Loading...
2005-12-20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2005 INDEX Subdivision No. 9-2003 Michaels Group 1. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 278.20-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3 Subdivision No. 22-2005 Schermerhorn Properties 6. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 289.20-1-7 Site Plan No. 65-2005 Charles E. Seeley 24. Tax Map No. 309.18-1-1 Freshwater Wetlands Jeffrey Kilburn 29. Permit No. 5-2005 Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Site Plan No. 64-2005 Jeffrey Kilburn 29. Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Site Plan No. 69-2005 The Golub Corporation 49. Tax Map No. 302.10-1-7 Site Plan No. 67-2005 Jeffrey Schwartz 52. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 DISCUSSION Nominations for Chairman 2006 52. 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 12/20/05) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 20, 2005 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY ROBERT VOLLARO RICHARD SANFORD THOMAS SEGULJIC ANTHONY METIVIER GEORGE GOETZ LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSEL-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. HUNSINGER-Before we move into the regular agenda, a couple of announcements, if you will. Anyone here to listen to the Tra-Tom Development’s Sketch Plan, the applicant has asked to be removed from the agenda and also applicant Jeffrey Schwartz has asked that we table that application. We will be looking for a tabling motion later on, but if there’s anyone here for those, the Schwartz application will be heard on January 17. With that, the first th item on the agenda is approval of minutes from August, September and October meetings. If you’ll recall, they were tabled from November’s meeting so people would have a chance to review them. CORRECTION OF MINUTES August 16, 2005: NONE August 23, 2005: NONE September 20, 2005: NONE September 27, 2005: NONE October 18, 2005: NONE October 25, 2005: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF 8/16, 8/23, 9/20, 9/27, 10/18, 10/25/2005, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The first item on the agenda is Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 MODIFICATION MICHAELS GROUP OWNER(S): SAME SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED ZONING RR-3A LOCATION MOON HILL RD. & BAY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED SUBDIVISION. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) APPLICANT SEEKS REMOVAL OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL REGARDING TREE CLEARING. CROSS REF. SP 40-01 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 10.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278.20-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES & JIM CHANDLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, do you want to summarize Staff Notes? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is a modification to a previously approved subdivision. The property is located at Bay and Moon Hill Roads. The property is zoned RR-3 Acre. It’s a SEQR Unlisted Action. This is a Subdivision SB 9-2003 that was approved June 24, 2003 for a three lot subdivision. The applicant proposes a modification to the previously approved clearing plan. The applicant specifically has exceeded the approved clearing limits for this subdivision, on lot 1. The submission includes the existing condition of the clearing that has taken place on lot 1. I have submitted the original clearing limits from the previously approved clearing plan to compare with the newly submitted modification. Additional clearing of approximately .70-acres is shown on the updated map, totaling approximately 1.1- acres of clearing total on lot 1. The Board should consider requiring a revised storm water management plan and mitigation plan be submitted for further review. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing The Michaels Group on this application. This is property located on Moon Hill Road, as the Staff has stated, just away from the intersection with Bay Road. There was a three lot subdivision approved by this Board. It came back for a modification on the lot line between Lots Two and Three for the placement of the house on Lot Two. The purchaser of Lot Two actually also purchased Lot Three, or at this time was the two houses that are built, and what we’re asking for is the modification on the house that is currently built on Lot One. The clearing that is now on the slope to the north of the house, as you can see on the plan that was submitted to you, it shows the additional clearing on Lot One is a strip out in the middle of the lot on the northerly portion of the lot, looking down the slope. That was done. This house was built and there was no buyers and they wanted to open the view up a little bit to get some perspective buyers and since then they do have a few perspective interested parties. The clearing that took place, The Michaels Group did implement stormwater management on that. There is a series of silt fence and storm controls down the slope. That will be in place until that bank is, the clearing area is stabilized. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We did see the stormwater controls that you mentioned. We saw the silt fences when we were there. Since the site visit on Saturday, in reviewing the approved subdivision plan as well as the resubmission for the modification, it appears as though there was excessive clearing on Lot Two as well. MR. STEVES-I believe that that, like I say Lot Two, the house was built by The Michaels Group and subsequently sold. I believe any additional clearing that took place was not the result of The Michaels Group, but the result, I believe, of the current owner. MR. HUNSINGER-Actually, it was. Yes. When you compare the two maps, and part of the reason why I noticed it is because when we were there we were curious as to why the driveway extended further than the left hand turn, and it’s because the house on Lot Two was placed in a different location than it was originally proposed and approved. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So the clearing was done by The Michaels Group, in order to construct the house. MR. STEVES-Right, for the proposed house, that’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. STEVES-The clearing that existed on Lot Two was there prior to the subdivision approval. Where you’re talking all the way up in the back, near where we show a test pit on Lot Two, that was there prior to the approval of this subdivision originally. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Other questions, comments from the Board? MR. SANFORD-Yes, I have a quick question. Why didn’t you come back here before you cut down the trees? MR. STEVES-I didn’t cut down the trees. I’m here as a result of my client telling me that they needed to come back in front of this Board because of additional clearing that was done. I can’t speak for why they didn’t come back in before that. I can only speak to the fact that it is there. I sent my crew out and located the additional clearing at the request of The Michaels Group because of the fact that they were asked to come back in front of this Board for the additional clearing and the modification thereof. MR. SANFORD-You can’t answer for the applicant. Is the applicant here? MR. STEVES-There’s a representative, Jim Chandler, from The Michaels Group. MR. SANFORD-Okay. Same question, but to you, Mr. Chandler. MR. CHANDLER-I’m the one that asked for the clearing. It was done based on customer response, the feedback looking for a better view, and, you know, look at the house, and I made a mistake. I didn’t refer to the subdivision map, and I should have, basically. I don’t feel the impact affects anyone other than the future owners of the lot, but I simply didn’t refer to the map. MR. SANFORD-Now, do you work for Mr. Michaels? Are you an employee of Mr. Michaels? MR. CHANDLER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-And you weren’t aware that when you take an action like this that deviates from an approved plan that it requires approval from the Planning Board for a modification? Are you new with Mr. Michaels or have you been working with him for some time? MR. CHANDLER-No, I’ve been with him for quite a while. As I said, I didn’t refer to this specific subdivision approval, and I should have. I didn’t. I did it based on, as I said, trying to sell the house and thought I was within the limits, but I made a mistake. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I can only speak for myself, but what I would like to see is a new stormwater plan, because you’ve affected the stormwater runoff, and Number Two, a plan to reforest the areas that have been cut. MR. CHANDLER-Well, the area, I guess my issue would be that I don’t feel that it affects anybody but the people who are going to subsequently own the property, and anybody that we’ve spoken to, looking at that property, appreciates the property more with the clearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, you’ve definitely affected the stormwater runoff. No doubt about that, and Number Two, you didn’t follow the deed restrictions on the plan. One of the things we’re trying to preserve in this Town is the ridges and higher lands, and I think the area has to be reforested. MR. CHANDLER-Well, it’s a deeply sloping area where the only people that are going to see these trees are the people who own the property. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think it’s a question of who can see it and who can’t see it. It’s a question that it was very clear on here that the deed restrictions for lot clearing limits shall conform to areas shown on this plan, and it’s a deviation from that, and it’s got to be corrected, and my position is that’s got to be reforested, and you’ll have to with at least six caliper trees, six inch caliper trees and reforestation, and it’s not just that area that’s been cut. It looks to me like Mr. Steves has said, well, the area on Lot Two was always there. I don’t recollect that. When this came before the Board, these were approved clearings for Lot Two and approved clearings for Lot One, and then when the new house was built there are additional clearings for Lot Two, as the Chairman has already said. MR. STEVES-And that was in front of this Board, Bob. The modification to Lot Two and the relocation of the house was in front of this Board. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MRS. STEFFAN-Was it clear at that time that the original clearing plan had been executed? MR. STEVES-At the original subdivision, yes, and at the modification yes. I can give you a copy of your approved modification that shows the house in the new location. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we might have to concede that one. Going back to Lot Two for a second, on the map that you submitted with the modification request, the original clearing is shown if you just follow the driveway. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And it kind of loops up, and then the house was placed off to the east. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t have this map when we went out on site visits, but it appears as though even the clearing as shown on this map, because we stood at the base of that, at the end of that driveway, and you could clearly see the house through the trees. So, it does appear as though there was additional clearing done on Lot Two. It’s not shown on this map. I could be wrong, but that would be my guess. MR. STEVES-Understood. I can take a look at that. Like I said, my client does not own Lot Two at this time, and the request through my office through the Town and Mr. Chandler was the Lot One clearing. That’s what the Town Staff I believe brought to The Michaels Group regarding the clearing of Lot One only. MR. SANFORD-Just a question for Staff. If the applicants, or if Chris is correct, that there has been additional clearing, after Michaels sold the property, would that necessitate that the new owner, perhaps, come to this Board because of, again, a deviation from the approved plan? MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think the additional clearing, and I think that there is additional clearing on Lot One closer to the road, as well as additional clearing on Lot Two, but Mr. Chandler, The Michaels Group is because a Notice of Violation was issued specifically for Lot One, for the clearing limits in the back. So I think that, and we’d have to check this with Craig Brown, but I would think that they would have to come back for a modification to this subdivision for the clearing limits, the additional, or the, an as built survey showing the current clearing limits. MR. SANFORD-Yes. I understand with Lot One. Lot Two, I guess my question is, if someone goes out there from the Town and inspects that and finds out that that, in fact, deviated, who is the responsible party that should show up in front of this Board for, again, another modification only this time perhaps for Lot Two. Mark, do you have an opinion on that? MR. SCHACHNER-I do. If there is an alleged violation, first of all, remember, there are two possible tracks here, one is modification of some approval. The other is enforcing it, through the Code Enforcement Staff, etc., but the direct answer to your question, I think, initially, it would be the property owner that would be deemed in violation. The property owner may then seek to go and talk to from whom they purchased the property if they feel they weren’t responsible. That’s between the property owner and whomever they think else is involved, but in terms of the Town’s action, whether it’s enforcement or bringing somebody before this Board, that would be the owner of the property. MR. SANFORD-Okay, and the issue that you just mentioned would be a private matter, correct? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. MR. SANFORD-So really what I guess, if Lot Two has changed hands, and the owner of Lot Two cleared, did some cutting when they shouldn’t have, then an inspector goes out from the Town of Queensbury and notices that it’s not in conformity with the plan, and basically cites him with a violation just like what’s happened here with Lot One. Is that right? MR. SCHACHNER-That would be appropriate. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Sanford, one of my questions is the owner of Lot Two. Now, does their deed carry this restriction? We don’t know that, but it’s a question that I had when I looked at this that each owner, going to his deed, would either see or not see the deed restriction pertaining to the cut on his lot. MR. SANFORD-If it’s there. I’m sorry, please repeat that. MR. VOLLARO-I said if the owner were to go to his deed and look it up, would that deed show a restriction for clearing on his lot? It says on the drawing deed restrictions for lot clearing. The question is, is it on the owner’s deed? MRS. STEFFAN-According to the resolution. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw that. MRS. STEFFAN-All deed restrictions should be noted in the applicant’s submitted plans and be included in the actual deed. So it should be in both places. MR. VOLLARO-It should be in both places. My question is, is it on the deed. I guess I’m just wondering, if I was the owner of that lot, and went to my deed and didn’t find this restriction, then I don’t think I’d be held liable for that. I’m just wondering if it’s there or not. I guess that’s my question. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know the answer to that, but again, whether it’s The Michaels Group or the subsequent owner, we have an issue on Lot Two. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I recognize the issue. I’m just trying to get clear in my mind who is the responsible party on Lot Two, for example, if, indeed, the deed that they have does not call for this restriction. MR. SANFORD-I don’t know if that’s anything that we have to wrestle with tonight, quite frankly. MR. HUNSINGER-No, it’s not. MR. SANFORD-I think we have to address what’s in front of us right now, which is a modification where cutting was done that shouldn’t have been done by The Michaels Group and I guess pretty much now with this application Lot One. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SANFORD-And just to weigh in on it, I agree with Mr. Vollaro and Tom. I’d like to see a replacement of all the cut trees. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-None from me. MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly support the positions of the other Board members. We do need a new stormwater plan, and I think that the property should be reforested, and Mr. Chandler, if you’ve been with The Michaels Group for some time, if you’ve done business in the Town of Queensbury, I find it very hard to believe that you are not familiar with the zoning guidelines and don’t know the letter of the law regarding clearing plans and restrictions. That should be a question that you should have asked before you did what you did, and as far as, that it doesn’t affect anyone with the lot, but the lot, we did our drive around on Saturday and we visited the property, and then later that afternoon on was on Route 149 heading toward Vermont, and you can see both of these lots very clearly from Route 149, and you can see the houses on the top of the hill, and that has a visual impact, and those are the kinds of things that we’re trying to protect in the Town is to protect the view sheds and this kind of egregious action has very negative consequences, not just for this situation, but for those folks who come after you, because now the Planning Board is going to be a lot more cautious and we’re 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) going to look at restrictions a lot more carefully than we did before today. So it’s very unfortunate. MR. HUNSINGER-Just to go back to your comment, Richard, I don’t know how we could know where trees were that were taken out but we can certainly ask for a new planting scheme. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels about that. I mean, if there’s stumps present, maybe we could tell, but. MR. SEGULJIC-Just a reforestation plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-On the reforestation, those stumps would have to be ground and my recommendation would be that a tree of no less than six inch caliper be replaced. I think we have to define what we’re going to put in. Otherwise you’ll get a twig in the ground. MR. STEVES-We’ll take a look at a plan, if that’s the position of the Board, to come back with a plan that designates some reforestation on this lot, and take a look at the size. I disagree completely with Bob that everything has to be six inches. Most of the trees that were taken out weren’t six inches. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we don’t know that. I mean, I looked at some of the stumps and they look like they might. MR. STEVES-Let me finish, please. Depending on what is found to be removed, you know, I don’t want to commit right now, and Bob’s recommendation that every tree be six inches, and then find out that what the applicant has removed out there was predominantly two and three inch trees. I don’t want to go there until such time as we take a look at it. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, I understand. MR. SANFORD-I think it’s a fair plan, if they were a 45 foot tree, maybe you could replace them with a 45 foot tree. MR. STEVES-I don’t think that that’s feasible, but we’ll take a look. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that they have to go get a plan, come back to us and at that point we’ll evaluate the plan at that time. MR. HUNSINGER-Present a revised plan, yes. Would anyone like to make a motion to that effect? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ll try the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-I think there’s just two specific things that we’re looking for. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, one is the stormwater management plan, and the reforestation of Lot One. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MOTION FOR SUBDIVISION 9-2003 MODIFICATION THE MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Sanford: In the following manner: 1. That the applicant return to the Planning Board with a reforestation plan for Lot Number One, and that reforestation plan should be based generally on the number of trees that were taken out, and that whatever is replaced, we’d like to see the stumps ground on the old trees, if it has to be done, to be put in the same place that the original tree was. 2. Secondly, a stormwater management plan should be presented that would take into account the new forestation that would be done. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Goetz, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Gentlemen, you’re all set. MR. SANFORD-Just one further issue on this, Chris. Perhaps the Chair should suggest to Staff. MR. HUNSINGER-Look at Lot Two. MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Take a look at Lot Two. Okay. As mentioned earlier, the next item on the agenda, Sketch Plan Review for Tra-Tom Development, has been removed from the agenda. SUBDIVISION NO. 22-2005 SEQR TYPE PUD CONSISTENCY SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES AGENT(S): NACE ENG., J. LAPPER OWNER(S): GLENS FALLS HOME ZONING PUD LOCATION HAVILAND/MEADOWBROOK APPLICANT PROPOSES A 42 LOT SUBDIVISION RESULTING IN 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS [TOWNHOUSE UNITS] AND 4 COMMERCIAL LOTS OF 2.07, 1.39, 1.28 AND 1.30 ACRES, RESPECTIVELY WITH 1,300 SQ. FT. OF ROAD. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. CROSS REF. PUD 8-2000, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW 10/25/05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 40.00 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.20-1-7 SECTION A-183 JON LAPPER, TOM NACE & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, summarize Staff notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Just a couple of comments. This is Preliminary and Final subdivision. This is the property on the corner of Haviland and Meadowbrook Road. This subdivision conforms with the re-location of Meadowbrook Road. This proposal is for a 42 lot mixed use cluster subdivision resulting in 38 residential lots which will be townhouse units and four commercial lots, again, designed to correspond with the re-location of Meadowbrook Road. This is zoned PUD. This is the Hiland Park PUD. Staff Comments. As you will recall, the Board reviewed and commented on the sketch plan in October 25, 2005. The plans appear to be the same as submitted at that time. These are twin homes that will straddle the adjoining property lines with no side setbacks. The residential aspect is comparable to Waverly Place across the street. They’ll have a Homeowners Association which will control the common lands and paved walking trails. The proposed access road to the residential lots from Haviland Road should line-up with the driveway across the street. The plan shows a walking trail along the perimeter of the property, the applicant has indicated that this will be paved. It also appears that the trails meet up with the existing trails to the South. Has this been discussed and agreed upon with the adjoining property owners? The walking trail on the East side toward the golf course should be moved in the direction of the homes and away from the existing buffer in that area. The issue of the wetlands has not been addressed. Using the wetland as a natural buffer between the commercial and residential uses is not going to protect the wetland. A vegetative berm should be considered in that area. There needs to be a plan for the commercial lots; showing access, building footprint and orientation, parking, and a 50-foot landscaped buffer between the commercial lots and the residential lots. Any proposal for the commercial lots will have to come back for site plan review, however a proposed commercial layout should be on the plan. The applicant did indicate professional office buildings in the residential style as his on Bay Rd., at a story and a half. The Board sent a strong message to the applicant that they want to see some commercial development in the PUD, whether it be professional office or a service/retail use. The Board could require that one commercial lot be developed after every 10 townhouses are constructed. A plan for snow removal should be provided and discussed. There is, as of today, an e-mail from Jim Houston at C.T. Male and I will read this. This is in response to his comments dated 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) December 14. “In response to our December 14, 2005 comment letter, the applicant’s th consultant, Tom Nace, prepared a letter dated December 16, 2005. Tom’s letter was addressed to the Town but he delivered a copy of the letter and a revised set of plans in person yesterday, December 19, 2005. Tom and I went through the comments one by one. For the most part the revisions address our comments. There are some coordination issues between the stormwater management report (which we received Friday December 16, 2005) and the revised plans. I don’t believe that addressing the coordination items will result in significant changes to the plans. Three specific outstanding items that we discussed included: - Checking the grate inlet capacity on catch basins 8 and 9. – Increasing the length of the rock outlet apron for the culvert under the proposed road and recomputing the acreage of wetland disturbance. – Note 2 on the Erosion & Sediment Control Plan indicates that the disturbance will be kept to less than 5.0 acres, which is incorrect. Provided that the coordination and outstanding items are addressed in the future submittal, we will be prepared to issue a sign-off letter.” This is from Jim Houston. That’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Great. Thank you. Good evening. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Rich Schermerhorn, and Tom Nace. As you’ll recall, we were here in October and the Board was very supportive of the proposal at that time. So as Susan said at her Staff notes, what was submitted is a more detailed engineering analysis, but it’s pretty much the same plan that you saw at Sketch Plan. Just to refresh everybody’s memory, the design of this subdivision has changed so that we could accommodate the County’s plan, and we’ve provided documentation that the newly relocated Meadowbrook Road will line up with Rich’s single family subdivision across the street which the road just got finished on. So this whole design was done as a way to move the commercial lots so that they would be along the new relocated Meadowbrook Road and the residential would be buffered, if you will, a little bit away from Meadowbrook Road. I think that there are some neighbors here. So I’m going to ask Tom to just carefully go up and walk everybody through the plan so that everybody can be brought up to speed. Most of Susan’s comments were pretty straightforward. I guess the only one I want to comment on, the Board made it very clear, and Rich agreed at Sketch Plan, that for those commercial lots that it would be really nice that at least one of those lots should be a neighborhood commercial type design with some retail. There’s somewhat of a critical mass of people now at Hiland, or there will be shortly, that could probably support retail. For the last, I guess, 16 years since the PUD was approved there’s not been anybody interested in buying these lots for commercial, even though that was the commercial part of it, because it was always just deemed quiet and people could drive to Stewarts or drive to Quaker Road, but Rich is hopeful that, on one of those lots at least, there could be a nice neighborhood commercial portion of that, but he’s not at the point where we would submit plans for the design of office buildings or commercial, because it’s certainly clear that the lots are big enough to support them, but there’s really no plan, until somebody says they want to lease some space. So the subdivision, we’re showing that we’re being in keeping with the PUD like the consistency resolution of the Town said that we’re going to have a mix of commercial which should be office and retail and the residential that we’re here for, but we’ll be back at some point, when Rich has some tenants, to look at all those lots in detail, and hopefully there’ll be a nice neighborhood commercial portion of that. So that’s why we don’t have a, and we’re not proposing anything for those lots. We don’t have a design of a building. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could just ask one question related to that. So is it the intention that the 50 foot buffer would be entirely on the commercial lots? MR. NACE-Basically, the lot line follows pretty much the center line of the wetland area. So, no, the buffer, if you look at the location of the houses on the landscaping plan, there’s no reason that that buffer could not be divided partially one to the other, whether it’s 25/25 or 20/30, we can certainly accommodate a buffer that would both protect the wetland and provide that buffer between the commercial or office space and the residential. MR. HUNSINGER-I didn’t mean to interrupt the presentation. MR. LAPPER-Why don’t you just, at this point, Tom, go through show us. MR. NACE-Let me turn this around so the audience can see a little better. I don’t know if that’s close enough for you to see, but up the page is north. This is Haviland Road. The existing Meadowbrook Road is here. The County has proposed a realignment of the very north end of Meadowbrook which will move it, I believe, about 300 feet to the east, and that 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) will provide much better sight distance for the crest of the hill over here that’s a problem currently, and that new entrance will be exactly opposite the entrance for the new subdivision across the street. So it’s right there beside the telephone switching gear. The subdivision road for the residential will have one entrance over to the east and on to Haviland Road, and that will be almost exactly but not quite opposite the driveway that’s on the, actually just on the east side of my office, the old Gary Bowen farmhouse or actually Covel farmhouse that sits right in here. The other entrance will be off of the new relocated Meadowbrook Road and will provide a portion of one of these lots, Lot Number One, I believe it is, that will access the land that Michaels Group owns over on the west side of Meadowbrook Road for future access. The subdivision has just two short cul de sacs. The houses in the subdivision, as was referenced, will be clustered or townhouse two together on a common lot line, very, very similar to Waverly Place, clustered around these two cul de sacs and spread out along the main road. We’ve provided access for a walking trail that will connect to the existing walking trail on the Eddy property and come along the back side of this proposed development and continue on up to access the road so that those that want could actually get to that walking trail from the road. It also connects to the other end of the existing trail on the Eddy property. Stormwater will be divided to follow the existing drainage patterns. There’s an existing low swale that comes down through this side that will receive runoff through two detention ponds and stormwater treatment management ponds. These will be designed or are designed so that they limit the flow to no more than the existing, actually less than the existing flow. It just meters it out over a longer period of time. There’s a third detention stormwater management basin in the back here, which intercepts flow which right now comes down this low swale and onto the Eddy property. It’ll intercept that, detain that, and release it at a slow rate, which will be less than the existing flow onto the Eddy property. The subdivision will be served by municipal stormwater or municipal sewer and municipal water supply. The sewer will be connected to the existing municipal sewer which was stubbed out to the north end of the Eddy lot over along the Golf Course, and the water will loop off of Haviland Road back on itself, and that’s it in a nutshell. MR. LAPPER-Any questions from the Board at this point? MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Why don’t we go through the subdivision review criteria. The first item is Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Open Space Plan. I’m sorry, I had the wrong list. Let me try that again. Subdivision review criteria. The first item is design standards. Conformance with Comprehensive Land Use Plan, conformance with Open Space Plan, density calculations, clustering criteria, phasing schedule, requested waivers. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything in that area. MR. HUNSINGER-Comments on development criteria, site conditions, street design and layout, traffic, pedestrian access and circulation, sight distances, emergency access and services. MR. VOLLARO-Just one question there. On the entrance off Haviland Road, the one entrance to the clustered subdivision on Haviland Road. I think Staff had a comment about the offset between that and a driveway across the way, perhaps the applicant would like to discuss that. I guess one of the applicant’s position, it’s not a very heavily used road? MR. NACE-Well, there are two factors. One, the offset is very minor, okay. The concern is not necessarily having access, opposing accesses lined up exactly. The concern is having the drivers being able to see a driver coming out of the other access, and certainly the offset of these is so minor that it will not be any problem for somebody pulling out of this subdivision to see another car waiting to come out onto Haviland. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t think it was much. I just wanted to get Staff’s comment out into the record, so you had a chance to answer. MR. NACE-Sure, that’s the main issue. As a secondary issue, it is a very minor amount of traffic coming out of that other drive. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t really see a problem with it. MR. SEGULJIC-Bob, if I could just continue on that. On the other hand, it seems like it would be very minor to have the new development’s road just shift over to the west a little bit. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. NACE-Well, it shifts all the lot sizes, and it probably. MR. SEGULJIC-But you have the room on the east and west side, lot sizes, you have the common area on the east and west side of the lots. MR. NACE-It shifts all the geometry enough that the existing road, or the proposed road coming through, once we start changing one thing, it shifts everything else, and it ends up shifting the whole geometry of this, and this curve in here, which is already at a minimum radius, to the point where it’s just, it’s not worth it and it would cause enough other problems in the lot layout and the road layout that we felt it wasn’t worth it. MR. SEGULJIC-So one thing leads to another. MR. NACE-Exactly. MR. SANFORD-How many feet are you talking? I mean, looking at this, I don’t have a ruler with me, but it looks like you’re talking about a matter of. MR. NACE-We’re talking, this is 50 scale, we’re talking about, I believe, 20 feet, approximately 20 feet. MR. SANFORD-So shifting it over 20 feet is going to throw the whole plan out of whack? MR. NACE-It throws the geometry of this curve and when you drag that over, you’ve got to drag that cul de sac over, and I looked at it, and it just didn’t seem to, you know, there were enough other problems that started to create, it just didn’t make sense. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if you move the cul de sac over, it’s going to begin to encroach on the wetlands. That’s another problem. I looked at that myself, and if you start to move the whole plan over, it seems to me that you get very close to that wetland. MR. NACE-Well, and the lots become. MR. SANFORD-What wetland, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-The one that’s shown on the map. It’s just to the north of the subdivision. MR. NACE-It creates enough problems, and it didn’t seem to be necessary for any safety reasons or any practical reason to do it. MR. SANFORD-You still lost me. I don’t know where you’re referencing the wetland to the north here. MR. VOLLARO-You know where the commercial lots are? MR. SANFORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a wetland that runs to the, it looks like to the south of the. MR. SANFORD-No, no, no, but Tom’s talking about the other curb cut. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know, but if you start moving the whole buffer to the north, it’s going to start to move in on that wetland. MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t know if Tom was suggesting that you move the whole thing 20 feet. You merely align it and then you take Lot 14, for instance, and 13 and 12 and 11 and you may move them a little bit because they’re in undeveloped land right now, and you wouldn’t necessarily have to disturb everything. MR. NACE-It does have an impact, Richard, because of the lot width, okay. With the zero lot line on the one side of all the lots, the lot width is relatively critical to come up with a good development plan, and even shifting 20 feet, when you move this 20 feet, you shift these lots, which leads to what Bob’s talking about. You end up having to shift this road and encroach 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) a little further toward the wetland to make these lots work. There seemed to be no practical reason it needed to be done. MR. SEGULJIC-Across the street it’s a (lost word) house, is that correct? MR. LAPPER-It’s to the Golf Course, but it’s the side, it’s not by the Club House, it’s to the driving range. So it’s just not a lot of traffic. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’m not sure where this comment goes, but the walkway that’s going around. On the southern end near the stormwater basin, are you going to have enough room to put the trail through? MR. NACE-We are now. That was one of C.T. Male’s comments and I have moved the walkway slightly to lead it around a little different location where that stormwater basin is, so that the two coordinate better. They weren’t well coordinated. MR. HUNSINGER-So which did you move, the walkway or the stormwater basin? MR. NACE-The walkway. MR. VOLLARO-Are we going to see it in the new set of plans? Is that what’s going to happen? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s exactly why I asked the question. MR. NACE-That was what we submitted after getting C.T. Male’s comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Which map are you going to refer to? MR. NACE-Well, it’ll be the landscape plan, shows it more clearly. The new landscape plan actually shows the stormwater basin down here, okay, and where the walkway had come up close to the back of these lots and then down across, we’ve relocated to the outside of the stormwater basin and over here we’ve done a minor reconfiguration so that the walkway comes up onto the berm of the stormwater basin on the west and south sides. Okay. So those are just two minor shifts of the pathway. The rest of it, the rest of the pathway here and from here on is the same as it was before. MR. HUNSINGER-So you’ve moved the walkway to the south of the basin? MR. NACE-We’ve just moved the walkway to the south to skirt around the edge of the stormwater basin. MR. SANFORD-What’s the topic we’re on? MR. HUNSINGER-We’re on development criteria? MR. METIVIER-Who’s responsible for the road, shifting the road? Is that you’re responsibility or the Town’s? MR. LAPPER-Rich is going to convey title to the County, or it’s a County project but it’s actually a Town road up until it hits Meadowbrook, so the title will go to the Town, but he’s already agreed, and we have correspondence in the file that we submitted for the Hiland Estates subdivision across the street that he will convey the road bed and the County is going to build it. So it’s not going to cost the Town anything because it’s a County project. MR. METIVIER-Okay, and are they going to take the existing Meadowbrook Road out there? Is that the plan? RICH SCHERMERHORN MR. SCHERMERHORN-Rich Schermerhorn for the record. Mike Shaw, from Town of Queensbury, I guess they’d like to retain where the old Meadowbrook Road, which is, you know, they’ll put topsoil over it and just seed it, and that’ll just remain an easement or a 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) piece of property that the Town owns, and by the way, I did talk to Bill Lamy today, and everything’s on schedule. I said I have a meeting tonight, and I just wanted, in case the question came up, is this, you know, is this road going to happen, and he said everything’s full steam ahead. They are going forward with it, and he couldn’t give me a schedule date, but he said he was getting with Bill Remington and naturally they’re hoping that’s going to happen certainly Spring, Summer, Fall. MR. METIVIER-What happens to Michaels Group property, because they would lose road access now. MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, that was, at the last meeting we discussed that, and I also discussed with the County and Planning Staff, but that map doesn’t show it, but I agreed to give them the property to access for their property, and they were happy with that. MR. METIVIER-So they’re aware of what’s happening here? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and I actually gave them a little wider than what’s required for a Town road because they have traditionally divided highways going in, which they did there, and that’ll be conditioned on this plan that that’s on there. MR. METIVIER-But your Lot One, which is on the left side of the new Meadowbrook Road, is that your lot or theirs? MR. SCHERMERHORN-That’s mine. The only reason that vacant parcel to left of it going in is theirs, for stormwater or whatever, on the south side. MR. VOLLARO-Is that where it says 75 foot reserved for future right of way? Is that? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Okay. So they’re not really losing anything. Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions on development criteria? MR. SANFORD-Yes. I don’t know which one of you gentlemen made reference to the commercial zones, it might have been you, Jon. I’d like you to spend a little bit more time elaborating on what you have in mind. I think you were receptive to some of the comments we made last time, which, to me it would be ideal if these commercial lots could actually compliment the living experience for the people on Meadowbrook, the Waverly, the people living at The Glen, and the apartments and what have you. A former neighbor of mine did some nice tapes. I don’t know if I can get them because he’s out of the area now, but, you know, if I could get them, I’d like to share them with you, Rich, so you could see them, and you’d get a better visual idea of what I’m talking about, but I’m kind of envisioning a situation where the people on this corridor, on a Saturday or Sunday, may be able to make use of these types of businesses in a way that compliments what they’re doing. This is to be somewhat in contrast to the Bay Road corridor, which is a destination, and people travel miles to go to it. So I guess more of an emphasis on, now I understand you have to market it. You have to have some business that’s willing to do it, that would be profitable, but I think it would be great if you could, you know, give these people an opportunity to either walk or a short drive, rather than having to go into the traffic on certain types of businesses. So Jon mentioned at least one of the properties. I would like to see a little bit more before we’re done here. Now maybe it’s impossible because of the timeline, but I would like to hear more from you now, if you could share some thoughts with me. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Okay. I certainly do remember well the seed that was planted, as we could put it, I guess, with Mr. Sanford’s comment, and Mr. Hunsinger’s about Smart Growth and things. I’m actually going to, I live down the road, now, in Masters Common North, in the Hiland Park district. I’ve been there 14 years, and I am going to build a house in the new development that I just put in across the street, and as I indicated before, I certainly have no problem doing a, I don’t know if we want to call it a convenience store or whether it’s a semi-deli or a place where I guess you can get a newspaper or ice cream or whatever. I certainly will be sensitive to that area, simply because I’m going to live over there. I think the general public would support probably some sort of, I don’t know if we’d call it a general store, some sort of convenience store. I’m not opposed to that, and certainly if we can get office professional. I know that Glens Falls Home, which I’m contracted with, 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) buying the property from, which is part of The Eddy, liked the idea of, certainly if I could get physicians out there on some of the lots as well. I’ll certainly try any of these things, and kind of the way it’s gone in the past is that when you build these things, people will come, and I believe that will happen with this corridor, because as we all know it is getting, I hate the word built up, but it’s getting built out in the Hiland Park area now, and I do believe that there is a, there will be a need or there will be interest, should I say, to do something there. Right now obviously it’s hard to judge or to condition to say that, geez, he’ll absolutely do a convenience store or whatever. I’ll do whatever the demand is and whatever the public would like to see or would want, but I’d certainly like to do any of those things, and again, I understand, you know, I would be back in front of this Board or ones in the future for site plan review on these lots anyway, but I certainly am not opposed to doing any of the things that we’ve discussed here before. MR. HUNSINGER-I know you’re looking for something more specific. MR. SANFORD-No, I appreciate the difficulty. Maybe the public will have some ideas. The problem is when you come in later, there’s a whole list of allowed uses, and so it’s difficult after the fact on a site plan. So it’s nice to get kind of a concept up front, and a commitment, and that’s really what I’m going. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, there’s no reason why I couldn’t say that we’d pick one of the lots on the corner to be some more of a commercial use, when I think of commercial, I guess I’m thinking of not an office building. I’m thinking more like maybe retail, part general store something like that. I’m not opposed to conditioning one of the lots like that, because I do believe with time, I don’t know if it’ll be this year or five years, but I do believe with time that will come. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I would imagine, there has to be an approach to the critical mass in that neighborhood to warrant a neighborhood type convenience store. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Absolutely, and that’s the other thing. Public opinion, I may have my opinion as to, gee, I might think it’s a great idea, you know, I live down the road from there, but there may be general people that might think, gee, it’s already busy enough, do we really need it when Stewarts is around the corner and we’ve got Shahays down the road? I don’t know. Again, but I’m not opposed to it. MR. HUNSINGER-But I think the concept where we were coming from is something that people could walk to, as opposed to get in their car and drive to. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, and I agree, and like I said, I’m for it. I don’t know what type of condition you’d want, but I mean, I’m willing to do a condition on one of the lots or you hate to do a bunch of them because if all of a sudden physicians or accountants find that’s a nice friendly neighborhood out there to have offices, I’d hate to limit myself. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. GOETZ-It appeared that the Staff was trying to pin you down some to, you know, for every ten houses you built that you put something in. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. GOETZ-And, you know, because it fits in with the plan for the Town of Queensbury. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MR. GOETZ-And if you don’t commit to something up front, then there’s nothing to hold you for it. MR. LAPPER-I guess, George, in terms of the timing, you know, the whole history of Hiland Park is that it didn’t happen as quick as the original developer had hoped, and that’s why it got parceled out, and Rich has done a bunch of it now, and it’s been 16 years since it was approved, and this land has been there, and if somebody wanted to do a commercial project at the corner of Haviland and Meadowbrook, they would have tried to buy it, because it’s been there and it’s been available. So I think that in response to Richard’s comments, if Rich is willing to condition that one of those corner lots will be a commercial rather than an office 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) project, I think that’s solid, but he can’t talk about the timing because it could be, in terms of marketing, it could be five years until somebody’s interested. So we can’t really commit to timing, but he could commit to the use, and that would be something. MR. SANFORD-We’ll see what the public, they might have some good ideas. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments on development criteria? MRS. STEFFAN-I was just assuming that the walking trail, once the commercial establishments were identified, that the walking trail would kind of go into those commercial pieces, because it truncates at the road? The walking path. MR. NACE-Right now it connects to the existing trail down in the corner here. So it could be extended, it comes up into just the edge of this commercial lot. So it could be extended into this lot or extended along the edge of the wetland up into the, across the road into the adjacent lots. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that was my question to the other commercial lots, because it truncates right at the road, and so I was assuming that once the commercial lots were developed, that it might continue over. MR. NACE-It would be fairly simple to extended it on up along the back of that lot in the buffer. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Stormwater, sewage design. Stormwater report and management plan, retention, detention basin, flood plains, erosion controls, sewage disposal, potable water supply. MR. VOLLARO-I have a question on the stormwater management report. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-On Page, it’s an unnumbered page, but it comes under construction phasing, in the stormwater report, probably third or fourth page down. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And I guess when I tried to check that against the SEQRA area, the SEQRA doesn’t talk about, it says number of phases anticipated, and that’s blank, and yet the construction phasing talks about phase one and phase two. If you go to Page Six of your SEQRA, Part I of your SEQRA, on Page Six of Twenty-One, and it says, if multi-phased, and that’s all blank. Yet, the phasing is clearly laid out under construction phasing in the stormwater report. MR. NACE-Okay. Well, I think typically when we’re talking about a subdivision, we’re talking about phasing in the SEQRA level in relation to SEQRA, we’re talking about doing a part of the subdivision and then building it out and then coming back and doing another phase of it. The phasing here really relates to the stormwater and because of the way things have to be done in Queensbury anyway, you can’t build on the lots until the road has been finished and turned over to the Town, so that creates a natural phase, and we really don’t, in the past, we’ve never considered that a second phase, as far as SEQRA goes. It’s all just one. MR. VOLLARO-Well, in your last paragraph, Tom, though, you talk to, it says, it is anticipated that phase one construction will commence in the Summer of 2006 and be completed in the Fall for seeding and stabilization, and phase two construction will commence after the roads are constructed and may take two to three years to complete. So I see a very definite break here between the two. MR. LAPPER-What Tom is trying to say is that the road has to get constructed first, but it’s not a phase, because you come in, you do the road, you do all the grading and the stormwater basins for the road, and then you immediately proceed to do the houses. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but it seems like if you get the roads all set in and you’re all set up, then it says may take two or three years to complete, usually a subdivision of this kind doesn’t take. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. LAPPER-No, the two or three years is to build the houses. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that, but from the time you build, finish the road, you’re all done, all your roads are in, and all of that, now you’re saying it takes, to complete this layout. MR. LAPPER-Well, Michaels Group did Waverly Place in less time than that, so depending on the market. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m just wondering, two to three years seems kind of, it fits phasing to me. If you get that much time between one and two, it’s kind of like. MR. LAPPER-It never stops. MR. NACE-It never stops. It starts with the road and it finishes when the last house is done. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. MR. NACE-It’s phasing for stormwater management because, for stormwater management, we’re having to limit the amount of open area that can be exposed or open at any one time. MR. VOLLARO-It was a little confusing to me when I looked at these two things and they didn’t kind of track. MR. NACE-It wasn’t intended to be. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions on stormwater, sewage design? Questions, comments on buffering, landscape design? Clearing plan, no cut areas, buffering, screening and planting schedule? MR. SEGULJIC-In regards to buffering, it’s just my opinion, but I’d like to see the buffering on the plans for the commercial property at this point. MR. LAPPER-Right now it’s all an open field. There’s nothing there, and the commercial will stay an open field until such time as we come in with a site plan. So there’s not, I mean, there would have to be trees planted, evergreens probably, in that buffer, but right now it’s just going to stay as a meadow. That’s what it’s been. So there’s nothing to buffer from. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-My thought on that was that they’d have to take them out during construction, so it would kind of be difficult. MR. VOLLARO-So long as we have the option for site plan review at the end, I think that takes care of that. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to that, there’s going to be that lonely triangle piece of land that’s going to be created, when you, for the, that future. MR. NACE-The western commercial lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, the future right of way. MR. NACE-Right. Well, that piece will be married with the main piece, okay. It would be truncated. It would be land hooked with the main portion, but that will be used primarily for stormwater management for that main portion of the lot. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re talking about the very southwestern piece. MR. NACE-Yes. You’re talking about this triangle in here, right? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. NACE-Okay. Yes. This, because of the construction of the new road, is going to kind of cut this piece off from stormwater management, and we’re intending to use this portion of it down here for a stormwater management, so it can tie in to the drainage, any discharge can tie in to the drainage that comes along the road and goes down the natural swale over here. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. So there are plans for that. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you don’t notice it when you drive, but there is a little bit of a slope there. Any other questions on buffering, landscape? How about questions on the landscaping plan? Any comments? MRS. STEFFAN-I think there’s a lot of landscaping that looks nice. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments on neighborhood character, neighborhood impacts, Homeowners Association and public services, recreation facilities and fees, health, safety and welfare of community? MR. VOLLARO-I have a question on one of those. MR. HUNSINGER-Go ahead, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-It has to do with the Homeowners Association. Just real quick, I recognize this is just a draft, but presumably this would be looked at by Counsel, I would think. Is Counsel planning to take a look at the Homeowners Association Declaration of Covenants? MR. SCHACHNER-Counsel intends to do whatever the Board asks. Remember that in the past we’ve said that a lot of elements of the Offering Plan we think are not really Planning Board elements, but the few that we think are, if you want us to look at them, we look at them. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have one, I’ll question the applicant on it first, and if the Counsel wants to chime in on that some time. On Page Sixteen there’s something I just don’t understand. I’ve read this Protective Covenants. On Page Sixteen it says the Association shall be responsible for the maintenance of the common wastewater treatment sub surface infrastructure. Now, if this is a gravity fed system into the sewer, why, how does the Homeowners Association get involved in that? I don’t just see that at all. MR. LAPPER-Because this is a municipal system, this is all going to be maintained by the Town. So that’s wrong. There’s not going to be any requirement for the Homeowners Association. MR. VOLLARO-Then that would have to get struck out. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That was the one thing that jumped out at me, and the other one was, on the front, and I recognize this is just a draft. It’s not a finalized document, but on the front, the first page, it talks about the Schedule A consists of approximately 16.39 acres of land, 2.97 of which will be deeded to the Homeowners. Well, that doesn’t come out to the 20 acres. There’s a little more than half an acre missing in that math somewhere. So somebody ought to look at that, I think. MR. LAPPER-Yes, the road right of way may be included, but certainly. MR. VOLLARO-It should be probably more clearly defined in this document, though, so it adds up to 20 acres. That’s all I have on that Homeowners Association. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Does anyone else have any questions on those items? I had a comment on the covenants as well. On Page 18, under Covenants and Restrictions, it talks about single family dwellings. MR. LAPPER-Yes, they are. MR. HUNSINGER-By definition they are, even though they’re townhouses. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. LAPPER-They just have a common wall, but everyone owns their own footprint and their building. So they’re just attached single family dwellings. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board on neighborhood character? MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a real good addition to neighborhood character, myself. MR. HUNSINGER-Environmental concerns, wetlands, noise, air quality, aesthetics, historical factors, wildlife, including rare endangered species? MR. VOLLARO-No, I think the wetland situation we’ll handle at site plan review on the commercial lot. That’s where the wetlands seem to lay anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-You did pass around a proposed elevation plan. You raised the question, of course, about color schemes. MR. LAPPER-One thing I just wanted to mention, Rich mentioned this at the Sketch Plan, that when he went under contract with The Glens Falls Home, they wanted to make sure that these weren’t, they didn’t look like two story, just in terms of blocking their views, and keeping it smaller character, so they have dormers in the roof. So they do have an upstairs, but they have dormers so they look like one and a half stories, and that, so just in terms of the character, that was something that they were careful about, and that’s, he did this plan to submit to Glens Falls Home. Colors. MR. SCHERMERHORN-As far as colors, under my contract with Glens Falls Home, they actually have architectural approval, providing there’s no conditions that you place. They want to be able to approve the architectural design, which they’ve already looked at these. The colors I assume would probably be somewhat of earth tones, similar to what they have on their main building. Earth tones, I know in the past we’ve tried to keep on some of the general projects of mine, not to say that, I guess Waverly’s a very attractive project. You’ve got yellow, white, I think there’s even like a mint green. So they’re not, I wouldn’t consider those earth tone, but I certainly don’t think we’d clash because they have, there’s a few colors over there. I wouldn’t say there’s a lot of multiple colors, but I would think we’d probably be more on the lines of maybe more of an earth tone color, just because of being next to The Glens Falls Home, and they’re trying to protect their investment as well, as far as that goes, and again, I know there’s a lot of public here, and they probably weren’t here last time, but again, for the record, these are not rental properties. These are to be sold, similar situation as the Waverly Place is, single family. MR. HUNSINGER-The elevation you did pass around did have nice palm trees. MR. SCHERMERHORN-These homes, again, like I said before, I think it’s going to be more of the empty nester type people, not to say that you won’t get few children where they’ll, but, again, I don’t think these are going to be, by any means, what we call affordable. They’re going to be at a level that’s comparable, if not more than the previous ones that were built at Waverly, just to give the general public an idea of where these are going. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. METIVIER-This isn’t going to be a 55 plus? MR. SCHERMERHORN-No, it’s not restricted that way. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions on environmental? Questions, comments on involved agencies? Any other criteria not previously reviewed? MR. SEGULJIC-Lighting. Do you have lights on the drawing? What are you proposing for lights? MR. NACE-I’ve got to ad lib because Jim did the landscape plan. Jim, you can speak to your lighting. I don’t know, off hand, what you did. MR. MILLER-Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. I think what we had talked about was doing lighting similar to what Waverly and some of the other projects that Rich has done where there’ll be lights on each one of the residences, controlled by the homeowners, but located 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) along the street to provide some general lighting there’d be some lights indicated at the entrance, then basically scattered every 100 foot or so along the road and within the cul de sacs, and so there’s some, it’s not heavily lit, but just so that there’s some general lighting throughout the neighborhood. MR. SEGULJIC-A big mass of aluminum poles 40 foot high? MR. MILLER-No. They’re 12 foot high poles. They’re decorative poles, with a globe type fixture. MR. SEGULJIC-And a cut off at the top? MR. MILLER-Yes, we’ve recommended a globe type with the black sky cut off with the luminare inside it. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you know what the wattage is of the lights? MR. MILLER-I think it’s either 250 or 150. MR. NACE-I think it was 150. I was looking at it. MR. MILLER-It’s fairly low. MR. SEGULJIC-Is it on the sheet? MR. NACE-The detail will be added, but I believe it’s a 150. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-What sheet is that that you’re looking at? MR. NACE-That’s the landscape plan, S-5. MR. SEGULJIC-The details aren’t there, though. MR. NACE-The detailed lighting is not, the light detail is not there. It will be added. MR. HUNSINGER-So is it a 150 watt? MR. NACE-I believe so. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what we’d like to see is a cut sheet on that, I think, so we can get a look at it, get the height of it, so the globe has got a cut off in it. I think a cut sheet is something at least I’d be looking for anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other final questions, comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. One comment that I have is that, in looking at this, there’s two cul de sacs in here, and I don’t see any comment at all from the Highway Department concerning snow removal in this operation, and I think Highway should have commented, at least had some comment on the snow removal capability and storage. That’ll be a fairly long road, and very difficult to store snow on the cul de sac centers. I’m experiencing that where I live, because it doesn’t take very long before my cul de sac is almost unapproachable by the snow plow. So he goes right up on the middle. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, I’m not going to say snow it’s a problem. It’s more of a problem for the residents, I think, and the Homeowners Association. The Town of Queensbury, of course cul de sacs meet the Missita specs and designs, but I’m not going to say that when we have heavy snowfalls that it couldn’t build up, but again, it’s the residents that are probably going to have the heavy snows to move, or I shouldn’t say the residents, the Homeowners Association, whoever they hire, but it is a Town road. It’ll be turned over to the Town, but again, you know, if we get some heavy snows, it could be a problem. They’re going to have to, and there’s room to pile it. It’s no different than some of the other developments, but I guess it is a concern. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. LAPPER-I guess I would just point out, Bob, that the subdivision that Rich just finished the road construction across the street has two cul de sacs also, and Rick Missita was all over that, and that’s been, he’s been out there inspecting it, and that’s done, and we’ll be dedicating that to the Town. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Just a comment, because I’ve talked to Rick Missita about cul de sacs. They’re not his favorite thing. It’s a problem. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no other questions or comments from the Board, we do have a public hearing scheduled. I will open the public hearing. If there’s anyone here that would wish to address the Board about this application, I would ask that you come up to the table and identify yourself for the record. We do tape the meetings, and address your comments to the Board. So, ma’am, would you like to be first? BARBARA LA BLAUS MS. LA BLAUS-Good evening. Barbara LaBlaus, and I’m the Executive Director of The Glen at Hiland Meadows, retirement community. I just want to clarify a couple of things, and ask a couple of questions. One, I’ve heard some reference to The Eddy and to The Glens Falls Home. Just to clarify for everyone that The Glen at Hiland Meadows is a joint venture between The Glens Falls Home and The Eddy, and I heard reference to The Glen at Hiland Meadows being The Glens Falls Home and all of that, and just wanted to clarify that. I’m thrilled to see the improvements of Meadowbrook Road and having the access moved back. Also, pleased to hear about having the neighborhood be a walking neighborhood, but I would just caution, Meadowbrook Road is not safe to walk on, and I know that they’re going to be planning to try to widen the road. I just have some concerns and questions on access for commercial traffic. I think there’s going to be enough with the 38 new homes, but I just wondered, is that all going to be from, onto Meadowbrook Road from those lots, because it looks like those are all centered on Meadowbrook. Some on Haviland? So there’ll be, the traffic to the commercial areas is what I was wondering. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Since the commercial lots are not before us tonight for site plan review, we don’t really know. I imagine, though, that the majority of traffic will come out onto Meadowbrook. MS. LA BLAUS-Onto Meadowbrook, because, again, as everyone knows here, it is getting pretty congested there, and, you know, safety factors of traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-And just so you understand, I don’t mean to cut you off, but when there is a commercial project proposed, it will come back before this Board for site plan review, and there will be another opportunity for you to make, you know, express these concerns and comments. MS. LA BLAUS-Good, that’s great. I heard also reference to the walking paths, and, again, I wanted to just ask Rich who’s going to be having access to those walking paths, and there was reference that it was discussed with, you know, basically us, The Glen at Hiland Meadows, and I know there’s been a lot of discussion with Glens Falls Home and they’re certainly there to help protect the community, but I just would like to have that conversation, too, at some point. The existing walking paths that we have on The Glen at Hiland Meadows property, you know, we just kind of developed for residents to be able to walk and we’ve been mowing the fields. So I just wanted that clarified. MR. HUNSINGER-If I could ask you a question on that. Do you get many people from the general public that come to use them? MS. LA BLAUS-We actually do. MR. HUNSINGER-I suspected. MS. LA BLAUS-We do, and we’ve been certainly open to that. We’re actually still working on making sure, though, that people that come with their dogs, they’re leashed, and that’s been kind of a concern, but we have kept that open. I guess the other thing was just the traffic. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MS. LA BLAUS-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Good evening. PAUL PRICE MR. PRICE-Hi. I’m Paul Price. I live at 59 Waverly Place, and I originally came here tonight just to learn more about the project, since it’s so close, and what the implications might be. I also had a concern about the lighting, which has been raised, which I’m thankful for, and that just to refresh, Waverly Place, each house has a pole with a light with a cover on it, and that is sufficient to maintain lighting on the streets. There are no additional lights in our neighborhood, other than just that light in front of each house, and it seems to work, and it keeps the sky dark. I was disturbed to get the implication that maybe there might be a Stewarts at the corner. I was under the original impression that the commercial lots might be commercial or professional buildings, doctors offices, insurance offices of that type. Again, because of the traffic, again because of the lights, and how they like to light themselves up, and I’d like to amplify the traffic situation on Meadowbrook. I’ve only been there three and a half years, but there’ve been two apartment units built. The Glen has been built. Our Waverly Place has been built. You see what’s happening, and the street remains pretty much as it has been, although I was told in the past it was just a country farm road, but the traffic on that sure exceeds the capability at times, and that’s a concern for all of us. It’s certainly not a walking place, although it’s used by a lot of people for walking. It’s used by young families with baby carriages, and it’s used by kids on bikes. So that’s something that should be considered, but thank you for considering the lights, and I hope that the commercial development will be in keeping with the character of the area rather than trying to extend Quaker Road and Bay Road all over the Town. Thanks. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? Come on up. Good evening. RICHARD BESTHOFF MR. BESTHOFF-Good evening. My name is Richard Besthoff. I live at 71 Waverly Place. I just have a few observations that I’ve made. First of all, could someone show us where Waverly Place intersections Meadowbrook Road on this map here, please. MR. HUNSINGER-I believe it’s off the map. MR. BESTHOFF-It’s off the map. Okay. Now, I live on the north end of Waverly Place, and as you look at the map here that shows the trees, the landscape, why can’t we have them put trees on the outside of that one, that last commercial piece over there? Because where we live, on the north end of Waverly, you would be looking right into that commercial piece of property. There should be, we spoke of buffers before, there should be some kind of a buffer on that, on the west side of that other commercial lot. That would be a big concern of ours because you’d be out on your deck and you’re going to be seeing everything that’s going on in that commercial piece of property, and one last thing is that if they’re going to put in a convenience store, I personally don’t have any a problem, speaking for myself, with a convenience store, but I would hate to see a convenience store with a gas station, because that piece over there, that’s like 2.07 acres, and that could take a nice convenience store with a gas station, and I don’t think that would enhance the neighborhood at all. So I just hope that you all take that into consideration when it comes time for the hearing on those commercial sites. Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? SHERMAN WOOD MR. WOOD-Good evening. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. WOOD-I’m Sherman Wood. I live at 57 Waverly Place, and I’m also the Homeowner Association President. I want to commend Rich for his extensive planning, and I appreciate that the Board is taking a close look at the development. I also am glad that there was not a commitment on what type of commercial he would put in, because they’ve obviously got 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) subjective on what type would be beneficial to that community, with something that would be some place people could walk to, certainly that sounds convenient, but most of the folks that move there are already moved to a place where there wasn’t a store to walk to, and certainly we do have homeowners that already walk to Stewarts. Certainly bringing a store into the community would generate traffic during the weekend and would definitely impact the quality of life, as far as traffic, but certainly keeping the process open to having another hearing, obviously, to review what type of commercial goes in is actually the process, and I’m keeping it fair that way. I mean, everybody’s got their own opinion on what should be there and what shouldn’t be there, and we went from a farm country road. Mr. Price already addressed the lighting, which Jim was a little incorrect about. It would simulate Waverly Place, because the only lighting there is the entrances and the pole lights that go on and off on a sensor, because it does maintain the darkness and the sky. So there are some things that were a little bit inaccurate about what type of lighting would go there, because there are no real street lights. We do mandate that folks keep their pole lights on to keep the street safe and so folks can see, but certainly we like to keep an eye on what type of commercial goes in, and certainly public hearing would address that. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. I will leave the public hearing open for the time being. If the applicant would come back. I guess there were just a couple of sort of comments, questions from the neighborhood. MR. SCHERMERHORN-As far as the lighting goes, I certainly have no problem not putting what we call street lighting in. Actually to be honest with you it saves me quite a bit of money. Because with the units like the people were explaining, when you have the lights on their doors, on their garages, typically you would require, not require, but the people would like a post light at the end of their driveway. If you do all those things and then add the street lighting like we’ve done in the past, on larger subdivisions like I’m doing across the street, it warrants it. It’s not a problem, but I have no problem eliminating doing street lighting and doing exactly what Waverly did, and actually normally what happens is we’ll put in the covenants where everyone’s post light would be on a sensor. They did that in my neighborhood on Masters Common South and North, and actually it’s very nice because they all come on at the same time, roughly the same time, and it’s lit up. So I’m not opposed to doing that. I see their concerns there, because there will be plenty of lights. As far as the buffer goes on the, we would call it the west side of the road, the residents that, the one resident that was speaking of the buffering, I could assure you that Michaels Group or the County or myself, one way or the other, I can see to it that there is a buffer there. I’ve offered that land to The Michaels Group. I didn’t have to do it, I gave it to them. It’s free of charge, because I didn’t want to have any conflicts with the Town or The Michaels Group, because they weren’t happy about the road taking away their frontage. So, I don’t know if we want to condition it, or, I give my word that we’ll put some sort of buffer there, but I don’t see where it’s a big concern if we had to add 10, 12, whether it’s white pines or sugar maples or street trees or something to buffer, but if you do look at the tax map that’s up there now, I know it’s not a very good one, but we are quite a distance from that area, but still, again, I’m not opposed to adding some trees. MR. VOLLARO-Are we talking about commercial lot number four? MR. SCHERMERHORN-I’m not sure. MR. VOLLARO-I wasn’t sure what the gentleman was talking about when he asked the question. MR. LAPPER-It was the west side of new Meadowbrook, Tom. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right there, Tom, where The Michaels Group road is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right on the other side. Right there. The other side of the road, west side, where it turns into the “V”. They were concerned about buffering along the. MR. NACE-I don’t think that’s the issue. That lot’s way down here, okay, and that triangle is up here. Anything visible would be along to the south buffer. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Is that where they’re? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I thought it was. MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. I apologize. I thought when he was pointing at it, but I’m not opposed to doing some buffering on that if you would like it. Again, it would be under site plan review when I come back for commercial. So it would be there. MRS. STEFFAN-And I couldn’t imagine us looking at a site plan for commercial development and not wanting you to put a buffer in, once it’s developed. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-For now it would be a field. MR. BESTHOFF-What I was speaking about, if I may flip these a little bit, I’m looking for the one with the bushes on it, or the trees. The area that I was speaking of was this area over here, because this is your other commercial spot here, and we live right down here, and you would be looking right up into whatever this commercial spot would be. So being that you’ve got a nice buffer here and a nice buffer here, why can’t you put something along here. I don’t know where this gets cut off, but something along this side here, because we look right off of my deck and other people’s deck that are up on the north end of Waverly, we look right into that. This is the area I’m speaking of. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BESTHOFF-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-The other question that came up during the public hearing was who would have access to the walking trails. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Well, they’re open to the public. I think the public uses it now, but I primarily put them in originally for The Eddy Group. That was one of the conditions that The Glens Falls Home, I’m under contract with, they wanted to keep those walking trails. So, and I know the general public uses it, and I’m sure that’s going to continue. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Okay. Any additional questions, comments from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-The traffic issue concern came up a few times, and we don’t have a traffic study. MR. LAPPER-Well, the thing about traffic, we submitted letters from the County that supported the plan, because the whole relocation is to deal what Tom alluded to, that sight distance issue, that when you’re making the left turn off of Meadowbrook onto Haviland, or if you’re even going right, you look left quickly and you look right and people fly up the top of that hill, and there have been accidents, and that’s why the County is spending the money to relocate it. It’s a pretty expensive project for what it is, and then the Meadowbrook will take a gentle “S” curve away from Waverly Place towards this project. So that is intended to make it a much safer configuration. MR. HUNSINGER-The question was on traffic concerns that were brought up. MR. SCHERMERHORN-All right. Again, and I’m not sure Jon covered 100% what you were asking for. I think the concern was, well, the speeds on Meadowbrook and the traffic. I built Hiland Springs, I don’t know, five years ago, six years ago now, plus Meadowbrook park down the road. That’s always been a concern, and it’s always been addressed to the County, and I think the County is aware of the, well, I know they’re aware of the amount of people that are in that area, but it’s a situation where I think if we can get the speed limit reduced, our recommendation, I guess, I think we’ve been down this road before, but I certainly am not opposed to requesting a speed limit reduction. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the speed limit already was reduced, wasn’t it? MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes, maybe it was, but. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. METIVIER-Who was the silly person who fixed the road? You should have kept the road rough. I mean, that slowed everything down there. Do you think, though, that possibly the curve, because I mean, this is straightaway when you look up. Is that going to, that could possibly slow things down a little bit, too. MR. NACE-Yes, at least toward the intersection it will. There are other improvements that the Town eventually has to make to Meadowbrook Road, better shoulders and I think those will eventually come as the traffic dictates. MR. METIVIER-I’ll tell you what, though, I know it was always a problem, but I was coming home the other night and I almost got taken out for the first time, literally. I came over the hill and somebody came right through that. MR. NACE-That’s a very bad crest. MR. METIVIER-It’s awful. It’s unbelievable right there. So I’ll be excited when they change this. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that should happen this building season coming up, 2006. MR. SANFORD-Where do we stand with C.T. Male? I think it was mentioned earlier. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, Susan summarized before, the applicant summarized the project that we do have a conceptual final signoff MR. SANFORD-Is that where we are? Because I thought that Tom was telling me there was three issues they still have to get resolved. Is that right? MR. NACE-Yes. They’re housekeeping, minor, very minor, as C.T. Male said. I think, I don’t know if you guys want a copy of C.T. Male’s. MR. LAPPER-Susan read it. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Susan read it. MR. METIVIER-The problem we still have, though, is that we still need updated plans, don’t we? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s what I was going to bring up. We have a preliminary and a final on the same night, which is something I’ve never loved, let me put it that way. I would like to go through preliminary tonight and then do final when we get a chance to look at the drawings and the C.T. Male responses and so on. MR. SANFORD-I think that’s good form, Bob. This is pretty, we’re pretty close with this, but let’s do the preliminary and then when everything’s all nailed down, have them come back for final. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Because looking at your schedule, it’s not like you’re running to do this. I mean, we’re not talking about a big delay here. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Only The Glens Falls Home wanting to close on it. MR. VOLLARO-Other than that, yes. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I mean, I’d appreciate it if there’s, we could approve it with the conditions, because if you do read the C.T. Male letter, basically, if Tom had one more day with them. MR. METIVIER-Well, it’s not the C.T. Male so much as it is the updated plans. What do we need on the updated plans? If we’re taking the lights out, we don’t need a lighting plan. What else are we looking for on the plan itself? MR. SEGULJIC-We really need the configuration of the walkway. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Which we did. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Color schemes. MR. METIVIER-Color schemes aren’t on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-Like I say, I’m not a fan of doing these things on the same night. I never have been. I think Preliminary and Final on the same night is sometimes tough for me to swallow. Now a new set of plans are coming down the pike. We could get together with this pretty quickly. What kind of a delay are we looking at here? When can you get the plans to us, Tom? MR. HUNSINGER-They’re done. MR. VOLLARO-They’re done. MR. NACE-They’re done. All I’d have to do is take the lights off. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Certainly, I’m not going anywhere, Bob. I’m not starting it until Spring. Put a condition on me to get it to you within the next couple of days, but I think it would just save the Board and it would save, not that you would probably mind, but I think it would just save us, I mean, we’re close, and I don’t generally ask for much. MR. VOLLARO-No, I realize that. MR. SCHERMERHORN-I like to think my applications are very complete. This one, I just see it as one that we’re so close that I don’t see what harm it would cause. Well, let the Chairman poll the Board on that and see where we go with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we already heard from two members. How about you, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m mixed on it, because we are close. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we are close. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, really the only changes to the drawings I see is really the walkway and the elimination of the lights. MR. METIVIER-Well, not elimination, there are no lights. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, no, they do have street lights. MR. VOLLARO-They’ve got lights on it now that they’ve taken off. MR. GOETZ-I see Bob’s point, but in this situation, I mean, we’re essentially there. They have bent over backwards to make a good project. Time is money. I would say let’s nail it down. MRS. STEFFAN-I was just wondering if there was any way we could get it on next week’s agenda. MR. METIVIER-I was actually going to raise that, too, but it’s a holiday week. I don’t know who’s available and, you know, as far as the applicant is concerned. MR. LAPPER-We’d make ourselves available, if that’s what you want. MR. METIVIER-If they can get us the updated plans by Christmas Eve. MRS. STEFFAN-Because we won’t get our Staff Notes until. MR. LAPPER-We can get it to you tomorrow. MR. METIVIER-Do you want to do that? We could make a preliminary resolution with the outstanding items. They could get us a plan and we could see it next week. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. VOLLARO-It shouldn’t take us 15, 20 minutes to do. I’d like to take a look at the drawing. I’d like to feel comfortable with the drawing. That’s me. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Let me throw out one final issue here. How does the Board feel about having Counsel review the homeowner agreement? MR. SANFORD-I think we’re pretty clean with that at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Bob, I mean, I don’t see the need to incur the cost. MR. VOLLARO-No. It’s going to go to the Attorney General anyway, and they’ll give it whatever English they put on it, the five minutes they take to review it. MR. HUNSINGER-The issue was raised. I’m just putting it back out there. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s not necessary to go to Counsel. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-SEQRA’s already been done. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and it hasn’t changed substantially. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a resolution for Preliminary approval? MR. VOLLARO-I think there’s only two things. MR. METIVIER-Lighting, path and C.T. Male signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, revised drawings and C.T. Male signoff. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION NO. 22-2005 SCHERMERHORN PROPERTIES, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been make to this board for the following: Applicant proposes a 42 lot subdivision resulting in 38 residential lots [townhouse units] and 4 commercial lots of 2.07, 1.39, 1.28 and 1.30 acres, respectively with 1,300 sq. ft. of road. 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 12/20/05; 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 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) Preliminary [ A183-10 F(2) ( 3) ( 4) ]] WHEREAS, the modifications to the preliminary plat are or are not acceptable; and [A - 183-10 F (2)] 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 [ A183-10 F (2) ] 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. [ A183-10 F (3) ] 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. [ A183-10 F (4) ] 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 with the following conditions: 1. That we receive C.T. Male signoff. 2. That we receive a revised set of drawings to be reviewed prior to next week’s meeting, and it will be on the agenda for December 27. On the revised drawings we’re th looking for relocation of the walkways, and elimination of the street lights. Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th MRS. STEFFAN-And do we want to add the condition on the commercial property having a retail component? That was an issue that Rich brought up earlier. MR. METIVIER-I’m not, hearing some of the comments from the public, not so keen on that. I don’t know. MR. SANFORD-Yes. What I sense on that, Tony, is there’s all kinds of retail, and if I was living there I wouldn’t want a Cumberland Farms or a Stewarts perhaps, but, you know, some kind of a quaint general store or something like that might be a whole different thing. MR. METIVIER-But you just don’t know if you’re going to get anybody to go there. MR. VOLLARO-We have site plan review, option there, and I think that in itself would take care of what’s going to happen on those four lots. MR. METIVIER-Right. I would prefer not to include anything like that there. MR. SANFORD-Yes, I think Rich kind of understands where we’re coming from, and we could just leave it that way, and he has to come in front of us no matter what it is. MR. LAPPER-We’ll try and talk Shahay’s into moving, because that would be nice. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Thank you. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 65-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CHARLES E. SEELEY AGENT(S): CHARLES SCUDDER OWNER(S): CHARLES & BARBARA SEELEY CRAIG SEELEY ZONING LI LOCATION 75 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 7,800 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 12,116 SQ. FT. MACHINE SHOP. EXPANSIONS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 33-94, SUB 14-94 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE: 7+ ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-1 SECTION 179-4-020 CHARLES SEELEY, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Staff Notes, Susan. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. The applicant requests site plan review for a 7800 square foot machine shop addition. The property is located at 75 Big Boom Road, zoned Light Industrial, and this is a SEQRA Unlisted Action. The original site plan was approved 10/27/94, and there was a modification three years later in ’97, for a revised grading and drainage plan. Staff comments. The applicant requests waivers from a landscaping plan and a lighting plan. A request for fewer than the required parking spaces for the use is also requested. The original site plan for this property was submitted for this application, dated October 18, 1994. There was a modification to this plan that was approved on July 22, 1997, and it did not appear that those changes were acted upon. The changes, included a proposed drive with cul-de-sac, and these are not on the submitted site plan. It appears that the proposed addition will overlay the access road and the parking in back of the welding shop. Will a new access road off of Big Boom be constructed and is additional gravel roadway surface proposed? No additional paved, gravel, or hard surfaced area are show on the site development data page. Furthermore, under notes on the site plan, “There is neither a grading change nor a driveway change necessary for this building extension. This is not how it appears when this plan is scaled out onto the original site plan. It seems that the additional drive area will displace the existing retention basin and the septic system. The plan shows a relocated retention basin, but does not show a relocated septic system. An explanation as to the existing and proposed storm water management system is needed. Verification that the system in place or proposed will be able to accommodate the runoff from the building addition as well as from any additional driveway surfaces should be provided. We do have a C.T. Male comment letter dated December 12, 2005, from Jim Edwards, and that’s all I have. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. If you could just tell us a little bit about your project. MR. SEELEY-Okay. On the Queensbury Planning Board Staff notes, if you just want to run down through them, I went paragraph by paragraph. MRS. STEFFAN-Are you Charles Seeley? MR. SEELEY-Yes, I’m Charles Seeley. I’m sorry. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. SEELEY-The landscaping’s complete. There’s pictures, if you’d like to look at them. Would anybody like to look at them? MR. HUNSINGER-We were all there on Saturday. MR. SEELEY-The lighting will stay as it is. I only have one light on the south end. The parking where the long part of the addition is going is going to be eliminated. It shows five spots, I think, and there’s 10 spots on the north end, one handicap, 15 along the east side, which gives me 26 spots for parking, and we run two shifts. That’s way more than sufficient for what we need, and on Paragraph Two, the other site plan, where the cul de sac was, as fill becomes available, that’s way off in the future, you know, we don’t get a lot of fill, if that’s what they were referring to, I think it is. Paragraph Three, I’ve got to read it. The only thing the building will overlay is the parking behind where the one addition part is going on 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) the five spots. It doesn’t overlay any roadways. There’ll be no new access off Big Boom Road. No change of driveways. No grading changes. The addition is actually, the 120 foot part of the addition, is at grade right now, I mean rake able type grade to pour the floor, and the same with the 60 foot addition on the end of the main building. Paragraph Four, the retention basins beyond the drive, you can still drive around the building. The retention basin, they’re trying to say it’s been moved or moved or something. It’s been there since 1994, and other than the fact that it’s round rather than elongated, that’s the way it’s been forever, and the drive does not interfere with the septic. It’s on the right hand side if you’re facing north of the driveway, and I think D is probably stormwater runoff is it? Let’s see. Yes. So I’ve got Mr. Scudder working on that, on the stormwater runoff. If you want me to run over C.T. Male’s letter? MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, if you want to. MR. SEELEY-I’ve got that sort of highlighted here, too. Paragraph One, there’s only one basin. He’s saying it looked like two, and I know what he’s looking at. There’s an elevation lines here, 375, 6, and 7. It’s the end of the building, where you were parked down there, the end of that main building. It’s just like a raised section there and it does look like a basin but it’s not, and the stormwater runoff, Mr. Scudder’s working on that, and then he’s asking for a groundwater test. You have to dig down there 100 feet to get groundwater. There’s 100 foot of sand. You could never get water there if you wanted to, unless you got way over by the Hudson, you know. The next, it says it looks like the septic’s less than 50 feet from the retention. It isn’t. It’s 86 feet, and that would be from the end of the lateral’s, the closest point, and the parking lot is not over the septic. You drive across it, though, to get to the, to park, but it’s not actually. Let’s see, Paragraph Four, oh, and he’s saying there was no spot elevations. They’re right here on the site plan, all the spot elevations, and this lower elevation is right at grade right now. I mean, within inches from the cement floor, and the same with the top section. There’s a four foot difference. Paragraph Five, parking is very sufficient. The north driveway is approximately 4.7% grade, and he’s trying to say it’s 20. So I don’t know where he’s getting the 20 from. It’s about an eight foot drop in 180 feet or so, and then it flattens out. That’s all I’ve got. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Questions, comments from the Board? Why don’t we go through the site plan review criteria. MR. VOLLARO-Before we do that, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that this one plan that is dated July 8, 1997 and prepared by Scudder and Associates, it’s called a modification plan, this plan doesn’t, in any way, reflect what’s on that site at all. I couldn’t make, you know, in my mind this plan is pretty meaningless to me in terms of what’s currently there. It shows the entrance to the south rather than the entrance to the north where we came in past the (lost word). I just don’t understand what this drawing has to do with anything at all concerning this site, unless I’m missing something. MR. SEELEY-No, I don’t think it does. I think that’s why C.T. Male got confused. Because I think there’s a wrong site plan in the shuffle there. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I know what site plan C.T. Male is using. He’s using this site plan here that’s dated 1994 and it’s prepared by Mr. Andrew T. McCormack. McCormack’s map. Now that map is what C.T. Male is using. Because I confirmed the distance from the end of the laterals to the retention basin being 45 feet. MR. SEELEY-And that’s why there’s no elevation, spot elevations on it because the October 14, 2005 one that I have right here has all the spot elevations on it. Do you have that one? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got that. I’m looking right at it. MR. SEELEY-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-But I just wanted to say that before we got into this thing, asking questions, that this map does not reflect the site conditions as they presently exist. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Clearly there’s some confusion, you know, reference the comments, questions about the septic plan, and you know, the applicant saying they’re inaccurate. So there does seem to be some meeting of the minds that needs to be held here, if you will. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. SEELEY-So what do you want to know? MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think the C.T. Male letter of December 12 has to be answered, th probably by your engineer, which is Mr. Scudder. MR. SEELEY-That’s what I’ll do. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, Mr. Scudder. MRS. STEFFAN-Because it’s like we’re speaking a different language. MR. SEELEY-Well, I just got this stuff the 12. They faxed it to me the 12, or, no, the thth letter was dated the 12. I got this yesterday. Your copies, and I’ve just been running th around like a chicken with my head cut off. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. Well, how far do we want to go with this? I’ll leave it up to the Board. MR. METIVIER-Where is Mr. Scudder? Is he? MR. SEELEY-Where is he? MR. METIVIER-Yes. MR. SEELEY-He’s probably home. MR. METIVIER-He’s not going to come and sit by your side talk this out? MR. SEELEY-Not unless I need him. Not unless you want to pay him. If I satisfy everything on C.T. Male’s letter, that should be sufficient, shouldn’t it? MR. METIVIER-Yes, I mean, is that what we’re looking for is the C.T. Male signoff more than anything else really? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and again, there does seem to be some confusion on at least the location of the septic tanks and the septic fields. MR. SEELEY-The septic’s right where it originally shows on the, within feet, you know, of the original site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s a couple of things in here, too. They did a worksheet on this, a Floor Area Ratio worksheet, and instead of using .3, they used .2, .22. So their figures are wrong on their FAR, and that has to be corrected as well. MR. SEELEY-What’s that on now? MR. VOLLARO-That’s on the Floor Area worksheet. MR. SEELEY-The Floor Area worksheet? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and I presume this was done by Mr. Scudder? MR. SEELEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I recognize his handwriting, and it’s incorrect. The factor is .3 for the Light Industrial zone. MR. SEELEY-Okay. Where am I at here? You’ve got to help me out here. MR. VOLLARO-It says Floor Area Ratio worksheet, right on the top. MR. HUNSINGER-And down at the bottom it says Page 12 to be submitted. MR. SEELEY-Okay. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. VOLLARO-You see where it says total allowable floor area, down at the bottom of the page? MR. SEELEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And it says A times .22 or 22%? MR. SEELEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s got to be times .3 or 30%, and that’s, so your figures do change when that factor changes. MR. SEELEY-Okay. He’ll know what to do with that. MR. HUNSINGER-What other concerns do members of the Board have? MR. VOLLARO-Well, the only ones I had in my list were the recharge basin. Is that the same recharge basin on the new site plan? MR. SEELEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That is on the McCormack site plan. MR. SEELEY-Yes. On the McCormack site plan it shows it elongated. It never got elongated. It’s round. MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. I’m not worried about that. I’m wondering whether it’s the same retention basin. MR. SEELEY-Same retention basin, never been moved. The tree, as a matter of fact, Scudder had me clean it out because the trees were this big around in it. MR. VOLLARO-That means it wasn’t working. Okay. I just want to know, you know, that that retention basin is going to be working, because the way that. MR. SEELEY-It works good. There’s hardly any water in it. MR. VOLLARO-Right now they’re looking for that eight inch storm drain to come right down into that recharge basin off the new building, and I want to make sure that basin is now working. MR. SEELEY-Right. All the water right now goes to that basin, and 99% of it would be off that roof into there. It’s just sort of a natural thing it goes right there. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, when we visited the site this weekend, there was a lot of stuff stored back there, which looks, it looks like it’s in that area. MR. SEELEY-No, no. Don’t get confused with Batease and myself, okay. MRS. STEFFAN-No, we thought this was behind your building. MR. SEELEY-No, it is behind my building. My property line goes behind my building. That stuff isn’t mine. No. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ve been around the block with him, once or twice. MR. SEELEY-I’m just saying, it’s not mine. My property line comes down the driveway and then angles back the other way. MRS. STEFFAN-So all of that storage material that was there is part of the neighbor’s property? MR. SEELEY-The white trailer to the left, the one that’s way down low, is mine. MRS. STEFFAN-And there were some, okay. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. SEELEY-The rest of it is not mine. MRS. STEFFAN-Is not yours. MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Chairman, I think what we have to do is probably table this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think we had reached that conclusion a while ago, but. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that wanted to comment on this application? Okay. I will open the public hearing and we will leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-Do we want to consider the tabling motion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Do you want me to do it? MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 65-2005 CHARLES E. SEELEY, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Until the January 24, 2006 meeting. We’re looking for the following: C.T. Male signoff, and a new floor area worksheet using the correct value of .3 versus 22. Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. We’ll see you next month. MR. SEELEY-Thank you. See you next month. Hopefully with everything. FRESHWATER WETLANDS FWW 5-2005 SEQR TYPE II JEFFREY KILBURN AGENT(S): JAMES MILLER, RLA OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION NORTH SIDE FOX HOLLOW LANE, BETWEEN #22 & #24 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,177 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING LOG ROAD. PORTIONS OF THE FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY OCCUR WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A DEC WETLAND. CROSS REF. SP 64-05, SUB WESTLAND SECT. 15 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE 12.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-30 SECTION CHAPTER 94 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFFREY KILBURN, PRESENT SITE PLAN NO. 64-2005 SEQR TYPE II JEFFREY KILBURN AGENT(S): JAMES MILLER, RLA OWNER(S): SAME ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION NORTH SIDE FOX HOLLOW LANE, BETWEEN #22 & #24 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,177 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND IMPROVEMENTS TO AN EXISTING LOG ROAD. PORTIONS OF THE FILLING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY OCCUR WITHIN 50’ OF THE SHORELINE OF A DEC WETLAND. FILLING WITHIN 50 FEET OF A WETLAND REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. FWW/ SUB WESTLAND SECT. 15 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 11/9/05 LOT SIZE 12.9 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-30 SECTION 179-6-60 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFFREY KILBURN, PRESENT 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. Again, this is an application for a Freshwater Wetlands Permit and Site Plan. Site Plan specifically for activity within 50 feet of a wetland. The subject property is located at 11 Fox Hollow Lane, zoned Single Family Residential One Acre. This is a SEQRA Type II Action. The applicant proposes a 3,177 square foot single family dwelling. Grading and filling associated with the construction of the access road is within 50 feet of a wetland. This project, for a single family dwelling, includes the construction of a driveway, 1,260 square feet of which will be within 50 feet of a DEC wetland. The 35 foot wetland buffer should remain a no cut buffer along the entire perimeter of the wetland. An area close to the proposed house site states selective cutting in this area for filtered views and access of 175 feet. Per Section 179-6-60, “Within 35-feet extending inland from all points along the mean high-water mark, no vegetation may be removed”. The general exception to this standard shall be an allowance for lake access. A selective cutting area of 175-feet for views and access seems excessive. Sediment and erosion control measures should be in place and field verified by Town staff before a building permit is issued or any construction activity takes place. There is a C.T. Male letter dated December 12, 2005 on this project, signed by Jim Edwards. A DEC Freshwater Wetlands Permit is submitted as well, and I have one public comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Good evening. MR. MILLER-Good evening. My name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. I’m here with the owners and applicant Jeffrey and Candace Kilburn. I just want to clear up one thing. The 11 Fox Hollow Lane is where the Kilburns currently live and I believe the address for this one is like 28, 22 and 24. So they live in the neighborhood now. The site is 13 acres. It’s located in the very back of the Fox Hollow subdivision on Fox Hollow Lane, and the proposal is to develop a single family residence. The location that they’ve selected is in the center of the property. Right now there’s the wetland that runs behind the High School from the Northway west, actually it goes back, and this is the westerly end of it. They’re proposing constructing a new house in this area to take advantage of some of the views to that wetland. The reason we’re here tonight, what’s on the site right now is there’s an existing dirt road that comes down to a point about to here. The history of this road is unknown. It looks like it might have been, it was cut into the slope here and it might have been an access. This looks like it could have been a borrow area. So it might have been an access road years ago to access that area. Now it’s used for ATV access, along with some other ATV trails that kind of cross the property. All of the new construction for the house meets all of the setbacks, and the only reason that we’re here tonight is that, rather than to excavate further into the site, we would like to utilize that existing road cut that’s in this side hill. This is all wooded here now. If we were to re-locate that driveway so we avoided being within the 50 foot setback of the wetland area, it would mean having to re-grade that whole side slope and severely cut into the site. So our proposal is to utilize that existing road, widen it slightly, and improve it, so it would provide a driveway to the new house site, and right in this area where the site’s the steepest, is where Susan had said we had like 1260 square foot of the driveway would actually be within that setback limit. We applied to DEC for a permit. The permit’s been issued. We had the signoff letter from Jim Edwards. We responded to some minor comments that he had. We submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers and I spoke to Kevin Bruce, and since we’re not doing anything within the wetland, and that it’s just going to be a simple stake dock that they’ve proposed, that there would be like a canoe access during high water periods, something like that, that he agreed with me that it was non jurisdictional, and we don’t require any Army Corps permit. The one comment that Staff had about the clearing, in reading the Code, it says that we’re allowed to clear 20 feet of the shoreline for views and access, and I think it’s not our intent to, you know, the 175 feet is actually, they’ve got a lot of, there’s 900 something feet of shoreline, so we would be allowed, under the Code, to clear 192. We’re not looking to clear it. (Lost words) trees within that area, other than some that would be close to the house, there’s some tall pines there that you wouldn’t want that close to a new house, other than, you know, right around the house, all that area along the wetland would be minimal trees removed, and primarily what they want to do is take out some brush and some of the lower limbs to open up some very selective views, but the only reason we indicated that 175 foot area, because that’s the only area where even some of that thinning would occur that the rest of it wouldn’t be thinned at all. That’s it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. Who wants to start? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. SANFORD-I had a couple of questions. I guess this one goes to our attorney. I guess, you know, these trails, there’s a whole bunch of trails back there, and actually what you’re looking to have as a driveway is now being used by a number of people for hiking and snowshoeing and may very well have for decades for all I know. When do you have use that constitutes something that might be construed as a road by use in a situation? MR. SCHACHNER-If the public has traveled over it by vehicle. MR. SANFORD-By vehicle. Vehicle being an automobile? MR. SCHACHNER-Motorized vehicle, yes. MR. SANFORD-And other types of things such as trails, things of this nature, there’s nothing at all associated with their being some kind of a deemed public use? MR. SCHACHNER-Correct that there’s not. MR. SANFORD-There’s not, okay. Yes, that was just one thing I wanted to get clarified. The other issue I have, and I think there’s probably going to be a number of questions regarding the grading and the wetlands and everything else, but you’re probably aware that the Town Board is interested in developing a bike trail system back in that area, connecting ultimately to The Great Escape, and this would be, perhaps, a nice location for access and could perhaps utilize some of this driveway and then connect to some of the trails. I’m not sure, but I would suspect that it could probably be managed in a way that’s not too intrusive, and I was wondering if there would be any consideration on your part to entertain some form of an easement for some kind of a use like that that would benefit the community. MR. KILBURN-For the record, I’m Jeff Kilburn, property owner, and being blunt, that’s our property, we’d like to build a house, and we really don’t want to make it a public way walking down our driveway. So, in direct response, no, thank you. MR. MILLER-Yes. I think, you know, this was an approved building lot back when the Fox Hollow subdivision was proposed and developed and there was no provisions in that subdivision for anything, and this whole area here as well as the High School and even the Indian Ridge property and all the property to the north of the wetlands up around Rush Pond, all this area has been very actively used and abused by ATV’s and dirt bikes and everything else, more so than the common people going for a walk. It’s a problem back there. I worked on the bike trail plan and I’ve walked that site back there, and there’s hillsides back there that are, you know, devoid of vegetation because of the amount of ATV use and things that you get, and so to try to accommodate access, that’s the kind of use you would have down your driveway, and I don’t think any of us would want to have it. MR. SANFORD-ATV’s vehicles. MR. MILLER-Well, it’s got to be access to destination. It can’t be trespassing. MR. SCHACHNER-It doesn’t give you a road by use, if that’s where you’re heading. MR. SEGULJIC-How wide is that existing road? MR. MILLER-It’s only about, it’s six to eight feet. I think it was just cut in there for access to get back. I believe it was probably a borrow area, and then what we’re looking to do is to widen it out so it’s about 14 feet, including a couple of feet where we have a drain in there. So, I mean, it’s actually got to be improved just for a driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-So you’re proposing to build like a 16 foot driveway through there? MR. MILLER-Well, I forget what the dimension was. There’s several details on the second sheet. We’re looking at a 12 foot paved travel lane and I think they only had like a two foot French drain on the inside to collect any seepage or something we might get off of that side slope. MR. GOETZ-I think the Town fire departments require to get to some, they need access of 20 feet. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. MILLER-Well, I don’t think that’s a driveway. I think that applies to a common road or something like that, not a single driveway. MR. GOETZ-Well, what I’m thinking of is for the safety of the house and the occupants, if you can’t get in there. Is there any other way to get there? MR. MILLER-No. MR. GOETZ-That’s the point I’m trying to make. MR. MILLER-Well, I think a 12 foot driveway is plenty adequate and I think what we’ve tried to do, back at the house site, is provide a turnaround area because we have a 900 foot driveway, provide a turnaround so if they actually have a delivery or something else that we can, we have to be able to turn a vehicle around in there. It’s obviously one of the drawbacks to a long driveway, but I don’t think 12 feet is substandard. MR. SANFORD-Do we have restrictions on length of driveways that we have to be concerned with here? MR. HUNSINGER-We do not. MR. VOLLARO-No. The only one we have is the 1,000 foot on cul de sacs, Mr. Sanford. My real concern here is the encroachment on that wetland. Now I read 179-6-060, 35 feet extending inland, etc., it says, “The general exception to this standard shall be an allowance for lake access.” Is what we’re looking at the end of your wood stake dock considered a lake? MR. MILLER-Well, probably not, but it’s considered a shoreline, and it’s treated the same way. MR. VOLLARO-It says allowance for lake access. I mean, it’s very specific. It’s not ambiguous in terms of how it’s written. So I think that 179-6-060 is going to have to be contended with whether you like it or not, I guess, because I don’t consider that, I have a note on the drawing, is this navigable water considered a lake, and I didn’t think so. To me it’s a marsh. MR. SANFORD-At times the water gets high, and then you can use it, perhaps like you mentioned earlier, for canoeing, but at other times. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but that doesn’t fit the definition of a lake. MR. SANFORD-Right. I think at other times it’s probably dry. Is that correct? MR. MILLER-I don’t think it ever dries up, but it probably gets low enough, you know, and there’s enough vegetation that it’s difficult to use a canoe, but the intent is that you’d be able to use it during certain times. MR. HUNSINGER-One of the questions I had is we walked the site Saturday morning and the question is, from the existing driveway, in which direction is most of the additional width being obtained? Are you going back into the hill or are you going towards the? MR. MILLER-Chris, if you look at the detail on the second page, we show a driveway that we show as a Type A, a Type B and a Type C, and then plan indicates where those are. Obviously Type A is where we’d have no restrictions, but in the beginning portion of the driveway, through here and through here, there’s adequate room that we can widen towards the wetland, where the gradient on the wetlands side is slight enough that it would allow us to do some fill on that side. The main section where we’re looking for the permit, we would have to cut into the hillside, and that’s where we’ve shown the detail that shows the stone wall along that portion where it’s required to give us that additional width in there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I mean, part of the concern in going from the field to the drawing is you don’t really know exactly where spots are located, but the concern that we had in walking the site was if you cut into the hill there are some mature trees that obviously won’t survive. They’ll have to either be removed or else the roots will be exposed when you cut into the hill. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. MILLER-There may be a few along there. I think our intent is to have some stone wall and areas to minimize that, and there’s also some areas in there where there’s a fair amount of room to cut back so the intent is that we would try to be as sensitive as we could to those trees. We don’t want to eliminate them, but there’s a stretch in there for maybe a couple hundred feet that we’d have to cut into that hill and the intent is by using some stone wall or something like that along that, that would eliminate the amount we’d have to cut up the slope. MR. HUNSINGER-My feeling is that the area that we’re most concerned is the area where you’re going to be doing the most cutting, because it felt like it was closest to the wetlands, visually. MR. MILLER-It is, but in looking at the site, it’s, you know, to develop access in there, I think that’s the most sensitive way to do it. I mean, we wouldn’t have to be here tonight if we tore a road up the side of that hill and stayed back 50 feet, we wouldn’t have to come before you. So in looking at the site, it was our feeling that it would be easier to modify that existing driveway and least intrusive on the rest of that slope, and then come in here and plead our case with you. So that’s why we chose to do that. Because one of the problems when you’re grading on a slope like that is you don’t have much room to get back to grade. So to try to cut that driveway in another area, you would end up pretty much clearing that whole hillside. So, you know, we thought that would be a worse situation than just trying to improve that driveway. MRS. STEFFAN-And you’d probably need a mining permit with the amount of dirt you’d have to take out of that hill. The other concern that I had with cutting the driveway in there is that once it’s done, then, I mean, it’s a driveway, and you’re going to have to put salt or sand on it, and it’s right next to a wetland, and so the runoff would contaminate the wetland, and we could put a condition of no salt, but there’s no way to enforce that. It’s the same with your house location. One of my concerns with the wetland being there, we could put a condition no fertilizer, but that’s really up to you whether you would comply with our conditions. MR. MILLER-Yes, but a wetland loves that fertilizer. As far as the salt and sand, I mean, obviously that has to be used, but on the other hand, I think the Kilburns are building on this site because they love this site. They live in the neighborhood and they’ve used this property, you know, to walk on, and they’re certainly not going to put salt on that driveway like the Town puts salt on all the Town roads. Obviously back in the woods like that there may be times they need something. What we did, if you look at the grading of the driveway in that area, we’ve pitched it to the inside, and basically put a French drain along the inside edge. So our intent was that that drain would collect runoff from the road as well as some seepage that would come off the hill, so it doesn’t drain across the road and create ice, and then the primary thing would be that we have good sands and gravel to allow that water to infiltrate into the ground, and then we’d just have overflow pipes that would take it across the driveway into the wetland. So what we tried to do is minimize your concern by using infiltration instead of running directly into the wetland. MRS. STEFFAN-According to the plan, it’s going to be paved, right, the driveway will be paved? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Why are you cutting into the bank on your plan that’s referred to as “K”? Why are you cutting into the bank there? To the north of the house. MR. MILLER-You’re talking in this area here? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. MILLER-Well, one of the things we looked to do here was to create an area where we’ve got suitable room to turn around and park and if there’s deliveries or something like that. So what we did was to try to provide a circle here that’s got a radius of about 25 feet which is not generous, but we thought it would be adequate, and what happens, if you look at the existing grades, there’s a ridge that comes across and ends right in here. So basically what we’re doing is just, we’re grading the end of that ridge and what happens, is the reason we don’t want to cut back into here, is once you cut into a steeper grade like that, you have to cut back up to 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) get back to grade to maintain a maintainable slope, but if you look at the detail, what our intent is in here, in these areas where we’re grading around the house, other than, you know, some of the lawn areas around the house and the septic field, we have a detail where those slopes will be protected with an erosion control blank, and they’ll be seeded, and then the intent is they’ll be replanted. The intent is they’ll be replanted with smaller plants, but allowed to revert back to, you know, natural condition. MR. SEGULJIC-If I’m understanding this correctly, you’re going to have to cut 20 feet down? MR. MILLER-I think at the very deepest point right in here, right at the ridge at that point there is a point where it’s about 16 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s quite aggressive. MR. MILLER-It is, but you know I think what happens though is it’s the shape of that ridge that we just cut across that ridge and then it’s only at that very point, then it tapers off to within 50, 60 feet back to grade. I mean, if you’ve walked in there, there’s a ridge that kind of comes across here and a ridge that crosses here, and this area was selected because by cutting and filling that ridge and the narrow spot in here, we can create that housing site. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I still have a question concerning that cut through for the wood stake dock, through the wetlands. I just don’t know that our Code, with the exception of the fact that it says the general exception to the standard shall make allowance for lake access, I don’t believe this is a lake. I’ve got a problem with that. MR. MILLER-Well we’re not cutting to get to that dock. If you’ve been there, there’s not a lot of vegetation on that bank. So it’s very easy to have a walkway to get down. I think, we’re not looking to clear trees, like I said, we’re just looking to remove some brush and the majority of that would be back beyond the 35 feet. The intent is to leave that all natural area. We’re not looking to clear a lawn down to the edge of the marsh. The lawn will end where our grading ends up near the, at the end of the leach field. We’re not even looking to clear beyond the 35 feet. We’re showing trees back almost 100 feet along there, and the intent is not to open that all up, but just to allow views through the trees down to the marsh. If you’ve been there, it’s pretty open to start with. MR. VOLLARO-It looks like the leach field, I’m just quickly looking at where that line is there. It looks like we’re something in the area of 450. Is that right, at the edge of the? MR. MILLER-The existing grade or finished grade? MR. VOLLARO-It looks like the finished grade to me. MR. MILLER-No, the leach field’s at 442. MR. VOLLARO-442. Okay, but that 442, we’re going down to about 430 before you hit the wetland. I’m just looking at the flow, if there’s any flow from that leach field. What kind of percolation do we have here? MR. MILLER-It was a little bit under three minutes, I believe. MR. SANFORD-Two minutes and forty-five seconds. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s not free running sand, so you don’t have that problem with it running down toward the wetland once it leaches in. I guess I’m going to stay on that walkway for a minute. Are you still planning to build that walkway, is that what you plan to do? MR. MILLER-The walkway down to the dock? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. MILLER-I don’t know if it’s really going to be any kind of a walkway. I think we’ve just shown it, it’s going to be more of a path. I mean, it’s a seasonal thing. They just want to be able to walk down there and. MR. VOLLARO-I’m talking basically the wood stake dock four foot by forty feet. MR. MILLER-Right. There won’t be a walkway down there. There’s just going to be a path that they have. It’s not going to be paved or stone or anything. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I don’t, personally, have any objection to it. I just don’t know of a good way to get around the Code. I don’t like to turn a blind eye to the Zoning Code. MR. MILLER-I don’t understand how we’re getting around the Code. MR. VOLLARO-Well, because I don’t think it’s a lake. It says the general exception to this standard shall be an allowance for lake access. That’s a clear, not ambiguous statement. What they’re saying is that if there was a lake here, they would have no problem of you getting that, but going into a, just a plain old wetland with a stake dock doesn’t, there they say within 35 feet extending inland from all points along. MR. MILLER-Well, we’re not clearing for that dock. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what is this selective clearing of 75 feet? MR. MILLER-Well, that’s like the clearing was intended to be for views. I remember reading a Section in the Code that talks about some selective clearing and 20% of the frontage. I don’t have the Code in front of me. I can’t quote the Section, but it talks about not only access but some clearing being allowed for visibility. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 20% is what they said. MR. MILLER-That’s right. So, I mean, so that’s what we were responding to. MR. VOLLARO-You’re 18 270. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re below the Code in that area, but then they go on to further clarify that to the general exception to this standard shall be allowed. What they’re saying, they will allow you, will allow that for lake access. MR. MILLER-We don’t want to clear anything for the lake access. MR. VOLLARO-Well, then you’d have to remove the selective clearing in this area for filtered views and access, 75 feet of shoreline. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but they’re not asking for an exception, Bob. MR. MILLER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re within the 20%. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but I think the 20% is put in there if it’s access, the general exception would be an access to the lake, I believe. Either that or I’m reading it wrong or I’ve got to get my Code out and read the whole thing. MR. SANFORD-Are you saying that the 35 foot no cut buffer is deemed a no cut buffer if it’s less than 20%, is that what’s being said here, that if you do less than 20% of cutting, it’s considered no cut? MR. VOLLARO-That’s what they’re saying, it’s not what I’m saying. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. SANFORD-Well, Mark, excuse me, we have Staff Notes here which basically talk in terms of 35 foot wetland buffer should remain a no cut buffer, and what Mr. Miller is representing, I think, you can correct me if I’m wrong, is that if it’s less than 20% of cutting within a 35 foot buffer, then that’s, by definition, not cutting. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m not sure whether that’s what the applicant is saying, but I don’t think Staff is saying that the applicant is not permitted what it seeks authorization for. I think it’s a Staff recommendation. In other words, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Staff is saying that what the applicant’s proposing violates the Code. It’s more of a Staff recommendation of a judgmental nature, in terms of your discretion is what I mean, or I may be misunderstanding. MR. SANFORD-You might be. It’s per Section 179-6-060 within 35 feet extending inland from all points along the mean high water mark no vegetation may be removed. Now, what I heard of what we’ve been discussing is. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but keep going. What I understand Staff’s view, they’re then tracking the next Section of the Code, and you don’t have the Code in front of you, but you have Staff’s notes in front of you, but they are accurately tracking the next Section, which starts with, and I’m looking at the Code, the general exception to, and this is exactly what Mr. Vollaro is asking about, the general exception to this standard shall be an allowance for lake access and beaches, and I don’t think the Staff, I don’t know, I have not participated in any discussion about this until right now, but that’s what Staff and I were just sort of whispering about, and I believe Staff’s position, correct me if I’m wrong, I believe Staff’s position is that that exception, Staff is considering that exception to apply to this situation in light of the paddable if you will, or canoe accessible wetland. Is that the gist of it? MRS. BARDEN-Well, it’s really not, that’s a Zoning Administrator to interpret that Code, and I did not. I assumed that that would be the interpretation for access of any kind. MR. SCHACHNER-To water access. MRS. BARDEN-To water access. MR. SCHACHNER-But that’s not a Craig Brown determination? MRS. BARDEN-That’s not a Craig Brown determination. MR. SCHACHNER-All right. MR. SANFORD-So where’s this 20% come in at all? In other words. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, further in the Code it says the general exception to this standard shall be an allowance for lake access and beaches. The creation of a contiguous clear cut opening, clear cut opening, in the buffer strip, shall not exceed 20% of the shoreline frontage on any individual lot. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. That’s the next sentence in that Section of the Code. MR. HUNSINGER-This applicant is not proposing to clear cut. MR. MILLER-No, no, not at all. MR. HUNSINGER-But if you read that literally, if you don’t have a lake, then if you have a pond, river, stream, or swamp or wetland, you cannot cut within 35 feet of it. MR. SANFORD-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-That would be a technical construction. Correct. MR. VOLLARO-That’s exactly my point. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that the intent of the Code I guess is what Bob is asking. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. SCHACHNER-And Susan’s right. That’s a Zoning Administrator interpretation, that’s initially a Zoning Administrator interpretation, and we don’t have that determination. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So it looks like we’re stuck. MR. SCHACHNER-Remember that the intention here is that the Section at the top refers to lakes, ponds, streams, swamps, or wetlands, but then this particular language, Mr. Vollaro correctly points out, refers only to lake access. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, or beaches. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. Thank you. So whether that’s shorthand for lakes, swamps, ponds and all the rest of it, or if it was really intended to just be lake, it’s hard to say. MR. MILLER-Yes, the way the Code reads, they’re all lumped together. So it would be my interpretation they’d be treated equally. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. I think we understand that’s the applicant’s position. MR. HUNSINGER-I think we’re going to need clarification from the Zoning Administrator on that. MR. MILLER-I don’t think we’re looking to clear cut. We’re talking about leaving all the trees 100 feet back, not only 35 feet back, but, you know, our proposal is to just do some selective, you know, remove some branches here, there, some scrub things that you wouldn’t want right next to your back yard and to allow some filtered views. We’re not looking to clear that whole area. So I kind of think we’re beating this for no real reason. MRS. STEFFAN-Because there seemed to be some beautiful large trees in there. MR. MILLER-The applicants are here. They’re buying this site and they’re building here because they enjoy the beauty of the site there. Obviously it’s a difficult site and they have to construct the house. So we’ve got some grading to do and things, but the intent is to look out the back of the house and have a natural setting and the slope going down to the wetland will be wooded but there’ll be some opening so you see the marsh and you know it’s there. MR. VOLLARO-I can appreciate what you’re trying to do. I really can. My problem is trying to get around these words. You see, I read the words, I understand what they say. They’re unambiguous to me, and to put a blind eye to the Code is not something we’re up here to do. That’s a problem for me. MR. SANFORD-Well, yes, I’m also concerned, I mean, going back to Gretchen’s comments, Bob, which I appreciate why they don’t want to go, I guess where we’re talking about is where they have it labeled Type C driveway, I think, maybe B, too, but I’m concerned about the close proximity of that driveway to the wetland and what she was saying in terms of salts and other potential pollutants. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’re talking about the driveway section Type C there? MR. SANFORD-Well, I think that’s where, that’s when they encroach heavily upon the wetland, and I guess that’s one of the major reasons they’re here. MR. MILLER-That’s the only reason we’re here. This is the same wetland that the Northway crosses on the other side, though, you’ve got to keep in mind. We’re talking about a 12 foot driveway, and I think, you know, in a 12 foot driveway that we’re still 40 feet from the wetland, and we’re draining away, and I think with the detailing and everything we’re being as sensitive, you know, as we can to that wetland, but we’re asking for this wetland permit to avoid, because the other option is to move the driveway further back, and I think that’s the wrong thing to do, but obviously they would like to build a house. That would be our Plan B. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MRS. STEFFAN-How will you avoid folks using the trail through there? I guess, I’ve looked at this plan a lot of times, and I never noticed the trail that runs through here. Do you have any plans on how to prohibit folks from using that? MR. KILBURN-We’re dealing with it day by day. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. MILLER-The other thing, this is the wetland that the Town is going to build an earth dam across for their bike trail, and I think we’re dealing with this fairly sensitively. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-You’ve lost me on that last comment. MR. MILLER-This is the same wetland that the proposed bike trail is going to cross with an earth dike. MR. SANFORD-I understand now. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone here that would like to make comments or address the Board on this application? I would ask that you state your name for the record and address your comments to the Board. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARY GILBERTSON MRS. GILBERTSON-My name is Mary Gilbertson and we bought our retirement home at 18 Fox Hollow Lane, two and a half years ago, and we’re some of the walkers in that wonderful place behind our house. I have two questions, and then John, who is a Civil Engineer as well as a Nuclear Engineer, has some questions about things that are going to go on. We haven’t had much time to prepare because we just found out Thursday, we saw the sign which is quite far back. If you took a walk yesterday remember the sign you saw in the snow, then we read about this meeting. So we went up to DEC immediately, because we realized we only had four days, and we didn’t get your announcement until Friday. So we ran up to DEC in Warrensburg, not knowing anything except wondering, is this wetland really going to be protected, you know, and peripheral issues. Well, we met with a Susan at DEC and she handed me a map of the relevant area here, and I looked at the map, and after walking back there, every week for two and a half years, I realized her map was wrong. So I said to her, your map is wrong. Where they’re going to build the driveway is much closer to the wetland than your map shows, and I didn’t know what I was confronted with, and I said to her, this doesn’t mean that DEC never sent anybody to look at the site does it, and she said yes. They never sent anybody to look at the site. So I was kind of shocked, I didn’t know what to do, and we came here to get your help. We just wanted to know if the Planning Board could at least make sure that the DEC, who apparently have already granted the permit, walk back there and take a look at what is there. I mean, I was stunned. We’re from Wisconsin. So, you know, it just freaked us out a little bit. So, if you could help us with that, that would be great. If we knew that they actually had walked back there and raised some of the issues that you so competently raised tonight, it would make us feel better. I know that the Kilburns, I’ve never met them before, but I know, we’re not questioning the right of somebody to do something with private property, that’s not the issue, and we know from what our neighbors tell us that they’re very solicitous towards environmental issues, and so our major issue was with DEC and not understanding how could they give a permit without going on site, and so this Susan went further to tell us, well, we don’t have to go look at the sites. We just go by maps, and I said, but your map is wrong. Now she did give me a packet before we left, but the map that was in question in relation to my question was not in the packet, and we didn’t notice that until we got back. So I can’t show you a picture of that map, but I can guarantee you she showed it to me, and that’s how I got on to the case right away that they’d never walked the site. My second question, part of it has been answered tonight by your questions. What does it meant to improve a logging road, and what are the ramifications of that. These trees that are on the side of the hill that you raised issues about are in fact 150 foot trees. I mean, they’re, you know, I don’t want to get into that whole area, but because I’m not sure how relevant that is to this group, but after two and a half years, we know ever Piliated Woodpecker that had every baby who’s flying directly across in and out of those trees. We 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) know this 1,000 year trek of the turtles that come out and start laying eggs. They walk right out of where the driveway’s going to be built, and they come into the neighborhood into the sand. They must have been doing this for 1,000 years, all of a sudden there’s all these turtles laying their eggs, and, you know, being from Wisconsin, we realize that these are sensitive issues in our time, and they raise, you know, even moral questions that we can’t solve here tonight, and we know that the Kilburns are very sensitive to those issues, and that they’re not, I’m not raising these issues because I think the Kilburns are out to destroy the environment. They’re certainly not, but this is where we’re at, and John had some issues that he wanted to raise. JOHN GILBERTSON MR. GILBERTSON-Yes, I’ll just add to this. Since you did say that you walked the property on Saturday, it’s a beautiful piece of property. I mean, it’s gorgeous and it’s too bad that anything has to be done with it other than leave it the way it is, but we understand it’s private property and Fox Hollow probably looked pretty much the same way where we live now before, and that got developed, and so we know that that happens, but I guess one of the, a couple of things I wanted to bring up, and Richard, I think, directed quite a bit of attention to it initially is that, again, we’re only two and a half years here, but we’ve gotten to know the area probably better than a lot of people that have not used that area, but a lot of people have and it’s been an access to that whole area back there for 20 or more years, since Fox Hollow existed. So there’s a lot of people who have gone back, snow shoed back in there. We hate the ATV’s. One of the things that’ll happen, if they build back there, it will cut that off and they won’t be going through there, but neither will we be able to walk through there. So the access for the neighbors is going to be, you know, stopped too, essentially. There may be other ways into it and around it, which we can explore, but, you know, I can understand, you know, you don’t want to be walking through somebody’s front yard, but I think that’s a valid issue to bring up, because it has been used for that purpose. It has been the access to that wetlands for two decades at least. The other question concerns more of an engineering question, and it involves that area that’s very, very close to the trail that goes through there and where the driveway will be. That is certainly well within the 50 foot range that DEC required, and I’m not sure how you prevent, and I don’t know who can oversight this. I’m sure the Kilburns will do their best, but you figure the contractor, the person who’s going to do the excavation and the cutting whatever trees are going to be cut down, they’re going to bid this and they’re going to do it as cheaply as they can, and they’re going to push dirt and that dirt’s going to fall into those wetlands unless there’s extreme care taken, these plastic fences put up and I mean, it’s a big deal to keep the contaminants out of those wetlands, and that is going to be, the wetland is right there. You saw it. It comes right up to the road in that one stretch, and we love wetlands. I know the Kilburns love wetlands, and we’ve got to preserve them. So we’ve got to do whatever we can to make sure that whatever goes on back there is done right, and is supervised because I know contractors. I’m a Civil Engineer, and, you know, they aren’t going to care about the wetland unless somebody tells them they have to. So, that’s, you know, those are really the two concerns that I think I wanted to address. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks. MRS. GILBERTSON-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Anyone else? MARK HOFFMAN DR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, 32 Fox Hollow Lane. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. DR. HOFFMAN-I wonder, it might be helpful if we could have that picture that was up there earlier, just to refer to. I came here to learn about this tonight. I really didn’t know anything about what was going on, and my intent was not to speak in favor or against this project, but in listening to it and being familiar with the area, I do have some concerns that I think need to be looked at. One issue has to do with the issue of the groundwater and septic situation. I know that when Indian Ridge came before the Planning Board and the Town Board, and there’s tremendous concern about the impact of septic on the wetland, and in 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) particular because water eventually flows into Glen Lake. It’s the source of water for Glen Lake, which some people actually use for drinking, and with the Indian Ridge project, the argument was made by the developer, with extensive detail and engineering studies, that the flow of water into that wetland was from exactly this area, where the current project is proposed. Now we disputed that because we questioned some of the data and so forth, but even if you completely disregard their analysis, it’s more than reasonable to assume that a substantial, or perhaps the majority of water flow into that wetland does come from this area. Also the Indian Ridge people made a lot of emphasis on the depth to ground water. They’re up at the very top of a ridge. I’m not sure if the depth to ground water is the same situation in this site. Now I know that we’re dealing with only house, which obviously is a big difference from what was proposed at Indian Ridge, and I’m very pleased to see that we have, we’re seeing only one house proposed in a 12 acre site. On the other hand, it’s not clear to me, I haven’t studied the papers, and I don’t know, it’s not clear to me whether this property could not possibly be subdivided in the future. Certainly I would hope that if the intent of the Board is that this is a satisfactory plan because it’s a low density, I would hope that maybe there might be some ironclad provision that no additional subdivision of this property occur in the future. I understand that there are access problems and that it might be difficult to get access to additional homes. On the other hand, it’s conceivable that someone could come in with an access from another part of Town that might facilitate the further development of this site. I know that Finch Pruyn is interested in developing their property which is adjacent to this. So, you know, I think one issue is this particular site and another is what precedents are being set for additional development that might be considered in the future. As far as what format an ironclad guarantee could be, I leave it to your discretion. One might consider a conservation easement, something of that sort. Other issue regarding the wetland is the visual impact. Mr. Miller made comment, or I think the proposal makes comment that they want to have a view out to the wetland which presumably means that there’s going to also be a view from the wetland to the house, and I would just remind you that the area to the, that hatched area, I assume, is the wetland. The area to the east, southeast of that is Town property, which means it is being considered for development. There’s a recreational area, so that any additional building on the other side of the wetland would be potentially visible, and could impact the experience of people interested in recreation in that area. Also, although there’s currently no specific plan that’s been determined, certainly within the Open Space Plan and within some thoughts about potential bicycle and pedestrian plans that the Town is considering, as well as possibly some considerations with the next Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the entire Rush Pond area is being considered for some type of nature preserve or recreation area, and it’s unfortunate that the northwestern side of that entire section of the wetland, there is virtually no access from this part of Town. You can access the southeastern part of the area from the Town’s property which they’ve obtained through the Indian Ridge subdivision, but all the way, the entire Aviation Road area west to Mountain View, the only other access into that property would be all the way over coming from the west on John Clendon, which is also, Finch Pruyn is interested in developing that. So it’s unfortunate that we’ve gotten into a situation, without any prior planning, where the entire access to that potential recreation area has been completely cut off. I understand the Kilburn’s concerns about protecting their privacy and I recognize that’s a legitimate concern, but I’d just bring it to your attention that with this access being cut off basically this entire section of Town will be cut off from that property. In terms of, I just wanted to, Mr. Miller made reference to ATV’s. My house doesn’t front immediately into that area, or it doesn’t back up to that area, but it does back up into the Indian Ridge area there, which is currently public property, and which has easy access to ATV. In the 10 years that I’ve lived there I’ve never once heard an ATV behind my house. On the other hand, I see people walking through that area very often. So, you know, again, that’s, that may not be the determining factor, but I’m not as paranoid about ATV’s as Mr. Miller would imply is the case. I may not understand this proposal. In terms of going to Plan B, if this isn’t accepted, and I may totally misunderstand this because I really haven’t looked at the site plans and so forth, but my understanding was that any new development in a CEA requires site plan review by the Planning Board. Maybe I’m wrong about that. So I’m not sure that just this road is the only factor. Also I’m not sure that, again, I’m not sure that it’s even feasible to run a road anywhere from Fox Hollow Lane into that that would not come close to the wetland because it’s just right there. I mean, the wetland is immediately behind the next house that’s just over from it. I could be wrong about that. I share the concern about salt and sand and pesticides and so forth. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Kilburns will be good stewards of this property. However, there’s no reason to believe that the Kilburns will be living there permanently. There will be new owners. Who knows who would move there and what their attitude would be toward protecting the wetland. Regarding the level of the lake and how far, how close it is to the property lines, in the past, 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) the major determining factor, as far as how high the water level is depends on the amount of activity of a beaver, that control the dam site right by the Northway there. Now it may be when the, if the Town puts an earthen dam in there for their bike trail, that may permanently set the water level, at least on a seasonal basis. Also, with regard to the flow of water, it’s not just hypothetical that the water comes from that area. There is a stream that flows, seasonally it flows from the West Mountain area down through that general area and into the wetland, and at some point the stream kind of disappears and it merges into the wetland. So there’s no question in my mind that a substantial amount of water flow into that wetland comes from that general area. I think those were my main points there. Again, I may be sounding very negative about this, but I guess my main concern is that if the project does go forward that all of these issues be addressed and mitigated to the greatest extent possible. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Anyone else? ED FITZPATRICK MR. FITZPATRICK-Hi. MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. FITZPATRICK-I’m Ed Fitzpatrick, and I live at 27 Owen Ave., up the hill from the project. I’m really not going to say anything new, but just to add another voice that as far as the wetland, I don’t know where the recent studies are as far as where the high water mark is. I know maps change, water levels change. So I’d like to make sure the decision is made on recent data, and where the water levels are. I’m assuming that there was some scientific reason for a 50 foot setback on driveways. So to deviate from that, I think you need to revisit why that was established to begin with and make sure we’re not causing other issues. As far as the walkways, everyone uses the walkways back in there, and it’s accepted recreation. So I think that needs to be considered also. I had three things. I think that about covered it. So just another voice pulling some of the same comments made previously. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. FITZPATRICK-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Hi. Good evening. LIZ DALEY MS. DALEY-Hi. This is me in here. I’m Liz Daley. I live at One Crestwood Drive. I’ve pointed that out, kind of at the wedge running to their northwest corner of their property, and I have five children. I’ve lived here for 10 years, and we’ve been through every puddle back there. We spend a lot of time back there. I didn’t actually know that anybody owned the property. I thought it was Town of Queensbury and Finch Pruyn, and when we run or bike that trail right along there we have to do it single file. This logging road is not, and you’ve seen it in the winter. So you’ve seen it without all the leaves and the branches drooping down on you as you walk on that trail, and it’s, I’m concerned about how close it really, truly is to the wetlands, and that it isn’t really a logging road. That it really is a path. To widen that for a car I think would have tremendous impact there, even if it is just 12 feet. I think you’re underestimating the size of that. I also, to access that, even if you want to walk down from that trail to those wetlands, you’re going to need to put something there. You can’t go down there without your boots on because of all the roots and the ruts and the water. It doesn’t just, it’s not a shoreline that just starts. You’re going to have to build something, if you really truly want to make your way down there, and it’s going to be a long dock or walkway to get down there, unless they don’t intend to go down there. So I think you have to be careful that you’re underestimating that impact, and I know that when I’m up on the hill, because you know boys, they never stay on the path, they go off the path. I know that if I’m up on the hill trying to find where they are, that I cannot see them from even five foot up from that little path there, and if they are down by the pond, I can’t see them from there. So I would anticipate that clearing a few limbs is not going to do it for visual of that wetlands, and that there’s going to be a lot more clearing there than maybe I think the Kilburns are being optimistic in saying that taking down a few limbs will work. I’m nervous about Mr. Miller’s approach to this when he says that we let the Northway come through 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) there, and he just wants a small driveway, and I wouldn’t ever want to refer to New York State Department of Transportation as environmental consultants. So I don’t want to go there at all. I just think that if you get out there and you see this property you’ll just see that is a narrow spot for a driveway right there. It’s very close to wetlands. I couldn’t even say that the wetlands don’t begin at the driveway because of all the ruts and the water that seeps in there, and the stream that Doctor Hoffman talked about runs right along the back of my property, and you can almost kind of see how it ruts along there across that property. It’s a lot of water, it’s a lot of water that comes down from West Mountain through that property, and just continually goes downhill. I usually start my run on the northwest side so that I can be running downhill instead of running back up. It is a steep grade, and it continues to go up and up and up to West Mountain. So it’s just a catch all for all the water. So those are my environmental concerns, and I think that should be Queensbury’s top concern. I understand that the Kilburns may be frustrated by having that beautiful lot and being hampered by those concerns, but I’m concerned for the long term, and the wetlands, I don’t think we’ve found a way to replace wetlands, not the way we have forests. So we can’t back track. We have to do this really well. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Anyone else? I’ll leave the public hearing open. I’m sorry, you did have a written comment, right? MRS. BARDEN-One letter from Michael Mulshine at 24 Fox Hollow Lane. “For the record, Mr. Kilburn has shown me his plans for the property, including the driveway. My wife and I feel that his plan is a responsible use of the property. It is certainly much better than an aggressive developer buying the property and then trying to convince the Planning Board to allow many units and a public road in there, which would drastically affect the wetlands and the character of the neighborhood. Given that portions of the driveway are within 50 feet of the shoreline of the wetlands, and that the property also acts as a drainage for the hill sloping down from the Westland subdivision, I think it is important to make sure that the driveway construction takes into consideration the areas where spring thaw and storm runoff tend to flow down the existing trail and on into the wetlands. I am no expert here, but I would hope that Mr. Kilburn and the Planning Board take that into consideration to see whether culverts or other construction techniques should be employed. In summary, we support Mr. Kilburn’s application. His plan represents a use fitting with the character of the area. We would not favor, nor would many others in the community, a more invasive development of this property in the future.” Signed Michael Mulshine. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. So you heard a few comments from the neighbors. One of the comments seemed, or there were several comments made about how the wetlands were delineated and how the boundaries of the wetlands were established. If you could comment on that. MR. MILLER-As you know, whenever there’s a wetland on a property, it’s required that the wetland be flagged. This property was flagged by Charlie Maine. He went out and flagged the property, and there’s a couple of different things talked about, water level versus wetland. We had a situation here where the uplands above the wetlands are very sandy soils. So the water tends to drain down and obviously the wetlands there because there’s something impervious, so that’s containing that water, so around the bottom, and there’s springs, and so when he flags the wetland, he includes those springs, those areas that are wet from, you know, groundwater conditions. So it’s not just a water level. It actually extends beyond what you would see as a water level, and it’s flagged based on hydrology and vegetation and soil type. This particular case, it’s well shaped because it’s very steep, a lot of places where it’s a very flat site, it’s harder to delineate. So we have a fairly clear delineation line. So he goes out on the site. He flagged all the wetlands, and then Van Dusen and Steves who did the survey and the topography, they locate those flags. So if you look on our wetland mapping, it actually located each individual flag. So it’s very site specific, and DEC, when they reviewed it, sometimes they come out on the site, sometimes they don’t. They reviewed the mapping. They review who did it. They review the conditions, and they’re familiar with the wetland. So our mapping is very accurate. It’s very site specific, much more than anything that DEC would have on file or that the Town has on their overlays. So it’s very specific, in which we need to show the proper setbacks and the requirements for the site plan. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. HUNSINGER-But in this case no one from DEC came out. MR. MILLER-I have no idea. What we do is we do the mapping and we submit the set of site plans, as well as our wetland application to DEC, and then, you know, they do an in- office review and they probably make a determination what projects require additional review and which don’t, and so I don’t know. I mean, if they come out and visit a site, they usually wouldn’t tell me. I spoke to Rich Spiedel of DEC who is doing the review of the permit and, you know, he asked some questions about the project, and I think they saw it as a fairly straightforward permit. MR. HUNSINGER-But there was a requirement by DEC to accept the boundaries that you established? MR. MILLER-Well, they don’t have to. I mean, they could come out and they could modify them. We’ve had situations on projects where they’ve come out, reviewed the flagging and adjusted them. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. MILLER-And I’ve seen them adjust them both ways, you know, some in creating more, show more wetland, or less, but in this particular case, if they didn’t come out, it’s probably because that whole wetland is fairly well defined wetland that’s, you know, fairly easily mapped. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. There were some comments made about construction mitigation measures. MR. MILLER-Yes. I think, I spoke in some detail with the Kilburns. One of the comments had to do with contractors and low bidders, and the guy is absolutely right, and there’s also, on the other hand, there are some very good, very careful contractors, and I think this is the type of project that the Kilburns are building their home. We’re not building a parking lot with a shopping mall. So we’re going to provide them with some names of some people we think are very qualified, and this is going to be a project that’s going to have to be done fairly carefully. What we’re envisioning is that there will be a phasing to the construction. Obviously the first portion’s going to be the driveway improvements to get access back to the site, so that the intent would be to do the driveway improvements, widen that driveway so we can get construction vehicles back in. So basically the work for the driveway would have to be done first, and if you look at our plans, we’ve got erosion and sediment control. We show sediment control fencing along the downhill side, the whole length of the wetland, and then any area that’s graded, according to DEC’s new Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, once the grading is complete, it has to be seeded within 14 days, and we’re showing erosion control blankets which go on top of those seeded areas. So in case of a heavy rain or something, until the grass got established, the blankets would maintain that soil, and most likely the driveway, at least the gravel base would be completed before they moved access for their back, and then the second phase would be the actual clearing and grading of the house itself, with septic area and the house site, again, the same thing. Once that site got cleared and the septic field was in, that would be stabilized and seeded. Again, erosion control fabric is all around the top, and then final phase would probably be some grading to the north side, you know, that cut area that we talked about. That would probably be done as a third phase, while the house construction was proceeding, and that’s one of the requirements under new DEC Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, is that the construction is done in a phased manner, so that the site isn’t opened up all at once, exposing it to erosion and sediment loss. MR. HUNSINGER-There were also some comments about some turtles. MR. MILLER-The marsh. Yes, that’s part of the reason they like it back there. When we submitted to DEC, they do a review and obviously they wouldn’t have issued the permit if there was anything protected or unusual. I think it’s a very healthy wetland. I’m sure there’s all kinds of turtles and frogs and other wildlife there, but I think the plan for the no clearing along the shoreline and all those things, I think it’s what the Town wants to do to protect those areas. So I think that that’ll be adhered with. MR. HUNSINGER-Final sort of comment. There was a comment about no additional subdivision of the property. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. MILLER-I don’t believe that there can be. I think one of the requirements of subdivision, if I’m not mistaken, is each lot has to have a minimum of 40 or 50 feet of road frontage. We have road frontage that’s about 51 feet. So there’d be an issue of not having additional road frontage unless we had access to another Town road. MR. HUNSINGER-Is that something that you would be agreeable to on your plat, deed restriction? MR. KILBURN-Jeff Kilburn for the record, and I really don’t understand why that would be necessary, at this point. As Mr. Miller pointed out, we can’t have more than one lot in there. As to the future, there would be all kinds of issues related to zoning and otherwise, but I can’t necessarily see the benefit today to agreeing to that. I do not ever envision us having any interest in doing that because we’re buying this property, we bought this property because of its size and seclusion. We looked for five years at parcels as large as 300 acres to try to find something that was secluded for us, and this was better than all the others we found because it’s close to home, but in terms of accepting that as a deed restriction, I don’t see why that would be necessary at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-It is something that we commonly do, particularly if there’s specific concerns of an environmental nature or access. It’s not unusual. MR. KILBURN-And I can understand that, and I would say to you I don’t have a problem with that from the front side, because unless there’s a Town road coming in there, we don’t have 50 feet of frontage per lot. We have one lot at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. KILBURN-So I don’t understand why we need that. You already have that in place by the physical constraints of the property. Now if someone purchased our property and purchased Finch Pruyn’s property behind it later on, then they would be able to build a Town road that if the Town accepted they would have access to the back side of that and they could, at that point, do what they wanted to do, but I don’t plan on selling that until the day after I’m gone. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions, comments from the Board? MR. MILLER-I’d like to say one other thing, too. There was a lot of discussion about access. I worked with Leon Steves on the QLC trails originally. I think it’s evolved a lot since, and my understanding is one of the things they’re looking at is part of the property that was given to the Town from the Indian Ridge project is that on Fox Hollow Road they have road frontage that accesses some of the Town lands, which that trail where it’s going to cross this wetland would be the main access back there, and so that trail head is not very far from, I mean, Fox Farm Lane is just to the south and east slightly from this property. Granted this has been used as an access point, but I think the plan that the Town’s got for that bike trail is to develop a real trail head with possibly some parking area and stuff, and that’s not very far away. MR. SEGULJIC-If I could ask Staff a question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, go ahead. MR. SEGULJIC-With regards to the general permit, one of the conditions on the general permit is, first of all, construction, installation or establishment of a single family residence and related families, including but not limited to a water well and lawn area in the adjacent area only, provided all disturbances occur 50 feet or more from the Freshwater Wetland boundary. That’s what the general permit says that they got from the DEC. MR. MILLER-I think they’re referring to, my interpretation is they’re referring to the house construction itself. You see also with that permit, it includes our site plan as a reference to the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, excuse me, it says provided all disturbances occur 50 feet or more from the Freshwater Wetland boundary. MR. SCHACHNER-I’m sorry, Tom, but what’s your question? It does say those things. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. SEGULJIC-So, I mean, they’re within the 50 feet, though. MR. SCHACHNER-For the house construction? MR. SEGULJIC-Provided all disturbances. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, but remember there is the general permit and specific language. In addition to the general permit, you’ve got the November 14 letter from New York State th Department of Environmental Conservation, which actually says in bold, you should have that two pages in front of the page you’re just looking at, I hope. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe so, yes I did see that. MR. SCHACHNER-And it says in bold, enclosed is your DEC general permit, and then it says in the next sentence in bold, please note this permit is valid only for a driveway in the wetland adjacent area and a dock within the wetland. So apparently that’s what DEC thinks it’s allowing. I’m not speaking to the accuracy of it. I’m just pointing out. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, yes, it seems to contradict itself, because it says you can’t do anything within 50 feet. MRS. BARDEN-Well that, in parenthesis, it says authorized activities four and eight on Page One. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m looking at Page One. MR. SCHACHNER-Right, which are the circled ones. MRS. BARDEN-Which are the circled ones which is construction of the driveway, and construction of an accessory structure. It doesn’t say anything in those two authorized activities about within 50 feet. MR. VOLLARO-I think the 50 foot is something that’s in our Code, isn’t it? MRS. BARDEN-Well, the applicant is here for site plan for activity within 50 feet of a wetland, and a Freshwater Wetlands permit for activity within, filling and grading within 50 feet of a wetland. MR. VOLLARO-What we’ve got to decide is whether we’re going to grant that permit. MR. SEGULJIC-But I guess I’m still confused. I mean, it clearly says provided all the disturbances occur 50 feet away. MR. SCHACHNER-I don’t think you’re following Staff’s comment precisely, and I don’t know if I explained as well as Susan did, frankly, what we’re saying is there’s a general permit. Remember that a lot of the DEC form stuff is not specifically this application. The general permit lists eight potentially authorized activities. The cover letter of November 14 th says that only activities four and eight are being authorized by this permit, and see they’re circled. So for the purpose, I think what Staff is saying, and I thought she said it better that I did, is that for the purpose of this particular application, you’re looking at, you can ignore Items One, Two, Three, Five, Six, and Seven, and what this permit allows is Four and Eight, and you don’t see that restriction in Four and Eight. That’s what you’re saying, right, Staff? Yes. It’s, I don’t know if this is helpful or not, but remember this is a State agency that cranks out permit after permit after permit. So rather than sending out this permit which only included the language in Four and Eight, this includes all eight potentially authorized activities, but only Four and Eight are the ones being allowed. So you could pretend, you could take a black marker and black out, One, Two, Three, Five, Six, and Seven. MR. HUNSINGER-That makes sense. MR. SANFORD-Where are we going with this, Chris? We’ve been on this for about an hour and a half or something I guess. Where are we going to go? 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. HUNSINGER-That’s why I asked a few minutes ago if there were any final questions or comments from the Board. And if you feel comfortable enough to move forward. MR. VOLLARO-I think anyone is comfortable to move forward with conditions on this. One of the conditions being, I’ll just go over it, no further subdivision on the lot. MR. HUNSINGER-You missed the discussion on that a minute ago. MR. VOLLARO-I’m sorry. What was it? MR. HUNSINGER-That’s okay. The applicant’s not generally in favor of granting that. MR. VOLLARO-I see. MRS. STEFFAN-The concern was that if at some point, this is Finch Pruyn property. If at some point Finch Pruyn develops this, and then this is accessible, there may be a road here, and so if we say no further subdivision, it may preclude the next person who owns that from using it. That was the argument. MR. HUNSINGER-Continue though, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-That’s Number One. Number Two, I would condition this that this wood stake dock would stop at the 50 foot setback line. The path could go down, but it would stop at that point. I don’t see, even though the DEC permit allows that. They’re giving a permit for that. It doesn’t mean that we have to accept that, I don’t believe. MR. SANFORD-No, it doesn’t. MR. VOLLARO-And I think our Freshwater permit that we’re trying to grant, talks about granting access beyond the 50 foot point. That’s what it talks about, and that’s what we’ve got to decide, do we want to grant access beyond that point, yes or no, for our permit to the applicant, and I’m saying I don’t want to encroach past that 50 foot mark with this particular dock and path. I’d like the path to stop at the 50 foot mark. I don’t think you can do, the gal that was in here before, she’s left now, but selective clearing in this area, I just don’t know what that means, selective clearing for views. That could be just about anything. I just don’t understand. MR. SANFORD-I’m a little bit more concerned than that, Bob. I have problems with the driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I know you guys that well in hand. The driveway I’ve been listening to, and I think there’s a lot of people on the Board who understand that. Certainly I do, and letting you carry the ball in that area. I’m concerned in my area down here in encroaching on this wetland. MR. SANFORD-Well, the way I see it is they’re in front of us because they’re looking for relief from the 50 foot. MR. VOLLARO-From the 50 foot for the Wetland permit. MR. SANFORD-Right. So we either give it to them or we don’t. They could still build their home. They don’t even have to come in front of us, I understand, if they just don’t come within 50 feet of the wetland. So to me, it’s, how do you want to go with this? My inclination is, I’m not comfortable with them being within 50 feet of the wetland. MR. SEGULJIC-We have the Freshwater permit first, and then the site plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-So we should just deal with the Freshwater wetland. MR. VOLLARO-If we don’t get the Freshwater permit, their site plan doesn’t happen. They’re going to have to, but I think they make a good point. We’ve got to think this out 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) pretty carefully. They make the point that if they stay 50 foot away that they’re going to be starting to cut into that hill, and it’s probably not a good thing to do. So I really don’t know. It’s a tough one for me. MR. SEGULJIC-I, myself, am not comfortable with it, with the road. MR. MILLER-One of the things with the dock, when we had our pre-application meeting, we met with Craig Brown. We had something, I think it was 50 foot by four feet, and Craig told us that we are allowed to do a dock no longer than 40 feet long, and so he implied that we were allowed to do it. MR. VOLLARO-That 40 foot goes for. MR. MILLER-Forty feet from the water, from the shore. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s from the high water mark to 40 foot. (lost words) Lake George, Glen Lake, that applies. This is not a lake. MR. MILLER-Yes, but he saw the plan and said we could do it here. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, but that’s not a Freshwater Wetlands issue, though. MR. VOLLARO-I think we’d have to have Mr. Brown here under those conditions to see whether this Board, or maybe I’m the only one that sees this. MR. HUNSINGER-No, I’m totally with you, Bob, on that. I think without an opinion from the Zoning Administrator, I don’t think we can grant them the selective cutting. The Code’s real clear that you cannot cut within 35 feet of the water, unless you meet that exception. So I think we need the opinion of the Zoning Administrator. I just want to, for the benefit of the Board, I highlighted the area of the driveway that’s within 50 feet of the wetland. Is that correct? MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I got the same thing on mine. MR. HUNSINGER-What does that represent as a percent on your driveway? MR. MILLER-I would have to calculate it. I mean, we calculated the area which said 1260 feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Within five percent. You think it’s five percent of the total mass of the driveway? MR. MILLER-I would guess it’s in the area of five to ten percent of the driveway, just off the top of my head. MR. HUNSINGER-And if it weren’t for that little stretch, they wouldn’t even be here. MR. MILLER-Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-For what it’s worth, you know. MR. SANFORD-Well, I don’t know what it’s worth. I mean, I’m just not seeing it the way you are. I’m not going to try to play with an applicant what they can do if they’re not in front of us or don’t have to come in front of us. What I am saying is, based on what I heard from the public, and my own concerns, I don’t like fooling around with these wetlands like this, and I don’t think it’s appropriate. Not only that, there’s no guarantee there won’t be subdivision in the future. They don’t have to be in front of us and they can develop their project and we don’t have a say in it, but right now they’re in front of us. We have a say in it, and the way I see it is quite honestly there’s a lot of questions I have about developing this project the way it’s been laid out. MR. HUNSINGER-Are those questions that we can get answers to by tabling it? I’m just trying to help the Board reach a conclusion here, Richard, that’s all. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. SANFORD-Okay. Well, you’re the Chair. If you want to table it because you think that there’s additional clarification on the lake issue perhaps by the Zoning Administrator, but that’s not going to give me a comfort level on the driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MILLER-I think, you know, the reason we’re here, Chris, like you showed on the map, we’re about 40 feet from the wetland instead of 50, and our reason for asking for the permit is to reduce the amount of disturbance on the site. So I think our reason for being here is that it’s a more sensitive way to develop access into this property than to try to move the driveway another 10 feet away. That’s our motive. Our motive is to be here with something that we felt was more sensitive, even though it’s a few feet closer than what it would take to develop a driveway further back. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom, how do you feel? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not comfortable with it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. George? MR. GOETZ-If he would agree to no further subdivision, I would feel a lot better with the project, but you’re being so stern about it, it makes me back up. MR. KILBURN-I’ve retreated before, George. MRS. STEFFAN-It is a very small portion of the driveway that we’re looking at, but when we walked that path, I know if they take another tact and don’t come in front of us, they can cut that hill and I saw the size of the trees on that hill, and it’s a beautiful wooded hill, and it would be very sad, in my opinion, to carve a notch out of it to put a driveway in, and so even though it doesn’t make me delirious or happy to grant an approval, the alternative is not to my liking either, and so that’s my point of view. MR. SEGULJIC-If I may point out, they don’t have an alternative plan in front of you. You only have this in front of you. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s true, yes. Bob, anything else to add that you didn’t already comment on? MR. VOLLARO-The no further subdivision really disturbs me. The thought that, you know, that the applicant has kind of dug his heels in on that. Those two sections I don’t like. I don’t like the road being that close, but I’ve heard your conversation at that end of the table. I’m listening to that and integrating that into my thinking, but certainly I’m waiting for the Zoning Administrator, and I’d like to discuss that with him in terms of the encroachment down below on the lake, but I guess I would have to no vote this Wetland permit. If it comes to a vote, I would vote no. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Tony? MR. METIVIER-I don’t think the 20%, or excuse me, 5% makes much difference. I was a little put back by the no further subdivision. I mean, we do that every day, and, you know, I would be willing to move forward on this, but I would be adamant that we stipulate no further subdivision here. I mean, it’s 12 acres, and you’re just asking for trouble if we don’t do something about that, regardless of whether or not NiMo comes in, or whoever it is that owns property in the back, I just think that, you know, they have to give a little, too. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the no further subdivision in the deed travels with the land. It means that if you folks happen to decide to sell this and somebody else gets it without a deed restriction of that type, I’m sure you’re not planning on subdividing it, but you’ve got to think of, we have to look at the future and the plan and the way the Town develops it, and that’s one of the things we, I wouldn’t want to see this piece of acreage divided any further than it is. MR. KILBURN-I agree with that. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. VOLLARO-So agree to a no further subdivision consideration. MR. KILBURN-And I may have to do that, but I may also have to come back with a new drawing where I have to disrupt the property, and you’ve got to understand, I’m completely in agreement with you. I looked at this property, and there are two access points where I can come in without going into the wetland. One is the description that you’re talking about where we carved that hill where all those large trees are. We move into that hill and we destroy everything on that hill, and that would be terrible. The other is even worse, and that is to go behind Mary Francis Kusior’s house and cut through that hill and destroy all of those trees and a natural topography of the property in order to get in there, and I just can’t bring myself to doing either of those because the uniqueness of that topography is so beautiful. I don’t want to destroy either of them, and so looking at the three alternatives, the small, well, I think it’s probably larger than five percent. Whether it’s 10 or 15%, I don’t know, but that small section of the road that infringes into the wetlands, it was a small price to pay to preserve the hills and the trees that we’d otherwise be protecting, and that’s why we’re here. So as I said to George before, I can retreat on some issues if I have to. I mean, I understand that there’s compromise that has to go on here, but I do want you to understand that I didn’t come here lightly thinking that we should just destroy the wetlands. Dr. Hoffman is here. He may remember, as John Strough will remember, that I was a member of the Citizens for Queensbury back in the beginning. We met in Bill Herlihy’s house, before Indian Ridge had its first hearing, and we talked about what we were doing, and when we came to the first hearing, the one statement that I made to the group was, protect the wetlands, that’s the one thing that’s important. They own the property. They can do what they want, but protect the wetlands, and after that meeting, Dr. Hoffman, in effect, scolded me for pointing out one issue instead of looking at the big picture, but that’s what was important to me, was protecting the wetlands, and I come to you today with the exact same feeling. I want to protect the wetlands, but I have to compromise between protecting that 50 or 200 foot length, whatever that is, versus what I would have to do to that hill to get into the property, and so I believe that the lesser of the three evils is to infringe slightly on the wetlands, and that’s why I’m here, and as Mr. Miller pointed out, we’re not just going to hire any contractor with a low price to do this. We want to protect that as well. So if it cost me extra money, like it’s costing me extra money to be here tonight, I’m going to do it right, because I want to protect the wetlands. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’ll make a motion, then. I will motion to deny this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, can we back up one second? I’ll close the public hearing first. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Now you can make your motion. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I’ll make a motion to deny application Freshwater permits application Number FWW 5-2005, due to the fact it extends within the 50 foot boundary and its potential impacts upon the wetlands. MR. SANFORD-And I’ll second it. MR. HUNSINGER-We have a comment from Counsel. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. You do, and the comment from Counsel is, if that’s a motion, which it is, I would strongly urge the motion to include any number, at least some reference, as to the criteria for granting of this permit. All I heard was because it encroaches within 50 feet. If it didn’t encroach within the 50 feet, as I understand it, it wouldn’t need this permit. So that’s not really a valid reason for denial. So what I’m going to suggest is that you look closely at the criteria listed in Section 179-6-100 of the Ordinance and try to tie your decision to those criteria. MR. SANFORD-Can we take 62 days? MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. MR. SANFORD-Do you want your 62 days? MR. SCHACHNER-I mean up to, you don’t have to take the full shot. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. SANFORD-Do you want to take up to your 62 days? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I’ll take 62 days to come up with a motion, then. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-To the benefit of the applicant. MR. VOLLARO-Do we have a motion on the floor here or what? MR. SANFORD-Well, Tom made a motion, at the advise of Counsel, he has offered, as you did last month, he would like to take up t o the 62 days to word it, to come up with the wording for his motion. MR. VOLLARO-Perfectly valid, okay. MR. METIVIER-But he’s going to have to withdraw that motion for now, right? Because there’s a motion on the table right now. MR. SCHACHNER-Precisely. That’s exactly right. You don’t just leave a motion hanging in limbo. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, right, exactly. MR. METIVIER-So I withdraw the motion, and take the 62 days. MR. SCHACHNER-Right now, as I understand it, there’s a motion and it’s been seconded. That means it’s eligible for vote. I made a recommendation. I’m not a voting member. That’s where this sits right now, as I understand it. MR. SANFORD-But based on your recommendation, the person who made the motion has modified it and then would like to take up to 62 days to refine the conditions for his motion. MR. SCHACHNER-And I guess what I’m saying is procedurally that’s not the way to go about effectuating that goal. The way to go about it, if that’s your goal, is to simply withdraw the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SCHACHNER-It’s not a motion, it’s a decision, and if you vote on something, you’ve made some kind of decisions. If that’s your goal, then I would simply suggest withdrawal of the motion, the motion and its second. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. I will withdraw the motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Richard, do you want to withdraw your second? MR. SANFORD-Yes, I will. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SANFORD-And now I guess. MR. SEGULJIC-I’ll request to take 62 days to write the motion. MR. SCHACHNER-Just so it’s clear, that’s up to 62 days. You don’t have to take 62. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I just wonder if we should try to specify a date under which we would have the motion prepared to the benefit of the applicant. MR. SANFORD-Yes. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Our first meeting in February is the 14. That would be within the 62 th day time period. Is everyone okay with that? Okay. Do you want to consider it in a January meeting, then? MR. SANFORD-Well, I think it’s up to Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-February 14. th MR. HUNSINGER-We closed the public hearing. If we don’t take action, it gets approved by defacto. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, you’ve got to do it within the 62 day time period. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. February 14, I guess, is the date. Is there anything that would th preclude the applicant from submitting new information? MR. SCHACHNER-An applicant always has the right to submit new information, but remember that if the new information is deemed material, then you should really be re- opening the public hearing if you get new information, so that anyone who’s concerned has an opportunity to review it and comment. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. SITE PLAN NO. 69-2005 SEQR TYPE II THE GOLUB CORPORATION AGENT(S): MARCHAND JONES ARCHITECTS OWNER(S): GLEN STREET LLC ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 677 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE EXISTING PRICE CHOPPER STOREFRONT. MODIFICATIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLANS REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SV 7-03, SP 22-98, SP 69-95, SV 123-99 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 12/14/05 LOT SIZE 18.79 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.10-1-7 SECTION 179-4-020 MIKE KOPCHIK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure, quickly. This is a site plan review for external modifications to the Price Chopper storefront on Glen Street, zoned Highway Commercial Intensive. This is a SEQRA Type II Action. Applicant proposes alterations to the existing façade including the front and sides of the store. Staff Comments. The proposed changes are primarily cosmetic. The new pillars will increase the overall height from approximately 24-feet to 27.5-feet. Exterior color changes and replacement of the concrete sidewalk along the front of the building is also proposed. We have a No County Impact from Warren County. MR. KOPCHIK-Hi. My name’s Mike Kopchik from Marchans Jones Architects. We’re acting as the agent for the applicant, as well as the owner of the property, and I believe you’ve got copies of drawings which indicate the existing condition on the east, north and south facades of the building, and the proposed changes. The other drawing indicates a partial elevation which is colored. I’ve actually brought another one with me, which shows a full color rendering of the front and the sides of the building. There also are two site plans that were included. The reason there are two is one of them is very old, from 1985, which actually shows the entire plot with all of the boundaries, the property lines. The other one from I think it’s 1995 is a partial plan which showed some improvements they made on the lot itself, it shows parking lot striping, things like that. I didn’t think I would even need to provide the site plan information, but Craig Brown suggested I should give you whatever I have. We’re not proposing to do anything to the site, to the interior of the building. It’s purely cosmetic on the front and the two side facades, and we’re looking for approval of it. MR. HUNSINGER-Was there any discussion with Staff, there’s a number of waivers that were requested, including lighting and parking lot landscaping. Was there any discussion with Staff about the newer Code requirements for lighting and landscaping and the interior parking lots? MR. KOPCHIK-Now by Staff you would mean? MR. HUNSINGER-With Craig Brown or? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. KOPCHIK-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KOPCHIK-The only discussion we had was that we were not altering anything that existed. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KOPCHIK-There are some lights on the building that will probably be shifted maybe down a foot or two because of the new fascia, but it doesn’t affect anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. KOPCHIK-We’re not adding any lighting. We’re not changing any parking. The only site work we’re looking to do is replace the sidewalk, which is immediately under the canopy in front of the building, just to improve it because it’s breaking up. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I’ll open it up to the Board for questions and comments. MR. METIVIER-I have nothing. MR. VOLLARO-I have just one. I think it’s great. This Board, or part of this Board, spent the better part of probably a year and a half with Wal-Mart developing their site, and when I look at the Price Chopper and I look at this, it looks fine. The colors look fine, but what I did is just lay in a little bit of a façade here to see a peak, to give it some character, as opposed to a boxy look. That’s all I did, and that’s all I’d be looking to do. I don’t know whether the rest of the Board has any ideas on that, but all I said was let’s put a little gable up there and see how that looks from the road. Right now it’s a box, and I don’t know that a little flair like that might not be something. You’re from an architectural firm? MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-So you know what I’m talking about. MR. KOPCHIK-Yes, sir. I also know that the Corporate objection to that, with the Golub Corporation, with Price Chopper, would be that that front box façade with the glass curtain wall is effectively their corporate insignia, and they have 120 stores, and they try to repeat that as often as possible. I’ll also admit that there are a couple of stores that do have peaks on them because it was required, but I would also suggest that the improvements we’re making are very substantial, as opposed to leaving that very tired, old building as it is. MR. VOLLARO-I have no problem with that. I’m just saying there’s another step we could take to even improve the visual quality of this store from the road and give it a little more. As you go up Route 9 now you start to see how other things are beginning to look, particularly the Wal-Mart store, you’d like to sort of get that theme running up the road. MR. KOPCHIK-Again, I understand your point, and I would hope you would understand mine, as far as the Corporation’s attitude about their symbol. MR. VOLLARO-If Wal-Mart had their way, the store wouldn’t look how it looks now. MR. SANFORD-You know, Bob, we’ve sat through an awful long evening here. MR. METIVIER-Bob, commend your efforts. How’s that? I would worry about the height, and Bob brought that up, too, actually, is that he doesn’t know how high it would get, and if we’re past the 40 feet then we run into problems. MR. VOLLARO-Anyway, that was my comment. You asked for comment from the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-I did. I asked for comments. It’s wide open, you know that. MR. METIVIER-I’m excited to see the improvement of it. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Any other? MRS. STEFFAN-Now if we can get Mohan’s to spruce it up a little bit. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, no kidding. Any other questions or comments? MR. VOLLARO-I think it looks good. MR. SANFORD-There’s no SEQRA, right? MRS. STEFFAN-No. It’s a Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s a Type II. There is a public hearing scheduled, however. I will open the public hearing, since there’s no one here. I will simultaneous close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And I will put it to the Board for further discussion and/or consideration. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to make a motion for approval. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 69-2005 THE GOLUB CORPORATION, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, an application has been made to this Board for the following: Applicant proposes renovations and alterations to the existing Price Chopper storefront. Modifications to previously approved site plans require review by the Planning Board WHEREAS, the application was received on 11/15/05; 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 December 20, 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 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) 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. 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. 2. 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 20 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. KOPCHIK-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you for your patience. SITE PLAN NO. 67-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JEFFREY SCHWARTZ AGENT(S): PETER BROWN OWNER(S): SAME ZONING LI LOCATION 53 CAREY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 30,294 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 30,851 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING. EXPANSIONS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW USES REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 69-2000, SP 23-1999, SUB 6-1987 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 4.7 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.20-1-2 SECTION 179-4-020 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Before we adjourn for the evening, one of the items that was not on the agenda, actually, we do need to open the public hearing for Site Plan No. 67-2005 for Jeffrey Schwartz. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. HUNSINGER-I will leave the public hearing open, and I will entertain a motion to table the application until January 17, at the request of the applicant. th MR. VOLLARO-I’ll make the motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2005 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Until January 17, 2006, at the request of the applicant. Duly adopted this 20 day of December, 2005, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sanford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Now the final item that was not on the agenda is in December we are, by our policies and procedures, are to make recommendations for officers for the coming year, the Chairman, Secretary and Vice Chairman. We can either do that this evening, or we can do that at the conclusion of our meeting next week. MR. SANFORD-Actually I think we only make recommendation on the Chair. The rest is done at the pleasure of the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SANFORD-We could do it now. It’s a little uncomfortable for me to bring this up, but I will. I would like to nominate Robert Vollaro to serve as Chair for next year. No reflection on you, Chris, but you are the head of the PORC, and I like to mix it up a little bit, and also because last time when we did give our recommendation to the Town Board for Bob, the Town Board didn’t accept it, and I didn’t agree with their decision and so I feel comfortable in revisiting that and giving them another chance to reconsider their vote. So that’s my recommendation. MR. HUNSINGER-I know this is a little awkward, but I would be remiss if I did not make this comment. Bob has not been re-appointed for next year, right? MR. VOLLARO-Not yet. MR. HUNSINGER-And according to your e-mail you said that if the vote by the Town Board wasn’t unanimous, that you would not sit on the Board. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t say that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I have an option, when the Board makes a decision to say yes or no, depending on their vote. If I get three votes to be re-nominated, then I will stay on the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s not what you said in your e-mail. MR. VOLLARO-I said I would like to see 100% because I’m concerned that if I don’t get 100% of the vote, I don’t feel that the entire Town Board, and you know who they are, don’t think I did a good job, and I don’t agree with that, obviously. So I will submit my, for January 1, the Town Board has to decide what they’re going to do. I am planning to submit st a request for re-appointment. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It was not clear until now. Thank you. Okay. We have a nomination. Is there a second? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess if I could ask Bob, how do you feel about that? Would you like to be Chairman? MR. VOLLARO-Would I like to be Chairman? MR. SEGULJIC-Would you accept that? MR. VOLLARO-It’s another thankless job. I’m sure Chris understands that. I would accept it, yes. If I was nominated by this Board, I would accept it, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And how does Chris feel about that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I’ll tell you exactly how I feel about that, and no disrespect to Bob. When Bob’s name came up in April or May or whenever the time period was, I felt that Bob deserved a chance, to be honest, and that’s why I voted in favor of him. I did not look to get involved in a political fight, with the whole appointment of Chairmanship. I had a lengthy discussion with Bob about it when I was asked by the Supervisor if I would consider it because the votes weren’t there to appoint Bob. It was awkward for everybody. It certainly wasn’t my preference, but, you know, I do have a problem in having a nomination coming from a member who will not be on the Board next year. Whether or not that’s appropriate, I think we can all decide, but it’s up to the Board. I’m not trying to split the Board or make this worse than it is. It is what it is. MR. SANFORD-Another possibility could be that, and this would be a unique approach, but we could go down to the people who are going to remain on the Board next year and ask if they would have an interest in serving as Chair, and some might, some may not, and present that to the Town Board for consideration. Keep in mind the Town Board apparently, and this was obviously the case, makes the decision independent, to some degree, of the recommendation of the Planning Board. So this would merely be a slate of interested candidates who would be willing to serve and put it in the lap of the Town Board. That might be another approach to take. I don’t know if everybody’s agreeable to that, but that might almost be a more comfortable way of handling it. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have to do this before January 1? Because we don’t know what st shape we’re going to be in. MR. METIVIER-Yes, that’s a good point. First of all, do we have any members? MRS. STEFFAN-Tom’s are only alternate. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom’s our only alternate. MR. METIVIER-Now is he going to come on full time, or don’t we know that either? MR. HUNSINGER-That I don’t know. MR. METIVIER-Why don’t we hold off on this, until we know where our Board’s going to be. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. METIVIER-No disrespect to anybody. Because I think that Chris has done a great job and. MR. VOLLARO-This shouldn’t be a disrespectful or respectful thing. The Board is generating its opinion, and that’s what has to happen. MR. METIVIER-I absolutely defend Chris for doing a great job, but Bob would do a great job. The only person that wouldn’t would be me. MR. SEGULJIC-And me. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) MR. HUNSINGER-But you’re next in line for seniority. MR. METIVIER-I know that, and that’s why I’m going to just push for you or Bob. MR. SANFORD-Well, is the rest of the Board comfortable with, any other takers? Gretchen, are you interested? MRS. STEFFAN-No, I’m not interested in being Chairman, and I’m feeling very, I guess uncomfortable right now because we’re in a tough spot and there’s been a lot of water that’s gone under the bridge in the past year. We’ve finally gotten to a point where I think some of the dust has settled, and so I’m, you know, in my mind, Bob, I thought you were going off the Board and so this is all new territory, and it just, it all makes me kind of uncomfortable right now. So I can only say what I’m feeling. MR. SANFORD-I guess, you know, in anticipation that this might be addressed in December, I was thinking that if people just stepped forward that showed an interest. You don’t want the Town Board to pick somebody who’s not interested, like, you know what I mean? I assume Dan called you up and asked if you would serve if appointed. He didn’t just appoint you and assume that you would be interested. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you know that was the case, Richard, because after Dan called me, I called Bob, and I talked to Bob about it. MR. SANFORD-I don’t really know what took place on that situation, but I guess my point is, if this Board makes a recommendation that the following two individuals are willing to serve as Chairman, Bob Vollaro and Chris, and they could discuss it and deal with it, one way or the other. They’re going to do it anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. GOETZ-I would like to speak something about this. First of all, I’m not interested, even though I want to stay on the Board. Secondly, I hope Bob will stay on the Board. I feel the same as Gretchen. I think Chris has done a wonderful job. I think Bob did a good job filling in, and I feel that I work basically, I approach this as I think it’s really up to the Town Board to make the decision. We work at the discretion of the Town Board. The Town Board works at the discretion of the taxpayer and the voter. So essentially we’re working for the Town Board. They’re working for them. I think it’s up to the Town Board to make the decision. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we’ll leave it at that. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing I want to say is that I think Bob did a fine job when he filled in as Chairman, and I just remember how difficult it was for all of us during that transition time, and I don’t agree with what the Town Board, I don’t agree with their decision, initially, but, as I said a little earlier, a lot of water’s gone under the bridge. I know that Bob has expressed wanting to retire and get out. Chris has done a good job as Chairman, and I’m just afraid we’re going to get into a situation where the new Town Board, and, Rich, you’re part of this, the new Town Board will make a decision that might be divisive to the group dynamics of the Planning Board going forward, and so I want to put that on the table because, you know I have a great deal of respect for all of you, but the group dynamics of us coming together and making good decisions on behalf of the Town are very important. We have to trust one another, and I’m nervous about changing us working. That’s my opinion. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. If there’s no further business, a motion to adjourn is always in order. MR. VOLLARO-Motion to adjourn. MR. METIVIER-Merry Christmas. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/20/05) Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 60