Loading...
1998-05-19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) QUEENSBURY PLANNING BOARD MEETING FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 1998 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT CRAIG MAC EWAN, CHAIRMAN CATHERINE LA BOMBARD, SECRETARY LARRY RINGER ROBERT VOLLARO ROBERT PALING MEMBERS ABSENT TIMOTHY BREWER GEORGE STARK EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR -CHRIS ROUND PLANNER -LAURA NOWICKI TOWN COUNSEL -MILLER, MANNIX & PRATT-MARK SCHACHNER STENOGRAPHER -MARIA GAGLIARDI CORRECTION OF MINUTES March 17, 1998: NONE April 21, 1998: NONE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 1998 AND APRIL 21, 1998 , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: th Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark OLD BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 60-96 TYPE II ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR OWNER: G. JOSEPH MONSOUR ZONE: PC-1A LOCATION: 676 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT REQUESTS MODIFICATION TO APPROVED SITE PLAN - MODIFICATION IS TO MAINTAIN THE GARAGE STRUCTURE TO CLEAN VEHICLES, WASH EXTERIORS OF VEHICLES, AND LANDSCAPING CHANGES. TAX MAP NO. 104-1- 8.1 LOT SIZE: 0.86 ACRES SECTION: 179-22 JEANNETTE FOWLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled for tonight. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 60-96 - Modification, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Meeting Date: May 19, 1998 “The applicant is requesting a modification to a previously approved site plan. The applicant had been informed of compliance issues and was instructed to file a modification plan. The applicant is requesting the placement of a temporary structure (fabric garage) to clean cars in and permission to use environmentally friendly soaps to wash cars. Additionally, the applicant is requesting alteration to the previously approved landscape plan. The applicant has met with the 1 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) Beautification Committee and was requested to complete the previously approved landscape plan. The applicant indicated that Enterprise Car Rental would have to apply to NYSDOT to remove the paved surface to comply with the original landscape plan. The Beautification Committee recommended the applicant apply to NYSDOT and if denied alternative plantings may be done as suggested. Staff would suggest the applicant address stormwater runoff from washing operations. Staff would also recommend a time frame be set up for completion of the original site plan conditions. Please find attached the resolutions for Use Variance 76-1996 and for the original Site Plan approval.” MR. MAC EWAN-Any other notes? MS. NOWICKI-No. MS. FOWLER-Hi. My name’s Jeannette Fowler. MR. MAC EWAN-Could you give the Board a little bit of an overview of what you’d like to accomplish? MS. FOWLER-After a meeting with the Beautification Committee, it was agreed that within 30 days we would complete the landscaping. There was a question, however, about the islands, about the asphalt being torn up and the grass being planted. After speaking with the landlord and Tom Nace who drew up this first drawing, apparently someone had spoke to the State, and the State said that they would approve planting of topsoil and seed on those islands, however, they wouldn’t recommend it. So I guess we’re just questioning it, because we don’t think that the grass will really grow or really survive winter months, because of the salt, and because it’s so close to the road. So we were just asking for that for consideration, whether you still want us to, you know, commit to that or not. MR. MAC EWAN-I do know from other site plans that we have approved farther up on Glen Street, where we’ve asked for landscaping along the edge of the road, things seem to have survived fairly well up there. I’m thinking of “Toys R Us”, “Taco Bell”, “Blockbuster Video”. We’ve done site plan approvals up there and things seem to be holding up well. I guess a curious question I would have is, why haven’t we completed our previously approved site plan to date? MS. FOWLER-That is the fault of enterprise. The person that was here, that got the original approvals, is no longer with the Company, and I guess it was never followed through with anyone. Because he wasn’t with the Company anymore, no one really knew what was supposed to be done. So you’re right. We were supposed to comply and we didn’t. MR. MAC EWAN-What about the shelter, where you’re washing the cars? MS. FOWLER-That, we received that tent from a company in Connecticut, and we had asked if we would need permits or approvals for that tent, and they said that they never had to do that. So we did ask the question. However, they said that they never had to do it or none of their businesses ever had to do it. So, it’s a temporary structure that we put up there to protect the employees while they’re cleaning out the interior of the cars. MR. MAC EWAN-And there’s also been washing of cars going on up there as well. MS. FOWLER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-And as previous approvals, are you aware of what the previous approval were with this site plan? MS. FOWLER-As I understand it, that they were allowed to wash vehicles, but without any car wash soap. MR. MAC EWAN-That is correct. It says, “The applicant also stated all car washing outside does not use detergent, does not have runoff into Halfway Brook.” And I know that’s a concern that this Board had, that’s why they asked that no detergents be used, because of the close proximity to the Brook. MS. FOWLER-Right. Yes, we understand that, and we definitely understand the concern, and we don’t want to cause any harm, but again, it’s just a lack of knowing. The people at that location did not know that. 2 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Is this prep shelter something that you want to keep as a so called “indefinite”? MS. FOWLER-We would. MR. MAC EWAN-Semi permanent type structure? MS. FOWLER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-I’ll open it up to the Board. Does anybody have any questions? MR. PALING-Yes. Somewhere you referred to environmentally safe soap or detergent. Be specific. MS. FOWLER-I have submitted, we use ZEP for the soap, and I had submitted that to the Town, and there was like a data report on the product, that described it, and ZEP said that it was environmentally safe. MR. PALING-Who said? MS. FOWLER-ZEP, the manufacturer of the product. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, they’re certainly not going to say that their product isn’t. I mean, is there anybody else that can attest to it? MS. FOWLER-I mean, we wouldn’t have used the product if we thought it was harmful, but we were going by what they were saying. MR. PALING-Well, that isn’t something we can go by, though. Also, in the washing of the cars, they claim there was no soap used except the washing material they use made big bubbles. So we assumed they were using a detergent or a soap, when they said that it wouldn’t be done, and this thing has got a record of non compliance, and we’re just changing people now. So you’ve got to understand where we’re coming from and why we have the doubts in doing business with your Company. Have you gone back to the Beautification Committee since you talked to DOT? MS. FOWLER-We went to the Beautification Committee last week. MR. PALING-Is that before or after talking to DOT? MS. FOWLER-I’ve never spoken to DOT. MR. PALING-All right. Then who did you talk to in regard to the worth planting, where they said they didn’t think it was necessary, or would be good? MS. FOWLER-The landlord had spoke to the State, because he went to apply for the permit to do the work, and the person he spoke to at the State said that. MR. PALING-The State? MS. FOWLER-The DOT, I guess. MR. PALING-Okay. So it is DOT. MS. FOWLER-I assume, I’m sorry, I don’t know. I guess it was. I wish he was here. He was supposed to be here to kind of help me out here, since I’m not really knowledgeable on this. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you an employee of Enterprise? MS. FOWLER-I am. MR. MAC EWAN-You are. MR. PALING-And there’s concern about the run off water not reaching the creek. Can you address that? 3 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MS. FOWLER-I don’t know if the run off does reach the creek or not. MR. VOLLARO-Well, there’s quite a slope, from 336 to 334. So it’s going to shed down that asphalt parking lot. MR. PALING-I don’t think there’s enough information here for us to work on. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree. I concur with Bob. He has basically the same questions that I have. I think it’s too bad that you’re here alone. Are you an administrator in the Company? MS. FOWLER-Yes. MR. PALING-We have two other meetings this month. Would you be able to answer the questions or bring someone here that could answer the questions we’re raising? MS. FOWLER-Sure. MR. PALING-And, Craig, I would think we could fit them in to either one of the next two meetings. One is this Thursday and the other one’s a week from today. MR. MAC EWAN-Is Staff looking for a stormwater management plan? MS. NOWICKI-I was just looking for information addressing where the runoff was going, and there’s no indication, other than the topographic contour lines, that say it’s not, it’s going somewhat toward the creek. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, what, specifically, are you looking for to address where the runoff’s going? I mean, are you looking for a note that says it’s running toward Route 9? MR. ROUND-I guess, just to clarify that. You approved this previously without the use of soap. They were looking for a modification to use soap. So I wasn’t under the impression we were imposing any greater level of demonstration of stormwater management on-site. It is the recommendation, if they do use soap, that there is some level of stormwater management, that they containerize or manage that appropriately, and I don’t know that the cut sheet on the detergent is sufficient enough information to say that it is environmentally safe or it’s appropriate for it to runoff into Halfway creek. So we’ve communicated with Enterprise numerous occasions, and I think it falls back on the applicant to come forward with enough information in order for you to make a judgment. If you don’t have enough information, I’d hesitate to come back Thursday. I would give them another week to, again, clarify what exactly you want to see, to approve this modification. MR. MAC EWAN-I know it’s been very difficult to get Enterprise to come back tonight. I mean, it seems like it’s been a chase game for several months now. Bob, do you have any questions? MR. VOLLARO-None other than what was raised, except on this friendly soap. I don’t know how we’re going to ensure that that’s what they’re using all the time. I don’t know how you do that. MR. ROUND-It becomes difficult from an enforcement, inspection process. MR. RINGER-I don’t think we have enough information, either. We need more information on that runoff. MR. MAC EWAN-I think what we’d be looking for is a stormwater management plan as to how you’re going to contain any soaps, detergents that you plan on, proposing to use. I’ll go a step farther and tell you that I’m not overly thrilled with your temporary tent out there. I would like to see something more permanent thought of as a design for that building. That’s my personal opinion. I don’t know if I have support up here or not on that issue. MS. FOWLER-So you don’t like the building that’s up now? MR. MAC EWAN-I wouldn’t call it a building. I would call it a tent. MS. FOWLER-It is. They call it an instant garage. 4 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. MAC EWAN-I’d call it an instant nightmare. It’s not something that I think is attractive. I don’t think it fits in with the site plan, and I know it wasn’t the intent of this Board to see something like that out there. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree. MR. MAC EWAN-I would rather see you come back with a design for an addition on that building. If you’re going to have a wash bay, and a prep area for cleaning your cars, do something that’s nice, that blends in, that fits in with the architecture of the building, that fits in with the site plan, and will contain your runoff from your detergents, and maybe we won’t have to deal with the issue of how things are going to get to the Brook if you can come up with a design that’s going to incorporate everything right there into that site. MS. FOWLER-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with that completely. MR. VOLLARO-There could be another approach to this thing, too. You were running this business for about two years now without this new prep shelter. How were you accomplishing a successful business before you started washing cars on the site? MS. FOWLER-They still washed cars in the same area, but the employees were out in the wind and the cold and the rain. MR. VOLLARO-So you’ve always washed cars, from the very beginning? MS. FOWLER-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MS. FOWLER-Well, it’s under my assumption. I know that they knew they were approved to wash cars. I can’t say whether they were using the soap for that long or not. I don’t know. MR. VOLLARO-Is there a way for you to run the business without washing, do you have another Enterprise close by, that you could shuttle back and forth with? MS. FOWLER-No, we don’t. MR. VOLLARO-You don’t. I don’t have any further questions. MR. MAC EWAN-I don’t think that we’re certainly trying to be a hindrance for your business operation up there, but in the same sense, I think that we’re looking, that the Board takes very seriously about the approvals that we grant for applications. We like to see that whatever we approve is done that way. That’s why we’ve gone through such great extents to get you back in here to try correct things and rectify your site plan. I think so, basically, if I have the agreement of everyone up here, we’re looking for two things, a stormwater management plan of some sort, how you’re going to contain the detergents, and your cleaning operations, and if I have the support, I’d like to see a design that’s going to be an addition to it that’s more permanent than that tent type canopy you have out there. MS. FOWLER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Craig, I have a question. Right now, though, business is going on as usual. I mean, you’re using the soap. MS. FOWLER-As far as I know, they were instructed to stop using it. I don’t know. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s what I want to know. In other words, what’s going to happen tomorrow out on that site? MR. MAC EWAN-They are not supposed to be using detergent whatsoever. The site plan approval was just strictly for just clean washing off of the cars with no detergents, of any kind. It doesn’t say environmentally safe or otherwise. It just says no detergent to be used. 5 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. The modification is to maintain the garage structure, just clean vehicles. Well, I have to agree with Craig. If this business is doing well, and it’s going to be there for years to come, then maybe you should come back to us with more of a permanent type of concrete structure that has drains and you can wash your cars, and the thing is, there’s been so many companies that have come to us for site plan reviews, and Halfway Brook has been their nemesis. In other words, that has been one of the things that they have taken all kinds of engineering precautions to make sure that the Brook isn’t polluted, and it has maintained its, you know, its environmental status as it is now, and just to have this business, and just to just indiscriminately let the water, the runoff water run into that just kind of is contradictory to everything that we’ve been working for since I’ve been on this Board for four and a half years, as far as that Brook is concerned, and that Brook meanders through this Town all the way to Fort Ann, and everybody is so tuned into that Brook. So it’s not that we’re singly you out at all. Okay. MS. FOWLER-Sure. MR. PALING-Well, you want to add to that list, I think, that if you are going to use a soap or detergent, you’ve got to give us something besides a manufacturer’s sheet that will prove that that’s environmentally safe, and you ought to have a chat with the Beautification Committee, or have at least pending, before you come to us. MS. FOWLER-For the soap? MR. PALING-No. I’m talking now, soap is one subject. Beautification’s another subject, and we rely on them to tell us what’s good in the way of plantings and all, and if you’ve got a DOT situation that alters it, they’ll listen to you. MS. FOWLER-Right. MR. PALING-And come up with some kind of a compromise plan that they like, and I’m sure we would like it, too. We usually do. MS. FOWLER-Okay. MR. PALING-Now, has the grease trap thing been clarified? Is that taken care of? MR. ROUND-I don’t know what you’re talking about. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. He wouldn’t know. MR. MAC EWAN-Prior to this, there was a fast food restaurant there. So if it had a grease trap, if they sealed it off or whether they totally removed it or not, I don’t know. MR. ROUND-I don’t know. MR. PALING-Well, it’s in the motion, in September of ’96, about the grease trap, washing the cars, the northerly drive, and the Beautification Committee. Those four items are all there, and I haven’t heard that the grease trap situation, what has been done about it. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have a copy of this motion, the previously approved site plan? MS. FOWLER-I don’t. No. MR. MAC EWAN-You don’t? I’ll give you a copy before you leave here tonight. MS. FOWLER-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-I think one of the things I’d just like to mention on the soap, regardless of what kind of soap or detergent you use, what you’ve got to do is provide the Board with how you’re going to at least retain some of that water. Because we can’t come up once a week and determine whether you’re using the right soap or not. MS. FOWLER-Sure. Right. 6 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. VOLLARO-It’s going to be more on a retention system than what kind of detergent you’re using. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t have soap police. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Not yet. MR. RINGER-I think we ought to make sure she has a list of what she needs. MR. MAC EWAN-If someone wants to introduce a motion to table this with a laundry list of what’s got to be done, and put it up on the table. MOTION TO TABLE SITE PLAN NO. 60-96 ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: Pending the following information that’s being requested: a Stormwater Management Plan, a design for a permanent addition type structure to the building for preparation of cars both for cleaning and washing and general maintenance, and to be in compliance with the four items in the original motion. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May 1998 by the following vote: MR. MAC EWAN-And do you want them to re-visit the Beautification Committee? MR. PALING-Re-visit the Beautification Committee, and to be in compliance with the four items in the original resolution, motion. MS. NOWICKI-Craig, may I ask why we’re sending them back to the Beautification Committee? MR. MAC EWAN-Because you said that State DOT said that if you came up with a plan, is that how it’s understood? If you came up with a plan to landscape the macadam median there or macadam curb? MS. FOWLER-Well, we had just questioned it because the landscaper had said that it probably wouldn’t survive each season if we did that. So that’s why we were questioning why we were being told to do that, and the landlord had asked the DOT about that, and that was a conflicting story. I’m getting off hearsay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I do know the Board has been working very hard, whenever we get an application that’s along that portion of Upper Glen Street, to try to get some more streetscaping in there. I mean, I cited the fact that with Taco Bell and Blockbuster, Toys R Us. We’re working with Queensbury Plaza to do there in front of the Red Lobster. So we’re trying to get that whole corridor kind of have some nice streetscapes along through that, and we have you here. If we can get it to work, that’s what we’re going to push for. MS. FOWLER-That’s fine. I guess just then an explanation and a reassurance that it would survive. MR. MAC EWAN-Do they not need to go back to Beautification? MS. NOWICKI-No. You want them to comply with the original site plan landscape? MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct. Okay. Now do we have a second? MRS. LA BOMBARD-I’ll second it. MR. MAC EWAN-Just before we call the vote, now we just have it down to stormwater management plan or design for a permanent addition for your prepping area, and compliance with the original site plan. MS. FOWLER-Okay. AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE 7 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you. MS. NOWICKI-When do you want them to come back? MR. MAC EWAN-If they can get things to you, to be on next Tuesday’s agenda. MS. NOWICKI-Next Tuesday you don’t have a meeting. MR. MAC EWAN-Next Thursday. MS. NOWICKI-Do you want it by next Thursday so I can hand it out at the meeting? MR. MAC EWAN-No. They would have to get them to you. You’re going to deliver Staff notes probably on Wednesday, right? So they would have to, if you could get it back to them by Tuesday noon of next week, and I know that’s a short time, but that’ll give Staff time to review it and time to get things to us so that we can review it before the meeting. MS. FOWLER-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-If there’s a problem that you can’t do that, get in touch with Staff, and if we can work something out, we’ll be more than happy to try to work something out for you and accommodate you. MS. FOWLER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Here’s a copy of that previous approval. SUBDIVISION NO. 4-1998 SKETCH PLAN TYPE: UNLISTED RICHARD & SANDRA BAKER OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: UPPER SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 11.30 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOUR LOTS OF 1.50 AC., 1.01 AC., AND 1.01 ACRES, AND 7.78 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 121-4-5.21 LOT SIZE: 11.30 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS RICHARD & SANDRA BAKER, PRESENT MRS. LA BOMBARD-And there is no public hearing scheduled for this evening. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 4-1998 - Sketch Plan, Richard & Sandra Baker, Meeting Date: May 19, 1998 “The applicant proposes a four (4) lot subdivision for sketch plan review in the SR-1A zone. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the surrounding land use. The applicant has provided the necessary information required for sketch plan review. Staff has identified some items that will need to be addressed for continuation with the subdivision process. Lots fronting on Sherman Avenue are required to have double the lot width or shared driveways (Section 179-30). This can be addressed with an area variance for Lot 3 and requiring shared driveways Lots 1 and 2. Staff requested the Town Highway Department review the plan in regards to access. The plan shows two access drives onto Ferris Drive. The Highway Department indicated that access cannot be denied onto a Town road. However, the location of the proposed subdivision may have limitations due to the shallow water table depth. The Highway Department also indicated if the applicant is allowed to subdivide, dwellings be placed on slabs because of the water table. Staff would suggest ground water level determinations be done for each lot, and any proposed septic system type obtain approval prior to subdivision.” MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Is there someone here from the applicant? MS. NOWICKI-Yes, there is. 8 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. Could you identify yourself for the record, please. MRS. BAKER-I’m Sandra Baker. MR. BAKER-And Richard Baker. MR. MAC EWAN-Have you received a copy of the Staff notes, some of the concerns that they? MRS. BAKER-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Maybe we can just run them through it, in layman’s terms, as to what the concerns are and what we’re looking, what we think the concerns that need to be addressed are. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. One was the four lot subdivision, the entire parcel that you own is not shown on the drawing, and so that needs to be. MR. BAKER-We’re making a three lot subdivision. That’s in two deeds. MRS. BAKER-Yes. We own three pieces of property over there, all together, next to each other, and they all have separate deeds. MS. NOWICKI-But they’re all one tax map number. MRS. BAKER-I know, but in the beginning they weren’t. There’s also another two acre piece, a little over two acres we own all together over there, with the rest of this, and when we bought it in 1988, we bought five acres, and then a year or so later we bought seven more acres next to it, and then the other piece. MR. MAC EWAN-How big is the other piece? MRS. BAKER-The last piece? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. MRS. BAKER-Probably two and a half acres. MR. BAKER-But we’re really just subdividing the. MRS. BAKER-The remaining three and a half acres. MR. BAKER-Out of the first parcel. MR. MAC EWAN-Out of the first parcel. You’re going to create three lots out of the first parcel, five acres. MRS. BAKER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s correct, and you’re saying the five acres, the seven acres, and the 2.5 acres roughly, the entire 14 or 15 acre parcel is all under one tax map? MS. NOWICKI-As far as I know, yes. MRS. BAKER-And they’re all deeded separately. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, if they are all listed on the book of deeds as being one tax map parcel, the Board would have to review it under the Subdivision Regulations as one entire entity, and the subdivision inclusive of all the lots. Even though you’re going to retain most of them for yourself, they all have to be included in the plan. MRS. BAKER-But what if you want to subdivide that later? Can you? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. There wouldn’t be any reason why you couldn’t. The zoning up there is SR-1. So what you need to determine, investigate, is to find out how much of the parcels are included on one tax map number, and the second issue is dealing with, well, is it really an issue, the lots that are fronting Ferriss Drive, and having access to them? That was one question we had 9 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) when we went and did site visits last week. Is there any intention of ever accessing Ferriss Drive from proposed Lot Number Two or Lot Number? MR. BAKER-No. It’s more or less just so you can go either way. MRS. BAKER-We weren’t for sure how many we could have off of Sherman Avenue. We were told in the beginning that you could have two off Sherman and one off Ferriss. MR. MAC EWAN-Why was that? MRS. BAKER-Because of too many driveways or something like that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-This looks like, I thought that we were going to have two of Ferriss. MRS. BAKER-Well, it was put that way because Dave Bolster didn’t know for sure how to go with it, because he didn’t know what you wanted, if you wanted it off Ferriss or off Sherman. They can both go off Ferriss. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s the separation distance between driveways on Sherman Avenue? I mean, you’ve got plenty of room to put three driveways on Sherman Avenue, don’t they? MS. NOWICKI-They don’t have the average lot width. MR. MAC EWAN-They don’t. MRS. LA BOMBARD-One hundred and seventy-four feet? MR. MAC EWAN-Of the last one. MS. NOWICKI-So you need double the lot width. MR. BAKER-Well, could we put one off of Ferriss and two off of Sherman? MS. NOWICKI-As long as they were shared driveways. Do you understand what I’m saying? If you wanted to, Lots Three and Two, they would have to be shared driveways. MRS. BAKER-Why? MR. BAKER-Why couldn’t you have one and two off of Sherman and three off of Ferriss? MS. NOWICKI-Because you currently don’t own property up to Ferriss. MR. BAKER-We own right to it. MRS. BAKER-Yes, we do. MS. NOWICKI-For Lot Number Three? MR. BAKER-Yes. There’s a cul-de-sac comes right there, and joins our property. MRS. BAKER-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, the way that you have this sketch plan laid out is, right now your configuration shows that lot three does not have frontage on Ferriss Drive. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-According to this drawing. MR. BAKER-Well, then the drawing’s wrong, because. MRS. BAKER-Yes. It comes right to the line. Our property comes right to the line. MR. BAKER-Comes right over onto our property. 10 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MRS. BAKER-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But that looks like it’s lot 36, on here. MR. MAC EWAN-Is lot 36 owned by you? MRS. BAKER-No. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, then how can lot three have frontage on Ferriss? Could you come over and show us? MRS. BAKER-Right in there. It’s right there, isn’t it? MR. ROUND-You’ve got them numbered the same way? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. I was just going to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Right to left, I mean, Lot Number Three on our map is the most westerly lot. MR. ROUND-I don’t know if they have the same map. MR. RINGER-Our numbers have been changed on ours. MRS. LA BOMBARD-They changed our numbers. They’ve reversed the numbers. One is on the right, as you’re looking at it. It goes Three, Two, One, from left to right. MS. NOWICKI-That’s why. Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Okay. Now we’re on the same page. Okay. So we’re looking at Lot Three, the new Lot Three. That could have frontage on Sherman. MRS. BAKER-Yes, that’s going off of Sherman. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Lot Two could have frontage on Sherman, and Lot One could have frontage on Ferriss. MRS. BAKER-That’s what we had said in the beginning. MR. BAKER-That’s what you want, yes. MR. RINGER-No, but Chris said that couldn’t happen that way. MR. ROUND-Right. Fronting on Sherman Avenue, you’d need, those lots need either double the lot width, the lot width’s 150 feet in this zone. So you’d need either 300 foot lot width, or you’d have to share a driveway between two adjoining lots, regardless of whether you have access on Ferriss or not. You can either apply for a variance for relief from that Section of the Ordinance or you can comply with the Ordinance. If Dave wants to come in and discuss options about access, we’re there. We’re here to discuss it. Sketch plan is to identify what the issues are and I think we’ve identified those and we’d be happy to sit down and discuss it in greater detail. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Chris, I’m confused now. I thought they had to have 150 feet for minimum? MR. ROUND-That’s the minimum lot width, but since it’s Sherman Avenue, it’s an arterial road, and it needs 300 foot, is the requirement for Sherman Avenue. MR. MAC EWAN-Because it’s an arterial road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I understand. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s a collector road. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It needs 300. 11 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. MAC EWAN-So there’s some options that you have to play with here as far as the lot design, as to where you want to be able to put your driveways, thoughts of shared driveways. So there’s a couple of options available to you. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Could Lot Two and Lot One have their frontage on Ferriss? Would there be enough land between those two driveways onto Ferriss? They could do a shared. They’d have to do a shared. I mean, on Ferriss do they have to do a shared? MR. ROUND-You need a minimum of 40 feet road frontage. I don’t know that, from looking at this, that do have that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-It’s pretty close. MRS. BAKER-Yes. I thought they said each one was 50 feet? Dave Bolster told me. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Because what you could do is you could cut this one in here. You could cut this one in, and get your 300 feet for that one on without even going to the Zoning Board for a variance, and then if you could get those two onto Ferriss, with a minimum yardage in between, you’d be okay. MRS. BAKER-Yes, but the two on Ferriss, they’re supposed to be each 50 foot, at least. That’s what the footage wise, as Dave said. MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, I think that the issue of getting the tax map parcels squared away and how you want to set the driveways I think are relatively minor issues. I think the thing that probably is going to hover on this more than anything is the water table depth. Because obviously that section of that development over there on the back side of your property has had some awful flooding problems in recent times. MR. BAKER-Yes, but if you build on a slab, it isn’t going to make any difference. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, I think one of the things Staff is kind of recommending and interested in is exactly where is the water table. I mean, if you do build on a slab, that’s fine, if you can do it. The question is your septic systems. If you have a real high water table, how is that going to affect a proposed septic system? MR. BAKER-You can build them up. MR. MAC EWAN-Build them up, you mean a mound system? MR. BAKER-Sure. MR. MAC EWAN-You’d have to get a variance. You’d have to get a variance, right, from the Board of Health, the Town Board of Health, a variance to do a mound system? MR. ROUND-I don’t have the sewage section in front of me, but there are provisions for alternative designs, and I don’t know if it’s necessary to obtain a variance or just approval from the Town Board of Health, but the concern is that we identified that that is an issue. High groundwater is an issue, and whatever your system design incorporates provisions necessary to address high groundwater. Whether it needs a variance, I don’t know, because I don’t have a design in front of me. MR. MAC EWAN-Are you suggesting, then, according to your Staff Notes, that you’d be looking for a perc test to determine where the water table is? MR. ROUND-I think it’s wise to determine where the groundwater level is on this property, because there is a, there’s a high groundwater problem, this area of Town, and that on the basis of that, come up with a design for a septic system that’s going to take that into consideration, and then whether it needs a variance or not, I don’t know because I don’t know what the septic design is, but that’s what this process is, to identify the issues that are associated with properties. I think that’s the issue. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anybody up on the Board have any questions? 12 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. PALING-I’ve got a question. I’m a little puzzled by the Staff comments, and using the Highway Department as the authority, as the source, as to what’s going to happen to the construction of house, in so far as the slab and so on is concerned. Isn’t that a little different? MS. NOWICKI-My purpose of contacting the Highway Department was to find out if they could have access onto Ferriss Drive. The other information was information they provided. It was not something I asked for. MR. PALING-I don’t think we should use it. MR. ROUND-Well, I could substantiate that outside the Highway Department. We do have a drainage issue in Queensbury Forest Phase III, and I think it’s information that should be taken into consideration, regardless of the source. MR. PALING-Okay. As long as Staff is reviewing it independently, that’s fine, but that doesn’t look right. MR. ROUND-Point taken. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? So I think we can basically, if you want to proceed on for, and file an application for Preliminary subdivision, things the Board is going to be looking for and Staff is here to help you, is to determine what the tax map parcels are, and what parcels we’re dealing with. If we’re dealing with this 14, 15 acre chunk of land, that’s what we have to deal with as far as doing a subdivision. If it’s different from that, and you can substantiate that, that’s great. There’ll be less headache for everyone else. MR. BAKER-As long as this is in separate deeds, it doesn’t make any difference what’s on that tax map. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, it does. We go by tax maps. MRS. BAKER-Well, why would they do that when you bought it at separate times with separate deeds? MR. MAC EWAN-I can’t answer what they would do when you file the deeds. MR. ROUND-You do retain certain subdivision provisions or ability to subdivide lands, or you retain separate building rights by retaining separate descriptions of the property. The tax mapping is a way for us to identify it for public advertising, and then we just have to be coordinated, what you are identifying as a tax map number, and what we’re identifying as a piece of property. That’s a point of reference. We just have to be consistent across those bases, but I think it’s something we could straighten out simply. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not a major hurdle. MRS. BAKER-The last piece, the two and a half acres, is a different tax map number and everything. That’s totally separate. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I mean Staff will be willing to work with you to iron out the details so that we include in your application what parcels that you want to propose for subdivision, and the other two issues that they’d be more than willing to work out with you and with your surveyor is the access to the sites that you’re proposing driveway access, and we’d be looking at doing something with a perc test to determine water table level. Okay. Thank you very much. MR. BAKER-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED GLENN & SANDRA COMBS OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A, LI-1A LOCATION: UPPER SHERMAN AVE., ACROSS FROM LEO STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE SR-1A PORTION OF THE LOT. CROSS REFERENCE: AV 11-1998 TAX MAP NO. 93-2-20 LOT SIZE: 25.65 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DENNIS DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT 13 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 3-1998 - Preliminary & Final, Glenn & Sandra Combs, Meeting Date: May 19, 1998 “The applicant proposes a three (3) lot subdivision for preliminary and final approval in SR-1A/LI-1A zone. The Board reviewed the applicant’s proposal at sketch plan and on the basis of staff recommendations, clarification has been added to the drawings. The applicant has provided drawings that address the shared driveway area (50’ x 50’) with a dotted line and a note about the variance. Staff would recommend that the applicant label only the lots to be subdivided for this subdivision. The lot that received administrative approval should not be identified as a lot #, but should be labeled with date of administrative approval. Staff has no further concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-That last portion, could you go over that one more time, please. MS. NOWICKI-With the lot numbers? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. The way he has his lots labeled, he has them one, two, and three, okay. One of those lots is an administrative lot, and should not have a number. MR. MAC EWAN-The one that was approved 3/23/98? MS. NOWICKI-Correct. The only lots that we’re concerned about are the two smaller ones and the larger parcel. So those should be labeled one, two and three. MR. MAC EWAN-The larger parcel should be labeled Lot Number One? MS. NOWICKI-Whatever is convenient. It’s not pertinent. It was just a clarification. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Any other notes? MS. NOWICKI-No. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Good evening. Would you identify yourself for the record, please. MR. DICKINSON-Dennis Dickinson. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you understand what they were driving at, Dennis, about the lot labeling? MR. DICKINSON-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you have any questions or comments for us? MR. DICKINSON-I made the remaining Lot One. I’m going to label the remaining lands as Lot One. MR. MAC EWAN-The large parcel. MR. DICKINSON-The large parcel, and then we’ll keep the other two numbered as they’ve been numbered right along. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s fine. Any questions, comments from the Board? MR. VOLLARO-I don’t have any, since this has been all approved. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything to add, Dennis? Well, if you’d like to step aside, we’ll open up the public hearing, then. Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing. If anybody would like to come up and comment or ask questions regarding this project, this application, please do so. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BARBARA EGGLESTON MS. EGGLESTON-My name is Barbara Eggleston. I live right on Howard Street, just off Sherman. The only comment I had was, I think they just put two new houses right up there on that 14 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) lot. So apparently I’m assuming they’re going back farther into the property for the other remaining subdivision? MR. MAC EWAN-Actually, there’s two lots that will share a common driveway that’s just about across the street from Leo Street, and then the larger parcel, at this point, will remain undeveloped, I’m assuming at this stage, and that’ll have access both to the east and to the west of Leo Street, down the street, in both directions. MS. EGGLESTON-I’m sorry. I didn’t get a lot of time to go up and check this out. I’ve been a little busy, but I guess my biggest concern is because it’s developing so fast, and there’s so much traffic up there, you know, coming out of just Howard Street and those small streets along the side there, I mean, the traffic, I mean, the speed limit’s 45, and I really don’t think anybody, you know, goes that fast. Everything is always faster, and I just figure if they have one subdivision up there, pretty soon they’re going to have, if they get allowed to do their subdivision, then a few months or a few years down the road, somebody else is going to have another subdivision, and they’re going to say, well, this guy has it, so why can’t I have it. I guess because I’ve known the area for so many years, I’ve seen it grow up. I’ve seen so many places come in up there, I guess if I could say that I didn’t want to see a subdivision come in, that’s why I’m here. That is basically the only reason. I mean, I’m for growth, but if I had my choice, I guess I’d have less. Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else? No one else? I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We have to do a SEQRA. It’s Unlisted. MRS. LA BOMBARD-The Long Form, right? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the Long Form. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 3-1998 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: GLENN & SANDRA COMBS , 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 15 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) 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 19 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Mark, I have a question for you. If we were to introduce a motion, either way, can they be incorporated into one for both Preliminary and Final, or do you want separate motions? MR. SCHACHNER-Separate motions. You don’t generally do that, but I do see that it’s noted for both, but definitely separate motions. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE GLENN & SANDRA COMBS , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: As submitted, with the note that the SEQRA review did not reveal any positive action. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Does someone want to make a motion for Final? MOTION TO APPROVE FINAL STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 3-1998 GLENN & SANDRA COMBS , Introduced by Robert Paling who moved for its adoption, seconded Catherine LaBombard: As requested. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. You’re all set. MR. DICKINSON-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE FINAL STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED WILLIAM & LISA GEREAU OWNER: MARK BRANSON ZONE: RR- 5A LOCATION: CLENDON BROOK RD. & TUTHILL, 1 MI. UP TO CORNER OF TUTHILL & CLENDON BROOK APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5 LOT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION - A 47.60 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 LOTS OF 4.02 AC., 3.78 AC., 5.13 AC. 4.17 AC. AND 30.50 AC ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY TAX MAP NO. 123-1-21 LOT SIZE: 47.60 ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 16 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 2-1998 - Preliminary & Final, William & Lisa Gereau, Meeting Date: May 19, 1998 “The applicant proposes a five (5) lot subdivision for preliminary and final approval in RR-5A zone. The applicant had presented the proposal at sketch plan stage on 2/17/98 and the Board recommended the applicant apply for the next subdivision stage. The applicant has not yet received APA approval comments. The application was forwarded to Rist Frost Associates for review and comment. Staff has no further concerns.” MR. MAC EWAN-Any other notes? MS. NOWICKI-Would you like me to read Rist-Frost comments? MR. MAC EWAN-Please. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Sure. MS. NOWICKI-This is to Mr. Round. “We have reviewed the documents submitted with the above referenced application and have the following comments: 1. We recommend that the plans include the following notes: (a) Individual lot grading shall conform to Section A183-25 of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Queensbury. (b) Erosion and sediment control shall be in accordance with New York State Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control. 2. The applicant should address stormwater management or demonstrate that none is required. 3. The scale of the subdivision plan is 1”=100’ instead of the prescribed 1”= 50’ but appears to be appropriate for this size development. 4. Unless the wells have been constructed, the specifications of the well pump capacity and head may be premature. (Well Detail - Dwg. D-1.) The well detail should also show a concrete collar around the casing at grade and grout as required around the casing. A note should be added that well construction is to conform to the requirements of the New York State Department of Health. 5. If the documents are accepted as the final submission, they should include the seal and signature of a licensed professional engineer or licensed land surveyor with appropriate exemption. 6. Project is subject to approval of the Adirondack Park Agency.” That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-We don’t often get involved with the APA. Would you give us a quick little overview about their impact on a project like this, as far as an approval process? MR. SCHACHNER-That’s sort of a nebulous question. What are you trying to ask? MR. MAC EWAN-Well, it said that the project is subject to approval of the Adirondack Park Agency. Now, if this was to be approved, and they couldn’t do any further development unless they had an APA approval, right? MR. SCHACHNER-Not only no further development, but as I understand it, we’re talking about a subdivision here, and that means that if it’s subject to APA approval, they can’t even complete the subdivision by filing a map with the County Clerk’s Office until they have APA approval, as well as the approval of this Board. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Would it be logical to reverse this scenario and go to the APA first and then here? MR. STEVES-My name’s Matt Steves. I represent the Gereau’s. Maybe I can give you a better answer to that question for you. I’ve been in contact with the APA, and they put you in a Catch- 22, if you’ve ever dealt with the APA. You state that you would like to see the APA have approval before you grant approval. The APA doesn’t do anything until they know that it’s approvable by the Town, okay. You have an approved plan within the bounds of the APA, and that they want to know that it meets your guidelines before they’ll do anything. So I have to have some kind of an approval from you, at least at preliminary approval, then I can take that information with the septic design that I have, the perc test, the deep test, the topography, they won’t even look at it until I have it to this point. I’ve reviewed it, sent it up there, and they’ve sent it back and say, until we have further information, there is no need for review by this Board. In other words, they don’t want to waste their time with it unless they know that it’s something that the Town Planning Board will approve. So what we have done in the past, so that you will know, is that continue through with your full review. Make sure it meets all your zoning requirements, and then we pass it on to them and say that it is approved with conditions, that it be approved by them before we can bring it back for signatures. 17 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Let me bounce back to Staff for a second. This Rist-Frost letter that outlines some pretty significant concerns that they have. Have they demonstrated that they do not need a stormwater management plan? MS. NOWICKI-Not as of yet. I haven’t talked with. MR. MAC EWAN-Not as of yet, and about the specifying wells, wells and well’s capacity. MR. STEVES-I could answer that. MR. MAC EWAN-Go ahead. MR. STEVES-Okay. On the plan, there was a well detail that was mistakenly added, not mistakenly added. It was a detail that needs to be shown on the Detail Sheet, but it was taken off another plan, and it had more information on it than was necessary, and actually had flow rates and capacity, water capacity from a well that isn’t drilled yet. So you can’t have that. In other words, they just said, you know, this is kind of premature. If you don’t have a well drilled, how can you give us how many gallons per minute you’re obtaining from that? I’ve made the changes to the well detail, and there’s no problem with that. It showed the concrete collar around the casing on the top. I’ve changed that detail to conform to Rist-Frost’s liking. MR. MAC EWAN-Has that gone back over to Rist-Frost for review? MR. STEVES-That’s going back over right now. MR. MAC EWAN-So it hasn’t gone back over yet? MR. STEVES-That hasn’t gone back over, no. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. I don’t see us doing a two step process tonight. Okay? MR. STEVES-No problem. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anybody up on the Board have any questions? MR. VOLLARO-I guess the only question I had, has there been any preliminary work done on the site? That was prompted by the Rist-Frost comment on the well, but you clarified that for me. MR. STEVES-Yes. The only other work we’ve done since we’ve been here for sketch plan is we have performed two foot contours in the area of proposed development, and we have performed deep test and perc tests on all lots. MR. VOLLARO-What is proposed for Lot Number Five? What is the plan for that? MR. STEVES-Lot Number Five will be basically retained by the Gereau’s. They are going to be building on the area near the remains of the old house that was there, right on the intersection, and the rest of it will just be maintained by them. It’s all inclusive of Lot Five. Just to kind of keep the more rural atmosphere that currently exists up there. MR. MAC EWAN-No further plans to further subdivide that parcel? MR. STEVES-Not at this time, no. MR. MAC EWAN-At any time? MR. STEVES-That I can not answer. Maybe some time in the future. There is definitely no where near the density, you know, no where used the density on this property. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. VOLLARO-No, that’s all I had on that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Lot Five, if it’s 30 acres, it’s got to go some place else, because just what’s inside here. 18 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. STEVES-It land hooked across the road, all the way around. You seek the hooks on there? This is all one lot. MRS. LABOMBARD-So, it’s in between here, between these other ones? MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-Because that’s only about 15 acres. MR. STEVES-Lot Five surrounds Lot Four, behind Lots One and Two on the north side of the road, also. MRS. LABOMBARD-All right. It’s on the north side of the road, which is, wait a minute, here’s the road, the north side would be, you mean it’s on the west side of Clendon Brook? It’s all this. There’s about 15 acres, and then MR. STEVES-It’s on the west side, north of this road, I’m sorry, Clendon Brook, north, and on the west, and over here also. MRS. LA BOMBARD-This one, that’s the other part. I think I asked you that before. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, the parcel isn’t contiguous. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, okay. MR. MAC EWAN-It’s kind of split up. MR. STEVES-It’s an odd shaped parcel, but like we say, because of the wetland considerations here, that has been flagged and okayed by the APA Staff. MRS. LABOMBARD-But what I don’t understand is how can Lot Five, if this piece here is not? MR. STEVES-It’s all one parcel of land. MR. MAC EWAN-But it’s not contiguous, though. MRS. LABOMBARD-But it’s not adjacent. This part here doesn’t touch any of this here. MR. STEVES-Okay. By deed, this is all one parcel of land. This is a road by use, not by dedication. So the fee title is right underneath the road. I understand what your concern is here. I think maybe you have to look to your Counsel, maybe, for another answer on that. MR. MAC EWAN-Enlighten us. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes, enlighten us. MR. SCHACHNER-What’s the issue about the road? MR. MAC EWAN-The fact that they’re talking this one parcel that’s 30 plus acres, but from what the map has illustrated, it’s actually two different parcels. They’re not a contiguous piece of land. MR. ROUND-It’s not uncommon for more rural areas, that roads transect pieces of property that you own on both sides of a road, common ownership. It’s not unusual. It’s just it’s a unique situation in front of you here tonight. MRS. LABOMBARD-Okay. The parcel here with the stone fireplace is part of it, too. MR. ROUND-Correct. MRS. LABOMBARD-So you just cross the road. MR. ROUND-There’s three separate parcels, but it’s all a single property. 19 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MRS. LABOMBARD-So there is kind of a continuity here. You can just go across the road and then across that road. MR. STEVES-Correct, and we discussed this before. If you look on the west side of the corner lot, which is the portion of Lot Five which is directly south of Lot Three, you see that the wetlands come basically all the way up to the road line. So it really precludes from doing anything else, but this allows a nice buffer for Lot Five that nobody on Lot Three could build over behind that wetland. Like I say, it maintains the rural characteristic in the area. MRS. LABOMBARD-Isn’t that Bear Mountain Road in there? MR. STEVES-I believe so. MRS. LABOMBARD-Yes. MR. STEVES-Tuthill Road goes back over to Luzerne Road, and then turns into Bear Mountain Road, where it used to connect, Fuller Road doesn’t come all the way anymore. MRS. LABOMBARD-Clendon Brook, though, Matt, kind of ends right there at the intersection, and then it goes over to Bear Mountain. MR. STEVES-That’s correct, and Lot Four will be accessed from Fuller Road. MR. PALING-Clarify for me, like in Lot Number Two, what’s the distance to the wetland from the building you’ve got there? MR. STEVES-On Lot Number Two? MR. PALING-Yes. MR. STEVES-Proposed building layout. I’d say you’re looking at about 150 to 170 feet. That’s 100 scale. One inch equals 100 feet. MR. PALING-Well, then something’s wrong, because I’m under a half an inch. Am I looking at this wrong? MR. ROUND-I’ve got like 30 feet, Matt, on Lot Two? MR. PALING-This is your wetland boundary here, and this is the building here. That’s not 150 feet. That’s more like, that’s a little over a quarter of an inch. MR. STEVES-There’s been a revised on that one, Bob, and it is slid down. MR. PALING-Okay. So on Lot Number Two, that building is? MR. STEVES-That is pulled back to beyond 100 feet. MR. PALING-Okay. So you’ve got a more recent one. MR. STEVES-The APA requirement is that an septic system be 100 feet away from the wetlands. MR. PALING-Okay. Then Staff will have to have that print, rather than the one we’re working with. MR. STEVES-You’re getting all new prints with the revised information going back to the engineering outfit, to Rist-Frost. MR. PALING-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Fine. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else, Bob? MR. PALING-No, that’s all I had. 20 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else to add? MR. VOLLARO-Underneath the project description, on Part I of the environmental, you have the total contiguous acres owned by the project sponsor is 47.6. So the second page, down at the bottom under “B”, if the project acreage to be developed is 4.92 and then it says 4.92 acres ultimately, that doesn’t seem to make sense to me. That’s under “B”. MR. STEVES-Yes. Total acreage of project is 47.6, approximate acreage of meadowland/brush. MR. VOLLARO-It says project acreage remain under developed is 47.6 acreage. You’re saying project acreage to be developed is only 4.92 acres, and then it says acreage ultimately, 4.92. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. Well, you’re talking actual development area within the lots, how many acres are you going to be disturbing on the 40 acres? That’s clearing limits, that’s septic, that’s house building, that’s driveways, that’s disturbance area. MR. VOLLARO-That’s not what this says. MR. STEVES-It says physical dimensions and scale of project. The entire project with the development of five residential houses. MR. MAC EWAN-Does Staff concur with that section of the SEQRA form? MR. ROUND-Yes. That’s typically the way it’s presented is the area of disturbance and the portion of the property that’s actually going to be developed or impacted by the development. MR. STEVES-If you were to build a house on 40 acres, you’re not necessarily disturbing the 40 acres. MR. VOLLARO-That I understand. I just want to get a clarification that that’s the way it’s (lost word). MR. ROUND-Yes. That’s consistent, but I still, the 4..92 you’re referencing, I don’t see where. MR. MAC EWAN-Section B, Project Description. MR. ROUND-Okay. I’m looking at the Site Description, still. MR. MAC EWAN-Item One B. MR. VOLLARO-Where it says “Project Acreage to be Developed - 4.92”. MR. ROUND-Yes. That is consistent with. MR. SCHACHNER-Yes. That is how that is typically interpreted. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Good enough. It just struck me odd with all the acreage they’re talking about. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. Keep in mind, the purpose of the environmental assessment is to assess the physical impacts on the environment. So, as Mr. Steves points out, if you’re developing, you know, if you’re physically disturbing 10 acres on a million acre site, that question is intended to ask for the response of 10 acres, not a million acres. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. Understood. Clarified. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. STEVES-As far as the comments by Rist-Frost, as far as the Number One, the two standard notes, that’s not a problem. I already placed it on the map. As I said, for the next meeting you’ll have all that. I’ve been in contact with Rist-Frost. They’re going to be happy with everything we have done. We’ve addressed all their concerns. That’s it. MR. MAC EWAN-I guess my biggest hang up on the Rist-Frost comment is Number Two, to address and demonstrate that a stormwater management plan is not required. 21 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. STEVES-That’s correct. As far as the amount of disturbance we are proposing, we don’t feel it is required. We will state on the plans that all drainage will be a positive away from the house, but as far as the actual area that’s level vegetated up there, it’s not like we’re blacktopping and putting in a lot of roads, or for stormwater management report or plan for a new infrastructure, but we also, that is going to be reviewable by the APA, and as far as having to demonstrate to them, the area of disturbance, they will also maybe require that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and as long as you demonstrate that to Mr. Round’s satisfaction, he’ll ultimately have the last say on that, correct, whether he needs it or not? MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. If you want to give up the table, we’ll open up the public hearing. Would anyone like to come up and comment or ask questions regarding this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MS. NOWICKI-Craig, I have one letter, if you’d like me to read that. MR. MAC EWAN-While they’re looking that over, read your letter. MS. NOWICKI-Okay. “To the Town of Queensbury Planning Board:”, this is from Dr. Michael Pall, “Presently the Tuthill Road area of Queensbury is rural in nature with wooded and wetland areas surrounding the dwellings. My concern is that any subdivision maintain this unique appearance by preserving as much of the woods as possible, with dwellings vegetatively screened and limited in number so as not to be visible to each other. I would ask the Planning Board to take this concern into consideration when deciding how the land is to be subdivided, the size and number of lots, the setbacks from existing dwellings, and the placement of the dwellings on each lot.” MRS. LA BOMBARD-I agree with that. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does anyone want to come up? Please identify yourself for the record. JOANN HOLMES MS. HOLMES-My name is Joann Holmes. I live on Clendon Brook Road, just east of the planned development area. I was wondering why, with 47 acres, they couldn’t conform to the five acre zoning for each lot? There’s enough land there that should have been able to comply with the present zoning for each lot. As it is, if they sell lots under the zone, obviously, they’ll have to have a review from the Zoning Board. Is that proper? Am I assuming that, once this subdivision? MR. MAC EWAN-There’s a clustering provision within our Subdivision Regulations which will give an applicant an opportunity to develop a parcel of land with the intention of, and the thought process behind clustering is to keep a vast area of land open. That’s the object of clustering. MS. HOLMES-Why wasn’t five acres considered vast enough, when we put in the zoning laws, and now five acres is not enough, because they want 3.78 and 4.02, and if we wanted to make it zoned for five acres, that’s what we should keep it is five acres, and if they’re going to cluster, cluster with five acres. MR. MAC EWAN-I’d like you to respond to that. Can you, please? MR. ROUND-The overall density development is less than is allowed under the Ordinance. It’s 46, 47 acres, with this density, they would be able to create nine lots. They’re proposing a five lot subdivision. The lot sizes are smaller than what is defined under RR-5A, but the overall density is less than the restriction. MS. HOLMES-This is the only subdivision that will be allowed, or only subdivision that would be allowed at this time, seeing as how they’re holding 30 acres? MR. ROUND-The entire land holding, the overall density will be restricted, and the APA, again, will comment on the RR-5A, and whether they have preference over a different lot configuration than what’s presented here tonight. 22 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MS. HOLMES-And APA is the one that had the delineation of the wetlands in this area? MR. ROUND-Correct. MS. HOLMES-Boy, they didn’t walk it this spring. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. RUI GOMES MR. GOMES-My name is Rui Gomes, and my wife is Kathy Gomes, from 91 Tuthill Road. We th purchased our property, 52 acres, a year ago, May 4, and one of the things I made sure, when we moved up here, we dropped everything, that we lived in New Jersey, and jobs and we changed our whole lives to live in a better zone, and one of the main things that I thought I was under the impression was 10 acres. Now all of a sudden it becomes five acres, and I have still purchased the property, and I am bettering where I live. My concern is, you know, here we are. Our neighbors are far enough from us, which I enjoy, but we love each other, and the same time, my question to you is the same. This looks to me like a money proposition, because what this gentleman has paid for the property, obviously, for all this acreage, is what I paid for mine, and what he’s going to do with two or three lots is make enough money to pay for the whole thing here. It’s a money proposition. You approve this, you’re going against the five acres to begin with. It’s none of my concern, truthfully, that he wants to subdivide three and four acres into the, you know, to me, that’s just ridiculous. If you have a set five, leave it at five. Okay. That’s why we have that, and it’s obvious, you know, lets follow the rules and regulations. If the man wants to build eight houses, nine houses, what’s stops him? What stops me from selling my house later on, and play a joke on my neighbors, and say, hey, lets subdivide my lot into, how many houses can I put in there? It becomes, once we were in a get away, out of the way place, all of a sudden it becomes a total scene like the point, a couple of miles away from us, but we didn’t want to live in certain places like that. We moved away from that to become part of nature. That’s what, you know, that’s the bottom like, you know, even five is minimal, but lets just say five. I think he’s got enough space to subdivide it into five acres, and if he doesn’t, well, he shouldn’t have bought the land. He knows what he was getting into. Now, you know, we’re going to make, it’s like betting on a horse. You hope for it to go through. That’s you. If you say, yes, lets let this thing go ahead and do it, fine. Well, he got a good horse. Well, when he bought it, he knew there was five, it was minimal. He got the price for 46 acres being minimal, bottom line, I think you understand me in this case, and I think my neighbors say the same exact thing. There are people here tonight which have seen part of the lots all around us, and I did show them parts of lots that are selling right next to me and so on, and I was very nice about it, and I told them, I said, this is an area that’s extremely nice to live at, but hopefully we’ll never have so many people building up here, and these people are here tonight with prices of per acre per land that they want to buy, and some of these prices are insulting. It’s a money making deal. So, nothing against money, but not at my expense, because I did just hand in everything I did to come up here and live in a nice area, in my own world, which I believe all of us want to live on their own little world here. So, I thank you for your time. MR. MAC EWAN-Thank you very much. Anyone else? KATHY GOMES MRS. GOMES-Kathy Gomes, 91 Tuthill Road. I have the same question as my neighbors and my husband. If this is five acre zoning and they have so much remaining land that they are going to hold, why can’t they just bump the boundary lines of those lots over a little bit and make them conform with the five acres, the five acre zoning? As far as the wetlands, I also agree that if anyone’s been up in this area in spring, the wetlands are much larger than that, they really are. Also the road up there, it’s a very poor road. It’s in poor condition. It washes out every time we have a heavy rainstorm. This is going to mean more people traveling the road, and I’d like to know if any proposals have been put in for improving the quality of the road, along with this development. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We’ll get those questions answered for you. Thank you. MS. HOLMES-I’m sorry, I forgot to mention. My name is Joann Holmes, again. I had a well put in seven years ago, and I they had to drill 600 feet to get the minimum of the capacity. We live on rock ledge up there. They only put 200 feet of pipe down, and 400 foot of it went through rock, solid rock. 23 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Where do you live in respect to this subdivision, proposed subdivision? MS. HOLMES-South, no, no, no, east. It’s east of Harold’s property, down the mountain. Believe me, I’ll know how many people are up there by what my well does. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, you know, drilling, we drilled 400, 500 feet down right along Lake George to get water, you know. So, I mean, I don’t think that’s unreasonable. What is your point? MS. HOLMES-They did perc tests and so forth on all these lots. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What is your point, as far as, perc tests doesn’t have to do with your water supply. MS. HOLMES-True, that’s for drainage. Well, it does if their water supply is uphill from mine. If they’re percing, and whatever drainage or seepage or whatever is coming down the mountain. MRS. LABOMBARD-I don’t know. I’m in that predicament, and I’ll tell you, I’ve got 60 gallons a minute. I have an overflow on the lake, and I’ve got lots of people above me. I mean, I don’t know. MS. HOLMES-Well, I don’t know. All I know is that three generations of this family has lived on that mountain, and any time it rains, you know the difference in your well, and I don’t care how deep it is. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MRS. WHITE MRS. WHITE-Yes. I’m Mrs. White, and I live on Fuller Road, and they’ve, as you know, ended that road. Where they will be building, I had a 20 foot dug well, and all of the rocks, the stones, whatever they put on that road has come down through the woods, filled my well, I had to have a drilled well, go down 600 feet. I have a pond up there that’s almost filled. So you see there’s a lot of this. Mud, rocks, stones, everything comes down through those woods, where that place is, they expect to build a house there. They’ll find that there is a lot of drainage. Whenever we have a real hard rain, our road, there’s nothing left but the tar in the center. The sides of the road are gone, every time we have a real bad rain storm up there. So it’s very wet. I don’t know, now when I started out, when my husband was alive, we had 10 acres of land. My last taxes was 923. Today I went in and talked to them, and I only have 823 acreage. Where did my land go to? I’m going to have it surveyed. So that I don’t think that line right there on the bottom is right. Next to Richard and Madeline White. MRS. LA BOMBARD-She’s Mrs. White, right here. MR. MAC EWAN-Mrs. White, you say somewhere along the line you’ve lost like an acre, an acre and a quarter of your property? MRS. WHITE-Right, an acre and a half. MRS. LABOMBARD-In other words, you’re paying taxes on less land than you originally had? When your tax statement comes, it says? MRS. WHITE-Yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Boy. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? MARION ROLAND MRS. ROLAND-Marion Roland. I live at 79 Fuller, north of these people, and I have nothing against this subdivision, but I do want to point out, three years ago, when we went to buy, we were forced to buy this little 50 foot strip on the other side of Clendon Brook Road that is absolutely useless to anybody, and you can walk up there. It’s strictly ledge, 10 acres. We had to conform to the zoning up there, and I met with you people, I don’t have any problem at all, but I do expect the five acre zoning stays up there. There’s no reason, I know they can keep, they can just enlarge it a 24 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) little bit, but, I mean, that’s only three years ago we were forced to do that. That’s all I have to say. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I think for the moment I’m going to keep the public hearing open. Matt, could you come back up please. MR. STEVES-Okay. Again, my name is Matt Steves. As far as the concern, I guess, over the five acre zoning, yes, it is in a five acre zone. Under the cluster provision that is also in that zone, the minimum lot size is one acre. So we are well above that. MR. MAC EWAN-Wait a minute. What? The minimum lot size isn’t one acre. It’s five acres. MR. STEVES-Five acres in the zone. What’s the minimum size under a cluster? MR. ROUND-One acre is the minimum area required for clustering. MR. STEVES-Okay. So we are completely abiding by, I want to put away any false pretenses we are not abiding by zoning. We are 100% abiding by the Town Zoning. The zoning says that if we want to go down to a cluster, we can go down to one acre in size. So in other words, on 47 acres, which would allow nine lots, five acre density a piece, you could have nine one acre lots clustered in one corner, and then the rest of it would have to be used up in the density. We’re effectively doing the same thing, the smallest being the 3.78 acres, was to utilize the land the slopes and the wetland conditions to best place the homes for the purpose of keeping it rural. The old farm house that was right up to the top of the hill, where you still see that chimney, is if somebody was to build there, now they can’t have anybody across the street because they own across the street. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Matt, just a second. The gentleman here, the plaid shirt, and I know you’re really concerned, he answered my question. I was thinking along your lines, except you were talking when he answered it, and I’m not, I just want to make sure that you understand what he said. Because they could have nine one acre lots here, next to each other, and then the other 31 acres could be kept green, forever wild. I want these people to understand what’s going on, and I want them to leave here tonight without any questions, and knowing that, you know, we’re not trying to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes here, that everybody understands. MR. MAC EWAN-Trust me, we aren’t doing that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No, I know we’re not, but I don’t want them to go out thinking differently. MR. MAC EWAN-I think maybe you can kind of put a spin on it this way. Let me have my piece here. MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-In the spirit of the Subdivision Regulations, when one thinks of clustering, one assumes one big contiguous piece of land, not a piece here, not a piece there, not a piece there, all adding up to what you want to do, and taking it from that standpoint. Do you see what I’m saying? MR. STEVES-I certainly do. MR. MAC EWAN-When you’re talking clustering, I’m envisioning someone who wants to cluster just like we did up the street up here, Surrey Fields, where that was one contiguous piece of land up there, where we did the cluster up there, to keep the open vistas. We kept the hedgerows up there. Remember the real agricultural view? That’s what we wanted to strive to obtain. When you talk about clustering, and you have a 30 acre parcel here, which is not actually here. You’ve got maybe 25 acres here, and you’ve got five acres over there, or you’ve got 20 and 10 or whatever. It’s not all together, and I think that’s kind of where we’re getting into the gray area of the clustering provision. MR. STEVES-Right, and I understand that, but I’m using the same philosophy as we have in previous subdivisions, just like one of you mentioned Surrey Fields, is that we can extend Lots One and Two and Lots Four back to create five acre parcels, no problem, but then what you’re doing is you’re eliminating that green buffer between the lots, and that’s getting away from what you’re trying to create under clustering, is to create more of a green area between the development area. 25 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Not necessarily. I mean, we have options available to us as a Board. I mean, we could say that you have to remain so far off the property line. MR. STEVES-I’m not saying you as a Board. I’m saying why I did this plan, okay. It really is not going to change the location of any of the house layouts if I push those lots back to five acres, but what happens now is now that person has the ability to have more land in the back that they’re still not going to use, but maybe they’ll put up a barn or something in the back that nobody wanted to see from another lot. MR. MAC EWAN-My concern is that I think the neighbors have raised a very viable point here as far as keeping the openness, the rural aspect, and the intent up there. That’s why it was five acre zoning to begin with. MR. STEVES-But that’s what we’re doing. I will gladly take the three lots that are under the five and extend them back, so that they are closer together, and you can have five acres per lot, but it doesn’t give you any more of a green area than you have now. MR. MAC EWAN-If this was to proceed down the road, and we’re looking to do an approval here, what kind of meat could we have on the hook if we told you that we didn’t want any further development of the 30 acre parcel? MR. STEVES-That would be up to my clients. MR. MAC EWAN-To ensure that it remains that open, rural aspect. MR. STEVES-Like I said, that would be up to my clients. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I do want to make a comment here about, on your side, about what you’re saying about this clustering. I have an experience that happened to me and my next door neighbor. We had a really nice buffer between both of our lots, and when the house next door to me was sold, the new people came in and clear cut that lot, right to my property line. So now all I have left is my buffer, and I can see through at all their junk. To me it’s their junk, but to them it’s their good stuff, and what I’m saying, what he’s trying to say is if he keeps this so many acres, not up to five, and has that green, then the people that buy that acreage can never do what the people next door to me did, but, you know, once you own all that property, too, then you have more jurisdiction, and then you could infringe more upon ruining the buffer. So you’ve got both sides. MRS. GOMES-The buffer’s between their lots. It’s not out to the street where we live. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But I’m just saying, you’ve got good points and bad, you know, you’ve got good points on both sides. MR. STEVES-Okay. I was speaking to the Gereau’s, and if the Board requires us increase those to five acres, I will gladly do so, but it will not effect, as far as the, if road frontage, or the location of the houses, that’s why we propose them where they are, because of the constraints of wetlands and topography. This is where they’re going to be, but I will gladly, if the Board would direct me to do so, increase them to five acres to eliminate any problems, but I just want to point out, I don’t want the people to think that we do not, are not consistent with the zoning. We are consistent with the zoning up here. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Another question that was raised, from public comment, was the delineation of the wetlands. Who flagged that? MR. STEVES-That was delineated by Judy Ross of the APA. MR. MAC EWAN-When was it done? MR. STEVES-The wetland boundary as shown on this survey was flagged in the field by Judith Ross of the APA on April 18,1996. Verified by Judy Ross of the APA Staff on 7/29/96. MR. MAC EWAN-What is protocol for Staff about having something re-flagged? I mean, is there is there a time period that we normally use and say that, you know, maybe too much time has gone by, we need to go out and have it re-done? MR. ROUND-It’s an APA jurisdiction. We have no jurisdiction over APA wetlands. 26 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MEMBER OF AUDIENCE-Read number three on that note. MR. STEVES-I’ll gladly read that if the Board wants me to. MR. MAC EWAN-Lets start down at the other end. Bob, have you got any questions or comments? MR. PALING-Yes, I have one question. Are you saying, on the last, on the 30 acre part of this lot, that you could try to develop this some day? MR. STEVES-I’m saying that there is the potential left there, in your current zoning, that that could be developed later, but you also have to remember, it still has to come back to your Board, and it still has to be reviewed by the APA also. MR. PALING-But I was under the impression, and I guess I have no reason to be, but I thought that was forever wild, and that changes my outlook on this, yes. MRS. LA BOMBARD-See, I thought it was, too, but it really isn’t. MR. PALING-But that if that land is not forever wild, then I think. MR. MAC EWAN-What made you think that? MR. PALING-I don’t know, I assumed. MR. MAC EWAN-I thought that when we sketched plan, when we talked at sketch plan, we kind of talked around some of those things that, I don’t know if the word “forever wild” was necessarily used, but it was going to be retained. MR. PALING-This defeats the whole purpose of clustering. MR. MAC EWAN-Absolutely. I agree with you. MR. PALING-If you’re going to come back, and then we want to develop that Lot Number Five. MR. STEVES-Then, like I say, I will gladly extend Lots One, Two, and Four to create five acres, and we’ll end the issue. MRS. LA BOMBARD-And Craig had mentioned about not having any further development, and you said that was up to your client. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. PALING-Well, I think it should be forever wild, or then you should go to the alternative that you’re just saying, and make all lots over five acres. MR. STEVES-I’ll make all lots over five acres. MR. RINGER-I was under the impression, too, that if we did clustering, that that was going to leave the balance forever wild. I was surprised that that was the reason for clustering, and the only reason for clustering, actually, was to do that, and to save road space. MR. STEVES-Well, there’s two reasons for clustering, and you’re absolutely right. In the case of like a Surrey Fields where you take all their acreage, and take all the density and use it up on, for smaller lots, you have effectively, you’ve used all your density. So you have to leave all the rest forever wild. We, in this case, have not used all of our density. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s not what the purpose of clustering is, though. Shall I read you the Section? MR. STEVES-Certainly. MR. MAC EWAN-The object of clustering is “A. The development pattern with preserving the outstanding natural topography geological vistas, trees, and prevent the disruption of natural 27 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) drainage patterns.” That’s Number One. “An efficient use of the land resulting in smaller networks of utilities or streets,” which really doesn’t concern this one. “A development pattern in harmony with the land use intensity, transportation facilities and community facilities as objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plans”. Based on what you’re proposing here for clustering, I don’t think it meets those objectives anymore. MR. STEVES-That’s fine. Like I say, we’ll end the issue, and we’ll add those three lots to be five acres, and end of story. Okay. I think at this point it would be wise for us just to table this thing so that you can revise your plan, that you can get the Rist-Frost comments addressed. MRS. LA BOMBARD-What about Dr. Pall’s comment about buffering? MR. MAC EWAN-I think that goes in line with what we’re discussing here. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Where if somebody buys a lot that they really can’t do what my neighbor did, cut every single tree down on that lot. MR. VOLLARO-The other side of this coin is that they could have put nine, five acre lots here, too. That’s something you could have. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Not necessarily. That still has to go through us and has to still be conforming. MR. VOLLARO-I know, but he could have proposed that. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s true. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s proposing this, too. MR. VOLLARO-There wouldn’t have been any green space at all if he had proposed it that way. He could have used all of this, put nine, five acre lots out, or proposed it that way. MR. MAC EWAN-Well, actually, I mean, we’re dealing with a unique section of Town here. I mean, if the Board feels that maybe a buffering plan should be set forth, lets talk about it now, lets send them out with that message that we’re looking for, to keep that. MR. STEVES-I will gladly display clearing limits on every lot. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. That would be good. That’s a step in the right direction. I think you need to get together with Staff and Rist-Frost and determine your stormwater management plan, and demonstrate that you don’t think that you need one. Okay, and I think you need one. MR. STEVES-And I’d also reiterate to you that that is also going to be reviewed by the APA, okay, and the APA also has clearing regulations and guidelines, and that’s what we came in here to do, and I guess there was another note here, as somebody in the audience had suggested the wetlands boundary shown reflect only those flagged in the field for this development. There was other areas down in here that are not conducive to development, that are wetland, where we had her flag, and she has reviewed this, and it says that anything in the area of our development has been flagged, and verified, and, yes, I, as a professional, have reviewed this whole thing, and, yes, I can put nine lots on here, and, yes, they will all conform to your Code, and, no, we are not putting nine lots on here. We are proposing five. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Getting back to the APA issue, just for a second, and the stormwater management plan, and so on and so forth, you made the statement, at the beginning of the session, that the APA was going to look at what this Board did in its approval process. MR. STEVES-That’s correct. MR. MAC EWAN-For us to give consideration of approval for SEQRA, I want to know that a stormwater management plan is needed or not needed, and that’ll be his call, okay. MR. STEVES-That’s fine. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. Now, we need to do a laundry list of things that need to be done here. Number One, you’re going to revise your plan, to reflect five acre lots. 28 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. STEVES-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Two, a buffering plan. MR. STEVES-Lot clearing plan. MR. MAC EWAN-Lot clearing limits. Three is the determination by the Zoning Administrator as to whether a stormwater management plan is needed, okay. MR. ROUND-Rist-Frost will give them some feedback, that’s been noted on the Rist-Frost comment letter. MR. STEVES-Tom Nace is the engineer on the project, and I’ll have him review that with Bill Levandowski of Rist-Frost. MR. MAC EWAN-Future intent of the 30 and a half acre remaining parcel. MR. STEVES-They have no intentions at this time. I know that. MR. MAC EWAN-Put it in writing. How’s that. MR. STEVES-Certainly. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That doesn’t mean anything. That really doesn’t mean anything. MR. MAC EWAN-No, you’re right, it doesn’t. I want it, though. I think it’s a reasonable request from us. Anyone else on the Board have anything else they want added to this? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. I do. I don’t think we have any way, in that 30 and a half acres, even though you’re going to put that down, and I think Cathy’s right, it doesn’t mean anything, but I don’t think we can dictate how they’re going to use that 30 and a half acres either. In other words, we’re trying to get them to really say that they’re not going to develop in the future and possibly hold it forever wild, but I don’t think we can make that determination. It’s their land. MR. MAC EWAN-I think we have that power to make that determination. If we want to make an approval for this subdivision, and part of our approval process puts some restrictions on what future development happens to that 30 and a half acre lot, that’s fully within our power. MRS. LA BOMBARD-But, Craig, if you look at that land, it’s bordered by wetlands. The bottom of it is also landlocked. MR. MAC EWAN-Don’t get me wrong. I’m not overly concerned with that parcel right now. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Right. It’s locked by the other lots, and it just has one part that’s got frontage on a road. MR. MAC EWAN-No. They’ve got that part right there, too. MRS. LA BOMBARD-I keep forgetting that part. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Well, how many acres is this up here? MR. MAC EWAN-It’s not delineated. Maybe if you could do that, delineate that other portion, as to how much acreage is up there. Could you do that for us? MR. STEVES-The one on the west side of the road? MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. It would be on the. MR. STEVES-Where it says the stone foundation remains? MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. The one right across the street. 29 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. STEVES-Okay. Yes, I can. MS. NOWICKI-Why don’t you make him delineate all land hooked parcels. MR. MAC EWAN-There you go. That’s even better. MR. STEVES-Right, A, B, C, and D or whatever. Okay. Is that it? Okay. MR. PALING-The only comment I have, now that I understand what’s going on, I don’t think this met the requirements of clustering. If you can come in and have your average lot lowered, and then leave the balance of the big piece of land to do something else with some day, I don’t understand that as real clustering. As I said earlier, if it was forever wild, yes, I understand it, but not when you come back and bring 30 and a half acres in and doing something else with it. MR. ROUND-Can I give some comment on this, before we get all lost. Matt’s going to change it to five acres. So, I mean, that discussion’s moot, but this project was in for sketch plan. I was not here for sketch plan, and I believe that issue was addressed at sketch plan, and that that’s why this went the direction it did. MR. MAC EWAN-Because we as a Board, and I think we’re all reflecting, we were kind of under the impression that 30 and a half acres, nothing was going to happen to it. MR. ROUND-Right. You’ve given the feedback, and I think now he’s going to address that. MR. SCHACHNER-But could I just add to that, just briefly. I agree with Chris, we don’t need to get off on this debate a tremendous amount of time, but Bob, I think you’re uncomfortable because I think you’re still misunderstanding one thing. It’s not the case that an applicant in this situation would be free to then subsequently develop the entire green space acreage. That’s not true. You are correct in understanding that a portion of the open space must be dedicated to no further development. Where I think you may have gotten confused is that not 100% of the open space has to be dedicated to that, if there’s enough left over density. Am I making sense? MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-I think you’ve now got the impression from the applicant, erroneously, that an application could come forward to develop the entire 30 and a half acres if this remained clustered, and that’s not correct. It could not do that. He could, conceivably put an application in for a portion of it, but if I’m not making sense, don’t get bogged down in this. We can talk about it some other time. MR. PALING-I only dispute you on one point, and that is to say if we’re going to cluster something, I think it’s right that we know what’s left wild, and we don’t know what’s left wild in this case. MR. SCHACHNER-I agree. Correct. Absolutely correct. I totally agree with that. MR. VOLLARO-Yes, but, the fact that he’s going to five acres doesn’t make any, because he’s out of the clustering. MR. SCHACHNER-Correct. That’s why we shouldn’t get bogged down. That’s absolutely correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Now we have those four items. MR. STEVES-And that’s not a problem with us, because as I say, if it’s too confusing, we’ll just end it. MR. MAC EWAN-Does anyone want to make a motion to table? MOTION TO TABLE SUBDIVISION NO. 2-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE WILLIAM & LISA GEREAU , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: 30 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) One, to revise the plan to five acre lots, to allow for some kind of a buffering stipulation on those lots, to have it be determined by the Zoning Administrator if a stormwater management plan is needed, and what the future intent is going to be of those 30 acres that are left over, and compliance with the Rist-Frost letter that is dated May 15, 1998, and to delineate all the other land hooks or land parcels that are left over, and give us some specifics on the lot clearing limits. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. SCHACHNER-Craig, you started a public hearing on that. MR. MAC EWAN-I left it open. MR. SCHACHNER-Okay. I mean, I think you’re going to get a pretty different application. I don’t know if you want to leave it open or re-advertise. MR. MAC EWAN-We did leave it open. MR. SCHACHNER-I understand that. My question is, do you think that’s the most appropriate thing to do, versus re-advertising when you have the revised application? MR. MAC EWAN-That makes good sense. Lets re-advertise it. I think it’s appropriate. MR. SCHACHNER-I think that’s our feeling here, that you’re looking at a non clustered subdivision. Yes, I think that would probably be most appropriate. MR. MAC EWAN-All right. I’ll close the public hearing on this one, and the application will reflect that we’re going to re-advertise it, as a different application, as a five acre subdivision, five acre parcel subdivision. Okay. Is that doable? Okay. So noted. Thank you. MR. STEVES-Thank you. SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1998 PRELIMINARY STAGE TYPE: UNLISTED STAN RYMKEWICZ, JR. OWNER: SAME ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 19+/- ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS OF 5 AC. AND 14 AC. CROSS REFERENCE: SUB. 12-1997 TAX MAP NO. 54-2-7.1 LOT SIZE: 19+/- ACRES SECTION: SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS STAN RYMKEWICZ, JR., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Subdivision No. 1-1998 - Preliminary Stage, Stan Rymkewicz, Meeting Date: May 19, 1998 “The applicant proposes a two (2) lot subdivision for preliminary approval in SR- 1A zone. The applicant has met with the Chairman and Staff in regards to what should be shown on a subdivision plot plan. Staff has reviewed the submitted plot plan and suggests the applicant refer the plan to a surveyor/engineer for accurate measurements of topographic features prior to the next subdivision stage (final). The applicant has indicated that the remaining land, Lot C approximately 14 acres may be subdivided further or sold as one lot (14 acres). Staff is concerned about the slopes on the entire property. The applicant has only shown the contour lines for the placement of the dwellings towards the front of the property. Subdivisions done in this grid like manner may leave a portion of the property potentially unusable by a buyer. Staff would suggest the applicant mention any topography restrictions in regards to building on a plot plan, and also any easements.” MR. MAC EWAN-Any other notes? No other notes, Laura? MS. NOWICKI-No. 31 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Good evening. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Yes. My name is Stan Rymkewicz, Jr. MR. MAC EWAN-Are we on the right track, now? Finally? MR. RYMKEWICZ-Well, the confusion was, I guess, because there was another 42 acres sold at the same time, and this was given a number. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Mr. Rymkewicz, give us a quick overview of what you want to accomplish here, so the Board can be brought back up to speed on this. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Okay. We had a 27 acre parcel. We sold five acres, that’s already gone through to the north of this 200 foot frontage, and we’re asking for another five acre lot adjacent to it, with 200 foot frontage, called “Lot B”, leaving 14 acres to the south, and as far as maps, Matt Steves who just left will be doing the new maps, because he was involved with the 42 acres, which this was part of. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay, and there is the potential that Lot C could in turn be subdivided again. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Correct. MR. MAC EWAN-Potentially, how many lots do you think that Lot C could produce, if it was to be subdivided again? MR. RYMKEWICZ-From what I’m told, probably two five acres and one four acre. It’s SR-1 zone, and I do have pictures of it without the trees. MR. MAC EWAN-Did you get a copy of the Staff notes for tonight? MR. RYMKEWICZ-No, I did not. MR. MAC EWAN-The last paragraph, and I’ll read it to you again, is “Staff is concerned about the slopes on the entire property. The applicant has only shown the contour lines for the placement of the dwellings toward the front portion of the property. Subdivisions done in this grid like manner may leave a portion of the property potentially unusable by a buyer. Staff would suggest the applicant mention any topography restrictions in regard to building on a plot plan, and also any easements.” Now you said Matt Steves was going to re-do this map for you? MR. RYMKEWICZ-Correct, for the Final. Because he did the major part of that other subdivision. MR. MAC EWAN-What have we got, five foot contours? Is that what we required for this was five foot contours on this? Was there a letter of waivers requested from? MS. NOWICKI-It’s one inch equals fifty in the Preliminary application, one inch equals fifty feet in the Preliminary application. I don’t know if you want. MR. ROUND-Two footers. MR. MAC EWAN-Two footers are required. So we’d need to have those contours shown on the Final plat. That’s what we’d be looking for is the two foot contours, and you didn’t receive a letter requesting any particular waivers from subdivision regulations? No? I remember that was discussed in the meeting that we had, if you wanted to have any waivers from any specific, that you request it in writing. I mean, part of that also requires a stormwater management plan. MR. RYMKEWICZ-For 14 acres they need stormwater? MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t that part of the requirement of the Subdivision Reg’s? MR. ROUND-No, it’s not required. You can ask for it. For major subdivisions, it is a requirement. MR. MAC EWAN-What’s a determination of what’s a major or a minor subdivision? I’m remembering the beginning of the Subdivision Regulations. There’s a laundry list of requirements 32 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) that you need for an application on there, and if you didn’t want to try to comply with all those requirements, you ask for, a letter of waiver. MR. ROUND-We discussed that, a waiver from any of the requirements. MR. MAC EWAN-I remember we discussed it that Friday morning, and nothing’s come through. So now I want to know what the requirements are. There are requirements that you need to fulfill for subdivision, okay, and the requirements that you need to have are several requirements, and there they are, and if you don’t want to follow through with any of them because of the size of a subdivision, you can ask for a waiver from them, and he didn’t ask for a waiver of them in the form of a letter. So now we need to address what requirements may not be appropriate for this subdivision, and he said, his statement was, major subdivisions require all this, and I asked him, what’s the difference between a major and a minor subdivision? MR. ROUND-We don’t have a minor and a major subdivision definition. MR. MAC EWAN-Right. I mean, I understand he’s not going to need all this stuff. I just want to know what he will and what he won’t. MR. ROUND-Right. As a part of the application, in the application packet, it defines what you need to demonstrate on the application. That was discussed. In regard to the stormwater, it’s not identified as part of the Preliminary stage requirement. MR. MAC EWAN-Generally speaking, I would consider this, and I guess in generally speaking, not a huge subdivision. MR. ROUND-Right. MR. MAC EWAN-As we normally deal with, so we don’t have to look at road design, drainage design, grading design, and all that sort of stuff, but because of the uniqueness of where this property is located, and with the steep slopes there, would a stormwater management plan be appropriate? MR. ROUND-Again, as with the last subdivision, it is, a drainage report or stormwater management report is a requirement of the Subdivision ordinance, all right, and as you indicated, you can request a waiver from that requirement, and you need to provide justification for that request, and in this you could say, well, it’s only two lots, where the disturbed area is going to be “X” number of square feet of disturbed area, and therefore we don’t feel that stormwater management is necessary, or all drainage is going to drain to the west, and it’s not going to impact the highway infrastructure. Therefore, we don’t feel stormwater to be addressed, much in the way I’m sure that previous requests would be addressed. MR. MAC EWAN-Do you agree that the most important thing that he should have on there is the two foot contours? MR. ROUND-Yes, and we know from just a cursory review of the site, that there’s, a limited portion of these sites are suitable for placement of houses, and that we should define those locations in detail so that a homeowner doesn’t come up and just decides he wants to build somewhere else on this site, because he has the means to construct a road, etc., etc., so that that is a provision that we should include as part of the Final, is an actual house location, or a building window, where we want to see a house placed, and to take into consideration the site slopes. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MR. VOLLARO-Chris, I thought when we looked at one of these plans, where the house was laid out was kind of for reference only, and wasn’t a? MR. ROUND-It is, but that’s typical for, when you see in a subdivision such as some of the subdivisions that are taking place on the west side of Town, where you have level sites, and it is, as long as they meet the setback requirements, that’s okay, but this is a case that you have slopes that are, that could be characterized as excessive or extreme, in that in order to demonstrate that you have a buildable lot, you want to make sure that they have a suitable building area on the lot, and if you can’t demonstrate that. 33 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. VOLLARO-So you’re defining that as some, as a window, as opposed to absolute (lost words). MR. ROUND-Right, a preferred location of the. The two foot contours were going to give you that kind of information, okay. So, yes, so here’s, it’s a 10% slope in this area. You can’t make the determination from what we have in front of us. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Do you understand what we’re looking for? That there are provisions in the Subdivision requirements that tell you you have to do certain steps for subdivisions, put together a letter of waivers that you’re requesting for these things, like we just went over here. We will be looking for two foot contours, though, to be shown on your Final, and also proposed building envelope. MR. ROUND-Yes, a building envelope or individual lot gradings. That’s what we just saw on the Sherman Pines or individual lot gradings, because you want to impact the least amount of site. MR. MAC EWAN-If you’re going to be working with Matt Steves, he’ll, he knows what we would be looking for. Okay. MR. VOLLARO-There’s a couple of things on here that, in the whole application, I think you’re going to have to take a good look at. One of them is, if you look at your Page Six under “Project Information”, when you say what is the depth of the water table, it’s 150 to 200 feet well. MR. RYMKEWICZ-I was going by the wells. MR. VOLLARO-I don’t think that’s what that meant, actually. MR. RYMKEWICZ-That’s my error, then. MR. VOLLARO-Down at the bottom here, we have initially, on the “Project Description”, the drawing looks like you wanted to put, you say three houses. That means that this Lot Number 12 that’s for sale, or this 14.170 acres, is that house put there, if that’s the window or the envelope of that house? MR. RYMKEWICZ-From the people looking at the lot so far, that’s where they would want to put it. MR. VOLLARO-But that lots got to be divided in half, is that what you’re saying? That Lot C gets to about seven and seven? MR. RYMKEWICZ-Art this moment, we’re trying to sell the whole 14 acres, as one lot. MR. VOLLARO-Okay, so that will not be further divided? MR. RYMKEWICZ-I don’t know yet. Right now, we’re trying to sell it as one parcel. MR. MAC EWAN-He’s trying to sell it as one parcel. Someone could come back in with another. MR. RYMKEWICZ-Like the house down below it is 12 acres. We’re trying to get a buyer similar to that. MR. VOLLARO-When you come in for your Final, that’s got to be determined, though, doesn’t it? MR. RYMKEWICZ-I don’t know. We haven’t sold the property yet. We’ve been 21 years trying to get rid of it. Big parcels just aren’t selling. MR. VOLLARO-So we’re really only talking about two lots, that’s all we’re talking about at this point? MR. MAC EWAN-You’re looking at a five acre and a 14 acre. MR. VOLLARO-Okay. MR. PALING-I’ve just got one point of clarification, and I think, Chris, you said that stormwater management and/or drainage is not a requirement for the Preliminary. 34 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. ROUND-I believe it is and you have to request for a waiver or provide conditions for it. MR. PALING-Well, my point was, if it isn’t a requirement for Preliminary, is it going to be a requirement in the Final? I just want us to communicate clearly with the applicant what we’re asking for. MR. ROUND-It’s a requirement for both Preliminary and Final that you address stormwater and drainage. Typically we’re talking about a subdivision where you’re constructing a road, and that you have to provide for drainage structures and stormwater management. This is unique in that the road is already in place, and that it would be probably appropriate that he request for a waiver from that requirement. It is a requirement and you must request a waiver from that requirement. MR. PALING-And I think Staff is favorable to that request. MR. ROUND-I think he could probably justify that request. MR. PALING-Okay. That’s all I’ve got. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? Any other Staff comments? Lets open up the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM JENKINS MR. JENKINS-Tom Jenkins. I think it’s just a simple question. I understood the five acres was 200 foot frontage, and the 14 acres is? MR. ROUND-Five ninety-five. MR. VOLLAR-Five ninety-five. That’s on the drawing. MR. JENKINS-That’s all the questions I have. MR. MAC EWAN-Anyone else? We’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 1-1998 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Vollaro: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: STAN RYMKEWICZ, JR. , 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. 35 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) 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 19 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Stark, Mr. Brewer MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. We need to make a motion. Does someone want to introduce a motion? MOTION TO APPROVE PRELIMINARY STAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1-1998 STAN RYMKEWICZ, JR. , Introduced by Robert Vollaro who moved for its adoption, seconded by Larry Ringer: And that that approval be based on submission of information for the Final plat that it contain two foot contours, a building envelope for the buildings or a footprint for the buildings, a waiver from stormwater management, you’d have to request a waiver from the stormwater management requirements for subdivision, and request a waiver from other subdivision requirements, as necessary, that would apply to this, in letter form. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-We’re getting there, Mr. Rymkewicz, we’re getting there. MR. RYMKEWICZ-I hope so. Thank you. MR. MAC EWAN-You’re welcome. NEW BUSINESS: SITE PLAN NO. 15-98 TYPE: UNLISTED LEHMAN TRIKES, INC. LARRY STRILCHUK OWNER: OSCAP, LTD ZONE: HC-1A LOCATION: DEXTER SHOES, 1499 ST. RT. 9 TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE - APPLICANT PROPOSES DISPLAY AREA FOR 3 WHEEL CONVERSIONS FOR MOTORCYCLES FROM JUNE 1 - 6, 9 A.M. TO 9 P.M. - AMERICADE. CROSS REFERENCE: SP 20-97 WARREN CO. PLANNING: 5/13/98 TAX MAP NO. 34-1-10 LOT SIZE: 7.84 ACRES SECTION: 179-23, 179-60 TERRY ROBBINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Site Plan No. 15-98, Lehman Trikes, Inc., Meeting Date: May 19, 1998 “The applicant proposes to use a portion of Dexter Shoe’s parking lot to display motorcycle conversions. This is an allowed use under the transient merchant law with site plan review in the HC-1A zone. See the attached resolution for the previous approval from last year. The concern with the previous approval was internal traffic circulation with customers for the display and customers for 36 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) the store. This was mitigated by placing cones around the perimeter of the display area. No other concerns were addressed in the previous approval. Staff has two additional comments. One, the applicant should address riding of display motorcycles. Staff would recommend, that if bikes are available to ride that they be restricted to the display area to minimize potential traffic circulation problems. Second, a temporary sign permit may be required for any proposed signage.” MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? MS. NOWICKI-Yes. MR. MAC EWAN-Didn’t we have something from Warren County, too? MS. NOWICKI-You have Warren County as “No County Impact”, and then you have the Town Board’s resolution. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Is there someone here from the applicant? MR. ROBBINS-I’m Terry Robbins, and I Manage the Dexter Shoe Outlet up there, and I’m here for OSCAP, and also Larry Strilchuk of Lehman Trikes. MR. MAC EWAN-Isn’t this the same company that was here last year? MR. ROBBINS-Yes, it is. MR. MAC EWAN-You know what would be a nice thing to do is do like a three year permit or something like that. You can always tell when Americade’s coming. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes, well, I’m surprised we only have one. MR. MAC EWAN-For me, I don’t know how the rest of the Board feels, I don’t really have any questions to ask, because I know this is like the third year, fourth year. MR. ROBBINS-This is the second year. Last year was the first year. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Yes. You’re thinking of the one up the road more, across the street. MR. MAC EWAN-No, this one in the corner, in the corner of Dexter. MRS. LA BOMBARD-Last year was the first. That thing went well last year. MR. ROBBINS-It was wonderful. MR. MAC EWAN-Just give us a brief description of what they’re going to be doing. MR. ROBBINS-They’ll be setting up a trailer with the bikes displayed out front, and we’ve given them a portion of the parking lot for the people to ride the bikes around, and basically it’s just, you know, for display, and they can try the bikes out. MR. RINGER-Is that area going to be corded off? MR. ROBBINS-Yes. They did it last year. MR. RINGER-With cones, or whatever, that the Staff recommends cones or something. MR. MAC EWAN-How large of an area is that? MR. ROBBINS-I believe it’s. MR. MAC EWAN-Maybe about a 30 by 30, or 35 by 35? MR. ROBBINS-It might 50 by 50. It’s down in the lower portion of the parking lot. MR. VOLLARO-It’s 40 by 50. 37 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. MAC EWAN-I think your intent was to do a 50 by 50 area? MR. ROBBINS-Looking at this here, I mean, I’m supposing and assuming that the striping is 10 foot. MR. VOLLARO-I’m looking at that the approximate scale is 40 to 1. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes, but I don’t think that that’s been really drawn to scale. MR. VOLLARO-It hasn’t? Somebody just roughed it in. I took a mean between some heavy lines and came out with that. So talk about 50 by 50, is that enough to ride a bike around? MR. ROBBINS-Yes. MR. VOLLARO-Because you wouldn’t want them drifting out into the rest of the parking lot. MR. MAC EWAN-This is like the second year. Like he said, we’ve done it for this one, I think, and like two years prior to that there’s been someone else there. So it’s worked out well. I mean, we haven’t had any problems up there at all. MR. PALING-Have we asked that the Staff comments be addressed, all of them? There’s three. MR. MAC EWAN-“Concerned with the previous approval”. What’s your concern with the previous approval for internal traffic? MS. NOWICKI-I don’t quite understand. I only had two additional comments. MR. MAC EWAN-“The concern with the previous approval is internal traffic circulation”. MS. NOWICKI-That was a previous approval. That doesn’t, he’s addressed it by putting up cones. MR. PALING-Okay, and they’re going to do that again this year. MS. NOWICKI-That’s what he’s indicated. Yes. MR. PALING-And the next two. MS. NOWICKI-He’s expressed that they ride the motorcycles within the perimeter of the area, that they don’t leave that perimeter, if that’s correct. MR. PALING-Okay, and does the applicant agree with that? MR. ROBBINS-Yes. MR. PALING-Okay, and then the last one is a temporary sign permit. MS. NOWICKI-And that’s something he has to address. MR. VOLLARO-It said may be required. It wasn’t too firm. MR. ROBBINS-There really wasn’t any signage up, as I recall last year. MR. PALING-Is it required or not? Do we know? MS. NOWICKI-If he has a sign. MR. ROBBINS-Yes, if there is a sign, we do have to get one, as we have to get one for our tent sale every year. MS. NOWICKI-This was more of an awareness item. MR. PALING-Okay. All right. That’s all I have. 38 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. MAC EWAN-Lets open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MAC EWAN-We need to do a SEQRA. It says Unlisted on here. So we’re going to do a Short Form because that’s what was on his application. MR. VOLLARO-When it says “noise levels”, are these bikes pretty well muffled? MR. ROBBINS-Yes. They are. MR. MAC EWAN-Nothing out of the ordinary. MRS. LA BOMBARD-No. RESOLUTION WHEN DETERMINATION OF NO SIGNIFICANCE IS MADE RESOLUTION NO. 15-98 , Introduced by Catherine LaBombard who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Paling: WHEREAS, there is presently before the Planning Board an application for: 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 19 day of May, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-Just a quick question, regarding, do we have to reference, in a resolution, the Town Board’s resolution for the Transient Merchant thing? 39 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. SCHACHNER-You don’t have to. MR. MAC EWAN-And Number Two, the next question I’ve got for you, is do they put a time limit on how long these things are for? MR. SCHACHNER-The Town Board resolution specifies the dates, as I recall. MR. ROUND-It does. MR. MAC EWAN-I didn’t see that in there. That’s why. MR. ROUND-There’s a 14 day limit, per the law. MR. MAC EWAN-Okay. Does someone want to introduce a resolution? MOTION TO APPROVE SITE PLAN NO. 15-98 LEHMAN TRIKES, INC. LARRY STRILCHUK , Introduced by Craig MacEwan who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine LaBombard: For a Transient Merchant License, with the following conditions: Number One - that a 50 by 50 foot area for bike display be delineated with cones, Number Two - that bike demos be restricted to within that 50 by 50 foot area. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May 1998 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Paling, Mrs. LaBombard, Mr. Vollaro, Mr. Ringer, Mr. MacEwan NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Brewer, Mr. Stark MR. MAC EWAN-That’s it. Good luck. Have a nice Americade. MR. ROBBINS-Thank you. MR. ROUND-Just to let you know. I’m going to seek an alteration, with the Planning Board’s recommendation, to the local law, so that they won’t have to come back year after year. If they get an approved site plan, that they’d just have to go to the Town Board or to the Clerk, some level of modification that doesn’t require review. MR. MAC EWAN-That’s a nice idea. MRS. LA BOMBARD-That’s a good idea, Chris. MR. ROBBINS-The County was a lot easier. It was just like, boom, boom, boom. No environmental impact. Just read off all these steps. MR. MAC EWAN-Why put all the burden on our shoulders. MR. VOLLARO-Mark, before we close this, when we went to the site plan review thing. MR. SCHACHNER-Can I answer your question? MR. VOLLARO-Yes. MR. SCHACHNER-The answer to your question is, Harry Willis I know very, very well for a dozen years or more. The answer to your question is the way he answered it is because the literal construction of the SEQRA Regulations can lead you to that conclusion. This Planning Board, by the way, is one of the, I don’t want to say few, but this Planning Board was something of a pioneer in doing SEQRA Review only after public hearings because this Planning Board decided and felt that in order to adequately evaluate the potential environmental impact, and especially to adequately evaluate the question that says, is there or is there likely to be public controversy about a particular application, it was helpful to hear from the public. 40 (Queensbury Planning Board Meeting 5/19/98) MR. VOLLARO-It sounds logical to me. MR. SCHACHNER-Right. My opinion is that it is perfectly appropriate to conduct SEQRA Review in the way you currently do, and have your public hearing first. The reason I answered this question the way I answered it is because there are certain, there are still three or four Catch- 22’s or internal inconsistencies in the SEQRA Regulations, and the SEQRA Regulations in one place do state, in a fairly authoritative manner, that SEQRA Review should occur up front, before an application is deemed complete, and therefore before there’s a public hearing, but the SEQRA Regulations also state elsewhere that one of their specific goals is to encourage as much information gathering process as possible, and specifically to encourage as much public input as possible. So there’s an internal inconsistency there, and Harry Willis always answers that question in the same way by referencing the first SEQRA provision I just referred to, and it’s my opinion that you’re perfectly fine to continue doing things the way you’ve done them for (lost words). Did I answer your question? MR. VOLLARO-You bet. MR. SCHACHNER-Good. MR. MAC EWAN-Anything else? MR. ROUND-You had a question on a literal interpretation of the definition of Subdivision. It said an alteration, Craig did. MR. MAC EWAN-Yes. Well, we got that pretty much answered when I talked to him about that. MR. ROUND-Okay. MR. SCHACHNER-Good. MR. MAC EWAN-Is that it? Okay. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Craig MacEwan, Chairman 41