Loading...
2007-12-18(Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18, 2007 INDEX Site Plan No. 20-2007 Agnes J. Vincze-Rosen 1. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-49.1 Site Plan No. 33-2006 Steven & Debbie Seaboyer 2. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-36 Subdivision No. 14-2005 Hayes & Hayes 6. PRELIMINARY STAGE Tax Map No. 308.6-1-86 Site Plan No. 14-2007 Redbud Development 26. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-7 Site Plan No. 52-2007 GRJH, Inc. 41. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-6 Freshwater Wetlands Robert Reid 58. Permit No. 2-2007 Tax Map No. 297.6-1-6.1 Site Plan No. 57-2007 Congregation Shaaray Tefila 63. Tax Map No. 309.10-1-33.1 Subdivision No. 14-2007 Lloyd Jones 68. SKETCH PLAN Tax Map No. 296.14-1-52 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 18, 2007 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CHRIS HUNSINGER, CHAIRMAN GRETCHEN STEFFAN, SECRETARY THOMAS SEGULJIC THOMAS FORD TANYA BRUNO STEPHEN TRAVER DONALD SIPP SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER FIRTH-JEFF MEYER STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 18, 2007 September 20, 2007 September 25, 2007 MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLANNING BOARD MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 20, AND 25, 2007, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-With the Board’s permission, I’d like to put off discussion on Officers, at least until the end of this evening’s meeting, if not until Thursday. We also have an item, a discussion on the proposed shoreline overlay district, that we’re going to do this evening as well. So, depending on the time, and the Board’s wishes, we’ll either do that at the end of the meeting or Thursday. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SITE PLAN NO. 20-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED AGNUS J. VINCZE-ROSEN AGENT(S) CIFONE CONSTRUCTION; LITTLE & O’CONNOR OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 262 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF 1250 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE WITH 307 SQ. FT. SUNDECK AND REPLACEMENT WITH 1220 SQ. FT. BOATHOUSE AND 745 SQ. FT. SUNDECK. SUNDECK/BOATHOUSE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE AV 24-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING 5/9/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.16- 1-49.1 SECTION 179-5-050; 179-6-060 MR. HUNSINGER-The next item on the agenda is Site Plan No. 20-2007, for Vincze- Rosen, further tabling consideration. The only question I had of Staff, Stu, is have we heard anything from the applicant that said we haven’t received the requested information? Has there been any discussion with the client? Did they submit anything? MR. BAKER-No. The feeling of Staff is that they probably will submit at some point, but we don’t know when. There hasn’t been any communication. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Part of the reason why I ask is because one of the methods that we’ve used in the past is to, I’m at a loss for words. 1 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. BAKER-Deny without prejudice. MR. HUNSINGER-Deny without prejudice. Thank you. MR. BAKER-And that’s certainly an option here as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Particularly if we don’t know when or if they’re going to be coming back in. MR. SEGULJIC-And if we deny without prejudice, that takes it off our slate. MR. BAKER-That takes it off the slate, and they’d have to start over as a new application. It certainly would be a new application that the Board’s familiar with, but. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Any preference one way or another from the Board? MR. FORD-That would be my preference. MRS. STEFFAN-Since we haven’t heard anything, that would seem reasonable. MR. FORD-Their lack of communication doesn’t indicate to me that their appearance before us is eminent. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, and this goes back, well, until September. So it’s three months. MR. SEGULJIC-And we’ve heard nothing. MR. BAKER-Nothing. MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE SITE PLAN NO. 20-2007 AGNES VINCZE ROSEN, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-And I trust Staff notifies the applicant? MR. BAKER-Absolutely. SITE PLAN NO. 33-2006 SEQR TYPE II STEVEN & DEBBIE SEABOYER AGENT(S) DEAN HOWLAND, JR. OWNER(S) SAME ZONING WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL WR-1A LOCATION 83 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANTS PROPOSE PARTIAL DEMOLITION AND REBUILD OF APPROXIMATELY 2800 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND HARD SURFACING [CONTINUATION] WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE. APPLICANTS ARE TO SUBMIT REVISED INFORMATION BY SEPTEMBER 12, 2006. CROSS REFERENCE AV 81-05, BOH 1, 05 WARREN CO. PLANNING 7/12/06: NCI ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES: LG CEA LOT SIZE 0.20 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-36 SECTION 179-6-060, 179-13-010 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Similar comment on Site Plan No. 33-2006, for Steven and Debbie Seaboyer. Have we heard anything from this applicant? MR. LAPPER-We’re here. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. My mistake. This is a request to re-visit previous approval, not a request for table. MR. LAPPER-That’s right. We’ll be very brief. Jon Lapper and Tom Center, and the applicant, Mr. Seaboyer, is with us as well. Very briefly, somewhat of a technicality. This is a type of system, an aerobic system, that requires approval from the Department 2 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) of Health, rather than the Town Board acting as local Board of Health, and we do have that Department of Health approval of this system. So it’s actually a variance from the Department of Health for this type of system. So, your resolution said go back to the Town Board to get approval. We have the approval but it’s from DOH. So what we’d like to do is just to be able to submit this and let you review it and let the Town Engineer review it, and hopefully you’ll find it satisfactory, but it’s just somewhat of a technicality because of the condition. MR. HUNSINGER-So there’s no requirement to go before the Town Board, as the Board of Health? MR. LAPPER-That’s our position, yes, our belief. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Has counsel weighed in on this discussion at all yet? MR. MEYER-I’m new to this. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We have discussed this with Matt Fuller, and it was his feeling that we should be before this Board. MR. FORD-You should be before this Board. MR. LAPPER-Before the Planning Board with this application. I mean, we submitted that DOH approval to Matt. MR. SEGULJIC-So, just clarify, what exactly are you looking for tonight? MR. LAPPER-For you to pass a resolution which lets us make a formal submission to this Board for next month, so we can present to you the approved system that we have, and hopefully finish up Site Plan Review. This was a condition of Site Plan Review that we had to go back to the Town Board to get a variance, to get a septic variance, and we’re saying we got it, but we got it from DOH. MR. SEGULJIC-So what we said is you have to get the approval from the local Board of Health. MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-However, what you’re saying is you really just get it from the County. MR. LAPPER-From the State, actually. MR. SEGULJIC-From the State. MR. LAPPER-Not from the Town, because the Town doesn’t have jurisdiction over this type of system, and that’s in the regs. MR. SEGULJIC-So if I’m understanding this, I don’t see any harm in moving this, and then we just get clarification, one of the things we’re going to be looking for. MRS. BRUNO-Do you have all of the documentation from the State already, or are you still waiting? MR. LAPPER-No, we have all that. MR. TRAVER-Do you any communication from Mr. Fuller? MR. LAPPER-I don’t have anything in writing from Mr. Fuller, but I know that he’s been talking to Craig Brown about it. MR. BAKER-We don’t have any communication from Attorney Fuller on this. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re just looking for the ability to get the whole package together, with all that information and present it to us? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 3 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. LAPPER-We’re just asking you to review it and hopefully you can pass on it. We just want to get before you. MR. FORD-In as much as our counsel has not advised us on the acceptability, or that being an appropriate interpretation, should we not wait on that? MR. TRAVER-I’d like to see something from Mr. Fuller. MR. BAKER-That would certainly be my recommendation. MR. SEGULJIC-But they do it at their hazard, I guess? I mean, all we’re doing is saying you can come before us next month, and if the Town’s Attorney doesn’t agree with their interpretation, we’re not going to hear them I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-We could certainly compromise. I agree with Tom. I mean, if you just let us submit, we understand you want to let the Town Attorney pass on it. At this point that’s fine. I mean, we think that we’re right. If we’re not right, we’ll go to the Town Board. We think it’s not applicable. It’s an extra step. We think we’re all set. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. It seems like a reasonable request to me. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-I agree. MR. SEGULJIC-We’ve just got to make sure that this reads that way. That’s a lot of words. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-And my understanding of our tabling resolution, this was the only issue that was outstanding on the Site Plan, too. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. CENTER-We did have a signoff from the engineer, from the Town Engineer, on the system, prior to the DOH submission and approval. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions from the Board? MR. SIPP-Does this need to be filed with the Town, this approval by the State? Well, they must have given you a letter that said that this was legal or this was appropriate or what? MR. CENTER-The New York State Department of Health has issued us a letter of approval granting the specific waivers and the approval thereof. MR. SIPP-All right, but have you filed with the Planning Department or the? MR. CENTER-We submitted it to the Planning Department, and the Zoning Administrator denied. MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Administrator was caught up because of that condition that said that we had to go to the Town Board. So it’s really just, it’s a technical issue. MR. HUNSINGER-Because our tabling resolution specified. MR. LAPPER-Right. He was following the letter of the resolution, that’s all it was. Exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That makes sense to me now. The tabling resolution specified the Town Board of Health. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-They, instead, got the permit from the State Department of Health. So the Zoning Administrator was correct in saying they weren’t the same thing. MR. FORD-And that permit has been issued and received? MR. LAPPER-Yes, we have it right here. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. FORD-It gives us a chance to hear from our counsel verifying that that is an appropriate interpretation. MR. HUNSINGER-And we’re not specifying a date in this draft resolution. MR. SEGULJIC-My only thing is it says establish deadline. th MR. LAPPER-We’re fine. We’ll get it in by the 15 of January and be on in February because it’s the middle of winter so it doesn’t matter. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward the resolution as prepared, or as modified? MR. SEGULJIC-So, as modified, what are we going to say? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, if you wanted to make any changes to it is all. We do have a draft resolution that is prepared by Staff. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my only concern is in the last paragraph, really the last line, it says established deadline. th MR. LAPPER-I think that’s the 15 of the month. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. th MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. So we’ll just amend it to say by the 15. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, you can just leave it as is, and then whenever they get the information in they’ll go on the list of projects and get before us accordingly. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECORD OF RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF FOR SITE PLAN NO. 33-2006 STEVEN SEABOYER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 THE PLANNING BOARD TABLED SITE PLAN 33-2006 STEVEN & DEBBIE SEABOYER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE SEPTIC APPROVAL IS RECEIVED FROM THE TOWN BOARD OF HEALTH. SUBSEQUENTLY THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CONTINUE REVIEW OF THEIR APPLICATION; and WHEREAS, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS REVIEWED THE OCTOBER 24, 2007 RESOLUTION OF THE ZBA RELATIVE TO THE APPLICABILITY OF THE APPLICANT’S NEED TO MEET THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED ON THE SEPTEMBER 26, 2006 PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION; and WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF THEIR APPLICATION WITHOUT HAVING THE PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED TOWN BOARD OF HEALTH APPROVAL YET; and THEREFORE THE PLANNING BOARD AGREES TO HEAR SITE PLAN 33-2006 ON A FUTURE DATE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT MAKING A SUBMITTAL CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED DEADLINE, 5 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECORD OF RESOLUTION PREPARED BY STAFF FOR SITE PLAN NO. 33-2006 STEVEN SEABOYER, Introduced by Thomas Seguljic who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 PRELIMINARY STAGE SEQR TYPE UNLISTED HAYES & HAYES AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION LUZERNE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF A 23.16 ACRE PARCEL INTO 18 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 0.34 ACRES TO 9.23 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. CROSS REFERENCE REVISED SKETCH 8/22/06 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 23.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-1-86 SECTION A- 183 JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, do you want to summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-As a follow up to the most recent tabling of this application, the applicant has submitted additional materials including new copies of the proposed plat, stormwater calculations, SEQRA Long Form and a letter from the Queensbury Land Conservancy regarding potentially acquiring potential open space in this subdivision. The newly submitted information does not contain any comment from Paragon Engineering concerning Michaels Drive drainage or an alternate plan with less density as requested by the Planning Board. Staff continues to believe that this proposed cluster subdivision should contain some protection of open space and that Lot 17 and/or Lot 18 could be used as open space; and although the QLC appears to have no interest in it a conservation easement or HOA agreement could be used to keep the land open. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good evening, gentlemen. The floor is yours. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper, Tom Center, and Mickie Hayes. I guess the issue that the Town Engineer’s been bringing up, we, of course, went to Sketch Plan. We’ve had a couple of meeting which have gone very well with this Board, and the issue that he raised is whether or not we need to show this alternate plan, and what the Code says is if the Board requests it. So it hadn’t been requested, except that the engineer suggested it. So we have an alternate plan. I mean, this is also somewhat technical, but obviously we have to justify density. We just got the Staff Notes two days ago, and that’s still on there. So we do have a plan we can show you that has eight single family homes and three, four plex apartments, which is what we do here, because the zone allows both, and we think that what we’re proposing as a cluster single family subdivision is something you’re going to like better and the Board’s been very supportive at all the meetings to get to this point. So that was one of the issues, and we can either show that tonight or submit it, you know, certainly, whatever you suggest, and then the other big issue is just in terms of this open space, and what we’ve proposed, because we’d rather not form a homeowners association if there’s not a real strong reason to, just because it’s an expense for all the homeowners to bear, we proposed to deed restrict these lots so that they can never be further developed or subdivided, and this is also the area where we’ve shown on the map now this easement to solve the stormwater drainage problem of the adjacent subdivision, that has nothing to do with this property, but it would just allow the water to drain into the Town’s stormwater system. So that, there’s sort of a public purpose to keeping that as a big green space anyway, and 6 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) that would also be a condition, because that’s shown on the subdivision map. So we submitted the letter from the Land Conservancy, that they weren’t interested in this, and our proposal, the simplest, is just to deed restrict this and we can certainly name the Town Board as a party to that deed restriction this, and we can certainly name the Town Board as a party to that deed restriction, which is just the simplest way to make sure that nobody can ever violate it, because the Town, thereby, can enforce it, but, you know, again, Mickie’s open to whatever suggestion, whatever the Board wants on this issue. We’re just trying to really address the issues that have been raised. MR. HUNSINGER-If I may, you made a comment about the expense associated with creating a homeowners association. Could you elaborate on that a little further? MR. LAPPER-Yes. I mean, in this case there’s nothing else that the homeowners association, single family lots and there’s no common property. So when you have common property owned by many people, you have to form a homeowners association because that protects purchasers that have to go through the Attorney General process to make sure the budget is reviewed, that everything’s disclosed to them, what it’s going to cost them to maintain, ensure, have financial statements, everything that they have to have disclosure for a homeowners association. This subdivision doesn’t have any common property. So that’s not something that would have to be set up and then they would have to pay this annual fee for some for professional services for insurance, just a whole host of fees for maintaining common property. So, all we’re suggesting is that it’s going to always be, these two lots will be large lots. That’s where the green space will be, but we don’t need to have the other owners in the subdivision responsible for that, because you can, the Town can protect that if we just do a deed covenant and we name the Town as a party to that, to enforce it. MR. HUNSINGER-There was a discussion another evening, with a different applicant, that was represented by another counsel, and he elaborated on the ongoing expense of how expensive it is to form a homeowners association, and unless you have, you know, sufficient number of lots or units contributing to it, that it becomes very expensive and it’s kind of unwieldy for smaller projects. I can’t remember the number of units in that one, but that was kind of what I was trying to flesh out with you a little bit. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and just the stuff that I mentioned. If you’ve got an accountant to do financial statements, if you’ve got insurance requirements, I mean, the Board of Directors then has to have offers and directors insurance. So it just gets pretty involved if all you’re doing is trying to make sure that these lots are going to stay unbuilt except for these two homes, and I’m just suggesting that we can provide for that both as a condition of the subdivision, which the Planning Department can also enforce. We’ll also put a deed covenant on that’ll be perpetual, and to the extent that a deed covenant could some day be changed by all the, by the owners that are subject to it or the person who put it on, we would name the Town Board of the Town as a party to that, so there could never be changed unless the Town agreed. So it’s sort of, you know, bootstrapping it. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-Who is responsible for any liability here? You’ve got standing water on the Lot 17. Is there somebody, some child goes in there and drowns, who’s liable? MR. LAPPER-Well, the answer to that would be the owner of Lot 17 would have to maintain Lot 17, and anybody that owns property with a pond on it, you know, certainly needs to ensure that, and I’m not suggesting there’s a pond, but by analogy, there certainly can be a liability issue with anyone that owns property, and you cover that by insuring it. There’s also the issue with the Town project bringing the stormwater, so the Town would probably be providing some insurance as exchange for granting the Town the easement for the stormwater. MR. CENTER-The project may lower the groundwater, too. It may bring all that water, and the reason that area is wet now, that’s the problem they’re trying to solve with this drainage. So it may solve part of the problem, because it’s off site drainage from Michaels Drive that they’re trying to solve that problem with this, the easement that Mr. Hayes has been working with Mr. Ryan on. So hopefully this problem may go away. There may not be standing water, once the drainage problem above is fixed. MR. SIPP-So there would be a covenant in each deed that these two lots would never be? MR. LAPPER-In each of those two deeds. Just for those two lots. 7 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. SIPP-Each of those two deeds. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SIPP-Nothing to do with the other homeowners? MR. LAPPER-Nothing to do with anybody else. MR. SEGULJIC-So Hayes and Hayes, and the Town, would be listed as owners. MR. LAPPER-The easement would be, or the covenant, would list as a benefitted party, would list the Town as a benefitted party. MR. SEGULJIC-So who would be listed as the owner? MR. LAPPER-The owner would be, you know, Mr. Smith who buys the lot. MR. SEGULJIC-These two lots? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Those two lots are building lots, but they’re very big building lots, and it’s going to be subject to an easement in favor of the Town for that stormwater facility. MR. HUNSINGER-Stu? MR. BAKER-Just a comment for the Board’s consideration. I would ask that you not consider approving this with restrictions that name the Town as a party to enforce it without having the Town Board discuss that first, and having advice on that concept from Town legal counsel. MR. LAPPER-In response to that, the offer that Mickie is making that the Town, we’re willing to grant an easement for the stormwater line, would be contingent upon, we would offer this to the Town, that we can, that we will give them the right to put this drainage line in, but we would also ask them to take this easement, to be benefited by this easement to enforce this easement sort of as a quid pro quo, in terms of doing something for the Town, and also helping facilitate the Planning Board’s wishes in terms of this. I think what we’re giving is more than what we’re getting, but I think the Town Board, I anticipate the Town Board will be fine with this. They would like the stormwater problem on Michaels Drive to be solved over Mickie’s property, and part and parcel of that will be this enforcement provision to protect, you know, what you guys are looking for. MR. SEGULJIC-Pardon my ignorance, but these two lots on the, two large lots you’re speaking about, so what you’re proposing is that potentially the Town Board could be named? MR. LAPPER-As a benefitted party under the easement, under the covenant. We’ll call it a deed covenant that says that they can never be further subdivided or developed beyond one single family residence, because that’s what you’re asking for. You want it to be forever green, no cutting, no development of the back of those lots. MR. SEGULJIC-Beyond the single family on each one? MR. LAPPER-Yes, beyond one single family home. MR. SIPP-On each one. MR. SEGULJIC-So then if ever they wanted to subdivide it, they’d have to go to the Town Board and also get their approval. MR. LAPPER-Well, it would be first a condition of the subdivision, no further subdivision. So we’d have to go to the Planning Board, and then we’re also saying that it would be in favor of the Town Board. So they’d have to go to the Town Board, and this is just a way to make sure that it never happens because that’s your intention. MR. FORD-If it’s already restricted by deed, what is the purpose of taking it the next step and involving the Town as an enforcer and in essence an owner of it, correct? 8 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. LAPPER-Well, it’s an owner of a right. It’s not an owner, you know, of the property, but it’s an owner of a right, and the answer is this. That certainly, legally, you can put on a covenant, and that covenant is supposed to be perpetual, but a covenant can be changed by the parties that own the land or are the enforcer of that covenant. So in this case, the developer has sold all the lots. The developer has no interest anymore in the future. If somebody comes to the developer and says, I’ll give you five bucks if you waive that covenant, and the homeowner has no interest. So the way, I mean, this is sort of a response to the question of, hey, how do you know this is going to be forever, and the answer is, you know, one way is to offer it to an open space group, and we tried that and they don’t find it significant enough, and the second way would be to form a homeowners association and put it in the covenants of the homeowners association, and we’d rather not go to that trouble here, as we’ve explained. So another way would be to give it to the Town Board, and a lot of times the Town Board doesn’t want to get involved in, you know, just some little property interest, but here because the Town Board has asked for this drainage, we think they’ll be happy, in exchange for that, to take this covenant. So it addresses your issues. MR. FORD-Jon, is there a third, or a fourth or a fifth option that you might want to throw out? MR. LAPPER-Yes, I could probably come up with something, but, we’re just trying to get you what you’re looking for and make sure that it’s really perpetual, but not form an association. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions or comments from the Board? MR. TRAVER-Well, this’ll need to be reviewed by the Town Board before we can really move on it. MR. LAPPER-Or it could be conditioned subject to the Town Board’s approval. We’ve been here a number of times on this project and we’re here to work with you. MR. FORD-Personally, I believe that this is precedent setting enough so that my preference would be that it would go before the Town Board prior to our issuing any approval on it. MR. TRAVER-Right. MRS. BRUNO-I agree. MR. SIPP-And counsel. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you feel comfortable making that a condition of approval or do you want that approval in place before we make final action? MR. FORD-That’s where I am on it, Chris. MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to see the approval first, just because so many things have gone in different directions that we’ve thought of recently. I’d rather have it really clear. MR. HUNSINGER-What’s the timing behind the project? MR. LAPPER-Mickie would have liked to have gotten it started in the Fall. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-We’ve been at this for a while, probably a year. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, well, it’s a 2005 subdivision. MR. SEGULJIC-If we give them approval on the condition that they get approval from the Town Board and they don’t get approval from the Town Board, does that mean our Preliminary approval is? MICKIE HAYES MR. HAYES-The only reason that Town Board, that we’re proposing is to give you guys an added sense of security, the Town Board. 9 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. HAYES-That is just for the benefit, to make sure nothing ever happens to that. There’s, most other things would just be like Mr. Ford, I believe, was referring to is you give an easement and these no cut zones and stuff like that is just there. We’re trying to go to the next step beyond, to make it even more protective, and the Town Board approached us for the easement. That’s what Jon is referring to the easement for the stormwater. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. I guess my feeling is, is if the Town Board doesn’t want to be named on the deed, that kind of trumps us anyway. MR. HAYES-Exactly. We’re going the extra nine yards here to try to make it so it’s as solid as possible. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, if the Town Board doesn’t agree with it, then our approval is. MR. HAYES-The Town Board approached us about the easement for the water, and has approached us about, some of the Town Board members approached us, they want to do more of this so they can actually control these critical areas. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. MRS. BRUNO-Was that approached during a meeting? Is that something that there might be minutes of, or, was it just a? MR. HAYES-Well, the Town Engineer reached out to us, and Tim Brewer reached out for the drainage for the easement to solve the problem on Michaels Drive, as a favor, to try to, because there was a major crisis point there six months ago, and then in talking about, with that came the easements, how would you do the easements, and then all the talk with some of the Board members. So, for us, according to what I read in the thing, it’s not really, it’s an alternative not to even name the Town, but we’re just doing it to be another step beyond, so you’re more comfortable with the no cut. MR. FORD-I have a comfort level with what you’re saying. I just don’t have the comfort level that extends out to the point of conditional approval where the Town Board is involved. That’s precedent setting enough for, in my book, that I believe that we should be looking to the Town Board to accept that responsibility and say they’re willing to go this route, and then we can go ahead with approval. MR. HAYES-Yes, because this is just Preliminary Stage anyway, I believe. MR. LAPPER-That’s another thing. This is Preliminary. So we’re not seeking the Final approval. If you give us Preliminary, we can then, as a condition, we’ll go to the Town Board before we come back for Final, and if the condition fails, as Tom Seguljic is saying, then we’ve got to come back and form the homeowners association. MR. SEGULJIC-And even if they modify it. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So they have to come back to us anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure. MR. SEGULJIC-And the Town Board, if they don’t want to accept it, I mean, they’ve got to come back with another, and it might be precedent setting, but we’ve got to do something. We’ve got to get this thing going. MR. FORD-And the next way to get it moving forward is to go to the Town Board and get them on board with it. MR. LAPPER-It would be easier to go to the Town Board, if we had a Preliminary approval with a condition, it would be easier to go to the Town Board and say, here’s what the Planning Board would like, you know, because then they could say, go back to the Planning Board and get their recommendation. MR. FORD-But we don’t know that that’s what we’d like before the Town, we don’t know, we don’t want to put pressure on the Town Board, is what I’m saying. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Why not? MR. FORD-And it’s their responsibility to get on board with this and say, okay, if approved, then we would accept this responsibility. Counsel, what do you advise? MR. MEYER-The Town Board definitely needs to weigh in on this at some point. If you do the Preliminary approval conditioned on the Town Board’s agreement, you’ve just got to make sure that everything that’s in the, everything you guys want in the Preliminary approval is in there. If the Town Board just signs off on it, that’s pretty much what your Final approval is going to look like, so you want to keep that in mind. If the Town Board makes any changes or does anything different, you know, they’re going to have to come back over and get a new Preliminary approval. MR. LAPPER-Yes, that’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-Just for the benefit of the Board, just in the past couple three months we’ve looked at two projects where it was a previous subdivision where a lot was restricted by the Planning Board for no further restriction. One case we did approve further subdivision, and in another case it’s an ongoing, we tabled the project. So, you know, what the applicant is offering would give that protection that would go beyond just a motion of the Planning Board. It would assign that responsibility to the Town Board. So that, you know, it would be more than just a planning decision if there was a request down the road to further subdivide the lot. MR. FORD-I understand. MR. HUNSINGER-So it is a lot of additional protection than what we’ve seen before. MR. FORD-Counsel is also advising us to make sure that we have everything in order on this Preliminary, and that all the “T”’s are crossed, the “I”’s are dotted, because that’s going to be the only Preliminary we get. Are we there? MR. SEGULJIC-The other issue was the last time we had public testimony about the water. There was some discussion whether it was on site or off site, and if I’m correct, we had asked for our attorney, the Town Engineer to look at it, and say whether it’s the site’s problem or it’s an off site issue. MR. CENTER-And that was done. Mr. Nace, Mr. Ryan, and Mr. Wilkinson went out to the site, and I don’t know if you folks have the letter from Paragon Engineering dated November 13, 2007. The last comment on Page Three, he discusses with regards to Item Four of the motion to table, Paragon Engineering has walked the site with both the applicant’s engineer and Mr. Ryan, from VISION Engineering, who has designed the Michaels Drive drainage project. The applicant has agreed to provide the 20 foot wide easement for the future storm drain pipe for Michaels Drive to Luzerne Road. However, this easement traverses the proposed site through the no cut environmental easement, and the area should be reduced from the area provided, since it will be destroyed to construct the pipe. In addition, during the site visit, it was determined by the three of us engineers that there is no impact to the surrounding area from this project with regard to the stormwater runoff. So they have looked at it. They have deemed that the stormwater from our project is not going to impact, is not an impact on the area. th MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, that was dated, what, November 13? th MR. CENTER-November 13. There was an interim review. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I didn’t see that letter. th MR. FORD-I’ve got one on December 14. th MR. CENTER-Yes, the last one we just received. That December 14 letter is based on th our response to his comments on November 13, and it’s addressed to Mr. Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator. MR. BAKER-You should have received that with Staff Notes. th MR. HUNSINGER-We have a letter from December 14 from Paragon. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. FORD-Right. That’s the only Paragon letter we have accompanying Staff comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. th MR. SIPP-December 14. MR. LAPPER-Would you like us to pass the letter up? MR. FORD-No, I’d like to receive it when I’m supposed to receive it. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you read that again? MR. LAPPER-I could even hand it to you if you want to read it. MR. SEGULJIC-Sure. Thank you. MR. FORD-I wouldn’t mind hearing it again, Tom, if you want to read it out loud. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Do you want the whole thing? Paragon Engineering has walked the site with both the applicant’s engineer and Mr. Ryan, from VISION Engineering, who has designed the Michaels Drive drainage project. The applicant has agreed to provide the 20 foot wide easement for the future storm drain pipe for Michaels Drive to Luzerne Road. However, this easement traverses the proposed site through the no cut environmental easement, and that area should be reduced from the area provided, since it will be destroyed to construct the pipe. In addition, during the site visit, it was determined by the three of us engineers that there is no impact to the surrounding area from this project with regard to the stormwater runoff. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing is, I wish he had said from this site development project, instead of saying the project. I assume he’s referring to the site development. Okay. Should I give this to Staff, then? MR. CENTER-I think that’s my only copy. MR. BAKER-We do have a copy of it in the file. Which is why I believed it would have been distributed to the Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions on the easement or the storm drainage? Would anyone from the Board like to comment on the alternate plan discussion? We’ve heard from the Town Engineer and from the applicant. Does anyone want to chime in? Do we want one? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I guess one of my questions was, and I think that we’ve asked this question before, but I’m not going to wade through all the notes to find out. How many square foot are these houses proposed for? MR. HAYES-As shown on your plan, I think they are depicted as 2200 to 2500 square foot houses. In reality they’re probably going to be in the 16 to 1700 square foot size range, because it’s going to be more of a moderate housing area there, and all the septics are shown as four bedrooms, but a good share, probably 60%, will probably be three bedroom houses, just because as a price point, it’s a moderate income neighborhood. MRS. STEFFAN-As I was looking at the plan, and reflecting on the notes, because we asked for an alternate plan, and part of that was because we wanted less density, but I thought I remembered talking about affordable housing, and I don’t know what the threshold is. I haven’t read the affordable housing strategy in probably two years. So I don’t really know what’s in that plan any longer, but I was thinking that if these were more moderately priced houses, smaller square footage, then I would have no problem with the cluster as it is proposed, just because it would provide some. MR. HAYES-The unspoken thing about a cluster, excuse me for interrupting, but the clustering really does save money on the road costs and the clearing costs and everything, it probably takes, believe it or not, $12 to $15,000 off each of the homes, the 12 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) cost of the homes. So the fact is you’re really tightening it up, the fact, for moderately priced housing, it really does make a difference to the customers who’s going to buy. It’s hard to build houses that are moderately priced in Queensbury today because the land costs and regulations. Really, as you probably all live here, there’s not too many opportunities for a Sherman Pines or something where there’s an entry point for new construction in our community today, and that’s, and the area, quite frankly, is basically suited for more moderately priced, I don’t think it’s suited for estate style homes. It is what it is, and it has all the services, water, and it’s easy access from West Mountain Road and through to Luzerne Road. So I think that it really suits what the actual area really warrants. MR. LAPPER-But you had a design for four bedrooms just to show that the site could support it, but you want the three bedroom. MR. HAYES-I doubt there’ll be a house that’ll be over 2200 square feet there. There’s just not going to be the market. I don’t think people will be building $300,000 houses in this neighborhood, to be honest with you. It’s going to be more from the low twos to the mid twos. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, plus on lots that are that small. MR. HAYES-They average about a half an acre when you take them altogether, except for the estate lots, but, you know, we find that a lot of people, once you get up to a certain size, that’s plenty for a lot of people, and the houses also are going to be smaller, though, too. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, one of my thoughts on the alternate design is the site configuration itself really limits a lot of the design choices, and we really, I thought we really fleshed that out pretty good in the Sketch Plan review. MR. HAYES-And actually, it actually works perfectly, because the better land is on top, and then you have the wetland and area that’s behind people’s houses and such that really is getting preserved that’s a huge tract of land that is going to be maintained in basically a forest state. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I mean, I don’t see where this site really lends itself to a more conventional style subdivision. MR. HAYES-To be honest with you, the alternative we would consider would be a mixed use with apartments there, because that’s kind of the area that would maybe justify that. So we think this plan is perfect for a lot of reasons, for us economically the market being the moderately priced housing, and the topography of the land with the wetlands on the lower part. MR. HUNSINGER-How do other members feel about the alternate design idea? MR. SEGULJIC-I’m fine with the way it is. MRS. BRUNO-I’m curious, more than anything, just because I’m trying to catch up, because I think I was on vacation during your Sketch Plan, but I have no problem with what I’m looking at. I think it’s well thought out. MR. HAYES-Yes, thank you very much. MR. SEGULJIC-Just one clarification, I guess, in VISION’s letter, he had mentioned how you were going to be through, I guess, the no cut zone, so you needed to modify that. MR. LAPPER-That was just a technical point saying that if the Town is going to put in this stormwater drainage pipe, that’s going to require taking down trees. So we have to be careful that we make an exception to the no cut that it’s okay to put in this drainage line. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-The 20 foot wide easement, yes. Would the cut extend beyond the 20 feet? It would just be within the 20 feet. MR. LAPPER-Twenty feet’s enough to do what you’ve got to do to put a pipe in. 13 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. FORD-And the Town initiated that with requesting that? MR. LAPPER-Yes, to Mickie. MR. SEGULJIC-So, I guess we have Preliminary approval, and then it looks like we’re going to have the condition for the Town Board to review. MR. LAPPER-I guess to accept an easement for, to be a party that’s named in the easement for the environmental covenant, that no cut zone, conservation easement, call it what you will. MR. SEGULJIC-On Lots? MR. LAPPER-Seventeen and Eighteen. MR. SEGULJIC-Seventeen and Eighteen, and then the other issue with regards to the water, it looks like that’s been addressed. MR. BAKER-You also need the Town Board to agree to accept the stormwater easement at the proposed location. MRS. BRUNO-I had a kind of off the wall question for Staff. If we go and okay this easement for the drainage, do we have any purview over watching the Town and what they do? In other words, sometimes we’re a little alarmed, not with other projects that we’ve seen, but just in general, sometimes how things have been handled by our folks that help us out in our colleague department. Am I being clear? I don’t want to insult the other employees of Queensbury, but I’m just curious how. MR. BAKER-Well, generally speaking, the Planning Board doesn’t have any oversight authority over the Town Board, the Highway Department or Town Staff, other than our assistance responsibilities to you as a Board. MRS. BRUNO-I cleared that up. I had a feeling that was the answer, but I just wanted to throw it out there. MR. BAKER-I would like to address a comment that Gretchen brought up, in terms of moderate housing. I think we need to be careful about the use of terms. In the affordable housing field, HUD defines moderately priced housing as that which is affordable to a family at 80% of the median income for that family size. For a three bedroom home, for example, it’s assumed it would be a four person household, in 2007, and these figures are updated annually, approximately in March. In 2007, 80% of median family income for a four person household in Queensbury is $44,500. So, I mean, with all due respect to the applicant, their view of moderate may be different from HUD’s perspective. MR. HAYES-Well, it’s moderate for Queensbury, I mean, just relative to the market. If you get a new house and we’ve built over 100 houses, and our average is in the mid 300’s. Just compared to what’s being built, if we can drive around and see, you can read the paper and see, in the new construction field, to see what the average is, it’s pretty astonishing that people can afford these houses. I’m just talking more the reality of the market more than specific, you know, with numbers. MR. BAKER-Right, and that’s the very point I wanted to make. MR. HAYES-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. MR. HAYES-If you can find a way to sell houses for $110,000, let me know. MR. BAKER-And we’ve talked about this before. MR. HAYES-Yes, exactly. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to comment on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 14 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I will open the public hearing and I will close the public hearing, since there are no takers. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-I think this was a Long Form. Is everyone comfortable with moving forward with SEQRA? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. FORD-I’ve stated where I want to go with this. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think we’re all on the same page. MR. FORD-I don’t think we are. MR. HUNSINGER-No, because they need both Preliminary and Final, and what we’re going to consider tonight is Preliminary approval. They’ll go to the Town Board, get the Town Board’s comments and opinions, and then come back to us for Final. MR. FORD-I understand, and my preference is to reverse that process, get the Town Board out there first. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we do Preliminary? MR. FORD-That’s my preference, but I’m only one voice, but I wanted to make sure that that was clear. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Could it change the outcome of our SEQRA decision, what they decide? MR. HUNSINGER-Could the Town Board’s decision impact our SEQRA consideration? MR. FORD-Potentially, yes. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I think so, too. MR. TRAVER-Well, hypothetically, that would mean that they wouldn’t put in the drainage system, which would put the lots back, I suppose, back on the market, I mean, without the. MRS. BRUNO-If they didn’t approve the drainage, that could come back to us as new information, which could then re-open the SEQRA, couldn’t it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. We could also re-open SEQRA if we felt that the decision was significant, and the proposed drainage and easement is not actually for this site. It’s for Michaels Drive. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. FORD-But it involves this site. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-The water would be handled on this site. MR. HAYES-The pipe would be piped, basically that’s why, Gretchen, they had chosen this is because to cover Michaels Drive, there’s a 24 inch or 36 inch drainage pipe on Luzerne Road. So it would be hard piped to Luzerne Road and taken away. MRS. STEFFAN-And to the storm sewer. MR. HAYES-That’s why, they need to cut across our property to get to that major stormwater system. 15 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. FORD-I really think that the Town Board should get on board with this and have agreement that, if we proceed as we apparently are moving, that they would be okay with those provisions. MR. TRAVER-And I have to agree with Tom. I’d like to see the Town Board look at this first. MR. HUNSINGER-Before we consider Preliminary? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. LAPPER-I guess our only point would be that it would be easier to go to the Town Board if they know that this is how you want it to handled, if they ask you to weigh in. MRS. BRUNO-We’d like to hear what they have to say, though. I mean, you start playing the chicken or the egg. MR. SEGULJIC-But this comes back to, so if we pass SEQRA with the assumption that the Town Board will accept it, then they don’t, then we can re-open SEQRA. Correct? Because one of the assumptions. MR. MEYER-You can re-open SEQRA, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So what’s the downside of going forward tonight? MR. MEYER-The downside of going forward tonight is we may end up in the exact same position if the Town makes any changes, and, yes, and you never know what the Town’s going to do. That’s the downside. MR. TRAVER-So, even in terms of expediting the application, on behalf of the applicant, it may be better to have the Town look at this now, rather than have us move with Preliminary tonight and then have to go through this process again, may actually end up taking longer, theoretically. MR. FORD-Let’s find out what the Town wants to do, on those two particular issues, how involved they want to be with Lot 17 and 18 and also this drainage issue. Let them get on board and then we’ll know what the Town is committing to and then we’ll reflect upon that in Preliminary. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have any sense for how quickly the discussions with the Town Board will conclude? MR. LAPPER-Well, we haven’t had a formal meeting with the Town Board. We’ve just been approached by the Town Engineer and one of the Town Board members approached Mickie, but I guess remember that we’re not seeking, we’re not asking the Town Board to take an easement. They’re asking Mickie. MR. HUNSINGER-They’re asking you to grant one. MR. LAPPER-Yes, to grant one, to give them a property right. So, certainly in exchange for that, it’s easy to get them to take this covenant just to have enforcement to give you some protection and for us to avoid having to form an HOA. MR. FORD-If it’s easily done, then let’s do it. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess my only point is that it would be simpler for us to go to the Town Board, as a condition, anyway you’re protected, and if we had you saying that’s what you prefer, then the Town Board will say fine. MRS. BRUNO-I just wish that there had been some sort of documentation of either the conversation with Craig Brown or, you know, just that one piece had come through. I’m not questioning. MR. HAYES-I understand your concern because it’s still up to us to grant them the easement as well. We’re not asking them, they’re asking us. MRS. BRUNO-Right. 16 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HAYES-If we form an HOA on this property, then maybe the easement might be more difficult for us to grant because the HOA might not want to have an easement through their property. We’re actually trying to get this done to help the Town and help ourselves, of course, but the HOA, a lot of people might not even be interested in helping. You’ve got to look at it, we’re trying to solve someone else’s problem, but it is benefitting us. I’m not trying to say it’s not. MRS. BRUNO-And that’s definitely appreciated that, you know, you’re looking at it from the Town’s side. I think one of the things that we’re charged to do is just to make sure that we do have all of our T’s crossed and our I’s dotted. MR. HAYES-Absolutely. I understand it’s not an easy job. MRS. BRUNO-Because certain things can set precedents, and this type of issue with the wetlands is coming up more and more as Queensbury’s using up its space. MR. HAYES-I just think, my own personal, not being a lawyer and stuff, if I was on the Town Board, I’d want, specifically, what would you guys like to see happen, so they can specifically look at what your feelings are. So it’s easier to not bounce back and forth, just as a layman. MR. SEGULJIC-Can we just poll the Board to see if we want to go forward with SEQRA? Because that’s a big stumbling block, and then we can. I don’t have a problem. I think we should go forward with it. I think there’s enough safeguards in place. MR. HUNSINGER-I agree. I don’t see any downside in moving forward with Preliminary, but others have commented otherwise. You’re okay? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Tom, you already commented. Tanya? MRS. BRUNO-I think I’d like to see what the Town Board says. I’ll take the fall on this. Perhaps part of it is my shakiness on the application. I’m not questioning you whatsoever. I’m on the fence. MR. HUNSINGER-Steve? MR. TRAVER-Yes, again, I agree with Tom. I think, just procedurally, I’d like the Town to have the opportunity to look at this without our granting Preliminary approval first. MR. HUNSINGER-Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-I can go ahead with SEQRA. It’s okay with me, since there’s still the Final approval where we could make changes. I mean, it would be a little bit different than what we’ve tried to accomplish by granting Preliminary, and Final is usually just supposed to be, you know, we bring it back and make sure everything’s in place and then we do a signature on it, and this situation would be a little different. MR. LAPPER-I understand. MRS. STEFFAN-We’d still have to do a lot of talking. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I tend to agree. I kind of see as though the applicant is trying to do something to accommodate the Town’s request. So, you know, why hold them up when they’re trying to be, you know, a good community member and give the Town something that they’re asking for, and I also feel that there’s enough safeguards so that if we are careful within our resolution and the conditions that, you know, it’s not going to go through for Final unless it comes back to us to look at it, but I think a Preliminary sends a message to the Town Board that it passes muster with the Planning Board, plus it gives the applicant something, some comfort to know that we’re kind of on the same page, if you will. So I guess we’ll move forward, when you’re ready. MR. FORD-I don’t know how much assurance we’re going to give the Town Board if we send them a resolution on a four, three vote, but proceed. MRS. BRUNO-How often do they end up reading any of our minutes, as compared to just the resolutions? Is that really a case by case situation? 17 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MRS. STEFFAN-I would think with two brand new Town Board members, they’ll probably read it pretty carefully. MR. HUNSINGER-I know they get minutes of all of our meetings. I don’t know, you know, if they read them all. Okay. Whenever you’re ready. MRS. STEFFAN- Will the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Small to moderate. MRS. STEFFAN-Is that a unanimous small to moderate? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. FORD-Well, do we know, until the Town Board has accepted this easement for that drainage? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, which item, I mean, there’s a list of items here that are listed as examples of the types of impacts that we would have concerns with. MRS. STEFFAN-Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater. That’s not the issue that we’re considering. Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s two more. Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill, or construction in a designated floodway, and then it does say other impacts. MR. SEGULJIC-This is always a bit unclear. If you use those examples, the answer is no. MR. FORD-Can we get one clarification? Length of the building on site, the project? MR. HAYES-Hopefully very short. To put in the road it’s just a matter of a month or so, but then obviously the housing, the market will dictate that. MR. HUNSINGER-And then there’s other impacts. I know counsel has advised that we will almost always say yes, that there’s going to be a physical change to the project site, but is there a particular item or items that members are concerned with? MR. FORD-The other. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-That point, actually, Chris, and I said this before from some of the training sessions I’ve gone through. The State has said that any project that you go into, that there is a change to the site. MRS. STEFFAN-It’s just the nature of development. MRS. BRUNO-We tend to say no. MR. HUNSINGER-So what are the other impacts? MR. SEGULJIC-Site disturbance, vegetation removal, and site disturbance is taken care of with stormwater controls. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone comfortable with that? 18 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. FORD-And stormwater transfer across this property from adjoining property. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone’s comfortable with the impact is small to moderate. MR. TRAVER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Probably. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any non-protected existing or new body of water? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MR. FORD-Could you read that again, please, Gretchen? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? And the criteria there is, will it require a discharge permit, will the action require use of a source of water that does not have approval to serve proposed action. Does it require a water supply from wells with greater than 45 gallons a minute pumping capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a water supply system. Proposed action will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons a day. Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste water treatment and/or storage facilities. MR. HUNSINGER-Maybe I could ask a question of Staff or counsel. If the Town were to go forward with the proposed stormwater pipe across the site, would that come under a separate SEQRA action? MR. MEYER-It shouldn’t. MR. HUNSINGER-Should it be considered as part of this SEQRA process then? MR. MEYER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MEYER-Because they can’t take that other action without your first approving this action. You get into a segmentation issue. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. That’s why I’m asking the question. MR. MEYER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-That’s why we’re sending a proposal to the Town Board, or sending the applicant to the Town Board with a much stronger position based upon the action we’re taking on SEQRA. MR. LAPPER-There’s no adverse impact, though, of conveying their stormwater to fix a flooding problem that this property doesn’t cause. So I don’t see what the environmental downside is. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-No potential on site, according to engineering. MR. LAPPER-No, and we have that documented. MRS. STEFFAN-And if the Town Board decided that they didn’t want to accept the easement, then that would certainly be a reason for us to re-open SEQRA. MR. LAPPER-Yes, we would then, we’d have to form the HOA, and we understand that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Do you want to ask the question again. MRS. STEFFAN- Will the proposed action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I say no. MR. TRAVER-I would say yes, but potentially mitigated by the stormwater management system. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, it’s actually a positive impact. It’s not a negative impact in this case, and the resulting of an existing stormwater problem. MR. FORD-But not on this site. MR. HUNSINGER-It’s not on this site, but it’s part of this project. So it’s a small to moderate impact but it’s in a positive direction because it’s alleviating an existing stormwater issue. MRS. STEFFAN-But, Tom, it could potentially affect this site. I mean, if this easement wasn’t granted and they didn’t alleviate the problems on Michaels Drive, then it could cause some stormwater to run into the wetland. MRS. BRUNO-Mr. Lapper, I know I read it somewhere. You might just know, or Mr. Hayes, right off the top of your head, the comment about the boring, in order to put the drainage pipe in and affect the no cut. MR. LAPPER-That was in that letter that we handed up that was the November letter that you didn’t get a copy of, but that Staff has. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, I don’t have that letter, but I know I read it somewhere. MR. LAPPER-Yes. That must have been Dan Ryan’s drainage report to deal with Michaels Drive. MR. CENTER-That’s the place where Dan discusses doing borings to monitor the groundwater. He asked for permission from Mr. Hayes. He has installed test wells in the area of the high groundwater and the area where they’re looking to do the easement to assess the problem. Right now that’s part of his study. In order to determine how big of a pipe, how much water they’re going to be taking, which direction it’s going, he’s doing test wells and monitoring right now. That was the only place where the borings were mentioned prior to that. He’s been working with Mr. Hayes and on the property. He’s 20 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) done additional test pits beyond what we did to study the soils of the project site, and when they walked the site the location of the easement was kind of determined based on his studies of Michaels Drive and the walking of the parcel and trying to have the least impact across the wetlands and do the most benefit to Michaels Drive and the area to install this stormwater pipe, which is just conveying stormwater through. Some of the problem he believes, that standing water that you see on the survey, potentially is from the Michaels Drive overflow onto this parcel. So that’s the positive impact, I guess if you will, of doing the stormwater pipe across this parcel. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Just refresh my memory as to where the pipe will terminate. MR. CENTER-It will terminate on the Luzerne Road, into the existing storm sewer that runs down Luzerne Road, that the Town owns. MR. FORD-Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? And the examples for that are proposed action would change flood water flows. Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. MR. HUNSINGER-We heard yes. I think it’s a small to moderate impact, based on actually what the applicant just said, that it’s going to be removing standing water during high water season to go into an existing storm sewer system. MR. FORD-Right. MR. TRAVER-Right. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect air quality? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect any threatened or endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action substantially affect non-threatened or non- endangered species? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect agricultural land resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect aesthetic resources? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? 21 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action impact the exceptional or unique characteristics of a critical environmental area? MR. SIPP-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will proposed action affect the community’s sources of fuel or energy supply? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the proposed action? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect public health and safety? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Will the proposed action affect the character of the existing community? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-And is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Then based on the input from the group, I will make a motion for a Negative SEQRA declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 14-2005, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Donald Sipp: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 22 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) HAYES & HAYES, 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 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-The motion to approve this, the condition that I’ve put together, and I don’t know whether it’s sufficient or not, with the condition that this be referred to the Queensbury Town Board to consider the proposed easements on Lot 17 and provide the Planning Board with direction on whether the easement will be granted and the covenant accepted. MR. FORD-Is it only 17, or is it 17 and 18? MRS. STEFFAN-No, it’s only on Lot 17, but the reason I put. MR. FORD-Isn’t it on 18 as well? MR. MEYER-I’m not sure. MR. LAPPER-The environmental covenant is on both. MR. TRAVER-Yes, and that’s what the Town needs to consider. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MR. LAPPER-And the drainage easement. MR. MEYER-How many covenants are there that the Town’s going to be? MR. HUNSINGER-There would be two lots. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. LAPPER-The Town’s going to accept, they’re going to be granted an easement in the benefit of the Town for the drainage line, and they’re going to accept being granted, being a party to the conservation easement, to enforce it. MR. MEYER-Just the conservation easement. Not all the other stuff that has to do with the subdivision? MR. LAPPER-No. Just the conservation easement. That’s it. MR. MEYER-Okay. The language looks okay, but I mean ultimately you want their input and approval. Their input is one thing, but if they give you the input and then you follow through with it but then they don’t actually approve it, I mean, I believe everyone’s goal is to reach some sort of final decision. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. LAPPER-We’re not going to offer them that easement, though. The covenant isn’t going to actually happen. We want them to say it’s okay. We won’t actually, probably until we dedicate the roads or something. I don’t know. It doesn’t matter. Whatever you want. We’ll do whatever you want. It doesn’t matter. We can do it immediately. It’s fine. MR. HUNSINGER-I see the difference. You just want concurrence from the Town Board. It doesn’t have to actually be in place. MR. LAPPER-Yes, you don’t actually, like you dedicate a road. You don’t actually take it until you actually draft the thing and propose it. We want them to say that they will accept it or something. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. th MRS. BRUNO-Just for a matter of reference, Mr. Traver found it. It was December 14 letter from Paragon, Comment Number Two from Sheet S-2. Twenty feet of easement may not be enough to prohibit cutting or damage outside of the easement during construction unless the pipe is installed by directional boring. Is that the planned method? MR. CENTER-Yes, if 20 feet of easement, if, when they get into the actual design of the pipe, if they have to go deeper, the causes that would make it be wider than 20 feet would be if the pipe has to be at a deeper depth or larger diameter, then they would have to either, A, install it by directional bore, or come up with a different means of getting the water across the parcel or to a different point. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. CENTER-But the thought is that, you know, it’ll be somewhere in the nature of a 24 to 36 inch pipe, which a 20 foot wide easement, and also, you know, just looking at the location of it, you know, they’re crossing, you know, they’re not really going into any of the delineated wetlands, except where they cross that one very narrow section. The rest of it is just cutting in the no cut buffer that we’ve created. They’re not necessarily cutting in a wetland area, if you look at it, you know, the disturbance in the wetland is at the narrowest point, is very minimal on purpose. That’s why the location is there, and then the disturbance other than that is in the no cut buffer that we’re creating as part of this project. So, just to clarify that a little bit more, if that gives anybody a little more comfort with the project when we say going through the buffer. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. So we’re back to the language of the resolution. I guess I don’t know how else we would word it that would make it stronger. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. Because I have an issue with telling a Board what to do. I mean, we’ve run into this with the ZBA. They want recommendations, and we’re obviously asking for information. That’s why I use the word consider. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. You can’t force the Town Board to accept it. If they don’t, then the applicant needs to come back to us and consider other options. MR. BAKER-What you’re really looking for is the Board’s interest in concept in the easements. 24 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and I think that’s what you spelled out. MRS. STEFFAN-We granted. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Why don’t you read, again, what you had. MRS. STEFFAN-Referral to the Queensbury Town Board to consider the proposed easements on Lot 17 and 18, and provide the Planning Board with direction on whether easements will be granted and covenants accepted. MR. LAPPER-Easements will be accepted and covenants accepted. Right, because the easement’s in their benefit. So they’re going to accept the easement. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Versus granted. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Everyone okay with that? MRS. BRUNO-I think that was part of the point that Mr. Ford had brought up, that kind of the difference between telling and considering and that was. MR. SIPP-And the covenants include 17 and 18, right? MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: 1. A subdivision application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following; Applicant proposes a cluster subdivision of a 23.16 acre parcel into 18 lots ranging in size from 0.34 acres to 9.23 acres. Subdivision of land requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing was advertised and held 8/21, 10/16 & 12/18/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. 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 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 6. 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 7. 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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution; and 8. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the subdivision is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 9. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 25 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) 10. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and N/A 11. MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2005 HAYES & HAYES, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative. Paragraph Ten does not apply. It is approved with the following conditions: 1)That this will be referred to the Queensbury Town Board to consider the proposed easement on Lot 17 and 18, so that the Town Board can provide the Planning Board with direction on whether easements and covenants will be accepted. th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-You’re welcome. Good luck. SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED REDBUD DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) REDBUD DEV. OWNER(S) GREGG BROWN ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 31 KNOX ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RETAINING WALLS AT THE SHORE OF LAKE GEORGE, BLUE STONE PATIOS, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER CONTROLS. FILLING/HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE SHORELINE REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE SP 44-92, AV 59-96 WARREN CO. PLANNING 4/11/07 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-7 SECTION 179-4-020 JON LAPPER & CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-The project was originally tabled at the August 21, 2007 Planning Board meeting for the following information. A statement that there will be no use of fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides. This has been provide in the notes on Drawing L-9, the Landscape Plan. The applicant shall provide a copy of the septic variance. No variance is required. See Note #3 on the November 15, 2007 letter from Paragon Civil Engineering, P.C. The applicant shall revise SEQRA Form A-2. That was provided. The applicant shall provide additional plantings, and the Board encouraged them to reference the Lake George Association for the specific application of plantings, and that was provided, again shown on Drawing L-9 the Landscape Plan, and that the applicant should obtain a signoff from Vision Engineering, and there were additional comments, a number of additional comments from Vision Engineering. They don’t have a signoff at this point. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Stu. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. LAPPER-Good evening. Clark Wilkinson is the project engineering, and Jeff Redick is the environmental engineer. MR. FORD-Welcome back, Jon. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. What’s interesting here, we have a signoff on almost everything except the stormwater plan, and there was sort of a conceptual issue between the two engineers as to whether, if this is reduces the impervious surfaces, whether stormwater management has to be provided. I’d like Clark to talk about that, because he’s had the most recent conversations with the Town Engineer on this. MR. WILKINSON-Okay. For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson with Paragon Civil Engineering. In response to Mr. Ryan’s letter from Vision Engineering, the one statement, there’s two things that he and I discussed quite at length on Monday. The first one being just 26 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) because there’s a reduction in pervious does not mean there’s a reduction in runoff from the site, and he made that statement based on the fact that he didn’t have some detailed grading information that I also provided or unfortunately a layer was turned off on my plots. I had it designed, and he and I discussed it, and he agreed with me that the proposal for flattening the area would be northeast of the proposed garage and, more north of the proposed garage. We’re flattening that whole area and creating a, in effect it’s a rain garden. It’s a shallow retention area that’s going to be planted with some plantings, mostly grass, that is capable of handling through the two year storm on all of the paved surfaces that get to that area. Again, my emphasis here to Dan was the fact that, in the four sheets or set of drawings that I prepared, the first sheet goes explicitly into the existing conditions, and in the existing conditions there’s over 4,000 square feet of pavement on the site. It’s pretty expansive in the eastern portion of the site, and we’re removing more than half of that pavement. We are replacing some of it with some roof structures because we’re trading the carport for a larger garage. We’re adding some covered walkways. We’re adding a couple of patios, and the extended porch, but still the net area, or the net impervious area on the site is a reduction of about 12% from existing, and again, that’s clearly shown with the numbers that are on both the existing conditions plan and the proposed plan. Based on that reduction and the improvements to the grading to treat all of the stormwater from the paved area, which is what carries the most impurities, we have met Section 147, Major Project, for this particular site. In addition, we’ve also had some conversations with both Dan and others regarding near the lake. The proposed retaining wall that’s near the lake that’s replacing the existing wall, we’re actually creating that wall approximately a foot higher than what exists now so that we can create a saddle area behind it that, again acts as a rain catch, a rain garden or a stormwater management facility within the planting bed area. So in effect, that’s in another additional area that we’re providing the stormwater management aspect, so that none of the surface runoff will reach the lake without being treated, as compared to now, and that was the emphasis I wanted to do. If this project does not move forward from tonight, there’s over 4300 square feet of pavement that’s currently running into the lake untreated. Again, our proposal is to reduce that amount of pavement and cover area and also treat it as well. So, with that in mind, we have provided the stormwater management to meet Section 147 Major. One of the comments from Dan also was the fact that I didn’t include computations with my brief stormwater management report. Again, I’ve done those because all of the information that you need to do the calculations is actually on the drawings. So it literally took me about 10 minutes to input the information and spit out the stuff. So I’ve provided that. I’ve delivered a copy of the revised plans that showed the detail and the spot grades as well as the computations for the stormwater and responses to the engineer’s comments. I’ve provided a copy of that to put in the file today for this file, even though I know it’s still got to be reviewed by him, but that’s how, in my opinion, how we’re close. We’re converging, but now it’s just a matter of working out that fine line between making sure that everything’s covered because a couple of the details were inadvertently left off when I left the layer off. So, with that in mind, I’ll open it up for questions on stormwater. MR. FORD-May I just ask a question? MR. WILKINSON-Sure. MR. FORD-You may have detected that I’m kind of into procedures and helping to improve procedures. What have you learned from this experience as an engineer dealing with another engineer? Just share a little bit with us, would you please? In other words, are there some things that could have been done differently that would have brought us to a happier conclusion more quickly? MR. WILKINSON-I don’t know if there’s anything you could have done differently. It’s just a matter of course and process. The downside of the process, in particular here, is that we don’t have an opportunity to address the technical issues and get back to the engineer prior to the meeting, so that we can’t come in and say, we’ll we’ve addressed those and the engineer can either, A, be here and say, yes, I’ve looked at the new stuff, and, yes, it’s no problem, or be here and say, yes, I agree with him. These issues are relatively minor that are easy to work out, and it’s my opinion that if there’s a little bit more coordination between the two design engineers, that it certainly helps the process move, but I don’t think it’s something that’s absolutely necessary for the project to move. MR. FORD-Would you recommend that there be a submission of materials, such as you did, at an earlier date to provide that opportunity for interaction and reaction? MR. WILKINSON-Materials for the initial submission or for a re-submission? th MR. FORD-Well, you had to submit material by the 15. 27 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. WILKINSON-Correct. To me that’s more than adequate time for the engineer to review it, get a comment letter through Staff to me and me to address those comments and be here and be able to address those comments and more or less have them pretty much resolved. To me, there’s adequate time in that. MR. LAPPER-The problem is, you can’t make a re-submission (lost words). MR. WILKINSON-Correct. That’s the downside. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SIPP-Going along with that line of questioning, you’ve consulted with the Lake George Association? MR. WILKINSON-That is correct. MR. SIPP-And you’ve followed what they’ve told you? MR. WILKINSON-That is correct. There’s a couple of issues that Ms. Bozony had made regarding planting materials, and we’ve changed those to her suggestions, and also, in regard to the rain garden areas that I spoke about, that’s also clarification to the plan, as far as meeting her concerns. Yes, we’ve met her concerns. MR. SIPP-Is that on this plan? MR. WILKINSON-It’s not on that plan, because that doesn’t have the grading. It’s my detailed plan of Sheet Three, of my, the Paragon plans. MR. HUNSINGER-Is there any correspondence from the Lake George Association? MR. WILKINSON-She submitted a letter to Staff. Did she not? Did Kathleen submit a letter to you, Kathleen Bozony? MR. BAKER-Yes, she did. MR. WILKINSON-Okay, and not only myself, but Mr. Redick has also had extended conversations trying to make sure that we’re all on the same page and trying to accomplish the same goals, and I believe we are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SIPP-But you have not met the goal, as far as I can see. There are plants here that are supposedly shoreline plants, which are not on the list. MR. WILKINSON-In particular, what are you speaking of? MR. SIPP-In particular I’m talking about a Cinnamon Fern, a Virginia Creeper, a Chokeberry, a Rose - Carolina, none of these appear on the list of plants that would be approved by the Lake George Association as indigenous plants for this area. MR. WILKINSON-As I spoke with Kathy Bozony today, she did say that all these plant materials were appropriate for what we’re doing. They don’t necessarily recommend, they can’t have a full list of every particular plant that can be used, but we went almost plant for plant, and she said that all of those plant materials are good for the site. MR. SIPP-Well, that’s not what she e-mailed me today. MR. SEGULJIC-Let’s cut to the chase. I have the letter from Kathy Bozony, and it says the shoreline buffer needs to be more substantial than what is proposed. MR. FORD-May I ask where that came from? MR. SEGULJIC-It was e-mailed to me. It was e-mailed to Staff and other people. MR. FORD-Today? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. BAKER-What’s the date on your letter, Tom? th MR. SEGULJIC-December 13. MR. HUNSINGER-And she said the plan’s okay, or not okay? MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-She says it needs to be more substantial. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-It says the shoreline buffer needs to be more substantial than what is proposed, both in depth and with its mixed variety and height of vegetation. MR. FORD-Did anybody else receive that? MR. TRAVER-This was in an e-mail? MRS. BRUNO-I’m sorry. Didn’t we also receive one for another applicant today? MRS. STEFFAN-That was Emmens. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. I just wanted to make sure he wasn’t holding that one. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So now you’re also saying this site is not subject to 147? MR. HUNSINGER-No, no. He says it complies. MR. WILKINSON-No, I didn’t say that. I said it complies. MR. SEGULJIC-How does it comply with 147? MR. WILKINSON-Because we are meeting Section 147 Major, in reducing the amount of pavement on the property which reduces the amount of runoff, and the area of pavement that remains will be treated through a rain garden on the top of the hill as shown on the grading plan, as well as down by the shoreline behind the new wall, there will also be a rain garden there to also treat stormwater. MR. SEGULJIC-But I don’t see those on these plans anywhere. MR. HUNSINGER-No. He said that they weren’t. He said he forgot to turn that layer on when he printed these. MR. LAPPER-We’re hopeful that we could get to a point where. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t see a 147 permit application in this package. MR. WILKINSON-It’s part of the Site Plan package. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s not in my package. There should be an application. MR. WILKINSON-The Site Plan application includes the Section 147, compliance with Section 147. It’s my understanding you don’t need a separate application when it’s included in the Site Plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So you did or did not do an application for 147? MR. WILKINSON-I did not personally do an application for 147. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Then you need a 147 application and it has to be signed off by the Zoning Administrator. MR. LAPPER-The Zoning Administrator didn’t treat it that way, because that’s how we got here. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-Well, that’s how, in my opinion, it should be treated, and then you also don’t list the area of disturbance. I think you’re well over 15,000 square feet of disturbed area, and I don’t think you’re meeting 147. MR. WILKINSON-The area of disturbance is delineated on the plan. It’s not stated what that area is, and I don’t recall off the top of my head. MR. SEGULJIC-No. You’ve just conveniently listed how you’ve decreased the impervious area, but you did not list the square footage of the disturbed area, which I think is well over 15,000 square feet. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can ask the applicant to add that to the plan. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, we would like that. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. MR. SEGULJIC-Plus, I don’t see any stormwater calculations anywhere. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, he said he didn’t have them. MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. That was a comment from Vision Engineering that I’ve already addressed, and I’ve provided those calculations. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I, personally, would like to see calculations. Plus, also, I don’t see the variance for a septic system which we requested. MR. LAPPER-That was addressed in the Staff Notes. No variance is required. MR. SEGULJIC-And when was the system installed? MR. LAPPER-’97. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it was in the package. MR. SEGULJIC-That was in the package? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So from what I see, your buffering doesn’t meet what the LGA, what they would consider, in their letter it says it’s got to be more substantial. I don’t believe you meet 147. I’d like to see amount of disturbed area listed. MR. REDICK-May I comment to the Lake George Association letter? MR. SEGULJIC-Sure. MR. REDICK-In my conversation with Ms. Bozony this afternoon, I discussed with her the fact that, based on the language that she uses, such as substantial shoreline buffer, that doesn’t give anybody like myself, a designer and a professional, to work with. Substantial is too vague a term for us to be able to say, okay, well, I need so many plants per square foot, I need a certain variety of plants, etc. It just is substantial, and it’s subjective, and in our last meeting it was commented that we should have a minimum of 10 foot of buffer. If you look across the plan, we vary anywhere from 40 feet, 35 feet, 10 feet, 15 feet, plus or minus, across the entire shoreline of buffer. MR. LAPPER-Which was not there originally. MR. SIPP-Are we on L-9 now? MR. REDICK-Yes, we are. MR. SIPP-And you have 40 feet of buffer, where? MR. REDICK-If you are looking at the far northern portion of the property, you’ll see existing swing set. Between that existing swing set and the lake, we have better than 40 feet of existing and proposed vegetation that is a buffer between the lake and this. 30 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. SIPP-All right. What about on the southern end along where it says 251 feet along the shore. What kind of buffer do you have there? MR. REDICK-Along that portion of the property we have existing Honeysuckle, which both Kathy and I agreed that were not necessarily appropriate plantings, but, because they’re large existing mature material, that we didn’t want to disturb them and take them away, that we would utilize them for the benefit that they’re offering, and if you continue further south of that, the planting materials that we’re incorporating are still creating a planting bed of 15 feet, plus or minus. The other thing that I explained, that Ms. Bozony didn’t quite understand when she was looking at the plan, is if you see on the plan, not only L-9, but the material that’s supplied from Van Dusen and Steves, the surveyors, we have a large grouping of existing trees, whether they be Birch, Cedars, Beech, those are all indicated with the circles and the parallel lines through them, and those plant materials are providing a lot of overhead coverage as well as tremendous root systems that are helping to protect the shoreline. MR. SIPP-If I remember, there’s two hemlocks, two large hemlocks that will be removed because of the wall. MR. REDICK-Correct. MR. SIPP-They’re not going to be replaced? MR. REDICK-Not with hemlocks. We’re proposing to replace them with clump birch and then lower plantings. MR. SIPP-I still don’t see 10, 15 feet of, especially around this blue stone patio. MR. REDICK-The blue stone patio to the north of the existing boathouse? Is that where you mean? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. REDICK-Between that dry laid patio and the wall, again, I’m going to refer back to what Clark from Paragon Engineering had said earlier, we’re constructing that wall so that it’s going to be about a foot higher than the existing grade. So one that acts as a barrier and prevents anything from getting to the lake, as far as runoff is concerned, and then we have a lower wall that’s to remain that’s not going to be disturbed or changed, that we’re adding plant material and then even below that wall we’re adding more plant material. So between that patio and the shoreline we have approximately 20 feet of separation. MR. SIPP-Yes, but this existing deck, what I’m looking at, is that to the west of the blue stone patio, the existing deck is, what, wood? MR. REDICK-Yes. MR. SIPP-And that’s ground level? MR. REDICK-It starts at ground level, yes, and then it I guess sort of cantilever’s out, but underneath that deck is all riprap. MR. SIPP-Well, I still am concerned about, one, there’s a lot of places this buffer is not that wide, and, two, it’s not using plants that do a better job than what you’ve got. You’re doing a lot of ornamental and small perennials. MR. REDICK-Well, we’re utilizing plant materials in conjunction with what’s there on the site. MR. SIPP-Yes, but there are places, as I say, along that shoreline there where there’s no planting, right where it says 251 plus or minus along the shoreline. Above that, there’s no plantings. MR. REDICK-That’s all the existing Honeysuckle. MR. SIPP-Well, it doesn’t say that. MR. REDICK-It does say that, existing Honeysuckle masting to remain. MR. SIPP-It says Honeysuckle down below it, but it doesn’t say this area to be undisturbed. I still say that there should be more. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. REDICK-I beg to differ. It does say, it says existing Honeysuckle masting to remain, area to be undisturbed. MR. SIPP-Yes, I agree, but you didn’t say where the Honeysuckle was. You just point to one point. MRS. BRUNO-There’s a cloud, isn’t there? MR. REDICK-Yes. MR. SIPP-Right next to that there’s the existing deck again. MR. HUNSINGER-I think maybe some of these questions would be addressed if we had a bigger, usually we like the smaller ones because they’re easier to look at, but I mean, I really, personally, I had a hard time reading this one. MR. SIPP-I mean, I think I gave you one of these last time. MR. REDICK-Correct. MR. SIPP-And I see very little of this being used. As I said, there are plants on here which are not on that list, are mainly decorations, and we went through this last time, planting all those asters around there. They look nice, but they don’t do the job. They don’t do the filtering. You’ve got a septic system to the south end of this house, which I assume is going to drain towards the lake. MR. LAPPER-We think that after this conversation with Kathy today that we can get a different letter than what she submitted today, because a lot was clarified when they spoke, after that letter was written. MR. HUNSINGER-And can you get a Site Plan that’s bigger, so that we can read the details. MR. SIPP-I’d like to see Kathy, if you’re going to present us with more information, fine, but I can’t accept this. MR. REDICK-Can the Board please give further clarification to sizes of buffers? MR. LAPPER-We had been told to do 10, and this is really 15 at the least. MR. REDICK-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I think if the plot was clearer and we saw that. MR. LAPPER-Okay. That’s valid. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. SIPP-I’d like to see 15, but I’ll take 10, but I want to see it of herbaceous plants and shrubs and small trees, rather than some of these decorative flowers you’ve got in there. MR. FORD-That’s the response from one, and I would much prefer the 15 personally. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other questions or comments from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. Proposed garage, where does that stormwater flow to? MR. REDICK-Half of it flows to the stormwater management area to the north, and the other half flows across the grassed area, and is basically treated through the grass and all the plantings before it reaches the lake, as it does now from all the (lost words). It’s treated, but it’s not treated, and again, that’s roof runoff which doesn’t carry the impurities that (lost words) does and we’re managing through the, at least two year storm above for all the pavement and we’re treating more than that below with the introduction of the rain garden area behind the proposed wall. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, these plans don’t say that. I don’t see anything on here for management of garage runoff, and you said part of it runs across the roof, it’s going to run across the grass? 32 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. REDICK-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Right over the septic system? MR. REDICK-Actually around the septic system, the way it’s graded. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, I don’t see that on the plans. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I think that’s one of the comments that was in the Vision Engineering letter. MR. REDICK-That’s correct. Some of the detail was inadvertently left off, spot shots and things like that, for that clarification, and I have since turned it on and re-submitted a set to the Town, even though it’s not admissible for this meeting. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, and one of the other things I’d like to point out, Tom, in the Vision Engineering letter, Item Six, Dan Ryan talks about Chapter 147 and defining this as a Minor project. It goes on to say this project was re-submitted as a Major project and revised documentation is provided for such, and then he refers to the new and additional information that he’s looking for. So I think that the Vision Engineering letter is very comprehensive in what it asks for, and as, you know, Mr. Wilkinson identified, that he has had a conversation with Dan, and I think some of these issues will be addressed and represented in their new submission. MR. SEGULJIC-But if you recall, when they were here first, we made it a Major project, which is under the purview of this Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, that’s what the engineering comments said. It has been re- submitted as a Major. MR. SEGULJIC-What I’m saying is they don’t meet the Major requirements. MR. HUNSINGER-Understood. MR. SEGULJIC-Nor have they submitted an application which has to be signed off by the Zoning Administrator, and the permit is good for one year, I believe. MR. FORD-So revised documentation provided for such as a Major project. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’m not sure about the permitting. Stu or Staff could probably answer that question better, but I do know that as I’m reading these, as I’m re-reading these comments from Vision Engineering, Dan Ryan has looked at this project from a 147 perspective. MR. HUNSINGER-As a Major project. MR. REDICK-Correct, Major, and that’s what our discussion entailed Monday. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. I guess we could ask for clarification from Dan Ryan in his comment letter. MR. SEGULJIC-As far as? MR. HUNSINGER-Whether or not the proposal is compliant with Major requirements. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, case in point, you have to have a two foot differential between the groundwater. We have no information on that. MR. REDICK-That’s correct. Again, this is the test pit and spot shots were inadvertently left off on a single layer and. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. Well, understand, I don’t have that information. MR. REDICK-Correct. MR. SEGULJIC-You’re supposed to submit the stormwater report. You submitted a one sheet. MR. LAPPER-No, there’s a report now. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. REDICK-That’s correct. Again, the computations are based on engineering practice and understanding stormwater, the reduction that we’re doing in impervious, a 12% reduction in impervious over the entire site already meets the warrants of Section 147 Major, and on top of that, we’re also treating area that was previously untreated. So, again, my point to this is that if we were to not go forward with this project and just leave everything as is and not do anything, you would have 4300 square feet of pavement, on top of all the rest of the impervious, continuing to do what it’s doing now. MR. SEGULJIC-Continuing to degrade the quality of lake water? MR. REDICK-Correct, and we’re taking care of that under the proposal. MR. SEGULJIC-Understand you’re in a CEA. You have enhanced requirements for that area. MR. REDICK-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-I don’t think you’re doing enough. MR. REDICK-And as a professional engineer, I have certified that it meets Section 147. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think it appears to me as though there’s information and documents have been prepared that we haven’t seen. MR. REDICK-That is correct. Absolutely, I’m not disputing that at all. The information you have in front of you, it would be apparent to me that same thing that Mr. Seguljic is saying, that, based on what I’m seeing in front of me, I don’t see enough. Again, my point is that what little change that I had to make, turning on a layer and re-plotting, all that information is now on the plans and it has been re-submitted. MR. LAPPER-I guess, very simply, we need to get the new information to Dan. We need to get a new letter from the Town Engineer, and because of the conversation between Jeff and the LGA, we’d like to get a new letter from the LGA, and we’d like to submit larger plans so that Don and Tom can see that we do have a 15 foot buffer area, and exactly what the stormwater plan is at the lake to keep the water from draining into the lake untreated. MR. FORD-Nice summary statement, Jon. Thank you. MR. SEGULJIC-Right, and there was a comment that Staff indicated that no variance was required. th MR. LAPPER-Yes. It’s on the first page of the Staff Notes of December 18, Number Two. Applicant shall provide a copy of a septic variance. No variance is required. See Note Three on the 11/15/07 letter from Paragon. It looks like this, Tom. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any other new issues from the Board? MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. It’s just that they were done differently. That’s why. It threw me off. MR. LAPPER-Yes, they are. MR. HUNSINGER-Are there any new issues or questions from the Board? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to speak? Okay. The purpose of the public hearing is for members of the public to address the Board and our consideration of the project. I would ask that you address any questions or comments to the Board, and before you begin, state your name for the record, because we do provide minutes, literal minutes, of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOHN COLLINS MR. COLLINS-Hello. My name is John Collins. I live at 35 Knox Road, just north of the property. I think when you look at the application of the proposed development here, you can’t just look at Greg Brown’s property in a vacuum. You must look at it in conjunction with Dave Brown, Greg’s brother. It had been a family property that had been subdivided, and on Dave Brown’s property, you have a large house, a boathouse, and a gazebo. Now you go to Greg Brown’s property. You have a very large boathouse, a large house, and you’re 34 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) proposing to have a shed, a walkway, and a garage. So on what is probably in total a little over an acre of property, you’re going to have eight separate structures on that property, and from my standpoint, I view that as a very large issue. When I sit back and think about, what does that remind me of in a much smaller scale? It reminds me of the development that you see going north on the Northway, just north of Exit 18, where a slew of structures on an open property. To accomplish what Greg Brown is trying to do in the development, the property is going to lose some very significant trees on the east side of the property which abuts Knox Road, and the west side of the property, which is the lakeside. On the lakeside, when you begin to address the seawall issue, there are some very, very large trees that are going to have to be taken out to be able to do what is being proposed. On the east side, when the entrance to the driveway is shifted north, it’s going to take out trees on the property line that kind of frame the property as you look at it from Knox Road. In addition, when that driveway is now shifted over to the north, we have some very large evergreen trees along the property line that have branches that flow over into the Brown property that also flow that also frame the house and provide some of that Adirondack setting that currently exists on the property. When you move the driveway over, they’re going to have to cut those branches. It’s going to disfigure our trees and impact the visual on both their property and our property when those trees get trimmed. Now, I guess when I stand back, I’m asking the Board not to approve the plan as proposed because I don’t believe the plan is integrated into the surrounding environment and my areas of concern are the lack of appreciation for the impact on the neighbors and neighborhood, and not just the local neighbors, but everybody that walks around Assembly Point from the general area. As you may know, it’s a very popular walking spot because it’s kind of off the main roads and you get to walk through the trees and see the lake. Right now, we stand at our house and we have a south view. We see the lake. We have a very large open area between Greg Brown’s house and Dave Brown’s house. There is an existing carport that has open sides that you see through to see the lake. If we go through the proposed construction, there is going to be a solid wall of structure beginning at the boathouse of Greg Brown, running all the way across, covering the house, covering the shed, covering the walkway, covering the garage, which then overlaps on Dave Brown’s house. That’s going to totally obliterate our view of the lake to the south. When you look at, you know, magnitude, it’s probably 250 to 270 feet of structure that you’re going to be seeing as you look south from our property. Although it may meet the ratios for permeability, when you look at the configuration of the property, pie shaped lot, step back, it’s going to be very congested with structures, and it’s going to significantly impact the aesthetic value of that whole area of the Point. If you walk around Knox Road, there isn’t that congestion of structures on anybody’s property, and other than the property down the Point, next to Rosenberg’s that’s currently being built, everybody’s tried very hard to maintain their trees on the property. When you look on Greg Brown’s property now, there are going to be very few large mature trees left, and they’re only going to be in that northern section, corner of the property. So it’s just going to negatively impact our property as well as the general area. When I looked at the plans, I didn’t see anything regarding indications on supply of utilities, the electrical. The electrical has been an issue between Greg Brown and us, the current supply and then how he proposes to get electricity to his property once he moves the driveway to the north, because right now the pole is on the property line. There is a support wire that comes to the south of the pole which crosses right where he’s proposing to put the new driveway, and we have no resolution on how we’re going to do that, how he’s going to be able to get the electricity to his property without impacting our property. Also there was discussion about him having a generator on the property, and I didn’t see that on the plans at all. So I don’t know where that’s going to be located, and again, it ties in with the electricity. I guess overall, I request that you don’t approve the Site Plan as submitted. The proposed plan will be visible to users of the aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce the enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of our resources, both from the land and the lakes, whether you’re walking on Knox Road, whether you’re on our property, or whether you’re in a boat looking at Brown property, there’s been an awful lot of effort being made by a number of people around the lake to begin to focus on the visual impact on the environment and trying to save trees and not just be looking at structures when you’re from the lake. I thank you for your time. MR. HUNSINGER-You’re welcome. Thank you. DR. CAROL COLLINS DR. COLLINS-Hi. My name is Dr. Carol Collins. I’ve lived on Knox Road all my life, and I feel that this plan has been very deficient in a number of areas. The aesthetic ones John’s mentioned already. My background is as a limnologist. I’ve been doing research on Lake George since 1975, and some people may be familiar with my work. In particular, I have expertise in the macrophytes and algae in Lake George, nutrient loadings, etc. I’ve also been involved in the upland protection program for Lake George, and in particular in developing the stormwater regulations with the Lake George Park Commission, which, the 35 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) model Ordinance, and that began back in the early 80’s, and when the final plan was released back in 1987. I spent any number of years working on those plans. I see deficiencies as you have all mentioned in the stormwater, but a bigger area right now that I’m concerned about is the seawall. You may know that they got a permit from the Department of Environmental Conservation to do the seawall. That is usually a, that process happened, I think, in April. I didn’t realize that this whole project would actually be going on, and when I found out, I sent a note to Mark Migilorie from DEC because he and I had talked, the whole prior year, as a matter of fact, I had co-taught one of his courses for permit administrators for New York State, and seawalls are not permitted any longer on Lake George. I mean, that was one of our big policy decisions and it was a very important one, and I can tell you the background for that kind of thing, and I wrote him an e-mail. I can send you a copy of it. I actually have run out of ink in my printer so I can’t give you anymore copies of it, but this was an e-mail he sent to me on 9/17/07. Good to hear from you, Carol. Vertical seawalls are not permitted anywhere unless there is a unique circumstance that are absolutely necessary. So if there’s a replacement and a house foundation is tied into it. In those instances, however, the permitee must mitigate the effects by placing riprap at the toe of the wall. New vertical seawalls are not permitted at all. I later talked to Mark about this project, and he admitted that the Fisheries biologist was somewhat being pressured to signoff on this seawall, and they did not have a thorough understanding or an evaluation of it. There is sort of a little bit of a Catch-22 here. They don’t want to take trees down, but in order to do this, in order to not put a new seawall, they said they could put a vertical wall behind the existing seawall. In order to do that, it would require all these trees be taken down. Now, the only reason that they’ve stipulated that they need a new seawall is because it’s a safety hazard. Our property has the same exact slope as theirs. It joins right where this seawall would be. Our property is very stable. We have mature trees all over it. You can’t see our house from the lake, but, just so you know, you can see out and filtered views are very appealing. So, by him replacing that, that’s going to damage all root structure of our trees when they take down those trees. It’s going to destabilize that shoreline, that whole seawall, and there’s no reason right now to expect that they need to replace that. They’re calling it a safety issue, but, and I’ll get into this in a minute, that has not been evaluated. The only reason they’re really doing it, I believe, is because they want to put a blue stone patio there and extent that hard scape going out to the lake. Now the Town has, around Assembly Point, I know of at least three places on the lake where they would not permit this kind of thing, and so, this whole blue stone hard scape along the shoreline, and I have that information, one is the Barrington property, just to be specific. Now, when you put this riprap of the toe on the toe of the wall, they considered that, now this is biologist, they considered that a mitigating factor. Now in today’s world with engineering a new evaluation of all these techniques, we now know that this riprap is not the deflecting, does not cause the deflecting of wave energy that we once thought it was. What it does is it tends to undermine the nearby area. It causes turbulence and long shore drift and erosion of the shoreline. With the south dominant wind, we often get long shore drifts that would then cause undermining of slopes in our area. Because what they intend to do is take down the existing vertical wall ahead of, this seawall ahead of the vertical wall that they’re going to put in, which will then create a brand new seawall in Lake George. So Mark Migilorie, once we spoke about this again today, he sent another letter to me, and I can read it to you, but I would also, just so I keep a train of thought, which I rarely do, going, heading north in that area, there’s a very significant bed of area Eriocaulon septangulare. You may know of it as Pipewort. This is a macrophyte that grows in a very, in very natural areas. You’ll see it more in the narrows. You’ll see it going up to the north ends, but there’s maybe two or three important areas of it in Lake George, and one of it happens to be adjoining in our sort of front of our spot and just, there’s some in front of Greg’s spot as well. This is one of those plants that is of a critical nature to Lake George. It shows a good water quality, and it doesn’t like a lot of sediment and turbulence, which, once this whole process starts going on again, since it hasn’t been touched in any number of years, it’s probably going to wipe out that bed by the accumulation of sediment. MRS. BRUNO-What was the name of that, again? DR. COLLINS-Eriocaulon septangulare. Okay. So that’s a concern to me. MR. SIPP-That is to the north of you? DR. COLLINS-No, it’s in front of me, just, there’s some in front of him as well. MR. SIPP-Okay. DR. COLLINS-But our bed, there’s a large bed of it in front of me. We also have three very important snapping turtles that come up into our yard and spawn, and if I had a vertical wall in front of my yard, that turtle would have a really hard time, and that’s why we don’t have, 36 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) that’s one of the reasons why we don’t have these kinds of things. We need natural egress and resting areas, nesting areas for flora and fauna. As per our discussion, this is a letter today from Mark Migilorie. Dear Dr. Collins: As per our discussion, I have re-reviewed the file. I would like to clarify the nature of our review. The Article 15 permit application review was conducted by Bureau of Fishery staff. Administratively managed by Department of Permit staff. Such review does not include an engineering review, stormwater, hydraulic, civil or otherwise. A basic permit issuance standards are that the proposal will not cause unreasonable or uncontrollable damage to the natural resources of the people of the State, the proposal is reasonable and necessary, and that the proposal will not endanger the health, safety or welfare of the people of the State. The Department is equipped to conduct this review from a Fishery standpoint with utilization of best management practices to control adverse impacts during construction phase. The Department review cannot approach an engineering evaluation on a site specific basis or proposal specific basis of adverse impacts associated with a vertical structure with respect to adjacent erosion, lateral scour, which I mentioned, but can only address these potential concerns by generally applying proven principles. In some case the Department has not choice but to defer to the safety and property rights of the applicant when the remaining issue extends beyond the expertise of the reviewing staff, and you know we in Region Five have spearheaded the effort of DEC to limit, through our processing, the construction of vertical erosion protection structure. In the case of the Brown permit, the Department made the determination that a wall constructed behind the existing wall would not have anymore impact than exists with the existing wall. If you or the Town of Queensbury have issuance with the determination or can provide the Department with a site specific account or adverse impact reasonably expected to accrue to the lake and other properties, the Department is always willing to take another look at the proposal. The Town of Queensbury should not consider a Fishery’s based decision on a structural placement to be the premises for Fishery’s, for their Town approval. As the Town decides the shape and character of local development, whether it be lakefront or upland, our decision with the best natural expertise and information we have made with the best at hand will always accept additional expertise and humbly defer to local zoning rule. So this is sort of now walking it’s way up through DEC as we speak today. I can’t tell you what’s going to happen from there. It’s just, it’s a sensitive issue for me because I was involved in the policy determination, and it happened right next door. The other point that. MR. HUNSINGER-Do you have many more points, ma’am? DR. COLLINS-No. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Usually we try to limit public comment to, you know, no more than five minutes per speaker. DR. COLLINS-The impact of stone riprap, according to the Lake Champlain’s, which is under our jurisdiction, we’re under their jurisdiction, is moderate to high impact for neighboring impacts. So I just wanted to let you know that, that that’s how bad that that solution is. The only other thing I wanted to mention was by putting a catchment, a rain catchment behind a vertical wall is a surefire method for undermining a structure. I can’t think of a worse way to manage stormwater, but by catching it with a vertical wall. I refute the explanation that a pervious, a pavement surface is, getting rid of a pavement surface is much better than getting rid of a roof surface, since roof surfaces have just as many toxins, in some cases more, than a pavement. So I’d be happy to provide any data on that. Just one more point, and that has to do with the vegetation, the buffer. I always thought it was 30 feet in a Critical Environmental Area, and I don’t think that voting on something by 10, 15, 40, whatever is good enough. I think we need to know that 30 feet, you know, what the reasons are behind 30 feet, why we keep them, why they have to have all layers of growth in them. We need a canopy, a high canopy. We need all these layers in order to protect that buffer region, and as you say, an ornamental just isn’t it, or a shrub or a low chokeberry or whatever it is. Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone else like to address the Board? MR. SIPP-Dr. Collins, would you make that letter available to Staff, about the seawall? DR. COLLINS-Sure. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. BAKER-I have it. MR. SIPP-You’ve got it. MR. HUNSINGER-You have it. Okay. MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. All right. If there’s no other members of the public that want to address the Board, I will cease the public comment period, but I will keep the public hearing open. I guess there were several issues raised by the neighbors. I don’t know if you want to make any comments now. MR. LAPPER-This was all, you know, new information for us. So we would like to just table it and we will make a re-submission to address new issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. LAPPER-I mean, we certainly don’t agree that the stormwater facility that Clark proposed is not appropriate, in terms of, it’s not going to undermine the wall that’s an engineering issue, but, you know, there were some generalizations that were mentioned, but on the other hand, in terms of the vegetation issues, we understand what Don wants to see. We understand the 147 issues, and we’ll address the neighbor’s issues as well. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Yes, just a couple of quick notes. You have to address 147. Just a couple of things I noticed that the proposed infiltration behind the seawall, correct? MR. REDICK-It’s not directly behind the seawall. MR. LAPPER-No, but that wouldn’t be considered an infiltration device. MR. REDICK-It’s a rain garden. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. I don’t know if a rain garden’s acceptable to 147. If they are, they’re one of the last types of stormwater controls. MR. REDICK-Again, because of the proximity to the lake, it’s one of the very few choices you have. MR. SEGULJIC-Number Two, if you look at 147, it says if you do any soil disturbance or stockpiling within 500 feet of the lake, you can’t leave that soil devoid of vegetation for more than 24 hours. I don’t see any comments in here about that. MR. REDICK-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-Number Three, I don’t know why you have the stockpile for soil so close to the lake. I look at this project as if you’ve designed this project for anywhere. You are in a CEA. That’s what I am looking for. Keep that in mind. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a tabling resolution? There’s several specific items to be addressed. One would be the engineering comments and clarification that the project complies with Section 147, Major project. Signoff from the Lake George Association. MR. LAPPER-We don’t want to give them a signoff. We’re going to address their issues. It’s up to you guys to signoff. MR. HUNSINGER-Comment letter, yes. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Labeling the area of disturbance on the plot, any stormwater calculations, description of stormwater management details. Submission of some larger plans that illustrate the landscaping plan, stormwater plans and Site Plan. MRS. BRUNO-How about a copy of the permit from DEC and the seawall? 38 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. LAPPER-It has been. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think we have that. MRS. BRUNO-Again, just like the previous applicant, I was on vacation, so I apologize for that. I’m still catching up. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have those documents, Tom? MR. SEGULJIC-No, were they in the package? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-In looking at the application quickly, you have total area of land disturbance 7700 square feet. I’ll bet you the temporary road you’re building in is more than that. So this application should reflect what’s happening on the site. I’m just very concerned about what’s happening on the lake, and I just see a lot of people aren’t paying attention to it. MR. LAPPER-I think at the end of the day you’re going to see that this is a net benefit, but we obviously haven’t gotten there yet. So we’ll re-submit. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. All right. MR. HUNSINGER-In terms of the neighbor concerns, I think most of that is just a narrative. I think the neighbor concerns you could address through a narrative discussion. Is there anything else that the Board wanted to see addressed that I didn’t mention? MR. FORD-You did address stormwater, correct? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, stormwater management details. MR. FORD-Good. MR. REDICK-And again, my intent is to make sure that we meet 147 and we have confirmation of that from Vision Engineering as well, because, again, it’s all technical stuff. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. The only other thought is a date that we would table this to. MR. LAPPER-At this point, we’re going to have to make a re-submission. We will try to make it in January, but I can’t say for sure, so I would just say, if we don’t get it in January, we’ll get it in February. So it’ll either be a February or March meeting. MR. HUNSINGER-We do like to specify a date for purposes of a public hearing. th MR. LAPPER-We’ll submit by January 15. th MR. HUNSINGER-For the February 19 meeting. MR. FORD-Will that give you sufficient interactive time? MR. LAPPER-When’s the school vacation? I haven’t looked that far on the calendar in February? Could you put it for the second meeting in February, instead of the first? th MR. HUNSINGER-The second meeting in February, February 26. MR. SEGULJIC-Quick question if I could. I see you have an infiltration chamber. Where is that proposed? MR. REDICK-Yes, that has been eliminated from the current plan. MR. SEGULJIC-So is this plan the current plan? MR. REDICK-That one is not the current one, no. MR. FORD-I’m glad I didn’t receive it, then. MR. LAPPER-Because that’s the one that just. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. 39 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion to table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 14-2007 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: Tabled to the second meeting in February, February 26, 2008. That will have a th submission deadline of January 15. This Site Plan is tabled so that the applicant can satisfy the following conditions: 1.That they will get a Vision Engineering signoff. 2.That they will add the area of disturbance to the plan. 3.That they will provide a description of the stormwater management details. 4.That they will provide larger drawings for Site Plan Review for the Planning Board, including landscaping. 5.That they will provide clarification on issues for Chapter 147, specifically meeting the requirements of 147 for this particular Site Plan. 6.To address the neighbors issues that were identified during the public comment period. th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: MR. BAKER-Just a point of order. There were two pieces of correspondence that were received today that you may want to have read into the record prior to finalizing that resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-I’m sorry. Are those public comments? MR. BAKER-Yes, public comments. One was from the LGA, and the other was from the Lake George Water Keeper. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. My apologies for not getting to those. MR. BAKER-I’ll read through these quickly. The LG A letter is from Kathy Bozony. It’s th dated December 13. Our office received it today. It’s addressed to Community Development office regarding Redbud Development. “Stormwater management should be the main emphasis for discussions of Site Plan approvals for this application to replace a carport with a garage, add a covered walkway to that garage, replace an existing shed, expand a screened porch, add a dry laid bluestone patio adjacent to the house and also one next to the lake. Fortunately the total size of the existing asphalt driveway will be reduced in the process, permitting discussions of a possible permeable surface in lieu of asphalt. This large home on a peninsula in Lake George must not discharge any stormwater from the property into the lake. Because the existing house has a pea stone trench surrounding it for infiltration from roof stormwater and will not be altered at this time, there are additional opportunities to plant rain gardens throughout the property and to increase the size and capability of a natural buffer on the shoreline. Depending on the soils and the distance from all impermeable surfaces (including the new laid patios), additional gardens that utilize mixed vegetation to absorb and infiltrate nutrients and pollutants could be located throughout the property (comment based on the L-9 Landscape Plan dated 11/12/07). This in turn would reduce the total amount of lawn area. Because the two largest trees on the shoreline are going to be removed to build a new retaining wall there, additional trees to filter the home from the lake and absorb nutrients and pollution could replace them. The shoreline buffer needs to be more substantial than what is proposed, both in depth and with a mixed variety and height of vegetation (ideally trees, shrubs and under story vs. only perennial flowers). I have had recent discussions with both the engineer and landscape architect, shared information about buffering and rain gardens and have offered to work with them to further enhance this site’s ability to adequately manage stormwater using native vegetation. Thank you for your efforts to review and thoroughly discuss projects that focus on preserving our unique and finite resource, specifically Lake George and all its attributes. Sincerely, Kathleen S. Lindberg Bozony Land Use Management Coordinator” The second letter is th from Chris Navitsky, the Lake George Waterkeeper. It’s dated December 18 and 40 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) received today as well. “Dear Mr. Hunsinger: I have reviewed the submission regarding the above referenced site plan application. I would like to apologize that I am unable to attend to present these comments in person: 1. Regarding the replacement of the retaining wall, it is confusing that the New York State Department of Conservation is requesting the existing established hemlocks on the northern side of the boathouse be removed. Trees of that size tend to increase bank stability as well as increase habitat. Has the Town had any discussion with the DEC regarding their determination? Possibly, the DEC could reevaluate their position based on public comment. 2. Will the retaining wall be increased in size? Will it require a variance? Section 574.4.f of the Adirondack Park Agency Rules and Regulations states ‘A retaining wall which is constructed of laid stone or untreated natural logs and is smaller than 200 square feet in height above mean high water shall not be subject to the applicable shoreline requirements and setbacks….’ This certainly falls within the shoreline setback and should be considered a structure since it exceeds the dimensional requirements. 3. The construction of the retaining wall to provide additional hard surfaces for sitting when a house is located over the lake with a large dock complex and a house with a wrap-around porch, all within the setback, seems excessive. 4. There appear to be significant engineering issues which should lead to concern about the ability of the site to accommodate the level of development proposed. 5. At the August Planning Board meeting, there was discussion regarding the permeable coverage as being 62%. Was that determination before or after the removal of the soils for the replacement of the retaining wall? Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Planning Board in defending the natural resources of Lake George and its basin. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Stu. MRS. BRUNO-I’d like to bring something up that I had just thought of. In the Code under 179-6-060 D, under Miscellaneous Provisions, 2, Alteration to the Shoreline, E, In addition to the following specific conditions shall apply, and then under 3. Retaining Walls, when permitted, retaining walls shall not exceed 16 inches in height as measured from the stationary mean high water mark, and just doing a quick calculation, you have somewhere about six feet or so. It’s, again, hard to see on this drawing, but I understand that the current one is 18 inches below maybe what you’re proposing, give or take. So I can see that replacing kind for kind, you know, equal, where that might have an argument, you know, going above that is just strictly against the Code. MR. LAPPER-We’ll certainly review that as well. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. If you can follow the numbering. MR. REDICK-I’ve got it written down. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Is there any modification to the resolution based on the letters that were read into the record? Okay. MRS. BRUNO-I would just like added that one point which they’ve already agreed to. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. No further discussion? Call the vote, please. AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Ford, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Just for the public, before we move on to the next one, I just wanted to make sure you understood that we did leave the public hearing open. So th when we do consider this project again, February 26, there will be additional opportunity for public comment. SITE PLAN NO. 52-2007 SEQR TYPE II GRJH, INC. AGENT(S) LLOYD HELM OWNER(S) QUEENSBURY PETROLEUM ZONING MIXED USE LOCATION 107 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF 2,400 SQ. FT. GAS STATION AND CONVENIENCE STORE. GAS STATIONS CONVENIENCE STORE USES IN THE MU ZONE REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. 41 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) CROSS REFERENCE AV 23-07 WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.02 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-6 SECTION 179-4-030 LLOYD HELM & CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, again, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-As follow up to the most recent tabling of this application, the applicant has submitted additional materials including a revised site plan showing additional plantings, along with a comment letter addressing previous Vision Engineering comments, and a letter addressing stormwater management on this site. The revised site plan does not show a proposed vehicular connection across the National Grid lands to the east, to the recently constructed connector road, as previously discussed. As Staff has previously recommended, full vehicular access should be provided to this site from a connection to Media Dr. to the east. Staff has also previously recommended that access on Main St. be from a right in right out only drive. The updated site plan does not show light pole locations or contain any information on lighting proposed. This should be added to the updated site plan, and there’s also engineering comments. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you, Stu. Good evening. If you could identify yourself for the record. MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. Again, for the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson with Paragon Engineering representing GRJH on this proposed Site Plan. Again, just to go back and clarify some of the points, I don’t, the light poles are specifically shown but they’re not labeled on the plan, and as far as the lighting plan goes, there was one originally submitted by Frank Repant in the original application submittal, which at that time I didn’t read through the comments and find any comments regarding that lighting, that lighting plan. So I didn’t update it or change it. I left that one intact, and for Final I can certainly make sure that Mr. Repant’s drawing is included with mine as well to make it a complete package for, so that it’s altogether for review. With that being said, as of this date, and it can be verified by Mr. Lloyd Helm who is to my right, representing GRJH, we are in pursuit of trying to gain access to Media Street through lands of, it’s listed on the drawing as Niagara Mohawk and of course we all know as National Grid. I’ve had numerous conversations with a couple of representatives from National Grid. We are heading to the table to try to negotiate for that cross easement, which means time for everybody to agree to it. We also need to approach the owner of Media Drive, which I assume to be the Town of Queensbury, to make sure that they’re in acceptance with Staff comments of connecting to that and everybody signing off with that, and because there’s now three entities involved to try to make that connection, which we agree is probably, is a very good idea for this area, especially in light of the traffic situation on Main Street, the existing traffic, we’re pursuing that fairly vigorously but it appears as though it’s going to take a substantial amount of time to make sure that everything’s in order, including easement, including the survey information that has to go and be accompanying those easement documents as well as the survey information that I need to make sure I can design the access and the connection. So with that in mind, we are pursuing that. That is our goal to get to that point, and eliminate the accesses to Main Street per the plans that are prepared by Clough Harbor and Associates for the Main Street improvements. I’ve been in contact with them. I’m in the process of trying to obtain their drawings, to make sure that mine match entirely to what they want, and again, pursue getting access to Media Street over lands of Niagara Mohawk. With that in mind, the applicant is more or less, their timeframes for construction of this, they were trying to accomplish constructions beginning right after the holidays, which starts the relatively slow time in the gas and convenience store point, so that they can get started on this and get it back up and running, prior to summer. That was the intent. Again, they started this application months and months ago. They went and they’ve gotten a variance to locate the building back where it exists, because it was in nonconformance of the Main Street overlay, and that has been obtained. So we’re now down to trying to get a Site Plan approval to construct the building. Again, having the building located in more or less the exact spot of where it is now, utilizing all the existing utilities that are shown on my drawing, and more or less, again, there’s a couple of comments in Vision Engineering having to do with what is the limits of disturbance and those kinds of things. I agree that we need to clearly show and delineate the pavement cut, where the pavement’s going to be cut out for the building construction only, and then the rest of it is going to, as far as I’m concerned, it’s just going to be patched where there’s holes, and then re-striped based on the new plan, and then there’s some paving in the rear that has been added to this, and I’ll make sure that’s even more clear than I feel it is now, but I’ll make sure it’s even more clear. There’s another issue that I’d like to touch on, that I’ve gotten data from the Water Department, since this is on public water supply. I’ve gotten 42 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) the water records over the past, I believe they go back as far as 10 years. I took the highest two consecutive years. For the highest one consecutive year I tried, and it’s pretty much the same as the highest two consecutive years, and designed the system, the septic systems, for the highest daily loadings based on those water records, which is actual usage of the site, and since the total building area is going to be reduced, my opinion is that that’s going to be adequate, and again, it’s going to be adequate for the main reason is that by the time construction is done on Corinth Road, we will have a public sewer that we’re going to connect to at that time, and with that in mind, this septic system is going to be constructed, hopefully, if we get an approval, it’ll be constructed this Spring, and then by, it’s my understanding from conversations with both Warren County and Clough Harbor, that the construction is to start late next year, at the earliest, and possibly as late as Spring of 2009 on the Main Street corridor, and the anticipated construction schedule is two years. So by 2011 we’ll have public sewers here, so it’ll be approximately three years that the septic will be in service, and then we’ll be required, by the Public Health Law, we’ll be required to connect to that sanitary. So, based on the current usage of the building, I feel that the septic is adequate and again, it’s just making sure that I submit all of that information with this plan, so that the reviewing engineer can have all of the information to look at and make a determination of whether or not that’s acceptable. With that in mind, I think the only other issues to cover are the entrances, which, again, we’re more than willing to modify the two entrances we’ve shown on this Site Plan, once we know we can secure the access to Media Drive, and again, coordinating with Clough Harbor, coordinating with Warren County, and ensuring that we’re in conformance with those improvement plans is our goal for not only this project, but to help the business and the whole area in general. So with that in mind, I’d like to turn it back over to the Board for any questions, comments, discussion on this application. MR. HUNSINGER-Who’d like to start? MRS. STEFFAN-Certainly covered the issues that were in the Staff Notes satisfactorily. MRS. BRUNO-Who was your contact, just out of curiosity, from Clough Harbor? MR. WILKINSON-The design engineer. I can’t remember his name off the top of my head. MRS. BRUNO-The only reason why I’m asking is I’m trying to get myself, again, up to speed on the Main Street plan and you offered some information that I had yet to unearth, in terms of timing. MR. WILKINSON-Well, there’s a lot of major issues with this project, as you guys are well aware, because it’s been around for many, many years and it’s, according to both Warren County Deputy Engineer, I can’t remember his name off the top of my head, I’m terrible with names, so forgive me, and Clough Harbor design engineer, there’s been some snags as far as utilities, the locations, whether it’s overhead, underground, also capacity issues that are being addressed, and no one knows exactly when those issues will be resolved, and we’re all hopeful it’s sooner rather than later, but we know how things go. Again, off the top of my head, I don’t have his name. I can certainly submit it to you. MRS. BRUNO-That’s okay. That’s all right. Thank you. MR. WILKINSON-His last name is only about six letters long. I can remember writing it, but I can’t see it. MRS. BRUNO-I’m the same way with names. Don’t sweat it. MR. HUNSINGER-So, do you have any indication when the discussions may conclude on the easements across the National Grid property onto the new road? MR. WILKINSON-We have not officially sat down at the table with them. I sent them a copy of the plan. There already is on file with National Grid an existing easement on the right front corner of this. If you’re standing on Main Street and looking at the property, the right front corner there’s a triangular, existing triangular easement that I didn’t know th of before I produced this plan on the 15 of last month. I found out since then that that exists, and we’re looking to try to swap it to help both National Grid keep people from coming on to their parcel, and for us to get what we need to cross their parcel. So, I can’t say for sure when that’s going to happen, but my guess is probably not for at least a couple of months before we get it finalized, and then again, after that’s finalized and we 43 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) definitely know that we’re going to go there, now I also need survey information to go along with that, including property so the easements can be described and written and survey information and topography to make sure that I can get the design to work and get the grades all to match in properly. So on top of that, I think there’s another probably couple of months of work getting that survey and documents prepared and getting the information that I need to design it. What we’re hoping to accomplish is to get, and even, this is a suggestion I’m throwing out. I don’t know the legalities of it or whether it’s been done before, but to, mainly what we’re concerned with is trying to get the building started and constructed, and we’ve presented the Site Plan that we feel works for this site and we can continue to come back month after month and give you updates, we’ve met with this, we’re in agreement with this. We’re moving forward and then somehow get a modified Site Plan or a different approved Site Plan. I’m not sure how to do that, or if the Board doesn’t wish to go that direction, and construction of the building has to wait, the construction that’s going to take place in the summer when it’s the busiest time and I don’t know if that’s going to happen then. It may wait until the Fall. That’s up to these guys and those business decisions have to be made, and they are business decisions at that point. MRS. STEFFAN-What is the building going to look like, and the color? MR. WILKINSON-We submitted color checks with the application. Did you get those, Stu? They were with the application. MRS. STEFFAN-They’re not in our package. MR. WILKINSON-No, there was only one color piece to show all the metals. It’s what’s called a pre-engineered metal building, which you guys have probably heard before. I think, correct me if I’m wrong, Lloyd, very similar to the Exit 19 Sunoco. MR. HELM-It would be very similar to the Exit 19 Sunoco, which is this. MRS. STEFFAN-Without the sign, right? MR. HELM-Without the LED sign. MR. WILKINSON-Without the LED sign. Yes. MR. HELM-With an entrance on both this side and on this side, the side facing the Northway and the side facing south. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HELM-And in our first application there was drawings of that, elevations. MR. WILKINSON-And you’ve contracted with Morton Buildings, is that correct? MR. HELM-Morton Buildings, yes. MR. FORD-When it comes to materials, it has been very helpful for other applicants to actually bring in samples. MR. WILKINSON-Like a board. MR. FORD-A board or a piece of the material, however you want to present it. MR. HELM-It’s a clapboard, that particle clapboard board that’s then painted. It’s common building. MRS. BRUNO-Something along the lines of a hearty plank. MR. HELM-Right, exactly. MRS. BRUNO-And the colors, have you decided on that? MR. HELM-We’re going to use the same colors as the store, the light tan with the brown roof. MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t have anything against the current building that you have on Exit 19. I just, it, to me, just looks a little plain, and I wonder if, I mean, especially the 44 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) Main Street corridor. There are some very distinct design standards that have been incorporated into that corridor, and I just wonder if, you know, there’s some design elements or features that could be added that would make it more compatible with the vision that’s been put forth for the Main Street corridor. MR. HELM-We decided to go with this color scheme only because of the months it took for that to get approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MRS. STEFFAN-And we told you to pick that color. MR. HELM-Yes. We were specifically told. MR. HUNSINGER-No, again, I don’t have any problem with the design or even the color scheme. I just wonder if there’s maybe some, you know, maybe. MR. SEGULJIC-Some vegetation maybe. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, some detail that maybe could be added, maybe through maybe other colors or something, to highlight some of the building features. MR. WILKINSON-So to reiterate, to make sure we’re on the same page, you’re asking us to review the Main Street corridor standards as far as architectural, to make sure that we do something more with that building than just a standard plain building. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-Understood. MR. FORD-Good point, Chris. MR. TRAVER-Going back to the septic design, I take it from the Vision Engineering letter that they’re interested in your considering the 400 gallons per day standard, and I wasn’t sure, you made statements before about the research you did regarding the use. How does that compare with what Vision Engineering has recommended. MR. WILKINSON-There’s only, is there one or two public bathrooms? MR. HELM-Two. MR. WILKINSON-There’s two public bathrooms, so that would mean 800 gallons a day, one 400 per, and the total average, the highest average was 360 gallons per day, average, over a two year period, about 370. MR. FORD-That’s actual? MR. WILKINSON-That’s actual usage, about 370, as opposed to 400. MR. TRAVER-As opposed to 800? MR. WILKINSON-Eight hundred. Correct. MR. TRAVER-Okay. In view of the uncertainty with regards to when you would be able to connect to the public system, with the issues that we’ve been discussing with regards to the design, does it, should you consider perhaps coming closer to the recommendations of Vision Engineering for the sewage capacity? I mean, you’re cutting it in half. MR. WILKINSON-Correct, based on actual usage of the current facility with two garage bays at one time that actually had mechanics and things, higher usage, because it was about three years ago that it was the highest peak year at about 370 gallons a day, and again, adding approximately 10% to that, a little less, but approximately 10%, to get to the 400 gallons a day, based on the fact that it’s probably going to be there for no greater than five years and we have actual data that says that that’s the highest usage over the past ten years, in my opinion, there is no reason to go to anything larger, knowing that there’s a finite, what the finite deadline is, whether it’s three years or five years, or seven years or whatever, but it’s a finite time. Again, the indication is that constructing starting by Spring of 2009. Could it be delayed again? Possibly. Everybody’s hopeful that they 45 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) can work the issues out and not have it be delayed again, because funding becomes an issue. That’s my understanding, that if they don’t start by a certain time, they may losing funding on it. Therefore the push is to get it started. So, with that push in mind, and with the idea that there’s only a two year construction period, we can actually connect prior to the end of the construction period, because the first thing that goes into the ground in construction is utilities, and since sewer is the deepest, sewer is going to go first. So, we could conceivably be connected to it by summer or fall of 2009. So it could be one year. It could be five years. No one knows, but to me that’s a finite life, and since I have data to prove and back up my design, at a worst case scenario, meaning the garage was being utilized as well as the store itself, I believe that I can, you know, any approving agency will approve that, because the data is there. MRS. BRUNO-Do we have any statistics of what we might be forecasting as increase in client use? In other words, you know, increased traffic in your facility? MR. WILKINSON-During that time period only, or overall? MRS. BRUNO-Well, you know, as you improve, and upgrade, you also, the reason why you do that is because you expect that. MR. WILKINSON-You want to attract more people. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. WILKINSON-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Has there been any thought to that, in terms of sizing septic? MR. WILKINSON-With keeping the septic area exactly the same size and changing materials to a different material such as the infiltrators, which are acceptable, the mats, again, the name’s alluding me, but the mats that are used, the four foot wide mats, changing to those I get an increase of use. I can get more water in the same area based on those because they are a different application rate. So, could we adjust it to something higher than 400, in a change of materials, I could probably increase it by about 20% capacity. Again, is it cost effective? I would recommend trying to do the least costly system as possible because I know I’m going to connect to that sewer as soon as I possibly can, and I’m required by Public Health law to connect to it within a one year period once it’s in there. MR. SIPP-Have you given any consideration to the traffic pattern, right in/right out? MR. WILKINSON-Absolutely, and if, indeed, we can connect, get the connector to Media Street, we’ll absolutely provide only rights in and rights out, but, not having that connection, we’re improving the situation that’s there now with the plan in front of you. Our ultimate goal is to get that connection so that there isn’t a left turn in and there isn’t a left turn out. However, right now, we can’t guarantee that. We still have to provide the service, at least the service that we have existing, we’re trying to provide under the proposed conditions. MR. SIPP-Now, on the regulations, somebody can check me on this, I think the parking area is on new Main Street regulations are parking spaces are behind the building? MR. WILKINSON-That’s when the building is very close to the front. Because that’s the whole intent is to have your facades right in front. MR. HELM-If we were within, our building would have been right where the gas pumps are if they had not granted us a variance. So that’s. MR. WILKINSON-That was the hardship for the variance, that we would have had to take out those, all those pumps, the tanks underneath them, to put the building forward, and exist there now. We’re replacing the building with a smaller building than what’s there. That’s why the variance was granted, you know, in a nutshell. I think there were other factors, but what Mr. Sipp is referring to is in that Main Street corridor, I believe, you’re trying to get the parking to the rear of the building, but to me that’s when the building is right forward, right where the edge of the pumps would have been, and if that were the case, then we could definitely get all the parking in the rear, but because of the variance, you know, the parking lays out so we get some in the front and some in the rear. There’s also going to be cars, not parked per se, but parked to gas up underneath those pumps. 46 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, maybe a better example is the Cumberland Farms, diagonally across the street. They were one of the first. MR. WILKINSON-Correct, first to pull that forward. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, to comply with the new Main Street corridor requirements. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, I remember that. MR. SIPP-What about the island here? Are you going to make provision, and the gas storage tanks for alcohol mixture, gasoline? Are you going to have another set of pumps for that or are you’re not going to touch it at all? MR. HELM-We don’t have the storage to. We only have. MR. SIPP-Your competitor down the road is going to put it in I know. MR. HELM-Is he? MR. SIPP-Cumberland Farms is in the business of putting in a new pump system there for the gasohol, alcohol 85%. MR. HELM-No, we have no intention to add another underground storage tank. MR. SIPP-Okay. On your landscaping here, I don’t know. I’m trying to think where the light is and where the turn is to get on the entrance ramp here, right turn, how close you are to that roadway. MR. WILKINSON-The entrance, the traffic light for the entrances would be to the west of this property, and it’s approximately, I’d say the intersection itself is probably about 50 feet from where we show that curbed area, but again, that is what’s open now, with a very small island in the middle and no island at the north, and (lost words) Media Street and close it down even more to help traffic in this area as well. MR. SIPP-I don’t know what the regulation would be, the distance between your westerly entrance or exit to that road. MR. WILKINSON-I have submitted a copy of the layout plan, both to Warren County, and also to Clough Harbor, to make sure we’re all matching up, to make sure that they have no issues with it as well. Again, I’m trying to take all the steps to make sure that everything is looked at before we start doing what we need to do to get this thing in the ground. MR. SIPP-The only other thing is if you’re close enough, those Sugar Maples won’t survive the salt. MR. WILKINSON-That is true. MR. SIPP-I don’t know what the distance would be. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and again, I can look at what they have. Once I get their plan, I’ve requested it twice, and they promised me, the second time, I’d get a copy. Once I see what the corridor is doing through there, I want to try to blend in with that. I may change the species and match what they want, or they have, because I think it needs to look like a corridor when they’re done, and I don’t want different species than they have down the street. MR. SIPP-That’s my impression, that the utilities are not going to go underground. MR. WILKINSON-That’s a National Grid question, isn’t it? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-What’s the story with stormwater? There’s no stormwater feature on site now? MR. WILKINSON-There is no stormwater on site now. This whole area, as you are probably aware, is all a Windsor sand, which is a highly, highly permeable sand. As soon as any water leaves the pavement in this area, it’s virtually gone. There’s no real 47 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) stormwater locations per se, but there is a grass strip between the fence to the west and the limit of paving. That grass strip acts as both filtration running over the grass and infiltration to get into the soils, and again the same thing to the rear and the same thing to the east on lands of National Grid. That is one of the other discussions we’re having with them, to make sure that in the easement language there’s a general description that we are allowed to, because it exists there now, allowed for that water to run into their property to percolate into the soil. That was one of the issues that’s kind of a hang up to them, although they have allowed it in other projects, to have stormwater facilities. That’s one of the issues that’s going to take a little more time than the access itself. MR. SEGULJIC-So your proposal is to maintain it as it is? MR. WILKINSON-To maintain it as it is because the only thing we’re doing is adding some pavement in the rear, and that snow storage area is actually, it’s a depression that exists out there where the water runs to now. The extra paving that we’re adding, and if you look at Page, actually probably on Page One it shows it, but Page Two of my plans, there is an existing edge of pavement approximately, I’d say about 20 feet behind that diesel pumps that are going to remain. There’s an edge of pavement that we’re adding probably about 40 to 45 feet of pavement to the rear, and that that area out in the rear of the site will take care of that stormwater, just by virtue of sheet flow into that area, again, because of the highly permeable soils. MR. SEGULJIC-Have you talked to Mr. Ryan about that yet? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and actually I met him on site. We did test pits to verify that they are indeed Windsor sands, and he is, we’re, there’s a slight discrepancy on whether I have to physically call an area stormwater and show him that this is an area or not, but in general, standing out there on the site, we can see that the land falls somewhat to the north, and that any additional paving we put down to the north is going to be directed to that flat, depressed area. MR. FORD-How many pits did you do, test pits? MR. WILKINSON-We did three. MR. FORD-Three? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, in that rear area, to verify for the septic, is the first one I did, and then to verify the depth at two locations to see how far down. MR. FORD-Do you recall the depth you went to? MR. WILKINSON-We were down 12 feet and didn’t hit anything but solid Windsor sand, no mottling, no water, nothing, and again, Dan Ryan was there to witness because I wanted him to witness the septic area because it is out of season. So I wanted to make sure that was witnessed. So he was there for those. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Other questions from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-I’m not sure how we would condition an approval to get you going? MR. HUNSINGER-I don’t, either. MR. WILKINSON-That’s the difficulty, and that’s why I wanted to throw out that (lost words) we’re just trying to get the building done, and our goal is to get connected to Media Street. I can’t guarantee it, but all the parties seem favorable. It’s just a matter to what’s going to be the final agreement, and I think it’s going to have to come down to a dollars thing, quite frankly, and that’s where we are. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, about the only thing we can really do is, you know, if the Board is so inclined to approve what’s presented, and then when you get what you desire, you’d have to come back for a modification. MR. WILKINSON-For a modification to an existing Site Plan. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. 48 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct. That’s one of the ways. I don’t know if there are any other ways, but that there could be, and we’re definitely open to suggestions. Again, we’re trying to work with all the parties involved because we understand the visibility of this site, Number One, that’s why we’re trying to clean it up, to help our business, to help our business, or their business, and also to improve that corridor along with what’s already proposed, to make sure we’re conforming to that. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. HELM-And I don’t have a problem with a condition saying that if National Grid approves our variance that we will build the connector. I mean, the only reason we wouldn’t build it is if they deny it. So if you want to put that in any kind of motion. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, except it changes the whole traffic pattern. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. HUNSINGER-And the interior flow, curb cuts. MR. WILKINSON-And it’s technically a different Site Plan at that point. I would agree. MR. BAKER-It would be a modification. MR. WILKINSON-Would that be the cleanest way, in your mind, legally? MR. MEYER-Yes, there’s no way to (lost words). If the Board finds it okay with the way it is, whether it’s your ultimate goal or not, whether you actually come back or not is not before the Board right now. MR. WILKINSON-Correct, and I can’t put it before the Board until I know we can do that for sure. That’s the Catch 22 here. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BAKER-Just for the Board’s information, the Town Staff is unlikely to know if and when they’re successful at negotiating that easement with National Grid. We typically don’t receive notification unless the applicant were to say, hey, we’ve got it. MR. WILKINSON-If you give me permission to, you know I’m in contact with you guys all the time anyway. I don’t have any problems divulging that, hey, we’ve sat down, we’ve come to an agreement, which we should be back in with a modification. MR. HELM-And it is our intent to pursue that. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. HUNSINGER-Any written comments, Stu? MR. BAKER-No. MR. HUNSINGER-I never think to ask when we actually have them. Well, what’s the will of the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-The other thing we talked about the last time the applicant was here about the lighting fixtures, to make them conform. Currently they don’t conform. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. They’re downward mounted, built. The only difference in the parking area itself is the pole to the north will be removed and placed back near the septic area to give that rear area lighting, but it’ll be the same fixture, just relocated, as shown on Frank Repant’s plan as well, and then anything, there’s three lights on the building, one on the north, one on the west and one on the south. That will be the downward mounted cutoff type fixtures. So there’s not a lot of splay everywhere, and they will pretty much light up all the area around the building for access and for handicap accessibility, and making sure that things are well lit, but I don’t think they’re going to be, again, I don’t know the specific model. I think that was stated on the original lighting plan as well, and again, as I stated in the beginning, I’ll make sure that lighting plan gets 49 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) included with this set of documents to have a full, or if you’re going there for a final, a plan that that Frank Repant plan will be included with this to show that. I believe he had a model number and everything else in there, and whether or not it had, I don’t recall off the top of my head whether or not it had the adjustable fins, but I believe it did, so you can adjust the lighting to be more downward mounted, but there’s so many light fixtures out on the market, I can’t keep track of them all. I know if I specify downward mounting cut off fixtures, then that meets the lighting code, and that’s what we’re proposing. MRS. BRUNO-Could you just reiterate, if you’ve already said this forgive me because it’s getting late, but perhaps we haven’t covered it, in terms of the turning. Mr. Ryan had mentioned a couple of times in terms of adequate maneuvering around the fuel pumps and the turning aisles, access aisles, sidewalk widths, all of that. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and again, on this plan, there’s a few dimensions that I didn’t add into here, that I perfectly agree with him, yes, I should have what the width of that sidewalk is around the building, it’s five feet, but I will add that to the plan. As far as the maneuverability, the other thing that I would respond to that, and I’ve already written my responses, so I know how I’m going to respond. On locating where the pumps are in the existing island, underneath that canopy, and I’ll show those dashed in, so that I can, anyone who picks up the plan can see where a car is going to stop, and then where they’re going to pull out from, so you can see what’s, see more clearly what’s actually happening on the site. I don’t necessarily disagree with him that it’s tight, but I will state that, right now there’s only the front entrance to this building, and that’s where the parking spots are now, and it functions adequately. We’re continuing to do that, leaving it in the same location, having the same separations, and also there’s a second access from here, is that correct? MR. HELM-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-Second access from the rear that there’s more parking in the rear, and there’s also an access on the side for people that are converging from the pumps, so there’s now three accesses where there used to be only one. Another reason why we placed the handicap spaces at that location is because they’re the least used of all the spaces. So, by having the least use up front, we’re trying to mitigate the fact that we’re only cutting the pavement around the building, replacing the building and then filling in the pavement where we need to and that’s all we’re doing. So, with that in mind, that’s how we’re trying to design the site, so that we can get the best maneuverability around the site. So I can certainly address that and make sure that these things are more clear on the final and get his signoff on that. MRS. BRUNO-Turn your layer on. MR. WILKINSON-No, this time it wasn’t a layer, I forgot. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MRS. STEFFAN-Why is this a Type II SEQRA? I’m just curious, do you know? MR. BAKER-They’re few and far between, actually. I don’t have the SEQRA Regs here in front of me. MRS. STEFFAN-It just seems odd for a commercial re-development of a gas station. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, maybe because it’s replacement of an existing building without a change of use. MR. BAKER-If you give me a moment, I can look those up. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, I don’t remember what they are off the top of my head either. I look them up every single time. MRS. BRUNO-Actually, speaking about environmental, just going back to the sheet flow off of the parking lot into basically the grass, and I noticed that Dan had mentioned it, too, your concerns about the pollutants. MR. WILKINSON-It’s, again, a valid question, and I’ll address that. 50 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. WILKINSON-And make sure that that’s included with the engineering comments. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. Thank you. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, there are certain things you can do, but you can only do a limited number of things, and I’ll make sure that that’s correct, especially on an existing facility that we’re not really doing any pavement and stuff over there. We’ll disturb a little bit more of the pavement, but we can certainly take that under consideration. MRS. BRUNO-Thank you. Given what everybody is saying, they’re pumping, you look down and you see your oil. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, it’s a major concern, and again, with the improvements on Main Street, I think it would be even a bigger concern. MRS. BRUNO-Yes, absolutely. MR. HUNSINGER-Stu? MR. BAKER-I’ll have to hang on. I thought I had it. Give me a moment, I will. MR. WILKINSON-Is that DEC? MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, that website’s tricky sometimes. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Is the Board comfortable moving forward? MR. SEGULJIC-What exactly would we be doing then? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, I see two choices. Either approval or table. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we were to approve all these plans as is, and then? MR. HUNSINGER-If they change their egress and access, they would have to come back for a modification. MRS. BRUNO-I think I’d like to get Dan’s signoff first. MRS. STEFFAN-We can make that a condition of the approval. My position on this is that we did scrutinize the Exit 19 property, and so the design standards are similar to that particular plan, and we’re asking for a lot of new information. The Vision Engineering signoff alone, that would be required from the applicant, would satisfy a lot of our concerns about internal traffic flow, although I have put a couple of conditions in the approval that would trigger the applicant coming back for modification. So, it would give an existing business the opportunity to proceed with their plan. MR. FORD-It sounds good to me. MR. HUNSINGER-Did you have an answer, Stu? MR. BAKER-Yes, I do. The SEQRA Regs themselves list out well over 30 items actually, specific items that are Type II, meaning not subject to the regulation, but amongst those listed is replacement, rehabilitation or reconstruction of the structure or facility in kind on the same site, including upgrading buildings to meet building or fire codes, unless such action meets or exceeds any of the thresholds in Section 617.4 of this part, and 617.4 is Type I Actions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So as far as the looks of the building, then, it’s going to be that picture they presented before. The only problem is, I don’t think that’s got the same dimensions on, though. MR. HELM-It’s the exact same dimensions, 30 by 60. 51 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-I thought Exit 19 was longer along the road. MR. HELM-Correct. MR. WILKINSON-Just changed the direction. It’s the exact same building size. It’s just the orientation to the road is 90 degrees from that. MR. SEGULJIC-So the features on the road would be the same as you see on Exit 19? MR. HELM-From Exit 19, you’ll see the gable end, and from the Northway you’d see the front end. MR. SEGULJIC-The front end. Is that what people would like to see? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I think that would work. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay. MR. WILKINSON-And again, you know, we’re also trying to make sure that there is a more general conformance to the architecturals of the Main Street corridor, which was one of the things Mr. Hunsinger pointed out that we should look at, and we’re well open to that, and we’ll do, you know, are you open to like a decorative row or something to that, if it’s explicitly stated in those that we could do that, something to break it up and make it a little more attractive than just a plain building, and I think that that’s the intent of the Main Street corridor as well. MRS. BRUNO-Does Morton have their own design services? MR. HELM-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-They do? MR. WILKINSON-Yes, and of course everything’s extra. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. WILKINSON-I just wanted to point that out. MRS. BRUNO-I didn’t know if you could just call them and say, look, we need to do this, this and this, and they’re able to do that, on their own, or if you have to hire out again, and then delay the process. MR. WILKINSON-They handle it all in-house, as part of their package. They’ve come a long way in the past 10 years as far as appearance goes, a long way. They used to just be a blank metal building. Now they actually look fairly attractive. MR. SEGULJIC-Is there any way we could put a couple of trees in front of the building, just to break it up somewhat? MR. HELM-Where do you mean in front? MR. WILKINSON-How about an ornamental? I’m thinking to the possibly right and left, definitely the right of the handicap spaces, some kind of a curbed area in the island to put some kind of an ornamental and maybe some little, some low level stuff in there to mix around, whether it be an annual bed or mulch or something. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, Mr. Sipp is saying something like a crabapple or a pear. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, I was thinking the same thing, crabapple. MR. SEGULJIC-So crabapple. MR. WILKINSON-Are you preferring one on each side of those two handicaps, is that your preference? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. SIPP-Yes. 52 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. WILKINSON-Done. To break it up, I agree. It makes it more attractive, and when it’s more attractive, you get more business. MR. SIPP-To the east of your property line there, National Grid property, is there trees there now? MR. WILKINSON-There is absolutely nothing there, nor does National Grid want any tree close to their property because they’ll cut it all back and kill it anyway. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, they’re good at trimming. MR. WILKINSON-Yes, they’re real good at trimming. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I will make a motion to approve Site Plan No. 52-2007 for GRJH, Inc. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five is a Type II action. This is approved with the following conditions that must be satisfied by the applicant. Number One, that the applicant must show on their plans the potential vehicular connection. Number Two, when the connector road is negotiated and approved, the applicant will be required to come back to the Planning Board for Site Plan modification. Number Three, the applicant will update the Site Plan to show light pole locations. Number Four, that the applicant will ensure compliance with the Town of Queensbury Code requirements. I’m sorry, Number Three was to update the Site Plan to show light pole locations and ensure compliance with the Town of Queensbury Code requirements. Number Four, that the building design will be as depicted in the photograph submitted, which is identical to the Exit 19 facility except for the LED signage, and the color will also be the same as the Exit 19 location. MRS. BRUNO-We wanted it to upgrade, if possible, to be in response to the Main Street. MRS. STEFFAN-I’ve got that covered in another item. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Number Five, that the applicant will incorporate, in the final design, Main Street corridor guidelines. MR. WILKINSON-For buildings specifically or all? MR. TRAVER-Architectural. MRS. STEFFAN-Architectural. Sorry. MR. WILKINSON-Architectural. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. Six, to add a landscaping element on both sides of the handicap parking, and, Number Seven, to obtain a Vision Engineering signoff. MR. FORD-Do we need configuration on site? Because remember there’s going to be a 90 degree turn from our reference to the Exit 19. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that’s implicit on the plan. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s on the plan already, and then we also talked about the internal traffic pattern, but that was addressed in the Vision Engineering comment. So if he satisfies what’s in the Vision Engineering comments, there are a lot of Site Plan changes that have to occur. MR. MEYER-I just have a question. Was the public hearing ever closed? MR. HUNSINGER-It was not. Thank you. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. SEGULJIC-Excuse me, Gretchen. The landscaping area you had mentioned. MRS. STEFFAN-The additional landscaping element on both sides of the handicap parking? MR. SEGULJIC-Do we want to specify a crabapple or flowering tree? 53 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. WILKINSON-Ornamental. Is that a better word? MR. SEGULJIC-Ornamental. MR. WILKINSON-Because that’s what we agreed to. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. So the landscaping element on both sides of the handicap parking will be as described in the meeting minutes. MR. MEYER-They’re going to need a new resolution, because the public hearing was open for the first half. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’ve got you. MRS. STEFFAN-Do I have to do this again? MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I’ve read it through, so what does everybody think about it? MR. SEGULJIC-Good. MRS. STEFFAN-It works. MR. BAKER-I’ve got a question. Could you repeat Number Two again, Condition Number Two? MRS. STEFFAN-Regarding the vehicular connection. When negotiated and approved, the applicant will be required to come back to the Planning Board for a plan modification. Because then we’ll have to re-visit the landscaping and other things. MR. WILKINSON-And the access to Main Street. MR. HUNSINGER-Access, yes. MR. WILKINSON-The circulation on the parcel. There are a number of things that that opens up. MR. BAKER-Could you repeat that one more time, please. MRS. STEFFAN-Sure. When negotiated and approved, and I used those words because the applicant talked about, or the agent for the applicant, talked about having three entities that they had to coordinate and negotiate with to put the connector road in. So I used the words when negotiated and approved, the applicant will be required to come back to Planning Board for a plan modification. MR. BAKER-Okay. So you mean when the easement across National Grid is negotiated and approved. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, for the connector road. MR. BAKER-Then it should state that then, please. MR. MEYER-Just so the Board’s clear, the way that reads is if it isn’t negotiated and approved, they don’t have to ever come back. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean they would if they modify their Site Plan. Right. That’s right. MR. MEYER-But if they don’t, they could put up a fence or something else. MR. BAKER-Well, a fence would probably be a modification. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can’t force National Grid to the table. MR. MEYER-No, no. I know that. I’m just saying that, regardless of whatever happens with that, you’re okay with the plan. 54 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MRS. STEFFAN-Right, because you know one of the things that we’ve tried to do in the Town is to identify connector access between lots, and lots of times the adjacent landowner is not agreeable, but we ask the applicant to at least sketch it in as a potential future. MR. BAKER-I’ve got a question on Condition Number Three, regarding the lighting. Do you want the applicant to submit photometrics as well? MRS. STEFFAN-That would be part of the Code requirements, wouldn’t it? MR. BAKER-It is. MRS. STEFFAN-That would be part of the Code requirements. MR. WILKINSON-Then that’s answered in that, because she said conforms with the Code. MR. BAKER-I’m just getting it all laid explicitly on the table. MR. HUNSINGER-And if it’s not in compliance, they’ll be coming back to the table. MR. WILKINSON-Correct. MR. BAKER-Okay. I’m also trying to limit out as much subjective responsibilities of Staff as possible. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. FORD-Are you looking for a second? MRS. STEFFAN-Well, I have to re-read it. MR. HUNSINGER-She has to re-read it. Now that the public hearing’s closed, we can formally consider the resolution. Whenever you’re ready, but no pressure. MRS. STEFFAN-All right. I’ll make a motion to approve Site Plan No. 52-2007 for GRJH, Inc. According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five is a Type II action, and it is approved with the following conditions that the applicant must satisfy. Number One, that the applicant must show the potential vehicular connector road on the plans. Number Two, when the easement from National Grid is negotiated and approved, the applicant will be required to come back to the Planning Board for Plan modification. Number Three, the applicant must update the Site Plan to show light pole locations, and ensure compliance with the Town of Queensbury Code requirements, including photometrics. Number Four, the building design will be as depicted in the photograph submitted, which is identical to the Exit 19 facility except LED signage. It will also maintain the same color scheme in the plan. Number Five, the applicant will try to incorporate the final architectural designs to be consistent with the Main Street corridor guidelines. MR. BAKER-That contradicts Number Four. MRS. BRUNO-That’s not going to work, yes, because you’re saying in one statement that it has to match exactly, and in the second you’re just saying that he’ll try. MR. BAKER-Yes, you’re saying match it exactly, but change it. MR. WILKINSON-Can you combine those into one and say with the exception of, matching that building with the exception of adding. MR. TRAVER-Similar to the other building, except that the architectural design. MR. WILKINSON-Adding the architectural standards from the Main Street corridor. MR. MEYER-Unfortunately you’re going to need to start over, because it looks like the applicant helped draft the resolution. MR. HUNSINGER-I think you can say except that the applicant shall consider ornamental details. 55 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MRS. BRUNO-I think it’s going to be more than just consider. Incorporate. MR. WILKINSON-That’s what you guys stated and we agreed to. MRS. BRUNO-Right. Because otherwise he could say I just considered it at the meeting and that’s that. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Does that make sense? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-We’ll just cut to the conditions. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’d like to re-state the conditions. Number One, that the applicant will show the potential vehicular connector road on the plans. Number Two, when the easement from National Grid is negotiated and approved, the applicant will be required to come back to the Planning Board for Plan modification. Number Three, the applicant will update the Site Plan to show lighting pole locations and ensure compliance with Queensbury Town Code requirements, including photometrics. Number Four, building design will be as depicted in the photograph submitted, similar to the Exit 19 facility except for the LED signage. Color will be similar. Number Five, to incorporate in the final design Main Street corridor architectural guidelines. Number Six, to add landscaping elements on both sides. MR. BAKER-That was virtually unchanged. Four and Five are still contradictory. MRS. BRUNO-Yes. It’s got to be Four and Five together. MRS. STEFFAN-Similar and identical. I changed the word from identical to similar, and then followed with incorporate the architectural guidelines into it. MRS. BRUNO-Why can’t it be the same number? MR. BAKER-So you’re asking Staff to do architectural review? MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. It’s subjective. MR. BAKER-It’s very subjective, which is particularly why that authority rests with the Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Is anyone not comfortable with the building design? MRS. BRUNO-I’m not. MR. SEGULJIC-So could you make some particular recommendation? MR. HUNSINGER-If you read the Main Street design criteria, it doesn’t really give you a lot of, it talks more about building position and concepts rather than specifics. MR. FORD-And you’re comfortable, Chris, with how close this comes to meeting that? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, it talks about new buildings must relate to a traditional Main Street design. Existing gaps in street walls should be mended using fencing or plantings. Store entrances should be spaced between five and thirty feet. MR. BAKER-A lot of those guidelines are based on the premise that the building is going to be up at the street, or close to the street line. MR. HUNSINGER-Exactly. In terms of architectural elements, it says that provide architectural guidelines, building height, cornice lines, window patterns, shop fronts, etc., elements can be related in order to create a sense of place. Principal features, street level, continuity of store shop fronts, street level expression line pulling together the ground level shop fronts. Three story height limit, flat roofs with symmetrical shaped parapet roofs. Symmetrical window spacing and windows in proportion to one another. Similar signage. Matching awnings and similar heights. So, I mean, it doesn’t give you a lot of specific details of what the architectural elements should be. It just says it should be similar to. 56 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MRS. BRUNO-Because some of the things that they mention, you don’t have continuity of buildings next to each other. He’s on the corner. MR. BAKER-Nor are they proposing a flat roof. MRS. BRUNO-Nor are they proposing a flat roof. I guess subjectiveness on my part. Go ahead. Go forward with your motion. Sorry. MRS. STEFFAN-So do I take out the statement about the? MR. HUNSINGER-Main Street reference. MR. MEYER-Just for clarity of the record, just one final. Thank you. MRS. STEFFAN-That’s okay, because this will be the last time I read it. Okay. Let’s start from the top. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2007 GRJH, INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of 2,400 sq. ft. Gas Station and Convenience Store. Gas Stations Convenience Store uses in the MU zone requires Planning Board review and approval. 2. A public hearing is scheduled for 10/16/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 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 N/A 6. 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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 52-2007 GRJH, INC., Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Stephen Traver: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, it’s a Type II Action, and it is approved with the following conditions that the applicant must satisfy: 1.That the applicant must show the potential vehicular connector road on the plans. 57 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) 2.When the easement from National Grid is negotiated and approved, the applicant will be required to come back to the Planning Board for plan modification. 3.The applicant must update the Site Plan to show light pole locations and ensure compliance with the Town of Queensbury Code requirements, including photometrics. 4.The building design will be as depicted in the photograph submitted, similar to the Exit 19 facility, except LED signage, color choices will be the same. 5.That the applicant will add a landscaped element to both sides of the handicapped parking as described in the meeting minutes. 6.They will obtain Vision Engineering signoff. th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. WILKINSON-I appreciate it. I appreciate your patience, too. FRESHWATER WETLANDS 2-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED ROBERT REID OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SR-1A LOCATION LOT 48, SECT. 4 ROLLING RIDGE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND GRADE/FILL REAR YARD INTO WETLAND BUFFER AREA. FILLING AND GRADING ACTIVITY WITHIN A WETLAND BUFFER REQUIRE A WETLAND PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. CROSS REFERENCE NONE WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A DEC WETLAND GF-19 LOT SIZE 8.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.6-1-6.1 SECTION 94-5 LEAH EVERHART, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Stu, if you could summarize Staff Notes, please. MR. BAKER-Yes. This application was tabled by the Board on 9/18/07 with the stated condition that the applicant reviews various site layouts to reduce the potential impact upon the wetland buffer. The revised plan submitted (revision date October 10, 2007) includes the following changes: Addition of a proposed garage. New driveway configuration. Amended clearing limits on the west side of the building location. Reduced clearing area behind the proposed home site (north side of building area). New perc test location shown with 9/23/07 perc test results noted. Additional note about edge of wetlands found during 2/17/05 field survey. Detail for French drain has been provided. In general, the revised plan appears to address the Board’s concern about reducing the impact on the wetland buffer by reducing the size of the cleared area on the north side of the proposed building site. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Thank you. LEAH EVERHART MS. EVERHART-Hi. Good evening. For the record, my name is Leah Everhart. I’m here representing the applicant Bob Reid, who’s sitting to my right. Just to remind the Board, Bob is the owner of vacant property in the Rolling Ridge subdivision. He is selling that property to the Hummels. Matt Hummel is the gentleman sitting directly to Bob’s right. Matt is here willing to stick it out with us here so that he can answer the Board’s questions as to the specific plans of the building to be located on the property. Because, of course, he will be the owner the property at that time. BOB REID MR. REID-And originally kind of when Matt approached me I had already taken it off the market and already had significant plans drawn, and then we met and made some 58 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) changes, and then we met with the Board and you made some suggestions and we made quite a few changes to try to do everything you guys asked. MS. EVERHART-Actually, that’s right. The plan that was originally submitted I think drew some concern from the Board, not necessarily that there was any particular insufficiency, or any problems that really stuck out. The Board, however, wanted us to further demonstrate that the plans are the least intrusive into the wetland buffer area as possible, and just to remind the Board, we’re not contemplating construction in the wetlands area. We’re not contemplating fill or any other any other addition in the wetlands area. We’re talking about a 100 foot setback from the wetlands area called buffer area. What we have done is, as the Staff has indicated, we have addressed the vast majority of the Board’s concerns. We have attempted to change the location of several things, such as the leachfield or the absorption field, change the location of the septic, so that we can move the house forward just as the Board had suggested. One thing that was not made clear to the Board last time we were here, exactly three months th to the day on September 18, is that this subdivision is subject to a number of deed restrictions. One of them has to do with the setback, and we cannot build closer to the road than 35 feet, while I believe the Town has a setback of 30, and I’ll open this up to Board questions. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Great. Any questions or comments from the Board? I guess I’d like to start by saying I think the revised plan is a preferable Site Plan than what we saw originally, and I just want to commend you for hearing our concerns and taking them into account and trying to give us what we were looking for. MRS. STEFFAN-I have no issues with this. MR. REID-Thank you. We worked hard at it. MR. FORD-You listened. Thank you. MATT HUMMEL MR. HUMMEL-You see the tree there on the survey, we took some pictures of this Oak tree, this five foot tree. MS. EVERHART-Just for interest. MR. HUMMEL-Just to show you the tree. MR. REID-My father had the original 170 acres there. Many years ago he had 170 acres, back in the 50’s, and that tree supposedly is 200 years old or more, and had some type of ford or something built up in it from over 100 years ago when it originally moved the property. It’s a very ancient tree. It’s been there forever. MRS. BRUNO-Well, thank you for being a steward to our trees. MR. REID-It takes five people to put their arms around it. MR. HUNSINGER-We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-And if there’s no further questions or comments, I’ll entertain a motion. MRS. STEFFAN-Short SEQRA. MR. HUNSINGER-Unlisted, yes. MS. EVERHART-Before doing so, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could just mention one other thing to the Board. I think at this point we’re still hoping, though I’m not sure we mentioned this last time. I know that it’s commonly the Board’s practice, when issuing Freshwater Wetlands Permits, that they have a one year life, and because of the nature 59 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) of this, that we are, the applicant is the owner of vacant land and is selling it, and the buyer will ultimately will be building, which will be weather depending as well, we’re hoping that the Board may consider a longer life period for a permit, perhaps two years. MR. REID-That’s what I originally had talked to Craig about, and I think I put down in the original application. Just so he has time to buy it. It’s the wintertime and he might not get started with any plans until next summer, and just wanted time I think financially also. It’s a big commitment. MR. HUMMEL-Yes, financially, and just to make sure that everything intact is, you know, is one smooth process, as far as the, from the excavation to the actual construction, so that there’s obviously less impact to everything involved. So everything goes fairly smooth, because as of right now we didn’t know how long it would take to get this permit and so we just wanted to allot adequate time. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, we have people right now researching if we can do it. MR. HUNSINGER-That was going to be my question. MR. REID-Yes, we put it in the initial notes, and Craig said that he would try to get through, but I don’t know what the regulations are on that. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, while they’re looking that up, we can move forward with SEQRA. Short Form. Go ahead. MRS. STEFFAN-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. 60 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-Then I’ll make a motion for a Negative SEQRA Declaration. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 2-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: ROBERT REID, 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 61 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) 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 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. MEYER-The Board can set the date for the Permit to expire. It just has to be a certain date, whatever the Board feels is appropriate. MR. HUNSINGER-So if we make it December 31, 2009, we’ll be okay? MR. MEYER-That would be appropriate. Yes. The only thing is, just for everyone’s reference, that the Permit holder needs to notify the agency five days in advance of when they’re going to start. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MEYER-But, yes, as long as you set a date that it expires. MRS. STEFFAN-Any conditions on this application for approval? MR. HUNSINGER-Just that it be consistent with the Site Plan presented. It’s pretty explicit approval. MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 2-2007 ROBERT REID, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic 1. An application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes construction of a single family dwelling and grade/fill rear yard into wetland buffer area. Filling and grading activity within a wetland buffer require a wetland permit from the Planning Board 2. A public hearing is scheduled for 9/18/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179, Chapter 94], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 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 6. Final approved plans, in compliance with the Site Plan / Freshwater Wetlands plan must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes personnel. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and N/A 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection N/A 62 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MOTION TO APPROVE FRESHWATER WETLANDS NO. 2-2007 ROBERT REID, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not comply. This is approved with the following conditions: 1.That the Freshwater Wetlands Permit will have an expiration date of December 18, 2009. 2.That the site will be developed according to the Site Plan presented on the map dated October 10, 2007. th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. MR. HUMMEL-Thank you. MR. REID-Thanks. SITE PLAN NO. 57-2007 SEQR TYPE UNLISTED CONGREGATION SHAARAY TEFILA AGENT(S) B P S R; MILLER ASSOCIATES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING MR-5 LOCATION OFF MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES MODIFICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF ITS EXISTING CEMETERY PRKING LOT AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAIN ST. CONNECTOR ROAD. MODIFICATION WILL REDEFINE 25 PARKING SPACES, INCORPORATE PLACEMENT OF LIGHT FIXTURES AND CHANGES TO GRADING. CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN 10 PARKING SPACES REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WARREN CO. PLANNING 12/12/07 LOT SIZE 8.38 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-33.1 SECTION 179 JON LAPPER & JIM MILLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Jim Miller. As part of the Tribune project, BBL agreed to do this improvement to the cemetery for its neighbor, and what we’ve submitted is the revised parking area. Part of this was impacted by the construction of the connector road. So this is a way to make this a more permanent facility. The Staff comments seem to indicate that somehow the stormwater management report got misplaced. Staff didn’t have it when they reviewed it, but the engineer comment letter indicates that the had them and he reviewed them and he didn’t have any technical questions. What’s left from the Staff Notes, and I’ll have Jim walk you through the Site Plan, but the question is whether or not the lights need to be conforming, and the issue with the lights is that these were donated. Of course it’s a charitable group. So somebody donated lights that, of course, don’t comply with the Queensbury requirement to have down lights. We submitted the description of the lights. The argument in favor of the lights is that, at the property line, it’s still at 0 foot candles. So there’s no impact off site. The purpose of the lighting is just because it’s a cemetery and there could be vandalism, just as security lights. It’s only three lights on that whole site, and so our position is, if the Board insists that they need to go out and spend the money to have conforming lights, of course they’ll have to do that. Otherwise, they’d like to put up the lights that were donated, and that’s your call. Let me just ask Jim to quickly walk you through the Site Plan and see if there’s any questions. MR. MILLER-Good evening. As Jon said, fairly simple project. There’s an existing parking area now that’s half gravel and half asphalt, and it was previously accessed by a driveway that went to Main Street. When they constructed the new connector road, an apron was built off of the connector road to access the existing parking lot and it also accesses the West Glens Falls cemetery road, and this happens along the existing fence. They’ve saved some trees along the roads. There are some trees in that area. The way the drainage works, the collector road, there’s a swale alongside it, and actually where the trees are is a little bit higher and what we’ve proposed is a separate swale. The pavement will drain into this swaled area, and there’s a drywell within that swale to collect water when there’s frost in the ground, and if you remember with the Tribune building, we’re about 200 feet south of the Tribune property. This is the undeveloped portion of the cemetery that we had talked about on that project, and then as Jon said, there’s three lights proposed. We’ve located them 63 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) back along the fence and along the main walkway or driveway going into the cemetery, and pretty much that’s all there is to it. MR. FORD-You’re pretty well assured that those lights will not be compliant? MR. LAPPER-Yes. As Staff said that they were omni-directional rather than down lights. I mean, there’s nobody that lives anywhere near there, and Tribune is, as Jim said, 200 feet away. It’s just a matter of, cars will be driving by, but there’s trees in front. It’s really just a cost factor for the Hebrew Cemetery. MR. TRAVER-Who donated the lights? MR. LAPPER-I’m not sure. MR. TRAVER-Like Warren Electric or one of the local? MR. LAPPER-No. It was somebody in the community, but I don’t recall. MR. FORD-There isn’t any possibility of a swap out? MR. LAPPER-I mean, somebody actually gave them these three lights. So that, and we were told, we got cut sheets and we were told to just incorporate them into the plan. MR. MILLER-They have them. So if you objected to the lights, we’d have to come up with a substitute for them. MR. HUNSINGER-And they are only 100 watt? MR. MILLER-Yes, they’re 100 watts, 12 foot high. MR. SEGULJIC-I have no problem with it. MRS. BRUNO-Is the road lit? MR. MILLER-No. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. No street lighting. MR. MILLER-The only lighting along there is when you get up in EMS, they have lighting, and then there’s a lot of lighting in the Park and Ride there, and then, you know, of course, Tribune is lit. MR. FORD-I don’t have a problem with it. MR. MILLER-Yes, the Park and Ride’s got all globe lights in it. How did they get that by you? They didn’t have to come in. MR. LAPPER-They’re exempted. MR. SIPP-How visible are they from Main Street? MR. MILLER-Well, we’ve set back, you know, if you look at the tax map insert, you can see where that little strip comes out to Main Street. So it’s the whole depth of the West Glens Falls Cemetery, and that’s where this turn is now. Here’s the back of the West Glens Falls Cemetery. So it’s probably a couple of hundred feet back off of Main Street. MR. SIPP-The trees between the parking lot and the Glens Falls Cemetery, on the edge of that. MR. MILLER-Well, this little apron basically serves both cemeteries. It comes in right at the corner. There’s some trees in this area, but they’re kind of scattered. I mean, they’re not, you know how cemeteries are, they’re probably every 50, 100 feet apart. Honestly, I think it would be mostly visible from the connector road and not from Main Street. MR. HUNSINGER-How about from the Northway? You do have the Niagara Mohawk right of way. MR. MILLER-Well, yes, you’re set back a ways, and plus it sits down below a fair amount. I think there was a cut in there, they told us what the name of it was, but it’s a four sided, 64 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) almost a colonial style kind of light, and according to the cut, you know, the light fixture is mounted actually in the top portion of it, but because the sides are glass, you know, it’s not a full cut off. MR. HUNSINGER-And you’re confident of the luminare schedule that was provided? MR. MILLER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-That the light won’t spill? MR. MILLER-Yes. That was based on the, you know, we were told the manufacturer so we were able to download that information, and that was done by our lighting consultant, the lighting plan. So, you can see, just being 100 watt, it pretty much just lights the east side of the parking lot and the north side where the fixtures are. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Other questions or comments from Board members? We do have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that wanted to address the Board on this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HUNSINGER-Short Form, Unlisted action. MRS. STEFFAN-“Does the action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR Part 617.4?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the action receive coordinated review as provided for Unlisted Actions in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Could the action result in any adverse effects associated with the following: C1. Existing air quality, surface or ground water quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SIPP-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C3. Vegetation, fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C4. A community’s existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. 65 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MRS. STEFFAN-“C5. Growth, subsequent development or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C6. Long term, short term, cumulative or other effects not identified above?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. FORD-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or energy)?” MR. SEGULJIC-No. MR. HUNSINGER-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. MRS. STEFFAN-“Is there or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts?” MR. HUNSINGER-No. MR. SEGULJIC-No. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 57-2007, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Tanya Bruno: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: CONGREGATION SHAARAY TEFILA, 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 66 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) 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 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-The only question I have, remaining question I should say, is what specific waivers are actually requested? Certainly the lighting is requested. MR. MILLER-I didn’t think we were requesting any waivers. Is there something that said we were? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, again, I’m looking at. MR. MILLER-We submitted the storm report. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you did submit the stormwater report. MR. MILLER-There’s a lighting plan. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess you showed the grading. MR. MILLER-We didn’t have a landscape plan because there’s no landscaping being proposed. The existing trees are there along the road. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Yes, I guess you’re not requesting a waiver from lighting. You submitted a lighting plan. It’s just not compliant, the fixture’s not compliant. So I guess the only waiver you’re requesting is really landscaping. MR. MILLER-Yes, I guess. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Would anyone like to put forward a motion? MRS. STEFFAN-How do we feel about the lights? MR. SEGULJIC-They’re okay. MR. FORD-What’s the height again? MR. LAPPER-Twelve feet. So they’re low. MRS. BRUNO-And you said they’re not full cut off. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. SIPP-Are you going to use the low wattage bulbs in there? MR. MILLER-Well, 100 watt is what was. MR. SIPP-Well, I mean, the new. MR. LAPPER-Compact fluorescent? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Yes, I think the bulbs are included. MR. MILLER-Yes. I was told they’re going to be 100 watt high pressure sodium. MR. SIPP-High pressure sodium. MR. LAPPER-But they could be asking for a lot more lighting on this site. It’s only a very small area that they’re lighting. When you put up a parking lot, you never know if kids are going to hang out. So it’s good to have lights, even in the summertime. 67 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-It sounds like everyone’s okay with it. MR. FORD-Yes, it isn’t a case of lights or no lights. It’s the type of lights. MRS. STEFFAN-Okay. I’ll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2007 CONGREGATION SHAARAY TEFILA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: 1. A site plan application has been made to the Queensbury Planning Board for the following: Applicant proposes modification and reconstruction of its existing cemetery parking lot as a result of construction of the Main St. Connector Road. Modification will redefine 25 parking spaces, incorporate placement of light fixtures and changes to grading. Construction of more than 10 parking spaces requires site plan review from the Planning Board; and 2. A public hearing is scheduled for 4/17/07, 6/19/07, 8/21/07, 10/16/07; and 3. This application is supported with all documentation, public comment and application material in the file of record; and 4. Pursuant to relevant sections of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code [Chapter 179], the Planning Board has determined that this proposal complies comply with the requirements as stated in the Zoning Code; and 5. The requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act have been considered and the Planning Board has adopted a SEQRA Negative Declaration; and 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 6. 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. The applicant must meet with Staff after approval and prior to issuance of Building Permit and/or the beginning of any site work. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits is dependent on compliance with this and all other conditions of this resolution. 7. The applicant will provide as-built plans to certify that the site plan is developed according to the approved plans prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy; and 8. If applicable, Item 8 to be combined with a letter of credit; and N/A 9. The Sanitary Sewer connection plan must be submitted to the Wastewater Department for its review, approval, permitting and inspection; and N/A MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 57-2007 CONGREGATION SHAARAY TEFILA, Introduced by Gretchen Steffan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Ford: According to the resolution prepared by Staff. Paragraph Four complies. Paragraph Five, Negative. Paragraph Eight and Nine do not apply. The Planning Board has granted the landscaping waiver, and understands it is approving noncompliant fixtures. th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Sipp, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mr. Ford, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Hunsinger NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-You’re all set. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much. SUBDIVISION NO. 14-2007 SKETCH PLAN SEQR TYPE UNLISTED LLOYD JONES AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) SAME ZONING SFR-1A 68 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) LOCATION COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES SUBDIVISION OF A 4.55 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 LOTS OF 1.81, 1.29 & 1.45 ACRES. SUBDIVISION OF LAND REQUIRES PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. WARREN CO. PLANNING N/A APA/DEC/CEA DEC, CEA LOT SIZE 4.55 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-52 SECTION A-183 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. HUNSINGER-Good evening. MR. STEVES-Good evening. I’m Matt Steves of Van Dusen & Steves. I represent Lloyd Jones on this application. It’s a proposed three lot subdivision on the west side of Country Club Road. It’s his existing house lot that he has for sale, and his wife purchased the place, and his wife has actually moved out to Montana, and Lloyd is still here trying to get this subdivision approved and the house sold. If anybody is familiar with this property at all. It’s the farmhouse, large white farmhouse, up on the hill, Country Club, and he’s got that extremely nice barn that is part of the property, and I think anybody here would love to have on their property. It’s three stories inside that thing. I’d love to have the storage. We’re proposing three lots, all fronting, naturally, on Country Club Road. The southerly two lots would share a driveway, having the average lot width of 150 feet. As you can see on the plan with the existing house and the driveway located on the north, the double the lot width requirements of the Code would require that to have 300 feet. Even if that lot did have 300 feet, the driveway is not going to change, it’s location. So we’re going to go for a variance for not having the 300 foot lot width on that lot, on Lot One with the house. Because it’s just impossible to share a driveway, even if you have 300 on the lower lot and the northerly and the middle lot share a driveway, you’d still, there’s no way to share a driveway. We would leave the northerly portion of the lot for the main access. Where they drive through, like on that little portico and then come back out onto the road, it’s kind of narrow anyway. They may be willing to close that portion of it, but it really doesn’t affect, because if it’s a single family residence you’re going to enter on one and exit one. It really doesn’t make any difference which one you use, and there’s nothing, right across the street from it, that would affect either one of those driveways. Other than that, it’s pretty straightforward. The westerly side of the property borders the bike path, and that’s about it. We do have all the clearing plan, grading plan, septic details. We’re all set for Preliminary. As you can see on the next sheet that was done Wastewater and Grading plan by Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering. It’s all pretty standard. MR. FORD-Wetlands? MR. STEVES-I know there’s some lower areas on the bike path. There’s a little wet area that is actually on the County property, that swale along the bike path, but that ditch is not on our property. It’s actually on the County bike path property, but as far as any setbacks would be required, we made sure that the septic systems would be at least 100 feet from that back, that property line, and if that was a wetland on the County property, we would be more than 100 foot away. MR. FORD-Thank you. MR. STEVES-We are on the Zoning Board for the day after Christmas. Mr. Hutchins gets to take that one. I’ll be in West Virginia. MR. HUNSINGER-Questions, comments from the Board? My only comment is the shared driveway. We have approved subdivisions in the past with shared driveways, and then applicants come back after the fact and try to get them separated. I mean, I don’t know how we deal with that, other than to say. MR. STEVES-On this one I understand, Mr. Chairman, your dilemma on that with other driveways, because of the fact that that is the requirement of the Code, and they’ve tried to get a variance before they come to you, and in this respect, the only shared driveway, or the only variance we’re asking for is the existing house. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-I’d make the stipulation that that one couldn’t come in. We’ve always anticipated that being a shared driveway. It wasn’t the fact that the center lot was the house lot and the driveway existed. So I wholeheartedly agree with your point, but we would stipulate that. I’ve already told my client that people came in in the future, that’s their prerogative. Future owners, he can’t control them. 69 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. STEVES-But I told him that I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it was an approval condition that that must remain a shared driveway on Lots Two and Three. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess we would just want some assurance that, you know, any buyer would be informed that. MR. STEVES-We would put it right on as an approval condition on the filed map that they would get a copy and we could also write that into the deed, that the driveway must be a shared driveway. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Looks fine to me. MRS. BRUNO-It’s pretty wooded to the left, where the lots are going, right? I’m trying to remember. MR. STEVES-You can see where the actual wood line is now. We’re only clearing a little bit on the southerly end. It’s basically an old field with some trees here and there. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, it’s like a hedgerow. MR. STEVES-And it’s like a hedgerow. MRS. BRUNO-Right. MR. STEVES-It’s along the front there’s a little bit of a hedgerow in there. We’re just opening it up enough to get the driveways in. MR. HUNSINGER-And that is one of the things in the new Comprehensive Land Use Plan that, you know, hedgerows be maintained, and those natural landscaping be maintained along roadways. MR. STEVES-And Mr. Jones wants that maintained since he’s maintained those trees for 30 years, I guess, but, yes, we’re just clearing just enough to allow the shared driveway, and that’s another benefit of the shared driveway, too, in this respect. It does limit the amount of clearing of that hedgerow. MR. BAKER-Matt, have you had any wetlands flagging done on the property? MR. STEVES-No. MR. BAKER-The only reason I ask is the data we’ve got in our GIS is showing a wide enough swath of DEC wetlands, even taking into account a margin of error. It looks like there may very well be wetlands along the western boundary there. MR. STEVES-Okay. We can have, I can get a hold of John O’Connor from DEC and see what he has to say. MR. BAKER-Yes, I’d certainly encourage that. MR. STEVES-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Any other comments from the Board? Okay. MRS. STEFFAN-That was one of those nice. MR. HUNSINGER-Nice easy ones. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes, nice easy ones. No wetlands. MRS. BRUNO-I have a quick one. Was he planning on subdividing before he originally put the house up for sale? MR. STEVES-He was contemplating. He had been in discussions with us when he had it for sale, what we thought maybe the best scenario as far as the subdivision plan, and he and his wife were kind of bouncing it around for a couple of months debating. Because of the 70 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) fact they’ve had it for sale for a while, and people keep asking if they could reduce the price of the house, and the only way they really can do it in their estimation is to be able to have a lot to sell. So they do have a couple of interested people if they had some property to sell after they bought it for the asking price. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. STEVES-I’d be interested in buying it, but it’s out of my league. MRS. BRUNO-I agree with you. I’ll take the barn. MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. MR. HUNSINGER-Thank you. Okay. The other, last item on the agenda was discussion of the shore land watershed overlay district. I think I forwarded to everybody the collective comments that had been received. I think the main issue that the committee was looking for from our Board is input on what would trigger Site Plan Review, and it’s laid out in Section Three on Page Three of the Draft Ordinance. I don’t know who wants to jump in first with comments. I know, Tom, you and Don have been very active with the committee. I don’t know if you have anything else to add, other than what’s been read or discussed. MR. SEGULJIC-No, it’s just from a procedural perspective, what I see and I think a lot of other people see, is just a lot of the projects on the lake are getting through with no review at all, and the water quality isn’t doing any better because of that. So what we want to try and do is capture as many projects for Site Plan Review, and one of the concerns, though, is I’ve seen numbers that it’s going to increase our workload by ten applications a month. MR. BAKER-Eighty to one hundred applications a year. MR. HUNSINGER-A hundred applications. MR. SEGULJIC-Eighty to one hundred applications a year. MR. HUNSINGER-Which is pretty undoable. MR. SEGULJIC-And that’s an issue, but on the other hand, I think we’ve got to protect the lake somehow. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-So one of the things that I stumbled across after, because I was sitting there saying, how come people like Lehigh Cement, when they do a project in the middle of their facility, which it’s all industrial, why are they coming before us? And that’s because (lost words) whereas when you go to the Table, Table One, one of the things we could do is the problem is if you look at the Lake George CEA, it extends all the way out to 149, and we capture all of those projects in there, and in the ideal world it would be great to capture all those, but I think really what we want to do is concentrate on what’s relatively close to the lake, and that’s WR-1A and 3A, I believe. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, that was one of the questions is, you know, where’s the boundaries of the overlay district. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, the Lake George CEA goes all the way past 149. MR. FORD-That’s the CEA. MR. SEGULJIC-That’s the CEA. So as that’s written, I believe that’s. MR. FORD-I didn’t get that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I somehow missed that, too. MR. FORD-In terms of the definition of what the actual overlay district is. MR. SEGULJIC-It would be the CEA. MR. FORD-Well, then that needs to be stated. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s not stated up front? It should be. 71 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, if it is, I didn’t catch it. MR. SIPP-What’s happened here is the name has been changed. If you look at the old name and the new name, one includes CEA’s, and this one does not. It says shoreline, what do they call it, watershed overlay district. It has nothing about CEA. MR. FORD-Yes, I didn’t know what the definition was. MR. SIPP-This is the latest here. MR. FORD-We need to specify, need to define what we’re talking about. MR. SIPP-It says Shore land watershed overlay district. MR. SIPP-Does it say where it is exactly? I though it was a CEA. MR. FORD-I never could find it, Tom. MR. SEGULJIC-So it’s not there. So I guess that’s one of the things we need to do. MR. SIPP-We’re creating a shoreline district. MR. SEGULJIC-So one of the things I think we could do is that, and correct me if I’m wrong, Stu, but when you look at, what is it, 179-9-020, that’s where the driver is, where it talks about, it says no building permit for a use requiring a Site Plan Review shall be valid without Site Plan approval, and then it refers you to Table One, and that Table One is where it lists the different zones, WR-1A and WR-3A, and in there, what happens is WR-1A and 3A are listed, but when you get to Residential, it’s an allowed use. If we were to change that, just to be Site Plan Review, therefore we could definitely reduce the area. That would have Site Plan Review then. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess I was under the impression that there would be a zone identified within so many feet of the shoreline that would constitute the overlay district. MR. SEGULJIC-But what would that be? What I’m proposing is that would be the 1A and 3A I guess is what I’m saying, indirectly. MRS. STEFFAN-Construction on slopes over 15%. I thought that would add a bunch of them without adding a ton of them. MR. SEGULJIC-So, but then the next question is what would trigger the Site Plan Review. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SEGULJIC-What I’m saying is we could go back, we use Table One, what that would trigger is when someone needs to get a building permit, if they’re located in a 1A or 3A, it would need Site Plan Review, but the distinction is, do you need a building permit for inside a house sometimes? MR. BAKER-Yes. Electrical improvements require a permit and inspection, for example. Plumbing improvements do as well. Anything that would alter a portion of the house that is subject to the State Building Code requires a building permit and inspection. MR. SEGULJIC-So could we say something, excluding any building permits issued for interior projects? MR. BAKER-And that would rule out any renovations of basements into livable space, for example. MR. SEGULJIC-But in the regulations they talk about conversion into livable space, don’t they? Well, we could say building permits for interior spaces are excluded, other than for conversion to livable spaces. MR. BAKER-That might work. MR. SEGULJIC-And that way anybody who goes for a building permit in a 1A or 3A zone would need Site Plan approval. 72 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. BAKER-I’d have to look more closely at what requires building permits. My biggest concern, I understand the overall goal and intent. My biggest concern would be the workload. I think it could effectively grind permit review by this Board to a standstill. MR. SIPP-Is there anything in the regulations on the Planning Board that allows for a break out of a committee, separate committee, to screen applications? MR. BAKER-I don’t think there’s anything in Town law that would prohibit it, to my knowledge. MR. SIPP-So if you broke out a committee to screen and do the grunt work to begin with. MR. BAKER-If you amended the local law to allow that, I think. MR. MEYER-I’d have to look. MR. BAKER-I’ve seen it done in other states. MR. MEYER-I mean, I don’t necessarily see anything that would prohibit it. I know you have the authority to appoint an environmental commission, not you guys, but the Town, but that would be something. MR. SIPP-You see, that way you could focus. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, could we call it an environmental commission, and then their role would be to oversee the, you know, overlay district. MR. SIPP-And this would determine what came to the full Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, yes, and that way you at least get a cursory review at some level. MR. SIPP-Yes, it’s either that, or John’s got to go back and put in 500 feet, which he did in the first one, Lake George. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s what I thought. The first draft had, yes. MR. SIPP-Glen Lake, but it’s not in this one. He changed it because he had a number of 180 instead of 179, it became 180, and he changed that, which I assume was due to some legal problem or, in other words, the Zoning Regulations were 179. He made this CEA 180, and that’s where it was headed. I wish I’d brought the other one. MR. BAKER-I don’t know why. MR. SIPP-But see there’s no mention of anything except shoreline overlay district, and it’s not really defined. MR. BAKER-I think it would still be considered zoning, if weighed against the (lost word). MR. SIPP-Well, you know, when this gets to be written by some lawyer someplace, it’s not going to be as wordy as this, obviously, because there’s a lot of words in here that would not end up in any zoning regulations, but. MR. SEGULJIC-Do you happen to have a zoning map? MR. BAKER-Not with me. I can pull it up. MR. SEGULJIC-I’m just wondering how big the 1A and 3A area is. MR. BAKER-In terms of acreage? MR. SEGULJIC-Yes. MR. BAKER-I can’t give you those figures this evening. I could get those for you tomorrow. MR. SEGULJIC-Because I think that would definitely reduce the amount, because I believe that number you quoted for Site Plan Review is in the CEA. MR. BAKER-Yes. 73 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-So I think it would significantly reduce it. MR. BAKER-Yes, except also the number I was quoting was for more, I think a more limited scope of projects that would require Site Plan Review, and I’m not sure the revised scope that you’re discussing this evening is as limited. In fact, I think it’s expanded. It may be expanded. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, my understanding, when I talked to George about the number of building permits issued in the CEA, he had hit that 100 mark, or something like that per year, or something. So I think if we limited it down to the Waterfront zones, and definitely reduce it. MR. BAKER-Yes, and we could re-run those numbers fairly easily. MR. HUNSINGER-It would be useful, helpful to know what those numbers are. Because I think, I mean, just personally, I think it makes more sense to me that it be so many feet within Waterfront, you know, or designated, or the designated CEA. MR. SEGULJIC-Have it be so many feet? MR. FORD-I would. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, you think of an overlay district, you know, it typically, you know, is. MR. SEGULJIC-But why not just use what is existing the Waterfront zone. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that may work. MR. SEGULJIC-My concern is do you measure it from the front part? Where do you measure it? It’s the whole average thing coming up. MR. HUNSINGER-Well, mean high water mark. MR. FORD-Mean high water mark. MR. SEGULJIC-To what point, though? MR. HUNSINGER-So many feet from mean high water? I don’t know. MR. SEGULJIC-But the front edge of the property? The back edge of the property? The average of the property? MR. HUNSINGER-I see what you’re saying. So if you say those zones. That makes sense. MR. SEGULJIC-It’s already there, and I’ve looked at the zoning map and I forgot to bring it. MR. HUNSINGER-Sure, that makes sense. Waterfront Residential Three Acres or One Acre. MR. SEGULJIC-I mean, you’re already zoned Waterfront. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, and there’s no question, you know, whether or not your property is in that zone or not. MR. SEGULJIC-The only thing we’d have to be careful of is. MR. SIPP-Are we taking into account all waterways, then. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. That’s what I was going to say. The only thing we have to be careful of is which one we want to go with, because I know it’s along the Hudson River, Glen Lake, I think, has one also. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. SIPP-Sunnyside. MR. BAKER-The Hudson River doesn’t have a CEA. 74 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-No, but it has waterfront, WR-1A and 3A. MR. SIPP-So I think you’ve got to clarify that before you go too much farther. MR. SEGULJIC-I think that’s a good suggestion that we try to attempt to break out like an environmental committee or something like that to review this, but the other thing hopefully will happen is people will wake up to it, and they’ll come in with plans that meet the requirements. Because we have a lot of (lost word) to overcome. MR. SIPP-That rosebud and that stalling action with putting in those flowers rather than decent filtering shrubs, is just what the owner wants. You can’t tell me that he never used any fertilizer. I’ve been on that property twice, and he’s used a lot of fertilizer. Now he’s just praying that we won’t catch him up on his big grandstand play of no pesticides, no herbicides, no fertilizer, but if and when this becomes law, the word’s going to spread pretty fast that this is what you’ve got to have, and we’re not going to have these people trying to pull the wool over our eyes with attics that have storage rooms that have bathrooms, and stuff like that, not putting them in a FAR regulation. MR. SEGULJIC-I guess can we request that the attorney, have the attorneys review the establishment of a committee? Is that possible? MR. MEYER-Do you want a committee, or would you be recommending to the Town a separate board? MR. SEGULJIC-I guess what I would envision someone who can pre-screen these applications and say, no, this is garbage. You’ve got to do more work. Do you know what I mean? And then to make the applications worthwhile. MR. BAKER-And the question still stands. Would that someone be an existing member of the Planning Board or member of a new committee? MR. SEGULJIC-I would say the Planning Board would keep it easier. MR. BAKER-A couple of other things to toss out for consideration. Number One, over the past year, the Town Board has advertised, at least two times, if not three, for Planning Board alternates. Number of applicants has been zero. Number Two, from a year ago today, the Planning and Zoning division of the Community Development Department is down by three full time positions, and no matter how you slice it, these proposed regulations would greatly increase the workload in the Department, and that needs to be a consideration. MRS. BRUNO-Are they looking to hire for the Department? Have they been advertising for the Department itself? MR. BAKER-They advertised for a Land Use Planner. They interviewed one person in July. In late October they offered that person the job, only to learn that she had accepted another position. MR. SEGULJIC-I understand completely what you’re saying. That’s why we have to do this to identify, come up with a way to identify the highest risk property, shall we say, and also reduce the number that we’re going to review. So I would ask, I mean, how many building permits were issued in the WR-1A and 3A? MR. BAKER-And all of that still does not address the Staffing issue in the Department. You can reduce the number all you want. The bottom line is the net result will be an increased workload for an understaffed Department, and you can call that my biased opinion. MR. SIPP-It eliminates such as the Solomon mess we got ourselves into, where all of a sudden the stormwater came up and it got dumped on us and the next thing you know we’re out there looking at the lot that’s been denuded of trees, a bank that’s eroding away. MR. BAKER-I’m not denying at all there are environmental concerns to be addressed. I’m just asking that the administrative reality become a consideration, where thus far I’m not convinced it has. MR. SIPP-There’s too much been slipping by somebody. 75 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the other question that I have is, you know, the committee that’s been working on this Ordinance, is that something that was created by the Town Board? MR. BAKER-No, it was created by Councilman Strough. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. So it’s really just an ad hoc committee. MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. That’s what I thought. At what point is the committee going to make a presentation to the Town Board for consideration? I guess part of that’s, where I’m headed with it is, what is really expected of us right now? You have some comments. MR. SEGULJIC-I think John wanted some comments. Then they were going to get the committee together, and then he was going to have a formal public hearing. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Because there’s a lot of like issues like this have got to get ironed out. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. BAKER-Yes, I think what Councilman Strough was looking for is comments, but before it could be, a draft can be brought to public hearing, it needs to be revised and he needs a consensus of Town Board before it can be brought to public hearing. MR. SEGULJIC-Right. There’s a lot of work to be done. MR. SIPP-All the red in this is new language, basically. MR. FORD-Yes, a lot of work needs to be done. MR. HUNSINGER-And I did correspond with John and tell him we were going to discuss it this evening and that I would forward to him the collective comments when they were put together, and then, of course, he will have the meeting minutes as well. MR. MEYER-One quick point. Whatever the boundary you guys end up deciding, whether it’s the zoning boundary or number, the Lake George basin, at some point there’s always going to be the property that bisects, that’s bisected by the boundary. So I mean, that was one of your concerns, Tom, I don’t want to be dismissive of it, but sooner or later there has to be a mechanism in the law that deals with this situation. Whether it’s you measure from where the actual disturbance is, or the one property line versus another property line. That gray area is unavoidable, unfortunately. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, what if we just said anything that occurs within the WR, that Waterfront district, that WR-1A and 3A? MR. MEYER-No, but even still you’ll have properties that are bisected by that. MR. SEGULJIC-But if a portion of the property is in, the whole thing is in. MR. MEYER-And that’s fine. I’m just saying there’s always going to be that gray area. MR. BAKER-The Code would just explicitly need to state that. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, you’ll need to define that. That was something we spent a lot of time on with the new Code, is looking at properties that had dual zones and trying to decide, well, are we better off amending those zones or leaving them as is. We left them as is. With GIS and everything else, you know, you can pinpoint where the line is. Any other comments or discussion on this? MR. FORD-One of the most pressing issues, I believe, is to get Staff a whole lot closer to where it should be. We can approach it from this overlay district or just from the reality of the day to day operation. MRS. STEFFAN-The Staffing ratios right now for the work that has to be done are extremely low, and I’m not sure, when I went to the Town Board to talk about it, I was not 76 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) greeted warmly when I talked about it, and I certainly think that the issue has to be re- visited. The Community Development Department in its current structure doesn’t have someone leading it. MR. BAKER-That’s not true. Under the organizational structure, the Town Board is the leader of the Community Development Department. MRS. STEFFAN-And let me restate that. There’s no one leading the Community Development Department, and so, you know, we went from having an Executive Director to no Executive Director and then the Town Board, believing that that void could be filled by delegating responsibility down, and I think that that was unfair, but the workload in the Town has not changed. It’s been redistributed, and we often hear applicants coming here being very critical of the Community Development Department. Some of the Planning Board members have been critical of the Community Development Department, and, you know, we just have a really dysfunctional situation right now for a Town that continues to grow at a phenomenal rate, and we’re just in a very bad state of affairs right now, and I’m hoping that with the new Town Board that, and I’m not dissing the folks who were not re-elected, and that’s not what I mean at all. It’s just that, it’s the beginning of a new year and we can have a new focus again, and so let’s redirect and look at what’s best for the Town, and if that means Planning Board members have to go to a Town Board meeting and during, you know, the privilege of the floor, talk about what we believe is necessary to make, you know, what we do more functional, then I think that we have to take the initiative and do that. This is government. We’re citizens, too, even though we serve on the Planning Board, and I think it’s important to make our feelings known. MRS. BRUNO-That’s a good suggestion. That’s a great suggestion. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else on the overlay district? Any other business before the Board this evening? I guess, before we adjourn, I do want to make sure that Counsel will be present on Thursday. I don’t know if you’ll be attending or Matt, but we’re going to need help on the Schermerhorn project, as a result of the Zoning Board actions that were taken earlier this month. MR. FORD-Or not taken. MRS. STEFFAN-Or lack of action. MR. SEGULJIC-Could you summarize that for me again? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, given the late hour and the fogginess of my mind, basically, the Zoning Board, one of the actions that they have taken is they have requested a coordinated SEQRA review, and suggested that the Planning Board be Lead Agent. Now, my understanding, and this is only based on Craig Brown’s e-mail. It’s not based on anything that Counsel has put out, is that we have a choice of either accepting, of concurring that we think a coordinated review is necessary, and then we can either accept or not accept the Lead Agency request, which means the most that we can accomplish on Thursday evening would be to complete the SEQRA. We can take comments and discuss the Site Plan, but we won’t be able to approve the Site Plan because the variance requests have not yet been approved by the Zoning Board, and the Site Plan includes the variance requests. So we can’t, even if we want to approve or disapprove the project Thursday evening, we won’t be able to. Maybe I should re-state that. I think we could probably dispose of it, but we could certainly not approve it. MR. SIPP-What about the parking variance? Did they put that on to us also? MR. HUNSINGER-No, but they haven’t acted on it yet. They asked for a recommendation from the Planning Board. That’s my understanding. MR. SIPP-Well, that means that we vote on it, basically. MR. FORD-The Chair, the three, three vote, he decided he needed more time for consideration. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. SEGULJIC-So do you think we’re going to get to Site Plan Review on Thursday night? 77 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I mean, we can certainly consider the Site Plan Review, but we can’t act on it without the variance being deliberated. MR. BAKER-The Board can only act on Site Plan applications that are in conformance with the zoning, and this particular project won’t conform with the zoning until all the variance requests, well, I guess there’s one variance request, has been approved. MR. HUNSINGER-Now, my thought, and this was pointed out to me by someone who understands SEQRA far better than I, but is a parking variance, is that an Area Variance or is that a Use Variance? MR. BAKER-That’s an Area Variance. MR. HUNSINGER-An Area Variance, by definition, is a Type II action. So the Zoning Board pushing that back to the Planning Board for SEQRA review is not compatible with the SEQRA law. Someone else pointed that out to me. So I’m begging the question of Counsel and Staff to confirm that. MR. MEYER-I’d have to double check the Type II, but not all parking variances are Type II. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, that’s why I asked if it’s an Area Variance or a Use Variance. Because Area Variances are Type II actions. MR. MEYER-Not always, because oftentimes, Area Variances that are generally exempt as Type II are the single family dwelling and (lost words). The Zoning Board asking the Planning Board to be Lead Agency can just postpone everything because then you guys will certainly need all the information in order to render your decision as to positive or negative declaration. MR. SEGULJIC-We’re just talking about the parking issue. MR. MEYER-No, but you can’t distinguish just the parking issue when you’re doing SEQRA. MR. BAKER-When you’re doing SEQRA, it’s for the whole project. MR. MEYER-You’re going to look at the entire project. MR. HUNSINGER-Right, but what I’m saying is the Zoning Board kicking SEQRA back to us because of the parking variance, that’s what I’m asking, because if it’s a Type II action. MR. BAKER-I’ll double check. I’m fairly confident the Zoning Board did have, it was an Unlisted action for the Zoning Board. I don’t think there was an error there. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. BAKER-We’ll certainly double check it. MR. HUNSINGER-But there was an e-mail that I sent out, Saturday I think, that I copied Matt on. It was the result of a series of e-mails between Craig and the Zoning Chairman, and then I copied everyone on this Board on. So everyone knew the position of the Zoning Chairman, and what the Zoning Board action was. MR. FORD-That was very informative, thank you. MR. MEYER-And always when you get into those situations, the typical situation is where someone declares itself Lead Agency and allows everyone else to contest it. I’m not certain that, without your consent, they can just nominate you as the Lead Agency. MR. BAKER-No. I don’t think they nominated. I think they requested the Planning Board take Lead Agency, which is typical when there is a coordinated review between the Zoning Board and the Planning Board here in Queensbury. The Zoning Board typically defers to the Planning Board. MR. HUNSINGER-Then I guess the only other question is, would there be any other involved parties, other than the Zoning Board and Planning Board? That’s something we need to flesh out? 78 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MRS. STEFFAN-There was a transportation agency. MR. BAKER-It’s probably within the CEA. It should be laid out in the Long Form for the project, who the other involved parties are. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. MR. MEYER-Since it is Unlisted, you can always do the uncoordinated, if you wanted to. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, but those are the issues I think we need to do our homework on, you know, individually before the meeting, so that we can have a, you know, hopefully a short dialogue. MR. BAKER-Actually, that raises an interesting point. If there are other involved parties, and you’re to do a coordinated review, then Thursday all you could do is accept Lead Agency and agree to send out notification and see if anybody disputes that, and, boom, that would be all you could do. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MR. BAKER-You couldn’t even do the SEQRA review. MR. FORD-Even though it’s designated as a public comment session? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we’ll open the public hearing, then table it. MR. MEYER-You could do whatever you want. You can’t make any sort of SEQRA determination for at least 30 days. MRS. STEFFAN-There was another issue that came up and that I think that Counsel should look at, Stu, because there was no Counsel at the Zoning Board meeting this week or last week, and the issue that was brought up by the representative of Northway Plaza was that now that Travelers has identified itself as the tenant of that Schermerhorn property or Site Plan, whether they should be named as a co-applicant, because they said, their position was that the application was not valid because it only listed Schermerhorn Residential Holdings, and so if you go to the minutes of the meeting, that will reflect the exact words of the Counsel for Northway Plaza, who said that the application wasn’t valid because it wasn’t a true representation of the applicants. MR. BAKER-My gut reaction is I disagree. There’s many times, in fact, frequently with commercial development, the developer is the applicant and the proposed tenants aren’t even known. MRS. STEFFAN-But now that it is known, his position was that they should be co- applicants. So I’m throwing it out there because we didn’t have Counsel at the Zoning Board meeting, and obviously it could have been an easier decision. MR. BAKER-Well, I rank that up there with the Professional Offices aren’t a permitted use argument. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. Throw everything out there and hope something sticks. MR. SIPP-So we have a month’s grace to accept Lead Agency and disclose any? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, I think that remains to be seen. We need to get Counsel’s input on what our options are and then we’ll decide Thursday night. MR. SIPP-Yes. If something comes up to the point where we are forced to vote, are we going to vote on that variance? MR. HUNSINGER-Well, we can’t vote on the variance. You mean the recommendation on the variance? MR. SIPP-Yes. MR. BAKER-Has the Zoning Board asked for a recommendation on the variance or just asked for the Planning Board to take Lead Agency? 79 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. HUNSINGER-I’ll have to go back and look at the resolutions. We were all sent a copy of the resolutions. MR. SIPP-Take Lead Agency, I think. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, that was in the first part of the meeting, and I don’t believe that the language was that they were looking for a recommendation. They were looking for information from the Planning Board on, I think it was the two issues were transportation and traffic, and I think those are the words that he used. MR. BAKER-I have the resolution from the Zoning Board, and all they’ve asked is that the Planning Board be the Lead Agency. They haven’t asked for a recommendation on the variance application. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Good. I’ll forward you, Stu, the e-mail from Saturday. It’s probably part of the public record anyway. MRS. STEFFAN-Right. The public record will be different than that resolution, which the Chairman asked for information to make a decision. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Yes, I think this was sent in the e-mail to us, by Staff. MRS. STEFFAN-Right, I saw that in the e-mail. MR. HUNSINGER-Okay. Any other business this evening? If there’s no further discussion. MR. FORD-Thursday night, according to the schedule, we’ve got Schermerhorn on first and then we’ve got, what, three or four other items on the agenda. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, we do. MR. BAKER-I believe it’s five other items. MR. HUNSINGER-There’s three Great Escape projects, Sherwood Acres, Queensbury Village Mobile Home Park and Schermerhorn. MR. FORD-If we get into another four to five hour public session on Item One of the agenda. MRS. STEFFAN-We cannot. MR. HUNSINGER-I will guarantee that that will not happen. MR. TRAVER-Well, if we table it, there’s no real reason for additional repeats of the comments that have already been made. MR. HUNSINGER-I mean, if Counsel says the only option available to us on Thursday night is to accept Lead Agency status, then I will open the public hearing and I will continue the public hearing, and we won’t take any public comments. What’s the point? The only thing is, will we be able to know definitively a tabling date? And we don’t need an answer tonight, but something we’ll have to think about. MRS. BRUNO-How does that work, in terms of them deciding if they are taking SEQRA status? Do they have to vote on it? Like, do you guys all make your decisions in the next day, two days, and then maybe I should be asking. MR. BAKER-I’m trying to understand the question. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes, I’m not, either. MRS. BRUNO-I mean, you guys have to either accept or decline on taking these lead roles. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. MRS. BRUNO-Is that taken through a vote? 80 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. BAKER-And then you have to decide if it’s a coordinated or an uncoordinated review, and if it’s to be coordinated then there’s, what, 30 days to see if any other involved agencies dispute the Lead Agency determination. MRS. BRUNO-Actually, much simpler than that, and I think it’s just the hour. They have to vote on it, right, somebody has to make a motion and vote on it? MR. BAKER-Yes. MRS. BRUNO-Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Yes. MR. FORD-By they, are you referring to us? MRS. BRUNO-Yes. MR. FORD-Okay. MRS. BRUNO-The rest of the Board. MR. MEYER-You don’t need to declare Lead Agency. You could do an uncoordinated review, since it’s not Type I. MRS. BRUNO-What made it Unlisted? MR. HUNSINGER-See, this is the information that we’ll need Thursday evening to know, and, again, if Counsel could prepare something in advance and lay out what our options are, so that we can make an informed decision and move forward. MR. BAKER-Tanya, you asked who made it an Unlisted action? MRS. BRUNO-What makes it Unlisted, and I’m not sure that it’s appropriate that I ask that this evening either, but I’ll leave it up to Counsel. MR. MEYER-There’s two lists. There’s a Type I list and a Type II list. MR. BAKER-And if it’s not on either, it’s Unlisted. MR. HUNSINGER-But those determinations are made by the Zoning Administrator, when the applications are filed, right? MR. BAKER-Yes, there’s an initial determination, or recommendation, really, as to what type of SEQRA it is, and then it’s up to the reviewing Board to either agree or disagree with that determination, and then do the actual SEQRA, and the SEQRA is the responsibility of the Board, not Staff. We merely make a recommendation on the Type. MR. HUNSINGER-So the Zoning Board can ask for a coordinated review, and we, as the Planning Board, can say we don’t think it requires a coordinated review? MR. BAKER-The Zoning Board did not ask for a coordinated review. They simply asked that the Planning Board be the Lead Agency for review. MR. TRAVER-So there could be, agencies could be just one agency, the Planning Board. MR. BAKER-They could be, or the Planning Board could do SEQRA review for itself and the Zoning Board, leaving any other involved agencies to do it, do SEQRA separately and on their own. MR. MEYER-That’s discouraged, though. It’s either, there’s a Lead Agency and you send out the notice or everybody does it on their own as uncoordinated. The other situation gets into partially coordinated. MR. BAKER-So by default, by the Zoning Board asking the Planning Board to be the Lead Agency, the Zoning Board is asking for a coordinated review. MR. MEYER-Yes. 81 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. BAKER-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-Well, having never been through a coordinated review, how does that all work? MR. MEYER-You send out the notices, say the Park Commission also had the authority and the Zoning Board. You’d send it out to everybody. The Zoning Board could say, they could say nothing and 30 days expires and that’s fine. Say the Park Commission could say we’re okay with you being the Lead Agency, but we need to pay special attention to X, Y, and Z, and that’s where you get into, they’ve had their input, and they’re requiring you to take those into consideration. MR. SEGULJIC-All right. Just when you say coordinated, it sounds like we all get together, got to get together for a meeting. MR. MEYER-No. Everyone is pretty much ceding their authority to you, and if they want you to pay special attention to something, they should say it. MR. HUNSINGER-That’s kind of what they did. They said we want you to look at traffic. MR. SIPP-So that takes the Zoning Board right out of. They’re done. MR. BAKER-With SEQRA. MR. MEYER-With SEQRA. MR. BAKER-They still have a variance application to decide on. MR. SIPP-But do we get that, or do they get that back? MR. BAKER-They get that. The Zoning Board does the variances. MR. SIPP-All right. MR. MEYER-You’re only looking at the possible potential environmental impacts. MR. HUNSINGER-I guess the short answer is we should be prepared to review the Site Plan Thursday evening, but we also may not get to, depending upon how we deal with the SEQRA. MR. MEYER-Right. You need to consider a number of issues. MR. HUNSINGER-Right. Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So if we do coordinated review, and everyone cedes the lead role to us, we can go all the way through and do SEQRA, and then the vote goes back to the Zoning Board for the parking variance? MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. SEGULJIC-And then once they do that, then we start our whole Site Plan Review. MR. BAKER-That’s correct. MR. MEYER-Yes. MR. SIPP-If we come up with a positive SEQRA, what happens then? MR. MEYER-They have to do an EIS. MR. BAKER-Or they can withdraw the application. MR. SIPP-Okay. MR. SEGULJIC-So, if we say we want to be Lead Agency, can we just say that, take a vote on it, we’re Lead Agency. Or do we have to send out things? MR. MEYER-You say it, and then you send out things. 82 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) MR. SEGULJIC-A lot of times we say we’re going to be Lead Agency and just take a vote and we’re Lead Agency, from what I’ve seen. A few times we’ve sent out. MR. BAKER-Right. Many times in the past when you’ve done that, the only involved agency, only involved parties have been the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, but in this case, due to the scope of it, it’s possible there could be other people. So we’ve got to. MR. BAKER-Again, we’ll have to see what other agencies are listed on the Long Form that was submitted with the project. MRS. STEFFAN-Yes. You’ve got the golf course down on Bay Road that I think coordinated review was DEC. MR. MEYER-It is also possible to shorten the timeframe if you get responses back. MR. SEGULJIC-Saying no. MR. BAKER-Yes. MR. MEYER-Right. So if it is just the Zoning Board, you could say we’re Lead Agency, we’re going to send out the notices, and the Zoning Board could get right back to you with something saying we’re not going to dispute it. MR. SEGULJIC-So, for example, they might not have listed Glens Falls Transportation, whatever that is. Could we then? MR. BAKER-A/GFTC isn’t an involved party. They have no permitting authority over the project. MR. SEGULJIC-It has to be a permitting authority. They don’t have anything. So it would be DOT, for example. MR. BAKER-They’re an advisory body only in this project only. MR. FORD-DOT would be involved. MR. BAKER-DOT would be, yes. MR. SEGULJIC-Or if there was a wetland on site, that would be DEC. MR. BAKER-DEC or Army Corps. MR. SIPP-Army Corps. MR. SEGULJIC-Or if it was like in the Lake George basin, then it would be the Lake George Park Commission for example. MR. BAKER-If the project is jurisdictional for it. MR. SEGULJIC-Okay, or if it’s in the APA, then. So anyone who has to issue a permit for this project. So like if they have to get a stop light. Things like that. Okay. MR. HUNSINGER-Anything else? MR. SEGULJIC-All right. It’s clear as mud. MR. HUNSINGER-Would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF DECEMBER 18, 2007, Introduced by Stephen Traver who moved for its adoption, seconded by Thomas Seguljic: th Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Traver, Mrs. Bruno, Mrs. Steffan, Mr. Ford, Mr. Seguljic, Mr. Sipp, Mr. Hunsinger 83 (Queensbury Planning Board 12/18/07) NOES: NONE MR. HUNSINGER-See everyone Thursday. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Chris Hunsinger, Chairman 84