but we can certainly get that information to you. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. ROUND-A couple of concerns on the SEQRA form. I know Mike will correct, when we initially prepared our Environmental Assessment Form, we look at, we have a layperson, basically a planner, such as myself look at an ITE manual and punch in the land use Codes and spit out a number, what was reported on our Environmental Assessment Form was an AM peak number, not applicable to this project because it doesn’t operate during the AM. It serves lunch and dinner. Mike actually prepared a letter summary talking about the trip generating characteristics of the project, and he’ll talk to you a little bit about that. Another comment on the Environmental Assessment Form is I spoke to the Army Corps of Engineers issues. That you don’t make contact with the Corps during a tenth of an acre or less. Generally the only time you, the Corps separates wetlands impacts from less than one tenth of an acre, one tenth to one half an acre, or greater than one half an acre disturbance. The Corps, as a matter of policy, does not come out and verify wetlands delineations in most circumstances. If you’re disturbing over a tenth of an acre, and up to a half an acre, you would generally do a pre-construction notification. That’s this big report that sends your delineation, asks for jurisdictional impact, asks for potential mitigation. Not required in this circumstance. Greater than half an acre, you would require an individual permit. That means there’s no blanket permit that you seek coverage under. You would have to go to the Corps and negotiate your project. Neither of those latter two circumstances are applicable. Less than one tenth of an acre does not require notification. It would require notification to the Corps if you needed another Federal permit, or if you needed a Federal funding, Federal State funding, not the case in this circumstance. SHPO consultation. SHPO consultation not required as well. I know the Environmental Assessment Form asks two questions, one about historic structures or historic districts. Generally the level of examination that we make it that we look at a website that SHPO has on-line. It’s a Sphinx website. You go to the website and you look and see if you’ve got a national register site, none in this area, or historic structures, none in this area. The other thing that they do look at, that we did note in our footnote, is are you in an area of sensitive archeological resources, and what they do is if you’ve seen them, just these circles and square maps. They draw these big gray one mile radius circles or half a mile radius circles, and if you’re within that area, and you need a Federal permit, you need to consult with SHPO, and that’s not the case, since we do not have a permit requirement here. What we do look at, though, is if we did need to consult with SHPO, in this circumstance, they would look at, has the site been disturbed previously, and if you can demonstrate that your site has been disturbed previously, the likelihood that you have archeological resources on your site is nil, and this entire site, Bob has mentioned it, this entire site is a filled site, or it’s wetlands. There’s not generally archeological investigations required if you have wetlands or if you have a filled site, and so that’s the way we answered the, and Quaker Road was constructed some time in early mid 70’s, and different environmental process back in the 70’s. MR. HUNSINGER-Aren’t some of the bricks from the old Glens Falls Insurance Building, historic? MR. ROUND-It’s possible. So those were a couple of the issues on the Environmental Assessment Form. We do have a copy of the geotechnical report. We can certainly provide that to the Town. It was a report that we acquired through the real estate process, a previous investigation that was done on the site. Basically, it said that there was a series of test borings, fill material on the site. They looked at where groundwater was. Groundwater, in this circumstance, is not a design constraint for us, because we don’t have a septic system on the site that’s going to cause us a constraint. The stormwater system is sited above the groundwater elevation, and doesn’t cause us concern with our engineering issues, and so it’s not a matter of debate, per se, and I think, I just want to introduce Mike Hartman, and just talk briefly, Mike, trying to be brief because it is getting late. I just want to note that the driveway separation standards that the Town has is not a rigorous standard. It’s an ideal guideline. New York State themselves does not have design separation standards for commercial driveways. It’s a guidance, and ideally, if you were going to create a subdivision along Quaker Road, you would look to separate your commercial driveways as much as physically possible. The guidance in the Town’s zoning regulations says 440 feet. It’s based on the State’s guidance for commercial driveway standards, and ideally, if you were going to create a new lot, you would create a lot with 500 foot frontage, and you would separate them as much as possible. I mentioned, our placement is west of Lafayette street and it’s east of the adjoining driveway, and that’s constrained by the existing site conditions and the impacts of the wetlands, and Mike will talk just a little bit about traffic. Mike’s been with Chazen 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) about a year. Mike’s a former design engineer or traffic engineer for the Department of Transportation. Came out of the Poughkeepsie office, and I’ll turn it over to Mike. MR. VOLLARO-Before you do, Chris, let me ask a question. In your Part I submission, under Wetlands, water surface area Federal wetlands, it’s, under site description, and you have Federal wetlands at .552. MR. ROUND-I think that’s the acreage that’s actually on the site. The question’s asking what’s the area of wetlands on the site. It’s not a disturbance. It’s an area that’s on the site. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I wasn’t, what you’re talking about is disturbance of less than a tenth of an acre. MR. ROUND-Yes. SP-2, wetland impact note, right here you can read it. Total wetland impact area. It’s 4,265 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just making sure that there was no problem. MIKE HARTMAN MR. HARTMAN-I’d like to address two aspects of the impact from the traffic that would be generated by the project. Chris mentioned already the total of 173 vehicles that was noted as being added to Quaker Road is incorrect. That was actually 154 vehicles being the actual figure. In addition to that, about 40, actually 43% of that figure, is considered to be passerby traffic. In other words, traffic that is already on Quaker Road. MR. FORD-He was referring 154 parking spaces, was he not? MR. HARTMAN-Well, it happens to be the same figure. MR. LAPPER-Coincidentally. MR. FORD-It’s coincidental? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HARTMAN-I can show you the ITE printout. It shows 154. It is coincidence, and a strange one if you want to look at it that way, but of that 154, 66 of those vehicles are already on Quaker Road. So the restaurant itself will generate an additional 88 vehicles to Quaker Road. Now, once we get past that aspect of it, you really don’t care if they’re new vehicles on Quaker Road or if they’re existing vehicles. You’re going to want to be interested in how they get in and out of the site. The ITE Generation Rates provide for percentage and number of the vehicles generated by any type of establishment, be it a restaurant, be it a hospital, be it housing, what have you, and for this particular case, for 154 trips being generated in the PM peak hour, 88 of those trips are coming into the site and 66 of those trips are leaving the site. MR. VOLLARO-That’s for week day operation? MR. HARTMAN-That’s a week day PM peak. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You have also to consider your weekend peaks. You haven’t gotten to that yet. MR. HARTMAN-Yes. We looked at the PM peak, simply because the ITE gives us more information on that time period. MR. VOLLARO-That’s also when the restaurant is operational, I would assume. MR. HARTMAN-Yes, it is. MR. HARTMAN-Of those 88 coming in, what we’re looking at is roughly looking at the volumes on Quaker Road, we’re looking at roughly a 50/50 directional split. So we’re looking at 44 vehicles coming in from the east, 44 from the west. So in other words 44 vehicles would be making a right hand turn into the restaurant. Forty-four vehicles would be making a left 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) hand turn into the restaurant. As mentioned before, we have a very wide striped center flush median on Quaker Road for storage. Now forty-four vehicles making that turn, during the peak hour, comes out to be about, if everything was exactly even, about one vehicle every minute and a half that would be turning into there. Okay. Granted traffic is heavy on Quaker Road. There’s no argument about that. There is a signal on Lafayette, roughly 200 feet to the east of the intersection. That signal serves roughly about 230, 235 vehicles an hour during the PM peak. Of that figure, 220 of those vehicles are going right. In other words, away from the site. So every time that signal stops to let people out of that road, the vast, vast majority of those cars go to the right. Only one or two every time would go to the left, and that would provide very adequate gaps for the one, two or three cars that might be queued in that median to get into the restaurant itself. So, I think the forty-four coming in from the east and making a right, there’s no problem with that movement. The forty-four vehicles, considering a 50/50 split, who are coming from the west, would be storing, very randomly throughout that hour, one, two vehicles at a shot, probably. There will be many gaps in traffic due to the traffic signal at Lafayette to give them adequate time to get into the restaurant. Now those are the eighty-eight people coming in. There are sixty-six vehicles leaving the restaurant during the PM peak. Again, assuming a 50/50 split, 33 of those vehicles are making a right turn to head west, and 33 of those vehicles would have to make a left turn to head east. Again, your wide striped median will serve as a storage area for those vehicles, if they cannot make a complete left turn and join the traveled way immediately or east bound. Again, the gaps in your signal should provide time for those people to make that movement to head east bound. The number of vehicles going in and out of that establishment during the PM peak is not an excessive number. The signal at Lafayette does provide a number of gaps during the course of the peak hour. We did not do an analysis of that signal, but looking at normal signal timing, it probably stops traffic probably 45 times an hour. I know it’s a coordinated system through there. The coordinated system does give preference to the main road. Probably in peak hours it does give it more time than it does normally. So I would think if you look at maybe 45 stops, that would be about a 90 second signal cycle, which is a lot for that signal which only has two phases to it, in other words, two movements. So you’ve got 40, 45 times an hour when that signal is stopping to allow both the lefts in and the lefts out to have access to their direction. I think that’s about it. Are there any further questions I can answer? MR. HUNSINGER-I do. Yes. Go ahead. MR. FORD-I make those right and left hand turns out of the Mark Plaza usually several times a day, and it already is a dangerous location on Quaker Road. Adding the number of cars that you’re suggesting is really going to impact traffic in that area of Quaker Road, beyond anything that you have lead us to believe at this point. I really envision some real traffic problems and issues pertaining to safety. Right now, without The Golden Corral there, to make a left hand turn out of the Mark Plaza at certain times of the day, I have colleagues who only make right hand turns out of that driveway, and only go west and go up and loop around as opposed to trying to negotiate across two west bound lanes of traffic into that median section, and waiting there before they can go east on Quaker. Those are existing conditions. MR. HUNSINGER-Bob, you had a comment or question? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have one question. In looking at our Code, which is 179-19-010, under “C”, called Driveway Spacing Standards, because what they do is they develop those standards against peak hour requirements. Now, I look at your weekend peak hour trips at being 321. I just added the two together on weekends, Saturdays, in other words, in the afternoon. If you add those two together you get 321. MR. HARTMAN-Adding the ins and outs? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HARTMAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now, the spec says anything greater than 300 trips, the driveway separation required is 550 feet, 340 feet, now what I got was I went and did some GIS work with some of the GIS people in the Town, and I looked at the two curb cuts. The first curb cut is the one to the west of this proposed site, is 100 feet, and the next curb cut into the main Mark Plaza is 340 feet away from The Golden Corral curb cut. Now, anything greater than, and I’m taking 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) the worst case analysis, which is 340 feet, anything greater than 300 trips on driveway separation requires 550 feet as opposed to 340. So I think 340 is about 60% less than our Code here, and I’m trying to take a look at how our Code impacts really the results of the peak hour trips, and I see that there’s a problem there in my mind anyway in terms of our Code, that we’ve got 60% less separation than we should have. MR. LAPPER-Whatever it is, it is, because this is a pre-existing lot that only has a certain amount of width. I think the issue is that Mark Plaza has that secondary driveway which is not used as much as the main driveway, that’s right on their property line. If that was a new development, they wouldn’t get two curb cuts. They have two curb cuts, and that’s the closest driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but we’re talking about driveway separations, and I’m taking the second one, which is 340 feet from the Corral, assuming that the small one that goes into Passano Paints. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s what I was talking about. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let’s not even consider that. MR. LAPPER-But whatever it is, Bob, there’s nothing, I mean, this lot is already a pre- existing lot. NiMo has the right of way next door. There’s not an alternative to, you can’t move this access closer to the Lafayette intersection. MR. VOLLARO-Well, how are we going to get around the Code that says you need 550 foot separations, based on the peak hour trips of 321? MR. ROUND-Yes. I think if you read on, Bob, there’s a provision that allows the Planning Board to look at pre-existing conditions, if you read further on in your Code, that says you can’t impose a condition that somebody can’t meet, and so the Code allows for the Planning Board to waive that requirement, where it finds that it’s not achievable. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think in the case of Quaker Road, for example in looking at Quaker now, the proposed restaurant is situated midway between two major intersections, which are less than a mile apart. One is Quaker Road and Bay, and the other is Quaker Road and 9, and Quaker Road and 9, on the weekends, has experienced F, failures. So what I’m trying to say. MR. ROUND-Yes, but driveway separation standards and capacity issues are two separate things. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I’m trying to view them and try to integrate, in my mind, that whole traffic problem on Quaker, and it seems to me, I think Tom has a point. I’ve also had the experience of trying to make that left turn out of the main Mark Plaza thing, not easy to do. MR. ROUND-Let me just focus you on two points. That 9 and 254 intersection is a capacity issue, and the Town has been working with the State to resolve that issue, and there’s a project that’s to be constructed next Spring. There’s additional turn lanes that are going to be installed on Aviation Road and on Quaker Road to alleviate some of those operational, those capacity issues there. So that’s not an issue. Our new vehicle trip generations are not excessive. I think there is a pass by credit that we’re not creating new traffic, you know, we’re trying to take advantage of the traffic that’s on the highway system and bring them to a new business. No one will argue that making a left hand turn out of any commercial site on Route 9, Quaker Road, Main Street, Exit 18, no one’s going to argue that that’s not an easy movement to make. Any time you cross a lane of traffic, you have to exercise care. This is a Highway Commercial zone in the commercial center of Town, on the largest highway in Town. If not a commercial business here, where would you go to put a commercial business? So what we’re trying to explain is our traffic generation rates don’t create a capacity problem. The left hand turn movements can be made because there is a signal in close proximity, closer proximity to our site than the upstream site at Mark Plaza. So we have the benefit of being closer to that gap creator, and I think, you know, those are the things that you’ve got to look at. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. FORD-But you’re adding to the number of people trying to use that median section, because they’re coming out of Bank North. They’re coming out of Mark Plaza, they’re coming out of next to Bank North. MR. ROUND-That’s a given, and there is some things to do with. MR. FORD-You’ve got to be looking about four different ways simultaneously in order to get out there safely. MR. ROUND-Well, only a certain percentage of the customers are going to be making that left, as we tried to explain in the preliminary introduction to that. MR. SANFORD-How many are going to be coming in at peak hours? I just want to make sure I got your numbers straight. MR. HARTMAN-During the week day PM peak, 88 vehicles during the peak PM hour coming in through this site. MR. SANFORD-And you were mentioning that some were on the road already, and others will be going to the restaurant as a destination. What was that break out? MR. HARTMAN-The actual percentage breakout was about 43% are called pass by, of the 154. MR. SANFORD-Of the 154. So 154 are going to go in? MR. HARTMAN-No. One hundred and fifty four is the PM peak traffic generated by the restaurant, in and out. MR. ROUND-Do you have a copy of the correspondence that we sent? MR. VOLLARO-I would rather we work on the worst case analysis, which is the weekend, which I think the restaurant will experience the most participation is on the weekend. The weekend is considerably different than the week day, at the PM time, and the weekend is the worst case analysis, and if we’re going to do an analysis on this, we ought to be doing worst case, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-The question that I have, and it’s a question that I frequently ask when we are dealing with traffic counts, what’s the background traffic? What’s the current PM peak traffic on Quaker Road? MR. HARTMAN-It’s about 2400. MR. HUNSINGER-Twenty-four hundred. So you’re adding eighty-eight new cars on a background of twenty-four hundred? MR. HARTMAN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HARTMAN-We’re adding about four percent. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s always the perspective that I look for. MR. GOETZ-When was this study done? MR. HARTMAN-The counts were from a 2002 study done for the Quaker Road signal improvement project by Sear Brown, and they were updated 2005, using a two percent growth factor per year, which is what the area, the Adirondack. MR. ROUND-A/GFTC recommends to supply. It’s the numbers that we got from A/GFTC. MR. HARTMAN-Right. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. GOETZ-Now, I understand the restaurant is very popular in Saratoga. That it just packs them in, and is the restaurant in Saratoga the same size as what this is going to be? NERAL PATELL MR. PATELL-Identical. MR. GOETZ-Identical. Okay. Tonight I was there around 4:30. It was getting dark, I was looking at the property, and I wanted to come out and turn left. I could hardly get out to turn right, and so I had to turn right and then go left in order to come back to go east. MR. LAPPER-You can’t have a traffic light at every driveway for a commercial business, so you have to wait. It’s an inconvenience. MR. GOETZ-I understand that, but what I’m concerned about is the back up onto the highway. MR. LAPPER-That would be a capacity issue, and we have our traffic engineer, but also, when Quaker Road was designed by DOT and County DPW with the median, it was designed so that this lot would some day be developed. That’s why they located that curb cut the place we’re using it, where it exists now. I mean, the capacity this was designed for contemplated that the few remaining sites on Quaker Road would be filled with businesses. Is it an inconvenience to have to wait longer than we used to have to wait? Absolutely, but that is, as Chris said, the main commercial corridor and commercial zoning, and this is where a restaurant is supposed to go in the Town. MR. FORD-I understand that, Jon. Inconvenience is one thing. Safety is another. MR. LAPPER-But you can’t, as a layperson, you can’t just say that, or shouldn’t just say that filling this one site is going to bring it to a safety issue that will change what’s there now. It’s just matter of people have to wait and be careful to make left turns. MR. FORD-It’s going to exacerbate it. How can you add to an existing situation which already, at times, is dangerous, without making it more dangerous? MR. LAPPER-Well, when you say dangerous, that’s sort of a subjective determination. MR. FORD-Yes, it is. MR. LAPPER-I mean, it’s really a question of how long do you have to wait to make a left turn? It’s not that, and no one’s saying that the capacity, that Quaker Road can’t handle the existing traffic, and as Chris and Mike said, this site is unique because it’s only 220 feet from the signal. So you do have the ability to use those gaps that are created when there’s a red light on Lafayette, and that’s how it would operate, but this is no different than, you know, all the other businesses on Quaker Road and Route 9 and Taco Bell and Dunkin Donuts, and, you know, and we all do that every day, and you have to be careful, but that’s how the road’s designed. You use that median. If you have to get out to the median and then wait to enter traffic, that’s how you do it, but, you know, it’s not right to say that we’re going to shut down this site and this site can’t be developed because there’s no traffic light there. MR. SANFORD-Well, you’ve got to appreciate the concept, I think, that my colleagues are referencing, which is eventually you’ll reach capacity. You’ll reach a saturation point. I mean, we all have to appreciate that basic law of physics. I mean, this restaurant, you’re justifying it’s okay, it’s a traffic situation where people have to be careful. What if there’s five more restaurants? I mean, eventually you’re going to have a problematic situation here where you have a real problem, and maybe we already have it I think is what Mr. Ford is suggesting. MR. LAPPER-Well, that would be a DPW issue, right? It’s a County road and they’re the ones that look at that. MR. SANFORD-Again, I’m just saying that your line of reasoning doesn’t totally hold up, which is this is a commercial road and you’ve got to just deal with it and expect it, and if there’s problems with Taco Bell, then there could be problems here. I don’t know if that equates. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. LAPPER-Well, when you look at the design, if people are stacking on the restaurant site and they have to wait to make a left turn out, that doesn’t affect the safety. I mean, that’s an inconvenience for the site, if you have to wait to make a left turn out, or even a right turn out, because you have to wait for a gap. That doesn’t affect how the road operates, and because there’s the median for left turns, people can stack in that median anywhere on Quaker Road, and they may be inconvenienced, but they have to wait, but there’s a place for them. You’re not holding up the travel lane while people are waiting to make a left turn. MR. SANFORD-Well, there’s very likely to be a queuing problem right within the restaurant parking lot here, if people are trying to make a left hand turn out and they can’t get out and there’s other people behind them, you can have all kinds of internal congestion within this parking lot. MR. LAPPER-Which just means people have to wait. MR. SANFORD-Well, again, that’s why you have a Planning Board to look at this stuff to make sure it’s doable. MR. LAPPER-All I’m suggesting, and I mean no disrespect, but these are scientific issues. We’ve got the County that controls the road. It’s a State road that the County controls. They have to issue a permit, and County Planning looked at it, but that’s just another issue, and there’s nothing unique about this, compared to the Saturn dealership that we just did or Applebee’s that went in, or Lowe’s, that, you’re saying could there be a place where you get to where the capacity of the road is filled and you can’t add another business? Sure, that could happen. MR. SANFORD-Well, Jon, I remember Dunkin Donuts I was concerned about queuing lines there and having them come out to Route 9. I was told it wasn’t going to happen. I drive by there on weekends and what have you and I see there’s a queuing line out on Route 9. MR. LAPPER-I have to admit, I go there pretty frequently, and I don’t see that. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well I do, occasionally, see it. So I guess my point is, you know, not all the time are the representations 100% accurate and/or comprehensive, and in fact that’s one of the things that we’ve been wrestling with as a Planning Board for quite some time, is that a lot of times these traffic studies are done in a very discrete, individualized specific to a project. We never really get a cumulative situation, which factors in not only this business, but other businesses and how the traffic impacts are taking place, and I think that we’re very concerned about that, all of us on this Planning Board. MR. LAPPER-Well, the Town has good resources, because as Mike mentioned, there’ve been all these studies for the signal timing on Quaker Road, so the Town hired traffic consultants to analyze Quaker Road, a number of times over the past five years, and we use those numbers, but I mean, I guess what I would suggest is that if you want to have the traffic engineers at C.T. Male review our information, that may be a way to get, you know, empirical data reviewed by a professional engineer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Well, this has all been very insightful discussion. Back to a sort of administerial item. We do have in our Staff notes a draft resolution acknowledging Lead Agency Status. Would anyone like to put forward that resolution? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MOTION TO THAT THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, in connection with the Northeast Dining & Lodging project, the Town of Queensbury Planning Board, by resolution, previously authorized the Executive Director to notify other involved agencies of the desire of the Planning Board to conduct a coordinated SEQRA review, and 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) WHEREAS, the Executive Director has advised that other involved agencies have been notified and have consented to the Town of Queensbury Planning Board being lead agent, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, The Town of Queensbury Planning Board hereby recognizes itself as lead agent for purposes of SEQRA review, and BE IT FURTHER, RESOLVED, The Executive Director is hereby authorized to give such notifications and make such filings as may be required under Section 617 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here that wanted to speak regarding this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AL BOYCHUK MR. BOYCHUK-Al Boychuk from Mark Plaza. BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-Bob Sears, a local realtor who loves Golden Corral. MR. BOYCHUK-I personally do not have an objection to any business going next door. My main concern would be the traffic that would be generated, and that’s a concern that I have, with the amount of cars, let’s say with 150 cars, that would be pulling in and out of the restaurant. That could impact, you could have up to five, seven, ten cars backing up in the center median trying to pull in, and, you know, other driveways, whether it’s people coming out of the Bank, from the orthopedics across the street, from Mark Plaza, that would impact people trying to get in, getting in and also leaving. MR. SEARS-Just a few comments. Golden Corral belongs here. They’re excellent. My son loves Golden Corral. What you do, when you walk in there, they have excellent food. It’s a buffet style dinner. We can go down to the Golden Corral and get three dinners down there and eat all we want to eat from steak to salmon to anything, and this is all (lost word), but anyway, the bottom line for less than $25. They’re vegetables are all fresh. When you go into the Golden Corral, there’s 350 seats. Okay. Typically when we go in there, 90% of them are filled up. We go in during peak hours. Typically when we go in there, we have to wait at least 20 minutes to a half an hour to sit down. So we’ve been getting a little smarter. We go in there just before five o’clock. So what I’m saying is this. Typically on a peak hour, you have at least 400 people, or between 350 and 400 people in that restaurant. Okay. That’s a lot of parking. That’s a lot of traffic trips. The parking, our engineer said there were basically 160 trips going in and out of that driveway an hour. That’s three cars a minute, okay. MR. VOLLARO-I keep going back to their Endnote 11 which says on the weekend the peak hour trips are 321. I’m focusing on the worst case analysis. MR. SEARS-I’m just giving you something that, information that he’s already said. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. I just want to get that on the record. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. SEARS-I understand that. So anyway, if you have three cars going either in and out of that every minute, you have car counts on that highway of 25,000 a day, going at 45 miles an hour, typically, how is anybody going to get in and out of there safely? And that’s the problem with that location, as Mr. Ford already pointed out. Now, if you want to reverse that a little bit, and you look at where your prime restaurants are located, in Queensbury, I mean, the restaurants that have 400 people, or 350 people inside their restaurant at peak hours, they’re always accessible to a light. You look at Olive Garden. You look at Red Lobster. You look at where the new Outback is going. You look at the other restaurant that’s going in up there where Wal-Mart is. They’re all accessible to a light. This restaurant needs to be accessible to a light. That’s, in my estimation, and that’s why this lot is very prohibitive. Maybe not prohibitive because of zoning, but because of safety, and that’s why we’re here tonight, and that’s all I have to say. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? MR. LAPPER-I guess just very simply. We’re not trying to get away with anything here. We’re trying to just trying to add another business on Quaker Road. So what I would suggest, I know that Tom Ford works at Al Boychuk’s Plaza, and so he’s taking particular interest in this, which makes sense because he’s familiar with it. I think that it’s totally appropriate for you to have a traffic engineer on behalf of our Town look at our data and let’s have scientists tell us. We’re not going to convince you, and we’re not going to try to convince you, tonight, about the traffic, but I think that you need to have C.T. Male look at this and look at our data and let them tell you what they think. MR. HUNSINGER-How’s the Board feel on moving forward with SEQRA? MR. SANFORD-I think we need more work. MR. SEGULJIC-Have C.T. Male look at it at least. MR. VOLLARO-I think if we moved forward with SEQRA we’d get wrapped up seriously in the traffic question. We probably wouldn’t get by that, either that, or we’d be working on Part III. That’s my opinion. I think we have to clarify this, before. That’s why I spent as much time on this as I did because I recognize that once you go to SEQRA and you give a neg dec on SEQRA, you’re hard pressed to do anything else. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other outstanding concerns, other than traffic? MR. SANFORD-Not to the south. I would say to the west. MR. PATELL-If I may mention something about traffic. There’s 154 parking spaces that we are proposing on the site, and the restaurant does seat 350. During peak periods, of the 154 parking spaces, if all of them were to be occupied, 35 were to be occupied by employees alone, our shifts go from typically nine to four and four to eleven at night. So avoiding peak periods, and so thirty-five of those spaces would be occupied immediately just by employees and management. So of the 154, if we allowed one customer per car, the business would generate a little over 100 trips, or 200 trips, one in, one out. So 200 trips an hour, not the 321 that has been conceived, and, Mr. Sanford, you mentioned about the lack of clarity in some of these studies, and how the Board has needed to become, evolve a little bit more, as far as understanding and grasping all the trip generations and not solely relying on a single report filed. The other thing I’d like to mention, based on that, is of the 350 seats, there’s 88 tables in a restaurant, by its prototype, of which 84% are four tops, 12 and a half percent of the tables are six tops, and only three and a half percent are two tops, and the reason why I bring this up is Golden Corral is a national chain with in excess of 500 stores. They’ve done their homework as far as who their customer is, what the average ticket consists of, as far as customers per ticket, and with that in mind, if, in reality, there was only one customer per car coming in and out, once an hour, then there would be a majority of two tops, rather than the vast majority being the fours and the sixes, and the reason for it is Golden Corral is really a family restaurant. I mean, Mr. Sears saved me my spiel today about why it’s a popular destination, the value it provides, but I think those are all things that also need to be considered, as far as when we evaluate trips and traffic, and the impact it’s going to have on Quaker Road. While by a formula, held by a national standard, it may seem like it is going to make a substantial impact, when all things are considered, the number of employees that will work there during peak periods, the average number of people that dine there in one meal, majority being families, Golden Corral had put out a study, which I can try to find, but, you 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) know, the point I’m trying to make is it’s not one person per car per hour. It’s substantially more coming in to the Golden Corral, and we brought up Saratoga, and the operation down there. Between the motel and the restaurant, I have a total of 205 parking spaces, of which 65, during peak hotel nights, are occupied just by the hotel, leaving only 140 for the restaurant. While Mr. Sears has gone there, there may be 50 on line, again, if that was, if the parking and the traffic generations were really that drastic, it wouldn’t work. There would be a major problem there, and I have experienced no such problem. The reason why we call for 154 spaces, as Mr. Ford mentioned, safety is a major issue on site. A lot of times we are patronized by motor coach, especially on Sundays, tours coming north to south from Montreal. So the actual car counts do vary, and it’s not really as drastic a count as the studies are showing, or if we were to take one person per car per ticket, essentially. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a tabling resolution, and maybe be specific about what new information we would be looking for. MRS. BARDEN-Can I make one suggestion on that? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MRS. BARDEN-If you do want to table this for review, if you couldn’t specify C.T. Male as the engineer to do that. Could not. MR. SCHACHNER-She’s saying don’t. MRS. BARDEN-Keep it open-ended, as far as additional review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Let me try to understand it. We would not specify C.T. Male? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It could be any engineering company. MR. HUNSINGER-Town engineer, Town’s designated engineer. MR. LAPPER-We don’t care which engineer. I wasn’t suggesting it had to be C.T. Male. MRS. BARDEN-No, no, no. I’m not, either. I think that you’re in the habit of C.T. Male, and I’m not sure if they have transportation engineers. MR. LAPPER-They do. MRS. BARDEN-But we’d rather just have that, Staff’s discretion. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-I think the Planning Board should also be involved in what engineer is picked, by the way, and not just Staff. If need be, both Staff and the Planning Board ought to get together and decide which one of these engineering firms we’d like to employ. MRS. BARDEN-That sounds great. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see any problem with that. Do you see any problem with that, Mark, at all? MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to put forward a resolution? Is there any way for the applicant to get actual traffic counts from your existing store? That might be useful as well. MR. SANFORD-Well, again, I think that Mr. Sears comments were very interesting, particularly the comment on most of these restaurants of this nature do, in fact, have access to a light, and, boy, you know, when he was talking, I was thinking about them. They all do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. SANFORD-And so chances are if the applicant’s going to give us statistics, that probably his restaurant down in, what is it, Saratoga or Wilton, probably has access to a light? MR. PATELL-No. MR. SANFORD-It does not? Okay. MR. ROUND-I think it’s a real estate kind of question, is that. You’re looking at vehicle count areas, you’re looking at intersections, and I think they quoted a couple. I mean, we could go through a statistical analysis of how many restaurants are located at intersections versus non-intersections or signals. I don’t think that’s germane to the argument. MR. SANFORD-Again, to me, there’s a certain amount of commonsense logic associated with it. If you go in the Lowe’s Plaza. MR. LAPPER-Applebee’s. MR. SANFORD-Applebee’s, you can go out to the light on Bay if you have to. Who knows. You’ve got the light going across into Wal-Mart. I mean, they seem to be in a situation where the light takes care of a lot of the concerns that particularly Mr. Ford was talking about, which is trying to negotiate a left hand turn on a busy road. MR. SEARS-Where Mr. Patell has established this down in Saratoga is where it should be. The road is Ballard Road, and that’s the main road leading to all the retail establishments down there. When you get off the exit at Exit 15, you go straight down the road, and then you go over the bridge, and then you make a left and you go towards the Lowe’s Home Building store. You’re on an access road that goes down to the end of the road and that’s where the Golden Corral is. So it is accessible to a light. You have to go through a light to get to it, and the traffic is filtered as a result of that light. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. VOLLARO-Can we get a little time to do that? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Why don’t we take a three minute recess. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, if we do this based on trying to get additional information from an outside source, an engineering firm, basically a traffic study, I’d find it difficult to try to table this to a time certain. Because we don’t know what that would be. So I’m trying to say motion to table to a time where the Planning Board can retain the services of a traffic consultant for purposes of reviewing the traffic data as presented by Northeast Dining and Lodging, and when that data is presented to the Planning Board, then we can come up with a date. Other than that, how would we come up with a time certain? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Right. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a few steps in here that we’ve got to engage somebody, whether it be C.T. Male or whatever. Do you feel that’s appropriate? MR. HUNSINGER-They’d like us to specify a date, only for purposes of warning the item on the agenda. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-If we don’t, then they have to re-advertise for the public. That’s really the only downside. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the only downside. That’s minor, compared to what we’re looking at. I think I have the basis of a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Are we ready, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ll spin it off and see where we go with it. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: To table to an unspecified time, when the Planning Board can retain the services of a traffic consultant for purposes of reviewing the traffic data as presented by Northeast Dining & Lodging to the Planning Board on November 15, 2005. Duly adopted this 15th day of November, 2005, by the following vote: MR. HUNSINGER-Did you want to say anything about additional information from the applicant? MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I put in, to the Planning Board on November 15, as presented th by Northeast Dining & Lodging to the Planning Board on November 15, which, if we get th together with this traffic consultant, then we’ll have to re-direct him to these folks for information, I would think, or Staff might have to do that. MR. LAPPER-We can work with your traffic engineer, and we’ll provide whatever information they want, that’s fine. We’d just ask you to pick them quickly, just so we can keep it moving. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. We’ll get some more data and we’ll be back. SITE PLAN NO. 59-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NICHOLAS DAIGLE OWNER(S): SAME ZONING CI-1A LOCATION 15 BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/RETAIL USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 78-05, SP 27-04, AV 43-04, AV 1328, AV 7-96, SP 11-96, SP 15-02 LOT SIZE 1.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20- 2-34, 33 SECTION 179-4-030 NICHOLAS DAIGLE, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. The applicant seeks site plan approval for the demolition of four buildings on site totaling 7,380 sq. ft., and replacing with 1-building at 8,000 sq. ft. The property is located at 15 Boulevard, zoned Commercial Industrial. This is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. Applicant proposes to remove 4 buildings totaling 7,380 sq. ft. and replace with 1- building at 8,000 sq. ft. Site landscaping and lighting is also proposed. A similar project (SP 27-04) was approved by this Board, and you have the resolution and minutes (6/15/04). The corresponding variance approval and the site plan approval were not acted upon by the applicant, thus, both have expired. The submitted landscaping plan includes lawn area and planting beds, which increase the permeable area on-site, from 0 to 11%. The hard surface area to be removed is not reflected on the site development data page. Although the submitted site plan is not to scale, the proposed access lane does not appear to meet the 20- foot width required for emergency vehicle access. We do have C.T. Male comments dated October 19, and I believe on that same e-mail that those comments, SP 59-2005, C.T. Male th has received no response from the applicant to their 10/19/05 comments. That, again, is from Jim Edwards’ e-mail dated November 8. th MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening. Thanks for your patience. MR. DAIGLE-Good evening. I’m Nick Daigle. I’m the property owner. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Do you want to explain your project briefly? Is there anything else you wanted to add? MR. DAIGLE-Basically what I’m trying to do is to re-establish a pre-existing approved site, by slightly modifying it and increasing the size of the building to 8,000 square feet, instead of the 7500 square feet that was approved, and in doing so we were able to locate the building so actually we’re asking for a little bit less relief and allowing ourselves to get a little bit larger building. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from the Board? There was a note from Staff regarding proposed access lane does not appear to meet the 20 foot width required for emergency vehicle access. MR. DAIGLE-That is the one in the rear of the property? Is that what you’re referring to? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Do you have a response to that? MR. DAIGLE-That access lane really was designed, my understanding was designed to have, allow access for evening deliveries for the building. I didn’t really take into consideration that it needed to be 20 feet wide to accommodate fire access. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you be able to modify the site plan slightly so that that could be achieved? MR. DAIGLE-The only concern that I see is that we have one pinch point where there’s the existing building. I don’t see where I could get the access lane wider, other than the fact that, you know, a fire truck could come around the building from only the one direction allowing it, that access lane could be, in fact, wider behind the proposed building. Not necessarily that it could drive by the one story office building, that’s pre-existing to remain. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SANFORD-Where is the problem with the lane, Susan? Where is the problem with the access lane? Is it in the rear of the existing building that’s going to remain, or the new building? The new building looks like it has the required amount. MR. DAIGLE-I think there’s 26 feet there. MR. SANFORD-Yes, that’s what I’m seeing, but I’m saying is it on the pre-existing, one story office building that you have the problem? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, the note was from the Fire Marshal, not from Staff. MRS. BARDEN-Yes. The note was from the Fire Marshal. I’m not sure that he specified where that 20 foot width was not met. MR. SANFORD-Okay, because it looks like on the new 8,000 square foot building there doesn’t seem to be a problem. At least I don’t see it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it could be the access lane to the west of the new building, where you have the seeded lawn area. MR. SANFORD-Where is that? MR. HUNSINGER-The shaded area. MRS. BARDEN-Again, keep in mind, this isn’t to scale. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. DAIGLE-But you still don’t have enough space between the one story retail warehouse building, between that seeded area. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MRS. BARDEN-Yes, it looks like there’s, again, this isn’t to scale, but it looks like on the new building there’s less than 20, maybe 20. I don’t know. Again, it’s just not to scale. It looks like if it was to scale, it would be 20 feet. MR. DAIGLE-Are you referring to the back property line, the back of the lot? MRS. BARDEN-No, the side. MR. DAIGLE-The side. MRS. BARDEN-Of the new building, or the. MR. SANFORD-The new building as to where it comes in proximity to the one story office building that’s to remain? You’re saying those two buildings may be within 20 feet of each other? Is that the idea? MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry. MR. FORD-Chris, I’m a little confused about what’s to scale and what isn’t to scale on this? Can you help me out there? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I don’t think any of the drawings really is to scale. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t think it’s to scale. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Because there’s a scale given. One inch equals thirty feet. MRS. BARDEN-There is a scale given, but it doesn’t scale. MR. FORD-It isn’t accurate? MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s because the drawing was reduced. That’s why it doesn’t scale. MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess if you could just help me out. Explain to me exactly what’s happening on the site. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. I’m sorry, Nick. It appears that, and again, this isn’t to scale, but the access that’s required for emergency vehicles is 20 foot wide, and this isn’t 20 feet wide. MR. HUNSINGER-The access lane to the west of the new building. Yes, but there’s certainly enough room between the access lane and the existing building that it could be met. MRS. BARDEN-Yes, I mean, I think it can be remedied, sure. MR. SANFORD-Well, with the exception of the existing remaining building, that looks like that butts right on the access lane. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. SANFORD-So that’s going to be a bottleneck there, or you’re not going to be able to broaden that, because you’re right next to the property line. Right? MR. DAIGLE-That is correct. I would say that’s probably the only one that couldn’t be remedied. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. DAIGLE-And in that case, if, in fact, there was a fire, I can’t conceivably see why the fire truck couldn’t come in and treat that fire from Quaker Road, enter in from there. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, I remember when we approved this a year ago, and, you know, I think the feeling of the whole Board at that time was that this was an improvement to the site. I don’t know if that’s changed at all. MRS. BARDEN-I think that that comment was from the last review as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. GOETZ-What is it that you’re going to do with the site? MR. DAIGLE-Right now we’re entertaining a company called Fastenall, is entertaining locating there. It’s looking very serious this time. It’s been something that’s been talked about with them for two years now, and they’re actually now committing more than they have ever in the past to locating here, and they’re an industrial supplier. MR. GOETZ-So essentially they’re the same people who this was approved for the last time? MR. DAIGLE-That’s correct, right, and they didn’t follow through with it, and I allowed it to expire, not realizing that I could have filed for an extension. MR. GOETZ-Okay. Thank you. MR. DAIGLE-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any additional questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to speak in regards to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It’s an Unlisted Action under SEQRA. They submitted a Short Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 59-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NICHOLAS DAIGLE, 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. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) 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 15 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion? MR. VOLLARO-I think the motion is we approve as per resolution prepared by Staff, with no further conditions. MR. FORD-I’ll second it. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 59-2005 NICHOLAS DAIGLE, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s): Nicholas Daigle Site Plan SP 59-2005 Owner(s): Same SEQR Type Unlisted Agent(s): N/A Lot size 1.3 acre Location 15 Boulevard Zoning CI-1A Tax Id No. 303.20-2-34, 33 Section 179-4-030 Cross Ref. AV 78-05, SP 27-04, AV 43-04, Warren County Planning 10/12/05 AV 1328, AV 7-96, SP 11-96, SP 15-02 Public Hearing 10/25/05 Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of an 8,000 sq. ft. warehouse building. Light Industrial / Retail Uses require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/05; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 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 October 25, 2005; 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 WHEREAS, the use complies with all other requirements of this chapter, including the site plan review standards as set forth in Subsection F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Table 4),EN 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) the applicable requirements of Article 4, Schedule of Regulations, the applicable requirements of Article 5, Supplementary Regulations, the applicable standards and requirements of Article 6, Environmental and Performance Standards, the standards/guidelines in Article 7, Design Guidelines, and the requirements of Article 8, Landscaping and Buffering Standards. WHEREAS, the use is in conformance with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Chapter 147, Stormwater Management, and other applicable local laws. WHEREAS, the use is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use. WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of such projects the Planning Board considered and will make a finding that traffic access and circulation, road intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls are adequate. Additionally, the Board finds that the off-street parking and loading facilities are appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated by the new use. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board has determined it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a twenty-foot connection way must be provided. If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall be identified on the site plan for future linkage. The Planning Board shall also consider interconnection of commercial use areas or other properties to allow for pedestrian access and circulation. WHEREAS, the project will not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the determination hereunder, the Planning Board has considered those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under this § 179-9-080 of this chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board has made a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in this § 179- 9-080 of this article. 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: 1. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright 3. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator on approved plans. 4. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. 5 Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: h 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) AYES: Mrs. Steffan Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. DAIGLE-Okay. Well, thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 46-2005 SEQR TYPE II RICHARD PENNOCK, JR. OWNER(S): SAME ZONING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATION 137 QUEENSBURY AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,064 RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RESTAURANT USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE 9.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-15 SECTION 179-4- 020 RICHARD & CARMELLA PENNOCK, PRESENT MRS. BARDEN-Okay. This is site plan review for a proposed restaurant to be located at 137 Queensbury Avenue. Property is zoned Light Industrial. This is a SEQRA Type II Action. No parcel history. The applicant proposes an 846 sq. ft. restaurant and an additional 3,800 sq. ft. parking area. Associated lighting and landscaping is also proposed. Staff comments. The applicant’s proposal for expanded parking will total over 5,000 square feet, is this to be paved and striped or left gravel? The plan shows the required parking calculation, with these spaces delineated and the drive aisle widths scaled. Spaces marked 9 and 10 should be made a designated handicapped space with loading zone. The proposed trash storage area in between the proposed and the existing building should be relocated to allow emergency vehicle access to the back of the restaurant. Existing and proposed landscaping and lighting should be discussed. The one pole light proposed to be located close to the front property line should not emit any spillage onto Queensbury Ave. Stormwater management should be discussed for the site, with consideration given to the wetlands in the back of the site starting at contour 314. There is a memo from Mike Shaw dated November 9. “This parcel is outside the South th Queensbury Sanitary Sewer district. It can be served by contract. The owner must apply for a contract to the Wastewater Department for sewer service.” There is also Warren County, Staff recommends No County Impact. This is from the Warren County Planning Board, with the condition that landscaping and signage meets the Town’s guidelines, and that’s it. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Thanks for your patience. MR. PENNOCK-No problem. MR. HUNSINGER-If you could identify yourself for the record, and tell us about your project. MR. PENNOCK-I’m Richard Pennock, Jr. MRS. PENNOCK-Carmella Pennock. MR. PENNOCK-And we’re just trying to build a pizzeria. MR. HUNSINGER-You heard the comments from Staff. Did you have anything to add? MR. PENNOCK-Well, as far as the trash, we can put that behind the second building that’s the existing building that’s there. So we can take care of that. We did put gravel down for the driveway, I thought in here for the paperwork for now. So, when they asked if it were going to be graveled or paved, we were going to leave it gravel. The wastewater, we discussed that with Craig Brown, and everything, and the building’s a smaller building, and it’s all stone around there now. So there’s no problem with water puddling or anything. It runs off pretty regularly, and we have a dividing piece of property that NiMo has a right of way 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) between us and the wetlands. So we’re not right next to wetlands. Actually NiMo has that right of way through there, and then the wetlands is on the other side of it. So we really aren’t close to that at all. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. PENNOCK-I think that’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Any questions from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-I have almost written up a set of conditions. On the pole height that’s closest to Queensbury Avenue, I notice your cut sheet talks about that pole being 12 foot high. MR. PENNOCK-Yes. We kind of went by what, Craig kind of steered us what to get there, so that the light didn’t flood into the Queensbury Avenue. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and it was at 400 watts, because I looked at the cut sheets, and you’re looking at a 12 foot pole at 400 watts, and with its proximity to Queensbury Ave., I was wondering if we ought to cut that down to 250 or 300. They give you several, on the cut sheets it gives you several capability in there. Maybe you’d want to reduce that a little bit, just to make sure you don’t get spillage. MR. PENNOCK-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Two-fifty to three hundred, as opposed to four hundred watts. MR. PENNOCK-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, I just wrote down that I’d like to grant the landscaping waiver as it was requested. That was just me talking to myself here, in writing down stuff, and parking spaces nine and ten would be converted into one space, because you also need the loading zone for handicap. Contact wastewater, that’s been talked about, and relocate the trash. That’s all I had. MR. PENNOCK-As far as the landscaping goes, we plan on doing something, but we just didn’t know, at the time trying to get this in, you know. MR. VOLLARO-I notice you’ve got a lot of grass around it. In other words, and it’s a fairly small building. I don’t see, right now, and it’s in that area I wouldn’t see, I wouldn’t, personally, as one member of the Board, ask for any extensive landscaping on that property. MR. HUNSINGER-What did you have in mind for landscaping? MR. PENNOCK-Well, we’re going to put some shrubs and we also showed on there a three foot barrier of mulch around the building, but we’re just not 100% sure how we’re going to finish it off yet. So I don’t know if you’re familiar with that property. When I bought it, it was quite a mess, full of car parts, and I don’t know if Queensbury’s aware, but up behind there it’s an awful dumping zone for people. If you ride up through the old dynamite shafts and stuff, because I’ll take my four wheeler up through there, people dump garbage up there constantly. So I’m hoping when that pizzeria goes in, we’re going to stop some of that traffic, because somebody will be there now, but if you take a ride up through there, it’s a dump. It’s a mess. Because they’re all roads back in there. There’s a bunch of owners. There’s chunks of land there that are 20 to 30 acres that people own back in there and it’s just, there’s mattresses, there’s old cars, there’s, you name it, it’s dumped there, and I’ve talked to Craig Brown about it. He says there’s nothing Queensbury can do. It seems like there’s something they can do, because it is a mess. MRS. STEFFAN-It sounds like the water shed property. MR. PENNOCK-It’s a mess. It really is. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, it was an old Planned Unit Development that, you know, the company that owned it went bankrupt and so it was. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. PENNOCK-It just seems to be that anybody that has trash to dump finds their way up in there. It’s amazing. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-No, it’s pretty straightforward, I think. MR. HUNSINGER-Just speaking for myself, I hate to give them total carte blanch on landscaping, but I agree with you, Bob. Anything that he does in terms of landscaping there is going to be an improvement. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. That’s why I wouldn’t look for a landscaping plan on something like this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. How does the rest of the Board feel? MR. SANFORD-Well, you have a public hearing, don’t you? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Well, if there’s no other questions or comments from the Board, I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHARLIE NASSIVERA MR. NASSIVERA-I’m Charlie Nassivera, County Line Road, or Queensbury Avenue, whatever, and I was just curious. I’m happy that he’s going to have the restaurant. I hope you people approve it, and it’ll also stop, hopefully, the trash that’s been accumulating in back of where this restaurant is going to be, and the reason we came is more to see, is there any change in the wetland in that area since we’ve had the notice, 1990? It was stipulated very, in fact, we have a copy of it, not that there’s any reason not to have this restaurant. I’m all for it, but I wondered, in the future, is there any change in the existing wetland there since 1990, to your knowledge? MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s still on the other side of the NiMo line. I don’t think it’s on this property at all. MR. NASSIVERA-On his property, no. It’s on the other side of what they call the dynamite road, possibly? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. NASSIVERA-Okay. Good. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Okay. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-It is a Type II Action under SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-So there’s no SEQRA on this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’m looking for a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 46-2005 RICHARD PENNOCK, JR., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant(s): Richard Pennock. Jr. Site Plan 46-2005 Owner(s): Same SEQR Type II Agent(s): Lot size 9.02 acres Location 137 Queensbury Avenue Zoning Light Industrial Tax Id No. 303.16-1-15 Section 179-4-020 Cross Ref. Warren County Planning 11/9/05 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) Public Hearing 11/15/05 Adirondack Park Agency N/A Project Description: Applicant proposes a 1,064 Restaurant and associated site work. Restaurant uses require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, the application was received on 9/15/05; and WHEREAS, the application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application materials in file of record; and 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 November 15, 2005; 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 WHEREAS, the use complies with all other requirements of this chapter, including the site plan review standards as set forth in Subsection F of this section, the dimensional, bulk, and density regulations of the zoning district in which it is proposed to be located (Table 4),EN the applicable requirements of Article 4, Schedule of Regulations, the applicable requirements of Article 5, Supplementary Regulations, the applicable standards and requirements of Article 6, Environmental and Performance Standards, the standards/guidelines in Article 7, Design Guidelines, and the requirements of Article 8, Landscaping and Buffering Standards. WHEREAS, the use is in conformance with Chapter 136, Sewers and Sewage Disposal, Chapter 147, Stormwater Management, and other applicable local laws. WHEREAS, the use is in harmony with the general purpose or intent of this chapter, specifically taking into account the location, character and size of the proposed use and the description and purpose of the district in which such use is proposed, the nature and intensity of the activities to be involved in or conducted in connection with the proposed use and the nature and rate of any increase in the burden on supporting public services and facilities which will follow the approval of the proposed use. WHEREAS, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not create public hazards from traffic, traffic congestion or the parking of vehicles and/or equipment or be otherwise detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Town. In the review of such projects the Planning Board considered and will make a finding that traffic access and circulation, road intersections, road and driveway widths, and traffic controls are adequate. Additionally, the Board finds that the off-street parking and loading facilities are appropriately located and arranged and sufficient to meet traffic anticipated to be generated by the new use. In the review of commercial and industrial development, where internal roadways are not provided, the Planning Board has determined it is feasible to link parking areas to allow for an internal flow of traffic. Where it is feasible, a twenty-foot connection way must be provided. If the adjacent property is undeveloped, then a connection way shall be identified on the site plan for future linkage. The Planning Board shall also consider interconnection of commercial use areas or other properties to allow for pedestrian access and circulation. WHEREAS, the project will not have an undue adverse impact upon the natural, scenic, aesthetic, ecological, wildlife, historic, recreational or open space resources of the Town or the Adirondack Park or upon the ability of the public to provide supporting facilities and services made necessary by the project, taking into account the commercial, industrial, residential, recreational or other benefits that might be derived from the project. In making the determination hereunder, the Planning Board has considered those factors pertinent to the project contained in the development considerations set forth herein under this § 179-9-080 of this chapter, and in so doing, the Planning Board has made a net overall evaluation of the project in relation to the development objectives and general guidelines set forth in this § 179- 9-080 of this article. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) 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: 1. That the pole height closest to Queensbury Avenue be maintained at a 12 foot in accordance with the cut sheets that were supplied, and that you do some investigation in terms of the wattage of that light from 400 down to something below that to ensure that there’s no light spillage onto Queensbury Avenue. 2. Grant the landscaping waiver as requested. 3. Parking space Nine and Ten should be converted into one space per handicap and for the loading zone that usually goes alongside the handicap zone. 4. Contact Wastewater to get your contract user, Mike Shaw. 5. Relocate trash storage to allow emergency vehicle access around the building. 6. A copy of the required NOI to be provided prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 7. Lighting poles and bulbs for inspection on the ground before placing upright 8. C.T. Male Associates engineering sign-off required prior to signature of Zoning Administrator on approved plans. 9. All site related improvements, such as but not limited to landscaping and lighting, shown on plans shall be complete within one year of obtaining a building permit, and no later than 6 months after receiving a building and codes certificate of occupancy. 10. Final, approved plans in compliance with this site plan must be submitted to the Community Development Dept. before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits; including building permits are dependent on receipt. Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: h AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. You’re all set. MR. PENNOCK-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we adjourn, we have a comment from Counsel. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. I have a handout for everybody about coordinated review for next week, if you want. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, I’d like to make a motion on something that’s been before our Board before, in terms of a proposed resolution from the Planning Board to the Town Board on traffic analysis. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I thought we already did that? MR. VOLLARO-We never did. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Mark has agreed to come next Tuesday at 6:15 to hold a workshop on coordinated SEQRA review. Who would not be able to attend? 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) MR. SEGULJIC-I probably will not be able to attend. MR. HUNSINGER-Everyone else okay with that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Six fifteen, next Tuesday. I guess you’re on, Mark. Sorry. Okay. Bob, you had a resolution on an old item? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This might be very appropriate, since we just went through this whole traffic thing. I’ll read it off. The Planning Board has already seen this in e-mail form, but they’ve never seen a hard copy of it. PROPOSED RESOLUTION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE TOWN BOARD ON TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: RESOLVE: The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby recommends to the Town Board that they consider a resolution, at their next regular meeting, to prepare an RFQ in order to enter into a contract for a comprehensive traffic study of the major Roadways and critical intersections within the Town of Queensbury. The study shall include all approved subdivisions and site plans existing at the time of contract award and shall rate each road and intersection related to its functionality (i.e. A-F). Additionally, it is recommended that a study of this nature be competitively awarded to a firm specializing in traffic analysis after having been advertised for at least a 75 mile radius from Queensbury. The Roadways to be studied shall include, but not be limited to, the following: ? All of Bay Road north to 9L and south to Glens Falls line. ? All of Cronin Road ? All of Meadowbrook Road ? Round Pond/Blind Rock & Haviland Roads (Rt. 9 to 9L) ? All of Route 9 to its northern & southern limits ? Quaker Road east of Rt. 9 to the Hudson Falls line ? Aviation Road to West Mountain Road ? Recommend an appropriate speed limit for West Mt. Road Critical intersections to be studied: ? Bay Road & Quaker Road ? Quaker Road & Route 9 ? Bay Road & Cronin Road ? Bay Road & Blind Rock/Haviland Roads ? Round Pond Road & Route 9 ? Sweet Road & Route 9 ? Glen Lake Road & Route 9 ? Route 149 & Route 9 ? Ingress/Egress from Aviation Road to Queensbury School property ? Meadowbrook and Haviland Roads BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we, the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, hereby approve forwarding this resolution to the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury for their action. Duly adopted this 15 day of November, 2005, by the following vote: th MR. VOLLARO-We’ve done a lot of talking on the Board here over the years about comprehensive traffic studies, and tonight was a spot where we’re now going out for a special look at this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 11/15/05) AYES: Mr. Sanford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thanks, Bob. Mark, did you have any comments on your handout before we adjourn? Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-About coordinated review. Just a little preview for next week. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. If there’s no other business, a motion to adjourn is always in order. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 77