Loading...
2006-06-20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20, 2006 INDEX Site Plan No. 57-2005 Northeast Dining & Lodging 1. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-6 Site Plan No. 66-2005 Martin Barrington/Mary Devine 27. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-21 Site Plan No. 1-2006 1093 Group, LLC 45. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-55 Subdivision No. 4-2006 Lee Jarvis 54. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 307.-1-32 Subdivision No. 3-2006 John Whalen 60. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 289.17-1-1 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 06/20/06) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20, 2006 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT ROBERT VOLLARO, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC ANTHONY METIVIER THOMAS FORD DONALD SIPP TANYA BRUNO, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN TOWN ENGINEER-C.T. MALE-JIM EDWARDS STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. VOLLARO-Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the meeting of the Queensbury Planning Board, June 20, 2006. Any housekeeping to do tonight? I don’t think so. MRS. STEFFAN-No. Approval of minutes, but it doesn’t say approval of what minutes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw that. Okay. In that case, I guess we can proceed with the first application on tonight’s agenda, which is Site Plan 57-2005. OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 57-2005 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING AGENT(S): THE CHAZEN CO. OWNER(S): RICHARD CUNNINGHAM ZONING HC-INTENSIVE LOCATION NORTH QUAKER ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE A 10,330 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RESTAURANTS REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. PLANNING BOARD WILL CONDUCT SEQRA REVIEW AND MAY MAKE FINDINGS. CROSS REFERENCE AV 68-2005 WARREN CO. PLANNING 10/12/05 LOT SIZE 3.104 ACRES TAX MAP NO.296.18-1-6 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & CHRIS ROUND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-For the record, you are? MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, the project attorney, with Neral Patel, the President of the applicant, and Chris Round, the project Landscape Architect on behalf of the Chazen Companies. Mr. Chairman, we’re very pleased to be on the agenda finally tonight to present this project. MR. VOLLARO-I didn’t know that Mr. Round was the Landscape Architect. MR. LAPPER-Planner. MR. VOLLARO-Just checking. MR. LAPPER-As I was saying, we were pleased to be back here. The last time we appeared was at the February meeting and the Board was, at that point, ready to do a SEQRA review which we anticipated a Negative Declaration. It was determined, instead, to table it for a list of nine items so that we would put in writing the conditions that we had all come up with that evening, and we made the submission, anticipating to be on in March, and the Chairman had asked that a few of the issues be looked into in greater detail, primarily engineering issues, buildability issues, in terms of soil, and that we have a C.T. Male signoff on the project and on traffic, and we made a couple of submissions since then to augment our March submission, and we did receive the C.T. Male signoff letters, and from our perspective there’s nothing remarkable about putting a restaurant on Quaker Road, the five lane road, a compatible, appropriate use, and we’d like to get through with SEQRA so that we can go to the Zoning Board for what we consider two relatively minor variances, a setback from a small wetland, which is really just a bunch of 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) cattails where Quaker Road drains off onto the site, and a parking variance so that we can provide extra parking to make sure that we don’t create a parking issue. One of the issues that’s come up is the access to the site next door and in February the Board was comfortable that because we have a loading dock next door, it’s not a good place, although access management is generally a very good concept. In this particular case, because we’ve got the loading docks on the side of the Mark Plaza next door, it doesn’t make a lot of sense, but nevertheless we’re still providing that for a future connection in case that site ever got re-developed. So we can go through the Staff notes, if you’d like to start with that. However you’d like us to handle it, Mr. Chairman. MR. VOLLARO-We certainly can go through Staff notes if you’d like to. Would you like them read, or do you want to just go through them? I have an agenda, I’d like to ask a couple of questions first, to put a few things forward before we go into that. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-I guess on Friday, that was 6/16, at about 4:43 p.m., we received information that some of the latest drawings from Chazen were just received, and that was too late for us to do anything over the weekend. MR. LAPPER-That wasn’t for this meeting. Those were the site plan drawings, because we anticipate and hope that we will get through SEQRA, get to the Zoning Board next week. We’re on the agenda, and we’ll be back in July for site plan. So those were site plan drawings that don’t apply. MR. VOLLARO-So you just want to go through SEQRA tonight? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Before we even have, I’ve got some SEQRA issues I’d like to talk about before we really get into SEQRA, but just a moment and just let me ask the Board if all members of this Board are ready to proceed with the SEQRA. I’m going to start with you, Don. MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, a couple of issues I’d like to have fleshed out is in this. MR. VOLLARO-Well, are you ready to go to SEQRA tonight, right now? MR. SEGULJIC-Right now, not right now, no. MR. VOLLARO-Because that’s what they’re asking us to do. MR. SEGULJIC-Not right now, no. MR. VOLLARO-Tom Ford? MR. FORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I need the questions answered on the fill situation before I can consider going to SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-Tanya? MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. VOLLARO-Tony? MR. METIVIER-I agree with Gretchen. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So I don’t think members are ready yet. MR. LAPPER-It sounds like we could answer some questions and go through some issues and hopefully they’ll become ready. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. There’s some issues that I’d like to bring up and discuss. Usually I don’t like to take the Board through SEQRA until they’re comfortable with it. MR. LAPPER-What I really meant is that I hope we get there tonight, not necessarily the first minute, but that’s where we hope to end up tonight, to get through SEQRA. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. All right. Now, getting back to the Staff notes. They’re rather lengthy. I’ll have Staff do is to read Staff notes. Do you want to try to abbreviate them, though, if you could. MR. LAPPER-If you don’t want to bother reading them, we could, Chris, we can just respond to them, and state the question and we’ll give you the answer. MR. VOLLARO-I think all members have read the Staff notes. I think I’ve read them. Certainly you know what they are. thth MR. HUNSINGER-We received those either the 14 or 15 . So, you know, this process doesn’t allow us to give you timely response. So that’s why I want to give you what we know, when we go through those. Question One was regarding a SHPO consultation, okay. In our EAF, that we prepared and submitted back in August or September of 2005, we identified that SHPO consultation was not required because the site, if you’re familiar with the site, it’s entirely either filled or wetlands. SHPO’s, there’s three rules that are in play when we’re dealing with SHPO. One is the Federal, Section 106 laws, with regards to historic preservation. There’s the New York State laws with regard to historic structures, and then there’s SEQRA, and you’re concerned with SEQRA. We don’t require any State or Federal permits that are discretionary in nature. So we’re not required to consult with SHPO. With regard to SEQRA, the question is, will you have an impact on historic or archeological features on this site, and our response is that, and what SHPO provides in their guidance on the website is if you can document that the site has been significantly disturbed or substantial prior ground disturbance, so if you have a road and you’re proposing to repave your road, you don’t need to consult with SHPO. In this case, the same standard applies. Generally, you don’t do archeological investigations of wetlands, because wetlands are not areas where you would have habitation, either historically or pre-historically and then in areas of fill, it’s an area that’s been identified as previously disturbed. So that was our response in Question One. MR. VOLLARO-And that was my comment in my own notes. I mean, it’s been a disturbed area, it’s been filled extensively from the remains of Quaker Road. MR. ROUND-Right, and we think that probably occurred 30 some odd years ago when Quaker Road was constructed. So that was our response to One. Is there any questions on that issue that I might illuminate further? MR. VOLLARO-I think the SHPO thing’s pretty clean. MR. ROUND-Two was the discrepancy between groundwater. What we did is we provided you soils information on our EAF, and in the soils information, we gave you a table that said, here’s the three types of soils that are found in the area of the site, and here’s the general range, the depth to groundwater. We also gave you a geotechnical report where they actually observed groundwater. So our response to that was, well, groundwater is at the depth at which our geotechnical report that was prepared prior to our doing the work, that’s where groundwater is at, and I don’t have that number in front of me. Susan referenced it in her. MR. VOLLARO-I looked at that, when I looked at it, and I said when Gifford did that report, it was after it was filled. MR. LAPPER-That’s exactly what it is. MR. VOLLARO-So they got a much deeper than the soils and water was old data that talked about somewhere between one and a half to two feet. MR. ROUND-Soils information is very broad. It’s for planning processes, not for site specific engineering reasons. MR. VOLLARO-I saw that right away. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. ROUND-The third question was, hey, do you have correspondence back from DEC th Natural Heritage Program. We do have that, and that was dated August 26. I have th copies available if you’d like that. It was August 26. It says we have no records of known occurrence of rare, State or listed endangered species and as you might expect, we’re in a relatively urban like environment, if not urban, the site does have some wetlands on it. MR. VOLLARO-Is that from Kathy O’Brien? MR. ROUND-This is from the Natural Heritage Program, and it’s from Betty Ketchum, who’s the information services director, and I can give you a copy of that. Fourth question was in regards to wetland impact disturbance and I think there was some confusion, and I think we talked about this at our last Planning Board meeting, that there’s a wetland in our site area. Of that wetland, .52 acres fall or reside within our property. Nine tenths, or ninety-five one-hundredths. MR. VOLLARO-Pretty close. MR. ROUND-Less than a tenth of an acre is going to be disturbed. So that was the confusion. The question asks, how much wetlands are on site. .522 acres. How much are we going to disturb, .095 acres. So that’s it. It was accurate. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. My only comment on that is if you can hold .095 when you’re doing excavating and stuff, pretty good, pretty close. Too close for comfort for me. MR. LAPPER-It’s not a coincidence. It was designed to make sure it wasn’t jurisdictional, and you’re right. It requires care. MR. ROUND-And that’s why a retaining wall is used. If we didn’t use a retaining wall, we’d have to grade and impact significantly more area. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. FORD-Could I just address that? MR. ROUND-Go right ahead. MR. FORD-Isn’t that difference really dependent upon who’s placing the stake and whether they put it down with their right hand or their left hand? MR. ROUND-No, it’s not. The Army Corps of Engineers, I’m reading this to you. Did anybody happened to attend the planning meeting last week on wetlands delineations? Gretchen was there? And I think at that meeting they explained, wetlands delineations, you’re required to comply with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual, and so it’s a prescribed method. There’s very little latitude. There are processes of wetlands do change, delineations do change through the jurisdictional review process. In this case, if you’ve been to the site, and you look at where the wetlands are, there’s very little latitude where this wetland is going to be. It is, generally it’s at the toe of the filled slope. They have filled the site, historically right to the wetlands, or probably had filled the wetland prior. So there’s not a lot of latitude. Sometimes there are difficulties in determining soil horizons and the colors of soils and where wetland hydric soils end and non-hydric soils are, or where a particular vegetation that is wetland indicative stops and starts, but it is science. There is some judgment involved. I don’t disagree with you, but it is largely science. MR. FORD-So it can be subjective? MR. ROUND-Yes, it can be. MR. FORD-Okay. Thank you. MR. ROUND-Regardless of whether it’s subjective or not, and regardless of whether you folks feel that there’s a significant wetland impact or not, the applicant has to comply with the Nationwide permit requirements and the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, and if we exceeded that one-tenth of an acre, and that note is on the plan, if the contractor exceeds that, he is subject to the permitting requirements of the Corps, and what’s going to have to get a, still covered under a Nationwide permit, but you would trigger a pre- construction notification and examination of mitigation. So that’s why we’re designing it. Every project that you’re going to come in here, Jim’s probably been involved with 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) projects like this, you design to meet those thresholds to the extent you can so you can avoid this, and there was a court case, the Supreme Court ruled on wetlands yesterday, is that the process is time consuming, very expensive, and it’s something that you avoid at all costs, and that’s why it’s designed to be under one-tenth of an acre. Long winded answer, I apologize. Question Five was regarding the fill. Maybe we should come back to that one, because there was some concern about fill quantities. Let me talk about it. We answered zero fill was to be taken off the site, and we designed the project, we did not propose to remove fill from the site, or fill in such quantities that was going to trigger an environmental impact, and that’s what we’ve got to think about, is there an environmental impact as a result of fill leaving this site. Through the review process, the engineer has asked us to say, you need to comply with the geotechnical report requirements, and the Building Code requirements, and therefore you need to excavate fill from the site to accommodate the placement of foundations of your structure, and that’s generally going to involve excavation of six feet of fill around the building pad and associated structures that need that type of support, and areas of the retaining wall that are going to be reclaimed. So what the question’s trying to ask you is, are there significant quantities of fill that are going to leave the site that are going to create a truck traffic problem that you didn’t think about. In this case, it’s a relatively minor amount of fill. It’s not going to be an inordinate amount that’s going to trigger a hundred or two hundred trucks leaving the site. So we haven’t quantified that, though, because we haven’t, you know, designed that element of the project. MR. VOLLARO-Of the amount of fill that’s in there, in the Gifford engineering report that was done, they talked about somewhere between six and nine feet of fill that was put in by the Quaker Road construction. Now you’ve got two areas, in the foundation of the building and also you’ve got to stabilize your engineered wall as well. MR. ROUND-Well, and the stormwater structures. So you’re going to be putting constructed features where there is now fill. So we’re going to have to remove fill from that area as well. You’re right. MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve got to calculate how much fill that is, and you haven’t done that yet, have you? MR. ROUND-No, we haven’t, but we don’t think that rises, the threshold, just taking a step back, the environmental review process, and the review of the SEQRA form is designed such that you ask those questions, okay, and if you answer, yes, there is an impact to this particular feature, environmental characteristic, you know, soils, groundwater, etc., is it so significant, is it adverse and large enough that it’s going to require us to cause us to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement? MR. VOLLARO-We don’t know the answer until you tell us how much you’re going to take out. MR. LAPPER-I think part of the answer is that, if you think about what done on Lowe’s, the Lowe’s site where they brought in six feet of fill over a multi-acre site, in terms of the number of truck trips, what Chris is saying is that the area where the building is going to be, if it has to be partially compacted and partially removed and restored, that that can’t get to the level, on Quaker Road, a five lane road, where taking out dump trucks and bringing in some new soil is going to require an Environmental Impact Statement on whether or not that’s going to be a problem. It’s just not that significant of an issue. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think this project stands on its own. It doesn’t stand on Quaker Road in the prior manufacturing and building of Quaker Road. It really stands on its own. It’s got its own unique thresholds that have to be looked at in terms of how much soil does have to be taken out. Anyway, we know that there’s got to be some excavation done there. MR. ROUND-Right, and our point is that, our opinion is that it doesn’t rise to the level that it’s a significant issue or that it’s an issue. I think Jon’s point is that if you look at other projects you’ve looked at, it’s not going to rise to the level of, we’re using a project as a comparison, not as a. MR. VOLLARO-Well, as long as we’ve got our engineering folks here tonight, I’d like to rd just ask that question to Mr. Edwards. I’ve read your May 23 letter, in particularly the rd last portion of the May 23 letter done by Mr. Houston, I believe, but you had your geotechnical folks look at this at C.T. Male. Is that correct? MR. EDWARDS-That’s right. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) rd MR. VOLLARO-And the results of that were the ending of your May 23, the last few rd paragraphs of the May 23 letter. When I read that, it talks, to the words that I looked at, it talked about a significant amount of removal of fill. The applicant is saying, well, we’re only going to remove the fill that’s around the foundation of the building and that fill which the stabilized wall or engineered wall needs to be done, so it rests on some stable ground. What’s your opinion of that? In other words, when you wrote that letter of May rd 23, what was on your mind in terms of the amount of fill that had to be removed? MR. EDWARDS-It could be significant, compared to the size of this site. There could be some parking lot areas, Chris, also that have to be removed because you’ve got to have a stable ground to build a parking lot on top of. There’s a building pad issue. There’s a foundation issue for the building. There’s stormwater management structures that have to be stabilize and perhaps the ground has to be taken out for some stormwater management treatment items as well. If you add that up, along with the retaining wall perimeter area, I mean, compared to the size of the site, it could be significant, but in the grand scheme, I can’t tell you number of yards. I couldn’t even guess that. MR. ROUND-I can give you a number. I can do the math in front of you. It’s not a complex issue. If we took six feet of fill off of the entire site, which we’re not going to do, we could give you that number here and now. MR. VOLLARO-That’s a simple calculation. I could do that, too. MR. ROUND-Yes, but that’s what it is. Is the order of magnitude such that it’s going to cause a significant adverse environmental impact. We’re using a commonsense approach rather than an empirical approach, and I think you’re looking for an empirical approach. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’m just looking for a quantity that I can assess. The empirical approach is something that we all need. I’ll ask Board members how they feel about that. MR. SIPP-You’ve got more than the footprint of the building. You’ve got the driveway where you’re going to have delivery trucks of considerable weight. Impact of stormwater facilities and so forth, and I’m quite concerned, not that we’re going to have a major earthquake in this area, but there is a possibility of a big one always coming, and that fill is not what I would consider the best stuff left in position. MR. LAPPER-But that issue is that we’re going to be removing it. I mean, that’s the buildability issue that C.T. Male addressed that, right now, you’re right, it needs to be fixed, and so the issue in terms of the SEQRA, I think, is the truck traffic to remove it, but there’s nothing remarkable about removing fill and replacing it with compacted material. If we didn’t remove it, there might be an impact, but it’s going to be removed. MR. SIPP-Yes, but I think you’ve got to remove more than what you’re saying. MR. LAPPER-Even if that were the case, why would that be a SEQRA issue, in terms of, I mean, that building sites, that happens in Queensbury all day long, that dump trucks and front end loaders come in and fill is moved and replaced. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I understand from reading the C.T. Male letter that there is a new requirement to look at this liquification. MR. ROUND-We’re getting bogged down in very fine detail, Bob, and what we’re looking for is a SEQRA determination. I just need to put that on the table. Number One. The reference Jim makes, it’s a Building Code requirement. Under the Building Code, when you’re designing foundations, you need to design to address seismic loading, seismic conditions, and you also need to, under the seismic conditions issue, you need to identify whether soils are liquifiable or not, and I don’t know that that’s a SEQRA issue. That wouldn’t be an issue that you would be looking at. I don’t know if you have applied that litmus test to any project that’s been in front of you. MR. VOLLARO-We haven’t had to before. It’s rather new. MR. ROUND-But regardless, it’s not because of the site conditions. It’s because of the Building Code. The Building Code applies to every structure in New York State. MR. VOLLARO-True. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. ROUND-Not just to this structure. MR. VOLLARO-I understand that. MR. LAPPER-It means that there may have to be gravel added, just in terms of the conditions of the site. MR. VOLLARO-These are all things, I think, that the Board has to take into consideration when they’re doing their deliberations and when there’s something they need to know. MR. LAPPER-We’re saying that that is a, that C.T. Male answered and said that there’s no buildability issue, and replacing the soil is a building permit issue for Dave Hatin to rule on when they apply for a building permit, but in terms of SEQRA, there’s nothing remarkable about a site that has to have some prior fill removed. MR. VOLLARO-That may be true, but when you’re up here answering yes or no to SEQRA questions, it’s nice to have a feeling of comfort when you say no or yes, and that feeling of comfort comes from the fact that you understand the project. That’s where you get your comfort feeling from. I think. MR. LAPPER-We certainly want you to understand the project. MR. ROUND-Let me come back to the fill question, because I don’t know that I’ve answered all your questions. I think our response that you have in front of you to Five was we haven’t calculated that. We can give you that calculation. Six was the access easement. We were here in front of you in March. We were here in front of you in November. We were here in front of you September. The easement location’s been shown. Staff comment said Fire Marshal preferred it at our previous location. In our th March 14 correspondence to you, we said this is our preferred location, placement of it further in the rear of the site doesn’t add any value to circulation issues. Maybe it would be helpful just to look at a. MR. VOLLARO-Well, don’t give us any information tonight, Chris, because we can’t assimilate that at the meeting. MR. ROUND-I just want to show you a picture. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That’s good enough for you to make your point, in terms of interconnection, I think. MR. ROUND-Here’s a photograph. It’s easier to see it here. If we move the access to the rear of the site, you can see the building on the adjoining property, there is no circulation path behind that building, and so I think, logically, if we were to move the easement location to the rear to provide circulation on the site, it’s a logical recommendation, but in this case, there is no, there’s no place for traffic to go, and I think Jon mentioned in his opening remarks that the circulation area and loading docks really prohibit free movement of traffic, and I think the rule says you have to provide an easement location. We provided it. We don’t provide the construction details because that wasn’t asked of us. MR. VOLLARO-I, personally, had no problem with where you put it. I never do until, because I know when it’s got to be used then we’ll determine whether it functions or it doesn’t function. MR. ROUND-Okay. Question Seven was, why is there no retaining wall, at the northeast corner of the site, I think we’re talking at this location here, none’s required. The grades don’t, there’s not a differential in grades between these two locations that require installation of a retaining wall. MR. VOLLARO-Incidentally, while you’ve got that up, what is the grade elevation of that wall down near Quaker Road roughly? I know it degrades as it goes south, I believe, or it increases. MR. ROUND-Well, the walls, it would intersect the access drive, okay, you see where the wall, where it’s closest, where the sign location is shown? The top of the wall is 335. The bottom of the wall is 335. So it’s roughly half a foot. So it’s six inches tall at that location. At the other end, where there’s an angle point in the wall, it is 336.40, and the bottom of the wall is 328. So it’s roughly eight feet tall at that location. So it does, the 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) reveal, the exposed face, increases as you, doesn’t go like this. It’s the same elevation, but there’s more exposure of the face at that at that location. Eight was a question on the stormwater management system and the consideration be made for a performance bond for installation of that system. Back in March you asked us to provide or allow the Town to inspect that facility during the inspection process, and you also asked us for us t to provide you with inspection reports, as well as the annual maintenance reports. We th made that adjustment back in our March 15 submittal. We agreed to do that. That’s on the plans that you have in front of you. MR. VOLLARO-The plans that we have in front of us don’t have a revision date of 6/14 on them. The plans that I have. MR. ROUND-That’s right. I think what we did, and I won’t go back through our chronology, but at the last Planning Board meeting we agreed we would do that. We did not provide you a new submittal for another reason, and we can talk about that later if you like, why that submittal’s not in front of you tonight. Nine was snow removal. We agreed, snow is going to be removed from the site as required in order to maintain our parking field. The applicant needs to have a parking field to serve his customers and he’s going to take every provision to do that, and I think the concern was that snow was going to be dumped over the retaining wall. Snow will be removed from the site via contractors, as it’s done in most of our commercial sites in Queensbury. MR. VOLLARO-I have, on site plan issues, SP-3, of the old SP-3 now, I’m not talking about your new submittal, but on SP-3, I didn’t see anything on there that snow would be removed from the site, or did I miss it? MR. LAPPER-No, that’s a new note. MR. ROUND-No, we agreed to that at the meeting, and you don’t have that submittal in front of you. MR. LAPPER-It’ll be there for site plan. MR. ROUND-We concurred with your request. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. ROUND-Ten, the comment was with project is within the lower Route 9 corridor design area and it’s not. It’s on Quaker Road, some distance from Route 9. We have been sensitive to the aesthetic issues. We have a color rendering for you tonight. Eleven was a comment to perhaps consider additional maple trees within the planted islands. Our initial response is that we meet the landscaping requirements, and it may be difficult to put two trees on those islands, but we would consider it if that’s a deal breaker. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if it’s not aesthetically pleasing to do so, that’s something that I think, you know, I’m not an advocate of stuffing trees in spots where they don’t look well, just because you need to have a Code that says you need to have so many trees for each. I think the tree design for that should be aesthetically pleasing, and not look overcrowded. That’s my opinion. MR. ROUND-Understood. MR. LAPPER-We’ll do whatever the Board wants on that. MR. VOLLARO-The Board will have to decide that. That’s just my opinion. MRS. STEFFAN-I’d be happier to trade off a larger tree than more trees. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. SIPP-Has any thought been given to the west side of putting a series of trees through there to create a buffer between you and Mark Plaza? MR. LAPPER-We can do that, on the west side. MR. ROUND-The way we have it, there is a slope between the back of, the side of our building and the adjacent property, and there’s a service area. So we didn’t propose to 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) do any. We think it’s, you’re going to see it’s fairly attractive building, but we would consider it. MR. LAPPER-I mean, if that’s something that the Board wanted, we’ll certainly grade it so that we can do that. MR. VOLLARO-There’s pluses and minuses to that. I looked at Don’s recommendation, because I saw it in one of the e-mails. MR. LAPPER-It would soften it up if we did that. MR. VOLLARO-The only problem is, does it interfere with, I know that your adjacent neighbor, who happens to be in the audience this evening, uses that for his trucks to move back and forth, and I wouldn’t want the trees to overgrow and make it difficult for his trucks to load in that area, because they do load, right, they’ll be loading right next to your building. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-So I believe that has to be thought out a little bit. MR. SIPP-I still think something in there would create a much better looking buffer than what, with no trees at all. MR. LAPPER-We view that as more of a site plan issue, but we’ll certainly, we’ll find a way to put trees in that satisfies the Board. MR. SIPP-Do those trucks back in to that service area or are they driving straight in? MR. LAPPER-I think they have circulation. You mean on the site next door? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. LAPPER-I think they have circulation around the whole building. MR. VOLLARO-They go around the back. MR. SIPP-And how do they get out? How do they exit then? If they drive around the back from the northeast corner. MR. VOLLARO-He’s talking about the truck traffic on the adjacent site interfering with the trees. MR. ROUND-I don’t know. I haven’t seen how trucks maneuver the site. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t know either. There’s a person in the audience that we could call upon to give us the answer to that, I believe. MR. ROUND-The last one was with regard to the sign. Back in our March submittal we offered to you architectural renderings and you asked for sign details back from our prior meeting. What we had given you was a photo typical sign which includes both a sign mounted on the Quaker Road face as well as the internal parking lot face. That would be two wall signs which is not allowed under your Code. We don’t propose to place the sign on the parking lot side. It would only be a sign on the Quaker Road face, and it is shown, and there’s a detail shown on the rendering there. There would be a pole mounted sign as well. MR. SIPP-Is this pole mounted sign nine feet, is that what it was, or twelve feet? MR. ROUND-I think it’s 25 feet is your standard. We’ll comply with the Town standard. We’re not asking for a variance. MR. SIPP-Has any thought been given to a monument type sign? MR. LAPPER-If that’s what the Board wanted, the applicant would be willing to replace it with a monument sign. MR. SIPP-This sign obviously will be lighted? 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) NERAL PATEL MR. PATEL-Yes. MR. SIPP-And lighted all night? MR. PATEL-No. MR.SIPP-Now, on the eaves of these buildings, you have lights. MR. PATEL-It’s an LED light, yes. MR. SIPP-And these would be on only in operational times? MR. PATEL-Correct. MR. SIPP-And this is red in color? MR. PATEL-Yes. It’s an accent light, more or less. It’s not something that’s going to be blinding or it’s not, Outback, I believe, has a neon light. It’s not that bright. MR. SIPP-And the sign on the Quaker Road sign is also lighted? MR. PATEL-Yes, it is. MR. SIPP-Backlit? MR. PATEL-Backlit. MR. SIPP-Backlit. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, it seems as if we’re hung up on the impacts, the potential impacts of the removal of the fill on the site. I guess where I’m really hung up is that, because the removal of the fill could effect the site design, in particular the stormwater management, because correct me if I’m wrong, you have like six feet of fill on the site that may have to be removed, and I don’t see how you’re going to manage stormwater, then, if you’re only going to be left with a foot and a half or so to groundwater. That’s where I’m getting hung up. MR. ROUND-No, it would be all, what you see the plan as it’s shown, the same elevations will be adhered to, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-How would you handle stormwater, then? MR. LAPPER-The soil would be replaced. MR. ROUND-The soil would be replaced, and the structures, the surface elevations of all our utilities would be identical. MR. SEGULJIC-So you would dig everything out and bring in new fill? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. LAPPER-And that’s all we’re talking about. MR. ROUND-The geotechnical report, it was uncontrolled fill. So it’s basically, it wasn’t compact. It wasn’t placed like you would place it for construction purposes, and that’s what we’re talking about. MR. LAPPER-Out with the bad, in with the good. MR. ROUND-Right, and the report says, I didn’t mean to discount the volumes. What I could do is give you, here’s, the worst case scenario is the whole site is stripped of fill, and I could give you a quantity with that, and then I could give you half of that, and it’s going to be about half of the site when you consider the building footprint, the other utilities, and so I’ll give you that number, and enough said on that issue. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MRS. BRUNO-Is there any anticipation of what the stripping of that fill until it’s replaced will do to the water levels in the adjacent wetlands? As is noted in a couple of our reports, there’s been, you know, more flooding next door since that initial fill was put in. I know Mr. Lapper had said that the area is really just a bunch of cattails where Quaker Road drains off, but in another one of our reports, it talks about a quality water that perhaps drains into Halfway Brook. Just talk to me a little bit about, once that fill is removed, the water levels of what could potentially happen to the adjoining wetlands, you know, might happen. Have you ever thought about that? MR. LAPPER-Tanya, before Chris answers that, I just want to clarify one point. The cattails that I was referring to was in the very southwest corner of the site. That’s just where we have a setback issue because there happens to be a little drainage ditch from Quaker Road. The area in the back is an important wetland, but that’s not what I was referring to in terms of the cattails. MRS. BRUNO-All right. Thank you. MR. ROUND-There may be, during the excavation process we may encounter groundwater and you would have to control that to manage the construction process, and there’s a process to that where you temporarily lower the groundwater in the area that you’re going to disturb, and you have to manage sediment and erosion control like you would on any construction site and discharge it appropriately to the wetland. So basically you’re not removing any water from the wetland. It would be short term and temporary in nature and just during the removal process until the fill was replaced on the site. MRS. BRUNO-When you say temporary, how long do you really anticipate? MR. ROUND-I don’t know, Neral, if you have a response to your construction schedule timing? I would imagine site work would be a matter of weeks, and not months, and then the entire construction process would probably several months, but that’s a lot of interior fitting, but the site work itself is a matter of a couple of weeks. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-So worst case would be, how much soil would have to be removed? If I’m correct the site is like three acres or so? MR. LAPPER-A lot of the site we’re not touching. MR. ROUND-You’re talking two acres, you’re talking 80,000 square feet of land area, times six feet. I can give you a number, but that would be very conservative. The geotechnical report which we you asked for, we provided it, and I know the report recommends removal for placement of foundations, for placement of utility structures. As Jim mentioned, it does ask, in those areas, down to basically native or undisturbed soils, and it mentions, hey, you need to strip that topsoil as well, do not leave the topsoil in place. So that’s the one issue, that’s with regard to structures. Over the entire site south, it recommends removal of a minimum of two feet of soil so that you can get compaction and so that you can get enough material, so you will not get differential settling across the site and cause, you know, your pavement to crack or a structure to move etc., and we would recommend that you take additional soils below that two feet, you know, basically below a utility structure. You’re going to remove it wherever your utility structures are, whether it’s a manhole or a culvert pipe, or in some cases where, Bob, as you mentioned, the retaining wall is going to be on native ground. So we basically, you’re going to strip and you’re going to hog the soil out and put the wall on native ground, and you’re going to need to use some of that fill as backfill, but not to the extent that, you know, you’re going to want to use clean material in most instances. MR. VOLLARO-It would be really to your advantage to do this right. MR. ROUND-Well, we’re not disagreeing. We agreed that the geotechnical report for construction purposes, it’s on the new submission that went in. We agreed to it previously. C.T. Male acknowledged that we agreed to it, and we have no qualms about that. I think the point of debate was whether the fill amounts were significant such that they would cause an environmental impact. I tried to dismiss them through language, we’ll give you a volume, a number. It could be as large, if this is the entire site, as large as 10,000 cubic yards. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Then you’d have to replace that. So 20,000 cubic yards. So, best case, a couple of hundred thousand dollars, just for that. MR. ROUND-Yes, it’s a significant construction cost. MR. SEGULJIC-And you’re aware of that? MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-In any event, how many trucks, we’re talking what in terms of truckloads? Twenty cubic yards, fifteen cubic yards per truck. MR. EDWARDS-Fifteen to twenty, Bob, is about average. MR. VOLLARO-Fifteen to twenty is about right? MR. EDWARDS-For a single dump, yes. MR. ROUND-But just so you’ve got your hands around it, we’re not stripping the entire site. So it would be something less, half of that would be my guess. MR. VOLLARO-So what’s half? You’re talking five now. MR. ROUND-Five thousand cubic yards, twenty yards a truck. I’m just doing the math here, Bob, on the spot. MR. SEGULJIC-Maybe I shouldn’t say this. I’m satisfied with moving forward with SEQRA now. MR. ROUND-Three hundred truckloads, and generally one’s going to come take it and the other one’s going to come back. They never travel empty because it doesn’t pay. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what I was hung up on was how is the removal of the fill going to impact the site, but they’re saying they’re going to remove it and replace it. So it’s not going to impact, and I assume he’s aware of the potential expense. MR. PATEL-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So I’m good to go. MR. VOLLARO-Our concern is not with the expense. That’s the applicant’s problem. MR. SEGULJIC-Correct. I’m with you on that. MR. VOLLARO-As long as we’re in some of this, on your SEQRA Part I submission, on A-8, I think there was two answers on A-8. I think we’ve talked about that. The two to nine feet was from Gifford and zero to 1.5 was from the U.S.G.A soil data. That’s on groundwater levels. Now, I have a note here that the Army Corps of Engineers should be required to verify the flagging of .095, since it’s so close to .1. I don’t know how anybody else feels, but this is an ACOE site, I believe, and I think that the Army Corps ought to at least be required to verify that flagging. MR. ROUND-Generally for a Nationwide permit, you don’t confer with the Corps, you wouldn’t notify the Corps unless you were disturbing greater than a tenth of an acre and greater than a half an acre. MR. VOLLARO-Well, if it wasn’t so close. MR. ROUND-They would verify wetlands delineations if a permit application, so a pre- construction notification for greater than a tenth of an acre was in front of them. We have no reservations. I think the thing to keep in mind is that Mr. Ford asked us, well, how close is the wall to the disturbance area, and what we’ve included, we’ve included a five foot buffer for that wall. So that whole area is included in our calculations of disturbance. So we’ve overestimated what I think we think we are going to disturb, just so that there’s some comfort level on the part of the contractor. MR. FORD-Excuse me, but that wasn’t what I asked, how close it was to the wall. I was really interested in how close you were to that tenth of an acre, and it really had nothing to do with the wall. 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. ROUND-Well, I thought there was a question about, about how close was the structure, the stormwater structure outlet, perhaps, to the wetland, and we said it’s contiguous to it. MR. FORD-I’m interested in actual designation of the wetland per se, and it was my point that if a person is standing there, and has a stake in one hand and a stake in the other, it all depends whether he goes down with the left hand or the right hand, whether it comes out to ninety-seven hundredths or ninety-seven thousandths of a tenth of an acre or whatever. MRS. STEFFAN-Can you show us on that picture right there where the part of the wetland is that we’re talking about? The picture right here in front. MR. ROUND-You can see that this line here is the wetland, okay. You follow this around, it comes over here. There are several areas where we propose disturbance, and I did trace it in front of the site. There’s an area here that we are proposing disturbance. We actually fill the wetland in that location. We’re filling it in the location here, and there’s two other locations, two or three other locations where that calculation is presented. It’s on our site plan document. It’s on the erosion and sedimentation control plan, SP-2, that you have in front of you. Here’s those cross hatched areas. So those are areas, this is a point by point delineation. So you can see this, there’s a flag hung five and ten feet apart. If you walk up to them, they’re individually numbered, and they’re surveyed in. So there’s potential for error throughout this process. I don’t disagree with you. The surveyor goes out there and holds his rod next to a flag. If he holds it one way or the other, there may be some discrepancy. The calculations are performed in Auto CAD. It’s not something that somebody’s going like this, it’s below a tenth of an acre. It’s a calculation that we have to support with documentation and it’s a calculation that the Army Corps of Engineers takes very seriously, we take very seriously, and it’s something that the applicant has got to comply with. Again, there’s a note on there that provides that disclosure. This is what every project, everything to this point, we were here with the Amedore project. Wetland disturbances. It’s a calculation that we do routinely. MR. VOLLARO-Does that calculation, will that calculation hold up now with the degree of excavation that you’re planning to do? MR. ROUND-Well, yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. On A-20, I think the answer on your Part I SEQRA should be yes when you talk about solid material. Do you want to go to your Part I, A-20. We’re going to do some administrative changes to that here, so it’s correct. MR. ROUND-Twenty, the question is solid or hazardous waste, solid and hazardous waste is defined by New York State Code of Rules, you know, Part 360 is the solid waste thing. So, what they’re asking for, was there a landfill on the site, or was there hazardous waste. We answered no to that. So I think the appropriate answer is no. MR. VOLLARO-There was a landfill on the site. That site was fill. MR. LAPPER-That’s a waste landfill. That’s municipal waste. MR. ROUND-Soil is not considered solid or hazardous waste. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So it’s not solid material. MR. FORD-So concrete and pavement and so forth, that’s not considered solid waste? MR. ROUND-Not under the definitions. I’m not making this stuff up. I tell you, yes, it is, and you check yes, but I don’t want you to do it incorrectly. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Some of our caution is we’ve had an application here of a property that has substantial fill, and you couldn’t define what was in this property, there was so much stuff, and so that’s one of the reasons why we’re very critical, or we’re asking a lot of questions. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. ROUND-Sure. The footnote that’s provided there, Footnote 10, it says we looked at the inactive hazardous waste disposal sites. It’s not a listed site, and generally that’s the first special, granted the geotechnical report says there’s fill placed on the site, but we don’t believe it would fit the characteristic of solid or hazardous wastes. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s go to B in there, and A is site description, B is project description, and under B1(g), where it says maximum vehicular trips generated per hour, that’s 172, with an end note of 11. It says week day PM peak. MR. ROUND-And that was prior to a traffic analysis being done. MR. VOLLARO-So this really ought to be, in my view, anyway, it should be 321, which is the weekend peak. I think what you used for your weekend peak was 321, if I remember correctly. The most recent submission you have, you went back to the full ITE’s. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. MR. VOLLARO-So that’s the number that probably ought to be inserted in there. MR. LAPPER-That’s the worst case, but you’re right. CHAZEN MEMBER-Right. The latest analysis was done using the full ITE trip rates. MR. VOLLARO-You used the full ITE. You didn’t discount them. I know that. So what’s the number that should be plugged in there? MR. ROUND-Trips generated per hour. MR. VOLLARO-It says maximum vehicular trips generated per hour. It says week day. I want weekend peak. CHAZEN MEMBER-Saturday peak hour would 186 entering, and 135 exiting. MR. VOLLARO-It’s still 321. CHAZEN MEMBER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that 172 ought to be 321. Just so we get it for the record as correct. Now on B-2, this next page, it says how much natural material, earth/rock, will be removed from this site. The answer is zero, and I think you’ve got to change that to something. That’s on Page Four at the top. MR. ROUND-Say less than 10,000 yards. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that would be less than 10K yards. All right. Now it says, again on Number Four, how many acres of vegetation, trees/shrubs/ground cover will be moved from the site. They have 2.8 some odd acres, and I guess I’ve just got a little note on mine that says debrief from Quaker Road. I guess maybe that 10K, less than 10K cubic yards is probably the same comment in there, or not? MR. ROUND-They’re stripping the entire development platform, if you will, and that’s roughly two acres. So they’re talking about vegetation, not quantity, but area of the site. MR. VOLLARO-All right. So the 2.8 is correct. I just had a note that said, okay. MR. ROUND-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Number 19, the product will routinely produce odors, but I did some looking into, and I think restaurants are eliminated from the odor requirement. I didn’t realize that, but in our spec they are. MR. ROUND-Are you talking about the Town standard? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, 179. I was amazed. 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. ROUND-We had answered no, not knowing that, but I think you could probably put in either answer. Generally you’re looking, is there an offensive odor, and some people find it offensive, some don’t. We’ve completed the form MR. VOLLARO-Just to digress for a second, so that clock doesn’t run, when we did Outback, we dwelled a considerable amount of time on this question and had them install particular odor filters, if you remember, on Outback. MR. ROUND-Because of its proximity to the apartment complexes. MRS. STEFFAN-They were backed up to an apartment complex. MR. VOLLARO-And will the project produce operating noise exceeding the local number of ambient noise levels, I had down possibly during construction, but probably, in the life of the project, the answer is no. Does the proposed, I’m sorry, I’m on Page Five, C, Zoning and Planning. It says the zoning amendment, a zoning variance. You’re not looking for a zoning variance on this. Are you? MR. LAPPER-A ZBA variance, an Area Variance, not a zoning. MR. VOLLARO-Not a zoning variance, okay. You’re going to have to go for a parking variance. MR. ROUND-The term’s antiquated that’s used on the form, but it’s a variance. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a variance. MR. LAPPER-Area Variance is what it should say. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Well, I guess on Number 12, there are people on this Board who have concerns about Number 12, Number 12 under C reads, will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above the present levels, and the answer there is no, and there’s been a tremendous amount of discussion, I know, among the Board members on their own, people who live and work in that area, Mr. Ford being one of them, who works right there at Realty USA. MR. FORD-Realty USA. MR. LAPPER-And our response is we were asking you to look to C.T. Male on that, because we feel did the detailed traffic study and that they did a pretty detailed review of that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. With all of the reviews of the traffic studies, I know there’s still some concerns, but we’ll talk about that as we go down the pike here. MR. LAPPER-And we’re not saying that there won’t be any traffic generated. We’re just saying, it’s Quaker Road, and that’s where it’s supposed to be. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and I think that’s the end. I’m into the end notes, and that’s all of the corrections that I see that might possibly be on your Part I. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We agree with all of those. MR. VOLLARO-Now, on your SWPPP, I just had a question. There’s a stormwater pollution prevention plan that I read over. The document revised the previous September 14, 2005 SWPPP. It’s revised March 8, 2006. All 32 pages in here are identical to the one that was issued on 14 September 2005. So I was wondering what’s in here that’s different. Am I missing something? MR. ROUND-No. All we gave you was the text. We gave you the Executive Summary, and some supporting text. We did not give you the appendices. If you’ve seen the original document. MR. VOLLARO-Well, the original document’s here, I have the original document. It’s here. I’ve looked at that. MR. ROUND-There were comments about supporting calculations were one of the comments. I can pull out C.T. Male’s comment letter, but they reviewed it. We updated 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) those things. They don’t have sizing for a particular culvert. You didn’t have, and so that information was provided to C.T. Male. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So this document has been upgraded? MR. ROUND-That’s right. MR. LAPPER-At their request. MR. ROUND-And the Town has, we gave you multiple copies of it. Susan and I, we’re trying to track it down where it’s landed, but C.T. Male has it and has reviewed it, and signed off on it. MR. VOLLARO-It’s not part of our current record tonight, though. We don’t have this? MR. LAPPER-We submitted it. MR. VOLLARO-You submitted it, I understand that. MR. ROUND-The Town has it. I guess you don’t have it in front of you tonight. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have it in front of me tonight. That’s what I’m trying to get at here, and this is really just an executive summary that I really don’t need because it’s in here already. I’ll get rid of that. That’s one piece of paper I can get rid of. Let’s get back to the issuance of a performance bond. Did you want to talk about that for a minute? On a project like this that’s rather extensive in terms of some of the pre-construction work that has to be done, and I think that we’d be looking here for a performance bond of one type or another to make sure all this work is done. There’s a lot of it. I mean, I think that the excavation of it alone is going to require something of that nature. MR. LAPPER-Do you have any number in mind? MR. VOLLARO-No, I do not. I haven’t really, I don’t know whether the Board has, or we should be going back to Staff for them, for Staff to calculate that number or not. MR. LAPPER-I guess if you wanted to defer that to site plan review, in terms of making the calculation of what would be appropriate, we can come up with it at that point, but we’d probably ask you at that time that maybe it only would have to be in existence for some period, and then after the site was built returned, or after a year, but, you know, just in terms of the cost of that, but Neral’s not going to argue, if that’s going to make the Board feel comfortable. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve had one comment from Board members here, from Mr. Seguljic, that said he feels he’s ready to go through SEQRA on this. Tony, can I ask you that? MR. METIVIER-I think I can through it. MR. VOLLARO-You’re okay with that? Tanya? MRS. BRUNO-I’m more comfortable now. MR. VOLLARO-Gretchen, how about yourself? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, but I think we need to open the public hearing first. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I just wanted to see how you folks were looking at that. Tom, how do you feel about going to SEQRA now? You’re okay with it? MR. FORD-Proceed. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Before we get into the SEQRA, we have a public hearing tonight, and we’d like to get some comments from the public before we go into the SEQRA process. With that, I’m going to open the public hearing on this application, and if anybody here would like to speak to this, please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see any comments at all. Mr. Boychuk, do you have any comment at all? None? In this instance, we’re going to leave the public hearing open. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. LAPPER-For site plan or forever? MR. VOLLARO-Until I close it. MR. LAPPER-I understand. No objection. MR. VOLLARO-I suppose we want to get to Part II on the SEQRA now, and, Gretchen, do you want to start us off? MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual landforms found on the site? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or surface water runoff? MR. VOLLARO-It may. MR. FORD-Maybe. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t think so, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-No, when you look at the examples they give, proposed action would affect floodwater flow. Proposed action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed action is incompatible with existing drainage pattern. Proposed action will allow development in a designated floodway. I don’t think it does any of these. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the answer is no. MR. FORD-All right. No. MR. VOLLARO-No. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MRS. STEFFAN-Thanks, Tom. Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area, established pursuant to subdivision 6NYCRR 617.14? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will that be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. FORD-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The criteria for that is alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. MR. METIVIER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I think it’s going to be small to moderate, and it’s going to be mitigated. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MRS. STEFFAN-And, Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. That’s the next item. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SIPP-It could. MRS. STEFFAN-So small to moderate, potential large, or can be mitigated by project change? MR. VOLLARO-Let me just digress for a minute on that, and let me ask, do we have a response from Warren County DPW related to the proposed striping change on Quaker Road median? This was a comment that was done in C.T. Male’s response on 4/7/06, and do we have anything from Warren County related to our proposed striping of Quaker Road to mitigate what’s been talked about here, in this particular section? MR. ROUND-We do not. Our mitigation, as you’ll recall, was prohibition of left hand turns out of the site. MR. VOLLARO-Out bound. MR. ROUND-Our analysis that C.T. Male reviewed, I think one of the people on the Board mentioned, is there a significant impact on the transportation system. The analysis said that there wasn’t a significant degradation of the level of service measures. That was agreed upon, and I think that there was a concern about a queuing, blocking driveway. Our queuing analysis indicated that we only had one vehicle during peak period times. I think that our big concern, I think all of our concerns was the left hand turns out of the site, and the potential for a collision through that, and it’s an existing condition all along the corridor. We’re prohibiting that. So I think that, you know, it’s reasonable to say. MR. FORD-That was one of the concerns. MR. ROUND-Yes. MR. FORD-So you eliminated the left hand turn. That does not address the concerns that I have voiced from the very first time you were before us, and that deals with the plaza next door, and access and egress there, and the impact that the right hand turns only will have on that. MR. LAPPER-We think that C.T. Male has reviewed our report and that they. MR. VOLLARO-They have. MR. ROUND-C.T. Male’s response was that we will pursue both options as a part of a work permit, which follows this, and that we don’t think that that’s, in either instance, necessary for your decision tonight. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but we’re really being forced to answer a SEQRA question. MR. ROUND-I’m just giving you a response to what our position is. MR. VOLLARO-Let me say that, in one of the responses, and I’m trying to get what it was. Left turn entering movement. There is a left turn entering movement. MR. ROUND-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-That operates at Level of Service B & C. What is C? C goes to D, but C is, it’s A, it’s B, and then it’s C. So, left turn entering movements do decline to a C level at some point. MR. C is a generally accepted. MR. VOLLARO-Well, it’s generally accepted for the people who are not in a car. I understand what you’re saying. MR. LAPPER-Maybe we should look to Jim on this. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. EDWARDS-If you want a reply, I can give you one. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. EDWARDS-C is considered an average condition, if you will, not a long delay, not a big stacking condition, acceptable would be a reasonable term for Level of Service C. When you start declining to D, E, and F, you’re talking about longer delays, more aggravation on the driver’s part, and more impact, potentially. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So C is basically the average condition on the roadway. MR. EDWARDS-I suppose you could consider C an average condition. Definitely not a long delay. MR. ROUND-When you’re saying, Bob, it’s approaching a C, that doesn’t mean, are traffic analysis is full build out, and over projects traffic. We’re using ITE build out numbers, not the numbers that we collected at an existing Golden Corral site. So we think those are very conservative, just so you have that in front of you. MR. VOLLARO-Well, we had asked C.T. Male to have you look a the Wilton site, and I guess you felt it wasn’t appropriate, for some reason, to take a look at the traffic. MR. LAPPER-Because it was a motel, and there was no, it wasn’t segregated. MR. ROUND-Yes, and we couldn’t. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I talked to Jim about that, and he, do you mind if I? MR. EDWARDS-No. MR. VOLLARO-And he said it would be pretty easy. That one’s going to the motel. That one’s going to the restaurant. I thought it was a very simplified answer, and one that made some sense, but anyway, that’s fine. There are some concerns by Board members, myself included, about adding this restaurant in that area, and the traffic flow. We’re into SEQRA now, you know, once we give a no to SEQRA, then right away what happens is, Mr. Lapper, you know, it goes, we’ve been through the SEQRA, let’s not talk about that any more. So we want to get a clear definition in our minds here of what we’re doing. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So on Question 15, the Board, Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Okay. Now I’m going to go person by person. Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. METIVIER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-Could I hear that again please? MRS. STEFFAN- Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. MR. FORD-Absolutely. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Tony, you say? MR. METIVIER-I said no. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. METIVIER-Although, if I’m misunderstanding the question, let me hear a yes from somebody, and why they say yes. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I said yes, Tony. MRS. STEFFAN-Let me just go down. Tanya? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-You said yes. Small to moderate impact, or potential large impact? MRS. BRUNO-Somewhere in between. Small to moderate, I guess. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-I’m concerned about, I believe, the same turning, right hand only, and then you hit the left hands coming from the adjacent property. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Bob, small to moderate or potential large? MR. VOLLARO-I think small to moderate. I can’t say it’s potentially large, but it’s small to moderate is the answer. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom Ford? MR. FORD-Potentially large. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom Seguljic? MR. SEGULJIC-I’d say no. MRS. STEFFAN-Don? MR. SIPP-Moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Tanya, Bob, and Tom Ford, and Don, can the impact be mitigated by project change? MR. VOLLARO-That gets back to, the answer to that is, what does the response have to be? What does it say there? MRS. STEFFAN-It says can the impact, you’ve got three options actually, can the impact be mitigated by project change? MR. VOLLARO-Project change? Yes. It could be mitigated by a project change. Now what do I mean by that? In our Code, it talks about, because of the trip requirements, I think it talks about 440 foot separation between curb cuts. If we could get that 440 foot separation, then I would think we could mitigate it by project change, but we can’t get it because they haven’t been able to get an easement from the neighbor to do that. So I have a problem, now, in trying to determine the project change, in my mind. MR. FORD-I had submitted, in a previous meeting, the potential for tying in the traffic light at the intersection of 254 Quaker Road and Lafayette with a traffic light in that location, and that recommendation was basically dismissed out of hand. MR. VOLLARO-Some of the other mitigation could be, does the applicant have in mind a proposed striping change on Quaker Road to act as a mitigation to the traffic? MR. LAPPER-I don’t think you did the math right, because four people said no or small to moderate on that question. MR. ROUND-Yes. I think if it’s large then you would ask if it the project could be mitigated. I don’t think you’re triggering that response necessity. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-I just wish every member of this Board could try making a left hand turn out of Mark Plaza, out of the eastern exit, as I do several times a day, and I think they would 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) see what the potential impact would have of this project, with right hand turns only coming out a few feet to the east. MR. LAPPER-But if you make a left from the right hand driveway, it’ll be easier from Mark Plaza. MR. FORD-Well, sure, and if I, and there are people who do that because they fear so much, Jon, making the left hand turn period. They don’t make a left hand turn out of either driveway. They make only right hand turns. MR. LAPPER-That’s how the whole road works, and at various times of the day it’s more crowded, and other times it’s not. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Let me go to the next part of the question. Because we can address some of these issues in site plan if we get through this part. B, proposed action will result in major traffic problems. Tony? MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Tanya? MRS. BRUNO-I’m hesitant. I’m uncomfortable. I’ve actually experienced it in Saratoga and I know we’re not supposed to use that type of information. MR. VOLLARO-I think you can use any information that you think you need to, Tanya. It’s not restricted in terms of, you’re on the Planning Board and you can make any decision or, you know, you can relate to anything you need to relate to to make a decision. You’re hands aren’t tied in any way. MRS. BRUNO-I think it could, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Small to moderate, or potentially large? MRS. BRUNO-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Tom Ford? MR. FORD-Repeat the question, please. MRS. STEFFAN-Proposed action will result in major traffic problems. MR. FORD-Potentially large, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Tom Seguljic? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Don? MR. SIPP-I think it depends upon the definition of major. You’re open from four to ten? Is that the hours that would be? What would the hours be? MR. PATEL-Eleven to nine. MR. SIPP-Eleven to nine. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action result in a major traffic problem? MR. SIPP-Not major, no. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I think we can proceed, then. Will the proposed action affect the community sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. VOLLARO-No. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? MR. METIVIER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. FORD-Safety, yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, if you look at the descriptions, we’re talking about risk of explosion, burial of hazardous waste, storage facilities of one or more gallons of liquefied natural gas, excavation or disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for disposal of solid or hazardous waste. MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. FORD-No. MR. VOLLARO-The answer is no. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 57-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: NORTHEAST DINING & LODGING, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Vollaro NOES: Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno MR. VOLLARO-I think the votes carried. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We know that Mr. Ford works next door and is concerned. We assure you that during site plan review, we’re going to continue to make project changes. If we need more trees, we’ll deal with the striping of the island. We’ll continue to make it a better project, but appreciate the neg dec. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Under site plan review, I don’t think we’ll have to get into any further depth. You’re going to do the excavation and we know you’re going to do it, and we’ll discuss it at site plan review. MR. LAPPER-We’re going to go to the Zoning Board and we’ll hopefully be back next month. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. ROUND-Yes, we’ll be at the Zoning Board next week. MR. LAPPER-We made that submission so that we could procedurally be back in July. MR. ROUND-But if there is an issue that you have that pertains to site plan and you want to provide us that feedback, we would love to have that, rather than have to come back. MR. VOLLARO-How do you want that data flow to take place? Through Staff? MR. ROUND-Yes, through Susan, and please forward it to us. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, instead of getting hung up the night of the meeting on it, I understand what you’re saying. MR. ROUND-We’d love to have it. MRS. STEFFAN-I certainly think you’ve gotten a great deal of information tonight. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely. Neral’s instructions to us tonight were to make any reasonable changes to satisfy the Board, and that’s how we’re going to continue with the project. MRS. STEFFAN-One question that we didn’t talk about, Board members, what do you think about the aesthetics of the plan? We didn’t talk about how we like the aesthetics, which they need to know before they come back. MR. SIPP-Well, I, for one, would say what is there now is fine, but I still would like to see a buffer added to the west side, and I’d like to see that post sign eliminated. MR. LAPPER-The monument, we’ll do that. MR. SIPP-And I think maybe there’s a need for some conifers in there. MR. LAPPER-We’ll find a way to do all that. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. FORD-Is that pavement on the west side, that northwest quadrant there, right through there, yes, where you just had your hand. That’s the existing road now? MR. ROUND-And I don’t know if that’s representative of the existing condition. How this was produced is we provided our site plan to the architect and they produced this. I know they saw that information on there. They put the building right here as well, and I don’t know that it’s uniform in how wide that is. It’s illustrated. MR. FORD-But that is the location of that road, or where it is approximately? MR. ROUND-Correct. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, the one thing we’re going to have to grapple with, one way or the other, when we come back for site plan, is the issue of driveway separations. It talks about that 440 feet, and it allows us to do away with it. It says that, but it says and having, you probably read it. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-You know what the paragraph says and it talks about the need for an easement. MR. LAPPER-And we are definitely going to provide the easement for the future. It’ll be on the plan. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not the easement we’re talking about. You’re talking about the interconnection. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-That has nothing to do with the 440 feet between driveway separation. To me, they’re mutually exclusive. MR. LAPPER-What are you referring to? MR. VOLLARO-I’m referring to, you’re going to be operating on a single curb cut. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. The curb cut that’s next to you is roughly 100 feet away. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-And the next one over is X number of feet. I think it’s. MR. LAPPER-A couple of hundred feet more. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. In order for us to give you a waiver from our spec, from 179, and I know that somebody said, well, if you don’t give us this waiver, it’s tantamount to a taking, we are not condemning the property. It’s a question that of it’s highest and best use, I think, but what it says in there is we can’t give you a waiver on that unless you’ve got some sort of an easement from your, because it talks about in-fill. It’s sensitive to in- fill. We’re putting something in there, and it talks about having to get this. MR. LAPPER-Well, the issue there is that the site next door is nonconforming because they’ve got two. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but we’re not dealing with that site next door. We’re dealing with this site. MR. ROUND-We can get into that, Bob, but we’ll illustrate that we’re compliant with that requirement. MR. VOLLARO-So long as you understand that I’m going to be coming at you from that point of view. I’m putting my cards on the table so that you know. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. ROUND-I think the test says something that so long as there’s not a negative impact on the highway system. We’ll explore that. MR. VOLLARO-And then it says and. Read the word and, because it says you can do this wavier for that reason and, you’ve got to read the words in there pretty carefully. MR. ROUND-We’ll be prepared to address that. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think that’s it. MRS. STEFFAN-Aesthetically, I think that the colors are a little bold. They’re a little bright for me. MRS. BRUNO-That was where I was going, too. MRS. STEFFAN-The Board, we’ve often talked about Adirondack themes and colors and those kinds of things. Certainly the windows that are in the front of the building lend themselves to an Adirondack theme. I’d rather see some colors of the earth, you know, browns, greens. MR. ROUND-Versus the yellow. Did you have a pallet that we could bring? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, some pho stone, something like that. Because just the front of that building, it lends itself to arches or beams or something like that. MR. VOLLARO-Take a look at what we did to Outback, in terms of the colors there. MR. ROUND-Well, we don’t want to look like an Outback. MR. VOLLARO-No. MRS. STEFFAN-No, I was the one who said I didn’t like the way that looked at all. MR. ROUND-We will try to bring you some options. MRS. BRUNO-So the orange isn’t necessarily? MR. LAPPER-The roof? MR. PATEL-No, I think I talk to my architect after he already finished the rendering, and he did have to show contrasts in the roof lines, and the color of the shingles is whatever’s going to fit the rest of the building and what the Town expects to see. MRS. BRUNO-I wasn’t sure if that was like the signature color. MR. LAPPER-So we’ll make it look better. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Thanks very much. MRS. BARDEN-Can I just say one last thing on aesthetics? This is in the lower Route 9 corridor, as far as the design guidelines are concerned. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, it is. MR. ROUND-It says Route 9 from Quaker Road to 149. MRS. BARDEN-It does, but if you look at the zoning map, and you look at the boundary, it goes further than just properties that are abutting Quaker Road. MR. ROUND-I wasn’t aware of that. MR. VOLLARO-I wasn’t, Chris, I wasn’t aware of it, either, until. MR. ROUND-The Route 9 corridor, I wouldn’t consider this part of the Route 9 corridor. MR. VOLLARO-No, I didn’t, either. When I questioned it, I talked to, and you know George Hilton, I’m sure you do, and Susan pointed out, take a look at the zoning map. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. ROUND-We’ll get that, and we’ll make sure that we have that. MR. FORD-Great. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. SITE PLAN NO. 66-2005 SEQR TYPE II MARTIN BARRINGTON, MARY DEVINE AGENT(S): THOMAS FROST, JR., FROST ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 84 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3,419 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE OF LAKE GEORGE. ADDITIONALLY, A STONE PATIO AND WALKWAY LAKESIDE. HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 85-05 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/10/06 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-21 SECTION 179-6-060 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-You are for the record, sir? MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant, and with me at the table is Denise Platt from Frost Architecture, Keith Mantz is the design engineer for the septic system, and Mr. Jarrett, Tom Jarrett, who is the stormwater engineer. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We will have a public hearing this evening, so that everybody knows that, and I will open the public hearing when it’s time. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I think we tabled this last month, until such time as you receive the C.T. Male signoff, and received a final set of revised plans, and I believe that you have received correspondence from C.T. Male, as a signoff. I will note that after the last meeting we went back to the applicant and spoke to the applicant about the concerns as to the solidness of the patio, and the patio was re-designed, and those plans were submitted on a timely basis, and those are the plans that you have before you. Basically probably half of that patio area now is open drainage, and also I saw a letter from C.T. Male that they thought that that would allow the patio to drain itself. I think they used the word permeable. MR. VOLLARO-They used the word pervious surface. MR. O'CONNOR-Pervious surface, but in addition to that, we still have the infiltration system that serves that area. So it should be pretty well taken care of. I did send a letter to the Board, through Mr. Vollaro, subsequent to the last meeting, with regard to some of the comments that were made at the last meeting and I presume it was distributed to Board members. If you have questions on that letter, I’d be glad to answer them. I also have a letter from Mrs. Barrington, who tried to get here and was not able to get here. These people, right now, are in Switzerland, but are in the process of retiring and coming here to make this their permanent home, and the letter was addressed to Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. Please accept my apologies for not being able to attend your next meeting on our project. At the Zoning Board meeting in March, the resolution approving our project included a recommendation that the patio be designed using permeable materials. That has been our intent all along, and therefore we concurred. It is my understanding that the other issues which require further review by the Planning Board are highly technical in nature and concern the stormwater management plan, the septic system, and the confirmation of the patio surface. I did not appear at the Planning th Board meeting on May 17 as I did not think I could add anything substantive to the discussion of those issues. Our representatives, Tom Frost Architect, Michael O’Connor, lawyer, and Tom Jarrett, engineer appeared on our behalf to answer any questions. I am th told by them that our project was tabled until the June 20 meeting for procedural reasons relating to changes in our drawing which were made in response to the comments from the engineer who reviewed our project on behalf of the Board, C.T. Male. I would like to point out that those changes were made as quickly as possible, given the time allowed. I believe that you had then received, but had not had the opportunity to review, the response of C.T. Male to those changes. C.T. Male has now twice 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) communicated to this Board our revised plans addressed their concerns and that they had signed off on the plans. As stated, the reason for my letter is to further apologize for th my inability to be present at this June 20 meeting. Both my husband and I are out of the country and cannot make arrangements to get back in time. I would also like to respond to some of the non-technical comments and questions that were made during the May meeting as reported to me. First and foremost, we are not building a trophy house or a McMansion. My husband and I were born and raised in the Albany area. We grew up in and around Lake George and we have vacationed there every year with our own children. We are trying to build our primary home in order to move back to the area. This is a three-bedroom, two-car garage home for a family of four. It has some of the amenities that one would expect for a primary home of a professional couple with a large extended family in an area where the home will be assessed at well over one million dollars. It is true that this will not be a summer camp, but it will not be anything like the McMansions which have been already built recently and it would be occupied throughout the year by a family which will be active in the community. The second matter requiring clarification involves concerns over the large hemlock on the lakeside east of the property, and this was a tree that was mentioned also in Staff notes. The Zoning Board minutes reflect that we fought to protect that tree. The Zoning Board had recommended that the house be sited in the middle of the lot in order to comply with their required setbacks. To do that, however, would have required the destruction of the hemlock, at least one double birch tree and several evergreens. We are not willing to make that compromise and therefore had to spend considerable time, effort and money to convince the Zoning Board to grant the necessary variances. This tree has been nursed back to health following a disease which killed its larger twin to the east two years ago. We intend to do everything in our power to protect this tree. We plan to make this area our home. We are very much interested in protecting the integrity and the beauty of the lake and the neighborhood. All of our actions to date reflect this. We have compromised significantly to build our home. Please do not become sidetracked by ancillary issues which do not directly involve the project before you. We are anxious to begin construction so that we can make our plans to move back. She really wanted to apologize for not being here. She is an attorney. Her husband is an attorney, and I think they understand the importance of conveying to you that this is something that’s important to them that they have sincere feelings about the property. Basically that’s it, unless you have questions as to what we’ve submitted. I think that we’ve gone through this a number of times. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’m going to throw this open to the Board, Mr. O’Connor. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, I have a few questions. With regards to the status of the type of project. It’s listed as a minor project. Correct? MR. JARRETT-As far as stormwater, yes. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-To, what was it, 147. Now, the way I read it, this would be considered a major project, because you are in a CEA. MR. O'CONNOR-If you read the definitions in the Section that you’re talking about. You’re talking about may be considered. Because it’s in a CEA it may be considered a major. MR. SEGULJIC-And in my opinion it would be a major project. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Our opinion is that there is no triggering device that would throw it into the major, because if you look at all the regulations, it then says go to the CEA, go to the criteria for CEA, and then look to see if you are impacting any of those criteria. I don’t think we’re impacting any of those criteria in a negative way, and I suppose you might look at it, I’m still looking at it as the project before the Board that we’re seeking approval for is this 200 and some odd square foot patio, and I’m very clear with that. If you include the house and include the site, stormwater drainage for this entire site, and the entire project, I still don’t think you have any negative impact. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it was listed as a minor project. The only way it could be a minor project if you exceeded the 1,000 square foot impervious surface. The only way you get that is the house. So it is acknowledged as being subject to 147, and is the Board aware of sub chapter 147? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I am. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. SEGULJIC-Is the whole Board aware of that? MRS. STEFFAN-No. MRS. BRUNO-No. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think the Board is aware of that, no. I know what it is, but I’m sure that the Board hasn’t really, you can ask each member, but I’m sure. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I’m a little concerned because, in some ways, I think we ought to table this until the Board gets up to speed on sub chapter 147. Essentially what it says is it’s a stormwater regulation that’s directed towards the Lake George basin, and all properties therein, and in particular it defines projects as either minor or major. They’re saying this project is minor, and I’m saying it’s major. MR. JARRETT-Mr. Chairman, if I could address this. Typically the 1,000 square foot is a triggering mechanism for stormwater management regulations in general, and the 15,000 square foot disturbance limit is what triggers the difference between a minor and a major. Our calculations show the disturbance limits are less than 15,000 square feet. So we feel it’s a minor project under stormwater regulations. MR. O'CONNOR-We don’t have 15,000 square feet in this parcel. MR. SEGULJIC-If I may clarify it for the Board members, what he’s alluding to is the definition of a major project. It says the following may be considered major projects, and under B it says minor project may be treated as major projects. It goes on to say “any minor project may be treated as a major project if such treatment is desirable due to specific site limitations or constraints, anticipated environmental impacts or the need or advisability of additional public notice and comment”, and it continues on, and one of the things it lists is the project is listed within a Critical Environmental Area which this project is. I am disturbed that they say it will have no impact. They’re right on the shores of Lake George. All we are asking them to do is adhere to the major project requirements. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If you look at 147-8, the first definition is a minor project. A says, “The following development activities shall be considered to be minor projects: any building, land clearing, or development activity affecting less than 15,000 square feet.” That’s how we got into the minor. We are in that category. Part B of that same section, which Tom just read to you, says, “Minor projects treated as Major projects “any minor project may be treated as a major project if such treatment is desirable due to specific site limitations or constraints, anticipated environmental impacts or the need or advisability of additional public notice and comment. When determining whether to treat a minor project as a major project, the criteria to be considered shall include, but shall not be limited to whether the site lies within or substantially contiguous to any of the following:” And A is “A critical environmental area established in accordance with SEQRA;” and we understand that this is in a critically environmental sensitive area, but when you go to that, and then you look at the standards for the environmentally critical area, and you have a stormwater plan that shows that you have less flow off the site than you did before construction, you show that you have a septic system that is in compliance as opposed to what might be there now, I don’t think you reach any of the criteria in the critical environmental area that says that you would come into a requirement and can actually exercise your discretion saying may or may not be. MR. JARRETT-Let me add to that, Mike. Traditionally the most significant stormwater is that from vehicular traffic areas. In this case it’s the driveway, which is near Assembly Point Road. There’s no driveway that extends near the lakeshore, and our stormwater system deals with all the driveway runoff. The most significant runoff, in our opinion, traditionally what the regulations mainly address. So I would argue that the impacts are very minimal. In fact, we’ve dealt with the significant impacts from stormwater on this property. MR. VOLLARO-And this is the system you put up in back by the garage? Is that the system you’re talking about? MR. JARRETT-Yes. Between the garage and Assembly Point Road, that system to infiltrate stormwater from the driveway. MR. SEGULJIC-So what would you consider to be a major project, then? 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. JARRETT-In our opinion, anything less than 15,000 square feet of disturbance constitutes a minor project, unless there’s extraordinary impacts, even given it’s in a CEA. There has to be extraordinary impacts, in my opinion, to warrant moving it to a major project status. MR. VOLLARO-What happens when it moves to major? MR. JARRETT-The calculations become more complicated. The techniques don’t necessarily change, but the calculations are much more complicated. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re not allowed to infiltrate water from 100 feet of the lake. MR. JARRETT-Which we’re out of that now. MR. SEGULJIC-You can’t have your drywells or infiltration basins within two feet of groundwater. You have to list all your stormwater management programs on your deed. It’s a lot more aggressive, and I, once again, believe that this is a major project. MR. JARRETT-We meet those technical standards now. We just don’t have all the same level of calculations. The minor projects are designed so that homeowners and contractors can comply fairly easily with the standards. They don’t have to go through the rigorous calculations that engineers have to do for major projects, but the design standards are very similar. There are some differences but they’re not very significant. MR. O'CONNOR-There’s not high groundwater on this site. There’s good soils on this site for the septic. There’s clearance between the septic and sufficient clearance below the septic. I mean, there aren’t extraordinary. MR. VOLLARO-Was this site ever filled, do you know, previously? MR. JARRETT-I don’t think I saw evidence of that. Keith, can you address that? KEITH MANTZ MR. MANTZ-I don’t believe so. I’ll look at the test pit results and refresh my memory. I don’t believe so offhand. MR. JARRETT-It’s certainly possible, but I don’t recall evidence to that. We can look it up. MR. MANTZ-No evidence of fill from my test pit done on September 15, 2005. MR. VOLLARO-You’re the engineer that looked at the Eljen system. MR. MANTZ-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-All right. If you go back to the site plan, you will also remember that a good goal of people is to probably keep a third or maybe even better than a third of the site undisturbed. That was part of the reason for the placement of the house where it was place, and if you’ve been up to the site, you’ve seen the gardens that are on the south side of the property. The intent is to maintain those and not to have them disturbed at all. MR. VOLLARO-This is a total re-build, though, of that house, isn’t it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it is. The area of disturbance is probably going to be close to the footprint of the house. MR. VOLLARO-You’ve got to get onto some of these construction sites to see how that actually takes place when the shovels start to hit the ground. MR. O'CONNOR-If you see the gardens that are there, Bob, I think that’s what these people went through all this business about. We actually did visuals with the Zoning Board with before and after, and the intent here was to maintain everything to the south side of the walkway, without disturbance. So you’re probably talking about a third of the site, at most, being disturbed, and you’re not disturbing down by the lake, except in the patio. MR. SEGULJIC-I would ask, how does the Board feel about minor versus major? 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. VOLLARO-Personally, I guess, I’m leaning in your direction on that as a major project, but I would like to have the opportunity to go back and really read 147 in a little further depth, but based on the way you described it, I’ve got it home, and I haven’t really delved into 147 to that extent, but I would go along with the fact that I’d like to see what 147 says before I could answer the question as to whether I want it to go major, but I think from what you’ve told me, from what you’ve done, I would lean in that direction. MR. O'CONNOR-If the major difference is, in all sincerity, when you’re all said and done, putting something in the deed, we have no problem with putting a description in reference to the stormwater management plan in the deed to the satisfaction of the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, it’s a little more than that, though. You can’t have infiltration within 100 feet of the lake, and the roof. MR. O'CONNOR-That was at the request of Staff. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s fine. That’s not us. MR. VOLLARO-Staff can do what they want. The problem is, I think a lot of, in the past, Mr. O’Connor, there’s some things that have taken place in terms of the relationship of this Board to a very proficient Staff, I might add. The Board is beginning to recognize that it is a Board that operates autonomously to itself. It’s got to make its own decisions. Staff recommendations are taken, and in consideration we look at them, but the Board must deliberate on its own, without the help or the advice or adherence to Staff recommendations. I think that’s what they’re talking about here, and I think all the Board members are beginning to recognize that we have a responsibility, as a Board, to act as a Board. Once we get recommendations from people, that’s fine, we take them into account, but the ultimate yes or no when Maria asks for the vote is up to us. Nobody else votes. While we’re dwelling on 147, let me ask a question. On 136, before I ask this question, let me ask another one. The Eljen system is basically a proprietary system to the Eljen people. It is not a fill system. It is not a mound system. It is not a conventional system as we know it. It’s an alternative system. MR. MANTZ0-No, it’s not an alternative system, according to DOH definitions. It’s approved by Department of Health, in the same category as conventional systems. The infiltrator, the Equalizer 24, a shallow absorption trench, they all appear in Appendix 75A and the red design book, before you get to alternative systems, which are mounds, raised systems, fill systems, evapo-transpiration systems. So they’re automatically approvable by the local Building Department. They don’t have to go to Department of Health like alternative systems do. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the Eljen system being a proprietary system is considered not an alternative system. MR. MANTZ-Correct. It’s proprietary in that Eljen, I believe, is the only manufacturer of it. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve spoken to the guys down in Troy about that. He gives you a pretty good spiel on the Eljen system. MR. O'CONNOR-Page 33, I think, of that, it says these systems are classified as conventional sewage treatment systems with specific site design and construction constraints. MR. VOLLARO-Where are you reading from? th MR. O'CONNOR-This was an attachment to that letter that I wrote to you on May 18. MR. MANTZ-Yes, that’s from this book. MR. O'CONNOR-That’s from the red book. th MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Yes, I was wondering, when you wrote your May 18 letter you jumped right into that, and I didn’t, it wasn’t headed. So I didn’t get it. Okay. I guess we haven’t gotten off 147 yet. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. SEGULJIC-I got the impression that we have to, with regards to 147, we need to table this and let everyone get up to speed on it. We can move on to the other concerns we have. MR. METIVIER-Well, if you’re going to table this, don’t waste anybody’s time. What is the big deal over this project versus any other house being built on Lake George right now? Can somebody please explain that to me? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m aware of Subchapter 147. MR. METIVIER-So are you going to go to every single house being built on Lake George and stop the project? MR. SEGULJIC-Well, these regulations are in place. They were promulgated in 1999. It’s about time we start following them. MR. METIVIER-If they took this patio off the plan, would they have to be here right now? MR. SEGULJIC-In my opinion, yes. MR. METIVIER-No. If they took this patio off the plan, would they have to be here? MR. VOLLARO-Tony, let me try and answer that. MR. METIVIER-We’re talking, they’ve met the 50 foot setbacks on everything except for this patio. You wanted it impervious. They brought it back impervious, and we’re back to where we started again. Am I missing something? What is it, compared to every other house that was ever built on Lake George in the last five years. MR. SEGULJIC-And have you noticed the water quality of Lake George? And there’s a reason for that. There’s a reason why they came out with these regulations to help improve the quality and protect it. MR. METIVIER-Believe me when I say nobody in this room has more care for that lake than I do, and when I see an older home being torn down and re-built, it gives me great satisfaction to know that the septic system has been improved, the houses have all been moved back to the 50 feet. It’s only done good things. It’s done terrible things to taxes, mind you, but it’s done good things to the water. MR. SEGULJIC-No one here is saying that they can’t build their house there. I am just asking them to follow major project under 147. That’s all I am asking. MR. O'CONNOR-But you’re blindly applying 147 simply because it’s in a CEA area. You’ve not pointed out any special circumstance that says that we are going to impact the CEA area. CEA is a designation which says you take a hard look. It doesn’t say you prohibit. You take a hard look at the project and see if there are impacts that need to have special mitigation, and you’re simply applying it like a blank check, once we’re in a CEA. Every property on Glen Lake is in a CEA. Every property on Lake George is in a CEA. I think the only two bodies of water in Queensbury that aren’t are probably Sunnyside and the Hudson River. MR. SEGULJIC-And why are they designated CEA areas? MR. O'CONNOR-So that when you have properties that have specific characteristics that you’re going to impact, you would be sure to take the hard look. MR. SEGULJIC-My concern here is most of the Board is not even aware of 147. So, what I recommend is we can move on to the other areas of concern and get back to this. MR. VOLLARO-I want to answer, Tony’s question went unanswered, and I’m going to try and answer it for him. There’s two contrasts here. One is Kirshon. If you remember that’s going to be coming up for us. They have a building permit there, and we were charged with looking at the first 50 feet in terms of impacts from the first 50 feet of the mean high water mark of Lake George, and there I think we can only look at the first 50 feet because the people already have a building permit. In terms of Barrington, there’s no building permit been issued yet. When you go to our 179, Article 9, and it says when a site plan is triggered, and in this particular instance it has been, when a site plan is triggered, the Planning Board is empowered to look at that site plan with respect to all the contents of this Chapter in 179. So what we’re in now is we’re in a site plan review of 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) the Barrington property, not just the first 50 feet. Now I checked this out with, well, I don’t have to check it out with really anybody. I read what I read, and it says to me that when a site plan is triggered, we have the responsibility of going over the whole project, as a site plan. So I hope that answers your question when you said why are we into this. They supplied the patio. The patio has been determined to be pervious. Why are we going with it any further. Because there are other things and questions that I have about, you said, what’s different about this site. This is a fairly small piece of property, with a fairly large house on it. It’s not a very large piece. If you go back to the old maps that go from a long time ago, it talked about these lots as being camp lots, years and years and years ago. There is a drawing of that, on Rockhurst, and so what we’ve done is we’ve been taking down, in this case this house, and are going to build a much larger house, which requires a lot more attention, I think, on our part, in terms of its impact on the lake. I think that’s what Tom is trying to get at here. MR. SEGULJIC-And I’m not saying they can’t build there. I’m just saying, I’m requesting that they follow, make this a major project. Considering I believe there was a statement of an assessed value of one million dollars. I don’t think it’s going to cost that much to bring this project up to major project standards, and I think that the impact upon the lake will be minimized dramatically. That’s all I’m requesting. MR. O'CONNOR-My problem is that you are blanketly saying that, by blanket coverage, you’re saying that because it’s in a CEA zone, automatically it goes from minor to major. You have the discretion, and I don’t deny that you have the discretion to make that. It also requires that when you make that, you give us written statement and findings as to why you were doing that. That’s part of that section that you’re reading from, but you’ve got to look at the triggering devices, and, you know, soils of high potential for overland or through soil pollutant transport, an area with a slope of 15% or greater when measured in any direction over a distance of 100 feet from the center of the proposed building site or an area where soil percolation rate slower than 60 minutes per inch. Those are engineering type criteria that you’re supposed to exercise in making or consider in making this exercise. This site, and when we went through the Zoning Board, has no stormwater right now. This is an engineered stormwater management plan. This is an improvement to the site. This septic system is an improvement to the site. It’s not a large house. You characterize it as a large house. MR. VOLLARO-It’s large in terms of the lot that it’s on. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s 21. something percent Floor Area Ratio. It’s 174 feet larger than 22%. Twenty-two percent is the permitted size. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, in that zone, that’s correct. MR. O'CONNOR-So you’re talking, your largeness is 174 feet. I mean, it started out much large, and after a lot of gyrations and everything else, a lot of it was downsized, to try and make it compliant. These people have tried to do everything that they can to satisfy requests that have been made of them. MR. VOLLARO-I guess Mr. Edwards has been listening to this chatter now for about 25 minutes or so, in terms of major and minor with respect to 147. Have you got any comments on that? MR. EDWARDS-Yes. I haven’t really gone through the 147. I’ve got to be honest. Beyond that, though, I think every stormwater sanitary issue that could have been addressed has been. This sanitary system is put in a location that maximizes distance to the lake. The Eljen is an accepted system. It’s State of the Art, in my opinion. It’s pre- packaged. It’s a good system. It doesn’t rely on stone development for treatment. It’s a pre-packaged system. It’s a very good system, and even the patio has its own infiltration collection treatment system. So I’m not sure what else could be done to mitigate runoff from the site, albeit it’s a small site. MR. SEGULJIC-But have you read Subchapter 147? MR. EDWARDS-I haven’t read it in detail, no. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, and this is the problem. People are not aware of it and they don’t adhere to it. MR. EDWARDS-I can appreciate that. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. SEGULJIC-And I recently stumbled upon it myself. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, let’s hold that. I think your suggestion is to hold that. I don’t want the clock to spin too long on this one. What we’ll do is hold that for a minute and ask the Board if they’ve got any other questions with respect to, before I get into my thing here. Has anybody else got anything? MR. FORD-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Tom, go ahead. MR. FORD-Flagstone. I note that the smaller of the two, the dimensions are 12 inches by 16 inches. I can’t find the, and they’re probably on here someplace. I don’t find the dimensions of the larger flagstone tiles. MS. PLATT-Sixteen by sixteen. MR. FORD-I beg your pardon? MS. PLATT-Sixteen inches by sixteen inches. So they’re all squared. MR. FORD-Thank you. Do you have this? And that’s 16 by 16? MS. PLATT-Yes. The stones are 12 inch square, and then the others are 16 inch square. They’re alternated. MR. FORD-Okay. Then I misread that, I guess, where it says 12 inch – 16, it’s not 12 by 16. There are 12 inch square and 16 inch square tiles, or flagstone. Thank you. MS. PLATT-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-I was just going to bring up also 179-6-070, under C, Standards, Number 22 states “Whenever lawns are established, areas of natural vegetation shall be maintained to filter fertilizers, pesticides or other chemicals before the runoff enters natural streams or drainage channels, lakes, or other bodies of water. Property owners shall be encouraged to leave natural vegetation rather than develop lawns.” I don’t see any areas of natural vegetation to filter. MS. PLATT-The natural vegetation, as we have shown before, is all the gardens that are on the south side of the house will be remaining. So the landscaping pretty much stays the way it is. MR. SEGULJIC-I think the intention is to filter it before it runs into the lake. MS. PLATT-Filter, what area are you in question of filtering? MR. SEGULJIC-The whole, the entire site. I mean, if you could just look at 179-6-070, 22. MR. JARRETT-I don’t recall the exact break point on the site, but much of the stormwater on this site runs back toward Assembly Point Road and all of the, in our opinion, contaminated stormwater is now being diverted into our new infiltration system. I can’t speak to the vegetation but I think Denise is maintaining as much of the natural gardens that were there before, and there was lawn there before as well. Right? So it’s pre-existing and then we’re diverting stormwater into our new system. MR. SIPP-To go along with that, Mr. Ford and I visited this site about a month ago, and in visiting we walked down this wooden walkway, to the gardens, and on the edge of one of those flower beds was some dead grass, burned by the use of fertilizer, and the lawn on this site is in very good shape, and I don’t think that’s natural. So there must be fertilizer being used in this area which is the closest part of the property to the lake. MR. O'CONNOR-I can’t tell you what type of fertilizer is used or not. I don’t know that. If you have a condition that you want to impose on your approval, then I would understand your basis for doing that. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. SIPP-Because there was a definite burn, just as you would take a fertilizer, drop type fertilizer, when you come to the edge of the flower bed you stop, and before you click it shut, you get extra fertilizer dropping onto the grass, in that case causing a burn, and it was very evident that day we were there. Secondly, I’d like to know, the test pit, where is this test pit or where was the soil sample taken? MR. MANTZ-The test pit for the septic system design was taken up on the flat slope where the existing system lies. I would say it’s south of the structure. In fact it’s shown on the septic system design. It’s right in the center of a grassed area where the existing disposal field lies, just off of the roadway. MR. FORD-Where the grass is not doing too well? MR. MANTZ-When I did the test pit it was doing pretty well. That was a year ago, though. MR. VOLLARO-The test pit was done with an auger, or was it done with a backhoe? How did you do your test pit? MR. MANTZ-Let me just check. It was done with a small backhoe. MR. VOLLARO-A backhoe? MR. MANTZ-Yes, it was. MR. SIPP-It had to have been because it goes to 72 inches. Now, was there any test pit done or any soil sampling done where your stormwater management is next to the garage or in front of the garage? Were there any soil samples taken in that area? MR. JARRETT-We’re looking that data up right now. I know we relied primarily for deep test holes on Keith’s test pit, and I’m looking to see what we have. I think we did, as I recall we did a shallow test pit in the area of the driveway, but I have to double check that. I’ll look for that data. MR. SIPP-Now, was there any soil sample taken for the stormwater for the patio, the patio area? MR. O'CONNOR-The house is in that location right now, where the patio is going to be. When the house is moved back, that area will be filled. There’s a dotted line. MR. SIPP-I see the dotted line. MR. O'CONNOR-That shows the existing structure. MR. SIPP-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-Seventy-five percent of it is within that dotted line. MR. SIPP-That area will be filled? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. It’ll be slightly filled. This is not a full basement underneath this house. It would be a crawl space. MR. SIPP-Now, the present septic tank is in the area where the garage will be, the new garage? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I’ve seen on the septic plan the area where they presume the existing septic is. MR. SIPP-Now, that will be taken out and the soil removed? MR. O'CONNOR-Disposed of in a manner approved by DEC. MR. SIPP-And also the leach field that went with that septic tank? MR. O’CONNOR-Yes, both will be removed. MR. SIPP-Now, if the soil sample was taken from that existing leach field, was that fill brought in for that leach field at the time that that was established? 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. MANTZ-Did you ask if fill was brought in for the prior septic system, meaning the existing one? MR. SIPP-Right. MR. MANTZ-There was no evidence of fill from what I could see, but I don’t know the history of that site, and what it looked like before they placed the first system. MR. SIPP-I mean, you’re calling it a loamy sand, and so forth, down to a depth of six feet. Now, if you don’t have any other test pit results, isn’t it possible that that could have been brought in, because you go from zero to sixty-six, in a loamy, fine sand, and then the next six inches is a gray, moderate sandy loam. Is that the native soil? MR. MANTZ-It could have been brought in, but there’s no way to tell. It’s stabilized in its current state. MR. SIPP-That’s why I’m wondering why we haven’t had any other test pits done for the stormwater in front of the garage and the stormwater down by the patio. MR. MANTZ-That break was primarily a coloration difference in the soil. They were still sandy, loamy soils at 66 inches. So I wouldn’t say it’s a different type of soil, just change in coloration, which is most likely due to chemical or possibly, you know, saturation. MR. SIPP-That will all be removed, though. MR. MANTZ-What will? MR. SIPP-Where that leach field is for the present system, will all that be removed? MR. MANTZ-No. That’s a grassed area that stays in its current state in the same elevation. It just gets a new system put in, existing tank taken out. MR. O'CONNOR-The absorption area gets taken out. The old absorption area does get taken out. MR. MANTZ-Yes. Right. Just the lines themselves and the stone. The existing system, not all of that soil, though. That was pretty deep. I mean it was an awfully low lot if it’s fill. We were just saying that the existing system will be removed and as Tom said, it’s awfully deep soils, and he said he’d be surprised if it was filled that much, and I said unless it was an awfully shallow and steep lot from that road, in its original state. MR. SIPP-Now is there a difference in elevation from your proposed stormwater underneath the driveway to the future leach field? Is there a difference in elevation there? MR. MANTZ-From the proposed driveway to the new leach field area? MR. SIPP-Right. MR. MANTZ-Tom was saying not materially. Maybe a minor difference. The area where that leach field is going to go is like a two percent slope. If you looked at it by eye, it looks like a flat grassy area in the southwest corner of the site, and I imagine the driveway would be slightly higher. It has to pitch somewhere to drain, but we’re talking inches, I believe. MR. SIPP-I would like to see, when we get to the end of this, that there be a proviso that no fertilizer would be used on that lawn, and I’d like to see some soil samples for the stormwater from the patio and also for the stormwater for the garage area. MR. MANTZ-What was that last thing, the stormwater for the garage area? MR. SIPP-Garage area, driveway area. MR. VOLLARO-Don, are you slashing most of these toward the way the soil percs? MR. SIPP-Yes. 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Right. Okay. So we’d need perc tests in there in order to establish some of that, as well. MR. SIPP-I would think in the proposed leach field we would definitely need a perc test. MR. MANTZ-Yes. We did perc tests in the vicinity of the existing and the proposed field, as required by DOH. MR. SIPP-Yes, well that vicinity, what vicinity is that? MR. MANTZ-Right in the middle of where the proposed field will go. MR. SIPP-I wish you would have marked it on the map. MR. MANTZ-I should have. It should be a small filled in dot, rather than a slightly larger open circle. It’s just below the “TP” and the hollow circle, filled in small dot, if you look in the legend on the right hand side of one of the sheets, that’s the perc test location. MR. SEGULJIC-Pardon me, but we don’t see it. We’re looking at S-1. MR. VOLLARO-There’s two sheets you prepared. MR. MANTZ-Yes, two 11 by 14 sheets. That’s the septic design. On the right hand column, you see the legend of the small filled in circle. That’s where the percolation tests were performed and it’s shown on the plan view, just below, south of the test pit. MR. VOLLARO-Where you have “TP”? MR. MANTZ-Yes, that’s the test pit. MR. VOLLARO-Is right here? MR. MANTZ-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s on the second sheet, Don, if you go over where the drain field is located, you’ll see a mark that says “TP” with a circle. MR. SEGULJIC-Gotcha. MR. SIPP-Okay. Thank you. MR. FORD-I have a question. MR. VOLLARO-Go ahead, Tom. MR. FORD-Could we agree that flagstone would not allow water to percolate regularly and easily through it? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, except as it’s placed on the stone bed, the stone bed will allow it to percolate even under the stone, as I understand what everybody has agreed to from an engineering point of view. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, we’ve got a C.T. Male signoff on that one. That’s not an issue. MR. VOLLARO-I think they calculated that when they said the proposed design. MR. FORD-With the grass around the non-permeable? MR. VOLLARO-Well, what you don’t have in front of you, the problem that we’re experiencing, and it’s not your fault, on Barrington and Devine, we don’t have the letter from Jim Houston to Susan Barden that says the proposed design of the patio is considered a pervious surface. We don’t have that data with us. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, we got the e-mail. MR. VOLLARO-We got the e-mail, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-If you look at the definition within the Queensbury Town Code, it says permeable, ground surface through which water can percolate in a natural manner. Said 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) ground surface should be undisturbed natural terrain or a landscaped area with generally unpaved surfaces. I don’t understand how that could be. MR. FORD-Flagstone is obviously a paving surface. MR. O'CONNOR-But I think it’s on how it’s set up. It’s set up on this pea stone gravel with fabric underneath it and I’m presuming that they’re thinking that if you have a storm, it’s going to bounce off that and go into the pea stone and it’ll be equally. MR. JARRETT-We have four inch gaps between the stone. MR. FORD-Which is grassed area, correct? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. JARRETT-And then pea stone underneath. MR. O'CONNOR-Jim Houston’s e-mail to Susan, I don’t know if this is the one you’re referring to, June 19, at 11 a.m. MR. VOLLARO-Yes it is, probably. MR. O'CONNOR-“I want to clarify my prior e-mail regarding the patio for the above referenced project. My previous e-mail referred to the patio as an impervious surface, but the proposed design would more accurately be considered a pervious surface. The classification as a permeable surface is attributable to the proposed pea stone bed that the patio blocks are placed in. The pea stone will surround each block and collect the runoff from the block and direct it to the ground versus running off.” MR. VOLLARO-I think in this instance I would have to go along with C.T. Male’s recommendation here. Although, Tom, a lot of times when we talk about parking lots, and where it’s a stone cover, we consider that an impervious area, in our Code. We do that almost all the time. MR. O'CONNOR-Where an area is likely to get compacted to the point that it won’t allow the migration of water. MR. JARRETT-When we do stormwater calculations for you, and any other Board, and it’s a driving surface subject to vehicular traffic, we assume that over time it’s going to become compacted and become relatively impervious. MR. VOLLARO-Even if it’s stone. MR. JARRETT-And we assume, conservatively, that it becomes impervious, and we treat it that way. This is not that same type of surface. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I’m sure that C.T. Male took a pretty good look at this design before they decided that there was a pervious capability here. I don’t want to. MR. FORD-Is the public session still open? MR. VOLLARO-I haven’t opened the public hearing yet. MR. FORD-It was left open from the last meeting? MR. VOLLARO-It’s still open. MR. FORD-Yes, that’s what I meant. MR. VOLLARO-What I do want to do, I want to make just a comment, and then I am going to open the public hearing. I’m probably going to take a little flack on this, but in our Code, 136, in the Appendix A of 136, we talk about in Appendix A, it’s Table I, Horizontal Separation Distances for wastewater sources, and it talks about the absorption field, and it talks about Lake George and its tributary, and it says 100 feet, but then it’s got a little bit of a B in here that’s kind of interesting. It says “Sewage disposal located of necessity upgrade in the general path of drainage to a well shall be spaced 200 feet or more away.” Now, I know that the Barrington’s are taking water from the lake, and in my view, I’ve looked at the potable water source as being a well or the lake, can be one or the other, and when I look at this digression here, in terms of, if a well had 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) been set down there close to the lake, that septic system would have to be 200 feet back. MR. METIVIER-Actually, Bob, it goes on to read, though, that if it’s to replace an existing septic, it only has to be 100 feet away. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what it says. It says, however, if the drainage pattern of that septic system, the leach field, is in a direct path to a well, then it must be 200 feet back. That’s what it says right there. Now, because they take lake water, you know, and probably chlorinated, I would guess, but we’re looking at, in my view anyway, a well and the lake are both sources of potable water. Whether it’s the lake or a well. I know that I would probably lose the battle, and I already have lost the battle. I have something here from Mr. Hatin that I have to talk to him about that he says that we’re not supposed to even look at 136 as a Code. It’s not our responsibility to interpret that, but the site plan review requirements in 179 says you will look at it. So we’ve got a little bit of this going on internally, but it seems to me that any potable water source has to be looked at. A well is potable water source and so is the lake. So, I know I’m going to lose this battle. MR. SEGULJIC-Don’t give up yet. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I wouldn’t be backed up by our own. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s fine. We are entitled to our own opinion. MRS. STEFFAN-I think Mr. Mantz had some information that he wanted to share. MR. MANTZ-Yes. I had something that I think takes care of that. If it’s the same quote as in Appendix 75A, it does say located in course gravel or upgrade in the general path of drainage to a well. The general path of drainage in that area that’s relatively flat goes, most of it goes slightly towards Bay Parkway, and also towards the south, towards a wooded area between the lots. So I would not say that it’s a large concern because you don’t have a drainage path that’s sloping at three five percent towards the lake. MR. VOLLARO-I noticed that Mr. Jarrett said that at the beginning of this meeting, that most of the water collects up in back of the driveway and that’s why you’ve put that retention system in there, stormwater system that you’ve got in there. So I was under the impression, because I was at the site, and I’m under the impression that if I look at the site topographically, and this is the road, this is the lake, that I’ve got a slope that looks like this. You’re saying that a good deal of that water infiltrates back? MR. JARRETT-That’s correct. There’s a divide on the property, and some goes toward the lake, but in the area where the leaching system is, I believe, and Keith is mentioning that it flows towards the road. MR. MANTZ-Would you like to see this? This is right where the system is going, and it shows how flat it is how, I don’t know if you can see the general, it grades towards the road and towards the woods. MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying that if I could, I would see the grade in this direction. MR. MANTZ-Right, if you could see it. MR. FORD-And to the right. MR. MANTZ-And to the right, correct. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. That, in a sense, satisfies me, in terms of my concern here. The drainage is not toward the lake here, it looks like. Okay. I just wanted to bring this up. One of the things we’re trying to do here, you can probably sense that, is there’s a great deal of desire upon this Board to protect what we can of that lake. As long as I’m sitting here, I’m going to do everything I can to do that. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t have any objection to that, but I think you heard your third party say that, based upon his review of the septic and the stormwater that we have, we’ve done what you can possibly do on this site. I don’t have a fear that the stormwater is an improvement. I have a strong belief that it’s an improvement. I have a strong belief that the septic system’s an improvement. I have a strong belief that moving that back further from the lake is an improvement. I mean, so far this applicant has gotten a caught up, a couple of different times, in an education problem or a communication problem, to their 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) detriment, and it just is unfortunate. I mean, we’ve tried, we’ve submitted things. Let’s not go down there, but let’s see where we go. Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Chairman, we’ve spent 50 minutes on this particular application and I’m not exactly sure where we are. I know that we do have a public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-And I will open the public hearing now, and I’ll ask the applicants to please step back. Does anybody want to speak? Mr. Brothers, in the interest of time, we’re going to try to give you five minutes because we’re watching the clock here, and we don’t want to get out of here at midnight. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PETER BROTHERS MR. BROTHERS-Understood. For the record, Peter Brothers. My parents owned a home nearby the applicant for 35 years, and we’re very concerned with regard to the project that is being proposed before your Board, and appreciate any consideration that you can give to making this an environmentally sound project. In my opinion this application is less than perfect, and as he mentioned is a very large house on a very small lot, and for the record, if it sounds like one path, I am not anti-development by any means. I have several friends, neighbors, who are builders and they build responsibly, and I’m not saying that the builder who will build this project is not irresponsible either, but in the way that this project is proposed, it will have, in my opinion, serious degradation for water quality. I noticed over the year degradation of the water quality, and used to be where maybe once a year we’d wash the bottom of our boat. Now it’s probably every three or four weeks because of runoff from development along the lakeshore is a serious issue, and in a Critical Environmental Area, my family has been drinking the water. It’s a lake that we’re very fortunate to be able to enjoy and hopefully we can enjoy it for some time. Who knows. There has been mention during this presentation, the deliberations, the effect on the taxes. When a realtor shows a prospective buyer a property, they buy it with the intent of either they like the parcel, they like the structure, or if they don’t like the structure, they make sure that they can do what they want with that specific parcel, and if they can’t do it then they’re not going to pay that kind of money per se, but they buy it with the intention that they can do that, and the realtor tells them who are the go to people, so to speak, to make it a reality, and oftentimes neighboring concerns are often ignored in the process, and there have been several conflicts on the Zoning Board which is how it got to your Board. Mr. Stone, Lew Stone, he’s not only involved with the Zoning Board, the PORC Committee, I believe, the Assessment Review, but also the Lake George Association. So I do feel that there’s potential for a conflict. Also Charles McNulty mentioned during his minutes, I think it was either this project or one similar, where he said if a project like this is not approved, then it has significant impact on assessed valuation and the taxes, and certainly this Town relies on the gravy train that is forthcoming from that area. Certainly there’s some politicians that like to milk the cow until the cow runs dry, and I think that this shouldn’t have any bearing as far as the assessment is concerned, and should mention that Charles McNulty’s wife, I believe, is a realtor. So there, apparently, is a conflict, as well as Mr. Abbate, even though it’s not a conflict, the Chair of the Zoning Board, I do feel that he has been pressured, unduly influenced to let projects like these just get rubber stamped and pushed through the process, and I appreciate, again, your consideration for requiring any sensible issues being addressed to make this an environmentally sound project. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thanks very much, Mr. Brothers. Mr. Salvador. JOHN SALVADOR MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. My name is John Salvador. Just a few comments. With regard to the CEA, the reason we have a CEA around Lake George, and it was put in by the Park Commission, is that at the time the APA promulgated their regulations, the shoreline of lakes and rivers was not considered to be a Critical Environmental Area. That whole SEQRA process didn’t come into effect until the 80’s, and so the idea and the need for identification of Critical Environmental Areas first came up when the Park Commission promulgated their regulations. That’s why it’s there. Mr. Jarrett I know served on an LGA committee advising the Park Commission when they promulgated these regulations. Mr. O’Connor was the hearing officer at the time they were in the promulgation process. They’re very familiar with why we have this here. Have we reached a point where this project will be a SEQRA Unlisted Action? 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. VOLLARO-Not yet. MR. SALVADOR-I think it should be given serious, serious consideration. I think it meets all the criteria for SEQRA Unlisted, and does not qualify for SEQRA Type II, in accordance with SEQRA law. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about 617 now? MR. SALVADOR-Absolutely. Yes, and wastewater is a part of this site plan review? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, of course. MR. SALVADOR-Okay. Fine. There should be no excuse for not knowing the project history when it comes to wastewater. This Town undertook an inspection program, hired people specially for this project. It was an outgrowth of the Park Commission’s wastewater regulatory program where the municipalities were to inspect each site and register the wastewater systems. That should be on record down here at this Town. Dave Hatin was the Code Enforcement Officer then, and this person worked for him. With regard to the FAR calculation, if you take a good look at it, they have shoehorned it in. It’s close, but it’s a shoehorn job. They have put a bilco door as an exit from this cellar area to escape the need for that to be classified as living space. A bilco door on a home designed, this just doesn’t fit. It’s put in a place where it’s going to be a terrible maintenance problem, in a valley right under a roof. They put a center wall. Why would they do this, I couldn’t tell you. The cellar, they’re going to, as I understand when they knock down this house, the foundation is going to go. You take a look at that site when they get in there, hogging this out. The foundation has got to go. They’re going to put a new foundation in. You would excavate the perimeter of this whole thing and then put a center dividing wall across the cellar and fill half of it in after you’ve done all that work? I can’t explain this. With regard to the Eljen system, I have a few remarks prepared. Firstly, Mr. O’Connor submitted his letter and he read that to you this evening, and he attached some pages to that, and one of the items he attached to that is Page 33 from the Health Department’s design manual for the gravelist system. I’ll read two sentences from this. Gravelist absorption systems are generally proprietary products which all septic tank aerobic unit effluent to infiltrate soil in the absence of installed aggregate. These systems were developed where aggregate was not economically available or to increase the soil infiltration area in constructed trenches. Well I haven’t heard that we can’t find gravel around here. Number Two’s, Number One’s, Number Three’s, all sizes. I get them from one day to the next, a truck load. So we don’t have that problem of an absence of economically available gravel. There should be no reason to be using these Eljen systems. Taking a look at, let me just read a few prepared sentences I have here. Final site plan approval for this project should be held in abeyance pending completion of an application to install and operate an on-site wastewater disposal system. The Eljen gravelist system, which is a part of the design package, may not qualify for building permit unless variances can be granted by the local Board of Health. This wastewater system has been designed to the New York State Department of Health standards, Appendix 75A, and there’s a standards and design handbook for this. There is no mention of the Town Code, Chapter 136, which the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 179, refers to as a related Code, and to which Section 179-6-060, Shoreline and Wetland Regulations, and particularly Section 179-6-1060D(1) sewage facilities shall comply with Chapter 136. We have, I don’t know if it’s an unwritten rule, but we usually, the most restrictive Code applies. What I’m getting at here, our 136 does not provide for a gravelist system, and therefore I believe the applicant has to appear before the public Board of Health to get a Use Variance. They want to employ a system that has not been approved in our Town Code. So they need a Use Variance for that. This is a completely different application. The process, everything is different about it, with these Eljen in- drains. It doesn’t conform to the process technology of our 136. That’s my point. MR. VOLLARO-John, we’re going to have to shut you down. MR. SALVADOR-I’d just like to mention that at the Town Board, public Board of Health, they are asking some very, very serious questions on these wastewater systems now around the lake. Mr. O’Connor can tell you. He was there last night. They’re going to have a tough, tough test. We have not adequately defined what we call a seasonal use. We haven’t adequately defined bedroom. Those things have got to be done. Otherwise we’re just shooting in the dark. MR. VOLLARO-I understand what you’re saying, John. Thank you very much. Appreciate your input. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. VOLLARO-Would anybody else like to speak to this application? Having seen nobody else, I’ll have them come back up again. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me respond, if I might, Mr. Chairman, in general. This is an application that has undergone a lot of scrutiny with a lot of input from neighbors, and I address that comment as to Mr. Brothers’ comments. Initially, the neighbors were concerned because the house wasn’t coming back. It was staying at the 42 feet that the existing house was. When the compromise was made it came back to 52 feet for the house. The property to the north is the Morse property, and he wrote a general letter saying he was concerned about the welfare of the trees along his boundary line, even though the existing house was closer than what this house was originally planned. We moved it further south. We still tried to maintain keeping the trees and the garden. The prior house that’s on here is a house that you really couldn’t stand up in all of the upstairs. It was an old camp. As to Mr. Salvador’s comments. If his recollection was that I was a hearing officer some 30 years ago, maybe I was. I used to do that for DEC, but I can’t tell you if I was at that one. MR. SALVADOR-It was only 18 years ago. MR. O'CONNOR-Eighteen years ago? Well, I don’t remember 18 years ago either, I guess. As to his comment as to whether this is a Type I or Type II, he also wrote a letter which I think you received, and again, I think we get into giving part of the story, and not the full story, and that’s the only reason I brought a book with me tonight. If you look at 617.5. MR. VOLLARO-What page are you on, on 617? I have it here. MR. O'CONNOR-617.5, Type II actions defined. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I’ve got it. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. If you look at I and II, which Mr. Salvador referred to. I’m sorry, let’s do this right. If you look at C (1), maintenance or repair involving no substantial changes in an existing structure or facility and replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction, in his letter, not necessarily his comments, he says that’s not what we’re doing, and I agree that’s not what we’re doing, but Section Nine, which says these are Type II actions, construction or expansion of a single family, a two family or a three family residence on an approved lot including provision of necessary utility connections as provided in Paragraph 11 of this Paragraph and the installation, maintenance and/or upgrade of a drinking water well or a septic system. My understanding of his comments before was that because we were also building a new septic system, we didn’t qualify for Part II. We automatically went to an Unlisted action. That doesn’t say except for a septic system. It says including, and I’m quoting this. I’ve got a copy that I can give to you. MR. VOLLARO-No, I’ve got my own 617 sitting right in front of me. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. So it is a Type II action. What we’re talking about is construction of a single family home with a septic system, and I really don’t know where he comes with that. The bilco door, they wanted access, I think. At a lake house you have a lot of patio furniture and what not, and rather than take it down through the house and try to get it around the corner and bang things up, they put a bilco door in the back side of the house. It’s a hedged area. It’s not going to be obtrusive to anybody. As to the center wall, which is really immaterial, I think, for what you’re considering, but the front part of this house is a crawl space. The center wall was put in there because that area is not a crawl space. That area is a full basement, a near full basement. That’s where the utility functions are going to go. So it’s, I’m not sure where we’re going with that. He talks about the problems with defining whether this is a seasonal or not a seasonal house. This is not a seasonal house. This is a year round house. This is going to be these folks permanent residence when they retire here, and I don’t think there’s any other comments that I really need. I think you can add something. MR. JARRETT-To put the context of Eljen systems, and Mr. Salvador was quoting the gravelist system section of the New York State Department of Health Design Manual, I would conservatively say 95% of the systems put in in this Town are gravelist. Not Eljen, but gravelist systems include infiltrator units. So you have to put that in context, and the Department of Health, excuse me, the local Board of Health, which is the Town Board, has acted on this design many times, and probably starting at least 10 years ago they’ve acted on this and approved these systems for use in the Town of Queensbury. 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. O'CONNOR-I know of no variances that are required, even under our local Code. I do know that the house was shifted, in fact, to get the proper separation from the foundation to the base of the system and to allow the proper setback from the road and from the adjoining property line. I do present applications to the Town Board for variances for septic systems, and I typically am presenting an Eljen system, but I’m not seeking a variance because it’s an Eljen system. I’m seeking a variance because they don’t have the proper setbacks. The Town has accepted those as being an approved system. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Let me try and give me, and the Board hopefully indulge me five minutes here or less, 617.5 Type II actions. It says, in no case have a significant adverse impact on the environment based on the criteria contained in Subdivision 617.7C. If I go to 617.7C and look what they’re talking about, it says, this is 617.7C(3), the impairment of the environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area designated as pursuant to 617.14G of this part, and you go to that, and they read you through this thing, they make you work, and there’s two sections to this, and it talks about, to be designated as a CEA in a natural setting of space and area important to aesthetic scenery and inherent ecology, geological or hydrological sensitivity. If you read through here, and this is how we get, in my view anyway, we get from 617.5, which is your Type II actions, to get to where we probably ought to be looking at this as an Unlisted action, because of the requirements of the CEA. So, 617 is difficult enough to read. You know it. You read it. I read it, but in my view in reading it and following it through as it says, I think I can make a case, and I don’t want to do it here, because I think this isn’t the setting to do that, but I think we’re slowly arriving at the fact that the Board, this Board, looking at 617 makes its decisions. Now, on an application before this Board, and I don’t know whether I want to say who it is or not, we’ve overturned a Type II to an Unlisted and gave it 30 days for the attorney on that application to challenge, based on 617, and it was not challenged, and it was in a CEA, not this CEA, one of the four CAE’s that are designated in the Town of Queensbury, and so far we haven’t been challenged on it. MR. O'CONNOR-But I think you have to read the whole section together, and you’re reading the first paragraph, and then the second part of the paragraph says the following actions are not subject to review under this part, and it specifically talks about the single family construction. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but it’s not as clear as that. They talk about that, yes, but then they say, you know, the impairment of the environmental characteristics of a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to 617.14g. What they’re saying is, if the significance of the Critical Environmental Area is significant enough then you’ve got to consider going to an Unlisted, as oppose to a Type II. Now we can argue this forever. MR. O'CONNOR-Well, I come back to the fact that we’ve got an approved septic system. We’ve got an approved stormwater management plan, and you’ve got an approved setback, if we even get into the visual part of the CEA. I don’t know where you’re thinking that you’re seeing evidence that there is a significant impairment to the characteristics of a CEA. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that Tom brought one up in terms of 147. I am not familiar, that familiar with 147 to stand on that document myself, being perfectly honest with you. MRS. STEFFAN-Based on all the information I’ve heard, as one member of the Board, I certainly would classify this minor versus major, with the improvements, maintaining of a third of the site undisturbed, keeping the gardens, an improved stormwater plan, an improved septic system. I just, I’m just, I understand that sometimes we need to draw the line in the sand, but I’m just not believing that this is the project to do it on. We’ve gotten input from our engineer, and I’m not seeing major issues here. MR. VOLLARO-In the interest of time here, we’ve done a lot of work on this, and I appreciate the applicant’s patience with us on this particular one. I would like somebody on the Board to make a motion one way or the other for this, if they would. I think we’re at the point now where, if we hold this a Type II, we will not have a SEQRA on this, since there’s no SEQRA on Type II. MR. SEGULJIC-I will make a motion. I’ll make a motion to table this application for additional information, and the fact that I think the Board has to look at 147 and we have to come to a decision as to whether this is a minor or a major project. 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MRS. STEFFAN-I just think, Tom, based on the information that Mr. O’Connor presented, I don’t know if you could substantiate that. MR. SEGULJIC-Absolutely we can. MRS. STEFFAN-I just don’t think it’ll meet the threshold of a major. MR. SEGULJIC-Under 147? MRS. STEFFAN-We’re talking stormwater? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. You’re talking SEQRA. I’m talking 147. Minor and major is under 147. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. MR. METIVIER-I’ll tell you. We have a motion. Why don’t we have somebody second the motion? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I don’t think we’re going to get a second on that. I’m waiting for a second. I don’t know. I haven’t heard one. MR. METIVIER-I’ll make a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 66-2005 MARTIN BARRINGTON MARY DEVINE, Introduced by Anthony Metivier who moved for its adoption, seconded by Gretchen Steffan: WHEREAS, a site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes a 3,419 sq. ft. single family dwelling with attached garage within 50 ft. of the shoreline of Lake George. Additionally, a stone patio and walkway lakeside. Hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline requires Site Plan Review by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and was held on 5/16/06 tabled to 6/20/06; 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, where appropriate, i.e. done at the completed review, and/or when required [either Type I or Unlisted] the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA [Negative / Positive] Declaration and /or if the application is a modification, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and, therefore, no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, 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 with the following: There’ll be a restriction on any pesticides or chemicals or fertilizers used on the property for lawns or otherwise. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Bruno NOES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Vollaro MR. VOLLARO-It carried. 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Can I ask for clarification. When you say no pesticides or fertilizers. You’re talking about no chemical. MR. SEGULJIC-Or organic. MR. O'CONNOR-Or organic or not. MR. METIVIER-I was assuming chemical. I don’t know about organic. MR. SIPP-Either one. They both contain phosphorus. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I thank you for your patience. SITE PLAN NO. 1-2006 SEQR TYPE: UNLISTED 1093 GROUP, LLC AGENT(S): WILLIAM PALADINO OWNER(S): MARY JANE CANALE ZONING HC-INT. LOCATION 724 UPPER GLEN ST. DEMOLISH EXISTING TELEPHONE STORE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 11,153 SQ. FT. RITE AID PHARMACY AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. NEW RETAIL USES REQUIRE SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REF. SP 48-90 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/8/06 LOT SIZE 2.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-55 SECTION 179-4-020 TIM O’BRIEN & WILLIAM PALADINO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Before we get started, let me ask a question. I’ve looked at the C.T. Male. Have you made a response to those 40 items? MR. O’BRIEN-I’m Tim O’Brien with BL Companies. MR. PALADINO-I’m William Paladino with Elcant Development Company who represents 1093 Group. We’re the owners of the property, or the contract purchasers of the property and developers. MR. VOLLARO-All right, and you’ve talked with C.T. Male on this? MR. O’BRIEN-Yes. We’ve spoken with C.T. Male about this. I actually sent them an e- thth mail last week. An e-mail was sent on June 15, Thursday June 15, I had spoken to Mr. Houston earlier that morning that they went over the comments with them. Basically, we can address all of them. I’ve spoken with Mr. Paladino, and I’ve also spoken with Rite Aid regarding them. We’re going to do some test pit out there in the location of the detention basin, and we’re also going to do a perc test there as requested. Most of the, like a little clarification with some of the utilities, all things that we can do. We’re going to call the fire department, try to get the flow test for a fire hydrant. We’re going to look into connecting into the water line going into the Senior Center. We’re going to add the striping to the plan. We received this, his comments, I believe on Tuesday. We started addressing the comments, but we could not get them in in time for him to review them, but we’re addressing those comments as we speak. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. In view of the hour, I would say that, and I, myself, in reviewing this project, have 16 comments. MR. O’BRIEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I would say, if you know what you’ve got to do, what I probably ought to do is go down, and the Board ought to maybe do the same thing, but I’ve got a lot of comments here that have to be resolved on this. MR. PALADINO-Can we get a written copy of those comments? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. You probably can. They’re my review comments. They’re not the Board’s comments, by the way. I’d hesitate to give them to you. I can recite them to you quickly. MR. PALADINO-Sure. MR. VOLLARO-Your Floor Area Ratio is still missing. You require a 30% calculation on that. The Notice of Intent is still missing, the NOI. Mr. Shaw’s comment of June, Mr. Shaw is our Wastewater Superintendent. Manhole Number One shall be a minimum of 10 feet from the sanitary sewer and storm pipe crossing over the sanitary sewer. Apparently, looking at the drawing. 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. O’BRIEN-It’s very close. MR. VOLLARO-It’s very, very close. MR. O’BRIEN-We can move that. That’s no problem. MR. VOLLARO-Now has Warren County commented on this submission? And I think there’s been a change in the Warren County position on this. Is that correct? MR. PALADINO-Warren County has approved our application. I believe last Wednesday. MRS. STEFFAN-We didn’t get it. MR. VOLLARO-It was originally denied without prejudice. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And then a revision info was sent, which was approved. So I guess Warren County has come up with an approval. MRS. BARDEN-Approval with the condition that landscaping, lighting and signage meet Town guidelines, approved June. th MRS. STEFFAN-Approved on June 14. th MRS. BARDEN-Approved on June 14, thank you. MR. VOLLARO-There’s the status of the Army Corps of Engineer permit. This is my note. The relationship of Parcel A with the future use of Parcel B, I have in parens the word Canale in there. Don’t really know what’s going to happen to Parcel B, and neither do you, I suspect. MR. PALADINO-He has no idea. It’s just going to sit as vacant land until some future development opportunity comes along to Mr. Canale. There’s no plans. He’s not talking to anybody at this point in time. There’s, it’s just going to sit as is. I’m sure he’s going to market it the same way he was marketing this property when we came along. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Note that, and we would like to know a little bit about that. He doesn’t have to divulge that. I’m call him from the public hearing. MR. PALADINO-I think Mr. Sears is, as a representative of Mr. Canale, can speak on his behalf. MR. VOLLARO-When the public hearing is open, I’ll call Mr. Sears up. We need a revised site development data sheet to verify the 35.8 permeability as shown on the information block on SP-1. MR. O’BRIEN-I believe we have submitted that to the Staff already. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have it. When I did my review on Sunday and Saturday almost all day both days I didn’t find this. So, I didn’t see it. MR. O’BRIEN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-You need to show the driveway spacing per 179-19-010. The drawings should show the adjacent curb cuts. Now I don’t think you’re going to have a problem with that, because your traffic is not like the Golden Corral’s traffic was, the application just before us, but traffic, trip generation determines driveway spacing. You have to look at that and I’m giving you the area to look at in our Code is 179-19-010. If you look at that, it’ll determine your driveway spaces. You may be okay on that. I don’t know, but the drawing has to show us that. On the lighting drawing, now in order for me to do, or any Board member to do the right lighting design, you have to give us the average, the max, the max over min, and the average over min, and the average over min is used to calculate a uniformity ratio. I think your engineer would understand what that is, but we need that in order to do that. We need foot candles on the ground. That’s what we really need. In the parking lots, you refer to 179-6-020 for coverage information on the parking lots. It’ll tell you that commercial parking lots need an average of two foot candles. Now 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) there was a comment on the previously submitted contract for sale, was dated July 20, 2005, in particular Page 8E, this document is between Mary Jane Canale and the 1093 Group. Do you know the one I’m talking about, where it says? MR. PALADINO-I’m not sure what that refers to. I don’t have a copy of the contract with me. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think Mr. Sears might know, but I’ll ask him when he comes up here, and by that time I’ll have it. What it is, basically, is a contract agreement or a proposed contract agreement. MR. PALADINO-An easement agreement between the parties it discusses? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. It goes on to talk about more than that, though. Contract of Sale between Mary Jane Canale residing at 28 Fox and so on, and it goes on to, and I think I have a comment in here that’s highlighted. It says the seller’s cooperation with rezoning, the seller shall cooperate with the purchaser, should it be necessary to rezone the premises. It makes no representation that the exact site plan prepared by the purchaser complies with the applicable Zoning Ordinance. That I understand. There’s something in here that talked about, it had words to do that, and it may not be in this document. It says purchaser and seller finalizing a reciprocal easement agreement providing purchaser’s access to Lafayette Street over Parcel B and seller access to Upper Glen Street over Parcel A, and then it goes on to say, seller and purchaser will be responsible for maintaining the easement areas on their respective properties, and so on. I guess what I’m really asking, is this document still in full force and effect? MR. PALADINO-Correct, it is. MR. VOLLARO-It is. Okay. MR. O’BRIEN-It sounds like you’re talking about a cross access. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I have a note I see up here that says this contract talks to the future development of Parcel B on Page 8E, and I think that’s what I just read. MR. PALADINO-Yes. What it’s referring to is just, once everything is defined here as to what we’re doing, the easement agreement will be finalized between the parties. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ll certainly need to know what that easement agreement is. MR. PALADINO-You’ll have a final draft. MR. VOLLARO-A final draft. Okay. I’ll get back to my notes. Your response to the 40 item comment letter, we talked about that, the C.T. Male, you’re going to do that. I guess SP-1 shows that no setback variances are required. Is that true? MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-You’re okay with that. MR. PALADINO-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-Now the fire lane should be shown on SP-1, after consulting with the Queensbury Fire Marshal. We want to make sure we can get all around that. Now those are my comments, in my review. It doesn’t represent the comments of this Board, but it represents my comments of review, of the things I think are required before we can get going on this. So, I’ll ask the Board this question. I’ve given the applicant the benefit of my notes. Would the Board have any objection to me making these notes available to the applicant, so that he has some idea of what at least I was thinking, as one member of the Board on this application? MR. FORD-Absolutely not. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s fine. MR. FORD-Present them. 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MRS. STEFFAN-Because between your comments, the C.T. Male, all 40 of them, the Staff notes, and then Mike Shaw’s comments, there’s quite a bit of things to address on this plan. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a lot of stuff to address, yes. I wanted to give them the benefit of, I would give them this copy. I only have one. MR. PALADINO-You can fax it to me. I don’t want to take your only copy. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Also, on the traffic study, I just have two comments. In the Executive Summary, in Paragraph Two, it talks about peak hours, and the numbers are the same for weekday peak hours and Saturday peak hours, and I don’t know whether that it actual or whether it might be a typographical error. Because week day peak hour trip rates are 39 entering trips, 42 exiting trips, and Saturday peak hour trip rate, 39 entering trips, 42 exiting trips, to be distributed on an area roadway. So that jumped out at me. It also said, operationally, the new Rite Aid store pharmacy, and this is in Paragraph One, will be open for services weekdays and weekends, beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 6. Most of the pharmacies are open until 9. I thought that might be a typo. MR. FORD-I picked up on that as well. MR. PALADINO-It’s 9 to 9. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So that’s another typo. MR. FORD-Why do we have 9 to 6, then? MR. PALADINO-It was probably a typo. Some areas they are 9 to 6. MR. FORD-So is this a boilerplate? MR. PALADINO-No, it’s not a boilerplate that they do take, obviously, some information from other studies. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and as I was reading the Executive Summary, the first question that I wrote down was, have the people who did this ever been to the site, and then when I continued on, Section One, it says information presented below was complied from reference material provided by Department of Transportation, the client as well as from related local planning agency. The remaining transportation data was collected and summarized by Transportation Concepts, LLP. So I’m not sure whether there was a human that actually came to look at the site and do the traffic analysis, but there are some very strange traffic patterns that happen there with the curb cuts in the adjoining properties, and I certainly think that those have to be reviewed when looking at the traffic survey. So I just want to throw that out to you. MR. O’BRIEN-I know they were at the site and they did consult with different people in the Town regarding the traffic also. MRS. STEFFAN-All right, because based on my experience, I wasn’t feeling real good about it. MR. VOLLARO-One of the redeeming qualities of this site is probably the exit over onto Lafayette Street, through the back. It’s a redeeming quality of this site to keep people off Route 9, and I think that fundamentally it looks to me like a good project. I’m not predisposed against it. We’ve just got to get ourselves lined up so your data coming to us gets reviewed by us, and that’s the process, and I don’t want to break that process down. So, I’m going to make a motion to table this application tonight. MR. PALADINO-Are there any other comments? The last time we were here, there was a motion to table, also, because of different comments from the Board. It seems like every time we come back, I mean, could we get comments from all the Board members, possibly? We’ve gotten them from a few. MR. VOLLARO-Sure. What I’ve already given to Staff is my copy to be faxed to you. That’s one. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. PALADINO-I think the two of you spoke last time, too, and had comments, but we never heard from anybody else, and I guess let’s get all the comments out on the table so we hopefully can put this. MRS. STEFFAN-I have two more that I just want to add to mine. As far as the design, the aesthetic design, it was very vanilla to me, and so I thought that it could be different. MR. PALADINO-The new design that we have there? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. I just, I would have rather seen something. MR. O’BRIEN-This is the original elevation. This is the new elevation. MR. FORD-You’ve gone to brick. MR. PALADINO-It’s always been brick. It was originally brick. It is brick now with some block on the bottom. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-The roof lines are skewed. MR. O’BRIEN-This is a reddish brick, a dark, more black on the bottom, cement (lost word) a hearty plank board, and this is a drivet and some aluminum flashing and/or drivet, and these are obviously the roof lines in this area here. MR. VOLLARO-I’d ask our resident architect for comment here. Tanya, what do you think? MRS. BRUNO-Could you flip it back over? I’m sorry. It’s definitely an improvement from before. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-You’ve taken it from very box like to at least putting a couple of gables in and switching the materials of the envelope. I have a problem with comparing it to the Bank. I think the Bank doesn’t, I don’t really want to use that as, I don’t think that particular style goes along with what were searching for in either area of our Town. We’ve talked about the Adirondack style, more north, where maybe more of a city or town kind of style down towards the Glens Falls area, or somewhere in between. MR. O’BRIEN-I think, in talking with Staff, that’s what we were trying to accomplish here, also. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. I think you’re getting closer to it. Perhaps what Mrs. Steffan’s just reaching towards is because of the size of the length of the building it does get, start to become too. MRS. STEFFAN-There’s a lot going on, and the term that I use is visual spaghetti. You have so many roof lines going. There’s just so much going on it’s very confusing. It’s not aesthetically pleasing. MRS. BRUNO-Is that the drive thru on the northeast? MR. O’BRIEN-This is what would be seen from Route 9. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. I mean, you’ll see one side from Wendy’s, the other side you won’t see at all. MR. O’BRIEN-This would be looking at it from the north. This would be the rear. This would be the drive thru area. MR. FORD-The drive thru is on the east side? MR. O’BRIEN-Yes, correct. Drive thru to the east. This would be facing out towards Wendy’s. As I said, this would face our neighbor to the north. 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. VOLLARO-Now on the drive thru thing, taking into account that you’ve got this exit onto Lafayette, how does the drive thru operate with respect to the Lafayette, in other words, if you come through the drive thru, is that to pick up prescriptions, is that what that would be for? MR. PALADINO-Correct. There’s two lane. One’s a drop off. The lane removed from the pharmacist is a drop off. This would be a drop off. This is a pick up and drop off lane. People entering can either enter here from this direction or come this direction and through this way. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and does that give them the advantage of getting off onto Lafayette as opposed to Route 9? MR. PALADINO-Well, either way. If they want to get off of Lafayette they can access the drive thru. Either way they can access the drive thru. Either way, they can access the drive through. To exit the drive thru, they’d have to come around the building, go back out to Lafayette or come out to Route 9. MR. FORD-Okay. So there’s no way of going through the drive thru, other than looping around, as you said, to go back out Lafayette. Is there any way of configuring that so you could access that without making that loop or going out onto Route 9? MR. PALADINO-No, there’s not enough room there. I mean, the majority of people, once they get used to us, are probably going to realize that Lafayette is an easier way to exit the site, and will, therefore, use that exit. The drive thru is not like a McDonald’s drive thru. The stacking is very minimal, and you can’t buy any other goods, just pick up and drop off prescriptions, and what they find is most people will drop off and most people may come, they’ll pick them up because they want to get other things at the store when you’re there. They will enter the store when they do pick them up. MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody else have any other comments for them, other than what I’ve given them? They’re going to fax mine over. How about you, Tony? Have you got anything? MR. METIVIER-I’m going to apologize to you, Bob, and I was telling Gretchen, I honestly understood this application to be tabled for tonight. So I am not prepared for it, and I absolutely apologize for that, but I didn’t think we were hearing it. So I can’t offer anything at this time. MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing I did notice in the plan aesthetically is the sign issue, and as the County said, they want the project to comply with our local standards, and we have to make a recommendation, at some point, to the Zoning Board on signs, and I am not in favor of rolling message boards, period. We have one in Town. I think it was a mistake, and I would lobby very hard to discourage that. MR. O’BRIEN-The sign as we had shown it, we’re looking for two pylon signs, one at Lafayette to show that there’s access there for it, and one on Route 9, and what we’re looking here is for the Rite Aid and they were looking for a reader board, which is I think what you were referring to. MRS. STEFFAN-A reader board. MR. O’BRIEN-And that would meet the current zoning, but we’re also looking for, on both sides, is another table or another face to put whatever Mr. Canale should do in the rear at some point in time so that some business can have some type of advertising, at least know somebody’s back there, coming from Route 9. On Lafayette, Rite Aid would have this face, and whoever he has back there. MR. VOLLARO-So this would be a dual advertising sign, one for Canale and one for Rite Aid? MR. O’BRIEN-Rite Aid would have the main sign, and then I guess you can call for directional signage to show that something is back there and you can access something back there, because as it’s shown now, somebody might drive on Route 9 and not know that you can access any other type of future development in the back. The same way, when you drive on Lafayette, directional signage there so people know you can access the Rite Aid coming in from Lafayette. So I guess it’s dual in its concept, for Mr. Canale, for his future uses, and for us currently. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. SIPP-Would you consider a monument type sign? MR. O’BRIEN-Because all the other signs on Route 9 are mainly pylon, we’d like to stick with a pylon sign, just because that’s what the visual effect. MR. SIPP-Is this lighted? MR. O’BRIEN-This will be lighted, internally illuminated. MR. SIPP-I’d still like to see a monument in both places, and I’d like to see all those pylons on Route 9 taken down. I think it’s an abomination. How many signs do you have on the building itself? MR. O’BRIEN-On the building, we have a sign over the front door, shield, Rite Aid sign. Pharmacy, by law in New York you have to have pharmacy posted somewhere. GNC. Inside the store they will have a GNC component, GNC nutrition, and then on each side they have one hour photo facing out towards Route 9, and food mart, facing towards Wendy’s. MR. SIPP-That makes five signs. MR. O’BRIEN-Correct. MR. SIPP-No, I would like to see. MR. FORD-Plus the freestanding. MR. O’BRIEN-Plus the pylon signs, correct. Then there’s some directional signage, too, just to show people the drive thru, how you access it and get around the building. Like right here there’s an arrow that would show. MR. SIPP-Have you considered having no exit onto Route 9 from your building, make everybody go to Lafayette? MR. O’BRIEN-No. We wouldn’t consider that. MR. SIPP-Why not? MR. PALADINO-It would just be prohibit on the tenant. It would restrict their business. The tenant would never agree to that. Everyone else on the street has two exits in and out. MR. SIPP-Yes, but that doesn’t mean that everybody has to have one. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that would lead to trouble, too. The traffic on Route 9 wouldn’t know how to get there. I think there would be confusion. MR. SIPP-Have you ever thought of somebody cutting through Lafayette to miss that light on the corner? MR. PALADINO-Yes, we’ve thought about it, but in the end we think we’re reducing curb cuts from two curb cuts to one curb cut. The access onto Lafayette does help traffic in this area. C.T. Male agrees and our traffic engineer agrees. MR. SIPP-What about no left turn on that access? MR. PALADINO-No, we’d like full access onto Route 9 from all directions. MR. SIPP-You’ve got enough problems out there now, without adding more. MR. PALADINO-Well, we think what we’re doing here is going to decrease the amount of traffic. MR. SIPP-Decrease the amount of traffic, how? MR. PALADINO-To that site, because the current building is over 20,000 square feet. We’re doing 11,000 square feet of retail. MR. FORD-And what kind of business is it? 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. PALADINO-Existing? It could be, he’s had night clubs look at it. He’s had all kinds of different businesses look at his building, but we’ve had it under contract now for over a year. So obviously nothing’s been put in the building, but it is 20,000 square feet that he’s had. Mr. Sears can attest to it. MR. FORD-So it’s hard to compare traffic over the last year with traffic that’s going to be generated when Rite Aid goes in there. MR. PALADINO-Yes. Well, you have to look at the current uses and different uses that could be placed in there. Mr. Sears can talk to the different uses that have been discussed for the location, should our proposal not be approved. MR. FORD-You’re suggesting that it’s a decrease. MR. PALADINO-We will be a decrease. We will be a better situation, traffic wise, than what is presently there. MR. FORD-How close is that curb cut to Wendy’s? MR. PALADINO-Wendy’s, we’re probably about 25 feet, but when you take into account the way the new DOT radiuses have to be, you know, the radiuses somewhat come together. The centerline is about 50 feet. MR. O’BRIEN-From this point right here and this point right here. So that’s centerline to centerline. MR. FORD-Okay. When you come back I’d like to know exactly what it is, not approximately, please. MR. O’BRIEN-We can provide that to you. MR. FORD-I also would be interested in how you can modify those two freestanding signs, because that’s pretty ugly. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Does anybody have anymore input for the applicants? MR. O’BRIEN-Centerline to centerline is 90 feet, I just measured it. MR. SIPP-Ninety feet. MR. FORD-Ninety feet. MR. O’BRIEN-From centerline of driveway to centerline of driveway. MR. FORD-And do you have alignment up from across Route 9? MR. O’BRIEN-Route 9 it’s a little tough to get aligned. We’re not lined up with Dunkin Donuts. That’s off more in front of the Wendy’s. The curb cut in front of ours is probably about a 60 foot wide cut. There’s really no defined access across the street from us, the way the curb cut is. If you remember actually the site the way it is previously, there’s just sort of islands out there, and there’s two big curb cuts. Across the street’s a similar nature. There’s probably an island at some point in the middle that’s not there anymore. MR. O’BRIEN-As part of this development, we’re closing one curb cut that’s approximately 70 feet wide. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, there was a great deal of discussion on the traffic pattern in that particular area, and in your traffic study you do mention the intersection at Route 9 and Aviation Road, which will be going under major construction project next Spring, I believe, but one of the reasons that construction project’s happening is because the system’s failing, and that intersection must be addressed, because within the next the 20 years, according to our consultant’s report, is that traffic intersection will fail, and so we will be looking a lot at traffic and curb cuts on this particular strip. MR. O’BRIEN-Like I say, we (lost word) a curb cut and we have tried to line up as best we can with things across the street. We think the Lafayette access on there would definitely help circulation accessibility for the site, and we have made accommodations 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) for future interconnections should they, existing owners and/or new owners be amenable to it at such time. Currently they’re not amenable to it, but in the future you never know. MRS. STEFFAN-It is often helpful when you have a feedback sheet like you’ve gotten from Staff and that you’ve gotten from C.T. Male. One of the things that the Board appreciates is when you go and you take the items and you list those items in your response to us, and then identify how you’ve mitigated the problem, or how you’ve fixed the problem. That would help us go through the application much more quickly, since we have so many outstanding items. It could be helpful, and I think the Staff could probably give you examples of that if you need them. I want to make a tabling motion for this application. MR. SEGULJIC-Public comments? MR. VOLLARO-There’s a public hearing on this tonight, I believe. Does anybody want to speak, is there anybody here to speak to this? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN BRETT BACKST MR. BACKST-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. For the record my name is Brett Backst. I represent the Howard Group Management Incorporated, and we represent the Queensbury Plaza. I have a prepared statement for Mr. Howard Carr, as the President of the Howard Group, and I’d like to have it read and admitted into the record, as well as a written copy for you afterwards. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. As far as getting it into the written copy, you can give that to Staff, but if you read it, it’ll go into the record, since you’re on the mic. MR. BACKST-Mr. Chairman, I represent the Howard Group Management company incorporated, Manager of the Queensbury Plaza Shopping Center, an adjacent and abutting landowner to the property under consideration by your Board at 724 Upper Glen Street. Please be advised that we have filed a Freedom of Information application with the Town Clerk to receive any and all documents relating to the application being heard this evening for the property at 724 Upper Glen Street. On behalf of the owner of Queensbury Plaza, Eileen Flaum, we hereby request that your Board maintain the public hearing in an open status until such time as we are able to receive copies of the documents which are being presented for consideration by your Board at this time. We will make the appropriate comments once we have had an opportunity for our professionals to review the documents and comment to your Board on the impacts, if any, as they relate to our property and the area in our general. Please accept a copy of this statement as our written request for this consideration by the Planning Board. Sincerely, Mr. Howard Carr, President of The Howard Group. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and the public hearing will remain open for that purpose. MR. BACKST-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Board, for your time. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. Mr. Sears, did you want to make a comment? You can come on up. BOB SEARS MR. SEARS-Hello. My name is Bob Sears. I’m the realtor involved with the project. You made reference to what Mr. Canale had for plans for the adjoining property. There’s approximately four acres there that has frontage on Bank Street. It has frontage on Lafayette Street. It is between two lights, one on Quaker Road and one on Route 9. So the accessibility to that site is as good as any site that you will find in the Town of Queensbury at this time. At this point in time, Mr. Canale has instructed me to take the property off the market, because of his tax situation and so on. He’d prefer not to do anything with the property at this time. He didn’t say for how long. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. SEARS-So it’s probably going to remain like it is, although in the future I’m sure he will want to develop it in the bounds of the zoning as is allowed for the property which is Highway Intensive. Again, he has maximum exposure on two different streets, and he has access to two different lights and now he’s allowed also for the crisscross agreement 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) to take effect so that there is another additional roadway accessibility with the road from Lafayette Street to Route 9. So, I mean, he’s doing everything he can to make it traffic friendly, and I think Rite Aid is doing the same thing. MR. VOLLARO-Well, I think that the ability to go from Rite Aid to Lafayette and out, but what I’m concerned about is just take a bird’s eye view for a minute here. You see the Golden Corral going in there, and then the people from Rite Aid will slowly begin to use that Lafayette, rather than deal with the Route 9 entanglement, and then another property coming in there, so we really have to start to take a look at how that loop shapes up there, with respect to the impact on Quaker. MR. SEARS-Right. I understand, Mr. Vollaro. You’re people doing this work, I appreciate all your efforts, and I’m glad I’m not in your shoes. Okay. We’re doing everything we can on this side of the table to make your job hopefully not easy, but hopefully as accommodating as possible. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I thank you very much, Mr. Sears. MR. SEARS-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody else want to speak to this application? If not, I’m going to leave the public hearing open, and I think that the secretary wants to proceed with a tabling motion. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 1-2006 1093 GROUP, LLC, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: For them to come back after they address the issues in the 6/20 Staff notes under General Comments, Traffic Access Management, Landscaping, Lighting, Signage, and design guidelines. They also need to address the C.T. Male comments, all 40 of them, and address the Mike Shaw memo from the Wastewater Department. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: MRS. STEFFAN-I think that your questions are in the minutes. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, she’s going to fax them to them. She’s got my questions. She’ll fax my questions in, and they’ll add to what you have in the motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So we don’t have to have that as a matter of this record. MR. VOLLARO-No, I don’t think so. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Thanks very much. MR. O’BRIEN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-If you’ve got any further questions, get them to Staff and I’ll e-mail those kinds of questions, or she can, to the Board, so we can stay in touch with what you’re doing. MR. O’BRIEN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-It’s a process you’re just going to have to live with. MR. O’BRIEN-Understood. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2006 PRELIMINARY SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LEE JARVIS AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 729 LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 7.76 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 1.50, 1.55, AND 3.84 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) BOARD. CROSS REF. AV 29-2006 & 3/28/06 SKETCH WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 6.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307.1-32 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; LEE JARVIS, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-You are, for the record? MR. JARVIS-I’m Lee Jarvis. MR. STEVES-And I’m Matt Steves. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, and this is for Subdivision 4-2006. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a public hearing tonight, and a Long Form SEQRA. Okay. MR. STEVES-Just re-hash a little bit here, Bob, or did you want to, secretary want to read something in? MR. VOLLARO-Well, you’re coming off a Sketch Plan, right? MR. STEVES-Yes. We’re coming off a Sketch Plan. We went to the Zoning Board, after we had discussed with this Board the separation distance on the driveways, and we were granted that variance for not having double lot width because the driveways would still remain 300 foot separation. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I saw that in the ZBA notes. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Before I get started, I want to throw this open to the Board. Did you want to do a little bit of intro? MR. STEVES-It’s completely up to you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pretty straightforward subdivision. I think everybody’s been over and seen the property. We did ask for the waivers. We talked about them before. As far as the topography, we discussed the test pit data asking if you wanted that. You knew the area. Mr. Chairman, you even talked about that yourself at the last meeting. We did perform the perc tests. I did submit a letter that Tom Nace has reviewed the perc test and has utilized us to perform perc tests for him, that he’s quite aware of the results, they’re accurate, that that letter was sent over to the Town. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, obviously we don’t have that letter. MR. STEVES-Okay, but it was sent over to the Town by Tom. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. It’s a question that I had, where that is, but. MR. STEVES-Plus there’s other facts, but I did get Mr. Nace to write the letter. We also, under the Code for engineers, we do have, Leon, my father, that’s within the company, has the N exemption. So he’s certified to do them as well, but I thought the letter from Mr. Nace would be appropriate. There was some comments that the Staff had made regarding the test pit data. I believe we had discussed that at the last meeting, and I know I asked this Board specifically if you wanted us to dig test pits, and the answer was no. MR. VOLLARO-And I have it right here in my notes. I said deep test pits seem unnecessary since adjacent properties have shown no seasonally high groundwater, and the fact that I know that, I happen to personally know that area with deep sands. So when we made that recommendation to you under Sketch, I think we, and I don’t, additionally, don’t see a need for the two foot contours either. MR. STEVES-There were two other comments, instead of going through all of them, that I think may be pertinent that I can address very quickly. One of them was the C.T. Male letter talking about the contouring and that in the Long Form there was the portion written that a third of the site had 10 to 15% slope, because it says 10 to 15, because a third of it is about 11%, and if you’ve been up to the site, as you can see, it’s not a 25 or a 15 percent slope, but when they give you that range, I have to apply the range they give me 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) within the SEQRA form, but I would hope everybody’s been to the site and can see that it is not a steep issue. MRS. STEFFAN-No. MR. STEVES-All right. That was the one, and the other question they had was regarding the sight distances, on the proposed driveway. Both driveways to the east are existing, and on the sight distance on all three, being the two existing and the proposed one to the west is all the way back beyond the intersection with West Mountain Road, and the shortest sight distance out of all the three, looking westerly up toward the water tower is just over 900 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I went up there the other day, Sunday, and I looked at the sight distance thing, and it’s like you can see forever. MR. STEVES-I just wanted to address those that they had. MR. FORD-What’s the actual acreage? I’ve got two different acreages, 6.31 and 7.76. MR. JARVIS-It started out as 7.75, 7.76. MR. FORD-And it got smaller? MR. JARVIS-No, I think what happened was when I conveyed the .88 acres to my sister, I think it was taken out of the equation somehow, but if you add it all up and you keep the .88, you add my 1.55 to 1.5 to 3.84, and that comes to 7.76. MR. STEVES-But if you add up Lots One, Two, and Three, you’re .88 shy of the total, and that’s what the confusion is, is they’re adding the three lots, but there’s also the area that’s proposed to be conveyed around the sister’s lot to increase her holdings. So you’re correct in the statement that it is 7.76 acres. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. STEVES-And I believe there was one other comment they had, the sight distance and the topography, and we discussed that with the Board, and I didn’t see any reason for the two foot contours myself, but we did take care of the sight distance, and there isn’t an issue with sight distances. MR. VOLLARO-The C.T. Male thing talks about a SWPPP erosion sediment control plan has not been provided. I guess we need to provide one. MR. STEVES-I did the calculations for the proposed house driveway, septic and clearing area on Lot One and on Lot Three with the existing driveways, and it ends up being like .85 acres, so with that, it’s under one. MR. STEVES-It’s under one. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. You sound like the guys that came to me today with .095. MR. STEVES-No, no, no. I didn’t want to go .99, but on a one acre, acre and a half lot, where you typically see with the house, the driveway, your lawn, your septic field, you typically see just over a third of an acre of actual disturbance. I mean, you go to lots and most of the lots are half acre lots, say in the subdivisions around the Town here. You don’t usually see every inch of the site disturbed. It’s usually around a third of an acre. MR. VOLLARO-So what you’ve really got to do to satisfy everything here is to answer the C.T. Male letter, just like that. MR. STEVES-And we have. I’m just waiting for his response back. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So there’s something in already on this? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. FORD-The Notice of Intent and all that good stuff. th MR. VOLLARO-All that. He has to answer everything on the June 8 letter. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. STEVES-And anything you do, and I realize public hearing and you have to move forward, but anything you do would be contingent upon that. We understand. MR. VOLLARO-See this puts us in a position of having to condition this Preliminary, but you’re going to be coming back with Final. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-When you come back with Final, all this stuff will be done. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-We’ve done this with Tom Nace a couple of times. Like on the Schermerhorn application. Everything was done and I checked the clock, and he was out in eight minutes. If you get everything put together for us, we’ll get you out of Final quickly. So, just get the answers to C.T. Male. Tell them that the Board sees no need for the waiver. You can make that statement. MR. STEVES-And we’ll pass on your minutes from the previous meeting. MR. VOLLARO-Right, and the deep test pits also are necessary. Perc tests should be verified by a P.E. You’ve got it. MR. STEVES-Yes. Sight distances were verified. MR. VOLLARO-Right. MR. FORD-What about contour intervals? MR. VOLLARO-Two foot contour intervals on a flat plane like this is almost unnecessary. I mean, I think we said that in Sketch. MR. STEVES-Yes, you did. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, in Sketch Plan we said it was not necessary. MR. FORD-I just wanted to make sure we addressed it, and it was a recommendation. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I have a quick question, Mr. Steves, if you can just help me out here with this. This driveway here goes down to Lot Number Three. MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Right here. MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-And then this is going to go away, and this is going to be all? MR. STEVES-Lands of Stanton. MR. VOLLARO-Lands of Stanton. Pamela Stanton, correct, that’s your sister. MR. JARVIS-Yes, sir. MR. VOLLARO-Right. Now, the driveway, what’s the story with this lot having a 40 foot access to Luzerne Road? MR. STEVES-The Stanton parcel? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. STEVES-That was created before that requirement, I believe. MR. VOLLARO-So you’re saying we’ve got a pre-existing situation here? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-So the 40 doesn’t apply. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. STEVES-That’s correct. That lot is an existing tax parcel, existing lot, existing house, an existing driveway, I believe it’s 15 feet. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So the answer to that, it’s pre-existing, I think, on that 40 foot frontage? MR. STEVES-Yes, and we’re stipulating that Lot Three share the driveway with her lot. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. Well, I can see how Lot Three is doing it. You’re going to come down, and Lot Three comes in this way, and your sister comes in this way. MRS. STEFFAN-So you’ll have a right of way over the part that you share with her driveway. MR. JARVIS-Right. I gave her .88 acres. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I, personally, have no other comments that I surfaced in. What I did is I went over and I read the comments we made at Sketch, and that’s how this got developed, and sometimes I don’t know why an application like this necessarily goes to C.T. Male, but this one did, and the next one on Mr. Whalen also goes to C.T. Male, and I’m not sure. MRS. STEFFAN-Because it’s subdivision, I think. Because it’s subdivision, it has to go, I think. MR. VOLLARO-I think it’s a Staff call when it goes to C.T. Male. MRS. BARDEN-It is. It’s a Zoning Administrator call on what gets sent. MR. STEVES-I don’t believe that it’s a requirement that it has to be. MR. VOLLARO-No. I will probably talk to Craig about, some of these, I think, you know, on one or two lot subdivisions, flat, why do it anyway. Anyhow, I don’t have any further comments on this one. I’m fine with it. MRS. BARDEN-You have a public hearing. MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody want to talk to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. VOLLARO-And now I will call for a motion for approval. MRS. BARDEN-Do you want to do the SEQRA before you do that? MR. VOLLARO-We have a Long Form SEQRA to go? MRS. BARDEN-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-All right. Okay. Part II, Long Form SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 4-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: LEE JARVIS, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-I just have one question, if that’s okay. I understand what you’re doing. As far as the Preliminary, you’re asking for the C.T. Male signoff. What the C.T. Male is basically asking for is what this Board has already now granted the waiver for. I just wanted to confirm that. So I’ll pass this on to them that you were okay with the waiver requests. I just wanted to make sure that that was put into any motion. MR. VOLLARO-Yes. The waiver request itself, you’re asking for waivers for two foot contours. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. VOLLARO-And we can put that in the motion if you want. MR. STEVES-Understood. Absolutely, because that way I can pass that through to them and we they can realize that it’s already been accepted by this Board. MR. VOLLARO-When you come back with Final, the final drawing and all of that stuff, make sure there’s a stamp on it. MR. STEVES-Not a problem. MR. VOLLARO-Does anybody want to make a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 4-2006 LEE JARVIS, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, a preliminary subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision of a 7.76 acre parcel into 3 residential lots of 1.50, 1.55, and 3.84 acres respectively. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board. WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 6/20/06; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find this Preliminary application to be Approved: We would approve this application with the following conditions: 1. The waivers are granted for the two foot contours, 2. That we’ll be looking for stamped drawings upon their return, 3. And that we’ll be looking for a C.T. Male signoff. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-That’s it, sir. MR. JARVIS-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2006 PRELIMINARY SEQR TYPE UNLISTED JOHN WHALEN AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A, RC-15, LC- 42A LOCATION BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION OF A 6.31 ACRE PARCEL INTO 4 RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF 1.12, 1.26, 1.39 AND 2.33 ACRES. SUBDIVISIONS OF LAND REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE 3/28/06 SKETCH WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 40.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-1 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES & MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. VOLLARO-Would the applicants like to identify themselves for the record, please. MR. O'CONNOR-For the purposes of the record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little & O’Connor. I represent the applicant. With us at the table is the applicant, John Whalen, and Matt Steves, who’s the surveyor for the project. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. STEVES-Do you want me to briefly describe it and we can go through some comments? MR. VOLLARO-We’ve seen this at SEQRA. There’s been some changes, however, not SEQRA, sorry, at Sketch. There have been some changes from Sketch to this application. MR. STEVES-I’ll go through those. This is a four lot subdivision that is the property located on Birdsall Road, just past the County bike path, heading toward Glen Lake. When we had first come in here, we were looking at putting in a cul de sac down along, if anybody’s been up to the site, there’s an existing road that goes down through there, which was the old railroad bed, where the Niagara Mohawk line runs right next, parallel to that, then back just a little bit to the west of that you have the County bike path, and slightly west of that, again, you have another large Niagara Mohawk line. There’s a service line that runs down the old railroad, and we looked at it and we had talked about the grading in there with the banks on both sides, and if there was a way to not impact that much grading, and we would like to be able to put in a Town road and then we listened to this Board, we looked at it, engineering wise. Tom Nace and myself went out with Mr. Whalen, looked at the property and said, you know, we have an existing road here, driveway here, that we don’t have to clear anymore. To put in a cul de sac with the 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) radius and the clearing requirements for grading a cul de sac, we just looked at the impact and said there’s no way. It’s crazy. Why impact that much property, the idea would be to keep the buffer that is in place between the existing driveway and to the west, to the bike path, and now we don’t have to touch it. So, that was the change in the subdivision. I know that there was a Staff comment regarding other properties that Mr. Whalen owns that is divided by the County bike path and the County ownership as being a fifth lot. If the Board wants to consider that a fifth lot, understood, but at the same time, it is not reviewable by the Department of Health, unlike the Staff comments have indicated. The Department of Health only reviews subdivisions of five lots or more under five acres. We have four lots of an acre in size, and the remaining property is 35. So the Department of Health is non-jurisdictional. As far as the lot configuration itself, nothing has changed except for the fact that the three lots on the westerly side would then share that, two lots, I should say, on the westerly end would share the driveway, and the two lots that border on Birdsall Road would have their driveways coming off of Birdsall Road. The one on the easterly side most likely would enter in right where the little driveway is to the north side, in front of the two existing cottages, but that’s not a definite, depending on where somebody would want to build on that lot. MRS. STEFFAN-That was the question I had. MR. STEVES-We’ve shown the clearing limits, the septic systems. We do have the perc rate that we do not need 200 feet separation from the lake, but we did provide the 200 feet separation from the lake. I don’t think there’s too many sites on Glen Lake that the septic system does comply with the 100 feet, much less 200 feet. So we were able to comply with that, and in large part due to the fact that we didn’t have to provide a cul de sac. He does own the other five parcels on the lake that we had discussed during Sketch Plan, and that there could be attached four different portions of the five tax parcels he owns independently to the lots as non-buildable areas. There won’t be any houses built down there. I think that helps substantially with existing five lots that are nonconforming that could be sold. We’re asking to attach them to these lots as lakefront access only, and to place a dock like you would typically see on Glen Lake, a dock with a “T” on the end for a chair, but no houses will be developed on those lots. MR. FORD-No boathouses? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. He plans to put a boathouse on there, I believe. MR. O'CONNOR-You might be able to. I think that’s up to the individual purchaser of the lots. MR. STEVES-Purchaser. MR. O'CONNOR-Probably on the two lots that have 75 feet of frontage, you’d be able to accommodate a boathouse. On the two lots that have 50 foot, you wouldn’t be able to accommodate a boathouse, because you have to have 20 feet on each side of whatever you put in there, side setbacks projected out into the water. So if you were going to put a, you’d be limited to 10 foot. Probably on these two lots, Lots Three and Four, I think, the most that they would have would be a “T” that goes out into the lake, probably four feet, five feet wide in the center, so that they maintain the proper setback from each of the neighboring, adjoining property lines. On the other two, conceivably you could put a boathouse. Forty feet would leave you thirty-six feet in the center of the lot. So, that would have to come back to you for site plan approval, and I think that’s the way it operates. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. STEVES-But again, they would only be for the lake use, not to try to build a house there. MR. VOLLARO-I understand. These are pre-existing lots, and that’s how we get away from the 150 foot requirement. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. O'CONNOR-He actually has given them up as pre-existing lots by attaching them to the back land. Right now he could sell them individually without consideration of the back land if you wanted to. MR. VOLLARO-But he’s attaching it to. 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. O'CONNOR-He’s attaching it to it, and as Matt said, we’ll do some restrictive covenants. John wants to put as much in writing as he can that says that the people could use them for access to the lake. They probably will have stairs on them. They probably may want a small accessory building down there for storage, water skis, whatever you have near the lake, but that’ll have to all be. MR. FORD-Well, that’s what I was getting at, trying to get at was what kind of structures would be down there? I know no houses, but. MR. O'CONNOR-Small accessory structures, that would have to abide by the setbacks. One of the setbacks is 50 feet from the lake. I don’t think there’s any difference between accessory and a principal structure in a lakeshore zone. I’ll have to check that. MR. STEVES-If they wanted to put a shed in there, 10 by 10, 10 by 12, for storage. You’re not going to want to haul your water skis back and forth, but we’re not talking building a 60 by 50 garage or something down at the lake, no. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I have some questions, I guess, on the calculations for density. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to have to include in your density calculations that 33 foot wide Town road, Birdsall Road. MR. STEVES-It’s not included in the area of the lots. That’s an ownership, the right of way, when we say right of way, it’s a two rod road, which is owned by the Town. That’s a Town road that the area was not, when we calculated the density, the road area was already subtracted. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. How about the NiMo easement? MR. STEVES-The Niagara Mohawk easement runs down the edge of the driveway, the old railroad bed, and Niagara Mohawk has no set width. It’s just an easement to run a feeder line to the camps. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I was looking for a width on this drawing and I didn’t see one. Is that the reason? MR. O’CONNOR-At the best it’s a pole line easement. MR. VOLLARO-Pole line easement. MR. O'CONNOR-Pole line without plottable definition of size, or whatever. MR. STEVES-But again, Bob, if you took out, even if there was a width associated with it, like a 20 foot, for the length of what’s in Lot Two, it wouldn’t do anything to it. MR. VOLLARO-It would do much. Yes. MR. STEVES-And one other thing is we had the test pits done and then we went back and had them re-done, if you’ll recall, during the time that was required by the Town. We had them re-done with Tom Nace. MR. FORD-Was there one done in Lot One? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-One of the things is a tradeoff in here, I guess, just let me explore that with you. When we did Sketch, I think you talked about and agreed to the house would be about 150 feet from the lake, but I think what you’ve done is you’ve put the septic in a much better place. MR. STEVES-No question. MR. VOLLARO-And I would trade the septic positions off for the house position at any day. So I’m not unhappy with that. 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. STEVES-And the houses are still, basically on the two lots, at least at least 150, and the other two there may be 135, because those lots on the frontage of the lake now are over 100 foot in depth, but taking the road out of the equation, the disturbance area is reduced substantially, and then allows us to pull the septics 200 feet from the lake. I think it’s a win/win. MR. VOLLARO-Well, that, to me, is a giant step. This is the kind of stuff that I like to see, in terms of the way bodies of water are protected. That’s all, no more than that. MR. O'CONNOR-I’ll say this to you. When John first came to me and talked to me about this and Matt talked to me, I was surprised that he had the acreage that he could attach. I mean, there’s probably only three other lots on the lake, the one down at the far end and the two that Al Christensen owns, and none of those lands are as deep as this. I don’t think there’s any. There’s one vacant one on St. Mary’s Bay. MR. VOLLARO-Well, this is certainly a plus in terms of protecting the lake, that’s for sure. MR. O'CONNOR-This comes very close to being a conservation subdivision. MRS. BRUNO-Will these lots be developed before they’re sold off, or are these going to be sold as lots? MR. O'CONNOR-I think Mr. Whalen has expressed that he’s not a builder. So, he will probably put the, we’ll get the approvals, and put the infrastructure in that we need to do, and then market the lots individually, is probably the best way that he would operate, but that doesn’t preclude him from saying, okay, I’ve got four approved lots. You want to be the exclusive developer, you buy the whole package from me, but it won’t change the development as to who does it. MR. FORD-Restrictions. MR. O'CONNOR-Restrictions. MR. VOLLARO-The only thing there is that whoever develops, whether it’s one developer or whether it turns out to be four, one on each lot, is to make sure that the septics remain where they are, based on the fact that the test pits and percolation tests were done in those areas. MR. STEVES-That’s understandable. No problem. We’ve had other ones, Bob, where we’ve stipulated that they would be staked in the field. MR. SEGULJIC-You’ve indicated you have no cut zones listed on the map. MR. STEVES-No, clearing limits. MR. SEGULJIC-Clearing limits, but I don’t think they’re labeled as such. MR. STEVES-Yes, we show a typically clearing limit on each lot. It’s just a clouded area. It might be in the legend. MR. SEGULJIC-If you could just label those as clearing limits. MR. FORD-While you’re up there, could you please show us where the test pit was doe on One? MR. STEVES-Right where the perc test is on One. MR. FORD-I see the perc test. MR. VOLLARO-The perc test and then this is the rate, one inch in thirty seconds. That’s what the perc is. This is, the perc test is right here, “PT”. MR. FORD-That’s different from the test pit. MR. VOLLARO-You’re on Lot Three. MR. FORD-Yes, and I wanted to see that symbol on Lot One. 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. VOLLARO-TP you want to see on Lot One. MR. FORD-That’s right, and I don’t see it. You see what I don’t see? MR. STEVES-Yes. Well, then I’ve got two comments now, to label the clearing limits and then correct that to show the test pit data as well as the perc test. MR. VOLLARO-That’ll be on the Final? MR. STEVES-Yes. We went back and we did four deep tests originally, and we went back and re-did four more. One reason to slide one test pit further to the west as requested during the Sketch Plan, and also to do them during the high groundwater period. MR. O'CONNOR-If you see the soil test information, they’ve got the results listed, but they don’t show you where on the map it is. MR. STEVES-They were the old test pits on there. I apologize for that. Maybe I could blame Mr. Nace. He’s not here. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-We have been to the site before, but I’m assuming, actually this is recollection, that there are some big trees in there. I’d like to see some of those protected, if this is developed. Even if it’s, you know, it’s subdivided and sold off. I think we need to make some notations here that some of that’s protected. MR. STEVES-Where we have shown the housing on the property, as Gretchen pointed out, is to try to fit them in between some of the larger trees and where some of those little side slopes, even though it looks a lot steeper than it is because these are one foot contours. If you’ve walked up in there, you’ll notice that there’s remnants of a lot of old cabins on here. I think Jack can attest to, how many were there at one time, six or seven? JOHN WHALEN MR. WHALEN-Yes, well there were six buildings on it when I bought it. I tore down the four which were on Lot One, Two, and Three. I tore those down and I didn’t have the heart to take down the two matching ones. So I re-roofed those and left them to await their fate. MR. STEVES-But where the houses are shown and the clearing limits is predominantly within the smaller, brushier stuff that is on the lot now. MRS. BRUNO-I wanted to make a completely unofficial suggestion, and that just is, if somebody were to come in here and purchase one of these pieces or whatever, they might appreciate having a couple of pictures of the camps taken before they’re demolished, just for, you know, if there’s an architect that’s sensitive to bringing in some of that. If I remember right, the roof lines were typical Adirondack camp. MR. WHALEN-Hip roofs, yes. MRS. BRUNO-It might just be. MR. WHALEN-Yes, I can take some pictures, and maybe Paul can take some pictures. Yes, I think we’ll have to do that. MR. FORD-What’s the status on the DEC and what has not been submitted, as far as Karner blue butterfly habitat? MR. STEVES-That was sent to Kathy O’Brien, because the Town, in going through their Karner blue report a few years ago, identified some areas up in the CEA area as potential. That’s predominantly in the cleared area up near the Warren County bike path, on the sides of that, and over on the other side where you had the old gravel pit. She didn’t have any issues with this area. I’ve tried to contact her again today for the letter and she’s been out in the field for the last two weeks and will still be in the field for the next two week and please leave me a message and she’ll get back to me after she returns because the Karner blue is in their brood at this point. So she’s out watching her 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) butterflies every day for the next couple of weeks. So before we come back for Final, I will have that letter from her. MR. O'CONNOR-Or looking for her butterflies. MR. STEVES-It was too heavily wooded. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I don’t think you’d see anything on that site, unless, you know, places that have been constantly mowed and sandy will grow the lupine, but other than that, in shaded areas. MR. STEVES-More concerned with the old gravel area on the other side, west of this, and along the southeasterly side of the bike path where it gets some of the good sun. MR. VOLLARO-If we ever get any sun. MR. FORD-There’s a public hearing on this. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there is, but I want to get a couple, what’s the story with the need to supply the SWPPP. You said that you’re underneath the? MR. STEVES-Tom Nace was doing that, and he said that he providing that. He was talking with C.T. Male today. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s going to be provided. MR. STEVES-That is going to be provided. It’s very close to the acres, so he already has it prepared. He’s been in discussions with C.T. Male today when I was in the office. MR. VOLLARO-So basically if you come in with a signoff on the C.T. Male letter of 6/08/06, then that would be fine. Go over with me one more time why we don’t need to look at the entire 40.29 acre parcel showing. MR. O'CONNOR-It’s not a contiguous part of the parcel. They’re separated in ownership by the lands of the Niagara Mohawk and the County of Warren. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Is that, I see. MR. O'CONNOR-I think on the location map you can see, even on the location map, which is a copy, it’s in the lower left hand corner, it’s a copy of the tax map. You can see the separation of ownership. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I see it, and that separation is basically Birdsall Road. MR. O'CONNOR-No, it’s a Niagara Mohawk heavy transportation or heavy duty line and the bike trail. MR. STEVES-Take a look, Bob. That’s our Lot Four. He also owns all this. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I’ve got you. All right, and that’s where Niagara Mohawk breaks that continuity? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, that’s an ownership from Niagara Mohawk where in the subdivision along the common driveway we show an easement for their feeder line. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got it. I didn’t realize when I looked at that. MR. O'CONNOR-And also that bike trail is separately owned. That’s owned by the County. MR. VOLLARO-So it certainly separates that site from the rest of it. Yes, I’ve got it. Okay. Karner blue we’ll find out from Kathy what she’s going to do. MR. STEVES-She didn’t have any issue with it, but I just, like I say, in the last couple of weeks she’s been tied up with the outdoors. MR. VOLLARO-The waiver of the stormwater management plan. You’ve asked for a waiver for that. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. STEVES-Yes, but we’re preparing the SWPPP as well, though. MR. VOLLARO-You’re going to do that, and what about the waiver of the grading plan? Now this is in part of the C.T. Male signoff, and they recommended not approving that. MR. STEVES-Like I say, in discussions with Tom, before leaving the office this evening, in discussions he had with C.T. Male, it was so close he’s going to prepare that, and during that, within the SWPPP he’s going to have a generic graded plan for each of the lots. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. So that’s going to be done. So that’s okay. MR. STEVES-Again, we can guarantee the exact shape of the buildings, but we can sure say that this is basically what’s going to be done on each lot. MR. VOLLARO-On the clearing limits, what we’ve been asked to do by a member of Staff, I guess Bruce Frank has asked us, when you’re doing the clearing limits, to flag those with an orange flagging, so when he goes out, he knows approximately what the clearing limit’s were to be. MR. STEVES-Prior to construction. MR. VOLLARO-Prior to construction. MR. STEVES-Certainly. Like I say, that has been done in the past as well as staking the septic system, and that’s fine. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-But if they’re sold, then you don’t own them. MR. STEVES-To be honest with you, I don’t have an issue with that, because as a surveyor for the projects I do, I basically return to 95 to 99% of them to stake the house, the septic, and the clearing limits. MR. O'CONNOR-You can’t get a building permit without a survey showing location of your proposed structure and you can’t, new construction you can’t do a closing without having an as built survey. So there’s other people that have already put controls into the system that makes you, not makes you, but brings Matt back out to the site, prior to construct and then after construction. MR. FORD-It makes a protracted sequence here. MR. STEVES-Every lot that we develop I end up going back and staking out the home and the clearing limits and the septic and the well. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any other questions. I think all my questions have been answered. How about anybody else on the Board have any questions on this now that we’ve been through it? My checklist is finished. MR. FORD-Mine is, too. MR. O'CONNOR-Do you have a public hearing, Mr. Chairman? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, we do. MR. O'CONNOR-You have neighbors here. MR. VOLLARO-I just want to look over my stuff. I’ll open the public hearing. I think we’re finished with our questions. Okay. I’m going to open the public hearing. Is there anybody here that would like to speak to this application at all? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GEORGE WINTERS MR. WINTERS-My name is George Winters. I’m here to represent Leesha Cushing, Leesha Kingsley, and she owns Birdsall, 101 Birdsall Road, and she lives right next to the property. Her property, my concern would be where they’re putting their septic tank. 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) Is that 100 foot away from my daughter’s well? They’re all wells there. I don’t know if they’re going to put in wells. MR. VOLLARO-I need to know where that is, because I can’t tell that from the maps that we’ve been given because it doesn’t have the adjacent properties. MR. WINTERS-I don’t know if it’s shown on here or not. MR. VOLLARO-No, it doesn’t show that, does it? MR. STEVES-If you can just show me where you’re talking about. Here’s Birdsall Road. MR. WINTERS-Okay. Her land would be in the back of here. These are the camps? MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. WINTERS-Yes, and 60 foot, I’d say 60 foot back. Are you putting Town water in? MR. STEVES-No. MR. WINTERS-No. MR. FORD-What would be the approximate distance? MR. STEVES-Approximately 130 feet. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. STEVES-If you’d like, we did locate that well, I can show that well. We located all the water sources from around the area, so that we can confirm within 100 feet. He’s saying he’s about, the well’s about 60 feet to the northeast of the property line near those buildings, and if you look at that going 60 feet to the northeast, and then coming over to our septic, it’s well over the 100 feet, but I would gladly show that and confirm that for Final. MR. VOLLARO-Why don’t you just, on your Final map, why don’t you just put it on there, so we know. MR. STEVES-Absolutely. MR. VOLLARO-Because it’s an adjoining well. MR. FORD-Great. MR. STEVES-Yes, no problem. MR. WINTERS-I don’t know if this is where to bring it up or not, but the traffic on that road, you know, that’s a narrow road. I don’t think it’s as wide as a normal Town road, and then the Town has the bikes going up through there, and if you come up over the top of the hill and stuff, I don’t know whether there would be any impact on more houses in there, but say if they develop all the land down in there, there certainly would, you know, that’s bad right now, but most of the people in there go slow. They’re familiar with the area, and they go slow through there, but if you get a lot more houses in there, and then when you come just over the hill, Marley Way cuts off there, then you just come up over the top of the hill, they put the other houses up in there, and the bike trail, the Town of Queensbury should widen that. For a bike, to get the bikes off the road, they’re actually on the road, because that’s a narrow road. They stay right in the middle of the road. That’s one other concern I had, too. MR. FORD-That’s a County, the bike path is County. MR. WINTERS-Yes, but it goes right on that road. That’s my only concerns, I guess. Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you, Mr. Winters. PAUL DERBY 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. DERBY-Paul Derby, 86 Ash Drive, also President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. I’d say overall the project looks pretty good. We have very few open spaces left on the lake. I’m sure you know that. This is one of the few, so of course we’re concerned about that. I’d also like to mention that there were, earlier tonight, 11 neighbors from right around the area that were here because they wanted to see what was going on. We did see the map, and they had to go home and go to sleep. So we always are concerned what’s going on. Really I just have questions, and maybe some are procedure you can answer right here, and then the applicant can, if we come back. I am somewhat concerned about that so called fifth lot, the 34 acres in the back. I know it’s zoned differently. It’s not attached to this, the RC-15 and the LC-42 lot, and I guess I would ask that it be stipulated that anything in the future that happens on that lot not be connected to the lake in any way. I’m not sure we can do that. MR. VOLLARO-You mean right of ways or usage? MR. DERBY-Yes, if there’s a right of way or something in there. I mean, I’d love to see that remain green space, but it’s private property. MR. VOLLARO-You’re talking about lake rights, that kind of thing. MR. DERBY-Yes, lake rights. Those types of things. I believe just since you mentioned the boathouse, I think you need 300 feet of lake front to put a boathouse in, according to the new regs, but just a note. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I think all these four connecting lots up here, the 50’s and these are all pre-existing lots. MR. DERBY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-So I don’t know that you can apply that to these. In the future you will, but these are pre-existing. So if they can get, and meet the side setbacks, like Mr. O’Connor was talking about, probably nothing on the 50’s, but on the 75’s I think they could sneak something in out there. It looks very small, a dock. MR. DERBY-Okay. Docks you can put in. MR. FORD-He was talking about a boathouse. MR. DERBY-I’m talking about boathouses. MR. VOLLARO-Boathouses. MR. DERBY-Yes, I think you’d need much more space than that. MR. VOLLARO-Much more space for a boathouse. MR. DERBY-But docks you can put on any of those. I had a question about if there are such things as restrictive covenants, such as no buildings being put on the lakefront properties or positions of septics. I’m curious about the process of that. Are they put in to the deed, and do they transfer with selling of lots? So for example if there were restrictions put on at this point, and then those sold, do they transfer with that sale? MR. VOLLARO-I think once a deed is drawn, and it’s got deed restrictions on it, I know my deed has deed restrictions on it when I bought it, and it would pass when I sell it, I would assume. MR. FORD-That was also a recommendation, a Staff comment that deed restrictions, that no residential would be built on the waterfront portion of the lots would be appropriate. MRS. STEFFAN-I think, in addition to that, because this is a subdivision, you’d need plat notations because the deed restrictions can be on the deed, but they’re not enforceable. The plat notations allow the Town to be able to take enforcement action on that. MR. STEVES-The Town can enforce, but the deed restrictions would be left to the other owners. 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. You have to rat your neighbor out if you want some kind of enforcement. MR. DERBY-That’s what I was just curious about. So what’s a plat notation? Is that something you put in? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, that’s notations right on the plat. There’s something noted. It’s a direction for the Code Enforcement people. MR. DERBY-Okay. MR. FORD-It’s good to have both. MRS. STEFFAN-We’ve learned. MR. DERBY-With the lakefront properties that are going to be attached to where they’re going to build in the back, I know that people would have to cross over roads, either Birdsall or Canterbury, in some cases, to actually get to those lakefront properties, and if that was a concern at all about having to pass a public road to get from one to the other, if there were going to be pathways. MR. VOLLARO-You mean for somebody that’s in Lot Number Four to get to? MR. DERBY-If you were Number Three, I think, which is right there in the corner of Birdsall, and you went down to your lakefront property, you’d have to cross over a road to get there, and I didn’t know if that was a public concern about having to cross a road. MRS. BRUNO-I think it’s for the house owner. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, if you lived on Four, you’d have to cross Birdsall to get to your lot. MRS. STEFFAN-No, there’s a little road that goes down in here. MR. DERBY-There’s a little road that goes the other way also. MR. VOLLARO-There is? MRS. STEFFAN-Because see there’s other lands here. MR. VOLLARO-The asphalt drive. So they have to cross this. MR. DERBY-Yes, those are private drives. MR. VOLLARO-They’re private drives. They’d have to cross that. MR. DERBY-Okay. Can you tell me what a clearing limit is? MR. VOLLARO-Where they have this notation on the drawing where it’s squiggly lines, the house is set in there and then the clearing limits are where the house is. These areas here, these are all clearing limits. The outside of these represent the limits of clearing, and they get flagged, so when the house is being built, the guy doesn’t come with the bulldozer and bulldoze all this out. It has to remain as open space. MR. DERBY-Okay, because that’s one of our concerns, the visual impact on the lake, and it is such a beautiful space up there with those trees. We’d love to see as many trees as possible kept on the lot. MR. VOLLARO-I think that that was Mrs. Steffan’s position as well. MR. DERBY-Okay. Just a few more. The septic systems are away from the lake, and we think that’s great. MR. VOLLARO-I’ll trade that off for most other stuff. MR. DERBY-Yes. Definitely. Hopefully they’re sloping away from the lake. I think they are in most cases on those lots. I’m wondering why there would be a stormwater waiver for this. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. VOLLARO-They’re not asking for that. It’s going to be done by Mr. Nace, I believe. There’s going to be a SWPPP done, which is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. MR. DERBY-Okay. Similarly, the actual lakefront lots themselves, we would like to see really some kind of stipulation to minimize the tree cutting on those lots. MR. VOLLARO-That’s what the clearing limits are all about. MR. DERBY-On the building lots or the front lots by the lake? MR. VOLLARO-Well, on the front lots. You mean these 50 foot lots? MR. DERBY-Correct. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t even know, there’s nothing shown on those lots, as far as clearing limits are concerned. MR. DERBY-Right. MR. VOLLARO-Because they don’t plan on building anything on those lots. MR. DERBY-Correct, but there’s nothing to preclude the owner to go down and take out trees, except you can only take so many trees within the Critical Environmental Area. MRS. BRUNO-Well, don’t these smaller lots become really part of the larger lot, so if you were looking at these clearing limits, they’re really beyond the limit, or within the limit, I should say. MR. VOLLARO-You’re saying that the limit extends all the way up into the lot? MRS. BRUNO-Right, because that is no longer its own little lot. It’s part of the larger. MR. DERBY-Okay, well, if we could stipulate that, and that’s the case, that would probably save a lot. MR. VOLLARO-Matt, can you put something like that on your Final? MR. STEVES-Yes. MR. O'CONNOR-With limitations. I’ll respond to that. MR. STEVES-With limitations. MR. DERBY-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-Well, we didn’t go, at least I didn’t go down that far, and I haven’t spent a lot of time on Glen Lake, unfortunately. How treed are those areas closer to the water? MR. DERBY-Very. I mean, they’ve all re-grown, tree lots. They’re nice. Then just one personal note, this is not coming from the Association, but I am an anthropologist by profession, and I know that there are some, that site on Birdsall, there is potential that there are some significant archeological finds up on that hillside. For example, perhaps our oldest prehistoric site, some 5, 6,000 years ago, was an identified Birdsall site in that area, and also, even with the buildings that have been taken down, some of our very nice history, when the railroad went through there and the old Glen Lake hotel, as it was, and the little buildings were there, and I didn’t know if there would be any way to build in an idea that either looking for finds, or if something emerged at that time. I’m not sure how the process works, but I just wanted to make you aware that the potential is there for that. I think that’s all I have. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I thank you very much. MR. DERBY-Thanks. MRS. BARDEN-I have one written comment if there’s nobody else from the public that wants to speak. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t see anybody else that wants to talk on this. 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MRS. BARDEN-This is an e-mail from Russell Pittenger to Craig Brown, dated today, th Tuesday, June 20. Subject is John Whalen Four Lot Subdivision. “Chairman Vollaro and Planning Board members: We are seasonal residents of Birdsall Road, and have long had an interest and concern for how this parcel would be developed. Upon review of the design plans, I believe this is an appropriate and reasonable proposal, deserving of the Board’s consideration and approval. I am confident that the Board will exercise care in their review to protect the lake quality, preserve shoreline vegetation, and insure use of the appropriate stormwater controls during construction. Given the construction within these parameters, I believe this project will be an asset to the neighborhood. Russell Pittenger 139 Birdsall Road” MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Thank you, Susan. MRS. BARDEN-You’re welcome. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think we’re in pretty good shape here. We have to do a SEQRA on this, I believe. MR. O'CONNOR-I’d like to make one comment, and I understand what Paul just said about the lake lots, and probably for our benefit we would probably show or try to figure out each of those lots would have a beach area that would be cleared, and I don’t want to leave an impression that it wouldn’t be. I think there are lakeshore cutting restrictions that says that you can cut 35% of your frontage, or something to that effect, which is typical. I mean, somebody is not going to buy a lot with lake frontage and not want to have some cleared area down there where they can sit with their family, swim, bath, do all the stuff that they normally do. So I don’t want to leave the impression that the clearing limits extend all the way to the lake, and maybe we ought to show that, Matt. I hate to show too much stuff, because you may get down there and find out there’s a big rock right there and the guy wants to move it a little bit over to the other side, but I mean, this’ll be a generalization. This is good deep water off here, if you’ve been down to the lake. The other comment, I don’t know how you’d tie the other parcel into this parcel. We probably would not be willing to do that. It’s a separate parcel, separate zone. We don’t have any particular plans for it. MR. VOLLARO-Are you talking about the beach rights? MR. O’CONNOR-The beach rights, and whether or not we would give beach rights, it’s not our plan to do that, but if somebody eventually somehow or other that becomes residential and they have their brother-in-law over there and they want to give him beach rights, then I think they abide by the rules of the Town. I don’t think you can give beach rights on a 50 foot parcel or you might be able to on a 75 foot parcel, but I’d have to look at that. There is a specific provision in the Ordinance that says when you can grant upland beach rights, and I just don’t think that that would be reasonable to say that they’ve got to waive that, unknown what’s going to happen. MR. VOLLARO-It may stay that way. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know. MRS. STEFFAN-What about rental properties? That just jumped into my head, because somewhere in our package we were talking about rental properties. Any kind of restrictions on whether we would not want these to be rental properties? I know this is kind of a gray area. MR. O'CONNOR-Will you guarantee that the taxes will be such that everybody can afford to not rent their property? There’s a lot of people on Glen Lake that never rented their property before that now with the new assessments are picking a week, picking two weeks, and they’re renting them to cover part of their taxes, and I think you’ll find more of that happening until we get some other relief for taxes. I think you’ll also find that on Lake George. So, I mean, that’s an individual right to rent your property if you choose. MR. VOLLARO-Well, what’s happening on Lake George is a little bit different, I think. We’ll discuss that at another time, but I think we’re. MR. STEVES-You’re talking like a cottage colony. MR. O'CONNOR-No, typical Glen Lake rentals are a week, some are two weeks. Some are a month. There’s a few places that rent for the summer. They’re not overnight type. The only place on Glen Lake that you can stay is Glenmore. That’s the only two 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) commercial places on the Lake is Glenmore and the Docksider, and that doesn’t have residential. MR. VOLLARO-Let’s say I wanted to buy the whole thing, and put a motel here instead, what would happen to that? The zoning wouldn’t allow that. MRS. STEFFAN-No, but if bought those two or three parcels and I put buildings on there and then I rented them out, I don’t know. MR. METIVIER-There’s no way to regulate that, though, you know. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. STEVES-It’s zoned for single family homes. I built a single family home, whether I occupy it or I rent it out on a monthly basis, it’s still a single family home. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that’s is what this will gravitate to. MRS. STEFFAN-I hope not. There was a letter to the editor in the paper this week about that issue. It was on Lake George, but you could visualize what the neighbors were going through, and it just popped in. So I thought I’d put it out there. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MRS. BARDEN-Can I just interject one comment on the shoreline regulations. There is a cutting restriction for 35 feet extending inland from the mean high water mark, no vegetation may be removed. The exception is allowance for lake access, but anything within that 35 feet has to be deemed by the Town okay the removal of any diseased or damaged trees. MR. VOLLARO-Does that say that if I buy one of these lots I can clear from the mean high water mark back 35 feet? MRS. BARDEN-It means that you cannot do that. MR. VOLLARO-You cannot do that. MRS. BARDEN-The exception is lake access. There is an exception to this standard, shall be an allowance for lake access and beaches, and there is a stipulation. It’s 35 feet back from the mean high water mark, inland from the mean high water mark. MR. O'CONNOR-Is there a width? I don’t recall if there’s a width. MR. FORD-That’s the length of it, so how wide can it be? MR. METIVIER-As wide as the lot is. MR. FORD-Fifty feet? MRS. BARDEN-That’s the depth. MR. FORD-Yes, and can it be fifty feet wide? MRS. BARDEN-From the mean high water mark 35 feet inland. MR. FORD-Right, and can it be fifty feet wide if my lot is fifty feet wide? MRS. BARDEN-It’s from the entire mean high water mark. MR. STEVES-The restriction is 35 feet back you can’t do anything, and it’s for the entire width of your lot. MRS. BARDEN-For your entire lot length. MR. STEVES-Except for access and beaches. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don’t know, does it define lake access? MR. FORD-Right, that’s what I was getting at. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. STEVES-Right. So you know what width you’re actually. MR. O'CONNOR-The only thing it says Lake George Park Commission. MR. STEVES-Right, restrictions says that, and you’re asking whether or not I can claim the whole width of the lot as access? MR. FORD-Right. MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t know. I think it has to be reasonable. I thought you could take up to 35%, but I may be thinking about APA regulations, on a total gross, looking at what’s within that no cut zone basically that 35 feet, you could take up to 35%, but I may. MRS. BARDEN-It does say that the creation of a contiguous clear cut opening in the buffer strip shall not exceed 20% of the shoreline frontage of any individual lot. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Must be an awful lot of violators on Glen Lake. MR. FORD-Kind of. MR. O'CONNOR-Ten feet wide doesn’t give you a very big access. MRS. BARDEN-But that 35 feet should be shown. MR. O'CONNOR-The other comment that was made is about upland access, and neither of these lots would qualify. None of these lots would qualify for upland access. I think you need. MRS. BARDEN-A total of not less than 100 linear feet of shoreline. MR. O'CONNOR-100 lineal feet. You need 100 lineal feet before you can start granting upland access, I think, reading it quickly. I haven’t read that in a while. MR. STEVES-And then so much per every lot on top of the first lot. MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. STEVES-Twenty-five feet, and then five for each additional. By the time you add two lots, that’s 135 feet of frontage. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. We’ve got to go through SEQRA, folks. MRS. STEFFAN-Do we require another EAF for this because it’s, or do we decide? MR. VOLLARO-It’s a Long Form. MRS. STEFFAN-I know, but it says the EAF has to be revised. Can we do the SEQRA? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there’s a small revision to the EAF. MRS. STEFFAN-Matt did say that because this is in a contiguous parcel, that it may not require it being done, but I don’t know. I’m not sure. MR. VOLLARO-I think that stipulation, make a minor correction to Part I EAF Page Two of Staff notes. MRS. STEFFAN-Because the entire parcel, and that’s the back parcel on the other side of the bike trail, but what Mr. Steves said, it’s not contiguous. So it shouldn’t be considered a 40 acre parcel. MRS. BARDEN-It is identified as one tax map number. It’s identified as all inclusive in one tax map number, the 40 acres. MR. VOLLARO-The 40 acres is all one tax map number? MRS. BARDEN-It is. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. O'CONNOR-Which is illegal, and the Assessor will tell you that. You can’t put flags, you can’t tie parcels that are separated by separate ownership by flags. It actually was to the advantage of taxpayers, because that way they ended up with more surplus land and less prime land, and ended up with lower assessments. We’re going through that right now. Your father went through it over on Hall Road. They had property on both sides of Hall Road attached by a flag, under the same tax map number. It’s not the same parcel. MR. STEVES-At this time, I understand your dilemma, but that’s not a building lot at this time. We didn’t include that. We didn’t show the test pit data, the house, the well, the septic. Anything that happens on that lot will come back in front of this Board as a complete review of that parcel. So however you want to word it on the Long Form, I don’t think it really makes a difference. If you want to include it. MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got to take a look at the way the Long Form reads first. MR. O'CONNOR-It says proposed four lot subdivision. MR. VOLLARO-What page of the Long Form did you want to have corrected? Do you remember that? Is it Five? MRS. STEFFAN-Page Five of Twenty-One does say that it’s a 40 acre parcel, under the Project Description, total contiguous acres. MR. STEVES-Contiguous owned or controlled. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, project acreage to be developed, 6.3 initially, 40 acres ultimately. MR. STEVES-It says contiguous owned or controlled. So I included it in the Long Form. MR. VOLLARO-I think this reads correctly. I don’t think that anything has to be changed, and I can understand where you, even though the tax map number is the same, is it being split by two owners, either side. So something’s wrong with the tax map id there, showing what it is. MRS. STEFFAN-So we can do SEQRA? MR. VOLLARO-We can go forward with it just the way it is. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, there will be a physical change to the site, but it’s minor. MRS. STEFFAN-It can be mitigated. How does everyone else feel? MR. FORD-I agree. MRS. STEFFAN-That it can be mitigated. Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. VOLLARO-Once we get a letter from Kathy O’Brien we can say no. MR. METIVIER-So how can we do this until we get that letter? MR. VOLLARO-I’ve got the same question here, that’s why I raised it. I don’t know. Normally, looking at the lot, it’s heavily treed, my guess it won’t be. MR. METIVIER-Well, you can always re-open the SEQRA like we did once before should we find something. MR. VOLLARO-If she comes back and raises a whole bunch of flags and says, wait a minute, I found 14 butterflies. MR. O'CONNOR-She looked at the aerials and said she didn’t think there was any problem, but we don’t have a letter. MR. VOLLARO-So I think we can go along with that. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. METIVIER-So we’ll say no. MR. VOLLARO-So the answer is no. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. We’ll say no for now. Will the proposed action effect any site of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. METIVIER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-But we did have some discussion tonight. MR. METIVIER-Yes, we did have some discussion about that tonight, with the gentleman that spoke. MR. FORD-It needs to be monitored. MR. METIVIER-Now how do you do that? MR. VOLLARO-Read that again. MR. METIVIER-Well, we don’t know. MR. STEFFAN-Let me read the descriptions. Proposed action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. MR. METIVIER-Which it’s not. MRS. STEFFAN-It is or it isn’t? Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within the project site, and then the third descriptor is Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archeological sites on the New York State Site Inventory. MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Whalen’s owned the property for about 35 years, and has never had any indication that there’s anything historical on there. There may have been an old hotel on there, but it’s not there now. I mean, I’ve got pictures of the property that go back to 1912 when they used to have a railroad trestle that went across from the upper hill down to the lake, as some other people here in the room have the same postcards, but there’s nothing on the site. MR. SEGULJIC-Mr. Chairman, could we call back the gentleman? MR. STEVES-You had the railroad that ran on the south side, and you had the old trolley that ran right along the lake. MR. VOLLARO-One of the Board members is asking whether they could call back one of the gentleman from Glen Lake to talk about this. Is this archeologically sensitive, this area, well enough for us to dwell on this on the SEQRA thing do you think? I don’t know. MRS. STEFFAN-Mr. Derby, Paul Derby. MR. VOLLARO-Paul Derby. Okay. Paul, if you’re going to comment, you’ve got to comment on the record. MR. O'CONNOR-And I don’t know that Marilyn VanDyke has ever listed this on any inventory that she has prepared for the Town, and even in your PORC meetings where she’s gone through what she thought were sensitive sites that should be of concern. MR. VOLLARO-This is the first time I’ve heard of that, but. MR. O'CONNOR-She’s pretty well aware of what’s in the Town. MR. DERBY-I guess, you know, I don’t want to be an obstructionist here, but I’m writing my dissertation on the history and pre-history of Glen Lake, and there is a pre-historic site near that Birdsall area. I would have to go and find the actual State Register site, to find out exactly where it is, and I don’t have that information. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) MR. VOLLARO-Yes, I wouldn’t want to hang this one up on that. MR. DERBY-Yes, I mean, I wouldn’t hang it up on that, but I’m going to go, because I’m curious now, to see exactly how they’ve designated that site. MR. VOLLARO-And where it is. MR. DERBY-And where it is. MRS. STEFFAN-And the public hearing will remain open, and so if you get more information and come back to us then we can deal with it in another way. MR. DERBY-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. DERBY-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. I think right now the answer is no. If you come up with additional data, we can change it. MRS. STEFFAN-So, will the proposed action effect any site of historic, prehistoric, or paleontological importance? MR. VOLLARO-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. RESOLUTION NO. 3-2006, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Anthony Metivier: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: JOHN WHALEN, and WHEREAS, this Planning Board has determined that the proposed project and Planning Board action is subject to review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. No Federal agency appears to be involved. 2. The following agencies are involved: NONE 3. The proposed action considered by this Board is Unlisted in the Department of Environmental Conservation Regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the regulations of the Town of Queensbury. 4. An Environmental Assessment Form has been completed by the applicant. 5. Having considered and thoroughly analyzed the relevant areas of environmental concern and having considered the criteria for determining whether a project has a significant environmental impact as the same is set forth in Section 617.11 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations for the State of New York, this Board finds that the action about to be undertaken by this Board will have no significant environmental effect and the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to execute and sign and file as may be necessary a statement of non-significance or a negative declaration that may be required by law. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Metivier, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Vollaro 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) NOES: NONE MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Does anybody want to make a motion to turn this in to Final? Make a motion to approve the Preliminary? MRS. STEFFAN-Susan, Item Four on the Staff comments, deed restrictions that no residences would be built on the waterfront portion of the lots would be appropriate, and then to go on about accessory structures. There isn’t enough frontage. MR. VOLLARO-We couldn’t build anyway on those lots, I don’t believe, with 75 foot up front. The Code wouldn’t allow it. MRS. BARDEN-They could if they were setback from the shoreline. MR. O'CONNOR-We would give you a deed restriction at Final. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-We’ll give you a deed restriction. Those are pre-existing lots. Probably a side line setback is 12 feet on the 50 footers. You could build a 36 foot wide home on it. So we’ll give you a deed restriction. No principal structure within 100 feet of the water. MR.FORD-How about a plat notation as well, on Final. MR. STEVES-And is that principal structure okay, principal structure or residence? MR. VOLLARO-Yes, principal structure tells you you can probably use an accessory structure. It would define it that way. MR. O'CONNOR-Principal structure within 100 feet of the mean high water mark. MR. VOLLARO-Anything else? MRS. STEFFAN-What about no cut zones? We talked about. MR. VOLLARO-The no cut zones I think he defined them as the clearing limits. MR. STEVES-I’ll label them as clearing limits. MR. O'CONNOR-And we’ll put a note on the map that the lake frontage is subject to the cutting restrictions of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. What did you refer to when you referred to that, do you remember? MRS. BARDEN-6-060 MR. O'CONNOR-179-6-060. MRS. STEFFAN-Say that again, Susan? MRS. BARDEN-179-6-060. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-2006 JOHN WHALEN, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, a preliminary subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Subdivision of a 6.31 acre parcel into 4 residential lots of 1.12, 1.26, 1.39 and 2.33 acres. Subdivisions of land require review by the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised and held on 6/20/06; and 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 06/20/06) WHEREAS, the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies with the subdivision application requirements of the code of the Town of Queensbury; Chapter A- 183 entitled subdivision of land; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and /or if the modification is a modification, and the proposed modification[s] do not result in any new or significantly different environmental impacts, and therefore no further SEQRA review is necessary; and WHEREAS, this application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we find this Preliminary application to be: Approved 1. That a C.T. Male signoff will be required, 2. That there will be deed restrictions and plat notations for no principal structures or a residence within 100 feet of the mean high water mark, 3. That clearing limits and no cut zones will be noted, and that lakefront clearing will be subject to Zoning Regulation 179-6-060, specifically lakefront clearing restrictions, 4. And that there will be a test pit denoted on Lot One. th Duly adopted this 20 day of June, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Metivier, Mr. Vollaro NOES: NONE MR. STEVES-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you for your stamina. MRS. STEFFAN-Thank you and good night. MR. O'CONNOR-Let me ask this question. Can we submit for your July meeting 10 days prior to your July meeting? MR. VOLLARO-I’ll tell you, I went for a completion review the other day, and we were looking at 29 back logged applications for the Town, and we had to pick out 14 of them to go to the July meeting. So we’re way backed up, real big time backed up. So I don’t know what the heck to do. th MRS. BARDEN-The next deadline is July 15, so get it in as soon as you can before that to get in the queue for August. MR. STEVES-We’ll get it on as an old item. MR. VOLLARO-Because we do our completeness reviews, and then I’ll look and see if we can move it in to that, because I know it’s going to be small and it’s not going to take a lot of time, if you do it, and get out of here in 15 minutes. We’ve done that before. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much. MR. VOLLARO-You’re welcome. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Robert Vollaro, Chairman 78