Loading...
2006-05-22 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 22, 2006 INDEX Site Plan No. 24-2005 Sean Garvey 1. Tax Map No. 303.6-1-5 Site Plan No. 5-2006 Stewarts Shops Corp. 1. MODIFICATION Tax Map No. 301.8-1-33 Site Plan No. 15-2006 Ralph Macchio 3. Tax Map No. 278-1-77, 13, 61, 75, 76 Site Plan No. 23-2006 The Great Escape Theme Park, LLC 22. Tax Map No. 288-1-61, 295.8-1-5 Site Plan No. 20-2006 Angio Dynamics 38. Tax Map No. 297.8-1-10 Site Plan No. 21-2006 Michael & Gail Dawson 39. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-21.2 Site Plan No. 22-2006 Martha Schmulbach 53. Tax Map No. 227.17-2-12 Site Plan No. 49-2005 Stark Group, Inc. 59. Tax Map No. 288.8-1-5.2 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 22, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY CHRIS HUNSINGER DONALD SIPP THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD TANYA BRUNO, ALTERNATE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN COUNSELOR-MILLER, MANNIX, SCHACHNER, & HAFNER-MICHAEL HILL STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI SITE PLAN NO. 24-2005 SEQR TYPE: II SEAN GARVEY OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: LI LOCATION: 483 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO THEIR SITE PLAN APPROVAL ORIGINALLY ISSUED ON 5/26/05. [PREVIOUS DESCRIPTION: APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1200 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP SHOWROOM. EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING USE IN THE LI ZONE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.] CROSS REFERENCE: SV 79-04, UV 62-97, SP 36-97, BP 97-725 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/11/05 LOT SIZE: 3.99 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.6-1-5 SECTION 179-9-020 SEAN GARVEY, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-You are, for the record, sir? MR. GARVEY-My name is Sean Garvey. I’m one of the owner of Garvey Volkswagen KIA, 43 Quaker Road in Queensbury. MR. VOLLARO-And I understand all you want to do tonight is get a one year extension on your Site Plan 25-2005? MR. GARVEY-Yes. Approximately one year ago, I got a site plan approval to expand the showroom of my Volkswagen KIA store at 43 Quaker Road. I’ve had a lot of difficulties with the two manufacturers agreeing on the expansion. It’s almost resolved, but not quite. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, does anyone want to make a motion on this? I have a motion prepared, that I can do. If anybody else wants to introduce, let them. Otherwise I’ll make the motion now. Okay, and no further public hearing is required since that was already done on 5/26/05. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 25-2005 SEAN GARVEY FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR THE SITE PLAN, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set, Mr. Garvey. MR. GARVEY-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN MODIFICATION 5-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED STEWARTS SHOPS CORP. AGENT(S): CHAD FOWLER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: NC-10 LOCATION: 347 AVIATION ROAD REMOVE EXISTING FUEL STORAGE TANKS AND REPLACE. INSTALL NEW CONCRETE ISLANDS AND PAD. INSTALL NEW CONCRETE DRIVE MAT, NEW CATCH BASIN, MOVE EXISTING DRYWELL, REPLACE CURB AT RIGHT ENTRANCE. PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTING SITE PLAN REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS. REF. SP 34-86, SP 40-86, SP 50-93, SP 20-94, SP 24-99, AV 92-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 7+/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-33 SECTION 179-9-020 CHAD FOWLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Good evening. For the record, you are? MR. FOWLER-My name is Chad Fowler. I work for Stewarts Shops. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, Chad. We only got this information tonight. MR. FOWLER-I understand, yes. MR. VOLLARO-And normally we don’t accept this information, any information, on the night of the meeting, because nobody’s had a chance to look at it, except in this case, we said we’d put you on. I think you did a good job in answering all of C.T. Male’s questions on their letter, and we do have a C.T. Male e-mail that we don’t have up here, but I understand Staff has it. Staff will read that e-mail into the record. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. I do have a cover letter from Stewarts dated May 17, and this is to th Jim Houston at C.T. Male, addressing their two comment letters, dated March 14 and May th 9, and in response to that, an e-mail from Jim Edwards today, the 22 of May. “We have thnd reviewed the response letter and revised plans provided by Stewarts. The response letter is dated May 17, and addresses our comments of March 14 and May 9. The plans also ththth reflect the revisions which correspond to those responses. In reviewing the revised information, we would concur the comments have been adequately addressed. The catch basins located in the paved areas contain trees and act as oil/water separators. The drywells have been removed from the pavement and placed in green areas as suggested. The relocated drywells act to exfiltrate the runoff and control overflow piping which connect to the existing detention basin. We would agree with this concept. The plans now contain adequate level of detail related to spot elevations and contours to better define grading and drainage design methodology. The only outstanding item that we noted on the submittal is the lack of a professional engineer stamp with a signature on the plans. If you should have any questions related to these items, feel free to call.” This is signed Jim Edwards. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. MR. VOLLARO-With that, the latest drawing that we have is 5/17/06. Is that correct? MR. FOWLER-That is correct, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So we’re looking at the latest drawing. All right. MRS. BARDEN-The connector road was removed from those drawings. MR. FORD-Bob, while you’re looking at that, could we have our tabling motion from the last meeting read, please. MRS. BARDEN-Sure. This is dated May 16. “MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2006 th STEWARTS SHOPS CORP. Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) Tabled to May 22. We’re looking for S-1 to reflect that you’re removing the interconnect and nd to respond to C.T. Male’s letters of March 14 and May 9 and C.T. Male sign-off. They have thth to have that information in by the end of business on May 17, 2006. Duly adopted this 16 day of May 2006 by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Ford” MR. FORD-Was there full compliance with that motion, the 17? th MRS. BARDEN-They did remove the interconnect on the submitted drawings. They addressed C.T. Male comments of March 14 and May 9, and C.T. Male signoff if final thth approved plans are stamped and signed by a P.E. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-With that, then, I’ll do the motion for Stewarts. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 5-2006 STEWARTS SHOPS, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: On Aviation Road in Queensbury. The approval is based on new drawings received showing elimination of the interconnect between Stewarts and the properties to the west. The date of that new drawing is 5/17/06, and it’s entitled “Remove the Connecting Road”. On the condition that the final drawing have a professional engineering stamp on it in accordance with the requirement from C.T. Male. Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger MR. VOLLARO-You’re all set. MR. FOWLER-Thank you very much, and thank you for hearing me regarding the extension and the expedited timeframe. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-All right. SITE PLAN NO. 15-2006 SEQR TYPE I RALPH MACCHIO AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS OWNER(S): SAME ZONING RR-3A, LC-10 LOCATION BETWEEN BAY RD. & RT. 9 OVER FRENCH MT. APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED FOREST ROADS FOR LOGGING & PERMANENT ACCESS TO MACCHIO LAND ON TOP OF FRENCH MT. RD. CONSTRUCTION REQUIRES 31.3 ACRES OF CLEARING/DISTURBANCE ON THE 5 PARCELS INVOLVED. DISTURBANCE GREATER THAN 5 ACRES ON ANY ONE PARCEL IN THE LC-ZONE OR OVER 2 ACRES IN THE RR-3A ZONE REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. NONE FOUND WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 4/12/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 525.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 278-1- 77, 13, 61, 75, 76 SECTION 179-6-010 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-I can tell you that we received this evening new information from Jarrett- Martin. We’re not going to review that information tonight. If you want to go forward with this meeting without the benefit of us looking at anything that was submitted by Jarrett- Martin, we will. If not, you can choose to pick this up on another evening, but we don’t have the information submitted recently by Jarrett-Martin. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor, I represent the applicant. With me is Ralph Macchio, who is the principal of the landowning LLC’s, and also with me is Tom Jarrett from Jarrett- 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) Martin. Probably, as I understand it, there are some procedural issues that need to be addressed, as much as the substantive issues, and I probably would try to address those tonight, understanding that you’ve got new information that you don’t want to look at the substance of what we’re talking about, and I raised the point with your Counsel before, and I think, I’m not sure what his final position is on it. Historically, this is perhaps confusing to some degree, and I ought to give you a little bit of the history. In early Spring of 2004, if you’ve got your overall map in front of you, I’ll refer to parcels by tax map numbers, so that you have an idea of what I’m speaking of. I’m looking at Sheet One of Three, drawing C-5. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. The parcel, in early Spring of 2004, the parcel to the farthest east of all these parcels, Tax Map ID No. 278-1-68, was owned by Stranahan Industries, Inc. They undertook to build a road, a forest road, a logging road, an access road, through their parcel into a parcel that was owned by Ralph Macchio at that time individually, which was Tax Map parcel 278-1-75. MR. VOLLARO-So far we’re still in Queensbury. I’m tracking you here? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And so we’ve talked about two parcels so far. MR. O'CONNOR-Right. Well, I still want to talk about 61. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-That construction was stopped, I know one time early in the Spring, I had a conversation with Craig Brown, and I think he and maybe George Hatin were on the premises or on their way to or from the premises, and they. MR. VOLLARO-That should be George Hilton? MR. O'CONNOR-Hilton. I’m sorry. MR. BROWN-It was Dave Hatin. MR. O'CONNOR-Was it Dave Hatin? MR. BROWN-It was Dave, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-It was Dave Hatin. I’m sorry. I did not, at that time, represent Stranahan Industries. I did not represent Ralph Macchio, and I got involved with it for the contractor that was putting the road in, and he called claiming to have an exemption from stormwater rules and regulations because he was basically putting in a forest road. I called Bill Lupo at DEC, after talking to Craig, and Craig said it was up to Bill Lupo to determine whether or not this was a forest road or not a forest road, in sum and substance, that was the conversation. I attempted to arrange for an on-site visit with Bill Lupo. I was not successful. I understand, though, he visited the site on June 16 and determined that they were not entitled to an th exemption for stormwater, and that they needed to apply for stormwater permit from DEC. That was the last that I heard from the Town in any manner. MR. VOLLARO-That was the one that was issued to Stranahan? MR. O’CONNOR-Stranahan, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Stranahan Industries actually retained other Counsel to deal with DEC at that point, and ultimately finished the construction of the road under a consent order, which was executed by the Commissioner or somebody on behalf of the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Ralph Macchio did not own that parcel at that time, during the period of construction. He did not acquire the property until sometime in December of 2004, December 16, I believe, and we can verify this with dates of deeds and th recording of deeds. I think the deed was dated December 16, it was recorded December 17 in thth 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) Warren County Clerk’s Office. It is, and it’s my understanding, in putting together the application that’s before you, Tom Jarrett questioned why we were going all the way from Bay Road over to the Lake George parcel in the Town of Lake George, and it was simply said that it would make it cleaner. Nobody had ever applied for a permit from the Town for the Stranahan parcel. I believe that is the case. I’m not aware, and I haven’t been able to discover anybody that applied for a permit for the Stranahan parcel. My point, though, in speaking so specifically about Parcel 61, that work was completed under a consent order from the Department of Environmental Conservation. There’s a long line of case law that says when construction is performed under a consent order, it is exempt from SEQRA. So in your considerations for SEQRA, in your considerations for jurisdiction for SEQRA purposes, I think you have to exclude Parcel 61 and the acreage that’s in Parcel 61. I gave Mr. Hill a quick look at the notes in McKinney’s. I’m sure that he’s going to want to take a look at that and see whether I’m correct or not correct, but that is our position, that that parcel is exempt from a SEQRA point of view. MR. VOLLARO-How many acres is that parcel? MR. O'CONNOR-That is where the clearing of, disturbance of 19.5 took place, and it’s the first parcel on the chart that I have which outlines the different parcels. That parcel, in December, as I indicated, was conveyed to South Bay Realty. South Bay Realty is not an entity of which Ralph Macchio has an ownership interest. That is owned, it’s a Limited Liability Company. It’s owned by Steven Macchio. From a zoning and technical point of view, it’s a separate ownership and it’s completely different than Ralph’s LLC. Ralph did not come into title in an entity that he controlled and owned until some time in mid-2005, a year, probably after the road was constructed and completed, under the DEC consent order. MR. VOLLARO-May I just ask a question, as you go? A question in my mind. The consent order, did it specify the width of the road and the type of road that it should be? Should it be a logging road or, how does the consent order read, do you know? MR. O'CONNOR-The consent order was based upon plans that were submitted by Tom Jarrett. Tom Jarrett was the engineer through that process, and the actual plans were submitted to DEC. They aren’t incorporated into the consent order itself. The consent order is between DEC and Stranahan Industries, Inc., and, Tom, I think you’ve submitted a full set of plans. They actually did on-site inspections, made suggestions, as I understand it, and worked through what they wanted to do to have it complete. This is not a road for future development. This is not a road that is there for purposes of trying to subdivide or something of that nature. I think some of the Board members have been up a portion of that road, probably a good portion of that road, coming east, going west from Bay Road. The road going down the other side of the mountain is much less substantial, and even probably more difficult to traverse. MR. FORD-We did make it, however. MR. O'CONNOR-You did, all the way? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Parcel Number 75 and Parcel Number 76 were conveyed to Mr. Macchio individually in 1987, by people by the name of Winslow. They were subsequently conveyed to French Mountain, Bear Pond, LLC, and that’s the entity that owns 76 and 75. Tax Map Parcel 13, and also the one above it, which is actually in Lake George, Tax Map parcel 278-3-1, were conveyed in 1969 to Mr. Macchio by John Stranahan, Sr. They ultimately were conveyed in July of 2005 to French Mountain, Bear Pond, LLC. At this point, the most easterly end of the road is owned by Bear Pond Trail, LLC. The middle portion of the road is owned by French Mountain, Bear Pond, LLC, and the parcel, Tax Map No. 278-1-77, was conveyed, in 2005, to Bear Pond Ranch, LLC. So the parcel on the west that’s in the Town of Queensbury, the intervening parcels, all were not owned by Macchio at the time that the road was constructed on Tax Map Parcel No. 278-1-61. So, from a SEQRA point of view, and also given the consent order, I believe that your SEQRA review is going to be of Tax Map Parcel 278-1-77, 278-1-13, and 278-1-76, and 278-1-75. I didn’t include Tax Map Parcel 277-04-2-22 or 278-3-1, because they are wholly within the Town of Lake George. An application was made to the Town of Lake George for the right to timber lands and for an access road, and they approved that and approved that access road and the right to timber. Lake George has already concluded its review. We happened to go back, not too long ago, and I’ve got copies of the 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) resolutions for you if you want, to get approval of two existing sand pits that were on Parcel No. 22, and at the conclusion of the meeting where they granted the site plan approval for those two sand pits, we also went back and we talked about the earlier approval for the access road that went through the parcels that are in Lake George. I believe that Lake George has concluded its review process, and based on that, and based upon the parcels that you have in front of you, clearly there’s no other agencies that are involved. MR. VOLLARO-The Adirondack Park Agency is not involved in this at all? MR. O'CONNOR-No. If you exclude, they’re not involved. MR. VOLLARO-My recent conversation with them on the phone says that they are. So we’ll have to square that away somehow or other. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’ve had a conversation with them also. They recognize the consent order. MR. VOLLARO-Who did you talk to? MR. O'CONNOR-I talked to Holly Neeshaw. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I talked to Mr. Grissee. So we’ve got to match pointers on that and see what’s going on. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. All right. So I don’t think you have other involved agencies, other than yourself, and that’s also a SEQRA issue, whether you’re going to be required to give notices or not give notices to other parties if you deem you’re going to be the Lead Agency. MR. VOLLARO-I think what we have to determine is, and I guess that’s got to be looked at in terms of 278-1-75, 278-1-13, 278-1-77, and to determine what the degree of disturbance is on those properties belonging to the Town of Queensbury. MR. O'CONNOR-I think you captured it correctly. We’ve probably also. MR. VOLLARO-I’d like to ask Counsel whether or not I’m on the right track with that. We have to determine what the degree of disturbance is, within the Town of Queensbury, first. There was originally, looked like 37 acres of disturbance here. Twenty-three of them are in the Town of Queensbury, or were when we looked at the parcels that were worked under a consent order. MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, that sounds correct. If I understand it, you’ll be looking at the effects within the Town of Queensbury. However, also for SEQRA, as you know, there’s a larger question about the overall scope of the project as well. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. MR. HILL-And with respect to Parcel No. 61, Mr. O’Connor, as he said, showed me a reference in law regarding the consent decree. We’d like to have an opportunity to review that as well. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. Okay. In terms of the properties that have been disturbed in Lake George, Counsel says that that has already been given a site plan review by the Planning Board in the Town of Lake George. I’m not sure how that plays into what I think the Adirondack Park is looking at. I think we’ve got to take a good look at that as well. MR. HILL-I think you have your question about the degree of involvement of the Adirondack Park, and I think that’s certainly appropriate for investigation to determine what their thought is on it. I’m not sure why the Town of Lake George didn’t contact you with respect to the question of coordinated review on SEQRA for this, but notwithstanding their apparent, or possible, I should say, oversight on that, there’s no reason why this Board shouldn’t thoroughly review the question of coordinated review. MR. HUNSINGER-I was going to ask the same question, if, when you went before the Town of Lake George, if your project showed the road crossing Tax Map 278-1-77, which is in the Town of Queensbury? 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. JARRETT-You’re asking did it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. JARRETT-It did. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. JARRETT-Yes, we presented the same map with the Lake George parcels highlighted. MR. HUNSINGER-So it still begs the question, I guess. MR. O'CONNOR-There were two presentations made to the Town of Lake George. One was made in connection with, early one was made by Evergreen Timber. I don’t know what mapping, Tom, was connected with that. When we did the presentation recently for the sandpits, I know that these maps were utilized. I don’t think you were involved with Evergreen Timber. MR. JARRETT-Not directly. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. We can verify what their record is, but they’ve completed their review. That involved Warren County Soil and water as part of their review, for references and for guidance. So I think some of the SEQRA issues you need to determine where you’re going. I think APA initially was thinking that while this could be beyond the 25 acre jurisdictional threshold for timbering and clear cut, and that’s why they initially may have thought, and I know that somebody has been up there and made a presentation actually to them. MR. VOLLARO-They’re also going to make another visit, a combined visit, in their office sometime in June, I can tell you that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well, I didn’t get that part this afternoon, but when you take out Parcel 61 and you take out Lake George, you end up with 9.6 acres that’s before this Board, and of that 9.64 acres, because half of 75, parcel tax map 278-1-75, was shown on the plans that were submitted with 61, that road was dead ended into the Macchio property and we can submit that to you. You’re talking maybe 10, maybe 11 acres, when you’re all said and done, from a SEQRA jurisdictional point of view, I think when you talk about your grading and clearing regulation that’s in the Town law, that goes down to five acres for jurisdiction, and we do show parcel 77, I believe, of 5.3. So we’re here for site plan review. There’s no doubt about that. The question is how broad an umbrella do we spread on this thing? And we’d be happy to talk about the substance, but I think you’ve indicated that that’s, you don’t think that’s appropriate. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think there’s several, first of all, the material that was submitted tonight, we’re not going to review, and that came from Tom Jarrett’s office. Secondly, there seems to be some review that Counsel would like to do, concerning the decree that you gave to him. There’s also the question of whether or not APA is an involved agency, and the other question is, if we’re over 10 acres, if there’s been over 10 acres of disturbance in the Town of Queensbury, then this still remains as a Type I SEQRA application. That’s in my view. I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, but I’d like to throw this open to the Board, get some comments from the Board and see how they feel about it. So, Tom, I’m going to start with you. MR. FORD-I’m interested in finding out what the exact status is, Mr. O’Connor has an understanding that Lake George has, I don’t know that they’ve signed off, but at least there doesn’t seem to be anything official. MR. O'CONNOR-I have resolutions. MR. FORD-Do you? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, I do. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. FORD-Okay, because I understand that there were some issues, some unresolved issues, relative to some buffers along protected streams and so forth, but that’s been resolved, and they’ve signed off on that? MR. O'CONNOR-Their resolution has a condition, and we are in the process of satisfying that condition. MR. FORD-Okay, but the condition has not been satisfied? MR. O'CONNOR-The condition, we think, has been satisfied. We haven’t had Water and Soil back up there because of the constant rain. We’re trying not to use that road under less than ideal circumstances. MR. FORD-I still would like to see where Lake George is on it. I’d like to see where APA is. Certainly we stand ready to proceed, but the other potential agency involvement is something I’d like to see explored. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, how do you feel on this one? MR. HUNSINGER-I think I feel the same way as Tom. The other thing that I would like to see, we did get a package of information from the Lake George Water Keeper that had copies of the DEC Notice of Violations, but I didn’t see the consent order in there. So I think that would be useful to have, a copy of the consent order. I think, you gave us a lot of information, Mr. O’Connor, verbally, but I’d like to see some of that in writing, you know, the deed dates and descriptions that you’ve provided, that was kind of hard to follow. MR. O'CONNOR-It was hard to put together. MR. HUNSINGER-I bet, but I would certainly feel comfortable moving forward on seeking Lead Agency Status, if the rest of the Board feels the same. MR. VOLLARO-I guess the first thing we have to do, Chris, if we’re going to do that, I think we’ve first got to determine, are we into an Unlisted or a Type I SEQRA. That’s my feeling, anyway. Are we out of the Type I category where there’s less than 10 acres of disturbance in the Town of Queensbury? If it’s over 10 acres, then we’re in a Type I. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we need Counsel’s input on that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I was going to ask Counsel that question. MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, I would offer in that regard, that the acreage question, I think, applies to the overall project, not simply to what’s specifically in the Town of Queensbury. Here we have a project that extends over a broader area, and it’s the entire acreage that would concerned. MR. VOLLARO-So it’s the whole 37 acres of disturbance, less what you find out, in terms of the decree order. I’m not clear on that, and neither are you, I don’t think, at this point. MR. HILL-Yes. I’m not sure that that makes a difference either, with respect to considering the totality of the project. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. MR. HILL-You’re welcome. MR. VOLLARO-With that determination, Chris, I think you’re right. I think we can go forward. I have a motion prepared to go forward with. If the Board wants me to, I’ll open the motion and make it, going for Lead Agent. MR. HUNSINGER-You still have some other Board members to hear from. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I would concur with that. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-I think we’d need a coordinated review, based on the packet of information that’s here, and no SEQRA’s been done on any part of the project to date. I certainly think we need to take the lead on that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, I would actually ask you to defer this decision until you have more advice from Counsel, so that we don’t spend a lot of time on the procedural issue, as opposed to substance. There is a substantial difference to the applicant whether or not you recognize the consent order as being controlling for SEQRA purposes and whether or not you recognize, regardless of how they did it, the Lake George approvals that we sit with. If you want to go down that road, that’s certainly the Board’s option, but I think a clearer path would be for Counsel to actually sit and look at the map that I’ve spoke of with some detail and determine what’s there. I understand that you talk about, from a site plan point of view, you may look at the cumulative impacts, but from a SEQRA point of view, that’s a different ballgame. MR. VOLLARO-I understand the chessboard here, I know what we’re doing, at least I think I do. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I don’t see a real difference. So excuse my ignorance. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a great legal difference MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think we’d rely on Counsel for that. I think Counsel has said that we would be looking at the whole parcel, the whole 37 acres of disturbance. The applicant’s Counsel seems to disagree. So I think that, in this particular case, I think the two attorneys should get together and make a determination perhaps. Our Counsel can advise us now if we should go forward and consider this a Type I and continue to make a motion for adopting, for requesting Lead Agency. MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, I certainly don’t see the downside in doing that. I think that that would serve to kick start the process. The other potentially involved agencies would have 30 days within which to respond, and Mr. O’Connor could certainly solicit them to provide their responses sooner than that 30 days, and if they do, and if they indicate no objection, or no desire to be Lead Agency, then you could be apprised of that before your next meeting, perhaps, and then move forward with your SEQRA review. So from the standpoint of moving the process along, there certainly doesn’t seem to be a downside to the Board declaring itself to be Lead Agency and circulating the necessary documents. That being said, if the applicant wants to, if the Board, rather, wants to take the applicant’s suggestion and have further conference between the Board’s Counsel and the applicant’s Counsel about it, that can be done also, but during that process obviously the coordination and so on is not taking place. MR. VOLLARO-In the interest of time, I think what we’ll do is we’ll go forward with your recommendation, and I’ll read this into the record. MR. HUNSINGER-I just had a quick question. I’m sorry to put you on the spot, or maybe I’m not, I guess it’s more for Mr. O’Connor, I guess when I said I didn’t see a difference, I mean, I certainly don’t see us acting on this tonight. So, even if we take your recommendation, we’re going to table it until next month, whereas if we request Lead Agency Status, other agencies would have 30 days to respond. So we’re still looking at next month. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I didn’t expect that you’re going to act on it tonight, in any event, but I also don’t believe that the APA has jurisdiction under any circumstances, and to send them an invitation to review your determination to be Lead Agent, and give the inference that they are an involved agency, clouds the issue substantially and gets us into about a six month process probably, as opposed to what should be a two month process. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-Their threshold is 25 acres. You exclude the area that is under the consent order, they’re nowhere near their threshold, and that’s the bottom line of it. MR. VOLLARO-Well, a lot of this, we’re going to have to lean on our Counsel for a lot of this, I believe. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ve suggested that you do that. MR. VOLLARO-However, I see no downside, as Counsel says, in going forward with at least, all of this can be shut down if our Counsel says, yes, the consent order is correct. The consent order eliminates the need for SEQRA review on that parcel. Then we can change course on this, but right now, I think, in the interest of time, I would like to get on the record with a motion to get this thing started. MR. HUNSINGER-Could I ask our Counsel a question, then, Mr. Chairman? MR. VOLLARO-Sure, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Assuming we move forward, seek Lead Agency Status, and in your review of prior precedent, you determine that the consent order satisfies DEC and APA requirements, so therefore we don’t meet the threshold for APA review, what would that do? Would we then be obligated to send a letter to APA saying they no longer have jurisdiction? MR. HILL-I suppose under the circumstances you could call that to APA’s attention, but it still wouldn’t, you would still, I think, be in a situation where coordinated review was appropriate. So, if they’re involvement was not appropriate, for whatever reason, they could be made aware of that fact. Whether they would contest an attempt to suggest that they’re not appropriate as an involved agency, I can’t speak to that. I don’t know what their reaction might be, but certainly they could be made aware of it. MR. O'CONNOR-I would be happy to send a jurisdictional inquiry to the APA, which they are supposed to respond to within 15 days, which would give you a black and white answer from a third party, as well as my giving you my opinion and Mr. Hill either agreeing or disagreeing with that opinion. I think it’s black letter law that I’m talking about. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, wouldn’t you want Staff to do that? MR. VOLLARO-As long as, I would ask the Zoning Administrator that question, as to whether Staff would want to send something up certified mail to the APA. MR. BROWN-Well, I think if it’s the jurisdictional inquiry form, that comes clearly from the applicant. If you guys decide to go forward with seeking Lead Agency, the notification of whatever agencies you’d like us to notify, we do that part, that’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I understand. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s a lot of background information that you put on a jurisdictional inquiry, that tells them everything that, the history of the property and what not, pretty much like my oral presentation to you, and then they make a determination based upon that with caveats, based upon what is submitted having been correct, here is our opinion, and it’s typical. If you thought, we did not list APA, I don’t believe, on our, and we did not think that they were until we started talking the last couple of days with Staff, that they were of the mind that they would be notified. We did not think that they would be notified at all. MR. HILL-Mr. Chairman, if you wish, if Mr. O’Connor is offering to send the jurisdictional inquiry form to resolve the question of the APA’s involvement, there’s no obligation for you to declare Lead Agency tonight. You’re welcome to take him up on his invitation if you wish to do so, obviously. MR. VOLLARO-Well, respectfully, if he does send something up to the APA, I would ask him to send it certified letter return receipt required, because in my discussions with APA in the past, and in our actions with APA in the past, on other things that we had to do with them, they requested that if you really need to know something from them, get it certified mail, return receipt required, otherwise it goes through some normal channel. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-I’d be happy to do that, and I’d be happy to copy the Board and Counsel with the full package that I send to them. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, because the way I had prepared our motion, I talk about a re- submittal of Part I, the Full EAF, listing all of the involved agencies, and one of the things I had in mind when I said that, when I wrote this down, was that the APA was not a listed agency in Part I of your SEQRA return. MR. O'CONNOR-We understood that. MR. VOLLARO-How does the Board feel? Do we want to go forward with this, given what our Counsel has just said, and see whether or not the APA is an involved agency or not? MR. SEGULJIC-I believe we should move forward with seeking Lead Agency . MR. SIPP-Yes, we should go forward. MR. FORD-I don’t have a problem with the Lead Agency Status. I disagree with Mr. O’Connor, but he has a lot more legal background than I, but I see no reason why APA should not be approached to make a determination whether they, in fact, should not be the Lead Agency. MR. HUNSINGER-Based on our Counsel’s last comment, I would feel comfortable tabling this, pending APA jurisdictional determination. Basically, the way I see it, the applicant seems very confident that they have no jurisdiction. The only downside is they come back and say they do have jurisdiction. So a month from now, you know, we’re going to be declaring Lead Agency Status. So I feel like the applicant’s taking the risk, if we just move forward on a tabling motion, pending APA jurisdictional determination. I don’t see a downside for us, is what I mean. It’s all on his shoulders. MRS. STEFFAN-It doesn’t matter either way. Everything’s going to change in a month. MR. SEGULJIC-Does, typically the applicant send a determination to the APA? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-They have a regular form, four page form. MR. SEGULJIC-My only problem is, there’s two sides to every story. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, he offered to give us a copy of the complete package. So we’ll have all the information, plus the other things that we’ve requested. MR. SEGULJIC-But then we lose control. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t see how we do. MR. O'CONNOR-The inquiry is a factual type inquiry. It’s not opinion. MR. FORD-There isn’t a narrative section in there where you offer your opinion? MR. O'CONNOR-There will be a narrative section where I talk about, the enclosed consent order, I believe, satisfies SEQRA on Tax Map Parcel No. 61. A consent order is entered into. Maybe you don’t understand a consent order. A consent order, and some of the cases will talk about it, basically in entering into a consent order, the agency that’s involved does environmental review. That’s part and parcel of what they, they take a look at all of the impacts that you have, and they ask for what is appropriate in the nature of correction, mitigation, whatever there is, and that’s the way of resolving an environmental issue, whether it be, DEC uses consent orders on a regular basis. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re assumption is it’s complied with. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-We can show you that it was complied with. MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, there’s two sides to every story. MR. O'CONNOR-We have a letter from DEC. MR. SEGULJIC-There’s no downside to seeking Lead Agency Status tonight, can’t we later, with APA? MR. VOLLARO-I tend to feel that way, that I would just as soon go forward with seeking it, and if APA bows out of this thing, then we have another course to steer, perhaps, but I don’t like to lose the time because there’s another 30 days involved. Let’s say that APA said we are an involved agency, by their own, then we’ve got to go forward and it will take 30 days for the Lead Agency to be determined. Even if you request Lead Agency Status there’s a 30 day period before Lead Agency is actually established. MR. HILL-Well, that’s to allow the other potential Lead Agencies to make any assertion that they might want to make. MR. VOLLARO-For themselves to be Lead Agents. MR. HILL-Right. Typically in most cases I think it’s fair to say most other potentially are going to defer to you. MR. VOLLARO-In that case, I don’t see any downside in going forward. I understand where Mr. Hunsinger is going. I think he’s got some valid reasoning there as well. I’d certainly just like, in the interesting of timing here, I would like to go forward with this, and then if the APA bows out, and if the decree order, if you determine that decree order is valid and remove that one large parcel from Queensbury’s jurisdiction, then we’ll have to take another look at it, but I think, as long as we’re, big question in my mind is, is there at least 10 acres of disturbance? Because that’s our threshold for a Type I SEQRA, I believe. I guess I should ask you that question. MR. HILL-I think that question, if I’m not mistaken, has already been answered, regardless of Parcel No. 61. I think separate and apart from Parcel No. 61 there’s more than 10 acres being disturbed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s still a Type I. The only thing that’s eliminated from that possibly is whether the APA’s an involved agency or not. Is that reasonable? MR. HILL-I think so. I think that the question would be whether or not the APA has any jurisdiction at all here, and if they do, then they’re a potentially involved agency. If they don’t have any decision-making authority, separate and apart from the SEQRA procedure itself, then they’re not going to be an involved agency. MR. VOLLARO-And they can let us know that when Mr. O’Connor sends the package up to them, and if they say we don’t see ourselves as an involved agency, we still are going forward. The only difference there is that we wouldn’t be sending that information up to them as an involved agency. That’s how I see it. In other words, we go forward tonight, seeking Lead Agency Status, and if the APA says, well, we’re not involved, so then that means that their Part I does not have to be revised. Because right now their Part I does not include APA. It’s missing. MR. HILL-Yes. If you decide to seek Lead Agency Status this evening, you can make the inquiry with APA, assuming that they’re an involved agency, and you can await their response. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I would prefer to do. I just want to see whether, Chris, I know your stand on it, and it’s valid. MR. FORD-We’re going to seek Lead Agency Status while also assuming that APA has? MR. VOLLARO-May or may not. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. HILL-You can seek Lead Agency Status, under the assumption that APA is a potentially involved agency, that they have some decision making that they’re going to exercise with respect to this proposed project, and there’s a 30 day period within which APA has to respond to let you know whether they’re going to seek Lead Agency Status themselves, or, presumably, if they have no decision making involvement in this, you may get a response from them stating to that effect, but, in any event, the expiration of the 30 days, if they haven’t sought Lead Agency Status, and no other Lead Agency has similarly sought Lead Agency Status, then by default this Planning Board would be the Lead Agency for the purposes of SEQRA review. MR. HUNSINGER-If we do move forward in that direction, and seek Lead Agency Status, does that preclude the applicant from requesting the jurisdictional determination and does our action in any way influence APA’s review of any jurisdictional review? MR. HILL-I would think that the answer to both of your questions would be no. Mr. O’Connor certainly, or the applicant would certainly not be precluded from submitting a jurisdictional inquiry form if he wishes to do so, and I don’t imagine that this Board’s inquiry of the APA, with respect to whether, rather alerting it to your SEQRA review, and to your request that they indicate whether they want to be Lead Agency, that, in itself, I don’t imagine, is going to implicate, necessarily, any reaction on the part of the APA. Mr. O’Connor may think differently, I don’t know, but I don’t think it will necessarily precipitate anything. MR. HUNSINGER-Would you like to comment, Mr. O’Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-That’s my whole purpose of offering to go for the jurisdictional inquiry ahead of time. I think it does influence them. I think it does prejudice the applicant. I just will note for the record my strong objection to your going forward on the premise that APA is an involved agency, and even the Town of Lake George is an involved agency, where there are resolutions approving the project, or portions of the project that are within the Town. They’re not in the process of making any discretionary determination. The SEQRA law is pretty clear as to who are involved agencies and who aren’t, at most, at this point, probably Lake George would be considered an interested agency which is a legal distinction, again, but this is a case where we’re going to have to follow the legalities of what you’re doing and not just decide what you feel like you would like to do, and I’d say that respectfully. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we are seeking our own Counsel as to what to do here. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’m not going to accomplish much, but I have noted my objection. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, have you got a resolution prepared? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I do. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, before we do that, what about the public hearing? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we can open the public hearing and the public hearing will remain open, obviously, on this. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. VOLLARO-I think now that we’ve gone through what we’ve gone through, it might be prudent for us to ask for comments from the public on this. I wasn’t planning on going this long with this application tonight. I almost thought we were going to seek Lead Agency Status and that was it, but I know there are people here that would like to comment on this application, and I would like to hear what the Board, how the Board feels about that, going forward with that? MR. SEGULJIC-I think we should move forward and seek Lead Agency. Leave the public hearing open. MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, the public hearing was advertised, and I believe that there are folks here that came to talk about it. So I think we should hear them. MR. VOLLARO-I also feel that way. Chris? 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say the same. I mean, maybe because everybody knows that it will heard again by the Board, maybe we could limit comments to two minutes or something. MR. FORD-As long as we open it and keep it open. MR. VOLLARO-It will stay open, and with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, should we vote on a resolution and then hear public comment? MR. VOLLARO-No. Let’s hear public comment, and then I’ve got a resolution prepared. I’ll do it pretty quickly. Is there anybody here who would like to comment on the application that’s been discussed this evening? JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. With regard to SEQRA and the order on consent, I believe, and I don’t have my SEQRA text with me tonight, and I do apologize, but I believe the language of SEQRA deals with enforcement action. There are many enforcement actions that never reach an order on consent. For instance, if there was a small oil spill due to a leaky valve some place on the side of a road, and DEC responded to that, they would enforce the clean up of that. There would be no time for an order on consent. There would be no time for a SEQRA review, and that’s why that’s in the SEQRA law. It’s not necessary to do an environmental review to clean up a spill, if you will, but something like this road, Mr. Hill’s comments are well taken. A road is a system. It has a beginning and it has an end, and all components of it, whether it’s the drainage, the slope, all of it is a system that flows from one end from another, and not to consider it that way is gross segmentation under SEQRA. So, I would agree that your jurisdiction should include from the beginning to the end of this road. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak to this application? I know there are people out there. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. I’d submitted information to the Board already. I also feel that there’s a number of items in the Town Code that is not compliant. I probably won’t get through that in two minutes, but I’d like to, I have copies that I’d like to hand out after that. Such concerns as clearing within 35 feet, extending inland from all points along mean high water of shorelines of lakes, ponds, streams, swamps and wetlands, no vegetation may be removed. I think that’s clearly been a violation there. Again, talking about re-vegetation along these shorelines, about buffer strips. Again, as mentioned about the Warren County Soil and Water, but they were only asked to address by the Town of Lake George only 300 feet of a stream. That’s clearly stated, only 300 feet of a stream. So there’s a lot of areas that have not been addressed by them. Again, talking about the potential of filling, placing fills in waters of lakes, streams, ponds, and wetlands. I think there could be areas that that can be applicable. When land is exposed during development, the exposure should be kept to the shortest practical period of time and smallest amount of land possible. I think there’s photos that can show that that is not applicable. Again, so I’d like to submit this for the Board to take a look at. There’s talk about erosion, cuts and fills shall not endanger adjoining properties and divert water onto other properties. I think there’s information, fill materials shall be composed of suitable material and should be free of rubbish and such content as brush and stumps. I think that that’s an applicable section that should be taken a look at. Fill should not encroach, again, on natural water courses, constructed streams. I’ve cited all these sections in there. So I’d like to pass that out for the Board to consider. Also, you know, talk about the Town of Lake George completed their review. I think there’s also some conditions about the potential screening. This road is highly visible from the Northway. Maybe not as prevalent right now, but about seven months, eight months of the year it is. They actually asked to take a look at this again, at the later summer months. So that’s not been completed. SEQRA, again, there’s a lot of talk about SEQRA and getting around that, but also, you know, this is a road. It’s in the application as a road. I think a road should be required to be designed to the Town’s stormwater requirements. There’s been some addressing to DEC requirements, but that’s not to the level of the Town’s stormwater. Again, I wrote letters to the Town of Lake George about, and I copied the Town of Queensbury, about 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) a coordinated review. I don’t even recall, and I was at the Town of Lake George. I don’t even recall the Town of Lake George doing any SEQRA review. So I think there should be some research on that. So I think there should be some research on that. So I think there’s a lot of information. There’s a lot of concerns. The APA has been contacted on this. There’s different involved staff members at the Agency. So, people that may be involved in enforcement may not know the actual staff comments. So there should be, I support the Board going ahead with that and getting a coordinated review. So I’d like to submit this for the Board members. MR. VOLLARO-And one can go to Staff as well. MR. NAVITSKY-That’s all. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-I had a question on the previous submission from Mr. Navitsky. I mean, it’s really not so much for him, but for either Staff or Counsel. In our package was this report dated March 28, 2006, and I don’t know if Counsel has looked at it, but in here there were a number of citations where he’s claiming the applicant violated the Town of Lake George Code, and it was really site plan review type issues, and I’m just asking the question, how should we interpret that? Because I have to admit, when I read that, I was really feeling that, you know, if it’s a SEQRA issue, it certainly has some concern of ours, but if they violated the Town of Lake George site plan, we really have no jurisdiction. MR. HILL-Mr. Hunsinger, I’m not familiar with the report that you’re speaking of. I haven’t seen it, I haven’t seen the citations to it, but if the violations that are alleged to have occurred are of the Town of Lake George Code, then I think you’re right. I think that’s something that may be a matter of concern for the Town of Lake George. Certainly it’s less so a concern for the Town of Queensbury, particularly, I mean, we obviously have no enforcement authority with respect to the Town of Lake George Code. So I’m not sure that my comment’s fully responsive, but, again, I haven’t seen the document that you’re referring to. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, all right. I just sort of asked you while the whole Board was here and while the public was here, so that it was on record, that first of all, I guess that these concerns had been raised, but secondly that it’s outside the jurisdiction of this Board. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to put you on the spot. MR. NAVITSKY-I’m used to that, but actually I’d like to clarify that. I was not, when I drafted that report, we were not aware of where that road was actually located. It appeared that, in the way the application was presented, and that report was focusing on the western side of French Mountain, not the entire, and this, the information I’d like to submit this evening, deals strictly with the Town of Queensbury. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NAVITSKY-We were not sure where that road was located, whether it was in the Town of Queensbury, Town of Lake George. I copied the Board because I was interested in letting you know concerns of myself and others in the public, and you’re absolutely right that those are sited in the Town of Lake George and that probably is nothing that you should be concerned about. However, I did want to bring this, the level of our concern and where those areas were and just provide you that information. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. NAVITSKY-I did raise those at the Town of Lake George and obviously they didn’t listen either. So that’s all I can say on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-So if I could submit this. MR. VOLLARO-Give one copy of that to Staff and one to each member of the Board. MR. FORD-Do you mind withdrawing the either, because we listen. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-While that’s going on, is there somebody else in the audience that would like to speak to this? 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) JOHN HARWICK MR. HARWICK-Members of the Board, my name is John Harwick. I’m an attorney with Hacker and Murphy. I’m here representing the interests of Stranahan Industries, Inc. and the minority and majority shareholders of that corporation. I know our time tonight is going to be limited, so I’ll be brief, with the understanding that we’ll have an opportunity for further comment and submission of written materials. The major point I’d like to bring to the Board’s attention is right now pending in Warren County Supreme Court, before Judge Kroggman, is an action challenging the ownership of the main parcel here, 1347 Bay Road, and that’s the parcel that was, according to Mr. O’Connor, previously owned by Stranahan Industries, Inc., and transferred to his client’s son’s company and then transferred from his son’s company to his client’s company, Bear Pond Trail, LLC. Currently there’s a temporary restraining order in place, signed by Judge Kroggman, that prohibits Mr. Macchio or any of his entities from taking any further action to do anything on this road, to construct it, repair it, alter it, or do anything. Judge Kroggman also issued an order, recently, that found that my client’s have met their initial burden to show that their initial transfers from Stranahan Industries, Inc. to South Bay Realty was void, as a matter of law. That issue is going to be heard at an evidentiary hearing in the coming three or four months, and what we would request from this Board is that any determination regarding the permitting or possible violations regarding 1347 Bay Road be held off until there’s a determination as to who actually owns this parcel, because it’s my client’s intent, once they get the parcel back and the ownership is clarified and they are declared the true owner of the parcel, is to not go any further with this road and perform remediation on the portion of the road that’s on their property. So I have previously submitted to the Board two orders. The first TRO executed by Judge Kroggman on September 14, 2005, and then the more recent order of Judge Kroggman finding that we’ve met our initial burden to show the sale was void on March 13, 2006. We would just request that the Board seek its Counsel’s advice as to the effect of the possible discrepancy in ownership of one of the main parcels involved in this litigation. We further have evidence, and we’d like to submit to the Board, proof, that this road was really being built as a joint venture between Mr. Macchio himself and David Stranahan who was a former shareholder and former purporting actor and president of Stranahan Industries, Inc. So it’s a little disingenuous to come before the Board and say that Mr. Macchio had nothing to do with this road until he acquired it from his son’s company some time in 2005. The evidence that we have, sworn testimony, contractual evidence, shows that Mr. Macchio and David Stranahan were in a joint venture to build this road up the mountain and they jointly retained engineers and contractors to build this road. So that should also be taken into account when Mr. Macchio comes here and says he’s got clean hands and he didn’t know anything about this and has no excuse for not seeking the pre-approval for this quite large permanent road. Initially it was called the logging road, and everybody that’s looked at it has now realized that it’s going to be a permanent access road, and I believe the petitioner’s application also calls it a permanent access road. We also finally disagree with Mr. O’Connor’s interpretation of the consent order in relation to its effect on SEQRA review, and we would respectfully request that we be allowed to participate in the discussion of that legal issue with the Town’s Counsel and reserve the right to submit, in writing, our position regarding that important issue. MR. VOLLARO-Let me just ask the Town Counsel, are you in agreement with the attorney’s position on a collective review of the order? MR. HILL-With respect to the consent decree? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. HILL-I think I’ll leave that up to the Board. If the Board wants us to participate with the other Counsel, we’ll certainly do that. I don’t see the necessity of it, but it’s up to the Board. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILL-It’s in the Board’s discretion. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MR. HILL-You’re welcome. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. HARWICK-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you very much. Anybody else who’d like to talk to this application? Okay. With that, I’m going to leave the public hearing open. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, I do have some written comments. Do you want me to read them into the record now, or wait? MR. VOLLARO-How long are they? MRS. BARDEN-Two letters, three letters and some pictures. Not long. Two letters. MR. VOLLARO-In the interest of time, how does the Board feel? They are a matter of record? MRS. BARDEN-Yes, they are. MR. VOLLARO-They’re a matter of our record, at least. They don’t necessarily have to be read into the record tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-They could be copied and sent to us for the next time we review it. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-That would be good. MR. FORD-As part of the public comment, I, personally, would like to have them read into the record. MR. VOLLARO-You would? Okay. How does the Board feel, do you want these letters read, or do you want them to come to us as documentation? MRS. STEFFAN-They could come as documentation. MR. VOLLARO-Does somebody else want to speak to this application, that I don’t know of? Come right up, don’t be bashful. DON POLUNCI MR. POLUNCI-I won’t read the whole letter that I’ve submitted, but I would like to make a statement. She has a copy of my letter. My name is Don Polunci. I’m the President of the Southern Adirondack Audubon Society, and I would just like to say that the Board of the Southern Adirondack Audubon Society strongly recommends that a SEQRA be required before the Queensbury Planning Board considers approval of any phase of construction or development of this land. My reasons are stated in the letter. I’ll keep it short, and if everybody would read that, we certainly would appreciate it. Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-Thank you. Would Staff just send us copies of the letter? MRS. BARDEN-I will. MR. VOLLARO-Send us copies of the letter so we can read them, as part of the record, and with that, will the applicant come back up again. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll be very brief. Just so the record is complete and together, this was an enforcement action by DEC. There was a Notice of Violation. I think it was followed by a second Notice of Violation, and then a consent order was part of their enforcement, which I think falls within the exemption or the rights that SEQRA are no longer applicable to the actions that are taken under that, and Counsel will advise you one way or another. There is an action pending in Supreme Court. I’m not Counsel to Mr. Macchio in that action, but my understanding is that there is also a Temporary Restraining Order against the Stranahan’s going on the property and there’s like a hold still or both parties are supposed to restrain from doing anything further on the property. My understanding of the second order that was dated in March is different than that of Mr. Harwick, but lawyers seldom do agree. That’s basically it, for the purpose of your record. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Thank you, Counselor. MR. FORD-I have a question for Mr. O’Connor. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. FORD-Is a part of that DEC order, did that involve any fines? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, it did. MR. SEGULJIC-I think it’s important for the Board to recall, there were two Notice of Violations issued, then a consent order. MR. O'CONNOR-One was supplemental to the other, with detail as to what was to be done. It was not, there was, work was stopped. It wasn’t, my understanding, and I’ll verify it by record, there was no further work done between the two different orders. I think one had to do with broadening the parties that were involved. I don’t have a copy of the second Notice of Violation. I was told of that today, and I will find a copy of that and make it part of the packet for you. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we got it from Mr. Navitsky. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we got it from Mr. Navitsky. MR. HUNSINGER-Both letters, yes, but not the actual consent order itself. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I’ll get you the consent order. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Anybody else? With that, I’m going to leave the public hearing open. This public hearing will stay open, and with that, I think I’m going to go forward with a resolution that I’ve written. I might have to revise it a little as I go, but I think we’ll go forward with it and see whether we get a second to this motion or not. Whereas the Site Plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following, and that would be that the applicant has constructed forest roads for logging and permanent access to Macchio land on top of French Mountain Road. Construction requires 31.3 acres of clearing and disturbance on the five parcels involved. Disturbance greater than five on any one parcel in the LC zone or over two acres in the RR-3A zone requires site plan review by the Planning Board. The Planning Board may begin a SEQRA discussion and may seek Lead Agency Status at this meeting, and that describes what’s before us. Whereas a public hearing was advertised and was held on today, 5/22/06. Whereas this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record, and also we’d require new materials to be submitted to that file of record. A determination that this is a Type I SEQRA action by the Queensbury Planning Board and will seek Lead Agency Status in a coordinated SEQRA review. This is the part that I think I might have to modify. I have it that the applicant will re-submit Part I of SEQRA, Full EAF, listing all involved agencies. Once completed, all relevant material will be submitted to involved agencies, together with a request that the Town of Queensbury be granted Lead Agency Status. I think the question has to be resolved, in that particular section, whether the APA is an involved agency or not, or declares itself to be such, and with that, I would table this application to an unspecified date, well, it’s 30 days, but there’s still unresolved issues that have to be resolved and that’s why I’ve got it unspecified. I think the validity of the decree has to be established by our attorney, in conjunction with Mr. O’Connor, and there’s other things that are involved here before we can come up to any specified date like 30 days. Thirty days applies when we actually submit the Part I to all other involved agencies for review, and it’s after that, my understanding, that the 30 day clock runs to determine who the Lead Agency will be. MR. HILL-Just to be clear, the Board can go ahead and declare itself to be Lead Agency, and that doesn’t necessarily depend on any further review with respect to Parcel No. 61 and the consent decree. It’s been established through review of the documents. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HILL-Correct me if I’m wrong, but that more than 10 acres is being disturbed here, separate and apart from any consideration with respect to Parcel No. 61. So I think you’re 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) clearly in the Type I arena and you can move forward without the need to qualify seeking Lead Agency on the basis of any review of Parcel No. 61. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, thank you, and we’ll make that comment by Counsel as part of the motion. MR. BROWN-Yes. I guess my comment would be, you know, administratively, we try and track the path of this application. If you were to table this to the second June meeting, which would be the 27, it would be kind of a control where we can check back in and see what the th responses were to the 30 day period for seeking Lead Agency and at the point, if you have, you know, negative responses from everyone that you send these inquiries to, you could start SEQRA review at that point, and I’m sure that the applicant’s not going to disagree with that June 27 date. th MR. VOLLARO-That would be fine. We’ll table until June 27, 2006. MR. BROWN-That’s the second June meeting. MR. O'CONNOR-Do I understand Staff comments that you’re going to take the pending application and circulate it on the 30 day notice? MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. O'CONNOR-Without the revision of Part I, which I don’t think really makes a big difference, if the revision you’re asking for is a listing of a new party as a possible involved agency. Just so I understand that you are going to go ahead and you are going to send out the notices to those agencies that the Board has indicated, and the Board has indicated that they want it sent to the APA, in addition to those that we listed? I’m just trying to make sure we stay out of the mud as much as we can. MR. VOLLARO-Normally the Part I that you develop, you list the involved agencies, and you did not list the APA as an involved agency on the Part I you submitted. MR. O'CONNOR-Right, intentionally. MR. VOLLARO-Intentionally, I understand that. MR. BROWN-And that was going to be my next part of my comment was, to be clear for us, for Staff, so we forward this application in the manner you want us to, if you could just run down, as part of this resolution, who it is that you wish us to forward this to, that would be great. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Well, I’ll do my best. I think the run down, and I’ll take a look at what they’ve submitted already in their Part I. I think the only, I’ll have to look. There are only two inputs on this. One is site plan review by this Planning Board, and the other one is DEC in terms of their SPDES report. I would like to add the APA to that. I’m not sure that Army Corps is involved here at all. I don’t think so. So I would not make them an involved agency. I think the only other involved agency might be the Town of Lake George, and the Adirondack Park Agency. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Now, I checked into Warren County Planning with Craig some time ago. Warren County Planning doesn’t do this. MR. BROWN-They don’t necessarily issue an approval. They issue a recommendation to this Board. So I don’t see them as being an involved agency. MR. O'CONNOR-I believe they already have. MR. BROWN-Yes, and I think they have, by the way. MR. O'CONNOR-They gave you a recommendation of No County Impact. MR. VOLLARO-Right. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. HUNSINGER-So it’s just those three, DEC, APA, and then Town of Lake George. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, that’s correct. MR. O'CONNOR-You say Lake George, are you saying Lake George? MR. VOLLARO-I would say the Town of Lake George. MR. O'CONNOR-No, the Lake George Planning Board, I think. MR. BROWN-The Town of Lake George Planning Board. MR. O'CONNOR-The Town of Lake George, their Planning Board has jurisdiction over site plan review. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It’s the Lake George Planning Board, yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. FORD-I may be inaccurate in this, but from the contact I’ve had with the U.S. Corps, if that water eventually becomes a part of the navigable water of New York State or beyond, then it’s it possible that the U.S. Corps of Engineers would be an involved agency? MR. BROWN-There’s that potential. I guess we can, it’s your discretion. Whoever you want us to send it to, we can send it to whoever you feel is going to be an involved agency. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, let’s add that. MR. FORD-I’d add that. MR. O'CONNOR-What is the basis for that, Mr. Ford? There’s no Army Corps wetland on the site. MR. VOLLARO-It hasn’t been identified, right? MR. O'CONNOR-Well, on our Part I, we indicate no Army Corps wetland. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, they do. MR. O'CONNOR-So, typically I think, unless somebody identifies that, they’re not the agency that is giving a determination. All water ends up some place on a navigable body of water. If you did that, if you follow your thought. MR. FORD-It’s not my thought, Mr. O’Connor. It’s the U.S. Corps’. MR. SEGULJIC-What harm is that? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it was just pointed out to me that, in the Staff notes, the Army Corps of Engineers is included. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It says, the applicant, Part I submitted EAF shows the New York State DEC as an involved agency for SPDES. Other possible involved agencies are the APA, ACOE and the Town of Lake George Planning Board. So, we can include the Army Corps of Engineers in there, on your recommendation. If not, we will pull it out. MR. BROWN-You can, and I don’t think the notes were a recommendation. As you know, what our Staff notes try and do is exhaust as many possibilities and I think you have to weigh it out and see if it rises to the top. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what’s the downside to sending them a copy of this? I don’t see any. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. O'CONNOR-Their telling us that we’ve got to do a $15,000 wetlands study on the 360 acres here to show them that there is no Army Corps wetland on it. Once you open the door to any of these agencies, they think nothing of spending an applicant’s money, your taxpayer’s money, and if there’s no practical reason. MR. FORD-I understand that, Mr. O’Connor, but in contact with the U.S. Corps, and going to their workshops and so forth, they maintain that water running off from lands such as this, in the Lake George basin, eventually winding up in Lake George, or Lake Champlain or the canal system, that they have some jurisdiction. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. This is in the water shed of Lake Champlain, just for your record. It’s not in the Lake George basin, which is a distinction, maybe without point. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-I believe there’s been a motion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is. MR. SEGULJIC-And I will second that. MR. BROWN-Actually, could I just clarify, before we go too far? We probably want to have two motions. One to seek Lead Agency Status, and a second motion to table it. So you want to keep the two of them separate. So, I don’t know, you kind of mixed them together there when you were doing your motion. MR. VOLLARO-Well, yes, because normally we have one motion that covers everything. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-We don’t usually have two, but we can certainly say we’re going to make a separate motion to table this to June 27, 2006. MR. BROWN-I just want to be clear, that it doesn’t get lost in there some place. MR. VOLLARO-So, we can do two. If it’s best for you to do two, from Staff control point of view, yes. MR. BROWN-That would be good. MS. GAGLIARDI-I think in the past you have done two. When you do SEQRA Lead Agency you do it separate. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. So I’ll make another motion. We have a second on the first motion. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. We have a second on the first motion, then we’ll make the second. MR. VOLLARO-Then we’ll make the second. We have a second on the motion that I read. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the motion included both actions. MR. VOLLARO-It did. The motion that was seconded will not have a specified date for tabling associated with it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and I’ll second that. MRS. STEFFAN-For clarity purposes, I’m afraid Maria’s not going to be able to get it with all the dialogue. MR. VOLLARO-Sure, no problem. Maria, we’re going to do that again for you, so that you can get a clean motion, hopefully. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MOTION FOR QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD TO SEEK LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR SITE PLAN NO. 15-2006 RALPH MACCHIO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: A Site Plan application for the following: Applicant has constructed forest roads for logging & permanent access to Macchio land on top of French Mt. Rd. Construction requires 31.3 acres of clearing/disturbance on the 5 parcels involved. Disturbance greater than 5 acres on any one parcel in the LC-zone or over 2 acres in the RR-3A zone require Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 5/22/06. WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment, and application material in the file of record, and that the file of record may have added to it additional information in the future. WHEREAS, the Queensbury Planning Board has determined that this is a Type I SEQRA Action, and that the Queensbury Planning Board will seek Lead Agency Status in a coordinated SEQRA review. That Part I of the SEQRA will be sent to the following agencies: One will be the Lake George Planning Board, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Adirondack Park Agency, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-The second motion would be, again, for Site Plan No. 15-2006. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 15-2006 RALPH MACCHIO, Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Chris Hunsinger: Tabled to June 27, 2006. Pending the results of comments on Lead Agency Status. Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: nd MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to request some of the additional information that you asked for as well, the DEC consent order and APA jurisdictional inquiry? MR. VOLLARO-Well, in order to get that into the motion, I can always do this. We don’t have to do this motion tonight. This is a site plan, we’ve got 31 days to do a motion, by law, by 179. So if we’re going to make this a detailed motion, I would take the 31 days. I will write the motion in some detail when I get together with Staff and then re-issue the motion at a later time. MR. SEGULJIC-I think for now all we want to do is table it, pending Lead Agency review by the other agencies. That’s it. There’s a lot of other information we need, but I’m uncomfortable with giving a list at this point because I’m not sure exactly what that list is going to be. MR. VOLLARO-That’s why I haven’t amplified it to that degree, because I’m not sure either until I sit down, study it, and come up with a list, definitively, with a motion that’s tight. MR. BROWN-In not having the list in the motion doesn’t eliminate the applicant’s ability to bring us information, as they see fit. MR. VOLLARO-No, it does not. MR. BROWN-They can still do that. MR. HUNSINGER-I think the record shows what we’re looking for, too. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-I have not closed the public hearing. It’s continued. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, during the Counselor, during the public hearing, had asked about submitting information, and I can only speak for myself, but I would encourage that. He asked about submitting information to our Counselor for review, and I would encourage that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think so. I would assume, under the situation that we’re at, it depends on our own Town Counsel. Our own Town Counsel can really solicit additional information from Mr. Harwick, from Attorney Harwick, if you so need that information that he has with respect to Judge Kroggman’s deliberations and so on. You might want to feel free to talk to him as well. MR. HILL-Just for the Board’s information, I’m not sure that that’s really germane to the business of the Board. Certainly he has certain concerns with respect to the actions that others are taking with respect to the property, but it doesn’t really affect your consideration of the application itself. So I don’t think that’s, strictly speaking, necessary. If you want to provide him with the opportunity to submit information to the Board, that’s fine, but I don’t think it’s really necessary. MR. FORD-I have a question of Counsel. Even though the ownership of the property that is part and parcel of the application is under review or in question, that isn’t part of our concern? MR. HILL-For your purposes, it’s the application itself and the merits of the application itself that are at issue here, with the assumption that the ownership is being properly stated. With respect to the dispute between the people who claim ownership of the property, that’s something that’s going to be resolved outside of the purview of this Board. That’s going to be resolved in the court system with Judge Kroggman, and the parties can seek appropriate orders from the Judge, if they need to, with respect to any action between themselves, on the property, but it doesn’t require you to suspend your process here. That’s not a dispute that this Board is going to decide with respect to the owner. MR. FORD-I understand we don’t decide it, but we also could be proceeding with an application where the applicant, in fact, does not own the property. Could we not? MR. HILL-That’s something that the people who are contesting the ownership, that’s for them to resolve. It doesn’t mean that you have to stop the process here at the Planning Board. MR. FORD-Okay. MR. BROWN-And just to make you maybe a little more comfortable, if it’s found out that the applicants before you tonight aren’t the owners of the property, the determined owners would be notified that they need to either participate in this review or pursue an approval on their own, outside of this approval. So, at some point, everybody’s involved with the road and the construction that’s going to be before the Board, regardless of who they are. So they can either join this one, if they’re different owners, or they can have their own approval. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-I think we have two motions that were approved, and so, with that, I think we’re terminated here on this one. MR. O'CONNOR-I thank you for your patience with me. SITE PLAN NO. 23-2006 SEQR TYPE PREVIOUS E.I.S. THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC AGENT(S) LEMERY GREISLER, LLC OWNER(S) GREAT ESCAPE; IDA WARREN WASH. CO. ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION NYS RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A GRAVEL PARKING LOT [YELLOW LOT] NORTH OF LODGE/WATER PARK AND ASSOCIATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING SP REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 4-04, SP 61-04 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 LOT SIZE 5.82 AC., 6.76 AC. TAX MAP NO. 288-1-61, 295.8-1-5 SECTION 179-9-020 JOHN LEMERY & RUSS PITTENGER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are? MR. LEMERY-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, we’re actually feeling pretty good about this application tonight because we at least own the site, as far as we know. My name is John Lemery, Lemery/Greisler. We’re Counsel to The Great Escape Theme Park and to the Hotel Water Park complex on the west side of Route 9. We filed an application to grade and put some stone down on what is described in the 2000 Generic Impact Statement as the yellow lot, which is at the top of the hill behind the Hotel. It’s where the Kinney House is located. The Kinney House, we have a permit to take down the Kinney House, which is going to be done fairly shortly. Scott Mauphin, the General Manager, is here with me. Todd Cochran from Kubricky Construction, Mike Groback from BBL Construction Services, the contractor, and Russ Pittenger from the LA Group. We had a pre-application meeting with the Planning Staff and we filed the application with regard to four matters. First of all, the parking lot at the top of the hill, the kiosk, there was a change to the kiosk which formed part of the application. There was a change to the lighting plan and a staircase to be built from one of the lower parking lots up to the level of the Trappers Restaurant. At the time we filed this application, we knew that there were going to have to be some additional changes to come in and file an additional site plan amendment to conform the site plan to the as builts, but we were unaware at the time when that could take place because the project was still undergoing construction and the Planning Staff was still out on the site looking at the different matters that had to be addressed and so at the time we appeared, these were the issues which we were aware of that needed to be changed. Which is why this application speaks to those changes. The application was provided to your engineer, Chazen Companies, which has been the engineering firm involved in The Great Escape and the Hotel for several years, including the 2000 Impact Statement. Those responses to the plan were provided to us. Our stormwater management engineer responded to those comments, and I believe you have a letter from Chazen which addresses our comments back to Chazen, in connection with the parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-What we did, Mr. Lemery, we received that information this evening, on the night of the meeting. Nobody’s had a chance to look at it. I did receive it. It’s in my briefcase. MR. LEMERY-All right. MR. VOLLARO-And so we can continue with this without, we can continue with this without benefit of the Board having read that information. MR. FORD-Or we can table it until such time as we’ve had a chance to review it. MR. LEMERY-Yes, Mr. Messinger’s here, so I think he can comment on it. We got it, we filed our application on April 15. We got Mr. Messigner’s comments on May 18, and we turned thth them around in one day. So we were 33 days before we got his comments. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we have additional comments from Chazen that we received this evening on this application. STUART MESSINGER MR. MESSIGNER-Mr. Lemery has received the same thing that you received. MR. LEMERY-Yes. We got those today, this morning. MR. VOLLARO-This morning. MR. VOLLARO-We just got them when we came to the meeting. So they weren’t a part and parcel of our review of this application. MR. LEMERY-All right, but he’s here. So, anyway, so we’re mindful that we’ve got to come back at some point and address the as builts with regard to the changes which have taken place over at the site beyond what was our application. The reason that we were here tonight is that we’ve got a situation over there involving parking, and we’re trying to provide those times 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) when the Hotel has an event in the ball room. This parking lot is a temporary parking lot. It’s not going to be paved. It would not be used by guests of the Hotel. It will be for employee parking only, and for valet parking. So it’s not intended that guests of the Hotel would be up on that site. It will not be available for them. Buses would park up there once they’ve discharged their passengers, if there’s a need for some additional parking up there. That land is owned by The Great Escape. It’s permitted for parking, all the way back to the end of the ring road, under the 2000 Impact Statement. So what we were hoping that we could get site plan approval for that lot. So we could get it graded and get some stone down so that it would be available when the heavy traffic starts to accumulate, as the Park starts to get into its season. We’re pleased to say that, as you can tell, the bridge is moving along. The stoplight should be operational, we’re told, this Thursday, the lights will go into effect. The ring road is looking very decent. The fencing is up and things are coming together. We hope that you find it to be an attractive looking site. So that’s where we are. We’re mindful that we’ve got to come back, and we got a copy of the Planning Staff’s memorandum to you today. We don’t agree necessarily that some of these issues that need to be further addressed are major. We were hopeful, at some point, that we could get a list from the Planning Staff of what issues they were concerned about. I know that the Planning Department was over there. We do not have such a list. So we don’t know what it is that they’re checking, but we’re still in the completion process. So that’s where we are. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The pre-application conference meeting that you refer to is, what I have in that is an e-mail from Craig Brown to Russell Pittenger, and it was dated April 29, 2006. Does that represent what took place at the pre-application conference? MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. The meeting was on the 11. th MR. VOLLARO-Okay. He said, in that pre-application conference, it says missing from the materials yesterday were the following items, a stormwater management report, which I think we have now, and the calculations received on that. The details of the proposed lights in yellow lot, including the cut sheets. Now, first of all, the lighting on the yellow lot, forgetting what we’re going to do with it, but the lighting on the yellow lot, as proposed, is above our Code. The outside ring of your parametrics is, I believe, five foot candles. MR. PITTENGER-That’s .5. MR. VOLLARO-It’s .5. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. Those are the same lights that we’ve used across the project, and if it was, if I mislabeled that, then that’s my fault, but it’s half a foot candle at that line. MR. VOLLARO-Because I think your labeling says five, because I looked at it as much as I could. Let me take a look here and see what it says. I don’t see it here. MR. PITTENGER-The south lights, and all the lights, clearly say .5 fc at the foot candle line. That could have been made clearer, though. So I apologize for the confusion. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PITTENGER-But those are the identical lights that we’re using on the hotel parking and also the south lots. MR. VOLLARO-All right. So they’re half a foot candle at the outside range. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-What I did, in trying to understand what we were going to do here, is, and I’m addressing basically the parking issue now, before we get into trying to make any discussions at all on the change in the canopy construction and subsequent lighting change to that, or the change from the entry walkway bollard lighting to the taller acorn style light poles. Before I get into mine, I’d like to hear what the rest of the Board has to say about their review on this subject, and I’d probably start this off with Tom Seguljic, if he’d like to comment on that. MR. SEGULJIC-Actually, I’d like to defer. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How about you, Tom Ford? MR. FORD-Sure. Before getting into this, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Brown address the current status of review by the professional Staff of how closely the approved plans have been adhered to in the project to date. MR. BROWN-Well, I guess in my memo I was pretty general with the areas that are inconsistent with the approved plans, versus what we found in the field, and I really can’t, until the project is completed, be too much more specific. There are phases of the project still ongoing. I could talk about a bunch of trees that are not there that’s inconsistent, but the landscaping is underway. I do make reference, in my memo, to, in my opinion, some major issues that would take a considerable amount of effort to construct as approved, and those are, specifically, you know, the parking area around the Hotel has been shifted, and I think in the information that you have, there’s discussion about why that happened. The lighting layout is different. In the original plan, the lighting fixtures were to be located intermittently throughout the parking lot to provide a lighting coverage on the parking. Those light fixtures have been moved to the ends of the islands, or the ends of the rows into the islands. Parking configurations in different portions of the development have been configured differently than have been approved. Stormwater basins as constructed don’t line up with the approved plans, and there’s, I think fair to say a major amount of work that would need to take place in order to reconstruct those or construct those, if you will, in a method that’s consistent with the approved plans. So, we can certainly generate a list of specific, you know, page by page, drawing by drawing, item by item, a listing, but until the project gets maybe to an as built stage, until everything is done, at least in the eyes of the applicant, that definitive list is difficult to generate. MR. FORD-One other question. Is it the usual protocol to follow on a project where, when it is obvious to Staff that a pre-approved plan has not been complied with, to simply let it go to the as built status, and then a new, or a re-application be submitted? MR. BROWN-It depends on the level of inconsistencies. I can’t think of a project, offhand, that has gone exactly as planned. There are always sometimes minor, sometimes major, changes in the development of a project, once you take it from paper to shovel in the ground. So, many, many times there are differences, during construction, that I, as Planning Staff, and enforcement officer along with Bruce Frank, work with developers, applicants, contractors in the field, to come up with reasonable changes that don’t necessarily match the plan, but match the intent of the approval. So, while you may not have six trees, you have four trees, but they’re bigger and spaced appropriately, you don’t have what was approved, but you have something that matches the intent of the approval. So, no, it’s not commonplace to build what you want, and if it doesn’t match, come back and have it, you know, have it re-approved by the Board, or attempt to have it re-approved by the Board, what we do is literally daily, and sometimes several times a day, inspect sites such as this. Most times it’s difficult, if not impossible, to really figure out if it’s in the right place until you see more phases of the project, whether things are constructed appropriately. So, you know, we do what we can, and once we find out that it’s wrong, most of the time I don’t say wrong, it’s inconsistent, it’s built. So we try and keep track. We try and keep the applicant apprised of those situations. I think, on the other side, the applicant may have a better list of change orders or, you know, differences in the plan that have to be either re-engineered or re-worked in the field that hopefully have gone through the project design engineer to make sure they work before those changes are made, so, you know, they may have a list, and we can have a list, but ours comes after the fact. MR. FORD-Would it be unfair to characterize your memorandum of the 18 of May to th indicate that there are some major departures from what you have observed to date from the original plan approved, approved plan, I’m sorry. MR. BROWN-Well, you know, maybe major departures isn’t fair. I think departures that. MR. FORD-That’s why I didn’t want to put words in your mouth. I want to hear what you have to say. MR. BROWN-That’s fine. I think departures, in my opinion, that will likely, by the applicant, be sought to remain as is, because of the extent of the work to put them, or, you know, construct them as approved. The lighting, you know, that’s going to require tearing up the parking lot, move the lighting fixtures to their locations as approved. That’s what I mean by 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) major effort to construct it as approved. Will the constructed lighting layout comply with the requirements of the Town? Possibly, but I think you need to see that lighting plan to confirm that it does. So, I think, are they major differences? They’re significant differences. I don’t know if they’re adverse or not until we have a chance to review them. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. LEMERY-I think this is an interesting issue because when you get into a project of this size, the question that you always have is if a designer comes in and the designer comes in and changes a light, do you have to stop and go to the Planning Board and say we’ve got a minor change to the lighting plan, can we get an application in, is it 30 days later, you know, march through that process? The Planning Staff, Bruce Frank, was on the site practically every day. We never got a Stop Work Order. Nobody ever said stop here and take this to the Planning Board. We used our judgment, based on the kinds of things we felt that were important to get into the Planning Board. For example, when we moved the bridge, we knew we had to get in here, for example, trying to get this lot, we’re moving dirt up there. The rest of these items I think I can have Russell talk to you about them, but they’re, the Planning people from the Town were at the site and were mindful of all these things. So we assumed we were working in a cooperative effort. I will say that Craig and his Staff have been very cooperative and helpful. We think it conforms to your requirement. The area behind the, what was the Coach House, the riprap fell down, and so we had to move something about 15 feet in order to stabilize the riprap and get it done. Is that something we should have come back here and modified the site plan and waited 30 days before we could address that, or was that something that the Planning Staff looked at and said, well, it’s not a big deal? Go ahead and get that done, because you need to stabilize it. There’s a safety issue. So those are the kinds of things. There was never any attempt here to go willy nilly and avoid and not, we’re very mindful of your charge. MR. VOLLARO-I think what our Staff is up against is really is what I like to call a moving target. It’s pretty tough to nail all these things down as they go, in an iterative process, but I’m going to reserve my comments to the end. I’d like to hear whatever Board members have to say. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-I had some comments similar to what Mr. Lemery said, perhaps. One of the things, the last couple of times that The Great Escape has been before us, at the end of the meeting I’ve commented, you know, sort of informally to some of the other members of the Planning Board, it’s too bad that a diminishing number of our members are still on the Board from when we went through the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, no question. MR. HUNSINGER-Unless you went through that, you really can’t appreciate the depth and the level of detail that we got into in reviewing the environmental concerns on that site. I mean, I literally had a file drawer that was as deep as this table of files, just from the Environmental Impact Statement on The Great Escape. Let alone the site plan review for this Hotel. I mean, I don’t think even the majority of our members were on the Board when we reviewed the site plan for the Hotel. So, every time they come back to us, you know, we as a collective Board are sitting here making judgment decisions when we weren’t here to make the initial judgment, and I think, you know, those people that weren’t on the Board when we went through the Impact Statement, when we went through the Site Plan review, don’t have the same context and perspective that the rest of us do, and I think Bob and I are the only ones here tonight who’ve gone through both of that. Tony went through the Environmental Impact Statement, but he’s not here this evening. MR. FORD-Thank you for that perspective, Chris. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. MR. VOLLARO-What I’ve done, Mr. Hunsinger, to help that perspective out, what I did, because I knew that only you and I participated from 2001 and on. What I did is I went back to the Findings Statements and I pulled out of all the Findings Statements what I thought was germane information, and I tried to chronologically go through, 2001 and then the Supplement in 2004, to see what the justification for an additional parking lot would be, and so I can go through that. I tried to do it in a page and a half. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. HUNSINGER-I understand what you’re saying. What they’ve proposed, as I understand, is actually decreasing parking. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 190 from 344. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and then, since I’m on those, I guess I’ll just sort of finish what my thoughts were on what’s before us this evening. The kiosk, certainly I don’t see that as any kind of significant issue. You’re trading off 10 parking spaces for a kiosk. Certainly no additional stormwater runoff. Still a hard surface. There’s no change there, really, and the lighting plan, you’re within 100 watts. It’s unfortunate they didn’t stick with the original, but I think if you’re off by 100 watts I really don’t see that as being significant. MR. VOLLARO-The problem is it’s not the 100 watts so much as it turns out to be the number of foot candles on the ground. They’re almost mutually exclusive when you look at it. You can have a 100 watt bulb, but what it does to the foot candles on the ground is highly dependent on how it’s placed, whether it’s downcast, upcast and what the side envelopes. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re still downcast. MR. VOLLARO-What they’ve done underneath the canopy, the port cochere, underneath there, there are some up floodlights that are pointing up as opposed to down. What they’ve done, in my understanding, and I haven’t really taken a good hard look at it, but in our original plan, approval, there were lights to be up in the top of that canopy that were all down lit, and now there are some lights that are up and go up into this almost, I guess you might call it a post and beam type design up in there. MR. PITTENGER-They are mounted up high, though, Mr. Vollaro, they’re pointed up into the ceiling. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but is there anything on the ground pointing up into that? MR. PITTENGER-No. MR. VOLLARO-They’re all up. So why are you going to put shields on a couple of them to prevent the light spill over onto the Northway? MR. PITTENGER-The shields have been installed. There was a complaint to the Planning Staff, who related it to the Manager of the Hotel, and there was a visibility, those two lights are mounted on the north side of that port cochere shining up into the ceiling, which is open, rather than having a ceiling. It’s more of a vaulted roof. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. PITTENGER-And so, there was a glare, or someone detected a glare, and so we shielded them so that there would be no visible source. They would have to bounce off of the wood inside now. MR. VOLLARO-The other thing that was done is the bollard lights that were there have been replaced by what I call the acorn poles. MR. PITTENGER-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So the bollard lights, in looking at the material that you gave to us, was a light standing with a downcast look. MR. PITTENGER-Yes, they were small lights, correct. MR. VOLLARO-About two foot, two and a half foot high. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, those are pedestrian scale lights. MR. VOLLARO-Right. So, you know, I think, in looking at anything but what we’re going to do tonight in terms of trying to come up with a determination on the 190 spots, is that the only thing that I can see to do this correctly is that we eventually get an as built from you, and that as built is then, this is how the Park looks, folks, and we go back to our original design and say, 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) what can we live with and what are we going to moan about, if you want to call it that, and see what conclusions we come to there, because I think this is a moving target. While you’re doing things, Bruce Frank is out in the field. He can come back. The next day it’s a little bit different. Very difficult, I think, for him to monitor at this particular point. The only solution I see is, there may be points where you come to us because you have to, in the interim process, but the end process will be that you finally give us an as built drawing. We can then look at the as builts and look at the approved drawing and see what we can buy and what we may not want to buy. MR. PITTENGER-Mr. Chairman, that absolutely was our intention and in the last couple of weeks we’ve been working with the Planning Staff. We’ve been trying to identify the record drawings on what actually was approved, and we’ve gotten our hands on those. The Kubricky has provided us with as built plans for the actual construction. So we’re modifying the file to prepare that drawing, and what I did, in receiving the comments from Chazen on the stormwater, they suggested in the last line of their review that items that change during construction are subject to a change in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. MR. VOLLARO-That was in Mr. Bianchi’s report, yes. MR. PITTENGER-And so we indicated that indeed we had changed the plan a couple of times based on site changes, but at the same time what we provided on Friday the 19 was a th summary of what we saw as the issues and identified those on a key map. The map comparison is not really available, but we provided that in response to the engineer’s comments. So the Town does have that. It’s a place to start, and we’re proceeding with our as builts, and to coordinate that there are, and just to put it in perspective, I can appreciate Craig’s position, and I can appreciate the Board’s position. We have changed items on the site plan. What we’ve also done, though, is we’ve maintained our stormwater quality and our inspections. I’ve done 83 inspections out there since this project started. The last piece of ground to be stabilized is that Kinney parcel where we’re proposing to put the yellow lot. When we gravel that, we’ll be done, and we can close out our SWPPP for that project. We will have to amend the SWPPP to take that into consideration, but just for the Board’s consideration, I appreciate that we’re, the concerns you have for this project, but if you put it in perspective of a $400,000 project that someone’s doing, this is 100 times more complex, and it’s not an excuse. It’s just an offer that there are considerations that happen during construction, some inadvertently, some intended, and some there’s been a change in management at the Park, and I think that we’ve done our job in protection of the Glen Lake Fen and under the stormwater controls. The systems work great. The plantings are going in. To me, the site, I’m really very proud of it, and the Board should be proud, too, of the work that we’ve done together, even though sometimes we don’t all get along, but we’re definitely committed, the Park’s committed, to do this coordination and verify the items. For instance, the lighting in the Hotel parking. We shifted that whole parking lot 18 feet. That resulted in some of the lights that were in islands stayed in the islands, and some of the lights that were not in the islands now are in islands. The lighting standards are the same. The number of lights are the same. It functions perfectly. It is different, and we owe the Board a review of that, and we want to quantify that. At this time, we don’t feel, it seems almost opposing to our goals to cause our construction changes to prevent us from getting approval on something that we want to do. It almost seems like, we don’t want to be, well, I appreciate the Board’s consideration, that’s all. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. One of the things before I even go into my little drill here is something that I’ve talked over with Mr. Brown, as recently as today, when you look up where the Kinney house is on that slope, that looks to me to be considerably more than 25%, that slope, and we’re wondering, in putting a parking lot for 190 cars up there, and having that slope look like so, this being the lot, this being the slope, what’s preventing this from being undercut or draining off in a bad storm? What happened in the last couple of days with all the rain? MR. PITTENGER-Absolutely nothing. There’s 97 feet of deep sands before we hit groundwater. The issue that we’ve had to revise the parking lot for the Hotel , and I’m not backtracking, actually I’m going forward, was that we originally designed a two on one slope for the upper portion, and then a one on one slope that was riprap reinforced. We found that the consistency and the fineness of that sand, the character of that sand was such that we put the riprap up there and it just slid down the hill. So the only resolve we had was to continue that two on one slope. So by virtue of moving that parking lot 18 feet, we eliminated all that stone riprap, the visual character of that, and all that. We just have a consistent grass slope, properly installed. It’s stable. There’s nothing draining onto that from above. Our parking lot, our yellow parking lot, is actually, it is high and it’s above, and we’re doing proper control 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) so that no one drives off of it, but that area is being treated as a shallow bowl with stormwater detention basins up above. Nothing runs down that hill. The only issue that we had in our comments from Chazen was that they required us to have an overflow weir. MR. VOLLARO-Up on the top? MR. PITTENGER-Correct, and I think that that overflow weir would be towards the right of way that’s already vegetated, because those, the drainage below there goes under Route 9 and goes onto our sandpit anyway. So, we’re going to modify our plans to respect that comment, but I don’t see any water coming down that slope at all, and it’s the water above that erodes the slope. The water on it really doesn’t, and we’re topsoiling it and we’re irrigating it and we’re going to get some decent grass growing, and we’ve been working on it for two years. We’ve really had very little issues with that slope. MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to ask, out of curiosity, since I do not have the history of that site, so I’m not quite sure who best to address this to. What was intended for that area back during the first review, the first site plan? MR. PITTENGER-Parking, future parking. MRS. BRUNO-It was? MR. PITTENGER-Absolutely. In the package that I submitted, the last page has the old master plans in those, 11 by 17’s, and the contours and the grading, the actual engineering of it, it’s easy to design it when it’s all flat, but it really isn’t. So we’re having a lot less cars, more green space than we had anticipated in the master plan, but that was that was always anticipated to be parking, all the way through the Samosets, under the Master Plan. MR. VOLLARO-Will that remain as 190 car parking lot, or will it ultimately get reverted to the 344 that you originally proposed for the yellow lot? MR. PITTENGER-I think that the yellow lot, in the Master Plan, this is only a portion of the yellow lot. That’s why I’m calling it yellow lot south. I don’t think we’ll hit those numbers. We’ll definitely not hit those numbers, but if, in the future. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about thresholds that we use, is that what you mean, by numbers? MR. PITTENGER-Yes. We’re going to have less cars than the Master Plan, but there’s going to be more than that, if, indeed, they build that out and decide not to keep the Samoset at some time. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Anybody else got any comments? MR. SIPP-Your property line is the top of the hill off of Route 9? MR. PITTENGER-Approximately, it’s shown on the plans. Yes, there’s a big DOT right of way. MR. SIPP-What’s below that is a right of way for Route 9? MR. PITTENGER-Correct. MR. SIPP-Now, you are going to be cutting some trees on the top of that hill? MR. PITTENGER-Only on our property, but, yes. MR. SIPP-Now, what is this, are you going to be working with National Grid to take out trees that may impact their line? MR. PITTENGER-I think that, in this position, the power line is quite a bit, we’re not as close as we were down around the Hotel where we’ve had that impact. I think here we have plenty buffer, and also those trees that are up there now, they’ve been exposed, due to the construction, for a couple of years. So I don’t believe we’re going to have that same effect we had down by the Hotel. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. SIPP-When you put a dozer in there to grade that, you’re not going to be destroying those roots of the trees that are there? MR. PITTENGER-It’s a good question. I think that what I’ve indicated on the plans is that we have some flexibility in the location of the detention basins. Quite frankly, I think that they conform to the letter of the law for the stormwater management controls, but the design number we were using was the minimum that you could, which was two minutes per inch for percolation, and the test that we did in 2001, we had 45 seconds per inch. So we could probably get by with a smaller basin and save more trees, but I think we’ll try and save the trees, the significant trees up there, by adjusting the locations. MR. SIPP-Now will you clean up the trees that have already fallen and been laying there for a year? MR. PITTENGER-The question is what we can do within the DOT right of way. We’ve worked very well with DOT, which has resulted in some of the changes that we’ve built. MR. SIPP-At least one of those is your tree. Because it comes from the top of the hill. MR. PITTENGER-We will clean that up. MR. SIPP-Which has taken down other trees in the process. MR. PITTENGER-We’ll have to clean that up. MR. SIPP-In regard to that west facing slope, now, I looked at that this afternoon, and you’ve got a good crop of weeds, and some sumac trees and no grass. You’ve got a lot of chopped straw on there, which I assume is hydro-seeded because the green has failed, or the green has bleached out. Where is the grass? MR. PITTENGER-I think the grass is coming. We did, we just recently, they just hydro- seeded again a week ago. The issue is growing conditions. The sand is a little tough to keep water on it. MR. SIPP-You must have a way of irrigating that, or at least make an attempt to irrigate some of that to get some grass growing up. Now, I don’t, I believe you when you say that it’s fine sand, but it also has some erosion to it, because before you put those, that chopped straw on there or hydro-seeded, there were some gullies started or some rills that have already been eroded. So that there is an erosion problem there, not as bad as it could be on another type of soil which was not as absorbent as that stuff. Now, you’re going to put some new trees on that slope. MR. PITTENGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Is that enough, do you think, to hold that slope? MR. SIPP-I think, once we can get a vegetation established on it, and we want it to look nice, and if that requires irrigation, we’re going to have to balance the look in the entrance of the Hotel against the cost of doing irrigation, but the trees are really as identified in the Master Plan almost count for count, and trying to just improve the look of it more than, they’re really not intended to be substantially, to have the roots hold it. MR. SIPP-Obviously, the two poplar is never going to make it this Spring. You’re never going to get that planted. MR. PITTENGER-Well, I won’t doubt your view. MR. SIPP-Well, the White Pine probably would take, but I doubt the poplar would, at this time of the year. Now, how do the people exit this parking lot on foot? If this is used for the overflow parking for a big event, and they park up there, how do they get down to the Hotel? SCOTT MAUPHIN 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. MAUPHIN-Mr. Sipp, what will happen is, again, it will be used for employee lot, for employee parking and valet use, which we will park the cars ourselves. So when we have employees that need to come down off there, we’ll run a little shuttle van or a shuttle bus that will. MR. SIPP-There’s a mention of tour buses. Is that just for parking or is that for unloading? MR. MAUPHIN-That would just be for parking. They would all unload at the Lodge itself. MR. SIPP-So there’s no foot access for egress off of the slope? MR. MAUPHIN-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Just for clarification, there is a concrete stair on. MR. MAUPHIN-That’s actually, there’s a slope from the Trapper’s parking lot down to the northern most asphalt. MR. SIPP-In the driveway that’s already there, the driveway that goes to the house, comes off of Route 9, what type of fill are you going to be putting in there, out of your line across the road? MR. MAUPHIN-I’ll let the engineering expert. MR. PITTENGER-We basically are balancing the site so that we’ll get, from our property line will get filled up and eliminated. MR. SIPP-You’ll have to go down onto the right of way, right? MR. PITTENGER-No, we won’t have to. Although DOT is willing to allow us to do that, but we’d have to get a permit and we wanted to clarify and make this application clean. MR. MAUPHIN-Mr. Sipp, I’ve gotten a (lost words) approval from Jan Peterson at the DOT that that wouldn’t be a problem. MR. SIPP-I mean, that gets to be a pretty steep slope on, once you start filling that, you’ve got a fence in there, you’ve got a silt fence all ready to put in, but you’re going to have to stabilize that pretty quick, too, or else that’s going to run down the hill. Now this lot will be stone? MR. PITTENGER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Graded to this and stone, and there are three stormwater basins. MR. PITTENGER-There are two major stormwater basins, each one is divided into two parts. So there’s a pre-treatment area so the oils can settle out and in conformance with the DEC regulations for the Phase II regs. So it really goes into a pre-basin and then a secondary basin similar to a smaller version of the impoundments we have down below. MR. SIPP-And this all will be fenced? MR. PITTENGER-Basically, the fencing is to contain the parking and generally give people a sense of, it’s okay here. We’re going to, we’re probably going to do a little berm around the edge so that we don’t get anybody inadvertently driving off. MR. SIPP-Well, I wish you luck on that seeding, because it looks, that looks bad from the Northway. MR. PITTENGER-It was easy for me. I just wrote lawn and it’s those guys over there that have got to make it happen. MR. SIPP-I wish them luck, because if it rains like it did this weekend, the seeds down the bottom of the hill. 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. PITTENGER-It’s difficult to get established, but what we do have is, to our benefit, is that we’ve been familiar, working with the slopes of that nature, Todd, as he put those in, they’re all compacted, because the bulldozers as they go through, and they go into our stormwater system into our piping, and they fall into a basin that’s intended to be maintained and cleaned out regularly before it overflows into another one, into the third, before it discharges under extreme events. MR. SIPP-Have you ever thought of terracing that or a sod waterway or some diversion ditch or something to break that slope? MR. PITTENGER-The fact that, if there was a hill above it, that would be a disaster waiting to happen, but there really isn’t. It’s only what falls on it, which was to our benefit. AUDIENCE MEMBER-And we’re not going to give up on the vegetation. MR. SIPP-As I say, you’ve got a good crop of weeds growing there. MR. FORD-A description of the fencing, please. MR. PITTENGER-It’s four foot high, vinyl coated black chain link fence. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the landscaping pretty much cover it up? MR. PITTENGER-No. It’s really just accent planting up there. There’s only going to be employees there. It’s visible from below, but I mean, it’s back dropped by trees. It’s really not a public type area. MRS. STEFFAN-I just wonder what the view would be from the Northway. MR. PITTENGER-It will be better than it is now. MR. SIPP-These valets come from Nigeria or Rhodesia or? MR. PITTENGER-Hawaii, all over the place. MR. SIPP-Hawaii, because they’re going to have a long run to get up to the, to get these cars out of that lot. That’s a long way to go. He deserves his tip when he gets back down to the bottom with that car. MRS. STEFFAN-While we’re speaking about parking, I have a question. There’s been some parking where, as I looked over all the plans, we’re talking about the parking that’s on The Great Escape side of the street, and so I have a question about what’s going on the other side of the street. Last month when you were here, we talked a little bit about the DEC mining permit that you have over there, and you mentioned that eventually that will be parking. However, I notice that there is another parking field that has been altered, next to that little sporting goods store, and it’s where, there used to be a little western ride, I have no idea exactly what it is, but it’s a parking lot, and it’s larger than it used to be, and it’s not on the plan. Can you talk a little bit about that? MR. MAUPHIN-Basically those lots on that side, for years, have been used for, in an overflow capacity, specifically the sand lot, or sand pit down below is only used in overflow cases, which is similar to the use of the two lots about which you speak that are just north of the sporting goods house right there. We just basically leveled them to where they won’t, you know, get giant mud holes in them. We just smoothed that out to make it a little more conducive for that purpose. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that’s not employee parking, that’s patron parking? MR. MAUPHIN-That’s correct. Great Escape employee parking is at The Bavarian Palace. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’m just wondering why that wasn’t on the plan. MR. LEMERY-That’s on the other side of the road. This plan had to do with the west side, 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) Gretchen. It didn’t have to do with the east side. So, in other words, those lots have always been used for that purpose. They were just cleaned up because they would retain water and get sloppy and muddy for people, but that was not part of the plan that involved the west side where the parking is and the bridge and all of that. So it wasn’t part of the project. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay, and it’s also probably not figured in to the parking calculations overall. MR. LEMERY-I don’t know the answer to that one. MR. MAUPHIN-To some degree it is, but the sand lot is not included in that calculation, the sand pit, that is. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s eventual parking, or whatever. MR. MAUPHIN-Yes. MR. LEMERY-There were 4,000 parking spaces that were the subject of the Generic Impact Statement. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, I think it was 4200. MR. LEMERY-Yes, something like that, that took the parking from behind, really took the parking from the old Animal Land site that we would refer to all the way up. Those parking lots behind Martha’s, all the way up to the top of the hill, all the way to where the ring road starts, which was the Samoset Motel. That was all approved for parking in the 2001 Impact Statement. MRS. STEFFAN-It was like lavender lots. MR. LEMERY-Yes, they were all different, a different color, but they were all approved, under SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know, does anybody else have any comments? MRS. STEFFAN-One other question on the parking that’s over there, on the other side of the street, is that included in any stormwater management, in the stormwater management plan? MR. PITTENGER-No. MR. LEMERY-You mean on the east side? MRS. STEFFAN-On the Park side. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m just going to, for the Board’s benefit, I’m going to try and go through, and this doesn’t mean that, this is basically the kind of put in the record that I think took place back in 2001, and the Supplemental of 2004. If I’m wrong on some of this, I’ve got comments and I’ve pulled out the relevant pieces of paper, if we’ve got to get to it, but in 2001, the Planning Board completed a review of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement that considered future development of the property owned by The Great Escape over a period of five to ten years. That was what was put in there. The 2001 Generic Environmental Impact Statement resulted in the adoption of a Findings Statement that approved the development of a 200 room Hotel, and that was, what Russ gave us showed the Hotel but then it showed, I think the beginning of that was a conference center and a pool, as opposed to the Park you’ve got now. MR. LEMERY-Yes, there was a convention center that was proposed up there originally. MR. VOLLARO-Right, a convention center was proposed up there. Now, what we got then in May of 2004, we got to what was called a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. MR. LEMERY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And the Planning Board found that improvement of the northern Park areas and the northern portion of the ring road would fulfill the Park’s current and near term future 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) needs. I can go on and continue on that, but that was the theme there. The 2003, there was a traffic study I think done by Creighton Manning in 2003, which showed that the traffic volumes are well below the Phase III thresholds that would indicate increased parking requirements. MR. LEMERY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-The Planning Board found that, finds that the grant of a Special Use Permit, and there was a Special Use Permit applied for, would result in no additional parking or related impact on those already reviewed and approved by the 2001 GEIS. Now, going on for just another minute here, I’ll just read what it says for me to do in my own, go to V-1, X-1. I must have made a mistake on that, but that’s okay, and then the Supplemental Findings Statement is issued into the Supplement of 2001 Findings meaning that any finding or threshold in the 2001 Finding, not specifically revised herein, talking about the 2004 Supplement, remains in full force and effect, and that was based on, that was really based on traffic counts, or not so much traffic, but I think the thresholds were talked about in the 2001 Statement, in terms of parking. The 2004 Supplemental didn’t really change that very much, that I saw. MR. LEMERY-No. The 2001 Statement didn’t require any traffic mitigation beyond what was there until the population at the Park reached 1.2 million people. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and on that basis, I think now that I see that the parking is basically for employees and that kind of thing, it’s not related, basically, to Park growth, in terms of what you expect to have as patrons to the Park. MR. MAUPHIN-Correct. MR. FORD-In as much as it has facilities for bus parking, it’s tied in. MR. MAUPHIN-Well, when we talk about, you know, it’s, the issue we really have here is a lack of, or not adequate employee parking as designed for the Lodge. The Lodge was designed for, you know, one spot for every 30. MR. PITTENGER-One per 20. MR. MAUPHIN-And we went from a proposed need for 150 employees to an actual need of 300 employees. So we basically outgrew what we thought it was going to take, and the space that we have allowed for parking at the Lodge itself. MR. VOLLARO-Right. I notice that this is a two year lease. That really comes from what I call Area A, or the amusement center, being leased over to the Hotel Water Park, and it’s a two year lease. Just explain that, because I didn’t quite understand why that was read that way. MR. LEMERY-Well, that property isn’t owned by the Hotel. That property is owned by The Great Escape, and as Scott said, the employee base is now at 300 employees. So there just wasn’t enough room to park those employees. If you remember originally those employees were going to be parking between, there was an employee parking lot between the Hotel and Route 9 on the east side. It just isn’t big enough. So that became clear when the use and the Hotel required basically double the number of employees there, that we had to find a place to put them. MR. VOLLARO-Are you planning to bring that yellow lot up to its 344 capacity? MR. LEMERY-It’s unknown at this point. Which is why The Great Escape said, well, look, we don’t want to enter into any kind of permanent arrangement with the Hotel. We’ll just give you a lease for three or four years. Basically we’ll let you use the land, you pay, meaning HWP, you pay for the improvement up there. You pay for the grading and putting the stone on the, and stormwater management plan, and we’ll let you use the property. While we sort this all out, as you can well imagine, over the next few years, to determine, well, what’s the long range plan again for the Hotel, what’s the long range plan for addressing any additional parking issues we might come into, might come into play, as a result of all of these improvements up there. So I think everybody took the position, this is a temporary solution. Let’s use this for a while, and then we’ll figure out what the long range plan is, if we need more parking and how to address it. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Well, that would probably, ultimately fall out of the as built drawing situation, and we get downstream and you pretty much solidify what you’re doing, and you have a set of as builts. That’s probably when we should even look at that kind of thing. MR. LEMERY-Yes, and even when you get the as builts, there may be some time in the future, you know, they’re back in here trying to figure out what to do with that, the parking situation, and where the Theme Park population goes and the Hotel population. So I think that’s why it was based on a temporary solution at this time. MR. VOLLARO-All right, and I can understand what’s going on there. I didn’t realize that this parking lot, in my readings of this, I didn’t realize that this was basically for, fundamentally for employees to use, and so I can see where the addition of the 190, I, personally, in looking at this, don’t see this as a detrimental addition to the Park, or something that we should be really excited about. The things I’m more concerned about is some of the lighting departures and things like that that we’re going to have to clean up these items at some later date. Those, I think, are more important to me than a temporary parking lot that’s going to be leased over for two years. So, that’s my stand. I don’t know where the rest of the Board is, but that’s how I feel about it. I don’t think that the Findings Statements have been in any way ignored here because I don’t think they ever talked to just employee overload. I just wanted to make sure that we weren’t falling outside, because we did, you went with us, John. You were with us on that. We did a lot of work in the Findings Statement. There was a lot of information. MR. LEMERY-Right, and that’s why it’s on a temporary basis, because we don’t know, yet, where this will end up. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I don’t have anymore comments on this. I think maybe, if any other Board members do, but I think this is a reasonable approach. MR. SIPP-This may be unrelated, but I’d like to compliment them on their fence that they’ve got. That’s a good looking fence. The one thing I question, or I don’t understand, is why is the opening near the west side bridge, why is there an opening in the vents leading to a walkway out to Route 9? MR. MAUPHIN-Well, that fence, and I believe this is what you’re referring to, is actually, there’s a walkway that goes from the public sidewalk, there’s a bus stop right there, ultimately, it goes from the public sidewalk up to where you can access the bridge. That fence, the idea was go get to where we can ultimately block off that bridge, you know, when we’re not using it in the off season. Because it’s not a public use bridge when we’re not open. So that fence will actually, you’ll end up with a gate across that sidewalk that goes up that hill. It’s not quite done yet. MR. SIPP-Now, I hope that things go well this weekend. MR. MAUPHIN-Well, the sun is going to come out. So it can’t be that bad. MR. SIPP-Well, two weeks ago you had the cars backed up to the County building, mainly because people didn’t know where to go. MR. MAUPHIN-Yes, and you see the big reader board out there that the DOT has kind of helped us, you know, get the word out as fast as we can. MR. SIPP-I assume that the right turn lane will be paved by. MR. MAUPHIN-It will be paved. Mr. Cochran assures me that tomorrow all of that will be paved and striped and that’ll be done. MR. SIPP-Because it was a mess down there, and I wish you would get some older people waving those flags. These kids don’t know how to direct traffic. MR. MAUPHIN-Work ethic today. It’s not what it used to be. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-I think we’re pretty much talked out at the Board level, but there is a public hearing tonight, 5/22/06. So I’m going to open this hearing to the public, if there’s anybody here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MICHAEL O’KEEFE MR. O’KEEFE-Hello. My name’s Michael O’Keefe, and I’m hear representing the Glen Lake Association. I’m not quite up to speed on this. Who’s read the file is Paul Derby, our President. So I’m going to read his comments, and a lot of it’s been addressed, but he wanted me to read it into the record. So I’ll do that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. O’KEEFE-Stormwater management is the Number One concern of the GLPA, and it’s necessary that The Great Escape meet all State and Federal stormwater management requirements and regulations. Chazen Company, according to a letter dated May 16, had th several questions about the proposed stormwater management plan. For example, the proposed basins do not meet overflow requirements, and he’s just wondering, I know you’ve just received some things from Chazen tonight and haven’t had a chance to review them, and that’s correct. I assume approvals will be pending from Chazen that those things have been met. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know that we can make an approval tonight on this, until we’ve had a chance to review the documentation we haven’t reviewed yet. I mean, in order to get a fair and unbiased hearing, we certainly have to have everything before us that we can analyze, and that came in tonight. MR. O’KEEFE-Right. So the stormwater management will be addressed once, you have a chance to review it. MR. VOLLARO-We got a stormwater management report from Mr. Joel Bianchi of the Chazen Company, but then new information has come in tonight. I can’t even tell you what’s in the new information package because I don’t know. MR. O’KEEFE-Okay. His second concern, there again he’s read the file recently, was visual impacts at the Lake. There appear to be changes in the original lighting plan and/or some inconsistencies or inadequacies in the lighting plan, and he references a letter from Russ Pittenger of the LA Group to the Town on the lighting plan. I don’t have a date on that. His specific questions were, after reading the file, how the lighting plan is different from the proposed DGEIS, and will the parking area or lighting of the parking lot stairway or lighting of any other aspect of this project be visible from Glen Lake? And there again, I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to review that from Russ Pittenger or not. MR. VOLLARO-No, we have not. MR. O’KEEFE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-What we said here, you probably heard it, is in order to really understand what the differences are between the approved and the as built drawings, I think we’re going to have to wait. Otherwise we’ll be looking at a moving target consistently, and won’t be able to say, okay, this is what we approved. This is what we’ve got. What is it what we’ve got? Are the lights that are in there now, do they glare back on Glen Lake or not, and I couldn’t tell you, because I don’t know exactly what the situation is on the ground here. MR. O’KEEFE-I understand, and his third point after reviewing was a tree lined buffer. The file clearly states that none of the existing trees will be moved for this project, and it is requested, the GLPA, that this be a stipulation of the project. I think that’s been stated by someone that the vegetation and trees would be a necessity, earlier, and his fourth point along there is not directly related, but he wanted it referenced, but parking along the road there for the Glen Lake Fen. In 1989, the Town of Queensbury enacted into law that within 100 feet of a Critical Environmental Area be created around all waterways within the Glen Lake watershed. In 1990, The Great Escape agreed to prohibit parking along the roadway along the Glen Lake Fen to the east of Route 9 and into the mining pit. It has come to our attention that already 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) this season cars have been parked along that roadway. We ask that The Great Escape hold to that agreement, prohibit parking along that roadway bordering the Critical Environmental Area, and although this is not part of the proposed action, we ask that this agreement be a stipulation of the project, and respectfully Paul Derby, Glen Lake Association. MR. VOLLARO-Has that been given over to Staff? Do you have a copy of that letter? MR. O’KEEFE-I could give them this one, if they’d like it. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I think that’s got to be turned in as a letter. MR. O’KEEFE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else? STUART MESSINGER MR. MESSINGER-Stuart Messinger with the Chazen Companies. Mr. Bianchi couldn’t be here tonight. Just to clarify, we did do a review of the stormwater plan. We had some comments. LA Group responded to those comments. Basically, we asked for some additional information. They’ve provided it. We reviewed it. We submitted a letter to you today that says that the plans are okay with us. We’d recommend you go forward with approval of them, with one very minor modification to the weir design on the stormwater basin. So that’s what the letter that you have says is basically recommends our approval of them. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I was going to say to your earlier comment, Mr. Chairman, I didn’t draw the same conclusion, that we were going to be forced to table this application tonight because of the submission of that information. I’m just saying because of the submission of the information. MR. MESSINGER-It didn’t seem like a reason to table for me because the information is, our review is completed and I’m here to tell you that our engineers have approved it. Thanks. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The only thing is, usually we like to have all the information in front of us, and we don’t have it tonight. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand. MR. VOLLARO-If the Board agrees that we can pass this, that’s fine with me. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s lots of times when we approve a project because we get a final signoff the day of the meeting. MR. VOLLARO-We’re going to have to take a hard look at that. I’ve had an agreement with the Zoning Administrator on that particular point, and I might as well apply it for the Board so the whole Board understands. The agreement that we had is when an engineering report has some minor things left in it, and those minor things were then subject to an approval, that he would give an approval when those minor things were accomplished. Then we could go forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we just heard the engineer himself say that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I heard what he said. It’s in my hands. I’d certainly like to read it, but that’s okay. Look, I’m only one member of this Board. I mean, there are seven of us here that will make a decision as to whether or not we would approve this without having the ability to read it ourselves. If the Board agrees with that, then the Board agrees with that by vote, and that’s how this Board works in any event. So, having heard all the information here, does anybody want to make a motion for this? You’ve heard the comments from the audience. Does anybody else here want to speak to this application on The Great Escape? MR. PITTENGER-Mr. Chairman, could I respond to some of the concerns by the Glen Lake Association? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. PITTENGER-My wife keeps paying the dues to the Glen Lake Association. So I am a member. I do have a place on Glen Lake. In response to the stormwater issues, we absolutely are conforming with the Phase II stormwater regs. The stormwater runoff to Glen Lake is of utmost importance to the people who live and own property on the Lake, which I do, and which The Great Escape also does. The lighting in question that they refer to is on the west side of the Hotel. So it would, even though those issues are not resolved, they would have no effect on Glen Lake and the visibility of Glen Lake, and I would suggest that the Board consider taking the lighting change around the drop off and moving that into our as built condition issues, removing it from this application, and deal with those other issues in the application, if we can set that stuff aside, if that’s something that the Board doesn’t feel comfortable with discussing or resolving tonight. The other issue about the tree removal, I think there was a stipulation regarding the screening of the Hotel building and tree removal, but I don’t believe there’s any such stipulation on prohibiting of cutting of any trees on The Great Escape, especially for the construction of this parking lot. MR. LEMERY-That’s correct, and the parking lots were approved in the 2001 Statement, but as to the 100 foot buffer, The Great Escape is very mindful of that, and I don’t know of any cars which are parked on that buffer, but that will be immediately addressed if that’s been a problem. So we’re mindful of that, and that is an agreement that was made, I think back at the time one of the rides was approved several years ago. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that would probably wind up in a condition of approval, but I don’t know that, we’re basically either approving or disapproving tonight, by vote, the construction of the yellow parking field, in terms of 190 parking places, and I think that’s all we’re really doing tonight. What we do want is an agreement from The Great Escape, as part of the record, saying that we will go to an as built critique, if you will, against the original design. It would be, I think, incumbent on The Great Escape to take a look at those before we even do we even do it, and willingly acknowledge where the deviations are, so that we can determine whether we consider them significant or not. The most significant that I can think of, in my mind, would be a radical departure from foot candles on the ground, or doing anything to illuminate the night sky. That would be a big concern of mine. MR. LEMERY-So far as we know, Bruce Frank is continuing his inspections, and we’ve been told that we’ll get a list of those issues that he wants to address more fully. So as soon as we get that, we’ll be right on it, and get those things addressed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PITTENGER-And also I submitted, on Friday, in the response to comments to Chazen, a narrative and a key map of where those items that we’re aware of and we’ll continue discussions with Planning Staff and get to the bottom of it. I mean, we’ve basically committed to do that. MR. VOLLARO-Well, let me ask you this, from a timeline point of view, where we are now, in May of 2006, where do you think you’re going to wind up, in terms of 99, I’d say 99, because you’ll never complete the Park totally, but where will you be able to actually give us a set of as built drawings, as they come from your contractor, and so on? MR. PITTENGER-We received the file from the contractor within a matter of weeks. So I would anticipate that later this week and the beginning of next week we will trade materials back and forth between the approved plans with the Planning Staff and have that together, certainly within a month. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So can we say that in approximately 30 days, or thereabouts, plus or minus 30 days, we would be able to get a look at the differences between the as builts and then schedule a meeting of this Board to review that? MR. BROWN-I think if you mean Planning Staff when you say “we’, I think that that’s fair, if that’s okay with the applicant. I don’t think in 30 days we can have something back before the Board. MR. VOLLARO-No, no, I’m talking about you, because I’m down there a lot, a lot of the Planning Board members aren’t, but we need to have this full Board take a look at what you, 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) as the Planning Staff, comes up with, in terms of what you think is acceptable and what you think we really ought to look at. MR. BROWN-I mean, 30 days is fair for me to get a look at their plan, if that’s something that they can produce in that timeframe, sure. MR. VOLLARO-Then we can establish a meeting date for this Planning Board to meet and discuss that. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Everybody on the Board agree with that? So I think all we need is a motion tonight to approve the yellow lot. MR. SEGULJIC-Can I just get one clarification? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I heard the terms “temporary” and “two years lease” for this parking lot. Is it permanent or is it two years? MR. VOLLARO-Two years, it says. MR. LEMERY-I thought we said four years. MR. VOLLARO-Does it say four? I’m sorry, I thought it was two. I’m sorry, it was a four year lease. MR. SEGULJIC-Is that going to be part of the motion, then, that the parking lot’s only for four years? MR. VOLLARO-You can make it part of the motion, whoever’s going to do the motion can stipulate that the parking lot is on lease to the Hotel/Waterpark for a period of four years. I don’t think it’s germane, actually, but you can state it if you like. MR. PITTENGER-I don’t think the intention is that after four years it would be removed. It perhaps would revert back to The Great Escape. So I think that, in the sense that it’s a parking lot that we want to construct, a gravel parking lot, and it would get. MR. SEGULJIC-So really it’s a permanent parking lot, then? MR. VOLLARO-It always has been. The yellow lot has always been a permanent parking lot for 344 spaces. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. PITTENGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-It’s always been there. You haven’t created a new lot. They’ve just taken the 344 and moved it to 190. MR. LEMERY-Yes, we assume that if there came a point where it was going to be paved, we’d have to come back in here and modify the site plan and look at whatever additional stormwater management issues that raised and whatever else that raised. So we’re aware of that. MRS. STEFFAN-Now would there have to be a stipulation on the use because it’s employee parking, it’s empty bus storage, but I’m just wondering, if the use changed, it would affect traffic patterns and those kinds of things. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but it doesn’t matter. It’s all within the ring road, and it’s still less than the original design. MR. LEMERY-It’s been approved for parking, though. It has been approved for parking. The present plan, it would be unfair to say where this is going, but the present plan is not to have pedestrians up there on that hill. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. LEMERY-And walking up and down the ring road, because that’s not what it’s permitted for at this time, but it was approved for parking originally. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. LEMERY-So, I don’t know how to answer it, other than that. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, the reason I brought it up is just because the employees who stay, I believe they stay at the Samoset. They usually walk down Route 9, and so it’s fine if that parking lot is used for employee parking and empty bus parking, but if it ever changed its use and became patron parking, you certainly wouldn’t want help walking, I mean, you wouldn’t want your people. MR. MAUPHIN-If we were going to use it for patron parking, we would want it to be a little more legitimate than this temporary gravel looking. MR. LEMERY-You’d have to provide all kinds of pedestrian access to get down there without going out onto Route 9. You’re right. You can’t put those people on Route 9. MR. HUNSINGER-If the Board’s ready, I do have a motion that I’d like to put forward. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-We will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 23-2006 THE GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: The applicant proposes construction of a gravel parking lot (yellow lot) north of the lodge/water park and associated stormwater management, landscaping, installation of a kiosk and installation of a concrete staircase; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on this date; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: This application is hereby approved and is subject to the following conditions: That the consideration of any additional lighting changes will be deferred pending submission of complete as built drawings. These drawings shall be received in the office of the Department of Community Development within the next 30 days. Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: nd MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, I just had a question on the motion, if you don’t mind. You made specific reference to any changes to the lighting plan, and those plans be submitted within 30 days. Is the goal to get plans submitted that depict changes to all aspects that aren’t as approved, or specifically just the lighting? 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-I think we’re looking for the total as built drawing. MR. HUNSINGER-My intention was to take the lighting that was before us tonight and to postpone that, pending the rest of the as built changes. MR. BROWN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mrs. Bruno MR. LEMERY-Thank you very much. MR. MAUPHIN-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-It’s an ongoing process, gentlemen, I can see that now. SITE PLAN NO. 20-2006 SEQR TYPE II ANGIO DYNAMICS AGENT(S) RANDY BODKIN OWNER(S) IDA OF WARREN/WASHINGTON CO. ZONING LI-1A LOCATION 603 QUEENSBURY AVENUE CONVERSION OF EXISTING WORK AREA (ASSEMBLY) INTO AN OFFICE AREA [APPROXIMATELY 38’ X 48’). CROSS REF. SP 19-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 LOT SIZE 12.97 TAX MAP NO. 297.8-1-10 SECTION 179-9-020 RANDY BODKIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-For the record, would you just state your name? MR. BODKIN-Randy Bodkin, representative of Angio Dynamics. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me ask the Board, before we go into any deep review on this, does anybody have any comments? This is pretty straightforward. We’ve done this before, for you, just recently, and all it is is the addition of another room, and, rather than take up a lot of time on this, if everybody’s in agreement and has read this, and if there’s a motion ready to go, I’d entertain a motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we do have a public hearing, Mr. Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-Is there anybody here that wants to talk to this application for Angio Dynamics? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-Does somebody want to make a motion for this? Because I think this is rather simple. We’ve looked at it. It doesn’t even bear very much discussion, based on what I reviewed. MR. BODKIN-I apologize for taking any of your time on this one, myself, but the rules are the rules. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2006 ANGIO DYNAMICS, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: In accordance with the materials submitted. Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Sorry you had to wait that long. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. BODKIN-Thanks a lot. SITE PLAN NO. 21-2006 SEQR TYPE II MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON AGENT(S) TIM BOLLEN OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 115 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT HAS BEGUN ADDITIONAL EXCAVATION OF BEACH AREA AND PLACEMENT OF ADDITIONAL BOULDERS AND NEW STEPS. DREDGING AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE REQUIRES REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-21.2 SECTION 179-6-060 TIM BOLLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. BOLLEN-My name’s Tim Bollen. I’m the agent for Michael and Gail Dawson. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Tim, why don’t you give us a little idea of what you’re going to do. MR. BOLLEN-Okay. I can give you a brief history of what’s happened with this. On the plan that I submitted, it shows an aerial view, showing that there was an existing beach on the property. I believe this was taken quite a few years ago, maybe two or three years ago. If you look at the measurements of the area, there’s a beach area that we’re talking about, we’re talking about 10 feet by 12 feet. This is really a kiddy beach. It’s not used by the adults. It’s a very small area where the kids get involved, and there was a problem that they had, and that’s why this whole application came through. What they’ve got here is an existing border of stone, and the stones are anywhere from 12 inches to 16 inches in height and size, and they were on the beach with a young child. It took three or four seconds for the child to run, go up over that and the 22 feet to the road, fortunately the car slammed on the breaks, didn’t hit the child, but he was close enough that the child went over. So I think it was a very, very dangerous situation, and that’s why Mike approached me, and with more kids, his kids are growing up, more young kids being over there, and there are adult supervision, the house is across the street, and I think what they think happened there was the kid saw somebody, the young child, saw somebody across the street and scooted. So he asked me if there was a way of making this safer, and what I proposed to him was to take the 12 to 14 inch stones out, and put in 16 inch, 18 inch to two foot stones in their place, and then on top of that, to mimic what goes along the road, if you look in the picture diagram, we have boulders with shrubs. You would have the beach replacement stones and then step back about a foot on the grass area. You’d have a couple of boulders, a couple of shrubs, a couple of boulders, a couple of shrubs, which mimics what’s along the road. This would prevent any of the kids, if they’re on the beach, of getting across into the roadway. The only access to the beach would be a set of steps, which are approximately two and a half foot wide, which would go down. So any adult that’s there could sit on the steps. There’s no way that the child could get up over that, and into the roadway. That was the whole reason for this coming through, and that’s the reason for the application. MR. VOLLARO-In a way, what we concern ourselves with on the Board, I think, is hard surfacing, and I’m not even sure that this qualifies as a heck of a lot of hard surfacing. I’ll let the Board deliberate on this for a while. MR. HUNSINGER-The question that I had is the Zoning Code talks about alterations to the shoreline requiring site plan review. MR. BOLLEN-Yes, sir. MR. HUNSINGER-In fact, under that it says the activity shall not alter the natural contours of the shoreline. MR. BOLLEN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-And I don’t think you’re proposing to change that at all. MR. BOLLEN-No, sir. As a matter of fact, I’m staying away from the shoreline. If you look at the map to the left, it shows, it says see diagram to right for area in question. It naturally goes in, but the area that I’m talking about, and even in the picture, you can see where the shoreline goes in towards the beach, but the area I’m talking about putting the stones is off the shoreline by about a foot and a half to two feet, and then into that area, replacing something 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) that’s already been existing with something that’s a little bit more safer, and a buffer to match the road as some addition to it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That was my only concern is whether or not there was going to be a natural alteration to the shoreline. MR. VOLLARO-What is that a photo of? MR. BOLLEN-Okay, if I can show you right here. This area right here, that’s the shoreline. If you look on your map, it comes in. My stone is starting right back here where the original one was, and coming up through and around to this point right here. This is the shoreline. That’s the shoreline. This area right here is up about maybe 18 inches from where the water level is, and the sand area is back up in through here. So that what’s going to happen is there will be, the sand will be in this area. The two foot stone would come across through here, and then on top and back a foot would be that barrier that goes around it where the shrubs would mimic what’s up here. Obviously that’s the road. These are the shrubs, a couple of boulders, a couple of small shrubs, around this, so that, in essence, they’d have to go over a four foot barrier, for the most part, in order to get to the road. From the road, however, it only looks like the same height as what’s already existing along the roadway, but it’s further off towards the water. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, clarify for me, so that area called the beach area is going to be filled in with sand? MR. BOLLEN-Well, it always was sand. MR. SEGULJIC-And when was that? MR. BOLLEN-It’s been there for years. MR. SEGULJIC-So this area on this drawing is just like a little beach area then? MR. BOLLEN-Yes. It’s been a beach area. See how small this is? I mean, this is the lawn area here. That’s the lawn. We’re only talking about a small area that goes across maybe 12 feet and in 10, or is across 10 and in 12. So basically what’s going to happen is this right through here is where the two foot stone is going to go, below this grade level, and then on top will be a mimic of this, and the shrubbery around the outside, and then this’ll all be the lawn, as it was, and this always was sand in there. I mean, from whenever I remember, it’s always been sand. MR. FORD-How is the project progressing? MR. BOLLEN-How is it progressing? MR. FORD-Right now. MR. BOLLEN-Well, it was going pretty good until, actually it got a little bit more extensive than what I had anticipated. MR. FORD-How did that occur? MR. BOLLEN-Well, the guy’s, we had 12 inch stones. They said we need to get 18 to two foot in there, and they actually dug, you know, probably two and a half feet out, when I really only wanted 18 inches. Unfortunately, I’ll take the blame for myself. I had to leave for medical reasons. I was back within two hours, and at that point Craig had come by, and we realized that that there was a major issue, we stopped. MR. FORD-Why are we reviewing this now? MR. VOLLARO-What do you mean? MR. FORD-As opposed to prior to committing to the project. MRS. STEFFAN-Ground breaking. MR. VOLLARO-You mean committing to the project to begin with? 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I would assume you were unaware you needed site plan approval for that? MR. BOLLEN-Absolutely not. I mean, this was not supposed to be a major renovation. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess, excuse me. So there has been excavation there? MR. BOLLEN-Yes. There has been. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s not good. MR. BOLLEN-No, I know it isn’t. MR. SEGULJIC-Because Mr. Hunsinger alluded to, you know, you go down further within the Code, in 179-6-060, under 2E, it speaks of dredging. There shall be no removal or rearrangement of materials under water except in those locations which such removals or arrangement is found to be beneficial or existing shoreline conditions (lost word) water quality or clarity. So I guess you’re right up against the shoreline there. Is that correct? MR. BOLLEN-Well, I’m not touching the shoreline, but, yes, I was close. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, with regards to mean high water mark. MR. BOLLEN-Well, I know that the water level was about 18 inches below where any of the ground was excavated. Basically, what ended up happening was this. It’s very simple, is I ended up being very specific about what needed to be done. I am the owner of the company that does the work. I’m in the process of trying to turn it over to subs. I was very clear, drew it out, knew exactly what we were doing. It was a very basic and simple change, and, you know, they went, I left for three hours and they came back and they had dug, they basically dug a little bit more than I had anticipated. Is there a violation? Yes, there was. I went right to Craig’s office. He worked with me and explained what the issues were, and I was actually glad, because I told them, don’t get anywhere near the water. I was very glad that we caught it when we did, and that I’m before the Board to get it in good order. There is no damage. However, obviously, this much excavation should have obviously come to you prior to it. It was never supposed to get to this stage. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what I’m shocked about, there’s not even stormwater controls there. MR. BOLLEN-Yes, there is. We have silt fences and, if you could just show the silt fence. MR. FORD-And they were implemented prior to the beginning of the work? MR. BOLLEN-No, sir. This silt fence was in the day, probably around 11:30, 12:00 of the same day. I do all my work on the lake. I don’t work off the lake at all. This basically was, I’m at your mercy in that this was something that got a little bit further than I had anticipated. Unfortunately, I’m chronic and I had to leave for a couple of hours. It just got more than what I anticipated. I think that the project in itself was basic and simple. I think that I can get it back to that way very quickly in one day. I can’t take back the fact that it got a little bit more extensive because I was not there to supervise a very basic, simple thing. MR. FORD-Have you resubmitted it to Warren County Planning Board? MR. BOLLEN-I think that went in on the 10. th MR. FORD-Reviewed by the Board on the 10, where they said that the applicant had begun th additional excavation on the beach area and placement of additional boulders and new steps, and then they indicate there’s a No County Impact with Stipulation, and that is the Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the condition that appropriate erosion and stormwater controls are implemented prior to and after repair work. MR. BOLLEN-Okay. Yes, sir. MR. FORD-So, did you comply with that? 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. BOLLEN-Did I comply prior to and after? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. BOLLEN-No, sir, I didn’t. MR. FORD-Then you didn’t comply with their stipulation. So our assumption would be that it does have County Impact. MR. BOLLEN-I don’t think the County was even involved until after this thing was all started. Basically this was supposed to be a very simple, you know, there really wasn’t supposed to be any excavation. This was supposed to be a hand dug, you know, remove, take these boulders out, put these other boulders in, and not a major excavation. MR. FORD-And what day did this occur? MR. BOLLEN-This was well over, you know, well over a month ago. This was a good time ago, and, I mean, it falls squarely on my shoulders. I mean, I was very clear. The person that was doing the work is certified New York State Nurseryman, 30 years experience, knows what he’s doing. I’m trying to turn part of my business over because I physically can’t do it anymore. I would have stayed, but I couldn’t. I’m at your mercy, in that I’m a good contractor on the lake who got caught in a bad situation, not trying to get past anybody, but I’m a lifelong resident of the lake. I know what’s involved with this stuff. It was not supposed to get that extensive. He wasn’t even supposed to have a machine over there. I had the machine across the street for another project. So, it went from me, old school, of hand digging, and simple, to being away for two hours, you know, at the hospital for testing, back to, we got a call from the Town of Queensbury and I didn’t, you know, when I came, you know, I’m a cardiac patient. Thank goodness, I mean, I started stuttering. It’s a sad situation. I’m a good contractor that got caught in something bad. I mean, my two year history has been heart attack, two stents, triple bypass, five kidney stones and cancer in the last two years. I’m keeping a good business. I’ve got a good company. All my business is referrals, and this was my first opportunity to try and get somebody else to work with me to do this, and it just really didn’t go well. I got down into Craig’s office, and, I mean, they’re unbelievable down there. He looked at me. His eyes bugged out, but he said, this is what you need to do, and this is the process, and they were very helpful, and I’m at your mercy to get this back in order, and I’ve never had any trouble. I’ve never had any problems, and I’ve got a great reputation. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, I hate to have to give you a heart attack, but I’m all hung up on, the Code says the activities shall not alter the natural contours of the shoreline. The shoreline is altered. MR. BOLLEN-Within a certain distance, or? MR. SEGULJIC-It just says the activities shall not alter the natural contours of the shoreline. MR. BOLLEN-But it didn’t change the contours of the shoreline. It didn’t change it at all. As a matter of fact, if you look at the existing picture that’s here, I stayed at least 18 inches, he stayed 18 inches away from the shoreline, and it’s exactly the way it was from when we started. The work that was, the stones that were taken out was from 18 inches from the shoreline in 12 feet, and around to the line, but I did not touch the water or get anywhere near it. Obviously I got near it. That’s what the problem was. MR. FORD-But, upon completion, sand will be added. That will impact the shoreline. MR. BOLLEN-Well, he never had, they never had the sand right into the water. They always had the natural water up, the contour of the lake pitches up with dirt and then he had about 18 inches, two feet, and he had sand in towards the rocks. There never was sand into the water. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I don’t want to belabor this, but, you know, you look at your definition of shoreline, it says the mean high water mark at which land adjoins the waters of the lakes, ponds, wetlands, etc. MR. BOLLEN-Yes, sir. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-So there’s excavation into the water, shown by the pictures. MR. VOLLARO-What we don’t know here is he at 320.2, where is the high water mark here that he had to work to? We don’t know that. I’ve got a comment on my sheet that has 320.2, with a question mark. MR. BOLLEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-And, without knowing where the shoreline really is, in this, you can’t really know whether we’ve disturbed it or not, because we haven’t identified it. MR. BOLLEN-Well, the inspectors that came by, his first comment was, thank goodness you didn’t dig into the shoreline, and I looked at it, and I looked at the guy who did the digging, and that’s the exact same thing I said. Because I said to them right off the bat, I said, do not go anywhere near the water or the shoreline, and the stones were actually smaller as they got to the water, and thank goodness he did abide by that, but I understand your point, sir, and if it takes further inspections to take a look at it, but the actual contour of the line, where it came to, there was no excavation right at the water line, and it went from about 18 inches away, up into where the beach was already existing. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to pour some sand into this when you get all done? MR. BOLLEN-Well, I’ve got everything. Everything that was taken out from there I’ve got across the street. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to replace this with sand, I would think. MR. BOLLEN-Well, yes. There was about 10 inches of sand that was in there, that he took out. He put together an application of how it should have been done, in an area not close to the water. You don’t excavate that much by the water. I know that, and it’s my mistake that he wasn’t clear with that. So I know that you’re not supposed to dig that much, but, yes, we’re going to put 10 inches back of sand that was there, but the sand never touched the lake. MR. FORD-This occurred a month ago. What has been the net effect of all of the rainfall that’s occurred in the last two weeks? MR. BOLLEN-Well, we’ve had that tarped off, and we’ve had a double silt fence there, and I actually live in Pilot Knob. So I’ve been over there, any time it rains, taking a look to make sure, I, you know, I don’t want to use the word “mortified” again, but I was mortified because I realized the implications of what could have happened with this, and I’ve inspected it after every rain. It’s got, I was asked by Mr. Frank to put in the tarp so that we had no runoff, the silt fence, and I had a double silt fence on there. I mean, anything and everything that could have been done and actually I was in the office a couple of times and asked for an inspection. They came out, they looked at it, and they said we can’t do anything else with the site until we meet before the Board, that this is stabilized and in good order. Even the silt fence is within that 18 inches, you know, away from the water where it was excavated. So I did everything once I got back there, everything in my power to do what needed to be done, and to follow the requirements of the Code Enforcement, and to try and come in and to show you that I can get it back in good order. To leave it this way is not good. It wasn’t right. It was never intended to be dug out that much. We did not change the shoreline. I think that there would have been some kind of a note or something from the inspector if there was a change in the actual shoreline. I don’t know. I don’t know how the actual process goes, but I can assure you, and I have no problem doing an inspection with him, that we did not alter the shoreline, and that’s something that I’ve always known that you couldn’t do, because I’m a lifelong lakeside resident. I fall upon your mercy to see that this is a situation that I basically can be in a lot of trouble where I can have this cleaned up and fixed with the inspections within a day and get things back in order so that we can get the tarp off, the fence out and get the lake back to what it’s supposed to be, at whatever requirements the Code Enforcement asks me to do, and I would fall upon your mercy to please give me that ability, and I know you don’t have to. MR. HUNSINGER-The unfortunate part is you have an unstable condition now. So, I mean, we almost have to do something. You can’t leave it like that indefinitely. MR. BOLLEN-Well, here’s what it is. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-All they’re going to do is fill it in with sand. MR. BOLLEN-No, no. I would, you know, it’s one of those situations where I want to put it back just the way it is. As a matter of fact, at this point, I mean, I had 18 inches stones in there. I was going to put two foot stones in there. I mean, 12 inches stones. I was going to make the stones a little bit larger, you know, I think that was the whole intent was to make this a little bit safer. The one thing we have now is a situation that can’t stay that way. So the two things are, is you’ve got somebody in front of you who can’t afford to have a problem, and I do, but I’m a good contractor that can fix it. I can meet the Town requirements. I can get an order, but if we get into this going through a whole process where there’s fines and everything, it’s just not going to, I mean, it’ll sink my ship, and I can’t afford it. If you need references or anything. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we can’t fine, so. MR. BOLLEN-I know, but, you know, I mean, my family’s been on the lake since 1902. I’m ridiculously a person that saves the lake. I was mortified when this happened. MR. FORD-Your proposal is to fix this by doing what? MR. BOLLEN-I’ll have it done before this weekend, if you want it. MR. FORD-How? MR. BOLLEN-How? MR. FORD-What are you going to do? MR. BOLLEN-Well, you know, I was going to, if you look at the level right there, the taper of the soil was, you can see right here on the plan where the taper was, it’s sloped up, right. I’ve got to put the soil, basically put the soil back that was taken out, and it’s all dry. It’s nice. It was what was there. It was saved, across the street. We had it on a truck, and when the inspector came by he said, save that dirt because you don’t know if that’s the same stuff that’s going to go have to go back. So I’m not bringing in any foreign materials. The sand would be new, obviously, you know, but what I’m looking to do is to get, it’s all dry in there now, is to get the soil back in there, tamp it, get the stones around the outside. MR. FORD-Is it 24 inches? MR. BOLLEN-Yes, sir, if I may. I think that that’s something I think it’s important for the safety issues. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess where I get confused also is, and I don’t want to belabor this, why, if you were just replacing rocks, was there any excavation required? MR. BOLLEN-There wasn’t. I mean, it was supposed to be hand dug. MR. SEGULJIC-Once again, if you were just replacing rocks, why was there any excavation, whether hand dug or anything? You had indicated you were just going to replace, you were going to put two foot boulders in, I believe. MR. BOLLEN-Yes, sir. MR. SEGULJIC-Why would you even do any hand digging? MR. BOLLEN-Well, we were going to, because you obviously have, if you’re going to put a two foot boulder in, versus an eighteen inch or a twelve inch boulder, there’s an extra six inches. You mean as far as going up or down? I was raising it up. That was the miscommunication. I said we’re taking these out and putting boulders in that are 12 inches higher, whereas when I came back, he dug it out thinking it was 12 inches but going down, whereas, my thought was, we’re taking out the stones and putting in bigger stones, you know, and then putting large ones on top. I never intended to have this thing excavated like this. I mean, there was going to be hand digging, obviously get the stone out and level things off, but I was going to take 12 inch stones and then put in two foot stones, so that there was that much more of a border, and I didn’t anticipate, I didn’t anticipate, really, the sand being disturbed as 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) much. Basically what happened was a lot was dug out, it never should have been there. I left a competent person there, with plans, to deal with something that was critical, and I’m ultimately responsible because I was the contractor. So this thing got into a major excavation, when it never should have been. It was just basically a simple thing of pulling out the stones, and now I have a situation where I’ve got to put it back, and that’s why I’m before you. I’ve got to get this thing back in order. MR. VOLLARO-You’re putting the same material you took out. MR. BOLLEN-I’ve got it all saved. MR. VOLLARO-When that gets all tamped down, how much sand are you going to put in, over the tamped original material? MR. BOLLEN-Well, what was in there was 10 inches. I plan on 10 to 12 inches of sand. I basically am going to put it back exactly the way it was, and have just the larger stones in there, and the larger stones would be buttressing probably about I would say about six to eight inches above the grade line, and then behind that I was going to put the boulders with the shrubs. I’d put it back the way it was. MR. SEGULJIC-As Chris said, the remediation for this is returning it to the way it was, I hate to say. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s close to the way it was except for the rocks. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, I’m not happy about it, but I don’t see what we can do. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’ve been sitting here looking at it and saying, you know, it’s 120 square feet. It’s not a hell of a lot. It’s not right, and I wouldn’t condone doing it again. MR. BOLLEN-I wouldn’t, either. MR. VOLLARO-But I don’t think this gentleman has very many things that he can do with it, other than bringing original material back where it was, keeping it away from the shoreline of the lake by at least 18 inches and tamping it down with the original amount of sand. MR. BOLLEN-And staying there the whole time it was being done. MR. VOLLARO-That’s the other thing. Compared to the other things we’ve looked at on the lake, this is pretty small. We’ve got other stuff on the lake. MR. BOLLEN-My promise, on the record, is to get it back as per regulations, the way it’s supposed to be. MR. VOLLARO-We’ll have Bruce Frank go up and look at it. We can make that, I think, maybe part of the motion is to have Mr. Frank go up and look at it when you’re all done. MR. BOLLEN-Okay. MR. SIPP-Is this proposed beach bigger than the original? MR. BOLLEN-No. It’s actually, it’s exactly what was there. The only difference here was, the only reason I got involved was it was the safety issue to try and buttress this thing up and to put it back, you know, make it more of a barrier so the kids couldn’t get up over it and get into the street. That was the only reason, and it’s a kiddy beach. MR. SIPP-No more sand added. It would be the original sand? MR. FORD-There’s going to be new sand added. MR. BOLLEN-I think, sir, that what happens is you dig it out, he dug it out, I mean, this sand is now combined with the dirt that needs to go below. So I really do feel that, yes, I can put the sand back, but you really need to, I think it’s going to involve, you know, some sterilized cleaned sand that is above the water line and away from the water so that it’s neat and clean, 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) so the kids, I mean, whatever you would require. My thought was to put it back exactly the way it was, 10 inches, you know, 10 to 12 inches. You don’t need more than that on a beach. MR. VOLLARO-Are you okay with this? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I think so, but just one question, for Susan. Under project description, you say applicant has excavated 120 square foot area at the shoreline and proposes to fill with sand. MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think primarily because we don’t have any prior approvals for what you see. MR. SEGULJIC-Do we have any idea when this was installed, then? MR. BOLLEN-When the original thing was installed? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. BOLLEN-I have no idea. No, I don’t. I know that this picture is at least three years old because it shows part of Charlie Crew’s property next door when McCall threw all that dirt over the disputed lot next door, which I could see the line right over here. So I know that that’s at least three years old, but to put just sand back, I think the issue would be, you’re dealing with more erosion at that point. I think to put the original material back, it’s dry, tamp it, and then put in 10 inches of sand away from the water line is the safest way to keep the lake clean and to get it in order and not have this thing eroding. MR. VOLLARO-Does somebody want to make a motion on this? There’s a public hearing on this. So I’ll open the public hearing. Does anybody want to speak to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I notice on the project description, my comments concerning a Critical Environmental Area and the shores of Lake George last week have fallen on deaf ears. MR. VOLLARO-No, they haven’t. I’ve already taken that up with Counsel, in an e-mail that all Board members have received. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Well, this is in a CEA. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. SALVADOR-However the next project you see that is there is a CEA. The inconsistencies are noted. With regard to hand digging 12 inch and 18 and 24 inch boulders, you’ve got to have man mount dean to do that. MR. VOLLARO-You mean to move them around. MR. BOLLEN-I have four of them on the crew. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Thank you. In any case, what we have here is filling and dredging within the shoreline. I would like to make the comment, and by the way, I preface this with the experience of over 30 years operating a bathing beach on Lake George. I have done all of the activities that Mr. Bollen has mentioned here. I have never had to get a permit from the Town, site plan or otherwise. Now this is why. The New York State DEC has promulgated regulations known as Part 608 of 6NYCRR. These are entitled Use and Protection of Waters. They describe fill, there’s a definition of it. The definition of the mean high water mark is noted, and there’s another term here they define, and I’ll read it to you, Indirect Placement of Fill, means positioning material landward and in close proximity to the mean high water elevation of a water body, such that the material is introduced in the water body by natural, erosive forces, thereby creating a fill below the mean high water elevation. MR. VOLLARO-That would be to seaward, essentially, you’re saying. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. SALVADOR-This regulation precludes this Town from issuing a permit for the activity talked about here. I’ll read you the following. Permit Required, this is a DEC Permit Required. No person, local public corporation, or interstate authority may excavate from or place fill either directly or indirectly in any of the navigable waters of the State or in marshes, etc., etc., without a permit issued pursuant to this part. Notice how carefully they say indirectly, because your issuance of a permit is an indirect filling of the lake, or activity under this, and you are prohibited, no person, local public corporation, that’s the Town, may do this without a permit from the DEC. Again, our regulations are woefully inadequate with regard to the requirements of other agencies. MR. VOLLARO-That’s 608 that you’re looking at? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And what’s the date on that, John? MR. SALVADOR-19, well, this goes back to the beginning of time. It goes back to 1972, but it’s been revised various times, and this recent issue is 1995. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, 1995. All right. So it’s still in full force and effect. That’s what, and this is part of NYCRR? MR. SALVADOR-6NYCRR Part 608. Use and Protection of Waters. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SALVADOR-This should be referenced in our shoreline. It should be referenced. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. MR. SALVADOR-And there’s really nothing for us to do as a Town. This takes care of it. They have authority. They have jurisdiction, so to speak. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’re saying is this applicant should have gone to the DEC for a permit to do exactly what he did? MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And he did not. MR. SALVADOR-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FORD-Maybe that’s where he should be now. MR. HUNSINGER-Except our Code requires site plan review. I mean, Mr. Salvador is obviously correct in his reading of the State law, but we still have site plan review within 50 feet of the shoreline. MR. VOLLARO-That’s correct. MR. HUNSINGER-So he really needs both. MR. SALVADOR-You say you have site plan review. This regulation precludes you from issuing a permit without the DEC permit. MR. HUNSINGER-I understand that. We’re saying the same thing. MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-All I was saying was commenting to Tom’s comment that he shouldn’t even be here. He still needs to come here. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-For the 50 feet from the lake. What we’re really doing here tonight is looking at the hard surfacing within 50 feet of the lake, and we might have drifted away from that a little bit. I have a comment that I wrote, and I said that I’m not sure that replacement of sand and some small stone, I used the word stone, is hard surfacing. I mean, in my mind concrete is hard surfacing. MR. HUNSINGER-But dredging within 50 feet requires review, too. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And we’re back to that philosophical, under that 19-202, saying once you have a site plan, it opens up everything. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So I’m not sure where we go with this. MR. VOLLARO-Where do I think we ought to go with it? I’ll tell you where I think we ought to go with it. For 120 square feet, I think I would approve this. It’s a lot of education for us, here, as to what we’re doing. MR. SEGULJIC-But there’s been 120 square feet, obviously, well, in my opinion there’s been 120 square feet of excavation along the shoreline, when in our Code it says the activities shall not alter the natural contours of the shoreline. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Freeze that frame. Now what would you propose to do to mitigate this problem, other than what the gentleman says he’s going to do? MR. SEGULJIC-Get clarification that they also, as Mr. Salvador pointed out, that he needs to get the permit from the DEC. MR. VOLLARO-Well, okay. If you want to table it for a DEC permit, then this gentleman has got to go a long way. See, if this was somebody that was excavating a whole beach, I would say let’s do something here. MR. SEGULJIC-My personal opinion is that we need to start doing things to protect the lake. Allowing people to just excavate, you know, we always say everyone wants sundecks. What’s next, everyone digging their own personal beach? MR. BOLLEN-Can I jump in for a second? I agree with you. I do. Nobody else would. I mean, my family’s been on the lake for 104 years. I mean, this place means everything to us. I think that I understand Mr. Salvador’s point about indirectly to the lake. We now have, I already explained the unfortunate situation that happened. I think it’s, you know, if you dig two feet out on the lake, to me, it’s something that shouldn’t be done. So I do understand your end of it, but we are now in a situation where I think this can be put back exactly the way it was. What’s the definition of indirectly? I don’t, you know, he said directly or indirectly in the lake. This thing, if I put it back the way it was, then it was exactly the way the drainage was before. I did not, the shoreline was not altered, and that was verified by Mr. Frank when he was there. I think we have a situation that is a sore thumb that needs to be put back in good order and inspected, and I think that, as a Board, you also have to have discretion, taking the whole situation, you know, I mean, what happened to the old thing of, look, let’s look at the picture and see what’s the smartest thing to do. As long as we come close or follow the law, I would ask you for discretion to get me in there and get this thing done and get it done properly and that’s a promise I’d make sure I would do. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we can stipulate that we will have a follow up inspection by Bruce Frank. I’m concerned that I’ve never heard of NYCRR 6 Part 608 until tonight. MR. BOLLEN-And who did we hear that from? MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Salvador. MR. BOLLEN-I would like to compliment him on him being a savior for these types of things, but there has to be some softness in his heart for a situation where, looking at all the circumstances, and somebody who’s a life long resident, and who wants to get this back in 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) order, and works on the lake, and has never had a problem, wants to get this back where it is, and I will do anything required by the Town to get that in good order, and I think that Mr. Salvador would rather have it back the way it was and in good order, than to leave it as it is. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think it’s going to be close to getting back to good order if he puts original material, not foreign material, but original material back, and the same amount of sand that was there before that got mixed with the material. He’s pretty close to having the beach pretty much the same as it was before. MR. BOLLEN-I would even propose to put back the same stones and just put the, you know, if I put back the same stones, exactly what was there, and then just put that buffer that looks like the road around it, then I still think that that would be a safety thing that would be taken care of. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct me if I’m wrong, Susan, to this 120 square foot excavation along the shoreline, he would need site plan approval. MRS. BARDEN-That’s the reason he’s in front of you now. Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-And at what point would that have been required? I mean, if this was installed in 1900, obviously, it would be grandfathered, but if it was installed five years ago, I would assume they need a permit for it. MRS. BARDEN-The same review, and that’s why this is presented as the whole project, because we don’t have any previous approvals for this. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m not comfortable with this. I mean, we can’t have people excavating their own beaches on the lake. That’s where I stand. MR. VOLLARO-Well, given that, what do you want to do? MR. SEGULJIC-Deny the application. MR. VOLLARO-That’s certainly your prerogative on the vote, but I would like to, we discussed this now, we’ve been here for almost 45 minutes, almost 50 minutes now, it’s 10 minutes to 11. MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, I do have a public comment, I’m sorry, written public comment to read into the record. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-This is dated May 19, 2006. To Gretchen Steffan, Secretary, Queensbury Planning Board, for Michael and Gail Dawson. “It would be fine for them to have their project they’re planning at 115 Assembly Point Road. It would add to the beauty of the area. Thank you. Sorry I won’t be at the meeting as I’ll be away. Mary Trello” MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s a neighbor, Mary Trello? MRS. BARDEN-I’m not sure where Mary Trello lives. MR. BOLLEN-The Dawsons, we’ve come to the Board for what we did along the road, with the rocks. We came to the Board for the approval on the walkway. Had this thing, if this was going to be an excavation, which it ended up being, we would have come to the Board. This is not a good situation, but I don’t want you to think that this is something that we just went ahead and did, because it was not anticipated to be this dug out like this. This should have been just the stones being replaced with shovels and it turned into this. So it wasn’t trying to circumvent in any way, because we’ve come to you, on this site, for projects and put through and got approvals and did them as we were supposed to do, in the past. MR. VOLLARO-So what he could have done, if he’d done it right, is just brought in stone and we never would have known. MR. BOLLEN-Well, that’s what was supposed to have been done. 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-But that’s not what was done. There was excavation done, there was material pulled out and so on, and that’s what this gentleman’s concerned about. MR. BOLLEN-And I agree with that. MR. SEGULJIC-Why don’t we table it for a DEC review, that’s applicable, and then to get the date that this was installed. MR. VOLLARO-The date that it was originally installed. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know that there was ever anything there originally, was this originally a kiddy play area? MR. BOLLEN-I’ve been working for the Dawsons for probably seven years, and I always knew it to be there. I don’t know, sir. I mean, if you think about it. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to go back in time and pinpoint this 120 square feet. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, they have an aerial photograph here. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that doesn’t give us a date. It just gives us a photograph. You can put a motion up, Tom, and see where it goes. MR. SIPP-I agree with Tom. Because I’m afraid that this might open the door for more of this kind of action, and I would hate to see that happen. MR. BOLLEN-Well, I would, too. MR. SIPP-But in the sense that the man, somebody’s got to get a way out here, and if it is a DEC approval, then we can table this until that point, or we can approve it with the idea that this would be put back as originally dug out, with inspection. MR. VOLLARO-That, to me, would be a far better approach than bringing the Department of Environmental Conservation in on a 120 square foot, and I realize 120 could be 2000, which would be 5,000 square feet, now we’ve got a real problem, but I don’t know about bringing DEC in on this one. Certainly this has been an education for the Board. We’re slowly becoming educated not to disturb that shoreline, and I understand that. I just don’t want to make this a cause celeb here. MR. FORD-Probably DEC doesn’t care whether it’s a 120 square feet or 120 square inches. MR. BOLLEN-Well, that’s the point I made. MR. VOLLARO-I’m not really sure what the area that DEC says, okay, I’m in, or no, I’m not in. I don’t know what that is. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t know for sure, but I’m sure DEC’s not really going to care much, 120 square feet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, they’re looking at the macro scale, we’re looking at a micro scale. MRS. STEFFAN-I’m listening to all this, and I just think this obviously is a situation where there was a mistake made, and I just think that prolonging this, and then leaving that scar on the lake, it’s ugly. It’s going to attract a lot more attention to it and make it higher profile than it needs to be. I think if the Town Code Enforcement, for lack of a better word, micro manages the fix on this project, I think that’s the best solution. I don’t think this would be precedent setting because obviously it’s a mistake. Somebody screwed up, and we’ve had situations where the contractors come in, you know, where the boathouse was oversized and it ends up in a lawsuit, but this is not that kind of situation, and I just, I don’t know. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-I think this comes under the heading of a mistake by somebody. MR. SEGULJIC-And I agree with you, but also, recall, they never got approval for this, and essentially you are approving this, this excavation of the shoreline, which is clearly prohibited in our regulations. That’s where I get hung up. MRS. STEFFAN-But the way he described it, it was just taking a rock out of the space where it was and putting in a bigger rock. MR. BOLLEN-Right, and the rocks did not touch, I mean, it was not, it was away from the shoreline. That’s one thing I said ten times, do not go near the water. MR. VOLLARO-If you hadn’t put a shovel to the ground, just removed the stones and made them bigger, nobody would know, and you wouldn’t have been here. MR. BOLLEN-And that’s what I anticipated. MR. VOLLARO-The fact that you’ve excavated out, next to the beach, is a problem, and I think it’s a problem, but I think it’s a 120 square foot problem. I know it’s in violation. I’m agreeing with Mr. Seguljic that it is a violation. Probably DEC should have been in on this situation. I don’t know whether this rises to the level of having to bring DEC in on it. That’s my position. MRS. STEFFAN-The difficulty is we’ve had so much, one of the reasons why we have so much regulation in the Town is because people try to do things that aren’t right. MR. BOLLEN-Exactly, and I agree with you. MRS. STEFFAN-But mistakes do happen. We are human, and so I would just hate to see us be unreasonable. MR. FORD-Why don’t we have him put it back the way it was. MR. VOLLARO-If he can get close to the way it was. MR. BOLLEN-No, I’ll put it back exactly the way it was, I mean, with the same stones, if you would make that requirement. If you want me to put the same ones back, I have no problem. If I put the two foot ones in, they’ll be at the same level, and I’ll even have Frank come there before, Mr. Frank come there beforehand if he needs to. MR. VOLLARO-There are no stones around there now. They’re out? MR. BOLLEN-Well, everything was saved. Everything is across the street. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So what we see is what is there now? MR. BOLLEN-Yes, except it’s got a silt fence and tarps over it. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So, if you put the original material back, the same amount of sand, and the same heights of stone that are on the beach, without getting into the big stones, as close to what it was, that’ll bring it as close to its original configuration as you can possibly get. MR. BOLLEN-And it would be greatly appreciated, and I will do it the right way. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen, do you want to make a motion on this? MRS. STEFFAN-Did we agree on using original materials? MR. VOLLARO-Original materials. Let’s go to original materials. MR. FORD-Put it back the way it was. MR. VOLLARO-Bring it back the way it was. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. BOLLEN-Okay, and can I ask one thing, because part of the application was to, if I bring that back exactly the way it was, part of the application was to mimic what was along the road, on grade, with a couple of shrubs around it for a safety factor. That’s what I was asking. MR. SEGULJIC-The Zoning Administrator is going to hate me for this, but part of the condition will be no fertilizer use on the property. MR. BOLLEN-I never use fertilizer on the lake. MR. SEGULJIC-I didn’t say you. I said this particular applicant. MR. BOLLEN-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-Would we care if he put shrubs there? It’s not dredging or fill. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. That would be good, because looking at the site, there’s not many trees. MR. FORD-It’s better than boulders anyway. MR. BOLLEN-Right. Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 21-2006 MICHAEL & GAIL DAWSON, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant has begun additional excavation of beach area and placement of additional boulders and new steps. Dredging and hard surfacing within 50 feet of shoreline requires review by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on this date; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: This application is approved and is subject to the following conditions: That the site will be returned to its original state using the original materials, and follow up by Bruce Frank to see that this has been accomplished, to enforce the elements of Chapter 179, and no fertilizer use on the entire site. Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: nd MR. FORD-Do we want to put anything relative to what the Warren County Planning Board mentioned about appropriate erosion and stormwater controls? MRS. STEFFAN-That’s part of our Town Code. MR. VOLLARO-Isn’t that part, during the construction of? I think that’s how I took that when I read it, from Warren County, and I think he’s attempted to do that during the construction phase. MRS. STEFFAN-And adding no fertilizer use. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-On the entire site. MRS. STEFFAN-Next to the road? MR. SEGULJIC-No, the entire site. MR. VOLLARO-He’s talking everything. He’s saying no fertilizer use on the entire site. I guess by definition, this is a site plan review, and I think what Mr. Seguljic is saying is that in 179-9-060, it talks about us being able to do site plan review in accordance with everything that’s in this 179-9-060 chapter, and that’s why he’s asking for fertilizer, no fertilizer to be used throughout the parcel. Is that correct? MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-So I would put down no fertilizer to be used on the entire parcel. Because we really should be looking at the entire site plan. I think Tom has a point there. I’ve asked the Zoning Administrator, give us his position on that. He hasn’t done it yet. When he does, we’ll see what he has to say and then we’ll decide what we’re going to do. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. One of the conditions, no fertilizer use on the entire site. MR. VOLLARO-Correct. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead, put it back the way it was. MR. BOLLEN-I will, and I do thank you. I will get it in good order. Thanks. MRS. STEFFAN-We hope to see you back again, Mr. Bollen, with a project plan that’s complete and follows our regs. MR. BOLLEN-I always do. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. BOLLEN-Thank you very much. SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 SEQR TYPE II MARTHA SCHMULBACH AGENT(S) JONATHAN LAPPER, B P S R JIM MOONEY OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 96 SEELEY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 609 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION ONTO EXISTING 900 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE. EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 20- 06, SP 31-90, AV 27-90 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-12 SECTION 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & JIM MOONEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Martha Schmulbach and Jim Mooney. Martha has owned this property since 1982, with her late husband. It’s been a summer residence, and now she has sold their primary residence, and she wants to live here full time. The project is to add a second story addition because the house didn’t meet the setbacks. The expansion upwards required Zoning Board Area Variance which was granted, and because the house is 480 feet from the lake, even though it’s on the non-lake side of Seeley Road, it is technically within the CEA, and that’s why we’re here for Site Plan Review. There was a discrepancy that the Staff pointed out that in the prior plan there was a large deck that was removed, and that’s why the amount of the deck is now only 197 square feet. That has already been removed. The site, in terms of the site plan issues, there’s a sump pump that goes to a drywell. The existing roof has been drained to a drywell and we will, as a condition, offer to drain the new roof into drywells as well. Beyond that, that’s pretty much the project, unless 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) the Planning Board wants us to add any other conditions. There is a silt fence on the site, for construction. I’m sure you were all at the site. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does anybody want to talk about this? MR. FORD-We had some Staff notes that it would be good to address. MR. VOLLARO-I went through the math on this, for whatever it’s worth, and there are some discrepancies, but none that would take them out of the realm of being approved on either Floor Area Ratio or things like permeability. The numbers don’t track. For example, they’ve got, the total area of the lot is 7,961.39, and I get 7,841 square feet by doing 43,560 times .18, which is what they say this acreage is. So I must have hit the key three times to make sure I didn’t make a mistake there, but in doing that, in using all my numbers in both the site plan development plan and Floor Area Ratio, you’re still not out of zone. MR. FORD-Permeability? MR. VOLLARO-And permeability is still good. It’s 20%. They say 16 on their drawing. It’s actually 20. So there’s some discrepancies in the way the drawing is, basically the math in the site development and in the Floor Area Ratio doesn’t match what’s on this piece of paper, but when you use, when I put my numbers in, it still doesn’t take it out of range. So that’s a consideration. MR. FORD-How about water source and septic system should be on the site plan. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. MOONEY-The water source is from the lake. It’s a common water source, and there’s a well on the property, too. MR. VOLLARO-It doesn’t show. MR. FORD-It doesn’t show. MR. VOLLARO-The well is what shows. There’s a legend for a well, but the well doesn’t show, reference the septic system. MR. MOONEY-The septic system runs along the. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but it’s got to be on the plan, sir. I’ve got to be able to see it. MR. MOONEY-The septic was approved by the Town in 1990. There was a plot, and the Staff has that. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that, but it’s approved, but I want to see it on the drawing, because there’s a couple of other things. Where is it? Where is it put? You’re going to be looking at a two bedroom house here when you get done, it looks like. MR. MOONEY-It will be a two bedroom house now, and it was a two bedroom house. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, and it’s going to stay a two bedroom. MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-But I’ve got to see where the septic, the septic should be on here, and if there’s water being, if the water is being taken from the lake, that should be shown, because right now one would believe, when looking at this drawing, that the potable water is taken from a well, based on the fact of the well being shown on the legend. MR. MOONEY-This is where it is, right over here, the septic. MARTHA SCHMULBACH MRS. SCHMULBACH-The septic runs along the roadside. 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. MOONEY-It runs right through here. It’s on here. MR. FORD-Normally we would have elevation drawings, floor plans. MR. MOONEY-I submitted elevation drawings and floor plans. MR. FORD-You did? MR. MOONEY-Yes. That’s when it went to an Area Variance. MR. FORD-Does anybody have them? MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t get any in my package. MR. LAPPER-I think Jim is saying that went to the Zoning Board for the Area Variance, the elevation drawings. I just saw them in here. MR. VOLLARO-And that’s going to be the addition? MR. LAPPER-Yes, this is what the Zoning Board approved, with the upstairs addition. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any of that, we don’t have that information in front of us. MR. MOONEY-Well, that’s not my fault. It should have been submitted to you. Like I say, I can give it to you, you can look at it right now, if you want. It’s right there. MR. LAPPER-It’s an existing septic permit from 1990. So we’re not proposing any modifications because it’s staying a two bedroom home. MR. SEGULJIC-Now how about bathrooms? MR. MOONEY-It has two full bathrooms now, and it’s going to have one full bathroom in the new addition, and one full bathroom downstairs, but we’re going to make one part of it smaller for like guests, like a powder room. MR. LAPPER-So it’s going from two bedroom two and a half bath, but that doesn’t change the septic. MR. VOLLARO-The baths don’t dictate it. It’s the bedrooms that dictate the septic size and so on, but there’s got to be a 1,000 gallon tank in here somewhere. There’s got to be a D Box, and there’s got to be some laterals put out here, and then we’ve got to know a little bit about what the perc rate is here and so on. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes, all that was done in 1990. There is a 1,000 gallon tank, and there is a junction box, and there is a field that runs along. MR. VOLLARO-Along Seeley Road? MR. MOONEY-No, it runs along a private road there. MRS. SCHMULBACH-It runs along a private road. MR. VOLLARO-Where is that? Is that on the lands of Dan and Julie Howland? Where is the private road? MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes. No, the septic isn’t on there. That’s the private road. MR. VOLLARO-Now what’s going on with that private road? Is that where the septic is? MRS. SCHMULBACH-No. The private road is owned by an Association. MR. VOLLARO-Is there a driveway, a way to get on this from Seeley Road? MRS. SCHMULBACH-That’s it, what you see there. 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-I see I’ve got a, I don’t know if you know what we’re looking at. Maybe you don’t understand what we’re looking at. This is what we’re looking at. This is what we got. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes, the private road is there. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Now that road, how do you access this property onto that, from that, you come on here, that private road, and you get onto the property that way? MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes, I access it off of the private road. It’s a private driveway used by three people. MR. VOLLARO-Drive on the grass? MRS. SCHMULBACH-Yes. MR. MOONEY-Everybody does in there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s no permeability issue with the fact there isn’t any driveway? MRS. SCHMULBACH-That’s right, no permeability issue with a driveway. MR. VOLLARO-There’s no garage on this property? MRS. SCHMULBACH-No. MR. VOLLARO-What are we looking at up there, what is that? That is a picture of the house now before? MR. MOONEY-Right. We were permitted for a new foundation under the house, and it’s dirt, and the permit is for a new foundation. The foundation is now back on top of the new foundation. MR. VOLLARO-And the permit was issued by? MR. MOONEY-The Town of Queensbury. MR. VOLLARO-The Town of Queensbury. MR. LAPPER-That’s in the Staff notes, in terms of approvals. That was just done recently, and there was also a site plan review done at the same time, 1990. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Now the next thing is the water source comes from the lake? MR. MOONEY-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-The drawing should show that we’ve got access for, where that pipe line is there. I don’t see that either. MR. MOONEY-It actually does not come up on her property. It’s an Association. It comes to a switching station, and they all turn the water off, each one of their houses, at one station, and it’s on a right of way. It’s not even on her lawn. MRS. SCHMULBACH-You can see it on this plan. The junction for the water from the lake, that serves five houses, is about there, but it’s on this piece of property. It isn’t on my property. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. There’s got to be a line from your house to that, is it a cistern, basically? MRS. SCHMULBACH-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-That has a whole bunch of valves in it that you can turn a valve on to any house. The plot plan ought to show where the line comes into the house, in other words, the 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) potable water feed. These are all requirements that should be on this drawing. This drawing is very inadequate, as far as I’m concerned. MR. LAPPER-I think the way it was viewed by Staff was that we weren’t changing anything. It was just the same house. Nothing was changing on the site. It was just a matter of the upstairs addition, and it was submitted to the Zoning Board before Staff realized that it was the 480 feet from the lake. So it wasn’t intended or anticipated that it was going to come for site plan review. Martha thought she was done when we got the variance, and she was ready to build, and then Staff pointed out that because it was 20 feet within the 500 feet, that it had to come to the Town. So it was an attempt to just show that the site wasn’t going to be changed. It was a pre-existing septic, pre-existing water system, and the footprint of the house wasn’t going to be changed. It was just the upstairs addition. So it was an attempt. MR. FORD-So the square footage is expanding? MR. LAPPER-The square footage is expanding. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but it doesn’t impact the Floor Area Ratio. I can go through those. MR. FORD-It will impact something else. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, you may be more aware of this, but under (lost words) Sanitary Requirements, it says it has to meet Chapter 136. I guess we’d want verification on that. The one thing that concerns me is they said the septic system was installed in 1990. If I’m correct, the pre-existing requirements were amended in 1997. So I’d want to make sure that the septic system met with the Chapter 136 requirements. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, well that’s something that I also want to look at. In other words, this was done in 1990. So we’re talking, what, 16 years ago. So this septic system was looked at 16 years ago. I’ll bet if you really took a hard look at it today, we’d have some problems, potentially, but we don’t know. Really, that ought to be determined. MR. SEGULJIC-We don’t know. MR. LAPPER-Well, I think the rule is that if you don’t, unless you expand the building by 50%, you don’t have to re-do the septic. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it says, 179-5-110, says any increase in floor area of a principal structure serviced by sanitary sewage facilities of any kind that is located in a Waterfront Residential district, and which requires a building permit, shall conform with the requirements of Chapter 136. MR. FORD-Any increase. MR. VOLLARO-I picked that up as well. That’s why I said, where was the septic system, because I was getting down to 136. MR. LAPPER-The plans are on file with the Town. So Jim can get those, for the approved septic system. MR. VOLLARO-One of the other things I note is that on a drawing like this, we really ought to have a stamp. This ought to be stamped by somebody. It’s an unstamped drawing. MR. LAPPER-By a surveyor. MR. VOLLARO-The stamp is usually round and about that size, and it’s got to be stamped on the drawing. It’s just not there. The elevation drawings should be required in order to do a, what I did to do the FAR on this was I took the area of the old building, and took the area of the proposed second story, and added it to it, and then did my FAR calculation, assuming that both of those were going to be applied in full to the Floor Area Ratio, and they didn’t fall outside the 22% zone, but I don’t think we can go forward with this unless we get more information on this drawing. The location of the septic should be on here. A water line showing the input to the house from a water source, potable water source. I mean, the drawing is incomplete. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, as well as the septic system details. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It should have something that, you know, we’ve got to know a little bit about that system. Even though it was approved in 1990, that’s 16 years ago. MR. FORD-And is a stormwater management plan required or not? MR. VOLLARO-On this lot, for .18, for 7,000 square feet, I don’t think so. MR. SEGULJIC-They’re affecting less than 5,000 square feet, so it’s not, as far as I know. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It’s a pretty small plot, but I think we need more information on the septic system on here. We’d need a stamp on the drawing. We need to show where this auxiliary road is. This should be shown in here, because right now it says the lands of Dan and Julie Howland, right up to the 147 foot line. So I don’t see any auxiliary road anywhere, unless it’s something that got put in there very late, and people have been just using it over the years, and it’s become a road by use, I guess. MRS. SCHMULBACH-Our deeds read, have use of. MR. VOLLARO-Because that road went with the deed? MRS. SCHMULBACH-That went with the deed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. SCHMULBACH-That’s part of the right of way. We have rights of way, and then parts that we own. We have individual parts that we own, and we have parts that we own together, and then we have rights of way, and that’s one of the rights of way. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That should have been clearly shown on the drawing. Because when I looked at this drawing, I said, how do you get on this lot. That’s a question I had here. It has driveway location and size, my notes, and I couldn’t see, when I read this, you know, you’ve got to recognize, when we do reviews, this is all we’ve got. This piece of paper doesn’t talk to us, it doesn’t talk to us. MR. MOONEY-Did anybody go up there at all? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we went up to look at it, sure, but what you’ve got to do is look at these drawings. MR. LAPPER-The old survey has right of way. MRS. SCHMULBACH-The old survey, you requested a new survey, and we had a new survey made. This was made by Coulter & McCormack back in 1987, and it’s essentially the same thing, and it does say right of way on that one. MR. VOLLARO-See, all of the things you have in front of you, to review, did you get all of this information that they’re talking about? MR. MOONEY-And all the septic permits were in there, too. All that stuff was submitted. MRS. BRUNO-Was that submitted for the ZBA? MR. MOONEY-For the site plan, too. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t think that’s correct. Your package is your package. I think that it was different than the Area Variance, as far as floor plans, elevation drawings were submitted with that. I requested, in Staff notes for the variance as well as site plan, the things that you’ve asked for, septic locations, potable water locations, those kinds of things. MR. VOLLARO-But they weren’t forthcoming, you didn’t get them? MRS. BARDEN-Right. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. FORD-They were requested but not provided. MRS. BARDEN-Well, they were requested in Staff notes at both times. So the applicant could have addressed that prior to this meeting. MR. LAPPER-Today we got the Staff notes. MR. MOONEY-We got the Staff notes today. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we’re not going to be able to do much with this the way it’s, I don’t know, I’m going to go (lost word) here for a minute and listen to this. MRS. BRUNO-You’re saying in terms of the Staff notes, it was noted in your Sketch Plan review under the Staff notes, which took place back on 2/13/06. I think that’s what Staff’s referring to. MR. MOONEY-That was for the Area Variance. MR. VOLLARO-That went to the ZBA. MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-The ZBA’s charge, really, in Area Variances, are really to take a look at primarily setbacks. MR. MOONEY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-And to give variance on setbacks if they so choose. MR. LAPPER-We just looked at it as an existing septic and existing water, and we weren’t changing the intensity of the use, but obviously we’ll get you whatever information you need. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s what we need, to make a complete review of this, and to have this drawing, I think, reflect, maybe there’s other pieces of paper that should be, other drawings tied to this. MR. LAPPER-We could probably just submit the 1987 Coulter & McCormack, because it shows the right of way, the shared right of way along the property line. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we can probably do a tabling motion on this and come up with the things that we need. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Did you open the public hearing? MR. VOLLARO-Not yet, no, I didn’t, and there is a public hearing on this. It’s classified as a Type II SEQRA, but there’s a public hearing required, and I will open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. BARDEN-I have one written comment, received today. To Mr. Robert Vollaro, Chairman, and Town of Queensbury Planning Board, RE: Schmulbach Seeley Road Site Plan Review, 22-2006, and this is from the Lake George Water Keeper, Chris Navitsky, P.E. “Dear Mr. Vollaro: I have reviewed the above referenced submitted site plan application and would like to offer the following for consideration by the Board: 1. The construction of the project involves the installation of a basement under the existing structure which requires a significant amount of excavation. There has been an ongoing sedimentation problem through the existing stormwater drainage system that has resulted in significant impacts to the shorefront of Lake George and impacts to drinking water of residents of Holiday Point. A project has been prepared for the Town for modifications to the stormwater system in the area. A condition of approval should be the requirement for the installation of the stormwater improvements and a satisfactory erosion and sediment control plan for the Schmulbach project. 2. The excavation of soil for the proposed basement has been removed from the site and stockpiled adjacent to a wetland on Seelye Road. This soil includes construction debris consisting of piping and concrete among other items. A condition of approval should be the proper disposal of the construction debris at a certified landfill and not to be used as fill in the wetland where it is 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) currently stockpiled. Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its basin. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Water Keeper” MR. HUNSINGER-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 22-2006 MARTHA SCHMULBACH, Introduced by Chris Hunsinger who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: Tabled to the June 27 meeting, pending the submission of the following documents: th 1. Revised site plan that has a proper stamp. 2. Location of the well and/or water source. 3. Documentation of a compliant septic system. 4. Completion of the Floor Area Ratio worksheet. 5. A site plan that shows the location of the auxiliary road. 6. A description of the proper disposal of any construction debris. 7. Elevation drawings. Materials to be submitted by June 1, 2006. Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: nd AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks for the consideration of getting her back on in June, and we’ll get you the information. MR. HUNSINGER-Susan, before they leave, what could be the latest date that they could submit materials? MRS. BARDEN-For June 27? th MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-May 15 would be the deadline date. th MRS. STEFFAN-That was a week ago. MR. FORD-That was a week ago. MRS. BARDEN-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-June 2? nd MRS. BARDEN-June 1. st MR. FORD-Can you comply with that, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. BARDEN-June 1. st MR. HUNSINGER-A week from Thursday. MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MRS. BARDEN-Okay. Great. 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) SITE PLAN NO. 49-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED STARK GROUP, INC. AGENT(S) JOHN H. RICHARDS, ESQ. OWNER(S) GEORGE & MARILYN STARK ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION 1533 NYS RT. 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES 18,051 +/- SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMFORT SUITES HOTEL AS WELL AS A MODIFICATION TO THE ROOF. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT SEEKS APPROVAL FOR MODIFICATION TO THE SITE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADDITION. CROSS REF. AV -05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 4.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-5.2 SECTION 179-6-020 JOHN RICHARDS & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-So, for the record, you are? MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, my name is John Richards. I’m the attorney for the Stark Group. On my right is George Stark, and on my left is Thomas Nace, the engineer on the project, and I want to thank you for hearing us tonight. I do appreciate that. The application is really just a modification of a few points that came up in the course of finalizing the plans for the construction of this project. As you know, it was approved in October, and those three are changing the nature of the roof from a straight pitched roof to a mansard roof, for both safety and efficiency, and extending the footprint slightly north from where it existed in the approved plan in the Fall, for purposes, primarily, of housing some of the booster pumps and other things in connection with this project. I assumed with Susan’s comments, the Staff comments indicated they need to know the square footage that that involved. We calculated it as about 1300 square feet on the footprint, a total of about 5200 for the four story building. We also found that it was more efficient to raise the grade or not lower the grade quite as much. So we were going to leave it at two feet higher than we originally thought in the Fall, and when you factor in the slightly lower roofline, you’re going to end up still several feet less than what was approved by this Board and by the Zoning Board in the Fall. So we’ve asked for the Board’s consideration in these changes. We think it’ll make a good project better, and we’d also appreciate your decision on this because we need, quite frankly, to get going immediately in order to get this building buttoned up by the Fall, or by the early winter, so that we can do the interior work and be open next Spring. We did meet with the Town Board in a workshop session earlier this evening, and they gave us conceptual approval to the extension of the water and sewer. All the details have been worked out with the various Departments by Tom and Mike Shaw and Mr. Ostrander were there at the meeting as well, and we expect to have final approval on that probably in about three or four weeks, approval in the sense of signing the contracts. We’re going to be contract users. MR. VOLLARO-Why did you shift from a district extension to a contract user mode, what was the reason for that? MR. RICHARDS-Well, what we’re going to do, certainly timeframe was one of them. The other thing is, as it turns out now, we’re going to do a contract user for both water and sewer. However, the sewer contract’s going to be a short-term one while we then proceed and get the extension of the district. So it’s going to be a sewer district extension ultimately. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So you’re going to go through a map plan and report ultimately anyway, or you have to go through one now? MR. RICHARDS-The whole thing. We’ve done pretty much everything we have to do with the Town. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The map plan and report’s completed? MR. NACE-We’ll be a contract user for the period of time that it takes us to finish the map plan and report, get everything approved, go through DEC. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what I was trying to get at. MR. NACE-So in the interim we’ll be served by a contract user, or as a contract user. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. RICHARDS-And the reason I raised that, the Town was very helpful, the Board was very helpful to us this evening, because we would ask this Board to consider that sufficient approval so that we can get the signoff here tonight and get our construction moving. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Board members, you have all obviously looked at this. I have comments, but I’d like to hear the rest of the Board’s comments. Some of them they’ve already answered for me, but if anybody has any comments. Don, how about yourself, have you got anything? MR. SIPP-Any change in stormwater? MR. NACE-Yes. When we were raising the site, we saw the opportunity to bring the stormwater more into compliance with DEC. So we’ve gotten rid of a couple of the drywells and used infiltration basins with pre-treatment ahead of them, to be more in compliance with DEC. MR. SIPP-Where would these be? MR. NACE-In the same location as the detention basins. We actually added one on the north side of the driveway, but the main basin on the south side of the driveway is still in the same location. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll start at the other end. Tanya, have you got anything to say on this one, comments? MRS. BRUNO-Not yet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Chris? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I had some questions, mostly as it relates to the elevation drawings. I don’t know how else to describe it other than to hold it up, as you look at the larger drawing here, you still have a pitched roofline, but then when you look at like this cut sheet, will you see these kind of angles on the end? I mean, will you see a flat roof on the two ends, or will you only see a mansard roof all the way around? MR. NACE-The mansard’s all the way around. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. I wanted to make sure, because there’s only one elevation. Typically we see all four sides. MR. NACE-It’ll be mansard. MR. VOLLARO-If it was on the other way, the mechanicals would stand right out. Everybody would see. I assume you’re putting your mechanicals on the roof, as a result of this mansard change, right? MR. HUNSINGER-And how are you draining the roof? MR. NACE-Internal roof drains. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess other than that, really I didn’t have a lot of comments. The changes are really fairly minor. The only other question is, you know, there were comments from the Town’s engineer that remain outstanding. MR. NACE-There is, I presume you got a copy of it, a May 17 signoff letter from C.T. Male. th MR. VOLLARO-Yes. We had it in the package. I got it in my package. The signoff by C.T. Male, May 17, 2006. MRS. BARDEN-I don’t know if the other Board members have that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I don’t. MRS. BARDEN-Dated May 17, but. th 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-No? MRS. BARDEN-There is a signoff from Jim Houston. MR. VOLLARO-Wait a minute. MRS. BARDEN-You got a previous signoff, I think. MR. NACE-Yes, there are two separate signoffs from C.T. Male. One is dated April 17, and th there was a signoff on the previous plans, and then there’s a May 17 signoff on the modified th plan. MR. VOLLARO-I’m either getting punchy, here it is. I have it, May 17. Signoff by C.T. th Male, it’s in my packet. How did that get in my packet only? MRS. BARDEN-Maybe one of your trips down to the Town. MR. VOLLARO-I doubt it. I just opened this one up and there it was. MR. FORD-May 17? I’ve got one. th MR. VOLLARO-Okay, that’s two. I’m so glad somebody else got one. The only thing that it came, this was sent in by fax. Usually I take the fax covers off and get rid of it, but it came with the whole site plan. MRS. BARDEN-I do have it with my Staff notes package as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Your collator was off, because we got Chazen letters for Six Flags included in with this package. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, and I ripped those out. MR. VOLLARO-I did not get those with this. MRS. BARDEN-Do you want me to read this into the record, for those that don’t have it? MR. VOLLARO-There’s a signoff here. Some of us have it, some of us don’t, but I think that the fact that there’s a signoff, I would say that you don’t have to do that. MR. SIPP-What’s the status of the historical and the archeological? MR. RICHARDS-It really is no different than in October. We haven’t touched any of the parts, the house or the parts that could be potentially sensitive. We’ve had our archeologist flag that, as we said we would, and I spoke to him this morning, just to get an update. They did the 1A, 1B investigation, have not found anything significant to date, but still keeping an eye on it. MR. SIPP-I think that was a battle area. I would think that being very close to a battle area and the death of a colonel there, there would have been some bullets or mini-balls. MR. RICHARDS-A Heineken bottle and that’s about the closest so far that I’m aware of. MR. FORD-Has the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation made a determination relative to the site? MR. RICHARDS-We haven’t submitted, nor have they signed off. It hasn’t been required at any level, and so far we haven’t seen a reason to do so. DEC didn’t require it. They gave us their permit. MR. FORD-According to this, it says DEC requested that the project sponsor submit conceptual plan information to the OPRHP. MR. RICHARDS-Yes, they suggested that. This Board decided it wasn’t necessary at the time, and DEC apparently determined it wasn’t necessary. They didn’t require it for our permit either. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-Anybody else have any other questions? I have a few that I can add to this. Some have been already answered. Chris, other than the roof, are you pretty much okay with this, other than the mansard design? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me take a look at my notes. I do know that, your Part I submission, we have to go through a SEQRA tonight I believe. This is an Unlisted? We have to do a SEQRA and it’s a Long Form. MR. NACE-This is just a modification. Do you typically just confirm that your previous SEQRA still stands? MR. VOLLARO-Usually do, but you filled out a Part I form. MR. NACE-It’s the same form. I just went through and in pencil, or in pen, modified any changes, so that you guys could determine whether there was a significant change. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and I saw this change, and you had sewer/water extension, and I put a note on mine, contract user for sewer and water. The extension of the water district requires a booster pump. I noticed that, Bruce Ostrander’s letter. You’ve talked to him about that booster pump? MR. NACE-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-I just have a quick question on it. What’s the redundant design to accommodate failure of that pump in order to maintain pressure to his hotel? You’ve got a booster pump. What kind of redundant design, or haven’t you picked it yet? MR. NACE-I can let the contractor speak to that, but basically there’s an emergency generator that goes with the pump package, okay. There are two separate pumps. One’s for domestic. One’s for fire purposes. As far as redundancy. MR. RICHARDS-We do have Mr. Michael Russo from Bette & Kring, the contractors here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RICHARDS-We’ll have him address that question. MICHAEL RUSSO MR. RUSSO-Yes. We do have a domestic water booster system, and we have an electric fire pump for the sprinkler system and the stand pipe system, and then we have a gas powered emergency generator, which will be tied to both of those in case of power failure. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In case of power failure. That’s what I’m looking at. If the power fails, the pump’s not working, you’ve got to get on an auxiliary facility. MR. RUSSO-Right. We have an emergency generator for that purpose. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Gas fired? MR. RUSSO-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-On your stormwater, I’m going to throw you a curve, Tom, because I got a kick out of this. So I said I’ve got to do this tonight. I’ve got to get some little humor into this game. Getting into your stormwater plan on Page Three, under the SWPPP requirements. MR. NACE-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-It says down under Condition Five and it says, following the commencement of construction, the engineer shall make weekly inspections, and inspections within 24 hours of a storm event of over a half inch greater, and shall prepare a report as required by the general 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) permit, and I chuckled at this, and so I said, well, I’ll ask Tom. I’ll ask Mr. Nace about this, but I’ve never seen that one before. MR. NACE-Really? That’s part of the SWPPP requirements. MR. VOLLARO-I know we had more than a half inch. Were you out there and did you write a report? MR. NACE-I did. In the construction trailer there’s a notebook like that in the construction trailer that we have to have on site for DEC to inspect when they come, and that includes all the weekly and rainfall event inspections. MR. VOLLARO-You get an A for that one, Mr. Nace. MR. NACE-I’ll take it. MR. VOLLARO-The Fire Marshal stated that they want a location of the fire hydrant to the rear of the building near the kiosk. Add that to Drawing SP-1. MR. NACE-Yes, we will. MR. RUSSO-I’ve had a couple of meetings with Dave Hatin and Mike Palmer. At the first meeting we discussed that. Last week at our meeting we did a calculation of the footage, and he has now requested just a hydrant when we come right off of Route 9, so, instead of around the back of the building. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. RUSSO-I haven’t had a chance to discuss that with Tom yet. MR. VOLLARO-So this memo of his of May 2 to Craig Brown concerning the location of that nd fire hydrant is no longer valid. MR. RUSSO-Right, as of the other day when we met. Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Can we get some kind of confirmation from the Fire Marshal that this letter of his is null and void now? MR. RICHARDS-We can certainly get that. MR. VOLLARO-We need something in the record to say what I did on May 2 was no good. nd MR. RICHARDS-Certainly. MR. VOLLARO-All right. MR. NACE-In fact, we will be putting a hydrant down at the street, to satisfy the Town Water Department anyway. So, that works out well. MR. VOLLARO-I think he had an objection. His idea was to make sure the hoses were long enough, if there were a fire, that you could get out back. MR. RUSSO-Yes, there’s a requirement to be within 600 feet. We did the calculation by adding one on Route 9, that actually (lost words). MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have anything else. That’s it for me on that one. Now we have a public hearing on this, and I guess we’re going to rely on our previous SEQRA. MR. FORD-Can we hear the people? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’m going to open the public hearing. Whoever wants to talk on this subject. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MRS. BARDEN-I do have written comment from Mrs. VanDyke that you don’t have. I do have copies. So I don’t know if you’re prepared to read this into the record, or if you want me to, but I just know that they don’t have that. MARILYN VANDYKE MRS. VANDYKE-I can read it, but I didn’t know if it had been distributed or not. MRS. BARDEN-It has not. MRS. VANDYKE-Okay. Then, yes, I will read it, then. I am Marilyn VanDyke, the Town Historian, and as such, in case you don’t read me right sometimes, I am a Staff member of the Town. I’m an employee of the Town, and my comments and my opinions I think should carry equal weight, or at least reasonable weight, along with the Staff comments that are made by the Planning Staff members. So, apparently sometimes I read some comment in some of the paperwork that sounds like I just make an opinion and it doesn’t really count for much, and I don’t think that’s the fact of the matter. So, anyway, I will read this letter that I wrote dated May 17, 2006. “Dear Planning Board Members: As the Town Historian, I have reviewed the progress with the planning process for the Comfort Inn Suites. Several questions have surfaced in relation to the process and the specific need for review by the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. The property in question has significant archeological and historical considerations which at this point in time do not seem to have been coordinated with other investigations related to permitting processes for construction on the property (tax map 288.8- 1-5.2).” Now I have been forever trying to understand which permit are required for which projects, and which one of these permits will trigger action from SHPO, and that’s a very difficult thing to understand, and if you all know what it is, I’d be glad to have you educate me, because I’m still trying to figure it all out. “I. The property contains the Howe/Van Dusen home, a mid nineteenth century home of local historical significance. As the last remaining home in the old French Mountain hamlet and home of the village blacksmith Clark Howe, it stands out as a good example of vernacular architecture of this period. While it has been moved several times, it is this very move to accommodate the widening of Route 9 over time that makes its current location of historic importance. An architectural historian, Walter Wheeler of Hartgen Associates, examined the property and determined from an architectural perspective the house may not be eligible for the State and National Register. However, he noted that he did not examine the historical associations connected with the house thereby leaving an incomplete investigation in this regard. Charles Vandrei, with whom I spoke a few days ago, he is the Agency Historic Preservation Officer, NYS Environmental Conservation, and he also sits on the Board that reviews applications for the historic register. He has advised me that local historical significance of the house including its being the last remaining home in the hamlet and the home of the blacksmith along with its relocation for the construction of Route 9 presents mitigating factors which point to a positive consideration for inclusion on the State and National Register. Offers by the Warren County Historical Society to assist the Stark family in pursuing such a nomination have been rebuffed. II. A letter dated August 17, 2003 from Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, Queensbury Department of Community Development, states, ‘we previously identified the potential for historic and/or cultural resources on the site. While the Town Historian has provided comment on this issue, you are required to make an inquiry to NYS Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation’. I find no evidence of this inquiry either being made or acted upon. A letter dated August 25, 2005 addressed to Marilyn Ryba, Acting Zoning Administrator, as a SEQR LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE states the need for a SPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges for Construction Activities. It states, ‘The parcel is in a general area known to contain archeological resources. Therefore, the project sponsor should submit conceptual plan information to the (OPRHP) and request a determination of project impact on cultural resources. I have been in touch with Lyn Garofalini, who is our Regional Field Representative at the OPRHP who informs me that there has not been any contact with their office on the matter of Comfort Inn Suites (49-2005). The SPDES permit was issued. Why wasn’t the conceptual plan submitted and coordination with SHPO put into effect in this regard? III. Responses to Questions 6 and 7 of the SEQR Environmental Assessment Form are answered NO. Was any research done to determine the proximity of the Old Military Road (see the recent National Park Battlefield Protection Program study presented to the Town of Queensbury by Warren County Historical Society)? That’s now a very valuable planning tool, and I hope you’ll all make yourselves aware of it. Did anyone determine if the nearby gravesite of Colonel Williams is listed on the National Register or the National Landmark Register? These close historical sites need to be noted in any historical preservation review that would be done by SHPO. While the Howe/Van Dusen house remains intact at this time, what 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) consideration is really being given to preservation of this home? In a memo sent by the Town Historian dated September 18, 2003, several recommendations were outlined for mitigation. These included an architectural survey by an architectural historian (done but incomplete) and an application to place house on National Register of Historic Places (not in progress at this time). In addition, suggestions for preservation of the home included: restoration to the 1853 period with historic marker and adaptation as historic home or gift shop to accompany the hotel, or the following alternate options: moving the house to a nearby location in the hamlet area, deeding it to the Town of Queensbury for visitor interpretive center, deed to Warren County Historical Society for home with lot large enough to accommodate parking and historic interpretation. Excavating work is in progress at the site. The house itself has been separated out with a barrier, but before construction and building permits are issued for the project to go forward, it would seem that these matters of the study of historical significance need to be addressed by the owner and by the Planning Board. Now, in regard to preservation issues in the Town, I feel that we are very lacking, and we need some real strong efforts put in place so that you people have the tools that you can work with when a project of this sort comes forward and we aren’t in this kind of a limbo that we are in with this project right now, and if you have been looking at all at the new PORC Committee’s development of the new draft plan, there is a planning recommendation in there that we proceed with looking towards the development of a certified local government program which will identify our historic sites in the future, so when development comes forth, this will be right up front for you to look at. Now, in that regard, George Hilton presented me with this map a few days ago of the historic sites in the Town that we now have identified, such that we can begin some work on developing such a program, and there are 205 of these sites that are named. Now, we would probably prioritize these in such a way that the most significant ones of these would become so named. They include homes, churches, schools, barns, farms, natural sites throughout the Town, quarries, grists and saw mills, stone walls, cemeteries, pavilions, taverns, granges, historical markers, Native American sites and some of the hamlets, and not to take a lot of time to look at this, I’ll just run it down through so you can get a general impression of what this looks like. We need to be taking a further look at, what do we need to save and preserve, what are these important buildings old and valuable to us that are part of the culture of our community, and this has been put into the GIS system. I think that one of them is in the wrong spot on here, but it is the house. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t know what this was. Is this the Van Dusen house right here on the drawing? This is a parking lot, and it’s got a house to be removed. Is that it? Is that the Van Dusen house? MRS. VANDYKE-It’s on the south corner of the lot. So we’re going to be working on this a lot more, and we’re going to be developing it and putting it into a better framework. I hope that will be helpful as a planning tool. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it will. We don’t have enough information to even act on a lot of these historic sites. MR. VANDYKE-I’m sure you don’t. MR. VOLLARO-I mean, we don’t get information from SHPO or any of that. MRS. VANDYKE-I have one more thing for you to look at, just so you can get a sense of what we’re talking about here, if you haven’t been. First of all, this is one of the first pictures we have found of the Van Dusen home. It dates back to probably the 1930’s, maybe the late 20’s. As you can see what a really lovely home it was at the time, and this was not the original. It was a smaller home in the beginning. Then I have the house as it looks like today. Of course it’s been painted a sort of brick red, and some of you have probably seen this, and the porch has been removed, that was on there before, and it’s a different home, but it’s still a very good vernacular type of home, and it’s the last one in the French Mountain hamlet. The hamlet has been, all the homes are gone now, and we only have the hotels and the businesses and the other things that are there. MR. VOLLARO-What kind of condition is that really, in terms of, you know, is there any rotten wood? In other words, if we wanted to restore that building, what would we get into? MRS. VANDYKE-I’m not an architect. So it’s hard for me to say. Also I haven’t been on the property, out of respect for that fact that it is private property. I have not been on the site in recent times. However, it’s very sound structurally, as far as the way it stands. The roof isn’t 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) sagging. It’s not going to fall down tomorrow. Let me also tell you, though, that when I went to the hearings for the buildings that were going to be put on the National Historic Register last June in Lake George, there was a house that was put on the Register that looked like if you went poof, it would fall down, and the reason it was put on the Register had to do with its value to a particular community, and the fact that it could be restored and put back in a good state or its original state, so that you don’t have to be highly concerned about the state of it. Of course if you were going to restore it you’d want it to be in a good state. MR. VOLLARO-Well, you know, it’s sometimes very difficult to make a purse out of a sow’s ear. You’ve heard that one before, I’m sure. MRS. VANDYKE-But anyway, this is the situation that we’re in, but what I would like to see really, and the reason I’m speaking tonight, is I’d really like to see Parks and Recreation brought into this project, which I feel they should be, and they should have been, based on early recommendations that were made to your Board. MR. VOLLARO-We really didn’t know how to, I don’t that think ourselves or Staff really knew exactly what to do. I think Staff looked at this. I believe it was looked at by a Staff, and it never surfaced, never rose to the occasion where we really got concerned, I guess, about the SHPO response. I don’t even know what the history of the response from SHPO was. MRS. VANDYKE-That, unfortunately, is sometimes what happens with historic projects. They just get swept under the table. People say, how come you didn’t take care of this, or how come you let that go by the boards, and I think that’s something that we have to be a lot more alert to now and in the future, particularly as the Town grows. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I’m sorry I didn’t mean to cut you off, but what I remember very distinctly from the whole discussion is the applicant said that they would leave the house alone until some sort of plan could be made later on, and they said that, you know, they wouldn’t do anything to the house without coming back to the Planning Board for site plan review. MRS. VANDYKE-This is a statement that I think I found in the file, and I don’t know what it was attached to, but it says, no removal shall take place until a final determination has been made to this effect, but I don’t know who makes that final determination and what’s going to happen. MR. FORD-Who has the responsibility or the right to make the application for possible placement on the Registry of Historic Places? MRS. VANDYKE-I think you should ask SHPO that question, but my understanding is an owner of a property can apply to put it on the National Register, and there can be, other people of interest might do that, but if a third party did it, then they would certainly need the approval of the owner. You don’t do this without owner approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, or usually in the case of a historic district, the community itself will submit the application on behalf of the owners. MRS. VANDYKE-The Glens Falls District’s there, yes, but most of the people that are in that knew they were going to be put into those districts. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. FORD-As the Town Historian, would you be in the position to do that, then? MRS. VANDYKE-To put the house on the Register? MR. FORD-No, to make the application for it. MRS. VANDYKE-To make the application? MR. FORD-Don’t you have to apply to have that occur. MRS. VANDYKE-Yes, you do. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO-I think she’s saying that the owner has to make, or other people, but it seems that possibly the Staff has to, Number One, get a hold of SHPO and find out, you know, you’ve got to start somewhere. MRS. VANDYKE-You’ve got to start somewhere. Yes, well, one of the things is we had a member of the Warren County Historical Society approach the Stark family, and I believe they spoke with Mrs. Stark in this regard, and she said they were not interested. We offered to assist them if they wanted to do it, and they said they weren’t interested. MR. VOLLARO-I remember that debate. MR. HUNSINGER-It was lengthy, yes. MR. VOLLARO-It was a debate that was approached and we had it back then. MRS. BARDEN-Just a couple of things. It is the applicant’s responsibility to submit conceptual plans to the Office of Parks, Rec and Historic Preservation, and something Chris said, there was a lot of discussion about architectural review and archeological review, and that might have been what the Board intended. However, when you look at the resolution that’s in your packet, there’s nothing that says leave that area until we have some determination. So it’s really kind of still an open issue. MR. VOLLARO-I think you have to go to the minutes to pick that out. MRS. BARDEN-Right, but what I’m saying is if it’s not in the resolution, it’s not in the resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. In my recollection, and the applicant may have a different recollection, and they can address it when they come back, but my recollection is we specifically did not put it in the resolution because they had offered and said that they wouldn’t do anything with the house without coming back for us for site plan review. MRS. VANDYKE-And the house is intact. MR. HUNSINGER-And I think they’ve done a good job of staying away from it, to their benefit. MR. VOLLARO-I think that’s what Marilyn just read. I think she read a piece out of the minutes that said exactly, almost parroted what you just said. Okay. We’ll talk to the applicant, when he comes up, about this. MRS. VANDYKE-I do have this book, too, if you want to borrow it sometime. It’s how to complete the National Register, and I have all the forms for that. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, Marilyn. MR. RICHARDS-We appreciate Mrs. VanDyke’s concern. We certainly went over this last fall, and my recollection matches Mr. Hunsinger’s, which is that we said we wouldn’t touch the house, and we said we’d buffer any potentially sensitive areas, all of which have been done, and we would not make any changes to that, unless and until we came back before this Board and got this Board’s approval. So we’ve, I think, honored that, and that’s really not part of the modifications we’re asking for at this point. MR. VOLLARO-No, I understand that. I’m looking at it and saying, I wonder if it would aid in any way to the attraction of the Hotel if that house was put back in, I don’t know, would guests at the Hotel think, gee, it’s really nice, or, as an owner of the place, how do you feel about that house on the property? GEORGE STARK MR. STARK-What do I feel about it? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. STARK-When you went up to the site, the last couple of weeks or so, did you walk around the house or anything? MR. VOLLARO-I did not, know. MR. STARK-Okay. We just had a C.T. Male review, an environmental review. They did (lost words) because I’m refinancing the Mohican Motel and we’re financing the new motel. Okay. So C.T. Male did this for the banking institution. Okay. The girl that did it, a girl by the name of Amy from C.T. Male. She’s a friend of Bruce Frank’s, okay. She was telling Bruce, and then she was telling me, that when she went into the house, she looked in every room in the house, down the basement, up in the thing and like that. The basement walls are falling down, okay. Now, I didn’t make the basement walls fall down or anything. The house has got black mold in it. To restore the house to any kind of whatever you want to, you know, make it a museum or this or that, the only part of the house that was built in the 1850’s, and this is from Wally Wheeler from Hartgen Associates, this guy has his Bachelors and Masters from RPI. He’s been doing it for 17 years, an architectural historian. He went through the house and he went up in the attic and down in the cellar and he did everything. I was standing there with them holding the flashlight, and he said, well, the only part of the house that was built in 1850’s was this front corner, probably a little over 100 square feet. Everything else, this is the front northeast corner of the house, from that time period. Since then, he says, it’s been added on, an “L” Shape around that one piece, and a second floor has been added that has double hung windows. It has a, what do you call it, a concrete block foundation. It isn’t cut block or split block or anything, and, you know, it’s been wired and plumbed and all that stuff and everything. When we bought the house, we shut the water off, shut the power off, killed the gas line, because there was natural gas coming into it, and I didn’t plan on doing anything with the house. We’ve been storing, using it as a store house to put some tables in there and some heaters and stuff like that, you know, because I don’t have enough storage The Mohican. So you asked me what I would do with it. Short of spending an awful lot of money. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m not talking about you spending a nickel. I’m just wondering about whether we can get some sort of grant money to restore, and how you would feel about that being restored on your property, by somebody else, not you. MR. STARK-I offered the house to Mrs. VanDyke. I said, if you want the house, take the house. I didn’t care if it was there or not. If you want to leave the house standing there, it’s not going to hurt the Motel. It’s going to hurt the aesthetics of the Motel if you’re standing up there on the second floor or something and you’re looking down on a house that’s, you know, the trees, the oak trees are going to stay there. You’ve seen how many trees we left already, and then with our extensive landscaping plan that’s coming up, you know, we’re going to landscape that property pretty darn good. I don’t know how to answer you, Bob. If somebody wanted to put the money into it, fine. We didn’t, we said back, October, that we weren’t going to go near it. You see the silt fence up all the way around it. We’re not touching it. We re- positioned the water line and the sewer line coming in so it wouldn’t go into that silt fence line, or within 50 feet or whatever it is. We did everything you wanted. That’s all I can tell you. It would take an awful lot of money to restore that house. I mean, the roof isn’t in bad shape as far as the slate shingles and everything, but inside, if you went in the house, I welcome you to go in the house, the next time you go out on your site visits. You don’t need me. I’ll leave the door open. You can go in and check it out yourself, go down in the cellar and whatever. It’s a dirt floor cellar and the walls are caving in. Well, anyway, that’s not what we’re here for. We’re here for the three site modifications. I don’t know what else to tell you. MR. VOLLARO-On what you’ve presented, I don’t have any further questions. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-I just kind of wish there was an easy way to sort of take it to the next step and find out, from SHPO, who, you know, and they are the governing body. Is this, I mean, because they very well may say, the house has been, I mean, as you suggested, the house has been severely modified. It’s been moved or whatever, it really doesn’t have enough value, in and of itself, to be included in a National or State Register. Then, you know, maybe some of these issues go away. MR. RICHARDS-And that’s, Mr. Hunsinger, if I can just kind of hopefully put this to bed for tonight, what we had intended and what we’ve done, after the approval in October, was we’ve authorized Mr. Wheeler, the architectural historian, to finish the report. Mrs. VanDyke’s entirely right. He did the architectural review. He has to do the historical review, and I spoke to him this morning to get an update. That should be done, I would say probably in the next 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) month, and then he’ll put together his report. If he feels it’s something that should go to SHPO, he’ll do that, and when we’re satisfied we’ve gotten all the answers, we’ll come back where with a proposal that this Board can consider with all the facts, but we’re not asking for any activity with respect to that house tonight. MR. STARK-We’re not touching it. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, no, I understand. MR. RICHARDS-Our goal tonight is just to make these modifications and get on with the construction. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. I don’t have any further questions on it, to be honest with you. What we can do, I think, is entertain a motion here, for approval of this plan that’s been put before us, and maybe I’ll take a crack at doing the motion, if everybody wants me to. MR. RICHARDS-Mr. Chairman, about the SEQRA, though. MR. VOLLARO-No, there’s a section in here that talks to, if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the proposed modification does not in any way, in any newly or significantly different environmental impacts and therefore no further SEQRA is required. We have that in there. I will state that in the motion. MR. RICHARDS-Okay. Great. MR. VOLLARO-And I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 49-2006 STARK GROUP, INC., Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes 18,051 +/- sq. ft. addition to the previously approved Comfort Suites Hotel as well as a modification to the roof. Additionally, the applicant seeks approval for modification to the site associated with the addition; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on May 22, 2006; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, this application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the proposed modification does not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan, must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find the following: This application is hereby approved and is subject to the following conditions: 1. There needs to be a completion of historical report so that we can take a look at that and possibly give that report to SHPO, within 60 days. Duly adopted this 22 day of May, 2006, by the following vote: nd 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 5/22/06) MR. VOLLARO- There needs to be a completion of historical report so that we can take a look at that and possibly give that report to SHPO, within 60 days. MR. HUNSINGER-Should we give them a timeline to do that, 60 days? MR. FORD-Sixty days. MR. RICHARDS-Are you talking about Mr. Wheeler’s report? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. RICHARDS-I would think 60 days would be sufficient. MR. FORD-Sixty days. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got it. MR. RICHARDS-Thank you very much, and can we then go ahead and get our building, our signoff immediately? Is the approval on the water/sewer sufficient? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I’ve got letters that are in the file that document the file about what’s going to be done as far as water and sewer is concerned, and I think that’s sufficient, as far as the file. MR. RICHARDS-So if we meet the conditions of the prior approval, we don’t have to do anything more? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think. MR. RICHARDS-Great. Thank you very much. MR. STARK-Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for staying. I really appreciate it. I really do. MRS. STEFFAN-And, Marilyn, thank you for staying. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 76