The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-02-21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2006 INDEX RESOLUTION RE: Subdivision Plan review 1. TB Recommendation RE: PZ 1-2006 Local Law – PO zone (Cont’d Pg. 35) 2. Site Plan No. 67-2005 Jeffrey Schwartz 3. Tax Map No. 308.20-1-2 Subdivision No. 21-2005 Michaels Group 5. FINAL STAGE Tax Map No. 308.19-1-67, 68 Subdivision 9-2003 Michaels Group 8. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 278.20-1-5.1, 5.2, 5.3 Freshwater Wetlands Permit Jeffrey Kilburn 17. FWW 5-2005 Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 Site Plan No. 64-2005 Jeffrey Kilburn 17. Tax Map No. 295.15-1-30 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 02/21/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY ANTHONY METIVIER THOMAS SEGULJIC DONALD SIPP, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT GEORGE GOETZ THOMAS FORD CORRECTION OF MINUTES December 20, 2006: NONE December 27, 2006: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 20 & DECEMBER 27, 2005, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-The second thing I’m going to do is I’m going to read a resolution into the record. I’ll read it slowly. Most members have a copy of it, but I’ll read it for the record. MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHAIRMAN’S RESOLUTION WITH REGARDS TO SUBDIVISION PLAN REVIEW, RESOLUTION DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2006, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Effective March 16, 2006: Whereas; the Queensbury Planning Board attended a workshop on February 7, 2006 and the following subjects were discussed at length: 1. The requirement for a Sketch Plan to be presented to the Planning Board prior to the submission of a Preliminary Plat. This requirement is stated under Article III of Chapter A183 entitled Subdivision of Land. 2. The submission and review of both Preliminary and Final applications on the same evening scheduled for review of a sub-division application. Whereas; it was unanimously agreed that the Planning Board would require the submission of a Sketch Plan prior to the submission of a Preliminary Subdivision application. It was agreed that this would give the applicant an opportunity to present their conceptual plan allowing for a free exchange of ideas and information while eliminating the formalities and expense associated with the submission of a Preliminary Subdivision Application. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) Whereas; it was unanimously agreed that the Planning Board, in most cases, would not review Preliminary and Final Plats on the same evening. Exceptions to this shall be determined prior to finalization of the meeting agenda. As such, potential outcomes may be that: 1. The Board may be able to review both Preliminary and Final stages at one meeting, or 2. The conditional approval of a Preliminary stage application would then be followed by submission of the Final Plat(s) addressing those Preliminary approval conditions and that such plat(s), upon completion, shall be presented at a future Planning Board meeting, or 3. The denial of a Preliminary stage application would terminate the application. Whereas; it was unanimously agreed that Final approval would be more easily addressed by having all of the Preliminary approval conditions adequately covered in the Final Plat submission. Completed Final Plats would be placed on an agenda and not be counted against the 7 application limit as observed by the Planning Board on a given agenda. Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: st MR. VOLLARO-When we get into Preliminary reviews of applications, I usually sit at those and we determine at that point where review of Preliminary and Final on the same night will happen. AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD: PZ 1-2006 LOCAL LAW REGARDING PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL OFFICE CHANGES MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s one more thing we have to do. This is the Planning Board’s recommendation to the Town Board on proposed Local Law regarding Professional Office zone. What we’re going to be making the vote on tonight, and incidentally, before I get into that, I noticed that the comment from Warren County Planning Board is totally unsigned. They do have a comment, but it’s not signed. I don’t know who made the comment. I don’t know, I see a lot of this coming from Warren County without any signatures on them at all, and I don’t know whether it’s a valid document without it being signed. MRS. BARDEN-They generally send a fax over as soon as the decision has been rendered, and then we get a final copy that’s signed by the Chairman, at a later time. MR. VOLLARO-Why isn’t it signed now? Because we’re going to be making the motion based on, or we’re going to be making a decision based on what Warren County Planning had to say and to me it’s an unsigned document. So, I don’t know, can we go forward, in good conscience, and make a decision on an unsigned document? MRS. BARDEN-I think that you can. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t feel comfortable doing it, I can tell you that, and I think you can tell Warren County, if you will, when these come to us, I would like to have them signed, at least so I know that somebody has looked at this. Right now anybody could have typed this up. Now I’m going to make the motion for approval of zone change 1-2006, to the Town Board as presented in the documents transferred to me and to members of the Planning Board from Craig Brown. Both documents are dated 2/1/06 and 2/8/06, and the 2/8/06 document is basically to support the Town Board’s resolution 1.06.2006 setting a public hearing on the proposed Local Law to establish a temporary moratorium on Professional Office zone. That’s 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) what we’re doing now. I guess maybe I ought to ask the Board members that are here, have you all read the documents that are here? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Which ones, you refer to two different dates. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The first date was a document transmitted by Craig Brown to us that was written by Marilyn Ryba on January 27, 2006, and it read Proposed Professional Office zone, zone changes, PZ 1-2006 dated January 27, 2006 from Marilyn Ryba to the Town Board with copies to the Queensbury Planning Board, Warren County Planning Board, etc., etc. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now that is for the Town Board to do. It’s got the SEQRA form in it and so on. We don’t do that. Basically, the second document that came in at a later date, which was 2/8, was a resolution to establish setting a public hearing on the proposed Local Law. What we’re doing here is we’re just making a resolution to establish a temporary moratorium on Professional Office zone. As I understand it, that’s what we’re doing at this meeting. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t believe that you are. I believe that you are giving a recommendation to the Town Board on the proposed Local Law change. MR. VOLLARO-What is the value of what we got from Craig Brown on 2/8/06 where it says, for your advisory recommendation, and it says the Town Board resolution 1.06.2006 setting a public hearing on proposed Local Law to establish a temporary moratorium on Professional Office zone? It asked us for a recommendation to do that, and that’s what I think we’re doing. So you better give me some clarification on that, if that’s not what we’re doing. There are two documents that were transmitted to us. One was dated 2/1/06 and one 2/8/06. MRS. BARDEN-I understand that. My understanding from talking to Marilyn Ryba was your recommendation to the Town Board tonight is specifically to PZ 1-2006, proposed Local Law regarding Professional Office zone changes. Period. MR. VOLLARO-Then I don’t understand the transmission of 2/8/06. It says for your receipt and advisory recommendation. That’s exactly what it says on this. Somebody at Staff should know what they’re doing, if they’re going to give us two pieces of paper to put a vote on. It looked to me like the second document of 2/8/06 was what we were sending up as a recommendation. If that’s not the case, then I think I’d like to postpone this, until it gets clarified, because I don’t want to put it forward this way, the way it’s written. MRS. BARDEN-Well, I can contact Marilyn Ryba, if you’d like, in the meantime, and you can discuss it at the end of the meeting. MR. VOLLARO-That would be fine. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a recommendation. Let’s move this to next Tuesday’s meeting, and so then we’ll have the information in our Staff notes and some clarification, and then we can move forward next Tuesday. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s a good idea. We can do that, and we want clarification of the two documents, one submitted on 2/1/06 and one submitted on 2/8/06 and why did we get the 2/8/06 as a recommendation, and I can understand why, what you’re saying, to recommend, to take the PO zone and do that, but the second one is a moratorium on the PO zone. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t believe you have Staff notes on the moratorium. Is that correct? MR. VOLLARO-The only thing I’ve got. MRS. BARDEN-I think you have Staff notes on the proposal for zone change, from Marilyn Ryba. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we do have that, but then again, we’ve got the second document, and that was a document that I accepted from the Zoning Administrator on 2/1/06 and I signed for that document at that time. It says supplementary info. consists of memorandum dated 1/27 from Marilyn Ryba, Executive Director of Community Development to the Town Board with attachments, and then it goes on to say what this is, this Town Board resolution 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) 1.06.2006 advisory recommendation. So if we’re doing both, if we’re recommending both things in this, then I ought to know that. MRS. BARDEN-It was my understanding that you were just doing one, the former. MR. VOLLARO-That’s fine. We can just negate the first 2/8/06 transmission, then, just forget about it. So I think the Secretary is saying to move it to next week. I think that’s a good idea. So you’ll get clarification from the Executive Director on this? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, I will. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Okay. I think, with that, we can go forward with our meeting. OLD BUSINESS: 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 PETER BROWN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-You are? MR. BROWN-I’m Peter Brown. MR. VOLLARO-Peter Brown. MR. BROWN-My name is Peter Brown. I’m representing Jeff Schwartz with Morris Products and the Patty Company in this application for Phase IV 2006 addition to the warehouse on Carey Drive in Queensbury. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. So that everybody knows what took place here, I’ll just go through real quickly for members. On January 17, 2006, there was a motion to table this Site Plan 67-2005 for Jeffrey Schwartz for 30 days so we could put together a list of items that are required for this applicant. On February 1, we met with the applicant in the afternoon, we st being myself, the Executive Director, Sue Barden, and the applicant, and we presented to them at that time verbally and otherwise a set of questions. The understanding was at that meeting that we would present those questions to them tonight. I’m going to read those questions into the record, and then we’re going to table this application to a future date, and I will begin to read, these are requirements per the Planning Board’s tabling motion of January 17, 2006. Now, I do not have a resolution for this. So we’ll make this a resolution putting forward the requirements per the Planning Board’s tabling motion of January 17, 2006. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 67-2005 JEFFREY SCHWARTZ, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: Questions to the applicant are: 1. What is the status of Bruce Frank’s inspection report addressed to Mr. Schwartz dated August 5, 2005. Mr. Frank’s inspection report is based on your Phase III drawing (SP-2000), and the question is, how will your Phase IV application correct the deficiencies noted? 2. Phase IV is at 60,654 square feet, and it is within 1.3% of your allowed Floor Area Ratio. An FAR worksheet was supplied to the applicant but was never submitted. It needs to be. 3. The Planning Board needs to see your DEC application, prior to approval of your site plan. Please submit a copy of your application to DEC. The actual permit must be submitted to Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Lighting. Lighting is in accordance with 179-6-020. Photo metrics shall show one foot candle over the 12 approved spaces shown on your final drawing submission. What is the 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) level of lighting that is supplied by the 185 watt wall pack on the existing Phase I and Phase II buildings? Cut sheets describing the lighting fixtures being wall packs must be supplied with your final application. 5. Reference to the Fire Marshal’s two letters dated November 23, 2005 and February 3, 2006. Two questions that he’s asked, the road does not scale to the 20 foot minimum width. Drawing must state that the road meets the requirements of Section 503.2.7 of the New York State Fire Code, and the 32 ton weight limit must also be specified. 6. Reference to C.T. Male’s three letters dated 12/15/05, 1/11/06 and 2/14/06. The last 2/14 letter still contains two open items. Item Two and Item Seven. The waivers requested. As previously stated, lighting will be required for the 12 allowed parking spaces. You will submit photo metrics as previously stated. Landscaping using existing vegetation is not acceptable. 7. Refer to 179-8-040 for guidance on the non residential sites. 8. Applicant will have all information by March 15, 2006. The application will then be heard on 4/25/06. Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: st MR. SEGULJIC-Just so I understand it, so you met with the applicant, and this is the list of questions that were agreed to develop? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. This was a list of questions that were discussed when the applicant was before us with Mr. Jeffrey Schwartz and company, and we discussed this, and then we said at this meeting we would give them a written list, and the list will come out of the motion. The applicant will be forwarded that list, so he knows exactly what we said here, and the record will also show what we said, but we spent an hour and forty-five minutes with the applicant on February 1 starting at one p.m. st MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much, and we’ll see you on April 25. th SUBDIVISION NO. 21-2005 FINAL STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAELS GROUP AGENT(S): VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): ROLAND AKINS, ROBIN BREWER ZONING SR-1A LOCATION SOUTH SIDE CORINTH RD. PROPOSED 20-LOT CLUSTER SUBDIVISION, RESULTING IN 18 RESIDENTIAL LOTS [LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.41 ACRES TO 2.97 ACRES] AND 2 (TWO) AREAS OF OPEN SPACE TOTALLING 11- ACRES. APPLICANT PROPOSES APPROXIMATELY 860 LINEAR FEET OF PRIVATE DRIVES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SKETCH PLAN 11/22/05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 27.24 AC., 2.02 AC. TAX MAP NO. 308.19-1-67, 68 SECTION A-183 TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN MICHAELS, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-I think we usually refer to this application as Sutton Place, is that correct? MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. MICHAELS-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. For the record, you are? MR. MICHAELS-Good evening. I’m John Michaels, of The Michaels Group, and Tom Nace. MR. NACE-Nace Engineering. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. One of the things I have here is, and I think I owe this to Staff, and I believe I do have it here, it was a correction to Part I. If you remember the last time we did this, we went through your Part I SEQRA and made some minor corrections to it. MR. NACE-That is correct. MR. VOLLARO-And I have the corrected section of it here. MRS. BARDEN-Great. MR. VOLLARO-And I think that goes over to Staff. Is that correct? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got to commend you, Tom. I think this is going to go very quickly on the Final. It’s going to vindicate me, in a sense, when I talk about not doing Preliminary and Final on the same night. MR. NACE-It makes it simple, to have a checklist and get it all in and done. MR. VOLLARO-And I, for one, have looked it over. I’m going to ask the Board if they’ve looked it over as well. I have some very minor comments that should not hold this up. So I’m going to start with the rest of the Board, to find out whether they went through this and if they have any comments on this final submission, and, Tony, I’ll start with you. MR. METIVIER-I’m fine with this. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-One of the questions I had was how will there be access to the conveyed property to the Queensbury Land Conservancy? MR. NACE-At this point, you got the letter from Mike Muller. They’re looking at simply pedestrian access at this point, no parking on this particular site. When they’re able to put enough parcels together to come up with an adequate area for parking, probably on a different parcel, then they’ll provide parking access. MRS. STEFFAN-So as it stands right now, there’s no access to that property. It’ll be landlocked? MR. NACE-Pedestrian access. MR. VOLLARO-Pedestrian access, yes. I think Mr. Muller said in here, I’ll just read from his letter of February 8, it says, The QLC acceptance of this kind of offer is consistent with our th organizational mission in acquiring, maintaining, and protecting scenic vistas, public access, and green space within our municipality. Queensbury Land Conservancy ownership encompasses our responsibility for continued maintenance, assurance of public access, and where the amenities may require and permit, we also provide access for parking. Parenthetically he states, currently we do not anticipate parking at this location. So that’s the statement from, I guess this is signed by Michael Muller himself, Michael J Muller, and that’s their acceptance of that piece that goes to the Queensbury Land Conservancy. MRS. STEFFAN-Because in the Staff notes, which I apologize because I just got today, the Queensbury, the QLC letter should also address maintenance, access to parking and determine allowed type of passive recreation. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and it certainly does, and he goes on, since passive recreation is mentioned in the letter, he goes on to continually state, we understand Mr. Akins’ requirement as part of the donation of land envisions passive recreation, which is entirely acceptable to the QLC. Now our definition of passive recreation does not permit motor vehicle access which would prohibit motorcycles, dirt bikes, ATV’s and snowmobiles. So he also addresses the subject of passive recreation. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MRS. STEFFAN-There’s intent, but there’s no plan, and so that’s my only comment. The other thing, and I wasn’t here for the January meeting, but I probably would have talked about sidewalks, but I understand that we moved along with the project, but in light of the PUD that was completed last year on the Hudson Pointe commercial property where there would be a convenience store, it would have been a good idea to have a sidewalk out on Corinth Road, so that we could have continued pedestrian access to that area, but I wasn’t here last month. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can ask Mr. Michaels about that. There’s a comment that’s been made. I’m personally satisfied with Mr. Muller’s comment. I know what the Secretary is saying, that there could be a connection between the two which might be nice to have, because right now, when I read this, I said, okay, public access is fine. The problem is how do they get there. They’d have to walk, and unless people use horses these days, they’ve got to park their car. So, there’s still, that probably can be worked out, however. I don’t know. MR. NACE-I think the intent of QLC is to put several parcels along Clendon Brook into a corridor that follows the Brook and would have access points available. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this isn’t all of it? MR. NACE-No, not by far. This is just one piece. MRS. BARDEN-But, Gretchen, you’re talking about pedestrian access along Corinth Road. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. NACE-This is quite a ways from the commercial piece that you’re talking about where Hudson Pointe is. This is a mile and a half away. MRS. STEFFAN-But there are no other stores in that area, and I think that, in my opinion, once the convenience store is built, folks from this subdivision would probably walk down to the convenience store. MR. NACE-It’s a long ways. It’s, in essence, walking from Van Dusen Road to the Water Treatment Plant. MR. MICHAELS-Probably kids would ride their bikes to Hudson Pointe, you know, go on the bike path, not along Corinth Road. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that takes care of the Hudson Pointe subdivision, but not any of the other connections. This will be a nice subdivision, but I just thought it would be, it should be a consideration in what we’ve been talking about in our Town. MR. VOLLARO-Would the PORC Committee have an input on that? In other words, I’ve read everything that’s on the Internet concerning what the PORC Committee’s doing, but this may be something that can be injected into that Committee, in terms of trying to get access or a connection in this manner. You don’t think so? You’re a member of that Committee? MRS. STEFFAN-I am. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I have one other question. Will Essex Court be dedicated to the Town? MR. NACE-The road? Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. NACE-Yes, it will be a Town road. MR. VOLLARO-Per C.T. Male’s letter of January 12, the use of drywells is acceptable. th MR. NACE-That is correct. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-If you took a look at his 12 letter, and the only thing that’s outstanding is there has been no response to Van Dusen Steves letter of January 20 written to Warren th County Highway concerning the intersection warning sign. MR. NACE-Yes. We talked to George Van Dusen. We haven’t received correspondence yet. We talked to him, and his indication was that they had looked at it, in fact, they went out in the field and looked at it, and the location of the access is fine with them. As far as the warning sign, they’re looking at the warrants, just like a traffic signal, I guess, looking at the warrants to see if the warrants justify a sign, and if so, they will put it up. MR. VOLLARO-We went there Saturday again because one of our members, Don Sipp, hadn’t seen the property, and I think that our Secretary also wanted to take another look. So I drove in, got a little tangled up with some brush, but other than that, trying to get out of there, when traffic is coming eastbound, is difficult. The sight distance from where we came out, that sight distance is not exactly opposite Van Dusen. MR. NACE-That’s true, the driveway is not exactly. MR. VOLLARO-But still and all, the sight distance is not good at that point. I mean, I had trouble getting out myself. MR. NACE-It meets their minimums. It’s not up at the upper level, obviously. MR. VOLLARO-So once it’s clear, you’ve got to move out. You can’t fool around waiting for the next car. He closes you fast. MR. NACE-Yes. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s all I had on this. I think that everything else that was, I’m going to read a motion that talks about all the stuff that’s been done, and I’ll read that motion in. There was no Final resolution provided for this, for the Final. Does Staff have a resolution for the Final? I’ve developed my own resolution. If you want, I’ll do it myself. MRS. BARDEN-I guess I just have Preliminary in my packet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, right, but this particular application is for Final approval. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So, having no prepared resolution, I will do my own. MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 21-2005 MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: Sutton Place. Whereas, the Preliminary Stage was approved with conditions on January 17, 2006, Whereas, the SEQRA determination of no significance was made on January 17, 2006, with minor corrections to Part I of the submitted Long Form. Corrected copy was given to Staff by the Chairman. Whereas, all conditions contained in Preliminary are satisfactorily answered either on drawings dated 1/18/06 or in letters, letters being the following: 1. C.T. Male letter of February 1, 2006. 2. E-mail from DEC dated January 17, 2006. 3. Letter from the Department of Health dated January 18, 2006. 4. Letter from Muller & Muller to R. Vollaro dated February 8, 2006, Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, We find the following: The application for Final Stage is hereby approved with the following condition: 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) 1. That Staff pursue the Warren County Highway Department for a response to the Van Dusen and Steves letter dated January 20, 2006 concerning an intersection warning sign on Corinth Road west of the subdivision entrance road. 2. Two, that Essex Court shall be dedicated to the Town of Queensbury upon approval of the Highway Department. Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford MR. NACE-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Good job, Tom. I’m happy, and that’s, ladies and gentlemen, the way it ought to run on Preliminary and Final. Okay. Just so everybody knows. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, do you have prepared resolutions in any of your notes? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. BARDEN-Was that something that you asked Staff not to provide? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I wouldn’t be as presumptuous as to ask Staff that question. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. They’re just conspicuously absent from all of them. MR. VOLLARO-That’s okay. We improvise when we have to. SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 MODIFICATION SEQR TYPE UNLISTED MICHAELS GROUP AGENT(S): N/A OWNER(S): SAME ZONING RR-3A LOCATION MOON HILL RD. & BAY RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO THE APPROVED SUBDIVISION. SPECIFICALLY THE PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED TREE CLEARING AND LANDSCAPING PLAN. 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 JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOHN MICHAELS, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-I guess we’ll just, I didn’t do any preparation on this, in terms of written preparation, because I think this is going to be more of a discussion than there is anything else. So I didn’t want to get into lots and lots of details. I’m going to ask Staff a question. Did Staff have Lot Two looked over at all? Was Bruce Frank or anybody else out to Lot Two? MRS. BARDEN-Not out to Lot Two, no. We did look at Lot One again, and again, this modification is for Lot One only. The violation is for Lot One only. MR. VOLLARO-I realize that. I just asked if anybody had been out to see Lot Number Two, and they haven’t. That’s fine. I just had a question. Now, does the deed for Lot One contain clearing limits and cutting restrictions? I believe it does. Okay. It says here in our Staff notes, it says the Board should inquire as to the accuracy of the delineated tree line between the residence and the road. The site plan has not been modified in this regard, but field observations conflict with the site plan as to the amount of clearing that has taken place. My question there, where is our field data and who surveyed the area? I mean, if we’re questioning their layout, I think we’ve got to have a survey to back that up. We can’t just stand on the property and say this doesn’t look right to me. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think, in my site visit, and the Board’s as well, I think it was also discussed at the last meeting that there appears to be some additional clearing in the front. It’s up to the applicant to address if they’ve gone beyond the cutting limits in that regard as well. MR. VOLLARO-We’re questioning the accuracy. This is not something that we’re saying we’re putting an eyeball on and we’re saying that it doesn’t look right. When we say we question the accuracy in my view, if we’re questioning accuracy of a site plan put before us, then we should have a survey to back up the inaccuracy that we expect. That’s all I’m saying. MRS. BARDEN-You could ask the applicant to provide you that information. MR. VOLLARO-We could do that, but, I don’t like to make statements like that if they’re not accurate. I don’t like to say that something is inaccurate when we don’t know for a fact that it is or it isn’t. MRS. BARDEN-Did you observe the clearing limits from what you saw? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Observation and accuracy are two different things, in my mind. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess maybe we should ask the applicant. Based on what we’re seeing on the map, is that what’s out in the field, in your opinion? MR. MICHAELS-Are we talking about the back or the front? MRS. BARDEN-The front. MR. SEGULJIC-The front of the lot along. MR. MICHAELS-I think, there was some grading to get that front in, that corner is probably been compromised a little bit. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re talking about Moon Hill Road and the driveway. MR. MICHAELS-To get that driveway, house in there, this was actually a steeper hill (lost word). MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and how much would you say was compromised? Minimally? Significant? MR. MICHAELS-We’re certainly agreeable to put some more plantings in there. I think the last meeting was all the history of it. We’re just trying to do what’s right. The only thing I can say is we wish we weren’t here at all, but at least we’re dealing with a renewable resource. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MR. MILLER-I think what’s shown on that plan, what was on the original subdivision drawing, and I think the main focus at the last meeting, I wasn’t involved in this project then, but I think the main focus was the rear, and the surveyors went out and confirmed the extent of the clearing in the rear, but it was my understanding that the Board was okay with the rest of it, and it was just that back area. That’s why nothing else was done out there. MR. MICHAELS-And then the gentlemen that bought the corner lot, he’s going to keep that (lost words). Although it’s not in the right place, there’s still less clearing on the whole site, because that corner (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-I guess, according to Staff, and Staff is correct, we’re kind of not dealing with that tonight, but I know it came up because we walked over and took a look at that as well, but the only thing we’re dealing with is basically this lot. I guess I don’t have too many questions about the reforestation. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you just give a quick presentation on the proposed reforestation? 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. MILLER-Good evening. For the record, my name is Jim Miller, Landscape Architect. I wasn’t at the last meeting, but I was informed of the concern. I reviewed this site, and there’s, one of the concerns I had, and I knew the Board was looking to try to install as large a tree as possible. One of the problems we have, we have like 20 to 25% slope going down that hill, and the clearing that was surveyed ranges from about 80 feet, 60 feet, and thinner. So it’s a fairly narrow corridor, and the area that we felt is most visible when looking back the opening at the top where you would look through and see the building. So what we’d recommended is installing five deciduous trees of four and a half to five inches, I believe, red maple or oak, at the top, to sort of fill that gap, and then space down the slope about 20 to 25 foot on center all the way down the slope would be 33 more trees that would be mixed pine, maple, and oak, and we show pines in the area of four to six feet, and deciduous eight to ten, and one of my concerns there is that one of the problems in transplanting trees is mishandling them, and damage during transplanting. So, in my opinion, to try to get large trees down that slope, we’re going to have a very high percentage of trees that won’t survive. So I thought it would be better to get some larger trees on the top where we could probably plant them safely, and then reforest the rest of that down against a slope with something that’s going to have a better survival rate, because what happens, when you’re bouncing it off the truck, the roots tear and that leads to them dying. The other concern was drainage in this area. So we put a series of hay bale dams in along that slope to dissipate the velocity of the runoff coming down that slope to minimize the possibility of any erosion along that slope as the vegetation was re-establishing. MR. SEGULJIC-And the trees you selected, were they based on what’s existing in the area? MR. MILLER-Yes, they’re similar to the native material. Mostly what’s on the hill are red oak and white pine, and that’s what we’ve got, and we mixed in some red maple with that also. MR. SIPP-In clear cutting this area was there machinery operation over the slope? MR. MILLER-I think they did. I think it was cut, and a chipper was used on this site, and some of it was hauled away. MR. SIPP-Would not it be a little more feasible to add some rye grass or some substance to that besides the hay bale dams, because you do have a slope there that is going to be open, in the Spring, to heavy rainfall possibly. MR. MILLER-Yes, we could. We could seed that in the Spring with a rye grass, hydro seed it. MR. MICHAELS-Wherever it’s disturbed, I think we should do that. I think there is good ground cover there. MR. SIPP-And you are going to have some failures, and this would help hold the soil while you’re making up for the failures of what you are planting. MR. SEGULJIC-And how do we plan on maintaining this into the future? For example, let’s say half the trees don’t make it through the winter? MR. METIVIER-To expand on that, too, I believe this house is currently under contract. So how are we going to, first of all, the people that are buying this home, are they aware of what’s going on? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. METIVIER-And furthermore, are they aware that they can’t go, after everything is planted? MR. MICHAELS-Yes. It was actually in the contract itself was discussion about this meeting. They’re well aware of it. It will also be in their deed. MR. METIVIER-All right, because I think you can plant to your heart’s content, but a year from now there’s no guarantee there’s going to be a tree left. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. MICHAELS-Well, I think certainly these people are aware of what they’re going to be putting in. I don’t think they were as concerned about this as, you know, we made sure that we met with the regulations. We certainly could guarantee these trees for a couple of years. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I had in my notes. I said have The Michaels Group prepare a maintenance agreement for a period of two years calling for replacement of any trees that die within that period. MR. MICHAELS-That would be fine. MR. SEGULJIC-Would it be reasonable also to have the Code Enforcement Officer go out and do an annual inspection? MR. VOLLARO-We could do that. MRS. STEFFAN-If it’s on the plat, he can, it’s enforceable. MR. VOLLARO-If it’s on the plat. I had another note that agreement shall ensure retention and maintenance of erosion controls during the two year period including seeding area around the trees to assist in soil retention. Those were my notes that I put in. MR. MICHAELS-That would be fine. What we do is we, to ensure that the access, we’ll make sure that the new owner is aware that the Town has to come in for that two year period, if they want, to inspect. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not expert on forestation, but it looks good to me. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think bringing bigger trees, I think you’re right. I thought about that myself, you know, getting a big tree down that slope, you’re going to be beating it up pretty bad. MR. MICHAELS-That, and I think we do more damage to the hillside. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The last hay bale down, I have a little note here myself because we’ve got to try to keep any water away from the back lot. Notice where the line is there. You’re going to be getting pretty close. I don’t know if we’re going to be spilling any, because you know this slope is relatively steep, and if there’s any way at all of having some sort of a retention capability at the very end to retain whatever water. MR. MICHAELS-Right at the very bottom? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Some sort of a retention capability spread across there. Because, you know, you’re very close to the line, is what I’m concerned about. MR. MICHAELS-There’s still a lot of land beyond that. MR. MILLER-Yes, I don’t think the concern’s an increase in volume, because we don’t have any paving or anything. I think the concern’s more one of letting the water start to form gullies going down the slope. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what the hay bales are attempting to stop. MR. MILLER-That’s right. MRS. STEFFAN-And so that’s the stormwater management plan is the hay bales? MR. MILLER-Yes. It’s just an erosion problem. MR. MICHAELS-It’s more of an erosion issue, because it’s the same water that would be there, even 50 years from now. Without the trees there, it might be faster. MR. MILLER-I think like the drainage from the house and driveway I think actually goes the other way. I don’t think that drains over the bank, just what’s falling on that slope. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MRS. STEFFAN-What’s your estimate of the distance between the property line and Glen Lake Road? MR. MILLER-I don’t know. MRS. STEFFAN-We didn’t walk down that far. MR. MICHAELS-I have. Originally, a long time ago. It’s a ways. MR. VOLLARO-Is the perc pretty good here? What kind of perc do we have? MR. MICHAELS-As you know, the top was all gravel. That’s why Rich wanted to get in there. So, you know, it’s not bad soil. MR. MILLER-Yes, it’s well drained. MR. VOLLARO-It’s well drained. So, you know, probably a good deal of that would be soaked into the ground. MR. MILLER-Especially where the hay bales are, if it starts draining and gets up to the hay bale, that’ll slow it down and even more of it will infiltrate. MR. VOLLARO-Are you going to stake those bales? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Is hay baling still an acceptable stormwater deterrent? I thought that the last stormwater conference. MR. MILLER-Well, for sheet flow, there is some controversy, for a while, that hay bales would be put in a drainage swale where you have a concentrated flow, and DEC has since come out and they would prefer you don’t do that, that you use a rock dam where you have a channel, but in areas where, just putting them along the slope on a hill like this, either a silt fence or a hay bale dam is acceptable. There is, I thought the hay bale dam would work better here. It could stay there and deteriorate and stay in place. MR. VOLLARO-I’d rather have hay bales. Silt fences always amuse me more than anything else. I don’t know what they do. I’ve seen them on sites bent over, flat. MR. MILLER-They work real well if they’re maintained. MR. MICHAELS-It isn’t easy. Day One they look pretty good. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, on Day One they look pretty good. They satisfy the DEC bottom line black letter type. Okay. Does anybody else have any comments? Tony, you talk about, will the deed have statements in this. I’d like a pretty well written deed, I guess, on this one. MR. METIVIER-It’s not necessarily a deed as much as it is a Code Enforcement issue at this point. MRS. STEFFAN-It has to be a plat notation because a deed is not enforceable by Code Enforcement. MR. METIVIER-A deed is not going to do anything for us. So whether or not it’s in the deed, I don’t really care, but the fact remains that there’s no guarantees. MRS. STEFFAN-I think it should be in the deed, but the only way it’s enforceable in the deed is if the neighbor gets annoyed and calls, and then it’s an issue for the Sherriff’s Department, which they don’t want to get involved in that kind of thing. We’ve had this discussion before. So the only way Code Enforcement can enforce it is if there’s a plat notation. MR. VOLLARO-Do you have any objections to the plat notation? I think that’s what we’d like to do, and we’ll put it on there. Okay. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MRS. STEFFAN-Now the other thing is this drawing doesn’t reflect everything that, you know, Staff pointed out that it didn’t reflect, and Mr. Michaels said that that tree line is not completely accurate. Do we want a drawing that denotes an accurate tree line? MR. VOLLARO-This is on the front portion of the lot? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I would say we should, but I don’t think that they should have to re-tree it. If they want to, great, but our goal is to (lost words). MRS. STEFFAN-But just so that the plan is accurate, that’s on file. Because with this particular parcel, there’s been a lot of inaccuracy and so it would be good if the document that’s filed is accurate, and is a representation of what exists. MR. MICHAELS-We’re going to do a plat notation on file anyway. That’s no problem with us. MR. VOLLARO-Your software will be able to handle that problem without too much trouble, I would assume. MR. MICHAELS-But if we’ve got to make a plat notation, that means we’ve got to re-file something with the Clerk anyway. For us to send a surveyor out there and confirm what’s there and re-draw it is not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s fine. MRS. STEFFAN-We also would like, according to all the comment that was made the last time we were here, we wanted to have Lot Two re-evaluated because what exists is not what was approved, and so we need to re-visit that. I understand that’s a different issue than this, but we don’t want to let that, Susan, okay. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I had asked that question at the beginning of the meeting, and Staff is right. The only thing we’re doing tonight is we would like to take a look at Lot Number Two, downstream here, and see what that’s like. I mean, looking at it here, when I looked at the overlay, this is considerably different than what it was when it was approved. MRS. BARDEN-And I guess just as a follow-up, what would you like Staff to do, just compare the approved clearing limits to the existing clearing limits? MRS. STEFFAN-Go back into the history. Because when Mr. Steves was here last time he said that there was a modification approved that incorporated those changes, and the Planning Board was unsure of that. So please go back and look at the history of the parcel. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. There is quite a history, and I don’t know of it myself, but I know that we were going to position the house a certain way, and then the person that bought it wanted it somewhere else. So I wasn’t here for that process, but I do remember it, we had to come back and re-do the lot lines and change the location. I know there were quite a few modifications on that lot because it wasn’t where we had originally planned it to go. So, I don’t know the whole history, but there is a history. MR. VOLLARO-Somebody is in the house, there’s an owner, obviously, on Lot Two. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And how does all of this impact the current owner? That’s one of the questions that I always concern myself with. What do we do there? Are we into a legal thing there, or is it something that the Planning Board can, I’d have to ask Counsel, I guess, on that, as to where, exactly where we are. I know that you are also an attorney from my past Board review some years ago, and I just want to get an opinion as to where, what is the enforceability of anything on that lot, since the owner is the owner? MR. MICHAELS-The one thing, like I said, that’s good about that owner, is he also owns Lot Three. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MICHAELS-Okay, which was going to have a house right on the corner. MR. VOLLARO-I see it here. MR. MICHAELS-And he has decided he would rather keep that forever wild. So, I mean, the visual impacts now, although I’m not saying that we’ve got to do a lot of stuff here. So the total visual impacts to this is less than what were really presented, because a house on the corner would be a lot different. So I think his intention is, you know, his intention was good. I don’t want anything on that corner. I want the way that looks. So that’s an acre of clearing that didn’t get done at all. MR. VOLLARO-Lot Three is a three acre lot. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, and no clearing. MR. VOLLARO-I’m always looking down the future. Suppose he sells this, he sells Lot Three with it, and the people who now own, move into Lot Two decide to do something with Lot Three. So all of our thinking about Lot Three being kind of a nice buffer area might turn out to be another building lot. MR. MICHAELS-I’m just saying what his intention is. He’s there. MRS. BARDEN-I would think it would depend on when the clearing was done. If The Michaels Group did clearing for all the lots and sold Lot Two, and the new, and the property owner built the house, did additional clearing to build the house in a different spot, then it’s the property owner’s responsibility for doing additional clearing than the clearing limits that were approved by this Board. MR. VOLLARO-That’s true, but is that in any way, I don’t like to use the word “prosecutable”, but what do we do in instance like that? Go back and say you violated a? I just don’t know. That’s why I think we’d have to ask our attorney that question, and I will tomorrow morning. MR. METIVIER-But frankly, I mean, if you think about it, you don’t know who did what at this point, because it’s a done deal. So the owner could come back and say The Michaels Group did it, and The Michaels Group can say, well, we followed the rules and this guy did it. So how are you going to enforce it anyway? MR. VOLLARO-In my mind it’s kind of a moot point at this period, but if we want to go forward with it, then we can, but I think I’d want to ask our attorney where do we stand in something like this. Because I don’t know where this Board stands in calling for any kind of prosecution against an existing owner. MR. MICHAELS-I do know, though, that the movement of that house was brought back here. They just didn’t clear and build a house. That was brought back here. MR. VOLLARO-The change, to put the house where it is now. I remember that. I think Mr. Steves made that comment the last time he was here. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. I’ll find that history for you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, but getting back on Lot One, we’re talking about putting a notation on the plat concerning the enforcement, and I’ll read the, unless anybody else has got any comments. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess we could go over what we have now. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the plat has to be notated. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and what are the notations we’re proposing? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-The notations I’ve talked about in here is, One, that The Michaels Group prepare a maintenance agreement for a period of two years calling for replacement of any trees that die within that period, and the agreement shall ensure retention and maintenance of erosion controls during the two year period including seeding the area around the trees to assist in soil retention. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and how about the annual inspection by the Queensbury Code Enforcement? MR. VOLLARO-That’s got to be the next one. The plat notation would then concern, that would be added on to that, and the term “enforcement” would then be used. Queensbury, we’ll just use Queensbury Code Enforcement. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we don’t have to mention the Code Enforcement, because if it’s on the plat, then it’s enforceable. We don’t have to talk about Code Enforcement. A deed and a plat notation to keep, a deed and a plat notation for trees to remain to keep the slope forested. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the deed already includes these words. I understand the deed talked about, I’m not sure. I don’t have a deed in front of me, so I can’t say what’s on the deed, but what we’re being told is that the original deed had some restrictions as far as cutting was concerned. MR. MICHAELS-Yes, but this deed, we haven’t transferred this deed yet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MICHAELS-So we can make sure it says whatever you want. MR. SEGULJIC-Not to be a stickler, but the two years, when is that going to start? MRS. STEFFAN-After they’re planted, which would be the Spring. MR. VOLLARO-I think the whole maintenance philosophy is prepare a maintenance agreement for a period of two years from, is that what you’re looking for? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, from the time of planting, I guess. MRS. STEFFAN-Because you can’t plant them now. MR. SEGULJIC-Final installation. MR. VOLLARO-From final installation. Okay. We added that there. Calling for replacement two years from the final installation date. Okay. Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-The new drawing. That’s probably the foundation of this, to provide an accurate drawing reflecting the forested parts. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s everything for me. MR. MICHAELS-Well, we were going to seed anywhere that was disturbed, also. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think I stated that. MR. MICHAELS-I think you said just around the trees. We’re going to seed everything, with a rye seed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I had seeding areas around trees, but then you’re talking. MR. MICHAELS-Anything else that was disturbed. MR. VOLLARO-Including seeding of the entire area. MR. MICHAELS-Yes. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-I think I can get it going. Any other comments from the Board on this one? Tony? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine. MRS. STEFFAN-I think that’s everything, Bob. MR. VOLLARO-Since there’s no prepared motions here, we’re going to have to go through making a motion on this thing. I’ll make a motion to table. MR. METIVIER-Aren’t we approving this? MRS. STEFFAN-No, we’re tabling it. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to table it. He’s got to come back with a new drawing. MR. MICHAELS-No, I thought we were going to. MR. METIVIER-I thought we were going to approve it. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, under the new procedure we adopted, we’re going to put all the notes on the map, and then come back. MR. METIVIER-He’s got a point there. MR. MILLER-I’m going to put the notes on exactly the way you give them to me. MR. MICHAELS-Can’t you just make this conditional that we submit the map to Staff? MR. VOLLARO-I think the Board’s got to see that. See, Staff doesn’t do the approvals. We do. That’s part of the problem. I don’t want to put the approval process into the Staff’s basket. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re not talking about much here. Can we do it at the next Tuesday. MR. METIVIER-No, we’re not doing that anymore. MR. VOLLARO-Not doing what, Tony? MR. METIVIER-Coming back for next meetings. We have to follow the agenda items. MRS. STEFFAN-I think it’s too fast to turn it around, for the Staff to be able to handle it. MR. MICHAELS-I don’t know how the resolution’s going to read, but I’ve got to provide these homeowners with something that, what I’m going to do there. They need to know, and I think it’s clear what we’re going to do. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we’re clear what we’re going to do. MR. MICHAELS-I just want to make sure we can tell them. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s just see, how quickly can you turn this around? MRS. STEFFAN-When is the application deadline for next month? MRS. BARDEN-February 15. th MR. VOLLARO-It’s passed already. MRS. BARDEN-March 15 for April. th MR. VOLLARO-Our next meeting is the 28. th 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. MICHAELS-If this resolution is going to be clear about everything that I’m going to have to do, that’ll be sufficient. I just want to be able to show them, here’s what we have to do. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I’ll make the resolution as clear as I can. Unless you want us to take a little bit of time here to collect our thoughts, get a resolution written and get it out. I’ll take a recess of five minutes. MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 9-2003 MODIFICATION MICHAELS GROUP, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: 1. That the deed must reflect all clearing conditions noted on the revised plat. 2. The revised plat must contain the following notations: The Michaels Group shall prepare a maintenance agreement for a period of two years from the final installation date of the reforested trees, calling for replacement of any trees that die within that period, that period being two years. Agreement shall ensure retention and maintenance of erosion control during the two year period including seeding of the entire area to assist in soil retention. The purchaser of the property shall retain the trees on the reforested section of the north slope. There’s the deed notation and then there’s the plat notation. The deed notation is the deed must reflect all clearing conditions noted on the revised plat. That’s in the deed, and then the plat itself shall contain what I just read. That’ll be the plat notations. 3. In addition, that the new plat shall reflect the trees shown on the reforestation plan dated January 17, 2006. 4. Information to be submitted by March 15, 2006. 5. Tabled until April 18, 2006. Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: st AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-This will be a tabling motion that the applicant can take to his perspective buyer of this new house, and then he can actually do what he has to do on a specific date. As long as he gets this information back to us by March 15, we can table to April 18. thth MR. MICHAELS-Thank you very much. MR. SEGULJIC-Thank you. 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. REVISED INFO. RECEIVED 1/17/06 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 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. REVISED INFO. RECEIVED 1/17/06 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 JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got the floor. Just let me know who you are. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Attorney Jon Lapper and Landscape Architect Jim Miller, with Jeff. The application is in the name of Jeff and his wife, Candy. This was on your agenda in December, and I was not present at that meeting, but I have since submitted an agency authorization form. I’ve read the minutes, and we have submitted changes that we hope and believe are responsive to the comments of the Board at that time to reduce the disturbance of the site and we’re requesting a Freshwater Wetlands Permit for a portion of the driveway that would be 40 feet from the wetland boundary instead of 50 feet, and it is the applicant’s position that sticking with that existing logging road, and not maintaining the 50 foot separation in that area, is a better development for this site to build a house on this 13 acre parcel, because it will involve less site disturbance. There would be a considerable amount of trees and soil that would have to be removed in order to take down part of a hill and grade the property so that the driveway could be put in in an area that would be 50 feet from the wetland, but in order to mitigate that, Jim Miller has designed the driveway so that it slopes away from the wetland. There is an infiltration trench along the driveway. So it will reduce any impact on the wetland, and that the 40 feet is sufficient. We’ve also submitted for site plan review, and as the application indicates, Jim has substantially reduced the amount of fill, or the amount of disturbance. We removed a circular driveway, which the applicants had really wanted to have, but because of the hill, that circular driveway would have resulted in a significant amount of site disturbance, and that was a major change, and Craig Brown had also suggested increasing the no cut buffer in the portion of the site near the beginning of the driveway, and we’ve added that as well. So we’re hopeful this will be viewed as a better application than last time. MR. VOLLARO-Just one quick question before I get into this. You said something about, that the slope was changed? I see in the Driveway Section C, the slope is still two percent. MR. MILLER-Two percent, that’s correct, and I had the discussion with Jon earlier, and actually I gave him that bad information. It’s actually, what we did is we have an infiltration trench, along the slope, we talked to C.T. Male about that. We have the infiltration trench at the base of the hill, but the driveway, to minimize filling toward the wetland, the driveway does pitch down slope toward the wetland. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that Detail C for Driveway Section C is still valid. MR. MILLER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. I have questions, but I’m going to open this up to the Board before I get into my question area. We’ve opened the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. We re-opened the public hearing, and it’s been re-advertised. So that you know that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-On Driveway Section C, you’re referring to that as an infiltration trench. Correct? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess I’m confused then, but you have a discharge pipe. MR. MILLER-Well, what we did is, the discharge pipes there in times when there might be frost or some condition where it’s sort of an overflow where we have a condition where the infiltration isn’t adequate. The soils are very well drained. They’re like one minute perc soils. It’s very gravelly, and that’s to just intercept the drainage that comes down off the slope. So it doesn’t drain down and create more runoff across the driveway. So what we’ve done is we’ve just, that’s a perforated pipe, and I think it was like every 50 feet we just have a six inch pipe that releases down stream, just as an overflow. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, as you know, overall I’m not very comfortable with this project at all. Because it’s in a Critical Environmental Area. You’re at the headwaters of Glen Lake. You’re in Rush Pond, which the Town has said is very valuable, and, you know, it looks to me like you more or less took a typical road construction. I mean, you don’t have 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) pervious pavement or anything like that. You’re calling this an absorption trench and it’s really, you’ve taken a non point source discharge and made it a point source discharge, directly into the wetlands. MR. MILLER-Well, it’s really just an overflow. MR. SEGULJIC-An overflow, when, in the wintertime when it’s frozen and you get the most water runoff? MR. MILLER-Well, that’s just there for safety’s sake, more than anything. If there was a situation where the infiltration trench water ponded so we don’t have, you know, water ponding and sheeting down the slope, the intent is to simply have a six inch pipe that gives it a point of relief, like an under drain, was the intent of that. It’s not going to see steady flow. MR. SEGULJIC-How about having pervious pavement? MR. MILLER-I think we would be willing to talk about that. JEFF KILBURN MR. KILBURN-If I understand it right, you’re talking about a gravel road instead of a paved road. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, if you had pavement, you’d have, I’m not even exactly sure how it’s designed, but the water can absorb through the asphalt itself. MR. MILLER-There’s a porous asphalt that can be used, or we’re you talking about using gravel or just going with a porous asphalt? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not sure exactly, but this looks like it’s just a typical road design that’s not taking into account it’s location in a Critical Environmental Area. MR. MILLER-Well, we still have a driveway that’s got to support traffic. So, I mean, from one point it’s got to be substantial enough to support traffic. So it’s got to have a gravel base that’s going to support wheel loads, and I guess what can change is what the surface is, whether it’s a crushed stone or if it was a porous asphalt. MR. VOLLARO-Well, a crushed stone would erode a little bit over time. You’re talking about the asphalt that has the capability of? MR. SEGULJIC-Letting the water absorb through it. MR. VOLLARO-It’s got some porosity, essentially. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. On Cross-section C, again, on your slope section, where you’re going to install the stack stone, it’s one on one. So you can see that’s going to go five feet back because it’s five feet high. The next section where it refers to stabilized slope 1.5 on 1 max. How long is that section going to be, where it’s going to be deforested? MR. MILLER-Well, it shows here on the plan. You’ll see where it says Driveway Type A, start from the beginning, back to a point in here, then the Type B, it’s fairly short. It’s just this section right along in this area, and then Type C is actually back in the area where the encroachment is, where we’re closest to the wetland. Then it goes back to Type A again. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and I can understand that. What I’m getting at, though, is if you start to the left of that cross-section, that’s where the existing forestation is. So there’s going to be a section where you’re going to cut back. Whenever you put a road in on a steep slope, you always have to cut back. MR. MILLER-There will be some area. MR. SEGULJIC-How far will we be cutting back? MR. MILLER-You see right where that, that car is shown in the driveway, the cutting actually starts right above where it shows 450. You can see the contour lines. So the width 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) back is maybe about six feet, and then it gets back maybe six to eight feet, when you get to the end of Type B, and that’s where the stone starts to pick up on the Type C Section. So we’re probably just grading back six to eight feet in that area. MR. VOLLARO-I think what Tom may be referring to here is we need some kind of a cut and fill analysis there, so that we know what we’re doing. I think he’s asking a valid question. We need to know what the cut and what the fill is, in terms of volume. I think when we looked at the pre-application conference that took place on this, it was a requirement that Craig Brown asked for. It was a cut and fill analysis. MR. MILLER-I think when, we were talking about that, I think a lot of that discussion, his thought and concern had to do with that back hill. This was the area that was revised where the turnaround, you see it marked in red, where the cut was up the hill and so we’ve reduced that down to half of what it was in that area there, but we can do that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m looking for his comment now in a pre-application conference, but it wasn’t specific. It talked about a cut and fill analysis period. It didn’t refer to a particular portion of the road. So I think what Tom is really asking for is a cut and fill analysis. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. My concern is that you’re going to be cutting back. Whenever you put a road in, as you’re aware, you’re going to cut back a certain degree, and then you’re going to bring artificial fill in. MR. LAPPER-The point we want to make is that if we don’t ask for the Freshwater Wetlands permit and we do the cut and fill outside of the 50 feet, it would be much more substantial. So we think that, in terms of the impact on the environment, this is a much more subtle, and we can certainly provide the cut and fill on the roadway, but it is a much smaller profile of what’s going to be cut than if we had to cut back the slope, even though it would be outside of the 50 feet. MR. MILLER-I think the thing you want to remember is the reason we’re here is we’re trying to use the existing trail that’s there. So the existing trail is basically cut into the slope, and that ranges from six to eight feet, and what we’re trying to do is we’re just widening that six to eight feet to I think 14 feet total, and we’re not cutting the whole road in. We’re just cutting four to six feet to make it wide enough for a driveway. MR. VOLLARO-That was the argument that was used before, that you wouldn’t even have to be here if you took the alternate position. I think that was made at the prior appearance. I know one thing, that the Type C Section, if that’s still valid in the detail, than the drawing itself, at the Type C should really show that under drain pipe, and it does not. It’s not there. MR. MILLER-Well, I think it shows it in the section. It shows it, I think, at 50 feet center or something. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 50 feet on center. MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got a couple of questions. Let me ask, before I get into my written stuff, I want to ask, Tony, what have you got at that end? MR. METIVIER-I’m fine. I want to hear what you have to say, Bob. So for now, I’ll say nothing. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I just have two issues, based on our last conversations, and that was the issue of the no further subdivision and I have a question on the DEC mapping. During the public comment section of our last meeting, there were some folks who went up to DEC, and they indicated that the map that they were shown, and, again, I’ll name Susan at that office, was that their mapping was very different than the maps that were included as part of this plan, and so because there’s a discrepancy between those two things, and because we know DEC didn’t physically go to the site, I’d feel a lot better if DEC came to the site, took a look at it, and validated the permit that was issued. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. MILLER-Well, what they do is their mapping is based on aerial photography, and so their mapping is less detailed than ours, because this mapping is done by field reconnaissance. Charlie Maine went out on the site and basically flagged the edge of the wetlands all the way around and the surveyors located it. So what’s on our map is based on field conditions, you know, hydrology and vegetation, and it’s actually more detailed and more accurate than the DEC map which is done by aerial photography. Now when we submit these maps to them, they compare it to their mapping, and they look at who’s done it and how it’s been done and the impact, and I can’t say if they were on the site or not, but we’re not impacting, we’re not in the wetland. So, you know, the only thing they’re looking at is what we’re doing within the wetland buffer, and the buildings, the septic and all the critical things in their mind is back out of that wetland buffer. So the only thing that they were looking at was the detail of the driveway which falls within the buffer, and if they didn’t come out and review it, it’s because they didn’t think it was significant enough. We weren’t impacting the wetland. We were only in the buffer area, and that’s how they make their determination, and they looked at the dock issue also, and that’s how they do that. I mean, if we had something where we were doing a retaining wall down closer to the wetland or something that in their mind was more critical and more, you know, encroaching more, they would probably have come out on the site, but I don’t know if they did or if they didn’t. They didn’t tell me that. I’ve had some discussions with them during the process, but I never questioned whether they were out there or not. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s a reasonable explanation. MR. VOLLARO-I’m into the wetland permit now, and I’m on Page Four of Eight. So you might as well go to it, Four of Eight of the wetlands permit. MR. MILLER-DEC permit? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The drawing that we’re dealing with here is revised January 16, and th it says 2 of ’05. It really should be 2 of ’06. That’s a minor thing. On Number Nine on Page Four of Eight, it says conformance with plans, all activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part of the permit application. Such approved plans were prepared by Miller Associates, titled Kilburn residence, Sheets One and Two, SP-1, SP-2, dated October 14, 2005. I think this has to be changed. I think the permit now has to reflect the new drawings dated revised January 16, 2006. I think this has to go back to DEC and get that drawing put in to this notification. MR. MILLER-Okay, I’d be happy to do that, but what I’d rather do is work with the Board, and if you approve our plan and it’s modified, DEC is not going to want me to come back two or three times and modify the permit, is my only concern. If we make some changes here, and it’s an approved plan, I mean, I think it should be a condition of the approval we submit those modified plans, so then we only get our permit modified once. MR. VOLLARO-The fact that we’re on the edge, both of us, with this particular application, I want to see a DEC permit that’s got the right drawing in it. MR. LAPPER-I guess Jim’s point, Bob, is that you may make it more restrictive before we get done, you may make our plan more restrictive before we get done, perhaps next month. So it’s a question of what we ask them to re-approve. It should be the final one that’s acceptable to this Board, and then we can go back to DEC once. MR. MILLER-I mean, at this point, we haven’t changed anything that’s within the 100 foot buffer. I mean, the grading, that would be changed, and adding some extra buffer area. I mean, we’re not, we have not increased or decreased any work that was in the plan that DEC reviewed. They basically reviewed what was in their 100 foot buffer, and at this point we haven’t really affected that. MR. VOLLARO-Basically what we’re working with here, in my opinion, is a DEC permit that’s not reflecting the drawings that we’re working with. We’ve got a, we’re at cross purposes, I feel, with the permit. When they issue a permit like this, they’re issuing it against your specific drawing, and now this drawing has changed. For example, you’ve got a whole K cut is different now. MR. LAPPER-But it’s not within the wetland buffer. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t make any difference, not to me. I mean, the cut that you have through there, if I’m looking at K to K, you’re giving me an entirely different cross section than what we had before, considerably different. MR. MILLER-Not within 100 feet of the wetlands, though. The only portion that changed on that section is back on the northerly side, away from the wetlands, is where the changes have occurred. So nothing’s occurred in the area where DEC has jurisdiction. Because they’re not reviewing the rest of the site plan. They’re just reviewing the wetland impact and the impact to the buffer. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. MILLER-I mean, we’d be happy, I think we should, if we get to the point of approved plans, I think DEC should have those and modify their thing. My only concern is I hate to, you know, if we work on this for a few months and each month I come back with revised plans, I think about the third or fourth time I show up wanting to revise it, they’re going to be a little annoyed with me. MR. VOLLARO-Maybe, but that’s part of your job, you know. That’s what you do. All right. I’ve got a couple of other questions here that I might as well go over before we go on too much further. I’ve looked at our 179-6-100, which is our wetlands regulation. What is the relationship between our 179-6-100 and the DEC permit itself, because in the Findings of that, 24-090-3 of Article Three of the State Conservation Law, we’re supposed to have findings in accordance with that. I’m a little bit concerned about which of these documents really prevail. Our 179-6-100 is quite restrictive. If I go by that and say that that’s how I’m going to look at this application, it’s a lot more restrictive than I see what DEC is doing. That’s one of the things I had. There’s one other thing that I really can’t answer, and maybe you folks can for me. You’re going to have to help me out here. We have a wastewater system design done by Hutchins Engineering, and it’s dated 10/14/05. Okay. C.T. Male made several comments about this, and I’ll read the C.T. Male comments first. Their first letter that they made comments on was December 12, 2005, and they had Comment Two and Comment Three, for septic system design, the finished grade at the east end of the system would be about nine feet below original grade. Test pit data should confirm soil type beneath the proposed system grade. The test pit shown was dug to a depth of only five feet. I understand that. What I don’t understand is that this drawing is what we still have, as the drawing from Hutchins Engineering, and it still states that the percolation test is to a depth of 24 versus 30, and that the soil data is 56, instead of 60. The test pit was shown to a depth of only five feet, which is 60 inches, but he’s saying that for septic design, the finished grade at the east end of the system will be about nine feet below the grade. The test pit data should confirm soil type beneath the proposed system grade. Now, he has two specific things that he’s talking about against this particular wastewater system design. MR. KILBURN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-However, his second letter, which is dated February 14, 2006, says we have received and reviewed revised drawing dated January 16, 2006. He changed your ’05 to ’06. He does not make any statement against the Hutchins Engineering wastewater system design, and I don’t know for the life of me how C.T. Male got to just plain say okay. MR. MILLER-Did you see our response letter? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything other than what I’ve just told you. MR. MILLER-We responded to him. MR. VOLLARO-When? MR. LAPPER-On December 15. th MR. MILLER-December 15, 2005, and then we got the sign off letter after that. We responded to his six comments, and what happens is. MR. VOLLARO-Before you go, do we have that letter? MRS. BARDEN-I do not. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. LAPPER-It was cc’d to Craig. MR. MILLER-Copied to Craig Brown. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t have it. MR. VOLLARO-If it was copied to Craig Brown, it should be here. I haven’t seen it. MR. LAPPER-And all of the C.T. Male points were responded to. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, see, when I reviewed all this, there should have either been a new drawing or there should have been a written comment. MR. MILLER-There was written comments, and what happens is, the explanations were fairly simple. He was questioning the depth of the perc test. MR. VOLLARO-Nine versus five feet. MR. MILLER-But I mean, he’s talking about 24 inches perc test depth versus thirty. Actually, if you look at the Department of Health reg’s, they give you a range, and Tom was on the low end of the Department of Health range, and Jim Houston was on the high end. So, Jim agreed, and he signed off. MR. VOLLARO-This was Jim Edwards, not Houston. Houston didn’t do this. MR. MILLER-I wasn’t sure which one reviewed it, but as far as the test pit data, if you look at the location of the leach field, there is a bit of a knoll there that’s being removed, and one end of the leach field falls about where the grade’s going to be, and the other ends in an area that’s cut, and then what we did is we went out in the field and carefully located where this was, and the test pit was dug in the end of the leach field that was nearest to existing grade. So it was dug five feet in the area where the leach field’s going to be two feet below grade. So where it was done was accurate, and then because of the way the slope was there, you’re only talking about 50 feet away, where the slope goes up, that mostly likely the soils are going to be consistent over 50 feet, since they’re all very similar all through there, all sands and gravels. So that’s what we explained to him, and I think we said that, you know, when the grading was done, that we would confirm that at the time of the construction also, and he was satisfied with that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see one of the things, I think I give him a failing grade on, and that’s Edwards, he never, when he said we have received and reviewed revised drawings, and a letter of January 17, well he should have at least given us a little better direction than that. th MR. MILLER-Well, I think he assumed you would have our letter, and it spoke for itself. MR. VOLLARO-Do you realize the kind of consternation that this gives one when he reviews this stuff in the absence of being able to talk to anybody, when we’re home doing it on our own? MR. MILLER-You could call me. MR. VOLLARO-No, I can’t talk to you. The rules are, I don’t talk to the applicant. They talk to the applicant. That’s the Staff’s rules, not mine. I find it very, very disconcerting. MR. LAPPER-Would you like us to submit an extra copy tonight of Jim’s letter? MR. VOLLARO-We don’t take information on the night of a meeting. MR. MILLER-I mean, as soon as we respond to C.T. Male, we always copy Craig Brown. I mean, should we copy Susan? MRS. BARDEN-Procedurally, it should go directly to our office, and we should forward it to C.T. Male. MR. MILLER-Okay. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-I guess the problem is when you go directly to him, without going through Staff, in order for you to pick up a little time. MR. LAPPER-But it did go to Staff. MR. MILLER-We fax them to both people at the same time, and normally we get the comments like three days before the meeting and we’re trying to get a sign off because we know if we come here without that sign off, we’re definitely coming back next month. So we’re trying to expedite it. MRS. BARDEN-Yes, we always get the sign off, but we don’t get the in between exchange. MR. MILLER-Well, we faxed it up. I don’t know what happened. MR. VOLLARO-One of the other things I need to have is some representation in a drawing that the house is less than 40 feet. Do you have an elevation drawing for the house? I’ve got some nice pictures of it, but I don’t have any elevations. MR. MILLER-Well, what we did is the section that we’ve done is. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that, but I know that that’s, does that section define the height of the house? It does if you interpolate. MR. MILLER-We can show that. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, I can pick off, I suppose, from one side to another, and interpolate the height, right, of the house, but I think we need an elevation drawing that says it’s less than 40 feet. I guess I still have some question in my mind as to the difference between our 179-6-100 and the actual, what the relationship is between, what is the document we work to here? I’m a little bit confused. You go and you get a DEC, and I understand that, you get it from them, but we have our own wetland regulations that we have to look at. MR. LAPPER-So that’s concurrent jurisdiction. The DEC regulates what they regulate under Article 24, the wetland and the 100 foot buffer, and you have an additional buffer beyond the DEC buffer, under the Town’s Freshwater Wetland jurisdiction. MR. VOLLARO-We’re being asked, really, here, to give you relief on how many feet are you talking about, 40 versus 50, is that where we’re at? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MILLER-It’s 1260 square feet of pavement falls within that setback. MR. LAPPER-A very small portion of the driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the amount of pavement that falls within the setback is, in my mind, not directly related to the setback itself. I think these are two mutually exclusive things. It’s nice to say that there’s only that much pavement, but I think it’s the setback itself that’s critical to the wetlands. MR. LAPPER-You’re right about that, but our argument is that it’s only a small portion of the driveway that we can’t keep out of that Town buffer. MR. MILLER-So it’s 10 feet at the closest, and obviously tapers back away from that. MR. VOLLARO-I notice there’s another thing in the permit that they’re imposing, and, you know, this permit sometimes, in the way I read it, except for the section I read to you before, which tends to lead me to believe that if they looked at your drawing critically, and I have some reservations in my mind about how critically they examine these drawings, but if they did, then they’re doing away with a statement that they make that says, construction, installation or establishment of a single family residence and related facilities, including but not limited to a water well, lawn area and adjacent area only, provided all disturbances occur 50 feet or more from the Freshwater Wetland boundary. Now that’s a very distinct and unambiguous statement, yet when they approve, on Page Four of Eight, when they approve 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) conformance with your plans, they’re essentially saying here that we’re not holding you to that 50 feet. That’s what I think they’re saying. I hope they know what they’re saying. MR. MILLER-The way they issue their permits, obviously, they have a lot of standard clauses throughout the permit, and then there’s some special condition phase, sections of it where they’ll talk about something specific to your permit, and a lot of times, like in our job, they just basically reference our drawings, and let the drawing speak for itself. MR. VOLLARO-Well, see, if they were to say, in conformance with the plans, specifically the setback difference between 40 and 50. MR. MILLER-Well, see, they’re not concerned with that. They don’t have a pavement setback. They’re just looking at anything that occurs within 100 foot of the wetland. MR. VOLLARO-They say 50 here. It’s very, very clear. I just read it to you, and I’ll give you the page and you can read it yourself. It’s on Page One of Eight, and it’s Number One. They don’t say some disturbances. They say provided all disturbances occur 50 feet or more from the Freshwater Wetland boundary. They don’t make reference to anything else. MR. MILLER-I’m sorry, Bob, what page are you on? MR. VOLLARO-You’re on Page One, where it says General Permit Authority Authorized Activity, and then there’s Number One underneath it. Construction, installation or establishment of a single family residence. Are you on that? MR. MILLER-Yes, but they approved our drawing. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. What they’re saying when they approved your drawing is they’re negating all of this 50 foot disturbance requirement. That means they would have had to have taken a good hard look at your drawing, and I was tempted to give. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, could we ask the DEC for clarification on that? MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’re right on, because I was going to call Robin Holsivinsky. MR. LAPPER-I can explain what the language says, Bob. The following activities may be authorized. So they’re saying that they will allow you to do this disturbance, provided all disturbance occurs 50 feet or more from the Freshwater Wetland boundary, from the boundary of their wetland. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what it says. MR. MILLER-No, but see, if you look down on Number Twenty-four they talk about the driveway, they talk specifically about the driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Number Twenty-four is complete erosion control before the end of the season, is what I have on Twenty-four. I was tempted, this morning, to give this person a call at DEC and ask her, her name is Robin, I believe it’s a woman, I’m not sure, Holivinsky, at 623-1234, to please give me clarification, as my colleague just stated here, and ask her, does she understand, in approving site plans, one and two, that she’s really negating a basic principle that she states right up front. MR. LAPPER-I think that that’s a standard condition that they probably should have crossed out, because they say in the cover letter, please note this permit is valid only for driveway in the wetland adjacent area. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. LAPPER-And a dock within the wetland. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I understand that. I can understand that completely, and I understand what they’re saying. They’ve giving you two requirements, Number Four and Number Eight. They’ve circled them. MR. LAPPER-Right. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-But I’m having a tough time jumping over the words all disturbances. Because when they reviewed your drawing, I’m not sure they scaled, they looked at it, and I’m not sure they scaled it to that. I get five feet between, on my one to forty. I think that’s what you’re at here, in your scale. I believe your scale is one to forty on this plan, and I get five feet, the harder I look, the more I get five feet, on my scale, between the end of that road and the wetland boundary. MR. MILLER-I know they’ve reviewed it, because I talked to them two or three times when they called with questions. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. See, I would like to get a clarification from them that they understand that they’re negating all disturbances, and, you know, I think I have the right to give them a call, and I will, either that or Staff can give them a call and let me know what they say, because I want to make sure that they understand what they’ve done when they approve a drawing like this. Because I can see them doing this and saying , okay, we’ll give them permission for the road, but they have to understand that that road should be 50 feet from the wetland. I don’t know whether somebody put a scale on this or not. That’s my point. MR. LAPPER-I think from the cover letter is shows that they do know, that they didn’t know what they were doing, driveway in the wetland adjacent area, but there’s certainly nothing wrong with you calling them and clarifying. MR. VOLLARO-So I think that that’s what we want to do. If you want me to call her in the morning, I will, or if you want to call her, you can. Do you understand what our concern is here? MRS. BARDEN-We can talk about it tomorrow. MR. VOLLARO-Either that, or I can send you an e-mail in the morning, as to exactly what my concern is, and then you can call her, or I’ll call her, one or the other. MRS. BARDEN-That’s fine as well. MR. VOLLARO-And a copy of that letter, would you check the file and see that we have a copy of the response letter? MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t exactly know where to go with this, other than to table this for a couple of reasons. MRS. BARDEN-Public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’m going to open that up right now. MRS. BARDEN-I do have some written as well. MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t we let the public make their comment, and then. Any further comments from Board members? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, back to the road, if you’re going to say that these are absorption trenches, let’s make them absorption trenches. Let’s not have a discharge point. It really should be absorbing all of the stormwater before it enters the wetland. MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking Section C, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Section C, well, on the entire road, and you had indicated that they’re very well drained soils, so it sounds like it’s very achievable. I mean, that’s, at a minimum, what I’m looking for. MR. MILLER-Well, we just did that as a safety issue, so we don’t end up, get in a situation where there’s icing across the driveway. That’s the only reason we did that. We can do it entirely as an infiltration trench. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, keep in mind, once again, you’re in an area defined as a Critical Environmental Area by the Town of Queensbury. MR. MILLER-And I don’t want to slide a car down into the wetland, either. That’s all, but we could do that. We could deepen that trench and, you know, take it down below frost, do it that way. MR. SEGULJIC-As well as look at pervious pavements. MR. VOLLARO-How far down below frost do you want to go, four feet? MR. MILLER-Well, you know, the problem with the infiltration trench like that is if you only go down a couple of feet and you get a heavy rain, the ground gets saturated and it turns very cold, it can freeze, and now it’s no longer pervious. So you have to go down far enough so that. MR. VOLLARO-It’s four feet in this area. MR. MILLER-Probably. Down four feet to where you can get drainage through the stone, and then it can infiltrate. MR. SEGULJIC-And the other thing I’d like to get clarification, I’m getting back to Section C, which is where you have the most aggressive grade, is how much clearing is there going to be above the stack stone wall to where you’re going to leave the existing vegetation? MR. MILLER-Well, the intent of the stack stone wall is so that we can meet grade. We’ll be able to cut back, and the intent of the stone is that we will have very little cut above that wall. That’s the intent of it. It’s basically like a rip rap, but the intent it would be a more finished look, so it doesn’t look like a highway. MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the distance going to be there? MR. MILLER-Well, the clearing would end at the top of the wall. MR. SEGULJIC-Not according to your plan. It says stabilized slope, 1.5 on 1 max. Install four inches topsoil, grade and seed. That section right there. MR. MILLER-Okay. I’ll clarify those, but we just put that there to show that if there was some disturbance in setting the stone that it would be graded off and seeded. It would be finished off rather than left bare or that was the intent there, but I will clarify that. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I have a feeling that you’re going to have this roadway with this bare slope, while you’re only 15 feet back. MR. MILLER-That’s why we’re doing the wall. So we don’t have to do that. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, let’s get the numbers on that, along the entire road. MR. MILLER-Well, we can do sections, periodically, along the wall to show, or along the road to show the different conditions. MR. VOLLARO-You’re also faced with, in the construction requirements, in line with what you’re saying, on Number 14 it says work within the project site or upland areas, the storage of construction equipment and/or materials shall be confined to within the work project site and/or upland areas greater than 50. Again, 50 linear feet from the wetland boundary. So you’ve got to ensure that all the material that you’re taking out, or whatever, is going to be, as you’re working, you’re going to have to ensure that 50 foot distance. MR. MILLER-What would happen, any cut that was done in that area, it would be cut and basically loaded on a truck and removed immediately. There would be no point to excavate that and take it somewhere else on the site, and stockpile it, and any equipment that was stored there would be stored either on the driveway, you know, closer to Fox Hollow Lane, or it would be stored back on the site, towards the building site, where it would be back away from the wetland. It wouldn’t be stored along there. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-I just thought I’d call your attention to that, so that you knew that that was, and again, they’re back on that 50 linear again. They constantly harp on that 50 linear feet all the time. MR. SEGULJIC-Now, on the down slope side, getting back to Section C, on the down slope side of the road, which is the right hand side, how far is your disturbance going to be down the slope? MR. MILLER-What we tried to do is minimize that. If you look at the site out there, where Section A is, it’s fairly flat before it drops down to the wetland. So the intent was, where we could do some filling on the downhill side, and stabilize it, to reduce the cut on the uphill side, that’s what we tried to do, but when we get back in this area, where we’re 40 foot from the wetland, we’re meeting grade pretty close, and that’s why we’re using the stone wall, because that’s where we have to cut into the slope the most there, so that we don’t encroach more into the wetland. So we’re basically holding the grade as it exists at that point. So what we tried to do is change that detail to have the least amount of disturbance, to use that existing road. MR. LAPPER-To keep it at 40 feet. MR. SEGULJIC-You’d indicated on Section A of the road you’re going to have some filling? MR. MILLER-Yes. Well, what we tried to do, Section A being a typical driveway, we’ve got some cut on the uphill side and a little bit of fill on the downhill side. So we’re basically, ideally that’s what we tried to do on a cross slope is balance the cuts and fills, but what happens is there’s some cases where there’s no room to fill in the downhill side. We can only do that in areas where it’s fairly flat and further from the wetland. Once we get closer to the wetland, it gets steeper, and the construction has to go back away from the wetland. So there’s no filling on the wetland side. MR. SEGULJIC-Like in Section B you have a lot of fill in there, then. In Section B on the down slope side of the road, you have some filling there. MR. MILLER-There is some filling there, but that was in areas where we went out in the field and verified that, you know, that was reasonable to do that, and so we filled through that area, and then that allowed us to minimize the cutting to the slope. So what we’ve tried to do is vary the details to fit the driveway in as sensitively as we can. MR. VOLLARO-Well, in looking at all the A, the B’s, and the C’s, and trying to integrate that in my mind, across that road, and looking at the downhill slopes, as Tom talks about them, seems to me that you’re going to get a good deal of infiltration into the wetland from, for example, all you’ve got to do is take a look at this profile, down it goes, down it goes, and it’s got a two percent pitch across and then it goes down again. I mean, anything that’s on this road in terms of oil, or anything, sand, salt that might be needed because of ice and so on, that’s quite a drive going in, is going to eventually wind up into the wetland. I mean, the road being that close, there’s just no way you can guard against that. MR. SEGULJIC-Plus all the fill material they bring in. That always has a tendency to migrate. MR. VOLLARO-To leach off. MR. LAPPER-I guess the decision is if the Board says that you’d rather that we cut more into the hill and stayed 10 feet away from the wetland in that 1200 square foot section, it’s doable. It just means taking more trees down. I mean, that’s certainly a policy decision that you can make. MR. MILLER-I mean, is that an option that the Board? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I object to that, because my house is right there. MR. VOLLARO-I’m going to open the public hearing as soon as I get done with chatting here. As a matter of fact, why don’t we do that. Why don’t we let the public get a crack at this. They’ve heard a lot of what we’ve got to say, and I’d like to let them, and right after 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) that, I’d like to have any comments written into the record. Now, who would like to speak on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MARY KUSIOR MRS. KUSIOR-I’m Mary Kusior. I live at 22 Fox Hollow Lane. So I’d be the direct neighbor of this project. MR. VOLLARO-Exactly where are you with respect to that drawing? MRS. KUSIOR-Okay. I’m on the top side, wherever that is. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I just wanted to know where you were with respect to the plan. That’s fine. So long as I know that. MRS. KUSIOR-Right, and my property has the longest length along that driveway there, and I don’t have any objection to having his house as my neighbor, or having a driveway there, but the big thing is I don’t want to kind of throw the baby out with the bath water in discussing this project. I think it’s a very good stewardship of the land to go ahead with Mr. Kilburn’s project, and I’d like to see a way we could do it. He’s got one house on 13 acres, and he’s building a retirement home from his plans, he’s got wide hallways fit for wheelchairs, you know. I can’t believe anyone else is going to be in this property but him. He’s got children. You have grandchildren along the way, hopefully. So, I think he is going to just use this as a one person piece of property. So I think we should encourage that and try to get this project going, because he, you know, it would be very nice to have someone there watching over that corner of the pond. There’s an awful problem of motor bikes, those three wheelers going back and forth. A lot of noise, a lot of noise, and I’ll get up from my back yard to sort of maybe flag the kids down and maybe figure out who they are, but then they’ll speed right out into the road. They’re not wearing helmets. So the kids are reckless on top of just riding the bikes and creating a ton of noise for whatever animals are in the wetlands. There’s garbage back there. People have drinking parties back there, if you hike back there. He’s going to be in that corner watching that area. Also right where I am right here, I haven’t said anything about it for years, but that is the neighborhood compost pile. People will come from all the way down the block, dumping all their lawn clippings. So much so that it’s changed the side of the embankment. It’s actually filled it in over the years, and Jeff would just stop all that, and I’m hoping that with the Army Corps of Engineers, DEC approval, you’re going to check on what they said about the 50 feet, but I went through this process indirectly before, and as I understand it, the 50 foot is a guideline, that they, as a governmental agency, can interpret it a certain, they have the flexibility to interpret their own guideline. So I’m hoping that that is what’s going to happen, that they’re saying, yes, we’re right, we did interpret it this way that Mr. Kilburn is presenting. Because the other thing is, and he and I are both just really upset about is that I don’t think anyone has seen, you probably have never seen it, but this hill that goes up here goes to this unbelievably beautiful land formation. This is this geologic formation that’s like a bowl. You feel like you’re walking on the top of a volcano when you go up there. It’s this beautiful top of a ledge that I’ve hiked to the top of, a lot of times, you know, in the 15 years I’ve lived in that house, and it slopes down. It’s just really unique. I’ve never seen anything like it, and that’s why, I just want you to really consider that if we can’t be flexible and let him have, you know, the driveway where it is, the only thing you’re going to, he’s going to have to cut all the way, he’s going to have to knock this whole mountain down, and then this doesn’t even show like the contour of my yard. My back yard goes up to this hill right here. So then, you know, I have my issues, too, in that it’s going to physically change how my yard looks. I don’t want my back fence on a cliff, and then there’s huge pine trees there, and as well all know in the storm, if this is graded into, I don’t know if those trees are going to be stabilized, with the erosion and to fall on my side. MR. VOLLARO-They probably have to be removed, that’s my guess. MRS. KUSIOR-But it’s, the thing is, it’s not just, it’s really going to, it’s like taking a meteor and whacking it onto the earth. It would really do a devastation to this geologic formation, and if you haven’t seen it, you know, I don’t mind you walking by my property and climbing on it, if Jeff doesn’t. So that’s my big concern. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else? Dr. Hoffman? MARK HOFFMAN DR. HOFFMAN-Mark Hoffman, Fox Hollow Lane. Well, for some of the reasons Mary Fran just mentioned, this is among the most Critical Environmental Areas, among the Critical Environmental Areas in the Town, which is why we’re so concerned about it, and I mentioned some of those previously and that’s been discussed. So I’m not going to repeat all those issues. There are two ways to develop a property in its entirety. One would be to have the developer come in and give you a plan and say this is what I will come to develop the entire property, and this is what it’s going to look like, and then you could sit down and look at the cumulative impacts and make a determination whether it’s acceptable, what sort of mitigation is necessary, and you could make an intelligent assessment. The other way you can develop it is piece by piece, one house at a time, and, you know, because this is such a critical, an important environmental area, the mitigating factor here that makes it consideration to be accepted that it might be reasonable is the fact that it’s only one house, and as I mentioned in a previous hearing, we have no guarantee that it will be only one house, without some sort of firm guidance of a deed restriction or some sort of legal restriction that it’s not going to be further subdivided. I understand that there are access problems. I also understand that if there’s enough money involved, access problems can be overcome, even to the point if a developer feels he needs to buy a house and tear it down, he can get access that way, or you can come in from another part of Town. So, it’s possible that it could be developed, but I understand Jeff’s intention is not to develop it further, and I think that that’s probably true. I also know, and I think people on the Board should be aware of your experience, and seeing how development happens in Town, that nobody holds a property forever, and that owner may not be so disposed, I see no reason to assume that this will always be one house on this property. So that would be, in terms of mitigating the environmental impact, I think that would be an important issue. I had a sense from the last discussion that there was some possibility that the owner might be conducive to that, but I don’t know where that stands. The other issue was the question about clearing, and there was some back and forth last time, and I don’t know, maybe it related to this disturbance within 50 feet, there was some sort of regulatory restriction about any disturbance within a certain distance from the wetland being prohibited, with the exception of a lake access, which again, this is not a lake. It’s not a beach. It’s a swamp, and then Mr. Miller, there was some contradictory statement that, well, it’s not really for the access that we’re going to do the cutting. He said it was just going to be to clear some brush for the views. MR. VOLLARO-It was selected views. DR. HOFFMAN-Selected views, and I am concerned because of the fact that there is a Town property on the opposite side which should, there’ll be an interest in maintaining the scenic view form that, that view be as natural as possible and that if there is going to be some cutting, that it be very carefully regulated, that you know exactly what’s going to be cut and what’s not going to be cut. I’m not sure a general statement that we’re just going to cut some brush, whether that’s enough of an explanation as to what would be cut or not. I think those were my main points that I wanted. MR. VOLLARO-What it says on the drawing, Dr. Hoffman, just so you know, it says selective clearing in this area for filtered views and access over 175 foot would equal 18% of the shoreline. So they’ve defined what this selective view cutting would be. It would be 18% within 175 feet. DR. HOFFMAN-Eighteen percent of the shoreline? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, within, and that shoreline is defined to be 175, and within that 175 feet, they would be cutting 18.2%. That’s their definition of how much they’re going to disturb that area. MR. HOFFMAN-It’s difficult for me to conceptualize what that actually would look like. I would have to defer to your judgment. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we wouldn’t know either, because when they say selective cutting, they mean that when they get there, then they’ll start to decide what to cut, and what not to cut, I guess that’s what the term selective means to me, at least. They really don’t have a good handle on how they’re going to cut selective views out of this from the house. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) DR. HOFFMAN-My concern is if the objective of the cutting is to get a view of the wetland, then by definition, it means the wetlands is going to have a view of the house. MR. VOLLARO-That is correct. DR. HOFFMAN-I would want to see that minimized as much as possible. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SIPP-Bob, I think that the wording there, when it says selective clearing, clearing and selective don’t go together. When you’re talking forestry in that sense, so that what is going to be cut would be unknown, if you leave the words clearing in there. Now, I don’t know, I haven’t seen this site, but what is the species of those trees that are in that area? Pines? MR. LAPPER-We can define that stuff. MR. MILLER-It’s mostly pine and oak. MR. SIPP-Of what age? MR. MILLER-Well, various ages. Our intent, when we say clearing, it’s more finish. I think the intent is to basically thin out some limbs, maybe remove some smaller things. It would be typical of a lakefront where you come in, you clear the house site, and after the house site’s cleared and the home’s under construction, you basically come back and the intent is to remove some things so you have filtered views, but Dr. Hoffman is talking about, we agree, if somebody is out in the wetland in a kayak, we certainly don’t want the house to, you know, we’re not looking for a situation where we’ve got a lawn that comes down. It’s going to be a natural shoreline, and there’s just going to be some branches. None of the big trees will be removed. MR. VOLLARO-If you’re comparing this to somebody who clears up on Lake George, we’ve all been on several, several sites on Lake George, and they are clear, because people want a nice, clean view of the lake. MR. MILLER-But most of the Boards, though, are not allowing that anymore, and a lot of them, as a matter of fact, you get up in Bolton, if you’re up on the hillside, you have to do clearing for a house, and then the decision’s made at the site as to what can be removed and what can’t be removed. I think Jeff wants this site because he wants this wetland and he wants the woods. So he’s not going to come out here and cut it down. He wants to put it in there, but when he looks out the door, he wants to be able to see through some of the trees, that’s all. MR. VOLLARO-Maybe the word clearing should be replaced by thinning. MR. MILLER-Thinning. That would be fine with me. I mean, we could define that however. The other thing I want to clarify, the 18.2%, I thought you were interpreting that as if you look out, we’re going to cut down 18.2%. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. MILLER-That’s the percent of the shoreline. MR. VOLLARO-That’s percentage of the 175 feet. That’s what you’re talking about. MR. MILLER-No. The 18.2%, the 175 feet is 18.2% of the total shoreline on the property. The Code reads, I believe, what is it, 20, 25%. MR. VOLLARO-Of that entire? MR. MILLER-Yes, the Code reads clearing I think 25% of the shoreline. What we’ve shown. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about all of this. MR. MILLER-That’s right. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-What you’ve done here is you’ve put a note in and you’ve shown the cross hatch, and you’re saying, when I read this, I see this that you’re going to do 18.2% of this. MR. MILLER-No. MR. VOLLARO-Because that’s how it reads. Take a look at the words objectively. I know where you stand on this. MR. MILLER-No. What that was intended, and we have a note here that shows, wetland shoreline 973 feet. That’s that shoreline measured all the way around, property line to property line, and that area that I’ve highlighted in here is 18.2% of the total. MR. VOLLARO-See, that’s not how that reads, because you’ve got that selective clearing and then you point right to the cross hatch, and, you know, to me, it says filtered views and access, 175 feet. There’s a dichotomy here that’s got to be cleared up. MR. MILLER-Yes. Okay. We’d be happy to change that, but I mean we probably aren’t going to remove 18%. I’d be surprised if we remove 10. MR. VOLLARO-You know, when this is all over, we won’t know. This Board won’t know. Our best control is here right now. Is there anybody else from the public that wants to get up to speak? I guess not. We have some public comment, however, that has to be read in. Susan, do you want to read that into the record? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, I will. This is dated February 21, 2006. “Dear Planning Board: As a follow up to our previous letter, we would like to add a couple of thoughts and reiterate those items that we presented in your previous hearings of 12/20/2005. As we stated then, since the proposed driveway will definite affect and alter the edge of the wetlands, it is essential that if approval is given, the construction work in this area must be closely monitored by the city of Queensbury. Any excavation along this route will definitely push fill into the wetlands, thus altering the seepage and drainage in the area. A contractor with a fixed price contract will seek the easiest and most economical solution, which will be to fill in the edges of the wetland, thus detrimentally harming the wetlands in that area. This should be avoided. Furthermore, even if the driveway is moved up the very steep hill further away from the wetlands, because of the steep grade cutting of the driveway, will still cause fill to fall into the wetlands if the contractor is not very careful. This will also ruin the hill, the beautiful pine trees and generally make a mess of things. There is no good solution to this very real problem. Also as we discussed in the 12/20/2005 meeting, we strongly support the Planning Board’s request that the Kilburn’s agree to a clause to be added to this application which would prohibit any further development on this acreage. From what we have heard and what we have been told, the Kilburns have stated in the past that there will be no further development on this parcel. So adding it as a requirement and approving this application should not be a problem. We are not able to attend tonight’s meeting to speak in person, but we hope that you will take our written comments into consideration. Sincerely, John and Mary Gilbertson 18 Fox Hollow Lane” MR. VOLLARO-I believe he’s the gentleman that approached the Board last time. He’s the Civil Engineer? Is that the one? Yes. MRS. BARDEN-This is dated February 21, 2006. “Dear Planning Board: The other day a scientist was quoted as saying, wetlands are the kidneys of the world. Please consider that as you offer up the wetlands near our home, 18 Fox Hollow Lane, just so our neighbors, the Kilburns, can have a better view from the house they want to build. They don’t want to cut down their trees, which would be necessary if they put their driveway not along the wetland entrance. Please consider, too, the now evident reality of having destroyed the marshes and wetlands along the Gulf Coast. Newspaper coverage of that fact is available. No, we are not a coast, but we have numerous streams and freshwater which require wetlands for their health. This is highlighted in the attached New York Time article of February 20, 2006. Just a thought. We have a feeling that if the State of New York alone were in charge of our wetlands here, they wouldn’t be as careless as DEC and the Army Corps was, Federal unit, in giving the Kilburns the okay to damage the very beginning of this wetlands on the edge. We will watch the development of the Michigan case carefully, same article attached from the New York Times, refers to it. Although we did attend the previous meeting, health does not allow us to be present for tonight’s meeting, hence this letter, but we will be there in spirit. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) Thank you for considering our concerns once again. Sincerely, Mary and John Gilbertson 18 Fox Hollow Lane” And the New York Times article if anybody would like to read that. Again, dated February 21, 2006. “To Whom It May Concern: As an adjacent property owner, I have discussed with the Kilburns their plans to build a home on their 13 acre property. I believe that building their driveway along the existing log road/path is a much better alternative than cutting away a large portion of the hill that is to the west of the path. Sincerely, Dean John Beckos 26 Fox Hollow Lane” That’s it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you very much. MS. KUSIOR-The 18 Fox Hollow Lane letter, if I have the correct couple in mind, it’s the couple from New York City that walks their dog. Is that it? Yes. I question the motivation of that letter. I don’t think it’s all that altruistic for the wetlands. That couple uses their recreation in Mr. Kilburn’s property, and I’ve spoken with them. They’re a nice couple. We talk in the front yard a lot, very nice couple, love being up here, moved up from New York City. This is what they tell me personally, but they enjoy walking in what is now his land before he bought it, and they’ll dress up in their orange hats and vests to go out into the woods. They have their black Labrador that they put an orange jacket on, and they have fun walking back there, and they do that regularly, and I think that’s the reason they’re giving him a hard time about the property is because they enjoy walking back there. I don’t think it’s about the wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Chairman, Jeff and Candy are proposing very minimal development. They’re trying to do it right. They’ve shown that they’re willing to work with the Board and agree to additional conditions. So we would like to go home and clarify the issues that you’ve asked for clarification on and come back with some answers, and hopefully move this thing forward. MR. VOLLARO-I think one of the things we have to make a determination, at this meeting, and with Mr. Kilburn, is that there be a no further subdivision clause here. I think that, if his intention is not to do it, then I don’t see any detriment to him, personally, by having that on the deed, that no further subdivision of this property be required. MR. LAPPER-I expect that we’ll get there. I guess he’d like to go home and think about it, but I want to just explain to the Board that the potential for any future lots isn’t coming from Fox Hollow, because that’s where we’ve got this narrow issue with the wetland and the driveway. MR. VOLLARO-Jon, I understand your plea here, but what I’m saying is that, in the future, if he isn’t planning to subdivide it, then the deed should have a deed restriction on it for whoever else. We don’t go in perpetuity, none of us do. MR. LAPPER-We understand that. I just want to explain that the development potential for getting another lot or two out of this wouldn’t be coming from Fox Hollow Lane. It would be all the way on the north side, on the Finch Pruyn property. If that ever got developed, there might the ability, nowhere near the Critical Environmental Area, to have another house lot that wouldn’t impact the CEA. It wouldn’t impact Fox Hollow Lane, and since he spent a lot of money for the land, if he’s going to give up that potential, Jeff would just like to go home and think about it, because we’ll obviously be coming back, but, you know, we understand the Board’s concern, and you should understand that there’s no place to put in a Town road from Fox Hollow because of the wetland and the slope and everything else. So it’s not going to be where everybody’s worried about it, if it happened at all, and I’ve heard that there may be some acquisition of the Finch Pruyn land, so that may never be developed anyway, in which case there wouldn’t be any development potential, but Jeff just, we just discussed it, and he just said he wants to go home and think about it and we’ll come back and talk about it next time, but we understand what the Board’s looking for. MR. VOLLARO-In my own personal opinion, and I’m not going to speak for any members of the Board here, but I’ll speak for myself. I do believe, from what I’ve heard, and the testimony and the stuff that’s been said to the Board, that I think Mr. Kilburn is really genuinely feeling to be a good steward for the property, and so I would be, you know, that’s one of the things I’m weighing in my mind. I mean, this is not an issue I take lightly. I think Tom has stated it very carefully. This is a Critical Environmental Area. Dr. Hoffman has 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) mentioned it’s the Critical Environmental Area of all Critical Environmental Areas. So really you can sense that we’re moving very slowly here in terms of this because it’s a concern. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s okay. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t want to see Queensbury get eaten up any more than anybody else does, and this is where it happens. It happens in Boards like this, that we take these applications just as seriously as we can. I know I labored over this for hours, believe me, in what I call my knothole. It’s a word I use for where I study in this stuff, and, you know, this last week, Monday was a holiday. There’s nobody to talk to. You do it on your own and you do it with whatever you’ve got. Whatever you get from Staff is what you’ve got. You don’t have anything else. You’ve got to work it out yourself. Each and every one of us have to do that, at least I do. MR. LAPPER-And you were missing some stuff because you didn’t have our letter. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and so those are the things that make life difficult for members of the Board to grapple with. I just want everybody to understand that, that people put a lot of time in this, and sometimes it’s very frustrating. MR. LAPPER-We’re not pushing for a decision. We want to work this out. MR. VOLLARO-And we can table this to a specific date. However, I know that Staff would like us to make the tabling motions and all the concerns, and so we’re going to have to take some time to write them down. So, either that, or we’re allowed, I think, on a subdivision, on a site plan, we’re allowed 31 days, I believe, by the Code, and I’d like to do this quickly, but I’d like to do it much like I did it for the first applicant that came here. MR. LAPPER-If you wanted to do it next week’s meeting, to do the tabling resolution at next week’s meeting, I’m here. I’m sure Jim is. That’s no problem. MR. VOLLARO-I would like to wait, to be able to write a tabling resolution with all the concerns that we have. So that when they go back to do what they do, it’s listed. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s fine. MRS. BARDEN-And you’ll officially table it next week, then, to a following meeting? MR. LAPPER-That’s fine with us. MR. VOLLARO-We will do the tabling motion in our next meeting, which is the 28, I th believe. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Then we’ll get the list and we’ll go and do our homework. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Then I’ll sit down and try to get with some members of the Board between now and the next meeting, you know, and do this. MR. LAPPER-Jeff wasn’t planning on being in the ground next week anyway. So that’s okay. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. You’re welcome. What I would like to do is, Don, would you be available to work with me and try to come up with, before next meeting on the 28, to th come up with the conditions we’d like to apply to the tabling motion on the 28? th MR. SIPP-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-You can come over to my house. I’ll go over to yours, and we’ll sit down with this stuff and come up with what we can. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MRS. BARDEN-Tom, it sounds like you have some definite feelings, too. So anything that you can provide. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well, I didn’t ask Tom because Tom works. This is going to have to be done. MR. SIPP-I don’t work. MR. VOLLARO-I need somebody who I can work with. MR. SEGULJIC-I will relay my concerns. MRS. STEFFAN-I wrote down eight things while we were talking. MR. SEGULJIC-Does it make sense now to spend a few minutes to go through them? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we spend a few minutes now to go through, is that legal? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see any reason why we can’t spend time now. If we can do it at home, we can do it here. MRS. STEFFAN-The items that I had written down was a cut and fill analysis on the driveway, the height of the house, we wanted that denoted, the applicant documents on the revised drawing submission, C.T. Male documents relating to the revised drawing from January, both of those things, because the applicant sent documents directly to C.T. Male without giving them to Staff. That was Item Three, and then Item Four is the C.T. Male documents relating to those revised drawings that were sent. Number Five, DEC permit clarification. Number Six, driveway infiltration trench revisions. Seven, a look at the impervious pavement as a driveway design option, and, eight, this was a Tom comment, on Drawing C, the stack stone wall, we needed to have a better drawing on the clearing above the wall, greater detail. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, the distance. MR. SIPP-I would add to that, a through cross section K there, they spell out the number of trees. They do say the variety, but they don’t say the number. MR. VOLLARO-In K Section. MR. SIPP-In K Section. Plus, define for me what this landscaping blanket is designed specifically to do. Is it for weed control or is it for erosion control? MR. VOLLARO-Okay. When we get together, we can chat about that. I see what you’re saying on that one. MR. SEGULJIC-And, Gretchen, with regards to the, you said absorption design? MRS. STEFFAN-Driveway infiltration trench revision. Because you asked for. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my thing is, on the drawing, he has a discharge point. He called it an absorption trench, but (lost words). My whole point is all of the stormwater should be absorbed before it goes into the wetland. There should be no discharge points. He had indicated soils are very suitable there. So this is just my comments. I think we want to see an absorption trench. So it’s all absorbed before it gets into the wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-Am I clear on, this is the point you’re talking about, right here? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, spaced every 50 feet or something. MR. VOLLARO-Right, 50 feet on center. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. SEGULJIC-(Lost words) direct discharge into the wetland. He’s taken a non point source and turned it into a point source. MR. VOLLARO-I understand what you’re saying. So really what you’re talking about is, one, removal of that point source, and, two, having it so that we get the greatest amount of infiltration. So we don’t need those. MR. SEGULJIC-So he doesn’t need those. MR. VOLLARO-Fifty foot on centers. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you. I see what you’re saying. I understand what you’re saying. MRS. BARDEN-How about elevation of the proposed house? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, she mentioned that. We need an elevation drawing. MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry. MR. VOLLARO-And we need a cut and fill analysis. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and what I’d like to see more detail on is they always talk about the road, but they have to work on both sides of the road. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they do. MR. SEGULJIC-Actually, you know, they show the road, but your disturbance is going to go beyond what the road actually is, closer to the wetlands. MR. VOLLARO-On the wetlands side. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. They’re going to be going, three, five feet, something down that way. MR. VOLLARO-I see where the permit speaks to only the uphill side. It doesn’t speak to the downhill side. I’ve got to ask that DEC a lot of questions about how do they view something like this, and did you really look at this drawing and do you understand that this road comes within, by drawing definition, five feet of the wetland? MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and their disturbance is even coming closer. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now how do you reconcile that with your 50 foot requirement? Are you negating your 50 feet when you say you approve this plan? Do you understand what you’re doing? That really concerns me. I can just see the folks up at DEC with the stamp, and that’s a big concern of mine. I want them to know what they’re doing up there. It’s our Town. We’ve got to protect it. That’s how I see it. Okay. A party of two are going to try to get to work on the conditions. Do you have anything on the no further subdivision? How do you feel about that? MR. METIVIER-I guess, I just don’t understand what, I don’t know, there’s something that just doesn’t sit right with me there. MR. VOLLARO-About putting it on or not putting it on? MR. METIVIER-About the fact that they don’t want to put it on. MR. VOLLARO-I have that reservation myself. MR. METIVIER-If he’s so adamant about doing this, you know, just do it. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MRS. BARDEN-Maybe they should show the adjoining properties in the rear, because if they’re saying any future access would be from somewhere other than Fox Hollow Lane, maybe you might want to get a good idea of where they might be able to access. MR. VOLLARO-I’d even like to see the drawing expanded a little to show me where Finch Pruyn is and those kind of. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Right now, I don’t know, particularly, where all of these pieces are and how they fit the puzzle. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-I don’t think we need to concern ourselves with that. We’re looking at this parcel of land, and we can’t look into the future, and what we believe, based on our conversations from last meeting and this meeting, is we feel strongly that there should be no further subdivision on this lot, as it exists right now. We can’t predict future conditions. MR. VOLLARO-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-And so it makes me suspicious that the applicant is adamant about no further subdivision, when we keep hearing that the applicant wants to be a good steward of the land, but yet won’t agree to no further subdivision. That part makes me suspicious, because it’s not congruent thinking. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve got you. Can we get. MRS. STEFFAN-I can e-mail you the things that I have, the list that I have. MR. VOLLARO-Would you do that? Will you call DEC tomorrow, what I will do, Susan, I will try, tonight, or tomorrow morning, to e-mail you my concerns about, on the permit. The pages, and what they say, and then going to their approval of a specific plan, and does that approval now wipe out 50 feet? I’ll get it to you in words, and you call them. MRS. BARDEN-And do you want, also, a question on the revised maps, whether or not they need to re-issue that permit? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, because tell her we have now been given new maps, and the basic change in those maps is the K Section. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a big change. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-The other thing, you know, well, I guess the letter from, the letter to C.T. Male, and the letter that he then writes as a result of that letter that he got, I wonder if we ought to get an updated drawing from Hutchins Engineering. MRS. BARDEN-On the septic? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the date on his drawing is 10/14, and Hutchins Engineering has got the two sections talking to test pits and percolation tests that C.T. Male talked about. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So it could be that Tom Hutchins ought to supply us with a drawing where it says, instead of 24 it should be 30, and that he wants to go down below the 60 feet for the test pit, or 60 inches, I’m sorry. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MR. VOLLARO-See, that’s what happens when people send stuff directly to C.T. Male. You folks get out of the loop and then we get to the point where we don’t have the data. MRS. BARDEN-It’s a mad dash for a signoff. MR. VOLLARO-That’s exactly what it is. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Do you want to talk about, again, the proposed local law regarding PO zone change? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You’re going to talk to Marilyn about the difference? MRS. BARDEN-I am, but it really does look like the other resolution that you have recently, there’s a different resolution that has a different number, and you will be asked for an advisory recommendation on that resolution at some time in the future. So, again, I think like I said previously, this really is a recommendation on PZ 1-2006. The most recent one that you have is a Town Board resolution 1.06-2006 on the moratorium aspect. MR. VOLLARO-What you’re saying is we’re answering the Marilyn Ryba letter of January 27, 2006. MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Where she describes in there the PO zone as she sends it to the Town Board. MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And then there may be another? MRS. BARDEN-Exactly. It’s a different resolution. MR. VOLLARO-So two different resolutions. One approving the zone and one approving the moratorium? MRS. BARDEN-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-Would you get that clarified, though, so we’re sure of that? Because I just don’t understand, when I get a copy of something that talks about that subject, and then, for your receipt and advisory recommendation. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Because we would have to make two of them. MRS. BARDEN-It does say, do you have the attached actual resolution setting the public hearing on proposed local law establishing a temporary moratorium? MR. VOLLARO-I do. MRS. BARDEN-It does say, again, that they are referring this to necessary agencies, including Queensbury Planning Board, for their advisory recommendation. So this is going to go through the same process as this one that is on your agenda for tonight to review. This will go to Warren County. This has been forwarded to you, and this will be on a future agenda for an advisory recommendation to the Town Board on this local law. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It should have been made a little clearer than that. It should have. See, I was looking at the fact that the first one, the second one said we’re going to put a moratorium on all this PO zone because, for example, the PORC Committee is currently going through a zoning look, and so we would put a moratorium on anything having to do with rezoning the PO, or determining, not rezoning the PO, but clarifying the PO. That’s what it really is. It’s not a change, clarifying, and that’s what I thought we were doing, that we were going to vote on the moratorium to stop all of that, and you’re saying that there’s really two here? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct. And you’ll get a future Staff notes, like you received from Marilyn, regarding the proposed local law change. Is it safe to ask if your public hearing is scheduled for the 27? th JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-So if they tabled this to the 28 meeting, I mean, should they go ahead and th do an advisory recommendation tonight, at least on that first part, now that I think we’re clear to keep things on schedule? I just really wanted you to clarify the date of when the public hearing was. MR. STROUGH-The public hearing is February 27. th MRS. BARDEN-Is February 27. Your next meeting is the 28. thth MR. VOLLARO-Yes. So we would be after the fact if we did this on the 28, as opposed to th tonight. So what you’re saying is to do a motion against Marilyn’s January 27 meeting, th which talks about the proposed Professional Office zone changes. MRS. BARDEN-That’s correct, if you’re comfortable with that. MR. VOLLARO-How does the Board feel about that? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m still confused, I have to admit. MR. SIPP-I wonder, if April 3 you’re going to have a hearing on the moratorium, if that rd doesn’t settle everybody’s hash right there, who’s worried about. MR. VOLLARO-About the zone itself. MR. SIPP-About the zone itself. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SIPP-Is it the 3, John? rd MR. STROUGH-The third, the moratorium hearing is the 3. rd MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SIPP-I mean, I see no harm if we want to do this tonight, approving or disapproving of it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can take a shot. April 3 is the moratorium discussion. So, if we rd do this tonight, we’re covering your 27 meeting. th MR. STROUGH-Yes, the Professional Office, 1,000 foot setback? Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SIPP-I see no harm in doing it. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t, either. MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PZ 1-2006 TO THE TOWN BOARD, AS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED TO ME AND TO MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2006, WHICH TRANSMITS MARILYN RYBA’S LETTER OF JANUARY 27, 2006, WHICH REFERENCES THE PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ZONE CHANGES, PZ 1-2006, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 02/21/06) Duly adopted this 21 day of February, 2006, by the following vote: st AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Seguljic ABSENT: Mr. Goetz, Mr. Ford MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The recommendation goes forward on the proposed Professional Office zone, and that covers you for your meeting on February 27. A little bit confusing sometimes. It was presented to us so it’s almost in a single package. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve also gotten a lot of documents on this Professional Office. So I think that’s where some of the ambiguity came from. I mean, we’ve got a stack of information on this now, and it was hard to sort through what was today and what was in preparation for the April meeting. That’s my point of view. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s mine, too, but I think you’re right, though. There’s no harm done in doing what we did. It covers them for the recommendation from this Board. With that, I’m going to adjourn this meeting. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 41